Conservapedia

Well, I'm a Christian and maybe, years ago, would have called myself a conservative. But good grief, I'm done. Not with Jesus, no, I'm sticking with him. But that label seems to have been hijacked by a very small but vocal group. Ugg.
The Chicago Tribune ran a story this week about Conservapedia, a new on-line encyclopedia that promises "unbiased" content as an alternative to that wicked Wikipedia. Except that Conservapedia is full of misspellings, absurdities and an strident bias in the opposite direction.
Created by Andrew Schlafly, Phyllis Schlafly's son, it is supposed to be a conservative-oriented version of Wikipedia for home-schoolers and/or (apparently) people also who don't vacinate their children and think global warming is just political hogwash.
The best post about the flap I've read is here
Do the Conservapedia folks not realize that Wikipedia is not meant to be a definitive source? It's a place for everyone to share ideas and information. It never claims to be unbiased or even infallibly accurate.
Jesus said don't hide your light under a bushel, but let it shine. He said we should be like salt, that changes and flavors everything it touches. He told us to go into all the world and preach the gospel. Would Jesus create his own site, or would he go post his ideas on Wikipedia? Wikipedia is the perfect opportunity for conservatives to be salt and light--but the Conservapedia group doesn't seem to be interested in that anymore, since they're focused on building conservative salt shakers to insulate themselves from the world.
If most people thought conservative Christians were anti-intellectual, this move will confirm it. The sad part is, this small group does not really represent the views of most people who would call themselves conservative. And it makes more rational conservatives want to drop that label to avoid being connected with these wacky folks. This would be funny if it weren't just so sad.