Changes

Hi. I registered in 2009 because I think Conservapedia is a great idea in theory. Having a source that gets the other side out is something I've long wished for. However, I do find some of it disturbing in practice. The best example is the notorious (it's not the second Google search result for Conservapedia without reason) case of the Barack Obama article.

Hi. I registered in 2009 because I think Conservapedia is a great idea in theory. Having a source that gets the other side out is something I've long wished for. However, I do find some of it disturbing in practice. The best example is the notorious (it's not the second Google search result for Conservapedia without reason) case of the Barack Obama article.

In my opinion, someone with an opposing viewpoint who views a Conservapedia article should think not "This person is crazy!" but rather "So that's where they're coming from. Well, I may not disagree with the author, but I can respect his opinion." To put it another way, I believe in preaching not about the dangers of damnation and the road to Hell but about the love of Jesus Christ and the path to salvation. That's not to say I believe in sugar-coating the Bible, of course, but one doesn't have to go out of one's way to offend one's potential audience. In this sense, I am very much a William F. Buckley conservative, and unfortunately an endangered species.

In my opinion, someone with an opposing viewpoint who views a Conservapedia article should think not "This person is crazy!" but rather "So that's where they're coming from. Well, I may not disagree with the author, but I can respect his opinion." To put it another way, I believe in preaching not about the dangers of damnation and the road to Hell but about the love of Jesus Christ and the path to salvation. That's not to say I believe in sugar-coating the Bible, of course, but one doesn't have to insult one's potential audience. In this sense, I am very much a William F. Buckley conservative, and unfortunately an endangered species.