Difference between revisions of "Talk:Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness?"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Stephen Fry)
(Stephen Fry: reply)
Line 165: Line 165:
::Besides, I'm not sure that Stephen Fry is a good example of what you are trying to demonstrate. He was, after all, expelled from the school when he was fifteen and subsequently expelled from another. His behaviour went against the rules of those schools so the cause does not appear to have been liberal teaching up to that point. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:01, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
::Besides, I'm not sure that Stephen Fry is a good example of what you are trying to demonstrate. He was, after all, expelled from the school when he was fifteen and subsequently expelled from another. His behaviour went against the rules of those schools so the cause does not appear to have been liberal teaching up to that point. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:01, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
::: You are construing "liberal teachings" too literally, and I've noticed that liberals are often overly literal in their approach.  The concept of "teachings" is not confined to school.  If Fry was expelled from school as a teenager as you say, then he simply picked up "teachings" from somewhere else, such as liberal newspapers and books.  The comments above do not in any way undermine use of his example, as there is no doubt that Fry fully embraced liberal teachings in its full sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:02, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Revision as of 08:02, 21 August 2008


Andy, well done - a very well-argued essay, and one that will no doubt provoke our Liberal friends into a frenzy of denial. You might care to add that Sweden, the 'poster-boy' nation for many Liberals, has an enormously high suicide rate (and other ultra-Liberal nations likewise). Bugler 13:15, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Thanks much, Bugler. I value your opinion and insights very much!--Aschlafly 13:49, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Thanks DLerner

Thanks for correcting that error. What I meant to say was "censoring classroom prayer THAT would promote mental stability." Your fix is fine.--Aschlafly 19:31, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

your welcome. ДЛеяиея Come see if I suffer fools gladly | A place for my stuff 19:45, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

The liberal response

I will be the first liberal to respond.

Let me begin with what I think the real reason there is a huge rise in dementia. In the last few decades there has been an enormous increase in the consumption of "junk" food. I don't mean just candy and cookies, I mean all processed food; it's loaded with preservatives and chemicals which you normally wouldn't think of eating, but since it comes in a pretty package with pretty slogans like "99% fat free", we think it's good for you. The obesity epidemic probably also contributes a great deal. For further information, see Eric Schlosser's "Fast Food Nation" and Morgan Spurlock's "Don't Eat this Book". ДЛеяиея Come see if I suffer fools gladly | A place for my stuff 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

First liberal? What are you doing on Conservapedia? This is not the place for you. - NewCrusader
<Reply> I agree that is a problem. However, liberals tend to be fatter that conservatives. What one believes and accepts does affect his ability to keep off the extra pounds. So your observation tends to reinforce the likely correlation.--Aschlafly 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
Really? Texas had four of the fattest cities in the US a few years ago. Liberals are more into exercise and health food and vegetarianism/veganism, the Bible belt has a lot of fat people... ДЛеяиея Come see if I suffer fools gladly | A place for my stuff 20:04, 10 August 2008 (EDT) </reply>
I will add my own questiong and responses to ASchlafly's. First, do you have any evidence whatsoever for your statment that liberals tend to be larger than conservatives? and second, are you saying that religious faith keeps you thin? JamalG 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

As for the content of the article:

lying about the truth, causing belief in falsehoods or encouraging conduct disorders

I think the absurdity of this one speaks for itself. "All liberals (and public schools [except the ones that teach Intelligent Design]) lie. ДЛеяиея Come see if I suffer fools gladly | A place for my stuff 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Many liberals don't think lying is wrong, and even delight in it. There is a correlation, though certainly not all liberals lie.--Aschlafly 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
Liberals do teach that lying is wrong. In fact, many students are expelled from colleges and high schools across the country for Academic Dishonesty (which may mean plagerism, or simply allowing a friend to cheat) op top of that, not all lies are bad. When my wife was pregnant, I lied constantly, telling her that she wasn't fat, she wasn't short tempered etc... Most lies are wrong of course, but there are many that make life better JamalG 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
there are no real differences between boys and girls

Um, nobody teaches that. I think they teach that they're equal, but a cursory examination of the anatomy reveals several differences, especially in the reproductive/waste disposal organs. ДЛеяиея Come see if I suffer fools gladly | A place for my stuff 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

You're ducking the obvious point here. Think girls can excel in math as well as boys can? Liberals teach they can, which is teaching a falsehood.--Aschlafly 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
Can girls excel? Of course they can... There have been women who have succeeded in every major field of science. Research shows that men typically have higher scores in Math and Science, while women do better in English and Social Studies, but just as there have many famous male writers and historians, there are dozens if not hundreds of female mathematicians and scientists who have made lasting contributions to the field. JamalG 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
And yet they still compete seperatly in sports, because it would be unfair otherwise. Women were created to be the primary caregivers. That is why they have breasts, and men havn't. - NewCrusader
humans are just another type of animal

As opposed to .... what? I think humans are another type of mammal, and the only way we can actually elevate ourselves is through our actions. Get your genome sequenced and you'll see how close to animals you really are. ДЛеяиея Come see if I suffer fools gladly | A place for my stuff 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Teach your belief and you'll contribute to some mental disorders as kids struggle with your view that they are mere animals.--Aschlafly 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
I have never seen any student struggle with the view that they are merely animals. Students develop mental disordered for a variety of reasons, many unknown to science. JamalG 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
If you cut me, I will bleed - but only a liberal would use that to argue I am the same as a rat. - NewCrusader
No one uses that to argue that you are the same as a rat- of course you aren't. But a circulatory system is something that you share in common with one, along with a great many other features. Humans are of course (well, for all we know anyway) capable of much more advanced thought than other animals- you can be comfortable with that assertion. But being an animal does not mean you are a rat, or a dove, or a louse, or a monkey, or whatever- you are human- it's just a matter of classification. If you're offended by being categorized as an animal, then by definition you must be offended by the claims that your cells contain a nucleus, you are composed of more than one cell, you don't produce your own food internally and don't have cell walls. So which is it? Animal by definition refers to eukaryotic, multicellular heterotrophs that lack a cell wall. Humans fit all four criteria. Incidentally, so does a rat. That's not a "belief"- it's an eminently verifiable fact (look at a skin cell under a microscope and at the food in your refrigerator), but it doesn't follow by any means that humans and rats are the same.Kallium 00:06, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
all there is is what you see

Not true, we teach about bacteria too small for the naked eye to see. Also about atoms, yes, atoms. (The early church used to suppress any information atoms and/or the writings of Epicures, were they responsible for mental illness? ДЛеяиея Come see if I suffer fools gladly | A place for my stuff 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

You duck the obvious point again, so no response to your comment is warranted.--Aschlafly 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
I fail to see how Dlearner was ducking the point. All there is is what you see is an incredibly broad statment that can be taken many ways. I'm assuming you mean that Liberals teach there is no greater power (Ie, you can't see a god, so there must not be one) but that is problematic as well. If one were to truly assume that if they don't see it, it doesn't exist (something I have never heard anyone say) then many established practices and principles of science would not work in their world (Ie X-rays) JamalG 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
death can somehow be good

We don't teach that. What I think you mean is that death is inevitable and is in fact a part of life. All that lives must die, therefore, death should not be feared. People in pain and suffering from long debilitating illness welcome death, and as adults we must realize this. ДЛеяиея Come see if I suffer fools gladly | A place for my stuff 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Liberals do teach that death can be good. Ever read the leading liberal work in school called "Of Mice and Men"?--Aschlafly 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
I respond to this with a question. When someone dies after a long bout with a terminal disease and their family says I'm glad the suffering is over, they've gone home to god. Is that not a good thing? Christian teaching naturally brings about the idea that death can be good, as it allows one to return to their creator JamalG 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
I have to argue the point on that one, Andy, for two reasons.. First, Of Mice and Men (italicized or underlined, please--it's a full-length work, not a short story) has a number of liberal themes, but it hardly teaches that death is good. There's nothing good or positive about Lenny's death. If anything, it teaches that the world can be a harsh and unforgiving place, and that the death of innocents is tragic, but sometimes inevitable.
Second, as a Christian, I strongly question the notion that "Death can be good" is a liberal idea. My Grandfather suffered terribly from cancer; when he passed, we took comfort in the knowledge that he was no longer in pain, and was at peace with Christ. How is that not a good thing? --Benp 22:58, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

denying self-defense, mentally and physically

Codswallop. We don't teach that. Self-defense is great! הבא להרגך, השכם להרגו (Trans: "If somebody comes to kill you, stand up and kill him first. Talmud) ДЛеяиея Come see if I suffer fools gladly | A place for my stuff 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Liberals don't teach the Talmud. Instead, they teach gun control and favor prosecuting for murder people who hold their ground in self-defense, as in Bernard Goetz.
I'm a very strong liberal, and I have no issues with self defense, in fact, I have a 12 guage shotgun by my bed that I will have no trouble using for just that purpose if someone threatens my family. On top of that, I plan on enrolling my son in Judo the moment he's old enough to understand the responsibility that comes with it. Can you please show any liberal that has ever advocated killing those who defend themselves? JamalG 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
denying the ability to control sexual desires; promoting lifestyles that lead to mental illness

Perhaps you didn't know that even liberals teach abstinence. (deleted non-family-friendly rant - can't liberals refrain?--Aschlafly 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT))

Liberals oppose teaching abstinence or funding abstinence education.--Aschlafly 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
Again, not true. Liberals (such as myself) are against teaching abstinence ONLY Sex education because the fact remains, it's not working. Pregnancy rates among teenagers drop sharpest when they're taught a combination of abstinence and contraception. JamalG 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
Andrew, why was my so-called "rant" not family-friendly, because I spoke about Onanism? (I suppose a family-friendly word)? ДЛеяиея Come see if I suffer fools gladly | A place for my stuff 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
That's because all liberals want is sex, sex, sex. They never got over the 60's "free love" thing. - NewCrusader
insisting on an illogical and unjustified "wall of separation of church and state"; classroom prayer would promote mental stability

Separation of church and state is logical and justified. (This is coming from a very religious person, so listen up). I don't your religion -whatever the majority of Christians in that state are- being forced on my Jewish kids, THAT is the logic. The justification. Andrew, I see you are working on history lectures, read through history about the times there wasn't a separation between church and state; what do you get? The inquisition comes to mind. Personally, I prefer separation of church and state to the auto de fe any day. ДЛеяиея Come see if I suffer fools gladly | A place for my stuff 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

You may be religious yourself but censoring classroom prayer by others is not helpful to them or you. A wall of separation of church and state is baseless, illogical and impossible. It's a contradiction except in a totalitarian atmosphere that imposes censorship.

classroom prayer would promote mental stability Says who? Maybe you should add [Citation Needed]?

I'm sure lots of studies confirm that prayer is good for mental health. Have you looked yet? It's obvious.--Aschlafly 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
What's the point of studies if you already know the answer? "I'm sure lots of studies confirm" isn't backing up a claim. Have you looked yet? Kallium 10:59, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafly, I'm new to this site, so I don't quite know your feelings, so let me ask upfront. Do you support teacher led prayer or more of a moment of silence for personal prayer and reflection. Until I know this, I can't really repond in a meaningful way. JamalG 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Once again another "fine" piece of work...

ДЛеяиея Come see if I suffer fools gladly | A place for my stuff 19:43, 10 August 2008 (EDT)


Obviously the person suffering from mental illness does not have to admit a correlation in order for a correlation to exist.--Aschlafly 08:27, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Offensive to mental health sufferers and mental health professionals

This is a hateful piece of propaganda, & particularly offensive to anybody suffering with a mental illness, as well as anybody working within the field of mental health. To say that medical professionals have no idea what causes mental illness is ridiculous. There has been over a century of study and treatment of mental illness using scientific methods and findings; not superstition, idle conjecture and anecdotal evidence. Mental illnesses occur in all the world's cultures, regardless of ideology, and you will not find a qualified psychologist who has published any theory that they are caused by "liberal teachings". BeReasonable 08:35, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

You are suffering from that well-documented delusion Liberal denial, BeReasonable. Try to live up to your name. Bugler 08:38, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
Well put, Bugler. As to User "BeReasonable" (note his silly name and how is is not reasonable at all), he challenges a well-supported statement that mental health professions do not know the cause of mental illness. Then he tries to censor an inquiry here into possible causes. He typifies the kind of logical contradiction pushed so often by liberals. Fortunately, we'll continue searching for the truth here despite efforts by liberals to censor it.--Aschlafly 08:41, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
That mental health professionals do not know the causes of mental health is not at all well supported. The cited source says that at a neurological level mental illness cannot be identified to one cause - I.E. it is not caused by just one thing going on in the brain. If you read the next paragraph, it goes on to say that mental illness is caused by a blend of genetic, psychological and environmental factors. I have no interest in "censoring" inquiries into why mental health occurs. There are already thousands of trained professionals around the world engaged in such studies. And if you are genuinely interested in the subject, there are hundreds of books you can read. As I have said, I do not think you will find any experts in the subject agreeing with your suggestion that liberalism causes mental illness. However, I do not recommend further reading on the subject, rather than plucking anecdotal examples of correlation. BeReasonable 08:56, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
Teaching liberal beliefs would qualify as a "psychological" and/or "environmental" factor that could cause mental illness. That you dismiss this possible cause out of hand, and even attempt to censor it, illustrates the illogical, self-contradictory approach taken by liberals. Yes, imposing contradictions and falsehoods on others could be bad for their mental health. Surely you don't doubt that.--Aschlafly 09:01, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Causation fail


I discovered Conservapedia recently, and this "essay" is my first exposure to the philosophy of the site. Needless to say, I'm not impressed. Quite apart from ideology, your statement, "Medical professionals emphasize that they do not know what causes mental illness.[6] Accordingly, they cannot rule out that liberal indoctrination is a contributing factor," is massively flawed.

That one cannot rule out something as a contributing factor is not sufficient evidence for causality; it's even weaker and more flawed than arguing that correlation equals causation. I'm holding a fountain pen right now. There are no tigers nearby. You can't rule out the possibility that the fountain pen keeps the tigers away. Would you like my Fountain Pen of Tiger Ward? Yours for $1,000.

My point is that, by your argument, anything at all could be the "cause" of mental illness. If you're going to argue that liberalism causes it, from such scant evidence, it's clear that you're more after an agenda than the truth, and that should be made clear, or better evidence of causation should be found.

I see you're a lawyer of some kind. I expect better of legal professionals than to find causation in the most tenuous of links... unless they're being paid to do that, of course :). In which case, I still wouldn't be happy if this was the best you could do for money.-Gcarhart 09:12, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Your reasoning as is illogical as that of the (silly) "BeReasonable". The inability to rule out liberal teaching as a contributing cause of mental illness weighs in favor of further inquiry of it as a possible cause, and weighs against the censorship of such inquiry as attempted by liberals here.--Aschlafly 09:21, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
It weighs no more in favor of "further inquiry" than does the fact that mental health professionals can't rule out exposure to, say, Conservapedia! If your point is to illuminate potential causes for mental illness, focus on those that (1) can't be ruled out, and (2) have some AFFIRMATIVE proof. Because the simple lack of negative proof makes the whole world a causal factor!-Gcarhart 09:23, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
Also, "censorship"? I don't think that word means what you think it means. "Censorship" implies redaction of information by the state or a power. I'm just questioning your logic. Debate is not censorship.-Gcarhart 09:24, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
Again, you're not making sense. I explained the significance of not ruling out liberal teaching as a cause of mental illness. It warrants further inquiry and evidence, and the entry here provides lots of additional reasons why liberal teaching is likely a cause of mental illness. If public schools forced kids to receive indoctrination other than liberal falsehoods every day, and 20% were becoming mentally ill afterwards, then it would be fine with me to look at the other indoctrination also. But it is liberal teaching that is being force-fed kids in school, not something else. As to censorship, your definition is far too narrow. Censorship can also result from intimidation or name-calling, as you see above as "BeReasonable" tried to shut down this inquiry.--Aschlafly 10:44, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
I'm not trying to shut down the inquiry. I'm just saying you're wrong. What about blocking users for asking questions? Does that shut down the inquiry?
I see you're not going to understand the problem behind singling out one cause among a million environmental causes. That's fine. It does, however, suggest "inquiry bias." Moving on.
Have you considered the possible rise in diagnosis as a reason for the increase in mental conditions? It only recently became acceptable & treatable to have a mental illness. Only reasonable to suggest, then, that diagnoses would climb.-Gcarhart

Reversion of edits

I see my edits as perfectly justified. Perhaps Andy would like to give reason for his reversions (btw, liberal claptrap is not a reason, but an accusation).

Again, I would like to know why my edits are being reverted. No reason has been given (I gave my reasoning in edit summaries, if you'd like me to clarify please ask). Perhaps sysops are exempt from the whole "provide sources, promote true and verifiable claims" thingy. I mean there aren't any sources on the page so far that suggest to any extent that liberalism causes mental illness. As for liberalism not being ruled out as a reason for mental illness, I justifiably added that neither has conservatism (or driving your car, or going for a jog, or reading hardback books). So please provide your counterpoints ASchlafy or I will make the edits again. JohnyGoodman 14:48, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
The reasons should be obvious. Liberal teachings dominate public schools, not conservative teachings. In fact, there is very little conservative teachings anywhere - people have to find it on their own. Hopefully you will too.--Aschlafly 15:03, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Firstly you didn't rule out the other causes for mental illness, i.e driving a car, going for a jog, reading hardback books. Presumably as these have not been ruled out we need perhaps entire articles on whether they cause mental illness. Secondly the fact that liberalism is dominant in schools and mental illness has increased therefore liberalism causes mental illnesses has as much merit as saying the USA has become richer and mental illness has increased therefore... Thirdly conservatism has not been ruled out as a cause of mental illness by saying it's not taught much. Fourthly your hypothesis is clearly untestable because as you state there are "very little conservative teachings anywhere". You also need to present reasoning as to why the Stephen Fry thing is relevant.

When someone has a stomach ache, the first suspect is the food he ate. When someone has a mental problem, the first suspect is what he was taught, and that is liberal. Your alternative hypotheses make as little sense as suspecting that the weather caused someone's stomach ache rather than what he just ate.--Aschlafly 17:05, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
That's begging the question. You're just asserting that the prime cause for mental problems is an education, and as education is liberal, therefore liberalism causes mental problems - but whether school education causes mental problems is the point of contention! The vast majority of psychologists have pointed to other causes of mental illnesses (and as I stated, you have yet to provide a reference to a qualified academic who does claim school education causes mental illness) such as abuse as a child, extreme problems in social interaction and recently, genetics. I will restate my point, the fact that your school education has not been dismissed as a cause of mental disorder is as relevant as saying the fact that you drive a car has not been dismissed as a cause of mental disorders. JohnyGoodman 17:33, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
Yes, recent consumption is commonly the culprit is stomach aches, but not the only possible cause. Stomach pains could also be due hunger, infection, a punch in the gut, receiving some very bad news, overexertion, dehydration, severe vomiting, muscle spasms due to envenomation, or even presumably a side effect of some type of allergic reaction. It's a case-by-case thing- suspecting the weather as the culprit does make sense if that person was just struck by lightning- you can't just dismiss it outright. Therefore there are multiple possible causes. While it is not unreasonable to assume that food is generally the most like cause, this logic does not translate to mental illness and education. As has been pointed out, you fail to back up your claims with any outside sources- where are the experts (those that actually study and treat mental illness) saying that education is the prime cause? To reiterate a previous point, what about family history, socioeconomic status, past negative experiences, environmental toxins- those factors that actually have been shown to influence the development of mental illness? And simply dismissing JohnyGoodman's "alternative hypotheses" doesn't work either- there is a mathematical correlation between increasing mental illness rates and number of licensed drivers. In addition, most cases of mental illness occur in individuals who are over the minimum driving age. Thus drivers have a higher risk of mental illness (obviously due to the stress of the road, maintaining a vehicle, and let's not forget the DMV) and increasing numbers of drivers increase the national burden. That's at least the same degree of correlation as the education claim. Kallium 10:59, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Well it would be polite to receive some kind of response to our points, even if its going to be "liberal claptrap" as usual. I honestly don't see why such edits as already made aren't allowed to take place.JohnyGoodman 11:29, 18 August 2008 (EDT)]#

I laugh when I read you laying down the law about what is and what isn't polite, not to mention prejudging the response you might get in an insulting manner! Though, in fairness, you are correct in your prediction (thus displaying a level of self-awareness rare in Liberals. Claptrap is a polite description of your outpourings, and you are not in a position to demand attention in such an arrogant fashion. Try and amend your behaviour in future, or you may find that Conservapedia is not the place for you. Bugler 11:34, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
Okay, let's pause and consider that if you read a post expecting it to be hostile, you will inevitably find it offensive regardless of how innocuous the wording is. Emotion is most effectively conveyed visually and through speech, not written text- thus there are limits to determining attitude. As such, a reader can easily introduce hostility where none was intended. Second, "it would be polite to receive some sort of response" doesn't qualify as "laying down the law". And precisely what was hostile and arrogant about asking for a response? I'm not being confrontational or sarcastic about this- I'm honestly curious. Commentators here often find insult in the most innocuous wording and I would like to know which part of JohnyGoodman's comment was to blame so it can be avoided in the future. Most importantly, if you perceive insult, explain it- don't accuse the offending party of being arrogant or to "amend their behaviour". Meeting perceived hostility with aggression only exacerbates the situation and reduces - or removes- the quality of the discussion. In addition, it denigrates the discussion when detailed responses are dismissed as "liberal claptrap" with a wave of the hand without addressing the post itself. In this case, "liberal" has been used simply as name-calling against anyone who does not agree about a given point. The driving example was used only to demonstrate the inadequacy of the "causation from correlation" and "gap theory" approaches that have been used- without any further reasoning- to justify the claim of this page. The logic is precisely the same. If you disagree, please explain- that's what the discussion is for. You're welcome to do so. Really. I would be interested to read it. But simply saying "you're arrogant, offensive and wrong" does a disservice to the very idea of open dialog and accomplishes nothing. Kallium 16:53, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps Bugler would like to shed light on this "claptrap". Presumably he has a reference to a noted academic who supports the thesis proposed here. Or perhaps he accepts that the "liberalism causes mental illness" theory should be considered just as the "hardback books cause mental illness" theory should be considered. Perhaps he has a wealth of evidence that proves that psychologists have been wrong all this time when arguing that "family history, socioeconomic status, past negative experiences and environmental toxins" are the real, documented causes of mental illness. Or, as I suspect, he is content with merely throwing words like "liberal" and "arrogant" around rather than arguing a case.JohnyGoodman 17:35, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Stephen Fry

Just for the record, Stephen Fry went to several "Public" i.e. non state schools for his education. (These, I guess, would be the equivalent of "private" i.e. fee paying schools in the USA and are in no way connected with the UK state school system.) If I understand it correctly, having been to part of Rugby school myself many years ago, Uppingham school, where Mr Fry went for the majority of his adolescent schooling, offers a ciriculum based firmly on Chirstianity and would be anything but "Liberal" - in any sense of the word. No sure how this squares with him then suffering from depression in later life. BetsyNewson 11:01, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

I doubt private schools in the U.K. are "based firmly on Christianity." Rather, I'm confident that the private schools in the U.K. are as leftist as public schools in the U.S.--Aschlafly 13:56, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
As an old boy of another well-known British "Public School", Wellington College, I must respectfully undermine your confidence. In the case of Stephen Fry, he went to Uppingham School, which is one of the old traditional public schools founded in the 16th Century by a Bishop. While most of these schools are no longer religiously sponsored, they are in the majority firmly wedded to Christianity with their own chapels and vicars and are renown for being bastions of conservatism in a comparatively liberal British education system. I myself was confirmed at Wellington which was normal practice for all pupils at the school and Sunday chapel was compulsory (unless you were one of the few non-Church of England pupils in which case compulsory alternative worship was organised at a local Catholic church or whatever).
Besides, I'm not sure that Stephen Fry is a good example of what you are trying to demonstrate. He was, after all, expelled from the school when he was fifteen and subsequently expelled from another. His behaviour went against the rules of those schools so the cause does not appear to have been liberal teaching up to that point. Ajkgordon 08:01, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
You are construing "liberal teachings" too literally, and I've noticed that liberals are often overly literal in their approach. The concept of "teachings" is not confined to school. If Fry was expelled from school as a teenager as you say, then he simply picked up "teachings" from somewhere else, such as liberal newspapers and books. The comments above do not in any way undermine use of his example, as there is no doubt that Fry fully embraced liberal teachings in its full sense.--Aschlafly 10:02, 21 August 2008 (EDT)