Kevin Rudd

(Difference between revisions)

Kevin Rudd was the 26th and is now the 28th Prime Minister of Australia and leader of the federal parliamentary wing of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) between December 2007 and June 2010, and June 2013 onwards, and Minister for Foreign Affairs from 14 September 2010 to 22 February 2012. At the federal level, the ALP won the 24 November 2007 election after 11 years of John Howard's Liberal-National coalition government. Kevin Rudd advocates socialistic policies, such as a multi-billion dollar stimulus package that gave cash handouts to any citizen earning less than $100,000 a year[1] and a carbon emissions trading scheme which the government has so far been unable to pass.[2] Despite this, Australia was one of few Western nations to not record two consecutive quarters of negative growth during the recession of 2008.

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

From 1981-1988 Rudd served in the Department of Foreign Affairs, mostly posted overseas at the Australian embassies in Stockholm, Sweden and later in Beijing, China.

In 1988, he was appointed Chief of Staff to the Labor Opposition Leader in Queensland, Wayne Goss. When the Labor Party won office in 1989, he became Chief of Staff to the Premier. In 1992, Goss appointed him Director-General of the Office of Cabinet. When the Goss government lost office in 1995, Rudd became a Senior China Consultant in the accounting firm KPMG Australia. He continued in this role while unsuccessfully contesting for election to the federal electorate of Griffith at the 1996 federal election, which he also contested at the 1998 election and won. Rudd served as Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs (2001-2005).

In December 2006, Rudd became Leader of the Opposition after deposing the previous leader of the ALP, Kim Beazley, in a leadership ballot. Since that time, he has enjoyed unprecedented public popularity having campaigned successfully on issues such as the environment and climate change, education and industrial relations policy.

During the 2007 election campaign, Rudd was accused of copying some of his policies (in particular economic policies) from his more conservative predecessor, John Howard, in a bid to win office, believing that the electorate found those policies appealing.

The ALP won the election on 24 November 2007, and Rudd was soon affirmed as the leader of the parliamentary wing and therefore Prime Minister elect. The new federal Cabinet was sworn in by the Governor General of Australia on 3 December 2007.

Among Rudd's first acts as Prime Minister was to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, something Howard had refused to do for economic reasons. Additionally, Rudd made a formal parliamentary apology to the "Stolen Generation", a large group of indigenous Australians who were forcibly removed from their community in the first half of the 20th century. While there is continued dispute among historians over whether the "Stolen Generation" existed, the Opposition gave its support to the apology. Polls taken since the election show the ALP holding a commanding lead in the polls under Rudd's leadership, with Rudd leading opposition leader Brendan Nelson by 70% to 9% in the "preferred Prime Minister" rating (leading the press to dub Nelson as "Mr. Nine Percent").[3] Rudd reduced a Royal Australian Air Force air hostess to tears in April 2009 when he verbally abused her after losing his temper over an in-flight meal.[4]

Rudd was appointed as Minister for Foreign Affairs of Australia on 14 September 2010. He resigned from that position on 22 February 2012 in a speech at about 1.30am local time, 22 February 2012, in The Willard Hotel in Washington DC, stating that negative statements by colleagues including the Prime Minister of Australia, Julia Gillard, were a deciding factor in his resignation. The timing in Washington corresponded to late afternoon in eastern Australia, just before the evening TV news.

Rudd grew up in a house steeped in conservative politics. His father was a dairy farmer on the Sunshine Coast of Queensland, and member of the Country Party. After his father was killed in a car accident, when Rudd was 11 year old, the family was forced to leave the farm. Rudd joined the Labor Party at age 15.

For a time he boarded at Marist College Ashgrove in Brisbane. He was dux of his state high school at Nambour, then went on to study at the Australian National University in Canberra, the national capital, gaining First Class Honours in Arts (Asian Studies), majoring in Chinese language and history, became proficient in Mandarin, and acquired a Chinese alias, Lù Kèwén (the latter a similar sound to his given name, Kevin.)

Rudd met his future wife, Therese Rein, at a meeting of the Australian Student Christian Movement while studying at university. He was then attending a Uniting church. They married in 1981 at St John's Anglican Church in Canberra, and have three children.

Rudd has given various speeches about his faith, and quotes the German theologian and martyr to the anti-Nazi cause, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, as his hero[5].

Rudd has attended the Anglican church with his wife and family, without formally taking up membership[5]. He is credited with being an active member of the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship, attending not only lectures but also Bible studies. He is said to carry a Bible when he travels and has stated he is a creationist:[6]

“For me, it’s ultimately the order of the cosmos or what I describe as the creation. You can’t simply have, in my own judgment, creation simply being a random event because it is so inherently ordered, and the fact that the natural environment is being ordered where it can properly coexist over time. If you were simply reducing that to mathematically probabilities I’ve got to say it probably wouldn’t have happened. So I think there is an intelligent mind at work."

? Household Stimulus Package Factsheet, accessed 8 November 2009.? Kevin Rudd urges Liberals to back emissions trading scheme, The Australian, 2 November 2009, accessed 8 November 2009.? Mr. 9% - Brendan Nelson's parlous poll position Fairfax Digital, 19 February 2008, accessed 2 March 2008? Kevin Rudd loses temper over in-flight meal, Herald Sun, 2 April 2009, accessed 8 November 2009.? 5.0 5.1 More than just a light on the hill, Fairfax Digital, 22 December 2007, accessed 27 December 2007? Why Kevin Rudd believes in God, Adelaide Now, 29 August 2008, accessed 13 December 2009.

View the original article here

Filibuster

(Difference between revisions)A '''filibuster''' blocks a [[United States Senate|Senate]] vote on a bill or nominee, causing its defeat.  Under Senate rules, one senator can delay a vote by talking for hours and hours, and 41 senators (less than a majority) can defeat a bill[[Budget Reconciliation bill]]s cannot be filibustered. or nominee by simply voting against [[cloture]] to end debate.  Filibusters do not occur in the House of Representatives because its rules do not allow it.A '''filibuster''' blocks a vote on a bill or nominee, causing its defeat.  The term applies most commonly to the [[United States Senate]], but filibusters exist in many state senates too.  There are variations on a filibuster allowed in some state houses or assemblies, such in the Texas House, where it is called "chubbing".http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/texas-house-of-representatives/texplainer-what-is-chubbing/ The U.S. House of Representatives does not allow any filibusters or equivalents.Under the rules of the U.S. Senate, one senator can delay a vote by talking for hours and hours, and 41 senators (less than a majority) can defeat a bill[[Budget Reconciliation bill]]s cannot be filibustered. or nominee by simply voting against [[cloture]] to end debate.  Filibusters do not occur in the House of Representatives because its rules do not allow it.In general parliamentary procedure, a filibuster is any tactic to delay and avoid a substantive vote by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions.[http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/filibuster.htm] US Senate ReferenceIn general parliamentary procedure, a filibuster is any tactic to delay and avoid a substantive vote by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions.[http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/filibuster.htm] US Senate Reference

A filibuster blocks a vote on a bill or nominee, causing its defeat. The term applies most commonly to the United States Senate, but filibusters exist in many state senates too. There are variations on a filibuster allowed in some state houses or assemblies, such in the Texas House, where it is called "chubbing".[1] The U.S. House of Representatives does not allow any filibusters or equivalents.

Under the rules of the U.S. Senate, one senator can delay a vote by talking for hours and hours, and 41 senators (less than a majority) can defeat a bill[2] or nominee by simply voting against cloture to end debate. Filibusters do not occur in the House of Representatives because its rules do not allow it.

In general parliamentary procedure, a filibuster is any tactic to delay and avoid a substantive vote by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions.[3]

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

In practice 19th century filibusters were successful only at the end of a session, when the clock was ticking. The Senate thereby refused to vote on the Wilmot Proviso regarding slavery in 1846.

In 1917 a bipartisan group of liberal isolationists led by Senator Robert LaFollette filibustered a bill to arm American merchant ships that were being attacked by German submarines; war had not been declared and the opponents thought big business was promoting a war with Germany. The filibuster stopped the legislation, but President Woodrow Wilson used his war powers to arm the ships anyway.[4]

In 1941, on the eve of World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in an effort to integrate minority groups into the war effort, issued an executive order, with no vote in Congress, that created the Fair Employment Practices Committee (FEPC), and enlarged its responsibilities in 1943. It required companies with federal contracts to not discriminate against employees on the base of race, religion or ethnicity. However, only congressional action could extend its life beyond the war years. Senator Dennis Chavez of New Mexico introduced a bill to establish a permanent FEPC in 1945 which set off a national controversy over how much control the federal government should have in employment practices. Southern Democrats viewed the bill as a step toward social equality of the races. Leading the opposition was Senator Theodore G. Bilbo of Mississippi who vowed he would beat the 'damnable, unAmerican and unconstitutional' FEPC to death. The bill was withdrawn from consideration after a 24-day filibuster.[5]

After 1917 the most famous filibusters were undertaken by Southern Democrats to block civil rights legislation. The record for the longest filibuster is held by Senator Strom Thurmond, who filibustered against the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for 24 hours, 18 minutes.[6]

The right of unlimited debate in the Senate was rejected by the Founding Fathers. The Continental Congress adopted Rule 10. It followed the practice of the British Parliament and precedent allowed a simple majority to cut off debate by a motion for "the previous question." This rule was included in sections 8 and 9 of the rules adopted by the first Senate in 1789, was included in Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice, and was part of the Senate's rules until it was removed in 1806. The change in 1806 allowed unlimited debate.

The fundamental issue to those who defend the right to filibuster has been the protection of minority rights. The desire to weaken presidential influence over the upper chamber, not free speech, was instrumental in the decisions of 1826 and 1828 that gave the Senate the ultimate authority to discipline its members. The defeat of the 1856 amendment requiring a Senator to confine himself to the question under debate marked the beginning of over a century of unrestricted debate. The defense of lengthy debate by John C. Calhoun was a matter of senatorial courtesy, but for his successors it became an inalienable, abstract right.[7]

Before 1917 there was no provision for cloture, or shutting off debate. In response to the successful filibuster of a bill to arm American merchant ships, the Senate adopted the two-thirds rule for cloture putting a halt to debate on an issue.

Originally, two-thirds of the senators actually present would be required for cloture. This meant that all senators had to remain present in the chambers, in case a cloture vote was called. This led to situations where senators would stay all night in the chambers, sleeping on cots placed in the lobby. This type of filibuster was dramatically depicted in the Frank Capra film, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" (1939), starring Jimmy Stewart as the brave lone hero who filibusters an evil bill.

In 1975 Rule 22 was adopted that reduced the number for cloture to 60 (while leaving the two-thirds rule when the Senate rules themselves are at issue.) The effect is that almost all major legislation needs 60 votes to pass the Senate. One exception comes in "reconciliation" bills that deal with the budget. Another is the use of fast track" legislation, as with the North American Free Trade Agreement.

In May 2005, Republican leaders proposed what was called the "nuclear option" whereby filibusters would not be allowed on judicial nominations. Democrats threatened to disrupt all proceedings on all issues if that happened. Senator John McCain led a bipartisan "Gang of 14" which established a compromise that preserved the ability of senators to filibuster judicial nominees, but only in "extraordinary circumstances".

The January 2010 election of Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown is expected to change the filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate. However, it is not clear how soon after the election the term of incumbent Democrat Paul Kirk - in Ted Kennedy's old seat - will expire. Chances are Democrats will stall, to gain partisan advantage in the upcoming vote over the "Obamacare" bill (see also national health insurance).

DeNardis, Lawrence Joseph. "The New Senate Filibuster: An Analysis of Filibustering and Gridlock in the U.S. Senate, 1977-1986" PhD dissertation, New York U. 1990 50(9): 3042-A. DA9004195 350p. Kearny, Edward N., and Heineman, Robert A. "The Senate Filibuster: a Constitutional Critique." Perspectives on Political Science, 1997 Vol. 26, Issue 1, online at EBSCO Wawro, Gregory J., and Eric Schickler. Filibuster: Obstruction and Lawmaking in the US Senate, (2006) 366pp excerpt and text search ? http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/texas-house-of-representatives/texplainer-what-is-chubbing/? Budget Reconciliation bills cannot be filibustered.? [1] US Senate Reference? Thomas W. Ryley, A Little Group of Willful Men: A Study of Congressional-Presidential Authority, (1975) ? Robert J. Bailey, "Theodore G. Bilbo and the Fair Employment Practices Controversy: a Southern Senator's Reactions to a Changing World." Journal of Mississippi History 1980 42(1): 27-42 ? http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm? Richard R. Beeman, "Unlimited Debate in the Senate: the First Phase," Political Science Quarterly 1968 83(3): 419-434

View the original article here

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

(Difference between revisions):Actually the first mention of clouds having silver linings is in ''"Comus"'', a [[Masque]] by [[John Milton]], first performed in 1632.  A young lady, lost and alone in a forest with night approaching is encouraged by the phenomenon::Actually the first mention of clouds having silver linings is in ''"Comus"'', a [[Masque]] by [[John Milton]], first performed in 1632.  A young lady, lost and alone in a forest with night approaching is encouraged by the phenomenon::''Was I deceived, or did a sable cloud''  :''Was I deceived, or did a sable cloud''  :''Turn forth her sable lining on the night?'':''Turn forth her silver lining on the night?'':''I did not err; there does a sable cloud'':''I did not err; there does a sable cloud'':''Turn forth her sable lining on the night''  :''Turn forth her silver lining on the night''  :''And cast a gleam over this tufted grove''.:''And cast a gleam over this tufted grove''.[[Dickens]] played on the allusion in ''"Bleak House"'' in 1852 and the 1871 reference was, I assume, by Samuel Smiles. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 03:47, 27 June 2013 (EDT)[[Dickens]] played on the allusion in ''"Bleak House"'' in 1852 and the 1871 reference was, I assume, by Samuel Smiles. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 03:47, 27 June 2013 (EDT)

Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3

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

What about "ethnocentrism" (1905-1910) and "multiculturalism" (1960-1965)? --Benp 09:34, 16 January 2011 (EST)

Superb suggestions. Please add as you think best!--Andy Schlafly 09:37, 16 January 2011 (EST)

Even though liberal dictionaries added this word, Palin admitted it was an error on her part. If it stays then we must add Corpse men for lib terms.--Jpatt 13:01, 23 January 2011 (EST)

Not necessarily--no dictionaries made "corpse man" a word of the year. Moreover, the word seems to be getting some leverage and use on its own terms. Martyp 14:43, 23 January 2011 (EST) Perhaps time will tell. The term "Big Bang" was born of mockery also.--Andy Schlafly 15:15, 23 January 2011 (EST) Andy, could that explain the perceived scarcity of conservative words dating from the 21st century? Because I think the notion that a word can "mature" to be conservative is a fascinating and powerful insight. BradB 23:10, 4 February 2011 (EST)

I have doubts that charisma, despite its etymology, is a conservative term. It seems to elevate style over substance -- a definite liberal trait. Nowhere does the Bible refer to Jesus as having charisma.

I suspect the original meaning of charisma was for religious charisma.--Andy Schlafly 18:59, 4 February 2011 (EST)

I would suggest, (if we do indeed, keep it), to change the phrasing to something more on the order of: literally "a gift from God", charisma is the quality of a person imbued by God to leadership, often found in conservative public figures. This nixes the "magic" from the sentence since as wonderful as a gift from God is, it isn't "magic". DevonJ 20:20, 4 February 2011 (EST) Andy, that's a good point. I prefer to think of charisma as the style of substance, but that's definitely not the case for everyone (especially liberals). While the etymology is undoubtedly conservative, perhaps "difficult to classify" may be a better resting place for charisma. Devon, either way, definitely an improvement on your part, thanks. BradB 22:21, 4 February 2011 (EST)

Hi, I have added 4 new words: deference (1660), idealist (1701), god-fearing (1835) & Rogue state (1993). If everyone accepts these, they will fill out the doubling pattern for those centuries. Shall I change the numbers in the summary at the top of the page?

I have also added 'liberal creep' (2008). CharlieJ 01:08, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

All your additions look superb except "deference," which I'm not sure is conservative. Please do update the counts the top (I already did increment the 1800s count for "God-fearing").--Andy Schlafly 02:05, 14 March 2011 (EDT) I added 'deference' because CP has 'giving those in authority due respect' listed as a Conservative Value. I will tweak the definition a bit to emphasis the necessary legitimacy of the superior. Thanks for the positive feedback. CharlieJ 02:21, 14 March 2011 (EDT) But look at the remainder of the chat quote: "giving those in authority due respect, but not to the point of accepting orders or assertions that are contrary to logic or morality."--Andy Schlafly 02:34, 14 March 2011 (EDT) Let's continue this discussion later Monday morning. Thanks and Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly 02:40, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

Hi again. Firstly, let me tell you that I am an Aussie and my timezone is GMT+10. This makes me 12-15 hours ahead of you. Our conversations may be a bit disjointed because of this. Right now it is my bedtime, so I will post this comment & then go, leaving it for your consideration. (Editing has been switched off for a while, is that correct? I realise that you do this most nights. I didn't expect it to be on again tonight.)

To return to 'deference': to me the word embodies respect and consideration which I would regard as being conservative values, but not necessarily 'giving in'. However, I do not have the right American nuances to interpret this as you do and will not push this strongly and am happy to remove it from the list.

I have a couple of alternatives for consideration:

atheistic (1625-35) An adjective pertaining to or characteristic of atheists or atheism; containing, suggesting, or disseminating atheism.

secularize (1611) To make secular; to transfer from ecclesiastical to civil or lay use, possession, or control

To me, these are useful words for conservatives. They do not describe conservatives. My reading of the list suggests that useful words are acceptable eg alarmist. Anyway, goodnight for now, catch up with you tomorrow. CharlieJ 08:32, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

"atheistic" is good. Let's go with that. I didn't see why "patriarchy" was conservative, so I removed that.--Andy Schlafly 21:04, 18 March 2011 (EDT) No worries. I'll add 'atheistic'. CharlieJ 22:36, 18 March 2011 (EDT)

I'm not sure how conservative this word is. There's no reasoning given for its inclusion, apart from the fact that Bojangles Robinson supposedly created it (and even that is extremely weak evidence and I'm not sure what it adds. I'm going to remove it from the list if no one raises any opposition. DennyW66 22:37, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

"Copacetic" is the very satisfactory result of conservative values. It is associated with good and honest living. I do object to removal of this conservative term.--Andy Schlafly 00:32, 20 March 2011 (EDT)

Andy, I saw your addition "silent majority" and it made me immediately think of "Moral Majority". This page credits it to Jerry Falwell in 1979. Although in it's strictest sense it describes a movement it is still has greater symbolism. Thanks, MaxFletcher 20:30, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

Great suggestion. Please included it ... and increment the total near the beginning for the 1900s.--Andy Schlafly 21:04, 21 March 2011 (EDT) Done! MaxFletcher 21:22, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

Maybe it's just my public school education at work, but I fail to see how obambulate is conservative. Apart from its obvious similarities with "Obama", it simply means "to walk around". I know that Obama has been bumbling and whatnot, but it's an innocuous word that is being assigned a special significance due to coincidence. I'm not sure it belongs on this list. DennyW66 22:05, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

It is probably as a result of it being mentioned on Rush Limbaugh's show and the liberal reactions to it during the past week. Karajou 23:08, 27 March 2011 (EDT) What was the reaction? MaxFletcher 23:14, 27 March 2011 (EDT) Denny, your comment is a valid one, but the modern usage of the term "obambulate" is to criticize the directionless wandering characteristic of liberal leadership. None of the terms in the list should be viewed in a vacuum independent of their usage. Hey, my response used another candidate: "directionless". Trying to find its date of origin next ....--Andy Schlafly 23:35, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

Sorry if I get the etiquette wrong, first time commenting. I was just wondering if there was a source for Agitprop? I always understood it to be derived from Soviet Russian institutions, so would be quite keen to see the conservative routes of it. Everything I have tried so far has turned up the term as being derived from Russian e.g. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=agitprop&searchmode=none , and I would be surprised if the internal machinations of the USSR would come up with something conservative, so would be keen to find out the alternative you uncovered"JTlpdl 09:18, 28 March 2011 (EDT)"

Due to the success of this essay, it's really slow, so can I split it into pages by century of origin? This would allow the page to load faster and be easier to navigate. Any thoughts on the idea? BenDylan 20:09, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

I'd like to see it be broken up by century and automatically numbered. I'm not sure that breaking it up into many pages would facilitate more than inconvenience. BradB 23:55, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

I'm getting 25,48,100,201,17 as the counts. If so, this wouldn't be the first time I've seen them wrong. As I mentioned above, we should consider breaking the list up by century to help avoid counting errors. BradB 18:37, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

Could belittle be the word we are looking for to perfect the list? It was coined in 1785 by Thomas Jefferson himself, and is certainly a way to describe an action often done by liberals to protect their ideas. JoshuaL 19:34, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

Joshua, I'm inclined to agree, as Jefferson likely coined the term in response to critics trying to deceptively minimize issues he raised. BradB 02:07, 29 April 2011 (EDT) Not sure "belittle" is conservative. But how about "axiomatic"?--Andy Schlafly 02:20, 30 April 2011 (EDT)

If you're still looking for an 18th century word, 'nationalist' would fit well - it's a core conservative value, synonymous with 'patriot', the antithesis of 'internationalist', and one of the defining features of the 18th century. Jcw 16:17, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

How do we reconcile this with liberal creep? If language is becoming more conservative, why is opinion and perception becoming more liberal? Do liberals or conservatives dictate the terms of the national conversation? If someone could take a look at the two phenomena and find out what makes one move in one direction and the other in the opposite, it would make a great essay. KingHanksley 15:05, 8 May 2011 (EDT)

I've also brought this up for discussion here. Conservapedia's Law, the observation that conservative insights double over time, is clearly incomplete, perhaps even flawed. I agree that there could be a complex relationship between liberal creep and Conservapedia's Law and it is worth investigating. BradB 15:15, 8 May 2011 (EDT)

While I was drawing graphs, I wrote a quick script to generate a graph of the data in this page. This graph shows the growth in conservative terms year-by-year, rather than just per-century. The red line is the data from this page, the green line is a quadratic curve. Jcw 20:59, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

Wow, that's a spectacular graph! Can you give permission for me to include it in the entry page? The graph disproves the theory that there were bursts of new words during certain periods. I'll remove that from the entry.--Andy Schlafly 00:43, 19 June 2011 (EDT) Please do use the graph as you see fit. I can generate new graphs from the latest data with no trouble at all, so if you'd like it can be updated periodically. I'm currently trying to find a suitably analogous source of data for liberal words/ideas, which would allow comparative analysis. This kind of data is very interesting as it seems to avoid the short-term political cycles which characterize much of popular discourse, focusing on the really significant point of the growth of ideas. Jcw 08:59, 19 June 2011 (EDT) I posted the graph and your idea is marvelous. However, I don't think the graph is completely accurate: the curve for the actual data should intersect the predicted curve at each turning of the centuries.--Andy Schlafly 10:45, 19 June 2011 (EDT) Is the green curve really a fit for the data according to Aschlafly's theory? I mean, Jcw says the green line is a quadratic curve - at best it's a second approximation for the geometric curve... Personally, I find quite hard to judge the existance of bursts from a cdf. Perhaps Jcw could create a histogram - perhaps for decades? AugustO 11:30, 20 June 2011 (EDT) You both raise valid points, which hopefully will be answered soon. Andy and August both mention that the x^2 curve isn't a perfect fit - it certainly isn't, and I'm pretty sure a 2^x curve with appropriate constants will fit better; I'm planning to do that tonight. August mentions different ways of representing the data - I'll happily produce a histogram of the data if that'd be interesting, but the reason for plotting it as I have is to produce a curve that I can use for my more grandiose scheme, of which more later. My background is not so much in statistics - although I've done a fair bit of that - but in purer maths, so my thinking is mostly based around the relationships between smooth(-ish) functions. That may not be the best way to deal with these data qua data, but to extract patterns for further, more abstract work, it's ideal. Jcw 12:43, 20 June 2011 (EDT) Et voila, a better fit. This is an exponential curve fitted to the same data. Note that it fits much better in the region with the most words, but is a bit out for the earlier period where there are fewer words in the list. This is because we can more easily find suitable words from more recent periods, so naturally the pattern is most exact there. No doubt if we could go through a large, representative corpus and extract words uniformly, it would fit nicely all the way along. Jcw 16:25, 20 June 2011 (EDT) @Aschlafly: Could you recount the words? My count gave me 26-51-103-210-18 (Sum: 408) instead of 26-52-103-208-18 (Sum: 407). Perhaps a fourth column for the century (or even better, the decade) could be added? That would make it much easier to keep track of the numbers! @Jcw: I don't think that your better fit is the function which Aschlafly has in mind: it should be , where #words is the number of words created before 2000, i.e., 390. This function touches/intersects the empirical cdf at the turn of each century, a fact which betrays the biased method of looking for these words. AugustO 11:12, 21 June 2011 (EDT) August, so you've constructed a function which you claim 'betrays the biased method of looking for these words'? I'd be interested to see a more thorough explanation of that point. Another editor has attempted a similar argument above, but without success. Jcw 15:42, 21 June 2011 (EDT) August, I have an open mind about this. I don't see how we could so easily find conservative words that double by century if the underlying pattern were not there. But please explain if you think that is in error.--Andy Schlafly 22:27, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

I hope we can agree on the function Ftheo - it should be uncontroversial:

one layer exists from 1 - 2 - 4 - 8 words, i.e., 20, 21,22 and 23 the partial sums are 1 - 3 - 7 - 15, i.e., 21-1, 22-1, 23-1, and 24-1 so, with the turn of the n-th century, there should be 2n+1-1 words for K layers, the number is K * (2n+1-1). Each layer has 15 words, thus, if there are N feasible words, the number of layers is N/15 now adjust for years instead of centuries, and don't start with the first, but with the 17th, and you get the formula .

@jcw: Another editor has attempted a similar argument above, but without success. I read the sections above, and I was convinced by the argument.

@Aschlafly: I don't see how we could so easily find conservative words that double by century if the underlying pattern were not there. The effects of the miscount (Talk:Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words#PERFECTION: 20-40-80-160 BY CENTURY) have shown that you are able to match any pattern you were looking for.

AugustO 12:11, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

August's contrary theory aside, here's an interesting consequence of this trend: this graph shows the curve from above in green, an hypothetical linear growth of liberalism ([liberal creep], in blue) and the effect of the latter on the former (in red). Note how the red line - the net effect of liberal and conservative ideas - falls for a while, reaching a minimum in the twentieth century before shooting up. This is because the exponential growth of conservatism is slower at first that the linear growth of liberalism, but gets very much faster later on, easily overtaking the linear function and increasing to infinity. Obviously the liberalism line is hypothetical, but it's interesting nonetheless. Jcw 12:41, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

That's remarkably insightful. In other words, the combination of linear liberal creep and the geometric growth rate of Best New Conservative Words results in a liberal trend for a while (until the Great Depression), and then a rapidly increasing conservative trend thereafter.--Andy Schlafly 13:16, 24 June 2011 (EDT) Exactly. The precise shape of the final curve depends on the values assumed for the liberal creep line, but any reasonable values give a final curve with much the same shape. It agrees rather remarkably with the observed facts, especially as nothing in the calculations refers to historical events at all. Purely linguistic inputs produce an undeniably historical result, demonstrating the power of language very clearly. As ever, feel free to use the graph however you please. Jcw 13:48, 24 June 2011 (EDT) I am skeptical that the complexities of human society and political philosophies can be summed up simply as an exponential function minus a linear function. What evidence is there that this liberal creep is linear? How is that even quantified? Does this hypothesis make any specific predictions, in order to make it falsifiable and thus scientific? --MatthewQ 02:09, 25 June 2011 (EDT) Good questions. I'll consider them (as others probably will also) and reply after some thought.--Andy Schlafly 02:15, 25 June 2011 (EDT) Good questions indeed. The immediate answer is 'no': of course all the complexities of human society can't be summed up as simply as this. Quantifying complex abstract phenomena is a very rough business, most especially on a short timescale. The goal of my graphs isn't to present concrete mathematical laws, or anything like them, but just to illustrate a conceptual relationship using mathematics. To answer your specific questions: * 'how is that even quantified?': Crudely and by guesswork, like many first attempts in all sciences, especially those relating to human activity. The crude guess is justified by the answer to: * 'Does this hypothesis make any specific predictions...': In one way, the hypothesis is supported by the same kind of evidence as is used to defend evolution - the hypothesis I've produced now gives results which agree with events in the past. As we all agree, that's not the best kind of evidence, but in this case it's rather compelling. Secondly, it does make concrete predictions - indeed, it makes an inescapable prediction which can't be fudged or avoided - the 'conservatism' curve increases very rapidly to infinity, rather than going up and down or settling into a steady state. This suggests a discontinuity in the future, where the level of conservatism rises to something quite outside our experience. I'm not sure what that would look like, but I think we'd recognize it if we saw it. Jcw 20:49, 25 June 2011 (EDT) In furtherance of Jcw's remarks, it is perhaps easier to study the development of language and politics, which are closely related to each other, than it is to study and predict ... the weather. Nobody had a problem with Al Gore trying to predict the weather, so why object when a simpler task is undertaken?--Andy Schlafly 00:01, 26 June 2011 (EDT) @Jcw How specifically does your graph "agree with events in the past"? Also, the claim that "the level of conservatism rises to something quite outside our experience" is not a specific prediction. I'm not even sure what that means. Finally, in your graph what does the y-axis represent? Words? Aschlafly above links the exponential function to the growth of conservative terms. If so, why is liberal creep linear? Is there any empirical or theoretical reason to believe this? Looking at liberal terms by century it seems like liberal terms are also growing exponentially, even though the article claims they don't grow "geometrically" and are "heavily influenced by culture". In any case, it doesn't look linear. Wouldn't the diminishing intelligence of humans mean liberal terms would be growing quickly? @Aschlafly Weather and climate are distinct things. I don't think anyone believes Al Gore is a climate scientist qualified to make scientific predictions, only a spokesman. Many people do have a problem with him and the whole idea of climate change. Also, human beings are extremely complicated and it isn't obvious to me that accurately predicting and quantifying the political philosophy of a complex society is much simpler than either meteorology or climatology. Even if the development of politics and language are closely related (I'm not sure they are), why would studying them be necessarily be a simpler task than studying climates?--MatthewQ 01:39, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

(unindent)Matthew: now you're asking questions that have already been answered or are clear from the context. I note that your edits on this site are almost exclusively to talk pages; may we assume that you are here simply to argue rather than to contribute? Jcw 08:44, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

The interesting question is, what would an (effectively) infinite level of conservatism look like? I'm afraid I don't know enough about the US to answer that: over here 'conservatism' looks a great deal like US liberalism... Jcw 12:32, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

One characteristic of infinite conservatism might be when it is impossible to notice a difference in the level of service and attitude between government and a perfectly competitive industry.--Andy Schlafly 14:18, 26 June 2011 (EDT) In a perfectly conservative society, would there be any need for government as we now know it? I suppose there are limits to how conservative a society can be in a fallen world... Jcw 14:52, 26 June 2011 (EDT) Conservatives aren't libertarians or anarchists, so a limited government would exist ....--Andy Schlafly 16:48, 26 June 2011 (EDT) I'm sorry, I still don't understand what 'infinite conservatism' means. Perhaps an article detailing how conservatism can be quantified and what happens in the limit as it approaches infinity would help. --MatthewQ 21:32, 26 June 2011 (EDT) That's an interesting idea, Matthew. I think that in the US conservatism is closely correlated with Evangelical Christianity, which is not at all the case here in the UK, where our conservatives are more likely to belong to the Church of England - a decidedly liberal institution by US standards. Andy's suggestion above is concise, but if you think about it it's a very acute description of a hypothetical perfectly conservative government. I shudder to think what a perfectly liberal government would be like. Jcw 16:33, 27 June 2011 (EDT) Jcw, your description of US conservatism compared with the UK is interesting, and I've thought about it. While certainly there are more evangelicals here than there, not all are conservative. Moreover, the cause-and-effect is less than clear: does the conservative nature of America allow evangelicalism to develop more fully than in a liberal nation? If so, there still remains an underlying mystery of why America is more conservative than the UK.--Andy Schlafly 17:41, 28 June 2011 (EDT) Yes, a very interesting question. Our two nations have a great deal of shared history, but today are vastly different in fundamental ways. I think the Reformation is particularly important in this context - the UK experienced it directly, while the nascent US only experienced the aftereffects; the US was never a Catholic nation in the Mediaeval sense. Another - perhaps related - aspect is the persistence of monarchy in the UK compared to its outright rejection by the US. There's a lot to be said on this topic, so I'll begin an essay with some of my thoughts and see how it compares with a US view. Jcw 18:39, 28 June 2011 (EDT) Please do start an essay on this, hopefully here so that I can contribute to it too! Religious differences between the US and the UK are surely part of the explanation for the political differences, but I think there is more to it than that. Federalism, for example, prevents liberals from gaining control over the US, while that protection does not exist in the UK. I will say this: the UK media is much more free with respect to American politics than the American press is!--Andy Schlafly 19:13, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

@Jcw: What are the parameters of your interpolating function? And how did you calculate them? Could you also display:

And why not use these paramaters - they are the direct result of applying Aschlafly's rule of doubling-by-century...

AugustO 09:08, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

August, if you'd like to do those calculations, please feel free - the data isn't kept secret, it's right there on the page. If you'd like to see another presentation of it, go ahead. I'm very happy to explain things - and to justify my choices! - to well-meaning editors with genuine questions, but you seem to be on the wrong side of every argument around here, as if you're deliberately disagreeing for the sake of it. The amount of time and attention you're willing to give to criticizing other people's ideas is remarkable. Jcw 10:35, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

Well put, Jcw. Actually, the entries begin with the year 1612, after the publication of the KJV and the completion of nearly all of Shakespeare's works. So August's date in his exponent appears wrong, but your graph is correct in show an intersection with the x-axis over a decade after 1600.--Andy Schlafly 17:45, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

@Jcw: August, if you'd like to do those calculations, please feel free - the data isn't kept secret, it's right there on the page. I can't reproduce your calculations as there is not enough data: You say that it is a fit, but you don't explain how you fitted it:

How did you treat words like atheistic (1625-1635), deadweight loss (1930s) and design by committee (before 1958) Which kind of fit did you use? For me, Maximum-Likelihood would be an obvious choice. Which family of functions did you look at? Obviously a*2^x. Why not a*2^x+b? Did you use any weights? Which ones (or why not)?

All these choices result in different interpolating functions. So, which choices did you make and what was your result?

If you'd like to see another presentation of it, go ahead. I'm very happy to explain things - and to justify my choices! - to well-meaning editors with genuine questions Obviously I won't promise not to criticize your choices. Does this make me a not-well-meaning editor?

You seem to be on the wrong side of every argument around here I seem to be constantly on the other side than you are. Doesn't make my side always wrong!

@Aschlafly: Well put, Jcw. Do you condone the policy to share data only with those who you expect not to criticize it? When reading Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog and its talk page, I got quite another impression!

So August's date in his exponent appears wrong, but your graph is correct in show an intersection with the x-axis over a decade after 1600 Jcw's graph (the green line!) doesn't intersect the x-axis at ~1610. I doubt that it intersects the x-axis at all! The red line shows the empirical data, so of course it begins at 1612 with the first word found - though obambulate (1600) is the oldest word in the table, and seems to be always counted in the perfect counts. OTOH, the graph which I proposed intersects the x-axis at the turn of the 16th century, and crosses the empirical curve at the turn of each century (whether you shift the function by 1599 or 1600 is just a matter of taste...).

How about 'Americanadians'? I've observed many good Americans being influenced by the blatant propaganda of our socialist neighbors, and starting to espouse their flawed line of thought. What do others think? Let me know.

I suggest "claptrap." I'm surprised it's not on the list already. --AndyJ 00:20, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

Superb suggestion! I'll add it now.--Andy Schlafly 00:45, 21 June 2011 (EDT) It was already on the list. I added an 1800s term instead.--Andy Schlafly 01:10, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

Perhaps I simply fail to understand the context you provided, but is free speech really a "conservative word?" Terms like "political correctness" and "obamacare" are undeniably conservative (to the point where liberals won't use them), but free speech is at best non-partisan, and at worst (I am attempting to write from a conservative viewpoint- I may fail miserably at this) a term co-opted by liberals to justify their perversions and excesses. --CamilleT 01:20, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

You raise a valid point. But isn't it the conservatives who protect, for example, corporate and many other types of expenditures in elections as "free speech"?--Andy Schlafly 01:28, 21 June 2011 (EDT) Indeed, you are correct. But I think it's fair to say now that it is a word used by conservatives as well as liberals to represent their agendas. I do not know how this factors into this particular list--CamilleT 02:13, 21 June 2011 (EDT) I'll continue to think about your valid criticism. Maybe I can search Supreme Court opinions and see who is using the term "free speech" most. I don't think liberals are using it as much as conservatives are today.--Andy Schlafly 22:30, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

I added a column for the decades (rather than for the centuries). I hope this will help to keep the count of the words up-to-date.

AugustO 09:05, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

I'm not sure how that will help - surely the decade is already contained in the 'year' column? If you'd like a more accurate count, I suggest doing what I do - use a perl script to parse the wikitext and print out whatever information you want. To me the decade column looks annoyingly redundant, but perhaps I've missed something... Jcw 10:27, 28 June 2011 (EDT) I wanted to facilitate the count: as some of the dates are not purely numeric (1950s, before 1958, 1625-1635), it's hard to sort the table by the column date. If there is a purely numeric column, the table can be easily copied into a spreadsheet and recounted even by those who don't know anything about regular expressions. If you have a script, please use it to keep an eye on the count: I'm surprised that you didn't spot the miscount earlier on. I'll add the column for the decades again, this time at the last place. This should be more pleasing... AugustO 12:07, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

I don't know how to upload a picture, so here is an ascii-graphic for the distribution by decades:

1600: * 1610: **** 1620: ***** 1630: * 1640: ****** 1650: **** 1660: ** 1670: 1680: ** 1690: * 1700: * 1710: *** 1720: ***** 1730: **** 1740: **** 1750: ***** 1760: ****** 1770: ****** 1780: ******** 1790: ********* 1800: ******** 1810: ********* 1820: *************** 1830: *************** 1840: ********* 1850: ********** 1860: ********** 1870: ******* 1880: ************ 1890: ********** 1900: *********************** 1910: *********************** 1920: ********************** 1930: ******************* 1940: *************************** 1950: ************************** 1960: ************************* 1970: **************** 1980: ********************** 1990: ****** 2000: *************** 2010: ***

1820/1830,1900/1910, and 1940/1950 seem to be decades in which significantly more conservative terms were created than one would have expected... AugustO 12:15, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

Eurabia - what Europe will become if people don't stand up for themselves.

Islamofascism - repressive muslim shariah regimes/totalitarian islamism.

MeganH 01:01, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

Go ahead and add if you have some dates of origin, even if only approximate. I hadn't heard of the first one ("Eurabia") before.--Andy Schlafly 01:04, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

Was 'dumping diving' added because food is not going to waste, or am I misunderstanding why it's conservative? --MatthewQ 09:54, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

I'll take a stab at it. Conservative words can describe liberal actions. I am not saying dumpster divers are liberal, those poor folks maybe hungry. Dumpster Diving is not limited to food. It's also a method to get trade secrets from companies or dig up dirt against somebody. Most likely, Dumpster Diving is used for deceitful purposes for example gaining a social security number from discarded bills used for the creation of fraudulent IDs. --Jpatt 13:06, 15 July 2011 (EDT) Great points. This is a list of conservative terms, often insightful, about activities that may be conservative or liberal, harmful or helpful, or none of the above. Evidently this term was developed by small businessmen to describe an unhelpful activity outside their restaurants and other stores. Dumpster diving may sometimes be the equivalent of recycling or getting a hungry person some food, but in any event the term is a perfect description of the activity. And once there is a good term for something, then the activity can be understood and addressed better.--Andy Schlafly 15:39, 15 July 2011 (EDT) Good analysis. But is dumpster diving a conservative act? --GeorgeZ 15:53, 15 July 2011 (EDT) Read Andy's post. He specifically says that that does not matter. It was created by conservatives. Therefore it is a conservative word. NickP 16:12, 15 July 2011 (EDT) Right that it does not matter whether it is a conservative act. In the case of dumpster diving, whether it is ever conservative depends on what the purpose and effect are. It also doesn't matter if a conservative coined it; a liberal can sing a conservative song. The point is whether the insight is conservative. In this case, small businessmen (a conservative line of work) coined the term to criticize how homeless people were digging through their trash.--Andy Schlafly 16:19, 15 July 2011 (EDT) I see Andy. Thanks for explaining. NickP 16:22, 15 July 2011 (EDT) Indeed, one might suggest that liberals have indirectly contributed to the increase in conservative terms by constantly inventing new ways to avoid work and personal responsibility. Conservatives are then, naturally, obligated to develop terms for these behaviors. --Benp 17:18, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

It's fascinating how the new Conservative words and insights do seem to grow geometrically by century, but I'm curious as to why the 2000s seem to be pretty far behind. We're 11 years in, so you'd expect there to be roughly 40 new words so far, but we've got less than half that many. With the rise of the TEA Party, I'd expect to be much closer. --FergusE 15:06, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

Excellent point. Possible reasons could include that it is too soon to recognize new words in the most recent decade ... or maybe there has been a short-term decline in conservative intellectualism? At any rate, I've been meaning to add the term "Tea Party" itself with its etymology in the last decade!--Andy Schlafly 15:12, 17 July 2011 (EDT) I have to agree with you, Andy. Even though we're in 2011 now, it might be too early to be able to fully appreciate all the new conservative words created last decade. I think "Tea Party" might just be one of the most important words to add and I think the movement itself will produce a lot of new, conservative words in its own right! BobSherman 19:58, 20 July 2011 (EDT) Very perceptive, Andy. It takes time for the gatekeepers of knowledge to acknowledge the validity of new terms; therefore, while the public production of new conservative insights and terms may be quite rapid, the assimilation of those insights and terms into formal reference works is likely to be much slower. This is, I would suggest, exacerbated by reliance on archaic forms of knowledge dissemination such as print dictionaries.

An interesting side project might be to evaluate dictionaries (both online and print) to see how rapidly they accept and incorporate new conservative words versus new liberal words. In this way, it might be possible to determine which dictionaries are reliable and which are liberally biased. --Benp 12:19, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

I tried to archive the page - at least the parts which were from last year, but I totally botched it: my browser can't handle long pages, I have difficulties with the captchas & I created the wrong page for an archive Archive 3 instead of Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words/Archive 3 (Archive 3 should be moved there...)

So I give up... RonLar 11:58, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

I archived 2010... AugustO 14:44, 30 July 2011 (EDT) Thank you - I had problems with the captchas! RonLar 15:26, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

Here's two possibilities I found in Federal debt limit, "leveraged loss" and "debt spiral", but I'm not sure how to fit them in. Rob Smith 14:01, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

Constructionist (1835-45) Inalienable (1635-45) Hubris (1880-1885) Scientism (1875-1880)

--Benp 14:11, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

As a descriptor for the trickle-down theory of economics, it dates to 1950-1955. --Benp 21:43, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

I think "trickle-down" is pejorative, and thus more a liberal term than a conservative one.--Andy Schlafly 18:47, 1 August 2011 (EDT) If trickle-down is the pejorative would the standard, conservative, phrase be "supply-side"? MaxFletcher 18:53, 1 August 2011 (EDT) Yes, it would - and "supply side" is already on the list.--Andy Schlafly 18:56, 1 August 2011 (EDT) ah, excellent. my work here is done! MaxFletcher 19:00, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

"Civil body politic" is an interesting bit of history but does not seem to have caught on as widely used term, and hence would not seem to warrant inclusion in this list. Does anyone disagree?--Andy Schlafly 09:43, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

I'm not sure that a proper name given to an award is inherently conservative-- the Medal itself reflects conservative values of course, but would do so even if had been called, say, the Award of Bravery or the Citation of Courage. "Coolant," "transistor" and "greasy spoon" are all truly conservative both in terms of content and syntax. BrentH 19:50, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

Your point is valid. Perhaps it does not fit this particular list, but I'm reluctant to delete it. Isn't there something conservative about simply recognizing "honor", and calling the medal after the concept, rather than after, say, a liberal politician?--Andy Schlafly 20:15, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

Could you please explain how alcoholism is a conservative word ? Alcoholism is more of a liberal trait.--PhilipN 21:24, 17 November 2011 (EST)

"Alcoholism" is a criticism of excessive drinking, and thus is a conservative word. Words that end in "ism" are often pejoratives, as in "alarmism" and "collectivism" (which are also on the list).--Andy Schlafly 21:41, 17 November 2011 (EST) And do you feel the same way about the word "liberalism"?--JeanB 21:49, 17 November 2011 (EST) Word that end in -ism are not always pejorative, capitalism is good. And when the words socialism or communism were invented, they were meant to be good.--PhilipN 21:53, 17 November 2011 (EST)

1882, I wanted to add this to best new conservative words as it describes a liberal policy of government giveaways. But it also could be the conservative position of helping the poor through charity. Either way it is a conservative word but the proper way to describe alludes me. Op?--Jpatt 09:28, 25 November 2011 (EST)

That would a superb addition! It would also leave the list only two 20-century words shy of another perfect doubling by century.--Andy Schlafly 10:48, 25 November 2011 (EST)

I added the term "level playing field" for two main reasons: 1) It is an intuitive metaphor used in its first recorded use to describe how markets usually work best when they are fair for all participants and free of interference. 2) The term has since been used by liberals to describe policies such as affirmative action, progressive taxation, and government handouts, but it obvious to anyone who looks at these policies objectively that they actually distort the playing field.

I believe that is enough for the term to stand on its own merits, but it looks even more conservative if we compare it to other words on the list such as "motivation," "quantify," or "coolant."

Maybe I have overlooked something and the word does not belong on the list. Comments are welcome. --AaronT 21:03, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

As you point out, the term is often used by liberals, so that makes it a doubtful candidate for "best" new conservative words. The term seems to imply that government is needed to level the playing field. Level playing fields rarely occur in nature, for example. The term almost sounds like the famous "life's not fair" expression ... which is not conservative either. "Motivation" is a far more conservative term - one can find motivation whether the playing field islevel or not. "Quantify" is logic, which is an essential difference between conservative and liberal approaches. "Coolant" is an essential part of nuclear energy -- which liberals loathe.--Andy Schlafly 21:51, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

This entry is an abbreviation for ante meridiem, which originates from 1563 [1]. I'm not clear on whether the abbreviation is being claimed as a new conservative word or the phrase for which it stands. Additionally, it is unclear where the given date of origin in the article of 1762 comes from. GregG 23:43, 11 June 2012 (EDT)

The online etymology dictionary gives a date of 1762. Perhaps it's referring to common usage. While you're right that the "A" in A.M. is from a Latin word that is different from the "A" in A.D., the popularity of "A.D." could have led to the popularity of "A.M."--Andy Schlafly 00:37, 12 June 2012 (EDT) Just seen this catch my attention on the mainpage. I highly doubt that the two could be related in any conservative sense. Of course "AD" refers to "In the year of our lord". But back in the 18th century, Latin was still being routinely taught in schools (especially in Britain), bring us many other Latin abbreviations, such as eg, etc, ie, RIP (from 'requiescat in pace', and later backronymed into 'rest in peace'). I highly doubt the link between any apparent 'popularity' of AD spurred the formation of AM, and personally I'd remove it. HumanGeographer 15:57, 12 June 2012 (EDT) But what percentage of the overall British population learned Latin in school in the 1700s? Perhaps only 10%? Most Latin appreviations did not catch on with the general population the way that "A.M." did. The most plausible explanation is its proximity to "A.D."--Andy Schlafly 18:19, 12 June 2012 (EDT) Nonetheless etymological creation power lies not with those who use the language the most. One must remember that our records of language from the 1700s (both Britain and America) are not vernacular English of the working classes but written English of those who were educated. This was before widespread adoption of clocks and timepieces, which came later with the industrial revolution and the railways. Again, I highly disagree that likeness to AM would be a significant contributor. Those that would have used the world in our written records would have been educated in Latin, and would therefore be aware of the etymological roots of both AM and AD. Since the A stands for anno and ante respectively, there is no etymological proximity at all between the two. HumanGeographer 18:35, 12 June 2012 (EDT) But "A.D." did gain widespread currency with the masses, and then "A.M." became popular in a similar manner. Many other Latin abbreviations, like "Q.E.D.", did not follow in their footsteps.--Andy Schlafly 18:54, 12 June 2012 (EDT) You mean, the masses had a choice whether to use "A.M" or something else? It wasn't determined by the use of that convention by those few who created, say, railroad timetables or other documents? Incidentally, do we know what that date of "1762" refers to? Refering to some "online etymology dictionary" seems a bit like relying on hearsay. --FrederickT3 02:44, 13 June 2012 (EDT) I still maintain that Mr Schlafly is assuming correlation from causation. While of course nowadays we might view AD in a more conservative light since the introduction (especially amongst the humanities communities) of CE, then back in the case it certainly wasn't the case and due to the pervasiveness of the Christian terms I highly doubt that its religious connotations had any contributing factor over its use as a year marker. If it's another conservative word that's being looked for, I can have a think over the next few days for an alternative word that might not be as debatable. HumanGeographer 17:27, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

It really is amazing that the pattern of perfect doubling by century is so strong that almost every "layer" is complete before the next layer starts, even though words are added to the list pretty much randomly whenever a user thinks of one. --AndreaM 17:47, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

Great discoveries are rarely random. In this case, it would not be possible to discover such a perfect geometric fit unless the underlying pattern existed.--Andy Schlafly 18:12, 12 June 2012 (EDT) I don't actually believe in this theory, but I think it's interesting nonetheless to think about the etymologies of such words and why we might consider them conservative or not. Thus this essay has potential for insights, whether or not one believes in the underlying theory. HumanGeographer 17:33, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

As you can see, Andy Schlafly is actively trying to make it a perfect doubling by century. DavidCalman

It would be impossible to discover such a perfect doubling of conservative words by century unless it existed. If someone discovered oil, would anyone say, "well, that's no big deal, because you looked for it there!"--Andy Schlafly 23:00, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

I'm not sure where your date of 1991 is coming from. I know that the Kitzmiller trial uncovered a 1987 draft of Of Pandas and People that used intelligent design in the origins context:

Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.

GregG 00:39, 16 June 2012 (EDT)

In a liberal society, true team work is impossible because nothing bets done without an overarching authority to control and monitor and meddle in activity. The ideas of equals respecting each other and working for the good of the country is a conservative value, and I think that teamwork should be made a Conservative Word. What do you think? JeffBron 15:15, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

In political usage, "teamwork" implies abandoning principles. It does not have a positive political connotation for conservatives.--Andy Schlafly 16:23, 30 August 2012 (EDT)

According to Merriam-Webster the first known use of this word is from 1854: [2]. Richman 15:49, 30 August 2012 (EDT)

And Doubting Thomas is at least from as early as 1848: [3]. These are just two words I checked. Which begs the question how accurate the other origin dates are. Richman 16:06, 30 August 2012 (EDT)

Merriam-Webster (10th Edition, hardbound) says that "anticompetitive" dates from only 1952. It also says that "Doubting Thomas" is from 1883. But I'll change the dates based on your citations. It's not surprising that there are some minor disputes about when the first use of a word occurred. But the disputes are not substantial enough to alter the overall trend of doubling by century. In fact, these changes may conform the data more closely to the geometric growth rate.--Andy Schlafly 16:19, 30 August 2012 (EDT) Superb remark! In the meantime, I have had a closer look at the list. Most of the terms don't seem inherently conservative to me. For instance, do you really think illiteracy is a conservative word of the highest quality just because "liberals seek to produce illiterate voters who lack independence, and many graduates of the public schools are illiterate today"? With explanations like that, any word can be labeled conservative or liberal. As to the geometric growth rate, have you considered that the total number of words in the English language shows a similar growth rate? Richman 11:40, 2 September 2012 (EDT)

Hi. I'm having some difficulty with this argument:

Conservative terms, expressing conservative insights, originate at a faster rate, and with much higher quality, than liberal terms. Conservative triumph over liberalism is thus inevitable.

If we're running this study from the start of the 17th century, then that's 400+ years in which conservatism has been growing steadily stronger due to outperforming liberalism in the generation of high quality terms and insights.

With that in mind, I can't find any good explanation why conservatism hasn't yet triumphed, unless we wish to argue that the world was an exceptionally liberal place prior to 1600.

Apologies if I've overlooked some other obvious implicit premise.

--JohanZ 18:16, 30 August 2012 (EDT)

Conservatism has triumphed on many, many issues. But just as food production has triumphed and far surpassed the demand for food consumption, some pockets of starvation still exist, and thus the triumph of conservatism does not mean that all pockets of liberalism have vanished.--Andy Schlafly 18:31, 30 August 2012 (EDT) Is it possible to quantify (roughly) where we started c.1600 and where we're at now, then, in terms of conservatism v. liberalism? Taking a 10 point scale of 1 (untrammelled liberalism) to 10 (complete triumph of conservatism), what approximate values would you ascribe to 1600 and 2012? I don't suggest adding them to the essay as such; more as a guide for setting the theory in its proper historical context. Thanks, --JohanZ 19:03, 30 August 2012 (EDT) Perhaps society's conservatism was only "2" in 1600, and today it is "7". Perhaps a logarithmic scale (as with earthquakes) would be better than a linear scale. In 1600, the wealthiest person lacked a standard of living that many poor Americans enjoy today. Moreover, today there is immense opportunity for upward mobility in America, which did not exist in 1600.--Andy Schlafly 20:36, 30 August 2012 (EDT)

I just have a question about the page that isn't clear to me- is this stating that these conservative words were created by conservatives on the origin date and then the meaning OR that these words were appropriated on those origin dates and the example of meaning is how it was adopted and used?

Could be either. It's the meaning and term that are conservative, not necessarily the person who uses it. Conservative words and insights are available to help everyone.--Andy Schlafly 18:34, 25 November 2012 (EST)

I'm surprised you didn't approve of this word Andy, as it's a conservative-leaning way of describing learning in that it places importance on literature and other forms of classical art. WilcoxD 21:34, 28 November 2012 (EST)

Conservative is not synonymous with traditional. Conservative is more forward-looking, although it respects concepts that are time-tested (a word recently added to the list).--Andy Schlafly 23:22, 28 November 2012 (EST)

Andy, I added this one when I discovered that it was a word created by conservatives. Seems like a good reason for it being on the list, however please let me know if you think otherwise. WilcoxD 23:24, 28 November 2012 (EST)

Not sure whether to add this one. I know there's been discussions about zero with respect to biblical scientific foreknowledge ... should it be included? WilcoxD 23:27, 28 November 2012 (EST) PS. Sorry for all the edits - just getting into this list ;)

I don't see why zero would be a particularly conservative word. This is not a list of any words.--Andy Schlafly 23:46, 28 November 2012 (EST)

Andy, could you please explain the characteristics which distinguish "addictive", "aerobics", "ambulance chaser", "axiomatic" and so on and so forth as less run-of-the-mill and of a higher standard than the word "pertinence"? In my opinion "pertinence" is a very good word, alluding to logic and insight - both of which appear as conservative values in the Conservatism template. Perhaps I can be a more constructive contributer if this is clear WilcoxD 23:41, 28 November 2012 (EST)

Again I'm unclear as to how one is more or less conservative than the other, and also why the youngest word takes precedence in the list over the older one. WilcoxD 20:55, 29 November 2012 (EST)

Andy, would it be safe to say that, in this entire list, there is only room for one more word and that word must be from the 1700s? I feel like I'm wasting my time making what I consider to be constructive contributions (which are arguably of higher quality than many, many other entries) to this "Best Conservative Words" project. WilcoxD 21:06, 29 November 2012 (EST)

How can there be "room" for a particular number of words from a particular time? There are as many "best conservative words" in circulation at a given time as were in circulation--the model has to fit the data; the data can't fit the model. MattyD 13:58, 30 November 2012 (EST) The words proposed for addition were "facilitator" and "Quaker", both of which are liberal concepts and certainly not conservative. Quakers did not even fight in the American Revolution, and tended to support abortion! Good additions from any of the centuries are welcome, but they need to fit the high quality standards of the list.--Andy Schlafly 14:30, 30 November 2012 (EST) Listener? Falsifiable? Fatherland? Pertinent? Oh well, at least words like "coolant" and "correlate" - which are clearly conservative - remain. WilcoxD 17:48, 2 December 2012 (EST) Don't forget "transistor." And "Philadelphia." MattyD 18:22, 2 December 2012 (EST) Philadelphia was founded on conservative principles -- as was the U.S. Constitution that was drafted there.--Andy Schlafly 19:17, 2 December 2012 (EST) I have to agree with MattyD that "Philadelphia" is a particularly poor choice for this list. Nevertheless, I updated the entry to reflect that the name originates from the 2nd century BC and cities in the Near East at the time of Jesus. GregG 20:29, 2 December 2012 (EST) EDIT By the way, if you want to keep up your "pattern" of doubling by century, you are going to need to find a total 2,097,152 "new conservative words" from the 20th century. Better get to work :P. GregG 20:34, 2 December 2012 (EST) That's witty about doubling from the 2nd century BC, but the reality is that the English city name "Philadelphia" is not nearly so old.--Andy Schlafly 21:17, 2 December 2012 (EST)

Seeing as Philadelphia was one of the principle slave ports of its time, and most of the slaves in the colony and state of Pennsylvania lived in or near the city, I guess your argument about its foundation on conservative principles is confirmed. MattyD 12:41, 5 December 2012 (EST)

The explanation for the word "Philadelphia"'s (dated on the main page to 1682) being conservative is

coined by William Penn and meaning "city of brotherly love," the concept captures the "best of the public" approach

I'm confused by the 1682 date because the ancient city of Philadelphia in Asia minor was established in the 2nd century BC and it was named for the Greek for "brotherly love." So it's clear that the name "Philadelphia" is over 2000 years old. Moreover, the explanation for why "brotherly love" is conservative (that it "captures the 'best of the public' approach") appears to apply equally to any city named Philadelphia. I simply don't know why 1688 is listed as the origin date for a word that has existed for much longer--perhaps you can clarify so that there aren't any further misunderstandings. Thanks, GregG 00:04, 3 December 2012 (EST)

Hmm... that's an interesting point you have there GregG. If Philidelphia is indeed a conservative word and it dates back to the second century BC... that means there should be over 4,194,304 conservative words by now. Obviously, the author of this article only intended to include words in the English language, in which case, Philly (along with other non-English entries) should be removed from he list. --DonnyC 21:11, 5 December 2012 (EST)

From gop.gov:

House Republicans believe that Welfare to Work empowers mothers and helps to strengthen families. In the years following the passage of Welfare to Work, poverty among all single mothers fell by 30 percent and employment and earnings among single mothers increased significantly.

Although I see that the term was used by Democrats, I've re-added the term to the list. The 1996 welfare reform was a major Republican victory, exemplified by the term. GregG 00:39, 29 January 2013 (EST)

1. Boomerang - the word was not used as a verb until the 1880s. I don't think that there is anything particularly conservative about the noun version of the word.

2. Cesspool - according to the OED this word is from the 1680s and in other examples on this page the Oxford etymology is chosen in preference over Merriam-Webster.

3. Quackery is a word often used by conservatives to describe unproven liberal nonsense in a similar way that claptrap is used to describe other liberal nonsense.

I'd also like clarification on how to know whether a stem word should be used in place of its root. For example, the entry "scapegoating" is based on the 1943 adjective version of the noun "scapegoat", which is from the 1500s - why?

Disputes at the margin are to be expected in a list like this. You've identified two questionable entries, but their inclusion is adequately explained in the comment section. Your third word, "quackery", is namecalling that conservatives rarely use. It is a smear word that has no place in this quality list.--Andy Schlafly 10:48, 31 January 2013 (EST) As to your second issue, when a word goes to a level higher than the root (as "scapegoating" does), then its new date and usage are more relevant.--Andy Schlafly 10:50, 31 January 2013 (EST) Mightn't some consider "claptrap" to be just as much a smear/namecalling word as quackery? Also, my only dispute with boomerang is its date. It was used as a verb in the 1880s and since the explanation is for the word indicates it's the action of boomeranging (as opposed to a crooked stick) I think that date should be used. WilcoxD 17:33, 31 January 2013 (EST)

I believe that once America and Europe start tasting the bitter fruits of - liberal economic policies (Eurocrisis and French economy will get worse, etc,), an overregulated private sector, big government, failing public schools with leftist ideology, a heavily aging population due to abortion (and other liberal ideology) and growing competition from an increasingly Christianized Eastern World and developing world - then they will sober up and become more conservative. In addition, strongly religious people are having more kids than secularists plus the liberal media is losing market share while conservative media is growing.

However, the two time election of Barack Obama, a ballooning U.S. federal deficit over the last 12 years, a liberal U.S. Supreme Court since the 1960s that continues to uphold Roe vs. Wade (and other liberal policies such as upholding ObamaCare) and a very liberal UK does not give me confidence that the Anglosphere has become more conservative over time in general - especially post 1960s. It has become more liberal.

In addition, words such as "galvanize" are not conservative. You are engaging in confirmation bias and trying to shoehorn words into your "Conservative Words hypothesis". I don't like the Anglosphere becoming more liberal since the 1960s and the failed policies will bear their bitter fruits in heapfuls on the horizon so things could reverse, but that doesn't give me a license to construct a false reality in the meantime. Plus, constructing a false reality is counterproductive. In order to effectively cure a problem, you have to recognize the full scope of the problem and not claim victory where there is no victory.

Bottom line: The Conservative Words hypothesis fails. Conservative 08:10, 31 January 2013 (EST)

I would agree that galvanize isn't a conservative word, it isn't a liberal word either it is a science/engineering word. It is word derived from the name of Luigi Galvani who found the galvanic series. Of which bought about the discovery of galvanization. However it can be political in certain situations and us from the conservative side of politics tend to work better together than those on the liberal side of politics (ie labor tearing itself apart and us in the liberal party counting down the days till our win on the 14th of september !) Dvergne 11:09, 31 January 2013 (EST) Though not strongly conservative, "galvanize" has usage with respect to the grassroots, as in "galvanize the grassroots." Also, liberals tend to be pessimistic about what man can achieve with God, denying progress, while "galvanize" suggests the progress advocated by conservatives.--Andy Schlafly 11:30, 31 January 2013 (EST) Andy, you have some good articles in terms of their content and titles such as Essay:The Invisible Hand of Marriage and Professor values, but also need to cut your losses for the clunkers like Essay:Best New Conservative Words. For example, to say that "galvanize" is not a strongly conservative word is quite an understatement since it is not conservative word at all. Conservative 14:55, 31 January 2013 (EST) I don't doubt that certain groups of society use words with different, even characteristic frequencies. Have a lawyer and a nurse retell Grimm's Snow White, and you can guess who told which version using only the word-count! That said, I'm surprised tby claim that certain words indicate a conservative leaning for more than 300 years! Languages are always changing, and preferences for words, too! I cannot talk about the English language with confidence - unfortunately I'm not getting all the subtleties - but here are two examples in German: using the abbreviation "BRD" for "Bundesrepublik Deutschland" during 1960-1990 was a clear indicator of a left-wing weltanschauung, but it became politically neutral over the last years. nowadays, the term "Nachhaltigkeit" (sustainability) isn't missing from any speech of any economist or politician, whether from the right or from the left. In the 1980s, it was used by environmentalists exclusively. So there may be conservative and liberal concepts, but the language describing them is always changing. Another problem: Over the last year, I saw examples of "perfect doublings" announced a couple of times. That seems to be rather improbable, statistically speaking, and indicates a manipulation of the data (confirmation bias) - as User:Conservative stated above. --AugustO 16:01, 31 January 2013 (EST) The fact that a perfect doubling has occurred many times with different layers tends to support, rather than undermine, the hypothesis that a perfect doubling is inherent in the language. Otherwise it would be very difficult for each layer to display a perfect doubling too! Many stumble on the issue of whether the selection of terms is perfectly random. The selection of terms need not be random to conclude that a doubling by century intrinsically exists. Think about why.--Andy Schlafly 16:51, 31 January 2013 (EST) Think about why. Because you have invented a new kind of statistics? Using your method, we could show that there are as many Germans as there are Americans, just by alternately listing Germans and Americans! That could go on for quite a while, without proving anything about the real ratio. (Browsing through the archives, I see I'm not the first to point this out: see here and here) --AugustO 16:57, 31 January 2013 (EST) May I expect an answer to my comment above? --AugustO 19:30, 2 February 2013 (EST)

I will provide my honest opinion.

If this essay is meant to be a personal project in learning new vocabulary, etymology, and use of language, then it's certainly worthwhile. However, if the intent of this essay was to draw statistical conclusions, the methodology is so egregiously flawed that there is really nothing one can take away from the data in the essay.

Several methodology problems are the following:

There is no objective definition as to what constitutes a word, or a conservative word, for that matter. For some reason, abbreviations, proper names, and multiple-word terms appear on the list. Very similar terms are alternative counted as conservative or not (contrast "welfare queen" and "welfare to work", for example). The fact that there are several arguments on this very page as to whether or not words are conservative indicate that the notion of a "conservative word" is not well-defined. The arbiter of whether or not a term is conservative appears to a strong interest in ensuring that the data collected fit into a predetermined "doubling" pattern. (In fact, it seems to me that this approach to the subject demonstrates a lack of open-mindedness that the empirical data may suggest a different conclusion than the one anticipated.) It's not even single blind, much less double blind. There is no consistency as to the date assigned to a term. It appears to be the date a term became conservative. There is no objective calculation of the date assigned to a term (like, for example, consulting the OED for the oldest extant print reference to a word). No comparison is made to the growth in the number of English terms since 1600 nor the growth of liberal terms over time. The words are not randomly sampled. They appear to be inserted in order to fit a predetermined pattern. A better method to solve the problem would be to randomly select words from the dictionary.

In all, if you want to keep this as a side project just for the educational value, be my guest. However, if you want to draw mathematical or statistical conclusions from this essay, I would advise you not to, as it only serves to make us conservatives at Conservapedia appear sophomoric in mathematics, statistics, and logic. Thanks, GregG 20:22, 1 February 2013 (EST)

Good points. Let's revisit this at the end of the 21st century when we have another data point. RSchlafly 19:54, 2 February 2013 (EST) Why so modest? Lets wait for the year 2700: then we'll see more than one conservative word each day! --AugustO 20:02, 2 February 2013 (EST)

In the case before the court, if the lessee had covenanted for himself and his assigns, to deliver up the tenements in good order and repair, notwithstanding they should be destroyed by act of God or of an Enemy, then this action would certainly lie, because of the special express words; but when there are no such words, but only generally to repair &c. would it be reasonable to construe these words so as to extend to the cases put?

Pollard v. Shaaffer, 1 U.S. 210, 213 (1 Dall. 210) (1787). GregG 01:15, 9 February 2013 (EST)

Superb research! I'll update the entry (you can also). I also learned something: the U.S. Reports include Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions before the US Supreme Court was created.--Andy Schlafly 09:09, 9 February 2013 (EST)

Just thought I should let you know that Mardi Gras is on this site as an example of a Conservative word and also a secularized word. If I use it am I a conservative or a liberal-homosexual-atheist-evolutionist-leftist attempting to remove the Christian origins of our language? (Ic 15:23, 14 February 2013 (EST))

I have read the essay and skimmed through the huge archives of this talk page, but I didn't find any reference to a reliable, objective, independent definition of "best new conservative word". By the way, this is interesting reliable information on the increase of the total number of words in the English language. Onestone 02:34, 15 February 2013 (EST)

The vast majority of so-called "Conservative" words shown here are just words without any sort of difference between a Conservative use and a Liberal use (e.g. activism, addictive, aerobics, accuracy, alarmism, alcoholism, etc.). And somehow the statistics at the top of the page claim that the usage of "Conservative" words are growing at an exponential rate compared to "Liberal" words! It is clear that this is just a blatant example of fact-twisting employed in order to further Conservative propaganda. RaymondZ 17:23, 4 March 2013 (EST)

I think some conflate a conservative word/idea/concept with whether the person using the word is a conservative or a liberal. A similar objection was raised to Greatest Conservative Songs, when people insisted that a particular song was sung by a liberal group, and therefore could not be conservative.

A liberal can wish someone "Merry Christmas," and is welcome to use other conservative terms. But such use would not detract from the conservative nature of the terms.--Andy Schlafly 17:56, 4 March 2013 (EST)

Antidisestablishmentarianism: 18th Century, Against the separation of church and state. Tory: 17th Century. Protestant: 16th Century. Dreadnaught: 20th Century. A large all big gun battleship. Aircraft-Carrier: 20th Century. Machine-gun: 19th Century. I will try to thing of more later--Patmac 19:57, 6 May 2013 (EDT)

Could someone please check the numbers of words per century? My count is somewhat differing from the official one:

I'd rather like to see someone checking these numbers, it's so easy to make an error. --AugustO 04:46, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

Excellent work! There were some recent additions that are not high quality enough to remain, and not worthy of inclusion in the count. I'll revert them now.--Andy Schlafly 08:59, 10 May 2013 (EDT) Thank you for your praise! But I'd like to see someone double-checking the numbers! You removed coolant, a term you had introduced into the list on Aug 7, 2010. This implies that every one of the nine perfect geometric fits since August 2010 was false - and it highlights the problematic approach of your statistics, which I already mentioned above in #Conservative Words hypothesis is errant. I see that you haven't answered to my comments in that section... --AugustO 11:00, 10 May 2013 (EDT) Not "false", but lacking in a perfect understanding - which is what all knowledge is.--Andy Schlafly 11:17, 10 May 2013 (EDT) I share a critical view of the "Best New Conservative Words" with many on these talk-pages. Before you erased "coolant" from the list, I had the following working definition: A conservative word is a term which Andrew Schlafly likes. Now, I have refined this to: A conservative word is a term which Andrew Schlafly likes today. Please excuse this flippant approach, but I've yet to see an objective definition of the term "conservative word", something which would allow even me to decide whether a certain word (perhaps even a German one) is conservative or not. --AugustO 12:21, 10 May 2013 (EDT) It's an atheistic quality to think that stubbornness in a position is an admirable trait, as in someone who rejects God as a college student and then clings for decades to that mistaken belief without genuinely reconsidering it.--Andy Schlafly 13:47, 10 May 2013 (EDT) Objections to "coolant" were made, and upon reflection the objections had validity. I don't see why anyone would criticize someone for making an improvement.--Andy Schlafly 13:47, 10 May 2013 (EDT) It's always good to rethink one's position, but generally a change should be induced by new information. The last time someone criticized "coolant" (this was a year ago), you answered: "Motivation" is a far more conservative term - one can find motivation whether the playing field islevel or not. "Quantify" is logic, which is an essential difference between conservative and liberal approaches. "Coolant" is an essential part of nuclear energy -- which liberals loathe. What has changed your opinion? Why is "coolant" not longer conservative, but "motivation" or "quantify" are? Why is "transistor" a conservative word, but not "diode". Is an "ordered pair" more conservative than a "vector"? "Decrypt" more conservative than "encrypt" or "decode"? "Countability" is conservative, but what about "computability"? "Conservative field" is conservative, because it is in its name, duh? You have given no systematic approach for the detection of conservative words, it is all very fuzzy (but that's no problem, because "fuzzy math" is a conservative word, other than "chaos theory"). It is very difficult to take this seemingly random list of words serious, and the statistics behind it are even shadier (see e.g., #Conservative Words hypothesis is errant. Could you please come up with a working definition for the term "conservative word"? --AugustO 15:20, 11 May 2013 (EDT) Actually the first mention of clouds having silver linings is in "Comus", a Masque by John Milton, first performed in 1632. A young lady, lost and alone in a forest with night approaching is encouraged by the phenomenon: Was I deceived, or did a sable cloud Turn forth her silver lining on the night? I did not err; there does a sable cloud Turn forth her silver lining on the night And cast a gleam over this tufted grove.

Dickens played on the allusion in "Bleak House" in 1852 and the 1871 reference was, I assume, by Samuel Smiles. AlanE 03:47, 27 June 2013 (EDT)

View the original article here

Gnosticism

(Difference between revisions)===Gnostic traits in Liberal Media======Gnostic traits in Liberal Media===*The contemporary yellow journalism and [[liberal media]] often misuse the Gnostic texts or even add uncritically accepted related discoveries or speculations, doubted and criticized by mainstream scholars, in their obsession with sensational. In 1996 the ''[[Time magazine]]'', known for liberal bias, reported on the group of self-described 'experts and scholars' known as ''Jesus Seminar'' who declared to have special ''‘knowledge‘'' on origin of Gospels thus presented their own ''edited'' version of Bible with addition of Gnostic ''[[Gospel of Thomas]]'' as what they called ''‘The Scholars Version‘''. A. Boyd wrote a devastating critique of such liberal perspectives in his ''Cynic Sage or Son of God? - Recovering the Real Jesus in an Age of Revisionist Replies''.{{cite web |author=David Van Biema |title=The Gospel of Truth? |date= Apr. 08, 1996 |publisher=Time Magazine |url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,984367,00.html |acessdate=2012-11-08}}{{cite book |title=The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus |author= Lee Strobel |publisher=Zondervan |year=1998, 2008 |chapter=6. section: Jesus and the "Mystery religions"|pages=120-125 |isbn=0-310-29604-8 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=ydVw3pbYZbgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=sTROBEL+CASE+cHRIST&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-ImbUNiSBsjusgaR84GIDA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=gnosticism&f=false}}{{cite book |title=Cynic Sage or Son of God? - Recovering the Real Jesus in an Age of Revisionist Replies |author= Gregory A. Boyd|publisher=Wipf & Stock Pub. |year=1996, 2010|isbn=978-1-6089-9953-8|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=T5NUtwAACAAJ&dq=Boyd+Cynic+Sage+or+Son+of+God%3F+-+Recovering+the+Real+Jesus+in+an+Age+of+Revisionist+Replies&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5qSbUPXIOIfssgbNlIC4Cw&redir_esc=y}}*The contemporary yellow journalism and [[liberal media]] often misuse the Gnostic texts or even add uncritically accepted related discoveries or speculations, doubted and criticized by mainstream scholars, in their obsession with sensational. In 1996 the ''[[Time magazine]]'', known for liberal bias, reported on the group of self-described 'experts and scholars' known as ''Jesus Seminar'' who declared to have special ''‘knowledge‘'' on origin of Gospels thus presented their own ''edited'' version of Bible with addition of Gnostic ''[[Gospel of Thomas]]'' as what they called ''‘The Scholars Version‘''. A. Boyd wrote a devastating critique of such liberal perspectives in his ''Cynic Sage or Son of God? - Recovering the Real Jesus in an Age of Revisionist Replies''.{{cite web |author=David Van Biema |title=The Gospel of Truth? |date= Apr. 08, 1996 |publisher=Time Magazine |url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,984367,00.html |acessdate=2012-11-08}}{{cite book |title=The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus |author= Lee Strobel |publisher=Zondervan |year=1998, 2008 |chapter=6. section: Jesus and the "Mystery religions"|pages=120-125 |isbn=0-310-29604-8 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=ydVw3pbYZbgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=sTROBEL+CASE+cHRIST&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-ImbUNiSBsjusgaR84GIDA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=gnosticism&f=false}}{{cite book |title=Cynic Sage or Son of God? - Recovering the Real Jesus in an Age of Revisionist Replies |author= Gregory A. Boyd|publisher=Wipf & Stock Pub. |year=1996, 2010|isbn=978-1-6089-9953-8|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=T5NUtwAACAAJ&dq=Boyd+Cynic+Sage+or+Son+of+God%3F+-+Recovering+the+Real+Jesus+in+an+Age+of+Revisionist+Replies&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5qSbUPXIOIfssgbNlIC4Cw&redir_esc=y}}===Gnostic traits in Liberal Theology===* The typical example can be Karen L. King at Harvard Divinity School who claimed that a scrap of papyrus she dubiously obtained{{#tag:ref|cf. "Nothing is known about the circumstances of its original discovery or early ownership, but there are some clues about its modern history"|group=note}} and that she refers to as ''"Gospel of Jesus's Wife"'' is "A New Coptic Gospel Papyrus". The following Gnostic traits and fallacies could be recognized in her attitude:"Thus, on the basis of the age of the papyrus, the placement and absorption of the ink on the page, the type of the handwriting, and the Coptic grammar and spelling, it was concluded that it is highly probable{{#tag:ref|cf. [[Logic of probability]]|group=note}} that the fragment is an ancient text. Although a final conclusion about the parchment's authenticity remains open to further examination by colleagues and to further testing, especially of the chemical composition of the ink, these assurances were sufficient for work on the analysis and interpretation of the fragment to begin in earnest."{{cite web |title=The Gospel of Jesus's Wife: A New Coptic Gospel Papyru|author=|publisher=Harvard Divinity School |url=http://www.hds.harvard.edu/faculty-research/research-projects/the-gospel-of-jesuss-wife|accessdate=July 26, 2013 }} One cannot establish the age of papyrus and base on it anything if the scientific test has not been performed first. Damning alternatives such as opinions of Coptologists who pointed out serious problems with the paleography, the syntax, and the very troubling fact that almost all of the text has been extracted from the Gospel of Thomas (principally from logia 30, 101, and 114){{cite web |title=|url=http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2012/09/26/harvard-theological-review-rejects-jesus-wife/|accessdate=June 26, 2013}}. Trying to make sensational declarations but then fail to make proper follow up and present the papers with scientific results{{#tag:ref|cf. "The chemical composition of the manuscript's ink will be tested at Harvard in mid-October [2012]" ... "As of late October, the results of a radiocarbon dating test and ink analysis were still pending."|group=note}} after these claims served its purpose to promote the Gnostic agenda leading to devastating consequence of heretical teaching to the genuine Christian belief.{{cite web |title=UPDATE: The Reaction to Karen King’s Gospel Discovery |author=Ariel Sabar|publisher=smithsonian|date=November 2012|url=http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Update-The-Reaction-to-Karen-Kings-Gospel-Discovery-174981701.html#ixzz2XLPbhy3L|accessdate=June 26, 2013}} **Faulty Logic: "It would be very difficult to reproduce the kind the damage from insects or moisture that the fragment indicates, but it could have been penned on a blank piece of ancient papyrus, which are available for purchase on the antiquities market. Such a papyrus would pass a Carbon 14 dating test."{{cite web |url=http://www.hds.harvard.edu/sites/hds.harvard.edu/files/attachments/faculty-research/research-projects/the-gospel-of-jesuss-wife/29865/King_JesusSaidToThem_draft_0920.pdf |accessdate=June 26, 2013}} Still, it is of great interest to find out whether the papyrus passes the Carbon 14 dating test, if not, the claim about ancient status can be falsified right away before further investigation of ink. Furthermore, the first media coverage relayed King claiming, without any peer-review from Carbon dating specialist, that the Carbon 14 method of dating cannot be performed at all: ''"Dr. King did not have the ink dated using carbon testing. She said it would require scraping off too much, destroying the relic. She still plans to have the ink tested by spectroscopy, which could roughly determine its age by its chemical composition."''{{cite web title=A Faded Piece of Papyrus Refers to Jesus’ Wife|author=Laurie Goodstein|publisher=NYTimes|date=September 18, 2012|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/historian-says-piece-of-papyrus-refers-to-jesus-wife.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0|accessdate=June 26, 2013}}    **Taking position contrary to church fathers who opposed Gnostic heresy strongly, trying to make Gnostic positions attacking the genuine tenets of the biblical creed acceptable: "Karen King says, we must first disentangle modern historiography from the Christian discourse of orthodoxy and heresy that has pervaded--and distorted--the story. King shows how historians have been misled by ancient Christian polemicists who attacked Gnostic beliefs as a "dark double" against which the new faith could define itself.  to offer a new and clarifying definition of Gnosticism"{{cite web |author=Karen L. King|title=What Is Gnosticism?|publisher=Harvard University Press |year=2005|isbn=9780674017627|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=df1Tz5Cn8BQC&dq=Karen+L.+King&source=gbs_navlinks_s |accessdate=June 26, 2013 |quote=Quote from the cover of the book}}**Obsessive interest in non-canonical scripts such as the ''Gospel of Thomas'', the ''Gospel of Mary'', and the ''Gospel of the Egyptians'', contrarian approach to Christian history and trial “to integrate a whole set of [this] ‘heretical’ literature into the standard history”** Replacing basic tenets of Christianity such as on personal God with word spinning around 'religion' and introducing terms like "religious identity": ''“Religion is absolutely central to who I am in every way,”'' she said. ''“I spend most of my time on it. It’s how I structure my interior life. I use its materials when I think about ethics and politics.”''

Gnosticism (after gnôsis, the Greek word for "knowledge" or "insight") is the name given to a loosely organized religious and philosophical movement that flourished in the first and second centuries A.D. Though the exact origins of this school of thought cannot be traced with any certainty, it is possible to infer that certain non-canonical sources dating from the first and second centuries A.D. were used to develop it. It had been considered a heresy by church fathers and so is by most modern Christians. Most Gnostic writings are exceedingly obscure and tedious.[1]

Literary critic Harold Bloom distinguishes Gnosticism from Christianity and Judaism in his book Agon[2]:

"Gnosticism polemically is decidedly not a faith, whether in the Christian sense, pistis, a believing that something was, is, and will be so; or in the Hebraic sense, emunah, a trusting in the Covenant. If religion is a binding, then Gnosticism is an unbinding, but not for the sake of things or persons merely as they are. Gnostic freedom is a freedom for knowledge, knowledge of what in the self, not in the psyche or soul, is Godlike, and knowledge of God beyond the cosmos. But also it is a freedom to be known, to be known by God, by what is alien to everything created, by what is alien to and beyond the stars and the cosmic system and our earth."

Generally, Gnostics believed that the Abrahamic God was in fact two separate and independent entities. They believed that the Demiurge was the God of the Israelites and the Old Testament. He created the world and man imperfectly, and was malevolent. This belief largely stemmed from accounts of the highly interventionist God in the Old Testament directly and indirectly killing large numbers of people. The Gnostics believed that the second god was a good, benevolent god who is embodied in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ came to save humanity from sin and suffering, the evils of the material world.

Today, Gnostic traits and Gnostic culture are declared to be a present-day phenomena, inherent in, for example, the Anthropological Revolution.[3] M.A. Smith claims that similarities between Gnostic heresies and some modern cults might be noted at the very minimum in cases of Mormonism (having secret writing in addition to the Bible) and Jehovah's Witnesses (special and very strange interpretations of the actual Scriptures based on a non-biblical system).[1]

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

Until the 1945 discovery of the Nag Hammadi texts near Luxor in Egypt, the only evidence about the existence of Gnostic groups and sects came from anti-Gnostic church fathers[4] who occasionally quoted large fragments of Gnostic writings or sometimes whole works in their rebuttals attacking and refuting the Gnostic heresy in defence of their Christian faith.[5][1] Those Gnostic heretical texts where Christ is conceived as a teacher and revealer of mysterious gnosis, i.e. a secret knowledge aiming to save people from ignorance and material world rather than sin, exhibit following characteristics in contrast to canonical Gospels[5][1]:

The texts contain only alleged sayings of Jesus often twisted so as to express the Gnostic theology Jesus transmits these isolated sayings without being placed in any role within Israel's history such as Roman occupation or without any relation to it The sayings of Jesus have no narrative or situational framework, there is no mention of any circumstances, topographical facts or historical events The language of the New Testament survives, but the words used are merely connotation-words, having ascribed a totally different meaning If there are the New Testament allusions, there is never an actual quotation Tampering with the New Testament, for example, the Jesus' cry from the cross was rewritten as "My power, my power, why have you left me?". In The Second Treatise of the Seth, the Gnostic Christ, speaking in the first person, relates how he deceived the powers of this world by causing Simon the Cyrene to take on his appearance and to be crucified in his place, while he watched from above, laughing at the spectacle.[6] The whole system often appears to be a game of numerology, using the New Testament as the quarry for the numbers The overwhelming impression of most Gnostic works is vagueness, word-spinning and tedium. The "Hymn of Jesus" from The Acts of John is fetchingly cryptic.[6] The common factor is imposing a foreign system on the biblical data[note 1] Preaching the pseudo-Christianity in the form of esoteric or secret knowledge, obsession with mysterious and interest in secret doctrines and rites

One of the characteristics of gnostic heresy was that it had to do with making people feel significant. The Gnostics did not present their message as something destined for a layman, but rather as something that only an exclusive and highly elevated group of people should hear and could grasp. They considered themselves to belong to the elect part of humanity with extraordinary access to spiritual secret knowledge. From this perspective, Gnosticism was never meant to be, and probably never became, a mass movement. It may primarily have appealed to intelligentsia in the Roman cities. Gnosticism threatened to invade the leaders of the Church. The typical Gnostic community was a circle of initiates adhering to a charismatic teacher, rapidly dissolving with the disappearance of the leader. Irenaeus ironically remarked about them that everybody had ambition of being a teacher of others and establishing his own group. Due to their elite character, the Gnostics, with one significant exception of Manichaeism from the third century onward, never established a church of any duration.[5]

Gonstic and Gnosticism is used as blanket terms to cover a variety of sects.[1] Marcion's teaching was marked by a fundamental dualism that "looks like a combination of Christianity and Syrian gnosis". Marcion distinguished between the highest God (the merciful father revealed in Jesus Christ) and but just cruel God (the Creator and Lawgiver revealed in the Old Testament). He regarded matter as evil, denied the resurrection of body, advocated a strict asceticism, and held to a docetic Christology. Marcion's dualism led him to make a complete disjunction between law and gospel and entitled rejecting the Old Testament in its entirety and as well those New Testament writings he judged to be infected by "the Judaizing" error. The Marcionite 'canon' consisted of the ten letters of the "Apostle" - the Pauline corpus minus the Pastoral Epistles - and the "Gospel" - an edited version of Luke.[4] An uncompromisingly radical dualism between the wicked and incompetent demiurge or "world maker" (often identified with the God of the Old Testament) and god who acts to rescue his elect is native to the major Gnostic schools: Valentinian[7] (scholars who sought salvation through knowledge), Basilidean, and Sethian.[6]

Although there are no explicit declarations of any direct connections, it is still of great curiosity to find parallels of gnostic attitudes and traits in the modern history and society[note 2]:

Rejection of Old Testament and manipulating (editing) the Scripture by Nazists resulting in dejudaized version of the New Testament (NT), titled Die Botschaft Gottes (The Message of God)[8]. Wilhelm Busch, pastor contemporary to era of Nazism in Germany, witnessed:[9]

When Hitler was fighting for power, he published a program of his Nazi Party. There, in the article 24, it was declared: "We are all for positive Christianity."[note 3] Many genuine Christians got hooked for it. But when Hitler finally had acquired the full power in the country, it was suddenly disclosed what many had overlooked: The 'Positive Christianity' has been just disguised Nazism. At the same time, the fight against the Bible triggered its ramp. Especially the Old Testament was taken under the heavy fire. Everywhere you could hear and read: Well, the New Testament can be allowed to circulate for some time, because the teaching there in is about the God of love. Just one thing, the letters of Jew Paul must be eliminated from there, they smack too much of the Spirit of the Old Testament. As for the Old Testament itself - oh, that’s a terrible book, a dirty book, a horrifying book! There in, a voice of the Judeo-Syrian God of desert and revenge can be heard.

In 1936, Der Stürmer, anti-Semitic Nazi newspaper published by Julius Streicher, brought up the following anti-Old-Testament propagandistic slogan:

Den Geist, der aus dem Buche spricht, Versteht die deutsche Jugend nicht.[note 4]

Later Nazist forbade the study of "Jewish book" which was their reference to the Old Testament and its scholarship disappeared from German seminaries and journals. In 1940 Dietrich Bonhoeffer was fined for defiantly publishing a book on Psalms.[12]

Examples from Nazi's Die Botschaft Gottes edited New Testament:[8] Part of John 4 from Die Botschaft Gottes; v. 22 “salvation is from the Jews” was omitted. In v. 25 “Messiah (called Christ)” was changed to “Promised one”. Reference to Jesus being “a Jew” in v. 9 was changed to “who comes from Judea”.

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."[note 5]

Manipulating (editing) the Scripture, mainly the Old Testament, by proponents of LGBT ideology resulting in version of the Bible titled The Queen James Bible.[13] The name of the 'Queen James' version (QJV) is based on controversial speculation contested by historians that King James was homosexual.[14] The QJV reinterprets several biblical verses in an effort to impose and advocate a foreign homosexual agenda on the original indigenous biblical data: In Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13, there is the superfluous sentence "in the temple of Molech" read into the levitical texts.[15] These texts originally did not mention the temple of Molech at all. The revisionism tries to make impression that the only reason why the text condemned homosexual behaviour was that it was practised in pagan temple. Authors of the QJV translation are trying to remove the condemnation of homosexuality out of Scripture entirely.[13] Tampering with Romans 1:26-27 in the New Testament where the QJV changes the sense of original meaning referring to homosexual behaviour in general to pagan worship; also a new add-on expression “ritual lust” was introduced to eliminate the obvious universal condemnation of lesbian behaviour.

The QJV translation was denounced as spurious where every single change made was an inexcusable bastardization of the text violating translation principles.[13]

The 'mysterious gnosis' pertinent to a unique secret knowledge and sole access by pro-LGBT 'elite', is often in LGBT ideology referred to as "an evolutionary enigma".[16] The pseudo-Christianity made to fit the LGBT agenda is usually labelled as "progressive" [Christianity].[17] Fr. Rutler, who holds a doctorate in sacred theology, and a master of studies from Oxford University, maintains that homosexual activists and secular liberals do not understand the relationship between the human race and nature because they are essentially Gnostics, in their dualism they see the natural world, i.e. the material world, as contrary to anything divine and the result of energies other than God. To say that the Word was made flesh, as in the New Testament, is a total contradiction to the Gnostic, because the Gnostic thinks the divine can have nothing to do with the flesh. As a consequence homosexuals do not see marriage as an essentially divine institution – they see it as a legal construction that can be changed at will. “They see a Supreme Court changing the law on marriage and say it is valid. But from the point of natural law, it would be like saying the Supreme Court could repeal the law of gravity.” The homosexual is a classic Gnostic, because the homosexual does not understand how gender is intrinsic to God’s will for the human race. Male-ness and female-ness are not arbitrary categories.[18] The contemporary yellow journalism and liberal media often misuse the Gnostic texts or even add uncritically accepted related discoveries or speculations, doubted and criticized by mainstream scholars, in their obsession with sensational. In 1996 the Time magazine, known for liberal bias, reported on the group of self-described 'experts and scholars' known as Jesus Seminar who declared to have special ‘knowledge‘ on origin of Gospels thus presented their own edited version of Bible with addition of Gnostic Gospel of Thomas as what they called ‘The Scholars Version‘. A. Boyd wrote a devastating critique of such liberal perspectives in his Cynic Sage or Son of God? - Recovering the Real Jesus in an Age of Revisionist Replies.[19][20][21] The typical example can be Karen L. King at Harvard Divinity School who claimed that a scrap of papyrus she dubiously obtained[note 6] and that she refers to as "Gospel of Jesus's Wife" is "A New Coptic Gospel Papyrus". The following Gnostic traits and fallacies could be recognized in her attitude:

"Thus, on the basis of the age of the papyrus, the placement and absorption of the ink on the page, the type of the handwriting, and the Coptic grammar and spelling, it was concluded that it is highly probable[note 7] that the fragment is an ancient text. Although a final conclusion about the parchment's authenticity remains open to further examination by colleagues and to further testing, especially of the chemical composition of the ink, these assurances were sufficient for work on the analysis and interpretation of the fragment to begin in earnest."[22] One cannot establish the age of papyrus and base on it anything if the scientific test has not been performed first. Damning alternatives such as opinions of Coptologists who pointed out serious problems with the paleography, the syntax, and the very troubling fact that almost all of the text has been extracted from the Gospel of Thomas (principally from logia 30, 101, and 114)[23]. Trying to make sensational declarations but then fail to make proper follow up and present the papers with scientific results[note 8] after these claims served its purpose to promote the Gnostic agenda leading to devastating consequence of heretical teaching to the genuine Christian belief.[24]

Faulty Logic: "It would be very difficult to reproduce the kind the damage from insects or moisture that the fragment indicates, but it could have been penned on a blank piece of ancient papyrus, which are available for purchase on the antiquities market. Such a papyrus would pass a Carbon 14 dating test."[25] Still, it is of great interest to find out whether the papyrus passes the Carbon 14 dating test, if not, the claim about ancient status can be falsified right away before further investigation of ink. Furthermore, the first media coverage relayed King claiming, without any peer-review from Carbon dating specialist, that the Carbon 14 method of dating cannot be performed at all: "Dr. King did not have the ink dated using carbon testing. She said it would require scraping off too much, destroying the relic. She still plans to have the ink tested by spectroscopy, which could roughly determine its age by its chemical composition."[26] Taking position contrary to church fathers who opposed Gnostic heresy strongly, trying to make Gnostic positions attacking the genuine tenets of the biblical creed acceptable:

"Karen King says, we must first disentangle modern historiography from the Christian discourse of orthodoxy and heresy that has pervaded--and distorted--the story. King shows how historians have been misled by ancient Christian polemicists who attacked Gnostic beliefs as a "dark double" against which the new faith could define itself. to offer a new and clarifying definition of Gnosticism"[27]

Obsessive interest in non-canonical scripts such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, and the Gospel of the Egyptians, contrarian approach to Christian history and trial “to integrate a whole set of [this] ‘heretical’ literature into the standard history”[24] Replacing basic tenets of Christianity such as on personal God with word spinning around 'religion' and introducing terms like "religious identity": “Religion is absolutely central to who I am in every way,” she said. “I spend most of my time on it. It’s how I structure my interior life. I use its materials when I think about ethics and politics.”[24] ? cf. Syncretism? cf."[Gnosticism] is by no means an outdated phenomenon of only historical interest"[5]? cf.NSDAP Party Program (February 24, 1920) Point 24:"We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: The good of the state before the good of the individual." [10]? Translation from German: The Spirit that speaks out of Book cannot be grasped by German Youth (meaning: The German Youth cannot understand the Spirit of Old Testament)[11].? cf."To the faithful you show yourself faithful, to the blameless you show yourself blameless, to the pure you show yourself pure, but to the devious you show yourself shrewd." Bible, 2 Samuel 22: 26-27 (NIV)? cf. "Nothing is known about the circumstances of its original discovery or early ownership, but there are some clues about its modern history"? cf. Logic of probability? cf. "The chemical composition of the manuscript's ink will be tested at Harvard in mid-October [2012]" ... "As of late October, the results of a radiocarbon dating test and ink analysis were still pending."? 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 M.A.Smith (1971). From Christ to Constantine. London: Inter-Varsity Press, 48, 69, 187, 191. ISBN 0-85110-570-X. ? Harold Bloom (1982). Agon: towards a theory of revisionism. Oxford University Press, 24. ISBN 978-0195029451. ? Vladimír Palko (2012). Levy prichdzajú (Lions are coming) (in Slovak). Prešov, Slovakia: Vydavatelstvo Michala Vaška, 248. ISBN 978-80-7165-870-2. ? 4.0 4.1 David G. Dunbar et al. (1986 (Zondervan), 2005). "Nine: The Biblical Canon", in D.A. Carson and J.D. Woodbridge: Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 331. ISBN 1-59752-118-3. ? 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 Oskar Skarsaune (2002). "12:Orthodoxy and Heresy", In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influence on Early Christianity. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 246, 251-253. ISBN 978-0-8308-2844-9. ? 6.0 6.1 6.2 David Bentley Hart (2010). Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies. YALE University Press, 134-143. ISBN 978-03-0016-4299. ? Frederick Fyvie Bruce (1982). The New Testament documents, are they reliable?. ? 8.0 8.1 Russell Grigg. Did Hitler rewrite the Bible?. Creation Ministries International. Retrieved on 2012-10-27.? Kritik ohne Kenntnis? (Busch) (German). Christlichen Medienverbreitungsmission (1. October 2009). “Wilhelm Busch erzählt: Als Hitler um die Macht kämpfte, veröffentlichte er ein Parteiprogramm. In dem stand als Punkt 24: “Wir sind für positives Christentum.” Viele treue Christen sind darauf hereingefallen. Als aber Hitler an der Macht war, erfuhr man, was viele vorausgesehen hatten: Positives Christentum ist dasselbe wie Nationalsozialismus. Zu gleicher Zeit begann der Kampf gegen die Bibel. Namentlich das Alte Testament wurde unter Trommelfeuer genommen. Überall konnte man hören und lesen: Nun ja, das Neue Testament könne man noch einige Zeit gelten lassen; denn da werde der Gott der Liebe gelehrt. Nur die Briefe des Juden Paulus müsse man ausmerzen. In denen sei der Geist des Alten Testaments zu spüren. Das Alte Testament aber – oh, das sei ein fürchterliches Buch, ein schmutziges Buch, ein grauenvolles Buch! Da rede der jüdisch-syrische Wüsten-Rache-Gott.”? Robert Michael and Philip Rosen (2007). Dictionary of Antisemitism: From the Earliest Times to the Present. The Scarecrow Press. ISBN 978-08-1085-8688. ? Katholische Schulen im NS-Staat:Unterdrückung bis zum Ende, Karikaturen aus dem FORUM - Sonderheft 31 (German). Schulstiftung der Erzdiözese Freiburg (Educational Foundation of the Archdiocese of Freiburg) (March 2001). Retrieved on 24-May-2013.? Philip Yancey (2002). Bible Jesus Read. Michigan: Zondervan, 24. ISBN 978-0-310-245-667. ? 13.0 13.1 13.2 Lita Cosner (21 February 2013). A ‘Wicked Bible’ for the 21st century? The Queen James Bible. CMI. Retrieved on 24 February 2013.? New 'Queen James' Bible offers gay-friendly Scripture. msnNOW.com (12/18/2012). Retrieved on 24/02/2013. “According to the editors, King James I, the man behind the popular Bible translation, was a bisexual "known amongst friends and courtiers as 'Queen James' because of his many gay lovers." This new version, named in his honor, aims "to prevent homophobic interpretations," with several controversial verses strategically tweaked. "We wanted to make a book filled with the word of God that nobody could use to incorrectly condemn God’s LGBT children," the editors explain.”? Meredith Bennett-Smith (12/18/2012). Queen James Bible Claims To Be First-Ever 'Gay Bible,' But Some Say It Rewrites Scripture. msnNOW.com. Retrieved on 24/02/2013. “This new version updates several passages from the original version that address homosexuality, including this passage from Leviticus 18:22: KJV: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination. QJV: Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind in the temple of Molech: it is an abomination. (Page 75)”? William R. Rice, Urban Friberg and Sergey Gavrilets (December 2012). Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development. Retrieved on 24-Feb-2013. “This paper argues that sexually antagonistic selection can also be involved in epigenetic effects and explain the enigmatic high prevalence of several ?tness-reducing human characters. ... Homosexuality is frequently considered to be an unusual phenotype because it represents an evolutionary enigma —a trait that is expected to reduce Darwinian ?tness, yet it persists at substantial frequency across many different (possibly all) human populations.”? Michal Piško (8 June 2012). Schlesinger: Prestanme sa tocit okolo hriechu (Slovak). SME.SK. Retrieved on 24 Feb 2013. “„Na Slovensku, žial, neexistuje iný názor cirkvi na túto tému. V zahranicí je tento názor cirkví podstatne progresívnejší, žila som v USA, mám priatelov zo škandinávskych krajín a tam sa nevylucuje byt gejom a dobrým veriacim. Nie je to univerzálny názor každého cirkevného spolocenstva na svete.“”? Michael W. Chapman (December 24, 2008). Gays Unable to Accept Pope’s Defense of Environment and Nature’s ‘Law,’ Says Top Theologian. CNSNews.com. Retrieved on 26-May-2013.? David Van Biema (Apr. 08, 1996). The Gospel of Truth?. Time Magazine.? Lee Strobel (1998, 2008). "6. section: Jesus and the "Mystery religions"", The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus. Zondervan, 120-125. ISBN 0-310-29604-8. ? Gregory A. Boyd (1996, 2010). Cynic Sage or Son of God? - Recovering the Real Jesus in an Age of Revisionist Replies. Wipf & Stock Pub.. ISBN 978-1-6089-9953-8. ? The Gospel of Jesus's Wife: A New Coptic Gospel Papyru. Harvard Divinity School. Retrieved on July 26, 2013.?

You must specify title = and url = when using {{cite web}}. Available parameters:

{{cite web|url = |title = |accessdate = |accessdaymonth = |accessmonthday = |accessyear = |author = |last = |first = |authorlink = |coauthors = |date = |year = |month = |format = |work = |publisher = |pages = |language = |doi = |archiveurl = |archivedate = |quote = }}. Retrieved on June 26, 2013.? 24.0 24.1 24.2 Ariel Sabar (November 2012). UPDATE: The Reaction to Karen King’s Gospel Discovery. smithsonian. Retrieved on June 26, 2013.?

You must specify title = and url = when using {{cite web}}. Available parameters:

{{cite web|url = |title = |accessdate = |accessdaymonth = |accessmonthday = |accessyear = |author = |last = |first = |authorlink = |coauthors = |date = |year = |month = |format = |work = |publisher = |pages = |language = |doi = |archiveurl = |archivedate = |quote = }}. Retrieved on June 26, 2013.? Template:Cite web title=A Faded Piece of Papyrus Refers to Jesus’ Wife? Karen L. King (2005). What Is Gnosticism?. Harvard University Press. Retrieved on June 26, 2013. “Quote from the cover of the book”

View the original article here