Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Can Conservapedia Succeed?

2010-03-29T17:28:10Z

Pcook:

{{debate-project}}

==With Unique Style, Conservative Cooperation and Majority Religion Rule==

I believe that Conservapedia has an important task. I am also convinced that if Conservapedia can get past its Wikitrauma (I too left Wikipedia)and develop its own intelligent identity and be FOR something unique and positive it will succeed. Let me go into detail. I would like to share an important vision as to what Conservapedia could be, what niche it could fill in today's world.

Firstly, in many modern societies today people are being divided into at least two camps- those who have some kind of strong ethic (be it religiously oriented or simply the strong voice of an internal "parent") and those without a strong ethic and often without any notable self-discipline. Those who tend to strive toward the honourable, the good, the respectful and the decent or ethical need to be able to find information which helps them to do this. And they need to find other like-minded people to share ideas with. In essence, the particular religion (or lack thereof) is not a major issue here. That those who are conservative and who support conservative ideals tend to have a strong sense of order, decency and self-discipline is more than just a curiosity; it is the very force or common denominator which will ultimately unite a Conservapedia community.

Secondly, like any country, Conservapedia must adopt a policy for freedom of religion. I have often posited that our current system of freedom of religion collapses in like a house of cards on its own absurdity. Attempting to accommodate all religions in absurdum does not work. There is another model which may be more realistic and still allow everyone the right to basic freedom to believe and worship as they choose. There must be a host religion or primary religion and guest religions or secondary religions. Here in Conservapedia, the host religion is Christianity. It is, from what I can tell, the majority religion. That religion sets the tone and has the final say about the general identity of Conservapedia. Where there is a rare conflict of interest between my secondary religion and the primary religion, the interests of my religion (excluding my right to practise my own religion personally) give way to the interests of the primary religion.

This has implications for articles on various religions here in Conservapedia. I propose that when we write an article about a religion, that any controversies or criticisms be included in a separate article, always outside of the main descriptive article about the religion in question. In the case of the ongoing LDS articles (I write this because there was a request for a polygamy article in connection with the LDS articles), there would be an LDS portal with the regular article about the religion and its founder and notable persons. Then any controversy about the religion would be put into a separate article entitled "Criticisms of the LDS faith". If there is a controvery with Joseph Smith (for instance) then it would either be a separate article or located toward the end of the main article in a section called "Controversy". The point of departure should be: "If a member of that religion were to seek information about his or her own religion from Conservapedia, what would their experience be?". The person could choose from the articles in the portal and would be able to readily identify articles in which their religion is criticized from the vantage point of mainstream Christianity which also has a right on Conservapedia to criticize.

Thirdly, we should have something physically unique to offer readers. This would include, in my opinion, an easy to read style or format that is different from Wikipedia, whether it be simpler structure for articles, fonts and colours that are easier on the eye, logical structure of articles which is psychologically proven to enhance the reading experience and learning. By developing logical and intelligent rules and styles and by providing a reading experience that is more organized and simple than Wikipedia, I believe we could create an important advantage.

Fourthly, conservative cooperation is the only factor that will keep Conservapedia afloat. I can presently identify the following major client groups which (if we can get along) would push Conservapedia into the future: educated mainstream Christians, LDS (mormons), politically conservative Jews, secular classical conservatives. If we can make the "qualified freedom of religion" I write of above work, I think we will have a firm base to build upon in this conservative cooperation. And the more cooperation there is, the better the content and the wider use of that content among the various communities who trust Conservapedia.

Let me throw in another idea, before I stop. Conservapedia is about learning and it is about the wholesome and trustworthy. Libraries, including the Library of Congress and media such as the Christian networks and BYU TV would be easily attracted by special projects presented now and then by Conservapedia. One such project could be a Veterans' Biographical Memory portal of articles on Conservapedia. Another would be a Head Start in Ethical Learning portal of articles about child rearing and teaching ethics as early as possible. This information in simple form would surely be invaluable to many parents in today's society. Each of these projects would increase both the publicity and relevance of Conservapedia.

Most of us have left the Wikipedia community, because we do not share the values of many Wikipedians. We are a people of strong ethics, a people who strive torward the decent, the noble, the wholesome and respectable. That is a remarkable strength, in my opinion. Let's turn our glance aware from Wikipedia and toward a future where we have something to offer which is uniquely ours and badly needed in today's world. --ExFin 17:51, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia is extremely biased. As a graduate of Bible college and now taking online courses through a state institution, bias is seen moreso in liberal communities towards religion than the other way around. I think Conservapedia can indeed succeed. However, more articles in science and history are needed. If you want students to come to your site, you must provide them with the charts and information that they need where they will come to you instead of Wikipedia. I like the fact that scholars are welcome to this site. Buff up Conservapedia and they will come.

== Possibly ==

I'm new to Conservapedia. From my perspective, too much time is spent at present debating the "controversial" articles (Creationism, Abortion, etc) and too little time is spent making a great number of the more mundane articles authoritative. I've flicked through 20-30 articles (free time can be a good thing!) using the Random Page function and it saddened me that many of them are one or two lines long with no proper references or citations. What use is any encyclopedia if it goes out of its way to offer a particular perspective at the expense of containing good factual articles about, well, everything that might be useful to the home schooled or the intellectually curious?

I'd like to see something like this succeed - from an educational perspective it would be a credit to all involved. But, in my opinion, unless time and effort are spent on ALL articles, not just the emotive ones, it will never be functional in the way it deserves to be.

I've made a few scattergun edits so far (mythology and random trivia are my strong points) but there are a whole host of topics that should be informative that clearly no real time has been spent on.

I'll judge Conservapedia to be a success when I see people linking to articles as a source of facts about, well, anything and everything. Whilst people are only interested in certain controversial topics, it will only ever be a limited viewpoint, not an encyclopedia.

Let's face it, people should be able to look at this site as having well written articles on, oh, I don't know (thinks of random things), hamsters, walnut trees and the production of rubber byproducts, not just a select few articles relating to purely Conservative interests. Otherwise, it's not an encyclopedia, it's purely propaganda. Of which the internet already has plenty...--[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 19:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
:I'll accept your well-phrased challenge. I've noticed the stub problem myself.
:As far as I know, the only forbidden subjects on Conservapedia are those that might primarily appeal to a prurient interest--about which, I trust nothing further need be said.
:I agree with [[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]]; however, having started as a Wikipedia reader, then editing Wikipedia as a minor hobby, then getting frustrated and coming here, unfortunately I find myself just adding stubby material myself. [[User:Npov2|Npov2]] 17:35, 13 January 2008 (EST)
:What sort of mythology are you strong in? Classical? Nordic? Chinese?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:00, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd say my main strengths are in Classical mythology in addition to the myths and folklore of the British Isles. That's what you get growing up in what is historically known as "the witches county" - some fascinating history there. And yes, I'd like to start filling out more of the "stub" articles as I come across them. The Random Page function is a real bonus. --[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 20:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Conservapedia's main challenge is reaching critical mass. Pick a topic at random, and in nearly all cases, ''CP will not have any information about it.'' That just sends people elsewhere. Wikipedia certainly had the same problem at first, but had the advantage of attracting academics of all kinds with a devotion to its mission: ''open-source information''. They didn't care about this religion or that political philosophy, they just believed in an idea that inherently bred content (most of it factual... let's be honest: a WP article about, say, [[fruit bat]]s will in fact tell you what they look like, where they live, etc). CP's (nonexisting) article... doesn't. If I were setting out to create something like Wikipedia, but with a conservative agenda to it, I'd start by taking advantage of what all those Wikipedians hath wrought. I'd copy the whole thing (as allowed by the GFDL), ''fork'' it, and get rid of all the things that are anathema to what CP is trying accomplish. Delete the sex info, excise the liberal perspective, add the ministry that WP won't allow, etc. and present the result as an example of what WP would be if a conservative POV could be enforced. Yes, that would require keeping CP licensed under the GFDL, which would make the information in it available to others to copy... but what would be the harm in that? Wouldn't you like to see Answers.com mirroring CP articles instead of WP articles? Some might argue that the content in WP could never be redeemed... but that's what a certain Adversary once said to the Creator, the Messiah, and the Redeemeer about mankind. - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] 23:48, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::I have questioned in the past, and still question, the emphasis on "concise". The debates over "liberal" and "conservative" really hit a very small area of what an encyclopedia should cover. I question the political slant pushed on those areas, but I readily acknowledge my own bias in that area. Even if I was a YECist, and a fundamentalist Christian, plus a die-hard conservative, I would not be using Conservapedia to find actual information, I would be using Wikipedia. I use WP in a sensible way, i.e. I realize its flaws and take its entries with a degree of wariness, but I use the same techniques with the Britannica or any other encyclopedia.

:::What WP provides, and CP currently does not, is in-depth coverage of a broad range of topics. In the past couple of years I have used WP to find out more about: differences between Rugby League and Rugby Union; rules of Australian Rules Football; how to create a proxy.pac file; background on the Roman general Belisarius and the Swedish king Gustavus Adolphus; discography of Deep Purple; horror films of Universal and Hammer studios. These were all topics in which I had a surface knowledge, but wanted to know more.

:::If CP continues a focus on "concise", it will never be a place where I would look up information on the above topics, as I already have a level of knowledge of them that CP would provide. I want depth. Number of topics is very much related to the "critical mass" idea that JasonAQuest mentioned above, but depth of topic requires a change in focus. Until then, CP will remain a YEC/Homeschool/Christian Conservative blog, with a desk encyclopedia attached. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 09:54, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::::All of that is indeed the difference between WP, and CP. However, CP is targetting something other than "expansive knowledge" about things like Pop Culture, and such. For instance, never expect to see an article on "Insane Clown Possé" on this site... it just would not fit the requirement to stay and always remain family-friendly. This naturally limits the topics that could be covered by CP, but not a real concern, as CP isn't about covering them. CP, as I see it, is not really intended to supply ''deep'' knowledge, but rather simply surface knowledge, unless the issue is, for instance, about something of great importance to conservative teachers, or students. They will expound upon the information, and create more detail about the topics that conservatives support, rather than anything and just about everything that the anarchic mob at Wikipedia covers. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 14:11, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:::::What of the items that I mentioned looking up, with the possible exeption of Deep Purple, would be inappropriate topics for CP? I am not arguing the number of topics covered by CP, I am talking about the depth of information. So far, in bouncing around CP for a while, I have come across few articles that had more depth than I would have known on my own. Some, perhaps, in areas that I am less aware of, but even in those, the amount of information isn't enough to be satisfying. If I actually want to know something abouta subject, and am going to look it up, I am rarely going to be happy with one or two paragraphs. You talk of "surface knowledge", if that is the case, then who, outside of elementary or junior high age people are going to use it for information? [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 14:47, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::::::You seem to already have answered your own question. Conservapedia is oriented for young learners. I will however address each topic you intended to mention: ''differences between Rugby League and Rugby Union'' (Rugby is not widely played in the United States) ''rules of Australian Rules Football'' (It covering Australia, not American issues); ''how to create a proxy.pac file'' (this is very deep and technical computer science, it is really not important to many who use CP as a resource); ''background on the Roman general Belisarius'' (Roman history is a distinguished study due to Latin having been a sign of distinction. These articles however do not expand themselves, people need contribue) ''and the Swedish king Gustavus Adolphus'' (Sweden is not America); discography of Deep Purple (I have no idea who this is, but it is obviously pop culture); ''horror films of Universal and Hammer studios'' ("horror" you do understand that many Christians object to Halloween by its promotion of horror) --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 14:55, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:::::::Perhaps Conservapedia needs to make its goal of remaining juvenile and isolationist more clear, so people can stop expecting it to be otherwise. - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] 23:32, 3 January 2008 (EST)

<undent>I have some ideas to help it succeed. The management may contact me if they want to find out more. However, we do have a great number of problems, including:
#Conservatives have families and are probably able to edit less than the libtards at wikipedia.
#Libtards at other wikis disrupting progress here
#Paranoia on vandalism or subtle vandalism driving good meaning editors away.
Anyway, just some of the problems, all surmountable if desired. [[User:FightPerniciousSwarm|FightPerniciousSwarm]] 23:36, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:Don't you think that the liberal tendency toward substance abuse and promiscuous sex detract from their ability to spend time on Wikipedia? - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] 15:49, 5 January 2008 (EST)

== No ==
Of course not! Anyone who thinks it will is either a paranoid naive liberal or one of the kooky creationists writeing the handful of articles posted in this project. -- [[User:Jirt|Jirt]] 10:03, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Because it is quite frankly turning out to be just as liberal as Wikipedia. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 14:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
: I will agree with this because it appears the editing process seems to be slanted towards removing anything that could be considered part of the conservative ideology. Perhaps this could be an effort by liberal subjugators to undermine the integrity of what is supposed to be a conservative knowledge base. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]]
: No it is not as liberal as Wiki yet. ALL Wiki articals are up for editing while Conservapedia has blocked some of the most highly debated ones --[[Ampasand|Ampasand]] 11:32 29 march 2007 (GMT+12)

::And as we all know, the best way to promote accuracy of information is to completely block all alternate thinking on any given subject. Conservapedia has already failed because in many cases it has allowed ideology to trump all other considerations. Apparantly to be a Conservapedia conservative you must be ethnocentric, Christian, and a [[YEC]]. Those of us who don't fit this mold are suspect. Wikipedia may have its own issues, but it has a far more effective dispute resolution system than Conservapedia, and the existence of many voices does tend to move towards an NPOV in many cases. [[User:Stile4aly|Stile4aly]] 14:10, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
---------------
No. Not until you reject NeoCon Republicanism and adopt the ideals of Pat Buchanan. He is the real Conservative. Not a group of men packaged and delivered by Carl Rove.

Hopefully not. Wouldn't it be better if there was a source of information that didn't have any bias? Instead of putting together conservative biased information, how about putting together FACTUAL information?{{Unsigned|Gasmonkey}}

No.

== ????? ==
What is Conservapedia's goal exactly? I think it will fail as a replacement to Wikipedia, but it is a nice place to hang out communicate to other people, and have debates like this one.

Double Edge

:I'm unsure of Conservapedia's mission. I don't think the person/people who govern it have actually focussed on one.

:*One way Conservapedia ''could'' succeed is by downplaying its identity as "Conservative alternative to Wikipedia" and by seriously trying to become a useful information resource for a teenaged audience and for Christian homeschoolers.

:*One way Conservapedia ''could'' succeed is by trying to become a serious, factual encyclopedia whose policies and governance are tweaked just enough to give it a somewhat different emphasis from Wikipedia. My model for this is the Christian Science Monitor in the days when it was a serious, first-rate daily newspaper. It was respected by everyone as serious journalism, was widely read by people who were not Christian Scientists, and was aligned with the Christian Science church without pushing in-your-face, over-the-top Christian Science spin in every article one every page. I think this ''might'' be what Aschlafly wants. I don't give it much chance of getting there. It took Wikipedia about three years to become credible, and I think it pretty much dominates the ecological niche for volunteer-created encyclopedias.

:*One way Conservapedia ''could'' succeed is by become a repository for articles that do not even pretend to be serious information resources, but self-celebratory exercises in anti-liberal rhetoric. Not the George WIll of encyclopedias, but the Ann Coulter of encyclopedias. Conservatives would come to it, not for information, but to experience the reassurance of being in among their own mob. It can probably exist indefinitely as a web forum billing itself an encyclopedia, but which nobody takes seriously as an encyclopedia. And there is of course endless fascination to be had trying to figure out of the edits presenting the most extreme points of view are mocking pranks, and which are sincere.

:I do ask Conservapedians to entertain the following question: would they allow teenaged children to use Conservapedia as a schoolwork resource? Now? Ever? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::To add to this, and I surely hope someone checks this page because I'm not getting a response elsewhere, I see this particular phrase or a variation of it repeated fairly often:

<blockquote>Ah, but there's a key flaw in your comparison, isn't there? '''We disclose our point-of-view, while Wikipedia denies it.''' We're not trying to fool anyone. We give the reader the information, and we let the reader decide. Wikipedia, while pretending to be neutral, is actually far more liberal than the American public and its bias results in censorship of vast amounts of information that readers would like to evaluate for themselves, such as biblical authorities.--Aschlafly 23:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)" [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Pro-Christian.3F] (emphasis added)</blockquote>

::But Conservapedia doesn't disclose its POV. It is called "Conservapedia" and it says on the main page that we "we give full credit to Christianity and America" but that surely does not adequately describe our POV. I see lots of logos on the main page with a cross as a significant focus... is this a Christian encyclopedia? Is this an American encyclopedia? What, exactly, is the POV of Conservapedia? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

"What is Conservapedia's goal exactly?" It's clearly and openly an attempt to supplant Wikipedia with an encyclopedia more palatable to American conservatives, and its bias reflects this. Wikipedia is more suitable for people who - irrespective of their personal politics - understand that the world does not end at the US border. Imitation is, of course, still the sincerest form of flattery. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 14:59, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

== Yes: ==
Yes, it can succeed, and it will. Ironically, the (ahem) user who fired the opening shot (see "No" below) suggested the obvious thing: Disable automatic registration and have people register by invitation and application.

[[CreationWiki]] does the same thing. They've set up a special "informational" e-mail account and published its address on their Main Page. Anyone wishing to register as an editor must ''apply'' for the job either to info@creationwiki.org or directly to its founder, Christopher W. Ashcraft of the Northwest Creation Network. The results have been very good, if I do say so myself (as an editor of CreationWiki as well as an editor here).

Much of BPearl's opening statement is a rant against conservatism generally, and also a contradiction: he maintains that conservatives argue with reality, and then proposes that reality is arrived at by consensus. Sorry, but that's a [[non sequitur]]. Of course, liberals always want to deny absolute truth (which is not a trademark, by the way) because their reality is only what feels like a good idea at any given time.

The rest of it is, frankly, a threat: that vandalism will continue unless we--what--shut down? Trust a liberal to write a claim-of-responsibility and an ultimatum that tries to pretend that it's neither. Your average front-liner in [[Al-Qa'ida]] would guffaw.

I make two recommendations to the Bureaucrats and the Sysops:
# Make registration by invitation and application. Disable automatic registration entirely, and publish contact e-mails on the Main Page, or a page that links directly to it, so that people can apply.
# Recruit in more home-school groups, Christian schools, and other private schools.

This place needs a lot of expansion--and also a firm editorial policy that recognizes that certain (ahem) people are never going to appreciate what we have to offer, because they can't even agree with us on what is real and what is unreal. Why, some of them wouldn't even agree that grass was green until they put it to a vote--and then they'd want a stipulation about whether the word ''grass'' properly referred only to fescue. St. Augustine, and other traditional lawn grasses, or whether it could refer also to ''Cannabis sativa''.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:CreationWiki isn't a serious source of information beyond case studies in logical fallacies and it's peculiar brand of paganism. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Has CreationWiki "succeeded?" At what? In terms of press mentions and Alexa rank, it could be argued that Conservapedia is, at the moment, more successful than CreationWiki. (Incidentally, do people have any theories about the apparent spike in activity that Alexa shows for CreationWiki around the beginning of March?[http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=www.creationwiki.org&url=www.creationwiki.org]). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:45, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think Conservapedia is already succeeding.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 22:27, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

== No: ==

Why Conservapedia is Doomed

Ok, first off, full disclosure: I'm a self-declared Liberal. And I have to say that this site manages to some of my worst stereotypes about Conservatives: A bunch of paranoid control-freaks desperately afraid of (in no particular order) Communists, Satan, Terrorists, Liberals, and their own genitals. And this site is exactly what I expected when I first heard about it: a poorly done effort to create an entire alternate reality out of HTML in an attempt to escape the utter hash you (and the clowns you've elected) have made of the REAL world.

Now, assuming any of you made it this far without hitting the 'delete' button, let me explain why.

The central problem with this site is that it wants to be Wikipedia without any of the things that make Wikipedia WORK: most notably, tolerance for dissenting opinions, allowing half-baked articles to sit around until someone comes along and elaborates on them, and a willingness to let people post on topics that may seem irrelevant to The Cause (because Wikipedia doesn't have a Cause--you do). The syspos here are far too trigger-happy, with the obvious chilling effect this has on posters--who wants to spend a half-hour writing an article if there's a good chance a sysop will revert it or delete it for not being sufficiently "Conservatively Correct"?

To me, this looks like a textbook example of the difference between the "Liberal" view, which tries to include as many conflicting viewpoints as possible, as opposed to your apparent desire to find the Truth(tm) ONCE, and then crush any False Opinions that might contaminate it.

As long as you keep thinking like that, this site can't possibly survive. You are going to be flooded by people:

* Bored teenagers, pranksters and other vandals
* Well-meaning Liberals (and Moderates, and Reality-Based Conservatives, and Off-the-Mappers) trying to clear a few spoonfuls of what looks to them like a vast ocean of misinformation
* Irritated Liberals intentionally making you look bad
* Scary beady-eyed fanatical True Believers unintentionally making you look bad

These problems are not going to go away, unless you give up on letting new people register altogether, which will make this site stagnate and rot.

The other big problem is that you perceive "Liberal Bias" where the problem is that as of late, the Conservative Movement in the USA seems to have a marked anti-Reality bias.
[http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2004/12/i-miss-republicans.html I miss Republicans]

Well, I hope whichever sysop deletes this at least reads through it, and gets SOMETHING out of it and gets something out of it besides "Blah blah blah I hate Jesus and America". If you can manage that much, I'll call it a win for both of us. (Forgive me for so drastically underestimating your intelligence, but I accidentally glanced at Ann Coulter's column recently.) --[[User:BPearl|BPearl]] 06:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: Spot on, this could not have been said any more clearly. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 07:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Conservapedia is quite a strange concept. The truth is not something that can be saved by ruling out opinions that don't fit into ones concept of reality. It's rather the other way 'round: by ruling out other opinions you can be quite sure you rule out quite a lot of truth. History has shown that many concepts, such as the shape of the earth or the existence of wiches, promoted by religious leaders, had to be revised after being proven false. It took a lot of couragious men and women to challenge widely accepted delusions and replace them with theories based upon facts rather than belief. These challenges are the hart that pumps the blood of truth and wisdom. Ruling out such challenges will keep this project ignorant. It therefore can never be an instrument of exploiting free will, it will be - or at least appear to be - an instrument of intellectual repression. Now, apart from those who wish to remain ignorant, who wants to put his beliefs into such an institute? Mankind will never know the full truth about everything, we will only be able to find little pieces of the Big Puzzle and put them together into a forever changing concept of what truth really is. It's that proces that keep our brains from getting knumb. I don't believe in god, and it is amazing how many people fall from belief when they exploit their natural curiosity. I wish the world will one day be free of religion. Where god begins, thinking ends. An encyclopedia based on the contibutions of those who trade their mental skills for religious ignorance can never be of any value, other than to those who contribute themselves. So maybe Conservapedia cán succeed after all, but only as a database of delusions. [[User:TrueBeliever|TrueBeliever]] 00:07, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::[[Logical fallacy#Conflation|Conflation]], must we? Are you, in short, comparing [[creationism]] to the sad misapprehensions about [[witchcraft]] in [[Salem, Massachusetts]]? Or perhaps you are trying to suggest that [[John T. Scopes]] was a man of courage. He was not, sir. That trial was rigged. [[William Jennings Bryan]] simply did not know what kind of wily confidence trickster he faced in [[Clarence Darrow]]. Then again, I am not an attorney; I'll let [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] talk about lawyers, and what sort of lawyer Clarence Darrow was.

::::Likewise, I'll let Andrew speak for himself. For my part, I want to this project to be ''correct,'' and by that I do not mean [[political correctness|politically correct]]. Beyond a certain point, you have to accept the plain fact that two plus two make four--not five!--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I am not going to look up all the persons and events you mentioned. No need to since you don't reply to the argument that someone who creates his own truth can't be taken serious. I have made the equasion, and when you add it all up, there simply is no god. And the historical lies promoted on this project serve no other purpose than to hide logical fallacies of religion. [[User:TrueBeliever|TrueBeliever]] 20:06, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Behold! When I provide references, the determined, inveterate [[Atheism|atheist]] refuses to consider them. Furthermore, you exaggerate greatly my own importance, when you imply that I have somehow created the [[Bible]]. You force me to disclaim that honor, and to remind one and all that only One Person has ever created truth--and that is God, because God ''is'' Truth.

::::::If what you have written is how you believe, then may I ask exactly what, in the name of Clarence Darrow, are you doing here?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 23:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::You don't provide references, you create a lot of smoke to conceal the fact that you don't (want to?) react on the thesis. I think you are the author of lies within this project and call them truth. I don't think you are the author of the Bible. That book itself was written by many contributors, it was not created by god. I am here to asses the importance of this project. I am satisfied. It is quite harmless. [[User:TrueBeliever|TrueBeliever]] 06:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Again you exaggerate my particular importance. I am merely one of many editors here. I am not an administrator. But while we're on the subject, I answer ''only'' to administrators. If you have a complaint against me, then I suggest that you address yourself to one of them. You can take it to [[User talk:Aschlafly|Mr. Schlafly]] himself, if you so desire. He will, of course, ask ''you'' to cite ''your'' references that say, or imply, that any contribution of mine has been a lie.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
=== The Annals of the World ===
You wrote: ''It (The Annals of the World). would make a valuable addition to any school or home-schooler's library, for its comprehensive treatment of ancient history alone''. Now this is clearly a lie, since it can't be of value as it's treatment of ancient history obviously is a fraud. But don't worry, I will not complain about you. This site doesn't need me and I don't need this site. Cheer up TerryH, I don't hold you personally responsible for accidentally ruining lives, just your kind. [[User:TrueBeliever|TrueBeliever]] 05:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:Nice to see that you keep up with the [[Special:Recent changes|recent changes]]. So you saw my article on [[The Annals of the World]]. Too bad no one invented an emoticon for taking a bow (and I don't think MediaWiki software has any emoticon routines, anyway).
:Now I have a few nits to pick with Ussher on the length of the Sojourn in [[Egypt]], and the birthday of [[Abraham]], and certainly his treatment of [[Egyptian chronology]] must fall to more recent research by someone who knows what to look for. But in all fairness to Ussher, if he were alive today, then he wouldn't make that mistake with Egyptian chronology.
:For his treatment of very ancient (pre-Olympiad) Greek history, he relies on others who have attempted the same thing.
:But where has he ''invented'' history that did not occur? Where is the "fraud" of which you accuse him?
:If you want to talk about fraud, then we can talk about [[Piltdown Man]], [[Peking Man]], [[Archaeoraptor]], and the [[Ernst Haeckel]] embryo drawings--all of which are frauds, and everybody except the authors of biology textbooks has always known this. Now why, you ask, is this relevant to a discussion of ''The Annals''? Simply because I know your real claim against ''The Annals'': that it posits a history of the earth that is not much longer than six thousand years, and [[Theory of evolution|evolution]] requires a time frame that is far greater.
:And if you want to talk about the ruination of lives, you have that backwards. [[Atheism]] and [[Theory of evolution|evolutionism]] have been the chief ruiners of lives here, not [[Christianity]] and [[creationism]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:34, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, let's talk about the Piltsown Man. Now that was a case of serious fraud. Mr. Dawson really tried to convince the world that the bones he found were 500 thousand years old. It was quite a shock when it came out they were only 50 thousand years old.
::I've never seen an emoticon for taking a bow. And I can't see why you would want to take a bow for me, all I did was looking up a relevant reference, just like I always do. How could I make a statement so pronounced without checking whether there is scientific evidence supporting it? I can't ask you to take notice of something I only believe.
::I fail to see how Atheism and evolutionism ruin lives whereas I only have to take a look in the newspaper to read how the first man of the catholic church helps spreading AIDS. How the first man of the United States of America continues a bloody war in the name of (his) god. Anyone, Anyone who puts his faith in a god fails to take proper responsability for his own live and acts at some point.
::On the other hand I know that many believers live a healthier live when it concerns their body. There are less smokers and heavy drinkers among believers, most likely they feel that their life is ''borrowed'' in a way, they take good care of what they believe is not theirs. (For arguments sake I don't consider the many soldiers who don't hesitate to take someone elses life in name of god).
::Haeckel was a crook too. A nice bunch of cons you have dug up. Though Haeckel was a crook only for exaggerating rather then forging.
::Well, time's up. Nice talking with you again. Cheerio. [[User:TrueBeliever|TrueBeliever]] 13:42, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

No. Conservapedia will not succeed. Why? Not only are the 'commandments' biased (which you might expect, given the name of the site), but the sysops sometimes bias that even more by breaking those commandments, or not enforcing them, to bias pages even more towards the conservative point of view. As such, I fail to see how this place can possibly succeed when it breaks even it's own rules, when not doing so doesn't fit into it's own little blinkered world view.
[[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 20:30, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:Are you serious? Wikipedia breaks its own rules all the time. Self-inconsistency is not damning, it's an inseparable part of humans. This site speaks to a very specific audience, and if you don't agree with the views here, then go, because you're not going to help anything by pushing an agenda. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 21:57, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::My 'agenda' that I am 'pushing' is that, if Conservapedia sees fit to make rules, and go so far as to call them 'commandments', then it should abide by those rules - even when doing so does not agree with the sysops' preconceived notions and ideas. If it fails do so, especally when this happens so flagrantly, it cannot call itself an 'encyclopedia', of any kind, far less 'The Trustworthy Encyclopedia'. If Wikipedia has also broken it's own rules (which it may have, but I would have to see this for myself), so what? Never heard the expression, 'two wrongs don't make a right'? [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 22:18, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::The statement was made not to state that "two wrongs make a right", but rather that no organization, no group of people, no ''anyone'' will ever not break their own rules. (Except God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, they're all infallable perfection.) The idea here is ''not'' to make up rules, and then hit people over the head with it. The idea is to make an encyclopedia with a conservative bias (Conservapedia's undeniably stated goal). Wikipedia breaks its own rules anytime it would make Wikipedia "better", see their article "WP:Ignore all rules" for an example of it being policy. In the same way, if rules need to be broken by the admins and sysops in order to keep Conservapedia conservative, then GOOD! Go do it! The goal is to make the encyclopedia conservative, not to pander to some liberal agenda that Conservapedia needs to be perfect (which it can't be because only God is perfect.) So, seriously. If you're not on the boat then go use Wikipedia, they'll allow you to advance your agenda there. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 22:30, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::::Note how I put 'agenda' and 'pushing' in quotes? That's because I have no agenda to push. Only you seem to think I do. You seem to suggest they only break the rules to make this place 'more conservative'. Well, I'll take an example. The page on Jesus. At one point, the page began by stating that Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the only Son of God. It has been changed, more than once, to 'Jesus Christ is the only Son of God' by sysops. That is in clear breach of commandment 5 - 'do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry', as they are deleting the FACT that Christians believe this to be true and replacing it with the OPINION that it is definitely true. This has nothing whatsoever to do with making it more conservative, and everything to do with making it more Christian fundamentalist. Whilst many conservatives are Christian, not all are, and, indeed, most Christians can tell the difference between verifiable fact and something that is opinion - even if it happens to be an opinion they share, and have an unshakeable belief they're right to believe. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 22:57, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::::Dude, there's a book called "The Bubble", and around these parts it's undeniably true. You don't have to say "Christians believe..." because this site has the Bubble as an authoritative source. If you can't accept the Bubble as a given truth, then you're not going to do well here at all. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 23:13, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::::::Unless you can provide absolute, conclusive proof that the Bible is true, then stating anything as fact that only has the Bible as a source is opinion, not fact. The Bible MAY be true, it may not be, I don't know - and neither do you. You may fervently believe it's true, but, unless you have verifiable evidence of this, that is only your belief and opinion, not fact. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 23:27, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::::Also, you're pushing an agenda. That science trumps the truth in the Bible. And you're attempting to push that believe on the viewers and contributors of this site. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 23:20, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::::::No, this site is pushing an agenda - that the Bible is true and unquestionable, and dressing that up as 'conservatism'. It's not. It's fundamentalist Christianity. I'm merely pointing out that this is the case. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 23:27, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::::::So what is conservativism? Most conservatives have a respect for God and religious traditions and acknowledge the role of church in the lives of our founding fathers and through the history of our nation. Remove that from conservativism and it is unclear what is remaining or how unifying it is. Cutting taxes? Generally speaking historically there is a bit more. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:59, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::Read the page on 'Conservative' on this very site, and you get your answer - 'a conservative is one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue.' Incidentally, I note that you say 'most conservatives', not 'all conservatives', so even you must agree that not all conservatives are Christian. Even if they were, not all Christians agree that the Bible is LITERALLY true, like this site seems to think it is - some think some of the things in the Bible are God speaking in simile or metaphor. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 09:21, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::Actually, come to think of it - it is also perfectly possible to have respect for religious traditions and acknowledge the role of the church in the lives of our founding fathers without necessarily following those same traditions for religious reasons or the same religion yourself. Therefore it is perfectly possible to even follow that part of this particular brand of 'conservatism' without being Christian. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 09:31, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:::::::::I agree. Even for those conservatives who have a deep respect for the Bible and religious tradition, not all will have a personal knowledge of Christianity. But then that shouldn't exactly cause a conflict. I'm not Catholic, but I have helped to organize and put Catholic information into Conservapedia -- and I was pleased to do so. Perhaps you should concentrate on beginning to make useful entries yourself. As it stands now, you are coming across as someone arguing what a conservative is and trying to put a wedge when you yourself only know conservatism by looking at it from a distance as a foreign entity. True? If not, start contributing -- Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:25, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::::I have no problem putting Catholic information into sites like conservapedia, wikipedia, or anywhere else. However, if the site claims to be a 'neutral to the facts' encyclopedia, like this one does, then such information should be put in as exactly what it is - what Catholics believe to be true, in much a similar way as what Protestants believe should be put in as what Protestants believe to be true, what Muslims believe should be put in as what Muslims believe to be true, what Sikhs believe should be put in as what Sikhs believe to be true, etc, etc, etc. Here, Christian beliefs are being put in as fact, due to it being told in the Bible as fact, and any attempt to correct this is deleted or reverted. Well, sorry, that shows this site is NOT a conservative encyclopedia - it is a fundamentalist Christian one. I would have no problem with this if this site claimed to be a fundamentalist Christian site, but, in fact, it does not - it does not state ANYWHERE that this is the case, and you only actually realise it is when you dig into the histories of some of the pages or look at a few of the talk pages. As such, this site deceives anyone who so much as stumbles across it. As for contributing, well, I feel I could contribute quite a bit. Unfortunately, the pages where I could contribute effectively appear to be locked. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 15:23, 19 December 2007 (EST)
:::::::::::If you choose to fixate on the few articles that are blocked, then you are probably correct that this site is not for you. You may find in going beyond that starting standard that most of CP does not specifically discuss religion and there is ample room for contribution. Peace to you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:21, 19 December 2007 (EST)

The fact that you reject the Bible as truth, shows that you have no meaningful comment to give on this site... now, if only I could block. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 23:44, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:Well, unless this site changes to 'christianfundamentalopedia.com', then the fact I do not accept the Bible as absolute proof without evidence is completely irrelevant, quite frankly. Or should be, anyway. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 23:49, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::The name of the site is irrelevant. Unless wikipedia changes it's name to "ifyoudontlikesciencegoawayapedia" then Conservapedia would consider changing their name. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 23:54, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::Well, you equated my belief or lack of belief in the Bible to my ability to give meaningful comment on this site - which, by it's name, is a 'conservative wikipedia'. For your point to be relevant, this site would need to be a 'Christian fundamentalist wikipedia' instead, and thus should change it's name. So which is it - is it relevant, or not? [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 00:01, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:I can block, but we don't do it for debate discussions. It's expected not everyone is going to embrace the overall Conservapedia value structure, and we understand that. We just hope that people can respect our right to exist and present opinions that are generally shunned or not allowed on other sites and we welcome anyone who wants to make constructive contributions. Interestingly, if we were as bad as some claim, we wouldn't have these debate pages to begin with. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:59, 19 December 2007 (EST)

==When liberals spend time refuting an idea ... it's already a success==
I remember when FOX News was mocked because it wouldn't make it. I doubt anyone at CNN or MSNBC is laughing now. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:24, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

You are exactly right.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 23:49, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I've changed my mind. In it's present incarnation, this idea is doomed. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

When there are twenty topics in the Scientific Debates section, and eight of them mention God or the Bible in the title, that is not a sign that this place will be any kind of success except for people who imagine the truth is whatever they want it to be. Truth is a double-edged sword for conservatives and liberals alike, and even scientists who are believers should know the difference between a laboratory and a church. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 20:35, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

:Religion is the most important thing in many people's lives. To some, it trumps everything else, even science. You're taking the wrong approach by trying to push your liberal agenda. Trying to prove your point by liberal "science" won't ever work here, because the audience does not want to hear it at all. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 21:51, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::I don't know if you intended it, but that actually sounded sort of sarcastic... Anyway, I agree with you in respect to your last point. I don't think this site will move beyond its target audience (American Conservative Christians, primarily YEC), but that audience is plenty large for it to gain a considerable following. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:05, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::Nope no sarcasm at all, honest and earnest belief. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 22:07, 18 December 2007 (EST)

The heading for this section can easily be turned around: "When conservatives spend time refuting an idea ... it's already a success." Which major ideas do conservatives then "make a success" by trying to refute? Evolution? Global Warming? Public education? Other religions? An entire branch of Christian theology, Apologetics, exists to refute other religions or false doctrines. So before throwing around such an assertion, it might be useful to see it as a double-edged sword. Sometimes, as in scientific discourse, refutations are simply that. They point out weaknesses of existing research, usually by offering more recent research that refutes. Positing and refuting comprise the core of debate, and BOTH (or all) sides should be expected to posit and refute.

== ''"There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about."'' - Oscar Wilde ==

From a glance at (the admittedly-liberally-biased) GoogleNews, it would appear that for the past week, nobody has had anything whatsoever to say about Conservapedia. There is precisely '''one''' minor and sarcastic reference to Conservapedia in all of the last weeks news, ''worldwide''.

I can only deduce from this that Conservapedia has ''already'' failed. This site could hardly be more dead if God had struck it down himself. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 20:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Oh come on, it's at least a very active de-vandalization exercise. And a great place to practice technical writing, since WP is a bit, well, full of already-written articles. [[User:Human|Human]] 19:34, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Who cares what agenda the liberal news people are putting out there. Of course it's not covered by liberal news, because this place is what liberals fear. They will not talk about it, because they do not want to give it any credibility. The point you were trying to make it fundamentally flawed in that Conservapedia doesn't care what the liberally agendaed media say. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 21:54, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::Actually, I think you'll find, after a good look around this place, it actually does a fairly good job of 'not giving it any credibility' all by itself. There are quite a few parts that fit the worst stereotypes of conservatism. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 22:25, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::I have taken a good look around. And it gives itself credibility to the audience that it targets, conservatives. The wackiness that you're using "conservatism" as if it were immediately a bad thing is completely stupid. I though liberals were supposed to be smarter than conservatives? Apparently, you're not because you refuse to believe any evidence presented by this site. You start immediately with a bias that this place is bad, simply because it's "conservative". God give me strength... you need some help. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 22:33, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::::Actually, I did not come here with a view that this place is bad because it's conservative. Having a look round this place gave me that view. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 23:02, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::::You obviously cannot accept that Conservapedia considers the Bible as infallably true. If you cannot take accept that in any way, then leave, you're not welcome here. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 23:52, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::::I would have no problem accepting that Conservapedia accepted the Bible as infallibly true - if it stated, clearly, that it was a fundamentalist Christian encyclopedia, not a conservative one. Currently, it seems to be trying to dress up fundamentalist Christian ideals and beliefs as 'conservatism', and presenting them as facts in an encyclopedic form, which I have an objection to because of it's deceitfulness. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 00:08, 19 December 2007 (EST)

You have the most unusual way of showing that you didn't believe that this place is bad right off the start. You reject the conservative, christian ideals, and because of that, you reject the authorities, and sources used on this site. It is not my problem, nor is it anyone's problem here that you cannot accept it. Wikipedia doesn't accept the Bible as truth for anything but articles specifically about the Bible, and Christianity. They reject the truth presented by the Bible, and that's where they fail for the contributors of this site. By ignoring the Bible, they ignore truth. Just like you claim conservatives ignore science. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 23:18, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:Actually, I reject the sources used on this site because...well...they're not very good. From what I've seen, it's not uncommon for the 'source' to be a single quote taken from a larger passage that diametrically opposes the editor's claims, or a 'source' that is actually giving second or third-hand information, or a 'source' that successfully manages to actually prove itself wrong, or a 'source' that simply makes claims that are not true, and fairly easily proven as such. Wikipedia does not accept the Bible as truth for anything because, to date, there isn't verifiable evidence that the more fantastical things in it are true. Oh, and I do not claim conservatives ignore science - just some of them, including, it seems, many of the ones here. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 23:35, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::I don't need to debate this any longer. Obviously reject the Bible as truth, because you're so closed-minded that you can't accept that as an axiom, a Christian should believe that the Bible is true. That means, I don't have to prove that it's true, because it just is. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 23:42, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::Which is more closed-minded? That it is possible that the Bible is true, but there is no verifiable proof it is, or that it is utterly impossible for the Bible not to be true? [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 23:46, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Debate:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?

2010-03-29T17:28:02Z

Pcook:

{{debate}}

Definitely; we're the only world power, after all; it's our job to go in and stop communism there. If we don't, it'll only come here! [[User:CraigK|CraigK]] 22:37, 7 March 2007 (EST)

America, don't piss us off or we WILL bring democracy to your country.

How can the US claim to be in favour of democracy if they intervene if they try to overthrow democratically elected communist governments?

Don't worry CraigK, you're lucky enough to live in a democracy - communists won't be winning any elections in the US in our lifetimes

We have a limited amount of political capital worldwide at this point in time, and right now, I think it's more prudent for us to concentrate on stopping terrorism and protecting Israel. This is unfortunate because of the trend toward liberalization of Latin America. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:25, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Just how many small countries are really communist anymore? Cuba and Vietnam seem the only candidates, and since the current regimes in both of those countries appear honestly popular an American intervention could become dangerous. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 22:35, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Communism isn't some sort of virus. It will not spread to us. We (as in the US) have no reason to defeat communism. It's an ideology, and when it fails, something else will come along. If someone came into your household and murdered your family, and then tell you to believe in communism, you just won't. Leave it alone, and it'll die out on it's own. --[[User:Cpryd001|Cpryd001]] 19:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

This debate is highly reminiscent of 1967. Communism, obviously, is no longer expanding because it failed as a realistic ideology. That's that. US military intervention did not stop Communism; Communism was efficient enough at doing that.

If there's a movement or rebellion in a Communist country, ''if they ask us to help'' and if they haven't employed detestable practices like, say, suicide bombings, then, by all means, we should help. Not many groups meet those criteria, however... [[User:Navy Nuke|Navy Nuke]] 15:52, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

What makes the U.S. so special that provides it the justification to impose its preferences on others? --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 15:56, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Why do you want to defeat communism? Communism defeats itself. --[[User:Order|Order]]

Cough* VIETNAM Cough*

You guys... What is this all about? Perhaps we should have a debate about whether American citizens should be allowed outside of their own borders to impose their will upon others. I am not a communist, far from it, but I also don't feel the need to impose my idea of 'the truth' on anyone else. There are many peoples in the world that fear that America and its aggressive policies - are the American people proud of that? Well yes, many of them are. --[[User:Greenman|Greenman]]

Ah these are all ridiculous comments firstly none of you have any understanding of the structural theory behind communism, secondly you are all mini hitlers (except Greenman). Maybe you should just understand that many of the worlds nations are becoming more socialist than you realsie- many in South Ameica, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, Angola, France, Scandenavia, a portion of Africa the list goes on. Perhaps, The USA should keep to itself since and not inflict its own idealogy on others- I always thought that you fought a war with Britain for doing it to you, but hey if you wanna be hippocrits then go ahead, by the way the bible, Koran and Torah all say hippocrisy is a sin. ----[[User:Karl Marx|Karl Marx]] 04:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT) Karl Marx

My answer to the question: no. Why? Communism is an ideology and ideas do nothing to others without action. If said ideology was to inspire wars and such, then intervention could be condoned. --[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 23:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

No. It caused slaughter in El Salvador, Nicaruagua, Chile, Guatemala, etc. We forced the Russians out of Afghanistan and let the Taliban in. We could easily knock out Castro, but would it be worth it? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 18:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

TO HAVE ANOTHER VIETNAM? NOW '''THAT'S''' CHRISTIAN!

Communism can't even exist in countries. Communism can only exist world-wide. "Communist state" and "communist country" are oxymorons. Learn a bit about communist theory before you try to have debates about it. - [[User:Thjazi|Thjazi]] 19:17, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Well said Thjazi sounds a lot like what i posted on the communism page, which mysteriosly vanished so i posted it again. Communism has never truly existed and doesnt appear it will for quite some time, some of you should read the works of Mr Marx if you want to acctually understand communism. - loveandpeace

I only have one thing to say, you all pritty much said everything i totally agree with you. So what I'm going to say is: YANKIES IMPERIALISTAS! - ciruela

== YES ==
Based on human nature, history, and communist theory, communism can't exist in a single country. Communism is just a term used to make fascist governments and control economies seem acceptable. Once a "communist" regime has taken power, they do everything they can to keep themselves in power. (This is true of all governments, with "communism", however, the regime answers to no-one. They control all media, and can commit any atrocities which they see fit.) So, since communism can't exist, and "communism" will become corrupted and not provide for its people, it is not a just government, making it fit to be overthrown. Note though, that they are fit to be overthrown by the people of the government, not by force of the United States. Now, we should feel free to intervene by providing asylum for refugees, covertly encouraging revolution, etc. A forced overthrow makes us no better than the "communists"

Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?

2010-03-29T17:27:50Z

Pcook:

==See Also==
* [[Debate: What is sufficient proof that Obama is a Muslim?]]
* [[Debate:Obama's preacher.]]
==Arguments that Obama is a Muslim==
''The following list of claims was originally from the [[Barack Obama]] page, but additional claims may be added.''

(guidelines: a "CLAIM" argues ''for'' the premise, a "RESPONSE" argues against; use "COUNTER" to argue against a RESPONSE, i.e. favoring the premise.)

Why Dont You Ask Him?

* '''CLAIM''': Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.
** '''RESPONSE''': This is actually two claims:
*** '''CLAIM''': Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim.
**** '''RESPONSE''': Based on what evidence? There is a rumor that he was educated in a [[Madrassa]] in Indonesia, but this is patently false; Obama did attend a local public school (not a madrassa) in Jakarta between the ages of 6 and 8, where he received some Muslim education as is standard in the Indonesian public school system; after that he was enrolled in a Roman Catholic school. He did not appear to take his religious studies seriously in either school, according to his own accounts (and possibly witnesses).
*** '''CLAIM''': Fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.
**** '''RESPONSE 1''': Possibly true, but this is only relevant if Obama was at some point a Muslim. He was never a Muslim.
***** '''COUNTER''': Never was a Muslim, hmmmmmm. If his father was a Muslim, that would make Obama a Muslim at birth.
****** '''RESPONSE''': This depends on several things: (1) whose laws you recognize (Muslim? Christian? US?); (2) even if you choose to favor Islam's laws over the others, there is some vagueness which requires further research. (3) If he's claimed as a Muslim by the Muslims (or some group of them), would this prevent him from also being a Christian, as he clearly has shown far more interest and activity within that faith than within Islam?
**** '''RESPONSE 2''': his father was an ex-muslim atheist. We have no proof to counter that. Obama was never a Muslim.
***** '''COUNTER''': no proof exists that Senoir was an Atheist.
****** '''RESPONSE''': His family says he was. They are more authoritative than anything except proof as to someone's personal beliefs.
**** '''RESPONSE 3''': The 1% issue is a fallacy of weak induction called the "composition fallacy". Every argument it gets into will be a weak argument.
* '''CLAIM''': Obama's middle name (Hussein) references Husayn, who was the grandson of Muhammad, which most Christians would not retain.
** '''RESPONSE 1''': Most Christians also wouldn't run for president of the United States; does this prove that Obama also didn't do that?
** '''RESPONSE 2''': What evidence do you have that most Christians would not retain the middle name they were given at birth just because it references a mythological figure from another religion?
** '''RESPONSE 3''': Even if most Christians would decide to change their birth name as you claim, how does this prove that Obama is not a Christian because he did not? "Most" is not "all". Are you implying that any Christian who would ''not'' do such a thing isn't a "real Christian"?
* '''CLAIM''': Obama recently referred to his "Muslim faith."
** '''RESPONSE''': The description for the YouTube video linked to as support for that claim says " It is as clear as day that he's putting sarcastic quotes around "my Muslim faith" since the entire question is about his (actual) Christian faith."
* '''CLAIM''': Obama said the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset," and recited "with a first-class [Arabic] accent" the opening lines: "Allah is Supreme! ... I witness that there is no god but Allah ...."
** '''RESPONSE 1''': How does this prove he's a Muslim? Probably many professors of Islamic studies would also be able to do these things, but that doesn't make them all Muslims. What it makes them (and Obama) is educated (and possibly gifted in the area of language) -- both excellent qualities in a world leader.
** '''RESPONSE 2''': The only source for this allegation is apparently NYT columnist Nicholas Kristof (''NYT'', 2007-03-06, "[http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/opinion/06kristof.html Obama: Man of the World]"), who (as I understand it) is generally rather positive about Obama. Perhaps this is being taken out of context?
* '''CLAIM''': Obama stated that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader who became a Muslim, inspired him in his youth.
** '''RESPONSE 1''': Many black people were influenced by Malcolm X. You'll have to show a high degree of correlation between "being influenced by Malcom X" and "converting to Islam while denying it publicly".
** '''RESPONSE 2''': "Nation of Islam" is not part of the Islamic religion but was founded in the US, presumably based loosely on Islamic ideals. Do you have any evidence that Obama is a NoI member? Wouldn't NoI be very interested in publicizing Obama's membership if he had joined, as a way of promoting themselves?
* '''CLAIM''': Obama raised nearly $1 million and campaigned for a Kenyan presidential candidate who had a written agreement with Muslim leaders promising to convert Kenya to an Islamic state that bans Christianity.
** '''RESPONSE 1''': Where is the evidence that Obama campaigned for Odinga?
** '''RESPONSE 2''': While this might demonstrate that Obama was friendly to Islam, this does not prove that he is Muslim. The Eisenhower administration arranged a coup-d'etat in Iran in 1952, replacing the democratically-elected president with a monarchy. Does that make Eisenhower an anti-democratic royalist? Donald Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam Hussein; does that make him a Muslim terrorist?
* '''CLAIM''': Obama's claims of conversion to Christianity arose after he became politically ambitious, lacking a date of conversion or baptism.
** '''RESPONSE 1''': Has anyone bothered to ask his church (or his office) to see if they have a record of this?
** '''RESPONSE 2''': Many people do not keep track of these dates.
* '''CLAIM''': On the campaign trail Obama has been reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria, which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.
** '''RESPONSE''': So... everyone who reads that book is a Muslim?
* '''CLAIM''': Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam.
** '''RESPONSE 1''': Ah-HA! So every time he denies he's a Muslim, that PROVES he really IS! ...Hey, maybe you're a Muslim too! Go on, prove me wrong.
** '''RESPONSE 2''': A vital component of all conspiracy theories is that evidence against the claim is forged and there for constitutes evidence for it. The issue represents a known glitch in human reasoning and a trap that you cannot easily reason someone out of; the "9/11 truthers" are the same way.
* '''CLAIM''' Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one.
** '''RESPONSE''': Right, and I bet he uses "C.E." instead of "A.D." in his dates, and maybe even the Metric System. He also pronounces "divisive" with a short "i" in the second syllable. What in the world does this have to do with anything?
*** '''COUNTER''': If educated, you pronounce what you have learned. Where did he learn the Muslim use of Pokistan? Occidental teach this? University of Chicago teach this? Does Harvard teach this? Only a Muslim knows the proper way to pronounce so he was taught by Muslims.
**** '''RESPONSE 1''' fallacious argument. This still does not demonstrate any evidence for Muslimhood. For one thing, many non-muslims pronounce Pakistan this way (and probably many Muslims give it the more American pronunciation).
**** '''RESPONSE 2''': I don't know, but the obvious answer would be in the Indonesian public school he attended early in life. There are certainly many places a well-educated person might pick up an odd (or perhaps more correct) pronunciation.
**** '''RESPONSE 3''': "Only a Muslim knows the proper way to pronounce so he was taught by Muslims." - and yet you clearly are claiming to know the muslim way to pronounce it (otherwise you would not know whether or not his pronunciation is the correct muslim form) by your own logic therefore, YOU are a muslim.
* '''CLAIM''': Many of Obama's statements about religion conflict with Christianity, leading one group to demonstrate with a 7-part video series, "Why Barack Obama is Not a Christian."
** '''RESPONSE''': Christianity has a wide range of views on a lot of different subjects, and any one person's views are bound to be "un-Christian" by someone's lights. When I have time, I will review the linked videos and respond in more detail. ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4cMB8ktCT8 Reason #1], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHlelAui5fs Reason #2], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHlelAui5fs Reason #3])
* '''CLAIM''': Obama was thoroughly exposed to Christianity as an adult in Chicago prior to attending law school, yet no one at law school saw him display any interest in converting. Obama unabashedly explained how he became "churched" in a 2007 speech: "It's around that time [while working as an organizer for the Developing Communities Project (DCP) of the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC) in Chicago] that some pastors I was working with came around and asked if I was a member of a church. 'If you're organizing churches,' they said, 'it might be helpful if you went to a church once in a while.' And I thought, 'I guess that makes sense.'"
** '''RESPONSE''': Perhaps he is simply not very enthusiastic about Christianity. Many people who aren't Muslims feel the same way.
* '''CLAIM''': Obama is mentioned as helping to organize the 1995 million man march led by black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan from the Nation of Islam.
** '''RESPONSE''': ...and therefore...? (This is basically the Malcolm X argument in a weaker form.)
*** '''COUNTER''' (I think): if Obama organized a rally for Hitler, then we can clearly say he was a Nazi supporter. But Obama organized a rally for Jew bigot Farrakhan, he can't possibly be a Muslim supporter. (yeah right)
**** '''RESPONSE''' That's not proof, and only circumstantial evidence, that he was NOI. And aside from the NOI is not Islam.
***** '''COUNTER''' The correlation is more than justified. What cause did Obama support? a Muslim cause.
****** '''RESPONSE 1''': Read up on the million man march. It wasn't a Muslim cause.
****** '''RESPONSE 2''': Since when does supporting "a Muslim cause" automatically make one a Muslim?
****** '''RESPONSE 3''': What do you mean by "a Muslim cause"? Muslims favor male dominance in marriage and firm suppression of homosexuality -- does that mean Conservapedia is Muslim, just because Conservapedia also supports these causes?

This is a rubbish way to pursue a debate. I can see why the original arguments were laid out like this, but adding more & more unsigned comments to the middle of this is just making a mess. Much better to put any new suggestions or criticisms below. Just offering my opinion. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 13:04, 13 November 2008 (EST)

: I really like this way of doing it, although I think a shorthand signing with a key at the bottom would be better, if no one objects I'll look at the page history and do that tomorrow.

: The point is not ''who said something'' but ''whether it makes sense''. A comment which hasn't been refuted is one for which nobody has been able to think of a refutation (or felt strongly enough about it to write it down here, anyway). I wouldn't object to people signing their comments, but what might be more useful is if people would indicate their agreement with ''any'' comments they agree with, not just their own. --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 10:42, 19 November 2008 (EST)

While I agree, do you think it will actually make a difference? They're not going to change the Obama article unless Obama gets denounced by every mosque from here to mecca, and even then they'd probably just call it [[deceit]]. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 13:21, 13 November 2008 (EST)

: Agreed. A question I'd like to pursue with the "in crowd" here is: what is the philosophical basis of Conservapedia's fact-base? Is it ultimately derived from Andy Schlafly's authority (i.e. ultimately whatever he says is true ''is'' true as far as Conservapedia is concerned), or from Scripture (in which case: how do we decide between multiple conflicting interpretations?), or from objective reality, or what? --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 10:42, 19 November 2008 (EST)

==NormanS's View==

I agree with the above, there is little to no evidence that Obama is a Muslim. In fact the whole myth seems to have been started by Andy Martin, a colourful "lawyer" (he was rejected from the bar) who is known for his racist rants against Jews and other groups and his frivolous lawsuits. As an Australian based McCain supporter and a pretty Conservative Christian I was upset when Obama won. However, the reason I oppose him is because of his policies, not because of some misguided claim about his religion. If you really were interested in making personal attacks against him you'd be better off accepting his claim that he's a Christian and then pointing out how hypocritical he is. That said, there is no integrity in attacking a person's character over their policies, regardless of their political ideology.

As one of the articles posted in the news section stated, the repeated claims that Obama was a Muslim made people vote for him, not against him. The article in its present state reads as a parody and does nothing to help the conservative cause. If this project is to have any credibility it must be rewritten to a balanced viewpoint which discusses his policies, rather than making ridiculous strawman arguments and personal attacks. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 21:45, 11 November 2008 (EST)

:A couple of things to add to the above. 1. Andy Martin started this rumour (in 2004), claiming he had "evidence" that Obama was a Muslim & had lied to the America people about his faith, though Martin did not make any of this alleged evidence available to the public or even make it clear what kind of evidence it was. 2. A week before the election, Andy Martin appeared on CNN, ''retracting'' his claim that Obama is a Muslim, and replacing it with an even crazier theory - that Obama is the long lost son of the journalist and left-wing activitist Frank Marshall Davis. Again he claimed to have uncoverded proof of this, but offered no evidence whatsoever. See this [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxrDlugBj4o film]. Since Martin now states that Obama is not a Muslim, this clearly proves him to have been lying about having any real evidence that Obama was.

:As Norman says, Andy Martin has a history of spurious and vicious lawsuits and paranoid racist statements, and this is the guy you are giving credence to if you believe the myth that Obama is a Muslim. This is who started it. Clearly this was intended as a tactic to stop people voting for Obama. It hasn't succeeded & it's too late now. We should just let it go & get on with our lives. Clinging to this silly racist rumour can only damage Conservapedia's credibility. And it is a racist rumour - if we were talking about a white politician, this rumour wouldn't exist at all.

:That said, I don't expect this to make any difference at all. This subject has been debated over & over, but Andrew Schlafly is determined to cling on to this story, even in opposition to most of the editors here & some of the prominent administrators. I hope he is willing to engage in this debate, but I really don't think he will. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 07:33, 12 November 2008 (EST)

The constitution says that there should be no religous test for office.... Just a thought.
--[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]
: I've totally avoided getting into the question of "why is it so terrible if Obama actually were Muslim?" because the article never actually says "...and therefore he shouldn't be President." Colin Powell did an excellent job of addressing that issue in his endorsement (which I won't link for fear of accidentally promoting evil liberal concepts like diversity and religious tolerance). --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 14:11, 13 November 2008 (EST)
::I must admit that I am confused about this point. Why should we care if he were a Muslim? Are all Muslims evil? Are all Muslims terrorists? Do all Muslims want to damage the USA? What point is being made here?--[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 15:46, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==What's the Point?==

I don't see what good it does to say that Obama is a muslim. Why can't we just take him at his word and let God judge his heart? Conservapedia's dwindling credibility is at stake; we will only look foolish if we make such unproven claims. I say we spend more time talking about how Obama is a baby-killer and a socialist-- both established facts (though the term "baby-killer" isn't widely used). --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 14:23, 13 November 2008 (EST)
: I second this suggestion, though probably for different reasons. --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 21:05, 13 November 2008 (EST)

==Retitle Request==
This page should be renamed "Why Obama is not a Muslim." Just for the sheer number of excuses given here. It seems that Obama was born a Muslim, disputed. That he took Muslim classes, disputed. That his stepfather was Muslim, disputed. Later in life, he extensively reads about Muslims leaders, disputed. Exclusively organized a march for the Nation of Islam, disputed. Friends with known Muslims, disputed. Pastor of twenty years is an outspoken defender of Muslims, disputed. Helps in the election of Muslims in Kenya, disputed. Get my drift? Just can't possibly be a Muslim. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 23:56, 13 November 2008 (EST)
: I think this argument was brought forth in an earlier discussion on this topic and was easily defeated. Think of all the "disputed" things as individual pieces of evidence in a bigger puzzle. Lets say you are a detective trying to solve a crime. You may find 10 different things in your investigation which point to a certain suspect. Each thing individually may be disputed, and no individual one may be the "smoking gun", but from the sheer amount of them one can deduce that the suspect is most likely the perpetrator. --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 00:04, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:: So, the volume of accusations is proof they are true? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 00:05, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::: The volume is just a pattern. The only way we will know for sure is if Obama says, yes, all along my heart belongs to Muhammed. Even then, I am sure the left would discount it all as "ahh, he really didn't take it all seriously." --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 00:10, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:::: So... you can't actually know, but you're just going to say you're right anyway because it works better for you politically? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 00:12, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::::: Clever, but no. Likely Muslim- yes. I want him to succeed, believe me my family is counting on him. There are over 1 billion Muslims, being a Muslim isn't a bad thing. Secret Muslim is something much different, much. Did you ever here of prophesy? The anti-Christ comes impersonating Christ. I want to believe these are not the end times. One way we will know for sure is how Obama governs as leader.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 00:19, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Personally, I don't buy into hocuspocus future-sight jibberjabber. So yes, I've heard of prophecy, but no, I don't give it any heed. But I can see how you'd get "impersonating Christ" from someone accused of being a socialist. [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 00:24, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::::::You be best to educate yourself on Revelation. It seems Barry is called many things, and such a short life so far, Commie Messiah.--Jpatt 00:34, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::Every Pope, Peter the Great, and most U.S. Presidents have been called antichrist. It's a bit premature to suggest he'll be more powerful than all of those when he hasn't been sworn in yet; he could turn out to be another Buchanan. --Interiot 09:45, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::Right, I don't believe in futuresight, therefore I should take its claims seriously. Aside from that, both sides insult the other frequently. How does that prove anything? You're slinging mud just to see if any sticks. HDCase 13:17, 14 November 2008 (EST)
===The Pattern===
HDCase raises the point that it's not that any one of these points is the smoking gun, it's the pattern towards which they all point -- the puzzle into which they all seem to fit. This is a point which needed to be raised, because I think it's what the original article was driving at although it didn't say so explicitly.

To me, however, what this pattern points toward is this:
* a man who had what many Americans would see as a rather unconventional upbringing -- which happened to include a lot of exposure to Islam
* a man who followed his conscience rather than thinking "what will look bad on my political resume, down the road?"
* a man for whom many people have strong antipathy, for a number of reasons-- and who is therefore likely to be seen in a sinister light no matter what the evidence. Some of the accusations above only "work" at all because of the sheer volume and repetition of the "Obama is Muslim" [[big lie]] -- he defends himself against discussion of "my Muslim faith", and that becomes additional "proof".

I mean, look, what indications has the guy ever really given that he's ''Islamic'' rather than, say, just another obnoxious (to you) liberal? Seems to me you'd be better off accusing him of being a closet atheist; I could probably make a case for that if I had the inclination. But Muslim?

Some people will believe what they want to believe regardless of the evidence -- and it's part of what makes America great that this is ok. We can tolerate a diversity of ideas and still get along with each other -- "We could stand touching noses for a week at a time and never see eye-to-eye". (Just don't go expecting your point of view to be taken seriously if you don't have the evidence to back it up.) --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 18:48, 19 November 2008 (EST)

==Muslim discussion is Obama's fault==
It's the Obama mandate not to answer questions. It is his fault these possibly rumor, possibly truth exists. He says that he is not a Muslim. Hello, not good enough. Specific questions to answers needed (which he fails to provide). --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:: He shouldn't have to repeat his awnser. Once is enough. --[[User:Ekeegan|Ekeegan]] 00:05, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::So specific questions to answers are not needed because...... he said he is Christian? It seems that Obama was born a Muslim, "No, I am Christian." That he took Muslim classes, "No, I am Christian." That his stepfather was Muslim, "No, I am Christian." Later in life, he extensively reads about Muslims leaders, "No, I am Christian." Exclusively organized a march for the Nation of Islam, "No, I am Christian." Friends with known Muslims, "No, I am Christian." Pastor of twenty years is an outspoken defender of Muslims, "No, I am Christian." Helps in the election of Muslims in Kenya, "No, I am Christian." Get my drift? No need to ask him anything because we have the answer already.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 00:15, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Ignoring his answers doesn't mean he did not give them. Obama born a Muslim? No, he said pretty plainly that his father was an atheist, and besides, you don't get religion until you are old enough, Islamic law may say that he inherited the religion, but 'only if you follow Islamic law, which he does not, because he is not a Muslim. That he took Muslim classes?Yes, he did go to a public school in Indonesia, where he doubtlessly received a minor amount of Muslim instruction between the ages of 6 and 8, he then went on to a catholic school where he received doubtlessly received Catholic instruction from 8-10, I don't see people running around spouting how Obama is a Catholic even though the Catholic is more likely to have stuck since he got it when he was older and there for likely remembers more, in either case he left for his grand parents place after that and from that point on there is no connection until he becomes involved with the [[National liberation movement|black liberation movement]] (which I'm sure he became involved in because of the Draw to Islam, because it had nothing else to offer him, its not as if he is a black man... oh right, he is black, silly me) Later in life he extensively reads about Muslims leaders We are involved in a nuber of conflicts and trade situations with a part of the world that is primarily Muslim, he would have to be an Idiot not to, you know who else reads extensively about Muslims? Bush 43. You know who reads extensively about Christians? Richard Dawkins, Does that make him a christian? No it does not. Exclusively organized a march for the Nation of Islam I'll admit I don't know anything about any march that he organized exclusively, I do know that he was involved in getting people organized for marches and the like, and that the Black issue that NOI dealt with was Obama's main issue at the tie, so it seems likely that that is the reason. Friends with known Muslims Heck yes he is, he is open and up front about this and there is no problem with that. People of different faiths can be friends so long as they aren't bigoted idiots, can you be friends with a Muslim? Would a Muslim be friends with you? Pastor of 20 years an outspoken defender of Muslims So was my Catholic Priest, that doesn't make him or me or my old priest a Muslim, there is nothing wrong with Islam that isn't wrong with a whole lot of other religions, there is no reason to attack it (exclusively) so there is a great deal of reason to stand up for it, even if you aren't a member your self. Helps in election of Muslims in Kenya Both Barrack Obama and the Kenyan Govt. have come out and said there is no truth to that story. The Story is based on a fax of unknown origin and unknown destination (i.e. someone could have made it and faxed it from one end of the office to the other) and cites the PAC Firends of Senator BO, but no such PAC exists. Obamas finances have been well looked at, and there is no missing million dollars, and there is no record of him dealing with this. Just like the birth in Kenya story the only evidence to support it is that there is no evidence around it because it's not even remotely plausible. You are clutching at straws, but Obama actually answered the questions, hes not a Muslim, and there is nothing he can do about that (well he could convert) the problem you have isn't that he hasn't been forthcoming, its that you are wrong and unhappy about it. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::Thanks for the insight. It is still 100% Obama's fault this controversey exists. It is like pulling teeth without meds. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 15:36, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::I'm sorry but I don't buy that you even looked. Most of these issues have been discussed pretty widely, if you only listen to conservative talk radio or very conservative talking heads you wont get that sort of information, but if you pop on to snopes or read the economist or WSJ (both conserative papers I might add) you will get most of the information. The problem is not that Obama didn't put the information out, its that you have coddled your self in undiverse media that has insulated you from the facts in this case. Just like you wouldn't get information on a republican getting screwed over unfairly in the San Fransisco Chronical you aren't going to get information on how a demopcrat is being slighted on the rush limbaugh show. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 23:35, 18 November 2008 (EST)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

==Who cares==

who cares what is Obama's faith? is that REALLY important?--[[User:SocialDemocratic|SocialDemocratic]] 10:45, 27 November 2008 (EST)

It is not important whether or not he is a Muslim. What counts is that we keep alive the seed of doubt in people's minds that he ''might'' be and this will help create a sense of anxiety in people who might be tempted to support him. [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 10:07, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Gloria are you seriously suggesting that we should try to appeal to people's innate xenophobia or racism in trying to convince them that Obama is bad? [[User:Nrupert|Nrupert]] 13:49, 11 December 2008 (EST)

No, only their mistrust of the dishonest! [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 13:55, 11 December 2008 (EST)

==Obama Is An Atheist==

I have presented this view elsewhere on Conservapedia. I maintain that Obama's apathy toward religion does not prove that he is a closet Muslim, but rather that he is a secret atheist. Occam's Razor argues that the simplest explanation is often the more likely, and I believe that the fact that Obama goes to the gym instead of to church simply indicates that his views on religion are tepid, not that he is staging secret Muslim prayer sessions. The fact that he says the sound of the Muslim call to prayer is beautiful simply indicates that he is another liberal with anti-American leanings. The list goes on. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 23:38, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Or maybe he thinks the Islamic call to prayer is beautiful for the same reason he might think a song is beautiful. --- --[[User:OmarAlfarouqo|OmarAlfarouqo]] 23:38, 16 January 2010 (EST)

Debate: Why have conservatives let themselves get a bad name?

2010-03-29T17:27:42Z

Pcook:

{{debate}}
::
I'm young (22) and exposed to a large group of liberals (in college) but it seems to me that the conservative movement has had a real problem with dirty tricks. Nixon was famous for it, outside of watergate his staffers ordered large numbers of pizzas for his opponents to pay for and invited foreign dignitaries and the like to the campaign events of his opponents so they would show up and be turned away at the door. The Neocon movement has embraced torture despite the fact that the US pretty flatly declared that no circumstances of threat could justify torture back in the 80's when we were the great nation leading the world away from torture. Conservatives are supposed to embrace personal liberty and small government, but many want draconian laws limiting free speech and think its alright to give govt. the power to enforce them. Unwarranted surveillance and sending troops to war with out a declaration from congress. This isn't conservative, we are not holding on to our constitution or our values, we are giving them up one by one to do something that looks clever. I see it in religion too, a great many people seem to have a religious outlook on existence that is based on tricking God into giving them eternal life, and attitude where they can go through life being awful in Gods name and then repent and be fine and that Jesus will forgive them because they are sinners. Personally I am a very forgiving individual, but if I learn that someone is going to do something to hurt me and assumes that I will forgive them because they ask me too I am likely to tell them just where they can stick there apology; If you premeditate remorse in to your plan to do something wrong as far as I am concerned no one with even a fraction of all knowing could possibly see that remorse as true rather than an insult on top of the prior wrong doing. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:13, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Just read this Websites pages

: It is because a lot of conservative principles are abhorrent things like opposition to equal rights for everyone, railing against food stamps, and killing middle eastern people. Also if you are not a WASP, you are an America-hating commie, according to the conservative talking heads on tv. [[User:Nrupert|Nrupert]] 13:58, 11 December 2008 (EST)

:: Nixon was a liberal Republican just as Bush and the neo-conservatives are. Brendanw is right about neoconservatism, I frequently tell people that Bush is an "FDR pro-business liberal" and they laugh at me, when in reality neoconservatism was a word invented by & for the anti-Johnson, anti-hippie, pro-business left-wingers of the 1940s (i.e. FDR's Bretton Woods and wanting to end Social Security after the Depression). In addition, most people don't understand how monetary policy and inflation work. (In elementary school until late high school, I could not understand why someone would be "pro-business" instead of pro-poor, and called myself a "Democratic Communist" lol)

:: As for the religion issue, I think people hate Christianity anyway. As a matter of fact, I have yet to meet an atheist who is not motivated by specific hate for specifically Christianity. My father suggests their respect for freedom coupled with hate for Christianity might be Satan-influenced. Who knows.

:: Racism is an issue with many conservatives, I hate to say it but it is a problem we have to face in order to remove a stereotype. While most people want to deal with illegal immigration, reverse discrimination, and preservation of language and culture for non-racist reasons, some seem to be motivated by a subtle racism. For example, I don't know if you've ever heard the Richard Bergis staged prank calls (available on YouTube), but one describes the problem of this subtle racism perfectly. The pranksters tell Bergis that there will be a black NASCAR driver, and at first he starts out making racist jokes, then it's "Can't white people have one thing for themselves?" and finally a slew of insults, racial slurs, and swearing. Now this is exaggerated and (judging by the other ones) fake, but you get my idea. If we are to defeat this stereotype, people who support paleoist ideas have to make it clear that they are not motivated by racism or anti-Semitism and why.

:: And most importantly, biases of left-wing media outlets such as CNN and the once-libertarian-leaning MSNBC must be effectively challenged and exposed by Fox News and talk radio. The left criticizes us for "entertainment news" and reliance on personalities with opinions, but unlike the left' supposed lack of bias we admit it's "opinion". Blogs can help as well in getting the public to realize that there is no "objective news" and each side has an agenda. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 19:10, 19 September 2009 (EDT)

Now, I'm a realist. I'm conservative on certain issues and liberal on others. Let me define the two terms the way I view them. Conservative: keeping things the same, tradition, embracing what works realistically at a given time. Liberal: Thinking outside of convention, newness, rebelliousness to norm. I have both qualities, its part of being human. I believe in gun ownership and also the right to burn the flag. I do not lean to one side or another like the media. The media and politics have forced people to pick sides. But the biggest thing, in my view, that gives conservatives a bad name is that most individuals that declare they are conservative do not think outside the box and impede good progress. Don't forget, the american revolution was a liberal move. Also, many conservatives I know let nationalism and religion cloud true reason. Most liberally minded people think outside the box and rebel and cause much pain for themselves, BUT in doing that searching they find truths and ideas that challenge those who do not challenge convention but merely accept it for what it is. Conservatives have a bad name because they refuse to see things from a liberal viewpoint. Instead they blame it on the devil or something like that. This is the 21st century, its high time our minds start questioning. --Nonobu

:Thanks for your candid analysis, but it sounds like you're on a path to atheism, and 99% of atheists end up being liberal. This may be the 21st century, but evil hasn't magically disappeared. Censoring the Bible, the most logical book ever written, doesn't make it any less true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:57, 6 January 2010 (EST)

Mr. Shlafly, it's an honor to meet you.
I am not against the bible but you cannot rule out other religions that add to the vast scope of the human experience. I was raised lutheran and went to a lutheran school for most of my life. The Bible does have logical teachings. There is "evil" in the world but saying that it stems from the devil is a belief, not a fact. It can be a fact to many conservative people who will fight for it, and that's the problem. There is no evidence and that is frowned upon by many people. What I meant by it's the 21st century is that we have reached a growth in civilization where it is time to look for new answers to old problems. I believe that people's actions and thoughts can hurt the world around us, be it aggression or mere ignorance, but being atheist does not con-notate a bad thing but merely a lack of belief in what there is not enough evidence for. They rebel to tradition. Philosophically, what evidence do you have outside the bible that evil appeared in the 1st place? -That being something a liberal would ask. I would also like to hear your concise opinion on what a liberal is. Also, here's a link to an interesting video: http://www.ted.com/talks/devdutt_pattanaik.html -- Nonobu

:Lack of [[faith]] is the single greatest cause of depression and despair. There have been famous [[atheists]], some of whom went crazy. The output of that belief system is mostly harmful. Contrast that with the output of Christianity. How many atheistic hospitals have been built compared with Christian hospitals, for example? That is virtually zero compared with thousands.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:51, 7 January 2010 (EST)

There have also been famous christians, some of whom went crazy. I can argue against the output of religion as much as I can against atheism. Atheism and liberalism by nature are to offset convention and cause a tempest, call it growing pains. The night is always darkest just before the dawn, you cannot have newness without destroying what was there before. Therefore, Rome changing from pagan to christian also had a harmful output. It is all about perspective. I agree with your hospital bit, but there are almost no atheist hospitals because there is no atheist church that gives contributions. Christianity is also more organized. Atheists are normally against any spiritual organization. As for lack of faith causing depression, I would have to agree and disagree. It has been proven that people with faith live longer and happier lives. Religion is the opiate of the masses. It can be mind control and it can be wrong but it can make us feel confident and gives us drive. Atheists usually have no religious motivation, atheists are wandering and exploring. As somewhat of an atheist, I do not mind that searching because every stone I turn over has another truth. I do not mind sacrificing a comfortable, structured life to enable myself to see the complexities of this world. Jesus taught how to live your life. I agree with his teaching of love and we should strive to be as loving and tolerant as him. But God, a creator, that is a different story altogether...
Let me bring up conservationism and liberalism again. Conservatives get a bad name because of their blatant bias. A liberal can form a bias over time but the natural liberal has NO bias. Liberals are searching for new answers and thinking outside of convention. Conservatives will do whatever they can to uphold convention no matter how unrealistic it may be. They will target opponents personally. Lets look at the root words of liberal and conservative. Conservative: CONSERVe, CONvention. Liberal: LIBERAte, deLIBERAte, LIBERty. Conservativism is to conserve tradition and liberalism is to free oneself, deliberate and discuss complexities. All in all, liberals use critical thinking to answer questions, conservatives seem to use the answers of tradition and their bias as what is normal based on how they have been conditioned over the years in their social surroundings. FOX news targeted the children who were singing about Obama and called it "indoctrination". The facts in that situation is that the children were given permission slips which all parents signed and they sung about every president. FOX merely looked at children singing a song about Obama and wanted to relate to nazi germany. I'm sorry but that is blatant BIAS! Look us the definition of bias and you will find that it is a belief in something based on unfairness and narrow-mindedness. Being open to ideas, being liberal is NOT having a bias. ---Nonobu

:Well here's a question, regarding the output of atheism and Christianity, and the dark before the dawn. How long a time of negative output do you allow atheism before you change your mind and say that atheism is likely not capable of great positive output? Christianity began to have positive output within the first few hundred years of its existence. Has atheism, in the form of Enlightenment thinking and modern secular humanism had the same positive output? If you think it has do you have any examples? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:27, 8 January 2010 (EST)

:Nonobu, your argument leaves out libertarians, neoconservatives, some paleoconservatives (like Raimondo), Jews, atheists, agnostics, gays, probably even pagans and Muslims, and plenty of others who would call themselves conservatives and combining it all under the Christian Right. Plenty of conservatives favor change, even forward change. For example, neoconservatives are against laissez-faire capitalism and could support left-leaning pro-business economic policy. Plenty of conservative think tanks can make these arguments. There are varying reactions to technology in a world changing since 1776, namely with regard to stem-cell research and human cloning, and even with copyright policy, from the original time-limited government grant to recent views of a private property right. And with the conservatives supporting greater individual rights, your own life, and the life of the ones you love, can change in a non-Christian manner with or without government intervention. Also, you forget that "liberalism" was originally a term for the libertarianism of the Founding Fathers and not support for welfare programs - most countries still call the Right "liberal democrats" and the Left "social democrats". If you define "bias" as not being open to change, you are leaving out plenty on the Right who are. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 23:24, 14 January 2010 (EST)

My argument isn't necessarily to target any groups but individual's philosophies that are liberal and conservative. I'm simply saying that bias is antithetical to keeping an open mind. - I think that conservativism gets a bad name because of websites like this. There is a small group within the conservative demographic that agrees with everything on here. But to label this site as "conservative" gives all the rest of the people in America who consider themselves conservative a bad name. That conservapedia bible project... really?? rewriting the bible to fit an ideology is ridiculous at the least. I can go on and on. This site has its work cut out for it. And to reply to AddisonDM, the positive output christianity had equaled the negative input it added to other groups. Modern secularism is opening people's minds to more realistic and less superstitious ideas. We are making decisions based on rationality and not on religion. Christianity had bad affects just like atheism has bad affects. Christianity changed paganism forever and rationality will change christianity forever. Its the evolution of human society. ---Nonobu

:Nonobu, I urge you to get out more. There are twice as many "[[conservative]]s" as "[[liberal]]s", and in the latter category are many people who are obvious hucksters, like [[Al Gore]], or people who don't say anything meaningful, like [[Barack Obama]], or people who refuse to open their mind. Realize that conservatives give to charity at a higher rate than liberals, and the next time you or a loved one benefits from that charity, thank a conservative and open your mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:27, 16 January 2010 (EST)

::I agree with Andy here, the only people who view conservatives in a bad light are liberals. I am not concerned that a (small and getting smaller) group who have rejected all logic would wish to give my conservatism a bad name. [[User:DwayneD|DwayneD]] 14:32, 16 January 2010 (EST)

:Nonobu, there are a variety of people on Conservapedia, but I do agree that it is much more populated by the Religious Right. (I always recommend people looking for information favorable to creationism here.) Most liberals I know are permanently stuck with the false stereotype you are trying to hide, and no matter what you tell them, there is no way in their minds for conservatives to be charitable, color-blind, intelligent, educated, not from the South or not a Bible Christian. For example, according to a liberal, if you are Republican, you don't care about the poor, and you cannot possibly care about helping the poor if you are a Republican. As for the Conservative Bible Project, I too am not a fan - I have seen stuff I don't like, and personally I feel that having fiery King James alongside a "nicer" TEV or NIV solves the archaic language issue perfectly. But I keep quiet, and there's so much else here which I as a Catholic conservative am perfectly comfortable with, and I'm sure atheist/agnostic conservatives such as yourself can find something you'll enjoy here too. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 23:16, 18 January 2010 (EST)

I enjoy coming here for a good laugh and to point out ridiculousness and contradiction. I watch FOX news for the same thing. I am not alligning with any party and I see the good and the bad of being conservative or liberal. Classical liberalism is about personal freedom and promotes that government protect an individual's pursuit of happiness under the law. classical conservatism is about using government control to promote virtue or a certain morality, and that government comes from God. Liberalism spawned the scientific method that works according to our sense of logic and is always improving. Conservatism in America is too focused on moral purity based on a God that they can't even prove exists. Their attempts at proof are subjective in nature and anything they find that is objective does not match up with the scientific method. Then because It doesn't work with the method, they blame it humanities lack to perceive God because of our shortcomings, or blames it on a Liberal conspiracy. However, they forget that human perception has formed their definition of God anyways. Contradiction and denial of logic- mostly endorsed by the conservative media. That is why conservatives have gained a bad name. And Shlafly, you should open your mind and "get out more"- like out of your basement in New Jersey before you insult my intelligence like that again. Also, you haven't shown that you have an open mind. I am trying to have an honest debate.-Nonobu

:Actually, the laughter is against you, Nonobu. You're wrong on several key points. The first point is that their is a big difference between classical liberalism and modern liberalism; the classical version espoused liberty and liberality, and made it a point of ''giving'' rather than ''taking''. Modern liberalism - and anyone can see it for themselves in the media - has turned ''taking'' into a necessity and, through use of the government, merged taking with ''stealing''. You may be correct in asserting that liberals have come up with the [[Scientific method]], but it's use today has been thrown out the window ''by liberals themselves'', as the [[Climategate]] emails have proven to the world.
:The second point is the fact that you are wrong on conservatives. "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day" is liberalism; "teach a man to fish and you feed him for life" is conservatism. Which is more in the essence of giving? Liberals feel good about giving a homeless man a shopping cart; conservatives feel good about getting the homeless man away from the cart, into a job, and into a home with the personal responsibility attached. And you say we deny logic?
:The third point is look at liberal attacks on God and the Bible. It isn't conservatives doing it. The moral standard that we follow is rooted in the Bible; the moral standard of this country's founding is in the Bible; the majority of the Founding Fathers believed in the God of the Bible, and today's liberals - by tossing out the Bible - pretend that they are better than Washington or Jefferson or Hamilton? By removing Ten Commandments markers from public squares, are liberals saying that their view is better? If so, then go out and kill someone. Rob a bank. Spit on your mother. Rape someone's wife. Break all of the commandments in addition to the lying that you displayed here. Let's see how far you get, because if liberalism is better, then you should be able to get away with murder and stealing and adultery and all the rest.
:Face it, Nonobu, the country has shown through the TEA Parties and the Massachusetts election that they are fed up with the deceit that is liberalism. It is high time that you wake your sorry butt up and see what it really is, because in the end there will be accountability. The God that ''you deny exists'' will make you stand before Him and He will judge you accordingly. You know full well how to change that. The choice is your's. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:13, 21 January 2010 (EST)

Debate:Is Sarah Palin an asset or a liability to John McCain's candidacy?

2010-03-29T17:27:38Z

Pcook:

{{debate}}

==Premise==

The surprise selection of Sarah Palin to be John McCain's running mate has energized his base (How did you miss this one admins?) and made the contest much more interesting than if he had chosen a more predictable prospect. As the nation gets to know more about her (and This!), though, some are questioning if Palin will be an asset (a Pair of Assets i expect) or a liability as the campaigns move into high gear and the debates begin.

==Palin is an Asset==

This is obviously a transparent attempt to get the women's vote, but that doesn't mean it won't work. And she has some good experience too - both in business, and as govener of a city. That's a definite plus. Unfortunately I've had to make some criticisms in another comment, as she is far from perfect. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 15:00, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:She absolutely is an asset. The Democrats have hoped for a (their) woman President since Lisa Simpson and Hillary Clinton, how embarrassed would it be for them if a Republican is the first woman President? (4 years from now, obviously I'm not wishing for a premature departure by President McCain!). [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 16:07, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
::So the Democrats have wanted a woman to be President since Hillary Clinton, and Palin could be the first woman president and the Democrats would be embarrassed. Besides all of that being debatable on its own, you have yet to explain how it's an asset for the GOP. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:12, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Because American voters see the opportunity I mentioned, and will turn in mass to vote for her (and McCain in the process). [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 16:43, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
::::I have to feel a little sick at this - even if it works, it's not playing fair. It's ''manipulating'' voters - not talking them around with careful reason, shows of competence or popular policy. Just tricking them into voting for a candidate for an irrelivant reason. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 19:20, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::You misunderstood me completely. This is not manipulation or a trick. Democrats were weak and undecisive, Republicans instead seized the moment. People will vote ''en masse'' for her because in her they see the wind of change. It is called ''hope for the future'' and ''enthusiasm'', not manipulation. --[[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 19:25, 2 September 2008 (EDT).
::Palin has seized control of the media, and left the Obama camp speechless. They cannot attack her lack of experience without weakening Obama. They cannot attack her being an outsider without ruining that theme for Obama. As for executive ability, her two years as governor give her more executive experience than the other three nominees combined. I expect the GOP will start highlighting her energy expertise. Dems can't even whisper an attack the behavior of her 17 year old daughter (Obama was into cocaine at that age). Palin and McCain control the "reform" and "outsider" issue--the choice of insider Biden meant Obama gave up that theme. (Obama's acceptance speech railed against long-time senators--meaning McCain but also Biden as well.)

Momentum means a lot in politics--Obama had it and squandered it in his faltering campaign against Hillary. Obama does have remarkable oratorical skills, and excellent fund-raising skills, and the GOP is in sad shape. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:56, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:If the momentum was squandered, wouldn't his poll numbers be going down, as opposed to crossing 50% in the past few polls--the highest either candidate has polled at this cycle? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 17:09, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Asset, who can deny that Hillary fans were counting on a lady VP, just not from the GOP side. McCain benefits from having a Maverick approach. The 85% of Americans that want to drill oil, can't ask for anybody better choice than AK-gov. Palin. McCain presidency will unlock billions maybe trillions of gallons of oil.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:01, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

==Palin is a Liability==
Palin is a woman and a mother. Already being Governor of a State she is neglecting her family duties. This is shown also in her daughter not knowing Conservative values well enough. [[User:HerculeP|HerculeP]] 14:25, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

It seems clear to me that Palin was chosen to tap into the 18 million voters for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary. The campaign was trying to tap into voters who were supposedly turned off of the party because Clinton wasn't chosen Vice President. This attempt, which would seem to belittle women by believing they only supported Clinton because she's a female, ignores the VAST political differences between Clinton and Palin. In any case, the attempt seems to have fallen flat on its face. It cuts McCain's "experience" argument by choosing a candidate with virtually NO foreign relations experience. I've been to as many foreign countries as Palin has, and "visiting the troops" is a photo op, not quite the same as serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Also, being a mayor of a 5,000 population town may technically be "executive experience", but as Obama points out---the budget of the town, $12 million/year, is roughly the budget of one month on Obama's campaign. Can anyone seriously suggest that being mayor of 5,000 will prepare you to step in as the president of 300 million?

Finally, the polls don't bear out that she's helping the campaign. From Rasmussen: Some 38% of men said they were more likely to vote for McCain now, but only 32% of women. By a narrow 41% to 35% margin, men said she was not ready to be president -- but women soundly rejected her, 48% to 25%. From Pollingreport.com: "Suppose you could cast two separate votes in November -- one just for president and another vote just for vice president. Who would you be more likely to vote for if you could vote separately for vice president: Joe Biden, the Democrat, or Sarah Palin, the Republican?"

Biden (D) 54
Palin (R) 41

"Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?"

"John McCain chose Sarah Palin because he felt the time had come to nominate a woman."

Agree 43
Disagree 56

"John McCain chose Sarah Palin because he thought having a woman on the ticket would help him get elected."

Agree 75
Disagree 25

This pick was a Hail Mary pass, and it's turning quickly into a Democratic interception. If I didn't know better, I'd think the Obama campaign scripted this pick. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:28, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

There are already scandels brewing - it looks as if Palin has a few skeletons in the closet:
* Her daughter, 17, unmarried, is now confirmed to be pregnent. This is a big turn-off for the values voters - if she can't keep her own daughter under control, how can she be trusted with the values of a nation? Just to make it worse, the father looks dodgy - some people grabed his myspace page before he took it private. He says he doesn't want children. And swears. A lot.
* Five children, one seriously disabled, and she is going to take on a job as demanding as Vice President, with a significent chance of president in future considering McCain's age. She might talk a lot about family values, but she doesn't seem to care that much for her own. Even more so in light of the above - doesn't her daughter need all the help she can get from an experienced mother right now?
* She brags of fighting the 'bridge to nowhere,' yet records show that she voted for it before changing her mind to vote against it.
It appears Palin is intended to be a safe pick to please the social conservatives - who, to be brutally honest, seem to care about abortion and gay marriage but very little else, and espicially little about the competance of candidates so long as they say the right magic words. That's why he picked someone with immaculate pro-life credentials, even to the point of having a child with Down's. Trying to appeal to that voting block, though, is pointless - McCain already has the social conservative vote, even if they dislike him, because they '''loathe''' Obama and the democratic party. Instead he has just picked up someone they are going to look at as a poser, a VP who puts on a big pro-family show in public while caring nothing for her own.
This is part of why I dislike McCain... has the social conservative positions, but he is just dropping with 'politicianness' - that oily residue that comes from trying to win at all costs, playing the games, manipulating the voters, putting his own power above all else. Clinton had it too, perhaps even more so. McCain is just using Palin as a tool, a way to get elected, to push the voters' buttons without any regard to her suitability as a VP. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 15:00, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

::First of all, thanks for the poll info Jareddr! I think that Palin is a very odd choice and is going to be a liability. Choosing her tends to negate the "lacks experience" criticism leveled at Obama. That line of criticism was really pretty effective and in fact as a Clinton supporter, it was something that made me shy away from him. Now he looks pretty good in comparison to Palin. Palin is under investigation. Even if she ends up being exonerated or given a slight slap on the wrist, it just doesn't seem like a good thing to have going on while running for VP. Palin is very young looking and makes McCain look really old. He looks like her grandfather! Not a good picture. It ends up putting a double whammy on the age/health issue for him. It makes him look like he could die in office and then what? President Palin? If he was trying to attract women and conservative christians, it seems like he could have done better. [[User:MichaelAnderson|MichaelAnderson]] 16:30, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:::One question I ask about potential VP candidates is a simple one - if their running mate died between winning the election and being inaugurated, would this person be ready to be a credible, effective President, and would the restof the world agree or try to take advantage of a perceived weakness? Palin has potential, but having only been a small-city mayor, and then the Governor of a state holding only 0.22% of the U.S. population for a couple of years, she simply doesn't have the qualifications to lead the western world yet. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:36, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Well, I saw Palin's acceptance speech, and unfortunately wasn't that impressed. In her defense, the McCain team had prepared the "core" speech that would be delivered by whoever he selected, so instead of delivering her own words from the heart she was reading a generic attack speech that was modified to also introduce a little-known Governor to the American public [http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2008/09/putting_words_in_palins_mouth.html]. I was impressed with her comfort in speaking, but in the end I still learned more about her from my own reading and research than anything in the speech. Where are the specifics about what she stands for? Advocacy for special-needs parenting aside, what did we learn that Sarah Palin was adding to this ticket that wasn't going to have been read from the teleprompter by whoever was picked? I'm hoping that once the convention's over, we'll finally get to see some interviews of Palin by the media, and learn who she is from answers in her own words instead of a speechwriters. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 23:43, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

At this point I'm more convinced than ever that she's a liability. Conservative columnists are panning her, and a survey of undecided voters after the last Presidential debate cited Plain as being the major reason they would '''not''' be inclined to vote for McCain. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:57, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

:Five days later, I'm even ''more'' convinced. First, Palin has to publicly apologize for her comments about small-town Americans being the only truly "pro-America" segment of our population, which were insulting to metropolitan voters around the country, but particularly offensive to everyone who remembers the heroic, selfless, and patriotic response of hundreds of New Yorkers on 9/11 who gave their lives while trying to save others.
:Then we have today's revelation - in the midst of the greatest economic crisis since the Depression, Palin's been set up by the RNC with $150K in wardrobe, hairstyling and makeup services. This is not an issue of substance, but it's created a perception nightmare for the GOP. Now they are trying to explain why the champion of Joe Six-Pack, Hockey Moms and Main Street couldn't campaign using her Governor's wardrobe, and instead needed to spend the equivalent of 80 years' annual clothing expense for the average middle-class American to run a campaign. It creates the impression that selling her on looks mattered more than selling her on substance, since McCain's wardrobe expenses were nowhere near as egregious. The McCain campaign has less than 14 days to make their case, and now will be wasting precious time trying to make this a non-issue - and if they think it'll go away, wait until some folks from Main Street start asking Palin how she considers herself fiscally disciplined and a reformer while spending 5 times their Main Street salary to rent a wardrobe for two months. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:27, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?

2010-03-29T17:27:34Z

Pcook:

Opinions please, both for and against:

== FOR ==
conservapedia has thousands of trustworthy articles. 50something, you base this on your experiences with ONE article([[Adultery]]), right? look at some others.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

50something thousand trustworthy articles? conservapedia's main page says it only has 16000 pages.

ITs Called Conservapedia, since it has part of the word "Conservtive" in it you know it will represent a fair and balanced point of view, well I guess it depends how you look at it. -RG :]
:This is not exactly a compelling argument. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:53, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Yes, I have found Conservapedia constantly improving with filling out information and removing imbedded vandalism from its early days when there wasn't as much checking. I read a comment from many months ago complaining that there were no internal links between articles - now, that's largely a complaint of the past. While some areas are sparse, the information presented is accurate. It also gives a conservative view that is often not allowed in other forums and as such provides an important source for information that could be difficult to find otherwise. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:48, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

== AGAINST ==

I have to say, I keep up with Conservapedia daily, mostly because I don't agree with the views of the website. I do have to point out something. Conservapedia constantly points out smears against conservatives and false articles on Wikipedia, but I haven't yet found a smear against Conservapedia itself. Why not lay off the smearing of other sites when they aren't smearing you in the first place? From Steven, Digitamer81

Of course not, not yet. the entire goal is to eliminate bias, add facts, and eventually make it reliable. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:20, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

No. it is an encyclopedia that tells consevitives what they want to hear and forces conservitive ideals upon others.{{unsigned|1718}}

:Oh, be reasonable. It doesn't force ideals on anyone. No one is required to be here. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 15:47, 14 July 2007 (EDT)
::Agreed, but there's obviously some sort of agenda here which favours loaded language and non-encyclopedic coverage (most notably, denigratory comments and value judgements in the entry for [[liberal]]). Ultimately this makes for a less objective, reliable source. Sorry guys. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:06, 11 November 2007 (EST)

No. An 'Encyclopedia' is generally considered to be authoritative, i.e. contains opinions considered 'generally true', which would mean that more than one person would maintain that opinion. Sysops lock articles having written them to suit their own purposes. References are utterly abused, contain editorial instead of simply being links to the reference quoted, and are manipulated to misquote reference. For example, see the article on [[Adultery]], where two references which suggest that adultery is gender-neutral are listed in an editorialsed refernce link which refers to adultery as being caused solely by the woman.
::adultery is one out of what, 9000 articles? what other examples do you have?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::Time is a pretty good start
::Hahhaha. Where do I begin?[[User:50something|50something]]
:::Bohdan, look at [[Special:Popularpages]]. Most of them, well, suck. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:28, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::do we speak of the quality of those articles or their truthfulness?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::::Both. Most of them are filled with mined quotes, and outright non-factual info, not to mention unbelievably blatant censorship. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:34, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I guess, but i dont think that they represent the majority of articles here. I have found that many of the non-controversial articles are reliable.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::::::This site also isn't trustworthy because it doesn't have enough articles to make it a reliable source of information.--[[User:FredK|FredK]] 20:36, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Thats what i am trying to change.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::::::::Bohdan, if you are trying to change it into a trustworthy encyclopedia that means it isn't trustworthy right now. --[[User:FredK|FredK]] 20:43, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::Hey, enough with the Jedi mind tricks.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 20:44, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::MY mistake, i meant that i was trying to give it more articles, to make it MORE reliable.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:Bohdan, I'd love to see a few examples of "encyclopedic" entries. I'm trying to do my part, as I am sure you are. I know Hoji has done a lot.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 20:39, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

'''WHY''' does everyone begin comments to me with my name? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:So that you know someone is addressing you?[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 20:42, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::I'm not stupid, I can figure it out. And I am not saying that all the articles are perfect.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
There is no article on either of the human biological organs required to produce the Life which you all apparently consider so sacrosanct. Every article is riven with opinion, and most of the crucial debates are locked and are pet stomping grounds of bigots and closed-minded individuals. [[User:50something|50something]]
:where is the opinion in the [[Lindisfarne]] article? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::"Lindisfarne also has a small but imposing castle." Saying that it is small is someone's opinion. I could say that it is rather large because it is bigger than me. --[[User:FredK|FredK]] 20:51, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:::And this is how we judge if its trustworthy?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::No, you were wondering where the opinion was in the article so I showed you. I base trustworthy on how reliable it as a whole and because it is rather small and doesn't much information(mainly stub for articles) I would say that it is not trustworthy. --[[User:FredK|FredK]] 20:56, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Yes. Also, the article lists only one reference, the town's own website. And the article doens't even mention the folk-rock group of the same name. [[User:50something|50something]]

It's not much good to say that parts of it are reliable if you have no way of know ''which'' parts those are. It is a perfect example of a "curate's egg:" "Oh dear, did you get a spoiled egg, Mr. Jones?" And the curate replies "Well, some parts of it are excellent!" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:58, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

For me the 'Encyclopedia' part fails with the very premise of the entire site. Putting my own politics or opinions aside for a moment (although I am a divorced mid-50's evangelical Christian Republican mother), the very idea that knowledge can be made to fit to an 'agenda' means that this could never be a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia' - after all, the creators of this site WANT it to have a particular slant, a particular agenda, a particular view. Facts do not fit with a Viewpoint, they simply ARE. [[User:50something|50something]]

Oh, also - sysops - [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], for example - are guilty of 'editing the record'. In the case of the sysop quoted, you will see how often he removes comments from his own User:Talk page. Changing the record of history is one of the most dangerous sins against knowledge, and was popularly used by [[Stalin]] among others. [[User:50something|50something]]

OK, another suggestion, in support of being reasonable. I would have no debate with you or your project WHATSOEVER, if you would simply change the main page and stop claiming you are an Encyclopedia. Why not call yourself 'Conservapedia - a Young Earth Creationist Database', or something similar? [[User:50something|50something]]

///It should be noted that not even Wikipedia is viable as a scholarly source. I.E. it should never cited in any kind of research. With that said I think a good rule is to not even CONSIDER using conservapedia as any kind of factual outlet.

Commandment 13: "We do not require contributing editors to have to explain themselves constantly and justify every single edit to prove that it conforms to an exacting set of rules which are designed to suppress original thought, new ideas and penetrating insights."

No, that's really interesting... Editors don't have to justify their statements. That's good, I mean it's only the process by which actual factual encyclopedia's are rigorously put through. Why should you do it here?///

Depends on how you classify trustworthy. Obviously some materials are going to offend people who are more to a liberal side. Come on-it is biased-check the main page about Obama if you don't believe me.--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 07:58, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Well, to be fair (fallacious idiom), Conservapedia is a bit more biased than Wikipedia. Bias is unavoidable, since "We see colors, but not wavelengths..." (C.G. Jung). There is an inherent bias when we perceive, because our perceptions are based on their effects on the mind. Even if a computer wrote an article it would be biased, because a human, who would have been biased, programmed it. Even if a computer programmed another computer, the progenitor-computer would have been programmed by a human, who would have been biased. Bias is unavoidable; it just seems more ''blatant'' on conservapedia.
[[Category:Debates about Conservapedia]]