Conservapedia

-=-=

9 26 ad

results hunter bs

-=-=

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Andrew_Schlafly

andrew Layton Schlafly (1961–), also known as "Aschlafly", is an American lawyer and homeschool teacher in his home state of New Jersey, where he has taught at least 250 homeschooledteenagers since 2002.[1][2]

He is the founder of a fundamentalist Christian wiki called Conservapedia, which promotes extremist versions of conservative, Republican, and American-exceptionalist values, and a strictly young Earth creationist view of the history of our universe, planet, and life. Intended as an educational resource and promoted as "The ~_Trusworthy~ Trustworthy Encyclopedia," Conservapedia has caused great controversy in print,[3][4][5] on the radio,[6][7] and online, primarily over the (lack of) accuracy of the information that it provides.

Background

Personal life

Born in Alton, Illinois, Andrew Schlafly is the son of John Fred Schlafly Jr. (1909–1993), a conservative lawyer, and Phyllis Schlafly (née Stewart, 1924–2016), a conservative activist and founder of the Eagle Forum. Their six children were homeschooled until the age of seven.[8] Andrew Schlafly graduated from Saint Louis Priory School, a private Catholic boys' school, in 1978.[9]

He graduated from Princeton University in 1981 with a B.S.E.cum laudeinelectrical engineering.[10][11]He went on to study law and earn a J.D. from Harvard Law School (1991), where he graduated magna cum laude.[11]He was a member of the editorial board of the Harvard Law Review (at the same time as former US President Barack Obama, who was Editor-In-Chief of the journal), and he clerked for a federal appellate judge in Washington, D.C.

He married Catherine Agneta Kosarek at a Roman Catholic ceremony in 1984. Ms. Kosarek was a fourth-year medical student at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine and also a Princeton graduate.[10] They have two children.

After earning his engineering degree, Schlafly worked as a device physicist for Intel, an electrical engineer at the applied physics laboratory of Johns Hopkins University, and finally at Bell Labs.[10][11] Schlafly became a member of the New York State Bar in 1993[12] and served as an adjunct professor of administrative law at Seton Hall Law School in 1995.[13][2][14] He first worked as an attorney at New York City law firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, & Katz.[15]

He is currently General Counsel for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons,[16] and has filed three civil matters on their behalf in Connecticut and Texas District Courts. He is their head counsel for their ongoing legal challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare,arguing that the government has no business regulating the medical establishment at all, or demanding "evidence-based methodology" in research of new treatments. Aside from his work for AAPS, records reflect that Schlafly has filed one appearance in federal court since his departure from Wachtell, Lipton.[17] Schlafly has appeared on television[18] as a voice for the anti-vaccination movement. According to his recent political campaign contribution declarations he is currently a self-employed attorney.[19]

For several years, he has taught classes in world history, U.S. history, and economics to homeschooled high school age children for a per-student fee. As a volunteer, he teaches eight online courses at the Eagle Forum University,[20] largely from the same course material that he provides for his homeschooling program. In June 2009, Schlafly wrote an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Eagle Forum for a U.S. Supreme Court case, supporting California's law banning sales of violent video games to minors.[21] In the brief, he accused such games of being the cause of high dropout rates and lack of academic readiness of college freshmen.[22]

He was lead counsel for the committees to recall US Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ)[23] and US Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND).[24] In both cases, Schlafly argued that although recall for Senators was never provided for in the Constitution of the United States, a letter George Washington had written to his nephew indicated his "sincere" personal support for the idea, and therefore recall should have been considered implicit. In both cases, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruling on November 18, 2010 and the North Dakota Supreme Court on December 21, 2010[25]dismissed the petitions before them.

As of May, 2013 Andrew Schlafly is litigating against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (colloquially known as "Obamacare") on behalf of the AAPS in the state of Texas.The thrust of his argument is that the Act violates the Fifth Amendment.[26]

Political career and current affiliation

In 1992, Schlafly made a bid for the Republican Party nomination for a seat in the United States House of Representatives, but was defeated in the primary, garnering 11% of the vote and finishing in fifth and last place[27][28] after spending $85,000 of his own money.

In the 2008 presidential primaries, Schlafly contributed $1500 to the campaign of Republican candidate Mike Huckabee.[29] In 2010, he donated $500 to Art Robinson (R-Oregon) for Congress[30], and in 2012, he donated $700 to the campaign of Wayne Iverson (R - California) for Congress.[31]. Public records do not indicate him supporting a candidate in the 2012 Presidential Election, and he repeatedly indicated his lack of support for Mitt Romney in his contributions at Conservapedia, primarily due to "RomneyCare".[32]

Political activism

Schlafly has sat on the Board of Directors of Students for Life, a pro-life movement which aims to "end abortion by educating students about the issues of abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide".[33]He is a regular participant in the annual March for Life event that takes place in Washington, D.C.

In 2010 he "chartered two large buses for his trip to the March for Life, and hope(d) to have 94 participants, the largest single contingent from New Jersey."[34] He claims to have filled three buses for the 2011 march.[35]

Religious beliefs

Schlafly was raised as a Roman Catholic, attended a Catholic boys school, and was married in a Catholic church.[10] He interprets the Bible and the events that occur within it literally, believing the Global Flood to have happened approximately 5,300 years ago,[36] as well as holding Young Earth Creationist views. He also seems to believe the God of the Bible to be highly interventionist in present day life, suggesting His or Its direct involvement with everyday occurrences such as the American sporting market and dreams.[37][38]

Andrew Schlafly, homeschool teacher

When considering whether to employ Schlafly as an educator of your children, we feel there are a few issues which should be brought to the attention of potential students, parents and their families. We list some of these, with links to his own statements on the issues, mostly from Conservapedia.

Qualifications (or lack thereof)

Outline legal status of homeschooling

Although the State of New Jersey requires no type of teacher certification for homeschool teachers, nor the use of standardized texts, instruction academically “equivalent” to that in the public schools is required.[39] If legal action is initiated, parents must carry the burden of providing the local superintendent with evidence that the child is in fact receiving equivalent instruction. However, ultimately it is the state that must prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the parents failed to provide their child with equivalent education.[40] The law as it relates to homeschooling varies from state to state.[41]

Qualifications as an educator

There is currently no evidence in the public domain for his credentials or training in the fields of education or childhood/pre-college development,[2] nor did he declare any training or certification in education in his March 2009 application to the State of New Jersey to establish an education program.[42]

Educational standards

AP certification and his courses

Schlafly's class is not AP-certified,[43] but he does suggest "Students seeking to earn college credit can take the CLEP or AP exams upon successful completion of this course."[44] Schlafly has said he will not seek certification for his course as he feels the board would "censor" him.[45] An apparently experienced homeschooling parent has publicly discussed at length with Schlafly that his course is not at AP level and may poorly prepare students for the exam.[46]

A student taking the AP test upon completion of Mr. Schlafly's class should not expect to be adequately prepared, and without additional preparation, it would be difficult to qualify for college credit. This is rather ironic since his user page has a loud and proud list of college acceptances. The list includes mostly Christian schools like Biola University and Liberty University.

The book Schlafly uses in his course is apparently a review book,[47] and not a proper textbook.[48] AP courses use college-level textbooks. A comparison between Schlafly's course and the AP course can be seen here.

Oddly enough, Schlafly admits that he is not convinced of his own ability to qualify the children he teaches for college,[49] as he does not follow the expected curricula. He had consequentially sought "suggestions" from his community of students and editors as to how he might do so.

Educational practice

Sexism

Schlafly believes that girls are less intelligent than boys and has said "Think girls can excel in math as well as boys can? Liberals teach they can, which is teaching a falsehood."[50] He also derided the findings of a report which showed no difference in educational ability between genders as "politically correct." His attitude is further apparent on the examinations for his American History course, in which girls are given 15% fewer questions than boys but the same amount of time to finish it.[51] Furthermore, he disapproves of inter-gender competition[52][53][54] and his course curriculum reflects this. He has argued that gender differences are clear in mathematical ability in universities,[55] saying that there's no reason God would have created men and women the same, and that they have very different physical appearances.[56] The AP exam, SAT-II, and college exams make no such distinction for female students.

This opinion contrasts with most educational studies. An American Psychological Association (APA) study found no difference in achievement across the gender gap in 7.2 million students nationwide, and the National Science Foundation found that "girls perform as well as boys on standardized math tests".[57] And while there are indeed fewer women working today in science and mathematical fields than men, many studies[58] show that the reason for the imbalance is because women are in the minority and societal norms are being perpetuated.[59][60] The outstanding achievements of women scientists,[61] mathematicians[62] and astronauts[63] are well documented, and most teachers encourage their female students, but Schlafly actively discourages his from attempting to compete with boys. There have even been public protests from his female students,[64] but nevertheless he continues to pursue his agenda.

Schlafly's view on gender roles extends into adulthood — he has mocked the idea of a woman wanting to become a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, suggesting that a woman wanting to "act like businessman and aspire to run a restaurant is feminist."[65] In a news posting about the death of a female politician who had tried to pass an Equal Rights Bill "which would have required identical treatment of men and women, and boys and girls," he referred to such a goal as "feminist."'

Conservapedia's own article on sexual discrimination, which intentionally includes only instances of sexism against men, has a paragraph deriding women who want equal pay for similar jobs that men hold. It ends with the ironically sexist statement: "The fact that women pursue family life and other non-monetary activities contributes to a false sense of inequality when equity is determined by average earnings. Women are often fulfilled and fully equal when performing their traditional duties within the home."[66]

Class size

Conventional educational wisdom dictates that smaller class sizes are preferable because of the individual attention a teacher can give each student, but Schlafly believes the opposite is true - that in fact larger class sizes are better. This notion is particularly strange given his overwhelming support for homeschooling, which would be expected to have a very small class size. He defended his ideas in an essay at Conservapedia.[67] Our own defense of smaller classes, and a rebuttal to the individual points made by Mr. Schlafly, can be seen here.

The notion that smaller class sizes are preferable for a child's education is so universally acknowledged that class size is an important factor in official college rankings (smaller average class size yielding a higher rank on the listings).[68] If you intend to enroll your child in one of Mr. Schlafly's classes under the impression that your child will be in a smaller, more intimate environment, and will receive more personal attention than in a public school classroom, you are likely mistaken.

Inflated sense of expertise

Schlafly frequently claims expertise in whatever subject he is debating, and has repeatedly attacked and denied opinion, evidence, and references by qualified editors, making unsubstantiated claims that are opinion, assertion, or uneducated guesses, and of which he brooks no criticism. He has declared himself supremely knowledgeable in the fields of anthropology,[69] astronomy, biblical scholarship and translation,[70] the entertainment industry,[71][72][73][74][75][76] microbiology,[77] nutrition,[78] oncology,[71] psychiatry,[79][80] mathematics, relativity,[81] statistics,[82][83] and world history.[84][85][86] (For a detailed list of claims, see here.)

Schlafly is openly contemptuous of credentialed experts,[87] particularly so when they conflict with his uncited assertions. His slogan "Don't read a book to learn, write a book to learn"[88] underlines this stance, and while this statement may seem impressively philosophical at first glance, it becomes less so after one gives more than one second's thought as to what it actually means. Schlafly proposes that editing Conservapedia is a better way to learn than "reading a book, attending a seminar, ... discussing with people [sic]"[89] and that "In merely a few spare minutes or hours, the participants in The Conservative Bible Project have learned more than they could have after spending 10x or 100x many hours in any other medium."[89] He considers Conservapedia to be one of the greatest achievements throughout history.[90]

Despite his claims of expertise in numerous fields, Schlafly often makes distinctive errors both in his online lectures and when posting on Conservapedia. Some of his more blatant factual errors are listed below.

Confusing England with the United Kingdom in the run up to the UK General Election, 2010.
Mistaking the British Labour Party for the Liberal Party.
Arguing, against all evidence to the contrary, that Fidel Castro died sometime before December 2009,[91] going so far as to suggest that the Pope was duped by a Castro double following their meeting in March 2012.[92]
Arguing, with no supporting evidence and against the fact that the monarch is officially the head of the Church of England, that Great Britain is "atheistic."
Arguing that British people are poor at maths and spelling despite having no statistics to support this and frequently displaying a lack of skill in grammar and spelling himself.
Claiming that a correlation exists between atheism and obesity.

Lack of emphasis on grammar and spelling

Schlafly spends little time if any providing students with writing guidance.[note 1] He is a native English speaker, but his own contributions are rife with poor grammar, punctuation, and spelling, which remain uncorrected and unacknowledged. Examples include:

"See if you can learn out to spell 'superior'"[93]
"You're 'sources' for that ungrammatical claim are interesting..."[94]
"You'll be fine if you're hear to teach and learn"[95]

In spite of these mistakes, Schlafly often claims expertise in spelling, grammar and punctuation, and usually comments negatively when his students make spelling mistakes. These responses typically have no bearing on the suggestions put to him,[96][97] such as when Schlafly deflects attention from his unsubstantiated encyclopedia entries concerning Barack Obama as a Muslim.[98] By criticizing the contributor's spelling instead, and with an unrelenting emphasis on what he regards to be liberal,[99] the British English spelling of the word "honor/honour" for example is, on its own terms, taken as being not only non-American, but "liberal," because it is non-American.

Ignoring and twisting facts to suit his agenda

Despite claiming to have taught a "World History" class,[note 2] Schlafly is not above ignoring history altogether, in order to support his own assertions.

Having previously decided that atheists do not support underdogs,[100] and thus by implication the "atheistic" British do not support underdogs, Schlafly went on to say firstly that "the Brits did not support the underdog in WWII, until they became one themselves,"[101] which he later clarified by saying, "Britain was just fine with Hitler running over neighboring underdog countries. Didn't Neville Chamberlain even receive a hero's reception for siding with Germany?"[102] This shows either complete ignorance of a topic he is supposed to have taught to school children, or willful twisting of the facts to suit his current agenda.

Either trait is unbecoming behaviour in somebody with aspirations to be a teacher.

Public grading of homework

Mr. Schlafly grades his students' homework publicly, online. The students' answers are posted, and Mr. Schlafly provides notes, commentary, corrections and gradings for all to see- not just other students, but anyone who happens to be reading Conservapedia, including people who are not supportive of the students. Some educators would argue this is neither fair nor appropriate, and that a private teacher-student relationship when grading allows greater mutual understanding and a less judgmental educational environment. Recent examples of public grading can be seen on Conservapedia.[103][104][105][106]

Grade inflation

Schlafly derides grade inflation in liberal schools. However, when grading his students' homework, Mr. Schlafly has yet to give less than 8 out of 10 correct marks on any question (except under exceptional circumstances; see below), even if the answer is clearly wrong.[107] Additionally, a typical score for a homework assignment containing various errors and the most cursory of answers is 98%.[108][109] The reasons for this inflation remain unclear, although it may just be because Schlafly himself lacks the proper knowledge to assess his students' performance. Whatever the reasoning, it should be obvious that a student who is used to receiving 98% on poorly performed tests will not be sufficiently prepared for real-life grading, if they subsequently attend College or University.

Poor communication with students

Schlafly's guidance as to how his American History course students should focus their studying time left many scratching their heads as to his intent:

“”You will spend a certain amount of time preparing for the midterm exam. Call that amount of time "x". How you allocate that time to different areas of 1500-1877 will make a difference on how well you do on the exam. If you spend 90% of x on the period between 1500 and 1700, then you will do poorly on 90% of the questions, because they will be from the period 1700 to 1877. You would have done far better to spend the 90% of x on the time period that will have 90% of the questions.[110]

This kind of poor communication with his students perhaps explains the basic nature of many of his students' examination answers.

Disdain for other students

Schlafly has a very poor opinion of public schools in the US, and repeatedly disparages them in comments, articles and on the Conservapedia "News feed,"[111] but he has also personalized this issue and mocked the students of such schools themselves.[112] It provides an interesting insight into this educator's mindset to see him publicly mock young students, even if he does not agree with their beliefs.

Attitude towards criticism

Schlafly will brook no criticism of his educational practices and standards — even when confronted by students with well-supported and thought-out critiques of his work. A student named RexBanner, who claimed to represent a group of students taking Schlafly's World History course in October 2011, pointed to a number of inconsistencies in grading and wrong answers being given full marks.[113] Schlafly called the criticism "nitpicky."[114] Banner further queried Schlafly, questioning his competency and professionalism.[115] After a second user asked about RexBanner's concerns, and another message from Banner, Schlafly promised to look into the matter,[116] but subsequently "trimmed" the conversation from his talk page, leaving the criticisms unanswered.[117] Schlafly has also almost consistently incorporated his personal opinion into comments, especially when the student is (more) factually accurate than he is. In one example, a student doubted the idea that Adam and Eve are only six thousand years old because of cave paintings, and Schlafly said, "The cave paintings lack any corroborating evidence, and there are good questions to ask about whether the paintings were dated or simply some sediment nearby (probably the latter). If mankind were as old as 20,000 B.C., then I would expect writings or civilizations, which are much older than what has been discovered, to be found,"[118] which suggests that he either a) doesn't know what "nomadic" means, or b) is completely ignorant of the fact that humans were nomadic during the Paleolithic age.

Beliefs

Disdain for books

In a country where adolescents are struggling to maintain high literacy, Schlafly has voiced an unusual (for an educator) disdain for the printed word, approving of the anticipated closing of a city's only bookstore as follows: "Nearly 250,000 people will soon be without a single bookstore. Most books (other than the Bible) are liberal claptrap anyway, so this is probably good news." He has also celebrated the liquidation sales of some Borders bookstores, saying that"Liberal claptrap is available at record-low prices!"[119]

Disrespect for academic qualifications

Schlafly is highly dismissive of academia and academics in general,[120][121] and believes that "the process of inducing people to rely on 'the perceived view of experts' is a misleading one." Schlafly's view is that learning is best achieved by ignoring experienced, qualified researchers in any given field and instead "thinking for oneself."[121][122] Throughout Conservapedia, many other examples of this philosophy exist.

Additionally, the Conservapedia article Professor values, created and written mostly by Schlafly, is clear in its disregard for academics.

In a March 2008 appearance on CBC's late-night show The Hour, Schlafly stated about Conservapedia: "I don't have to live with what's printed in the newspaper, I don't have to take what's put out by Wikipedia. We've got our own way to express knowledge and the more that we can clear out the liberal bias that erodes our faith, the better."[123]

Politicization of curriculum

Andrew Schlafly politicizes most topics he teaches. He believes that movies, books and music have underlying political messages that are either liberal or conservative, and in particular has refused to watch any movie featuring Tom Hanks (a well known liberal) in the belief that his films push a liberal agenda.[124] He furthermore claims that the dictionary has become affected by liberal bias as it contains an entry on CE (common era).[125]

In October 2008, in order to justify teaching a very large homeschool class, Schlafly claimed that all teachers' unions were liberal, and seek smaller classes in order to enhance liberal mind control.[126]He also contended that small homeschool groups are often liberal public school teachers teaching outside their class who are thoroughly indoctrinated in the small-class mind control.[126]

Seemingly innocuous words such as "efficiency," "phonics," or "radar" also fall under Schlafly's dichotomy of liberal/conservative.[127]

Hygiene

Schlafly has unusual beliefs about hygiene, believing that hand-washing is an "irrational phobia"[128] ("catching disease by having unclean hands at a meal is a grossly exaggerated risk, like other phobias"[129]). His basis for this theory is that Jesus did not think that it was necessary.[130][131] This may not be an ideal approach in a classroom environment, as 'school bugs' tend to pass rapidly amongst groups of children, and vigilant hand-washing has been seen by the CDC to reduce transmission of infections by between 30 and 70%.[132]

School shootings

Andy Schlafly blamed the Sandy Hook massacre on video games, and said that it wouldn't have happened "if laws banning guns for self defense in public school were repealed."[133]

Biblical skepticism

Perhaps most concerning of all to Christian parents, Schlafly has conflicting views on the Bible. On the one hand, as a very conservative Christian with a literalist interpretation of the Bible (he prefers the NIV, although he believes it is too liberal and is "written at only the 7th Grade level"[134][135]), he views it as the authoritative work of history and science and thus believes that Genesis is a true description of the beginning of time. As a result, he holds, along with other Conservapedia administrators, Young Earth Creationist views, believing that the Earth is 6,000 - 10,000 years old and that dinosaurs and humans co-existed until recent times.

On the other hand, Schlafly also believes that certain passages of the Bible are "suspect" and have been modified since the original passages were written. In the case of the "adultress parable" (John 7:53-8:11[136]) in which Jesus invited those without sin to cast the first stone at an adulteress, he believes that these passages were inserted later in order to support a liberal worldview in which sinners are forgiven.[137] Schlafly views this behavior of Jesus to be the beginning of so-called "Moral Relativism," of which he disapproves; for this reason, he argues that this passage of the Bible is actually a hoax.[138]

Throughout Conservapedia, Schlafly uses examples from the Bible to prove his points, believing as he does that it is the infallible Word of God. Yet his conflicting beliefs that certain passages of the Bible are hoaxes complicate that belief enormously. His desire to revise the texts of the Bible and remove what he describes as "vandalism" to the Bible[139] to fit his own views disturbed many of even his closest peers at Conservapedia, as did his evident desire to disavow Christian forgiveness[138] of the adulteress in the story.

Conservative Bible Project

On Christmas Day 2008, he became a false prophet by starting the 'Bible Retranslation Project', wherein he proposed a rewriting of the Bible to, for example, replace all instances of the term "The Word of God" with his own translation, "The Truth of God," and the rewording of The Ten Commandments with the wording "Thou Shalt Not Murder" replacing "Thou Shalt Not Kill."[140] Schlafly went on to write that "no fully conservative translation of the Bible exists as of 2009."img

Realizing that he did not have the knowledge necessary to translate the Bible from Greek, he began a less ambitious project, The Conservative Bible Project img, wherein English passages were re-written, as a campaign for a widescale rewrite of the Bible to match his own values, making references to the fact that all current versions of the Bible are "dumbed down," contain passages of doubtful authenticity, are not gender-specific enough, and "improperly encourage the 'social justice' movement among Christians,"[141] among other claims. He also suggested the complete removal of Luke 23:34, where Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

He estimates the entire retranslation of the New Testament into a proper, conservative version could be achieved within three months by five translators starting from scratch. However, he has admitted he's ignorant of Greek, Hebrew and even Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke.[142]

Schlafly's project has attracted the aggressive condemnation of one of the most well-known Christian conservative web sites, World Net Daily. In October 2009, the owner and editor of the publication, Joseph Farah, wrote an article strongly castigating the entire Conservative Bible Project, labeling it "incredibly stupid" and "profoundly dangerous."[143] Other reactions from pundits and bloggers from all sides of the political and religious spectrum have ranged from outrage to ridicule. A selection of blogs and articles on the subject are listed here.

In 2009, Schlafly was interviewed on The Colbert Report regarding his conservative bible project.[144]

Conservapedia

Aschlafly at Conservapedia

Typically part of his homeschooled courses will take place on his online encyclopedia, Conservapedia. When considering whether to have Schlafly as a teacher of your students/children, please be aware of the environment they will be exposed to on Conservapedia.

History

Schlafly founded Conservapedia on November 21, 2006, with the help of his homeschooled history students, to counter what he perceived as a "liberal and atheist bias" in the highly popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia. He felt the need to start the project after reading a student's assignment written using Common Era (C.E.), a type of dating notation the student found on Wikipedia, rather than the Anno Domini ("In the year of the Lord") (A.D.) system that he preferred.

Schlafly strongly maintains his positions throughout the site. He keeps a watchful eye on the content posted, and he and his administrators never allow suggestive, racy or obscene material, offensive language or terminology to remain on the site. Unfortunately they do not allow anything on the site that questions their preconceived notions even when presented with credible evidence. The articles on the Theory of Relativity and evolution are probably the best examples of this mindset. He is clearly dedicated to the success of his site, and routinely makes 30-plus edits a day to the content.

Initially, it was an interesting attempt to build a conservative, Christian-friendly, pro-American encyclopedia, with his students helping write short articles on various topics (in "American History", for example) as part of their coursework in his class. Internet commentators picked up on his project in early 2007 and created a rush of traffic to the site, and there has continued to be some interest in the site ever since. Many editors from across the political spectrum were concerned about the site's content and some of Schlafly's assertions, and created accounts in order to contribute to the articles and join the discussions. As a result, instead of a group of children building an encyclopedia and having fun while learning, the site has become the battlefield of a series of power struggles in the "Culture Wars" between adults.

Einstein's Theory of General Relativity

Schlafly made a fool of himself by claiming that Albert Einstein's theory of relativity is a "liberal hoax",[145] that it's "false", "confuses people", and "misleads people into stop reading the Bible".[146] He went on to create a page on his website called "counterexamples to relativity". Schlafly's opposition to Einstein's Theory of Relativity is due in part to Laurence H. Tribe's thanking Barack Obama in the footnote of a Harvard Law paper, and because Obama also assisted Tribe with his book entitled 'Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes',[147] Andrew Schlafly conflated the Theory of Relativity with moral relativism, and because Schlafly believes that liberals have no positive morals, he determined that the Theory of Relativity is a "liberal hoax".

"Gravity" (gravitational) waves

In 2012, Schlafly also created a Conservapedia page, incorrectly titled "gravity waves", in which he initially stated, "Gravity waves are predicted by the Theory of Relativity but, despite wasting millions of dollars looking for them, they have never been found."[148] Gravitational waves were a necessary component predicted by Albert Einstein for the Theory of Relativity to be proven correct, which is why Schlafly feels compelled to deny them. He was corrected by User:20percent,[149] who provided an update on gravitational waves, who was then banned for the given reason of "inserting false information", despite the information having been correct.[150][151] Instead, Schlafly prefers to make the generic and unbacked assertion that a "closer reading" of a 1993 paper reporting measurements of change in pulsars instead matched the data to the Theory.[152] On 11 February 2016, the day of a conference in Washington, D.C., announcing the successful discovery of gravitational waves,[153] Andrew Schlafly (User:Aschlafly), himself, commented on the discovery on his own "gravity waves" page, removing the point that User:20percent previous made: "this discovery strikes a blow to the anti-relavity argument", and replaced it with an assertion that it's all still a hoax,[154] based upon a 2010 prank that the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory colleagues used to teach a lesson to always double-check their work. Additionally, Schlafly makes the claim that "Gravity waves have never been directly observed",[154] as if he expects gravitational waves to be seen with the naked eye, instead of recognizing that instruments must, inherently, be used to detect that which is invisible. Based upon Michio Kaku's suggestion that the landmark discovery deserves a Nobel Prize, Schlafly claimed that "demands immediately rang out for a Nobel Prize", dismissing the importance of the discovery, and portraying those who appreciate scientific discoveries as aggressive "demanders".[154]

Publications

Schlafly has published a handful of technical papers in the fields of engineering and law. The following is a list of his publications that appear in journals of note.

Engineering

Lee, D.J.; Becker, N.J.; Schlafly, A.L.; Skupnjak, J.A.; Dham, V.K. (1983). Control logic and cell design for a 4K NVRAM. IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits, 18(5), 525-532. doi:10.1109/JSSC.1983.1051988
Becker, N.J.; Dham, V.K.; Lee, D.J.; Schlafly, A.L.; Skupnjak, J.A.; Winner, L. (1983). A 5V-only 4K nonvolatile static RAM. 1983 IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference. Digest of Technical Papers, 170-171. doi:10.1109/ISSCC.1983.1156438
Schlafly, A. (1984). Compact test vectors for gate arrays. VLSI Design, 5(10), 89-104.

Law

Schlafly, A.L. (2005). Brief of Amicus Curiae Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund in support of petitioner. Issues in Law & Medicine, 21(2), 147-58.
Schlafly, A.L. (2005). Legal implications of a link between abortion and breast cancer. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 10(1), 11-14.
Schlafly, A.L. (2010). Obamacare: not what the doctor ordered. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 15(2), 58-59.
Schlafly, A. (2006). Ten things trial lawyers hope you don't learn. Surgical Neurology, 66(2), 188.
Schlafly, A. (2003). Did Flawed Science and Litigation Help Bring Down the World Trade Center?. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 8(3), 89-93.

Opinion pieces

Off-target on guns. Letter to The Economist in response to "Bang, bang, you're dead." March 14, 2002.
Opposing view: Violent videos warp young minds. USA Today: June 27, 2011.

External links

See the Wikipedia article on Andrew Schlafly.
Conservapedia
Saint Louis Priory School

Right-Wing Group Seeks Help Rewriting the Bible Because It's Not Conservative Enough

by Richard Schiffman, AlterNet

The King James Bible and more recent translations are veritable primers of progressive agitprop, according to the founder of Conservapedia. Writes Schiffman, "When Jesus greets his disciples with the blessing, 'Peace be with you' (John 20, 26), the editors cleverly change the wording to, 'Peace of mind be with you,' so that nobody gets the wrong idea and thinks Jesus was some kind of lilly-livered pacifist. altenet 12/13

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia

Conservapedia is an English-language wiki project written from an American conservative Christian point of view, and considers itself a supporter of "conservative, family-friendly" content.[3] It was started in 2006 by homeschool teacher and attorney Andy Schlafly, son of conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly,[4][5] to counter what he called the liberal bias of Wikipedia.[6][7] It uses editorials and a wiki-based system to generate content. Examples of the ideology of Conservapedia in its articles include: advocacy for Young Earth creationism, negative accusations against President Barack Obama, criticism of Albert Einstein and relativity, and claiming a proven link between abortion and breast cancer. Conservapedia also operates a "Conservative Bible Project", a conservative re-interpretation of the Bible.

The project has received negative reactions from the mainstream media, as well as from various figures from both ends of the political spectrum, including commentators and journalists,[8][9][10][11][12] and has been criticized for bias and inaccuracies.[11][13][14]

Contents[hide]

[edit] History and overview

Conservapedia founder Andrew Schlafly

Conservapedia was created in November 2006 by Andrew Schlafly, a Harvard-educated attorney and a homeschool teacher.[5] He felt the need to start the project after reading a student's assignment written using Common Era dating notation rather than the Anno Domini system that he preferred.[15] Although he was "an early Wikipedia enthusiast", as reported by Shawn Zeller of Congressional Quarterly, Schlafly became concerned about bias after Wikipedia editors repeatedly reverted his edits to the article about the 2005 Kansas evolution hearings.[8] Schlafly expressed hope that Conservapedia would become a general resource for American educators and a counterpoint to the liberal bias that he perceived in Wikipedia.[6][11][16]

The "Eagle Forum University" online education program, which is associated with Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum organization, uses material for various online courses, including U.S. history, stored on Conservapedia.[7][17][18] Editing of Conservapedia articles related to a particular course topic is also a certain assignment for Eagle Forum University students.[18]

Running on MediaWiki software,[4][7] the site was founded in 2006, with its earliest articles dating from November 22.[6][7][16] As of September 2010, Conservapedia contains over 34,000 pages, not counting pages intended for internal discussion and collaboration, minimal "stub" articles, and other miscellany.[19] Regular features on the front page of Conservapedia include links to news articles and blogs that the site's editors consider relevant to conservatism.[20] The site also hosts debates in which its users may participate; subjects discussed include religion and politics.[21] Editors of Conservapedia also maintain a page titled "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" that compiles alleged instances of bias or errors on Wikipedia pages.[11][22] It was, at one point, the most-viewed page on the site.[23]

[edit] Editorial viewpoints and policies

Conservapedia has editorial policies designed to prevent what Schlafly sees as structural and ideological problems*[clarification needed*] with Wikipedia and generalized vandalism.

[edit] Differences from Wikipedia

Many editorial practices of Conservapedia differ from those of Wikipedia. Articles and other content on the site frequently include criticism of Wikipedia as well as criticism of its alleged liberal ideology.[11] Launching the online encyclopedia project, Schlafly asserted the need for an alternative to Wikipedia due to editorial philosophy conflicts. The site's "Conservapedia Commandments"[24] differ from Wikipedia's editorial policies, which include following a neutral point of view[25] and avoiding original research.[26][27] In response to Wikipedia's core policy of neutrality, Schlafly has stated: "It's impossible for an encyclopedia to be neutral. I mean let's take a point of view, let's disclose that point of view to the reader",[6] and "Wikipedia does not poll the views of its editors and administrators. They make no effort to retain balance. It ends up having all the neutrality of a lynch mob".[9]

In a March 2007 interview with The Guardian, Schlafly stated, "I've tried editing Wikipedia, and found it and the biased editors who dominate it censor or change facts to suit their views. In one case my factual edits were removed within 60 seconds—so editing Wikipedia is no longer a viable approach".[16] On March 7, 2007, Schlafly was interviewed on BBC Radio 4's flagship morning show, Today, opposite Wikipedia administrator Jim Redmond. Schlafly raised several concerns: that the article on the Renaissance does not give any credit to Christianity, that Wikipedia articles apparently prefer to use non-American spellings even though most users are American, that the article on American activities in the Philippines has a distinctly anti-American bias, and that attempts to include pro-Christian or pro-American views are removed very quickly. In response to Schlafly's claim that the Wikipedia policy of allowing both Common Era and Anno Domini notation was anti-Christian bias,[28][29][30] Redmond argued that Wikipedia attracts contributors worldwide and so must use Common Era notation to be more neutral, since CE notation has only a nominal, not numerical, difference with the AD format. He also cited the Wikipedia policies regarding citation of sources and cooperation with other contributors as basis for allowing any factual information to be added.[31]

[edit] Conflict with scientific views

Various Conservapedia articles have been challenged from a scientific perspective. Sources have attributed this to an editorial support of the young earth creationist point of view and an over-reliance on home schooling textbooks.[6][7][14]

Conservapedia's article on evolution presents evolution as a scientific theory that lacks support and conflicts with evidence in the fossil record that creationists perceive to support creationism.[32][33] The entry also suggests that sometimes the Bible has been more scientifically correct than the scientific community.[34] Schlafly had defended the statement as presenting an alternative to evolution.[6] A Los Angeles Times journalist voiced concern that children stumbling on the site may assume Conservapedia's alleged science is accurate.[15] An entry on the "Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus" has received particular attention. Schlafly has asserted that the page was intended as a parody of environmentalism.[9] As of March 4, 2007, the entry has been deleted.[[35]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia#cite_note-Conservapedia:_Octopus-34)

Another claim is that "Einstein's work had nothing to do with the development of the atomic bomb", and that Einstein was only a minor contributor to the theory of relativity.[9][13][28][36] Conservapedia asserts that there is a proven link between abortion and breast cancer,[37][38] while the scientific consensus is that the best studies indicate that there is no such association for first-trimester abortion.[39][40]

In an analysis in early 2007, science writer Carl Zimmer found evidence that much of what appeared to be inaccurate or inadequate information about science and scientific theory could be traced back to an over-reliance on citations from the works of home-schooling textbook author Dr. Jay L. Wile.[41] On March 19, 2007, the British free newspaper Metro ran the article "Weird, wild wiki on which anything goes", articulating the dismissal of Conservapedia by the Royal Society, saying "People need to be very careful about where they look for scientific information".[14]

Conservapedia has also received criticism for its articles regarding the theory of relativity, particularly on their entry titled "Counterexamples to relativity", an article that lists examples as to why the theory is incorrect. Attention was drawn to the article by a Talking Points Memo posting, in which they reported on Conservapedia's entry and stated that Andy Schlafly, Conservapedia's founder, "has found one more liberal plot: the theory of relativity".[42] New Scientist, a science magazine, criticized Conservapedia's views on relativity and responded to several of Conservapedia's arguments against it.[43] Against Conservapedia's statements, New Scientist stated that one is unlikely to find a single physicist that would claim that the theory of general relativity is the whole answer to how the universe works, and claimed that the theory of relativity has passed every test that the theory has been put through.[43]:1

University of Maryland physics professor Robert L. Park has also criticized Conservapedia's entry on the theory of relativity, arguing that its criticism of the principle as being "heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world" confuses a physical theory with a Christian-conservative moral value.[44] In a similar statement, New Scientist stated at the end of their article that:[43]:2

In the end there is no liberal conspiracy at work. Unfortunately, humanities scholars often confuse the issue by misusing the term "relativity". The theory in no way encourages relativism, regardless of what Conservapedia may think. The theory of relativity is ultimately not so much about what it renders relative—three dimensional space and one-dimensional time—but about what it renders absolute: the speed of light and four-dimensional space-time.

In October 2010, Scientific American criticized Conservapedia's attitude towards the Theory of Relativity, assigning them a zero score on their 0 to 100 fallacy-versus-fact "Science Index", describing Conservapedia as "the online encyclopedia run by conservative lawyer Andrew Schlafly, (which) implies that Einstein's theory of relativity is part of a liberal plot."[45]

[edit] Political and religious ideology

Many Conservapedia articles criticize values that its editors associate with "liberal ideology". Schlafly said in an interview with National Public Radio that Wikipedia's article on the history of the Democratic Party is an "attempt to legitimize the modern Democratic Party by going back to Thomas Jefferson" and that it is "specious and worth criticizing".[6] He also has claimed that Wikipedia is "six times more liberal than the American public", a claim that has been labeled "sensational" by Andrew Chung of the Canadian newspaper the Toronto Star.[11]

John Cotey of the St. Petersburg Times observed that the Conservapedia article about the Democratic Party contained a criticism about the party's alleged support for same-sex marriage, and associated the party with the "homosexual agenda".[46] The Conservapedia entries on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama are critical of their respective subjects.[15] During the 2008 presidential campaign, its entry on Obama asserted that he "has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action". Some Conservapedia editors urged that it be changed or deleted, but Schlafly responded by asserting that the Harvard Law Review, the Harvard University legal journal for which Obama was once an editor and president, uses racial quotas and stated: "The statement about affirmative action is accurate and will remain in the entry".[47] In addition, Hugh Muir of the British newspaper The Guardian mockingly referred to Conservapedia's assertion that Obama has links to radical Islam as "dynamite" and an excellent resource for "US rightwingers".[48] In contrast, the articles about conservative politicians, such as Republican former US president Ronald Reagan and former British Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher have been observed as praising their respective subjects.[15][49] Mark Sabbatini of the Juneau Empire considered the Conservapedia entry on Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential candidate for the 2008 US presidential election a "kinder, gentler" and "far shorter and less controversial" reference for one wishing to learn about Palin in contrast with the corresponding Wikipedia entry, which Sabbatini found to be plagued by disputes over inclusion of potentially controversial details about her life.[50]

In July 2008, American Prospect associate editor Ezra Klein derided the Conservapedia article on atheism in his weekly column: "As Daniel DeGroot notes, you've got to wonder which 'unreasonable' explanations they rejected when formulating that entry".[51]

[edit] Licensing of content

Conservapedia allows users to "use any of the content on this site with or without attribution". The copyright policy also states "This license is revocable only in very rare instances of self-defense, such as protecting continued use by Conservapedia editors or other licensees". It also does not permit "unauthorized mirroring".[52] Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has raised concerns about the fact that the project is not licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) or a similar copyleft license, stating that "People who contribute [to Conservapedia] are giving them full control of the content, which may lead to unpleasant results".[11]:4

[edit] Vandalism

The site has stated that it prohibits unregistered users from editing entries due to concerns over vandalism and defamation. Brian Macdonald, a Conservapedia editor, commented vandalism was intended to "cause people to say, 'That Conservapedia is just wacko.'" Macdonald spent many hours daily reverting, in the words of Stephanie Simon of the LA Times, "malicious editing". Vandals had inserted "errors, pornographic photos and satire". For example, U.S. Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales was said to be "a strong supporter of torture as a law enforcement tool for use against Democrats and third world inhabitants".[15]

[edit] Other editorial policies

Conservapedia states on its "Manual of Style" page that "American English spellings are preferred but Commonwealth spellings, for de novo or otherwise well-maintained articles are welcome". It prefers that articles about the United Kingdom use British English, while articles about the United States use American English, to resolve editorial disputes.[53] Initially, Schlafly[31] and other Conservapedia editors[23] considered Wikipedia's policy allowing British English spelling to be anti-American bias. The "Conservapedia Commandments" also require edits to be "family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language" and that users make most edits on their site quality edits to articles; accounts that engage in what it considers "unproductive activity, such as 90% talk and only 10% quality edits" may be blocked. The commandments also cite the United States Code as justification for legal action against edits that contain obscenities or are vandalism or spam.[24] Conservapedia policies encourage its users to choose usernames "based on [their] real name or initials", and users that have usernames deemed "frivolous" by the admins are blocked;[54] one of the site's criticisms of Wikipedia is "silly administrator names", which is claimed to reflect Wikipedia's "substantial anti-intellectual element".[55]

[edit] Reception

The Conservapedia project has come under significant criticism for numerous factual inaccuracies[13][14] and factual relativism.[13] Wired magazine noted that Conservapedia was "attracting lots of derisive comments on blogs and a growing number of phony articles written by mischief makers".[9] Iain Thomson in Information World Review wrote that "leftist subversives" may have been creating deliberate parody entries.[28] Conservapedia has been compared to CreationWiki, a wiki written from a creationist perspective,[4][9] and Theopedia, a wiki with a Reformed theology focus.[30] Fox News obliquely compared it with other new conservative websites competing with mainstream ones, such as MyChurch, a Christian version of social networking site MySpace, and GodTube, a Christian version of video site YouTube.[56] The Guardian of the United Kingdom has referred to the Conservapedia's politics as "right-wing".[16]

Thomas Eugene Flanagan, a conservative professor of political science at the University of Calgary, has argued that Conservapedia is more about religion, specifically Christianity, than conservatism and that it "is far more guilty of the crime they're attributing to Wikipedia" than Wikipedia itself.[11] Matt Millham of the military-oriented newspaper Stars and Stripes called Conservapedia "a Web site that caters mostly to evangelical Christians".[57] Its scope as an encyclopedia, according to its founders, "offers a historical record from a Christian and conservative perspective".[58] *APC* magazine perceives this to be representative of Conservapedia's own problem with bias.[34] Conservative and Christian commentator Rod Dreher has been highly critical of the website's "Conservative Bible Project", a planned retranslation of the Bible which Dreher attributes to "insane hubris" on the part of "right-wing ideologues".[59]

The project has also been criticized for promoting a dichotomy between conservatism and liberalism and for promoting relativism with the implicit idea that there "often are two equally valid interpretations of the facts".[13] Matthew Sheffield, columnist for The Washington Times and contributor to the conservative Media Research Center blog NewsBusters, argued that conservatives concerned about bias should contribute more often to Wikipedia rather than use Conservapedia as an alternative since he felt that alternative websites like Conservapedia are often "incomplete".[60] Author Damien Thompson says Conservapedia "is to dress up nonsense as science".[61]

Bryan Ochalla, writing for the LGBT magazine The Advocate, referred to the project as "Wikipedia for the bigoted".[62] On the satirical news program The Daily Show, comedian Lewis Black lampooned its article on homosexuality.[63]

Opinions criticizing the site rapidly spread throughout the blogosphere around early 2007.[9][20] Schlafly appeared on radio programs Today on BBC Radio 4[31] and All Things Considered on NPR [6] to discuss the site around that time. In May 2008, Schlafly and one of his homeschooled students appeared on the CBC program The Hour for the same purpose.[64]

Stephanie Simon of the Los Angeles Times quoted two Conservapedia editors who commented favorably about Conservapedia.[15] Matt Barber, policy director for the conservative Christian political action group Concerned Women for America, praised Conservapedia as a more family-friendly and accurate alternative to Wikipedia.[65]

Conservapedia's use of Wikipedia's format to try and create a conservative and fundamentalist Christian alternative encyclopedia, has been mirrored by other sites, such as Tangle.com (formerly GodTube), QubeTV and MyChurch, which adopted the format of the more prominent Facebook, Youtube and MySpace, respectively.[4][56][66]

...

Conservative Bible Project

Conservapedia hosts the "Conservative Bible Project", a project aiming to rewrite the English translation of the Bible in order to remove terms described as "liberal bias".[77] The project intends to remove sections of the Bible which are judged by Conservapedia's founder to be later liberal additions.[78] These include the story of the adulteress in the Gospel of John in which Jesus declares "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone".[77] The project also intends to remove Jesus's prayer on the cross, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing", since it appears only in the Gospel of Luke and since, according to Schlafly, "the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing. This quotation is a favorite of liberals but should not appear in a conservative Bible".[77] The adulteress story and the "forgive them" line are missing from many early manuscripts, and many modern textual scholars consider that they are not authentic parts of the gospels, though possibly historically valid.[79][80]

The Bible project has met with extensive criticism.[81][82] Rod Dreher, a conservative editor and columnist, described the project as "insane hubris" and "crazy"; he further described the project as "It's like what you'd get if you crossed the Jesus Seminar with the College Republican chapter at a rural institution of Bible learnin'".[12][83] Ed Morrissey, another conservative Christian writer, wrote that bending the word of God to one's own ideology makes God subservient to an ideology, rather than the other way around.[84] Joseph Farah, editor-in-chief of WorldNetDaily, stated: "I've seen some incredibly stupid and misguided initiatives by 'conservatives' in my day, but this one takes the cake" and "There's certainly nothing 'conservative' about rewriting the Bible".[85]

On October 7, 2009, Stephen Colbert called for his viewers to incorporate him into the Conservapedia Bible as a Biblical figure and viewers responded by editing the Conservapedia Bible to include his name.[86][87] This was followed by an interview between Colbert and Schlafly on December 8, 2009.[88]

extwnasive article on GW (news update on main page has a number of stiries on GW as well

http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_warming

Global warming, scientifically speaking, is a worldwide increase in atmospheric temperature. What's really interesting is what causes it: i.e., is it more due to natural causes or man-made activity (see Global warming theory). This type of climate change is seen as a period of increases in global temperature, which is alternating with periods of global cooling, and is a natural occurrence as part of an interval warming trend which has occurred multiple times throughout Earth's geological history.[1] Liberal claims of global warming led to the resignation in October 2010 by Professor Hal Lewis from The American Physical Society because of "the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist."[2]

Many political activists use the term "global warming" to refer the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW), which asserts that human activity such as spewing "greenhouse gases" is causing more temperature increase than all natural causes combined. The AGW theory is supported by left-leaning political parties, as well as a majority of sovereign states, national agencies, and an intergovernmental panel (see IPCC). The reality is that there is no global crisis, despite dire warning by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Predictions made by climate models publicized by the IPCC have not come to pass, and the climate has shown a mild cooling since 1995.[3]

In November 2009, emails were disclosed that demonstrated wrongful manipulation and concealment of data by scientists who have insisted that there is dangerous man-made global warming. Prior to ClimateGate, both the Republican and Democratic party Platforms in 2008 suggested that global warming is happening, that it is caused by human activity, and that it should be counteracted. For example, in 2007, the Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain called global warming "an issue we can no longer afford to ignore".[4]

The idea of dangerous anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) is promoted by liberals and socialists seeking greater government control over the production and use of energy, which is a substantial percentage of the economy. In economic terms, they would like to 'internalize' the 'externality,' which is to say that they think that producers of emissions should be directly connected to the consequences of those emissions, leading syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer to warn of an impending Environmental Shakedown.[5] The unsuccessful Democratic candidate for President in 2000, Al Gore, won a Nobel Prize in 2007 for claiming that there is a dangerous man-made global warming that threatens the world. Neither he nor his supporters admit that a rapid cooling in temperatures is being observed.

Numerous scientists, especially those outside of university faculties, have been critical of anthropogenic global warming, but their general lack of comparative credentials has led to agreement that, among authorities in scientific disciplines, there is a "scientific consensus" supporting their theory for greater government control. Global warming skeptics question whether there is a financial incentive for supporting research.[6] Global warming skeptics charge that on most college campuses criticism of it is silenced or censored, and provide evidence of scientists skeptical of AGW being repressed.[7][8]

Temperatures have been decreasing rapidly throughout this decade (as of 2009). Historically, natural periods of global warming and global cooling have alternated, and not long ago liberals were demanding more government control to combat an alleged cooling in temperatures, with some scientists warning of a possible ice age.[9]

In 2008 86 evangelical pastors, including Rev. Dr.Rick Warren signed a statement titled "Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action", which called on Christians to acknowledge the moral importance of action to counteract man - made climate change. the statement includes specific support for market - based CO2 reductions such as a cap - and - trade program.[10] In contrast, a group of evangelical scholars, comprised of scientists, economists and theologians, contend that the liberal view of pending catastrophe caused by climate change is misleading and or exaggerated.[11]

Contents[hide]

...

http://www.petitionproject.org/ -- Oregon , says 31K (seitz rip)

sample seems to be signed by edward teller

Conservapedia

Background

Personal life

Political career and current affiliation

Political activism

Religious beliefs

Andrew Schlafly, homeschool teacher

Qualifications (or lack thereof)

Outline legal status of homeschooling

Qualifications as an educator

Educational standards

AP certification and his courses

Educational practice

Sexism

Class size

Inflated sense of expertise

Lack of emphasis on grammar and spelling

Ignoring and twisting facts to suit his agenda

Public grading of homework

Grade inflation

Poor communication with students

Disdain for other students

Attitude towards criticism

Beliefs

Disdain for books

Disrespect for academic qualifications

Politicization of curriculum

Hygiene

School shootings

Biblical skepticism

Conservative Bible Project

Conservapedia

History

Einstein's Theory of General Relativity

"Gravity" (gravitational) waves

Publications

Engineering

Law

Opinion pieces

See also

External links

[edit] History and overview

[edit] Editorial viewpoints and policies

[edit] Differences from Wikipedia

[edit] Conflict with scientific views

[edit] Political and religious ideology

[edit] Licensing of content

[edit] Vandalism

[edit] Other editorial policies

[edit] Reception

Conservative Bible Project