Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

2012-03-12T17:46:11Z

TedM: /* Film suggestions */

[[Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies/archive1|Archive 1]]
 [[Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies/archive2|Archive 2]]

== Public Discussion Here ==

(post comments here by clicking "Edit this page")

Okay who keeps mispelling "Mr. Skeffington"? THERE IS A G IN THE NAME see www.imdb.com/title/tt0037094/

The Conservapedia entry for "Gen. George S. Patton" has a great section on the classic 1969 film, "Patton;" why is it not on the list?? A few years back "National Review" listed 100 great conservative films ("A Man for All Seasons" led NR editors' list). Immediately readers (including me) sent in their own nominations and "Patton" came in #1!!!!

CW Miller PhD

:It should be. Would you like to add it? Note, however, that the film was not as conservative as the person it featured!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:00, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

I think 'Tears of the Sun' should've definitely been on the list. Its extremely pro-military.

:Perhaps, would you like to add it with an explanation of why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:00, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

What is the conservative message taught by "The Way We Were"? Just curious.

:Pretty obvious, isn't it? The [[liberal]] rants predictably got too tiresome for the man to put up with, and he inevitably broke off the relationship with the woman in order to find a replacement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:00, 30 August 2011 (EDT)
::And in the process of breaking off the relationship, he broke his marriage vows and committed adultery. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 23:44, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

I think The Graduate (1967) needs to be on this list. This is a film about a boy growing up, by facing harsh reality, owning up to his mistakes, and making a decision about his life, thus becoming a man. It's also about how we can overcome sin and corruption by taking control of our lives. --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 14:47, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

Another film is the 1948 Alfred Hitchcock film Rope, starring James Stewart, John Dall, and Stewart Granger. Based loosely on the Leopold-Loeb killing, Rope is about two Harvard scholars who decide to kill an acquaintance of their simply for the sake of killing, because they believe they are superior to others, all taught from one of their headmasters (James Stewart). This film goes into one of the reasons why we have laws, why we cherish human life, and slightly goes into the immorality taught by ivory tower intellectuals that seems so prevalent today.--[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 22:00, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

Hud (1963), starring Paul Newman, Melvyn Douglas, and Patricia Neal, needs to be in this roster too. At the heart of Conservative Philosophy lies the strength of a man's character and how that character influences others. Hud, played by Newman, is a man who's completely selfish in a way that liberals are. He doesn't care about anyone but himself, and his own ego, and he gives no restraint to his appetites. He doesn't give a damn about anything, because to him the world is full of excrement. And that sooner or later, you're going to have to swim in that muck like everybody else. A great line is said that "The look of the country changes by the people we admire." As you watch this film, things get progressively worse for the ranch that Hud lives on, part and parcel because of his own crass behavior. Hud's willingness both to pass bad beef off onto his neighbors and take the ranch out from his old father indicates the sourness of his character. A brilliant film about human character.--[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 22:28, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

== The Blind Side ==
It's a story about the shortcomings of public education and how the power of private Christian charity helped a young homeless man overcome his disadvantages and play in the NFL.[[User:AdamDiscordia|AdamDiscordia]] 19:03, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

== Brokeback Mountain ==

I was thinking about this topic earlier and had an interesting thought about a seemingly non-conservative movie that, in a way, is actually quite so. I'm going to throw this out there for some (hopefully productive and civil) debate and see what people think.

The movie is Brokeback Mountain. Now hold on to your outrage, people. I have justifications for my point. Please hear me out. (Oh, and spoilers, just in case you planned to see/read it and hadn't)

As you probably know, the movie (and the novella on which its based) is about two men who fall into a homosexual lifestyle. But what struck me as conservative about this film is that it doesn't glorify the lifestyle; the two mens' choice to indulge in homosexuality is a disastrous choice that ends up ruining both their lives. One man's marriage is destroyed and his relationship with his child is forever tainted. The other man's choice actually leads to his violent death (Incidentally, I'm not saying that killing someone for being gay is a conservative value. But the point is that this movie is actually very up-front about acknowledging the catastrophic consequences of a homosexual lifestyle).

Considering all that, my next though was whether this movie might be unintentionally conservative, in which case it certainly doesn't belong on this list. But I don't think it is (haven't seen it since it first came out though, so I could be wrong).

So, there's my point. I would appreciate some discussion. I imagine some CPers will think I'm trolling or just trying to start an argument. Not so. I feel like it's a valid point but that there are probably strong arguments for and against, and I'd really like to hear what other people think. [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 17:11, 25 June 2010 (EDT)

:You are partially right, but I think the homosexuals were meant to be sympathetic and on that basis alone, I don't think that movie belongs on this list. [[User:AdamDiscordia|AdamDiscordia]] 19:05, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

: I agree that the movie is anti-homosexuality. Based on the publicity, I expected the movie to be pro-homosexuality, but I was quite surprised by what was actually in the movie. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:15, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:This would be true, except that you have to consider the film's intent. It's not necessarily suggesting that what these men did is the result of their choice. It's suggesting that what happens to these men is the result of bigotry, prejudice, and hate on the part of the world around them. That they are blameless, in spite of their choices. A stark contrast, which I think also ought to be listed as a Conservative Film, would be Midnight Cowboy. In Midnight Cowboy, Joe Buck (played by Jon Voight) recognizes that the life he chose, as a male prostitute, and begins to make an effort to change, to get out of New York, with Ratso (Dustin Hoffman). Ratso's death underscored the decadent life they had led in NYC, and how Joe barely escaped with his own. In Brokeback Mountain, you do not see such recognition on the part of Ennis and Jack. They don't really consider what they did as wrong, necessarily. So where Midnight Cowboy underscores the devastation the immoral life can lead, Brokeback Mountain places the responsibility for that devastation on everyone else but the two men most responsible. --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 19:56, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

== U-571 ==

I deleted U-571 from this list. It portrays the capture of an Enigma machine from a German U-boat by US forces. As pretty much everyone with any interest in WW2 knows, the naval Enigma machine was stolen by Polish forces and decoded by British code-breakers at Bletchley. My Brit friends think U-571 is a joke because it minimises the role of the British ("you arrogant Yankees"). Poles are offended because it cuts out the Polish involvement altogether - including the very brave men who risked their lives to steal an Enigma machine and hand it over to British Intelligence. (BTW, Britain and Poland were allies of ours in WW2 and still are now.) Deceit isn't a conservative virtue - so I crossed U-571 off the list. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 16:51, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

: I'd say it's very questionable whether there's any deceit involved. The movie makes an on-screen written acknowledgment that the the first (and the majority) of enigmas were captured by British sailors. The whole movie is so over-the-top that nobody with a lick of intelligence would believe it's true. American sailors did capture an enigma machine during the war too, so this movie is obviously "inspired by a true story" even if it's not especially true. Most of the movie-going public knows that Hollywood "true" stories are highly fictionalized. [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 13:13, 21 September 2010 (EDT)

==The Lives of Others==

Where on earth is The Lives of Others? it is, surely, the best recent critique of Communism and, for that matter, one of the best films ''of any type'' released in the past five years. It certainly deserves a place ahead of, for example, the obscure Dark Matter. --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 12:13, 28 November 2010 (EST)

: It's in German, right, and about the former [[East Germany]]? I'll add it on your recommendation, but I can't agree it ranks higher than the English-language Dark Matter, which speaks to today and not just the past.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:41, 28 November 2010 (EST)

::Fair enough, Andy. Though I don't quite understand the argument against foreign-language films. If the issue is obscurity, The Lives of Others was seen by far more people in the US than Dark Matter. A glance at Box-Office Mojo confirms that Dark Matter took in a staggeringly tiny $30,591 on its domestic run. The Lives of Others took in $11,286,112 in the US (plus another $66 million in the rest of the world). I am, however, content to abide by your criteria. --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 15:40, 28 November 2010 (EST)

:::Oprah Winfrey's daytime talk show rakes in far higher revenues than both, but I'm not sure what that proves. Dark Matter was apparently victimized and downplayed by liberals who finally figured out its conservative message, after it won first place in one of the Sundance Film Festival categories. The liberal backlash against Dark Matter is particularly surprising given that Meryl Streep starred in it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:48, 28 November 2010 (EST)

::::P.S. Your suggestion of "The Lives of Others" is a fine addition. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:02, 28 November 2010 (EST)
http://www.conservapedia.com/skins/common/images/button_sig.png
::::No problem. Keep up the good work. --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 20:47, 28 November 2010 (EST)

== Fiddler on the Roof? ==

A film celebrating the value of community, tradition, family, and faith, all against the historical context of the harm done by the rise of Communism in Russia...worthy of a spot on the list? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:30, 6 January 2011 (EST)

:Sounds good to me ... please add it as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:48, 6 January 2011 (EST)

:I disagree. Look at the overall film/play. This was definitely a counter-culture film thinly disguised as a quaint musical drama. The message was that Tradition is bad, illogical, and keeps people stuck in their ways when they should embrace the new, simply because it's new. When Tevye explains the traditions and why they're there in the beginning, he mentioned that they keep their heads covered and they wear their prayer shawl. He then asks, "How did this tradition get started?," and he responds, "I don't know." This sets up the rest of the show. Because never do they explain why they use a Matchmaker, or why they don't let people arrange their own matches, or why men and women dance separately. They even have the old rabbi getting down with the new changes, never defending what was before. Message: Traditions are stale and old and have no place in the modern world. Relax and just let things happen. Then the film gives us the drama of Chava marrying a Christian, marrying outside of her faith, and that's where Tevye can't abide it. By then, it seems that Tevye's objection is only based on ridiculous emotion, rather than anything objective. All this, in spite of the fact that change is coming, one that cannot be stopped by the traditions these people hold. This is not a Conservative message at all, but one that is quite subversive. If this had been written from a Conservative approach, we would've gone into the reasons behind the traditions, because they're not irrational or unreasonable. The reason for a Matchmaker, the way they dress, and the way they eat, and the dancing, all is meant to preserve their heritage as Jews living in Tsarist Russia. The Matchmaker keeps the Jewish men and women within the community, and within the faith, all the while helping to maintain peace and stability within the community itself. The point I'm making is that Traditions have a purpose, even if we disagree with them. And the notion that happiness comes from something material, as in the case of the marriage between Motel and Tzeital, is a direct message against a person's obligations to his or her duty, both to themselves and their community they live in. No, I'd say Fiddler on the Roof is not a Conservative film. --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 20:15, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

== Gattaca ==

A condemnation of genetic experiments on humans, and a wonderful triumph of individualism in an extremely controlled society. No matter how much scientists play to be God, and try to improve the human race by using genetics, there will always be an individual, based on original God design, who, despite his health shortcomings, will triumph over this genetically modified, supposedly perfect human beings.

I don’t immediately put it on the list because the movie is a bit atheist. In the final scene, the hero finally managed to travel to space and cites the phrase: “They say every atom in our bodies was once a part of a star. So, maybe I'm not leaving, maybe I'm going home."

So, I’ll say that the movie has a conservative message, unfortunately diluted with atheist overtones. I’ll wait for someone else opinion before posting this. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 23:03, 10 March 2011 (EST)

:Feel free to post this with the caveat you mention. Thanks for explaining it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
::We talked about this movie at my fellowship a few months ago - pure hokum about a guy who might have been alright on his own but for a disgusting patriarchy forcing human engineering. I'll write this if AlejandroJ doesn't. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 00:51, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
:::Thanks, I posted it. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 15:31, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

The argument that this film has atheistic overtones actually adds to this film. It shows how we have reduced a person not to his ability but to purely material characteristics, and the effects this has on society. In Gattaca, people are judged not by their ability, not by their merit or accomplishments, but their potential. Gore Vidal, who plays the director of Gattaca, says "No one exceeds their potential." This is, I think, a fundamental statement in the whole movie; that it is the potential that is important, not the action, not the accomplishment. If Vincent became exposed even after he is confirmed to go to Titan, we know what would happen; he would be expelled from Gattaca, and possibly imprisoned for using a "borrowed ladder." Which also points to Eugene's suicide and why he took his own life. Eugene doesn't value his life, but his potential. "Jerome Morrow," he said, "was never meant to be one step lower on the podium." In such an atheistic society that only values the material, the potential, the beautiful, but not the competent or the accomplished, Eugene's suicide underscores this conceit. Eugene could not be anything less than what he felt his potential was. Or, put it another way, he could not be anything less but what others said he should be. --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 14:58, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

== Disney cartoons ==

Most, and perhaps all, of the Disney cartoons for the past 15 or so years have pushed the [[feminist]] ideology. I welcome any counterexamples, but doubt there are any. Hence the reversion of the "Princess and the Frog (2009)" addition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:31, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
:''The Lion King'', a 1994 Disney movie, is definitely conservative. A main message of the movie is honoring thy father, and the power-hungry main antagonist, once he becomes ruler, favors big government, pushes [[liberal values]] and destroys their territory. I'll add it with your approval. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 15:45, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

::Sounds like a good choice. Please add and if anyone has a different view of the movie, then he can let us know.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:26, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

:::Added. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 16:41, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

Mr Schlafly I would agree with your reversion of my contribution of the Princess and the Frog if that movie were feminist-ideology-promoting (like, for instance Mulan (1998)) but frankly, it is not a feminist movie. I am not a woman, nor a feminist - I am staunchly conservative. The Princess and the Frog promotes monogamous marriage (which feminism does not) as well as the other conservative values I listed (such as saving money, hard work, free enterprise etc). In fact, the main character is so pro-marriage that she changes her licentious friend's behavior from debauchery (which feminism promotes) to monogamy. It is possibly the most conservative-value-laden animated movie I have ever seen.

''The Lion King'' on the other hand promotes re-incarnation with its "Circle of Life" song. Jack, the hero of ''Titanic'' commits fornication and mocks a man reciting the 23rd Psalm; Cal, the main antagonist is depicted as a church-service-attending hypocrite.

You are doubtless correct about the feminist ideology pushed by many Disney animations, but this is not one of them. I respectfully request that you consider returning my contribution of 'The Princess and the Frog'. [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 23:17, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

:I have to disagree with you about The Lion King. As far as I can interpret, "The Circle of Life" is either about the bond all humans share or the journey from life to death and the afterlife, not reincarnation. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 00:36, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::Spotsbunch, I think you have a valid point about the Lion King, but from what I've heard about the "Princess and the Frog," it's feminist claptrap with the woman wearing the pants and doing everything except having children and homeschooling her kids. It's more Disney tripe about a successful businesswoman towing along an inept man, which is hardly typical in the real world.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

:::Arguably, any movie where people turn into frogs, or where in Beauty and the Beast, people have transmogrified into furniture is not "real world". Fantasies they may be, (like many movies listed here) but they are still conservative. I (finally) put it to your kind consideration that if you would watch the Princess and the Frog, you would find it contains less feminism and more conservativism than Beauty and the Beast. Whatever your judgment, I respect your decision and will refrain from further debate, even though I (thus far) disagree. Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 08:43, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::::[[Feminism]] is unmistakable: it has women acting like men and vice-versa, contrary to reality. Disney cartoons have been ''heavily'' feminist for at least 15 years. ''Beauty and the Beast'', made 20 years ago, was not feminist in any way. But having a "Princess" act like a businessman and aspire to run a restaurant is feminist. What's next - Cinderella aspires to be a CEO of a Fortune 500 company???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:10, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::Is there any reason a woman can't run a restaurant or a fortune 500 company? No really, Andy, I want to know. Why is it feminist to portray a woman doing anything but cooking, cleaning, and rearing children? [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 13:40, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::Who said anything about cooking and cleaning? And, no, there isn't a reason why a woman can't aspire to any field, such as plumbers (almost no women plumbers), gas station attendants (ditto), or professional football players (ditto). The fact is that the vast majority of women ''do not aspire'' to do such activities (or running a restaurant or a Fortune 500 company), and it's false for feminists or feminist movies to repeatedly pretend otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:48, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::I apologize for my abrasiveness, it just seemed that you were implying that's all they're supposed to do. I can see where you're coming from. While a woman can do what she wants, feminists are wrong for telling woman that they should only aspire to do things traditionally done by men. Men normally aren't beauty consultants, clothing designers, or nail salon technicians, so why don't we see any men urging more men to do these things? [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 14:00, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::::[[Feminism]] repeatedly tries to persuade women not to have children and raise them, pretending that aspiring to work in a job is somehow better. I can't think of a single Disney movie in the last 15 years that has been realistic about the homemaker role that most women prefer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:00, 26 March 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Up. A key part of the story is that the old man's wife had given up her dreams of being an explorer as real life concerns around the home took precedence. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 15:03, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::As promised, I will make my petition no further. However, as others have continued this debate, I will contribute to that. The Bible, our ultimate authority, disagrees (as I read it) that "a woman aspiring to run a business" (restaurant or otherwise) is feminist. Proverbs 31:10-31 describes at length "the wife of noble character" to be involved in business by working with eager hands; importing food from merchant ships; providing food for her family; purchasing property for farming; trading profitably; making and selling expensive cloth and having enough money left over to give to the poor. Anyone with a definition of feminism which includes activities like these, who also respects the Bible as God's authoritative Word should reconsider his definition. Respectfully and with kindest regards, [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 19:15, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Not surprisingly, you left out the verse saying "her children wake up, and call her 'blessed,' so does her husband" ([[CBP]] version), as well as several other verses that feminist movies do not include.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:06, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::Then would it be acceptable to put the Princess and the Frog in the "Debatable Whether Conservative" section of this page? [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 15:44, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::There are high quality movies in the "Debatable" section. The [[feminist]] "Princess and the Frog" doesn't even come close to that level of quality and arguably conservatism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:46, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

== Titanic ==

The movie ''Titanic'' also shows the rich and privileged getting on the half-empty life boats while the poor and lower class passengers are locked below (which is actually historical). Should it truly be included in this list? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:50, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

:No, I disagree. The movie accurately portrays the wealthiest men on the boat (Guggenheim, Astor, etc.) giving up their lives so that poorer women and children could be saved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:53, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

::While I'm ''not'' denying there were individual acts of chivalry and that Guggenheim et al declined seats (although there is historical conflicting testimony about Astor) on the lifeboats (of which there were too few given the number of people on the ship), the numbers show a definite declining survival rate by class. This was also a theme in the movie and not one that should be ignored.

::The movie showed the lower class passengers being locked in the bowels of the ship, blocking escape. There is historical conflicting testimony on this subject as well: several people reported gates between decks being locked and armed guards blocking passageways while one steerage passenger testified that the gates were not locked. Another passenger stated that not only did the staff ''not'' sound an alarm in third class, but that steerage passengers who came up on deck were told to return to their rooms because there was no danger.

::'''First Class''' Women - 4/141 died (97% survival rate)1; Children: 1/7 died2 (86% survival rate); Men - 104/171 died (39% survival rate); Totals: 109/319 died (66% overall survival rate)

::12 of the 4 first class female passengers who died chose to remain with their husbands. *corrected mistype.

::2Lorraine Allison remained on board with her family because they had been separated from her infant brother, who was on a lifeboat with his nurse. The entire family died, with the exception of the baby.

::'''Second Class''' Women: 13/92 died (86% survival rate); Children: 0/25 died (100% survival rate); Men: 135/152 died (11% survival rate); Totals: 148/269 died (45% overall survival rate)

::'''Third Class''' Women: 91/179 died (49% survival rate); Children: 55/80 died (31% survival rate); Men: 381/440 died (13% survival rate); Totals: 527/699 died (25% overall survival rate)

::'''Staff and crew''' Female: 2/22 died (91% survival rate); Male: 701/896 died (22% survival rate); Overall: 703/918 died (23% overall survival rate)

::There are some servants left out of these numbers due to confusion

::Sorry for the over-long reply, but the ''Titanic'' has been a subject of fascination to me since my teenage years (about a century ago!) so I'm rather verbose about it. 8^) I don't agree with you on the subject, but I won't remove the movie from the list. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:51, 7 April 2011 (EDT)
==Move The Dark Knight To the Debatable category?==
I'm wondering whether of not The Dark Knight should be truly considered conservative-while it does have the message of not giving in to terrorist, it also includes themes of everyone being corruptible and having their limits (like the good public defendant, Harvey Dent, turning into a villain, Two Face) and seems fascinated with darkness and chaos ("Madness is like gravity all you need is a little push"). Given this all, and the fact that Patrick Leahy had a cameo in it, I think this might well be reconsidered. Thoughts?
Armond White, who generally sees through liberal bias and is a more conservative viewer, wrote this about it: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fTJ_tj1IKooJ:www.nypress.com/article-18545-knight-to-remember.html+armond+white+the+dark+knightr&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com]

:Thanks for your comments. I'll move "Dark Knight" to the debatable category as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:22, 13 April 2011 (EDT)

::I watched it when it came out, and I didn't notice anything particularly Conservative about it. The only thing really good about it was the citizen response to the terrorist dilemma the arch-villain sets up, whereby two boatloads of passengers "must" each ensure their own survival by blowing up the other's boat; a quick-witted passenger takes the remote control and throws it overboard. But this has nothing to do with Batman.

::The movie shows how vicious bad people can be, and how bullies support (and recruit) other bullies. But that is hardly fodder for the liberal-conservative debate. Both sides claim to despise bullying.

::I daresay the [[Batman]] character of the 1960s comic books had some "[[conservative]]" qualities, such as the ''noblesse oblige'' of the superior man and idea that society can be benefited by the actions of a heroic individual. Both of these run counter to Communist ideas of history. But the Batman movies I've seen are about a different, darker man. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:45, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

:Let me help explain why this film needs to be in the list. At the beginning of this film, crime had been quelled enough that when you saw the Bat-Signal a drug dealer, who probably would've made a quick buck and easily got away with it, chose not to make a deal (you see this guy just refuse a deal to some other man in a car). But this didn't mean that the city was totally crime free, or that corruption was gone. Bruce realized that Batman could not change Gotham. He could help, but he was only one man. Gotham needed someone to be the influence Batman could never be. And that man was Harvey Dent. This speaks to how important culture is to a society. There's a great saying from another film, called Hud, which says "The look of the country changes by the people we admire." Meaning, that if you want a good, upstanding, moral society, you back people who are good, upstanding, and moral. You choose good, even if it means your death. I think the best moment in this film is where the Joker has got the two ferries, one loaded with convicts and the other loaded with civilians, each rigged to blow. But it's a convict that understands the problem, and makes a decision not to play Joker's game. What does this mean? I nearly cried when I saw that scene. It meant that someone understood that there's more to life than living. There's more to life than just existing. There's more to life than doing what is expected, rather than doing what is GOOD. Because GOOD has VALUE, which, I believe, is at the heart of the Conservative Philosophy. Liberals believe quite the opposite. Or rather, they believe that there is no Good or Evil, that everything is relative. Just as the Joker believes. It is what we stand for, and are willing to die for, that make us good or evil. This is what Christ said. To take up your Cross, even if it means your death, even if it means the deaths of others, because Life is not predicated strictly on comfort or survival, but on the propagation of Good. That's why The Dark Knight needs to be here. --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 22:20, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

::He may be darker in the movies, that's not to say he still doesn't have conservative values, and he does whatever he can so other people don't go through what he want through. [[User:Jm920|Jm920]] 19:00, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

== "The Sandlot" as 1950s America as a time when "every boy had a chance to be great." ==

I suppose, maybe. It's harder to achieve greatness when one couldn't necessarily ride at the front of the bus/use the same drinking fountain/eat at the same counter/go to the same university as other folks. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 14:15, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

: Your point is valid. Feel free to include your point in the entry itself. I don't think the 1950s were as [[conservative]] as today. In addition to your comment, [[homeschooling]] was prohibited in the 1950s, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:29, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

== Rollerball (1975) ==

Rollerball (1975) is frequently overlooked as one of the great conservative films. A dystopian tale in which a corporate oligarchy maintains control over the peoples of the world by distracting them with a hedonistic culture of sex, drugs, and violent entertainment. Rollerball was designed by the corporations to hypnotize and distract the minions with gladiatorial combat disguised as sport. The world watches these spectacles and subconsciously receives the message their corporate masters are feeding them - that individual achievement is not possible, because every Rollerballer ultimately faces the same gruesome fate. However, when Jonathan E (James Caan) proves dominate and (more importantly) invincible in the sport - the corporations attempt to force him to retire through an ever horriflying series of rule changes designed to bring about his death or capitulation.
Jonathan E's defiance is a captivating and uplifting example of a man asserting the freedom of the individual in the face
of totalitarianism. JFarren 17:38, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

== Indiana Jones ==

I am very surprised that the Indiana Jones films are not included in here, when they are certainly conservative. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 23:25, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

:Would you like to add them?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

== Rebuilt ==
I've rewritten the page as a table. Everything is sortable now. The gross is the US gross value, not worldwide (with one referenced exception). Everything else is the same. Films listed with NA - TV means that they were a TV program, and thus did not have a gross. NA - DVD means that they were released straight to DVD. None of the values are adjusted for inflation. While that would be interesting to do, I don't think wikis support computed columns, and it seems like a waste of time to update every number here. [[user:CGoodwin|CGoodwin]]

: Well done. Your format is better, and your additional information about revenues is interesting, although not of great significance due to (1) inflation and (2) popularity typically doesn't mean much.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

==Space Jam is not a "Great" film==
Conservative or not, Space Jam sucks! It must be removed.

== Two Thoughts ==

1. What about "Fiddler on the Roof"? About the important role of tradition in societies.

2. Also, the caption for "Hilary: The Movie" is awkward if not misleading. It didn't result in the McCain-Feingold Act being overturned so much as it was the impetus for the lawsuit. The current description seems to imply that it was a crucial piece of evidence or something similar.

Would anyone be opposed to these changes? [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 14:17, 1 November 2011 (EDT)

==Film suggestions==

The Whit Stillman film, "Metropolitan", has been included on various lists of conservative films, including one by National Review. The story is of a group of bourgeois college students who meet a middle-class socialist peer. he later becomes good friends with them. Another National Review's list is "Ghostbusters" for its portrayal of an EPA bureaucrat as the main antagonist human antagonist and a message that "the solution to a public menace comes from the private sector". Another on the list I think may be worthy of inclusion is "Groundhog Day."

The full article from National Review can be viewed here [http://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/article/?q=YWQ4MDlhMWRkZDQ5YmViMDM1Yzc0MTE3ZTllY2E3MGM=] --[[User:TedM|TedM]] 22:42, 10 March 2012 (EST)

:update; Another film I saw a while ago, while containing some crude humor, may still qualify. It would probably fit in the "debatable whether great" category. The film is "House Arrest" and is about some teenagers who go to extreme lengths (locking them in the basement) to stop their fighting parents from getting a divorce. --[[User:TedM|TedM]] 13:46, 12 March 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

2012-03-11T03:42:45Z

TedM: /* Film suggestions */

2009-03-10T02:59:42Z

TedM:

My name is Ted. I was born in December of 1980 in Pennsylvania. I am a Young Earth Creationist and align most closely with [[Baptist]] and [[Mennonite]] doctrine. I am ultra conservative on most social issues and a paleolibertarian on economic issues.

2007-10-07T01:49:44Z

TedM: /* possible bias */

{{protect|Aschlafly}}
{| align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[/Archives|Archives]]
|}



== "Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D." ==

Here is Wikipedia's policy:

"Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it)."

Much of the world has been using the so-called "Common Era" indicator for some time. This is the same reason that Wikipedia occasionally allows British spellings (i.e. colour or fibre) and use of the metric system in articles - hardly evidence of bias. A ''restriction'' of the usage of C.E. or B.C.E., on the other hand, would be Western-centric and biased.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 19:27, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

*Archibald, your posting borders on the pedantic! How many articles, using AD or BC actually remain that way? Editors are constantly changing to the secular-progressive CE. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:35, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:*A "Pedant" is one who focuses on trivialities while ignoring the big picture. This word does not apply to my post. Wikipedia policy tries to avoid ANY date suffixing to avoid this type of controversy. The majority of the English-speaking world is now using the "C.E." system. Nevertheless, Wikipedia neither supports it nor discourages it. This cannot be bias. To research your claim, I jumped to five random historical articles on Wiki. Three used AD/BC dating, and two used no dating (just writing, for example, "The year 1300"). In my experience editors who terraform an article to change its dating system are usually disciplined. If I attempt to go through an article and append "AD" to every date, you can be sure my edit will be reverted by an editor. Again, Wiki neither discourages not supports any counting system.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 00:00, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

== New #1 - WP's CP entry ==

Maybe add a line or two of how several sysops (Ed Poor, Karajou (editing as an anonymous IP), Mr. Martinez were the ones I spotted on the fly) edited the article and often tried to add their own bias to it, but apparently never, ever touched that claim you mentioned (which has been in the article since March or April, btw.)? (I didn't check each and every edit in the long edit history, but if my claim about the no-touching is wrong, I'll be happy to concede the point as soon as somebody shows me the diff), meaning that they apparently saw nothing wrong with it.

And sourcing aside, how can you say that CP is not supportive of YEC when you support sysops like Conservative and others, who openly push YEC in key articles, making it look like the most likely alternative while merrily bashing "evolutionism" and related old-earth concepts? CP seems to go to great lengths to make all issues connected to an old Earth look like some wild theory with no proof at all. If you wish to prove me wrong, be my guest. This is just my impression after a good while of lurking and posting. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:46, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::If I've added "bias" to an article, please give the article name and expose the "bias" you allege that I added. Otherwise, I must assume you are simply making a personal attack for ideological reasons (as liberals habitually do). Ironically, liberals (when caught doing this) will then generally add insult to injury by claiming conservatives do what liberals actually do: again, without supplying actual examples. The term Democrats invented for this, the "politics of personal destruction", applies splendidly (or abysmally?) to liberals. I wish liberals would return to the roots of [[liberal education]] and use evidence and reason to make arguments, instead of groundless jabs. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:54, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:::[meaningless blather omitted by sysop Ed Poor]
:::I stand by what I said, and exactly by what I said. What you or Andy try to put into my mouth is none of my business. If you feel like blocking me for that post, go ahead. But I feel you hurt me enough by slapping me around with your pretty little speech about ideological attacks and how liberals and Democrats attack without providing examples. But of course, that was anything but an attack or whatever. Here, just do it. I'll stand still. An hour? A day? A month? Or hey, maybe a permanent one! After all, Conservapedia has so many active editors left, it can easily afford to permanently block a guy who created, like, THIRTY or so most wanted pages within ten days. And oh, another block will do WONDERS for my motivation to help! Yes, all in the name of justice for my bad, bad attack. Do I sound bitter? ...can you be blocked for that? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 08:29, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

::::Your motivation is not an issue. The only thing that matters is whether our readers can trust you. I asked you to give the article name and expose the "bias" you allege that I added. Your response implied that you hadn't made the allegation at all. Then you went on an emotional tangent and (as I predicted) followed up your denial with a tit for tat attack, as if your failure to provide examples of your false accusation is excused by my not giving fresh examples of what is common knowledge: that liberals (like you) make ideological attacks without providing examples.

::::I don't know if you really believe what you are saying or are simply hoping to confuse the reader with convoluted arguments. But you can take a week to think over what you have done. Perhaps you will choose to clarify whether or not you think I have "added bias" to any encyclopedia article. Unless you are prepared to give an example, you would do well to take that back. That is the only way you can regain trust: by admitting your error.

::::Unlike liberals, we conservatives are very forgiving people. Just admit your mistake, embrace the truth and join us! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:04, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

: Your first paragraph, even if true, would not be a defense for [[Wikipedia]], so it is irrelevant and I'll ignore it.

: Your second paragraph fails to address the essence of [[Wikipedia]]'s defamation as quoted in point 1: "Conservapedia is a wiki-based web encyclopedia project '''with the stated purpose''' of creating an encyclopedia ... supportive of ... Young Earth creationism."

: It's not just that Wikipedia's statement is false. It is defamatory as it attempts to smear [[Conservapedia]] with a falsehood in front of [[Wikipedia]]'s [[liberal]] audience. You are right that [[Wikipedia]] has featured that defamation for many months.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:02, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::The editing participation is important because you are portraying something as bias even though your sysops implicitly seemed to endorse it. You know how they say: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - and your "good men" seemed to do nothing. As such, it is not so much me defending WP, but rather me pointing out that your most recent addition seems to be built on sand.
::And what is Conservapedia's "stated purpose" then? I was not able to find anything that clearly defines its goals, at least not something that seems to be compatible with what I observe here (and that is pro-YEC and anti-atheism that goes well beyond the point of being "neutral to the facts").
::Furthermore, looking at the site certainly does give the impression that CP supports YEC, regardless of what you state. If anything, at least think about that one.
::However, I will drop the issue. Giving things a brief look, nobody ever managed to make you remove just one point from the list (again, if there are examples that prove me wrong, I'll be more than happy to admit my mistake). So I'm happy enough with the fact that you replied and the hope that you will maybe think about the perceived image of the site. You can have the last word if you please, I'll be off editing. :) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:20, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Bow out if you like, but [[Wikipedia]]'s smear of Conservapedia is false and defamatory, and you seem unwilling to admit it. You defend Wikipedia's claim that Conservapedia has a certain "stated purpose," but then complain that you can't find any stated purpose at all. Wikipedia and its many lies and smears are not making the world a better place. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::::My hopefully last comment in this section to reply to the words you put into my mouth. Never did I defend WP or stated that this is indeed CP's stated purpose. You also flat-out ignore any point I made that is not directly connected to the issue you focus on, which is incredibly sad.
::::I am willing to agree with you that YEC is not CP's stated purpose. However, you seem to be unable or unwilling to show me CP's stated purpose. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of your sysops speak much louder than your claims of what CP does or does not support. You can look away if that makes you feel better, but it doesn't change the impression visitors get. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:37, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Jenkins, I didn't put any words in your mouth. And I don't have to provide a "stated purpose." [[Wikipedia]] lies about [[Conservapedia]], and after a numerous postings here you still won't admit it. I can assure you that intelligent visitors here are quite happy with what they find, which is why we're growing every day. If you prefer Wikipedia's lies, suit yourself. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

RE your claim about Wikipedia's article JESUS H. CHRIST. It simply tries to be neutral, gives several examples and notes that it can be considered blasphemy. Get a life![[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 10:57, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== Answer to TerryH, re universal applicability of the Bible ==

Terry, thank you for the reply; I will address the issues line by line.

To begin, I suggested that the nature of the Bible as a moral document makes reliance upon it as a historical or scientific document dubious at best, and a mis-characterization or overzealous cross-application, at worst. You reply that the Bible is good for any use, citing, of course, the Bible in reply: “every word written herein is properly instructive in any application” (2 Tim 3:15-:17). First, this is a circular argument, relying upon the Bible to confirm the veracity of… the Bible. Second, it’s a mis-characterization of the quote. The quote from the King James Version is:

{{cquote|All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.}}

Analyzing that quote, it actually backs up my perspective – this quote from Timothy asserts the applicability of the Bible to any moral question, and anything that “furnish[es] [man] unto all good works.” In essence, you prove my point: the cited authority confirms the Bible’s intention to be used as a moral treatise… nothing more.

And yet your assertion of universal applicability may be assailed from yet another angle. To paraphrase the hon. Justice Scalia, applying the Bible to foreclose inquiry into all fields of study – through a combination of your Timothy doctrine, and literalism – would essentially be the “dicta that ate the discoveries of man.” Your theory would advocate a holistic return to biblical law, biblical science, biblical medicine, and biblical life. I don’t know about you, but I certainly prefer my Excedrin to the Bible’s silence on the issue of headaches. Your construction, since it ends in absurdity, must fail.

And finally on this point, if the Bible was truly meant as applicable to all of life’s little problems, what must we make of Mark 16:18, which informs the “true believer” that he may drink poison without feeling its effects? A wise man will not test this statement, but will realize that it is intended as a figurative expression. However, according to you, since the Bible is applicable to any discipline, and must be accepted or rejected wholesale and literally, we are forced to conclude that true believers, like yourself, may drink poison unaffected. Would you like to test your faith? I don’t advise you to.

Your remaining arguments may be disposed of summarily. The fact of the Bible’s historicity on some counts ‘’cannot ‘’ be extrapolated to its historicity on ‘’’all’’’ counts. It has recently been proven that Herodotus’ account of obscure points of Italian history (that the Etruscans traveled to Italy from Asia, and were not native Italians) is correct, contrary to the findings of earlier ethnographers/historians/anthropologists. By your argument, since Herodotus was here vindicated, we must assume that all of his other findings are correct too… and yet no Cyclops has ever been seen in Egypt, nor has a phoenix been found. Perhaps it’s best to agree that the Bible is not a historical document, regardless of its truth on point in some circumstances, but is instead a moral treatise, and a valuable one at that.

And finally, I cannot believe that you would argue that because you have never observed evolution between species, it must not have occurred! For by your reasoning, neither God, nor you, actually exist! After all, I have seen neither of you.

I await your reply.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 15:40, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
All right, here is my reply in one word: Nonsense.

Your argument amounts to nothing more than an argument from incredulity. And in the process you deny what the [[Bible]] is. Did you bother to read the teachings of [[Jesus Christ]], and how He repeatedly alluded to the creation of the world--in six days? Six days of the familiar type, that is--not six "geological ages" or whatever the pretended flavor of the month.

I challenge you to find ''one single historical incident'' that the Bible records in any detail, in which the Bible got it wrong in any detail that it expressed. And you know what? St. [[Paul]] was bitten by a poisonous [[snake]] on [[Malta]] and felt no bad effect. Or didn't you read? And beyond that: the word about the poison means that you don't have to fear that which brings death to the body. To be absent from the body is to be in the presence of [[God]].

Which, of course, might explain why Christians consistently defended and repeated their testimony to the things that they had seen--including the appearance of [[Jesus Christ]] after His execution--even while the [[lion]]s were tearing at their flesh.

I'll go further: a holistic return to Biblical law, science, and medicine might not be such a bad idea after all. Dr. Joseph Mercola ([http://www.mercola.com/]) recently stated that conventional [[medicine]] is good primarily for diagnosis and the treatment of acute trauma--and little else. And as a doctor myself, I have come to discover that he is correct. And I am in a direct position to know: I recently lost my wife to colorectal [[cancer]]. Her doctors had to admit when pressed that they had ''no'' confidence in their own prescribed courses of treatment--and another doctor told me flat-out that conventional medicine has no good treatment for colorectal cancer--at least not when it has spread to the liver.

On the other hand, I have conversed with the relatives of people who had cancer that was far less advanced--and they achieved ''cures'' through nothing more expensive or complicated than simply changing their diets to a diet that has a Biblical basis.

The only reason I am bothering to dignify your screed above with this reply is that I would not have any other reader of this page ignorant of the extent to which I stand ready to defend [[Bible|Scripture]].

There--now you really didn't have to wait long, did you?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:07, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
edit to add:First of all, my deepest sorrows and sympathies about the loss of your wife. Cancer is awful, and cannot always be cured; sometimes all you can do is pray. But sometimes prayer isn't enough, and modern medicine has made amazing strides and progressions over oddly archaic practices, and will continue to make such strides. I have no doubt that, given enough time, science will progress to a point where innocent victims the world over can be saved. Keep in mind the thousands every day who avoid death by a little but of luck, but a lot a bit of modern medicine.

That being said, you still didn't answer all the points. I assume them either conceded or unimportant, so I'm confident I win out in the long run.

But I'd like to direct everyone reading to Terry's concession - the logical stopping point of literalism is a fundamentalist, theocratic state, as you suggest that it wouldn't be "so bad." I think we can just about stop here. This idea - which I actually thought to be my "straw man," or slippery slope argument, because no-one could seriously be advocating that - is so patently ludicrous as to not need rebuttal. If that's your honest belief, I'll just say three last things:
#What makes a Christian fundamentalist theocracy better than an Islamic fundamentalist theocracy?
#The very idea of biblical law, medicine, etcetera, is wholly antithetical to American culture, democracy, and our founding principles. This nation has become great through the work of progressive thinking, and above all, science, technology, and respect for the pure pursuit of truth. Fundamentalism, and the stagnation of thought that it requires, has no place in such a society, except for the private beliefs of the individual, which are of course his or her own exclusively. Which leads me to the next point...
#Does your fundamentalist ideal society have provision for non-fundamentalist persons?

I realize this is not my best effort, but I honestly don't feel like my best effort is needed to reply you. A doctor who's forgotten so much of his training as to advocate Biblical medicine... well, ''res ipsa loquitor''.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 18:29, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
I concede nothing, first of all. Rather, your post barely rates the dignity of any kind of reply--and a point-by-point rebuttal is a dignity you have not earned.

I would like to answer your questions, however:

#A "Christian theocratic state" will only come to pass when [[Jesus Christ]] Himself returns to [[earth]] to set it up and run it. In that sense, of course that would be better than the New Baghdad Caliphate that [[Osama bin Laden]] wants to set up, because [[God]]--in the Person of Christ--''would'' be in charge, and not some pretended proxy with galloping paranoia.
#In your second point, you are essentially saying that American culture, democracy, and founding principles were and always have been secular. Only someone having a profound ignorance of American history would believe that. I refer you to Benjamin F. Morris' ''Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States'', now back in print after 140 years. And I repudiate the notion that "progressive thinking" has made America great. If anything, "progressive thinking" is dragging America down. I sometimes wonder whether the reason why America bears no mention in the book of Revelation is that America is to go up in smoke and flame and tear gas, and the forces of the Beastly regime ({{Bible ref|book=Revelation|chap=13}})--in all its secular inglory--are to [[parachute]] into America's largest cities "to restore order," induct all American residents into the New Secular Humanistic Order, and carve up America like a roast duck, to borrow a phrase from Sir [[Winston Churchill]].
#Yes, there would be a place for non-fundamentalist persons. It is just that that place would not include a position of power that forbids public prayer, proposes an anti-religious test for public office, forces taxpayers to pay for atheistic "education", [[abortion]], and other such bad policies, limits the term of a marriage to seven years (as a certain German member-of-Parliament has actually proposed), allows a man to divorce his wife for no better reason than that she will not grant him sexual favors on demand, allows a man to order the [[Terri Schiavo|death of his wife so that he can be with his "sweet patootie,"]] compels the military to allow open [[Homosexuality|homosexuals]] to serve therein, ''et cetera ad nauseam''.

And by the way: the rumbling you hear is the clearing of a Divine throat when you of all people, speak to ''me'' of all people, about prayer.

More to the point, don't talk to me about modern medicine. I know what it is capable of, and I know what it is ''in''capable of. You don't mess around with the Grand Design of the Master. But that is what modern medicine does. To give you an example: I got a mere two lectures on nutrition--and you'd think that doctors, of all people, would understand that the food you eat is as important to your good health as is the air you breathe. For all the training doctors get in human nutrition, you'd think the hoped-for future is one in which people simply take pills to get their daily ration of protein, carbs, and fats, same as they take vitamin pills today.

But of course, you never met a doctor who wasn't an evolutionist. And more to the point: your confidence in science is poignantly misplaced. I suggest a bit of classical literature to give you a sobering lesson on how science can go horribly wrong: ''Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus'' by Mary Shelley.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:32, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
Dude, Frankenstein is a novel, as in... fictional. Sure, maybe science ''can'' go horribly wrong, but religion ''does'' go horribly wrong. Crusades, justifying slavery, fundamentalism, et al. And those aren't fictional.

Terry, I didn’t think you would go this far, but I should have known better. I should have expected the Rapture to come in at some point. I would like to recapitulate for those just joining us, about the myriad uses of the Bible in human life. I believe that the Bible is a good moral compass – after all, “do unto others…” is a timeless aphorism, and a fine creed upon which to live. Similar lessons of generosity are obviously important. As the foundation of a religion, then, the teaching of Jesus are quite fine indeed.

However, I confine the relevance of any religious text to these moral/ethical/religious boundaries. Terry, however, goes a bit farther:
# Science: where observed facts conflict with the Bible, these should be willfully ignored, debated away with poor, easily refuted pseudo-arguments, and in every other sense marginalized. Cognitive activity on the source of human origins is appropriately limited when it transgresses beyond the Bible, and potentially tramples on points settled by this text.
# Law: the law should freeze societal norms as they existed two-thousand years ago. Full return to this system is favored, presumably complete with stonings for adultery (which is defined as lust), and theft.
# Politics: from Terry’s latest post, we learn that human political affairs are irrelevant – after all, the Rapture is around the corner! The United States will soon be laid waste by the loving army of God… after all, a two-thousand year old allegorical tale about one disciple’s hate for the Roman Empire says so. This idea actually passes beyond superficiality to become full-blown dangerous idiocy.
# Religion: the Bible explains all of religion, at face value, and requires no deeper quest for knowledge than a cursory read-through. After all, literalism will supply all the answers, all the time. So much for the liberal arts (I guess the term does have the word “liberal” in it).
# Medicine: see “science.”

In short, the answer to all of life’s questions – all of those issues which God endowed us with the faculties to resolve – are answered (and answered definitively, without further need of inquest) by the Bible. The life of the mind is justly circumscribed by the four corners of a six-thousand-plus year old document which makes no attempt to actually speak to some of these issues. Exploration beyond these lines is at best valueless, but at worst ungodly, blasphemous and sinful.

Terry, this actually saddens me. Religion ought to be a transformative experience, liberating the human soul to allow the mind to expand more fully, of the type explored by the early Church fathers. But your “faith” rewrites Christianity into a religion of repose, where all questions are answered, and humanity need now only sit and wait for the next step. Humanity, under this creed, would stagnate: the dying Keats described himself as a man whose name was “writ in water” – impermanent, fleeting, and inconsequential. To you, the entire human race, and indeed the human mind, might as well be writ in water, with such control and self-determination given up to an inflexible document.

What shallow faith, if so it can even be called! To think that God could be found more in blind obedience than in inquest and discovery! How… limiting!-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 11:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
----
Well, let [[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] be sad, if that's what he wants to be.

#I repudiate the notion that I am ignoring observed fact. ''What observed fact?'' The facts that ''I'' have observed is that many proponents of evolution have committed fraud, trying to show the existence of missing links that are still missing. [[Piltdown Man]], anyone? I also observe that, for the first time, proponents of evolution think they have scored a point by declaring that evolution is not a random walk. Well, you could have fooled a lot of people who have read [[Richard Dawkins]]' books.
::I tried to stay out of this, but Darwinian evolution was never portrayed as a random walk. At least not by supporters. I hope I can stay out of the rest of your discussion, and continue watching. [[User:Order|Order]] 12:25, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
#The particularly harsh penalties in Leviticus, for example, are in the context of a particular group of people who actually ''had the privilege of having [[God]] in a sample of His Glory actually residing in their camp.'' With that privilege came a tremendous burden. You do not approach a Holy God in the wrong way. Thankfully, [[Jesus Christ]] provided a bridge--and a different mandate to His followers. We do not ''set ourselves apart'' from the world, quite as the ancient Hebrews under [[Moses]] did--but we do refuse to participate in the world's muddy customs. And that's where the "societal norms" come in: those are ways of relating to one another that have stood the test of time. The decline of those "norms" has brought nothing but grief and a constant quest for a satisfaction that never comes--or when it does, it lasts no longer than does a [[drug]] fix.
#Yes, indeed, the [[Bible]] does contain prophecies that remain unfulfilled. Chief among them is that a one-world federation will take power. But it will have nothing to do with God's army. That battle will come later--at a site that [[Napoleon Bonaparte]] once declared to be a wonderful place to have a battle. But before then--if anyone reading this seriously thinks that the [[United States of America]] has become a dictatorial regime under its current President, [[George W. Bush]], let them think again. A leader is coming who will make [[Adolf Hitler]] look like a beginner, and [[Nero]] look like a total piker. Revelation was no allegory for attacks against [[Rome]]--it was a memorandum of things to come.
#Of course the [[Bible]] explains everything. And what does it profit a man to "explore" a smelly swamp?
#As I have said before--and as the archives of this page will show--I am better qualified to talk about what modern medicine can and cannot do, should and should not do, than are some people who pretend to be champions of scientific and medical knowledge.

And as for Frankenstein--well, even Mary Shelley would have been horrified at the spectacle of [[abortion]] on demand, high-tech designer babies, "treatments" for [[cancer]] that burn your body from the inside out and end up failing anyway, and certain research orientations that are just flat-out unmentionable on a family-friendly site. I further maintain that [[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]]'s confidence in science exactly mirrors that of the proud and arrogant Baron Frankenstein who decided to "bestow animation on lifeless matter" and ended up creating the eventual murderer of his wife and many of his loved ones.
----
Off of your #1, though, I wasn't aware that a few failures in the intellectual history of a movement impugned the entire thing. Of course we can cross apply that logic, and Christianity sure ends up looking pretty badly, after people like Eric Rudolph are factored in.

As for the rest, I really think enough has been said here. Your arguments have been broken down for the world to see how ridiculous they really are, and will speak for themselves, and conjure their own rebuttals in the mind of any reasonably sane person. Please enjoy your intellectually dead life.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 12:41, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

==Homosexuality==
Wikipedia has separate articles on Homosexuality, Gay, Queer, LGBT, Homophile, Lesbian, Gay pride, LGBT social movements, Pro-gay slogans and symbols, Men who have sex with men, Queer theory, Gay Liberation, Coming out, Gay slang, and about 50 other articles on the same subject, instead of one single article on [[Homosexuality]]. One single article is all that is needed on a non-normative fringe subculture. Giving that one topic 50+ separate articles smacks of promotion and of implying unwarranted normativity to the phenomenon. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 21:39, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:This site has about 10 articles on homosexuality. What should that tell you?-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 11:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
:Parrothead, from what I can tell that's a pretty typical number of articles for a subject. For a comparison, a quick look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Christianity Christianity Portal] shows that there are thousands of articles on Christianity, most of which quite substantial. A search for "Christian" returns 4.7 times as many articles as this ''entire wiki''. They range from the obvious (Presbyterianism, Jesus) to the greatest of detail (ecclesiastical ring, Geneva Bible, Augustine of Hippo, Psalms 28).
:Before I get accused of a cover up, yes, there is also an extensive portal for LGBT. Combining the results of <code>homosexual</code> and <code>gay</code> and subtracting the quotient of <code>homosexual gay</code> and two gives a mere 1.4 times the size of this wiki. Of course, search results are fuzzy (Hans ''Christian'' Andersen, Enola ''Gay''), but you get the point. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 20:59, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

==No Entry for liberal==

This is a continuation of the currently archived discussion under the same name. The original can be found under archive 9.

Ed Poor, there are many fallacies in your argument. 1st, you claim that Wikipedia doesn't have a liberal article, but it does. It has a page that references to many different schools of liberal thought. Yet you dismiss the obvious fact that it doesn't dismiss the existence of liberals, but actually goes so far as to list the many different liberal ideologies. How is this denying that liberals exist?

2nd, you claim that Archibalds' assertion that liberalism has seen many different changes throughout history is irrelevant because he should have realized "Mr. Schlafly" meant contemporary U.S. liberals. First off, how is Archibald supposed to know that? Second, if he were to know that then why do you choose to ignore the article (which I've mentioned) entitled Modern American Liberalism, which is listed only 4th on the liberal page?

3rd, how can you assume Wikipedia is an American literary institution that must abide by standards of the U.S. Democratic Party in it's usage of the term liberal, when you yourself have been forced to admit that the term liberal has many different geographic and time-based meanings? Do you decide to ignore the non-U.S. contemporary definitions of liberal and simply have liberal refer to modern U.S. liberalism? It does sound like there is an agenda here, but it's not on Wikipedia's part.

Lastly, why is Archibald a liberal? Is it because he is disagreeing with you? I'm just curious - since you seem to be the throwing the name around. I'm a libertarian with conservative leanings, but it doesn't mean I'm about to jump aboard the anti-Wikipedia "liberal" agenda bandwagon. Wikipedia, as a literary encyclopedia which covers worldly topics, is right on target here, and I see very little bias. [[User:Jelx|Jelx]] 19:32, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

== Ubuntu Christian Edition removed from Wikipedia ==

I am the developer of the [http://www.christianubuntu.com Ubuntu Christian Edition] which is a Linux distribution geared towards Christians. Recently Wikipedia removed our page and replaced it with a redirect to a list of Ubuntu based Linux derivatives. Ironically almost all of the other derivatives still have their own Wikipedia entries. They cited non-notability as the reason for the deletion/redirect. However, even they admit that this was "against the public opinion. It is also quite obvious that Ubuntu Christian Edition has gained plenty of notability to warrant its own page on Wikipedia.

Below are some links to the ongoing discussion on the Ubuntu Forums and the, now locked, AfD discussion.

[http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=567836 Ubuntu Forums Discussion] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ubuntu_Christian_Edition_%282nd_nomination%29 [Locked AfD Discussion]]

I would really like to have this added to the Examples of Bias in Wikipedia page. I would also like to have a page for Ubuntu Christian Edition. I believe if you take a brief look you will quickly see that it deserves its own page.

Thanks, Jereme Hancock--[[User:Mhancoc7|Mhancoc7]] 22:07, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

: I don't know anything about this, but suggest you post some entries here explaining what Ubuntu (what's the word mean?) is all about. Then others will revise and comment. This may be an example of bias on Wikipedia, but I'd like to hear others comment on this here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:41, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks, will do!--[[User:Mhancoc7|Mhancoc7]] 22:59, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

'''What is Ubuntu''' 
Ubuntu is a community developed, linux-based operating system that is perfect for laptops, desktops and servers. It contains all the applications you need - a web browser, presentation, document and spreadsheet software, instant messaging and much more. Ubuntu is free software. You can learn more about what this means by reading our licensing. 
'''What is Ubuntu Christian Edition''' 
Ubuntu Christian Edition is a free, open source operating system geared towards Christians. It is based on the popular Ubuntu Linux. Ubuntu is a complete Linux-based operating system, freely available with both community and professional support. 
'''What does Ubuntu mean?''' 
Ubuntu is an African word meaning ‘Humanity to others’, or ‘I am what I am because of who we all are’. 

That is the basics. Thanks, Jereme--[[User:Mhancoc7|Mhancoc7]] 22:59, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

: Sounds interesting. You might elaborate on the Christian version, and how it differs from the main version, in [[ubuntu]]. I'm intrigued.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:06, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
::So am I. I am a Linux user myself--except that I use Fedora.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:20, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

But Wikipedia deletes non-notable articles all the time. Does this really count as an example of bias in Wikipedia? I admit the bias there is often worse than I thought, but do they actually consistently discriminate against Christians? Sorry, but I think Wikipedia may have been right in this case, unless there is some evidence to show otherwise. Besides, I think they have experts about this sort of thing there (?).
[[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:56, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

== possible bias ==

Numerous articles refer to the World War II Japanese American internment centers as "concentration camps"
--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 21:49, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-10-07T01:49:35Z

TedM: possible bias

Greenland

2007-04-16T02:10:34Z

TedM: created article

Greenland is an island in the [[Arctic Ocean]]. It is an autonomous province of [[Denmark]] and was granted [[Home Rule]] in 1979.

The capital [[Nuuk]], is known in the [[Danish]] language as Godthåb.

{{stub}}

Greenland

2007-04-16T02:10:16Z

TedM:

2007-04-16T02:01:06Z

TedM:

Christianity

2007-04-16T02:00:08Z

TedM: /* See also */

'''Christianity''' is a religion taking its name from Jesus Christ. Adherents are called Christians. It seems that at first the reigion was called The Way and the adherents were called Nazarenes (after the city of Nazareth where Jesus lived.) The name Christian arose in Antioch in the first century A.D. and its use spread. The three largest self-governing bodies of Christians are the Roman Catholic Church (approx. 1 billion baptized members), the Orthodox Church (approx. 300 million baptized members), and the Anglican Communion (approx. 77 million baptized members).

== Christian beliefs ==
Theologians, over two millennia, have debated on a definitive summary of the Christian faith. While its interpretations vary drastically, probably the most commonly accepted statement of faith is the [[Nicene Creed| Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed]] below:

<blockquote>I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of Light; true God of true God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man. And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried. And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; whose Kingdom shall have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.</blockquote>

Christians and Christian denominations disagree on many points of doctrine. According to an online Harris poll from 2003[1] 99% of all American Christians believe in God, 96% in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 93% in Heaven, 93% in the virgin birth, 92% in the survival of the soul after death, 82% in Hell, 50% in ghosts, 27% in astrology and 21% in reincarnation. Note that the latter two beliefs are in opposition to the religious dogma of most Christian denominations.

Nonetheless, the Nicene-Cconstantinopolitan Creed offers a general overall picture of what Christian theology looks like, and serves as a useful outline.

Other creeds may prove helpful in research. See also: the Apostle's Creed, Athanasian Creed.

===God===
The God of the Christians is a triune being. Though there is only one Divine nature there are three Divine Persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The three Persons are collectively called the Trinity or the Holy Trinity. Christians reject the idea that they are polytheists because of the oneness of the divine nature (or essence). Though to non-Christians and even many Christians, it might seem like an inconsequential dogma, the doctrine of the Trinity is central to all of Christian theology and life. This is especially true in the relationship between God and human beings. The major theme of the Bible is love. In the Old Testament the idea is expressed in the Hebrew word ''hessed'', which is variously translated as loyal love, tender mercy, steadfast love, mercy, goodness, etc. in the New Testament the same idea is expressed in the Greek word ''agape'', which is variously translated as love, compassion, charity, etc. The picture that the Biblical writers draw with these words is of a lover (God) who is entirely self-sufficient, needing nothing, and a beloved (human beings) in desperate need of salvation but unable to obtain it for himself. But God the lover is willing to suffer, knows He is going to suffer, even endure death to save the beloved human beings. This love of God for human beings is an extension of the love the Three Persons in the Trinity have for each other. Each loves the others infinitely. Their love for each other and for their creation is such that the Apostle John equates God and love, in an almost mathematical way saying, "God is love."

Addtionally, the God of the Christians is the creator of all things, is everywhere present, exists in all times, is transcendent, all-knowing (omniscient), just, all-powerful (omnipotent).

===Jesus===
Christians hold that during the reign of Caeser Augustus the Son (e.g. the second Person of the Trinity) took flesh from a virgin woman and was incarnate as a man. He was born in the town of Bethlehem and was given the name Jesus. At the age of thirty he was baptized by his cousin, the Prophet John, and began to preach in the area Palestine. About three years after his baptism, he raised his friend Lazarus from the dead, prompting the Jewish power establishemnt to plot Jesus death. Jesus was crucified. He came back from the dead and was seen by over 500 people. He ascended to heaven. The four gospels contain the records of some of what Jesus did and said, but he did much more than those four books relate, as the Apostle John admitted in his Gospel.

===Morality===
The fundamental principle in Christian moral teaching is love and forgiveness, as expressed by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and the New Testament. Jesus summarized his teachings in two commandments from the Old Testament:

"'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 22:37-39; Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18)

Constant debate has resulted as to how a person should express love for God in their moral behavior. This moral dialogue found expression in the New Testament, where the Apostle Paul addressed such controversies as circumcision (Romans 2:25-29), eating meat that was sacrificed to pagan deities (1 Corinthians 8), speculating about myths and genealogies (1 Timothy 1:3-5), and observing ceremonial dates and seasons (Galatians 4:9-11).

Regardless of a person's ethical interpretations, adherents commonly point to New Testament passages John 3:16 and 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 as scriptural depictions of love. The former states that "God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." The latter characterizes love, saying "Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."

Jesus Christ affirmed, "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:35)

===Salvation===
The Bible teaches that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). This is often interpreted to mean that everyone has displeased God and is now separated from him in a kind of alienation and enmity that results from the fundamental conflict between selfish human interests and God's interests (Romans 8:5-8; James 4:4).

However, Jesus offered a solution to this Biblical dilemma in that by repentance of sins and faith in him (Jesus), their sins would be forgiven. He said that "...the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins." (Mark 2:10) Jesus also said, "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." (Mark 2:17, and "Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men" (Mark 2:28)

Jesus Christ taught that "unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). Evangelical Protestants often use the terms "saved" and "born again" interchangeably. Other Christians, notably the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church use the phrase ''born again'' as a synonym for baptized. "Jesus answered, Amen, amen, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5)

Christians are expected to continue living by Christ's teachings (John 8:31), as is appropriate for "children of Light" (Ephesians 5:8-10). Some believe that this is necessary in order to stay saved. However, this is a common misconception of the text. It is rather referring to proving that one is a child of God by their "fruit" (things that they do and how they behave). Christians in the Reformed tradition (following the teaching of the 16th century French lawyer John Calvin, as well as the faith outlined in the Belgic and Heidleberg Confessions) says that salvation is irrevocable and that it cannot be lost, if it was genuinely part of one's life to begin with. Reforemed Christians (often called Calvinists) often point to Romans 8:38-39 as validation of their belief: "For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 8:38-39; NASB). According to Calvinists, the reason it cannot be lost by natural things is because salvation was obtained through a supernatural being, namely Jesus Christ. This does not negate Jesus' human side, only that he was both one-hundred percent God and one-hundred percent man, according to the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451). The Bible also makes it clear that mankind cannot earn their salvation, and that it is a free gift.

== Evangelism ==
In what is called the [[Great Commission]], Jesus sent his disciples out into the world to preach the Gospel (literally "good news") and make disciples.
:'''Great Commission'''
:''But the eleven disciples proceeded to [[Galilee]], to the mountain which Jesus had designated. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in [[heaven]] and on [[earth]]." Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the [[#God the Father|Father]] and the [[#God the Son|Son]] and the [[#God the Holy Spirit|Holy Spirit]], teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."'' --[[Gospel According to Matthew|Matthew]] 28:16-20 [[New American Standard Bible|NASB]]

It should be noted, however, that Jesus said it was the Holy Spirit, not man, who was sent to convict the world concerning sin and righteousness (John 16:8). This relieves Christians of needing to worry when they evangelize. God is the one who gets the credit with the growth and maturity of the Church: "So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth" (1 Corinthians 3:7).

== See also ==
'''Denominations'''
*[[Protestant]]
**[[Baptist]]
**[[Church of England]] or ''Anglican Church''
**[[Episcopal Church in the United States of America]] (or ''Episcopal Church'' or ''Episcopalians'') (Non-UK branch of the Anglican Church)
**[[Lutheran]]
**[[Methodist]]
**[[Presbyterian]]
**[[Orthodox Church]] (Does not regard itself as a denomination, but claims to be the only Church established by Jesus)
**[[Roman Catholic Church]] (Does not regard itself as a denomination, but claims to be the only Church established by Jesus)
**[[Amish]]
**[[Liberal Christianity]]
**[[Mennonite]]
**[[Pentacostal]]
'''Other articles'''
*[[Christian apologetics]] (Defense of Christianity)
*[[Conservative Christianity]]
*[[Evangelical Christians]]
*[[Fundamentalist Christians]]
*[[Judaism]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category: Christianity| ]]
[[Category:Religion]]

Amish

2007-04-16T01:58:59Z

TedM:

The Amish are a [[Christian]] denomination best known for rejecting many modern conveniences such as [[electricity]] and [[automobiles]]. It originated in Europe as part of the Anabaptist movement.

{{stub}}

[[Category:Christianity]]