Radical Right starts project to build their own bible

Post #315,087 by jay 10/5/09 4:02:56 PM Reply	Radical Right starts project to build their own bible http://www.rightwing...onservative-bible It looks like Conservapedia, the conservative alternative to Wikipedia founded by Andy Schlafly, son of the Eagle Forum's Phyllis Schlafly, has undertaken a new project - making a more conservative Bible: I would stick this in humor, except it would be mistaken for an Onion piece. In the work done so far, Pharisees is translated as intellectual now. Which gives you an idea of the actual intellectual level of this work. Jay
Post #315,089 by drook 10/5/09 4:58:41 PM Reply	Devil in the details, of course The premise is completely right. Each translation has introduced the biases of the people doing the translating. Words no longer have the connotations they did when the last translation was done. People are more likely to understand if it is in their modern vernacular. All of that is true. However ... Unless they plan on going back to Greek and Aramaic, they're at best using modern conservative code words to update a fifth or sixth (or more) generation translation. And if they did go back to original translations, and original meanings, they'd need to explain a whole lot about marriage, birth control, homosexuality, and a lot of other things about which the bible doesn't say what most of them believe it does. -- Drew
Post #315,095 by static 10/5/09 8:16:55 PM Reply	Aye. And that's forgetting that there are whole libraries written about what certain words and passages mean in the original Ancient Greek, Old Hebrew and Aramaic. Wade. Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
Post #315,121 by jay 10/6/09 10:30:30 AM Reply	Wrong way around That would be the logical and reasonable way to go about updating a translation. Naturally, that isn't what people like this do. Instead, they will apply the same methodology they do to science and politics and everything else. Take their religious beliefs as the absolute truth, and then revise/misconstrue/deny everything else to get it into conformity with those beliefs. Jay
Post #315,128 by drook 10/6/09 10:57:21 AM Reply	Oh, totally This is something conservatives are very good at. They offer a well-reasoned explanation for what they're doing, but the reality of what they actually do is completely different. Yesterday I was listening to Talk of the Nation while picking up the girls from school. They had Michael Gerson on. (Washington Post columnist, former Bush speachwriter.) The subject of Glenn Beck came up: I mean, Beck is a - sort of an entertainment guy. He does stand-up comedy. He can be bombastic and over-the-top and all of the rest, and if you want to criticize that, that's perfectly legitimate. But, you know, we've gone through almost eight years now of the mainstream, elite media worshiping and lionizing people like Jon Stewart, who blur the lines between serious news and commentary and comedy far more so than people like Beck. The in-house Media Watchdog Program on NPR on the media, the host of the show told the Associated Press that their role model is Jon Stewart. And that all sounds sort of reasonable. But David Folkenflik picked up on it: I think part of it is Beck's influence. He does the dance that certainly others do on the left as well, which is to critics, he'll say hey, look. You know, I'm a rodeo cowboy or a clown, I think is actually what he says. And he says you don't have to take me seriously. I'll cry. I'll rant. I'll rave. I'll say things, and, you know, if they don't happen to be perfectly true, hey look, it's not like I'm - I have a Ph.D. in political science. I'm not a senator. Nobody elected me, don't worry about it. To viewers, even though he's histrionic and quite entertaining and quite enjoyable, actually, in person, as well, he's kind of asking to be taken seriously. And he's kind of asking them to lend to him a credibility so that he can influence them. And indeed, I think that's shown by some of the protests that he helped to engender and encourage. You know, that's not a - you know, Jon Stewart is on the comedy channel now. I know CNN might love to have him on its air. But that said, you know, he's in a place where he is fixed as a figure of satire also exploring some factual issues. Folkenflik was downplaying the problem. It's not that Beck asks to be taken seriously, it's that Fox News asks that he be taken seriously. When he calls for a march on Washington, and Fox News promotes it, and coordinates it, and takes out full-page ads accusing other media outlets of not covering it (when in fact they did), they're not treating what he does as "stand-up comedy". The whole thing is worth listening to -- http://www.npr.org/t...storyId=113506887 (Transcript is also there.) -- Drew
Post #315,130 by boxley 10/6/09 11:07:06 AM Reply	Objectively what is the difference between beck and olberman some around here view olbermann as a serious news analyst, to me they are two sides of the same coin.
Post #315,131 by drook 10/6/09 11:19:19 AM Reply	Nicely played First, the comparison I offered was Beck and Stewart, and why that was a poor comparison. Instead of responding to that, you picked a different comparison. Second, your comparison is at best an example of, "Well you guys do it too, so that makes it okay." No, it doesn't make it okay. Without even addressing whether Beck and Olberman are different, and granting for the sake of argument that they aren't, it still doesn't make what Beck does okay. Nor does it make they way Fox News handles him okay. So your two sentences were entirely stock conservative rhetorical playbook, with no response to the issue. Congratulations. -- Drew
Post #315,135 by beepster 10/6/09 11:37:25 AM Reply	So where's your beef? is it with Beck or Fox News? Which makes box's comparison to Olberman hugely more relevant to the situation that the former links use of Jon Stewart, who is on Comedy Central along with Colbert. So while their analysis may be good, insightful, etc...they are clearly labeled. Less so with our good friend and former sportscaster Keith. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #315,151 by drook 10/6/09 1:09:50 PM Reply	Tell Gerson that, he's the one that made the comparison -- Drew
Post #315,138 by boxley 10/6/09 11:50:16 AM Reply	so even tho they are the same its not okay for beck and fox
Post #315,152 by drook 10/6/09 1:11:06 PM Reply	Repeating yourself doesn't make it a better argument It makes it "The Big Lie". Whose playbook was that? -- Drew
Post #315,155 by boxley 10/6/09 1:15:59 PM Reply	hardly, trying to determine your position, it tends to float
Post #315,159 by beepster 10/6/09 1:36:22 PM Reply	not his, its that Gerson fella apparently. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #315,162 by boxley 10/6/09 1:43:00 PM Reply	no, thats John Stuart
Post #315,179 by jay 10/6/09 2:59:33 PM Reply	To add to that Every time somebody has raised the question with Jon Stewart, he has made it bluntly clear that nobody should be taking him seriously. He is the front guy of humor show, not a news show. That the Daily Show still provides so much real information that it compares favorably with other networks news shows is a condemnation of those shows. Jay
Post #315,096 by Another Scott 10/5/09 9:21:25 PM Reply	They're late to the party. The SAB - http://skepticsannot....com/preface.html - already has noted one of the "conservative" criticisms: http://skepticsannot...com/lk/23.html#34 Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!