1 Boring Old Man

Conservapedia: E=mc² Is A Liberal Conspiracy
Talking Points Memo
by Megan Carpentier
August 9, 2010

To many conservatives, almost everything is a secret liberal plot: from fluoride in the water to medicare reimbursements for end-of-life planning with your doctor to efforts to teach evolution in schools. But Conservapedia founder and Eagle Forum University instructor Andy Schlafly – Phyllis Schlafly’s son – has found one more liberal plot: the theory of relativity.

If you’re behind on your physics, the Theory of Relativity was Albert Einstein’s formulation in the early 20th century that gave rise to the famous theorum that E=mc², otherwise stated as energy is equal to mass times the square of the speed of light. Why does Andy Schlafly hate the theory of relativity? We’re pretty sure it’s because he’s decided it doesn’t square with the Bible.

In the entry, "Counterexamples to Relativity," the authors [including Schlafly] write:

The theory of relativity is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world. To what does that reference lead? Why, a note by Schlafly:

See, e.g., historian Paul Johnson’s book about the 20th century, and the article written by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe as allegedly assisted by Barack Obama. Virtually no one who is taught and believes relativity continues to read the Bible, a book that outsells New York Times bestsellers by a hundred-fold.

In other words, reading a theory about physics is correlated to a decrease in people’s interest in reading the Bible, which means that it causes people to stop reading the Bible. Schlafly also points to the Bible as a reason that Einstein’s theory must be wrong:

9. The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54.

Conservapedia defines "action-at-a-distance" as "Action at a distance consists of affecting a distant body instantaneously. At the atom level, this is known as "non-locality." In non-confusing terms, that indicates the ability to cause something to happen instantaneously in another location (i.e., faster than the speed of light). Since Jesus could, reportedly, do this, thus Einstein is wrong. Schlafly’s evidence is John 4:46-54, in which Jesus reportedly cured someone’s son just by saying it had happened.

Once more he visited Cana in Galilee, where he had turned the water into wine. And there was a certain royal official whose son lay sick at Capernaum. When this man heard that Jesus had arrived in Galilee from Judea, he went to him and begged him to come and heal his son, who was close to death.

"Unless you people see miraculous signs and wonders," Jesus told him, "you will never believe." The royal official said, "Sir, come down before my child dies." Jesus replied, "You may go. Your son will live."The man took Jesus at his word and departed.

While he was still on the way, his servants met him with the news that his boy was living. When he inquired as to the time when his son got better, they said to him, "The fever left him yesterday at the seventh hour." Then the father realized that this was the exact time at which Jesus had said to him, "Your son will live." So he and all his household believed. This was the second miraculous sign that Jesus performed, having come from Judea to Galilee.

Schlafly brags on Conservapedia that he has homeschooled 185 children, all of whom do exceptionally well on standardized tests. As with Wikipedia and other online crowd-sourced resources, Conservapedia is a colloborative effort of its users and any registered user can post to the site. Schlafly is a frequent contributor to the site, and is identified as the initial author of the entry and well as the editor of the note identified above. Schlafly did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Conservapedia: over 165,000,000 page views & over 765,000 page edits.

Talking Points Memo strikes out in trying to ridicule Conservapedia, so it makes a snide remark about the Bible too. TPM readers and writers, check out this table:

Counterexamples to the Bible	0
Counterexamples to Evolution	60
IQ of Atheists	0 divided by 60

It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.^[1]

…

^[1] Historian Paul Johnson’s book about the 20th century, and the article written by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe as allegedly assisted by Barack Obama. Virtually no one who is taught and believes relativity continues to read the Bible, a book that outsells New York Times bestsellers by a hundred-fold.

There is a piece of logic in these arguments that gets lost in their rhetoric. In the world of Conservapedia, Liberal refers to a broad group of people who are unified in their beliefs and motives – a community. That’s hardly true. Unlike most Conservatives, Liberals tend to be a widely heterogeneous group for exactly the reason described in this article – they are skeptical about absolute truths. But there’s a piece of logic that is even further afield. It’s in this sentence, "It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world." Apparently, the reason we Liberals "like" Einstein’s Relativity is because it misleads people – Liberals want to mislead people. There are two implications. First, Liberals are evangelical, out to convert others to become Liberals. But even more to the point, Liberals want to recruit others because they want to undermine Christianity. Liberals are a unified group, motivated to get people to stop being Christians. And the way to fight this is to stop people from teaching things like evolution and relativity which are tools being used to undermine Christianity. If Liberals can get them doubting the story of creation, and seeing all things as relative, then they’ll flee the Christian Church [and follow Satan – though they don’t often say that last part]. And these arguments are familiar from their stance on homosexuality [Conservapedia has a lot to say about homosexuality] – recruitment, anti-christian,  etc.

It’s kind of hard to argue with their argument, because of course we’d deny having those motives – Satanic trickery and lies are well known from the Garden of Eden story onward.

I’ll have to admit that it is a kind of Biblical argument. In the creation story, God forbids Adam and Eve eating the fruit on the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Presumably, if you know of the distinction between good and evil, it is possible to choose the latter, so you’re expelled from the Garden of Eden. Knowledge and Choice lead people astray. I guess that’s Andy Schlafly’s big point.