Presidential Proclamation -- San Juan Islands National Monument

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SAN JUAN ISLANDS NATIONAL MONUMENT

- - - - - - -

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

Within Washington State's Puget Sound lies an archipelago of over 450 islands, rocks, and pinnacles known as the San Juan Islands. These islands form an unmatched landscape of contrasts, where forests seem to spring from gray rock and distant, snow-capped peaks provide the backdrop for sandy beaches. Numerous wildlife species can be found here, thriving in the diverse habitats supported by the islands. The presence of archeological sites, historic lighthouses, and a few tight-knit communities testifies that humans have navigated this rugged landscape for thousands of years. These lands are a refuge of scientific and historic treasures and a classroom for generations of Americans.

The islands are part of the traditional territories of the Coast Salish people. Native people first used the area near the end of the last glacial period, about 12,000 years ago. However, permanent settlements were relatively uncommon until the last several hundred years. The Coast Salish people often lived in villages of wooden-plank houses and used numerous smaller sites for fishing and harvesting shellfish. In addition to collecting edible plants, and hunting various birds and mammals, native people used fire to maintain meadows of the nutritionally rich great camas. Archaeological remains of the villages, camps, and processing sites are located throughout these lands, including shell middens, reef net locations, and burial sites. Wood-working tools, such as antler wedges, along with bone barbs used for fishing hooks and projectile points, are also found on the islands. Scientists working in the San Juan Islands have uncovered a unique array of fossils and other evidence of long-vanished species. Ancient bison skeletons (10,000-12,000 years old) have been found in several areas, indicating that these islands were an historic mammal dispersal corridor. Butcher marks on some of these bones suggest that the earliest human inhabitants hunted these large animals.

The first Europeans explored the narrows of the San Juan Islands in the late 18th century, and many of their names for the islands are still in use. These early explorers led the way for 19th century European and American traders and trappers. By 1852, American settlers had established homesteads on the San Juan Islands, some of which remain today. In the late 19th century, the Federal Government built several structures to aid in maritime navigation. Two light stations and their associated buildings are located on lands administered by the

Bureau of Land Management (BLM): Patos Island Light Station (National Register of Historic Places, 1977) and Turn Point Light Station (Washington State Register of Historic Places, 1978).

The lands on Patos Island, Stuart Island, Lopez Island, and neighboring islands constitute some of the most scientifically interesting lands in the San Juan Islands. These lands contain a dramatic and unusual diversity of habitats, with forests, woodlands, grasslands, and wetlands intermixed with rocky balds, bluffs, inter-tidal areas, and sandy beaches. The stands of forests and open woodlands, some of which are several hundred years old, include a majestic assemblage of trees, such as Douglas fir, red cedar, western hemlock, Oregon maple, Garry oak, and Pacific madrone. The fire-dependent grasslands, which are also susceptible to invasive species, are home to chick lupine, historically significant great camas, brittle cactus, and the threatened golden paintbrush. Rocky balds and bluffs are home to over 200 species of moss that are extremely sensitive to disturbance and trampling. In an area with limited fresh water, two wetlands on Lopez Island and one on Patos Island are the most significant freshwater habitats in the San Juan Islands.

The diversity of habitats in the San Juan Islands is critical to supporting an equally varied collection of wildlife. Marine mammals, including orcas, seals, and porpoises, attract a regular stream of wildlife watchers. Native, terrestrial mammals include black-tail deer, river otter, mink, several bats, and the Shaw Island vole. Raptors, such as bald eagles and peregrine falcons, are commonly observed soaring above the islands. Varied seabirds and terrestrial birds can also be found here, including the threatened marbled murrelet and the recently reintroduced western bluebird. The island marble butterfly, once thought to be extinct, is currently limited to a small population in the San Juan Islands.

The protection of these lands in the San Juan Islands will maintain their historical and cultural significance and enhance their unique and varied natural and scientific resources, for the benefit of all Americans.

WHEREAS section 2 of the Act of June 8, 1906 (34 Stat. 225, 16 U.S.C. 431) (the "Antiquities Act"), authorizes the President, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be national monuments, and to reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected;

WHEREAS it is in the public interest to preserve the objects of scientific and historic interest on the lands of the San Juan Islands;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by section 2 of the Antiquities Act, hereby proclaim the objects identified above that are situated upon lands and interests in

lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be the San Juan Islands National Monument (monument), and, for the purpose of protecting those objects, reserve as a part thereof all lands and interests in lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States and administered by the Department of the Interior through the BLM, including all unappropriated or unreserved islands, rocks, exposed reefs, and pinnacles above mean high tide, within the boundaries described on the accompanying map, which is attached to and forms a part of this proclamation. These reserved Federal lands and interests in lands encompass approximately 970 acres, which is the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.

All Federal lands and interests in lands within the boundaries of the monument administered by the Department of the Interior through the BLM are hereby appropriated and withdrawn from all forms of entry, location, selection, sale, leasing, or other disposition under the public land laws, including withdrawal from location, entry, and patent under the mining laws, and from disposition under all laws relating to mineral and geothermal leasing, other than by exchange that furthers the protective purposes of this proclamation.

The establishment of the monument is subject to valid existing rights. Lands and interests in lands within the monument boundaries not owned or controlled by the Government of the United States shall be reserved as a part of the monument upon acquisition of ownership or control by the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) on behalf of the United States.

The Secretary shall manage the monument through the BLM as a unit of the National Landscape Conservation System, pursuant to applicable legal authorities, to implement the purposes of this proclamation, except that if the Secretary hereafter acquires on behalf of the United States ownership or control of any lands or interests in lands within the monument boundaries not owned or controlled by the United States, the Secretary shall determine whether such lands and interests in lands will be administered by the BLM as a unit of the National Landscape Conservation System or by another component of the Department of the Interior, consistent with applicable legal authorities.

For purposes of protecting and restoring the objects identified above, the Secretary, through the BLM, shall prepare and maintain a management plan for the monument and shall establish an advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) to provide information and advice regarding the development of such plan.

Except for emergency, Federal law enforcement, or authorized administrative purposes, motorized vehicle use in the monument shall be permitted only on designated roads, and non-motorized mechanized vehicle use in the monument shall be permitted only on designated roads and trails.

Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to enlarge or diminish the rights of any Indian tribe. The Secretary shall, in consultation with Indian tribes, ensure the protection of religious and cultural sites in the monument and provide access to the sites by members of Indian tribes for traditional cultural and customary uses, consistent with the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C. 1996) and Executive Order 13007 of May 24, 1996 (Indian Sacred Sites).

Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to enlarge or diminish the jurisdiction or authority of the State of Washington or the United States over submerged or other lands within the territorial waters off the coast of Washington.

Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to enlarge or diminish the jurisdiction of the State of Washington with respect to fish and wildlife management.

Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to limit the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security to engage in search and rescue operations, or to use Patos Island Light Station, Turn Point Light Station, or other aids to navigation for navigational or national security purposes.

Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to revoke any existing withdrawal, reservation, or appropriation; however, the monument shall be the dominant reservation.

Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to restrict safe and efficient aircraft operations, including activities and exercises of the Armed Forces and the United States Coast Guard, in the vicinity of the monument.

Warning is hereby given to all unauthorized persons not to appropriate, injure, destroy, or remove any feature of the monument and not to locate or settle upon any of the lands thereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-fifth day of March, in the year of our Lord two thousand thirteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-seventh.

BARACK OBAMA

President Obama signs proclamations establishing five new national monuments that celebrate our nation’s rich history and natural heritage.

Yesterday, President Obama celebrated Passover and touched upon the powerful symbols that it represents, and the inspiration it provides to him and to all people seeking a more just and peaceful future.

President Obama welcome 28 new American citizens to our nation of immigrants and called for reforms to our immigration system that will help harness the talent and ingenuity of all those like them who want to work hard and find a place here in America.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

User:GerardB

View the original article here

As Jay Leno Goes, Late Night Seems Poised To Return To White Dudes, Suits, And Desks

Over at Buzzfeed, Adam B. Vary is absolutely right to suggest that, as the late-night television lineup seems poised for another reshuffle as NBC’s relationship with Jay Leno deteroirates, it would be awfully nice if the networks considered candidates for the positions about to be opened up who aren’t the interchangeable white men who have largely dominated those time slots since time immemorial, or at least since Johnny Carson. And I think it’s worth making a larger point in conjunction with his argument: it’s going to be disappointing if the spaces opened up by Leno’s canning and subsequent reshuffling produce not just the same faces, but the same formats, particularly given the waves of experimentation that have been taking place outside of the major networks for years.

There’s the political model, which started in its current incarnation over at Comedy Central. Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert may not hail from exactly the same schools of comedy as David Letterman, Jimmy Fallon, and Jay Leno, but they’re marked by the same general demographics. It’s what they’ve done behind the desks on their respective sets that’s different. While Stewart and Colbert take on a wide array of topics, they’re doing so not from a general interest perspective but from carefully honed political ones. Their business model aims for ferocious loyalty among a segment of the population they’ve chosen to pursue specifically, rather than pulling from across the political spectrum as a whole. It’s worldview, rather than schtick that’s the initial selling point, Stewart’s righteousness and Colbert’s gleeful satire rather than signature bits like David Letterman’s top ten lists or Jimmy Fallon’s rapport with his musical guests, though of course Stewart and Colbert sold those, too. FX has subsequently taken a step beyond the innovation that Colbert and Stewart represented with Totally Biased With W. Kamau Bell, the intensely political African-American comic who honed his act in the Bay Area stand-up scene before moving to late-night, where he’s ditched the suits and the presumption of white dudeness, and brought along correspondents who don’t look much like the men in ties who largely dominate Stewart and Colbert’s shows, too, like lesbian comic Janine Brito.

And Bell isn’t the only person of color in late night in recent years, nor is Brito the only woman or only non-straight person. Vary called out George Lopez’s TBS show, cancelled when Conan O’Brien moved to the network, as an example of innovation both with hosts and format. T.J. Holmes is attempting to make a go of it on BET. And Arsenio Hall is rolling out a new late-night talk show that will be distributed through CBS syndication sometime later this fall. Wanda Skyes had her shot at late-night hosting in 2010. Chelsea Handler and Kathy Griffin have hosted late-night talk shows, if not the conventional late-night variety standards. And over at Bravo, Andy Cohen has built a successful franchise out of his Watch What Happens Live recap show, which features Bravo talent as well as other guests, and is known for a boozy, playful atmosphere—one of his bits of schtick is to have visitors play games with Cohen as a way of loosening them up. The fact that show has worked is one of the reasons we’ve seen things like The Talking Dead on AMC: as is the case with political shows, other niche late-night programming that lets fans process ideas they’re intensely interested in has become a viable alternative to the general interest show. But these alternative experiments in late night programming seem to be off in their own world, rather than acting as a farm team for the existing business model, which means that diversity of format as well as of hosts is off percolating elsewhere, rather than rising to the networks.

Laura Bennett is right, of course, that the internet and the possibility of content going viral has had an enormous influence on the way late night shows structure their bits—it’s almost a reverse response to Daniel Tosh’s clip shows, where the late night hosts want to manufacture the videos that go huge, rather than discuss and drive traffic to someone else’se work. Jimmy Fallon’s recruitment of The Roots was probably the biggest staffing innovation in recent years, a reason to come for the house band rather than just the host, and in keeping with Fallon’s determination to be a musical tastemaker, rather than simply responding to musical trends. It makes sense that late night hosts would want to be drivers of the culture, active aggregators and curators, rather than simply party hosts riding the hot new trend—you’ve got a better argument that audiences should tune in during the time slot if they might witness the emergence of Odd Future on the national stage, rather than if your’e going to interview Tyler The Creator six months after he emerges onto the national consciousness. But I’m curious to see what different kinds of hosts would choose to elevate if given the chance, and curious for someone who’s going to offer a new way to stage those debuts. Suits, desks, and white guys are all fine on their own. But they aren’t the only way to do things.

View the original article here

High Court Weighs Drug Companies' Generics Policy

Federal regulators are pressing the Supreme Court to stop big pharmaceutical corporations from paying generic drug competitors to delay releasing their cheaper versions of brand-name drugs. They argue these deals deny American consumers, usually for years, steep price declines that can top 90 percent.

The Obama administration, backed by consumer groups and the American Medical Association, says these so-called "pay for delay" deals profit the drug companies but harm consumers by adding $3.5 billion annually to their drug bills.

But the pharmaceutical companies counter that they need to preserve longer the billions of dollars in revenue from their patented products in order to recover the billions they spend developing new drugs. And both the large companies and the generic makers say the marketing of generics often is hastened by these deals.

The justices will hear the argument Monday.

Such pay-for-delay deals arise when generic companies file a challenge at the Food and Drug Administration to the patents that give brand-name drugs a 20-year monopoly. The generic drugmakers aim to prove the patent is flawed or otherwise invalid, so they can launch a generic version well before the patent ends.

Brand-name drugmakers then usually sue the generic companies, which sets up what could be years of expensive litigation. When the two sides aren't certain who will win, they often reach a compromise deal that allows the generic company to sell its cheaper copycat drug in a few years — but years before the drug's patent would expire. Often, that settlement comes with a sizable payment from the brand-name company to the generic drugmaker.

Numerous brand-name and generic drugmakers and their respective trade groups say the settlements protect their interests but also benefit consumers by bringing inexpensive copycat medicines to market years earlier than they would arrive in any case generic drugmakers took to trial and lost. But federal officials counter that such deals add billions to the drug bills of American patients and taxpayers, compared with what would happen if the generic companies won the lawsuits and could begin marketing right away.

A study by RBC Capital Markets of 371 cases during 2000-09 found brand-name companies won 89 at trial compared to 82 won by generic drugmakers. Another 175 ended in settlement deals, and 25 were dropped.

Generic drugs account for about 80 percent of all American prescriptions for medicines and vaccines, but a far smaller percentage of the $325 billion spent by U.S. consumers on drugs each year.

Generics saved American patients, taxpayers and the healthcare system an estimated $193 billion in 2011 alone, according to health data firm IMS Health.

But government officials believe the number of potentially anticompetitive patent settlements is increasing. Pay-for-delay deals increased from 28 to 40 in just the last two fiscal years and the deals in fiscal 2012 covered 31 brand-name pharmaceuticals, Federal Trade Commission officials said. Those had combined annual U.S. sales of more than $8.3 billion.

The Obama administration argues the agreements are illegal if they're based solely on keeping the generic drug off the market. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, speaking at Georgetown Law School recently, noted that once a generic drug gets on the market and competes with a brand-name drug, "the price drops 85 percent." That quickly decimates sales of the brand-name medicine.

"These agreements should actually be considered presumptively unlawful because of the potential effects on consumers," Verrilli said.

In the case before the court, Brussels, Belgium-based Solvay — now part of a new company called AbbVie — reached a deal with generic drugmaker Watson Pharmaceuticals allowing it to launch a cheaper version of Solvay's male hormone drug AndroGel in August 2015. Solvay agreed to pay Watson, now called Actavis, an estimated $19 million-$30 million annually, government officials said. The patent runs until August 2020. Watson agreed to also help sell the brand-name version, AndroGel.

Actavis spokesman David Belian disputed the government's characterization of the agreement with Solvay. Belian said that in addition to licensing agreement over Solvay's Androgel patents, Watson was being compensated for using its sales force to promote AndroGel to doctors.

AndroGel, which brought in $1.2 billion last year for AbbVie, is a gel applied to the skin daily to treat low testosterone in men. Low testosterone can affect sex drive, energy level, mood, muscle mass and bone strength.

The FTC called the deal anticompetitive and sued Actavis.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta rejected the government's objections, and the FTC appealed to the Supreme Court.

The federal district and appellate courts both ruled against the government, AbbVie, which is based in North Chicago, Ill., said. "We are confident that these decisions will be upheld by the Supreme Court."

The Generic Pharmaceutical Association's head, Ralph Neas, said the settlements are "pro-consumer, pro-competition and transparent." He said every patent settlement to date has brought a generic drug to market before the relevant patent ended, with two-thirds of the new generic drugs launched in 2010 and 2011 hitting the market early due to a settlement.

"By doing what the FTC wants, you're going to hurt consumers rather than help them," said Paul Bisaro, CEO of Actavis of Parsippany, N.J.

Bisaro said consumers will save an estimated $50 billion just from patent settlements involving Lipitor, the cholesterol-lowering drug made by Pfizer of New York that reigned for nearly a decade as the world's top-selling drug.

Lipitor's patent ran until 2017, but multiple generic companies challenged it. Pfizer reached a settlement that enabled Actavis and a second company to sell slightly cheaper generic versions starting Nov. 30, 2011, and several other generic drugmakers to begin selling generic Lipitor six months later. The price then plummeted from Pfizer's $375 to $530 for a three-month supply, depending on dosage, to $20 to $40 for generic versions.

Because generic companies tend to challenge patents of every successful drug, the FTC's position would impose onerous legal costs on brand-name drugmakers and limit their ability to fund expensive research to create new drugs, said the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, which represents brand-name drugmakers.

According to the 2010 RBC Capital Markets study, when trial victories, settlements between drugmakers and dropped cases are combined, generic companies were able to bring their product to market before the brand-name drug's patent expired in 76 percent of the 371 drug patent suits decided from 2000 through 2009.

Consumer, doctor and drugstore groups have lined up to support the Obama administration in this case.

"AARP believes it is in the interest of those fifty and older, and indeed the public at large, to hasten the entry of generic prescription drugs to the marketplace," said Ken Zeller, senior attorney with the AARP Foundation Litigation. "Pay-for-delay agreements such as those at issue in this case frustrate that public interest."

The American Medical Association, the giant doctors' group, believes pay-for-delay agreements undermine the balance between spurring innovation through patents and fostering competition through generics, AMA President Dr. Jeremy A. Lazarus said. "Pay for delay must stop to ensure the most cost-effective treatment options are available to patients."

Drugstores also believe pay-for-delay deals "pose considerable harm to patients because they postpone the availability of generic drugs which limits patient access to generic medications," said Chrissy Kopple of the National Association of Chain Drug Stores.

Eight justices will decide this case later this year. Justice Samuel Alito did not take part in considering whether to take this case and is not expected to take part in arguments.

The case is Federal Trade Commission vs. Actavis, Inc., 12-416.

View the original article here

Conservapedia:Community Portal

(Difference between revisions)Do not get you hopes up that I/we will be checking the Community Portal frequently or at all. I/we reserve the right to read the Community Portal or post in the Community Portal whenever I/we are so inclined. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:58, 1 June 2013 (EDT)Do not get you hopes up that I/we will be checking the Community Portal frequently or at all. I/we reserve the right to read the Community Portal or post in the Community Portal whenever I/we are so inclined. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:58, 1 June 2013 (EDT)::News from a Question evolution campaign blog: On June 3, 2013, VivaYehshua said he was pleased that evolutionist were afraid to debate him via a debate offer that has repeatedly been given to evolutionists.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/06/evolutionists-failed-to-overturn.html]I noticed that in the RC, there's been a large amount of spammers. Perhaps implementing QuestyCaptcha, a system that uses questions that Mr. Schlafly chooses, could stem the onslaught. It works excellently at my wiki. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 21:10, 1 June 2013 (EDT)I noticed that in the RC, there's been a large amount of spammers. Perhaps implementing QuestyCaptcha, a system that uses questions that Mr. Schlafly chooses, could stem the onslaught. It works excellently at my wiki. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 21:10, 1 June 2013 (EDT)This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.

Archive 1

I've put together a blog that applies tenets of the Christian faith to everyday life and our responsibility as citizens. I add a new article every few days and I would love it if you guys could start following and get people to read this. Remember James 2:17- "faith without works is dead." We have to start teaching those who come after us. Here is the link- I don't know how to get this in the News Feed on the main page.

I am an active military officer in my 20s and a combat veteran. It serves me best to keep my identity to myself for now. Below is the link.

http://www.defendingamericanvalues.blogspot.com

if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

On Dec 16, 2011, I wrote an email to aschlafly@aol.com and conservapedia@zoho.com. No one bothered to answer me, though I asked repeatedly. So, that seems to be an insufficient way of communication, therefore I repeat the text of my email here:

Hi,

I use this way of communication as I want to stay away from public mud-slinging. But I expect that something is done about the tone at Conservapedia. Please have a look at this comment by User:Conservative, directed to me:

http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page&action=historysubmit&diff=945748&oldid=945729

Excerpt: I know you are a so called "liberal Christianity" adherent. Face it liberal Christianity is an immoral, heretical and wimpified version of Christianity that tries to turn God into some kind of permissive Santa Clause. The only thing "liberal Christianity" loves more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is gay bathhouses!

I once stated that I'm a member of a mainstream Protestant Church (in fact, the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck) But I'm not liberal, pro-abortion, pro-sodomy or pro-adultery!

It seems to be impossible to get into a productive discussion with User:Conservative: Bullying, intimidating,and outright insulting the target-audience of Conservapedia is nearly always the consequence...

This has been worse enough. But today I read Talk:Essay: Militant atheism and short man's syndrome, where User:Conservative asks: By the way, is your "liberal Christianity" "pastor" a lesbian or sodomite? I fail to see any humor in it and I would expect that such accusations aren't made in a conservative environment.

AugustO 16:11, 1 January 2012 (EST)

Aschlafly, would you please stop to trim my contributions? Ignoring a problem generally doesn't lead to a satisfactory conclusion! AugustO 02:02, 2 January 2012 (EST)

AugustO, I am perfectly willing to apologize if necessary. Let me ask you a few questions for clarification. Is the Protestant denomination you belong to pro-evolution? Does the Protestant denomination you belong to ordain women as pastors? Does the Protestant denomination you belong to marry homosexuals? Is the Protestant denomination you belong to shrinking in membership? While I don't agree with this blog's entire contents, I have a feeling the Protestant denomination you belong to is on this slope and has a significant case of "truth decay". If you could provide additional clarification, it would be appreciated. Conservative 04:39, 2 January 2012 (EST) The EKKW is one of the more conservative Landeskirchen of the EKD. Generally in Germany you don't shop for a church - a relict of cuius regio eius religio. So under the tent of a Landeskirche you will find various, often struggling opinions. All such questions should have been asked before you made your insulting remarks. You insulted my faith and my church without bothering to make the most basic inquiries. I'm not the first one to be treated this way - User:MaxFletcher was insulted similarly. AugustO 08:20, 2 January 2012 (EST)

AugustO, I have found that liberals are often evasive and don't want to be called liberals. I will ask for further clarification: Do most of the churches in your Protestant denomination you belong to take a pro-evolution stance? Do most of the churches in your Protestant denomination that you belong to ordain women as pastors? Do most of the churches in your Protestant denomination you belong to marry homosexuals? Is the Protestant denomination you belong to shrinking in membership?

I did do some cursory investigation into your denomination's stances (unfortunately the sources in English were very scarce and I could only find Wikipedia as a source) and it appears as if your denomination is generally pro-homosexual marriage, ordains women and the denomination you belong to is shrinking in size (But again, I only have one source and I don't take that source as the gospel truth). Given the cultural landscape of Europe, this does not surprise me if it is true.

Lastly, are you pro-evolution, are you for or against the ordination of women, are you for or against homosexuals being able to marry? Conservative 18:05, 2 January 2012 (EST)

Funny, I found that conservatives are often straightforward and don't want to be called liberals neither. As for the rest of your comment: it may be that the EKD is less to your liking. But I'm fairly sure that almost all of our brothers and sisters in the various Landeskirchen would repelled by your statement that the only thing they love more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is gay bathhouses. What percentage of Christian in the world do you try to alienate? AugustO 18:51, 2 January 2012 (EST) You didn't answer my simple questions regarding your views on evolution, ordination of women, an whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry (I should have said by a church) and if your denomination is declining in membership. I conclude therefore that you are not a conservative and you are liberal and that denomination is generally liberal also and declining in membership. There are consequences to rejecting biblical authority and some of them are: an increase in sex outside of a marriage (specifically marriage between a man and a women which is a legitimate marriage), an increase in abortions and a church that is spiritually dying and declining in membership. Generally speaking, churches/individuals that start the process of rejecting biblical authority drift more and more away from biblical authority and become more and more liberal and licentious. While I may have being wrong about the degree of licentiousness within your denomination and if so I apologize, but it does appear as if it is on the decline spiritually, morally and in membership. Conservative 19:23, 2 January 2012 (EST) Addendum: The Book of Revelation declares: “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: 'These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.'" Based on your replies, I regrettably have to say that you and many if not all of the churches in your denomination are not hot but are very lukewarm and you and those churches have been spit out. Conservative 19:54, 2 January 2012 (EST) Personal attacks are unbecoming and unproductive. I would suggest you stop, User:Conservative. You have passed the line from satire to the crude and tawdry--CamilleT 22:40, 2 January 2012 (EST) Camille, you certainly made quite an allegation there. If you are confident your allegation can withstand scrutiny, I suggest you take it up with the owner of the website. We both know your allegation will be ignored/trimmed though, don't we? Conservative 23:08, 2 January 2012 (EST) User:Conservative, you have made up your mind about my belief, and no simple statement of mine will change this. But that doesn't matter: I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings. Your ability to condemn your Christian brothers and sisters (I regrettably have to say that you and many if not all of the churches in your denomination are not hot but are very lukewarm and you and those churches have been spit out. ), while admitting that you have not much information (I did do some cursory investigation ) is truly amazing! A statement like The only thing "liberal Christianity" loves more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is gay bathhouses! is just wrong, insulting, and should be rejected by all Christians. AugustO 02:26, 3 January 2012 (EST)

August, I asked you a few simple questions about biblical beliefs and received no reply as to your positions on these matters. For example, I asked if it is right for a church to marry two homosexuals and you gave no reply. You have given me no reason to believe that you are a bona fide Christian. Jesus warned about wolves in sheep's clothing so I see no reason to believe that every person who professes to be Christian is truly a Christian. There are plenty of cases in history of false/heretical people and sects proclaiming to be Christian when they have radically different beliefs than orthodox forms of Christianity.

For example, consider this: "In 1984, David Jenkins, Anglican Bishop of Durham, described Christ’s resurrection as “a conjuring trick with bones” (“English Bishop Calls Christ’s Resurrection Conjuring Trick,” AP, St. Louis Post Dispatch, Oct. 28, 1984). Jenkins also said, “The Christian is not bound up with freak biology or corpses getting up and walking around” and “You don’t have to believe in the virgin birth.” (On July 9, 1984, three days after Jenkins was consecrated bishop, lightning struck his cathedral and caused extensive damage. A spokesman for the fire brigade said that though the roof was fully wired with lightning rods, none of them worked that morning; the smoke detectors in the ceiling did not go off, even though they were tested only a month before; and there was no thunder accompanying the lightning. EP News Service, Dec. 21, 1984)."[1]

If you were more forthcoming, I might shed my skepticism, but instead you have given me no option but to still retain it. That's your choice. But you have to accept responsibility for the consequences of that choice. Conservative 07:29, 3 January 2012 (EST)

Lieber AugustO hoffe es macht dir nichts aus, wenn ich ihm seine Fragen beantworte (leider nur über Online-Recherche). Falls doch, so entschuldige ich mich und bitte dich meinen Eintrag zu streichen. @ user:conservative: Since I speak German I checked out the website of the EKKW. This is what I found: Women can be ordained. Homosexuals can not be married. Unfortunately the membership of the EKKW is slightly declining. As for evolution: I could not find any information. As far as I can say, evolution vs. creationism is not that big of a deal in Europe, or at least the German speaking parts. I for one have never seen a discussion about it on TV or in a newspaper. Hope this helped to clarify your questions, so you can go back to the actual argument, which was that AugustO felt insulted by your remarks. AugustO denk doch auch an Lk. 6.29: Dem, der dich auf die eine Wange schlägt, halt auch die andere hin, und dem, der dir den Mantel wegnimmt, lass auch das Hemd. Herzlich --VPropp 08:25, 3 January 2012 (EST)

@VPropp: Thanks for your contribution! Sorry if I created the impression that I was after a personal apology by User:Conservative. That is somewhat meaningless for me. It is the language I just don't want to encounter in a family-friendly encyclopediay. I would like User:Conservative to stop spouting invectives without (or even) with reason.

Recently I discussed with friends whether it would be a good idea to steer candidates for conformation to Conservapedia, to help them to improve there knowledge of English (and the little they know already on Greek). We agreed that this wouldn't be a good idea:

they are more likely to stumble upon articles on homosexuality etc. on Conservapedia than on Wikipedia there is a high probability that they get insulted after a short period of editing frankly, the Popular articles at Conservapedia aren't written that well - and I can detect this though I'm not a native speaker! finally: what should I answer a catechumen if he asks me whether our pastor is a lesbian or sodomite? Or what he loves most, extramarital sex, pro-abortion policies or gay bathhouses?

It is deeply disturbing that User:Conservative can be sure that all such concerns will be ignored/trimmed. AugustO 10:41, 3 January 2012 (EST)

Sorry if I misunderstood you AugustO. I can see your point, why you would not want candidates for confirmation working on Conservapedia. But I have to interject a few things: 1. I think a far bigger problem, language wise are not the active users here, but the vandals, who very often post disgusting things in a disgusting language. 2. Conservapedia is, in my opinion, still far more family friendly than Wikipedia. I strongly discourage you from bringing your confirmation candidates to Wikipedia. In my experience, one of the first things teenagers will look up are the articles on reproductive organs. On Wikipedia those articles are accompanied by, at the very least, borderline pornographic images. There is also a lot of extremely vile language on the talkpages, which is usually not reverted, unlike (with as you pointed out, a few exceptions) on Conservapedia. If you want to improve their English language skills, there are other playfull methods to do so. For instance: watching English movies, discussing song lyrics, writing essays in English, which you or another member of your congregation could proof read. You can give all of those suggestions a strong Chritian focus rather easily. --VPropp 11:03, 3 January 2012 (EST) Despite his refusal to answer my simple questions, it is obvious that August belongs to a so called "liberal Christianity" denomination and that they are on the slope and a denomination in moral, spiritual, and numerical decline. It is also equally obvious to anyone who has read Conservapedia's Christian apologetics, evolution, homosexuality and liberal articles that liberal theology is errant. I see no point in wrangling with someone who takes issue with what I am saying, but is unwilling to answer a few simple questions which are a starting point to a fruitful discussion. Conservative 17:46, 3 January 2012 (EST) Dear user:conservative, I'm hesitant to call the EKKW a "liberal Christianity" denomination. Since I just gathered some infos from their website and you just read a very short article on Wikipedia, I think we should hear AugustO out, since he's the one that frequents this chruch and is thus more qualified to make statements about its principles.
I'm also not quite sure I agree with the blog post you provided about liberal Christianity denomination being "on the slope". While I can see how ordaining homosexuals can bring sexual depravity to a church, I don't see how this is connected with women being ordained. Unfortunately I have also to add that my church has had some history of sexual depravity. Regretfully I have to say, that among those depravities was just the one that was mentioned in the blog post. Is my church now on the slope. Is my church liberal?
I don't think we should judge whole churches based on the errors of a few of its sheep and shepards. I also am a bit disappointed that you refuse to discuss the issue any further with AugustO Sincerely --VPropp 19:12, 3 January 2012 (EST)

The EKKW is perhaps the most conservative church within the EKD. But that doesn't matter - even if I lived a couple of kilometers to the west in an enclave of the EKIR, I should be save from being accused from being a "liberal Christian". Fact is that Protestant churches in Europe generally work in a different way than in the U.S.: you have little choice which church to go to, but this is balanced by a greater spectrum within the membership of a church. And therefore, there often aren't official positions of a church, and rivaling views can be seen within a church (though the idea of "special creation" and especially the idea of a "Young Earth" is a minority position - held by only few people in Europe.)

As I said: this all is irrelevant. I shouldn't read a statement like The only thing "liberal Christianity" loves more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is gay bathhouses in a family-friendly encyclopedia, and I find the various interrogations into my faith - and whether my "liberal Christianity" "pastor" [is] a lesbian or sodomite insulting.

I'm not looking for an apology, I'd like the management of this site (this means User:Aschlafly) to step in and prevent such language. Unfortunately that won't happen - as User:Conservative has observed so smugly.

AugustO 08:10, 4 January 2012 (EST)

August, the EKKW is in spiritual decline and losing members, while Bible believing churches are vibrant and prospering in the world. Maybe you will find someone interested in talking about you and your dying denomination, but it is not going to be me given your stubbornness and unwillingness to have a fruitful conversation. I tried to help you discover the root cause of the problem that you and your church suffer from via some simple questions, but you didn't want to cooperate. When a church or individual starts getting slack about biblical authority and clear teachings within the Bible, church history shows they very often decline and enter into moral decline. The EKKW and EKD is on the slope. I did say that if I overestimated the amount of moral decline at this juncture, my apologies. However, you didn't want to accept my apology. But nonetheless, they are on the slope and in need of repentance. Conservative 10:24, 4 January 2012 (EST) By the way, I seem to recall that you are the one who picked a fight with me. Then you get mad when I point out the shortcomings of your belief system in return. I wouldn't be surprised if you poke sleeping dogs with sticks in your neighborhood and then complain when you get bitten. I would suggest throwing your stick in the bushes if you can dish it out, but you get angry when criticism is directed towards your errant beliefs which you obviously cannot defend. Conservative 10:47, 4 January 2012 (EST) August, the EKKW is in spiritual decline and losing members, while Bible believing churches are vibrant and prospering in the world. Show me some examples Bible believing churches in Germany - I would be surprised if their vibrancy and prosperity reaches the degree of my church though she is in spiritual decline. I assume that your Bible believing churches are as energetic as the Question Evolution campaign!. Maybe you will find someone interested in talking about you and your dying denomination, but it is not going to be me given your stubbornness and unwillingness to have a fruitful conversation. It was you who asked about my denomination, so I assumed that you have some interest in it. I tried to help you discover the root cause of the problem that you and your church suffer from via some simple questions, but you didn't want to cooperate. Sorry, but I don't trust your remote diagnosis. When a church or individual starts getting slack about biblical authority and clear teachings within the Bible, church history shows they very often decline and enter into moral decline. Another hidden attack against my church - and me... The EKKW and EKD is on the slope. You obviously aren't well informed. That's generally not a problem, as long as you don't offer advice. I did say that if I overestimated the amount of moral decline at this juncture, my apologies. However, you didn't want to accept my apology. Of course, I would accept an apology. I just don't expect one. And I'm right: this isn't an apology, it's just another insult. But nonetheless, they are on the slope and in need of repentance. Again, you gave no reason for having confidence in your remote diagnosis. By the way, I seem to recall that you are the one who picked a fight with me. I didn't pick a fight with you, I criticized one of your statements: see here Then you get mad when I point out the shortcomings of your belief system in return. I got mad because you aren't able to stay on the subject. Try to differ between the debate and the debaters - a good argument should be valid without judging the person who makes it. I wouldn't be surprised if you poke sleeping dogs with sticks in your neighborhood and then complain when you get bitten. Sorry, not my sport. I would suggest throwing your stick in the bushes if you can dish it out, but you get angry when criticism is directed towards your errant beliefs which you obviously cannot defend. *LOL* So, let's summarize: my church and I are in moral decline, I adhere to errant beliefs, and my pastor has to be a lesbian or a sodomite. And the whole reason for this conclusion: I don't share your beliefs on Young Earth Creationism and you have read something on wikipedia about the EKKW. Don't you see that this is quite ridiculous? AugustO 11:23, 4 January 2012 (EST) I'm intrigued by all this about "liberal" Christianity versus "Bible-believing" churches. User:Conservative, which denominations do you consider to be "liberal"? What about the Church of England, for example? Are you saying that these aren't true Christians? How many "true" Christians would you estimate that there are worldwide? Which do you consider more pressing: evangelising to "liberal" Christians, or to atheists?--CPalmer 12:05, 4 January 2012 (EST) CPalmer, there are a lot of denominations and I don't pretend to know all of their doctrinal beliefs nor do I want to take the time to do the requisite research. Plus, there are a lot of non-denomination churches and churches which are split between conservatives and liberals. For example, as far as the Anglicans it is well known there is a struggle going on between Bible believing Anglicans and liberal Anglicans and the flash point in recent times has been the homosexuality issue. Third, it is well known that moderate/liberal churches are losing members in the West and conservative, Bible believing churches are seeing growth. There have been numerous books/articles about this matter and this has been happening for decades. As far as evangelizing, a general principle is that Jesus said to preach to those who had ears to hear and to move on and shake the dust off your feet for heavily resistant populations. But that is a general principle, an atheist who just hit rock bottom might be open so you have to be Spirit led. I think prevention is far more effective when it comes to something like atheism as atheists tend to be very resistant to the gospel. On the other hand, if very tough economic times hit I think the atheist population could see big declines. Men do tend to arrogant when wealthy and tend to be more humble when experiencing economic problems. Next, I don't care to speculate on the amount of bona fide Christians in the world as I am not done a significant amount of research in terms of the current Christian population. I am encouraged though as Bible believing churches have seen significant growth worldwide and they appear to be the fastest growing faith in the world. Here is what I do know: 1) The Apostle Paul said to examine yourself and see if you are a member of the faith. 2) In the Book of Revelation a church body was warned that they were lukewarm and were about to be spit out of Christ's mouth. In addition, the Bible says God rewards those who diligently seek Him. However, information on Christianity is publicly available and church bodies do issue statements of faith, so if you are very interested in this matter, I am sure you can find out estimates of the amount of Bible believing Christians in the world. Conservative 17:01, 4 January 2012 (EST) Just as I suspected! It appears the reason why August0 fired the first shot in this small series of exchanges is that he is upset about the Question evolution! campaign. I can see why since once it hits Germany, God willing, it will no doubt further accelerate his declining denomination's membership should they decide to be recalcitrant and continue to flout biblical authority. Given Germany's population relative to the European population, it wouldn't be surprised if the members of this young social movement have plans concerning Germany. Since evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer the questions, it would certainly be interesting to watch creationist throw spanners into the machinery of German evolutionary indoctrination. Spanner is a word for wrench with Germanic roots. :) Oh, look HERE, it seems as though Question Evolution! Germany preparations have started! :) I wonder when Germany will see waves of biblical creation material sweep across their land! :) Conservative 19:38, 4 January 2012 (EST)

I don't know what gave you the impression that the reason I fired the first shot in this small series of exchanges is that he is upset about the Question evolution! campaign - I criticized two sentences in which you described how to debate atheists, namely:

Bring down the banhammer early and often at Christian/creationist forums and wikis when it comes to these types of atheists/evolutionists. It's fun and entertaining! Mr. Militant, Rude and Ignorant Atheist/Evolutionists, don't get sassy with me! Bam! You're out of here! and Never read more than a few words or sentences of inane and socially challenged atheist/evolutionist comments before deleting them

I think that these ideas don't help to have a fruitful dialog. AFAIK, you elaborated these ideas at first without mentioning Question Evolution!, though you published them on the blog of the campaign.

My position to the campaign: I'll judge it by its fruits. And as you stated here, this gives me ample time... At the moment, I'm reminded of the Hornberger Schiessen.

AugustO 20:07, 4 January 2012 (EST)

Did I publish "them"? Secondly, where in the New Testament does it say to have dialogues with rude and militant people? Didn't Jesus talk about not casting pearls before swine and shaking the dust off your feet? Am I missing something? Lastly, I am still not impressed with the fruits of your declining denomination and I have noticed your silence on the issue of marrying homosexuals in the church and other matters. Conservative 20:53, 4 January 2012 (EST) AugustO, some Flickr user by the username "atheism" has a rather unique picture relative to criticizing Darwinism. User: Atheism also has pictures taken in Germany in his/her photostream as can be seen HERE and HERE. Do you think the creationist "User: Atheism" has been to Germany? Do you think User: Atheism knows fellow creationists in Germany? There may be some Bible believing churches in Germany. If so, I would guess there is a good chance they are growing. Conservative 21:27, 4 January 2012 (EST) Am I missing something? Yes, the point: whether you were convinced by my arguments is secondary, the statement August0 fired the first shot in this small series of exchanges is that he is upset about the Question evolution! campaign is just not true. Do you think the creationist "User: Atheism" has been to Germany? And to Greece, the Netherlands and France. Looks like a guided tour - the probability that he could engage some people living there in a discussion on creationism is fairly small. If so, I would guess there is a good chance they are growing. One of the main problems with your arguments - you take your guesses as something to bolster your convictions! AugustO 03:16, 5 January 2012 (EST) It does appear as if you didn't take a poke at me and merely criticized my approach. I do stand by my approach as far as dealing with militant atheists who are rude though. Second, because I had limited information about your church in Germany at the time of my initial comments, I do think I should have had a more measured response at the time and I assumed too much. Given that my atheism, evolution and homosexuality articles have factual content which is upsetting to liberals, I do get my share of attacks, but I needn't have a hair trigger in terms of letting someone have it with both barrels which is what happened in your case. However, given that it appears as if your denomination appears to flout what the Bible says about homosexuality and other issues and is losing membership, it does appear as if it is in need of repentance. Conservative 03:40, 5 January 2012 (EST) It does appear as if you didn't take a poke at me and merely criticized my approach. Indeed. I do stand by my approach as far as dealing with militant atheists who are rude though. Your prerogative. But it won't strengthen your position, doesn't help to evolve debating skills, and can be often seem to be overly defensive. BTW, how to you deal with rude Christians? Second, because I had limited information about your church in Germany at the time of my initial comments, I do think I should have had a more measured response at the time and I assumed too much. Yes, you should have had a more measured response - but not only because of your lack of knowledge! Before writing sentences like The only thing "liberal Christianity" loves more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is gay bathhouses! you should ask yourself whether this is something you want to read in a family-friendly environment. Given that my atheism, evolution and homosexuality articles have factual content which is upsetting to liberals, I do get my share of attacks, but I needn't have a hair trigger in terms of letting someone have it with both barrels which is what happened in your case. Especially under attack you should try to show the superiority of your position by levelheaded responses. However, given that it appears as if your denomination appears to flout what the Bible says about homosexuality and other issues and is losing membership, it does appear as if it is in need of repentance. A non sequitur. Yes, not all is well in the EKD, and even not in the EKKW. And I'm generally willing to discuss the problems, though I don't see any benefit in doing so with you: it would put to much strain on you to make yourself acquainted with the situation so that you can provide fruitful advice. Generalities and tautologies are easy to come by.

As a conclusion from my experiences: when asking about the religious beliefs of somebody, you should be as polite as possible, as this is a sensitive area. And even if you think that your interlocutor isn't honest about his beliefs, you shouldn't insult him - as you may alienate those readers who share his pretended belief.

Not spouting vitriol against anyone who doesn't share your beliefs completely doesn't make you lukewarm.

AugustO 17:53, 6 January 2012 (EST)

AugustO, as far as the issue of dealing with a difficult people: our recent discussion, other events and material I read recently, has caused me to rethink matters and make some beneficial changes.Conservative 05:58, 8 January 2012 (EST) Conservative, you seem a bit obsessed with gay bathhouses, gay marriage, and homosexuality in general...is there something that you would like to share with the class? --RudrickBoucher 09:26, 9 January 2012 (EST)

User:Conservative deleted Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists. and stated as the reason for this action ?if you want to keep deleting my posts to this debate page fine - bye page!

This comment strikes me as a little juvenile, especially for an administrator (I'll take my ball and go home), therefore I created Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists. The debate is important, as the 15 questions are featured all over Conservapedia and not showing the attempts to answer them could lead to accusations of censorship.

To avoid further tit-for-tat, I try to get a moderated debate.

AugustO 08:17, 12 January 2012 (EST)

It is interesting that he justified deleting it based on the fact that his repeated comments (calling me a "shyster") were deleted. It seems that these are the 15 questions that no biologist ("evolutionist" is a rather empty neologism) is allowed to answer...--RudrickBoucher 21:28, 12 January 2012 (EST)

User:RudrickBoucher was blocked for two years for breaking the 90/10 rule. As he is a first-time offender this seems to be an extraordinary long ban - and therefore smacks of ideological censorship.

AugustO 03:15, 14 January 2012 (EST)

I do find the 90/10 rule a bit of a strange one. Considering how so many articles here are protected, in many cases for no apparent reason it seems, and how the Conservapedia:Editing etiquette encourages a cautious approach to editing with an emphasis on discussing changes first, the best contributor could be someone who actually violates the 90/10 rule, because they are careful to ensure there is agreement about the change they want to make or simply that they can't edit the article due to protection. Then of course there are the debate pages which are clearly venues for people to talk about issues. The ratio of talk page to article edits alone is a very poor measure of the value of a contributor. It does seem one rule that can easily be abused. Adambro 08:14, 14 January 2012 (EST)

What is the point of getting a page protect request granted from the site owner so editors can work collaboratively on a sub page, only to have the site owners action undone and opening of a key article to vandals and revert wars? Does the unlocking sysop's action encourage collaborative editing by good faith users, forcing them to waste their time that could be used contributing content, rather than revert warring with trolls? What recourse do good faith editors have for sysop actions from sysops that are incommunicado? Rob Smith 17:05, 28 January 2012 (EST)

After seeing all the ranting and harsh words to Liberals, Democrats, and Conservative users that are trying to fix something that's wrong (that category includes me), I want to share 2 Bible passages:

1 John 3:11-15 NIV

11 For this is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another. 12 Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous. 13 Do not be surprised, my brothers and sisters, if the world hates you. 14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death. 15 Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.

Proverbs 15:1

1 A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

-JonnyAmerican 10:23, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

I noticed that the rules of conservapedia state the libertarian views are considered "conservative". Presumably, this would apply to economic issues only as their views on social issues are typically quite liberal. I don't have a problem with this, seeing as I am a libertarian myself and have essentially agreed to disagree on the social stuff and focus on the economic stuff. But, since we allow libertarians, who are fiscally conservative/socially liberal, would we allow groups like Peronists, who are fiscally liberal/socially conservative? I forget the link where I saw libertarians specifically mentioned as allowed, but I'll try to find it. Gregkochuconn 09:33, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

Wondering if these features are implemented here:

page transclusion, e.g.: Template:Wikiproject:Ex-gay movement/Members

Thanks, LJoseph 00:44, 12 May 2012 (EDT)

Having recently found the wikipedia page Religiosity and intelligence, I found myself in the strange situation of not knowing where to look for another perspective. Clearly they misinterpret the results of the few studies cited, but it would be very interesting to see if any studies provide different results or at least discuss the accuracy of the cited studies. It would be great to see an article Religiosity and intelligence on Conservapedia to provide a rebuttal to the other wiki. -- Jehoshaphat 00:20, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

Clearly there is a link. Newton was a devout Christian and look what he achieved!! Whether the link is causative or merely correlative is hard to say. On the one hand God is likely to look with favour on his adherents, but on the other it may be that intelligent people are just more likely to believe in God. I am not aware of any biblical references that will help you with your research, but others may be able to assist. --DamianJohn 07:14, 9 August 2012 (EDT) see: Atheism and intelligence. I hope that helps. Conservative 03:37, 7 September 2012 (EDT)

This is a redux of User:Conservative's suggestion to update Mediawiki to version 1.18.x (where x is any release version that is stable). His rational for this is to allow support for Extension:Wikilog (a wiki blogging device), and to update the php script used to create titles (so AT&T shows up instead of AT%20T in search, etc).

I agree, as it will also allow for the installation of various extensions, that I find are incredibly useful on a wiki community, such as VandalBrake (a extension that slows down vandals significantly, but still lets them lodge complaints, etc [The original link is apparently blacklisted: rhymes with nationalpikcy]), the WIGO extension, by Nx again, and even core reversion deletion. The update itself is a simple, clicking proccess that ASchafly could spend a matter of minutes configuring.brenden 00:10, 25 September 2012 (EDT)

This is not open for voting yet

I'm pretty sure that on wikipedia there is the ability to see the number of page views, does this website allow you to do anything similar? Cmurphynz 08:59, 4 October 2012 (EDT)

Yes. Please look at the very bottom of each page in the white "margin". Also please look at Special:PopularPages, which gives a sorted list. Wschact 09:05, 4 October 2012 (EDT)

Do we have any statistics on editor retention? I know that the Special:Statistics page says that 719 people have edited in the past 91 days, but I suspect that this includes spammers and sockpuppets who are promptly blocked. What is the current size of our editor corps? What can we do to retain more editors or to recognize and reward editors for their service?

Wikipedia has a "Wikimania" conference. Has CP considered a face-to-face event to encourage comraderie among our volunteers? Thanks, Wschact 11:58, 16 November 2012 (EST)

Currently only two editors control most of the content for the main page. Rather than promote the great content of Conservapedia, the main page promotes off-wiki content. Obvious suggestions, such as noting the passing of Senator Daniel Inouye, do not receive serious consideration. Other proposals have been ignored. I have just proposed on Talk:Main Page that we establish a three person committee to filter and edit main page items. If there is a disagreement about an item, they can vote to decide the issue. Because this would be a lot of day-to-day work, I propose that people would serve on the committee for 9 months, with staggared terms. So, every calendar quarter, the membership of the Committee would be different. People would volunteer and Andy would select among the volunteers. Nobody would be selected to serve a second time until all volunteers had a chance to serve once. I would welcome the thoughts of others on this plan. Thanks, Wschact 09:15, 18 December 2012 (EST)

Please leave your comments here. Thanks, Wschact 14:14, 20 December 2012 (EST)

I know I'm new here and that my opinions have already run counter to a few of the more senior users here; however I'd like to reiterate how much I respect the work you're doing and my desire to help make this site a respected alternative to wikipedia. Now, onto the point of this post. One of the biggest and most frequent complaints I've seen on this site in my time here, first just as a read and now as an editor, seems to have been the lack of a Conservative Hypocrisy page. Now, I know that this has been a very unpopular topic, but I also think it's a large enough issue to require addressing if we want to be taken seriously by the center/undecided population in the political, social and religious aspects of society. The true conservatives already agree with what is being presented on this site and will no matter what, we need to gain acceptance from those who are not already on our side in order to expand. Now, does gaining that acceptance mean we have to weaken our stances or compromise our beliefs? Not in the least. I merely suggest that it means we need to be honest and open about all of the truth, not just the parts we like. So, if anyone is still reading with an open mind at this point, here my suggestion for a Conservative Hypocrisy page. We already have pages on RINOs, PLINOs and XINOs as well as personal biography pages on public figures who claim to be conservative while demonstrating the complete opposite through their actions. Like it or not, these are all examples (to my understanding of the definition of the word hypocrisy) of Conservative Hypocrisy. As far as I can tell, I'm going about making this suggestion in the right way and in the right place, but I'll be the first to admit that I'm no expert on wiki-etiquette, so please feel free to move it to the proper place and let me know if I've made a mistake. Thank you for your time and I hope to hear some feedback in the near future, Fnarrow 11:19, 7 April 2013 (EDT)

I find it very hard to believe that no one has any opinion on this so I'm assuming it just got missed... I'll give it 24 more hours and if there's still no objection or comment I'm going to start working on drafting a Conservative Hypocrisy page according to the outline I described above. Fnarrow 23:18, 8 April 2013 (EDT) You can write a page concerning the abandonment of conservative principles by some, but the answer is no for a "conservative hypocrisy" page. This was attempted by trolls and thugs several years ago when they tried to force their way on the site, and it won't be allowed now. Karajou 00:02, 9 April 2013 (EDT) I think you missed my point while actually making my point for me at the same time... I haven't been here long, yet I've already seen the trolls and thugs repeatedly bring it up and attempt vandalization through the fact that the page doesn't exist. If we make the page, present the facts and admit while that conservatives as a whole are not perfect, we are still much better than the alternatives, we take that power away from them. Please reread my initial post, take some time to contemplate 1 John 1:10 and/or Romans 3:23 and then if you still believe we should not publicly admit the shortcomings of some of our conservative brothers and sisters in order to make this site a more accepted and viable alternative to wikipedia, then I'll drop the subject. Thanks, Fnarrow 00:54, 9 April 2013 (EDT) The answer is still no. Karajou 01:11, 9 April 2013 (EDT) Thank you for being open minded enough to give my suggestion a full 17 minutes and 5 words worth of your time. As promised, I won't bring it up again. Sincerely, Fnarrow 10:02, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

Please could someone explain how to rename pages on CP so as to preserve the editing history. I know it can be done on WP but I guess it isn't done the same way on CP. (I know it can be done on WP because I couldn't figure out how to do it on CP, so I looked up how to do it on WP, then I saw that their method doesn't apply to CP - a button is missing or something.) I want to do this because I've been studying British History at school and I want to change the names of pages about their Prime Ministers to those that people would recognise, e.g. Marquess of Rockingham instead of Charles Wentworth-Watson, Duke of Portland instead of William Cavendish-Bentinck, etc. This would make CP easier to use for studying British History. Thanks to anyone who can help me here. StaceyT 17:06, 13 April 2013 (EDT)

Is any sysop monitoring this page? If so, please could you answer my question. StaceyT 20:35, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

I posted this problem last week elsewhere and never received a response, just as I received no response from the email I sent when it happened the week before that... So I guess I'll try it here. From 10am to 1030pm (Eastern Time) I was unable to edit any page on this site, including my own user and user:talk pages. It occurred suddenly while I was removing dead end pages and according to my "block records" I have never been blocked, yet this is at least the 4th time it has happened. Can someone please explain this to me? Thanks, Fnarrow 22:56, 22 April 2013 (EDT)

The Sherman tank(s), also known as User: Conservative :), is/are not going to be bogged down in the talk page hedgerows fighting pointless, low priority battles with insincere, evolutionist posers who are too afraid to debate the creationist VivaYehshua (the biology major at a university) on the 15 questions for evolutionists. See: VivaYehshua.

I/we hear the pings of your sniper fire in the recent changes log of CP, but your rifle fire is having no effect! I/we are not bogged down!

Do not get you hopes up that I/we will be checking the Community Portal frequently or at all. I/we reserve the right to read the Community Portal or post in the Community Portal whenever I/we are so inclined. :) Conservative 15:58, 1 June 2013 (EDT)

News from a Question evolution campaign blog: On June 3, 2013, VivaYehshua said he was pleased that evolutionist were afraid to debate him via a debate offer that has repeatedly been given to evolutionists.[2]

I noticed that in the RC, there's been a large amount of spammers. Perhaps implementing QuestyCaptcha, a system that uses questions that Mr. Schlafly chooses, could stem the onslaught. It works excellently at my wiki. brenden 21:10, 1 June 2013 (EDT)

View the original article here

Why Promoting LGBT Equality Is Good For Our Health

Hundreds of supporters are rallying in front of the Supreme Court as the Justices are in the midst of hearing two landmark cases for LGBT equality this week. There are many cases to be made against marriage discrimination — not least of which is the fact that it’s unconstitutional. On top of that, however, mounting scientific evidence also suggests that eliminating discriminatory practices against LGBT individuals will have significant health benefits for a community that has traditionally been vulnerable to health disparities.

Here are three ways that promoting policies that ensure LGBT equality will improve our nation’s health:

1. The children of LGBT parents will grow up healthier. Just last week, the American Academy of Pediatrics formally endorsed marriage equality, citing the significant benefits in store for the children who grow up with same-sex parents. According to the group, those children will be able to take advantage of the “social and legal status social and legal status that civil marriage conveys to their parents.” Ultimately, it’s in the best interests of children for them to grow up in families that are acknowledged to be just as equal as any other family — rather than imparting harmful messages to kids that their parents somehow aren’t good enough. During this morning’s oral argument over California’s ban on same-sex marriage, Justice Anthony Kennedy spoke to this issue, noting that children of same-sex parents “want their parents to have full recognition and status” and the “voice of those children” is important.

2. LGBT couples will be able to more easily able to access health benefits. Fortunately, Obamacare will prevent insurance companies from discriminating against Americans based on gender identity or sexual orientation — but that still doesn’t mean LGBT Americans are always able to access the health care they need. The Defense of Marriage Act has continued to prevent GBT couples from being able to enjoy all of the legal protections that other Americans can access through their spouses, including health insurance. Without access to those benefits, some LGBT individuals are forced to either purchase costly insurance plans on the individual marketplace or simply go without health care altogether. Compared to heterosexual people, LGBT individuals are less likely to have health benefits, less likely to seek medical treatment, and more likely to delay getting essential prescription medications.

3. The decreased societal stigma will benefit LGBT individuals’ mental health. In addition to the American Academy of Pediatrics, several other major medical organizations — including the American Psychological Association, the American Medial Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers — have all come out in support of marriage equality because of the significant mental health benefits it will afford to LGBT Americans. Significant research has documented the toll that discrimination takes on mental health, as well as the positive effects of LGBT individuals being able to come out in a supportive society. The harassment, victimization, and stigmatization of the LGBT community all contribute to the negative psychological effects of discrimination — but advancing equitable policies could help reverse some of that damage.

View the original article here

User talk:Onward

Welcome!

Hello, Onward, and welcome to Conservapedia!

We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!

Thanks for reading, Onward!

brenden 21:21, 1 June 2013 (EDT)

View the original article here

Thanks To Factory Farming, Backyard Eggs Are Still A Better Choice Than Store-Bought Ones

Backyard chickens raised for eggs and meat have been linked to an outbreak of salmonella, according to a recent story published by NPR. But though the outbreak was the largest ever to stem from contact with live poultry, it isn’t reason for people to abandon their outdoor flocks out of fear of illness.

The story cited a news brief from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, which reported that between March 1 and September 24 last year, 195 people in 27 different states were infected with strains of salmonella, and 79 percent of them had been in contact with live poultry in the week before they became ill. But the story doesn’t note that the number pales in comparison to salmonella outbreaks linked to factory-farmed eggs and poultry. In one CDC study, the agency estimates there were more than 182,000 cases of egg-caused salmonella in the U.S. — including 70 deaths — in 2000. In 2010, more than 1,900 people contracted salmonella in an outbreak linked to Iowa egg farms that produced more than 2.3 million dozen eggs a week. And just last month, 124 people were sickened with salmonella in an outbreak linked to Foster Farms chicken.

These high numbers of salmonella cases from eggs and poultry are linked to the effects of factory farming. Chickens raised for meat are crammed tightly into warehouses that hold as many as 20,000 chickens, while the chickens raised for eggs live in sheds that can hold 100,000 birds and are often packed in battery cages with five to 10 other birds. Factory farms often contain huge amounts of feces and fecal dust produced by the birds, along with rat droppings and flies, and certain strains of salmonella can pass to the chicken if their food comes in contact with the fecal matter. In order to try to stem off the flow of disease within their flocks, farmers regularly feed the poultry antibiotics, which can lead to antibiotic-resistant strains of salmonella: in 2011, 107 people were sickened and one killed from an antibiotic-resistant strain of salmonella in turkey.

Raising backyard chickens, without the help of antibiotics, provides no risk of developing antibiotic-resistant strains of disease, and is also a way of avoiding the health risks and cruelty associated with factory farms. The practice could decrease the risk of egg-bourne salmonella: one study found cage-free poultry facilities had about 40 percent less risk of harboring salmonella. Eggs from chickens allowed to eat grass and bugs can be healthier too, containing a third less cholesterol, twice as much omega-3 fatty acids and seven times more beta-carotene.

The NPR article states the outbreak from live poultry was traced back to a single hatchery in Ohio, and quotes the CDC in saying the best way to reduce risk of salmonella through live poultry contact is to wash your hands and clean equipment used to raise poultry. There are risks involved with raising animals for food — and backyard chickens are no exception — but in this case, the benefits of home-raised eggs outweigh any the risk of disease.

View the original article here

User talk:EJamesW

(Difference between revisions){{welcome|sig=[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 16:14, 13 February 2012 (EST)}}Hi James ta!! [[User:Alexis|Alexis]] 22:14, 25 February 2012 (EST)Oi hey nobody answered my question how can i help and is there nething I can do?? [[User:Alexis|Alexis]] 22:20, 25 February 2012 (EST)I meant to block KoyogaBekijo but hit your name by mistake. Please accept my apology. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 16:19, 16 March 2012 (EDT)Your account has been promoted to blocking authority.  Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:44, 16 May 2012 (EDT)== Got your message in my talk page message area ==I got your message in my talk page message area. Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:14, 26 June 2012 (EDT)Great blocking.  Please note, however, that a new user cannot create a second new account if the two boxes are not unchecked when blocking that user.  Please observe the difference in messages between the block I just did (when I unchecked the boxes) and the blocks you did.No big deal today - some of the users you blocked may not have created a legitimate second account anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:18, 21 August 2012 (EDT)Examine this: http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#Prove_creationism_is_true [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:32, 30 September 2012 (EDT)=== Proof Creationism! is true ===Here is evidence that Christianity/creationism is true: [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/09/evidence-for-christianity-websites-and.html Christianity and creationism is true].Second, have you noticed [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-thrill-of-creationists-victories.html this] and [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/06/developing-plan-for-accelerating.html this] yet? Are the seedlings of a Creationism Proven! campaign already planted? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:12, 30 September 2012 (EDT)Congratulations on your having somehow not only survived here for several months as a professed atheist and liberal, but on also gaining and judiciously applying your block rights. :) I wish some of the Wikias I've contributed to in the past had sysops with similarly-reasonable personalities. I may not agree with you religiously, but you seem to be a good person so more power to you. [[User:JGrant|JGrant]] 13:14, 4 October 2012 (EDT)Are you willing to have a debate centered around the 15 questions for evolutionists (see: http://creation.com/15-questions )via a recorded oral debate which would be distributed to tens of thousands of people.If you are confident in your evolutionary beliefs, please make the necessary arrangements via this free chat room:  http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844  You can make the necessary arrangements with the chat room moderators Shockofgod or VivaYehshua. Alternatively, you can email Shockofgod via his YouTube email at http://www.youtube.com/user/shockofgodIf you want to know more about the debate, any and all questions should be directed to Shockofgod or VivaYehshua [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:09, 13 October 2012 (EDT)::Hello user:conservative! Thankyou very much for inviting me to a debate but I really can't see what point that would serve. Winning or losing an argument which would invariably end up about semantics is not going to change reality. ::I realise that accepting evolution as the reason why life exists is going to be a difficult truth about existence that goes against everything that you've chosen (or been indoctrinated) to believe.::I think you should lay off the incessant 'Question Evolution!' proclamations on the main page. To be honest with you they're starting to take on a desperate and pathetic quality to them and you're only attracting ridicule and mockery from Atheists, and exasperation from fellow Christians . Who, exactly, is this campaign aimed at? I find it hard to believe that any intelligent person would be swayed by such trite and disingenuous arguments. Or is this campaign only aimed at 'thick' people?::I would particularly advise you against linking to such 'news' items that proclaim a person is going to read a book (350+ pages long!) but then couldn't because of a cold so the incredible announcement that is going to destroy evolution is going to be delayed until the 15th October... This sounds like a cruel 'Monty Python' sketch. ::I hope this incredible upcoming announcement is going radically change the scientific world or all your posts have been a complete and utter waste of time!::As always best wishes to you and your family [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 17:15, 13 October 2012 (EDT)::p.s. as you have declined to have a talk page , I think it's only fair that a copy of this conservation is posted on the talk page of the main page.==Did you really need to block me?==Admittedly the language was a bit purple, but i feel my point was valid. Seems a bit tasteless to be so merry at the implementation of a law that will execute people for what they do in the bedroom.Not that I'm arguing, but how do you determine that a user who hasn't made an edit is a sock puppet when you don't have checkuser rights? (Would've sent this in a n email but you don't have that enabled). Just want to make sure that you're sure. --[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 13:36, 22 November 2012 (EST)

Welcome!

Hello, EJamesW, and welcome to Conservapedia!

We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!

Thanks for reading, EJamesW!

Joaquín Martínez 16:14, 13 February 2012 (EST)

Hi James ta!! Alexis 22:14, 25 February 2012 (EST)

Oi hey nobody answered my question how can i help and is there nething I can do?? Alexis 22:20, 25 February 2012 (EST)

if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

I meant to block KoyogaBekijo but hit your name by mistake. Please accept my apology. Davidspencer 16:19, 16 March 2012 (EDT)

Your account has been promoted to blocking authority. Congratulations!--Andy Schlafly 12:44, 16 May 2012 (EDT)

I got your message in my talk page message area. Thanks. Conservative 10:14, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

Great blocking. Please note, however, that a new user cannot create a second new account if the two boxes are not unchecked when blocking that user. Please observe the difference in messages between the block I just did (when I unchecked the boxes) and the blocks you did.

No big deal today - some of the users you blocked may not have created a legitimate second account anyway.--Andy Schlafly 15:18, 21 August 2012 (EDT)

Examine this: http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#Prove_creationism_is_true Conservative 03:32, 30 September 2012 (EDT)

Here is evidence that Christianity/creationism is true: Christianity and creationism is true.

Second, have you noticed this and this yet? Are the seedlings of a Creationism Proven! campaign already planted? Conservative 03:12, 30 September 2012 (EDT)

Congratulations on your having somehow not only survived here for several months as a professed atheist and liberal, but on also gaining and judiciously applying your block rights. :) I wish some of the Wikias I've contributed to in the past had sysops with similarly-reasonable personalities. I may not agree with you religiously, but you seem to be a good person so more power to you. JGrant 13:14, 4 October 2012 (EDT)

Are you willing to have a debate centered around the 15 questions for evolutionists (see: http://creation.com/15-questions ) via a recorded oral debate which would be distributed to tens of thousands of people.

If you are confident in your evolutionary beliefs, please make the necessary arrangements via this free chat room: http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 You can make the necessary arrangements with the chat room moderators Shockofgod or VivaYehshua. Alternatively, you can email Shockofgod via his YouTube email at http://www.youtube.com/user/shockofgod

If you want to know more about the debate, any and all questions should be directed to Shockofgod or VivaYehshua Conservative 09:09, 13 October 2012 (EDT)

Hello user:conservative! Thankyou very much for inviting me to a debate but I really can't see what point that would serve. Winning or losing an argument which would invariably end up about semantics is not going to change reality. I realise that accepting evolution as the reason why life exists is going to be a difficult truth about existence that goes against everything that you've chosen (or been indoctrinated) to believe. I think you should lay off the incessant 'Question Evolution!' proclamations on the main page. To be honest with you they're starting to take on a desperate and pathetic quality to them and you're only attracting ridicule and mockery from Atheists, and exasperation from fellow Christians . Who, exactly, is this campaign aimed at? I find it hard to believe that any intelligent person would be swayed by such trite and disingenuous arguments. Or is this campaign only aimed at 'thick' people? I would particularly advise you against linking to such 'news' items that proclaim a person is going to read a book (350+ pages long!) but then couldn't because of a cold so the incredible announcement that is going to destroy evolution is going to be delayed until the 15th October... This sounds like a cruel 'Monty Python' sketch. I hope this incredible upcoming announcement is going radically change the scientific world or all your posts have been a complete and utter waste of time! As always best wishes to you and your family EJamesW 17:15, 13 October 2012 (EDT) p.s. as you have declined to have a talk page , I think it's only fair that a copy of this conservation is posted on the talk page of the main page.

Admittedly the language was a bit purple, but i feel my point was valid. Seems a bit tasteless to be so merry at the implementation of a law that will execute people for what they do in the bedroom.

Not that I'm arguing, but how do you determine that a user who hasn't made an edit is a sock puppet when you don't have checkuser rights? (Would've sent this in a n email but you don't have that enabled). Just want to make sure that you're sure. --IDuan 13:36, 22 November 2012 (EST)

View the original article here

Corporate America Has Already Voted on Gay Marriage

(Read More: Corporate Call for Change in Gay Marriage Case)

The Human Rights Campaign has found far greater commitment among corporate leaders focused on their bottom lines than among politicians seeking votes.

In 29 states it remains legal to fire or not hire someone on the basis of sexual orientation.

But among the 688 major employers rated in its most recent survey, HRC found that 99 percent prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and 89 percent offer health benefits to domestic partners.

In addition, 65 percent have parity in "soft" benefits for spousal and domestic partners such as bereavement leave, employee assistance programs, employee discounts, and relocation assistance.

(Read More: Congrats, Same-Sex Newlyweds: Here's Your Tax Bill)

Among the 20 largest publicly-traded firms on the Fortune 500 list, 13 received a perfect 100 percent rating across a range of practices relating to gay rights. Those include: Chevron, General Motors, Bank of America, Ford, Hewlett-Packard, AT&T, JPMorgan Chase, Verizon, AIG, and IBM.

"The private sector was always ahead of the politicians," said Hilary Rosen, a Washington public relations consultant active in gay-rights causes.

Now the public opinion has shifted markedly—driven in large part by younger voters who don't even regard gay marriage as controversial—politicians are catching up.

(Read More: Gay Rights: Does Taking a Stand Affect Business?)

President Barack Obama embraced gay marriage in his 2012 re-election campaign. Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, recently announced his support for gay marriage after learning his adult son is gay.

The dramatic increase in the number of gays and lesbians open about their sexuality has been a key element in the shifting dynamics of the issue. Whatever the Supreme Court rules, all signs suggest that both the public and American business will increasingly regard marriage rights as a settled issue.

—By CNBC's John Harwood; Follow him on Twitter: @JohnJHarwood

View the original article here