Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Homosexuality and Genetics

2007-09-10T13:19:36Z

Tradcon: +clarify

A '''gay gene''' which causes [[homosexuality]] has not been identified. Homosexuality is not "hard-wired" or inevitable in anybody.

The American Psychological Association says:
"Many scientists share the view that [[sexual orientation]] is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors." <ref>http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html</ref>

In any event, the search for a "gay gene," largely misses the point. Homosexual ''behavior'', regardless of one's "orientation" is still voluntary and subject to control by the human will.

==Work of the Human Genome Project==
*Dr. Collins succinctly reviewed the research on homosexuality and offers the following: "An area of particularly strong public interest is the genetic basis of homosexuality. Evidence from twin studies does in fact support the conclusion that heritable factors play a role in male homosexuality. However, the likelihood that the identical twin of a homosexual male will also be gay is about 20% (compared with 2-4 percent of males in the general population), indicating that sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations." <ref>http://www.narth.com/docs/nothardwired.html</ref>
*Regarding the contributions of genetics to areas such as homosexuality, Dr. Collins concluded, "Yes, we have all been dealt a particular set of cards, and the cards will eventually be revealed. But how we play the hand is up to us." <ref>http://www.narth.com/docs/nothardwired.html</ref>

==External links==
*[http://www.narth.com/docs/nothardwired.html "Homosexuality Is Not Hardwired," Concludes Dr. Francis S. Collins, Head Of The Human Genome Project]
*[http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html Is there a "gay gene"?] - explores how the media misrepresented the science

==References==

<References/>

[[category:genetics]]
[[Category:Liberal bias]]

Charles de Gaulle

2007-09-10T12:57:47Z

Tradcon: add more quotes

'''Charles de Gaulle''' was the leader of the [[Free French]] forces during [[World War II]]. His relations with Roosevelt were notoriously strained. After France was liberated, he established a temporary government.

In 1958, France faced a major crisis due to the war in [[Algeria]] and de Gaulle was called back to solve the situation. He was nominated Prime Minister, had a new constitution drafted and approved by referendum and finally became the 18th president of the French republic. He was in office from 1959 until 1969. In 1969, feeling he did not have popular support anymore, de Gaulle organized a referendum, ostensibly about minor institutional reforms. When the voters rejected the reforms he advocated, de Gaulle voluntarily stepped down from office.

De Gaulle was born on November 22, 1890 and died on November 9,1970 at age 79.

==Notable Quotes==
:''Faced with crisis, the man of character falls back on himself. He imposes his own stamp of action, takes responsibility for it, makes it his own.'' <ref>[http://www.quotatio.com/g/gaulle-charles-de-faced-with-crisis-the-man-of-character-070486.html] Quotatio - Charles De Gaulle</ref>

:''How can you govern a country with 365 varieties of cheese?''<ref>[http://www.quotatio.com/g/gaulle-charles-de-how-can-anyone-govern-a-nation-070490.html] Quotatio - Charles De Gaulle</ref>

:''France has lost a battle. But France has not lost the war!''<ref>http://www.bartleby.com/66/61/15961.html</ref>

:''You start out giving your hat, then you give your coat, then your shirt, then your skin and finally your soul.'' (On dealing with the Soviet Union)<ref>http://www.bartleby.com/63/59/59.html</ref>

:''You may be sure that the Americans will commit all the stupidities they can think of, plus some that are beyond imagination.'' (On U.S. entry into the Vietnam War)<ref>http://www.bartleby.com/63/68/68.html</ref>

===Quotes about de Gaulle===
:''The hardest cross I have to bear is the [[Cross of Lorraine]].'' —attributed, falsely, to Winston Churchill (it was really uttered by Churchill's envoy to France)<ref>http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=112</ref>

==See Also==

[[Gaullism]]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Gaulle, Charles de}}

[[Category:Heads of state]]
[[Category: World War II Commanders]]
[[Category:French people]]

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

2007-09-10T12:28:52Z

Tradcon: /* ''A Wonderful Life'' and ''Mr. Smith Goes to Washington'' */ um, no

I'm just curious how $139m [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0145487/business] can be considered "low-budget". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 15:41, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

: $139M in production costs is pocket change these days, Hoji!

: I think Spider-Man is in the top 5, and maybe the top 2, in profitability. It's #7 in domestic revenue, having a much lower production cost than other top movies. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:20, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
::Hmm... out of curiosity, I went and looked at the budgets of some recently-made major motion pictures. ''Transformers'' had a budget of $147m[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418279/business]. ''Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix'' (which is a great movie, by the way) had a budget of $150m[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0373889/business]. ''Ocean's Twelve'' had a budget of $110m[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0349903/business]. The latest Bond movie (''Casino Royale'') had a budget of $150m[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381061/business]. A movie I would consider "Low-budget" is something like ''Sicko'' (not to be partisan or anything), which had a budget of just $9m[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386032/business], or ''Crash'' (which is easily the ''best'' movie I have ever seen), which had a budget of only $6.5m[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0375679/business]. I just find it a bit odd to call a budget of over $100m a "low-budget" movie. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 01:03, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

==FarenHYPE==

This is about the "greatest" conservative movies, not a list of all conservative movies. I've never heard about that movie before seeing it on this list, and I would hate to think that Michael Moore can cause the production of anything great. As such, I'm removing the movie from this list. --[[User:LiteratiChamp|LiteratiChamp]] 19:47, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

If you've never seen it, how can you make a judgment about how good it is? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:50, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

::I agree with LiteratiChamp. The film is a response to Michael Moore's Farenhiet 911. One of the measures of a good film (in my opinion) is staying power. Moore's film was a political piece that may have spoke to some people in the 2004 election year. Twenty years from now, even ten, it will be little more than a curiousity, and so will Farenhype. At best, they may be remembered as the pioneers of a new film genre, the political screed, but I hope not.--[[User:Eddiec|Eddiec]] 11:49, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

== Forrest Gump ==

National Review is clueless. Forrest Gump, featuring [[liberal]] Tom Hanks, is liberal claptrap.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

:If the National Review is clueless, why is one of their articles currently featured on the Main Page?--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 15:37, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:But it's a ''great'' movie. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 01:04, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:I won't pretend for a second that it's conservative, but it's one of my favorite movies of all time. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 01:06, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

: I'm glad you liked it, Hoji, and I admit that I couldn't bear watching it to the end. It was a huge popular hit. But what I did see ''was'' very [[liberal]], almost like a liberal fantasy tale. So much sermonizing about civil rights by ... a white man???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:09, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
::What do you think about Saving Private Ryan? I was going to add it to the list with the caption "The actions our military will take to save an imperiled comrade". Maybe without the word "comrade", since it's inherently un-conservative sounding.
::And as for Forrest... he's a retard! (proud of my un-PC statement!) --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 01:14, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::: I didn't see Saving Private Ryan, but I suspect that is liberal also. The quotes and clips I saw from it had the trappings of liberalism: faithless with a kind of dumbed-down "that's all there is to life" approach. Woe is me and my brothers will be my salvation. "At death there's nothing more" is the message, expect (if you're lucky) some spirit of brotherhood.

::: Tom Hanks is a liberal, big time. Seeing the world through the atheistic eyes of a "retard", with sermonizing about civil rights, was a liberal distortion and fantasy. I'm sure we all know people of low IQs, and they don't think and act like Forrest Gump. For starters, often they have strong religious faith. As I recall from the first half, Gump's perspective was without any genuine expression of faith.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:34, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
::::I don't like Tom Hanks. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::: You're right, Andy - most of the dense folk I know (mostly from school) would fit in perfectly with the norm here at CP. I would strongly suggest that you see SPR, though - if you can see past whatever trappings of liberalism there may be (though I may have just not have noticed them), it's a wonderfully epic war novel, brilliantly done. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 01:38, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: Save me the trouble, Hoji, by telling me how much [[faith]] is highlighted in the movie. Less than zero?

:::: Just as [[liberals]] don't understand mentally disabled people, [[liberals]] don't understand soldiers either. At least [[Kurt Vonnegut]] did, and he observed that there are no atheists in foxholes. I doubt Tom Hanks (who is about as far from a real soldier as you can find) understands that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::: The KV bit is a misrepresentation and an example of quote mining. See the talk page of his article for why -- in short you're taking a quote from a ''character'' in a work of fiction, Slaughterhouse Five, out of context. His last novel "Time Quake," does contain some "Christian friendly" passages where Vonnegut indicates that he does not question the faith of individuals because it would be "impolite." [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 11:41, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
::::: Like ''any'' movie producer, liberal or conservative, can understand soldiers? That sounds like a fairy tale. And I would hate my movie viewing to be so... politicized, as yours is, Andy. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 01:52, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Hoji, I'm not the one who politicized Hollywood. Movies convey messages, and those messages often have a political spin. It's fair to ask how much [[faith]] is highlighted in a movie about war. Given the [[liberals]] who did Saving Private Ryan, I would guess the answer is zero. Am I right? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:28, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::: I can't recall the characters name, but Barry Pepper plays an American sniper who frequently prays before and during combat. There are also chaplain's on the beach in the beginning of the movie praying with the wounded and dying. There might be other aspects, this is just what I recall off the top of my head. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 09:39, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::::There are instances of faith in SPR, as noted by Colest above. I would also point out that family is also highlighted. First in the deaths of Pvt. Ryan's brothers and the emphasis on getting him out of harm's way. Hank's character talks about family and trying to remember home, and the GI's want to win the war so they can go home. I find it strange that one would say Hanks (or any other actor) is "as far from a real soldier as you can find." Of course they are. It is after all, called "acting." I really think only people with a military background understand soldiers or Marines. As for Hanks being liberal, so what? He is an actor, he goes by the script he is given. By the way, it seems the army was pleased with Hanks' portrayal of a Ranger [http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2006-06-29-hanks-ranger_x.htm], and the DOD honored Spielberg [http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/spielberg_update_811.html]. I should also point out that both Hanks and Spielberg contributed to the D-Day museum [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/154854.stm]. Not bad for a pair of liberals, eh? Of course, this thread has been very instructive. I learned that persons with "low IQs" tend to be religious. Why am I not surprised?--[[User:Eddiec|Eddiec]] 11:13, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::: Eddiec, let me guess, you're a liberal too. Gee, how could I tell? Maybe your mockery of the mentally disabled was the clincher. Liberals like to act smarter than others, with little justification for it.

:::::::::: Based on the discussion above, it appears that the Saving Private Ryan hero (Hanks) never conveys the --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:23, 20 July 2007 (EDT)faith of the person he portrays. So my expectation was correct. [[Faith]] is relegated to a little window-dressing, something to give the movie an appearance of depth, but not fit for the hero himself.

:::::::::: Did Hanks and Spielberg, two liberals probably lacking in any experience with the military or genuine interest in it, convey the soldiers' true feelings and attitudes? Not in the clip I saw from the movie. Instead, they conveyed a mostly purposeless, atheistic view of war, with overemphasis on the casualties. It's a liberal message.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:23, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::::I never said you politicized Hollywood, Andy. I said I would hate to have ''my'' viewing so politically inspired. I've seen most of the movies on that list, and loved them. Perhaps it's because I didn't actively search for political allegory, but tried to enjoy the message. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 11:02, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::::: Hoji, I'm glad you liked the movies. But there's nothing wrong with examining their message. I love Haagen-Daz ice cream. But I didn't object when someone told me that it is twice as fatty as Breyer's ice cream. We welcome information about the content of the food we eat. Why the resistance to analyzing the content of the films we view?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:29, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::: Did you really just bastardize this "conversation" with an ice-cream metaphor? Seriously? --[[User:LiteratiChamp|LiteratiChamp]] 19:04, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::::: Purely by coincidence, I just noticed an [[FCC]] decision discussing how "Saving Private Ryan is filled with expletives and material arguably unsuitable for some audiences." 20 FCC Rcd 4507. That isn't why I objected to it, but I'm not surprised given the [[liberals]] who made the movie. It's a bit like learning that alcohol consumption is harmful to more than just one's liver. This is hardly a surprise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:26, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm quoting someone else here, adding my emphasis, but the words convey my thoughts better and more concisely than if I attempted to write it myself:
;"What is a conservative film?

Let’s start with what it isn’t. It’s not about men with bulging biceps and even bigger guns. It’s not cartoonish action heroes. It isn’t revenge tales masquerading as heroism.

Conservative cinema does more than entertain; movies that do no more are visual candy. It '''instructs and inspires.'''

Conservative films celebrate virtue. They tell timeless tales of individuals overcoming all manner of adversity to achieve true greatness. They’re about honesty, loyalty, courage and patriotism. They’re concerned with conservatism’s cardinal values – '''faith, family and freedom.'''" [http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20714]

While its easy enough to decide what a conservative movie ''should'' be, it is far more difficult to find a movie that meets these requirements, particularly in the last 20 years: big budgets = dumbing down to mass market appeal. I would probably add to the list "Cinderella Man", [http://www.filmsite.org/schi.html "Schindler's List"], [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,979892,00.html "Shadowlands"], "A Bridge Too Far", "12 Angry Men", "The Robe" and "Henry V" (Olivier ''or'' Branagh) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 05:29, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

: Interesting, Fox. Thanks. But I would question your selection at the end. "12 Angry Men", for example, is one of my all-time favorite movies, but I would not call it conservative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:28, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::For me, "12 Angry Men" met the criteria of being "instructive" - in the nature of men and their motivations, and it was also "inspirational" in that it showed that through reasoned debate and persistence, the right outcome could be achieved. For the other qualities in the definition I posted, it does portray "honesty" - even when that is only the acceptance of one's own faults and failings: although we never learn of Fonda's faults, the eleven others all have to face, and admit, their failings. "Loyalty" is demonstrated when, having changed their decisions, the majority attempt to dissuade them, quite aggressively, even attempting to turn them against each other, but they rally to Fonda's central flag and support each other. "Courage", particularly for the first couple of dissenters, in the face of the hostility from the rest of the jury, to stand by their convictions. "Patriotism" because of the sense of "duty" and the promotion of the idea that acting as public servants in that way should be considered an honorable and serious business. Just my 2 cents :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 09:47, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:::I've seen both versions of "[[12 Angry men]]". What I liked about them both (especially the [[Henry Fonda]] version was the relentless pursuit of principle by the holdout juror. He exalts the legal principle of "[[innocent until proven guilty]]" and provides a concrete example of what "[[reasonable doubt]]" means.

:::If you are ever accused falsely of a crime, you'll wish for a jury composed of men like the Henry Fonda character. But the real question is whether protection of "rights" is essentially a conservative value. in the case of suspected terrorists, I would say not. Liberals are far more concerned with a few cases of [[coercive interrogation]] by the CIA or "frat pranks" by poorly trained National Guardswomen. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:49, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

I've only seen the 1957 Lumet/Fonda movie, although I'd like to see the '97 Jack Lemmon version, purely for comparison. It looks to have some very good character-actors; although I think that many of the earlier versions of modern remakes are superior simply by virtue of the technological limitations of the day forcing better directing, acting and cinematography. Incidentally, I just noticed that the 1942 book "The Robe" is now on [http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks04/0400561h.html Project Gutenberg]; I haven't read it, so I shall be doing that this weekend while most everyone else reads the new Harry Potter :D [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 16:14, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Sen. Tom Coburn objected to Schindler's List for content, incidentally, which is on our list. He was attacked vociferously for doing so, and ended up retracting his statement. It is a fairly graphic R rated movie. My question is, how much are we considering that. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:38, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

: Not suprising, since it was directed by the same liberal monster who directed Saving Private Ryan. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 16:42, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Your silly sarcasm aside, [[liberals]] do have a love for airing profanity, and in objecting even to its removal from general broadcast. Spielberg seemed to enjoy inserting dirty words into unexpected places in children's movies, such as E.T. Saving Private Ryan was filled with one four-letter-word after another. Maybe you can explain that obsession better than I can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:01, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::: In the case of SPR, I think he was using realistic language that soldiers use. The same goes for the violence of the movie, he wasn't trying to pull any punches and shield the audience from the grotesque realities of a war zone. I don't think that constitutes an obsession. I was actually shocked by the decision (I can't recall the network) to air it uncensored, and would hope that responsible parents would not allow their children to have watched it. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 17:18, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: ABC aired the movie uncut, with constant profanity from beginning to end. While the profanity may be realistic, where is the other realism, such as the hero attending church, packing a Bible, discussing his faith, and praying? That realism was omitted. So one can't justify by the movie's slant simply by saying it is realistic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:30, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm staying out of the SPR debate, but for anyone interested I would like to suggest [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0373283/ Saints and Soldiers] as a WWII movie that is definitely faith-promoting. It has a similar feel to SPR (small group of soldiers behind enemy lines on a mission), but it's only rated PG-13, which keeps things fairly tame (although it is still a war movie, so I certainly wouldn't watch it with children). One of the main characters is very religious (rumored to be Mormon, but the movie doesn't say that explicitly or push it in your face), and his faith is obvious throughout the movie. The movie itself is largely about forgiveness, both of oneself and of others. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 17:24, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Excellent comments Fox, which is why I purposely refrained from adding movies like ''Rambo'' and the like to the list. Conservatism is not about shooting the bad guys, masculine action movies, nor even about political party affiliation. Instead, conservatism is a set of values: values which uphold and celebrate tradition, instead of attacking it; look to the tried and true from the past as a source of values to be emulated, even if they aren't currently fashionable; and emphasizing the importance and centrality of culture, instead of pretending culture is a "social construct" or something to be attacked. The opposite of conservatism is cultural nihilism, which these days takes such forms as political correctness, postmodernism, radical feminism, and multiculturalism. Since the 1970s, economic based attacks on Western society like Marxism-Leninism have all but given way to a nihilistic, postmodernist, culture based attack on traditional values. A good conservative film is not just a superficial good guys-vs-bad guys movie, but stirs the soul in a way that leads the viewer to want to recover that which has been lost and defend traditional culture, and is refreshing to watch because of the way it upholds these values instead of attacking or poking fun at them. ''Red Dawn'' and Mel Gibson's ''The Patriot'' are two of the best I have seen in this regard. As for ''Forrest Gump'' -- I like that movie but am not sure it qualifies as conservative, liberal, or anything else. I know Pat Buchanan praised it when it came out as a conservative film. But I don't really see it. Seems a values-neutral portrayal of the changes that took place during the 60s and 70s and doesn't particularly take a stand one way or the other, not least taking a stand that those changes were, on the whole, a bad thing. So I wouldn't list it as a conservative movie. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 17:45, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

''Forrest Gump'' is a vile film: anti-intellectual and jingoistic. Any character who displays the least trace of independent thought, or dares question the American dream, winds up crushed and miserable. Ignorance as virtue, and I've rarely seen such an airbrushed Vietnam. If you're really looking for something that "stirs the soul," I suggest you all watch ''Seven Samurai'' till your eyes bleed. [[User:PBRStreetgang|PBRStreetgang]] 18:06, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

: Don't know about the jingoism criticism. But the anti-intellectual criticism is right on target. It reminds me of all the anti-intellectual user ids on Wikipedia. Dumbing down should not be funny or entertaining, at least not to people who should know better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:14, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

: Comment: Independent thought does not conflict with conservatism at all, especially not in today's era of enforced conformity to political correctness. Nor, for that matter, does questioning the "American dream", to the extent that the "American dream" is rooted in dumbed-down mass entertainment and globalized consumerism. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 19:00, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Regarding Forrest Gump, according to the [http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Forrest-Gump.html script], Gump made reference to his religious beliefs a number of times. Some quotes: "I couldn't tell where heavens stopped and the earth began. It was so beautiful." | "Her Momma had gone up to heaven when she was five and her daddy was some kind of a farmer." | "I'm going to heaven, Lieutenant Dan." | "So I went to church every Sunday...". The movie even features Lt. Dan's struggle with his own faith, including a scene where he challenges God to destroy the boat that him and Gump are on. Dan eventually recovered from that dark period in his life, and it is suggested that it was faith that guided him (see scene with Dan in church). Gump also made a large donation to a church. The movie features many Christian themes, such as love, faith, and sacrifice. - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 21:09, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

: This is tricky, because Gump is an idiot. I can't tell from the quoted excerpts if the movie is mocking religion or not. Maybe I need to watch the whole movie. However, I tried that once and for reasons already explained (including its anti-intellectualism and liberal sermonizing) I found something better do after watching the first half-hour or so. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:28, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
::I think it is worth watching again. I don't think they were mocking religion (although some scenes were certainly light-hearted or attempts at humour). Gump had the mind of a child, and he had the trust and faith of a child - he trusted his mother and was guided by her advice throughout his life, he had faith that his mother was in heaven, and he had faith that there was a God who was watching over and guiding him. He made mistakes along the way, but then we all do. - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 21:36, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
I more or less agree with Andy here. Forrest does take his faith seriously and it does guide him. However, since the rest of the movies portrays him as being naive and stupid (there is one scene where he gives the cold shoulder to a prostitute, but it's actually because he's too stupid to realize what a prostitute is), so it's not necessarily a positive portray of faith. My final verdict: Interesting movie, not conservative at all. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:32, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
:Was he too stupid, or too naive? They aren't the same thing. I think it would be a great thing if none of us had to know what a prostitute is. - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 21:36, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

Gump is mentally retarded. You know that. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:38, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
:He was retarded, but he was certainly capable of understanding that a prostitute has sex for money. My point was that up until that point, Gump had lived a life that didn't involve meeting prostitutes or talking about prostitutes. - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 21:44, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

What I saw of Forrest Gump was very [[liberal]], which is not surprising given that Tom Hanks is very [[liberal]]. The movie has the quality of [[liberal]] elitism, dumbing down the character and the audience to spoon-feed them some propaganda. Sermonizing about the 1960s, for example. The religious references described above seem more like mockery than authentic. The faith of a simpleton is not silly or foolish. [[Louis Pasteur]], far brighter than we are, said that he hoped to die with the powerful faith of French peasant, for example.

Beyond that, the Forrest Gump has an Oprah Winfrey-like style of unrealistic idiocy. Gump fails to given a realistic portrayal of an idiot. Instead, the movie seems to view its audience as idiots.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:16, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Back to SPR. Andy, I'm not a liberal, and while I'm right of center, I'm not as far to the right as you are. Speaking from thirteen years service (USMC), I can tell you most Marines and soliders do curse (a hell of alot more and far more colorfully than was portrayed in the movie), and while you do find the occasional guy who reads his pocket New Testament and goes to services, they are the exception and not the rule. Most men in these units are at best, nominal Christians, and SPR is a realistic depiction of combat and men in combat. BTW, I don't think Hanks was really portraying any particular individual; SPR was historical fiction. As far as SPR or Gump being liberal, I don't think they are slanted to the right or left either way. I don't think most people watch a movie and think "this is liberal" or "this is conservative," with the exception of Micheal Moore films, and a few Susan Sarandon films that promoted a particular agenda. By the way, my remark about the folks with faith being less intelligent was inspired by your (unintentionally humourus) remarks above. God Bless--[[User:Eddiec|Eddiec]] 09:07, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: Eddiec, you've already mocked Christianity and the mentally disabled so your description of the military, even if you did serve 13 years in the Marines, is of little value. Christians formed the backbone of our military and I think you're making your comments up, or you're seeing only what you want to. Note, by the way, that SPR portrays the military during WWII. Do you claim that you served in that also??? That there were only nominal Christians in that war also, per your experience???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:21, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Andy, I did not mock Christianity; I mocked you. WWII was before my time, but I think my serivce has value. I saw other Marines everyday and interacted with them. Do you have military experice Andy? Have you interacted with Marines and soldiers on a daily basis? Perhaps you are making things up or creating a fantasy where military people do not cuss and sit around reading the Bible.THey are far more likely to be reading Playboy. Actually, they are more likely to be reading something far worse (at least by your lights)--[[User:Eddiec|Eddiec]] 10:30, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm going to defend the possible conservativeness of Gump here. Very early on, for example, FG and his best friend Jenny pray for God to save her from her abusive father, and He does. Later in the movie, Forrest the Soldier is the Good Guy, and the peacenik hippies are clearly the Bad Guys. As mentioned above, too, Lt Dan doesn't find satisfaction in life until he makes peace with God. Then there's the scenes where FG goes running, and ends up with a whole crowd of doofus followers, demonstrating the danger of false prophets. And of course, the character of Jenny throughout the film demonstrates the danger of hedonism. I don't recall feeling that any of this was mocking religion. (And, not incidentally, FG isn't a "retard" or an idiot--his character is that of the proverbial Innocent)--[[User:PeteVan|PeteVan]] 14:33, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::I agree that Gump is a conservative movie. It emphasizes the importance of family (Gump's interaction with his mother and his child) and there are Christian overtones throughout. Yours in Christ--[[User:Eddiec|Eddiec]] 15:28, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

== Home Alone ==

DanH, I don't think this movie is conservative at all. The kid was abandoned by his parents, they were not imprisoned for a cut-and-dry case of child neglect, and the movie taught children that hitting people over the head with shovles is an effective problem-solving mechanism. This movie has got to be removed. --[[User:LiteratiChamp|LiteratiChamp]] 19:12, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Conservatives traditionally believe in the right to defend themselves, as per the Second Amendment. Also, although what the parents did were horrible, they did everything they could to reverse it and the virtue of forgiveness shines through. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:13, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:They abandoned their child. A pre-teen stuck at home while his parents were overseas for an extended period of time, and there was no indication that the state even waged an investigation into the incident. That's a clear case of neglect by the parents, and a clear instance of ineffective police work.

:Your self-defense claim falls for a couple reasons. First, to get technical, the 2nd Amendment says nothing about self-defense, it instead provides a cryptic message concerning militias. Second, it was the old guy that hit the folk with a shovel, and he was in no immediate harm by the victims. Self-defense does not apply. --[[User:LiteratiChamp|LiteratiChamp]] 19:16, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:: The above comments by "LiteratiChamp" are not to be taken seriously. I've blocked this contributor for a week for his other postings for reasons explained in the block.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:39, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Don't remove this without talking on here; as Mr. Schlafly stated, LiteratiChamp isn't to be taken seriously. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:34, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

:I'm to be taken seriously, and I raise all the arguments LiteratiChamp has. There, you lose again. --[[User:AlecEmpire|AlecEmpire]] 21:35, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

So I lose just because you argue against me? That's brilliant debate tactics right there. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:37, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

:Don't pretend to be stupid. You lost the argument before, and if you are serious to demand that we re-raise the issue instead of deal with what has already been laid out, you will lose again. Your movie supports child-abuse and unnecessary violence. Quit being a vandal. --[[User:AlecEmpire|AlecEmpire]] 21:40, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

Just because it notes the presence of child abuse doesn't mean it supports it. It doesn't condone child abuse! Oh, and I'm not a vandal. I've been contributing on this site for several months, almost from the beginning. And what have you contributed? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:42, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Literati and Alec on this one. There were a lot of [[liberal]] undertones throughout the movie. --[[User:TUgoh|TUgoh]] 16:17, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

==World Trade Center==

I don't think we should say it's unbiased. Oliver Stone is not unbiased. In fact, every point of view is biased in one way or another. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:42, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

== V for Vendetta ==

This movie should definitely be taken out of the list! The creators of the graphic novel wrote it in part as a slam of Margaret Thatcher's policies. The movie itself contains many references to 'the downfall of the US starting with the Iraq war' and how the 'US dragged the whole world into war' and the 'oppresion of gays and lesbians', and 'government sponsored camps for minorites and Muslims'. Not to mention the glorification of terrorism as a justifiable means to an end and the crypto-Christian 'state religion' and how that opposes any other religions. [[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]]

: Done. Thanks for your insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:14, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

== Team America: World Police ==

I honestly can't believe no one has mentioned Team America. It makes fun of the U.N. (and their irrelevance), Michael Moore, liberal Hollywood, the gay agenda in broadway musicals. It shows terrorists and Kim Jong Il for who they are, and has an overall conservative point of view.
:That was the movie that got in trouble because of the puppet sex, right? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 09:50, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

::I watched it last week. It does not have a distinctly conservative point of view. It simply makes fun of everyone. After decades of only having movies make fun of conservatives, this may seem like "fair and equal" treatment, but I was not amused (see [[moral equivalence]]).

::I will grant you that there were some conservative ''points'' made in the movie: that actors support dictators, is one. But showing the "good side" as sophomoric, bickering perverts is not particularly conservative. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 01:13, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

This reminds me of the book "South Park Conservatives", for good reasons, and obvious ones at that... it's one of those that can go either way, honestly. I like the movie, but I think it probably shouldn't be on our list, because, well, of the content. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 01:16, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

== [[Star Wars]] ==

[[Star Wars]] certainly looked like a fable concerning the triumph of good against evil. But that was before the prequels came out. ''Revenge of the Sith'' said it all.

The problem: the Galactic Empire is a metaphor for the [[United States]]. It started out being a metaphor for [[Nazi]] [[Germany]]--but clearly [[George Lucas]] is one of those who equates [[George W. Bush]] to [[Adolf Hitler]].

The particular enemies of the Old Republic looked like a metaphor for Muslims; I couldn't be sure.

But did anyone notice that Galactic Imperial personnel were all [[Caucasian]] and exclusively male? Furthermore, the officers all spoke either with [[United Kingdom|British]] or [[United States|American]] accents. (The troopers don't matter anymore; we now know that they are all clones of Jango Fett.)

More to the point: the rebels were the "diverse" lot.

Hint, hint--diversity is good; a unified culture is evil.

I therefore respectfully recommend that we scratch [[Star Wars]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 14:27, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:All of that is speculative, unless you have a reference for Lucas deliberately drawing a Vader-Bush parallel or something like that. Didn't the first three films come out during the Carter-Reagan years? Way before Bush.

:I don't understand the bti about "all male". Armies have always been all-male. At Fort Campbell, I was in an infantry brigade of 1,500 men (and zero women).

:The Galactic Empire represents Imperialism and/or Fascism, and if you followed the politics of the recent three films, you can see how "the chancellor" seized power in a way similar to the way Hitler seized power. A sort of slow motion coup, carried out by parliamentary maneuvering.

:I don't see how Bush getting elected by the people has anything to do with Hitler's rise to power. And Bush's (possibly overzealous) attempts to free people in the Middle East from cruel dictatorships seems rather the ''opposite'' of what Hitler was doing. (And didn't Saddam Hussein kill around 300,000 people with "Death Star" tactics and concentration camps? Who's more the Darth Vader type, Bush or Hitler? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 01:09, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
So is diversity bad? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:36, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:Diversity ''per se'' is not so bad. What's bad is the implication that Western culture is inherently evil.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 14:30, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Episodes IV - VI may have been nice Conservative movies. But the early ones destroyed that image. Look no further, but to the real hero of the first three episodes Obi-wan "Only the Sith deal in absolutes".[[User:Mgroop|Mgroop]] 10:27, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

==Lord of the Rings==

I wonder if this is really appropriate as a conservative film. The film contains a lot of demonic imagery, and many examples of witchcraft. It's very violent, not something I would show my children. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 16:07, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

== High Noon ==

If High Noon was written by an ex-Communist, I don't see how it would be anti-American. In fact, I don't recall anything about patriotism either way in the film.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:The tripod ref is confusing: [http://drhill.tripod.com/ssi3240/pdf/lecture8.htm] It says Americans have the right to belief as they want, as long as they don't advocate overthrowing the government. But it also complains that SAG vowed not to hire actors and writers who belong to groups which "advocate overthrowing the goverment. Doctor Hill can't have it both ways. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 01:02, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

== ''A Wonderful Life'' and ''Mr. Smith Goes to Washington'' ==

I question whether these movies should be included here. They are based on liberal, populist ideas that are hokey and don't reflect reality. The first has as its hero a man who runs an S&L and as its villain a banker. The second subscribes to the point of view that big business controls Washington. I would propose removing them. [[User:Tradcon|Traditional Conservative]] 22:31, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
:Obvious troll. A warning would be appropriate, IMO. --[[User:Turing100111010|Turing100111010]] 23:09, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

*Traditional Conservative's would see the point, not reject it! We are not pro big business, for the sake of big business, and the Savings and Loan idea is a conservative one, reflecting local control, and de-centralization of banking, away from Washington, and to the local communities. Liberalism supports more central control, and an elitist, anti-individual POV...wherein only the elite of D.C. know what is best for the people. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 03:06, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

:Sheesh, the ''bank'' was locally controlled also in the first film. Even today's multistate banks aren't really controlled from Washington (unless you count the government regulation). Savings and loans were promoted during the New Deal (when the film is set) by the very "elite of D.C." that you deplore, based on the idea that people were being hoodwinked by their local capitalist bankers.
:As to the second film, it's not so much that being pro-business is necessarily ''required'' to be conservative, it's more that a particular view of it, as a moustache-twisting villain that the people have to be saved from by government (promoted in that film), that is a typical part of the liberal world view. [[User:Tradcon|Traditional Conservative]] 08:28, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Abortion and Artificial Consciousness

2007-09-10T12:07:08Z

Tradcon: what I meant to say...

Here's an interesting analogy I thought of the other day…

Suppose that I'm constructing an artificial conciousness. Halfway through the project, I decide that it's not worth the effort, and discontinue it, destroying the code and other necessary components. Would this be moral? Consider that this is almost ''exactly like'' the destruction of an undifferentiated, or only slightly differentiated, zygote, before the brain has developed and the mind come into existence.

I still haven't decided my position on the matter, and would be interested in others' assessments. Also bear in mind that I'm not arguing one way or another, I'm interested in the issue without pushing any POV.

: It isn't the same at all. Computers do not have souls. [[User:CalebRookwood|CalebRookwood]] 20:25, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
:: An artificial consciousness could be thought of as a human brain in a robot. In my opinion, such a being would indeed have a soul. I doubt that organic composition is a prerequisite for a theological presence. If you debate that, imagine that I'm constructing a fully-functional human out of living cells. Would it be immoral to stop? --[[User:Turing100111010|Turing100111010]] 20:45, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
:::It would be immoral to ''start'' constructing a human in that way. Where do you get your idea that robots have souls? [[User:Tradcon|Traditional Conservative]] 00:10, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

::Your link doesn't work. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 20:27, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Hmm, that's odd. I thought that WP had a separate article on it… what's your opinion on the subject, Bohdan? --[[User:Turing100111010|Turing100111010]] 20:45, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Abortion and Artificial Consciousness

2007-09-10T04:10:50Z

Tradcon: Trolling?

Here's an interesting analogy I thought of the other day…

Suppose that I'm constructing an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_conciousness artificial consciousness]. Halfway through the project, I decide that it's not worth the effort, and discontinue it, destroying the code and other necessary components. Would this be moral? Consider that this is almost ''exactly like'' the destruction of an undifferentiated, or only slightly differentiated, zygote, before the brain has developed and the mind come into existence.

I still haven't decided my position on the matter, and would be interested in others' assessments. Also bear in mind that I'm not arguing one way or another, I'm interested in the issue without pushing any POV.

: It isn't the same at all. Computers do not have souls. [[User:CalebRookwood|CalebRookwood]] 20:25, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
:: An artificial consciousness could be thought of as a human brain in a robot. In my opinion, such a being would indeed have a soul. I doubt that organic composition is a prerequisite for a theological presence. If you debate that, imagine that I'm constructing a fully-functional human out of living cells. Would it be immoral to stop? --[[User:Turing100111010|Turing100111010]] 20:45, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
:::It would be immoral to ''start'' constructing a human in that way. Where do you get your idea that human beings have souls? [[User:Tradcon|Traditional Conservative]] 00:10, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

::Your link doesn't work. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 20:27, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Hmm, that's odd. I thought that WP had a separate article on it… what's your opinion on the subject, Bohdan? --[[User:Turing100111010|Turing100111010]] 20:45, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Osama Bin Laden

2007-09-10T03:56:06Z

Tradcon: correcting and removing commondreams.org source (which is completely useless)

[[Image:382px-AQ00100.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Osama Bin Laden''' is a Saudi Arabian millionaire and the leader of [[al Qaeda]], a worldwide [[terrorist]] group responsible for [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] and some other terrorist attacks on Americans in the 1990s. He obtained his wealth by inheriting it from his father, Mohammed Awad bin Laden, who was a successful entrepreneur in the construction industry.

During the [[Clinton Administration]] <ref>[http://www.bannerofliberty.com/OS8-98MQC/8-24-1998.1.html Did Bill Clinton Smooth the Way for Bin Laden to Become the World's Most Successful Terrorist?], Mary Mostert, Original Sources, August 24, 1998. </ref>, bin Laden issued two Declarations of War against the United States for the basing of troops in the Arabian Peninsula to defend against external aggression by [[Saddam Hussein]] and because of the suffering of the Iraqi people under UN economic sanctions.<ref>[http://www.kimsoft.com/2001/binladenwar.htm Bin Laden's Declaration of War], 1998.</ref> However, Clinton did not take the threat seriously, and did not make an effort to capture or kill Bin Laden. <ref> [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/] Osama bin Laden: missed opportunities</ref>

Bin Laden lived in Sudan for most of the 1990's at the invitation of [[Hassan al-Turabi]], a powerful Sudanese political leader and terrorism supporter. He then returned to [[Afghanistan]], where he had fought against the Soviets in the 1980's. He was protected by the [[Taliban]] until the American liberation of [[Afghanistan]] following [[9/11]].

During the 1980s insurgency against the [[Soviet]] occupation of [[Afghanistan]] the [[Carter Administration]] initially directed help to train and arm anti-Soviet Islamic militants, some of whom were radical Islamists. Bin Laden had his own source of funding, though, and would have shunned influence by America.<ref>http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-318760.html</ref>

In 1998, Bin Laden and [[Ayman al-Zawahiri]], then leader of the Egyptian terrorist group called the [[Islamic Brotherhood]], announced the joining of al Qaeda and the [[Islamic Brotherhood]] to form the ''World Islamic Front for the Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders''<ref> http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir011003_1_n.shtml</ref>. In 1998, the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were destroyed by suicide bombers; the United States later indicted both Ben Laden and al-Zawahiri for the attacks which killed 224 people. In retaliation the United States lunched cruise missiles, however, both terrorist leaders escaped.

Bin Laden is cited by the [[United States]] government as the most wanted terrorist. He remains at large to this day.

== See also ==

* [[Yasser Arafat]]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Bin Laden, Osama}}
[[Category:Military Commanders]]
[[Category:Terrorists]]
[[Category: al-Qaeda]]

Talk:Osama Bin Laden

2007-09-10T03:53:42Z

Tradcon: Taliban "emerging" out of mujaheddin

:Osama Bin Laden actually appears (uncredited) as a tribal leader in the American blockbuster ''Rambo III'' [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095956/]. This is a well-known statement, based on the presence of Rambo III filming in Afghanistan, Bin Laden's then friendliness with US interests, and the presence of a lot of extras. I think this should be included. [http://www.plp.org/misc/oblncia.html]

==Bush==

Erm - how can an article about OBL not mention George Bush?! Utter madness from the home schooled loonies [[User:Mralph72|Mralph72]] 08:53, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

How is Bin Laden responsible for the 9/11/01 attack if he is not wanted for it?

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm
http://www.amw.com/fugitives/case.cfm?id=24550#wantedfor

Bin Laden has not been found guilty for the 9/11/01 attack, although he has been found guilty for other crimes. How about mentioning those (at least first) before mentioning something of which he hasn't even been convicted?
* Because [[Saddam Hussein|Saddam]] and [[the Axis of Evil]] were responsible for it. Try to keep up. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 14:58, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

== Taliban "emerging" out of mujaheddin ==

The Taliban most assuredly did '''not''' "emerge from" the ''mujaheddin'', despite what the cited source, commondreams.org (which bills itself as "breaking news and views for the progressive [read ''liberal''] community"), says. Even [CNN http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9610/05/taleban/] can get it right—the Taliban arose in opposition to the muj. At ''most,'' some of the muj may have defected to the Taliban. The idea that US aid to the muj "in the 80s" (to use commondreams.org's phrase) led to 9/11 is simply a liberal myth. [[User:Tradcon|Traditional Conservative]] 23:53, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Tradcon

2007-09-10T03:24:03Z

Tradcon: +reply

{{Welcome|sig=[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:07, 10 August 2007 (EDT)}}

== Trolling ==

Yeah, dude… if you [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&diff=prev&oldid=289716 must troll], at least make it good, please. A trolling comment every now and then can be quite amusing, but they can get dull. Anyway, try to be less obvious about it. :) --[[User:Turing100111010|Turing100111010]] 23:19, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

:Uh, that was a serious suggestion (although I realize that is what a troll would say). Have you actually ever seen either of those movies? [[User:Tradcon|Traditional Conservative]] 23:24, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:France

2007-09-10T02:50:44Z

Tradcon: Gaullist v center-right as a description for Sarkozy

== References ==

The references in this article don't seem to be working properly - can somebody fix them?

== Politics ==

Unless you go into a full discussion of France's politics, which could very well happen in the future, I suppose, the statement about France not supporting the invasion of Iraq seems to be a bit irrelevant. Are we going to list every single country's stance on the Iraq war?
-[[User:Commodore Guff|Commodore Guff]] 14:52, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:It is very important to know who is "with us" and who is "against us".</sarcasm> (Seriously: I technically agree, but I'd leave it in so that a politics section can grow around it.) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:33, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Seriously if you want an unbiased article then one country's (i.e; Americas) opinion on another really does have no place in it... --[[User:Daerean|Daerean]] 12:24, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Spelling ==

I made a bunch of fixes to the non-American spellings in this article. Let's keep those double-L's (rivalled) and silent U's (behaviour) out of Conservapedia as per the Commandments.

== War on Terror ==

Why do we find under Germany :

War on Terror

Germany currently contributes troops to the NATO-led operation in Afghanistan, but did not support the invasion of Iraq.

And why it is not showing the same information under France?
See: http://www.nato.int/ISAF/index.htm

Also, the last comment about the French kings after Clovis is showing that the writer of this article has no knowledge of French history.

March 2003-I didn't realize that they found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. What is your source for this statement?

== Astérix and Obélix ==

Those are not heroes of the french history, but purely fictional characters. So is their story. There was no little chiefdom remaining independent from Rome. [[User:SillyGirl|SillyGirl]] 11:03, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
:I entirelly removed the reference. Unless one want to consider, say, "Independence Day" (the movie), as facts (just for comparison). [[User:SingleUse|SingleUse]] 05:27, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

May I ask who pasted the map of France on top of the article?[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 22:04, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

== Right? ==

Why was "Centre-Right" changed to "Right Wing" to describe the current French government? What makes us believe they are one or the other? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:02, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

:You gave no indication why this was the case, but reverted away from "conservative". If you wish to do that, show your rationale in talk. The other concerns are written below. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:09, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

== Recent revert==

The article describing the 2 million people who have left France used the word "fled". It also said that 93% of them are glad they're no longer living in France. Unless you have knowledge of 2 million French foreign exchange students, then I believe using the langauge "have left France" is acceptable. Please choose to present your views in Talk. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:09, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

== Gaullist v center-right as a description for Sarkozy ==

I had initially called Sarkozy [[Gaullist]] and indeed created the (still-stub) article on [[Gaullism]], but later changed it to center-right. I see it's been changed back to Gaullist. I believe center-right is better for several reasons. First, Gaullism is linked with anti-Americanism, and Sarkozy is the most pro-American president in recent French history. Next, it fails to capture his commitment to pro-market policies. [[User:Tradcon|Traditional Conservative]] 22:50, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

2007-09-10T02:31:42Z

Tradcon: ''A Wonderful Life'' and ''Mr. Smith Goes to Washington''

Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

2007-09-10T02:26:00Z

Tradcon: italicize and remove questionable entries

Conservative movies exist, and some are immensely popular. Here is our growing list (in no particular order):

#The first ''Spider-Man'' (2002), which praises moral virtue (hard-working teenager, devout aunt and well-meaning uncle) and pokes fun at assumed [[liberals]] (entertainers and journalist). Hero chooses [[abstinence]]. This was one of the most profitable films ever made.
#''[[Gone With the Wind]]''
#''[[Ben-Hur]]'', celebrates honor and duty to family and country, with a pro-Christian ending
#''[[Shawshank Redemption]]'' (about an innocent man who is convicted of murder and later escapes from prison)
#''[[The Sound of Music]]'', solid family entertainment
#''[[It's a Wonderful Life]]''
#''[[The Ten Commandments]]''
#''[[Mr. Smith Goes To Washington]]''
#''[[The Passion of the Christ]]''
#''[[Star Wars]]'' series - simple truths about the triumph of good over evil
#''[[King of Kings]]''
#''[[On The Waterfront]]'' - a simple but hardworking longshoreman takes on his Mafia-controlled union
#''[[Sergeant York]]''
#''[[Knute Rockne: All-American]]''
#''[[Ninotchka]]''
#''[[Forbidden Planet]]''
#''[[Rudy]]''
#''[[The Prince of Egypt]]''
#''[[Red Dawn]]''
#''[[Harry's War]]''
#''[[The Patriot]]'' (2000) (the one starring Mel Gibson, there are several other movies with this name)
#''[[Ladder 49]]''
#''[[Rocky]]'' (perseverance and God-given talent can overcome all odds)
#''[[October Sky]]''
#[[''Amazing Grace'' (film)]]
#''[[Bruce Almighty]]''
#''[[Home Alone]]''
#[[World Trade Center]] (highlights the bravery of the firemen and police in [[9/11]])
#''[[Flight 93]]''
#''[[A Man For All Seasons]]''
#''[[Chariots of Fire]]''
#''[[One Foot In Heaven]]''
#''[[Quo Vadis?]]''
#[[Three Godfathers]]
#''[[The Lost Weekend]]'' (dangers of alcohol)
#''[[Little Miss Sunshine]]'' (importance of family)
#''[[The Manchurian Candidate]]'' (anti-communist in general, but with a swipe at [[Joseph McCarthy]])
#''[[The Green Berets]]'' Vivid defense of our troops' conduct in the Vietnam War.
#''[[My Son John]]'' (1952). A small-town couple's world is turned upside-down by the discovery that their adult son is a Communist.
#''[[True Lies]]'', starring the future Republican governor of California, [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]. Teaches conservative values like marital loyalty, and political incorrect facts such as the fact that most terrorists are Middle Eastern Arabic speakers who don't value human life.
#''[[The Island]]'' (2005) Pro-life statement against cloning to harvest organs.
#''[[Evelyn]]'' (2002) True story of Irish father's legal struggle to recover his kids from an orphanage.
#''[[Shane]]'' (1953) Western about defending a homesteading family.
#''[[Invasion of the Body Snatchers]]'' (1956) Man peacefully stands up to an invasion by unloving, Godless aliens who had taken over key government positions.
#''[[Hero]]'' (1992) Even those with character flaws can do good.
#''[[The Day of the Jackal]]'', celebrates conservative values like honor and duty.

== References ==
<references/>

Please add your best conservative picks.

[[category:essay]]

Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

2007-09-10T02:17:19Z

Tradcon: added Day of the Jackal

Conservative movies exist, and some are immensely popular. Here is our growing list (in no particular order):

#The first Spider-Man (2002), which praises moral virtue (hard-working teenager, devout aunt and well-meaning uncle) and pokes fun at assumed [[liberals]] (entertainers and journalist). Hero chooses [[abstinence]]. This was one of the most profitable films ever made.
#[[Gone With the Wind]]
#[[Ben-Hur]]
#[[Shawshank Redemption]] (about an innocent man who is convicted of murder and later escapes from prison)
#[[The Sound of Music]]
#[[It's a Wonderful Life]]
#[[The Ten Commandments]]
#[[Mr. Smith Goes To Washington]]
#[[The Passion of the Christ]]
#[[Star Wars]] and its sequels - simple truths about the triumph of good over evil
#[[King of Kings]]
#[[On The Waterfront]] - a simple but hardworking longshoreman takes on his Mafia-controlled union
#[[Sergeant York]]
#[[Knute Rockne: All-American]]
#[[Ninotchka]]
#[[Forbidden Planet]]
#[[Rudy]]
#[[The Prince of Egypt]]
#[[Red Dawn]]
#[[Harry's War]]
#[[The Patriot]] (2000) (the one starring Mel Gibson, there are several other movies with this name)
#[[Ladder 49]]
#[[Rocky]] (perseverance and God-given talent can overcome all odds)
#[[October Sky]]
#[[Amazing Grace (film)]]
#[[Bruce Almighty]]
#[[Home Alone]]
#[[World Trade Center]] (highlights the bravery of the firemen and police in [[9/11]])
#[[A Man For All Seasons]]
#[[Chariots of Fire]]
#[[One Foot In Heaven]]
#[[Quo Vadis?]]
#[[Three Godfathers]]
#[[Reefer Madness]] (emphasizes the dangers of drugs)
#[[The Lost Weekend]] (dangers of alcohol)
#[[Little Miss Sunshine]] (importance of family)
#[[The Manchurian Candidate]] (anti-communist in general, but with a swipe at [[Joseph McCarthy]])
#[[The Green Berets]] Vivid defense of our troops' conduct in the Vietnam War.
#[[My Son John]] (1952). A small-town couple's world is turned upside-down by the discovery that their adult son is a Communist.
#[[True Lies]], starring the future Republican governor of California, [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]. Teaches conservative values like marital loyalty, and political incorrect facts such as the fact that most terrorists are Middle Eastern Arabic speakers who don't value human life.
#The Island (2005) Pro-life statement against cloning to harvest organs.
#Ghostbusters (1984) EPA bureaucrat lets evil escape.
#Evelyn (2002) True story of Irish father's legal struggle to recover his kids from an orphanage.
#Shane (1953) Western about defending a homesteading family.
#I''nvasion of the Body Snatchers'' (1956) Man peacefully stands up to an invasion by unloving, Godless aliens who had taken over key government positions.
#''Hero'' (1992) Even those with character flaws can do good.
#''The Day of the Jackal'', celebrates conservative values like honor and duty.

== References ==
<references/>

Please add your best conservative picks.

[[category:essay]]

Apocalypse

2007-09-10T02:11:33Z

Tradcon: redirect

#REDIRECT [[Book of Revelation]]

Talk:Larry Craig

2007-09-10T01:46:37Z

Tradcon: /* Fact Template */ +reply

What a deceitful person. -[[User:Wwwknow|Wwwknow]] 21:40, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
:What are you suggesting, that he be impeached? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:50, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

No. The Constitution limits impeachment only for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. And let's be practical: Craig would resign before he's impeached.-[[User:Wwwknow|Wwwknow]] 20:37, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:But's only about sex, and there seems to rampant and rabid anti-gay sentiment behind much of this criticism. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:43, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

It's not only about sex, actually. The real problem with Craig is, I believe, that he keeps lying to the public. I mean, if he's gay he should admit it, simply because there's enough evidence and because he's a public figure, and put an end to this sory. --[[User:Whiteflower|Whiteflower]] 10:10, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
:If he's gay its none of your business. And who are you to make judgements?[[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:55, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Can we shorten the bathroom incident? Or should we expand on his "I am not gay" comment?

He could have meant:
#I didn't stare through the door or tap with my foot at all. The whole thing is a false report by the cop.
#I was soliciting male-on-male sex, but my "[[sexual identity]]" is neither [[homosexual]] nor [[bisexual]].

Many men who have sex with other men make a big deal out of denying their [[homosexuality]]. This seems to be based on a sharp distinction between [[homosexual behavior]], i.e., two males being sexual together, and [[homosexual identity]]. I'm not sure why this matters. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:33, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
:We have the [[Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style#What_Not_To_Include_In_Articles]] which prohibits gossip and outing by blackmail. Perhaps we need to include innuendo. True, Craig plead guilty rather than no contest to a disorderly conduct, but no homosexual act was involved in this case, according to any police report. This again is like the Mark Foley case, no homosexual act is involved, and Craig specifically denies being gay. I think we may have to include the word "innunedo" in the guideline, under a presumption of innocence clause. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:59, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

::I believe the "I am not gay" speech being quoted there is a response to an earlier accusation of gay flirting, and not to the bathroom incident.... Craig made a different speech there, and the details were different. He has acknowledged that he put his suitcase so as to block the door to his stall (really, where else are you going to put a suitcase in a tiny stall, you want it as far from the waterworks as possible), and that he may have accidentally tapped his foot and brushed up against the other person's foot due to his wide stance, and that he may have passed his hand under the stall to pick up a piece of paper.... I think the more significant thing coming out of this whole incidence is that it uncovers the activities of certain homosexuals, who ''do'' in fact go to public restrooms, make various signals to "cruise" for other homosexuals, and then engage in sex acts there in the restroom.... we don't tolerate that in public places between a man and a women, or even between two women, so why should we tolerate it when men do it? [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 16:07, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

== Ending His Term, November ==

Is that phrase accurate? Reason I ask is that it was added by someone later blocked for "silliness". [[User:ATang|ATang]] 12:44, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:Who knows? I only go by what I read in the press. Here what appeared in ''Forbes'' magazine:
:*Minutes after he was arrested for lewd conduct, Sen. Larry Craig denied soliciting an undercover officer for sex in a men's bathroom and pleaded, "I'm not gay. I don't do these kinds of things." [http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/08/31/ap4071387.html]
:I don't think ''Forbes'' would print a remark out of silliness. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:02, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

::Oh no, I meant the sentence [[User: Whiteflower|Whiteflower]] added: "He will end his term in November 2008." [[User: Whiteflower|Whiteflower]] was blocked later for "silliness", and I haven't found anything on the web that reflects a resignation or termination date. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 13:06, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:Well, the article is unprotected, so please fix any mistakes you see. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:32, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

==Fact Template==
I added the fact template to the following statement: "Given a choice of immediately going to jail to process a plea of innocence, Craig pled guilty so he could finish his final flight home." Personally, I haven't seen any news report that has indicated this, but obviously I don't see every news piece out there, so I'd appreciate if someone could back up that statement. All I've found is that Craig entered his plea [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294953,00.html in August], so I don't see how his pleading either guilty or innocent would have influenced the possibility of missing his next flight. The source I linked to above says that Craig wanted to keep this arrest quiet so as to not give the Idaho Statesman more ammunition (which agrees with the next sentence in the article, "He had hoped to keep the arrest quiet..."), but I can't find anything that says he pled guilty just to make his next flight. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 13:27, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
:Read the transcript.
::(NN) INTERVIEW WITH Larry Craig (LC) Case 07002008

::Larry Craig: Am I gonna have to fight you in court?

::Dave Karsnia: No. No. I'm not gonna go to court unless you want me there.

::LC: Cause I don't want to be in court either.

::DK: Ok. I don't either.

::(inaudible) DK: Urn, here's the way it works, urn, you'll you'll be released today, okay.

::LC: Okay.

::DK: All right. I, I know I can bring you to jail, but that's not my goal here, okay? (inaudible)

::LC: Don't do that. You You

::DK: I'm not going to bring you to jail

::LC: '''You solicited me'''.

::DK: Okay. We're going to get, We're going to get into that. (inaudible)

::LC: Okay.

::DK: But there's the, there there's two ways, yes. You can, you can, ah, you can go to court. You can plead guilty.

::LC: Yep.

::DK: There'll be a fine. You won't have to explain anything. (inaudible) I know.

::LC: Right.

::DK: And you'll pay a fine, you be (inaudible), done. Or if you want to plead not guilty, ah, and I, I can't make these decisions for you.

::LC: No, no. Just tell me where I am (inaudible) I need to make this flight.
[[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:36, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:I removed the bit about how he pled guilty so he could make his flight home. That's not how it works. The plea is not entered until later at trial. He couldn't enter a plea with the officers. he wouldn't even discuss it with them. That would be the prosecutor's job. Anyway, the police indicate that he is not going to be held for the misdemeanors, but will be released and must either appear in court later or (what Craig actually does) enter a plea by mail. [[User:Tradcon|Traditional Conservative]] 21:46, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Larry Craig

2007-09-10T01:40:46Z

Tradcon: /* Aftermath */ formatting following substantial edit

'''Larry Craig''' (b. July 20, 1945) has been a [[Republican]] United States Senator from the state of Idaho since 1991. From 1981 to 1991 he represented Idaho in the United States House of Representatives. He is generally considered to be a social conservative and is also a strong advocate of the proposed Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.

==Early years==

Senator Craig was born on the family ranch near Midvale, Idaho, which was homesteaded in 1899 by his grandfather. He later served as the Idaho State President and National Vice-President of the Future Farmers of America. Craig earned his B.A. at the University of Idaho in 1969 and did graduate work at George Washington University 1970. Craig has worked as a farmer and rancher and served in the Idaho senate from 1974-1980.

==U.S. Senate==

In 1974, the people of Payette and Washington counties sent Craig to the Idaho State Senate, where he served three terms before winning the 1980 race for Idaho's First District Congressional Seat. He was re-elected four times before winning the U.S. Senate election in 1990 and was re-elected to the Senate in 1996 and 2002. Senator Craig served as chairman of the Steering Committee, a legislative "think tank" and action group for Senate conservatives. He was the youngest senator ever elected to that position.

Craig quickly rose in the Senate leadership in his first term, when his colleagues elected him Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee. He was re-elected to that position in the 106th and 107th Congresses. The Committee is responsible for developing policy positions for Senate Republicans.

Craig has emerged as a leader for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, limited taxation, private property rights, and greater accountability in government. He has been recognized by national groups including Citizens for a Sound Economy, Citizens Against Government Waste, Watchdogs of the Treasury, and the National Taxpayers Union Foundation,

With his appointment to the Senate Appropriations Committee, Craig oversees funding on the following subcommittees: Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies; Energy and Water Development; Homeland Security; Labor, HHS, and Education; Military Construction and Veterans Affairs; and Interior and Related Agencies, where he serves as the Ranking Member. He is also a member of the Special Committee on Aging, which he chaired during the 107th and 108th Congresses, and the Committee on Environment and Public Works, where he serves on the Public Sector Solutions to Global Warming, Oversight, and Children's Health Protection Subcommittee and the Superfund and Environmental Health Subcommittee.

In addition to his committee memberships, Craig sits on a number of caucuses including: Air Force; Diabetes; Congressional Sportsmen's; Senate Sweetener; WTO for Farmers and Ranchers; Congressional Potato; National Congressional Award Board of Directors; Idaho Safe Kids Coalition (Honorary Co-Chair); the Western States Senate Coalition; Education Advisory Committee to the National Youth Leadership Conference. He serves as Co-Chairman of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption and helped to found and lead the CCAI, an institute working on adoption issues.

Craig is also on the Board of Directors of the [[National Rifle Association]], the Alliance to Save Energy, and he co-founded and co-chairs the Congressional Property Rights Coalition.

Craig chaired the Senate Republican Policy Committee (1996-2003), the Special Committee on Aging (One Hundred Eighth Congress), and the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs (One Hundred Ninth Congress).

==Bathroom arrest and possible resignation==

===Arrest and guilty plea===
On June 11, 2007, Craig was arrested in a mens' room at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. An undercover police officer was working a plainclothes detail in the restroom because the police had received citizen complaints about sexual activity there.<ref name="smokinggun1>[http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig1.html Report filed by arresting officer, page 1.]</ref> According to the officer's report, he was seated in a stall in the mens' room and observed Craig peering through a crack in the stall, then looking down at his fingers and fidgeting, a cycle that continued for two minutes. Craig then entered the stall to the officer's left and put his suitcase against the door of the stall, which the officer said in his experience was a typical stratagem used by persons engaged in what the officer calls "lewd conduct" to block the view from outside the stalls. Craig then tapped his right foot, a signal that the officer said was used by people who wish to engage in lewd conduct and then moved his right foot until it touched the officer's foot. Craig then swiped his left hand, palm up, along the bottom of the divider between the two men's stalls. The officer then showed Craig his badge under the stall divider, causing Craig to respond, "No."<ref name=smokinggun1/> Upon arrest, Craig was taken to the police operations center at the airport where he handed the arresting officer a business card that identified him as a U.S. Senator and asked, "What do you think about that."<ref>[http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig2.html Report filed by arresting officer, page 2.]</ref>

On June 26, 2007, the arresting officer filed a criminal complaint with two separate charges against Craig,<ref>[http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig4.html Supplement to arresting officer's report.]</ref> one count of interference with privacy, related to Craig's peeping on the officer while the officer was sitting in the stall, and one count of disorderly conduct, related to Craig's signaling a desire to engage in sexual conduct with Craig in the stall.<ref>[http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig6.html Arresting officer's complaint, page 2.]</ref> On August 1, 2007, Craig entered a guilty plea by mail to the charge of disorderly conduct and the peeping charge was dropped.<ref>''[http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig8.html State of Minnesota v Larry Edward Craig]''</ref>

===Aftermath===
After the news of his arrest broke the Republican Party stripped Craig of his committee assignments. Craig resigned his position with [[Mitt Romney]]'s presidential campaign.<ref>http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/08/28/craig/?rsssource=1</ref> This stands in stark contrast to the way the Democrats handled the [[Monica Lewinsky]] scandal.

On September 1, 2007, Craig announced he intended to resign from the Senate (effective September 30, 2007) after reports surfaced about an incident in June which he was arrested on a [[misdemeanor]] charge in a Minneapolis police airport sting operation in which Craig claimed entrapment. <ref>[http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/Craigtranscript.pdf Transcript of arrest interview] [http://www.break.com/index/senator-craig-police-audio-tape.html Audio]</ref> Craig is a regular commuter through the Minneapolis airport. He had hoped to keep the arrest quiet, didn’t consult a lawyer, and he never told family, friends, staff or colleagues about the incident. Craig has hired two Washington criminal defense lawyers, Stan Brand, who has defended lawmakers before, and Billy Martin, whose most recent client was NFL quarterback [[Michael Vick]]. Craig also retained one of the capital’s top public-relations experts, Judy Smith, who handled press for [[Monica Lewinsky]] and more recently for U.S. Rep. [[William Jefferson]]. <ref>[http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/149810.html Craig may not quit after all if he's cleared of charges, spokesman says], By GREGORY HAHN AND ERIKA BOLSTAD - ''Idaho Statesman'', 09/04/07.</ref>

Former President [[Bill Clinton]] said on [[CNN]]'s ''Larry King Live'',

:"Well, first of all, I think we ought to recognize that this is a very traumatic time for him and his family.... we should be hoping that he and his family can work through this ...I think that that is more important than the politics of this. The politics of this will have to be resolved by him and the Republicans in the Senate."

Craig has also received support from Senator [[Arlen Specter]], and Sidney Smith, a spokesman for Larry Craig, has stated that the decision to resign may not be final.<ref>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RF0EGO0&show_article=1</ref> Interestingly a poll one week after the news became a public, Liberals rated Craig the highest of groups classed by ideology in response to the question "How much respect do you have for Larry Craig?" <ref>[http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=6b5c7c9c-9b96-4c80-ad91-090eb7869c8f Results of SurveyUSA News Poll #12589].</ref>

Should Craig choose not to resign, his third Senate term will expire in January 2009.<ref> [http://www.idahostatesman.com/eyepiece/story/143801.html (Idaho Statesman)] </ref>

==References==

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Craig, Larry}}

[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]

Larry Craig

2007-09-10T01:40:11Z

Tradcon: /* Controversy */ adding info; also removing impossible explanation for guilty plea: see talk page

'''Larry Craig''' (b. July 20, 1945) has been a [[Republican]] United States Senator from the state of Idaho since 1991. From 1981 to 1991 he represented Idaho in the United States House of Representatives. He is generally considered to be a social conservative and is also a strong advocate of the proposed Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.

==Early years==

Senator Craig was born on the family ranch near Midvale, Idaho, which was homesteaded in 1899 by his grandfather. He later served as the Idaho State President and National Vice-President of the Future Farmers of America. Craig earned his B.A. at the University of Idaho in 1969 and did graduate work at George Washington University 1970. Craig has worked as a farmer and rancher and served in the Idaho senate from 1974-1980.

==U.S. Senate==

In 1974, the people of Payette and Washington counties sent Craig to the Idaho State Senate, where he served three terms before winning the 1980 race for Idaho's First District Congressional Seat. He was re-elected four times before winning the U.S. Senate election in 1990 and was re-elected to the Senate in 1996 and 2002. Senator Craig served as chairman of the Steering Committee, a legislative "think tank" and action group for Senate conservatives. He was the youngest senator ever elected to that position.

Craig quickly rose in the Senate leadership in his first term, when his colleagues elected him Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee. He was re-elected to that position in the 106th and 107th Congresses. The Committee is responsible for developing policy positions for Senate Republicans.

Craig has emerged as a leader for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, limited taxation, private property rights, and greater accountability in government. He has been recognized by national groups including Citizens for a Sound Economy, Citizens Against Government Waste, Watchdogs of the Treasury, and the National Taxpayers Union Foundation,

With his appointment to the Senate Appropriations Committee, Craig oversees funding on the following subcommittees: Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies; Energy and Water Development; Homeland Security; Labor, HHS, and Education; Military Construction and Veterans Affairs; and Interior and Related Agencies, where he serves as the Ranking Member. He is also a member of the Special Committee on Aging, which he chaired during the 107th and 108th Congresses, and the Committee on Environment and Public Works, where he serves on the Public Sector Solutions to Global Warming, Oversight, and Children's Health Protection Subcommittee and the Superfund and Environmental Health Subcommittee.

In addition to his committee memberships, Craig sits on a number of caucuses including: Air Force; Diabetes; Congressional Sportsmen's; Senate Sweetener; WTO for Farmers and Ranchers; Congressional Potato; National Congressional Award Board of Directors; Idaho Safe Kids Coalition (Honorary Co-Chair); the Western States Senate Coalition; Education Advisory Committee to the National Youth Leadership Conference. He serves as Co-Chairman of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption and helped to found and lead the CCAI, an institute working on adoption issues.

Craig is also on the Board of Directors of the [[National Rifle Association]], the Alliance to Save Energy, and he co-founded and co-chairs the Congressional Property Rights Coalition.

Craig chaired the Senate Republican Policy Committee (1996-2003), the Special Committee on Aging (One Hundred Eighth Congress), and the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs (One Hundred Ninth Congress).

==Bathroom arrest and possible resignation==

===Arrest and guilty plea===
On June 11, 2007, Craig was arrested in a mens' room at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. An undercover police officer was working a plainclothes detail in the restroom because the police had received citizen complaints about sexual activity there.<ref name="smokinggun1>[http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig1.html Report filed by arresting officer, page 1.]</ref> According to the officer's report, he was seated in a stall in the mens' room and observed Craig peering through a crack in the stall, then looking down at his fingers and fidgeting, a cycle that continued for two minutes. Craig then entered the stall to the officer's left and put his suitcase against the door of the stall, which the officer said in his experience was a typical stratagem used by persons engaged in what the officer calls "lewd conduct" to block the view from outside the stalls. Craig then tapped his right foot, a signal that the officer said was used by people who wish to engage in lewd conduct and then moved his right foot until it touched the officer's foot. Craig then swiped his left hand, palm up, along the bottom of the divider between the two men's stalls. The officer then showed Craig his badge under the stall divider, causing Craig to respond, "No."<ref name=smokinggun1/> Upon arrest, Craig was taken to the police operations center at the airport where he handed the arresting officer a business card that identified him as a U.S. Senator and asked, "What do you think about that."<ref>[http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig2.html Report filed by arresting officer, page 2.]</ref>

On June 26, 2007, the arresting officer filed a criminal complaint with two separate charges against Craig,<ref>[http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig4.html Supplement to arresting officer's report.]</ref> one count of interference with privacy, related to Craig's peeping on the officer while the officer was sitting in the stall, and one count of disorderly conduct, related to Craig's signaling a desire to engage in sexual conduct with Craig in the stall.<ref>[http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig6.html Arresting officer's complaint, page 2.]</ref> On August 1, 2007, Craig entered a guilty plea by mail to the charge of disorderly conduct and the peeping charge was dropped.<ref>''[http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig8.html State of Minnesota v Larry Edward Craig]''</ref>

===Aftermath===
After the news of his arrest broke the Republican Party stripped Craig of his committee assignments. Craig resigned his position with [[Mitt Romney]]'s presidential campaign.<ref>http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/08/28/craig/?rsssource=1</ref>
This stands in stark contrast to the way the Democrats handled the [[Monica Lewinsky]] scandal.

On September 1, 2007, Craig announced he intended to resign from the Senate (effective September 30, 2007) after reports surfaced about an incident in June which he was arrested on a [[misdemeanor]] charge in a Minneapolis police airport sting operation in which Craig claimed entrapment. <ref>[http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/Craigtranscript.pdf Transcript of arrest interview] [http://www.break.com/index/senator-craig-police-audio-tape.html Audio]</ref> Craig is a regular commuter through the Minneapolis airport. He had hoped to keep the arrest quiet, didn’t consult a lawyer, and he never told family, friends, staff or colleagues about the incident. Craig has hired two Washington criminal defense lawyers, Stan Brand, who has defended lawmakers before, and Billy Martin, whose most recent client was NFL quarterback [[Michael Vick]]. Craig also retained one of the capital’s top public-relations experts, Judy Smith, who handled press for [[Monica Lewinsky]] and more recently for U.S. Rep. [[William Jefferson]]. <ref>[http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/149810.html Craig may not quit after all if he's cleared of charges, spokesman says], By GREGORY HAHN AND ERIKA BOLSTAD - ''Idaho Statesman'', 09/04/07.</ref>

Former President [[Bill Clinton]] said on [[CNN]]'s ''Larry King Live'',

:"Well, first of all, I think we ought to recognize that this is a very traumatic time for him and his family.... we should be hoping that he and his family can work through this ...I think that that is more important than the politics of this. The politics of this will have to be resolved by him and the Republicans in the Senate."

Craig has also received support from Senator [[Arlen Specter]], and Sidney Smith, a spokesman for Larry Craig, has stated that the decision to resign may not be final.<ref>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RF0EGO0&show_article=1</ref> Interestingly a poll one week after the news became a public, Liberals rated Craig the highest of groups classed by ideology in response to the question "How much respect do you have for Larry Craig?" <ref>[http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=6b5c7c9c-9b96-4c80-ad91-090eb7869c8f Results of SurveyUSA News Poll #12589].</ref>

Should Craig choose not to resign, his third Senate term will expire in January 2009.<ref> [http://www.idahostatesman.com/eyepiece/story/143801.html (Idaho Statesman)] </ref>

==References==

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Craig, Larry}}

[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]

Gaullism

2007-09-09T16:24:10Z

Tradcon: party -->philosophy

'''Gaullism''' is the political philosophy associated with [[Charles De Gaulle]], the former French President. It emphasizes protecting the ''grandeur'' of France. Traditionally, this has often meant opposing the interests of the [[United Kingdom]] and [[United States]]. On the French political spectrum, it is a center-right political philosophy.

Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs

2007-09-09T15:27:03Z

Tradcon: formatting

Conservative songs exist, and some are immensely popular. Here is our growing list:

#"My Love" by [[Petula Clark]]. Christian love in secular form.
#"Starting All Over Again" by [[Petula Clark]]. Keep moving onward, even in the most difficult of times.
#"Thank You My Lord" by [[Petula Clark]]. The title says it all.
#"I Fought the Law (and the Law Won)". Its title says it all. The version by [[The Clash]] has a good tempo.
#"Sweet Home Alabama" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]].A response to hippie culture. Defends Southerners from stereo-typed attacks by Canadian liberal rocker Neil Young.
#"Fast Car" by [[Tracy Chapman]]. Self-help with a criticism of alcohol.
#"You Can't Hurry Love (You Just Have to Wait)". Abstinence for rock fans. The versions by [[The Supremes]] and [[Phil Collins]] were popular.
#"In Your Eyes" by [[Peter Gabriel]]. Love and a thousand churches for those who are lost.
#"Pomp and Circumstance" ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOcvcBxrfN4 ''Land of Hope & Glory'']) By Freedom gain, by Truth maintain...
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ0oCmDXrVk&mode=related&search= "Jerusalem"] Don't let the sword sleep in the hand.
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wahd2piIr4Q "Brothers In Arms"] by [[Dire Straits]]. We're fools to make war on our brothers in arms.
#"The Ascent of Stan" by [[Ben Folds]]. Tells the story of a former "textbook hippie man" who realizes that he has become everything that he was protesting against.
#"Brick" by [[Ben Folds Five]]. Shows the regret involved in abortion.
#"Revolution 1" by the [[Beatles]]: Against silly support of Communist revolutionaries.
#"Alive" by [[P.O.D]].: About being thankful for the gift of life.
#"Gotta Serve Somebody" by [[Bob Dylan]]. "It may be the devil or it may be the Lord."<ref>http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/serve.html</ref>
#"Stand By Your Man," by [[Tammy Wynette]]. Don't expect [[liberals]] to like that one!
#"I Can't Drive 55", by [[Sammy Hagar]]. A libertarian protest against highway speed limits.
#"Jesus Take The Wheel" by [[Carrie Underwood]]. A gospel-themed hit from the American Idol winner.
#"Red Barchetta" by [[Rush]]. Tells the story of a future with excessive regulation, where even driving is illegal.
#"You Light Up My Life" by [[Debbie Boone]]. One of the biggest hits ever, but [[liberals]] omit that this song is about [[Jesus]].
#"Father of Mine" by [[Everclear]]. A reminder of the importance of good parenting. Everclear singer Art Alexakis wrote much of his material from his own perspective of a troubled childhood. At the end of the song, Alexakis promises to be a better father than his own had been.
#"The Taxman" by [[The Beatles]]. George Harrison said, "Taxman was when I first realized that even though we had started earning money, we were actually giving most of it away in taxes." [http://home.att.net/~chuckayoub/Taxman_Lyrics.html]
#"Back in the U.S.A." by [[Chuck Berry]]. A patriotic song about missing life in the U.S.A.
#"Where the Streets Have No Name" by [[U2]].
#"Government Cheese" by [[The Rainmakers]]. Humorous spoof of welfare.
#"Angry Young Man" by [[Billy Joel]]. The doctrinaire leftist radical with "his fist in the air and his head in the sand" comes in for biting criticism.
#"Gimme Back My Bullets" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. The name says it all.
#"Let My People Go" by [[The Pursuit of Happiness]]. "How will you free us with your hate? How many heads will smash when you smash the state? You say march, I think I'll wait." An anti-protest song.
#"Don't Let 'Em Take Your Gun" by [[Grand Funk Railroad]]. A father gives his son some sage advice.
#"Something For Nothing" by [[Rush]]. "You can't get something for nothing, you can't have freedom for free."
#"Neighborhood Bully" by [[Bob Dylan]]. Israel's right to exist and defend itself.
#"Get It Right the First Time" by [[Louisiana's Le Roux]]. Wealthy Georgia politician is placed in high office and turns out to be a puppet with no ideas of his own. Released in 1980 when Jimmy Carter was up for re-election.
#"Only The Young" by [[Journey]]. "The shadows of a golden age, a generation waits for dawn, the brave carry on, the bold and the strong". An anthem for the Reagan Generation.
#"Yours Is No Disgrace" by [[Yes]]. Written to, and about, the troops headed for Vietnam.
#"Fair Exchange" and "Sparks of the Tempest" by [[Kansas (band)|Kansas]]. Warnings about totalitarian governments who want to take away your freedom in the name of utopia. Also much of their early 80s material, which has Christian lyrics.
#"In America" by the [[Charlie Daniels]] Band. Patriotism makes a comeback in response to the Iran hostage crisis and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
#"Storm the Embassy" by the [[Stray Cats]]. Another conservative song about the Iran hostage crisis.
#"We Must Take America Back" by [[Steve Vaus]]. Became an underground country music hit in 1992 after RCA dropped him and took the album out of print due to the political lyrics.
#"Renegade" by [[Steppenwolf]]. John Kay's childhood escape from Communist East Germany.
#"Capitalism" by [[Oingo Boingo]]. There's nothing wrong with free enterprise.
#"Unborn Child" by [[Seals and Crofts]]. This pro-life song was a hit single in 1974, but for some reason gets left off the Seals and Crofts greatest hits albums.
#"Bad Rap (Who You Tryin' To Kid, Kid?)" by [[Steve Taylor]]. Takes aim at LA and NY hipsters, the Village Voice, abortion, and "the left-wing band with their head in the sand".
#"Eat Starch Mom" by [[Jefferson Airplane]]. A pleasant surprise from their last album in 1972 to say the least. An angry tirade against vegetarians and tree hugging health food nuts, and a celebration of muscle cars. "It'll move faster than you can, vegetable lover!"
#"Last Kiss" by [[Pearl Jam]]. "Oh where oh where can my baby be; The Lord took her away from me; She's gone to heaven so I got to be good; So I can see my baby when I leave this world"<ref>http://www.songmeanings.net/lyric.php?lid=14</ref>
#"Love Me, I'm a Liberal" by [[Phil Ochs]]. Revealing Liberal hypocrisy for what it is.
#"America USA" by [http://giveagiftofsong.com/products.htm]Joey Sudyka. Not very well known perhaps but a good patriotic song.
#"Red White and Blue" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. An extremely Patriotic song.
#:"Yeah we love our families, #:we love our kids
#:you know it is love that makes us all so rich
#:That's where were at,
#:If they don't like it they can just
#:get the HELL out!"
#"Simple Man" by Charlie Daniels. A song about how drugs and poor politics are a result of people puting their bibles down. Also a strongly pro death penalty song.
#"That Smell" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. A very strong anti-drug use song by Americas most prestigious southern rock band.
#Virtually anything by [[Toby Keith]], but especially "Courtesy of the Red, White & Blue (The Angry American)."
== References ==

<references/>

Please add your best conservative picks.

[[category:essay]]

Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs

2007-09-09T15:24:50Z

Tradcon: added Toby Keith

Conservative songs exist, and some are immensely popular. Here is our growing list:

#"My Love" by [[Petula Clark]]. Christian love in secular form.
#"Starting All Over Again" by [[Petula Clark]]. Keep moving onward, even in the most difficult of times.
#"Thank You My Lord" by [[Petula Clark]]. The title says it all.
#"I Fought the Law (and the Law Won)". Its title says it all. The version by [[The Clash]] has a good tempo.
#"Sweet Home Alabama" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]].A response to hippie culture. Defends Southerners from stereo-typed attacks by Canadian liberal rocker Neil Young.
#"Fast Car" by [[Tracy Chapman]]. Self-help with a criticism of alcohol.
#"You Can't Hurry Love (You Just Have to Wait)". Abstinence for rock fans. The versions by [[The Supremes]] and [[Phil Collins]] were popular.
#"In Your Eyes" by [[Peter Gabriel]]. Love and a thousand churches for those who are lost.
#"Pomp and Circumstance" ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOcvcBxrfN4 ''Land of Hope & Glory'']) By Freedom gain, by Truth maintain...
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ0oCmDXrVk&mode=related&search= "Jerusalem"] Don't let the sword sleep in the hand.
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wahd2piIr4Q "Brothers In Arms"] by [[Dire Straits]]. We're fools to make war on our brothers in arms.
#"The Ascent of Stan" by [[Ben Folds]]. Tells the story of a former "textbook hippie man" who realizes that he has become everything that he was protesting against.
#"Brick" by [[Ben Folds Five]]. Shows the regret involved in abortion.
#"Revolution 1" by the [[Beatles]]: Against silly support of Communist revolutionaries.
#"Alive" by [[P.O.D]].: About being thankful for the gift of life.
#"Gotta Serve Somebody" by [[Bob Dylan]]. "It may be the devil or it may be the Lord."<ref>http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/serve.html</ref>
#"Stand By Your Man," by [[Tammy Wynette]]. Don't expect [[liberals]] to like that one!
#"I Can't Drive 55", by [[Sammy Hagar]]. A libertarian protest against highway speed limits.
#"Jesus Take The Wheel" by [[Carrie Underwood]]. A gospel-themed hit from the American Idol winner.
#"Red Barchetta" by [[Rush]]. Tells the story of a future with excessive regulation, where even driving is illegal.
#"You Light Up My Life" by [[Debbie Boone]]. One of the biggest hits ever, but [[liberals]] omit that this song is about [[Jesus]].
#"Father of Mine" by [[Everclear]]. A reminder of the importance of good parenting. Everclear singer Art Alexakis wrote much of his material from his own perspective of a troubled childhood. At the end of the song, Alexakis promises to be a better father than his own had been.
#"The Taxman" by [[The Beatles]]. George Harrison said, "Taxman was when I first realized that even though we had started earning money, we were actually giving most of it away in taxes." [http://home.att.net/~chuckayoub/Taxman_Lyrics.html]
#"Back in the U.S.A." by [[Chuck Berry]]. A patriotic song about missing life in the U.S.A.
#"Where the Streets Have No Name" by [[U2]].
#"Government Cheese" by [[The Rainmakers]]. Humorous spoof of welfare.
#"Angry Young Man" by [[Billy Joel]]. The doctrinaire leftist radical with "his fist in the air and his head in the sand" comes in for biting criticism.
#"Gimme Back My Bullets" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. The name says it all.
#"Let My People Go" by [[The Pursuit of Happiness]]. "How will you free us with your hate? How many heads will smash when you smash the state? You say march, I think I'll wait." An anti-protest song.
#"Don't Let 'Em Take Your Gun" by [[Grand Funk Railroad]]. A father gives his son some sage advice.
#"Something For Nothing" by [[Rush]]. "You can't get something for nothing, you can't have freedom for free."
#"Neighborhood Bully" by [[Bob Dylan]]. Israel's right to exist and defend itself.
#"Get It Right the First Time" by [[Louisiana's Le Roux]]. Wealthy Georgia politician is placed in high office and turns out to be a puppet with no ideas of his own. Released in 1980 when Jimmy Carter was up for re-election.
#"Only The Young" by [[Journey]]. "The shadows of a golden age, a generation waits for dawn, the brave carry on, the bold and the strong". An anthem for the Reagan Generation.
#"Yours Is No Disgrace" by [[Yes]]. Written to, and about, the troops headed for Vietnam.
#"Fair Exchange" and "Sparks of the Tempest" by [[Kansas (band)|Kansas]]. Warnings about totalitarian governments who want to take away your freedom in the name of utopia. Also much of their early 80s material, which has Christian lyrics.
#"In America" by the [[Charlie Daniels]] Band. Patriotism makes a comeback in response to the Iran hostage crisis and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
#"Storm the Embassy" by the [[Stray Cats]]. Another conservative song about the Iran hostage crisis.
#"We Must Take America Back" by [[Steve Vaus]]. Became an underground country music hit in 1992 after RCA dropped him and took the album out of print due to the political lyrics.
#"Renegade" by [[Steppenwolf]]. John Kay's childhood escape from Communist East Germany.
#"Capitalism" by [[Oingo Boingo]]. There's nothing wrong with free enterprise.
#"Unborn Child" by [[Seals and Crofts]]. This pro-life song was a hit single in 1974, but for some reason gets left off the Seals and Crofts greatest hits albums.
#"Bad Rap (Who You Tryin' To Kid, Kid?)" by [[Steve Taylor]]. Takes aim at LA and NY hipsters, the Village Voice, abortion, and "the left-wing band with their head in the sand".
#"Eat Starch Mom" by [[Jefferson Airplane]]. A pleasant surprise from their last album in 1972 to say the least. An angry tirade against vegetarians and tree hugging health food nuts, and a celebration of muscle cars. "It'll move faster than you can, vegetable lover!"
#"Last Kiss" by [[Pearl Jam]]. "Oh where oh where can my baby be; The Lord took her away from me; She's gone to heaven so I got to be good; So I can see my baby when I leave this world"<ref>http://www.songmeanings.net/lyric.php?lid=14</ref>
#"Love Me, I'm a Liberal" by [[Phil Ochs]]. Revealing Liberal hypocrisy for what it is.
#"America USA" by [http://giveagiftofsong.com/products.htm]Joey Sudyka. Not very well known perhaps but a good patriotic song.
#"Red White and Blue" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. An extremely Patriotic song. "Yeah we love our families, we love our kids
you know it is love that makes us all so rich
That's where were at,
If they don't like it they can just
get the HELL out!"
#"Simple Man" by Charlie Daniels. A song about how drugs and poor politics are a result of people puting their bibles down. Also a strongly pro death penalty song.
#"That Smell" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. A very strong anti-drug use song by Americas most prestigious southern rock band.
#Virtually anything by [[Toby Keith]], but especially "Courtesy of the Red, White & Blue (The Angry American).
== References ==

<references/>

Please add your best conservative picks.

[[category:essay]]

Unitarian Universalist Association

2007-09-09T03:33:26Z

Tradcon: dewiki

The '''Unitarian Universalist Association''' was formed in 1961 by a merger between the main body of American Unitarians and the Universalist Association of America. It is a liberal, nondoctrinal denomination, whose members' beliefs can be summarized as follows:

God--There is a God or there is not a God, depending on what you believe, or there may be a God, or several Gods, or anything.

Jesus--There are no incarnations of God, or that all incarnations are the embodiment of God, or Jesus is God's Son, or Jesus is not Son but prophet, much as Muslims believe.

Creation--Most say the Bible is fake or symbolic and Creation is a myth, and that evolution is real

Heaven--Heaven and hell are symbolic and are not actual places, or are states of consciousness either in life or continuing after death, or there is reincarnation like Hindus say, or that there is no afterlife, or that it doesn't matter because only life matters.

Sin--Most do not believe in sin and say that Satan does not actually exist. People are good but immoral behavior comes from free will. Some believe in "karma," like Hindus and Buddhists do, that what goes around comes around.

Salvation--Salvation is either through faith in God and Jesus Christ for the few who are truly Christians, or by doing good works and doing no harm to others, or others say everyone will be saved, or that there will reincarnation and we have to be like Buddha to achieve enlightenment or salvation, or that there is no such thing as salvation or enlightenment and this concept is irrelevant.

Political views--The Unitarian Universalism Association’s stance is that there should be free abortions. Also they say there should be equality for homosexuals, gender equality, a secular marriage and divorce and remarriage, working to end poverty, promoting peace and nonviolence, and environmental protection.

Unitarian Universalist Association

2007-09-09T03:32:52Z

Tradcon: cut-and-paste move from Unitarians, which should be more about the historical Christian heresy

The '''Unitarian Universalist Association''' was formed in 1961 by a merger between the main body of American Unitarians and the Universalist Association of America. It is a liberal, nondoctrinal denomination, whose members' beliefs can be summarized as follows:

God--There is a God or there is not a God, depending on what you believe, or there may be a God, or several Gods, or anything.

Jesus--There are no incarnations of God, or that all incarnations are the embodiment of God, or Jesus is God's Son, or Jesus is not Son but prophet, much as Muslims believe.

Creation--Most say the Bible is fake or symbolic and Creation is a myth, and that evolution is real

Heaven--Heaven and hell are symbolic and are not actual places, or are states of consciousness either in life or continuing after death, or there is reincarnation like Hindus say, or that there is no afterlife, or that it doesn't matter because only life matters.

Sin--Most do not believe in sin and say that Satan does not actually exist. People are good but immoral behavior comes from free will. Some believe in "karma," like Hindus and Buddhists do, that what goes around comes around.

Salvation--Salvation is either through faith in God and Jesus Christ for the few who are truly Christians, or by doing good works and doing no harm to others, or others say everyone will be saved, or that there will reincarnation and we have to be like Buddha to achieve enlightenment or salvation, or that there is no such thing as salvation or enlightenment and this concept is irrelevant.

Political views--The [["Unitarian Universalism Association"]]’s stance is that there should be free abortions. Also they say there should be equality for homosexuals, gender equality, a secular marriage and divorce and remarriage, working to end poverty, promoting peace and nonviolence, and environmental protection.

Unitarians

2007-09-09T03:29:58Z

Tradcon: Tidy, correct and move much of this to Unitarian Universalist Association

'''Unitarianism''' is a religion that developed from Christianity in Europe in the 16th Century. Its name comes from its rejection the idea of the [[Holy Trinity]] in favor of a unitary God. In Unitarianism, Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God, but not God Himself. Thus, Unitarians reject key Christian concepts like the [[Incarnation]], [[Virgin Birth]] and [[Resurrection]]. In the United States, the main body of Unitarians merged with the [[Universalists]] to form the [[Unitarian Universalist Association]] in 1961. The UUs (as they call themselves) are explicitly nondoctrinal, although most members would subscribe to some sort of [[liberal theology]] and many embrace Eastern religious concepts.

The Unitarians merged with the Universalists in 1961 to become the [[Unitarian Universalist Association]], which has thrown out absolutely every religious tenet of Christianity in some form or another.

== External links ==
* [http://www.beliefnet.com/index/index_10034.html Belief Net on Unitarians]
* [http://www.uua.org/ Unitarians Universal Association]

[[Category:Religion]]

French Wars

2007-09-09T02:54:50Z

Tradcon: /* 20th century */ Algeria was not a colony

The following is a list of some of the wars that [[France]] has fought:

==Pre-18th century==

* '''Italian Wars''' 
The Italian Wars were a series of wars from 1494 to 1559 for control over the States of Italy, mainly involving France and Spain, but also involving most other European states, and the imprisonment for several months of Pope Clement VII.

Originally arising from dynastic disputes over the Duchy of Milan and the Kingdom of Naples, the wars rapidly became a general struggle for power and territory among their various participants, and were marked with an increasing degree of alliances, counter-alliances, and regular betrayals. The Habsburg were eventually victorious with the French and their allies suffering major defeats.

* '''War of the League of Cognac''' 
The War of the League of Cognac (1526–1530) pitted the League of Cognac (an alliance of France, England, Pope Clement VII, Venice, Florence, and elements of Milan) against the Habsburg dominions of Emperor Charles V—primarily Spain and the Holy Roman Empire.

By 1539, France's ally, Florence alone continued to resist Emperor Charles V's Imperial forces. A Florentine army under Francesco Ferruccio engaged the Imperials at the Battle of Gavinana in 1530, but although Orange himself was killed, the Imperials won a decisive victory, and the Florentine Republic surrendered ten days later. With this decisive Habsburg victory; not only did the entire League of Cognac suffer a loss, but France especially was humiliated.

==18th century==

* '''Seven Years' War''' 
The Seven Years' War (1754 and 1756–1763) was a war that pitted Great Britain and Prussia against France and Austria. The war was described by Winston Churchill as the first world war, as it was the first conflict in human history to be fought around the globe, although almost all of the combatants were either European nations or their overseas colonies.

The British-French hostilities were ended in 1763 with a French defeat that was made official by the Treaty of Paris; which was particularly catastrophic for France because it lost most of its colonial empire to Britain, especially Canada and India.

* '''French and Indian War''' 
The French and Indian War was the nine-year North American theater of the Seven Years War. The conflict was caused by land disputes. Specifically both the British and the French claimed the vast territory between the Appalachians and the Mississippi river, from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico, known as the Ohio Country.

The French conceded their defeat and a British victory with the 1763 Treaty of Paris. As a result of the French defeat, the British gained control of French Canada and Spain gained control of Louisiana. Overall, French administrative presence in North America was almost completely removed.

* '''Haitian Revolution''' 
The Haitian Revolution was the first successful slave rebellion in the Western Hemisphere and established Haiti as a free republic. At the time, Haiti was a colony of France known as Saint-Domingue.

After two years of dispute among elements of the free population, a great slave uprising plunged the country into civil war in 1791. Slavery was first abolished on August 29, 1793 on the island. But by 1802, it was obvious that the French intended to re-establish slavery. As a result the black population continued the fight against the French. The leader of the revolution, Jean-Jacques Dessalines, led the rebellion until its completion, when the French were finally defeated at the Battle of Vertières in November of 1803.

==Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars==

The Napoleonic Wars were a series of wars fought between France (led by Napoleon Bonaparte) and alliances involving England and Prussia and Russia and Austria at different times. They were partly an extension of conflicts sparked by the French Revolution, and continued for the duration of the First French Empire.

The Napoleonic Wars ended on 20 November 1815, following France's final defeat at Waterloo and the Second Treaty of Paris.

* '''Quasi-War''' 
The Quasi-War was an undeclared war fought entirely at sea between the United States and France from 1798 to 1800. The conflict began because the French began to stealing American ships trading with the British.

The war started on July 7, 1798, when Congress rescinded treaties with France. United States Naval squadrons then sought out and attacked the French privateers. By October 1800, the United States Navy produced a reduction in the activity of the French privateers and warships, defeating the French. The French admitted this defeat with the Treaty of Mortefontaine on September 30, 1800.

* '''Peninsular War''' 
The Peninsular War (1808–1814) was a major conflict during the Napoleonic Wars, fought in the Iberian Peninsula with Spanish, Portuguese, and the British forces fighting against the French. It has been described as "a hammer and anvil" campaign, the hammer being the Anglo-Portuguese Army, commanded by Sir Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, with 40,000 to 80,000 men, and the anvil being the Spanish armies, the Spanish guerillas and the Portuguese militia.

The Peninsular War was the first guerrilla conflict (a term coined for this war) and lasted until the Sixth Coalition defeated France in 1814.

* '''War of the Sixth Coalition''' 
The Sixth Coalition (1812-1814) was a coalition of the Great Britain, Russia, Prussia, Sweden, Austria and a number of German States against France. After France's disastrous defeat in Russia, the continental powers saw a final opportunity to defeat the French and joined the coalition which previously consisted only of the Russians and British in addition to Spanish and Portuguese rebels in Iberia.

2.5 million troops fought in the conflict and the total dead amounted to as many as 2 million (some estimates suggest that over a million died in Russia alone). It included the battles of Smolensk, Borodino, Lützen, Dresden and the epic Battle of Nations — the largest of the Napoleonic wars, and indeed the largest battle in Western history up until the First World War. The final stage of the war led to the Allies occupying Paris, forcing the French to admit defeat.

==19th century==

* '''Franco-Mexican War''' 
The Franco-Mexican War lasted from December 8, 1861 to June 21, 1867. It began with the invasion of Mexico by the army of the Second French Empire. It followed President Benito Juárez's suspension of payments of interest on loans to foreign countries made by previous governments on July 17, 1861, which angered the French government. France wanted to exploit the rich mines in the north-west of Mexico. The French started the war when they did due to the fact that the United States was in the middle of its Civil War, and thus was unable to intervene as they would have due to the Monroe Doctrine.

The presidential terms of Benito Juárez were interrupted by the French occupational monarchy, which was eventually overthrown in early 1867. The Mexicans occupied the rest of the states of Zacatecas, San Luis Potosí and Guanajuato in January of 1867. The French evacuated the capital on February 5, 1867. The French instituted puppet monarch, Maximilian of Habsburg was executed on June 19, 1867 by the forces loyal to President Benito Juárez.

* '''Franco-Prussian War''' 
The Franco-Prussian War (July 19, 1870 – May 10, 1871) was fought between France and Prussia (backed by the North German Confederation) allied with the south German states of Baden, Bavaria and Württemberg. The conflict marked the culmination of tension between the two powers following Prussia's rise to dominance in Germany, still a loose federation of quasi-independent territories.

Over a five-month campaign, the German armies defeated the French army in a series of battles fought across northern France. Following a prolonged siege, the French capital Paris fell on January 28, 1871. The French admission of defeat, the Treaty of Frankfurt was signed May 10, 1871, during the time of the bloody Paris Commune of 1871.

==20th century==

* '''World War II''' 
After the so-called Phony War from 1939 to 1940, Nazi Germany managed to inflict a humiliating defeat on the French. The [[French Third Republic]] formally surrendered to Germany on June 25, 1940 and voted itself out of existence. The reorganized French government, known as the [[Vichy regime]], enthusiastically joined the Axis. In 1944, France was invaded by the [[Allied powers]]. After the French surrendered for the second time in less than five years, the [[Fourth French Republic]] out of the [[French National Committee]] led by [[Charles de Gaulle]].

* '''French-Thai War''' 
The French-Thai War (1940 - 1941) was fought between Thailand and Vichy France over certain areas of French Indochina that had once belonged to Thailand. In early January 1941, the Thai lauched their offensive. Many French units were simply swept along by the better-equipped Thai forces. The Thais swiftly took Laos. Because of over-complicated orders and nonexistent intelligence, the French counterattacks were cut to pieces and fighting ended with a French withdrawal from the area.

The Japanese Empire mediated the conflict, and a general armistice was arranged to go into effect at 1000 hours on January 28. On May 9 France admitted defeat in Tokyo, with the French relinquishing their hold on the disputed territories.

* '''First Indochina War''' 
The First Indochina War (also called the French Indochina War) was fought in Southeast Asia from 19 December 1946 until 1 August 1954 between the nation of France and the resistance movement led by Ho Chi Minh, called the Viet Minh. Most of the fighting took place in Northern Vietnam (the area the French referred to as Tonkin) although the conflict engulfed the entire country and also extended into the neighboring Indochinese countries of Laos and Cambodia.

In 1954, the Battle of Dien Bien Phu occurred between Viet Minh forces under Võ Nguyên Giáp and French airborne and Foreign Legion forces. The French suffered an humiliating defeat. At least 2,200 members of the 20,000-strong French forces died during the battle. Shortly after Dien Bien Phu, the Groupe Mobile 100 of the French army were wiped out at the Battle of Mang Yang Pass. The Viet Minh victory at Dien Bien Phu led to the departure of France from Vietnam.

* '''Tunisian War of Independence''' 
The Tunisian War of Independence was fought from 1952 to 1956 between France and a guerilla movement of Tunisia, a nation that had been a French territory since 1881. The guerilla movement was lead by Habib Bourguiba.

In 1954, Pierre Mendes-France became the leader of the French government and pursued a policy of surrender. This resulted with the April 1955 agreement which handed internal autonomy to Tunisian hands while international relations were managed by France, a similar situation to the Turkish Bey method of governance in pre-1881. The use of [[torture]] by the French government, in particular by [[Paul Aussaresses]], in the Algerian War of Independence further weakened the French claim to the area, leading to the abolition of the Treaty of Bardo and Tunisia gaining full independence in March 20, 1956.

* '''Algerian War of Independence''' 
The Algerian War of Independence (1954–62) was one of the most important decolonisation wars and a complex conflict. It was characterized by guerrilla fighting and terrorism against civilians on both sides and counter-terrorism operations by the French Army. It was effectively started in November 1954. Under orders from Socialist Guy Mollet's (SFIO) government, the French Army initiated a campaign of "pacification" of what was considered at the time to be fully part of France. This "public order operation" quickly turned into a full-scale war.

France eventually conceded defeat with the March 1962 Evian Accords which organized the independence of Algeria.

[[Category:France]]
[[Category:Wars]]

Antichrist

2007-09-09T02:36:13Z

Tradcon: correct

The word '''Antichrist''' comes from the [[Greek]] αντί-χριστος (''anti''-''khristos''), meaning ''opposite of Christ''. The Greek word ''anti'' can also mean 'instead of' or "equal to, like" so that the phrase can also be interpreted as meaning ''in place of, or like, Christ''. The term has a number of distinct uses in modern English. It can mean an extreme form of evil or evil incarnate. Some Christians believe that the use in John refers to a single being that will appear in the [[End Times]]. This view is most commonly found among [[Dispensationalism|dispensationalist Christians]].

== The Antichrist in the Bible ==
The following verses are the only verses which mention the Antichrist (KJV)

:I John 2:18 'as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now there are many antichrists'

:I John 2:22 'Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieith the Father and the Son.'

:I John 4:3 'And every spirit that confesseth not that [[Jesus]] Christ is come in the flesh is not of [[God]]: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

:2 John 7: 'For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.'

There are no other references to the term in the Bible. Neither the book of [[Daniel]] nor St John's [[Revelation]] mention the concept at all. Based on this, many Christians argue that the Bible refers only to a ''generalized concept'' of Antichrist, applicable to anybody who is 'against Christ', not to a particular person. Moreover, such 'antichrists' were already present in the world nearly two thousand years ago. Many major Christian denominations, such as the Catholic Church, have classically argued that these verses mainly prefigure the actual Antichrist and that one can see a single unifying Antichrist figure with the proper exegetical methods if one looks at Daniel and Revelations.[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01559a.htm]

==Sources==

* Cruden, A., ''Complete Concordance to the Old and New Testaments'' (Lutterworth, 1930)
* ''The Holy Bible'' (King James Version)
* ''The New English Bible'' (Oxford & Cambridge University Presses, 1970)
* ''The New Jerusalem Bible'' (Darton, Longman & Todd, 1990)
* Peake, A.S., ''Commentary on the Bible'' (Nelson, 1962)
* Young, R., ''Analytical Concordance to the Holy Bible'' (Lutterworth, 1939)
[[category:christianity]]

Talk:Church of Satan

2007-09-09T02:29:32Z

Tradcon: comment

{{Controversial}}

I just made a change to make it clear that the 9 sins according to the church of satan, including commentary contained therein, is from the Church of Satan's website. Even so, this article is unbalanced. Please add criticisms and/or other balancing material. Thanks. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>H</big>eart<big>O</big>f<big>G</big>old]][[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 20:22, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

I have omitted the word "cult" from "cult beliefs". As there is no standardized definition of what separates a "cult" from a "religion", it would be best to refrain from using what is generally considered an offensive or condescending term. [[User:KxWaal|KxWaal]] 22:23, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

*Unacceptable. Sorry. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:54, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

*(taken from http://www.cultinformation.org.uk/faq.html#cult)"Every cult can be defined as a group having all of the following five characteristics:

1.It uses psychological coercion to recruit, indoctrinate and retain its members

2.It forms an elitist totalitarian society.

3.Its founder leader is self-appointed, dogmatic, messianic, not accountable and has charisma.

4.It believes 'the end justifies the means' in order to solicit funds recruit people.

5.Its wealth does not benefit its members or society."

If you can point out one characteristic out of these that the c.o.s. is guilty of, i'd like to know.
While the term "cult" can be used to loosely characterize any creed or doctrine, by this definition Christianity, Judaism etc. would also fall under the term. {{unsigned|KxWaal}}

:"A group or doctrine with religious, philosophical or cultural identity sometimes viewed as a sect, often existent on the margins of society." We don't need to point out any of the things you list above, we also don't mince our words for fear of "offending" the gentle souls at the Church of Satan. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 07:06, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

*KxWaal, I don't know of any major, or minor organized Christian religious group, nor any Rabinical Councils, that any of the 5 points applies to. Do you? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 13:52, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:TK, you have obviously misinterpreted what I said. I pointed out that I have found two differing definitions of the term "cult": The first being a group that can be characterized by those 5 points, the second one being a broad term that can define just about any creed. Mainstream Christianity definitely is not guilty of the prior, neither is Anton Lavey's idea of Satanism.
:Satanism is really more of a philosophy anyhow. Think humanism with a fashion sense. The whole "church" part is really just combination of their ideas that a)man needs ceremony in life and b)image is everything. While (b) might seem shallow, as Wesley R. Simpson, current Church Of Satan leader put it: "All religion is show-business, We're just the only church that admits it."
:All I'm saying is, if you had used the word "cult" to describe Scientology instead, that crazy cult would probably have tried to sue you. ;) --[[User:KxWaal|KxWaal]] [[User_talk:KxWaal/talk]] 21:55, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
*I've got to agree that it's not really a cult: cults are much more manipulative. It's just a provocative name for an atheistic philososphy. [[User:Tradcon|Traditional Conservative]] 22:29, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

Religion

2007-09-09T02:23:53Z

Tradcon: /* Parody and joke religions */ I don't think that they consider themselves a joke religion

"'''Religion'''" refers to a set of core beliefs upon which people base their lives. It is very frequently used to refer to a set of beliefs about a god or gods, but is not limited to this.

== Definition ==

The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary give a definition of religions as "the service and worship of God or the supernatural", and "commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance", but also as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith", while "religious" is defined as "relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity"<ref>[http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=religion "Religion"] in Merriam Webster dictionary.</ref>

== Religion as Belief in God or Gods ==

"'''Religion'''" is frequently used to refer to a belief in a god or gods, or other [[supernatural]] elements such as [[angels]], [[demons]], souls, and locations such as [[heaven]], [[purgatory]] and [[hell]].

Often a particular common set of beliefs are referred to, such as [[Christianity]], [[Islam]], or [[Judaism]].

Developed religions generally consist of a central creed or body of beliefs, an ethical component (i.e. a code of morals), a body of literature or holy texts or stories, and a set of individual and communal practices.

== Religion as Organisation ==

"'''Religion'''" is often used to refer to a particular religious organisation, such a [[Roman Catholic|Catholicism]], [[Methodist|Methodism]], or [[Lutheran]]ism.

== Religion as Set of Practices ==

"'''Religion'''" is sometimes used to refer to a set of practices, rites, or rituals observed by followers.

Many [[evangelical]]s reject the term "religion" because they reject any system of works by which human beings attempt to approach [[God]] without a personal relationship with [[Jesus Christ]].
According to them, for the person who is born again, "religion" can only interfere and distract from that prayerful union.

==Religion as Philosophy or Principle==

The definition of religion as a cause, principle, or system of beliefs is probably the broadest definition of the term. By this definition, non-theistic belief systems such as [[atheism]], [[humanism]], and [[agnosticism]] can be considered religions. Indeed, the Supreme Court of the [[United States of America]] has acknowledged that "religion" does not need to include a belief in a god or gods, and included humanism as an example of a non-theistic religion.<ref>"Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God, are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others.". [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=367&invol=488#t11 Torcaso v. Watkins, (1961)]</ref>
Another U.S. court has also ruled atheism enjoys protection as a religion.<ref>"A federal court of appeals ruled ... Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion." [http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874 Court rules atheism a religion] WorldNet Daily</ref>

Atheists typically reject that atheism is a religion because it rejects the existence of God.

Since the belief in gods is not essential to Buddhism, it is sometimes not considered to be a religion, but a philosophy. The Association of Religion Data Archives includes Buddism as one of the 149 religious bodies, but omits atheism, agnosticism or secular humanism <ref>Religious Groups Participating in Religious Congregations & Membership Study 2000. [http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/alldenoms.asp]</ref>.

== List of religions ==
Religions can be classified according to how many gods the religion recognises.
=== Monotheistic religions ===

Monotheistic ("one god") religions are followed by the vast majority of the world's population.

* [[Christianity]]
* [[Islam]]
* [[Jehovah's Witnesses]]
* [[Judaism]]
* [[Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints|Mormonism]]
* [[Rastafari movement]]
* [[Bahá'í]]
* [[Zoroastrianism]]
* [[Sikhism]]

=== Polytheistic religions ===
Polytheistic ("many gods") religions believe in multiple gods or spirits or other supernatural being needing to be worshipped.

* [[Animism]]
* [[Cao Dai]]
* [[Paganism]]
* [[Shamanism]]
* [[Wicca]]
* [[Shinto]]
* [[Scientology]]

=== Pantheistic religions ===
Pantheistic ("all is god") religions believe that all of creation or nature is a god.

* [[Hinduism]]
* [[Jainism]]
* [[New Age]] beliefs

=== Non-theistic religions and philosophies===
Non-theistic religions do not have a belief in God or gods. Some consider the existence of God to be unknown or irrelevant, while (strong) Atheism believes that there is no god or gods.
* [[Atheism]]
* [[Secular Humanism]]
* [[Agnostic]]ism
* [[Buddhism]]

=== Parody and joke religions ===
Several "religions" have been invented in an effort to denigrate traditional religions. As a rule, these religions do not have followers who actually believe the tenets of the religions.

* [[Church of the SubGenius|SubGeniism]]
* [[Flying Spaghetti Monster|The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster]]
* [[Discordianism]]
* [[Jedi]]

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
* [[World Religions by Number of Followers]]

[[Category:Religion]]

Moderate Republican

2007-09-09T02:20:57Z

Tradcon: clarify

A '''moderate Republican''' is someone who rejects some [[conservative]] positions, most notably on social issues such as [[abortion]] and [[homosexuality]]. Moderate Republicans often support each other rather than [[conservative]] candidates. Moderate Republicans typically reject [[conservative]] positions in the [[Republican]] Party Platform.

An example of a moderate Republican in the [[U.S. Senate]] is [[Arlen Specter]] from [[Pennsylvania]].

In some states, the rift between moderate and conservative Republicans has become such that Republican primaries almost overshadow the general elections in importance. An example is [[Kansas]], which is a very conservative state that is dominated by the state Republican Party that has factionalized into moderate and conservative Republicans.

Republicans who support traditional conservative positions on social issues but not on economic issues are not typically described as moderate Republicans. For example, in the 2000 Republican presidential primaries [[Gary Bauer]] called for an increase in the minimum wage, opposed Social Security reform, and called for curtailed free trade, especially with China. Yet, he was not considered a moderate Republican.

[[Category:politics]]

Osama Bin Laden

2007-09-09T02:14:11Z

Tradcon: rem cite to biased, left-wing source: changing Carter Admin to United States: aid took place under Carter and Reagan with broad bipartisan support; Taliban as such did not exist in 80s

[[Image:382px-AQ00100.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Osama Bin Laden''' is a Saudi Arabian millionaire and the leader of [[al Qaeda]], a worldwide [[terrorist]] group responsible for [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] and some other terrorist attacks on Americans in the 1990s. He obtained his wealth by inheriting it from his father, Mohammed Awad bin Laden, who was a successful entrepreneur in the construction industry.

During the [[Clinton Administration]] <ref>[http://www.bannerofliberty.com/OS8-98MQC/8-24-1998.1.html Did Bill Clinton Smooth the Way for Bin Laden to Become the World's Most Successful Terrorist?], Mary Mostert, Original Sources, August 24, 1998. </ref>, bin Laden issued two Declarations of War against the United States for the basing of troops in the Arabian Peninsula to defend against external aggression by [[Saddam Hussein]] and because of the suffering of the Iraqi people under UN economic sanctions.<ref>[http://www.kimsoft.com/2001/binladenwar.htm Bin Laden's Declaration of War], 1998.</ref> However, Clinton did not take the threat seriously, and did not make an effort to capture or kill Bin Laden. <ref> [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/] Osama bin Laden: missed opportunities</ref>

Bin Laden lived in Sudan for most of the 1990's at the invitation of [[Hassan al-Turabi]], a powerful Sudanese political leader and terrorism supporter. He then returned to [[Afghanistan]], where he had fought against the Soviets in the 1980's. He was protected by the [[Taliban]] until the American liberation of [[Afghanistan]] following [[9/11]].

During the 1980s insurgency against the [[Soviet]] occupation of [[Afghanistan]] the United States initially directed help to train and arm anti-Soviet Islamic fundamentalist militants. Bin Laden had his own source of funding, though, and would have shunned influence by America.<ref>http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-318760.html</ref>

In 1998, Bin Laden and [[Ayman al-Zawahiri]], then leader of the Egyptian terrorist group called the [[Islamic Brotherhood]], announced the joining of al Qaeda and the [[Islamic Brotherhood]] to form the ''World Islamic Front for the Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders''<ref> http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir011003_1_n.shtml</ref>. In 1998, the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were destroyed by suicide bombers; the United States later indicted both Ben Laden and al-Zawahiri for the attacks which killed 224 people. In retaliation the United States lunched cruise missiles, however, both terrorist leaders escaped.

Bin Laden is cited by the [[United States]] government as the most wanted terrorist. He remains at large to this day.

== See also ==

* [[Yasser Arafat]]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Bin Laden, Osama}}
[[Category:Military Commanders]]
[[Category:Terrorists]]
[[Category: al-Qaeda]]

France

2007-09-09T02:01:47Z

Tradcon: /* Government */ better term

{{country
|map=map_of_france.jpg
|flag=FranceE_3.gif‎
|capital=Paris
|government=Republic
|language=French
|president=Nicolas Sarkozy
|pm=François Fillon
|area=260,558 sq. mi.
|pop=64,102,140
|pop-basis=(2007 estimate)
|gdp=1.871 trillion
|gdp-year=(2007 estimate)
|gdp-pc=$30,100
}}
'''France''' (Official title: ''French Republic''/''République Française'') is a country in Western [[Europe]].

At its height, the French Empire rivaled the British Empire, with colonies in every corner of the world. It continues to be a strong presence in academia and has been the birthplace of countless renowned scholars, such as [[Voltaire]] and [[Descartes]]. It remains a powerhouse in the [[European Union]], often at odds with the [[United Kingdom]] on issues of EU policy. The capital city is Paris, often called the "City of Lights" due to its renown from the Eiffel Tower, which is spectacularly lit at night.

Military aid was given to the American colonies in their attempt to gain independence. The sacrifice of her navy and commitment to the American cause became vital to the survival of the United States.

Also in this time, France was a center for the enlightenment. Philosophes like Descartes, Montesquieu and others theorised many ideas that are now synonymous with Western Civilization and the Democratic system.

The success of the American Revolution and the development of the above ideas inspired France to have a revolution of her own. As a thanks to the [[United States]] for inspiration, France gave the [[Statue of Liberty]] to the U.S. in 1886.

France is also renowned for its cuisine and its wines. Good food is highly valued in France.

It was a founding member of the European Coal and Steel treaty which led to the EEC and EU.

In March 2003, France was one of over a hundred nations that did not participate in the alliance that liberated [[Iraq]], with its aim of removing the [[Baathist]] regime of the dictator [[Saddam Hussein]], though France had committed substantial forces to the First [[Gulf War]]. French forces did, however, participate in the war in Afghanistan, and suffered casualties in the fighting <ref>http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2004/oef.casualties/,/</ref>

==Gaul==
Back during the time of the [[Roman Republic]], France was a territory called [[Gaul]], populated by [[Celtic]] tribes. [[Julius Caesar]] conquered Gaul, thanks to the lack of unity among the tribes. Gaul remained an important part of the [[Roman Empire]] for several centuries.

==Frankland under Clovis==
France is named after the [[Franks]], a Saxon tribe who established Soissons, the capital. A Frank called [[Clovis]] united the Franks and established Frankland. Franks were [[pagans]] but Clovis converted to [[Christianity]] (legend has it he prayed to Christ during a difficult battle, offering to become a Christian in exchange for victory ; shortly after that, the enemy fled).

==Government==
France is a democratic Republic, governed by a [[President]] and [[Parliament]]. Its current [[President]] is center-right [[reformer|reformist]] [[Nicolas Sarkozy]], who has promised to modernize France's economy. France has for years had one of the highest unemployment rates in western Europe, currently at 8.6%, and has a tax burden of almost 50% of GDP.<ref>https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fr.html</ref>. Two million Frenchmen have left France for other countries. Many of these have stated their concern with France's high taxes and "anti-growth" economic policies and many have settled in [[Great Britain]].<ref>http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/05/02/two-million-french-have-escaped-france/</ref>

==See also==
*[[French Wars]]

==References==

<References/>

[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:EU Members]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:France| ]]

Gaullism

2007-09-09T02:00:52Z

Tradcon: creating new article

France

2007-09-09T01:56:32Z

Tradcon: /* Government */ Don't think he can be called "conservative"

{{country
|map=map_of_france.jpg
|flag=FranceE_3.gif‎
|capital=Paris
|government=Republic
|language=French
|president=Nicolas Sarkozy
|pm=François Fillon
|area=260,558 sq. mi.
|pop=64,102,140
|pop-basis=(2007 estimate)
|gdp=1.871 trillion
|gdp-year=(2007 estimate)
|gdp-pc=$30,100
}}
'''France''' (Official title: ''French Republic''/''République Française'') is a country in Western [[Europe]].

At its height, the French Empire rivaled the British Empire, with colonies in every corner of the world. It continues to be a strong presence in academia and has been the birthplace of countless renowned scholars, such as [[Voltaire]] and [[Descartes]]. It remains a powerhouse in the [[European Union]], often at odds with the [[United Kingdom]] on issues of EU policy. The capital city is Paris, often called the "City of Lights" due to its renown from the Eiffel Tower, which is spectacularly lit at night.

Military aid was given to the American colonies in their attempt to gain independence. The sacrifice of her navy and commitment to the American cause became vital to the survival of the United States.

Also in this time, France was a center for the enlightenment. Philosophes like Descartes, Montesquieu and others theorised many ideas that are now synonymous with Western Civilization and the Democratic system.

The success of the American Revolution and the development of the above ideas inspired France to have a revolution of her own. As a thanks to the [[United States]] for inspiration, France gave the [[Statue of Liberty]] to the U.S. in 1886.

France is also renowned for its cuisine and its wines. Good food is highly valued in France.

It was a founding member of the European Coal and Steel treaty which led to the EEC and EU.

In March 2003, France was one of over a hundred nations that did not participate in the alliance that liberated [[Iraq]], with its aim of removing the [[Baathist]] regime of the dictator [[Saddam Hussein]], though France had committed substantial forces to the First [[Gulf War]]. French forces did, however, participate in the war in Afghanistan, and suffered casualties in the fighting <ref>http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2004/oef.casualties/,/</ref>

==Gaul==
Back during the time of the [[Roman Republic]], France was a territory called [[Gaul]], populated by [[Celtic]] tribes. [[Julius Caesar]] conquered Gaul, thanks to the lack of unity among the tribes. Gaul remained an important part of the [[Roman Empire]] for several centuries.

==Frankland under Clovis==
France is named after the [[Franks]], a Saxon tribe who established Soissons, the capital. A Frank called [[Clovis]] united the Franks and established Frankland. Franks were [[pagans]] but Clovis converted to [[Christianity]] (legend has it he prayed to Christ during a difficult battle, offering to become a Christian in exchange for victory ; shortly after that, the enemy fled).

==Government==
France is a democratic Republic, governed by a [[President]] and [[Parliament]]. Its current [[President]] is [[Gaullism|Gaullist]] [[reformer|reformist]] [[Nicolas Sarkozy]], who has promised to modernize France's economy. France has for years had one of the highest unemployment rates in western Europe, currently at 8.6%, and has a tax burden of almost 50% of GDP.<ref>https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fr.html</ref>. Two million Frenchmen have left France for other countries. Many of these have stated their concern with France's high taxes and "anti-growth" economic policies and many have settled in [[Great Britain]].<ref>http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/05/02/two-million-french-have-escaped-france/</ref>

==See also==
*[[French Wars]]

==References==

<References/>

[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:EU Members]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:France| ]]

Big Bang theory

2007-09-09T01:02:45Z

Tradcon: clarify

[[Image:Universe expansion.png|right|thumb|250px|According to the Big Bang theory, the universe emerged from an extremely dense and hot state called the ''original singularity''.]]
[[Image:End of universe.jpg|right|thumb|250px|According to the Big Bang theory, the 3 possible geometry of the universe depends on value of the ''[[cosmological constant]]''.]]
The '''Big Bang Theory''' is the current dominant scientific hypothesis explaining the acceleration of matter throughout the Universe. Big bang theories are actually a ''class'' of scientific models that describe the Universe as expanding from a very hot, dense state approximately 16.5 -- although this number has changed many times throughout recent history -- billion years ago. It was first proposed by [[Georges-Henri Lemaitre]] and evidence for the expansion was observed by [[Edwin Hubble]]<ref>Hubble, E. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp. 168-173.</ref>. Later [[George Gamow]] predicted that the Big Bang would leave an observable microwave background radiation (or CMBR). This radiation was subsequently discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at [[Bell Labs]] and found to be close to that predicted by Gamow (Gamow predicted a background radiation level equivalent to a roughly 3K black body object, and the observed level is that of a 2.725K body). Pensiaz and Wilson were awarded a Nobel Prize in 1978 for their work.

The term "Big Bang" implies an explosion of matter into pre-existing space, but the theory actually indicates that space is dynamic and more space is constantly created in the interstices between particles as the density of the universe falls. In other words, the Big Bang describes the expansion of space and time. Big Bang theorists state that the Hubble [[redshift]] is a consequence of this stretching of the fabric of space.

Observations of distant supernovae indicate that the Universe is actually undergoing accelerated expansion<ref>Riess, A. G., et al. The Astronomical Journal, Volume 116, Issue 3, pp. 1009-1038.</ref><ref>Perlmutter, S., et al. The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 517, Issue 2, pp. 565-586.</ref> and galaxy surveys<ref>[http://www.sdss.org/dr5/ Sloan Digital Sky Survey]</ref><ref>Tegmark, M., et al. Physical Review D, vol. 74, Issue 12.</ref> and recent observations of the microwave background<ref>[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe]</ref><ref>See, for example, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603449</ref> have corroborated these claims. Conventional wisdom is that the acceleration is caused by some sort of [[dark energy]], which has not yet been directly observed.

== Big Bang Theory Dissent Letter ==
The Big Bang Theory has had many dissenters including the British astronomer Sir [[Fred Hoyle]], the Nobel Prize winner [[Hannes Alfven]], and astronomers [[Geoffrey Burbidge]] and [[Halton Arp]]. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref> It was Hoyle who sarcastically coined the term during a radio broadcast.

In 2004, a ‘Open Letter to the Scientific Community’ disputing the big bang theory was signed by 33 scientists and has been published on the internet and in the science journal [[New Scientist]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0601skepticism.asp</ref> The dissent letter has subsequently been signed by hundreds of individuals around the world. <ref>http://www.cosmologystatement.org/</ref> Professional cosmologists are actively creating models (some of which contradict the Big Bang scenario) and collecting data that probe the specific nature of the earliest observable aspects of the Universe.

==Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views==
Most [[Atheist|atheists]] believe in the Big Bang theory. There is active research and speculation into what caused the Big Bang, but atheists agree it was not a deity.

However, early resistance to the big bang model came from atheistic Soviet Russia -- as the big bang implies a beginning to the universe, this did not fit into the traditional atheistic belief that the universe had always existed, therefore not requiring a deity to create it. It was originally held as proof for theists that the universe was created by a deity -- as the big bang model implies a beginning to time and space. Theistic resistance to the big bang model came later with a rise in literalism in biblical criticism.

Many scientists who believe in the Big Bang Theory are [[Evolutionist]]s, though not all are. One can believe that God both created the Universe AND laid out the plan for all life in the Big Bang, as opposed to the idea that life evolved randomly after the Big Bang.

Young earth creationist scientists contest the Big Bang Theory stating that it is scientifically unsound
<ref name="BB Critique">Thompson, Bert, Harrub, Brad, and May, Branyon [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22 The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique] ''Apologetics Press'', May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47.</ref>
<ref>Brown, Walt, 2001, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html Big Bang?]</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/309</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2047</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref>, though few creationist criticisms are found in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Some Old Earth Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists argue that the Big Bang is in fact mentioned in the Bible. <ref>[http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first]</ref> Some Christian apologists who believe in an old earth, such as [[William Craig]] use the Big Bang as an apologetic, arguing that it proves that the universe had a beginning. <ref>Strobel, Lee. ''The Case for a Creator''. Zondervan, 2004. </ref>

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

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Talk:Kangaroo

2007-09-09T00:55:24Z

Tradcon: /* Mats of vegetation */ more

__TOC__
I think all of you ID proponents (creationists) should just ignore the fossil record, get your favorite version of the bible (I'm a King James lover myself), reread Genesis, and then stick your heads in the sand.--[[User:Darwinliveson|Darwinliveson]] 09:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Commandment 1 of this site is "what you post must be truthful and verifiable". Anyone with half a brain knows ID is utter bollocks.

I think we should include both creationist and evolutionist perspectives on kangaroo origins. Conservatives aren't monolithically creationist, and even if that were the case it'd be useful to at least be familiar with the other side's position. --[[User:John|John]] 22:26, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:The evolutionist perspective on kangaroo origins is speculative at best. A Google.com search for "kangaroo evolution" only shows up 221 results, most of which are people selling kangaroo meat! If you think you can explain just what their views are, you're welcome to try. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 02:28, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Well there might be slim pickings on the 221 google hits you ran....we might have better luck looking at the roughly 4,000 peer review journal articles on kangaroo and marsupial evolution from http://scholar.google.com [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:34, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=kangaroo+evolution+-rat&btnG=Search so we are on the same page. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:35, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::If the scientific perspective on kangaroo origins is "speculative", what does that make the religious perspective? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 05:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::The Truth, perhaps? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 06:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::Well, you are welcome to read through those to tease out the evolutionist perspective on kangaroo origins. Personally, I'd rather read through the [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=20&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22intelligent+design%22 7790 peer-reviewed articles] on Intelligent Design (which surely puts the lie to the claim of liberals that ID is not science) [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 06:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

The problem with your point above, Dr. Paley, is that all of those articles cited above were not "peer reviewed" by scientists - that is why ID is not a science. You let me know when the next ID article is published in ''Science'' or ''Nature''--[[User:Darwinliveson|Darwinliveson]] 09:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Bah! There is a MUCH easier way of settling this: [http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=kangaroo+evolution&word2=intelligent+design] ........hmmmm okay I guess I do loose. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 11:37, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::::On the other hand...[http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=kangaroo+evolution&word2=kangaroo+intelligent+design][[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Most of those are books, not peer reviewed papers. The rest appear to be about engineering, or pointing out the flaws in intelligent design as a biological mechanism (perhaps you should have read the papers before posting that?). Intelligent design proponents are old earth creationists, so they would state that the origins section as currently stands is incorrect. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:58, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:While some ID proponents may have old-earth leanings, Intelligent Design Theory itself is neutral to the age of the earth and merely proposes to detect evidences of intelligent design in life, not the history of the earth and creation. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 07:16, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::So you concede that "7790 peer-reviewed articles on intelligent design" is not an accurate statement? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 08:26, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::Tmtoulouse's link above to kangaroo evolution was claimed to be "roughly 4,000 peer review journal articles" but that number includes books and articles not actually about kangaroo evolution. I made my point clearly with the link to search results using an even more stringent criteria of putting quotes around the term. Nematocyte, if you are going to be so knee-jerk hostile to anyone who isn't an evolutionist, perhaps you should go back to Wikipedia. Also, I'm glad you concede your incorrectness about Intelligent Design Theory's earth-age relevance. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 11:27, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::: I'll presume that you are by this response agreeing that 7790 number is inaccurate. As to the kangaroo number, if you look through the actual citations in that google scholar search on the first page one has easily 3 or four relevant hits that are not books and a slightly larger number on the second page. If that continues one has presumably easily 300 peer reviewed sources. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:33, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::In fact I do not contest that ID is age-neutral. My claim was that ''proponents'' were old-earth creationist, and by "proponents" I mean those who seriously attempt to forward the theory in at least a superficially scientific manner, such as Behe and Dembski, both of whom are old-earthers. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:39, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::::What in the world does that have to do with anything I said above or the topic of kangaroo origins? Again, I think your anti-creation hostility is getting the best of your reason. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 11:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Dear Doctor, it related to your claim of the "7790" ID papers (which I take it you have retracted), and my assertation that those who did forward intelligent design would agree with me anyway. It appears you have no scientific base to speak of for your model of kangaroo origins.

:::::::Using the exact number 7790 was obviously in jest to point out the over-zealousness of the 4000 number. Were you not reading the light-hearted exchange between Tmtoulouse and myself above or were you just looking to pick nits (or a fight)? As to whether some ID proponents share with you errant views on the age of the earth and might speak outside of their specialty vis-à-vis kangaroo origins, that has nothing to do with anything preceding your assertion. Notice I referred to articles on "Intelligent Design", not "Intelligent Design proponents talking about something that isn't Intelligent Design". [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 12:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Incidently, are you the same Dr. Richard Paley I seem to recall reading an infamous article by extolling the evils of the Mac OS and Pokemon [[http://objectiveministries.org/creation/propaganda.html]]? I thought that was satire. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:22, 8 March 2007 (EST)

For the record I wasn't totally serious with my number claim, I was being facetious to make the point that google hits is not a good measure of the potential for information in an entry, and also that the places in which to get your in depth information for the evolution of kangaroos is not personal webpages but rather more scholarly sources, which are available. I think number games are silly, as I hope my google fight post above demonstrates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 12:05, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Dr. Richard Paley is not a Doctor, and certainly not trustworthy if we're basing everything on Google searches: http://www.lies.com/wp/2002/04/22/dr-richard-paley-on-evolutionist-propaganda/ As a matter of fact he's a hoax, which sadly is very realistic on this site: http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/forum/forum_comments/1720/item.name

:I suspected he might have been a hoax when I found the article, but he still seems indistinguishable from many of the other contributors. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== "religious theories" ==

What is the point of the last paragraph on the kangaroo entry? Yes, australian aboriginal beliefs about the creation of the earth are religious in nature, but how is evolution a "religious theory"?

And more importantly, why can I not edit the page to remove this?

If this project is to be taken seriously, ridiculous comments like that need to be weeded out. [[User:dropkickmejesus|dropkickmejesus]] 22:21, 13 March 2007 (GMT)

:"Ridiculous comments like that" are preciesly what distinguish Conservapedia from pro-liberal sites like Wikipedia, and it's precisely why Conservapedia is so much better. We lack the bias that makes Wikipedia so unreliable. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 04:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Could you please explain to me why evolution should be considered a "religious theory". I note that the offending phrase has been removed. [[User:dropkickmejesus|dropkickmejesus]] 17:59, 14 March 2007 (GMT)

This is the worst website I have ever seen. Ever. Creationism is about as stupid an idea as eating your own sh**.

Actually, eating feces may be sensible in some situations. C. difficle infections due to shifts in colonic flora are a growning problem. In the past, fecal enemas from healthy donors were used. Currently, antibiotics are used. It has been proposed to feed people fecal emulsions to prevent or treat the infection. No, I am not making this up.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 23:38, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Kangaroo evolution - By 110 million years ago, mammals had diverged into two distinct groups, the placental mammals (a group that includes humans and most modern mammals) and the marsupial mammals (a group that includes koalas, kangaroos, wombats, and pouched mice). These groups evolved for millions of years in two increasingly different directions. As we follow the evolution of marsupials, we find their history to be further shaped by the drifting of the continents. The ancient landmasses of Laurasia and Gondwana broke apart to form the continents, isolating one group of marsupials on the continental island of Australia while isolating another group in South America. These separate populations of marsupials were left to evolve in parallel for some time.
Comparison reveals that, although placental and marsupial mammals formed seperate lineages, they still evolved similar adaptations. In some cases, placental and marsupial mammals physically resemble each other: the pouched marsupial mouse and the harvest mouse, the marsupial mole and the common mole, the marsupial wombat and the marmot, the tasmanian wolf and the wolf.--[[User:Joobs|Joobs]] 17:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

On the article, which seems to condemn the possibility of evolution, it states "Kangaroos have adapted to the varied conditions across Australia in many ways." Now, correct me if im mistaken but is adaption not just evolution, but on a smaller scale. Many many adaptions over millenia '''IS''' evolution, is it not?
Therefore if these kangaroos really did sail across on mats of vegetation and didnt evolve, how did they adapt to the conditions of australia?? Does anybody know?? {{unsigned|Loveandpeace}}

:No, adaptation is a built-in mechanism in the ''design'' of living creatures. Adaptation involves (mostly at least) an elimination of some genetic information (for example, the elimination of genes for short hair on creatures living in cold climates), allowing them to become more specialised. Goo-to-you evolution requires the ''addition'' of ''brand-new'' genetic information, which is a different thing entirely. Yes, evolutionists will equivocate and call adaptation evolution, but specialisation will not provide now organs, etc. for living things, so cannot result in the evolution of new kinds of creatures. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:05, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::Perhaps arguments would be clearer if you stuck to the mainstream definition. By the standard definition, adaptation ''is'' evolution. Larger changes over longer times are ''also'' evolution. If this adversion to the word "evolution" could be overcome then dialoge would be much easier. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:25, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::The problem is that the [[definition of evolution]] is so woolly it can cover almost anything. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:35, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== Space Ship Theory ==

I think the origin of the kangaroo should also include discussion of a belief held by many of Riley Martin's followers, the O-Qua Tangin Wann. They believe that Kangaroos originated from the "mothership" from the planet Tan. The alien visitors from Tan visited Earth a few hundred years ago and brought with them a male and female kangaroo. The "mothership" decided after visiting serveral continents that Australia was the best fit for their kangaroo species.

Lay off of the mushrooms. They're not good for you. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 04:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:If some conservatives believe it, we should give it equal time! --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 04:52, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:(And it's at least as believable as the idea that they migrated from the Middle East to Australia without ANY getting off along the way.)

::So your "suggestion" was just another jab at conservatives. Why are you even here, [[Scrap]]? Do you think that Conservapedia is just a dumping ground for your mean-spirited anti-Christian jokes? --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 05:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Of course it's not '''just''' for me to make bad jokes. It's '''also''' a source of ''unintentional'' hilarity, and a terrifying cautionary example of the perils of [[Groupthink]]. And I hardly think that was "mean-spirited", just really silly--I'd have to work mighty hard to out-crazy some of the "serious" posters here. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 05:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::It is really funny. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 20:49, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== why is this page locked? ==

Why isn't anyone allowed to edit this page?
Can't an Australian even make some constributions about an animal in his own country?

Apparently the origins of the kangaroo are a hot button issue. How informational will an encyclopedia be where any animal entry says "As with all animals, Noah brought them all on an ark impossibly small to hold them all... blah blah blah...." --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 20:48, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Land Bridge from Europe to Australia was not in any sources. ==

Land Bridge from Europe to Australia was not in any sources. Please keep that out in the future. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:The reference to "land-bridges" was added by someone, who is apparently confused, to replace the reference to the [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2808 catastrophic continental drift theory]. Please keep that in in the future. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 15:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

It should be noted that this page is all speculation.

== Native?? ==
How can something be "now native"? Native refers to where something came from. If you're going with the normal evolution thought, then they are native to Australia. If you're going with the tale that they came from the Mid-East, then they are native to the Mid-East (or ideally where they came before the flood, which could be australia). [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:07, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Evolutionists hold that ''all'' animals are non-native to the place they are currently living since they have been scurrying about for billions of years transmogrifying themselves into different things. "Now native" allows for both the Darwinian and Biblical views, as it expresses the idea that kangaroos have been habituated to Australia for thousands of years. This is a reasonable compromise, except apparently to the Darwinists who want to turn Conservapedia into Wikipedia through a slow death of a thousand cuts. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 15:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm fairly certain that "transmogrifying" comes from Calvin and Hobbes and isn't even remotely the same as evolution. Why are people like the good Dr. here always confused as to the actual definition of evolution? It is simply the slow change of organisms over the course of time based on which organisms are most successful at passing on their genes to the next generation. It's not like a whole different creature is born and it's a new species. It's slow genetic recombination and drift. That's all. WHY is that so hard for people to grasp? Anyhow, it just frustrates me that so many people in America are perfectly happy not understanding the world around them. The US is getting further and further behind the rest of the world. It's like we're backsliding and not even trying to regain our footing. Perhaps one day Doctors will be able to refuse antibiotics to people who don't believe in evolution. Those newly evolved bacteria can just wipe out all the stubborn creationists who refuse to believe that evolution can happen and is all around them. {{unsigned|Quisculus}}
:::Please read [[Definitions of evolution]]; evolution is not just a change in organisms. Perhaps America is losing ground because it has forgotten/rejected much of its Christian heritage that gave the world things like [[natural science#Beginnings|science]]? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:43, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
:I agree, "now native" seems to be a contradiction in terms, and thus a joke. If it is left, it needs to be explained that native to a place means "has lived there for a long time" rather than "originated in". For Australian animals, this is a particularly important idea. [[User:Myrtle|Myrtle]] 01:06, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
::I've changed it to eliminate the word entirely (what do you think?), although the word "native" is interesting. It's definitions include "being such by origin", which in effect assumes an evolutionary history, but which I doubt is always strictly applied anyway (e.g. the platypus would probably be considered native to Australia, even though fossil evidence shows that they existed in South America, which makes one wonder just what the evolutionary origin point was). Another definition (admittedly not strictly applicable here) is "being or composed of people inhabiting a region from the beginning (Example: "''Native Americans''")", which begs the question, "the beginning of what?", and suggests that the word does not strictly have to mean from the beginning of (a) the continent of America, or (b) the beginning of humanity. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
:::It reads much better now, thanks. Origin questions can get a bit controversial; e.g. the native Americans consider that they have always been there, although others may think otherwise.[[User:Myrtle|Myrtle]] 17:31, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

== Genetic bottleneck ==

I know what a genetic bottleneck is, but I don't know what evidence it would leave. Could someone enlighten me before I remove that new bit about there being no evidence that kangaroos have been through a genetic bottleneck? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:11, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:I think the evidence it would leave would be a close genetic similarity between all members of a particular species. I think [[cheetah]]s went through a genetic bottleneck once, according to a documentary I saw, - although if the Noah story is true, so did every species...
[http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s40791.htm cheetah genetic bottleneck in plain english]
[http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/90/8/3172.pdf the same in scientific terms]
[[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 14:05, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::A "genetic bottleneck" occurs when a certain species experiences an event that causes the entire species population to go nearly extinct. It can occur during processes of natural speciation (when few members of the population separate and start their own population) or from the introduction of a new natural predator. What happens is that after the near extinction event, the population gradually goes larger until eventually there are many more individuals and there is a substantial, self-sustaining species. We know that a genetic bottleneck has occurred, for example, in cheetahs because every animal has a very similar genetic make-up, which indicates that the entire cheetah species as we know it today originated from only a few individuals. This is also why cheetahs are generally prone to many familial conditions that result from inbreeding between genetically similar individuals. This last post is right to assume that if the story of Noah's arc were true, all species on this planet would exhibit similar genetic patterns. After all, what the Bible says is that Noah brought two of every animal on the arc and the rest drowned in the great floor. However, this is entirely not the case. Humans, for example, are by far the most diverse species on the planet due to the ease of international travel and mixing of different nationalities over the course of time. There are also 300,000 different varieties of beetles on this planet. Dogs and horses are just two more examples of species that maintain great genetic diversity, mostly through human intervention over thousands of years. Just another example of where the Bible got it wrong. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/bottleneck.html

:However, I know very little about the evolution of kangaroos. It sounds plausible, though, that a few kangaroos may have repopulated the entire species following the continental drift that separated Australia from the mainland.
:{{unsigned|Wagnerpe}}

::I should have realised the answer to this before. These explanations presume that the species that we have today are exactly the same as those that came off the ark. But that is not the model. Take canines, for example. On the ark would have been two of the canine [[baramin|kind]], and from that the various species and varieties of dogs and other canines have developed. That is, the two canines on the ark had all the genetic potential found in wolves, dogs, etc. today. The same would have applied for the kangaroo kind; there would have been a pair of "roo kind" on the ark, and from that have developed red kangaroos, grey kangaroos, wallabies, etc. So there is no "evidence" of a genetic bottleneck in the form of limited genetic variability simply because the specimens on the ark were not of limited genetic potential. Cheetahs obviously went through a genetic bottleneck ''after'' they became highly specialised (i.e. of limited variability), unlike the creatures on the ark.
::So much for the claim that the Bible got it wrong! And beetles could have survived off the ark, on floating mats of vegetation, so that's irrelevant to this discussion.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:43, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

==Rarely fossilize==
Darwindude ... please cite your sources before adding information. It may be true, but you need to show that. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 21:11, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== Mats of vegetation ==

Was the argument that kangaroos floated across the Indian Ocean to Australia on mats of vegetation inserted into the article to make Young Earth Creationism look foolish? It's completely implausible. [[User:Tradcon|Traditional Conservative]] 20:29, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:I see that the cited source doesn't actually say that kangaroos traveled on mats of vegetation. (It does cite an anonymous "evolutionist" who says that lemurs ''may'' have traveled this way to Madagascar.) Perhaps this should just be removed? [[User:Tradcon|Traditional Conservative]] 20:55, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Kangaroo

2007-09-09T00:29:28Z

Tradcon: Matts of vegetation

__TOC__
I think all of you ID proponents (creationists) should just ignore the fossil record, get your favorite version of the bible (I'm a King James lover myself), reread Genesis, and then stick your heads in the sand.--[[User:Darwinliveson|Darwinliveson]] 09:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Commandment 1 of this site is "what you post must be truthful and verifiable". Anyone with half a brain knows ID is utter bollocks.

I think we should include both creationist and evolutionist perspectives on kangaroo origins. Conservatives aren't monolithically creationist, and even if that were the case it'd be useful to at least be familiar with the other side's position. --[[User:John|John]] 22:26, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:The evolutionist perspective on kangaroo origins is speculative at best. A Google.com search for "kangaroo evolution" only shows up 221 results, most of which are people selling kangaroo meat! If you think you can explain just what their views are, you're welcome to try. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 02:28, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Well there might be slim pickings on the 221 google hits you ran....we might have better luck looking at the roughly 4,000 peer review journal articles on kangaroo and marsupial evolution from http://scholar.google.com [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:34, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=kangaroo+evolution+-rat&btnG=Search so we are on the same page. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:35, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::If the scientific perspective on kangaroo origins is "speculative", what does that make the religious perspective? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 05:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::The Truth, perhaps? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 06:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::Well, you are welcome to read through those to tease out the evolutionist perspective on kangaroo origins. Personally, I'd rather read through the [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=20&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22intelligent+design%22 7790 peer-reviewed articles] on Intelligent Design (which surely puts the lie to the claim of liberals that ID is not science) [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 06:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

The problem with your point above, Dr. Paley, is that all of those articles cited above were not "peer reviewed" by scientists - that is why ID is not a science. You let me know when the next ID article is published in ''Science'' or ''Nature''--[[User:Darwinliveson|Darwinliveson]] 09:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Bah! There is a MUCH easier way of settling this: [http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=kangaroo+evolution&word2=intelligent+design] ........hmmmm okay I guess I do loose. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 11:37, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::::On the other hand...[http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=kangaroo+evolution&word2=kangaroo+intelligent+design][[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Most of those are books, not peer reviewed papers. The rest appear to be about engineering, or pointing out the flaws in intelligent design as a biological mechanism (perhaps you should have read the papers before posting that?). Intelligent design proponents are old earth creationists, so they would state that the origins section as currently stands is incorrect. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:58, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:While some ID proponents may have old-earth leanings, Intelligent Design Theory itself is neutral to the age of the earth and merely proposes to detect evidences of intelligent design in life, not the history of the earth and creation. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 07:16, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::So you concede that "7790 peer-reviewed articles on intelligent design" is not an accurate statement? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 08:26, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::Tmtoulouse's link above to kangaroo evolution was claimed to be "roughly 4,000 peer review journal articles" but that number includes books and articles not actually about kangaroo evolution. I made my point clearly with the link to search results using an even more stringent criteria of putting quotes around the term. Nematocyte, if you are going to be so knee-jerk hostile to anyone who isn't an evolutionist, perhaps you should go back to Wikipedia. Also, I'm glad you concede your incorrectness about Intelligent Design Theory's earth-age relevance. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 11:27, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::: I'll presume that you are by this response agreeing that 7790 number is inaccurate. As to the kangaroo number, if you look through the actual citations in that google scholar search on the first page one has easily 3 or four relevant hits that are not books and a slightly larger number on the second page. If that continues one has presumably easily 300 peer reviewed sources. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:33, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::In fact I do not contest that ID is age-neutral. My claim was that ''proponents'' were old-earth creationist, and by "proponents" I mean those who seriously attempt to forward the theory in at least a superficially scientific manner, such as Behe and Dembski, both of whom are old-earthers. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:39, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::::What in the world does that have to do with anything I said above or the topic of kangaroo origins? Again, I think your anti-creation hostility is getting the best of your reason. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 11:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Dear Doctor, it related to your claim of the "7790" ID papers (which I take it you have retracted), and my assertation that those who did forward intelligent design would agree with me anyway. It appears you have no scientific base to speak of for your model of kangaroo origins.

:::::::Using the exact number 7790 was obviously in jest to point out the over-zealousness of the 4000 number. Were you not reading the light-hearted exchange between Tmtoulouse and myself above or were you just looking to pick nits (or a fight)? As to whether some ID proponents share with you errant views on the age of the earth and might speak outside of their specialty vis-à-vis kangaroo origins, that has nothing to do with anything preceding your assertion. Notice I referred to articles on "Intelligent Design", not "Intelligent Design proponents talking about something that isn't Intelligent Design". [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 12:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Incidently, are you the same Dr. Richard Paley I seem to recall reading an infamous article by extolling the evils of the Mac OS and Pokemon [[http://objectiveministries.org/creation/propaganda.html]]? I thought that was satire. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:22, 8 March 2007 (EST)

For the record I wasn't totally serious with my number claim, I was being facetious to make the point that google hits is not a good measure of the potential for information in an entry, and also that the places in which to get your in depth information for the evolution of kangaroos is not personal webpages but rather more scholarly sources, which are available. I think number games are silly, as I hope my google fight post above demonstrates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 12:05, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Dr. Richard Paley is not a Doctor, and certainly not trustworthy if we're basing everything on Google searches: http://www.lies.com/wp/2002/04/22/dr-richard-paley-on-evolutionist-propaganda/ As a matter of fact he's a hoax, which sadly is very realistic on this site: http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/forum/forum_comments/1720/item.name

:I suspected he might have been a hoax when I found the article, but he still seems indistinguishable from many of the other contributors. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== "religious theories" ==

What is the point of the last paragraph on the kangaroo entry? Yes, australian aboriginal beliefs about the creation of the earth are religious in nature, but how is evolution a "religious theory"?

And more importantly, why can I not edit the page to remove this?

If this project is to be taken seriously, ridiculous comments like that need to be weeded out. [[User:dropkickmejesus|dropkickmejesus]] 22:21, 13 March 2007 (GMT)

:"Ridiculous comments like that" are preciesly what distinguish Conservapedia from pro-liberal sites like Wikipedia, and it's precisely why Conservapedia is so much better. We lack the bias that makes Wikipedia so unreliable. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 04:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Could you please explain to me why evolution should be considered a "religious theory". I note that the offending phrase has been removed. [[User:dropkickmejesus|dropkickmejesus]] 17:59, 14 March 2007 (GMT)

This is the worst website I have ever seen. Ever. Creationism is about as stupid an idea as eating your own sh**.

Actually, eating feces may be sensible in some situations. C. difficle infections due to shifts in colonic flora are a growning problem. In the past, fecal enemas from healthy donors were used. Currently, antibiotics are used. It has been proposed to feed people fecal emulsions to prevent or treat the infection. No, I am not making this up.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 23:38, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Kangaroo evolution - By 110 million years ago, mammals had diverged into two distinct groups, the placental mammals (a group that includes humans and most modern mammals) and the marsupial mammals (a group that includes koalas, kangaroos, wombats, and pouched mice). These groups evolved for millions of years in two increasingly different directions. As we follow the evolution of marsupials, we find their history to be further shaped by the drifting of the continents. The ancient landmasses of Laurasia and Gondwana broke apart to form the continents, isolating one group of marsupials on the continental island of Australia while isolating another group in South America. These separate populations of marsupials were left to evolve in parallel for some time.
Comparison reveals that, although placental and marsupial mammals formed seperate lineages, they still evolved similar adaptations. In some cases, placental and marsupial mammals physically resemble each other: the pouched marsupial mouse and the harvest mouse, the marsupial mole and the common mole, the marsupial wombat and the marmot, the tasmanian wolf and the wolf.--[[User:Joobs|Joobs]] 17:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

On the article, which seems to condemn the possibility of evolution, it states "Kangaroos have adapted to the varied conditions across Australia in many ways." Now, correct me if im mistaken but is adaption not just evolution, but on a smaller scale. Many many adaptions over millenia '''IS''' evolution, is it not?
Therefore if these kangaroos really did sail across on mats of vegetation and didnt evolve, how did they adapt to the conditions of australia?? Does anybody know?? {{unsigned|Loveandpeace}}

:No, adaptation is a built-in mechanism in the ''design'' of living creatures. Adaptation involves (mostly at least) an elimination of some genetic information (for example, the elimination of genes for short hair on creatures living in cold climates), allowing them to become more specialised. Goo-to-you evolution requires the ''addition'' of ''brand-new'' genetic information, which is a different thing entirely. Yes, evolutionists will equivocate and call adaptation evolution, but specialisation will not provide now organs, etc. for living things, so cannot result in the evolution of new kinds of creatures. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:05, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::Perhaps arguments would be clearer if you stuck to the mainstream definition. By the standard definition, adaptation ''is'' evolution. Larger changes over longer times are ''also'' evolution. If this adversion to the word "evolution" could be overcome then dialoge would be much easier. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:25, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::The problem is that the [[definition of evolution]] is so woolly it can cover almost anything. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:35, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== Space Ship Theory ==

I think the origin of the kangaroo should also include discussion of a belief held by many of Riley Martin's followers, the O-Qua Tangin Wann. They believe that Kangaroos originated from the "mothership" from the planet Tan. The alien visitors from Tan visited Earth a few hundred years ago and brought with them a male and female kangaroo. The "mothership" decided after visiting serveral continents that Australia was the best fit for their kangaroo species.

Lay off of the mushrooms. They're not good for you. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 04:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:If some conservatives believe it, we should give it equal time! --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 04:52, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:(And it's at least as believable as the idea that they migrated from the Middle East to Australia without ANY getting off along the way.)

::So your "suggestion" was just another jab at conservatives. Why are you even here, [[Scrap]]? Do you think that Conservapedia is just a dumping ground for your mean-spirited anti-Christian jokes? --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 05:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Of course it's not '''just''' for me to make bad jokes. It's '''also''' a source of ''unintentional'' hilarity, and a terrifying cautionary example of the perils of [[Groupthink]]. And I hardly think that was "mean-spirited", just really silly--I'd have to work mighty hard to out-crazy some of the "serious" posters here. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 05:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::It is really funny. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 20:49, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== why is this page locked? ==

Why isn't anyone allowed to edit this page?
Can't an Australian even make some constributions about an animal in his own country?

Apparently the origins of the kangaroo are a hot button issue. How informational will an encyclopedia be where any animal entry says "As with all animals, Noah brought them all on an ark impossibly small to hold them all... blah blah blah...." --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 20:48, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Land Bridge from Europe to Australia was not in any sources. ==

Land Bridge from Europe to Australia was not in any sources. Please keep that out in the future. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:The reference to "land-bridges" was added by someone, who is apparently confused, to replace the reference to the [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2808 catastrophic continental drift theory]. Please keep that in in the future. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 15:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

It should be noted that this page is all speculation.

== Native?? ==
How can something be "now native"? Native refers to where something came from. If you're going with the normal evolution thought, then they are native to Australia. If you're going with the tale that they came from the Mid-East, then they are native to the Mid-East (or ideally where they came before the flood, which could be australia). [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:07, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Evolutionists hold that ''all'' animals are non-native to the place they are currently living since they have been scurrying about for billions of years transmogrifying themselves into different things. "Now native" allows for both the Darwinian and Biblical views, as it expresses the idea that kangaroos have been habituated to Australia for thousands of years. This is a reasonable compromise, except apparently to the Darwinists who want to turn Conservapedia into Wikipedia through a slow death of a thousand cuts. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 15:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm fairly certain that "transmogrifying" comes from Calvin and Hobbes and isn't even remotely the same as evolution. Why are people like the good Dr. here always confused as to the actual definition of evolution? It is simply the slow change of organisms over the course of time based on which organisms are most successful at passing on their genes to the next generation. It's not like a whole different creature is born and it's a new species. It's slow genetic recombination and drift. That's all. WHY is that so hard for people to grasp? Anyhow, it just frustrates me that so many people in America are perfectly happy not understanding the world around them. The US is getting further and further behind the rest of the world. It's like we're backsliding and not even trying to regain our footing. Perhaps one day Doctors will be able to refuse antibiotics to people who don't believe in evolution. Those newly evolved bacteria can just wipe out all the stubborn creationists who refuse to believe that evolution can happen and is all around them. {{unsigned|Quisculus}}
:::Please read [[Definitions of evolution]]; evolution is not just a change in organisms. Perhaps America is losing ground because it has forgotten/rejected much of its Christian heritage that gave the world things like [[natural science#Beginnings|science]]? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:43, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
:I agree, "now native" seems to be a contradiction in terms, and thus a joke. If it is left, it needs to be explained that native to a place means "has lived there for a long time" rather than "originated in". For Australian animals, this is a particularly important idea. [[User:Myrtle|Myrtle]] 01:06, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
::I've changed it to eliminate the word entirely (what do you think?), although the word "native" is interesting. It's definitions include "being such by origin", which in effect assumes an evolutionary history, but which I doubt is always strictly applied anyway (e.g. the platypus would probably be considered native to Australia, even though fossil evidence shows that they existed in South America, which makes one wonder just what the evolutionary origin point was). Another definition (admittedly not strictly applicable here) is "being or composed of people inhabiting a region from the beginning (Example: "''Native Americans''")", which begs the question, "the beginning of what?", and suggests that the word does not strictly have to mean from the beginning of (a) the continent of America, or (b) the beginning of humanity. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
:::It reads much better now, thanks. Origin questions can get a bit controversial; e.g. the native Americans consider that they have always been there, although others may think otherwise.[[User:Myrtle|Myrtle]] 17:31, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

== Genetic bottleneck ==

I know what a genetic bottleneck is, but I don't know what evidence it would leave. Could someone enlighten me before I remove that new bit about there being no evidence that kangaroos have been through a genetic bottleneck? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:11, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:I think the evidence it would leave would be a close genetic similarity between all members of a particular species. I think [[cheetah]]s went through a genetic bottleneck once, according to a documentary I saw, - although if the Noah story is true, so did every species...
[http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s40791.htm cheetah genetic bottleneck in plain english]
[http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/90/8/3172.pdf the same in scientific terms]
[[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 14:05, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::A "genetic bottleneck" occurs when a certain species experiences an event that causes the entire species population to go nearly extinct. It can occur during processes of natural speciation (when few members of the population separate and start their own population) or from the introduction of a new natural predator. What happens is that after the near extinction event, the population gradually goes larger until eventually there are many more individuals and there is a substantial, self-sustaining species. We know that a genetic bottleneck has occurred, for example, in cheetahs because every animal has a very similar genetic make-up, which indicates that the entire cheetah species as we know it today originated from only a few individuals. This is also why cheetahs are generally prone to many familial conditions that result from inbreeding between genetically similar individuals. This last post is right to assume that if the story of Noah's arc were true, all species on this planet would exhibit similar genetic patterns. After all, what the Bible says is that Noah brought two of every animal on the arc and the rest drowned in the great floor. However, this is entirely not the case. Humans, for example, are by far the most diverse species on the planet due to the ease of international travel and mixing of different nationalities over the course of time. There are also 300,000 different varieties of beetles on this planet. Dogs and horses are just two more examples of species that maintain great genetic diversity, mostly through human intervention over thousands of years. Just another example of where the Bible got it wrong. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/bottleneck.html

:However, I know very little about the evolution of kangaroos. It sounds plausible, though, that a few kangaroos may have repopulated the entire species following the continental drift that separated Australia from the mainland.
:{{unsigned|Wagnerpe}}

::I should have realised the answer to this before. These explanations presume that the species that we have today are exactly the same as those that came off the ark. But that is not the model. Take canines, for example. On the ark would have been two of the canine [[baramin|kind]], and from that the various species and varieties of dogs and other canines have developed. That is, the two canines on the ark had all the genetic potential found in wolves, dogs, etc. today. The same would have applied for the kangaroo kind; there would have been a pair of "roo kind" on the ark, and from that have developed red kangaroos, grey kangaroos, wallabies, etc. So there is no "evidence" of a genetic bottleneck in the form of limited genetic variability simply because the specimens on the ark were not of limited genetic potential. Cheetahs obviously went through a genetic bottleneck ''after'' they became highly specialised (i.e. of limited variability), unlike the creatures on the ark.
::So much for the claim that the Bible got it wrong! And beetles could have survived off the ark, on floating mats of vegetation, so that's irrelevant to this discussion.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:43, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

==Rarely fossilize==
Darwindude ... please cite your sources before adding information. It may be true, but you need to show that. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 21:11, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== Matts of vegetation ==

Was the argument that kangaroos floated across the Indian Ocean to Australia on matts of vegetation inserted into the article to make Young Earth Creationism look foolish? It's completely implausible. [[User:Tradcon|Traditional Conservative]] 20:29, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

Wine

2007-09-08T23:51:17Z

Tradcon: /* Champagne */ expand, also correct as to United States

[[Image:wine.jpg|thumb|300px|Red and white wines in traditional wine glasses]]
'''Wine''' is an [[alcoholic beverage]] made by fermenting [[grape]]s. Although most wines are made from grapes, other [[fruit]]s can be used. Grains can be used to produce wine, for example, barley wine, but this tends to be very rare and technically, barley wine has more in common with [[beer]].

Wines are categorized by color. Red wine, white wine and rose (pink) wine are the three main types and are given their characteristic color by the types of grapes used in their production. Red wine tends to be served at room temperature whereas the others are served chilled.

==Production==

Traditionally grapes were trampled by barefooted vineyard workers to produce a pulp, which was fermented to produce a rich, fruity alcoholic drink. Today this process in most commercial vineyards is mechanized although many "fine wine" producers such as the D'Arenberg vintners in [[Australia]] still proudly claim their wines are 100% foot pressed.

Once pressed, wines are left to mature in vats (large containers). Vats tend to add flavor to the wine and are traditionally made from [[oak]]. Fine wine tends to be given longer to mature to develop the flavor. Cheaper wines may have oak chippings added to give a similar flavor without the need to mature for as long.

==Alcohol Content==

Wines tend to range from 10% to 14% [[ABV]]. Stronger wines such as [[port]] and [[sherry]] are classed as fortified wines. These require further refinement and are sold as such.

==Production==

Wine is produced throughout the world. The top twenty leading wine-producing countries in order of total production are:<ref>[http://www.wineinstitute.org/communications/statistics/keyfacts_worldwineproduction02.htm]</ref> [[France]], [[Italy]], [[Spain]], [[United States of America|USA]], [[Argentina]], [[China]], [[Australia]], [[Germany]], [[Portugal]], [[South Africa]], [[Chile]], [[Hungary]], [[Romania]], [[Greece]], [[Russia]], [[Brazil]], [[Austria]], [[Bulgaria]], and [[Croatia]].

Many of the best-known vineyards are in France but recent competitions place California wine, particularly the vivid reds from the San Bernardino Valley, alongside French wine in quality. Traditional winemaking is centred in the Languedoc region of Southern [[France]] and La Mancha in [[Spain]]. Kentish [[Pinot Noir]] and Welsh [[Riesling]] are also world-renowned wines.

===Wine and Christianity===
Wine has an important role in the Christian religion, reflecting the central role it played in society at the times of Jesus's ministry on [[Earth]]. Plain water was generally not potable at that time and wine was often mixed with water, so that the alcohol in the wine killed some of the harmful microorganisms in the water. (It should be noted, however, that some Christians, primarily fundamentalist Protestants, hold that none of the references in the Bible to "wine" should be understood as referring to an alcoholic beverage, but rather to unfermented grape juice. Such view is held by only a small minority of Biblical scholars.)

Christ's first miracle, performed at the wedding feast at Cana, was to turn six [[amphora]] filled with water into wine. (John 2:7-10.) At the [[Last Supper]], Christ commands the [[Apostles]] to eat bread and drink wine, which he calls His Body and Blood, and commands the Apostles to do this "in remembrance of me." (Matthew 26::26-29; Mark 14:23-24; Luke 22:20-23.) This is preserved in the liturgy of the Christian Church as [[Holy Communion]]. The different denominations of Christianity have various teachings and doctrines about the place and significance of the wine in the communion service, which are roughly separable into [[memorialism]] and a belief in the [[Real Presence]] of Christ in the [[Eucharist|Eucharistic]] hosts.

Many of the orders of [[Eastern Orthodox]] and [[Roman Catholic]] religious (monks and nuns) established their own wineries in Europe and, in the case of Catholic orders, in the Americas.

===Wine and Judaism===
Wine is an important part of the Jewish Passover seder meal.

==Types of wines==

Wines in the Americas, Australia, South Africa and, in certain places, Germany, are typically named after the varieties of [[grape]] that go into the production. Some of the most popular types are:

:Chardonnay - a popular white wine produced worldwide; Chardonnay can be paired with different kinds of food.

:Merlot - a pleasant, soft red wine with a mild flavor; it is one of the few red wines that can be drunk by itself, without food.

:Cabernet Sauvignon - A very heavy, astringent wine that should ideally be served with fatty red meats; the classic pairing is with lamb.

:Gewurztraminer - sometimes called GWT or GTR for short. A [[German]] varietal now produced worldwide; it has a quirky flavor and goes well with Chinese food.

:Pinot Noir - a red wine commonly grown in Northern California; also used in most varieties of
[[Burgundy]].

:Reisling - a white wine grape commonly used in plonk, such as Piesporter or Liebfraumilch (commonly sold in the United States under the trade name ''Blue Nun'').

Other wines are named after the region in which they are produced.

:Rioja - traditional [[Spanish]] red wine.
:Bordeaux - traditional [[French]] red and white wines.
:[[Burgundy]] - French red wine

Quality of Wines

:Fine Wines - These are generally regarded as higher quality wines. But the name "Fine Wine" is derived from the Fining process of a wine rather than quality. Fining is the cleaning process which filters out impurities in the wine after fermentation. Cheaper wines were not fined and so were not regarded as "Fined Wines" later "Fine Wines"

:Beverage Wines - Everyday drinking wines

== Champagne ==

Champagne can either mean sparkling wines produced in the Champagne region of northeastern [[France]] or it may be used to describe such wines, no matter where produced. European Union rules restrict the use of the "Champagne" names to wines fitting the former description. However, it is common to see wines in the United States sold as Champagne, even if they were produced domestically. The French have protested this, to no avail. Some excellent sparkling wines are produced in [[Australia]] but are not permitted to be sold under the name "champagne". The production of sparkling wines outside France has had the effect of making excellent "champagne" type wines available at far less cost than the French varieties and further diversifying the market.

==References==

http://www.winespectator.com/

[[Category:Alcoholic Beverages]]

Wine

2007-09-08T23:44:13Z

Tradcon: /* Types of wines */ expand

[[Image:wine.jpg|thumb|300px|Red and white wines in traditional wine glasses]]
'''Wine''' is an [[alcoholic beverage]] made by fermenting [[grape]]s. Although most wines are made from grapes, other [[fruit]]s can be used. Grains can be used to produce wine, for example, barley wine, but this tends to be very rare and technically, barley wine has more in common with [[beer]].

Wines are categorized by color. Red wine, white wine and rose (pink) wine are the three main types and are given their characteristic color by the types of grapes used in their production. Red wine tends to be served at room temperature whereas the others are served chilled.

==Production==

Traditionally grapes were trampled by barefooted vineyard workers to produce a pulp, which was fermented to produce a rich, fruity alcoholic drink. Today this process in most commercial vineyards is mechanized although many "fine wine" producers such as the D'Arenberg vintners in [[Australia]] still proudly claim their wines are 100% foot pressed.

Once pressed, wines are left to mature in vats (large containers). Vats tend to add flavor to the wine and are traditionally made from [[oak]]. Fine wine tends to be given longer to mature to develop the flavor. Cheaper wines may have oak chippings added to give a similar flavor without the need to mature for as long.

==Alcohol Content==

Wines tend to range from 10% to 14% [[ABV]]. Stronger wines such as [[port]] and [[sherry]] are classed as fortified wines. These require further refinement and are sold as such.

==Production==

Wine is produced throughout the world. The top twenty leading wine-producing countries in order of total production are:<ref>[http://www.wineinstitute.org/communications/statistics/keyfacts_worldwineproduction02.htm]</ref> [[France]], [[Italy]], [[Spain]], [[United States of America|USA]], [[Argentina]], [[China]], [[Australia]], [[Germany]], [[Portugal]], [[South Africa]], [[Chile]], [[Hungary]], [[Romania]], [[Greece]], [[Russia]], [[Brazil]], [[Austria]], [[Bulgaria]], and [[Croatia]].

Many of the best-known vineyards are in France but recent competitions place California wine, particularly the vivid reds from the San Bernardino Valley, alongside French wine in quality. Traditional winemaking is centred in the Languedoc region of Southern [[France]] and La Mancha in [[Spain]]. Kentish [[Pinot Noir]] and Welsh [[Riesling]] are also world-renowned wines.

===Wine and Christianity===
Wine has an important role in the Christian religion, reflecting the central role it played in society at the times of Jesus's ministry on [[Earth]]. Plain water was generally not potable at that time and wine was often mixed with water, so that the alcohol in the wine killed some of the harmful microorganisms in the water. (It should be noted, however, that some Christians, primarily fundamentalist Protestants, hold that none of the references in the Bible to "wine" should be understood as referring to an alcoholic beverage, but rather to unfermented grape juice. Such view is held by only a small minority of Biblical scholars.)

Christ's first miracle, performed at the wedding feast at Cana, was to turn six [[amphora]] filled with water into wine. (John 2:7-10.) At the [[Last Supper]], Christ commands the [[Apostles]] to eat bread and drink wine, which he calls His Body and Blood, and commands the Apostles to do this "in remembrance of me." (Matthew 26::26-29; Mark 14:23-24; Luke 22:20-23.) This is preserved in the liturgy of the Christian Church as [[Holy Communion]]. The different denominations of Christianity have various teachings and doctrines about the place and significance of the wine in the communion service, which are roughly separable into [[memorialism]] and a belief in the [[Real Presence]] of Christ in the [[Eucharist|Eucharistic]] hosts.

Many of the orders of [[Eastern Orthodox]] and [[Roman Catholic]] religious (monks and nuns) established their own wineries in Europe and, in the case of Catholic orders, in the Americas.

===Wine and Judaism===
Wine is an important part of the Jewish Passover seder meal.

==Types of wines==

Wines in the Americas, Australia, South Africa and, in certain places, Germany, are typically named after the varieties of [[grape]] that go into the production. Some of the most popular types are:

:Chardonnay - a popular white wine produced worldwide; Chardonnay can be paired with different kinds of food.

:Merlot - a pleasant, soft red wine with a mild flavor; it is one of the few red wines that can be drunk by itself, without food.

:Cabernet Sauvignon - A very heavy, astringent wine that should ideally be served with fatty red meats; the classic pairing is with lamb.

:Gewurztraminer - sometimes called GWT or GTR for short. A [[German]] varietal now produced worldwide; it has a quirky flavor and goes well with Chinese food.

:Pinot Noir - a red wine commonly grown in Northern California; also used in most varieties of
[[Burgundy]].

:Reisling - a white wine grape commonly used in plonk, such as Piesporter or Liebfraumilch (commonly sold in the United States under the trade name ''Blue Nun'').

Other wines are named after the region in which they are produced.

:Rioja - traditional [[Spanish]] red wine.
:Bordeaux - traditional [[French]] red and white wines.
:[[Burgundy]] - French red wine

Quality of Wines

:Fine Wines - These are generally regarded as higher quality wines. But the name "Fine Wine" is derived from the Fining process of a wine rather than quality. Fining is the cleaning process which filters out impurities in the wine after fermentation. Cheaper wines were not fined and so were not regarded as "Fined Wines" later "Fine Wines"

:Beverage Wines - Everyday drinking wines

== Champagne ==

Sparkling wines, generally known as [[Champagne]] are produced worldwide but only wines produced in the Champagne region of North Eastern [[France]] are permitted to bear the name. Some excellent sparkling wines are produced in [[Australia]] and [[California]] but are not permitted to be sold under the name "champagne". This has had the effect of making excellent "champagne" type wines available at far less cost than the French varieties and further diversifying the market.

==References==

http://www.winespectator.com/

[[Category:Alcoholic Beverages]]

Wine

2007-09-08T23:27:55Z

Tradcon: expanding coverage

[[Image:wine.jpg|thumb|300px|Red and white wines in traditional wine glasses]]
'''Wine''' is an [[alcoholic beverage]] made by fermenting [[grape]]s. Although most wines are made from grapes, other [[fruit]]s can be used. Grains can be used to produce wine, for example, barley wine, but this tends to be very rare and technically, barley wine has more in common with [[beer]].

Wines are categorized by color. Red wine, white wine and rose (pink) wine are the three main types and are given their characteristic color by the types of grapes used in their production. Red wine tends to be served at room temperature whereas the others are served chilled.

==Production==

Traditionally grapes were trampled by barefooted vineyard workers to produce a pulp, which was fermented to produce a rich, fruity alcoholic drink. Today this process in most commercial vineyards is mechanized although many "fine wine" producers such as the D'Arenberg vintners in [[Australia]] still proudly claim their wines are 100% foot pressed.

Once pressed, wines are left to mature in vats (large containers). Vats tend to add flavor to the wine and are traditionally made from [[oak]]. Fine wine tends to be given longer to mature to develop the flavor. Cheaper wines may have oak chippings added to give a similar flavor without the need to mature for as long.

==Alcohol Content==

Wines tend to range from 10% to 14% [[ABV]]. Stronger wines such as [[port]] and [[sherry]] are classed as fortified wines. These require further refinement and are sold as such.

==Production==

Wine is produced throughout the world. The top twenty leading wine-producing countries in order of total production are:<ref>[http://www.wineinstitute.org/communications/statistics/keyfacts_worldwineproduction02.htm]</ref> [[France]], [[Italy]], [[Spain]], [[United States of America|USA]], [[Argentina]], [[China]], [[Australia]], [[Germany]], [[Portugal]], [[South Africa]], [[Chile]], [[Hungary]], [[Romania]], [[Greece]], [[Russia]], [[Brazil]], [[Austria]], [[Bulgaria]], and [[Croatia]].

Many of the best-known vineyards are in France but recent competitions place California wine, particularly the vivid reds from the San Bernardino Valley, alongside French wine in quality. Traditional winemaking is centred in the Languedoc region of Southern [[France]] and La Mancha in [[Spain]]. Kentish [[Pinot Noir]] and Welsh [[Riesling]] are also world-renowned wines.

===Wine and Christianity===
Wine has an important role in the Christian religion, reflecting the central role it played in society at the times of Jesus's ministry on [[Earth]]. Plain water was generally not potable at that time and wine was often mixed with water, so that the alcohol in the wine killed some of the harmful microorganisms in the water. (It should be noted, however, that some Christians, primarily fundamentalist Protestants, hold that none of the references in the Bible to "wine" should be understood as referring to an alcoholic beverage, but rather to unfermented grape juice. Such view is held by only a small minority of Biblical scholars.)

Christ's first miracle, performed at the wedding feast at Cana, was to turn six [[amphora]] filled with water into wine. (John 2:7-10.) At the [[Last Supper]], Christ commands the [[Apostles]] to eat bread and drink wine, which he calls His Body and Blood, and commands the Apostles to do this "in remembrance of me." (Matthew 26::26-29; Mark 14:23-24; Luke 22:20-23.) This is preserved in the liturgy of the Christian Church as [[Holy Communion]]. The different denominations of Christianity have various teachings and doctrines about the place and significance of the wine in the communion service, which are roughly separable into [[memorialism]] and a belief in the [[Real Presence]] of Christ in the [[Eucharist|Eucharistic]] hosts.

Many of the orders of [[Eastern Orthodox]] and [[Roman Catholic]] religious (monks and nuns) established their own wineries in Europe and, in the case of Catholic orders, in the Americas.

===Wine and Judaism===
Wine is an important part of the Jewish Passover seder meal.

==Types of wines==

Wines, especially cheaper New World wines, are named after the varieties of [[grape]] that go into the production. Some of the most popular types are:

:Chardonnay - a popular white wine produced worldwide.

:Merlot - a pleasant red wine with a mild flavor.

:Cabernet Sauvignon - originally a French variety, now a very popular Australian red wine.

:Gewurztraminer - sometimes called GWT or GTR for short. A [[German]] variety now produced worldwide.

Other wines are named after the region

:Rioja - traditional [[Spanish]] red wine.
:Bordeaux - traditional [[French]] red and white wines.

Quality of Wines

:Fine Wines - These are generally regarded as higher quality wines. But the name "Fine Wine" is derived from the Fining process of a wine rather than quality. Fining is the cleaning process which filters out impurities in the wine after fermentation. Cheaper wines were not fined and so were not regarded as "Fined Wines" later "Fine Wines"

:Beverage Wines - Everyday drinking wines

== Champagne ==

Sparkling wines, generally known as [[Champagne]] are produced worldwide but only wines produced in the Champagne region of North Eastern [[France]] are permitted to bear the name. Some excellent sparkling wines are produced in [[Australia]] and [[California]] but are not permitted to be sold under the name "champagne". This has had the effect of making excellent "champagne" type wines available at far less cost than the French varieties and further diversifying the market.

==References==

http://www.winespectator.com/

[[Category:Alcoholic Beverages]]

United States Congress

2007-08-10T22:48:52Z

Tradcon: quote from Mark Twain

'''Congress''' is the term for the legislative body of the [[United States of America]].

==Origin==

The Congress of the United States was created in the first article of the [[Constitution]]<ref>http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section1</ref>.

==Houses==
Congress is divided into two houses, the [[Senate]] and the [[House of Representatives]]. The Senate gives equal weight for each state, with each state electing 2 senators who serve 6 year terms. The House is proportioned based upon population, with each House member serving a 2 year term. The House and Senate must agree for [[legislation]] to be enacted. The [[President]] can [[veto]] that legislation which can then be overridden by a 2/3rds majority of both Houses of Congress.

==Quotes==
{{cquote|There is no distinctly American criminal class, except Congress}}

--Mark Twain

==References==

<References/>

[[Category:United States]]

Holy Spirit

2007-08-10T22:45:37Z

Tradcon: explained about the difference between Eastern and Western conceptions of the Holy Spirit

{{trinity}}
[[Image:Murillo Annunciation.jpg|left|Annunciation of the Virgin]]
The '''Holy Spirit''' (Greek: παράκλητος) <ref>[http://www.zhubert.com/word?word=%CF%80%CE%B1%CF%81%E1%BD%B1%CE%BA%CE%BB%CE%B7%CF%84%CE%BF%CE%BD&root=%CF%80%CE%B1%CF%81%E1%BD%B1%CE%BA%CE%BB%CE%B7%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%82&number=648406 Word Detail, zhubert.com]</ref> is the third person of the [[Holy Trinity]], both distinct and coequal with [[God|God the Father]] and the [[Jesus Christ|Son (Jesus)]].

The Holy Spirit embodies the mutual eternal love of the Father and the Son. The Greek term for the Holy Spirit is "paraclete", which means advocate or intercessor, thereby connoting a driving force for good.

The apostles credit the Holy Spirit with giving them the courage to spread the good news of Jesus Christ in a very hostile world.

The essential Christian teachings about the Holy Spirit are summarized in the [[Nicene Creed]]:

{{cquote|I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]. With the Father and Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the prophets.}}

The bracketed language in the above will be explained shortly. Christians agree on the following two propositions:

* The Holy Spirit (also known as The Holy Ghost) is the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity.

* Though really distinct, as a Person, from the Father and the Son, He is "one in being" with them with Them; being God like Them, He possesses with Them one and the same Divine Essence or Nature.

There is a key distinction between Western Christians and the Eastern Orthodox churches on a seemingly trivial, but extremely controversial, point. Western Christians believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the Father ''and the Son'' In other words, He proceeds, not by way of generation, but by way of inspiration, from the Father and the Son together, as from a single principle. The Eastern Orthodox omit the italicized language. They believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father ''through'' the Son. The disagreement between the East and West is sometimes known as the ''[[filioque controversy]]'', from the Latin word and enclitic for "and the Son," although such term may more properly apply to the [[Great Schism]] of 1054.

[[Image:Holy Spirit.jpg|thumb|The Holy Spirit inhabits all who desire its presence...]]

''In the New Testament the word spirit and, perhaps, even the expression spirit of God signify at times the soul or man himself, inasmuch as he is under the influence of God and aspires to things above; more frequently, especially in St. Paul, they signify God acting in man... to the Holy Ghost we attribute the operations of grace and the sanctification of souls, and in particular spiritual gifts and fruits.'' <ref> [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm Holy Ghost, Catholic Encyclopedia]</ref>

''"...for the Father and the Son come with Him when He descends into our souls (John 14:23)."''

''"He performs a sanctifying work among men (St. Athanasius, 360 AC)."''

'''Invocation of the Holy Spirit'''

Most powerful Holy Spirit,

come down upon us

and subdue us.

From heaven,

where the ordinary

is made glorious,

and glory seems

but ordinary,

bath us

with the brilliance

of your light

like dew.

:::Celtic Prayer

According to the New Testament Jesus after His resurrection told His disciples that they would be baptized with "The Holy Ghost", and would receive "Power, after that the Holy Ghost [was] come upon [them]" (Acts 1:4-8). Christians believe that the Holy Spirit, guiding people in the way of the truth, produce positive results, known as the [[Fruits of the Holy Spirit]].

== See also ==
[[Image:Van Dyck The Descent of the Holy Spirit.jpg|right|The Descent of the Holy Spirit]]
* [[Symbols of the Holy Spirit]]
* [[Son of God]]
* [[Bible]]
* [[Christianity]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:Divine Beings]]