0
0
Arment Dietrich

God: Getting His blog on since B.C.E.

By: Arment Dietrich | February 23, 2007 | 
0

Red state, blue state.  Conservative and liberal.  It’s a back and forth that has played out in sometimes ugly fashion since the 2000 election.  Both sides have acted bitter and vindictive towards each other.  We prefer a more libertarian view that simply makes fun of everyone.

But conservatives are fighting back.  Just days after the Fox News Channel debuted its (unfunny and awkward) answer to the Daily Show, “The ½ Hour News Hour,” a new wiki site has emerged.  Conservapedia.com hopes to put the libs and Brits in their places.

It describes itself: “Conservapedia is a much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American. On Wikipedia, many of the dates are provided in the anti-Christian “C.E.” instead of “A.D.”, which Conservapedia uses.” 

It decries the bias rife on Wikipedia, yet laughably is based on its own bias.  This begs the question: WTF, man?

To its credit, it’s transparent: “Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we favor Christianity and America. Conservapedia has easy-to-use indexes to facilitate review of topics. You will much prefer using Conservapedia compared to Wikipedia if you want concise answers free of ‘political correctness.’”

Being free of political correctness is one thing, but being free of fact is another thing.  One gripe a lot of people have with sites like Wikipedia is its lack of authority because anybody can edit an entry; there was a huge flap in 2005 when former statesman John Seigenthaler, Sr. was named as a Kennedy assassination conspirator on Wikipedia

Conservapedia also has this problem, and one wonders how much truth the editors will include on the site.  Global warming, for instance, is described in part as this: “Liberals would like to see the economy of America destroyed by forcing us to drive solar cars to work, and use geothermal energy to heat our homes. Global warming is merely a thinly-veiled liberal attempt to destroy capitalism.”

Ouch.  But that’s countered by this drivel: “Conservatives would like to see God’s creation destroyed by forcing us to drive SUVs to work, and use fossil fuels to heat our un-insulated, drafty homes. Global warming is a widely accepted phenomenon.”

So…is it or is it not widely accepted?  It’ll destroy capitalism?  I’m so confused.  So this means that soon we’ll become communists driving solar S.U.V.s to our jobs on the commune?

The site holds back no punches when going after the opposition: Lefites.

Democrat: According to leading conservative thinkers, no good Christian would ever be a Democrat. For example, Ann Coulter says ‘The Democrats are giving aid and comfort to the enemy for no purpose other than giving aid and comfort to the enemy. There is no plausible explanation for the Democrats’ behavior other than that they long to see U.S. troops shot, humiliated, and driven from the field of battle. They fill the airwaves with treason, but when called to vote on withdrawing troops, disavow their own public statements. These people are not only traitors, they are gutless traitors.’”[1]

Clearly Ann Coulter is an authority.  Quite frankly, that’s an insulting insinuation to anyone to has dissenting views.

As for liberals?  “A liberal in the early 1800s in Europe was one who favored more powerful elected assemblies. The term was common in France shortly after the French Revolution. Modern liberals are treasonous [1] and generally hate America .[2]” Double ouch.  Conservatives are given a little more leeway.

OK, how about religion?

/images/34674-32324/Fictional.PNG” width=521>

God has a blog?

Coincidentally, the jolly fellow in the beret is also present on President Bush’s listing.

Another hot-button issue is given a liberal slant: “Homosexuality is a naturally-occurring sexual orientation found in human beings as well as many other vertebrate species. In general, homosexuality is described as a sexual attraction towards a member of one’s own sex/gender.”

Okay, so what are we trying to say here?  Wikis are not an authority.  They can be hacked into and they can spin content. 

“But, F.A.D.S.,” you say, “You’re quoting wikis here!”  Yep.  The fact is they’re an accessible way to find information.  More often than not, the information on wikis is reliable, but we always consult another source to make sure the information is legit. 

Wikis can be dangerous.  Unless they are maintained by an editor who is committed to sticking to the facts, and not allowing any bozo with an Internet connection the ability to add ridiculous content, such as some of things found on Conservapedia.  And it’s not just conservatives who are guilty.  They’re having a laugh at Wonkette, admittedly one of our favorite sites, and one that skews left.

Wikipedia has put standards in place that hopefully reign in such maverick editors.  We hope that Conservapedia evolves past its infant stages to embrace truth more than truthiness.

Still, we totally want to link to God’s blog.

0 comments