Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Dolly Todd Madison

2009-10-15T04:49:02Z

ZacharyM: Redirected page to Dolley Madison

#REDIRECT [[Dolley Madison]]

Debate:Does God punish sinners for eternity?

2009-10-14T04:54:02Z

ZacharyM: Undo revision 709940 by Psmith49 (Talk) - trolling

{{debate}}

==Yes==

==No==

God doesn't punish sinners at all. And Hell is not permanent. It is Satan who is the accuser of the brethren, not God. God is all about love and forgiveness.

However, there is a difference between [[right and wrong]]. And we do reap what we sow. If we are selfish, we will suffer the consequences. In particular, [[homosexual acts]] are very selfish. There is no true love - in a conjugal sense - other than between a man and his wife.

It is sometimes argued that homosexuality couldn't be a sin: "Would God consign his children to an eternity of punishment in hell for loving another man?" This question presupposes that any punishment (or harsh consequences) of sin comes from God. Yet the Bible says, "The wages of sin is death" without saying who the paymaster is! The question also confuses [[love]] (which is a good thing, in general) with homosexual [[fornication]] which is a sin.

All this confusion can be cleared up if a person genuinely wants to know (1) Does God exist? (2) Does God love me? and (3) What is the best way to lead my life? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:13, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

:Well, we are all sinners. The questions should be stated, Does God punish the evildoers for eternity? Matthew 25:45-46 Jesus says, "I assure you, when you refused to help the least of these my Brothers and Sisters, you were refusing to help me. And they will go away into Eternal Punishment, but the Righteous will go into Eternal Life."

:But the questions remains "Does God punish?" No, God doesn't punish. By being cast out of the eternal life of Heaven (through mans own fault), the devil punishes those who end up in Hell. For the devil hates man, made in the likeness of God.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 17:44, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

Matthew 1-9 (Translated)

2009-10-14T04:53:21Z

ZacharyM: Undo revision 709942 by Greekscholar (Talk) - your changes just look like a modernization rather than a translation to conservativism

== Chapter 1 ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
|The ancestry of Jesus Christ, descendant of David, descendant of Abraham:
|"Descendant" is more accurate than "son."
|-
|2
|Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
|[[Abraham]] was the father of [[Isaac]], who was the father of [[Jacob]], who was the father of [[Judah]] and his brothers,
|The passive "was the father" emphasizes the ancestry.
|-
|3
|And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;
|And Judah was the father of [[Pharez]] and [[Zerah]] of [[Tamar]], and Pharez was the father of [[Hezron]], and Esrom was the father of [[Ram]],
|Original Hebrew transliterations are given here, with links to their biographies. The Greek versions of the names appeared in the [[Septuagint]].
|-
|4
|And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;
|and Ram was the father of [[Amminadab]], and Amminadab was the father of [[Nahson]], and Naason was the father of [[Salmon (Bible)|Salmon]],
|
|-
|5
|And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;
|And Salmon was the father of [[Boaz]] (whose mother was [[Rahab]]), and Boaz was the father of [[Obed]] (whose mother was [[Ruth]]), and Obed was the father of [[Jesse]],
|
|-
|6
|And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat [[Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
|And Jesse was the father of King [[David]], and King David was the father of [[Solomon]] (whose mother was the former wife of Uriah),
|
|-
|7
|And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;
|And [[Solomon]] was the father of [[Rehoboam]], and Rehoboam was the father of [[Abijah]], and Abijah was the father of [[Asa]],
|
|-
|8
|And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;
|And [[Asa]] was the father of [[Jehoshaphat]], and Jehoshaphat was the father of [[Jehoram]], and Jehoram was the father of [[Uzziah]],
|King Jehoram was ''not'' the father of Uzziah, but rather was his great-grandfather. Kings [[Joash]] and [[Amaziah]] are left out because they were unworthy of being remembered. Joash killed [[High Priest]] [[Zachariah I]], and Amaziah "did right,...but not with a whole heart."
|-
|9
|And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;
|And Uzziah was the father of [[Jotham]], and Jotham was the father of [[Jehoahaz I|Ahaz]], and Achaz was the father of [[Hezekiah]],
|The inclusion of King Ahaz is truly remarkable, considering Ahaz' less-than-honorable history.
|-
|10
|And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;
|And Hezekiah was the father of [[Manasseh King of Judah|Manasseh]], and Manasseh was the father of [[Amon]], and Amon was the father of [[Josiah]],
|Hezekiah and Josiah were the two finest reformers in the entire king list of the [[Kingdom of Judah]]
|-
|11
|And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
|And Josiah was the father of [[Jehoiachin|Jeconiah]] and his brothers, at the time of the exile in Babylon,
|Kings [[Jehoahaz II]] and [[Jehoiakim]] are left out, as is Jeconiah's uncle [[Zedekiah]].
|-
|12
|And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
|And after the exile in Babylon, Jeconiah became the father of Salathiel, and Salathial was the father of [[Zerubbabel]],
|"Zorobabel" and "Zerubabel" are two equally valid pronunciations of this Hebrew name. Zerubbabel was governor of what became the Judea Province of the Persian Empire under King [[Darius I]] and his successors.
|-
|13
|And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;
|And Zerubbabel was the father of Abihud, and Abihud was the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim was the father of Azor,
|
|-
|14
|And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
|And Azor was the father of Zadoc, and Zadoc was the father of Achim, and Achim was the father of Eliud,
|
|-
|15
|And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
|And Eliud was the father of Eleazar, and Eleazar was the father of Matthan, and Matthan was the father of Jacob,
|
|-
|16
|And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
|And Jacob was the father of [[Joseph of Nazareth|Joseph]], the husband of Mary, whose child was [[Jesus Christ]].
|The preceding lineage establishes the legal claim that Jesus has to the throne of King David, consistent with a specific promise that God made to King David that a king would inherit his title and rule the world forever.
|-
|17
|So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.
|So it was fourteen generations from Abraham to King David, and fourteen generations from King David until the exile in Babylon, and fourteen generations from the exile until Jesus Christ.
|These are fourteen generations chosen for special memory. In fact, the generations from David to the exile number seventeen. Three of the Kings of Judah are left out because they were unworthy; they are [[Joash]], [[Amaziah]], and [[Jehoiakim]].
|-
|18
|Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
|The birth of Jesus Christ happened this way: His mother, Mary, was engaged to Jospeh, but before they were married, she became pregnant with the child of the Divine Guide.
|In ancient Judea, an engagement was a legal obligation much stronger than a modern "engagement." The only cause sufficient to break an engagement was immoral behavior by one party or the other. In this case, Mary was found to be pregnant, and that was considered evidence of [[adultery]] by her. (Joseph did not yet know the circumstances of the pregnancy; he would find that out later.)

The [[Greek]] phrase '''πνευμα αγιος''' (Pneuma hagios) literally means "Holy Breath." However, '''πνευμα''' also means a class of being not having a body, and usually having a certain amount of power. "Divine Guide" is descriptive of the function of this Entity.
|-
|19
|Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
|Jospeh was a righteous man and thus felt he should divorce her, but he did not want to humiliate her, so he wished for the divorce to be private.
|This emphasizes that Joseph is right to object to suspected adultery, but that even in these circumstances, divorce is a last option. Furthermore, "divorce" in this context is the breaking of an engagement, and the voiding of an obligation to marry the girl. Joseph could have insisted on a public trial of the matter, but did not wish to put Mary through that.
|-
|20
|But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
|While he thought about this, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as a wife, because her pregnancy is due to the Divine Guide.
|Joseph discovers that the cause of the pregnancy is ''not'' adultery, as he had feared.
|-
|21
|And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
|And she shall bring forth a son, who you must name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."
|The name ''Jesus'' ([[Hebrew]]: '''ישןע''', ''Yeshua''; [[Greek]] '''Ιησους''') literally means "[[God]] saves."
|-
|22
|Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
|This entire affair happened in order to fulfill the spoken word from the Lord, through the prophet ([[Isaiah]]), which states:
|
|-
|23
|Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
|"A virgin shall be pregnant, and give birth to a son, who will be named Emmanuel," which means "God is with us."
|{{Bible ref|book=Isaiah|chap=7|verses=14}}, originally in the [[Septuagint]].
|-
|24
|Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
|Therefore, when Joseph woke up, he did as the angel of the Lord has instructed him, and wed Mary.
|
|-
|25
|And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
|And did not consumate the marriage until she bore her son, who Jospeh named Jesus.
|
|}

== Chapter 2 ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
|When Jesus was born in [[Bethlehem]] in [[Judea]], during the reign of King [[Herod]], ''a number of'' astrologers came to [[Jerusalem]] from the east.
|These astrologers, or "wise men," were learned men, schooled in [[astrology]] and dream interpretation. The Greek manuscript literally calls them "mages," but no evidence exists that any of them practiced sorcery, thaumaturgy, or any similar art. Their number is ''not'' given in any extant manuscript. They brought three categories of gifts (see below), but they were ''not'' three in number and probably were a much larger party.
|-
|2
|Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
|They asked, "where is the child who was born as the King of the Jews? We saw his star in the eastern sky, and we came here to worship him."
|The star was probably the [[planet]] [[Jupiter]], which in the year of their trip (probably 1 BC) had made its every-twelve-year apparent reversal of course and had conjoined three times with [[Regulus]], the "King Star," also known as Alpha Leonis because it is the brightest star in the constellation Leo, meaning [[lion]]. The lion has always been a symbol of [[Judah]], his tribe, and the kingdom that bore his name under King David (for seven years) and the successors of Solomon.
|-
|3
|When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.
|When King Herod heard these things, he was troubled, as was all of Jerusalem.
|
|-
|4
|And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.
|So he gathered all the leading priests and the scribes, and demanded that they tell him where Christ would be born.
|Herod probably summoned the members of the [[Sanhedrin]] and interrogated them.
|-
|5
|And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,
|And they said to him, "He will be born in Bethlehem which is in Judea, in fulfillment of the prophecy, which states:
|
|-
|6
|And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.
|"You, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are not the least of the provinces of Judah, for out of you shall come a King who shall rule all Israel."
|
|-
|7
|Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, inquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.
|Then Herod spoke privately with his astrologers and carefully asked them when the star would appear which would announce Christ's birth.
|
|-
|8
|And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.
|So he sent them to Bethlehem with the instructions, "Go, and search diligently for the baby, and when you have found him, tell me, so that I can come and worship him."
|
|-
|9
|When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.
|When they had heard the King's instructions, they departed, and followed the star which they saw in the east until it stood over where the infant was.
|
|-
|10
|When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.
|When they saw the star, they felt the greatest joy.
|
|-
|11
|And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.
|And when they went into the house, they saw the infant with his mother Mary, and they fell down and worshiped him. And they opened their bags and presented Him gifts of [[gold]], [[incense]], and oil of [[myrrh]].
|Matt 2:11 specifies frankincense and myrrh. Each of the gifts given to Jesus has a special significance. Gold has always been the metal of royalty, and emphasizes Christ's Kingship. Frankincense has always found use as a natural wound healer, and myrrh has always been used as a preservative used in funeral preparations. Thus frankincense and myrrh prefigure Christ's ministry of healing (spiritual as well as physical) and His death and Resurrection.
|-
|12
|And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.
|God warned these men in a dream that they should not return to King Herod, so they went to their own country by an alternate route.
|That God gave the warning directly is an assumption. That God was ''instrumental'' in the giving of that warning is certainly a safe assumption.
|-
|13
|And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
|Once they had departed, the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, "Take the young child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and stay there until I tell you otherwise: for King Herod will be searching for the infant to kill him."
|
|-
|14
|When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:
|When he woke up, he took the infant and his mother that night and fled to Egypt.
|
|-
|15
|And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
|There they stayed until the death of Herod, so that the words of the Lord's prophet would be fulfilled, which said "Out of Egypt have I beckoned my son."
|
|-
|16
|Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.
|Herod was very angry when he saw the astrologers had deceived him. He gave orders than all infants two years old and younger in Bethlehem and the neighboring coastlines be killed, as this would assuredly kill any infant born at the time the astrologers had told him.
|
|-
|17
|Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,
|This is how the prophecy of Jeremy was fulfilled, which said,
|
|-
|18
|In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.
|"In Rama a weeping and mourning voice was heard, for Rachel wept for her children, and could not be comforted, because they are not alive."
|This verse directly quotes the [[Septuagint]].
|-
|19
|But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt,
|When Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph, who was in Egypt.
|[[Herod]] probably died in 1 BC.
|-
|20
|Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life.
|And the angel said, "Rise, and take the infant and His mother, and go to Israel, for those who sought to kill Him are dead."
|
|-
|21
|And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.
|So he rose, and took the infant and His mother, and went to [[Israel]].
|
|-
|22
|But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:
|When he heard that Archelaus reigned in Judea as successor to his father Herod, Joseph was afraid to go there, but on Gods instructions, he entered into the region around Galiliee,
|
|-
|23
|And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
|and settled in a city called [[Nazareth]]. This fulfilled the prophecy, "He shall be called a Nazarene."
|
|}

== Chapter 3 ==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,
|In those times there was a man called [[John the Baptist]], who preached in the deserts of [[Judea]].
|Literally, "John the Baptizer."
|-
|2
|And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
|He would say, "You must repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near!"
|The Greek verb '''μετανοεω''' literally means "I change my mind." Repentance means a change of heart and mind, and a turning away from a prior path.
|-
|3
|For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
|John the Baptist was the man prophesied by [[Isaiah]], who spoke of "the voice of a man crying out in the desert, 'Prepare the path of the Lord!'"
|
|-
|4
|And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.
|John the Baptists clothes were made of camel's hair and a leather belt, and he ate [[grasshopper]]s and wild [[honey]].
|"Locusts" refers to a swarm of any of various grass-eating insects, most commonly the [[grasshopper]], but also (in America) the [[cicada]]. "Wild honey" is honey taken from any hive that is not specifically maintained. These descriptions of the clothing and diet of John the Baptist emphasize his character as an outdoorsman, "roughing it" and living quite literally off the land.
|-
|5
|Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,
|And many citizens of Jerusalem, and of all the neighboring regions, went out to John the Baptist
|
|-
|6
|And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.
|and were baptized by him in the Jordan river as they confessed their sins.
|"Baptism" literally means washing by total body immersion.
|-
|7
|But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
|When John saw how many Pharisees and Sadducees came to be baptized by him, he said to them, "You jerks! Who has warned you to flee from the ''divine'' sentence that's coming ''to you''?
|The phrase '''Γεννηματα εχιδνων''', "sons of snakes," is an insult, akin to "sons of (female dogs)" or "bastards" or simply "jerks."

The word rendered "wrath" is '''οργη''', which refers to the attitude of a magistrate before whom a convict appears for sentencing. In this context, they are clearly attempting to flee from God's justice by baptism. John finds this richly ironic, because he knows that Pharisees and Sadducees would be united in their "citified" contempt of him, because he's a roughneck who doesn't "dress properly," and everyone in Jerusalem surely knows it.
|-
|8
|Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
|"''If you want to escape that fate,'' show ''in your lives'' fruits that deserve to be called fruits of repentance.
|
|-
|9
|And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
|"Do not think to yourself, 'We have [[Abraham]] as our patriarch, ''and are saved on that account''." For I tell you now that God could make these stones into children of Abraham ''if He wanted to''."
|God is no Respecter of persons, or of their races or national or clannish origins.
|-
|10
|And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
|"Already the axe is about to fall on the roots of the trees. So every tree that does not bring forth good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.
|
|-
|11
|I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
|On the one hand, I baptize you with water, as you repent: but on the other hand he who will come after me is far mightier, and I don't deserve to carry his shoes. He will immerse you in the Divine Guide, and in fire.
|
|-
|12
|Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
|His winnowing shovel is in his hand, and he will rid his threshing-floor ''of all impure elements'', and gather his wheat into his barn; and he will burn the chaff with a fire that cannot be quenched.
|The Greek word '''ασβεστος''', meaning "unquenchable", survives as the term [[asbestos]], a mineral once prized as a flame-retardant.
|-
|13
|Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
|Now Jesus came from Galilee to Jordan, to be baptized by John.
|
|-
|14
|But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
|But John begged him to stop, saying, "No, I need to be baptized by you, not you by me."
|
|-
|15
|And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
|And Jesus in answer said to him, "Allow yourself to baptize me, for it is necessary and proper." So John allowed it.
|
|-
|16
|And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
|And Jesus, once he was baptized, rose out of the water and the heavens opened for him, and the spirit of God descended like a dove upon him.
|
|-
|17
|And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
|And a voice spoke from heaven, saying, "This my beloved Son, with whom I am very pleased."
|
|}

== Chapter 4 ==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
|Then the Divine Guide led Jesus into the desert to be tested by the Slanderer.
|The word traditionally rendered "to tempt" means "to test," as an engineer will test a new material or assembly, often "to failure." This was Jesus' Final Examination.

The Greek word '''διαβουλος''' literally means "slanderer". The traditional rendition, "devil," is a contraction of the Greek word.

|-
|1b
|Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
|Then Jesus was lead by the Holy Spirit into the desert to be tried by the Devil.
|The Aramaic (Syriac) Peshitta provides understanding and is important not only because if is the first translation after the Greek original but also because it captures the "aramaisms in the original
Greek and as some have pointed out, either orally or written, it provides the Aramaic sources from which the Original Greek, that is the earliest we have, might be a translation and reworking.

"Spirit" in Greeek, "Holy Spirit" in Aramaic ( Ruha d Qudsha)

Important to leave as the Greek has it the passive. "Jesus was led"
|-
|2
|And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
|And after having fasted for 40 days and nights, Jesus was very hungry.
|
|-
|2b
|And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
|And after having fasted for 40 days and nights, Jesus began to be hungry
|Greek and Syriac strongly imply that Jesus felt no hunnger until the end of the 40 days and nights of fast.
|-
|3
|And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
|And the tester (Satan) came to him and said, "If you are truly the Son of God, order that these rocks be made into food".
|
|-
|3b
|And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
|And the Tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread".
|"eipe" say, literally say. Less literally but better English, "tell" these stones to become bread. Then Jesus would have been told by the Devil to speak to the stones. I think that the KJV "command" is the best.
|-
|4
|But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
|But Jesus said in answer, "Scripture says: The life of Man is not just about consuming food, but about consuming the message of God".
|Satan suggests that Jesus should be an economic Messiah. Jesus rejects this, saying that taking God's message to heart is more important even than the daily diet.
|-
|4b
|But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
|But Jesus answered and said, It is written, "Man does not live by bread alone, but also by every word coming from the mouth of God
|The solemn and sonorous Biblical "answered and said" is proliptic and should be retained. It is there to tell us that we are about to hear Holy Writ. "It is written", is literal , understandable , and Hebraic all at once.
|-
|5
|Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
|Then the slanderer took him into the holy city, and stood him up on the pinnacle of the [[Temple of Jerusalem|Temple]].
|
|-
|5b
|Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
|Then the Devil took Him into the Holy City, and set Him on the parapet of the Temple.
|
|-
|6
|And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
|And he told him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down. Scripture says, ''does it not'', 'He shall give His Messengers a responsibility concerning You, and will carry You in their hands to prevent You from ''so much as'' striking Your foot against a stone.'"
|The word '''αγγελος''' literally means "messenger."
|-
|6b
|And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
|The Devil said to Him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down. Yes, it is written, "Concerning you, He will command His angels and they will bear you up in their hands so that not even your foot will hit rock. "
|
|-
|7
|Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
|Jesus told him, "Scripture also says, 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"
|God will provide Divine protection up to a point, but to rely on Him to bail one out of the consequences of bad judgment is bad form. In fact, Satan suggests that Jesus be a magical or wonder-working Messiah, and Jesus rejects that advice as well.
|-
|7b
|Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
|Jesus said to him, "Again, it is written, Do not tempt the Lord your God."
|
|-
|8
|Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
|Again the slanderer took Him up to an extremely tall mountain, and showed him all the nation-states of the world and ''all'' their glory,
|The [[Greek]] word '''βασιλεια''', a kingdom, is rendered "nation-state" here because it can stand for any nation-state having any form of government. Representative republics were not known at the time that the Evangelists and Apostles wrote, though they had been known earlier. All heads-of-state with whom these writers were familiar held titles that would translate today as "king" or "emperor." But when Satan shows Jesus all the nation-states of the world, he does not limit this vision only to those nation-states known to the Evangelists, or even only to those nation-states then existing. Rather, Satan demonstrates all nation-states, past, present, and future, as if to say that the governments of men have always been Satan's to bestow on anyone. Such is the measure of Satan's incomparable pride.
|-
|8b
|Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
|And again the the Devil took Him up a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world with all their magnificence
|
|-
|9
|And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
|and told him, "I will give You all these things, if You will fall down and worship me."
|Satan now offers Jesus the chance to be a political Messiah, One Who uses raw political power.
|-
|9b
|And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
|He said to Him, "I will give You all these things, if You will prostrate yourself and worship me."
|
|-
|10
|Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
|Then Jesus told him, "Get away from me, Satan. Scripture says, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him alone.'"
|
|-
|10b
|Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
|Then Jesus said to him, "Go, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him alone shall you serve.'"
|
|-
|11
|Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.
|Then the slanderer left Him, and suddenly messengers ''of God'' came and waited on Him.
|The word used is '''διακονεω''', which means "I wait on someone like a table waiter." From this root comes the Greek word '''διακονος''' a table waiter, which survives today as the word ''[[deacon]]''.
|-
|11b
|Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.
|Then, when the Devil left Him, the angels came and served Him.
|the "behold" asking us to see, and we do and we see, after the Devil has left, or as he is leaving, the angels, in their turn, are coming in.

|-
|12
|Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee;
|Now when Jesus had heard that John had been arrested, he went away into [[Galilee]];
|
|-
|13
|And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim:
|And leaving Nazareth, he came and settled in Capernaum, which is on the seacoast, near the border between the ''tribal lands of'' Zebulun and Naphthali,
|
|-
|14
|That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
|in order that the words might be fulfilled that were spoken by [[Isaiah]] the [[prophet]], who said,
|
|-
|15
|The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles;
|"The land of Zebulun, and the land of Naphthali, by the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan River, Galilee of the Gentiles;
|The [[Greek]] word '''εθνοι''', "nations," is rendered "Gentiles" from the [[Latin]] ''gens, gentis'' meaning "the nation", or more literally, "the clan."
|-
|16
|"The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up.
|"The people that sat in darkness saw a great light; and to them that sat in the region and shadow of death light has dawned."
|
|-
|17
|From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
|From that moment Jesus began to preach, and to say, "Change your hearts, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
|Here the Greek word '''βασιλεια''' is properly rendered "kingdom" because [[God]] is, always was, and always will be, a King in the truest sense of that word.
|-
|18
|And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
|Now Jesus, as He walked by the sea of Galilee, saw two brothers, Simon, called Peter, and his brother Andrew, as they were casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen.
|This sea is known today as Lake Tiberias. The name ''Peter'' means "rock."
|-
|19
|And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.
|And he told them, "Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men."
|
|-
|20
|And they straightway left their nets, and followed him.
|And immediately they left their fishing nets behind and followed Him.
|
|-
|21
|And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them.
|And going on from that place, He saw two other brothers, James son of Zebedee, and his brother John, in a boat with their father Zebedee, mending their nets; and He called them.
|
|-
|22
|And they immediately left the ship and their father, and followed him.
|And immediately they left the boat and their father, and followed Him.
|
|-
|23
|And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.
|And Jesus traveled throughout the whole of Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the Kingdom, and healing every kind of chronic illness and every kind of germ among the people.
|
|-
|24
|And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.
|And the news of him spread throughout the whole of [[Syria]] (Province), and ''people'' brought to him the sick people having various diseases and torments, all demon-oppressed people, and mentally disturbed people, and paralyzed people, and He healed them.
|The [[Greek]] word '''σεληνιαζομαι''' means "I am struck by the [[moon]]." This was the popularly suspected cause of most mental disturbance in those times. Here Matthew clearly distinguishes between ordinary mental illness and oppression or possession by demons.
|-
|25
|And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan.
|And great crowds of people followed Him from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from [[Jerusalem]] and [[Judea]] and from the far side of the Jordan River.
|
|}

== Chapter 5 ==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
|Now when He saw the crowds, He went up into a mountain, and when he had taken His seat , His pupils came to Him.
|The [[Greek]] word '''μαθητης''' means a pupil or student.
|-
|1b
|And seeing the multitudes, her went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
|After seeing the masses before Him, he ascended the Mountain, then He sat down*[to be foot-noted at bottom]. Those who were learning from Him, came to Him
|What would have been understood by the original hearers and readers of Gospel of Matthew - Jesus was the fulfiller and then the displacer of Moses, viewing the crowd, as Moses did, Jesus ascended (dignified reminiscent of the Original Event, and when He got to the top, He SAT DOWN. That is mentioned, seemingly unimportant but actually very important. "Sitting down" was the 1st century act which meant "assumning authority". That is why there was a "seat of Moses" in the synagogue which Jesus said the Pharasees were presently occupying (that is why also the early bishops were represented as sitting with their clergy around them). His Learners - Talmidim (thus the Syriac and Hebrew behind the Greek Mathntns. Talmidim/mathntns does not really mean "pupil" which to the modern ear brings in "classroom", but rather followers or learners by seeing and hearing and doing - apprentices, if you will) came to him.
|-
|2
|And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
|Then he opened His mouth and taught them, saying:
|
|-
|2b
|And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
|He began His Torah*[to be foot-noted at bottom] to them, then, and said:
| Jesus would have had to "open His mouth" in order for him "to say", but it was important to put it this way to thrust the reader to the sonorous solemnity of the Scriptures Va Ya'an vaYomer = He responded (when it was really not a response) and said. What they heard, so the original readers of the Gospel of Matthew would have now learned by this preface, is the new Torah from the One who was greater than Moses, having taken his place on "the mountain" ("mountain" here has an article - "the" precisely because it is specified, though unnamed, in contradistinction to the Mt. Sinai of Moses). The Gospel of Luke has the "sermon" on the plain while Matthew has it on the mountain. Both are correct as it is a plain going on up to the top of a mount on the north shore of the Lake. But Matthew chooses to call it "mountain" precisely because he is presenting the greater than Moses. The hearers and readers of the Gospel of Matthew would not be surprised then to hear later on in the "Sermon on the Mount" (better it be called " The Torah of the Messiah" or the "Law of the Kingdom"), " You have heard it said...but I say to you..." They would understand that the displacer and surpasser of Moses was getting the Torah directly from the Father, and no more would they have need of the line of rabbis and teachers to go back to the time of Moses. Somehow what the original readers and hearers of the Gospel would have understood must come through in the modern language. How that can be done is both an art and a miracle.
|-
|3
|Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
|Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven.
|The [[Greek]] word '''μακαριος''', "blessed," comes from '''μη''' (not) and the root '''καρ-''' which connotes being cut off. Thus when Jesus says that people are blessed, He means that they will not be cut off from God.

The Greek word '''ουρανος''', literally "sky", is always rendered in the plural. (In the Old Testament it was rendered in the Hebrew dual number.)
|-
|3b
|Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
|So truly blessed are those that are not full of the themselves. The Kingdom of heaven is theirs.
|Here and in the rest of the "beatitudes", blessed is a good translation but behind the makarios is the ASHRAIcem, ASHRAIhem of the Hebrew rather than barukh. Ashrai is used for the palpable and overflowwing blessing and presence of God rather than the consecratory state, The root of ashrai is used for "happiness" Change in word order for the this and the rest of beatitudes is permitted by grammar and brings the true and unexpected reversal which is the teaching of Christ.
|-
|4
|Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
|Blessed are the sad, for they shall be comforted.
|
|-
|4b
|Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
|So truly blessed those that are grief-stricken. They will be comforted.
|
|-
|5
|Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
|Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
|
|-
|5b
|Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
|So truly blessed are the meek. They are the ones to inherit the earth.
|
|-
|6
|Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
|Blessed are they that hunger and thirst for justice, for they shall be satisfied.
|The use of the Greek accusative case connotes persons who actively do and pursue justice in their daily living.
|-
|6b
|Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
|So truly blessed are those that hunger and thirst to see righteousness done. They will have their fill.
|
|-
|7
|Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
|Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
|
|-
|7b
|Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
|So truly blessed are those that are merciful. Mercy will come to them.
|
|-
|8
|Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
|Blessed are the clean in heart, for they shall see God.
|The [[Greek]] word '''καθαρος''' means "clean." The English word ''pure'' has its roots in metallurgy and connotes a refined metal element separated in a furnace. That metaphor is used elsewhere in Scripture, but not here.
|-
|8b
|Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
|So truly blesssed are the pure of heart. They will see God.
|
|-
|9
|Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
|Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.
|
|-
|9b
|Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
|So truly blessed are the Makers of Peace. It is Children of God that they will be called.
|developed from the Scripture and current in the 1st cent. and common in the synagogual liturgy - "The One who makes Peace in His Heights, He will make Peace upon us." As God is called according to this His quality, so those who follow Him in this, will also be called, a new name - "Children of God"

|-
|10
|Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
|Blessed are they that are persecuted for the sake of justice, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven.
|The Greek preposition '''ενεκεν''', used with the ablative, means "for the sake of." Here Matthew refers to those who suffer for the cause of justice, whereas before he referred to those who sought to deal justly themselves.
|-
|11
|Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
|Blessed are you, when ''men'' shall denounce you, and persecute you, and say everything evil against you (falsely), for My sake.
|Some Greek manuscripts omit the word translated as "falsely."
|-
|12
|Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
|Rejoice, and be very glad, because your reward is great in heaven: because they persecuted the prophets that came before you in the same manner.
|
|-
|13
|Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
|You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt has become bland, what shall it be salted with? It is then good for nothing, and fit only to be thrown out and trodden underfoot by men.
|
|-
|14
|Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
|You are the light of the world. A city cannot be hidden if it stands on a hill.
|
|-
|15
|Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
|And men do not light a candle and put it under a bushel basket, but on a candlestick; and it shines on everyone in the house.
|
|-
|16
|Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
|Let your light shine in this manner in front of people, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven.
|
|-
|17
|Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
|Do not think that I have come to tear down the law or the prophets. I have not come to tear these things down, but rather to fulfil them.
|
|-
|18
|For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
|For I tell you truly: Until heaven and earth, not one iota nor one prime-mark shall pass from the law, in any way, shape or form, until everything is fulfilled.
|The Greek letter ''iota'' derives from the [[Hebrew]] '''י''' or ''yod'', commonly called a "jot" on account of its small size. The phrase "one iota" survives today in common English and means exactly what it meant to St. Matthew: a tiny amount.

The prime-mark is the [[Hebrew]] ''gerash'', called '''κεραια''' or ''keraia'' in Greek; this was called a "tittle" in Elizabethan [[English]]. The ''gerash'', or the double-prime called ''gershayim'' (dual number), appeared often in Hebrew manuscripts to distinguish numbers (written with ordinary alphabetic letters) from regular text.
|-
|19
|Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
|And so if any person breaks even one of the least of these commandments, and shall so instruct others, that person shall be called the least in the Kingdom of heaven: but any person who does and teaches the commandments, shall be called great in the Kingdom of heaven.
|
|-
|20
|For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
|For I tell you that unless your justification exceeds the justification of the scribes and the Pharisees, you cannot enter the Kingdom of heaven under any circumstances.
|The manner of that justification will be explained later. Jesus makes a point of setting the bar higher than any man can scale by relying on his own strength.
|-
|21
|Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
|You have heard that it was said in ancient times, "You shall not commit murder," and anyone guilty of committing murder would be liable for trial.
|The Greek verb '''φονευω''' literally means "I commit murder." Therefore, murder is specifically in view here.
|-
|22
|But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
|But I tell you that any person who is angry with his brother shall be liable for trial, and anyone who says to his brother, "Airhead!" shall be liable to be brought before the council, but whoever says, "Moron!" shall be liable for the fire of hell.
|The Byzantine family of manuscripts, that form the basis of the [[Textus Receptus]], add the word '''εικη''' or ''eiki'', which means "without proper cause." But whether Jesus would necessarily recognize such a thing as a good cause to stay angry with someone is an open question.
|-
|23
|Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
|So if you are bringing your gift to the altar, that your brought has something against you,
|
|-
|24
|Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
|leave your gift in front of the alter, go away, reconcile yourself to your brother first, and then come and offer your gift.
|One does not offer gifts to God while harboring anger in one's heart; such behavior is dishonoring to God and therefore frowned upon.
|-
|25
|Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
|Be on good terms with your adversary quickly, while you are with him on the road; otherwise he might sometime deliver you to the judge, who will deliver you to the bailiff, and you find yourself thrown into prison.
|The Greek word '''υπηρετης''' or ''hyperetis'' means an attendant; the attendant of a judge would be called a bailiff.
|-
|26
|Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
|I tell you truly: you shall not come out of that prison until you have paid back the last quarter-penny.
|The Greek word '''κοδραντης''' referred to the Roman ''quadrans'', the smallest coin in the Roman coinage system. The British quarter-penny coin once called a "farthing" was the best equivalent in King James' day.
|-
|27
|Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
|You have heard that they said, "Do not commit adultery."
|
|-
|28
|But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
|But I tell you that any man who looks at a woman with desire has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
|
|-
|29
|And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
|But if your right eye causes you to stumble, take it out and throw it away from you: for it is better for you to have one of your body parts perish than that the whole body be thrown into hell.
|
|-
|30
|And if thy right hand offend thee, cut if off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
|And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away from you: for it is better for you to have one of your body parts perish than that the whole body be thrown into hell.
|
|-
|31
|It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
|It has been said, "Any man who divorces his wife should give her a bill of divorcement."
|
|-
|32
|But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
|But I say to you that any man who divorces his wife, ''or fails to marry his betrothed'' for any reason other than improper conduct on her part, causes her to commit adultery; and any person who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
|In ancient [[Judaism|Jewish]] custom, betrothal was as binding as was actual marriage, in the same way that "earnest money contracts" are binding on would-be buyers and sellers of real estate. The only recognized grounds for not "closing the sale," that is, proceeding with the wedding, was improper conduct by the wife before the date of the wedding. Because Matthew, a Jew, was writing to Jews, he included this exception. Luke, who wrote primarily to Gentiles, did not need to, because Gentiles had no such custom as a binding betrothal.
|-
|33
|Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
|Again you have heard that it was said in ancient times, "Do not swear falsely, but keep before the Lord any oath that you do swear."
|
|-
|34
|But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
|But I tell you: don't swear at all, neither by heaven, the throne of God;
|
|-
|35
|Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
|nor by the earth, His footstool; nor by [[Jerusalem]], the city of the great King,
|
|-
|36
|Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
|nor by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black.
|
|-
|37
|But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
|But let your word be a simple "Yes" or "No." Anything more than that comes from evil.
|
|-
|38
|Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
|You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth."
|This was the original ''lex talionis'' and was given to restrain the retaliator from exacting a revenge greater than the original wrong.
|-
|39
|But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
|But I tell you: Don't ''be quick to'' stand against evil. To whomever hits you on the right cheek, turn the other cheek to him also.
|
|-
|40
|And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
|And if any person sues you in a court of law, and takes your coat from you, let him have your cloak as well.
|
|-
|41
|And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
|And if anyone compels you to go a mile with him, go with him two miles.
|A Roman infantryman stationed in the provinces might compel a non-citizen of Rome to carry his backpack for him for one Roman mile, under Roman law and regulation. Jesus urges His followers, in this and other cases, to offer double what another person demands.
|-
|42
|Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
|Give to anyone who asks, and don't turn away from anyone who wants to borrow from you.
|
|-
|43
|Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
|You have heard that it was said, "Love your neighbor, and disregard your enemy."
|The Greek word '''μισεω''' generally means "I disregard someone." The word connotes not wasting the effort of thought on the other person, rather than cultivating an attitude of anger. Again, Jesus is about to set an even higher standard of human behavior.
|-
|44
|But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
|But I tell you: Love your enemies, bless them who curse you, do good to those who disregard you, and pray for those who treat you spitefully and persecute you,
|Many Greek manuscripts mention only the first and fourth parts of the above, but all four are mutually consistent.
|-
|45
|That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
|so that you may be the children of your Father in heaven. He makes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
|If God is no Respecter of persons in this regard, then what right have we to impose a sanction that God Himself does not impose?
|-
|46
|For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
|Because if you love them who love you, what reward do you have? Don't even tax collectors do the same thing?
|
|-
|47
|And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
|And if you exchange polite greetings only with your brothers, what are you doing, any more than others do? Don't even tax-collectors behave this way?
|
|-
|48
|Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
|You should therefore be perfect, even as your Father Who is in heaven is perfect.
|The word translated "perfect" is the Greek '''τελειος''' or ''teleios'', which comes from the root '''τελε-''' meaning far, or at the end. The "perfect person" would be a finished work, having no room for improvement. Jesus necessarily sets the bar high, and encourages His followers to jump as high as they can. But only His substitutionary sacrifice will, in the end, complete the work for anyone.
|}

==Chapter 6==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
|Be careful not to perform your acts of charity in front of men, in order to be a spectacle before them; otherwise you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
|
|-
|2
|Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
|So when you do your duty, do not sound a trumpet before you, the way the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may have glory from men. I tell you truly: they will get what's coming to them.
|
|-
|3
|But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
|But when you do your duties, don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
|
|-
|4
|That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
|so that your acts of charity may be hidden, and your Father, who sees in a hidden way Himself, will reward you openly.
|
|-
|5
|And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
|And when you pray, don't be like the hypocrites. They love to pray when standing in the synagogues and in the street corners, so that they may be seen by men. I tell you truly: They will get what's coming to them.
|
|-
|6
|But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
|But you, when you pray, go into your private room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father Who is hidden, and your Father, who sees in a hidden manner, will reward you openly.
|
|-
|7
|But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
|And when you do pray, don't use vain repetitions, the way those of other nations do. They think that they'll be heard if they use many words.
|
|-
|8
|Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
|So don't be like them. Your Father knows what things you need, before you ask Him.
|
|-
|9
|After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
|Therefore, pray this way: "Our Father, who is in heaven, let your Name be Holy.
|The Greek form '''αγιασθητω''' is in the third-person present imperative or ''jussive'' form. This is the equivalent of an English jussive subjunctive.
|-
|10
|Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
|Let Your kingdom come. Let Your will be done on earth as it is done in heaven.
|Again, the jussive imperative form appears here, not the indicative.
|-
|11
|Give us this day our daily bread.
|Give us our daily bread today.
|In other words: see to our daily needs.
|-
|12
|And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
|And forgive us of all our sins, just as we forgive those who sin against us.
|
|-
|13
|And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
|And do not lead us into testing, but keep us from the evil one. For yours is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.
|The Byzantine manuscripts add "For yours is the kingdom," etc. Other manuscripts omit this part.
|-
|14
|For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
|Because if you forgive men the wrongs they do, your heavenly Father will forgive you as well.
|
|-
|15
|But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
|But if you do not forgive men their wrongdoings, your Father will not forgive your wrongdoings either.
|
|-
|16
|Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
|Furthermore, when you fast, do not be gloomy, like the hypocrites. They like to disfigure their faces so that they appear to other people to be fasting. I tell you truly: they will get what's coming to them.
|
|-
|17
|But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face;
|But you, when you fast, rub your head with oil, and wash your face,
|Anointment, or rubbing of the head with oil, was necessary in desert climates to hold the body water in.
|-
|18
|That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.
|so that you do not look like a man fasting to other men, but to your Father Who is hidden, and your Father, who sees in a hidden manner, will reward you openly.
|
|-
|19
|Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
|Don't store up treasures for yourselves on earth, where moths and rust make things unsightly and thieves break through and steal.
|
|-
|20
|But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
|But store up treasures for yourselves in heaven, where neither moth nor rust can disfigure and no thief can break in or steal.
|
|-
|21
|For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
|For where your treasure is, your heart will also be.
|
|-
|22
|The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
|The lamp of the body is the eye. So if your eye is single, then your whole body will be bright.
|
|-
|23
|But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!
|But if your eye is evil, then your whole body will be dark. So if the light that is in you is dark, it is very dark indeed.
|
|-
|24
|No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
|No one can serve two masters. He will either hate the one and love the other, or else hold to the one and treat the other with contempt. You cannot at the same time be a slave to God and wealth.
|
|-
|25
|Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
|For this reason I tell you: stop worrying about your life, and what you will eat [or drink], or for your body, or what you will wear. Isn't life more than about food, and the body more than about clothes?
|The Greek verb is a negation of a present imperative. Such a construct tells the reader to stop doing something that he is presently doing or in the habit of doing.
|-
|26
|Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
|Look at the birds in the sky. They neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, but your heavenly Father feeds them. Aren't you much better than they are?
|
|-
|27
|Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?
|Who among you, by worrying about it, can add one foot to his height?
|
|-
|28
|And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
|And why do you worry about your clothes? Look at the lilies of the field, and how they grow. They don't work or spin.
|
|-
|29
|And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
|And yet I tell you that even [[Solomon]] in all his glory was never clothed like one of these.
|
|-
|30
|Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?
|So if God can thus clothe the grass of the field, which is here today and thrown into the oven tomorrow, will he not clothe you so much more, you who have so little faith?
|
|-
|31
|Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
|So stop worrying, and saying, "What shall we eat?" or "What shall we drink?" or "What shall we wear?"
|
|-
|32
|(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
|For the Gentiles seek after all these things, but your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things.
|
|-
|33
|But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
|But first seek after the Kingdom of God, and His justice, and every one of these things will be added to you.
|
|-
|34
|Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
|So stop worrying about tomorrow, because tomorrow will worry about itself. The bad things that happen today are enough to worry about today.
|
|}

==Chapter 7==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Judge not, that ye be not judged.
|Stop judging others, if you do not want to be judged.
|
|-
|2
|For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
|For with whatever judgment you judge, you will be judged, and with whatever measure you measure out to others, it will be measured to you.
|
|-
|3
|And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
|And why do you behold the mote in your brother's eye, and not consider the beam in your own eye?
|
|-
|4
|Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
|Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the mote out of your eye", while a beam is in your own eye?
|
|-
|5
|Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
|Hypocrite! Throw the beam out of your own eye first, and then you will see clearly to throw out the mote in your brother's eye.
|
|-
|6
|Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
|Stop giving holy things to the dogs, and throwing your pearls in front of pigs, if you don't want them to trample them underfoot, and turn against you and tear you apart.
|
|-
|7
|Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
|Ask, and it wiill be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
|
|-
|8
|For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
|For everyone who asks, receives; he who seeks, finds; and to him who knocks, it is opened.
|
|-
|9
|Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
|Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?
|
|-
|10
|Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
|Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake?
|
|-
|11
|If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
|If you, then, being evili, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask Him?
|
|-
|12
|Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
|So however you would want men to treat you, treat them the same way. The law and the prophets require this.
|
|-
|13
|Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
|Enter in at the narrow gate. The gate is wide, and the road broad, that leads to destruction, and many people go in that way,
|
|-
|14
|Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
|because the gate and the road are narrow, that lead to life, and few people find it.
|
|-
|15
|Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
|Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.
|
|-
|16
|Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
|You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?
|
|-
|17
|Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
|In fact every good makes good fruit, but a corrupt tree makes bad fruit.
|
|-
|18
|A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
|A good tree cannot make bad fruit, nor a corrupt tree make good fruit.
|
|-
|19
|Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
|Every tree that does not make good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
|
|-
|20
|Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
|Therefore, by their fruits you will know them.
|
|-
|21
|Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
|Not everyone who says to me, "Lord! Lord!" will enter into the Kingdom of heaven, but rather the one who does the will of My Father in heaven (will so enter).
|
|-
|22
|Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
|Many people will say to me in that day, "Lord! Lord! Haven't we told the future in Your Name? Haven't we thrown demons out of people in Your Name? Haven't we done wonderful works in Your Name?"
|
|-
|23
|And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
|And then I will tell them plainly: "I never knew you. Get away from me, you who work lawlessness."
|
|-
|24
|Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
|So everyone who hears these things that I say, and does them, I will compare to a wise man, who built his house on a rock,
|
|-
|25
|And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
|and the rain came down, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house, and it did not fall, because it was founded on rock.
|
|-
|26
|And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
|And everyone who hears these things that I say, and does not do them, will be compared to a foolish man, who built his house on sand,
|
|-
|27
|And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
|and the rain came down, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house, and it fell, and fell with a great crash.
|
|-
|28
|And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
|And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished talking, that the crowds were amazed at his teaching,
|
|-
|29
|For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.
|because when he taught them he spoke with and from authority, and not the way the scribes commonly taught them.
|
|}

==Chapter 8==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|When he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him.
|When He had come down from the mountain, great crowds of people followed him.
|
|-
|2
|And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
|And then a leper came and fell down at His feet, saying, "Lord, if You are willing, You can make me clean."
|
|-
|3
|And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.
|And He put out his hand, and touched him, and said, "I am willing. Be clean." And immediately the man's [[leprosy]] was cleansed.
|The [[leprosy]] in view here could be any of a number of contagious skin disorders common to the Middle East in that time, and not necessarily [[Hansen's Disease]] caused by ''Mycobacterium leprae''.
|-
|4
|And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.
|And Jesus told him, "Don't breathe a word of this to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer the sacrifice that Moses commanded as a testimony to them."
|Someone might occasionally find himself free of the particular skin disorder that fell under the general heading of "leprosy." Such a man was always supposed to offer a sacrificial animal to give thanks to God.
|-
|5
|And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,
|And when Jesus had gone into Capernaum, a centurion came to him, begging him,
|A Roman centurion ([[Greek]] '''εκατονταρχ''', literally, "leader of a hundred") was the lowest-ranking commissioned officer in the Roman army. He commanded a century of troops, consisting typically of eighty fighting men and twenty auxiliaries.
|-
|6
|And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.
|and saying, "Lord, my servant is bedridden in my house, paralyzed and in great pain."
|
|-
|7
|And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.
|And Jesus told him, "I will come and heal him."
|
|-
|8
|The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.
|In answer, the centurion said, "Lord, I don't deserve to have you come under my roof. Just say the word, and my servant will be healed.
|
|-
|9
|For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
|"For I am part of a chain of command, and I have soldiers under my command. I tell this man, "Go" and he goes, and another, "Come" and he comes, and my servant, "Do this," and he does it."
|
|-
|10
|When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
|When Jesus heard that, he was amazed, and said to those that were following him, "I tell you truely, I have not found such great faith, even in [[Israel]].
|
|-
|11
|And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
|"And I tell you that many will come from east and west, and will sit down with [[Abraham]], and [[Isaac]], and [[Jacob]], in the Kingdom of heaven.
|
|-
|12
|But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
|"But the children of the Kingdom will be thrown out into outer darkness; there will be weeping and grinding of teeth."
|
|-
|13
|And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.
|And Jesus said to the centurion, "Go, and as you have believed, so let it be done for you." And his servant was healed in that very hour.
|
|-
|14
|And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.
|And when Jesus had come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother, bedridden and ill with fever.
|
|-
|15
|And he touched her hand, and the fever left her: and she arose, and ministered unto them.
|And He touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she got up and waited on them.
|
|-
|16
|When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick:
|That evening, they brought to Him many that were demon-oppressed, and He threw out the spirits with His word, and healed all the sick people,
|
|-
|17
|That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.
|so that this might be fulfilled that was spoken by [[Isaiah]] the prophet, who said, "He Himself took our infirmities, and bore our sicknesses."
|
|-
|18
|Now when Jesus saw great multitudes about him, he gave commandment to depart unto the other side.
|Now when Jesus saw great crowds of people around him, he gave orders to leave for the other side.
|
|-
|19
|And a certain scribe came, and said unto him, Master, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.
|And a certain scribe came, and told Him, "Master, I will follow you wherever you go."
|
|-
|20
|And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.
|And Jesus told him, "[[Fox]]es have holes, and the birds of the sky have nests, but the Son of man has no place to rest His head."
|
|-
|21
|And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.
|And another of His pupils said to him, "Lord, first permit me to go to bury my father."
|
|-
|22
|But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.
|But Jesus told him, "Follow Me, and let the dead bury their own."
|
|-
|23
|And when he was entered into a ship, his disciples followed him.
|And when He had gone into a boat, His pupils followed Him.
|This was a small fishing sloop, probably not more than fifteen feet from stem to stern.
|-
|24
|And, behold, there arose a great tempest in the sea, insomuch that the ship was covered with the waves: but he was asleep.
|And behold, a great storm arose on the lake, so much that the boat was swamped with the waves. But He was asleep.
|
|-
|25
|And his disciples came to him, and awoke him, saying, Lord, save us: we perish.
|And His pupils came to Him, and woke Him up, saying, "Lord, save us; we're dying!"
|
|-
|26
|And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm.
|And He said to them, "Why are you afraid, you of little faith?" Then He got up, and gave an order to the winds and the sea; and a great calm fell.
|
|-
|27
|But the men marvelled, saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him!
|But the men were amazed, saying, "What kind of Man is this? Even the winds and the sea obey Him!"
|
|-
|28
|And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.
|And when He had come to the other side into the country of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men met Him, coming out of the tombs, so fierce that no man dared pass by that way.
|The Byzantine family renders this "Gergesenes." In fact, this was Gadite country, and so "Gadarene" is proper.
|-
|29
|And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
|And suddenly they cried out, saying, "What business do we have with You, Jesus, Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?"
|All demons know that God will deal definitively with them eventually, and still they demand more time, as if they can possibly escape the judgment that will come to them.
|-
|30
|And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding.
|And a herd of many pigs was feeding a fair distance from them.
|
|-
|31
|So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.
|So the demons begged Him, saying, "If you're going to throw us out, let us go away into the herd of pigs."
|
|-
|32
|And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.
|And He said to them, "Go." And when they came out of the two men, they went into the herd of pigs. And the entire herd of pigs ran pell-mell down a steep bank into the sea, and drowned in the waters.
|
|-
|33
|And they that kept them fled, and went their ways into the city, and told every thing, and what was befallen to the possessed of the devils.
|And those who had been keeping the pigs ran away, and went back into the city, and told about everything that had happened, and what had happened to the formerly demon-possessed men.
|
|-
|34
|And, behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus: and when they saw him, they besought him that he would depart out of their coasts.
|And then the entire city came out to meet Jesus, and when they saw Him, they begged Him to go away from their coasts.
|
|}

==Chapter 9==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|And he entered into a ship, and passed over, and came into his own city.
|And he boarded a boat, and crossed the lake, and came into his own city.
|
|-
|2
|And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.
|And they brought to Him a paralyzed man, lying on a pallet. And Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the paralytic, "Son, cheer up; your sins are forgiven you."
|
|-
|3
|And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.
|And some of the scribes said among themselves, "This man is speaking blasphemy."
|
|-
|4
|And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?
|And Jesus, Who knew what they were thinking, said, "Why do you think evil in your hearts?
|
|-
|5
|For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?
|"For which would be easier to say: 'Your sins are forgiven you,' or 'Get up and walk'?
|
|-
|6
|But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.
|"But so that you may know that the Son of man has the authority on earth to forgive sins..." Then he said to the paralyzed man, "Get up, take up your pallet, and go to your house."
|
|-
|7
|And he arose, and departed to his house.
|And he got up and went away to his house.
|
|-
|8
|But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.
|But when the crowds saw it, they were very much afraid, and gave glory to God, Who had given power like that to men.
|The Byzantine family has the verb '''θαυμαζω''', which means, "I make someone say, 'Wow!'" But the best manuscripts say that the people in those crowds were afraid, not merely impressed with an amazing spectacle.
|-
|9
|And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.
|And as Jesus walked away from that place, he saw a man, Matthew by name, sitting in the tax office, and He said to him, "Follow Me." And he got up and followed Him.
|
|-
|10
|And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.
|And it came to pass, as He reclined to dine in the house, many tax-gatherers and sinners came and reclined with Him and His pupils.
|Men in those days did not ''sit'' down at the dinnertable; they ''lay'' down on couches set alongside the table, held themselves up on one elbow, and reached for their food.
|-
|11
|And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?
|And when the [[Pharisees]] saw this, they said to His pupils, "Why is your Master eating with tax-gatherers and sinners?"
|[[Pharisees]] constantly held themselves "holier than" the rest of their society. Tax-gatherers were the lowest of the low in Jewish society, primarily on account of the methods they employed. They were not direct government employees, but were private collection agents, to whom the Romans "farmed out" the tax-collection task. This "farming-out" caused great controversy even in the Senate of Rome and was one of the sorest points of anti-Roman resentment among the Jews.
|-
|12
|But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
|But when Jesus heard that, He told them, "The well do not need to see the doctor, but the sick do.
|
|-
|13
|But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
|"But you go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.' For I haven't come here to call the just, but sinners to change their hearts."
|
|-
|14
|Then came to him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not?
|Then some followers of John the Baptist came to him, saying, "Why do we and the Pharisees fast often, but Your students do not fast?"
|
|-
|15
|And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast.
|And Jesus told them, "Can the members of the wedding party mourn, so long as the groom is with them? But a time will come when the groom will be taken from them, and then they will fast.
|
|-
|16
|No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse.
|"No man puts a piece of new cloth onto an old garment. What is put in to fill the tear takes something from the old garment, and the hole is torn even wider.
|
|-
|17
|Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.
|Neither do men put freshly-squeezed grape juice into old skins; otherwise the skins break, the juice runs out, and the skins are ruined. Instead they put fresh juice into new skins, and both are preserved.
|The [[Greek]] word '''οινος''' means simply "the fruit of the vine." Wine in the modern sense of an [[alcoholic drink]] was not a common drink, especially among the Jews. Contrary to popular belief, connoisseurs of grape juice actively sought to stop it from fermenting and in fact had five different methods available to them to accomplish this.
|-
|18
|While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.
|While He was speaking these things to them, behold, a certain ruler came to Him, and fell down at His feet, saying, "My daughter is dead even now. But come and lay Your hand on her, and she will live."
|
|-
|19
|And Jesus arose, and followed him, and so did his disciples.
|And Jesus got up and followewd him, and so did His students.
|
|-
|20
|And, behold, a woman, which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of his garment:
|And behold, a woman, who had been hemorrhaging for twelve years, came behind Him, and touched the hem of His robe.
|
|-
|21
|For she said within herself, If I may but touch his garment, I shall be whole.
|For she said to herself, "If I could just touch His robe, I will be made well."
|
|-
|22
|But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour.
|But Jesus turned around, and when He saw her, He said, "Daughter, take heart; your faith has made you well." And the woman was made well from that hour.
|
|-
|23
|And when Jesus came into the ruler's house, and saw the minstrels and the people making a noise,
|And when Jesus came to the ruler's house, and saw the [[music]]ians and the crowds making a scene,
|
|-
|24
|He said unto them, Give place: for the maid is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn.
|He told them, "Give Me room. This young woman is not dead; she is asleep." And they laughed at Him scornfully.
|
|-
|25
|But when the people were put forth, he went in, and took her by the hand, and the maid arose.
|But when the crowds were put outside, He went in, and took her by the hand, and the young woman got up.
|
|-
|26
|And the fame hereof went abroad into all that land.
|And the news of this event went out into that entire land.
|
|-
|27
|And when Jesus departed thence, two blind men followed him, crying, and saying, Thou Son of David, have mercy on us.
|And when Jesus went away from that place, two blind men followed Him, crying out and saying, "Have mercy on us, Son of David!"
|
|-
|28
|And when he was come into the house, the blind men came to him: and Jesus saith unto them, Believe ye that I am able to do this? They said unto him, Yea, Lord.
|And when he had come into the house, the blind men came to Him. Jesus said to them, "Do you believe that I can do this?" They said to Him, "Yes, Lord."
|
|-
|29
|Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you.
|Then He touched their eyes, saying, "According to your faith, let it work out for you."
|
|-
|30
|And their eyes were opened; and Jesus straitly charged them, saying, See that no man know it.
|And their eyes were opened, and Jesus gave them strict orders, saying, "Don't let any man know anything about this."
|
|-
|31
|But they, when they were departed, spread abroad his fame in all that country.
|But they, when they had left, spread the news of him in that entire country.
|
|-
|32
|As they went out, behold, they brought to him a dumb man possessed with a devil.
|As they went out, some people brought to him a mute demon-possessed man.
|
|-
|33
|And when the devil was cast out, the dumb spake: and the multitudes marvelled, saying, It was never so seen in Israel.
|And when the demon was thrown out, the mute spoke. The crowds said, "Wow! Nothing like this has ever been seen in Israel!"
|
|-
|34
|But the Pharisees said, He casteth out devils through the prince of the devils.
|But the Pharisees said, "He throws out demons by calling upon the leader of demons."
|
|-
|35
|And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.
|And Jesus went around to all the cities and towns, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the Good News of the Kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.
|
|-
|36
|But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd.
|But when He saw the crowds, He was moved with compassion for them, because they were worried, and were scattered about like sheep without a shepherd.
|
|-
|37
|Then saith he unto his disciples, The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few;
|Then He said to His students, "The harvest is truly bountiful, but the harvesters are few.
|
|-
|38
|Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest.
|So pray to the Lord of the harvest, that He will send out workmen to gather in His harvest.
|
|}

[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

Talk:Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?

2009-10-13T04:23:04Z

ZacharyM: /* Percentages */ minor error.

==Mind Altering Drugs==
The suggestion may (or may not) have been made with parodic intent, but I had been thinking along similar lines. It is well-known that use of drugs - 'even' marijuana, which Liberals pretend is less harmful than candy - causes a range of psychiatric illnesses (which may also be hereditary); and I think that maybe between us we could come up with an acceptable form of words. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:50, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:I agree: that's why in my reversion I suggested that the original contributor expand to put the claim on a firmer foundation. How about, "use of mind-altering drugs, which encourages one to become a liberal to reconcile the cognitive dissonance, or dulls mental acuity resulting in mindless conformity," or something like that.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 15:52, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::That sounds good to me. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:54, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::Thanks! Done.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 15:56, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Lots of insights in this list. I wonder if it would be possible to estimate percentages for each reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 15:59, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:Thanks! I expect media/school bias, along with [[liberal friendship]] & mindless rebellion, are some of the biggest contributors.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 16:09, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::::Any estimates would probably be just a guess so I suggest a data gathering exercise. If someone could set up a sub-page with a list of the options then we could all think of the non-conservatives that we are familiar with at school, work or in some cases even at home. Then we could just give one point for the reason that we would estimate for each person. I think the demographic diversity here should be sufficient to build a fairly accurate picture. This sort of thing wouldn't be allowed at WP with their dogmatic No Original Research mantra. So it highlights a real difference between us and WP in that we can generate new insights through a group effort as it would give almost everyone the opportunity to contribute. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:55, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::::Applying clear numbers to it is probably impossible, since many of the causes effect any individual. Everyone is subject to the bias in media, academia, etc..., while only some have the poor thinking skills, innate naivete, and simply, pure delusion that creates the radicals members of the far left whom we all love and tolerate. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 17:00, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:: Probably so. But note that even the most powerful bias requires something extra to close the mind as well. Of course aging seems to have an effect of closing the mind automatically for many.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:12, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Mental endowments are certainly a key reason (see ''[[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness]]''). A certain demographic is inherently irrational and childlike. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:14, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:I saw that on WND: I'll try to find time to read it over the break.[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 16:16, 13 December 2008 (EST)

== Organization ==

I've tried to compact and organize it, to make it easier to grasp. Please improve. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:27, 13 December 2008 (EST)

: Great point. I think we need prioritized sections, like "Main Reasons", separated from "Other Reasons." Feel free to improve.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:35, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::Great job Rod!-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 18:01, 13 December 2008 (EST)

==Wow==
Okay, if this isn't a parody, then it's just scary. It makes multiple errors in it's assumptions, characterizes liberals as "weak-minded" or just unthinkingly "rebellious", and heavily insists that being Non-conservative is "wrong", and that if you're not a conservative, then you are brainwashed simple thinker. Does the author realize that there are opposing views to conservatism that are not liberal? Does he realize that some liberals are quite intelligent, and have reasons for being liberal that are based on logic? I like to think of myself as a moderate conservative, but the reasons highlighted in this list serve only to make me ashamed of that. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 16:37, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:Shawn, the tenor and content of your rant (and it is 'its assumptions', not 'it's assumptions') lead us to suppose that you are very far from being a Conservative of any hue. If you held sincere beliefs, you would not be ashamed of them because of third party actions. And if you were one of those mythical 'quite intelligent liberals', you might be capable of opening up your mind to new ideas, rather than rejecting them out of hand. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:44, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::Right, Bugler. ShawnJ's talk lack substance. But perhaps it can be analyzed: why isn't ShawnJ a real conservative? His reference to liberals being "quite intelligent" suggests he aspires to be considered likewise. I sense the public school rationales at work here: the "A+" went to the liberal positions, and either ShawnJ received a few himself and cannot let go of the illusion, or he's a wannabee.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:57, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::: Bugler, I consider myself a conservative because I was raised in a strictly conservative family, and while I don't agree with all of their positions, I still do agree with many of them. Hence me considering myself a "moderate" conservative. My whole issue with this article is it reads as an attack on non-conservatives, in no small way calling them worse people. It is a complete error to refer to all liberals as stupid, or unthinking, or ignorantly rebellious. It's the same flaw that racism and all forms of bigotry share. Trying to apply absolutes to beliefs and personalities simply doesn't hold up under closer inspection. Perhaps if you were secure in your conservative beliefs, you might be capable of opening up your mind to new ideas, instead of rejecting them because they come from someone with different political views than your own. Aschlafly, I addressed most of your argument in my reply to Bugler, but for the record, most of my "A+"s went to Math and Physics. It's really hard to put a political spin on calculations and numbers. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 19:52, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:::: ShawnJ, take a look at our new statistical portion of the entry. Which category do you fall into, or should there be a new one? For example, did you hear about conservative principles and the logic behind them only ''after'' you made up your mind? Do you have liberal friends whose acceptance you value?

:::: If you got "A+"s in school, regardless of subject, then your self-esteem is likely tied to approval by the very liberal education establishment. You'd have to feel embarrassment if your teachers learned that you might become a real conservative. And your self-esteem would not permit that, right?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:37, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::::::Wait a sec--you're saying that people who get "A"s in school tend to be liberal? So would that make the converse true--that conservatives would tend to get low(er) grades? That can't be right...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:18, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::Ooooh, SO close, but no cigar! The arguments is that liberals know that professors are liberal - see [[professor values]] - and conform their behavior & values deliberately to the professor's to get better grades not for substance, but because they agree with the professor's worldview. It's not that they're smart; they're just playing the game.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 22:22, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:::: I gotta say, my personal experiences negate any of the categories in the statistical portion. I simply realized, over time, that conservatism didn't hold all the answers. That, surprise, there was no perfect school of political thought. All this talk about the "liberal education system" is funny to me, because, honestly, I couldn't give you the political leanings of ANY of my teachers/professors. Who they did/would vote for, their stances on gun control, abortion, homosexuality, government, it simply never came up. I'm sure there was some rule on the books preventing teachers from discussing such things, and they were followed. The military upbringing put me in many different schools in various parts of the country, domestic and abroad, and not a single one broke that rule. Granted, I never sought out my instructors political beliefs, but the never volunteered them either. They were there do their job of teaching me, and I was there to do mine of learning.

:::: As far as my friends go, they fall much into the same boat. I hang out with them to relax after work. Watch a game, play a game, maybe throw a party, whatever, not to have heated arguments that won't resolve anything.[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 23:36, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::::: ShawnJ, you probably vote and so do your friends and teachers; you adhere to certain values and so do your friends and teachers; and you make statements of a political nature just as your friends and teachers do. I'm sure you've taken courses in economics, history, government, English literature, and science, and it is impossible to teach or learn those topics without forming opinions that affirm or deny conservative principles. Perhaps you were unaware of it at the time, but with an open mind you can reconsider it now.

::::: Your teachers voted overwhelmingly for [[Barack Obama]], to take just one example, and they taught you things consistent with their view. I'd guess that 50% of what you learned in school was false, and those of who care about the truth embark on a path to revisit and reconsider all of it. I encourage you to join us.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 10:43, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Ohkay......... ==

Erm, i understand the bit about all those TV shows and the media in general, but mind-altering drugs?, isn't that just taking it a bit too far (i mean in terms of accusations, how the heck would Obama put drugs in everyone's cookies, i mean, he's busy enough as it is dealing with conniving madmen like the governor from Illinois with the weird name (apologies for the long sentence)--[[User:PhilipV|[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]]]] 17:14, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:Who is talking about Obama here? The effects of drug abuse are well known. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:33, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::I think he meant Blagovejich :)-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 18:00, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::PhilipV's comments are bizarre. But why is PhilipV a non-conservative, do you think?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:59, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::::Sounds like he's trying to apologize for drug use.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 19:02, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::::: Alex, I find that accusation offensive! ----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 12:28, 14 December 2008 (EST)

::::::Come to think of it, how on earth is that an apology for drug use/abuse/misuse? if i had used such works of the devil (which they are) i would probably have voted Democrat so that i could have continued using illegal drugs - but no - i voted republcan this year and my political compass test says that im a right-wing authoritarian.----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 12:28, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Seriously? ==
Hmmm... in this article I see Liberal Style 21. Why must we try to make liberals seem less intelligent than conservatives? If the positions of Conservatism are much more logical than the positions of Liberalism... shouldn't that be self-evident? Why do we need to bash down liberals, calling them sheeple? And since when were issues like race and poverty "simple"? [[User:DM|DM]] 17:44, 13 December 2008 (EST)

: You seem to be bothered by the intelligence issue also, like another above. Please see my comments above.

: Race and poverty are easier-to-grasp issues than globalism. There's no denying that.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:05, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:: Let us tackle race, firstly. What race is President Obama? Black? No, he's not black. He's African-American. Now what's the difference? I would consider someone who is African-American to be an American who immigrated from Africa or is of African descent. Now who is Black? Black people are the descendants of Africans who were kidnapped and brought to the New World to work as slaves. Now, Barack Obama is descended from an African man. Thus, he can be called African-American. But he is not a descendant of Africans who were slaves, thus he is not Black. Is this just a difference of their places in history? No. Black people are of West African descent exclusively. They didn't sail to the other side of Africa to kidnap slaves. President Obama is of East African descent. Hmmm.

:: So is race a simple issue? [[User:DM|DM]] 23:56, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::: It is extremely simple to millions of non-conservatives, who do not care one bit about the distinctions you attempt to draw in your comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 10:46, 14 December 2008 (EST)

::::Race CAN be complex. I don't think we're arguing that it's not. However, globalism & the global economy, as well as the complex relationship between taxes & economic growth, can be harder to grasp for some liberals. That's all we're arguing (please correct me if I'm wrong Aschlafly).-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 10:56, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Morally depraved nature ==

Why do sinners sin? It is because they have a sinful nature. I think this mystery article totally lacks a greater focus on man's sinful nature apart from God and also neglects to mention the grace and redemptive work of Christ and the Holy Spirit. I think this is rather odd for a encyclopedia which [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Articles_mentioning_Conservapedia prominently features an article by the Christian Post through its main page which states that Conservapedia favors Christianity]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:16, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:I think perhaps this article doesnt talk about the sinful nature of man because it is about political affiliation rather than religious. Or are you pointing out that all non-conservatives are innately sinful?

::I think "political affiliation" is slightly off the mark. This is not about party affiliation. This article is about one's outlook as expressed in political terminology, which of course is highly correlated with how one votes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

== Statistical Analysis ==
Ok I know this is a mystery and not an encyclopedic article but could we please get one or two cites for the statistical analysis section since it would be very interesting to read the studies that that was based off of --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 22:47, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:good wuestion WillB! how were these statistics compiled?
:Agreed. It definitely does not look good at its present state where these numbers have nothing to back them up -- even if listed as estimates. --[[User:SJames|SJames]] 18:20, 14 December 2008 (EST)

:: It's an estimate, and a work in progress. Do you doubt its truth? Perhaps you're simply saying that a liberal newspaper would not admit this, and you'd be right about that. But the truth is not constrained by what liberals will admit.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:29, 14 December 2008 (EST)

::: I was just stating my curiosity -- one that I believe most readers share -- as to how those numbers came about. As to its validity, I have no way of knowing but based on my own encounters, those numbers look about right for the most part, except for one group that I believe is missing on that list. I know quite a few non-conservatives who, with an open mind, simply weighed conservative values against non-conservative values and decided that they identified more with non-conservative values. Their values usually gravitate towards "freedom of choice", as defined by themselves. (Obviously we disagree with it)
Examples include: Freedom to choose abortion, freedom to choose religion, freedom to choose a "lifestyle", etc. You might say that these people fall into the ''10%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and refuse to accept conservative values that conflict with their personal desires like irresponsible sexual promiscuity'' -- and that's true for some, but not for others. Some non-conservatives aren't interested in engaging in sexual promiscuity, dwelling in person temptation and self-destruction; they simply believe that it should be up to each individual if they choose to do so. --[[User:SJames|SJames]] 21:42, 14 December 2008 (EST)

:::As I said it would be interesting to read how these estimates were arrived at. I have no idea what the percentages should be and would love to see the data but I know that since this is an essay that a cite is not required and my not be possible to get in any case. --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 18:41, 14 December 2008 (EST)

Aschlafly asks "Do you doubt its [the statistics'] truth?" To which I respond, yes, I do doubt it, but more importantly I doubt very much that these "statistics" should be referred to as such. I, further, dispute WillB's claim that because this is an essay Aschlafly is not obligated to provide citations or data to support his claim.

My basic issue here is that absent any sort of supporting documentation these "estimates" are nothing of the sort and are, instead, simply guesses. A guess is not the same as a statistical estimate. To understand why, consider ASchlafly's first cited reason, "Did not hear about conservative principles...", which I will refer to as Claim A. Now, in theory Claim A is true of some portion of the population (A "population" being defined as the set of things we're interested in studying. In this case, for the sake of argument, we'll assume the population is American citizens or legal residents). This value is known as a population parameter and we will refer to it as "Mu", following the common statistical practice of referring to true population values with Greek symbols. Now, the difficulty is that the population is too large for us to assess as a whole. To deal with this, we take a sample of the population- for example, a random sample. Now, the composition of a true random sample is determined by its parent population. So, for example, if Claim A is true of 40% of the population, as ASchlafly asserts, then a true random sample will- in theory- contain the same proportion of persons for whom Claim A is true. The quantity in the sample for whom Claim A is true will be referred to as X-bar, a symbol used to refer to the arithmetic mean of a sample, and is not written in Greek as it refers to an estimate or "statistic" rather than to a true population parameter. So, if our random sample is perfect Mu should equal x-bar.

Now, this is true in theory, but in practice things get tricky. While a true random sample is the ideal, it is also the case that larger samples provide better estimates (i.e. more accurate values of x-bar) than smaller samples. Thus, it is almost always the case that Mu does not equal x-bar but rather is only approximately equal to x-bar. The relation between a particular value of x-bar and the value of Mu is determined using two things: the estimated [[standard deviation]] of a distribution of means and a [[confidence interval]]. The distribution of means is a mathematical construct that indicates how often we ought to see the x-bar of a sample of a given size, n, vary by a certain amount from the value of Mu. For our purposes we would estimate it using sample information by dividing the sample variance by n (i.e the sample size) and then taking the square root. We will refer to this as SDm (i.e. the standard deviation of the distribution of means). We would then use this value to construct a confidence interval. A confidence interval is a range of scores within which we are certain to a specific probability that we will find Mu. Put differently, it is like saying, "The true population value is x-bar plus or minus y amount, with a certainty of 95%." Confidence intervals are almost always included with point estimates (i.e. estimates of a specific value, such as x-bar) because statisticians are well aware that x-bar almost never precisely equals Mu. We would construct our confidence interval by taking x-bar and then adding, and subtracting, the value of the product of SDm and a t-value corresponding to our desired level of certainty and degrees of freedom (i.e. x-bar + (SDm)(t-value) and x-bar - (SDm)(t-value)). A t-value is a score taken from the t-distribution, which is an approximation of the [[normal distribution]] used when a smaller sample size produces non-normality. The t-distribution asymptotically approximates the normal distribution, so with large sample sizes you can essentially use the normal distribution instead. The degrees of freedom in this case are equal to n-1. So, if we drew a sample of 101 people and wanted to be 99% sure that our confidence interval included Mu then we would use a t-value of 2.626. So, in summation, using the sample information we can compute not simply an estimate of the value of Mu (i.e. x-bar) but also an interval within which we can be confident (e.g. 99% certain) that the true value of Mu lies. Obviously, the smaller the confidence interval, the more exact our estimate of Mu is likely to be and, if we assume that the sample x-bar is derived from is a perfect random sample, then the quality of our estimate is based entirely on sample size. Further, the relationships discussed above are well-documented empirically and have been proven out by mathematicians and statisticians since about the turn of the century.

The reality, of course, is that samples are rarely if ever perfectly random. Sampling error inevitably creeps in and, as a result, confidence intervals often have to be adjusted for this added error. If we cannot determine the extent of the sampling error's influence on our statistics then there is no mathematical adjustment possible and we, instead, have to assess the robustness of our estimates against the probable size of the error. And what all this means is that something is a statistical estimate rather than an offhand guess precisely because it includes not only a point estimate (e.g. 40% of the population subscribes to Claim A) but also a confidence interval around that point estimate (e.g. plus or minus 10%). Moreover, the point estimates as well as the confidence intervals are produced using a set of established procedures that are rooted in the mathematical characteristics of both population/sample relationships and the estimators (i.e. the computations used to produce the point estimates). Given that this is the case, point estimates are almost always provided with confidence intervals or standard errors and, additionally, information must be provided in order to allow others to assess the likely accuracy of the estimates.

ASchlafly has provided a set of point estimates generated in an unknown manner from unknown data. He has included no confidence intervals and no indication of the degree of accuracy in these estimates. As a result they are not statistical estimates and in no way should be referred to as the product of "statistical analysis". They are, to the contrary, nothing more or less than offhand guesses and should be referred to as such. On the other hand, if ASchlafly has some basis for these point estimates he should indicate where the data derive from and provide- at a bare minimum- the confidence intervals around these estimates as well as an outline indicating how he produced those intervals.

The point of statistics is not simply to compute an answer (e.g. a point estimate) but to produce along with it an estimate of the degree or error contained in that estimate. No human, after all, is perfect and it is in the nature of statistics to honestly quantify that imperfection. Absent confidence intervals or standard errors, and some understanding of how the data were gathered the appropriate response to the question "Do you doubt its truth" from anyone who is marginally competent in statistics must be "yes." Moreover, if ASchlafly wishes to label these assertions as "statistical estimates" then it is his responsibility to justify them in the manner accepted by statisticians. Otherwise, they should be (correctly) labeled as guesses.

Understand, the substance of my objection has nothing to do with whether or not ASchlafly's claims are correct but, rather, with the appropriateness of their presentation and treatment. -Drek
:Any reasonable argument should be capable of being put in two or three concise paragraphs, Drek. Your lengthy and confused screed doesn't add any light to this matter, I'm afraid. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:07, 16 December 2008 (EST)
::No sweat: ASchlafly's "statistics" are not statistics but guesses. He can demonstrate to the contrary by providing adequate citations to his data source as well as indicating the techniques used to generate the point estimates as well as confidence intervals and/or standard errors. Until he does so, referring to his guesses as "statistical analysis" is, at best, an exaggeration. Leaving this essay as-is saps credibility from both Conservapedia generally and ASchlafly particularly. See the above "confused screed" for a detailed explanation of my concerns. It's good to be succinct, but if Conservapedia is meant as an educational resource- and the criticism of Wikipedia for not offering courses lends support to that notion- then it's even better to be sufficiently thorough for students to follow the dispute. Or, as Beatrice Wright puts it, "You must learn to write in such a way that it will be as easy as possible for your critics to know why they disagree with you." -Drek
:::Andrew Schlafly is a qualified and experienced statistician and I'd certainly trust his judgement; not to sound suspicious, but in what way are you qualified to make such sweeping statements about this aricle? Also, you can be sure that his analyses and his estimates are based on a mature and thorough understanding of the issue being examined. Proper statistics is not just bare number crunching: it is an informed process that requires a full understanding of context. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:58, 16 December 2008 (EST)
::::"Proper statistics is not just bare number crunching: it is an informed process that requires a full understanding of context." Exactly right, and as you will notice, I am asking for a disclosure of that context so that we can all assess the accuracy and reliability of ASchlafly's claims for ourselves. If he is, indeed, a "...qualified and experienced statistician..." as you assert and his numbers are based on good data and appropriate techniques, this should be trivially easy. I also appreciate that you trust his judgment but statistics aren't about trusting someone's judgment, they are about verifiable results. Whether you or I view ASchlafly as a competent statistician has no bearing on the fact that he has not, at present, provided any justification whatsoever for the figures presented. Asking about my qualifications is something of an ad hominem since I have presented a lengthy explanation of why I question ASchlafly's claims. Rather than ask how I know what I do, why not respond substantively to my points? Regardless, while I have no expectation that you will take my word for it, I have been teaching statistics in an American four-year university for six years. -Drek
:::::I'm sorry you take it as an ad hom; I'm sure you appreciate that in such an environment a certain caution about people's claimed expertise is perhaps excusable. And I certainly accept your word as to your post and experience. But this is more than a pure, abstract, mathematical, dare I say professorial treatment of statistics. This is the application of statistics in the real world, down and dirty, relying also upon a knowledge of human nature, and in particular the nature of the Liberal-minded human, which is an additional layer of expertise which possibly you do not have - although, to be fair, working in a university (is it a public funded institution?) you would very likely be exposed daily to all kinds of Liberal nonsense. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:19, 16 December 2008 (EST)
::::::"This is the application of statistics in the real world, down and dirty, relying also upon a knowledge of human nature..." The thing is, Bugler, that statistics are an applied branch of mathematics. Their express purpose is to allow us to extract certainty from the vapor of possibility or, less metaphorically, to allow us to derive useful knowledge from messy research situations. Indeed, multivariate methods like regression are often used when the purity of experimental control is unattainable. Statistics can only provide this service reliably, however, when there is a full disclosure of how they are obtained. If the data are valid, the procedures appropriate, and the necessary mathematical assumptions not grievously violated, then the conclusions may be trusted to a particular degree of certainty. That ASchlafly's statistics are being used to asses the "...nature of the Liberal-minded human..." is effectively irrelevant. I do not ask that ASchlafly produce perfect statistics, but unless and until he provides a basis for judging his numbers, they cannot be regarded as anything more than his personal opinion. I appreciate your accepting my claimed expertise on my word, however. I have worked at both public and private universities and you will understand that the various strains of "nonsense" that I have encountered from a variety of ideological camps underlies my interest in seeing that statistical methods are not abused. If statistics are to be used to adjudicate between rival claims, then we must emphasize the need for them to be performed correctly. More simply, the extent to which I agree or disagree with the outcome of an analysis has no bearing on whether or not it was done correctly. And, as a side note, I have enjoyed our chat, but will probably be away from my computer for the next day or so for travel. If I do not respond to further comments, please understand it is not out of rudeness. -Drek
:::::::: of course. ''Bon voyage!'' [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:37, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::: Drek, you really "take the cake" for the most long-winded liberal rant in recent memory here. The field of statistics does include estimates, and no one doubts that that there are percentages for each category listed. Are the estimates off slightly? Perhaps, but be specific about which one you think may be off.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 13:48, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::::Mr. Schlafly,

::::::::::It has taken me a long time to respond to your more or less final remarks on this subject. This has been due to travel during the Christmas holidays so that my wife and I would be with family as well as a desire to take my time in thinking before responding. I will attempt to answer each of your remarks directly.

::::::::::First, I am sorry that you regard my concerns as a "liberal rant." I am not interested in the politics of this article but only in the legitimacy of labeling your estimates with the heading of "Statistical Analysis." Labeling my arguments "liberal" does nothing to refute them.

::::::::::Second, I never claimed that statistics do not include estimates. Indeed, in the second paragraph of my original comments I remarked, "...it refers to an estimate or "statistic" rather than to a true population parameter." Your response to me that "The field of statistics does include estimates..." has nothing to do with what I said. Do I think your estimates off "slightly"? Without question- all estimates can safely be said to deviate from the true population values by at least a small amount. This is a statistical reality. As to which I think may be off- I regard all of them suspect as you have provided no information about where these estimates derive from.

::::::::::Except, that isn't really true. In a response to FernoKlump at 21:22 on December 16, 2008 you remark that, "Like any estimate, it's based on experience and logic." This is the only time you have ever provided anything even approximating a citation for these estimates. Unfortunately, it does nothing to alay my fears. In regards to "experience," as I know you are familiar with the common statistical saying "Correlation does not equal causation," allow me to remind you of another common statistical saying: "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data.'" That is to say, no individual's experiences- no matter how reasonable and observant they are- can substitute for properly gathered information. The reason is simple: the world is a large place and we are, individually, very small. We only perceive the small slice of reality that we ourselves occupy and fail to observe the world from any other position. As such, even if we suppose that there are no biases in our perceptions whatsoever (a superhuman claim) it is vanishingly unlikely that those perceptions match perfectly with observable reality. In regards to "logic" I can only remind you that logic is a poor guide if one has flawed information. If we believe that ill health is caused by imbalances in the humors of the body, it is perfectly logical to treat a variety of disorders with bloodletting. Yet, if we evaluate this practice scientifically we find that in most cases it does more harm than good. Good logic is no substitute for good data.

::::::::::I suspect that you will not find my arguments above compelling, so please allow me to present a handful of additional points. The 2006 edition of the American Heritage Dictionary defines "statistics" as: "1. The mathematics of the collection, organization, and interpretation of numerical data, especially the analysis of population characteristics by inference from sampling. 2. Numerical data." WordNet 3.0 defines it as, "a branch of applied mathematics concerned with the collection and interpretation of quantitative data and the use of probability theory to estimate population parameters." The American Heritage Science Dictionary defines it as, "1. The branch of mathematics that deals with the collection, organization, analysis, and interpretation of numerical data. Statistics is especially useful in drawing general conclusions about a set of data from a sample of the data. 2. Numerical data." Finally, if we examine Conservapedia's own article on statistics we find this in the first paragraph: "Statistics is the application of mathematics to the understanding of data. It involves all stages of data collection and processing from the initial collection, to the analysis and ultimately to the conclusions and interpretations of the data." You will note the primacy of data in all of these definitions. Nowhere do any of these sources refer to "experience" or "logic" with the same emphasis as they do to "data." Likewise, I can review my books on statistics as long as you like and will never find a term in any equation where "experience" is to be added, while all deal in one way or another with data.

::::::::::At this point I consider that you have finally revealed that as these estimates are based on "experience and logic" rather than data, you have conceded that they are not the product of statistical analysis. I do not object to your referring to them as estimates, but do object in the strongest terms to your labeling them "statistical analysis." Your estimates are not the product of statistics. You can accuse me of producing another liberal rant, but that does not make me wrong. You can scold people for "carping," but that does not make your estimates reliable. This is not politics, this is mathematics. -Drek

::::::::: He's not claiming the statistics are wrong, he's saying that they are meaningless if the method of finding them is withheld. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Mr. Schlafly! Look at this petition!]] 20:09, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: Like any estimate, it's based on experience and logic. Instead of carping, please contribute.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 21:22, 16 December 2008 (EST)

I have a quick question for Aschlafly. I notice that the percentages in the Statistical analysis section add up to exactly 100. I find this a little confusing as I don't see any reason that the events listed should be mutually exclusive. Surely a person could be a liberal for many of the reasons given? [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 11:43, 31 December 2008 (EST)

: They refer to the ''primary'' reasons.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 12:13, 31 December 2008 (EST)

:: Hmmm, I suppose that could work. However in this instance it could be very difficult to define what we mean by the primary reason. Typically in such analysis one could self-reporting, however I doubt that would work in this case :) [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 12:37, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== My political alignment ==

Ahem, I am a conservative (just see some of my userboxes, and i am against abortion, and i support classroom prayer too) and another thing, my comments were somewhat misguided. When you said mind-altering drugs, i thought you were implying that Obama and company were putting drugs of some sort into everyone's food. ----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 12:24, 14 December 2008 (EST)
:But why on earth would you suspect any such thing was implied? Surely it is clear that it meant voluntarily-ingested illegal drugs? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:30, 14 December 2008 (EST)

Evidently not - case closed.---- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 10:18, 1 January 2009 (EST)

==question==
Are you honestly that arrogant that you wonder why people might not think exactly like you? sounds like mindless confomity to me.

==A further suggestion==
It struck me that denial of Conservative principles could be a result of incipient or presenting mental illness. Just as it has been widely demonstrated that Liberal beliefs can lead to psychiatric conditions (per http://www.conservapedia.com/Mystery:Do_Liberal_Teachings_Cause_Mental_Illness%3F ), so there might also be a reciprocal effect. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:19, 15 December 2008 (EST)

== "Abstract" principles ==

I don't define "more guns, less crime" and "less taxes, more revenue" as abstract characteristics. There are statistics to back up both claims, as there are statistics to support a counter-claim to either. Those statements are based off of concrete observations and statistics. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 12:18, 16 December 2008 (EST)

: The observation "more guns, less crime" does entail a slight abstraction, and there are people who may have trouble understanding. Statistics confirm it, as does logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 13:50, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::I don't doubt that people may have trouble understanding. However if it is statistically confirmed, where is the abstraction? [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 13:55, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::: You can always find someone to dispute statistics, as your own posting demonstrates. The real obstacle to some is grasping the abstraction of the logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 14:03, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::::I think we're arguing for the same side here, Andy. I'm not disputing any statistics; that's my point. The statistics are there ''plain as day'' that an armed citizenry opposes crime. I would say it's just blind ignorance (or faulty logic) to believe otherwise as opposed to an abstraction. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 14:27, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::::: I don't think someone having, to use popular terminology, an IQ of less than 100 can easily understand the truth of "more guns, less crime." Abstractions become more difficult to understand the lower the intelligence. Frankly, this abstraction strikes many highly intelligent people as wrong at first glance, before thinking more abstractly.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 21:11, 16 December 2008 (EST)

==Tweaking the Statistics==
With all due deference to Andy's knowledge on the subject, I believe that it would be beneficial to consider reweighting the estimates for why people choose to remain liberal, despite superior arguments for conservatism, as follows:

:* 25%: did not hear about conservative principles and the logic behind them until ''after'' they made up their mind, perhaps due to pervasive societal bias, and refuse to reconsider;
:* 25%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and refuse to accept conservative values that conflict with their personal desires like sexual promiscuity;
:* 20%: were told off or disciplined once by a conservative, often a parent, and refuse to rise above the animosity;
:* 10%: refuse to let go of their past, or let go of their desire for a sense of acceptance by liberal friends or teachers;
:* 10%: mistakenly feel that conservative values and benefits are available only to those who are from an intact family, not realizing the availability and benefits to all, including children of divorced parents;
:* 5%: bitterly unemployed, or having a salary or benefits that conservatives would reduce, such as public school teachers, and a refusal to rise above self-interest; and
:* 5%: like an anarchist, genuinely want to believe in and propagate destructive ideas.

The largest reason that people remain liberal is clearly their desire to have their immoral and atheistic actions become more socially acceptable so that they can justify such lifestyles to themselves and others. Being disciplined by conservatives goes hand in hand with this - liberals do not like people pointing out that their lifestyle choices are wrong and detrimental to the country as a whole. It is primarily conservatives who are willing to call a spade a spade and chastise immoral conduct. I decreased the point about hearing about conservative principles later in life because the vast majority of United States citizens are raised in Christian churches and are taught the Bible's conservative principles from a young age. It is only once they are school-aged that liberal indoctrination can begin.--[[User:Laches|Laches]] 14:48, 16 December 2008 (EST)

: Good insights, but American kids get indoctrinated by public schools and television at young ages prior to (and during) their formation of their views.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 21:23, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:: Just one question: You are claiming that no liberal has ever taken that position through logical thought? (Usual disclaimers apply)
:: Okay, two questions: I would still like to see a source for those statistics. "Experience and logic" isn't enough; show me the data.
:::(The silence that will likely follow a response to the second question will not necessarily indicate acceptance of the argument it presents; more likely, it will mean that I believe a response won't add anything.)
::-[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 18:02, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::: The more logical a liberal is the less likely he will remain a liberal. Liberals do better in gaining adherents by avoiding logic. If you have a logical argument for a liberal position, then I'd love to hear it.

::: References are being added to the entry. Feel free to add some yourselves, unless you think that liberals never become conservatives (which is demonstrably false).--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 21:56, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::::You didn't answer my first question. Are you claiming that no liberal has ever taken that position through logical thought? (I'm just looking for a yes or a no, not an essay.) -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 22:38, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::::: Your question is incoherent. What does "that position" refer to? Are you referring to a specific position (e.g., gun control), or a general ideology (e.g., being a liberal)?

::::: In general, liberal views are not based on logic. There are examples of superficial liberal appeal to logic (e.g., to believe that banning guns will reduce crime), but it doesn't take long to show the error in the logic. Many liberals make superficially logical arguments simply to mislead others who are not bright enough to see the flaw.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:49, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::::::Given that I didn't mention anything other than liberalism, it seems obvious that's what I'm referring to. I'll ask again: Are you arguing that no liberal has ever become a liberal through logical thought? "Yes" or "no" will do. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:14, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: No one has become a liberal through ''truthful'' logical thought.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 23:25, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Dennis Prager is one of my favorite thinkers, and took this up at length, proving what Andy says is true.
<blockquote>
"With the decline of the authority of Judeo-Christian values in the West, many people stopped looking to external sources of moral standards in order to decide what is right and wrong. Instead of being guided by God, the Bible and religion, great numbers -- in Western Europe, the great majority -- have looked elsewhere for moral and social guidelines.

For many millions in the twentieth century, those guidelines were provided by Marxism, Communism, Fascism or Nazism. For many millions today, those guidelines are "feelings". With the ascendancy of leftist values that has followed the decline of Judeo-Christian religion, ''personal feelings have supplanted universal standards''. In fact, feelings are the major unifying characteristic among contemporary liberal positions.

Aside from reliance on feelings, how else can one explain a person who believes, let alone proudly announces on a bumper sticker, that "War is not the answer"? I know of no comparable conservative bumper sticker that is so demonstrably false and morally ignorant. Almost every great evil has been solved by war -- from slavery in America to the Holocaust in Europe. Auschwitz was liberated by soldiers making war, not by pacifists who would have allowed the Nazis to murder every Jew in Europe." [http://www.orthodoxnet.com/archives/religious_articles.shtml Does religion make people better or worse, Dennis Prager - 24 columns on topic]

</blockquote>
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 00:27, 18 December 2008 (EST)

==TV Shows==

How about some citations or examples for South Park, Family Guy, and Hannah Montana? Well, the first two are somewhat political anyway I guess. But Hannah Montana? Please, example or citation. Did you know Billy Ray Cyrus is with Sean Hannity on the Freedom Concert, and Miley Cyrus is a strong Christian? [[User:AddisonDM]] 28 December 2008

: I don't watch TV, so I hope someone else can help out here!--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:07, 28 December 2008 (EST)

Hannah Montana is a kid's show. I don't watch it often but it does not seem to be ether conservative or liberal. I think it should be removed from the list of liberal TV shows. --[[User:AmeliaJ|AmeliaJ]] 14:49, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Don't say South Park pushes liberal values. Matt Stone and Trey Parker are both libertarians. For example in a certain episode, a one Mr. Reiner tries to take down the local tobacco company, and in the end he is portrayed as ridiculous, out of touch, and the townspeople rally around the tobacco company. --[[User:Snotbowst|Snotbowst]] 14:20, 4 January 2009 (EST)

: [[Libertarians]] are socially [[liberal]]. You could benefit from our entries on both. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:33, 4 January 2009 (EST)

::I know what socially liberal and libertarian are defined as. What I am gettng at is that the show is wrongly heaped. Another example could be the show's mockery of the attempt to ban the N word through an entire episode. Besides it's crassness, the show is one the most balanced on TV and it handles issues with maturity while throwing a mask of fart jokes to add some comic relief.
As for The Simpsons, the show does lean leftward, but gives both sides a say. For instance, the show makes scatig comments about neo-hippies, President Carter, and President Clinton. Ned Flanders is often a set up but the jokes are never hugely inflammatory (to put it in perspective if someone made jokes about my POV at that level, I'd let it slide, maybe even let a smile crack through). And if you can't laugh at yourself, you don't deserve to be taken seriously. --[[User:Snotbowst|Snotbowst]] 21:12, 4 January 2009 (EST)

By the way I'm glad Hannah Montana is off the list. I don't think it is really liberal, and there are definitely more harmful shows that could be listed instead. [[User:AddisonDM]] 6 January 2009

== Statistics ==

Where did the author of the various statistics get their information? It looks to me like the information was fabricated from thin air. In fact, the entire article makes the conservative movement look bad because we come off as extremely arrogant. This is no way to convince liberals to see reason; it only solidifies their belief that we are unable to see any side but our own. This article will make us more enemies than friends.
[[User:WilliamBeason|WilliamBeason]] 14:57, 31 December 2008 (EST)

: The estimates are based on experience and available articles. More citations can be added and I encourage you to do so. Is there a particular statement that you dispute?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:07, 31 December 2008 (EST)

::My problem is that the entire article in general is committing the logical fallacy known as "poisoning the well". Rather than directly confronting liberal ideas, it uses weighted phrases inclusively describing ''all'' liberals as: "close-minded", "irrational", having "poor abstract thinking", and having "arrogance" to create a view that makes all liberals to seem like horrible people. The article seethes with hypocrisy from these statements. If we should seek to show liberals that their views are incorrect, we should combat on '''issues''', not participate in labeling a person simply based off of their political views.
::The article should be rewritten following the '''title'''. As it asks the question "Why do Non-Conservatives Exist?", it should cover more than just liberalism, as there are many political movements ''other than'' conservatism and liberalism. To name a few other major movements: libertarianism, federalism, and marxism. Followers of each political movement have different reasons for existing (be they world events, nationality, socioeconomic class, etc.)
::But to summarize an ideal article under this topic: non-conservatives exist because humans think differently. Because there is such a staggeringly large number of ideologies, sub-ideologies, and other ways to view the world, one would be hard-pressed to find two people who thought that the world should exist in the exact same way. To further compound this, there is no easily definable line that separates one ideology from another because many people take their beliefs from a ''variety'' of political movements.
::Thank you for reading this, and best regards for the new year!
::[[User:WilliamBeason|WilliamBeason]] 23:15, 31 December 2008 (EST)

::: Your comments are thoughtful, and thought-provoking. Thank you. But there are some insights in this entry worth developing. Liberals do try to keep conservative ideas from reaching people. Why? Because many people are liberal simply because they haven't heard conservative principles with an open mind. If they are liberal for long enough, then the mind is closed and will not reconsider.

::: Politics is a battle for control of the future. Liberals know how to play the game to serve their purposes. The percentages might be tweaked a bit, but just watch how the liberals themselves behave. They censor and demonize conservatives, for example, and this entry explains why. Just look at the beginning of the entry by [[Wikipedia]] on Conservapedia and you can see the liberal strategy in action.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 23:27, 31 December 2008 (EST)

:::: You are correct in saying that liberals try to keep conservative ideals from spreading. However, when looking at the scheme of things from a larger perspective, it quickly becomes noticeable that ''all'' political movements attempt to hinder those that are (or even simply those that they see to be) opposed to themselves. The Romans tried to hinder Christians; Catholics hindered heliocentrism; atheists hinder theists; and ''theists hinder atheists''. Censoring and demonizing opposition is not a new method developed by liberals for hindering conservatives: it has been a tool of politics for ages. But even so, is this article currently not a monument to demonizing liberals? ''Even though'' '''some''' liberals demonize us, ''it does not make it right for us to demonize them.'' We need to show that we are above that. We need to show that the conservative movement is above pointing the finger and telling nasty stories like schoolchildren.

:::: To add some further perspective: read your previous post. In your mind replace "conservative" with "liberal" and "liberal" with "conservative". Does it make the post any less true? ''Have we removed the plank from our own eye?''

:::: Thank you for taking the time to read this with an open mind. [[User:WilliamBeason|WilliamBeason]] 18:54, 1 January 2009 (EST)

===Percentages===
It is possible for 20% of one group of people to also be in the 15% of another group of people. It's a type of "inclusive clause" -- I'm not sure of the proper term for it. Here's a math problem from a while ago...
:There are 1000 students in a school. 35% like math, 60% like history, and 75% like both (disregard the existence of other subjects). How many students only like history? (I messed up on the quoting of the problem, but you can figure out what I'm trying to convey) 
You did not need to readjust the percentages because a new item was added to the "Statistical" list. [[User:ZacharyM|ZacharyM]] 00:21, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

== Christianity ==

I would like to point out that also a lot of people become '''liberal''' on conversion to Christianity as they feel that liberalism is more consistent with the Bible than conservatism. My personal belief is that both are very inconsistent on different points, and I've voted both ways. --[[User:Trinity123|Trinity123]] 10:11, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Definitions ==

Surely the answer to this question is self-evident. Conservative is a relative term as is liberal. To put it simply, conservatives exist because liberals do. If everyone had exactly the same views on all issues then there would be no need for a word to describe them. Although as the usage here implies, they are now used as set terms to describe a set of views, it must be remembered that there is a spectrum of political views. As such the word conservative is best used as a relative term, as is the case with liberal. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 12:59, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Talk:Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?

2009-10-13T04:21:33Z

ZacharyM: /* Statistics */ a word on percentages.

==Mind Altering Drugs==
The suggestion may (or may not) have been made with parodic intent, but I had been thinking along similar lines. It is well-known that use of drugs - 'even' marijuana, which Liberals pretend is less harmful than candy - causes a range of psychiatric illnesses (which may also be hereditary); and I think that maybe between us we could come up with an acceptable form of words. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:50, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:I agree: that's why in my reversion I suggested that the original contributor expand to put the claim on a firmer foundation. How about, "use of mind-altering drugs, which encourages one to become a liberal to reconcile the cognitive dissonance, or dulls mental acuity resulting in mindless conformity," or something like that.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 15:52, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::That sounds good to me. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:54, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::Thanks! Done.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 15:56, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Lots of insights in this list. I wonder if it would be possible to estimate percentages for each reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 15:59, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:Thanks! I expect media/school bias, along with [[liberal friendship]] & mindless rebellion, are some of the biggest contributors.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 16:09, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::::Any estimates would probably be just a guess so I suggest a data gathering exercise. If someone could set up a sub-page with a list of the options then we could all think of the non-conservatives that we are familiar with at school, work or in some cases even at home. Then we could just give one point for the reason that we would estimate for each person. I think the demographic diversity here should be sufficient to build a fairly accurate picture. This sort of thing wouldn't be allowed at WP with their dogmatic No Original Research mantra. So it highlights a real difference between us and WP in that we can generate new insights through a group effort as it would give almost everyone the opportunity to contribute. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:55, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::::Applying clear numbers to it is probably impossible, since many of the causes effect any individual. Everyone is subject to the bias in media, academia, etc..., while only some have the poor thinking skills, innate naivete, and simply, pure delusion that creates the radicals members of the far left whom we all love and tolerate. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 17:00, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:: Probably so. But note that even the most powerful bias requires something extra to close the mind as well. Of course aging seems to have an effect of closing the mind automatically for many.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:12, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Mental endowments are certainly a key reason (see ''[[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness]]''). A certain demographic is inherently irrational and childlike. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:14, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:I saw that on WND: I'll try to find time to read it over the break.[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 16:16, 13 December 2008 (EST)

== Organization ==

I've tried to compact and organize it, to make it easier to grasp. Please improve. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:27, 13 December 2008 (EST)

: Great point. I think we need prioritized sections, like "Main Reasons", separated from "Other Reasons." Feel free to improve.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:35, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::Great job Rod!-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 18:01, 13 December 2008 (EST)

==Wow==
Okay, if this isn't a parody, then it's just scary. It makes multiple errors in it's assumptions, characterizes liberals as "weak-minded" or just unthinkingly "rebellious", and heavily insists that being Non-conservative is "wrong", and that if you're not a conservative, then you are brainwashed simple thinker. Does the author realize that there are opposing views to conservatism that are not liberal? Does he realize that some liberals are quite intelligent, and have reasons for being liberal that are based on logic? I like to think of myself as a moderate conservative, but the reasons highlighted in this list serve only to make me ashamed of that. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 16:37, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:Shawn, the tenor and content of your rant (and it is 'its assumptions', not 'it's assumptions') lead us to suppose that you are very far from being a Conservative of any hue. If you held sincere beliefs, you would not be ashamed of them because of third party actions. And if you were one of those mythical 'quite intelligent liberals', you might be capable of opening up your mind to new ideas, rather than rejecting them out of hand. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:44, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::Right, Bugler. ShawnJ's talk lack substance. But perhaps it can be analyzed: why isn't ShawnJ a real conservative? His reference to liberals being "quite intelligent" suggests he aspires to be considered likewise. I sense the public school rationales at work here: the "A+" went to the liberal positions, and either ShawnJ received a few himself and cannot let go of the illusion, or he's a wannabee.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:57, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::: Bugler, I consider myself a conservative because I was raised in a strictly conservative family, and while I don't agree with all of their positions, I still do agree with many of them. Hence me considering myself a "moderate" conservative. My whole issue with this article is it reads as an attack on non-conservatives, in no small way calling them worse people. It is a complete error to refer to all liberals as stupid, or unthinking, or ignorantly rebellious. It's the same flaw that racism and all forms of bigotry share. Trying to apply absolutes to beliefs and personalities simply doesn't hold up under closer inspection. Perhaps if you were secure in your conservative beliefs, you might be capable of opening up your mind to new ideas, instead of rejecting them because they come from someone with different political views than your own. Aschlafly, I addressed most of your argument in my reply to Bugler, but for the record, most of my "A+"s went to Math and Physics. It's really hard to put a political spin on calculations and numbers. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 19:52, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:::: ShawnJ, take a look at our new statistical portion of the entry. Which category do you fall into, or should there be a new one? For example, did you hear about conservative principles and the logic behind them only ''after'' you made up your mind? Do you have liberal friends whose acceptance you value?

:::: If you got "A+"s in school, regardless of subject, then your self-esteem is likely tied to approval by the very liberal education establishment. You'd have to feel embarrassment if your teachers learned that you might become a real conservative. And your self-esteem would not permit that, right?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:37, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::::::Wait a sec--you're saying that people who get "A"s in school tend to be liberal? So would that make the converse true--that conservatives would tend to get low(er) grades? That can't be right...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:18, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::Ooooh, SO close, but no cigar! The arguments is that liberals know that professors are liberal - see [[professor values]] - and conform their behavior & values deliberately to the professor's to get better grades not for substance, but because they agree with the professor's worldview. It's not that they're smart; they're just playing the game.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 22:22, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:::: I gotta say, my personal experiences negate any of the categories in the statistical portion. I simply realized, over time, that conservatism didn't hold all the answers. That, surprise, there was no perfect school of political thought. All this talk about the "liberal education system" is funny to me, because, honestly, I couldn't give you the political leanings of ANY of my teachers/professors. Who they did/would vote for, their stances on gun control, abortion, homosexuality, government, it simply never came up. I'm sure there was some rule on the books preventing teachers from discussing such things, and they were followed. The military upbringing put me in many different schools in various parts of the country, domestic and abroad, and not a single one broke that rule. Granted, I never sought out my instructors political beliefs, but the never volunteered them either. They were there do their job of teaching me, and I was there to do mine of learning.

:::: As far as my friends go, they fall much into the same boat. I hang out with them to relax after work. Watch a game, play a game, maybe throw a party, whatever, not to have heated arguments that won't resolve anything.[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 23:36, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::::: ShawnJ, you probably vote and so do your friends and teachers; you adhere to certain values and so do your friends and teachers; and you make statements of a political nature just as your friends and teachers do. I'm sure you've taken courses in economics, history, government, English literature, and science, and it is impossible to teach or learn those topics without forming opinions that affirm or deny conservative principles. Perhaps you were unaware of it at the time, but with an open mind you can reconsider it now.

::::: Your teachers voted overwhelmingly for [[Barack Obama]], to take just one example, and they taught you things consistent with their view. I'd guess that 50% of what you learned in school was false, and those of who care about the truth embark on a path to revisit and reconsider all of it. I encourage you to join us.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 10:43, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Ohkay......... ==

Erm, i understand the bit about all those TV shows and the media in general, but mind-altering drugs?, isn't that just taking it a bit too far (i mean in terms of accusations, how the heck would Obama put drugs in everyone's cookies, i mean, he's busy enough as it is dealing with conniving madmen like the governor from Illinois with the weird name (apologies for the long sentence)--[[User:PhilipV|[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]]]] 17:14, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:Who is talking about Obama here? The effects of drug abuse are well known. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:33, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::I think he meant Blagovejich :)-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 18:00, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::PhilipV's comments are bizarre. But why is PhilipV a non-conservative, do you think?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:59, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::::Sounds like he's trying to apologize for drug use.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 19:02, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::::: Alex, I find that accusation offensive! ----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 12:28, 14 December 2008 (EST)

::::::Come to think of it, how on earth is that an apology for drug use/abuse/misuse? if i had used such works of the devil (which they are) i would probably have voted Democrat so that i could have continued using illegal drugs - but no - i voted republcan this year and my political compass test says that im a right-wing authoritarian.----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 12:28, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Seriously? ==
Hmmm... in this article I see Liberal Style 21. Why must we try to make liberals seem less intelligent than conservatives? If the positions of Conservatism are much more logical than the positions of Liberalism... shouldn't that be self-evident? Why do we need to bash down liberals, calling them sheeple? And since when were issues like race and poverty "simple"? [[User:DM|DM]] 17:44, 13 December 2008 (EST)

: You seem to be bothered by the intelligence issue also, like another above. Please see my comments above.

: Race and poverty are easier-to-grasp issues than globalism. There's no denying that.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:05, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:: Let us tackle race, firstly. What race is President Obama? Black? No, he's not black. He's African-American. Now what's the difference? I would consider someone who is African-American to be an American who immigrated from Africa or is of African descent. Now who is Black? Black people are the descendants of Africans who were kidnapped and brought to the New World to work as slaves. Now, Barack Obama is descended from an African man. Thus, he can be called African-American. But he is not a descendant of Africans who were slaves, thus he is not Black. Is this just a difference of their places in history? No. Black people are of West African descent exclusively. They didn't sail to the other side of Africa to kidnap slaves. President Obama is of East African descent. Hmmm.

:: So is race a simple issue? [[User:DM|DM]] 23:56, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::: It is extremely simple to millions of non-conservatives, who do not care one bit about the distinctions you attempt to draw in your comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 10:46, 14 December 2008 (EST)

::::Race CAN be complex. I don't think we're arguing that it's not. However, globalism & the global economy, as well as the complex relationship between taxes & economic growth, can be harder to grasp for some liberals. That's all we're arguing (please correct me if I'm wrong Aschlafly).-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 10:56, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Morally depraved nature ==

Why do sinners sin? It is because they have a sinful nature. I think this mystery article totally lacks a greater focus on man's sinful nature apart from God and also neglects to mention the grace and redemptive work of Christ and the Holy Spirit. I think this is rather odd for a encyclopedia which [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Articles_mentioning_Conservapedia prominently features an article by the Christian Post through its main page which states that Conservapedia favors Christianity]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:16, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:I think perhaps this article doesnt talk about the sinful nature of man because it is about political affiliation rather than religious. Or are you pointing out that all non-conservatives are innately sinful?

::I think "political affiliation" is slightly off the mark. This is not about party affiliation. This article is about one's outlook as expressed in political terminology, which of course is highly correlated with how one votes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

== Statistical Analysis ==
Ok I know this is a mystery and not an encyclopedic article but could we please get one or two cites for the statistical analysis section since it would be very interesting to read the studies that that was based off of --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 22:47, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:good wuestion WillB! how were these statistics compiled?
:Agreed. It definitely does not look good at its present state where these numbers have nothing to back them up -- even if listed as estimates. --[[User:SJames|SJames]] 18:20, 14 December 2008 (EST)

:: It's an estimate, and a work in progress. Do you doubt its truth? Perhaps you're simply saying that a liberal newspaper would not admit this, and you'd be right about that. But the truth is not constrained by what liberals will admit.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:29, 14 December 2008 (EST)

::: I was just stating my curiosity -- one that I believe most readers share -- as to how those numbers came about. As to its validity, I have no way of knowing but based on my own encounters, those numbers look about right for the most part, except for one group that I believe is missing on that list. I know quite a few non-conservatives who, with an open mind, simply weighed conservative values against non-conservative values and decided that they identified more with non-conservative values. Their values usually gravitate towards "freedom of choice", as defined by themselves. (Obviously we disagree with it)
Examples include: Freedom to choose abortion, freedom to choose religion, freedom to choose a "lifestyle", etc. You might say that these people fall into the ''10%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and refuse to accept conservative values that conflict with their personal desires like irresponsible sexual promiscuity'' -- and that's true for some, but not for others. Some non-conservatives aren't interested in engaging in sexual promiscuity, dwelling in person temptation and self-destruction; they simply believe that it should be up to each individual if they choose to do so. --[[User:SJames|SJames]] 21:42, 14 December 2008 (EST)

:::As I said it would be interesting to read how these estimates were arrived at. I have no idea what the percentages should be and would love to see the data but I know that since this is an essay that a cite is not required and my not be possible to get in any case. --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 18:41, 14 December 2008 (EST)

Aschlafly asks "Do you doubt its [the statistics'] truth?" To which I respond, yes, I do doubt it, but more importantly I doubt very much that these "statistics" should be referred to as such. I, further, dispute WillB's claim that because this is an essay Aschlafly is not obligated to provide citations or data to support his claim.

My basic issue here is that absent any sort of supporting documentation these "estimates" are nothing of the sort and are, instead, simply guesses. A guess is not the same as a statistical estimate. To understand why, consider ASchlafly's first cited reason, "Did not hear about conservative principles...", which I will refer to as Claim A. Now, in theory Claim A is true of some portion of the population (A "population" being defined as the set of things we're interested in studying. In this case, for the sake of argument, we'll assume the population is American citizens or legal residents). This value is known as a population parameter and we will refer to it as "Mu", following the common statistical practice of referring to true population values with Greek symbols. Now, the difficulty is that the population is too large for us to assess as a whole. To deal with this, we take a sample of the population- for example, a random sample. Now, the composition of a true random sample is determined by its parent population. So, for example, if Claim A is true of 40% of the population, as ASchlafly asserts, then a true random sample will- in theory- contain the same proportion of persons for whom Claim A is true. The quantity in the sample for whom Claim A is true will be referred to as X-bar, a symbol used to refer to the arithmetic mean of a sample, and is not written in Greek as it refers to an estimate or "statistic" rather than to a true population parameter. So, if our random sample is perfect Mu should equal x-bar.

Now, this is true in theory, but in practice things get tricky. While a true random sample is the ideal, it is also the case that larger samples provide better estimates (i.e. more accurate values of x-bar) than smaller samples. Thus, it is almost always the case that Mu does not equal x-bar but rather is only approximately equal to x-bar. The relation between a particular value of x-bar and the value of Mu is determined using two things: the estimated [[standard deviation]] of a distribution of means and a [[confidence interval]]. The distribution of means is a mathematical construct that indicates how often we ought to see the x-bar of a sample of a given size, n, vary by a certain amount from the value of Mu. For our purposes we would estimate it using sample information by dividing the sample variance by n (i.e the sample size) and then taking the square root. We will refer to this as SDm (i.e. the standard deviation of the distribution of means). We would then use this value to construct a confidence interval. A confidence interval is a range of scores within which we are certain to a specific probability that we will find Mu. Put differently, it is like saying, "The true population value is x-bar plus or minus y amount, with a certainty of 95%." Confidence intervals are almost always included with point estimates (i.e. estimates of a specific value, such as x-bar) because statisticians are well aware that x-bar almost never precisely equals Mu. We would construct our confidence interval by taking x-bar and then adding, and subtracting, the value of the product of SDm and a t-value corresponding to our desired level of certainty and degrees of freedom (i.e. x-bar + (SDm)(t-value) and x-bar - (SDm)(t-value)). A t-value is a score taken from the t-distribution, which is an approximation of the [[normal distribution]] used when a smaller sample size produces non-normality. The t-distribution asymptotically approximates the normal distribution, so with large sample sizes you can essentially use the normal distribution instead. The degrees of freedom in this case are equal to n-1. So, if we drew a sample of 101 people and wanted to be 99% sure that our confidence interval included Mu then we would use a t-value of 2.626. So, in summation, using the sample information we can compute not simply an estimate of the value of Mu (i.e. x-bar) but also an interval within which we can be confident (e.g. 99% certain) that the true value of Mu lies. Obviously, the smaller the confidence interval, the more exact our estimate of Mu is likely to be and, if we assume that the sample x-bar is derived from is a perfect random sample, then the quality of our estimate is based entirely on sample size. Further, the relationships discussed above are well-documented empirically and have been proven out by mathematicians and statisticians since about the turn of the century.

The reality, of course, is that samples are rarely if ever perfectly random. Sampling error inevitably creeps in and, as a result, confidence intervals often have to be adjusted for this added error. If we cannot determine the extent of the sampling error's influence on our statistics then there is no mathematical adjustment possible and we, instead, have to assess the robustness of our estimates against the probable size of the error. And what all this means is that something is a statistical estimate rather than an offhand guess precisely because it includes not only a point estimate (e.g. 40% of the population subscribes to Claim A) but also a confidence interval around that point estimate (e.g. plus or minus 10%). Moreover, the point estimates as well as the confidence intervals are produced using a set of established procedures that are rooted in the mathematical characteristics of both population/sample relationships and the estimators (i.e. the computations used to produce the point estimates). Given that this is the case, point estimates are almost always provided with confidence intervals or standard errors and, additionally, information must be provided in order to allow others to assess the likely accuracy of the estimates.

ASchlafly has provided a set of point estimates generated in an unknown manner from unknown data. He has included no confidence intervals and no indication of the degree of accuracy in these estimates. As a result they are not statistical estimates and in no way should be referred to as the product of "statistical analysis". They are, to the contrary, nothing more or less than offhand guesses and should be referred to as such. On the other hand, if ASchlafly has some basis for these point estimates he should indicate where the data derive from and provide- at a bare minimum- the confidence intervals around these estimates as well as an outline indicating how he produced those intervals.

The point of statistics is not simply to compute an answer (e.g. a point estimate) but to produce along with it an estimate of the degree or error contained in that estimate. No human, after all, is perfect and it is in the nature of statistics to honestly quantify that imperfection. Absent confidence intervals or standard errors, and some understanding of how the data were gathered the appropriate response to the question "Do you doubt its truth" from anyone who is marginally competent in statistics must be "yes." Moreover, if ASchlafly wishes to label these assertions as "statistical estimates" then it is his responsibility to justify them in the manner accepted by statisticians. Otherwise, they should be (correctly) labeled as guesses.

Understand, the substance of my objection has nothing to do with whether or not ASchlafly's claims are correct but, rather, with the appropriateness of their presentation and treatment. -Drek
:Any reasonable argument should be capable of being put in two or three concise paragraphs, Drek. Your lengthy and confused screed doesn't add any light to this matter, I'm afraid. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:07, 16 December 2008 (EST)
::No sweat: ASchlafly's "statistics" are not statistics but guesses. He can demonstrate to the contrary by providing adequate citations to his data source as well as indicating the techniques used to generate the point estimates as well as confidence intervals and/or standard errors. Until he does so, referring to his guesses as "statistical analysis" is, at best, an exaggeration. Leaving this essay as-is saps credibility from both Conservapedia generally and ASchlafly particularly. See the above "confused screed" for a detailed explanation of my concerns. It's good to be succinct, but if Conservapedia is meant as an educational resource- and the criticism of Wikipedia for not offering courses lends support to that notion- then it's even better to be sufficiently thorough for students to follow the dispute. Or, as Beatrice Wright puts it, "You must learn to write in such a way that it will be as easy as possible for your critics to know why they disagree with you." -Drek
:::Andrew Schlafly is a qualified and experienced statistician and I'd certainly trust his judgement; not to sound suspicious, but in what way are you qualified to make such sweeping statements about this aricle? Also, you can be sure that his analyses and his estimates are based on a mature and thorough understanding of the issue being examined. Proper statistics is not just bare number crunching: it is an informed process that requires a full understanding of context. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:58, 16 December 2008 (EST)
::::"Proper statistics is not just bare number crunching: it is an informed process that requires a full understanding of context." Exactly right, and as you will notice, I am asking for a disclosure of that context so that we can all assess the accuracy and reliability of ASchlafly's claims for ourselves. If he is, indeed, a "...qualified and experienced statistician..." as you assert and his numbers are based on good data and appropriate techniques, this should be trivially easy. I also appreciate that you trust his judgment but statistics aren't about trusting someone's judgment, they are about verifiable results. Whether you or I view ASchlafly as a competent statistician has no bearing on the fact that he has not, at present, provided any justification whatsoever for the figures presented. Asking about my qualifications is something of an ad hominem since I have presented a lengthy explanation of why I question ASchlafly's claims. Rather than ask how I know what I do, why not respond substantively to my points? Regardless, while I have no expectation that you will take my word for it, I have been teaching statistics in an American four-year university for six years. -Drek
:::::I'm sorry you take it as an ad hom; I'm sure you appreciate that in such an environment a certain caution about people's claimed expertise is perhaps excusable. And I certainly accept your word as to your post and experience. But this is more than a pure, abstract, mathematical, dare I say professorial treatment of statistics. This is the application of statistics in the real world, down and dirty, relying also upon a knowledge of human nature, and in particular the nature of the Liberal-minded human, which is an additional layer of expertise which possibly you do not have - although, to be fair, working in a university (is it a public funded institution?) you would very likely be exposed daily to all kinds of Liberal nonsense. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:19, 16 December 2008 (EST)
::::::"This is the application of statistics in the real world, down and dirty, relying also upon a knowledge of human nature..." The thing is, Bugler, that statistics are an applied branch of mathematics. Their express purpose is to allow us to extract certainty from the vapor of possibility or, less metaphorically, to allow us to derive useful knowledge from messy research situations. Indeed, multivariate methods like regression are often used when the purity of experimental control is unattainable. Statistics can only provide this service reliably, however, when there is a full disclosure of how they are obtained. If the data are valid, the procedures appropriate, and the necessary mathematical assumptions not grievously violated, then the conclusions may be trusted to a particular degree of certainty. That ASchlafly's statistics are being used to asses the "...nature of the Liberal-minded human..." is effectively irrelevant. I do not ask that ASchlafly produce perfect statistics, but unless and until he provides a basis for judging his numbers, they cannot be regarded as anything more than his personal opinion. I appreciate your accepting my claimed expertise on my word, however. I have worked at both public and private universities and you will understand that the various strains of "nonsense" that I have encountered from a variety of ideological camps underlies my interest in seeing that statistical methods are not abused. If statistics are to be used to adjudicate between rival claims, then we must emphasize the need for them to be performed correctly. More simply, the extent to which I agree or disagree with the outcome of an analysis has no bearing on whether or not it was done correctly. And, as a side note, I have enjoyed our chat, but will probably be away from my computer for the next day or so for travel. If I do not respond to further comments, please understand it is not out of rudeness. -Drek
:::::::: of course. ''Bon voyage!'' [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:37, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::: Drek, you really "take the cake" for the most long-winded liberal rant in recent memory here. The field of statistics does include estimates, and no one doubts that that there are percentages for each category listed. Are the estimates off slightly? Perhaps, but be specific about which one you think may be off.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 13:48, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::::Mr. Schlafly,

::::::::::It has taken me a long time to respond to your more or less final remarks on this subject. This has been due to travel during the Christmas holidays so that my wife and I would be with family as well as a desire to take my time in thinking before responding. I will attempt to answer each of your remarks directly.

::::::::::First, I am sorry that you regard my concerns as a "liberal rant." I am not interested in the politics of this article but only in the legitimacy of labeling your estimates with the heading of "Statistical Analysis." Labeling my arguments "liberal" does nothing to refute them.

::::::::::Second, I never claimed that statistics do not include estimates. Indeed, in the second paragraph of my original comments I remarked, "...it refers to an estimate or "statistic" rather than to a true population parameter." Your response to me that "The field of statistics does include estimates..." has nothing to do with what I said. Do I think your estimates off "slightly"? Without question- all estimates can safely be said to deviate from the true population values by at least a small amount. This is a statistical reality. As to which I think may be off- I regard all of them suspect as you have provided no information about where these estimates derive from.

::::::::::Except, that isn't really true. In a response to FernoKlump at 21:22 on December 16, 2008 you remark that, "Like any estimate, it's based on experience and logic." This is the only time you have ever provided anything even approximating a citation for these estimates. Unfortunately, it does nothing to alay my fears. In regards to "experience," as I know you are familiar with the common statistical saying "Correlation does not equal causation," allow me to remind you of another common statistical saying: "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data.'" That is to say, no individual's experiences- no matter how reasonable and observant they are- can substitute for properly gathered information. The reason is simple: the world is a large place and we are, individually, very small. We only perceive the small slice of reality that we ourselves occupy and fail to observe the world from any other position. As such, even if we suppose that there are no biases in our perceptions whatsoever (a superhuman claim) it is vanishingly unlikely that those perceptions match perfectly with observable reality. In regards to "logic" I can only remind you that logic is a poor guide if one has flawed information. If we believe that ill health is caused by imbalances in the humors of the body, it is perfectly logical to treat a variety of disorders with bloodletting. Yet, if we evaluate this practice scientifically we find that in most cases it does more harm than good. Good logic is no substitute for good data.

::::::::::I suspect that you will not find my arguments above compelling, so please allow me to present a handful of additional points. The 2006 edition of the American Heritage Dictionary defines "statistics" as: "1. The mathematics of the collection, organization, and interpretation of numerical data, especially the analysis of population characteristics by inference from sampling. 2. Numerical data." WordNet 3.0 defines it as, "a branch of applied mathematics concerned with the collection and interpretation of quantitative data and the use of probability theory to estimate population parameters." The American Heritage Science Dictionary defines it as, "1. The branch of mathematics that deals with the collection, organization, analysis, and interpretation of numerical data. Statistics is especially useful in drawing general conclusions about a set of data from a sample of the data. 2. Numerical data." Finally, if we examine Conservapedia's own article on statistics we find this in the first paragraph: "Statistics is the application of mathematics to the understanding of data. It involves all stages of data collection and processing from the initial collection, to the analysis and ultimately to the conclusions and interpretations of the data." You will note the primacy of data in all of these definitions. Nowhere do any of these sources refer to "experience" or "logic" with the same emphasis as they do to "data." Likewise, I can review my books on statistics as long as you like and will never find a term in any equation where "experience" is to be added, while all deal in one way or another with data.

::::::::::At this point I consider that you have finally revealed that as these estimates are based on "experience and logic" rather than data, you have conceded that they are not the product of statistical analysis. I do not object to your referring to them as estimates, but do object in the strongest terms to your labeling them "statistical analysis." Your estimates are not the product of statistics. You can accuse me of producing another liberal rant, but that does not make me wrong. You can scold people for "carping," but that does not make your estimates reliable. This is not politics, this is mathematics. -Drek

::::::::: He's not claiming the statistics are wrong, he's saying that they are meaningless if the method of finding them is withheld. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Mr. Schlafly! Look at this petition!]] 20:09, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: Like any estimate, it's based on experience and logic. Instead of carping, please contribute.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 21:22, 16 December 2008 (EST)

I have a quick question for Aschlafly. I notice that the percentages in the Statistical analysis section add up to exactly 100. I find this a little confusing as I don't see any reason that the events listed should be mutually exclusive. Surely a person could be a liberal for many of the reasons given? [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 11:43, 31 December 2008 (EST)

: They refer to the ''primary'' reasons.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 12:13, 31 December 2008 (EST)

:: Hmmm, I suppose that could work. However in this instance it could be very difficult to define what we mean by the primary reason. Typically in such analysis one could self-reporting, however I doubt that would work in this case :) [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 12:37, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== My political alignment ==

Ahem, I am a conservative (just see some of my userboxes, and i am against abortion, and i support classroom prayer too) and another thing, my comments were somewhat misguided. When you said mind-altering drugs, i thought you were implying that Obama and company were putting drugs of some sort into everyone's food. ----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 12:24, 14 December 2008 (EST)
:But why on earth would you suspect any such thing was implied? Surely it is clear that it meant voluntarily-ingested illegal drugs? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:30, 14 December 2008 (EST)

Evidently not - case closed.---- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 10:18, 1 January 2009 (EST)

==question==
Are you honestly that arrogant that you wonder why people might not think exactly like you? sounds like mindless confomity to me.

==A further suggestion==
It struck me that denial of Conservative principles could be a result of incipient or presenting mental illness. Just as it has been widely demonstrated that Liberal beliefs can lead to psychiatric conditions (per http://www.conservapedia.com/Mystery:Do_Liberal_Teachings_Cause_Mental_Illness%3F ), so there might also be a reciprocal effect. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:19, 15 December 2008 (EST)

== "Abstract" principles ==

I don't define "more guns, less crime" and "less taxes, more revenue" as abstract characteristics. There are statistics to back up both claims, as there are statistics to support a counter-claim to either. Those statements are based off of concrete observations and statistics. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 12:18, 16 December 2008 (EST)

: The observation "more guns, less crime" does entail a slight abstraction, and there are people who may have trouble understanding. Statistics confirm it, as does logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 13:50, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::I don't doubt that people may have trouble understanding. However if it is statistically confirmed, where is the abstraction? [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 13:55, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::: You can always find someone to dispute statistics, as your own posting demonstrates. The real obstacle to some is grasping the abstraction of the logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 14:03, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::::I think we're arguing for the same side here, Andy. I'm not disputing any statistics; that's my point. The statistics are there ''plain as day'' that an armed citizenry opposes crime. I would say it's just blind ignorance (or faulty logic) to believe otherwise as opposed to an abstraction. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 14:27, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::::: I don't think someone having, to use popular terminology, an IQ of less than 100 can easily understand the truth of "more guns, less crime." Abstractions become more difficult to understand the lower the intelligence. Frankly, this abstraction strikes many highly intelligent people as wrong at first glance, before thinking more abstractly.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 21:11, 16 December 2008 (EST)

==Tweaking the Statistics==
With all due deference to Andy's knowledge on the subject, I believe that it would be beneficial to consider reweighting the estimates for why people choose to remain liberal, despite superior arguments for conservatism, as follows:

:* 25%: did not hear about conservative principles and the logic behind them until ''after'' they made up their mind, perhaps due to pervasive societal bias, and refuse to reconsider;
:* 25%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and refuse to accept conservative values that conflict with their personal desires like sexual promiscuity;
:* 20%: were told off or disciplined once by a conservative, often a parent, and refuse to rise above the animosity;
:* 10%: refuse to let go of their past, or let go of their desire for a sense of acceptance by liberal friends or teachers;
:* 10%: mistakenly feel that conservative values and benefits are available only to those who are from an intact family, not realizing the availability and benefits to all, including children of divorced parents;
:* 5%: bitterly unemployed, or having a salary or benefits that conservatives would reduce, such as public school teachers, and a refusal to rise above self-interest; and
:* 5%: like an anarchist, genuinely want to believe in and propagate destructive ideas.

The largest reason that people remain liberal is clearly their desire to have their immoral and atheistic actions become more socially acceptable so that they can justify such lifestyles to themselves and others. Being disciplined by conservatives goes hand in hand with this - liberals do not like people pointing out that their lifestyle choices are wrong and detrimental to the country as a whole. It is primarily conservatives who are willing to call a spade a spade and chastise immoral conduct. I decreased the point about hearing about conservative principles later in life because the vast majority of United States citizens are raised in Christian churches and are taught the Bible's conservative principles from a young age. It is only once they are school-aged that liberal indoctrination can begin.--[[User:Laches|Laches]] 14:48, 16 December 2008 (EST)

: Good insights, but American kids get indoctrinated by public schools and television at young ages prior to (and during) their formation of their views.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 21:23, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:: Just one question: You are claiming that no liberal has ever taken that position through logical thought? (Usual disclaimers apply)
:: Okay, two questions: I would still like to see a source for those statistics. "Experience and logic" isn't enough; show me the data.
:::(The silence that will likely follow a response to the second question will not necessarily indicate acceptance of the argument it presents; more likely, it will mean that I believe a response won't add anything.)
::-[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 18:02, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::: The more logical a liberal is the less likely he will remain a liberal. Liberals do better in gaining adherents by avoiding logic. If you have a logical argument for a liberal position, then I'd love to hear it.

::: References are being added to the entry. Feel free to add some yourselves, unless you think that liberals never become conservatives (which is demonstrably false).--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 21:56, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::::You didn't answer my first question. Are you claiming that no liberal has ever taken that position through logical thought? (I'm just looking for a yes or a no, not an essay.) -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 22:38, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::::: Your question is incoherent. What does "that position" refer to? Are you referring to a specific position (e.g., gun control), or a general ideology (e.g., being a liberal)?

::::: In general, liberal views are not based on logic. There are examples of superficial liberal appeal to logic (e.g., to believe that banning guns will reduce crime), but it doesn't take long to show the error in the logic. Many liberals make superficially logical arguments simply to mislead others who are not bright enough to see the flaw.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:49, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::::::Given that I didn't mention anything other than liberalism, it seems obvious that's what I'm referring to. I'll ask again: Are you arguing that no liberal has ever become a liberal through logical thought? "Yes" or "no" will do. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:14, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: No one has become a liberal through ''truthful'' logical thought.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 23:25, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Dennis Prager is one of my favorite thinkers, and took this up at length, proving what Andy says is true.
<blockquote>
"With the decline of the authority of Judeo-Christian values in the West, many people stopped looking to external sources of moral standards in order to decide what is right and wrong. Instead of being guided by God, the Bible and religion, great numbers -- in Western Europe, the great majority -- have looked elsewhere for moral and social guidelines.

For many millions in the twentieth century, those guidelines were provided by Marxism, Communism, Fascism or Nazism. For many millions today, those guidelines are "feelings". With the ascendancy of leftist values that has followed the decline of Judeo-Christian religion, ''personal feelings have supplanted universal standards''. In fact, feelings are the major unifying characteristic among contemporary liberal positions.

Aside from reliance on feelings, how else can one explain a person who believes, let alone proudly announces on a bumper sticker, that "War is not the answer"? I know of no comparable conservative bumper sticker that is so demonstrably false and morally ignorant. Almost every great evil has been solved by war -- from slavery in America to the Holocaust in Europe. Auschwitz was liberated by soldiers making war, not by pacifists who would have allowed the Nazis to murder every Jew in Europe." [http://www.orthodoxnet.com/archives/religious_articles.shtml Does religion make people better or worse, Dennis Prager - 24 columns on topic]

</blockquote>
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 00:27, 18 December 2008 (EST)

==TV Shows==

How about some citations or examples for South Park, Family Guy, and Hannah Montana? Well, the first two are somewhat political anyway I guess. But Hannah Montana? Please, example or citation. Did you know Billy Ray Cyrus is with Sean Hannity on the Freedom Concert, and Miley Cyrus is a strong Christian? [[User:AddisonDM]] 28 December 2008

: I don't watch TV, so I hope someone else can help out here!--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:07, 28 December 2008 (EST)

Hannah Montana is a kid's show. I don't watch it often but it does not seem to be ether conservative or liberal. I think it should be removed from the list of liberal TV shows. --[[User:AmeliaJ|AmeliaJ]] 14:49, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Don't say South Park pushes liberal values. Matt Stone and Trey Parker are both libertarians. For example in a certain episode, a one Mr. Reiner tries to take down the local tobacco company, and in the end he is portrayed as ridiculous, out of touch, and the townspeople rally around the tobacco company. --[[User:Snotbowst|Snotbowst]] 14:20, 4 January 2009 (EST)

: [[Libertarians]] are socially [[liberal]]. You could benefit from our entries on both. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:33, 4 January 2009 (EST)

::I know what socially liberal and libertarian are defined as. What I am gettng at is that the show is wrongly heaped. Another example could be the show's mockery of the attempt to ban the N word through an entire episode. Besides it's crassness, the show is one the most balanced on TV and it handles issues with maturity while throwing a mask of fart jokes to add some comic relief.
As for The Simpsons, the show does lean leftward, but gives both sides a say. For instance, the show makes scatig comments about neo-hippies, President Carter, and President Clinton. Ned Flanders is often a set up but the jokes are never hugely inflammatory (to put it in perspective if someone made jokes about my POV at that level, I'd let it slide, maybe even let a smile crack through). And if you can't laugh at yourself, you don't deserve to be taken seriously. --[[User:Snotbowst|Snotbowst]] 21:12, 4 January 2009 (EST)

By the way I'm glad Hannah Montana is off the list. I don't think it is really liberal, and there are definitely more harmful shows that could be listed instead. [[User:AddisonDM]] 6 January 2009

== Statistics ==

Where did the author of the various statistics get their information? It looks to me like the information was fabricated from thin air. In fact, the entire article makes the conservative movement look bad because we come off as extremely arrogant. This is no way to convince liberals to see reason; it only solidifies their belief that we are unable to see any side but our own. This article will make us more enemies than friends.
[[User:WilliamBeason|WilliamBeason]] 14:57, 31 December 2008 (EST)

: The estimates are based on experience and available articles. More citations can be added and I encourage you to do so. Is there a particular statement that you dispute?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:07, 31 December 2008 (EST)

::My problem is that the entire article in general is committing the logical fallacy known as "poisoning the well". Rather than directly confronting liberal ideas, it uses weighted phrases inclusively describing ''all'' liberals as: "close-minded", "irrational", having "poor abstract thinking", and having "arrogance" to create a view that makes all liberals to seem like horrible people. The article seethes with hypocrisy from these statements. If we should seek to show liberals that their views are incorrect, we should combat on '''issues''', not participate in labeling a person simply based off of their political views.
::The article should be rewritten following the '''title'''. As it asks the question "Why do Non-Conservatives Exist?", it should cover more than just liberalism, as there are many political movements ''other than'' conservatism and liberalism. To name a few other major movements: libertarianism, federalism, and marxism. Followers of each political movement have different reasons for existing (be they world events, nationality, socioeconomic class, etc.)
::But to summarize an ideal article under this topic: non-conservatives exist because humans think differently. Because there is such a staggeringly large number of ideologies, sub-ideologies, and other ways to view the world, one would be hard-pressed to find two people who thought that the world should exist in the exact same way. To further compound this, there is no easily definable line that separates one ideology from another because many people take their beliefs from a ''variety'' of political movements.
::Thank you for reading this, and best regards for the new year!
::[[User:WilliamBeason|WilliamBeason]] 23:15, 31 December 2008 (EST)

::: Your comments are thoughtful, and thought-provoking. Thank you. But there are some insights in this entry worth developing. Liberals do try to keep conservative ideas from reaching people. Why? Because many people are liberal simply because they haven't heard conservative principles with an open mind. If they are liberal for long enough, then the mind is closed and will not reconsider.

::: Politics is a battle for control of the future. Liberals know how to play the game to serve their purposes. The percentages might be tweaked a bit, but just watch how the liberals themselves behave. They censor and demonize conservatives, for example, and this entry explains why. Just look at the beginning of the entry by [[Wikipedia]] on Conservapedia and you can see the liberal strategy in action.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 23:27, 31 December 2008 (EST)

:::: You are correct in saying that liberals try to keep conservative ideals from spreading. However, when looking at the scheme of things from a larger perspective, it quickly becomes noticeable that ''all'' political movements attempt to hinder those that are (or even simply those that they see to be) opposed to themselves. The Romans tried to hinder Christians; Catholics hindered heliocentrism; atheists hinder theists; and ''theists hinder atheists''. Censoring and demonizing opposition is not a new method developed by liberals for hindering conservatives: it has been a tool of politics for ages. But even so, is this article currently not a monument to demonizing liberals? ''Even though'' '''some''' liberals demonize us, ''it does not make it right for us to demonize them.'' We need to show that we are above that. We need to show that the conservative movement is above pointing the finger and telling nasty stories like schoolchildren.

:::: To add some further perspective: read your previous post. In your mind replace "conservative" with "liberal" and "liberal" with "conservative". Does it make the post any less true? ''Have we removed the plank from our own eye?''

:::: Thank you for taking the time to read this with an open mind. [[User:WilliamBeason|WilliamBeason]] 18:54, 1 January 2009 (EST)

===Percentages===
It is possible for 20% of one group of people to also be in the 15% of another group of people. It's a type of "inclusive clause" -- I'm not sure of the proper term for it. Here's a math problem from a while ago...
:There are 1000 students in a school. 35% like math, 65% like history, and 75% like both (disregard the existence of other subjects). How many students only like history? 
You did not need to readjust the percentages because a new item was added to the "Statistical" list. [[User:ZacharyM|ZacharyM]] 00:21, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

== Christianity ==

I would like to point out that also a lot of people become '''liberal''' on conversion to Christianity as they feel that liberalism is more consistent with the Bible than conservatism. My personal belief is that both are very inconsistent on different points, and I've voted both ways. --[[User:Trinity123|Trinity123]] 10:11, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Definitions ==

Surely the answer to this question is self-evident. Conservative is a relative term as is liberal. To put it simply, conservatives exist because liberals do. If everyone had exactly the same views on all issues then there would be no need for a word to describe them. Although as the usage here implies, they are now used as set terms to describe a set of views, it must be remembered that there is a spectrum of political views. As such the word conservative is best used as a relative term, as is the case with liberal. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 12:59, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Vladimir I. Lenin

2009-10-12T01:10:34Z

ZacharyM: Redirected page to Lenin

#Redirect [[Lenin]]

Russian (de facto)

2009-10-12T01:10:10Z

ZacharyM: Redirected page to Russia

#Redirect [[Russia]]

Saturn

2009-10-12T01:08:23Z

ZacharyM: /* Ring system */ adding ref tags

:''For other uses, please see [[Saturn (disambiguation)]].''
{{Planet|image=SaturnCassiniOverview.jpg
|caption=Composite true-color image of Saturn by spacecraft [[Cassini-Huygens Mission|Cassini]] in October of 2004.
|origname=Roman god of harvest
|symbol=Saturn symbol.svg
|order=7
|primary=Sun
|periapsis=1,352,550,000 km<ref name=saturnfact>Williams, David R. "[http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/saturnfact.html Saturn Fact Sheet]." National Space Science Data Center, [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration|NASA]], November 23, 2007. Accessed May 19, 2008.</ref>
|apoapsis=1,514,500,000 km<ref name=saturnfact/>
|semimajor=1,433,530,000 km<ref name=saturnfact/><ref name=planetsoc>"[http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/saturn/ Space Topics: Saturn]." ''The Planetary Society''. Accessed May 19, 2008.</ref>
|bode=10.0 AU
|circumference=59.879 AU
|eccentricity=0.0565<ref name=saturnfact/>
|sidereal=10,759.22 da (29.4 a)<ref name=saturnfact/>
|synodic=378.09 da<ref name=saturnfact/>
|orbitspeed=10.183 km/s
|inclination=2.485°<ref name=saturnfact/>
|reference=the ecliptic
|siderealday=10.656 h<ref name=saturnfact/>
|solarday=10.656 h<ref name=saturnfact/>
|rotatespeed=9.8663 m/s<ref name=calc>Calculated</ref>
|axialtilt=26.73°<ref name=saturnfact/>
|mass=5.6846 * 1026 kg<ref name=saturnfact/>
|density=687.3 kg/m³<ref name=saturnfact/>
|surfacegrav=8.96 m/s²<ref name=saturnfact/>
|escapespeed=35.49 km/s<ref name=saturnfact/>
|meanradius=58,232 km<ref name=saturnfact/>
|equatorradius =60,268 km<ref name=saturnfact/>
|polarradius=54,364 km<ref name=saturnfact/>
|surfacearea=42,612,000,000 km²<ref name=calc/>
|meantemp=134 K
|moons=60
|composition=hydrogen 96.3%, helium 3.25%, methane 4500 ppm, ammonia 125 pm, hydrogen deuteride 110 ppm, ethane 1.5 ppm, plus aerosols of ammonia ice, water ice, and ammonia hydrosulfide<ref name=saturnfact/>
|color=light yellow
|albedo=0.47<ref name=saturnfact/>
|mfd=0.210 G<ref name=saturnfact/>
|pmdm=4.6 * 1025 N-m/T<ref name=Russell>Russell, C. T., and Luhmann, J. G. "[http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/sat_mag.html Saturn: Magnetic Field and Magnetosphere]." ''Encyclopedia of Planetary Sciences'', J. H. Shirley and R. W. Fainbridge, eds. New York: Chapman and Hall, 1997, pp. 718-719. Accessed May 19, 2008.</ref><ref name=Humphreys>Humphreys, D. R. "[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields]." ''[[Creation Research Society Quarterly]]'' 21(3), December 1984. Accessed April 29, 2008.</ref>
|cmdm=1.34 * 1026 N-m/T<ref name=Humphreys/>
|mdt=5300 a<ref name=Humphreys/>
|mhl=3700 a<ref name=calc/>
}}'''Saturn''' is the sixth [[planet]] from the [[sun]] and the second largest planet in the [[solar system]]. Saturn is a [[gas giant]] with an atmosphere predominantly of [[hydrogen]], with a small fraction of [[helium]] and trace amounts of several other compounds.<ref name=saturnfact/> The most prominent feature of Saturn is its ring system, which has been known to [[astronomy]] since less than half a century after the invention of the telescope and was for more than three centuries the only ring system known to man.

== Ancient knowledge and naming ==
Saturn has been known to post-diluvian man since the beginnings of recorded history.<ref name=Arnett>Arnett, Bill. "[http://www.nineplanets.org/saturn.html Entry for Saturn]." ''The <s>Nine</s> 8 Planets'', May 11, 2005. Accessed May 19, 2008.</ref> The Hindus called Saturn Sani, one of nine objects called the ''Navagraha'' that constituted a celestial council. (The other eight members of this council were the [[Sun]], the [[Moon]], the modern planets [[Mars]], [[Venus]], [[Mercury]], and [[Jupiter]], and the ascending and descending nodes of the Moon's orbit, which the Hindus named Rahu and Ketu.) The Hindus feared Sani above all other objects, believing that he could burn any object instantly by merely glancing at it.<ref name=windows>"[http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/mythology/sani.html&edu=high Entry for Sani]." ''Windows to the Universe'', University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, University of Michigan, July 19, 2001. Accessed May 19, 2008.</ref>

The ancient [[Greece|Greeks]] regarded this object, the furthest moving object that they knew, as the father of all the classical gods. They named him Kronos,<ref name=Arnett/> a word closely akin to ''chronos'', which means time. That [[Jupiter]] is far more prominent in the sky was a sign to the Greeks that Zeus, the most prominent son of Kronos, had deposed him, even as Kronos had deposed his own father, Ouranos (Uranus).

The [[Rome|Romans]] named this deity Saturnus and regarded him not merely as the father of the gods but also as the patron of [[agriculture]] and the harvest. His symbol, a stylized rendering of a sickle, reflects that association. The name Saturn also appears in the name of Saturday, the English name for the seventh day of the week.<ref name=Arnett/>

== Orbital characteristics ==
Saturn's orbit is about 3.4 times as eccentric as Earth's orbit. Saturn keeps an average orbital distance of 1,433,530,000 km from the sun, a distance close to that predicted by the [[Titius-Bode Law]].<ref name=saturnfact/> Saturn's orbit is slightly inclined to the ecliptic, with the result that the [[Earth]] passes from one side to the other of Saturn's ring plane every so often.<ref name=Arnett/> Saturn's sidereal period is about 29.4 [[Earth]] years. Its ''synodic'' period is 378.09 days.

== Physical characteristics ==
Saturn's volumetric mean radius is 58,232 km. Remarkably, Saturn is less dense than [[water]]. Its chief constituent is molecular [[hydrogen]], followed by [[helium]], [[methane]], [[ammonia]], [[hydrogen deuteride]], and [[ethane]]. Aerosols of ammonia ice, water ice, and [[ammonia hydrosulfide]] complete Saturn's composition.

Saturn has high winds, which blow easterly at 500 m/s at the equator.<ref name=Hamilton>Hamilton, Calvin J. "[http://www.solarviews.com/eng/saturn.htm Entry for Saturn]." ''Views of the Solar System'', 1997-2005. Accessed May 19, 2008.</ref>

== Magnetosphere ==
Saturn has a magnetic dipole moment of 4.6 * 1025 N-m/T, less than one-thirtieth of that of [[Jupiter]]. Remarkably, the magnetic axis deviates only slightly from the rotational axis. The magnetophere extends slightly beyond the orbit of Titan, and Titan's upper atmosphere contributes plasma particles to the Saturnine magnetosphere.<ref name=Russell/>

== Ring system ==
Saturn’s ring system is the brightest in all the solar system, with an albedo varying from 0.2 to 0.6, often brighter than the planet itself.<ref name=Arnett/>

The rings have radii varying from 60,268 km to 483,000 km. Saturn's rings divide into seven portions, designated D, C, B, A, F, G, and E from inner to outer. A wide gap called the Cassini Division separates the B and A rings, and the A rings themselves have two gaps, called the Encke and Keeler gaps.<ref name=saturnringfact>Williams, David R. "[http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/satringfact.html Saturnian Rings Fact Sheet]." [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration|NASA]], September 18, 2006. Accessed May 19, 2008.</ref>

The two Voyager spacecraft sent back cinematic images that showed that the rings were spoked, and that the spokes persist, especially in the B ring system.<ref name=Arnett/><ref name=Hamilton/> Current theories suggest that the spokes result from magnetic interaction, because the rings all lie well within Saturn's magnetosphere. Furthermore, the F ring appears to be braided, a phenomenon that remains unexplained today.<ref name=Arnett/>

Many of the innermost moons of Saturn orbit close to the rings, especially the F and E rings, and serve to regularize their structure, a phenomenon called "shepherding."<ref name=Hamilton/>

As of October 8, 2009, scientists have discovered another massive ring system that could not previously be seen<ref>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/space/article6864286.ece</ref>.

== Problems for uniformitarian theories ==
The origin of Saturn's rings remains a mystery<ref name=Arnett/><ref name=Hamilton/>, and a troublesome one. The rings are not stable and hence could not have persisted for the whole of the assumed [[deep time]] age of the solar system.<ref name=Arnett/> [[Uniformitarianism|Uniformitarians]] admit that Saturn's rings could not be older than about 100 million years.<ref name=Arnett/> They therefore propose that Saturn's rings formed from the disintegration of one or more moons, perhaps following a collision with a [[comet]].<ref name=Arnett/><ref name=Hamilton/> However, Wing-Huan Ip at the Max Planck Institute calculated that a comet-moon collision would not be sufficiently likely to occur in less time than 30 billion years. This is more than twice the age of the universe calculated from the [[Hubble Constant]].<ref name=Harris>Harris, David M. "[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i4/saturn.asp How Old are Saturn's Rings]?" ''Creation'', 12(4):40–41. September 1990. Accessed May 18, 2008.</ref>

== Observation and Exploration ==
[[Galileo Galilei]] was the first astronomer to observe Saturn with a telescope. But he did not realize that he was looking at a ringed planet. Only in 1659 did [[Christiaan Huygens]] understand that Saturn was ringed. For three centuries more, Saturn's ring system was the only such system known, until in 1977 NASA astronomers inferred the ring system of [[Uranus]] from a stellar occultation experiment.

Telescopic observation of Saturn has been ongoing since the earliest observations by Huygens and [[Giovanni Domenico Cassini]]. The [[Hubble Space Telescope]] and many Earth-based telescopes have taken many images of a quality comparable to that of images sent back from spacecraft.

The first spacecraft to visit Saturn was [[Pioneer 11]] in 1979, followed by [[Voyager 1]] (1980) and [[Voyager 2]] (1981).<ref name=Arnett/> The spacecraft of the joint NASA/[[European Space Agency|ESA]] [[Cassini-Huygens Mission]] arrived in the Saturnine system on July 1, 2004.<ref name=Arnett/> The Huygens spacecraft landed on Saturn's largest moon, [[Titan (moon)|Titan]], and transmitted images and data all during its descent and for three hours after landing. The Cassini spacecraft continues to orbit Saturn and make frequent rendezvous with its most prominent moons to this day (May 19, 2008). Its mission was originally scheduled to run for four years, ending in July 2008, but NASA has announced a two-year extension with multiple rendezvous with [[Titan (moon)|Titan]] and additional rendezvous with [[Enceladus]], [[Rhea (moon)|Rhea]], [[Dione (moon)|Dione]], and [[Helene]]. Mission planners also suggest that after two years, Cassini might still have enough fuel for another two-year extension, and speak hopefully of specific future missions to Titan and Enceladus.<ref name=extended>Brown, Dwayne, and Martinez, Carolina. "[http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/media/cassini-20080415.html NASA Extends Cassini's Grand Tour of Saturn]." [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration|NASA]], April 15, 2008. Accessed May 16, 2008.</ref>

== Gallery ==
<gallery>
Image:Saturnrings.jpg|Image of Saturn captured by the Hubble Space Telescope in 1996
</gallery>

== Satellites ==
Saturn has at least sixty confirmed satellites and three unconfirmed satellites. Of the sixty known satellites, five are "ring shepherds."<ref>The three unconfirmed satellites, if confirmed, would also be ring shepherds. In addition, the A ring has a large collection of "moonlets" that shepherd the other smaller particles.</ref> Two of the satellites, [[Epimetheus (moon)|Epimetheus]] and [[Janus]], actually exchange orbits regularly. Two of the largest moons, [[Tethys (moon)|Tethys]] and [[Dione (moon)|Dione]], each have two moons that occupy the stable libration or "Trojan" points in their respective orbits. Most of Saturn's moons lie beyond the orbit of [[Iapetus (moon)|Iapetus]], the outermost of the large spheroidal moons.

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

== Related Links ==
* [http://solarsystem.jpl.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Saturn&Display=Overview Saturn] by [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration|NASA]]

{{solarsystem}}