At first I thought this was a satirical joke. Looking into it, it appears that the "Conservative Bible Project" is serious in the eyes of the planners, so it is an accidental joke. It seems to me people are perfectly capable of using the Bible to justify whatever they want; it doesn't seem necessary to re-write it in their own image.
Thru the years I, and others, have noticed that, in general, the more "religious" a person is, the less Christian they tend to be. (There are certainly exceptions.) Recently, I realized that religions that confer special status on believers, will be appealing to narcissists, which may be at least part of the reason for the observation. The people who think they have the right to re-write the Bible in accordance with their political aganda certainly sound like they are narcissists.
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=10445
October 6, 2009 — Ron Chusid
The religious right loves to cite the Bible to justify their positions but there is one problem–all those liberal ideas which are in the Bible. Apparently the Bible, like reality, has a liberal bias. Conservapedia, which has already been writing its own facts to support their ideology, has started the Conservative Bible Project to remove all this liberal bias from the Bible. This is comparable to how they have rewritten the works of the founding fathers to deny the existence of separation of church and state. (Hat tip to Rachel Weiner)
Following are the ten principles they are using in their rewriting of the Bible:
1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, “gender inclusive” language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
3. Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level[3]
4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;[4] defective translations use the word “comrade” three times as often as “volunteer”; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as “word”, “peace”, and “miracle”.
5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as “gamble” rather than “cast lots”;[5] using modern political terms, such as “register” rather than “enroll” for the census
6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.
7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels
10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word “Lord” rather than “Jehovah” or “Yahweh” or “Lord God.”
Amy Sullivan wonders what they will come with for a conservative, free market interpretation of “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
Even some conservatives realize how crazy this is. Rod Dreher writes, “the insane hubris of this really staggers the mind. These right-wing ideologues know better than the early church councils that canonized Scripture? They really think it’s wise to force the word of God to conform to a 21st-century American idea of what constitutes conservatism? These jokers don’t worship God. They worship ideology.”
6 comments:
(the blogger at "liberal values" deleted this when i posted it there. aparently he considers antipluralism and the defeating of reasonable debate to be liberal values. hopefully you disagree and will let this post stand.)
"even some conservatives..."
no conservative blogger has ever cited, referenced or in any form acknowledged "conservapedia" as a source for anything ever.
"conservapedia" is the personal group blog of a handful of young earth creationists who had the $9.95 on hand to purchase an unfortunate domain name. it is no more a part of the conservative blog-o-sphere than is the obama page a encyclopedia drammatica.
the one group "conservapedia" is popular with is progressive bloggers, who are solely responsible for "conservapedia's" traffic because they delight in attacking straw man opponents in lieu of substantive debate.
the facts are clear on this: "conservapedia" went online at the beginning of 2007. by march it was ranked way down at 1.8 millionth in alexa. then the left discovered it. by the end of the month, "conservapedia" rose 1.2 million places to 600 thousandth. "conservapedia" has been enormously successful as a target for derision and trolling. there are no fewer than two wikis and three blogs dedicated to “monitoring” and “countering” "conservapedia", which now stands at 46 thousandth after a spike caused, as far as i can tell, by a circulating left-o-sphere gag about the popularity of "conservapedia’s" entries on homosexuality (which, in turn, appears to have been the result of click-bot attacks from "rationalwiki").
you're covering a mirage with this.
i have to add that the "even some conservatives" line is deceptive on other levels.
liberal values credits the huffington post with breaking the story to him. the huffpo blogger in turn obliquely cites a "conservative blogger" at beliefnet who "agrees" with her assertion. this would not be surprising because clicking on the link takes you to rod dreher's page at beliefnet, where you find the huffpo blogger's post in it's original form.
so, rod dreher, a conservative, writes a post criticizing some fringe creationist cranks. a progressive sees this, and decides to appropriate it without attribution, and later writes him back into the story as one of a presumably slim minority of conservatives bucking the mainstream of his movement as represented by the fringe creationist cranks.
because it wouldn't sound "truthy" enough to a progressive blogger's ear to state the fact that conservative bloggers are capable of correcting and scolding fringe cranks from the religious "right" in a way that progressives are incapable of criticizing fringe radicals from the left.
I never said all, or even most, conservatives would agree with this. However, it is consistent with the way of thinking I have encountered with many conservatives, and I would have found it amusing enough to post even if I had judged it to be a piece of satire. But the fact, which you acknowledge, that the people who published it actually believe what they said makes it much funnier to me. I doubt that most conservatives want to literally rewrite the Bible, but they (and people in general) interpret it in a way that is consistent with what they want to believe. If it makes you feel better, I'll mention that liberal believers also do this with the vicious parts of the Bible.
Thank you for your thoughtful, polite response.
Just for the record, I'll note that "he who scoffs at danger" (but is afraid to give his real name) is not accurate or fair in his depictions of progressives. His own comments are guilty of the same thing he accuses others of, accusing a whole group of actions and statements on the basis of the actions and statements of a small sub-group.
whatevs.
if i put the same level of information in my blog profile as you did (first name: justin, location: connecticut, favorite movie: heathers, etc.) would i be as "brave" as you? i'm not emotionally needy enough to enjoy such acts of "bravery" as filling out online profiles. it's a bore to me.
i wasn't even commenting on something you wrote. i was discussing something you reposted.
i identified several levels of deceit in "liberal values'" post, not the least of which being that he professes "liberal values" yet conducts his website as if he disregards founding principles such as open, pluralistic discourse in contempt.
i appreciate that you let my comments stand here, but maybe you should spend a moment attacking his hypocrisy. as it is, my assertions about progressives are founded in the facts i cite in my comment, the tact taken by the huffpo blogger and liberal values, and now your reticence to criticize any of that.
Post a Comment