7
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Conservapedia talk:Ask questions (view source)
Revision as of 11:20, March 2, 2007
, 11:20, March 2, 2007Two suggestions for ConservaPedia
(1) Did you know that the Login/Create Account button does not allow anyone to create an account? This looks very unprofessional and should be corrected as quickly as possible.
(2) It seems to me that this site is properly described as a "fundamentalist Protestant Christian conservative" site, rather than as a general "conservative" site. I have noticed a number of things asserted as fact with which I am sure a very large number of self-described conservatives would disagree.
Of course, one could always have a semantic, and sterile, argument about who is "really" a conservative, so let me put this assertion as a testable proposition: if we gathered together the editorial boards of the American journals calling themselves conservative (such as ''Modern Age,'' ''National Review'', ''Weekly Standard'', ''American Conservative'', ''Chronicles'', ''Claremont Review'', to name some of the most prominent) I am confident that the overwhelming majority of the editors would disagree strongly with such (astonishing) statements as "there is no evidence for the existence of human civilizations earlier than about 3500 BC."
In the interests of political clarity, the particular kind of conservatism espoused here should be made clear.
Consider how you would feel if a group of atheist homosexual conservatives (and there are people who are homosexual atheists who call themselves conservative, and are sincere about it) were to start a "Conservative Encyclopedia" site, claiming it to be representative of conservatism in general, and put in entries such as "Conservatives are strongly for the institution of marriage, and wish to see it extended to embrace gay couples as well as straight." This would be out of order, I would think. But if they said, "Atheist Homosexual Conservatives are strongly for ..." etc then that would be a simple statement of fact, although you might well object that atheists and homosexuals should not be called conservatives regardless of their other beliefs -- but that is a different issue. What is for sure is that they would be wrong to claim their beliefs as representative of all self-described conservatives).
(2) It seems to me that this site is properly described as a "fundamentalist Protestant Christian conservative" site, rather than as a general "conservative" site. I have noticed a number of things asserted as fact with which I am sure a very large number of self-described conservatives would disagree.
Of course, one could always have a semantic, and sterile, argument about who is "really" a conservative, so let me put this assertion as a testable proposition: if we gathered together the editorial boards of the American journals calling themselves conservative (such as ''Modern Age,'' ''National Review'', ''Weekly Standard'', ''American Conservative'', ''Chronicles'', ''Claremont Review'', to name some of the most prominent) I am confident that the overwhelming majority of the editors would disagree strongly with such (astonishing) statements as "there is no evidence for the existence of human civilizations earlier than about 3500 BC."
In the interests of political clarity, the particular kind of conservatism espoused here should be made clear.
Consider how you would feel if a group of atheist homosexual conservatives (and there are people who are homosexual atheists who call themselves conservative, and are sincere about it) were to start a "Conservative Encyclopedia" site, claiming it to be representative of conservatism in general, and put in entries such as "Conservatives are strongly for the institution of marriage, and wish to see it extended to embrace gay couples as well as straight." This would be out of order, I would think. But if they said, "Atheist Homosexual Conservatives are strongly for ..." etc then that would be a simple statement of fact, although you might well object that atheists and homosexuals should not be called conservatives regardless of their other beliefs -- but that is a different issue. What is for sure is that they would be wrong to claim their beliefs as representative of all self-described conservatives).