Yea verily, time for a rewrite

I posted a story about this on Facebook earlier today, and now I'm seeing more "buzz" about the project, so it's definitely blogworthy. Besides, I find it funny.

Did you know that there is a conservative alternative (a conservaternative?) to Wikipedia? That's right, Conservapedia was founded in 2006 by Andy Schlafly, AKA Son of Phyllis (she who is known as the Great Slayer of the Equal Rights Amendment, effectively shooting herself in the foot), because he felt that Wikipedia showed a "liberal, anti-Christian, and anti-American bias." I look forward to spending a little more time at Conservapedia and seeing their interesting interpretations of history and the world around us. I really wish there will be an entry about dinosaur wranglin', but I hate to get my hopes up.

Here's the deal. The folks at Conservapedia have decided to work on a new, conservative interpretation of the bible, because they feel that it's just too goldarn liberal. This Conservative Bible Project calls for a new translation using the following guidelines. (I was only going to pick a few, but they're just all too good—I can't leave any of them out!) Open up the good book and let that conservative light shine!

• Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
• Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
• 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
• Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop; 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".
• Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots"; using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census
• 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.
• Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
• Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
• 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
• 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."

Some of my favorite parts are how they want to dump "gender exclusive" language--way to carry on the fine tradition of your mom's self-directed misogyny, Andy! Then there's getting rid of outdated terms like "peace," and we have got to stop using nasty words like "comrade" and "laborer" and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") because such “socialistic” words "improperly encourages the 'social justice' movement among Christians." *gasp* NO! Social justice must be stopped! Oh, and let's see...let's ditch the adulteress story, because that whole "let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone" crap has gotten waaaay too many of us in trouble lately! And let's be sure to put in stuff about the Free Market—in parable form, of course—to show that Jesus would have been against the stimulus package. Then there's the "liberal wordiness" to contend with.

Okay, I'll cop to that last one.

[gales of laughter] Oh. My. God. The more I read about this, the funnier it gets. I have to laugh about it, otherwise the sheer arrogance of these people in thinking that it is in any way appropriate to put their own conservative political spin on the bible might just make my head explode. Granted, human bias has shaped the bible ever since the first scribes started writing stuff down. It's impossible for even the best journalist or reporter to completely keep their own biases out of a story, and I'd say that's been happening since the beginning of reporters, including those who "reported" on events in the bible. Subsequent translations would include further biases. But to try to parse it in political terms like liberal and conservative is just the height of idiocy and arrogance to me.

Hey, Andy Schlafly, what would Jesus do? I bet he'd call you an asshole, tell you to mind your own business, and advise you strongly to stop politicizing his message of love and compassion to all.

At least that's my wordy liberal take on it.