Conservapedia:Ask questions

Hi! Leave any questions you have for us here.

Christianapedia

Why not just call it "Christianapdeia" and be done with it? The bias in this site is astounding! Came here hoping for less bias, and have been shocked at the lack of information and citing of crackpot sources.

Also, why is "sex" deleted when so many conservatives (teens included) need this type of factual information. Studies show that many conservative teens receive terrible information when it comes to sexual education. There are so many sources that are poor, this is a good opportunity to provide solid, factual information.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ensie (talk)

---

Bias

If wikipedia is "liberal biased" I assume it would be because that's the way the world is biased because the people who write for it are not censored unless it is blatantly wrong. I came to this site and thought that as the homepage calls it "more accurate" info. Unfortunately, I seemed to have stumbled on less accurate information. Note, that some articles leave out anything that doesn't have to do with a specific biased message. (Example: the abortion article doesn't even explain what it is, just why it's bad.)

My real question is, why will this be deleted, instead of talked about and addressed on your site?

Users are probably less likely to get blocked here than on Wikipedia. But as to you central claim, bias arises most easily in unrestrained groups of people, like gangs, mobs and political parties. We have a set of simple, clear rules to keep us from ending up like Wikipedia. Check out our list of Bias in Wikipedia. Thanks and hope you can contribute. By the way, the abortion page does define what it is, though I expect everyone knows that already.--Aschlafly 20:38, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Not censored? Please see this [1] Recently when an editor pointed out "Dominionism", as defined by Wikipedia is "a trend in Protestant Christian evangelicalism", didn't apply to Paul Weyrich because he is Roman Catholic, he nonetheless received a community ban so the pejoratives aimed at Paul Weyrich will stick. RobS 14:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

American spelling is descended from illiterates who left england/europe to colonise the 'new world'. E.g. Favor should be spelled Favour, nite should be spelled Night. After all the language is English and therefore the spellings should be English. Yet another example of American terretorialism and intolerance - if it 'aint American it's bad, if it 'aint Christian - it's bad. your claim that the abortion issue is biased on Wikipedia is just a joke. One of the founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, made the following statements.

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

There are a multitude of similar statements, Religion never was, nor was meant to be enshrined in law. He believed in a society where Government and Religion were a seperate. If Christian values are enforced by law - then surely when you get to heaven, you will be judged on deeds that you committed voluntarily, not those you were 'told' to do. God gave man free will for a purpose, surely to not use free will and judgement is an insult to God for this gift.

By the way, I am an American Christian, not liberal nor conservative nor any other 'term' that pigeonholes someone - I am a free thinker, and use the brain that was bestowed upon me by God to question, research etc. So many of the worlds religions share the same facts/events (Jesus is mentioned in the Bible, Koran and the Torah). Maybe, these religions started out as one, but disversified/split as different sects had different beliefs. We all worship one God, just in our different way. Maybe it's time we focused on the 'true' meaning of Christ, when was the last time you invited a homeless person to share your home for a while? When was the last time you went out looking for a drug-user to help? How many times have you looked with disdain upon someone because they 'were'nt Christian'? Christ deliberately whould seek out those at the bottom, to help and nurture them - when was the last time, as a Christian, you did that? I have done these things, and continue to do so, I don't preach, proletize or lecture, I help - surely a better way of spreading gods word than empty talk and posturing.

I fully expect this post to be deleted, after all, it saddens me to say our once great Country had become so intolerant and abusive of anyone different. Who would be lesser in the eyes of God - The Christian who only helps/deals with/associates with Christians or the Atheist who helps people in need because they need help, regardless of their faith.

Thankyou

Scope

What is the proposed scope of Conservapedia? You currently have articles on History, Economics, Science, and Law. Do you intend to expand this list in future?--Smalltownhick 20:23, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

'Expanding', I'd argue 'Inflating' is a more appropriate semantic.

Parochial language commandment

I just reflexively corrected (at least) 5 spelling errors in the above paragraphs.

I am curious why the American version of spellings is considered so important that it is a "commandment" rather than simply an editorial policy?

I think it is acceptable for you to pick and use any English dialect you wish as a policy, and American English is one of the more popular ones, but I think it capricious that you would ban otherwise valuable contributions from someone for using their own. Simply edit the articles for spelling as you see fit, as I did above.

Brian Wilson 20:30, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Purpose?

I'm genuinely confused on what the true purpose of this project is. Is the intention to actually to build an actual encyclopedia which is balanced, accurate and free of superfluous information or is the intention to "balance out" wikipedia by providing an oppositely biased viewpoint? For example, the Gun control article seems to at least be written in a bias tone and it doesn't cite any sources. BalancedBudget 22:32, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Yet another example of American terretorialism and intolerance - if it 'aint American it's bad, if it 'aint Christian - it's bad. your claim that the abortion issue is biased on Wikipedia is just a joke. One of the founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, made the following statements.

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

There are a multitude of similar statements, Religion never was, nor was meant to be enshrined in law. He believed in a society where Government and Religion were a seperate. If Christian values are enforced by law - then surely when you get to heaven, you will be judged on deeds that you committed voluntarily, not those you were 'told' to do. God gave man free will for a purpose, surely to not use free will and judgement is an insult to God for this gift.

By the way, I am an American Christian, not liberal nor conservative nor any other 'term' that pigeonholes someone - I am a free thinker, and use the brain that was bestowed upon me by God to question, research etc. So many of the worlds religions share the same facts/events (Jesus is mentioned in the Bible, Koran and the Torah). Maybe, these religions started out as one, but disversified/split as different sects had different beliefs. We all worship one God, just in our different way. Maybe it's time we focused on the 'true' meaning of Christ, when was the last time you invited a homeless person to share your home for a while? When was the last time you went out looking for a drug-user to help? How many times have you looked with disdain upon someone because they 'were'nt Christian'? Christ deliberately whould seek out those at the bottom, to help and nurture them - when was the last time, as a Christian, you did that? I have done these things, and continue to do so, I don't preach, proletize or lecture, I help - surely a better way of spreading gods word than empty talk and posturing.

I fully expect this post to be deleted, after all, it saddens me to say our once great Country had become so intolerant and abusive of anyone different. Who would be lesser in the eyes of God - The Christian who only helps/deals with/associates with Christians or the Atheist who helps people in need because they need help, regardless of their faith.

Thankyou

EDT 13th March 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr flibble (talk)

Where are you getting your "true meaning of Jesus Christ"? You're not getting it out of the Bible. Sure, Jesus encouraged people to be charitable. But He also said,

The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me.

And BTW: the context under which He said that was that Judas Iscariot had just complained about a woman breaking a three-hundred-dinar vial of fragrant oil over Jesus' head. (Well, everyone was complaining about it, but Judas the loudest.) Judas didn't care about the poor; he just wanted to make up the deficit in the apostolic treasury, which he had emptied out earlier.

Now you're not the kind of embezzler that Judas was. But what shall we call one who wants to be awfully generous--with other people's money? I hardly think that Jesus would approve of that.--TerryH 12:17, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

References

Bold text