There are two types of doctors... those who take their oath seriously, and have a passion for healing, and those who are more concerned with their bank account, and could not care less about the health of their patients so long as their checks clear. Much is the same with political conviction.

Some chose their political party because they feel strongly about the values that one particular affiliation may uphold, while others chose their party as a means to exercise their hatred of those who dare to believe differently than they do. Such is the case with the ignominious dolts who write the Conservapedia.com web page.

While Conservative values are as valid as any other, and should be considered open for rational discussion even by those who may disagree, it is not Conservative Republicans that I am taking issue with. The political party that gave us Abraham Lincoln has since adopted credible positions on trade, jobs, the economy, business, tax reform, government reform, foreign policy, and homeland security that are at the core of their political agenda. All have merit and warrant dialogue. But it is not conservatives or their political agenda that I am writing about. It is those who mask their intolerance by purporting themselves as Conservative Republicans in order to give their bigotry expression, and to push a narrow minded, dogmatic view of others.

By attaching themselves to a legitimate political party, the intellectually challenged zealots at Conservapedia.com have stumbled upon a way to justify their contempt, their sexism, their racism, and their sexual ignorance. Having nothing to do with any actual policies that might govern the country, rather concerning themselves more with their fear-based, self-righteous indignation, the folks at Conservapedia have chosen an interesting list of topics that attack anything that might challenge their astigmatic presumptions with ardent fervor. Here are the topics that have been highlighted on the main web page, and that were deemed noteworthy by these malicious maniacs. Note that none of these have anything to do with government, and even those topics that actually do address politicians do so on merely a personal level, rather than discussing their political records:

I would love for someone to explain to me how denouncing Darwin's Theory of Evolution has anything to do with the Executive, the Judiciary, and the Legislative branches of our government? Isn't that what a political party does? ... Concern themselves with policy? Bah, what could the embodiment of the scientific community possibly know? Dinosaurs? Atheists? Homosexuals? What do any of these things have to do with a political agenda? The fact is, these topics don't have any business being mixed with politics. But they do however address the burning desire for angry Segregationists to be able to tell other people how to lead their lives in the name of God.

Speaking of homosexuals, the gang over at Conservapedia.com seems overly obsessed with the whole concept of gay sex. So much so that they have dedicated a disproportionate amount of links denouncing homosexuality from just about every conceivable angle. I mean, just take a look at their top 10 most viewed pages! Perhaps their homosexual obsession might be traced to either early toilet training, or a whiskey breathed, razor stubbled, family friend who used to tuck them in at night ... "me thinks they doth protest too much."

Does their proclivity to ramble incessantly about the evils of man on man penetration remind anyone else of Mark Foley or Larry Craig? Am I being too cynical suggesting that the anal obsessed lunkheads over at Conservapedia might have bitten a few pillows in their time, and that they might simply be in denial? Social conservatives have already set their own standard for hypocrisy.

But what I find most alarming about Conservapedia.com is how they apply misdirection about sex, and sexuality in general. The same mentality that would hijack a political party with fanatic ignorance is a threat to anyone who dares to think freely, and whose lifestyle might fall outside of the Conservapedia Junta's myopic comfort zone.

For some reason, consenting adults exhibiting sexual proclivities have been condemned as utterly lacking morality, regardless of the fact that it goes on behind closed doors. Negotiated non-monogamy has been deemed intolerable, regardless of whether or not people can live happy and contented lives in a manner that might differ from the traditional matrimonial standard. What might be a natural lifestyle for some, and the path to their matrimonial happiness, is not the issue to the folks at Conservapedia. What is the issue that they feel the need to tell other people that they should live their lives according to their interpreted will of some invisible omnipotent force. Apparently, the Lord has a problem with extra-marital conjugation, and it is the job of the creators of Conservapedia.com to carry out His wishes.

Conservatives? Hardly.

Sexually repressed, bigoted psychopaths? That's more like it.

Sometimes things are exactly as they seem.

Share this!