Deism Debunked!

The Conservapedia really is a priceless work. It's too bad that the open source model threatens to someday undermine this crucial cultural artifact. One amusing endeavor is to stroll through the pages for various Founding Father types. You'll see that the sole preoccupation of the entries about such men as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson is assessing the extent of their Christian faith and trying to make the best available case that the person in question did, indeed, subscribe to religious views that a 21st Century American Evangelical would find congenial. Thus, Washington's entry

George Washington (1732-1799) was unanimously elected President of the United States of America and the Commander-in-Chief in the Revolutionary War!^[1] He was also a devout Christian, with his adopted daughter once stating that if you question Washington's faith you may as well question whether or not he was a patriot!^[2]

There's absolutely nothing to be done with Jefferson ("With regard to Christianity, Jefferson admired the ethical and moral teachings of Jesus, but did not believe in the divinity of Christ.") "Many historians believe that Benjamin Franklin was a deist," they inform us, "but although Franklin wrote widely, he rarely made statements associated with principles of Deism." Take that, liberals!

Comments

You needed to go one line further to capture my absolute favorite from that entry -- "Washington is perhaps the person other than Jesus who declined enormous worldly power, in Washington's case by voluntarily stepping aside as the ruler of a prosperous nation."

Posted by Ben | February 25, 2007 12:15 PM

My favorite, after only a little exploring, from the entry on the Theory of Relativity:

"Relativity has generated a huge following by advocates of moral relativism(Citation Needed). The idea of moral relativity may exist independent of (and substantially predates) the theory of relativity, but invocations of the theory are used in attempts to lend legitimacy to this version of morality."

The marker, "citation needed", quickly followed by the ubiquitous passive voice, says more than I ever could....
Talk about texts deconstructing themselves!

Posted by plawless | February 25, 2007 12:22 PM

"As much as is possible, American spelling of words must be used."

Lest foreign words and terms rob us of our precious bodily fluids.

Posted by Thunderlips | February 25, 2007 12:23 PM

Washington is perhaps the person other than Jesus who declined enormous worldly power

Remember, Bush's President's Day speech was all about how he was basically the same as George Washington.

So, if Bush = Washington, and Washington = Jesus...

Posted by Glenn | February 25, 2007 12:40 PM

Lordamitey, they make Stephen Colbert's job easy.

Posted by chris | February 25, 2007 12:46 PM

I like the exclamation points.

Posted by Consumatopia | February 25, 2007 12:47 PM

Okay, this is just too fun!
I looked at the entry on "Nazis" since what little expertise I have is in the field of modern German history.

Just too rich:

Nazis is an acronym for the National Socialist German Workers’ party . The group was formed when Adolf Hitler came into power by promising that there would be more jobs, Germany would be a better place and poverty would end.
[Wrong - The party was first formed as the German Worker's Party (DAP) in 1918 by Anton Drexler]

His power was increased when his followers used intimidation and violence to win a majority in the German Parliament.
[Wrong - The Nazi Party never achieved an absolute majority in the Reichstag. It's highest totals were in March 1933, 43.9%, with all the instruments of state power already in its hands and a little more than a month after Hitler had become Kanzler]

Once in power the Nazis became anti-Semitic (hating Jews) blaming the Jews for the trouble in Germany. [The Nazis were quite anti-semitic long before they seized power in 1933. A quick glimpse of the Party Program of 1920 would make this quite clear]

They made laws against Jews and they required Jews to wear a Star of David on their clothing. The Jews were mistreated, persecuted and killed by the Nazis.

[But the Meisterstueck follows...wait for it...]
All Nazis are atheists. [Wrong] However, in fairness, it should be noted that not all atheists are necessarily Nazis (for example, some are Communists).
[As a non-believer myself, I am extremely relieved to know that I am not necessarily a Nazi]

Actually, this is so stupid, I feel stupider just for looking at it this long.... Was it written by a third grader?

Posted by plawless | February 25, 2007 12:48 PM

The entry for evolution is surprisingly evenhanded, except for (a) the subheading "Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics", (b) the munging of abiogenesis with evolution, and (c) the level of literacy of the entry, which reads as if it were written by a bright sixth grader.

Posted by RSA | February 25, 2007 12:51 PM

Washington is perhaps the [only] person other than Jesus who declined enormous worldly power

Wait a minute. I seem to remember the guy Cincinnati was named after as something of the sort.

Jesus, these people are ignorant.

Posted by josephdietrich | February 25, 2007 1:02 PM

My favorite:

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling

The list of famous people who have been home-schooled, of course, includes Jesus Christ.

Posted by msoliver | February 25, 2007 1:12 PM

My favorites are:

1. From the summary of Islam: "Because Islam is an uncomplicated religion to live by, it is sure to continue in its popularity around the world. " Apparently, both the antecedent and conclusion are verifiable facts, not a bit of weird reductionism followed by a prediction of the future.

2. The existence of an article on Dirac notation in quantum mechanics. Seriously, why? What part of the wikipedia article demonstrated liberal bias? Normalization? Hilbert spaces?

Posted by jfaberuiuc | February 25, 2007 1:27 PM

Do they list which public schools Judas, John Wilkes Booth, and Attila the Hun went to?

Posted by AJ | February 25, 2007 1:37 PM

If enough people publicize this stupidity, this might just be the nail in the coffin for that whole "liberal media" mantra.

Posted by Reality Man | February 25, 2007 1:47 PM

I love that the list of home-schooled Christians includes a pagan - da Vinci - and a Jew: Jesus Christ. It's so funny how the base has trouble admitting Jesus was never a Christian. Was he supposed to worship himself or something? Geez, what a narcissist.

Posted by Reality Man | February 25, 2007 1:51 PM

The existence of an article on Dirac notation in quantum mechanics. Seriously, why? What part of the wikipedia article demonstrated liberal bias? Normalization? Hilbert spaces?

One of PZ Meyers' readers was feeling guilty about adding snark to some of the other topics, and decided to drop a real entry in there.

Posted by John | February 25, 2007 2:12 PM

Has anyone managed to create an account on that site?

Posted by jasdfj | February 25, 2007 2:14 PM

Only trouble with mocking this, beyond a certain point, is that many of the entries are clearly the work of children. In some cases they're just copying in what their home-school textbooks say.

Posted by atomic dog | February 25, 2007 2:22 PM

While all could be described as somewhat "spiritual," the first four presidents of the United States did not believe in the divinity of Christ. And that's an awesome fact.

Posted by Kyle | February 25, 2007 2:26 PM

"All Nazis are atheists. [Wrong] However, in fairness, it should be noted that not all atheists are necessarily Nazis (for example, some are Communists)."

I've heard this before and wondered; if this is true - Nazis being atheists - why did they go after jews and not christians? What made Jews such easy scapegoats? Does anyone know why this is such an easy point for christains to peddle?

Posted by A different Matt | February 25, 2007 2:30 PM

You too?

The Conservapedia is meaningless! The real fight that the conservatives are waging is at the Wikipedia itself!

What do you care about the unicorn article at the Conservapedia? Shouldn't you care more about how conservatards are purifying all articles at the Wikipedia?

Doesn't it bother you that you can't cite Glenn Greenwald, blogger at the Wikipedia but that you can cite Michelle Malkin, journalist?

Jeez, get your head out of your ass!

Posted by jerry | February 25, 2007 2:46 PM

Re: I love that the list of home-schooled Christians includes a pagan - da Vinci

da Vinci was, formally at least, a Roman Catholic. And he comported himself as such in public as he never attracted the attentions of the Inquisition. Left unsaid no doubt is the fact that, like Michaelangelo, he was also gay.

Re: I seem to remember the guy Cincinnati was named after as something of the sort.

And Solon of Athens who, after crafting Athens' democratic constitution went into voluntary exile for ten years.

Posted by Jonf | February 25, 2007 3:10 PM

I had a run-in with this Schlafly guy on Wikipedia once. He entered something that was unambiguously wrong, and linked in the reference that showed the assertion to be incorrect. It's just the sort of doublethink that you'd need to start a project that simultaneously loves information and hates truth.

Posted by neil | February 25, 2007 3:21 PM

LOL!

Posted by Korha | February 25, 2007 4:20 PM

A different Matt:
"I've heard this before and wondered; if this is true - Nazis being atheists - why did they go after jews and not christians? What made Jews such easy scapegoats? Does anyone know why this is such an easy point for christains to peddle?"

The relation between Nazism and religion is extremely complex and a lot of recent work has been done on these histories, making the landscape still very tangled. First off it is very difficult to come up with a definitive set of Nazi ideologies - they were far too pragmatic in their pursuit of power to be tied down with firm ideological precepts. They were perfectly willing to tone down their anti-semitic rhetoric in the late 20's depending on which constituency they happened to be addressing. Largely, however, the movement can be seen as a-religious, though it flirted with religion where it felt it had to.
As for the religious dimensions of anti-semitism, this was in many ways the real novelty of Nazism. As opposed to previous nineteenth-century variants, Nazism defined its anti-semitism not in terms of religion but in terms of race. Indeed, a consensus has formed around the idea of "The Racial State" when trying to define the overall project of National Socialism. It is this also that separates Nazism from Italian Fascism.
In the former case, race is defined (pseudo- scientifically) through biology and genetics, and this carries with it a whole new approach to what was then called the "Jewish Question". Once defined in these terms from the Nazi perspective, where the "Jewish race" is conceived as "naturally" hostile to the "German race" there can be no negotiation, no conversion, no assimilation, no accommodation, no coexistence, no mercy.
What we see with the Nazis, then, is the transformation of older, more religiously articulated species of anti-semitism, where these are re-framed in a-religious, biological, and pseudo-scientific forms. To put it crudely in terms used by the Nazis, anti-semites relinquished their mission for God for a mission of "public health" and "social hygiene."
The results, needless to say, were unspeakably lethal.

Posted by plawless | February 25, 2007 4:24 PM

My personal favorite article was the one about unicorns, and how they might have been rhinos. No, really, look it up.

Posted by fishbane | February 25, 2007 4:42 PM

"The existence of unicorns is controversial. Secular opinion is that they are mythical. However, they are referred to in the Bible nine times,[1] which provides an unimpeachable de facto argument for their once having been in existence."

http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Reem.png

Check out the photo above they chose for unicorns.

Posted by Reality Man | February 25, 2007 4:56 PM

Check out the photo above they chose for unicorns.

LOL!!

Posted by Korha | February 25, 2007 6:06 PM

For what it's worth, modern translations agree that re'em is better translated "wild ox" and probably refers to the now-extinct (but not until 1627) auroch or Bos primigenius. The author of the unicorn entry seems to have placed an overreliance on the King James.
You know, any of you can change these entries any time you want to (although they would probably be changed back by someone else). Of course, the editors of Conservapedia could do the same to the Wikipedia entries about which they complain so much.
I was little depressed to find out that this was a project of a well-known organization like Eagle Forum rather than some obscure weirdo operating out of his basement. However, I would advise anyone to check out the new American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia for proof that good, honest conservative scholarship still

Posted by James Kabala | February 25, 2007 7:21 PM

The missing last word was supposed to be "exists."
Also, I see one has to create an account of edit an article, which probably is too much trouble.

Posted by James Kabala | February 25, 2007 7:25 PM

Um...

Seems like folks are having a little fun.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Pacific_Northwest_Arboreal_Octopus

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Patriotism&oldid=15384

Of course, these might be modified by the time you see them. I think you can backtrack the revisions though.

The part about "an ancient Latino poet" just set me free.

Posted by tripsarecopsem | February 25, 2007 7:49 PM

I've been reading Joyce Appleby's Inheriting the Revolution lately. It's about America in the first generation of the 19th Century, the first generation of Americans to be Americans from the get-go.

One of the half-dozen most significant changes in American life that Appleby chronicles is the Second Great Awakening, which turned America from an only moderately religious country into an exceedingly religious country. The roots of America as a country that, for most of its history, has thought of itself as a 'Christian nation,' are clearly in this period of time, and not in the time of the Revolution.

The fact that the wingnuts insist on trying anyway to paint the Founders as evangelical Christians simply underlines the dishonesty of modern-day wingnut Christians. Isn't there a commandment about bearing false witness? You'd never know by them. (A debate forum I hang out at has long referred to them as 'nine-commandment Christians' for exactly this reason.)

Posted by RT | February 25, 2007 8:22 PM

"Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept? Add to the explanation of what it means, and how it does not exist on other religions."

Posted by Reality Man | February 25, 2007 9:21 PM

Meanwhile, chimps are making weapons. We (humans) are so fucked.

Posted by Something Polish | February 25, 2007 9:43 PM

Another example of people having fun, from the Jesus entry:

"In Christian discourse, the name Jesus almost always refers specifically to Jesus of Nazareth, believed by Christian followers to be God's dad, who came to earth as a human c 2 AD. However, God has recently revealed on His blog that Jesus is actually His nephew, not His son."

with this link embedded: http://www.blogofthegods.com/about/god-of-the-old-testament/

Posted by samba00 | February 25, 2007 9:46 PM

Is there some sort of Batsign equivalent for the Fafblog Crew? We (humans) could really benefit by Fafnir, Giblets, and The Medium Lobster editing and discussing over at the Conservapedia.

Posted by Something Polish | February 25, 2007 9:49 PM

It fails to mention that Jesus was part black.

Posted by Reality Man | February 25, 2007 10:22 PM

All Nazis are atheists.

Yes, that's why the Catholic Church was such a big supporter, and all the soldiers had "Gott mit uns" (God with us) on their belt buckles.

Yup, bunch of raving atheists, those Nazis (whose leader professed his belief in the Roman Catholic church on more than one occasion - might help if the author, you know, had bothered to read a biography of Hitler).

Posted by chuck | February 25, 2007 11:02 PM

Franklin's relgious thought was so above and beyond conservapedia, and it would have no clue. I think Franklin's basic attitude towards everything was that of a very skeptical empiricist who was mentally stroing enough to suspend certainty regarding almost everything. In his old age he floated a theory that any reality that might be the source of humanity's ideas of a supreme being must be so far beyond human comprehension that we could not know its true nature. He wrote that different culture's might have some obscure intuition about such a being, but much of any culture's conceptions must be as much a reflection of its own beliefs and prejudices as any reality. He thought it would be profitable to look into the commmon features of different cultures' notions of their supreme beings though history, in terms of awesome supreme being attributes, and moral laws derived therefrom. So he thought in terms of an unknowable God, and cultural gods that were a dim reflection of the ultimate reality. I don't remember him omitting Christianity, from his analysis.
No, I guess Franklin was not your typical deist, and he probably would not be making 'typical deist' remarks.

Posted by Frankline was a fundie! You know it, dude! | February 25, 2007 11:22 PM

Apologise for sloppy quotes. I probably should have written:

It is very likely that Franklin "rarely made statements associated with principles of Deism."

Franklin's ideas on religion seemed to be work in progress throughout his entire life.

Posted by Frankline was a fundie! You know it, dude! | February 25, 2007 11:25 PM

Regarding Washington: Is their any record of Washington ever publicly mentioning, or appealing to the authority, of Christ (Jesus, as the divine Son of God)? I don't think so, but would be curious if anyone knows of an instance. Washington used the term 'Providence' quite often and 'God" sometimes, and once in awhile referred to Jesus' moral teachings. But I am not aware that Washington ever spoke in Christian terms that would be recognized by today's fundamentalists.

Posted by Frankline was a fundie! You know it, dude! | February 25, 2007 11:36 PM

Yes, that's why the Catholic Church was such a big supporter, and all the soldiers had "Gott mit uns" (God with us) on their belt buckles.

So Catholics don't the short end, it's worth noting how much Martin Luther comes up in Mein Kampf.

Posted by Ed Marshall | February 25, 2007 11:48 PM

Y'know, I once heard a rumor that Benjamin Franklin once attended orgies where the participants dressed as priests and nuns.

I also seem to recall that he was a notorious drunkard and womanizer.

Does this conservative touchstone address any of this?

Is anyone here able to address any of this? (And let me say in advance that I hope that the answers to these questions are "yes.")

Posted by Shawn | February 26, 2007 1:14 AM

I really wanted to help "fix" some of these entries, but Conservapedia isn't letting anyone create new accounts right now.

Posted by Conserva-pedia-lite | February 26, 2007 2:38 AM

Chuck have you been reading Goldhagen again?

Posted by Finkelstein | February 26, 2007 4:01 AM

"The majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies.[3] However, like the tobacco industry in the 1950s, the abortion industry has so far kept this important information away from much of the public. This may be due to the profitability of selling fetal parts for Chinese medicine [4]"

Gotta keep that sweet scam going...

Posted by Richy | February 26, 2007 4:12 AM

Has anyone else noticed how utterly poor conservative writing is? Really, if your going to make bullshit claims and assertions please try to have some decent grammar and style. Look at this, for example:

"The relation between Nazism and religion is extremely complex"

A sage insight, no doubt. I laughed for a few minutes after reading this sentence. Who, for crying out loud, could write such a thing without a hint of shame? This is Junior High at best.

Posted by Neal M | February 26, 2007 9:42 AM

Re: I seem to remember the guy Cincinnati was named after as something of the sort.

And Solon of Athens who, after crafting Athens' democratic constitution went into voluntary exile for ten years.

Meh, both "good" guys. We need a bad guy: Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix retired to a life of debauchery after crushing his foes and rebuilding the conservative base of the Roman Republic (not that it lasted).

Posted by Sarcastro | February 26, 2007 10:19 AM

""The relation between Nazism and religion is extremely complex"

A sage insight, no doubt. I laughed for a few minutes after reading this sentence. Who, for crying out loud, could write such a thing without a hint of shame? This is Junior High at best."

Actually, the quote is mine, and while I can abide being taken to task for my style, I certainly wouldn't want to be mistaken for a conservative. :)
Perhaps my comment was ham-fisted, but the relation really is extremely complex. The suggestions that Nazism was either purely atheist or that it was decisively informed by religion are hopelessly crude formulations and don't get us far in understanding the phenomenon of National Socialism in it's relation to confessional politics. That was my only point, such as it was...

Posted by plawless | February 26, 2007 11:06 AM

The Catholic Church was not a "big supporter" of Hitler by any means.
As for the sentence "The relation between Nazism and religion is extremely complex," even if that sentence were false (which it isn't), for the life of me I can't see anything ungrammatical about it.

Posted by James Kabala | February 26, 2007 11:40 AM

I wouldn't take Hitler at his word as in his Mein Kampf. Lieing was second nature to him. One can easlily find the truth of the matter by googling Hitler and Christianity. He was an athiest, no doubt.

Posted by Russ | February 26, 2007 11:41 AM

Hitler talked about fusing Christianity to the state to make what he called a "positive Christianity." He claimed Jesus was an Aryan, not a Jew. Some of his inner circle were, on the other hand, pagans.

Also, Ben Franklin did go to parties at the Hellfire Club during his days as ambassador to Britain. They were held in former churches and the partygoers would mock Christianity.

Posted by Reality Man | February 26, 2007 8:30 PM

As a nun-humping serial-abortionist NAZI atheist, I just want to say "Hillary/Edwards '08."

Posted by Gregorio | February 27, 2007 6:49 AM

It is amazing that those who preached Deism believed that a man named Jesus actually lived.
There is no proof of his life save some books attributed to persons who were friends of Saul of Tarsus .and who wrote at the same time with great differences in their stories. The "facts" presented in most instances are beyond truth. As for the sect that followed Jesus, there is no record of any. There is a record of those that followed Johnathan, called by the Christians John the Baptist. John never was a Christian for he was born and died a Jew! Jesus was originated by Saul and he followed through on his vow regarding his disapproval by the Jewish hierarchy that they would be sorry for their actions and he would achieve the greatness denied him by his fellow Jews. The facts are there. Deists who know reason from fantasy should understand....Tom Paine did.

Posted by Shel haas | March 11, 2007 1:45 PM