Talk:Main Page/archive67

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


So now that Obama is president, are you guys ever going to respect authority like it says so in The Bible? Or are you going to continue trying to turn people against him? --Totallytravis 15:04, 8 November 2008 (EST)

He's not the president yet! Philip J. Rayment 08:58, 9 November 2008 (EST)
You have that backwards. Atheists and liberals worship status. See status worship. Status means nothing to Jesus and Christians.--Aschlafly 15:08, 8 November 2008 (EST)
He asked about respecting authority, not worshipping status. Philip J. Rayment 08:58, 9 November 2008 (EST)
Worship implies status. Circular logic is circular. --Lorana 13:49, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. -Romans 13:1--Totallytravis 15:20, 8 November 2008 (EST)

Obama was not elected to an office that requires "submission" by anyone. In our constitutional system, the office of president is no greater (or less) than any congressional or Supreme Court position. Do you "submit" to the authority of Congresswoman Michele Bachman?--Aschlafly 15:47, 8 November 2008 (EST)
Obama will be the head of the government that Romans (that was a direct quote from Romans 13:1 by Totallytravis) requires that you, as American Christians, submit to (not blindly nor uncritically, but submit nevertheless). Philip J. Rayment 08:58, 9 November 2008 (EST)
Speaking just for myself, insofar as I'll obey the passed laws that she writes, helps to write, or votes for, yes. I'll still oppose her policies when I think she's wrong (which I suspect will be a lot of the time).--Frey 16:03, 8 November 2008 (EST)

Whether I agree with a politician or not, as a Christian I'm told to respect them and obey the governing authorities, until it contradicts the Bible. I may take issue with some things President-Elect Obama condones, but at the end of the day he's the person the majority of the voting U.S. public felt would lead the country best, and he, like other authority figures, is appointed by God.--Totallytravis 16:06, 8 November 2008 (EST)

TotallyTravis, if you condone the evil that is to result because Obama has the 'majority' of votes (and let's not look to closely at the methods used to gain them, huh?), then you are not a true Christian. And do not think that Conservapedia is an accepting arena for socialistic propaganda. Bugler 16:15, 8 November 2008 (EST)
He was not talking about "condoning evil". And why shouldn't the voting methods be looked at closely? That sounds very much like an unsubstantiated smear. And someone not doing something that a Christian should do doesn't mean that they are not a "true Christian". And please justify your claim of "socialistic propaganda" or retract it. Philip J. Rayment 08:58, 9 November 2008 (EST)
Just look at the bias displayed and the lies and smears indulged in by the Liberal elite media, in favour of Obama and with the aim of smearing and undermining McCain and Palin: one might as well be in Zimbabwe. And what about the electoral fraud perpetrated by ACORN? And Obama's terrorist and pornographer backers? And you think that evil will not result from this unsavoury stew? As for scialistic propaganda, how about starting with Obama's zeal for redistributive taxation, a weapon of Marxist class warriors for decades. Bugler 09:21, 9 November 2008 (EST)
Media bias is not the same thing as voting methods, if that's what you were referring to. Is any documented electoral fraud big enough to have affected the outcome? I'm not disputing that there is evil there; I'm disputing that Totallytravis was condoning it. And Obama was not posting here, Totallytravis was, so your references to Obama's socialism (on which I agree) is beside the point that you were referring to socialistic propaganda on Conservapedia. So in summary, your reply to my comment has missed the mark on every point. So will you now retract your comments? Philip J. Rayment 20:58, 9 November 2008 (EST)

I would be careful before you tell me what religion I am. Just because God has lead you to believe one way doesn't mean that that's the only way there is out there. Some people observe the Sabbath on Saturday, others on Sunday. The Bible is open to interpretation, and it would be ignorant to assume that how you interpret it is the way God intended it to be interpreted. However, I didn't come here to argue about religion, I just wanted to know whether according to the Bible, you guys would respect Obama's authority or not. Also I'm not sure which of my statements were socialistic. If you could clear that up for me that would be fantastic. --Totallytravis 16:25, 8 November 2008 (EST)

I think you mean "arrogant", not "ignorant" there, but I disagree. Much of the Bible is quite clear, and clearly God expected us to understand what He said. Philip J. Rayment 09:09, 9 November 2008 (EST)
I would be careful before you tell me what religion I am I strongly advise you not to try and threaten me, Mr Travis. If you are interested in becoming a contributor to Conservapedia, take time to read, absorb and understand - better, I hope, than you seem able to comprehend matters at present. Your unthinking defence of Obama - who is not, as you blasphemously suggest, appointed by God - betrays your leftist impulses. I shall be watching you closely. Bugler 16:41, 8 November 2008 (EST)
As Totallytravis says below, that was not a threat. You saying that you will be watching him closely sounds like possible harassment though. He was not making an "unthinking defence of Obama". Philip J. Rayment 09:09, 9 November 2008 (EST)
But you are making an attack on me, Philip. I won't say it is unthinking, though. I expect you know very well what you are about. Bugler 09:21, 9 November 2008 (EST)

I'm not threatening you, I'm just saying you're not really in the position to criticize my devotion to God. You don't need to call me Mr. Travis either, Travis is fine. And I'm using the Bible as my reference in my "appointed by God" statement, but I realize the context may not be right. Rather than appointing Obama Himself, God has established the authority structure, and that's what I feel as Christians we need to respect. You've still yet to tell me where my socialistic propaganda is coming from though. Feel free to keep me posted. --Totallytravis 16:48, 8 November 2008 (EST)

You are incorrect. God gave man free will, to do good or evil, and the elctoral system is a manifestation of that free will. With God's guidance we make good us of that, but are not compelled to, and sadly Satan influences many people to make incorrect electoral choices, as we have seen recently. Bugler 18:11, 8 November 2008 (EST)
How is he incorrect, given Romans 13:1? And are you going to answer him about the "socialist propaganda"? Philip J. Rayment 09:09, 9 November 2008 (EST)
Speaking of which, are you ever going to update the blocked 2008 Presidential Election article?CraigC 18:25, 8 November 2008 (EST)
I can't do that. Bugler 18:49, 8 November 2008 (EST)
"Totallytravis", I'll refrain from commenting on your personal interpretation of the Bible, but your understanding of the system of American government has lots of room for improvement. Take advantage of the entries here about it, and realize that Congressmen and Supreme Court Justices are just as "powerful" as the president, and in fact have far more authority than the president with respect to civilian Americans.--Aschlafly 20:01, 8 November 2008 (EST)
His "interpretation" seems fine to me, and is consistent with that of other evangelicals that I know. Philip J. Rayment 09:09, 9 November 2008 (EST)
That's funny, I don't recall that being the general conservative position when GW Bush was a non-lame duck president.--Frey 22:20, 8 November 2008 (EST)
Your perception is not always reality.--Aschlafly 22:22, 8 November 2008 (EST)
First of all Andy, I want to thank you for not attacking my interpretation of the Bible. A good debater sticks to the issues at hand, and doesn't try to shift the focus onto something else. But I do go to Conservapedia as well as many other sites on the internet in order to gain my opinions on certain topics. I realize some are right-leaning (like you guys) where others are left-leaning (like possibly wikipedia). I don't try to label one as right or wrong, but rather use them all to allow myself to determine what's real and what is fake. Much like you said to Frey though, is it safe to assume that just as his perception isn't always reality, yours/mine/Obama's/GW Bush's also isn't. A large part of being a Christian is realizing we all have faults. I personally think that constructive criticism of the Obama's administration is far more effective than pointing out every flaw in it, and constantly telling America how awful our president is.
That's just me though. Maybe that's why I don't run one of these sites.--Totallytravis 01:10, 9 November 2008 (EST)
"Totallytravis", this is an encyclopedia that tells the truth. Some like that, some don't. Regardless, this isn't a blog. Please contribute in a substantive and encyclopedic way, or find another site to pursue idle chatter. We're here to learn and teach. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 10:23, 9 November 2008 (EST)
How does that in any way address his question about respecting authority? Philip J. Rayment 20:58, 9 November 2008 (EST)
Fortunately, we live in a society where respecting authority doesn't prohibit questioning that same authority. As a proud citizen of the United States, I will obey any laws passed by our duly-elected representatives. However, I will also protest laws that I consider unjust or immoral, using all methods legally available to me. That's the best answer I personally can offer, Philip. --Benp 12:21, 11 November 2008 (EST)
And that's a good answer. Philip J. Rayment 21:05, 11 November 2008 (EST)

Holocaust Item

This parent probably doesn't teach her children about Hell either, claiming "her daughter was so upset [after a Holocaust visualization that] she never wants to go back into that classroom." From the linked article: "Beverly Reynolds says her 11-year-old daughter Shelby enjoyed going to Westlake Christian School for seven years. But that changed after a lesson on the Holocaust. Reynolds says 6th grade students wore armbands that said Jude and sat on the floor. "They were told to close their eyes and visualize things that were implications that their family was harmed that they would never see their family again, they were given graphic details on the gas chambers, they were given graphic details on what were done with the bodies," said Reynolds. Reynolds says her daughter was so upset she never wants to go back into that classroom. "When Shelby gave us the graphic details it just chilled us to the bone so we have been quite upset over this and gone to the administration," said Reynolds.

I think that this item is in very bad taste, and should be removed. The child in question was 11, going to a Christian school. Without knowing the details of what the teacher discussed, it's hard to judge whether the material was inappropriate in general, but clearly the teacher showed little sensitivity to the impact material was having on this particular child, and perhaps on other young innocent children in the classroom. I am horrified that Conservapedia would be so insensitive to the parent's concerns. In my experience (and I have a daughter this age), most girls of this age and culture have had little awareness of violence of the depth and scale of the Holocaust. The material should be introduced at an age-appropriate level. Academically, the subject is usually introduced slowly, with novels that tell of children hiding things from the Nazis (Snow Treasure), hiding people from the Nazis (Twenty and Ten), working up to The Diary of Anne Frank (in its traditional edited-for-kids version). Graphic descriptions of details of methods of killing and mass burial can wait. By high school, they may be reading more detailed material. In college, I had a film class in which the teacher showed a movie about the liberation of a concentration camp. He made it absolutely clear that the movie would be disturbing, that we did not have to view it, and that if we did come to class that day, we were welcome to leave at any time. I appreciated this attitude, though I chose to see the movie. As a young mother, I saw an exhibit in a British museum of concentration camp photos. Again, there were clear signs explaining that the exhibit was disturbing, not for young children, and that parents should use their own judgement as to whether their child was ready to see it. We know this material can be very disturbing for adults - why would we assume that no sensitivity is needed when sharing it with someone else's child? I'm not suggesting that we shy away from teaching the Holocaust - quite the contrary. But it can be handled in an age-appropriate, gradual way, giving the individual child (and parent) some leeway in choosing how much they can handle at a given age. Frankly, I would have been livid if this had happened to my daughter, especially without giving me a "heads up" that such disturbing material would be discussed. Bottom line, what's important for Conservapedia, is that it is not our place to second-guess a parent's judgement about what material is appropriate for their child. I strongly suggest we remove this item from our front page. --Hsmom 10:15, 9 November 2008 (EST)

Of course the parent has every right to complain and pull her child out of the school, as she did. And she has every right to embarrass and criticize the school in the newspapers. Likewise, we have every right to criticize parents who mislead their children into thinking there is no Hell or that evil does not really exist. They do exist and bad things happen when people are misled into thinking they don't exist.
Children far younger than this child heard terrifying sermons about Hell in prior generations. Today, many children and society are done a disservice by being misled into thinking that evil and Hell do not exist. They do exist.
Typically it is the more liberal parent who complains about this sort of teaching, perhaps because he or she really objects to admitting that Hell and evil exist.--Aschlafly 10:33, 9 November 2008 (EST)
I agree with the points Hsmom made (and please consider for Sysop status on Conservapedia Day - her quality insights and measured temperament are a credit to this site), and have to ask a question about the headline. If there is agreement about the parent's judgment in protesting the Holocaust material being inappropriate for her age, what is the need or justification to make assumptions abut what these specific parents are teaching their child about Hell? The mother and child are explicitly named in the article, so it seems like an unfounded attack on the Christian faith of these individuals to assert that "This parent probably doesn't teach her children about Hell either". Please consider removing this unjustified comment, because I'm sure most Christians here would object to people who don't know them personally making statements about their faith. Thanks. --DinsdaleP 11:22, 9 November 2008 (EST)
DinsdaleP, you echo a recurring liberal theme that objects to observing probabilities and likelihoods in people's behavior. That theme is illogical and we will continue to observe likelihoods in human behavior just as in other areas of life. Smokers are more likely to develop lung cancer, promiscuous people are more likely to develop sexually transmitted diseases and resultant infertility, and people who complain about telling kids about evil are unlikely to be teaching those kids about Hell. Sure, there are counterexamples to almost anything but in no way do they disprove the correlation.--Aschlafly 13:57, 9 November 2008 (EST)
I have no issue with people talking in generalities about beliefs, but in this case stating that "This parent probably doesn't teach her children about Hell" is making a statement about the faith and practices of Beverly Reynolds. I consider that to be inappropriate out of civility, and out of respect for her faith & privacy - it's not a liberal bias, it's just the way I was raised. --DinsdaleP 14:21, 9 November 2008 (EST)
It's a statement of probability about someone who injected herself into public debate and embarrassed a school. She made her views an issue, and others should not be censored in drawing conclusions about her approach that she publicized herself.--Aschlafly 14:34, 9 November 2008 (EST)
Her objections and issues were with the way the Holocaust was taught by a school, not with the teaching of religion. That was added in the CP News Headline, and had nothing to do with her stated cause. That's all I have to say about this, though. --DinsdaleP 14:42, 9 November 2008 (EST)
My concerns are 1) That Conservapedia's reaction to the concerns this mother raises is to assume the worst about her parenting and get snarky about it. What does that say about us? We could instead have an thoughtful and informative debate page about the issues parents face in deciding how much detail to include in teaching their children about the Evil in the world. It's not all or nothing, after all. Since the vast majority of parents would withhold some of the details of the Holocaust from an 11 year old girl (just as the majority of us withhold some details of other sinful things that happen in our world until we feel our children are ready for them), Conservapedia comes off sounding judgmental of all parents who would be selective in this regard. 2) I share DinsdaleP's concerns that this is a particular (presumably) Christian mother, and without knowing her, her child, or their situation, we are publicly criticizing the choices she has made for her daughter. This sounds a lot like gossip to me. If I wouldn't say it in real life without having more information about the situation, then I don't think it's appropriate to say it here. (I don't know the details of how it got into the press, so I don't want to assume the parent was the one who initially brought them into it (even though there is a quote from her in the article).) 3) The argument sounds a bit "slippery slope" to me. Does it mean that we should allow children to read whatever they want about the Evil Things that can happen to people in this world? Personally, I don't think so - I keep an eye on what my children are reading and steer them away from things I think would be inappropriate for their age. There are things they don't need to worry about yet. 4) If we are to be an educational site, then we should keep an educational tone. A snarky and judgmental tone means that we end up preaching to the choir, rather than helping people who may not at first agree with us to find the Truth. It may feel good to be snarky, but it doesn't actually reflect well on the site or do a good job of promoting our point of view. (Minor additional point: I know a number of Christians who object to yoga-like "visualization" exercises (which this may have been) on the grounds (as I understand it) that they are too similar to prayer and not appropriate for Christians. I don't know if this was part of the situation or not.) All this is just my two cents - I don't expect everyone to agree, and if most others are OK with this article as-is and don't think it reflects poorly on Conservapedia, well then, so be it. --Hsmom 15:58, 9 November 2008 (EST)
Hsmom, there is nothing "snarky" about the observation concerning the parent's claims and attitude. The parent put her views into the newspaper for public consideration, and debate should be welcomed rather than censored.
No one said that she is a kook, for example. But she apparently objected to a graphic visualization of evil in the Holocaust, and it is reasonable to conclude that she would also object if a Sunday sermon concerned a graphic visualization of Hell. It is reasonable to infer that the parent (and you also?) would object to teaching children about Hell in a similar way. You and the outspoken parent are more than welcome to your views that the nature of pure evil should be concealed or distorted for 11-year-olds. Many, including many parents at that school, disagree. Censorship of strong criticism of the parent's aberrant view is not appropriate.--Aschlafly 16:31, 9 November 2008 (EST)

First, this parent wasn't objecting to her child being taught about the holocaust, so drawing a comparison with her "probably" not teaching her child about Hell is a non-sequitur.

Second, this does not just constitute something akin to gossip; rather, it's basically starting gossip.

Third, your statement "we have every right to criticize parents who mislead their children into thinking there is no Hell or that evil does not really exist.", whilst correct, is not applicable here. Although the main page post says "probably", this defence of that assumes certainty, so is inapplicable because we don't know that she misleads her children in any way.

In a similar vein, your defence that "Censorship of strong criticism of the parent's aberrant view is not appropriate." is only applicable if the parent's view is aberrant, but we don't know that.

And finally, although not so relevant, I suspect that your comment that "Many, including many parents at that school, disagree." is incorrect. The article does not quote any other parent. Rather, it quotes the school offering a vague supportive-sounding but fairly substanceless comment that "We've had parents who have come in and emailed us and said their children have been energized by this particular unit,". What does "energized" mean in this context? If they approved, don't you think he would have said so? Further, the school says that "This is the only family that seems to have a lingering issue with this", implying that other families did have problems with it, although they've either been convinced that there was no problem or couldn't be bothered taking it any further.

Philip J. Rayment 21:23, 9 November 2008 (EST)

Cut it out

Court caves in, abandons "illegal aliens" as a term. What's next from the bizarre world of political correctness? Calling mass-murderers "population control experts"?

Seriously guys, are you trying to sound like the Daily Mail? DRuss 13:12, 9 November 2008 (EST)

Homosexuality and the Koran

From the main page: "Liberals think that Barack Obama is going to push the homosexual agenda ... Apparently they haven't realized yet that the Koran forbids homosexuality ...".

What does the Koran's view have to do with Obama's plans? Philip J. Rayment 21:28, 9 November 2008 (EST)

According to Conservapedia Obama is a Muslim. His middle name is Hussein, remember? --Totallytravis 22:31, 9 November 2008 (EST)
Obama himself referred to his "Muslim faith," and less than 1% raised Muslim (as Obama was) leave the religion.--Aschlafly 22:34, 9 November 2008 (EST)
The reference to his "Muslim faith", is clearly not conclusive, even if it has any weight at all (he's also referred to his Christian faith), and where's the evidence that Obama is not in that small percentage that do leave? Philip J. Rayment 00:51, 10 November 2008 (EST)
So the odds are against him being a Christian. Did you also know that before Obama less than 1% of all American Presidents were black? --Totallytravis 22:37, 9 November 2008 (EST)
You're taking his "muslim faith" comment completely out of context. He said he knew people were speaking about "his muslim faith," meaning that people were insinuating he had a muslim faith. Secondly, he was raised in a school where muslims attended, in a country that was predominately muslim. That doesn't mean he was raised muslim. Third, and perhaps most imporantly, you cite al-taqqiya to say that he might be lying about his faith. Well, he was raised in a Sunni muslim country, and Sunnis don't recognize al-taqqiya, only the Shia do. So even if he was a muslim because he was raised in a muslim society----JohnSeymourOO 23:07, 9 November 2008 (EST), he wouldn't be able to lie about it in accordance with his faith.
Do you think this affidavit being circulated on the internet is authentic? It is not part of the evidence (yet) but does say that Barack Obama is commonly known to be a Muslim. It is taken from a dubious site, see here.--Aschlafly 23:22, 9 November 2008 (EST)
If it's taken from a dubious site, why should anybody believe it? Corry 23:41, 9 November 2008 (EST)
Frankly, I don't believe the authenticity of that document, but thought it might spark insights by others since it is making the rounds on the internet. Many of the court documents are here, but on a quick glance I don't see that affidavit.--Aschlafly 23:43, 9 November 2008 (EST)
It's a pretty convincing fake, if it's a fake, but the contents of it are pretty suspect. Are the referred-to attachments found anywhere? They'd make compelling reading if they exist. Aziraphale 23:55, 9 November 2008 (EST)
If it's dubious, it's hardly good evidence. By way of a partial rebuttal (because it's not directly addressing that affidavit), see here, and while we are at it, here.
So in conclusion, no satisfactory answer has been provided for my question. I guess there is no connection.
Philip J. Rayment 00:51, 10 November 2008 (EST)
Andy, if it is a fake, I don't think it can spark any good insights. Any insights that come from this document would be built on a lie. They would be no better than "insights" about John McCain based on untrue rumors spread about him during the 2000 primaries. Corry 08:08, 10 November 2008 (EST)

A bit of research - My first question was "who is this Bishop guy"? Now obviously the document in question could have actually come from Ron McRae or it could have come from someone else using his name, but here's what a quick Google of his name produced. I'll leave you all to interpret it as you please, however, I think Aschlafly is very wise to be skeptical.--Hsmom 09:45, 10 November 2008 (EST)

  • Last week, Ron McRae, a self-ordained minister who makes a hobby of lording his holiness over gays, Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, decided that the use of the term "Crescent of Embrace" to describe a single feature in a multi-faceted Flight 93 Memorial design was a tacit endorsement of Islam.[1]
  • The hullabaloo over the memorial arises because some believe the semi-circle of red maples in the chosen design is actually a “Red Crescent” representing Islam. This theory appears to have its origins in the beliefs of Ron McRae. Mr. McRae is a former cop from Texas who now styles himself as an Anabaptist Bishop.[2]
  • A well-known Somerset County street preacher is vowing to fight the design of the Flight 93 National Memorial, contending that its dominant use of a crescent pathway is a symbol of Islam. The Rev. Ron McRae said Thursday attorneys for Street Preachers Fellowship in Lancaster will look into obtaining an injunction to stop the design from proceeding. “The crescent is as much connected to Islam as the cross is to Christianity,” said McRae of Conemaugh Township, self-proclaimed bishop of Bible Anabaptist Church near Jerome. [3]
  • The Casa Nova Lounge had been serving liquor for 58 years without incident in Boswell, some 40 miles southeast of Pittsburgh, but that changed when Pat Cramer made it a gay bar four months ago. Bishop Ron McRae of the Bible Anabaptist Church in nearby Jerome began leading protests outside every weekend. McRae and Cramer, both tired of the standoff, reached an unusual agreement May 9 by which McRae will deliver sermons in the Casa Nova for the next six Sundays, with the usual patrons invited to attend. While some gays and lesbians accused Cramer of caving in to the pressure, Cramer's response was, "He's going to be preaching the Bible. There's nothing wrong with that."[4]
  • Near rural Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 was brought down on 9/11, the Rev. Ron McRae continues to fuel conspiracy theories, right up to Election Day. The self-styled Anabaptist bishop, who gained the support at least one Congressman when he complained that the proposed Flight 93 memorial "Crescent of Embrace" honored Islam and pointed toward Mecca, has now supposedly interviewed Barack Obama's Kenyan grandmother to prove that the Democratic nominee is not a natural-born citizen. The interview is allegedly attached as an affidavit to a U.S. Supreme Court lawsuit that is trying to stop this election — a lawsuit that, McRae says, the mainstream media is ignoring but certain blogs just can't resist. But as even one commenter on the "Citizen Wells" blog notes, the whole thing "does have a Nigerian email scam feel to it." McRae may have succeeded in getting the Shanksville 9/11 memorial design modified, if not eliminated but this effort, whoever may be behind the supposed lawsuit, is certainly a non-starter. [5]
Looks like the affidavit has no credibility, as we suspected. How does an encyclopedia put to rest misinformation like this affidavit? On its talk pages, I suppose, as we've done.--Aschlafly 09:59, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Obama's "Security Force"

The article the News headline links to points out that the Congressman being quoted misunderstood Obama's proposal:

"But spokesman Tommy Vietor said Obama was referring in the speech to a proposal for a civilian reserve corps that could handle postwar reconstruction efforts such as rebuilding infrastructure — an idea endorsed by the Bush administration."

I'd really like to see Conservapedia be a thoughtful counterpoint to the views and actions of a government that has the Executive and Legislative branches belonging to the same party. Instead, it seems like Obama's victory has led to a run on out-of-context quote mining, fear mongering and conspiracy theorizing. This site could be another National Review, but it's reading more like the National Enquirer. I'm not trying to be glib - I'm just constructively suggesting that the CP News spends less energy on conspiracy-like ruminations about mind control, Hitler Youth, and whether Obama dances enough to not be a Muslim, and focus on topics like analyzing his nascent policy positions and cabinet shortlists. We all have a stake in the success of America over the next four years, and if we're going to criticize the Obama administration, let it at least be constructive criticism that offers better alternatives than his proposals, instead of demonizing the man without offering anything of worth or substance as a counterpoint. (OK, back to work) --DinsdaleP 22:18, 10 November 2008 (EST)

I just joined Conservapedia precisely because it covers topics that the main stream media does not dare cover. I agree the debating policy issues is valuable, but that's something one can see being done by journalists and opinion makers on main stream websites. It makes sense that Conservapedia brings focus to the very important but seldom mentioned issues like Obama's religion, socialist views, and Marxist ideology. --HenryG 22:26, 10 November 2008 (EST)
I agree that the true value of the internet is in empowering anyone with a message to be able to put it out there and reach people. CP should address and discuss topics that are not explored by other media, but they should be topics of substance backed by research and evidence if this site is to be taken credibly. Tossing around a lot of unsubstantiated fear-mongering to be provocative doesn't cut it. If people don't like Obama's volunteerism initiative, then talk about it in factual terms and offer a better plan - don't just accuse him of trying to plant the seeds of a new Hitler Youth and consider that encyclopedic, or even civil. --DinsdaleP 22:38, 10 November 2008 (EST)

From that Main page newsitem "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany". Let me add: you have to remember than not only was George W. Bush elected in a democratic USA, but he was re-elected too! --Raskolnikov 07:36, 11 November 2008 (EST)

We debunked this one a while back - see here. I'll cut-and-paste the relevant parts below. Do we really want to make this guy look like an idiot on our front page? Maybe, but if so we should make it clear in the item that he's completely misunderstood Obama's speech, so no one thinks there's any truth to his claims. Here's an article giving a context for Obama's words:

Obama repeated his pledge to boost the size of the active military. But he also said the nation's future and safety depends on more than just additional soldiers. "It also depends on the teacher in East L.A., or the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans, the Peace Corps volunteer in Africa, the Foreign Service officer in Indonesia," he said. Obama had first outlined many of the proposals he talked about Wednesday during appearances in Iowa last December. "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," he said Wednesday. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded." He said he would make federal assistance conditional on school districts establishing service programs and set the goal of 50 hours of service a year for middle and high school students. For college students, Obama would set the goal at 100 hours of service a year and create a $4,000 annual tax credit for college students that would be tied to that level of service. Obama said he realizes there will be skeptics, but stressed that greater public service will make the nation safer.[6]

So he's talking about getting young people involved in public service - increasing America's security not through police force, but through good works at home and abroad. "The teacher in East L.A., or the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans, the Peace Corps volunteer in Africa, the Foreign Service officer in Indonesia" - these folks aren't carrying guns. (One could argue whether a bunch of college students doing good works on their summer vacation increases American security or not, of course.) Here's suggested wording for a better version, with references included for easy cut-and-paste:

"Congressman Paul Broun (R,Georgia) said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist dictatorship. "...You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential of going down that road." [7] Broun apparently misunderstood Obama's campaign speech in which he called for young people to become involved in peaceful public service, giving as examples "...the teacher in East L.A., or the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans, the Peace Corps volunteer in Africa, the Foreign Service officer in Indonesia".[8] --Hsmom 09:52, 11 November 2008 (EST)

Prop 8 protests

I don't agree with those who are inciting violence, but I don't understand why this is a threat to free speech and voting. The Church of LDS (Mormons) very publicy and very energetically supported Prop 8. It is perfectly within their rights to do so, and now member of the GLBT community are protesting and endorsing a boycott of Mormon heavy Utah, also within their rights. As long as they're not vandalizing or inciting a riot, how is what their doing any different than a Christian group threatening a boycott of a company they disagree with? SamuelA 11:09, 11 November 2008 (EST)

The difference is that these homosexual activists are retaliating in threatening and violent and otherwise hurtful ways merely for how someone exercised the most basic constitutional rights.--Aschlafly 11:24, 11 November 2008 (EST)
The article linked in on main page, Mormon stars face backlash... does not include any threats or violence, in fact, the center in charge of the protests makes a special appeal to not just picket and boycott any Mormon business "Our complaint is not against all Mormons, Many moderate members of the church did not support Proposition 8. Our issue is with the church's leadership, which ran a despicable campaign to deny us fundamental rights." Again, I don't condone violence, by why shouldn't the gay community have the right to peacefully protest? SamuelA 11:40, 11 November 2008 (EST)
You need to check the main page again, Sam, and watch the video of those "peaceful" protestors. Karajou 11:49, 11 November 2008 (EST)
Having reviewed that video, I will say that I find the protesters behavior shameful and disgusting. I also question the wisdom of this lady, Phyllis, I think her name is, in going out as she did. Don't get me wrong, she absolutely has the right to do so without being attacked (although, you could argue that she really wasn't attacked, just the cross she was carrying) and she also has the right to speak her mind without being shouted down like that. However, this is one example. I very clearly stated, many times, that I do not condone violence and do not support that vandalism and borderline rioting that has occurred in many places. That being said, however, I still have not seen any answers to my original question of how does the GLBT commnuity protests and calls for a boycott of Utah constitute trying to censor free speech. SamuelA 12:08, 11 November 2008 (EST)
What bothers me is the fact that the reason that the protestors are so angry is completely ignored. What if a slight majority of the population decided that marriage between people of different religious denominations was completely wrong and should never be allowed under any circumstances. Sure most people marry within religion, but its not uncommon for a catholic say, to marry an agnostic. Just an example. Yet if this was banned, imagine how frustrated and angry those would be who are affected? You might think that homosexualism is wrong, but they are people too, so their anger is understandable. That in no way excuses any vandalism or violence on their behalf but they might argue that it is negligible compared to the persecution they face simply for their sexual preference. --Bolly 00:17, 12 November 2008 (EST)

This whole same sex marriage thing, I just do not understand. What is the difference as to why it is ok for non-homosexuals to marry and homosexuals to not? Outside of religion the major difference is that a same sex union would not produce children, however that is not a requirement for normal marriages. Also when it comes to religion, we allow other non-Christian religions to marry. I do not agree in violent protests but I do believe they have a right to voice their dissatisfaction.--Able806 09:05, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Sometimes I despair ever being able to adequately explain certain things, as understanding some things seem to depend on a fundamental way of thinking that differs between different people. It's like trying to explain in English how a computer works to someone who doesn't understand English. Before you can explain, you have to teach them English. But I'll try and explain anyway.
It's similar with understanding "religion", or, specifically, Christianity. I'll first point out something about the word "believe": You believe (or understand, or accept to be true) that you exist, that the world is round, that money buys things, and so on. As Christians, we believe certain things that non-Christians don't believe. Now that doesn't mean that these "beliefs" are air-fairy things totally isolated from reality, like a child's imaginary friend. We believe them like you believe that World War I happened. And one of the things that we believe is that God designed romantic love and sex to be between a man and a woman, and marriage to be a rest-of-life commitment between a man and a woman. And therefore that "homosexual marriage" is not only wrong because it's against the way we were designed, but a contradiction in terms. (This is not to question their love, or even their commitment, or their morals in other areas, or any other aspect of them. It's purely and simply wrong like calling the police to paint your fence is wrong—it's not what they are there for and is an abuse of their position.) So "religion" has nothing to do with it. What it's to do with is a belief about how human beings were designed (i.e. a truth-claim about history) and meant to operate. True, it's people of certain religions that have this belief, but the belief is based on what we understand to be the facts, non on "religion".
And to head off another question: Why is it then that only "religious" people believe these things? Doesn't that mean that the beliefs are based on the religion? No, it's the other way around: We are considered "religious" because we have those beliefs.
Philip J. Rayment 08:19, 14 November 2008 (EST)
Thanks Philip for the time to respond. I must question your last statement; it seems to draw in a chicken and egg argument. Either the beliefs are due to the religion, because that is what the religion teaches, or the beliefs are developed out of the religion, which calls into question the interpretation of the beliefs which calls into question the validity of the religion. This would be due to the influence of man on the religion post religion establishment. Do you understand what I mean by this?--Able806 15:58, 14 November 2008 (EST)
You know, despite my introductory remarks, I thought I had done a pretty good job of explaining it simply. But it seems that I was wrong.
Your question basically amounts to saying either that the beliefs followed the religion ("the beliefs are due to the religion") or the religion came before the beliefs ("the beliefs are developed out of the religion"). I trust you'll notice that the order (first religion, then beliefs) is the same in both cases. But what I'm saying is that the beliefs came before the religion. See the difference? To put it another way, we don't believe that God exists because we are religious. We are classified as "religious" because we believe that God exists. Philip J. Rayment 08:49, 15 November 2008 (EST)

I think I understand your position, but you're saying that the reason you're Christian is because your beliefs happen to coincide with the religion, correct? However, most Christian beliefs were taught to them by God. For example, God said that it was wrong to commit adultery, so Christians believe that adultery is wrong. I might be misunderstanding this, though. Atheri 11:32, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Close, but not quite there. I believe that Australia is in the southern hemisphere, that the Romans invaded and ruled England at one time, that Jesus is God, and that God created marriage to be between men and women for life. Now, which of these is something that I believe because I'm a Christian? Or is it that I'm a Christian because I hold one of those beliefs? My answers are that I'm classified as a "Christian" because I belief that Jesus is God. And that none of those things I believe because I'm a Christian, but because there's good reason to believe all those things. That is, I believe those things because of the evidence supporting them, not because some religious organisation told me to believe them and I blindly follow.

Okay, so your beliefs are based on available evidence and your interpretation of that evidence. however, what evidence led you to believe that homosexuals are immoral? --Atheri 12:28, 21 November 2008 (EST)

Veterans Day Thanks

I wish I had edit rights to add this to the main page, but on behalf of Conservapedia I want to thank all Veterans on this day, in appreciation and remembrance of their service and sacrifice for their nation. These are extraordinary men and women, and deserve our gratitude 365 days a year for what they have done on our behalf. --DinsdaleP 13:40, 11 November 2008 (EST)

Hear hear. DrSandstone 13:41, 11 November 2008 (EST)
It's too bad that many of our vetreans are stuck in a war that no one needed, and one that is needed and has the importance of the Secretary of Agriculture (currently).--Snotbowst 21:05, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Obama "Ruling" America

The blurb seems to insinuate that Obama has said these things. I think it would be more accurate to say "Obama's aides think he is going to rule America. --Trevor 18:07, 11 November 2008 (EST) If you can even call this a news story. It's clearly just Conservapedia pulling their words out of context. I'd be surprised if after running a campaign for two years the Obama administration had no clue what a President does.--Totallytravis 14:46, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Big joke?

Y'all realize this is a big joke, right? Several of my liberal friends are regular contributors to this site, so I'd hardly say it is representative of the conservative viewpoint. In fact, I'd go so far as to say this site is a reflection of a fringe element in U.S. society, and it's scary to think that some people consider Conservapedia a "resource".

Have you done any searches on homosexuality or evolution on Google recently? Conservapedia is quite a prominent source. That's how I found it actually. --HenryG 22:26, 11 November 2008 (EST)
Wait, does this mean that your liberal friends are a fringe element in U.S. society? HenryS 15:25, 12 November 2008 (EST)


This User has reached the nice figure of 20,000 edits. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 09:45, 12 November 2008 (EST)

I understand, but I do not understand why you put it in the talk for the main page. Jallen 11:39, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Dembski and the news.

Could someone link to the article in science where the statement referenced is made? I know that you have to subscribe to read it, but it would make it a whole lot easier to find in a library. I strongly suspect that the article is talking about lay people not accepting evolution, which is completely about our education of the public and not at all about the scientific validity of the theory (more people agree with the statement that lasers are concentrated sound waves than accept the genesis story as scientifically valid). --Brendanw 11:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Seems like a bit of closed mind to me. If more people are accepting evolution, it couldn't possibly be because the creationists have a better case, it must be because the evolutionists are not educating properly! (And this despite the evolutionists having a monopoly on the government education system and a near-monopoly in the science journals and the mass media! They must be totally incompetent!!) Philip J. Rayment 08:33, 14 November 2008 (EST)
Advocates of the Theory of Evolution deliberately confuse ignorance and disbelief. What is at issue in Evolution and education is not whether students ought to learn what the theory is (or the reasons its advocates advance in its support) but whether students should be taught that it is true.
Hardly anyone on the Christian right is saying that evolution should not be taught about but rather that it should not be "taught". Intellectuals like Jon Wells object to the misleading way in which evolution is taught. --Ed Poor Talk 12:03, 12 November 2008 (EST)
In a science class, students need to be taught whatever the current leading theory is in regards to the subject. Should the evidence change, the teaching will change, but as it stands right now, the evidence leans to evolution and students need to be taught this accordingly SamuelA 12:15, 12 November 2008 (EST)
I'm not sure that it's always "deliberately", but otherwise you're right, Ed; they confuse ignorance with disbelief.
Why should students only be taught the leading theory? Wouldn't it be better for them to be taught about opposing theories and how to try and determine which is correct? Isn't teaching them only the leading theory a form of indoctrination (teaching them what to think rather than how to think)? And saying that the evidence leans to evolution is begging the question (and, in my view, incorrect).
Philip J. Rayment 08:33, 14 November 2008 (EST)

What needs to happen and what happens are often entirely different. It's common for there to be a disconnect between a leading theory and the evidence.

What science education needs most of all is to help students tell the difference between a theory which relies on evidence, and one that does not. The Greenhouse Theory of global warming is a case in point. Students are being told that the evidence proves the theory; but they are not being told about contrary evidence. For example, they are told that a peninsula extending from Antarctica toward the equator is warming - but they are not told about the other 98% of Antarctica, which is cooling. Or they are shown the Hockey Stick graph but not told about the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age. And speaking of ice ages, what do the Greenhouse advocates think caused the interglacial periods between them?

That is politicized science, not science.

A theory which is good enough to take and keep the lead must be able to withstand any amount of scrutiny from an interested student. Merely asserting that "the evidence leans toward evolution" is not enough. We must present this evidence, along with all counter-evidence. Same goes for the global warming issue.

We cannot trust evolution advocates to be any more objective than Greenhouse Theory advocates are. Too many examples exist of scientists and teachers losing their positions or having their funding cut, for pointing out contrary evidence.

That is not science. --Ed Poor Talk 12:29, 12 November 2008 (EST)

I agree, that healthy skepticism should always have a place in science. But I would remind people that a true skeptic brings that attitude to bear on all sides of the issue.--Frey 13:13, 12 November 2008 (EST)

So no, no one will link to the article then? --Brendanw 09:25, 14 November 2008 (EST)


The current lead news story sez, "Remember, it's more dangerous to have a Bible in a public school these days than it is to have a student get her throat cut in front of her classmates". What the heck is that even supposed to mean? Who, anywhere, has ever said that throat-slitting is less dangerous than a Bible?--RossC 14:36, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Before prayer was banned in the public schools in the early 1960's, the worst things to happen were unauthorized gum-chewing. Today there is always someone in the news who gets tossed out of school for bringing a Bible or dressing up as Jesus for a Halloweed party; there's always someone who gets sued by the ACLU if they use any school space for after-hours prayer meetings. Now compare that to the violence going on daily in public schools. If people shut out the moral guiding force that the Bible is, then it becomes a nasty free-for-all. Karajou 15:12, 12 November 2008 (EST)
I think that's grossly overstating it (I very much doubt that the worst thin to happen was unauthorised gum-chewing, for example), but the Main Page entry is still garbled and doesn't appear to be saying what you are saying here. Philip J. Rayment 09:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)
But what's with the "more dangerous" part? I'm pretty sure that slitting someone's throat on campus is an expellable offense. The student was arrested, and given the seriousness of the crime, he's almost certainly looking at hard time (I'd be very surprised if the DA didn't charge the kid as an adult for this one). Maybe students are unfairly persecuted for bringing Bibles or their religion into school, but I've never heard of the persecution involving years in prison.--Frey 15:21, 12 November 2008 (EST)
You do know that prayer is not banned in public schools right? Only faculty/school endorsed prayer is as a benefit of the establishment clause. the students are not bound by the establishment clause, only the institution they interact with. EternalCritic 15:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)
This has been discussed ad infinitum on this site before. Sure, prayer per se is not banned, but that's not what he was referring to, and most public expressions of it are banned. Philip J. Rayment 09:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)
Also, as long as the school funds all clubs equally, christian clubs are not disallowed in school. You'll remember that one of the targets of two particular boys in colorado (I do not use their names by choice) were members of Christian groups that met on campus. The only rule is that you can't allow christians but not allow muslim groups. You can't deny gay kids the right to have a student union and then say Jewish kids have that right. Oh, and everyone must be allowed to join the club, so you can't have a "blacks only" or "christian only" group. an atheist must be allowed to join. That's one of the reasons Boy Scouts are having a hard time meeting on campus, since they do not allow girls and do not allow other groups like muslims, atheists, and gays.--JeanJacques 15:57, 12 November 2008 (EST)
Karajou, any student that is punished for having a bible at school was obviously being distracted by it or making a scene. You cannot be punished simply for having a bible. Also, prayer is not banned from schools, just faculty-led prayer. And if we did let faculty led prayer back, would you be okay with it being faculty led Muslim prayer?----[[User:Trevor|Trevor]] 16:33, 12 November 2008 (EST)
By the way, some facts on this. The kid who did this horror was not a student of Montrose. No one knows why he was there or what the motive was, but it seems that he bounced around from home to home, school to school. I'm rather saddened that someone would use a terrifying event, (we seem to have more than our share here in Co) to push a political agenda. Would it have been any less horrific if the victim had been a Wiccan, or the criminal a Christian? Karajou, could you please use common decency?--JeanJacques 16:55, 12 November 2008 (EST)
Common decency says to put the Bible, and the moral teachings contained within, back into the public, and that includes public schools. Without moral absolutes there's going to be more killings and other outrages in our schools. The headline stays. Karajou 17:10, 12 November 2008 (EST)
The headline is superb. It illustrates what type of activity happens when the Bible is expelled and censored from a community. The perpetrator thought he would be able to do this in a public school without being stopped, and he did. He wouldn't dare do that in a church. In fact, no one in a church would even think of doing that.--Aschlafly 17:14, 12 November 2008 (EST)
As others have pointed out, this has happened in churches. Sure, it usually wasn't from someone who belonged to the church, but this wasn't from someone who belonged to the school, so that point's irrelevant. Philip J. Rayment 09:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)
Are you sure Andy? EternalCritic 17:20, 12 November 2008 (EST)
Put things in your own words, and start contributing in a substantive way. This is not a blog. "EternalCritic" (what an absurd user name), your account is on the verge of being blocked otherwise.--Aschlafly 17:24, 12 November 2008 (EST)
Where did he say that it was a blog? And what does his name have to to with this issue? And what's "absurd" about it anyway? And he did put it in his own word ("Are you sure, Andy?"). With references!! Philip J. Rayment 09:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)
To help keep EternalCritic from violating 90/10, I think what he was trying to say is that violence happens in church, so it's not the building that keeps people from being violent. (These are my words now) What keeps violence from happening in a church is the teachings, not the building, which is why most, if not all, cases of violence in churches happen when outsiders come into the church. HelpJazz 17:30, 12 November 2008 (EST)
No one suggested it was the type of bricks and mortar that makes the difference. Obviously what matters is the culture that results when God is expelled and censored.
Also, it's very simple to avoid violating the 90/10 rule. It only takes a few minutes to make substantive contributions. Unless, of course, someone has a bad attitude. It can seem impossible for him.--Aschlafly 17:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)
Not now, when some Administrators, latest blatant example Ed Poor, misuse the rule. Users are blocked even if their ratio is inside the limits by orders of magnitude. I'd suggest to change the name of that rule. What about "Too few substantial edits"-rule? Respectfully, --KaraMel 17:56, 12 November 2008 (EST) nuff said Markr 18:00, 12 November 2008 (EST)

But his facts do not fit this case. An innocent girl, as likely as not, Christian, given the school she attended was attacked from someone outside of the school, who was himself a loner who did not have a family, by most accounts - much less a Christian one. This is not about a failure of schools to keep Biblical Morality, but an individual who is a sociopath and has no god of any kind, other than himself. That's why I personally find Karajou's comments offensive. I was in school in Denver when two other sociopaths attacked Christians. I still live here now, and feeling memoirs of that day, and his belitteling of this issue as something that simply "wouldn't have happened if God were in the schools" saddens me beyond belief. This state has had 3 major attacks upon our kids, and not one of them would have been helped had we had organized school prayers... though I assure you, most of us prayed as we watched two of the three unfold right before our eyes, minute by minute...Prayer was at both major memorials for our fellow students. and my school, 45 minutes to the north in a decidedly liberal part of Denver, prayed for the victims. Prayer is here in Colorado, in our schools every day. Morality is here in Colorado. Karajou's comments simply are wrong.--JeanJacques 18:02, 12 November 2008 (EST)
No, JeanJacques, you couldn't be more wrong. Sure, some liberals pray after someone evil kills someone. The point is to prevent those from occurring, and prayer is best way to establish a culture of love and respect. Exclude prayer, and in comes lots of undesirable things, like what we just saw.
If you're arguing that the censorship and exclusion of prayer from a culture does not have an effect, you're simply wrong. The story on the main page is an example, both in what happened and in the immediate reaction to it. That kid would not have even tried that in place having a culture of prayer, and if he did try it he would not have walked out free as a bird.--Aschlafly 18:08, 12 November 2008 (EST)
could you explain how a group of 15 year olds would have subdued a knife weilding intruder after seeing a classmate throat get cut ? Markr 18:17, 12 November 2008 (EST)
You've been hanging around public school (and a lack of chivalry) far too long.--Aschlafly 18:21, 12 November 2008 (EST)
Although I expect that a group of students could have subdued the offender, I think it's a bit much to expect that they necessarily should have. Most likely the offender was gone while they were still trying to comprehend what had just happened. And chivalry has got nothing to do with it. Philip J. Rayment 09:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)
I am now significantly stupider for having read that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JonesBB (talk)
Much more important than lack of prayer, school shootings have dramatically increased as atheism, evolution, and moral relativism have been forced down students' throats in public schools. If they weren't taught to behave like godless animals, they wouldn't. RodWeathers 18:29, 12 November 2008 (EST)
I agree there. Prayer is just one small part of the equation, and the claim tends to overlook that the power resides with the person (God) being prayed to, not with the prayer itself. Philip J. Rayment 09:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)
On the other hand there is the matter of the Amish School Shooting at West Nickel Mines School. Obviously the school had a strong Christian tradition and faith and, unfortunately, the shooter himself was from a strongly Christian family, and indeed had been homeschooled himself. I'm not trying to make an idealogical point, more the point that tragedies are not quite so easy to pidgeonhole.--Ieuan 18:34, 12 November 2008 (EST)
Ieuan, often atheists and anti-God types do come from Christian families. The incident you describe consisted of murders committed by a 32-year-old man who said he was "angry at God." Your analysis of it is a distortion.
There is a high degree of correlation between atheism and "angry at God" types and these mass killings. There may be an occasional exception, just as you can find smokers who live to be 100 years old. But the correlation is undeniable.--Aschlafly 19:04, 12 November 2008 (EST)
Analysis? What analysis? The killer came from a Christian background - fact, the killings took place at a place strongly connected to faith and religion - fact. That's a basic statement of facts, not analysis. Reasons for killing - immaterial, every killer has a reason for killing, very rarely do such reasons seem reasonable, to anyone but the killer. I was just posting an answer to your statement: "The headline is superb. It illustrates what type of activity happens when the Bible is expelled and censored from a community. The perpetrator thought he would be able to do this in a public school without being stopped, and he did. He wouldn't dare do that in a church. In fact, no one in a church would even think of doing that.--Aschlafly 17:14, 12 November 2008 (EST)". In the case of the Amish School Shooting the community hadn't expelled or sensored the Bible from the community that the killings took place and where both the killer and victims lived. Furthermore the killer had grown up, educated and taught a belief in the Bible and teachings. Now here comes the analysis - did the Bible have any bearing on how or why the killiings took place - no. The killer used his 'faith' as an excuse for his actions, but, ultimately, that wasn't the reason. The reason is that the killer was deranged, wanted to kill and was looking for any excuse to indulge himself. As for atheism, you'll notice that until this sentence I hadn't mentioned atheism. It has no bearing on this matter. "Angry at God", an excuse, not a reason. Furthermore, I won't be making anymore posts on this matter. I have laid out my position, readers may agree with it or disagree with it as they please.--Ieuan 19:24, 12 November 2008 (EST)
You put it well, and you were correct: your previous comment was not an analysis, merely a statement of facts (assuming they were all true). Philip J. Rayment 09:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)
I have a two pennies I need to add in here. This debate is missing an essential element...You can keep the bible out of school, but not God. As long as God is in the hearts of students, what does it matter if they have to wait until they get home to read their bibles? Then again, I never had an issue with bringing mine to long as I wasn't reading it during class or anything of the sort. :D -- St0dad 21:08, 12 November 2008 (EST)
You can keep God out of schools. He's not going to force His way in where He is not wanted. Sure, he will be in the hearts of those who want him, but not in the school per se. More down to Earth, if the school teaches that the Bible is wrong (which is what they effectively do when they teach things such as evolution), then to the extent that students believe what they are taught, the school is effectively pushing God out of the schools. Philip J. Rayment 09:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)
I agree. Faith is a personal thing, no one can teach it to you, they can teach you about it but not of it.
As to waiting to get home to prayer, there's nothing to stop that person from praying in school other than peer pressure not to. If you can't overcome that your faith is false. I won't judge you for your faith, as this is America, we have the choice of beliefs, and if your beliefs want prayer at certain times or occasions its your right and I respect that (as long as you do not force yours unto mine).
Also as an agno-atheist (a term I have coined to indicate a person who accepts all possibilities including God(s), but are leaning towards the non-existance of said deities), I find it hard to be angry at something I don't believe exists. Also killing people who believe in God will not "get back at God".
But to conclude, the guy was psycopathic. If he was a white supremacist, he would have drove up to a NAACP office and cut someone there. If he was a Muslim, he would have found a synagogue. It doesnt matter.--Snotbowst 10:39, 13 November 2008 (EST)
Faith is also meant to be a public thing, but various people force their beliefs (such as that it should be kept out of schools) onto others. Philip J. Rayment 09:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Palin Criticism

As many of us suspected, it turns out a lot of those smears about Gov. Palin were just more examples of liberal deceit. The person making the claims doesn't even exist! Right from one of their own, the NY Times:

I don't really feel that a hoax qualifies as liberal deceit... The fact that so many people bought it (of all political parties) shows how silly we all can be. But I don't agree that it's just liberals taking shots at Palin. A lot of angry conservatives have been making accusations in her direction. Plenty of liberals are now seeing her un-pressured, more candid interviews and realizing that she's not the "dumb Alaskan" that the media portrayed her as. -- St0dad 21:01, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Student wearing McCain shirt receives death threats from public school classmates,0,2881384.column?page=1

Just goes to show you that the Liberal culture of hatred and intolerance is rampant within the public school system. -- Osayat3

Just another example of liberal hate. It was posted on the main page. Karajou 14:53, 13 November 2008 (EST)
What? Middle schoolers are horrible to one another, taking advantage of the slightest differences? Stop the presses. You can hardly claim 8th graders are well informed, with developed and coherent political opinions. It was a cute guesture on the girl's part to try something like this, but it's not indicative of anything more than the fact that middle school is a cruel and trying place. --Adel 16:01, 13 November 2008 (EST)
You mean public middle school. The reasons are obvious too: lack of school prayer, chivalry and goat. --LadaNiva 16:13, 13 November 2008 (EST)
What I'd like to know is, what would be the result if this experiment was run in, say, downtown Phoenix. Probably the exact opposite reactions would be seen. Kids are pack animals; if someone is seen as a target or an outsider, most kids will take a shot.
I hope any parent that heard about the results of this experiment had a serious talk with their kids.--Frey 16:43, 13 November 2008 (EST)
This was highly scientific experimentation going on here. Great sample size (1 person in the home area of Sen. Obama) with a set hypothesis. Also very nice quantification. The way the article kept saying "1 student said to her", really told me that it was the whole school hunting her down. Sorry for all that sarcasm, but it really is ridiculous, especially in Sen. Obama's home turf. Its sort of like sending a black man to a Nazi rally. In my school (in suburban Detroit), although she might catch some flak, she would also garner some compliments (teachers and students alike)--Snotbowst 16:53, 13 November 2008 (EST)
I wore an Obama button to my high school on November 5th, and was subjected to several unkind remarks, far more than the support I got. One of my teachers also commented about "The poor choice America made last night." Is this an example of the Conservative culture of hatred and intolerance?----[[User:Trevor|Trevor]] 18:25, 13 November 2008 (EST)
Nice try, Trevor. A teacher referring to a "poor choice" is hatred? Conservatives express their dislike in a well-tempered manner. As we see from this story, Liberals use death-threats. RodWeathers 18:27, 13 November 2008 (EST)
Okay, so when I was punched in the arm and almost had my button ripped from my shirt, that was well-tempered? Or can we just agree that 8th graders are far too young to be called "liberals" or "conservatives" and that they don't really base their political views on the issues and just go with the crowd to fit in?----[[User:Trevor|Trevor]] 18:32, 13 November 2008 (EST)
They are 8th graders, "You should go die" has just become an idiom that flies over the heads of everyone over 20, it doesnt literally mean it, it means you are pathetic and you might as well be dead. Ha;f the time I bet the kids were being sarcastic (our generation is quite the smart alecks, to say the least, me included)--Snotbowst 21:03, 13 November 2008 (EST)

That's exactly the same reaction I got from fellow pupils(who voted Tory)when they discovered I voted LibDem in the 2005 general election.I think it's sad that anyone should be made to feel stupid simply for seeing the world differently from others and I applaud this girl for having the guts to conduct such an experimentLiberalnproud

Radio talk show host

This story should include that it was during a time when he wouldn't normally be on air. --Brendanw 14:57, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Ottawa Professor Arrested for involvement in Bombings

Was there ever a more powerful examples of Professor values? [9] RodWeathers 18:40, 13 November 2008 (EST)

The attack in question was 28 years ago, was this man even a professor at that time?----[[User:Trevor|Trevor]] 18:35, 13 November 2008 (EST)
What's your point? Either way, the story demonstrates values held by professors.--Aschlafly 18:38, 13 November 2008 (EST)
At 27, he was likely a PhD candidate, or a newly minted Professor. Regardless, it's indicative of the values shared by and infused in those seeking academic careers. The parallels with Bill Ayers are astounding.RodWeathers 18:39, 13 November 2008 (EST)
Ack, you beat me to it, ASchlafly. RodWeathers 18:40, 13 November 2008 (EST)
Because if he wasn't a professor at the time then being a professor had no bearing on whether or not he bombed a building. If I stole a car when I was 16 and then became a lawyer when I was 35, it wouldn't be an example of "lawyer values."----[[User:Trevor|Trevor]] 18:42, 13 November 2008 (EST)
Unfortunately we may never know the real truth behind all of it. It really depends on his aspirations before he was a professor. If he was always thinking to himself "I want to be a professor when I'm older" then I suppose it's probable. Then again, that's as far as I'll go unless all professors bomb things, you know? I'm curious about how the "values" system works here. If I was involved in what occured, would I be demonstrating Professor values? I'm not trying to sound punky or anything; it's a genuine question...not sure how to word it. :/ -- St0dad 18:47, 13 November 2008 (EST)
Trevor, did you read the article? The crime was committed when the professor was 27, not 16. This was not a youthful indiscretion.--Aschlafly 18:53, 13 November 2008 (EST)
Yes, I read the article. The analogy was meant to show that it's odd to use something that happened before he was a professor to show professor values.----[[User:Trevor|Trevor]] 18:56, 13 November 2008 (EST)
He consciously chose to conduct acts of terrorism, and consciously chose to become a professor. The same fundamental values underlie each choice. The logic is profound yet simple. RodWeathers 18:57, 13 November 2008 (EST)
He hasn't even been convicted yet. Could we at least wait until then to post this as a news article?----[[User:Trevor|Trevor]] 18:59, 13 November 2008 (EST)
And Bill Ayers was never convicted. It didn't make his actions any less true or horrifying. The liberal media will cover this up enough as it is. Conservapedia puts information out there and lets readers judge it. RodWeathers 18:59, 13 November 2008 (EST)
I'm sorry, RodWeathers, but I think Trevor has a point. How can the readers judge it if we have drawn a conclusion for them? Until it's proven that he was involved rather than accused, we shouldn't showcase it just yet as professor values. -- St0dad 19:11, 13 November 2008 (EST)
You say you want the reader to decide, but then the headline straight out say "This was another case of professor values". At least phrase it like a question. Say the headline, then afterwards, ask "Is this another case of professor values?"----[[User:Trevor|Trevor]] 19:19, 13 November 2008 (EST)
I actually think that's a pretty good idea. -- St0dad 19:40, 13 November 2008 (EST)
Sorry, we tell the truth here, and don't dilute it for liberals. I'm not changing the headline.--Aschlafly 19:41, 13 November 2008 (EST)
Well that's understandable. I see your point. I just think we shouldn't be overly biased on things that haven't been conclusive yet...hey, you didn't just call -me- a liberal, did you? >:/ -- St0dad 19:55, 13 November 2008 (EST)
Also, I don't appreciate challenges about the phrasing being leveled at me. I did not write the headline (though I agree with it), am not an admin, and thus do not have the ability to do so. RodWeathers 19:57, 13 November 2008 (EST)
Oh, I'm sorry! I forgot that only admins can add to the news section. My bad! -- St0dad 20:07, 13 November 2008 (EST)
I understand that this a conservatively biased encyclopedia. I just believe that judgment should be withheld until a man is proven guilty. However, I respect your choice to not alter the headline.----[[User:Trevor|Trevor]] 20:26, 13 November 2008 (EST)
This is not a "biased" encyclopedia, and I see that you've done almost nothing here but talk, talk, talk. After your block expires in 2 weeks, return only if you want to contribute to the encyclopedia with substantive edits. Thanks.--Aschlafly 20:40, 13 November 2008 (EST)
You do realize you named your site Conservapedia, right? Since it's not about conserving resources, that only leaves one option... HDCase 20:58, 13 November 2008 (EST)
There is a big difference between bias and having a certain viewpoint. While Conservapedia certainly advocates the "conservative" viewpoint, it still shows both sides of the issue. There are articles on *both* creationism and evolution for example. Non-conservative views are explained, not suppressed. --DRamon 11:16, 14 November 2008 (EST)
Well put, DRamon. Thank you. Contrast that with our public schools, which are adamant in completely censoring conservative viewpoints, so that students cannot hear and accept them.--Aschlafly 11:20, 14 November 2008 (EST)
DRamon: I'm not quite sure you understand what "bias" means.
Andrew Schlafy: Do your nation's public schools have history classes? If yes, how do they teach history without acknowledging conservatives exist, which is what you seem to be going for? HDCase 15:03, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Bush/Financial crisis piece

The reference provided requires signing up to the Washington Post. Not the most convenient of sources.----[[User:Trevor|Trevor]] 19:21, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Huffington Post Nonsense

In regards to the Huffington Post not providing the source, I've done it for you: [10]. So, since what the Huffington Post claimed is actually true, you can take down the main page item. Or is a liberal blog saying something true without giving a source newsworthy? CTrillin 12:36, 14 November 2008 (EST)

YouTube is filtered here so I can't see what you posted, but to add to it... Fox came out and said: "The hoax was limited to the identity of the source in the story about Palin -- not the FOX News story itself. While Palin has denied that she mistook Africa for a country, the veracity of that report was not put in question by the revelation that Eisenstadt is a phony."[11]
It's originally Fox's story (can't find it now on, but I remember seeing it), citing anonymous members of the McCain campaign, MSNBC just came out and added a source to it that turned out to be a hoax. Mikek 13:00, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Obama the Renegade

I had believed that the Secret Service members picked the nickname, not the statesman himself? Can someone clarify this for me? --Countryforchrist 13:05, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Addendum: I realize he had a say, what I'm more interested in is whether or not this is typical of a President. I had always thought it was assigned, not chosen. Did past presidents get a say in their nicknames? --Countryforchrist 13:07, 14 November 2008 (EST)
The whitehouse communications agency actually picks them. EternalCritic 13:31, 14 November 2008 (EST)
Folks, read the article first. It says, "President-Elect Barack Obama – 'Renegade' – had a say in choosing the code name that his guards use when they are whispering into their microphones."--Aschlafly 13:34, 14 November 2008 (EST)
Hi Mr. Schlafly, I am aware that Obama had a hand in picking his name. My question (which was not addressed in the article) was whether or not this was a normal practice. EternalCritic has pointed me in the right direction on this, and it seems that although this practice has become more frequent since the Secret Service started encrypting their code names (and therefore publishing them freely), most code names are picked without input from the statesman beyond a thumbs up or thumbs down. --Countryforchrist 14:12, 14 November 2008 (EST)
(edit conflict) "Countryforchrist", you're doing nothing but talk, talk, talk here, in violation of the 90/10 rule. I'll only block your account for 2 hours, but upon return (if any) contribute to the encyclopedia.--Aschlafly 14:22, 14 November 2008 (EST)
Mr. Schlafly, I'm aware that you worked under the President-Elect when you were on the Harvard Law Review. Analogizing with my college experience with student government, I imagine that such academic collaboration gave you a good idea about what President-Elect Obama's character including, perhaps, his religion. While I've seen you write for some time about how heinous Obama's policies are, and how an endless parade of seemingly meaningless gossip and minutiae militate in favor of him being a "secret Muslim," I've never seen you write about your personal experiences with him. I'd like to hear what you, personally, know about him. I hope you will answer truthfully and without using the lens of ideology. Please recall the Ten Commandments in your reply.-LawrenceA 14:18, 14 November 2008 (EST)
LawrenceA, I wonder what you've been reading or whom you are quoting. Not us, that's for sure. Your statements are completely baseless, and if you persist in misrepresenting this site then your account will be blocked.--Aschlafly 15:00, 14 November 2008 (EST)
Even if Obama did choose this name, does not Mr. Schlafly think Obama is a Muslim turned Christian (or pretending to be one, rather), not a Christian turned Muslim? --Commodore Guff 14:56, 14 November 2008 (EST)
You are far too literal in your thinking.--Aschlafly 15:00, 14 November 2008 (EST)
So, you mean that the etymology of the word should be used as evidence that the choice is subversive, because he's actually a Secret Muslim? HDCase 15:03, 14 November 2008 (EST)
I agree, John McCain's name is(was?) Phoenix. Are we to assume that this is proof that John McCain is a secret Zeus worshipping Greek? DerekJ 15:13, 14 November 2008 (EST)
Wait, connecting his usage of the word with a centuries-old definition isn't literal? But pointing out that it doesn't even make much sense is? Okay, I guess. --Commodore Guff 15:16, 14 November 2008 (EST)
Why does the likelihood of Obama's being a Muslim bother you and other liberals so much?--Aschlafly 15:29, 14 November 2008 (EST)
Yes, it's quite hypocritical how in theory liberals are so pro-Islam, talking about freedom of religion, and that it doesn't matter what religion one has, but then when it comes to the possibility of Obama being a Muslim, they try to cover up any evidence of that. --DRamon 15:32, 14 November 2008 (EST)
It's not that you're calling him a Muslim we take issue with; It's that you're using this idea as a political slam. Aside from that, your dodges are cowardly, Andy. HDCase 15:34, 14 November 2008 (EST)
Personal attacks are juvenile and not accepted in this forum. Keep it civil, please. RodWeathers 15:37, 14 November 2008 (EST)
I'm not sure if that's directed at DRamon and Andy for accusing liberals as a whole of hating Muslims or something, or me for calling Andy's tangentialism cowardly. Can we get some clarification? HDCase 15:40, 14 November 2008 (EST)
I, personally don't care what religion he is. He could hold the same beliefs of Queequeg and worship a little wooden idle and rely on it for direction, I really don't care. What I object to is using the term Muslim as an insult and questioning the faith of a man simply because you don't like him or his politics. DerekJ 15:41, 14 November 2008 (EST)
(edit conflict) I'll clarify: we're building an encyclopedia and teaching a class here. This is not a blog. If and when you return after your 1-week block expires (which is your third block), then refrain from namecalling and contribute in a substantive way, or not at all. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 15:45, 14 November 2008 (EST)

No one is using it as an insult and your account will be blocked next if you misrepresent this site further.--Aschlafly 15:45, 14 November 2008 (EST)
It bothers me that it bothers you. Nice try at changing the subject, though. How often does that actually work for you? --Commodore Guff 15:42, 14 November 2008 (EST)
Your response is not credible.--Aschlafly 15:45, 14 November 2008 (EST)
Glad you could clear this up for me. Wait. What? How is it not credible? --Commodore Guff 15:48, 14 November 2008 (EST)
you are most certainly using it as an itsult. You constantly claim that he's a Muslim and string together a loose collection of "proofs" some built on selective intrepreting and others on outright lies. What other reason would there be for devoting the entire first third of the Obama article to proof of his secret religion if not to imply that there is something so wrong about his being a Muslim (which he isn't) that it has to be hid. That being said, Block on McSchlafly. DerekJ 15:49, 14 November 2008 (EST)
That's a sad, liberal misrepresentation. The problem is that Obama has hidden his religion from the voters, which is unconscionably deceitful, especially in a nation founded upon and governed by Christian values. RodWeathers 16:41, 14 November 2008 (EST)
Where's your evidence that Obama has hidden his religion? Philip J. Rayment 09:01, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Unindent Rod you are trying satire aren't you? Don't quit your day job. On the subject of liberals I happen to know quite a few (academia being what it is) and they all love the Obama is a muslim section, every last one of them. Its a laughing stock that makes conservatives look bitter and clingy. Why would a liberal dislike it?Do you think that it changes any ones mind? Aren't you a lawyer, do you think that if someone brought a case like this up against a client of yours in court that you wouldn't rip it to shreads? --Brendanw 17:48, 14 November 2008 (EST)

As a liberal, I have to say that the Obama article is the single greatest thing about Conservapedia. Please don't change a word of it. RobNewberry 17:57, 14 November 2008 (EST)

I've solved it!

Er... half of it, anyway. According to this source, the WHCA chooses a list of names, and the President decides which one he likes best. So everyone is right! HelpJazz 15:44, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Sounds like a reasonable method there. EternalCritic 15:49, 14 November 2008 (EST)
And therefore his choice of name is significant. Bugler 16:36, 14 November 2008 (EST)
Nobody said it wasn't. HelpJazz 16:43, 14 November 2008 (EST)
 :::: That kind of depends. We don't know what else was on the list. Based on the silliness of the previous presidential code names, I wonder if the WHCA uses a dartboard with dictionary pages. EternalCritic 16:49, 14 November 2008 (EST)
Hands up who knew the etymology of "renegade" without looking it up? Perhaps Obama was just basing his choice on the modern usage of "renegade" which is something close to "maverick". Perhaps he just thought it sounded cool? It's just a word. --SCarter 17:25, 14 November 2008 (EST)
Come off it! Whatever else one might think about him, Obama is an educated and intelligent man. He wouldn't have chosen that name without being aware of all the implications. Bugler 10:30, 15 November 2008 (EST)
I'm intelligent and educated, too, and I didn't know.--Frey 13:12, 15 November 2008 (EST)
I'm willing to guess that even most intelligent and educated people who do know the now defunct derivation of the word will realize that the common use of "renegade" follows along with Obama's campaign pretty well. HelpJazz 13:32, 15 November 2008 (EST)
I knew the latin definition, but I'd never heard the 16th century spanish version. EternalCritic 18:43, 14 November 2008 (EST)
Obama does continue to fool the uninformed.--Aschlafly 10:34, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Wow, another example of someone who doesn't know the difference between etymology and meaning. Better check if he's left-handed too - don't want someone SINISTER in the Oval Office. Seriously, though, keep up the good work. If you guys are the future of conservativism in this country, than the GOP is truly dead.

Harvard Law Review

Mr Schlafly, Please could you give me access to edit the Andrew Schlafly encyclopedia page. I think it's interesting and notable that you served as an editor of the Harvard Law Review under the chairmanship of President-Elect Obama and I'd like to add that to the encyclopedia. Thanks. HSpalding 18:59, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Importantly, it looks like Mr. Obaa struck a chord with both the liberals and the conservatives on the Law Review. Though he appears to have guided the HLR into a far more liberal bent, he did bring on several writers who were conservative, including a woman who wrote a peice lambasting both women and female judges specifically for not being persoanlly responsible enough. [12] He says he will try to be "bipartisn", though I remain wildly skeptical. maybe a review of his results on the HLR might be an interesting insight.--JeanJacques 13:29, 15 November 2008 (EST)
Mr Schlafly is very modest about his former close working relationship with President-Elect Obama. It does him credit not to seek reflected glory from the great man. Well, as he is modest enough not to want to blow his own trumpet on his user page or allow others to mention it on the Andrew Schlafly encyclopedia page, at least it can be recorded here that he served on the the editorial board of the HLR when Mr Obama was Editor-in-Chief and president of the board. HSpalding 16:27, 15 November 2008 (EST)
  • I don't think Andy is concerned in the least that Obama might try to capitalize on his former association with him. From what I have read, Obama seems to have learned nothing from Schlafly. And as for using Andy's reflected glory, I hardly think Andy is concerned. While Obama's tenure in the Senate was a mere 46 months, 21 of those running for higher office, his accomplishments are indeed notable. It is a good thing his election (being half African-American as he is) was a significant and over-due historical milestone, otherwise his election would be known for something much less significant — of the most under-qualified and inexperienced person in the modern era to assume the Presidency of the United States. --₮K/Talk 17:36, 15 November 2008 (EST)
I don't mean to understate Andy, but how much influence do you think he has on Obama? My guess is not a ton. --Totallytravis 14:03, 16 November 2008 (EST)
I don't want to claim that experience isn't completely unimportant in the choice of your President but could I point out that Lincoln had even less experience in national politics than Obama (just 2 years as a Congressman) whereas Buchanan had enormous experience at national level before becoming President, with 10 years as a Congressman, 11 as a Senator, 4 as an Ambassador and 4 as Secretary of State. Which of the two is generally esteemed more highly...? HSpalding 17:22, 16 November 2008 (EST)
  • Which is why, HSpalding, I said "in the modern era." Comparing the need for experience in the 18th and 19th Centuries, with the complexities of the 21st, is really apples and oranges. Furthermore, I was not denigrating President-elect Obama, but merely stating a fact. Generally, Obama's political/government/managerial/life experience is on a par with Governor Palin's. McCain's and Biden's stand as mountains to their mole hills, if you will. Buchanan, well, there is something to be said for using 20/20 hindsight, and lots of second-guessing, to pass judgment, eh? --₮K/Talk 17:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Senator Barbara Boxer

Just a minor point about the item concerning an aide of Senator Barbara Boxer. I think that by putting the comma after the senator's name makes it read as if she is the one whom the allegations concern rather than her aide. I think for the sake of clarity and to avoid any false impressions, the comma should be removed. Papabear1 16:38, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Christian Apologetics

Is this news? There are already many major articles on atheism and evolution at apologetics' websites. RodWeathers 17:22, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Major articles? Why didn't you cite at least one? I have seen only a collection of small atheism articles from Christian apologists that focus on the general topic of atheism. CARM has a fairly large collection of articles on atheism compared to most and if memory serves it was a collection of small essays. Anyways, do not be suprised if you later see some major articles on evolution and atheism at some Christian apologetic websites. conservative 22:14, 15 November 2008 (EST)
Well Answers in Genesis would be a good start... A quick google for "apologetics evolution" turns up 485,000 results. I second Rod's comment, I don't really understand what's happening with the news at he moment, between non-stories, conspiracy theories, and an apparent reluctance to post anything positive and conservative (where were all the McCain articles before the election?)MikeR 09:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Don't lump me in with your attacks. The vast majority of the news pages are excellent stories that the MSM has refused to cover. This one just doesn't seem to be a story. RodWeathers 13:16, 16 November 2008 (EST)
The reason this story is not a story in the conservative, moderate, and liberal press, is that they are not aware of what is going on right now. However, once more Christian apologetic sites step up their refutations of evolution and atheism in a much more significant way which I believe is likely based on some information I possess, it might well be covered by some of those aforementioned news venues.conservative 19:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)
But "I possess some information" isn't an acceptable source by our own guidelines! Either they have announced their intention publicly, or they haven't. If they haven't, then it is presumably because they have chosen not to yet. Either way, the news story contains no verifiable information.
Rod: apologies, I didn't mean to implicate you in my discontent, but valid criticism is not an "attack". I was very disappointed with the way that the News section was covered with Obama rather than McCain all through the election campaign, and I'd like to hear more about why that was. MikeR 22:15, 16 November 2008 (EST)

The world’s most famous paintings

Our article The world’s most famous paintings is number 3 in Google.


--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 09:00, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Note to Joaquin

Joaquin Martinez, I know the category of famous paintings is important to you. I will give you a tip since you have been nice to me in the past. :) The searches "The world's most famous paintings" and "world's most famous paintings" get no searches a day or almost no searches a day by the 3 major search engines. On the other hand, the search "famous paintings" gets about 1,000 searches a day by the 3 top search engines and the search "world famous paintings" gets about 70 searches a day. Here are some other search statistics from the 3 top search engines: "famous landscape painting" - 70 searches a day, "famous art paintings" - 34 searches a day, "famous French paintings" - 28 searches day, "famous Bible paintings" - 19 searches a day. I hope this helps. In the future, I suggest removing the word "The" in front of articles as it almost guarantees you will get far fewer people finding an article. I will change the article title to world famous paintings as it faces somewhat less competition than famous paintings.

I would also suggest having a introduction at the top of the page or introductory paragraphs that uses (but does not overdue it) the words "world famous paintings". To a much more limited extent I would also suggest putting these phrases or words in the article: "famous paintings", artwork, "famous artists", "romantic paintings", museum, and "antique paintings"

Hopefully, that will help you get your top Google ranking that gets some web traffic from the search engines.  :) conservative 13:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)

  • Joaquin, Conservative's idea is a sound one. Adding the phrases he suggests would indeed increase traffic. Not only to your superb article, but CP in general. You know Conservative and I have had our issues, but wanted to chime in here where I agree with him about the benefits of his idea. --₮K/Talk 17:28, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Should we be making decisions based only on Google searches? HelpJazz 13:39, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Done! Thanks partners. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 21:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Another example of liberal hate

Could this story be expanded to clarify? The article does not mention liberalism or hate. --Brendanw 16:14, 16 November 2008 (EST)

The Republican Party ... could not exist without the Christian evangelical vote

I found this an interesting perspective - could make a front page item I guess. -- Ferret Nice old chat 17:28, 16 November 2008 (EST)

The BBC is liberal ... and clueless about American politics. America continues to move more conservative and the Obama election, without a substantive agenda, doesn't change that. I expect that many House Democrats are not as confused as the BBC.--Aschlafly 22:03, 16 November 2008 (EST)

America is more conservative than ever, but the most liberal senator in America won 52% of the vote (a higher portion of the electorate than any candidate has won over in twenty years)? OK, I must be missing something.--Frey 22:25, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Yes, you are missing something. He won through widespread deception and voting fraud, not because the populace is liberal. RodWeathers 22:49, 16 November 2008 (EST)
He he, I like you more than some of the others Rod. -- Ferret Nice old chat 23:01, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Oh, well, thanks, I guess. That caught me off guard to be sure. RodWeathers 00:38, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Hmmm, that was an unexpectedly hostile response Andy. The basic points made in the piece were:
  1. The Obama White House will not be as open to the Christian Right as the Bush White House has been
  2. There are some liberal evangelicals who are looking forward to working with Obama
  3. The Republican Party is essentially a party of the Christian Right, and the Christian Right will be instrumental in guiding the party's rebuilding process
  4. The election was lost on economic, not social, issues (hence was not necessarily a slight on the Christian Right)
  5. Depending on what Obama does in office, the Christian Right may become more galvanised than ever
Which bits were you reacting against? I thought it was a fairly good piece! -- Ferret Nice old chat 22:55, 16 November 2008 (EST)
The BBC has a cartoonish view of American politics. Voters are increasingly conservative. That's why Obama, when he said anything substantive at all, advertised conservative messages like tax cuts.
I used to read the Economist weekly. It even published one of my letters to the editor. But I got so tired of the simplistic view of conservatives as being equal to a liberal caricature of a "Religious Right" that I ended my subscription.--Aschlafly 23:05, 16 November 2008 (EST)
It never hurts to understand how others perceive you Andy, and to spend a moment or two reflecting on it. You may think they have missed some of the subtleties, but which of the broad points above do you disagree with? -- Ferret Nice old chat 23:08, 16 November 2008 (EST)
I did reflect on how the BBC (and Economist) perceive American conservatives, and concluded they are clueless. It doesn't take long for someone with an open mind to learn about American politics and American conservatives. Give it a try and you'll be glad you did.--Aschlafly 23:19, 16 November 2008 (EST)
For goodness' sake!! As it happens, I have given it a try - I studied US politics for two years, and did quite well. Which of the broad points above do you disagree with? -- Ferret Nice old chat 00:28, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Do you have any evidence of the Voter fraud that he supposedly won by? Does exit polling dispute the win? Is Fox news part of the conspiracy? Please expound on that accusation --Brendanw 00:37, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Tip - don't rise to it Brendan. I suspect he's trying to wind you up. -- Ferret Nice old chat 00:41, 17 November 2008 (EST)

For anyone doubting whether this country is still conservative, take a look at this map --DRamon 10:36, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Land areas aren't conservative or liberal; people are.--Frey 11:39, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Real America is red. Coastal elites can talk about "population density" all they like, but only 66 million votes were cast for BHO. Discounting those tricked by neuro-linguistic programming and all of the nuts from the tainted oak borne of ACORN, that's less than one out of every five Americans. Many real Americans are so disgusted with liberals they simply choose not to vote. Let's see Zogby ask that question. BHarlan 12:05, 17 November 2008 (EST)
1. How many are you "discounting"?
2. A lot of people don't vote because they can't. Are you suggesting that grade-school children are disgusted with the liberal elites?
3. So, people are disgusted with liberals, yet they'll sit back and let the most liberal of liberals into the highest office in the land? With lots of liberal support from Congress?
But don't get me wrong, I understand your reasoning. Liberals bad, conservatives good. Red votes count, blue votes don't. It has the beauty of being simple (easy to remember, I expect).--Frey 13:13, 17 November 2008 (EST)
No, you don't understand the reasoning. Obama was not elected on any meaningful agenda. Using symbols, attempts at mind control, a ton of money from unknown sources, and chants against President Bush (who was not even running), Obama barely got one of five Americans to vote for him. Many of those did not even vote for him, but were told to vote "straight Democrat." Others were told to "vote their color." What's Obama's genuine support? Perhaps 10%, if that, and even they don't know what they're supporting.--Aschlafly 13:18, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Mind control? Are you serious? lol FernoKlumpLook at this petition! 13:26, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Read this article to learn about Obama's use of mind control tactics. --DRamon 13:29, 17 November 2008 (EST)
That's pretty funny =) FernoKlumpLook at this petition! 13:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Frey, Aschlafly is right on the mark. Not only is BHO's true support likely less than one in ten Americans, after subtracting out atheists, admitted Muslims, and admitted homosexuals, BHO has an approval rating less than 0%!
I'm kidding, of course, since statistics do not permit such things. What it means, however, is that even some atheists, "proud" homosexuals, and open Muslims did not support BHO. What does that tell you about the appeal of his liberal politics, when he's honest about them? Probably fewer than one in a hundred Jewish of Christian, morally straight (to quote the BSA), real (not ACORN-imagined) Americans actually chode to vote for BHO.
Of course, I'm speaking of those who supported BHO with their whole mind. FernoKlump, if you are lucky enough to live in America, you can watch BHO's acceptance speech on Hulu. Watch the "Yes we can!" chants and tell me that's not successful mind control/hypnosis (as the document cited by AAPS called it). People in the crowd were crying about their new leader and his vague calls for change. Doesn't that remind you of Charles Manson and other cults borne from the gogo 60s? BHO's pull seems almost as strong as Hitler's, and BHO has several Hollywood filmmakers trying to be his new Leni Riefenstahl.
Have you read the report posted on the front page here at Conservapedia? It has a lot to say. Why does BHO keep saying "now"? Why does he use special connecting phrases known to induce mindlessness? Why does he use tonalities the way he does, and simplistic numbering schemes to induce child-like trances? Why does he always point, as if he's already the Commander-in-chief?
If you read the document, I think you will learn a lot! I know I did!
Now, instead of arguing about liberal, I'm going to go edit this encyclopedia. May God bless you. BHarlan 13:53, 17 November 2008 (EST)
That's a bit loony. FernoKlumpLook at this petition! 14:04, 17 November 2008 (EST)

More people voted against Obama than voted for Bill Clinton. When Obama "rules" the country he will be going against the will of the nearly 250 million Americans who didn't vote for him. How can he pretend to have the support of America in the face of such illegitimacy? AlbertW 13:45, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Edit Conflict-
Bush got 62,040,606 votes in 2004, Obama got 66,760,924 in 2008. FernoKlumpLook at this petition! 13:55, 17 November 2008 (EST)
OK, to anyone who cares to answer:
Since it's apparently "un-American" (or idiot) votes that got Obama elected, against the will of "real Americans", what would you suggest doing about it, to prevent calamities like this from happening in the future?--Frey 15:03, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Let's be honest here. Using the total population figure is disingenuous. it includes people who are not registered to vote as well as minors inelligible to vote. according to most figures about 170 million were registered of about 220 million elligible, and not all of those 170 million voted. So, in reality Obama received nearly 1/3 of the possible votes had all americans registered who could. EternalCritic 15:22, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Ever hear of the so-called "silent majority"? There is no doubt that the majority of Americans oppose Obama. --DRamon 15:36, 17 November 2008 (EST)
This "silent majority" you speak of doesn't sound very patriotic. They don't even care enough about their country to go out and vote! FernoKlumpLook at this petition! 15:39, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Just like the silent majority of the 1970s, they may be afraid to publicly express their opinions, which run against what the mass media and what the "cool kids" are for. Also, given that most of such people are hard-working Americans, many with blue collar jobs, and that the election was on a weekday, they may not have been able to vote. And I'm not even mentioning all the voter suppression and intimidation from the liberal side that was going on. --DRamon 15:44, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Probably just as well, some insensitive soul would probably respond with documented evidence of voter suppression by Republicans, and then it gets into an ugly he said/she said (or donkey said/elephant said if you prefer) situation and nobody wins. Aziraphale 16:02, 17 November 2008 (EST) <-psychic...
It's OK if they don't feel comfortable expressing their opinions publicly, that's why we have a secret ballot. And there are absentee ballots for those who can't make it to the polls on Election Day. These people must not be particularly strong in their conservatism if they don't take the time to vote in such an important election. (OK, shutting up now)--Frey 16:23, 17 November 2008 (EST)
The BBC ( B*****s Broadcasting Communism) has always enjoyed ridiculing decent people with decent beliefs. Once again, they demonstrate their own squalid belief that an association with faith is, for politicians, a bad thing that leads to close-mindedness. In fact, politicians with faith have always showed more vision than their doctrinaire, atheist opponents. --Micheldene 21:14, 17 November 2008 (GMT)

Well, what a fascinating discussion. Seriously, the standard of parody here has fallen recently. If you're going to indulge in the habit, at least try to make it funny. -- Ferret Nice old chat 16:47, 17 November 2008 (EST)

The Republican party has become the party of social conservatives (and by connections that of the Christian right) in the past 20 years (could even stretch back 30 or 40); a fairly big leap from the Republican Party of Hoover's and Coolidge's era. Right now the Republican Party has an identity crisis, on one hand you have economic conservatives like Ron Paul, but on the other there are social conservatives like Mike Huckabee. The Republicans need to decide which one they going to be. I have known many a people that have mentioned how they want to vote Republican but feel alienated by their social views and association with the radical Christian Right. I just really adore this "real America" schtick. Is this "real America" the white, male, Protestant Christian, America? Forgive me if I'm wrong but I was told to believe that America was inclusive, not exclusive. Everyone who was born here or fought their way through a ridiculous immigration system to be come a citizen earned the title "American" not "fake American" or "semi-American". No one in this land has the right to claim they are part of the "Real America" whilst saying, implying, or inferring there is a "false America". Face it conservatives you are stuck with liberals, and vice versa. If you don't like it, well up and move then. As for Nixon's "silent majority", I don't remember the last time a majority of anything stayed quiet. Also to all the pre-President Obama haters, give him the benefit of the doubt until Jan. 20th at least. If you can't do that, grin and bear it until you can cast a vote otherwise. You'll survive, trust me, I lived through the 43rd Presidency, you can make it through the 44th.--Snotbowst 21:15, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Another source

Here is another source to add to the liberal hate headline: [13]. AlbertW 08:49, 17 November 2008 (EST)

How is that "liberal hate"? it's talking about white supremacists. i don't think any sane person could call them liberal.
Don't be fooled by liberal propaganda. Hate and bigotry are liberal traits, not conservative ones. See articles on bigotry and liberal hate speech. AlbertW 09:47, 17 November 2008 (EST)
oh come on. your attempt to paint bigotry as a characteristic only of liberals shows how feeble your grasp on politics is. bigotry can come from anywhere, liberal AND conservative, and it just so happens that the people in this article happen to be extremely right wing.
Your attempt to smear the right wing with accusations of hate and bigotry are egregious and outrageous. They are completely out of lace on this website and I suggest you seriously rethink your status as a contributor here if that is your view. I suppose you are one of those who believes Hitler was right wing too, despite the irrefutable proof that he was a liberal through and through. AlbertW 10:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Hitler did some liberal thing (Like taking away guns of the citizens) and some conservative things (Like making the Nazi motto "GOTT MITT UNS" literally "god is with us" and burning the works of Charles Darwin) but really he is a poor way to win an argument against anything but ******* nuts. --23:58, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Focus? I missing something? Conservapedia has been running for around two YEARS and didn't have any articles on simple concepts like a key and lock until I just created them (plus another one on an author because I happen to have read him recently). There are gaping holes in the coverage here - and an awful lot of blather and hot air about certain things and ideas we don't agree with rather than constructive work going on. Perhaps we should spend less time bashing the president elect and more on building a worthwhile resource for education. JohnSmyth 16:13, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Wow, John! Maybe I should offer a course in "locks and keys" next???? That is sooooo educational. Did you receive a doctorate in that important field?--Aschlafly 16:16, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Not educational?
* My World Book Encyclopedia (CD ROM) has an article about locks.
* Britannica has articles about keys[14] and locks[15].
* Encarta has articles about locks[16] and keys[17].
* Even back in 1911, Britannica had articles on keys[18] and locks[19].
Rather than mocking an editor's attempts to write educational articles, perhaps it would be better to encourage such editors prepared to write articles in areas that don't interest you. Or would you rather readers go to Wikipedia for anything other than conservative/liberal ideological content? Is Conservapedia supposed to be a general encyclopaedia or a political encyclopaedia?
Philip J. Rayment 06:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Here's some Neosporin for those scratches, John.--Frey 16:22, 17 November 2008 (EST)
He does have a point... one of the big reasons that Wikipedia is so popular and successful is that it's the best source for the little things that you don't need an expert to tell you about. I use open source encyclopedias for everyday questions that don't have any scientific/political/whatever background a lot more often than for actual research. It's more a replacement for calling a friend/asking a neighbor than for an actual encyclopedia. While basic definitions like his examples might be going a little too far, a little bit more focus on less controversial, more straight forward material might be helpful for increasing traffic. One example that I recently dealt with myself... I had a breakout of acne on my back. I went to Wikipedia and found out that why I was getting it and how to deal with it. Here, it gives a very basic, vague description of a couple of the symptoms. Mikek 16:26, 17 November 2008 (EST)
I don't know what sort of response I was expecting but sarcasm and belittlement wasn't it. 'From Little Things, Big Things Grow' Mr Schlafly - and I honestly expected better of you. JohnSmyth 16:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the point of Conservapedia is to address the liberal bias of Wikipedia, which extends to politics, science, religion, even literature, but not simple factual data. Thus it seems a waste of effort to overemphasize duplicating data which is in reasonable form on WP. RodWeathers 16:35, 17 November 2008 (EST)
From the Conservapedia Commandments : "2. We are an educational resource". JohnSmyth 16:38, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Your point being what? Of course this is an educational resource. Naturally, it's optimal to focus on providing educational resources which do not exist elsewhere. RodWeathers 16:41, 17 November 2008 (EST)
My 'point' as you put it is that due to the horrible biases at Wikipedia and elsewhere, and the often unsafe content that exists in close proximity to the 'useful' information it would be better to have the information here in a safe location we can control more effectively. Do you really want to send a child to the Wikipedia article on say Skin and accidentally see pictures of people in immodest clothing or worse? JohnSmyth 16:49, 17 November 2008 (EST)
I'm not an admin, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. At present, Conservapedia lacks the resources to replicate the scope of Wikipedia. Thus, we must focus on high importance articles, which is to say, articles on subjects clearly showing liberal bias at Wikipedia (along with articles of interest to our editors and users). Articles like 'lock' or 'key' are extraordinarily unlikely to be anything but factual at Wikipedia, and are thus very low priority. Does WP:Skin show unsafe content? No. If it does, then there's a reason to create an extensive article. Prioritization is key. RodWeathers 17:02, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Seems to me that CP is going about its business pretty normally for what it projects. You want to make sure that so-called "high-importance" articles are covered, sure. And you have a strong core of people who are reviewing those, and editing those. But at teh same time, editors are posting things they enjoy that are not "high importance" but slowly fill the core of articles. One person here seems to be very knowledgeable about art, Jessica is Japanese and we have pages of great first-person stuff on that. I have a "thing" for Native American history and slowly add topics in that field. But it takes time and traffic. --JeanJacques 17:09, 17 November 2008 (EST)
John. Perhaps you should just do the work and stop whining. That way you will avoid the sarcastic rejoinders. --Micheldene 01:18, 18 November 2008 (GMT)
Pointing out a systematic failure is not 'whining'. Sarcasm is not an appropriate response either. JohnSmyth 20:48, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Item for the news?

I'm not exactly sure where to put suggested news items, so I'm dropping this here. There's a church in Wichita, Kansas where the minister is keeping up a sign about Obama being a muslim. I figured that this act of protest, especially given the criticism that the minister has encountered (a shouting match is mentioned in the article). Article is here: [20]

Also, for future reference, where should potential news articles be suggested? ArnoldFriend 21:54, 17 November 2008 (EST)

They go here. --Hsmom 22:11, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Fascinating video

Intelligent Design scores another point. The most interesting comment in the video is made by the narrator. "It's as if everything here was designed by an Architect." -- Osayat3

MediaWiki / WikiMedia

(copying here to get community input) Hello all! I've just started editing here, having been reading with interest for a while, and have only just put two and two together and noticed that the software that this wiki is made of is produced by Jimmy Wales's Wikimedia, the people behind Wikipedia. I know we're not paying them for it, but it still feels like 1) promoting them, and worse 2) trying to look like a copy of Wikipedia - we do things differently here so we shouldn't be scared of looking different. It just leaves a bad taste in the mouth, you know? I believe there are other kinds of wiki software that we could use, but I'm sure many of you know much more about the technical stuff than I do. DeniseM 13:33, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Gregory Craig

The news item in relation to Gregory Craig appears misconceived. The fact that a lawyer's client is a criminal is no reflection on the character of the lawyer. Whoever wrote the headline does not appear to understand the distinction. I suggest that the item be removed. --WOwen 19:13, 18 November 2008 (EST)

It's not like the White House Counsel can set policy in any way. His role is to advise the President on legal matters, such as the constitutionality of a law, or conflict of interest issues regarding appointments. He basically (as I understand it) tries to make sure the President doesn't get into legal trouble by letting him know what he can and can't do.--Frey 12:28, 19 November 2008 (EST)

The character of the lawyer is indeed of concern since it may indicate wether he will advise a strict interpretation of law , or help find excuse why a law can be ignored or infringed upon. If a lawyer is defending a person he knows is guilty he is violating his responsibilities as an officer of the court Markr 12:57, 21 November 2008 (EST)

No, he is fulfilling his obligation to provide his client the best defense possible. It is not the role of the defense attorney to be the judge or the jury, it is his job to protect his client's rights. Boomcoach 18:17, 21 November 2008 (EST)

How BHO will change the White House


  • The decor will now be African
  • He will replace the traditional bowling alley. Most Americans enjoy bowling, but foreign-born Obama bowled a 47 on the campaign trail.
  • It will be replaced by a basketball court.
  • His mother-in-law will move in
  • He may attend an Anglican church, despite the vast differences between his former church and Anglicanism
  • He considers himself a mutt.

Wow. BHarlan 19:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

"She's pledged to give the decor an African-American twist" African-American decor is very distinct from African. And why would that pride in heritage matter anyway? RodWeathers 20:23, 18 November 2008 (EST)
You mean that the decor will reflect the First Family's taste and heritage; that he is young enough and fit enough to play basketball; since he has young children in the house, he will have their grandmother help care for them; he will go to different churches to find the one he prefers; and he is willing to make jokes about the fact that he is of mixed race? Wow is an understatement. Clearly this man in unAmerican and probably a Muslim. (Note to self, putting tongue that far into cheek can hurt.) Boomcoach 09:02, 19 November 2008 (EST)

You are aware that the source you are using is the Mirror (or Daily Mirror) right? That is the British equivalent of the New York Post. A toad has more credibility on politics than the Mirror. --AndrasK 19:23, 19 November 2008 (EST)

And it is a left wing paper--Nik77uk 13:04, 19 November 2008 (GMT)

Yes, but from your point of view the Torygraph is probably still a liberal paper.


Is there a typo in this entry? "...hire Washington insiders and retreads for key..." If not, what is a retread? --Ṣ₮ёVeN 16:37, 19 November 2008 (EST)

The term is apt. A "retread" is a worn out tire that is refurbished to be reused. It applies perfectly to Daschle.--Aschlafly 16:40, 19 November 2008 (EST)
(EC):It's an old term from the Automobile industry. In the past, when a car tire blew, you could have it, literally, re-tread. Meaning they just go in and put more tread on the blown tire. They were outlawed for small cars in the US if I remember correctly. In this sense, it simply means that instead of bringing someone new in, President Elect Obama is just bringing back old faces. Hope that helps StephenK 16:41, 19 November 2008 (EST)
I doubt that a blown tyre would be retread. Rather, it would be tyres that are worn down so that there is insufficient tread on them. Philip J. Rayment 06:34, 20 November 2008 (EST)