Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Scandinavia

2008-11-13T01:48:00Z

Toby: /* Iceland and Finland */

'''"have had strong connections with former Soviet Union"'''

The connections to USA has always bin much stronger than the connections to the Soviet Union. It is correct that some ultra left wing politician had connections to the Soviet Union, however these represented a minority.

== Iceland and Finland ==

I'd like to avoid getting into a revert war. So, I'd like to point out that the Scandinavian Tourist Board consists of members of "Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden." [http://www.goscandinavia.com/] Scandinavian House, "The Nordic Center in America" also lists all five countries. [http://www.scandinaviahouse.org/about.html] National Geographic's map of Scandinavia has all five countries in it. [http://shop.nationalgeographic.com/product/373.html]. If you want more examples, I can find them. The only mention of Scandinavia that did not involve Iceland and Finland that I could find was the ownership of SAS. Given that it was founded in 1946, when Finland was controlled by Russia and Iceland was not in an economic position to support an airline, I do not find this a convincing case for only including three of the five countries of Scandinavia. If there is good reason for excluding Iceland and Finland, I'll hear it, but I'm not seeing one. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 23:39, 2 November 2008 (EST)

: Er, the USSR, not Russia. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 23:42, 2 November 2008 (EST)

:: I reverted your most recent edit, because at least one part of it was factually incorrect. Finnish is not solely related to Hungarian. I am a Scandinavian Studies minor at UC Berkeley -- our working definition (and the working definition used in most of academia, including from my experience people out of the University of Lund) has Scandinavia referring to Norway/Sweden/Denmark or N/S/D+F, and "Nordic Countries" used to refer to all five, although Scandinavia certainly can (and is frequently used to) refer to all five. Obviously, if you restrict it to mean the actual Scandinavian peninsula (which I have seen a number of definitions do,) only Norway and Sweden are included. [[User:TGeary|TGeary]] 23:52, 2 November 2008 (EST)

::: Ok, I can understand that. I think the difference might be a popular vs. an academic view here. I yield to your experience. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 23:54, 2 November 2008 (EST)

:::: It would probably be a good idea to make it clear on the page that the term Scandinavia [i]can[/i] be used to refer to up to all five of them. I think the current page does so, but sometimes my writing may seem clear to me but not to others. Feel free to edit it if you think it would be better phrased else-wise. In the coming days/weeks, I intend to expand the article a good bit. [[User:TGeary|TGeary]] 23:57, 2 November 2008 (EST)

::::: As a Scandinavian myself (Norwegian specifically) I would like to point out that Finland and Iceland are definitively considered Scandinavian by the rest of us. Does that count for anything?
[[User:toby|toby]] 02:47, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Talk:Faith

2008-04-20T01:06:34Z

Toby:

== Reversion ==

I notice the revert basicly leaves out the entry I made concerning Christ words about a Roman Pagan Centurion and his faith. Guess Christs own opinion on the matter is not good enough.

I completely disagree, Any religion requires faith. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:46, 2 February 2007 (EST)

Good point tim, while most religions might not actually use the term faith, the concept is quite widespread.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 15:57, 2 February 2007 (EST)

Tim and Ben, you don't support your claims with anything. "Faith" is unique to Christianity, and the term is not genuinely used by other religions.

:That's moronic. Very simply defined, the English word "faith" means belief in the existence, truth, etc. of anything in the absence of definitive proof. For instance, I have faith that my family will come home tonight, because I think that they will. I do not have faith in gravity; I know from experience that it works, and I have some small understanding of the mechanism by which it does so (I don't however, know the cause, but then, no one does.) Faith is not uniquely Christian by virtue of the fact that other religions exist. If their followers lacked faith, those religions would be gone. Calling it something else, or even not referring it at all does not change it's nature; is sin a uniquely Christian concept?

The powerful Greek language was essential to express the concept of faith. Not even English can describe it well.

'''pivstiß''' is the Greek word for faith, and it takes Strong's version many words to explain it:<ref>http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4102&version=kjv</ref>

1. conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting man's relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it
1. relating to God
1. the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ
2. relating to Christ
1. a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God
3. the religious beliefs of Christians
4. belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same
2. fidelity, faithfulness
1. the character of one who can be relied on

----
It is false to claim that faith is only a christian concept. Other religions may not call it faith, but they still have it. For example: a muslim suicide bomber is not going to bomb anything if he does not have faith that it will send him to heaven. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:59, 4 February 2007 (EST)

'''Sources:''' <references/>

==American Heritage Dictionary==
says:

'''faith,''' noun: 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at ''belief,'' ''trust.'' 3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. 4. often '''Faith''' ''Christianity'' The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. 5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith. 6. A set of principles or beliefs.[http://www.bartleby.com/61/84/F0018400.html]

In other words, according to one dictionary, anyway, the word has more than one meaning. It is not being misapplied in the phrase "the Muslim faith," it is simply a different meaning of the word. This article, presently, would seem to be about the fourth meaning. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 3 February 2007 (EST)

::Neurocat's posting was misleading in claiming that "The concept of faith exists in nearly all major religions. Faith is mentioned in the New Testament, the Old Testament, and the Koran. Faith is also a well established part of so-called "New Age" religions, such as Wicca."

::Faith, historically, was uniquely Christian. The entry demonstrates that. Others may try to make faith synonymous with belief, but that is not its original meaning. Muslims "submit" to Allah rather than have faith in Allah. The very reason for an entry here is to be precise. Broader (and less precise) colloquial meanings can be found elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:36, 20 February 2007 (EST)

:::How can they submit to Allah if they lack faith in his existence and intrinsic "better-ness?"

::If the page is to describe Faith as a "historically uniquely Christian" term, there should be some evidence provided to that effect. Otherwise, the page is less accurate, not more precise. Since the American Heritage Dictionary does not say that definition #4 is more valid than any other, there is no reason to assert that the other definitions are less accurate.

:::Neurocat, please sign your comments with the signature icon (second from the right in the row of click-on boxes).

:::A dictionary merely reflects common usage and, increasingly, political correctness. An entry here called [[Merriam-Webster]] criticizes some entries in the dictionary. You are free to post anti-Christian views but only if you support them with references. If you think there is a Muslim "faith in Allah," then you need to support your view or else the page will be reverted. By the way, the Koran does not support your view. It calls for "submission to Allah." The term "faith" is not a synomym for belief or submission.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:55, 20 February 2007 (EST)

::::I take exception to the word "merely." It's hardly a trivial job. And one of the reasons I like to cite the American Heritage dictionary here is precisely because, while not politically conservative, it was created in opposition to what was seen as the overly-permissive and overly-descriptive Merriam-Webster. A dictionary is a good starting point. Any group of people that has a sort of private definition of a word that does not match what is generally understood, it is going to be counterproductive to use that definition in discourse with others outside the group.

::::AHD says that "faith" has five meanings. People who refer to "the Muslim faith" are not wrong, they are just using meaning number 5. The article needs to be clearer on this point. For example, it could open by saying "Christian faith is a unique concept that means trust or complete confidence in something unseen. Although the word "faith" can be used to refer to any body of beliefs, other religions do not have any concept equivalent to Christian faith."

::::To insist on "faith" has having only meaning number 4 would be like insisting that the British naval power during the Napoleonic era was equal to the number of foot-pounds per minute exerted by the force of the wind on the combined area of all its sails. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:34, 21 February 2007 (EST)

::::So Christian faith is unique to Christianity? That statement is so self-evident as to be utterly moronic. It's like saying Buddha is unique to Buddhism.

:::Can you then please post a reference that cites that the original usage of the word "faith" is Christian? If you are going to call the dictionary into question as a source, you cannot selectively choose which entries you believe and which you do not believe. If you wish to cite a specific dictionary entry as incorrect, you must support that with fact. Perhaps it would be better to clarify that, in your view, the "original" meaning of the word "faith" is Christian, but current modern usage is different. After all, you do intend this to be a factual, unbiased conservapedia, not a collection of unsubstantiated right-wing beliefs. True? --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 09:48, 21 February 2007 (EST)

:::I added a common dictionary definition of faith, with reference link, to clarify the issue for readers. Furthermore, the first line of the entry seems to be unclear - if the word Faith descends from a Latin word meaning "to trust", how can the original meaning be purely Christian? Certainly the Greeks and Romans used the term to describe something other than a Christian "faith". Should we remove it? --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 10:00, 21 February 2007 (EST)

== Re: faith in other religions ==

I just edited the article and included a source on the concept of faith in Islam. A few short minutes of Googling turned up a scholarly article from the 1950s about the importance of faith to Islam. Also, does anybody know how many of the mentions of faith in the Old Testament are in the parts that make up the Torah? That would go a long way toward identifying the importance of faith in the Jewish religion.

Finally, I agree completely with those who are saying that the concept of faith is common to any theistic religion. Without any exceptions that I know of (correct me if I'm wrong), any religion that requires belief in a god requires faith, since there is no evidence for any of these gods and faith is belief in the unseen/unobservable. --[[User:Haveyouseenmypants|Haveyouseenmypants]] 18:20, 21 February 2007 (EST)

*Not a rhetorical question: how much similarity is there between the Muslim concept translated as "faith" and the Christian concept of "faith?" It seems to me that in the Arabian Nights the Caliph of Baghdad is referred to as "Defender of the Faithful," and certainly Moslems refer to non-Moslems as "Infidels" (i.e. "Unfaithful"), but I don't know that the concepts are necessarily the same. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 21 February 2007 (EST)

******Re: claim that "faith" is unique to Christianity and Bible, and word counts of "faith" in religious texts******

The author says above that “Jesus was unique in preaching the significance of faith exclusive to Christianity. No other religion is based on faith as distinguished from mere belief. Faith is mentioned 229 times in the Bible's New Testament.”

Above, where the author of the article is translating the Greek word “pivsti,” he attributes the definition to Strong’s. The definition he provides actually comes from the lexicon tool in a website called Crosswalk.com. Strong’s definition for “pivsti” (a word that was translated into English to mean “faith” in several Protestant versions of the Bible) is as follows:

3982. peitho pi'-tho a primary verb; to convince (by argument, true or false); by analogy, to pacify or conciliate (by other fair means); reflexively or passively, to assent (to evidence or authority), to rely (by inward certainty):--agree, assure, believe, have confidence, be (wax) conflent, make friend, obey, persuade, trust, yield. (Note: 3982 is the Strong’s reference number to the word “pivsti” as well. See the author’s link to Crosswalk.com above.)

Other Greek words that were translated into “faith” according to Strong’s were:

4102. pistis pis'-tis from 3982; persuasion, i.e. credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly, constancy in such profession; by extension, the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself:--assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.

4103. pistos pis-tos' from 3982; objectively, trustworthy; subjectively, trustful:--believe(-ing, -r), faithful(-ly), sure, true.

http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=greeklexicon&isindex=3982

So there is no specific link between the Greek words that were translated to mean “faith” and the author’s statement that the word “faith” only applies to Christian belief.

The English word “faith” came into usage in approximately 1250 A.D. At the time, it was used to refer to a duty, or fulfilling one’s trust. It did not at that time have a meaning related to Christian faith.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=faith&searchmode=none

In fact, the word “faith” was used to refer to all religious faiths starting in approximately 1300 A.D. The Bible was first translated into English from the Latin Vulgate in 1380, and the word “faith” came to be used to refer to the Christian faith at that time.

The etymology of the word and Strong’s definitions are quite well documented and I’ve provided links here.

The author is mistaken in the etymology of the word because, as I have shown, the word “faith” was used with other meanings before it had the meaning the author is using (as that specifically of Christian faith), including its meaning as “faith in any religious belief.” In addition, while the use of the word “faith” as meaning Christian faith may have been coined, so to speak, at the time of the earliest English translations of the Bible, the original Greek words did not mean the same thing as the current translations. The original Greek (which is the language in which the Scriptures were given to us) does not have a word that has the same definition as the word “faith” given in this entry (see Strong's). And where the author said that “No other religion is based on faith as distinguished from mere belief,” he is clearly wrong because according to Strong’s, the Greek words used in the original Scriptures actually have a meaning closer to the word “belief” than they do to the word “faith.”

==ASCHLAFLY's Unsupported Assumptions==

ASCHLAFLY, can you give any references, AT ALL, for your recent edits to the Faith entry? You keep falling back on the "Faith is Christian" concept and keep removing all the well-documented entries that demonstrate otherwise. Once and for all, do you have any evidence to back this up, or is this "Conservapedia" just a "Schlaflyapedia" documenting your opinions rather than facts? --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 13:41, 24 February 2007 (EST)

==Unlocking Faith==

I think it is time we unlocked this entry. It has so many unsupported assumptions on it as to be largely worthless. It is in desperate need of editing. --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 10:54, 26 February 2007 (EST)

== Faith is NOT unique ==

To say that the concept of "faith" is unique to Christianity is absurd, and the height of vanity. To begin with, the editors critique previous commentators who argue the non-uniqueness of Christian "Faith" by stating that they offer "no proof" that faith is NOT a uniquely Christian concept. However, the author of the article on faith (locked, Draconian fashion), states no support for the idea that "faith" IS unique to Christianity. A word count is the only proof, compared with a word count of one other holy book. That is hardly proof. Further, the originator of such an absurd idea that faith is unique to Christianity must surely have the burden of proof. In the absence of proof, discourse with any non-Christian will suffice to prove the ridiculousness of that statement.

However, proof can be clearly offered. To begin with, the author of the locked "article" on Faith suggests that "submission" to Allah is pre-eminent in Islam, displacing faith. However, faith in Allah is a necessary predicate to submission - otherwise, the submission would be worthless, if it is directed to no-one.

Further, the Roman state religion placed great import on the concept of "pietas," or "piety," which the Romans understood to include faith in the gods' good will, and the importance to daily life of satisfying the gods. A note of the importance of "pietas" in Roman life would be its prominent placement on the Clipeus Virtutis, a shield awarded to Augustus Caesar upon the First Constitutional Settlement, which noted Augustus' many virtues. Among them, "pietas" was prominently figured. (See http://www.ac-orleans-tours.fr/lang_anciennes/arapacis/images/clipeus.jpg). A second touchstone for faith in the Roman religion would be Horace's Odes (http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_horace_odes3.htm). The third book of Odes makes several mentions of "faithless foes" - suggesting that lack of faith is associated with evil, and faith therefore with the good and pious. Further, an important theme of Horace's 3d Book of Odes is the need of Rome to satisfy the Gods, demonstrating a strong faith in the relevance & role of the Gods in daily life.

I insist not only that the article on be "faith" unlocked, but that all bias be purged from this encyclopedia. You claim to to ignore any bias whatsoever, and pay heed only to the facts. However, since often the facts include a "bias" against ridiculous opinions such as this, you end up purging the facts. Please, be reasonable, for the good of the country.

:*Right something trustworthy '''CANNOT''' be biased and saying that faith is unique only to christianity is one of the most biased statements I have ever heard. {{unsigned|Cal05000}}
:: I disagree that trustworthy and biased are mutually exclusive. However, I agree that faith is not a uniquely Christian concept. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:23, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

(reset)The [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] is generally considered to contain the greatest chapter regarding "faith" in the New Testament. It points the early church, the fledgling Christians, towards the men and women of the Old Testament - Jews - and holds them up as true examples of real faith: after all, they didn't have any of the later "proofs" that Jesus demonstrated, they didn't have the "pouring out of the Holy Spirit", they never saw any "substance" of what they believed in and held dear to. The writer of the epistle singles out:
*[[Abel]], [[Enoch]] and [[Noah]]
*[[Abraham]], [[Isaac]] and [[Jacob]]
*[[Joseph]] and [[Moses]]
*[[Joshua]] and [[Rahab]]
*[[Gideon]], [[Barak]], [[Samson]] and [[Jephthah]]
*[[David]]
*[[Samuel]] and the prophets

All of these demonstrated their faith by their works. All of these were still faithful at their deaths even though they died without ever receiving proof of their faith.

Incidentally, the word "faith" is mentioned more than twice in the OT. In fact, there are at least three different Hebrew words used to convey faith: '''אמנה''' '''אמוּנה''' '''אמוּנה''' - which would seem to be contradictory if it only gets two mentions! The Old Testament is the foundation of faith upon which the New Testament stands - if there is no "faith" within the OT, then there can be none reflected in the NT, or what there is, is meaningless and superficial. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 05:26, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Tautology! ==

Also, saying that Christian faith is a uniquely Christian concept is a tautology. You can't reject other people's arguments that other religions define "faith," by saying, "well, not in the same way Christianity does," and concluding "therefore faith is unique to Christianity."

FAITH is not unique to Christianity.

CHRISTIAN FAITH is obviously, by definition, unique to Christianity, but again, this is mere tautology. 1 = 1. Congratulations.

== Main Page ==

Note that the following is still on Conservapedia's main page, forming part of the casual visitor's initial impression: "Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept? Add to the explanation of what it means, and how it does not exist on other religions." [[User:Moioci|Moioci]] 05:09, 1 March 2007 (EST)
:Romans 10:17:
:Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. [[User:ChristianFaith|ChristianFaith]] 15:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

==Bad, bad, bad==
This article isn't just bad. It's brilliantly bad. Outstandingly bad. It is a paradigmatic example of bad. If this is the kind of writing that this project is going to promote, then the project should be shelved.

==Alternate version==

'''Faith''' (from Greek-''pistis'' and Latin-''fides'') refers to confidence, trust, and hope in a [[God]], person, community, tradition, or another locus of inspiration. The object of faith varies among people, but the common denominator is a level of conviction and an inner attitude towards a greater power or force in the universe. Etymologically, the word 'faith' is closely linked to the concept of "fidelity," which emphasizes commitment to something or someone. Thus, faith is often understood to mean 'loyalty' to a particular view of [[divinity]], and allegiance to a particular religious community and it's cognate [[doctrine]]s. Yet, faith can also be envisioned more broadly as a trust in [[providence]], and has been used as a synonym for religion, such as in the [[Buddhist]] faith or the [[Christian]] faith.

Faith is an important aspect of the world religions, and a common theme of human religiosity. According to Christian tradition, faith is one of the gifts of the [[Holy Spirit]] that provides impetus for humanity to move forward, and is said to be especially important when one encounters obstacles in life. For many people, faith or the lack thereof, is an important part of their overall identities.

==(Lack of?) Faith in Science==

I have argued this point many times among non-believers, but most religious people will maintain that science requires a larger leap of faith than religion. Do you think this debate merits inclusion/referral in this article? --[[User:Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 11:12, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:I would agree that things like evolution and the Big Bang require a greater "leap of faith", but not science. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::Given the strictest definition of science, is it possible to seperate these two concepts from that definition? However I agree, the theoretical nature of both "evolution" and the Big Bang do require the greatest leap of faith. Continuing in this vein however, how do we know that many other aspects of scientific study are not also contrived fallacies? Man once believed the Earth was flat because of thousands of years of precedent. What shall we deam "science" in another thousand years in contrast to acts of God? These concepts are worthy of inclusion in the article. --[[User:Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 11:26, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Given the strictest definition of science, is it possible to call evolution and the Big Bang science? Both are attempts to explain what happened in the past, and we cannot observe the past, cannot run tests on the past, and cannot reproduce those events. And those are the sorts of things required for science.
:::But as you will see from the [[natural science]] article, differences between things that are "operational science" and others that are "origins science" mean that you cannot extend that question to many other areas of science, such as medicine, chemistry, physics, etc.
::: The idea that man once believed that the Earth was flat is itself largely an urban myth. Sure, there were ''some'' people that thought that, but we know that the ancient Greeks knew the Earth to be round, and that almost everybody else since thought that also (and perhaps everyone before for all we know). The idea that the [[flat Earth]] belief was widespread has been shown to be an evolutionist invention to discredit creationists.
:::Given those points, I think that you musings about science in the future are largely without foundation.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Where has it been shown that the idea that the [[flat Earth]] belief was widespread has been shown to be an evolutionist invention to discredit creationists? --[[User:Vincentvincent|Vincentvincent]] 07:26, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: See [[Flat Earth]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:42, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

There is only one area of science in which "faith" is required. That the universe and everything in it follow a set of naturalistic laws which can be predicted and understood, though there are some we are still working on. However, this "faith" is backed up by the fact that the universe has always, so far as we currently know, followed a set of laws. If you have no faith in this premise then a 5 minute old universe in which all our memories have been fabricated by god becomes a possibility and science goes out the window. A 5 minute old universe, by the way, is logically just as likely as one less than 15 billion years old.

To reject the theory of evolution requires more faith than to accept it because of all the evidence for the theory which must also be rejected. Face it, based on genetics, it is statistically impossible for us to not share a common ancestor with all other mammals... Unless you think the earth is 5 minutes old and everything is a trick by god... now that requires a lot of faith... but no more than is required to believe in a 6000 year old earth or a virgin birth.

== Faith in Literature ==

I agree with Phillip that this section is suspect. Taking the real life information and incorporating it into the article is one thing, but noting ways faith has been viewed in literary works seems to be out of place. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:03, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== Biblical Examples ==
I felt that an Old Testament example would be in order. I would like to include some pictures as it would look better than this "dry" page that we have here.

[[User:ChristianFaith|ChristianFaith]] 15:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

== Multiple definitions of faith ==

All: Not sure who's watching this page, but I want to make sure I touch base with folks before I dive in. I'd like to introduce multiple uses of the word "faith" to the article. Specifically:
* Faith as loyalty (Faithful to a spouse, or to God)
* Faith as trust (I have faith that you will do what you say, or that God will)
* Faith as a trust in the fundamental good (as the article now articulates)
* Faith as hanging on to your reason when emotion seeks to overwhelm it (per C.S. Lewis).
I'd also like to introduce and analyze the typical nontheist definition of faith -- "Believing without evidence," and to show that ''this'' concept of faith is absent from the Bible -- i.e. nobody in the Bible believed without evidence -- they all had overwhelming evidence for belief (as do Christians today) -- so faith must mean something else.

Any objections? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:03, 4 September 2007 (EDT)

I have always seen that faith means that one KNOWS not beliefs something is true without any proof. It does not matter if one is saying that I know that Christ died for my sins, or that I know there is one God but Allah and Muhammad is his profit, or that I know that Zeus may send lighting bolt down on me, or that I know that there is no God or gods. [[User:Pibu|Pibu]] 23:58, 10 November 2007 (EST)

=="Faith is a uniquely Christian concept"==

So faith isn't a concept in any other religion? ...could somebody please just clear this up? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 11:20, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

== Kierkegaard ==

I think a good source to use would be the works of Kierkegaard. His "leap to faith" discourses are wonderful and are a great supplement to faith/existentialism. [[User:Probus1|Probus1]]

== Faith as loyalty based on past performance ==

Ed left an unsigned comment awhile back that describes an alternative view of faith, that is in fact described in the external link to JP Holding's site at the bottom of the page. This theologically argues that faith in the biblical sense is to be described as loyalty based on past performance. Perhaps this should be mentioned somewhere in the article. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:42, 24 December 2007 (EST)

== Arrogance ==

That Christianity is the only religion with the concept of faith in it is one of the most arrogant claims I have ever heard. We can start by discussing the opening statement.

"Faith is a uniquely Christian concept referring to a confidence or trust in a greater good as provided by the Lord."

First, this statement claims that faith in anything is a Christian concept that was invented by the Christians. It claims that no other religion or philosophy has or have ever had any sort of faith in a greater good.

This implies that my own great personal faith in humanity as a whole is non-existant. I have no faith in humanity's capability of rational thinking, nor any faith in realizing my own and others potential to do good. Beliefs that are not rooted in any religious faith but instead by observation of humanity's history and characters that have done both terrible and wonderful things.

My own and others faith that are outside the Christian belief system are simply to be discarded as something that is irrellevant.

(as a side note please pardon any spelling mistakes, I'm Norwegian and thus realize that coming to this English speaking site might seem a bit odd, but it seems that you might need some foreign opinions on this site from time to time) Posted by: [[User:Toby|toby]]

Social Democracy

2008-03-29T03:25:40Z

Toby:

'''Social democracy''' is an ideology of the political Left that emerged from [[socialism]] in the earlier part of the twentieth century. Unlike its cousin [[Communism]], which seeks to destroy [[capitalism]] by (violent) revolution and replace it with a different social and economic system, social democracy seeks to subject capitalism to regulation and governmental intervention in order to remedy its alleged deficiencies.

It is generally considered that the international Left split into two distinct camps after the [[Russian Revolution]] of 1917. Members of the more extreme factions around the world, which sought to achieve radical societal change through revolution, became known as ''[[communists]]'', while members of the less extreme factions, which sought to pursue gradual change through the democratic system, became known as ''social democrats''. The roots of these divisions, in fact, long preceded 1917: [[Marxist]]s, for example, had called for violent revolution in the nineteenth century, while more moderate parties such as the [[British]] [[Labour Party]] had never espoused such ideas. Austrian economist [[Friedrich Hayek]] writing in 1945 observed, "To many who have watched the transition from socialism to [[fascism]] at close quarters the connection between the two systems has become increasingly obvious, but in the democracies the majority of people still believe that socialism and [[freedom]] can be combined. They do not realize that democratic socialism, the great [[utopia]] of the last few generations, is not only unachievable, but that to strive for it produces something utterly different – the very destruction of freedom itself. <ref>[http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-publication43pdf?.pdf ''Road to Serfdom'',] Friedrich A. Hayek, Reader's Digest Condensed Version, April 1945, pg. 36.</ref>

On one definition, social democrats continue to have the ultimate objective of achieving full socialism, albeit by peaceful means. Others prefer to call such people "democratic socialists" (though ''non''-democratic, violent socialism continues to exist in various parts of the world), and reserve the term "social democrats" for those who would be content with a society comprising a mixture of capitalist and socialist elements (for example, an economy in which a market operates, but with sizeable governmental intervention, and in which enterprise is possible, but business is subjected to high taxes).

Many parties in economically developed nations have espoused social democratic beliefs, including the [[Labour Party]] in the [[United Kingdom]], the [[SPD]] in [[Germany]], the Social Democratic Parties in [[Norway]], [[Sweden]] and [[Finland]], the [[New Democratic Party]] in Canada, and the [[Australian Labor Party]]. Social democratic beliefs are also found in parts of the American [[Democratic Party]], and some European and South American [[Christian democracy|Christian Democratic]] parties have resemblences to social democratic parties.

Since the 1980s, a number of social democratic parties have moved away from the territory of the traditional Left and have accepted greater elements of free-market, capitalistic thought. The principal example of this phenomenon is the British Labour Party under [[Tony Blair]], while other examples include the [[Australian]] Labor Party under [[Bob Hawke]] and [[Paul Keating]], and the German SPD under [[Gerhard Schroeder]].

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

Talk:Socialism

2008-03-07T00:06:51Z

Toby:

"This correlates with a rise in atheism," I think it should be noted that correlation does not show causation. What is the correlation coefficient? Is there a positive or a negative correlation?
-Gasmonkey

"Socialism has caused more deaths…" What, really? A reference would go great with that opinion. --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Laughable bias ==

"Leading European Socialists are very critical of America."

Of America? Of the american government? Some of the american governments? Some of the american goverments policies? American corporations? American food? American anti-americans? American republicans, democrats, liberals, jews, muslims, african americans, hispanics? I assume you mean all those things since you just say America? Do you have a valid point somewhere buried under that mountain of prejudice and generalisation? [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 15:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Also, the source that backs it up mentions America ''once''.

' One thing is clear: the unilateral military style approach of the Bush-administration has failed'

I'm removing it with the ridiculous 'vastly superior' remark. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

[[User:AmeriCan]] keeps reverting my edits saying that it stresses the rights of the many over the priveliges of the few, as opposed to vice versa. I'm tired of edit warring and don't want to get blocked for something that is not worth it. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 01:32, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Okay, this article is just [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialism&diff=next&oldid=135051 ridiculous]. I give up. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:49, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
== Incentives ==

I couldn't find anywhere in this article where socialism lacks incentives. Should I add it in? The lack of incentives is a crucial reason to why socialism doesn't work in societies. [[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 01:40, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

This article's lack of knowledge is laughable and as an evil limey toothéd bastard who can spell things right (color=LOL) who is also a European Socilaist who is critical of America (the whole world is socialist by that standard) I must correct this issue.
LOL at the moron who re-edited my work, they do not know history well enough to try and battle me over Atlee.

== "Socialist" Britain ==

Rob, re your revision to Socialism. First, you make a large assumption about how socialist New Labour is (they aren't), second, the Conservatives would be far less likely to change the rules than any Socialist party, partly because thirdly, it would require disestablisment of the Church of England, which in any case could almost certainly not be achieved in the ten years New Labour have been in power, even if it was something they intended to do. Based on this I think the phrase "Socialist Britain" is inappropriate and removing it would not be liberal bias. In fact, retaining it is conservative bias. --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:23, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:So the Socialists do not oppose religious discriminition then? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:30, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Which socialists? New Labour do - they have in fact introduced legislation outlawing discrimination based on religious belief. But as I said - they're not Socialists in the sense that you would use. And as the article says - Catholics are not barred from being Prime Minister. They are barred from holding one of the ceremonial offices associated with the post - an office which could be renounced without having any impact on the powers intrinsic to the post of Prime Minister.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::This article gives a glowing description of what Socialism has done for Britian since 1945; it does not differentiate between Brand X Socialism and Brand Z; together, whatever stripe, along with all those great things they've done, you'd think eliminating bigotry would be high on the list. Must be a case where they are willing to compromise their principles in exchange for real political power. Nonetheless, they never stop talking about things like oppression, etc. Oh, I forgot, people who beleive in God are fair game for discrimination -- that's one of the basic tenets of Socialism. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Socialism in Britain has done more to eliminate bigotry in Britain than any other movement. In fact so much that it is accused of political correctness. That this singular example remains is not an indictment of socialism - in fact that such a small example seems to raise your ire so much shows just how far bigotry has been eliminated.

::::People who believe in God are not discriminated against in this case. Adherants to '''any faith or denomination''' except Catholic are eligible; and the restriction to Catholics applies only to one essentially irrelevant ceremonial office associated with the post. Can you please address the points I make in the way I have yours?--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::So Britian, under various Socialist governments since 1945, has continued to discriminate against Roman Catholics. Why should this be surprising? It is very much in keeping with Socialist doctrine. And we can certainly conclude, Socialism ''does not'' respect equality. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:04, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Everything you say can be repeated for Conservatism in this case, and you continue to ignore all of my points. Forget it.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 16:08, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Ignore which points? Are arguing discrimination against Catholics is not discrimination? Why? Because they're Catholic? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: I have to reiterate Olly's point here. I live in Britain, and I know that the Labour Party, since the [[Third Way]] (the third way, see? Not socialism, not conservatism, but a middle), is not a socialist party. ergo, blaming discrimination on socialists is false. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::::::::: I rarely comment on politics but I have to agree with the British users here (being one myself). The Labour Party ceased to be a socialist party with the move to becoming New Labour (their proper title) and the implementation of the [[Third Way]]. New Labour seem to be in the strange position of trying to appeal to both the left and the right at the same time with neither Conservative nor Liberal values other than those required to win the popular vote. What is more worrying to the British conservative is that the Conservative Tory party seem to be following the same path required to win the mass vote leaving Britain in the strange position that both our main left and right parties have moved to the centre leaving nothing that would reflect either conservative or liberal views other than some rather, errr, I'll be polite here and say odd, fringe political groups such as the detestable BNP (no policies other than those of racism) and the pointless UKIP (too insular by far). Socialism has been dead since Labour morphed into New Labour (best described as a "Labour scented party") and traditional conservatism seems to be following the same path --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 17:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:: new labour is certainly not socialist in nature! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I have to confess, I get lost in leftist ideological fever swamps. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: I have no idea what that means but nothing about modern britain or it's govt fits anything that resembles "socialism" in any significant manner - fees and loans for students, PFI, Invasion of iraq etc etc. The current govt is actually further to the right in many ways that Mrs. T government! was Thatch a socialist! I think not! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: Similarly, our Conservative party is no longer traditional conservatism. Think two parties both using the same elastic ideologies to chase the same fickle voters and appeal to conservative and liberal alike and there you have recent British politics. No left or right, just two sets of "middle". --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Yep. I was just reading how Socialist leaders in Britian send their kids to private schools. Very similiar to American liberals -- who then give us the Cain vs Abel speil about getting even with the rich! [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Which socialist leaders? You mean the leader of the socialist workers party? I doubt it. I'm really struggling to understand what's going on here - Britain does not have a socialist government and if the catholic thing is meant to be an indication of socialist discrimination then Mrs. Thatcher was a socialist because she did nothing about it either! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Here. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1970902,00.html] At least now we know why Blair's popularity has shrunk; it's not the War in Iraq, it's all those compassionate liberals and socialists who found out he was thinking of converting to Catholicism. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/15/ncath15.xml] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

eh? Do you think this is a big issue in the UK? That someone is a catholic? Can I suggest in a friendly manner that maybe your understanding of the UK is slightly lacking and you are looking at it via the lens of the US? I'll leave it at that stage because you want the article to say that Britain is a socialist nation and as a sysop - well you win straight out of the box. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:38, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:It was somebody elses idea to trumpet the glories of British Socialism, whatever for. What is obvious from this is, Socialist do not care at all about equality and human rights. It's simply fraud to pretend that they do. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Thing is, we have no true socialist leaders or true conservatives anymore. Ideology is dead, long live chasing after anyone that will vote for you. And I come from a very long line of Catholics who were also passionate supporters of the NHS, minimum wages and other socialist ideals. I happen to be Christian and Conservative but there are many good Christians who hold to what are considered socialist values. Many many many shades of grey here. Very hard to pin down to a few neat paragraphs. One thing holds true though, New Labour are not and never were Socialist. This is why most of my extended family stopped voting Labour as they felt it was a betrayal of their values. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:48, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::The only limitation that Blair would face if he became a Catholic would be that he would be unable to suggest the appointment of Bishops in the Church of England to the Crown. This restriction came about from the Catholic Relief Act of 1829, which repealed earlier laws outlawing Catholic participation in voting and government. There is also a law prohibiting the King or Queen from being a Catholic or married to a Catholic, the Act of Settlement of 1701. British anti-Catholic laws have nothing to do with Socialism or the Labour party, but instead are due to the English Civil War, the Restoration, and resistance by Protestant Britain to Catholic rule. The Act of Settlement and that provision of the Catholic Relief Act aren't still in force due to strong anti-Catholic sentiment in Britain, but just due to inertia and the fact that the law doesn't really come up. I don't think it's true to say that these restrictions have anything at all to do with socialism in Britain, either currently or historically.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 18:50, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::This BBC article quotes Blair, "changing the law would be hugely complicated involving changes to nine different pieces of legislation." [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/529227.stm] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:13, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

We still have a great number of old laws that technically still apply (policemen in certain counties are still supposed to walk in the gutter for example) that no one adheres to, very few remember and no one cares to repeal due to the fact that they are archaic and pretty much forgotten. Hardly tantamount to discrimination, more a quirk of history. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Right...that's my point. I'm agreeing with you. It's an old law that has never been changed because it's never been an issue.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 19:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Would it be more correct to rephrase the final sentence in this article thus. "''In Britain, Catholics are discriminated against by being barred from holding certain offices associated with the post of Prime Minister. These offices can be renounced without any practical inhibition to the powers of the post, but no government, socialist or otherwise has done so since 1829."'' Or better yet, remove it. Or am I just tired from a long day down t'pit? --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:07, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Sounds good, but we should add, "a reform measure was voted down as recently as 1999." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:16, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Well, the 1999 reform measure you're citing doesn't have anything to do with religious restrictions of the Prime Minister...just religious restrictions for the monarch. But, still, I don't really see what this has to do with socialism.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 23:52, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::It evidently isn't that easy. Blair says it affects nine pieces of legislation, some it appears affecting his office. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:08, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

If that is the case then please do. No shame in the truth providing all governments since 1829 share the blame equally. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:20, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Go ahead and do it. That is indeed how a democracy works, even when socialists are dominant. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:47, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

My only issue with making these amendments to an article on Socialism is that, as all governments since 1829 are complicit in this lack of reform, it is no longer purely a Socialist issue and, as such, should have no place here. I'd like other people's views on this but, as it is not soley a Socialist failing, I think the entire reference to this Catholic discrimination should be removed. Other people, the floor is yours ; ) --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I think this section illustrates the folly of applying a US conservative-liberal axis to the political culture of other countries. There's an interesting article to be written about socialism in Britain but it doesn't belong in an article that puts anyone who supports universal health care in the same camp as Stalin and Hitler.--[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 01:05, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yes and no. It all depends on the conduct of the British Socialists. Name calling, and outrageous assertions can be a two way street. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:13, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Hang on a minute. The information about the Act of Settlement is correct, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism. What on earth is it doing here? If nobody else removes it I will.

how are catholics discriminate against by labour? there are catholic schools funded by the state, the only part of the UK that discriminates against catholics is Northern Ireland and if you called men like paisley a socialist he'd knock your teeth out.[[User:Foxley|Foxley]] 15:18, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:How many decades over the past century has the labour/left coalition dominated British politics? Why haven't they acted on this? Being the self-appointed defenders of the oppressed and against injustice, how come no one speaks up?

:We don't have to look far to see how deeply rooted and respectable anti-Catholicism is in British culture. Why, one of the ''Beatles'' greatest hits, ''Lady Madonna'' is a celebration of despicable anti-Catholic attitudes & stereotypes. And several Beatles have been, if recollection serves me correct, Knighted for their achievements and service. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:47, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Right. Just one Beatle -- Paul -- has been knighted and both he and John Lennon were themselves raised as Catholics. I really don't think Lady Madonna can be seriously regarded as a criticism of ANYTHING.
:Read the lyrics. [http://www.lyrics007.com/The%20Beatles%20Lyrics/Lady%20Madonna%20Lyrics.html] George Harrison, too. John Lenin didn't live long enough, and everybody knows Ringo's a bit slow. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:48, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:Facts are, for all criticism of the US, the treatment of Catholics, by law, in Great Britain, as second class citizens, or the open, naked prejudice and ridicule they suffer, would never ever be tolerated in the United States. And truth be told, there is anti-Catholic prejudice in the US, but nothing like the respectability it has gained over the centuries in Great Britain. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:54, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

What do you mean "George Harrison too"? Are you under some delusion that he, too, was knighted. You are wrong. All of them did, of course, get MBEs, though Lennon -- "Lenin"? Oh, you are SO witty -- returned his in protest at the Vietnam War. As for Lady Madonna, speaking as an Irish Catholic myself, I am flabbergasted that you could regard this as a recognisable criticism of that community.
:Read the lyrics. I was raised Catholic but left the Church many years ago. But I ''still'' get deeply offended by the blatant intent, and ridicule of the message in that song. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:15, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::Paul McCartney, a lapsed Catholic, said he wrote ''Lady Madonna'' in response to seeing a photograph of a woman and child entitled ''Mountain Madonna''.[http://www.iamthebeatles.com/article1208.html] It's bizarre to read an anti-Catholic sentiment into that song -- it's an expression of sympathy for a struggling mother. In answer to an earlier question you posed Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years and has traditionally enjoyed strong support from Catholics[http://www.ipsos-mori.com/publications/rmw/the-catholic-vote.shtml]; The greatest opposition to changing the constitution to allow a Catholic monarch comes from traditionalist Conservatives who want to retain the privileges of the Church of England. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 13:21, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Sympathy? On what planet? ''Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years'' {{fact}} And we are really discussing Socialists here, and their record of being defenders of the "oppressed", and rectifying injustice. Even if it's only 30 years, what is the record of rectifying this injustice? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:01, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::::Sigh.[http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/pm.htm] Catholics in Britain have traditionally favoured Labour for a number of reasons, not least of which is that Labour has been more sympathetic towards Nationalism and the Conservatives more sympathetic to Unionism -- it's more to do with green vs. orange than red vs. blue. Perhaps we could have a cite for the "oppression" that has somehow escaped the attention of those living in Britain who have contributed to this thread? --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 15:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::Cough. Sneeze. [http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA992.htm][http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article512736.ece] Thank God she's not a Catholic. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

== DAB's version ==

DAB's version on 'succesful socialism' has already resisted 9 minutes. How long before a SysOp comes? I guess someone will be blocked for a long long time... (and no, I have no affiliation with DAB)[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 13:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Let's not get carried away here, please ==
The picture at the very top of the page right away makes a direct visual attachment of communism and socialism as if they are one in the same. As the vast majority of editors and sysops here are quite cleary well educated people, I am shocked that the picture in question remains. Communism is not the equal of socialism, nor is the reverse true either. Communism is socialism taken to the far extreme. For example, Finland is socialist, but try labeling them communists and see what happens, lol... I'm all for removing that picture, and perhaps replacing it with something more indicative of socialism in general rather than Marxism/Leninism/Communism in specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:35, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:Oh, umhh, I see. Care to explain how [[Hitler]] was misunderstood, too? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:39, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::Rob, he never said anything about "misunderstanding" the ideology. He made the valid point that socialism and communism are ''not'' the same thing. Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. They are socialist, but ''not'' communist. Do you wish to dispute that? This conversation had nothing to do with Hitler. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:50, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Pardon me for not wading into a [[leftist]] ideological fever swamp, but I really don't care to decipher the degrees of complicity in [[democide]] based upon an avowed [[atheistic]] philosophy. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::::So then don't contribute to the article. Your responses do not address the complaints, but rather your refusal to accept anything other than what you think you already know. Your defense for completely screwing up the distinction between two ideologies is a refusal to even ''attempt'' to understand the distinction. That makes ''perfect'' sense. I'd be glad to wade into that "leftist ideological fever swamp" for you, Rob, seeing how scared you are of it. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:13, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
We are not in the position of advocating, defending, or apologizing for [[democidal]] ideologies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:18, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:No, we are in the position to write an '''encyclopedia article''' about them. And saying that communism and socialism are identical ideologies is completely false. Once again, you change your reasons for wanting to include the misleading picture. How is being factual "apologetic", "advocating for", or "defending" socialism? Are you suggesting we deliberatly mislead readers? And the ideology is not democidal. Last I heard, Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. don't commit democide. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:27, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Quite so Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ. If I seek to distinguish between a shark and a barracuda I am not taking sides with either. Rob seems pathologically incapable of listening to reason and seems to view any considered response of this subject to be an act of Marxist-Leninist subversion. Ignore him.

RobS it appears you misunderstood what I was saying and clearly the fault is on me as I should have explained my position better.My apologies on giving the impression that I was apologizing for communism. Was not my intention. I think however you should really think about what Hojimachong is saying though, since he has explained it perfectly =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:33, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

:: I went ahead and removed the picture in question. I do apologize to you RobS however, in truth it was misleading and out of place. It would PERFECT for the article on Communism, or articles about the old Soviet Union and presently existing communist regimes. But this is the socialism page. Let me put it this way: Having that picture represent socilism in general is like making an article about the primary colors and only showing blue. It is misleading. But this is in no way a reflection of any supposed sympathy for communism in specific or even socialism in general. And as for democide, well, isn't that getting a bit off track? I know one of the key principles of communism is an athiestic society, but that's all part of the package, I don't see how making your major argument revolve around democide makes sense. Also, again, that's communist specific. There are SOCIALIST countries that are Christian by LAW, as a STATE RELIGION (something that America has avoided as we all know), regardless of the denomination. So applying democide to socialism is another exercise in ignorance. But I digress; I simply removed a misleading graphic. I would like to add something more illustrative of socialism in general, however while I could find such a thing, I sadly am not well versed in editing yet, specificaly when it comes to posting images. Yes, that IS a call for help by the way, =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
:::That's odd, I thought the name of the state Stalin & Lenin presided over was, "The Union of Soviet '''Socialist''' Republics, not "the Union of Soviet Communist Republics". I must have been sleeping in class again the day they set that straight, I guess. [[User:RobS|RobS]]
00:23, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::::"What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell just as sweet," or in this case "would be just as red." hahaha, sorry, bad joke. But here is my response: That was simply a name. If I call a ka-bar a fluffy teddy bear, does that make it any less lethal a weapon? No. Granted, the USSR itself may not have been total communism, however it was far closer to communism than it was to the "ordinary" socialist idealology that spawned it. As I stated earlier, "socialism" is a generalism, while "communism," "USSR," etc. are specifics. If you're talking about a broad issue like socialism, it's not academically responsible to, whether accidently or otherwise, make the specific general broad issue appear to others as nothing more than one single specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:38, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

If you have two children, and the children are quite different from one another in most respcts, but naturally they are both YOUR children, do you take any more pride in the one, than you do the other? Is socialism nothing more than communism that spawns from it? Of your two hypothetical children, does only one of them represent you? [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:43, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::As a side note, I truly do believe in at least replacing that image, and I do notice it is back up, though I'd rather not take it back down again unless some sort of consensus is reached or I get solid support for my argument. I do not wish to be accused of starting an edit war or seem like I have a vendetta against RobS now :) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:52, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
Also I am pleased to see the "different strands of socialism" section. I completely support that. The existence of that section lends even more to my argument that that graphic on the socialism article in general ought to be removed. The section listing different strands of socialism clearly indicates the author knows communism is not the entirety of socialism. So why the communist specific graphic? =)

Just to go back to socialism and atheism for a minute, while it's true that Marxist Communism certainly is atheistic, socialism isn't neccesarily. In fact, there was a strong Christian Socialist movement in Britain in the 19th century that helped lead to the British Labour party, and there was certainly a Jewish Socialist movement that contributed to the Zionist movement.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 01:22, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:Very good points Steve! [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 01:25, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

==Compromise?==
RobS, I would greatly apreciate it if you would take a look at my most recent edit. I didnot remove the graphic. I did however edit the text in the caption slightly, in that I added a bitmore detail which makes it less misleading, in my opinion, and I would greatly value your thoughts on this =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 04:53, 25 June 2007 (EDT) (anyone else reading also lol)

::Well scratch that. It seems Fox has provided a graphic that suits the article. Cheers to Fox, good find and good edit. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:54, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::RobS if you gave up debating I do not see the virtue in reverting Fox's edit. His picture makes much more sense than the previous. I reverted it back to HIS. You seem to want to cram your opinion down peoples's throats. On the other hand, Fox and I and many others would rather have this be accurate and academic. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 02:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm no supporter of Socialism by any means, but I genuinely feel this image is more illustrative for the article's subject, particularly as the main body sems to concentrate on British socialism. I know how easy it can be to choose an image to make a general point rather than to illustrate the point of the article - you should see the dozens of pics I'm itching to use to illustrate Israel's fight for survival - but I resist the temptation to use them because: we all accept that articles here are going to be representative of a broadly, if only small "c", conservatism, so using a soviet commie poster to illustrate the article is somewhat like cracking hazelnuts with a sledgehammer. Welded to an anvil. :D [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:17, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

::::Agreed. That's how I felt on it. I'm not a supporter of socialism either, but I do support sticking to the point, rather than the point of view. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

==Inaccurate==
The article currently lists Tony B.liar as the Prime Minister. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

*No points given for something that only happened earlier today, Fox! ROFL! We can change it when you know who the new man is, eh? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:10, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
::LoL - I would have changed it, but it was protected. The new <strike>village idiot</strike> PM is [[Gordon Brown]]. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:47, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Check your offline Yahoo's. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:13, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Poor Move ==
I am saddened to see the page is locked for editing after being reverted back to misleading picture. This is quite unfortunate and I am afraid it will refelect poorly for CP. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 19:02, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== This article lacks a basic understanding of what socialism is ==

This article begins by stating.

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the capital, and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government nomenklatura that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.

There are a number of things wrong with this. It seems like the author has failed to actually read socialist tracts. I will try to list most of the fallacies I see offhand.

1. "are seized and monopolized by the government" this phrase betrays a lack of knowledge about how socialism views the state. For example, "means of production" aren't seized, and cannot be seized. The worker is a human being not a commodity or "capital". As a human being he is a part of the state. Finally, Marxism actually is anti-state and in the culmination of the dialectical processes would lead to its removal. (Also, no mention of Hegelian dialectics are present in the article. This is a key point concerning socialism. To abandon the dialectic is similar to discussing Christianity without the crucifixion.)
:So the human being is an [[untermensch]], state property, and without rights, correct? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
2. The authors seem to fail to realize that there are vast differences within socialism just as there are within Christianity e.g. Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism...etc each differing vastly but similar in appearance to an outsider.
:True; Jesse Jackson for example, may be described as a God-fearing Socialist. Problem is, we need more sources. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::In Wikipedia one may find: ''Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state... A diverse array of doctrines and movements have been referred to as "socialist." '' --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 01:53, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

::*Well, Wikipedia is never an acceptable source or citation at CP, so perhaps another definition can be found, Joaquín. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:31, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

3. The statement that "religion is the opium of the masses" is taken out of context. It wasn't meant to be a pejorative statement. The common misunderstanding of this quote is that religion is a tool used by the state to force an otherwise unruly population into line through fear, propaganda, religious mysticism, and thus religion is ultimately evil.
:So under this theory, the state gets people hooked on narcotics in order to control them. Thanks for clarifying that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
The actual meaning is that religion is created by the people for the people as an expression of their desire for some form of justice in an evil world. This may be viewed through a Christian perspective of mankind longing for God and thereby creating rituals and religion etc.. to reach Him.
:Ok, so then Marxism or Socialism (or whatever code word you wish to use), Socialists seek to restrict the fundemental, God-given, [[human right]] of [[worship]]. Further, this an excellent example of [[leftist]]s seeking to impose ''their'' [[morality]] on the rest of us, is it not? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Really, the major lack of information concerning Hegel's influence and the respective influence of the French, Germans, and British on Marx as he lived throughout Europe in his formulation of his ideas (French utopianism etc...) suggest an overly simplified method of viewing socialism.
:Yes, I understand. It truelly is a more intellectual exercise than we give it credit for. [[Charles Manson]] wasn't much of an intellectual, but his recruiting talents and demonstrated abilities to persuade young minds would have made a valuable member of the [[nomenklatura]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
It is a multifaceted philosophy and this article does it great injustice by explaining it in terms you would have expected from a farmboy filled with American propaganda from the 1950s.
:Multifacted. Yes. Some advocate murder and lawlessness, others only certain degrees of it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Socialism does not necessarily attempt to create a manmade utopia atheistically (some forms have however). Instead, the historical process is viewed as evolving. Just as the Roman system of government worked better than the Greeks, and feudalism evolved from that. In turn industrialized capitalistic colonial government worked better than feudalism. None of these forms of government were perfect but in every case they were better (arguably worse depending on whose perspective you take.) Similarly, socialism is ultimately a democratic movement wherein the workers (i.e. the means of production) cease to be exploited by the privelaged classes.
:Marxist mumbo-jumbo. Feudalism was at one time the solution to mankinds problems of homelessness and unemployment, and other social problems. Conservapedia is not interested in spewing more Marxist trash to another generation. We need some straight forward reporting on human history. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Also, one last misconception is that socialism is against private property or the earning of wages. It is quite the opposite small business men were sympathetically viewed by Marx as ultimately destroyed by the industry (Analogy: mom and pop stores being eaten by Walmart). Socialism is often viewed as a welfare state, but Marx's view was contrary to this. He viewed the owners of corporations etc... as those who benefited from the welfare of the production made by those who worked. Thus, the worker (means of production) produced and the owner (businessman) consumed.
:So we are back to the issue of [[Economic planning]]; yes, we are working on that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
This article expresses a really uneducated opinion. I'm not claiming socialism is the greatest thing ever. I'm not denying communism and thus mass murders and authoritarian government came from it. But its a logical fallacy to claim that socialism is therefore wrong. Take the French Revolution. Maximillian Robespierre was a democrat and the revolution was a democratic one and yet it is known as the Reign of Terror. Is democracy evil? Also, consider Christianity and the crusades, the inquisition, the wars fought between the reformationists and the Catholics. Is Christianity therefore wrong?
:The revolution was democratic? Yes, and as our sources show, violating price controls set by economic planning boards was a capital offense warranting the guillotine. Glad to see democracy works. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
You do yourself and the reader great injustice. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 15:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:Good luck, son. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::I don't understand. Are you saying the French radicals in charge of the Reign of Terror were not liberals (in the international sense) who were in favor of a democracy as opposed to the monarchy? How novel and how very uninformed. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:21, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::Please don't debate me within my own text it's hard to respond. Concerning the opium statement if you actually read my sentence I said that's the common misconception.
:::There's little evidence the French Revolution was "democratic;" it was a lynch mob that turned on each other. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
"So the human being is an [[untermensch]], state property, and without rights, correct?"

No that's incorrect Marx actually wrote of the end of the concept of statehood. I get the notion that you believe Communism is socialism and you have a limited understanding of what Marx wrote. Concepts such as government, statehood, etc.. are absent from socialism as a philosophy. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:26, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Bukharin read Marx correct; he saw through the fraud. While I do not advocate or agree with Bukharin's philosophy, as an eyewitness, his historical reporting on Marx is accurate. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
You say I'm using code words. That would be similar to me denying Christianity on the grounds that I find the Pope offensive. When you claim that not all Christians are Catholics I accuse you of using propaganda and code words.

Please be a bit more rational. I am not a Marxist propagandist. I am a Christian. I feel like this article could use a little more truth in it and little less of the common American anti-communism uninformed dialogue in it. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:28, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::What's so uninformed? Americans have stood on the sidelines and watched how Socialism has ravaged other contintents with [[democide]], and have clearly articlated a [[foreign policy]] to oppose it. Yes, Socialism has made vast inroads in the [[public school]]s, [[media]], entertainment, and [[law]]. But American foreign policy for decades has been fairly consistent in opposing it, despite opposition and subversion along the way. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

:::What are you talking about? Which continent was ravaged by SOCIALISM? SOCIALISM NOT COMMUNISM. THEY ARE DIFFERENT. READ A BOOK, PLEASE, AND LEARN A LITTLE. Are you talking about Europe and Canada? Two very SOCIALIST places, or are you talking about Russia and China two very COMMUNIST places.

:::The Reign of Terror was a DEMOCRATIC revolution. Communism came from socialism but it is NOT socialism. The Reign of Terror was founded on liberal ideas like anti-monarchy, freedom of speech, democracy, BUT IT WAS NOT DEMOCRACY. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 17:02, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

==British socialism==
The second paragraph of the British socialism section should be removed. It really has nothing to do with socialism (though some of it might be useful in a different article). Additionally the sentence describing how Catholics are barred from certain offices appears to be untrue, or at least misleading. The "offices" in question are the mostly ceremonial positions of Monarch and spouse. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:42, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:oh, so you don't deny the existence of discriminatory laws? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:50, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::Other than barring a Catholic from becoming king or queen? I don't know of any. If there are point them out. In any case it has nothing to do with socialism. Put it in the [[United Kingdom]] article; I didn't notice it there. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:55, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Dodi Fayed's kid could become king, but not Tony Blair's. In the US, this is not only unconstitutional, most living American's would be outraged at the even the suggestion of such a law. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:08, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Again, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH SOCIALISM? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:25, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::What did the Socialist do to repeal this law when it was last taken up? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:30, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::"The Socialist"? Who might he be? In any case, the law has been on the books for 300 years, and in that time no party has repealed it (it's mostly a non-issue; neither Fayed's nor Blair's kids are going to become king, the Queen's kid will. He's an Anglican), should it be mentioned in the articles on Tories, Whigs, and the Britsh Liberal Party? How about every in the article on every Prime Minister ("Benjamin Disraeli did not repeal the Act of Settlement"; "Earl Grey did not repeal the Act of Settlement"; "Ramsay MacDonald did not repeal the Act of Settlement"...). According the the cited article "Mr Blair said altering the law would be a hugely complicated process involving changes to nine separate pieces of legislation. The government has already embarked on a heavy legislative programme with 28 bills to see through." If Prince William gets engaged to a Catholic I'll bet we'll see the issue taken up, but in the meantime it's a lot of work for a something that is not going to be an issue. And ''it has nothing to do with socialism''. It might be relevant in another article, but not this one. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:43, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Blair's wife is Roman Catholic, and the kids are too as I understand. Fayed was a Muslim, and the child Princess Di was carrying at the time of her death would have a had a rightful claim to the throne under certain circumstnces.
:::::::The logic of your argument above appears quite anti-progressive, and [[reactionary]], does it not? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:14, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Hmmm. Perhaps it would help if you actually read what I wrote. But that might be too much to ask. Fayed and his offspring would have zero claim to the throne, nor does Blair's kids. None of that matters, in any case, as we're discussing the article, and the connection between the Act of Settlement and socialism, which is zero. I'm not sure what's "reactionary" about pointing that out. I'm not here to defend the Act of Settlement, or any other remnant of Britian's bygone era. Just explain its significance to this article. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 18:18, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::We saw the same thing when Chuck remarried; the wedding was delayed because Parker-Bowles had at onetime been married to a Catholic. "Thank God she's not a Catholic" [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article512736.ece] How these Enlightened Socialists can look us straight in the eye, fail to condemn this hypocracy, shrug their shoulders and say there's nothing that can be done about it, I'll never understand. It all proves the point: Socialism stands for nothing but political opportunism. And if it something doesn't serve Socialists immediate politcal opportunism, like standing up for religious freedom and against religious bigotry, they fall back on reactionary arguments. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:23, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::'''Bottom line''': Don't tell me Socialism stands for social progess, change, opposition to the exiting order, levelling the playing field, and against discriminition until British Socialists take on this issue. Absent that, Socialism is just a complete [[fraud]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:32, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

*See [[deceit]], Rob. You don't really expect to get a straight answer, do you? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:19, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

== Just Plain Wrong ==

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the capital, and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government nomenklatura that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.

This is the definition of COMMUNISM, not SOCIALISM. The writer of this article is laughably politicaly incoherent. (and the bias is thick enough to cut with a bundle of sticks tied to an axe)
:If you think you can do better, Silvanus, by all means do so...but don't make it hard on yourself by demeaning others. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:35, 14 November 2007 (EST)

::I think we have to distinguish between the various types of socialism, but this is not easy to do. Many partisans write about socialism as if their pet variety is the only (or main) kind.

::The kind which conservatives oppose is the totalitarian [[Communist]] type. But not every form of socialism is as bad as that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:26, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Well, in the European tradition at least, communism has always been extremely distinct from socialism - perhaps this is not clear in the USA. For instance, the Labour Party has always been committed to democratic socialism, and was strongly critical of the USSR. It is self-evident that democratic socialism is hugely more widespread as a faith than communism in the present day, and has never implied totalitarianism - the Labour Party has traditionally been far more committed to freedom than the Conservatives here in the UK.

== Would like to add a paragraph about my country (Norway) ==

If its all the same to you I'd like to write about our system wich is currently socialist-democratic. Then again most of our parties are socialist to some degree. Any objections?

Also, the article seems to have mixed up communism with socialism. I assure you, socialism in this day and age bears a much stronger resemblance to the US govermental system than the dictatorship that was soviet russia.

Talk:Socialism

2008-03-06T23:40:44Z

Toby:

Talk:Health care

2008-03-06T23:21:31Z

Toby: New page: I'm replacing the phrase most modern countries with The united states. the previous description was simply not true.

I'm replacing the phrase most modern countries with The united states. the previous description was simply not true.

Talk:The Crusades

2008-03-05T23:23:05Z

Toby:

My good lord, this is perhaps the greatest whitewashing of historical fact I have ever seen. Where is the information about the power crazed Pope? What about the slaughter of entire towns and the sacking of Constantinople? This page's analysis is a joke and thus, it has been deleted. There are barely any references at all on a subject that still affects us today. -[[Xenuite|Xenuite]]

:'...greatest whitewashing of historical fact I have ever seen...' Don't get out much do you? For what it shows it is pretty straightforward, and evenhanded. It can be expanded. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:40, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:: xenuites dramatic flare aside. what he saying is true. this article doesn't mention any of the atrocities of the crusades. when the crusaders took Jerusalem they slaughtered the whole city, Muslim, Christian, and Jew alike. the crusaders were not noble in the slightest. a good way to think of crusaders would be to compare them to modern day Jihadis. crazed fighters unafraid to kill innocents because they believe there on a mission from god to "kill the infidel". anyone who identifies with a crusader is either ignorant of a fool. these were not good people! [[User:Gailim|Gailim]] 01:04, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::: I disagree. There were atrocities, but Jerusalem was hardly the only city ever taken and many other places did not receive the same treatment. They were upset at a population that was fighting for the forces of Islam which had originally conquered the lands by the sword. In the Crusaders eyes, they were the liberators. The Crusades were fought over a couple of hundred years. To take isolated examples and make them the sole norm of what the Crusades were is unfair to the overall reality of what occurred. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:10, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::::I don't know much about the crusades, but be careful using the logic of "in the Crusaders eyes, they were the liberators". The Nazi's had a pretty high opinion of themselves as well. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:27, 24 February 2008 (EST)

:::::If the Crusaders acted like the Nazis, then I would agree. But too much of what is being taught about the Crusades today fixates on points/places in time (yes there were atrocities) and misses the total picture. The truth is they were a mixed lot fighting over a very complex issue. If your land is taken by force do you have the right later on to take it back? If so, after how much time has passed? Why is the original forced conquest barely mentioned and only the reconquest condemned? At the time the Crusades started, the Muslim Empire was twice the size of Christian Europe, and it had spread entirely by the sword (and would again a couple of centuries after the Crusades under the Ottomans). Was it wrong to harness the fighting spirit that was common during that time period and turn it against an outside threat? There are no easy answers, and certainly no definitive 'bad guys'. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:36, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: I would like to point out that king Richard and Saladin did not have that much respect for each other as the article claims. When Richard first captured acre he held 3000 muslims hostage and demanded an obscene amount of gold and the release of several christian prisoners of war including a number of select prisoners. Saladin paid the ransom except for a few of the select prisoners and Richard (after receiving the ransom) Saw this as a breach of the agreement and slaugthered the prisoners, most of them civilians -[[toby|toby]]

Talk:The Crusades

2008-03-05T23:21:40Z

Toby: