slev (slev) wrote in xian_dialogue,


Some of you may have herd tell of This is a version of Wikipedia set up by a conservative Christian group in the USA, citing it's need due to it being "increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American".

I want to state for the record that I support the rights of inerrantists to their belief, and I would never dream of forcing Evolution, or the Big Bang on them. I respect their religious beliefs. As Volatre once said, 2I disagree with everything you say, but will fight to the death for your right to say it."

However, as stated elsewhere in this community, these matters are science, so religion does not enter into it.

In respecting their beliefs, I will not argue against the need for this resource. I will take to task, however, certain allegations which reflects Christianity in poor light.

Firstly, the project states itself to be "an online resource and meeting place where we favour Christianity and America." Thus it is biased in favour of those items, and yet the problem the site claims to have with Wikipedia, is essentially that it's bias is secular and international. The complaint is thus that the bias is not in the favour of the writers.

Secondly, let us look at the allegations that Wikipedia is "anti-American".

The main source of this complaint seems to stem from the wide use of British English as opposed to US English in Wikipedia's entry.

Now while this may be frustrating to many readers in the USA, the following points need to be born in mind.
1. Wikipedia is an internet project and hence is accessed be the entire globe. It should not be favouring one country of another.
2. As long as each entry spells consistently within itself, there should be no problem using one or the other.

Further, this is not anti-American. No-one has stated that American spellings are bad. The majority of Wikipedia users evidently prefer their English of the kind used in England. I always thought that majority rule by democracy was an American ideal?

They state that "most English speaking users are American." As users can change the spellings, why then, have they not? Further, Conservapedia provides no figures for this, while lambasting Wikipedia elsewhere for failing to state figures & proofs.

By the arguments of Conservipedia, as they use American spellings exclusively, they are anti-British.

They seem to be taking anything not pro-American as anti-American.

This 'with us or against us' attitude assumes to polar possibilities of opinion. I cannot find any item in Conservapedia's list of gripes where someone is saying anything against America.

This 'for or against' attitude also prevails in many arguments they make regarding Wikipedia's "anti-Christian" stance. Wikipedia deals with knowledge in a neutral objective way, similar to an encyclopaedia. Thus, it is dealt with from a secular view-point.

From Conservapedia:
"Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise? Though the rationale behind usage of the B. C. E. phrasing is to avoid offending religions other then Christianity, Conservapedia does not accept the validity of these religions, and sees no difference between 'not pro-Christian' and 'anti-Christian'. Conservapedia is Christian-friendly and exposes the CE deception."

I'm sorry, but this is not a very Christian attitude.

Jesus said that we should "Do to others as you would have them do to you." The authors of this statement do not respect the other religions and so, as Christians, do not expect their own faith to be respected.

Again the statement "no difference between 'not pro-Christian' and 'anti-Christian'" is endemic of this 'for or against' attitude.

I thus, as is traditional when deconstructing someone else's work, invite the writers of Conservapedia to respond to these items.
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic