Conservapedia: Re-Writing the Bible for the Rich

[aduidarnenye]

Tapu Misa: Casting the socialists out of the temple - World - NZ Herald News

An organisation called Conservapedia plans to rid the Bible of what it calls a liberal bias.

The folk at Conservapedia - the "conservative encyclopaedia you can trust" (unlike that apparent hotbed of liberalism Wikipedia) - have made a shocking discovery. The Bible is full of liberal bias.

Yes, you read that right: liberal bias.

Well, of course. Conservapedia's creators appear to have homed in on a truth (though they of course call it "liberal distortion") that the Marxists never got: the Bible is on the side of the poor and oppressed. It's never been approving of the excesses of the rich and powerful.

Witness the 2000 or so verses in the Bible proclaiming concern for the poor and vulnerable: the widow, the stranger, "the least of these".

The wealthy, on the other hand, have to work out how to get around the sobering message that "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".

Indeed, the Bible's pages are suffused with social justice concerns and other dangerous liberal ideas, like human rights and egalitarianism. (If everyone is made in the image of God, then how can it be right to support economic systems that leave so many without the means to meet basic human needs?)

This is all very well if you're a non-believer who thinks of the Bible as outdated and irrelevant, but somewhat problematic for a particular kind of conservative Christian who needs to believe that the inerrant word of God supports his belief in the free market, tax breaks for the wealthy, small government, big business, the death penalty and every utterance of talk radio and Fox News; but doesn't believe in such liberal obsessions as universal healthcare for his neighbour (especially if it means putting his own at risk), or global warming.

Think former US President George W. Bush, who had no problem with the contradictions between the principles of his faith and his self-interested interpretation of them.

No matter, Conservapedia has a solution. It has launched the Conservative Bible Project to produce a "fully conservative" translation of the Bible, expunged of what it calls "liberal wordiness" (because liberals apparently use a "high word-to-substance ratio"), "gender inclusive" language, and "socialistic words" like "comrade" and "labourer". "Government", it has decided, is a liberal word, whereas "volunteer" is a conservative one.

The Conservative Bible would exclude what it calls the "later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic", like the adulteress story, in which Jesus saves an adulteress from an angry mob, with the words, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone".

The problem? "Liberals cite this passage to oppose the death penalty", and that's wrong apparently because the Mosaic laws "clearly state death as a punishment for sin".

Apparently, conservatives would have stoned the adulteress.

And, of course, the Conservative Bible would express "Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning".

Or, as American comedian Stephen Colbert quipped recently: "The Bible says Jesus fed the poor. It should say he fed the rich and let the loaves and fishes trickle down."

According to the earnest people at Conservapedia, the Bible is full of "socialistic terminology", which "improperly encourages the 'social justice' movement among Christians".

Improperly? Well, there goes the basis for centuries of Catholic teaching on social justice and the idea of the common good.

Throughout the ages, the Bible has been used by the misguided, the insane and the downright evil to justify all manner of injustice - including slavery, misogyny, war and racism.

That it should also be enlisted to prop up a right-wing economic agenda that flies in the face of Jesus' teachings on poverty and wealth shouldn't come as any great surprise.

Some commentators have labelled the project hubristic. It's certainly that, but I think Conservapedia has done us a service. By trying to rewrite the Bible in their own image, its creators have highlighted exactly what the Bible is not.

In his 2005 book, God's Politics, Jim Wallis writes that "when the poor are defended on moral or religious grounds, it is certainly not 'class warfare', as the rich often charge, but rather a direct response to the overwhelming focus on the poor in the Scriptures, which claim they are regularly neglected, exploited and oppressed by wealthy elites, political rulers and indifferent affluent populations".

Wallis says it's precisely because religion takes the problem of evil so seriously that we "must always be suspicious of too much concentrated power - politically and economically - either in totalitarian regimes or in huge multinational corporations that now have more wealth and power than many governments".

"It is indeed our theology of evil that makes us strong proponents of both political and economic democracy - not because people are so good, but because they often are not and need clear safeguards and strong systems of checks and balances to avoid the dangerous accumulation of power and wealth."

As last year's financial meltdown showed, this is as true now as when the Bible was first written.

[Jodwahh]

Wow, that's awesome in a totally fucked up way.

[Faris]

they wanna amend the bible again? LOL

[Mizango]

Future generations will yet again swear it is Gods word.

[Mizango]

Gods word.

lol

[Cantih]

they wanna amend the bible again? LOL

Future generations will yet again swear it is Gods word.

plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

[Kryssan]

Gods word.

I'm with Alcuin of York;

Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, Vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.

[Ramor]

I'm with Alcuin of York;

Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, Vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.

something about the voice of the people not being the voice of god? that's about all i can glean from it

i should retake latin =( i really liked it

also, lol@bible, lol@conservatives, lol@bible

[Demosthenes11]

why would anybody be opposed to this? It's pretty clear if you've read the bible (which I　bet you godless heathens have never) that the bible is full of propaganda spewed by people wishing to redistribute wealth - which is the opposite of what god wants

[aduidarnenye]

I've read the Bible. First book is excellent. Full of action, romance, and a great plot. Big poem in the middle really takes away from the effect of the whole thing though. Sequel is not so great, too much dialogue, not enough action. Depressing end.

[Faris]

I've read the Bible. First book is excellent. Full of action, romance, and a great plot. Big poem in the middle really takes away from the effect of the whole thing though. Sequel is not so great, too much dialogue, not enough action. Depressing end.

i lol'd but then i remembered i shouldnt make fun of other belief ><

sometimes its hard to be good

[kuronosan]

Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, Vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.

Says something like "don't give audience to those who say the voice of the people is the voice of God, as the disorder is always close to insanity".

[Leif]

Can we please merge this with the other thread? I don't think I can keep up with two threads of treachery.

[Shuvo]

I hope they include the missing first page of the bible.

To my darling Candy. All characters portrayed within this book are fictitious and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental.

[Olo401]

This is an easy edit - just drop The New Testament and that hippie bastard Jesus Christ. Oh wai....

[Howard Roark]

this just in: you can now take it with you

[Cantih]

This is an easy edit - just drop The New Testament and that hippie bastard Jesus Christ. Oh wai....

Wouldn't that make them Jewish?!eleventy1

[Olo401]

Wouldn't that make them Jewish?!eleventy1

Fundamentalist Conservatives = The New Israelites?
Well they do have a lot in common with Bibi Netenyahu anyways..

[Cantih]

Fundamentalist Conservatives = The New Israelites?

"We are now gods favored people!"

Yeah, apparently they don't read too closely about what he does to his people on a regular basis. Egypt, Babylon, Romans, and everything else up to now. Methinks they know not what they be signing on for.

[Woozie]

I've read the Bible. First book is excellent. Full of action, romance, and a great plot. Big poem in the middle really takes away from the effect of the whole thing though. Sequel is not so great, too much dialogue, not enough action. Depressing end.

LOL!

Also, I saw this on Colbert when he said it:

Or, as American comedian Stephen Colbert quipped recently: "The Bible says Jesus fed the poor. It should say he fed the rich and let the loaves and fishes trickle down."

I laughed so hard.