Conservapedia – Completely Unbiased

Ahh…the civil religion of America.

We can be a Christian nation, but this is not the way.


Joel L. Watts
Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. He is currently a Ph.D. student at the University of the Free State, analyzing Paul’s model of atonement in Galatians. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013), a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013), and Praying in God's Theater, Meditations on the Book of Revelation (Wipf and Stock, 2014).

138 thoughts on “Conservapedia – Completely Unbiased

  1. One must say that their idea to stand against the media of the “world” is commenable! There certainly is bias in all the fallen world’s academics. But, we too as Christian’s live in the same world. So we too are touched by the same. But yes, we must work closer to the Biblical realities ourselves!
    Fr. R.

    1. Fr. Robert, they are just as biased, blindly, as the infotainment which passes for news. They are fundamentalists, not traditional evangelicals.

  2. That’s just great … for our school project, we’re going to impose conservatism.

    That the student makes her comparison to Rush Limbaugh is pretty scary.

  3. I am also conservative myself, though I am a UK person. (When I was with the Royal Marines, I did work on assignment with your American Force Recon Marines) Being that I have seen our English culture go from Judeo-Christian, with some modernism, to postmodern and even postchristian. I too am concerned. And not everything Rush Limbaugh says is wrong I might add. Or Glen Beck. I am center right I guess?
    Fr. R.

    1. I have yet to see anything that Limbaugh or Beck says that is right.

      Both men would see this country destroyed through lies rather to build up their base. Wickle, can you post your series on these?

  4. Re: Beck and Limbaugh … even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

    Watching this video a second time, I decided that I’d never seen a better case made AGAINST homeschooling than this. If liberal bias in education is wrong as a moral issue, not just an “I don’t agree with it” kind of way, then so is conservative bias. Naming the web site “Conservapedia” clearly notes that non-conservative thinking, read: independent thinking, is not allowed.

    Some people might call that brainwashing.

  5. Well I am not advocating either, but they often have good points to me at least. But then I have been in what Americans call Special Forces type combat operations. And from a military sense, both the UK and America need to awake and see both the literal enemies of Freedom, and our almost complete moral slide from the real Judeo-Christian reality! Again, my thoughts at least.
    Fr. R.

  6. Fr. Robert, I’d argue that Glenn Beck sees enemies of freedom in the same way Joe McCarthy did … they’re everywhere!

    And both he and Limbaugh are part of the moral slide from values — Limbaugh oggles women on-air, Beck discusses which of a couple married women is hotter, Beck and Stu insult their wives on-air, etc.. Not good moral role models.

    The series to which Polycarp referred is here:



    Hannity, just for good measure:

  7. Also the point about Wikipedia and computer based Christian theology is true. There is too much liberal bias there. I can only thank God my seminary education was well before the reliance of the net. We actually had to read all the books put before us! And even more if we really wanted to learn!
    Fr. R.

  8. Well I will be 60 years old late this month! I think I have seen a few things myself. Life experience is often the best teacher. Most of this difference is ideology. And yes mine might be much different than yours? But thank God it is driven now by God’s regeneration in Christ! In one way, no one can see truly until the scales of sin are removed from both heart and mind. But one thing is most certain, we English speaking people…Judeo-Christians at least, we are being driven from our culture, and even our most personal, rational and intelligent beliefs, our doctrine of God! Yes, as St. Paul says the battle is spiritual and in the mind! ( Eph.6:10-16)
    Fr. R.

  9. Home Schooling? I don’t think we want to go here do we? I mean, some of the best educated people in the UK (past history of course) we home schooled or tutored.
    Fr. R.

    1. Fr. Robert, I believe that Wickle might home school, as I do. I believe his intention was to state, much like I think, that homeschooling was meant to breakaway from the indoctrination found in the public schools.

    2. Actually, I have nothing against homeschooling.

      Several of my best friends’ families homeschool, and two of my nephews are homeschooled. My elder sons are not, though my younger kids might be. (Long stories there … I’ll spare you.)

      My point is that Andrew Schlafly got on this video and explained that his homeschooling project was entirely based on ideology. There wasn’t even the slightest nod toward objectivity or balance … it was pure right-wing thinking.

      If I homeschool my kids, then naturally I expect them to learn something from my opinions — but I expect them to know what other people think and to learn to make moral decisions for themselves. Otherwise, several things happen: (1) They only know how to handle the situations whose solutions I’ve spoon-fed to them, (2) their opinions are easily shaken by someone equipped to handle the argument, and (3) they haven’t really made an investment in the views they espouse.

  10. I wonder if Andrew and John ever discuss the issue of homosexuality being a destructive lifestyle. John still works for Eagle Forum, even though he’s homosexual.

    1. I would agree, Jeff.

      I was thinking, but doesn’t attributing so much to Wiki actually set it up as a credible source?

  11. It is not that Wikipedia is overtly bad, as it is often incomplete. And often liberal. One must always presuppose that the Scripture IS the infallible Word of God! And all disciplines of men, can be helpful, but always must stand beneath the authority of Holy Scripture Itself! This certainly was Calvin’s view, he used some humanist ideas then present. As certain logic, etc. But he stood against mere scholasticism.
    Fr. R.

  12. I just went and looked at a few articles on conservapedia. Its obvious that its just starting out. Its also obvious that it is theologically conservative and that influences the writing. Personally, I found it refreshing, but incomplete. Wikipedia is obviously biased towards the naturalistic. Conservapedia is obviously biased toward conservative Christian theism. I still would like to see something like wikipedia/conservapedia that presented both sides of a given issue.

    Take a look at the two site’s pages regarding intelligent design and radiometric dating. There is an interesting and obvious difference.

    I think wikipedia IS considered a reliable source by many who are unaware of its liberal bias. I am glad there is a competing effort, though I would prefer a still third option with both sides presented in a more balanced manner.

    As for education, part of what it has always done is instill the values of the teachers. I prefer my kids have my values instilled in them, though I realize that as they grow they will develop their own – and rightfully so. Of course, part of my values incluse trusting in Christ and investigating what interests me and not taking things at face value. So I expect my kids to develop their own values and thoughts regarding everything. I dont know any child who is not influenced by the culture in which they grow up. But at least they will have a solidly biblical foundation.

    1. And, Wb, that is why I homeschool as well. If anyone will indoctrinate my children, it will be me. I cannot speak well of the things that go on in the schools here, but I am glad every day that I do not seed my children to school here.

      Unfortunately, Wiki is considered a reliable source – which speaks of our culture when people believe anything and everything they see on the net. Or the TV. No research, testing, trying, is applied to any opinion, or even a fact.

      The problem with the Xpedia’s is that when you either open them up, such as Wiki, or close them such as Conservapedia, you will inevitably loose balance. Of course, it greatly undermines Conservapedia when they attempt a bible translation in the manner that they have.

  13. wb,
    As always you take a good biblical look. Nice balance! It is very different for me also having my boys at an older age (my 40’s). But they too are turning out to be good boys. Though my oldest, the intellectual is a bit like this culture…what is in it for me, etc. My youngest, at 13 is the computer gamer.
    But we all use wikipedia.
    Fr. R.

  14. For a bit of fun, check out Wikipedia’s article on Conservapedia and Conservapedia’s article on Wikipedia.

    You’d almost think that the two sites don’t get along …

    But from the “Quality” section on C’s article on W you find:

    In other words—and this is the rock-solid principle on which the whole of the Corporation’s Galaxywide success is founded—their fundamental design flaws are completely hidden by their superficial design flaws. —Douglas Adams

    Umm … Douglas Adams was an atheist. I wonder if that shows up on their radar?

      1. Look up their definition of “liberal,” too:

        A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing.

        And you’re right … the malarkey that starts off the article on “aka Barry Soetoro” borders on the libelous. That was as far as I needed to go to see that they lack the intellectual honesty to be remotely credible. Like Fox News, they claim to be presenting a balance, but overcompensate by making their heavy-handed bias even more flagrant than other sources.

        1. I think Wb was correct – if a wiki is to be, it needs to be balanced. But balance is something that is impossible if you really have a wiki

        2. I am afraid that liberalism goes much deeper than the personal and mere psychological, it is at heart a spiritual problem. And here we find the battle between God and evil. But God is not dualism, HE controls evil itself for His purpose! But the bane today is both postmodern and deconstruction in both culture and theology.
          Fr. R.

          1. Fr. Robert,

            As a Liberal, I do not believe that I have a personal or psychological, or even a spiritual problem. It seems that you think I do.

          2. You are not answering my question, Fr. Robert.

            Conservapedia is speaking about political Liberals in a manner which comes lose to lying, if not rushing across the line. You said that liberalism is a spiritual problem.

            I am a political Liberal. Do you think that there is something spiritually wrong with this? That is the question.

          3. Joel,
            If you are pressing me for an answer, then I would say yes. But, I am a conservative, always a Royal Marine..etc. I have seen evil face to face in combat and killed the ememy, etc. And I am a conservative Christian theolog, but does that make me right? I think not fully, but those are my history and presuppositions.
            Fr. R.

          4. Fr. Robert, to accuse someone of having a spiritual, personal, and psychological problem because they are of a different political persuasion as you is rather, well, depressing. It is a destructive thing, and troublesome. How does that align with Scripture at any point?

            What you are saying is that because I identify as a political Liberal, no matter the theology, I have a spiritual problem? There is no excuse for that. Are you really associating Liberals with the evil that you have faced and then killed?

            I am ashamed.

          5. True. And The Founding Fathers who were Liberals…Andrew Jackson, a Liberal, Teddy Roosevelt – who although a Republican could very well be a Democrat today – Kennedy, and others.

          6. Joel,
            You are reading into my statements things I have not said. I am speaking philosopically, apples are apples, oranges are oranges. We are all touched in the spiritual, personal and pyschological areas, as I said sinful beings.
            As to combat, I was talking about evil, etc. Re-read what I said, please? I don’t see how you have taken it to where you have gone?
            Fr. R.

          7. Fr. Robert,

            You said

            If you are pressing me for an answer, then I would say yes.

            My question was:

            I am a political Liberal. Do you think that there is something spiritually wrong with this?

            That’s pretty clear to me. I know plenty of conservative Christians who lend their support to Liberal politics. Yet, you would say that they have a spiritual problem – regardless of their Faith in God?

          8. Fr. Robert,

            Not being one that typically wades into a discussion, guns blazing, I figure I’ll grant you the opportunity to explain yourself first.

            What in the wide, wide, world of sports supports the position that liberals have a ‘spiritual problem’? Quite honestly, if this were 2000 years ago, someone with your view would be wearing the black robes of the Pharisees. You know, those who thought THEY knew was right and considered those who disagreed with them as having ‘spiritual problems’.

            Quite honestly, Conservapedia’s “Bible Project” is patently unbiblical, and, IMO, bordering on heresy. You see, their motivating factor is “As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible”….Uhhh, since when is the Word of God the property of a political ideology.

            Their motivation, alone, should give any serious theologian pause.

            Supporting this project is, quite honestly, unChristian

  15. Let me say almost all Bible believing Christians I have known are also politically conservative. On the other hand, almost all politically liberal people I have known did NOT hold the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, nor did the hold it in high esteem.

    However, when I examine the commonalities of those solid Christians I know on both sides of the political spectrum, I see the following:
    1. A love for God, 2. A love for God’s word, 3. A love for others, an imperfect obedience to God, 4. A desire to improve life for themselves and others, 5. A willingness to ignore (or overlook) certain truths they would say they disagree with that are common to the group to which they belong, 6. An unwillingness to overlook/ignore certain truths that are common to the OTHER group, 7. A willingness to believe much of what people on THIER side says about their side, 8. A willingness to believe what people on THIER side says about people on the OTHER side, 9. A willingness to automatically throw out/ignore/attack much/everything people on the other side say, 10. A willingness to allow their moral beliefs to influence thier pollitical decisions, 11. A forgetfulness that God loves everyone and we are supposed to also, 12. A forgetfullness that we are all sinners and in need of grace and mercy.

    I think it IS a spiritual problem when Christians can not agree on how to handle an issue, on both sides — certainly Paul and Barnabus had a spiritual problem when They split up. Yet even there, God was in control of His plan and used that disagreement for the good of those who love Him. We are to seek unity in truth and love. This does not mean there will not be disagreements. We need to realize the talking heads and political leaders on both sides do and say what they do for a reason, and we must glean the truth from BOTH sides of the matter. Rather than attacking those who disagree with us, we need to pray for and with them. We need to realize the best way to accomplish a goal is to pray for GOD’s will be done, not tell Him how we want Him to handle it.

    1. I agree … the Christian Right and Christian Left should have more in common with each other than with the secular Right or secular Left. It doesn’t work that way, and the biggest cause of this is that the political affiliation trumps our supposed kinship.

      Jimmy Carter, Jim Wallis, Mike Huckabee, and Gary Bauer are, I believe, all my brothers. How should I speak to or about my brothers with whom I disagree?

      “Let me say almost all Bible believing Christians I have known are also politically conservative. On the other hand, almost all politically liberal people I have known did NOT hold the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, nor did the hold it in high esteem.”

      I would agree with that … though the problem is when we generalize that. The Republican-Christian “marriage” is relatively new (mostly a product of the late 70’s), and not universal. I can see good reasons for Bible-believing Christians to belong to either party, or reject either party.

      For my own part, I reject both major parties.

      1. Wickle, in speaking with a friend, we were discussing why we have seen some many conservative Christians who are political liberals in our areas. It may be that it is because we are not in the Bible Belt, where there is a huge difference, but the rust/industrial belt. Just a thought, not yet a theory.

        I believe that when we start to separate Christians by political affiliation, and accuse one side or the other of having, among other things, a spiritual problem, we begin to push both groups to the extremes. Instead of fulfilling the prayer of Christ for unity, we accuse each of other of things which have no biblical support.

        For me, the central thing in the life of a Christian is Christ – other things are temporal and can be decided on a personal basis, without the accusations of spiritual problems. I appreciate all my friends with various viewpoints.

        1. “we were discussing why we have seen some many conservative Christians who are political liberals in our areas.”

          Another thing that’s happening, I think, is that there are some people who are well-known and outspoken liberals who are less and less afraid of talking about their love of Christ. Jim Wallis has done a lot in opening that door.

          For my own part, I keep finding myself moving more and more leftward because I can’t ignore those pesky things like “love your neighbor” and caring for “the least of these.” As those concepts are maligned by the Right, I find myself clinging more strongly to them.

          I’ve seen this most with Catholics, but also some Evangelicals (including myself) were willing to compromise on social justice issues because of life issues for a time … but there’s been no payoff. The Republicans really haven’t done much more than give lip service to ending abortion, while they’ve made real progress is deregulating banks, allowing execs to run off with millions while leaving their employees destitute, etc..

          It’s one thing to bend on social justice in exchange for abortion efforts … to bend on social justice in return for nothing doesn’t last very long.

          1. Indeed, Wickle, indeed.

            Personally, if we had a valid third party, like Christian Democrats, or Union Republicans, that would be almost perfect.

          2. Oh, and they would have to tackle Abortion, Workers’ Rights, Social Justice issues and focus on living like minimalists.

          3. I think certaIn elements of social justice, such as equal treatment of people by the government should be the under the purvue of the government. I think other elements are both political and religious, such as abortion. I think other areas should be left to the free market, such as providing goods and services. But I think other areas, such as feeding the hungry, caring for the needy, the homeless, and the sick, should be left to the church. I also believe in A moral minimalist government, low taxes, everyone paying an equal percebtage (perhaps based on what they buy, exempting food, medicine, and medical services).

            I believe that if the government gets involved, it generally costs more and is less effective than other means are found to accomplish the same goal. Unfortunately, few churches get involved in helping people (spiritually, emotionally, or physically) anymore, as many are very insular or are simply clubs to attend. Those that DO focus on helping people often do so in only one area of life, wgen the approach should be holistic. Local churches generally accomplish less than the shriners, rotary clubs, or other nonprofit secular organizations. Granted, some religious institutions started out doing good things, but eventually succumbed to a desire for profit or governmental regulations. But even so, some organizations (religious and otherwise) still do a good job, and more are started every year.

            Unfortunately, no political party and no church meets my requirements. Sigh…

    2. Indeed, Wb, we do need to take the example of the Apostles in this matter, although I see them as agreeing and disagreeing within the sectarian bounds, and not the secular bounds. I think Paul would most likely have something to say to all of us for the level of discourse that Christians have on politics.

      For me, I grew up conservative, in a household who didn’t care for the bible. Their desire for a conservative viewpoint derived from racism. When I came to WV, and spent time as a Community Organizer – yes, I could be President one day – I met so many deeply conservative bible believers who are politically liberal. I believe that a lot of times, it is the people we know, and the sources we use.

      Further, I think that we have to separate Liberals/Conservatives from the modern examples set before us. On neither side have we seen the best examples lately.

      1. Joel,

        People who think you agree with them want you to follow your convictions, but if they think you dont agree with them, they suggest your religious life and thoughrs have no place ‘at the table when discussing…’ and still want to try to convine you to agree with them, so long as you leave the Bible out of it.

        I do not think there IS a boundary between secular and religious.our beliefs/convictions should dictate our choices and actions in all areas of life. Any separation between the two is only in strucuture (ie. The Church is not the world). But to separate our moral beliefs from our political/work life is simply a false separation I believe encouraged by satan, and by perhaps well meaning but deluded people, and by those who would disagree with what God has said.

        As for conservative Christians and liberals, Texas used to be democrat state, but the Texas democrats were always more conservative than those in other parts of the country. It has only been in the last 25-30 years that Texas went republican and the Texas Dems went more liberal.

        1. I do believe that there is a separation of Church and State – not in the belief that a Christian can be, say, anti-abortion, but actually perform abortions. I believe that people like that, that is just an example, are deluding themselves, or perhaps being delude by others.

          I believe Christians must be Christians inside the Church House or the the House of Government – but that doesn’t mean that Christians should govern the world like they would the Church.

          1. Joel,

            I grew up with racist democrats who were not guided by God’s love, nor the Bible, so maybe I can understand a little of what you went through.

            I agree that there is a separation between church and state, but only as specidied in the 1st amendment to the US Constitution:

            Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

            So, other than making no laws about establishing religion or freely exercising religion, or abridging freedom of speech, the government should stay away from religion. But no where does the constitution say religious people can not practice their religion in all avenues of life – even in the halls of government.

            I would agree the federal/state/county/local governments are not churches and should not be run as such. But everyone should folow their religious beliefs with the bounadries of Laws – ie dont murder, steal, etc. Of course, I dont know how I would feel about it if my religion taught me to murder or steal, etc….

          2. So, other than making no laws about establishing religion or freely exercising religion, or abridging freedom of speech, the government should stay away from religion. But no where does the constitution say religious people can not practice their religion in all avenues of life – even in the halls of government.

            I agree, completely.

            I think a lot of times, we are discussing things with our own language, but speaking the same ideas.

        2. And trust me, I completely agree with your first paragraph. Presuppositions seems to the order of the day.

          I do believe that politics can be a personal choice, however – but measured by the Bible. In other words, economics, etc… are still a personal chance – so Christians can be capitalists, socialists, etc… as long as their obey what the bible says to do concerning family, etc…

  16. First, I am not supporting conservapedia, people look at what I have said, and get a grip on the philosophical. I am speaking in this position. And Joel, you should have seen this? I have re-read my statements, and I have not said what is being spoken about, etc. Is there any students of philosophy here, even basic?
    Fr. R.

    1. Yes, I do philosophy.

      However, you did, in fact, say this:

      “I am afraid that liberalism goes much deeper than the personal and mere psychological, it is at heart a spiritual problem. And here we find the battle between God and evil.”

      You said that liberalism is a spiritual problem, and then your next sentence went on to describe it as a form of evil. If you want to reword what you said, then do so. The fact, though, is that you did say what you said.

      You also said:

      “If you are pressing me for an answer, then I would say yes. But, I am a conservative, always a Royal Marine..etc. I have seen evil face to face in combat and killed the ememy, etc.”

      You stated directly that liberalism is a spiritual problem, and then went on to say that you killed evil people. Either that was a non-sequitor or you’re, again, saying that political liberals have a spiritual problem and represent an evil enemy.

      1. The fact that I awoke this morning to see that an American president has won the Nobel Peace Prize, that has not even been a year in office, and has done nothing but talk… to my Irish and British mind, this sets well with my premise of the postmodern and social deconstruction in our world. Simply madness! If this is not liberal and political? I don’t know what is?
        Fr. R.

          1. I can only thank God that mine I hope are Judeo-Christian, biblical and today Irish and “continuing” Anglican! As not an American my “conservative” would be the bounds within these also. Men like CH Spurgeon to EW Bullinger, both very different but both very Biblical!
            Fr. R.

          2. Indeed that must be our goal, but we all miss it sadly. The only “completion” is God triune! Here again is my “conservative” bounds, at least seeking such.
            Fr. R.

  17. I am I hearing that Liberalism is some mental disease or disorder? Or am I reading that because I believe in a Universal Gospel and all men are my brothers I am morally reprehensible? And that “Judge ye as you would be judged” is not what Christ meant after all? “Blessed are the peacemakers….Sons of God” Conservatives pick and choice the scripture they want to justify slavery, slaughter, and slander. History, from Rome in 1452 to Salem 1692, bears witness to this. Where is one liberal brother calling for the torture or assassination of anyone? And “Trickle Down Economics”? I had to toss that one in….
    Let me just add this: For many individuals, they have already decided their answer and beliefs, and this is ok. I will never change an irrational or proud mind, nor will I behave as they would predict and roll in a fight. Never confuse liberals with pansies.
    Look, PC, no cusswords!

  18. and another thing: Do not take the Name of the Lord in Vain…..That’s not swearing or “GD!”, but doing your desire in HIS NAME as a wolf in sheep’s clothing would do..beware the man who claims to come in the Name of the Lord, yet carries an ax and noose. Jesus never once said “Kill them all, let God sort them out!” I’m pretty sure that was the Marine Corps.
    And the flag you wanna drape over the cross? I declare that if you declare that Jesus died only for America to be His blessed sole anointed, you better check on the meaning of blasphemy! Conservatives are working overtime to rewrite the Gospel for profit and person gain….I believe I smell the works of Anti-Christian. There is some serious Psychological mind *$&+>ng on here!

  19. Joel,
    You are in an argumentative mood. I guess a blogger thing? We all bring something to the table in our studies and search, was my point. I am not going to back off of my conservative ideas, as you your liberal either. I can be a stubborn Irishman! But the lasting point is who has the historical and theological high ground? I am the Churchman, and the Anglican. I can argue a long time from here! But this is not a competition, but let “God to be true, and every man a liar”!
    As I wrote in my wee blog today, “we are not God’s lawyers, arguing well for him, but God’s witnesses, simply telling what grace has done.”
    Fr. R.

    1. Fr. Robert, I never asked you to stop being a political conservative or assumed that as such, you had a spiritual problem.

      1. Joel,
        If you will look close at what I wrote, I said…”liberalism goes much deeper than the PERSONAL (ourselves) . . . its is at heart a spiritual problem.” Here I meant a sin problem. But yes, indeed a liberal can (perhaps not you) make the sin question almost non-existent at times. I speak of liberal theology.
        Fr. R.

        PS It was really interesting last night to watch people go crazy, and they did not even know what I myself said, they were just responding to your take, etc. Very Sad! As always wb seemed to be on track.

        1. Fr. Robert, it’s was made clear that we were speaking about political liberals. Further. I asked you if I, as a political liberal had a spiritual problem. You answered yes. If people responded to my take, then perhaps your delivery was off.

  20. Joel,

    I think it was Wickle I was first responding to, and the nature of the spiritual depth of loss of liberal thought theologically, as I quoted the fact that God is not a dualism, good & evil. Then from there, whew away it went. Calling you a liberal, was as you called yourself. Then it became a bit of a blurr.. And I was not going to write in defense of nothing, or wrong shots at myself. Of which it became. Anyway..
    Fr. R.

Leave a Reply, Please!