News to me they even thought they had any reason to provide an answer to the Wikipedia, but, according to the new Conservapedia website:
Let’s see . . . here’s something from the page on dinosaurs:
Nope, no “political correctness” here, nosiree . . .
I think they need that because, as Colbert says, the facts themselves have a liberal bias.
This can not end well. Nothing says “vandalize me!” like a good ol’ controversial wiki.
Did this less than two weeks ago.
Not that it shouldn’t be repeated as often as possible.
Or that I’m one to lecture about hammering a point home. 
CE is anti-Christian? There was I thinking it was Christianity-neutral. Christ Expired?
So first the conservatives decide they need their own alternative to humor (with their knock-off of “The Daily Show”), and now decide they need their own alternative to facts? What the hell is going on here?
What’s funny is funny, and what’s true is true. And wishing and praying to god just ain’t gonna change that.
It’s sad and it is scary.
Hell, I didn’t even know Wikipedia was a question.
This must be the Neoconservapedia.
Being Christian-neutral is a system that tries to reduce the net Christian emissions of individuals or organizations indirectly, through proxies who reduce their emissions and/or increase their absorption of change and progress. A wide variety of offset actions are available; Essays by Bertrand Russell and other humanists and non-believers is a common one. Renewing subscriptions to boards like this one is also a popular idea, including trading jab credits.
The intended goal of being Christian-neutral is to combat global despair, The appeal of becoming Christian-neutral has contributed to the growth of voluntary offsets, which often are a more cost-effective alternative to reducing one’s own tithing. However, Christian-neutrals are not without controversy, with some hard atheists and extreme fundamentalists questioning the overall benefits of the practice.
Shoot, I got crossed with the Carbon-neutral wiky entry! 
Well, now that I’ve read the entry for the Roman Empire, I’ll just chuck this Suetonius into the trash. Conservapedia has all the exam information *I *need!
If you’re dating your calendar from the (erroneously calculated) birth of Christ, but remove any reference to Christ from the dating system by saying “Common Era” and “Before Common Era”, I guess the supposition is that you’re actively opposed to mentioning Christ as you would in “Before Christ” and “Anno Domini” - and would really rather no-one mentioned Christ at all, ever.
Not that there’s any undercurrent suggesting anything of the sort around here, of course. :dubious:
Why don’t they just burn all books. Knowledge is so dangerous. It must be controlled by those with a higher calling and who are much wiser.
Hmmm . . . for some reason, the page titled “Homosphere” is now very different (and less interesting) than it was two weeks ago . . .
Or, alternatively, it might mean you want to date things by the widely used, therefore useful, “Common Era” but you do not want to acknowledge Jesus as your Lord as the phrase Anno Domini denotes. “Common Era” has also been known as the “Vulgar Era,” BTW.
Since Conservapedia was set up with the express intent of providing a more Christian perspective on reality, let’s see how their article on Jesus measures up to Wikipedia’s article:
Conservapedia - 11 lines of text.
Wikipedia - 40 pages of text.
Doesn’t even bear comment, really, does it?
Ok, which one of you added this to the section on William Jefferson Clinton?
That is just awesome, especially considering the tone of the rest of the article on both him and Mrs. Clinton.
Which shouldn’t come as a surprise, given that according to this Guardian article (linked to on Conservapedia’s front page itself [sup]*[/sup]) the founder is Andy Schlafly. Those of us who remember his forays into talk.origins on Usenet will attest that a) he’s a proud Creationist and b) dumber than a fencepost.
[sub]* I love the way they coyly label his quote from the article as by “a Conservapedia contributor” when the link itself emphasises that he’s the founder.[/sub]
I found it interesting that the cites for the article about “God” are both Christian sites bashing Islam.
And the entry for Satan is creepily nonchalantly passing off Christian religious beliefs as truth.
Why not? That’s what “vulgar” means, and is why the Latin Vulgate Bible is so called.
As to the other, “render unto Caesar” and all that. It doesn’t have to mean your Lord if that sticks in your craw, but you have to admit that the argument itself lends weight to the “anti-Christian” assertion.
Or use “Anno Mundi” dating, only don’t use the antiscientific Jewish age of the world. Rather emulate Dionysius Exiguus and pick a suitable date, say three billion years before Darwin’s birth year. That makes this year 3,000,000,198, though it’ll make cheque-writing a bit more of a strain and, IT-wise, make all the Y2K programming look like a stroll in the park.