Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

History of Atheism

2021-01-10T21:18:43Z

Userafw: ancient Greek philosopher

[[Image:Stalin-140508 27880t.jpg|right|200px|thumb|The brutal proponent of atheism [[Joseph Stalin]] of the Soviet Union. Professor R. J. Rummel is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Rummel's mid estimate is that communism under Stalin, Mao and other dictators caused the death of approximately 110 million people between 1917 and 1987.<ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref> ]]
The '''history of atheism''' can be dated to as early as the 5th century B.C. [[Diagoras of Melos]] was a 5th century BC. [[Greek]] atheist, poet and [[sophism|sophist]].

The word ''[[atheism]]'' itself was not coined until the 16th century.<ref>https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism</ref>

One of the early examples of atheism/[[agnosticism]]/nontheism involve Eastern religions such as [[Jainism]], [[Buddhism]] and [[Taoism]], which do not include a deity. These date back to the 6th century BC, but there is some dispute over whether these religions can be classified as atheistic, in the sense of denying the existence of gods, as many other branches of these religions do incorporate deity worship. In some such religions, the question of the existence of gods is considered to be unimportant rather than a question which can be answered one way or the other. This stance can be better described by the neologism ''apatheism''.

As noted earlier, atheism can also be traced to Ancient Greece in the 5th century BC. Diagoras of Melos is often referred to as "The First Atheist", and other men who claimed to be atheists include Theodorus of Cyrene and Euhemerus. [[Epicurus]] and Lucretius, who are often described as atheists, believed that the gods existed but that they were unconcerned with human affairs: a position better described as [[Deism]] than atheism. [[Protagoras]] espoused a position which we would describe today as [[agnosticism]], stating that "With regard to the gods I am unable to say either that they exist or do not exist."<ref>Cicero, ''De Natura Deorum''</ref> At the time, however, atheism was a capital offense in Greece—it was the crime for which Socrates was executed, though he denied the charge. It is therefore possible that some individuals may have concealed their true beliefs.

In Medieval and Renaissance Europe, instances of atheism are rare. The existence of arguments put forward to demonstrate God's existence by [[St. Thomas Aquinas|Aquinas]], Anselm and others suggests that non-belief was not unheard of, but few records of it are known.

Modern atheism did not begin until the [[Enlightenment]]. In addition, the [[French Revolution]] increased the spread of atheism in [[Europe]].<ref>http://www.investigatingatheism.info/historyeighteenth.html</ref> Baron D'Holbach's book ''The System of Nature'' was the first publication which explicitly denied the existence of God. Other atheists from this time included the philosopher [[David Hume]]. Others denied being atheists (heresy and blasphemy were capital offences) but held [[materialism|materialistic]], empiricist, broadly deistic views; these include [[Voltaire]], [[Thomas Hobbes]], [[Thomas Paine]], [[John Locke]], [[Immanuel Kant]] and [[Benjamin Franklin]].
== French Revolution and atheism ==

[[File:Prise de la Bastille.jpg|thumbnail|left|200px|On July 14, 1789, the [[Bastille]] was stormed by a mob and its prisoners freed, which is regarded as the start of the [[French Revolution]]. ]]

''See also:'' [[French atheism]]

The University of [[Cambridge]] reports the following historical relationship between atheism and the [[French Revolution]]:
{{cquote|Between 1700 and 1750 thousands of atheistic clandestine manuscripts circulated across [[Europe]] (although still only read by a very small minority)...

The French Revolution (1789-94) would dramatically transform the power relationship between belief and unbelief in [[Europe]]: whereas before atheism had been 'high brow', discussed in the cafes and salons of Paris, henceforth it would set itself down among the people. A strident unbelief became a real political factor in public life, as the anticlerical 'dechristianisation' period following the revolution would demonstrate. The impact of the French Revolution in inspiring people to put the irreligious ideas of the [[Enlightenment]] into practice would extend beyond [[France]] to other European countries, and to the American colonies (although in the latter it would take a [[deism|deistic]] rather than atheistic form).<ref>The material was formerly at the University of Cambridge's Investigation Atheism website. A website which closed down. The material has been transferred to [http://www.mmfase.com/18th-century.html 18th Century History], Investigating Atheism</ref>}}

The [[Reign of Terror]] of the French Revolution established established a state which was anti-[[Roman Catholicism]]/anti-Christian in nature<ref>
*Tallet, Frank [https://books.google.com/books?id=aL4lsWdd-rAC&dq=&hl=en Religion, Society and Politics in France Since 1789], pp. 1-17 1991 Continuum International Publishing
*SPIELVOGEL, Jackson [https://books.google.com/books?id=ni4PSpOxb6MC&dq Western Civilization: Combined Volume] p. 549, 2005,Thomson Wadsworth
*Latreille, A. FRENCH REVOLUTION, ''New Catholic Encyclopedia'' v. 5, pp. 972–973 (Second Ed. 2002 Thompson/Gale) ISBN 0-7876-4004-2</ref> (anti-clerical [[deism]] and anti-religious atheism and played a significant role in the French Revolution),<ref>[https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/chap7c.html War, Terror and Resistence]</ref><ref>''Forging Freedom: The Life of Cerf Berr of M Delsheim'' by Margaret R. O'Leary, iUniverse (June 1, 2012), pages 1-2</ref> with the official ideology being the [[Cult of Reason]]; during this time thousands of believers were suppressed and executed by the [[guillotine]].<ref>Multiple references:
*{{cite book|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=bf3m7IVAa9gC&pg=PA461&dq=France+atheism+guillotine++Christians+executed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=l4lUUaTRBufG0QGe0IHACA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=France%20atheism%20guillotine%20%20Christians%20executed&f=false|title =''Christianity: The eBook''|author=James Adair|publisher = JBE Online Books|year=2007|quote=Although the Civil Constitution called for religious liberty, which was extended to Jews as well as Christians, many revolutionaries pushed for the establishment of a new state religion, either the Cult of Reason (atheists) or the Cult of the Supreme Being (Deists). Changes to the calendar eliminated references to Christian holidays, and even the ancient seven-day week, and a list of officially recognized saints included such famous thinkers such as Socrates, Jesus, Marcus Aurelius, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. A period of political persecution, often with religious overtones, broke out, known as the Reign of Terror. Thousands of people were executed by the guillotine, including many of the original leaders of the French Revolution.|pages=461|accessdate = July 18, 2014}}
*{{cite book|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=9WkBAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA105&dq=Reign+of+Terror+atheism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HoRUUcD0NeXX0gGNo4HIDQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Reign%20of%20Terror%20atheism&f=false|title =''Memoirs of the Reign of George III. to the Session of Parliament ending A.D. 1793'', Volume 5|page=105|author=William Belsham|publisher = G.G. & J. Robinson|year=1801|quote=In allusion to the monstrous transactions of this portentous period, it has been eloquently and energetically observed, 'that the reign of atheism in France was avowed the reign of terror. In the full madness of their career, in the highest climax of their horrors, they shut up the temples of God, abolished His worship, and proclaimed death to be an eternal sleep:—in the very centre of Christendom, Revelation underwent a total eclipse, while atheism, performing on a darkened theatre its strange and fearful tragedy, confounded the first elements of society, blended every age, rank, and sex, indiscriminate proscription and massacre, and convulsed all Europe to its centre, that the imperishable memorial of these events might teach the last generations of mankind to consider religion as the pillar of society, the parent of social order, and the safe-guard of nations.' "It is wonderful that, amid the horrors of this dismal period, while 'the death dance of democratic revolution' was still in rapid movement, among the tears of affliction, and the cries of despair, 'the masque, the song, the theatric scene, the buffoon laughter, went on as regularly as in the gay hour of festive peace.'|pages=105–6|accessdate = July 18, 2014}}
*{{cite book|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=Tt5rqiCP1p8C&pg=PA57&dq=Reign+of+Terror+atheism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HoRUUcD0NeXX0gGNo4HIDQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Reign%20of%20Terror%20atheism&f=false|title =''Christianity, Islam, and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West''|author=William Kilpatrick|publisher = Ignatius Press|year=2012|quote=Actually, it's helpful to think in terms of two Enlightenments: the Enlightenment that cut itself off from God. The former led to the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, the abolition of slavery, and the civil rights movement. The latter led to the French Revolution, the Reign of Terror, the suppression of church by state, and the godless philosophies of Marx and Nietzsche and their offspring—National Socialism and communism. More recently the abandonment of God has led to the regime of cultural relativism that regards rights as arbitrary constructions. "It's this second Enlightenment tradition that Cardinal Ratzinger referred to when he wrote, 'The radical detachment of the Enlightenment philosophy from its roots ultimately leads it to dispense with man.' Actually this transition happened not 'ultimately' but almost immediately. The first instance occurred when Enlightenment worship of abstract 'reason' and 'liberty' degenerated quickly into the mass murders committed during the antireligious Reign of Terror in France. 'Liberty, what crimes are committed in your name', said Madam Rolande as she faced the statue of Liberty in the Place de la Revolution movements before her death at the guillotine. She was one of the early victims of a succession of secular systems based on rootless notions of 'liberty', 'equality', and 'reason'. "As many historians have pointed out, the atheist regimes of modern times are guilty of far more crimes than any committed in the name of religion. Communist governments alone were guilty of more than one hundred million murders, most of them committed against their own people.|pages=57|accessdate = July 18, 2014}}</ref>

Kenneth Weinstein wrote in ''The American Interest'':
{{cquote|''[[Charlie Hebdo]]'' has suddenly become the best-known example of a venerable French tradition: vituperative and unrelenting anti-religious [[satire]], a provocative yet regular phenomenon of French public life. And now—not, alas, for the first time in that nation’s history—it has occasioned actual bloodshed.

Lampooning of the Bible, Christian doctrine, and clergy dates back almost 400 years to the “strong thinkers,” French learned skeptics in the 16th century. The primary target of anti-religious satire was France’s official religion, Catholicism, the Church’s ties to the state, and its control over education. And the ridiculing wit long directed against these targets would eventually play a central and crucial role in reducing the status and influence of religion in the French Republic...

The method of the forerunners of ''Charlie Hebdo''—unrelenting and vicious satire of religion and clergy — proved so effective that France became a fully secular state, to such an extent that certain of its practices, ''laicité'', would be regarded as unsettlingly alien and intolerant by most Americans.<ref>[http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/01/13/charlie-hebdo-and-frances-irreligious-tradition/ "Charlie Hebdo and France’s Irreligious Tradition"] by Kenneth R. Weinstein</ref>}}

{{See also|Atheism and mockery}}

== Golden Age of Freethought ==

''See also:'' [[Golden Age of Freethought]]

The [[Golden Age of Freethought]] describes the 19th century United States socio-political movement which promoted [[freethought]]. Generally speaking, the period from 1875 to 1914 is referred to as "the high-water mark of freethought as an influential movement in American society".<ref>Jacoby, Susan. ''Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism''. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books, p. 151</ref>

Politically, the atheist movement has leaned left in its politics (See: [[Secular left]] and [[Atheism and politics]]). Secular leftist [[utopia]]nism and its exalted view of human nature did not line up with the horrors of the [[World War I]]. The Golden Age of Freethought ended at the start of [[World War I]].

== Atheistic communism and the 20th century history of atheism ==

''See also:'' [[Militant atheism]] and [[Atheism and communism]]

According to the [[University of Cambridge]], historically, the "most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 [[Russian Revolution]], which brought the [[Marxism-Leninism|Marxist-Leninists]] to power."<ref name="Marxism-Leninsim">{{cite web|url = http://www.investigatingatheism.info/marxism.html|title =Marxism|publisher = [[University of Cambridge]]|quote=The most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which brought the Marxist-Leninists to power. For the first time in history, atheism thus became the official ideology of a state.|year=2008|accessdate = 2011–03–15}}</ref> Vitalij Lazarʹevič Ginzburg, a Soviet physicist, wrote that the "[[Bolshevik]] communists were not merely atheists but, according to [[Lenin]]'s terminology, [[militant atheist]]s."<ref name="Lenin & militant atheism">{{cite book|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=ufC9Ar8iuDcC&pg=PA161&dq=The+Bolshevik+communists+were+not+merely+atheists+but,+according+to+Lenin%27s+terminology,+militant+atheists.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1oFUUdj6PIiK0QGvq4CAAw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=The%20Bolshevik%20communists%20were%20not%20merely%20atheists%20but%2C%20according%20to%20Lenin's%20terminology%2C%20militant%20atheists.&f=false|title =On Superconductivity and Superfluidity: A Scientific Autobiography |author=Vitalij Lazarʹevič Ginzburg|publisher = [[Springer Science+Business Media]]|year=2009|quote=The Bolshevik communists were not merely atheists but, according to Lenin's terminology, militant atheists.|accessdate = 2011–03–15}}</ref>

=== Global decline of atheism in the 20th and 21st centuries ===
[[File:Blue Marble.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|Atheism is [[Decline of atheism|in decline worldwide]] in terms of its global percentage of adherents.]]

''See also:'' [[Global atheism]] and [[Desecularization]]

Atheists as a percentage of the world's population have declined since 1970 and atheism is expected to face long term decline.<ref>[http://www.christianpost.com/news/study-world-is-turning-more-religious-atheism-declining-100518/ Study: World is becoming more religious]</ref><ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/05/globally-worldviews-of-atheism-and-non.html Globally the worldviews of atheism and non-religious (agnostic) are declining while global Christianity is exploding in adherents]</ref><ref>[http://www.gordonconwell.edu/resources/documents/StatusOfGlobalMission.pdf Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary - Status of Global Missions]</ref><ref>[http://www.gordonconwell.edu/resources/documents/StatusOfGlobalMission.pdf Gordon-Conwell Seminary - Status of Global Mission, 2014, in the Context of AD 1800–2025]</ref>

On July 24, 2013, ''CNS News'' reported:
{{cquote|Atheism is [[Decline of atheism|in decline worldwide]], with the number of atheists falling from 4.5% of the world’s population in 1970 to 2.0% in 2010 and projected to drop to 1.8% by 2020, according to a new report by the Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Mass."<ref>[https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/global-study-atheists-decline-only-18-world-population-2020 Global Study: Atheists in Decline, Only 1.8% of World Population by 2020]</ref>}}

The collapse of the atheistic [[Soviet Union]] in 1991 caused a large drop in the percentage of atheists in the world's population.<ref>[http://www.gordonconwell.edu/ockenga/research/documents/TheDemographicsofChristianMartyrdom.pdf CHRISTIAN MARTYRDOM: A GLOBAL DEMOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT] by Todd M. Johnson, Notre Dame, November 2012</ref>

[[China]] has the largest atheist population and Christianity is rapidly growing in China (see: [[Growth of Christianity in China]]).

Furthermore, in [[secular Europe]], due to the higher fertility rate of religious immigrants, the sub-replacement fertility of the secular population, the resistance of religious immigrants to assimilation and retiring workers needing to be replaced, Europe is expected to go through a process of [[desecularization]] in the 21st century.

The American [[sociology|sociologist]] and author [[Peter L. Berger]] introduced the concept of desecularization in 1999.<ref>[http://intl-jcs.oxfordjournals.org/content/52/2/232.full#fn-2 ''Journal of Church and State'', Desecularization: A Conceptual Framework by Vyacheslav Karpov, 2010]</ref><ref>Peter L. Berger, “The Desecularization of the World: A Global Overview,” in The Desecularization of the World: Resurgent Religion and World Politics, ed. Peter L. Berger (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999)</ref>

=== Oppression in atheistic communist regimes ===

{{See also|Atheism and mass murder|Atheism and communism|Atheistic communism and torture|Atheism vs. Christianity}}

The atheism in [[communism|communist]] regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] and various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and oppression of religious leaders and believers.<ref>
*[https://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/04/28/china.church.crackdown/index.html?hpt=T2 Underground Christians fear China crackdown]
*[https://books.google.com/books?visbn=0300103220&id=ChRk43tVxTwC&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&ots=ICIxg28Jud&dq=a+century+of+violence+in+soviet+russia+the+Russian+Orthodox+clergy&ie=ISO-8859-1&sig=C9k9Hr7Vn222WCHf_1iSJOHVsgo#v=onepage&q=&f=false A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia]
*[http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/frroman1.aspx On Compromise in the Hierarchy During the Communist Yoke]
*[https://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1 Korean Reds Targeting Christians]
*[https://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml North Korean and Chinese Atrocities Against Christians Worsen]
*[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818 China sends Bible owners to labor camp]
*[http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/ China: Christians Tortured While Under Arrest]</ref>
[[File: Voroshilov, Molotov, Stalin, with Nikolai Yezhov.jpg|right|225px]]
[[File: The Commissar Vanishes 2.jpg|thumbnail|right|220px|Nikolai Yezhov walking with [[Joseph Stalin]] in the top photo taken in the mid 1930s. Subsequent to his execution in 1940, Yezhov was edited out of the photo by [[Soviet Union]] censors.<ref>[http://www.newseum.org/berlinwall/commissar_vanishes/vanishes.htm The Commissar Vanishes]</ref>]]
It has been estimated that in less than the past 100 years, governments under the banner of communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40,472,000 and 259,432,000 human lives.<ref>Multiple references:
*Anticommunist (April 14, 2004). [https://web.archive.org/web/20130607125427/http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/04/289239.html "The Human Cost of Communism - 100 million"]. UK Indymedia. Retrieved from June 7, 2013 archive at Internet Achive.
*[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm "''The Black Book of Communism''"]. Harvard University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences website: Cold War Studies.
*Rummel, R. J. (November 1993). [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM "How many did communist regimes murder?"] University of Hawaii website; Freedom, Democracy, Peace; Power, Democide, and War.
*White, Matthew (February 2011). [http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm "Source list and detailed death tolls for the primary megadeaths of the twentieth century"]. Necrometrics.
*Higgins, David (June 22, 2007). [https://web.archive.org/web/20071008035420/http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365 "Memory and ideology: Washington's newest statue is the Victims Of Communism Memorial"]. Sarasota Magazine website. Retrieved from October 8, 2007 archive at Internet Archive.
*Radosh, Ronald (February 2000). [http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 "''The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression''"]. First Things [journal] website.</ref> Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.<ref>Rummel, R. J. (November 1993). [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM "How many did communist regimes murder?"] University of Hawaii website; Freedom, Democracy, Peace; Power, Democide, and War.</ref>

=== Secular leftists, the Soviet Union and historical revisionism ===

''See also:'' [[Atheism and historical revisionism]]

[[Secular left]]ists have a long-standing history of engaging in [[historical revisionism]] (see: [[Atheism and historical revisionism]]).

In terms of academic and popular history, the Communist Party of the [[Soviet Union]] (CPSU) often engaged in historical revisionism via their control of political/ideological public discourse (media, education, etc.) and via the monitoring/silencing/imprisonment/persecution of citizens through the [[KGB]].<ref>Klaus Mehnert, Stalin Versus Marx: the Stalinist historical doctrine (Translation of Weltrevolution durch Weltgeschichte) Port Washington NY: Kennikat Press 1972 (1952), on the illegitimate use of history in the 1934–1952 period</ref>

During and subsequent to the rule of [[Nikita Khrushchev]] (1956–64), there was competition between the pro-[[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]]ists and anti-Stalinists in terms of how Soviet history was portrayed.<ref>Roger D. Markwick, Rewriting history in Soviet Russia : the politics of revisionist historiography, 1956–1974 New York ; Basingstoke : Palgrave, 2001, on legitimate Soviet Historiography particularly in the post 1956 period.</ref>

== Effect of atheism on societies ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and culture]] and [[Atheism statistics]] and [[Christianity vs. atheism statistics]]

Atheism has a negative effect on societies culture (see: [[Atheism and culture]]).

Various social science studies, historical data and other data, demonstrate that atheism often has a harmful effect on individuals and societies (See: [[Atheism statistics]] and [[Christianity vs. atheism statistics]]).

== Atheism and abortion ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and sadism]] and [[Abortion and atheism]]
[[Image:115523-004-FA619CA3.jpg|thumb|left|150px| The perverse and cruel [[atheism|atheist]] [[Marquis de Sade]] advocated induced [[abortion]].<ref>https://jme.bmj.com/content/6/1/7.abstract</ref> ]]
The father of [[medicine]], [[Hippocrates]], expressly prohibited [[abortion]] in his ethical [[Oath]] long before [[Christianity]].

The ''Journal of Medical Ethics'' declares concerning the [[atheism|atheist]] and [[sadism|sadist]] [[Marquis de Sade]], who was imprisoned a number of times before being committed to an insane asylum:
{{cquote|In 1795 the Marquis de Sade published his ''La Philosophic dans le boudoir'', in which he proposed the use of induced abortion for social reasons and as a means of population control. It is from this time that medical and social acceptance of abortion can be dated, although previously the subject had not been discussed in public in modern times. It is suggested that it was largely due to de Sade's writing that induced abortion received the impetus which resulted in its subsequent spread in western society."<ref>https://jme.bmj.com/content/6/1/7.abstract</ref>}}

== Women and the history of atheism ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and women]]

[[File:Thiry 2.jpg|thumbnail|right|120px|[[Paul-Henri Thiry]] ]]
In the 1770s, the French philosopher [[Paul-Henri Thiry]] observed a dearth of female atheists.<ref>[https://www.salon.com/2013/07/21/from_hitchens_to_dawkins_where_are_the_women_of_new_atheism/ From Hitchens to Dawkins: Where are the women of New Atheism?]</ref> The English poet Edward Young (June 5, 1681 – April 5, 1765) wrote to satirically signal earthly apocalypse: "Atheists have been rare, since nature’s birth; Till now, she-atheists ne’er appear’d on earth."<ref>[https://www.salon.com/2013/07/21/from_hitchens_to_dawkins_where_are_the_women_of_new_atheism/ From Hitchens to Dawkins: Where are the women of New Atheism?]</ref> In a letter written in the 1760s, the English essayist Bonnell Thornton wrote: "Good God! A Female Atheist! … One is not half so shocked at the idea of a Female Murderer; A Female Murderer, in the worse of senses, of her own children, of herself."<ref>[https://www.salon.com/2013/07/21/from_hitchens_to_dawkins_where_are_the_women_of_new_atheism/ From Hitchens to Dawkins: Where are the women of New Atheism?]</ref> In 1813, the prominent doctor Thomas Cogan (founder of the Royal Humane Society) declared: "Men contemplate a female atheist with more disgust and horror than if she possessed the hardest features embossed with carbuncles."<ref>[https://www.salon.com/2013/07/21/from_hitchens_to_dawkins_where_are_the_women_of_new_atheism/ From Hitchens to Dawkins: Where are the women of New Atheism?]</ref>

== Atheism and religion ==

Contrary to the opinions of evangelical atheists, atheism is a religion which has repeatedly attempted to take away the religious liberties of Christians in order to support their false religion.<ref>http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/10/cutting-off-air-supply-of-atheism_573.html</ref> Using unproven theories, Darwinists indoctrinate youths in the United States in high school and college. Although atheists claim that atheism is not a religion the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that atheism is a religion as it fits in with its definition, distinguishing between “religions based on a belief in the existence of God [and] religions founded on different beliefs."<ref>http://factschurch.com/sermons/sermon004.html</ref>

See also:

[[Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals]]

== Atheist movement's 20th century past and its present day lack of confidence ==

''See also:'' [[Atheist movement]] and [[Atheist factions]]

In 2010, Professor [[Eric Kaufmann]], who specializes in the study of religion/irreligion/demographics/politics, wrote:
{{cquote|Worldwide, the [[Desecularization|march of religion]] can probably only be reversed by a renewed, self-aware secularism. Today, it appears exhausted and lacking in confidence... Secularism's greatest triumphs owe less to science than to popular social movements like nationalism, socialism and 1960s anarchist-liberalism. Ironically, secularism's [[Global atheism|demographic deficit]] means that it will probably only succeed in the twenty-first century if it can create a secular form of 'religious' enthusiasm."<ref>[http://www.sneps.net/uploadsepk/JQR%20Demography.pdf Shall the religious inherit the earth? - Eric Kaufmann]</ref>}}

In the latter portion of the 20th century and continuing into the 21st century, the atheist movement has had lower confidence/morale due to various historical events/trends (see: [[Atheists and the endurance of religion]]).
=== Decline of the atheist movement ===

*[[Decline of the atheist movement]]

== Schools of atheist thought ==

see: [[Schools of atheist thought]] and [[Atheist factions]]

==Notable atheists==
Some historically notable atheists include:
* Epicurus (341-270 BCE), Greek philosopher.
* Thomas Hobbes, author of Leviathan in 1651.
* John Baskerville (1706-1775)
* Charles Watts, author (1836-1906)
* Robert G Ingersoll, lawyer and author (1833-1899)
* Stephen Gerard (1750-1831)
* Allen Pinkerton (1819-1884)
* Émile Durkheim (1858-1917) from Épinal, France
* Alfred Radcliffe-Brown (1881-1955) from Birmingham, United Kingdom

Modern atheists include:

* Bruce Lee (1940-1973)
* George Carlin (1937-2008)
* Warren Buffet
* George Soros
* Mark Zuckerberg
* Bill Maher
* James Murdoch
* Burkeley Breathed (comic strip writer)
* Simon Patterson (English artist)

== Atheism and culture ==

[[Culture]] consists of the "language, habits, ideas, beliefs, customs, social organization, inherited artifacts, technical processes, and values."<ref>[http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~sjreeves/cm/culture.html Christianity and culture]</ref>

Atheism has had a number of negative effects on the culture of atheistic societies and in terms of its effects on theistic societies which have been influenced by atheistic ideologies (see: [[Atheism and culture]]).

== Atheist organizations ==

See: [[Atheist organizations]]

==See also==

* [[Atheism and its anti-civilizational effects]]
* [[Atheism, women and history]]
* [[Atheist worldview]]
* [[Atheism and beliefs]]
* [[Atheism and deception]]
* [[History of agnosticism]]

==External links==

*[http://www.letusreason.org/Apolo33.htm A condensed history of atheism]
*[http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=911&var3=main&var4=Home A brief history of unbelief]
*[http://www.investigatingatheism.info/history.html History of atheism]

==Recommended Reading==
*Dimitry Pospielovsky, (December, 1987), ''A History of [[Karl Marx|Marxist]]-[[Vladimir Lenin|Leninist]] Atheism and Soviet Antireligious Policies'', Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 0312381328
*Dimitry Pospielovsky, (November, 1987), ''Soviet Antireligious Campaigns and Persecutions (History of Soviet Atheism in Theory and Practice and the Believers, Vol 2)'', Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 0312009054
*Dimitry Pospielovsky, (August, 1988), ''Soviet Studies on the Church and the Believer's Response to Atheism: A History of Soviet Atheism in Theory and Practice and the Believers, Vol 3'', Palgrave Macmillan, hardcover: ISBN 0312012918, paperback: ISBN 0312012926

==References==
<references />

{{Nb Atheism}}

[[Category: Atheism]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:History]]

History of Atheism

2021-01-10T21:16:45Z

Userafw: notable atheists

[[Image:Stalin-140508 27880t.jpg|right|200px|thumb|The brutal proponent of atheism [[Joseph Stalin]] of the Soviet Union. Professor R. J. Rummel is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Rummel's mid estimate is that communism under Stalin, Mao and other dictators caused the death of approximately 110 million people between 1917 and 1987.<ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref> ]]
The '''history of atheism''' can be dated to as early as the 5th century B.C. [[Diagoras of Melos]] was a 5th century BC. [[Greek]] atheist, poet and [[sophism|sophist]].

The word ''[[atheism]]'' itself was not coined until the 16th century.<ref>https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism</ref>

One of the early examples of atheism/[[agnosticism]]/nontheism involve Eastern religions such as [[Jainism]], [[Buddhism]] and [[Taoism]], which do not include a deity. These date back to the 6th century BC, but there is some dispute over whether these religions can be classified as atheistic, in the sense of denying the existence of gods, as many other branches of these religions do incorporate deity worship. In some such religions, the question of the existence of gods is considered to be unimportant rather than a question which can be answered one way or the other. This stance can be better described by the neologism ''apatheism''.

As noted earlier, atheism can also be traced to Ancient Greece in the 5th century BC. Diagoras of Melos is often referred to as "The First Atheist", and other men who claimed to be atheists include Theodorus of Cyrene and Euhemerus. [[Epicurus]] and Lucretius, who are often described as atheists, believed that the gods existed but that they were unconcerned with human affairs: a position better described as [[Deism]] than atheism. [[Protagoras]] espoused a position which we would describe today as [[agnosticism]], stating that "With regard to the gods I am unable to say either that they exist or do not exist."<ref>Cicero, ''De Natura Deorum''</ref> At the time, however, atheism was a capital offense in Greece—it was the crime for which Socrates was executed, though he denied the charge. It is therefore possible that some individuals may have concealed their true beliefs.

In Medieval and Renaissance Europe, instances of atheism are rare. The existence of arguments put forward to demonstrate God's existence by [[St. Thomas Aquinas|Aquinas]], Anselm and others suggests that non-belief was not unheard of, but few records of it are known.

Modern atheism did not begin until the [[Enlightenment]]. In addition, the [[French Revolution]] increased the spread of atheism in [[Europe]].<ref>http://www.investigatingatheism.info/historyeighteenth.html</ref> Baron D'Holbach's book ''The System of Nature'' was the first publication which explicitly denied the existence of God. Other atheists from this time included the philosopher [[David Hume]]. Others denied being atheists (heresy and blasphemy were capital offences) but held [[materialism|materialistic]], empiricist, broadly deistic views; these include [[Voltaire]], [[Thomas Hobbes]], [[Thomas Paine]], [[John Locke]], [[Immanuel Kant]] and [[Benjamin Franklin]].
== French Revolution and atheism ==

[[File:Prise de la Bastille.jpg|thumbnail|left|200px|On July 14, 1789, the [[Bastille]] was stormed by a mob and its prisoners freed, which is regarded as the start of the [[French Revolution]]. ]]

''See also:'' [[French atheism]]

The University of [[Cambridge]] reports the following historical relationship between atheism and the [[French Revolution]]:
{{cquote|Between 1700 and 1750 thousands of atheistic clandestine manuscripts circulated across [[Europe]] (although still only read by a very small minority)...

The French Revolution (1789-94) would dramatically transform the power relationship between belief and unbelief in [[Europe]]: whereas before atheism had been 'high brow', discussed in the cafes and salons of Paris, henceforth it would set itself down among the people. A strident unbelief became a real political factor in public life, as the anticlerical 'dechristianisation' period following the revolution would demonstrate. The impact of the French Revolution in inspiring people to put the irreligious ideas of the [[Enlightenment]] into practice would extend beyond [[France]] to other European countries, and to the American colonies (although in the latter it would take a [[deism|deistic]] rather than atheistic form).<ref>The material was formerly at the University of Cambridge's Investigation Atheism website. A website which closed down. The material has been transferred to [http://www.mmfase.com/18th-century.html 18th Century History], Investigating Atheism</ref>}}

The [[Reign of Terror]] of the French Revolution established established a state which was anti-[[Roman Catholicism]]/anti-Christian in nature<ref>
*Tallet, Frank [https://books.google.com/books?id=aL4lsWdd-rAC&dq=&hl=en Religion, Society and Politics in France Since 1789], pp. 1-17 1991 Continuum International Publishing
*SPIELVOGEL, Jackson [https://books.google.com/books?id=ni4PSpOxb6MC&dq Western Civilization: Combined Volume] p. 549, 2005,Thomson Wadsworth
*Latreille, A. FRENCH REVOLUTION, ''New Catholic Encyclopedia'' v. 5, pp. 972–973 (Second Ed. 2002 Thompson/Gale) ISBN 0-7876-4004-2</ref> (anti-clerical [[deism]] and anti-religious atheism and played a significant role in the French Revolution),<ref>[https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/chap7c.html War, Terror and Resistence]</ref><ref>''Forging Freedom: The Life of Cerf Berr of M Delsheim'' by Margaret R. O'Leary, iUniverse (June 1, 2012), pages 1-2</ref> with the official ideology being the [[Cult of Reason]]; during this time thousands of believers were suppressed and executed by the [[guillotine]].<ref>Multiple references:
*{{cite book|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=bf3m7IVAa9gC&pg=PA461&dq=France+atheism+guillotine++Christians+executed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=l4lUUaTRBufG0QGe0IHACA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=France%20atheism%20guillotine%20%20Christians%20executed&f=false|title =''Christianity: The eBook''|author=James Adair|publisher = JBE Online Books|year=2007|quote=Although the Civil Constitution called for religious liberty, which was extended to Jews as well as Christians, many revolutionaries pushed for the establishment of a new state religion, either the Cult of Reason (atheists) or the Cult of the Supreme Being (Deists). Changes to the calendar eliminated references to Christian holidays, and even the ancient seven-day week, and a list of officially recognized saints included such famous thinkers such as Socrates, Jesus, Marcus Aurelius, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. A period of political persecution, often with religious overtones, broke out, known as the Reign of Terror. Thousands of people were executed by the guillotine, including many of the original leaders of the French Revolution.|pages=461|accessdate = July 18, 2014}}
*{{cite book|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=9WkBAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA105&dq=Reign+of+Terror+atheism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HoRUUcD0NeXX0gGNo4HIDQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Reign%20of%20Terror%20atheism&f=false|title =''Memoirs of the Reign of George III. to the Session of Parliament ending A.D. 1793'', Volume 5|page=105|author=William Belsham|publisher = G.G. & J. Robinson|year=1801|quote=In allusion to the monstrous transactions of this portentous period, it has been eloquently and energetically observed, 'that the reign of atheism in France was avowed the reign of terror. In the full madness of their career, in the highest climax of their horrors, they shut up the temples of God, abolished His worship, and proclaimed death to be an eternal sleep:—in the very centre of Christendom, Revelation underwent a total eclipse, while atheism, performing on a darkened theatre its strange and fearful tragedy, confounded the first elements of society, blended every age, rank, and sex, indiscriminate proscription and massacre, and convulsed all Europe to its centre, that the imperishable memorial of these events might teach the last generations of mankind to consider religion as the pillar of society, the parent of social order, and the safe-guard of nations.' "It is wonderful that, amid the horrors of this dismal period, while 'the death dance of democratic revolution' was still in rapid movement, among the tears of affliction, and the cries of despair, 'the masque, the song, the theatric scene, the buffoon laughter, went on as regularly as in the gay hour of festive peace.'|pages=105–6|accessdate = July 18, 2014}}
*{{cite book|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=Tt5rqiCP1p8C&pg=PA57&dq=Reign+of+Terror+atheism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HoRUUcD0NeXX0gGNo4HIDQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Reign%20of%20Terror%20atheism&f=false|title =''Christianity, Islam, and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West''|author=William Kilpatrick|publisher = Ignatius Press|year=2012|quote=Actually, it's helpful to think in terms of two Enlightenments: the Enlightenment that cut itself off from God. The former led to the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, the abolition of slavery, and the civil rights movement. The latter led to the French Revolution, the Reign of Terror, the suppression of church by state, and the godless philosophies of Marx and Nietzsche and their offspring—National Socialism and communism. More recently the abandonment of God has led to the regime of cultural relativism that regards rights as arbitrary constructions. "It's this second Enlightenment tradition that Cardinal Ratzinger referred to when he wrote, 'The radical detachment of the Enlightenment philosophy from its roots ultimately leads it to dispense with man.' Actually this transition happened not 'ultimately' but almost immediately. The first instance occurred when Enlightenment worship of abstract 'reason' and 'liberty' degenerated quickly into the mass murders committed during the antireligious Reign of Terror in France. 'Liberty, what crimes are committed in your name', said Madam Rolande as she faced the statue of Liberty in the Place de la Revolution movements before her death at the guillotine. She was one of the early victims of a succession of secular systems based on rootless notions of 'liberty', 'equality', and 'reason'. "As many historians have pointed out, the atheist regimes of modern times are guilty of far more crimes than any committed in the name of religion. Communist governments alone were guilty of more than one hundred million murders, most of them committed against their own people.|pages=57|accessdate = July 18, 2014}}</ref>

Kenneth Weinstein wrote in ''The American Interest'':
{{cquote|''[[Charlie Hebdo]]'' has suddenly become the best-known example of a venerable French tradition: vituperative and unrelenting anti-religious [[satire]], a provocative yet regular phenomenon of French public life. And now—not, alas, for the first time in that nation’s history—it has occasioned actual bloodshed.

Lampooning of the Bible, Christian doctrine, and clergy dates back almost 400 years to the “strong thinkers,” French learned skeptics in the 16th century. The primary target of anti-religious satire was France’s official religion, Catholicism, the Church’s ties to the state, and its control over education. And the ridiculing wit long directed against these targets would eventually play a central and crucial role in reducing the status and influence of religion in the French Republic...

The method of the forerunners of ''Charlie Hebdo''—unrelenting and vicious satire of religion and clergy — proved so effective that France became a fully secular state, to such an extent that certain of its practices, ''laicité'', would be regarded as unsettlingly alien and intolerant by most Americans.<ref>[http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/01/13/charlie-hebdo-and-frances-irreligious-tradition/ "Charlie Hebdo and France’s Irreligious Tradition"] by Kenneth R. Weinstein</ref>}}

{{See also|Atheism and mockery}}

== Golden Age of Freethought ==

''See also:'' [[Golden Age of Freethought]]

The [[Golden Age of Freethought]] describes the 19th century United States socio-political movement which promoted [[freethought]]. Generally speaking, the period from 1875 to 1914 is referred to as "the high-water mark of freethought as an influential movement in American society".<ref>Jacoby, Susan. ''Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism''. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books, p. 151</ref>

Politically, the atheist movement has leaned left in its politics (See: [[Secular left]] and [[Atheism and politics]]). Secular leftist [[utopia]]nism and its exalted view of human nature did not line up with the horrors of the [[World War I]]. The Golden Age of Freethought ended at the start of [[World War I]].

== Atheistic communism and the 20th century history of atheism ==

''See also:'' [[Militant atheism]] and [[Atheism and communism]]

According to the [[University of Cambridge]], historically, the "most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 [[Russian Revolution]], which brought the [[Marxism-Leninism|Marxist-Leninists]] to power."<ref name="Marxism-Leninsim">{{cite web|url = http://www.investigatingatheism.info/marxism.html|title =Marxism|publisher = [[University of Cambridge]]|quote=The most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which brought the Marxist-Leninists to power. For the first time in history, atheism thus became the official ideology of a state.|year=2008|accessdate = 2011–03–15}}</ref> Vitalij Lazarʹevič Ginzburg, a Soviet physicist, wrote that the "[[Bolshevik]] communists were not merely atheists but, according to [[Lenin]]'s terminology, [[militant atheist]]s."<ref name="Lenin & militant atheism">{{cite book|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=ufC9Ar8iuDcC&pg=PA161&dq=The+Bolshevik+communists+were+not+merely+atheists+but,+according+to+Lenin%27s+terminology,+militant+atheists.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1oFUUdj6PIiK0QGvq4CAAw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=The%20Bolshevik%20communists%20were%20not%20merely%20atheists%20but%2C%20according%20to%20Lenin's%20terminology%2C%20militant%20atheists.&f=false|title =On Superconductivity and Superfluidity: A Scientific Autobiography |author=Vitalij Lazarʹevič Ginzburg|publisher = [[Springer Science+Business Media]]|year=2009|quote=The Bolshevik communists were not merely atheists but, according to Lenin's terminology, militant atheists.|accessdate = 2011–03–15}}</ref>

=== Global decline of atheism in the 20th and 21st centuries ===
[[File:Blue Marble.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|Atheism is [[Decline of atheism|in decline worldwide]] in terms of its global percentage of adherents.]]

''See also:'' [[Global atheism]] and [[Desecularization]]

Atheists as a percentage of the world's population have declined since 1970 and atheism is expected to face long term decline.<ref>[http://www.christianpost.com/news/study-world-is-turning-more-religious-atheism-declining-100518/ Study: World is becoming more religious]</ref><ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/05/globally-worldviews-of-atheism-and-non.html Globally the worldviews of atheism and non-religious (agnostic) are declining while global Christianity is exploding in adherents]</ref><ref>[http://www.gordonconwell.edu/resources/documents/StatusOfGlobalMission.pdf Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary - Status of Global Missions]</ref><ref>[http://www.gordonconwell.edu/resources/documents/StatusOfGlobalMission.pdf Gordon-Conwell Seminary - Status of Global Mission, 2014, in the Context of AD 1800–2025]</ref>

On July 24, 2013, ''CNS News'' reported:
{{cquote|Atheism is [[Decline of atheism|in decline worldwide]], with the number of atheists falling from 4.5% of the world’s population in 1970 to 2.0% in 2010 and projected to drop to 1.8% by 2020, according to a new report by the Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Mass."<ref>[https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/global-study-atheists-decline-only-18-world-population-2020 Global Study: Atheists in Decline, Only 1.8% of World Population by 2020]</ref>}}

The collapse of the atheistic [[Soviet Union]] in 1991 caused a large drop in the percentage of atheists in the world's population.<ref>[http://www.gordonconwell.edu/ockenga/research/documents/TheDemographicsofChristianMartyrdom.pdf CHRISTIAN MARTYRDOM: A GLOBAL DEMOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT] by Todd M. Johnson, Notre Dame, November 2012</ref>

[[China]] has the largest atheist population and Christianity is rapidly growing in China (see: [[Growth of Christianity in China]]).

Furthermore, in [[secular Europe]], due to the higher fertility rate of religious immigrants, the sub-replacement fertility of the secular population, the resistance of religious immigrants to assimilation and retiring workers needing to be replaced, Europe is expected to go through a process of [[desecularization]] in the 21st century.

The American [[sociology|sociologist]] and author [[Peter L. Berger]] introduced the concept of desecularization in 1999.<ref>[http://intl-jcs.oxfordjournals.org/content/52/2/232.full#fn-2 ''Journal of Church and State'', Desecularization: A Conceptual Framework by Vyacheslav Karpov, 2010]</ref><ref>Peter L. Berger, “The Desecularization of the World: A Global Overview,” in The Desecularization of the World: Resurgent Religion and World Politics, ed. Peter L. Berger (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999)</ref>

=== Oppression in atheistic communist regimes ===

{{See also|Atheism and mass murder|Atheism and communism|Atheistic communism and torture|Atheism vs. Christianity}}

The atheism in [[communism|communist]] regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] and various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and oppression of religious leaders and believers.<ref>
*[https://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/04/28/china.church.crackdown/index.html?hpt=T2 Underground Christians fear China crackdown]
*[https://books.google.com/books?visbn=0300103220&id=ChRk43tVxTwC&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&ots=ICIxg28Jud&dq=a+century+of+violence+in+soviet+russia+the+Russian+Orthodox+clergy&ie=ISO-8859-1&sig=C9k9Hr7Vn222WCHf_1iSJOHVsgo#v=onepage&q=&f=false A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia]
*[http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/frroman1.aspx On Compromise in the Hierarchy During the Communist Yoke]
*[https://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1 Korean Reds Targeting Christians]
*[https://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml North Korean and Chinese Atrocities Against Christians Worsen]
*[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818 China sends Bible owners to labor camp]
*[http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/ China: Christians Tortured While Under Arrest]</ref>
[[File: Voroshilov, Molotov, Stalin, with Nikolai Yezhov.jpg|right|225px]]
[[File: The Commissar Vanishes 2.jpg|thumbnail|right|220px|Nikolai Yezhov walking with [[Joseph Stalin]] in the top photo taken in the mid 1930s. Subsequent to his execution in 1940, Yezhov was edited out of the photo by [[Soviet Union]] censors.<ref>[http://www.newseum.org/berlinwall/commissar_vanishes/vanishes.htm The Commissar Vanishes]</ref>]]
It has been estimated that in less than the past 100 years, governments under the banner of communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40,472,000 and 259,432,000 human lives.<ref>Multiple references:
*Anticommunist (April 14, 2004). [https://web.archive.org/web/20130607125427/http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/04/289239.html "The Human Cost of Communism - 100 million"]. UK Indymedia. Retrieved from June 7, 2013 archive at Internet Achive.
*[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm "''The Black Book of Communism''"]. Harvard University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences website: Cold War Studies.
*Rummel, R. J. (November 1993). [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM "How many did communist regimes murder?"] University of Hawaii website; Freedom, Democracy, Peace; Power, Democide, and War.
*White, Matthew (February 2011). [http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm "Source list and detailed death tolls for the primary megadeaths of the twentieth century"]. Necrometrics.
*Higgins, David (June 22, 2007). [https://web.archive.org/web/20071008035420/http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365 "Memory and ideology: Washington's newest statue is the Victims Of Communism Memorial"]. Sarasota Magazine website. Retrieved from October 8, 2007 archive at Internet Archive.
*Radosh, Ronald (February 2000). [http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 "''The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression''"]. First Things [journal] website.</ref> Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.<ref>Rummel, R. J. (November 1993). [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM "How many did communist regimes murder?"] University of Hawaii website; Freedom, Democracy, Peace; Power, Democide, and War.</ref>

=== Secular leftists, the Soviet Union and historical revisionism ===

''See also:'' [[Atheism and historical revisionism]]

[[Secular left]]ists have a long-standing history of engaging in [[historical revisionism]] (see: [[Atheism and historical revisionism]]).

In terms of academic and popular history, the Communist Party of the [[Soviet Union]] (CPSU) often engaged in historical revisionism via their control of political/ideological public discourse (media, education, etc.) and via the monitoring/silencing/imprisonment/persecution of citizens through the [[KGB]].<ref>Klaus Mehnert, Stalin Versus Marx: the Stalinist historical doctrine (Translation of Weltrevolution durch Weltgeschichte) Port Washington NY: Kennikat Press 1972 (1952), on the illegitimate use of history in the 1934–1952 period</ref>

During and subsequent to the rule of [[Nikita Khrushchev]] (1956–64), there was competition between the pro-[[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]]ists and anti-Stalinists in terms of how Soviet history was portrayed.<ref>Roger D. Markwick, Rewriting history in Soviet Russia : the politics of revisionist historiography, 1956–1974 New York ; Basingstoke : Palgrave, 2001, on legitimate Soviet Historiography particularly in the post 1956 period.</ref>

== Effect of atheism on societies ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and culture]] and [[Atheism statistics]] and [[Christianity vs. atheism statistics]]

Atheism has a negative effect on societies culture (see: [[Atheism and culture]]).

Various social science studies, historical data and other data, demonstrate that atheism often has a harmful effect on individuals and societies (See: [[Atheism statistics]] and [[Christianity vs. atheism statistics]]).

== Atheism and abortion ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and sadism]] and [[Abortion and atheism]]
[[Image:115523-004-FA619CA3.jpg|thumb|left|150px| The perverse and cruel [[atheism|atheist]] [[Marquis de Sade]] advocated induced [[abortion]].<ref>https://jme.bmj.com/content/6/1/7.abstract</ref> ]]
The father of [[medicine]], [[Hippocrates]], expressly prohibited [[abortion]] in his ethical [[Oath]] long before [[Christianity]].

The ''Journal of Medical Ethics'' declares concerning the [[atheism|atheist]] and [[sadism|sadist]] [[Marquis de Sade]], who was imprisoned a number of times before being committed to an insane asylum:
{{cquote|In 1795 the Marquis de Sade published his ''La Philosophic dans le boudoir'', in which he proposed the use of induced abortion for social reasons and as a means of population control. It is from this time that medical and social acceptance of abortion can be dated, although previously the subject had not been discussed in public in modern times. It is suggested that it was largely due to de Sade's writing that induced abortion received the impetus which resulted in its subsequent spread in western society."<ref>https://jme.bmj.com/content/6/1/7.abstract</ref>}}

== Women and the history of atheism ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and women]]

[[File:Thiry 2.jpg|thumbnail|right|120px|[[Paul-Henri Thiry]] ]]
In the 1770s, the French philosopher [[Paul-Henri Thiry]] observed a dearth of female atheists.<ref>[https://www.salon.com/2013/07/21/from_hitchens_to_dawkins_where_are_the_women_of_new_atheism/ From Hitchens to Dawkins: Where are the women of New Atheism?]</ref> The English poet Edward Young (June 5, 1681 – April 5, 1765) wrote to satirically signal earthly apocalypse: "Atheists have been rare, since nature’s birth; Till now, she-atheists ne’er appear’d on earth."<ref>[https://www.salon.com/2013/07/21/from_hitchens_to_dawkins_where_are_the_women_of_new_atheism/ From Hitchens to Dawkins: Where are the women of New Atheism?]</ref> In a letter written in the 1760s, the English essayist Bonnell Thornton wrote: "Good God! A Female Atheist! … One is not half so shocked at the idea of a Female Murderer; A Female Murderer, in the worse of senses, of her own children, of herself."<ref>[https://www.salon.com/2013/07/21/from_hitchens_to_dawkins_where_are_the_women_of_new_atheism/ From Hitchens to Dawkins: Where are the women of New Atheism?]</ref> In 1813, the prominent doctor Thomas Cogan (founder of the Royal Humane Society) declared: "Men contemplate a female atheist with more disgust and horror than if she possessed the hardest features embossed with carbuncles."<ref>[https://www.salon.com/2013/07/21/from_hitchens_to_dawkins_where_are_the_women_of_new_atheism/ From Hitchens to Dawkins: Where are the women of New Atheism?]</ref>

== Atheism and religion ==

Contrary to the opinions of evangelical atheists, atheism is a religion which has repeatedly attempted to take away the religious liberties of Christians in order to support their false religion.<ref>http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/10/cutting-off-air-supply-of-atheism_573.html</ref> Using unproven theories, Darwinists indoctrinate youths in the United States in high school and college. Although atheists claim that atheism is not a religion the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that atheism is a religion as it fits in with its definition, distinguishing between “religions based on a belief in the existence of God [and] religions founded on different beliefs."<ref>http://factschurch.com/sermons/sermon004.html</ref>

See also:

[[Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals]]

== Atheist movement's 20th century past and its present day lack of confidence ==

''See also:'' [[Atheist movement]] and [[Atheist factions]]

In 2010, Professor [[Eric Kaufmann]], who specializes in the study of religion/irreligion/demographics/politics, wrote:
{{cquote|Worldwide, the [[Desecularization|march of religion]] can probably only be reversed by a renewed, self-aware secularism. Today, it appears exhausted and lacking in confidence... Secularism's greatest triumphs owe less to science than to popular social movements like nationalism, socialism and 1960s anarchist-liberalism. Ironically, secularism's [[Global atheism|demographic deficit]] means that it will probably only succeed in the twenty-first century if it can create a secular form of 'religious' enthusiasm."<ref>[http://www.sneps.net/uploadsepk/JQR%20Demography.pdf Shall the religious inherit the earth? - Eric Kaufmann]</ref>}}

In the latter portion of the 20th century and continuing into the 21st century, the atheist movement has had lower confidence/morale due to various historical events/trends (see: [[Atheists and the endurance of religion]]).
=== Decline of the atheist movement ===

*[[Decline of the atheist movement]]

== Schools of atheist thought ==

see: [[Schools of atheist thought]] and [[Atheist factions]]

==Notable atheists==
Some historically notable atheists include:

* Thomas Hobbes, author of Leviathan in 1651.
* John Baskerville (1706-1775)
* Charles Watts, author (1836-1906)
* Robert G Ingersoll, lawyer and author (1833-1899)
* Stephen Gerard (1750-1831)
* Allen Pinkerton (1819-1884)
* Émile Durkheim (1858-1917) from Épinal, France
* Alfred Radcliffe-Brown (1881-1955) from Birmingham, United Kingdom

Modern atheists include:

* Bruce Lee (1940-1973)
* George Carlin (1937-2008)
* Warren Buffet
* George Soros
* Mark Zuckerberg
* Bill Maher
* James Murdoch
* Burkeley Breathed (comic strip writer)
* Simon Patterson (English artist)

== Atheism and culture ==

[[Culture]] consists of the "language, habits, ideas, beliefs, customs, social organization, inherited artifacts, technical processes, and values."<ref>[http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~sjreeves/cm/culture.html Christianity and culture]</ref>

Atheism has had a number of negative effects on the culture of atheistic societies and in terms of its effects on theistic societies which have been influenced by atheistic ideologies (see: [[Atheism and culture]]).

== Atheist organizations ==

See: [[Atheist organizations]]

==See also==

* [[Atheism and its anti-civilizational effects]]
* [[Atheism, women and history]]
* [[Atheist worldview]]
* [[Atheism and beliefs]]
* [[Atheism and deception]]
* [[History of agnosticism]]

==External links==

*[http://www.letusreason.org/Apolo33.htm A condensed history of atheism]
*[http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=911&var3=main&var4=Home A brief history of unbelief]
*[http://www.investigatingatheism.info/history.html History of atheism]

==Recommended Reading==
*Dimitry Pospielovsky, (December, 1987), ''A History of [[Karl Marx|Marxist]]-[[Vladimir Lenin|Leninist]] Atheism and Soviet Antireligious Policies'', Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 0312381328
*Dimitry Pospielovsky, (November, 1987), ''Soviet Antireligious Campaigns and Persecutions (History of Soviet Atheism in Theory and Practice and the Believers, Vol 2)'', Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 0312009054
*Dimitry Pospielovsky, (August, 1988), ''Soviet Studies on the Church and the Believer's Response to Atheism: A History of Soviet Atheism in Theory and Practice and the Believers, Vol 3'', Palgrave Macmillan, hardcover: ISBN 0312012918, paperback: ISBN 0312012926

==References==
<references />

{{Nb Atheism}}

[[Category: Atheism]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:History]]

Labor union

2021-01-10T20:40:56Z

Userafw: Athens

A '''labor union''' or ''trade union'' is an organization formed for the purpose of collectively representing the interests of a group of workers. Unions often interfere with free enterprise, as in opposing entrepreneurship that creates competition.

'''Labor unions''' can include collectively bargaining with [[employer]]s in order to agree on rates of pay and other conditions of employment. [[Conservatives]] tolerate the right of workers to form unions but oppose compulsory union membership, as required by law in most states, and mandatory dues that are spent on [[liberal]] projects.

Liberals, Democrats, and [[RINO]]s are big supporters of unions, and count on their influence to reelect them. In effect, public employee unions are a mechanism by which every taxpayer is forced to fund the [[Democrat Party]].<ref>http://pubsecrets.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/why-the-democratic-party-union-relationship-is-corrupt/</ref> Unions frequently promote left-wing policies, including compulsory schooling, abortion, and the [[homosexual agenda]]. While unions are relatively critical of [[globalist]] "free trade" deals, they do not use the same reasoning as conservatives,<ref>Byas, Steve (May 9, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/item/29018-big-labor-opposition-to-tpp-is-not-about-american-sovereignty Big Labor Opposition to TPP Is Not About American Sovereignty]. ''The New American''. Retrieved June 15, 2018.</ref> and many of them have criticized the [[Trump Administration]]'s trade policies.<ref>Higgins, Sean (June 15, 2018). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/economy/us-eu-unions-issue-joint-slam-on-trump-trade-policy US, EU unions issue joint slam on Trump trade policy]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved June 15, 2018.</ref> Many attribute some of the negative aspects of [[public schools]] to the [[National Education Association]] and other teachers' unions. School support personnel unions oppose [[outsourcing]] of school support services, sometimes even when it would be beneficial for the support employees. Teachers' unions and school support employee unions are often very active in school board elections. Some unions support far-left abortion policies despite those policies having nothing to do with the unions' stated focuses or goals.<ref>Everson, Ryan (July 11, 2019). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/nothing-to-do-with-labor-americas-largest-union-adopts-radical-abortion-stance Nothing to do with labor: Largest union in US adopts radical abortion stance]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved July 11, 2019.</ref>

[[Wal-Mart]] has been so successful by opposing the formation of unions among its workers, and has closed a profitable store down before allowing any union to exist in it.

There are generally two types of unions: private sector unions and public sector unions; some unions have members in both the private and public sectors. Although their first amendment right of free speech applies when not on the government's time or premises, which also permits the formation of unions, federal government employee unions are legally prohibited from actively going on strike. <ref> https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section3333&num=0&edition=prelim </ref>

==Communist infiltration==
For decades, labor unions have frequently been infiltrated by [[Communism|Communists]], which have used unions for the purposes of advancing Communism.<ref>[https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/7/labor-unions-and-communism/ Labor unions and Communism] at the ''Washington Times''</ref><ref>[http://www.trevorloudon.com/2014/02/red-unions-how-why-big-labor-leaders-betray-their-nation/ RED UNIONS: How & Why Big Labor Leaders Betray Their Nation]</ref> [[Organized crime]] has also infiltrated and corrupted labor unions over time.<ref>[https://www.unionfacts.com/article/crime-and-corruption/ Crime and Corruption]</ref><ref>[http://www.laborers.org/VAIRA_MEMO.html Organized Crime and the Labor Unions]</ref> Under the combined influence of Communism and organized crime, labor unions and their members have often resorted in cowardly fashion to threats (including death threats), intimidation <ref> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/duress </ref> and illegal acts of thuggery and violence to get their way during strike actions and other labor disputes, as well as when their corruption, inefficiency, and deliberate incompetence is exposed and attempts to oppose and purge their radical positions and either reform the unions or rid them from businesses and public institutions are made.<ref>[https://www.unionfacts.com/article/crime-and-corruption/examples-of-union-threats-violence-and-intimidation/ Examples of Union Threats, Violence and Intimidation]</ref><ref>[https://www.theblaze.com/news/2011/11/07/labor-union-violence-in-america-a-brief-history/ Labor Union Violence in America: A Brief History]</ref><ref>[http://www.westernjournalism.com/a-liberal-history-of-union-thuggery-and-civil-rights-perversion/ A Liberal History of Union Thuggery and Civil Rights Perversion]</ref> Such actions by unions have served as an argument by their opponents for the abolition of labor unions entirely, not only as being outdated and unnecessary in today's society, but also because unions are seen as excuses for extortion (through forced union dues and taxes), corruption (including through forced compulsory membership and denial of work to anyone who refuses to join a union, as well as high labor prices charged for deliberately shoddy and substandard work) <ref> https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/employment-at-will-definition-30022.html </ref> and political manipulation (through the Democrats and the [[Communist Party USA]]) and as havens for thugs, criminals and Communists.<ref>[http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-liberal/2011/11/congress-should-outlaw-all-unions-and-eventually-abolish-them-1399191.html Congress Should Outlaw All Unions and Eventually Abolish Them]</ref>

==Union boss hypocrisy==
Despite their criticism of high salaries for CEOs (the average CEO salary is not as high as they claim) and their stated support for workers, union bosses have very high salaries.<ref>Chiaramonte, Perry (May 12, 2017). [https://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/05/12/afl-cio-paywatch-report-slams-ceo-pay-but-not-high-pay-its-own-execs.html AFL-CIO 'Paywatch' report slams CEO pay but not the high pay of its own execs]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved May 12, 2017.</ref><ref>Blitzer, Ronn (December 26, 2019). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/embattled-union-honchos-lavish-spending-exposed-villas-four-figure-dinners-cigars Embattled union honchos’ lavish spending exposed: Villas, four-figure dinners, $60,000 cigar bill]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved December 26, 2019.</ref><ref>Neale Spencer (December 27, 2019). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/former-united-auto-workers-presidents-accused-of-spending-1m-on-cigars-golf-and-dinners Former United Automobile Workers presidents accused of spending $1M on cigars, golf, and dinners]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved December 27, 2019.</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

==See also==
* [[American labor unions]]
* [[Right to work]]

==External links==
*[https://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/05/what-unions-do-how-labor-unions-affect-jobs-and-the-economy Studies on Current Effects of Unions] Heritage Foundation
{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Labor Unions]]
[[Category:Corruption]]

Labor union

2021-01-10T20:38:09Z

Userafw: link to definition of duress ie intimidation

A '''labor union''' or ''trade union'' is an organization formed for the purpose of collectively representing the interests of a group of workers. Unions often interfere with free enterprise, as in opposing entrepreneurship that creates competition.

'''Labor unions''' can include collectively bargaining with [[employer]]s in order to agree on rates of pay and other conditions of employment. [[Conservatives]] tolerate the right of workers to form unions but oppose compulsory union membership, as required by law in most states, and mandatory dues that are spent on [[liberal]] projects.

Liberals, Democrats, and [[RINO]]s are big supporters of unions, and count on their influence to reelect them. In effect, public employee unions are a mechanism by which every taxpayer is forced to fund the [[Democrat Party]].<ref>http://pubsecrets.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/why-the-democratic-party-union-relationship-is-corrupt/</ref> Unions frequently promote left-wing policies, including compulsory schooling, abortion, and the [[homosexual agenda]]. While unions are relatively critical of [[globalist]] "free trade" deals, they do not use the same reasoning as conservatives,<ref>Byas, Steve (May 9, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/item/29018-big-labor-opposition-to-tpp-is-not-about-american-sovereignty Big Labor Opposition to TPP Is Not About American Sovereignty]. ''The New American''. Retrieved June 15, 2018.</ref> and many of them have criticized the [[Trump Administration]]'s trade policies.<ref>Higgins, Sean (June 15, 2018). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/economy/us-eu-unions-issue-joint-slam-on-trump-trade-policy US, EU unions issue joint slam on Trump trade policy]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved June 15, 2018.</ref> Many attribute some of the negative aspects of [[public schools]] to the [[National Education Association]] and other teachers' unions. School support personnel unions oppose [[outsourcing]] of school support services, sometimes even when it would be beneficial for the support employees. Teachers' unions and school support employee unions are often very active in school board elections. Some unions support far-left abortion policies despite those policies having nothing to do with the unions' stated focuses or goals.<ref>Everson, Ryan (July 11, 2019). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/nothing-to-do-with-labor-americas-largest-union-adopts-radical-abortion-stance Nothing to do with labor: Largest union in US adopts radical abortion stance]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved July 11, 2019.</ref>

[[Wal-Mart]] has been so successful by opposing the formation of unions among its workers, and has closed a profitable store down before allowing any union to exist in it.

There are generally two types of unions: private sector unions and public sector unions; some unions have members in both the private and public sectors. Although their first amendment right of free speech applies when not on the government's time or premises, which also permits the formation of unions, federal government employee unions are legally prohibited from actively going on strike. <ref> https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section3333&num=0&edition=prelim </ref>

==Communist infiltration==
For decades, labor unions have frequently been infiltrated by [[Communism|Communists]], which have used unions for the purposes of advancing Communism.<ref>[https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/7/labor-unions-and-communism/ Labor unions and Communism] at the ''Washington Times''</ref><ref>[http://www.trevorloudon.com/2014/02/red-unions-how-why-big-labor-leaders-betray-their-nation/ RED UNIONS: How & Why Big Labor Leaders Betray Their Nation]</ref> [[Organized crime]] has also infiltrated and corrupted labor unions over time.<ref>[https://www.unionfacts.com/article/crime-and-corruption/ Crime and Corruption]</ref><ref>[http://www.laborers.org/VAIRA_MEMO.html Organized Crime and the Labor Unions]</ref> Under the combined influence of Communism and organized crime, labor unions and their members have often resorted in cowardly fashion to threats (including death threats), intimidation <ref> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/duress </ref> and illegal acts of thuggery and violence to get their way during strike actions and other labor disputes, as well as when their corruption, inefficiency, and deliberate incompetence is exposed and attempts to oppose and purge their radical positions and either reform the unions or rid them from businesses and public institutions are made.<ref>[https://www.unionfacts.com/article/crime-and-corruption/examples-of-union-threats-violence-and-intimidation/ Examples of Union Threats, Violence and Intimidation]</ref><ref>[https://www.theblaze.com/news/2011/11/07/labor-union-violence-in-america-a-brief-history/ Labor Union Violence in America: A Brief History]</ref><ref>[http://www.westernjournalism.com/a-liberal-history-of-union-thuggery-and-civil-rights-perversion/ A Liberal History of Union Thuggery and Civil Rights Perversion]</ref> Such actions by unions have served as an argument by their opponents for the abolition of labor unions entirely, not only as being outdated and unnecessary in today's society, but also because unions are seen as excuses for extortion (through forced union dues and taxes), corruption (including through forced compulsory membership and denial of work to anyone who refuses to join a union, as well as high labor prices charged for deliberately shoddy and substandard work) and political manipulation (through the Democrats and the [[Communist Party USA]]) and as havens for thugs, criminals and Communists.<ref>[http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-liberal/2011/11/congress-should-outlaw-all-unions-and-eventually-abolish-them-1399191.html Congress Should Outlaw All Unions and Eventually Abolish Them]</ref>

==Union boss hypocrisy==
Despite their criticism of high salaries for CEOs (the average CEO salary is not as high as they claim) and their stated support for workers, union bosses have very high salaries.<ref>Chiaramonte, Perry (May 12, 2017). [https://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/05/12/afl-cio-paywatch-report-slams-ceo-pay-but-not-high-pay-its-own-execs.html AFL-CIO 'Paywatch' report slams CEO pay but not the high pay of its own execs]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved May 12, 2017.</ref><ref>Blitzer, Ronn (December 26, 2019). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/embattled-union-honchos-lavish-spending-exposed-villas-four-figure-dinners-cigars Embattled union honchos’ lavish spending exposed: Villas, four-figure dinners, $60,000 cigar bill]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved December 26, 2019.</ref><ref>Neale Spencer (December 27, 2019). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/former-united-auto-workers-presidents-accused-of-spending-1m-on-cigars-golf-and-dinners Former United Automobile Workers presidents accused of spending $1M on cigars, golf, and dinners]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved December 27, 2019.</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

==See also==
* [[American labor unions]]
* [[Right to work]]

==External links==
*[https://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/05/what-unions-do-how-labor-unions-affect-jobs-and-the-economy Studies on Current Effects of Unions] Heritage Foundation
{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Labor Unions]]
[[Category:Corruption]]

Labor union

2021-01-10T20:36:06Z

Userafw: Mark

A '''labor union''' or ''trade union'' is an organization formed for the purpose of collectively representing the interests of a group of workers. Unions often interfere with free enterprise, as in opposing entrepreneurship that creates competition.

'''Labor unions''' can include collectively bargaining with [[employer]]s in order to agree on rates of pay and other conditions of employment. [[Conservatives]] tolerate the right of workers to form unions but oppose compulsory union membership, as required by law in most states, and mandatory dues that are spent on [[liberal]] projects.

Liberals, Democrats, and [[RINO]]s are big supporters of unions, and count on their influence to reelect them. In effect, public employee unions are a mechanism by which every taxpayer is forced to fund the [[Democrat Party]].<ref>http://pubsecrets.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/why-the-democratic-party-union-relationship-is-corrupt/</ref> Unions frequently promote left-wing policies, including compulsory schooling, abortion, and the [[homosexual agenda]]. While unions are relatively critical of [[globalist]] "free trade" deals, they do not use the same reasoning as conservatives,<ref>Byas, Steve (May 9, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/item/29018-big-labor-opposition-to-tpp-is-not-about-american-sovereignty Big Labor Opposition to TPP Is Not About American Sovereignty]. ''The New American''. Retrieved June 15, 2018.</ref> and many of them have criticized the [[Trump Administration]]'s trade policies.<ref>Higgins, Sean (June 15, 2018). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/economy/us-eu-unions-issue-joint-slam-on-trump-trade-policy US, EU unions issue joint slam on Trump trade policy]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved June 15, 2018.</ref> Many attribute some of the negative aspects of [[public schools]] to the [[National Education Association]] and other teachers' unions. School support personnel unions oppose [[outsourcing]] of school support services, sometimes even when it would be beneficial for the support employees. Teachers' unions and school support employee unions are often very active in school board elections. Some unions support far-left abortion policies despite those policies having nothing to do with the unions' stated focuses or goals.<ref>Everson, Ryan (July 11, 2019). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/nothing-to-do-with-labor-americas-largest-union-adopts-radical-abortion-stance Nothing to do with labor: Largest union in US adopts radical abortion stance]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved July 11, 2019.</ref>

[[Wal-Mart]] has been so successful by opposing the formation of unions among its workers, and has closed a profitable store down before allowing any union to exist in it.

There are generally two types of unions: private sector unions and public sector unions; some unions have members in both the private and public sectors. Although their first amendment right of free speech applies when not on the government's time or premises, which also permits the formation of unions, federal government employee unions are legally prohibited from actively going on strike. <ref> https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section3333&num=0&edition=prelim </ref>

==Communist infiltration==
For decades, labor unions have frequently been infiltrated by [[Communism|Communists]], which have used unions for the purposes of advancing Communism.<ref>[https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/7/labor-unions-and-communism/ Labor unions and Communism] at the ''Washington Times''</ref><ref>[http://www.trevorloudon.com/2014/02/red-unions-how-why-big-labor-leaders-betray-their-nation/ RED UNIONS: How & Why Big Labor Leaders Betray Their Nation]</ref> [[Organized crime]] has also infiltrated and corrupted labor unions over time.<ref>[https://www.unionfacts.com/article/crime-and-corruption/ Crime and Corruption]</ref><ref>[http://www.laborers.org/VAIRA_MEMO.html Organized Crime and the Labor Unions]</ref> Under the combined influence of Communism and organized crime, labor unions and their members have often resorted in cowardly fashion to threats (including death threats), intimidation and illegal acts of thuggery and violence to get their way during strike actions and other labor disputes, as well as when their corruption, inefficiency, and deliberate incompetence is exposed and attempts to oppose and purge their radical positions and either reform the unions or rid them from businesses and public institutions are made.<ref>[https://www.unionfacts.com/article/crime-and-corruption/examples-of-union-threats-violence-and-intimidation/ Examples of Union Threats, Violence and Intimidation]</ref><ref>[https://www.theblaze.com/news/2011/11/07/labor-union-violence-in-america-a-brief-history/ Labor Union Violence in America: A Brief History]</ref><ref>[http://www.westernjournalism.com/a-liberal-history-of-union-thuggery-and-civil-rights-perversion/ A Liberal History of Union Thuggery and Civil Rights Perversion]</ref> Such actions by unions have served as an argument by their opponents for the abolition of labor unions entirely, not only as being outdated and unnecessary in today's society, but also because unions are seen as excuses for extortion (through forced union dues and taxes), corruption (including through forced compulsory membership and denial of work to anyone who refuses to join a union, as well as high labor prices charged for deliberately shoddy and substandard work) and political manipulation (through the Democrats and the [[Communist Party USA]]) and as havens for thugs, criminals and Communists.<ref>[http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-liberal/2011/11/congress-should-outlaw-all-unions-and-eventually-abolish-them-1399191.html Congress Should Outlaw All Unions and Eventually Abolish Them]</ref>

==Union boss hypocrisy==
Despite their criticism of high salaries for CEOs (the average CEO salary is not as high as they claim) and their stated support for workers, union bosses have very high salaries.<ref>Chiaramonte, Perry (May 12, 2017). [https://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/05/12/afl-cio-paywatch-report-slams-ceo-pay-but-not-high-pay-its-own-execs.html AFL-CIO 'Paywatch' report slams CEO pay but not the high pay of its own execs]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved May 12, 2017.</ref><ref>Blitzer, Ronn (December 26, 2019). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/embattled-union-honchos-lavish-spending-exposed-villas-four-figure-dinners-cigars Embattled union honchos’ lavish spending exposed: Villas, four-figure dinners, $60,000 cigar bill]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved December 26, 2019.</ref><ref>Neale Spencer (December 27, 2019). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/former-united-auto-workers-presidents-accused-of-spending-1m-on-cigars-golf-and-dinners Former United Automobile Workers presidents accused of spending $1M on cigars, golf, and dinners]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved December 27, 2019.</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

==See also==
* [[American labor unions]]
* [[Right to work]]

==External links==
*[https://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/05/what-unions-do-how-labor-unions-affect-jobs-and-the-economy Studies on Current Effects of Unions] Heritage Foundation
{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Labor Unions]]
[[Category:Corruption]]

Labor union

2021-01-10T20:35:09Z

Userafw: federal government employees are not permitted to "strike against the government"

A '''labor union''' or ''trade union'' is an organization formed for the purpose of collectively representing the interests of a group of workers. Unions often interfere with free enterprise, as in opposing entrepreneurship that creates competition.

'''Labor unions''' can include collectively bargaining with [[employer]]s in order to agree on rates of pay and other conditions of employment. [[Conservatives]] tolerate the right of workers to form unions but oppose compulsory union membership, as required by law in most states, and mandatory dues that are spent on [[liberal]] projects.

Liberals, Democrats, and [[RINO]]s are big supporters of unions, and count on their influence to reelect them. In effect, public employee unions are a mechanism by which every taxpayer is forced to fund the [[Democrat Party]].<ref>http://pubsecrets.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/why-the-democratic-party-union-relationship-is-corrupt/</ref> Unions frequently promote left-wing policies, including compulsory schooling, abortion, and the [[homosexual agenda]]. While unions are relatively critical of [[globalist]] "free trade" deals, they do not use the same reasoning as conservatives,<ref>Byas, Steve (May 9, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/item/29018-big-labor-opposition-to-tpp-is-not-about-american-sovereignty Big Labor Opposition to TPP Is Not About American Sovereignty]. ''The New American''. Retrieved June 15, 2018.</ref> and many of them have criticized the [[Trump Administration]]'s trade policies.<ref>Higgins, Sean (June 15, 2018). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/economy/us-eu-unions-issue-joint-slam-on-trump-trade-policy US, EU unions issue joint slam on Trump trade policy]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved June 15, 2018.</ref> Many attribute some of the negative aspects of [[public schools]] to the [[National Education Association]] and other teachers' unions. School support personnel unions oppose [[outsourcing]] of school support services, sometimes even when it would be beneficial for the support employees. Teachers' unions and school support employee unions are often very active in school board elections. Some unions support far-left abortion policies despite those policies having nothing to do with the unions' stated focuses or goals.<ref>Everson, Ryan (July 11, 2019). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/nothing-to-do-with-labor-americas-largest-union-adopts-radical-abortion-stance Nothing to do with labor: Largest union in US adopts radical abortion stance]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved July 11, 2019.</ref>

[[Wal-Mart]] has been so successful by opposing the formation of unions among its workers, and has closed a profitable store down before allowing any union to exist in it.

There are generally two types of unions: private sector unions and public sector unions; some unions have members in both the private and public sectors. Although their first amendment right of free speech applies when not on the government's time or premises, which permits the formation of unions, federal government employee unions are legally prohibited from actively going on strike. <ref> https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section3333&num=0&edition=prelim </ref>

==Communist infiltration==
For decades, labor unions have frequently been infiltrated by [[Communism|Communists]], which have used unions for the purposes of advancing Communism.<ref>[https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/7/labor-unions-and-communism/ Labor unions and Communism] at the ''Washington Times''</ref><ref>[http://www.trevorloudon.com/2014/02/red-unions-how-why-big-labor-leaders-betray-their-nation/ RED UNIONS: How & Why Big Labor Leaders Betray Their Nation]</ref> [[Organized crime]] has also infiltrated and corrupted labor unions over time.<ref>[https://www.unionfacts.com/article/crime-and-corruption/ Crime and Corruption]</ref><ref>[http://www.laborers.org/VAIRA_MEMO.html Organized Crime and the Labor Unions]</ref> Under the combined influence of Communism and organized crime, labor unions and their members have often resorted in cowardly fashion to threats (including death threats), intimidation and illegal acts of thuggery and violence to get their way during strike actions and other labor disputes, as well as when their corruption, inefficiency, and deliberate incompetence is exposed and attempts to oppose and purge their radical positions and either reform the unions or rid them from businesses and public institutions are made.<ref>[https://www.unionfacts.com/article/crime-and-corruption/examples-of-union-threats-violence-and-intimidation/ Examples of Union Threats, Violence and Intimidation]</ref><ref>[https://www.theblaze.com/news/2011/11/07/labor-union-violence-in-america-a-brief-history/ Labor Union Violence in America: A Brief History]</ref><ref>[http://www.westernjournalism.com/a-liberal-history-of-union-thuggery-and-civil-rights-perversion/ A Liberal History of Union Thuggery and Civil Rights Perversion]</ref> Such actions by unions have served as an argument by their opponents for the abolition of labor unions entirely, not only as being outdated and unnecessary in today's society, but also because unions are seen as excuses for extortion (through forced union dues and taxes), corruption (including through forced compulsory membership and denial of work to anyone who refuses to join a union, as well as high labor prices charged for deliberately shoddy and substandard work) and political manipulation (through the Democrats and the [[Communist Party USA]]) and as havens for thugs, criminals and Communists.<ref>[http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-liberal/2011/11/congress-should-outlaw-all-unions-and-eventually-abolish-them-1399191.html Congress Should Outlaw All Unions and Eventually Abolish Them]</ref>

==Union boss hypocrisy==
Despite their criticism of high salaries for CEOs (the average CEO salary is not as high as they claim) and their stated support for workers, union bosses have very high salaries.<ref>Chiaramonte, Perry (May 12, 2017). [https://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/05/12/afl-cio-paywatch-report-slams-ceo-pay-but-not-high-pay-its-own-execs.html AFL-CIO 'Paywatch' report slams CEO pay but not the high pay of its own execs]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved May 12, 2017.</ref><ref>Blitzer, Ronn (December 26, 2019). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/embattled-union-honchos-lavish-spending-exposed-villas-four-figure-dinners-cigars Embattled union honchos’ lavish spending exposed: Villas, four-figure dinners, $60,000 cigar bill]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved December 26, 2019.</ref><ref>Neale Spencer (December 27, 2019). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/former-united-auto-workers-presidents-accused-of-spending-1m-on-cigars-golf-and-dinners Former United Automobile Workers presidents accused of spending $1M on cigars, golf, and dinners]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved December 27, 2019.</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

==See also==
* [[American labor unions]]
* [[Right to work]]

==External links==
*[https://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/05/what-unions-do-how-labor-unions-affect-jobs-and-the-economy Studies on Current Effects of Unions] Heritage Foundation
{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Labor Unions]]
[[Category:Corruption]]

Outsourcing

2021-01-10T20:30:01Z

Userafw: clarification

'''Outsourcing''' is the delegation of a function or department within a company, organization, or government agency to an outside firm. Outsourcing can be as simple as hiring an outside firm to perform cleaning or landscaping services to an office, or as extensive as hiring an outside firm to manufacture goods for a company.
===Privatization===
Outsourcing of government services is often referred to as [[privatization]]. Outsourcing or privatization of certain support services within an institution usually does not result in job loss, and sometimes even results in additional jobs being created. Outsourcing is not limited to public or private businesses. US Federal and state government entities frequently hire contractors to assist them with their operations. Military contractors are a prime example of this, providing both supplies and services. <ref> https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/ </ref> n the [[Comey]] [[FBI]], outside contractors had access to the classified [[FISA]] database.
Typically, certain restrictions and regulations are put in place to fill government requirements, protect human rights, and verify the integrity of the process. <ref> https://www.dol.gov/agencies/odep/program-areas/employers/federal-contractor-requirements</ref> <ref> https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/manual/fccm/search?search_api_fulltext=&sort_by=search_api_relevance&items_per_page=10 </ref> <ref> https://www.dcaa.org/federal-contracts/ </ref>

I The [[Internal Revenue Service]] has also outsourced some of their collections functions to a small number of collections agencies. <ref> https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/private-debt-collection-accounts-assigned-to-private-collection-agencies </ref> Outsourcing also has extended to the penal system, creating for-profit prisons. Some police departments have also begun outsourcing some of their operations. <ref> https://thecrimereport.org/2011/03/10/2011-03-outsourcing-the-police/</ref> In some areas where immediate response is required in the event of threats, some businesses and private individuals have hired private security firms.

===Offshoring===
In contrast, [[offshoring]] is an unpopular form of outsourcing where such departments are sent overseas, usually resulting in jobs being sent to another country. [[Donald Trump]] has vowed to make it more difficult for companies to offshore their operations. Sometimes outsourcing or offshoring is used as an alternative to lay offs, raise freezes, and other actions that negatively affect institutional support employees. [[Labor union|Unions]] often viciously resist any efforts to outsource, even when outsourcing would be beneficial for the affected employees.

==See also==
*[[Sodexo]]

[[Category:Business]] [[Category:Economics]]

Outsourcing

2021-01-10T20:28:29Z

Userafw: fix grammatical error

'''Outsourcing''' is the delegation of a function or department within a company, organization, or government agency to an outside firm. Outsourcing can be as simple as hiring an outside firm to perform cleaning or landscaping services to an office, or as extensive as hiring an outside firm to manufacture goods for a company.
===Privatization===
Outsourcing of government services is often referred to as [[privatization]]. Outsourcing or privatization of certain support services within an institution usually does not result in job loss, and sometimes even results in additional jobs being created. Outsourcing is not limited to public or private businesses. US Federal and state government entities frequently hire contractors to assist them with their operations. Military contractors are a prime example of this, providing both supplies and services. <ref> https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/ </ref> n the [[Comey]] [[FBI]], outside contractors had access to the classified [[FISA]] database.
Typically, certain restrictions and regulations are put in place to fill government requirements, protect human rights, and verify the integrity of the process. <ref> https://www.dol.gov/agencies/odep/program-areas/employers/federal-contractor-requirements</ref> <ref> https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/manual/fccm/search?search_api_fulltext=&sort_by=search_api_relevance&items_per_page=10 </ref> <ref> https://www.dcaa.org/federal-contracts/ </ref>

I The [[Internal Revenue Service]] has also outsourced some of their collections functions to a small number of collections agencies. <ref> https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/private-debt-collection-accounts-assigned-to-private-collection-agencies </ref> Outsourcing also has extended to the penal system, creating for-profit prisons. Some police departments have also begun outsourcing some of their operations. <ref> https://thecrimereport.org/2011/03/10/2011-03-outsourcing-the-police/</ref> In some areas where immediate response is required in the event of threats, some businesses and private individuals have hired private security firms.

===Offshoring===
In contrast, [[offshoring]] is an unpopular form of outsourcing where such departments are sent overseas, usually resulting in jobs being sent to another country. [[Donald Trump]] has vowed to make it more difficult for companies to offshore their operations. Sometimes outsourcing is used as an alternative to lay offs, raise freezes, and other actions that negatively affect institutional support employees. [[Labor union|Unions]] often viciously resist any efforts to outsource, even when outsourcing would be beneficial for the affected employees.

==See also==
*[[Sodexo]]

[[Category:Business]] [[Category:Economics]]

Outsourcing

2021-01-10T20:27:13Z

Userafw: Security companies

'''Outsourcing''' is the delegation of a function or department within a company, organization, or government agency to an outside firm. Outsourcing can be as simple as hiring an outside firm to perform cleaning or landscaping services to an office, or as extensive as hiring an outside firm to manufacture goods for a company.
===Privatization===
Outsourcing of government services is often referred to as [[privatization]]. Outsourcing or privatization of certain support services within an institution usually does not result in job loss, and sometimes even results in additional jobs being created. Outsourcing is not limited to public or private businesses. US Federal and state government entities frequently hire contractors to assist them with their operations. Military contractors are a prime example of this, providing both supplies and services. <ref> https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/ </ref> n the [[Comey]] [[FBI]], outside contractors had access to the classified [[FISA]] database.
Typically, certain restrictions and regulations are put in place to fill government requirements, protect human rights, and verify the integrity of the process. <ref> https://www.dol.gov/agencies/odep/program-areas/employers/federal-contractor-requirements</ref> <ref> https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/manual/fccm/search?search_api_fulltext=&sort_by=search_api_relevance&items_per_page=10 </ref> <ref> https://www.dcaa.org/federal-contracts/ </ref>

I The [[Internal Revenue Service]] has also outsourced some of their collections functions to a small number of collections agencies. <ref> https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/private-debt-collection-accounts-assigned-to-private-collection-agencies </ref> Outsourcing also has extended to the penal system, creating for-profit prisons. Some police departments have also begun outsourcing some of their operations. <ref> https://thecrimereport.org/2011/03/10/2011-03-outsourcing-the-police/</ref> In some areas where immediate response is required for response to threats, some businesses and private individuals have hired private security firms.

===Offshoring===
In contrast, [[offshoring]] is an unpopular form of outsourcing where such departments are sent overseas, usually resulting in jobs being sent to another country. [[Donald Trump]] has vowed to make it more difficult for companies to offshore their operations. Sometimes outsourcing is used as an alternative to lay offs, raise freezes, and other actions that negatively affect institutional support employees. [[Labor union|Unions]] often viciously resist any efforts to outsource, even when outsourcing would be beneficial for the affected employees.

==See also==
*[[Sodexo]]

[[Category:Business]] [[Category:Economics]]

Outsourcing

2021-01-10T20:24:04Z

Userafw: wiki link

'''Outsourcing''' is the delegation of a function or department within a company, organization, or government agency to an outside firm. Outsourcing can be as simple as hiring an outside firm to perform cleaning or landscaping services to an office, or as extensive as hiring an outside firm to manufacture goods for a company.
===Privatization===
Outsourcing of government services is often referred to as [[privatization]]. Outsourcing or privatization of certain support services within an institution usually does not result in job loss, and sometimes even results in additional jobs being created. Outsourcing is not limited to public or private businesses. US Federal and state government entities frequently hire contractors to assist them with their operations. Military contractors are a prime example of this, providing both supplies and services. <ref> https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/ </ref> n the [[Comey]] [[FBI]], outside contractors had access to the classified [[FISA]] database.
Typically, certain restrictions and regulations are put in place to fill government requirements, protect human rights, and verify the integrity of the process. <ref> https://www.dol.gov/agencies/odep/program-areas/employers/federal-contractor-requirements</ref> <ref> https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/manual/fccm/search?search_api_fulltext=&sort_by=search_api_relevance&items_per_page=10 </ref> <ref> https://www.dcaa.org/federal-contracts/ </ref>

I The [[Internal Revenue Service]] has also outsourced some of their collections functions to a small number of collections agencies. <ref> https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/private-debt-collection-accounts-assigned-to-private-collection-agencies </ref> Outsourcing also has extended to the penal system, creating for-profit prisons. Some police departments have also begun outsourcing some of their operations. <ref> https://thecrimereport.org/2011/03/10/2011-03-outsourcing-the-police/</ref>

===Offshoring===
In contrast, [[offshoring]] is an unpopular form of outsourcing where such departments are sent overseas, usually resulting in jobs being sent to another country. [[Donald Trump]] has vowed to make it more difficult for companies to offshore their operations. Sometimes outsourcing is used as an alternative to lay offs, raise freezes, and other actions that negatively affect institutional support employees. [[Labor union|Unions]] often viciously resist any efforts to outsource, even when outsourcing would be beneficial for the affected employees.

==See also==
*[[Sodexo]]

[[Category:Business]] [[Category:Economics]]

Outsourcing

2021-01-10T20:22:42Z

Userafw: add source

'''Outsourcing''' is the delegation of a function or department within a company, organization, or government agency to an outside firm. Outsourcing can be as simple as hiring an outside firm to perform cleaning or landscaping services to an office, or as extensive as hiring an outside firm to manufacture goods for a company.
===Privatization===
Outsourcing of government services is often referred to as [[privatization]]. Outsourcing or privatization of certain support services within an institution usually does not result in job loss, and sometimes even results in additional jobs being created. Outsourcing is not limited to public or private businesses. US Federal and state government entities frequently hire contractors to assist them with their operations. Military contractors are a prime example of this, providing both supplies and services. <ref> https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/ </ref> n the [[Comey]] [[FBI]], outside contractors had access to the classified [[FISA]] database.
Typically, certain restrictions and regulations are put in place to fill government requirements, protect human rights, and verify the integrity of the process. <ref> https://www.dol.gov/agencies/odep/program-areas/employers/federal-contractor-requirements</ref> <ref> https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/manual/fccm/search?search_api_fulltext=&sort_by=search_api_relevance&items_per_page=10 </ref> <ref> https://www.dcaa.org/federal-contracts/ </ref>

I The Internal Revenue Service has also outsourced some of their collections functions to a small number of collections agencies. <ref> https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/private-debt-collection-accounts-assigned-to-private-collection-agencies </ref> Outsourcing also has extended to the penal system, creating for-profit prisons. Some police departments have also begun outsourcing some of their operations. <ref> https://thecrimereport.org/2011/03/10/2011-03-outsourcing-the-police/</ref>

===Offshoring===
In contrast, [[offshoring]] is an unpopular form of outsourcing where such departments are sent overseas, usually resulting in jobs being sent to another country. [[Donald Trump]] has vowed to make it more difficult for companies to offshore their operations. Sometimes outsourcing is used as an alternative to lay offs, raise freezes, and other actions that negatively affect institutional support employees. [[Labor union|Unions]] often viciously resist any efforts to outsource, even when outsourcing would be beneficial for the affected employees.

==See also==
*[[Sodexo]]

[[Category:Business]] [[Category:Economics]]

Outsourcing

2021-01-10T20:18:12Z

Userafw: cite sources

'''Outsourcing''' is the delegation of a function or department within a company, organization, or government agency to an outside firm. Outsourcing can be as simple as hiring an outside firm to perform cleaning or landscaping services to an office, or as extensive as hiring an outside firm to manufacture goods for a company.
===Privatization===
Outsourcing of government services is often referred to as [[privatization]]. Outsourcing or privatization of certain support services within an institution usually does not result in job loss, and sometimes even results in additional jobs being created. Outsourcing is not limited to public or private businesses. US Federal and state government entities frequently hire contractors to assist them with their operations. Military contractors are a prime example of this, providing both supplies and services. <ref> https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/ </ref> n the [[Comey]] [[FBI]], outside contractors had access to the classified [[FISA]] database.
Typically, certain restrictions and regulations are put in place to fill government requirements, protect human rights, and verify the integrity of the process. <ref> https://www.dol.gov/agencies/odep/program-areas/employers/federal-contractor-requirements</ref> <ref> https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/manual/fccm/search?search_api_fulltext=&sort_by=search_api_relevance&items_per_page=10 </ref>

I The Internal Revenue Service has also outsourced some of their collections functions to a small number of collections agencies. <ref> https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/private-debt-collection-accounts-assigned-to-private-collection-agencies </ref> Outsourcing also has extended to the penal system, creating for-profit prisons. Some police departments have also begun outsourcing some of their operations. <ref> https://thecrimereport.org/2011/03/10/2011-03-outsourcing-the-police/</ref>

===Offshoring===
In contrast, [[offshoring]] is an unpopular form of outsourcing where such departments are sent overseas, usually resulting in jobs being sent to another country. [[Donald Trump]] has vowed to make it more difficult for companies to offshore their operations. Sometimes outsourcing is used as an alternative to lay offs, raise freezes, and other actions that negatively affect institutional support employees. [[Labor union|Unions]] often viciously resist any efforts to outsource, even when outsourcing would be beneficial for the affected employees.

==See also==
*[[Sodexo]]

[[Category:Business]] [[Category:Economics]]

Outsourcing

2021-01-10T20:13:23Z

Userafw: cite source

'''Outsourcing''' is the delegation of a function or department within a company, organization, or government agency to an outside firm. Outsourcing can be as simple as hiring an outside firm to perform cleaning or landscaping services to an office, or as extensive as hiring an outside firm to manufacture goods for a company.
===Privatization===
Outsourcing of government services is often referred to as [[privatization]]. Outsourcing or privatization of certain support services within an institution usually does not result in job loss, and sometimes even results in additional jobs being created. Outsourcing is not limited to public or private businesses. US Federal and state government entities frequently hire contractors to assist them with their operations. Military contractors are a prime example of this, providing both supplies and services. <ref> https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/ </ref>
Typically, certain restrictions and regulations are put in place to fill government requirements and verify the integrity of the process.
In the [[Comey]] [[FBI]], outside contractors had access to the classified [[FISA]] database. The Internal Revenue Service has also outsourced some of their collections functions to a small number of collections agencies. <ref> https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/private-debt-collection-accounts-assigned-to-private-collection-agencies </ref> Outsourcing also has extended to the penal system, creating for-profit prisons. Some police departments have also begun outsourcing some of their operations. <ref> https://thecrimereport.org/2011/03/10/2011-03-outsourcing-the-police/</ref>

===Offshoring===
In contrast, [[offshoring]] is an unpopular form of outsourcing where such departments are sent overseas, usually resulting in jobs being sent to another country. [[Donald Trump]] has vowed to make it more difficult for companies to offshore their operations. Sometimes outsourcing is used as an alternative to lay offs, raise freezes, and other actions that negatively affect institutional support employees. [[Labor union|Unions]] often viciously resist any efforts to outsource, even when outsourcing would be beneficial for the affected employees.

==See also==
*[[Sodexo]]

[[Category:Business]] [[Category:Economics]]

Outsourcing

2021-01-10T20:10:32Z

Userafw:

'''Outsourcing''' is the delegation of a function or department within a company, organization, or government agency to an outside firm. Outsourcing can be as simple as hiring an outside firm to perform cleaning or landscaping services to an office, or as extensive as hiring an outside firm to manufacture goods for a company.
===Privatization===
Outsourcing of government services is often referred to as [[privatization]]. Outsourcing or privatization of certain support services within an institution usually does not result in job loss, and sometimes even results in additional jobs being created. Outsourcing is not limited to public or private businesses. US Federal and state government entities frequently hire contractors to assist them with their operations. Military contractors are a prime example of this, providing both supplies and services.
Typically, certain restrictions and regulations are put in place to fill government requirements and verify the integrity of the process.
In the [[Comey]] [[FBI]], outside contractors had access to the classified [[FISA]] database. The Internal Revenue Service has also outsourced some of their collections functions to a small number of collections agencies. <ref> https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/private-debt-collection-accounts-assigned-to-private-collection-agencies </ref> Outsourcing also has extended to the penal system, creating for-profit prisons. Some police departments have also begun outsourcing some of their operations. <ref> https://thecrimereport.org/2011/03/10/2011-03-outsourcing-the-police/</ref>

===Offshoring===
In contrast, [[offshoring]] is an unpopular form of outsourcing where such departments are sent overseas, usually resulting in jobs being sent to another country. [[Donald Trump]] has vowed to make it more difficult for companies to offshore their operations. Sometimes outsourcing is used as an alternative to lay offs, raise freezes, and other actions that negatively affect institutional support employees. [[Labor union|Unions]] often viciously resist any efforts to outsource, even when outsourcing would be beneficial for the affected employees.

==See also==
*[[Sodexo]]

[[Category:Business]] [[Category:Economics]]

Outsourcing

2021-01-10T20:08:39Z

Userafw: separate sections

'''Outsourcing''' is the delegation of a function or department within a company, organization, or government agency to an outside firm. Outsourcing can be as simple as hiring an outside firm to perform cleaning or landscaping services to an office, or as extensive as hiring an outside firm to manufacture goods for a company.
===Privatization===
Outsourcing of government services is often referred to as [[privatization]]. Outsourcing or privatization of certain support services within an institution usually does not result in job loss, and sometimes even results in additional jobs being created. Outsourcing is not limited to public or private businesses. US Federal and state government entities frequently hire contractors to assist them with their operations. Military contractors are a prime example of this, providing both supplies and services. The Internal Revenue Service has also outsourced some of their collections functions to a small number of collections agencies. <ref> https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/private-debt-collection-accounts-assigned-to-private-collection-agencies </ref> Outsourcing also has extended to the penal system, creating for-profit prisons. Some police departments have also begun outsourcing some of their operations. <ref> https://thecrimereport.org/2011/03/10/2011-03-outsourcing-the-police/</ref> In the [[Comey]] [[FBI]], outside contractors had access to the classified [[FISA]] database.

===Offshoring==
In contrast, [[offshoring]] is an unpopular form of outsourcing where such departments are sent overseas, usually resulting in jobs being sent to another country. [[Donald Trump]] has vowed to make it more difficult for companies to offshore their operations. Sometimes outsourcing is used as an alternative to lay offs, raise freezes, and other actions that negatively affect institutional support employees. [[Labor union|Unions]] often viciously resist any efforts to outsource, even when outsourcing would be beneficial for the affected employees.

==See also==
*[[Sodexo]]

[[Category:Business]] [[Category:Economics]]

Outsourcing

2021-01-10T19:55:26Z

Userafw: fix category

'''Outsourcing''' is the delegation of a function or department within a company, organization, or government agency to an outside firm. Outsourcing can be as simple as hiring an outside firm to perform cleaning or landscaping services to an office, or as extensive as hiring an outside firm to manufacture goods for a company. Outsourcing of government services is often referred to as [[privatization]]. Outsourcing or privatization of certain support services within an institution usually does not result in job loss, and sometimes even results in additional jobs being created. In contrast, [[offshoring]] is an unpopular form of outsourcing where such departments are sent overseas, usually resulting in jobs being sent to another country. [[Donald Trump]] has vowed to make it more difficult for companies to offshore their operations. Sometimes outsourcing is used as an alternative to lay offs, raise freezes, and other actions that negatively affect institutional support employees. [[Labor union|Unions]] often viciously resist any efforts to outsource, even when outsourcing would be beneficial for the affected employees.

Outsourcing is not limited to public or private businesses. US Federal and state government entities frequently hire contractors to assist them with their operations. Military contractors are a prime example of this, providing both supplies and services. The Internal Revenue Service has also outsourced some of their collections functions to a small number of collections agencies. <ref> https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/private-debt-collection-accounts-assigned-to-private-collection-agencies </ref> Outsourcing also has extended to the penal system, creating for-profit prisons. Some police departments have also begun outsourcing some of their operations. <ref> https://thecrimereport.org/2011/03/10/2011-03-outsourcing-the-police/</ref>
==See also==
*[[Sodexo]]

[[Category:Business]] [[Category:Economics]]

Outsourcing

2021-01-10T19:54:05Z

Userafw: examples of government outsourcing

'''Outsourcing''' is the delegation of a function or department within a company, organization, or government agency to an outside firm. Outsourcing can be as simple as hiring an outside firm to perform cleaning or landscaping services to an office, or as extensive as hiring an outside firm to manufacture goods for a company. Outsourcing of government services is often referred to as [[privatization]]. Outsourcing or privatization of certain support services within an institution usually does not result in job loss, and sometimes even results in additional jobs being created. In contrast, [[offshoring]] is an unpopular form of outsourcing where such departments are sent overseas, usually resulting in jobs being sent to another country. [[Donald Trump]] has vowed to make it more difficult for companies to offshore their operations. Sometimes outsourcing is used as an alternative to lay offs, raise freezes, and other actions that negatively affect institutional support employees. [[Labor union|Unions]] often viciously resist any efforts to outsource, even when outsourcing would be beneficial for the affected employees.

Outsourcing is not limited to public or private businesses. US Federal and state government entities frequently hire contractors to assist them with their operations. Military contractors are a prime example of this, providing both supplies and services. The Internal Revenue Service has also outsourced some of their collections functions to a small number of collections agencies. <ref> https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/private-debt-collection-accounts-assigned-to-private-collection-agencies </ref> Outsourcing also has extended to the penal system, creating for-profit prisons. Some police departments have also begun outsourcing some of their operations. <ref> https://thecrimereport.org/2011/03/10/2011-03-outsourcing-the-police/</ref>
==See also==
*[[Sodexo]]

[[Category:Business]] [[Category:Economy]]

Mason-Dixon Line

2021-01-10T19:46:25Z

Userafw:

The Mason-Dixon Line, also called Mason and Dixon Line, was originally the boundary between Maryland and Pennsylvania in the United States. In the pre-Civil War period it was regarded, together with the Ohio River, as the dividing line between slave-owning states south of it and free-soil states north of it.

One difference between the slave-owning states and the free states was their dependence on the [[cotton]] [[plantation farms]] for their economy, and the cheap source of labor provided by slavery.

The term Mason and Dixon Line was first used in congressional debates leading to the Missouri Compromise (1820). Today the Mason-Dixon Line still serves figuratively as the political and social dividing line between the North and the South, although it does not extend west of the Ohio River. The Mason-Dixon line was a major boundary line in the American [[Civil War]] which ended with the [[Gettysburg Address]] by President [[Lincoln]].

Defund the Police

2021-01-10T19:42:37Z

Userafw: /* See also */

[[File:Davell Gardner Jr.png|right|200px|thumb|1 year old Davell Gardner, Jr. was murdered by so-called "peaceful protesters" while in his stroller after $1 billion was cut from the New York Police Department.<ref>https://dailycaller.com/2020/07/13/go-to-hell-gardner-family-slain-toddler-tells-killers/</ref>]]
'''Defund the Police''' is a liberal [[Democratic Socialist]] slogan to stir racial tensions arising out of the [[2020 Leftwing insurrection]]. The DNC used the slogan as a fund raising scheme to imply [[African American]]s support [[lawlessness]] in an effort to stem the tide of Blacks leaving the openly racist [[Democratic party]].<ref>https://thenationalpulse.com/politics/biden-black-lives-matter-defund-the-police/</ref> Caitlin Johnstone calls it,
{{quotebox-float|"textbook liberal manipulation used to steer the [[revolution]]ary zeitgeist into an impotent conceptual tar pit for another few years while the [[prison]] bars are reinforced."<ref>https://consortiumnews.com/2020/06/18/the-killing-of-rayshard-brooks-shows-police-reform-is-a-joke/</ref>}}
Days after $1 billion and 6,000 officers were cut from the New York Police Department ([[NYPD]]) a one year old baby was [[murder]]ed in the [[Leftist]] [[violence]] perpetrated by the [[DNC]]'s [[Black Lives Matter]] fundraising operation.<ref>https://dailycaller.com/2020/07/13/go-to-hell-gardner-family-slain-toddler-tells-killers/</ref>

==Origins==
[[File:Democrats 2018.png|right|350px|thumb|The Democrat message, coupled with [[ballot harvesting]] and ballot box stuffing, won back the House in 2018. The messaging and recruitment of violent anarchists and [[criminal]]s came full circle by the Spring of 2020.]]
The movement began with an editorial by the [[communist]] ''[[New York Times]]''<ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/30/opinion/george-floyd-police-funding.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article</ref> and was immediately echoed by [[Hillary Clinton]]'s press spokesman.<ref>https://nypost.com/2020/06/04/former-hillary-clinton-spokesman-calls-for-defunding-police/</ref> The Minneapolis [[veto]]-proof Democratic City Council then agreed to defund the Minneapolis police department.<ref>https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/majority-minneapolis-city-council-commits-dismantling-city-s-police-department-n1227116</ref> [[Minneapolis]] is a Democrat stronghold and has not elected a [[Republican]] mayor since 1957.<ref>An unelected Republican, Richard M. Erdall, served for one day, December 31, 1973. https://web.archive.org/web/20090214045703/http://www.tholt.com/mayors.html</ref><ref>https://welovetrump.com/2019/10/07/cnn-visits-democrat-stronghold-in-minnesota-finds-voters-turning-to-trump/</ref> The entire city government, including the police department which is considered one of the most institutionally racist in the United States,<ref>http://archive.is/csfbU</ref> has been firmly in the hands of the [[Democratic Party|Democrat Party]] with strong support of its Democrat voter base for more than a half century.<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/ProtestsofPeace/comments/gvjb6x/protests_of_peace_democrat_stronghold_minneapolis/</ref> A [[Twin Cities]] resident wrote to the ''Pioneer Press/Dispatch'':
[[File:Norton Mitchell BHAZ LGBT.png|right|350px|thumb|Democrat D.C. Rep. [[Eleanor Holmes Norton]] and [[MSNBC]]'s [[Andrea Mitchell]] were assaulted by an [[LGBT]] protester during an interview in Washington's Black House Autonomous Zone. Norton's first words were, "Where's the police?"<ref>https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/06/23/andrea_mitchell_nearly_attacked_in_dc_black_house_autonomous_zone_wheres_the_police.html</ref> Mainstream [[fake news]] media which filmed the whole incident imposed a blackout.]]
{{quotebox-float|The fact is George Floyd was killed in Minneapolis, by a Minneapolis policeman. He was not killed by a [[federal]] agent in a community of [[white supremacist]]s.

Minneapolis has been dominated by Democrat mayors for more than 40 years. If [[systemic racism]] exists in the Minneapolis police force it has been enabled by Democrat leaders for more than 40 years. Make no mistake, Gov. Walz, Mayor Frey, Attorney General Ellison, Police Chief Arradondo, [[Ilhan Omar|Rep. Omar]], Sens. [[Klobuchar]] and [[Tina Smith|Smith]] – you own this situation. You have all run on platforms promising you would rid our community of this type of heinous behavior.

Liberal politicians show their [[cynicism]] when, while in control for decades, they express their outrage that racism is a systemic problem in the police department of our largest city. Each of these leaders has expressed support for the protesters, as if they are sympatico with their cause. Where is the self-awareness? These people are not supporting your leadership, they are protesting against your failure to deal with systemic racism while you are empowered to make real change.

[[Tim Walz]] is our governor; not [[George Wallace]]

[[Jacob Frey]] is the mayor; not [[Lester Maddox]]

[[Keith Ellison]] is attorney general; not [[Jeff Sessions]]

[[Amy Klobuchar]] is our U.S. senator; not [[Strom Thurmond]]

Medaria Arradondo is police chief; not Bull Connor

Enough of the empty accolades for the protesters. Don’t pretend you are in agreement with their cause. Your actions, while in power to make real change, demonstrate otherwise. The correct response on your part is not to insult the community with feigned emotion, your responsibility was to prevent this from happening. You have all failed miserably.<ref>https://www.twincities.com/2020/06/04/letters-you-own-this-minneapolis-and-minnesota-democrats/</ref>}}
[[President Donald Trump]] enjoyed the support of 40% of [[African American]]s in the [[2020 presidential election]].<ref>https://www.oann.com/poll-40-of-likely-black-voters-approve-of-president-trump/</ref> The [[DNC]], [[liberal media]], and white violent [[far-Left]] [[Marxist]]s sowed civil discontent and [[riot]]s in an attempt to unify [[Black]]s and keep them on the [[Democrat plantation]] by stirring up anti-[[police]] hatred.<ref>https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/05/antifa-national-mobilization-riots-across-country-raise-questions-about-coordination/</ref>

In the days following the death of [[George Floyd]], a black man taken into Minneapolis custody for passing counterfeit currency, [[Antifa]] and other like-minded [[socialist]]/[[Marxist]] groups sparked a week long nationwide insurrection of riots, looting, destruction of homes, businesses and jobs, community services, beatings, and [[murder]] across the [[United States]]. Police officers were specifically targeted.<ref>https://www.lifezette.com/2020/06/police-officers-all-over-the-country-targeted-for-murder-by-antifa-rioters/</ref> Only the most [[bigot]]ed racists would blame Blacks for the violence and murders that white liberal socialists brought upon America.

On the heels of record job growth as America re-opened from [[coronavirus]] lockdowns,<ref>https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2020/06/05/after-months-of-bad-news-americas-working-again-a-record-setting-25-million-jobs-were-added-in-may/#251bbd0677e9</ref> Democrats wanted to send signals to investors and job creators with threats of more lawlessness.

In [[California]], Sen. [[Kamala Harris]] applauded [[Los Angeles]] mayor Eric Garcetti for defunding the police.<ref>https://youtu.be/nOmP6f02HHg</ref>
[[File:Democrat riots.png|right|300px|thumb|]]
In reality, defunding the police was just another round of liberal feelgoodism and [[virtue signalling]], tossing another bone to Blacks when they were emotionally most vulnerable to make them feel as if their grievances were being heard and they were cared for when in fact, Democrats never had any intention whatsoever to follow through on their bald face, naked lies. But the violent armies of white liberal socialists, with no respect for [[democracy]] or [[human rights]], were exposed for the entire country to see.

Although many departments were already slashing heir budgets due to an economic meltdown caused by the [[CCP global pandemic]] and [[China plague]] lockdown, [[communist]] and [[progressive]] city councils did not miss the opportunity to pander to the [[criminal]] [[Democrat]] voter base and claim victory over [[property]] owners, [[employer]]s, and law abiding citizens by creating an atmosphere of fear, lawlessness, and uncertainty.

==Purpose==
Author Linda Goudsmit described in detail the broader perspective of the Defund Police movement, the effort to defeat President Trump, and to win back Democrat control of the [[White House]] and all of [[Congress]], including the [[Senate]]:
{{quotebox|The movement to defund police departments across the country is the planned, paramilitary, tactical strategy to make America totally ungovernable. Overwhelming social [[chaos]] will bring calls for a nationalized police force run by “compassionate” radical leftist Democrats who will enforce the leftist narrative taught by Carter’s [[Department of Education]] and Obama’s [[Common Core]]. The goal of political predators is absolute power.

The infrastructure for a nationalized and then internationalized police force already exists. The International Council for Local Environmental Issues (ICLEI) was formed at the [[United Nations]] in New York, September 1990. There are 600 United Nations ICLEI member cities in the United States committed to UN Agenda 21/2030 and its international directives disguised as sustainable environmental policies. United Nations Agenda 21/2030 is the unapologetic [[globalist]] movement to create an internationalized [[New World Order]] ruled by a one-world government under the auspices of the United Nations. ICLEI has quietly moved into local governments to impose its comprehensive UN Sustainable Development policy dictating international rules for where people live, what they eat, what they drive, how they heat and light apartments, or houses.

We have arrived at the time in our history when political predators threaten the extinction of [[America]], our [[sovereignty]], and our constitutional freedoms. The enemies of America are aligned in common cause to defeat America-first [[President Donald Trump]] in November. The axis of political predators including leftists, [[Islamist]]s, globalists, and the [[communist Chinese]] who launched the [[coronavirus]], are aligned in common cause to extinguish America as we know her. They do not acknowledge America’s right to exist.

If the axis powers are successful and the Democrats take power in November, the infighting will immediately begin but will not last long. The leftists, including communist organizations Antifa and Black Lives Matter, will lose their globalist funding and dissolve into a paramilitary enforcement organization similar to [[Hitler]]’s [[brownshirts]]. The foolish sycophants who support leftism and the [[anarchy]] it created will be eliminated because there is no place in globalism’s New World Order for agitators.<ref>https://www.trevorloudon.com/2020/06/political-predators-threaten-america-with-extinction/</ref>}}
The [[Democrat]]-controlled Minneapolis City Council told [[citizen]]s to be ready to give up wallets and cell phones to [[criminal]]s.<ref>https://twitter.com/KyleHooten2/status/1289590875119661062</ref>

==DNC money laundering==
[[File:NY shooting.jpeg|right|300px|thumb|A Black father was murdered in a drive-by shooting while walking with his 7 year old daughter shortly after $1 billion was cut from police funding to meet the demands of Black Lives Matter.<ref>https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-girl-bronx-shooting-father-20200707-7wbhqoe4onfidht4zjbu7nuq6m-story.html</ref>]]
:{{See also|Money laundering}}
Raheem Kassam and Gatewaypundit exposed Black Lives Matter as a [[money laundering]] scheme for the [[Democratic National Committee]].<ref>https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/06/exclusive-donations-including-international-funding-blacklivesmatter-com-go-directly-dnc-money-laundering/</ref> On the BLM homepage, which features a “[[Defund The Police]]” petition front and center, if a user chooses to donate, they’re rerouted to a site hosted by [[ActBlue]], the [[DNC]]'s official payment portal.<ref>https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/expenditures.php?cmte=C00401224&cycle=2020</ref> ActBlue claims to be tax exempt organization and all donations to it are tax-deductable. The terms and conditions also link to ActBlue and mention “Campaign Finance Laws”.<ref>https://secure.actblue.com/content/fineprint</ref> [[Joe Biden]] is a top beneficiary of the ActBlue’s fundraising efforts.<ref>https://thenationalpulse.com/politics/biden-black-lives-matter-defund-the-police/</ref>

ActBlue contributions comprise 99.64 percent of all funds raised for the “[[Biden for President]]” entity and the total is nearly 773 times greater than the group with the second-highest donation sum. As of May 21, 2020, the organization has donated $119,253,857 to the “Biden for President” effort.<ref>https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/expenditures.php?cmte=c00401224&cycle=2020</ref>

==Spike in homicide rate==
Violent crime - particularly shootings and homicides - spiked across major U.S. cities in what one law professor dubbed the "[[DFL riots|Minneapolis effect]]." Paul Cassell, a professor at S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah, explained the phenomenon in a research paper titled ''"Explaining the Recent Homicide Spikes in U.S. Cities: The 'Minneapolis Effect' and the Decline in Proactive Policing."''
{{quotebox-float|"Recently, major cities across the country have suffered dramatic spikes in [[homicide]]s. These spikes are remarkably large, suddenly appearing and widespread. At this rate, 2020 will easily be the deadliest year in [[America]] for gun-related homicides since at least 1999, while most other major crime categories are trending stable or slightly downward."}}
Cities like [[Chicago]], [[New York City]], [[Philadelphia]], [[Milwaukee]] and [[Detroit]] have seen spikes in homicides, aggravated assault and gun assaults this year, according to a July study by the nonpartisan National Commission on COVID-19 and Criminal Justice (NCCCJ).<ref>https://www.foxnews.com/politics/crime-spike-minneapolis-effect-police-cuts</ref> Cassell said the end result is 710 additional homicides and 2,800 more shootings in the U.S. And the professor attributes “several hundred” of the deaths directly to the war on police.
{{quotebox-float|“My estimates are that several hundred additional victims were murdered because of a reduction in policing. There are very significant trade-offs that need to be considered here that have truly life-threatening implications if they’re not handled carefully.”}}
With cities like New York City, moving to defund police by cutting their budgets, or otherwise redirecting funding to social services, this is having an impact as well.
{{quotebox-float|“In the wake of the antipolice protests surrounding George Floyd’s death, less policing has occurred,” he wrote, saying “law enforcement capabilities have been diminished by reduced funding and other setbacks (such as increased retirements due to demoralization).”<ref>https://www.bizpacreview.com/2020/09/30/us-sees-710-additional-homicides-and-2800-more-shootings-attributed-to-minneapolis-effect-978986</ref>}}
==Criticism==

Four weeks into the nationwide riots, not a single [[Democrat]] at the federal, state, or local level condemned the violence and attacks on innocent people.<ref>https://youtu.be/JWzbCxlCPbw</ref> Thyblackman.com observed:
[[File:Secoriea Turner.png|right|350px|thumb|[[Black Lives Matter]] protesters [[murder]]ed 8 year old [[Secoriea Turner]] on July 5, 2020 in [[Atlanta]].<ref>https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/police-identify-8-year-old-girl-killed-in-atlanta-4th-of-july-shooting</ref>]]
{{quotebox-float|"If blacks really believe that police are racist, black victims would presumably be less likely than white victims to report crimes committed against them. After all, they would doubt the commitment of the officers to solve the crimes. They would think that officers will engage in profiling and arrest an innocent black suspect.

In fact, blacks don’t shy away from reporting crimes to the police. [[U.S. Department of Justice]] survey data on crimes reported to police shows that blacks are actually more likely than whites to report violent crimes committed against them to the police by 9 percentage points (54 percent to 45 percent).

If you want to get rid of the police, that will mean no arrests, no convictions, and eventually no prisons. This change would be so far outside anything that the U.S. has ever experienced. But if research by economists gives us anything to go on, it may very well cause an 80 percent or more increase in murder rates.

Research also finds that the benefits of policing are greatest in those areas where crime rates are highest — namely poor, black, urban areas. These neighborhoods would stand to lose the most by defunding the police.

The cities where police are supposedly out of control and harming minorities have one thing in common – they are run by [[liberal]] Democrats. Indeed, almost all of them have been run exclusively by Democrats for many decades. For example, [[Los Angeles]] has only had one Republican mayor since 1961. Minneapolis and St. Paul haven’t had Republican mayors for over 45 years. As these politicians failed to protect their citizens, it may be the Democratic politicians and not the police who are to blame.

One searches in vain for Democratic politicians who have reprimanded the rioters. After several nights of riots, Minnesota [[Sen. Tina Smith]], a Democrat, egged on demonstrators by calling for a continuation of the “righteous protests” and necessary routing out of “racism” that she said is endemic in Minnesota. On Thursday, not a single Democrat in the House voted for a resolution condemning acts of violence and rioting — including the “deliberate targeting of law enforcement officers,” as well as opposing the defunding of police.

Yet, the very politicians who want to disband the police and who ordered the police to stand down during the riots after George Floyd’s death are the same people who want to ban civilians owning guns for protection."<ref>https://thyblackman.com/2020/06/28/the-democrats-cant-condemn-violence-including-violence-against-police/</ref>}}

==White House response==

[[White House]] Press Secretary [[Kayleigh McEnany]] listed off a few examples of police service to the public in 2019:
[[File:Holets.png|right|250px|thumb|Albuquerque police officer Ryan Holets and his wife adopted the newborn baby of a homeless [[heroin]] and [[methamphetamine]] addict.<ref>https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/01/health/police-officer-adopts-homeless-opioid-newborn-btc-beyond-the-call-of-duty/index.html</ref>]]
{{quotebox-float|I just want to note some of the great things our police have done last year alone:

In Alaska, retired cop Kim Castro jumped in freezing water to help victims to safety after a plane crash.

In Idaho, a woman said, “He saved my son’s life,” commenting on a cop who saved her disabled son.

In Maine, a detective, was killed while helping a motorist.

In Rhode Island, a baby who was choking was saved by an officer.

In Maryland, an officer was hailed for intervening in an active shooting incident.

In North Carolina, police thwarted a mass shooting.

In Ohio, police took down a mass shooter at a bar.

In Wisconsin, a terminally — terminally ill girl was visited by 40 officers and canines.

In New York, Officers Baez and Officer Roman of the NYPD responded to an incident involving a homeless man. They bought him new glasses, a haircut, and a new suit, and they helped him to find a job.

In Detroit, Michigan, an officer helped a homeless man struggling to shave in the streets.

In Virginia, officers could be seen playing with little girls — playing dolls with them on the street.

And in Arizona, Charlie called 911 asking for a Happy Meal, mistakingly — mistakenly, and police delivered.

This is who our great law enforcement officers are, and we should remember that.<ref>https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/press-briefing-press-secretary-kayleigh-mcenany-060820/</ref>}}
==See also==
*[[Abolish ICE]]
*[[Cop caller]]
*[[Social experiment]]
*[[Democrat urban issues]]
*[[Operation Legend]]
*[[War on Cops]]
*[[Outsourcing]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{Liberalism}}
{{communism}}
[[Category:Marxist Terminology]][[Category:Blame America Crowd]]

Black history

2021-01-10T19:37:17Z

Userafw: add BLM to black history

'''Black history''' or '''African-American history''' is the history of the American population of black African descent, from the colonial period to the present. It was a narrow specialty until the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s made it a high priority for historical research and teaching. It is now one of the largest fields of American history. The history is one of struggle against slavery, segregation, racism and second class citizenship. Historians debate whether to emphasize radical protest, as typified by [[W.E.B. DuBois]], or upward striving through the system, as preached by [[Booker T. Washington]]. The 2008 election of [[Barack Obama]] as president has been hailed as the culmination of the black struggle for political equality.

==Colonial era==
''see also [[Slavery]]''

Africans first arrived in 1619, when a Dutch ship sold 19 blacks as indentured servants (not slaves) to Englishmen at Jamestown, Virginia. In all, about 10-12 million Africans were transported to Western Hemisphere. The vast majority of these people came from that stretch of the West African coast extending from present-day Senegal to Angola; a small percentage came from Madagascar and East Africa. Only 3% (about 300,000) went to the American colonies. The vast majority went to the West Indies, where they died quickly. Demographic conditions were highly favorable in the American colonies, with less disease, more food, good medical care, and lighter work loads. Coming as they did from such an extensive area in Africa, they were not of one physical or cultural type. Significant differences existed among them, but they shared a general set of characteristics. They were tall and had dark skin, tight woolly hair, full lips, broad noses, and limited facial and body hair. Gomez (1998) suggests that Africans, upon arriving in America, were dispersed along ethnic and cultural lines. While they eventually dropped their African ethnic identities, they retained some of their original cultures. For example, runaway-slave advertisements sometimes identified the slaves by their ethnic roots ("Dinah, an Ebo wench that speaks very good English").

Historians have disagreed as to whether slavery in colonial Virginia was made politically and psychologically acceptable by an inherent racism among white Europeans, or if slavery emerged as a result of economic factors and racism developed as a consequence of it. The consensus is that the enslavement of Africans was due to economic requirements for labor, to the inability of Africans to resist slavery, and to European beliefs that Africans were an inferior branch of humanity, suited by their characteristics and circumstances to be lifelong slaves.

At first the Africans in the South were outnumbered by white indentured servants, who came voluntarily from Britain. They avoided the plantations. With the vast amount of good land and the shortage of laborers, plantation owners turned to lifetime slaves who worked for their keep but were not paid wages and could not easily escape. Slaves had some legal rights (it was a crime to kill a slave, and whites were hung for it.) Generally the slaves developed their own family system, religion and customs in the slave quarters with little interference from owners, who were only interested in work outputs.

By 1700 there were 25,000 slaves in the American colonies, about 10% of the population. A few had come from Africa but most came from the West Indies (especially Barbados), or, increasingly, were native born. Their legal status was now clear: they were slaves for life and so were the children of slave mothers. They could be sold, or freed, and a few ran away. Slowly a free black population emerged, concentrated in port cities along the Atlantic coast from Charleston to Boston. Slaves in the cities and towns had many more privileges, but the great majority of slaves lived on southern tobacco or rice plantations, usually in groups of 20 or more.

The most serious slave rebellion was the Stono Uprising, in September 1739 in South Carolina. The colony had about 56,000 slaves, who outnumbered whites 2:1. About 150 slaves rose up, and seizing guns and ammunition, murdered twenty whites, and headed for Spanish Florida. The local militia soon intercepted and killed most of them.<ref>Wood (1974)</ref>

All the American colonies had slavery, but it was usually the form of personal servants in the North (where 2% of the people were slaves), and field hands in plantations in the South (where 25% were slaves.)

==Revolution and early republic: 1775-1840==
The Declaration of Independence of 1776 said that all men are born free. Acting on that principle, all the northern states abolished slavery between 1776 and 1805—these were the first places in the world where the government abolished slavery. (Britain abolished slavery in the 1830s.) However, with the cotton gin in the 1790s, slavery became highly profitable in the South and was not abolished. Indeed, it expanded rapidly due to demographic growth. In 1808 it became illegal to buy or sell slaves from abroad, but inside the U.S. South the trade was legal and flourished.

By 1800 most slaves had become Christians. However few followed the Episcopal or Presbyterian affiliations of most masters; rather by the 1830s most had become Baptists or Methodists, but with a distinctive difference. Genovese (1974) identified the key features of the black version of Christianity as its raucous emotionalism, an absence of a sense of original sin or depravity, an emphasis on the role of Moses (who at times rivaled in importance Jesus), and an uneasy commingling with magic and conjuring. Genovese argued religion was increasingly central to the lives and self-identity of the slaves. "The religion practiced in the quarters gave the slaves the one thing they absolutely had to have if they were to resist. . . . It fired them with a sense of their own worth before God and man."<ref>Eugene Genovese, ''Roll Jordan Roll'' (1974) p. 283</ref>

===Free blacks===
[[File:Freddouglas.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Frederick Douglass (1818-1895). A monument to Douglass in Rochester, New York was torn down by [[Progressive]] [[Democrat]]s during the 2020 Marxist uprising.<ref>https://saraacarter.com/statue-of-frederick-douglass-former-slave-and-abolitionist-torn-down-and-damaged-in-new-york/</ref>]]
The free black population in the South grew rapidly during 1771–1815, from 28,000 in 1790 to 186,000 in 1860 in the South Atlantic states alone. Before the American Revolution the increase in the free black population was due mainly to local emancipations, natural population increase, and migration from rural areas. During and after the Revolution, however, there were additional ways to become free, including petitions and lawsuits, the 1782 manumission act, self-purchase, purchase by already free blacks, and individual emancipation. Fear of free blacks in an age of black revolts, however, prompted whites to impose restrictions on manumission and migration and ultimately to revert to the colonial-era policy of expelling free blacks from Virginia.<ref>Michael L. Nicholls, "Strangers Setting Among Us: The Sources and Challenge of the Urban Free Black Population of Early Virginia". ''Virginia Magazine of History and Biography'' 2000 108(2): 155-179. 0042-6636 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/4249829 in JSTOR]</ref>

Formal laws and informal customs created innumerable obstacles to the socioeconomic advance of the free blacks in the South. Laws prohibited free blacks from some activities and occupations and restricted their participation in others. Racism and terrorism by whites also made advancement difficult. Despite these disadvantages, the free black population fared rather well, with much better nutrition than people back in Europe or Africa. They grew nearly as tall as white Americans and towered over contemporary Europeans.<ref>Howard. Bodenhorn, "A Troublesome Caste: Height and Nutrition of Antebellum Virginia's Rural Free Blacks." ''Journal of Economic History'' 1999 59(4): 972-996. 0022-0507 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2566684 in JSTOR]</ref>

[[Frederick Douglass]] born as Frederick Baily, was raised as a [[slave]]. He escaped to [[Massachusetts]] at age 20 and changed his name to Frederick Douglass in order to conceal himself from slave catchers. He was a member of the [[Republican Party]]. He developed marvelous [[debate|debating]] and oratory skills to expose the injustices of slavery by reading the book [[The Columbian Orator]],<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=HnAktoctDuIC&pg=PA49 Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass],p. 49, "Every opportunity I got, I used to read this book."</ref> which he started to read around age 12. [[William Lloyd Garrison]], publisher of the [[abolition]]ist Liberator Newspaper, hired him.

see also [[Slavery]]

==Age of abolition, 1840-1877==
===1840-1860===

The Quakers, as well as Evangelical churches in the U.S. and Britain, led the battle for abolition of slavery. The abolition movement in the U.S. was highly visible and extremely controversial, but it was never large—with fewer than 50,000 activists at most, about half of them free blacks living in the North.

Over 1 million slaves were moved from the older seaboard slave states, with their declining economies to the rich cotton states of the southwest; many others were sold and moved locally. Berlin (2003) argues that this "Second Middle Passage"
:shredded the planters' paternalist pretenses in the eyes of black people and prodded slaves and free people of color to create a host of oppositional ideologies and institutions that better accounted for the realities of endless deportations, expulsions and flights that continually remade their world.

===Civil War===
[[File:Racist Democrats.jpeg|right|350px|thumb|[[Leftwing]] [[fascist]]s defaced the Monument to the all-volunteer Black 54th Massachusetts Regiment of Union Soldiers in the [[Civil War]] during the [[2020 Marxist uprising]].<ref>https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/06/02/rioters-deface-glory-monument-to-black-civil-war-soldiers-boston-54th/</ref>]]
:{{See also|American Civil War homefront}}
The political and constitutional debate among whites led to the secession of the Deep South and to the Civil War in 1861. The new Republican Party saw slavery as an evil that had to be eventually put on the road to extinction. In the war, however, abolition became a tool to Union victory, as strategized by [[Abraham Lincoln]]. The point was that slavery was a main prop of the rebellion, and to win the war it had to be eliminated. Emancipation would have the effect of energizing Confederates who feared a race war, but it would also energize Northerners who saw it as a moral cause, and would help keep Europe from supporting the rebels.

At the beginning of the war some Union commanders thought they were supposed to return escaped slaves to their masters. By 1862, when it became clear that this would be a long war, the question of what to do about slavery became more general. The Southern economy and military effort depended on slave labor. It began to seem unreasonable to protect slavery while blockading Southern commerce and destroying Southern production. As one Congressman put it, the slaves "cannot be neutral. As laborers, if not as soldiers, they will be allies of the rebels, or of the Union."<ref>James MacPherson, ''Battle Cry of Freedom'' (1988) page 495</ref> The same Congressman—and his fellow Radical Republicans—put pressure on Lincoln to rapidly emancipate the slaves, whereas Conservative Republicans came to accept gradual, compensated emancipation and colonization.

In 1861 Lincoln expressed the fear that premature attempts at emancipation would mean the loss of the border states, and that "to lose Kentucky is nearly the same as to lose the whole game."<ref>Lincoln's letter to O. H. Browning, Sep 22, 1861</ref> At first Lincoln reversed attempts at emancipation by Secretary of War Simon Cameron and Generals [[John C. Fremont]] (in Missouri) and David Hunter (in the South Carolina Sea Islands) in order to keep the loyalty of the border states and the War Democrats. Lincoln then tried to persuade the border states to accept his plan of gradual, compensated emancipation and voluntary colonization, while warning them that stronger measures would be needed if the moderate approach was rejected. Only the District of Columbia accepted Lincoln's gradual plan, and Lincoln issued his final Emancipation Proclamation on January 1 of 1863. In his letter to Hodges, Lincoln explained his belief that "If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong … And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling ... I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me."<ref>Lincoln's Letter to A. G. Hodges, April 4, 1864</ref>

The Emancipation Proclamation, announced in September 1862 and The [[Radical Republican]] put intense political pressure on Lincoln to use emancipation as a weapon. The problem was that he needed first to shore up pro-Union support in key border states, especially Kentucky. Only after it was safe could he act, and then he needed a military victory first. Lincoln thrilled the anti-slavery forces by announcing the Emancipation Proclamation in September 1862; the official proclamation came on January 1, 1863, and it had the effect of freeing most of the 4 million slaves. It also greatly reduced the Confederacy's hope of getting aid from Britain or France. Lincoln's moderate approach succeeded in getting border states, War Democrats and emancipated slaves fighting on the same side for the Union.

====Border states====
[[Image:Artoon.jpg|right|200px|thumb|A political cartoon depicting the [[KKK]] and the [[Democrat Party]] as continuations of the [[Confederacy]].]]
The Union-controlled border states (Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware and West Virginia) were not covered by the Emancipation Proclamation. All abolished slavery on their own, except Kentucky. The great majority of the 4 million slaves were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation, as Union armies moved South. To handle this problem Lincoln proposed the a constitutional amendment. The 13th amendment, passed by Congress in February 1865 and ratified by the states in December 1865, finally freed the remaining 40,000 slaves in Kentucky.<ref>It also freed 1,000 or so slaves in Delaware and some lifetime servants in West Virginia, as well as black slaves owned by Indians in Oklahoma.</ref>

===Reconstruction===
:{{See also|Reconstruction}}
Across [[the South]] Republican parties were formed by African Americans. Black people were the original Republicans in the South.
The Republican Party in [[Texas]] was founded on the 4th of July 1867 in [[Houston, Texas]] by 150 African Americans and 20 whites. Two of the first three statewide Republican chairman were African American. The first 42 Black legislators elected in Texas were all Republican.
The first 112 Black legislators elected in [[Mississippi]] were all Republican. The first 190 Black legislators elected in [[South Carolina]] were all Republicans. The first 41 Black legislators in [[Georgia]] were Republicans. The first 127 Black legislators in [[Louisiana]] were Republicans.

In 1866 [[Democrat]]s formed the [[Ku Klux Klan]]. Its purpose was to take control and return Democrats to power.

==Age of Jim Crow, 1877-1954==
:{{See also|Jim Crow}}

[[Booker T. Washington]] (1856-1915) was the dominant political and educational leader of the African-American community 1890–1915. He is most famous for his inspiring autobiography, ''Up from Slavery,'' his leadership of black conservative business and religious leaders, his founding of Tuskeegee Institute as a college for technical training, and his emphasis on self-help and education as the cure for poverty and the second class status of blacks in America. In his "Atlanta Compromise" of 1895 Washington reluctantly accepted Jim Crow, segregation and disfranchisement in return for black freedom in economic, religious and cultural affairs. Washington was highly popular among top white leaders and most blacks, but his approach was attacked after 1909 as too conservative by [[W.E.B. DuBois]] and the [[NAACP]].

The most dramatic demographic change came after 1940, as most backs left the rural South—some for nearby southern cities, and most headed to large cities in the North and West. In the decade of the 1940s 1.6 million left the South; in the 1950s, 1.5 million, and in the 1960s 1.4 million. By 1970 there were very few back farmers left. Politically it was a movement from a white dominated rural South where few blacks could vote or speak out, to a pluralistic political environment where northern central cities were controlled by liberals and their allies in the labor unions.

==Age of Civil Rights, 1954 to present==
:{{See also|Black Americans, history and religion}}
[[File:Nixon-and-Martin-Luther-King.png|right|300px|thumb|Dr. King's meeting with Vice President Nixon marked national recognition of King as leader of the civil rights movement.]]
In 1955 blacks in Montgomery, Alabama undertook a boycott of the segregated city buses and chose a local pastor [[Martin Luther King]] as their leader, and [[Rosa Parks]] as a symbolic actor. Drawing on [[Gandhi]]'s teachings, King directed a nonviolent boycott designed both to end an injustice and to redeem his white adversaries through love. Love, he said, not only avoided the internal violence of the spirit but also severed the external chain of hatred that only produced more hatred. Somebody, he argued, must be willing to break this chain so that "the beloved community" could be restored and true brotherhood could begin. In November 1956, the boycotters had won a resounding moral victory when the United States Supreme Court nullified the Alabama laws that enforced segregated buses. The Montgomery protest captured the imagination of the world over and marked the beginning of a southern black [[civil rights movement]] that rocked the Jim Crow South to its foundations. King, with extraordinary oratorical powers and rich religious imagery, emerged as the most inspiring new moral voice in civil rights. In August 1957 King and 115 other black leaders met in Montgomery and formed the [[Southern Christian Leadership Conference]] (SCLC), with King as leader. Working through southern churches, the SCLC enlisted the religious black community in the freedom struggle by expanding "the Montgomery way" across the South.

Vice President [[Richard Nixon]] invited King to Washington, D.C., for a meeting on 13 June 1957. This meeting, described by [[Bayard Rustin]] as a “summit conference,” marked national recognition of King's role in the civil rights movement (Rustin, 13 June 1957). Seeking support for a voter registration initiative in the South, King appealed to Nixon to urge Republicans in Congress to pass the 1957 Civil Rights Act and to visit [[the South]] to express support for civil rights. Optimistic about Nixon's commitment to improving race relations in the United States, King told Nixon, “How deeply grateful all people of goodwill are to you for your assiduous labor and dauntless courage in seeking to make the civil rights bill a reality.” Sen. [[John Kennedy]] voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act, which created the [[Justice Department]]'s Civil Rights Division.
[[File:John Kennedy texas.png|left|300px|thumb|John Kennedy was elected using the same Southern Strategy FDR did by putting a Texan on the ticket.<ref>[https://www.jstor.org/stable/23535517?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents John F. Kennedy's Southern Strategy, 1956-1960], Guy Paul Land, ''The North Carolina Historical Review'', Vol. 56, No. 1 (January, 1979), pp. 41-63.</ref>]]
In 1960 southern black college and high school students launched the sit-in movement, forming the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC).

Through 1961 and 1962 civil rights leaders pressured the [[John F. Kennedy]] administration to support a tough civil rights bill, seeking a sort of second Emancipation Proclamation that would employ federal power to wipe out segregation just as Lincoln's 1863 decree had abolished slavery. Kennedy, basically conservative and unwilling to offend his base of Southern white voters, refused to act. Civil rights groups thereupon launched multiple mass demonstrations throughout the South. King and the SCLC staff would single out some notoriously segregated city with officials who tolerated violence; mobilize the local blacks with songs, Bible readings, and rousing oratory; and then lead them on protest marches conspicuous for their nonviolent spirit and moral purpose. Then the marchers escalated their demands—even fill up the jails—until they brought about a moment of "creative tension," when white authorities would either agree to negotiate or resort to violence. If violence broke out it would humiliate the moderate whites and redouble national pressures from church and activists for federal intervention. So far there was no violence on the part of blacks, but they were growing more and more frustrated and angry, with militants like [[Malcolm X]] calling for more extreme measures.<ref>Robert Terrill, "Protest, Prophecy, and Prudence in the Rhetoric of Malcolm X," ''Rhetoric & Public Affairs'' 4#1 Spring 2001, pp. 25-53 in [[Project Muse]]; Akinyele O. Umoja, "The Ballot and the Bullet," ''Journal of Black Studies'' 29 (1999): 558-79; Sean Dennis Cashman, ''African-Americans and the Quest for Civil Rights, 1900-1990'' (1991), 184-215.</ref>

Nonviolent confrontation failed politically in Albany, Georgia, in 1962, where white authorities were equally nonviolent. In 1963 it succeeded in Birmingham, Alabama, where Police Commissioner Eugene ("Bull") Connor turned
fire-hoses and police dogs on the marchers—in full view of reporters and television cameras. The civil rights activists thus exposed racist hatred to the scorn of national and world opinion. Jailed during the demonstrations, King wrote his classic "Letter from Birmingham Jail," the most influential and eloquent expression of the goals and philosophy of the civil rights movement.<ref>Edward I. Berry, "Doing Time: King's 'Letter from Birmingham Jail." ''Rhetoric & Public Affairs'' 9#1 Spring 2005, pp. 109-131 in [[Project Muse]]</ref> King's great speech, "I Have a Dream" during the March on Washington, August 28, 1963, galvanized the movement, putting forth a goal of an integrated color-blind society.<ref>Mark Vail, "The 'Integrative' Rhetoric of Martin Luther King Jr.'s 'I Have a Dream' Speech," ''Rhetoric & Public Affairs'' 9#1 Spring 2006, pp. 51-78 in [[Project Muse]]; Alexandra Alverez, "Martin Luther King's 'I Have a Dream': The Speech Event as Metaphor," ''Journal of Black Studies'' 3 (1998):337–57</ref> President [[Lyndon Johnson]], a long-time supporter of civil rights, had replaced Kennedy and he seized the moment to mobilize a majority coalition of northern Democrats, Republicans, white churches, and white labor unions to break a Democrat filibuster and pass 1964 [[Civil Rights Act]], which desegregated public facilities. Overnight Jim Crow vanished, with little protest or violence.

However, within days of the passage of the powerful new law, rioting broke out in black ghettos, as the civil rights leadership discovered it could not control the angry masses. Nor could it control the radical students in SNCC and like-minded groups who were moving rapidly to the left, rejecting alliances with whites, discarding the goal of integration and demanding instead black separatism and "Black Power."<ref>Akinyele O. Umoja, "1964: The Beginning of the End of Nonviolence in the Mississippi Freedom Movement," ''Radical History Review'', Jan 2003; 2003: 201 - 226. online in Duke journals</ref>

===Brown vs. Board of Education===
:{{See also|Brown vs. Board of Education}}
President Dwight Eisenhower appointed Republican California Governor [[Earl Warren]] as [[Chief Justice]] of the Supreme Court. All the other members had been appointed by Roosevelt and Truman who believed courts should defer to the policymaking prerogatives of the White House and Congress. Warren convened a meeting of the justices and presented to them the simple argument that the only reason to sustain segregation was a deep-rooted belief in the inferiority of African-Americans. In ''[[Brown v. Topeka Board of Education]]'', [[Thurgood Marshall]], later appointed to the Supreme Court, argued the case. Justice Warren produced a unanimous decision that said: {{quotebox|"Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the Negro group…Any language in contrary to this finding is rejected. We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”}}

===Southern Manifesto===
:{{Main article|Southern Manifesto}}
The Southern Manifesto was a document issued in response to the Supreme Court 1954 ruling ''[[Brown v. Board of Education]]'', which integrated public schools. It was signed by 101 members of Congress from the former Confederate States - 99 Democrats and 2 Republicans. John Sparkman the 1952 Vice Presidential candidate as part of the Democrat's Southern Strategy, [[J. William Fulbright]] mentor of Bill Clinton, Richard Russell of the [[Warren Commission]], [[Sam Ervin]] of the [[Watergate]] Committee, [[Hale Boggs]] (the father of [[NPR]]'s Cokie Roberts), and Wilbur Mills were all signatories. It reads in part: {{quotebox|"This unwarranted exercise of power by the Court, contrary to the Constitution, is creating chaos and confusion in the States principally affected. It is destroying the amicable relations between the white and Negro races that have been created through 90 years of patient effort by the good people of both races. It has planted hatred and suspicion where there has been heretofore friendship and understanding....We commend the motives of those States which have declared the intention to resist forced integration by any lawful means."}} [[File:Little Rock Nine.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Republican President Dwight Eisenhower called out the 101st Airborne to protect Black school children from Democrat protesters after a Democrat governor refused to implement a desegregation order written by the Republican Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.]]
One of the first challenges to ''Brown v. Board of Education'' was when Democrat Gov. [[Orval Faubus]] ordered the Arkansas National Guard to prevent African-American students from enrolling at [[Little Rock]] Central High School. Central High was an all-white school. Faubus ordered the troops to "accomplish the mission of maintaining or restoring law and order and to preserve the peace, health, safety and security of the citizens." A force of 289 soldiers was assembled. The commander told nine black students, 6 girls and 3 boys ages 15–17 years old who were attempting to enter the school, to return home. The standoff continued for three weeks. Little Rock Democrat mayor Woodrow Wilson Mann appealed to President Eisenhower to help end the deadlock. Eisenhower sent the [[101st Airborne Division]] to federalized the entire 10,000-member Arkansas National Guard. The students were allowed to enroll.

Faubus was re-elected in 1958 with 82.5% of the vote over a Republican challenger. Faubus ordered the closure of four public high schools that year, preventing both black and white students from attending school while seeking a two and a half year delay on de-segregation until January 1961 in Federal Court when there would be a possibility of a Democratic president.

===1957 Civil Rights Act===
Republican Attorney General Herbert Brownell originally proposed the [[Civil Rights Act of 1957]]. Democrat Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson had Judiciary chairman Sen. [[James Eastland]] drastically water-down the House version, removing stringent voting protection clauses.<ref>https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1951-2000/The-Civil-Rights-Act-of-1957/</ref><ref>Caro, Robert, ''Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson'', Chapter 39</ref> The bill passed 285–126 in the House with Republicans providing the majority of votes 167–19 and Democrats 118–107.<ref>HR 6127. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1957. PASSED. YEA SUPPORTS PRESIDENT'S POSITION. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/85-1957/h42</ref> It then passed 72–18 in the Senate, with Republicans again supplying the majority of votes, 43–0 and Democrats voting 29–18. Sen. John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts, who later ran for president, voted against it.<ref>HR. 6127. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1957. PASSED. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/85-1957/s75</ref> It was the first federal civil rights legislation passed by the United States Congress since the Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Johnson told Sen. Richard Russell,{{quotebox|"These Negroes, they're getting pretty [[uppity]] these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."<ref>Said to Senator Richard Russell, Jr. (D-GA) regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1957. As quoted in [http://books.google.com/books?id=HS9aAAAAYAAJ ''Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream''] (1977), by Doris Kearns Goodwin, New York: New American Library, p. 155.</ref>}}

===1963 March on Washington===
[[File:Big Six.jpeg|right|250px|thumb|The "Big Six" Civil Rights Leaders (l to r) [[John Lewis]], Whitney Young Jr., A. Philip Randolph, [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], James Farmer Jr., and Roy Wilkins.<ref>https://www.thoughtco.com/men-of-the-civil-rights-movement-45371</ref>]]
[[Malcolm X]] described the events leading up to the 1963 March on Washington and Dr. King's ''I Have a Dream'' speech:
{{quotebox|It was the [[grassroots|grass roots]] out there in the street. It scared the white man to death, scared the white power structure in Washington, D.C. to death. I was there. When they found that this black steamroller was going to come down on the capital, they called in [Roy] Wilkins, they called in [A. Philip] Randolph, they called in these national Negro leaders that you respect and told them, ‘Call it off.’ [President] Kennedy said, ‘Look, you all are letting this thing go too far.’ And Old Tom said, ‘Boss, I can’t stop it, because I didn’t start it.’ I’m telling you what they said. They said, ‘I’m not even in it, much less at the head of it.’ They said, ‘These Negroes are doing things on their own. They’re running ahead of us.’ And that old shrewd fox, he said, ‘If you all aren’t in it, I’ll put you in it. I’ll put you at the head of it. I’ll endorse it. I’ll welcome it. I’ll help it. I’ll join it.’…

Once they formed (the Council for United Civil Rights Leadership) with the white man over it, he promised them and gave them $800,000 to split up among the Big Six; and told them that after the march was over they’d give them $700,000 more. A million and a half dollars—split up between leaders that you have been following, going to jail for, crying crocodile tears for. And they’re nothing but Frank James and Jesse James and the what-do-you-call-’em brothers.

As soon as they got the setup organized, the white man made available to them top public-relations experts; opened the news media across the country at their disposal, which then began to project these Big Six as the leaders of the march. Originally they weren’t even in the march.<ref>[https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/socialistvoice/democrats20.html Democratic Party: Disaster for Blacks], by Sy Landy, ''Socialist Voice No. 20 (Winter 1984)''.</ref>}}

===1964 Civil Rights Act===
[[File:Partycivilrights.jpeg|right|200px|thumb]]
The Republicans passed civil rights legislation with the [[13th Amendment]], [[14th Amendment]], [[15th Amendment]], [[Emancipation Proclamation]], the Civil Rights Act of 1875, and first passed anti-lynching legislation in 1922, which Democrats killed by [[filibuster]]s.<ref>https://www.nationalreview.com/2012/05/party-civil-rights-kevin-d-williamson/</ref> The [[Democratic party]]'s gradual reversal on civil rights culminated with President [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] finally signing the [[bi-partisan]] [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]], which he called "the N****r Bill."<ref>http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/lyndon-johnson-civil-rights-racism</ref> In lobbying fellow Democrats for the bill, Johnson said, {{quotebox-float|"I'll have them n*gg*rs voting Democratic for two hundred years."<ref>Said to two governors regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964, according to then-''Air Force One'' steward Robert MacMillan as quoted in [http://books.google.com/books?id=lJz-yIZNE2sC ''Inside the White House''] (1996), by Ronald Kessler, New York: Simon and Schuster, p. 33.</ref>}} Democrats tried to block passage by filibustering for 75 hours, including a 14-hour and 13-minute speech by the [[Exalted Cyclops]], Sen. [[Robert Byrd]],<ref>Sen. [[Theodore Bilbo]], whom Byrd swore his Klan oath to, said in 1949 on ''Meet the Press'', "Once a Ku Klux, always a Ku Klux."</ref> who later became Senate Democrat Leader in the Reagan era. The filibuster failed when the Senate invoked cloture for only the second time since 1927.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Civil_Rights_Filibuster_Ended.htm|title=Civil Rights Filibuster Ended |work=Art & History Historical Minutes|publisher=United States Senate|accessdate=}}</ref> The law was intended to block Republican gains in the South followed by buying off Blacks with [[Great Society]] [[welfare]] and [[affirmative action]] programs. According to LBJ biographer Robert Caro, Johnson told his chauffeur: {{Quotebox|"Let me tell you one thing, n*gg*r. As long as you are black, and you’re gonna be black till the day you die, no one’s gonna call you by your g*dd*mn name. So no matter what you are called, n*gg*r, you just let it roll off your back like water, and you’ll make it. Just pretend you’re a g*dd*mn piece of furniture."<ref>https://slate.com/culture/2002/05/lbj-s-alleged-compassion.html</ref>}}
[[File:Democratic voter suppression.jpg|left|250px|thumb|Democratic party [[voter suppression]], 1963.]]
African-Americans formed an anomalous coalition with low-income white Democrat racists who were dependent on New Deal and Great Society [[welfare]] programs.<ref>"Chicago 1969: Assumed to be natural enemies, these groups united in their calls for [[economic justice]]." [http://theconversation.com/chicago-1969-when-black-panthers-aligned-with-confederate-flag-wielding-working-class-whites-68961 When Black Panthers aligned with Confederate-flag-wielding, working-class whites], Colette Gaiter, ''The Conversation'', January 8, 2017.</ref> Both African Americans and racist Democrats opposed Republican to maintain fiscal and budgetary sanity. The coalition gave cover to bigoted Democrats to hide their [[racism]], while accusing Republicans who wanted to balance the budget of prejudice. [[Malcolm X]] described it this way: {{quotebox-float|"The white Liberal differs from the white Conservative only in one way; the Liberal is more [[deceit]]ful, more hypocritical, than the Conservative. Both want power, but the White Liberal is the one who has perfected the art of posing as the Negro's friend and benefactor and by winning the friendship and support of the Negro, the White Liberal is able to use the Negro as a pawn or a weapon in this political football game, that is constantly raging, between the White Liberals and the White Conservatives. The American Negro is nothing, but a political "football game" that is constantly raging between the white liberals and white conservatives.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7YmjWW9tx4</ref>}}
Democrat Governor [[George Wallace]] won the South in 1968 in a three-way contest, but the South continued to reject Yankee liberals (Humphrey in 1968, McGovern in 1972, Mondale in 1984, Dukakis in 1988, Kerry in 2004). At the state and local level, the Republicans made slow but steady gains. As racism in the South declined, Republicans in the South increased.<ref>https://youtu.be/ol7OMGBDMao</ref>

===1964 Democratic Convention: Mississippi Freedom Party===
The Mississippi Freedom Party was organized by African Americans to challenge the establishment [[Democratic Party]], which allowed participation only by whites. The party ran a slate of delegates with close to 80,000 people casting ballots.<ref>[http://www.crmvet.org/tim/tim63b.htm#1963msballot Freedom Ballot in MS] ~ Civil Rights Movement Veterans</ref> The party hoped to replace the Regular Democrats as the official Mississippi delegation at the 1964 Democratic National Convention.

At the convention the party challenged the Regular Democrats' right to be seated, claiming that the Regular Democrats were illegally elected in a segregated process that violated both party regulations and [[federal law]].<ref>[http://www.crmvet.org/disc/mfdp.htm The Mississippi Movement & the MFDP] ~ Civil Rights Movement Veterans</ref> The Equal Protection Clause had been on the books for nearly 100 years already. The Democratic Party referred the challenge to the credentials committee,<ref>{{cite book
| last = Branch
| first = Taylor
| title = Pillar of Fire
| publisher = Simon & Schuster
| date = 1998}}</ref> which televised its proceedings and allowed the nation to see and hear the moving testimony of several delegates and the retaliation inflicted on them by Democrats for attempting to vote.<ref>Carmichael, Stokely, and Charles V. Hamilton. ''Black Power: The Politics of Liberation,'' (New York: Random House, 1967), p. 90.</ref>

After that, most observers and pundits thought the credentials committee were ready to unseat the Regular Democrats and seat the Freedom Party delegates in their place. But some Democrats from other states threatened to leave the convention and bolt the party if the Regular Democrats were unseated. President Johnson wanted a united convention and feared losing support. To ensure his victory in November, Johnson maneuvered to prevent the Mississippi Freedom Democrats from replacing the all-white Regular Democrats.

Two future Democrat Presidential nominees, [[Hubert Humphrey]] and [[Walter Mondale]], denied Blacks [[equal protection]] and made a mockery of the [[civil rights movement]].<ref>https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2011/05/sad-story-humphreys-role-1964-democratic-convention/</ref> Johnson held a private meeting with Humphrey, Mondale, Roy Wilkins, [[Andrew Young]], [[United Auto Workers]] President [[Walter Reuther]] and [[Martin Luther King Jr.]] A plan was hatched to offer the Freedom Democrats two non-voting ''At-Large'' seats with observer status, rather than replace the all-white delegation which had been undemocratically and illegally elected.<ref>Mills, Kay, ''This Little Light of Mine: The Life of Fannie Lou Hamer,'' (New York: Plume, 1994), p. 5.</ref> Johnson arrogated to himself the right to pick which two, and Johnson chose one white and one black. Johnson dispatched Humphrey and Mondale and ordered them to make sure that “that illiterate woman," Fannie Lou Hamer would never be a delegate. Dr. King protested and was told by Reuther to shut up.

The offer was rejected, but Humphrey and Mondale remained powerhouse liberals in the Democratic party for another 20 years.

===Biden Amendment of 1975===
[[File:Biden segregation.png 1718483346.png|right|350px|thumb|Biden called segregation "a matter of Black pride" and pushed for a [[Constitutional Amendment]] to outlaw Court ordered de-segregation.<ref name="politico.com">https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/joe-biden-integration-school-busing-120968_full.html</ref> The Biden Amendment of 1965 repealed sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1965.]]
Democrats fought school desgregation with the [[Southern Manifesto]]; they fought it with the [[Democratic Party#1957 Civil Rights Act|Little Rock Crisis]] of 1957; they filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act; and they fought black integration with the Biden Amendment of 1975.

In 1972 [[Black]] parents filed a desegregation lawsuit in [[Massachusetts]], the only state Republican President [[Richard Nixon]] did not win re-election in. The [[NAACP]] argued the case. According to ''Politico'', nowhere did the sentiment of people opposed to desegregation play out more dramatically than in [[Boston]]. In mid 1974, a federal judge found that 20 years after ''Brown v. Board'', Boston officials deliberately kept the schools segregated, and that the city must integrate at once. He drew up a busing plan. Black students from Roxbury would attend South Boston High School, while Irish Americans from Southie would board buses to Roxbury.

The first buses rolled through Boston in September 1974—and racial violence engulfed the city. White mobs hurled bricks at school buses with terrified black children inside. Then, on October 7, a [[Haiti]]an immigrant was beaten savagely by a white mob in South Boston. In the coming months, the list of casualties would grow. The city became a cauldron of racial hatred.

Each year after passage of the 1965 Civil Rights Act up until 1977, the Democratic controlled House passed at least one new law designed to restrain school integration—often in the guise of anti-busing legislation. Until 1974, the Senate rejected those bills. But as white resistance to busing escalated in many cities across the country, the House Democrats anti-busing majority began to pull more Democratic senators to their side.

In 1975, Sen. [[Joseph Biden]], later [[Vice President of the United States of America|vice-president]] and [[President Obama]]'s token [[segregation]]ist, proposed an amendment that gutted Title VI of the [[1964 Civil Rights Act]], which enabled the federal government to cut off funding to school districts that refused to integrate. ''[[Politico]]'' writes of the whole sordid affair, {{quotebox|Biden morphed into a leading anti-busing crusader—all the while continuing to insist that he supported the goal of school desegregation, he only opposed busing as the means to achieve that end. This stance, which many of Biden’s liberal and moderate colleagues also held, was clever but disingenuous. It enabled Biden to choose votes over principles, while acting as if he was not doing so....In a seminal moment, the Senate thus turned against desegregation. The Senate had supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act, [[1965 Voting Rights Act]] and 1968 Fair Housing Act....the Senate remained the last bastion for those who supported strong integration policies. Biden stormed that bastion...<ref name="politico.com"/>}}
A Boston NAACP leader said, “An anti-busing amendment is an anti-desegregation amendment, and an anti-desegregation amendment is an anti-black amendment.” Republican Sen. [[Edward Brooke]], the first black senator ever to be directly elected, called Biden's amendment “the greatest symbolic defeat for [[civil rights]] since 1964.” Brooke accused Biden of leading an assault on integration.

During a [[Democratic party]] presidential primary debate before the [[2020 presidential election]], California senator [[Kamala Harris]] confronted then frontrunner former VP Joe Biden over his role in repealing sections of the [[1964 Civil Rights Act]] that restored funding to schools refusing to integrate with [[Black]]s after the 1954 ''[[Brown vs. Board of Education]]'' desegregation order.<ref>[https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/kamala-harris-says-she-was-a-victim-of-bidens-racial-policies 'That little girl was me': Kamala Harris says she was a victim of Biden's anti-busing racial policies], by Ellie Bufkin, ''Washington Examiner'', June 27, 2019.</ref> The Biden Amendment,<ref>[https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/joe-biden-integration-school-busing-120968_full.html How a Young Joe Biden Turned Liberals Against Integration], By JASON SOKOL, ''[[Politico]]'', August 04, 2015.</ref> originally written by segregationist Democrat Sen. James Eastland, but with Biden's name on it with few modifications, restored federal funding for schools that refused to comply with court ordered desegregation and busing.<ref>[http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/joe-biden-record-on-busing-incarceration-racial-justice-democratic-primary-2020-explained.html Will Black Voters Still Love Biden When They Remember Who He Was?], By Eric Levitz, ''Intelligencer'', Mar. 12, 2019.</ref> Harris told [[MSNBC]]'s [[Chris Matthews]]: {{quotebox|If those segregationists would have had their way, I would not be a member of the United States Senate, and I certainly would not be a serious candidate for President of the United States. ... Barack Obama would not have been in a position to appoint Joe Biden Vice President of the United States. So the consequences of their actions were very real, and on the shoulders of the history of our country of really a very bad, awful, dark, dangerous, and lethal time.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p23VyNxnOQ&feature=youtu.be</ref>}}

===Justice Clarence Thomas appointment===
[[File:Thmas.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Justice Clarence Thomas]]
In 1991, Republican President George H.W. Bush appointed an African American, [[Clarence Thomas]], to the Supreme Court to replace the retiring Justice [[Thurgood Marshall]]. Racist Democrats were outraged that a conservative Black, who refused to pledge to uphold ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' which legalized the murder of millions of unborn Blacks, would become a role model for Black youth. [[Anita Hill]], a [[lesbian]] staffer who worked for Thomas was pushed forward, against her will, to testify publicly about unverified comments she made to FBI background investigators alleging sexual harassment in the work place, essentially jokes circulating among office employees. Hill's name was illegally [[leak]]ed by Senate Democrat staffers and Chairman [[Joseph Biden]] then subpoenaed Hill, compelling her to testify in public under oath in an effort to derail the nomination and permanently scar Thomas. In an unprecedented step, Biden delayed the final vote and held extended public hearings.

Hill worked for Thomas at the Dept. of Education, and when Thomas left the Dept. of Education to work at the EEOC, Thomas invited her to come along and she followed. Hill never reported the alleged sexual harassment.

After nationally televised hearings consisting largely of a discussion of African American body parts, Thomas was confirmed by the U.S. Senate with a majority of Americans in public opinion polls believing Thomas over Hill. A fringe minority of partisan [[gay rights]] activists, [[feminists]], liberals, and [[mainstream media]] journalist are said to have believed Hill.

===The New Jim Crow===

:{{See also|The New Jim Crow|Biden Crime Bill}}
In the 1990s the Democratic Party revived itself, in part by distancing itself from [[Jesse Jackson]] and the [[Rainbow Coalition]].<ref>http://www.blackcommentator.com/46/46_cover.html https://ofamerica.wordpress.com/tag/democratic-leadership-council/</ref> Jackson was the first African-American to win a major party primary in 1988. Blacks were getting a little too [[uppity]] in the eyes of the Clintons and Democratic party leadership.<ref>[http://prospect.org/article/crisis-working-majority-0 From Crisis to Working Majority], Stan Greenberg, ''The American Prospect'' 2, no. 7 (September 1991). Republished 24 May 2005</ref>
[[File:Clinton gore.png|right|300px|thumb|The election of Bill Clinton in 1992 ushered in the era of the New Jim Crow and mass incarceration of blacks.]]
Every year for twelve years, Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, who both always had at least one house of Congress controlled by Democrats, asked in their State of the Union addresses for Congress to create Enterprise Zones - special tax breaks for start-ups and businesses to relocate to blighted areas, predominantly black, inner-city urban areas - to create jobs and deliver services. Democrats didn't want Republicans to be seen as helping blacks. However, in President Clinton's first 100 days, with a Democrat House and Senate, Democrats finally delivered Enterprise Zones after making African Americans wait 12 years to finally participate in the prosperity begun in the 1980s. [[Bill Clinton]] attacked [[Nancy Reagan]]'s anti-drug "Just Say No" campaign as "twelve years of neglect" and ratcheted up deaths caused by illegal drug use from 10,000 per year to 70,000.<ref>https://slate.com/news-and-politics/1996/06/clinton-s-drug-war.html</ref> The [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]] took control of both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate after the 1994 midterm election.

In the wake of the [[Central Park jogger attack]], Jos Biden boasted as one of his greatest legislative achievements passage of the 1994 Crime bill which locked up 10% of the Black adult male population of the United States.<ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/22/us/politics/joe-bidens-role-in-90s-crime-law-could-haunt-any-presidential-bid.html</ref><ref name="prisonpolicy.org">http://www.prisonpolicy.org/research/incarceration_rates_growth_causes/</ref>

When [[President George H.W. Bush]] asked for a record increase in funding to fight the [[War on Drugs]], Biden told a TV interviewer {{Quotebox|"In a nutshell, the President's plan does not include enough police officers to catch the violent thugs, enough prosecutors to convict them, enough judges to sentence them or enough prison cells to put them away for a long time."<ref>http://articles.latimes.com/1989-09-06/news/mn-1646_1_drug-war</ref><ref>http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/first-step-act-skepticism.html</ref>}}
[[File:Bill-clinton-orval-faubus-1991.jpg|left|300px|thumb|[[Bill Clinton]] with [[Orval Faubus]], 1991.]]
Biden, [[Ted Kennedy]], and [[Strom Thurmond]] worked on proposals that raised maximum penalties, removed a directive requiring the US Sentencing Commission to take into account prison capacity, and created the cabinet-level “drug czar” position. In 1984, they passed the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, which, among other things, abolished [[parole]], imposed a less generous cap on “good time” sentence reductions, and allowed the Sentencing Commission to issue more punitive guidelines.

Biden bragged on the Senate floor that it was under his and Thurmond's leadership that Congress passed a law sending anyone caught with a rock of cocaine the size of a quarter to jail for a minimum of five years - the notoriously racist hundred-to-one sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine. In the same speech Biden took credit for [[civil asset forfeiture]] and seizure laws, and demanded to know why [[Papa Bush]] hadn't sentenced more drug dealers to life in prison or exercise the [[death penalty]] once Congress had given him that power.<ref>https://www.c-span.org/video/?18528-1/violent-crime-control-act-1991</ref>

Biden's version of a new crime bill added more than forty crimes that would be eligible for the [[death penalty]]. Biden boasted “we do everything but hang people for jaywalking.”<ref>''[https://books.google.com/books?id=AK_DAwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA141&dq=we%20do%20everything%20but%20hang%20people%20for%20jaywalking&pg=PA141#v=onepage&q=we%20do%20everything%20but%20hang%20people%20for%20jaywalking&f=false The First Civil Right: How Liberals Built Prison America]'', Naomi Murakawa, Oxford University Press, Jul 10, 2014, p. 141.</ref> The [[NAACP]] and other groups lobbied against the bill.<ref>https://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/27/us/civil-libertarians-go-after-crime-bills.html</ref> Although the 1991 crime bill was defeated by Republicans, the 1994 Biden/Clinton crime bill was passed.<ref>''[https://books.google.com/books?id=SGUJBAAAQBAJ&lpg=PT142&dq=biden%20strongly%20believes%20the%20administration%20needs%20to%20seize%20control%20of%20the%20issue%20by%20upping%20the%20ante&pg=PT142#v=onepage&q=biden%20strongly%20believes%20the%20administration%20needs%20to%20seize%20control%20of%20the%20issue%20by%20upping%20the%20ante&f=false The First Civil Right: How Liberals Built Prison America]'', Naomi Murakawa.</ref>

Under the 1994 Biden Crime Bill, more than 250,000 [[African American]]s were imprisoned in the [[United States]] than under President Reagan,<ref>http://www.blackelectorate.com/articles.asp?ID=320</ref> Both [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Joseph Biden]] took credit for mass incarceration.<ref>https://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/</ref> Cumulatively since the Clinton's passed the Biden Crime Bill, 2.5 million adult black males—more than 10% of the population—were incarcerated, splitting up black families.<ref name="prisonpolicy.org"/> [[Barack Obama]], [[Louis Farrakhan]] and [[Al Sharpton]] led the [[Million Man March]] on Washington to protest.<ref>http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/04/wright-obama-helped-organize-march-with.html</ref><ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20100502040630/https://www1.chicagoreader.com/obama_reader/what_makes_obama_run/?q=012009K</ref>

By 2001, the United States had the highest rate of incarceration in the world. [[Human Rights Watch]] reported that in seven states, African Americans constituted 80 to 90 percent of all drug offenders even though they were no more likely than whites to use or sell illegal drugs. Prison admissions for drug offenses reached a level in 2000 for African Americans more than 26 times the level they had been under [[Ronald Reagan]].<ref>[https://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/ Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote], Michelle Alexander, ''The Nation'', February 10, 2016</ref> Biden's "social planning" had proven effective.

The [[Leftist]] ''Jacobin'' magazine summed up Biden's record: {{Quotebox|"It’s not as if Biden didn’t know what he was doing.... He just didn’t care. Biden had made a calculated decision that the elections he would win were worth the damage he inflicted.... But even if Biden has subsequently learned the error of his ways, the rank cynicism and callousness involved in his two-decade-long championing of carceral policies should be more than enough to give anyone pause about his qualities as a leader, let alone a [[progressive]] one."<ref>https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/08/biden-crime-mass-incarceration-police-prisons</ref>}}

[[File:Ali Rosa Parks & Trump.jpg|right|thumb|[[Anita Bryant]], [[Muhammad Ali]], Rosa Parks and Donald Trump receive the 1986 Ellis Island Medal of Honor.]]

==21st century==
By the 21st century blacks made major gains in sports, entertainment and politics. George W. Bush appointed the first two blacks to head the cabinet, secretaries of state [[Colin Powell]] and [[Condoleezza Rice]]. In a stunning upset, a man with no connection to American Descendants of Slavery ([[ADOS]]) [[Barack Obama]] defeated [[Hillary Clinton]] for the [[Democratic party]] nomination for president in 2008, then defeated Republican [[John McCain]]

McCain hailed Obama's win:
{{quotebox|I've always believed that America offers opportunities to all who have the industry and will to seize it. Senator Obama believes that, too. But we both recognize that though we have come a long way from the old injustices that once stained our nation's reputation and denied some Americans the full blessings of American citizenship, the memory of them still had the power to wound. A century ago, President Theodore Roosevelt's invitation of Booker T. Washington to dine at the White House was taken as an outrage in many quarters. America today is a world away from the cruel and prideful bigotry of that time. There is no better evidence of this than the election of an African American to the presidency of the United States. Let there be no reason now for any American to fail to cherish their citizenship in this, the greatest nation on Earth.<ref>[http://www.johnmccain.com/splash110408.htm McCain statement Nov. 4, 2008]</ref>}}

Rapper [[Kanye West]] told his followers that the phrase “black power” does not mean voting for the [[Democratic Party]] forever.
{{quotebox|Own your power. Your power is not to just vote Democrat for the rest of our lives. That’s not the power...‘We’re moving these factories to America, and that’s how it’s going to be’... Our goal is to bring the manufacturing back to America... bring it back stateside and to present jobs for people back here.”}}
West decried Democratic policies that have brainwashed black Americans into a cycle of self-destruction and lamented how Democrats have brainwashed black Americans into voting for them with promises of [[food stamps]] and [[abortion]].<ref>https://www.dailywire.com/news/kanye-west-blacks-dont-have-to-vote-for-democrats</ref>

In [[Kentucky]], voters overwhelmingly rejected the Democrats' racist agenda, electing the state's first black [[Attorney General]] and first Republican in 70 years, [[Daniel Cameron]]. Four years earlier, Kentucky voters elected conservative Republican Jenean Hampton as the state's first black statewide elected official, and the Republican governor they elected, [[Matt Bevin]], had adopted four children from Ethiopia.

Sen. [[Elizabeth Warren]], who lied about her [[Native American]] heritage to steal [[affirmative action]] preferences from qualified minorities, dropped a truth bomb in the 2020 New Hampshire presidential debate:
{{quotebox|I’m glad to stand on this stage with my fellow Democrats who talk about how important the black community is, at least at election time. Year after year after year, election after election after election, Democrats go to people in the black community and say “Boy, we really care about these issues. Racism is terrible, we all want to do something,” and then somehow the problem just seems to keep getting worse.<ref>https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/video-warren-drops-shocking-truth-in-last-debate-trump-is-right-the-democrat-party-has-been-making-life-worse-for-black-families-not-better/</ref>}}

====Leftwing riots====
[[File:You ain't Black.jpeg|right|300px|thumb|Democrat Joe Biden was roundly criticized by Black leaders for his racist comments.<ref>https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/499214-african-american-figures-slam-biden-on-you-aint-black-comments</ref>]]
In [[Boston]], [[Massachusetts]] [[Progressive]] [[fascist]]s defaced the 54th Regiment Memorial to black soldiers in the [[Civil War]] as [[Antifa]] protests moved through the city. A website dedicated to the memorial, which stands at the top of a hill on the Boston Common, explains:
{{Quotebox|The most acclaimed piece of sculpture on Boston Common is the Robert Gould Shaw and Massachusetts 54th Regiment Memorial by Augustus Saint-Gaudens; a memorial to that group of men who were among the first African Americans to fight in the Civil War. The monument portrays Shaw and his men marching down Beacon Street past the State House on May 28, 1863 as they left Boston on their way to South Carolina, Shaw erect on his horse, the men marching alongside.}}
:The monument, which commemorates black lives dedicated and sacrificed to the struggle against slavery, was defaced with profane anti-police graffiti, as well as tributes to [[George Floyd]].<ref>https://www.westernjournal.com/rioters-deface-monument-black-civil-war-veterans-served-union/</ref> The story of the 54th was immortalized in the Hollywood movie ''Glory'', for which [[Denzel Washington]] received the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor.

The story of the 54th was immortalized in the Hollywood movie ''Glory'', for which [[Denzel Washington]] received the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor.

====Black Lives Matter movement====
The Black Lives Matter movement began in 2013, when many in the African-American community believed a double standard of justice had been applied when Zimmerman was acquitted of the murder of Treyvon Martin. <ref> https://blacklivesmatter.com/about/ </ref>
Enraged by what they saw as decades of police brutality, and double-standards for prosecution and incarceration, the suffocation death of George Floyd at the hands of a police officer using a prolonged choke hold was the last straw. Some called to [[Defund the Police]].<ref>https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-defunding-the-police-really-means/ </ref> Members of the Black Lives Matter movement took to the streets, most of which intended to protest peacefully. However, like the 2021 Capitol riots, there were some [[Antifa|criminals]] who infiltrated the protests, damaged property, and committed arson, and looting, to discredit the movement.

====2020 Presidential election====
[[File:Kanye-west-donald-trump.jpg|right|300px|thumb| [[Kanye West]] meets with [[President Donald Trump]] in the Oval Office to discuss undoing the Democrat legacy of mass incarceration.<ref>https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-criminal-justice-reform-bill-announcement-today-2018-11-14-live-updates/</ref>]]
:{{See also|2020 Presidential election}}
[[Kanye West]] declared his candidacy for President on July 4, 2020. West is [[pro-life]], stating "[[Planned Parenthood]]'s have been placed inside cities by [[white supremacist]]s to do the devil's work." West entered the race after Democrat nominee [[Joe Biden]]'s racist "you ain't black" comment. West said,
{{quotebox|"that is a form of racism and [[white supremacy]] and white control, to say that all black people need to be Democrat, and to assume that me running is me splitting the vote. All of that information is being charged up on [[social media]] platforms by Democrats. And Democrats used to tell me the same. Democrats have threatened me. The reason why this is, the first day I registered to vote is because I was scared. I was told that if I voted on Trump, my music career would be over. I was threatened into being in one party. I was threatened as a celebrity into being in one party. I was threatened as a black man into the [[Democratic Party]]. And that's what the Democrats are doing emotionally to my
people, threatening them to the point where this [[white]] man can tell a black man. "if you don't vote for me you're not black." }}
The racist Democrat machine of [[Michigan]] stole all Kanye West votes in the [[2020 presidential election]] and switched the votes to Democrat segregationist [[Joe Biden]].<ref>https://youtu.be/eGx4SXwxlGI</ref>

==Historiography==
[[File:Tremmell.png|left|350px|thumb|Bernell Tremmell was murdered by Marxists in Milwaukee in July 2020 for his outspoken beliefs in freedom, justice, and racial equality.<ref>https://100percentfedup.com/prominent-black-trump-supporter-shot-to-death-in-milwaukee-hours-after-pro-trump-interview/</ref>]]
The history of slavery has always been a major research topic for white scholars, but they generally focused on the political and constitutional themes until the 1950s, generally ignoring the black slaves themselves. During [[Reconstruction]] and the late 19th century, blacks became major actors in the South. The [[Dunning School]] of white scholars generally cast the blacks as pawns of white Carpetbaggers but W.E.B. Dubois, a black historian, and [[Ulrich B. Phillips]], a white historian, studied the African-American experience in depth. Indeed, Phillips set the main topics of inquiry that still guide the analysis of slave economics.

In the black community, in the first half of the 20th century Carter G. Woodson was the major scholar studying and promoting the black historical experience. Woodson insisted that the study of African descendants be scholarly sound, creative, restorative, and, most important, directly relevant to the black community. He popularized black history with a variety of innovative strategies and vehicles, including Association for the Study of Negro Life outreach activities, Negro History Month (now [[Black History Month]], in February), and a popular black history magazine. Woodson democratized, legitimized, and popularized black history.<ref>Pero Gaglo Dagbovie, "Making Black History Practical and Popular: Carter G. Woodson, the Proto Black Studies Movement, and the Struggle for Black Liberation." ''Western Journal of Black Studies'' 2004 28(2): 372-383. Issn: 0197-4327 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]]</ref>

Benjamin Quarles (1904–96) and John Hope Franklin (1915-2009) provided a bridge between the work of historians in black schools such as Woodson, and the black history that is now well established in mainline universities. Quarles grew up in Boston, attended Shaw University as an undergraduate, and received a graduate degree at the University of Wisconsin. He began in 1953 teaching at Morgan State College in Baltimore, where he stayed, despite a lucrative offer from Johns Hopkins. Franklin taught at Brooklyn College and had a major impact when he was a professor at the elite [[University of Chicago]], 1964–83.

Black history always sought out black agency—even slaves had a certain amount of control over their lives. The assumptions was that slaves were passive and did not rebel was debated in the 1950s and rejected. Many of the white scholars were former Communists or members of the [[far left]], and they looked for violent rebellion. They found few such rebellions, but much unrest. Herbert Gutman and Leon Litwack showed that in reconstruction how former slaves fought to keep their families together and struggled against tremendous odds to define themselves as free people. [[Robert Fogel]], a former Communist who moved to the right, enraged the left when he used quantitative methods to show that the housing, food, clothing and living conditions of the slaves were reasonably favorable. He was awarded the Nobel prize in Economics for his work.

Today proponents of black history argue that it promotes diversity, develops self-esteem, and corrects myths and stereotypes. Opponents, including [[Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.]] and [[Oscar Handlin]], complain that such curricula are dishonest, divisive, and lack academic credibility and rigor.<ref>Abul Pitre and Ruth Ray, "The Controversy Around Black History." ''Western Journal of Black Studies'' 2002 26(3): 149-154. Issn: 0197-4327 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]]</ref>

==Knowledge of black history==
Surveys of 11th and 12th grade students and adults in 2005 show that American schools have made them very well informed about black history. Both groups were asked to name ten famous Americans, excluding presidents. Of the students, the three highest names were blacks: 67% named Martin Luther King, 60% Rosa Parks, and 44% Harriet Tubman. Among adults, King was 2nd (at 36%) and Parks was tied for 4th with 30%, while Tubman tied for 10th place with Henry Ford, at 16%. When distinguished historians were asked in 2006 to name the most prominent Americans, Parks and Tubman did not make the top 100.<ref>Sam Wineburg and Chauncey Monte-Sano, "'Famous Americans': The Changing Pantheon of American Heroes," ''Journal of American History'' (March 2008) 94#4 pp. 1186–1202.
</ref>

==Bibliography==
===Surveys===
* Earle, Jonathan, and Malcolm Swanston. ''The Routledge Atlas of African American History'' (2000) [https://www.amazon.com/Routledge-African-American-History-Atlases/dp/0415921422/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208666779&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search]
* Finkelman, Paul, ed. ''Encyclopedia of African American History, 1619-1895: From the Colonial Period to the Age of Frederick Douglass'' (3 vol 2006)
* Franklin, John Hope, and Alfred Moss, ''From Slavery to Freedom. A History of African Americans'', (2001), standard textbook; first edition in 1947 [https://www.amazon.com/Slavery-Freedom-History-African-Americans/dp/0375406719/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208666779&sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]
* Litwack, Leon, and August Meier. ''Black Leaders of the 19th Century.'' (1988)
** Franklin, John Hope, and August Meier, eds. ''Black Leaders of the Twentieth Century.'' (1982), short biographies by scholars.
* Harris, William H. ''The Harder We Run: Black Workers Since the Civil War.'' (1982). [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=16297018 online edition]
* Hine, Darlene Clark, Rosalyn Terborg-Penn and Elsa Barkley Brown, eds. ''Black Women in America - An Historical Encyclopedia'', (2005) [https://www.amazon.com/Black-Women-America-Historical-Encyclopedia/dp/0253327741/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208666895&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Hine, Darlene Clark, et al. ''The African-American Odyssey'' (2 vol, 4th ed. 2007) textbook [https://www.amazon.com/African-American-Odyssey-4th-Darlene-Hine/dp/0136150136/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208666930&sr=1-7 excerpt and text search vol 1]
* Holt, Thomas C. ed. ''Major Problems in African-American History: From Freedom to "Freedom Now," 1865-1990s'' (2000) reader in primary and secondary sources
* Horton, James Oliver, and Lois E. Horton. ''Hard Road to Freedom: The Story of African America: From the Civil War to the Millennium'' (2002), well-balanced survey
* Kelley, Robin D. G., and Earl Lewis, eds. ''To Make Our World Anew: A History of African Americans.'' (2000). 672pp; 10 long essays by leading scholars [http://www.questia.com/read/108611978?title=To%20Make%20Our%20World%20Anew%3a%20A%20History%20of%20African%20Americans online edition], leftist emphasis
* Lowery, Charles D. and John F. Marszalek, eds. ''Encyclopedia of African-American Civil Rights: From Emancipation to the Present'' (1992) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=71235565 online edition]
* Mandle, Jay R. ''Not Slave, Not Free: The African American Economic Experience since the Civil War'' (1992) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=3099697 online edition]
* Painter, Nell Irvin. ''Creating Black Americans: African American History and Its Meanings, 1619 to the Present.'' (2006), 480 pp survey; leftist emphasis
* Palmer, Colin A. ed. ''Encyclopedia Of African American Culture And History: The Black Experience In The Americas'' (6 vol. 2005)
* Salzman, Jack, David Lionel Smith, and Cornel West, eds. ''Encyclopedia of African-American Culture and History.'' (5 vol. 1996).
* Smallwood, Arwin D ''The Atlas of African-American History and Politics: From the Slave Trade to Modern Times'' (1997)

===Slave era pre 1860===
* Berlin, Ira. ''Many Thousands Gone: The First Two Centuries of Slavery in North America'' (2000) [http://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb.00069 ACLS E-book]
* Blassingame, John W. ''The Slave Community: Plantation Life in the Antebellum South'' (2nd ed. 1979) [https://www.amazon.com/Slave-Community-Plantation-Antebellum-South/dp/0195025636/ref=tag_dpp_lp_edpp_ttl_in excerpt and text search]
* Fogel, Robert. ''Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery,'' (2 vol, 1974). (with Stanley Engerman), highly controversial quantitative study by a conservative
* Fogel, Robert. ''Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American Slavery,'' (2 vol, 1989).
* Genovese, Eugene. ''Roll Jordan Roll: The World the Slaves Made'' (1974), highly influential study of slavery [https://www.amazon.com/Roll-Jordan-World-Slaves-Made/dp/0394716523/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208665810&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search], by a former Communist who is now a prominent conservative
* Gomez, Michael. ''Exchanging Our Country Marks: The Transformation of African Identities in the Colonial and Antebellum South'' (1998) 384pp [https://www.amazon.com/Exchanging-Our-Country-Marks-Transformation/dp/0807846945/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208757341&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Horton, James Oliver, and Lois E. Horton. ''Slavery and the Making of America'' (2006), well-balanced survey
* Horton, James Oliver. ''In hope of liberty: culture, community, and protest among northern free Blacks, 1700-1860'' (1998) [http://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb.02341 ACLS E-book]
* Kolchin, Peter. ''American Slavery, 1619-1877'' (wnd ed. 2003), a short survey [https://www.amazon.com/American-Slavery-1619-1877-Peter-Kolchin/dp/0809016303/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208759132&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Kulikoff, Allan. ''Tobacco and Slaves: The Development of Southern Cultures in the Chesapeake, 1680 - 1800'' (1986)
* Miller, Randall M., and John David Smith, eds. ''Dictionary of Afro-Amerian Slavery'' (1988)
* Rothman, Adam. ''Slave Country: American Expansion and the Origins of the Deep South.'' (2005). 282 pp. [https://www.amazon.com/Slave-Country-American-Expansion-Origins/dp/0674024168/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208761333&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Sobel, Mechal. ''The World They Made Together: Black and White Values in Eighteenth-Century Virginia'' (1987).
* White, Deborah Gray. ''Ar'n't I a Woman? Female Slaves in the Plantation South,'' (2nd ed. 1999) [https://www.amazon.com/Arnt-Woman-Female-Slaves-Plantation/dp/0393314812/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208715563&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Wood, Peter H. ''Black majority: Negroes in colonial South Carolina from 1670 through the Stono Rebellion'' (1975) [http://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb.00338 ACLS E-book]

===Emancipation and Reconstruction Era: 1860-1890===
* Boles, John B. ''Black Southerners, 1619–1869.'' (1983)
* Butchart, Ronald E. ''Northern Schools, Southern Blacks, and Reconstruction: Freedmen's Education, 1862-1875'' (1980) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15101767 onlineedition]
*Cimbala, Paul A. and Trefousse, Hans L. (eds.) ''The Freedmen's Bureau: Reconstructing the American South After the Civil War.'' 2005.
* Click, Patricia C. ''Time Full of Trial: The Roanoke Island Freedmen's Colony, 1862-1867'' (2001) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=105840008 online edition]
* Crouch, Barry. ''The Freedmen's Bureau and Black Texans'' (1992)
* Du Bois, W. E. Burghardt. "The Freedmen's Bureau" (1901) by leading black scholar [http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/sgml/moa-idx?notisid=ABK2934-0087-50 online edition]
* Du Bois, W. E. Burghardt. ''Black Reconstruction in America 1860-1880'' (1935)
* Durrill, Wayne K. "Political Legitimacy and Local Courts: 'Politicks at Such a Rage' in a Southern Community during Reconstruction" in ''Journal of Southern History'', Vol. 70 #3, 2004 pp 577–617 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5006777413 online edition]
* Foner Eric. ''Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877'' (1988), the standard history of Reconstruction.
* Gutman, Herbert G. ''The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom, 1750-1925'' (1977)
* Hahn, Steven. ''A Nation under Our Feet: Black Political Struggles in the Rural South from Slavery to the Great Migration'' (2003), 1865-1950 [http://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb.03953 ACLS E-book]
* Jones, Jacqueline. ''Labor of Love, Labor of Sorrow: Black Women, Work, and the Family from Slavery to the Present'' (1985)
* Kolchin, Peter. ''First Freedom: The Responses of Alabama's Blacks to Emancipation and Reconstruction'' 1972.
* Litwack, Leon F. ''Been in the Storm So Long: The Aftermath of Slavery.'' 1979,
* Oubre, Claude F. ''Forty Acres and a Mule: The Freedmen's Bureau and Black Land Ownership'' 1978.
* Quarles, Benjamin. ''The Negro in the Civil War'''. (1953) by leading African American historian
* Rabinowitz, Howard N. ''Race Relations in the Urban South, 1865-1890'' (1978)
* Ransom, Roger L. ''Conflict and Compromise''. (1989), econometric history
* Richardson, Joe M. ''Christian Reconstruction: The American Missionary Association and Southern Blacks, 1861-1890'' (1986).
* Rodrigue, John C. "Labor Militancy and Black Grassroots Political Mobilization in the Louisiana Sugar Region, 1865-1868" in ''Journal of Southern History'', Vol. 67 #1, 2001 pp 115–45; [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5002388829 online edition] also in JSTOR
* Schwalm, Leslie A. "'Sweet Dreams of Freedom': Freedwomen's Reconstruction of Life and Labor in Lowcountry South Carolina," ''Journal of Women's History,'' Vol. 9 #1, 1997 pp 9–32 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98499026 online edition]
* Span, Christopher M. "'I Must Learn Now or Not at All': Social and Cultural Capital in the Educational Initiatives of Formerly Enslaved African Americans in Mississippi, 1862-1869," ''The Journal of African American History'', 2002 pp 196–222 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5000605558 online edition]
* Williamson, Joel. ''After Slavery: The Negro in South Carolina during Reconstruction, 1861-1877'' 1965.

===Jim Crow Era: 1877-1954===
* Anderson, James D. ''The Education of Blacks in the South, 1860-1935'' (1988) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=54406292 online edition]
* Bayor, Ronald H. ''Race and the Shaping of Twentieth-Century Atlanta'' (1996)
* Bond, Horace Mann. “The Extent and Character of Separate Schools in the United States.” ''Journal of Negro Education'' 4(July 1935):321–27. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2984(193507)4%3A3%3C321%3ATEACOS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W in JSTOR]
* Brundage, W. Fitzhugh, ed ''Booker T. Washington and Black Progress: Up from Slavery 100 Years Later'' (2003)
* Bullock, Henry Allen. ''A History of Negro Education in the South: From 1619 to the Present'' (1967) [http://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb.00625 ACLS E-book]
* Cartwright, Joseph H. ''The Triumph of Jim Crow: Tennessee Race Relations in the 1880s'' (1976)
* Dailey, Jane, Glenda Elizabeth Gilmore, and Bryant Simon, eds. ''Jumpin' Jim Crow: Southern Politics from Civil War to Civil Rights'' (2000), essays by scholars on impact of Jim Crow on black communities [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=5002470890 online edition]
* Gaines, Kevin. ''Uplifting the Race: Black Leadership, Politics, and Culture in the Twentieth Century'' (1996). [http://www.questia.com/library/book/uplifting-the-race-black-leadership-politics-and-culture-in-the-twentieth-century-by-kevin-k-gaines.jsp online edition]
* Gatewood, Jr., Willard B. ''Aristocrats of Color: The Black Elite, 1880-1920'' (2000)
* Gilmore, Glenda Elizabeth. ''Gender and Jim Crow Women and the Politics of White Supremacy in North Carolina, 1896-1920'' (1996) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=94820628 online edition]; also [https://www.amazon.com/Gender-Jim-Crow-Supremacy-1896-1920/dp/0807845965/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200610418&sr=8-4 excerpt and text search]
* Gosnell, Harold F. ''Negro politicians: the rise of Negro politics in Chicago,'' (1935, 1967) [http://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb.02846 ACLS E-book]
* Hahn, Steven. ''A Nation under Our Feet: Black Political Struggles in the Rural South from Slavery to the Great Migration'' (2003), 1865-1950 [http://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb.03953 ACLS E-book]; also [https://www.amazon.com/Nation-under-Our-Feet-Political/dp/067401765X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208663397&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Jones, Jacqueline. ''Labor of Love, Labor of Sorrow: Black Women, Work, and the Family from Slavery to the Present'' (1985)
* Harlan. Louis R. ''Booker T. Washington: The Making of a Black Leader, 1856-1900'' (1972) the standard biography, vol 1
* Harlan. Louis R. ''Booker T. Washington: The Wizard of Tuskegee 1901-1915'' (1983), the standard scholarly biography vol 2 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=78995092 online edition vol 2]
* Harlan. Louis R. ''Booker T. Washington in Perspective: Essays of Louis R. Harlan'' (1988) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104404815 online edition]
* Harlan. Louis R. "The Secret Life of Booker T. Washington." ''Journal of Southern History'' 37#3 (1971). pp 393–416 Documents Booker T. Washington's secret financing and directing of litigation against segregation and disfranchisement. [http://www.jstor.org/pss/2206948 in JSTOR]
* McMurry, Linda O. ''George Washington Carver, Scientist and Symbol'' (1982) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=106358296 online edition]
* Jones, Jacqueline. ''Labor of Love, Labor of Sorrow: Black Women, Work, and the Family from Slavery to the Present'' (1985) [https://www.amazon.com/Labor-Love-Sorrow-Jacqueline-Jones/dp/0394745361/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208663256&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Lemann, Nicholas. ''The Promised Land: The Great Black Migration and How It Changed America'' (1992) [https://www.amazon.com/Promised-Land-Migration-Changed-America/dp/0679733477/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208723153&sr=8-14 excerpt and text search]
* Lewis, David Levering. ''W. E. B. DuBois, 1868-1919: Biography of a Race'' (2 vol 1993, 2000). [https://www.amazon.com/W-E-Bois-1868-1919-Biography/dp/0805035680/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208663291&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search vol 1], winner of Pulitzer Prize; ''W.E.B. Du Bois: The Fight for Equality and the American Century 1919-1963'' (2000) [https://www.amazon.com/W-E-B-Du-Bois-Equality-1919-1963/dp/B0006Q1URA/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208663291&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search vol 2]
* Litwack, Leon F. ''Trouble in Mind: Black Southerners in the Age of Jim Crow'' (1998) [https://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Mind-Black-Southerners-Crow/dp/039452778X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200613319&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Logan, Rayford. ''The Betrayal of the Negro: From Rutherford B. Hayes to Woodrow Wilson'' (Originally Published as: ''The Negro in American Life and Thought: The Nadir: 1877-1901'') (1970) [https://www.amazon.com/Betrayal-Negro-Rutherford-Woodrow-Wilson/dp/0306807580/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208663219&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* McMillen, Neil R. ''Dark Journey: Black Mississippians in the Age of Jim Crow. '' (1989). [https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Journey-Black-Mississippians-Crow/dp/025206156X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200610311&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Meier, August. ''Negro Thought in America, 1880-1915: Racial Ideologies in the Age of Booker T. Washington'' (1963),
* Meier, August. "Toward a Reinterpretation of Booker T. Washington." 23 ''Journal of Southern History'' 22#2 (1957) [http://www.jstor.org/pss/2955315 in JSTOR]
* Myrdal, Gunnar. ''An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy'' (1944). Highly influential and detailed analysis of the Jim Crow system in operation. [https://www.amazon.com/American-Dilemma-Problem-Democracy-African-American/dp/1560008571/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200610342&sr=8-4 excerpt and text search]
* Norrell, Robert J. ''Up from History: The Life of Booker T. Washington'' (2009), new, favorable scholarly biography
* Norrell, Robert J. "Booker T. Washington: Understanding the Wizard of Tuskegee" ''New Coalition News & Views'' Summer 2004 [http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15014/Booker_T_Washington_Understanding_the_Wizard_of_Tuskegee.html online edition]
* Sterner, Richard. ''The Negro's share: a study of income, consumption, housing, and public assistance'' (1943), statistical analysis of 1930s [http://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb.02857 ACLS E-book]
* Walker, Juliet E. K. ''Encyclopedia of African American Business History'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=101376721 online edition]
* Woodward, C. Vann. ''The Strange Career of Jim Crow'' (3d ed., 1974), [http://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb.02029 in ACLS E-books]
* Woodward, C. Vann. ''Origins of the New South, 1877-1913'' (1951) [http://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb.00007 ACLS E-book]
* Wintz, Cary D. ''African American Political Thought, 1890-1930: Washington, Du Bois, Garvey, and Randolph'' (1996) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104912065 online edition]

===Civil Rights Era: 1954 - present===
* Branch, Taylor. ''Parting the Waters: America in the King Years 1954-63'' (1989) [https://www.amazon.com/Parting-Waters-America-Years-1954-63/dp/0671687425/ref=sr_1_31?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208722057&sr=1-31 excerpt and text search]; ''Pillar of Fire: America in the King Years 1963-65'' (1999) [https://www.amazon.com/Pillar-Fire-America-Years-1963-65/dp/0684848090/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208722178&sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]; ''At Canaan's Edge: America in the King Years, 1965-68'' (2007)
* Carson, Clayborne. ''In Struggle: SNCC and the Black Awakening of the 1960s'' (1981)
* Cashman, Sean Dennis. ''African-Americans and the Quest for Civil Rights, 1900-1990'' (1991)
* Collier-Thomas, Bettye, and V.P. Franklin. ''Sisters in the Struggle : African-American Women in the Civil Rights-Black Power Movement'' (2001) [https://www.amazon.com/Sisters-Struggle-African-American-Rights-Black-Movement/dp/0814716024/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208748749&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]
* Eagles, Charles, ed. ''The Civil Rights Movement in America'' (1986), 200pp; 12 short essays by scholars [https://www.amazon.com/Civil-Rights-Movement-America-Chancellor/dp/0878052984/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208730312&sr=1-12erpt and text search]
* Farley, Reynolds, and William H. Frey. "The Segregation of Whites from Blacks During the 1980s: Small Steps Toward a More Integrated Society," ''American Sociological Review'', Vol. 59, No. 1 (Feb., 1994), pp. 23–45 heavily statistical; [http://www.jstor.org/pss/2096131 in JSTOR]
* Fredrickson, George M. ''Black Liberation: A Comparative History of Black Ideologies in the United States and South Africa'' (2nd ed. 1996)[https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195109783 excerpt and text search]
* Garrow, David. ''Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King, Jr., And The Southern Christian Leadership Conference'' (1989) [https://www.amazon.com/Bearing-Cross-Christian-Leadership-Conference/dp/B0002NPFWS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208723153&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Goldman, Peter. ''The Death and Life of Malcolm X,'' (2nd ed. 1979)
* Graham, Hugh Davis. ''The Civil Rights Era: Origins and Development of National Policy, 1960-1972'' (1990)
* Harris, Fredrick C. "Something Within: Religion as a Mobilizer of African-American Political Activism," ''The Journal of Politics,'' Vol. 56, No. 1 (Feb., 1994), pp. 42–68 [http://www.jstor.org/pss/2132345 in JSTOR]
* Horne, Gerald. '"'Myth' and the Making of 'Malcolm X'", ''The American Historical Review,'' Vol. 98, No. 2 (Apr., 1993), pp. 440–450 [http://www.jstor.org/pss/2166843 in JSTOR]
* Kluger, Richard.'' Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of Education and Black America's Struggle for Equality,'' (1975) [https://www.amazon.com/Simple-Justice-Education-Americas-Struggle/dp/1400030617/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208730244&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Ling, Peter J. ''Martin Luther King, Jr.'' (2002) [https://www.amazon.com/Martin-Luther-Routledge-Historical-Biographies/dp/0415216648/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208722988&sr=8-11 excerpt and text search]
* Meier, August, and Elliot Rudwick. ''CORE'' (1975).
* Sitkoff, Harvard. ''The Struggle for Black Equality'' (1981).
* Walton, Hanes, and Robert C. Smith. ''American Politics and the African American Quest for Universal Freedom'' (3rd ed 2005) [https://www.amazon.com/American-Politics-African-Universal-Freedom/dp/0321292375/ref=sr_1_16?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208748749&sr=8-16 excerpt and text search]
* Williams, Juan, and [[Julian Bond]]. ''Eyes on the Prize: America's Civil Rights Years, 1954-1965'' (1988) [https://www.amazon.com/Eyes-Prize-Americas-1954-1965-American/dp/0140096531/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200610805&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Wolters, Raymond. ''The Burden of Brown: Thirty Years of Desegration'' (1984) [https://www.amazon.com/Burden-Brown-Thirty-School-Desegregation/dp/0870497502/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208749113&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]

===Historiography and teaching===
* Arnesen, Eric. "Up From Exclusion: Black and White Workers, Race, and the State of Labor History," ''Reviews in American History'' 26#1 March 1998, pp. 146–174 in Project Muse
* Dagbovie, Pero. ''The Early Black History Movement, Carter G. Woodson, and Lorenzo Johnston Greene'' (2007) [https://www.amazon.com/History-Movement-Woodson-Lorenzo-Johnston/dp/0252074351/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208662932&sr=8-11 excerpt and text search]
* Dagbovie, Pero Gaglo. "Exploring a Century of Historical Scholarship on Booker T. Washington." ''Journal of African American History'' 2007 92(2): 239–264. Issn: 1548-1867 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]]
* Dorsey, Allison. "Black History Is American History: Teaching African American History in the Twenty-first Century." ''Journal of American History'' 2007 93(4): 1171–1177. Issn: 0021-8723 Fulltext: [[History Cooperative]]
* Ernest, John. "Liberation Historiography: African-American Historians before the Civil War," ''American Literary History'' 14#3, Fall 2002, pp. 413–443 in Project Muse
* Eyerman, Ron. ''Cultural Trauma: Slavery and the Formation of African American Identity'' (2002) argues that slavery emerged as a central element of the collective identity of African Americans in the post-Reconstruction era.
* Fields, Barbara J. "Ideology and Race in American History," in J. Morgan Kousser and James M. McPherson, eds., ''Region, Race, and Reconstruction: Essays in Honor of C. Vann Woodward'' (1982)
* Franklin, John Hope. "Afro-American History: State of the Art," ''Journal of American History'' (June 1988): 163–173. [http://www.jstor.org/pss/1889663 in JSTOR]
* Goggin, Jacqueline. ''Carter G. Woodson: A Life in Black History'' (1993)
* Hall, Stephen Gilroy. "'To Give a Faithful Account of the Race': History and Historical Consciousness in the African-American Community, 1827-1915." PhD disseratation, Ohio State U. 1999. 470 pp. DAI 2000 60(8): 3084-A. DA9941339 Fulltext: [[ProQuest Dissertations & Theses]]
* Harris, Robert L., "Coming of Age: The Transformation of Afro-American Historiography," ''Journal of Negro History'' 57 (1982): 107–121. [http://www.jstor.org/pss/2717569 in JSTOR]
* Harris, Robert L., Jr. "The Flowering of Afro-American History." ''American Historical Review'' 1987 92(5): 1150–1161. Issn: 0002-8762 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1868489 in Jstor]
* Higginbotham, Evelyn Brooks, "African-American Women’s History and the Metalanguage of Race," ''Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society'' 17 (1992): 251–274.
* Hine, Darlene Clark, ed. ''Afro-American History: Past, Present, and Future.'' (1986).
* Hine, Darlene Clark. ''Hine Sight: Black Women and the Re-Construction of American History'' (1994) [https://www.amazon.com/Hine-Sight-Re-Construction-American-Diaspora/dp/0253211247/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208662746&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Hornsby Jr., Alton, et al. eds. ''A Companion to African American History.'' (2005). 580 pp. 31 long essays by experts covering African and diasporic connections in the context of the transatlantic slave trade; colonial and antebellum African, European, and indigenous relations; processes of cultural exchange; war and emancipation; post-emancipation community and institution building; intersections of class and gender; migration; and struggles for civil rights. ISBN 0-631-23066-1
* McMillen, Neil R. "Up from Jim Crow: Black History Enters the Profession's Mainstream." ''Reviews in American History'' 1987 15(4): 543–549. Issn: 0048-7511 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2701928 in Jstor]
* Meier, August, and Elliott Rudwick. ''Black History and the Historical Profession, 1915-1980'' (1986)
* Nelson, Hasker. ''Listening For Our Past: A Lay Guide To African American Oral History Interviewing'' (2000) [https://www.amazon.com/Listening-Our-Past-American-Interviewing/dp/0964732106/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208662776&sr=8-9 excerpt and text search]
* Quarles, Benjamin. ''Black Mosaic: Essays in Afro-American History and Historiography'' (1988).
* Rabinowitz, Howard N. "More Than the Woodward Thesis: Assessing The Strange Career of Jim Crow", ''Journal of American History'' 75 (Dec. 1988): 842–56. [http://www.jstor.org/pss/1901533 in JSTOR]
* Reidy, Joseph P. "Slave Emancipation Through the Prism of Archives Records" (1997) [https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1997/summer/slave-emancipation.html online]
* Roper, John Herbert. ''U. B. Phillips: A Southern Mind'' (1984), on the white historian of slavery
* Trotter, Joe W. "African-American History: Origins, Development, and Current State of the Field," ''OAH Magazine of History'' 7#4 Summer 1993 [http://www.oah.org/pubs/magazine/africanamerican/trotter.html online edition]
* Wright, William D. ''Black History and Black Identity: A Call for a New Historiography'' (2002), proposes new racial and ethnic terminology and classifications for the study of black people and history. [https://www.amazon.com/Black-History-Identity-Call-Historiography/dp/0275974421/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208661182&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]

===Primary Sources===
* Aptheker, Herbert, ed. ''A Documentary History of the Negro People in the United States.'' (7 vol 1951-1994), by a prominent Communist
* Berlin, Ira, ed. ''Free at Last: A Documentary History of Slavery, Freedom, and the Civil War'' (1995)
* Bracey, John H., and Manisha Sinha, eds. ''African American Mosaic: A Documentary History from the Slave Trade to the Twenty-First Century,'' (2 vol 2004)
* Chafe, William Henry, Raymond Gavins, and Robert Korstad, eds. ''Remembering Jim Crow: African Americans Tell About Life in the Segregated South'' (2003) [https://www.amazon.com/Remembering-Jim-Crow-Americans-Segregated/dp/1565847784/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200610418&sr=8-9 excerpt and text search]
* Finkenbine, Roy E. ''Sources of the African-American Past: Primary Sources in American History'' (2nd Edition) (2003)
* Hampton, Henry, and Steve Fayer, eds. ''Voices of Freedom'' (1990), oral histories of civil rights movement
* King, Martin Luther. ''I Have a Dream: Writings and Speeches That Changed the World,'' (1992) [https://www.amazon.com/Have-Dream-Writings-Speeches-Anniversary/dp/0062505521/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208721937&sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]
* King, Martin Luther. ''Why We Can't Wait'' (1963; 2000)
* King, Martin Luther. ''The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr.: Volume VI: Advocate of the Social Gospel, September 1948-March 1963'' (2007) [https://www.amazon.com/Papers-Martin-Luther-King-Jr/dp/0520248740/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208722988&sr=8-9 excerpt and text search]
* Levy, Peter B. ''Let Freedom Ring: A Documentary History of the Modern Civil Rights Movement'' (1992) [http://www.questia.com/read/27510341?title=Let%20Freedom%20Ring%3a%20A%20Documentary%20History%20of%20the%20Modern%20Civil%20Rights%20Movement online edition]
* Rawick, George P. ed. ''The American Slave: A Composite Autobiography'' (19 vols.), (1972) oral histories with ex-slaves conducted in 1930s by [[WPA]]
* Sernett, Milton C. ''African American Religious History: A Documentary Witness'' (1999) [https://www.amazon.com/Afro-American-Religious-History-Documentary-Witness/dp/0822305941/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208662776&sr=8-6 excerpt and text search]
* Washington, Booker T. "The Awakening of the Negro," ''The Atlantic Monthly'', 78 (September, 1896).
* Washington, Booker T. ''[http://docsouth.unc.edu/fpn/washington/menu.html Up from Slavery: An Autobiography]'' (1901).
* [http://www.historycooperative.org/btw/volumes.html ''The Booker T. Washington Papers''] University of Illinois Press online version of complete fourteen volume set of all letters to and from Booker T. Washington.
* Wright, Kai, ed. ''The African-American Archive: The History of the Black Experience Through Documents'' (2001)

==See also==

* [[Slavery]]
* [[Black History Month]]
*[[Blexit]]
*[[Black Voices for Trump]]
*[[George Schuyler]]

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
* [http://www.loc.gov/rr/mss/guide/african.html Library of Congress - African American History and Culture]
* [http://search.eb.com/Blackhistory/home.do ''Encyclopedia Britannica'' - Guide to Black History]
* [http://www.tntech.edu/history/black.html Tennessee Technological University - African-American History and Studies]
*[https://youtu.be/DfFW2QaAlI8 12 year old Ethiopian immigrant prays for President Trump]

[[Category:United States History]]
[[Category:American Civil War]]
[[Category:Slavery]]
[[Category:Black History]]
[[Category:Civil Rights]]
[[Category:The South]]
[[Category:Reconstruction]]
[[Category:Progressive Era]]
[[Category:1950s]]
[[Category:1960s]]

Mason-Dixon Line

2021-01-10T19:18:14Z

Userafw: create page

The Mason-Dixon Line, also called Mason and Dixon Line, was originally the boundary between Maryland and Pennsylvania in the United States. In the pre-Civil War period it was regarded, together with the Ohio River, as the dividing line between slave-owning states south of it and free-soil states north of it.

One difference between the slave-owning states and the free states was their dependence on the [[cotton]] [[plantation farms]] for their economy.

The term Mason and Dixon Line was first used in congressional debates leading to the Missouri Compromise (1820). Today the Mason-Dixon Line still serves figuratively as the political and social dividing line between the North and the South, although it does not extend west of the Ohio River. The Mason-Dixon line was a major boundary line in the American [[Civil War]] which ended with the [[Gettysburg Address]] by President [[Lincoln]].

Impeachment and removal

2021-01-10T19:12:03Z

Userafw:

'''Impeachment and removal''' are the two steps in taking a high [[government]] official, such as a [[President]], [[Congressman]] or a [[judge]], from his position. It is typically used in cases of [[malfeasance]] (see also [[recall election]]).

The first step, ''impeachment'', is a formal accusation by a simple majority of the [[House of Representatives]]. This vote leaves the accused in office, while he is "tried" by the [[Senate]]. A two-thirds majority vote in the Senate is necessary in order to remove someone from office.

In all of American history, "Two Presidents, one Senator, one cabinet officer, and fifteen judges have been impeached, and of those only eight judges have been convicted and removed from office."<ref name="Const Ctr">https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-ii/clauses/349</ref> Inclusion of the impeachment clause in the [[U.S. Constitution]] was supported by [[Benjamin Franklin]].

The [[United States House of Representatives]] has "sole power of impeachment." The House votes on articles of impeachment for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”<ref name="Const Ctr"/> If that passes by a simple majority, the President is not yet removed from office, until (and unless) the next step is completed.

The impeachment case is sent to the [[United States Senate]] for trial, over which the Chief Justice of the United States presides. If the Senate votes by a two-thirds majority to convict, then the person will be removed from office.

In impeachment cases against the [[President of the United States|President]], the Chief Justice of the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] shall preside.

President [[Gerald Ford]] described what an impeachable offense <ref>https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/impeachable-offenses </ref> is:
{{cquote|An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.}}

==Use in American history==

===Impeachment in 19th Century America===

By 1804, [[Thomas Jefferson|Jeffersonian]] Democratic-Republicans had control of [[Congress]] and set their sights on removing Federalist Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase. The House of Representatives impeached him, and trial began with the Senate as the jury. His prosecutor was John Randolph, a partisan Jeffersonian who was distantly related to the Federalist Chief Justice [[John Marshall]]. 25 out of 34 Senators were Jeffersonians, so conviction and removal of the Federalist Chase for his political biases seemed likely.

But the effort failed. During the trial Randolph himself criticized Jefferson over a separate issue, the infamous [[Yazoo land fraud]] in [[Georgia]], an issue that split Jeffersonians. Meanwhile, the case against Chase amounted to little more than some intemperate remarks he made while sitting as trial judge in a grand jury proceeding. The Senators were unimpressed, and at most 19/34 voted to convict on any of the charges, far short of the requisite 2/3rd.
The independence of the judiciary was established by this failed effort to remove a Supreme Court justice. However, the episode did encourage future justices not to engage directly in politics. No effort to impeach a Supreme Court justice has since made any progress.

===Andrew Johnson (1868)===
After the [[Civil War]], although the fighting between armies officially was stopped, the country remained deeply divided, with emotions running high. Nearly every family had suffered greatly or lost loved ones in the war. However, big questions remained over empowerment of recently freed slaves, and what to do with those who had engaged in rebellion against the United States.

President [[Andrew Johnson]], a Democrat elected vice president in 1864 at the height of the war on a national unity ticket with Republican [[Abraham Lincoln]], was in constant conflict with the [[Radical Republicans]] who controlled Congress. The [[media]] called Republicans "radical" because they advocated full equality and [[civil rights]] for [[blacks]], and wanted to punish Confederates and Southern slaveholders who engaged in open rebellion.

As president after Lincoln's assassination, Johnson handed out numerous [[pardon]]s to former slaveholders, Confederate officers, and the rank and file. This put him at odds with Lincoln's [[Secretary of War]], who had been confirmed by the Senate, vowing to carry out the Republicans' civil rights efforts for Blacks in occupied military districts of [[the South]] after the war.
[[File:Lynch.jpg|thumb|450px|When the Civil War ended, violence did not end. After Johnson's acquittal, Klan violence grew, targeting white Republican (yellow line) [[carpetbagger]]s first. Source: Historical Statistics of the U.S., and is based on the 1952 Negro year Book.]]
President Johnson vetoed Republican civil rights legislation and even called their leaders "traitors". Flush from winning the war, Republican Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (PA) and Sen. Charles Sumner (MA) were not about to back down on the agenda of delivering equality for former black slaves and punishing Democrats who ripped society apart and tried to destroy the Union. In 1856, shortly before the outbreak of war, Sumner delivered a speech critical of South Carolina Senator Andrew Butler, author of the [[Kansas-Nebraska Act]] which legalized [[slavery]] in Western territories north of the [[Mason-Dixon Line]]. It was symptomatic of how bad the situation in the United States had deteriorated in the debate over slavery, both North and South, among the people and their elected leaders. Butler's outraged nephew Preston Brooks beat Sumner violently with a cane on the floor of the U.S Senate.<ref>Sumner's Senate floor speech accused proponents of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of the "rape of virgin territory" by bringing slavery into Kansas. Sumner said of Butler, "The senator from South Carolina has read many books of chivalry, and believes himself a chivalrous knight with sentiments of honor and courage. Of course he has chosen a mistress to whom he has made his vows, and who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight — I mean the harlot, slavery."</ref>

When the House of Representatives impeached President Johnson by an overwhelming vote of 126 to 47, his ouster appeared to be a ''fait accompli''. President Johnson had violated the Tenure in Office Act by dismissing the Secretary of War. The key issue was if a President had the power to fire a cabinet secretary confirmed by the Senate without the Senate's consent. Johnson was also intemperate in his name-calling of key senators. In addressing the jury of 54 senators, the prosecutor referred to President Johnson as an "accidental Chief" and "the elect of an assassin." Witnesses testified for both the prosecution and the defense.

The prosecutors – called “managers” in impeachment trials – were confident of victory. Manager Thaddeus Stevens described President Johnson as the "wretched man, standing at bay, surrounded by a cordon of living men, each with the axe of an executioner uplifted for his just punishment." Manager John Bingham brought the public galleries to their feet with his oratory: "May God forbid that the future historian shall record of this day's proceedings, that by reason of the failure of the legislative power of the people to triumph over the usurpations of an apostate President, the fabric of American empire fell and perished from the earth....I ask you to consider that we stand this day pleading for the violated majesty of the law, by the graves of half a million of martyred hero-patriots who made death beautiful by the sacrifice of themselves for their country, the Constitution and the laws, and who, by their sublime example, have taught us all to obey the law; that none are above the law;... and that position, however high, [[patronage]], however powerful, cannot be permitted to shelter crime to the peril of the [[republic]]."

2/3rd vote was necessary for conviction, and it all turned on Republican Senator [[Edmund Ross]] of Kansas. Like real jurors, he spoke to no one during the proceedings and no one knew which way he was leaning. But he voted "not guilty," and President Johnson was acquitted by one vote. The Radical Republicans were defeated, the [[Ku Klux Klan]] and [[Jim Crow]] arose, and Republicans shied away from civil rights issues for the next 100 years in the face of Klan terror and media opposition. Ross was characterized as a hero in [[John F. Kennedy]]'s book ''Profiles in Courage'', for resisting Republican civil rights reform efforts for Blacks in the South,<ref>Kennedy published the book ''Profiles in Courage'' in 1956; Kennedy, a Northern Democrat, cuddled up to Southern racists and [[segregation]]ists by voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.</ref> and working with Democrats to rebuild the [[Democratic party]] after its defeat in the Civil War. Andrew Johnson did not run for re-election and died a drunk.

Later the Tenure of Office Act was repealed, and all presidential appointments - including the [[FBI]] Director and Ambassadors - now serve at the pleasure of the president and can be fired without cause at any moment.

===Richard Nixon (1974)===
Nixon came into office in 1968 burdened by a vendetta dating back to the imprisonment of [[New Deal]] golden boy [[Alger Hiss]] in 1948 and the [[Amerasia]] scandal involving the arrest of a ''[[Washington Post]]'' reporter on [[espionage]] charges.

Until 1974, no impeachment proceedings that managed to pass the first stage, the Judiciary Committee, had occurred since the Johnson trial over a hundred years earlier. At the time, congressmen and their staffs were unfamiliar with the law and proceedings involved with impeachment, and needed to research the question. Most Americans thought of impeachment as something quaint and bizarre in the history books.

The House of Representatives voted to authorize an impeachment inquiry against [[Richard M. Nixon]], on charges of obstruction of justice in connection with the Watergate affair. The Judiciary Committee was authorized by the full House to investigate allegations and subpoenaed President Nixon's secret recordings of [[Oval Office]] conversations with subordinates. Nixon resisted the subpoenas, claiming Executive privilege, and appealed to the [[Supreme Court]].

On July 27, 1974, the Committee on the Judiciary voted to recommend three articles of impeachment. The articles concerned his obstruction of justice during the Watergate investigations. When the Supreme Court ruled against Nixon's claim of Executive privilege, stating that an actual [[crime]] had been committed and Executive privilege could not be used to cover a crime, Nixon resigned. Defying a Supreme Court order would certainly constitute a high crime and impeachable offense. Nixon resigned from the presidency on August 9, 1974, after key Congressional allies told him his fate was all but assured. Thus, Nixon was never actually impeached by a vote of the full House.

===Bill Clinton (1998)===
[[File:Harvey-weinstein-Hillary-clinton-dinner-with-after-election-loss (2).jpg|right|200px|thumb|First Lady [[Hillary Clinton]] dining with [[Harvey Weinstein]]. Hillary served on the staff of the 1974 Watergate impeachment committee. Weinstein donated to the Clinton Legal Defense Fund in 1998.<ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/starr082298.htm</ref> In 2018 Weinstein was tried on rape and [[sexual assault]] charges involving more than 80 victims dating back twenty years.<ref>https://www.businessinsider.com/list-of-women-who-have-accused-harvey-weinstein-of-sexual-harassment-or-assault-2017-10</ref>]]
President [[Bill Clinton]] was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, on charges of [[perjury]] and [[obstruction of justice]] relating to testimony he had given in a [[civil lawsuit]] a former Arkansas government employee had brought for [[sexual harassment]]. Perjury before the federal judiciary is a criminal offense. He was acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999, on a party-line vote.

President Clinton was doing well in the polls and ready to pick his successor for the White House by late 1998. His leadership enabled the Democratic Party to do surprisingly well in the mid-term elections, and President Clinton was seeking to leave a lasting legacy.

The House of Representatives impeached him for making false statements under oath, which is perjury, and trial was scheduled for the Senate in 1999. [[First Lady Hillary Clinton]] accused her opponents of being part of a "vast right-wing [[conspiracy]]" against her husband. House impeachment managers introduced witness depositions, including credible evidence from a Jane Doe #5 ([[Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Rape_allegations|Juanita Brodderick]]) that Bill Clinton had [[rape]]d her. Democratic Senators all lined up behind President Clinton, promising to vote for acquittal.

Republicans enjoyed a majority in the Senate but lacked votes anywhere close to the requisite 2/3rd majority to convict. President Clinton was a lame-duck at that point anyway, and the real battle was over his ability to influence politics beyond his term.

The managers of the impeachment presented their case, but the Senate prevented them from calling key witnesses such as Clinton's closest aides. The procedural rules hamstrung the trial and served to protect the president. Without the presentation of the full case, President Clinton easily survived the final vote. Democrats established a precedent in the impeachment process that rape allegations and perjury before a federal judge do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense as a high crime and misdemeanor.

But the victory was Pyrrhic. The Democratic presidential nominee in 2000, [[Al Gore]], felt he had to distance himself from Clinton and that probably made the difference on Election Day. Since then, Clinton has had little success in campaigning for candidates, failing with Governor Gray Davis in California in the recall. Hillary Clinton, pollsters choice to run in 2004, apparently felt it was too soon to make an attempt. The political ramifications of the impeachment trial continue.

===Donald Trump (2019)===
[[File:Adolf Romney.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Democrat hero 'Adolf Romney' was the lone hold out among Republicans.<ref>https://www.salon.com/2012/10/16/nine_most_racist_moments_of_the_2012_election/</ref>]]
Democrats had failed to gain authority from a vote of the full House to begin an impeachment investigation and designate a committee of jurisdiction with [[subpoena]] power to override administration claims of [[Executive privilege]]. Article I Section 4 of the Constitution grants the sole power of impeachment to the House, and not to an individual member such as the Speaker to declare an "impeachment inquiry" by proclamation. Without authorization by a vote of the full House, the so-called "impeachment inquiry" committees are limited to their regular oversight function and lack judicial enforcement of subpoenas to override Executive privilege in their "impeachment inquiry".

Despite the absence of legal authority from the full House, [[Speaker Nancy Pelosi]] designated [[House Intelligence Committee]] chairman [[Adam Schiff]] to conduct an investigation behind closed doors. An anonymous accuser came forward with third hand [[hearsay]] alleging the President had engaged in a ''[[quid pro quo]]'' with the Ukrainian president in exchange for arms and aid. In an unprecedented action, the president was not allowed counsel and the minority was denied rebuttal witnesses and independent [[cross-examination]] of disgruntled [[Administrative state|civil servant]]s. Neither committee, not the Judiciary Committee nor the Intelligence Committee, was ever authorized by a Resolution of the full House to conduct an impeachment inquiry and gather evidence.

The Judiciary Committee of the [[House of Representatives]] voted on Friday, 13th of December 2019, to approve two articles of impeachment against President [[Donald Trump]] based on the findings of Schiff's committee. No actual crime was alleged in either article. The articles were approved by a partisan vote of the full House, with bi-partisan opposition. One Democrat House member switched parties after the Democratic House's naked abuse of power.

The Senate ultimately rejected the claim of Obstruction of Congress based on violations of the [[due process]] rights of the accused and lack of authority in the sham impeachment "investigation." As to the Abuse of Power article, Senators determined President Trump acted properly while combating corruption. He was acquitted on February 5, 2020.

==Popular usage==

In colloquial English, speakers frequently fail to distinguish between the accusation by the House, and the (possible) subsequent removal by the Senate. Thus when someone says, "That official was impeached," you may not know whether they meant ''charged but not convicted'' or ''removed from office''.

Two US presidents have been ''impeached'' but neither was removed from office.

==See also==
*[[Impeachment 2.0]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:United States Politics]]
[[Category:United States History]]

Impeachment and removal

2021-01-10T19:10:57Z

Userafw: cite sources

'''Impeachment and removal''' are the two steps in taking a high [[government]] official, such as a [[President]], [[Congressman]] or a [[judge]], from his position. It is typically used in cases of [[malfeasance]] (see also [[recall election]]).

The first step, ''impeachment'', is a formal accusation by a simple majority of the [[House of Representatives]]. This vote leaves the accused in office, while he is "tried" by the [[Senate]]. A two-thirds majority vote in the Senate is necessary in order to remove someone from office.

In all of American history, "Two Presidents, one Senator, one cabinet officer, and fifteen judges have been impeached, and of those only eight judges have been convicted and removed from office."<ref name="Const Ctr">https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-ii/clauses/349</ref> Inclusion of the impeachment clause in the [[U.S. Constitution]] was supported by [[Benjamin Franklin]].

The [[United States House of Representatives]] has "sole power of impeachment." The House votes on articles of impeachment for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”<ref name="Const Ctr"/> If that passes by a simple majority, the President is not yet removed from office, until (and unless) the next step is completed.

The impeachment case is sent to the [[United States Senate]] for trial, over which the Chief Justice of the United States presides. If the Senate votes by a two-thirds majority to convict, then the person will be removed from office.

In impeachment cases against the [[President of the United States|President]], the Chief Justice of the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] shall preside.

President [[Gerald Ford]] described what an impeachable offense is:
{{cquote|An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.}} <ref>https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/impeachable-offenses </ref>

==Use in American history==

===Impeachment in 19th Century America===

By 1804, [[Thomas Jefferson|Jeffersonian]] Democratic-Republicans had control of [[Congress]] and set their sights on removing Federalist Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase. The House of Representatives impeached him, and trial began with the Senate as the jury. His prosecutor was John Randolph, a partisan Jeffersonian who was distantly related to the Federalist Chief Justice [[John Marshall]]. 25 out of 34 Senators were Jeffersonians, so conviction and removal of the Federalist Chase for his political biases seemed likely.

But the effort failed. During the trial Randolph himself criticized Jefferson over a separate issue, the infamous [[Yazoo land fraud]] in [[Georgia]], an issue that split Jeffersonians. Meanwhile, the case against Chase amounted to little more than some intemperate remarks he made while sitting as trial judge in a grand jury proceeding. The Senators were unimpressed, and at most 19/34 voted to convict on any of the charges, far short of the requisite 2/3rd.
The independence of the judiciary was established by this failed effort to remove a Supreme Court justice. However, the episode did encourage future justices not to engage directly in politics. No effort to impeach a Supreme Court justice has since made any progress.

===Andrew Johnson (1868)===
After the [[Civil War]], although the fighting between armies officially was stopped, the country remained deeply divided, with emotions running high. Nearly every family had suffered greatly or lost loved ones in the war. However, big questions remained over empowerment of recently freed slaves, and what to do with those who had engaged in rebellion against the United States.

President [[Andrew Johnson]], a Democrat elected vice president in 1864 at the height of the war on a national unity ticket with Republican [[Abraham Lincoln]], was in constant conflict with the [[Radical Republicans]] who controlled Congress. The [[media]] called Republicans "radical" because they advocated full equality and [[civil rights]] for [[blacks]], and wanted to punish Confederates and Southern slaveholders who engaged in open rebellion.

As president after Lincoln's assassination, Johnson handed out numerous [[pardon]]s to former slaveholders, Confederate officers, and the rank and file. This put him at odds with Lincoln's [[Secretary of War]], who had been confirmed by the Senate, vowing to carry out the Republicans' civil rights efforts for Blacks in occupied military districts of [[the South]] after the war.
[[File:Lynch.jpg|thumb|450px|When the Civil War ended, violence did not end. After Johnson's acquittal, Klan violence grew, targeting white Republican (yellow line) [[carpetbagger]]s first. Source: Historical Statistics of the U.S., and is based on the 1952 Negro year Book.]]
President Johnson vetoed Republican civil rights legislation and even called their leaders "traitors". Flush from winning the war, Republican Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (PA) and Sen. Charles Sumner (MA) were not about to back down on the agenda of delivering equality for former black slaves and punishing Democrats who ripped society apart and tried to destroy the Union. In 1856, shortly before the outbreak of war, Sumner delivered a speech critical of South Carolina Senator Andrew Butler, author of the [[Kansas-Nebraska Act]] which legalized [[slavery]] in Western territories north of the [[Mason-Dixon Line]]. It was symptomatic of how bad the situation in the United States had deteriorated in the debate over slavery, both North and South, among the people and their elected leaders. Butler's outraged nephew Preston Brooks beat Sumner violently with a cane on the floor of the U.S Senate.<ref>Sumner's Senate floor speech accused proponents of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of the "rape of virgin territory" by bringing slavery into Kansas. Sumner said of Butler, "The senator from South Carolina has read many books of chivalry, and believes himself a chivalrous knight with sentiments of honor and courage. Of course he has chosen a mistress to whom he has made his vows, and who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight — I mean the harlot, slavery."</ref>

When the House of Representatives impeached President Johnson by an overwhelming vote of 126 to 47, his ouster appeared to be a ''fait accompli''. President Johnson had violated the Tenure in Office Act by dismissing the Secretary of War. The key issue was if a President had the power to fire a cabinet secretary confirmed by the Senate without the Senate's consent. Johnson was also intemperate in his name-calling of key senators. In addressing the jury of 54 senators, the prosecutor referred to President Johnson as an "accidental Chief" and "the elect of an assassin." Witnesses testified for both the prosecution and the defense.

The prosecutors – called “managers” in impeachment trials – were confident of victory. Manager Thaddeus Stevens described President Johnson as the "wretched man, standing at bay, surrounded by a cordon of living men, each with the axe of an executioner uplifted for his just punishment." Manager John Bingham brought the public galleries to their feet with his oratory: "May God forbid that the future historian shall record of this day's proceedings, that by reason of the failure of the legislative power of the people to triumph over the usurpations of an apostate President, the fabric of American empire fell and perished from the earth....I ask you to consider that we stand this day pleading for the violated majesty of the law, by the graves of half a million of martyred hero-patriots who made death beautiful by the sacrifice of themselves for their country, the Constitution and the laws, and who, by their sublime example, have taught us all to obey the law; that none are above the law;... and that position, however high, [[patronage]], however powerful, cannot be permitted to shelter crime to the peril of the [[republic]]."

2/3rd vote was necessary for conviction, and it all turned on Republican Senator [[Edmund Ross]] of Kansas. Like real jurors, he spoke to no one during the proceedings and no one knew which way he was leaning. But he voted "not guilty," and President Johnson was acquitted by one vote. The Radical Republicans were defeated, the [[Ku Klux Klan]] and [[Jim Crow]] arose, and Republicans shied away from civil rights issues for the next 100 years in the face of Klan terror and media opposition. Ross was characterized as a hero in [[John F. Kennedy]]'s book ''Profiles in Courage'', for resisting Republican civil rights reform efforts for Blacks in the South,<ref>Kennedy published the book ''Profiles in Courage'' in 1956; Kennedy, a Northern Democrat, cuddled up to Southern racists and [[segregation]]ists by voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.</ref> and working with Democrats to rebuild the [[Democratic party]] after its defeat in the Civil War. Andrew Johnson did not run for re-election and died a drunk.

Later the Tenure of Office Act was repealed, and all presidential appointments - including the [[FBI]] Director and Ambassadors - now serve at the pleasure of the president and can be fired without cause at any moment.

===Richard Nixon (1974)===
Nixon came into office in 1968 burdened by a vendetta dating back to the imprisonment of [[New Deal]] golden boy [[Alger Hiss]] in 1948 and the [[Amerasia]] scandal involving the arrest of a ''[[Washington Post]]'' reporter on [[espionage]] charges.

Until 1974, no impeachment proceedings that managed to pass the first stage, the Judiciary Committee, had occurred since the Johnson trial over a hundred years earlier. At the time, congressmen and their staffs were unfamiliar with the law and proceedings involved with impeachment, and needed to research the question. Most Americans thought of impeachment as something quaint and bizarre in the history books.

The House of Representatives voted to authorize an impeachment inquiry against [[Richard M. Nixon]], on charges of obstruction of justice in connection with the Watergate affair. The Judiciary Committee was authorized by the full House to investigate allegations and subpoenaed President Nixon's secret recordings of [[Oval Office]] conversations with subordinates. Nixon resisted the subpoenas, claiming Executive privilege, and appealed to the [[Supreme Court]].

On July 27, 1974, the Committee on the Judiciary voted to recommend three articles of impeachment. The articles concerned his obstruction of justice during the Watergate investigations. When the Supreme Court ruled against Nixon's claim of Executive privilege, stating that an actual [[crime]] had been committed and Executive privilege could not be used to cover a crime, Nixon resigned. Defying a Supreme Court order would certainly constitute a high crime and impeachable offense. Nixon resigned from the presidency on August 9, 1974, after key Congressional allies told him his fate was all but assured. Thus, Nixon was never actually impeached by a vote of the full House.

===Bill Clinton (1998)===
[[File:Harvey-weinstein-Hillary-clinton-dinner-with-after-election-loss (2).jpg|right|200px|thumb|First Lady [[Hillary Clinton]] dining with [[Harvey Weinstein]]. Hillary served on the staff of the 1974 Watergate impeachment committee. Weinstein donated to the Clinton Legal Defense Fund in 1998.<ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/starr082298.htm</ref> In 2018 Weinstein was tried on rape and [[sexual assault]] charges involving more than 80 victims dating back twenty years.<ref>https://www.businessinsider.com/list-of-women-who-have-accused-harvey-weinstein-of-sexual-harassment-or-assault-2017-10</ref>]]
President [[Bill Clinton]] was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, on charges of [[perjury]] and [[obstruction of justice]] relating to testimony he had given in a [[civil lawsuit]] a former Arkansas government employee had brought for [[sexual harassment]]. Perjury before the federal judiciary is a criminal offense. He was acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999, on a party-line vote.

President Clinton was doing well in the polls and ready to pick his successor for the White House by late 1998. His leadership enabled the Democratic Party to do surprisingly well in the mid-term elections, and President Clinton was seeking to leave a lasting legacy.

The House of Representatives impeached him for making false statements under oath, which is perjury, and trial was scheduled for the Senate in 1999. [[First Lady Hillary Clinton]] accused her opponents of being part of a "vast right-wing [[conspiracy]]" against her husband. House impeachment managers introduced witness depositions, including credible evidence from a Jane Doe #5 ([[Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Rape_allegations|Juanita Brodderick]]) that Bill Clinton had [[rape]]d her. Democratic Senators all lined up behind President Clinton, promising to vote for acquittal.

Republicans enjoyed a majority in the Senate but lacked votes anywhere close to the requisite 2/3rd majority to convict. President Clinton was a lame-duck at that point anyway, and the real battle was over his ability to influence politics beyond his term.

The managers of the impeachment presented their case, but the Senate prevented them from calling key witnesses such as Clinton's closest aides. The procedural rules hamstrung the trial and served to protect the president. Without the presentation of the full case, President Clinton easily survived the final vote. Democrats established a precedent in the impeachment process that rape allegations and perjury before a federal judge do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense as a high crime and misdemeanor.

But the victory was Pyrrhic. The Democratic presidential nominee in 2000, [[Al Gore]], felt he had to distance himself from Clinton and that probably made the difference on Election Day. Since then, Clinton has had little success in campaigning for candidates, failing with Governor Gray Davis in California in the recall. Hillary Clinton, pollsters choice to run in 2004, apparently felt it was too soon to make an attempt. The political ramifications of the impeachment trial continue.

===Donald Trump (2019)===
[[File:Adolf Romney.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Democrat hero 'Adolf Romney' was the lone hold out among Republicans.<ref>https://www.salon.com/2012/10/16/nine_most_racist_moments_of_the_2012_election/</ref>]]
Democrats had failed to gain authority from a vote of the full House to begin an impeachment investigation and designate a committee of jurisdiction with [[subpoena]] power to override administration claims of [[Executive privilege]]. Article I Section 4 of the Constitution grants the sole power of impeachment to the House, and not to an individual member such as the Speaker to declare an "impeachment inquiry" by proclamation. Without authorization by a vote of the full House, the so-called "impeachment inquiry" committees are limited to their regular oversight function and lack judicial enforcement of subpoenas to override Executive privilege in their "impeachment inquiry".

Despite the absence of legal authority from the full House, [[Speaker Nancy Pelosi]] designated [[House Intelligence Committee]] chairman [[Adam Schiff]] to conduct an investigation behind closed doors. An anonymous accuser came forward with third hand [[hearsay]] alleging the President had engaged in a ''[[quid pro quo]]'' with the Ukrainian president in exchange for arms and aid. In an unprecedented action, the president was not allowed counsel and the minority was denied rebuttal witnesses and independent [[cross-examination]] of disgruntled [[Administrative state|civil servant]]s. Neither committee, not the Judiciary Committee nor the Intelligence Committee, was ever authorized by a Resolution of the full House to conduct an impeachment inquiry and gather evidence.

The Judiciary Committee of the [[House of Representatives]] voted on Friday, 13th of December 2019, to approve two articles of impeachment against President [[Donald Trump]] based on the findings of Schiff's committee. No actual crime was alleged in either article. The articles were approved by a partisan vote of the full House, with bi-partisan opposition. One Democrat House member switched parties after the Democratic House's naked abuse of power.

The Senate ultimately rejected the claim of Obstruction of Congress based on violations of the [[due process]] rights of the accused and lack of authority in the sham impeachment "investigation." As to the Abuse of Power article, Senators determined President Trump acted properly while combating corruption. He was acquitted on February 5, 2020.

==Popular usage==

In colloquial English, speakers frequently fail to distinguish between the accusation by the House, and the (possible) subsequent removal by the Senate. Thus when someone says, "That official was impeached," you may not know whether they meant ''charged but not convicted'' or ''removed from office''.

Two US presidents have been ''impeached'' but neither was removed from office.

==See also==
*[[Impeachment 2.0]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:United States Politics]]
[[Category:United States History]]

Impeachment and removal

2021-01-10T19:08:47Z

Userafw: capitalization

'''Impeachment and removal''' are the two steps in taking a high [[government]] official, such as a [[President]], [[Congressman]] or a [[judge]], from his position. It is typically used in cases of [[malfeasance]] (see also [[recall election]]).

The first step, ''impeachment'', is a formal accusation by a simple majority of the [[House of Representatives]]. This vote leaves the accused in office, while he is "tried" by the [[Senate]]. A two-thirds majority vote in the Senate is necessary in order to remove someone from office.

In all of American history, "Two Presidents, one Senator, one cabinet officer, and fifteen judges have been impeached, and of those only eight judges have been convicted and removed from office."<ref name="Const Ctr">https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-ii/clauses/349</ref> Inclusion of the impeachment clause in the [[U.S. Constitution]] was supported by [[Benjamin Franklin]].

The [[United States House of Representatives]] has "sole power of impeachment." The House votes on articles of impeachment for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”<ref name="Const Ctr"/> If that passes by a simple majority, the President is not yet removed from office, until (and unless) the next step is completed.

The impeachment case is sent to the [[United States Senate]] for trial, over which the Chief Justice of the United States presides. If the Senate votes by a two-thirds majority to convict, then the person will be removed from office.

In impeachment cases against the [[President of the United States|President]], the Chief Justice of the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] shall preside.

President [[Gerald Ford]] described what an impeachable offense is:
{{cquote|An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.}}

==Use in American history==

===Impeachment in 19th Century America===

By 1804, [[Thomas Jefferson|Jeffersonian]] Democratic-Republicans had control of [[Congress]] and set their sights on removing Federalist Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase. The House of Representatives impeached him, and trial began with the Senate as the jury. His prosecutor was John Randolph, a partisan Jeffersonian who was distantly related to the Federalist Chief Justice [[John Marshall]]. 25 out of 34 Senators were Jeffersonians, so conviction and removal of the Federalist Chase for his political biases seemed likely.

But the effort failed. During the trial Randolph himself criticized Jefferson over a separate issue, the infamous [[Yazoo land fraud]] in [[Georgia]], an issue that split Jeffersonians. Meanwhile, the case against Chase amounted to little more than some intemperate remarks he made while sitting as trial judge in a grand jury proceeding. The Senators were unimpressed, and at most 19/34 voted to convict on any of the charges, far short of the requisite 2/3rd.
The independence of the judiciary was established by this failed effort to remove a Supreme Court justice. However, the episode did encourage future justices not to engage directly in politics. No effort to impeach a Supreme Court justice has since made any progress.

===Andrew Johnson (1868)===
After the [[Civil War]], although the fighting between armies officially was stopped, the country remained deeply divided, with emotions running high. Nearly every family had suffered greatly or lost loved ones in the war. However, big questions remained over empowerment of recently freed slaves, and what to do with those who had engaged in rebellion against the United States.

President [[Andrew Johnson]], a Democrat elected vice president in 1864 at the height of the war on a national unity ticket with Republican [[Abraham Lincoln]], was in constant conflict with the [[Radical Republicans]] who controlled Congress. The [[media]] called Republicans "radical" because they advocated full equality and [[civil rights]] for [[blacks]], and wanted to punish Confederates and Southern slaveholders who engaged in open rebellion.

As president after Lincoln's assassination, Johnson handed out numerous [[pardon]]s to former slaveholders, Confederate officers, and the rank and file. This put him at odds with Lincoln's [[Secretary of War]], who had been confirmed by the Senate, vowing to carry out the Republicans' civil rights efforts for Blacks in occupied military districts of [[the South]] after the war.
[[File:Lynch.jpg|thumb|450px|When the Civil War ended, violence did not end. After Johnson's acquittal, Klan violence grew, targeting white Republican (yellow line) [[carpetbagger]]s first. Source: Historical Statistics of the U.S., and is based on the 1952 Negro year Book.]]
President Johnson vetoed Republican civil rights legislation and even called their leaders "traitors". Flush from winning the war, Republican Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (PA) and Sen. Charles Sumner (MA) were not about to back down on the agenda of delivering equality for former black slaves and punishing Democrats who ripped society apart and tried to destroy the Union. In 1856, shortly before the outbreak of war, Sumner delivered a speech critical of South Carolina Senator Andrew Butler, author of the [[Kansas-Nebraska Act]] which legalized [[slavery]] in Western territories north of the [[Mason-Dixon Line]]. It was symptomatic of how bad the situation in the United States had deteriorated in the debate over slavery, both North and South, among the people and their elected leaders. Butler's outraged nephew Preston Brooks beat Sumner violently with a cane on the floor of the U.S Senate.<ref>Sumner's Senate floor speech accused proponents of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of the "rape of virgin territory" by bringing slavery into Kansas. Sumner said of Butler, "The senator from South Carolina has read many books of chivalry, and believes himself a chivalrous knight with sentiments of honor and courage. Of course he has chosen a mistress to whom he has made his vows, and who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight — I mean the harlot, slavery."</ref>

When the House of Representatives impeached President Johnson by an overwhelming vote of 126 to 47, his ouster appeared to be a ''fait accompli''. President Johnson had violated the Tenure in Office Act by dismissing the Secretary of War. The key issue was if a President had the power to fire a cabinet secretary confirmed by the Senate without the Senate's consent. Johnson was also intemperate in his name-calling of key senators. In addressing the jury of 54 senators, the prosecutor referred to President Johnson as an "accidental Chief" and "the elect of an assassin." Witnesses testified for both the prosecution and the defense.

The prosecutors – called “managers” in impeachment trials – were confident of victory. Manager Thaddeus Stevens described President Johnson as the "wretched man, standing at bay, surrounded by a cordon of living men, each with the axe of an executioner uplifted for his just punishment." Manager John Bingham brought the public galleries to their feet with his oratory: "May God forbid that the future historian shall record of this day's proceedings, that by reason of the failure of the legislative power of the people to triumph over the usurpations of an apostate President, the fabric of American empire fell and perished from the earth....I ask you to consider that we stand this day pleading for the violated majesty of the law, by the graves of half a million of martyred hero-patriots who made death beautiful by the sacrifice of themselves for their country, the Constitution and the laws, and who, by their sublime example, have taught us all to obey the law; that none are above the law;... and that position, however high, [[patronage]], however powerful, cannot be permitted to shelter crime to the peril of the [[republic]]."

2/3rd vote was necessary for conviction, and it all turned on Republican Senator [[Edmund Ross]] of Kansas. Like real jurors, he spoke to no one during the proceedings and no one knew which way he was leaning. But he voted "not guilty," and President Johnson was acquitted by one vote. The Radical Republicans were defeated, the [[Ku Klux Klan]] and [[Jim Crow]] arose, and Republicans shied away from civil rights issues for the next 100 years in the face of Klan terror and media opposition. Ross was characterized as a hero in [[John F. Kennedy]]'s book ''Profiles in Courage'', for resisting Republican civil rights reform efforts for Blacks in the South,<ref>Kennedy published the book ''Profiles in Courage'' in 1956; Kennedy, a Northern Democrat, cuddled up to Southern racists and [[segregation]]ists by voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.</ref> and working with Democrats to rebuild the [[Democratic party]] after its defeat in the Civil War. Andrew Johnson did not run for re-election and died a drunk.

Later the Tenure of Office Act was repealed, and all presidential appointments - including the [[FBI]] Director and Ambassadors - now serve at the pleasure of the president and can be fired without cause at any moment.

===Richard Nixon (1974)===
Nixon came into office in 1968 burdened by a vendetta dating back to the imprisonment of [[New Deal]] golden boy [[Alger Hiss]] in 1948 and the [[Amerasia]] scandal involving the arrest of a ''[[Washington Post]]'' reporter on [[espionage]] charges.

Until 1974, no impeachment proceedings that managed to pass the first stage, the Judiciary Committee, had occurred since the Johnson trial over a hundred years earlier. At the time, congressmen and their staffs were unfamiliar with the law and proceedings involved with impeachment, and needed to research the question. Most Americans thought of impeachment as something quaint and bizarre in the history books.

The House of Representatives voted to authorize an impeachment inquiry against [[Richard M. Nixon]], on charges of obstruction of justice in connection with the Watergate affair. The Judiciary Committee was authorized by the full House to investigate allegations and subpoenaed President Nixon's secret recordings of [[Oval Office]] conversations with subordinates. Nixon resisted the subpoenas, claiming Executive privilege, and appealed to the [[Supreme Court]].

On July 27, 1974, the Committee on the Judiciary voted to recommend three articles of impeachment. The articles concerned his obstruction of justice during the Watergate investigations. When the Supreme Court ruled against Nixon's claim of Executive privilege, stating that an actual [[crime]] had been committed and Executive privilege could not be used to cover a crime, Nixon resigned. Defying a Supreme Court order would certainly constitute a high crime and impeachable offense. Nixon resigned from the presidency on August 9, 1974, after key Congressional allies told him his fate was all but assured. Thus, Nixon was never actually impeached by a vote of the full House.

===Bill Clinton (1998)===
[[File:Harvey-weinstein-Hillary-clinton-dinner-with-after-election-loss (2).jpg|right|200px|thumb|First Lady [[Hillary Clinton]] dining with [[Harvey Weinstein]]. Hillary served on the staff of the 1974 Watergate impeachment committee. Weinstein donated to the Clinton Legal Defense Fund in 1998.<ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/starr082298.htm</ref> In 2018 Weinstein was tried on rape and [[sexual assault]] charges involving more than 80 victims dating back twenty years.<ref>https://www.businessinsider.com/list-of-women-who-have-accused-harvey-weinstein-of-sexual-harassment-or-assault-2017-10</ref>]]
President [[Bill Clinton]] was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, on charges of [[perjury]] and [[obstruction of justice]] relating to testimony he had given in a [[civil lawsuit]] a former Arkansas government employee had brought for [[sexual harassment]]. Perjury before the federal judiciary is a criminal offense. He was acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999, on a party-line vote.

President Clinton was doing well in the polls and ready to pick his successor for the White House by late 1998. His leadership enabled the Democratic Party to do surprisingly well in the mid-term elections, and President Clinton was seeking to leave a lasting legacy.

The House of Representatives impeached him for making false statements under oath, which is perjury, and trial was scheduled for the Senate in 1999. [[First Lady Hillary Clinton]] accused her opponents of being part of a "vast right-wing [[conspiracy]]" against her husband. House impeachment managers introduced witness depositions, including credible evidence from a Jane Doe #5 ([[Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Rape_allegations|Juanita Brodderick]]) that Bill Clinton had [[rape]]d her. Democratic Senators all lined up behind President Clinton, promising to vote for acquittal.

Republicans enjoyed a majority in the Senate but lacked votes anywhere close to the requisite 2/3rd majority to convict. President Clinton was a lame-duck at that point anyway, and the real battle was over his ability to influence politics beyond his term.

The managers of the impeachment presented their case, but the Senate prevented them from calling key witnesses such as Clinton's closest aides. The procedural rules hamstrung the trial and served to protect the president. Without the presentation of the full case, President Clinton easily survived the final vote. Democrats established a precedent in the impeachment process that rape allegations and perjury before a federal judge do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense as a high crime and misdemeanor.

But the victory was Pyrrhic. The Democratic presidential nominee in 2000, [[Al Gore]], felt he had to distance himself from Clinton and that probably made the difference on Election Day. Since then, Clinton has had little success in campaigning for candidates, failing with Governor Gray Davis in California in the recall. Hillary Clinton, pollsters choice to run in 2004, apparently felt it was too soon to make an attempt. The political ramifications of the impeachment trial continue.

===Donald Trump (2019)===
[[File:Adolf Romney.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Democrat hero 'Adolf Romney' was the lone hold out among Republicans.<ref>https://www.salon.com/2012/10/16/nine_most_racist_moments_of_the_2012_election/</ref>]]
Democrats had failed to gain authority from a vote of the full House to begin an impeachment investigation and designate a committee of jurisdiction with [[subpoena]] power to override administration claims of [[Executive privilege]]. Article I Section 4 of the Constitution grants the sole power of impeachment to the House, and not to an individual member such as the Speaker to declare an "impeachment inquiry" by proclamation. Without authorization by a vote of the full House, the so-called "impeachment inquiry" committees are limited to their regular oversight function and lack judicial enforcement of subpoenas to override Executive privilege in their "impeachment inquiry".

Despite the absence of legal authority from the full House, [[Speaker Nancy Pelosi]] designated [[House Intelligence Committee]] chairman [[Adam Schiff]] to conduct an investigation behind closed doors. An anonymous accuser came forward with third hand [[hearsay]] alleging the President had engaged in a ''[[quid pro quo]]'' with the Ukrainian president in exchange for arms and aid. In an unprecedented action, the president was not allowed counsel and the minority was denied rebuttal witnesses and independent [[cross-examination]] of disgruntled [[Administrative state|civil servant]]s. Neither committee, not the Judiciary Committee nor the Intelligence Committee, was ever authorized by a Resolution of the full House to conduct an impeachment inquiry and gather evidence.

The Judiciary Committee of the [[House of Representatives]] voted on Friday, 13th of December 2019, to approve two articles of impeachment against President [[Donald Trump]] based on the findings of Schiff's committee. No actual crime was alleged in either article. The articles were approved by a partisan vote of the full House, with bi-partisan opposition. One Democrat House member switched parties after the Democratic House's naked abuse of power.

The Senate ultimately rejected the claim of Obstruction of Congress based on violations of the [[due process]] rights of the accused and lack of authority in the sham impeachment "investigation." As to the Abuse of Power article, Senators determined President Trump acted properly while combating corruption. He was acquitted on February 5, 2020.

==Popular usage==

In colloquial English, speakers frequently fail to distinguish between the accusation by the House, and the (possible) subsequent removal by the Senate. Thus when someone says, "That official was impeached," you may not know whether they meant ''charged but not convicted'' or ''removed from office''.

Two US presidents have been ''impeached'' but neither was removed from office.

==See also==
*[[Impeachment 2.0]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:United States Politics]]
[[Category:United States History]]

Impeachment and removal

2021-01-10T19:08:12Z

Userafw: Congressional officials may also be impeached, including for accepting bribes.

'''Impeachment and removal''' are the two steps in taking a high [[government]] official, such as a [[president]], [[Congressman]] or a [[judge]], from his position. It is typically used in cases of [[malfeasance]] (see also [[recall election]]).

The first step, ''impeachment'', is a formal accusation by a simple majority of the [[House of Representatives]]. This vote leaves the accused in office, while he is "tried" by the [[Senate]]. A two-thirds majority vote in the Senate is necessary in order to remove someone from office.

In all of American history, "Two Presidents, one Senator, one cabinet officer, and fifteen judges have been impeached, and of those only eight judges have been convicted and removed from office."<ref name="Const Ctr">https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-ii/clauses/349</ref> Inclusion of the impeachment clause in the [[U.S. Constitution]] was supported by [[Benjamin Franklin]].

The [[United States House of Representatives]] has "sole power of impeachment." The House votes on articles of impeachment for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”<ref name="Const Ctr"/> If that passes by a simple majority, the President is not yet removed from office, until (and unless) the next step is completed.

The impeachment case is sent to the [[United States Senate]] for trial, over which the Chief Justice of the United States presides. If the Senate votes by a two-thirds majority to convict, then the person will be removed from office.

In impeachment cases against the [[President of the United States|President]], the Chief Justice of the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] shall preside.

President [[Gerald Ford]] described what an impeachable offense is:
{{cquote|An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.}}

==Use in American history==

===Impeachment in 19th Century America===

By 1804, [[Thomas Jefferson|Jeffersonian]] Democratic-Republicans had control of [[Congress]] and set their sights on removing Federalist Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase. The House of Representatives impeached him, and trial began with the Senate as the jury. His prosecutor was John Randolph, a partisan Jeffersonian who was distantly related to the Federalist Chief Justice [[John Marshall]]. 25 out of 34 Senators were Jeffersonians, so conviction and removal of the Federalist Chase for his political biases seemed likely.

But the effort failed. During the trial Randolph himself criticized Jefferson over a separate issue, the infamous [[Yazoo land fraud]] in [[Georgia]], an issue that split Jeffersonians. Meanwhile, the case against Chase amounted to little more than some intemperate remarks he made while sitting as trial judge in a grand jury proceeding. The Senators were unimpressed, and at most 19/34 voted to convict on any of the charges, far short of the requisite 2/3rd.
The independence of the judiciary was established by this failed effort to remove a Supreme Court justice. However, the episode did encourage future justices not to engage directly in politics. No effort to impeach a Supreme Court justice has since made any progress.

===Andrew Johnson (1868)===
After the [[Civil War]], although the fighting between armies officially was stopped, the country remained deeply divided, with emotions running high. Nearly every family had suffered greatly or lost loved ones in the war. However, big questions remained over empowerment of recently freed slaves, and what to do with those who had engaged in rebellion against the United States.

President [[Andrew Johnson]], a Democrat elected vice president in 1864 at the height of the war on a national unity ticket with Republican [[Abraham Lincoln]], was in constant conflict with the [[Radical Republicans]] who controlled Congress. The [[media]] called Republicans "radical" because they advocated full equality and [[civil rights]] for [[blacks]], and wanted to punish Confederates and Southern slaveholders who engaged in open rebellion.

As president after Lincoln's assassination, Johnson handed out numerous [[pardon]]s to former slaveholders, Confederate officers, and the rank and file. This put him at odds with Lincoln's [[Secretary of War]], who had been confirmed by the Senate, vowing to carry out the Republicans' civil rights efforts for Blacks in occupied military districts of [[the South]] after the war.
[[File:Lynch.jpg|thumb|450px|When the Civil War ended, violence did not end. After Johnson's acquittal, Klan violence grew, targeting white Republican (yellow line) [[carpetbagger]]s first. Source: Historical Statistics of the U.S., and is based on the 1952 Negro year Book.]]
President Johnson vetoed Republican civil rights legislation and even called their leaders "traitors". Flush from winning the war, Republican Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (PA) and Sen. Charles Sumner (MA) were not about to back down on the agenda of delivering equality for former black slaves and punishing Democrats who ripped society apart and tried to destroy the Union. In 1856, shortly before the outbreak of war, Sumner delivered a speech critical of South Carolina Senator Andrew Butler, author of the [[Kansas-Nebraska Act]] which legalized [[slavery]] in Western territories north of the [[Mason-Dixon Line]]. It was symptomatic of how bad the situation in the United States had deteriorated in the debate over slavery, both North and South, among the people and their elected leaders. Butler's outraged nephew Preston Brooks beat Sumner violently with a cane on the floor of the U.S Senate.<ref>Sumner's Senate floor speech accused proponents of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of the "rape of virgin territory" by bringing slavery into Kansas. Sumner said of Butler, "The senator from South Carolina has read many books of chivalry, and believes himself a chivalrous knight with sentiments of honor and courage. Of course he has chosen a mistress to whom he has made his vows, and who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight — I mean the harlot, slavery."</ref>

When the House of Representatives impeached President Johnson by an overwhelming vote of 126 to 47, his ouster appeared to be a ''fait accompli''. President Johnson had violated the Tenure in Office Act by dismissing the Secretary of War. The key issue was if a President had the power to fire a cabinet secretary confirmed by the Senate without the Senate's consent. Johnson was also intemperate in his name-calling of key senators. In addressing the jury of 54 senators, the prosecutor referred to President Johnson as an "accidental Chief" and "the elect of an assassin." Witnesses testified for both the prosecution and the defense.

The prosecutors – called “managers” in impeachment trials – were confident of victory. Manager Thaddeus Stevens described President Johnson as the "wretched man, standing at bay, surrounded by a cordon of living men, each with the axe of an executioner uplifted for his just punishment." Manager John Bingham brought the public galleries to their feet with his oratory: "May God forbid that the future historian shall record of this day's proceedings, that by reason of the failure of the legislative power of the people to triumph over the usurpations of an apostate President, the fabric of American empire fell and perished from the earth....I ask you to consider that we stand this day pleading for the violated majesty of the law, by the graves of half a million of martyred hero-patriots who made death beautiful by the sacrifice of themselves for their country, the Constitution and the laws, and who, by their sublime example, have taught us all to obey the law; that none are above the law;... and that position, however high, [[patronage]], however powerful, cannot be permitted to shelter crime to the peril of the [[republic]]."

2/3rd vote was necessary for conviction, and it all turned on Republican Senator [[Edmund Ross]] of Kansas. Like real jurors, he spoke to no one during the proceedings and no one knew which way he was leaning. But he voted "not guilty," and President Johnson was acquitted by one vote. The Radical Republicans were defeated, the [[Ku Klux Klan]] and [[Jim Crow]] arose, and Republicans shied away from civil rights issues for the next 100 years in the face of Klan terror and media opposition. Ross was characterized as a hero in [[John F. Kennedy]]'s book ''Profiles in Courage'', for resisting Republican civil rights reform efforts for Blacks in the South,<ref>Kennedy published the book ''Profiles in Courage'' in 1956; Kennedy, a Northern Democrat, cuddled up to Southern racists and [[segregation]]ists by voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.</ref> and working with Democrats to rebuild the [[Democratic party]] after its defeat in the Civil War. Andrew Johnson did not run for re-election and died a drunk.

Later the Tenure of Office Act was repealed, and all presidential appointments - including the [[FBI]] Director and Ambassadors - now serve at the pleasure of the president and can be fired without cause at any moment.

===Richard Nixon (1974)===
Nixon came into office in 1968 burdened by a vendetta dating back to the imprisonment of [[New Deal]] golden boy [[Alger Hiss]] in 1948 and the [[Amerasia]] scandal involving the arrest of a ''[[Washington Post]]'' reporter on [[espionage]] charges.

Until 1974, no impeachment proceedings that managed to pass the first stage, the Judiciary Committee, had occurred since the Johnson trial over a hundred years earlier. At the time, congressmen and their staffs were unfamiliar with the law and proceedings involved with impeachment, and needed to research the question. Most Americans thought of impeachment as something quaint and bizarre in the history books.

The House of Representatives voted to authorize an impeachment inquiry against [[Richard M. Nixon]], on charges of obstruction of justice in connection with the Watergate affair. The Judiciary Committee was authorized by the full House to investigate allegations and subpoenaed President Nixon's secret recordings of [[Oval Office]] conversations with subordinates. Nixon resisted the subpoenas, claiming Executive privilege, and appealed to the [[Supreme Court]].

On July 27, 1974, the Committee on the Judiciary voted to recommend three articles of impeachment. The articles concerned his obstruction of justice during the Watergate investigations. When the Supreme Court ruled against Nixon's claim of Executive privilege, stating that an actual [[crime]] had been committed and Executive privilege could not be used to cover a crime, Nixon resigned. Defying a Supreme Court order would certainly constitute a high crime and impeachable offense. Nixon resigned from the presidency on August 9, 1974, after key Congressional allies told him his fate was all but assured. Thus, Nixon was never actually impeached by a vote of the full House.

===Bill Clinton (1998)===
[[File:Harvey-weinstein-Hillary-clinton-dinner-with-after-election-loss (2).jpg|right|200px|thumb|First Lady [[Hillary Clinton]] dining with [[Harvey Weinstein]]. Hillary served on the staff of the 1974 Watergate impeachment committee. Weinstein donated to the Clinton Legal Defense Fund in 1998.<ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/starr082298.htm</ref> In 2018 Weinstein was tried on rape and [[sexual assault]] charges involving more than 80 victims dating back twenty years.<ref>https://www.businessinsider.com/list-of-women-who-have-accused-harvey-weinstein-of-sexual-harassment-or-assault-2017-10</ref>]]
President [[Bill Clinton]] was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, on charges of [[perjury]] and [[obstruction of justice]] relating to testimony he had given in a [[civil lawsuit]] a former Arkansas government employee had brought for [[sexual harassment]]. Perjury before the federal judiciary is a criminal offense. He was acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999, on a party-line vote.

President Clinton was doing well in the polls and ready to pick his successor for the White House by late 1998. His leadership enabled the Democratic Party to do surprisingly well in the mid-term elections, and President Clinton was seeking to leave a lasting legacy.

The House of Representatives impeached him for making false statements under oath, which is perjury, and trial was scheduled for the Senate in 1999. [[First Lady Hillary Clinton]] accused her opponents of being part of a "vast right-wing [[conspiracy]]" against her husband. House impeachment managers introduced witness depositions, including credible evidence from a Jane Doe #5 ([[Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Rape_allegations|Juanita Brodderick]]) that Bill Clinton had [[rape]]d her. Democratic Senators all lined up behind President Clinton, promising to vote for acquittal.

Republicans enjoyed a majority in the Senate but lacked votes anywhere close to the requisite 2/3rd majority to convict. President Clinton was a lame-duck at that point anyway, and the real battle was over his ability to influence politics beyond his term.

The managers of the impeachment presented their case, but the Senate prevented them from calling key witnesses such as Clinton's closest aides. The procedural rules hamstrung the trial and served to protect the president. Without the presentation of the full case, President Clinton easily survived the final vote. Democrats established a precedent in the impeachment process that rape allegations and perjury before a federal judge do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense as a high crime and misdemeanor.

But the victory was Pyrrhic. The Democratic presidential nominee in 2000, [[Al Gore]], felt he had to distance himself from Clinton and that probably made the difference on Election Day. Since then, Clinton has had little success in campaigning for candidates, failing with Governor Gray Davis in California in the recall. Hillary Clinton, pollsters choice to run in 2004, apparently felt it was too soon to make an attempt. The political ramifications of the impeachment trial continue.

===Donald Trump (2019)===
[[File:Adolf Romney.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Democrat hero 'Adolf Romney' was the lone hold out among Republicans.<ref>https://www.salon.com/2012/10/16/nine_most_racist_moments_of_the_2012_election/</ref>]]
Democrats had failed to gain authority from a vote of the full House to begin an impeachment investigation and designate a committee of jurisdiction with [[subpoena]] power to override administration claims of [[Executive privilege]]. Article I Section 4 of the Constitution grants the sole power of impeachment to the House, and not to an individual member such as the Speaker to declare an "impeachment inquiry" by proclamation. Without authorization by a vote of the full House, the so-called "impeachment inquiry" committees are limited to their regular oversight function and lack judicial enforcement of subpoenas to override Executive privilege in their "impeachment inquiry".

Despite the absence of legal authority from the full House, [[Speaker Nancy Pelosi]] designated [[House Intelligence Committee]] chairman [[Adam Schiff]] to conduct an investigation behind closed doors. An anonymous accuser came forward with third hand [[hearsay]] alleging the President had engaged in a ''[[quid pro quo]]'' with the Ukrainian president in exchange for arms and aid. In an unprecedented action, the president was not allowed counsel and the minority was denied rebuttal witnesses and independent [[cross-examination]] of disgruntled [[Administrative state|civil servant]]s. Neither committee, not the Judiciary Committee nor the Intelligence Committee, was ever authorized by a Resolution of the full House to conduct an impeachment inquiry and gather evidence.

The Judiciary Committee of the [[House of Representatives]] voted on Friday, 13th of December 2019, to approve two articles of impeachment against President [[Donald Trump]] based on the findings of Schiff's committee. No actual crime was alleged in either article. The articles were approved by a partisan vote of the full House, with bi-partisan opposition. One Democrat House member switched parties after the Democratic House's naked abuse of power.

The Senate ultimately rejected the claim of Obstruction of Congress based on violations of the [[due process]] rights of the accused and lack of authority in the sham impeachment "investigation." As to the Abuse of Power article, Senators determined President Trump acted properly while combating corruption. He was acquitted on February 5, 2020.

==Popular usage==

In colloquial English, speakers frequently fail to distinguish between the accusation by the House, and the (possible) subsequent removal by the Senate. Thus when someone says, "That official was impeached," you may not know whether they meant ''charged but not convicted'' or ''removed from office''.

Two US presidents have been ''impeached'' but neither was removed from office.

==See also==
*[[Impeachment 2.0]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:United States Politics]]
[[Category:United States History]]

Treason

2021-01-10T19:05:52Z

Userafw: cite sources

'''Treason''' is the act of betraying one's country. Someone who commits an act of treason is known as a '''traitor''', and he has further committed the sin of [[treachery]]. The definition of traitorous "betrayal" is a thorny problem for any free society. Politics in a [[representative democracy]] have been understood in modern times to require a loyal opposition, which means that the concept cannot be too expansive or debate and the life of the mind generally will be chilled. By contrast, a [[totalitarian]] state can simply designate all opposition to the philosophy of the ruling party or the policies of the leader as "treason".<ref>For example, gathering opposition research or "dirt" on [[Hillary Clinton]] is not treason. Hillary Clinton is a private citizen. Hillary Clinton is neither the government of the United States nor the American people.</ref> However, in order for the [[executive branch]] to be able to fulfill its duty to protect the polity, it must retain the possibility of pursuing criminal sanctions against domestic enemies of the existing order, at least to the extent they use [[violence]].

In the [[United States]] treason is a federal crime, the only crime provided for in the United States [[Constitution]]. It is defined as levying [[war]] against the United States, adhering to their enemies, or giving their enemies aid and comfort. <(U.S. Const. art. 3, section 3, cl. 1). <ref>https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii</ref> <ref>https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381 </ref> Where treason is made a crime under [[state]] statutes, the definitions often emphasize action directed against state government. ( Cal. Penal Code section 37---treason consists of levying war against the state, adhering to its enemies, or giving enemies aid and comfort). Should a current or future president commit treason, they must first be [[Impeachment|impeached]] by the House, then indicted by a vote of the Senate to be removed from office, and then prosecuted under the statute. Any holder of political office who is removed from office through the impeachment process is then barred from running from political office. <ref> https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/impeachment </ref> <ref>https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-3/the-president-as-law-enforcer </ref> <ref> https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/ </ref>

It is generally understood that treason is a crime that threatens all citizens and calls for the harshest penalties, typically [[capital punishment]]. In medieval [[England|English]] law, 'high treason' was defined as the murder or attempted murder of the reigning monarchy, or attempts to usurp or overthrow them or pervert the natural succession of the throne. 'Petty treason' was the murder of a social superior, such as a servant killing his master or a knight murdering the lord he was expected to serve, but this term gradually fell out of use after the decline of the feudal system, and because such cases could also be tried simply as murder. Before the [[Glorious Revolution]] of 1688 (which ejected the [[House of Stuart]] and made the English government truly limited), high treason carried a penalty of [[beheading]] for the nobility and [[hanging, drawing and quartering]] for others, a process vividly depicted towards the end of the 1995 film [[Braveheart]]. A famous example of such an execution was that in 1605 of [[Guy Fawkes]], a member of a failed conspiracy of [[Roman Catholics]] who sought to assassinate the [[Protestant]] King [[James I]] and his parliament. The British hanged traitors as late as the mid-[[20th century]].

The [[U. S. Constitution]] defines treason as "levying war against the United States, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." It also (copying an earlier English statute, the Statute of [[Edward III]]) requires that no conviction shall be had for this crime in the absence of the sworn testimony of two witnesses. The high point of treason prosecutions came under the administration of [[Woodrow Wilson]], when the Espionage Act of 1917 and [[Sedition Act of 1918]] were used to convict scores of Americans for treason based upon speeches against American participation in [[World War I]]. The Sedition Act was eventually repealed (although at least two sections of the Espionage Act remain in U. S. law) and the modern clear and present danger doctrine was formulated to determine when the U. S. or any state could resort to restricting [[First Amendment]] rights to free expression.

Treason prosecutions in the modern U. S. are exceedingly rare; although an [[al-Qaeda]] operative born in [[California]] was recently indicted, other U. S. citizens who have fought in [[Afghanistan]] on the [[Taliban]] side, notably [[John Walker Lindh]] and Yasser Esam Hamdi, were tried on lesser charges, and Hamdi is now a free man. This is in part because there were no treason prosecutions arising from the [[Cold War]]; even the Rosenbergs were tried and sentenced to death for [[espionage]], the selling of secrets, which led their lawyers to complain that they were being treated more harshly than the average American traitor in [[World War II]], only two of whom having been sentenced to death. [[Aldrich Ames]], originally charged with treason after his spying for [[Russia]] during the Cold War was revealed, avoided prosecution for this charge by reaching a plea agreement to lesser charges, and is now serving a life sentence.

The decision not to charge the Rosenbergs with treason may stem from the fact the Cold War remained latent, instead of being formally declared by [[Congress]]. This would mean that the definition of "enemies" is actually more problematic than that of any other word in the Constitution's treason clause, since the Rosenbergs undoubtedly adhered to the [[Soviet Union]] and gave it 'aid and comfort'. Comparably, [[Jonathan Pollard]] was also charged with and convicted of espionage and sentenced to life imprisonmment for passing American secrets to [[Israel]], a state usually described as a stalwart ally of the U. S. As with the Rosenbergs, there were loud protests, this time including calls for a Presidential [[pardon]].

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Government]]
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]

Treason

2021-01-10T18:52:23Z

Userafw: Cite sources

'''Treason''' is the act of betraying one's country. Someone who commits an act of treason is known as a '''traitor''', and he has further committed the sin of [[treachery]]. The definition of traitorous "betrayal" is a thorny problem for any free society. Politics in a [[representative democracy]] have been understood in modern times to require a loyal opposition, which means that the concept cannot be too expansive or debate and the life of the mind generally will be chilled. By contrast, a [[totalitarian]] state can simply designate all opposition to the philosophy of the ruling party or the policies of the leader as "treason".<ref>For example, gathering opposition research or "dirt" on [[Hillary Clinton]] is not treason. Hillary Clinton is a private citizen. Hillary Clinton is neither the government of the United States nor the American people.</ref> However, in order for the [[executive branch]] to be able to fulfill its duty to protect the polity, it must retain the possibility of pursuing criminal sanctions against domestic enemies of the existing order, at least to the extent they use [[violence]].

In the [[United States]] treason is a federal crime, the only crime provided for in the United States [[Constitution]]. It is defined as levying [[war]] against the United States, adhering to their enemies, or giving their enemies aid and comfort. <(U.S. Const. art. 3, section 3, cl. 1). <ref>https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii</ref> <ref>https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381 </ref> Where treason is made a crime under [[state]] statutes, the definitions often emphasize action directed against state government. ( Cal. Penal Code section 37---treason consists of levying war against the state, adhering to its enemies, or giving enemies aid and comfort)

It is generally understood that treason is a crime that threatens all citizens and calls for the harshest penalties, typically [[capital punishment]]. In medieval [[England|English]] law, 'high treason' was defined as the murder or attempted murder of the reigning monarchy, or attempts to usurp or overthrow them or pervert the natural succession of the throne. 'Petty treason' was the murder of a social superior, such as a servant killing his master or a knight murdering the lord he was expected to serve, but this term gradually fell out of use after the decline of the feudal system, and because such cases could also be tried simply as murder. Before the [[Glorious Revolution]] of 1688 (which ejected the [[House of Stuart]] and made the English government truly limited), high treason carried a penalty of [[beheading]] for the nobility and [[hanging, drawing and quartering]] for others, a process vividly depicted towards the end of the 1995 film [[Braveheart]]. A famous example of such an execution was that in 1605 of [[Guy Fawkes]], a member of a failed conspiracy of [[Roman Catholics]] who sought to assassinate the [[Protestant]] King [[James I]] and his parliament. The British hanged traitors as late as the mid-[[20th century]].

The [[U. S. Constitution]] defines treason as "levying war against the United States, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." It also (copying an earlier English statute, the Statute of [[Edward III]]) requires that no conviction shall be had for this crime in the absence of the sworn testimony of two witnesses. The high point of treason prosecutions came under the administration of [[Woodrow Wilson]], when the Espionage Act of 1917 and [[Sedition Act of 1918]] were used to convict scores of Americans for treason based upon speeches against American participation in [[World War I]]. The Sedition Act was eventually repealed (although at least two sections of the Espionage Act remain in U. S. law) and the modern clear and present danger doctrine was formulated to determine when the U. S. or any state could resort to restricting [[First Amendment]] rights to free expression.

Treason prosecutions in the modern U. S. are exceedingly rare; although an [[al-Qaeda]] operative born in [[California]] was recently indicted, other U. S. citizens who have fought in [[Afghanistan]] on the [[Taliban]] side, notably [[John Walker Lindh]] and Yasser Esam Hamdi, were tried on lesser charges, and Hamdi is now a free man. This is in part because there were no treason prosecutions arising from the [[Cold War]]; even the Rosenbergs were tried and sentenced to death for [[espionage]], the selling of secrets, which led their lawyers to complain that they were being treated more harshly than the average American traitor in [[World War II]], only two of whom having been sentenced to death. [[Aldrich Ames]], originally charged with treason after his spying for [[Russia]] during the Cold War was revealed, avoided prosecution for this charge by reaching a plea agreement to lesser charges, and is now serving a life sentence.

The decision not to charge the Rosenbergs with treason may stem from the fact the Cold War remained latent, instead of being formally declared by [[Congress]]. This would mean that the definition of "enemies" is actually more problematic than that of any other word in the Constitution's treason clause, since the Rosenbergs undoubtedly adhered to the [[Soviet Union]] and gave it 'aid and comfort'. Comparably, [[Jonathan Pollard]] was also charged with and convicted of espionage and sentenced to life imprisonmment for passing American secrets to [[Israel]], a state usually described as a stalwart ally of the U. S. As with the Rosenbergs, there were loud protests, this time including calls for a Presidential [[pardon]].

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Government]]
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]

Martin O'Malley

2016-02-16T06:06:36Z

Userafw: Martin O'Malley withdrew his candidacy.

{{Officeholder
|name=Martin O'Malley
|image=Martin O’Malley.jpg
|party=[[Democrat]]
|spouse=Catherine Curran O'Malley
|religion=[[Roman Catholic]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/governor
|number=61st
|state=Maryland
|terms=January 17, 2007- January 21, 2015
|preceded=Robert Ehrlich
|former=n
|succeeded= [[Larry Hogan]]
}}
{{Officeholder/mayor
|number=47th
|city=Baltimore, Maryland
|terms=December 7, 1999 – January 17, 2007
|preceded=Kurt Schmoke
|former=y
|succeeded=Sheila Dixon
}}
}}
'''Martin O' Malley''' (1963 - ) is a former [[governor]] of [[Maryland]] and is a [[Democrat]]. His parents are Tom and Barbara O'Malley. Prior to his election to the Maryland governor's office, he was the [[mayor]] of the city of [[Baltimore]], MD. O'Malley left office in January of 2015 and was replaced by [[Larry Hogan]].<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/republican-larry-hogan-wins-md-governors-race-in-stunning-upset/2014/11/05/9eb8bf46-60ac-11e4-8b9e-2ccdac31a031_story.html?tid=pm_pop</ref>

On May 30, 2015, O'Malley announced that he was a candidate for the Democratic nomination in the [[2016 presidential election]].<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/30/omalley-returns-to-baltimore-set-to-seek-democratic-nomination-2016-white-house/</ref>
On February 1, 2016, he suspended his campaign after a poor showing in the [[Iowa caucuses]].<ref name="Taylor">{{cite news |author=Jessica Taylor |title=Martin O'Malley Ends Presidential Bid |url= http://www.npr.org/2016/02/01/465224058/martin-omalley-ends-presidential-bid |newspaper=NPR |location= |date=February 1, 2016 |access-date=February 1, 2016}}</ref>

== Criticism ==
He raised 1.3 billion dollars in tax hikes in 2007.<ref>Philip Rucker, “Many Of Md. Tax Increases Will Go Into Effect Today,” The Washington Post, www.washingtonpost.com/</ref> O'Malley increased on sales taxes and corporate businesses taxes. Umemployment rate went from 3.6 percent when entering office to double that from January of 2007 when he took office.<ref>U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; Julie Bykowicz, “Dearth Of Small-Firm Owners In Assembly Is Election Issue,” The Baltimore Sun, articles.baltimoresun.com</ref> In the past two years, Maryland has lost more than 100,000 jobs.<ref>Kevin James Shay, “State Job Losses Soared In February,” www.gazette.net</ref> He is very anti-business and companies like Northrop Grumman have been hurt by him have gone to Virginia for their high paying jobs.<ref>Andrea K. Walker, Northrop Loss Raises Questions Of Business Environment In Maryland,” The Baltimore Sun, articles.baltimoresun.com</ref> CNBC ranked Maryland as lagging eight times out of ten in job categories. Despite all these facts, O'Malley has even thought about raising taxes even higher when Maryland's economy has been devastated.<ref>CNBC.com, “America’s Top States For Business 2010,” www.cnbc.com</ref>

==References==
<references/>
*http://www.martinomalley.com/aboutOMalley/
*http://www.gov.state.md.us/

==External Links==
*[https://martinomalley.com Martin O'Malley 2016 campaign website]

{{DEFAULTSORT:O'Malley, Martin}}

[[Category:Democratic Governors]]
[[Category:Maryland Governors]]
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]
[[category:2016 Presidential Candidates]]

Stork

2014-08-22T20:42:29Z

Userafw: /* Nesting */

{{Taxonomy
|name=Stork
|image=Yellowbill stork2.jpg
|caption=Yellow-billed stork ''Mycteria ibis''
|domain=Eukaryota
|kingdom=Animalia
|subkingdom=Bilateria
|branch=Deuterostomia
|superphylum=
|phylum=Chordata
|subphylum=Vertebrata
|infraphylum=Gnathostomata
|microphylum=
|superdivision=
|division=
|subdivision=
|superclass=Tetrapoda
|class=Aves
|subclass=Neornithes
|infraclass=Neoaves
|superorder=
|order=Ciconiiformes
|suborder=Ciconii
|infraorder=Ciconiides
|superfamily=Ciconioidea
|families=
|family=Ciconiidae
|subfamily=Ciconiinae
|supertribe=
|tribe=
|subtribe=
|genera=
|genus=
|subgenus=
|species=
|binomialname=
|syn=
|sub=
|alt=
|regionimg=
|pop=
|conservation=
}}
'''Storks''' are large birds of the family Ciconiidae, and found in much of the warm, dry regions of the world.

==Description==
In general, storks are characterized by a heavy build, long legs, long neck, and a long, stout bill. Broad-winged, storks use thermal air flows to soar and glide, conserving energy. Storks are gregarious year-round, and are usually found in large flocks.

The smallest stork is Abdim's stork (''Ciconia abdimii''), standing at just over two feet tall and weighing 2.2 pounds. The largest is the maribou (''Leptoptilos crumeniferus''), which stands nearly five feet tall and weighs up to twenty pounds; with a wingspan in excess of ten feet, the maribou is among the largest living flying birds.

The name has its origins in either Old English (''storc'' or ''stearc'') or Old Norse (''storkr''), and refers to the stiff appearance of the birds when standing<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stork</ref><ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stork</ref>.

===Species===
There are nineteen species of stork grouped in six genera:
*Genus ''Anastomus''
::[[African openbill]], ''Anastomus lamelligerus''
::[[Asian openbill]], ''Anastomus oscitans''
*Genus ''Ciconia''
::[[Abdim's stork]], ''Ciconia abdimii''
::[[Black stork]], ''Ciconia nigra''
::[[Maguari stork]], ''Ciconia maguari''
::[[Oriental white stork]], ''Ciconia boyciana''
::[[Storm's stork]], ''Ciconia stormi''
::[[White stork]], ''Ciconia ciconia''
::[[Woolly-necked stork]], ''Ciconia episcopus''
*Genus ''Ephippiorhynchus''
::[[Black-necked stork]], ''Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus''
::[[Saddle-billed stork]], ''Ephippiorhynchus senegalensis''
*Genus ''Jabiru''
::[[Jabiru]], ''Jabiru mycteria''
*Genus ''Leptoptilos''
::[[Greater adjutant]], ''Leptoptilos dubius''
::[[Lesser adjutant]], ''Leptoptilos javanicus''
::[[Marabou stork]], ''Leptoptilos crumeniferus''
*Genus ''Mycteria''
::[[Milky stork]], ''Mycteria cinerea''
::[[Painted stork]], ''Mycteria leucocephala''
::[[Wood stork]], ''Mycteria americana''
::[[Yellow-billed stork]], ''Mycteria ibis''

Two species of bird have also been referred to as storks: the [[hammerkop]] (''Scopus umbretta'') and the [[shoebill]] (''Balaeniceps rex''). Both species have been classed with storks in the family Ciconiidae for a number of years; however, recent evidence indicates a relationship with pelicans.

==Nesting==
For the most part storks are monogamous; they will mate for life, and return to the same nests every year. However, it has been observed that some storks have changed mates after migrations. Nests are large, up to six feet across and ten feet deep, with new material added every year. Eggs are laid in clutches of two to five, with an incubation period of between 25-35 days. Young reach maturity after four years, and as adults they have a life expectancy of between 30 and 40 years.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Storks]]
[[Category:Birds]]

Uncyclopedia

2014-08-22T20:36:35Z

Userafw:

[[File:Wiki.png|right]]
'''Uncyclopedia''' is a parody encyclopedia project created in January 2005<ref>http://www.netmag.co.uk/zine/discover-interview/the-brains-behind-uncyclopedia</ref>to lampoon [[Wikipedia]]'s extensive coverage, by mirroring their style of articles. It now has over 30,600 articles<ref> http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Special:AllPages</ref>. Popular topics parodied include [[Global warming]], [[Evolution]] and [[Creation]], the [[Bush]] administration, [[Conservapedia]], and popular culture. A recurring old joke on the site is making up [[Oscar Wilde]] quotes as well as quotes by [[Chuck Norris]], Captain Obvious, [[Kanye West]], and Russian Reversals.

Uncyclopedia's userbase, despite being a parody of [[Wikipedia]], supports much of the same liberal material that Wikipedia does. It was hosted by [[Wikia]], [[Jimbo Wales]]' for-profit webhost until January 5th 2013<ref>http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/Main_Page</ref>. Its lack of standards results in an obviously liberal stance, and much of their satire is directed at Christian and Conservative values. In particular, their article on Conservapedia is composed mostly of hate speech, blatant lies, and labeling Conservatives as "retards". In addition, they attack creationism using a "pro-creationist" article, which mocks creationism by phrases like "evolution will get you sent straight to hell" and "Darwin was a **** Satanist". As 2011, very few pages are in their "Liberal" category.

On January 5th 2013, the majority of Uncyclopedia's userbase migrated to the new domain located at en.uncyclopedia.co after a long history of disputes with their previous hosts at Wikia. The site is now independently funded and hosted as a non-profit organization.

Uncyclopedia is far from family friendly; it contains many offensive words and images in its articles. Shortly after [[Jerry Falwell]] died (15th May, 2007), Uncyclopedia presented an article with the following highly offensive statements:

{{QuoteBox|'''BREAKING NEWS!''' 
'''Jerry Falwell has died.''' 
'''DING DONG THE WITCH IS DEAD, THE WITCH IS DEAD, THE WITCH IS DEAD, DING DONG THE WITCH IS DEAD, THE MEAN OL' WICKED WITCH IS DEAD!'''}}

{{QuoteBox|Dr. (it is a little known fact that he earned six PhDs) Jerry Fartwell (born: Breadline Era, died: Nappy Headed Imus Era) was a fat [obscenity deleted] bastard and famous mongoloid who re-instituted the hangman's noose in Lynchburg, Virginia (1956).}}

'''''Update'':''' Uncyclopedia finally deleted the Jerry Falwell article on 10th November, 2007.<ref>http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Jerry_Falwell</ref>

Uncyclopedia also has an article labeled "Bad Right Wing Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense".<ref>http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/Uncyclopedia:Bad_Right_Wing_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense</ref> This is an example of Uncyclopedian censorship. Material that is considered serious is generally censored as a matter of course.

Articles at Uncyclopedia may also be deleted by either placed on the QVFD (Quick Votes For Deletion)<ref>http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/QVFD</ref><ref>http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/QVFD</ref> or VFD (Votes For Deletion)<ref>http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/VFD</ref><ref>http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/VFD</ref>. The difference between the two pages is that only new pages may be put on QVFD and it only takes one administrator vote to delete the page on QVFD, whereas older pages that are not featured may be put on VFD, and it takes 4 or 5 votes net in favor of deletion to delete a page on VFD. Only registered users are permitted to vote on VFD.

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Wikis]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]

Uncyclopedia

2014-08-22T20:25:15Z

Userafw: this info was already mentioned earlier in the article

[[File:Wiki.png|right]]
'''Uncyclopedia''' is a parody encyclopedia project created in January 2005<ref>http://www.netmag.co.uk/zine/discover-interview/the-brains-behind-uncyclopedia</ref>to lampoon [[Wikipedia]]'s extensive coverage, by mirroring their style of articles. It now has over 30,600 articles<ref> http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Special:AllPages</ref>. Popular topics parodied include [[Global warming]], [[Evolution]] and [[Creation]], the [[Bush]] administration, [[Conservapedia]], and popular culture. A recurring old joke on the site is making up [[Oscar Wilde]] quotes as well as quotes by [[Chuck Norris]], Captain Obvious, [[Kanye West]], and Russian Reversals.

Uncyclopedia's userbase, despite being a parody of [[Wikipedia]], supports much of the same liberal material that Wikipedia does. It was hosted by [[Wikia]], [[Jimbo Wales]]' for-profit webhost until January 5th 2013<ref>http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/Main_Page</ref>. Its lack of standards results in an obviously liberal stance, and much of their satire is directed at Christian and Conservative values. In particular, their article on Conservapedia is composed mostly of hate speech, blatant lies, and labeling Conservatives as "retards". In addition, they attack creationism using a "pro-creationist" article, which mocks creationism by phrases like "evolution will get you sent straight to hell" and "Darwin was a **** Satanist". As 2011, very few pages are in their "Liberal" category.

On January 5th 2013, the majority of Uncyclopedia's userbase migrated to the new domain located at en.uncyclopedia.co after a long history of disputes with their previous hosts at Wikia. The site is now independently funded and hosted as a non-profit organization.

Uncyclopedia is far from family friendly; it contains many offensive words and images in its articles. Shortly after [[Jerry Falwell]] died (15th May, 2007), Uncyclopedia presented an article with the following highly offensive statements:

{{QuoteBox|'''BREAKING NEWS!''' 
'''Jerry Falwell has died.''' 
'''DING DONG THE WITCH IS DEAD, THE WITCH IS DEAD, THE WITCH IS DEAD, DING DONG THE WITCH IS DEAD, THE MEAN OL' WICKED WITCH IS DEAD!'''}}

{{QuoteBox|Dr. (it is a little known fact that he earned six PhDs) Jerry Fartwell (born: Breadline Era, died: Nappy Headed Imus Era) was a fat [obscenity deleted] bastard and famous mongoloid who re-instituted the hangman's noose in Lynchburg, Virginia (1956).}}

'''''Update'':''' Uncyclopedia finally deleted the Jerry Falwell article on 10th November, 2007.<ref>http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Jerry_Falwell</ref>

Uncyclopedia also has an article labeled "Bad Right Wing Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense".<ref>http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/Uncyclopedia:Bad_Right_Wing_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense</ref> This is an example of Uncyclopedian censorship. Material that is considered serious is generally censored as a matter of course.

Articles at Uncyclopedia may also be deleted by either placed on the QVFD (Quick Votes For Deletion) or VFD (Votes For Deletion). The difference between the two pages is that only new pages may be put on QVFD and it only takes one administrator vote to delete the page on QVFD, whereas older pages that are not featured may be put on VFD, and it takes 4 or 5 votes net in favor of deletion to delete a page on VFD. Only registered users are permitted to vote on VFD.

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Wikis]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]

Uncyclopedia

2014-08-22T20:23:01Z

Userafw: that page was deleted off of Uncyclowikia

[[File:Wiki.png|right]]
'''Uncyclopedia''' is a parody encyclopedia project created in January 2005<ref>http://www.netmag.co.uk/zine/discover-interview/the-brains-behind-uncyclopedia</ref>to lampoon [[Wikipedia]]'s extensive coverage, by mirroring their style of articles. It now has over 30,600 articles<ref> http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Special:AllPages</ref>. Popular topics parodied include [[Global warming]], [[Evolution]] and [[Creation]], the [[Bush]] administration, [[Conservapedia]], and popular culture. A recurring old joke on the site is making up [[Oscar Wilde]] quotes as well as quotes by [[Chuck Norris]], Captain Obvious, [[Kanye West]], and Russian Reversals.

Uncyclopedia's userbase, despite being a parody of [[Wikipedia]], supports much of the same liberal material that Wikipedia does. It was hosted by [[Wikia]], [[Jimbo Wales]]' for-profit webhost until January 5th 2013<ref>http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/Main_Page</ref>. Its lack of standards results in an obviously liberal stance, and much of their satire is directed at Christian and Conservative values. In particular, their article on Conservapedia is composed mostly of hate speech, blatant lies, and labeling Conservatives as "retards". In addition, they attack creationism using a "pro-creationist" article, which mocks creationism by phrases like "evolution will get you sent straight to hell" and "Darwin was a **** Satanist". As 2011, very few pages are in their "Liberal" category.

On January 5th 2013, the majority of Uncyclopedia's userbase migrated to the new domain located at en.uncyclopedia.co after a long history of disputes with their previous hosts at Wikia. The site is now independently funded and hosted as a non-profit organization.

Uncyclopedia is far from family friendly; it contains many offensive words and images in its articles. Shortly after [[Jerry Falwell]] died (15th May, 2007), Uncyclopedia presented an article with the following highly offensive statements:

{{QuoteBox|'''BREAKING NEWS!''' 
'''Jerry Falwell has died.''' 
'''DING DONG THE WITCH IS DEAD, THE WITCH IS DEAD, THE WITCH IS DEAD, DING DONG THE WITCH IS DEAD, THE MEAN OL' WICKED WITCH IS DEAD!'''}}

{{QuoteBox|Dr. (it is a little known fact that he earned six PhDs) Jerry Fartwell (born: Breadline Era, died: Nappy Headed Imus Era) was a fat [obscenity deleted] bastard and famous mongoloid who re-instituted the hangman's noose in Lynchburg, Virginia (1956).}}

'''''Update'':''' Uncyclopedia finally deleted the Jerry Falwell article on 10th November, 2007.<ref>http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Jerry_Falwell</ref>

Uncyclopedia also has an article labeled "Bad Right Wing Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense".<ref>http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/Uncyclopedia:Bad_Right_Wing_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense</ref> This is an example of Uncyclopedian censorship. Material that is considered serious is generally censored as a matter of course.

Articles at Uncyclopedia may also be deleted by either placed on the QVFD (Quick Votes For Deletion) or VFD (Votes For Deletion). The difference between the two pages is that only new pages may be put on QVFD and it only takes one administrator vote to delete the page on QVFD, whereas older pages that are not featured may be put on VFD, and it takes 4 or 5 votes net in favor of deletion to delete a page on VFD. Only registered users are permitted to vote on VFD.

In January 2013, Uncyclopedia split into two sites: one remaining at uncyclopedia.wikia.com, and the other one moving to en.uncyclopedia.co. This happened because some of the community was upset with the restrictions imposed by Wikia Inc. such as the content warning (which has since been removed) and the censoring or removal of soft porn images.

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Wikis]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]

Uncyclopedia

2014-08-22T20:16:06Z

Userafw:

[[File:Wiki.png|right]]
'''Uncyclopedia''' is a parody encyclopedia project created in January 2005<ref>http://www.netmag.co.uk/zine/discover-interview/the-brains-behind-uncyclopedia</ref>to lampoon [[Wikipedia]]'s extensive coverage, by mirroring their style of articles. It now has over 30,600 articles<ref> http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Special:AllPages</ref>. Popular topics parodied include [[Global warming]], [[Evolution]] and [[Creation]], the [[Bush]] administration, [[Conservapedia]], and popular culture. A recurring old joke on the site is making up [[Oscar Wilde]] quotes as well as quotes by [[Chuck Norris]], Captain Obvious, [[Kanye West]], and Russian Reversals.

Uncyclopedia's userbase, despite being a parody of [[Wikipedia]], supports much of the same liberal material that Wikipedia does. It was hosted by [[Wikia]], [[Jimbo Wales]]' for-profit webhost until January 5th 2013<ref>http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/Main_Page</ref>. Its lack of standards results in an obviously liberal stance, and much of their satire is directed at Christian and Conservative values. In particular, their article on Conservapedia is composed mostly of hate speech, blatant lies, and labeling Conservatives as "retards". In addition, they attack creationism using a "pro-creationist" article, which mocks creationism by phrases like "evolution will get you sent straight to hell" and "Darwin was a **** Satanist". As 2011, very few pages are in their "Liberal" category.

On January 5th 2013, the majority of Uncyclopedia's userbase migrated to the new domain located at en.uncyclopedia.co after a long history of disputes with their previous hosts at Wikia. The site is now independently funded and hosted as a non-profit organization.

Uncyclopedia is far from family friendly; it contains many offensive words and images in its articles. Shortly after [[Jerry Falwell]] died (15th May, 2007), Uncyclopedia presented an article with the following highly offensive statements:

{{QuoteBox|'''BREAKING NEWS!''' 
'''Jerry Falwell has died.''' 
'''DING DONG THE WITCH IS DEAD, THE WITCH IS DEAD, THE WITCH IS DEAD, DING DONG THE WITCH IS DEAD, THE MEAN OL' WICKED WITCH IS DEAD!'''}}

{{QuoteBox|Dr. (it is a little known fact that he earned six PhDs) Jerry Fartwell (born: Breadline Era, died: Nappy Headed Imus Era) was a fat [obscenity deleted] bastard and famous mongoloid who re-instituted the hangman's noose in Lynchburg, Virginia (1956).}}

'''''Update'':''' Uncyclopedia finally deleted the Jerry Falwell article on 10th November, 2007.<ref>http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Jerry_Falwell</ref>

Uncyclopedia also has an article labeled "Bad Right Wing Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense".<ref>http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Uncyclopedia:Bad_Right_Wing_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense</ref> This is an example of Uncyclopedian censorship. Material that is considered serious is generally censored as a matter of course.

Articles at Uncyclopedia may also be deleted by either placed on the QVFD (Quick Votes For Deletion) or VFD (Votes For Deletion). The difference between the two pages is that only new pages may be put on QVFD and it only takes one administrator vote to delete the page on QVFD, whereas older pages that are not featured may be put on VFD, and it takes 4 or 5 votes net in favor of deletion to delete a page on VFD. Only registered users are permitted to vote on VFD.

In January 2013, Uncyclopedia split into two sites: one remaining at uncyclopedia.wikia.com, and the other one moving to en.uncyclopedia.co. This happened because some of the community was upset with the restrictions imposed by Wikia Inc. such as the content warning (which has since been removed) and the censoring or removal of soft porn images.

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Wikis]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]

Uncyclopedia

2014-08-22T20:09:24Z

Userafw:

[[File:Wiki.png|right]]
'''Uncyclopedia''' is a parody encyclopedia project created in January 2005<ref>http://www.netmag.co.uk/zine/discover-interview/the-brains-behind-uncyclopedia</ref>to lampoon [[Wikipedia]]'s extensive coverage, by mirroring their style of articles. It now has over 30,600 articles<ref> http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Special:AllPages</ref>. Popular topics parodied include [[Global warming]], [[Evolution]] and [[Creation]], the [[Bush]] administration, [[Conservapedia]], and popular culture. A recurring old joke on the site is making up [[Oscar Wilde]] quotes as well as quotes by [[Chuck Norris]], Captain Obvious, [[Kanye West]], and Russian Reversals.

Uncyclopedia's userbase, despite being a parody of [[Wikipedia]], supports much of the same liberal material that Wikipedia does. It was hosted by [[Wikia]], [[Jimbo Wales]]' for-profit webhost until January 5th 2013<ref>http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/Main_Page</ref>. Its lack of standards results in an obviously liberal stance, and much of their satire is directed at Christian and Conservative values. In particular, their article on Conservapedia is composed mostly of hate speech, blatant lies, and labeling Conservatives as "retards". In addition, they attack creationism using a "pro-creationist" article, which mocks creationism by phrases like "evolution will get you sent straight to hell" and "Darwin was a **** Satanist". As 2011, very few pages are in their "Liberal" category.

On January 5th 2013, the majority of Uncyclopedia's userbase migrated to the new domain located at en.uncyclopedia.co after a long history of disputes with their previous hosts at Wikia. The site is now independently funded and hosted as a non-profit organization.

Uncyclopedia is far from family friendly; it contains many offensive words and images in its articles. Shortly after [[Jerry Falwell]] died (15th May, 2007), Uncyclopedia presented an article with the following highly offensive statements:

{{QuoteBox|'''BREAKING NEWS!''' 
'''Jerry Falwell has died.''' 
'''DING DONG THE WITCH IS DEAD, THE WITCH IS DEAD, THE WITCH IS DEAD, DING DONG THE WITCH IS DEAD, THE MEAN OL' WICKED WITCH IS DEAD!'''}}

{{QuoteBox|Dr. (it is a little known fact that he earned six PhDs) Jerry Fartwell (born: Breadline Era, died: Nappy Headed Imus Era) was a fat [obscenity deleted] bastard and famous mongoloid who re-instituted the hangman's noose in Lynchburg, Virginia (1956).}}

'''''Update'':''' Uncyclopedia finally deleted the Jerry Falwell article on 10th November, 2007.<ref>http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Jerry_Falwell</ref>

Uncyclopedia also has an article labeled "Bad Right Wing Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense".<ref>http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Uncyclopedia:Bad_Right_Wing_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense</ref> This is an example of Uncyclopedian censorship. Material that is considered serious is generally censored as a matter of course.

Articles at Uncyclopedia may also be deleted by either placed on the QVFD (Quick Votes For Deletion) or VFD (Votes For Deletion). The difference between the two pages is that only new pages may be put on QVFD and it only takes one administrator vote to delete the page on QVFD, whereas older pages that are not featured may be put on VFD, and it takes 4 or 5 votes net in favor of deletion to delete a page on VFD.

In January 2013, Uncyclopedia split into two sites: one remaining at uncyclopedia.wikia.com, and the other one moving to en.uncyclopedia.co. This happened because some of the community was upset with the restrictions imposed by Wikia Inc. such as the content warning (which has since been removed) and the censoring or removal of soft porn images.

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Wikis]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]

Uncyclopedia

2013-12-19T21:30:35Z

Userafw:

[[File:Wiki.png|right]]
'''Uncyclopedia''' is a parody encyclopedia project created in January 2005<ref>http://www.netmag.co.uk/zine/discover-interview/the-brains-behind-uncyclopedia</ref>to lampoon [[Wikipedia]]'s extensive coverage, by mirroring their style of articles. It now has over 30,000 articles<ref> http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Special:AllPages</ref>. Popular topics parodied include [[Global warming]], [[Evolution]] and [[Creation]], the [[Bush]] administration, [[Conservapedia]], and popular culture. A recurring old joke on the site is making up [[Oscar Wilde]] quotes as well as quotes by [[Chuck Norris]], Captain Obvious, [[Kanye West]], and Russian Reversals.

Uncyclopedia's userbase, despite being a parody of [[Wikipedia]], supports much of the same liberal material that Wikipedia does. It was hosted by [[Wikia]], [[Jimbo Wales]]' for-profit webhost until January 5th 2013<ref>http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/Main_Page</ref>. Its lack of standards results in an obviously liberal stance, and much of their satire is directed at Christian and Conservative values. In particular, their article on Conservapedia is composed mostly of hate speech, blatant lies, and labeling Conservatives as "retards". In addition, they attack creationism using a "pro-creationist" article, which mocks creationism by phrases like "evolution will get you sent straight to hell" and "Darwin was a **** Satanist". As 2011, very few pages are in their "Liberal" category.

On January 5th 2013, the majority of Uncyclopedia's userbase migrated to the new domain located at en.uncyclopedia.co after a long history of disputes with their previous hosts at Wikia. The site is now independently funded and hosted as a non-profit organization.

Uncyclopedia is far from family friendly; it contains many offensive words and images in its articles. Shortly after [[Jerry Falwell]] died (15th May, 2007), Uncyclopedia presented an article with the following highly offensive statements:

{{QuoteBox|'''BREAKING NEWS!''' 
'''Jerry Falwell has died.''' 
'''DING DONG THE WITCH IS DEAD, THE WITCH IS DEAD, THE WITCH IS DEAD, DING DONG THE WITCH IS DEAD, THE MEAN OL' WICKED WITCH IS DEAD!'''}}

{{QuoteBox|Dr. (it is a little known fact that he earned six PhDs) Jerry Fartwell (born: Breadline Era, died: Nappy Headed Imus Era) was a fat [obscenity deleted] bastard and famous mongoloid who re-instituted the hangman's noose in Lynchburg, Virginia (1956).}}

'''''Update'':''' Uncyclopedia finally deleted the Jerry Falwell article on 10th November, 2007.<ref>http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Jerry_Falwell</ref>

Uncyclopedia also has an article labeled "Bad Right Wing Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense".<ref>http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Uncyclopedia:Bad_Right_Wing_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense</ref> This is an example of Uncyclopedian censorship.

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Wikis]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]

Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?

2012-12-06T03:35:55Z

Userafw: /* Neither */

{{debate}}

If Jesus were alive today, what end of the political spectrum would he identify himself with? [[Conservative]] or [[Liberal]]? Please back up any assertions with references to the Gospels.

== "WTF?" ==
... would be the reply of Jesus. Seriously, the way Christianity has changed is sacrilegious. Basically all New Testament books are bunk. "St." Peter is pretty unChristly. The books of the Bible were written many years after the events and have been changed over the years. A little bit here and there creates a lot of change. I very much doubt that Jesus went around claiming some of the stuff he did in the later Gospels. How does this relate to politics? Not much, I was rambling...

I think Jesus would not care for what politics is now. He wouldn't align himself to any particular party. --[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 23:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Kirby; the very idea of left and right wing was non existant in those days. In fact, it is blasphemy for any group to claim him as their own. As a conscientious Christian, I find it nothing short of disgraceful when the Religious Right try to twist his word to legislate their own prejudices. There was no provision in the Bible for opposing slavery - this has been twisted by wingnuts in order to get a Christian endorsement of it. Some of the most extreme white supremacists in South Africa and America have used the Great Flood to demonstrate that Blacks come from one of the animals, as the only humans who travelled aboard the ship were clearly white, as their lineage can be traced to the caucasian King David.

Now, the Religious Right use Christianity in order to legislate against homosexuals. I believe that if Christ were around today, he would storm out of the houses of government in much the same way he stormed out of the Temple. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 20:26, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

== Communist ==
Since he thought everyone deserved a second chance, he would want that to apply to our economic system as well! That way, anyone who desired wealth and was willing to contribute productive to society should be held equal to all other such people.
To allow a "redeemed" person to suffer for past poor financial decisions is to hold back forgiveness.

Besides, the notion of God today is so reminiscent of Lenin's cult of the personality.

== Conservative ==
Where else would he find a home? [[Liberal]]s deny him. They deny his [[creation|creative]] role,<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1|version=NASB}}</ref> and they deny the need for Him as Lord and personal Savior. They actually think that if they're good, they'll go to heaven--and that is simply wrong.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=3|verses=10-12|version=KJV}}</ref>

1. Not all "liberals" deny Christ. There are many of us who are quite orthodox in our Christian faith and yet support some (not all) liberal causes. [[User:Burgeson|Burgy]] 15:04, 4 February 2009 (EST)

2. Jesus didn't want people to revere him, like said before not all liberals deny christ in reality many liberals are christian. also, didn't Jesus want people to give money to the poor and try this one "But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just." [Luke 14:13 &14.] The argument that Liberals would hate him is completely invalid. And if the moto for this wiki is "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia", you really need to get your facts straight.

Moreover, [[Jesus]] would never countenance the behaviors in which [[liberal]]s routinely engage, and encourage others to engage.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=27-30|version=NASB}}</ref>
Jesus never said that a man could divorce his wife with a word. He did mention a specific circumstance that applied only to the [[Judaism|Jewish]] custom of engagement, which was less than a marriage but far more than the engagement we know today.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Deuteronomy|chap=24|verses=1-4|version=KJV}}</ref> Jesus now practically abolished divorce entirely.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=16|verses=18|version=KJV}}</ref> Liberals think divorce ought to be free and easy.

The "rehabilitation" of the thief consisted of salvation, and ''not'' of returning him to human society. Jesus was demonstrating that anyone could gain salvation if he would but repent--as this thief did.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=23|verses=42|version=KJV}}</ref>

Lastly: the reference to stumblingblocks<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=14|verses=13|version=KJV}}</ref> has nothing to do with "affirmative action." Rather it has to do with not putting temptation to [[sin]] in one another's way. But to a liberal, no one commits sin by engaging in the traditionally decried vices. Rather, one commits sin merely by having too much money (a thing Jesus never said) or by making the world less wild or by otherwise disagreeing with a liberal.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: It is dangerous to use Matthew 5:27-30 to condemn liberals - one need only look at the current set of conservatives running for election to see multiple marriages and the occasional affair.
: You appear to have misread what I said about divorce - "In Jesus's time, it was possible for a man to divorce his wife with a word." Jesus was against divorce. Again, one need only look at the current conservatives running for election to show that divorce is quite common outside of the liberal circle.
: Let us look at [[Conservative]] to see what the stance there is and how this relates to Jesus's ministry.
:* National defense and high military spending -- Jesus did not side with the Jewish sect that was trying for military overthrow of Rome. All of his acts were non-violet.
He didn't use violets?!--[[User:The vigilante|The vigilante]] 10:40, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity) -- I would suggest reading Mark 10:21-25 to see the stance on what the rich should do.
:* Stronger law enforcement and anti-crime laws, including the death penalty -- Look at John 8:3-11 to see Jesus speaking out against the death penalty (and further rehabilitation of those who commit crimes).
:* Abandonment of public schools in favor of private, particularly using tuition vouchers -- Jesus taught any who came to him without asking for payment. He much more closely resembles a public school teacher than someone advocating only private institutions to teach school.
: Given these it is reasonable to say that he was a very progressive individual for his time and even today his teachings show himself to be much more in line with the liberal platform than the conservative one. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well put, Mtur. I can't help thinking that if Jesus were alive today and tried that "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" bit in front of a crowd of angry Fundamentalists, the symbol of His death would be a rock. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:13, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
I can't help thinking that if Jesus were alive today, he'd read some of the posts here and rush to the nearest mosque to convert.-Neuro

HE IS DEAD GET OVER IT!{{Unsigned|Leninrules}}
:No, He isn't. But He knew you would think that, and said so to His Apostles.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Would Jesus consign to any party? I do not believe so. The combination of politics and religion was never meant to be. And besides, Jesus would never force any of his laws on anyone. You cannot force a person to love Jesus, and Christ knowing this would not force anyone to follow his teachings. Christ was about personal choice. --

----Erm, hello majority of verses here?----
Multiple thousands of verses on poverty can't simply be omitted because some one has a fascination with a few choice ones in Leviticus. Social, you can argue up and down all day, because he lived thousands of years ago, but economically, there's no debate: liberal.{{Unsigned|Applestooranges}}
:That's not all there is to it. Never once did Jesus say that the king ought to keep a royal welfare roll and pay for it out of the people's taxes. Taxes, in fact, exist to pay the full-time salaries of the police and the military. {{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=13|verses=6-7|version=NASB}}--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In ancient Rome, there was a program called the ''annona''. This was an attempt by the Roman leaders to eliminate poverty in Rome and in part had the government give free grain to about 1/3 of the population of the city. The question of "is it the government's role or the church's role or the individual's role to do charity and take care of people" we see it is a combination of all three. In particular, [http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/George_W__Bush_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm George Bush] advocates transferring of tax money to religious and non-religious charities with no strings attached. It is unfortunate that in today's world many churches have forgotten their roots in charity and benefactors to the community[http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Winter/Seek-wc.htm] and instead spend their resources trying to convert people by speaking of damnation rather than showing them compassion and living the right way themselves. There is a difference between paying people who are able to work but don't to get away with laziness and helping those who cannot work for whatever reason (If you want Paul's take on this, read 2 Thessalonians 3:8-15). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::That's all very well. But would Jesus say that ''the government'' ought to involve itself in charity, or lay and collect taxes for that purpose? That is the distinction that conservatism makes. And it is a distinction that Paul would have made.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

There is ''no way'' that Jesus would come out on the side of the [[abortion]]ists. He'd be pro-life for sure. [[User:Vossy|Vossy]][[User_talk:Vossy|speak]] 02:03, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal ==
As stated in [[liberal]] he would clearly fall in the liberal end.
* equal rights for men and women, including participation by men and women in the military
** Starting at Mark 5:25, you have Jesus administering a woman who was menstruating for twelve years. This woman was unclean in Judaic tradition and it was not proper for a man to be talking to a woman who was not family.
** Beginning at John 4:7 Jesus talks to a Samaritan woman. It was not proper for a Jewish man to talk to a foreign woman - there were three strikes against her, unclean, foreign and a woman. In Matthew 15:22 Jesus again talks to a foreign woman, this time a Canaanite for whom he healed her daughter.
** Jesus also accepted women as students. With Luke 10:38, Jesus instructed Mary, the sister of Martha.
** In Luke 13:16, Jesus refers to a woman as a "daughter of Abraham". This phrase occurs no where else in the Bible and parallels the term "son of Abraham" that is often used to describe men.
** With Luke 7:35, Jesus forgives the sins of a woman and refers to all people as children of wisdom.
** Many of the stories that Jesus told and later was mentioned in Acts has a man and a woman (rather than just a man). Luke 2:25-38 Luke 4:25-38 Luke 4:31 Luke 7:36 Luke 17:34
** In Jesus's time, it was possible for a man to divorce his wife with a word. In Mark 10:11-12 Jesus says that a man does not have this right and treats men and women as equal.
* distributing wealth from the rich to the poor
** It should not be necessary to iterate the number of times Jesus's ministry is helping the poor. One need only read the Beatitudes in Luke 6:20 and 6:24 to see his take on this subject.
* government programs to rehabilitate criminals
** The most famous rehabilitation of a thief on the cross to whom he says "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Luke 23:43.
** There are other accounts of Jesus talking with criminals and outcasts from society.
*taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
** Again, it should not be necessary to iterate the number of times that Jesus healed people who were poor and could not afford proper care. If anyone is sick, they should be healed.
* support of government programs such as welfare
** This closely relates to the distribution of wealth to the poor.
* support of affirmative action
** Much like that mentioned in equal rights (above), Jesus spent much time with foreigners - people of other races. He makes no distinction in teaching them, and most famously in the story of the good Samaritan.
** Moving from the Gospels to the writings of Paul, Romans 14:13 says "Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way." Affirmative action seeks to remove these stumbling blocks that have been placed by society in the past.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:This page has a colossal joke on it, and you're it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::I thought Mtur made some very clear well sourced argument and that this rebuttal is a little uncivil. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You thought wrong. We see here some classic misconstructions of Scripture of the type that always comes from unbelievers.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Well you are certainly the model of Christian humility Terry.--[[User:Tehstone|Tehstone]] 17:01, 12 September 2007 (PST)
:::::I meet error by firm and swift correction. You're more than a little late replying to my point, anyway.
:::::The one thing that Jesus ''would not'' do is to task the civil government with enforcement of "being nice to people," or even suggest that that was any of the civil government's business.
:::::He ''would'' say that the civil government exists to restrain evil--and you do not restrain evil by letting it run amuck.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:22, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Whoa, whoah. You called for cites from the Gospels to support positions; you said nothing about about the constructions to be placed on the quotes. How is it that you get to decide whether or not these are correct interpretations? [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

While a few of the beatitudes are in Luke chapter 6:20-24, the complete sermon of the beatitudes can be found in Matthew chapter 1:1-12. --[[user:steponme1623|steponme1623]] 11:15, 16 March 2007

Though I'm guessing Jesus wouldn't want to get involved in our ugly political system at this point in time, I would imagine that he would tilt left. I can't imagine him supporting the war; in Romans 12:19, he says:
<blockquote>
Romans 12:19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.
</blockquote> Even more simply, one of the commandments is not to kill. There is no way he would support the way our conservative president has sanctioned both revenge and killing.

Also of the government, the Bible says:
<blockquote>
Isaiah 10:1-3 – "Ah, you who make iniquitous decrees, who write oppressive statutes, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be your spoil, and that you may make the orphans your prey! What will you do on the day of punishment, in the calamity that will come from far away?"

And of helping people in general:
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Deuteronomy 15:7-11 -- If there is among you anyone in need, a member of your community in any of your towns within the land that the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hard-hearted or tight-fisted toward your needy neighbor. You should rather open your hand, willingly lending enough to meet the need, whatever it may be. Be careful that you do not entertain a mean thought, thinking, "The seventh year, the year of remission, is near," and therefore view your needy neighbor with hostility and give nothing; your neighbor might cry to the Lord against you, and you would incur guilt. Give liberally and be ungrudging when you do so, for on this account the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, “Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land.”
</blockquote>
So Jesus would also agree with the notion that politicians should not marginalize the poor and that people should help the poor in general. Although no mention of government is made in the last verse I mentioned, government is not excluded from helping people. And that eliminates any argument that the government should not help the poor because they are lazy and don't deserve it.

So, without a doubt, I would say that Jesus, if he'd even vote, would be Liberal. --[[User:Arod|Arod]] 01:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

He'd have to be on the left -- all those stories about giving away all but the rags on your back and working for the poor. Though he would probably be anti-abortion, pornography and so on. It's quite possible, after all, to be a religious Left-winger with some or many conservative views. --[[User:AppalledBystander|AppalledBystander]] 06:47, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Jesus was the original Bobby Kennedy. How could he support corruption, deceit, republicans? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:00, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

If God loved the world, as Jesus said in John 3:16, and if you should treat your neighbor as you do yourself, than Jesus would be liberal. He would advocate for the government to help the poor and to legalize [[same-sex marriage]]. [[User:Dave07|Dave07]] 18:10, 5 December 2012 (EST)

Matthew 21:12-13 "And Jesus entered the temple of God and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. He said to them, It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer; but you make it a den of robbers." From this verse, I conclude that Jesus would be for government regulation of businesses, so that the businesses do not cheat their customers or monopolize the market.

Mark 2:15 "And as he sat at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners were sitting with Jesus and his disciples; for there were many who followed him." This sounds like a liberal thing to do, to associate with sinful people and outcasts. [[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 22:21, 5 December 2012 (EST)

== Neither ==
Jesus was a religious figure, not a political figure. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:Just because he was a religious figure does not mean that he did not have a stance on various social issues that can be placed on a political spectrum. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:09, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Considering what was said above, and also his own teachings (as according to the bible), I don't think Jesus would claim a political status. Although I could see him leaning more to a conservative side as far as abortion and gay marriage is concerned. (No one is quite sure what Jesus thought of gay marriage but with biblical allusions I would say he was against it)--[[User:Goose89|Goose]] 22:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I would have to say, he'd probably be more neutral, and be like your average American and have a little mix of both. He'd be for gun control, as he didn't promote violence and certainly wouldn't embrace the right for someone to take the life of someone else. Abortion, he'd be against of course. Gay marriage... well he didn't tell hookers to stop being hookers did he? I think that would be an interesting thing to think about. I really don't think he'd give a hard-lined no. He would certainly think though that both liberals and conservatives need to be much kinder to each other. And he honestly... probably wouldn't like our president. If anyone is wondering why, I'll gladly tell you why I think so.--[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 06:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:Actually, He ''did'' tell hookers to stop being hookers. In the same breath He told men to stop picking them up, and He ''also'' told men to stop looking at women ''as if'' they (the men) wanted to pick them (the women) up.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=28-30|version=NASB}}</ref>
:And as regards weapons control, He once said that any man who didn't carry a sword ought to get one.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=22|verses=35-37|version=NASB}}</ref> That doesn't sound like being a proponent of gun control to me.
:And why wouldn't He like our President? On the contrary, He'd say that George W. Bush was and is doing exactly what a man in governing authority should do.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::I think he'd be telling Dubya to get the mote out of his own eye before he tried taking a beam out of another's. Or, to paraphrase, 'sort yourself out first.' [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You got your motes and beams mixed up, but that's a minor quibble. The major point is this: you seem to be suggesting that the [[United States]] deserved to be attacked in the [[World Trade Center incident]]. That incident was the start of a war of [[Islam]] against [[Christianity]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:18, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Not for a minute do I think the United States 'deserved' to be attacked as it was on 9-11 (and a damned tense day it was - we were stood-to within minutes of the first strike and reverted to a lower alert status about three days later). However I do think Mr. Bush's response was not appropriate. The first principle of war is to correctly identify and locate the target. Target identification was not a problem - bin Laden and al-Qaeda promptly claimed responsibility for the attack - but localizing the target was and still is. And Iraq was entirely peripheral to the attack, particularly since the existence of WMDs in that country has become increasingly doubtful. As for your assertion that this is a war between Islam and Christianity, I also call that into question. There are any number of devout Muslims living and working in America, and serving in her armed forces. This is asymetric warfare against a numerically small band of extremists who came up with an effective way to strike at a powerful nation. At that, they didn't originate the idea; Tom Clancey did, in his book '''Debt of Honor''' - and he got raked over the coals by some who considered him to be almost a co-conspirator, because he had the nerve to write a fictional work exposing and discussing a potential weakness. Myself, I think if the administration of the day had paid attention to what he said, there might have been some thought given to how to avoid or deflect such an attack. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 16:11, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You need to publish this on the Talk page of the article on the Iraq War. Not that I agree entirely with your analysis, but it still needs to be where a lot of people can read it and comment on it. That's all I have time to say right now, but I wanted you to know that I had seen it--and that I appreciate your intellectual honesty.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:22, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I think if Jesus was alive today he would be very disappointed in all of us for arguing and bickering so much about a religion with care, compassion, and love as its fundamental principles. Not sure what he would say about politics except that it must be the devil's work.
-Gasmonkey

Totally agreed. He didn't really follow any set authority. He might identify with causes of both sides, but he would never become involved in something as corrupt as politics, on either side.
-mikeyc252

He won't need to. When he returns, he'll just take over. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Scrap? That's the most logical thing I've seen on here so far. And I must say that I agree. --[steponme1623|steponme1623]] 11:22, 16 March 2007

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven.[http://www.plyrics.com/lyrics/reaganyouth/jesuswasacommunist.html]]

Politics are human. Jesus is devine.--[[User:Mister Bug|Mister Bug]] 19:59, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::According to Revelations 19 Jesus is Lord of lords and Kings of kings so if he were here he would be setting up his own kingdom. And this is what is taking place in Revelations 19. Jesus is coming to the earth and when he gets here he will establish his kingdom. This is what we see Jesus doing in the Gospels of the Bible; he is establishing his kingdom by shedding his blood for his followers. Jesus is a king. [BJE]
Jesus would be independent. he would not support the war, so he might vote liberaly to insure it's end[[User:Pastafarian2|Pastafarian2]] 22:36, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Luke 6:35-36 "But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the selfish. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful." Neither the liberal president nor the conservative House of Congress seems to be paying much attention to this verse right now, for neither side will give an inch, and the fiscal cliff will overtake us. [[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 22:34, 5 December 2012 (EST)

== Anarchist ==
Jesus would realize that politics keep about 49% of the country unhappy with each decision. And what would Jesus want for his people other than to be happy? {{unsigned|Caboose84}}

I don't think Jesus cared about politics. Give Caesar back his money, and live a Christian life. The early disciples ran small anarchist communes according to Acts, but I think Jesus was too much concerned with having his followers feed the hungry voluntarily rather than creating efficient government programs to do it. Because of this, I think the lack of government and private property was his eventual goal, since if people are kind and voluntarily accept the authority of God, you wouldn't need either. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 18:45, 19 September 2009 (EDT)

== Socialist ==
Jesus was clearly embroiled in politics. Furthermore, Jesus was also set against the hierarchy of the time. Jesus was a radical, he may not have advocated violence, but he was certainly associated with leading Jewish "terrorists" of the time, even if it was to convince them to be pacifist.

Jesus main perogative was to address the failures of the market system established by Judaism, this does not mean Judaism was evil or anything of the sort. He simply developed the humanitarian aspect of the market. As such, Jesus was the first "socialist", or to a secularist, a leading left-wing thinker. there could be an arguement he simply reasserted aspects of Judaism, which he felt were not being upheld by the leaders of the faith.

From this perspective, a socialist would believe that if Jesus were here, he would be shocked at the idolisation of one person. That he was the cause of so many wars, and his work could be used against the people he sought to help. To Jesus, it would be the community that is most important. {{unsigned|JamesII}}

::A great place to see this is on the [[Social Democracy of America]], SDoA [http://www.socialdemocraticpartyofamerica.org/politicalspectrum.htm political spectrum] page which clearly shows the different levels from left to right within Christianity. {{AtleeYarrow}}

==Libertarian==
I get the definite feeling from the Sermon on the Mount that Jesus would be in favor of [[free trade]] and yet I think he'd be a pretty hippy dippy supporter of [[peace and love]]. [[User:Babbit|Babbit]]

== Stop it everyone ==
I'm fairly sure that trying to 'claim' Jesus in a political point-scoring game is fairly sacreligious. 'He would say' is putting words into his mouth; 'he did say' (eg Matt 5:43-48) is better. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
: Is the question of what the ministry of Jesus says about the social issues are facing us in today's world not a valid one? That it is perfectly acceptable to quote the Bible as fact for historical references but not for social and moral ones? If the Bible is to be taken as literal truth or the source of salvation then it is important to look at what is said.
: The Old Testament is full of fire and Brimstone, but the New Testament is one of love and compassion - a new covenant with the Lord. In Galatians 5:6 we see Paul saying that one part of the Jewish law is not key to being saved (and by extension nor is the rest of it), that Jesus is part of a new covenant.
: I would be most disappointed if it was only acceptable to quote the Bible when it supports one vision and not others. How else is one to learn what salvation as a Christian means? Is it not the right thing to do to try to rehabilitate criminals? to protest the death penalty? to give to the poor? to make health care available to everyone?
: It is one thing to try to stamp out that which we do not like. It is quite another to try to promote that which is good. I would contend that it is better and more in tune with the new covenant to first promote good within ourselves and others than attempting to damn them. Matthew 5:44 is an excellent example of this. Luke 9:52-56 (especially verse 56) is an important read - "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."
: And so, I say again, that it is appropriate to look at the ministry of Jesus and how our own elected officials live up to that ideal and promote it in their legislation. It is this way, promote his ministry to the rest of the country and set an example of that love of all our citizens as an example for the rest of the world. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'll say this for you, [[User:Mtur|Mtur]]: in the above presentation, you're scrupulously honest. I cannot agree that Jesus would side with you as regards the death penalty, government-enforced charity, or the proper policy regarding prisons and prisoners. (I can't use the actual, official word for this last discipline, because it sounds, frankly, obscene. But I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.) But I know now, from the above, that your theories arise from confusion as to exactly Who Jesus is, and the nature of His ''actual'' Mission.

:: That Mission is not primarily about charity; nor is it about the redistribution of wealth. That's a common-enough mistake. But Jesus' displeasure was not about the mere ''possession'' of great wealth but rather the ''worship'' of wealth. Some people actually think that money will buy them happiness. It won't, and it certainly won't buy them salvation--a thing that Jesus attempted to tell people again and again. But no reading of Scripture convinced me that He would confiscate people's substance for confiscation's sake.

:: Nor is charity the mission of government. {{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=13|verses=1-7|version=NASB}} tells us what the mission of government is: to stop by force people who employ force to do wrong against others.

:: Charity is an individual's business. Furthermore, I would argue--purely inductively, I admit--that God does not bless government welfare programs.

:: You spoke of rehabilitation. In this connection, let me quote the actor Burt Lancaster, in his romanticized portrait of Robert Stroud, the ''Birdman of Alcatraz''. Rehabilitation means ''to re-invest a person with dignity''. Where is the ''dignity'' in being an habitual client of the government? An empty belly can be as strong a chain as tempered steel. I see nothing ''dignified'' about the dormitory-style "housing projects," or the spectacle of people lining up at grilled windows for their latest allotment of food coupons and so on. Yes, people do line up--and they vote for those who will keep that money coming, with no thought to where the money is coming ''from''--but they pay a price more terrible than you can imagine. I know it, because I have seen it--up close and personal, as a temporary clerk in a welfare office, and as a clinical clerk in a charity hospital.

:: But for all that, at least in your last presentation you asked the right questions.

:: Be assured of this: a day will come when Jesus will rule directly on this earth. What place any of us will have in His regime, I will not speculate here. But on the ''nature'' of his regime I don't have to speculate; I have Scripture to give me some very strong hints. He will probably own all means of production, distribution, and exchange. He will build that "True Communism" of which the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|Soviet Union]] long boasted--and ''only'' He will be able to make it work. Why? Because only He can be trusted with that kind of authority. Only He can examine qualifications, and ''assign'' people to various tasks, and make sure that everyone gets just what he needs, no less and no more than is good for him.

:: Any human who thinks he's up to that task is a strutting pretender, and not to be trusted. That's why we support [[capitalism]]--because it is the worst economic system ever invented, ''except'' for all the others that have human beings running them. (Furthermore, the Parables of the Talents and the Minas depend on a form of capitalism being in place, so no, Jesus did not condemn capital ''per se''.)

:: Until the day that Jesus rules directly on this earth, we do the best we can. But we do not do it by vesting in any government such powers as belong properly only to Him.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:32, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Give Unto Caesar What Is Caesars, Give Unto God What Is Gods. Give Unto Republican & Democrats What Is Republicans & Democrats, Give Unto God What Is Gods.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:35, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Was Jesus a politician? No!! Would he be a politician today? Of course not!! All politics lays on a bed of corruption.... did Jesus say, "the Roman laws are bad, let's petition the Romans to change the law"? Of course not, the thought is absurd -- Jesus said "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" because Jesus intended for his followers to work outside the corruption of any political system.... supporting a set of values and using the coercive power of the state to enforce those values on non-believers are two different things.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 12:50, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

== Political words of Jesus ==
This debate is pretty ridiculous. Here is the political position of Jesus:

:Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant

:"Give to Ceasar what is Ceasars and to god what is gods"
:--[[User:Yellowlamp|Yellowlamp]] 18:48, 28 January 2008 (EST)

==Ahem==
Do you people have any idea why there are atheists? It isnt because of a broken home, or gays or anything. It is because of conversations like this. Attempting to turn Jesus into a political figure is the reason Gandhi said "I like your Christ, not your Christians. Your christians are so unlike your christ." With this argument, you are turning Jesus into a glorification of yourself. You are saying, "I AM JESUS". This debate is completely outside of respect and common sense. You claim you are trying to be more like this Jesus fellow you always blab about, but you are actually trying to turn jesus into yourself. You are just like Huckabee. "Jesus would support the death penalty, get drunk, watch nascar, and shoot the homasexuals". You are all idiots. And it makes me sick that you ACTUALLY belive what you are saying is right. And makes me want to move to Canada.

Yours, in all ways.
--[[User:MrSmiley|MrSmiley]] 15:09, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Well said! --[[User:Sforzando|Sforzando]] 12:32, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

==Monarchist==

Hey, his official title '''is''' "King of Kings". --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 15:46, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

==Honestly,==

Personally, I see him as a liberal. Now, it's not to be rude or mean or going against the wind here, but seriously, I've always seen Jesus more as a friend than as my King. I respect him, but I don't fear him. God is love, and you cannot fear that.

Anyway, back to the controversy, I find him a liberal because according to what I've read he was a reasonably layed-back guy. He preached equallity, [[Hippie|peace and love]]. Not that Jesus was a hippie, I also see him as very moralistic and very conservative in that sense. I just see.. a liberal believing in democracy and absolute freedom (the only thing God gave only to man was the ability of choice, absolute freedom).

But the Bible says that Christians are specifically supposed to fear God. How do you get around that? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:57, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

Agreed. Jesus went against convention: Liberal -Nonobu

==Faulty Question==

Jesus is alive today. (The Resurrection.) [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:00, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

== He wouldn't. ==
He'd probably be a beggar, or a helper of the poor. He'd laugh and scoff at the televangelists making millions, who live in houses covered in gold.

And the vast majority of people here are just taking the idea of Jesus (Atheist here) and going "Yeah, he'd love this or this or this!" mostly because, well, he can't speak for himself. It's like when a person dies and people go "He'd be okay with this or this or this." I oughta know, I've seen in firsthand. --[[User:GunnerRecall|GunnerRecall]] 16:52, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

== The Fact That This Would Even Be Asked... ==
...is sickening. It shows that certain types of "christians" are fake, or naive. We have politicians claiming to be so religious to incite all the funementalists to go vote for them. It's disturbing. These religious and "family values" politicians are totally fake, ad these fundies who vote simply for religion have no concept of what it really takes to be a government official. As for this debate specificly... Jesus would laugh in your face. Politics have no business in what He would concern Himself with, which is most certainly NOT who to vote for.[[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 19:22, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== He already answered ==

In the Synoptic gospels, there is the account of Jesus being tempted by the devil following his baptism. One of the temptations that Satan used was political power, which Jesus refused. Although, if he came back and were asked today, I do not think that he would care. --[[User:LincolnShuddered|LincolnShuddered]]

==Wait Till He Returns==
You will get a pretty good picture of His style of Government in Heaven. [[Baronvonbob]]

== Socially conservative, economically moderate ==
One can only speculate, I believe Christ would be highly conservative with social issues and moderate on economic issues. Now when I say moderate on economic issues, I say that because nearly all modern economic systems lead to a certain degree of sin. Communists and socialists aren't generous at all; under communism and socialism, you likely end up with a greedy government where officials live a life of luxury whereas the rest of the citizens are poor. Under communism and socialism in its purest form, the government owns '''everything'''. Under capitalism, it's easy to end up with greed in the private sector. I don't think Jesus would want to tax people to help the poor, but rather I believe Jesus would want people to choose to help the poor out of the goodness of their heart. Social issues are a no brainier; while Jesus was a forgiving man, that doesn't mean he outright supported sinful activities like homosexuality, adultery, and paganism, and I doubt he would approve of abortion and contraception either. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 19:14, 5 December 2012 (EST)
:Can you please point me to biblical passages where Jesus clearly and unambiguously expressed an opinion on homosexuality? [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 19:43, 5 December 2012 (EST)

Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?

2012-12-06T03:34:18Z

Userafw: /* Neither */

{{debate}}

If Jesus were alive today, what end of the political spectrum would he identify himself with? [[Conservative]] or [[Liberal]]? Please back up any assertions with references to the Gospels.

== "WTF?" ==
... would be the reply of Jesus. Seriously, the way Christianity has changed is sacrilegious. Basically all New Testament books are bunk. "St." Peter is pretty unChristly. The books of the Bible were written many years after the events and have been changed over the years. A little bit here and there creates a lot of change. I very much doubt that Jesus went around claiming some of the stuff he did in the later Gospels. How does this relate to politics? Not much, I was rambling...

I think Jesus would not care for what politics is now. He wouldn't align himself to any particular party. --[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 23:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Kirby; the very idea of left and right wing was non existant in those days. In fact, it is blasphemy for any group to claim him as their own. As a conscientious Christian, I find it nothing short of disgraceful when the Religious Right try to twist his word to legislate their own prejudices. There was no provision in the Bible for opposing slavery - this has been twisted by wingnuts in order to get a Christian endorsement of it. Some of the most extreme white supremacists in South Africa and America have used the Great Flood to demonstrate that Blacks come from one of the animals, as the only humans who travelled aboard the ship were clearly white, as their lineage can be traced to the caucasian King David.

Now, the Religious Right use Christianity in order to legislate against homosexuals. I believe that if Christ were around today, he would storm out of the houses of government in much the same way he stormed out of the Temple. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 20:26, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

== Communist ==
Since he thought everyone deserved a second chance, he would want that to apply to our economic system as well! That way, anyone who desired wealth and was willing to contribute productive to society should be held equal to all other such people.
To allow a "redeemed" person to suffer for past poor financial decisions is to hold back forgiveness.

Besides, the notion of God today is so reminiscent of Lenin's cult of the personality.

== Conservative ==
Where else would he find a home? [[Liberal]]s deny him. They deny his [[creation|creative]] role,<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1|version=NASB}}</ref> and they deny the need for Him as Lord and personal Savior. They actually think that if they're good, they'll go to heaven--and that is simply wrong.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=3|verses=10-12|version=KJV}}</ref>

1. Not all "liberals" deny Christ. There are many of us who are quite orthodox in our Christian faith and yet support some (not all) liberal causes. [[User:Burgeson|Burgy]] 15:04, 4 February 2009 (EST)

2. Jesus didn't want people to revere him, like said before not all liberals deny christ in reality many liberals are christian. also, didn't Jesus want people to give money to the poor and try this one "But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just." [Luke 14:13 &14.] The argument that Liberals would hate him is completely invalid. And if the moto for this wiki is "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia", you really need to get your facts straight.

Moreover, [[Jesus]] would never countenance the behaviors in which [[liberal]]s routinely engage, and encourage others to engage.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=27-30|version=NASB}}</ref>
Jesus never said that a man could divorce his wife with a word. He did mention a specific circumstance that applied only to the [[Judaism|Jewish]] custom of engagement, which was less than a marriage but far more than the engagement we know today.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Deuteronomy|chap=24|verses=1-4|version=KJV}}</ref> Jesus now practically abolished divorce entirely.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=16|verses=18|version=KJV}}</ref> Liberals think divorce ought to be free and easy.

The "rehabilitation" of the thief consisted of salvation, and ''not'' of returning him to human society. Jesus was demonstrating that anyone could gain salvation if he would but repent--as this thief did.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=23|verses=42|version=KJV}}</ref>

Lastly: the reference to stumblingblocks<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=14|verses=13|version=KJV}}</ref> has nothing to do with "affirmative action." Rather it has to do with not putting temptation to [[sin]] in one another's way. But to a liberal, no one commits sin by engaging in the traditionally decried vices. Rather, one commits sin merely by having too much money (a thing Jesus never said) or by making the world less wild or by otherwise disagreeing with a liberal.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: It is dangerous to use Matthew 5:27-30 to condemn liberals - one need only look at the current set of conservatives running for election to see multiple marriages and the occasional affair.
: You appear to have misread what I said about divorce - "In Jesus's time, it was possible for a man to divorce his wife with a word." Jesus was against divorce. Again, one need only look at the current conservatives running for election to show that divorce is quite common outside of the liberal circle.
: Let us look at [[Conservative]] to see what the stance there is and how this relates to Jesus's ministry.
:* National defense and high military spending -- Jesus did not side with the Jewish sect that was trying for military overthrow of Rome. All of his acts were non-violet.
He didn't use violets?!--[[User:The vigilante|The vigilante]] 10:40, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity) -- I would suggest reading Mark 10:21-25 to see the stance on what the rich should do.
:* Stronger law enforcement and anti-crime laws, including the death penalty -- Look at John 8:3-11 to see Jesus speaking out against the death penalty (and further rehabilitation of those who commit crimes).
:* Abandonment of public schools in favor of private, particularly using tuition vouchers -- Jesus taught any who came to him without asking for payment. He much more closely resembles a public school teacher than someone advocating only private institutions to teach school.
: Given these it is reasonable to say that he was a very progressive individual for his time and even today his teachings show himself to be much more in line with the liberal platform than the conservative one. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well put, Mtur. I can't help thinking that if Jesus were alive today and tried that "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" bit in front of a crowd of angry Fundamentalists, the symbol of His death would be a rock. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:13, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
I can't help thinking that if Jesus were alive today, he'd read some of the posts here and rush to the nearest mosque to convert.-Neuro

HE IS DEAD GET OVER IT!{{Unsigned|Leninrules}}
:No, He isn't. But He knew you would think that, and said so to His Apostles.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Would Jesus consign to any party? I do not believe so. The combination of politics and religion was never meant to be. And besides, Jesus would never force any of his laws on anyone. You cannot force a person to love Jesus, and Christ knowing this would not force anyone to follow his teachings. Christ was about personal choice. --

----Erm, hello majority of verses here?----
Multiple thousands of verses on poverty can't simply be omitted because some one has a fascination with a few choice ones in Leviticus. Social, you can argue up and down all day, because he lived thousands of years ago, but economically, there's no debate: liberal.{{Unsigned|Applestooranges}}
:That's not all there is to it. Never once did Jesus say that the king ought to keep a royal welfare roll and pay for it out of the people's taxes. Taxes, in fact, exist to pay the full-time salaries of the police and the military. {{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=13|verses=6-7|version=NASB}}--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In ancient Rome, there was a program called the ''annona''. This was an attempt by the Roman leaders to eliminate poverty in Rome and in part had the government give free grain to about 1/3 of the population of the city. The question of "is it the government's role or the church's role or the individual's role to do charity and take care of people" we see it is a combination of all three. In particular, [http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/George_W__Bush_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm George Bush] advocates transferring of tax money to religious and non-religious charities with no strings attached. It is unfortunate that in today's world many churches have forgotten their roots in charity and benefactors to the community[http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Winter/Seek-wc.htm] and instead spend their resources trying to convert people by speaking of damnation rather than showing them compassion and living the right way themselves. There is a difference between paying people who are able to work but don't to get away with laziness and helping those who cannot work for whatever reason (If you want Paul's take on this, read 2 Thessalonians 3:8-15). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::That's all very well. But would Jesus say that ''the government'' ought to involve itself in charity, or lay and collect taxes for that purpose? That is the distinction that conservatism makes. And it is a distinction that Paul would have made.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

There is ''no way'' that Jesus would come out on the side of the [[abortion]]ists. He'd be pro-life for sure. [[User:Vossy|Vossy]][[User_talk:Vossy|speak]] 02:03, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal ==
As stated in [[liberal]] he would clearly fall in the liberal end.
* equal rights for men and women, including participation by men and women in the military
** Starting at Mark 5:25, you have Jesus administering a woman who was menstruating for twelve years. This woman was unclean in Judaic tradition and it was not proper for a man to be talking to a woman who was not family.
** Beginning at John 4:7 Jesus talks to a Samaritan woman. It was not proper for a Jewish man to talk to a foreign woman - there were three strikes against her, unclean, foreign and a woman. In Matthew 15:22 Jesus again talks to a foreign woman, this time a Canaanite for whom he healed her daughter.
** Jesus also accepted women as students. With Luke 10:38, Jesus instructed Mary, the sister of Martha.
** In Luke 13:16, Jesus refers to a woman as a "daughter of Abraham". This phrase occurs no where else in the Bible and parallels the term "son of Abraham" that is often used to describe men.
** With Luke 7:35, Jesus forgives the sins of a woman and refers to all people as children of wisdom.
** Many of the stories that Jesus told and later was mentioned in Acts has a man and a woman (rather than just a man). Luke 2:25-38 Luke 4:25-38 Luke 4:31 Luke 7:36 Luke 17:34
** In Jesus's time, it was possible for a man to divorce his wife with a word. In Mark 10:11-12 Jesus says that a man does not have this right and treats men and women as equal.
* distributing wealth from the rich to the poor
** It should not be necessary to iterate the number of times Jesus's ministry is helping the poor. One need only read the Beatitudes in Luke 6:20 and 6:24 to see his take on this subject.
* government programs to rehabilitate criminals
** The most famous rehabilitation of a thief on the cross to whom he says "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Luke 23:43.
** There are other accounts of Jesus talking with criminals and outcasts from society.
*taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
** Again, it should not be necessary to iterate the number of times that Jesus healed people who were poor and could not afford proper care. If anyone is sick, they should be healed.
* support of government programs such as welfare
** This closely relates to the distribution of wealth to the poor.
* support of affirmative action
** Much like that mentioned in equal rights (above), Jesus spent much time with foreigners - people of other races. He makes no distinction in teaching them, and most famously in the story of the good Samaritan.
** Moving from the Gospels to the writings of Paul, Romans 14:13 says "Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way." Affirmative action seeks to remove these stumbling blocks that have been placed by society in the past.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:This page has a colossal joke on it, and you're it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::I thought Mtur made some very clear well sourced argument and that this rebuttal is a little uncivil. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You thought wrong. We see here some classic misconstructions of Scripture of the type that always comes from unbelievers.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Well you are certainly the model of Christian humility Terry.--[[User:Tehstone|Tehstone]] 17:01, 12 September 2007 (PST)
:::::I meet error by firm and swift correction. You're more than a little late replying to my point, anyway.
:::::The one thing that Jesus ''would not'' do is to task the civil government with enforcement of "being nice to people," or even suggest that that was any of the civil government's business.
:::::He ''would'' say that the civil government exists to restrain evil--and you do not restrain evil by letting it run amuck.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:22, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Whoa, whoah. You called for cites from the Gospels to support positions; you said nothing about about the constructions to be placed on the quotes. How is it that you get to decide whether or not these are correct interpretations? [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

While a few of the beatitudes are in Luke chapter 6:20-24, the complete sermon of the beatitudes can be found in Matthew chapter 1:1-12. --[[user:steponme1623|steponme1623]] 11:15, 16 March 2007

Though I'm guessing Jesus wouldn't want to get involved in our ugly political system at this point in time, I would imagine that he would tilt left. I can't imagine him supporting the war; in Romans 12:19, he says:
<blockquote>
Romans 12:19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.
</blockquote> Even more simply, one of the commandments is not to kill. There is no way he would support the way our conservative president has sanctioned both revenge and killing.

Also of the government, the Bible says:
<blockquote>
Isaiah 10:1-3 – "Ah, you who make iniquitous decrees, who write oppressive statutes, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be your spoil, and that you may make the orphans your prey! What will you do on the day of punishment, in the calamity that will come from far away?"

And of helping people in general:
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Deuteronomy 15:7-11 -- If there is among you anyone in need, a member of your community in any of your towns within the land that the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hard-hearted or tight-fisted toward your needy neighbor. You should rather open your hand, willingly lending enough to meet the need, whatever it may be. Be careful that you do not entertain a mean thought, thinking, "The seventh year, the year of remission, is near," and therefore view your needy neighbor with hostility and give nothing; your neighbor might cry to the Lord against you, and you would incur guilt. Give liberally and be ungrudging when you do so, for on this account the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, “Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land.”
</blockquote>
So Jesus would also agree with the notion that politicians should not marginalize the poor and that people should help the poor in general. Although no mention of government is made in the last verse I mentioned, government is not excluded from helping people. And that eliminates any argument that the government should not help the poor because they are lazy and don't deserve it.

So, without a doubt, I would say that Jesus, if he'd even vote, would be Liberal. --[[User:Arod|Arod]] 01:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

He'd have to be on the left -- all those stories about giving away all but the rags on your back and working for the poor. Though he would probably be anti-abortion, pornography and so on. It's quite possible, after all, to be a religious Left-winger with some or many conservative views. --[[User:AppalledBystander|AppalledBystander]] 06:47, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Jesus was the original Bobby Kennedy. How could he support corruption, deceit, republicans? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:00, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

If God loved the world, as Jesus said in John 3:16, and if you should treat your neighbor as you do yourself, than Jesus would be liberal. He would advocate for the government to help the poor and to legalize [[same-sex marriage]]. [[User:Dave07|Dave07]] 18:10, 5 December 2012 (EST)

Matthew 21:12-13 "And Jesus entered the temple of God and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. He said to them, It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer; but you make it a den of robbers." From this verse, I conclude that Jesus would be for government regulation of businesses, so that the businesses do not cheat their customers or monopolize the market.

Mark 2:15 "And as he sat at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners were sitting with Jesus and his disciples; for there were many who followed him." This sounds like a liberal thing to do, to associate with sinful people and outcasts. [[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 22:21, 5 December 2012 (EST)

== Neither ==
Jesus was a religious figure, not a political figure. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:Just because he was a religious figure does not mean that he did not have a stance on various social issues that can be placed on a political spectrum. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:09, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Considering what was said above, and also his own teachings (as according to the bible), I don't think Jesus would claim a political status. Although I could see him leaning more to a conservative side as far as abortion and gay marriage is concerned. (No one is quite sure what Jesus thought of gay marriage but with biblical allusions I would say he was against it)--[[User:Goose89|Goose]] 22:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I would have to say, he'd probably be more neutral, and be like your average American and have a little mix of both. He'd be for gun control, as he didn't promote violence and certainly wouldn't embrace the right for someone to take the life of someone else. Abortion, he'd be against of course. Gay marriage... well he didn't tell hookers to stop being hookers did he? I think that would be an interesting thing to think about. I really don't think he'd give a hard-lined no. He would certainly think though that both liberals and conservatives need to be much kinder to each other. And he honestly... probably wouldn't like our president. If anyone is wondering why, I'll gladly tell you why I think so.--[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 06:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:Actually, He ''did'' tell hookers to stop being hookers. In the same breath He told men to stop picking them up, and He ''also'' told men to stop looking at women ''as if'' they (the men) wanted to pick them (the women) up.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=28-30|version=NASB}}</ref>
:And as regards weapons control, He once said that any man who didn't carry a sword ought to get one.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=22|verses=35-37|version=NASB}}</ref> That doesn't sound like being a proponent of gun control to me.
:And why wouldn't He like our President? On the contrary, He'd say that George W. Bush was and is doing exactly what a man in governing authority should do.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::I think he'd be telling Dubya to get the mote out of his own eye before he tried taking a beam out of another's. Or, to paraphrase, 'sort yourself out first.' [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You got your motes and beams mixed up, but that's a minor quibble. The major point is this: you seem to be suggesting that the [[United States]] deserved to be attacked in the [[World Trade Center incident]]. That incident was the start of a war of [[Islam]] against [[Christianity]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:18, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Not for a minute do I think the United States 'deserved' to be attacked as it was on 9-11 (and a damned tense day it was - we were stood-to within minutes of the first strike and reverted to a lower alert status about three days later). However I do think Mr. Bush's response was not appropriate. The first principle of war is to correctly identify and locate the target. Target identification was not a problem - bin Laden and al-Qaeda promptly claimed responsibility for the attack - but localizing the target was and still is. And Iraq was entirely peripheral to the attack, particularly since the existence of WMDs in that country has become increasingly doubtful. As for your assertion that this is a war between Islam and Christianity, I also call that into question. There are any number of devout Muslims living and working in America, and serving in her armed forces. This is asymetric warfare against a numerically small band of extremists who came up with an effective way to strike at a powerful nation. At that, they didn't originate the idea; Tom Clancey did, in his book '''Debt of Honor''' - and he got raked over the coals by some who considered him to be almost a co-conspirator, because he had the nerve to write a fictional work exposing and discussing a potential weakness. Myself, I think if the administration of the day had paid attention to what he said, there might have been some thought given to how to avoid or deflect such an attack. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 16:11, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You need to publish this on the Talk page of the article on the Iraq War. Not that I agree entirely with your analysis, but it still needs to be where a lot of people can read it and comment on it. That's all I have time to say right now, but I wanted you to know that I had seen it--and that I appreciate your intellectual honesty.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:22, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I think if Jesus was alive today he would be very disappointed in all of us for arguing and bickering so much about a religion with care, compassion, and love as its fundamental principles. Not sure what he would say about politics except that it must be the devil's work.
-Gasmonkey

Totally agreed. He didn't really follow any set authority. He might identify with causes of both sides, but he would never become involved in something as corrupt as politics, on either side.
-mikeyc252

He won't need to. When he returns, he'll just take over. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Scrap? That's the most logical thing I've seen on here so far. And I must say that I agree. --[steponme1623|steponme1623]] 11:22, 16 March 2007

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven.[http://www.plyrics.com/lyrics/reaganyouth/jesuswasacommunist.html]]

Politics are human. Jesus is devine.--[[User:Mister Bug|Mister Bug]] 19:59, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::According to Revelations 19 Jesus is Lord of lords and Kings of kings so if he were here he would be setting up his own kingdom. And this is what is taking place in Revelations 19. Jesus is coming to the earth and when he gets here he will establish his kingdom. This is what we see Jesus doing in the Gospels of the Bible; he is establishing his kingdom by shedding his blood for his followers. Jesus is a king. [BJE]
Jesus would be independent. he would not support the war, so he might vote liberaly to insure it's end[[User:Pastafarian2|Pastafarian2]] 22:36, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Luke 6:35-36 "But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the selfish. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful." If only the Congress and the President would pay attention to this verse, there would not be so much deadlock that will lead to the fiscal cliff because neither side will compromise an inch. [[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 22:34, 5 December 2012 (EST)

== Anarchist ==
Jesus would realize that politics keep about 49% of the country unhappy with each decision. And what would Jesus want for his people other than to be happy? {{unsigned|Caboose84}}

I don't think Jesus cared about politics. Give Caesar back his money, and live a Christian life. The early disciples ran small anarchist communes according to Acts, but I think Jesus was too much concerned with having his followers feed the hungry voluntarily rather than creating efficient government programs to do it. Because of this, I think the lack of government and private property was his eventual goal, since if people are kind and voluntarily accept the authority of God, you wouldn't need either. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 18:45, 19 September 2009 (EDT)

== Socialist ==
Jesus was clearly embroiled in politics. Furthermore, Jesus was also set against the hierarchy of the time. Jesus was a radical, he may not have advocated violence, but he was certainly associated with leading Jewish "terrorists" of the time, even if it was to convince them to be pacifist.

Jesus main perogative was to address the failures of the market system established by Judaism, this does not mean Judaism was evil or anything of the sort. He simply developed the humanitarian aspect of the market. As such, Jesus was the first "socialist", or to a secularist, a leading left-wing thinker. there could be an arguement he simply reasserted aspects of Judaism, which he felt were not being upheld by the leaders of the faith.

From this perspective, a socialist would believe that if Jesus were here, he would be shocked at the idolisation of one person. That he was the cause of so many wars, and his work could be used against the people he sought to help. To Jesus, it would be the community that is most important. {{unsigned|JamesII}}

::A great place to see this is on the [[Social Democracy of America]], SDoA [http://www.socialdemocraticpartyofamerica.org/politicalspectrum.htm political spectrum] page which clearly shows the different levels from left to right within Christianity. {{AtleeYarrow}}

==Libertarian==
I get the definite feeling from the Sermon on the Mount that Jesus would be in favor of [[free trade]] and yet I think he'd be a pretty hippy dippy supporter of [[peace and love]]. [[User:Babbit|Babbit]]

== Stop it everyone ==
I'm fairly sure that trying to 'claim' Jesus in a political point-scoring game is fairly sacreligious. 'He would say' is putting words into his mouth; 'he did say' (eg Matt 5:43-48) is better. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
: Is the question of what the ministry of Jesus says about the social issues are facing us in today's world not a valid one? That it is perfectly acceptable to quote the Bible as fact for historical references but not for social and moral ones? If the Bible is to be taken as literal truth or the source of salvation then it is important to look at what is said.
: The Old Testament is full of fire and Brimstone, but the New Testament is one of love and compassion - a new covenant with the Lord. In Galatians 5:6 we see Paul saying that one part of the Jewish law is not key to being saved (and by extension nor is the rest of it), that Jesus is part of a new covenant.
: I would be most disappointed if it was only acceptable to quote the Bible when it supports one vision and not others. How else is one to learn what salvation as a Christian means? Is it not the right thing to do to try to rehabilitate criminals? to protest the death penalty? to give to the poor? to make health care available to everyone?
: It is one thing to try to stamp out that which we do not like. It is quite another to try to promote that which is good. I would contend that it is better and more in tune with the new covenant to first promote good within ourselves and others than attempting to damn them. Matthew 5:44 is an excellent example of this. Luke 9:52-56 (especially verse 56) is an important read - "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."
: And so, I say again, that it is appropriate to look at the ministry of Jesus and how our own elected officials live up to that ideal and promote it in their legislation. It is this way, promote his ministry to the rest of the country and set an example of that love of all our citizens as an example for the rest of the world. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'll say this for you, [[User:Mtur|Mtur]]: in the above presentation, you're scrupulously honest. I cannot agree that Jesus would side with you as regards the death penalty, government-enforced charity, or the proper policy regarding prisons and prisoners. (I can't use the actual, official word for this last discipline, because it sounds, frankly, obscene. But I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.) But I know now, from the above, that your theories arise from confusion as to exactly Who Jesus is, and the nature of His ''actual'' Mission.

:: That Mission is not primarily about charity; nor is it about the redistribution of wealth. That's a common-enough mistake. But Jesus' displeasure was not about the mere ''possession'' of great wealth but rather the ''worship'' of wealth. Some people actually think that money will buy them happiness. It won't, and it certainly won't buy them salvation--a thing that Jesus attempted to tell people again and again. But no reading of Scripture convinced me that He would confiscate people's substance for confiscation's sake.

:: Nor is charity the mission of government. {{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=13|verses=1-7|version=NASB}} tells us what the mission of government is: to stop by force people who employ force to do wrong against others.

:: Charity is an individual's business. Furthermore, I would argue--purely inductively, I admit--that God does not bless government welfare programs.

:: You spoke of rehabilitation. In this connection, let me quote the actor Burt Lancaster, in his romanticized portrait of Robert Stroud, the ''Birdman of Alcatraz''. Rehabilitation means ''to re-invest a person with dignity''. Where is the ''dignity'' in being an habitual client of the government? An empty belly can be as strong a chain as tempered steel. I see nothing ''dignified'' about the dormitory-style "housing projects," or the spectacle of people lining up at grilled windows for their latest allotment of food coupons and so on. Yes, people do line up--and they vote for those who will keep that money coming, with no thought to where the money is coming ''from''--but they pay a price more terrible than you can imagine. I know it, because I have seen it--up close and personal, as a temporary clerk in a welfare office, and as a clinical clerk in a charity hospital.

:: But for all that, at least in your last presentation you asked the right questions.

:: Be assured of this: a day will come when Jesus will rule directly on this earth. What place any of us will have in His regime, I will not speculate here. But on the ''nature'' of his regime I don't have to speculate; I have Scripture to give me some very strong hints. He will probably own all means of production, distribution, and exchange. He will build that "True Communism" of which the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|Soviet Union]] long boasted--and ''only'' He will be able to make it work. Why? Because only He can be trusted with that kind of authority. Only He can examine qualifications, and ''assign'' people to various tasks, and make sure that everyone gets just what he needs, no less and no more than is good for him.

:: Any human who thinks he's up to that task is a strutting pretender, and not to be trusted. That's why we support [[capitalism]]--because it is the worst economic system ever invented, ''except'' for all the others that have human beings running them. (Furthermore, the Parables of the Talents and the Minas depend on a form of capitalism being in place, so no, Jesus did not condemn capital ''per se''.)

:: Until the day that Jesus rules directly on this earth, we do the best we can. But we do not do it by vesting in any government such powers as belong properly only to Him.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:32, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Give Unto Caesar What Is Caesars, Give Unto God What Is Gods. Give Unto Republican & Democrats What Is Republicans & Democrats, Give Unto God What Is Gods.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:35, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Was Jesus a politician? No!! Would he be a politician today? Of course not!! All politics lays on a bed of corruption.... did Jesus say, "the Roman laws are bad, let's petition the Romans to change the law"? Of course not, the thought is absurd -- Jesus said "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" because Jesus intended for his followers to work outside the corruption of any political system.... supporting a set of values and using the coercive power of the state to enforce those values on non-believers are two different things.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 12:50, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

== Political words of Jesus ==
This debate is pretty ridiculous. Here is the political position of Jesus:

:Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant

:"Give to Ceasar what is Ceasars and to god what is gods"
:--[[User:Yellowlamp|Yellowlamp]] 18:48, 28 January 2008 (EST)

==Ahem==
Do you people have any idea why there are atheists? It isnt because of a broken home, or gays or anything. It is because of conversations like this. Attempting to turn Jesus into a political figure is the reason Gandhi said "I like your Christ, not your Christians. Your christians are so unlike your christ." With this argument, you are turning Jesus into a glorification of yourself. You are saying, "I AM JESUS". This debate is completely outside of respect and common sense. You claim you are trying to be more like this Jesus fellow you always blab about, but you are actually trying to turn jesus into yourself. You are just like Huckabee. "Jesus would support the death penalty, get drunk, watch nascar, and shoot the homasexuals". You are all idiots. And it makes me sick that you ACTUALLY belive what you are saying is right. And makes me want to move to Canada.

Yours, in all ways.
--[[User:MrSmiley|MrSmiley]] 15:09, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Well said! --[[User:Sforzando|Sforzando]] 12:32, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

==Monarchist==

Hey, his official title '''is''' "King of Kings". --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 15:46, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

==Honestly,==

Personally, I see him as a liberal. Now, it's not to be rude or mean or going against the wind here, but seriously, I've always seen Jesus more as a friend than as my King. I respect him, but I don't fear him. God is love, and you cannot fear that.

Anyway, back to the controversy, I find him a liberal because according to what I've read he was a reasonably layed-back guy. He preached equallity, [[Hippie|peace and love]]. Not that Jesus was a hippie, I also see him as very moralistic and very conservative in that sense. I just see.. a liberal believing in democracy and absolute freedom (the only thing God gave only to man was the ability of choice, absolute freedom).

But the Bible says that Christians are specifically supposed to fear God. How do you get around that? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:57, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

Agreed. Jesus went against convention: Liberal -Nonobu

==Faulty Question==

Jesus is alive today. (The Resurrection.) [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:00, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

== He wouldn't. ==
He'd probably be a beggar, or a helper of the poor. He'd laugh and scoff at the televangelists making millions, who live in houses covered in gold.

And the vast majority of people here are just taking the idea of Jesus (Atheist here) and going "Yeah, he'd love this or this or this!" mostly because, well, he can't speak for himself. It's like when a person dies and people go "He'd be okay with this or this or this." I oughta know, I've seen in firsthand. --[[User:GunnerRecall|GunnerRecall]] 16:52, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

== The Fact That This Would Even Be Asked... ==
...is sickening. It shows that certain types of "christians" are fake, or naive. We have politicians claiming to be so religious to incite all the funementalists to go vote for them. It's disturbing. These religious and "family values" politicians are totally fake, ad these fundies who vote simply for religion have no concept of what it really takes to be a government official. As for this debate specificly... Jesus would laugh in your face. Politics have no business in what He would concern Himself with, which is most certainly NOT who to vote for.[[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 19:22, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== He already answered ==

In the Synoptic gospels, there is the account of Jesus being tempted by the devil following his baptism. One of the temptations that Satan used was political power, which Jesus refused. Although, if he came back and were asked today, I do not think that he would care. --[[User:LincolnShuddered|LincolnShuddered]]

==Wait Till He Returns==
You will get a pretty good picture of His style of Government in Heaven. [[Baronvonbob]]

== Socially conservative, economically moderate ==
One can only speculate, I believe Christ would be highly conservative with social issues and moderate on economic issues. Now when I say moderate on economic issues, I say that because nearly all modern economic systems lead to a certain degree of sin. Communists and socialists aren't generous at all; under communism and socialism, you likely end up with a greedy government where officials live a life of luxury whereas the rest of the citizens are poor. Under communism and socialism in its purest form, the government owns '''everything'''. Under capitalism, it's easy to end up with greed in the private sector. I don't think Jesus would want to tax people to help the poor, but rather I believe Jesus would want people to choose to help the poor out of the goodness of their heart. Social issues are a no brainier; while Jesus was a forgiving man, that doesn't mean he outright supported sinful activities like homosexuality, adultery, and paganism, and I doubt he would approve of abortion and contraception either. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 19:14, 5 December 2012 (EST)
:Can you please point me to biblical passages where Jesus clearly and unambiguously expressed an opinion on homosexuality? [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 19:43, 5 December 2012 (EST)

Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?

2012-12-06T03:21:56Z

Userafw: /* Liberal */

{{debate}}

If Jesus were alive today, what end of the political spectrum would he identify himself with? [[Conservative]] or [[Liberal]]? Please back up any assertions with references to the Gospels.

== "WTF?" ==
... would be the reply of Jesus. Seriously, the way Christianity has changed is sacrilegious. Basically all New Testament books are bunk. "St." Peter is pretty unChristly. The books of the Bible were written many years after the events and have been changed over the years. A little bit here and there creates a lot of change. I very much doubt that Jesus went around claiming some of the stuff he did in the later Gospels. How does this relate to politics? Not much, I was rambling...

I think Jesus would not care for what politics is now. He wouldn't align himself to any particular party. --[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 23:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Kirby; the very idea of left and right wing was non existant in those days. In fact, it is blasphemy for any group to claim him as their own. As a conscientious Christian, I find it nothing short of disgraceful when the Religious Right try to twist his word to legislate their own prejudices. There was no provision in the Bible for opposing slavery - this has been twisted by wingnuts in order to get a Christian endorsement of it. Some of the most extreme white supremacists in South Africa and America have used the Great Flood to demonstrate that Blacks come from one of the animals, as the only humans who travelled aboard the ship were clearly white, as their lineage can be traced to the caucasian King David.

Now, the Religious Right use Christianity in order to legislate against homosexuals. I believe that if Christ were around today, he would storm out of the houses of government in much the same way he stormed out of the Temple. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 20:26, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

== Communist ==
Since he thought everyone deserved a second chance, he would want that to apply to our economic system as well! That way, anyone who desired wealth and was willing to contribute productive to society should be held equal to all other such people.
To allow a "redeemed" person to suffer for past poor financial decisions is to hold back forgiveness.

Besides, the notion of God today is so reminiscent of Lenin's cult of the personality.

== Conservative ==
Where else would he find a home? [[Liberal]]s deny him. They deny his [[creation|creative]] role,<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1|version=NASB}}</ref> and they deny the need for Him as Lord and personal Savior. They actually think that if they're good, they'll go to heaven--and that is simply wrong.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=3|verses=10-12|version=KJV}}</ref>

1. Not all "liberals" deny Christ. There are many of us who are quite orthodox in our Christian faith and yet support some (not all) liberal causes. [[User:Burgeson|Burgy]] 15:04, 4 February 2009 (EST)

2. Jesus didn't want people to revere him, like said before not all liberals deny christ in reality many liberals are christian. also, didn't Jesus want people to give money to the poor and try this one "But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just." [Luke 14:13 &14.] The argument that Liberals would hate him is completely invalid. And if the moto for this wiki is "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia", you really need to get your facts straight.

Moreover, [[Jesus]] would never countenance the behaviors in which [[liberal]]s routinely engage, and encourage others to engage.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=27-30|version=NASB}}</ref>
Jesus never said that a man could divorce his wife with a word. He did mention a specific circumstance that applied only to the [[Judaism|Jewish]] custom of engagement, which was less than a marriage but far more than the engagement we know today.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Deuteronomy|chap=24|verses=1-4|version=KJV}}</ref> Jesus now practically abolished divorce entirely.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=16|verses=18|version=KJV}}</ref> Liberals think divorce ought to be free and easy.

The "rehabilitation" of the thief consisted of salvation, and ''not'' of returning him to human society. Jesus was demonstrating that anyone could gain salvation if he would but repent--as this thief did.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=23|verses=42|version=KJV}}</ref>

Lastly: the reference to stumblingblocks<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=14|verses=13|version=KJV}}</ref> has nothing to do with "affirmative action." Rather it has to do with not putting temptation to [[sin]] in one another's way. But to a liberal, no one commits sin by engaging in the traditionally decried vices. Rather, one commits sin merely by having too much money (a thing Jesus never said) or by making the world less wild or by otherwise disagreeing with a liberal.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: It is dangerous to use Matthew 5:27-30 to condemn liberals - one need only look at the current set of conservatives running for election to see multiple marriages and the occasional affair.
: You appear to have misread what I said about divorce - "In Jesus's time, it was possible for a man to divorce his wife with a word." Jesus was against divorce. Again, one need only look at the current conservatives running for election to show that divorce is quite common outside of the liberal circle.
: Let us look at [[Conservative]] to see what the stance there is and how this relates to Jesus's ministry.
:* National defense and high military spending -- Jesus did not side with the Jewish sect that was trying for military overthrow of Rome. All of his acts were non-violet.
He didn't use violets?!--[[User:The vigilante|The vigilante]] 10:40, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity) -- I would suggest reading Mark 10:21-25 to see the stance on what the rich should do.
:* Stronger law enforcement and anti-crime laws, including the death penalty -- Look at John 8:3-11 to see Jesus speaking out against the death penalty (and further rehabilitation of those who commit crimes).
:* Abandonment of public schools in favor of private, particularly using tuition vouchers -- Jesus taught any who came to him without asking for payment. He much more closely resembles a public school teacher than someone advocating only private institutions to teach school.
: Given these it is reasonable to say that he was a very progressive individual for his time and even today his teachings show himself to be much more in line with the liberal platform than the conservative one. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well put, Mtur. I can't help thinking that if Jesus were alive today and tried that "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" bit in front of a crowd of angry Fundamentalists, the symbol of His death would be a rock. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:13, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
I can't help thinking that if Jesus were alive today, he'd read some of the posts here and rush to the nearest mosque to convert.-Neuro

HE IS DEAD GET OVER IT!{{Unsigned|Leninrules}}
:No, He isn't. But He knew you would think that, and said so to His Apostles.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Would Jesus consign to any party? I do not believe so. The combination of politics and religion was never meant to be. And besides, Jesus would never force any of his laws on anyone. You cannot force a person to love Jesus, and Christ knowing this would not force anyone to follow his teachings. Christ was about personal choice. --

----Erm, hello majority of verses here?----
Multiple thousands of verses on poverty can't simply be omitted because some one has a fascination with a few choice ones in Leviticus. Social, you can argue up and down all day, because he lived thousands of years ago, but economically, there's no debate: liberal.{{Unsigned|Applestooranges}}
:That's not all there is to it. Never once did Jesus say that the king ought to keep a royal welfare roll and pay for it out of the people's taxes. Taxes, in fact, exist to pay the full-time salaries of the police and the military. {{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=13|verses=6-7|version=NASB}}--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In ancient Rome, there was a program called the ''annona''. This was an attempt by the Roman leaders to eliminate poverty in Rome and in part had the government give free grain to about 1/3 of the population of the city. The question of "is it the government's role or the church's role or the individual's role to do charity and take care of people" we see it is a combination of all three. In particular, [http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/George_W__Bush_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm George Bush] advocates transferring of tax money to religious and non-religious charities with no strings attached. It is unfortunate that in today's world many churches have forgotten their roots in charity and benefactors to the community[http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Winter/Seek-wc.htm] and instead spend their resources trying to convert people by speaking of damnation rather than showing them compassion and living the right way themselves. There is a difference between paying people who are able to work but don't to get away with laziness and helping those who cannot work for whatever reason (If you want Paul's take on this, read 2 Thessalonians 3:8-15). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::That's all very well. But would Jesus say that ''the government'' ought to involve itself in charity, or lay and collect taxes for that purpose? That is the distinction that conservatism makes. And it is a distinction that Paul would have made.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

There is ''no way'' that Jesus would come out on the side of the [[abortion]]ists. He'd be pro-life for sure. [[User:Vossy|Vossy]][[User_talk:Vossy|speak]] 02:03, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal ==
As stated in [[liberal]] he would clearly fall in the liberal end.
* equal rights for men and women, including participation by men and women in the military
** Starting at Mark 5:25, you have Jesus administering a woman who was menstruating for twelve years. This woman was unclean in Judaic tradition and it was not proper for a man to be talking to a woman who was not family.
** Beginning at John 4:7 Jesus talks to a Samaritan woman. It was not proper for a Jewish man to talk to a foreign woman - there were three strikes against her, unclean, foreign and a woman. In Matthew 15:22 Jesus again talks to a foreign woman, this time a Canaanite for whom he healed her daughter.
** Jesus also accepted women as students. With Luke 10:38, Jesus instructed Mary, the sister of Martha.
** In Luke 13:16, Jesus refers to a woman as a "daughter of Abraham". This phrase occurs no where else in the Bible and parallels the term "son of Abraham" that is often used to describe men.
** With Luke 7:35, Jesus forgives the sins of a woman and refers to all people as children of wisdom.
** Many of the stories that Jesus told and later was mentioned in Acts has a man and a woman (rather than just a man). Luke 2:25-38 Luke 4:25-38 Luke 4:31 Luke 7:36 Luke 17:34
** In Jesus's time, it was possible for a man to divorce his wife with a word. In Mark 10:11-12 Jesus says that a man does not have this right and treats men and women as equal.
* distributing wealth from the rich to the poor
** It should not be necessary to iterate the number of times Jesus's ministry is helping the poor. One need only read the Beatitudes in Luke 6:20 and 6:24 to see his take on this subject.
* government programs to rehabilitate criminals
** The most famous rehabilitation of a thief on the cross to whom he says "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Luke 23:43.
** There are other accounts of Jesus talking with criminals and outcasts from society.
*taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
** Again, it should not be necessary to iterate the number of times that Jesus healed people who were poor and could not afford proper care. If anyone is sick, they should be healed.
* support of government programs such as welfare
** This closely relates to the distribution of wealth to the poor.
* support of affirmative action
** Much like that mentioned in equal rights (above), Jesus spent much time with foreigners - people of other races. He makes no distinction in teaching them, and most famously in the story of the good Samaritan.
** Moving from the Gospels to the writings of Paul, Romans 14:13 says "Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way." Affirmative action seeks to remove these stumbling blocks that have been placed by society in the past.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:This page has a colossal joke on it, and you're it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::I thought Mtur made some very clear well sourced argument and that this rebuttal is a little uncivil. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You thought wrong. We see here some classic misconstructions of Scripture of the type that always comes from unbelievers.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Well you are certainly the model of Christian humility Terry.--[[User:Tehstone|Tehstone]] 17:01, 12 September 2007 (PST)
:::::I meet error by firm and swift correction. You're more than a little late replying to my point, anyway.
:::::The one thing that Jesus ''would not'' do is to task the civil government with enforcement of "being nice to people," or even suggest that that was any of the civil government's business.
:::::He ''would'' say that the civil government exists to restrain evil--and you do not restrain evil by letting it run amuck.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:22, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Whoa, whoah. You called for cites from the Gospels to support positions; you said nothing about about the constructions to be placed on the quotes. How is it that you get to decide whether or not these are correct interpretations? [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

While a few of the beatitudes are in Luke chapter 6:20-24, the complete sermon of the beatitudes can be found in Matthew chapter 1:1-12. --[[user:steponme1623|steponme1623]] 11:15, 16 March 2007

Though I'm guessing Jesus wouldn't want to get involved in our ugly political system at this point in time, I would imagine that he would tilt left. I can't imagine him supporting the war; in Romans 12:19, he says:
<blockquote>
Romans 12:19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.
</blockquote> Even more simply, one of the commandments is not to kill. There is no way he would support the way our conservative president has sanctioned both revenge and killing.

Also of the government, the Bible says:
<blockquote>
Isaiah 10:1-3 – "Ah, you who make iniquitous decrees, who write oppressive statutes, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be your spoil, and that you may make the orphans your prey! What will you do on the day of punishment, in the calamity that will come from far away?"

And of helping people in general:
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Deuteronomy 15:7-11 -- If there is among you anyone in need, a member of your community in any of your towns within the land that the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hard-hearted or tight-fisted toward your needy neighbor. You should rather open your hand, willingly lending enough to meet the need, whatever it may be. Be careful that you do not entertain a mean thought, thinking, "The seventh year, the year of remission, is near," and therefore view your needy neighbor with hostility and give nothing; your neighbor might cry to the Lord against you, and you would incur guilt. Give liberally and be ungrudging when you do so, for on this account the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, “Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land.”
</blockquote>
So Jesus would also agree with the notion that politicians should not marginalize the poor and that people should help the poor in general. Although no mention of government is made in the last verse I mentioned, government is not excluded from helping people. And that eliminates any argument that the government should not help the poor because they are lazy and don't deserve it.

So, without a doubt, I would say that Jesus, if he'd even vote, would be Liberal. --[[User:Arod|Arod]] 01:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

He'd have to be on the left -- all those stories about giving away all but the rags on your back and working for the poor. Though he would probably be anti-abortion, pornography and so on. It's quite possible, after all, to be a religious Left-winger with some or many conservative views. --[[User:AppalledBystander|AppalledBystander]] 06:47, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Jesus was the original Bobby Kennedy. How could he support corruption, deceit, republicans? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:00, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

If God loved the world, as Jesus said in John 3:16, and if you should treat your neighbor as you do yourself, than Jesus would be liberal. He would advocate for the government to help the poor and to legalize [[same-sex marriage]]. [[User:Dave07|Dave07]] 18:10, 5 December 2012 (EST)

Matthew 21:12-13 "And Jesus entered the temple of God and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. He said to them, It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer; but you make it a den of robbers." From this verse, I conclude that Jesus would be for government regulation of businesses, so that the businesses do not cheat their customers or monopolize the market.

Mark 2:15 "And as he sat at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners were sitting with Jesus and his disciples; for there were many who followed him." This sounds like a liberal thing to do, to associate with sinful people and outcasts. [[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 22:21, 5 December 2012 (EST)

== Neither ==
Jesus was a religious figure, not a political figure. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:Just because he was a religious figure does not mean that he did not have a stance on various social issues that can be placed on a political spectrum. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:09, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Considering what was said above, and also his own teachings (as according to the bible), I don't think Jesus would claim a political status. Although I could see him leaning more to a conservative side as far as abortion and gay marriage is concerned. (No one is quite sure what Jesus thought of gay marriage but with biblical allusions I would say he was against it)--[[User:Goose89|Goose]] 22:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I would have to say, he'd probably be more neutral, and be like your average American and have a little mix of both. He'd be for gun control, as he didn't promote violence and certainly wouldn't embrace the right for someone to take the life of someone else. Abortion, he'd be against of course. Gay marriage... well he didn't tell hookers to stop being hookers did he? I think that would be an interesting thing to think about. I really don't think he'd give a hard-lined no. He would certainly think though that both liberals and conservatives need to be much kinder to each other. And he honestly... probably wouldn't like our president. If anyone is wondering why, I'll gladly tell you why I think so.--[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 06:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:Actually, He ''did'' tell hookers to stop being hookers. In the same breath He told men to stop picking them up, and He ''also'' told men to stop looking at women ''as if'' they (the men) wanted to pick them (the women) up.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=28-30|version=NASB}}</ref>
:And as regards weapons control, He once said that any man who didn't carry a sword ought to get one.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=22|verses=35-37|version=NASB}}</ref> That doesn't sound like being a proponent of gun control to me.
:And why wouldn't He like our President? On the contrary, He'd say that George W. Bush was and is doing exactly what a man in governing authority should do.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::I think he'd be telling Dubya to get the mote out of his own eye before he tried taking a beam out of another's. Or, to paraphrase, 'sort yourself out first.' [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You got your motes and beams mixed up, but that's a minor quibble. The major point is this: you seem to be suggesting that the [[United States]] deserved to be attacked in the [[World Trade Center incident]]. That incident was the start of a war of [[Islam]] against [[Christianity]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:18, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Not for a minute do I think the United States 'deserved' to be attacked as it was on 9-11 (and a damned tense day it was - we were stood-to within minutes of the first strike and reverted to a lower alert status about three days later). However I do think Mr. Bush's response was not appropriate. The first principle of war is to correctly identify and locate the target. Target identification was not a problem - bin Laden and al-Qaeda promptly claimed responsibility for the attack - but localizing the target was and still is. And Iraq was entirely peripheral to the attack, particularly since the existence of WMDs in that country has become increasingly doubtful. As for your assertion that this is a war between Islam and Christianity, I also call that into question. There are any number of devout Muslims living and working in America, and serving in her armed forces. This is asymetric warfare against a numerically small band of extremists who came up with an effective way to strike at a powerful nation. At that, they didn't originate the idea; Tom Clancey did, in his book '''Debt of Honor''' - and he got raked over the coals by some who considered him to be almost a co-conspirator, because he had the nerve to write a fictional work exposing and discussing a potential weakness. Myself, I think if the administration of the day had paid attention to what he said, there might have been some thought given to how to avoid or deflect such an attack. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 16:11, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You need to publish this on the Talk page of the article on the Iraq War. Not that I agree entirely with your analysis, but it still needs to be where a lot of people can read it and comment on it. That's all I have time to say right now, but I wanted you to know that I had seen it--and that I appreciate your intellectual honesty.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:22, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I think if Jesus was alive today he would be very disappointed in all of us for arguing and bickering so much about a religion with care, compassion, and love as its fundamental principles. Not sure what he would say about politics except that it must be the devil's work.
-Gasmonkey

Totally agreed. He didn't really follow any set authority. He might identify with causes of both sides, but he would never become involved in something as corrupt as politics, on either side.
-mikeyc252

He won't need to. When he returns, he'll just take over. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Scrap? That's the most logical thing I've seen on here so far. And I must say that I agree. --[steponme1623|steponme1623]] 11:22, 16 March 2007

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven.[http://www.plyrics.com/lyrics/reaganyouth/jesuswasacommunist.html]]

Politics are human. Jesus is devine.--[[User:Mister Bug|Mister Bug]] 19:59, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::According to Revelations 19 Jesus is Lord of lords and Kings of kings so if he were here he would be setting up his own kingdom. And this is what is taking place in Revelations 19. Jesus is coming to the earth and when he gets here he will establish his kingdom. This is what we see Jesus doing in the Gospels of the Bible; he is establishing his kingdom by shedding his blood for his followers. Jesus is a king. [BJE]
Jesus would be independent. he would not support the war, so he might vote liberaly to insure it's end[[User:Pastafarian2|Pastafarian2]] 22:36, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Anarchist ==
Jesus would realize that politics keep about 49% of the country unhappy with each decision. And what would Jesus want for his people other than to be happy? {{unsigned|Caboose84}}

I don't think Jesus cared about politics. Give Caesar back his money, and live a Christian life. The early disciples ran small anarchist communes according to Acts, but I think Jesus was too much concerned with having his followers feed the hungry voluntarily rather than creating efficient government programs to do it. Because of this, I think the lack of government and private property was his eventual goal, since if people are kind and voluntarily accept the authority of God, you wouldn't need either. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 18:45, 19 September 2009 (EDT)

== Socialist ==
Jesus was clearly embroiled in politics. Furthermore, Jesus was also set against the hierarchy of the time. Jesus was a radical, he may not have advocated violence, but he was certainly associated with leading Jewish "terrorists" of the time, even if it was to convince them to be pacifist.

Jesus main perogative was to address the failures of the market system established by Judaism, this does not mean Judaism was evil or anything of the sort. He simply developed the humanitarian aspect of the market. As such, Jesus was the first "socialist", or to a secularist, a leading left-wing thinker. there could be an arguement he simply reasserted aspects of Judaism, which he felt were not being upheld by the leaders of the faith.

From this perspective, a socialist would believe that if Jesus were here, he would be shocked at the idolisation of one person. That he was the cause of so many wars, and his work could be used against the people he sought to help. To Jesus, it would be the community that is most important. {{unsigned|JamesII}}

::A great place to see this is on the [[Social Democracy of America]], SDoA [http://www.socialdemocraticpartyofamerica.org/politicalspectrum.htm political spectrum] page which clearly shows the different levels from left to right within Christianity. {{AtleeYarrow}}

==Libertarian==
I get the definite feeling from the Sermon on the Mount that Jesus would be in favor of [[free trade]] and yet I think he'd be a pretty hippy dippy supporter of [[peace and love]]. [[User:Babbit|Babbit]]

== Stop it everyone ==
I'm fairly sure that trying to 'claim' Jesus in a political point-scoring game is fairly sacreligious. 'He would say' is putting words into his mouth; 'he did say' (eg Matt 5:43-48) is better. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
: Is the question of what the ministry of Jesus says about the social issues are facing us in today's world not a valid one? That it is perfectly acceptable to quote the Bible as fact for historical references but not for social and moral ones? If the Bible is to be taken as literal truth or the source of salvation then it is important to look at what is said.
: The Old Testament is full of fire and Brimstone, but the New Testament is one of love and compassion - a new covenant with the Lord. In Galatians 5:6 we see Paul saying that one part of the Jewish law is not key to being saved (and by extension nor is the rest of it), that Jesus is part of a new covenant.
: I would be most disappointed if it was only acceptable to quote the Bible when it supports one vision and not others. How else is one to learn what salvation as a Christian means? Is it not the right thing to do to try to rehabilitate criminals? to protest the death penalty? to give to the poor? to make health care available to everyone?
: It is one thing to try to stamp out that which we do not like. It is quite another to try to promote that which is good. I would contend that it is better and more in tune with the new covenant to first promote good within ourselves and others than attempting to damn them. Matthew 5:44 is an excellent example of this. Luke 9:52-56 (especially verse 56) is an important read - "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."
: And so, I say again, that it is appropriate to look at the ministry of Jesus and how our own elected officials live up to that ideal and promote it in their legislation. It is this way, promote his ministry to the rest of the country and set an example of that love of all our citizens as an example for the rest of the world. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'll say this for you, [[User:Mtur|Mtur]]: in the above presentation, you're scrupulously honest. I cannot agree that Jesus would side with you as regards the death penalty, government-enforced charity, or the proper policy regarding prisons and prisoners. (I can't use the actual, official word for this last discipline, because it sounds, frankly, obscene. But I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.) But I know now, from the above, that your theories arise from confusion as to exactly Who Jesus is, and the nature of His ''actual'' Mission.

:: That Mission is not primarily about charity; nor is it about the redistribution of wealth. That's a common-enough mistake. But Jesus' displeasure was not about the mere ''possession'' of great wealth but rather the ''worship'' of wealth. Some people actually think that money will buy them happiness. It won't, and it certainly won't buy them salvation--a thing that Jesus attempted to tell people again and again. But no reading of Scripture convinced me that He would confiscate people's substance for confiscation's sake.

:: Nor is charity the mission of government. {{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=13|verses=1-7|version=NASB}} tells us what the mission of government is: to stop by force people who employ force to do wrong against others.

:: Charity is an individual's business. Furthermore, I would argue--purely inductively, I admit--that God does not bless government welfare programs.

:: You spoke of rehabilitation. In this connection, let me quote the actor Burt Lancaster, in his romanticized portrait of Robert Stroud, the ''Birdman of Alcatraz''. Rehabilitation means ''to re-invest a person with dignity''. Where is the ''dignity'' in being an habitual client of the government? An empty belly can be as strong a chain as tempered steel. I see nothing ''dignified'' about the dormitory-style "housing projects," or the spectacle of people lining up at grilled windows for their latest allotment of food coupons and so on. Yes, people do line up--and they vote for those who will keep that money coming, with no thought to where the money is coming ''from''--but they pay a price more terrible than you can imagine. I know it, because I have seen it--up close and personal, as a temporary clerk in a welfare office, and as a clinical clerk in a charity hospital.

:: But for all that, at least in your last presentation you asked the right questions.

:: Be assured of this: a day will come when Jesus will rule directly on this earth. What place any of us will have in His regime, I will not speculate here. But on the ''nature'' of his regime I don't have to speculate; I have Scripture to give me some very strong hints. He will probably own all means of production, distribution, and exchange. He will build that "True Communism" of which the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|Soviet Union]] long boasted--and ''only'' He will be able to make it work. Why? Because only He can be trusted with that kind of authority. Only He can examine qualifications, and ''assign'' people to various tasks, and make sure that everyone gets just what he needs, no less and no more than is good for him.

:: Any human who thinks he's up to that task is a strutting pretender, and not to be trusted. That's why we support [[capitalism]]--because it is the worst economic system ever invented, ''except'' for all the others that have human beings running them. (Furthermore, the Parables of the Talents and the Minas depend on a form of capitalism being in place, so no, Jesus did not condemn capital ''per se''.)

:: Until the day that Jesus rules directly on this earth, we do the best we can. But we do not do it by vesting in any government such powers as belong properly only to Him.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:32, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Give Unto Caesar What Is Caesars, Give Unto God What Is Gods. Give Unto Republican & Democrats What Is Republicans & Democrats, Give Unto God What Is Gods.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:35, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Was Jesus a politician? No!! Would he be a politician today? Of course not!! All politics lays on a bed of corruption.... did Jesus say, "the Roman laws are bad, let's petition the Romans to change the law"? Of course not, the thought is absurd -- Jesus said "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" because Jesus intended for his followers to work outside the corruption of any political system.... supporting a set of values and using the coercive power of the state to enforce those values on non-believers are two different things.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 12:50, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

== Political words of Jesus ==
This debate is pretty ridiculous. Here is the political position of Jesus:

:Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant

:"Give to Ceasar what is Ceasars and to god what is gods"
:--[[User:Yellowlamp|Yellowlamp]] 18:48, 28 January 2008 (EST)

==Ahem==
Do you people have any idea why there are atheists? It isnt because of a broken home, or gays or anything. It is because of conversations like this. Attempting to turn Jesus into a political figure is the reason Gandhi said "I like your Christ, not your Christians. Your christians are so unlike your christ." With this argument, you are turning Jesus into a glorification of yourself. You are saying, "I AM JESUS". This debate is completely outside of respect and common sense. You claim you are trying to be more like this Jesus fellow you always blab about, but you are actually trying to turn jesus into yourself. You are just like Huckabee. "Jesus would support the death penalty, get drunk, watch nascar, and shoot the homasexuals". You are all idiots. And it makes me sick that you ACTUALLY belive what you are saying is right. And makes me want to move to Canada.

Yours, in all ways.
--[[User:MrSmiley|MrSmiley]] 15:09, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Well said! --[[User:Sforzando|Sforzando]] 12:32, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

==Monarchist==

Hey, his official title '''is''' "King of Kings". --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 15:46, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

==Honestly,==

Personally, I see him as a liberal. Now, it's not to be rude or mean or going against the wind here, but seriously, I've always seen Jesus more as a friend than as my King. I respect him, but I don't fear him. God is love, and you cannot fear that.

Anyway, back to the controversy, I find him a liberal because according to what I've read he was a reasonably layed-back guy. He preached equallity, [[Hippie|peace and love]]. Not that Jesus was a hippie, I also see him as very moralistic and very conservative in that sense. I just see.. a liberal believing in democracy and absolute freedom (the only thing God gave only to man was the ability of choice, absolute freedom).

But the Bible says that Christians are specifically supposed to fear God. How do you get around that? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:57, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

Agreed. Jesus went against convention: Liberal -Nonobu

==Faulty Question==

Jesus is alive today. (The Resurrection.) [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:00, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

== He wouldn't. ==
He'd probably be a beggar, or a helper of the poor. He'd laugh and scoff at the televangelists making millions, who live in houses covered in gold.

And the vast majority of people here are just taking the idea of Jesus (Atheist here) and going "Yeah, he'd love this or this or this!" mostly because, well, he can't speak for himself. It's like when a person dies and people go "He'd be okay with this or this or this." I oughta know, I've seen in firsthand. --[[User:GunnerRecall|GunnerRecall]] 16:52, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

== The Fact That This Would Even Be Asked... ==
...is sickening. It shows that certain types of "christians" are fake, or naive. We have politicians claiming to be so religious to incite all the funementalists to go vote for them. It's disturbing. These religious and "family values" politicians are totally fake, ad these fundies who vote simply for religion have no concept of what it really takes to be a government official. As for this debate specificly... Jesus would laugh in your face. Politics have no business in what He would concern Himself with, which is most certainly NOT who to vote for.[[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 19:22, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== He already answered ==

In the Synoptic gospels, there is the account of Jesus being tempted by the devil following his baptism. One of the temptations that Satan used was political power, which Jesus refused. Although, if he came back and were asked today, I do not think that he would care. --[[User:LincolnShuddered|LincolnShuddered]]

==Wait Till He Returns==
You will get a pretty good picture of His style of Government in Heaven. [[Baronvonbob]]

== Socially conservative, economically moderate ==
One can only speculate, I believe Christ would be highly conservative with social issues and moderate on economic issues. Now when I say moderate on economic issues, I say that because nearly all modern economic systems lead to a certain degree of sin. Communists and socialists aren't generous at all; under communism and socialism, you likely end up with a greedy government where officials live a life of luxury whereas the rest of the citizens are poor. Under communism and socialism in its purest form, the government owns '''everything'''. Under capitalism, it's easy to end up with greed in the private sector. I don't think Jesus would want to tax people to help the poor, but rather I believe Jesus would want people to choose to help the poor out of the goodness of their heart. Social issues are a no brainier; while Jesus was a forgiving man, that doesn't mean he outright supported sinful activities like homosexuality, adultery, and paganism, and I doubt he would approve of abortion and contraception either. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 19:14, 5 December 2012 (EST)
:Can you please point me to biblical passages where Jesus clearly and unambiguously expressed an opinion on homosexuality? [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 19:43, 5 December 2012 (EST)

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2009-11-09T04:15:54Z

Userafw: /* Proper Citations */

==Archives==
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 1|Archive 1]]
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 2|Archive 2]]
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 3|Archive 3]]
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 4|Archive 4]]
 


== Comments Section ==

Just something I noticed: 18 USC § 1030, specifies penalties for fraud, damage, hacking, etc. to government, financial, and medical computers, or those that would cause physical harm to someone if tampered with. However, however important Conservapedia is, it doesn't seem to be included in this? Am I misreading (as I have no legal training, and only skimmed parts of it), or is the section in error? [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 08:55, 28 February 2009 (EST)

:Instead of having "only skimmed parts of it," how about actually reading it before spewing nonsense about it? It's not long and I don't think it uses any big words: [http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:42, 28 February 2009 (EST)

::I meant "parts of it I only skimmed", not "the only parts I read I skimmed", and this was simply because I really didn't need to see every detail of, say, the punishments. I read enough of the law to see what it in general listed; I was merely expressing that, while the general thrust of the law seemed to not mean what this page said, there might have been some minor technicality or precedent that extended its scope or changed its meaning. Also, was it really neccessary to assume that I was unable to understand it or had not read it, and accuse me of "spewing nonsense"? You are right, though. It is not terribly long, and uses few words that could be considered "big". [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 14:06, 28 February 2009 (EST)

::I think it's a fair question, Mr. Schlafly. I found the grammar and style next to incomprehensible. It's not a matter of any one word being big. It's [[legalese]] and cries out for a translation.

::Please, counselor, be patient with us lesser mortals. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:50, 28 February 2009 (EST)

:::'Umlaut' appears to be correct Mr. Schlafly. The kind of 'vandalism' that occurs on this site would not fall under the legal definition of vandalism in so much as this site is a wiki which any person can potentially edit, and indeed the site actively requests that people do edit it. The whole basis of a wiki is that it can be edited in such a manner and so even if an edit is indeed not conducive to the aims of the site, such as if factual material is deleted, then annoying and unhelpful as it may be to yourself and other users, it would not legally be vandalism. Besides this, the specific legal code in question, 18 USC § 1030, does as the original poster points out, refers to actual damage resulting from unauthorized access to a computer. For one thing, access to this website as I have mentioned is available to all, and secondly if someone does delete material from a page or add something to it then in virtually all cases no actual damage will result. Of course, the nature of any material that someone may add is still subject to the other two legal codes you mention and so you are right in pointing them out, but simply adding or deleting material from wiki pages that does not contravene these two aspects would not be vandalism in the strictest sense (although I accept that it is within the context of this site) and as such would not violate 18 USC § 1030. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 13:02, 28 February 2009 (EST)

::::My objection to Umlaut was with his attempt to interpret a statute, and even claim that Conservapedia is wrong, without actually reading the statute. As I explained, the statute is not long and does not use big words, so there is no excuse for Ulmaut's sermonizing about it without reading it first. A look at Umlaut's other edits here reveal a similar lack of substantive contributions.

::::Good faith discussion of the statute is welcome. It prohibits vandalizing a site and thereby harming it. When I get a chance, I'll pull some cases that use this statute.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:05, 28 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Umlaut, your statement that started this thread remains nonsensical, and you still haven't corrected it. "Playing dumb" is not as entertaining as you may think. Read the statute, study it, and correct your prior statement if you want to discuss further.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:07, 28 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: Please check my post below your first one, as I feel that it responds adequately (and is posted there as it was a direct response). I in fact did read the law; I was merely stating that I had not thoroughly read absolutely every section, and might have missed a minor detail. While I personally don't find "legalese" hard to understand (it's like reading math), such an attempt would have been futile, as I don't have the kind of training or experience needed to actually catch every detail. I was merely expressing that the law didn't seem to apply here, and was asking if anyone with more knowledge could clarify. [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 07:20, 2 March 2009 (EST)

I agree with Ed Poor: It's written in legalese which makes it hard for us non-lawyer types to follow.

But thanks to Andy for providing a link, so I've now reach much of it for myself. You could, Andy, also help our understanding by pointing out which parts are applicable here. This is what I found:

* Section (a) lists the offenses.
* Section (b) says that the punishments in section (c) will apply.
* Section (c) lists the punishments
* Section (d) refers to government investigative agencies' powers.
* Section (e) defines terms
* Section (f) allows legal investigations
* Section (g) says that civil actions can still apply.
* Section (h) says that investigations are to be reported to Congress.

So the relevant parts seem to be section (a), the offences, section (c) the punishments, and section (e) for defining terms.

Section (a) is broken up as follows:
* Subsection (1) applies to national defence and the like.
* Subsection (2) applies to financial institutions, government department, or "conduct involved in an interstate or foreign communication".
* Subsection (3) applies to government departments and agencies.
* Subsection (4) applies to knowing intent to defraud.
* Subsection (5) applies to protected computers where certain actions are carried out.
* Subsection (6) applies to trafficking of passwords and the like.
* Subsection (7) applies to extortion of money or other things of value.

Of these, only (4) and (5) seem like that might be applicable.

Subsection (4), however, doesn't apply if the person doesn't obtain anything of value, or the thing obtained is use of the computer and such use is not more than $5,000 worth in any one-year period. So this doesn't seem to apply in Conservapedia's case, at least not for any vandalism that has occurred so far or is likely to occur.

Subsection (5) is where it became less clear to me, at least initially. It is divided into two sub-sub-sections. The first (A) specifies what is done and the second (B) specifies what the result is.

Sub-sub-section (A), in three different ways, basically says that the law is applicable if someone knowingly/intentionally causes "damage" to a "protected" computer.

However, according to section (e), a "protected" computer is one used by or for a financial institution or the government or one that is used on interstate or foreign commerce or communication.

Because I can't see how Conservapedia can claim to be a "protected" computer according to section (e), subsection (5) appears to also be inapplicable, in which case, no section of this statute seems applicable.

Now, because of the legalese, perhaps I've missed something, in which case I invite Andy to point out what I've understood incorrectly or to point out which section(s), subsection(s), and sub-sub-section(s) are applicable.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:02, 28 February 2009 (EST)

:Thank you for posing a more thorough analysis. What I found was the same- the law applies to "protected" computers, which a wiki isn't. [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 07:23, 2 March 2009 (EST)

:*And a wiki isn't used in international communication? One would have to find the many amendments and definitions of the applicable laws. In any event, this is another [[liberal deceit]], a distraction from our purpose here, which is building an encyclopedia, NOT discussing if common vandals and cyber terrorists will be punished. Umlaut, you are in violation of the [[Conservapedia Commandments]] with your endless talk, talk, talk. I invite you to make substantive contributions here, or busy yourself elsewhere. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 07:39, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::Whether vandalism and "cyber terrorism" to this or any other wiki or site is illegal is not the question (though I think it isn't). My point was that 18 USC § 1030 appears to be an inappropriate citation. Pointing out such an inaccuracy (or perceived inaccuracy) is certainly a contribution to Conservapedia. [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 08:02, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::*Well, you are certainly entitled to your own opinion (no matter how wrong it is), Umlaut. You will now have lots of time to argue that at some liberal site, as it is more than clear you are dedicated to talk, talk, talk, argue, argue argue, and have been for many months here contributing absolutely nothing. Thanks for stopping by, Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:15, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::: Almost ''any'' web site could be claimed to be "used in international communications", so no, I can't see that being applicable. How on Earth is this a "liberal deceit"? And are you saying that the commandment's reference to a law is a distraction? Perhaps you'd better point that out to Andy so that he can remove the distraction. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:11, 2 March 2009 (EST)

:::: The whole of 18 § 1030 section (a) subsection (2) reads:
:::: ''(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains—''

::::''(A) information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602 (n) of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.);''
::::''(B) information from any department or agency of the United States; or''
::::''(C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;''

:::: As can be seen the subsection in question wouldn't apply to any form of wiki. Subsection 2 applies only to those instances when somebody attempts to obtain information from a computer (or equivalent record) when they don't have permission to access that information. It's an objective test of both ''actus reus'' and ''mens rea'' (i.e. Is it a reasonable that the average person would know in any particular case that the information is a) protected and b) not to be accessed by those who do not have permission to access it, and, then knowing both those things then makes an attempt to obtain that information). This subsection obviously does not apply to any wiki as a) wiki's are designed to have publicly accessed information and b) that information is not protected from being obtained. The subsection also doesn't apply to vandalism as the subsection deals with the ''obtaining'' of information not the ''depositing'' or ''removal'' of information. The subsection would apply however, if somebody hacked or attempted to hack a wiki's site in an attempt to gain protected information (i.e. any information that it is reasonable to assume would be protected, such as a user's private details). Now that isn't to say that other parts of 18 § 1030 wouldn't apply to vandalism (basically because I haven't checked the rest of section (a) yet) but section (a) subsection (2) certainly wouldn't cover it.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 11:27, 2 March 2009 (EST)
:::::And what is the application here of outright harrassment of an individual(s), up to and including cyber-terrorism? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:53, 2 March 2009 (EST)
:::::Interesting question, by the looks of it 18 § 1030 section (a) subsection (5) might cover harrasment of an individual(s), but only if such a harrasment caused physical damage and the harrasment didn't occur through authorized access. To be honest it looks like this is the wrong piece of legislation if you are looking to prosecute harrasment. It might be worth looking at legislation that covers harm to an individual. As to cyber-terrorism 18 § 1030 does cover it, but only in section (a) subsections (1), (3), & (5); at a federal level it seems that US Government only considers cyber-terrorism to be something that occurs against itself and its own interests. Attacks against private computers don't seem to be considered acts of cyber-terrorism, instead it seems to be considered to be attempts at theft, fraud or disruption of commerce, all of which cause monetary harm. Again I need to emphasize that is the point of view solely from 18 § 1030. It could be that other pieces of legislation are more appropriate.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:28, 2 March 2009 (EST)
::::::The case of the teenage girl who committed suicide in Missouri as a result of online harrassment; what laws were applied in that? Was it federal or state or both? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:34, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::::Well, I've gone through the whole of section (a) of 18 § 1030 and this is what I've discovered:

::::'''''Subsection (1):''' having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access, and by means of such conduct having obtained information that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to an Executive order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations,…''— obviously doesn't apply in this case as wiki's shouldn't contain information that breaches this part of subsection (1) (and if they did the wiki itself would be in violation of this part of subsection (1))

::::'''''Subsection (1) cont.:'''…or any restricted data, as defined in paragraph y. of section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation willfully communicates, delivers, transmits, or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;''— Again this part of the subsection obviously doesn't apply to the vandalism of wikis, unless the purpose of the "vandalism" was in fact to transmit information that could be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of any foreign nation.

::::'''''Subsection (2)''''' See above post.

::::'''''Subsection (3):''' intentionally, without authorization to access any nonpublic computer of a department or agency of the United States, accesses such a computer of that department or agency that is exclusively for the use of the Government of the United States or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, is used by or for the Government of the United States and such conduct affects that use by or for the Government of the United States;''— Again doesn't apply to wikis, as they aren't nonpublic, or for either the exclusive use or non-exclusive use for the official business of the Government of the United States. Again the objective test applies here: is it reasonable that the average man would know that any particular computer is a)non-public or b) for the exclusive or non-eclusive use by the Government of the United States.

::::'''''Subsection (4):''' (4) knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;''— Doesn't apply to Conservapedia on multiple grounds. The only way somebody can add or delete material to this site is with authorization. That authorization gives the user the right to add or delete material as he wishes. A user cannot be said to have exceeded his authorized access unless he acts or attempts to perform an act that is greater than his auhtorized access (i.e. a user that has only edit rights on Conservapedia would exceed authorized access if he deliberately made an attempt to access users IP addresses, or deliberately made a personal attempt to block other users. However, a user cannot be said to have exceeded authorised access by deleting or defacing an entire page of information, as the granting of editing rights to that person grants him the authorised access to be able to do these things {i.e. the ability to edit is granted in the authorized access, the user hasn't had to hack the site to gain the ability to delele or add information}). That such changes are undesirable are immaterial as to whether somebody has exceed authorized access, as it is the granting of full editing rights, whithin the focus of this law, that grants the user the authorization to make those changes. Vandalism of wikis also fails to fall under the protection of subsection (4) as the ''mens rea'' of subsection (4) is the intent to defraud. When used in such a manner the term defraud has a legal rather than a dictionary meaning, and the legal interpretation of fraud or defraud is applied to those acts which seek to obtain that which has monetary value and to do so in an manner deamed illegal. Vandalism isn't an attempt to defraud (i.e. the vandal isn't seeking to make monetary gain), rather it is an attempt to damage or cause harm.

::::'''''Subsection (5):''''' It is this subsection that probably comes closest to addressing the problem of vandalism.

::::'''''(A)'''''
::::''(i) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;''
::::''(ii) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or''
::::''(iii) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage; and…''

::::This would cover vandalism on Conservapedia except for two problems;
::::i) '…intentionally causes damage……recklessly causes damage……causes damage…'— Again it is a pecularity of the law that damage is that which is considered to have incurred harm, be it physical or mental, or monetary costs. Vandalism to Conservapedia wouldn't fall into this category because it doesn't incur damage involving monetary cost to a protected computer as any such vandalism can be repaired by a volunteer, thereby incurring no cost as the volunteer isn't charging to repair the vandalism. Nor does such vandalism add more to the running costs of the site compared to a user making a legitimate edit of the same length.
::::ii) '…without authorization…'— As discussed in subsection (4) the fact that a user has to apply to Conservapedia and be accepted as a member before he can gain editing rights means that his access to articles and his right to edit them in any way that he sees fit is authorized by the owner of the site. If the owner doesn't want a user having full editing rights there are many ways to ensure that a user doesn't have those rights, ranging from not granting those rights, restricting those rights (i.e. the user is not being able to delete or add material directly, but instead the user has to make submission for consideration for inclusion in Conservapedia), or removing those rights completely. The fact that the owner grants full editing rights means that authorization is given for the user to make full edits, whether they are helpful or unhelpful.

::::'''''…(B)''' by conduct described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (A), caused (or, in the case of an attempted offense, would, if completed, have caused)—''
::::''(i) loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period (and, for purposes of an investigation, prosecution, or other proceeding brought by the United States only, loss resulting from a related course of conduct affecting 1 or more other protected computers) aggregating at least $5,000 in value;''
::::''(ii) the modification or impairment, or potential modification or impairment, of the medical examination, diagnosis, treatment, or care of 1 or more individuals;''
::::''(iii) physical injury to any person;''
::::''(iv) a threat to public health or safety; or''
::::''(v) damage affecting a computer system used by or for a government entity in furtherance of the administration of justice, national defense, or national security; ''

::::And it is this part of the subsection that ensures that subsection (5) wouldn't apply to Conservapedia. Obviously subparagraphs (B/ii), (B/iii), (B/iv), and (B/v) wouldn't apply and that just leaves subsparagraph (B/i) (''loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period (and, for purposes of an investigation, prosecution, or other proceeding brought by the United States only, loss resulting from a related course of conduct affecting 1 or more other protected computers) aggregating at least $5,000 in value;''). Any vandalism to the site in terms of editing (as opposed to a (D)DOS attack) doesn't incur monetary costs as such vandalism is easily repaired by volunteers at no cost to the site (i.e. when a user repairs vandalism to the site that user doesn't invoice the owner of the site for monetary compensation for work done). Nor does such vandalism cost the site's owner any more in costs than an legitimate entry made of the same length.

::::'''''Subsection (6):''' knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization, if—''
::::''(A) such trafficking affects interstate or foreign commerce; or''
::::''(B) such computer is used by or for the Government of the United States;''— Again this is a section that doesn't apply to Conservapedia as a) vandalism on Conservapedia isn't attempting to defraud traffics, b) Conservapedia isn't involved in commerce through www.conservapedia.com and c) isn't a computer used by or for the Government of the United States.

::::'''''Subsection (7):''' with intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to cause damage to a protected computer;''— Again doesn't apply to vandalism on Conservapedia as the vandalism isn't an attempt to extort money or items or goods that have a monetary value.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:28, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::::: Perhaps I'm talking through my hat not being a lawyer, but I would disagree with a couple of points there, although not enough to change your overall conclusion.
::::: "''That such changes are undesirable are immaterial as to whether somebody has exceed authorized access, as it is the granting of full editing rights, whithin the focus of this law, that grants the user the authorization to make those changes.''": No, granting full editing rights does ''not'' grant the user the ''authorisation'' (as opposed to ''ability'') to vandalise.
::::: "''Nor does such vandalism cost the site's owner any more in costs than an legitimate entry made of the same length.''": Perhaps not, but it ''does'' cost the site's owner, in that there is extra bandwidth involved and extra disk storage space (assuming both are being paid per quantity used). True, the cost would be nowhere near $5,000, so the law would still not apply, but because the cost is small, not because there is no cost.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:05, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::::::After reading through this discussion again, it seems to me like various posters have made a strong case that [http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html 18 USC § 1030] does not apply here. This discussion has been very worthwhile, and I, for one, have learned a lot. Some posters have raised valuable questions about certain language that ''might'' apply, which has spurred us on to examine the law more deeply, but upon further examination it seems like this is not the case. Unless someone else has points to consider, it seems like we're coming to the conclusion that the reference to [http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html 18 USC § 1030] should be removed from the article. In addition, if any of the editors who brought this to our attention have been sanctioned because of their participation in this discussion (and I'm not sure if this has been the case or not), it may be wise, upon reflection, to review that decision. Thank you so much to everyone who has participated - your contributions have all been useful. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:41, 4 March 2009 (EST)

::::Aha, we're back. I've noticed that four questions have been raised. I think that in an edit summary somebody wanted to know whether I have any legal training. Yes, plus years of experience working in many specialties including US federal law (although not State level laws, too many States and not much call for that kind of specialty in the UK).
::::Karajou asked:''"The case of the teenage girl who committed suicide in Missouri as a result of online harrassment; what laws were applied in that? Was it federal or state or both?"''. If it was up to me, given that I know only the basics of the case, I would look to prosecute under 18 § 1030 s(ection):(A), s(ub)s(ection):(5), s(ub)p(aragraph): (A/iii) & sp: (B/iii), and, by a quick look it appears that the state law of Missouri at the time didn't seem to cover this situation ([http://www.magicvalley.com/articles/2009/02/06/news/local_state/154433.txt this] excellent article explains a bit more, as does [http://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/story/683421.html this one] {tenth paragraph down}). I won't go into exacting detail why I would choose 18 § 1030 but the basic argument I would have used in a prosecution would have been '''''i)'''''The messages were sent and received through My Space, a site that fulfills the requirements to be a 'protected computer' through virtue of the fact that access to any relevant service that MySpace offers can only be enjoyed when a someone signs up for an account. If somebody doesn't sign up to an account then the services that MySpace offers can't be accessed. You will notice that a different system of operation applies to a wiki however. The main service of a wiki is to provide information, and access to that information is given freely to the public, thereby removing any argument that the site is a private or protected computer. '''''ii)'''''Acquiring an account at MySpace means signing up to a legally binding contract that specifically delineates the exact authorisation that a user has to access and use the services available, that would mean that behaviour such as harrassment of another individual would be considered a breach of the terms and conditions imposed by the contract. Breaching the terms of the contract means that the user is acting without authorization. Again this is different to the current setup of Conservapedia where a user creates an account to acquire the ability to edit it as this signing up procedure doesn't meet the requirements to be considered a contract (I won't go into details about why not, but to use legal jargon the procedure that the user goes through to become a volunteer at the site doesn't meet the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration_under_American_law consideration] test for a contract, plus it fails to meet the requirements to form a legally binding contract in other ways as well). Without a contract that sets out the exact level of authorisation that a user has in terms of editing it becomes a lot more difficult to say exactly where that authorisation begins and ends ''purely from a legal point of view''. '''''iii)'''''The last part of sp:(A/iii) reads ''"…causes damage"''. I think it is this part that causes the most problems if you wanted to bring a prosecution in the above case. If you read sp: (A/i) it clearly states ''"intentionally causes damage…to a protected computer"'', whereas sp: (A/ii) & (A/iii) just talk about causing damage, it doesn't specify what too. However A/i, A/ii and A/iii are all part of the same paragraph and therefore obviously linked, so that raises a quandrey within the courts about how that part of the statute should be read. The court could decide that given that A/i states that the damage must be done to a computer then the intent of the framers of the law was that the same applies to the rest of the subparagraph (i.e. any damage caused would have to be done to a computer). Or the court could decide to take a literal interpretation of the law (i.e. parts A/ii and A/iii don't state that the damage has to occur to a specific object). Again, if it was me arguing the case I would try and argue the latter, and that the damage caused in A/iii was the severe psychological trauma caused to the victim, but I wouldn't be confident of winning that argument. And finally '''''iv)''''' sp: (B/iii) requires that ''"physical injury to any person"'' occurs. In this particular case that, obviously, would be the suicide of the teenager.
::::And the last two questions were Philip J. Rayment's. On the first question, as I mentioned above, I see your point, it can be very difficult to see how a court would decide on the question of 'without authorization' when there is no legal binding contract to point out the exact extent of a user's authorisation. But the basis of US law is the same as the basis of English and Welsh law, Scottish law, Northern Ireland law and I'm guessing Australian law (given the shared heritage), in that the whole foundation of the law is that it is designed to define what is forbidden, and what isn't forbidden is allowed. That sounds obvious, but other legal systems (such as France's) often work on the principle that the law is there to define what you are allowed to do (i.e. what isn't allowed is forbidden). There is no specific US federal law that prohibits making unhelpful edits to Conservapedia, as long as those edits aren't furthering terrorism or in some way violate 18 U.S.C. § 2425, so without some way of saying that those edits are specifically illegal (i.e specifically violate laws preventing terrorism or those sections covered by 18 U.S.C. § 2425, or violated the terms and conditions laid out in a legally binding contract) it would, at best, be extremely difficult to argue that those edits were made without authorisation. As to the second question, that of cost, again it all comes down to how the law is argued in court. Obviously this specific law was never designed to cover wikis, but instead was designed to protect online businesses, businesses that rely on computers, or the US Government. Obviously, monetary damages to all of those are relatively easy to qunatify (how much did it cost to repair the damage, how much did it cost you to lose that information, how much did it cost you to make relevant changes to your security systems, how much did it cost you in lost business). Wikis on the other hand, it becomes very difficult to determine how much damage has been done monetarily when an unhelpful edit is made. Reverting that edit requires time, certainly, but that time is given freely by a volunteer, so no cost. Extra bandwidth and storage space? Well, if the edit removes 2000 words from a page and replaces it with 4 then the edit has actually reduced the cost of running Conservpedia, based on storage costs.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 12:08, 4 March 2009 (EST)

::::: Thanks for the response to my points. On the first one, the authorisation issue, I accept your point about there being no law nor legally-binding contract regarding what is and what is not authorised.
::::: On the cost of the vandalism, I'd still argue that you are wrong (but still in the context that the cost would be very minor), as if the edit removes 2000 words from a page and adds four, to use your example, the storage requirement is ''increased'', as the database still stores those 2000 removed words, as well as the four new ones. This is obvious from the mere fact that you can view the history of the article and see those 2000 words in the history. And from the fact that any editor can revert back to those 2000 words, thereby creating yet another record in the database (although whether that new record duplicates those 2000 words or simply points to the older record I don't know). Even deleted pages and deleted ('oversighted') edits are still in the database taking up room unless specifically removed by someone with required rights.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:56, 5 March 2009 (EST)
::::::Ah, boss thinking there. Didn't think of it in terms of storage costs re retention of deleted material :-)--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 14:33, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Seeing as the majority of users in this discussion support changing this, could it be changed? Or, could those who support keeping the current state of the page (notably Andy) provide their legal analysis? Sorry if it seems like I'm too new to suggests this- I've been using Conservapedia for a while, but didn't actually create an account till now.[[User:NSchneider|NSchneider]] 11:54, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

*No. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:27, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

==Please un-archive the current discussion==

I have been interested in following the recent discussion here, and would prefer that it not be archived for a little while. Many of the posters provided food for thought, including PJR. It can only benefit us to better understand our situation, and one way to do that is to dig into the text of the law and discuss it with others, who may see things differently. Listening to others' points of view can help us see our own blind spots, and/or can help strengthen our understanding as to why we are in fact right. ''Both'' of these are good outcomes. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:16, 3 March 2009 (EST)
: Done. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:05, 4 March 2009 (EST)
::Thanks. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:41, 4 March 2009 (EST)

== Proper Citations ==

"This actually happened" is not in any way, shape, or form, an actual citation. Can we please, please stop this practice. -- 19:07, 11 March 2009 Deuce

*Could you offer a citation that will illustrate your point, Deuce? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:17, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

Certainly!
Bad example: President Lincoln was born on the moon.(1]
(1] This is proven to be true.
Really? Proven? Where? Any ridiculous statement can be made to sound official when you add that "citation."
Good example: At least ten people were killed in a shooting spree in Alabama on Tuesday. (1]
(1]http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN1036167920090311
Here I've linked a news article reporting on the event. A citation needs a source other than the author's own word. That's the entire point! {{unsigned|Deuce}} -- 05:28, 12 March 2009

:*''But you are not showing an example that caused you to make the post.'' And not all statements need a citation. If I were to make an edit saying '''"95% of all [[liberals]] practice [[deceit]]"''' it wouldn't need a citation or reference, because it is a ''truism'', so apparent to anyone with common sense and an open mind, that it is obvious. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 09:52, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

::I can't say I agree with your "truism." By adding a finite value, (95%) you're establishing a measurement. Something other than "common sense." Saying "liberals often practice deceit" seems closer to a truism. The finite value of 95% would need some sort of citation, like a study that came up with such a result. (not that anyone could really measure something like deceit. Imagine the inaccuracy of a survey that asks "Do you lie?") Of course, that's off-topic. I looked for the previous poor citations, but the strong examples that came to mind seem to have been edited already. Keep up the good work people!

::*In the future, just post to my talk page if anything strikes you that strongly. Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:47, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

==Just a suggestion==

I'm noticing that several "trolls" have been banned after posting to an admin's talk page. Maybe it should be an official rule: ''Do not annoy the admins.'' Especially since I have not seen a lot of warning before banning. [[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 23:15, 8 November 2009 (EST)

Talk:Jesus Christ

2009-11-09T03:38:33Z

Userafw: /* Jewishness of God manifest in the flesh */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

== God doesn't exist ==
Because God doesn't exist Jesus can't be claimed as the son of god. For this reason the article should approach the biblical character of Jesus in the same way it would approach the character of any other timeless work of literature.
:You can't really prove that God doesn't exist, nor can you prove that he does. That's the entire faith problem, it requires an act of faith. Proof for God's existence is as likely to be found as is proof for the existence of French-speaking pebbles floating around in space. It's an amazing and expanding universe after all (Monty Python, The meaning of Life(the Galaxy song)). Jesus however did exist, but I think God would have better things to do with his time than killing of his child.
J Wilson, yours truly, et peuvent les cailloux nous protéger !
:Are you trying to fling stones at us, Mr Wilson, by the forcing of your religious beliefs on us? Like it or not, that child you so readily condemn died so that we could gain eternal life, as recorded in the Gospels which you also condemn. You will meet Jesus Christ one day, and whether or not you meet Him as savior or judge depends on whether or not you ask Him to be your savior. It's your free choice. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:32, 26 July 2009 (EDT)

==Atheists denying existence of historical Jesus?==

I seriously challenge this and would like to see some evidence for it. As the article correctly notes, the historical evidence for the life of Jesus of Nazareth is very good. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:08, 22 February 2007 (EST)
:Go look at the section on wikipedia discussing the historicity of Jesus. This is the typical secular/humanist/evolutionist/atheist pap. [[User:FightPerniciousSwarm|FightPerniciousSwarm]] 21:47, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Atheists do not deny the historical person.... in fact, quite the opposite. Atheists tend to believe that, someone who is remembered by so much oral and textual history, must've been a real person. However, just like the characters of Homer's Illiad, simply because someone was real, does not make them progeny of any deity. In fact, evidence proving Jesus was a real, historical person only conflicts with ideas that he could magically heal the sick, walk on water, turn water to wine, etc. In other words, it is those who believe Jesus had supernatural powers that do the most disservice to his historical persona. Were everyone to claim that Jesus was an excellent preacher with some incredibly great ideas, no one would argue his existence! --[[User:Newsdan|Newsdan]] 14:39, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

As an athiest, I do deny the existence of historical Jesus. But only because every shred of "proof" has been found to be either false, or so vague that it cannot be interpreted as actual proof. Most make references to "Christ" which is was common title, "the anoited one," not a name. --[[User:Niffed|Niffed]] 23:38, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Hi Niffed, if you don't believe that Jesus Christ exists, why do you spend time on the attempt to disprove something that you believe doesn't exist? Do you think that much about Hobbits, even though Hobbits don't exist? If you really want to know if God exists, ask Him with an honest heart. God promises, that He will make himself known to those who honestly seek Him.[[User:MartialArtist|MartialArtist]] 20:00, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
----

The article still says "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus, but few scholars take this seriously." No source is cited. ''Who,'' exactly, denies the existence of an historical Jesus of Nazareth? If this belief is widely held someone, somewhere ought to have published something about it and the publication ought to be cited.

There's no need to introduce this section with a straw man. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:24, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:Want confirmation of this? Go to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ#Historicity this section of Wikipedia's article on Jesus]. It's true that some people deny his existence. It's not a widely held belief; it's only held by a small, and I do emphasize ''small'', minority. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 11:17, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::If you think there is a small minority of people in the world that deny the existence of Jesus then you need to get out of the house a bit more.

::When using Wikipedia as confirmation of a fact, I try to follow the trail of cited sources. In this case, the trail leads to Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus Historicity of Jesus], thence to a footnote, which quotes the source as saying

:::The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." - Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.

::I don't think "Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted" supports the statement that "a small minority [of scholars] argue that Jesus never existed as a historical figure..." Neither of the Wikipedia articles names any scholars, or anyone else, who hold that Jesus of Nazareth was not a real figure in history.

::I still will think it's a straw man unless someone produces some reasonably mainstream, reasonably modern examples of people challenging the historicity of Jesus. Wikipedia's neutrality policy says you can include "facts about opinions" when the opinions are ''reasonably'' widely held. I think the idea of there not being an historical Jesus of Nazareth is so rarely held that it is not worth mentioning. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:48, 7 March 2007 (EST)
::: I think you have serious defintional issues here that may alter whether or not this is at all a commonly held view. For example, do we mean that Jesus is a figure made up out of whole cloth? I don't think anyone seriously argues for that. Do we mean that he is a historical figure but many details of other preachers at the time got glommed onto his life-story? Many more would agree with this. Do we mean that Jesus is a compilation of the lives of a variety of people from that time period and one of their names happened to stick? I think you would get a lot for this last one. So when denying historicity you need to be very careful what you mean. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:15, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::: OK. Originally I was commenting on the phrase "Many atheists claim that there is no evidence of Jesus outside the Bible." That has since been softened to "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus." I was, indeed, interpreting this to mean "invented in whole cloth."

:::: If the article were editable I'd propose simply excising the sentence "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus, but few scholars take this seriously" since I don't see that it adds anything to the section. Presumably a finished section would make it clear which details of the Gospel accounts are widely accepted by scholars as historical and which are debated. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::The evidence presented so far in the article is hardly compelling. It needs to be expanded, or the assertion that "few scholars take this seriously" will need to be qualified. --[[User:John|John]] 22:52, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Whether there are or are not people who question the historical existence of Jesus is not as important to this article as is the fact that there is no citation of where this claim comes from. Scorpionman, if you are suggesting I should go to Wikipedia to check the information, then what use does this Conservapedia article have in the first place? --[[User:GarbageMan|GarbageMan]] 10:14 5 April 2007 (CST)

Even we Atheists and Jews do not deny the '''existence''' of Jesus, merely the idea that he was the son of God.

There are other conservative religious perspectives as well, could the article be expanded to include those? In particular Muslims accept the existance of Jesus as a Prophet but deny that he is the son of God.
--[[User:AGivenVoice|AGivenVoice]] 20:04, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

I am an Atheist. I believe in Jesus. I just don't believe he was a deity. [[User:AnAtheist|AnAtheist]] 20:08, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

There is no independent (i.e., non-Christian) evidence of the existence of Jesus because he was not well known during his life. Roman and Jewish scholars who wrote about him long after his death relied on Christians sources for his existence. However, I cannot see why this should matter, since this is a matter of faith. --[[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] 17:36, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

There is no evidence that jesus was anything other than a man other than one book, the bible which could very well have been a collection of childrens stories used to teach morals.

== Locked ==

Can someone unlock this article? It needs more information. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 11:21, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::Apparently... the key to unlocking this page is true faith.

The very fact that this article is locked means I'm leaving this website and never returning again.

::You Legend

:::Some one needs to unlock this page if it is on the main page: Lets all improve these articles. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 09:17, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Funny how this page is locked depsite conservapedia asking for people to edit it. previous unsigned comment added by [[User:Wikipediaisbetter]]
:Funny how Wikipedia's article is also locked... They are better exactly how..? [[User:Fox|Fox]] 10:11, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Jesus is a pretty popular object of vandalism, I say keep it locked and people can propose changes here. That is one of the reasons for talk pages. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 10:58, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

== Josephus ==

The line about Josephus is misleading and false. No doubt you refer to the "Testimoniam Flavianum," in which Josephus trumpets Jesus as the messiah for one paragraph, and then moves on. It's worth noting that the TF is not believed by any serious scholars, and has been shown to be a forgery added by medieval monks... note that this does *NOT* undercut the importance of Jesus at all! He was barely known in his time, and the fact that Josephus wouldn't write about him is unsurprising. Josephus was known to be an anti-revolutionary who hated all the messianic figures of his time, and won his fame by being the lone Jew to decry them...<ref>http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html</ref>

== Worth mentioning? ==
Excuse me, but do you think it's worth mentioning that Jesus was probably Jewish? He merely provided the foundation of Christianity.

: Jewish? ''Jewish''? He was the Son of God, for pete's sake (sorry, nearly used the other, rather more obvious expression)! Haven't you seen all those pictures of him with the fair hair and blue eyes? And so, with Joseph not being his father an' all, he can only have been ''half''-Jewish at best, can he? (pardon my irony!) So it's no wonder, is it, that, thanks largely to Paul, the poor Jews can't make head or tail of what Christians have managed to do with him - let alone with ''their'' scriptures!--[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Wouldn't that be racist? --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 13:02, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:No. Just taking the p... out of racists! Irony. British thing. Don't worry your head about it! (''Of course'' the man was Jewish!). --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Having been born in that part of the world, the Roman province of Palestine, he more likely had semitic features was short (everyone was short at the time), olive skinned with dark hair. Plus, he observed Passover, and read in the synagogue. [[User:Vjay|Vjay]] 22:23, 14 December 2007 (EST)

::Matrilineal descent is what counts, I believe. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:00, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:That's funny - I could have sworn that Matthew traces his descent through his father (or rather through the man who allegedly wasn't his father in the first place) while Luke does the same, but citing an incompatible number of generations and entirely different names! (pardon my irony again!) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::The two theories are:
::1) St. Joseph was adopted, and one lineage is legal heritage
::2) One lineage is that of Our Lady, and the other of St. Joseph
::--[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 13:13, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, you'd have thought they'd have said so, then, wouldn't you? Especially as they both say it's through Joseph, and there are far more generations in the one than in the other! (Honestly, the squirming that goes on to try and justify Christian dogma in the face of what the scriptures actually say!) ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Its rather redundant to state he was Jewish. As obvious as stating he was male.

==References==
<references/>

== Christ ==

Is this page locked? I thought that perhaps one should add, after explaining that "Jesus" is the Greek form of the Hebrew name "Joshua," that "Christ" comes from the Greek "christos," meaning "the annointed one"

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Absolutely. Or rather that ''christos'' is the Greek translation of Hebrew ''mashiach'', meaning 'anointed' and thus '[[Messiah]]' (and not, of course, Joshua's surname!!). Ironic, isn't it, that we know the two names mainly through the 'enemy' Greek culture that faithful Hebrews were most anxious to combat at the time? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 07:18, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Christ the Redeemer?? ==

Er...I find it a little bizarre to have a photo, and not a very good one of the Christ the Redeemer sculpture in Brazil as the only picture on this article.

'''A NOTE TO THE ADMINS:''' Why are so many essential articles locked? If someone wanted to v-andalise an article on Jesus they'd do it on Wikipedia where they'd get more airtime. This article is so woefully inadequate it's almost laughable. What about the teachings of Jesus, summarised? What about, oh, the prophets of the old testament foretelling his coming? What about the revelation of God's character through the old testament brought to fruition in Christ?

If you want to lock these articles, fine, I don't care. But make sure they're up to scratch before you do so. Otherwise you'll just drive people away like our friend earlier. [[User:Dallas|Dallas]] 07:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Help for this article is on the way, so be patient! :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:56, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==The name Jesus==

I came across some interesting information, which I've summarised here. If anybody who can edit this page would like to put it in, others might also find it interesting.

Considering that Christianity is 2000 years old, the name Jesus for Jesus Christ is not a very old word in English. In Old English he was called hæland “saviour”, from the Proto-Germanic root hailjan “to heal, to save”.

After the Norman conquest, the French form Iesu or Iesus was adopted. This derived from Latin Iosus, which the Romans adopted from the Greek Iesous. The Greeks derived the name from the late Hebrew or Aramaic name Yoshua, today’s version of which is “Joshua”. The earlier Aramaic form was Jehoshua (Y’hoshua) or Joshua., deriving from Hebrew Jah, short for Jahweh, and Aramaic y’shuoh meaning “salvation”. The name thus meant “Jah is salvation”. Both Joshua and Jehoshua were common names in the time of Jesus.

In 16th century written English both Iesu and Iesus were used, for example in Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526. J did not replace I until the 17th century and the form with the final s became common in the 18th century.

In Middle English documents, Jesus was often written IHS, an abbreviation of Greek IHSOYS (Iesous). However, in spoken English between the 11th and 17th centuries, the letter I could sound like either an I or a J, so the pronunciation of Iesus was similar to today’s sound. Welsh still retains the Iesu form but pronounces it “yessy”.

http://www.takeourword.com/Issue068.html

[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 3.51 24 March 2007

:''Very'' interesting, but, alas, factual - so it doesn't have much chance of being included here! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Birth of Christ ==

Just curious, especially considering how big a deal the A.D./C.E. thing is here, but why is there no mention of Christs Birthdate? Would think its sort of important given how much attention you've been heeding it. Best Scholarly guess seems to be late September in 05 B.C., which is odd I think, since that not only would grammatically read as him being born five years before he was born (a lesser miracle?) but also would imply that A.D. and C.E. are equally, inaccurately, based on the date of Christ's birth, with only A.D. claiming as much, and incorrectly at that.

The date would have been around Sept. 15 or 16 of 5 b.c., going by the signs in the heavens and the lunar cycle, and adjusting it to a Roman calendar date. The important thing to remember is that Yahshua was FULFILLING TORAH, thus, 'the day of his DEATH is better than the day of his birth', meaning we should continue in observing PASSOVER. 'Do this in remembrance of me...' --[[User:Witnessnbr1|Witnessnbr1]] 14:20, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

==Case for Christ==

I am reinserting the reference to ''Case for Christ''. It is not a "book review" to mention the book in one or two sentences. In fact, I think Conservapedia should serve as a jumping off point to further research on subjects, and that book is in itself a jumping off point to further research. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:11, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Name of page==

This ought to be Jesus Christ, not just Jesus. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Well from what I understand Christ is a [[Messiah|title]] not part of a name. It would be like renaming the George W. Bush article to President George W. Bush. If you're worried about someone typing in Jesus Christ and not able to get to the article that's not happening as Jesus Christ redirects to Jesus. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 03:33, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Sulgran, it is a highly secular idea of what it means. His name is '''Jesus Christ''' to hundreds of millions of people throughout the World. I don't think some online encyclopedia has a right to truncate his name. As Christians, we hold to these basic tenets:

<blockquote>
Our Core Values

#'''1. We praise Jesus Christ as Lord and savior always'''.
#2. Help others in their time of need, the lost, hungry and weak.
#3. Spread the good news about the Kingdom of Heaven.
#4. Love God the Father with all of our hearts, mind, body, and soul.
</blockquote> --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::5. 5. And ignore all the other 600-odd commandments, apart from:
::6. 6. Be insufferably smug at all times.

:In that case, we should refer to 'King David Christ', too, since he called himself that (in the Hebrew, ''mashiach'') throughout the Psalms. But it wasn't his name, any more than it was Jesus's. The word is a ''Greek translation'', of all things! (But then, to be fair, so is 'Jesus'!). --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:29, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Indeed. Christ is an honorific, not a name. In fact, his name was actually Yeshua[[User:Daemon|Daemon]] 12:28, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Well, we are not for everyone. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

As a sysop, I decided that readers looking for information on [[Jesus]] would be better served if they found it in [[Jesus Christ]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:06, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

'Christ' simply means 'anointed', like in Daniel, 'an anointed one'. His name should be Yahshua of Nazareth, as He was never a GREEK. --[[User:Witnessnbr1|Witnessnbr1]] 14:23, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

== Due to article improvement drive I am unprotecting this article. Please watch for vandals ==

Due to article improvement drive I am unprotecting this article. Please watch for vandals. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:It looks like it has been locked again. There are a few ignorant spelling errors I would like to correct. [[User:MontyZuma|MontyZuma]] 19:09, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

==Simple Logic?==

I don't see how this phrase:

:"Why would Jesus voluntarily submit to a crucifixion unless it was to be followed by a resurrection?"

is an example of simple logic. There could be any number of reasons why he would submit to his execution. I don't think even Christian's think he only did it to prove that he would be resurrected. He submitted to be executed simply because it would wash away the sins of man. This statement should be removed. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:58, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Surely Jesus while on Earth was a man born of woman and both feared and felt pain as a man would. Saying he went willingly because he knew he would rise again surely cheapens the sacrifice he made for us. He gave his life willingly and with great suffering for us without knowing what would become of him and, in this, made the most selfless sacrifice in all of history.

I am not a theologian but I would like to see a scholar of the Bible (as supposed to a simple follower like me) look at what I've suggested and see if the Bible supports this. I always believed that the human aspect of him made the sacrifice all the greater (and the sadder as such a great man died to such mockery and in such pain). --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:17, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:This statement was put in again (although under a different guise). I removed it as it is neither logic, or the reason Jesus was crucified. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 18:35, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

If Jesus was the son of God, but also part of God himself, and God is all powerful, why did Jesus need to sacrifice himself to himself to amend a rule he made himself?--[[User:Xodion|Xodion]] 00:30, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

:Jesus did not have to sacrifice himself. He could have snapped his fingers. The point is that by dying on the cross, Jesus gave us that powerful image of our redemption. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 00:32, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

In this discussion, it is good to remember a number of things. "HImself to Himself" implies the Trinity. This cannot be well or fully understood, but that does not mean it cannot be believed in. I believe in "One God in three Persons" yet even what I believe is not with full understanding. Jesus sacrificing Himself to Himself according to the rules He has made does point to an aspect which may have the solution that Xodion is searching for. The key is forgiveness. What we mean by forgiveness, what forgiveness really is. Whether forgivenss is of man or God, what it is is always a dying to oneself, a sacrifice of what is dear to you, part of you, of your innermost sense of what should be, must be. If that is not so, it is not forgiveness. It is forgetting, or not caring, or looking the other way, or indulgence, cavalier, meaning nothing. For God to truly forgive us, something in Himself, in a very real sense, had to experience a death. And so Jesus on the Cross - bearing our sins and for our sakes[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 06:25, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

== The top picture should be on the right more so the top text can be on the left ==

The top picture should be on the right more so the text can be on the left. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:16, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::Nevermind i fixed it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:17, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

*LOL...its okay for the pic to be on the left, as it was originally. ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::TK, i certainly don't want to get into a edit war over something trivial. But people do read from left to right and at first I missed the upper text. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:39, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

How can there be an edit war if you're the only person editing? [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 20:16, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Unprotection ==

Glad to see you unprotected the article for the "Article improvement drive". I would make some edits but need to hit the sack. [[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]] 19:00, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== Other people in the Bible name Jesus ==

While this is interesting, it's not appropriate for an article on Jesus Christ, which itself can get rather long. I did include a brief acknowledgement of Joshua and Messiah in the opening paragraph so your additions in regard to Jesus Christ are not lost. I hope this makes sense to you. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:26, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Lead ==
I wrote a new lead. I hope its not to bold, but I wanted to get the point about just who Jesus is right upfront. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 20:10, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:While I am a Christian, I'm still thinking perhaps we should start with the words "In Christian theology", before your new lead. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:34, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

*Learn together, please don't fall for the realitivists here. This is a Christian, Conservative encyclopedia. Ignore those wanting neutral statements, okay? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 06:23, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Can you objectively, empirically demonstrate the claim that Christ was born of a virgin, was the incarnation of God and, through dying, absolved the sins of his believers past, present and future? Its perfectly fine to believe this, sure, but to claim it as outright fact is wrong, and not simply because the only source for these grand claims is the Bible (a book which contains within it numerous self-contradictory and inaccurate passages, but thats another discussion) but also that to attempt to pin him down as a concrete character defies the various interpretations which have lead to the factioning of the church based on different eschatologies. Different christian religions all see christ in different lights. Some believe he was a miracle worker, some a philosopher/teacher, some see him as a pure man of God and some as God himself.
:Don't get me wrong, TK, I'm fully in favor of an un-neutral encyclopedia that promotes a specific "Christian, Conservative" narrative by selectively cherrypicking evidence and ignoring context to suggest as fact things that are not necessarily the case, and certainly the article can stay such as it is, offending the intellectual sensibilities of people like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin who saw truth in Christ's teachings but had "doubts as to his divinity," by committing the intellectual dishonesty of stating these things as outright fact which only cite one text as the source for these extraordinary claims.
:I just think though that if beliefs are going to be stated as fact that CPedia needs to come out front and decide which particular kind of christianity its going to promote as singularly true. Which particular protestant reformations will CPedia then be in a position to declare as false? Which Catholic sects? Methodism? Lutheranism? Mormonism? Making an "un-neutral" statement does get that snowball rolling after all, and if you've decided, TK, that neutrality is a bad thing, then riddle me this: Which conservapedia contributors... no... which CPedia Sysops will have the fun to find that the CPedia says their particular belief in Christ is outright wrong? I would really like to know. You all going to vote on which religion is "true" are you? I mean clearly here "true" is decided by the ideaology of the sysops as a group, and its not very likely that you all go to the exact same church, so who is it, specifically, who gets to have their Christian faith called false here? Inquiring minds want to know.
:--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 12:27, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::I think you got off on a tangent there. The majority of practicing Christians would have no trouble with the portrayal of Jesus put forth by Lostcaesar; there's no need to identify every variant and condition to the point where gridlock trumps common sense. And saying only one text is cited for Jesus is like taking all of the works of ancient Greece and putting them in one volume, then saying there's only one source that discusses ancient Greece. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:24, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:I apologize if I was unclear. I realize that there is archeological evidence that Jesus existed, but the problem isn't whether he lived or not. Its his divinity. The only source for such a claim is a selection of specific accounts of his life (others who witnessed him do not mention miracles, as an example) of which there is no supporting evidence. The only you can say about his divinity, therefore, is that the bible claims it to be so and that people believe it. Stating it as manifest fact simply because the majority agrees would be like, if the majority were also Star Trek fans, saying that Capt. James T Kirk is a real person. Facts are not democratic and demand quantification.
:My other problem with "majority" being used to argue the stament of beliefs as fact in this sense is that you admit there are a minority of Christians (myself among them) who do not necessarily believe in the divinity of Christ. Say then that another section goes up in the article about how He should be worshipped then. Do you populate that section with the majority religion at the expense of the others? Say Catholicism over Protestantism? Then that majority further divides over reformations and yields another majority, which then divides over another issue and then another, and before long you have Russian Nesting dolls, each being a majority, until the "minorities" put together outnumber the "majorities" 10 to 1.
:When you allow lapsed standards for statements of fact such as this merely on the basis of it being the opinion of the majority, you get exactly that situation in the long run. I notice, of course, that if a liberal were to make a similar unverifiable, intellectually dishonest claim on this site, he'd be hunted down with dogs. For consistancy's sake, for legitimacy's sake, and not least of all for Christ's sake, the only thing that should be said as fact about Christ's divinity is that the bible claims it to be so.--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 11:38, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

::''Here they crucified him, and with him two others--one on each side and Jesus in the middle. Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews." ...The chief priests of the Jews protested to Pilate, "Do not write 'The King of the Jews,' but that this man claimed to be king of the Jews."'' (John 19:18-19, 21)
::What will we write? "Jesus is the Son of God", or "some claim he said that he was the Son of God." ? [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 12:40, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:I think the best and simplest thing to say is some variant of "According to the Bible, Jesus was the son of god, born of a virgin, etc." since I agree the bible is the most pivotal reference for alot of the history attributed to him. The important thing to realize is that, and I dont mean this to be as condescenting as it might sound, but Jesus here is basically a character in a book, and as such since the only real source for the bulk of the extraordinary claims is that same book, the very simple quantifier "According to the bible..." used sparingly just to establish that context would, I think, be the best course of action. Fair?--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 13:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry to follow you here, RexMundane, I'll cease with this observation. I generally agree with your modest tone here, and do not take offense. I would like to add one clarification, though. While the Bible is most often published in a single book, it is actually a collection of books (or scrolls), letters, etc. The phrasing "According to the Bible..." seems to ickypedian to me. This is a conservative encyclopedia. I am not sure we need to cite the source of the statement in line, but perhaps we do. I don't think conservapedia is about doubting the historocity of Jesus. Am I wrong? [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 15:57, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:Well the claim of Jesus's divinity though is entirely based on the aggregate statements made by the bible. I agree that there was a Jesus, that significant events in the story of his life, as recanted in the bible, have been verified by archeological record, and it is entirely honest to say as much. Claiming he was born of a virgin, is the son of God, etc., however rather demands a quantifier since it is, and I say this recognizing this as a "christian" cyclopedia, only a claim being made by one source (I am here refering to the selection of texts in the bible as a single group) and significant as that source is to discussing the nature of Jesus, I maintain that it is wrong to say these things as objective fact when, outside of the claims made by that one source, there is no other empirical proof to say that, for instance, the ressurection was a real event. If the event exists, basically, only as an event in the story the Bible tells, that should be made explicit.
:As I say, I consider myself a christian in a sort of Thomas Jefferson sense, and don't require him to have been supernatural or even for the bible to have been accurate in order to be able to glean moral lessons from the story of his life. I realize that my opinion is not as important as the bible's in this regard, certainly as far as conveying the story of Christ, but the important thing is that the story is, basically, the bible's version. An important version to be sure, but it does a disservice to not make that clear, I rather think. Given too how I don't actually see how saying something like "The Bible says Jesus was X" instead of simply "Jesus was X" in any way changes a persons interpretation of Christ or his story in any significant way. I'm not saying to call it a lie, just to acknowledge that the primary basis for the claims is the bible itself.--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 17:21, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::Jesus' divinity is known by revelation, making it a fact that we can be certain about. If you wish to talk about sources, a section would be appropriate, where we can talk about the witness of the Bible, the Church Fathers, and any of the many miracles wrought in his name in the two thousand years since his resurrection. But, just as we would not qualify every statement about Julius Caesar being emperor of Rome, we should not qualify what we say about the Son of God. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 19:42, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:The distinction is that Ceaser being the emperor of rome is not disputed by anyone, whereas the nature of the divinity of Christ, even among Christians, is under dispute. "Jesus' divinity is known by revelation," only to those who know it, not to everyone. Among even people who believe in the truth of his teachings there are legitimate arguments as to whether or not the account of the bible regarding the virgin birth, miracles, etc., is true, or even necessary. All I'm asking for is that such statements of divinity which historians and christians themselves have disagreements on simply be clarified as being the bible's account. Saying its not necessary simply because the majority of christians believe in it sends us down the rabbit hole of deciding which religion is "true" by majority as well. I'm sorry, please help me here, why is there such opposition to simply adding the phrase "According to the Bible" once or twice?--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 10:23, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with Rex. Stating that Jesus *is* the Son of God unequivocally leaves Conservapedia in the position of endorsing Christianity as objectively true, when in fact this isn't verifiable, and the majority of people on earth are not Christian. A statement saying "According to the Bible" or "According to the Christian faith" as a preface would make this more objective. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 13:11, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
::1) This is a Christian encyclopedia. 2) While you may not think it is 'verifiable', others are not obliged to agree with this conclusion or approach. 3) Truth is not determined by mere popular whimsy, ergo the number of Christians is not directly relevant, though the position of the faith as the plurality, or near plurality position amongst different religions ought to give cause to reevaluate your position, even if you continue with the assumption that sheer number is directly relevant. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 16:34, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:::1) No, it isn't a Christian encyclopedia; it's a conservative encyclopedia QED. Not all conservatives are Christians, and even if they were it wouldn't make the question of Christ's divinity any more or less objectively verifiable. 2) It isn't just me that believes that the question of Christ's divinity is unverifiable. Such a question is one of faith, not of science, and as such is purely subjective. You may personally believe that Christ is your Lord and Savior, and noone is suggesting that you should believe otherwise, but you should recognize that this position can't be objectively proven. 3) I'm not making an argumentum ad populum, I'm simply pointing out that Conservapedia should not be in the business of claiming that one religion is true over all others, and it's sheer hubris to do otherwise. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 11:39, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
::::You sound as if you consider your statement (2) to be "objectively verifiable", since you give no argument for it other than to repeat the assertion. Whatever the case, what is "objectively verifiable" is that the frontpage contains a Daily Bible Verse. Please example this [http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070306/26179_Conservapedia_Challenges_%27Anti-Christian%27_Wiki.htm useful text]. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 13:06, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Regardless of the opinion of the Christian Post, the stated purpose of this website is to provide a counterpoint to perceived liberal bias in Wikipedia, not to advance Christianity as the only true religion. There are a great many non-Christian conservatives. If you haven't guessed by now, you're speaking to one. With regards to verifiability, the fact is that the entire basis upon which the divinity of Christ rests is the Bible itself, which is not an objective source, it's a work of faith. I appreciate that you have a strong faith, but just as Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Conservapedia should not be one either. To claim that one religion is true over all others rather than to give a dispassionate overview of the facts surrounding those religions is to stop being an encyclopedia, and to start being a tract. To state "Christians believe Christ to be the Son of God" is a fact which can be proven. To state "Christ is the Son of God" may or may not be true, but cannot be proven independant of the Bible. This in and of itself violates Conservapedia commandment 1. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 14:12, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

::The Gospels and the testimonies and facts along centuries are "objectively verifiable". They are holly books and facts as well as scientifically truth as other history book are according to History science. What you have to remember is that men are undoubtedly flash and soul. Make your statements using both and you will see as John the Apostle teched, the love that is there and that is a reality objectively verifiable. Any man can be a witness of that simple truth. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:25, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:::The Bible may be held by some to be holy, but that view isn't held by all (indeed, it's only held by a minority of the world's population). Other holy texts do not claim that Jesus was the son of God. Conservapedia should not be in the business of stating that one holy text is true and others are false, because this is a matter of faith, not fact. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 16:27, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== Jesus was Jewish! ==

Jesus was Jewish... his personal religious beliefs are central to a belief in him, yet this article makes no mention of what Jesus believed. This glaring omission can only be seen as an effort to force history into alignment with current ideals. {{unsigned|Newsdan}}

:That's a little harsh. Yes, Yeshua was Jewish. And as the site grows I'm sure the article will come to reflect this. This is a fairly new site, Newsdan - it didn't appear fully formed and perfect :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:34, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::Like most of us did not know he was a Jew. There is nothing wrong with him being Jewish, nothing!--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 14:36, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Will... the problem is that the article is locked, and yet was done so without adding this fact. --[[User:Newsdan|Newsdan]] 14:42, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
:You can use this talk section to preview to the sysops anything you'd like to add. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:44, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
:I'd suggest providing the wording you would like to see included and where this placement would occur. As Fox has stated, the sysops are more than happy to see that constructive edits are included. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:49, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::Jesus was ethnically Jewish, but he came to fulfill the Jewish faith, thereby founding the Christian Church. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 17:22, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

I would have to counter the thought above about 'founding the christian church'. The christian church was formed to save its own butt from the persecution of the Jews. Then, it started to worship what it wanted to worship to separate themselves further(such as xmas and esthar), thus further STRAYING FROM THE TRUTH, and bringing man to what it is right now, a spiritual mess. That said, scripture PREDICTED that this would happen in Hosea 6:1-2. Man has been ripped apart for 2 days(2000 years), and the healing is about to begin.--[[User:Witnessnbr1|Witnessnbr1]] 14:30, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

== Introductory Paragraph ==

This article has a real problem. Many people question the divinity of Jesus Christ. The opening section of this article should state "According to the Christian faith..."

To state as fact that Jesus Christ was and is the Son of God has no place in the main article and has no business being in an encyclopedia. This article should be unlocked and appropiate changes made to make this article neutral.

The owners and administrators are doing great harm to this website and their positions by allowing their personal opinions to enter into the articles. Credibility, readership and contributions cannot be maintained by allowing non-neutral articles.

Personal, religious and political opinions should be expressed outside the main body of articles.

:You're not an authority on all things encyclopedic, are you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:29, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

:::You're new here aren't you...--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:31, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Yes I am new, and I am learning. However, the first thing I did was read the rules, especially rule#5 which states that personal opinions are not allowed in articles. The beginning of this article breaks rule #5. Clearview 15:46 6/19/07

:Are you sure that Jesus Christ being the Son of God and the Savior is personal opinion? Is it your personal opinion that He's not? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:48, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Ok before a big fight breaks out, Clearview, just keep in mind that while the site says that no personal opinion is allowed, the site owner and most of the administrators here view the Bible as irrefutable fact and while you may disagree, refuting that is only going to get you banned. If you have an idealogical issue with that, then I suggest that you either try to repress it when editing, or perhaps try another wiki, as making edits that refute the divinity of Jesus are only going to result in a ban.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:58, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

First, I never stated my position on the divinity of Christ so please do not assume what I believe. Second, my suggestion that the article be introduced by stating that the Christan faith holds that Christ is divine does not refute any fact. Third, belief in Christ does not require fact, only faith "Blessed are those who believe yet do not see". Clearview 16:32PST 6/19/07.
:Well, first, we had trolls and vandals come in who picked the CP commandments as the first thing they complained about in general, and articles about the Bible specifically. Second, you are not an authority as to what constitutes the structure and layout of an encyclopedia. Third, the changes that you have insisted be made pertaining to Jesus and Judaism articles constitute a violation of commandment #5, because, like it or not, it is your personal opinion and beliefs as to the subject. Therefore it will not be changed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:46, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::Hi, I would like to point out that the phrase "According to Christian faith...." does not state a personal opinion. Maybe you could make it something like "For all Christians..."? So it does not sound as questioning, but still pays respect to the fact that people of other/no faith don't view Jesus of Nazareth as the son of god and their savior. --lhb 02:53, 15 Sept 2007

:::First, I think Karajou owes an apology to all of us, and especially to Clearview, for acting obnoxiously. What gives you authority to say that anyone, including yourself and me, is or is not an expert in what constitutes the structure and layout of an encyclopedia. Then the argument was used that "the changes that you have insisted be made pertaining to Jesus and Judaism articles constitute a violation of commandment #5 because, like it or not, it is your personal opinion and beliefs as to the subject." I think we all agree that religion is a controversial topic. Therefore, it is important to consider all points of view on religion, including those who believe in Jesus Christ as a spiritual leader and those who believe in him as a historical figure with no spiritual background or even those who do not believe he existed at all. Karajou does not understand that saying that Jesus is believed by Christians is a completely neutral way of addressing the topic. Therefore, the article is as fair as possible because Christians who do believe in Christ have their arguments mentioned. Those who do not believe in Christ have their views acknowledged because the article states that Christ's divinity is believed by only some people. Karajou stated that "Are you sure that Jesus Christ being the Son of God and the Savior is personal opinion? Is it your personal opinion that He's not?" It most certainly is a personal opinion, and that he is not is also a personal opinion. While the article may completely focus on one side of this opinion, it needs some form of disclaimer in the opening paragraph to explain that Jesus and his divinity is not a universally accepted truth. --[[User:Eb12|Eb12]] 18:42, 12 January 2008 (EST)

""While the site says that no personal opinion is allowed, the site owner and most of the administrators here view the Bible as irrefutable fact and while you may disagree, refuting that is only going to get you banned."" So, no personal opinion is allowed UNLESS it's the personal opinion of the site owner and administrators? Ha! That's hilarious. Why are you even bothering to pretend that Conservapedia has the remotest commitment to impartiality if you're willing to make statements like that? At least Wikipedia has the decency to PRETEND they're not biased. Unless the site owner and administrators are actually willing to abide by their own commandments, Conservapedia will forever be viewed as a ridiculous propoganda site that maintains it's blinkered dogma by banning anybody who expresses a different point of view. Your editing policy has more in common with communist Russia than modern America (remember a wee thing called 'Freedom of Speech?') I imagine I'll get instantaniously banned for writing such heresy, but I think it's a VERY valid point to be raised. {{unsigned|Rolandhulme}}
:Wikipedia is biased in many of its articles; changing the evolution article, for example, to include facts that evolution is false will get instantly reverted. As to what constitutes a wiki, do you have the right to claim "freedom of speech" in a wiki dedicated to ''Star Wars'' when you post articles related to the U.S. Civil War? I don't think so. You're welcome to make positive contributions in this wiki, but you have to realize that editing in any wiki is a priviledge, and not a right. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:21, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Hi Karajou - thanks for the response (which was more reasonable than mine, so I apologise. I was just frustrated.) I see your point about freedom of speech, although that's not applicable in this situation. A man posting about the Civil War in a post about Star Wars could be censored on the basis of relevance. The flaws in Conservapedia's page on Jesus are VERY relevant. To fulfil the intention of Conservapedia - to be a reference, rather than a propoganda site, it needs to outline Jesus' life as referenced by the Bible and Christian texts - not just as imperical fact. From what you're saying, it seems clear that the site owner and administrators play the 'It's my site and I'll censor/rewrite as I want to' instead of actually trying to be impartial or factual or follow their own clearly established commandments. That's their right, sure - but it means Conservapedia is entirely useless as an alternative knowledge resource to Wikipedia. Oh, and as for evolution... Wikipedia does explain creationist theory and intelligent design, but considering that evolution is only a theory in the same way gravity is (and I studied history and did some archeology at a theological university, so I'm pretty knowledgable about this stuff) I don't think it's possible to support creationism with any convincing 'facts' - hence deletion. Although that's a topic for another post! {{unsigned|Rolandhulme}}

The opening sentence claims that Jesus IS in fact the son of God. This is a belief, not a fact, and it should therefore be referred to as a belief. e.g. "Jesus Christ is ''believed by Christians to be'' the only Son of God and prophesied Messiah..." {{unsigned|DerUebermensch}}

Only 'begotton' son. The bible is quite specific and some consider it to imply that there are other sons , just not born of woman. This gets quite difficult to explain since Jesus IS God and has always existed , also theres no Mrs God and 'son' has a pretty specific meaning in most languages , but I digresss. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 17:52, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

:Rolandhulme and DerUebermensch (even though he is banned) should read my [[essay:Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]]. As for evolution, it is not a theory "in the same way gravity is": gravity is observed, but goo-to-you evolution isn't. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:10, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

== Teachings of Jesus ==

Why does the article have no section about the teachings of Jesus? --[[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] 17:39, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

:Good question! Why don't you work on it at [[The Gospels]]? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:57, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

We should add a section about how the teachings of Jesus are applied today, especially be liberals using his words to incorrectly support their agenda.

Ex. Welfare (compassion)

Gay Marriage (acceptance)

Capital punishment (thou shall not murder)

This will make the article more practical and informative. Thanks for the consideration! [[User:Lukecorlando|Lukecorlando]] 23:36, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

== "Jesus Christ is the only Son of God who..." ==

Please consider changing to "Jesus Christ is the only ''begotten'' Son of God who..." for Ge 6:2 talks about other "sons of God."

{{cquote|Ge 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.}}

I appreciate it. [[User:FightPerniciousSwarm|FightPerniciousSwarm]] 21:43, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Category removal ==

Please remove the categories: Christianity, Trinity, Christian History, Religion, Biblical persons, and Divine Beings. They are all supercategories of [[:Category:Jesus]]. Also, it would be nice if you could sort the Jesus article at the top, by doing thus: <nowiki>[[Category:Jesus|]]</nowiki>. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 15:39, 7 January 2008 (EST)

== Jesus in Islam ==

i will further expand the article by adding the Islamic view of Jesus as the Massaiah and a prophit, i will also start a new article about the issue

watch your spelling --[user:PhilipV|PhilipV]

== Truth and verifiability ==

I don't think this article should be phrased the way it is. CP commandment #1 states that "everything you post must be true and verifiable". Is it really verifiably true that "Jesus Christ is the only Son of God", or that "Jesus physically rose from the dead, making possible salvation and eternal life for those who believe in him"?

It may well be true, I don't deny that, but it is not verifiably so, hence the need for [[faith]]. It is in the same category of statement as "The Koran is the perfect, unalterable word of God", or "Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse". It is not the same category of verifiable statements such as "water boils at 100 degrees celsius", or "China has the highest population of any country in the world".

It is verifiably true that ''Christians believe'' Jesus to be the only Son of God, and that ''According to the New Testament'', Jesus physically rose from the dead, making possible salvation and eternal life for those who believe in him, so why can't the article be written that way? There are precedents. Compare with [[Hell]], which states "''To Christians'', hell is a place where the souls of the wicked are punished eternally for all the sins they perpetrated during their lifetime on Earth." Or the page on [[Islam]], which mentions "''The Qur'an states that'' Christians will be punished, though the nature of the punishment is not specified."

Why make an exception to the first CP commandment for this page?[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 05:39, 14 February 2008 (EST)

== The Theory of Jesus? ==

In the same way that evolution is stated to be a mere "theory" since it is not universally accepted, should we not give equal consideration to Jesus and his relation to god. A vast majority may accept he was the son however since a few do not can we not rephrase such statements in a manner like "currently most accept that Jesus was the son of god" or perhaps "the leading theory amongst religious people today is that Jesus was the son of god"

The statement

"Jesus Christ is the only Son of God who, in the fullness of time, was sent by God the Father to be the propitiation for our sins and to ransom us from death."

also seems unverifiable
[[User:Qc|Qc]] 17:03, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

==Hebrew or Aramaic?==
The article has the [[Aramaic]] form of His title but calls it [[Hebrew]]. Aramaic is Meshiha (Aleph) - the article at the end, while Hebrew is HaMashiah - article at the front[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 06:25, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

==minor bits==
shouldnt The Twelve Apostles be in the see also part and not just Andrew

== Commandments ==

Is it possible for anybody to actually edit the article in accordance with the Conservapedia guidelines?

It begins :'Jesus was the son of God...'

That's wrong. Rule No.1 in the guidelines is Attribution. It should read 'Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God.' If you don't bother following the rules of Conservapedia there's no point in even having the bloody thing in the first place.

It should read:

Christians believe that the Biblical figure Jesus Christ, featured in the New Testament of the Bible, was the Son of God, sent to Earth to die for our human sins and show people the path to heaven. Popular Christian lore suggests that Jesus was born in the first century A.D. and it is his birth upon which the modern calendar system is based.

According to the new Testament, when he was about thirty, Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, inaugurating his ministry. According to the Bible, Jesus performed various miracles throughout his life, lending support to his claim that he was the son of God.

The Bible chronicles that many during Jesus' lifetime did not believe in his divinity and some sought to put him to death. Eventually, Jesus was handed over to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate and crucified. Christian lore states that he died for mankind's sins on the cross, therefore offering a path to heaven to all those who accepted him as their savior.

According to the Bible, Jesus physically rose from the dead three days after being entombed and appeared to his disciples on various occasions. The Bible then states that Jesus ascended to Heaven, where he now acts as our mediator and path to heaven.

== Editing ==

Why are we not able to edit this page? As I said earlier, the entire first paragraph is inconsistent with established conservapedia guidelines and should read:

Christians believe that the Biblical figure Jesus Christ, featured in the New Testament of the Bible, was the Son of God, sent to Earth to die for our human sins and show people the path to heaven. Popular Christian lore suggests that Jesus was born in the first century A.D. and it is his birth upon which the modern calendar system is based.

According to the new Testament, when he was about thirty, Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, inaugurating his ministry. According to the Bible, Jesus performed various miracles throughout his life, lending support to his claim that he was the son of God.

The Bible chronicles that many during Jesus' lifetime did not believe in his divinity and some sought to put him to death. Eventually, Jesus was handed over to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate and crucified. Christian lore states that he died for mankind's sins on the cross, therefore offering a path to heaven to all those who accepted him as their savior.

According to the Bible, Jesus physically rose from the dead three days after being entombed and appeared to his disciples on various occasions. The Bible then states that Jesus ascended to Heaven, where he now acts as our mediator and path to heaven.

==Evidence for Jesus flimsy at best.==

This whole Christ-as-savior thing kinda irks me. Why is it that the Bible is full of all these miracles which were treated as the greatest spectacles of their day and yet it seems that as soon as media and culture popped up on the scene the whole "magic God" went kinda dormant. It's kinda like how Superman used to fight all kinds of crazy space aliens and stuff and then he just starts taking on topical issues like corporations and terrorism. Why the watering down so suddenly? Aren't we talking about a God with an infinite scope of the universe? Why does he care whether people are smart enough to acknowledge these things? Why doesn't Sodom and Gemorrah happen like, everyday in this day and age? [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 16:19, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

==Evidence for Jesus being black?==

I have read over the article and I see no mention to the possibility of Jesus being black? [[craan|craan]]

If you can provide credible evidence, please post it. Thanks. [[User:Mark7|Mark7]] 17:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why can't you provide credible evidence that he is white? Technically, he's a Middle Easterner.
[[LiberalJohn|LiberalJohn]]
== Prayer to receive ==

Jesus never taught to "Pray to receive Him now", so why is that under the "Teachings of Jesus" section? [[User:Mark7|Mark7]] 18:12, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

In one sense it is true that prayer to receive Jesus is not a teaching from or of Him, but rather a teaching about Him or approach to Him. In another sense, it is a teaching from or of Him, in that the prayer is a definite decision of incorporating Him into our life as He is - Lord and Savior. And that, Jesus did many ways when He was on earth - presenting or interjecting Himself in the "equation" of reaching God and His Kingdom. This shows that the two ways, that "of or from Jesus Himself" (Gospels) and the way "about Jesus" (Epistles) are really one way.[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 12:54, 5 January 2009 (EST)

==Unlock==
Any chance of getting this unlocked so some edits can be made? It's pretty sloppy in formatting.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:56, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Seconded [[User:Illuminatiscott|Illuminatiscott]]

:::I would like to unlock to add [[:Category:Catholic Church]]-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:07, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== New section needed - Popular depiction of Jesus ==

Jesus has been generally depicted over the years as "as being taller than his disciples, lean, with long, flowing, light brown hair, fair skin and light-colored eyes" - however this depiction is heavily at odds with the racial characteristics of humans in the [[Judea]] and [[Galilee]] areas at the time of Jesus' life as a mortal man. "According to the Gospel of Matthew, when Jesus was arrested in the garden of Gethsemane before the Crucifixion, Judas Iscariot had to indicate to the soldiers whom Jesus was because they could not tell him apart from his disciples." This would suggest Jesus is much shorter and darker skinned than traditionally believed.<ref>http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1282186.html?page=1</ref> [Image:http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/tb_jesuslead-lg.jpg].

Can someone add this section and upload the linked image and display it alongside? Thankyou. [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 22:23, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

[[Arnold Toynbee]] in his “Study of History” talks about “diversity in unity” and says that an identical religious belief can be given totally different cultural interpretations. Think of black Madonnas in Africa and Brazil and Orthodox images of Christ that look Greek. I lived near a “Sacred Heart” school and their statues were perfectly Anglo-Saxon.
And did Charlton Heston look Semetic? (Though I do wonder why the bad guys tended to sound British). If God created man in His image, we should be able to reciprocate, whatever we look like. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:39, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:Perhaps it is best to leave the article as it is, which is to say not mentioning his physical appearance. After all, the Bible itself chooses that path. Anything else would just be speculation and detract from the portrayal of Jesus that the Bible does provide. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 07:31, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

== transference of a section. Is it O.K.? ==

I took the Self Consciousness of Jesus section from the Christianity article. Is this O.K. to do? I thought so because I am the editor for the section. But still unsure if this is acceptable procedure for articles. I felt more sure of it for the KAL 007 [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] articles because I am the main editor. But not so for the articles on the Faith[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 04:35, 29 November 2008 (EST)

== Christians believe... ==
I'm something of a newbie, but should we start the article with something like "Jesus Christ is, in Christian theology, the only Son of God..." in order to be more accessible to our non-Christian brethren? While I would never deny the divinity of our Lord, I think we could be more ecumenical with such an approach. Opinions? --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 19:57, 28 January 2009 (EST)
: It depends on what stance the site wants to take, and Conservapedia takes the stance that Jesus Christ ''is'' the only son of God. How would your wording make it "more accessible"? It doesn't alter their ability to access the page. Further, I doubt that it would make any difference to how much someone was prepared to believe it. That is, if they won't believe that Jesus is God because we say that He is, why would they believe it if we ''don't'' say that He is? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:21, 30 January 2009 (EST)

==Technical difficulties==
When I went to the Uncategorized pages tab, I noticed that this page was on there. I looked at it, and it has about six categories. Could someone fix this? [[User:JY23|JY23]] 19:33, 29 January 2009 (EST)
: It doesn't show up on the uncategorized pages list for me. Does it still for you? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:14, 30 January 2009 (EST)
::Someone fixed it already, but thanks. By the way, could you put <nowiki>[[Category:Featured articles]]</nowiki> on the page? Thanks, [[User:JY23|JY23]] 21:35, 3 March 2009 (EST)
::: I've unprotected it, so you can add that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:04, 4 March 2009 (EST)

== The "scourging" section ==

I see that the article is protected. Could the following be added on to the scourging section?

"The scourging and physical affliction of Jesus, the not overtly alluded to, may have a significance for benefit to come. There was a prophecy of the Suffering Servant to come:

Yet He Himself bore our sicknesses,
and He carried our pains;
but we in turn regarded Him stricken,
struck down by God, and afflicted. Isaiah 53:4

The Gospel of Mattew would see in this prophesy a foretelling of the various healings and deliverances that Jesus gave to the people, "so that what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: He Himself took our weaknesses and carried our diseases (Matt. 8:17) If not the scourging itself, then all of the sufferings of the Lord, culminating in His sacrifice on the cross, was the source not only for forgiveness, but also for all the many types of healings and restorations for the people."[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 07:37, 4 March 2009 (EST)

: I've unprotected it, so you can edit it yourself. But if the vandalism resumes, it will need to be protected again. Before you add, though, please check your spelling (first sentence)! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:06, 4 March 2009 (EST)

== Question ==
Should we really act like Jesus is real? He is a fairy tale after all. [[User:Mannerismxk909|Mannerismxk909]] 16:17, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

:How is this related to writing the article? (If you're just stating your opinion, you might want to start a debate, as in [[Debate:Should we act like Jesus is real?]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:20, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
::Done. [[User:Mannerismxk909|Mannerismxk909]] 16:23, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

== Could this article be opened ==

Could this article be opened to put [[Essay: The Way of Salvation]] under "See Also"[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 19:30, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

==Jewishness of God manifest in the flesh==

Came across this quote which might be added, from a Rabbi

"Most portrayers of the life of Jesus neglect to point out that Jesus is in every characteristic a genuinely Jewish character, that a man like him could have grown only in the soil of Judaism, only there and nowhere else. Jesus is a genuine Jewish personality, all his struggles and works, his bearing and feeling, his speech and silence, bear the stamp of a Jewish style, the mark of Jewish idealism, of the best that was and is in Judaism, but which then existed only in Judaism.

He was a Jew among Jews; from no other people could a man like him have come forth, and in no other people could a man like him work; in no other people could he have found the apostles who believed in him." - Rabbi Leo Baeck. http://www.jewsforjesus.co.za/index.asp

As for the Divinity of Christ, you might find http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/DEITYofCHRIST.html helpful. To God be the glory.

==Minor Addition suggestion==
An excellent article, but no mention is made of the family's flight to Egypt, then returning to Nazareth - thus the name "Jesus of Nazareth". I would suggest that this be mentioned in the section about Jesus' life. [[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 22:38, 8 November 2009 (EST)

Satan

2009-11-09T03:29:12Z

Userafw: /* Defenses */ change redlink to italics

[[Image:GustaveDoreParadiseLostSatanProfile.jpg|right|thumb|Gustave Doré's depiction of Satan from John Milton's Paradise Lost.]]
'''Satan'''<ref>However, Satan also makes appearences in pop-culture, most notably in the Rolling Stones song, "Sympathy for the Devil" and works by other famous bands. From the Hebrew "ha-satan", meaning the "accuser", "tempter", "persecutor", "calumniator", or "adversary".</ref> or the '''Devil''' is the embodiment of evil, and plays a major role in Christian theology and literature, as well as in many other religions, and nowadays used as a criticism for unholy people or those who have done "bad things".
==Old Testament==
He was a member of the divine council of God referenced in the [[Old Testament]]. He is referenced 11 times in [[Job]] and 4 other times in the Old Testament. The [[New Testament]] mentions Satan 34 times in all starting with the first book [[Matthew]] and ending with the last [[Revelation]]. In the Christian tradition he rebelled against God and is now the enemy of God and man alike. He is the father of lies and no good is found in him. He leads a host of fallen angels (or [[demon]]s) who know their days are numbered before they will be cast in the [[lake of fire]] and they seek to take as many humans as possible with them. Those who worship Satan are called [[satanism | Satanists]].

== History==
In Christianity Satan's goal is to lead people away from the love of God, by tempting or tricking them. The only sources of supernatural power in the world are from either God (good) or Satan (evil). In the book of [[Genesis]], Satan takes the form of a snake and tempts Eve with fruit from a tree. This causes sin to come into the world. Kelly (2006) demonstrates how assumptions--such as the identification of the Eden serpent with Satan, probably first made by Justin Martyr in the second century--have hardened into fact.

Satan, in the Book of Job, listens to God speak highly of Job and accuses Job to God before the host of angels that Job praises God only because he is blessed and would curse God if he was forced to suffer. God allows Satan to do what he will except to spare his life, and Satan causes Job to suffer immensely. (Job remained true to God through his hardships; Satan accused him further and punished him further, but could not get Job to break).

[[Jesus]] makes references to demonic possession on multiple occasions that He then casts out. Some believe that Satan is able to possess and control living humans on Earth even today. The Catholic church believes that priests (and sometimes only bishops) are able to [[exorcise]] this possession through Jesus.

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

==Names==
The notion of Satan, or an evil force, is noted in many if not all of the major world religions.

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

=== Lucifer ===

'''Lucifer''' is a name literally meaning "Son of the Morning" (or "Light-Bearer"), and is mentioned in the [[Bible]] only in the [[book of Isaiah]] (Isaiah 14:12). Though in Christian tradition Lucifer is equated with Satan, the immediate context of the passage is Isaiah's prophecy against the king of Babylon, and the name "Lucifer" was not present at all in the original manuscripts (in the Latin Vulgate, the phrase "Son of the Morning" was transliterated as a proper name).

Whomever Lucifer may be, the Isaiah makes strong prophecy against him, condemning him for 5 pronouncements:

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

Those who take this passage to be a reference to Satan believe that it gives more history of what caused his downfall, that he was created by God as one of His most powerful angels (possibly a Seraphim), but that he fell from grace after he in his pride rebelled against his Creator. Some, however, believe that there is no grounding to interpret the passage as a history of Satan, citing that the passage uses highly figurative and poetic language that was meant as a prophecy against Babylon and nothing more.

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

== Jewish Views ==

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

* mockery, which Satan cannot withstand due to his pride
* sunlight or exposure, from which Satan hides
* the [[Holy Spirit]], meaning "The Advocate" (i.e., defense lawyer), or the ''Armor of God''<ref>Ephesians 6:1-17</ref>.

Note that Satan lacks self-restraint, which often leads him to failure. In addition, Satan delights in [[deceit]], even to the point of causing his downfall.

==Dante and Milton==
The classic literary depictions of Satan appear in Dante's Italian poem, "Inferno," and in [[John Milton]]'s English poem, "Paradise Lost." These are considered the two greatest poems in Italian and English literature.
==See also==
* [[Devil]]
* [[Salem Witch Trials]]
==Further reading==
* Caldwell, William. "The Doctrine of Satan: I. In the Old Testament," ''The Biblical World,'' Vol. 41, No. 1 (Jan., 1913), pp. 29-33 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/3142352 in JSTOR]
* Caldwell, William. "The Doctrine of Satan: II. Satan in Extra-Biblical Apocalyptical Literature," ''The Biblical World,'' Vol. 41, No. 2 (Feb., 1913), pp. 98-102 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/3142425 in JSTOR]
* Caldwell, William. "The Doctrine of Satan: III. In the New Testament," ''The Biblical World,'' Vol. 41, No. 3 (Mar., 1913), pp. 167-172 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/3142755 in JSTOR]
* Empson, William. ''Milton's God'' (1966)
* Jacobs, Joseph, and Ludwig Blau. "Satan," ''The Jewish Encyclopedia'' (1906) [http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=270&letter=S&search=Satan#ixzz0UQlw0zPS online] pp 68-71
* Kelly, Henry Ansgar. ''Satan: A Biography.'' (2006). 360 pp. [http://books.google.com/books?id=gPIpQg0lRbMC&pg=PA12&dq=intitle:satan+inauthor:kelly&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false excerpt and text search]ISBN 0-521-60402-8, a study of the Bible and Western literature
* Kent, William. "Devil." ''The Catholic Encyclopedia'' (1908) Vol. 4. [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04764a.htm online older article]
* Osborne, B. A. E. "Peter: Stumbling-Block and Satan," ''Novum Testamentum,'' Vol. 15, Fasc. 3 (Jul., 1973), pp. 187-190 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560340 in JSTOR] on "Get thee behind me, Satan!"
* Rebhorn Wayne A. "The Humanist Tradition and Milton's Satan: The Conservative as Revolutionary," ''Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900,'' Vol. 13, No. 1, The English Renaissance (Winter, 1973), pp. 81-93 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/449871 in JSTOR]
* Russell, Jeffrey Burton. ''The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity'' (1987) [http://www.amazon.com/Devil-Perceptions-Antiquity-Christianity-Paperbacks/dp/0801494095/ref=pd_sim_b_1 excerpt and text search]
* Russell, Jeffrey Burton. ''Satan: The Early Christian Tradition'' (1987) [http://www.amazon.com/Satan-Christian-Jeffrey-Burton-Russell/dp/0801494133/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_c excerpt and text search]
* Russell, Jeffrey Burton. ''Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages'' (1986) [http://www.amazon.com/Lucifer-Devil-Middle-Cornell-Paperbacks/dp/080149429X/ref=pd_sim_b_1 excerpt and text search]
* Russell, Jeffrey Burton. ''Mephistopheles: The Devil in the Modern World'' (1990) [http://www.amazon.com/Mephistopheles-Modern-Jeffrey-Burton-Russell/dp/0801497183/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_c excerpt and text search]
* Russell, Jeffrey Burton. ''The Prince of Darkness: Radical Evil and the Power of Good in History'' (1992) [http://www.amazon.com/Prince-Darkness-Radical-Power-History/dp/0801480566/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255995689&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Schaff, D. S. "Devil" in ''New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge'' (1911), [[Mainline]] Protestant; vol 3 pp 414-417 [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc03.d.iii.html online]
* Scott, Miriam Van. ''The Encyclopedia of Hell'' (1999) [http://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Hell-Miriam-Van-Scott/dp/0312244428/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b excerpt and text search] comparative religions; also popular culture
* Wray, T. J. and Gregory Mobley. ''The Birth of Satan: Tracing the Devil's Biblical Roots'' (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/Birth-Satan-Tracing-Devils-Biblical/dp/1403969337/ref=pd_sim_b_1 excerpt and text search]

== Notes ==
<references/>
[[category:Abrahamic Religions]]
{{DivineComedy}}

Pornography

2009-11-09T03:26:57Z

Userafw:

{{etymology|[[Greek]] πορνή (''porné'')) a prostitute and γράΦω (''grapho'') I write}}[[Image:Pornography.jpg|200px|right]]
'''Pornography''' is the explicit representation of the human body or sexual activity used for the intents of stimulating sexual arousal.
It usually consists of images depicting the satisfaction of the sort of "unnatural lust" which leads to damnation. ({{Bible ref|book=Jude|chap=1|verses=6-7}}) It destroys the mind as [[gambling]] does and, even worse, '''pornography''' leads to terrible crimes against women and children.<ref>http://www.un.org/rights/dpi1772e.htm</ref>

* When Christ said "any man who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart," He made it clear that chastity -- and unchastity -- don't begin with what we do, but rather in what we think. And deliberately seeking sexual stimulation outside a committed marriage, even via the imagination, constitutes a sin against [[chastity]].<ref> [http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0051.html Banishing Unchaste Thoughts]</ref>

Pornographic images have been proliferating at a remarkable rate. What was a $5 million-a-year enterprise merely 25 years ago has boomed to a $7 billion to $10 billion-a-year industry today... the fastest growing sectors of the industry are pornographic DVDs, cable television, and phone sex. Pornography is no longer confined to the seedier sections of town. With the advent of the Internet, it has become readily available to all, including children, and in the privacy of our own homes.<ref>[http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=759 Censorship or Education?]</ref>

==Human psychology==
Dr. [[Jerry Bergman (scientist)|Jerry Bergman]] (Ph.D.) wrote:

:Pornography distorts the natural development of personality. If the early stimulus is pornographic photographs, the [[adolescent]] can be [[conditioning|conditioned]] to become aroused through photographs. Once this pairing is rewarded a number of times, it is likely to become permanent. The result to the individual is that it becomes difficult for the person to seek out relations with appropriate persons.<ref> Jerry Bergman, Ph.D., The Influence of Pornography on Sexual Development: Three Case Histories, IX ''Family Therapy'' 3, 1982, pg. 265. </ref>

Although with the human population growing, it can be doubted whether this lack of desire for a human partner is a bad thing.

==Illusion and addiction==

Pornography provides the illusion of intimacy,<ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-f016.html (Christian Answers)] </ref> but this is a [[satan]]ic trap (see [[sexual addiction]]).

*Pornography consumption is not something that can easily be stopped. Once the appetite for it has developed, it actually increases. In his 1988 study ''Pornography Effects: Empirical and Clinical Evidence'', [[Victor Cline]], then with the [[University of Utah]]'s Department of Psychology noted that studies show pornography is progressive and addictive for many. It often leads to the user acting out his fantasy.
*The Internet is the "crack cocaine" of sexual addiction.<ref>[http://www.soundvision.com/Info/life/porn/pornfacts.asp]</ref>

"People often act in accordance with the images and patterns they find around them,"<ref>At the crux of this issue is whether written pornography might have a causal effect in eroticizing criminal activities. One case that dealt with this issue indirectly is American Booksellers Association v. Hudnut, ... the court conceded that it saw some evidence of a causal relationship between pornography and anti-social behaviors.... People often act in accordance with the images and patterns they find around them. . . . Depictions of subordination tend to perpetuate subordination." 771 F.2d at 328-29.</ref> so looking at pornography is a dangerous practice; although being around a loving christian family for most of the day, and instead acting in accordance with those images and patterns seems to negate this.

Porn says that happiness is found by having the same experience over and over again with lots of different women; true ''eros'' says that happiness is found by having different experiences over and over again with the same person.<ref>[http://nopornnorthampton.org/2007/05/02/schwyzer-on-porn-pursuit-of-novelty-is-enemy-of-relationship.aspx]</ref>

==Departure from the norm==
Viewing or reading pornography day in and day out has a negative effect. It desensitizes a person, makes him more withdrawn, and makes him view others (of the opposite sex) like objects rather than the people they are.
Although some people have argued that "erotica" is okay, in the history of erotic literature it is rare to find any depiction of normal marital relations.

Cary Tennis wrote:
:And naturally whether you approve of porn in theory or not, its effect will be to displace you. Like crack, it tends to take over, to push out other hungers that tend to nurture the human community by making us dependent on one another. Since we are dependent on each other we must be civil and loving. If we are not dependent on each other then we needn't be civil and loving. We needn't have community and family.<ref>[http://www.salon.com/mwt/col/tenn/2007/04/11/porn/ (Salon magazine)]</ref>

There is debate whether it is truly moral to be 'civil and loving' purely because it is necessary, as Cary Tennis seems to say here. Other Christians argue that to be 'civil and loving' purely because we are dependent on others is actually immoral and manipulative. These Christians argue that to be self-contained, independent and yet still warm and loving is a greater virtue.

Debbie Nathan wrote:
:Porn is everywhere today, everyone is looking, and the media responds with little more than gloom-and-doom talk about evils like Internet sex addiction, or rah-rah promotion of Brazilian waxing and Jenna Jameson’s fame and fortune. Meanwhile, few know the real history of this explosive media, or the truth about its business practices, working conditions, politics and actual effects on people. [http://debbienathan.com/buy-the-books/ Pornography: A Groundwork Guide.]

==Legal aspects==
Due to a series of [[liberal]] decisions beginning with the [[Warren Court]], pornography is aggressively sold and distributed in the United States without meaningful law enforcement. It is a $7-10 billion industry that affects and harms 40 million Americans. Pornography destroys relationships and exploits young people.<ref>''National Catholic Register'' p. 8 (Apr. 22, 2007).</ref><ref>http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com/internet-pornography-statistics.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
*[[Anthony Comstock]]
*[[Social effects of pornography]]

==External links==
*[http://unitedfamilies.org/default.asp?contentID=34 Guide to Family Issues: The Harms of Pornography] : United Families Intl
*[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-f016.html How can I tell if I'm getting addicted to sex or pornography?] - ChristianAnswers.Net
*[http://www.soundvision.com/Info/life/porn/getrid.asp Pornography & Islam] : A 12-step guide To Fight Pornography Addiction
*[http://nopornnorthampton.org/ NoPornHampton] - an anti-pornography organization with an extensive, blog-style website
*[http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=759 Censorship or Education? Feminist Views on Pornography]
*[http://www.ldsmag.com//LDSMariageNetwork/090306woman.html What's A Woman To Do? How Pornography Affects Women and What They Can Do], Geoff Steurer, ''Meridian Magazine''

[[Category:Media]]
[[Category:Pornography]]
[[Category:Social Problems]]

Pornography

2009-11-09T03:24:55Z

Userafw: /* Departure from the norm */ assuming heterosexual pornography...

{{etymology|[[Greek]] πορνή (''porné'')) a prostitute and γράΦω (''grapho'') I write}}[[Image:Pornography.jpg|200px|right]]
'''Pornography''' is the explicit representation of the human body or sexual activity used for the intents of stimulating sexual arousal.
It usually consists of images depicting the satisfaction of the sort of "unnatural lust" which leads to damnation. ({{Bible ref|book=Jude|chap=1|verses=6-7}}) It destroys the mind as [[gambling]] does and, even worse, '''pornography''' leads to terrible crimes against women and children.<ref>http://www.un.org/rights/dpi1772e.htm</ref>

* When Christ said "any man who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart," He made it clear that chastity -- and unchastity -- don't begin with what we do, but rather in what we think. And deliberately seeking sexual stimulation, even via the imagination, constitutes a sin against [[chastity]].<ref> [http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0051.html Banishing Unchaste Thoughts]</ref>

Pornographic images have been proliferating at a remarkable rate. What was a $5 million-a-year enterprise merely 25 years ago has boomed to a $7 billion to $10 billion-a-year industry today... the fastest growing sectors of the industry are pornographic DVDs, cable television, and phone sex. Pornography is no longer confined to the seedier sections of town. With the advent of the Internet, it has become readily available to all, including children, and in the privacy of our own homes.<ref>[http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=759 Censorship or Education?]</ref>

==Human psychology==
Dr. [[Jerry Bergman (scientist)|Jerry Bergman]] (Ph.D.) wrote:

:Pornography distorts the natural development of personality. If the early stimulus is pornographic photographs, the [[adolescent]] can be [[conditioning|conditioned]] to become aroused through photographs. Once this pairing is rewarded a number of times, it is likely to become permanent. The result to the individual is that it becomes difficult for the person to seek out relations with appropriate persons.<ref> Jerry Bergman, Ph.D., The Influence of Pornography on Sexual Development: Three Case Histories, IX ''Family Therapy'' 3, 1982, pg. 265. </ref>

Although with the human population growing, it can be doubted whether this lack of desire for a human partner is a bad thing.

==Illusion and addiction==

Pornography provides the illusion of intimacy,<ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-f016.html (Christian Answers)] </ref> but this is a [[satan]]ic trap (see [[sexual addiction]]).

*Pornography consumption is not something that can easily be stopped. Once the appetite for it has developed, it actually increases. In his 1988 study ''Pornography Effects: Empirical and Clinical Evidence'', [[Victor Cline]], then with the [[University of Utah]]'s Department of Psychology noted that studies show pornography is progressive and addictive for many. It often leads to the user acting out his fantasy.
*The Internet is the "crack cocaine" of sexual addiction.<ref>[http://www.soundvision.com/Info/life/porn/pornfacts.asp]</ref>

"People often act in accordance with the images and patterns they find around them,"<ref>At the crux of this issue is whether written pornography might have a causal effect in eroticizing criminal activities. One case that dealt with this issue indirectly is American Booksellers Association v. Hudnut, ... the court conceded that it saw some evidence of a causal relationship between pornography and anti-social behaviors.... People often act in accordance with the images and patterns they find around them. . . . Depictions of subordination tend to perpetuate subordination." 771 F.2d at 328-29.</ref> so looking at pornography is a dangerous practice; although being around a loving christian family for most of the day, and instead acting in accordance with those images and patterns seems to negate this.

Porn says that happiness is found by having the same experience over and over again with lots of different women; true ''eros'' says that happiness is found by having different experiences over and over again with the same person.<ref>[http://nopornnorthampton.org/2007/05/02/schwyzer-on-porn-pursuit-of-novelty-is-enemy-of-relationship.aspx]</ref>

==Departure from the norm==
Viewing or reading pornography day in and day out has a negative effect. It desensitizes a person, makes him more withdrawn, and makes him view others (of the opposite sex) like objects rather than the people they are.
Although some people have argued that "erotica" is okay, in the history of erotic literature it is rare to find any depiction of normal marital relations.

Cary Tennis wrote:
:And naturally whether you approve of porn in theory or not, its effect will be to displace you. Like crack, it tends to take over, to push out other hungers that tend to nurture the human community by making us dependent on one another. Since we are dependent on each other we must be civil and loving. If we are not dependent on each other then we needn't be civil and loving. We needn't have community and family.<ref>[http://www.salon.com/mwt/col/tenn/2007/04/11/porn/ (Salon magazine)]</ref>

There is debate whether it is truly moral to be 'civil and loving' purely because it is necessary, as Cary Tennis seems to say here. Other Christians argue that to be 'civil and loving' purely because we are dependent on others is actually immoral and manipulative. These Christians argue that to be self-contained, independent and yet still warm and loving is a greater virtue.

Debbie Nathan wrote:
:Porn is everywhere today, everyone is looking, and the media responds with little more than gloom-and-doom talk about evils like Internet sex addiction, or rah-rah promotion of Brazilian waxing and Jenna Jameson’s fame and fortune. Meanwhile, few know the real history of this explosive media, or the truth about its business practices, working conditions, politics and actual effects on people. [http://debbienathan.com/buy-the-books/ Pornography: A Groundwork Guide.]

==Legal aspects==
Due to a series of [[liberal]] decisions beginning with the [[Warren Court]], pornography is aggressively sold and distributed in the United States without meaningful law enforcement. It is a $7-10 billion industry that affects and harms 40 million Americans. Pornography destroys relationships and exploits young people.<ref>''National Catholic Register'' p. 8 (Apr. 22, 2007).</ref><ref>http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com/internet-pornography-statistics.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
*[[Anthony Comstock]]
*[[Social effects of pornography]]

==External links==
*[http://unitedfamilies.org/default.asp?contentID=34 Guide to Family Issues: The Harms of Pornography] : United Families Intl
*[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-f016.html How can I tell if I'm getting addicted to sex or pornography?] - ChristianAnswers.Net
*[http://www.soundvision.com/Info/life/porn/getrid.asp Pornography & Islam] : A 12-step guide To Fight Pornography Addiction
*[http://nopornnorthampton.org/ NoPornHampton] - an anti-pornography organization with an extensive, blog-style website
*[http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=759 Censorship or Education? Feminist Views on Pornography]
*[http://www.ldsmag.com//LDSMariageNetwork/090306woman.html What's A Woman To Do? How Pornography Affects Women and What They Can Do], Geoff Steurer, ''Meridian Magazine''

[[Category:Media]]
[[Category:Pornography]]
[[Category:Social Problems]]

Pornography

2009-11-09T03:23:47Z

Userafw: /* Departure from the norm */ summary intro sentence

{{etymology|[[Greek]] πορνή (''porné'')) a prostitute and γράΦω (''grapho'') I write}}[[Image:Pornography.jpg|200px|right]]
'''Pornography''' is the explicit representation of the human body or sexual activity used for the intents of stimulating sexual arousal.
It usually consists of images depicting the satisfaction of the sort of "unnatural lust" which leads to damnation. ({{Bible ref|book=Jude|chap=1|verses=6-7}}) It destroys the mind as [[gambling]] does and, even worse, '''pornography''' leads to terrible crimes against women and children.<ref>http://www.un.org/rights/dpi1772e.htm</ref>

* When Christ said "any man who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart," He made it clear that chastity -- and unchastity -- don't begin with what we do, but rather in what we think. And deliberately seeking sexual stimulation, even via the imagination, constitutes a sin against [[chastity]].<ref> [http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0051.html Banishing Unchaste Thoughts]</ref>

Pornographic images have been proliferating at a remarkable rate. What was a $5 million-a-year enterprise merely 25 years ago has boomed to a $7 billion to $10 billion-a-year industry today... the fastest growing sectors of the industry are pornographic DVDs, cable television, and phone sex. Pornography is no longer confined to the seedier sections of town. With the advent of the Internet, it has become readily available to all, including children, and in the privacy of our own homes.<ref>[http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=759 Censorship or Education?]</ref>

==Human psychology==
Dr. [[Jerry Bergman (scientist)|Jerry Bergman]] (Ph.D.) wrote:

:Pornography distorts the natural development of personality. If the early stimulus is pornographic photographs, the [[adolescent]] can be [[conditioning|conditioned]] to become aroused through photographs. Once this pairing is rewarded a number of times, it is likely to become permanent. The result to the individual is that it becomes difficult for the person to seek out relations with appropriate persons.<ref> Jerry Bergman, Ph.D., The Influence of Pornography on Sexual Development: Three Case Histories, IX ''Family Therapy'' 3, 1982, pg. 265. </ref>

Although with the human population growing, it can be doubted whether this lack of desire for a human partner is a bad thing.

==Illusion and addiction==

Pornography provides the illusion of intimacy,<ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-f016.html (Christian Answers)] </ref> but this is a [[satan]]ic trap (see [[sexual addiction]]).

*Pornography consumption is not something that can easily be stopped. Once the appetite for it has developed, it actually increases. In his 1988 study ''Pornography Effects: Empirical and Clinical Evidence'', [[Victor Cline]], then with the [[University of Utah]]'s Department of Psychology noted that studies show pornography is progressive and addictive for many. It often leads to the user acting out his fantasy.
*The Internet is the "crack cocaine" of sexual addiction.<ref>[http://www.soundvision.com/Info/life/porn/pornfacts.asp]</ref>

"People often act in accordance with the images and patterns they find around them,"<ref>At the crux of this issue is whether written pornography might have a causal effect in eroticizing criminal activities. One case that dealt with this issue indirectly is American Booksellers Association v. Hudnut, ... the court conceded that it saw some evidence of a causal relationship between pornography and anti-social behaviors.... People often act in accordance with the images and patterns they find around them. . . . Depictions of subordination tend to perpetuate subordination." 771 F.2d at 328-29.</ref> so looking at pornography is a dangerous practice; although being around a loving christian family for most of the day, and instead acting in accordance with those images and patterns seems to negate this.

Porn says that happiness is found by having the same experience over and over again with lots of different women; true ''eros'' says that happiness is found by having different experiences over and over again with the same person.<ref>[http://nopornnorthampton.org/2007/05/02/schwyzer-on-porn-pursuit-of-novelty-is-enemy-of-relationship.aspx]</ref>

==Departure from the norm==
Viewing or reading pornography day in and day out has a negative effect. It desensitizes a person, makes him more withdrawn, and makes him view others like objects rather than the people they are.
Although some people have argued that "erotica" is okay, in the history of erotic literature it is rare to find any depiction of normal marital relations.

Cary Tennis wrote:
:And naturally whether you approve of porn in theory or not, its effect will be to displace you. Like crack, it tends to take over, to push out other hungers that tend to nurture the human community by making us dependent on one another. Since we are dependent on each other we must be civil and loving. If we are not dependent on each other then we needn't be civil and loving. We needn't have community and family.<ref>[http://www.salon.com/mwt/col/tenn/2007/04/11/porn/ (Salon magazine)]</ref>

There is debate whether it is truly moral to be 'civil and loving' purely because it is necessary, as Cary Tennis seems to say here. Other Christians argue that to be 'civil and loving' purely because we are dependent on others is actually immoral and manipulative. These Christians argue that to be self-contained, independent and yet still warm and loving is a greater virtue.

Debbie Nathan wrote:
:Porn is everywhere today, everyone is looking, and the media responds with little more than gloom-and-doom talk about evils like Internet sex addiction, or rah-rah promotion of Brazilian waxing and Jenna Jameson’s fame and fortune. Meanwhile, few know the real history of this explosive media, or the truth about its business practices, working conditions, politics and actual effects on people. [http://debbienathan.com/buy-the-books/ Pornography: A Groundwork Guide.]

==Legal aspects==
Due to a series of [[liberal]] decisions beginning with the [[Warren Court]], pornography is aggressively sold and distributed in the United States without meaningful law enforcement. It is a $7-10 billion industry that affects and harms 40 million Americans. Pornography destroys relationships and exploits young people.<ref>''National Catholic Register'' p. 8 (Apr. 22, 2007).</ref><ref>http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com/internet-pornography-statistics.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
*[[Anthony Comstock]]
*[[Social effects of pornography]]

==External links==
*[http://unitedfamilies.org/default.asp?contentID=34 Guide to Family Issues: The Harms of Pornography] : United Families Intl
*[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-f016.html How can I tell if I'm getting addicted to sex or pornography?] - ChristianAnswers.Net
*[http://www.soundvision.com/Info/life/porn/getrid.asp Pornography & Islam] : A 12-step guide To Fight Pornography Addiction
*[http://nopornnorthampton.org/ NoPornHampton] - an anti-pornography organization with an extensive, blog-style website
*[http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=759 Censorship or Education? Feminist Views on Pornography]
*[http://www.ldsmag.com//LDSMariageNetwork/090306woman.html What's A Woman To Do? How Pornography Affects Women and What They Can Do], Geoff Steurer, ''Meridian Magazine''

[[Category:Media]]
[[Category:Pornography]]
[[Category:Social Problems]]

Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness?

2008-10-07T18:35:21Z

Userafw:

Mental illness is rapidly increasing in the world and "will be the second biggest cause of death and disability by 2020."<ref>http://www.irishhealth.com/index.html?level=4&id=1447</ref> According to the World Health Organization:

:Mental illnesses, from epilepsy to depression, currently affect over 400 million people around the world. This group includes 45 million people with schizophrenia.

:America and Japan experience the highest levels of depression .... Over 1 million people now die through suicide each year and the ten countries with the highest suicide rates are all former Soviet states.

The above-cited countries are notable for imposing [[liberal]] or [[atheistic]] teachings by their governments on large populations. In the [[United States]], liberal indoctrination governs [[public schools]], which educate 89% of children. As of 2002, "[a]n estimated 20 percent of children have a mental illness that causes at least mild functional impairment,"<ref>http://psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/53/11/1444</ref> with nearly all those children a product of a [[public school]] education.

[[Public schools]] educate 89% of Americans, and "[t]he incidence that a teen will have depression some time in their adolescence is higher, felt to be at least one out of four.<ref>http://www.askaspecialist.ca.gov/archives/2008/Med/Apr_2008.htm</ref>

Mental illness has increased on college campuses. "'Growing mental health problems suffered by students are a "matter of considerable concern,' warranting dedicated student mental health services in some areas, according to 'The Mental Health of Students in Higher Education' report produced by the Royal College of Psychiatrists."<ref>[http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Education/Increase-in-mental-illness-on-campus-Suicide-don-under-huge-stress-in-job.html Increase in mental illness on campus]</ref>

[[Japan]] has the largest [[atheistic]] population of any country in the world.<ref>http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html</ref> The former Soviet states have rates of [[atheism]] that are among the highest in the world.<ref>http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html</ref>

[[Britain]], a smaller country but one that also has heavy [[liberal]] indoctrination, expects a 61% increase in dementia cases by 2026, and "[i]n the last 10 years, funding for mental health services has risen sharply."<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/may/28/mentalhealth.socialcare</ref>

== Cause and Effect ==

Medical professionals emphasize that they do not know what causes mental illness.<ref>http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/06/13/10-myths-of-mental-illness/</ref> Accordingly, they cannot rule out that [[liberal]] indoctrination is a contributing factor.

Teaching children to accept and believe things that are demonstrably false cannot help mental health. Included in this category are the liberal teachings in school that:

* lying about the truth, causing belief in falsehoods or encouraging conduct disorders<ref>See, e.g., the [[NIH]] definition of "conduct disorder" to include lying.[http://science-education.nih.gov/supplements/nih5/Mental/other/glossary.htm]</ref>
* there are no real differences between boys and girls
* humans are just another type of animal
* all there is is what you see (with or without special equipment, such as microscopes or telescopes)
* conversely, that an unproven 'unconscious' excuses evil actions
* self-inflicted death can somehow be good
* denying self-defense, mentally and physically
* denying the ability to control sexual desires; promoting lifestyles that lead to mental illness
* insisting on an illogical and unjustified "wall of separation of church and state"; [[classroom prayer]] would promote mental stability

==Drug abuse==
[[Liberals]] support the legalisation of [[marijuana]], which is a major cause of psychiatric illnesses<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4305783.stm</ref> <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2923647.stm</ref>.

== Anecdotal Evidence ==

Actor Stephen Fry is the author of the book "The Liar" and was an active supporter of the [[liberal]] [[British]] [[Labour Party]], though he did not vote for it in a recent election because it was not [[leftist]] enough on the [[Iraq War]]. "The 49-year-old actor has been tormented by mental illness for much of his life."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_20060917/ai_n16736921</ref> Specifically he is a sufferer of bipolar disorder, a largely hereditary disease.

[[professor values|Professor]] David Foster Wallace was a prodigy in writing, math and even tennis in his youth but adopted the [[liberal]] ideology. He wrote in 1999 a collection of short stories entitled, "Brief Interviews With Hideous Men," in which he "damns his gender as a greedy, cold, oversexed marauders."<ref>http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1841102,00.html]</ref> In 2008, Wallace killed himself at age 46.

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Mystery]]

Talk:Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness?

2008-09-15T14:12:35Z

Userafw:

==Congratulations==
Andy, well done - a very well-argued essay, and one that will no doubt provoke our Liberal friends into a frenzy of denial. You might care to add that Sweden, the 'poster-boy' nation for many Liberals, has an enormously high suicide rate (and other ultra-Liberal nations likewise). [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:15, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks much, Bugler. I value your opinion and insights very much!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:49, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== An apology ==
I investigated the reference I used to support the idea that some self-deception is healthy and found i tto be not in support of that idea at all! I want to apologize for using the reference, and was on my way to change it when I found the statement had already been removed by Aschlafly, which is a pity, because it's generally accepted by psychologists - I just hadn't found verification for that, yet. For the record, it does seem like a helpful article discussing Palestinian hostility to Israel!
[[User:UlyssesNZ|UlyssesNZ]] 17:54, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks DLerner ==

Thanks for correcting that error. What I meant to say was "[[censoring]] [[classroom prayer]] THAT would promote mental stability." Your fix is fine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:your welcome. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:45, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== The liberal response ==

I will be the first liberal to respond.

Let me begin with what I think the real reason there is a huge rise in dementia. In the last few decades there has been an enormous increase in the consumption of "junk" food. I don't mean just candy and cookies, I mean all processed food; it's loaded with preservatives and chemicals which you normally wouldn't '''think''' of eating, but since it comes in a pretty package with pretty slogans like "99% fat free", we think it's good for you. The [[Obesity|obesity]] epidemic probably also contributes a great deal. For further information, see Eric Schlosser's ''"Fast Food Nation"'' and Morgan Spurlock's ''"Don't Eat this Book"''.[[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:First liberal? What are you doing on Conservapedia? This is not the place for you. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

: '''<Reply>''' I agree that is a problem. However, [[liberal]]s tend to be fatter that [[conservatives]]. What one believes and accepts does affect his ability to keep off the extra pounds. So your observation tends to reinforce the likely correlation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:: Really? Texas had four of the fattest cities in the US a few years ago. Liberals are more into exercise and health food and vegetarianism/veganism, the Bible belt has a '''lot''' of fat people... [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:04, 10 August 2008 (EDT) '''</reply>'''

::I will add my own questiong and responses to ASchlafly's. First, do you have any evidence whatsoever for your statment that liberals tend to be larger than conservatives? and second, are you saying that religious faith keeps you thin? [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

As for the content of the article:

: '''lying about the truth, causing belief in falsehoods or encouraging conduct disorders'''

I think the absurdity of this one speaks for itself. "All liberals (and public schools [except the ones that teach [[Intelligent Design]]]) lie. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Many liberals don't think lying is wrong, and even delight in it. There is a correlation, though certainly not all liberals lie.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Liberals do teach that lying is wrong. In fact, many students are expelled from colleges and high schools across the country for Academic Dishonesty (which may mean plagerism, or simply allowing a friend to cheat) op top of that, not all lies are bad. When my wife was pregnant, I lied constantly, telling her that she wasn't fat, she wasn't short tempered etc... Most lies are wrong of course, but there are many that make life better [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

I discovered this page by random and although I don't really consider myself to be a liberal, this page is a joke. A bad one. It consists of a silly use of a technique that many folks, conservatives and liberals to name a few, use a lot. This is is to make a (frequently bogus) list of what someone else believes in and then rip it apart, tossing in liberal (or conservative?) doses of ridicule and sarcasm. Why not find a list of what liberal say they believe in and then rip that apart? I am ignoring a little voice saying "Don't get into this" but to not do so would seem like a form of lying to me. [[User:Carptrash|Carptrash]] 18:05, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

: Did you happen to notice that the word count on your edit above is "666"? Ridicule will get you ... nowhere. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

::No, his post has 119 words. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 09:44, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

: '''there are no real differences between boys and girls'''

Um, nobody teaches that. I think they teach that they're equal, but a cursory examination of the anatomy reveals '''several''' differences, ''especially'' in the reproductive/waste disposal organs. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You're ducking the obvious point here. Think girls can excel in math as well as boys can? Liberals teach they can, which is teaching a falsehood.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Can girls excel? Of course they can... There have been women who have succeeded in every major field of science. Research shows that men typically have higher scores in Math and Science, while women do better in English and Social Studies, but just as there have many famous male writers and historians, there are dozens if not hundreds of female mathematicians and scientists who have made lasting contributions to the field. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
::::And yet they still compete seperatly in sports, because it would be unfair otherwise. Women were created to be the primary caregivers. That is why they have breasts, and men havn't. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

: '''humans are just another type of animal'''

As opposed to .... what? I think humans are another type of [[Mammal|mammal]], and the only way we can actually elevate ourselves is through our actions. Get your genome sequenced and you'll see how close to animals you really are. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Teach your belief and you'll contribute to some mental disorders as kids struggle with your view that they are mere animals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I have never seen any student struggle with the view that they are merely animals. Students develop mental disordered for a variety of reasons, many unknown to science. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
::::If you cut me, I will bleed - but only a liberal would use that to argue I am the same as a rat. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]
:::::''No one'' uses that to argue that you are the ''same'' as a rat- of course you aren't. But a circulatory system is something that you share in common with one, along with a great many other features. Humans are of course (well, for all we know anyway) capable of much more advanced thought than other animals- you can be comfortable with that assertion. But being an animal '''does not''' mean you '''are''' a rat, or a dove, or a louse, or a monkey, or whatever- you are human- it's just a matter of classification. If you're offended by being categorized as an animal, then by definition you must be offended by the claims that your cells contain a nucleus, you are composed of more than one cell, you don't produce your own food internally and don't have cell walls. So which is it? Animal '''by definition''' refers to eukaryotic, multicellular heterotrophs that lack a cell wall. Humans fit all four criteria. Incidentally, so does a rat. That's not a "belief"- it's an eminently verifiable fact (look at a skin cell under a microscope and at the food in your refrigerator), but it doesn't follow by any means that humans and rats are the same.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 00:06, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''all there is is what you see'''

Not true, we teach about [[Bacteria|bacteria]] too small for the naked eye to see. Also about atoms, yes, atoms. (The early church used to suppress any information atoms and/or the writings of Epicures, were ''they'' responsible for mental illness? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You duck the obvious point again, so no response to your comment is warranted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I fail to see how Dlearner was ducking the point. All there is is what you see is an incredibly broad statment that can be taken many ways. I'm assuming you mean that Liberals teach there is no greater power (Ie, you can't see a god, so there must not be one) but that is problematic as well. If one were to truly assume that if they don't see it, it doesn't exist (something I have never heard anyone say) then many established practices and principles of science would not work in their world (Ie X-rays) [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''death can somehow be good'''

We don't teach that. What I think you mean is that death is inevitable and is in fact a part of life. All that lives must die, therefore, death should not be feared. People in pain and suffering from long debilitating illness welcome death, and as adults we must realize this. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Liberals do teach that death can be good. Ever read the leading liberal work in school called "Of Mice and Men"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I respond to this with a question. When someone dies after a long bout with a terminal disease and their family says I'm glad the suffering is over, they've gone home to god. Is that not a good thing? Christian teaching naturally brings about the idea that death can be good, as it allows one to return to their creator [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I have to argue the point on that one, Andy, for two reasons.. First, ''Of Mice and Men'' (italicized or underlined, please--it's a full-length work, not a short story) has a number of liberal themes, but it hardly teaches that death is good. There's nothing good or positive about Lenny's death. If anything, it teaches that the world can be a harsh and unforgiving place, and that the death of innocents is tragic, but sometimes inevitable.

:::Second, as a Christian, I strongly question the notion that "Death can be good" is a liberal idea. My Grandfather suffered terribly from cancer; when he passed, we took comfort in the knowledge that he was no longer in pain, and was at peace with Christ. How is that not a good thing? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:58, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

::"self-inflicted death can somehow be good"--- So where exactly did you get the idea that public schools teach that suicide is an acceptable way to solve problems? Because they simply do not. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 20:59, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''denying self-defense, mentally and physically'''

Codswallop. We don't teach that. Self-defense is great! הבא להרגך, השכם להרגו (Trans: "If somebody comes to kill you, stand up and kill him first. ''Talmud'') [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Liberals don't teach the Talmud. Instead, they teach gun control and favor prosecuting for murder people who hold their ground in self-defense, as in [[Bernard Goetz]].

As far as I know (always worth double-checking) Goetz killed no one and not even the most liberal knucklehead wanted him prosecuted for murder.
To me this line of argument reeks of "'''lying about the truth, causing belief in falsehoods'''"

:::I'm a very strong liberal, and I have no issues with self defense, in fact, I have a 12 guage shotgun by my bed that I will have no trouble using for just that purpose if someone threatens my family. On top of that, I plan on enrolling my son in Judo the moment he's old enough to understand the responsibility that comes with it. Can you please show any liberal that has ever advocated killing those who defend themselves? [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''denying the ability to control sexual desires; promoting lifestyles that lead to mental illness'''

Perhaps you didn't know that even liberals teach [[Abstinence|abstinence]]. (deleted non-family-friendly rant - can't liberals refrain?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT))

:: Liberals oppose teaching abstinence or funding abstinence education.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Again, not true. Liberals (such as myself) are against teaching abstinence '''ONLY''' Sex education because the fact remains, it's not working. Pregnancy rates among teenagers drop sharpest when they're taught a combination of abstinence and contraception. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
::::Andrew, why was my so-called "rant" not family-friendly, because I spoke about Onanism? (I suppose a family-friendly word)? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::That's because all liberals want is sex, sex, sex. They never got over the 60's "free love" thing. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]
: '''insisting on an illogical and unjustified "wall of separation of church and state"; classroom prayer would promote mental stability'''

Separation of church and state is logical and justified. (This is coming from a very religious person, so listen up). I don't your religion -whatever the majority of Christians in that state are- being forced on my Jewish kids, THAT is the logic. The justification. Andrew, I see you are working on history lectures, read through history about the times there wasn't a separation between church and state; what do you get? The [[Spanish Inquisition|inquisition]] comes to mind. Personally, I prefer separation of church and state to the ''auto de fe'' any day. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You may be religious yourself but censoring classroom prayer by others is not helpful to them or you. A wall of separation of church and state is baseless, illogical and impossible. It's a contradiction except in a totalitarian atmosphere that imposes censorship.

'''classroom prayer would promote mental stability''' Says who? Maybe you should add [[Conservapedia:Commandments|[Citation Needed]]]?

:: I'm sure lots of studies confirm that prayer is good for mental health. Have you looked yet? It's obvious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

::: What's the point of studies if you already know the answer? "I'm sure lots of studies confirm" isn't backing up a claim. Have ''you'' looked yet? [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 10:59, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Mr. Schlafly, I'm new to this site, so I don't quite know your feelings, so let me ask upfront. Do you support teacher led prayer or more of a moment of silence for personal prayer and reflection. Until I know this, I can't really repond in a meaningful way. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Once again another "fine" piece of work...

[[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:43, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion ==

Obviously the person suffering from mental illness does not have to admit a correlation in order for a correlation to exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:27, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

== Offensive to mental health sufferers and mental health professionals ==

This is a hateful piece of propaganda, & particularly offensive to anybody suffering with a mental illness, as well as anybody working within the field of mental health. To say that medical professionals have no idea what causes mental illness is ridiculous. There has been over a century of study and treatment of mental illness using scientific methods and findings; not superstition, idle conjecture and anecdotal evidence. Mental illnesses occur in all the world's cultures, regardless of ideology, and you will not find a qualified psychologist who has published any theory that they are caused by "liberal teachings". [[User:BeReasonable|BeReasonable]] 08:35, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:You are suffering from that well-documented delusion [[Liberal denial]], BeReasonable. Try to live up to your name. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:38, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

: Well put, Bugler. As to User "BeReasonable" (note his silly name and how is is not reasonable at all), he challenges a well-supported statement that mental health professions do not know the cause of mental illness. Then he tries to censor an inquiry here into possible causes. He typifies the kind of logical contradiction pushed so often by liberals. Fortunately, we'll continue searching for the truth here despite efforts by liberals to censor it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:41, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
::That mental health professionals do not know the causes of mental health is not at all well supported. The [http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/06/13/10-myths-of-mental-illness/ cited source] says that ''at a neurological level'' mental illness cannot be identified to one cause - I.E. it is not caused by just one thing going on in the brain. If you read the next paragraph, it goes on to say that mental illness is caused by a blend of genetic, psychological and environmental factors. I have no interest in "censoring" inquiries into why mental health occurs. There are already thousands of trained professionals around the world engaged in such studies. And if you are genuinely interested in the subject, there are hundreds of books you can read. As I have said, I do not think you will find any experts in the subject agreeing with your suggestion that liberalism causes mental illness. However, I do not recommend further reading on the subject, rather than plucking anecdotal examples of correlation. [[User:BeReasonable|BeReasonable]] 08:56, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Teaching liberal beliefs would qualify as a "psychological" and/or "environmental" factor that could cause mental illness. That you dismiss this possible cause out of hand, and even attempt to censor it, illustrates the illogical, self-contradictory approach taken by liberals. Yes, imposing contradictions and falsehoods on others could be bad for their mental health. Surely you don't doubt that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:01, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
I disagree that schools teach the belief that suicide can somehow be good. This is taught by misguided peers, not educators. Suicide is actively discouraged, even in the most liberal settings. A possible exception might be jihad schools, which are known to be ultra-fundamentalist radical Islam. Also, if classroom prayer promoted mental stability, why is it that those who pray alone by choice are just as vulnerable to mental illness? I myself always prayed silently before meals, but yet was diagnosed as bipolar. As has been the case with many with the illness, its onset was in college.[[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 15:45, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

: Praying silently to one's self, and only before meals, can be nearly inconsequential. The real benefit is from public prayer in churches, classrooms, meetings, etc.

: Judging by your other postings, I think you've taken in liberal ideology and that does have consequences. There's no real concept of self-defense, which is essential to fend off mental problems; there's a degradation of the view of humans to the point of where they mean little more than dogs, and that affects self-esteem; and there's no emphasis on self-help, which hurts further. In fact, the list is quite long for how liberal ideology leads to mental illness. Wake up to it while you still can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:33, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::Can you expand on why you feel that praying silently to one's self can be "nearly inconsequential", and that the real benefit is in public prayer? That seems to contradict Matthew 6, but I want to understand your views on this better. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 23:37, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
::I am surprised you assume that I was "only" praying before meals. In college, I went to a Christian University where Chapel attendance was mandatory and group prayer was encouraged, but it did not stop mental illness from developing in college. I did develop some liberal ideas, but that was after I developed mental illness, not before. I was raised Christian, and was into Wicca for awhile, (this was after I'd graduated from college) which primarily benefited me by emphasizing personal responsibility and choice for my own actions, rather than blaming evil and Satan for everything that went wrong. Moreover, Wicca does indeed allow for self-defense, unlike some brands of Christianity, which teach to "turn the other cheek". It is probably telling that the part I studied most when I was in Wicca was the part about psychic self-defense. Prayer, by the way, is also considered by Wiccans and pagans to be a form of magic, since it raises and directs energy for a purpose. I did go to a public high school, and the teachers there did not teach many of the things that this article claims they teach. These "secular liberal teachings" seem to me to be the product of peer teachings, not educator teachings. By the way, remember perfect love casts out fear.[[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 09:53, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

== Causation fail ==

Aschlafly,

I discovered Conservapedia recently, and this "essay" is my first exposure to the philosophy of the site. Needless to say, I'm not impressed. Quite apart from ideology, your statement, "Medical professionals emphasize that they do not know what causes mental illness.[6] Accordingly, they cannot rule out that liberal indoctrination is a contributing factor," is massively flawed.

That one cannot rule out something as a contributing factor is not sufficient evidence for causality; it's even weaker and more flawed than arguing that correlation equals causation. I'm holding a fountain pen right now. There are no tigers nearby. You can't rule out the possibility that the fountain pen keeps the tigers away. Would you like my Fountain Pen of Tiger Ward? Yours for $1,000.

My point is that, by your argument, anything at all could be the "cause" of mental illness. If you're going to argue that liberalism causes it, from such scant evidence, it's clear that you're more after an agenda than the truth, and that should be made clear, or better evidence of causation should be found.

I see you're a lawyer of some kind. I expect better of legal professionals than to find causation in the most tenuous of links... unless they're being paid to do that, of course :). In which case, I still wouldn't be happy if this was the best you could do for money.-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]] 09:12, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

: Your reasoning as is illogical as that of the (silly) "BeReasonable". The inability to rule out liberal teaching as a contributing cause of mental illness weighs in favor of further inquiry of it as a possible cause, and weighs against the censorship of such inquiry as attempted by liberals here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:21, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
::It weighs no more in favor of "further inquiry" than does the fact that mental health professionals can't rule out exposure to, say, Conservapedia! If your point is to illuminate potential causes for mental illness, focus on those that (1) can't be ruled out, and (2) have some AFFIRMATIVE proof. Because the simple lack of negative proof makes the whole world a causal factor!-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]] 09:23, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Also, "censorship"? I don't think that word means what you think it means. "Censorship" implies redaction of information by the state or a power. I'm just questioning your logic. Debate is not censorship.-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]] 09:24, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: Again, you're not making sense. I explained the significance of not ruling out liberal teaching as a cause of mental illness. It warrants further inquiry and evidence, and the entry here provides lots of additional reasons why liberal teaching is likely a cause of mental illness. If public schools forced kids to receive indoctrination other than liberal falsehoods every day, and 20% were becoming mentally ill afterwards, then it would be fine with me to look at the other indoctrination also. But it is liberal teaching that is being force-fed kids in school, not something else. As to [[censorship]], your definition is far too narrow. Censorship can also result from intimidation or name-calling, as you see above as "BeReasonable" tried to shut down this inquiry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:44, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I'm not trying to shut down the inquiry. I'm just saying you're wrong. What about blocking users for asking questions? Does ''that'' shut down the inquiry?
:::::I see you're not going to understand the problem behind singling out one cause among a million environmental causes. That's fine. It does, however, suggest "inquiry bias." Moving on.
:::::Have you considered the possible rise in diagnosis as a reason for the increase in mental conditions? It only recently became acceptable & treatable to have a mental illness. Only reasonable to suggest, then, that diagnoses would climb.-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]]

== Correlation does not imply causation. And even if it did... ==

''The USA (2/3 conservative by some surveys which have been quoted in criticizing wikipedia's disproportionate liberal voice) has some of the highest murder rates in the world - 5 to 10 per 100000. Europe and Australasia (both liberal and secular by comparison to the USA) have much lower murder rates. Officially atheist China reports a lower rate still. Clearly, conservativism is correlated with high murder rates.''
Of course this is a rubbish argument, for two reasons: 
- Correlation does not imply causation. There could be a number of reasons for a correlation between conservativism and high murder rates. Perhaps more conservative nations have stricter laws about their definition of 'murder'; the more liberal nations more often call it 'manslaughter', making their figures look lower. There are many many possible reasons. 
- The brief survey I've done here, even assuming the figures are correct, hardly counts even as 'correlation' when it comes to statistical science. In order for you to even say that a correlation exists in this example, we need a consistent measure of 'conservativism', and we need to include all relevant countries, not just hand pick several which happen to illustrate the point. Then we should graph them all and see how closely conservativism is matched with murder rates. Only then could we even claim that there is an undisputable correlation.

The USA does have a lot of liberal viewpoints, but then compared to Europe and Australasia it's very conservative in many ways - for instance, in New Zealand, few ever even debate whether abortion should be legal. Yet Europe and Australasia have lower levels of depression than the USA, according to the article cited. This should count as evidence against the hypothesis that correlation between mental illness and liberalism even exists. It's also a very poor way to measure mental illness as depression is only one (and one of the MORE spurious, debatable ones at that) of a whole range of mental illnesses recognized by modern psychology.
Finally, like my analogy of murder rates and conservativism, in order to draw even a correlation we need to see more than several countries' match of liberalism and high mental illness rates.

[[User:UlyssesNZ|UlyssesNZ]] 17:38, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: The argument is based primarily on logic: teach people contradictions, deprive them of prayer, force them to believe they are mere animals like dogs who will die as dogs do, and you're going to get mental illness as a result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:50, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't disagree with your conclusion - it's just that your premises as given in the article do not give it any support! You may like to read this article discussing the link between good mental health and religiousity: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10520234&pnum=0 --[[User:UlyssesNZ|UlyssesNZ]] 17:56, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion of edits ==

I see my edits as perfectly justified. Perhaps Andy would like to give reason for his reversions (btw, liberal claptrap is not a reason, but an accusation).

:::Again, I would like to know why my edits are being reverted. No reason has been given (I gave my reasoning in edit summaries, if you'd like me to clarify please ask). Perhaps sysops are exempt from the whole "provide sources, promote true and verifiable claims" thingy. I mean there aren't any sources on the page so far that suggest to any extent that liberalism causes mental illness. As for liberalism not being ruled out as a reason for mental illness, I justifiably added that neither has conservatism (or driving your car, or going for a jog, or reading hardback books). So please provide your counterpoints ASchlafy or I will make the edits again. [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 14:48, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

::: The reasons should be obvious. Liberal teachings dominate public schools, not conservative teachings. In fact, there is very little conservative teachings anywhere - people have to find it on their own. Hopefully you will too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:03, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Firstly you didn't rule out the other causes for mental illness, i.e driving a car, going for a jog, reading hardback books. Presumably as these have not been ruled out we need perhaps entire articles on whether they cause mental illness. Secondly the fact that liberalism is dominant in schools and mental illness has increased therefore liberalism causes mental illnesses has as much merit as saying the USA has become richer and mental illness has increased therefore... Thirdly conservatism has not been ruled out as a cause of mental illness by saying it's not taught much. Fourthly your hypothesis is clearly untestable because as you state there are "very little conservative teachings anywhere". You also need to present reasoning as to why the Stephen Fry thing is relevant.

: When someone has a stomach ache, the first suspect is the food he ate. When someone has a mental problem, the first suspect is what he was taught, and that is liberal. Your alternative hypotheses make as little sense as suspecting that the weather caused someone's stomach ache rather than what he just ate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:05, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
: That's begging the question. You're just asserting that the prime cause for mental problems is an education, and as education is liberal, therefore liberalism causes mental problems - but whether school education causes mental problems is the point of contention! The vast majority of psychologists have pointed to other causes of mental illnesses (and as I stated, you have yet to provide a reference to a qualified academic who does claim school education causes mental illness) such as abuse as a child, extreme problems in social interaction and recently, genetics. I will restate my point, the fact that your school education has not been dismissed as a cause of mental disorder is as relevant as saying the fact that you drive a car has not been dismissed as a cause of mental disorders. [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 17:33, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, recent consumption is commonly the culprit is stomach aches, but not the only possible cause. Stomach pains could also be due hunger, infection, a punch in the gut, receiving some very bad news, overexertion, dehydration, severe vomiting, muscle spasms due to envenomation, or even presumably a side effect of some type of allergic reaction. It's a case-by-case thing- suspecting the weather as the culprit does make sense if that person was just struck by lightning- you can't just dismiss it outright. Therefore there are multiple possible causes. While it is not unreasonable to assume that food is generally the most like cause, this logic does not translate to mental illness and education. As has been pointed out, you fail to back up your claims with any outside sources- where are the experts (those that actually study and treat mental illness) saying that education is the prime cause? To reiterate a previous point, what about family history, socioeconomic status, past negative experiences, environmental toxins- those factors that actually have been shown to influence the development of mental illness? And simply dismissing JohnyGoodman's "alternative hypotheses" doesn't work either- there is a mathematical correlation between increasing mental illness rates and number of licensed drivers. In addition, most cases of mental illness occur in individuals who are over the minimum driving age. Thus drivers have a higher risk of mental illness (obviously due to the stress of the road, maintaining a vehicle, and let's not forget the DMV) and increasing numbers of drivers increase the national burden. That's at least the same degree of correlation as the education claim. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 10:59, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Well it would be polite to receive some kind of response to our points, even if its going to be "liberal claptrap" as usual. I honestly don't see why such edits as already made aren't allowed to take place.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 11:29, 18 August 2008 (EDT)]#
:I laugh when I read you laying down the law about what is and what isn't polite, not to mention prejudging the response you might get in an insulting manner! Though, in fairness, you are correct in your prediction (thus displaying a level of self-awareness rare in [[Liberals]]. Claptrap is a polite description of your outpourings, and you are not in a position to demand attention in such an arrogant fashion. Try and amend your behaviour in future, or you may find that Conservapedia is not the place for you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:34, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
::Okay, let's pause and consider that if you read a post expecting it to be hostile, you will inevitably find it offensive regardless of how innocuous the wording is. Emotion is most effectively conveyed visually and through speech, not written text- thus there are limits to determining attitude. As such, a reader can easily introduce hostility where none was intended. Second, "it would be polite to receive some sort of response" doesn't qualify as "laying down the law". And precisely what was hostile and arrogant about asking for a response? I'm not being confrontational or sarcastic about this- I'm honestly curious. Commentators here often find insult in the most innocuous wording and I would like to know which part of JohnyGoodman's comment was to blame so it can be avoided in the future. Most importantly, if you perceive insult, explain it- don't accuse the offending party of being arrogant or to "amend their behaviour". Meeting perceived hostility with aggression only exacerbates the situation and reduces - or removes- the quality of the discussion. In addition, it denigrates the discussion when detailed responses are dismissed as "liberal claptrap" with a wave of the hand without addressing the post itself. In this case, "liberal" has been used simply as name-calling against anyone who does not agree about a given point. The driving example was used only to demonstrate the inadequacy of the "causation from correlation" and "gap theory" approaches that have been used- without any further reasoning- to justify the claim of this page. The logic is precisely the same. If you disagree, please explain- that's what the discussion is for. You're welcome to do so. Really. I would be interested to read it. But simply saying "you're arrogant, offensive and wrong" does a disservice to the very idea of open dialog and accomplishes nothing. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 16:53, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
Perhaps Bugler would like to shed light on this "claptrap". Presumably he has a reference to a noted academic who supports the thesis proposed here. Or perhaps he accepts that the "liberalism causes mental illness" theory should be considered just as the "hardback books cause mental illness" theory should be considered. Perhaps he has a wealth of evidence that proves that psychologists have been wrong all this time when arguing that "family history, socioeconomic status, past negative experiences and environmental toxins" are the real, documented causes of mental illness. Or, as I suspect, he is content with merely throwing words like "liberal" and "arrogant" around rather than arguing a case.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 17:35, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
::Bugler just reverted my edits to add factual context and supporting statements to those which are obviously controversial on this talk page. All I did was add the <nowiki>{{facts}}</nowiki> template to those statements supposedly taught at schools, and was "rewarded" with complaints of "vandalism". I would like to see supporting evidence showing that those statements are indeed taught by educators, as opposed to clueless peers. These peers are just as present and teach just the same things in Christian and Catholic schools (so I hear from comparing notes with graduates of those schools), inside AND OUTSIDE of school. Trying to keep negative peer teachings out is kind of like trying to keep kids from smoking in or out of school. Some clueless idiots will often find a way to do it, including disabling smoke alarms, or cutting class and wandering across the street. [[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 19:37, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

== Stephen Fry==

Just for the record, Stephen Fry went to several "Public" i.e. non state schools for his education. (These, I guess, would be the equivalent of "private" i.e. fee paying schools in the USA and are in no way connected with the UK state school system.) If I understand it correctly, having been to part of Rugby school myself many years ago, Uppingham school, where Mr Fry went for the majority of his adolescent schooling, offers a ciriculum based firmly on Chirstianity and would be anything but "Liberal" - in any sense of the word. No sure how this squares with him then suffering from depression in later life. [[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 11:01, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

: I doubt private schools in the [[U.K.]] are "based firmly on Christianity." Rather, I'm confident that the private schools in the [[U.K.]] are as [[leftist]] as public schools in the [[U.S.]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:56, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::As an old boy of another well-known British "Public School", Wellington College, I must respectfully undermine your confidence. In the case of Stephen Fry, he went to Uppingham School, which is one of the old traditional public schools founded in the 16th Century by a Bishop. While most of these schools are no longer religiously sponsored, they are in the majority firmly wedded to Christianity with their own chapels and vicars and are renown for being bastions of conservatism in a comparatively liberal British education system. I myself was confirmed at Wellington which was normal practice for all pupils at the school and Sunday chapel was compulsory (unless you were one of the few non-Church of England pupils in which case compulsory alternative worship was organised at a local Catholic church or whatever).

::Besides, I'm not sure that Stephen Fry is a good example of what you are trying to demonstrate. He was, after all, expelled from the school when he was fifteen and subsequently expelled from another. His behaviour went against the rules of those schools so the cause does not appear to have been liberal teaching up to that point. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:01, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::: You are construing "liberal teachings" too literally, and I've noticed that liberals are often overly literal in their approach. The concept of "teachings" is not confined to school. If Fry was expelled from school as a teenager as you say, then he simply picked up "teachings" from somewhere else, such as liberal newspapers and books. The comments above do not in any way undermine use of his example, as there is no doubt that Fry fully embraced liberal teachings in its full sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:02, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::While I agree that what somewhat is taught is not limited to the classroom, the reason for referring to his schooling in particular is that the article points heavily to public schools. In fact, the list that is provided specifically refers to "teachings in school". Thus interpreting the Stephen Fry example in the context of school is not "overly literal", as doing so is within the context of the rest of the page. If you do not mean to focus the discussion on schools alone, the article should be expanded to encompass the other avenues you pointed out. As for Fry, giving an example of a single individual who was both liberal and had mental illness does not add substance to the article (nor does discussing it accomplish anything). As has been discussed elsewhere on this page, there are a great many established factors that can contribute to mental illness. Knowing nothing about his early clinical and emotional history precludes any judgment either way. To use the stomach ache analogy, if someone gets bad stomach cramps and has peanut allergies, it doesn't necessarily follow that the latter caused the former- maybe, maybe not. Having the doctor remind them not to eat peanuts without asking what they actually had been eating fails to diagnose the problem. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 10:31, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::: There may well be other factors causing mental illness, but it's sheer folly to deny that teachings are a factor. Once you accept that, it's silly to think that all ideological teachings have the same effects, and there is no reason to think they would all be equal in influence on mental health.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:35, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::I never said teachings couldn't be a factor. It is certainly possible that some are. The problem here is that you focus specifically on one kind, which is a wildly exaggerated and inaccurate description of the typical American public school. Another problem is that while I agree that "there is no reason to think [ideological teachings] would all be equal in influence on mental health", the article is about teachings ''causing'' mental illness. As JamalG alludes to below, ''influence'' and ''cause'' are not synonymous. If someone was taught as you outlined (which, again, is simply false regarding typical public schools), they will probably emerge as less-than-upstanding citizens, to say the least, but that doesn't constitute "illness". On the other hand, they may well develop bona-fide mental illness if they are also abused at home, or are outcasts among their peers, etc. In that respect, you could improve the validity of your claim by discussing influences rather than trying to outline a single ''cause'' by providing an exaggerated list. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 19:21, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::In Pyschology today we use what is known as the BioPsychoSocial approach. In essence, it means that when diagnosing a problem, the Pyschologist should take into account their Biographical information (Genetic History, brain function and such) They're Psychological information (thinking abilities, emotions, and motivations) and the Social information (Family, Ethnicity, Social Class). What you have done is completely ignore two of the three to focus solely on the so called Liberal teachings. If your argument is true, why in mental illness still relatively rare. Millions of people in the united states and the world have come from these dangerous liberal schools, yet merely a few hundred thousand are diagnosed with serious mental illness. You seem to be working backwards from your conclusion to find links. [[User:JamalG|Jamal Greene]] 11:04, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Just to put the record straight, since there appears to be some misunderstanding about the type of schools that English “Public “ schools are and in particular about the school Mr Fry attended, the following extracts from two “Public “ school websites might be of interest and will, hopefully, clear up any confusion which American readers might have about the role religion in general, and Christianity in particular, plays in the life of anyone attending English “Public” schools:

Uppingham
A typical day starts with breakfast in the House, followed by, most mornings, a brief assembly in Chapel for the whole school, which is either an act of corporate worship, or a talk or presentation by a member of staff………..On Sunday there is normally a Chapel service in the morning…………
Spiritual Life

Uppingham is a Christian Foundation. That was the intention of Uppingham's Founder, Archdeacon Robert Johnson in 1584, and it remains the policy of the School today. In worship, in our relationships and in its teaching the School, is committed to the expression of the Christian Faith, both explicitly in Chapel and the classroom, and implicitly in our life together. Some Uppinghamians are members of other faiths and every consideration is given to their needs, but parents and intending students should bear in mind that all attend services in Chapel on Sundays and on some weekdays. In fact, we meet four times a week in Chapel for a service. The consequent sense of belonging to a community is, we believe, enormously worthwhile, important, and sustaining to all who are members of Uppingham School.

(http://www.uppingham.co.uk/)

Rugby

The School is a Christian foundation which encourages spiritual development in the context of rational enquiry. Chapel is at the heart of School life with morning prayers three mornings a week and on Sundays. The School population is held at 800 so that the whole community can regularly meet together. Christians are confirmed every year whilst others choose to worship in their own tradition: whatever the faith of the individual the Chaplaincy plays a key role in the pastoral life of the School. ……
(http://www.rugbyschool.net/school/ethosandvision/)

[[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 11:19, 21 August 2008 (EDT) (Sorry about the mess up with the post a minite ago...bad case of thick thumb syndrome!)

::The 1944 Education Act prescribes a ''daily'' act of communal worship, so Rugby is in breach of the letter of the law, and I think it is safe to assume, in the context of modern British education, that it is in breach of the spirit of it as well. As for Uppingham, it is well known as one of the most Liberal of the British public schools, and even the most Liberal schools have rules of some sort that can be broken. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:45, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Thank you, Bugler, for your insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:56, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly, actually, I wasn't interpreting anything, rather that, because of his very traditional educational background and subsequent expulsion from it, Stephen Fry might not be a good example of "liberal teachings" leading to mental illness. If his education and indeed his traditional social background did have any effect, it might have been what he was rebelling against. Or, of course, he might just have been ill because of other causes. While he might have been influenced by a socialist family member or been seduced by communist newsletters, I maintain that a better example to back up your ideas might be found that includes the subject's liberal formal education. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:59, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Bulger, some consider it somewhat avant garde because it specialises in arts, music and drama, much like Milfield does for sports. And yes, it might possibly be more liberal than say Eton, Harrow or Radley. But even so, it is old-fashioned Anglican Christian, has very strict codes of conduct and school rules, receives pupils from generally conservative establishment families, and maintains a socially conservative pastoral care programme. And when Fry was there, I imagine it to have been more conservative than it is now. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 13:13, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I see that its alumni include - as well as Fry, convicted and incarcerated for cheque fraud - the TV presenter Johnny Vaughan (convicted and gaoled for cocaine dealing) and celebrity chef and notorious adulterer Rick Stein. That pastoral care programme must be working wonders. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:33, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Given that that well known Liberal MP Winston Churchill suffered from the same "mental illness" as Stephen Fry,i.e. depression; that both went to English Public schools, both were the children or grand children of immigrants and both were friends at one time or another with the heir to the English throne I would have to agree that there's something strange going on here. But is it a conservative English education, the proximity to royalty or a combination of biological, psychological and social factors or exposure to a liberal education that predisposes one to depression? Take your pick! [[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 13:43, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Bulger, as was Tim Melville-Ross (former head of CBI and Institute of Directors), Dickson Poon (businessman and non-executive Chairman of Harvey Nichols), Jonathan Agnew (England cricketer and Chief Cricket Correspondent for BBC Radio), Donald Campbell (world water speed record holder, killed on Coniston Water in Bluebird), and Sir Patrick Renison (Governor of Kenya).

::::::Hardly a line-up of liberal scum :) [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 15:50, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
It's also worth mentioning that Stephen Fry's depression is the product of Bipolar disorder which is largely a genetic disease. Environmental factors do play a role, but these factors do not include "liberal education". [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 17:59, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: As a general matter, surely you don't dispute that beliefs, values and/or conduct can exacerbate or alleviate mental problems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:02, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
I do dispute that. I have not heard one argument from an academic that supports that position, and I don't suppose you can provide a reference to any. I'd be much more willing that the old British education system - beatings by the headmaster and all - would be more likely to cause depression and mental illness. If anything, beliefs, values and conduct are a ''product'' or ''expression'' of mental illness, so the real "mystery" would have to be "Does mental illness cause Liberalism?". But I have not heard one noted psychologist argue that liberalism is a result of insanity, rather belief that there is a vast conspiracy against you (and your beliefs) would be an example of a belief caused by mental illness. And before you claim that liberals believe there is a vast conspiracy against them, I'd remind you of views such as "Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by liberal environmentalists" and "99% of scientists are suppressing evidence against evolution" and "liberals are forcing their views on children through the education system" and "liberal government is trying to destroy christianity" and so on. Not saying that anyone here is mentally ill, but that labeling people as such works both ways. [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 23:25, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Why the reversion? ==

The expected rise in dementia and increased funding requirement are due to an expanding geriatric population. Why did you remove that?
--[[User:StanleyB|StanleyB]] 19:51, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: I looked at the article and it doesn't say that. Of course older people tend to have more health problems, but that is not the only or even the primary cause, as far as I can tell from the article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:58, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::These are the quotes from the article which makes it fairly clear the reason for the rise in number of dementia patients:
This latest analysis, however, signals that without sustained funding increases services will come under renewed pressure as numbers of people suffering from mental illness '''increase in line with an expanding and ageing population'''.Conditions such as dementia will be a major driver of demand for mental health services"
"With the number of elderly people expected to increase substantially over the next 20 years,
the incidence and cost of dementia will also rise, putting further strain on
mental health services and budgets."--[[User:StanleyB|StanleyB]] 20:05, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Right, and lung cancer incidence also increases with age. That doesn't diminish other primary causes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:21, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
The points is that you're using the increase in dementia to try and correlate it with an increase in "liberal" education. Yet the increase in dementia is easily explained by professionals as a result of increased old age. Not only does this remove the evidence you're using, but it presents a new problem. If education is more "liberal" then why are we not seeing a greater increase in dementia than we would expect as a result of old age? You then argue that is doesn't "diminish primary causes" which as I explained it clearly does. But more importantly, what are these "primary causes"? You have only asserted causes, rather than referencing experts in the field. For example you say "surely you don't doubt that education exacerbates mental problems". Yet there is not one academic who argues that liberal education does cause mental problems. So the primary cause you are referring to (education) isn't just diminished - it doesn't exist in the first place.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 15:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

: By any chance do you work in the denial department of a tobacco company? Please take a few minutes out your time talking here and search the internet to see all the cites about how mental illness really is increasing, not just due to aging.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:01, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

::Johnny, you didn't clearly ''explain'' it, you merely ''stated'' it. If you want to debate, this is not the right place. Our talk pages are for improving the articles, not for scoring points. Think it over for a week, and if you agree, come back then and help improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:31, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

::sigh... I'm trying to argue for how the article can be improved - for example by introducing at least one source for the central claim of the article, by accepting sources that contradict the claim, and by not including incorrect and unsourced supporting evidence that seem to rely solely on the opinion of the editor. The problem is that people like me who make edits that contradict the views of sysops (through completely justified ways using sources or criticising lack of sources) are accused of vandalism and thus must make an argument in the discussion section to try and get anything done (lest we be banned for vandalism). We then have to argue for an epoch to try and get the most basic factual edits made (see the Atheism discussion page, where several editors have had to teach Conservative simple philosophy to a high school level in an attempt to get the oh so controversial claim that some atheists came to their beliefs through rational enquiry accepted) - and are thus banned for using the discussion section too much. If you want my suggestions for improving the article, I have made them repeatedly. Yet still the article is full of unsourced rubbish, and this is rendered impossible to change due to the catch 22 system of banning described above. You use the edit button and you're banned for not using the discussion button, you use the discussion button and you're banned for not using the edit button.

== Connection ==

You need to connect your premises with your conclusion. Right now it looks like you have a bunch of premises / statistics with no discernible connection to the conclusion: that Liberalism causes mental disorders.

I'll demonstrate:

Medical professionals emphasize that they do not know what causes mental illness.[8] Accordingly, they cannot rule out that liberal indoctrination is a contributing factor.

: The problem here is that you can't, under this framework, rule out /anything/ as the root cause of mental instability, so you must support to some degree that liberalism is threatening to your mental health in some inherent way, which is why you created the following list, though it does not support your conclusion as you thought it would.

Teaching children to accept and believe things that are demonstrably false cannot help mental health. Included in this category are the liberal teachings in school that:

: The problem he is that everything is false and everything is true from the perspective of objective thought: there is a reason why you can't simply talk someone out of a cult or out of Islam, they truly believe what they believe, so there is no reason to assume that (short of believing that there is no gravity and a fall from the empire state building would be fun) holding these notions will cause any actual physical or mental harm. Also, and this has already been pointed out, you have to somehow /verify/ that typical secular (you people seem to oft confuse moderates with liberals and secularism with liberalism) beliefs are demonstrably false.

* lying about the truth, causing belief in falsehoods or encouraging conduct disorders[9]

: Here at first I thought you cited a source, but you only cite a definition. I also have a problem with the bad faith position you take with liberals in this case: yes, they say things that can be argued are incorrect, but they don't intentionally lie about the truth in the broad way you believe.

* there are no real differences between boys and girls

: I think you misunderstand what educators mean when they say this. Educators mean there is not enough of a difference in /potential/ to justify separation based on gender. Indeed, boys score on average higher than girls do in the math and science department, but that is only an average (and would either justify being more rigorous with girls or being easier on boys, you choose which) and not justification for stating that girls are inferior to boys.

* humans are just another type of animal

: Um, we are? This is certainly better than telling them the truth if you're so concerned about this issue: we are dust and nothing more. That is more depressing than noting we are, TECHNICALLY (as in, strictly speaking under the framework of certain systems (see biology)) speaking, animals.

* all there is is what you see

: Where is this taught? Yes, I went to a public high school, but that was NOT in any way a part of the curriculum. I think you mean, and this is a better way to word it, that there is no *mystery* in life that cannot be solved with our own powers of logic and reason. This is a fair critique, but this is not intentional. The only place you see this sort of world view is in a science class, and we don't want religion and science to be married together: you cannot find God with a microscope.

* conversely, that an unproven 'unconscious' excuses evil actions

: You definitely need to cite this and clarify this as well. I think you mean that schools teach that some things aren't entirely our fault, and they are correct. The insane are not held to the same standards of behavior as 'normal' people are, so to say that there is more than we see (somewhat in contradiction with your previous point) is not an unreasonable belief.

* self-inflicted death can somehow be good

:Remove this: it's a total lie unless you can cite a source. What you're talking about exists well beyond political labels: it is a belief that is arrived at on an individual level, not something you can look to your peers for a sufficient answer for.

* denying self-defense, mentally and physically

: Eh? Cite this, and clarify. Radical gun control advocates don't believe in self defense, because they are under a delusional belief that all things may be settled with words even when force is unavoidable. This is not typical education anywhere in the world.

* denying the ability to control sexual desires; promoting lifestyles that lead to mental illness

: You mean homosexuality. I think this is actually a stronger argument than your other points, though it requires citation. Also, 'liberal' education promotes /acceptance/ of these lifestyles, it does not advocate them (though this is harder to discern if you watch TV).

* insisting on an illogical and unjustified "wall of separation of church and state"; classroom prayer would promote mental stability

: Omit the words illogical and unjustified; this begs for a citation and makes assumptions that have not been given foundational support via evidence. Believe it or not, it's good for the world that the state and the church are separate: the state is the ultimate corrupter and defiler of all things, and religion is no exception. Would you really want /politicians/ to tell you what is and is not Christian? Also classroom prayer, under most circumstances is a joke: you take something sacred and you turn it into a silly impersonal ritual. Though that is simply my opinion; it can be argued (see Durkheim) that prayer / strict religious structures add stability to mental health, but you haven't done a good job of saying that.

As to the rest of the article... there are many explanations that, on a scale of reasonableness, explain the recent surge in mental disorder diagnosis. Part of it is that it was not till recently that having a mental disorder was treatable outside of a mental institution, that most mental disorders do not readily appear as such to the untrained eye (bipolar disorder, depression, ect), and the increase in life expectancy. If you want to attribute liberal education as a cause, then you need to to a better job demonstrating that A) education is liberal (exposes and promotes liberal ideals) B) that liberalism is inherently unhealthy and C) that the rise of liberalism corresponds directly to the rise in mental health disorders. This is in no way impossible but is unfortunately not done in this essay. If you would like to know more, I recommend books on sociology; they address this sort of thing more directly than other fields. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 23:02, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

== I could not help but notice ==

that one of today's lead stories here reveals that [[Margaret Thatcher]] has a form of dementia. A mental illness? The same one that [[Ronald Reagan]], [[John Wayne]], [[Barry Goldwater]], and [[Charlton Heston|Chuck Heston]] died with? Hmmmmmmmmm? [[User:Carptrash|Carptrash]] 11:36, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Margaret Thatcher battled the left for all her life. She must have come into contact with their literature and ideas during this struggle - and that must have been what drove her insane.

:So everyone is susceptible to mental illness from "Liberal ideas" because everyone is "exposed" (just like sunlight, air, Conservative ideas, or '''anything else'''), but of course for different reasons. Now your causation doesn't even have meaningful correlation! [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 22:25, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== 89% ==

The 89% of Americans being taught in public schools statistic is mentioned twice in rapid succession, which reads a bit clumsily. I couldn't see an obvious way to only say it once without doing a bit more rewriting of the intro than I think is worth my effort. So someone who cares about this "mystery" might want to take a crack at it. [[User:Human|Human]] 19:39, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness?

2008-09-15T13:59:11Z

Userafw: /* Offensive to mental health sufferers and mental health professionals */

==Congratulations==
Andy, well done - a very well-argued essay, and one that will no doubt provoke our Liberal friends into a frenzy of denial. You might care to add that Sweden, the 'poster-boy' nation for many Liberals, has an enormously high suicide rate (and other ultra-Liberal nations likewise). [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:15, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks much, Bugler. I value your opinion and insights very much!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:49, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== An apology ==
I investigated the reference I used to support the idea that some self-deception is healthy and found i tto be not in support of that idea at all! I want to apologize for using the reference, and was on my way to change it when I found the statement had already been removed by Aschlafly, which is a pity, because it's generally accepted by psychologists - I just hadn't found verification for that, yet. For the record, it does seem like a helpful article discussing Palestinian hostility to Israel!
[[User:UlyssesNZ|UlyssesNZ]] 17:54, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks DLerner ==

Thanks for correcting that error. What I meant to say was "[[censoring]] [[classroom prayer]] THAT would promote mental stability." Your fix is fine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:your welcome. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:45, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== The liberal response ==

I will be the first liberal to respond.

Let me begin with what I think the real reason there is a huge rise in dementia. In the last few decades there has been an enormous increase in the consumption of "junk" food. I don't mean just candy and cookies, I mean all processed food; it's loaded with preservatives and chemicals which you normally wouldn't '''think''' of eating, but since it comes in a pretty package with pretty slogans like "99% fat free", we think it's good for you. The [[Obesity|obesity]] epidemic probably also contributes a great deal. For further information, see Eric Schlosser's ''"Fast Food Nation"'' and Morgan Spurlock's ''"Don't Eat this Book"''.[[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:First liberal? What are you doing on Conservapedia? This is not the place for you. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

: '''<Reply>''' I agree that is a problem. However, [[liberal]]s tend to be fatter that [[conservatives]]. What one believes and accepts does affect his ability to keep off the extra pounds. So your observation tends to reinforce the likely correlation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:: Really? Texas had four of the fattest cities in the US a few years ago. Liberals are more into exercise and health food and vegetarianism/veganism, the Bible belt has a '''lot''' of fat people... [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:04, 10 August 2008 (EDT) '''</reply>'''

::I will add my own questiong and responses to ASchlafly's. First, do you have any evidence whatsoever for your statment that liberals tend to be larger than conservatives? and second, are you saying that religious faith keeps you thin? [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

As for the content of the article:

: '''lying about the truth, causing belief in falsehoods or encouraging conduct disorders'''

I think the absurdity of this one speaks for itself. "All liberals (and public schools [except the ones that teach [[Intelligent Design]]]) lie. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Many liberals don't think lying is wrong, and even delight in it. There is a correlation, though certainly not all liberals lie.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Liberals do teach that lying is wrong. In fact, many students are expelled from colleges and high schools across the country for Academic Dishonesty (which may mean plagerism, or simply allowing a friend to cheat) op top of that, not all lies are bad. When my wife was pregnant, I lied constantly, telling her that she wasn't fat, she wasn't short tempered etc... Most lies are wrong of course, but there are many that make life better [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

I discovered this page by random and although I don't really consider myself to be a liberal, this page is a joke. A bad one. It consists of a silly use of a technique that many folks, conservatives and liberals to name a few, use a lot. This is is to make a (frequently bogus) list of what someone else believes in and then rip it apart, tossing in liberal (or conservative?) doses of ridicule and sarcasm. Why not find a list of what liberal say they believe in and then rip that apart? I am ignoring a little voice saying "Don't get into this" but to not do so would seem like a form of lying to me. [[User:Carptrash|Carptrash]] 18:05, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

: Did you happen to notice that the word count on your edit above is "666"? Ridicule will get you ... nowhere. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

::No, his post has 119 words. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 09:44, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

: '''there are no real differences between boys and girls'''

Um, nobody teaches that. I think they teach that they're equal, but a cursory examination of the anatomy reveals '''several''' differences, ''especially'' in the reproductive/waste disposal organs. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You're ducking the obvious point here. Think girls can excel in math as well as boys can? Liberals teach they can, which is teaching a falsehood.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Can girls excel? Of course they can... There have been women who have succeeded in every major field of science. Research shows that men typically have higher scores in Math and Science, while women do better in English and Social Studies, but just as there have many famous male writers and historians, there are dozens if not hundreds of female mathematicians and scientists who have made lasting contributions to the field. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
::::And yet they still compete seperatly in sports, because it would be unfair otherwise. Women were created to be the primary caregivers. That is why they have breasts, and men havn't. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

: '''humans are just another type of animal'''

As opposed to .... what? I think humans are another type of [[Mammal|mammal]], and the only way we can actually elevate ourselves is through our actions. Get your genome sequenced and you'll see how close to animals you really are. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Teach your belief and you'll contribute to some mental disorders as kids struggle with your view that they are mere animals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I have never seen any student struggle with the view that they are merely animals. Students develop mental disordered for a variety of reasons, many unknown to science. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
::::If you cut me, I will bleed - but only a liberal would use that to argue I am the same as a rat. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]
:::::''No one'' uses that to argue that you are the ''same'' as a rat- of course you aren't. But a circulatory system is something that you share in common with one, along with a great many other features. Humans are of course (well, for all we know anyway) capable of much more advanced thought than other animals- you can be comfortable with that assertion. But being an animal '''does not''' mean you '''are''' a rat, or a dove, or a louse, or a monkey, or whatever- you are human- it's just a matter of classification. If you're offended by being categorized as an animal, then by definition you must be offended by the claims that your cells contain a nucleus, you are composed of more than one cell, you don't produce your own food internally and don't have cell walls. So which is it? Animal '''by definition''' refers to eukaryotic, multicellular heterotrophs that lack a cell wall. Humans fit all four criteria. Incidentally, so does a rat. That's not a "belief"- it's an eminently verifiable fact (look at a skin cell under a microscope and at the food in your refrigerator), but it doesn't follow by any means that humans and rats are the same.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 00:06, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''all there is is what you see'''

Not true, we teach about [[Bacteria|bacteria]] too small for the naked eye to see. Also about atoms, yes, atoms. (The early church used to suppress any information atoms and/or the writings of Epicures, were ''they'' responsible for mental illness? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You duck the obvious point again, so no response to your comment is warranted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I fail to see how Dlearner was ducking the point. All there is is what you see is an incredibly broad statment that can be taken many ways. I'm assuming you mean that Liberals teach there is no greater power (Ie, you can't see a god, so there must not be one) but that is problematic as well. If one were to truly assume that if they don't see it, it doesn't exist (something I have never heard anyone say) then many established practices and principles of science would not work in their world (Ie X-rays) [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''death can somehow be good'''

We don't teach that. What I think you mean is that death is inevitable and is in fact a part of life. All that lives must die, therefore, death should not be feared. People in pain and suffering from long debilitating illness welcome death, and as adults we must realize this. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Liberals do teach that death can be good. Ever read the leading liberal work in school called "Of Mice and Men"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I respond to this with a question. When someone dies after a long bout with a terminal disease and their family says I'm glad the suffering is over, they've gone home to god. Is that not a good thing? Christian teaching naturally brings about the idea that death can be good, as it allows one to return to their creator [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I have to argue the point on that one, Andy, for two reasons.. First, ''Of Mice and Men'' (italicized or underlined, please--it's a full-length work, not a short story) has a number of liberal themes, but it hardly teaches that death is good. There's nothing good or positive about Lenny's death. If anything, it teaches that the world can be a harsh and unforgiving place, and that the death of innocents is tragic, but sometimes inevitable.

:::Second, as a Christian, I strongly question the notion that "Death can be good" is a liberal idea. My Grandfather suffered terribly from cancer; when he passed, we took comfort in the knowledge that he was no longer in pain, and was at peace with Christ. How is that not a good thing? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:58, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

::"self-inflicted death can somehow be good"--- So where exactly did you get the idea that public schools teach that suicide is an acceptable way to solve problems? Because they simply do not. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 20:59, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''denying self-defense, mentally and physically'''

Codswallop. We don't teach that. Self-defense is great! הבא להרגך, השכם להרגו (Trans: "If somebody comes to kill you, stand up and kill him first. ''Talmud'') [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Liberals don't teach the Talmud. Instead, they teach gun control and favor prosecuting for murder people who hold their ground in self-defense, as in [[Bernard Goetz]].

As far as I know (always worth double-checking) Goetz killed no one and not even the most liberal knucklehead wanted him prosecuted for murder.
To me this line of argument reeks of "'''lying about the truth, causing belief in falsehoods'''"

:::I'm a very strong liberal, and I have no issues with self defense, in fact, I have a 12 guage shotgun by my bed that I will have no trouble using for just that purpose if someone threatens my family. On top of that, I plan on enrolling my son in Judo the moment he's old enough to understand the responsibility that comes with it. Can you please show any liberal that has ever advocated killing those who defend themselves? [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''denying the ability to control sexual desires; promoting lifestyles that lead to mental illness'''

Perhaps you didn't know that even liberals teach [[Abstinence|abstinence]]. (deleted non-family-friendly rant - can't liberals refrain?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT))

:: Liberals oppose teaching abstinence or funding abstinence education.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Again, not true. Liberals (such as myself) are against teaching abstinence '''ONLY''' Sex education because the fact remains, it's not working. Pregnancy rates among teenagers drop sharpest when they're taught a combination of abstinence and contraception. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
::::Andrew, why was my so-called "rant" not family-friendly, because I spoke about Onanism? (I suppose a family-friendly word)? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::That's because all liberals want is sex, sex, sex. They never got over the 60's "free love" thing. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]
: '''insisting on an illogical and unjustified "wall of separation of church and state"; classroom prayer would promote mental stability'''

Separation of church and state is logical and justified. (This is coming from a very religious person, so listen up). I don't your religion -whatever the majority of Christians in that state are- being forced on my Jewish kids, THAT is the logic. The justification. Andrew, I see you are working on history lectures, read through history about the times there wasn't a separation between church and state; what do you get? The [[Spanish Inquisition|inquisition]] comes to mind. Personally, I prefer separation of church and state to the ''auto de fe'' any day. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You may be religious yourself but censoring classroom prayer by others is not helpful to them or you. A wall of separation of church and state is baseless, illogical and impossible. It's a contradiction except in a totalitarian atmosphere that imposes censorship.

'''classroom prayer would promote mental stability''' Says who? Maybe you should add [[Conservapedia:Commandments|[Citation Needed]]]?

:: I'm sure lots of studies confirm that prayer is good for mental health. Have you looked yet? It's obvious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

::: What's the point of studies if you already know the answer? "I'm sure lots of studies confirm" isn't backing up a claim. Have ''you'' looked yet? [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 10:59, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Mr. Schlafly, I'm new to this site, so I don't quite know your feelings, so let me ask upfront. Do you support teacher led prayer or more of a moment of silence for personal prayer and reflection. Until I know this, I can't really repond in a meaningful way. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Once again another "fine" piece of work...

[[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:43, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion ==

Obviously the person suffering from mental illness does not have to admit a correlation in order for a correlation to exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:27, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

== Offensive to mental health sufferers and mental health professionals ==

This is a hateful piece of propaganda, & particularly offensive to anybody suffering with a mental illness, as well as anybody working within the field of mental health. To say that medical professionals have no idea what causes mental illness is ridiculous. There has been over a century of study and treatment of mental illness using scientific methods and findings; not superstition, idle conjecture and anecdotal evidence. Mental illnesses occur in all the world's cultures, regardless of ideology, and you will not find a qualified psychologist who has published any theory that they are caused by "liberal teachings". [[User:BeReasonable|BeReasonable]] 08:35, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:You are suffering from that well-documented delusion [[Liberal denial]], BeReasonable. Try to live up to your name. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:38, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

: Well put, Bugler. As to User "BeReasonable" (note his silly name and how is is not reasonable at all), he challenges a well-supported statement that mental health professions do not know the cause of mental illness. Then he tries to censor an inquiry here into possible causes. He typifies the kind of logical contradiction pushed so often by liberals. Fortunately, we'll continue searching for the truth here despite efforts by liberals to censor it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:41, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
::That mental health professionals do not know the causes of mental health is not at all well supported. The [http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/06/13/10-myths-of-mental-illness/ cited source] says that ''at a neurological level'' mental illness cannot be identified to one cause - I.E. it is not caused by just one thing going on in the brain. If you read the next paragraph, it goes on to say that mental illness is caused by a blend of genetic, psychological and environmental factors. I have no interest in "censoring" inquiries into why mental health occurs. There are already thousands of trained professionals around the world engaged in such studies. And if you are genuinely interested in the subject, there are hundreds of books you can read. As I have said, I do not think you will find any experts in the subject agreeing with your suggestion that liberalism causes mental illness. However, I do not recommend further reading on the subject, rather than plucking anecdotal examples of correlation. [[User:BeReasonable|BeReasonable]] 08:56, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Teaching liberal beliefs would qualify as a "psychological" and/or "environmental" factor that could cause mental illness. That you dismiss this possible cause out of hand, and even attempt to censor it, illustrates the illogical, self-contradictory approach taken by liberals. Yes, imposing contradictions and falsehoods on others could be bad for their mental health. Surely you don't doubt that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:01, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
I disagree that schools teach the belief that suicide can somehow be good. This is taught by misguided peers, not educators. Suicide is actively discouraged, even in the most liberal settings. A possible exception might be jihad schools, which are known to be ultra-fundamentalist radical Islam. Also, if classroom prayer promoted mental stability, why is it that those who pray alone by choice are just as vulnerable to mental illness? I myself always prayed silently before meals, but yet was diagnosed as bipolar. As has been the case with many with the illness, its onset was in college.[[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 15:45, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

: Praying silently to one's self, and only before meals, can be nearly inconsequential. The real benefit is from public prayer in churches, classrooms, meetings, etc.

: Judging by your other postings, I think you've taken in liberal ideology and that does have consequences. There's no real concept of self-defense, which is essential to fend off mental problems; there's a degradation of the view of humans to the point of where they mean little more than dogs, and that affects self-esteem; and there's no emphasis on self-help, which hurts further. In fact, the list is quite long for how liberal ideology leads to mental illness. Wake up to it while you still can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:33, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::Can you expand on why you feel that praying silently to one's self can be "nearly inconsequential", and that the real benefit is in public prayer? That seems to contradict Matthew 6, but I want to understand your views on this better. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 23:37, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
::I am surprised you assume that I was "only" praying before meals. In college, I went to a Christian University where Chapel attendance was mandatory and group prayer was encouraged, but it did not stop mental illness from developing in college. I did develop some liberal ideas, but that was after I developed mental illness, not before. I was raised Christian, and was into Wicca for awhile, (this was after I'd graduated from college) which primarily benefitted me by emphasizing personal responsibility and choice for my own actions, rather than blaming evil and Satan for everything that went wrong. Moreover, Wicca does indeed allow for self-defense, unlike some brands of Christianity, which teach to "turn the other cheek". It is probably telling that the part I studied most when I was in Wicca was the part about psychic self-defense. Prayer, by the way, is also considered by Wiccans and pagans to be a form of magic, since it raises and directs energy for a purpose. I did go to a public high school, and the teachers there did not teach many of the things that this article claims they teach. These "secular liberal teachings" seem to me to be the product of peer teachings, not educator teachings. [[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 09:53, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

== Causation fail ==

Aschlafly,

I discovered Conservapedia recently, and this "essay" is my first exposure to the philosophy of the site. Needless to say, I'm not impressed. Quite apart from ideology, your statement, "Medical professionals emphasize that they do not know what causes mental illness.[6] Accordingly, they cannot rule out that liberal indoctrination is a contributing factor," is massively flawed.

That one cannot rule out something as a contributing factor is not sufficient evidence for causality; it's even weaker and more flawed than arguing that correlation equals causation. I'm holding a fountain pen right now. There are no tigers nearby. You can't rule out the possibility that the fountain pen keeps the tigers away. Would you like my Fountain Pen of Tiger Ward? Yours for $1,000.

My point is that, by your argument, anything at all could be the "cause" of mental illness. If you're going to argue that liberalism causes it, from such scant evidence, it's clear that you're more after an agenda than the truth, and that should be made clear, or better evidence of causation should be found.

I see you're a lawyer of some kind. I expect better of legal professionals than to find causation in the most tenuous of links... unless they're being paid to do that, of course :). In which case, I still wouldn't be happy if this was the best you could do for money.-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]] 09:12, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

: Your reasoning as is illogical as that of the (silly) "BeReasonable". The inability to rule out liberal teaching as a contributing cause of mental illness weighs in favor of further inquiry of it as a possible cause, and weighs against the censorship of such inquiry as attempted by liberals here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:21, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
::It weighs no more in favor of "further inquiry" than does the fact that mental health professionals can't rule out exposure to, say, Conservapedia! If your point is to illuminate potential causes for mental illness, focus on those that (1) can't be ruled out, and (2) have some AFFIRMATIVE proof. Because the simple lack of negative proof makes the whole world a causal factor!-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]] 09:23, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Also, "censorship"? I don't think that word means what you think it means. "Censorship" implies redaction of information by the state or a power. I'm just questioning your logic. Debate is not censorship.-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]] 09:24, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: Again, you're not making sense. I explained the significance of not ruling out liberal teaching as a cause of mental illness. It warrants further inquiry and evidence, and the entry here provides lots of additional reasons why liberal teaching is likely a cause of mental illness. If public schools forced kids to receive indoctrination other than liberal falsehoods every day, and 20% were becoming mentally ill afterwards, then it would be fine with me to look at the other indoctrination also. But it is liberal teaching that is being force-fed kids in school, not something else. As to [[censorship]], your definition is far too narrow. Censorship can also result from intimidation or name-calling, as you see above as "BeReasonable" tried to shut down this inquiry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:44, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I'm not trying to shut down the inquiry. I'm just saying you're wrong. What about blocking users for asking questions? Does ''that'' shut down the inquiry?
:::::I see you're not going to understand the problem behind singling out one cause among a million environmental causes. That's fine. It does, however, suggest "inquiry bias." Moving on.
:::::Have you considered the possible rise in diagnosis as a reason for the increase in mental conditions? It only recently became acceptable & treatable to have a mental illness. Only reasonable to suggest, then, that diagnoses would climb.-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]]

== Correlation does not imply causation. And even if it did... ==

''The USA (2/3 conservative by some surveys which have been quoted in criticizing wikipedia's disproportionate liberal voice) has some of the highest murder rates in the world - 5 to 10 per 100000. Europe and Australasia (both liberal and secular by comparison to the USA) have much lower murder rates. Officially atheist China reports a lower rate still. Clearly, conservativism is correlated with high murder rates.''
Of course this is a rubbish argument, for two reasons: 
- Correlation does not imply causation. There could be a number of reasons for a correlation between conservativism and high murder rates. Perhaps more conservative nations have stricter laws about their definition of 'murder'; the more liberal nations more often call it 'manslaughter', making their figures look lower. There are many many possible reasons. 
- The brief survey I've done here, even assuming the figures are correct, hardly counts even as 'correlation' when it comes to statistical science. In order for you to even say that a correlation exists in this example, we need a consistent measure of 'conservativism', and we need to include all relevant countries, not just hand pick several which happen to illustrate the point. Then we should graph them all and see how closely conservativism is matched with murder rates. Only then could we even claim that there is an undisputable correlation.

The USA does have a lot of liberal viewpoints, but then compared to Europe and Australasia it's very conservative in many ways - for instance, in New Zealand, few ever even debate whether abortion should be legal. Yet Europe and Australasia have lower levels of depression than the USA, according to the article cited. This should count as evidence against the hypothesis that correlation between mental illness and liberalism even exists. It's also a very poor way to measure mental illness as depression is only one (and one of the MORE spurious, debatable ones at that) of a whole range of mental illnesses recognized by modern psychology.
Finally, like my analogy of murder rates and conservativism, in order to draw even a correlation we need to see more than several countries' match of liberalism and high mental illness rates.

[[User:UlyssesNZ|UlyssesNZ]] 17:38, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: The argument is based primarily on logic: teach people contradictions, deprive them of prayer, force them to believe they are mere animals like dogs who will die as dogs do, and you're going to get mental illness as a result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:50, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't disagree with your conclusion - it's just that your premises as given in the article do not give it any support! You may like to read this article discussing the link between good mental health and religiousity: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10520234&pnum=0 --[[User:UlyssesNZ|UlyssesNZ]] 17:56, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion of edits ==

I see my edits as perfectly justified. Perhaps Andy would like to give reason for his reversions (btw, liberal claptrap is not a reason, but an accusation).

:::Again, I would like to know why my edits are being reverted. No reason has been given (I gave my reasoning in edit summaries, if you'd like me to clarify please ask). Perhaps sysops are exempt from the whole "provide sources, promote true and verifiable claims" thingy. I mean there aren't any sources on the page so far that suggest to any extent that liberalism causes mental illness. As for liberalism not being ruled out as a reason for mental illness, I justifiably added that neither has conservatism (or driving your car, or going for a jog, or reading hardback books). So please provide your counterpoints ASchlafy or I will make the edits again. [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 14:48, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

::: The reasons should be obvious. Liberal teachings dominate public schools, not conservative teachings. In fact, there is very little conservative teachings anywhere - people have to find it on their own. Hopefully you will too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:03, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Firstly you didn't rule out the other causes for mental illness, i.e driving a car, going for a jog, reading hardback books. Presumably as these have not been ruled out we need perhaps entire articles on whether they cause mental illness. Secondly the fact that liberalism is dominant in schools and mental illness has increased therefore liberalism causes mental illnesses has as much merit as saying the USA has become richer and mental illness has increased therefore... Thirdly conservatism has not been ruled out as a cause of mental illness by saying it's not taught much. Fourthly your hypothesis is clearly untestable because as you state there are "very little conservative teachings anywhere". You also need to present reasoning as to why the Stephen Fry thing is relevant.

: When someone has a stomach ache, the first suspect is the food he ate. When someone has a mental problem, the first suspect is what he was taught, and that is liberal. Your alternative hypotheses make as little sense as suspecting that the weather caused someone's stomach ache rather than what he just ate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:05, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
: That's begging the question. You're just asserting that the prime cause for mental problems is an education, and as education is liberal, therefore liberalism causes mental problems - but whether school education causes mental problems is the point of contention! The vast majority of psychologists have pointed to other causes of mental illnesses (and as I stated, you have yet to provide a reference to a qualified academic who does claim school education causes mental illness) such as abuse as a child, extreme problems in social interaction and recently, genetics. I will restate my point, the fact that your school education has not been dismissed as a cause of mental disorder is as relevant as saying the fact that you drive a car has not been dismissed as a cause of mental disorders. [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 17:33, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, recent consumption is commonly the culprit is stomach aches, but not the only possible cause. Stomach pains could also be due hunger, infection, a punch in the gut, receiving some very bad news, overexertion, dehydration, severe vomiting, muscle spasms due to envenomation, or even presumably a side effect of some type of allergic reaction. It's a case-by-case thing- suspecting the weather as the culprit does make sense if that person was just struck by lightning- you can't just dismiss it outright. Therefore there are multiple possible causes. While it is not unreasonable to assume that food is generally the most like cause, this logic does not translate to mental illness and education. As has been pointed out, you fail to back up your claims with any outside sources- where are the experts (those that actually study and treat mental illness) saying that education is the prime cause? To reiterate a previous point, what about family history, socioeconomic status, past negative experiences, environmental toxins- those factors that actually have been shown to influence the development of mental illness? And simply dismissing JohnyGoodman's "alternative hypotheses" doesn't work either- there is a mathematical correlation between increasing mental illness rates and number of licensed drivers. In addition, most cases of mental illness occur in individuals who are over the minimum driving age. Thus drivers have a higher risk of mental illness (obviously due to the stress of the road, maintaining a vehicle, and let's not forget the DMV) and increasing numbers of drivers increase the national burden. That's at least the same degree of correlation as the education claim. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 10:59, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Well it would be polite to receive some kind of response to our points, even if its going to be "liberal claptrap" as usual. I honestly don't see why such edits as already made aren't allowed to take place.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 11:29, 18 August 2008 (EDT)]#
:I laugh when I read you laying down the law about what is and what isn't polite, not to mention prejudging the response you might get in an insulting manner! Though, in fairness, you are correct in your prediction (thus displaying a level of self-awareness rare in [[Liberals]]. Claptrap is a polite description of your outpourings, and you are not in a position to demand attention in such an arrogant fashion. Try and amend your behaviour in future, or you may find that Conservapedia is not the place for you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:34, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
::Okay, let's pause and consider that if you read a post expecting it to be hostile, you will inevitably find it offensive regardless of how innocuous the wording is. Emotion is most effectively conveyed visually and through speech, not written text- thus there are limits to determining attitude. As such, a reader can easily introduce hostility where none was intended. Second, "it would be polite to receive some sort of response" doesn't qualify as "laying down the law". And precisely what was hostile and arrogant about asking for a response? I'm not being confrontational or sarcastic about this- I'm honestly curious. Commentators here often find insult in the most innocuous wording and I would like to know which part of JohnyGoodman's comment was to blame so it can be avoided in the future. Most importantly, if you perceive insult, explain it- don't accuse the offending party of being arrogant or to "amend their behaviour". Meeting perceived hostility with aggression only exacerbates the situation and reduces - or removes- the quality of the discussion. In addition, it denigrates the discussion when detailed responses are dismissed as "liberal claptrap" with a wave of the hand without addressing the post itself. In this case, "liberal" has been used simply as name-calling against anyone who does not agree about a given point. The driving example was used only to demonstrate the inadequacy of the "causation from correlation" and "gap theory" approaches that have been used- without any further reasoning- to justify the claim of this page. The logic is precisely the same. If you disagree, please explain- that's what the discussion is for. You're welcome to do so. Really. I would be interested to read it. But simply saying "you're arrogant, offensive and wrong" does a disservice to the very idea of open dialog and accomplishes nothing. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 16:53, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
Perhaps Bugler would like to shed light on this "claptrap". Presumably he has a reference to a noted academic who supports the thesis proposed here. Or perhaps he accepts that the "liberalism causes mental illness" theory should be considered just as the "hardback books cause mental illness" theory should be considered. Perhaps he has a wealth of evidence that proves that psychologists have been wrong all this time when arguing that "family history, socioeconomic status, past negative experiences and environmental toxins" are the real, documented causes of mental illness. Or, as I suspect, he is content with merely throwing words like "liberal" and "arrogant" around rather than arguing a case.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 17:35, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
::Bugler just reverted my edits to add factual context and supporting statements to those which are obviously controversial on this talk page. All I did was add the <nowiki>{{facts}}</nowiki> template to those statements supposedly taught at schools, and was "rewarded" with complaints of "vandalism". I would like to see supporting evidence showing that those statements are indeed taught by educators, as opposed to clueless peers. These peers are just as present and teach just the same things in Christian and Catholic schools (so I hear from comparing notes with graduates of those schools), inside AND OUTSIDE of school. Trying to keep negative peer teachings out is kind of like trying to keep kids from smoking in or out of school. Some clueless idiots will often find a way to do it, including disabling smoke alarms, or cutting class and wandering across the street. [[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 19:37, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

== Stephen Fry==

Just for the record, Stephen Fry went to several "Public" i.e. non state schools for his education. (These, I guess, would be the equivalent of "private" i.e. fee paying schools in the USA and are in no way connected with the UK state school system.) If I understand it correctly, having been to part of Rugby school myself many years ago, Uppingham school, where Mr Fry went for the majority of his adolescent schooling, offers a ciriculum based firmly on Chirstianity and would be anything but "Liberal" - in any sense of the word. No sure how this squares with him then suffering from depression in later life. [[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 11:01, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

: I doubt private schools in the [[U.K.]] are "based firmly on Christianity." Rather, I'm confident that the private schools in the [[U.K.]] are as [[leftist]] as public schools in the [[U.S.]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:56, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::As an old boy of another well-known British "Public School", Wellington College, I must respectfully undermine your confidence. In the case of Stephen Fry, he went to Uppingham School, which is one of the old traditional public schools founded in the 16th Century by a Bishop. While most of these schools are no longer religiously sponsored, they are in the majority firmly wedded to Christianity with their own chapels and vicars and are renown for being bastions of conservatism in a comparatively liberal British education system. I myself was confirmed at Wellington which was normal practice for all pupils at the school and Sunday chapel was compulsory (unless you were one of the few non-Church of England pupils in which case compulsory alternative worship was organised at a local Catholic church or whatever).

::Besides, I'm not sure that Stephen Fry is a good example of what you are trying to demonstrate. He was, after all, expelled from the school when he was fifteen and subsequently expelled from another. His behaviour went against the rules of those schools so the cause does not appear to have been liberal teaching up to that point. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:01, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::: You are construing "liberal teachings" too literally, and I've noticed that liberals are often overly literal in their approach. The concept of "teachings" is not confined to school. If Fry was expelled from school as a teenager as you say, then he simply picked up "teachings" from somewhere else, such as liberal newspapers and books. The comments above do not in any way undermine use of his example, as there is no doubt that Fry fully embraced liberal teachings in its full sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:02, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::While I agree that what somewhat is taught is not limited to the classroom, the reason for referring to his schooling in particular is that the article points heavily to public schools. In fact, the list that is provided specifically refers to "teachings in school". Thus interpreting the Stephen Fry example in the context of school is not "overly literal", as doing so is within the context of the rest of the page. If you do not mean to focus the discussion on schools alone, the article should be expanded to encompass the other avenues you pointed out. As for Fry, giving an example of a single individual who was both liberal and had mental illness does not add substance to the article (nor does discussing it accomplish anything). As has been discussed elsewhere on this page, there are a great many established factors that can contribute to mental illness. Knowing nothing about his early clinical and emotional history precludes any judgment either way. To use the stomach ache analogy, if someone gets bad stomach cramps and has peanut allergies, it doesn't necessarily follow that the latter caused the former- maybe, maybe not. Having the doctor remind them not to eat peanuts without asking what they actually had been eating fails to diagnose the problem. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 10:31, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::: There may well be other factors causing mental illness, but it's sheer folly to deny that teachings are a factor. Once you accept that, it's silly to think that all ideological teachings have the same effects, and there is no reason to think they would all be equal in influence on mental health.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:35, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::I never said teachings couldn't be a factor. It is certainly possible that some are. The problem here is that you focus specifically on one kind, which is a wildly exaggerated and inaccurate description of the typical American public school. Another problem is that while I agree that "there is no reason to think [ideological teachings] would all be equal in influence on mental health", the article is about teachings ''causing'' mental illness. As JamalG alludes to below, ''influence'' and ''cause'' are not synonymous. If someone was taught as you outlined (which, again, is simply false regarding typical public schools), they will probably emerge as less-than-upstanding citizens, to say the least, but that doesn't constitute "illness". On the other hand, they may well develop bona-fide mental illness if they are also abused at home, or are outcasts among their peers, etc. In that respect, you could improve the validity of your claim by discussing influences rather than trying to outline a single ''cause'' by providing an exaggerated list. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 19:21, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::In Pyschology today we use what is known as the BioPsychoSocial approach. In essence, it means that when diagnosing a problem, the Pyschologist should take into account their Biographical information (Genetic History, brain function and such) They're Psychological information (thinking abilities, emotions, and motivations) and the Social information (Family, Ethnicity, Social Class). What you have done is completely ignore two of the three to focus solely on the so called Liberal teachings. If your argument is true, why in mental illness still relatively rare. Millions of people in the united states and the world have come from these dangerous liberal schools, yet merely a few hundred thousand are diagnosed with serious mental illness. You seem to be working backwards from your conclusion to find links. [[User:JamalG|Jamal Greene]] 11:04, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Just to put the record straight, since there appears to be some misunderstanding about the type of schools that English “Public “ schools are and in particular about the school Mr Fry attended, the following extracts from two “Public “ school websites might be of interest and will, hopefully, clear up any confusion which American readers might have about the role religion in general, and Christianity in particular, plays in the life of anyone attending English “Public” schools:

Uppingham
A typical day starts with breakfast in the House, followed by, most mornings, a brief assembly in Chapel for the whole school, which is either an act of corporate worship, or a talk or presentation by a member of staff………..On Sunday there is normally a Chapel service in the morning…………
Spiritual Life

Uppingham is a Christian Foundation. That was the intention of Uppingham's Founder, Archdeacon Robert Johnson in 1584, and it remains the policy of the School today. In worship, in our relationships and in its teaching the School, is committed to the expression of the Christian Faith, both explicitly in Chapel and the classroom, and implicitly in our life together. Some Uppinghamians are members of other faiths and every consideration is given to their needs, but parents and intending students should bear in mind that all attend services in Chapel on Sundays and on some weekdays. In fact, we meet four times a week in Chapel for a service. The consequent sense of belonging to a community is, we believe, enormously worthwhile, important, and sustaining to all who are members of Uppingham School.

(http://www.uppingham.co.uk/)

Rugby

The School is a Christian foundation which encourages spiritual development in the context of rational enquiry. Chapel is at the heart of School life with morning prayers three mornings a week and on Sundays. The School population is held at 800 so that the whole community can regularly meet together. Christians are confirmed every year whilst others choose to worship in their own tradition: whatever the faith of the individual the Chaplaincy plays a key role in the pastoral life of the School. ……
(http://www.rugbyschool.net/school/ethosandvision/)

[[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 11:19, 21 August 2008 (EDT) (Sorry about the mess up with the post a minite ago...bad case of thick thumb syndrome!)

::The 1944 Education Act prescribes a ''daily'' act of communal worship, so Rugby is in breach of the letter of the law, and I think it is safe to assume, in the context of modern British education, that it is in breach of the spirit of it as well. As for Uppingham, it is well known as one of the most Liberal of the British public schools, and even the most Liberal schools have rules of some sort that can be broken. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:45, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Thank you, Bugler, for your insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:56, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly, actually, I wasn't interpreting anything, rather that, because of his very traditional educational background and subsequent expulsion from it, Stephen Fry might not be a good example of "liberal teachings" leading to mental illness. If his education and indeed his traditional social background did have any effect, it might have been what he was rebelling against. Or, of course, he might just have been ill because of other causes. While he might have been influenced by a socialist family member or been seduced by communist newsletters, I maintain that a better example to back up your ideas might be found that includes the subject's liberal formal education. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:59, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Bulger, some consider it somewhat avant garde because it specialises in arts, music and drama, much like Milfield does for sports. And yes, it might possibly be more liberal than say Eton, Harrow or Radley. But even so, it is old-fashioned Anglican Christian, has very strict codes of conduct and school rules, receives pupils from generally conservative establishment families, and maintains a socially conservative pastoral care programme. And when Fry was there, I imagine it to have been more conservative than it is now. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 13:13, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I see that its alumni include - as well as Fry, convicted and incarcerated for cheque fraud - the TV presenter Johnny Vaughan (convicted and gaoled for cocaine dealing) and celebrity chef and notorious adulterer Rick Stein. That pastoral care programme must be working wonders. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:33, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Given that that well known Liberal MP Winston Churchill suffered from the same "mental illness" as Stephen Fry,i.e. depression; that both went to English Public schools, both were the children or grand children of immigrants and both were friends at one time or another with the heir to the English throne I would have to agree that there's something strange going on here. But is it a conservative English education, the proximity to royalty or a combination of biological, psychological and social factors or exposure to a liberal education that predisposes one to depression? Take your pick! [[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 13:43, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Bulger, as was Tim Melville-Ross (former head of CBI and Institute of Directors), Dickson Poon (businessman and non-executive Chairman of Harvey Nichols), Jonathan Agnew (England cricketer and Chief Cricket Correspondent for BBC Radio), Donald Campbell (world water speed record holder, killed on Coniston Water in Bluebird), and Sir Patrick Renison (Governor of Kenya).

::::::Hardly a line-up of liberal scum :) [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 15:50, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
It's also worth mentioning that Stephen Fry's depression is the product of Bipolar disorder which is largely a genetic disease. Environmental factors do play a role, but these factors do not include "liberal education". [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 17:59, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: As a general matter, surely you don't dispute that beliefs, values and/or conduct can exacerbate or alleviate mental problems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:02, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
I do dispute that. I have not heard one argument from an academic that supports that position, and I don't suppose you can provide a reference to any. I'd be much more willing that the old British education system - beatings by the headmaster and all - would be more likely to cause depression and mental illness. If anything, beliefs, values and conduct are a ''product'' or ''expression'' of mental illness, so the real "mystery" would have to be "Does mental illness cause Liberalism?". But I have not heard one noted psychologist argue that liberalism is a result of insanity, rather belief that there is a vast conspiracy against you (and your beliefs) would be an example of a belief caused by mental illness. And before you claim that liberals believe there is a vast conspiracy against them, I'd remind you of views such as "Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by liberal environmentalists" and "99% of scientists are suppressing evidence against evolution" and "liberals are forcing their views on children through the education system" and "liberal government is trying to destroy christianity" and so on. Not saying that anyone here is mentally ill, but that labeling people as such works both ways. [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 23:25, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Why the reversion? ==

The expected rise in dementia and increased funding requirement are due to an expanding geriatric population. Why did you remove that?
--[[User:StanleyB|StanleyB]] 19:51, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: I looked at the article and it doesn't say that. Of course older people tend to have more health problems, but that is not the only or even the primary cause, as far as I can tell from the article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:58, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::These are the quotes from the article which makes it fairly clear the reason for the rise in number of dementia patients:
This latest analysis, however, signals that without sustained funding increases services will come under renewed pressure as numbers of people suffering from mental illness '''increase in line with an expanding and ageing population'''.Conditions such as dementia will be a major driver of demand for mental health services"
"With the number of elderly people expected to increase substantially over the next 20 years,
the incidence and cost of dementia will also rise, putting further strain on
mental health services and budgets."--[[User:StanleyB|StanleyB]] 20:05, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Right, and lung cancer incidence also increases with age. That doesn't diminish other primary causes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:21, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
The points is that you're using the increase in dementia to try and correlate it with an increase in "liberal" education. Yet the increase in dementia is easily explained by professionals as a result of increased old age. Not only does this remove the evidence you're using, but it presents a new problem. If education is more "liberal" then why are we not seeing a greater increase in dementia than we would expect as a result of old age? You then argue that is doesn't "diminish primary causes" which as I explained it clearly does. But more importantly, what are these "primary causes"? You have only asserted causes, rather than referencing experts in the field. For example you say "surely you don't doubt that education exacerbates mental problems". Yet there is not one academic who argues that liberal education does cause mental problems. So the primary cause you are referring to (education) isn't just diminished - it doesn't exist in the first place.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 15:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

: By any chance do you work in the denial department of a tobacco company? Please take a few minutes out your time talking here and search the internet to see all the cites about how mental illness really is increasing, not just due to aging.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:01, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

::Johnny, you didn't clearly ''explain'' it, you merely ''stated'' it. If you want to debate, this is not the right place. Our talk pages are for improving the articles, not for scoring points. Think it over for a week, and if you agree, come back then and help improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:31, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

::sigh... I'm trying to argue for how the article can be improved - for example by introducing at least one source for the central claim of the article, by accepting sources that contradict the claim, and by not including incorrect and unsourced supporting evidence that seem to rely solely on the opinion of the editor. The problem is that people like me who make edits that contradict the views of sysops (through completely justified ways using sources or criticising lack of sources) are accused of vandalism and thus must make an argument in the discussion section to try and get anything done (lest we be banned for vandalism). We then have to argue for an epoch to try and get the most basic factual edits made (see the Atheism discussion page, where several editors have had to teach Conservative simple philosophy to a high school level in an attempt to get the oh so controversial claim that some atheists came to their beliefs through rational enquiry accepted) - and are thus banned for using the discussion section too much. If you want my suggestions for improving the article, I have made them repeatedly. Yet still the article is full of unsourced rubbish, and this is rendered impossible to change due to the catch 22 system of banning described above. You use the edit button and you're banned for not using the discussion button, you use the discussion button and you're banned for not using the edit button.

== Connection ==

You need to connect your premises with your conclusion. Right now it looks like you have a bunch of premises / statistics with no discernible connection to the conclusion: that Liberalism causes mental disorders.

I'll demonstrate:

Medical professionals emphasize that they do not know what causes mental illness.[8] Accordingly, they cannot rule out that liberal indoctrination is a contributing factor.

: The problem here is that you can't, under this framework, rule out /anything/ as the root cause of mental instability, so you must support to some degree that liberalism is threatening to your mental health in some inherent way, which is why you created the following list, though it does not support your conclusion as you thought it would.

Teaching children to accept and believe things that are demonstrably false cannot help mental health. Included in this category are the liberal teachings in school that:

: The problem he is that everything is false and everything is true from the perspective of objective thought: there is a reason why you can't simply talk someone out of a cult or out of Islam, they truly believe what they believe, so there is no reason to assume that (short of believing that there is no gravity and a fall from the empire state building would be fun) holding these notions will cause any actual physical or mental harm. Also, and this has already been pointed out, you have to somehow /verify/ that typical secular (you people seem to oft confuse moderates with liberals and secularism with liberalism) beliefs are demonstrably false.

* lying about the truth, causing belief in falsehoods or encouraging conduct disorders[9]

: Here at first I thought you cited a source, but you only cite a definition. I also have a problem with the bad faith position you take with liberals in this case: yes, they say things that can be argued are incorrect, but they don't intentionally lie about the truth in the broad way you believe.

* there are no real differences between boys and girls

: I think you misunderstand what educators mean when they say this. Educators mean there is not enough of a difference in /potential/ to justify separation based on gender. Indeed, boys score on average higher than girls do in the math and science department, but that is only an average (and would either justify being more rigorous with girls or being easier on boys, you choose which) and not justification for stating that girls are inferior to boys.

* humans are just another type of animal

: Um, we are? This is certainly better than telling them the truth if you're so concerned about this issue: we are dust and nothing more. That is more depressing than noting we are, TECHNICALLY (as in, strictly speaking under the framework of certain systems (see biology)) speaking, animals.

* all there is is what you see

: Where is this taught? Yes, I went to a public high school, but that was NOT in any way a part of the curriculum. I think you mean, and this is a better way to word it, that there is no *mystery* in life that cannot be solved with our own powers of logic and reason. This is a fair critique, but this is not intentional. The only place you see this sort of world view is in a science class, and we don't want religion and science to be married together: you cannot find God with a microscope.

* conversely, that an unproven 'unconscious' excuses evil actions

: You definitely need to cite this and clarify this as well. I think you mean that schools teach that some things aren't entirely our fault, and they are correct. The insane are not held to the same standards of behavior as 'normal' people are, so to say that there is more than we see (somewhat in contradiction with your previous point) is not an unreasonable belief.

* self-inflicted death can somehow be good

:Remove this: it's a total lie unless you can cite a source. What you're talking about exists well beyond political labels: it is a belief that is arrived at on an individual level, not something you can look to your peers for a sufficient answer for.

* denying self-defense, mentally and physically

: Eh? Cite this, and clarify. Radical gun control advocates don't believe in self defense, because they are under a delusional belief that all things may be settled with words even when force is unavoidable. This is not typical education anywhere in the world.

* denying the ability to control sexual desires; promoting lifestyles that lead to mental illness

: You mean homosexuality. I think this is actually a stronger argument than your other points, though it requires citation. Also, 'liberal' education promotes /acceptance/ of these lifestyles, it does not advocate them (though this is harder to discern if you watch TV).

* insisting on an illogical and unjustified "wall of separation of church and state"; classroom prayer would promote mental stability

: Omit the words illogical and unjustified; this begs for a citation and makes assumptions that have not been given foundational support via evidence. Believe it or not, it's good for the world that the state and the church are separate: the state is the ultimate corrupter and defiler of all things, and religion is no exception. Would you really want /politicians/ to tell you what is and is not Christian? Also classroom prayer, under most circumstances is a joke: you take something sacred and you turn it into a silly impersonal ritual. Though that is simply my opinion; it can be argued (see Durkheim) that prayer / strict religious structures add stability to mental health, but you haven't done a good job of saying that.

As to the rest of the article... there are many explanations that, on a scale of reasonableness, explain the recent surge in mental disorder diagnosis. Part of it is that it was not till recently that having a mental disorder was treatable outside of a mental institution, that most mental disorders do not readily appear as such to the untrained eye (bipolar disorder, depression, ect), and the increase in life expectancy. If you want to attribute liberal education as a cause, then you need to to a better job demonstrating that A) education is liberal (exposes and promotes liberal ideals) B) that liberalism is inherently unhealthy and C) that the rise of liberalism corresponds directly to the rise in mental health disorders. This is in no way impossible but is unfortunately not done in this essay. If you would like to know more, I recommend books on sociology; they address this sort of thing more directly than other fields. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 23:02, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

== I could not help but notice ==

that one of today's lead stories here reveals that [[Margaret Thatcher]] has a form of dementia. A mental illness? The same one that [[Ronald Reagan]], [[John Wayne]], [[Barry Goldwater]], and [[Charlton Heston|Chuck Heston]] died with? Hmmmmmmmmm? [[User:Carptrash|Carptrash]] 11:36, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Margaret Thatcher battled the left for all her life. She must have come into contact with their literature and ideas during this struggle - and that must have been what drove her insane.

:So everyone is susceptible to mental illness from "Liberal ideas" because everyone is "exposed" (just like sunlight, air, Conservative ideas, or '''anything else'''), but of course for different reasons. Now your causation doesn't even have meaningful correlation! [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 22:25, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== 89% ==

The 89% of Americans being taught in public schools statistic is mentioned twice in rapid succession, which reads a bit clumsily. I couldn't see an obvious way to only say it once without doing a bit more rewriting of the intro than I think is worth my effort. So someone who cares about this "mystery" might want to take a crack at it. [[User:Human|Human]] 19:39, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness?

2008-09-15T13:53:57Z

Userafw:

==Congratulations==
Andy, well done - a very well-argued essay, and one that will no doubt provoke our Liberal friends into a frenzy of denial. You might care to add that Sweden, the 'poster-boy' nation for many Liberals, has an enormously high suicide rate (and other ultra-Liberal nations likewise). [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:15, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks much, Bugler. I value your opinion and insights very much!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:49, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== An apology ==
I investigated the reference I used to support the idea that some self-deception is healthy and found i tto be not in support of that idea at all! I want to apologize for using the reference, and was on my way to change it when I found the statement had already been removed by Aschlafly, which is a pity, because it's generally accepted by psychologists - I just hadn't found verification for that, yet. For the record, it does seem like a helpful article discussing Palestinian hostility to Israel!
[[User:UlyssesNZ|UlyssesNZ]] 17:54, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks DLerner ==

Thanks for correcting that error. What I meant to say was "[[censoring]] [[classroom prayer]] THAT would promote mental stability." Your fix is fine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:your welcome. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:45, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== The liberal response ==

I will be the first liberal to respond.

Let me begin with what I think the real reason there is a huge rise in dementia. In the last few decades there has been an enormous increase in the consumption of "junk" food. I don't mean just candy and cookies, I mean all processed food; it's loaded with preservatives and chemicals which you normally wouldn't '''think''' of eating, but since it comes in a pretty package with pretty slogans like "99% fat free", we think it's good for you. The [[Obesity|obesity]] epidemic probably also contributes a great deal. For further information, see Eric Schlosser's ''"Fast Food Nation"'' and Morgan Spurlock's ''"Don't Eat this Book"''.[[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:First liberal? What are you doing on Conservapedia? This is not the place for you. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

: '''<Reply>''' I agree that is a problem. However, [[liberal]]s tend to be fatter that [[conservatives]]. What one believes and accepts does affect his ability to keep off the extra pounds. So your observation tends to reinforce the likely correlation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:: Really? Texas had four of the fattest cities in the US a few years ago. Liberals are more into exercise and health food and vegetarianism/veganism, the Bible belt has a '''lot''' of fat people... [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:04, 10 August 2008 (EDT) '''</reply>'''

::I will add my own questiong and responses to ASchlafly's. First, do you have any evidence whatsoever for your statment that liberals tend to be larger than conservatives? and second, are you saying that religious faith keeps you thin? [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

As for the content of the article:

: '''lying about the truth, causing belief in falsehoods or encouraging conduct disorders'''

I think the absurdity of this one speaks for itself. "All liberals (and public schools [except the ones that teach [[Intelligent Design]]]) lie. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Many liberals don't think lying is wrong, and even delight in it. There is a correlation, though certainly not all liberals lie.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Liberals do teach that lying is wrong. In fact, many students are expelled from colleges and high schools across the country for Academic Dishonesty (which may mean plagerism, or simply allowing a friend to cheat) op top of that, not all lies are bad. When my wife was pregnant, I lied constantly, telling her that she wasn't fat, she wasn't short tempered etc... Most lies are wrong of course, but there are many that make life better [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

I discovered this page by random and although I don't really consider myself to be a liberal, this page is a joke. A bad one. It consists of a silly use of a technique that many folks, conservatives and liberals to name a few, use a lot. This is is to make a (frequently bogus) list of what someone else believes in and then rip it apart, tossing in liberal (or conservative?) doses of ridicule and sarcasm. Why not find a list of what liberal say they believe in and then rip that apart? I am ignoring a little voice saying "Don't get into this" but to not do so would seem like a form of lying to me. [[User:Carptrash|Carptrash]] 18:05, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

: Did you happen to notice that the word count on your edit above is "666"? Ridicule will get you ... nowhere. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

::No, his post has 119 words. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 09:44, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

: '''there are no real differences between boys and girls'''

Um, nobody teaches that. I think they teach that they're equal, but a cursory examination of the anatomy reveals '''several''' differences, ''especially'' in the reproductive/waste disposal organs. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You're ducking the obvious point here. Think girls can excel in math as well as boys can? Liberals teach they can, which is teaching a falsehood.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Can girls excel? Of course they can... There have been women who have succeeded in every major field of science. Research shows that men typically have higher scores in Math and Science, while women do better in English and Social Studies, but just as there have many famous male writers and historians, there are dozens if not hundreds of female mathematicians and scientists who have made lasting contributions to the field. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
::::And yet they still compete seperatly in sports, because it would be unfair otherwise. Women were created to be the primary caregivers. That is why they have breasts, and men havn't. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

: '''humans are just another type of animal'''

As opposed to .... what? I think humans are another type of [[Mammal|mammal]], and the only way we can actually elevate ourselves is through our actions. Get your genome sequenced and you'll see how close to animals you really are. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Teach your belief and you'll contribute to some mental disorders as kids struggle with your view that they are mere animals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I have never seen any student struggle with the view that they are merely animals. Students develop mental disordered for a variety of reasons, many unknown to science. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
::::If you cut me, I will bleed - but only a liberal would use that to argue I am the same as a rat. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]
:::::''No one'' uses that to argue that you are the ''same'' as a rat- of course you aren't. But a circulatory system is something that you share in common with one, along with a great many other features. Humans are of course (well, for all we know anyway) capable of much more advanced thought than other animals- you can be comfortable with that assertion. But being an animal '''does not''' mean you '''are''' a rat, or a dove, or a louse, or a monkey, or whatever- you are human- it's just a matter of classification. If you're offended by being categorized as an animal, then by definition you must be offended by the claims that your cells contain a nucleus, you are composed of more than one cell, you don't produce your own food internally and don't have cell walls. So which is it? Animal '''by definition''' refers to eukaryotic, multicellular heterotrophs that lack a cell wall. Humans fit all four criteria. Incidentally, so does a rat. That's not a "belief"- it's an eminently verifiable fact (look at a skin cell under a microscope and at the food in your refrigerator), but it doesn't follow by any means that humans and rats are the same.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 00:06, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''all there is is what you see'''

Not true, we teach about [[Bacteria|bacteria]] too small for the naked eye to see. Also about atoms, yes, atoms. (The early church used to suppress any information atoms and/or the writings of Epicures, were ''they'' responsible for mental illness? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You duck the obvious point again, so no response to your comment is warranted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I fail to see how Dlearner was ducking the point. All there is is what you see is an incredibly broad statment that can be taken many ways. I'm assuming you mean that Liberals teach there is no greater power (Ie, you can't see a god, so there must not be one) but that is problematic as well. If one were to truly assume that if they don't see it, it doesn't exist (something I have never heard anyone say) then many established practices and principles of science would not work in their world (Ie X-rays) [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''death can somehow be good'''

We don't teach that. What I think you mean is that death is inevitable and is in fact a part of life. All that lives must die, therefore, death should not be feared. People in pain and suffering from long debilitating illness welcome death, and as adults we must realize this. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Liberals do teach that death can be good. Ever read the leading liberal work in school called "Of Mice and Men"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I respond to this with a question. When someone dies after a long bout with a terminal disease and their family says I'm glad the suffering is over, they've gone home to god. Is that not a good thing? Christian teaching naturally brings about the idea that death can be good, as it allows one to return to their creator [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I have to argue the point on that one, Andy, for two reasons.. First, ''Of Mice and Men'' (italicized or underlined, please--it's a full-length work, not a short story) has a number of liberal themes, but it hardly teaches that death is good. There's nothing good or positive about Lenny's death. If anything, it teaches that the world can be a harsh and unforgiving place, and that the death of innocents is tragic, but sometimes inevitable.

:::Second, as a Christian, I strongly question the notion that "Death can be good" is a liberal idea. My Grandfather suffered terribly from cancer; when he passed, we took comfort in the knowledge that he was no longer in pain, and was at peace with Christ. How is that not a good thing? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:58, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

::"self-inflicted death can somehow be good"--- So where exactly did you get the idea that public schools teach that suicide is an acceptable way to solve problems? Because they simply do not. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 20:59, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''denying self-defense, mentally and physically'''

Codswallop. We don't teach that. Self-defense is great! הבא להרגך, השכם להרגו (Trans: "If somebody comes to kill you, stand up and kill him first. ''Talmud'') [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Liberals don't teach the Talmud. Instead, they teach gun control and favor prosecuting for murder people who hold their ground in self-defense, as in [[Bernard Goetz]].

As far as I know (always worth double-checking) Goetz killed no one and not even the most liberal knucklehead wanted him prosecuted for murder.
To me this line of argument reeks of "'''lying about the truth, causing belief in falsehoods'''"

:::I'm a very strong liberal, and I have no issues with self defense, in fact, I have a 12 guage shotgun by my bed that I will have no trouble using for just that purpose if someone threatens my family. On top of that, I plan on enrolling my son in Judo the moment he's old enough to understand the responsibility that comes with it. Can you please show any liberal that has ever advocated killing those who defend themselves? [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''denying the ability to control sexual desires; promoting lifestyles that lead to mental illness'''

Perhaps you didn't know that even liberals teach [[Abstinence|abstinence]]. (deleted non-family-friendly rant - can't liberals refrain?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT))

:: Liberals oppose teaching abstinence or funding abstinence education.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Again, not true. Liberals (such as myself) are against teaching abstinence '''ONLY''' Sex education because the fact remains, it's not working. Pregnancy rates among teenagers drop sharpest when they're taught a combination of abstinence and contraception. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
::::Andrew, why was my so-called "rant" not family-friendly, because I spoke about Onanism? (I suppose a family-friendly word)? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::That's because all liberals want is sex, sex, sex. They never got over the 60's "free love" thing. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]
: '''insisting on an illogical and unjustified "wall of separation of church and state"; classroom prayer would promote mental stability'''

Separation of church and state is logical and justified. (This is coming from a very religious person, so listen up). I don't your religion -whatever the majority of Christians in that state are- being forced on my Jewish kids, THAT is the logic. The justification. Andrew, I see you are working on history lectures, read through history about the times there wasn't a separation between church and state; what do you get? The [[Spanish Inquisition|inquisition]] comes to mind. Personally, I prefer separation of church and state to the ''auto de fe'' any day. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You may be religious yourself but censoring classroom prayer by others is not helpful to them or you. A wall of separation of church and state is baseless, illogical and impossible. It's a contradiction except in a totalitarian atmosphere that imposes censorship.

'''classroom prayer would promote mental stability''' Says who? Maybe you should add [[Conservapedia:Commandments|[Citation Needed]]]?

:: I'm sure lots of studies confirm that prayer is good for mental health. Have you looked yet? It's obvious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

::: What's the point of studies if you already know the answer? "I'm sure lots of studies confirm" isn't backing up a claim. Have ''you'' looked yet? [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 10:59, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Mr. Schlafly, I'm new to this site, so I don't quite know your feelings, so let me ask upfront. Do you support teacher led prayer or more of a moment of silence for personal prayer and reflection. Until I know this, I can't really repond in a meaningful way. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Once again another "fine" piece of work...

[[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:43, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion ==

Obviously the person suffering from mental illness does not have to admit a correlation in order for a correlation to exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:27, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

== Offensive to mental health sufferers and mental health professionals ==

This is a hateful piece of propaganda, & particularly offensive to anybody suffering with a mental illness, as well as anybody working within the field of mental health. To say that medical professionals have no idea what causes mental illness is ridiculous. There has been over a century of study and treatment of mental illness using scientific methods and findings; not superstition, idle conjecture and anecdotal evidence. Mental illnesses occur in all the world's cultures, regardless of ideology, and you will not find a qualified psychologist who has published any theory that they are caused by "liberal teachings". [[User:BeReasonable|BeReasonable]] 08:35, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:You are suffering from that well-documented delusion [[Liberal denial]], BeReasonable. Try to live up to your name. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:38, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

: Well put, Bugler. As to User "BeReasonable" (note his silly name and how is is not reasonable at all), he challenges a well-supported statement that mental health professions do not know the cause of mental illness. Then he tries to censor an inquiry here into possible causes. He typifies the kind of logical contradiction pushed so often by liberals. Fortunately, we'll continue searching for the truth here despite efforts by liberals to censor it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:41, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
::That mental health professionals do not know the causes of mental health is not at all well supported. The [http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/06/13/10-myths-of-mental-illness/ cited source] says that ''at a neurological level'' mental illness cannot be identified to one cause - I.E. it is not caused by just one thing going on in the brain. If you read the next paragraph, it goes on to say that mental illness is caused by a blend of genetic, psychological and environmental factors. I have no interest in "censoring" inquiries into why mental health occurs. There are already thousands of trained professionals around the world engaged in such studies. And if you are genuinely interested in the subject, there are hundreds of books you can read. As I have said, I do not think you will find any experts in the subject agreeing with your suggestion that liberalism causes mental illness. However, I do not recommend further reading on the subject, rather than plucking anecdotal examples of correlation. [[User:BeReasonable|BeReasonable]] 08:56, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Teaching liberal beliefs would qualify as a "psychological" and/or "environmental" factor that could cause mental illness. That you dismiss this possible cause out of hand, and even attempt to censor it, illustrates the illogical, self-contradictory approach taken by liberals. Yes, imposing contradictions and falsehoods on others could be bad for their mental health. Surely you don't doubt that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:01, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
I disagree that schools teach the belief that suicide can somehow be good. This is taught by misguided peers, not educators. Suicide is actively discouraged, even in the most liberal settings. A possible exception might be jihad schools, which are known to be ultra-fundamentalist radical Islam. Also, if classroom prayer promoted mental stability, why is it that those who pray alone by choice are just as vulnerable to mental illness? I myself always prayed silently before meals, but yet was diagnosed as bipolar. As has been the case with many with the illness, its onset was in college.[[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 15:45, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

: Praying silently to one's self, and only before meals, can be nearly inconsequential. The real benefit is from public prayer in churches, classrooms, meetings, etc.

: Judging by your other postings, I think you've taken in liberal ideology and that does have consequences. There's no real concept of self-defense, which is essential to fend off mental problems; there's a degradation of the view of humans to the point of where they mean little more than dogs, and that affects self-esteem; and there's no emphasis on self-help, which hurts further. In fact, the list is quite long for how liberal ideology leads to mental illness. Wake up to it while you still can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:33, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::Can you expand on why you feel that praying silently to one's self can be "nearly inconsequential", and that the real benefit is in public prayer? That seems to contradict Matthew 6, but I want to understand your views on this better. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 23:37, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
::I am surprised you assume that I was "only" praying before meals. In college, I went to a Christian University where Chapel attendance was mandatory and group prayer was encouraged, but it did not stop mental illness from developing in college. I did develop some liberal ideas, but that was after I developed mental illness, not before. I was raised Christian, and was into Wicca for awhile, which primarily benefitted me by emphasizing personal responsibility and choice for my own actions, rather than blaming evil and Satan for everything that went wrong. I did go to a public high school, and the teachers there did not teach many of the things that this article claims they teach. These "secular liberal teachings" seem to me to be the product of peer teachings, not educator teachings. [[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 09:53, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
== Causation fail ==

Aschlafly,

I discovered Conservapedia recently, and this "essay" is my first exposure to the philosophy of the site. Needless to say, I'm not impressed. Quite apart from ideology, your statement, "Medical professionals emphasize that they do not know what causes mental illness.[6] Accordingly, they cannot rule out that liberal indoctrination is a contributing factor," is massively flawed.

That one cannot rule out something as a contributing factor is not sufficient evidence for causality; it's even weaker and more flawed than arguing that correlation equals causation. I'm holding a fountain pen right now. There are no tigers nearby. You can't rule out the possibility that the fountain pen keeps the tigers away. Would you like my Fountain Pen of Tiger Ward? Yours for $1,000.

My point is that, by your argument, anything at all could be the "cause" of mental illness. If you're going to argue that liberalism causes it, from such scant evidence, it's clear that you're more after an agenda than the truth, and that should be made clear, or better evidence of causation should be found.

I see you're a lawyer of some kind. I expect better of legal professionals than to find causation in the most tenuous of links... unless they're being paid to do that, of course :). In which case, I still wouldn't be happy if this was the best you could do for money.-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]] 09:12, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

: Your reasoning as is illogical as that of the (silly) "BeReasonable". The inability to rule out liberal teaching as a contributing cause of mental illness weighs in favor of further inquiry of it as a possible cause, and weighs against the censorship of such inquiry as attempted by liberals here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:21, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
::It weighs no more in favor of "further inquiry" than does the fact that mental health professionals can't rule out exposure to, say, Conservapedia! If your point is to illuminate potential causes for mental illness, focus on those that (1) can't be ruled out, and (2) have some AFFIRMATIVE proof. Because the simple lack of negative proof makes the whole world a causal factor!-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]] 09:23, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Also, "censorship"? I don't think that word means what you think it means. "Censorship" implies redaction of information by the state or a power. I'm just questioning your logic. Debate is not censorship.-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]] 09:24, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: Again, you're not making sense. I explained the significance of not ruling out liberal teaching as a cause of mental illness. It warrants further inquiry and evidence, and the entry here provides lots of additional reasons why liberal teaching is likely a cause of mental illness. If public schools forced kids to receive indoctrination other than liberal falsehoods every day, and 20% were becoming mentally ill afterwards, then it would be fine with me to look at the other indoctrination also. But it is liberal teaching that is being force-fed kids in school, not something else. As to [[censorship]], your definition is far too narrow. Censorship can also result from intimidation or name-calling, as you see above as "BeReasonable" tried to shut down this inquiry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:44, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I'm not trying to shut down the inquiry. I'm just saying you're wrong. What about blocking users for asking questions? Does ''that'' shut down the inquiry?
:::::I see you're not going to understand the problem behind singling out one cause among a million environmental causes. That's fine. It does, however, suggest "inquiry bias." Moving on.
:::::Have you considered the possible rise in diagnosis as a reason for the increase in mental conditions? It only recently became acceptable & treatable to have a mental illness. Only reasonable to suggest, then, that diagnoses would climb.-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]]

== Correlation does not imply causation. And even if it did... ==

''The USA (2/3 conservative by some surveys which have been quoted in criticizing wikipedia's disproportionate liberal voice) has some of the highest murder rates in the world - 5 to 10 per 100000. Europe and Australasia (both liberal and secular by comparison to the USA) have much lower murder rates. Officially atheist China reports a lower rate still. Clearly, conservativism is correlated with high murder rates.''
Of course this is a rubbish argument, for two reasons: 
- Correlation does not imply causation. There could be a number of reasons for a correlation between conservativism and high murder rates. Perhaps more conservative nations have stricter laws about their definition of 'murder'; the more liberal nations more often call it 'manslaughter', making their figures look lower. There are many many possible reasons. 
- The brief survey I've done here, even assuming the figures are correct, hardly counts even as 'correlation' when it comes to statistical science. In order for you to even say that a correlation exists in this example, we need a consistent measure of 'conservativism', and we need to include all relevant countries, not just hand pick several which happen to illustrate the point. Then we should graph them all and see how closely conservativism is matched with murder rates. Only then could we even claim that there is an undisputable correlation.

The USA does have a lot of liberal viewpoints, but then compared to Europe and Australasia it's very conservative in many ways - for instance, in New Zealand, few ever even debate whether abortion should be legal. Yet Europe and Australasia have lower levels of depression than the USA, according to the article cited. This should count as evidence against the hypothesis that correlation between mental illness and liberalism even exists. It's also a very poor way to measure mental illness as depression is only one (and one of the MORE spurious, debatable ones at that) of a whole range of mental illnesses recognized by modern psychology.
Finally, like my analogy of murder rates and conservativism, in order to draw even a correlation we need to see more than several countries' match of liberalism and high mental illness rates.

[[User:UlyssesNZ|UlyssesNZ]] 17:38, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: The argument is based primarily on logic: teach people contradictions, deprive them of prayer, force them to believe they are mere animals like dogs who will die as dogs do, and you're going to get mental illness as a result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:50, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't disagree with your conclusion - it's just that your premises as given in the article do not give it any support! You may like to read this article discussing the link between good mental health and religiousity: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10520234&pnum=0 --[[User:UlyssesNZ|UlyssesNZ]] 17:56, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion of edits ==

I see my edits as perfectly justified. Perhaps Andy would like to give reason for his reversions (btw, liberal claptrap is not a reason, but an accusation).

:::Again, I would like to know why my edits are being reverted. No reason has been given (I gave my reasoning in edit summaries, if you'd like me to clarify please ask). Perhaps sysops are exempt from the whole "provide sources, promote true and verifiable claims" thingy. I mean there aren't any sources on the page so far that suggest to any extent that liberalism causes mental illness. As for liberalism not being ruled out as a reason for mental illness, I justifiably added that neither has conservatism (or driving your car, or going for a jog, or reading hardback books). So please provide your counterpoints ASchlafy or I will make the edits again. [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 14:48, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

::: The reasons should be obvious. Liberal teachings dominate public schools, not conservative teachings. In fact, there is very little conservative teachings anywhere - people have to find it on their own. Hopefully you will too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:03, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Firstly you didn't rule out the other causes for mental illness, i.e driving a car, going for a jog, reading hardback books. Presumably as these have not been ruled out we need perhaps entire articles on whether they cause mental illness. Secondly the fact that liberalism is dominant in schools and mental illness has increased therefore liberalism causes mental illnesses has as much merit as saying the USA has become richer and mental illness has increased therefore... Thirdly conservatism has not been ruled out as a cause of mental illness by saying it's not taught much. Fourthly your hypothesis is clearly untestable because as you state there are "very little conservative teachings anywhere". You also need to present reasoning as to why the Stephen Fry thing is relevant.

: When someone has a stomach ache, the first suspect is the food he ate. When someone has a mental problem, the first suspect is what he was taught, and that is liberal. Your alternative hypotheses make as little sense as suspecting that the weather caused someone's stomach ache rather than what he just ate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:05, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
: That's begging the question. You're just asserting that the prime cause for mental problems is an education, and as education is liberal, therefore liberalism causes mental problems - but whether school education causes mental problems is the point of contention! The vast majority of psychologists have pointed to other causes of mental illnesses (and as I stated, you have yet to provide a reference to a qualified academic who does claim school education causes mental illness) such as abuse as a child, extreme problems in social interaction and recently, genetics. I will restate my point, the fact that your school education has not been dismissed as a cause of mental disorder is as relevant as saying the fact that you drive a car has not been dismissed as a cause of mental disorders. [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 17:33, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, recent consumption is commonly the culprit is stomach aches, but not the only possible cause. Stomach pains could also be due hunger, infection, a punch in the gut, receiving some very bad news, overexertion, dehydration, severe vomiting, muscle spasms due to envenomation, or even presumably a side effect of some type of allergic reaction. It's a case-by-case thing- suspecting the weather as the culprit does make sense if that person was just struck by lightning- you can't just dismiss it outright. Therefore there are multiple possible causes. While it is not unreasonable to assume that food is generally the most like cause, this logic does not translate to mental illness and education. As has been pointed out, you fail to back up your claims with any outside sources- where are the experts (those that actually study and treat mental illness) saying that education is the prime cause? To reiterate a previous point, what about family history, socioeconomic status, past negative experiences, environmental toxins- those factors that actually have been shown to influence the development of mental illness? And simply dismissing JohnyGoodman's "alternative hypotheses" doesn't work either- there is a mathematical correlation between increasing mental illness rates and number of licensed drivers. In addition, most cases of mental illness occur in individuals who are over the minimum driving age. Thus drivers have a higher risk of mental illness (obviously due to the stress of the road, maintaining a vehicle, and let's not forget the DMV) and increasing numbers of drivers increase the national burden. That's at least the same degree of correlation as the education claim. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 10:59, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Well it would be polite to receive some kind of response to our points, even if its going to be "liberal claptrap" as usual. I honestly don't see why such edits as already made aren't allowed to take place.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 11:29, 18 August 2008 (EDT)]#
:I laugh when I read you laying down the law about what is and what isn't polite, not to mention prejudging the response you might get in an insulting manner! Though, in fairness, you are correct in your prediction (thus displaying a level of self-awareness rare in [[Liberals]]. Claptrap is a polite description of your outpourings, and you are not in a position to demand attention in such an arrogant fashion. Try and amend your behaviour in future, or you may find that Conservapedia is not the place for you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:34, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
::Okay, let's pause and consider that if you read a post expecting it to be hostile, you will inevitably find it offensive regardless of how innocuous the wording is. Emotion is most effectively conveyed visually and through speech, not written text- thus there are limits to determining attitude. As such, a reader can easily introduce hostility where none was intended. Second, "it would be polite to receive some sort of response" doesn't qualify as "laying down the law". And precisely what was hostile and arrogant about asking for a response? I'm not being confrontational or sarcastic about this- I'm honestly curious. Commentators here often find insult in the most innocuous wording and I would like to know which part of JohnyGoodman's comment was to blame so it can be avoided in the future. Most importantly, if you perceive insult, explain it- don't accuse the offending party of being arrogant or to "amend their behaviour". Meeting perceived hostility with aggression only exacerbates the situation and reduces - or removes- the quality of the discussion. In addition, it denigrates the discussion when detailed responses are dismissed as "liberal claptrap" with a wave of the hand without addressing the post itself. In this case, "liberal" has been used simply as name-calling against anyone who does not agree about a given point. The driving example was used only to demonstrate the inadequacy of the "causation from correlation" and "gap theory" approaches that have been used- without any further reasoning- to justify the claim of this page. The logic is precisely the same. If you disagree, please explain- that's what the discussion is for. You're welcome to do so. Really. I would be interested to read it. But simply saying "you're arrogant, offensive and wrong" does a disservice to the very idea of open dialog and accomplishes nothing. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 16:53, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
Perhaps Bugler would like to shed light on this "claptrap". Presumably he has a reference to a noted academic who supports the thesis proposed here. Or perhaps he accepts that the "liberalism causes mental illness" theory should be considered just as the "hardback books cause mental illness" theory should be considered. Perhaps he has a wealth of evidence that proves that psychologists have been wrong all this time when arguing that "family history, socioeconomic status, past negative experiences and environmental toxins" are the real, documented causes of mental illness. Or, as I suspect, he is content with merely throwing words like "liberal" and "arrogant" around rather than arguing a case.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 17:35, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
::Bugler just reverted my edits to add factual context and supporting statements to those which are obviously controversial on this talk page. All I did was add the <nowiki>{{facts}}</nowiki> template to those statements supposedly taught at schools, and was "rewarded" with complaints of "vandalism". I would like to see supporting evidence showing that those statements are indeed taught by educators, as opposed to clueless peers. These peers are just as present and teach just the same things in Christian and Catholic schools (so I hear from comparing notes with graduates of those schools), inside AND OUTSIDE of school. Trying to keep negative peer teachings out is kind of like trying to keep kids from smoking in or out of school. Some clueless idiots will often find a way to do it, including disabling smoke alarms, or cutting class and wandering across the street. [[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 19:37, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

== Stephen Fry==

Just for the record, Stephen Fry went to several "Public" i.e. non state schools for his education. (These, I guess, would be the equivalent of "private" i.e. fee paying schools in the USA and are in no way connected with the UK state school system.) If I understand it correctly, having been to part of Rugby school myself many years ago, Uppingham school, where Mr Fry went for the majority of his adolescent schooling, offers a ciriculum based firmly on Chirstianity and would be anything but "Liberal" - in any sense of the word. No sure how this squares with him then suffering from depression in later life. [[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 11:01, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

: I doubt private schools in the [[U.K.]] are "based firmly on Christianity." Rather, I'm confident that the private schools in the [[U.K.]] are as [[leftist]] as public schools in the [[U.S.]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:56, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::As an old boy of another well-known British "Public School", Wellington College, I must respectfully undermine your confidence. In the case of Stephen Fry, he went to Uppingham School, which is one of the old traditional public schools founded in the 16th Century by a Bishop. While most of these schools are no longer religiously sponsored, they are in the majority firmly wedded to Christianity with their own chapels and vicars and are renown for being bastions of conservatism in a comparatively liberal British education system. I myself was confirmed at Wellington which was normal practice for all pupils at the school and Sunday chapel was compulsory (unless you were one of the few non-Church of England pupils in which case compulsory alternative worship was organised at a local Catholic church or whatever).

::Besides, I'm not sure that Stephen Fry is a good example of what you are trying to demonstrate. He was, after all, expelled from the school when he was fifteen and subsequently expelled from another. His behaviour went against the rules of those schools so the cause does not appear to have been liberal teaching up to that point. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:01, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::: You are construing "liberal teachings" too literally, and I've noticed that liberals are often overly literal in their approach. The concept of "teachings" is not confined to school. If Fry was expelled from school as a teenager as you say, then he simply picked up "teachings" from somewhere else, such as liberal newspapers and books. The comments above do not in any way undermine use of his example, as there is no doubt that Fry fully embraced liberal teachings in its full sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:02, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::While I agree that what somewhat is taught is not limited to the classroom, the reason for referring to his schooling in particular is that the article points heavily to public schools. In fact, the list that is provided specifically refers to "teachings in school". Thus interpreting the Stephen Fry example in the context of school is not "overly literal", as doing so is within the context of the rest of the page. If you do not mean to focus the discussion on schools alone, the article should be expanded to encompass the other avenues you pointed out. As for Fry, giving an example of a single individual who was both liberal and had mental illness does not add substance to the article (nor does discussing it accomplish anything). As has been discussed elsewhere on this page, there are a great many established factors that can contribute to mental illness. Knowing nothing about his early clinical and emotional history precludes any judgment either way. To use the stomach ache analogy, if someone gets bad stomach cramps and has peanut allergies, it doesn't necessarily follow that the latter caused the former- maybe, maybe not. Having the doctor remind them not to eat peanuts without asking what they actually had been eating fails to diagnose the problem. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 10:31, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::: There may well be other factors causing mental illness, but it's sheer folly to deny that teachings are a factor. Once you accept that, it's silly to think that all ideological teachings have the same effects, and there is no reason to think they would all be equal in influence on mental health.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:35, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::I never said teachings couldn't be a factor. It is certainly possible that some are. The problem here is that you focus specifically on one kind, which is a wildly exaggerated and inaccurate description of the typical American public school. Another problem is that while I agree that "there is no reason to think [ideological teachings] would all be equal in influence on mental health", the article is about teachings ''causing'' mental illness. As JamalG alludes to below, ''influence'' and ''cause'' are not synonymous. If someone was taught as you outlined (which, again, is simply false regarding typical public schools), they will probably emerge as less-than-upstanding citizens, to say the least, but that doesn't constitute "illness". On the other hand, they may well develop bona-fide mental illness if they are also abused at home, or are outcasts among their peers, etc. In that respect, you could improve the validity of your claim by discussing influences rather than trying to outline a single ''cause'' by providing an exaggerated list. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 19:21, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::In Pyschology today we use what is known as the BioPsychoSocial approach. In essence, it means that when diagnosing a problem, the Pyschologist should take into account their Biographical information (Genetic History, brain function and such) They're Psychological information (thinking abilities, emotions, and motivations) and the Social information (Family, Ethnicity, Social Class). What you have done is completely ignore two of the three to focus solely on the so called Liberal teachings. If your argument is true, why in mental illness still relatively rare. Millions of people in the united states and the world have come from these dangerous liberal schools, yet merely a few hundred thousand are diagnosed with serious mental illness. You seem to be working backwards from your conclusion to find links. [[User:JamalG|Jamal Greene]] 11:04, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Just to put the record straight, since there appears to be some misunderstanding about the type of schools that English “Public “ schools are and in particular about the school Mr Fry attended, the following extracts from two “Public “ school websites might be of interest and will, hopefully, clear up any confusion which American readers might have about the role religion in general, and Christianity in particular, plays in the life of anyone attending English “Public” schools:

Uppingham
A typical day starts with breakfast in the House, followed by, most mornings, a brief assembly in Chapel for the whole school, which is either an act of corporate worship, or a talk or presentation by a member of staff………..On Sunday there is normally a Chapel service in the morning…………
Spiritual Life

Uppingham is a Christian Foundation. That was the intention of Uppingham's Founder, Archdeacon Robert Johnson in 1584, and it remains the policy of the School today. In worship, in our relationships and in its teaching the School, is committed to the expression of the Christian Faith, both explicitly in Chapel and the classroom, and implicitly in our life together. Some Uppinghamians are members of other faiths and every consideration is given to their needs, but parents and intending students should bear in mind that all attend services in Chapel on Sundays and on some weekdays. In fact, we meet four times a week in Chapel for a service. The consequent sense of belonging to a community is, we believe, enormously worthwhile, important, and sustaining to all who are members of Uppingham School.

(http://www.uppingham.co.uk/)

Rugby

The School is a Christian foundation which encourages spiritual development in the context of rational enquiry. Chapel is at the heart of School life with morning prayers three mornings a week and on Sundays. The School population is held at 800 so that the whole community can regularly meet together. Christians are confirmed every year whilst others choose to worship in their own tradition: whatever the faith of the individual the Chaplaincy plays a key role in the pastoral life of the School. ……
(http://www.rugbyschool.net/school/ethosandvision/)

[[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 11:19, 21 August 2008 (EDT) (Sorry about the mess up with the post a minite ago...bad case of thick thumb syndrome!)

::The 1944 Education Act prescribes a ''daily'' act of communal worship, so Rugby is in breach of the letter of the law, and I think it is safe to assume, in the context of modern British education, that it is in breach of the spirit of it as well. As for Uppingham, it is well known as one of the most Liberal of the British public schools, and even the most Liberal schools have rules of some sort that can be broken. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:45, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Thank you, Bugler, for your insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:56, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly, actually, I wasn't interpreting anything, rather that, because of his very traditional educational background and subsequent expulsion from it, Stephen Fry might not be a good example of "liberal teachings" leading to mental illness. If his education and indeed his traditional social background did have any effect, it might have been what he was rebelling against. Or, of course, he might just have been ill because of other causes. While he might have been influenced by a socialist family member or been seduced by communist newsletters, I maintain that a better example to back up your ideas might be found that includes the subject's liberal formal education. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:59, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Bulger, some consider it somewhat avant garde because it specialises in arts, music and drama, much like Milfield does for sports. And yes, it might possibly be more liberal than say Eton, Harrow or Radley. But even so, it is old-fashioned Anglican Christian, has very strict codes of conduct and school rules, receives pupils from generally conservative establishment families, and maintains a socially conservative pastoral care programme. And when Fry was there, I imagine it to have been more conservative than it is now. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 13:13, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I see that its alumni include - as well as Fry, convicted and incarcerated for cheque fraud - the TV presenter Johnny Vaughan (convicted and gaoled for cocaine dealing) and celebrity chef and notorious adulterer Rick Stein. That pastoral care programme must be working wonders. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:33, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Given that that well known Liberal MP Winston Churchill suffered from the same "mental illness" as Stephen Fry,i.e. depression; that both went to English Public schools, both were the children or grand children of immigrants and both were friends at one time or another with the heir to the English throne I would have to agree that there's something strange going on here. But is it a conservative English education, the proximity to royalty or a combination of biological, psychological and social factors or exposure to a liberal education that predisposes one to depression? Take your pick! [[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 13:43, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Bulger, as was Tim Melville-Ross (former head of CBI and Institute of Directors), Dickson Poon (businessman and non-executive Chairman of Harvey Nichols), Jonathan Agnew (England cricketer and Chief Cricket Correspondent for BBC Radio), Donald Campbell (world water speed record holder, killed on Coniston Water in Bluebird), and Sir Patrick Renison (Governor of Kenya).

::::::Hardly a line-up of liberal scum :) [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 15:50, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
It's also worth mentioning that Stephen Fry's depression is the product of Bipolar disorder which is largely a genetic disease. Environmental factors do play a role, but these factors do not include "liberal education". [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 17:59, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: As a general matter, surely you don't dispute that beliefs, values and/or conduct can exacerbate or alleviate mental problems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:02, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
I do dispute that. I have not heard one argument from an academic that supports that position, and I don't suppose you can provide a reference to any. I'd be much more willing that the old British education system - beatings by the headmaster and all - would be more likely to cause depression and mental illness. If anything, beliefs, values and conduct are a ''product'' or ''expression'' of mental illness, so the real "mystery" would have to be "Does mental illness cause Liberalism?". But I have not heard one noted psychologist argue that liberalism is a result of insanity, rather belief that there is a vast conspiracy against you (and your beliefs) would be an example of a belief caused by mental illness. And before you claim that liberals believe there is a vast conspiracy against them, I'd remind you of views such as "Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by liberal environmentalists" and "99% of scientists are suppressing evidence against evolution" and "liberals are forcing their views on children through the education system" and "liberal government is trying to destroy christianity" and so on. Not saying that anyone here is mentally ill, but that labeling people as such works both ways. [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 23:25, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Why the reversion? ==

The expected rise in dementia and increased funding requirement are due to an expanding geriatric population. Why did you remove that?
--[[User:StanleyB|StanleyB]] 19:51, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: I looked at the article and it doesn't say that. Of course older people tend to have more health problems, but that is not the only or even the primary cause, as far as I can tell from the article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:58, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::These are the quotes from the article which makes it fairly clear the reason for the rise in number of dementia patients:
This latest analysis, however, signals that without sustained funding increases services will come under renewed pressure as numbers of people suffering from mental illness '''increase in line with an expanding and ageing population'''.Conditions such as dementia will be a major driver of demand for mental health services"
"With the number of elderly people expected to increase substantially over the next 20 years,
the incidence and cost of dementia will also rise, putting further strain on
mental health services and budgets."--[[User:StanleyB|StanleyB]] 20:05, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Right, and lung cancer incidence also increases with age. That doesn't diminish other primary causes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:21, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
The points is that you're using the increase in dementia to try and correlate it with an increase in "liberal" education. Yet the increase in dementia is easily explained by professionals as a result of increased old age. Not only does this remove the evidence you're using, but it presents a new problem. If education is more "liberal" then why are we not seeing a greater increase in dementia than we would expect as a result of old age? You then argue that is doesn't "diminish primary causes" which as I explained it clearly does. But more importantly, what are these "primary causes"? You have only asserted causes, rather than referencing experts in the field. For example you say "surely you don't doubt that education exacerbates mental problems". Yet there is not one academic who argues that liberal education does cause mental problems. So the primary cause you are referring to (education) isn't just diminished - it doesn't exist in the first place.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 15:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

: By any chance do you work in the denial department of a tobacco company? Please take a few minutes out your time talking here and search the internet to see all the cites about how mental illness really is increasing, not just due to aging.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:01, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

::Johnny, you didn't clearly ''explain'' it, you merely ''stated'' it. If you want to debate, this is not the right place. Our talk pages are for improving the articles, not for scoring points. Think it over for a week, and if you agree, come back then and help improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:31, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

::sigh... I'm trying to argue for how the article can be improved - for example by introducing at least one source for the central claim of the article, by accepting sources that contradict the claim, and by not including incorrect and unsourced supporting evidence that seem to rely solely on the opinion of the editor. The problem is that people like me who make edits that contradict the views of sysops (through completely justified ways using sources or criticising lack of sources) are accused of vandalism and thus must make an argument in the discussion section to try and get anything done (lest we be banned for vandalism). We then have to argue for an epoch to try and get the most basic factual edits made (see the Atheism discussion page, where several editors have had to teach Conservative simple philosophy to a high school level in an attempt to get the oh so controversial claim that some atheists came to their beliefs through rational enquiry accepted) - and are thus banned for using the discussion section too much. If you want my suggestions for improving the article, I have made them repeatedly. Yet still the article is full of unsourced rubbish, and this is rendered impossible to change due to the catch 22 system of banning described above. You use the edit button and you're banned for not using the discussion button, you use the discussion button and you're banned for not using the edit button.

== Connection ==

You need to connect your premises with your conclusion. Right now it looks like you have a bunch of premises / statistics with no discernible connection to the conclusion: that Liberalism causes mental disorders.

I'll demonstrate:

Medical professionals emphasize that they do not know what causes mental illness.[8] Accordingly, they cannot rule out that liberal indoctrination is a contributing factor.

: The problem here is that you can't, under this framework, rule out /anything/ as the root cause of mental instability, so you must support to some degree that liberalism is threatening to your mental health in some inherent way, which is why you created the following list, though it does not support your conclusion as you thought it would.

Teaching children to accept and believe things that are demonstrably false cannot help mental health. Included in this category are the liberal teachings in school that:

: The problem he is that everything is false and everything is true from the perspective of objective thought: there is a reason why you can't simply talk someone out of a cult or out of Islam, they truly believe what they believe, so there is no reason to assume that (short of believing that there is no gravity and a fall from the empire state building would be fun) holding these notions will cause any actual physical or mental harm. Also, and this has already been pointed out, you have to somehow /verify/ that typical secular (you people seem to oft confuse moderates with liberals and secularism with liberalism) beliefs are demonstrably false.

* lying about the truth, causing belief in falsehoods or encouraging conduct disorders[9]

: Here at first I thought you cited a source, but you only cite a definition. I also have a problem with the bad faith position you take with liberals in this case: yes, they say things that can be argued are incorrect, but they don't intentionally lie about the truth in the broad way you believe.

* there are no real differences between boys and girls

: I think you misunderstand what educators mean when they say this. Educators mean there is not enough of a difference in /potential/ to justify separation based on gender. Indeed, boys score on average higher than girls do in the math and science department, but that is only an average (and would either justify being more rigorous with girls or being easier on boys, you choose which) and not justification for stating that girls are inferior to boys.

* humans are just another type of animal

: Um, we are? This is certainly better than telling them the truth if you're so concerned about this issue: we are dust and nothing more. That is more depressing than noting we are, TECHNICALLY (as in, strictly speaking under the framework of certain systems (see biology)) speaking, animals.

* all there is is what you see

: Where is this taught? Yes, I went to a public high school, but that was NOT in any way a part of the curriculum. I think you mean, and this is a better way to word it, that there is no *mystery* in life that cannot be solved with our own powers of logic and reason. This is a fair critique, but this is not intentional. The only place you see this sort of world view is in a science class, and we don't want religion and science to be married together: you cannot find God with a microscope.

* conversely, that an unproven 'unconscious' excuses evil actions

: You definitely need to cite this and clarify this as well. I think you mean that schools teach that some things aren't entirely our fault, and they are correct. The insane are not held to the same standards of behavior as 'normal' people are, so to say that there is more than we see (somewhat in contradiction with your previous point) is not an unreasonable belief.

* self-inflicted death can somehow be good

:Remove this: it's a total lie unless you can cite a source. What you're talking about exists well beyond political labels: it is a belief that is arrived at on an individual level, not something you can look to your peers for a sufficient answer for.

* denying self-defense, mentally and physically

: Eh? Cite this, and clarify. Radical gun control advocates don't believe in self defense, because they are under a delusional belief that all things may be settled with words even when force is unavoidable. This is not typical education anywhere in the world.

* denying the ability to control sexual desires; promoting lifestyles that lead to mental illness

: You mean homosexuality. I think this is actually a stronger argument than your other points, though it requires citation. Also, 'liberal' education promotes /acceptance/ of these lifestyles, it does not advocate them (though this is harder to discern if you watch TV).

* insisting on an illogical and unjustified "wall of separation of church and state"; classroom prayer would promote mental stability

: Omit the words illogical and unjustified; this begs for a citation and makes assumptions that have not been given foundational support via evidence. Believe it or not, it's good for the world that the state and the church are separate: the state is the ultimate corrupter and defiler of all things, and religion is no exception. Would you really want /politicians/ to tell you what is and is not Christian? Also classroom prayer, under most circumstances is a joke: you take something sacred and you turn it into a silly impersonal ritual. Though that is simply my opinion; it can be argued (see Durkheim) that prayer / strict religious structures add stability to mental health, but you haven't done a good job of saying that.

As to the rest of the article... there are many explanations that, on a scale of reasonableness, explain the recent surge in mental disorder diagnosis. Part of it is that it was not till recently that having a mental disorder was treatable outside of a mental institution, that most mental disorders do not readily appear as such to the untrained eye (bipolar disorder, depression, ect), and the increase in life expectancy. If you want to attribute liberal education as a cause, then you need to to a better job demonstrating that A) education is liberal (exposes and promotes liberal ideals) B) that liberalism is inherently unhealthy and C) that the rise of liberalism corresponds directly to the rise in mental health disorders. This is in no way impossible but is unfortunately not done in this essay. If you would like to know more, I recommend books on sociology; they address this sort of thing more directly than other fields. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 23:02, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

== I could not help but notice ==

that one of today's lead stories here reveals that [[Margaret Thatcher]] has a form of dementia. A mental illness? The same one that [[Ronald Reagan]], [[John Wayne]], [[Barry Goldwater]], and [[Charlton Heston|Chuck Heston]] died with? Hmmmmmmmmm? [[User:Carptrash|Carptrash]] 11:36, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Margaret Thatcher battled the left for all her life. She must have come into contact with their literature and ideas during this struggle - and that must have been what drove her insane.

:So everyone is susceptible to mental illness from "Liberal ideas" because everyone is "exposed" (just like sunlight, air, Conservative ideas, or '''anything else'''), but of course for different reasons. Now your causation doesn't even have meaningful correlation! [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 22:25, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== 89% ==

The 89% of Americans being taught in public schools statistic is mentioned twice in rapid succession, which reads a bit clumsily. I couldn't see an obvious way to only say it once without doing a bit more rewriting of the intro than I think is worth my effort. So someone who cares about this "mystery" might want to take a crack at it. [[User:Human|Human]] 19:39, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness?

2008-09-15T01:39:07Z

Userafw: /* Offensive to mental health sufferers and mental health professionals */

==Congratulations==
Andy, well done - a very well-argued essay, and one that will no doubt provoke our Liberal friends into a frenzy of denial. You might care to add that Sweden, the 'poster-boy' nation for many Liberals, has an enormously high suicide rate (and other ultra-Liberal nations likewise). [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:15, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks much, Bugler. I value your opinion and insights very much!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:49, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== An apology ==
I investigated the reference I used to support the idea that some self-deception is healthy and found i tto be not in support of that idea at all! I want to apologize for using the reference, and was on my way to change it when I found the statement had already been removed by Aschlafly, which is a pity, because it's generally accepted by psychologists - I just hadn't found verification for that, yet. For the record, it does seem like a helpful article discussing Palestinian hostility to Israel!
[[User:UlyssesNZ|UlyssesNZ]] 17:54, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks DLerner ==

Thanks for correcting that error. What I meant to say was "[[censoring]] [[classroom prayer]] THAT would promote mental stability." Your fix is fine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:your welcome. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:45, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== The liberal response ==

I will be the first liberal to respond.

Let me begin with what I think the real reason there is a huge rise in dementia. In the last few decades there has been an enormous increase in the consumption of "junk" food. I don't mean just candy and cookies, I mean all processed food; it's loaded with preservatives and chemicals which you normally wouldn't '''think''' of eating, but since it comes in a pretty package with pretty slogans like "99% fat free", we think it's good for you. The [[Obesity|obesity]] epidemic probably also contributes a great deal. For further information, see Eric Schlosser's ''"Fast Food Nation"'' and Morgan Spurlock's ''"Don't Eat this Book"''.[[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:First liberal? What are you doing on Conservapedia? This is not the place for you. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

: '''<Reply>''' I agree that is a problem. However, [[liberal]]s tend to be fatter that [[conservatives]]. What one believes and accepts does affect his ability to keep off the extra pounds. So your observation tends to reinforce the likely correlation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:: Really? Texas had four of the fattest cities in the US a few years ago. Liberals are more into exercise and health food and vegetarianism/veganism, the Bible belt has a '''lot''' of fat people... [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:04, 10 August 2008 (EDT) '''</reply>'''

::I will add my own questiong and responses to ASchlafly's. First, do you have any evidence whatsoever for your statment that liberals tend to be larger than conservatives? and second, are you saying that religious faith keeps you thin? [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

As for the content of the article:

: '''lying about the truth, causing belief in falsehoods or encouraging conduct disorders'''

I think the absurdity of this one speaks for itself. "All liberals (and public schools [except the ones that teach [[Intelligent Design]]]) lie. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Many liberals don't think lying is wrong, and even delight in it. There is a correlation, though certainly not all liberals lie.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Liberals do teach that lying is wrong. In fact, many students are expelled from colleges and high schools across the country for Academic Dishonesty (which may mean plagerism, or simply allowing a friend to cheat) op top of that, not all lies are bad. When my wife was pregnant, I lied constantly, telling her that she wasn't fat, she wasn't short tempered etc... Most lies are wrong of course, but there are many that make life better [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

I discovered this page by random and although I don't really consider myself to be a liberal, this page is a joke. A bad one. It consists of a silly use of a technique that many folks, conservatives and liberals to name a few, use a lot. This is is to make a (frequently bogus) list of what someone else believes in and then rip it apart, tossing in liberal (or conservative?) doses of ridicule and sarcasm. Why not find a list of what liberal say they believe in and then rip that apart? I am ignoring a little voice saying "Don't get into this" but to not do so would seem like a form of lying to me. [[User:Carptrash|Carptrash]] 18:05, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

: Did you happen to notice that the word count on your edit above is "666"? Ridicule will get you ... nowhere. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''there are no real differences between boys and girls'''

Um, nobody teaches that. I think they teach that they're equal, but a cursory examination of the anatomy reveals '''several''' differences, ''especially'' in the reproductive/waste disposal organs. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You're ducking the obvious point here. Think girls can excel in math as well as boys can? Liberals teach they can, which is teaching a falsehood.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Can girls excel? Of course they can... There have been women who have succeeded in every major field of science. Research shows that men typically have higher scores in Math and Science, while women do better in English and Social Studies, but just as there have many famous male writers and historians, there are dozens if not hundreds of female mathematicians and scientists who have made lasting contributions to the field. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
::::And yet they still compete seperatly in sports, because it would be unfair otherwise. Women were created to be the primary caregivers. That is why they have breasts, and men havn't. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

: '''humans are just another type of animal'''

As opposed to .... what? I think humans are another type of [[Mammal|mammal]], and the only way we can actually elevate ourselves is through our actions. Get your genome sequenced and you'll see how close to animals you really are. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Teach your belief and you'll contribute to some mental disorders as kids struggle with your view that they are mere animals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I have never seen any student struggle with the view that they are merely animals. Students develop mental disordered for a variety of reasons, many unknown to science. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
::::If you cut me, I will bleed - but only a liberal would use that to argue I am the same as a rat. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]
:::::''No one'' uses that to argue that you are the ''same'' as a rat- of course you aren't. But a circulatory system is something that you share in common with one, along with a great many other features. Humans are of course (well, for all we know anyway) capable of much more advanced thought than other animals- you can be comfortable with that assertion. But being an animal '''does not''' mean you '''are''' a rat, or a dove, or a louse, or a monkey, or whatever- you are human- it's just a matter of classification. If you're offended by being categorized as an animal, then by definition you must be offended by the claims that your cells contain a nucleus, you are composed of more than one cell, you don't produce your own food internally and don't have cell walls. So which is it? Animal '''by definition''' refers to eukaryotic, multicellular heterotrophs that lack a cell wall. Humans fit all four criteria. Incidentally, so does a rat. That's not a "belief"- it's an eminently verifiable fact (look at a skin cell under a microscope and at the food in your refrigerator), but it doesn't follow by any means that humans and rats are the same.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 00:06, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''all there is is what you see'''

Not true, we teach about [[Bacteria|bacteria]] too small for the naked eye to see. Also about atoms, yes, atoms. (The early church used to suppress any information atoms and/or the writings of Epicures, were ''they'' responsible for mental illness? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You duck the obvious point again, so no response to your comment is warranted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I fail to see how Dlearner was ducking the point. All there is is what you see is an incredibly broad statment that can be taken many ways. I'm assuming you mean that Liberals teach there is no greater power (Ie, you can't see a god, so there must not be one) but that is problematic as well. If one were to truly assume that if they don't see it, it doesn't exist (something I have never heard anyone say) then many established practices and principles of science would not work in their world (Ie X-rays) [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''death can somehow be good'''

We don't teach that. What I think you mean is that death is inevitable and is in fact a part of life. All that lives must die, therefore, death should not be feared. People in pain and suffering from long debilitating illness welcome death, and as adults we must realize this. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Liberals do teach that death can be good. Ever read the leading liberal work in school called "Of Mice and Men"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I respond to this with a question. When someone dies after a long bout with a terminal disease and their family says I'm glad the suffering is over, they've gone home to god. Is that not a good thing? Christian teaching naturally brings about the idea that death can be good, as it allows one to return to their creator [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I have to argue the point on that one, Andy, for two reasons.. First, ''Of Mice and Men'' (italicized or underlined, please--it's a full-length work, not a short story) has a number of liberal themes, but it hardly teaches that death is good. There's nothing good or positive about Lenny's death. If anything, it teaches that the world can be a harsh and unforgiving place, and that the death of innocents is tragic, but sometimes inevitable.

:::Second, as a Christian, I strongly question the notion that "Death can be good" is a liberal idea. My Grandfather suffered terribly from cancer; when he passed, we took comfort in the knowledge that he was no longer in pain, and was at peace with Christ. How is that not a good thing? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:58, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

::"self-inflicted death can somehow be good"--- So where exactly did you get the idea that public schools teach that suicide is an acceptable way to solve problems? Because they simply do not. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 20:59, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''denying self-defense, mentally and physically'''

Codswallop. We don't teach that. Self-defense is great! הבא להרגך, השכם להרגו (Trans: "If somebody comes to kill you, stand up and kill him first. ''Talmud'') [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Liberals don't teach the Talmud. Instead, they teach gun control and favor prosecuting for murder people who hold their ground in self-defense, as in [[Bernard Goetz]].

As far as I know (always worth double-checking) Goetz killed no one and not even the most liberal knucklehead wanted him prosecuted for murder.
To me this line of argument reeks of "'''lying about the truth, causing belief in falsehoods'''"

:::I'm a very strong liberal, and I have no issues with self defense, in fact, I have a 12 guage shotgun by my bed that I will have no trouble using for just that purpose if someone threatens my family. On top of that, I plan on enrolling my son in Judo the moment he's old enough to understand the responsibility that comes with it. Can you please show any liberal that has ever advocated killing those who defend themselves? [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''denying the ability to control sexual desires; promoting lifestyles that lead to mental illness'''

Perhaps you didn't know that even liberals teach [[Abstinence|abstinence]]. (deleted non-family-friendly rant - can't liberals refrain?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT))

:: Liberals oppose teaching abstinence or funding abstinence education.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Again, not true. Liberals (such as myself) are against teaching abstinence '''ONLY''' Sex education because the fact remains, it's not working. Pregnancy rates among teenagers drop sharpest when they're taught a combination of abstinence and contraception. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
::::Andrew, why was my so-called "rant" not family-friendly, because I spoke about Onanism? (I suppose a family-friendly word)? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::That's because all liberals want is sex, sex, sex. They never got over the 60's "free love" thing. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]
: '''insisting on an illogical and unjustified "wall of separation of church and state"; classroom prayer would promote mental stability'''

Separation of church and state is logical and justified. (This is coming from a very religious person, so listen up). I don't your religion -whatever the majority of Christians in that state are- being forced on my Jewish kids, THAT is the logic. The justification. Andrew, I see you are working on history lectures, read through history about the times there wasn't a separation between church and state; what do you get? The [[Spanish Inquisition|inquisition]] comes to mind. Personally, I prefer separation of church and state to the ''auto de fe'' any day. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You may be religious yourself but censoring classroom prayer by others is not helpful to them or you. A wall of separation of church and state is baseless, illogical and impossible. It's a contradiction except in a totalitarian atmosphere that imposes censorship.

'''classroom prayer would promote mental stability''' Says who? Maybe you should add [[Conservapedia:Commandments|[Citation Needed]]]?

:: I'm sure lots of studies confirm that prayer is good for mental health. Have you looked yet? It's obvious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

::: What's the point of studies if you already know the answer? "I'm sure lots of studies confirm" isn't backing up a claim. Have ''you'' looked yet? [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 10:59, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Mr. Schlafly, I'm new to this site, so I don't quite know your feelings, so let me ask upfront. Do you support teacher led prayer or more of a moment of silence for personal prayer and reflection. Until I know this, I can't really repond in a meaningful way. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Once again another "fine" piece of work...

[[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:43, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion ==

Obviously the person suffering from mental illness does not have to admit a correlation in order for a correlation to exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:27, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

== Offensive to mental health sufferers and mental health professionals ==

This is a hateful piece of propaganda, & particularly offensive to anybody suffering with a mental illness, as well as anybody working within the field of mental health. To say that medical professionals have no idea what causes mental illness is ridiculous. There has been over a century of study and treatment of mental illness using scientific methods and findings; not superstition, idle conjecture and anecdotal evidence. Mental illnesses occur in all the world's cultures, regardless of ideology, and you will not find a qualified psychologist who has published any theory that they are caused by "liberal teachings". [[User:BeReasonable|BeReasonable]] 08:35, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:You are suffering from that well-documented delusion [[Liberal denial]], BeReasonable. Try to live up to your name. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:38, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

: Well put, Bugler. As to User "BeReasonable" (note his silly name and how is is not reasonable at all), he challenges a well-supported statement that mental health professions do not know the cause of mental illness. Then he tries to censor an inquiry here into possible causes. He typifies the kind of logical contradiction pushed so often by liberals. Fortunately, we'll continue searching for the truth here despite efforts by liberals to censor it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:41, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
::That mental health professionals do not know the causes of mental health is not at all well supported. The [http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/06/13/10-myths-of-mental-illness/ cited source] says that ''at a neurological level'' mental illness cannot be identified to one cause - I.E. it is not caused by just one thing going on in the brain. If you read the next paragraph, it goes on to say that mental illness is caused by a blend of genetic, psychological and environmental factors. I have no interest in "censoring" inquiries into why mental health occurs. There are already thousands of trained professionals around the world engaged in such studies. And if you are genuinely interested in the subject, there are hundreds of books you can read. As I have said, I do not think you will find any experts in the subject agreeing with your suggestion that liberalism causes mental illness. However, I do not recommend further reading on the subject, rather than plucking anecdotal examples of correlation. [[User:BeReasonable|BeReasonable]] 08:56, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Teaching liberal beliefs would qualify as a "psychological" and/or "environmental" factor that could cause mental illness. That you dismiss this possible cause out of hand, and even attempt to censor it, illustrates the illogical, self-contradictory approach taken by liberals. Yes, imposing contradictions and falsehoods on others could be bad for their mental health. Surely you don't doubt that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:01, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
I disagree that schools teach the belief that suicide can somehow be good. This is taught by misguided peers, not educators. Suicide is actively discouraged, even in the most liberal settings. A possible exception might be jihad schools, which are known to be ultra-fundamentalist radical Islam. Also, if classroom prayer promoted mental stability, why is it that those who pray alone by choice are just as vulnerable to mental illness? I myself always prayed silently before meals, but yet was diagnosed as bipolar. As has been the case with many with the illness, its onset was in college.[[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 15:45, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

== Causation fail ==

Aschlafly,

I discovered Conservapedia recently, and this "essay" is my first exposure to the philosophy of the site. Needless to say, I'm not impressed. Quite apart from ideology, your statement, "Medical professionals emphasize that they do not know what causes mental illness.[6] Accordingly, they cannot rule out that liberal indoctrination is a contributing factor," is massively flawed.

That one cannot rule out something as a contributing factor is not sufficient evidence for causality; it's even weaker and more flawed than arguing that correlation equals causation. I'm holding a fountain pen right now. There are no tigers nearby. You can't rule out the possibility that the fountain pen keeps the tigers away. Would you like my Fountain Pen of Tiger Ward? Yours for $1,000.

My point is that, by your argument, anything at all could be the "cause" of mental illness. If you're going to argue that liberalism causes it, from such scant evidence, it's clear that you're more after an agenda than the truth, and that should be made clear, or better evidence of causation should be found.

I see you're a lawyer of some kind. I expect better of legal professionals than to find causation in the most tenuous of links... unless they're being paid to do that, of course :). In which case, I still wouldn't be happy if this was the best you could do for money.-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]] 09:12, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

: Your reasoning as is illogical as that of the (silly) "BeReasonable". The inability to rule out liberal teaching as a contributing cause of mental illness weighs in favor of further inquiry of it as a possible cause, and weighs against the censorship of such inquiry as attempted by liberals here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:21, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
::It weighs no more in favor of "further inquiry" than does the fact that mental health professionals can't rule out exposure to, say, Conservapedia! If your point is to illuminate potential causes for mental illness, focus on those that (1) can't be ruled out, and (2) have some AFFIRMATIVE proof. Because the simple lack of negative proof makes the whole world a causal factor!-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]] 09:23, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Also, "censorship"? I don't think that word means what you think it means. "Censorship" implies redaction of information by the state or a power. I'm just questioning your logic. Debate is not censorship.-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]] 09:24, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: Again, you're not making sense. I explained the significance of not ruling out liberal teaching as a cause of mental illness. It warrants further inquiry and evidence, and the entry here provides lots of additional reasons why liberal teaching is likely a cause of mental illness. If public schools forced kids to receive indoctrination other than liberal falsehoods every day, and 20% were becoming mentally ill afterwards, then it would be fine with me to look at the other indoctrination also. But it is liberal teaching that is being force-fed kids in school, not something else. As to [[censorship]], your definition is far too narrow. Censorship can also result from intimidation or name-calling, as you see above as "BeReasonable" tried to shut down this inquiry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:44, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I'm not trying to shut down the inquiry. I'm just saying you're wrong. What about blocking users for asking questions? Does ''that'' shut down the inquiry?
:::::I see you're not going to understand the problem behind singling out one cause among a million environmental causes. That's fine. It does, however, suggest "inquiry bias." Moving on.
:::::Have you considered the possible rise in diagnosis as a reason for the increase in mental conditions? It only recently became acceptable & treatable to have a mental illness. Only reasonable to suggest, then, that diagnoses would climb.-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]]

== Correlation does not imply causation. And even if it did... ==

''The USA (2/3 conservative by some surveys which have been quoted in criticizing wikipedia's disproportionate liberal voice) has some of the highest murder rates in the world - 5 to 10 per 100000. Europe and Australasia (both liberal and secular by comparison to the USA) have much lower murder rates. Officially atheist China reports a lower rate still. Clearly, conservativism is correlated with high murder rates.''
Of course this is a rubbish argument, for two reasons: 
- Correlation does not imply causation. There could be a number of reasons for a correlation between conservativism and high murder rates. Perhaps more conservative nations have stricter laws about their definition of 'murder'; the more liberal nations more often call it 'manslaughter', making their figures look lower. There are many many possible reasons. 
- The brief survey I've done here, even assuming the figures are correct, hardly counts even as 'correlation' when it comes to statistical science. In order for you to even say that a correlation exists in this example, we need a consistent measure of 'conservativism', and we need to include all relevant countries, not just hand pick several which happen to illustrate the point. Then we should graph them all and see how closely conservativism is matched with murder rates. Only then could we even claim that there is an undisputable correlation.

The USA does have a lot of liberal viewpoints, but then compared to Europe and Australasia it's very conservative in many ways - for instance, in New Zealand, few ever even debate whether abortion should be legal. Yet Europe and Australasia have lower levels of depression than the USA, according to the article cited. This should count as evidence against the hypothesis that correlation between mental illness and liberalism even exists. It's also a very poor way to measure mental illness as depression is only one (and one of the MORE spurious, debatable ones at that) of a whole range of mental illnesses recognized by modern psychology.
Finally, like my analogy of murder rates and conservativism, in order to draw even a correlation we need to see more than several countries' match of liberalism and high mental illness rates.

[[User:UlyssesNZ|UlyssesNZ]] 17:38, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: The argument is based primarily on logic: teach people contradictions, deprive them of prayer, force them to believe they are mere animals like dogs who will die as dogs do, and you're going to get mental illness as a result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:50, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't disagree with your conclusion - it's just that your premises as given in the article do not give it any support! You may like to read this article discussing the link between good mental health and religiousity: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10520234&pnum=0 --[[User:UlyssesNZ|UlyssesNZ]] 17:56, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion of edits ==

I see my edits as perfectly justified. Perhaps Andy would like to give reason for his reversions (btw, liberal claptrap is not a reason, but an accusation).

:::Again, I would like to know why my edits are being reverted. No reason has been given (I gave my reasoning in edit summaries, if you'd like me to clarify please ask). Perhaps sysops are exempt from the whole "provide sources, promote true and verifiable claims" thingy. I mean there aren't any sources on the page so far that suggest to any extent that liberalism causes mental illness. As for liberalism not being ruled out as a reason for mental illness, I justifiably added that neither has conservatism (or driving your car, or going for a jog, or reading hardback books). So please provide your counterpoints ASchlafy or I will make the edits again. [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 14:48, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

::: The reasons should be obvious. Liberal teachings dominate public schools, not conservative teachings. In fact, there is very little conservative teachings anywhere - people have to find it on their own. Hopefully you will too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:03, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Firstly you didn't rule out the other causes for mental illness, i.e driving a car, going for a jog, reading hardback books. Presumably as these have not been ruled out we need perhaps entire articles on whether they cause mental illness. Secondly the fact that liberalism is dominant in schools and mental illness has increased therefore liberalism causes mental illnesses has as much merit as saying the USA has become richer and mental illness has increased therefore... Thirdly conservatism has not been ruled out as a cause of mental illness by saying it's not taught much. Fourthly your hypothesis is clearly untestable because as you state there are "very little conservative teachings anywhere". You also need to present reasoning as to why the Stephen Fry thing is relevant.

: When someone has a stomach ache, the first suspect is the food he ate. When someone has a mental problem, the first suspect is what he was taught, and that is liberal. Your alternative hypotheses make as little sense as suspecting that the weather caused someone's stomach ache rather than what he just ate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:05, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
: That's begging the question. You're just asserting that the prime cause for mental problems is an education, and as education is liberal, therefore liberalism causes mental problems - but whether school education causes mental problems is the point of contention! The vast majority of psychologists have pointed to other causes of mental illnesses (and as I stated, you have yet to provide a reference to a qualified academic who does claim school education causes mental illness) such as abuse as a child, extreme problems in social interaction and recently, genetics. I will restate my point, the fact that your school education has not been dismissed as a cause of mental disorder is as relevant as saying the fact that you drive a car has not been dismissed as a cause of mental disorders. [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 17:33, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, recent consumption is commonly the culprit is stomach aches, but not the only possible cause. Stomach pains could also be due hunger, infection, a punch in the gut, receiving some very bad news, overexertion, dehydration, severe vomiting, muscle spasms due to envenomation, or even presumably a side effect of some type of allergic reaction. It's a case-by-case thing- suspecting the weather as the culprit does make sense if that person was just struck by lightning- you can't just dismiss it outright. Therefore there are multiple possible causes. While it is not unreasonable to assume that food is generally the most like cause, this logic does not translate to mental illness and education. As has been pointed out, you fail to back up your claims with any outside sources- where are the experts (those that actually study and treat mental illness) saying that education is the prime cause? To reiterate a previous point, what about family history, socioeconomic status, past negative experiences, environmental toxins- those factors that actually have been shown to influence the development of mental illness? And simply dismissing JohnyGoodman's "alternative hypotheses" doesn't work either- there is a mathematical correlation between increasing mental illness rates and number of licensed drivers. In addition, most cases of mental illness occur in individuals who are over the minimum driving age. Thus drivers have a higher risk of mental illness (obviously due to the stress of the road, maintaining a vehicle, and let's not forget the DMV) and increasing numbers of drivers increase the national burden. That's at least the same degree of correlation as the education claim. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 10:59, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Well it would be polite to receive some kind of response to our points, even if its going to be "liberal claptrap" as usual. I honestly don't see why such edits as already made aren't allowed to take place.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 11:29, 18 August 2008 (EDT)]#
:I laugh when I read you laying down the law about what is and what isn't polite, not to mention prejudging the response you might get in an insulting manner! Though, in fairness, you are correct in your prediction (thus displaying a level of self-awareness rare in [[Liberals]]. Claptrap is a polite description of your outpourings, and you are not in a position to demand attention in such an arrogant fashion. Try and amend your behaviour in future, or you may find that Conservapedia is not the place for you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:34, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
::Okay, let's pause and consider that if you read a post expecting it to be hostile, you will inevitably find it offensive regardless of how innocuous the wording is. Emotion is most effectively conveyed visually and through speech, not written text- thus there are limits to determining attitude. As such, a reader can easily introduce hostility where none was intended. Second, "it would be polite to receive some sort of response" doesn't qualify as "laying down the law". And precisely what was hostile and arrogant about asking for a response? I'm not being confrontational or sarcastic about this- I'm honestly curious. Commentators here often find insult in the most innocuous wording and I would like to know which part of JohnyGoodman's comment was to blame so it can be avoided in the future. Most importantly, if you perceive insult, explain it- don't accuse the offending party of being arrogant or to "amend their behaviour". Meeting perceived hostility with aggression only exacerbates the situation and reduces - or removes- the quality of the discussion. In addition, it denigrates the discussion when detailed responses are dismissed as "liberal claptrap" with a wave of the hand without addressing the post itself. In this case, "liberal" has been used simply as name-calling against anyone who does not agree about a given point. The driving example was used only to demonstrate the inadequacy of the "causation from correlation" and "gap theory" approaches that have been used- without any further reasoning- to justify the claim of this page. The logic is precisely the same. If you disagree, please explain- that's what the discussion is for. You're welcome to do so. Really. I would be interested to read it. But simply saying "you're arrogant, offensive and wrong" does a disservice to the very idea of open dialog and accomplishes nothing. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 16:53, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
Perhaps Bugler would like to shed light on this "claptrap". Presumably he has a reference to a noted academic who supports the thesis proposed here. Or perhaps he accepts that the "liberalism causes mental illness" theory should be considered just as the "hardback books cause mental illness" theory should be considered. Perhaps he has a wealth of evidence that proves that psychologists have been wrong all this time when arguing that "family history, socioeconomic status, past negative experiences and environmental toxins" are the real, documented causes of mental illness. Or, as I suspect, he is content with merely throwing words like "liberal" and "arrogant" around rather than arguing a case.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 17:35, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
::Bugler just reverted my edits to add factual context and supporting statements to those which are obviously controversial on this talk page. All I did was add the <nowiki>{{facts}}</nowiki> template to those statements supposedly taught at schools, and was "rewarded" with complaints of "vandalism". I would like to see supporting evidence showing that those statements are indeed taught by educators, as opposed to clueless peers. These peers are just as present and teach just the same things in Christian and Catholic schools (so I hear from comparing notes with graduates of those schools), inside AND OUTSIDE of school. Trying to keep negative peer teachings out is kind of like trying to keep kids from smoking in or out of school. Some clueless idiots will often find a way to do it, including disabling smoke alarms, or cutting class and wandering across the street. [[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 19:37, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

== Stephen Fry==

Just for the record, Stephen Fry went to several "Public" i.e. non state schools for his education. (These, I guess, would be the equivalent of "private" i.e. fee paying schools in the USA and are in no way connected with the UK state school system.) If I understand it correctly, having been to part of Rugby school myself many years ago, Uppingham school, where Mr Fry went for the majority of his adolescent schooling, offers a ciriculum based firmly on Chirstianity and would be anything but "Liberal" - in any sense of the word. No sure how this squares with him then suffering from depression in later life. [[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 11:01, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

: I doubt private schools in the [[U.K.]] are "based firmly on Christianity." Rather, I'm confident that the private schools in the [[U.K.]] are as [[leftist]] as public schools in the [[U.S.]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:56, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::As an old boy of another well-known British "Public School", Wellington College, I must respectfully undermine your confidence. In the case of Stephen Fry, he went to Uppingham School, which is one of the old traditional public schools founded in the 16th Century by a Bishop. While most of these schools are no longer religiously sponsored, they are in the majority firmly wedded to Christianity with their own chapels and vicars and are renown for being bastions of conservatism in a comparatively liberal British education system. I myself was confirmed at Wellington which was normal practice for all pupils at the school and Sunday chapel was compulsory (unless you were one of the few non-Church of England pupils in which case compulsory alternative worship was organised at a local Catholic church or whatever).

::Besides, I'm not sure that Stephen Fry is a good example of what you are trying to demonstrate. He was, after all, expelled from the school when he was fifteen and subsequently expelled from another. His behaviour went against the rules of those schools so the cause does not appear to have been liberal teaching up to that point. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:01, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::: You are construing "liberal teachings" too literally, and I've noticed that liberals are often overly literal in their approach. The concept of "teachings" is not confined to school. If Fry was expelled from school as a teenager as you say, then he simply picked up "teachings" from somewhere else, such as liberal newspapers and books. The comments above do not in any way undermine use of his example, as there is no doubt that Fry fully embraced liberal teachings in its full sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:02, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::While I agree that what somewhat is taught is not limited to the classroom, the reason for referring to his schooling in particular is that the article points heavily to public schools. In fact, the list that is provided specifically refers to "teachings in school". Thus interpreting the Stephen Fry example in the context of school is not "overly literal", as doing so is within the context of the rest of the page. If you do not mean to focus the discussion on schools alone, the article should be expanded to encompass the other avenues you pointed out. As for Fry, giving an example of a single individual who was both liberal and had mental illness does not add substance to the article (nor does discussing it accomplish anything). As has been discussed elsewhere on this page, there are a great many established factors that can contribute to mental illness. Knowing nothing about his early clinical and emotional history precludes any judgment either way. To use the stomach ache analogy, if someone gets bad stomach cramps and has peanut allergies, it doesn't necessarily follow that the latter caused the former- maybe, maybe not. Having the doctor remind them not to eat peanuts without asking what they actually had been eating fails to diagnose the problem. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 10:31, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::: There may well be other factors causing mental illness, but it's sheer folly to deny that teachings are a factor. Once you accept that, it's silly to think that all ideological teachings have the same effects, and there is no reason to think they would all be equal in influence on mental health.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:35, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::I never said teachings couldn't be a factor. It is certainly possible that some are. The problem here is that you focus specifically on one kind, which is a wildly exaggerated and inaccurate description of the typical American public school. Another problem is that while I agree that "there is no reason to think [ideological teachings] would all be equal in influence on mental health", the article is about teachings ''causing'' mental illness. As JamalG alludes to below, ''influence'' and ''cause'' are not synonymous. If someone was taught as you outlined (which, again, is simply false regarding typical public schools), they will probably emerge as less-than-upstanding citizens, to say the least, but that doesn't constitute "illness". On the other hand, they may well develop bona-fide mental illness if they are also abused at home, or are outcasts among their peers, etc. In that respect, you could improve the validity of your claim by discussing influences rather than trying to outline a single ''cause'' by providing an exaggerated list. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 19:21, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::In Pyschology today we use what is known as the BioPsychoSocial approach. In essence, it means that when diagnosing a problem, the Pyschologist should take into account their Biographical information (Genetic History, brain function and such) They're Psychological information (thinking abilities, emotions, and motivations) and the Social information (Family, Ethnicity, Social Class). What you have done is completely ignore two of the three to focus solely on the so called Liberal teachings. If your argument is true, why in mental illness still relatively rare. Millions of people in the united states and the world have come from these dangerous liberal schools, yet merely a few hundred thousand are diagnosed with serious mental illness. You seem to be working backwards from your conclusion to find links. [[User:JamalG|Jamal Greene]] 11:04, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Just to put the record straight, since there appears to be some misunderstanding about the type of schools that English “Public “ schools are and in particular about the school Mr Fry attended, the following extracts from two “Public “ school websites might be of interest and will, hopefully, clear up any confusion which American readers might have about the role religion in general, and Christianity in particular, plays in the life of anyone attending English “Public” schools:

Uppingham
A typical day starts with breakfast in the House, followed by, most mornings, a brief assembly in Chapel for the whole school, which is either an act of corporate worship, or a talk or presentation by a member of staff………..On Sunday there is normally a Chapel service in the morning…………
Spiritual Life

Uppingham is a Christian Foundation. That was the intention of Uppingham's Founder, Archdeacon Robert Johnson in 1584, and it remains the policy of the School today. In worship, in our relationships and in its teaching the School, is committed to the expression of the Christian Faith, both explicitly in Chapel and the classroom, and implicitly in our life together. Some Uppinghamians are members of other faiths and every consideration is given to their needs, but parents and intending students should bear in mind that all attend services in Chapel on Sundays and on some weekdays. In fact, we meet four times a week in Chapel for a service. The consequent sense of belonging to a community is, we believe, enormously worthwhile, important, and sustaining to all who are members of Uppingham School.

(http://www.uppingham.co.uk/)

Rugby

The School is a Christian foundation which encourages spiritual development in the context of rational enquiry. Chapel is at the heart of School life with morning prayers three mornings a week and on Sundays. The School population is held at 800 so that the whole community can regularly meet together. Christians are confirmed every year whilst others choose to worship in their own tradition: whatever the faith of the individual the Chaplaincy plays a key role in the pastoral life of the School. ……
(http://www.rugbyschool.net/school/ethosandvision/)

[[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 11:19, 21 August 2008 (EDT) (Sorry about the mess up with the post a minite ago...bad case of thick thumb syndrome!)

::The 1944 Education Act prescribes a ''daily'' act of communal worship, so Rugby is in breach of the letter of the law, and I think it is safe to assume, in the context of modern British education, that it is in breach of the spirit of it as well. As for Uppingham, it is well known as one of the most Liberal of the British public schools, and even the most Liberal schools have rules of some sort that can be broken. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:45, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Thank you, Bugler, for your insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:56, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly, actually, I wasn't interpreting anything, rather that, because of his very traditional educational background and subsequent expulsion from it, Stephen Fry might not be a good example of "liberal teachings" leading to mental illness. If his education and indeed his traditional social background did have any effect, it might have been what he was rebelling against. Or, of course, he might just have been ill because of other causes. While he might have been influenced by a socialist family member or been seduced by communist newsletters, I maintain that a better example to back up your ideas might be found that includes the subject's liberal formal education. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:59, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Bulger, some consider it somewhat avant garde because it specialises in arts, music and drama, much like Milfield does for sports. And yes, it might possibly be more liberal than say Eton, Harrow or Radley. But even so, it is old-fashioned Anglican Christian, has very strict codes of conduct and school rules, receives pupils from generally conservative establishment families, and maintains a socially conservative pastoral care programme. And when Fry was there, I imagine it to have been more conservative than it is now. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 13:13, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I see that its alumni include - as well as Fry, convicted and incarcerated for cheque fraud - the TV presenter Johnny Vaughan (convicted and gaoled for cocaine dealing) and celebrity chef and notorious adulterer Rick Stein. That pastoral care programme must be working wonders. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:33, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Given that that well known Liberal MP Winston Churchill suffered from the same "mental illness" as Stephen Fry,i.e. depression; that both went to English Public schools, both were the children or grand children of immigrants and both were friends at one time or another with the heir to the English throne I would have to agree that there's something strange going on here. But is it a conservative English education, the proximity to royalty or a combination of biological, psychological and social factors or exposure to a liberal education that predisposes one to depression? Take your pick! [[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 13:43, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Bulger, as was Tim Melville-Ross (former head of CBI and Institute of Directors), Dickson Poon (businessman and non-executive Chairman of Harvey Nichols), Jonathan Agnew (England cricketer and Chief Cricket Correspondent for BBC Radio), Donald Campbell (world water speed record holder, killed on Coniston Water in Bluebird), and Sir Patrick Renison (Governor of Kenya).

::::::Hardly a line-up of liberal scum :) [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 15:50, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
It's also worth mentioning that Stephen Fry's depression is the product of Bipolar disorder which is largely a genetic disease. Environmental factors do play a role, but these factors do not include "liberal education". [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 17:59, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: As a general matter, surely you don't dispute that beliefs, values and/or conduct can exacerbate or alleviate mental problems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:02, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
I do dispute that. I have not heard one argument from an academic that supports that position, and I don't suppose you can provide a reference to any. I'd be much more willing that the old British education system - beatings by the headmaster and all - would be more likely to cause depression and mental illness. If anything, beliefs, values and conduct are a ''product'' or ''expression'' of mental illness, so the real "mystery" would have to be "Does mental illness cause Liberalism?". But I have not heard one noted psychologist argue that liberalism is a result of insanity, rather belief that there is a vast conspiracy against you (and your beliefs) would be an example of a belief caused by mental illness. And before you claim that liberals believe there is a vast conspiracy against them, I'd remind you of views such as "Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by liberal environmentalists" and "99% of scientists are suppressing evidence against evolution" and "liberals are forcing their views on children through the education system" and "liberal government is trying to destroy christianity" and so on. Not saying that anyone here is mentally ill, but that labeling people as such works both ways. [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 23:25, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Why the reversion? ==

The expected rise in dementia and increased funding requirement are due to an expanding geriatric population. Why did you remove that?
--[[User:StanleyB|StanleyB]] 19:51, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: I looked at the article and it doesn't say that. Of course older people tend to have more health problems, but that is not the only or even the primary cause, as far as I can tell from the article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:58, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::These are the quotes from the article which makes it fairly clear the reason for the rise in number of dementia patients:
This latest analysis, however, signals that without sustained funding increases services will come under renewed pressure as numbers of people suffering from mental illness '''increase in line with an expanding and ageing population'''.Conditions such as dementia will be a major driver of demand for mental health services"
"With the number of elderly people expected to increase substantially over the next 20 years,
the incidence and cost of dementia will also rise, putting further strain on
mental health services and budgets."--[[User:StanleyB|StanleyB]] 20:05, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Right, and lung cancer incidence also increases with age. That doesn't diminish other primary causes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:21, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
The points is that you're using the increase in dementia to try and correlate it with an increase in "liberal" education. Yet the increase in dementia is easily explained by professionals as a result of increased old age. Not only does this remove the evidence you're using, but it presents a new problem. If education is more "liberal" then why are we not seeing a greater increase in dementia than we would expect as a result of old age? You then argue that is doesn't "diminish primary causes" which as I explained it clearly does. But more importantly, what are these "primary causes"? You have only asserted causes, rather than referencing experts in the field. For example you say "surely you don't doubt that education exacerbates mental problems". Yet there is not one academic who argues that liberal education does cause mental problems. So the primary cause you are referring to (education) isn't just diminished - it doesn't exist in the first place.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 15:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

: By any chance do you work in the denial department of a tobacco company? Please take a few minutes out your time talking here and search the internet to see all the cites about how mental illness really is increasing, not just due to aging.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:01, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

::Johnny, you didn't clearly ''explain'' it, you merely ''stated'' it. If you want to debate, this is not the right place. Our talk pages are for improving the articles, not for scoring points. Think it over for a week, and if you agree, come back then and help improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:31, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

::sigh... I'm trying to argue for how the article can be improved - for example by introducing at least one source for the central claim of the article, by accepting sources that contradict the claim, and by not including incorrect and unsourced supporting evidence that seem to rely solely on the opinion of the editor. The problem is that people like me who make edits that contradict the views of sysops (through completely justified ways using sources or criticising lack of sources) are accused of vandalism and thus must make an argument in the discussion section to try and get anything done (lest we be banned for vandalism). We then have to argue for an epoch to try and get the most basic factual edits made (see the Atheism discussion page, where several editors have had to teach Conservative simple philosophy to a high school level in an attempt to get the oh so controversial claim that some atheists came to their beliefs through rational enquiry accepted) - and are thus banned for using the discussion section too much. If you want my suggestions for improving the article, I have made them repeatedly. Yet still the article is full of unsourced rubbish, and this is rendered impossible to change due to the catch 22 system of banning described above. You use the edit button and you're banned for not using the discussion button, you use the discussion button and you're banned for not using the edit button.

== Connection ==

You need to connect your premises with your conclusion. Right now it looks like you have a bunch of premises / statistics with no discernible connection to the conclusion: that Liberalism causes mental disorders.

I'll demonstrate:

Medical professionals emphasize that they do not know what causes mental illness.[8] Accordingly, they cannot rule out that liberal indoctrination is a contributing factor.

: The problem here is that you can't, under this framework, rule out /anything/ as the root cause of mental instability, so you must support to some degree that liberalism is threatening to your mental health in some inherent way, which is why you created the following list, though it does not support your conclusion as you thought it would.

Teaching children to accept and believe things that are demonstrably false cannot help mental health. Included in this category are the liberal teachings in school that:

: The problem he is that everything is false and everything is true from the perspective of objective thought: there is a reason why you can't simply talk someone out of a cult or out of Islam, they truly believe what they believe, so there is no reason to assume that (short of believing that there is no gravity and a fall from the empire state building would be fun) holding these notions will cause any actual physical or mental harm. Also, and this has already been pointed out, you have to somehow /verify/ that typical secular (you people seem to oft confuse moderates with liberals and secularism with liberalism) beliefs are demonstrably false.

* lying about the truth, causing belief in falsehoods or encouraging conduct disorders[9]

: Here at first I thought you cited a source, but you only cite a definition. I also have a problem with the bad faith position you take with liberals in this case: yes, they say things that can be argued are incorrect, but they don't intentionally lie about the truth in the broad way you believe.

* there are no real differences between boys and girls

: I think you misunderstand what educators mean when they say this. Educators mean there is not enough of a difference in /potential/ to justify separation based on gender. Indeed, boys score on average higher than girls do in the math and science department, but that is only an average (and would either justify being more rigorous with girls or being easier on boys, you choose which) and not justification for stating that girls are inferior to boys.

* humans are just another type of animal

: Um, we are? This is certainly better than telling them the truth if you're so concerned about this issue: we are dust and nothing more. That is more depressing than noting we are, TECHNICALLY (as in, strictly speaking under the framework of certain systems (see biology)) speaking, animals.

* all there is is what you see

: Where is this taught? Yes, I went to a public high school, but that was NOT in any way a part of the curriculum. I think you mean, and this is a better way to word it, that there is no *mystery* in life that cannot be solved with our own powers of logic and reason. This is a fair critique, but this is not intentional. The only place you see this sort of world view is in a science class, and we don't want religion and science to be married together: you cannot find God with a microscope.

* conversely, that an unproven 'unconscious' excuses evil actions

: You definitely need to cite this and clarify this as well. I think you mean that schools teach that some things aren't entirely our fault, and they are correct. The insane are not held to the same standards of behavior as 'normal' people are, so to say that there is more than we see (somewhat in contradiction with your previous point) is not an unreasonable belief.

* self-inflicted death can somehow be good

:Remove this: it's a total lie unless you can cite a source. What you're talking about exists well beyond political labels: it is a belief that is arrived at on an individual level, not something you can look to your peers for a sufficient answer for.

* denying self-defense, mentally and physically

: Eh? Cite this, and clarify. Radical gun control advocates don't believe in self defense, because they are under a delusional belief that all things may be settled with words even when force is unavoidable. This is not typical education anywhere in the world.

* denying the ability to control sexual desires; promoting lifestyles that lead to mental illness

: You mean homosexuality. I think this is actually a stronger argument than your other points, though it requires citation. Also, 'liberal' education promotes /acceptance/ of these lifestyles, it does not advocate them (though this is harder to discern if you watch TV).

* insisting on an illogical and unjustified "wall of separation of church and state"; classroom prayer would promote mental stability

: Omit the words illogical and unjustified; this begs for a citation and makes assumptions that have not been given foundational support via evidence. Believe it or not, it's good for the world that the state and the church are separate: the state is the ultimate corrupter and defiler of all things, and religion is no exception. Would you really want /politicians/ to tell you what is and is not Christian? Also classroom prayer, under most circumstances is a joke: you take something sacred and you turn it into a silly impersonal ritual. Though that is simply my opinion; it can be argued (see Durkheim) that prayer / strict religious structures add stability to mental health, but you haven't done a good job of saying that.

As to the rest of the article... there are many explanations that, on a scale of reasonableness, explain the recent surge in mental disorder diagnosis. Part of it is that it was not till recently that having a mental disorder was treatable outside of a mental institution, that most mental disorders do not readily appear as such to the untrained eye (bipolar disorder, depression, ect), and the increase in life expectancy. If you want to attribute liberal education as a cause, then you need to to a better job demonstrating that A) education is liberal (exposes and promotes liberal ideals) B) that liberalism is inherently unhealthy and C) that the rise of liberalism corresponds directly to the rise in mental health disorders. This is in no way impossible but is unfortunately not done in this essay. If you would like to know more, I recommend books on sociology; they address this sort of thing more directly than other fields. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 23:02, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

== I could not help but notice ==

that one of today's lead stories here reveals that [[Margaret Thatcher]] has a form of dementia. A mental illness? The same one that [[Ronald Reagan]], [[John Wayne]], [[Barry Goldwater]], and [[Charlton Heston|Chuck Heston]] died with? Hmmmmmmmmm? [[User:Carptrash|Carptrash]] 11:36, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Margaret Thatcher battled the left for all her life. She must have come into contact with their literature and ideas during this struggle - and that must have been what drove her insane.

:So everyone is susceptible to mental illness from "Liberal ideas" because everyone is "exposed" (just like sunlight, air, Conservative ideas, or '''anything else'''), but of course for different reasons. Now your causation doesn't even have meaningful correlation! [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 22:25, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== 89% ==

The 89% of Americans being taught in public schools statistic is mentioned twice in rapid succession, which reads a bit clumsily. I couldn't see an obvious way to only say it once without doing a bit more rewriting of the intro than I think is worth my effort. So someone who cares about this "mystery" might want to take a crack at it. [[User:Human|Human]] 19:39, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Garbage

2008-09-15T01:21:53Z

Userafw:

'''Garbage''' is another word for rubbish, trash, litter or refuse. In [[Australia]], garbage collectors are commonly known as 'garbos'.

[[Category:Dictionary]]