While doing some Internet research this morning, I came across a website by the name of Conservapedia.
As I began to read through some of the hostile, perhaps even hateful, article headlines, the site’s overall message became very clear to me:
- “There Is No Such Thing as Marriage Equality. Why be foolish and accept a fake substitute?”
- “Evidence for (think he meant “of”) bias in school textbooks includes promotion of (he probably just forgot to put the word “the” here) Homosexual (and I’m sure he also meant to make that a lowercase “h”) agenda, support of liberal viewpoint (perhaps the “s” that belongs at the end of this sentence made off with the “of” and “the” from earlier), as well as support of the unproven theory of evolution. Most Biology textbooks do not provide the Creationist viewpoint a chance, or even a second thought.”(oh now he’s done it! **Rolling up sleeves for this one**):
- To say that anything in science is “unproven” or “proven” is to completely overlook one vital detail regarding it: Science does not deal in absolute proof, only in the balance of evidence.
- No scientific theory, evolution included, is ever considered to be proven. Instead, the more evidence that accumulates to support a theory, the more our confidence in it grows. Eventually, a point may be reached where the quantity of evidence supporting the theory is so vast, so overwhelming, that future attempts to deny or question it are considered futile and unfounded. THIS is the case with the theory of evolution, as it is the case with other theories that form the pillars of modern science today.
- Perhaps this lovely gentleman is confused by the use of the word “theory” here. I can understand that, since this is an issue that oftentimes confuses the general public. “Theory” and “law” may have different common meanings, but in science, their meanings are very similar. A theory is an explanation of which is back by “a considerable body of evidence,” while a law is a set of regularities expressed in a “mathematical statement.” Evolution, like with most of Biology, cannot be expressed in a concise mathematical equation, and therefore it is referred to as a theory. A scientific law is not “better” or “more accurate” than a scientific theory.
- “Anti-feminists understand that feminism is a danger to society. it (capitalization) is because of feminism we have we have (we have, we have….Tourette’s?) unrestricted sex, the Pill, abortion on demand, an astronomically increased number of single mothers (let’s be honest here, would you want your daughter marrying a man like this? Would YOU marry a man like this? Didn’t think so), teenage mothers and women in their 40’s struggling with infertility (the American Society of Reproductive Medicine states that a woman’s best reproductive years are in her 20’s. Fertility gradually declines in the 30’s, particularly after age 35. By age 40, a woman’s chance is less than 5% per cycle, so fewer than 5 out of every 100 women are expected to become pregnant each month…just saying), we have a fatherless generation who hasn’t seen a better example (what the heck does that even mean?); chastity is mocked, women are sexualized and coerced into selling themselves cheap (would he prefer they overcharge, instead? Sorry, I couldn’t resist.); we have no-fault divorce, and deterioration of family”
- Yes, because growing up in a home where there is a total lack of empathy, understanding, and sensitivity towards certain family members, especially while expressing extreme and obvious empathy towards others, and making children grow up feeling marginalized couldn’t have anything to do with this whatsoever. Having a parent, or parents, that engage(s) in unfair or unequal treatment of one or more family members based on gender, age, birth order, family role, abilities, race, sexual and religious preferences, and have either or both disrespect them by violating their boundaries, couldn’t possibly be the reason we see deteriorating family involvement these days. It must be those crazy queers and dangerous feminists, right?
Eventually I became less interested in the website itself, and more curious about the person responsible for it. So now let us take a brief look at its creator.
Meet Andrew Layton Schlafly, an American lawyer (I’ve seen grade school students with more impressive writing skills, and yet he has a law degree?) and conservative activist best known as the founder and owner of the wiki Conservapedia.
Andy, who initially intended for the site to be his mediocre attempt to collaboratively develop an online encyclopedia, founded the self-proclaimed conservative Christian alternative to Wikipedia on November 21st, 2006. Having, instead, been used as a soapbox for one misguided fanatic’s own vanity project, Conservapedia has become nothing more than a dumpsite for Shlafly’s toxic political and religious informational waste. And you know what they say about birds of a feather, don’t you? The site also boasts a number of articles and projects published by its own bigoted editors and administrators, who use their right-wing rhetoric in an attempt to provide their crusade with a driving theological imperative.
Thankfully, while such rhetorical rubbish may attract some wavering co-religionists to its cause, it also acts as a natural social constraint by limiting how successful the fundamentalist mindset can be outside of like minded circles. With such a relentlessly negative message and a tendency to demonize their opposition (e.g. the demonization of the explanatory width and depth of modern day science), it’s not difficult to comprehend why most people today tend to respond negatively to fundamentalist views, and why their overall widespread acceptance has been so severely crippled.
While fundamentalists tend to do more damage to their own cause than anything else (especially given their propensity for being incorrigible doubters with an insatiable appetite for evidence), the narrow-minded viewpoints expressed on Conservapedia should not be regarded as the collective voice of a larger community. Instead of looking at it as a reflection of the insights of an entire group of people, see it for what it really is: the distorted views of discriminative, fascist pigs and fanatical ideologues with raging persecution complexes, each being the product of insanity that I believe is wrought by ignorance and persistent delusions.
In a West Point study on the growing danger of violence from right-wing extremist groups, they laid out three major ideological movements; a racist white supremacy movement, an anti-government movement, and a fundamentalist Christian movement that have always existed in this country. This is not to say that Republicans promote right-wing extremism with a view towards violence against the government or other Americans, but their support for policies the extremists hold near and dear to their black hearts lends validity to hate movements that are becoming common among conservatives and having detrimental effects on the population. What do you think would be the outcome of a politician, television news station, and church telling people change endangers their entire way of life? Simple. The same things we’ve seen play out in similar scenarios in the past. Fear, doubt and loss give way to hate and anger. The result today, I believe would be an America with a large division of anti-government religious racists, all equipped with guns and four years of hate, searching for a place or means of release they will find in Republican policies and on America’s streets.
For those of you that may be unfamiliar with the fundamentalist’s extreme and literal interpretation of the bible, here are a few verses and their interpretations, brought to you by Ivana Wynn over at ranker.com (for a more indepth look at these bible verses and their literal, extremist interpretations, please read Ivana’s article: The Top 20 Bible Passages to Use Against Fundamentalists):
- “I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent.” (Timothy 2:11)
- This is the most often quoted version of this passage, but in The King James Bible, it goes a little bit more like this: “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.”
- “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.” (Luke 16:18)
- According to this passage, all members of the congregation that have been divorced and/or remarried would be sinners and should be kicked out of the church. With a 50% divorce rate in America, it’s safe to say that people are selectively ignoring this rule, yet somehow still seeing themselves as “pious.”
- “He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord.”(Deuteronomy 23:1)
- First of all, yes, the King James Bible actually calls them “stones.” You are now aware of the fact that the “stones” euphemism is a biblical reference.
- Also, God hates people with testicular cancer, apparently.
- “A bitched shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.” (Deuteronomy 23:2)
- A bitched is someone who was born outside of wedlock, which means you were born before your parents were married. Being born out of wedlock makes you filthy, apparently; so filthy in fact that it takes ten genetic steps down the line to wash how filthy it makes you. So your family’s 100% awesome to come to church in like a century or two if you’re a bitched, which I guess is fair.
- “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” (Matthew 5:28)
- Bring around some pictures from Men’s Health for the women and some Maxim, perhaps some Playboy, for the men. Get them to look at it and give you an opinion. Most of the time, they will have lustful descriptions and will think nothing of it when they’re really violated a cut and dry part of what is supposed to be their belief system. Feel free to shout things like “ADULTERER!” after Gerard Butler and Jessica Alba have made everyone into adequate sinners.
- “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head…” (1 Corinthians 11:5)
- Fundamentalist Christian women seem to have forgotten this basic rule of church attire reminiscent of Islam. The bible should have clarified what it means to dishonoureth one’s head. Most women walk around with their hair uncovered in all styles in modern society and men aren’t having too much trouble keeping it in their pants.
- Mary always wore a veil…why shouldn’t they?
- If in spite of this you still do not listen to me but continue to be hostile toward me, 28 then in my anger I will be hostile toward you, and I myself will punish you for your sins seven times over. 29 You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters.”(Leviticus 26:27-30)
- So basically, If you disobey God, you will eat your babies.
- You might as well put on the Food Network, get some good recipes ready and hand them to someone next time a Christian fundamentalist tries to pull their piety card out. If they’re not following this rule, then why follow rules that allow hate towards people different than they are?
- “For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” (Matthew 10:35-27)
- So believing in God, according to the bible, is like a life-or-death game of Family Double Dare, only instead of having color-coded teams it’s every man (woman and child) for themselves.
- So next time someone says “family first” it’s probably them tricking you into loving God less than you should, just so you’ll go to hell and they won’t. So, according to the bible, every time a mother tells her child that family is the most important thing in the world, they’re really condemning their child to an eternity of fire, brimstone and suffering.
- “Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke [reason with] thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.” (Leviticus 19: 17-18)
- This pretty much means that every single Westboro Baptist Church protest is inherently Un-Christian (as if we needed the fundamentalists to tell us that). The Westboro Baptist Church, based in Topeka, Kansas has clearly forgotten this guideline, which is much more explicit than anti-homosexual biblical references. The church is famous for being a hate group that protests at homosexuals’ funerals and has nothing but contempt for any other religion besides its own. The church is using technology to hate on homosexuals through their website, godhatesf*gs.com (I refuse to actually even link that URL, sorry) and has a travel budget of over $200,000 to picket and disrupt funerals all over the country. They protest military funerals (protest in their context actually means “harass”) and make one of the worst days of these people’s lives even worse. This is what they do as a primary form of “activism. The scariest part is that these people actually procreate. They have kids holding up hateful signs and they teach their children the opposite of Christian values.
- But if The Lord says love they neighbor, then what book are they reading?
- “When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.” (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)
- Okay this one is insanely specific, which makes it that much more awesome. This probably NEVER happens… but if a faithful wife decided to defend her husband by grabbing a guy by his junk, anyone, would have God’s blessing to cut her hand off.
- And once again, here’s another rule that illustrates the point that if people were better Christians, we’d have a lot more handless people walking around. If people were much better Christians, then pirate hook sales would go through the roof (and we’d probably have designer hooks as a driving force of our economy).
- “For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.” (Leviticus 20:9)
- If every kid in America who cursed at his parents was killed, we’d have to worry about repopulating the country. Every day.
- Try bringing this up in front of a man’s wife or children, see how that goes.
- “Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man’s brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.” (Mark 12:19)
- So if your brother dies, you need to bang his wife apparently.
- Moses, the prophet who delivered his fellow Jews from a wicked Egyptian tyrant and led them across the parted Red Sea, had apparently told this speaker that if a woman is widowed, her late husband’s brother should sleep with her and produce heirs for his brother. From a traveling crowd of people that were homeless for 40 years, this actually makes sense… but not so much for this day and age. Picture that — a grieving widow is visited by her husband’s brother to have sex the night of the funeral.
- Repopulating simply to have heirs doesn’t exist as a valid concept anymore. Plenty of couples are choosing not to reproduce at all and with a recession and climate crisis on our hands, they’re doing the world a favor. If this rule has been allowed to become obsolete, why not others that ruin people’s lives?
- “But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.” (Deuteronomy 22: 20-21)
- Non-virgins are to be stoned (as in, with rocks).
- The “father’s house” in Paris Hilton’s case would be any Hilton hotel, so we know that if fundamentalists were really taking everything the way “God” intended, then it should be a well-known and widespread Christian agenda to call for the public stoning of Paris Hilton. Sorry Paris.
- Also, there are edge-cases where if a little girl has an accident or is injured during sports, the bible says they should be stoned to death. It’s pretty well known that it’s entirely possible (and not at all irregular) for a young woman’s hymen to be accidentally broken due to accidents or even playing certain sports like gymnastics.
- This also means that in order to enforce a rule like this, we’d need to have regular “Hymen Checks” at churches, but we don’t, because we’re human beings and we’re trying to live in a little thing called “society.”
- “And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched.” (Mark 9:43)
- So next time someone tells you that you’re going to hell, ask them if they’re free of sin, and if they believe that they aren’t, then kindly request their hand. It’s their duty to give it to you. Kind of like in that one SNL skit where Chris Farley gets on a Japanese game show, where everyone has to cut their hands off when they get wrong answers.
- “For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken. No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.” (Leviticus 21:18-21)
- This one is actually saying that deformed people cannot approach God.
- According to the bible, people who are born with or acquire defects throughout their lives should not approach the altar of a church to make an offering to God because they “hath a blemish.”
- Christians are always saying God loves everyone but this list of “or”s excludes a whole group of people who actually have no control over what they look like most of the time. From something as superficial as a flat nose to once again with the “broken stones” (Women may be inferior in God’s eyes, but he sure knows how to make a man feel worthless). Congrats God, you’ve found a way to hold every disabled and unprotected person responsible for things out of their control and make them feel like crap about it.
- “But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.” (Leviticus 12:5)
- According to the bible, giving birth to a daughter makes you unclean for 66 days.
- People should hold signs that say “God Hates Women” because it really will be the most accurate Christian sign you could ever make. God made the one thing women were actually appreciated for, the ability to give birth to life, a dirty act. When women give birth to their children at the hospital now, they are immediately handed their child because that’s what you want to do when you pop out a kid after carrying it for nine months in your belly — not go through 66 days of church-mandated shame.
- Next time one of your devout relatives or someone who always thinks they’re right during religious debates has a daughter, politely bring up the fact that in the eyes of God, the mother is a dirty whore who needs to wait 66 days before being allowed anywhere near anything clean ever again. She should probably also shower regularly.
- “…thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.” (Leviticus 18:19)
- No, this doesn’t mean that guys aren’t allowed around chicks that don’t shower. That’s fine (according to the bible). It means that when a woman is going through her “woman times” a man is not allowed to “approach” her, which in biblespeak means sex — much like “knowing” does.
- This passage forbids men from sleeping with a woman on her period, which in the bible is known as “uncleanness.” That uncleanness is of course the means to human reproduction and has been known as the bane of female existence for causing monthly cramps, breakouts, mood swings and mass destruction.
- Now we’ve uncovered the secret mission of the bible: pit men against women. Forever. (they may want to rethink their take on the homosexual agenda)
- “But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matthew 5:39)
- Invite your attacker to beat you more. Really? “Please sir, may I have another?” is a biblical rule? I thought it was just an S&M command.
- Passivity may be better than war and violence, but inviting someone to continue beating you seems a bit much. The best way to test this, of course, would be to openly attack someone and see if they pull a “please sir, may I have another?”… This can’t end well.
- “And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.” (Matthew 5:40)
- This passage feels like the one above, but it kind of has a twist. If someone steals something from you, you should hand over something else too. It’s like a “steal one-get one handed right to you” offer.
- Passages like these make it seem like God didn’t honestly grant his followers free will and in reality wants to turn them into obedient and mindless robots who can’t think for themselves. Either way, a good way to test this would be to steal something from a Christian and see if you get even more out of it…. This also can’t end well.
- “Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” (Psalm 137:9)
- The bible encourages disciplining your child… by throwing him against a stone wall, baby! Doing so will apparently make you “happy” (if you’re a sadistic psychopath, or if you hate your children).
- This is a dangerous encouragement of violence against helpless children and if followed, could easily be used to justify parents who shake their kids to death to make them stop crying or for simply just child abuse.
- So next time someone’s trying to prove that every passage of The Bible is beautiful and should be closely followed, ask them if they beat their kids.