How do you define conservative views anyway? I can’t stand blanket statements. I am conservative, but who is to say that I fit exactly in one spot on the spectrum? I have a science background and this will definitely effect my views on homosexuals (or anything else, this example is used per article) when compared to the 30 year old who grew up in a small city in Oklahoma and has a meager high school background.

I don’t think though that a website will further divide our country. It will effect a very small proportion. Are we not told that this is the inevitable direction the world is moving in?

Greg,

re: your second point, yeah, Andrew Sullivan and his readers were having a field day with Conservapedia about a month ago.

Well, I was hoping to see that challenge would have improved Conservapedia’s prose, but alas, read the following on Benjamin Franklin:

Benjamin Franklin was considered by many, a truly a great American.

Many historians believe that Benjamin Franklin was a deist. But although Franklin wrote widely, he rarely made statements associated with principles of Deism. Instead, Franklin made a passionate plea for saying prayers at the Constitutional Convention:[1]

Mr. President [George Washington] … I have lived, sir, a long time, and, the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth–that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.’

I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed, in this political building, no better than the builders of Babel. We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded; and we ourselves shall become a reproach and by-word down to future ages. And, what is worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom, and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.

The above quotation demonstrates that Benjamin Franklin was not a deist when he participated in the Constitutional Convention in 1787, as deists do not believe in the “assistance of Heaven” or that “God governs in the affairs of men.” Franklin passed away less than three years after his statement, so it seems unlikely that his views changed further.

I mean really, if you’re going to write about Benjamin Franklin, is this really what you are going to focus on? Now, compare that with wikipedia’s version on the subject (and note wikipedia has a far GREATER entry into the life of Benjamin Franklin, whereas Conservapedia wishes to focus nearly half of its entry on the controversy of Benjamin Franklin’s deism).

Like the other advocates of republicanism, Franklin emphasized that the new republic could survive only if the people were virtuous in the sense of attention to civic duty and rejection of corruption. Indeed all his life he had been exploring the role of civic and personal virtue, as expressed in Poor Richard’s aphorisms.

Although Franklin’s parents had intended for him to have a career in the church, Franklin became disillusioned with organized religion after discovering Deism. “I soon became a thorough Deist.”[16] He went on to attack Christian principles of free will and morality in a 1725 pamphlet, A Dissertation on Liberty and Necessity, Pleasure and Pain.[17] He consistently attacked religious dogma, arguing that morality was more dependent upon virtue and benevolent actions than on strict obedience to religious orthodoxy: “I think opinions should be judged by their influences and effects; and if a man holds none that tend to make him less virtuous or more vicious, it may be concluded that he holds none that are dangerous, which I hope is the case with me.”[18] A few years later, Franklin repudiated his 1725 pamphlet as an embarrassing “erratum”. In 1790, just about a month before he died, Franklin wrote the following in a letter to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale, who had asked him his views on religion…:
“ As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho’ it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble….” (Carl Van Doren. Benjamin Franklin. New York: The Viking Press, 1938, p. 777.) ”

Like most Enlightenment intellectuals, Franklin separated virtue, morality, and faith from organized religion, although he felt that if religion in general grew weaker, morality, virtue, and society in general would also decline. Thus he wrote Thomas Paine, “If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it.” According to David Morgan,[12] Franklin was a proponent of all religions. He prayed to “Powerful Goodness” and referred to God as the “INFINITE.” John Adams noted that Franklin was a mirror in which people saw their own religion: “The Catholics thought him almost a Catholic. The Church of England claimed him as one of them. The Presbyterians thought him half a Presbyterian, and the Friends believed him a wet Quaker.” Whatever else Benjamin Franklin was, concludes Morgan, “he was a true champion of generic religion.” Ben Frankin was noted to be “the spirit of the Enlightenment”.

Alas, it seems Conservapedia is still sophomoric and childish compared to wikipedia. They still have lots to learn.

Dan– Because the entries would just be edited back, of course. I don’t agree with them on a number of things but I can’t say as I blame them for not wanting to bother with an endless tug-of-war.

Conservapedia sounds more like a right-wing discussion board than an encyclopedia. I tend to lean coservative on a lot of issues, and there are times that I feel like wikipedia is a little leftwardly biased, but come on, there’s a lot more to say about homosexuality than what the Bible says about it (not to mention all there is to say about Benjamin Franklin that doesn’t involve Deism). I think I’ll stick to wikipedia. I think the polarization of political rhetoric just debases the entire political process. At least wikipedia is open to people of varying political persuasions.

This actually does Wikipedia a good turn– or at least, doesn’t do it a bad one. It would do Wikipedia no good to be the battleground. If the entries were always changing back and forth, no one would be able to trust Wikipedia and it’d be in danger of dying.

So it’s good that the Conservapedia people have their own space and are leaving Wikipedia in its. I see a lesson the Anti-Mormons could do with learning.

Eric Snider has a take on conservapedia…

http://www.ericdsnider.com/snide/something-wiki-this-way-comes/