I was disappointed to see that PAW gave a platform to Andrew Schlafly ’81 and his Conservapedia (A Moment with, Feb. 24). Conservapedia is just another fundamentalist Christian, creationist, anti-liberal, and anti-science Web site, masquerading as something scholarly and respectable. It is instructive to search Conservapedia on Wikipedia. You will find a straightforward and dispassionate description of Conservapedia’s history, viewpoints, and policies, and how it has been received. Then search Wikipedia on Conservapedia. You will find that Conservapedia is actively trying to slander and discredit Wikipedia.
Among computer-savvy undergraduates that I know, Conservapedia is considered a joke. One can guess that the same will be true of the “Conservative Bible.” It is ironic that Schlafly wants to let the public decide what the Bible really says, since earlier in the interview he has lambasted Wikipedia for being created by “a mob.” Who are the “biggest bullies” who will guide the creation of his new Bible?
When Schlafly speaks of the “original intent” of the earliest manuscripts, it is safe to predict that the Conservative Bible will end up saying exactly what Schlafly wants it to say, irrespective of what actually happened, what the original authors actually meant, or what 300 years of Biblical scholarship have determined.
Browsing Letters 2009-2010