trentmkelly/rationalwiki huggingface dataset:
Contagious Diseases Acts

{{sex}}
The '''Contagious Diseases Acts''' were numerous bills passed by the Parliament of the [[United Kingdom]] in 1864 to regulate [[prostitution]] on the grounds that [[sexually transmitted infection]]s were a significant threat to the military. It is known for being one of the major influences for 20<sup>th</sup> century [[feminism]] due to its questionable means of regulation.<ref>http://www.victorianweb.org/gender/contagious.html</ref>

==Background==
By the mid-19<sup>th</sup> century, the new ideal of women as the "[[Kinder, Küche, Kirche|Angel of the Home]]" became dominant across the United Kingdom, resulting in women finding it harder to seek employment in industry. This led to many resorting to prostitution, with 1863 police figures estimating 27,411 to be in the profession in [[England]] and [[Wales]] alone.{{cn}} With [[jingoism]] dominating the Victorian foreign policy, a [[moral panic]] was started where venereal diseases were seen as being the greatest threat to any nation's military (while a significant portion of the soldiery were infected, the very un-sexy cholera and dysentery killed far more off the battlefield than combat).<ref>https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/albion/article/opposition-to-the-contagious-diseases-acts-18641886/DE5835FF1E35B5F46D99EAFEC0475A31</ref>

Interestingly, it was not permitted for a British soldier to have sex in this era in the first place, so it says more about the quality of the soldiery than just the attitudes of the people.{{cn}}

==Controversy==
With an increasing number of prostitutes on the streets, the sanest problem-solving action by the jingoists was to arrest prostitutes around docks, thoroughly examine them, and then quarantine the infected for several weeks in sub-standard hospital wards before sending them back onto the streets.<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/science/the-h-word/2012/oct/19/history-science</ref> The flaw of the Acts was that only women were subject to it, meaning there was no means of preventing infected men from having sex with those same freshly-treated prostitutes, thus failing to actually ''prevent'' the spread of the diseases.{{cn}} The feminist criticism of the time was that the legislators were too concerned with ruining the man's reputation (in both arresting him for soliciting prostitutes and in letting the neighborhood know he had syphilis). After two decades of accusations of breaching human rights, it was finally repealed.{{cn}}

==References==
{{reflist}}
{{stub|law}}
[[category:Sexuality]]
[[category:Medicine]]
[[Category:Law]]
[[Category:British politics]]

Categories: Sexuality, Medicine, Law, British politics
Containment

{{Communism}}'''Containment''' refers to the [[United States]] foreign policy toward the [[Soviet Union]] following [[World War II]] and through to the USSR's collapse in the early 1990s. The origin of the doctrine is a 1946 cable from George Kennan to the US Treasury Department, in which the diplomat Kennan described concepts that would comprise the basis of American foreign policy with regards to the USSR; among these were the ideas that the Soviet Union viewed itself to be in "perpetual war" with capitalism, and that [[social democracy]] and [[communism]] were incompatible.<ref>[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Long_Telegram Kennan's telegram]</ref> The State Department then analyzed Kennan's telegram and proposed policy recommendations to President [[Harry Truman]]. Their report recommended "restraining and confining" Soviet influence. This rather vague statement allowed the United States to enforce "Democracy" on a worldwide scale, the effects of this being the basis, and justification, for the [[Cold War]].    

==Truman Doctrine==
The following year, 1947, saw massive unrest in [[Greece]] and [[Turkey]]; in both nations, a communist movement was gaining traction. Truman requested $400 million in aid to grant to Greece and Turkey to fight against the communist "subversion."<ref>[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Truman_Doctrine Truman's address to Congress]</ref> Truman's request (made in the form of a speech to [[Congress]]) represented the first official instance of containment policy, and the policy of providing aid to governments of nations in which the threat of communist uprising was significant is known as the Truman Doctrine.

==Wars==
[[File:Domino theory.svg|thumb|left|If we let one fall, then others will fall, until even [[USA|''us'']] are crushed under the weight of the mightiest domino the world has ever seen.]]The United States has fought two major wars in attempting to "contain" the spread of Soviet influence (i.e. communism): the [[Korean War]] and the [[Vietnam War]]. Neither is remembered fondly.

The Korean War guaranteed the retention of South Korea in the capitalist camp. In this sense, it was a success, as the nation was a critical prop in the region, buttressing the rise of a booming Japan and in latter years becoming one of the most technologically advanced economies on the planet. However, it failed to affect North Korea, and the war led to the creation of the Demilitarized Zone between North and South Korea, in addition to winning the dangerous resentment of the batshit-crazy [[Kim Jong-il]].

Vietnam... well, on the bright side, it inspired a lot of pretty good music. And, with a few exceptions (namely ''The Deer Hunter'', ''Apocalypse Now'', ''Platoon'' [before Charlie Sheen became insane], and ''Full Metal Jacket''), some pretty mediocre films.

==See also==
*[[Communism]]

==External links==
*{{wpl|Domino theory}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:War]]
[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Cold War]]
[[Category:Government incompetence]]
[[Category:Moral panics]]

Categories: War, Communism, Cold War, Government incompetence, Moral panics
Contract With America

{{sources needed}}{{uspolitics}}
The '''Contract With America''' (also known as the "Contract ''on'' America") was a series of 
ironically [[Satanism|Satanic]] [[bullshit]]
 electioneering platform points formed by [[Newt Gingrich]] in the runup to the 1994 mid-term elections in the [[United States]]. Some, such as [[welfare]] reform (read: gutting) and a moratorium on regulation, had been [[GOP]] talking points for several years. 
Gingrich had been grooming potential congressional candidates, and his Contract was a unifying theme among them.  While there were almost certainly other reasons involved, he and his proteges succeeded in taking control of the [[House of Representatives]]. However, the [[Constitution of the United States|U.S. Constitution]]'s much-derided system of checks and balances came through and most of the bills implementing reforms advocated in the Contract were stopped in the [[United States Senate|Senate]].

Many of the proposals in the contract originated from the [[Heritage Foundation]].<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20100323102923/http://www.heritage.org/Research/Lecture/The-Contract-with-America-Implementing-New-Ideas-in-the-US The Contract with America: Implementing New Ideas in the U.S.] by Jeffrey Gayner (October 12, 1995) ''The Heritage Foundation'' (archived from March 23, 2010).</ref>

==See also==
*[[Great Recession]]
*[[Project 2025]] — the updated version with steroids

==External links==
*[http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/scorecard.html Contract scorecard by PBS] - Which parts have become law?

{{stub|politics}}
[[Category:United States politics]]

Categories: United States politics
Contributive income

{{Economics}}
'''Contributive income''' is a proposition of the [[French]] [[philosopher]] Bernard Stiegler, an ancient member of french's communist party, the [[Parti Communiste Français|PCF]]. It is described as an income given to people who engage in activities that has interest for the collectivity, whether this activities are already paid or not. It would then reward work of employees and the work of unemployed people. Contributive income is also complementary with [[basic income]].
It will apparently be experimented in a French territory called Plaine Commune.<ref>http://www.leparisien.fr/villetaneuse-93430/plaine-commune-veut-tester-le-revenu-contributif-11-01-2017-6554634.php</ref>

==See also==
*[[Basic income]]
==References==
<references/>
{{stub|Economics}}
[[Category:Economics]]

Categories: Economics
Corporate Equality Index

{{SJ}}
The '''Corporate Equality Index''' is an annual report released by the Human Rights Campaign.<ref>http://www.hrc.org/</ref> They analyze "Corporate America" to see how well they accommodate the reality of the lives of their [[LGBT]] employees. A 100% rating is given to those corporations/businesses that not only do not discriminate on the basis of [[sexual orientation]] and [[Gender#Gender_and_gender_identity|gender identity]], but have policies in place that support their employees by providing a resource group or diversity council, as well as market appropriately to the LGBT communities and/or sponsor LGBT events.

In 2002 when the index was first published, only 13 corporations made the grade. The 2008 Index (released September 2007) had 195 U.S. corporations that receive the 100% rating. In 2010, there were 305 with 100%. Based on stricter criteria, 190 corporations merited 100% in the 2012 index; that number increased to 252 in 2013.<ref>[http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/CEI_2013_Final_low.pdf.pdf CEI 2013 PDF]</ref>

The message for our conservative friends is that their world is shrinking, and if they are truly people of their word — and let's face it, they say they are — they will not be supporting these corporations/businesses.

Kudos to Ed Brayton and his ''Dispatches From the Culture Wars'' blog for his very funny take on just what this Index means for '''true''' conservatives.<ref>http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/09/how_to_avoid_advancing_the_gay.php</ref>

==External links==
*[https://www.hrc.org/campaigns/corporate-equality-index 2022 Corporate Equality Index]

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

{{stub|sexuality}}

[[Category:Human rights]]
[[Category:United States politics]]
[[Category:LGBT rights]]

Categories: Human rights, United States politics, LGBT rights
Cosmodicy

{{philosophy}}
A '''cosmodicy''' is a [[Handwave|hand-waving]] attempt to assert the fundamental goodness of the [[universe]] in the face of perceived evil. The term is modelled on ''[[theodicy]]'', and is used by those who see cosmodicy and theodicy as being analogous disciplines. A related term is ''anthropodicy'', which describes arguments for the fundamental goodness of humanity in the face of evil.
A number of [[theologian]]s have grappled with the relationship between cosmodicy and theodicy. Johannes van der Ven argues that the choice between theodicy and cosmodicy is a false dilemma.<ref>Johannes A. van der Ven, “Theodicy or cosmodicy: a false dilemma?”, ''Journal of Empirical Theology'', Volume 2, Number 1, 1989 , pp. 5-27(23); see also Johannes A. van der Ven, ''God reinvented?: a theological search in texts and tables'', Empirical studies in theology, Vol. 1, Leiden [u.a.] Brill 1998, p. 205</ref> Philip E. Devenish proposes "a nuanced view in which theodicy and cosmodicy are rendered complementary, rather than alternative concepts."<ref>Devenish, Philip E. “Theodicy and Cosmodicy: The Contribution of Neoclassical Theism”, Journal of Empirical Theology 4 (1992): 5-23</ref> Theologian J. Matthew Ashley describes the relationship between theodicy, cosmodicy and anthropodicy:
{{cquote|In classical terms, this is to broach the problem of theodicy: how to think about God in the face of the presence of suffering in God's creation. After God's dethronement as the subject of history, the question rebounds to the new subject of history: the human being. As a consequence, theodicy becomes anthropodicy — justifications of our faith in humanity as the subject of history, in the face of the suffering that is so inextricably woven into the history that humanity makes. Mutatis mutandis, the universe story brings with it the need for a "cosmodicy." How do we think about the presence of suffering, on a massive scale, in the story of the cosmos, particularly when the cosmos itself is understood to be the subject of history? How do we justify our faith in the cosmos?<ref>J. Matthew Ashley, "Reading the universe story theologically: the contribution of a biblical narrative imagination", ''Theological studies'', 2010, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 870—902</ref>}}
The answer, of course, is exactly that of [[theodicy]]: we don't. Just as an omnipotent god could lack omnibenevolence, so too could the universe. "Faith in the cosmos" and "faith in humanity" are restricted to the prospect that ''they exist'', not that they are deserving of worship, no one but followers of the Abrahamic religions ever having conflated the two. Like an enormous housecat, the cosmos is pretty, good to have around, sometimes can even appear caring, but ultimately could not give a flying fuck.

==See also==
*[[Appeal to nature]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Religion]]

Categories: Philosophy, Religion
Council of Europe

{{sources needed}}
{{hatnote|Not to be confused with [[Church of England|that other C of E]].}}
[[File:CoE members 2024.png|right|thumb|165px|Members of the Council of Europe.]]{{politics}}
The '''Council of Europe''' is an organisation of 46 countries in [[Europe]]. It includes almost all European countries, with the exception of [[Belarus]], [[Russia]], [[Vatican City]], and some countries which lack full international recognition (such as [[Kosovo]], [[South Ossetia]] or [[Abkhazia]]).

It mainly exists as a forum for discussion among the member governments, and as such has been a vehicle for the adoption of a wide range of treaties in many different areas. It is a bit like a European mini-[[United Nations]]. It also has a Parliamentary Assembly, which is elected by the Parliaments of the member states, and brings together parliamentarians to discuss issues.

In terms of substantive powers, its most notable institution is the '''European Court of Human Rights''' (ECHR) — citizens of member states can sue their governments in this court, claiming human-rights violations. This is the most controversial aspect of the Council of Europe.

The Council of Europe should not be confused with the [[European Union]], which is a separate body with a smaller membership but much greater powers. (However, the British tabloids do not understand the difference, and keep on calling the ECHR an "EU court", which it is not.) For added confusion, the European Union has two institutions — one called the Council of the European Union, the other the European Council — which again are unrelated to the Council of Europe.

The Council of Europe is older than the EU, having been established in 1949, while the earliest predecessors of the EU did not form until 1958, and the EU did not exist under its current name until 1993. The Council of Europe was established as a looser, broader, low-commitment grouping, that any European country could join, provided they meet minimum standards of democracy and human rights. During the [[Cold War]] its membership was restricted to the Western-allied European countries, but has since then been expanded to include most of the former Eastern bloc, which included [[Russia]] which joined in 1996 and left in 2022 following the invasion of Ukraine. This also led to the question of where "Europe" ends, which the CoE has decided means territory west of the Ural river, meaning that [[Kazakhstan]] can join when it fulfills the CoE's democracy and human-rights standards, but that [[Kyrgyzstan]] and [[Uzbekistan]], presumably, cannot. The CoE has also come very close to kicking out a member state for human-rights abuses, specifically [[Greece]] in the wake of the coup that brought in the {{wpl|Greek military junta of 1967–74}} — although the junta withdrew Greek CoE membership to forestall being excluded.

==See also==
*[[Council of Europe 2007 resolution on the teaching of creationism|''The dangers of creationism in education'']]

==External links==
*[http://www.coe.int/en/ Main website]

{{stub|politics}}

[[Category:Europe]]
[[Category:International organisations]]

Categories: Europe, International organisations
Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain

{{atheism}}
'''The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain''' was formed in June 2007 to support people who had renounced [[Islam]]. The British branch was formed in response to the success of similar movements in [[Germany]], [[Finland]], [[Denmark]], [[Norway]], and [[Sweden]]. The [[British Humanist Association]] and [[National Secular Society]] sponsored the launch and support the organisation.

The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain claims that The London School of Economics Student Union refused to allow the  Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society to add "ex-Muslim" to its name alleging security concerns.  The ex-Muslims claim this makes it harder for former Muslims to get the support they need in facing family pressure and Islamist threats when they come out. <ref>[http://ex-muslim.org.uk/2012/12/statement-on-adding-ex-muslim-to-the-lse-atheist-secularist-and-humanist-society-name/ Statement on adding ex-Muslim to the LSE Atheist, Secularist, and Humanist Society name]</ref>

On the other hand it does mean that that the Society will not eventually become known as the "Atheist, Secularist, Humanist, Ex-Muslim, Ex-Christian, Ex-Scientologist, Ex-Mormon, Ex-Jainist, Ex-Pastafarian, Ex-Cetera society.  

There is also a group known as Ex-Muslims of North America<ref>[http://www.exmna.org/ Ex-Muslims of North America]</ref> that faces discrimination.<ref>[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/06/20/wegmans-store-refuses-to-make-cake-for-ex-muslim-group-because-their-existence-is-offensive/ Wegmans Store Refuses to Make Cake for Ex-Muslim Group Because Their Existence is “Offensive”]</ref>

==See also==
*[[Muslim Council of Britain]]
*[[One Law for All]]

==External links==
*[http://ex-muslim.org.uk/ Official website]
*[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/10/14/how-ex-muslims-living-in-islamic-countries-should-plan-their-exits How Ex-Muslims Living in Islamic Countries Should Plan Their Exits]

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{stub|Organizations}}
{{stub|Islam|Islam}}

[[Category:Organizations]]
[[Category:Islam]]
[[Category:Apostate organisations]]

Categories: Organizations, Islam, Apostate organisations
Counter-jihad

{{sources needed}}
{{Islamophobia}}
The '''Counterjihad''' movement is a de-centralized far-right network between [[Western world|Western]] activists against [[Islam]].

The movement got a boost in the wake of the [[September 11 attacks]]. The movement came to prominence as one of its followers, [[Anders Behring Breivik]], carried out a terrorist attack in 2011 and published a manifesto titled ''2083 – A European Declaration of Independence'', in which he argues that Europe is at war with Muslims.

Prominent counter-jihad writers include [[Anders Behring Breivik]], [[Fjordman]], [[Bat Ye'or]], [[Daniel Pipes]], [[Pamela Geller]], Jared Israel, [[Gates of Vienna|Ned May]], and [[Hans Rustad]], and important publications include Atlas Shrugs, [[Gates of Vienna]], 1389, The Brussels Journal, and [[Document.no]].

One of the most central beliefs of the counter-jihad movement is the "[[Eurabia]]" conspiracy theory.

==See also==
* [[Ingrid Carlqvist]]
* [[English Defence League]]
* [[Folkebevegelsen Mot Innvandring]]
* [[Islamophobia]]
* [[Rasmus Paludan]]
* [[SIAN]]

{{stub|Islamophobia}}

[[Category:Islamophobia]]
[[Category:Racism]]

Categories: Islamophobia, Racism
Courage International

{{christianity}}
'''Courage International''' (often referred to simply as "Courage") is the [[reparative therapy]] apostolate (lay ministry) of the [[Catholic Church]]. It was organized in 1980 by [[New York City|New York]] [[Bishop|Archbishop]] Terence Cardinal Cooke. Its mission was bolstered in 1986 when it received pastoral letters issued by [[Joseph Ratzinger]], who was then the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Courage also operates '''Encourage''', a support group for friends and family members who can't cope with the thought of there being [[gay]] and [[lesbian]] [[Catholics]].

Unlike [[Protestant]] ex-gay groups like [[Exodus International]], Courage is relatively unknown among non-Catholics. However, a bit of light was splashed onto the movement's face in July 2013 when it was revealed that [[Antonin Scalia]]'s son, Paul, is a [[priest]] that works for Courage. It was also revealed that the younger Scalia believes that being gay "is not an immutable characteristic or identity"<ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/04/paul-scalia-homosexuality-antonin-scalia_n_3543284.html "Paul Scalia, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's Son, Doesn't Think That Homosexuality Is A Thing"], ''[[Huffington Post]]'' website, 4 July 2013.</ref> and that he doesn't think that it really exists.<ref>[http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/scalias-son-says-homosexuality-doesnt-exist-plans-address-group-encourages-lifelong-abstinen "Scalia's Son Says Homosexuality Doesn't Exist, Plans to Address Group that Encourages Lifelong Abstinence for Gays"], ''Right Wing Watch'' website, 2 July 2013.</ref>

==External links==
*[http://couragerc.net/ Official website]

==References==
{{reflist}}
{{stub|Christianity}}
[[Category:Catholicism]]
[[Category:Homophobia]]
[[Category:Organizations]]
[[Category:Pray the gay away]]
[[Category:Purity culture]]
[[Category:Right-wing activists]]
[[Category:Misnomers]]

Categories: Catholicism, Homophobia, Organizations, Pray the gay away, Purity culture, Right-wing activists, Misnomers