Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Abortion and Adolf Hitler

2010-04-23T18:45:43Z

Suricou: Misleading?

=== Somewhat misleading ===

Hitler was a big proponent of abortion for those he considered undesireable, but not for abortion in general. One of the departments of the Nazi government was called (in translation) the "Reich's Central Agency for the Struggle Against Homosexuality and Abortion." He very strongly opposed abortion for Ayran women, as they were considered vital for breeding a healthy future stock with which to populate the newly conquered Europe. A definate case of one rule for some people, another for others. [[User:Suricou|Suricou]] 14:45, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

"On May 26, 1933, two pieces of penal legislation . . . prohibit[ed] the availability of abortion facilities and services. More important was the stricter handling of the old antiabortion law, resulting in a 65 percent increase in yearly conviction between 1932 and 1938, when their number reached almost 7,000. From 1935 on, doctors and midwives were obliged to notify the regional State Health Office of every miscarriage. Women's names and addresses were then handed over to the police, who investigated the cases suspected of actually being abortions. In 1936 Heinrich Himmler, head of all police forces and the SS, established the Reich's Central Agency for the Struggle Against Homosexuality and Abortion, and in 1943, after three years of preparation by the Ministries of the Interior and of Justice, the law entitled Protection of Marriage, Family, Motherhood called for the death penalty in 'extreme cases'." - I keep finding this block of text all around the internet, but unfortunatly all the sites seem to cite each other! I don't want to use it on the main page without a citation, so does anyone have an idea where it comes from, or the ability to research and verify individual claims within it [[User:Suricou|Suricou]] 14:45, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Contraception

2010-04-23T18:32:55Z

Suricou: /* Scope of the article */

==Abstinence==

Abstinence is technically not a contraception method; contraception aims to lower the chances of fecundation through sexual intercourse; abstinence is refraining from sexual intercourse. My objection is purely linguistic; saying that abstinence is the most efficient method of contraception is like saying that the best measure of air safety is not flying at all. It is quite true that not flying significantly lowers the chances of dying in an airplane crash, however it is also quite redundant to say it. I suggest changing "the only known method [implied: of contraception] that is 100% effective is abstinence" to "Every sexual intercourse, no matter which method of contraception is used, can possibly lead to pregnancy, as no contraceptive device or technique can claim to be 100% effective."

PS: An unrelated question, sorry to sidetrack: how do I add my name and the hour and date at the end of my comments, without doing it manually? Thanks! [[Maquissar]]

:Every method of contraception, really? The condom can split, the pill can fail, but there is no way sperm are getting through severed and tied tubes. The failure rate of a vasectomy is approximatly one in two thousand procedures, and those few failures are invariably picked up in post-procedure testing to bring the effective failure rate to... well, I think it's only ever happened a total of seven times. Ever. It may be non-zero in the mathematical sense, but it's so low it can't even be measured by conventional statistical means. [[User:Suricou|Suricou]] 14:11, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

==Mother Mary==
This is a documented case of abstinence being unable to prevent pregnancy. This should be included in the introduction that currently claims that this is not the case.

:Because that was a one time shot, I'm not sure it needs to be mentioned for our modern day. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:51, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

==Travesty==

This is a pity. I spent a lot of time creating a good article. I didnt use diagrams or naughty words. I didnt tell young people to go out and fornicate. I provide sound medical information. You obviously don't want to know. What about married couples who may wish to know this info?
You should be ashamed of yourself. Good luck.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 09:22, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:This is conservapedia. I remind you, CONSERVapedia. Unlike wikipedia, conservapedia makes no pretense of neutrality: It's for and by social conservatives, many of whome (mostly the catholics) object to the very existance of contraception on religious grounds. So don't be too surprised by this. [[User:Suricou|Suricou]] 14:13, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

===WHAT??!!===
Andrew Schlafly just cut all the information about contraception out of the contraception page. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 18:19, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Crap--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 18:20, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:How shocking. Statistics are apparently unencyclopedic. [[User:DrLib|DrLib]] 19:02, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

===Formatting===
Did it as a bulleted list, formatting help can be found here [http://www.conservapedia.com/Help:Editing].

Can't see this page lasting though, abstinence is the only form of contraception doncha know. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Expert opinion ==

Just a heads up, I am planning on doing extensive editing for content here, as it is needed. If you question my qualifications, please check out my profile and discussion page. Thanks.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

The few bizarre citations used are low on primary statistics, and are from the UK. I am including NIH and other American statistics and sources.

Intimacy is an OPINION (inherently); it probably doesnt require citation, rather, an explanation of it's potential importance.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Im also removing the dangerous and ridiculous claim about contraception aiding sexual assault. That's like saying crowbars are likely to cause break-ins, or AK-47s are likely to cause mass-murder. Citing a case where evidence of an assault was missing because of condom use is not helpful. You would need regression analysis to show that condoms increase crime, etc.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Palm, I look forward to your edits on this one. I hope you can flesh out my analysis of how the pill works - I think I'm right, and at any rate, it's already better than BillOReillyFan's version about how the Pill "destroys" the organs :-/-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Call me "Pal". You're not too far off; what really ends up happening is the prevention of ovulation, and, as with Plan B, if fertilization does take place, prevention of implantation. We probably need to divide the section into "barrier methods", hormonal methods, IUDs, and ?other. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: I think that division is a great idea. It might run afoul of Andy's idea of obscenity, but I'll defend you, for whatever that's worth :-). So Pal-MD: are you a doctor? How awesome to have a real doctor edit some of the... errr... erroneous (?) articles on this site!-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:43, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, Im a professor of medicine. See my talk page--it includes a somewhat surreal dialog with ASchlafly about my qualifications. Good amusement value though.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:46, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
: I find what Andy DOESN'T say almost as funny as what he DOES say. He refuses to talk, for instance, about most things relating to [[user:Conservative]]'s failure to do useful things on this site. He also refuses to address issues of bias, or commentaries on the compatibility of evolution and religion... and I did see that thing on your talk page, I forgot about it though! Good times.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I probably won't get that far with this tonight, as it's 11pm here, but when I return to this tomorrow, I assume it will be hacked to bits. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 23:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

BillFan, thanks for your help with the clean up. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 19:47, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Please note that much of the above discussion is historical. I have specifically invited Andy to find a contributor to help with the last section.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:20, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:Re: effectiveness of various methods: ''"Rhythm method" (also sometimes referred to as a method of "timed abstinence")''
:*Do you know what they call women who rely on the Rhythm method? [[/answer]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:03, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::Where do people get a BAND at four [[o'clock]] in the morning?
That's a good thing, right?[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 17:47, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Perfect ==

This article is perfect and completely unbiased. Thanks to whoever fixed it up!

:: Oh-kayyyy... this is obviously some new definition of perfect that I've never come across. Abstinence is the best form of birth control is it? Well, yes, provided it works. However, the likelihood of it actually working means that it is less effective than almost any other means you care to imagine. This is really like claiming that condoms are 100% effective provided that (a) they are worn and (b) they do not split, leak or slip off.

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 17:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Plea for tolerance ==

So, if this "encyclopedia" is to avoid the topic, well, then it needs a new name. Obviously, feel free to delete any well-referenced, well-researched information from an [[User:Palmd001|expert]] you wish, but don't pretend that you are doing it for accuracy or any other legitimate reason.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 19:05, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:As discussed elsewhere, there is a dispute over whether it's wise to tell kids (1) We don't think you have the willpower to remain abstinent till marriage so (2) since you're going to fornicate (3) you better use condoms, etc.

:Conservatives feel this encourages (4) fornication itself and (5) concomitant problems of unwanted pregnancy and STD's.

:Writing which looks neutral but nevertheless provides copious alternatives to abstinence effectively sends messages #1 and #2 above, conservatives believe. Conservatives also believe that '''partisans are well aware of this''' and (6) have the aim of promoting fornication and (7) don't really care at all about out-of-wedlock pregnancy or STD's. (Not 100% of each group mentioned - I was speaking in general.)

:I would therefore check with Andy before adding a "methods of contraception" section to this article. I imagine what senior staff want here is a critique of it, not a how-to guide.

:If you'd like to work with me on a "Strategies to prevent STD" article, I'm happy to help. It could examine the effectiveness of various campaigns and curricula. As you probably have heard, there's a raging controversy over whether (8) abstinence-only curricula are more effective or (9) "abstinence is best but if you're gonna do it anyway use this" curricula are more effective. Part of the controversy no doubt comes from partisan refusal on the Liberal side to give an inch to the abstinence camel. There are some people who would rather die than give up fornication. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:17, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::I can see how describing various forms of contraception could be considered sending messages (1) and (2) to kids in a sex ed class (I don't ''agree'' with it, but I can see how you could think it). This isn't a sex ed class. It's an article about contraception. I don't see how describing various forms of contraception in an article about contraception could possibly send messages to anyone about anything, beyond describing various forms of contraception. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:30, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Kids aren't the only ones to have sex, and a married couple may be interested to know what contraception choices they have. Moreover, having seen the results of an abstinence only education (over 5 girls in my sister's junior class of 50 boys and girls have already dropped out of school due to being pregnant), I think that it is prudent to educate on the types of birth control available. Advocating use of birth control, abstinence or other forms, is different and far more important than advocating not having sex due for whatever personal reason. I personally am a fan of the "yay abstinence, but this is birth control so use it if you're going to have sex" education, as I would rather multiple people have sex and not get pregnant or STIs than one person get an STI or pregnant. Anyway, that's just my two cents plus a little. :-p [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 07:28, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I'll just repeat my suggestion above starting a [[Methods of contraception]] article and embellish it a little. A careful and accurate examination of the effectiveness of (1) the methods themselves and (2) campaigns to teach these methods would be really good reference material for an encyclopedia to supply. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:37, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==Statistics==

Sorry if I've inadvertantly gone wrong here. The population statistics are from the US government census website I linked to. The assumptions about fertility and sexual activity were, I thought, on the conservative side, but you're right that I can't cite a source for those. The figures for failure rates were at the lower-than-probable end of the ones you gave in the earlier section. The reason for including the section was that there is often a misunderstanding of the term 'failure rate', and I wanted to expand on the implications of that. Please by all means improve on my contribution, but I think it's an expansion of this article that needs making. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 20:15 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Let me see what I can do...I can expand on failure rate, but you have to be careful about how you massage statistics. For instance, if 3 out of 100 women will get pregnant using it, that does not mean that after 2 years, 6 out of 100 will. Trying to apply in aggregate is bad stats. If you have someone you know who is good with stats, that would be great.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I think I'm going to leave it for somebody with a better knowledge of statistics than me in that case. I don't want to post something that's wildly inaccurate, but I do think that there is a popular conception (not a deliberate pun, honestly) that a 1% failure rate means that there will hardly be any unintended pregnancies if the contraception is used reliably, and as I understand it that's not the case, once you start looking at large numbers of women. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 21:45 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==Scope of the article==

Colin's latest change indicates an overlap with the topic of [[Sex education]]. Let's form a strategy for dealing with all the topics relating to this. I'm starting a list below, which should then be moved to someplace like [[Conservapedia:Sex education topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:09, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

[[Sex education]] topics:
*[[contraception]]
*[[abstinence]]
*"abstinence-until-marriage" education programs
*"[[comprehensive sex education]]"

:Wouldn't a category be more appropriate? And the only reason I changed the entry is because there is no question that abstinence is the only completely effective means of birth control. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 08:11, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::At the risk of contradicting myself, I must admit that there *is* a question about whether abstinence is the only completely effective means of birth control. The question centers on whether it is '''realistic''' to expect anyone to abstain from something as pleasant and "delicious" as sexual intercourse. The idea that it is an irresistible urge (which it is abnormal to resist) is actually quite widespread and prevalent. For example, I know of an army officer who said, "If a man won't f---, he won't fight." And you know about marching cadences taught in basic training, don't you? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps a bit crude, but all the same, well put Ed. Some editors here seem to be desperately trying to give the impression that liberals have a monopoly on common sense. I dispute that. [[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 08:21, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::While refraining from sex may be irresistible, when used, abstinence is completely effective. After all, unless the form of contraception is being used, one cannot expect it to do its function. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 08:24, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The "when used" part is the key to the issue. Thank God conservatives don't have a monopoly on common sense. -Ed
:::::Is it not implied that use of the form of contraception is necessary for its benefits? Or are people that stupid these days? But if you feel that the "when used" qualifier is needed, by all means, put it in the entry. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 08:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::(Late retort) There are many stupid people and much stupidity about contraception. For instance, some people think they can rely on withdrawal and/or rhythm, and there's a medical term especially for members of the fair sex who do: [[/answer|(see the surprise answer here)]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:23, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Exactly Ed "when used", [[Capital Punishment]] is 100% effective - no one ever reoffends. Why not apply it for all felonies and misdemeanors? Would people cease committing misdemeanors. Not likely - if we killed them all the economy would collapse. It would cause more harm than good. Damage or harm reduction are the the (pragmatic?) buzzwords.
::::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 08:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Is it not implied that use of the form of contraception is necessary for its benefits? My understanding (PalMD, please correct me if this is wrong) is that contraception failure rates are generally quoted as pregnancies per N people using them for M time, as actually used, and that some or many of the 'failures' reported are actually failures to use the method properly or at all. IE, you find a woman who says "I use condoms for birth control" and check back in a year to see if she's pregnant; if she is, you chalk that up as a condom failure, even if it's because she skipped the condom one night. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 14:00, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::That is correct, in general. It is similar to the "intention-to-treat" analysis in RTCs. Some studies include information on"properly and regularly uses", but most rates are quoted as above. Condoms, for instance, are 85% effective in general, much more when used as directed, with spermacide.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Have there been any studies on abstinence's failure rate with that methodology? I remember hearing about some studies on teen sexual behavior following abstinence-only education vs. broad-knowledge education, but that's not quite the same thing. (As a side note, I'm ''still'' having trouble getting my head around the fact that some schools simply don't teach some of this stuff; I went to a Catholic high school, and even they tought us what the options were. Yes, the had a lot of focus on failure rates, health problems, and discouragement-by-grotesquery, not to mention the church teachings, but as far as I know they taught every FDA-approved artificial method plus abstinence and the rhythm method.) --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 20:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::It would just turn into an argument over definitions. When someone trying to be or told to be abstinant has sex anyway, is that to be considered a failure of the abstinance method? Or should it be decided that the method was not being used in the first place? The latter obviously gives a 100% success rate, but is akin to saying condoms have a 100% success rate by discounting every failure as user error and removing that subject from the study. [[User:Suricou|Suricou]] 14:32, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

I think "use" or "reliance" has to include what I'll call the "compliance factor". Do seatbelts prevent injury? In my case, yes. I never get behind the wheel without putting on my seatbelt. Even to move a parked car to another spot in a lot. I have a high compliance factor.

Pills you take every day are hard to forget in a 'moment of passion' but how often can we expect a high school [[American Pie|broncin' buck]] are going to remember to slip a [[condom|love glove]] out of his wallet at the crucial moment? Contrariwise, how often can we expect Little Miss Sunshine to recite "no glove, no love" and stick firmly to it when she's stuck in his hot embrace? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:32, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==Roll-back==

Sorry, Crocoite, I jittered on the trigger.

:No problem Ed. Crocoite 22:39, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

Obviously something went on between Crocoite and Ed Poor (as can be seen in the history). Since I seem to have missed out on the discussion, can I ask why we chose the current page, which has one ify source ("God, the Holy Bible"), over this page [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Contraception&oldid=214707], which is more enclopedic, less preachy, and actually cited? (And before anyone gets in a huff, I'm calling the Bible in this case an "ify source" because it's not properly referenced; without chapter and verse there's no way to know the claim is actually in the book). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 23:51, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

==POV==
This article is written from a purely Catholic POV. Protestants do not have a problem with the use of contraception within marriage, so it is incorrect to say that for Protestants recreational sex within marriage is sinful. Can it be rephrased to take account of that?--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 12:39, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:Make the change. Adding a reference would be helpful. Crocoite 13:25, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

::No, the Bible clearly states, "be fruitful and multiply," which is entirely negated by any use of contraception. [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 20:28, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Many people (most people, actually) use contraception as a way of spacing children, not to avoid having them completely. The Bible doesn't say 'be fruitful and multiply without limit'. Whatever your personal views about the Bible though, this article does not reflect Protestant denominational teachings on contraception. The Anglicans issued a statement in favour of contraception at the Lambeth Conference as long ago as 1930. The statement was carried by a majority of 193 to 67. This was followed in 1931 by statements by some American Protestants. I will add something on this into the article.A reasonable reference from a solid source seems to be [http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/socialpublic/smte.html#contraception] --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 14:23, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

Where in the Bible does it say not to use contraceptives? I'm pretty sure contraceptives had not been invented 2000+ years ago, so I will remove that part. J.Y.L.

==Disease and contraception==

Cut from intro:

:Although some believe that contraception should be a part of education to minimize unwanted pregnancies and the contraction of HIV AIDS, the reality remains that, outside of marriage, contraception encourages sexual behavior and promiscuity . Those who choose to have more than one sexual partner do so at their own risk and, in a sense, bring the burdens of disease and unwanted pregnancy on themselves. Therefore education and encouragement of contraceptive devices is not useful.

What does contraception have to do with minimizing AIDS? Is this a sidelong reference to condoms? Why not be explicit then? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:29, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:Any contraceptive method, with the exception of the rhythm method and the pill, will reduce the chance of contracting AIDs or other STDs. I agree that that paragraph was just generally wierd and should have been removed, but I think disease prevention is a major positive side effect of almost all forms of contraception and should be mentioned somewhere in the article. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 23:45, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::<nowiki>*</nowiki>chokes* That's not true. Only condoms and abstinence reduce the transmission of STDs. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 23:50, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Errr, I amend my statement; it turns out there were more types of contraception than I remembered off the top of my head. However, ''any'' barrier method, not just condoms, reduces the chances of STD's. Even coitus interuptus reduces the chance, granted not by a large amount. The point I was trying to make was hidden by my apparent misunderstanding of contraception (hrm... guess I could have done with better sex ed, no?): disease prevention should be mentioned in this article. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 00:04, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

==History and social impact==

We should mention something on this. Contraception is the ''key'' development in all thing sexual since it became effective and available. Contraception lead to practical promiscuity and the 'free love' movement, and the rise in acceptability of premarital sex, which in turn helped the acceptability of all public mention and depiction of sex from pornography to racy movie scenes. Contraception regulation resulted in the Griswold case - when the supreme court invented a right to contraception, they set the stage for greater future cases - Griswold was key precident in both Row v Wade and Lawrence V Texas. If Griswold had gone otherwise, it is extremally unlikely the court would later have forced the legalisation of abortion and sodomy. Attempts to prosecute contraceptive education under obscenity laws lead not just to the overturning of Cornstock law, but the weakening of obscenity law in general. Almost every trend in sexual immorality since the 1800's can be traced directly or indirectly to the spreading of contraception. This is why so many states and churches worked so hard to ban it - they could forsee the eventual consequences of making sex safe. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]
: Not to mention some indirect effects. Contraception made it possible for women to follow the same path of education and career as men. Prior to contraception, this was not an option - any education or career could have been cut short by a baby, and no company would hire a woman except for a temporary position if a new family might pull her away. Contraception is in this way responsible for the women's rights movement, and thus for the feminism that sprang forth from it. Contraception made the modern world, socially speaking. It deserves more analysis here, if only so I can enjoy seeing how many contributors wish to go so far as to call for an outright ban. [[User:Suricou|Suricou]] 14:29, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

==History stub==
A few convenient dates for reference.
1855 - First rubber condom. There were earlier condoms, they worked very poorly.
1923 - Comstock struck down, condoms become available in the US at the federal level.
1930 - Anglicans approve the use of contraception, but only within marriage.
1941 - Nazi germany bans the condom, on the grounds that huge numbers of Ayran babies would be needed to populate the world once the war was over.
WW2 - The US issues condoms to it's soldiers. Quite why they would encourage depravity in this way I cannot imagine.
1960 - The Pill recieves FDA approval. It's formulation has been revised many times since.
1965 - Griswold v. Connecticut, state-level restrictions on contraception struck down.
1968 - Humanae Vitae released, in which the Catholic church forbids all forms of artificial contraception without exception.
1972 - Eisenstadt v. Baird. US government loses all authority to prevent the sale of contraception, even to unmarried people, effectively endorsing premarital sex.

Talk:Contraception

2010-04-23T18:29:03Z

Suricou: /* History and social impact */

==Abstinence==

Abstinence is technically not a contraception method; contraception aims to lower the chances of fecundation through sexual intercourse; abstinence is refraining from sexual intercourse. My objection is purely linguistic; saying that abstinence is the most efficient method of contraception is like saying that the best measure of air safety is not flying at all. It is quite true that not flying significantly lowers the chances of dying in an airplane crash, however it is also quite redundant to say it. I suggest changing "the only known method [implied: of contraception] that is 100% effective is abstinence" to "Every sexual intercourse, no matter which method of contraception is used, can possibly lead to pregnancy, as no contraceptive device or technique can claim to be 100% effective."

PS: An unrelated question, sorry to sidetrack: how do I add my name and the hour and date at the end of my comments, without doing it manually? Thanks! [[Maquissar]]

:Every method of contraception, really? The condom can split, the pill can fail, but there is no way sperm are getting through severed and tied tubes. The failure rate of a vasectomy is approximatly one in two thousand procedures, and those few failures are invariably picked up in post-procedure testing to bring the effective failure rate to... well, I think it's only ever happened a total of seven times. Ever. It may be non-zero in the mathematical sense, but it's so low it can't even be measured by conventional statistical means. [[User:Suricou|Suricou]] 14:11, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

==Mother Mary==
This is a documented case of abstinence being unable to prevent pregnancy. This should be included in the introduction that currently claims that this is not the case.

:Because that was a one time shot, I'm not sure it needs to be mentioned for our modern day. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:51, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

==Travesty==

This is a pity. I spent a lot of time creating a good article. I didnt use diagrams or naughty words. I didnt tell young people to go out and fornicate. I provide sound medical information. You obviously don't want to know. What about married couples who may wish to know this info?
You should be ashamed of yourself. Good luck.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 09:22, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:This is conservapedia. I remind you, CONSERVapedia. Unlike wikipedia, conservapedia makes no pretense of neutrality: It's for and by social conservatives, many of whome (mostly the catholics) object to the very existance of contraception on religious grounds. So don't be too surprised by this. [[User:Suricou|Suricou]] 14:13, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

===WHAT??!!===
Andrew Schlafly just cut all the information about contraception out of the contraception page. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 18:19, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Crap--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 18:20, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:How shocking. Statistics are apparently unencyclopedic. [[User:DrLib|DrLib]] 19:02, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

===Formatting===
Did it as a bulleted list, formatting help can be found here [http://www.conservapedia.com/Help:Editing].

Can't see this page lasting though, abstinence is the only form of contraception doncha know. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Expert opinion ==

Just a heads up, I am planning on doing extensive editing for content here, as it is needed. If you question my qualifications, please check out my profile and discussion page. Thanks.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

The few bizarre citations used are low on primary statistics, and are from the UK. I am including NIH and other American statistics and sources.

Intimacy is an OPINION (inherently); it probably doesnt require citation, rather, an explanation of it's potential importance.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Im also removing the dangerous and ridiculous claim about contraception aiding sexual assault. That's like saying crowbars are likely to cause break-ins, or AK-47s are likely to cause mass-murder. Citing a case where evidence of an assault was missing because of condom use is not helpful. You would need regression analysis to show that condoms increase crime, etc.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Palm, I look forward to your edits on this one. I hope you can flesh out my analysis of how the pill works - I think I'm right, and at any rate, it's already better than BillOReillyFan's version about how the Pill "destroys" the organs :-/-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Call me "Pal". You're not too far off; what really ends up happening is the prevention of ovulation, and, as with Plan B, if fertilization does take place, prevention of implantation. We probably need to divide the section into "barrier methods", hormonal methods, IUDs, and ?other. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: I think that division is a great idea. It might run afoul of Andy's idea of obscenity, but I'll defend you, for whatever that's worth :-). So Pal-MD: are you a doctor? How awesome to have a real doctor edit some of the... errr... erroneous (?) articles on this site!-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:43, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, Im a professor of medicine. See my talk page--it includes a somewhat surreal dialog with ASchlafly about my qualifications. Good amusement value though.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:46, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
: I find what Andy DOESN'T say almost as funny as what he DOES say. He refuses to talk, for instance, about most things relating to [[user:Conservative]]'s failure to do useful things on this site. He also refuses to address issues of bias, or commentaries on the compatibility of evolution and religion... and I did see that thing on your talk page, I forgot about it though! Good times.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I probably won't get that far with this tonight, as it's 11pm here, but when I return to this tomorrow, I assume it will be hacked to bits. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 23:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

BillFan, thanks for your help with the clean up. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 19:47, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Please note that much of the above discussion is historical. I have specifically invited Andy to find a contributor to help with the last section.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:20, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:Re: effectiveness of various methods: ''"Rhythm method" (also sometimes referred to as a method of "timed abstinence")''
:*Do you know what they call women who rely on the Rhythm method? [[/answer]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:03, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::Where do people get a BAND at four [[o'clock]] in the morning?
That's a good thing, right?[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 17:47, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Perfect ==

This article is perfect and completely unbiased. Thanks to whoever fixed it up!

:: Oh-kayyyy... this is obviously some new definition of perfect that I've never come across. Abstinence is the best form of birth control is it? Well, yes, provided it works. However, the likelihood of it actually working means that it is less effective than almost any other means you care to imagine. This is really like claiming that condoms are 100% effective provided that (a) they are worn and (b) they do not split, leak or slip off.

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 17:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Plea for tolerance ==

So, if this "encyclopedia" is to avoid the topic, well, then it needs a new name. Obviously, feel free to delete any well-referenced, well-researched information from an [[User:Palmd001|expert]] you wish, but don't pretend that you are doing it for accuracy or any other legitimate reason.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 19:05, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:As discussed elsewhere, there is a dispute over whether it's wise to tell kids (1) We don't think you have the willpower to remain abstinent till marriage so (2) since you're going to fornicate (3) you better use condoms, etc.

:Conservatives feel this encourages (4) fornication itself and (5) concomitant problems of unwanted pregnancy and STD's.

:Writing which looks neutral but nevertheless provides copious alternatives to abstinence effectively sends messages #1 and #2 above, conservatives believe. Conservatives also believe that '''partisans are well aware of this''' and (6) have the aim of promoting fornication and (7) don't really care at all about out-of-wedlock pregnancy or STD's. (Not 100% of each group mentioned - I was speaking in general.)

:I would therefore check with Andy before adding a "methods of contraception" section to this article. I imagine what senior staff want here is a critique of it, not a how-to guide.

:If you'd like to work with me on a "Strategies to prevent STD" article, I'm happy to help. It could examine the effectiveness of various campaigns and curricula. As you probably have heard, there's a raging controversy over whether (8) abstinence-only curricula are more effective or (9) "abstinence is best but if you're gonna do it anyway use this" curricula are more effective. Part of the controversy no doubt comes from partisan refusal on the Liberal side to give an inch to the abstinence camel. There are some people who would rather die than give up fornication. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:17, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::I can see how describing various forms of contraception could be considered sending messages (1) and (2) to kids in a sex ed class (I don't ''agree'' with it, but I can see how you could think it). This isn't a sex ed class. It's an article about contraception. I don't see how describing various forms of contraception in an article about contraception could possibly send messages to anyone about anything, beyond describing various forms of contraception. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:30, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Kids aren't the only ones to have sex, and a married couple may be interested to know what contraception choices they have. Moreover, having seen the results of an abstinence only education (over 5 girls in my sister's junior class of 50 boys and girls have already dropped out of school due to being pregnant), I think that it is prudent to educate on the types of birth control available. Advocating use of birth control, abstinence or other forms, is different and far more important than advocating not having sex due for whatever personal reason. I personally am a fan of the "yay abstinence, but this is birth control so use it if you're going to have sex" education, as I would rather multiple people have sex and not get pregnant or STIs than one person get an STI or pregnant. Anyway, that's just my two cents plus a little. :-p [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 07:28, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I'll just repeat my suggestion above starting a [[Methods of contraception]] article and embellish it a little. A careful and accurate examination of the effectiveness of (1) the methods themselves and (2) campaigns to teach these methods would be really good reference material for an encyclopedia to supply. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:37, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==Statistics==

Sorry if I've inadvertantly gone wrong here. The population statistics are from the US government census website I linked to. The assumptions about fertility and sexual activity were, I thought, on the conservative side, but you're right that I can't cite a source for those. The figures for failure rates were at the lower-than-probable end of the ones you gave in the earlier section. The reason for including the section was that there is often a misunderstanding of the term 'failure rate', and I wanted to expand on the implications of that. Please by all means improve on my contribution, but I think it's an expansion of this article that needs making. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 20:15 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Let me see what I can do...I can expand on failure rate, but you have to be careful about how you massage statistics. For instance, if 3 out of 100 women will get pregnant using it, that does not mean that after 2 years, 6 out of 100 will. Trying to apply in aggregate is bad stats. If you have someone you know who is good with stats, that would be great.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I think I'm going to leave it for somebody with a better knowledge of statistics than me in that case. I don't want to post something that's wildly inaccurate, but I do think that there is a popular conception (not a deliberate pun, honestly) that a 1% failure rate means that there will hardly be any unintended pregnancies if the contraception is used reliably, and as I understand it that's not the case, once you start looking at large numbers of women. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 21:45 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==Scope of the article==

Colin's latest change indicates an overlap with the topic of [[Sex education]]. Let's form a strategy for dealing with all the topics relating to this. I'm starting a list below, which should then be moved to someplace like [[Conservapedia:Sex education topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:09, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

[[Sex education]] topics:
*[[contraception]]
*[[abstinence]]
*"abstinence-until-marriage" education programs
*"[[comprehensive sex education]]"

:Wouldn't a category be more appropriate? And the only reason I changed the entry is because there is no question that abstinence is the only completely effective means of birth control. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 08:11, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::At the risk of contradicting myself, I must admit that there *is* a question about whether abstinence is the only completely effective means of birth control. The question centers on whether it is '''realistic''' to expect anyone to abstain from something as pleasant and "delicious" as sexual intercourse. The idea that it is an irresistible urge (which it is abnormal to resist) is actually quite widespread and prevalent. For example, I know of an army officer who said, "If a man won't f---, he won't fight." And you know about marching cadences taught in basic training, don't you? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps a bit crude, but all the same, well put Ed. Some editors here seem to be desperately trying to give the impression that liberals have a monopoly on common sense. I dispute that. [[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 08:21, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::While refraining from sex may be irresistible, when used, abstinence is completely effective. After all, unless the form of contraception is being used, one cannot expect it to do its function. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 08:24, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The "when used" part is the key to the issue. Thank God conservatives don't have a monopoly on common sense. -Ed
:::::Is it not implied that use of the form of contraception is necessary for its benefits? Or are people that stupid these days? But if you feel that the "when used" qualifier is needed, by all means, put it in the entry. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 08:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::(Late retort) There are many stupid people and much stupidity about contraception. For instance, some people think they can rely on withdrawal and/or rhythm, and there's a medical term especially for members of the fair sex who do: [[/answer|(see the surprise answer here)]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:23, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Exactly Ed "when used", [[Capital Punishment]] is 100% effective - no one ever reoffends. Why not apply it for all felonies and misdemeanors? Would people cease committing misdemeanors. Not likely - if we killed them all the economy would collapse. It would cause more harm than good. Damage or harm reduction are the the (pragmatic?) buzzwords.
::::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 08:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Is it not implied that use of the form of contraception is necessary for its benefits? My understanding (PalMD, please correct me if this is wrong) is that contraception failure rates are generally quoted as pregnancies per N people using them for M time, as actually used, and that some or many of the 'failures' reported are actually failures to use the method properly or at all. IE, you find a woman who says "I use condoms for birth control" and check back in a year to see if she's pregnant; if she is, you chalk that up as a condom failure, even if it's because she skipped the condom one night. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 14:00, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::That is correct, in general. It is similar to the "intention-to-treat" analysis in RTCs. Some studies include information on"properly and regularly uses", but most rates are quoted as above. Condoms, for instance, are 85% effective in general, much more when used as directed, with spermacide.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Have there been any studies on abstinence's failure rate with that methodology? I remember hearing about some studies on teen sexual behavior following abstinence-only education vs. broad-knowledge education, but that's not quite the same thing. (As a side note, I'm ''still'' having trouble getting my head around the fact that some schools simply don't teach some of this stuff; I went to a Catholic high school, and even they tought us what the options were. Yes, the had a lot of focus on failure rates, health problems, and discouragement-by-grotesquery, not to mention the church teachings, but as far as I know they taught every FDA-approved artificial method plus abstinence and the rhythm method.) --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 20:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I think "use" or "reliance" has to include what I'll call the "compliance factor". Do seatbelts prevent injury? In my case, yes. I never get behind the wheel without putting on my seatbelt. Even to move a parked car to another spot in a lot. I have a high compliance factor.

Pills you take every day are hard to forget in a 'moment of passion' but how often can we expect a high school [[American Pie|broncin' buck]] are going to remember to slip a [[condom|love glove]] out of his wallet at the crucial moment? Contrariwise, how often can we expect Little Miss Sunshine to recite "no glove, no love" and stick firmly to it when she's stuck in his hot embrace? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:32, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==Roll-back==

Sorry, Crocoite, I jittered on the trigger.

:No problem Ed. Crocoite 22:39, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

Obviously something went on between Crocoite and Ed Poor (as can be seen in the history). Since I seem to have missed out on the discussion, can I ask why we chose the current page, which has one ify source ("God, the Holy Bible"), over this page [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Contraception&oldid=214707], which is more enclopedic, less preachy, and actually cited? (And before anyone gets in a huff, I'm calling the Bible in this case an "ify source" because it's not properly referenced; without chapter and verse there's no way to know the claim is actually in the book). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 23:51, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

==POV==
This article is written from a purely Catholic POV. Protestants do not have a problem with the use of contraception within marriage, so it is incorrect to say that for Protestants recreational sex within marriage is sinful. Can it be rephrased to take account of that?--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 12:39, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:Make the change. Adding a reference would be helpful. Crocoite 13:25, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

::No, the Bible clearly states, "be fruitful and multiply," which is entirely negated by any use of contraception. [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 20:28, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Many people (most people, actually) use contraception as a way of spacing children, not to avoid having them completely. The Bible doesn't say 'be fruitful and multiply without limit'. Whatever your personal views about the Bible though, this article does not reflect Protestant denominational teachings on contraception. The Anglicans issued a statement in favour of contraception at the Lambeth Conference as long ago as 1930. The statement was carried by a majority of 193 to 67. This was followed in 1931 by statements by some American Protestants. I will add something on this into the article.A reasonable reference from a solid source seems to be [http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/socialpublic/smte.html#contraception] --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 14:23, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

Where in the Bible does it say not to use contraceptives? I'm pretty sure contraceptives had not been invented 2000+ years ago, so I will remove that part. J.Y.L.

==Disease and contraception==

Cut from intro:

:Although some believe that contraception should be a part of education to minimize unwanted pregnancies and the contraction of HIV AIDS, the reality remains that, outside of marriage, contraception encourages sexual behavior and promiscuity . Those who choose to have more than one sexual partner do so at their own risk and, in a sense, bring the burdens of disease and unwanted pregnancy on themselves. Therefore education and encouragement of contraceptive devices is not useful.

What does contraception have to do with minimizing AIDS? Is this a sidelong reference to condoms? Why not be explicit then? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:29, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:Any contraceptive method, with the exception of the rhythm method and the pill, will reduce the chance of contracting AIDs or other STDs. I agree that that paragraph was just generally wierd and should have been removed, but I think disease prevention is a major positive side effect of almost all forms of contraception and should be mentioned somewhere in the article. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 23:45, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::<nowiki>*</nowiki>chokes* That's not true. Only condoms and abstinence reduce the transmission of STDs. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 23:50, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Errr, I amend my statement; it turns out there were more types of contraception than I remembered off the top of my head. However, ''any'' barrier method, not just condoms, reduces the chances of STD's. Even coitus interuptus reduces the chance, granted not by a large amount. The point I was trying to make was hidden by my apparent misunderstanding of contraception (hrm... guess I could have done with better sex ed, no?): disease prevention should be mentioned in this article. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 00:04, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

==History and social impact==

We should mention something on this. Contraception is the ''key'' development in all thing sexual since it became effective and available. Contraception lead to practical promiscuity and the 'free love' movement, and the rise in acceptability of premarital sex, which in turn helped the acceptability of all public mention and depiction of sex from pornography to racy movie scenes. Contraception regulation resulted in the Griswold case - when the supreme court invented a right to contraception, they set the stage for greater future cases - Griswold was key precident in both Row v Wade and Lawrence V Texas. If Griswold had gone otherwise, it is extremally unlikely the court would later have forced the legalisation of abortion and sodomy. Attempts to prosecute contraceptive education under obscenity laws lead not just to the overturning of Cornstock law, but the weakening of obscenity law in general. Almost every trend in sexual immorality since the 1800's can be traced directly or indirectly to the spreading of contraception. This is why so many states and churches worked so hard to ban it - they could forsee the eventual consequences of making sex safe. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]
: Not to mention some indirect effects. Contraception made it possible for women to follow the same path of education and career as men. Prior to contraception, this was not an option - any education or career could have been cut short by a baby, and no company would hire a woman except for a temporary position if a new family might pull her away. Contraception is in this way responsible for the women's rights movement, and thus for the feminism that sprang forth from it. Contraception made the modern world, socially speaking. It deserves more analysis here, if only so I can enjoy seeing how many contributors wish to go so far as to call for an outright ban. [[User:Suricou|Suricou]] 14:29, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

==History stub==
A few convenient dates for reference.
1855 - First rubber condom. There were earlier condoms, they worked very poorly.
1923 - Comstock struck down, condoms become available in the US at the federal level.
1930 - Anglicans approve the use of contraception, but only within marriage.
1941 - Nazi germany bans the condom, on the grounds that huge numbers of Ayran babies would be needed to populate the world once the war was over.
WW2 - The US issues condoms to it's soldiers. Quite why they would encourage depravity in this way I cannot imagine.
1960 - The Pill recieves FDA approval. It's formulation has been revised many times since.
1965 - Griswold v. Connecticut, state-level restrictions on contraception struck down.
1968 - Humanae Vitae released, in which the Catholic church forbids all forms of artificial contraception without exception.
1972 - Eisenstadt v. Baird. US government loses all authority to prevent the sale of contraception, even to unmarried people, effectively endorsing premarital sex.

Talk:Contraception

2010-04-23T18:13:40Z

Suricou: Explanation.

==Abstinence==

Abstinence is technically not a contraception method; contraception aims to lower the chances of fecundation through sexual intercourse; abstinence is refraining from sexual intercourse. My objection is purely linguistic; saying that abstinence is the most efficient method of contraception is like saying that the best measure of air safety is not flying at all. It is quite true that not flying significantly lowers the chances of dying in an airplane crash, however it is also quite redundant to say it. I suggest changing "the only known method [implied: of contraception] that is 100% effective is abstinence" to "Every sexual intercourse, no matter which method of contraception is used, can possibly lead to pregnancy, as no contraceptive device or technique can claim to be 100% effective."

PS: An unrelated question, sorry to sidetrack: how do I add my name and the hour and date at the end of my comments, without doing it manually? Thanks! [[Maquissar]]

:Every method of contraception, really? The condom can split, the pill can fail, but there is no way sperm are getting through severed and tied tubes. The failure rate of a vasectomy is approximatly one in two thousand procedures, and those few failures are invariably picked up in post-procedure testing to bring the effective failure rate to... well, I think it's only ever happened a total of seven times. Ever. It may be non-zero in the mathematical sense, but it's so low it can't even be measured by conventional statistical means. [[User:Suricou|Suricou]] 14:11, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

==Mother Mary==
This is a documented case of abstinence being unable to prevent pregnancy. This should be included in the introduction that currently claims that this is not the case.

:Because that was a one time shot, I'm not sure it needs to be mentioned for our modern day. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:51, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

==Travesty==

This is a pity. I spent a lot of time creating a good article. I didnt use diagrams or naughty words. I didnt tell young people to go out and fornicate. I provide sound medical information. You obviously don't want to know. What about married couples who may wish to know this info?
You should be ashamed of yourself. Good luck.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 09:22, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:This is conservapedia. I remind you, CONSERVapedia. Unlike wikipedia, conservapedia makes no pretense of neutrality: It's for and by social conservatives, many of whome (mostly the catholics) object to the very existance of contraception on religious grounds. So don't be too surprised by this. [[User:Suricou|Suricou]] 14:13, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

===WHAT??!!===
Andrew Schlafly just cut all the information about contraception out of the contraception page. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 18:19, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Crap--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 18:20, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:How shocking. Statistics are apparently unencyclopedic. [[User:DrLib|DrLib]] 19:02, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

===Formatting===
Did it as a bulleted list, formatting help can be found here [http://www.conservapedia.com/Help:Editing].

Can't see this page lasting though, abstinence is the only form of contraception doncha know. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Expert opinion ==

Just a heads up, I am planning on doing extensive editing for content here, as it is needed. If you question my qualifications, please check out my profile and discussion page. Thanks.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

The few bizarre citations used are low on primary statistics, and are from the UK. I am including NIH and other American statistics and sources.

Intimacy is an OPINION (inherently); it probably doesnt require citation, rather, an explanation of it's potential importance.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Im also removing the dangerous and ridiculous claim about contraception aiding sexual assault. That's like saying crowbars are likely to cause break-ins, or AK-47s are likely to cause mass-murder. Citing a case where evidence of an assault was missing because of condom use is not helpful. You would need regression analysis to show that condoms increase crime, etc.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Palm, I look forward to your edits on this one. I hope you can flesh out my analysis of how the pill works - I think I'm right, and at any rate, it's already better than BillOReillyFan's version about how the Pill "destroys" the organs :-/-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Call me "Pal". You're not too far off; what really ends up happening is the prevention of ovulation, and, as with Plan B, if fertilization does take place, prevention of implantation. We probably need to divide the section into "barrier methods", hormonal methods, IUDs, and ?other. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: I think that division is a great idea. It might run afoul of Andy's idea of obscenity, but I'll defend you, for whatever that's worth :-). So Pal-MD: are you a doctor? How awesome to have a real doctor edit some of the... errr... erroneous (?) articles on this site!-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:43, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, Im a professor of medicine. See my talk page--it includes a somewhat surreal dialog with ASchlafly about my qualifications. Good amusement value though.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:46, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
: I find what Andy DOESN'T say almost as funny as what he DOES say. He refuses to talk, for instance, about most things relating to [[user:Conservative]]'s failure to do useful things on this site. He also refuses to address issues of bias, or commentaries on the compatibility of evolution and religion... and I did see that thing on your talk page, I forgot about it though! Good times.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I probably won't get that far with this tonight, as it's 11pm here, but when I return to this tomorrow, I assume it will be hacked to bits. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 23:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

BillFan, thanks for your help with the clean up. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 19:47, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Please note that much of the above discussion is historical. I have specifically invited Andy to find a contributor to help with the last section.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:20, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:Re: effectiveness of various methods: ''"Rhythm method" (also sometimes referred to as a method of "timed abstinence")''
:*Do you know what they call women who rely on the Rhythm method? [[/answer]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:03, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::Where do people get a BAND at four [[o'clock]] in the morning?
That's a good thing, right?[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 17:47, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Perfect ==

This article is perfect and completely unbiased. Thanks to whoever fixed it up!

:: Oh-kayyyy... this is obviously some new definition of perfect that I've never come across. Abstinence is the best form of birth control is it? Well, yes, provided it works. However, the likelihood of it actually working means that it is less effective than almost any other means you care to imagine. This is really like claiming that condoms are 100% effective provided that (a) they are worn and (b) they do not split, leak or slip off.

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 17:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Plea for tolerance ==

So, if this "encyclopedia" is to avoid the topic, well, then it needs a new name. Obviously, feel free to delete any well-referenced, well-researched information from an [[User:Palmd001|expert]] you wish, but don't pretend that you are doing it for accuracy or any other legitimate reason.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 19:05, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:As discussed elsewhere, there is a dispute over whether it's wise to tell kids (1) We don't think you have the willpower to remain abstinent till marriage so (2) since you're going to fornicate (3) you better use condoms, etc.

:Conservatives feel this encourages (4) fornication itself and (5) concomitant problems of unwanted pregnancy and STD's.

:Writing which looks neutral but nevertheless provides copious alternatives to abstinence effectively sends messages #1 and #2 above, conservatives believe. Conservatives also believe that '''partisans are well aware of this''' and (6) have the aim of promoting fornication and (7) don't really care at all about out-of-wedlock pregnancy or STD's. (Not 100% of each group mentioned - I was speaking in general.)

:I would therefore check with Andy before adding a "methods of contraception" section to this article. I imagine what senior staff want here is a critique of it, not a how-to guide.

:If you'd like to work with me on a "Strategies to prevent STD" article, I'm happy to help. It could examine the effectiveness of various campaigns and curricula. As you probably have heard, there's a raging controversy over whether (8) abstinence-only curricula are more effective or (9) "abstinence is best but if you're gonna do it anyway use this" curricula are more effective. Part of the controversy no doubt comes from partisan refusal on the Liberal side to give an inch to the abstinence camel. There are some people who would rather die than give up fornication. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:17, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::I can see how describing various forms of contraception could be considered sending messages (1) and (2) to kids in a sex ed class (I don't ''agree'' with it, but I can see how you could think it). This isn't a sex ed class. It's an article about contraception. I don't see how describing various forms of contraception in an article about contraception could possibly send messages to anyone about anything, beyond describing various forms of contraception. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:30, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Kids aren't the only ones to have sex, and a married couple may be interested to know what contraception choices they have. Moreover, having seen the results of an abstinence only education (over 5 girls in my sister's junior class of 50 boys and girls have already dropped out of school due to being pregnant), I think that it is prudent to educate on the types of birth control available. Advocating use of birth control, abstinence or other forms, is different and far more important than advocating not having sex due for whatever personal reason. I personally am a fan of the "yay abstinence, but this is birth control so use it if you're going to have sex" education, as I would rather multiple people have sex and not get pregnant or STIs than one person get an STI or pregnant. Anyway, that's just my two cents plus a little. :-p [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 07:28, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I'll just repeat my suggestion above starting a [[Methods of contraception]] article and embellish it a little. A careful and accurate examination of the effectiveness of (1) the methods themselves and (2) campaigns to teach these methods would be really good reference material for an encyclopedia to supply. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:37, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==Statistics==

Sorry if I've inadvertantly gone wrong here. The population statistics are from the US government census website I linked to. The assumptions about fertility and sexual activity were, I thought, on the conservative side, but you're right that I can't cite a source for those. The figures for failure rates were at the lower-than-probable end of the ones you gave in the earlier section. The reason for including the section was that there is often a misunderstanding of the term 'failure rate', and I wanted to expand on the implications of that. Please by all means improve on my contribution, but I think it's an expansion of this article that needs making. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 20:15 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Let me see what I can do...I can expand on failure rate, but you have to be careful about how you massage statistics. For instance, if 3 out of 100 women will get pregnant using it, that does not mean that after 2 years, 6 out of 100 will. Trying to apply in aggregate is bad stats. If you have someone you know who is good with stats, that would be great.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I think I'm going to leave it for somebody with a better knowledge of statistics than me in that case. I don't want to post something that's wildly inaccurate, but I do think that there is a popular conception (not a deliberate pun, honestly) that a 1% failure rate means that there will hardly be any unintended pregnancies if the contraception is used reliably, and as I understand it that's not the case, once you start looking at large numbers of women. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 21:45 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==Scope of the article==

Colin's latest change indicates an overlap with the topic of [[Sex education]]. Let's form a strategy for dealing with all the topics relating to this. I'm starting a list below, which should then be moved to someplace like [[Conservapedia:Sex education topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:09, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

[[Sex education]] topics:
*[[contraception]]
*[[abstinence]]
*"abstinence-until-marriage" education programs
*"[[comprehensive sex education]]"

:Wouldn't a category be more appropriate? And the only reason I changed the entry is because there is no question that abstinence is the only completely effective means of birth control. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 08:11, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::At the risk of contradicting myself, I must admit that there *is* a question about whether abstinence is the only completely effective means of birth control. The question centers on whether it is '''realistic''' to expect anyone to abstain from something as pleasant and "delicious" as sexual intercourse. The idea that it is an irresistible urge (which it is abnormal to resist) is actually quite widespread and prevalent. For example, I know of an army officer who said, "If a man won't f---, he won't fight." And you know about marching cadences taught in basic training, don't you? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps a bit crude, but all the same, well put Ed. Some editors here seem to be desperately trying to give the impression that liberals have a monopoly on common sense. I dispute that. [[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 08:21, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::While refraining from sex may be irresistible, when used, abstinence is completely effective. After all, unless the form of contraception is being used, one cannot expect it to do its function. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 08:24, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The "when used" part is the key to the issue. Thank God conservatives don't have a monopoly on common sense. -Ed
:::::Is it not implied that use of the form of contraception is necessary for its benefits? Or are people that stupid these days? But if you feel that the "when used" qualifier is needed, by all means, put it in the entry. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 08:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::(Late retort) There are many stupid people and much stupidity about contraception. For instance, some people think they can rely on withdrawal and/or rhythm, and there's a medical term especially for members of the fair sex who do: [[/answer|(see the surprise answer here)]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:23, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Exactly Ed "when used", [[Capital Punishment]] is 100% effective - no one ever reoffends. Why not apply it for all felonies and misdemeanors? Would people cease committing misdemeanors. Not likely - if we killed them all the economy would collapse. It would cause more harm than good. Damage or harm reduction are the the (pragmatic?) buzzwords.
::::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 08:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Is it not implied that use of the form of contraception is necessary for its benefits? My understanding (PalMD, please correct me if this is wrong) is that contraception failure rates are generally quoted as pregnancies per N people using them for M time, as actually used, and that some or many of the 'failures' reported are actually failures to use the method properly or at all. IE, you find a woman who says "I use condoms for birth control" and check back in a year to see if she's pregnant; if she is, you chalk that up as a condom failure, even if it's because she skipped the condom one night. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 14:00, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::That is correct, in general. It is similar to the "intention-to-treat" analysis in RTCs. Some studies include information on"properly and regularly uses", but most rates are quoted as above. Condoms, for instance, are 85% effective in general, much more when used as directed, with spermacide.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Have there been any studies on abstinence's failure rate with that methodology? I remember hearing about some studies on teen sexual behavior following abstinence-only education vs. broad-knowledge education, but that's not quite the same thing. (As a side note, I'm ''still'' having trouble getting my head around the fact that some schools simply don't teach some of this stuff; I went to a Catholic high school, and even they tought us what the options were. Yes, the had a lot of focus on failure rates, health problems, and discouragement-by-grotesquery, not to mention the church teachings, but as far as I know they taught every FDA-approved artificial method plus abstinence and the rhythm method.) --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 20:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I think "use" or "reliance" has to include what I'll call the "compliance factor". Do seatbelts prevent injury? In my case, yes. I never get behind the wheel without putting on my seatbelt. Even to move a parked car to another spot in a lot. I have a high compliance factor.

Pills you take every day are hard to forget in a 'moment of passion' but how often can we expect a high school [[American Pie|broncin' buck]] are going to remember to slip a [[condom|love glove]] out of his wallet at the crucial moment? Contrariwise, how often can we expect Little Miss Sunshine to recite "no glove, no love" and stick firmly to it when she's stuck in his hot embrace? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:32, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==Roll-back==

Sorry, Crocoite, I jittered on the trigger.

:No problem Ed. Crocoite 22:39, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

Obviously something went on between Crocoite and Ed Poor (as can be seen in the history). Since I seem to have missed out on the discussion, can I ask why we chose the current page, which has one ify source ("God, the Holy Bible"), over this page [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Contraception&oldid=214707], which is more enclopedic, less preachy, and actually cited? (And before anyone gets in a huff, I'm calling the Bible in this case an "ify source" because it's not properly referenced; without chapter and verse there's no way to know the claim is actually in the book). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 23:51, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

==POV==
This article is written from a purely Catholic POV. Protestants do not have a problem with the use of contraception within marriage, so it is incorrect to say that for Protestants recreational sex within marriage is sinful. Can it be rephrased to take account of that?--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 12:39, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:Make the change. Adding a reference would be helpful. Crocoite 13:25, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

::No, the Bible clearly states, "be fruitful and multiply," which is entirely negated by any use of contraception. [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 20:28, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Many people (most people, actually) use contraception as a way of spacing children, not to avoid having them completely. The Bible doesn't say 'be fruitful and multiply without limit'. Whatever your personal views about the Bible though, this article does not reflect Protestant denominational teachings on contraception. The Anglicans issued a statement in favour of contraception at the Lambeth Conference as long ago as 1930. The statement was carried by a majority of 193 to 67. This was followed in 1931 by statements by some American Protestants. I will add something on this into the article.A reasonable reference from a solid source seems to be [http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/socialpublic/smte.html#contraception] --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 14:23, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

Where in the Bible does it say not to use contraceptives? I'm pretty sure contraceptives had not been invented 2000+ years ago, so I will remove that part. J.Y.L.

==Disease and contraception==

Cut from intro:

:Although some believe that contraception should be a part of education to minimize unwanted pregnancies and the contraction of HIV AIDS, the reality remains that, outside of marriage, contraception encourages sexual behavior and promiscuity . Those who choose to have more than one sexual partner do so at their own risk and, in a sense, bring the burdens of disease and unwanted pregnancy on themselves. Therefore education and encouragement of contraceptive devices is not useful.

What does contraception have to do with minimizing AIDS? Is this a sidelong reference to condoms? Why not be explicit then? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:29, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:Any contraceptive method, with the exception of the rhythm method and the pill, will reduce the chance of contracting AIDs or other STDs. I agree that that paragraph was just generally wierd and should have been removed, but I think disease prevention is a major positive side effect of almost all forms of contraception and should be mentioned somewhere in the article. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 23:45, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::<nowiki>*</nowiki>chokes* That's not true. Only condoms and abstinence reduce the transmission of STDs. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 23:50, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Errr, I amend my statement; it turns out there were more types of contraception than I remembered off the top of my head. However, ''any'' barrier method, not just condoms, reduces the chances of STD's. Even coitus interuptus reduces the chance, granted not by a large amount. The point I was trying to make was hidden by my apparent misunderstanding of contraception (hrm... guess I could have done with better sex ed, no?): disease prevention should be mentioned in this article. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 00:04, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

==History and social impact==

We should mention something on this. Contraception is the ''key'' development in all thing sexual since it became effective and available. Contraception lead to practical promiscuity and the 'free love' movement, and the rise in acceptability of premarital sex, which in turn helped the acceptability of all public mention and depiction of sex from pornography to racy movie scenes. Contraception regulation resulted in the Griswold case - when the supreme court invented a right to contraception, they set the stage for greater future cases - Griswold was key precident in both Row v Wade and Lawrence V Texas. If Griswold had gone otherwise, it is extremally unlikely the court would later have forced the legalisation of abortion and sodomy. Attempts to prosecute contraceptive education under obscenity laws lead not just to the overturning of Cornstock law, but the weakening of obscenity law in general. Almost every trend in sexual immorality since the 1800's can be traced directly or indirectly to the spreading of contraception. This is why so many states and churches worked so hard to ban it - they could forsee the eventual consequences of making sex safe. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

==History stub==
A few convenient dates for reference.
1855 - First rubber condom. There were earlier condoms, they worked very poorly.
1923 - Comstock struck down, condoms become available in the US at the federal level.
1930 - Anglicans approve the use of contraception, but only within marriage.
1941 - Nazi germany bans the condom, on the grounds that huge numbers of Ayran babies would be needed to populate the world once the war was over.
WW2 - The US issues condoms to it's soldiers. Quite why they would encourage depravity in this way I cannot imagine.
1960 - The Pill recieves FDA approval. It's formulation has been revised many times since.
1965 - Griswold v. Connecticut, state-level restrictions on contraception struck down.
1968 - Humanae Vitae released, in which the Catholic church forbids all forms of artificial contraception without exception.
1972 - Eisenstadt v. Baird. US government loses all authority to prevent the sale of contraception, even to unmarried people, effectively endorsing premarital sex.

Talk:Contraception

2010-04-23T18:11:12Z

Suricou: 100%?

==Abstinence==

Abstinence is technically not a contraception method; contraception aims to lower the chances of fecundation through sexual intercourse; abstinence is refraining from sexual intercourse. My objection is purely linguistic; saying that abstinence is the most efficient method of contraception is like saying that the best measure of air safety is not flying at all. It is quite true that not flying significantly lowers the chances of dying in an airplane crash, however it is also quite redundant to say it. I suggest changing "the only known method [implied: of contraception] that is 100% effective is abstinence" to "Every sexual intercourse, no matter which method of contraception is used, can possibly lead to pregnancy, as no contraceptive device or technique can claim to be 100% effective."

PS: An unrelated question, sorry to sidetrack: how do I add my name and the hour and date at the end of my comments, without doing it manually? Thanks! [[Maquissar]]

:Every method of contraception, really? The condom can split, the pill can fail, but there is no way sperm are getting through severed and tied tubes. The failure rate of a vasectomy is approximatly one in two thousand procedures, and those few failures are invariably picked up in post-procedure testing to bring the effective failure rate to... well, I think it's only ever happened a total of seven times. Ever. It may be non-zero in the mathematical sense, but it's so low it can't even be measured by conventional statistical means. [[User:Suricou|Suricou]] 14:11, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

==Mother Mary==
This is a documented case of abstinence being unable to prevent pregnancy. This should be included in the introduction that currently claims that this is not the case.

:Because that was a one time shot, I'm not sure it needs to be mentioned for our modern day. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:51, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

==Travesty==

This is a pity. I spent a lot of time creating a good article. I didnt use diagrams or naughty words. I didnt tell young people to go out and fornicate. I provide sound medical information. You obviously don't want to know. What about married couples who may wish to know this info?
You should be ashamed of yourself. Good luck.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 09:22, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

===WHAT??!!===
Andrew Schlafly just cut all the information about contraception out of the contraception page. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 18:19, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Crap--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 18:20, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:How shocking. Statistics are apparently unencyclopedic. [[User:DrLib|DrLib]] 19:02, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

===Formatting===
Did it as a bulleted list, formatting help can be found here [http://www.conservapedia.com/Help:Editing].

Can't see this page lasting though, abstinence is the only form of contraception doncha know. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Expert opinion ==

Just a heads up, I am planning on doing extensive editing for content here, as it is needed. If you question my qualifications, please check out my profile and discussion page. Thanks.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

The few bizarre citations used are low on primary statistics, and are from the UK. I am including NIH and other American statistics and sources.

Intimacy is an OPINION (inherently); it probably doesnt require citation, rather, an explanation of it's potential importance.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Im also removing the dangerous and ridiculous claim about contraception aiding sexual assault. That's like saying crowbars are likely to cause break-ins, or AK-47s are likely to cause mass-murder. Citing a case where evidence of an assault was missing because of condom use is not helpful. You would need regression analysis to show that condoms increase crime, etc.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Palm, I look forward to your edits on this one. I hope you can flesh out my analysis of how the pill works - I think I'm right, and at any rate, it's already better than BillOReillyFan's version about how the Pill "destroys" the organs :-/-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Call me "Pal". You're not too far off; what really ends up happening is the prevention of ovulation, and, as with Plan B, if fertilization does take place, prevention of implantation. We probably need to divide the section into "barrier methods", hormonal methods, IUDs, and ?other. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: I think that division is a great idea. It might run afoul of Andy's idea of obscenity, but I'll defend you, for whatever that's worth :-). So Pal-MD: are you a doctor? How awesome to have a real doctor edit some of the... errr... erroneous (?) articles on this site!-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:43, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, Im a professor of medicine. See my talk page--it includes a somewhat surreal dialog with ASchlafly about my qualifications. Good amusement value though.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:46, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
: I find what Andy DOESN'T say almost as funny as what he DOES say. He refuses to talk, for instance, about most things relating to [[user:Conservative]]'s failure to do useful things on this site. He also refuses to address issues of bias, or commentaries on the compatibility of evolution and religion... and I did see that thing on your talk page, I forgot about it though! Good times.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I probably won't get that far with this tonight, as it's 11pm here, but when I return to this tomorrow, I assume it will be hacked to bits. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 23:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

BillFan, thanks for your help with the clean up. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 19:47, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Please note that much of the above discussion is historical. I have specifically invited Andy to find a contributor to help with the last section.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:20, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:Re: effectiveness of various methods: ''"Rhythm method" (also sometimes referred to as a method of "timed abstinence")''
:*Do you know what they call women who rely on the Rhythm method? [[/answer]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:03, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::Where do people get a BAND at four [[o'clock]] in the morning?
That's a good thing, right?[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 17:47, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Perfect ==

This article is perfect and completely unbiased. Thanks to whoever fixed it up!

:: Oh-kayyyy... this is obviously some new definition of perfect that I've never come across. Abstinence is the best form of birth control is it? Well, yes, provided it works. However, the likelihood of it actually working means that it is less effective than almost any other means you care to imagine. This is really like claiming that condoms are 100% effective provided that (a) they are worn and (b) they do not split, leak or slip off.

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 17:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Plea for tolerance ==

So, if this "encyclopedia" is to avoid the topic, well, then it needs a new name. Obviously, feel free to delete any well-referenced, well-researched information from an [[User:Palmd001|expert]] you wish, but don't pretend that you are doing it for accuracy or any other legitimate reason.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 19:05, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:As discussed elsewhere, there is a dispute over whether it's wise to tell kids (1) We don't think you have the willpower to remain abstinent till marriage so (2) since you're going to fornicate (3) you better use condoms, etc.

:Conservatives feel this encourages (4) fornication itself and (5) concomitant problems of unwanted pregnancy and STD's.

:Writing which looks neutral but nevertheless provides copious alternatives to abstinence effectively sends messages #1 and #2 above, conservatives believe. Conservatives also believe that '''partisans are well aware of this''' and (6) have the aim of promoting fornication and (7) don't really care at all about out-of-wedlock pregnancy or STD's. (Not 100% of each group mentioned - I was speaking in general.)

:I would therefore check with Andy before adding a "methods of contraception" section to this article. I imagine what senior staff want here is a critique of it, not a how-to guide.

:If you'd like to work with me on a "Strategies to prevent STD" article, I'm happy to help. It could examine the effectiveness of various campaigns and curricula. As you probably have heard, there's a raging controversy over whether (8) abstinence-only curricula are more effective or (9) "abstinence is best but if you're gonna do it anyway use this" curricula are more effective. Part of the controversy no doubt comes from partisan refusal on the Liberal side to give an inch to the abstinence camel. There are some people who would rather die than give up fornication. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:17, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::I can see how describing various forms of contraception could be considered sending messages (1) and (2) to kids in a sex ed class (I don't ''agree'' with it, but I can see how you could think it). This isn't a sex ed class. It's an article about contraception. I don't see how describing various forms of contraception in an article about contraception could possibly send messages to anyone about anything, beyond describing various forms of contraception. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:30, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Kids aren't the only ones to have sex, and a married couple may be interested to know what contraception choices they have. Moreover, having seen the results of an abstinence only education (over 5 girls in my sister's junior class of 50 boys and girls have already dropped out of school due to being pregnant), I think that it is prudent to educate on the types of birth control available. Advocating use of birth control, abstinence or other forms, is different and far more important than advocating not having sex due for whatever personal reason. I personally am a fan of the "yay abstinence, but this is birth control so use it if you're going to have sex" education, as I would rather multiple people have sex and not get pregnant or STIs than one person get an STI or pregnant. Anyway, that's just my two cents plus a little. :-p [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 07:28, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I'll just repeat my suggestion above starting a [[Methods of contraception]] article and embellish it a little. A careful and accurate examination of the effectiveness of (1) the methods themselves and (2) campaigns to teach these methods would be really good reference material for an encyclopedia to supply. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:37, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==Statistics==

Sorry if I've inadvertantly gone wrong here. The population statistics are from the US government census website I linked to. The assumptions about fertility and sexual activity were, I thought, on the conservative side, but you're right that I can't cite a source for those. The figures for failure rates were at the lower-than-probable end of the ones you gave in the earlier section. The reason for including the section was that there is often a misunderstanding of the term 'failure rate', and I wanted to expand on the implications of that. Please by all means improve on my contribution, but I think it's an expansion of this article that needs making. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 20:15 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Let me see what I can do...I can expand on failure rate, but you have to be careful about how you massage statistics. For instance, if 3 out of 100 women will get pregnant using it, that does not mean that after 2 years, 6 out of 100 will. Trying to apply in aggregate is bad stats. If you have someone you know who is good with stats, that would be great.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I think I'm going to leave it for somebody with a better knowledge of statistics than me in that case. I don't want to post something that's wildly inaccurate, but I do think that there is a popular conception (not a deliberate pun, honestly) that a 1% failure rate means that there will hardly be any unintended pregnancies if the contraception is used reliably, and as I understand it that's not the case, once you start looking at large numbers of women. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 21:45 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==Scope of the article==

Colin's latest change indicates an overlap with the topic of [[Sex education]]. Let's form a strategy for dealing with all the topics relating to this. I'm starting a list below, which should then be moved to someplace like [[Conservapedia:Sex education topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:09, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

[[Sex education]] topics:
*[[contraception]]
*[[abstinence]]
*"abstinence-until-marriage" education programs
*"[[comprehensive sex education]]"

:Wouldn't a category be more appropriate? And the only reason I changed the entry is because there is no question that abstinence is the only completely effective means of birth control. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 08:11, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::At the risk of contradicting myself, I must admit that there *is* a question about whether abstinence is the only completely effective means of birth control. The question centers on whether it is '''realistic''' to expect anyone to abstain from something as pleasant and "delicious" as sexual intercourse. The idea that it is an irresistible urge (which it is abnormal to resist) is actually quite widespread and prevalent. For example, I know of an army officer who said, "If a man won't f---, he won't fight." And you know about marching cadences taught in basic training, don't you? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps a bit crude, but all the same, well put Ed. Some editors here seem to be desperately trying to give the impression that liberals have a monopoly on common sense. I dispute that. [[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 08:21, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::While refraining from sex may be irresistible, when used, abstinence is completely effective. After all, unless the form of contraception is being used, one cannot expect it to do its function. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 08:24, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The "when used" part is the key to the issue. Thank God conservatives don't have a monopoly on common sense. -Ed
:::::Is it not implied that use of the form of contraception is necessary for its benefits? Or are people that stupid these days? But if you feel that the "when used" qualifier is needed, by all means, put it in the entry. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 08:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::(Late retort) There are many stupid people and much stupidity about contraception. For instance, some people think they can rely on withdrawal and/or rhythm, and there's a medical term especially for members of the fair sex who do: [[/answer|(see the surprise answer here)]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:23, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Exactly Ed "when used", [[Capital Punishment]] is 100% effective - no one ever reoffends. Why not apply it for all felonies and misdemeanors? Would people cease committing misdemeanors. Not likely - if we killed them all the economy would collapse. It would cause more harm than good. Damage or harm reduction are the the (pragmatic?) buzzwords.
::::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 08:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Is it not implied that use of the form of contraception is necessary for its benefits? My understanding (PalMD, please correct me if this is wrong) is that contraception failure rates are generally quoted as pregnancies per N people using them for M time, as actually used, and that some or many of the 'failures' reported are actually failures to use the method properly or at all. IE, you find a woman who says "I use condoms for birth control" and check back in a year to see if she's pregnant; if she is, you chalk that up as a condom failure, even if it's because she skipped the condom one night. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 14:00, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::That is correct, in general. It is similar to the "intention-to-treat" analysis in RTCs. Some studies include information on"properly and regularly uses", but most rates are quoted as above. Condoms, for instance, are 85% effective in general, much more when used as directed, with spermacide.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Have there been any studies on abstinence's failure rate with that methodology? I remember hearing about some studies on teen sexual behavior following abstinence-only education vs. broad-knowledge education, but that's not quite the same thing. (As a side note, I'm ''still'' having trouble getting my head around the fact that some schools simply don't teach some of this stuff; I went to a Catholic high school, and even they tought us what the options were. Yes, the had a lot of focus on failure rates, health problems, and discouragement-by-grotesquery, not to mention the church teachings, but as far as I know they taught every FDA-approved artificial method plus abstinence and the rhythm method.) --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 20:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I think "use" or "reliance" has to include what I'll call the "compliance factor". Do seatbelts prevent injury? In my case, yes. I never get behind the wheel without putting on my seatbelt. Even to move a parked car to another spot in a lot. I have a high compliance factor.

Pills you take every day are hard to forget in a 'moment of passion' but how often can we expect a high school [[American Pie|broncin' buck]] are going to remember to slip a [[condom|love glove]] out of his wallet at the crucial moment? Contrariwise, how often can we expect Little Miss Sunshine to recite "no glove, no love" and stick firmly to it when she's stuck in his hot embrace? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:32, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==Roll-back==

Sorry, Crocoite, I jittered on the trigger.

:No problem Ed. Crocoite 22:39, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

Obviously something went on between Crocoite and Ed Poor (as can be seen in the history). Since I seem to have missed out on the discussion, can I ask why we chose the current page, which has one ify source ("God, the Holy Bible"), over this page [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Contraception&oldid=214707], which is more enclopedic, less preachy, and actually cited? (And before anyone gets in a huff, I'm calling the Bible in this case an "ify source" because it's not properly referenced; without chapter and verse there's no way to know the claim is actually in the book). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 23:51, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

==POV==
This article is written from a purely Catholic POV. Protestants do not have a problem with the use of contraception within marriage, so it is incorrect to say that for Protestants recreational sex within marriage is sinful. Can it be rephrased to take account of that?--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 12:39, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:Make the change. Adding a reference would be helpful. Crocoite 13:25, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

::No, the Bible clearly states, "be fruitful and multiply," which is entirely negated by any use of contraception. [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 20:28, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Many people (most people, actually) use contraception as a way of spacing children, not to avoid having them completely. The Bible doesn't say 'be fruitful and multiply without limit'. Whatever your personal views about the Bible though, this article does not reflect Protestant denominational teachings on contraception. The Anglicans issued a statement in favour of contraception at the Lambeth Conference as long ago as 1930. The statement was carried by a majority of 193 to 67. This was followed in 1931 by statements by some American Protestants. I will add something on this into the article.A reasonable reference from a solid source seems to be [http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/socialpublic/smte.html#contraception] --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 14:23, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

Where in the Bible does it say not to use contraceptives? I'm pretty sure contraceptives had not been invented 2000+ years ago, so I will remove that part. J.Y.L.

==Disease and contraception==

Cut from intro:

:Although some believe that contraception should be a part of education to minimize unwanted pregnancies and the contraction of HIV AIDS, the reality remains that, outside of marriage, contraception encourages sexual behavior and promiscuity . Those who choose to have more than one sexual partner do so at their own risk and, in a sense, bring the burdens of disease and unwanted pregnancy on themselves. Therefore education and encouragement of contraceptive devices is not useful.

What does contraception have to do with minimizing AIDS? Is this a sidelong reference to condoms? Why not be explicit then? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:29, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:Any contraceptive method, with the exception of the rhythm method and the pill, will reduce the chance of contracting AIDs or other STDs. I agree that that paragraph was just generally wierd and should have been removed, but I think disease prevention is a major positive side effect of almost all forms of contraception and should be mentioned somewhere in the article. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 23:45, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::<nowiki>*</nowiki>chokes* That's not true. Only condoms and abstinence reduce the transmission of STDs. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 23:50, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Errr, I amend my statement; it turns out there were more types of contraception than I remembered off the top of my head. However, ''any'' barrier method, not just condoms, reduces the chances of STD's. Even coitus interuptus reduces the chance, granted not by a large amount. The point I was trying to make was hidden by my apparent misunderstanding of contraception (hrm... guess I could have done with better sex ed, no?): disease prevention should be mentioned in this article. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 00:04, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

==History and social impact==

We should mention something on this. Contraception is the ''key'' development in all thing sexual since it became effective and available. Contraception lead to practical promiscuity and the 'free love' movement, and the rise in acceptability of premarital sex, which in turn helped the acceptability of all public mention and depiction of sex from pornography to racy movie scenes. Contraception regulation resulted in the Griswold case - when the supreme court invented a right to contraception, they set the stage for greater future cases - Griswold was key precident in both Row v Wade and Lawrence V Texas. If Griswold had gone otherwise, it is extremally unlikely the court would later have forced the legalisation of abortion and sodomy. Attempts to prosecute contraceptive education under obscenity laws lead not just to the overturning of Cornstock law, but the weakening of obscenity law in general. Almost every trend in sexual immorality since the 1800's can be traced directly or indirectly to the spreading of contraception. This is why so many states and churches worked so hard to ban it - they could forsee the eventual consequences of making sex safe. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

==History stub==
A few convenient dates for reference.
1855 - First rubber condom. There were earlier condoms, they worked very poorly.
1923 - Comstock struck down, condoms become available in the US at the federal level.
1930 - Anglicans approve the use of contraception, but only within marriage.
1941 - Nazi germany bans the condom, on the grounds that huge numbers of Ayran babies would be needed to populate the world once the war was over.
WW2 - The US issues condoms to it's soldiers. Quite why they would encourage depravity in this way I cannot imagine.
1960 - The Pill recieves FDA approval. It's formulation has been revised many times since.
1965 - Griswold v. Connecticut, state-level restrictions on contraception struck down.
1968 - Humanae Vitae released, in which the Catholic church forbids all forms of artificial contraception without exception.
1972 - Eisenstadt v. Baird. US government loses all authority to prevent the sale of contraception, even to unmarried people, effectively endorsing premarital sex.

Talk:Disputed Biblical Translations

2009-08-27T19:07:53Z

Suricou: Grumbling about paraphrasing.

==Different Translations in General==

Sorry to bump this to the top, but I believe this is a central issue. In showing different translations of the Bible, I'm afraid we may giving a false impression of what that means. Most translations use the same early Greek manuscipts. The only difference is in intentional style. For instance the NIV attempts to translate idioms into their perceived meaning of the day whereas the NASB goes with a straight literal translation. It's not that the two, or any other versions of the Bible that translate from the Greek, are at odds. They are different styles.

Paraphrased Bibles are different as their goal is not a literal translation but a simplistic one that speaks to the audience of today. They are not meant for specific accuracy, but for people to be able to read the Bible more easily and still understand the meaning. I had a Living Bible in the 1970s, which is paraphrased. I remember one of the sayings of Jesus to the Pharisees was 'Talk is cheap'. I can tell you that was not literally in the original Greek, but was put in that form for the audience reading it to better relate. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:22, 11 December 2008 (EST)
:Personally, I strongly dislike these paraphrased bibles, most espicially The Message. I'm not even a believer, but I do have a respect for history and the cultural significence of the bible in both testaments - paraphrased 'translations' often bear little simularity to the origional text. And, though I can only speak for The Message on this, I have noticed that particular version is quite willing to subtly distort meanings to steer readers towards a desired interpretation. Most often by giving a clear, unambiguous phrasing for something which is much-disputed in the origional. If an atheist can give the text the respect a document of such sigificence deserves, I would hope believers are willing to do so as well and reject those pseudo-translations. Surely the bible is important enough to put a little effort into ensuring you are reading it correctly? I think the worst for me though is The Message doesn't even label itsself as a paraphrasing - it's introduction boasts about how it's an accurate translation direct from the origional greek. Well, it isn't. [[User:Suricou|Suricou]] 15:07, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

==Conflicts w/ Jesus emphasis on Hell==

Right now this claim is very unsubstantiated. I think the readers of this article will get more out of it if we tell them ''how'' the passage about the adulterous woman conflicts w/ Jesus emphasis on hell-- not merely say that it does. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 10:43, 7 December 2008 (EST)

: Good point. Will try to improve it now per your suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:39, 7 December 2008 (EST)
:Many Christians don't believe in Hell or believe that Hell is a place where we are purified but all will eventually be saved. See [http://gospelthemes.com/hell.htm Jesus' Teaching on Hell, Samuel G. Dawson] [[User:BernardH|BernardH]] 13:28, 9 December 2008 (EST)
::''or believe that Hell is a place where we are purified but all will eventually be saved.'' That is not believing in Hell; that is believing in [[Purgatory]]. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:31, 10 December 2008 (EST)

''"Many Christians believe etc."''
What kind of argument is that? Truth is independent of belief. What "many christians believe" has no impact on the reality of Hell.

Still, no one has yet attempted to explain how the passae conflicts with Jesus' emphasis on Hell.
We've sufficiently demonstrated that the passage is '''used''' (or misused) to arue against hell, but the page still doesn't explain how or why it is actually in conflict with the reality of Hell (or Jesus' emphasis thereon). --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 10:10, 10 December 2008 (EST)

: Jesus emphasized Hell more than Heaven in the authentic passages, with Jesus as judge. In this phony passage, however, Jesus refuses to judge and the woman never asks for forgiveness. Based on the authentic passages, she's headed for Hell. Based on the phony passage, she's not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:43, 10 December 2008 (EST)

::As for emphasis on Hell or Heaven, this passage mentions neither. The passage emphasizes A) The general sinfulness of man John 8:7, The fact that there is no condemnation through Jesus Christ, (John 8:11, {see Romans 8:1}) as long as there is repentance "Go. From now on Sin no more." As for the woman not asking for forgiveness, another example of Jesus forgiving without being asked can be found in Luke 5:17-26. Biblically speaking, she is no more headed to Hell than you or I, or ''any other person born'' except for Jesus. (Romans 3:22-23) Everyone deserves Hell. Jesus offers forgiveness as a free gift to anyone who will repent. (Romans 6:23) To sum everything up, the passage does not have a bearing on the existence of Heaven or Hell, and does not contradict other passages. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 01:55, 11 December 2008 (EST)

:::Well put Tim, and well researched. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:27, 11 December 2008 (EST)

::::Thanks. I believe that the best source for interpreting the Bible, is the Bible itself. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:22, 11 December 2008 (EST)

::::: OK, so why does the entry now promote a version of the Bible that "amplifies" it with liberal ideology? I'm referring, of course, to the discredited "Amplified Bible," which violates John's prohibition against adding anything to the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 23:31, 11 December 2008 (EST)
::::::Actually, I think that the Amplified version simply tries to give more of the meaning of the Greek words, because it is impossible to pack all of the meaning of a Greek word into an english word. Could you give an example of where it is "amplified with liberal ideology"? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:48, 11 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: See [http://www.avpublications.com/avnew/downloads/PDF/q7.pdf].--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 00:34, 12 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::: That doesn't answer Tim's question of an example of 'where it is "amplified with liberal ideology" '. I've found nowhere else on the Internet where that translator (if indeed he was, although he was involved with the translation) rejected the Amplified Bible; he did reject the NASV, but no other source says that he rejected the Amplified. Further, the argument about adding to the Bible in that reference is nonsense; Tim had it right about simply giving more of the meaning of the Greek words. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:46, 12 December 2008 (EST)

::::: Also, I checked out your reference to Luke 5:17-26, and Jesus forgave sins of those who had faith. There is no indication of faith by the adulteress. Luke 5:17-26 is nothing like the adulteress story.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 23:34, 11 December 2008 (EST)
::::::I was simply pointing out another example of Jesus forgiving someone who did not ask. That was a minor point. Could you respond to my main points?--[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:46, 11 December 2008 (EST)

== Human Ghosts? ==

"''It is ironic that the NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV and many other modern versions have tossed out the term Holy Ghost, yet they have introduced the totally false idea of human ghosts''"

I have never heard anyone claim that the bible supports the idea of human ghosts. On the contrary, it is against the idea. Could you please point out the basis for the claim that these versions have introduced the idea of human ghosts. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 14:28, 7 December 2008 (EST)

: You're right that the Bible does not support the idea of human ghosts. But I've given examples now of how modern translations (erroneously) do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:22, 7 December 2008 (EST)
:: The examples do not show that modern translations support the idea of human ghosts. All the examples support is that modern translators believe that ''the people the Bible was talking about'' believed in human ghosts. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 8 December 2008 (EST)
:: The "commentator" mentioned in this section is a KJV-only person, who provides a poor argument overall. The quote of him is wrong (as mentioned above the examples do not show what is claimed) and should be removed. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 8 December 2008 (EST)
: I would imagine that when people say that the bible supports the idea of human ghosts they are referring to 1 Samuel 28, in which Saul has a witch summon the deceased Samuel for counsel. I have always been personally surprised by the depiction of this story in the bible and I wonder if its translation has changed from the older manuscripts. --[[User:Laches|Laches]] 13:21, 9 December 2008 (EST)
:: That's a curious case! The connections between human ghosts and the Holy Ghost are patently absurd, however. I think it has to do with the German (perhaps Old-English?) rootword Geist, which means both Ghost and Spirit. Translation is often a problem. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 13:22, 9 December 2008 (EST)

== Adulteress story ==

I've removed some bits for the following reasons:
* I don't ever recall seeing anybody use the passage to argue against capital punishment.
* I don't ever recall seeing anybody use the passage to argue against hell. The reference supposedly supporting this claim was actually using the passage to argue against ''condemnation'' of any sort, as part of a larger argument against the existence of hell, but this passage itself wasn't being used to argue against hell itself.
* I can't see how the passage conflicts with other teaching about hell.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:35, 8 December 2008 (EST)
:Quite the contrary, it's used ''extensively'' by liberal denominations who try to push the "no condemnation" "everyone is saved" view. I've personally had numerous conversations with "liberal Christians" who brought up the passage to deny Hell itself. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:30, 9 December 2008 (EST)

:: Right. There's no denying how this passage is used to deny the existence of [[Hell]] (which, by the way, should be capitalized), oppose capital punishment, and even bully anyone who condemns sin in an effective way. There is already one reference to an example and more could be easily found.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:46, 9 December 2008 (EST)
:::I'm going to half-agree with Andy here: I have heard people (ministers included) reference this story as an argument against capital punishment, and/or to downplay the notion of harsh punishments from God. However, I must take issue with the idea that the story's "authenticity is rejected by modern biblical scholars". While some reject it entirely, and most dispute its placement, my understanding is that it is considered to be an actual Jesus story, and the implication that all scholars reject it out of hand is preposterous. At the ''very'' least, there should be a "some" inserted between "by" and "modern".--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:10, 9 December 2008 (EST)

:::: Given that there's now further testimony of the passage being used to oppose hell and capital punishment, I'll accept that. However, not all the objections have been addressed.
:::: Further, Andy's edit comment and reply here are offensive, illogical, and unsubstantiated. As I have repeatedly pointed out before, it is NOT censorship to remove inaccurate information (which is what I believed this to be). Further, it is NOT a valid argument to simply declare yourself correct ("There's no denying...").
:::: Finally, there was no explanation for the reversion of a wording change that was made at the same time.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 9 December 2008 (EST)

::::: Philip, your edits again distort the entry without justification. For example, you say that the passage is "misused" to deny the existence of Hell (which you notably spell with a small "h"). There is evidence that the passage is fake, but no justification for saying it is "misused". The passage, if taken at face value, does support an argument denying the existence of Hell.
::::::The passage taken at face value does ''not'' deny the existence of Hell. It is an example of Christ's forgiveness, which he offers to everyone, regardless of the severity of their sin. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:01, 9 December 2008 (EST)
::::: Another change is you insist on putting a website in the text rather than in a footnote, perhaps to try to downplay the (undeniable) point being made. Websites belong in the footnotes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:37, 9 December 2008 (EST)

:::::: Your "reversion explained" does not explain the wholesale reversion of my edits including formatting changes nor much of my rewording, such as the sentence introducing the different translation comments.
:::::: The passage does not directly nor indirectly mention hell, so does ''not'' deny the existence of hell, at face value or otherwise.
:::::: The "misused" word was yours. I didn't add that.
:::::: I did not spell Hell with a lower-case "h". The only use of that in the section is in a quote that you inserted.
:::::: I did not "insist" on putting a web-site in the text. I did put it in the text, but only because it's normal practice when quoting someone to say ''in the text'' who is being quoted. As there was not an author's name to attribute it to, I attributed it to the web-site.
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:07, 10 December 2008 (EST)
::::::: ''offensive, illogical, and unsubstantiated'' You are skating on very thin ice with abusive comments like that. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:33, 10 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::: You have a problem with the truth? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:01, 10 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::: You are both out of order. When comments get above six colons, the indent should be reset to the edge of the page.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:04, 10 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: Did you just make that up, Mr. nine-colons? :-) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:41, 10 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: I thought it was a rule, but maybe I'm wrong. The amount of time I spend on here, I wouldn't be surprised if I'd dreamt it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:26, 10 December 2008 (EST)

I didn't know the six colon rule, CP, but I do now! As for Philip: I don't have any problem with the truth; what I do have a problem with is your increasingly aggressive and intemperate attitude towards Andy, who, as the Founder and Leader of Conservapedia is entitled to courtesty and respect, not insult. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:15, 10 December 2008 (EST)
: If I'm increasingly aggressive and intemperate toward Andy, then I'm merely following the example set by our Founder and Leader. Is there any better way to show courtesy and respect other than to try and be like him? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:41, 10 December 2008 (EST)

:: Philip, your angry and insulting comments are increasingly inappropriate. We're going to keep a high level of discourse here consistent with our purpose. Also, website references belong in footnotes, not the text.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:43, 10 December 2008 (EST)
::: If we are going to keep a high level of discourse here, why do you insult me by ignoring my questions and comments, by calling my attempts to make the article more accurate "censorship", and calling me "liberal"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:10, 10 December 2008 (EST)

:::: Philip, we're building an encyclopedia here. I'm not going to waste more time in talk, talk, talk. Your edits have far too high a percentage of talk and edits that are reverted. Deleting information is censorship, and I don't think I ever called you a liberal. Supporting gun control is a liberal position; claiming that "beauty is on the eye of the beholder" is an atheistic view; and spelling Hell with a small "h" does suggest a denial of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:21, 10 December 2008 (EST)
:::::: You did call me a liberal, and refused to apologise for it. Deleting false information is not censorship.
:::::: I previously pointed out that I did not spell "Hell" with a lower case "h", although I now realise that although that's true in the article, I did spell it that way in at least one comment on this page. However, I would also point out that the Bible translators also spell it with a lower-case "h"![http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/index.php?search=hell&searchtype=all&version1=9&spanbegin=1&spanend=73&startnumber=26].
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:12, 11 December 2008 (EST)

:::::I don't know if using the Adulteress Story to deny Hell is a very common thing. The provided source links to a forum post, where the Adulteress Story seems like a very minor point in the guy's argument. Anyone who is trying to use that verse to deny Hell is really just grasping at straws. Could we find a better source for this? I searched briefly but found no other instance of using the Adulteress Story to deny Hell. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Mr. Schlafly! Look at this petition!]] 10:00, 10 December 2008 (EST)
::::::Since Mr. Aschlafly has refused to participate in discussion any further ("I'm not going to waste more time in talk, talk, talk.") and has shown no further evidence to his side other than offering ad hominum and other fallacious statements like "undeniable", why not just go with Mr. Philip Rayment's edits? It boggles the mind as to how one can push their side of the discussion without giving any sort of reason. Seems pretty simple which side to pick... [[User:JimJeweler|Jalast Jeweler]] 11:00, 10 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::Regardless of whether you agree with other users or not, we do ''not'' tolerate personal insults on this encyclopedia, Jalast Jeweler. Please keep it civil and objective. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:11, 10 December 2008 (EST)

I believe we do ourselves a disservice when we make a reference to anyone using this passage to say there is no Hell. Jesus himself says there is a Hell, more than once. Because it is not mentioned here -- at all, does not suddenly remove Jesus' direct references. It would be like my talking with Andy and his mentioning that he has two children. I would then talk with him again and he mentions he has two children. I talk with him a third time and we discuss the Republican Party. Could anyone seriously state Andy doesn't have any children because he didn't mention it when we talked again? Anyone making such a ridiculous statement should be pitied, not quoted, and the same is true with this article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:32, 11 December 2008 (EST)

==a new kettle o' fish==
I'm starting a new subsection here to explain the changes I just made to the article, and also to bypass the fussiness above, and perhaps have an actual discussion on the merits, as it were.
*I changed "authenticity has been rejected by modern biblical scholars" to "authenticity and placement have been disputed by many modern biblical scholars" because a bit of research on the issue showed me that a few scholars think the story is totally bogus, many think it the story is accurate but misplaced, and a fair number think the story is accurate and correctly placed. Therefore, to say or imply that all agree that the story is bogus is just plain wrong.
*I indicated somewhere above that I have indeed heard (as Andy wrote) various folks use this passage as an argument against capital punishment, and a few use it to argue against Hell in general. However, the most recent assertion that some use it to "argue against opposition to sinful behavior...(including) permissiveness to alternative lifestyles, desecration and belittlement of Christianity and Christians by the unfaithful" is just ludicrous--I've never heard anyone ever argue anything like that, ever. If that's going to be in the article, you're going to need some serious cites. Therefore, I changed it back to something like Andy first wrote (which still includes his supporting cite).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 21:25, 10 December 2008 (EST)

:: Your second point is fine, but your first point is simply not accurate. The overwhelming consensus is that the passage is not authentic, and all modern versions of the Bible confirm this as well as all or nearly all biblical scholars across the political spectrum. Our description will reflect that, and I'm changing it now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:34, 10 December 2008 (EST)
:::To avoid any contention this may cause, could either of you provide citings? That way we could be sure and add them to the article, rather than just asserting either way. --[[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 21:46, 10 December 2008 (EST)
::::Andy, can I ask how you're defining "authentic"? I know that the Catholic Church views this passage as canonical. And Liam, I'll try to find and post some of what I've been reading, but I'll do that tomorrow, as it is past my bedtime....--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:02, 10 December 2008 (EST)

::::Liam, numerous citations are in this entry and in the Essay in the footnote demonstrating the passage is not authentic, and by "authentic" I mean the obvious: it was not part of the Gospel as written by John and was inserted 100 years or more after that Gospel was completed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:23, 10 December 2008 (EST)

== Disappearing Hell ==

Andy, the word in the Greek is Hades. [http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&c=11&v=23&t=KJV#conc/23] [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:12, 11 December 2008 (EST)

: Wow, that's a great source you have there! The KJB translates "Hades" as Hell. That's what I thought it meant. Do you feel otherwise?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:17, 11 December 2008 (EST)

:: It is a good source. ;-) I just wish they'd also give translations for the Old Testament Septuagint.

:: The modern translations are just being literal when they translate is as Hades. I believe it's fair to translate it as Hell. Gehenna is usually translated as Hell more often because it has the direct reference to a burning fire. Gehenna would be referenced to appeal to the Jewish perspective and Hades for the Greek. Both cultures were prominent in Palestine at that time. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:17, 12 December 2008 (EST)

==HELP!==
I'm trying to put this link in from Biblelogos and the spam filter keeps stopping me! --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 20:02, 12 December 2008 (EST)

==Question==
What is the distinction between God and the Spirit of God? And why is it Liberal to use the term God rather than Spirit of God?--[[User:TuckerM|TuckerM]] 20:59, 15 December 2008 (EST)

: The distinction is between "wind" and "Spirit of God".--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 15:14, 19 December 2008 (EST)

== Ending of Mark's Gospel ==

Would it be a good idea to add the ending of Mark's Gospel? Some versions (eg the New English Bible I used for [[Essay:Jesus' emphasis on Heaven and Hell]] have a much longer concluding paragraph than eg the KJV.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 14:33, 19 December 2008 (EST)

: Yes, let's look at that. A new section would be welcome on this!--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 15:13, 19 December 2008 (EST)

==Significance of "The Past"==

I'm not sure what the significance is of there not being references to the past in the Gospels of the New Testament. Hopefully, an answer here can be added to the main page as part of the corresponding section there. I searched the KJV and found numerous references to the past in the Old Testament, which I doubt anyone considers secular. There are also references in Mark 10 to Jesus discussing the past in terms of time of Moses, and the nature of marriage since creation: "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female". What I'm failing to understand, then, is what the lack of references to "the past" in the New Testament is supposed to represent. If this can be clarified it will help improve the article. Thanks. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:07, 5 January 2009 (EST)

: The lack of reference is striking. I'm reluctant to expressly draw conclusions but it casts doubt on whether one's personal past exists in any meaningful way. The atheistic reliance on a personal past seems incorrect in light of this information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:13, 5 January 2009 (EST)

::Okay, that sheds some light, but it would help if you could point me to an essay or article that expands on what you mean by "the atheistic reliance on a personal past". Is that another way of saying that atheists rely too much on on their individual education and experience? If so, it doesn't make much sense because each of us, including conservatives like yourself, developed our worldview through a lifetime of learning and experience. The difference would be in ''where'' each of us draws our education from over time - school, family, ongoing readying and self-study, Church, etc., and the different experiences of our lives. If I'm missing your point please correct me. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:26, 5 January 2009 (EST)

::: I would like to mention that the KJV and NKJV both have "[http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/index.php?search=past&searchtype=phrase&version1=9&version4=50&spanbegin=1&spanend=73&startnumber=26 past]" in at least one Gospel. Note also that whoever wrote this passage used the wrong translations. They only used the ASV from Biblelogos but he attributes them to NASB, RSV, and lastly the HCSB.--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 15:42, 8 January 2009 (EST)

:::: The translations are correct and there is no mistake about the KJV and NKJV. Both use the term "past" in a trivial way and for a different meaning from its common substantive usage today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:24, 8 January 2009 (EST)

:::::You misunderstand what I said. All I stated was that the Biblelogos passages are all from the ASV. Hover over the boxes and you will see right next to the chapter and verse, ASV. I believe those were your edits, Andy. You simply need to recode them because they '''are''' from the wrong versions.

:::::I don't get where you are saying that the usages are different from modern ones. "and the time is now past", "And when the sabbath was past", "Now when the Sabbath was past". You could certainly argue, and I would agree that they do not represent the past as in someone's history but modern usages
:::::[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/past][http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/past]
:::::do take into account these particular meanings of "before the present". So to say that they use a "trivial" version is grossly incorrect in that you would be hard pressed to find a person who wouldn't come up with "before the present" in reference to the past.--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 22:52, 8 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: Lynus, you're referring to the use of Biblelogos in some browsers. I don't see it in my browser; the entry here does not reference it once; and no one is saying that the NASB (is that what you mean by "ASV"?) is all wrong.

:::::: Your point about the "past" is equally confused. "One's past" does not merely refer to time before the present. We're being substantive here and you're relying on a trivial usage that you found.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:16, 8 January 2009 (EST)

::::I went and loaded this page in Chrome, Firefox, and Internet Explorer and all 3 showed popup boxes when the mouse hovered over Luke 1:3 and right next to that text, still within the box are the letters ASV which stands for American Standard Version which you can see for yourself if you click "more" at the bottom of the box which takes you to Biblelogos. On the righthand side is the bible version that is being used which is the ASV but in the page boxes it says they refer to different versions.

::::My point in the past is actually coming from your prior comments concerning the usage of "past". You came up with a possible hypothesis that states, "I'm reluctant to expressly draw conclusions but it casts doubt on whether one's personal past exists in any meaningful way. The atheistic reliance on a personal past seems incorrect in light of this information." This implies that you mean "past" as in someones history which is what I referred to. The passages I brought up referred to "before the present" and these meanings are still in use today and I would argue are the primary meaning of the term today. Therefore they are not trivial and you are incorrect to say that the Bible uses versions of "past" that are no longer used today. I gave you dictionary links from websites you personally have cited and both show the "before the present" meaning of "past"--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 23:44, 8 January 2009 (EST)

== Original Greek ==

I think it would be of immense use and interest to many readers if the passages used as examples included the original Greek above them. In that way translations can be compared to the original text. Perhaps [http://www.codex-sinaiticus.net/en/ this site] will be of help. [[User:GillianP|GillianP]] 13:34, 10 January 2009 (EST)

First Amendment

2009-08-27T17:06:57Z

Suricou: Felt a bit odd to see 'Christian' in one sentence and 'Judaeo-Christian' in the next, refering to exactly the same thing.

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

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

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

== Conservative Interpretation ==
Liberals often focus on the "[[Establishment clause]]", arguing that because the federal government cannot endorse or establish a religion, the state must remain neutral, or even hostile towards religion. However, liberals often overlook the clause explicitly allowing for the free exercise of religion, also known as the [[Free Exercise Clause]]. Conservatives argue that this clause can be interpreted to allow much more leeway to the majority of religious Americans than liberals currently allow, and that it provides legislators with great flexibility in supporting the ends of Christian faith, as long as all other religious denominations are equally supported. The fact that [[Congress]] may pass no law establishing or respecting a particular Christian denomination provides the federal government with the freedom to support a variety of Christian ventures, notably the faith-based initiatives enacted under [[President Bush]].

{{US amendments}}

== Liberal Violations ==
American [[liberals]] have attempted to use the so-called [[Fairness Doctrine]] and political correctness in order to silence conservative viewpoints and to promote divisive views. These ideologically-motivated attempts to limit free speech are in direct violation of the First Amendment, specifically, and, by extension, the entire U.S. [[Constitution]].

[[Category:United States Constitution]]
[[Category:Church and State]]

Magic

2009-08-27T17:02:46Z

Suricou: Thought I'd throw in a bible verse. There are tons on this subject, but 22:18 is the most well-known.

'''Magic''' is the production of seemingly physically impossible acts perpetrated by a person or people.
Originally, magic was something that invoked evil or false supernatural powers, although today the word is also used of acts produced by sleight of hand and similar human cleverness.

Magic differs from a [[miracle]], which is a normally physically impossible act perpetrated by [[God]] (or, in the [[Catholic]] tradition, by a [[saint]] aided by God). Perpetrators of magic are called varyingly ''magicians'', ''[[mage]]s'', ''[[sorcerer]]s'', ''[[witch]]es'', ''hexers'', ''[[shaman]]s'', ''witch doctors'', or ''[[wizard_(occult)|wizard]]s''.

Common uses of magic have included spells to gain influence over government officials, to obtain the love of an unwilling person, to win legal cases, and to prevail in cases of uncertainty, for example in horse-racing or other forms of gambling. Rituals which attempt in general to harm another person of a protected or superior social status have also been a common form of magic. Magic has also been frequently used by businessmen to divert trade and customers away from their rivals.

The term 'magic' derives from the name of the [[priest]]ly caste of the [[Iranian]] religion, ''Magoi'' in [[Greek]], which at the time of the Graeco-Persian wars in the fifth century BC were commonly believed in Greece to have practiced religious rituals hostile to Greek Freedom and victory in the wars of that time. The word ''Magoi'' (μαγοι) is the one used in the [[Gospel of Matthew]] to describe the three ''[[Wise Men]]'' who come to visit Jesus at his birth.

==Magicians in Primitive Cultures==

In many [[pagan]] or [[polytheistic]] cultures, each village or region would have their own magician or shaman who would act as a [[medium]] to their gods. In times of crisis, such as [[drought]], [[pestilence]] or other [[natural disasters]], the shaman would cast spells to appease the gods to end the torment. Shamans would also sell love potions and good fortune powders in exchange for money, food or sexual favors. They would occasionally act as [[psychic]]s. They would also be the religious figure presiding over important events such as [[birth]], [[marriage]] and [[death]].

The magician or shaman would typically live alone outside the village, in order to preserve the magical mystique of his powers. In return for his protection, the village would collectively care for him (frequently shamans were men) by bringing him food daily. As the shaman became older, he would usually choose a young boy to train as his successor.

The bible contains several warnings against practicing magic, most famously in Exodus 22:18, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

==Use as a Pejorative Label==

The word "magic" has become somewhat synonymous with [[deception]]. As a result, by using the label "magic", a person can negatively characterize ritual practices or beliefs that he wishes to condemn. For example, the last Roman Emperor to practice the traditional Roman religion, [[Julian]], characterized the apostles [[Paul]] and [[Peter]] as the greatest magicians who ever lived, in an attempt to reduce the wonders of [[Christianity]] to mere wizardry. Because it invokes evil or false supernatural powers, Christians themselves are also mistrustful of magic; for example, in [[Dante's Inferno]], sorcerers are punished in the eighth circle of [[Hell]] - lower than [[tyrants]], [[usury|usurers]] and [[simony|simoniacs]].

The term magic was commonly used to describe ritual practices practiced outside of the control of state authorities, so that, for example, practitioners of [[healing]] and [[exorcism]] in Classical Greek culture who were not associated with the temples of a Greek city state were commonly, as by [[Plato]], criticized as magicians.

==Modern Stage Magic==

[[Hypnotism]] and slight of hand are often used to entertain by [[magician|stage magicians]]. Entertainers such as [[Derren Brown]] use a combination of psychology, manipulation and illusion to suspend the disbelief of an otherwise cynical audience. Many of these tricks appear to be paranormal in nature to one who does not understand the trick. Most magicians follow a "code" that dictates that they shall not reveal the secrets inherent in the profession.

Some, most notably the Masked Magician, have broken the code in the past, either for personal gain or to stop other magicians relying on the same old tricks.

[[Category:Religion]]

Matthew Shepard

2009-05-20T18:19:53Z

Suricou: This wording may look a little awkward, but it's more accurate as to the exact impact of the bill. The previous was slightly inaccurate, failing to show the importance of motivation.

'''Matthew Shepard''' (1976-1998) was an American college student from [[Wyoming]]. On October 7th, 1998, he was savagely beaten and robbed by two men, and died on October 12th. The killers were heavily involved in drugs and had met Shepard in a bar, giving him a ride afterwards.

[[Homosexual]] activists and the liberal [[media]] converted this drug-related killing <ref>Ben Fritzen, a former police detective, said, "Matthew Shepard's sexual preference or sexual orientation certainly wasn't the motive in the homicide... What it came down to, really, is drugs and money." [http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070810/EDITORIAL/108100014/1013/editorial Washington Times Editorial] 8/10/2007 </ref> into a [[hate crime]] even though the prosecution never described the killing as a hate crime.<ref name="courttv">http://www.courttv.com/archive/trials/mckinney/110399_verdict_ctv.html</ref> Activists claimed even before the details of the crime were known that the murder was due to anti-gay bias. Once the crime was discovered, Shepard's friends "were calling the County Attorney's office, they were calling the media and indicating Matthew Shepard is gay and we don't want the fact that he is gay to go unnoticed."<ref name="20/20" />

A misguided defense of one of the killers tried to make an issue of Shepard's [[homosexuality]] in order to employ a ""gay panic defense" based upon the defendant's alleged prior homosexual experiences, but this was rejected by the judge.<ref name="courttv"/> In fact, at least one of Shepard's killers claimed in an interview on ABC's "20/20" that money and drugs motivated their actions that night, not hatred of gays.<ref name="20/20">[http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=277685&page=1 20/20 News Story on Matthew Shepard]</ref> One of the girlfriends of the accused testified that they had planned to pretend to be homosexuals so that they could rob Shepard.<ref name="courttv"/>

Ever since Shepard's death it has been cited by homosexual activists to promote legislation to classify attacks motivated by the sexual orientation of the victim as [[hate crime]] that would be punished more severely than were it performed for other reasons. All legislation, both in Wyoming and on the national level, has failed, but under [[Democratic]] leadership the [[U.S. House of Representatives]] passed a hate crimes bill in 2007.<ref>http://www.reason.com/news/show/31008.html</ref> President [[George W. Bush]] had vowed to veto it.

On April 29, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a hate crime bill, which President [[Barack Obama]] has vowed to sign into law.

== External links ==
*[http://homes.thedailycamera.com/extra/shepard/ Matthew Shepard Murder] The Daily Camera.

==References==

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Shepard, Matthew}}

[[category:Americans]]

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-05-19T16:45:49Z

Suricou: /* Further suggestions */

==Couple of points==
* Interventionalism is an ugly kludge. The word should be "interventionism".
* Some of the terms are just not Conservative in '''any''' meaningful way. For example "design by committee" is used by both Liberals and Conservatives to describe the same problem.
* A word to describe Conservative concept may be worth calling a "Conservative word", but the mere fact that Conservatives like or dislike something doesn't mean the word is Liberal or Conservative. "Grassroots" isn't a Conservative word-- it's a word for local community activism, regardless of political bent. Ditto phonics. "Condescention" isn't a Liberal word, and it was originally, considered to be the Christian virtue of treating one's social inferiors as equals.
* I don't know anyone who denies the '''effectiveness''' of abstinence, Liberal, Conservative, or pink-and-green-striped.
[[User:Pepperlynn|Pepperlynn]] 17:48, 23 February 2009 (EST)

: Your first point is good, and I just changed it. You could have changed it yourself.

: Your second point is baseless. The conservative terms do reflect conservative insights. Sure, sometimes liberals use them. Sometimes atheists quote from the Bible too.

: Your third point again is misguided. Liberals say "community organizing" or "community activism." Conservatives say "grassroots". The concepts are different, though similar. Think about it more.

: Your fourth point shows you don't yet recognize the liberal viewpoint in its full deceit. Stick around here and you will. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:14, 23 February 2009 (EST)

==Some suggestions==
How about 'responsibility' (1737) and 'self-discipline' (1838)? [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 08:58, 10 January 2009 (EST)

: Superb ideas!!! Fantastic. Please add them. I have some that will add also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:19, 10 January 2009 (EST)

The list is good, but it doesn't say why they are ''conservative'' words. Perhaps something could be added related to this? Also, I have a suggestion: 'Rags to Riches'? *Hopeful* [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 11:13, 10 January 2009 (EST)

What are the criteria for "conservative words" (as distinct from "liberal words"?) [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 14:10, 10 January 2009 (EST)

As per "radar", I suggest "sonar" and "laser" (also acronyms, from similar domain), and "radio".

: (edit conflict) Words that express more precisely a conservative concept, or criticize more effectively a liberal characteristic. I'm going to insert Mike Salter's suggestions above, for example, and feel free to add your own.

: The distribution of the words as a function of time (and perhaps what was happening at the time) will become illuminating.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 10 January 2009 (EST)

: P.S. I don't see sonar, laser and radio as adding any conservative insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:: Understood. But "radar" does? [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 14:27, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::: Yes, because it was the first and it has broader use than your other example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:28, 10 January 2009 (EST)
::: I understand precedence going to the earliest word, but don't see how "radar" expresses more precisely a conservative concept, or criticizes more effectively a liberal characteristic. [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 14:33, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::: Your point is well-taken, and I agree this is borderline. However, I would still say that "radar" is a conservative concept/insight that is used effectively to convey a powerful conservative idea. Let's see what others think before deleting it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:57, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Well, RADAR was created in Britain just before WW2 - indeed, it was one of the reasons why Britain defeated the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain. So I'm not really sure why it's on a list of American Conservative words when Britain is highly liberal by comparison to America. Also, I added one - 'self-determination'. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 15:13, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Frankly, I'm confused. I normally think of "radar" (in the non-scientific sense) as meaning perception. "In the public's radar" means "something the public notices." Is there a different conservative conception of the word? [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 15:14, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: The inclusion of "radar" is debatable, but essentially it is a powerful self-defense mechanism conceptually analogous to the [[Reagan]]'s concept of [[SDI]] and the [[Second Amendment]], which [[liberals]] loathed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:49, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Here's two:
*pro-life ([http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pro-life 1976], though I'd prefer a better citation since the quote they have underneath is very anti-conservative.)
*normalcy (1920 in the Conservative sense, although dated back to 1857 in a mathematical sense. In a rare glimmer of unbiased truth on a political subject, the WP article even states: ''"Furthermore, the concept apparently encapsulated what Americans wanted, since he was elected president over his Democratic opponent James Cox by the greatest margin since the popular vote was introduced."'')
-[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 14:40, 10 January 2009 (EST)

: Fantastic suggestions, both of them. Very insightful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:57, 10 January 2009 (EST)

"elitism" (1947) - Seems to be used much more widely with this last election campaign. [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 15:26, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:Conversely, "populism" and "grassroots," which have formed an important basis of conservative politics since 1980 (earlier?) [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 17:17, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:: "grassroots" is a good suggestion, and I just added it. "populism" is not a term used particularly by conservatives; nor does it yield any conservative insight that I am aware of.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:40, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:::Seriously? Populism is used continually to refer to Reagan, and more recently, George Bush and Sarah Palin, as they seek to speak for the "people" as opposed to "elites." Strikes me as deeply conservative. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 17:44, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::: I don't doubt that liberals, the media, history books, and a diversity other people use the term. I doubt that any of the conservatives you mention, or any other conservatives, use the term much. It would be easy for you to prove me wrong, if I were wrong. I don't see anything conservative or insightful about the term. Majority rules? That's a mundane, almost meaningless concept at best. It begs the question of what the majority thinks at a particular time, which of course is very fickle.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Pat Buchanan calls himself a populist (though it notes Goldwater and Reagan would not use the term). [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n15_v47/ai_17161967] Rove calls Bush a populist on taxation [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905EFD61130F930A15752C0A9659C8B63]. I suppose there are two different concepts of the word: first, the classical "majority rules" idea which was rejected by the founding fathers in favor of checks and balances, and second, the modern term, conservative "populism," which refers to deriving your power from the people and relying on widely and deeply held conservative Christian values (example would be Palin's emphasis on the "real America" and blue collar workers) as opposed to deriving your power from intellectuals and media magnates. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:21, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Phyllis Schlafly refers to the Goldwater ideology as populist, and she'd know! [http://www.eagleforum.org/column/1998/june98/98-06-10.html] [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:31, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: The word ''populist'' has a far better tone than the word'' populism''. Similarly, the word ''fundamentalist'' has a far better tone than ''fundamentalism''. In political contexts, these are four completely different words. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:32, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: The problem comes when liberals attempt to use the terms as smears, and we stop using them as a result. I for one am proud to call myself a fundamentalist, and I know many other who feel the same way. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:35, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:::::: Me too. I take pride in saying I believe in fundamentalism. All would agree that ''-ism'' added to almost any word gives it a negative tone, yes? For example, "science + t + ism = scientism" and scientism always refers to a bad set of science-related ideas. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:42, 10 January 2009 (EST)
(Unindent) You have a point there. But now you have liberals calling muslim terrorists "fundamentalist muslims," to try to paint us with the same brush. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:54, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: The cites above are interesting but inconclusive. RickD's point in distinguishing "populist" from "populism" is superb. None of the above cites refer to "populism" in a conservative or even favorable light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Some suggestions off the top of my head: Truth, Integrity those these are quite general I think they contrast well with the article on liberal deceit. [[User:JamesDW|JamesDW]] 21:16, 11 January 2009 (EST)

==Pro-life==

Andy, do you have a cite for the earlier attestation of "pro-life" than the one I provided? I think it's great that you've found a date that predates [[Roe v. Wade]]. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 18:38, 10 January 2009 (EST)

==Atheism==
It's not an English word; it's Greek. The claim is hardly "Silly," ASchlafly. But given your other claims on the page, IE that "quote mining" A: is a word and B: Was never invented, I guess I can forgive you for thinking that. [[User:RaymondS|RaymondS]] 00:04, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Use of the Adjective "New" ==

Is "new" the right word to be using for terms that originated in the 1600's and 1700's? `I'm not saying they should be removed from the list, but referring to them as "new" implies that they were originated with the modern conservative movement. Maybe these should be referred to as ''Powerful'' or ''Significant'' conservative words, which makes their date of origin irrelevant. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:10, 11 January 2009 (EST)

==Origins==
I used the Oxford English Dictionary to correct the years of origin for some conservative words--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 12:45, 11 January 2009 (EST)

: You made a mess of the entry. For example, the date you inserted for "conservative" is not for the political sense used here. Now I have to clean up your mess ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:13, 11 January 2009 (EST)

::Then you should have made it clear you wished this to done in the current political context.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 13:20, 11 January 2009 (EST)

:::Be courteous, please. [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 13:22, 11 January 2009 (EST)

:: The atheism date may perhaps need changing too, in that case. In the 16th century it probably applied to matters in which there was no superficial need for God, or to people who had never been given a choice regarding the matter (for example, in the 16th century you could be burned for being a Protestant/Catholic or for witchcraft; imagine what they would do to a modern atheist!). Today, however, the term has been changed to mean one who has apparently ''voluntarily'' rejected God. I hope this helps; I also added racism to the list of Liberal words earlier. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:26, 11 January 2009 (EST)

==Spiritualism==
This may be a cultural/linguistic difference, but in the UK 'spiritualism' has a very specific meaning, of belief in communication with the dead. This was very popular in the early twentieth century, even Conan Doyle was a believer, but has since abated, though there are spiritualist 'churches' and mediums around. I would have said that 'spirituality' was the opposite of materialism, or 'religious feeling', 'religiosity', 'belief'. [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 13:10, 11 January 2009 (EST)
:Not a cultural difference, but a plurality of definitions. Spirit-conjuring charlatans like to use the term, but in a philosophic context, ti's opposed to materialism. A similar opposite is "idealism," which also a number of unrelated non-philosophical definitions. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 13:17, 11 January 2009 (EST)
::I suggested dualism, which seems the best fit to me. Materialism can be phrased as the believe that everything boils down to matter, there is only one ontological world/realm and that's the realm of matter. I don't think there is an exact opposite of that (well, perhaps believing in no worlds at all, but that's just stupid), there are just alternatives like dualism and pluralism which believe in resp. two or more realms of existence and of these two dualism is the strongest held position.
::Another kind of opposite would be idealism, the belief that there is only one ontological realm and that's the realm of the mind, but even this one is more of an alternative than an opposition and not a strong position either.
::Anyways, asking for an opposite of materialism isn't very realistic, since it all depends on what you deem an opposite. What's the opposite of "one"? Is it zero, minus one, any number greater than one or "eno"? It all depends on the context, and in the context of ontological philosophy dualism is the strongest opposition to materialism. --[[User:TBrouwer|TBrouwer]] 18:43, 11 January 2009 (EST)

::: The opposite would be a sensible equivalent of anti-materialism, or immaterialism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:18, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Reversion ==

I had to revert many of Saxplayer's dates, and some minor edits were lost in the reversion. Feel free to reinstate if their quality is improved (e.g., spell "tyranny" correctly, or give a date of origin for "racism"). Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:33, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Conservapedia ==

Surely this must be one of the newest words that should earn a place! --[[User:JamesDW|JamesDW]] 23:09, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Definition / Categorisation ==

I'm reluctant to edit the page, as it may be reverted, but I have a suggestion for the opening. The term "conservative word" isn't defined, and could have many possible meanings, such as "a word coined by a conservative", or "a word for a conservative principle", or "a word commonly used by conservatives, but not by liberals or other groups". The list being produced includes examples of all these. Perhaps the page should therefore be split into accordingly different sections: "Words coined by conservatives to describe liberal principles", "Words which encapsulate conservative principles", "terms and concepts invented by conservatives", and so on.--[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 10:53, 12 January 2009 (EST)

: No, I disagree. The meaning is obvious enough and splintering into different categories would obscure rather than enlighten. Your three suggested "different" meanings in fact lack any significant differences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:25, 12 January 2009 (EST)

:: I concur with ASchlafly. As well as obscuring the information, if I were to go onto a page and see in the contents box "Words coined by conservatives to describe liberal principles" or "Words which encapsulate conservative principles", I would quickly go and find another page. They hardly grab one's interest. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 11:42, 12 January 2009 (EST)

== New word for 'liberal'? ==

Does anyone have any suggestions for a more descriptive word for 'liberal'? I find 'liberal' to be an unsatisfactory description for liberals in the present day, since they tend to support large government and curbs on freedom. Perhaps an alternative word would better sum up the set of views that liberals hold?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 04:47, 3 February 2009 (EST)

--There are plenty of words to use in sarcasm, eg "lie-beral." Other than that, all that comes to mind is what some liberals call themselves: Progressive. [[User:Suricou|Suricou]] 12:33, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

==[[Fellow traveller]]==
Is this a conservative word? I think its from the early 1900s and originally described communist sympathizers who did not belong to a communist party. It also might be a good word for now to describe your "terrorist sympathizer" situation.

Other suggestions: design-by-committee and democide. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:53, 8 February 2009 (EST)

: All three are superb suggestions for this entry. Please add them with informative material, such as date of first use. Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 10 February 2009 (EST)

== New article -> New liberal words? ==

I believe we discussed this prior to the server move where we lost a weeks worth of edits. I remember creating a new article on [[New liberal words]], by removing that section from this article. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 14:24, 17 February 2009 (EST)

== Words? ==

Many of these are phrases not words. How long can a phrase get? Can Reagan's acceptance speech be listed as a new word? We need guidance on what a word is. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 10:41, 18 February 2009 (EST)

: What are you talking about? The vast majority ''are'' words. If you're genuinely so confused, then I doubt we can help you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:44, 18 February 2009 (EST)

:: "Terms" would probably be a more accurate description than "words". However I assume that most people will be able to work things out from the examples given. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 10:47, 18 February 2009 (EST)

:: "affirmative action" is two words, "Affirmative" and "Action", a full 43% of the listed "Words" are really phrases like this, not including the words with hyphens. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:38, 18 February 2009 (EST)

== Humanism ==

Since Humanists and Big Bang were originally pejorative terms should they be under the conservative list? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:38, 18 February 2009 (EST)

: No, because they are liberal terms now. And I doubt their origin was conservative, either. Fred Hoyle was not a conservative. He was a liberal who rejected the theory of evolution.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:27, 20 February 2009 (EST)

::Wasn't Hoyle ''ridiculing'' the idea of the [[Big Bang]]? I'll go take a look at the [[Fred Hoyle]] article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:30, 20 February 2009 (EST)

::: Yes, he was ridiculing it. But liberals adopted the term and made it popular.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 20 February 2009 (EST)

:: Evolution is a separate issue. they are only united by the fact that they both are in the standard naturalistic view of the origin of the universe. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 11:59, 22 February 2009 (EST)

== We should make a unifying convention or get rid of the divide ==

There are words that belong in both groups, that or we need a clear convention used through out. Communism is most often used by Conservatives, its a sore subject for liberals (you know, with the millions killed and mass poverty and all) and they rarely talk about it. I just want a better convention than "because Andy figures this way is best". --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:17, 23 February 2009 (EST)

== A new word? ==

Andy - "self determination"? It started around colonial times, so it could well be from the 1700's. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:45, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

: Date is 1670, and I'm sure it's all that conservative. Sometimes it is a euphemism for something harmful, like communism in Cuba. But thanks for the suggestion!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:12, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

:: You're very welcome - I made the suggestion because I felt that it is one of the reasons that America freed Iraq (a move opposed by liberals and supported by conservatives); so that the people there could hold fair elections, rather than suffer under Hussein's despotism. At the end of the day though, you probably know more than me on this subject, so I'll defer to your wisdom! [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:19, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

::: You raise interesting issues, but I think Saddam Hussein was also "self-determination" by Iraqis, right?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

::::(Edit conflict) Oh, and what about "survival of the fittest" for a liberal word? I noticed you mentioned it in your lecture. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:28, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
::::I think you're right about Saddam Hussein coming to power, but I also believe that towards the end of his reign many wanted him out, but were compelled to vote for him or else be punished (this is why I think the American system, with its two-term limit, is the best in the world). Mugabe is a good example of this; when he came to power, he was hailed as an African anti-oppression hero, and Zimbabwe was held up as an excellent example of post-colonialism. Now, however, his people want him out but are prevented from voting him out by the security forces (and when they did vote him out, it was declared illegal) and the world, including Africa, recognises him as a madman and a tyrant. In the meantime, the country is starving and in the grip of a cholera epidemic. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:28, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

"Natural selection" is a misleading euphemism, and the explanation discusses why. Also, it's improper to refer to creationists accepting a claim by evolutionists as though that somehow fully resolves the matter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:32, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Affirmative Action is a conservative word? ==

Why is "affirmative action" considered a conservative word?

It was first used in [http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal6/eo10925.htm JFK's Executive Order 10925] in 1961 (not 1965, as the essay states), and later "pushed" by LBJ.

Criticism of it is certainly a conservative concept, and it is now largely used critically by conservatives, but it hardly seems to qualify as a conservative "word" (or, more accurately, "term"). [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:08, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

: Good point and etymology. I'll move it to the "difficult to classify" section.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:26, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

== Politically correct ==

I can't help but notice that this term appears in both the 'New Conservative Terms' and 'New Liberal Terms' section (along with two different dates and explanations). Obviously, it can't be both! While it would appear that it was indeed coined by liberals to help their cause, I would say that its meaning has flipped and it now has negative, oppressive connotations. Perhaps the 'Hard to Classify' section? However, I leave it up the the judgement of an admin to sort this conundrum out. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:13, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Oh, and 'survival of the fittest' to go with natural selection for a liberal term? (Before I forget!) [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:15, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

: Fixed it per your suggestion, figuring that "politically correct" is used more by conservatives now. I don't think either side uses "survival of the fittest" and I think the euphemism "natural selection" covers that concept. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:42, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Can't say fairer than that. Thanks for the fix! [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:56, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

== Some further suggestions for words ==

Constructionist (1835-1845): Clearly, a valuable term when discussing the original intent of the Founding Fathers; equally clearly, a conservative one.

Capitalism (1850-1855): Goes almost without saying.

Big Government (unable to find a date for this one)

Right to Life (1970-1975): Pro-life is already on the list, but I think this is an important term, too, since it emphasizes that life is an essential right.

Moral Sense (1690-1700): Originally coined by Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury.

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:51, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

Virtual Thesaurus has an interesting essay,
[http://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/wordroutes/1786/ A Brief Glossary of Recession-Speak] which may contain words appropriate for this article. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 18:31, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

==Constant==
This word was in use a long time before 1832. It appears in the King James Bible, for example. [[User:Pepperlynn|Pepperlynn]] 23:12, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
:Also, what, exactly, makes "constant" a "Conservative Word"? I don't see it. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 00:12, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
:Oh, and a reference for Pepperlynn: 1 Chronicles 28:7. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 00:16, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

:: My dictionary says the noun form (something unchanging in value) originated in 1832. That's surprising, but it is what it is. That's what makes this an educational project.

:: I agree it's debatable how conservative this term is, but the notion of unchanging values seems conservative to me. You don't think so?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:18, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
:::The ideological attraction to unchanging values is conservative, but there is n conservative claim on the concept of constancy. Yours in Christ,--[[User:JWeatherman|JWeatherman]] 22:46, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

== Questions ==

This is unlikely to be a popular view, and I can guess the sort of comments that might very well be sent my way as a result of this, but I believe that this article is deeply flawed and is setting a dangerous precedent in the context of political discussion here.

The second paragraph begins by stating that conservatism will inevitably triumph over liberalism. Conservatism and liberalism as political groupings only exist relative to each other. If every single person were tol hold conservative or liberal views then they would not be named as such. It glosses over the dynamic nature of these terms themselves. 'Liberals' or 'Conservatives' today do not believe the same things they did 10 years ago let alone 100. The words mean different things and I think it is naive to assume that their current connotations will remain consistent. Not only are the words themselves dynamic in their meaning but I cannot possibly see how any aspect of human history would lead to the conclusion that one set of political beliefs will 'triumph' over another, at least for more than a few decades. History has been shaped by conflicting ideologies and it seems completely against human nature to imagine that the future will be any different in this sense.

Although me calling this a 'dangerous precedent' is rather melodramatic I'll admit, I just think that it is rather odd to be claiming aspects of the English language as being inherently 'liberal' or 'conservative', although there are a very few obvious words linked clearly with one or the other, most on this list are simply normal words that have been 'claimed'. The whole process of selecting words is highly subjective, and to measure the 'dominance' of one ideology over the other by such a means seems a very strange way to go about it. Though there are a few words that can clearly be directly linked with conservatism or liberalism, this article has, in my opinion, taken it to the extreme. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 21:14, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

: Robert, I don't know why you expect such a backlash, or why your comment is so long-winded. I agree that a few of the words on the list are debatable, but the vast majority plainly are conservative or liberal in nature. And a comparison of the two lists is enlightening: the conservative words are more insightful, helpful, and durable. That speaks volumes about where we're headed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:19, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

::I'm sorry if my initial comment seemed somewhat ill-mannered, but all too often such discussions can result in the term liberal being thrown around as an insult rather than sticking to the issue, though I'm glad to see that I have been proven wrong thus far. And sorry if my posts are rather long-winded, that's just how I write I'm afraid. I still think that the way conservatism and liberalism are defined differently across the world and throughout history makes the compiling of any such list a futile task. Making claims as to how insightful or helpful a word is, is of course highly subjective. A self-styled liberal would probably say the exact opposite to yourself on the matter which means the debate never really gets anywhere. And I think the question of 'where we're headed' is far to complex to be answered using a few highly subjective words as a guide. Your country has just gone from a relatively conservative to a relatively liberal administration, and my own country looks quite likely to go back to conservative leadership after 12 years of labour. If there is one thing that history has taught us, i think it's that nothing remains constant for long. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 22:45, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

::: That's your view, but the evidence is that the United States is growing more conservative just as the English language is. This entry shows that the creation of insightful new conservatives words is greater in quality and frequency than that of new liberal words. Over time, culture and politics must inexorably follow the lead of language. That doesn't mean a liberal politician won't use smoke-and-mirrors to be elected occasionally against the grain, but the flow dictated by language cannot be reversed. Ah, perhaps I've stumbled onto another new term: "smoke and mirrors"!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:12, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: Actually, Andy, I believe language turns more liberal over time. I agree with you regarding the new words, but like all languages, English does evolve. To describe the language as "conservative" would really require the number of words in it to be reducing, perhaps to something like 1984's Newspeak! Why do we have multiple words for the similar concepts? Plus, look at our syntax - it's nothing like the English of Shakespeare's time. [[User:Andyt|Andyt]] 17:25, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

::::: English adds new words. If you call that evolution, so be it. Others call it growth.

::::: You're welcome to disagree with the direction of English's growth, but the evidence in this entry is overwhelming that English is becoming more conservative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:33, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Besides my main point, I would also counter by suggesting that it is language that follows the lead of culture, not the other way around. The language is of course part of the culture, but new words are only likely to come into existence when they have something to describe in the first place. It is cultural shifts that lead to the coining of new words and phrases and some become so well established that they enter the common vocabulary. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 23:29, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

== Big bang ==

You quite sure about that being used to mock the suggestion of how the universe was formed? I was under the impression that it was a scientific theory proposed by a few physicists, not a liberal word used to mock creationism. --[[User:Jack456|Jack456]] 17:40, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

-- You're both wrong. When the big bang theory was first introduced, 'Big Bang' was a term used by scientists to mock what seemed at first like a ridiculous idea - leading scientific knowledge at the time was that the universe had no origin, but was sufficiently stable to have existed indefinatly. But when the evidence for the big bang theory became so compelling it replaced the old steady-state model, the name stuck, and ceased to be an insult. [[User:Suricou|Suricou]] 12:37, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

==New word==
I've thought of a word to describe people who live in this (or any) country and ''take advantage of it'', but spend all or most of their effort ''criticizing or demeaning'' it: misopatria (hatred of one's country), or misopatrist (one who hates his country). What do you think? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:00, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

:I like it a lot! I think I'll continue to use "traitor", though, at least for now. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:10, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
::No thanks. Traitor is much more simple. --[[User:Jack456|Jack456]] 18:13, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Thanks BHarlan! Yes parodist Jack, we strive for simple words (hey, sounds like something called ''newspeak!'' [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 19:05, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

"Traitor" means something slightly different from what Addison suggests. Addison, how about adding your suggestion to the table in the entry that seeks a word for the concept? You're right that it describes millions of malcontents.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:48, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

== Electricity ==

Electricity was a word created by William Gilbert 1646, and was researched by many great scientists, such as Robert Boyle, [[Benjamin Franklin]] and [[Thomas Edison]]. I suggest it as a conservative word because it has allowed many great technological innovations through the ages, but is untainted by association with theories that carry a political agenda.

:Interesting suggestion, but I don't see enough [[conservative]] insight in the largely neutral "electricity" term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:24, 26 April 2009 (EDT)
::I see your point, though electricity is currently opposed by many 'green' liberals who try to interfere with electricity production (see [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7447371.stm here]).

==Relativism==
Are you sure that relativism is a conservative term? More often, the term is preached against by conservatives. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 15:45, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

: It's a word created to criticize. The "-ism" ending is tell-tale sign of being pejorative. Examples of "isms" created or used by liberals to criticize are "isolationism" and "protectionism" and "creationism".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:23, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

== Morally bankrupt ==

Thanks, Jpatt, for the insight!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:23, 28 April 2009 (EDT)
 Pat Tillman was morally bankrupt?--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 12:49, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

== Dramacast? ==

Under your words not yet recognized, you include the word "dramacast" to decribe what happens when "mainstream media presents drama fluff stories as news, e.g. 20/20 - Dateline."

I've never come across the word "dramacast," and a google search brings up no hits. However, doesn't "infotainment" mean the same thing? Has that made it into the dictionary yet? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:25, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

: Good point. The "dramacast" addition was not by me, and you can insert a better substitute such as "infotainment" or perhaps "docudrama". Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:47, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

::Just did. Infotainment seems closer to the concept than "docudrama," which always seems to indicate something longer. It might be good as its own separate entry. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 10:32, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

== Closed Shop ==
You might like to include Closed shop. -[[User:CGoodwin|CGoodwin]]

: Superb suggestion. Will add now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:55, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

== Suggestion ==

From the 19th century, I suggest 'scrooge' - a miser who, despite wealth, does not give to charity or allow wealth to circulate and benefit the wider economy. Clearly this orginates from ''A Christmas Carol'', which was written in that century.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:45, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Superb suggestion. Please add with a precise date, if you have one. I'm also working on a few possibilities for 1700s and 1800s to perfect the geometric fit, but yours is better than mine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:15, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

::It looks like the novella was published in 1843 [http://www.stormfax.com/dickens.htm] but I don't have a citation for the first general use of 'scrooge' to describe any miser. I know the book was an immediate success when it was published, so it can't have been long after. Perhaps you have a bigger dictionary than I do?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 19:42, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== Question ==

Just out of curiosity, what exactly makes a word conservative or liberal? For example, liberals often practice double standard far more than conservatives, so wouldn't that make it a liberal word? Same with hysteria, since most media hype is in liberal news sources like MSNBC and CNN. [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 18:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:Welcome to Conservapedia, home of Patriots. Take hysteria, studies will prove people without God are less grounded, more frequent to have off-the-wall behavior patterns, gradually regressing in communication with others. My conclusion is a sane person (grounded in the Lord, conservative by default) would have created the diagnosis, hence crafted the word hysteria. That is just one example, my 2 cents anyway, comprehend?

:If you do Merriam-Webster dictionary search, you are likely to find the dates and further research the origin, its like word salad.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:23, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
::So it's less words that apply to conservatives and more words coined by the conservatives themselves? [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 19:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:::Conservative terms are crafted, coined (growth rate) faster than liberal words. This shows that generations have been conservative while liberal crafted words have spurts of growth. Example, 1960 ideas such as freedom of mind drug talk, explore feminism, tune-in drop-out of society became associated with that generation in disproportane numbers. We may be now in such a new phase of liberalism; tax, big government, empathy legislation, gay rights, environmentalism- which will give way to the next sustained period of conservatism.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:30, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested word ==

Could I suggest Astroturfing as a conservative word? It was coined around 1998 as a response to false grassroot movements by Microsoft, but can refer to political movements as well. I consider it conservative because it is a good word for pinpointing deceit. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/astroturfing] [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 21:22, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Haven't heard of that term in politics, so I'm not sure it qualifies yet. The word has to catch on a bit to earn its way in this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:41, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== No capitalism? ==

I was rather shocked to notice that capitalism (circa 1850) isn't included as a new conservative word. Was this intentional? I would also suggest constructionist (circa 1835) as another conservative word of value.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:58, 15 May 2009 (EDT)

== A few more suggestions (one from 1700's) ==

According to Random House, "republican" has its origin around 1685...close, but not quite in the time period you're looking for. "Evangelism" is 1620-1630, and "missionary" is 1635-1645.

Aha! What about "states' rights," circa 1790? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:11, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

: "Republican" is a good suggestion, but the term is associated more with the Republican Party than with conservatism. There are arguments that conservatism is populist in nature. "Isms" are usually derogatory; missionary requires more discussion.

:"States rights" adds nothing conservative to "federalism", a 1789 term that we already include. Liberals invokes "states rights" often also.

:I'll add all four terms as difficult to classify, pending further discussion. Thanks but we're still looking for a a 1700s term to perfect the geometric fit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

== A few more possibilities from the 1700's ==

economics (1785)
division of labor (1770)
patriotism (1720)--I know "isms" are often pejorative, but surely this one isn't (regardless of how some people might try to malign it?)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:00, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

:patriotism has been on the list. Division of labor is good. Economics can be liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:56, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

== Further suggestions ==

Two suggestions from Gulliver's Travels, which was published in 1726 and immediately became popular:
* Lilliputian - small-minded or trivial, used to satirise people who are preoccupied with petty squabbles.
* Yahoo - a person who embodies all the worst human characteristics because of a lack of moral or civilising influences.

--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:08, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: Fascinating suggestions! I think Lilliputian is the better of the two. "Yahoo" does not seem to have retained its original meaning, perhaps due to yahoo.com's use of the term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:11, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: I agree that Lilliputian is more relevant today. It strikes me as an excellent way to describe many people's obsessions with gossip, people's personal lives, celebrities, entertainment etc while they ignore far more important concerns. It's actually amazing how much of what Swift wrote is even more relevant today than it was when he wrote it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:51, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

::: According to M-W, ''yahoo'' as a noun dates to Swift's book in 1726; ''yahoo'' as an interjection (synonym for "yippee") dates to 1870. But I disagree with both as conservative terms: ''Gulliver'' is extremely rooted in the attitudes of the [[Enlightenment]] and the glorification of Reason above all else - hardly conservative IMO. (Yes, I know that the Enlightenment produced some conservative ideas also.) [[User:Carillonneur|Carillonneur]] 12:34, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:Carillonner has a point. Swift is regarded as one of the greatest satirists of all time - I am personally a fan of him. You shouldn't adopt his words unless you have read the book from which they come, and understand exactly what they intend to mean. The entire country of Lilliput was a criticism of the trivialities that dominated british and european politics - much of which is lost on a modern reader, unfamiliar with the subject. That the people were tiny was but incidential to the real significence of them, the way in which they would turn the tiniest event or question into a source of great conflict or debate while entirely ignoring far more serious issues, culminating in a war fought over which way up an egg should be placed in an eggcup before breaking it open. If you're looking for a section good for criticising liberals with, I suggest the third country visited by Gulliver: Laputa. The floating island satirises scientific and artistic accomplishment performed for it's own sake without thought to practical benefits, and a community of academics who posess vast knowledge of subjects entirely useless to anyone else. [[User:Suricou|Suricou]] 12:45, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-05-19T16:37:17Z

Suricou: /* Big bang */

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-05-19T16:33:50Z

Suricou: /* New word for 'liberal'? */

==Couple of points==
* Interventionalism is an ugly kludge. The word should be "interventionism".
* Some of the terms are just not Conservative in '''any''' meaningful way. For example "design by committee" is used by both Liberals and Conservatives to describe the same problem.
* A word to describe Conservative concept may be worth calling a "Conservative word", but the mere fact that Conservatives like or dislike something doesn't mean the word is Liberal or Conservative. "Grassroots" isn't a Conservative word-- it's a word for local community activism, regardless of political bent. Ditto phonics. "Condescention" isn't a Liberal word, and it was originally, considered to be the Christian virtue of treating one's social inferiors as equals.
* I don't know anyone who denies the '''effectiveness''' of abstinence, Liberal, Conservative, or pink-and-green-striped.
[[User:Pepperlynn|Pepperlynn]] 17:48, 23 February 2009 (EST)

: Your first point is good, and I just changed it. You could have changed it yourself.

: Your second point is baseless. The conservative terms do reflect conservative insights. Sure, sometimes liberals use them. Sometimes atheists quote from the Bible too.

: Your third point again is misguided. Liberals say "community organizing" or "community activism." Conservatives say "grassroots". The concepts are different, though similar. Think about it more.

: Your fourth point shows you don't yet recognize the liberal viewpoint in its full deceit. Stick around here and you will. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:14, 23 February 2009 (EST)

==Some suggestions==
How about 'responsibility' (1737) and 'self-discipline' (1838)? [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 08:58, 10 January 2009 (EST)

: Superb ideas!!! Fantastic. Please add them. I have some that will add also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:19, 10 January 2009 (EST)

The list is good, but it doesn't say why they are ''conservative'' words. Perhaps something could be added related to this? Also, I have a suggestion: 'Rags to Riches'? *Hopeful* [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 11:13, 10 January 2009 (EST)

What are the criteria for "conservative words" (as distinct from "liberal words"?) [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 14:10, 10 January 2009 (EST)

As per "radar", I suggest "sonar" and "laser" (also acronyms, from similar domain), and "radio".

: (edit conflict) Words that express more precisely a conservative concept, or criticize more effectively a liberal characteristic. I'm going to insert Mike Salter's suggestions above, for example, and feel free to add your own.

: The distribution of the words as a function of time (and perhaps what was happening at the time) will become illuminating.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 10 January 2009 (EST)

: P.S. I don't see sonar, laser and radio as adding any conservative insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:: Understood. But "radar" does? [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 14:27, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::: Yes, because it was the first and it has broader use than your other example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:28, 10 January 2009 (EST)
::: I understand precedence going to the earliest word, but don't see how "radar" expresses more precisely a conservative concept, or criticizes more effectively a liberal characteristic. [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 14:33, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::: Your point is well-taken, and I agree this is borderline. However, I would still say that "radar" is a conservative concept/insight that is used effectively to convey a powerful conservative idea. Let's see what others think before deleting it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:57, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Well, RADAR was created in Britain just before WW2 - indeed, it was one of the reasons why Britain defeated the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain. So I'm not really sure why it's on a list of American Conservative words when Britain is highly liberal by comparison to America. Also, I added one - 'self-determination'. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 15:13, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Frankly, I'm confused. I normally think of "radar" (in the non-scientific sense) as meaning perception. "In the public's radar" means "something the public notices." Is there a different conservative conception of the word? [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 15:14, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: The inclusion of "radar" is debatable, but essentially it is a powerful self-defense mechanism conceptually analogous to the [[Reagan]]'s concept of [[SDI]] and the [[Second Amendment]], which [[liberals]] loathed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:49, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Here's two:
*pro-life ([http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pro-life 1976], though I'd prefer a better citation since the quote they have underneath is very anti-conservative.)
*normalcy (1920 in the Conservative sense, although dated back to 1857 in a mathematical sense. In a rare glimmer of unbiased truth on a political subject, the WP article even states: ''"Furthermore, the concept apparently encapsulated what Americans wanted, since he was elected president over his Democratic opponent James Cox by the greatest margin since the popular vote was introduced."'')
-[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 14:40, 10 January 2009 (EST)

: Fantastic suggestions, both of them. Very insightful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:57, 10 January 2009 (EST)

"elitism" (1947) - Seems to be used much more widely with this last election campaign. [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 15:26, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:Conversely, "populism" and "grassroots," which have formed an important basis of conservative politics since 1980 (earlier?) [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 17:17, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:: "grassroots" is a good suggestion, and I just added it. "populism" is not a term used particularly by conservatives; nor does it yield any conservative insight that I am aware of.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:40, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:::Seriously? Populism is used continually to refer to Reagan, and more recently, George Bush and Sarah Palin, as they seek to speak for the "people" as opposed to "elites." Strikes me as deeply conservative. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 17:44, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::: I don't doubt that liberals, the media, history books, and a diversity other people use the term. I doubt that any of the conservatives you mention, or any other conservatives, use the term much. It would be easy for you to prove me wrong, if I were wrong. I don't see anything conservative or insightful about the term. Majority rules? That's a mundane, almost meaningless concept at best. It begs the question of what the majority thinks at a particular time, which of course is very fickle.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Pat Buchanan calls himself a populist (though it notes Goldwater and Reagan would not use the term). [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n15_v47/ai_17161967] Rove calls Bush a populist on taxation [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905EFD61130F930A15752C0A9659C8B63]. I suppose there are two different concepts of the word: first, the classical "majority rules" idea which was rejected by the founding fathers in favor of checks and balances, and second, the modern term, conservative "populism," which refers to deriving your power from the people and relying on widely and deeply held conservative Christian values (example would be Palin's emphasis on the "real America" and blue collar workers) as opposed to deriving your power from intellectuals and media magnates. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:21, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Phyllis Schlafly refers to the Goldwater ideology as populist, and she'd know! [http://www.eagleforum.org/column/1998/june98/98-06-10.html] [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:31, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: The word ''populist'' has a far better tone than the word'' populism''. Similarly, the word ''fundamentalist'' has a far better tone than ''fundamentalism''. In political contexts, these are four completely different words. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:32, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: The problem comes when liberals attempt to use the terms as smears, and we stop using them as a result. I for one am proud to call myself a fundamentalist, and I know many other who feel the same way. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:35, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:::::: Me too. I take pride in saying I believe in fundamentalism. All would agree that ''-ism'' added to almost any word gives it a negative tone, yes? For example, "science + t + ism = scientism" and scientism always refers to a bad set of science-related ideas. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:42, 10 January 2009 (EST)
(Unindent) You have a point there. But now you have liberals calling muslim terrorists "fundamentalist muslims," to try to paint us with the same brush. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:54, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: The cites above are interesting but inconclusive. RickD's point in distinguishing "populist" from "populism" is superb. None of the above cites refer to "populism" in a conservative or even favorable light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Some suggestions off the top of my head: Truth, Integrity those these are quite general I think they contrast well with the article on liberal deceit. [[User:JamesDW|JamesDW]] 21:16, 11 January 2009 (EST)

==Pro-life==

Andy, do you have a cite for the earlier attestation of "pro-life" than the one I provided? I think it's great that you've found a date that predates [[Roe v. Wade]]. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 18:38, 10 January 2009 (EST)

==Atheism==
It's not an English word; it's Greek. The claim is hardly "Silly," ASchlafly. But given your other claims on the page, IE that "quote mining" A: is a word and B: Was never invented, I guess I can forgive you for thinking that. [[User:RaymondS|RaymondS]] 00:04, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Use of the Adjective "New" ==

Is "new" the right word to be using for terms that originated in the 1600's and 1700's? `I'm not saying they should be removed from the list, but referring to them as "new" implies that they were originated with the modern conservative movement. Maybe these should be referred to as ''Powerful'' or ''Significant'' conservative words, which makes their date of origin irrelevant. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:10, 11 January 2009 (EST)

==Origins==
I used the Oxford English Dictionary to correct the years of origin for some conservative words--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 12:45, 11 January 2009 (EST)

: You made a mess of the entry. For example, the date you inserted for "conservative" is not for the political sense used here. Now I have to clean up your mess ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:13, 11 January 2009 (EST)

::Then you should have made it clear you wished this to done in the current political context.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 13:20, 11 January 2009 (EST)

:::Be courteous, please. [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 13:22, 11 January 2009 (EST)

:: The atheism date may perhaps need changing too, in that case. In the 16th century it probably applied to matters in which there was no superficial need for God, or to people who had never been given a choice regarding the matter (for example, in the 16th century you could be burned for being a Protestant/Catholic or for witchcraft; imagine what they would do to a modern atheist!). Today, however, the term has been changed to mean one who has apparently ''voluntarily'' rejected God. I hope this helps; I also added racism to the list of Liberal words earlier. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:26, 11 January 2009 (EST)

==Spiritualism==
This may be a cultural/linguistic difference, but in the UK 'spiritualism' has a very specific meaning, of belief in communication with the dead. This was very popular in the early twentieth century, even Conan Doyle was a believer, but has since abated, though there are spiritualist 'churches' and mediums around. I would have said that 'spirituality' was the opposite of materialism, or 'religious feeling', 'religiosity', 'belief'. [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 13:10, 11 January 2009 (EST)
:Not a cultural difference, but a plurality of definitions. Spirit-conjuring charlatans like to use the term, but in a philosophic context, ti's opposed to materialism. A similar opposite is "idealism," which also a number of unrelated non-philosophical definitions. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 13:17, 11 January 2009 (EST)
::I suggested dualism, which seems the best fit to me. Materialism can be phrased as the believe that everything boils down to matter, there is only one ontological world/realm and that's the realm of matter. I don't think there is an exact opposite of that (well, perhaps believing in no worlds at all, but that's just stupid), there are just alternatives like dualism and pluralism which believe in resp. two or more realms of existence and of these two dualism is the strongest held position.
::Another kind of opposite would be idealism, the belief that there is only one ontological realm and that's the realm of the mind, but even this one is more of an alternative than an opposition and not a strong position either.
::Anyways, asking for an opposite of materialism isn't very realistic, since it all depends on what you deem an opposite. What's the opposite of "one"? Is it zero, minus one, any number greater than one or "eno"? It all depends on the context, and in the context of ontological philosophy dualism is the strongest opposition to materialism. --[[User:TBrouwer|TBrouwer]] 18:43, 11 January 2009 (EST)

::: The opposite would be a sensible equivalent of anti-materialism, or immaterialism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:18, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Reversion ==

I had to revert many of Saxplayer's dates, and some minor edits were lost in the reversion. Feel free to reinstate if their quality is improved (e.g., spell "tyranny" correctly, or give a date of origin for "racism"). Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:33, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Conservapedia ==

Surely this must be one of the newest words that should earn a place! --[[User:JamesDW|JamesDW]] 23:09, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Definition / Categorisation ==

I'm reluctant to edit the page, as it may be reverted, but I have a suggestion for the opening. The term "conservative word" isn't defined, and could have many possible meanings, such as "a word coined by a conservative", or "a word for a conservative principle", or "a word commonly used by conservatives, but not by liberals or other groups". The list being produced includes examples of all these. Perhaps the page should therefore be split into accordingly different sections: "Words coined by conservatives to describe liberal principles", "Words which encapsulate conservative principles", "terms and concepts invented by conservatives", and so on.--[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 10:53, 12 January 2009 (EST)

: No, I disagree. The meaning is obvious enough and splintering into different categories would obscure rather than enlighten. Your three suggested "different" meanings in fact lack any significant differences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:25, 12 January 2009 (EST)

:: I concur with ASchlafly. As well as obscuring the information, if I were to go onto a page and see in the contents box "Words coined by conservatives to describe liberal principles" or "Words which encapsulate conservative principles", I would quickly go and find another page. They hardly grab one's interest. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 11:42, 12 January 2009 (EST)

== New word for 'liberal'? ==

Does anyone have any suggestions for a more descriptive word for 'liberal'? I find 'liberal' to be an unsatisfactory description for liberals in the present day, since they tend to support large government and curbs on freedom. Perhaps an alternative word would better sum up the set of views that liberals hold?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 04:47, 3 February 2009 (EST)

--There are plenty of words to use in sarcasm, eg "lie-beral." Other than that, all that comes to mind is what some liberals call themselves: Progressive. [[User:Suricou|Suricou]] 12:33, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

==[[Fellow traveller]]==
Is this a conservative word? I think its from the early 1900s and originally described communist sympathizers who did not belong to a communist party. It also might be a good word for now to describe your "terrorist sympathizer" situation.

Other suggestions: design-by-committee and democide. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:53, 8 February 2009 (EST)

: All three are superb suggestions for this entry. Please add them with informative material, such as date of first use. Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 10 February 2009 (EST)

== New article -> New liberal words? ==

I believe we discussed this prior to the server move where we lost a weeks worth of edits. I remember creating a new article on [[New liberal words]], by removing that section from this article. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 14:24, 17 February 2009 (EST)

== Words? ==

Many of these are phrases not words. How long can a phrase get? Can Reagan's acceptance speech be listed as a new word? We need guidance on what a word is. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 10:41, 18 February 2009 (EST)

: What are you talking about? The vast majority ''are'' words. If you're genuinely so confused, then I doubt we can help you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:44, 18 February 2009 (EST)

:: "Terms" would probably be a more accurate description than "words". However I assume that most people will be able to work things out from the examples given. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 10:47, 18 February 2009 (EST)

:: "affirmative action" is two words, "Affirmative" and "Action", a full 43% of the listed "Words" are really phrases like this, not including the words with hyphens. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:38, 18 February 2009 (EST)

== Humanism ==

Since Humanists and Big Bang were originally pejorative terms should they be under the conservative list? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:38, 18 February 2009 (EST)

: No, because they are liberal terms now. And I doubt their origin was conservative, either. Fred Hoyle was not a conservative. He was a liberal who rejected the theory of evolution.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:27, 20 February 2009 (EST)

::Wasn't Hoyle ''ridiculing'' the idea of the [[Big Bang]]? I'll go take a look at the [[Fred Hoyle]] article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:30, 20 February 2009 (EST)

::: Yes, he was ridiculing it. But liberals adopted the term and made it popular.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 20 February 2009 (EST)

:: Evolution is a separate issue. they are only united by the fact that they both are in the standard naturalistic view of the origin of the universe. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 11:59, 22 February 2009 (EST)

== We should make a unifying convention or get rid of the divide ==

There are words that belong in both groups, that or we need a clear convention used through out. Communism is most often used by Conservatives, its a sore subject for liberals (you know, with the millions killed and mass poverty and all) and they rarely talk about it. I just want a better convention than "because Andy figures this way is best". --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:17, 23 February 2009 (EST)

== A new word? ==

Andy - "self determination"? It started around colonial times, so it could well be from the 1700's. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:45, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

: Date is 1670, and I'm sure it's all that conservative. Sometimes it is a euphemism for something harmful, like communism in Cuba. But thanks for the suggestion!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:12, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

:: You're very welcome - I made the suggestion because I felt that it is one of the reasons that America freed Iraq (a move opposed by liberals and supported by conservatives); so that the people there could hold fair elections, rather than suffer under Hussein's despotism. At the end of the day though, you probably know more than me on this subject, so I'll defer to your wisdom! [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:19, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

::: You raise interesting issues, but I think Saddam Hussein was also "self-determination" by Iraqis, right?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

::::(Edit conflict) Oh, and what about "survival of the fittest" for a liberal word? I noticed you mentioned it in your lecture. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:28, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
::::I think you're right about Saddam Hussein coming to power, but I also believe that towards the end of his reign many wanted him out, but were compelled to vote for him or else be punished (this is why I think the American system, with its two-term limit, is the best in the world). Mugabe is a good example of this; when he came to power, he was hailed as an African anti-oppression hero, and Zimbabwe was held up as an excellent example of post-colonialism. Now, however, his people want him out but are prevented from voting him out by the security forces (and when they did vote him out, it was declared illegal) and the world, including Africa, recognises him as a madman and a tyrant. In the meantime, the country is starving and in the grip of a cholera epidemic. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:28, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

"Natural selection" is a misleading euphemism, and the explanation discusses why. Also, it's improper to refer to creationists accepting a claim by evolutionists as though that somehow fully resolves the matter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:32, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Affirmative Action is a conservative word? ==

Why is "affirmative action" considered a conservative word?

It was first used in [http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal6/eo10925.htm JFK's Executive Order 10925] in 1961 (not 1965, as the essay states), and later "pushed" by LBJ.

Criticism of it is certainly a conservative concept, and it is now largely used critically by conservatives, but it hardly seems to qualify as a conservative "word" (or, more accurately, "term"). [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:08, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

: Good point and etymology. I'll move it to the "difficult to classify" section.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:26, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

== Politically correct ==

I can't help but notice that this term appears in both the 'New Conservative Terms' and 'New Liberal Terms' section (along with two different dates and explanations). Obviously, it can't be both! While it would appear that it was indeed coined by liberals to help their cause, I would say that its meaning has flipped and it now has negative, oppressive connotations. Perhaps the 'Hard to Classify' section? However, I leave it up the the judgement of an admin to sort this conundrum out. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:13, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Oh, and 'survival of the fittest' to go with natural selection for a liberal term? (Before I forget!) [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:15, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

: Fixed it per your suggestion, figuring that "politically correct" is used more by conservatives now. I don't think either side uses "survival of the fittest" and I think the euphemism "natural selection" covers that concept. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:42, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Can't say fairer than that. Thanks for the fix! [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:56, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

== Some further suggestions for words ==

Constructionist (1835-1845): Clearly, a valuable term when discussing the original intent of the Founding Fathers; equally clearly, a conservative one.

Capitalism (1850-1855): Goes almost without saying.

Big Government (unable to find a date for this one)

Right to Life (1970-1975): Pro-life is already on the list, but I think this is an important term, too, since it emphasizes that life is an essential right.

Moral Sense (1690-1700): Originally coined by Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury.

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:51, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

Virtual Thesaurus has an interesting essay,
[http://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/wordroutes/1786/ A Brief Glossary of Recession-Speak] which may contain words appropriate for this article. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 18:31, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

==Constant==
This word was in use a long time before 1832. It appears in the King James Bible, for example. [[User:Pepperlynn|Pepperlynn]] 23:12, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
:Also, what, exactly, makes "constant" a "Conservative Word"? I don't see it. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 00:12, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
:Oh, and a reference for Pepperlynn: 1 Chronicles 28:7. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 00:16, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

:: My dictionary says the noun form (something unchanging in value) originated in 1832. That's surprising, but it is what it is. That's what makes this an educational project.

:: I agree it's debatable how conservative this term is, but the notion of unchanging values seems conservative to me. You don't think so?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:18, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
:::The ideological attraction to unchanging values is conservative, but there is n conservative claim on the concept of constancy. Yours in Christ,--[[User:JWeatherman|JWeatherman]] 22:46, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

== Questions ==

This is unlikely to be a popular view, and I can guess the sort of comments that might very well be sent my way as a result of this, but I believe that this article is deeply flawed and is setting a dangerous precedent in the context of political discussion here.

The second paragraph begins by stating that conservatism will inevitably triumph over liberalism. Conservatism and liberalism as political groupings only exist relative to each other. If every single person were tol hold conservative or liberal views then they would not be named as such. It glosses over the dynamic nature of these terms themselves. 'Liberals' or 'Conservatives' today do not believe the same things they did 10 years ago let alone 100. The words mean different things and I think it is naive to assume that their current connotations will remain consistent. Not only are the words themselves dynamic in their meaning but I cannot possibly see how any aspect of human history would lead to the conclusion that one set of political beliefs will 'triumph' over another, at least for more than a few decades. History has been shaped by conflicting ideologies and it seems completely against human nature to imagine that the future will be any different in this sense.

Although me calling this a 'dangerous precedent' is rather melodramatic I'll admit, I just think that it is rather odd to be claiming aspects of the English language as being inherently 'liberal' or 'conservative', although there are a very few obvious words linked clearly with one or the other, most on this list are simply normal words that have been 'claimed'. The whole process of selecting words is highly subjective, and to measure the 'dominance' of one ideology over the other by such a means seems a very strange way to go about it. Though there are a few words that can clearly be directly linked with conservatism or liberalism, this article has, in my opinion, taken it to the extreme. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 21:14, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

: Robert, I don't know why you expect such a backlash, or why your comment is so long-winded. I agree that a few of the words on the list are debatable, but the vast majority plainly are conservative or liberal in nature. And a comparison of the two lists is enlightening: the conservative words are more insightful, helpful, and durable. That speaks volumes about where we're headed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:19, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

::I'm sorry if my initial comment seemed somewhat ill-mannered, but all too often such discussions can result in the term liberal being thrown around as an insult rather than sticking to the issue, though I'm glad to see that I have been proven wrong thus far. And sorry if my posts are rather long-winded, that's just how I write I'm afraid. I still think that the way conservatism and liberalism are defined differently across the world and throughout history makes the compiling of any such list a futile task. Making claims as to how insightful or helpful a word is, is of course highly subjective. A self-styled liberal would probably say the exact opposite to yourself on the matter which means the debate never really gets anywhere. And I think the question of 'where we're headed' is far to complex to be answered using a few highly subjective words as a guide. Your country has just gone from a relatively conservative to a relatively liberal administration, and my own country looks quite likely to go back to conservative leadership after 12 years of labour. If there is one thing that history has taught us, i think it's that nothing remains constant for long. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 22:45, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

::: That's your view, but the evidence is that the United States is growing more conservative just as the English language is. This entry shows that the creation of insightful new conservatives words is greater in quality and frequency than that of new liberal words. Over time, culture and politics must inexorably follow the lead of language. That doesn't mean a liberal politician won't use smoke-and-mirrors to be elected occasionally against the grain, but the flow dictated by language cannot be reversed. Ah, perhaps I've stumbled onto another new term: "smoke and mirrors"!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:12, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: Actually, Andy, I believe language turns more liberal over time. I agree with you regarding the new words, but like all languages, English does evolve. To describe the language as "conservative" would really require the number of words in it to be reducing, perhaps to something like 1984's Newspeak! Why do we have multiple words for the similar concepts? Plus, look at our syntax - it's nothing like the English of Shakespeare's time. [[User:Andyt|Andyt]] 17:25, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

::::: English adds new words. If you call that evolution, so be it. Others call it growth.

::::: You're welcome to disagree with the direction of English's growth, but the evidence in this entry is overwhelming that English is becoming more conservative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:33, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Besides my main point, I would also counter by suggesting that it is language that follows the lead of culture, not the other way around. The language is of course part of the culture, but new words are only likely to come into existence when they have something to describe in the first place. It is cultural shifts that lead to the coining of new words and phrases and some become so well established that they enter the common vocabulary. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 23:29, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

== Big bang ==

You quite sure about that being used to mock the suggestion of how the universe was formed? I was under the impression that it was a scientific theory proposed by a few physicists, not a liberal word used to mock creationism. --[[User:Jack456|Jack456]] 17:40, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

==New word==
I've thought of a word to describe people who live in this (or any) country and ''take advantage of it'', but spend all or most of their effort ''criticizing or demeaning'' it: misopatria (hatred of one's country), or misopatrist (one who hates his country). What do you think? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:00, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

:I like it a lot! I think I'll continue to use "traitor", though, at least for now. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:10, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
::No thanks. Traitor is much more simple. --[[User:Jack456|Jack456]] 18:13, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Thanks BHarlan! Yes parodist Jack, we strive for simple words (hey, sounds like something called ''newspeak!'' [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 19:05, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

"Traitor" means something slightly different from what Addison suggests. Addison, how about adding your suggestion to the table in the entry that seeks a word for the concept? You're right that it describes millions of malcontents.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:48, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

== Electricity ==

Electricity was a word created by William Gilbert 1646, and was researched by many great scientists, such as Robert Boyle, [[Benjamin Franklin]] and [[Thomas Edison]]. I suggest it as a conservative word because it has allowed many great technological innovations through the ages, but is untainted by association with theories that carry a political agenda.

:Interesting suggestion, but I don't see enough [[conservative]] insight in the largely neutral "electricity" term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:24, 26 April 2009 (EDT)
::I see your point, though electricity is currently opposed by many 'green' liberals who try to interfere with electricity production (see [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7447371.stm here]).

==Relativism==
Are you sure that relativism is a conservative term? More often, the term is preached against by conservatives. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 15:45, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

: It's a word created to criticize. The "-ism" ending is tell-tale sign of being pejorative. Examples of "isms" created or used by liberals to criticize are "isolationism" and "protectionism" and "creationism".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:23, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

== Morally bankrupt ==

Thanks, Jpatt, for the insight!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:23, 28 April 2009 (EDT)
 Pat Tillman was morally bankrupt?--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 12:49, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

== Dramacast? ==

Under your words not yet recognized, you include the word "dramacast" to decribe what happens when "mainstream media presents drama fluff stories as news, e.g. 20/20 - Dateline."

I've never come across the word "dramacast," and a google search brings up no hits. However, doesn't "infotainment" mean the same thing? Has that made it into the dictionary yet? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:25, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

: Good point. The "dramacast" addition was not by me, and you can insert a better substitute such as "infotainment" or perhaps "docudrama". Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:47, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

::Just did. Infotainment seems closer to the concept than "docudrama," which always seems to indicate something longer. It might be good as its own separate entry. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 10:32, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

== Closed Shop ==
You might like to include Closed shop. -[[User:CGoodwin|CGoodwin]]

: Superb suggestion. Will add now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:55, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

== Suggestion ==

From the 19th century, I suggest 'scrooge' - a miser who, despite wealth, does not give to charity or allow wealth to circulate and benefit the wider economy. Clearly this orginates from ''A Christmas Carol'', which was written in that century.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:45, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Superb suggestion. Please add with a precise date, if you have one. I'm also working on a few possibilities for 1700s and 1800s to perfect the geometric fit, but yours is better than mine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:15, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

::It looks like the novella was published in 1843 [http://www.stormfax.com/dickens.htm] but I don't have a citation for the first general use of 'scrooge' to describe any miser. I know the book was an immediate success when it was published, so it can't have been long after. Perhaps you have a bigger dictionary than I do?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 19:42, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== Question ==

Just out of curiosity, what exactly makes a word conservative or liberal? For example, liberals often practice double standard far more than conservatives, so wouldn't that make it a liberal word? Same with hysteria, since most media hype is in liberal news sources like MSNBC and CNN. [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 18:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:Welcome to Conservapedia, home of Patriots. Take hysteria, studies will prove people without God are less grounded, more frequent to have off-the-wall behavior patterns, gradually regressing in communication with others. My conclusion is a sane person (grounded in the Lord, conservative by default) would have created the diagnosis, hence crafted the word hysteria. That is just one example, my 2 cents anyway, comprehend?

:If you do Merriam-Webster dictionary search, you are likely to find the dates and further research the origin, its like word salad.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:23, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
::So it's less words that apply to conservatives and more words coined by the conservatives themselves? [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 19:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:::Conservative terms are crafted, coined (growth rate) faster than liberal words. This shows that generations have been conservative while liberal crafted words have spurts of growth. Example, 1960 ideas such as freedom of mind drug talk, explore feminism, tune-in drop-out of society became associated with that generation in disproportane numbers. We may be now in such a new phase of liberalism; tax, big government, empathy legislation, gay rights, environmentalism- which will give way to the next sustained period of conservatism.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:30, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested word ==

Could I suggest Astroturfing as a conservative word? It was coined around 1998 as a response to false grassroot movements by Microsoft, but can refer to political movements as well. I consider it conservative because it is a good word for pinpointing deceit. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/astroturfing] [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 21:22, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Haven't heard of that term in politics, so I'm not sure it qualifies yet. The word has to catch on a bit to earn its way in this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:41, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== No capitalism? ==

I was rather shocked to notice that capitalism (circa 1850) isn't included as a new conservative word. Was this intentional? I would also suggest constructionist (circa 1835) as another conservative word of value.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:58, 15 May 2009 (EDT)

== A few more suggestions (one from 1700's) ==

According to Random House, "republican" has its origin around 1685...close, but not quite in the time period you're looking for. "Evangelism" is 1620-1630, and "missionary" is 1635-1645.

Aha! What about "states' rights," circa 1790? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:11, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

: "Republican" is a good suggestion, but the term is associated more with the Republican Party than with conservatism. There are arguments that conservatism is populist in nature. "Isms" are usually derogatory; missionary requires more discussion.

:"States rights" adds nothing conservative to "federalism", a 1789 term that we already include. Liberals invokes "states rights" often also.

:I'll add all four terms as difficult to classify, pending further discussion. Thanks but we're still looking for a a 1700s term to perfect the geometric fit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

== A few more possibilities from the 1700's ==

economics (1785)
division of labor (1770)
patriotism (1720)--I know "isms" are often pejorative, but surely this one isn't (regardless of how some people might try to malign it?)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:00, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

:patriotism has been on the list. Division of labor is good. Economics can be liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:56, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

== Further suggestions ==

Two suggestions from Gulliver's Travels, which was published in 1726 and immediately became popular:
* Lilliputian - small-minded or trivial, used to satirise people who are preoccupied with petty squabbles.
* Yahoo - a person who embodies all the worst human characteristics because of a lack of moral or civilising influences.

--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:08, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: Fascinating suggestions! I think Lilliputian is the better of the two. "Yahoo" does not seem to have retained its original meaning, perhaps due to yahoo.com's use of the term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:11, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: I agree that Lilliputian is more relevant today. It strikes me as an excellent way to describe many people's obsessions with gossip, people's personal lives, celebrities, entertainment etc while they ignore far more important concerns. It's actually amazing how much of what Swift wrote is even more relevant today than it was when he wrote it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:51, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Scientology

2008-01-24T22:00:53Z

Suricou: A proposal.

== Archives ==

[[Talk:Scientology/Archive1|Archive 1]] [[Talk:Scientology/Archive2|Archive2]]

----

== Typos ==

This article has a couple typos in the first paragraph. "Psychology" should not be capitalized the first time, and the second time it is misspelled and again inappropriately capitalized. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:09, 29 December 2007 (EST)
:Thanks [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:33, 29 December 2007 (EST)

== Hackers? ==
C'mon now, must we call them hackers? And if we must, can we possibly say "Hackers on steroids", add a reference to "Secret Websites", and possibly put in a few pictures of an exploding yellow van? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 16:49, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:Do you have anything serious to add, or just obscure jokes? If you want to improve the wording please be my guest; I'm only as good as my sources. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:55, 24 January 2008 (EST)

== A chance? ==
This might be a chance worth making use of. Christianity and Scientology are certinly in opposition, and Scientology has a known way of destroying families by ordering new converts to sever all contact. They will be in the headlines for a time now, and they have a lot of skeletons in their cupboard which until now have been consigned to websites hardly ever seen. Why waste such a chance to spread the truth around, discredit the church, slow its growth, and score one for the real true religion. Im not entirely sure what that is, but its certinly not Scientology looniness. - Suricou Raven, Jan 24th.

Neuron

2007-09-24T20:06:43Z

Suricou: 'Electrical impulse'?

A '''neuron''' or nerve [[cell]] is the functional cellular unit of the [[nervous system]], along with the [[neuroglial]] cell it makes up all [[nervous tissue]]. The cell is divided into three major parts the [[dendrites]], [[soma]] or cell body, and the [[axon]]. The archetypal neuron receives input at the tips of the dendrites, integrates that information at the cell body and outputs a impulse along the axon. However, there significant variation in cellular architecture and function across the animal kingdom.

==References==

* Martin, JH (2003). Neuroanatomy text and atlas 3rd ed., New York: McGraw-Hill.

* Kandel, ER; Schwartz JH, Jessell TM (2000). Principles of Neural Science, 4th ed., New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-8385-7701-6.

{{stub2}}

[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Neuroscience]]

Liberal myths

2007-09-24T20:04:43Z

Suricou: Liberals do not claim a fetus is 'not a living being.' Merely that being alive is not, in itsself, something that special. Plants are living being too.

'''Liberal Myths''' are heavily promoted falsehoods motivated by a [[liberal]] belief system. They include:

*The claim of a [[population explosion]] (motivation: promote [[abortion]])
*The claim that people today are smarter than in prior centuries (motivation: to make famous [[Christians]] look dumb)
*The claim that the [[Apostles]] were all illiterate (motivation: to portray them as dumb)
*The claim of [[extraterrestrial life]] (motivation: deny that man was created in [[God]]'s image)
*The claim that the [[George W. Bush|Bush]] tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the [[budget]] deficit.
*The claim that the Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
*Man-made Global Warming.[http://www.nowpublic.com/some-exasperating-liberal-myths]

Please add to this list.

Oral Roberts

2007-06-21T17:16:48Z

Suricou:

'''Granville Oral Roberts,''' born January 24, 1918 is an American preacher, who made his name with his faith healing.

==Early life==
Oral Roberts was born in Pontotoc County, Oklahoma. He studied Bible in Oklahoma, and married a preacher's daughter. Oral and Evelyn were married 66 years before her death. Over the years, Oral's ministry expanded from tents, to the radio, to television where his program is enjoyed by Christians across the globe. He has also written over 100 books.

==Later life==

In 1947, Roberts founded the Oral Roberts Evangelistic Association. Obeying a command from God, he founded Oral Roberts University in Tulsa, Oklahoma in 1963. ORU's first students entered the school in 1965.

In 1977, Roberts announced he would begin construction of the City of Faith Medical and Research Center. The center opened in 1981. During the eight years it remained open, City of Faith was one of the largest health facilities of its kind in the world, and was an innovator in merging prayer and medicine in the healing process.

On January 4 of 1987, Roberts appealed on the television program "Expect a Miracle" stateing that unless he raised $8 million during the fund raising drive for the City of Faith, God would "call him home." He stated this money was to be used to train Christian doctors as 'medical missionaries.' Roberts raised $9.1 million, saving the ministry. $1.3 million of this was given by a single donor, a dog racing track owner. In november of 1987, Roberts announced the closure of the City of Faith. The City buildings have since been converted into predominantly office space and renamed the CityPlex Towers.

Talk:Salvation

2007-06-02T16:22:42Z

Suricou:

Just so everyone knows, I did the major change on this entery today for these reasons:

- it seemed to filled with jargon. It made sense to me, someone who was raised in conservative protestant Christianity, but would a Hindu in New Delhi have understood what was written? I don't think so. I tried to use language that would be familiar to any English speaker with a reasonable education.

- the article I changed only explained one view of salvation. I tried to show that there are different views of salvation arising out of the NT and to give a brief description of a very popular protestant understanding of salvation, the Calvinist view.

I think several more things are necessary for the article on salvation:

1. an expansion/fleshing out of Calvinist thought, including a discussion of arius and the calvinist response. (because this is one of two major theories in American protestantism)
2. a subsection on Wessleyan soteriology (because this is the other major thoery in American Protestantism)
3. a subsection on original sin that discusses the impact of St. Augustine's innovation of A.D. 395
4. a subsection on St.Alselm of Canterbury's theory and the development of western soteriology since then.
5. a section dealing with various theories of salvation with subsections dealing with the ransom theory, the satisfaction theory, the mercantiist theory, the Christos Victor theory, etc.
6. a section dealing with soteriology of Roman Catholicism (because it is the largest church)(this might fit in under thediscussions of St. Augustine and St. Anselm)
7. a section dealing with the soteriology of the Orthodox Church (because it is the second largest church)

==Article changed for the actual Biblical account==
Too many, differing accounts for salvation tended to water-down the article and confuse the reader; further, and more serious, God only had ONE way for salvation and eternal life, and that is through Jesus Christ as specified in the Bible. There is no other way. Differing accounts that were here previously, such as the Calvinist, can be put into separate articles with entries as to why they differ from the straight, Biblical account. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:10, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

::I think you underestimate the inter-denominational bickering. Every denomination seems to say there is one way to salvation, true - but they all claim its a different way.
* Catholic doctrine says there is no salvation outside the Catholic church. Period. For church members, its just a matter of dieing without unconfessed sin.
* Most Evangalical churches go for the personal approach - where one need only accept Christ. Church membership is encouraged, but not required.
* A very large number of more casual christians believe that God acts as a judge of who is 'good' and 'bad' - not even careing if someone is a Christian or not. If they are kind, generous and polite they go to heaven, while the violent and selfish go to hell.
* The Jehova's Witnesses, very much on the fringes of Christianity, believe salvation is earned by works in life. Specificly, knocking on doors.
* Then you have the little semi-cults and their strange selection of beliefs.
- [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]

Talk:Salvation

2007-06-02T16:22:23Z

Suricou:

Just so everyone knows, I did the major change on this entery today for these reasons:

- it seemed to filled with jargon. It made sense to me, someone who was raised in conservative protestant Christianity, but would a Hindu in New Delhi have understood what was written? I don't think so. I tried to use language that would be familiar to any English speaker with a reasonable education.

- the article I changed only explained one view of salvation. I tried to show that there are different views of salvation arising out of the NT and to give a brief description of a very popular protestant understanding of salvation, the Calvinist view.

I think several more things are necessary for the article on salvation:

1. an expansion/fleshing out of Calvinist thought, including a discussion of arius and the calvinist response. (because this is one of two major theories in American protestantism)
2. a subsection on Wessleyan soteriology (because this is the other major thoery in American Protestantism)
3. a subsection on original sin that discusses the impact of St. Augustine's innovation of A.D. 395
4. a subsection on St.Alselm of Canterbury's theory and the development of western soteriology since then.
5. a section dealing with various theories of salvation with subsections dealing with the ransom theory, the satisfaction theory, the mercantiist theory, the Christos Victor theory, etc.
6. a section dealing with soteriology of Roman Catholicism (because it is the largest church)(this might fit in under thediscussions of St. Augustine and St. Anselm)
7. a section dealing with the soteriology of the Orthodox Church (because it is the second largest church)

==Article changed for the actual Biblical account==
Too many, differing accounts for salvation tended to water-down the article and confuse the reader; further, and more serious, God only had ONE way for salvation and eternal life, and that is through Jesus Christ as specified in the Bible. There is no other way. Differing accounts that were here previously, such as the Calvinist, can be put into separate articles with entries as to why they differ from the straight, Biblical account. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:10, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

::I think the underestimate the inter-denominational bickering. Every denomination seems to say there is one way to salvation, true - but they all claim its a different way.
* Catholic doctrine says there is no salvation outside the Catholic church. Period. For church members, its just a matter of dieing without unconfessed sin.
* Most Evangalical churches go for the personal approach - where one need only accept Christ. Church membership is encouraged, but not required.
* A very large number of more casual christians believe that God acts as a judge of who is 'good' and 'bad' - not even careing if someone is a Christian or not. If they are kind, generous and polite they go to heaven, while the violent and selfish go to hell.
* The Jehova's Witnesses, very much on the fringes of Christianity, believe salvation is earned by works in life. Specificly, knocking on doors.
* Then you have the little semi-cults and their strange selection of beliefs.
- [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]

Starlight problem

2007-05-31T11:15:04Z

Suricou: Tidyup, add two paragraphs.

The Starlight Problem is an argument in favour of a universe with a long history - many billions of years - as opposed to the six thousand year age many creationists interpert based on the Genesis narative.

Given that the speed of light cannot possibly be exceeded - a conclusion of general relativity, and to which no exceptions have yet been found - the most distant visible objects cannot be further away than the distance light could travel since the universe was created. Thus, the distance to the furthest visible object can be used to establish a lower limit on the age of the universe.

Using parallax calculations, the milky way galaxy alone can be directly observed to have a diameter of approximately 80-100,000 light years. Calculations based on the observed brightness of supernovas of known energy output can determine the distance to more distant objects. The most distant object known is a star cluster approximately thirteen billion light-years distant, observed by the Hubble telescope using gravitational lensing<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3490657.stm</ref>.

Several solutions have been proposed by creationists to explain how a young universe may be reconciled with these observations. Some of these may be viewed on
[[Debate:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]

== Young Earth Creationist View Regarding Starlight ==
In regards to the question of how one can see [[star|starlight]] from millions of light years away, [[young earth]] [[creationist]]s [[scientist]]s commonly mention several things. Some of these scientists assert that the [[Big Bang Theory]] has a star light-travel time problem and cite the work of Dr. [[Charles W. Misner]].<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp</ref>

* Creationist [[Barry Setterfield]] has proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0809_cdk_davies.asp</ref> This idea is widely accepted by creationists. However, this theory would also predict a very strong blue-shift on distant objects, and this is not observed.
* The work of young earth creationist scientist Dr. [[John Hartnett]] proposes an alternative, creationist view, by theorizing the Earth was trapped in a time-dilation field caused by extremely strong gravitation during the first few days of creation, from Earth's point of view, while billions of years passed for the rest of the universe. He attributes the field, its removal and the continued balance in our solar system (after the field was removed) to divine intervention. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i2/cosmology.asp</ref> This theory is not widely accepted by creationists.
* The starlight problem applies only to a young universe. Some young-earth creationists interpret Genesis as describing only the creation of the Earth in six days, not the entire universe.

==References==
<references/>

Hell

2007-05-30T17:51:48Z

Suricou: Compromise, Learntogether? And are you just following my history and reverting every edit I make?

[[Image:Hieronymus Bosch - The Garden of Earthly Delights - Hell.jpg|right|300px|thumb|''Hell'', painted by [[Hieronymus Bosch]], part of ''[[The Garden of Earthly Delights]]''.]]
In the English translation of the [[Bible]]'s Old Testament, the word '''hell''' normally corresponds to the [[Hebrew]] ''sheol'', which was simply the place of the dead. But in the [[Greek]] [[New Testament]] the word used is either ''Gehenna'' (the garbage dump outside the walls of Jerusalem where fires were kept eternally burning to consume the refuse and keep down the stench) or ''Hades'', the [[Greek]]s' dark, gloomy underworld. The modern English word appears to derive most directly from "Holle" or "Hela" or "Hel", goddess of the dead in Germanic/Norse mythology. When the Anglo-Saxons converted to [[Christianity]], the existing word in the language was reused in this new context and applied to the meanings given above.

To Christians, hell is a place where the souls are punished eternally for all the [[sins]] they perpetrated during their lifetime on Earth. Since all have sinned (Rom 3:23) hell can not be avoided on ones own merits, but through the love gift of Jesus one can know, love, and serve [[God]] and share eternity with Him in [[heaven]]. Notably, this means that all non-Christians are punished in hell, regardless of how they lived.

The Christian and Muslim religious traditions often emphasize the ''Gehenna'' aspect: Hell is extremely hot and filled with fire and [[brimstone]]. Opinion varies on the question of whether, while hell itself is eternal, experience of it purges away the sins of sufferers to the point of eventual redemption. See [[purgatory]]. A minority of Christians do not believe in an eternal hell, believing instead that the souls of the wicked are annihilated. This view is referred to as Annihilationism. There is also a question of whether hell has a literal burning fire, or whether it is separation from God and therefore has the same torment as if there was a burning fire.

A common criticism of Christianity is the difficulty of reconciling a God who is seen as loving, forgiving, merciful and compassionate and yet created an area for the express purpose of inflicting eternal torment on unbelievers.

[[Category:Religion]]

Talk:Soul

2007-05-30T17:44:11Z

Suricou:

Cleaned up this article a bit, needs to cite sources though. - anon

Looks suspiciously like satire to me... but I cant take it out, it does make an argument, and I cant see the counter-argument! We need a philosopher to take a look at it and produce a nice solid proof that the soul exists. Or at the very least, explain what it does.

Cut from article:

:To date, there is no definitive record of a soul being observed and detected, although Dr. Duncan MacDougall did conduct an experiment that recorded a weight of two-tenths of an ounce in 1907. As the soul clearly exists - without it, an afterlife would not be possible and all of Christianity would be wrong -the only possible explanation for the lack of observations is that the soul must me invisible in all wavelengths, able to pass through ordinary matter, and thus difficult to detect. As an undetectable object cannot be proven not to exist, it follows that it must exist.

:The soul is widely considered to be responsible for some function [citation needed]. Exactly what this something is remains a subject of debate, as all of the traditional functions for the soul - higher thinking, emotions, a moral sense, memory - have now been identified as a function of the brain. However, as there would be little point in saving a soul without memories, it is likely the soul replicates the contents of the brain.

I dispute the part about "identified as a function of the brain". Researchers have merely determined that if various parts of the brain are destroyed or severed, then these functions are impaired. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:42, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Reverting: Already understood soul can not be viewed by what is stated above. Giving a list of devices that can not find it is therefore meaningless. Concept of the brain taking over the roles of the soul not cited; would need specific back up. Had already merged in thoughts on when soul enters the body. Little else of use except to be controversial to be controversial. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:37, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, revert war, fun! I wont just rever though, I want to have a think about this and see if I can make what I wrote a bit clearer. But...
* I will try to be clearer regarding the implications of the non-falsifiability of the soul, and the idea that the absence of evidence after an intense search can be strong evidence of absence, even though it can never be absolute proof.
* I will see what I can dig up for citations on the brain thing.
* Thanks for the merge, but I was a little annoyed to see how much it shrunk.
* I was being controversial in the hope of provoking some debate here. The nature of the soul is a rather vaguely-defined thing, I would like to see some discussion take place over it.
- Suricou

Talk:Sex

2007-05-30T17:36:26Z

Suricou:

What about parents that want to have access to credible information on sex to educate their children? --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 01:01, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm confused as to why this page has been blocked. I am aware that its probably subject to much vandalism, but there is a valid reasoning behind allowing it.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 22:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Even though the page could be an informative article, it is forbidden (currently) under commandment 3 of [[The Conservapedia Commandments]]. It's not "family-friendly". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:48, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Funny, isn't that how families are made? :D --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 22:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Quite XD. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:51, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:*Leave it missing - that way the intended target audience will be wiped out by either underpopulation, overpopulation and/or rampant STDs, including HIV/AIDs.

::"Target Population" meaning gays, as you imply? Sorry buddy, but most people have sex. Not just gays. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Personally, I feel its possible to make a family-friendly page about sex, but I respect the decision.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 22:52, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:I concur. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:53, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

This page is [[Special:Whatlinkshere/Sex|linked to]] from The [[Ninteenth Amendment]] of the US constitution, and from [[Choice]], but not from [[abortion]]. Which of these are "[[family friendly]]"? --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 23:38, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I too find it interesting that [[abortion]] is considered family friendly but sex itself isn't. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 23:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think this needs to be taken up with Aschlafly. It is clean, can be family-friendly, and is biblically described (we can use the song of Solomon, perhaps?) --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think the general reason is that the page has been targeted by vandals ten times. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:48, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, if the page was created it could always be protected, and users could post ideas on this talk page. I really think it needs inclusion; It's awfully important, and doesn't have to be amoral or obscene or anything like that. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:Check with Aschlafly first. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:08, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::I was planning on it. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I just want to ask... does anyone else think the place holder there is sort of funny? Anyways, I hope a page about this gets made, because quite frankly it's silly to pretend it doesn't exist, and I'm sure a family-friendly article can be made, as said before. --[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 22:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

"Male and female created He them." Genesis 1:27
"And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived... 4:1 [[User:DDG|DDG]] 23:23, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The irony here is fantastic!!! [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 11:07, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:Eh, that's a bit bland. How about some of the hotter quotes from the [[Song of Solomon]]? :D --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 01:55, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== A joke ==

Dont take this offensivly, when I found that this article had been deleted and protected against re-creation, I thought it was a joke. I understand that conservapedia is supposed to be family friendly. By not having an article on it here, it will encourage younger family members to search elsewhere for the information. It would not be hard to create an article, explaining the purpose of sex, perhaps some historical references to it without going into the details of how it is done etc etc. [[User:Chrislk02|Chrislk02]] 10:50, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
: What does sex have to do with families? Oh, wait... :o)
: Seriously, this won't last, I think. You can't have a project with these stated aims and ''not'' discuss sex at some level. Experience on Wikipedia indicates that "ZOMG! No article on ''foo''! The entire project should be deleted!" are spectacularly unpersuasive, the way forward is probably to write a scratch version in your user space that is within policy and then propose that be moved in. If that doesn't work, or if admins won't even discuss it, ''then'' you know the project is doomed. --[[User:JzG|JzG]] 12:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::I figured I would try and discuss it here. I really do think that not having an article here is much more detrimental than having it here. Sure, it is easy to be conservative on some issues. The challenge is writing an controversial article in a tone that is family friendly. Sure it possible, there is alot that does not need to be discussed it and alot of images that should not be included. However, If i were a kid looking for information on it (and lets face it, as some age we all become curious), and it wasent here, that wouldent stop me from searching further. If there was an article, with few details explaining the basics of it, i might accept that and not search further. [[User:Chrislk02|Chrislk02]] 12:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::: It's not ''that'' hard, my kids have books which manage it. [[User:JzG|JzG]] 12:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Every schoolkid knows how to use Google. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=sex&btnG=Google+Search Googling for "sex"] yields Wikipedia's "sexual intercourse" article in the second position, and experience tells me it will soon be in the first. That article, BTW, tells those aforementioned kids interesting things about anal sex among other things, and has a long list of links to articles about every possible form of human sexual behavior, including many that your clientele may not consider overly familiy friendly. And you don't want a sex article in your family friendly encyclopedia? Bwahaha. Bwahahahahaaaaaa!
::::: So, looks like it's official policy then? Sex doesn't exist. I'm sure that will stop kids looking elsewhere. --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 17:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::I came here to learn what "conservatives" think, as they claimed it can't be put in Wikipedia. So far, I'm still confused - sex is taboo, but [[marriage]] includes a wide range of styles with multiple partners, and [[homosexuality]] can be discussed too. I cannot understand a "conservative" position that allows discussion of multiple partners of both sexes, but can't stomach an article about monogamous sex with a spouse. I haven't contributed much, because I just can't get my head around what might be acceptable. The [[divorce]] article is unlikely to help anyone who is going through it, or who's parents or friend's parents are, either! --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 18:00, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::* I'm sure that Wikipedia does not allow an article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_sexuality religion and sexuality], since it would offend our liberal sensitivities :o) [[User:JzG|JzG]] 19:09, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== This article should redirect to [[Abstinence]] ==

Redirecting to [[Gender]] doesn't make that much sense, now that I think about it. Any discussion of s-e-x should begin first and foremost with abstinence.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 13:11, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

::Just stick the 'deleted and protected due to vandalism' on the page. We are never going to agree about what would be appropriate. This is conservapedia remember, so there are a number of users here who think a description of the stork making a delivery would be too graphic. - Suricou

Soul

2007-05-30T17:30:04Z

Suricou: Undo revision by Special:Contributions/Learn together (User talk:Learn together), because he scraped an entire section without giving a reason or even mentioning it in talk or summary.

{{expand}}
The '''soul''' is a vital concept within many [[religion|religious]] traditions, including [[Christianity]]. The soul is considered to be the eternal element of an individual.

Most Christians regard the soul as the immortal essence of a human - the seat or locus of human [[will]], [[understanding]], [[morality]] and/or [[personality]].

Scientists generally ignore or dismiss the soul as unsuitable for study. To be precise, the [[methodological naturalism]] of modern science is unable to handle the concept of the soul. Anything which is not material is deliberately excluded from consideration, and as the soul is not a material thing scientists accordingly refuse to study it. This has implications for the study of human [[Psychology]].

==Criticisms of the soul==

Many of the functions which have been historically considered to be functions of the soul have now been determined to be produced by the brain. Areas have been found responsible for memory formation, speech and comprehension, personality, and even moral decisions (Citation needed). As the known capabilities of the brain increase, the remaining functions which can be assigned to the soul decrease.

The soul is conveniently difficult to dispove - massless, invisible, passing through matter without interaction. No soul has ever been directly observed or indirectly detected - souls appear on no xray, CAT, MRI or other medical scan. Thus the existance of the soul cannot be disproven, and extensive searching has failed to prove it. In logic, this renders the theory highly suspect.

Even among Christians, details of the soul are frequently debated. In particular, the moment at which a soul enters a human is a subject of contriversy due to its significence in relation to abortion. While many believe the soul enters an embryo at the moment of conception, others point out that this presents problems with the 'conservation' of souls in situations such as identical twins and chimeras, which result respectively in two individuals from one embryo and one individual from two or more. Were the soul to enter at conception, this would imply that identical twins have only half a soul, while chimeras have many. Attempts to determine later points at which an individual may aquire a soul have not produced a significent agreement.

[[category:religion]]
[[category:philosophy]]

Talk:Vestigial structures

2007-05-30T13:36:47Z

Suricou:

Article deletion by [[user:Conservative]] in 3....2...1.... --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 14:26, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
:Get a lot of citations, and ''quick''. He can't delete an article with 15 citations. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:26, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:Really? He blocked me for two weeks because (I think) I cited papers by Maxwell and Einstein to support my claim that light in a vacuum has a constant speed. He didn't actually say why at the time though. - Suricou

::Lol:) This should be under developmental Biology and Evolution Categories. Go to pubmed and you can find plenty of articles that deal with this topic, hard evidence.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 14:40, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

I just made the article sound a little more encyclopedic and added a reference. [[User:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] 16:23, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Overall the changes are good, but the removal of the point on natural selection is puzzling. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:14, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, I just felt it wasn't very encyclopedic the way it was worded especially the part in the form of the question. Also, it seems consistent with the Natural Selection that vestigial structures could be "in the process" of being phased out. [[User:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] 18:26, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

:Part of the 'two-edged sword' of natural selection is that it should weed out inefficiencies as an outgoing occurrence and if it's not doing so, then they aren't inefficiencies. Giving it an open ended "in the process" can be fine if we're talking about short time periods on an evolutionary scale, but when we're talking about tens of millions of years then there is a benefit or a neutrality to the structure that by definition says it is not useless. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:45, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

::If the structure is neutral from the point of reproductive and general fitness, then there is no selective pressure for it to be eliminated and it could potentially persist until random mutations eliminate or change it. [[User:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] 21:06, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Structures with any meaningful size to them are never neutral if they perform no positive function. The body has to use resources to sustain them as part of the overall living organism. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:31, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

:::That is true. However, many vestigial structures are greatly reduced in size such as the coccyx and appendix such that their impact on resource usage is negligible in comparison to other factors, even random ones. This makes their impact on reproductive fitness essentially neutral. Consider the appendix, a thin piece of tissue about four inches long, the resources that go in to creating and maintaining such a structure are not likely to have any effect on the number of successful matings a person has. Also consider that the genes responsible for making a vestigial structure may be closely linked genetically (or even share some of the same genes) with the genes that are responsible for making other structures that are still required in humans. This could make it very difficult to remove the genes responsible for the vestigial structure without disturbing those that are still needed. [[User:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] 09:50, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

::::If it takes energy and there is a gain in efficiency to be had by its removal, then that should occur unless perhaps the structure is microscopic in size. Based upon your assertion that it should have no affect, then there would likewise be no reason for vestigial structures to become smaller in size, and yet evolutionary theory says that is exactly what has occurred. I should probably also point out that the article as written misses much of current evolutionary thought. While initial beliefs by evolutionists mirrored more of the idea that vestigial structures were useless, that line of thought caused evolutionists to get egg on their face and it is now generally accepted that vestigial structures can provided secondary or alternative positive influences that benefit the species. Vestigial structures are now viewed as those that have lost their original purpose, but without any claim being made to their uselessness. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:13, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::I think Learn together makes a good point about the resources required, and the response to that just goes to show how flexible evolution is: if evolution gets rid of something, it is because it was a disadvantage, but if it doesn't get rid of something, it must be because it wasn't that much of a disadvantage. It's a tautology, really (how do you know if it was a disadvantage? By whether or not evolution got rid if it), and by being so flexible that it explains everything, it really explains nothing, but is a "just-so" story. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:00, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::It is not that natural selection won't ever get rid of things that don't provide an advantage, it's just that it might take a while. You can't expect these things to happen in one generation. Also, keep in mind that sometimes changes happen that are clearly not advantageous due to purely to chance, founder effects, etc. For example, humans have a defective gene for the enzyme that makes vitamin C, while all mammals, except apes and guinea pigs, have functional copies of the gene. This is why humans are susceptible to scurvy while other mammals are not and why we must take in vitamin C in our diet. Looking at the current iterations of animals, especially humans, is probably not the best way to study evolution because the influence of humans and modern society has changed the game so much. Evolution is best studied over millions of years. [[User:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] 09:57, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

== Article name ==

I've normally heard of these things as vestigial ''organs'', not ''structures''. I'd vote to change the page name accordingly. Any objections? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:00, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, [[Vestigial organs]] already exists. So any objections to the content of this one replacing the content of the other? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:04, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::I have no objection. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:24, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

== Human appendix ==

GodWarrior wrote in his last edit comment: "''Read references before adding them please, evidence in them is far from conclusive. The absolute nature of the statement is still far from justified.)''". I wonder if he has read the references. I'd like to know what is inconclusive about these:
* "The mucosa and submucosa of the appendix are dominated by lymphoid nodules, and its primary function is as an organ of the lymphatic system."
* "The appendix, in conjunction with other parts of the body which also contain cells called B-lymphocytes, manufactures several types of antibodies"
* "Although it used to be believed that the appendix had no function and was an evolutionary relic, this is no longer thought to be true. Its greatest importance is the immunological function it provides in the developing embryo, but it continues to function even in the adult … . The function of the appendix appears to be to expose circulating immune cells to antigens from the bacteria and other organisms living in your gut. That helps your immune system to tell friend from foe and stops it from launching damaging attacks on bacteria that happily co-exist with you."
* "it is now known to play a role in fetal immunity and in young adults. During the early years of development, the appendix functions as a “lymphoid organ”?, assisting with the maturation of B lymphocytes (a type of white blood cell) and in the production of immunoglobulin A antibodies [both of which help fight invading germs]. In addition, at around the 11th week of fetal development, endocrine (hormone-producing) cells appear in the appendix. These cells produce peptide hormones that control various biological mechanisms."
The second one can be read as being inconclusive, but was said in direct reply to a surgeon's claim that "it no longer serves a purpose in humans", and was preceded with the comment, "Your surgeon was a little out of date".
In case it needs to be said, only one of these quotes is from a creationist.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:12, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm talking about actual hard data. What I meant was that if you cite a POV source such as the Journal of Creation, then you have to make sure that their NPOV references actually verify their arguments. None of the peer-reviewed papers (the only ones that really matter) cited in those articles are even accessible. It is therefore impossible to check if they actually agree with the statements attributed to them. Using medline, pubmed, and thomson ISI I was unable to even get an abstract from any of them. This is highly unusual as those sources usually have any article I am trying to find. Also, just because one source draws that conclusion does not meant that it is irrefutable. If there is conflicting evidence on a topic it is inappropriate to make a definitive statement in an encyclopedia such as "The human appendix has a role in early development." It is fine to cite summary pages like you have done because it makes it easier for the reader to learn more about the topic, but please check the veracity of them before you do so. [[User:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] 07:35, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
:This sounds very much like a case of demanding a higher standard than you would normally expect of yourself.
:The Journal of Creation is no more POV than other sources, most of which presume an evolutionary worldview.
:Your Talk.Origins source spends very little of it's page actually discussing whether or not the appendix has a use. The bits that do have the following references:
:* [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11522758&dopt=Abstract Judge and Lichtenstein 2001]: The link provides no summary, but the title suggests that it ''does'': "Is the appendix a vestigial organ? '''Its role''' in ulcerative colitis." (my emphasis)
:* [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10906392&dopt=Abstract Dasso et al. 2000]: The linked summary includes, "If the human appendix functions as a primary lymphoid organ, it may occur during the first few months of age when the GC T-cell density is low". That indicates that they didn't find a use in the areas they looked, not that there is no evidence at all, as Talk.Origins claims.
:Apart from an older reference that predates some of the Journal of Creation's sources, that seems to be it. That's hardly a convincing argument that there is no certain evidence in the face of unequivocal claims that there is evidence. And surely sources that know of evidence trump those that don't know of evidence?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:31, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Soul

2007-05-30T13:31:59Z

Suricou:

Hell

2007-05-30T13:16:23Z

Suricou:

[[Image:Hieronymus Bosch - The Garden of Earthly Delights - Hell.jpg|right|300px|thumb|''Hell'', painted by [[Hieronymus Bosch]], part of ''[[The Garden of Earthly Delights]]''.]]
In the English translation of the [[Bible]]'s Old Testament, the word '''hell''' normally corresponds to the [[Hebrew]] ''sheol'', which was simply the place of the dead. But in the [[Greek]] [[New Testament]] the word used is either ''Gehenna'' (the garbage dump outside the walls of Jerusalem where fires were kept eternally burning to consume the refuse and keep down the stench) or ''Hades'', the [[Greek]]s' dark, gloomy underworld. The modern English word appears to derive most directly from "Holle" or "Hela" or "Hel", goddess of the dead in Germanic/Norse mythology. When the Anglo-Saxons converted to [[Christianity]], the existing word in the language was reused in this new context and applied to the meanings given above.

To Christians, hell is a place where the souls of the wicked are punished eternally for all the [[sins]] they perpetrated during their lifetime on Earth. According to Christianity, the only way to avoid hell is to know, love, and serve [[God]] and rely on His forgiveness. All non-christians, regardless of their moral virtue, go to Hell.

The Christian and Muslim religious traditions often emphasize the ''Gehenna'' aspect: Hell is extremely hot and filled with fire and [[brimstone]]. Opinion varies on the question of whether, while hell itself is eternal, experience of it purges away the sins of sufferers to the point of eventual redemption. See [[purgatory]]. A minority of Christians do not believe in an eternal hell, believing instead that the souls of the wicked are annihilated. This view is referred to as Annihilationism.

A common criticism of Christianity is the difficulty of reconciling a God who is seen as loving, forgiving, merciful and compassionate and yet created an area for the express purpose of inflicting eternal torment on unbelievers.

[[Category:Religion]]

Satan

2007-05-30T13:11:52Z

Suricou:

[[Image:GustaveDoreParadiseLostSatanProfile.jpg|right|thumb|Gustave Doré's depiction of Satan from John Milton's Paradise Lost.]]
'''Satan''' (from the Hebrew "ha-satan", "accuser") was a member of the [[divine council]] of God referenced in the [[Old Testament]] in [[Job]]. He is referenced 11 times in Job and 4 other times in the Old Testament. The [[New Testament]] mentions satan 34 times in all starting with the first book [[Matthew]] and ending with the last [[Revelation]]. In the Christian tradition he rebelled against [[God]] and is now the enemy of God and man alike. He is the father of lies and no good is found in him. He leads a host of fallen angels (or [[demon]]s) who know their days are numbered before they will be cast in the [[lake of fire]] and they seek to take as many humans as possible with them. Those who worship Satan are called [[satanism | Satanists]].

== History and Goals ==

In many denominations of [[Christianity]] Satan's goal is to lead people away from the love of God, by tempting or tricking them. The only sources of supernatural power in the world are from either God (good) or Satan (evil). In the book of [[Genesis]], Satan takes the form of a snake and tempts Eve with fruit from a tree. This causes sin to come into the world.

In the Book of Job, Satan listens to God speak highly of Job and claims before God the host of angels that Job praises God only because he is blessed and would curse God if he was forced to suffer. God challenges Satan to cause Job to suffer to test his faith. Satan inflicts various punishments on Job including poverty, painful illness and the death of his family. When Job remains faithful to God throughout the trials, God restores his health and financial success - though not the dead family.

[[Jesus]] makes references to demonic possession on multiple occasions that He then casts out. Some believe that Satan is able to possess and control living humans on Earth even today. The Catholic church officially believes that priests (and sometimes only bishops) are able to [[exorcise]] this possession through Jesus, but exorcism is no longer practiced by the church.

In the [[New Testament]], Satan tries to tempt [[Jesus]] in the desert, and fails. Jesus warns extensively to beware of Satan as does [[Paul]].

Satan, is also called by several different names (the Devil, deceiver, Bealzebub, Beelzebul, Lucifer, Asmodeus, Abaddon, "Old Scratch," the Crooked One, etc).

Satan is often portrayed as a 'head demon' commanding minions, or as the ruler of [[Hell]], though some denominations dispute Satan's current status and believe either he never existed, or is now trapped in Hell undergoing eternal punishment.

In particular, evangelical churches are more likely to see Satan as an active force, meddling directly in the world to cause harm and particually to lead Christians away from God and into sin. Most denominations, including the the Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican churches, give Satan only a very minor role in their teaching - rarely even mentioning him.

== Lucifer ==

'''Lucifer''' literally "Son of the Morning" is mentioned in the [[Bible]] in the [[book of Isaiah]] (Isaiah 14:12). He is cast down from [[heaven]] to [[hell]] after making 5 pronouncements initiating a rebellion against [[God]] by believing that he was equal or superior to God and would take power for himself.

* I will ascend into heaven
* I will exalt my throne above the stars of God
* I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north
* I will ascend above the heights of the clouds
* I will be like the most High

Luficer is usually equated with [[satan]] in Christian tradition. And so, this gives more history of what caused satan's downfall. While satan would be more of the title, Lucifer would be the proper name.

[[Image:Paradise Lost 12.jpg|right|thumb|''The fall of Lucifer'' by Gustave Doré.]]

== Jewish Views ==

In the Jewish tradition, Satan is an angel who faithfully serves God as a prosecuting attorney - one who accuses men of wickedness and impiety. At the direction of God Satan may be permitted to test these accusations, such as in Job. In this view, Satan's goal is not to lead men away from their faithfulness to God, but merely to reveal the true depths of their devotion, although in I Chronicles 21:1 Satan provoked David to take a census of the people of Israel against the will of God and 70,000 men are slain because of it.
[[category:religion]]

Santa Claus

2007-05-11T14:05:11Z

Suricou:

: ''This article is about the American legendary secret Christmas gift-giver. For the real man behind this legend, see [[Saint Nicholas]].''

'''Santa Claus''' is an [[United States of America|American]] popular cultural icon, probably of [[Holland|Dutch]] origin. He has been a regular staple of the American observance of [[Christmas]] for about two centuries or more, and exported to prominence in much of the world.

== Origins ==
The ultimate basis of Santa Claus is [[Saint Nicholas]], the [[Roman Catholic Church|Roman Catholic]] [[Bishop]] of [[Myra]]. In the ninth century AD, coincident with the [[Muslim]] invasion and re-invention of [[Rome|Roman]] [[Asia Minor]] as the [[Ottoman Empire]], the bones of Saint Nicholas were transported to [[Europe]]. The many legends about this bishop--including a persistent legend about the "[[manna]]" coming from his body after his death--fostered the growth of new legends of Saint Nicholas being somehow larger than life.

[[Holland|Dutch]] settlers in [[New Amsterdam]] brought with them the tradition surrounding this new legend of Saint Nicholas, whom they called ''Sinter Klass'' in their language (and still do today).<ref name=Santa>Anonymous, "[http://www.lnstar.com/mall/main-areas/santafaq.htm Santa Claus Facts, Origins, and Fun Tidbits]," ''Lone Star Internet'', 2006. Retrieved April 16, 2007</ref> With the British takeover of [[New Netherland]] by troops loyal to the then-incumbent [[Duke of York]] (hence the name [[New York]]), this mythical character gained a new name: Santa Claus.

In the early nineteenth century, at least three prominent Americans contributed to the Santa Claus legend we know today:

# [[Washington Irving]]
# [[Clement C. Moore]], author of ''[[The Night Before Christmas]]''<ref name=TNBC>Clement Clarke Moore, "[http://www.lnstar.com/mall/main-areas/Night_B_Xmas.html The Night Before Christmas (A Visit by St. Nicholas)]," 1823. Retrieved April 16, 2007, from [http://www.lnstar.com/mall/main-areas/santafaq.htm Santa Claus Facts, Origins, and Fun Tidbits]</ref>
# [[Thomas Nast]], the famous [[cartoon]]ist, who drew the classic portrait of Santa Claus that survives today.

== Features of the Santa Claus Legend ==
The hallmarks of the legend of Santa Claus include:
# A village located at the [[North Pole]], containing a toy factory and other facilities for the production and distribution of toys.
# An uncanny ability to know whether any child has been "good" or "bad." The means by which this is achieved is rarely elaborated on.
# Rewards for the good, and punishment for the bad. Traditionally, the good children recieve toys and the bad lumps of coal. Due to the unfamiliarity of a lump of coal to modern children, some variations substitute other undesirable gifts.
# A requirement for belief: Santa is said to deliver only to those who believe in him. Non-believers get nothing.
# Secret comings and goings to make deliveries, via the chimney. In homes without fireplaces, some flexability is required.
# Placement of small candies and similar "party favors" in children's stockings. Children are encouraged to leave a gift in return on christmas eve - tradition dictates a mince pie, a glass of sherry, and one or more carrots for the raindeer.
# Accomplishment of all this order fulfillment and delivery on one night of the year: the night of December 24-25.

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Culture]]

Sodom

2007-05-11T08:53:25Z

Suricou: Residual traces of some old vandelism removed.

[[Image:Martin destruction sodom640x422.jpg|thumb|400px|right|Destruction of Sodom by God]]

'''Sodom''' was an ancient city located in the Holy Lands. It was considered by bible scholars to be the sister city of another populated area known as Gommorah. Both cities were destroyed in 1898 B.C. by God according the Book of Genesis in the Bible. According the the [[Bible]], God rained burning hot [[lava]] onto the city from the sky, and killed all of the inhabitants because of a collective sin. The Bible also states that Lot's wife "burned in her bosom" for the ways of Sodom and was subsequently killed by God and transformed into a pillar of salt for her admiration of the lifestyle practiced in the city.
==The Story of Sodom==
[[Image:sodom1.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Location of the Ancient City of Sodom near the Dead Sea.]]

[http://www.mcfarland.co.uk/andrew/testimony_articles/2004-01-01][http://www.mcfarland.co.uk/andrew/copyright]
The story of Sodom is often seen as a story of destruction and punishment, both at the corporate and individual levels. Sodom was destroyed as was Lot's wife. The story of Sodom is also a story of salvation. It is a story about how an imperfect man, Lot, and how he was saved through faith.

We know that Sodom was a very sinful city. We know that it was destroyed because of its sinfulness. However, we are not told explicitly in Genesis what the sin of Sodom actually was. The story does tell us implicitly how the Sodomites sinned, and serves as a warning that we must not sin in the same way.

===Sodom in Genesis===

The first few references to Sodom are fairly neutral. We know that it was on the Canaanite border (Genesis 10:19). It was in a fertile, prosperous region (Genesis 13:10). The people of Sodom were "wicked and sinners" before God (Genesis 13:13). The King of Sodom was Bera (Genesis 14:2), and when Bera went to war with Chedorlaomer, Lot was captured. Abraham rescued Lot, and in doing so he rescued Bera and his men. He would not accept any reward for this (Genesis 14).

Genesis chapters 18 and 19 contain the most detail about Sodom. At the start of Genesis 18, three angels visit Abraham and Sarah. Abraham welcomes them into his tent. Although he does not immediately recognize them as angels, he nonetheless treats them as honored guests, feeding and making them comfortable.

After promising Abraham and Sarah a child the angels set off towards Sodom, and here we get the first indication that Sodom's days are numbered.

:''And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.'' (Genesis 18: 19, 20)

The wickedness of Sodom was already well established. The angels had not yet set foot in the city, and its sin was already considered to be very grievous. What we are seeing here is God's formal process of judgment. He did not have to send the angels to Sodom to find out how evil the city was; he already knew. God was prepared to send Jonah to Nineveh, giving the Ninevehites the chance to repent. The Sodomites were also sent messengers from God, and they also had the same chance to repent. The people of Nineveh responded, but the people of Sodom, as we will see in Genesis 19, did not.

Abraham was a man of God, and he knew what Sodom was like. He knew what the angels would find. He asked that Sodom would be spared if as few as ten righteous people were found there. God agreed: Sodom would be spared if there were even ten righteous people there.

The welcome the angels received in Sodom could hardly contrast more with the welcome they received at Abraham's tent. They were treated as honored guests by all of Abraham's household. At Sodom, the only one who welcomed them was Lot himself. Lot's wife, his daughters, and his sons in law are conspicuous by their absence. Lot's family sinned by inaction. The people of Sodom then tried to commit a terrible sin through action.

But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. (Genesis 19:4, 5)

The entire population of the city - male and female - surrounded Lot's house. That mob had one thing in its collective mind. They wanted to rape the visitors, exactly as the men of Gilbeah would want to rape the Levite in Judges. To protect the angels, Lot offered his own two virgin daughters to take their place in the mass-rape.<ref>Genesis 19:8</ref>

Abraham had done everything he could to make the visitors welcome, even though he had never met them before. The people of Sodom wanted to take the visitors out of the comfort of Lot's care and they wanted to physically abuse them in the worst possible way.

The sinful nature of the city was already well established when the angels arrived. Abraham knew what the angels would find, and he knew it would lead to the destruction of the city, and that is why he pleaded that the city should be spared if there were even ten righteous people. The people of Sodom were already being described as wicked at the time of Genesis 13.

Although on a surface reading the sin appears to be that of rape, the lack of punishment for Lot's offering of his daughters for rape and later references to the story suggest the true sin may have been that of inhospitality, of materialism, of inappropriate worship and ceremony or of cruelty towards visitors.

What was the sin of Sodom? What was it about Sodom that made Lot's wife look back? To answer this question we need to look at some of the later references to Sodom.

===Sodom in Isaiah and Jeremiah (False religion)===

We get an indication of the nature of Sodom in Isaiah and Jeremiah.

:''Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah. To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.'' (Isaiah 1:10,11)

These words were directed at the rulers and people of Israel. Their ostentatious sacrifice was being offered in the wrong way and for the wrong reasons. The people this message was directed at had distorted religion. They were worshiping God in a way he didn't want them to. The people are also compared to Sodom and Gomorrah.

They would not have been compared to Sodom if they had had nothing in common with Sodom. The issue under discussion is inappropriate worship. Isaiah 1 at the very least suggests that Sodom was also worshiping God in a distorted, unwanted, manner.

False worship is also associated with Sodom and Gomorrah in Jeremiah,

:''And I have seen folly in the prophets of Samaria; they prophesied in Baal, and caused my people Israel to err. I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness; they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah.'' (Jeremiah 23:13, 14)

The prophets of Jerusalem are said to commit adultery, walk in lies, and strengthen the hand of evildoers. This support of evildoers also features in the most important Old Testament reference to Sodom, outside of Genesis.

===Sodom in Ezekiel (Idleness, or affulence without charity)===

Ezekiel offers another explanation of what the sin of Sodom was.

:''Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.'' (Ezekiel 16:49, 50)

Pride, fullness of bread, abundance of idleness, neglect of the poor and needy, haughty, and committed abomination.

This is why the sin of Sodom is a warning to us all. The sin of Sodom was pride, materialism, haughtiness, and neglect of the poor and needy.

Consider the two angels from the point of view of the Sodomites. Here were two travelers with no means of defense. They had nowhere to sleep. The people of Sodom neglected these poor and needy travelers. Later on, the whole city works together in the attempted gang rape. There is no record of anybody apart from Lot trying to stop it. Some of the people, those at the back of the crowd, would merely have been failing to strengthen the hand of the poor and needy through their inaction. Those towards the front were actively adding their support, strengthening the hand of those at the front, those evil people who lead the lynch mob.

The Sodomites committed abomination. The Hebrew word translated abomination here is tow'ebah. In the Old Testament this word is normally used in connection with inappropriate worship. Idol worship, for example, is considered tow'ebah in Deuteronomy 7:26 and 26. Tow'ebah is used of conscious inappropriate worship. Someone who didn't know any better would not be committing tow'ebah by sacrificing to an idol. Someone who knew the law of Moses certainly would.

At the very least, the use of tow'ebah in Ezekiel 16:50 suggests that the people of Sodom did have some knowledge of God that the rejected. Ezekiel 16 is directed towards Jerusalem. If the people of Sodom had heard the word of God as the people of Jerusalem had then it is even more appropriate that Sodom and Jerusalem are considered sisters. They not only shared a knowledge of God, but they shared a rejection of God. The people of Sodom were not ignorant innocents punished by a brutal God.

===Sodom in the Gospels===

:''Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat. And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence. And when ye come into an house, salute it. And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you. And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.'' (Matthew 10:9-15)

Of the five references to Sodom in the Gospels, three reinforce the connection between Sodom and inhospitality - Matthew 10:15, Mark 6:11 and Luke 10:12. Hospitality - kindness to others - is a key part of Christ's teaching, and we would expect that a city destroyed for inhospitality, neglect of the poor and needy, would feature as an example.

One of the references - Matthew 11:23,24 - simply uses Sodom as an example of an iniquitous city. The final reference uses Sodom as a warning for the followers of Christ living in the last days:

:''And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.'' (Luke 17:26-30)

The days of Lot and the days of Noah had one important thing in common: the people were worldly and materialistic, and that is what people will be like before the return of Christ. Pride, fullness of bread, abundance of idleness, neglect of the poor and needy.
Sodom in the Rest of the New Testament

The parallels between the days of Lot, the days of Noah and the last days are used as exhortation in 2nd Peter chapter 2, verses 5 to 9:

:''And [God] spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished''

Just as Lot was vexed with the filthy conversation - the godless incontinent lifestyles - of those around him, the disciples of Christ will be and are vexed by the godless incontinent people in the 21st Century. To be vexed by these things is not the same as fearing that we have been abandoned by God. The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly, and as he delivered Lot, so he will also deliver us.

The most puzzling reference to Sodom in the New Testament - probably the most puzzling of all Biblical references to Sodom - is found in Jude:

:''I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.'' (Jude 5 -7)

There are three groups here: "the people out of the land of Egypt", "the angels which kept not their first estate", and "Sodom and Gomorrah". The first two groups rebelled against God and were punished, so Jude supports my conclusion that Sodom and Gomorrah were not godless cities destroyed for their godlessness, but were rebellious cities destroyed for their rebellion, just as "the people out of the land of Egypt", "the angels which kept not their first estate" were punished for their rebellion.

The puzzling part of this passage is "going after strange flesh". One common interpretation is as a reference to homosexual acts. It is also possible that this is an obscure reference to the attempted rape of the angels. This would be another parallel between the days of Lot and the days of Noah (Genesis 6:1-4). Indeed, the "angels which kept not their first estate" may also be the "sons of God" described in Genesis 62.

The fate of Lot's wife is probably the most chilling aspect of the story of Sodom.

:''And it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that he said, Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed… The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar. Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground. But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.'' (Gen 19:17-26)

Lots wife looked back, and for that transgression she was killed. When I was growing up I used to have the image of Lot and his family fleeing from Sodom with terrible sounds behind them, and Lot's wife was struck down for glancing over her shoulder, perhaps showing concern for the people she had once lived with. That is not what happened. It was not a casual glance that cost her her life. It was not a concerned glance as they were fleeing. Lots wife looked back after they had escaped. They had reached safety, saved by the hand of God. She looked back with longing, she looked back to the city where they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, and they built, but they did not concern themselves with the things of God. She had been saved from Sodom, but she did not really want to be. She snatched damnation from the jaws of salvation.

This is why Christ tells us to remember Lot's wife. Looking over your shoulder is not intrinsically sinful. Looking back with desire to a sinful, Godless lifestyle, is what we must never do.

Look at the way Christ describes it:

:''And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back. Remember Lot's wife. Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.'' (Luke 17:26-33)

He that was on the housetop was not to go back for his possessions. He that was in the field was to leave without his things. And the third example? Remember Lot's wife.

Do not go back for your material things, for your lifestyle, your stuff in the house. Remember Lot's wife. She was worldly, and that was her downfall.

But we must also remember Lot. Even when receiving a direct instruction from his angelic visitors, Lot hesitated and disobeyed, and he hesitated and disobeyed because of his family.

:''And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law. And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city. And while he lingered, the men laid hold upon his hand, and upon the hand of his wife, and upon the hand of his two daughters; the LORD being merciful unto him: and they brought him forth, and set him without the city.'' (Gen 19:14-16)

== Fundamental Christian Teachings ==

Many Christians believe God's treatment of Sodom and Gomorrah was an eternal statement on his views of [[homosexuality]]. Notably, Two Angels of God visited the city and the Homosexual inhabitants attempted to rape both of them in front of Lot's home. The Angels struck the sodomites blind and provided safe passage for Lot, a servant of the Living God, from Sodom according the the Biblical account. During the journey from Sodom, Lot's wife, who turned to look back at Sodom, was killed by God for her disobedience and her yearning for her homosexual friends. Many Christians and Biblical Scholars believe the transformation of Lot's wife into a pillar of salt was a statement by God concerning his views and eventual punishment of any non-Homosexuals who endorse, sponsor, or support homosexuals.

== Biblical References to and Sodom and Gomorrah ==
* (Eze. 16:49)
* (Gen. 13:13)
* (Gen. 19:1-25; Jgs. 19)
* (Lev. 20:13; Rom. 1:32)
* (Deut. 23:17,18; Mat. 7:6; Phil. 3:2)
* (Deut. 32:32,33)
* (Isa. 3:9)
* (Jer. 6:15)
* (Psa. 5:5)
* (Jn. 8:44)
* (2 Pet. 2:7,8)
* (2 Pet. 2:12)
* (2 Pet. 2:22)
* (Lk. 17:28-30)
* (Rom. 1:23-28)
* (Jude 7)
* (Jude 23)
* (Rev. 22:15)
* (Jer. 6:15)
* (I Timothy 4:2-4)

MP3

2007-05-11T08:46:47Z

Suricou:

'''MP3''' (short for '''MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3''') is a set of audio decoding and encoding algorithms created by Fraunhofer IIS in Germany, which can achieve high compression ratio with little loss in audio quality.

Although newer codecs can offer higher compression ratio or higher audio quality for a given ratio, MP3 has remained popular due to its near-universial compatability.

==External Links==
[http://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/fhg/iis/ Fraunhofer IIS]
[[Category:Information technology]]

Fred Phelps

2007-05-11T08:22:01Z

Suricou:

[[Image:Phelps.jpg|right|thumb|Fred Phelps giving an interview in 2000]]'''Fred Phelps''' is an extremist whose rallies display signs with highly inflammatory statements like, "God hates [homosexuals]" (Profanity removed). He holds to a hyper-Calvinistic viewpoint which is generally regarded as far outside of mainstream Christianity by most Christian scholars. Phelps is founder and pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, [[Kansas]], most of whose congregants are related to Phelps either by blood or marriage.

Phelps has openly denounced the Catholic Church and Episcopal Church and has made claims these religious organizations tolerate and harbor homosexuals and pedophiles.

Phelps has led protests of military funerals based on his belief that America is a country that harbors homosexuals and is thus evil. As a result, President [[George W. Bush]] signed the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes act, which places limitations on military funeral protests. These protests have led to the formation of the [[Patriot Guard]], an organization of motorcyclists who show up at military funerals protested by Phelps's Westboro Baptist Church, and shield the families of the deceased from these protests.

Before beginning his protests in earnest in the mid 1990s, Phelps was a contributor to the Democratic Party who helped campaign for [[Al Gore]] in 1988, when Gore's viewpoints were not as socially liberal. <ref>http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1999/03/lauerman.html</ref> This proved to later be an embarrassment to Gore.

== Phelps' Criticism of Religious Leaders ==

Phelps runs several websites on the internet which preach against homosexuality and immoral living. Phelps espouses a skewed version of his own "literal" interpretation of the Bible and the holy scriptures, and speaks against mainstream religious and Christian leaders who in his view, distort or twist the literal interpretation of the Bible. Phelps also speaks for greater accountability for religious organizations, such as the Catholic Church, and has been vocal in the press and media concerning the abuse of young boys by Catholic Priests and Church Leaders, and practicing homosexuals in the Episcopal Church.

==Criticism of Phelps==
Phelps has been criticized by both liberals and conservatives.
[[Jerry Falwell]] has referred to Phelps as "a first class nut". <ref>http://cjonline.com/webindepth/phelps/stories/102498_protests.shtml</ref>

== Lawsuits and Litigation ==

Phelps and his congregation were recently sued in US District Court in Columbia by Albert Snyder, the father of a soldier killed in Iraq. Phelps and his congregation protested the Iraq War at his son's funeral. The father is suing Phelps for defamation for stating his religious opinion that, ''. Mr. Snyder raised his son for the devil and hell ..'' during the funeral protest and in statements on his website. This litigation is currently pending.

Phelps has also been threatened with prosecution by the Canadian Government for alleged hate speech in Canada for preaching what he has stated are the literal teachings of the Bible against homosexuality.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Religious people|Phelps, Fred]]

Andromeda galaxy

2007-05-10T20:18:48Z

Suricou: It does not 'appear to be' 2.5 million light years away. Its distance has been determined by *three* completly independant methods, and they all say 2.5 million light years.

The '''Andromeda Galaxy''' is a [[Spiral Galaxy]] similar to the [[Milky Way]], and situated within the same [[Galactic Cluster]].

It is situated about 2.5 million light years from the Milky Way.{{fact-scientific}}

Talk:Alfred Kinsey

2007-05-10T20:07:57Z

Suricou:

==“He used faulty statistical sampling methods to baffle the unsophisticated.” ==

The following is a source by source explanation for my removal of the sentence ““He used faulty statistical sampling methods to baffle the unsophisticated.” from this article.

I removed the source “Felicity Barringer, "Sex Survey of American Men Finds 1% Are Gay," The New York Times, April 15, 1993, p. A- 1.” because the source did not say anything about “He [Kinsey] used faulty statistical sampling methods to baffle the unsophisticated.” It did say the numbers were lower than those reported by Kinsey, but not that his methods were in any way flawed. Did not support the claim it claimed to support, so removed.

I removed the source “Boyce Rensberger, "How Many Men in U.S. Are Gay?," The Washington Post, April 17, 1993, p. A-1.” because the source contradicts the first sentence of the article (it says that Kinsey estimated the percentage at 4%), and because source does not claim that he “used faulty statistical sampling methods to baffle the unsophisticated.” – it does say “Kinsey's numbers were not based on a statistically valid sample.” But that is a much weaker claim than the article here makes. Additionally, the full title of the article should be given, it is “How Many Men in U.S. Are Gay? Estimates Vary By Millions” not “How Many Men in U.S. Are Gay?”

I removed the source “Barbara Vobejda, "Survey Finds Most Adults Sexually Staid," Washington Post, October 7, 1994, p. A-1.” because it like the previous source does not accuse Kinsey of trying to baffle the unsophisticated, it simply says, “While studies of Americans' sexual practices date back to the work of Alfred Kinsey in the 1940s, much research in the field has focused on fertility, teenage sex or behavior related to AIDS. Many of the studies, including Kinsey's, were not based on a representative sample of the population.” (Very week criticism, if criticism at al,l compared to what the article claims.) Additionally the full title is “Survey Finds Most Adults Sexually Staid; Americans' Average Is Once Per Week”.

I removed the source “Judith A. Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences the Red Queen and the Grand Scheme” because it does not contain the accusation that Kinsey intended to “baffle the unsophisticated” with his statistics—it does not support the claim it is used to support. Additionally Dr. Reisman has a degree in Communications, not statistics, biology, human behavior, or any relevant field and so is not really an appropriate source for this article at all. (She is also the major proponent of “erototoxins” a theory that has no science to support it—not even any she has produced—which pushes her views so far to the fringe that even if her background were in a relevant field—which, I repeat, it isn’t—she shouldn’t be used as a source here).

I removed the source “Tom W. Smith, "Adult Sexual Behavior in 1989: Number of Partners, Frequency of Intercourse and Risk of AIDS," Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 23, No. 3, May/June 1991, p. 104.” because it does not even mention Kinsey – it mentions his institute and a 1970 study conducted by it, but does not even touch on the issue of the statistics used in Kinsey’s major studies. It does not support the claim it allegedly supported, and so was removed.

I removed the source “Franklin D. Jones and Ronald J. Koshes, "Homosexuality and the Military," American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 152, No. 1, January 1995, pp. 16.” because it contains the 4% number not the 10% number, and because it does not criticize Kinsy’s statistical methods. It does not support the claim it allegedly supported, and so needed to be removed.

I removed the source “Stuart N. Seidman and Ronald O. Rieder, "A Review of Sexual Behavior in the United States," American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 151, March 1994, p. 339.” because it notes that the Kinsey studies had “severe methodological limitations” but not the stronger claim that “He [Kinsey] used faulty statistical sampling methods to baffle the unsophisticated.” This source goes on to use the Kinsey data to make some evaluations of behavior, while noting the limitations of the data.

None of the 7 sources listed to support the claim, “He [Kinsey] used faulty statistical sampling methods to baffle the unsophisticated,” in fact support that claim. Since after seven tries no good source to support the claim was provided I removed the claim all together as it will likely not be supported.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:52, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:I removed these again, sine the revert seemed targeted at the 10% number not this claim.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:06, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== Reisman ==

For the reasons stated above, I would advocate removing Reisman (and especially the reference here [http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/reisman.html] )from this article. I also want to add a few additional reasons here. First, she is not the first person to point out the statistical flaws with Kinsey’s methodology—so she can hardly be said to have “debunked” him. Second, Kinsey’s data, when the limitations of it are recognized, is still valuable and used in scientific papers – one of the sources above used it. Third, her quote stops short of the conclusion it seems to be used to support, in context she goes on to say:
<blockquote> Under scrutiny is the role of Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey and his contention that Americans are 10% to 47%, more or less, homosexual. Kinsey's percentage was seized upon by Harry Hay, the father of the homosexual "civil rights" movement, when Hay formed the Mattachine Society, urging that homosexuality be seen no longer as an act of sodomy but as a 10% minority class. Today, scores of homosexual activists cite Kinsey as the man who made the homosexual movement possible.[3] </blockquote>
<blockquote>But what if all of Kinsey's work was fraudulent, or worse? What if it reflects unethical scientists conducting unprosecuted criminal acts? For example, is it possible that scientists have conducted sexual experiments on children? Or that they could allow or encourage child abusers to conduct such experiments? The possibility that this actually occurred-and indeed that the claimed results of such experiments have played a critical and sustained role in our law and public policy-has led Congress to submit legislation which calls for an examination of the relevant facts. The legislation focuses on the research and publications of Dr. Alfred Kinsey and his colleagues ("The Kinsey Institute") conducted at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana from the late 1930s to the early 1950s. The legislation is known as H.R. 2749, "The Child Protection and Ethics in Education Act.”</blockquote>
Fourth, she questions his results on homosexuality because:
<blockquote> However, without question, any "scientists" who reprint and encourage production of data on child sexuality which have been taken from child sex offenders engaged in "manual or oral" sex with babies and children, are not scientists but propagandists-indeed guilty of admitted criminal sexual conduct, by the descriptions in their publications, whether the sexual offender(s) were identified and prosecuted or not. To trust anything these men or their disciples produce is to put one's faith in those who use the language of science to accomplish personal, criminal, and/or sexual interests. Hence, whatever Kinsey's claims of homosexual percentages and normality were, these become, pragmatically, as invalid as his child sexuality data.</blockquote>
That is, she finds some of his subject area distasteful and therefore we should reject all his data. This is (at best) a moral critique of the study of sex research, it is far from a scientific critique. Fifth, her “evidence” of criminal wrongdoing on the part of Kinsey and his associates is minimal at best—I see lots of hand waving and hysteria, but no actual evidence—and even if Kinsey were guilty of encouraging the sexual abuse of children (a fact I highly doubt, but am open to the possibility of being wrong on) that doesn’t invalidate his other numbers.

I would suggest immediate removal of this section from the article for all of these reasons.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:19, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== Unreliable source? ==

The referenced article 'The re-whitewashing of pedophile Alfred Kinsey' seems to be quite suspect. Its published by Renew America, who have political disputes with Kinsey's work, and seems to be concerned mainly not with criticisms of his research but a combination of personal accusations and claims that Kinsey was and still is destroying society. Look at some of these:

''This collection comprised nudist magazines that contained pictures and drawings of nude men and boys, and Kinsey would show them to his young male charges in his tent — alone — late at night.''

Source, perhaps? No? Was Kinsey ever charged with any type of sex crime? Nope. Are there any witnesses or accounts of these late-night showings? Nope.

''Kinsey is without a doubt one of the most vile, destructive and perverted individuals I have ever had the displeasure of studying.''

Could it be that the writer is just the tiniest bit biased against Kinsey?

A lot of the claims made are also dubious. The entire section on Dr. Fritz Von Balluseck, for example - the Nazi Pedophile who the article claims Kinsey protected and encouraged. If you do a bit of research on that, just a little googling, it seems that this claim was pulled out of the blue by a British TV program called 'Kinsey's Pedophiles' - which based its claims on 'newspaper findings' without nameing any specific newspaper. A claim which it appears to have in turn pulled from the claims of one Dr. Judith Reisman - who the author of the re-whitewashing article seems to hold in high estem.

This Reisman is also reaponsible for many of the other claims repeated - most, if not all. Yet her own credability is pathetic. She appears to be on an anti-Kinsey crusade, publishing a series of books and a website attacking him, and making numerous claims which I can see at a glance to be nonsense. For example, the ''Kinsey's 'research' alleged that 10% of American males were homosexual'' line, which is actually just a misreading of his definition (The research actually claimed that 10% of males had homosexual tendencies, which could include bisexuality, or even heterosexuals who had recurring homosexual thoughts or fantasies even if not acted upon). And she makes some very dubious claims - once stateing that watching pornography caused the formation of toxic chemicals in the brain.

The re-whitewashing writer seems to have a bit of a nazi obcession, comparing Kinsey to them no less than five times. Including one time where he argues that Kinsey must be like the Nazis because they both supported eugenics - well, eugenics was hugely popular at that time, quite a few US states passed eugenics laws and yet noone calls those representatives Nazis. It was in fashion.

I just dont think we should refer to this collection of unfounded accusations and lies, written by a peddler of unfounded accusations and lies, in turn repeated by the creator of unfounded accusations and lies and without a spec of credability at any chain. I advise that it be removed, and never refered to here again, in the name of retaining what little credability Conservapedia has.

I have not seen such an appallingly bad source used on Conservapedia since the article that claimed the Nazi Party encouraged homosexuality.

Suricou, the annoyed raven.

== 10% or 4% ==

Two of the references use on the original version of this page show that Kinsey claimed that 4% not 10% of the American public was homosexual—no references have been provided supporting the 10% claim—I think that if my addition is going to be reverted, at least some sources should be provided. The articles make a point of saying the Kinsey was misunderstood to be claiming the 10% number, so a reference to “everybody knows” Kinsey said it is not sufficient here.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:04, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
:It's common knowledge. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:06, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Sexual revolution

2007-05-10T19:43:06Z

Suricou: Suggestion: Throw out the Kinsey criticisms, and confine them to the article on Kinsey himself.

The '''sexual revolution''' of the 1950s and 1960s was based on the ideas of three men: [[Sigmund Freud]], [[Alfred Kinsey]], and [[Hugh Hefner]].

Freud claimed that sexual desire could not be controlled or channeled without causing harm to one's psyche. In his model of [[mental illness]], [[repression]] would lead to [[neurosis]], because of the dictates of the [[unconscious mind]].

Kinsey applied the techniques of scientific and statistical investigation to human sexuality, ignoring the taboos that previously prevented research in the field. Anonymous surveys showed that many socially unacceptable sexual practices, including homosexuality and frequent mastubation, were far more common than had been widely believed.

Hefner's "playboy philosophy" was merely a retread of [[Hedonism]], an entirely self-centered pleasure-based life (see also [[Utilitarianism]]). What Kinsey did for the science of sex, Hefner did for its popular image - weakening taboos and allowing open discussion.

The sexual revolution gained great traction in the 1960's with the invention of the [[birth control pill]], and in the 1970's with the legalization of [[abortion]], as these helped separate sexual activity from the consequence of pregnancy. With sex now reduced to a low-risk activity, the deterrent against premarital or casual sex and promiscuity was greatly reduced. Sex purely for recreation became possibile, without the need for a married family to raise any children produced. This began weakening the social significence of marriage - long-term sexual relationships without the need for marriage became increasingly common.

Problems with [[sexually transmitted disease]]s, notably herpes and the [[AIDS epidemic]], served to dampen these activities, by creating an obvious drawback to [[promiscuity]].

In response to the sexual revolution, American conservative groups laid policies to restore the lost connection between sex, reproduction and marriage and to set up education programs to reenforce the importance of confining sex to married relationships only. This approach eventully formed what would become [[abstinance only]] education.

==References==
<references/>

Demon

2007-05-09T16:57:45Z

Suricou: Bold. Bah, two ' not three!

{{stub}}

A demon is an supernatural immortal creature which is an enemy of [[God]]. Demons may also be refered to as 'devils,' with a lowercase initial letter to differentiate them from The Devil, a title for [[Satan]].

Demons are not to be confused with [[fallen angels]] or the [[Devil]], which are similar creatures but not wholly the same. A [[Succubus]] is an example of one kind of demon.

==Demons in the bible==

In places, God uses 'evil spirits' to serve His purposes. The precise nature of these spirits is unclear, but they may be classed as demons.
Judges 9:23, ''God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem''

1 Kings 22:23, ''...behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets...''

1 Samuel 16:14, ''But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him.''

In the [[New Testament]], Jesus cures the illnesses of various people by casting posessing demons from them.

Matthew 4:24: ''...they brought unto him'' [Jesus] ''all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy...''

Matthew 8:16: ''When the even was come, they brought unto him'' [Jesus] ''many that were possessed with devils...''

Matthew 8:28-34: ''And when he'' [Jesus] ''was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce...''

These lists are incomplete: Demons, and 'evil' or 'unclean' spirits are mentioned at least fifty times in the new testament.

==Modern views of demons==

More liberal-leaning prostants tend to either ignore or explictly reject the existance of demons. The Catholic Church still claims demons exist and actively try to corrupt humans into sinful behavour, but has reduced the significence of this element of doctrine and no longer performs exorcisms.

More conservative prostants, espicially those of evangelical denomination, see demons as one side of the constant struggle between Good and Evil - an army of darkness under the command of Satan, the natural counterpart to the army of Light formed of angels and under command of God with humans, posessing free will, caught in the middle. In this view, demons are believed to operate in secret in order to corrupt and influence individual humans in order to ensure they turn away from Christ. For some examples of this, see the works of [[Jack Chick]].

==Demons in fiction==

Demons are, by definition, evil. This moral unambiguity makes them usful antagonists in TV series such as [[Chamed]], as the 'good guys' can kill demons without either moral dilemma or proof of guilt for any specific crime.

Demon

2007-05-09T16:56:59Z

Suricou:

{{stub}}

A demon is an supernatural immortal creature which is an enemy of [[God]]. Demons may also be refered to as 'devils,' with a lowercase initial letter to differentiate them from The Devil, a title for [[Satan]].

Demons are not to be confused with [[fallen angels]] or the [[Devil]], which are similar creatures but not wholly the same. A [[Succubus]] is an example of one kind of demon.

==Demons in the bible==

In places, God uses 'evil spirits' to serve His purposes. The precise nature of these spirits is unclear, but they may be classed as demons.
Judges 9:23, '''God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem'''

1 Kings 22:23, '''...behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets...'''

1 Samuel 16:14, '''But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him.'''

In the [[New Testament]], Jesus cures the illnesses of various people by casting posessing demons from them.

Matthew 4:24: '''...they brought unto him''' [Jesus] '''all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy...'''

Matthew 8:16: '''When the even was come, they brought unto him''' [Jesus] '''many that were possessed with devils...'''

Matthew 8:28-34: "And when he''' [Jesus] '''was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce...'''

These lists are incomplete: Demons, and 'evil' or 'unclean' spirits are mentioned at least fifty times in the new testament.

==Modern views of demons==

More liberal-leaning prostants tend to either ignore or explictly reject the existance of demons. The Catholic Church still claims demons exist and actively try to corrupt humans into sinful behavour, but has reduced the significence of this element of doctrine and no longer performs exorcisms.

More conservative prostants, espicially those of evangelical denomination, see demons as one side of the constant struggle between Good and Evil - an army of darkness under the command of Satan, the natural counterpart to the army of Light formed of angels and under command of God with humans, posessing free will, caught in the middle. In this view, demons are believed to operate in secret in order to corrupt and influence individual humans in order to ensure they turn away from Christ. For some examples of this, see the works of [[Jack Chick]].

==Demons in fiction==

Demons are, by definition, evil. This moral unambiguity makes them usful antagonists in TV series such as [[Chamed]], as the 'good guys' can kill demons without either moral dilemma or proof of guilt for any specific crime.

Talk:Demon

2007-05-09T16:30:29Z

Suricou:

The references to the "Nine Hells" and the "Abyss" appear to be based on the occult views of the universe propounded by dungeons and dragons players. I suspect this article has been written as a joke. The Bible mentions one Hell and the "Abyss" is merely a synonym for it used in some (but not all) versions of the Bible, not a separate place. It's dungeons and dragons appears to treat the Nine Hells and the Abyss as different places. --[[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 23:51, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Or Dante. He wrote a book about it. Perhaps you've heard of it. It's called Inferno. It preceded Dungeons and Dragons by a couple of hundred years. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 17:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::This article should be merged with [[Fallen angels]]. After all, they're both the same. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Tell me what you think]] 19:08, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
::::No, fallen angels seem to be quite different things. All fallen angles may be demons, but not all demons are fallen angels. And Godman was right, Dante's Inferno (Not a book, but the first third of a poetic trilogy) popularised the circles of hell concept. Im going to quickly rough out some stub sections here that can be used as a guide to improve the article. - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]

ACLU

2007-05-09T12:24:19Z

Suricou: Too many ' symbols.

[[Image:Nghfuyr.png|right|thumb|Current logo of the ACLU.]]
The '''ACLU''' is the American Civil Liberties Union, an organization founded in 1920 and devoted to protecting the civil liberties of Americans and defending them in court.

==ACLU Against the Boy Scouts==

The ACLU filed a lawsuit to prohibit the federal government from continuing to allow the [[Boy Scouts]], a charitable organization for teenagers, to use an Army base in Virginia for a quadrennial gathering. In 2005, more than 40,000 Boy Scouts attended this National Boy Scout Jamboree.

Although the Boy Scouts have been conducting this Jamboree for 70 years, this lawsuit was not filed until 1999, after the Boy Scouts enforced its policy against having openly homosexual Scout leaders. The theory of the lawsuit was that because Scouts swear an oath of "duty to God," it violates the Establishment Clause for the government to allow this joint project.

A federal district court ruled for the ACLU, but the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit overturned the lower court ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the suit which will allow the government to continue to sponsor this event for the Boy Scouts.<ref>See [[Essay:Boy Scouts Rout ACLU]]</ref>

==ACLU and the Establishment Clause==
ACLU chapters frequently sue to compel removal of the Ten Commandments from public property. For example, in ''McCreary County v. ACLU'', 545 U.S. 844 (2005), the ACLU of Kentucky forced two counties to remove displays of the Ten Commandments from their courthouses. In Utah, the ACLU even announced a scavenger hunt for anyone who could find a display of the Ten Commandments monument that the ACLU could demand be removed. The ACLU typically receives substantial legal fees from the government in each of these cases.

In 1994, the ACLU of New Jersey sued Jersey City, New Jersey to challenge a menorah and a Christmas tree at city hall. A federal district judge declared the display to be unconstitutional, but the appellate court, in a 2-1 opinion written by now-Justice [[Samuel Alito]], found a modified display to be constitutional. ''ACLU of New Jersey v. Schundler'' (1999). Then-Judge Alito wrote, "government may celebrate Christmas in some manner and form, but not in a way that endorses Christian doctrine."

In 2007, the ACLU Foundation of Texas filed an [[amicus brief]] for removal of a longstanding monument to William Mosher outside Harris County Civil Courthouse because the statute contained a depiction of an open Bible. ''Staley v. Harris County'', 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 9296 (5th Cir. 2007). The court ruled that Harris County must pay attorneys fees to the [[Americans United For Separation of Church & State]], which often appears along with the ACLU in demanding removal of religious symbols from government property and censoring criticism of evolution in public school.

Occasionally an ACLU chapter does side with a Christian student. The ACLU of Michigan defended a Christian student seeking to have a Biblical passage on the student's yearbook page.<ref>ACLU: After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries (5/11/2004)
[http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12845prs20040511.html]</ref>

==Religious freedom==

In the 2007 case ''Spratt v. Rhode Island Department of Corrections'', the ACLU bought case against the Rhode Island Adult Correctional Institute following the prison's decision to bar a Christian prisoner and lay ministor Wesley Spratt from preeching to other inmates during weekly services. The ACLU won the case on appeal, securing the right for Spratt to hold religious services for other inmates so long as these do not conflict with prison security.<ref>http://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/29578prs20070409.html</ref>

in 2004, student Abbey Moler selected a bible verse to accompany her picture in a school yearbook. The school subsequently removed this text before publication. The ACLU filed suit against the Utica Community School District, on the grounds that this cencorship violated Moler's first-ammendment rights to free expression and freedom of religion. The case was settled out of court, with the school district agreeing to replace the verse in following prints of the yearbook and correct it by means of a sticker in copies still in its posession.<ref>http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12845prs20040511.html</ref>

The ACLU views freedom of religion and the establishment clause as inseperable: In order for people to have religious freedom, their government must neither endorse nor prohibit any religious position.

==ACLU, Evolution, and the Establishment Clause==
In 2004, the ACLU filed [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]].<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> If the plaintiffs, five parents in the Georgia district, won the case, the school district would have to pay their lawyers. The ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled. The school district agreed to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution", and to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum, which includes evolution, although that wasn't under dispute in the original suit. In addition, they paid $166,669.12 to Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore.<ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

Another example of ACLU litigation was ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]].''<ref>Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District:
Decision of the Court, 400 F.Supp.2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005) [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html]</ref>, also known as the [[Intelligent design]] case. The ACLU prevailed in prohibiting administrators from reading a short statement that mentions [[Intelligent Design]] to students, and forbade the school board from issuing a warning that Darwin's theory has gaps.<ref>''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District,'' 400 F.Supp.2d 707.</ref> In his opinion, Judge [[John E. Jones III]] heavily relied on the later-vacated ruling in ''[[Selman v. Cobb County School District]]'', and on ACLU briefs.<ref>90% of the section on intelligent design was from the ACLU's briefs. A Comparison of Judge Jones’ Opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover with Plaintiffs’ Proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law”, by David DeWolf & John West, Discovery Institute, December 12, 2006
[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3829&program=CSC%20-%20Views%20and%20News]</ref> He also cited the [[Establishment test]], the [[Lemon test]], and the [[reasonable student standard]].<ref>''Kitzmiller,'' 400 F. Supp. 2d at 725 (coming to the conclusion reached in ''Selman'' by the Court's own reasoning), ''compare'' Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 13005 (11th Cir. May 25, 2006) at *pincite needed*.</ref> The judge also ordered fees paid to the ACLU and its lawyers, totaling $2,067,000.<ref>''See'' 42 U.S.C. s 1988 (describing relief afforded victorious plaintiff of a 1983 action as including attorney fees).</ref>

==Same-sex Marriage==
The ACLU of New Jersey filed an amicus curiae brief in favor of same-sex marriage in ''Lewis v. Harris'', 188 N.J. 415 (1006). The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in favor of civil unions, but by a 4-3 margin did not require same-sex marriage.

The ACLU sues schools when a student alleges encountering "anti-gay peer harassment and bullying based on his perceived sexual orientation." <ref>http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/28618prs20070221.html</ref> The ACLU holds the school (and hence the taxpayers) liable for actions based on conduct by some students towards others.

The ACLU of Minnesota sued to force the Osseo Area School District to grant equal access to the schools public address (PA) system, yearbook, fundraising and field trips by a pro-homosexual school club named the Straights and Gays for Equality (“SAGE”).<ref>''Straights & Gays for Equality v. Osseo Area Schs.'', 471 F.3d 908 (8th Cir. 2006).</ref> The school district already had a club entitled "Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Transgender, Questioning and Allies," and already had a SAGE club, but SAGE was designated as non-curricular and wanted the additional rights of communication.

The ACLU invoked the Equal Access Act to argue that as long as the school district granted these rights to other clubs, such as cheerleading and synchronized swimming, it must grant these rights to SAGE also. No, the school district argued in defending its action, cheerleading is related to physical education while SAGE is not, and thus SAGE should not have the same rights. However, there were other non phys-ed sports that got funding.

The district court ruled in favor of the ACLU, and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit unanimously affirmed. The Court ordered the school district to give SAGE the same rights as the cheerleading club. The ACLU will be able to demand substantial attorneys' fees at taxpayer expense.

Similarly, the ACLU of Florida sued the Okeechobee School Board to force it to allow a Gay-Straight Alliance club at Okeechobee High School. Though the school objected to this club as a "sex-based" club, the ACLU persuaded a federal judge to rule in its favor, and it will likely recover substantial attorneys fees at taxpayer expense. See ''Gay-Straight Alliance of Okeechobee High Sch. v. School Board of Okeechobee County'', 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25729 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 6, 2007).

==Abortion==
The ACLU is generally against laws that restrict access to abortion, such as parental notification when a minor seeks an abortion and informed consent for the woman herself. ACLU attorneys have argued several cases in support of abortion rights.

==Polygamy==
The ACLU has defended [[polygamy|polygamists]]{{fact-political}}.

==Views of the ACLU Founder==
In 1934, Roger Baldwin, a co-founder of the ACLU and its first leader, published his goals in Soviet Russia Today:<ref>The Volokh Conspiracy (blog entry), Eugene Volokh, September 7, 2005 [http://volokh.com/posts/1126138099.shtml]</ref>

:I believe in non-violent methods of struggle as most effective in the long run for building up successful working class power. Where they cannot be followed or where they are not even permitted by the ruling class, obviously only violent tactics remain. I champion civil liberty as the best of the non-violent means of building the power on which workers rule must be based. If I aid the reactionaries to get free speech now and then, if I go outside the class struggle to fight against censorship, it is only because those liberties help to create a more hospitable atmosphere for working class liberties. The class struggle is the central conflict of the world; all others are incidental.

:Proletarian Liberty in Practice

:When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever. Dictatorship is the obvious means in a world of enemies at home and abroad. I dislike it in principle as dangerous to its own objects. But the Soviet Union has already created liberties far greater than exist elsewhere in the world. They are liberties that most closely affect the lives of the people — power in the trade unions, in peasant organizations, in the cultural life of nationalities, freedom of women in public and private life, and a tremendous development of education for adults and children. . . .

Baldwin and the ACLU purged any open communists from its ranks in 1940.

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/blog/baldwin.pdf Baldwin speaks in defense of communism from 1934]
*Pro-ACLU sites:
**http://www.aclu.org
*Anti-ACLU sites:
**http://www.stoptheaclu.com/
**http://www.aclj.org

[[category:politics]]
[[category:liberal activists]]

ACLU

2007-05-09T12:23:22Z

Suricou: Added 'religious freedom' section. Minor rephasing further down to clarify that the ACLU does not support abortion, it supports abortion rights. Important difference there.

[[Image:Nghfuyr.png|right|thumb|Current logo of the ACLU.]]
The '''ACLU''' is the American Civil Liberties Union, an organization founded in 1920 and devoted to protecting the civil liberties of Americans and defending them in court.

==ACLU Against the Boy Scouts==

The ACLU filed a lawsuit to prohibit the federal government from continuing to allow the [[Boy Scouts]], a charitable organization for teenagers, to use an Army base in Virginia for a quadrennial gathering. In 2005, more than 40,000 Boy Scouts attended this National Boy Scout Jamboree.

Although the Boy Scouts have been conducting this Jamboree for 70 years, this lawsuit was not filed until 1999, after the Boy Scouts enforced its policy against having openly homosexual Scout leaders. The theory of the lawsuit was that because Scouts swear an oath of "duty to God," it violates the Establishment Clause for the government to allow this joint project.

A federal district court ruled for the ACLU, but the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit overturned the lower court ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the suit which will allow the government to continue to sponsor this event for the Boy Scouts.<ref>See [[Essay:Boy Scouts Rout ACLU]]</ref>

==ACLU and the Establishment Clause==
ACLU chapters frequently sue to compel removal of the Ten Commandments from public property. For example, in ''McCreary County v. ACLU'', 545 U.S. 844 (2005), the ACLU of Kentucky forced two counties to remove displays of the Ten Commandments from their courthouses. In Utah, the ACLU even announced a scavenger hunt for anyone who could find a display of the Ten Commandments monument that the ACLU could demand be removed. The ACLU typically receives substantial legal fees from the government in each of these cases.

In 1994, the ACLU of New Jersey sued Jersey City, New Jersey to challenge a menorah and a Christmas tree at city hall. A federal district judge declared the display to be unconstitutional, but the appellate court, in a 2-1 opinion written by now-Justice [[Samuel Alito]], found a modified display to be constitutional. ''ACLU of New Jersey v. Schundler'' (1999). Then-Judge Alito wrote, "government may celebrate Christmas in some manner and form, but not in a way that endorses Christian doctrine."

In 2007, the ACLU Foundation of Texas filed an [[amicus brief]] for removal of a longstanding monument to William Mosher outside Harris County Civil Courthouse because the statute contained a depiction of an open Bible. ''Staley v. Harris County'', 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 9296 (5th Cir. 2007). The court ruled that Harris County must pay attorneys fees to the [[Americans United For Separation of Church & State]], which often appears along with the ACLU in demanding removal of religious symbols from government property and censoring criticism of evolution in public school.

Occasionally an ACLU chapter does side with a Christian student. The ACLU of Michigan defended a Christian student seeking to have a Biblical passage on the student's yearbook page.<ref>ACLU: After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries (5/11/2004)
[http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12845prs20040511.html]</ref>

==Religious freedom==

In the 2007 case '''Spratt v. Rhode Island Department of Corrections''', the ACLU bought case against the Rhode Island Adult Correctional Institute following the prison's decision to bar a Christian prisoner and lay ministor Wesley Spratt from preeching to other inmates during weekly services. The ACLU won the case on appeal, securing the right for Spratt to hold religious services for other inmates so long as these do not conflict with prison security.<ref>http://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/29578prs20070409.html</ref>

in 2004, student Abbey Moler selected a bible verse to accompany her picture in a school yearbook. The school subsequently removed this text before publication. The ACLU filed suit against the Utica Community School District, on the grounds that this cencorship violated Moler's first-ammendment rights to free expression and freedom of religion. The case was settled out of court, with the school district agreeing to replace the verse in following prints of the yearbook and correct it by means of a sticker in copies still in its posession.<ref>http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12845prs20040511.html</ref>

The ACLU views freedom of religion and the establishment clause as inseperable: In order for people to have religious freedom, their government must neither endorse nor prohibit any religious position.

==ACLU, Evolution, and the Establishment Clause==
In 2004, the ACLU filed [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]].<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> If the plaintiffs, five parents in the Georgia district, won the case, the school district would have to pay their lawyers. The ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled. The school district agreed to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution", and to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum, which includes evolution, although that wasn't under dispute in the original suit. In addition, they paid $166,669.12 to Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore.<ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

Another example of ACLU litigation was ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]].''<ref>Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District:
Decision of the Court, 400 F.Supp.2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005) [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html]</ref>, also known as the [[Intelligent design]] case. The ACLU prevailed in prohibiting administrators from reading a short statement that mentions [[Intelligent Design]] to students, and forbade the school board from issuing a warning that Darwin's theory has gaps.<ref>''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District,'' 400 F.Supp.2d 707.</ref> In his opinion, Judge [[John E. Jones III]] heavily relied on the later-vacated ruling in ''[[Selman v. Cobb County School District]]'', and on ACLU briefs.<ref>90% of the section on intelligent design was from the ACLU's briefs. A Comparison of Judge Jones’ Opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover with Plaintiffs’ Proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law”, by David DeWolf & John West, Discovery Institute, December 12, 2006
[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3829&program=CSC%20-%20Views%20and%20News]</ref> He also cited the [[Establishment test]], the [[Lemon test]], and the [[reasonable student standard]].<ref>''Kitzmiller,'' 400 F. Supp. 2d at 725 (coming to the conclusion reached in ''Selman'' by the Court's own reasoning), ''compare'' Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 13005 (11th Cir. May 25, 2006) at *pincite needed*.</ref> The judge also ordered fees paid to the ACLU and its lawyers, totaling $2,067,000.<ref>''See'' 42 U.S.C. s 1988 (describing relief afforded victorious plaintiff of a 1983 action as including attorney fees).</ref>

==Same-sex Marriage==
The ACLU of New Jersey filed an amicus curiae brief in favor of same-sex marriage in ''Lewis v. Harris'', 188 N.J. 415 (1006). The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in favor of civil unions, but by a 4-3 margin did not require same-sex marriage.

The ACLU sues schools when a student alleges encountering "anti-gay peer harassment and bullying based on his perceived sexual orientation." <ref>http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/28618prs20070221.html</ref> The ACLU holds the school (and hence the taxpayers) liable for actions based on conduct by some students towards others.

The ACLU of Minnesota sued to force the Osseo Area School District to grant equal access to the schools public address (PA) system, yearbook, fundraising and field trips by a pro-homosexual school club named the Straights and Gays for Equality (“SAGE”).<ref>''Straights & Gays for Equality v. Osseo Area Schs.'', 471 F.3d 908 (8th Cir. 2006).</ref> The school district already had a club entitled "Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Transgender, Questioning and Allies," and already had a SAGE club, but SAGE was designated as non-curricular and wanted the additional rights of communication.

The ACLU invoked the Equal Access Act to argue that as long as the school district granted these rights to other clubs, such as cheerleading and synchronized swimming, it must grant these rights to SAGE also. No, the school district argued in defending its action, cheerleading is related to physical education while SAGE is not, and thus SAGE should not have the same rights. However, there were other non phys-ed sports that got funding.

The district court ruled in favor of the ACLU, and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit unanimously affirmed. The Court ordered the school district to give SAGE the same rights as the cheerleading club. The ACLU will be able to demand substantial attorneys' fees at taxpayer expense.

Similarly, the ACLU of Florida sued the Okeechobee School Board to force it to allow a Gay-Straight Alliance club at Okeechobee High School. Though the school objected to this club as a "sex-based" club, the ACLU persuaded a federal judge to rule in its favor, and it will likely recover substantial attorneys fees at taxpayer expense. See ''Gay-Straight Alliance of Okeechobee High Sch. v. School Board of Okeechobee County'', 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25729 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 6, 2007).

==Abortion==
The ACLU is generally against laws that restrict access to abortion, such as parental notification when a minor seeks an abortion and informed consent for the woman herself. ACLU attorneys have argued several cases in support of abortion rights.

==Polygamy==
The ACLU has defended [[polygamy|polygamists]]{{fact-political}}.

==Views of the ACLU Founder==
In 1934, Roger Baldwin, a co-founder of the ACLU and its first leader, published his goals in Soviet Russia Today:<ref>The Volokh Conspiracy (blog entry), Eugene Volokh, September 7, 2005 [http://volokh.com/posts/1126138099.shtml]</ref>

:I believe in non-violent methods of struggle as most effective in the long run for building up successful working class power. Where they cannot be followed or where they are not even permitted by the ruling class, obviously only violent tactics remain. I champion civil liberty as the best of the non-violent means of building the power on which workers rule must be based. If I aid the reactionaries to get free speech now and then, if I go outside the class struggle to fight against censorship, it is only because those liberties help to create a more hospitable atmosphere for working class liberties. The class struggle is the central conflict of the world; all others are incidental.

:Proletarian Liberty in Practice

:When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever. Dictatorship is the obvious means in a world of enemies at home and abroad. I dislike it in principle as dangerous to its own objects. But the Soviet Union has already created liberties far greater than exist elsewhere in the world. They are liberties that most closely affect the lives of the people — power in the trade unions, in peasant organizations, in the cultural life of nationalities, freedom of women in public and private life, and a tremendous development of education for adults and children. . . .

Baldwin and the ACLU purged any open communists from its ranks in 1940.

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/blog/baldwin.pdf Baldwin speaks in defense of communism from 1934]
*Pro-ACLU sites:
**http://www.aclu.org
*Anti-ACLU sites:
**http://www.stoptheaclu.com/
**http://www.aclj.org

[[category:politics]]
[[category:liberal activists]]

Oliver Cromwell

2007-05-09T11:43:29Z

Suricou: Chronological order now.

'''Oliver Cromwell''' lived from April 25, [[1599 ]]to September 3, [[1658]]. He was an English soldier and statesman who led parliamentary forces in the [[English Civil War]]s and ruled as [[dictator]] under the title [[Lord Protector]]. To this day Cromwell is remembered by many in [[England]], but hated by others. The [[Ireland|Irish]], which suffered from his brutality in Ireland, vilify Cromwell. Royalists, or those who love the English monarchy, also hated Cromwell and even dug up his corpse to behead him once the monarchy regained power.

Cromwell carried out a number of massacres in Ireland. He was a military dictator who used troops to shut 'the mother of parliaments' and held deeply bigoted views of Roman Catholics. He breeched the accepted natural law of the day when he participated in the execution of a King. He then tried to have his son succeed him as Lord Protector (effectively King).

Cromwell's reign as Lord Protector was brief, from 1635 to 1658 and marked by unpopularity, in part due to the extremally strict enforcement of Puritanical Prostestant Christianity by both Cromwell personally and those parliments he headed. This included a prohibition on any celebration of Christimas and of various Saints' Days, out of concern that these celebrations were overly catholic-influenced and not biblically based - and, in the case of Christmas, an occasion for drunkenness, gluttony, sexual immorality, and other such things of which the puritanical Cromwell did not approve.

The extreme unpopularity of both Cromwell's government was so great that it was overturned after his death in popular uprising, and King [[Charles II]] was invited back to reign. Cromwell's body was dug up and beheaded, then displayed outside [[Westminster Abbey]] for over 20 years, from 1661 to 1685. The remainder of his body was thrown into a pit in disgrace.

Cromwell's ban on Christmas was never specifically overturned, leading many to believe that it remains in effect as an unenforced law to this day. However, it was overturned upon the Restoration of the monarchy as part of a bulk repeal.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Cromwell, Oliver}}
[[Category:Military Commanders]]

Sexual revolution

2007-05-08T19:32:52Z

Suricou: Removing unsupported claims, clarifying 10% statistic, added church responses, added a lot.

The '''sexual revolution''' of the 1950s and 1960s was based on the ideas of three men: [[Sigmund Freud]], [[Alfred Kinsey]], and [[Hugh Hefner]].

Freud claimed that sexual desire could not be controlled or channeled without causing harm to one's psyche. In his model of [[mental illness]], [[repression]] would lead to [[neurosis]], because of the dictates of the [[unconscious mind]].{{fact}}

Kinsy's work was the first to investigate sex from a scientific perspective, in violation of the taboos of the time. Much of Kinsey's research was highly controversial, turning the tools of statistics and anonymous surveys towards studying the sexual activities of large populations in ways that revealed 'unacceptable' sexual practices to be far more widespread than previously believed.

Most famously, Kinsey claimed that 10% of American men had some [[homosexual]] tendencies. This statistic is often incorrectly cited as '10% of American men are homosexual,' but includes not just homosexual men but also bisexuals, and heterosexual men who have recurring homosexual attractions, thoughts or fantasies even if these are not acted upon.

Hefner's "playboy philosophy" was merely a retread of [[Hedonism]], an entirely self-centered pleasure-based life (see also [[Utilitarianism]]).{{fact}}

The sexual revolution was in large part a consequence of greated availablity of [[contraception]], particually easier access to condoms and the invention in the 1960's of the [[birth control pill]], and in the 1970's with the legalization of [[abortion]]. Each of these served to further seperate sex from pregnency, thus introducing the possibility of sex purely for enjoyment with minimal risk of unwanted pregnency.

Prior to this seperation, all sexual relationships held some possibility of children, even if unintentional. This strongly discouraged sex before or outside of marriage. After the widespread availability of contraception, premarital sex became increasingly socially acceptable as it no longer posed so high a risk of creating children without a married family to raise them. Thus the sexual revolution was characterised by 'casual' sex, often early in a relationship, and a high occurance of promiscuity.

In response to the social consequences of the split between sex and reproduction, the Catholic Church forbid the use of all forms of contraception by its members in 1968<ref>http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html</ref>. This instruction is widely ignored by Catholics. Protestant churches instead choose to focus on re-emphesising the importance of marriage, abstinance and monogamy and on surpressing any public mention of contraception. The ultimate result of this approach was the modern [[abstinance-only]] sex education movement.

With pregnency now an avoidable risk, [[sexually transmitted disease]]s came to be the princible disincentive towards promiscuity. Herpes and the [[AIDS epidemic]] raised the public awareness of the risks of STIs.

==References==
<references/>

Omnipotence

2007-05-08T19:06:05Z

Suricou: Clarified the rock question.

'''Omnipotence''' is the ability to do absolutely anything. It is usually ascribed to [[God]]

Some [[atheist]]s have argued that omnipotence is an inherent paradox, as it can be self-contradictory. For example, suppose an ominpotent [[God]] were to attempt to create a rock so large that he could not lift it. This attempt must be either successful or unsuccessful. If it is unsuccessful, then this is a task which this God is not capable of, and thus the God cannot be truely omnipotent. If, however, the attempt is successful then the God is now presented with a rock which he cannot lift. Again, this means that there is an action which the God is incapable of, and thus the God cannot be omnipotent. In this way it can be argued that true omnipotent is logically impossible.

A common counter is that [[God]] can do anything within His nature; it is not in [[God]]'s nature to create such a rock, so He would not do so. However, this is a contradiction of the definition of omnipotence.

A further problem with the naive notion of omnipotence is that it is impossible for God to be both wholly good and wholly powerful. Many souls have been misled by the pernicious doctrine that states that an all-loving God could not be responsible for suffering in the world. This is, of course, a denial of the doctrine of sin, which holds that we are each - individually and collectively - held responsible by God for the suffering that comes upon us - whether or not we can actually understand why we are responsible. Of course, the fact that we are responsible entails that God is not. How can this be reconciled with omnipotence? The clear answer is that God's powers are virtual powers (pouissance) not actual powers (pouvoir): God could in theory do anything but the fact that he does not do anything particular does not disprove that he could not have done it. God, while all-loving and omnipotent, is not obliged to do whatever would benefit any specific part of creation, but rather to "love the individual as part of the collective" - suffering, no matter how great on the mortal scale - is always inconsequential compared to the realization of God's plan.

Debate:Can any man live without some code of morality?

2007-05-08T00:10:29Z

Suricou:

{{debate}}

== No ==
'''No'''. What is [[morality]], after all, but a code of ''values''? A man without morality has no values. But surely every man values ''something.'' Even if all that a man values is himself, and what will make him happy, he still has values. With values comes morality.

Thus a man might ''claim'' to be [[Amoralism|amoral]], but in fact he does live by a code of morality that he himself has invented.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:17, 8 March 2007 (EST)

My take on this is that morality has both an innate and an encultured aspect. The existence of a moral sense is "hardwired" like the ability to learn language. But although we are all born with the potential to develop as moral agents, the course that this development takes is partially determined by the experiences we have as we learn and grow. Theoretically, an individual might grow up without moral training of any kind. However, I would argue that all human societies possess a volume of more or less explicit moral teachings. Thus, even a society which habitually indulges in practises that we might find entirely immoral, does so in accordance with its own moral code. This is not to say that all moral codes are equal. The other (and more difficult) aspect of morality is the question of moral development: the morals of societies change over time, and, in particular, it is an undeniable fact that individuals and groups arise in all historical societies claiming to be in possession of a higher morality than the one that curently prevails. We thus always find ourselves in a marketplace of competing moralities, and it is not easy, as any conservative will acknowledge, to lay claim to moral infalibility: There are always alternative points of view. In Western societies, the existence of an alleged "moral vacuum" is largely the result of the absence of a centrally prescribed code of morals in certain spheres of life (above all sexuality and religion) where one did exist - at least nominally - until recently. Nonetheless, a broad consensus does continue to exist over many moral issues. [[User:HabamusPapem|HabamusPapem]] 17:50, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

No, of course not. You don't have to be religious to be moral or have a moral code. There are people who think morally it's ok to kill certain groups of people for whatever stupid reason they have, that's their moral. Although it's in opposition to all religions and philosophies. Morals are what one makes them, no one doesn't have them, sometimes people just don't share the same morals. --[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 06:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

===postmodern morality===
In the Postmodern world that we live in, our morality is defined by whatever feels right and works for that individual person. There is no central absolute standard in order to judge. However, that is a defeating system, because what if my morality does not match up with someone elses? What if I decide to go rob a store, and that was genuinely what I thought was right to do. Of course that's an extreme example, because not many people in their right mind genuinely think it is the right thing to do. Even criminals know it's wrong, they just don't care. But where does this sense of morality come from? Our postmodern culture says that all viewpoints should be tolerated and no One should find dominance. However, those that hold to that position are philosophically contradicting themselves because they are enforcing postmodernism (their viewpoint) on everyone else. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== Yes ==
Morality is a set of laws enforced by God. If a man has no religion then he believes that there is no God, therefore he does not believe that his actions will be judged. If there was no God then there would be no morality. There would be no laws if there was no government to enforce them. Therefore, ethiests live in moral anarchy(lack of morality) because they do not believe in God.

Double Edge
{{Unsigned|Double Edge}}

::I have no religion. I also have a small blue card in a draw, labeled 'National Blood Service' and printed with my donor number. I am both an atheist, and a moral person, as evidenced by my willingness to walk half an hour across town and then return a little bit lighter and less fit for the benefit of others. I myself am proof that morality does not require religion. But in case one isn't enough, I am sure there will be several tens of millions of atheists who would be willing to testify to their own morality.

To save time, the standard counter for this like of argument is to substitute a narrower definition of morality, one which is sufficiently narrow and full of arbitary restrictions derived from religion that only a follower of that religion could meet it. You may, for example, argue that it doesn't matter if someone is a charitable blood-donor, campaigner for the poor, kind, loving, polite and a perfect example of all things good - if they arn't Christian, they cant be moral. Its circular, and its pathetic logic, but it works when fed through a confirmation bias. - Suricou

:If you define morality merely as "a code of laws dictated by [[God]]," then I suppose you're right. But an [[Objectivism|Objectivist]] wouldn't agree with you. Objectivism says that a code of morality is ''any'' code of values that a man accepts ''by choice.''

:So I suppose everything depends entirely on what morality is.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 13:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

It reflects poorly on the editors of Conservapedia to be phrasing questions using "MAN" instead of "PERSON" considering we are in the year 2007. Women are not meekly pouring their husbands scotch while their men engage in intellectual discussions on your site. I assure you, you have many women readers whom you would be advised to address should you wish to be considered a reliable and unbiased resource. {{Unsigned|Valerie}}

:::"Man" in this context means "human", not "male". It's your duty to educate yourself, not to complain because others won't conform to your ignorant understanding of the word.

:This is a separate issue, but I use ''man'' to mean "any human being." I don't hold with surrendering the common-gender contexts of certain words, for no better reason than that they are "masculine" forms. For the record, I don't believe that a woman (that is, a female) can live without morality--that is, totally without values--any more than can a man (that is, a male).--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:37, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Absolutely, think of all the serial killers and mass murderers that go on almost forever that seem to have no morals or real code of living. As long as there is evil in the world there will be a need for morals.--[[User:Goose89|Goose]] 13:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:But what if the serial killer's or the mass murderer's personal moral code includes killing dozens of people. Is there an absolute moral code that we all must follow? And, if so, who decides what goes on that code? --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 14:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Who is to say what is moral and immoral? These two concepts technically do not exist. Interesting.
{{Unsigned|Gesiwuj}}

Yes. Just ask the president. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 02:10, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::If your lack of understanding of this word doesn't meant that the concept doesn't exist, silly. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Double Edge, i am an atheist. I do not live in moral anarchy. I have very strong moral values. I do not kill, i think it is wrong to steal or to commit adultery and i think that tolerance is the greatest virtue. To suggest that simply because i belive that the scientific evidence points to the non-existence of a god, does not immediately mean that therefore i have no morals whatsoever, and you suggesting that it does causes me to feel slighted and misunderstood. Please think more carefully about what you are saying about another person before you say something so generalising again. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 18:16, 20 April 2007

Morlity can be seen as something like money. Money, really, does not exist. You cannot hold 'money' - you can hold an object of known value, but that is not money. You can hold currency - but what is it but paper and ink, or a piece of metal? Is money held in a bank, where it is nothing but bits in a computer? Money doesn't exist, and yet its still possible to buy things with it. Because, so long as people believe in it, it '''does''' exist - its existance comes only from that belief. Were everyone to suddenly stop accepting money tomorrow, money would simply disappear and all that currency return to being worthless paper. And morality, in the same way, does have a real existance - so long as enough people believe that it does, and are willing to act on that belief. - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]

Debate:Can any man live without some code of morality?

2007-05-08T00:04:36Z

Suricou:

Astronomy

2007-05-07T23:47:32Z

Suricou:

== Definition ==
According to Merriam-Webster's online dictionary '''astronomy''' is "the study of objects and matter outside the earth's atmosphere and of their physical and chemical properties." <ref>http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=astronomy</ref> It has been studied since ancient times, forming a major part of the [[religion]]s of many early [[civilization]]s such as the [[Egpyt|Egyptians]] and the [[Aztecs]]. The great stone henge at [[Stonehenge]] in [[England]] is also thought to be an astronomical observatory. The handing down of complex astronomical teachings shows these early [[civilization]]s must have had formalized systems of [[education]].

Astronomy was crucial to the development of [[safe]] and accurate [[navigation]] for ships, and observations of the movement of [[sky|heavenly bodies]] helped lead to the theories we now call [[physics]]. In fact, much of astronomy today relies physics, thus many astronomers are considered astrophysicists. 

== Young Earth Creationism View ==
[[Young earth creationism|Young earth creationist]] scientists state that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe and they also claim that these laws point to the universe being supernaturally created. <ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref> <ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref> <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref> Also, these scientists assert the [[theory of evolution]] has had considerable influence on fields outside of biology and this includes the field of astronomy. <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836</ref> For example, it is common for astronomers to refer to the "evolution of the universe".<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7042/edsumm/e050602-01.html</ref> [[Young earth creationism|Young earth creationist]] scientists believe the evolutionary view has had a negative effect on science of astronomy and that [[Materialism|materialistic]] explanations of the the origins of various astronomical bodies are insufficient and counter evidence.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences.html</ref> <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836</ref> In addition, creationists often cite the secular scientific literature in order to make the case that materialist explanations of various astromical bodies are inadequate:

:“...most every prediction by theorists about [[planet|planetary]] formation has been wrong.” Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605.<ref>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/295/5555/605 <blockquote>Full text of passage: Astrophysicist Scott Tremaine of Princeton University sees these results and Lineweaver and Grether's extrapolation as reasonable quantifications of trends hinted at by the discoveries so far, and he looks forward to coming discoveries. As some monitoring records approach the requisite 12 years, Doppler detection of extrasolar Jupiters may not be far off. And searches are in the works for terrestrial-sized planets by looking for planets passing in front of their stars. But Tremaine remains cautious about what these searches will turn up. Speaking as a theorist, he notes that "most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong."</blockquote></ref> This quotation refers to a specific model of planet development, though: not the science of planetary development, as a whole.

:“We don’t understand how a single [[star]] forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.” Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750. <ref>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/303/5665/1750</ref> This, too, refers only to an innovative and groundbreaking new model of galactic formation, and not to some scientific shortcoming as a whole.

:“We cannot even show convincingly how [[Galaxy|galaxies]], stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186. This statement, made in 1983, describes astronomy before the efforts of the [[Hubble]] space telescope scientists caused many of the requested answers to be within reach.

Also, these scientists advance a number of reasons for the earth and universe being approximately 6,000 years old,<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Answers in Genesis).</ref> <ref name="AiG Astr QA">[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref> <ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/ ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Creation Ministries International).</ref> and raise a number of objections to claims of an extremely old age for the earth and the universe.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref> <ref name="AiG Astr QA" /> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp</ref> Young earth creationist scientists also contest the [[Big Bang Theory]] stating that it is scientifically unsound.
<ref name="BB Critique">Thompson, Bert, Harrub, Brad, and May, Branyon [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22 The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique] ''Apologetics Press'', May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47.</ref>
<ref>Brown, Walt, 2001, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html Big Bang?]</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/309</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2047</ref> <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref>

A common objection to young-earth astronomy is the [[starlight problem]] - the clear impossibility of observing objects further away than light could travel during the life of the universe, even though these objects can be easily observed. In regards to this question, young earth creationists scientists commonly mention two things. First, these scientists assert that the [[Big Bang Theory]] has a star light-travel time problem and cite the work of Dr. [[Charles C. Misner]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp#r10</ref> Secondly, the work of young earth creationist scientist Dr. [[John Hartnett]] is cited who proposes a young earth creationist cosmology that rejects a [[a priori]] [[methodological naturalism]] approach to the question of how one can see starlight from millions of years away. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i2/cosmology.asp</ref>

== Problems for Young Earth Creationism ==

Because velocity = distance/time, a young earth creationist wishing to postulate a universe of approximately 6000 years old faces a number of problems if one uses a [[a priori]] [[methodological naturalism]] approach to the issue:

1. If they accept that the speed of light is indeed a constant 186,000 miles per second, then they must argue for massive and systemic error in the measurement of distance between Earth and the vast majority of the observable universe.

2. If they accept that the measured distances are correct, then they must argue for a catastrophic miscalculation of the speed of light.

==References==

<references/>

==External Links==
[http://www.nasa.gov The NASA Homepage] 
[http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov The NASA Planetary Photojournal] 
[http://www.aas.org American Astronomical Society] 
[http://www.britastro.org/baa/ British Astronomical Association] 
[http://www.john-duck.co.uk/html/astronomy.html A guide on how to start] 

[[Category:Science]]

Talk:Homosexual Agenda

2007-05-07T23:41:36Z

Suricou: This cant be serious...

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

Scalia mentioned that in a dissenting opinion, which isn't binding law. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 00:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== WOV's got a point ==

Not only that, but this entire article is biased tripe. It presents the "homosexual agenda" from a one-sided perspective, and is filled with hate commentary. '''I recommend the entire thing for deletion.'''

Scalia's remark is regretful and a blemish on the pages of the U.S. Reporter, up there with Scott v. Sanford. But let's not expand it still further.

I have cleaned up biased and vitriolic language as best as I can, but this entry deserves deletion.

Seconded. If this is a homosexual agenda, then what homosexual wrote it? This is nothing but political game-playing: Identify a group as ''The Enemy'' and then brand them haters and abusers of family, children, and country. It makes dehumanising them so much easier. - Suricou

: I didn't see anything "hateful" in it. The Scalia reference was not intended to be about what is binding law, obviously. There was nothing binding about his phrase. I'll note that it was in dissent.

: The edits to this article were completely inappropriate, turning it into a liberal puff piece. Wikipedia exists for that. Actually, your edits made this even more liberal than Wikipedia's article on the same topic!

: The hour is very late and I need to lock this page to guard against vandalism or conversion to a liberal message. I can unlock tomorrow. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Presenting both points doesn't make it a liberal puff piece! It presented only one perspective (Focus on the Family), and referred to the Shepard incident as OVERBLOWN. That's awful!! I consider my entry a moderate tack, but if you can think of an acceptable compromise that preserves an unbiased perspective, be my guest. It shocks me to see you go against your own commandments, though, about not including bias, and not importing a political perspective. I have tried to, and continue to try to, do the same.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 02:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Instead of the http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm cite you may want to use this one [http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm] This cite goes straight (NPI) to a section of the book ''After the Ball''. -)[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:24, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Thanks. Will do tomorrow. Goodnight, Cracker!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I would definitely change the "promote homosexuality in schools" to "promote acceptance of homosexuality in schools". Definitely sounds like they're trying to make me gay. --[[User:Splark|Splark]] 21:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with the comments of [[User:AmesG|AmesG]] and [[User:Splark|Splark]]. The idea that one's ideological opponents have a specific "agenda" is an all-too common one, but such agendas are more often touted by those who oppose than by those who support a group. That a Supreme Court Justice referred to it, or that it's in some leaflet somewhere, isn't substantive evidence that it exists.. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Aren't those five points of the "homosexual agenda" linked to more of a strategy than an "agenda"? And, aren't they the standard strategy for all interest groups? 1. Talk about your issue. 2. Show your group is harmed unless you get what you want. 3. Provide facts so people can justify agreeing with you. 4. Portray yourself and your point of view as right and moral. 5. Portray your opponents and their point of view as wrong and immoral. 6. Get corporate or other financial support. Every group and lobbying organization does that, and I don't know that singling out gays and the gay rights movement as doing that is really informative.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 11:23, 15 March 2007 (ED

I think this page is extremely biased. It presents only one side of the issue and is locked to prevent the other side from responding. Proof of a bias of another kind here.
-Gasmonkey

== Eliminate this Hate ==

The aforementioned article makes me shake with fear as I think that people will actually be exposed to this. Present both sides of the issue fairly. I agree with Gasmonkey that this entire article should be deleted. Moreover, this entire web site should be deleted. It claims to be an informative, "Christian" site that in fact promotes hate and spews false information across our nation.

:Teaching God's word that homosexuals are sinful and militant is not hate speech, but free speech. God's teachings of homosexuality indicate that throughout history, homosexuals have continuously been savage aggressors -- with an agenda. The story of Sodom is particularly informative. It described the homosexual agenda of the ancient city of sodom in 1898 B.C. as forcible homosexual assault and enslavement by the homosexual inhabitants of the city to any men who visited the city. If you believe the bible is hate, then you can head over to Wikipedia and read the alternate viewpoint there. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 02:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::"The Bible contains 6 admonishments to homosexuals and 326 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean God doesn't love heterosexuals--He just thinks they need more supervision"--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 02:56, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm sorry, but you are flat wrong. There are over 30 admonishments against homosexuality in the Bible. God specifically states he hates homosexuals and has given them up as servants of the devil. There are 132 passages in the bible where specifcally states he HATES either a person or group of people. God does not love everyone, and he says as much in his word. I know you have heard this soul destroying lie from many people claiming to teach God's word. It simply is not true. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 12:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Exactly ''where'' does God say that he hates homosexuals? He refers to it as 'abomination' in Leviticus...but then again, the Bible also uses the same term to refer to the eating of shellfish.--[[User:M|M]] 09:40, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:::RightWolf2: Leveticus 19:17-18. Whether God hates people or not, He has commanded us to not. You mentioned "over 30 admonishments against homosexuality". Passages, please. [[User:Ilikepie|Ilikepie]] 18:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Er, can I just point out, (as a happily married, middle aged heterosexual), there is nothing in the Bible which proscribes female homosexuality. Aren't lesbians homosexuals too? KT

:Some would reply with Romans 1, but not me. (BTW, you can sign with the sig button next to the SLASHED W above or simply four tildes <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 21:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::You are a piece of work. I am sorry you are so angry about the world you live in. But you certainly make one thing easy: if there is an afterlife and you are the type of person who is going to be occupying heaven, I'd much rather burn in eternal hell with my incredibly wonderful gay friends.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 13:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What would you know Jack? With one up the transom and another one in the gob, it's hard to hear you. [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 15:14, 21 March 2007 (PST).

::::You know, that's funny...I'm bi, and I've never been involved in intercourse with more than one person. Fancy that. --[[User:M|M]] 09:40, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Everything you post must be true and verifiable ==

This entry violates the first (and perhaps most important) Conservapedia commandment. There is no homosexual "agenda" -- no "they" who "wrote a book", no 10-point plan. It's the same kind of paranoid nonsense that's in the articles here on Joseph McCarthy and Alger Hiss (WP has far more accurate articles on both subjects, with the one on Hiss very clearly identifying areas of controversy), with conspiracy-theorist types quoting and sourcing one another. I propose this entire article for immediate deletion. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 10:56, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. The "Homosexual agenda" is no more factual than the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Delete, or recreate as an article about the popular (?) but false belief in this "agenda." [[User:Pkoad|Pkoad]] 00:21, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:It refers to the [[gay rights]] activism, which may be a [[grassroots]] movement but which has multiple goals which are easily identified. The Liberal POV that such goals are non-existent is a kind of denialism.

:It will be good for the article to discuss this denial, in conjunction with [[gay rights]] critics who oppose the points which the denialists says no one advances. (Not worded right, but I think you get the gist.) See you all tomorrow. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 00:29, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::There's no more gay agenda other than there was a "black agenda" before ''Brown'' came down. The gay agenda is equal treatment. Oh no, quick, ma, shut the doors! Equality's a-comin'!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]

:::I'd say "keep it" so the world can really see how these strange nutkins think. But in the interest of humanity, decency, and honesty, it is a pack of paranoid, politico-religious agenda lies. Really, really strange nutjob lies. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:51, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Opposing Christian Agenda ==

I can't work out what the point of the "Opposing Christian Agenda" section is. The sentences don't make sense, and the referenced page does not mention homosexuality or gay. I propose the section be deleted by someone with the privilege to edit the article. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 01:33, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Improvements ==

Shouldn't ''Gayness'' in part 1. of the agenda be ''Gaiety''?
The term ''[[homosexual protectors]]'' in part three surely merits its own article. Is this the same as ''[[Homosexualist]]s''? [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 07:11, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:Any attempt to trivialize or confuse the issue will be frowned upon here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:22, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

We should delete the cite at the bottom saying that homosexuality caused Nazism. That's a truly disturbing allegation.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:59, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

'''
== Very Informative ==
'''

Excellent portrayal of the truth. This is a nice breather from the left-wing saturated wikipedia.com. If you agree with the article, you should check out the highly accurate article on homophobia. Everyone knows that the creation of homophobia is a foundation of the gay agenda.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homophobia

== Is this real? ==

This article seems like a parody. I can't believe that... oh yeah, I'm at conservapedia. I can believe anything. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

As well as the mysterious reference to a "leading book in the homosexual movement", it refers to a book claiming that the Nazi Party supported homosexuality. Clearly this has to be satirical. Either that, or someone has a serious case of paranoia - all the sources, as well as being of dubious credabililty, point towards independent events but the whole point of the page is to talk about a shadowy conspiricy - a 'Secret Society' of homosexuals trying to gayify the world. I suggest deleting the whole page - and if it reappears in a similar form, delete and protect. - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]

Talk:Abortion

2007-05-07T23:29:43Z

Suricou: Not all claims are credible.

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

==Maintain the neutrality of the article==
Reading through this article, nearly 1/3 of all the sentences cite a 'fact' yet have no reference. And because it is edit-locked, a mod with a true notion of what it is to create informative articles needs to go over this with a fine tooth comb.--[[User:Nosferatu.feuertote|Nosferatu.feuertote]] 21:18, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I cannot help but notice that of the TWO citations noted after the claim that abortion is a "billion dollar industry", neither of the linked "references" make any claims about the value of the "abortion industry". I am NOT pro-abortion, however I am PRO-FACT. If you make a claim and list citations directly afterwards, THOSE CITATIONS SHOULD DIRECTLY VERIFY THE CLAIM YOU HAVE JUST MADE! A quote from the first "source":

Republicans say this law is being violated in the interest of making money, although they did not provide specific numbers or incidents.

The second "source makes absolutely no mention of any revenues, potential or actual.

Brian

"The father of medicine, Hippocrates, expressly prohibited abortion in his ethical Oath long before Christianity." Is a bit weasly. Hippocrates also would not perform surgery, and definitely interfering with the heart was out of the question. But we know how many people are prevented from dying through heart-surgery. I fail to see the relevance of mentioning the oath in the first paragraph. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 15:32, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

=="This is Conservapedia"==
Although I would expect that most people who self-identify as "conservatives" ''are'' opposed to abortion, I doubt that all of them are. I don't think opposition to abortion is part of the definition of, or a litmus test for conservatism. Nor do I think it is part of the definition of, or a litmus test for Christianity. Of course one could say that anyone who claims to be a "pro-choice conservative" is not ''really'' a conservative, but that's begging the question.

See, for example, the Seventh-Day Adventists' [http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/guidelines/main_guide1.html nuanced statement] on abortion. Most would regard them as a conservative Christian group. They say:

:prenatal life must not be thoughtlessly destroyed. Abortion should be performed only for the most serious reasons.

:Abortion is one of the tragic dilemmas of human fallenness. The Church should offer gracious support to those who personally face the decision concerning an abortion. Attitudes of condemnation are inappropriate in those who have accepted the gospel.

[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:29, 18 February 2007 (EST)

If this was just Conservative you might have a point, but it is Conservative and Christian. There is no way a Conservative Christian could support abortion in any way. It is contrary to everything in the Bible, so you must be willing to either 1.) Ignore parts of the Bible like some liberal Christians. or ignore all of the Bible like non Christians. Otherwise you can't support abortion. Adventists are as much Conservative as they are Christian--which is to say NOT AT ALL. They are a cult, and ignore the Bible in many significant ways. Come up with better evidence then tehm if you think your point is valid.
--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 03:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This is a genuine query to every poster on this page. Somewhere in the Old Testement, I think Dueteronomy, there is an edict on how long a woman remains unclean after abortion/miscarriage, and says something like a woman is unclean for 60 days after aborting a male, but only 30 days after aborting a female. Can anyone please point out the Bilical reference

That's very interesting. The Seventh-Day Adventists run many hospitals, including one in New Jersey. I'm disappointed in its official stance, though I suspect that many adherents to the religion are more opposed to abortion that the statement implies. I doubt the Adventist hospital in NJ performs any elective abortions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:07, 18 February 2007 (EST)

:: I ''assume'' that they're thinking about situations where the life of the mother is at stake.... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:33, 18 February 2007 (EST)

: I agree that there can be conservatives who support abortion. Personally however, as a Christian myself, I believe it is impossible to be a Christian and support abortion at the same time. This would be a major contradiction. Also, I highly doubt that "most" would regard the Seventh-Day-Adventist church as Christian as they add their own ideas to the teachings of Jesus. Just my opinion on the matter. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 18:13, 18 February 2007 (EST)

:: Is there ''any'' denomination that doesn't "add their own ideas to the teachings of Jesus?"

:: Doesn't the Catholic Church add the opinions of the Pope when he speaks ''ex cathedra.'' Surely Catholics are Christians?

:: And if Protestant denominations don't "add anything to the teachings of Jesus" than why do Baptists say they have "no sacraments," Lutherans say they have two, and Episcopalians seven? Why do Methodists believe in the "Real Presence" of Christ in the Lord's Supper but Presbyterians believe he is only "spiritually" present? Why do some denominations baptize adults and others not? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:33, 18 February 2007 (EST)

:::'''Reply:''' It is very true that churches have added onto the teachings of Jesus even though it clearly states in Revelation 22:18-19 that anyone who adds or takes away any words from the Bible will be harshly punished:

:::''"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." Revelation 22:18-19''

:::It is made very clear that God does not want to be edited. But Dpbsmith, I ''do'' believe that there are churches that hold very tightly to the teachings of Jesus and base their faith completely on His Word. So, yes, there are denominations that do not add their own ideas to the Bible.
::: And, though abortion is never ''directly'' called "abortion" in the Bible, Exodus 21: 22-25 refers to God giving his explanations to the Israelites about how to deal with matters of women with child:

:::"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Exodus 21: 22-25

:::'''Reply:''' It is funny that you reference the old mosaic law when Jesus clearly gave a new law to take place of the eye for an eye law. Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek, not eye for an eye, tooth for tooth.

:::It is very obvious that the life of an unborn child is valued and considered a human life by God. There is another verse, Jeremiah 1:5, that also deals with the value of an unborn child's life, but I am sure that Conservapedia would rather have an article on the Bible than try to be it. :) --[[User:David R|David R]] 20:35, 18 February 2007 (EST)

::: Ok, a number of issues- first, that verse has classically has a very different translation, premature birth actually means miscarriage in most translations (and from my (admittedly minimal knowledge of Hebrew, is more plausibly correct). (Examples of ones which translate as such in English are the KJV ASV,)). The vulgatus in fact used the word "abortivum" to describe what happened. The Hebrew is actually interesting - the phrase is וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ which litterally means "and the child went out" which is interesting because there is a separate verb used generally to mean giving birth. Now the upshot of all of this is important, if this refers to a miscarriage then one must conclude that if anything the Bible does not see the unborn child at the same level as that of a human since the punishment for manslaughter of a normal human is much more severe than just a monetary fine. Thus, if anything, this verse shows that the Bible see a serious distinction between the unborn and the born. And even if you insist on translating this as premature birth then it simply becomes a tort of born individuals. Thus, if anything, this verse undermines pro-life arguments.

::: Jeremiah 1:5 has similar problems. The NAS translation is "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." Again, there are interesting translational issues but they aren't as directly germane. This one simply requires a bit of context. When it is quoted as attempting to support pro-life arguments the last part of the verse is generally not quoted. When you look at the entire verse and the verse right above one thing is very clear, this verse is talking about a single person - Jeremiah. Jeremiah was known to God in womb, Jeremiah was consecrated and appointed as a prophet. This isn't talking about generic babies. Furthermore, one could make the argument that if God consecrated every single unborn baby then there would be no point in telling Jeremiah that he had been consecrated as such and that you can therefore see this verse as possibly arguing against every baby being consecrated (I find this argument very weak, but that's a different matter). The bottom line however is that this verse doesn't support a pro-life stance and if it has anything to say on the matter says the opposite. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:09, 19 February 2007 (EST)

Joshua Z, you have twisted the translation badly. A premature birth does not equal a miscarraige. It didn't mean that in Biblical times and it doesn't mean that now. Please go [[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/does_exodus_21_sanction_abortion| here]] for an educated translation and discussion on that specific topic. --[[User:David R|David R]] 10:17, 19 February 2007 (EST)

: I find it interesting that you accuse me of twisitng the translation when the translation I have given you is that of the Vulgatus and the KJV. Also, this is how the verse was classicly intepreted in ancient Israelite law as seen in the talmud (certainly this is the majority view in the talmud, I don't even remember the possiblity of premature birth in this matter coming up- looking this up now) . As to the christian courier article, it is rife with problems. Among other problems, Job and Kings are written far after Exodus and there is a much larger vocabularly. The last verse quoted in the article about Menachem is in fact clearly in context referring to such ripping as a torture or punishment of the female in question. There are a variety of other issues with the article, but I'm not going to go into them in detail. The bottom line is that the KJV agrees with this translation, the Vulgatus agrees with this translation and the ancient Israelite law used this translation. It is at best inaccurate to call such a translation "twisted." (I incidentally presume from the lack of comment that you don't disagree with my analysis of Jeremiah)[[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:40, 19 February 2007 (EST)

I dont know how you translated "miscarraige" from the King James Version. It does not contain the word miscarriage. In fact, it says premature birth. The last time I check a premature birth was a premature birth, not a miscarriage. You could say that a miscarriage resulted from a premature birth(verse 23). Nevertheless, the translation provides no miscarriage. Going to the Hebrew translation, the fact that they did have a separate verb for "birth" and "and the child came out" goes to show that the second verb refered to a unorthodox birth. But it is pure speculation to call it a miscarriage. As for why I did not reply to your second paragraph containing your thoughts, it is only because I was focusing more on the first one and happened to forget about the second. Be patient. It is a mistake on your part to simply assume that I have no counter to your "analysis". The verses in Jeremiah imply that Jeremiah was set apart to become a great prophet, not to be the only baby to have life before birth. I admit, after looking over this verse a couple times, that it wasn't the strongest material to back my argument, but it surely does not oppose a "pro-life" stance as you script it to. --[[User:David R|David R]] 23:19, 20 February 2007 (EST)

: It doesn't say miscarriage. It refers to the fruit departing which is a euphemism for miscarriage in other texts in the late 1500s. As to the Jeremiah point, as I said the argument for it being against a pro-life stance is weak and I find that unpersuasive. However, in context it is at best neutral on the matter. (In any event, the fact that the ancient Israelites interpreted it as miscarriage and the Vulgati translate it as abortivum is very hard to get around). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:42, 22 February 2007 (EST)

The Bible and Christianity are clearly incompatible with abortion. First off, abortion is an act of murder. The Bible never once refers to an unborn child as an "unborn fetus." The term "with child" is used, not "with fetus." In Luke 1:36 and 41 Elisabeth's "babe" leaps in her womb, not her "fetus." Job refers to unborn children as infants in Job 3:16.

<blockquote>At two weeks pregnancy, the "fetus" can move alone. By four weeks the child has limbs, muscle tissue, a heart and heartbeat. Ears, eyes, and small hands are visible by the fifth week. The child responds to touch sensations by the sixth or seventh week. At eight weeks, the baby sometimes tries to take a breath when removed from the mother. At twelve weeks, the child will often struggle for life two or three hours when removed from the mother.</blockquote>

:At two weeks from fertilisation, the embryo has not even [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/7.html implanted], indeed, many embryos don't even make it as far as implantation, which happens at about [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/8.html two and a half weeks]. At [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/13.html four weeks] the fetus has no hands, hands don't fully appear until [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/22.html week eight], and the arms are little more than buds[http://www.visembryo.com/baby/13.html buds]. The fetus doesn't practice breathing until [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/12_weeks.html 12] to [http://www.babydiscovery.co.uk/pregnancy-timeline.asp 14] weeks, so I'm not sure how it would try to take a breath at 8 weeks. At twelve weeks, abortions are surgical abortions that do not result in an entire fetus, so the fetus could hardly struggle for life after that. [[User:Smudgepuss|Smudgepuss]] 17:33, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Abortion encourages sin, just as the Texas HPV vaccine will. It does not "fix" any problems as some people would like to believe, it just makes the problem bigger. If God condoned abortion then he would be contradicting himself. Ecclesiastes 3:14 - "I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him." Abortion is an''' attempt to bring an end to God's work... to make him a liar. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 09:46, 19 February 2007 (EST)

:: A charming response that doesn't deal with either the matter in Exodus or the matter in Jeremiah. The use of the same word in all those cases is explainable by the simple fact that most ancient cultures didn't have separate words for fetus, embryo and baby (ancient Hebrew and aramaic do not seem to have had separate words, if they did, they are no longer extant). Again, the above verse in Exodus if anything demonstrates that abortion is not murder since the punishment is less than that for murder. The quote you have about the features of a child at an early age has nothing to do with biblical exegesis. Finally, the last paragraph is also irrelevant- whether or not abortion encourages sin is a distinct question from whether abortion is Biblically forbidden or whether it is murder. Finally, you are applying that quote from Ecclesiastes in a highly selective fashion- under that logic since God makes diseases medicine shouldn't be allowed. In fact, that verse is making a very different statement- the end of the verse is not a commandment but a statement of futulity in fighting God's work- anything that God ordains to occur, will occur whether or not humans attempt to interfere. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 09:57, 19 February 2007 (EST)
::: '''Reply''' The fact that they did not have separate words proves that they were considered equal. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:51, 19 February 2007 (EST)

:::: '''REPLY''': Exactly right, Tim. Well done. On another topic, can you figure out how to link to my appearance on MSNBC this morning? I'd greatly appreciate that and some visitors to Conservapedia may be interested. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 19 February 2007 (EST)

:::: No, no no. Not at all. The general hebrew vocab was small. See for example the word for holy- kadosh which has about a dozen different meanings and can in one form refer to a prostitute. The total vocab was small. One sees this in other semitic languages also, and without modern medicine and such no one has any need to distinguish that much between whether or not a baby was born. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:40, 19 February 2007 (EST)

Wikipedia would never have this talk you know. This is why we are '''Conserv'''apedia --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 18:20, 18 February 2007 (EST)

: Well, that might be related to the fact that Wikipedia doesn't care about anyone's personal religious viewpoints or reading of the bible per among other policies [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research|WP:NOR]]
'''

:The Wikipedia link is broken. I moved Neurocat's comments about abortion here:
Abortion

Repeatedly, you have removed my edits regarding the abortion topic. My edits were intended to balance the strong right-wing slant of the original entry. For example ...

*if abortions do cause health problems, there should be a fair and balanced discussion of what the benefits are of abortion

: '''REPLY:''' There are no benefits. The mother's health is harmed by abortion , as shown by cited studies, and what happens to the child is obvious. If you claim there are benefits, then you have prove your case.
::But an abortion procedure (a legal one at least) is statistically safer than childbirth. Also, if a women has no children, then she does not have the lower risk of breast cancer gained when having a child, but surely she has not increased her risk of cancer, rather she has not decreased it. [[User:Smudgepuss|Smudgepuss]] 17:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

*if the pro-choice movement funds the Democrat party, there should be an equal discussion about the funding activities of the pro-life party

: '''REPLY:''' There is nothing comparable in the Republican Party. There is no billion-dollar industry profiting from saving lives from abortion. Again, if you think there is something comparable, then you have to provide proof for your claim. You'll then see it doesn't exist.

*if the page is to say that the "pro-choice" group is not pro-choice about the funding for abortion, then there should also be statements about how the "pro-life" group is not truly pro-life when it comes to providing social support for unwanted children, fighting to outlaw the death penalty, or doing stem cell research to save adult lives.

:'''REPLY:''' Again, your claims are simply untrue. Many pro-lifers are actively engaged in pregnancy crisis centers and adoption. Many oppose the death penalty, but obviously that analogy fails because the death penalty is retribution for a heinous crime. Virtually all pro-lifers support various types of working stem cell therapies to save lives.

However, I see that these statements, while equally factual to the original entry, do not fit in with the personal bias of the administrators. Therefore, I deleted all biased statements from the entry that were not clearly supported with evidence.
-Neurocat

:'''REPLY:''' I'll look again at what you did. You're free to post your claims if you back them up. Most of your claims above, however, cannot be backed up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 21 February 2007 (EST)

It is interesting to note that several times it has been stated that NOTHING good has come of abortion. Freakonomics by Steven Levitt makes a very strong causal link between the introduction of abortion and fall of crime in the US. Perhaps it would be worth a read for some people.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]

: Hello. I know I might be jumping in a bit late here, but I thought I'd explain what ex-cathedra meant, as someone seemed to be of the impression that the Pope can add things to the Bible, but this is what the Catholic Encyclopedia [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Ex Cathedra] defines it as: "Literally 'from the chair', a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the '''definitions''' given by the Roman pontiff. Originally the name of the seat occupied by a professor or a bishop, cathedra was used later on to denote the magisterium, or teaching authority..." (emphasis added) Anyway, what I think is relevant here is that when the Pope makes an ex-cathedra teaching, he is not just making something new up, he is '''defining''' the Church's stance on the matter. Take, for example, the topic we have here - abortion. On the subject of life beginning at conception John Paul II wrote in [http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html Evangelium vitae]: "I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium." (I'm not actually sure if this is an ex-cathedra document, but you get the idea). What he is doing here is not adding something to the Bible but clarifying the Church's stance on this, '''in accordance with''' the Bible, for example Luke 1:39-41 "And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost" The Council of Ancyra also said "Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater lenity, we have ordained that they fulfill ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees" (canon 21 [A.D. 314]). The Early Church Fathers at the Council of Ancyra proclaimed these things to be in concurrence with the Bible, and (as far as Catholics believe) that is just what the Pope (with the help of Cardinals, etc.) does nowadays. Anyway, I know that was a rather long explanation, but thank you if you read it all and I hope you now understand a bit better what we believe about ex-cathedra proclamations. Feel free to contact me if you'd like to know more about what the Church says about abortion (although I think most people already know lol) or anything else Catholicism-related. :D --[[User:Eldestport|Eldestport]][[User talk:Eldestport|Talk!]][[Special:Contributions/Eldestport|Work]] 05:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Additional Information==
I posted some additional information to round out the entry, along with references. This includes a link to a Pro-Life PAC that is against abortion in cases of rape, incest, and medical need, as well as a link to a website that offers information calling the abortion-breast cancer link into some question. Hopefully this provides a richer, more well rounded entry. --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 10:44, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Perhaps pointing out the fact that the link between abortion and breast cancer is not a causal one. The way in which the link is presented in the article is biased, it portrays abortion as being a cause of breast cancer. It is much better defined as an indicator, for abortion itself does not cause breast cancer.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]

This article needs serious work. There's one sentence talking about what an abortion is, and BAM! Breast cancer. Why is breast cancer at the top? Is that the most important topic relevant to abortion?

== profitability of abortion ==

It's been reported before that fetuses are sold as a commodity, either for use in Chinese medicine:

http://www.abortiontv.com/Glitch/AbortedBabiesSoldAsHealthFood.htm

or for ghoulish Western research practices:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/03/10/fetal.tissue/index.html
http://www.healthy.net/scr/news.asp?Id=8247

How is this not something that should be in Conservapedia? This is something that people should be talking about.

:While fetuses are very usful for research purposes, I find the idea of them as a food quite laughable - who would actually eat it? And the source is hardly credible. Abortiontv.com? Hmm.. really respectable and unbiased. And Phelps is a calm and polite debater. Also, before anyone brings it up, the stories about fetuses being used for embryonic stem cell based cosmetic therepy is also a load of nonsense: Such therepy wouldn't work any better than conventional treatments, and the most likely outcome is a rather nasty tumor. - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]

==Should the article introduce and define the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice?"==

Regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Abortion&curid=3937&diff=17574&oldid=17566], whether or not the article uses the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" I think it makes sense to define both in the article. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:45, 1 March 2007 (EST)

One of our rules is conciseness. The above terms are self-evident and not even used much in the article. The sentence is unnecessary for 99.9999% of readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:53, 1 March 2007 (EST)

: I'm not sure that's true. That would I presume depend on both what your intended readership is and other issues. (For example, would you be at all aiming for non-native English speakers who don't know much about the English terminology? I always taught to aim to explain to the least knowledgable reader) Furthermore, I think it's important to point out the terms in relation to what the different sides emphasize in regard to the debate. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:23, 2 March 2007 (EST)

: As a matter of conciseness, the current article isn't exactly concise (I would think for example that it would make sense to have one section on health risks, not 3. The level of detail there compared to other issues such discussions of the the basies for attitudes towards abortion as well as the political history seems a bit unbalanced. The article doesn't even mention Griswold for exampe.). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:26, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::It's my sentence so let me explain why I put it there. It was not to define the terms, but a) to justify the use of terms with "spin" and b) set ground rules. Both terms are so ''thoroughly'' dishonest that I really detest using either of them and think that a justification for their use is needed. The ground rules for the language used throughout the article should be to use the terms which each side likes to have used (no edit wars between "pro-choice" and "pro-murder" or "pro-life" and "pro-non-adult-life," please).

::I am certain that each side has no trouble seeing the "spin" represented by the ''other'' side's term. They're absolutely wretched and I have to think it would be very helpful if the two factions could bring themselves to call themselves "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" (where it's understood that "abortion" is short for "the continuing availability of legalized abortion.)

::They may be so familiar as to not to require definition, but they are ''certainly'' not "self-evident." A man from Mars would never guess in a million years what "pro-choice" means, or that a "pro-lifer" can support capital punishment. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:12, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:::Pro-lifers cannot support capital punishment; that's an oxymoron. The main force in the fight against abortion is the Catholic church, and they have made it extremely clear that a "culture of life" cannot be consistent with the death penalty; look up some of the references-- [http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/deathpenalty/] for example.
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:45, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::::*I personally know some people who are indeed a) Roman Catholic, b) against abortion, and c) against the death penalty. I certainly didn't mean to imply that all "pro-lifers" support death penalty. Many do not. But I don't believe that people who self-describe as "pro-life" can be assumed to be against the death penalty, nor do I think that the term is generally understood to include that. I'm willing to be corrected on that if I'm wrong. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:58, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::::Due diligence:

::::*Well, for what it's worth: American Heritage Dictionary gives only one meaning, and it's "Advocating full legal protection of human embryos or fetuses, especially by opposing legalized abortion."[http://www.bartleby.com/61/5/P0590500.html]. Merriam-Webster online simply says "antiabortion."[http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/pro-life]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:04, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::::*National Right-to-Life's website, under "issues," includes abortion, euthanasia, Medicare, and human cloning. Capital punishment is apparently not considered by them to be a right-to-life issue. Their [http://www.nrlc.org/Missionstatement.htm mission statement] says specifically "The Committee does not have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, capital punishment, and national defense." Their factsheet on the [http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/ICPA/ICPAfactsheet.html Innocent Child Protection Act] says "This bill does ''not'' reflect any point of view on the desirability or appropriateness of imposing capital punishment on persons convicted of premeditated murder or other grave crimes."

::::I actually think that particular website is avoiding the issue, and I suspect it's because there's a wide spectrum of opinion on capital punishment within the "pro-life" community. I happen to agree with you that pro-life ''should'' imply opposition to capital punishment, but I don't think it does. That's exactly why I think it's a dishonest term. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:13, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:'''REPLY''' Thanks, Dpbsmith, for moving this discussion over here, and I apologize for only getting back to everyone until now. The abortion article never references "pro-choice", and its passing references to "pro-life" near the end can be changed. In fact, I'll remove them now for you.

: Most people in the abortion movement on both sides reject any analogy between abortion and the death penalty. The same could be said for abortion and war. The issues are very, very different. Criminal punishment is based on retribution and deterrence. Those are not factors in abortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:38, 2 March 2007 (EST)

==Portugal==
I'm not sure that the Portuguese still make abortion illegal. I heard recently that they had a referendum on the issue and they voted to legalize, but the voter turnout was too low for it to count. Last I heard, the ruling party had stated that they were going to enforce the ruling, but I'd assume there would be some challenges from the opposition, so it's definitely worth following. Either way, a factcheck needs to be done on the first bit.--[[User:John|John]] 19:09, 5 March 2007 (EST)
:You're right. The law legalising abortion within the first 10 weeks of pregnancy comes into effect real soon.[http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2053831,00.html]

== Article weight ==

There seem to be issues of weight- almost three quarters of the article as it currently stands deals with potential health complications of abortion, while there is almost no details of the history of abortion or abortion outside the US. I'm a bit puzzled that this level of detail is in here but a single sentence detailing the difference between "pro-life" and "pro-choice" is removed out of concerns of conciseness. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:26, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Moreover, this article tells nothing about the types of abortions or the procedures used. Why isn't that the article on abortion has no information actually about abortions? --[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 15:20, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Bible==
the Abortion article does not mention that Abortion is inconsistent with the 6th commandment "You shall not murder". The Bible, being the word of God, is a infallible moral guide as to the behaviour that God wants us to uphold. Regardless of the (very strong) scientific arguments against abortion the strongest argument (IMHO) against is the 6th commandment. I apppreciate your views.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)

The bible proposes no scientific arguments at all against abortion. A commandment is merely a command issue by a higher power, there is no scientific proof shown in it at all. Religion simply puts forward a moral argument. --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 18:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

The Bible contains very little proven fact, either. --[[User:Brooker|Brooker]]

== Seriously, please add this to the article ==

<div style="width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #DEE6ED; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #6699CC;">
This article has been identified as not maintaining a neutral point of view. You can and are encouraged to make this article better by contributing. This article may contain opinions, a one-sided bias, or information without proper citation that could be considered opinion. Please be encouraged to edit this article by removing opinions, presenting multiple points of view, and/or adding citations. Please remember to abide by [[The Conservapedia Commandments]].
</div>
<includeonly>[[Category:Articles needing major improvement]]</includeonly>

*Support. I'm Catholic and absolutely against abortion, but I think the article is anything but neutral. I appreciate that this is a conservative website but that doesn't mean that we have to push our agenda and beliefs right from the beginning of the article

==Proposed new section==
While some aspects of the Wikipedia articles on abortion are quite confronting, the fact that this article only devotes a single sentence to a definition is a bit surprising. The current article doesn't actually say anything about the "rightness" of abortion, only that it causes health problems later, and used to be illegal.

Since the article is protected from editing, I propose a new section here --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 00:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
===Alternatives to abortion===
Many people oppose the use of abortion in any or all cases where it might be considered by other people.

The obvious way to avoid an abortion is for the woman not to get [[pregnancy|pregnant]] in the first place. This can best be achieved by abstinence from [[sex]] before [[marriage]]. If a woman does have sex but does not wish to risk becoming pregnant, the couple should use [[contraception]] to reduce the likelihood of pregnancy.

Once a woman has become pregnant, the only alternative to abortion is to allow the pregnancy to proceed to a live birth. If the parents are unable or do not wish to bring up the child, it can be offered for [[adoption]]. Otherwise one or both parents will look after the child in a [[family]] until it is old enough to move out of home on his or her own.

:*Hmm. When I was at Law school my tutor said that the only 100% way to not get pregnant was abstinence (it was a seminar on the Abortion Act). I don't understand why that is such a difficult concept for people to grasp these days. --[[User:Eldestport|Eldestport]][[User talk:Eldestport|Talk!]][[Special:Contributions/Eldestport|Work]] 05:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: This argument tends to fall apart for victims of sexual abuse and rape. Of late, I've also seen fringe left-wingers using images of the Virgin Mary with the subtitle "Abstinence doesn't always work" as a joke. [[User:Zondergard|Zondergard]]

:::Which argument falls apart? All of the above is true even if the sex was involuntary. I'm sure the trauma of the act is magnified by the effects, but if a woman, her friends or relatives believe "abortion is murder", then it doesn't change based on how the conception occurred. I just hope and pray that nobody I know and love is ever in that situation. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 08:55, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Apparently this proposed paragraph is not acceptable for the article in its present state as it is not suitably referenced. I'm not quite sure specifically which sentences need reference, but I'm finding it surprisingly difficult to find reliable references on the internet that you don't need an abortion if you don't have sex! Even any pages I can find about alternatives look more biased and pushy than the paragraph above that needs to referenced to be acceptable. [[User:Eldestport|Eldestport]], are you able to reference it from your law book? --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 00:08, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==danger of life and abortion needs discussion
Poland, Portugal and Irland permit abortions in cases where the life of the mother is in danger. A discussion of this topic is deerly needed. -- SchiFra.

==Add Category:Abortion==
Since the page is edit blocked, please add '''Category:Abortion''' [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 14:47, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Definition of abortion==
According to the linked definition part 1 (and these [http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmednlm?book=Medical&va=abortion online] [http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?abortion medical dictionaries]), the term abortion relates to the termination of pregnancy, whether planned (induced abortion) or unplanned (spontaneous abortion ak miscarriage). As the everyday useage and the medical terminology are conflicting, I think that this should be clarified and the page possibly split. [[User:Smudgepuss|Smudgepuss]] 16:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==This article violates the Third Commandment of Conservapedia==
Abortion is clearly not family-friendly. If [[Sex]] isn't allowed, this article has to go. --[[User:ReaganLives|ReaganLives]] 20:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

anything else you want to censor? --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 16:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

As other posters have said, the very first line of this article contains a startling inaccuracy. Abortion is the purely medical term for the ending of a pregnancy before the foetus can have independent life. Most abortions are caused by Nature, or depending on your personal beliefs, God. Surprisingly, humans have great difficulty getting pregnant, compared to most other mammals, and just as much problems staying pregnant - at least a third, and up to one half of all conceptions which implant, naturally abort before term, although many of these before the mother realises she is pregnant. On a note not wholly related to abortion, the joining of a human egg and sperm is not the begining of a potential human life, it is the begining of TWO or THREE potential human beings, even under natural conditions. It just so happens that identical twins and triplets are even more prone to spontaneous abortion than their single brothers and sisters. KT

== Reply to the above ==

The user Scott sent me over here to respond to the above comments, but I didn't find anything here to add to the content page. The content page is a high-quality, thoroughly sourced description of information often censored elsewhere (e.g., Wikipedia omits much of this information). Any additions would have to be of the same quality and cited support.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:59, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Abortion and Breast Cancer==

In the first sentence of that article section, it states that studies show abortion causes breast cancer, supported by 16/17 statistically significant cases. In a statistical sense, the word "cause" or "causation" is to be avoided. Nothing can ever be proved to cause another thing. Rather, the sentence should state "there is a high correlation evidenced by the studies." Statistics class has ground this principle into me, and so i feel the need to point it out. I would change it myself, but this appears to be another one of those articles that needs "Big Brother" to ensure conservative bias.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 18:51, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

To balance the assertions about abortion and breast cancer in this article, it ought to be shown that many factors affect breast cancer rates - for example diet: http://unisci.com/stories/20021/0104023.htm

and racial grouping: http://www.womenshealthnetwork.org/advocacy/wocbreastca/natam.htm

Life is full of risks. Your risk of dying of breast cancer is about the same as your risk from radon by living in Cornwall: http://www.cplusc.co.uk/risks.html (Can't say I've noticed women fleeing Cornwall in droves...)

A higher risk factor for breast cancer than abortion, research published today reveals, is the eating of red meat. See: Red meat ‘raises risks of breast cancer’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2007/04/04/nmeat04.xml

Breastfeeding your baby greatly reduces your risk of breast cancer. Having large numbers of children and breastfeeding them all reduces the risk of breast cancer:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2570 http://society.guardian.co.uk/cancer/story/0,8150,757869,00.html

Obesity increases the risk of breast cancer: http://society.guardian.co.uk/cancer/story/0,,686105,00.html

The National Breast Cancer Coalition does not endorse the view that induced abortions increase the risk of breast cancer - one would have thought this kind of organisation would be the first to look at the evidence that exists, since there is no profit in abortion for them. Nor do the American Cancer Society and the World Health Organisation endorse this view.

Ireland, where abortion is illegal, has one of the highest rates of breast cancer in the EU and the trend for incidence at younger ages (where abortion rates are usually highest) is downwards:
http://www.actuaries.org.uk/files/pdf/library/proceedings/health2001/Jeffery.pdf

It's dishonest to write an article that greatly overstates the connection between abortion and breast cancer and doesn't put it in the context of all the other things women do that increase or decrease their risk. Getting in a car any day of the week puts you at infinitely higher risk of death than having an abortion: http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/statistics/stats-usa.htm

There are legitimate arguments against abortion, but this kind of manipulative shroud-waving isn't among them. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 11:19 4 April 2007 (EDT)

According to Reuters, the largest study ever done on the abortion/cancer link has come to the conclusion that they are not correlated. According to the article, this is going to "fit" with the U.S. National Cancer Institute. Link: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N23311428.htm --[[User:TempestHead|TempestHead]] 16:58, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

: Which medical school did the Reuters' reporter go to, or how many cases of breast cancer has he reviewed? Childbirth prevents breast cancer, and termination of childbirth increases breast cancer. By the way, I don't care how many uninformed biased articles might say that 2+2=5.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:01, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::Unfortunately you also don't seem to care about the number of methodologically sound studies that find no ABC link. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:08, 23 April 2007 (EDT) 

:::You may wish to consider though, why so many do. Most studies usually have a 95% threshold for saying there is a statistical correlation. So if there was no statistical correlation between breast cancer and abortion, we would expect that given 20 studies that 18 would show there is no correlation, 1 would show a statical correlation that abortion leads to an increased rate of breast cancer, and 1 would show that abortion lowers the chances of having breast cancer. For so many studies to show a correlation, even if there are many that do not, chances are very high that some level of correlation exists. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:23, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

== Historical view of abortion ==

Abortion has been an issue for a long while, though historians and anthropologists rarely write about it. Yet, if abortion became illegal in every country on Earth, with the most severe, harshest penalties imaginable, abortions would still happen. Women who really didn't want to carry to term would find a way. Medically trained people would perform black market sorts of abortions here and there. It is a human issue, an emotional issue. Our grandmothers knew this and their grandmothers. Today's modern medicine allows safe (for the mother) abortion in most cases. Today's law proposes that the decision might not reside in the realm of the mother, but could be mandated, to the benefit of society. Let us not fool ourselves, abortion might be illegal but abortion happens anyway. Who can legally try a woman for falling down stairs or falling against the edge of a table? The article does not, at this time, confront the real reasons why abortion is an issue (my opinion). [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 13:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

To add to the above, in Thailand, procuring an illegal abortion is subject to the death penalty. Yet the midwives there are the ones mothers turn to for this service, the same people they turn to to deliver their babies safely. And much as the the ultra right may hate the idea, midwives throughout the ages have always carried out this function, unknown to (or ignored by) males. Even with legal terminations, girls still go to their mothers, not to their fathers, and there is many a Pro-lifer who has no idea what his mother's, wife's, sisters' and daughters' reproductive history is. KT

: Well, fine, burglary and drugs and prostitution and everything else one can imagine will always exist too, no matter how harsh the penalties. Here in the U.S. there is an abortion industry that owns one of the two major political parties (the Democrats), and most women who have an abortion have no idea that they are increasing their risk of breast cancer and future premature birth. The abortion industry does everything it can to prevent that information reaching their potential customers. The tobacco industry did the same thing in the 1940s and 1950s and 1960s. The tobacco industry even got the American Medical Association (AMA) to help it cover up how smoking causes cancer. History repeats itself with abortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

It's anything but an industry in UK, here Termination of Pregnancy (as you describe abortion) is carried out mainly by the National Health Service. Hospitals in our country are under financial constraints (private insurance does not pay for it), yet still publically funded doctors perform these procedures for the benefit of the woman concerned, and no other reason. They do NOT receive financial reward, and it is the taxpayer who pays. And the British taxpayer is happy to pay for this.

: I'm not an expert on the UK by any means, but I'm confident physicians perform the operation for payment, not for charity. In the U.S., the operation has little risk of malpractice, is done outside of hospitals and in profitable clinics, and often the physicians do abortions after they have been excluded from their own specialty and/or from hospitals.

: Your claim that the British taxpayer "is happy to pay for this" strikes me as incredulous also. The British taxpayer is ''forced'' to pay for this. If the Brits were "happy to pay for this" then taxes wouldn't be needed for it, and it could be privately funded!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::Aschlafly - I think you aren't clear about how the NHS works. It isn't funded by taxation. It's funded by National Insurance, which all working people pay in the same way as Americans pay Social Security, and it covers the same range of things as Social Security except that it covers health care as well. Because of inadequacies in the NHS, some people choose to pay privately for a termination of pregnancy, but the law in the UK states that two doctors have to agree that there are satisfactory grounds for it. The majority of UK opinion supports the availability of legal abortion on the NHS, though there are a number of people who would prefer to see the upper time limit (currently 24 weeks) brought down to 20-22 weeks. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]]

You may also like to consider that the majority of women who have terminations (abortions) either already have families, or go on to have families. No woman ever takes this decision lightly, and many women have this procedure to safeguard their real family (people who already exist). KT

: Unfortunately those women who do have future children (and many can't, by the way) have greatly increased their chance of premature birth, and the severe injuries that causes. Those women should be told that, just as informed consent is required for any other operation. Surely you don't think that the women considering an abortion should not be told?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

If abortions 'causes' breast cancer, is it terminations of pregnancy 'cause' breast cancer, or/and miscarriages (spontaneous abortion)'cause' breast cancer. If spontaneous abortion causes breast cancer, the solution is to never get pregnant, and avoid the 50% risk of natural abortion which comes with every pregnancy. Would that suit Mr/Ms Aschafly; or would this defy the Biblical injunction to go forth and mulitply? KT

==Portugal==
Could someone remove Portugal from the countries that abortion is illegal in? They voted for it to become legal a few days ago.
--[[User:Daerean|Daerean]] 17:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: I thought the vote failed because of low turnout. In other words, the law did not change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:37, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::The PM sent a bill allowing abortion in Portugal that passed in parliament on the 15 March 2007, Accoring to the AP "The bill is now subject to presidential ratification in the next 20 days but becomes law only after published, a process that could take several months." [http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/03/09/portugal.abortion.ap/index.html] So yes, it's still illegal as of today. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::A severe health risk for the mother has always been an accepted medical reason for abortion in Portugal.

This is a genuine query to every poster on this page. Somewhere in the Old Testement, I think Dueteronomy, there is an edict on how long a woman remains unclean after abortion/miscarriage, and says something like a woman is unclean for 60 days after aborting a male, but only 30 days after aborting a female. Can anyone please point out the Bilical reference, refresh my memory. Many thanks KT

== Blocked? ==

So much for a free encyclopedia, when all the important articles are blocked. Well done. [[User:Theonlyedge|Theonlyedge]] 20:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Not ''all'' the important articles - just the ones where a conservative view might differ significantly from that "liberal" alternative, Wikipedia. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:50, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== death rate ==

The first paragraph of the "Other health effects" section is
:''A study published in the Southern Medical Journal observed that there are higher death rates association with women who have abortion, and that these higher death rates persist over time and across socioeconomic boundaries.''
Apart from "association" where it presumably should say "associated", I find it surprising that the death rate of women who have had abortions is higher than in women who haven't, given that the death rate amongst women who have not had abortions is effectively 100%! That is, ''all'' women who have not had abortions die eventually, but proportionately more women who ''have'' had abortions die? "110% of women who had abortions die" would be a good headline. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:06, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I was hoping i could edit the article to make it less biased and more factual. I want this site to be taken seriously, and it's articles like this one that destroy it's credibility. If allowed to edit this article, i would not take it from one bias to another, i would simply remove some of the opinion and make it purely factual.--[[User:Sersabian|Sersabian]] 17:52, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Requested edits ==

* Could this article be added to [[[[:Category:Abortion]]| ]]? Thanks. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 03:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:* Service with a smile. Thanks! --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 03:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::*<nowiki>:</nowiki>D There's your smile! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:17, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Billion Dollar Industry ==

There is a footnote for the "abortion is now a billion dollar industry" factlet here: [http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/03/09/fetal.tissue/index.html]. A very quick search of the page yields no mention of the words "billion" "dollar" or "industry" and a more thorough search discovers that the article is, in fact, dealing with a 2000 congressional hearing over the illegal sale of fetal tissue. I'm sure this was just an oversight... could a source be provided for the billion dollar indutry fact? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 06:10, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:What, no one sysop has this article on their watchlist? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 14:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Scientific/Medical background needed ==

This article on abortion either needs the medical background behind abortion (reasons for abortions and methods of abortion) and reasons why abortion can be beneficial added or its title changed to 'Reasons Why Abortion is Wrong'. This is another biased article that is lacking in facts about the topic itself. --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 15:51, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== Articles I would like to see written at Conservapedia ==

'''ABORTION RELATED ARTICLES:'''

*[[Abortion alternatives]]
*[[Abortion procedures]]
*[[Culture of life]]
*[[Dilatation and curettage abortion]]
*[[Dilatation and Evacuation abortion]]
*[[National Right to Life Committee]]
*[[Prostaglandin Abortion]]
*[[Partial birth abortion]]
*[[Right to life]]
*[[Right to life books]]
*[[Right to life movement]]
*[[Right to life leaders]]
*[[Saline abortion]]
*[[Suction abortion]]
*[[Sanctity of life]]
*[[Silent scream]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

== American Cancer Society states abortions do NOT cause breast cancer ==

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6x_Can_Having_an_Abortion_Cause_or_Contribute_to_Breast_Cancer.asp?sitearea=

You all lose. Abortions aren't bad. Get over it.[[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 00:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: Get serious. The American Medical Association used to defend smoking too. That is because it is easy for an industry to influence the handful of people who run these organizations at any given time.

: If you're going to support abortion, at least support giving the mothers information so that they can make an informed decision.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:57, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

So once an agency, it's always wrong, following Conservative's line of logic @ [[Evolution]] - "science was wrong once, therefore it's always suspect"? Abortion clinics are not run by corporations that funnel money to the AMA like Philip-Morris did. You get serious, Andy.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Giving the mothers the correct information is indeed the right thing to do. Which is why to claim that 16/17 studies show a link is either misinformed or untruthful. I don't know where that claim came from, but if you search yourself you'd find a lot more than 16 studies showing no statistically significant link. To make it a little easier I've listed 24 of them on my talk page. Have you taken a look? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:34, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Murray, they'll argue that all contrary sources are "liberal biased." Facts don't matter to these people.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ames, I have no doubt that you're right. Just hoping that some people who read the article might end up here on the talk page and realize that that article is basically one big lie. Or maybe I'm just a glutton for punishment, so I'll keep tilting away! :) [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:47, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps a link to the new breast cancer article might be added to this section? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 11:44, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Murray, I admire your persistence. I hope that you change at least one mind; that'll make it worth it.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:01, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks - and right back at you. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:11, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Listen up==

Ok, folks, there are many reasons to be against abortion, almost all of them moral. I am pretty liberal but I have some problems with it myself. HOWEVER, adding specious medical claims does not help the case. ''At this point'' there is '''no''' credible evidence linking abortion to any malignancies. Move on, discuss the real reasons to oppose abortion.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 11:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
And by the way, Im working on the Breast cancer article.

:Was just thinking about the "16 out of 17 statistically significant studies" thing. Aschafly, I initially interpreted that as you claiming that most studies that have looked at the relationship have found that abortion is a risk factor. But now it occurs to me that it likely actually means that there are 16 studies finding that it is a significant risk factor, 1 finding that it's a significant protective factor, and some unlisted number finding no significant relationship. Without knowing the number finding no relationship, it's completely meaningless. As I posted above, there are at least 24 studies in that category, and my search was not that comprehensive. It's nonsensical to claim that when less than half of the studies find a relationship that it definitely exists, and suggests misunderstanding of statistical significance. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:16, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Quite astute, young grasshopper. Given all the other reasons to oppose abortion, there is no good reason to just make stuff up.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 13:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

=Bizarre fixation on abortion=

I'm wondering how Schlafly's slightly freaky obsession with abortion (see eg that the most notable feature of [[Wisconsin]] is its abortion statistics) squares with the not-in-front-of-the-kids squeamishness which pervades other articles of a [[sexual intercourse|reproductive]] or genital-related nature. Are home-schooled children allowed to know about abortion without knowing how a woman gets into the situation of being able to have an abortion? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

See [[Talk:Breast cancer]]. That may help answer your question.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Confused ==

Please see [[talk:Abortion alternatives]] to see why I am confused. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 22:35, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== But what about the benefits of abortion? ==

This article neglects to mention the benefits of abortion, for example:
*Saving the mother's life
*Protecting the mother's physical and mental health
*Preventing a severely disabled child being born into a world where it would just suffer
I know that these points can be debated and there are others that could be added. Just remember that debate does not belong in the article! --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 16:53, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Abortion and breast cancer, again. ==

See http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/04/23/abortion.cancer.ap/index.html [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:35, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== I think we need to take on the abortion-breast cancer arguments from Wikipedia and JoshuaZ==

I think we need to take on this information from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#Breast_cancer

For example, why do pro-life people say selection bias is responsible in regards to studies showing there is no abortion and breast cancer connection? I realize that Wikipedia gave this reference in regards to the selection bias possibility: http://bcpinstitute.org/printabc_html.htm '''However, are there more sources? '''

I think this article needs to be developed more so Conservapedias footnoted references discuss the Wikipedia information.

I also think we should take on the link above from JoshuaZ which is this link: http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/04/23/abortion.cancer.ap/index.html

I personally have not made up my mind on this matter. Additional information from the pro-life side would be helpful.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

: This isn't a pro-life v. pro-choice issue. I'm basically pro-life. That doesn't alter what the scientific consensus or the evidence says about this matter one iota. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:56, 23 April 2007 (EDT) (restoring comment that seemed to get accidentally lost in the edting).

::I really don't understand why there's quite so much focus on the breast cancer thing here. Of course abortion will have some risks, as does any medical procedure. But guess what? There are also risks associated with pregnancy (such as an increased risk of thrombosis) and with many contraceptives (eg the breast cancer link with the pill). Yet strangely those things aren't mentioned in this article. I wonder why?
::The point isn't that '''Abortion carries risks! Abortion Bad!''' but that all the options carry risks and it is down to women to decide which ones they consider worth taking and which ones not. And before anyone leaps in to say that abstinence is the risk free choice, remember that women who never have children are at a higher risk of breast cancer than those who have had children. [[User:Silverfish|Silverfish]] 13:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

: Even the supporters of abortion don't deny that preventing childbirth increases risk of breast cancer. Guess what? Abortion prevents childbirth, and therefore increases breast cancer risk. It increases breast cancer risks in additional ways also.

: Where's the Harvard study, or any other study that tries to deny this? I'd be happy to analyize the study. Its lack of availability, however, does not lend credibility to exaggerated press reports.

: A few years ago, Harvard researchers claimed to have found a link between gun ownership and increased harm to children. My simple review of their paper revealed severe flaws and biases, and the ''Economist'' published my letter debunking it. In addition, the Harvard researchers were uncooperative in releasing their data. Looks we have the same old, same old with this latest abortion study.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:32, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Andrew, um have you even looked at this study? That seems a bit presumptious this early on. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:30, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Joshua, I have been reading the study tonight. That's what I've been doing. It would be even more "presumptuous" to assume the study is valid without reading it. And, by the way, there is about an 80% correlation between people who are pro-evolution and those who support abortion on demand. Do you really fall in that tiny 20%? I'm skeptical, and wonder why you volunteered that you're "pro-life". It's amazing how many people volunteer a position in order to make an argument on the other side, as though that volunteered position should persuade anyone. No one cares about a self-proclaimed Democrat who says he favors Bush, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Since you're reading it, I'd be curious what you think about it. My initial impression is that the most serious possible problem is that the disproportionate number in the sample who were premenopausal (a problem they acknowledge). However, I'm not aware of any biological reason to think that pre and post menopausal females would have significantly different responses. As to your claim that "there is about an 80% correlation between people who are pro-evolution and those who support abortion on demand" -I'd be very curious as to how you arrived at that claim although it would not surprise me if something of that sort were true. I would in any event point out that 20% isn't exactly tiny and that a number of prominent conservatives share this set of views such as John Derbyshire and George Will. As to your comment about people volunteerring "volunteer a position in order to make an argument on the other side, as though that volunteered position should persuade anyone" - if I had been doing that it would have been a nice rhetorical remark and you'd be correct to observe that it would carry no logical weight. My point was however exactrly that this wasn't an issue of one "side" as opposed to another, but an issue of science. Not everything is "liberal" v "conservative" and this would definitely be an example. (I should note however that the insistence in this case that abortion must be such a dangerous procedure seems to be a possible example of belief-overkill). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 01:10, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

It's good to know that you guys are so concerned about women's health. I do hope you are going to campaign for it to be illegal for women not to breastfeed their babies, since this could really slash the rate of breast cancer. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2570 It affects the baby's health too, since a formula-fed baby is more than three times as likely to be hospitalized for severe respiratory illness as an exclusively breastfed baby. http://www.babyfriendly.org.uk/items/research_detail.asp?item=94. When am I going to see Conservapedia condemn all those mothers who withhold breast milk from their babies? --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:12, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

: Britinme, women should be told that also. I'm for telling the truth to women, rather than having abortionists exploit them the way that the tobacco industry did years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:24, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Now that is a very strange comparison. How many women do you think are persuaded to get pregnant with a baby they want and then have it aborted because of some massive advertising campaign? And I really do think you ought to stop stating so unequivocally that abortion is a leading cause of breast cancer, when all the discussions and links that have taken place on this and the breast cancer talk page seem to show that the consensus of medical opinion is that there is no such definite link. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:41, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, there is massive advertising for abortion. Ride a subway in a minority community sometime and look at the ads. Does that influence women? You bet. The ads wouldn't be there if they weren't effective.

: History repeats itself. The tobacco industry denied its cause of cancer for decades, and got lots of other people to deny it also, including the AMA.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Let me be sure I understand you - are you of the opinion that a woman pregnant with a baby she wants will be influenced to go and have an abortion by seeing an advert on the subway?--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:40, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

: The abortionists wouldn't be paying for the ads unless they had an influence. Would you pay for an advertisement that didn't have an influence???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Andy for your honesty. It's good to have it made really clear what your opinion of women is. Personally, as a middle aged women with three adult children and a long history of voluntary work with a childbirth organization as a breastfeeding counsellor, knowing many women who have had unwanted pregnancies (some terminated by abortion and some gone through to delivery and raising of the child) and many women who have had wanted pregnancies (some that have miscarried and some that have gone through to raising the child) I can say, hand on heart, that I do not know one who would have been influenced to terminate a wanted pregnancy by seeing an advert on the subway. But maybe you know a lot more dumb women than I do.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 10:36, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

: Britinme, are you seriously saying that the abortion providers that pay for those ads are completely wasting their money???? Have you ever run a business or purchased advertising yourself???

: Tell you what. If you're being sincere, then I suggest you call Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers and tell them your great idea for how they can save lots of money. Let me know how they response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:14, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Surely these adverts (which, by the way, I have never seen in my life) are to inform women of how to get a safe abortion rather than an unsafe one, and to encourage them to do it early rather than late? I can't see any woman who wants her baby deciding to change her mind just on the basis of some advert, that's crazy. [[User:Silverfish|Silverfish]] 13:43, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I can't believe how many smart businessmen and businesswomen we have here. Silverfish, how about calling up the abortion providers and telling them how you know they are wasting their money on advertising! Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, the abortionists have already done studies and concluded that their money on advertising is money well-spent for their business???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:54, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

I think there are two things going on here which need to be distinguished:
#Many Christians are sad, knowing that human life begins at conception yet millions of girls and women choose [[elective abortion]] rather than bring their baby into the world
#There are studies linking elective abortion with a measurable increase in [[breast cancer]]

Emotionally, it may be difficult to deal with the linkage between the two issues. But this writing project is not just for homeschooled minors any more. It has become a project to create an encyclopedia. We'll just have to deal with these difficulties. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:47, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed - any argument against abortion needs to hinge around the moral issues, because any unbiased look at the evidence concludes that the level of risk to the mother's health is actually higher from pregnancy than from abortion and that there is no significant link between abortion and breast cancer. A woman who is joyfully pregnant with a planned and wanted baby, or even pregnant with a baby that she didn't plan but feels able to raise herself or give birth to and give to adopters to raise, takes those risks willingly. People who oppose abortion need to put their efforts into helping and supporting women in the decision to have and raise the child, or to give it for adoption, because every time they distort or cherry-pick the evidence they undermine their own case.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 08:27, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

=Latest Harvard Study Deserves Inclusion=

This morning researchers at Harvard University released the results of a study they finished that surveyed 100,000 women over 10 years and failed to find any statistically significant link between breast cancer and abortion or miscarriages. This result seems to confirm the opinion of the National Cancer Institute's 2003 expert panel.

Related news article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070423185607.htm

Study abstract:
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/8/814

Full text of study:
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/167/8/814

Given the absolute prominence that this encyclopedia chooses to give to the question of a relationship between cancer and abortion, wouldn't it be required diligence to include this study (giving fair provenance to countering opinions and evidence of course)?

Talk:Internet slang

2007-05-07T23:23:00Z

Suricou:

Is LMAO appropriate, and if so, how do I go about censoring it? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

: Nope. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 22:08, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

We have a few in here that drop the F-bomb and some that I doubt their reality.

LMAO is appropiate, and the young audiences use it all the time [[User:Aknot|Aknot]] 17:53, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

alphabeth sorting needed --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 17:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Gotta go is g2g, not GG

::How can this possibly be even a near-complete reference, given the very dynamic nature of the subject and the tendency of individual communities to invent their own slang and in-jokes? Its a constantly changing set of fads. Perhaps this topic would be better avoided altogether, or perhaps made into a general discussion of internet slang rather than a list of examples. - Suricou

Origin of the Moon

2007-05-07T23:09:00Z

Suricou: Iron shortage not prob option 3 - it sinks to the center of even an accreation disc.

==The Young Earth Creationist Position==
According to [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth]] creationist scientists, naturalistic explanations for the origin of the moon are inadequate and the Moon is approximately 6,000 years old. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/moon.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences8.html</ref> One argument against the its age is that the Moon would have been lost to the pull of Earth's gravity a long time ago<ref>Answers in Genesis: [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/moon.asp "Is the moon really old?"]</ref>

== Old Moon View ==

There is not a complete consensus amongst contemporary scientists as to how the Moon came into existence. Historically , three hypotheses were widely seen as plausible contenders for such an explanation: they were the “Fission Hypothesis”, which held that the Moon was ejected by the ancient, swiftly-spinning Earth; the “Capture Hypothesis”, in which the Earth’s gravity captured another planet; and the “Co-accretion Hypothesis” in which both the Earth and the Moon came into being side by side formed together from the same primordial loose aggregation of space dust.

All of these scenarios had serious defects as theories, and all were formulated before the Apollo Moon Program of the late 1960s and early 1970s brought back tons of Moon rock to provide scientists with unprecedented data about the Moon’s composition and history. That data, and the more sophisticated measurements of the Moon’s mass and orbit available to recent researchers, led to the earlier theories losing favor and the promotion of a new one: “The Big Impact Hypothesis”. This theory envisages a massive collision between an ancient Earth and a large asteroid, one in which the early Earth melted and the asteroid disintegrated, only to re-coalesce as the Moon over a period of time.

==The "Big Three"==
Prior to the lunar landings, there had been three major hypotheses that all had been considered valid explanations for the origin of the Moon.

===Hypothesis 1: Fission===
Developed in 1878, this hypothesis by [[George Howard Darwin]] (son of [[Charles Darwin]]) argued that the Moon had been a part of a rapidly spinning [[Earth]]. This rapid spin, enhanced by the Sun's gravitational influence, led to a piece of the Earth breaking free and forming the Moon. Osmond Fisher held that the Pacific ocean basin is actually the scar of this process.<ref name="Nova1">PBS NOVA: "To the Moon - Origins" [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tothemoon/origins.html (Page 1)]</ref>

===Hypothesis 2: Capture===
In 1909, [[Thomas Jefferson Jackson See]] proposed that the Moon was actually a planet that had been created elsewhere and that had been caught by Earth's gravity after being slowed down by debris.<ref name="Nova1"/>

===Hypothesis 3: Coaccretion===
Many scientists, including [[Edouard Roche|Édouard Roche]], supported the hypothesis that the Earth and the Moon formed side by side from the material that formed all planets of this solar system. The name comes from the term "accretion disc", which is a disc formed by diffuse material that orbits a central body.<ref name="Nova1"/>

==Observations and calculations==
For a long time, these three models had been accepted as describing possible lunar origins. However, later research was to produce evidence that worked against them.
After the Apollo program, rock samples taken from the Moon revealed two important things:
#The Moon lacks iron. This is important to note because the Earth, in comparison, has a lot of it (in the core).
#The Moon and the Earth have exactly the same oxygen isotope composition.
Along with calculations in the field of energy and angular momentum, these two points spoke against the "Big Three" hypotheses as follows:

===Consequences for the Fission Hypothesis===
Since the material that spun off the Earth would have come from the mantle, the lack of iron would not have been a problem (Earth's iron drained towards the core early on, leaving a depleted mantle).<ref name="PSI">Planetary Science Institute: [http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.html "The Origin of the Moon"]</ref> This would also explain why the Moon has such a small core.<ref name="Nova1"/> For obvious reasons, the theory also covers the issue of the oxygen isotope composition.

However, the total angular momentum today is too small to back this hypothesis.<ref name="NovaCelestia">Nova Celestia: [http://www.novacelestia.com/space_art_solar_system/earth.html#moon_earth_creation "The Creation of the Earth-Moon System"]</ref>

===Consequences for the Capture Hypothesis===
There is only a very small chance that a stray planet would ease into an orbit around the Earth similar to the one the Moon has. Moreover, this hypothesis fails to explain the oxygen isotope similarity between the two bodies, and also leaves unexplained the issue of why the Moon's core is so small.<ref name="Nova1"/>

===Consequences for the Coaccretion Hypothesis===
This model does not require low probability events to occur, in contrast to the Capture model, and provides a cogent explanation as to why the Earth and Moon share a common oxygen isotope composition. However, there are unanswered questions regarding the angular momentum of the two bodies (It should be mentioned that there have been attempts to address this problem recently: see [[#Current Status|Current Status]].).<ref name="Nova1"/>

==Giant Impact Hypothesis==
===Development===
In 1974, William Hartmann and Donald Davis suggested the hypothesis that a planetoid, estimated in some calculations to be the size of Mars - impacted with a relatively young Earth and blasted mantle material into orbit, where this would eventually form the Moon. This model also became known as the "Big Whack" hypothesis. Around the same time, Alastair Cameron and William Ward had come to a similar conclusion. However, their research had been motivated by studies of the combined angular momentum of the Earth and Moon.<ref name="PSI"/><ref name="Nova2">PBS NOVA: "To the Moon - Origins" [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tothemoon/origins2.html (Page 2)]</ref>

Initially, the hypothesis was rejected with the claim that a catastrophic event of such a dimension and with such drastic results seemed extremely unlikely.<ref name="Nova2"/> Still, it explained the lack of iron, the oxygen isotope issue and the angular momentum.

Ten years later, the Giant Impact Hypothesis emerged as the leading model after a conference about Moon origin in Kona, Hawaii. In the 1990s, Robin Canup picked up the research and created simulations to determine possible scenarios that might explain the formation of the Moon.<ref name="PSI"/><ref name="Nova2"/>

Canup initially came to the conclusion that much of the material blasted off by a "Big Whack" would either fall back to Earth or fly off into space, thus requiring a very large impactor, two or three times larger than initially envisaged. However, later on, improved computer simulations suggested that the size of the impactor might not have to be so large after all, thus leaving all calculations regarding mass and momentum intact.<ref name="PSI"/><ref name="SciAm">Scientific American: [http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=5&articleID=000A90B0-C919-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21 "Earth-Shattering Theory"]</ref>

===Criticism===
The hypothesis is far from complete, though. Despite addressing the issues raised in the light of the first lunar landings, the Giant Impact Hypothesis leaves quite a few issues currently not fully addressed:
*One study suggested three tests of the hypothesis, based on things that should have occurred after such an impact. The result of these tests did not prove the Giant Impact Hypothesis, but it also did not disprove it. Still, the paper raised a few points that have to be factored into the model.<ref>J. H. Jones: [http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/origin98/pdf/4045.pdf "Tests of the Giant Impact Hypothesis"]</ref>
*A study analysing the bulk composition has come to the conclusion that "the high bulk FeO (Ferrous Oxide)content of the Moon rules out the derivation of the proto-lunar material from any but a small fraction of the terrestrial mantle".<ref>S. R. Taylor: [http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc97/pdf/1070.PDF "The Bulk Composition of the Moon"]</ref>
*Addressing the above concern, the Giant Impact Hypothesis raised the point that the impactor also contributed a large share of the base material that formed the Moon. But as another paper pointed out, the Moon is lacking siderophilic (iron-loving)elements that should be present in such a case.<ref>Galimov and Krivtsov: [http://www.ias.ac.in/jessci/dec2005/ilc-3.pdf "Origin of the Earth–Moon system"]</ref>

==Current Status==
As of now, the Giant Impact Hypothesis still stands. Research on it is not yet complete, and the model is currently neither proven nor disproven. Nevertheless, scientists consider it to be the most plausible theory formulated so far.

Independently of the Giant Impact Hypothesis, Peter Noerdlinger from Saint Mary's University in Halifax, Canada, proposed an expansion of the Coaccretion model. He suggested that the Moon formed next to the Earth, complete with an iron core. But this core was then ripped out by the Earth's gravity shortly after the formation, leaving an iron-less Moon behind to orbit the Earth.<ref>New Scientist: [http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19325875.700-did-the-new-moon-lose-its-iron-heart.html "Did the new moon lose its iron heart?"]</ref>

Further research will show if either of these hypotheses is correct, or if scientists will develop a new theory based on new observations.

== Reference ==
<references/>
[[category:astronomy]]

Flood Geology

2007-05-07T22:46:01Z

Suricou: Continential breakup is after the flood, not during.

'''Flood geology''' is the study of the Earth's geology from the point of view that the Genesis account is true and accurate, and that evidence of the Flood can be found in the geology of the Earth. Dr. [[John Morris]] wrote regarding the existence of a past worldwide the following: "One of the strongest evidences for the global flood which annihilated all people on Earth except for [[Noah]] and his family, has been the ubiquitous presence of flood legends in the folklore of people groups from around the world. And the stories are all so similar." <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/570/</ref>

== History ==

Until the rise of uniformitarian [[geology]] in the early 19th century, most geologists accepted the Noahic deluge as part of geology. But [[James Hutton]] proposed in 1795 that geology ought to be based on the processes that we see happening now, thereby automatically ruling the Flood out of consideration. During the 19th century a number of "[[scriptural geologist]]s" held out against the rising acceptance of Hutton's principles, but they fought a losing battle and interest in flood geology virtually died out by the end of the 19th century.

However, in the second half of the 20th century, interest was revived amongst people keen to show that the biblical account was correct, and a small but growing number of geologists are now studying this field again, although the vast majority of geologists still reject the idea of a global flood on Earth. At the same time, there has been a recent resurgence of [[catastrophism]] in geological interpretation. <ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/georpts/gr11.htm</ref>

Interest in Flood Geology was stimulated by the 1961 publication of ''[[The Genesis Flood]]'', by [[Henry Morris]] and [[John Whitcomb]]. Dr. Henry Morris had a number of arguments for geology supporting a worldwide flood. <ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/842/</ref>

== The Model ==

Flood Geology actually covers more than just the [[Great Flood|Noahic Deluge]]. Flood geologists attempt to identify whether rock formations are from the initial creation, the period between creation and the Flood, during the Flood, or post-Flood, as well as divisions of these categories. At present there is little consensus about the categorization of the earliest or later rock formations.

=== Flood processes ===

Flood geologists propose that a world-wide, year-long flood would have caused massive erosion, sedimentation, and geological movements, and leaving extensive evidence in the geological record.

According to flood geologists, the flood resulted from subterranean water erupting to the surface ("the springs of the great deep burst forth" <ref>Genesis 7:11, NIV</ref>), combined with 40 days and nights of rain. Although the rain stopped after 40 days, the flood waters continued to rise for 150 days, and lasted just over a year before Noah and the others on the boat were able to leave. During the flood, there was massive tectonic activity, including some land rising up and other land dropping, such that the waters ended up in newly-deepened oceans. All the animals and birds (except those on the ark), and large numbers of sea creatures perished, and many of them were buried so quickly that they became fossils, accounting for the vast majority of fossils existing today.

Flood geologists point to extensive formations of sedimentary rocks, many with large fossil beds, as evidence consistent with this model.
They also point out that there is enough water on Earth today to cover the entire surface to a depth of 2.7 kilometres (1.7 miles), if the surface was levelled out.<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter12.pdf Noah’s Flood—what about all that water?], Chapter 4 of the ''Creation Answers Book'', Dr. Don Batten (Ed.)</ref>

=== Plate tectonics ===

A clear problem with a global flood is that of repopulation: after the flood, very few non-marine species would survive. In particular, most of those observed today could not possibly have survived - this includes all insects, the vast majority of birds (Some species of albatros may have survived), the vast majority of mammals, and possibly freshwater fish depending on the salinity of the floodwaters.

Flood geology models include a means for these species to survive, most typicially via artificial assistance - an Ark, as described in [[Genesis]]. This, however, can alone account for repopulation of only a single continent - it cannot explain the presence of non-floodworthy life on others.

An often-proposed explanation is that of continential drift - that the continents may once have been united in a single supercontinent, which broke into fragments and drifted into the formations seen today during the time between the start of repopulation and today. Continential drift in princible is nearly universally accepted by all geologists, with flood geology differing only in time: While contentional geology estimates the breakup of the supercontinent to have occured over approximately sixty million years, flood geologists claim the process took at most four thousand.

This in turn raises the problem of a confict with measurements today. Using GPS surveying equipment or simple measurement across fault lines, the current rate of continential can be measured and found to be too small to allow for significent drift over such short timescales. To resolve this, flood geologists propose several models which would explain how continential drift could proceed at the rapid pace required to allow the rearrangement of continents between the flood and today, then slow to the currently observed rate. One of the best known of these is the runaway subduction model of Dr. [[John Baumgardner]].<ref>http://www.globalflood.org/platetec/about.html</ref>

=== Coal formation ===

Flood geologists also propose that the flood waters swept together and buried large mats of vegetation ripped from the surface of the Earth, forming the coal beds that are mined today.
They point to observations made in [[Spirit Lake]] following the eruption of [[Mount St. Helens]] in 1980 in support of this process.

=== Total destruction ===

Flood geologists argue that the scale of destruction of the Flood, especially if rapid plate tectonics was involved, would mean almost certain total destruction of the pre-Flood world, including any evidence of civilisations predating the Flood, along with the destruction (if it existed at the time) of the [[Garden of Eden]].
After the Flood, and particularly after the [[Tower of Babel]], new civilisations developed, that either survive to this day or that we find archaeological evidence of today.

== Dating ==

Flood geologists date the flood to around 2350 B.C., based on [[biblical chronology]].
They argue that archaeological dates which purport to show civilisations and artifacts being older than the Flood (see Criticisms) are incorrect because they are based on the presumption that none of these methods would be altered by the effects of a global flood in such a way as to render conclusions drawn from them invalid.<ref>One example is Carbon Dating which is calibrated according to known background levels of C14 in the atmosphere, but this calibration does not account for likely altered levels due to extensive volcanism during the Flood. See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5026/ Carbon dating into the future] (Creation Ministries International).</ref> [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetists]] state that the biblical flood would have occurred before the Egyptian pyramids were built and that the commonly cited Egyptian chronology is errant and built upon poor foundations. <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2503</ref> Also, Christian apologists argue that ancient Sumerian history supports the flood account given in the Bible. <ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a009.html</ref> In addition, ancient Sumerian literature speaks of a world wide flood. <ref>http://home.comcast.net/~chris.s/sumer-faq.html#A1.6</ref>

[[Creationism|Creationist]] scientists also state that the chronology used to dispute a worldwide flood based on tree rings is invalid.<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=381</ref> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp</ref><ref>http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/c14_treerings.php</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/21066.htm</ref><ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/26/26_1a.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum29_4.html</ref>

==Creationist Scientists Defense of Flood Geology ==
Creationist scientists assert that there are multiple lines of evidence from the field of geology showing that flood geology is correct. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/georpts/gr11.htm</ref><ref>http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html</ref><ref>http://globalflood.org/</ref> Creationist scientists also state that there was enough water to cause a worldwide flood and various other objections to a worldwide flood are invalid. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/flood12.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp</ref>

== Common Criticisms ==

Critics claim that there is not enough water on the Earth to actually cause a worldwide flood, or ever has been; in addition, many archaeological records (notably tree-ring records and the records of various early civilizations, including Egypt and Sumeria) stretch through the period of time most often given as that of the Great Flood, without any actual reference to such an event.<ref>For a summary of other criticisms, see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html</ref>

== External Links ==
*[http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54 Geology and the Flood] by [[Henry Morris]], Ph.D.
*[http://www.creationism.org/symposium/symp3no2.htm Stratigraphic Evidence of the Flood] by Stuart E. Nevins.
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/flood_models.asp Flood models: the need for an integrated approach] by A.C. McIntosh, T. Edmondson & S. Taylor.
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html#anchorgeologycreationist Global Flood Geology from Creation Science Perspectives]

==References==

<references/>

[[Category: Young earth creationism]]
[[Category: Geology]]