(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcreationwiki.org%2Fpool%2Fimages%2F5%2F55%2FConservapedia_logo.png&hash=0596dec374c8da4f2c5f9ce448140032b48d60ef)
http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project
QuoteJesus of Nazareth as Dick Cheney
Leonard Pitts Jr.
So we may soon have ourselves a conservative Bible. Besides Fox News, I mean.
This new Bible is from Conservapedia, a Web site that bills itself as a conservative alternative to the perceived liberal bias of Wikipedia, the user-edited online reference.
You may judge Conservapedia's own bias by reading its definition of liberal: "someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing."
For the record, Wikipedia defines conservative as a word referring "to various political and social philosophies that support tradition and the status quo, or that call for a return to the values and society of an earlier age."
Now, having protected unwary Americans from - ahem - Wikipedia's bias, Conservapedia founder Andrew Schlafly (son of Phyllis) tackles perceived bias in the Good Book. He proposes to correct the Bible by creating a new translation based upon 10 principles, including concision (as opposed to "liberal wordiness") and an emphasis on "free market parables" and the exclusion of "liberal passages" he says were inserted into the original text. One such would be the well-known story of the adulterous woman brought before Christ by a crowd eager to see her punished; Jesus says the one without sin should cast the first stone.
As biblical scholar Bart Ehrman demonstrates in his book "Misquoting Jesus," that passage and others were indeed inserted into the Gospels - by copyists whose transcriptions were once the primary means by which Bibles and other books were disseminated. We're talking about the era before the printing press - i.e., pre-15th century - so apparently "liberals" have been at this a long time.
Of course, conservatives are not the first folks to recast the Bible in their own image. Oxford University Press was justly ridiculed in 1995 for a PC Bible whose touchy-feely innovations included gender-neutral language so as not to offend women and a ban on phrases like "the right hand of God" in deference to southpaws.
But if Oxford's excesses resulted from a misguided attempt at inclusiveness, the forces guiding Mr. Schlafly are less benign. He is part of an ongoing crusade to delegitimize any institution, any information source, any inconvenient "fact" that contradicts conservative beliefs. Rather than trust those beliefs to stand or fall in the free market of ideas, some conservatives now apply a kind of intellectual protectionism. So now you have your conservative newspaper, your conservative radio station, your conservative university, your conservative "facts" and, apparently, your conservative God, and you may build yourself a conservative life in a conservative bubble where you need never contend with ideas that challenge, contradict - or "refine" - your own.
But here's the thing: When no authority can be regarded as unimpeachable by both right and left, when no fact can be universally accepted as such, when anything you prefer not to believe is automatically dismissed as a product of "bias," you impoverish intellect and render informed debate impossible.
You may think Dwyane Wade is the best there is and I may prefer Kobe Bryant, but if we can't agree they both play a game called basketball, if you say it's basketball but my conservative dictionary tells me it's actually checkers, then we can't even have the debate; our assumptions are too fundamentally incompatible. We live in different realities.
As in the recent spectacle of Americans shouting past each other like Martians and Venusians arguing in Farsi.
Conservapedia's effort to remake Jesus of Nazareth in the image of Dick Cheney suggests a future filled with more of the same. A conservative Bible?
Lord, have mercy.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservapedia.com%2Fimages%2Ff%2Ffb%2FLiberal_Brain.jpg&hash=312c76da0c22a2ebbc0660405e60232fc59ed86a)
Just on a whim I looked up World War I on Conservapedia and it seems it was caused by Charles Darwin. I am so glad I am not a Conservative so I do not have people like this claiming to speak for me.
QuoteMinors under 16 years old use this site. Posting of obscenity here is punishable by up to 10 years in jail under 18 USC § 1470. Vandalism is punishable up to 10 years in jail per 18 USC § 1030. Harassment is punishable by 2 years in jail per 47 USC § 223. The IP addresses of vandals will be reported to authorities. That includes your employer and your local prosecutor.
:lol:
Quote from: Valmy on October 28, 2009, 09:36:28 PM
Just on a whim I looked up World War I on Conservapedia and it seems it was caused by Charles Darwin. I am so glad I am not a Conservative so I do not have people like this claiming to speak for me.
Darwin and Marx: The catch-all for society's ills
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 28, 2009, 09:40:40 PM
The IP addresses of vandals will be reported to authorities. That includes your employer and your local prosecutor.
:lol:
Did you tell them that our local prosecutor already has us covered?
Quote from: FunkMonk on October 28, 2009, 09:41:25 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 28, 2009, 09:36:28 PM
Just on a whim I looked up World War I on Conservapedia and it seems it was caused by Charles Darwin. I am so glad I am not a Conservative so I do not have people like this claiming to speak for me.
Darwin and Marx: The catch-all for society's ills
Yes. I had Michael Savage going in the background and he had some jerk on to read this long, rambling thing that started out about OBama and became this indictment of liberalism as 'faith based', that is, faith in science and intellectualism as a religion.
He just went on and on, citing Darwin, Marx over and over again. Freakin boring.
I looked up my main man John Brown and found this:
QuoteIn May 1856, Brown and several other men (including four of his sons) attacked the homes of slavery supporters near Pottawatomie Creek in Kansas and killed all of the inhabitants with swords.
That's simply not true. He did not kill the wives or underaged children.
Quote
Further Reading:
Reynolds, David S. John Brown, Abolitionist: The Man Who Killed Slavery, Sparked the Civil War, and Seeded Civil Rights (2006) says Brown was justified in practicing terrorism
LOL, no he didn't. Why do I know that? I READ THE BOOK.
Is this a real thing or a spoof? It's even harder than usual to tell these days.
Quote from: DGuller on October 28, 2009, 09:57:25 PM
Is this a real thing or a spoof? It's even harder than usual to tell these days.
No, it's the real thing. Welcome to the logical evolution of conservatism. Oh, wait, I meant the creationism of conservatism.
None of these people speak for Me.
I think I'm going to flag a couple of articles for lacking neutral tone.
Quote from: DGuller on October 28, 2009, 09:57:25 PM
Is this a real thing or a spoof? It's even harder than usual to tell these days.
I only wish it was.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 28, 2009, 08:29:17 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservapedia.com%2Fimages%2Ff%2Ffb%2FLiberal_Brain.jpg&hash=312c76da0c22a2ebbc0660405e60232fc59ed86a)
Ante-bellum hippies? Thanks for that mental image.
This is what happens when you defend yourself with the claims that everyone is biased against you.
Liberals democrats run the internet. We must take our internet back. Quickly, assemble the chalkboards!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 28, 2009, 09:54:38 PM
Quote
Further Reading:
Reynolds, David S. John Brown, Abolitionist: The Man Who Killed Slavery, Sparked the Civil War, and Seeded Civil Rights (2006) says Brown was justified in practicing terrorism
LOL, no he didn't. Why do I know that? I READ THE BOOK.
You clearly believe that though even if Reynolds doesn't.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 28, 2009, 11:20:24 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 28, 2009, 09:54:38 PM
Quote
Further Reading:
Reynolds, David S. John Brown, Abolitionist: The Man Who Killed Slavery, Sparked the Civil War, and Seeded Civil Rights (2006) says Brown was justified in practicing terrorism
LOL, no he didn't. Why do I know that? I READ THE BOOK.
You clearly believe that though even if Reynolds doesn't.
Do you disagree?
Think long and hard before you answer, Timothy.
I have a blank email open in another tab, addressed to your employer. Your answer will affect what I write in this communication.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2009, 10:16:44 PM
This is what happens when you defend yourself with the claims that everyone is biased against you.
Why is it that the rightwingers always claim that? Kaczynskis do the same in Poland.
Quote from: Martinus on October 29, 2009, 02:09:53 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2009, 10:16:44 PM
This is what happens when you defend yourself with the claims that everyone is biased against you.
Why is it that the rightwingers always claim that? Kaczynskis do the same in Poland.
Reality is biased against them.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 28, 2009, 09:49:50 PM
I looked up my main man John Brown and found this:
QuoteIn May 1856, Brown and several other men (including four of his sons) attacked the homes of slavery supporters near Pottawatomie Creek in Kansas and killed all of the inhabitants with swords.
That's simply not true. He did not kill the wives or underaged children.
Back in that day and age, the only first-class humans for a conservative were adult white male protestants. So it makes sense. ;)
Wow. I looked at what their aims are. That's got to be one of the most horrifying things I've read in a while.
See also (Barack Obama article :rolleyes: )
Quote
Articles about Barack Obama from previous "Breaking News"
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)
Birthplace of Barack Obama
Essay:Born Outside the U.S.A.!
Essay: The Special Interests Candidate
Lobbyists ties to the Obama administration
New Party
Obama birth certificate controversy
Obama birth certificate lawsuits
Obama doublespeak
Obama inauguration
Religion of Barack Hussein Obama
The Honorable James David Manning
Young Communist League
Stazi
Gestapo care
The man that runs that site is "famous" in scientific circles because he harasses researchers publishing articles about evolutionary science. The guy is a gem.
Quote from: The Larch on October 29, 2009, 05:42:29 AM
The man that runs that site is "famous" in scientific circles because he harasses researchers publishing articles about evolutionary science. The guy is a gem.
Son of Schafly? I'd expect nothing less.
Is this what they mean when they talk about Net Neutrality?
;)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 28, 2009, 11:20:24 PM
You clearly believe that though even if Reynolds doesn't.
It's a semantic thing. CDM refuses to call it terrorism if people he doesn't like are the targets.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 28, 2009, 09:40:40 PM
QuoteMinors under 16 years old use this site. Posting of obscenity here is punishable by up to 10 years in jail under 18 USC § 1470. Vandalism is punishable up to 10 years in jail per 18 USC § 1030. Harassment is punishable by 2 years in jail per 47 USC § 223. The IP addresses of vandals will be reported to authorities. That includes your employer and your local prosecutor.
:lol:
You should have seen the reaction on their boards when they did get hacked and notified the FBI who promptly told them to fuck off. :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 29, 2009, 05:43:38 AM
Quote from: The Larch on October 29, 2009, 05:42:29 AM
The man that runs that site is "famous" in scientific circles because he harasses researchers publishing articles about evolutionary science. The guy is a gem.
Son of Schafly? I'd expect nothing less.
I read her book, "A choice not an echo," She was a loon back in the 1960's. That her boy is crazy isn't a big surprise. Still this altering the bible to reflect the "free-market values" is creepy.
Doesn't Schlafly have a gay kid? I know Cheney does but I think Phyllis might also.
Yes re: gay son.
Quote from: Caliga on October 29, 2009, 07:31:00 AM
Doesn't Schlafly have a gay kid? I know Cheney does but I think Phyllis might also.
Yep. But not this one. This is the retarded one.
You may judge Conservapedia's own bias by reading its definition of liberal: "someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing."
Lol, This is truly dumb. Actually, this should have been done by a left winger to discredit conservatives. For someone trying to get a conservative message out, then who ever is doing this should just get out of the way as they're not helping rational discussion and debate.
Quote from: KRonn on October 29, 2009, 11:43:18 AM
For someone trying to get a conservative message out, then who ever is doing this should just get out of the way as they're not helping rational discussion and debate.
Why would they want to help that?
Quote from: Vince on October 29, 2009, 07:01:52 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 28, 2009, 09:40:40 PM
QuoteMinors under 16 years old use this site. Posting of obscenity here is punishable by up to 10 years in jail under 18 USC § 1470. Vandalism is punishable up to 10 years in jail per 18 USC § 1030. Harassment is punishable by 2 years in jail per 47 USC § 223. The IP addresses of vandals will be reported to authorities. That includes your employer and your local prosecutor.
:lol:
You should have seen the reaction on their boards when they did get hacked and notified the FBI who promptly told them to fuck off. :lol:
Do they believe the FBI has been infiltrated by liberals? Oh wait, of course they do. RUBY RIDGE!
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2009, 11:45:46 AM
Quote from: KRonn on October 29, 2009, 11:43:18 AM
For someone trying to get a conservative message out, then who ever is doing this should just get out of the way as they're not helping rational discussion and debate.
Why would they want to help that?
Obviously not the people with this dumb headed web site.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 29, 2009, 05:43:38 AM
Quote from: The Larch on October 29, 2009, 05:42:29 AM
The man that runs that site is "famous" in scientific circles because he harasses researchers publishing articles about evolutionary science. The guy is a gem.
Son of Schafly? I'd expect nothing less.
Just google "Lenski dialogue" if you want to see the guy in action.
I met Schafly's daughter in college, while boning her roomie. She was kind of embarassed of her mother.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 29, 2009, 12:50:52 PM
I met Schafly's daughter in college, while boning her roomie. She was kind of embarassed of her mother.
I'd be kind of embarrased - to meet anyone under those circumstances. ;)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 29, 2009, 12:50:52 PM
I met Schafly's daughter in college, while boning her roomie. She was kind of embarassed of her mother.
The daughter sounds screwed up. Who in their right mind rooms with their mother in college?
Oy vey, welcome to the Adirondacks. :lol:
Quote from: DGuller on October 29, 2009, 01:26:05 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 29, 2009, 12:50:52 PM
I met Schafly's daughter in college, while boning her roomie. She was kind of embarassed of her mother.
The daughter sounds screwed up. Who in their right mind rooms with their mother in college?
Even weirder to stand there and introduce herself to Yi. Most people would have run out of the room screaming.
Heh, this is a funny exchange: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Lenski_dialog
Quote from: Malthus on October 29, 2009, 05:06:11 PM
Heh, this is a funny exchange: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Lenski_dialog
And here we get to why it gets so frustrating to talk to anti-evolutionists. They do not even understand what they are debating.