Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:School prayer

2008-03-04T20:52:46Z

TJ:

== Is it not secular? ==

Andy,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Bible study paragraph ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:School prayer

2008-03-04T14:10:04Z

TJ: typo

== Is it not secular? ==

Andy,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Bible study paragraph ==

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

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

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

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

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

::: In America, I can legally go into a bar and flirt with the females without any problem. But if I were a teacher, and I did that to one of the students, I would be (correctly) disciplined and/or fired for that behavior. Is that censorship, Aschlafly? According to your definition it is. Do you support the right of teachers to flirt with their students? --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 08:06, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Censorship is suppression of information, not an action. And censorship is often used—and I expect that this is the way Andy is using it—to mean ''unreasonable'' suppression of an idea. That is, I very much doubt that Andy is opposed to ''all'' censorship, but banning of school prayer is ''unreasonable'' censorship. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:15, 4 March 2008 (EST)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:School prayer

2008-03-04T14:07:25Z

TJ: forgot sig

== Is it not secular? ==

Andy,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Bible study paragraph ==

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

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

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

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

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

::: In America, I can legally go into a bar and flirt with the females without any problem. But if I were a teacher, and I did that to one of the students, I would be (correctly) disciplined and/or fired for that behavior. Is that censorship, Aschlafly? According to your definition it is. Do you support the right of teachers to flirt with their students? --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 08:06, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Censorship is suppression of information, not an action. And censorship is often used—and I expect that this is the way Andy is using it—to mean ''unreasonable'' suppression of an idea. That is, I very much doubt that Andy is opposed to ''all'' censorship, but banning of school prayer is ''unreasonable'' censorship. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:15, 4 March 2008 (EST)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:School prayer

2008-03-04T14:06:52Z

TJ: /* Query */

== Is it not secular? ==

Andy,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Bible study paragraph ==

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

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

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

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

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

::: In America, I can legally go into a bar and flirt with the females without any problem. But if I were a teacher, and I did that to one of the students, I would be (correctly) disciplined and/or fired for that behavior. Is that censorship, Aschlafly? According to your definition it is. Do you support the right of teachers to flirt with their students? --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 08:06, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Censorship is suppression of information, not an action. And censorship is often used—and I expect that this is the way Andy is using it—to mean ''unreasonable'' suppression of an idea. That is, I very much doubt that Andy is opposed to ''all'' censorship, but banning of school prayer is ''unreasonable'' censorship. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:15, 4 March 2008 (EST)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liberal Democrats

2008-03-04T12:00:35Z

TJ:

The '''Liberal Democrats''', often known as the "'''Lib Dems'''", are a political party in the [[United Kingdom]]. They have traditionally occupied the center of the political spectrum, between the [[Labour Party]] on the left and the [[Conservative Party]] on the right ("liberal" in British political parlance means "centrist" or "moderate" rather than "left-wing", as it does in the United States). At the present time, the party is seen as being moderately left-leaning.

The Liberal Democrats' current leader is [[Nick Clegg]]<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/politics_show/7148179.stm</ref>.

The Liberal Democrats were formed in 1988 by a merger between the centrist [[Liberal Party]] and the moderately left-wing [[Social Democratic Party]], which had split off from the Labour Party in the early 1980s when the latter became too strongly socialist. The Liberal Party was one of the oldest political parties in the world, tracing its roots back to the [[Whigs]] of the era of [[William of Orange]].

== History ==
Since its foundation, the party has steadily increased its presence in the [[House of Commons]] at each successive election. The party won 62 seats in the 2005 general election<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/ukfs_news/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/</ref> - the most that the party or its predecessors had won since the election of 1923.

== Policies ==
Their policies can be broadly described as social-democratic, with a libertarian bent - they have mooted the idea of decriminalizing recreational drugs, whilst arguing for a rationalization of the currently confused status of the various components of the [[United Kingdom]].

The party is currently under investigation for receiving money from banker and expatriate Michael Brown which was may have been fraudulently obtained.

==References==
<references/>

[[category:British Political Parties]]

Liberal Democrats

2008-03-04T11:55:20Z

TJ: I have added some headlines for the article, I shall expand them this evening when I have more time.

The '''Liberal Democrats''', often known as the "Lib Dems", are a political party in the [[United Kingdom]]. They have traditionally occupied the center of the political spectrum, between the [[Labour Party]] on the left and the [[Conservative Party]] on the right ("liberal" in British political parlance means "centrist" or "moderate" rather than "left-wing", as it does in the United States). At the present time, the party is seen as being moderately left-leaning.

The Liberal Democrats' current leader is [[Nick Clegg]]<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/politics_show/7148179.stm</ref>.

The Liberal Democrats were formed in 1988 by a merger between the centrist [[Liberal Party]] and the moderately left-wing [[Social Democratic Party]], which had split off from the Labour Party in the early 1980s when the latter became too strongly socialist. The Liberal Party was one of the oldest political parties in the world, tracing its roots back to the [[Whigs]] of the era of [[William of Orange]].

== History ==
Since its foundation, the party has steadily increased its presence in the [[House of Commons]] at each successive election. The party won 62 seats in the 2005 general election<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/ukfs_news/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/</ref> - the most that the party or its predecessors had won since the election of 1923.

== Policies ==
Their policies can be broadly described as social-democratic, with a libertarian bent - they have mooted the idea of decriminalizing recreational drugs, whilst arguing for a rationalization of the currently confused status of the various components of the [[United Kingdom]].

The party is currently under investigation for receiving money from banker and expatriate Michael Brown which was may have been fraudulently obtained.

==References==
<references/>

[[category:British Political Parties]]

User talk:Vincentvincent

2008-03-04T11:38:20Z

TJ: New page: == Hello == No doubt someone will come along soon and slap on a welcome template, but as a fellow Brit, let me be the first to welcome you to conservapedia! --~~~~

== Hello ==
No doubt someone will come along soon and slap on a welcome template, but as a fellow Brit, let me be the first to welcome you to conservapedia! --[[User:TJ|Crookles]] 06:38, 4 March 2008 (EST)

User talk:VonShroom

2008-03-03T22:41:00Z

TJ: New page: == Hello! == Well since Crocoite has yet to slap on a welcome template here, let me do the honours instead. As a fellow "liberal atheist" (although by American terms I am probably on a par...

== Hello! ==
Well since Crocoite has yet to slap on a welcome template here, let me do the honours instead. As a fellow "liberal atheist" (although by American terms I am probably on a par with socialists in terms of political views), I am glad to see you here. My mission is very much similar to yours, I guess, in discovering new points of view. Right now I am working on the [[macroeconomics]] article if you fancy helping out on something strictly NPOV. See you around, I hope... --[[User:TJ|Crookles]] 17:41, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Talk:Feminism

2008-03-03T20:32:25Z

TJ: Excessive quotes?

==article problems==
Second Wave did not "resurge"-the feminism that emerged out of the later 80's/early 90's is Third Wave.

Also, feminism, contrary to what many people think, does not revolve around abortion. Feminist work also involves issues such as affordable access to childcare and prevention of domestic violence, just to name a couple. Couldn't this article reflect that rather than lumping all of feminism into one category of ideology?

----
Removed opinion.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:10, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

This article contains a lot of irrelevant information. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 04:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

A big problem with feminism is its desire to erase sex distinctions. Masculinity and femininity are no longer seen as God-given traits, or even ideals. [[Women in the military]], the so-called [[equal pay for equal work]] law; the forced muzzling of that Harvard president who dared suggest that women and men might not be equally suited to academic careers in math and science.

The idea that there's nothing sacred about the male-female relationship obviously provides support for [[gay rights]] agitation and same-sex "marriage". If there's nothing special about a man, then what does a woman need one for? She can have a "wife" too (as Garry Trudeau once put it). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't think the addition of the Rush Limbaugh "femi-nazi" comment is particularly relevant, largely because it's based on the wholly erroneous assumption that all feminists are pro-abortion. To include anything based on that assumption mischaracterizes the late 20th c/early 21st c "post feminist" era, where women who self-identify as feminists are far more likely to fall within a broad spectrum of ideals than one cookie cutter. [[User:Fsm1975|Fsm1975]] 23:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I just found this. This gives a leading source for a definition.
:Hillary Clinton received the endorsement of the National Organization for Women, a group of a half-million members who support feminist candidates for elective office. Asked whether she saw herself as a feminist, Clinton said by the standard definition, yes. "If you look in the dictionary, the word feminist means someone who believes in equal rights for women in society, in the economy, the political process -- generally believes in the equality of women," she said. "And I certainly believe in the equality of women." [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:35, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::I’m curious why a person who would not accept a philosopher of science as a credible source for an entry on science would accept the definition of a politician/lawyer as definitive in terms of a philosophical/social/academic movement. Let alone why you would think she would be a “leading source for a definition”. Not that I object to the content of her definition, but the strongest claim I think you can support with it is “some politicians endorsed by [[NOW]] believe feminism means…” An interesting, but not especaly useful or informative claim.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:48, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==Defining feminism==

Cut from intro:

:However there is no broad consensus among [[feminists]] (followers of feminism) about how gender equality ought to be understood. In recent years this has led many feminists to argue that, because there are so many different and mutually exclusive philosophies and philosophers that are called feminist, it is more appropriate to speak of feminisms (plural) than feminism (singular) <ref>Feminisms [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-topics/]</ref>. For this reason it is difficult, if not impossible, to state any belief universally held by all feminists.

This sounds like a refusal to be categorized, defined or otherwise pinned down. But it's the job of an encyclopedia to define and categorize. How can we solve this problem? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:The way I would suggest handling it is to take seriously the distinctions feminists make among themselves. (For example there is a clear split between the pro- and anti- pornography feminists (I’m still working on a RD of the [[pornography]] article as per our previous discussion btw) ). If we are going to really flesh out this article we ought to have a number of feminisms represented here—just as we don’t lump all creationists together but observe the very real distinction between Young and Old Earth Creationists.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==Abortion poll==

The page I linked to had a whole series of polls. The two most recent polls said that 16% of the American public favored retaining unlimited rights to abortion, and 39% favored abortion being 'legal in most cases'. Of the remainder, 31% favored it being illegal in 'most' cases and 12% illegal in all cases. In other words, 55% favor it being legal in all or most cases and 43% favor it being illegal in all or most cases, with 2% unsure either way. The other poll referred to the retention of the rights granted under Roe v Wade and 62% favored this. This should be reflected in the article because as it stands the article misrepresents the facts. Please tell me why you think we should misrepresent facts clearly laid out in a neutral opinion poll --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:38, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

: Can you explain why abortion polling data is so relevant to this article? What is the point? It is an article about Feminism, not abortion politics.
: You put in a statement that the majority of Americans the current law on abortion rights, but in fact the most recent poll at the cited source says that only 16% support that right. So I corrected that. Now you want various other poll results. What is the point? People can follow the link to the polls if they wish. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:05, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::The statement about feminist support for abortion rights was in the original version of the article I saw. I linked to the poll to provide a citation on an issue that the original article said was of great importance to many feminists, and made it clear that these rights were opposed by many conservatives and some feminists. My original simple statement about 'majority' support for the right to a legal abortion in all or some cases was made convoluted by another editor and I attempted to clarify it. It has now been totally distorted by you. In addition to the 16% support you keep citing, you omit to say that an additional 39% support abortion rights 'in most cases'. Shall we say that only 12% of people - presumably conservatives - oppose abortion? This would be equally valid by your measure of validity. People can certainly follow the link, but it is dishonest to misrepresent its content in the way you are doing.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 18:16, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::: What is dishonest? It is an article about feminism, not about conservative abortion views. Maybe an article about abortion can explain the polls in detail, I don't know. The feminist organizations that support abortion rights want abortion to be legal in all cases. The 16% figure is the most relevant one. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:29, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::In that case, since there is no evidence that only feminists support abortion in all cases (we know that some are opposed) the relevant figure is the 62% who support the retention of rights under Roe v Wade, which I think we can agree was agreed by most feminists to be a landmark case on this issue. I suggest we cite that instead, which gives a clearer figure both of general feminist support for abortion rights and the degree to which that issue is supported by the population as a whole. The figure was quite unequivocal on the poll, and is probably less confusing than the other poll. I propose substituting that one. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 19:15, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Could you give me an example of a feminist organization that opposes abortion rights in some cases? I think that the Roe v Wade poll is more confusing because it reflect not just opinions on abortion, but also opinions about legal theories. I wonder how many people even know what the legal consequence of overturning Roe v Wade would be. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:32, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Sure - [ http://www.feministsforlife.org/] are probably the best-known group, but you can find other organisations listed on [http://www.gargaro.com/fem.html] and quotes from a variety of other sources on [http://www.geocities.com/livefreecritique/modernfeminists.html]. Personally, I don't think the Roe v Wade poll is confusing, because most people associate that case with abortion rights and would be unlikely to consider abstract legal theories in that context. Roe v Wade is cited as an event of significance in a timeline of women's rights on [http://www.infoplease.com/spot/womenstimeline1.html] and certainly supported by the majority of feminists - see [http://www.feminist.org/courts/roe.asp] and [http://www.now.org/press/01-04/01-22.html]. I feel that it is important to demonstrate the extent to which majority feminist thinking is supported by opinion among the country as a whole over this issue, hence my wish to cite either the full figures of the first poll or the limited figures over Roe v Wade of the second. The second set are probably clearer and easier.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 20:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: There are certainly lots of feminists who are very happy with abortion law. But if you want to argue that a majority of the people agree with a majority of the feminists, then the Roe v Wade poll doesn't do it. A lot of people are for or against Roe v Wade for a lot of reasons. If you want opinions on abortion, the best polls are the ones that ask abortion questions. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:37, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The language on the poll numbers, as it stands, is misleading. Currently the language is “As of April 2007, women in the US have the right to abortion in all cases, and according to a recent poll, 16% of the American public favor the retention of this right.” This is simply not the case, women have a right to abortions in most cases, but it is not unlimited. Parental notification laws, parental consent laws, laws banning third trimester abortions except when necessary to protect the health or life of the mother – all of these laws are (currently) constitutional (laws banning second trimester abortions except when necessary for the life or safety of the mother are also probably, but less clearly, allowable). That means that 16% of people favor an expansion of the right to an abortion, not keeping it the same. 39% seem to favor “keeping it the same” as there is currently a right to abortion in most, but not all cases.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 20:42, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I agree that the numbers as currently stated are misleading. In that case, given that RSchlafly opposes using the Roe v Wade poll I think the fairest and most representative thing to do is to cite the full figures of the first poll, which is the most recent one in any case, and let people make their own minds up about the extent to which majority feminist thinking on this issue has influenced thinking in the population in general. I will edit accordingly.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 21:00, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Interestingly enough, even Roe v. Wade didn’t go as far as to say that a woman had a right to an abortion in all cases. It said that a woman had a right to an abortion in the first trimester, in the second trimester a woman has a right to an abortion unless the state can show a really good reason why she should be allowed to have one, and a state could outlaw almost all third trimester abortions. (The Casey decision which is the leading case at the moment, relaxed constraints on what the state could ban). So under current law more abortions can be outlawed than could be under Roe v. Wade and even under Roe it was not the case that “women in the US have the right to abortion in all cases”.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 21:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Thank you, that's very helpful and I hope my editing of the paragraph has reflected that. Please clarify if it seems inaccurate. It sounds as if law in the US is, in practice, quite similar to law in the UK, where abortions are illegal after 24 weeks unless there are life-threatening reasons, although in practice only a minute percentage of abortions are performed after 20 weeks.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 21:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Your restatement in the article looks right to me. Just to be clear though, I am only talking about what women have a constitutionally protected right to (at the moment, I suspect that this will change in the near future). I’m not sure what the law is in any given state—the Supreme Court simply says “this is the most you can outlaw” in many states more abortions are allowed than the bare minimum. And I have no idea what the actual numbers look like here (actually I suspect that those numbers are not attainable here, given how tightly guarded medical records are).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 21:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: No, it is just not the case that abortion is limited by trimesters under USA law. Not under Roe, and not under Casey. USA law is not like UK law. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

==Why the deleted quotations?==

RobS - it is not very polite to delete another editor's work that is relevant to the article without discussing it first. I reverted your original edit so that it could be discussed. I should be grateful if you would be kind enough to do that here.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:36, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
:answers.com is a wikimirror site. It is an invalid citition. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:06, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

::Well that's no problem. It's an extremely famous quotation and I have plenty of other sources for it. The other quotation from Pat Robertson is not from answers.com so I presume that is OK. If that's your only problem with it, I will restore it with a different source. It would have been mannerly of you to have asked me if I had another source for it rather than just deleting it though. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 18:10, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

==South End Press==
My apologies, but we can't use bigotted and hate filled extremist publishers for references. A blockquote from the mainspace cites a book published by South End Press, which also published this proven and debunked piece of trash. [http://www.southendpress.org/2004/items/OldNazis] The reference will be removed, and the editor is hereby warned to refrain from making further insertions from such hatefilled extremist sources. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:07, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

==To much emphasis on abortion==
I think that this artical is focused mainly on abortion which is not it is for.

== Misandry ==
This article has clearly mistaken the definition of femanism for misandry. There are more even-minded, considerate, and heterosexual feminists that can be counted, where as this article only lists those who qualify as man-haters. Honestly I think this kind of blatent bias is what's ruined Conservapedia, and really the entire country, but there's no reason to suggest that feminism goes against any of the values that we all share, and I suggest we completely overhall this entire article and include a section regarding feminist inspired misandry and the differences between the two practices. I also don't think there is any reason to suggest that feminism is a sin and in any way connected to homosexual behavior, which seems to be what this article implys. I'm not so quick to put females who wish to be heard in the same boat as abominations, and I wish I could say the same for all of the Conservapidia editors.
--[[User:YoungConservative|YoungConservative]] 15:43, 2 February 2008 (EST)YoungConservative

== "boys being cheerleaders for it" ==

Is it not the case that George W. Bush was a cheerleader at Yale back in the day? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 13:24, 2 March 2008 (EST)

: Could be. Many prominent men were once cheerleaders ... for ''boys'' playing football, not girls.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:27, 2 March 2008 (EST)

== Excessive quotes? ==

I'm not sure if I'm alone here in thinking that there are far too many quotes in this article? They make the layout rather bloated and do not seem to provide much in the way of information. Might I go ahead and perhaps remove some of the less relevant quotes? Thanks. --[[User:TJ|Crookles]] 15:32, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Conspiracy Theorist

2008-03-03T20:14:21Z

TJ: Undoing suspected vanalism by SSD

A '''Conspiracy Theorist''' is a person or persons who subscribe to generally marginal explanations for all kinds of events, natural and man-made, that differ from mainstream explanations, both [[scientific]] and theoretical, in that they usually posit conspiratorial plots and cover-ups to explain those events.

[[category:sociology]]

Talk:Macroeconomics

2008-03-03T19:23:25Z

TJ:

I didn't revert because I think the original version is good; I'm simply not qualified to comment on or improve the content. If you are, feel free to take a stab at it. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:13, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

You're not qualified to recognize that a forest v trees analogy and a statement that the subjects of that analogy are opposites don't make sense taken together? You're far brighter than that.

In the meantime, I see that the forest v trees analogy has also been judged pointless, so remarkably enough the entry's even *thinner* now in comparison with unicorns. It hasn't trotted out a crazy aunt in the attic like 'baramin' yet, though.

== New version ==
So as it stands, I have done a fairly lightweight article for a real heavyweight topic, drawing only on my A level Economics knowledge. Perhaps someone with more insight/ qualifications could add to it? --[[User:TJ|Crookles]] 14:23, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Talk:Haggis

2008-03-03T18:07:43Z

TJ:

"a grain, which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland supports the people." - ..in England they have fine horses, but in Scotland fine people..

:Ouch! As an Englishman myself, I have to say that comment stings ;-P --[[User:TJ|Crookles]] 13:07, 3 March 2008 (EST)

User:TJ

2008-03-03T11:54:01Z

TJ:

Hi y'all, I'm Tom, and I hark from Merry Old England. I hope to learn some new stuff and also improve what I can. I am probably "[[Liberal]]" by the American definition, but here in Britain I am a [[Social Democrat]].

----

{{User noforcedreligion}}

{{User Bible just book}}

{{User noBush}}

{{User gay rights}}

{{User cows tasty}}

{{User Evo}}

{{User en-UK}}

User:TJ

2008-03-01T22:59:46Z

TJ:

Hi y'all, I'm Tom, and I hark from Merry Old England. I hope to learn some new stuff and also improve what I can. I am probably "[[Liberal]]" by the American definition, but here in Britain I am a [[Social Democrat]]. I understand that this viewpoint is totally incompatible with Conservapedia, so I shall be sticking to the non-controversial articles and steering clear of talk pages where possible.

----

{{User noforcedreligion}}

{{User Bible just book}}

{{User noBush}}

{{User gay rights}}

{{User cows tasty}}

{{User Evo}}

{{User en-UK}}

OxyContin

2008-03-01T21:36:48Z

TJ: added reference section

OxyContin® is a prescription painkiller used for moderate to high pain relief associated with injuries, bursitis, dislocations, fractures, neuralgia, arthritis, lower back pain, and pain associated with cancer. OxyContin® contains oxycodone, the medication's active ingredient, in a timed-release tablet. Oxycodone products have been illicitly abused for the past 30 years.

Oxycodone is a Schedule II narcotic analgesic and is widely used in clinical medicine. It is marketed either alone as controlled release (OxyContin®) and immediate release formulations (OxyIR®, OxyFast®), or in combination with other nonnarcotic analgesics such as aspirin (Percodan®) or acetaminophen (Percocet®). The introduction in 1996 of OxyContin®, commonly known on the street as OC, OX, Oxy, Oxycotton, Hillbilly heroin, and kicker, led to a marked escalation of its abuse as reported by drug abuse treatment centers, law enforcement personnel, and health care professionals. Although the diversion and abuse of OxyContin® appeared initially in the eastern US, it has now spread to the western US including Alaska and Hawaii. Oxycodone-related adverse health effects increased markedly in recent years. In 2004, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for marketing generic forms of controlled release oxycodone products.<ref>http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/concern/oxycontin.html</ref>

In 2003, [[conservative]] radio host [[Rush Limbaugh]] became addicted to the drug after a back surgery. Shortly after he was connected by law enforcement to an illegal narcotics ring, he admitted this fact and sought treatment for his addiction.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/10/10/rush.limbaugh/</ref>

==References==
<references/>

Macroeconomics

2008-03-01T16:14:48Z

TJ:

'''Macroeconomics''' is the analysis of the [[economy]] as a whole, or the analysis of large subdivisions of the economy; for example [[inflation]], [[unemployment]], and [[aggregate demand]] and supply.
The study of macroeconomics seeks to further understand these principals to aid a country's economic performance as a whole.

== Development of Macroeconomics ==
Macroeconomics is a relatively new field of study, gaining attention during the 1930's; with the term first being used by the Norwegian nobel prize-winning economist Ragnar Frisch<ref>http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/frisch.htm</ref> although naturally the principles upon which it is founded have been in existence far longer. During the 1930's it became possible for the first time to collect increasingly detailed economic data on national income, balance of trade and the current account; allowing for a more precise analysis of the entire national economy.

=== The Great Depression ===
[[The Great Depression]] of 1929 was a powerful influence behind the development of macroeconomics, since it highlighted the major flaws in applying [[microeconomics|microeconomic]] theory to the national economy. According to microeconomic, or "market-clearing" theory, the large amount of unemployment following the Great Depression should have been adjusted by the "invisible hand" of the markets, whereby workers revised their wage expectations downwards to the point where firms were willing to employ more workers. However, due to the unemployment and poverty, the demand for goods and services dropped, so firms did not require workers. In addition to this, workers were unwilling to accept substantially lower wages to do the same jobs as before, preventing the wage rate dropping to an appropriate level.
In response to this situation, the British economist [[John Maynard Keynes]] wrote ''The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money'' in which he outlined the limitations of Microeconomics and put forward many founding macroeconomic principals such as aggregate demand <ref>http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/general-theory-of-employment-interest-and-money.php</ref>, and thus can be considered the "father" of Macroeconomics. Since then many of Keynes' original theories have been subject to intense scrutiny and critique, notably by [[monetarists]] such as [[Milton Friedman]] who claim government intervention to correct market failure is inefficient, and private firms motivated by [[profits]] and price competitiveness are far better at ironing out market failures.

== Government Policy ==
Typically, governments use [[Fiscal Policy|Fiscal]] and [[Monetary Policy]] to stabilize the economy and prevent events such as the Great Depression from happening. Fiscal policy involves government taxation and spending to reduce or increase aggregate demand and Monetary policy seeks achieves the same using the manipulation of [[Interest rates]].

==Schools of Thought==
Since the 1930's, two main schools of macroeconomic thought have developed, although within these other sub-groups exist. The two schools are:
*'''Monetarism'''- advocated by economists such as [[Milton Friedman]] and [[Anna Schwartz]], monetarism rejects Keyne's demand management and government intervention proposals, stating that these create distortions in the market and force out the more efficient private firms.
*'''Keynesian'''- this school stems from the original work of [[John Maynard Keynes]], and uses the principal of [[aggregate demand]] to explain unemployment and changing levels of economic growth. Keynesian economists usually advocate demand management or [[fiscal policy]] as a means of correcting market failure.

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
* [[Microeconomics]]
* [[Milton Friedman]]
* [[John Maynard Keynes]]

[[Category:Economics]]

Macroeconomics

2008-03-01T16:14:07Z

TJ:

'''Macroeconomics''' is the analysis of the [[economy]] as a whole, or the analysis of large subdivisions of the economy; for example [[inflation]], [[unemployment]], and [[aggregate demand]] and supply.
The study of macroeconomics seeks to further understand these principals to aid a country's economic performance as a whole.

== Development of Macroeconomics ==
Macroeconomics is a relatively new field of study, gaining attention during the 1930's; with the term first being used by the Norwegian nobel prize-winning economist Ragnar Frisch<ref>http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/frisch.htm</ref> although naturally the principles upon which it is founded have been in existence far longer. During the 1930's it became possible for the first time to collect increasingly detailed economic data on national income, balance of trade and the current account; allowing for a more precise analysis of the entire national economy.

=== The Great Depression ===
[[The Great Depression]] of 1929 was a powerful influence behind the development of macroeconomics, since it highlighted the major flaws in applying [[microeconomics|microeconomic]] theory to the national economy. According to microeconomic, or "market-clearing" theory, the large amount of unemployment following the Great Depression should have been adjusted by the "invisible hand" of the markets, whereby workers revised their wage expectations downwards to the point where firms were willing to employ more workers. However, due to the unemployment and poverty, the demand for goods and services dropped, so firms did not require workers. In addition to this, workers were unwilling to accept substantially lower wages to do the same jobs as before, preventing the wage rate dropping to an appropriate level.
In response to this situation, the British economist [[John Maynard Keynes]] wrote ''The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money'' in which he outlined the limitations of Microeconomics and put forward many founding macroeconomic principals such as aggregate demand <ref>http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/general-theory-of-employment-interest-and-money.php</ref>, and thus can be considered the "father" of Macroeconomics. Since then many of Keynes' original theories have been subject to intense scrutiny and critique, notably by [[monetarists]] such as [[Milton Friedman]] who claim government intervention to correct market failure is inefficient, and private firms motivated by [[profits]] and price competitiveness are far better at ironing out market failures.

== Government Policy ==
Typically, governments use [[Fiscal Policy|Fiscal]] and [[Monetary Policy]] to stabilize the economy and prevent events such as the Great Depression from happening. Fiscal policy involves government taxation and spending to reduce or increase aggregate demand and Monetary policy seeks achieves the same using the manipulation of [[Interest rates]].

==Schools of Thought==

Since the 1930's, two main schools of macroeconomic thought have developed, although within these other sub-groups exist. The two schools are:
*'''Monetarism'''- advocated by economists such as [[Milton Friedman]] and [[Anna Schwartz]], monetarism rejects Keyne's demand management and government intervention proposals, stating that these create distortions in the market and force out the more efficient private firms.
*'''Keynesian'''- this school stems from the original work of [[John Maynard Keynes]], and uses the principal of [[aggregate demand]] to explain unemployment and changing levels of economic growth. Keynesian economists usually advocate demand management or [[fiscal policy]] as a means of correcting market failure.

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
* [[Microeconomics]]
* [[Milton Friedman]]
* [[John Maynard Keynes]]

[[Category:Economics]]

User:TJ

2008-03-01T15:43:26Z

TJ:

Hi y'all, I'm Tom, and I hark from Merry Old England. I hope to learn some new stuff and also improve what I can. I am probably "[[Liberal]]" by the American definition, but here in Britain I am a [[Social Democrat]]. I understand that this viewpoint is totally incompatible with Conservapedia, so I shall be sticking to the non-controversial articles and steering clear of talk pages where possible.

Macroeconomics

2007-10-09T11:47:58Z

TJ:

'''Macroeconomics''' is the analysis of the [[economy]] as a whole, or the analysis of large subdivisions of the economy; for example [[inflation]], [[unemployment]], and aggregate demand and supply.
The study of macroeconomics seeks to further understanding of these principals to aid a country's economic performance as a whole.

== Development of Macroeconomics ==
Macroeconomics is a relatively new field of [[study]], gaining attention during the 1930's; although naturally the principles upon which it is founded have been in existence far longer. During the 1930's it became possible for the first time to collect increasingly detailed economic data on national income, balance of trade and the current account; allowing for more precise analysis of the entire national economy.

===[[The Great Depression]]===
The Great Depression of 1929 was a powerful influence behind the development of macroeconomics, since it highlighted the major flaws in applying [[microeconomics|microeconomic]] theory to the national economy. According to microeconomic, or "market-clearing" theory, the large amount of unemployment following the Great Depression should have been adjusted by the "invisible hand" of the markets, whereby wages dropped so the firms took on more workers. However, due to the unemployment and poverty, the demand for goods and services dropped, so firms did not require workers.
In response to this situation, the British economist [[John Maynard Keynes]] wrote ''The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money'' in which he outlined the limitations of Microeconomics and put forward many founding macroeconomic principals such as aggregate demand [http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/general-theory-of-employment-interest-and-money.php]. Since then many of Keyne's original theories have been subject to intense scrutiny and critique, notably by [[monetarists]] such as [[Milton Friedman]] who claim government intervention to correct market failure is inefficient, and private firms motivated by [[profits]] and price competitiveness are far better at ironing out market failures.

==Schools of Thought==

Since the 1930's, two main schools of macroeconomic thought have developed, although within these other sub-groups exist. The two schools are:
*'''Monetarism'''- advocated by economists such as [[Milton Friedman]] and [[Anna Schwartz]], monetarism rejects Keyne's demand management and government intervention proposals, stating that these create distortions in the market and force out the more efficient private firms.
*'''Keynesian'''- this school stems from the original work of [[John Maynard Keynes]], and uses the principal of [[aggregate demand]] to explain unemployment and changing levels of economic growth. Keynesian economists usually advocate demand management or [[fiscal policy]] as a means of correcting market failure.

==Sources==
*http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/general-theory-of-employment-interest-and-money.php

==See Also==
* [[Microeconomics]]
*

[[Category:Economics]]

Confederate States of America

2007-10-09T11:46:22Z

TJ:

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="250" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:Cwlogo.png|200px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: gray no-repeat scroll top left;"|The Civil War
1861 - 1865
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: gray no-repeat scroll top left;"|Confederate States of America
|-
|Created
|February 4, 1861
|-
|Ended
|April 9, 1865
|-
|President
|[[Jefferson Davis]]
|-
|Secretary of War
|Leroy Pope Walker, Judah P. Benjamin, George W. Randolph, James Seddon, John C. Breckinridge
|-
|Secretary of the Navy
|Stephan Mallory
|-
|Secretary of State
|Robert Toombs, Robert M.T. Hunter, Judah P. Benjamin
|}
The '''Confederate States of America''' (informally, the ''Confederacy'') was a government created from an alliance of eleven southern states which had seceeded from the [[United States]] between December 1860 and April 1861. The [[American Civil War]] that was begun by the Confederate shelling of Fort Sumter proved disasterous; four years of savage fighting ended with the fledgling government defeated and dissolved, and left the southern states a financial and industrial wreck.

==Beginnings==
The various southern states seceded from the [[United States of America]], and joined together as the "Confederate States of America" for a number of reasons, including a Northern state favored balance of power in Congress, Free Trade, and, after Lincoln's triumph in the [[1860 Presidential election]], the threat of radical [[abolitionism|abolitionists]] to end [[slavery]], which Southerners viewed as a matter of [[states' rights]] that should not be enforced at the federal level.

Only four states where slavery was legal at that time failed to secede -- [[Delaware]], [[Kentucky]], [[Maryland]] and [[Missouri]]. It was a near thing in the latter three states, which all wound up raising [[regiment]]s for the Confederacy as well as the [[Union]], although not as an official act of their governments.

The president of the Confederate States of America was [[Jefferson Davis]], a former [[Secretary of War]] under [[President]] [[Franklin Pierce]] and later [[Senator]] from [[Mississippi]]. [[Richmond, Virginia]] was the capital of the Confederacy after that state seceded in mid-April of 1861 following the surrender of [[Fort Sumter]] and [[Lincoln's call for volunteers]], and one day before the [[Pratt Street riot]] in [[Baltimore, Maryland]], the first battle of the Civil War to kill Americans on both sides.

General [[Robert E. Lee]] led the Confederate forces into battle against the Union armies, led by various generals appointed by [[Abraham Lincoln]], with the last, and most successful being General Ulysses S. Grant. .

== Ideology ==

Professor [[Emory Thomas]] of [[Virginia]] found it instructive to compare the correspondence sent by the Confederate government in the first year of its existence to different governments. He writes, "The Southern nation was by turns a guileless people attacked by a voracious neighbor, an 'established' nation in some temporary difficulty, a collection of bucolic [[aristocrats]] making a romantic stand against the banalities of [[industry|industrial]] [[democracy]], a [[cabal]] of commercial farmers seeking to make a pawn of [[King Cotton]], an [[apotheosis]] of nineteenth-century [[nationalism]] and revolutionary [[liberalism]], or the ultimate statement of social and economic [[reaction]]." <ref> [Emory M. Thomas, The Confederate Nation: 1861-1865. New York: Harper & Row, 1979, pp. 83-84.] </ref> Certainly some of the leaders of the Confederacy could be found to believe in any one of these incarnations of their country, but probably none to believe in all at once. The aspect of resistance to [[industrialization]] has most captured the imagination of future generations of Southerners.

The example of the [[U. S. Constitution]] clearly guided the drafters of the Confederate Constitution, enabling the latter group to complete their work in less than half as much time. <ref> [Thomas, p. 63.] </ref> The predictable provision banning efforts to end de jure slavery is found at Article I, Section 9, clause 4, lumped in with the provisions banning [[ex post facto laws]] and [[bills of attainder]]. It is three clauses down from a most unexpected clause banning the [[Atlantic Ocean|Atlantic]] [[slave trade]], but permitting the importation of slaves from the Union. The wording of this clause demonstrates that the drafters clearly anticipated that not all slave states would secede, although they also included a provision for accepting new states into the Confederacy, which proved essential when [[Virginia]], [[Arkansas]], [[Tennessee]] and [[North Carolina]] seceded from the United States after the Constitution was in effect. Although the Confederate document includes no [[bill of rights]] as such, the [[Ninth Amendment]] and [[Tenth Amendment]] are reproduced in Article VI as Sections 5 and 6. The Confederate ban on a [[religious test for office]] is Section 4, notwithstanding the fact that the preamble invokes the blessing of almighty [[God]] on the Confederate experiment. <ref> [Thomas, Appendix, pp. 306-322.] </ref> Perhaps the most significant differences had to do with the [[appropriations]] process in Congress. Not only was a [[line-item veto]] expressly included, but Congress required a two-thirds [[supermajority]] to appropriate any funds not specifically requested by the President, giving Jefferson Davis in a real sense more Constitutional power than Abraham Lincoln possessed.

==Leadership==
===Legislative branch===
'''President of the Congress'''
:Robert Woodward Barnwell, 4 Feb 1861 (served for several hours)
:Howell Cobb, 4 Feb 1861 - 18 Feb 1861
'''President Pro Tempore of the Senate'''
:Robert Mercer Taliaferro Hunter, 18 Feb 1862 - 18 Mar 1865
'''President Pro Tempore of the Provisional Congress'''
:Robert Woodward Barnwell, 4 Feb 1861 - 16 Mar 1861
:Thomas Stanhope Bobcock, Josiah A.P. Campbell, 18 Nov 1861 - 17 Feb 1862
'''Speaker of the House of Representatives'''
:Thomas Stanhope Bobcock, 18 Feb 1862 - 18 Mar 1865
===Executive branch===
'''President of the Confederate States'''
:Jefferson Finis Davis, 18 Feb 1861 - 10 May 1865 (provisional president to 6 Nov 1861)
'''Vice President of the Confederate States'''
:Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 18 Feb 1861 - 11 May 1865 (provisional vice president to 6 Nov 1861)
'''Secretary of State'''
:Robert Augustus Toombs, 21 Feb 1861 - 24 Jul 1861
:Robert Mercer Taliaferro Hunter, 25 Jul 1861 - 1 Feb 1862
:William Montague Brown, 1 Feb 1862 - 17 Mar 1862
:Judah Philip Benjamin, 18 Mar 1862 - 3 May 1865
'''Attorney General'''
:Judah Philip Benjamin, 25 Feb 1861 - 17 Sep 1861
:Wade Rutledge Keyes, 17 Sep 1861 - 21 Nov 1861
:Thomas Bragg, Jr., 21 Nov 1861 - 17 Mar 1862
:Thomas Hill Watts, 18 Mar 1862 - 1 Oct 1863
:Wade Rutledge Keyes, 1 Oct 1863 - 2 Jan 1864
:George Davis, 2 Jan 1864 - 24 Apr 1865
'''Commissioner of Patents'''
:Rufus Randolph Rhodes, 31 May 1861 - Apr 1865
'''Postmaster General'''
:Henry T. Ellet, 25 Feb 1861 - 6 Mar 1861 (nominated and confirmed; declined appointment)
:John Henninger Reagan, 6 Mar 1861 - 5 May 1865
'''Secretary of the Treasury'''
:Christopher Gustavus Memminger, 21 Feb 1861 - 18 Jul 1864
:George Alfred Trenholm, 18 Jul 1864 - 27 Apr 1865
:John Henninger Reagan, 28 Apr 1865 - 4 May 1865
'''Treasurer of the Confederate States'''
:Edward Carrington Elmore, 6 Mar 1861 - 1865
'''Comptroller and Solicitor'''
:Lewis Cruger, 1861 - 1865
'''Secretary of War'''
:Leroy Pope Walker, 21 Feb 1861 - 16 Sep 1861
:Judah Philip Benjamin, 17 Sep 1861 - 23 Mar 1862
:George Wythe Randolph, 24 Mar 1862 - 17 Nov 1862
:Gustavus Woodson Smith, 17 Nov 1862 - 21 Nov 1862
:James Alexander Seddon, 21 Nov 1862 - 6 Feb 1865
:John Cabell Breckenridge, 6 Feb 1865 - 5 May 1865
'''Chiefs of the Army Engineers Bureau (subordinated to Secretary of War)'''
:Josiah Gorgas, 8 Apr 1861 - 3 Aug 1861
:Danville Leadbetter, 3 Aug 1861 - 10 Nov 1861
:Alfred Landon Rives, 13 Nov 1861 - 24 Sep 1862
:Jeremy Francis Gilmer, 25 Sep 1862 - 17 Aug 1863
:Alfred Landon Rives, 18 Aug 1863 - 9 Mar 1864
:Martin Luther Smith, 9 Mar 1864 - Apr 1864
:Alfred Landon Rives, Apr 1864 - Jun 1864
:Jeremy Francis Gilmer, Jun 1864 - Apr 1865
'''Commissioner of Indian Territory (subordinated to Secretary of War)'''
:Albert Pike, 16 Mar 1861 - 1862
:Benjamin J. McCullough, 1862 - 7 Mar 1862
:Albert Pike, 1862 - 5 Nov 1862
:Douglas Hancock Cooper, Nov 1862 - Jan 1863
:William Steels, Jan 1863 - Dec 1863
'''Commander of the Department of Indian Territory and Superintendent of Indian Affairs (subordinated to Secretary of War)'''
:Samuel Ball Maxey, Dec 1863 - 1865
:Douglas Hancock Cooper, 1865
'''Surgeon-general (subordinated to Secretary of War)'''
:Samuel Preston Moore, 16 Mar 1861 - 1865
'''Secretary of the Navy'''
:Stephan Russell Mallory, 4 Mar 1861 - 5 May 1865
'''Colonel-Commandant of the Confederate States Marine Corps (subordinated to Secretary of the Navy)'''
:Lloyd J. Beall, 23 May 1861 - 10 May 1865
'''Superintendent of the Confederate States Naval Academy'''
:William Parker, 23 Jul 1863 - 2 May 1865

===Judicial branch===
:A federal court system with a chief justice was not created during the 1861-1865 Confederacy.

{| class="wikitable"
|-bgcolor=#cccccc
! Seal and Flags!!Detail!!Dates of Use
|- valign="center"
|-
| [[Image:ConfederateStatesofAmericaSeal.jpg|125px]] ||Great Seal of the Confederate States of America. The Latin motto ''Deo Vindice'' reads either ''"Under God, Our Vindicator"'' or ''"With God as [our] Champion"''. || 1862-1865
|-
| [[Image:Bonnieblue.png|125px]] ||The ''Bonnie Blue'' flag, unofficial first flag of the Confederacy. First flown January 9, 1861 over the state capitol building of Jackson, Mississippi. Originally, it was used by settlers of west Florida in a short, 74-day republic after they had revolted against the Spanish government, raising it at the Spanish fort in Baton Rouge on September 23, 1810.||1861
|-
| [[Image:Starsand bars1.png|125px]] ||Called the ''Stars and Bars'', it was first flown over Fort Sumter on April 13, 1861. || 1861
|-
| [[Image:CSAnational1.png|125px]] ||The First National Flag of the Confederacy. Like the flag before, it was also called the ''Stars and Bars''; this flag incorporated the 11 stars which symbolized the states that had seceeded from the Union by March, 1861.|| March 4, 1861 to May 26, 1863
|-
| [[Image:CSAnational2.png|125px]] ||The Second National Flag; also known as the ''Stainless Banner'' due to the large white field. It was also referred to as the ''Stonewall Flag'', as its first official use was to cover the casket of Lieutenant General [[Thomas J. Jackson]] in 1863.|| May 26, 1863 to March 3, 1865
|-
|[[Image:CSAnational3.png|125px]] ||The Third National Flag. The red stripe was added to the fly to correct a major drawback of the previous flag: the appearence of a flag of surrender when it hung limp.|| March 4, 1865 to April 26, 1865
|-
| [[Image:CSAbattleflag.png|125px]] ||The flag of General [[Robert E. Lee]]'s Army of Northern Virginia, called the ''Southern Cross''; the design became so popular that is was used as the canton of the Confederate national flag.|| November 28, 1861 to the fall
|-
|[[Image:CSA Naval Ensign.png|125px]] ||A variation of the Second National Flag, with a shorter 1.5:1 ratio instead of 2:1. This was the last flag hauled down in surrender, when [[CSS Shenandoah]] lowered it on November 7, 1865 in Liverpool, England.|| May 1, 1863 to the fall
|-
| [[Image:1st CSAJack.png|125px]] ||This 7-star jack was used on Confederate naval warships until 1863.|| 1861-1863
|-
| [[Image:Conf Navy Jack.png|125px]] ||Official Confederate naval jack for use on all warships from 1863, and patterned after the design of the battle flag. This flag was adopted in the years since as the ''de-facto'' flag of the South itself.|| 1863-1865
|-
|
|}

== Economics - The Inevitable Clash ==

While idealogy would provide much of the motivation to go to war, the economics of the Northern and Southern states made it impossible for anything but a clash to come to a head. While the Northern States had modernized and embraced the industrial revolution, incorporating new technology and rebuilding infrastructure to support it, the South had relied on the farming that had sustained it since the founding of America. The problem came with the liquidity of capital.

When a businessman in the North wanted to build a factory, he would obtain a loan from the bank or from a group of investors, pay the labour and material costs to erect it, and thereafter be almost assured of some level of income as his products were produced, put on trains, and shipped to markets. The capital was constantly liquid, changing hands from one individual to another, and in almost all cases, stood to increase.

When a plantation or farm owner in the South wanted to expand, his capital remained highly illiquid, because it remained tied down in slaves, land, and the equipment he needed. And while new goods from Northern factories were in increasing demand, the South found itself having to compete with goods from overseas. While the Northern businessman grew wealthier, the Southern businessman had a very limited chance. With the scarcity of liquid capital, no banks in the South offered the loans that they did in the North, further miring the economy in stagnation.

== Legacy - Physical/Military ==

The principal physical legacy of the Confederacy was mass fratricidal destruction. Four years of Civil War killed at least 620,000 soldiers (counting deaths from disease as well as in battle), of whom approximately 260,000 were from the Confederacy. This represented a much larger fraction (slightly over one quarter) of the Confederacy's military age white men than was lost by the Union.

An unknown number of [[civilians]] also died, in part as a result of the campaign of organized plunder in late 1864 and early 1865 by the troops of [[Union]] [[General]] [[William Tecumseh Sherman]] which helped not only to destroy the will of the Confederacy to fight, but literally to destroy the [[infrastructure]] of the Confederacy. Severe damage was inflicted on both urban and rural communities in the South, and hundreds of thousands of people became refugees. The exigencies of [[total war]] had led to the destruction of Southern infrastructure, in particular [[railroads]], long before 1864, but never on such a scale.

[[Total war]] based on modern technology was confirmed as the mode in which [[nation-states]] would fight each other throughout the industrial age. Simultaneously with the Union, the Confederacy launched the first seagoing [[ironclad]] warships. With the possible exception of the [[Prussia]]ns and [[Great Britain|British]], it is unlikely that any country of comparable population and technology in the 1860s could have resisted the Union onslaught for as long as the Confederacy did. This is considered by some historians to represent a major moral victory for the Confederacy. An equally impressive moral victory was the decision by General Lee on April 9, 1865 to rule out continuing to fight as [[insurgents]]; although it can be argued that this only delayed the inevitable failure of [[Reconstruction]], it also made physical rebuilding possible in a way it would not be in the latter stages of civil wars in other countries in the [[20th century]]. Notional or real, its superiority man for man (and especially general for general) was permanently impressed on the South, which today remains more pro-military than any other region of the United States as measured by percentage of voluntary [[enlistment]]s.

== Legacy - Political/Ideological ==

The Confederacy is the primary reason that it became possible in the 1860s to abolish slavery. Given [[Article Five]] of the [[U. S. Constitution]], it would have been impossible to abolish slavery without secession in the 15 established states with the 35 free states which later existed. As it actually happened, the [[Thirteenth Amendment]] was ratified by a 26-state [[Union]] containing only four slave states. The most likely solution in the absence of secession would have been to admit smaller Western states, possibly even turning what became [[Indian reservations]] into states. However, the continuing political focus on slavery would have made expansion of the U. S. to [[Alaska]] and [[Hawaii]] unlikely in the nineteenth century, if at all.

While the Confederacy lost the Civil War, it can be seen to have won the peace. [[Radical Republicans]] were forced in the [[Compromise of 1877]] to concede the failure of Reconstruction and withdraw the U. S. Army from the South, or at least from its mission of guaranteeing the rights of African-Americans. In a process known as [[Redemption]], the [[Republican Party]] was crushed out of existence across the South and black people stripped of their voting and other rights by a system which came to be known as [[Jim Crow]]. Northern Republicans encouraged a [[narrative]] of the Civil War which sought to make it about anything other than slavery. They were able to use the phrase "rum, Romanism and rebellion" and other means of [[waving the bloody shirt]] to generally dominate national politics through both the [[Third Party System]] and the [[Fourth Party System]].

The association of the [[Democratic Party]] with the South was entirely accurate as that region was totally dominated by Democrats by 1900. However, only with the election of [[Woodrow Wilson]] in 1912 was a Southerner able to return to the [[White House]]. Whenever Democrats held a majority of either house of [[Congress]], Southerners would immediately become the chairmen of all committees, giving that region a disproportionate influence on national politics. Ironically, because of their [[Thomas Jefferson|Jeffersonian]] roots, Southern Democrats were a party of [[small government]] and lower [[taxes]] (radically cutting back spending on [[public schools]] among other things during [[Redemption]]), and were hostile to organized labor.

[[American politics]] have been defined in part by the conflict between the [[Alexander Hamilton|Hamiltonian]] and Jeffersonian schools of the role of government, particularly the [[Federal government]]. The Confederacy can be seen as the [[last stand]] of the Jeffersonians, who favored a system in which state policy and sovereignty would trump that of the Federal government. To this way of thinking, subsequent American politics have actually been a competition between more and less radical Hamiltonians.

== See also ==

*[[American Civil War: 1861]]
*[[American Civil War: 1862]]
*[[American Civil War: 1863]]
*[[American Civil War: 1864]]
*[[American Civil War: 1865]]
*[[American Civil War: Aftermath]]

[[Category:American Civil War]]
[[Category:United States History]]
[[Category:Former Countries]]

Truth

2007-08-14T21:13:15Z

TJ:

'''Truth''' is an abstract concept which can be defined as:
*Conforming to a proven fact or reality
*Something free from [[deceit]]

Of course, these are very simple definitions, and the question of what truth actually is is a topic often debated by philosophers. [http://www.iep.utm.edu/t/truth.htm]

== Difficulties ==
When considering truth, certain difficulties arise. For example, one person might consider certain facts and values to be the truth, based on what they see and hear, but these same facts might be considered or indeed known to be [[false]] by others. Other problems include the concept of "Absolute Truth", insofar as people will naturally disagree as to what truths are absolute. [http://www.christianity.co.nz/truth1.htm]

== Truth as a Value ==
Truth can be considered to be a morally desirable trait in a person, since it the antithesis of "undesirable" traits such as deceit or corruption. Christians in particular uphold Truth as a desirable value, since it is something taught by the Bible, and Jesus himself.

==Sources==
*http://www.iep.utm.edu/t/truth.htm
*http://www.christianity.co.nz/truth1.htm

Truth

2007-08-14T21:12:38Z

TJ: added source

Macroeconomics

2007-08-14T21:11:18Z

TJ:

'''Macroeconomics''' is the analysis of the [[economy]] as a whole, or the analysis of large subdivisions of the economy; for example [[inflation]], [[unemployment]], and aggregate demand and supply.
The study of macroeconomics seeks to further understanding of these principals to aid a country's economic performance as a whole.

== Development of Macroeconomics ==
Macroeconomics is a relatively new field of [[study]], gaining attention during the 1930's; although naturally the principles upon which it is founded have been in existence far longer. During the 1930's it became possible for the first time to collect increasingly detailed economic data on national income, balance of trade and the current account; allowing for more precise analysis of the entire national economy.

===[[The Great Depression]]===
The Great Depression of 1929 was a powerful influence behind the development of macroeconomics, since it highlighted the major flaws in applying [[microeconomics|microeconomic]] theory to the national economy. According to microeconomic, or "market-clearing" theory, the large amount of unemployment following the Great Depression should have been adjusted by the "invisible hand" of the markets, whereby wages dropped so the firms took on more workers. However, due to the unemployment and poverty, the demand for goods and services dropped, so firms did not require workers.
In response to this situation, the British economist [[John Maynard Keynes]] wrote ''The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money'' in which he outlined the limitations of Microeconomics and put forward many founding macroeconomic principals such as aggregate demand [http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/general-theory-of-employment-interest-and-money.php]. Since then many of Keyne's original theories have been subject to intense scrutiny and critique, notably by [[monetarists]] such as [[Milton Friedman]] who claim government intervention to correct market failure is inefficient, and private firms motivated by [[profits]] and price competitiveness are far better at ironing out market failures.

==Schools of Thought==

Since the 1930's, two main schools of macroeconomic thought have developed, although within these other sub-groups exist. The two schools are:
*'''Monetarism'''- advocated by economists such as [[Milton Friedman]] and [[Anna Schwartz]], monetarism rejects Keyne's demand management and government intervention proposals, stating that these create distortions in the market and force out the more efficient private firms.
*'''Keynesian'''- this school stems from the original work of [[John Maynard Keynes]], and uses the principal of [[aggregate demand]] to explain unemployment and changing levels of economic growth. Keynesian economists usually advocate [[fiscal policy]] as a means of correcting market failure.

==Sources==
*http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/general-theory-of-employment-interest-and-money.php

==See Also==
* [[Microeconomics]]
*

[[Category:Economics]]

Macroeconomics

2007-08-14T21:10:46Z

TJ: expanded article

'''Macroeconomics''' is the analysis of the [[economy]] as a whole, or the analysis of large subdivisions of the economy; for example [[inflation]], [[unemployment]], and aggregate demand and supply.
The study of macroeconomics seeks to further understanding of these principals to aid a country's economic performance as a whole.

== Development of Macroeconomics ==
Macroeconomics is a relatively new field of [[study]], gaining attention during the 1930's; although naturally the principles upon which it is founded have been in existence far longer. During the 1930's it became possible for the first time to collect increasingly detailed economic data on national income, balance of trade and the current account; allowing for more precise analysis of the entire national economy.

===[[The Great Depression]]===
The Great Depression of 1929 was a powerful influence behind the development of macroeconomics, since it highlighted the major flaws in applying [[microeconomics|microeconomic]] theory to the national economy. According to microeconomic, or "market-clearing" theory, the large amount of unemployment following the Great Depression should have been adjusted by the "invisible hand" of the markets, whereby wages dropped so the firms took on more workers. However, due to the unemployment and poverty, the demand for goods and services dropped, so firms did not require workers.
In response to this situation, the British economist [[John Maynard Keynes]] wrote ''The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money'' in which he outlined the limitations of Microeconomics and put forward many founding macroeconomic principals such as aggregate demand [http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/general-theory-of-employment-interest-and-money.php]. Since then many of Keyne's original theories have been subject to intense scrutiny and critique, notably by [[monetarists]] such as [[Milton Friedman]] who claim government intervention to correct market failure is inefficient, and private firms motivated by [[profits]] and price competitiveness are far better at ironing out market failures.

==Schools of Thought==

Since the 1930's, two main schools of macroeconomic thought have developed, although within these other sub-groups exist. The two schools are:
*'''Monetarism'''- advocated by economists such as [[Milton Friedman]] and [[Anna Schwartz]], monetarism rejects Keyne's demand management and government intervention proposals, stating that these create distortions in the market and force out the more efficient private firms.
*'''Keynesian'''- this school stems from the original work of [[John Maynard Keynes]], and uses the principal of [[aggregate demand]] to explain unemployment and changing levels of economic growth. Keynesian economists usually advocate [[fiscal policy]] as a means of correction market failure.

==Sources==
*http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/general-theory-of-employment-interest-and-money.php

==See Also==
* [[Microeconomics]]
*

[[Category:Economics]]

Talk:Truth

2007-08-14T14:58:52Z

TJ:

Ok so I started this article, but I am not a Christian so someone more knowledgable will need to add relevant Bible verses etc. Also someone who has a philosophical background should expand on the various ideas and theories behind truth. As it stands, I started this article simply because I felt it was a major omission in a Christian encyclopedia, no doubt it will be completely transformed beyond these humble beginnings. --[[User:TJ|TJ]] 10:58, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

User talk:TJ

2007-08-14T14:47:38Z

TJ:

{{welcome|sig=[[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 10:46, 14 August 2007 (EDT)}}

Thanks LT for your kind words.

Talk:Truth

2007-08-14T14:43:06Z

TJ: New page: Ok so I started this article, but I am not a Christian so someone more knowledgable will need to add relevant Bible verses etc. Also someone who has a philosophical background should expan...

Truth

2007-08-14T14:39:32Z

TJ: made a start on the truth article

Dinosaur

2007-08-14T14:13:52Z

TJ: Undo revision 267051 by Special:Contributions/God1 (User talk:God1) vandalism

[[Image:Fdt566e4.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Triceratops skeleton at the American Museum of Natural History.]]
'''Dinosaurs''' were large, reptilian creatures which are now generally believed to be extinct. The word '''dinosaur''' was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i3/dinosaurs.asp Dinosaurs and dragons: stamping on the legends], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>, from the [[Greek]] words δεινός and σαύρα, meaning "terrible lizard."

==Highlights of the history of dinosaur paleontology==

In the United States during the 1900s, the public imagination was caught by the discoveries of [[Henry Fairfield Osborn]] (1857-1935) and the great competitive dinosaur hunters, [[Edward Drinker Cope]] (1847-1897) and [[Othniel Charles Marsh]] (1831-1899). Exploring in Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico, they found numerous fossil dinosaurs. Their museums worked out the techniques for mounting and displaying them.

Osborn was a proponent of ''orthogenesis,'' as were many paleontologists up through the middle of the twentieth century. These paleontologists interpreted the fossil record as showing sustained, continuing, unidirectional trends in evolution, which they felt required some kind of driving principle in addition to natural selection. As the author of an encyclopedia article on variation and selection put it in 1911,
:Selection cannot create the materials on which it is supposed to operate... Both sides concur in the position assumed by Darwin, that the word "chance" in such a phrase as "chance variation" does not mean that the occurrences are independent of natural causation and so far undetermined, but covers in the first place our ignorance of the exact causation.... No doubt a large amount of variation is truly indefinite, so that many meaningless or useless variations arise... But there are several directions in which the field of variation appears to be not only limited but defined in a certain direction.... When beetles, or medusae, or cats vary, the range of possible variation is limited and determined by the beetle, medusa or cat constitution, and any possible further differentiation or specialization must be in a sense at least orthogenetic - that is to say, a continuation of the line along which the ancestors of the individual in question have been forced. Darwin himself showed that different species in a genus, or varieties in a species, tended to show parallel variations.<ref>Mitchell, Peter Chalmers (1911), ''Variation and Selection,'' ''Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th edition,'' volume 27 (TON-VES), p. 906</ref>

[[Roy Chapman Andrews]] (1884–1960), said to be the prototype for the fictional Indiana Jones, is famous for his discovery of fossil dinosaur eggs in Outer Mongolia.

In the 1970, Robert Bakker catalyzed a new era of dinosaur paleontology with evidence that dinosaurs were fully warm-blooded ([[endotherms]]) and fast-moving.<ref>Benton, Michael J. (2000), ''Vertebrate Paleontology'' [http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0632056142&id=PQuKO7xqjNQC&pg=PA217&lpg=PA217&dq=%22robert+bakker%22&sig=imoHNyurTTCpztNV0Pp2EU7Fj6c p. 217]</ref>

==Dinosaur Species==
Dinosaurs were immensely varied, and included both herbivores and carnivores. Although many have been found in the fossil record, paleontologists expect that they have barely scratched the surface of the vast superorder that the dinosaurs encompassed.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060905-dinosaurs_2.html Vast Majority of Dinosaurs Still to Be Found, Scientists Say], ''National Geographic''</ref>

== Different Perspectives ==

Ever since the discovery of dinosaur fossils, there has been debate about whether and how dinosaurs fit into the history of life on Earth.

Christians are often depicted as believing that God planted the fossils to test their faith, and it's true that some Christians believe that dinosaurs never existed.
Few creationists believe this.
Most people accept that dinosaurs existed.
Young-Earth creationists, however, reject the [[uniformitarian]] time-scale, and therefore believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.
Creationists also reject the now-popular idea that dinosaurs evolved into birds.

===Creationary Perspective===

[[Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] believe, based primarily on Biblical [[sources]], that dinosaurs were created on day 6 of the [[Creation Week|creation week]]<ref>''Genesis'' 1:25</ref> approximately 6,000 years ago, along with other land animals, and therefore co-existed with humans.
As such, they reject the [[Theory of Evolution]] and the beliefs of evolutionary scientists about the age of the earth.

They believe that dinosaurs lived in harmony with other animals, (probably including in the [[Garden of Eden]]) eating only plants<ref>''Genesis'' 1:29-30</ref>; that pairs of each dinosaur [[kind]] were taken onto [[Noah's Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]] and were preserved from drowning<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3967/ Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>; that many of the fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood<ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/219/ Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?], ''Creation'', vol. 21 No. 1 p. 54</ref>; and that possibly some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark are still around today.<ref Name="Today">Robert Doolan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/833/ Are dinosaurs alive today?], ''Creation'', vol. 15 No. 4 p. 12.</ref>

They use [[archaeological]], [[fossil]], and documentary evidence to argue that dinosaurs co-existed with mankind until at least relatively recent times.

Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the [[Bible]] does not use the word "dinosaur." However, they are alleged to be mentioned in numerous places throughout the biblical account. For example, the '''behemoth''' in [[Job]] and the '''leviathan''' in [[Isaiah]] are sometimes said to be references to dinosaurs,<ref>Allan K. Steel, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1799 Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?], ''Journal of Creation'' vol. 15 No. 2 p. 42.</ref> <ref>[http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm], ''Answers in Creation''</ref>, although others have claimed that Behemoth and Leviathan are references to a hippopotamus or elephant and a crocodile respectively. Young-Earth creationists point out that the descriptions don't fit these creatures, including that hippopotamuses and elephants don't have a "tail like a cedar".

==== Extinction ====

Creationists reject the "Great Impact Theory", pointing out multiple problems with this theory. <ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2426 Did a meteor wipe out the dinosaurs?].</ref>

Creationists assert that evolutionists are frequently coming out with a "New Theory of Dinosaur Extinction" and that their theories are laden with false assumptions. <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1115dinosaur.asp Dinosaur demise theory, version #451], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref> It is worth noting, however, that more and more of these theories are being harmonized with one another.<ref>[http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=21082 More Than a Meteor Likely Killed Dinosaurs 65 Million Years Ago], ''SpaceRef.com''</ref>

====Dinosaurs-like creatures in history and modern sightings====

Creationists cite a number of reasons to believe that dinosaurs have existed until relatively recent times, and perhaps still survive.

* There have been a number of claimed sightings of dinosaur-like creatures.
** A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today.<ref name="Today" />
** Among those who believe in the existence of the [[Loch Ness Monster]], one popular theory is that it is a living [[plesiosaur]].<ref>"New Quest Is Haunted By 'Nessie'", ''The New York Times,'' July 14, 1992, p. C4: "Believers say it resembles a plesiosaur and was trapped in Loch Ness during the Ice Age 12,000 years ago. The plesiosaurs were marine reptiles who are thought to have lived 65 million to 200 million years ago."</ref>
** Locals in the Congo have reported a creature they name ''Mokele-member''<ref name="Today" /><ref>[http://www.mokelembembe.com/ Mokele-mbembe The Living Dinosaur!]</ref>, and from its description it appears to be a small plant-eating dinosaur. The reports have been taken seriously enough that a biologist from [[Chicago University]] has made several expeditions to find the creature. Another biologist has reported seeing the creature.<ref name="Today" />

* There are drawings of creatures resembling dinosaurs.
** An expedition which included Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting.<ref>[http://www.creationism.org/swift/DohenyExpedition/Doheny01Main.htm Doheny Scientific Expedition, Hava Supai Canyon, Arizona], ''Creationism.org''</ref><ref>[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_hava_supai_dinosaur_carving The Hava Supai Dinosaur Carving], ''ChristianCourier.com''</ref>.
** The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, a second century piece of art, is said to appear to be a piece of artwork that shows a dinosaur and man coexisting. <ref>[http://www.s8int.com/dinolit2.html Dinosaurs in Literature, Art & History-- Page 2], ''s8int.com''</ref>
** Engravings in the floor of [[Carlisle Cathedral]] appear to be of dinosaurs. They are on the tomb of bishop Richard Bell, who died in 1496.<ref>See picture on page 241 of Batten, Don, et. al., 2007, ''The Creation Answers Book''.</ref>

* Creatures matching dinosaurs and similar creatures have been described by various people groups.
** The description of the "[[Thunder bird]]" of [[American Indian]]s matches the descriptions of [[pterosaur]]s.<ref name="Today" />

* Descriptions of [[dragon]]s are widespread and match descriptions of dinosaurs, suggesting that dragons were real creatures and were actually dinosaurs.<ref>Talk.Origins argues ([http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH712.html Claim CH712], ''TalkOrigins.org'') that the inclusion of dinosaurs within many cultures is based on the existence of fossils. Ancient people, unaware that the ancient fossils uncovered by erosion were of extinct animals, attributed the bones to living, magical creatures. This would explain the importance of dragons in Chinese culture - there are a large number of dinosaur (as well as non-dinosaur) fossils to be found in China. CreationWiki's response ([http://creationwiki.org/Dragons_were_dinosaurs Dragons were dinosaurs] (rebuttal of Talk.Origins' claim CH712)) is that the fossils reminded people of the legends, not that the fossils inspired the legends.</ref>
** The World Book Encyclopedia states that: "The [[dragon]]s of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth." <ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ25.html What about the Dinosaurs?], ''CreationScience.com''</ref>. Dragons exist in the folklore of many European and Asian cultures.<ref name="WB2000">''Dragon'' entry in World Book Millennium 2000 CD ROM</ref> World Book Encyclopedia says, "In Europe, dragons are traditionally portrayed as ferocious beasts that represent the evils fought by human beings. But in Asia, especially in China and Japan, the animals are generally considered friendly creatures that ensure good luck and wealth."<ref Name="WB2000" />
** Dragons appear in the flag of [[Wales]], in traditional [[China|Chinese]] [[New Years' Day]] celebrations, and in the Chinese [[calendar]]. Every other creature on the calendar is a real creature.

* That dinosaurs are not known from the fossil record above the [[Jurassic]] strata is not reason to believe that they have not survived until more recent times.
** Living specimens of orders of animals that were believed to have been extinct for millions of years have been found before, such as the Diatomyidae Squirrel <ref>[[Diatomyidae]] Squirrel [http://news.softpedia.com/news/They-Thought-It-Went-Extinct-11-Million-Years-Ago-19557.shtml]</ref>, the [[Wollemi Pine]] <ref>Wollemi Pine ''Biotechnology Australia'' [http://www.biotechnologyonline.gov.au/enviro/wollemi.cfm]</ref> and the [[Coelacanth]] <ref>Sulawesi Coelacanth. ''University Of California, Berkeley''[http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/coelacanth/coelacanths.html]</ref> <ref>More on the Coelacanth ''marinebio.org''[http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=54]</ref>.

* The recent dinosaur tissue find is a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. <ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3042 Still soft and stretchy], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>



==== Dinosaurs and birds ====

Creationists contend that the idea that birds are descendants of dinosaurs is not demonstrated by the evidence <ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3833/106/ Bird evolution?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref> <ref>Andy McIntosh, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/540/ 100 years of airplanes—but these weren’t the first flying machines!], ''Creation'' vol. 26 No. 1 p. 44</ref>, and that the dinosaur-bird connection is even disputed by some evolutionists.

In his article, "Fifteen ways to refute materialistic bigotry", Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding dinosaurs being descendants of birds:
<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
The same logic applies to the dinosaur-[[bird]] debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite [[Alan Feduccia|Feduccia]]’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!
<ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>
</blockquote>

Creationists also cite the evolutionist [[Ernst Mayr]] who in 1942 stated the following:

“It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations." <ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood], ''Center for Scientific Creation''</ref>

The March 2003 issue of ''Scientific American'' is also cited by creationists:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most mysterious...The origin of feathers is a specific instance of the much more general question of the origin of evolutionary novelties--structures that have no clear antecedents in ancestral animals and no clear related structures (homologues) in contemporary relatives. Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers...." <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0313sciam.asp Scientific American admits creationists hit a sore spot], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref> <ref>[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CD7F6-B16F-1E41-89E0809EC588EEDF Which Came First, the Feather or the Bird?], ''Scientific American''</ref>
</blockquote>

Creationists also assert that the comparative anatomy analysis done by evolutionists comparing bird bones and dinosaur bones is flawed. <ref>Dr. David N. Menton, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0328discovery.asp "Ostrich-osaurus" Discovery?], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>

----

===Evolutionary Perspective===

The view of [[Theory of evolution|evolutionists]] and others who accept the uniformitarian timescale is that dinosaurs existed on earth from 230 million years ago to 65 million years ago. In this view, the entire population of dinosaurs were wiped out by a mass extinction event (usually thought to be an asteroid) about 65 million years ago.
Of course this precludes humans and dinosaurs co-existing.

====Extinction====

According to most scientists, close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the [[Cretaceous]] period, and the beginning of what is called the [[Tertiary]] period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the [[K-T Event]]. This event would have obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive. Although these scientists dispute the nature of the K-T Event (selecting among any number of catastrophes that could have caused the significant global cooling that resulted), most find that the claimed K-T Event was caused by the collision of a massive asteroid with the Earth, the dust and debris from which would have shrouded the sky for thousands of years, cooling Earth considerably.<ref>Kevin O Pope, "Meteorite impact and the mass extinction of species at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary," Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, available at [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/19/11028]</ref> According to this view, the dinosaurs did not survive this cataclysm.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0823_020823_asteroid.html Prehistoric Asteroid "Killed Everything"], ''National Geographic''</ref> The dust from this impact is supposedly still visible as a line of metal of extraterrestrial origin and is often visible in sediment worldwide, occurring as a result of the vaporization and then fall of dust from the meteorite's impact, and its compression within the subsequent geological record.<ref>''Ibid''</ref> The crater is also visible.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0307_030307_impactcrater.html "Dinosaur-Killer" Asteroid Crater Imaged for First Time], ''National Geographic''</ref>

====An Explosion of new species ====

The mass extinction of the dinosaurs removed a major food competitor, and predator, of smaller animals. As a result of a new "vacancy" in the food chain, following the [[K-T Event]], vast speciation occurred, as the evolutionary pressure of a new cold age propelled animal species to adapt or die out. According to this view, [[mammals]] were some of the main beneficiaries of this explosion: their fur allowed them to adapt to the cold, and their small size allowed them to conserve energy relative to the huge dinosaurs of the previous age.<ref>Bennet, Shostak, Jakotsky, "Life in the Universe," viewable at [http://www.amazon.com/Life-Universe-Jeffrey-Bennett/dp/0805385770]</ref>

====Dinosaurs and Birds====

As a number of feathered fossils (claimed to be dinosaurs) have been discovered, and evolutionary scientists claim the similarity in the bone structure between birds and dinosaurs show that modern birds are a descendants of dinosaurs. This is often cited as an example of [[macroevolution]].<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1006_041006_feathery_dino.html New Dinosaur Discovered: T. Rex Cousin Had Feathers], ''National Geographic''</ref> Cladists place modern birds within the clade dinosauria, meaning that they consider all bird species today as, technically, dinosaurs.<ref>[http://tolweb.org/Dinosauria/14883/1999.01.01 Tree of Life Web Project.] 1999. Dinosauria. Version 01 January 1999 (temporary). Accessed 30 May 2007.</ref>

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Dinosaurs]]

User:TJ

2007-08-14T14:08:09Z

TJ: New page: Hi y'all, I'm Tom, and I hark from Merry Old England. I hope to learn some new stuff and also improve what I can.

Hi y'all, I'm Tom, and I hark from Merry Old England. I hope to learn some new stuff and also improve what I can.

Conservapedia:American Government Fall 2007

2007-08-14T13:26:12Z

TJ: /* Enroll here: */

'''Current enrollment: 33 students, 3 teachers'''

"American Government 101" is a 14-week course that teaches the basics of government, both [[federal]] and state. It reviews the [[U.S. Constitution]], including concepts like the [[separation of powers]] among the branches of government.

Students seeking to earn college credit can take the [[CLEP]] or [[AP]] exams upon successful completion of this course.

This course begins in September and already 24 students have enrolled. Please add your user id. (use the signature button above) if you would like to participate in this course in any way, either as a student or as a teacher on this site, and your name will be transferred to a roster. As an enrolled participant, you will have special access to a protected area established for this course.

Teenagers are welcome as students, and advanced college students and adults are welcome as teachers. The primary instructor is [[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]], who has taught over 10 courses, including one as an adjunct professor at a major law school.

== Enroll here: ==
I would like to enroll in the American Government 101 class. I am a sophomore in high school.--[[User:Mcpannier|Mcpannier]] 12:26, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

: Fantastic! Welcome to the class, which will start in September. You are student #25 and you will have special access to a restricted area (namespace) for this course. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

i would like to enroll also...as i always slept through AG classes when younger :) --[[User:Wally|Wally]] 22:35, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

: Great, welcome! You're student #26 ... or teacher #2 depending on how much you really slept! Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:38, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
--[[User:A303springfield|A303springfield]] 00:14, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Fantastic!! You're most welcome! You're student #28, and we have another teacher in addition to myself. We start in September but please feel free to edit here before then.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:45, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
[[category:government]]
[[category:United States Government]]
[[category:homeschool curriculum]]

--[[User:Blu1001|Blu1001]] 19:16, 10 August 2007 (EDT) This sounds cool
*09:50, 11 August 2007 DanH (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Blu1001 (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (sock of two blocked useres)
http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Blockip/Blu1001

: He's our first expelled student!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:10, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
Great, I would like to enroll please. I am 42 and am teaching my 10 year old about government. username: CDRobbins

: Great, you count as a new teacher, and your child as a new student. Both of you are enrolled and I'll increment the totals above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:42, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

'''ADD YOUR NAME HERE:'''

I have sent an email to Mr Schlafly explaining my desire to enrol. Even though I am a UK high school student, I hope you will still accept me. --[[User:TJ|TJ]] 09:26, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

== Homework and Contest ==

This course will have weekly homework that will use a point system. Here is the proposed point system and we welcome feedback by our teachers and students about it:

*'''Quality new entry: 10 points'''
**A "quality new entry" includes at least two full-length paragraphs, three relevant citations, and more in-depth content than just a stub. In the case of a dispute, the inclusion/lack of an image can be used as a deciding factor.
**One point of extra credit for having more than six relevant citations.
**A new article is eligible for all forms of credit that can attach to an article--thus, submitting a quality new page with categorization will merit eleven points--ten for the article and one for the cat tag.
*'''Quality edit of existing entry: 4 points'''
**A "quality edit" to an existing article includes at least two extra sentences, an additional reference, and the inclusion of an important or relevant fact.
**One point of extra credit will be given for enclosing the citations in ref tags and including the references tag to define a reference section.
*'''Any new entry: 6 points'''
**Two points of extra credit for submitting an article well-organized into sections.
*'''Small edit of existing entry: 2 points'''
**One point of extra credit for breaking an existing article into logical sections if it didn't already have any.
*'''Categorizing entry: 1 point'''

Each week a student will be expected to score a minimum amount of points, such as 25 per week (feedback on that total is welcome).

During the course we will also have several weekly team contests, with recognition for teams scoring the most points.

== Syllabus ==

#Constitution
#Bill of Rights and Federalism
#Congress
#President and Bureaucracy
#Judiciary
#Public Opinion
#The Media
#Political Parties and Voting and Elections
#Interest Groups
#Civil Rights and Liberties
#Public and Economic Policy
#Foreign Policy
#Review

== CLEP ==

The [[CLEP]] exam on American Government tests these topics with these weightings:

#30-40%: legal aspects of government, including the [[U.S. Constitution]], [[federalism]], [[separation of powers]], [[checks and balances]], majority v. minority, theories of democracy, the courts, the [[Bill of Rights]], applying the [[Bill of Rights]] against the states, [[equal protection]] and [[due process]]
#30-35%: Three branches of government and how they relate with each other and with interest groups, the media, public opinion and political parties
#15-20%: Political parties and interest groups and elections
#10-15%: Political beliefs and behavior, including how opinions are formed and how opinion influences political leaders. BEWARE: THIS SECTION IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO [[liberal bias|LIBERAL BIAS]]

== AP ==

The [[AP]] exam on American Government tests these topics with these weightings:<ref>http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/ap/usgov/topics.html?usgovpol</ref>

#Institutions of National Government: The Congress, the Presidency, the Bureaucracy, and the Federal Courts (35-45%)
#Constitutional Underpinnings of United States Government (5-15%)
#Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (5-15%)
#Political Beliefs and Behaviors (10-20%)
#Political Parties, Interest Groups, and Mass Media (10-20%)
#Public Policy (5-15%)

Note that roughly the bottom half of the above topics are highly susceptible to [[liberal bias]].

== Interesting Issues in Government ==

#a liberal proposed that the next Democratic President add Justices to the Supreme Court. Lawful?
#should Congress limit judicial review, as in ending judicial review of the Pledge of Allegiance?
#the rule against interstate sales tax -- interference with state power?
#free 50 guilty defendants rather than convict one innocent one?
#Electoral college – scrap it?
#postal monopoly – end exclusivity for regular mail?
#line-item veto – constitutional?
#conditional declarations of war by Congress – constitutional?
#immigration - build a wall?
#excluding homeschoolers from public school activities – constitutional? Fair?
#are limits on campaign contributions constitutional?
#should we allow free trade with China? With countries that suppress religion?
#full free speech for corporations? In advertising? In denying wrongdoing?
#should corporations be able to donate directly to political campaigns?
#random drug testing of students in school activities – constitutional?
#equal protection clause – should it protect non-citizens? apply to gender?
#state discounts for residents – violate Privileges and Immunities Clause?
#non-delegation doctrine – can Congress delegate lawmaking to agencies?
#substantive due process – distinguish between economic and social rights?
#English-only laws for basic public school courses – constitutional?
#Title IX: athletes’ gender must be proportional to enrollment – constitutional?
#should the Bill of Rights be applied against the States?

== References ==

<references/>