Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia:Front Page"

Revision as of 13:13, April 23, 2007

Wikipedia also has News on the right side, but most of the front page matter is "encylopedic". Here, today, on the right it is about the madman at Virginia Tech and several references to his Anti Christian Rant - on the right and the left side ... and am sure it will dominate the front page. Also, Bible quotations on the front page? Encylopedia or a platform to push the Bible? Is anything else quotable on the front page? User:Seekcommon

I know what you mean, shouldn't we wait until the official investigation reveals new facts, instead of immediately politicizing the whole case and just maybe try to use reason and logic to analyse this case.

Maybe something like this: (I know it's just speculation and I have no tangible evidence for this.)

To me it seems that guy was a troubled kid, probably obsessed with unreachable women, who was laughed by his "rich-kid" classmates and felt cornered by his parent's strong religious beliefs and one day decided he wanted to "make the world pay", like those kids from Columbine. The name Ishmael could be (notice the use of the words "could be" instead of "is") a reference to him recognizing himself in the biblical Ishmael who was rejected by his society, instead of an alledged Muslim connection.

I'd say that's the just about the whole story, no conspiracies against "America" and no evil brainwashing porn.

So yes, propaganda like this and all of the "liberals this and liberals that" crap doesn't belong on the front page of an encyclopedia"

Middle Man

What quotation?

I don't see any Bible quotations. What are you ranting about?--Roopilots6 11:45, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Before Mr. Cho posed on the main page, they had a fresh bible quotation every day.

Middle Man

Yes, they did (as Middle Man has noted) and THAT was what I was talking about, RANT if you choose to say I do. So, is IT or is IT not propaganda for advancing the Bible? And why the rush to judgement about "anti christian" rant(s) or whatever that madman may have said/written? Would Conservapedia have said anything if the rants were anti-(fill in the religion other than the christianity practiced by the moderators)?? I think not. User:Seekcommon

Oh, so you're having a problem when a quotation from the Bible is posted everyday.--Roopilots6 19:06, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Is this a Bible encyclopedia? Or a Conservative Encyclopedia? If Conservapedia, and Bible quotations are to be included, SAY SO. Do not claim it is an "Encylopedia" and put Bible quotations on the front. Unless, to you and a lot of others, being a Conservative means the Bible (and ofcourse the version the moderators are willing to accept and what they reject selectively or accept selectively) - Perhaps it would be a good idea to put quotes from the Bible about the blood thirsty almighty that is always seeking/asking put people to death - including for working on the sabbath and on and on. Have I committed blasphemy and should I await thunder and lightning and all that?User:Seekcommon

I just believe a truly reliable and unbiased encyclopedia would be more credible without this much propaganda on its main page. Like Seekcommon said, if they posted quotations from the Koran or the Vedda's on the main page, every moderater on here would call it propaganda.

Middle Man

Not to many I am afraid. Selective quotes and the spreading of paranoia is what drives many extremists and yes there is no difference between a "Christian" extremist and an "Islamic" extremist or a "Hindu" extremist or a "Jewish" extremist. They all think THEY know the answer and the way to the truth. User:Seekcommon

"Conservative" does not equal evangelist or christian or (fill-in-the-blanks), neither does "Liberal" mean "one that wants to kill the unborn" or people who do not believe in God. Milton Friedman, one of the greatest economists of the 20th Century may be called "Conservative" by many, but I have heard him describe himself as "Liberal" - and as he explained, "Liberal" used to mean what many today called themselves "Conservatives". But then again I have heard many of today's "Liberals" characterize conservatives as religious nuts which they are not. Yes, there is "Liberal" evil (good) and "Conservative" evil (good)User:Seekcommon

All true.

Middle Man

The front page diatribe continues, today the complaint is about a poem that is said to be "Liberal" and the fact that it does not mention "God" or "prayer". Uh?? It is a beautiful poem that shows how sad the VT commumity is due to the tragedy We do not understand this tragedy We know we did nothing to deserve it - The words reflect the bewilderment of all humans at senseless killings. Since the omniscient God knows everything including the past and the future, were they supposed to have said "Thank God" for "what Thou has brought?" ... Many, many students were shown praying - on TV, openly crying, grieving ... Yet, the diatribe here is about how "God" was missing in the poem. Uh??? User:Seekcommon

I have to say however that there is a silver lining to the diatribes and the single minded devotion to a specific cause and the lashing out at those that do not fall in line. The more unreasonable the position is, the better most people understand how unreasonable they are and so it does become easier to deal with. So, yea, go ahead and look in every nook and corner on how some "Liberal" somewhere does not mention "God" or "refuses" to pray. Keep saying it loudly and often. There are already references to the mad man's writings/videos and such, next perhaps the effort should be on the victims - and from what I have seen, in addition to "Christians" some of the victims were Muslims and Hindus. Did THEY deserve to be killed? Which "God" "ordered" that?? User:Seekcommon

Yes, exactly, God has nothing to do with this (talk about unrelated subjects), the poem is fine the way it is. And if questioning (social) injustice around the world is the work of evil Godless liberals, than I'm proud to be an evil Godless liberal!

Middle Man

And here is something from the Good Book. Matthew 6:5-8

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. User:Seekcommon

I love that quote! I'm gonna put it on my page! Jesus had much to teach, he was right there on the same level as Buddha, it's a shame his followers misinterpreted him so often.

Middle Man

I love it too. In fact, the essence of what Jesus wrote/stood for is timeless and will remain uncorrupted by the vain and the power hungry who use what Jesus said/wrote for their own purposes. The breadth of human experience seen through the people, prophets is so similar yet it is painful to watch the hijacking of particulars from one religion to persecute those who in their minds do not follow those teachings. There is a lot more common among the fundamental human experiences and "religion" and more that binds than things that SEEM to separate and differentiate. Peace ... Or, to use another language, Om Shanti, Shanti, Shanti User:Seekcommon

2Evil&GodlessLiberals

1. Religious texts aren't propaganda. 2. Go to the bottom of the web page and read "About Conservapedia". 3. Read previous posts and see where that conflicts with "About Conservapedia" statement. 4. Respond in an evil, godless, liberal manner. Happy Earth day!--Roopilots6 14:56, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

I guess I am puzzled for referring to a response with quotes from Matthew as Evil and Godless. I guess Matthew is someone else then and in his writing and in the Bible I saw, it is something very different. I appreciate your pointing them out to me. From now on, I will consider everything Matthew has written to be evil. Unless, you can correct me since you know everything. User:Seekcommon

Look what they came up with now: according to the front page Mr. Schlaffy can apparently predict the future: he already knows who's going to win the second round of the French Presidential elections.

Seekcommon, I'm right there with you.

Middle Man

Since you know everything? Last time I heard that was from a 10 year old girl; and she was right. Dude, he only won the first round, get a grip! Also, thanks for following number four. Please, carry on.--Roopilots6 08:51, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I do agree with you on the issue of age, we do lose a lot as we age, I know, I have an intelligent one myself that I learn from. But I am curious, point 4, you talk about responding in an "Evil, Godless, Liberal" manner ... Does that also refer to my quoting Matthew? User:Seekcommon

Of course I know he only won the first round, but the front page says he won the elections altogether.

Middle Man

Then again, a story from the Left. When Daniel Ortega was defeated the first time in Nicaragua, Peter Jennings that this incredible look on his face and kept wondering how he lost when "polls" indicated that he should have won. It is as if, Jennings so wanted Ortega to win that he could not accept the decision. Mainstream media were stunned that a left winger lost an election. So, stuff happens. User:Seekcommon