Are you Christian but feel that the Bible is just too darn liberal for you?

[Angie Gallant]

Conservapedia is on the case! (http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible)


'
As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible (http://conservapedia.com/Bible) which satisfies the following ten guidelines:[2] (http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project#cite_note-1)


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 (http://conservapedia.com/NIV) is written at only the 7th grade level[3] (http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project#cite_note-2)
Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms (http://conservapedia.com/Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Terms) as they develop;[4] (http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project#cite_note-3) 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";[5] (http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project#cite_note-4) 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 (http://conservapedia.com/Hell) or the Devil (http://conservapedia.com/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 (http://conservapedia.com/Adulteress_story)
Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness (http://conservapedia.com/Essay:Quantifying_Openmindedness), 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."


For an example of their fine work, they have translated "And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?"

to "Jesus perceived immediately what the intellectual types were thinking, and he asked them, "Why are you so hostile to this?"

[Nellie]

Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
That should be fun. Does that include the good Samaritan who wont be dishing out any of that free socialist healthcare? You want bandages boyo you better show us the colour of your shekels?

What happened to it being the literal word of god? Except where he's a commie then it's a liberal translation?

[Tankero]

They will write the Bible God wanted.


...

No, wait.

[Blackadar]

For an example of their fine work, they have translated "And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?"

to "Jesus perceived immediately what the intellectual types were thinking, and he asked them, "Why are you so hostile to this?"

The Bible has been mis-used for centuries as justification for various inhumane acts and vile ideas. I'm not surprised that conservatives had to really bend Bible translations to fit their ideas. After all, Jesus was the ultimate liberal. :)

[Hawkeye Fierce]

Jesus wept.

[sinfony]

Jesus wept fierce tears of socialist-destroying power, is what you meant to say.

[Eric P]

Jesus wept.

retranslated to "jesus kicked them in the balls because men don't cry"

[Bahimiron]

I look forward to the Aramaic translation.

[Angie Gallant]

Another good one, "And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him." to "Jesus then rebuked the evil spirit, "Shut up and depart from him.""

[zengonzo]

As true today as it ever was - except where it isn't, in which case we'll decide what ought to be fixed.

Beyond that, though, there is no potential for reinterpretation of the Bible. It is direct from the mouth of God.

Jesus perceived immediately what the intellectual types were thinking, and he asked them, "Why are you so hostile to this?"

... Has to be satire.

[Jakub]

This is a satire, like Andover Baptist, right?

I can't wait for their take on Leviticus.

[Fugitive]

I can't wait to see what they have to say about camels and the eye of a needle.

[BobJustBob]

Because conservative Christians are all about intelligence, logic, and open-mindedness.

[Miramon]

Surely this a joke. Also from this site:

A liberal (also leftist) is 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.

Also on this site, they characterize Barry Goldwater of all people as being a liberal. I guess any conservative who exhibits any semblance of humanity or sanity, even in a limited way, is a traitor from their point of view

[Nengjanggo]

Someone is trolling someone here, but for all I know, it's God trolling all of us.

[zengonzo]

Surely this a joke.

Crazies seem to be impressed by higher levels of crazy, when they don't take it as a challenge and try to out-crazy.

So a spoofer determined to prank crazies can get pretty far before they sense the game.

Unfortunately a spoofer can go too deep and lose oneself in the satire.

[Rasputin]

Well, they certainly are delivering on number 3.

[extarbags]

For an example of their fine work, they have translated "And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?"

to "Jesus perceived immediately what the intellectual types were thinking, and he asked them, "Why are you so hostile to this?"

I don't mean to be pedantic when this is so clearly crazy anyway, but these don't mean the same thing even if you discount the context and the messaging and everything else; the first one says that Jesus responded immediately when he realized whatever, the second one says that he realized it immediately. So they're not just insane, they're also illiterate.

[shift6]

Jesus wept.
This. They're going to have some serious trouble with Acts, all those early Christians sharing money and celebating persecution and so on.

Anyone still curious why doing your own study with multiple translations and even using concordances to the originals* is probably the best way to know what the Bible actually says, and then decide if you agree with its message?

* i.e., the best we have per textual criticism.

edit: my personal questions about this even more thoroughly answered:

"Large reductions in this error can be attained simply by retranslating the KJV into modern English." (I suspect grand influence from the KJV-only crowd.)

"Benefits include: mastery of the Bible, which is priceless." (I'm curious how someone could truly claim to have mastered the Bible with their suggested "careful rate of translating about four verses an hour".)

"[One] striking advantage...: this would debunk the pervasive and hurtful myth that Jesus would be a political liberal today." (I'm anxious to see the new version of "love your neighbor as yourself".)

[madkevin]

Dude, come on. That sounds like way too much work.

[foogla]

"love your neighbor as yourself" = rugged individualism
good Samaritan = free market libertarians donate to charity

[salwon]

I can't wait for their take on Leviticus.

Actually, Leviticus is pretty much okay as-is.

[ReptileHouse]

Sounds like an updated Living Bible.

All translations have plenty of biases inherent in them, to greater and lesser degrees. It's an inevitable part of the process. Paraphrases like the Living Bible, and this new thing, are more heavy handed about it by their nature, of course.

[extarbags]

Sounds like an updated Living Bible.

All translations have plenty of biases inherent in them, to greater and lesser degrees. It's an inevitable part of the process. Paraphrases like the Living Bible, and this new thing, are more heavy handed about it by their nature, of course.

That's true, and the funniest part (and probably the satirical angle, if this is indeed satire) is that this is actually basically as legitimate as any other English translation of the Bible. Still, it's pretty funny that the bias is actually the stated goal this time around, rather than an unavoidable but regrettable inevitability.

[John Many Jars]

Have you guys ever heard of the Ruckmanites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Ruckman)?

In brief, they're Baptist fundies who believe the King James translation was divinely inspired...to the point that it can be used TO CORRECT THE ORIGINAL HEBREW, ARAMAIC, AND GREEK TEXTS. Thus neatly solving the problem of translation issues.

A Texan girl I knew as a teenager living in Europe friended me on Facebook this year and had become a Ruckmanite. She gives her kids allegedly Biblical drinks made from vinegar and honey. She de-friended me before too long; not entirely sure why that would be....

[Tankero]

The bible doesn't mention jars, obviously. Had you been John Many Amphorae, though...

On the other hand, what is the term used in King James? Jug? Vessel?

[Eric T Cheng]

I thought Jesus was a long-hair, sandal-wearing hippy that preached love, happiness and bunnies?

[Bahimiron]

I just hope they go back to calling intestines 'arse ropes'.

[MattKeil]

I love that most of the "translated" passages on the site are actually dumbed down from the KJV equivalents, despite point #3.

Also, changing "Holy Spirit" to "Divine Guide"? That's fucking stupid.

[Bahimiron]

Have you guys ever heard of the Ruckmanites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Ruckman)?

Peter Ruckman sounds amazing!


Ruckman has many ideas that differ from those of typical Baptist fundamentalists. For instance, he does not believe that a fetus becomes a living soul until it is born and takes its first breath. His unusual ideas extend beyond the Bible as well. Ruckman believes in UFOs and blue aliens with blue blood, black aliens with green blood, and gray aliens with clear blood. Further, he believes that the CIA has implanted brain transmitters in children, old people, and African-Americans and that the agency operates underground alien breeding facilities. In 1997, Ruckman claimed that Attorney General Janet Reno had drawn up a list with his name on it and prophesied that the "Government Mafia" would make a hit on him during "the next two or three years."

[zengonzo]

I thought Jesus was a long-hair, sandal-wearing hippy that preached love, happiness and bunnies?


That is a very hurtful myth.

[Brandon Clements]

"[One] striking advantage...: this would debunk the pervasive and hurtful myth that Jesus would be a political liberal today." (I'm anxious to see the new version of "love your neighbor as yourself".)
As well as when Jesus throws the moneychangers out of the temple.

[snowcrash22]

As well as when Jesus throws the moneychangers out of the temple.

possibly unionized moneychangers

[Sharpe]

Also, changing "Holy Spirit" to "Divine Guide"? That's fucking stupid.

Well, the Conservapedians can't have any of them there damn un-Christian Catholic phrasings in the Real Jesus-Approved Bible (tm).

[Jason McCullough]

Someone took Supply-Side Jesus a bit too seriously.

[Podunk]

Well, the Conservapedians can't have any of them there damn un-Christian Catholic phrasings in the Real Jesus-Approved Bible (tm).

It would be LOL-worthy if it weren't so depressing.

[Sharpe]

Hooray for Supply Side Jesus! (http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/09/17_franken.html) Probably the funniest thing Al Franken has written since SNL. A timeless classic.

[Jakub]

Ooof, that's merciless. One of the most scathing satires I've come across.

[bago]

Related, Heterosexually (http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/).

[JeffL]

FWIW, I'm a scientist, Ph.D., working in the field for 3 decades.

And a Christian.

I thought one of the funniest and best lines I heard on science and religion was on, of all place, Numbers. The one scientist was going crazy trying to deal with an idiot who was claiming all kinds of "science is from the devil" crap, and he practically screamed "How else would God reveal himself to us but through his works? With how the universe is put together, through all the things that we discover everyday through science? Science is just figuring out with our little brains how the world works which should delight a true God."

FWIW. Usually don't jump in these bash the Christian threads, but as a scientist and a Christian, please note we're not all like the idiots. ;)

Carry on. :)

[Tankero]

Then speak louder. When you let someone voice an opinion, claiming to be speaking for "all of you", you don't have to automatically stand up and disagree. You do, however, when that one voice speaks loudly enough to be heard across the world, and there is no other voice to be heard. Of course, you're up against some pretty tough odds. There are powerful groups that benefit from this sort of speech. A lot, a /lot/ of other people believe that they are in a cultural war and that this sort of ideas are weapons they can use to fight it.

At that point you have to ask yourself the following: Within my group, am I in the minority? Perhaps not, given that Christianity is based on tolerance and a degree of self-flagellation. Nonetheless, there is a voice that is speaking for Christianity in the U.S., and it certainly sounds like this.

[Sebmojo]

Just to be clear, Conservapedia is deathly serious. Doesn't stop people pranking them, since it's a wiki, so some of the revised ConservoWordofGod verses are doubtless trolly.

[lesslucid]

Then speak louder. When you let someone voice an opinion, claiming to be speaking for "all of you", you don't have to automatically stand up and disagree. You do, however, when that one voice speaks loudly enough to be heard across the world, and there is no other voice to be heard. Of course, you're up against some pretty tough odds. There are powerful groups that benefit from this sort of speech. A lot, a /lot/ of other people believe that they are in a cultural war and that this sort of ideas are weapons they can use to fight it.

At that point you have to ask yourself the following: Within my group, am I in the minority? Perhaps not, given that Christianity is based on tolerance and a degree of self-flagellation. Nonetheless, there is a voice that is speaking for Christianity in the U.S., and it certainly sounds like this.

I don't really think this is fair. You can't hold someone responsible for failing to shout over the top of every idiot who wants a shouting match, just because they happen to hold some beliefs which in some part resemble your own.

On the whole ConservaBible thing: I'm kind of blown away by the blatant hypocrisy of believing the bible is the literal word of God and then turning around and saying, therefore, any parts of it that don't fit my preconceived ideas need to be edited until they do. I mean, WTF? Why not just say "what I believe is true because I believe it's true, and fuck you all who don't agree" and be done with it? Let's cut out the middleman and get straight to the self-righteous lunacy, hey?

[John Reynolds]

I don't really think this is fair.

Yep, reminds me of the Republican outcry against Islam following 9/11. They're all crazy, potential terrorists and where are their moderate voices.

[Nellie]

I don't really think this is fair. You can't hold someone responsible for failing to shout over the top of every idiot who wants a shouting match, just because they happen to hold some beliefs which in some part resemble your own.
Why not? We do when it comes to Muslims, why shouldn't Christians have to stand up every time some jackass says something retarded in the name of Jesus and point out that actually he's just a retard?

[tiohn]

Because Muslims are heathens, DUH.

[Robert Sharp]

But the goals themselves are serious? That's one of the most ludicrous things I've seen in a while. How could it possibly be serious at any level?

[TheWombat]

I would imagine Torah study would drive these folks bonkers then; we've been bashing at this stuff for over two thousand years and no one claims ot have "mastered" it. Hell, half the time we can't even agree on what we're disagreeing about.

[Gav]

Another funny part is how they don't want to be constrained by the actual Greek, deeming it too limited. If the authors had had access to a more modern language, they would've been more precise. Luckily, the conservapedia is here to put all that stuff back into the text which those authors would have put in if they'd had access to English.

(Seriously, read some of the talk pages where they lay this out explicitly)

[John Many Jars]

Faith-based editing.

[foogla]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_friendship

ok that might be fake lets see the talk page

http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Liberals_and_friendship

cripes

[zengonzo]

Well, at least liberals can experience some form of friendship ...

http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_friendship

[Jakub]

Another funny part is how they don't want to be constrained by the actual Greek, deeming it too limited. If the authors had had access to a more modern language, they would've been more precise. Luckily, the conservapedia is here to put all that stuff back into the text which those authors would have put in if they'd had access to English.

(Seriously, read some of the talk pages where they lay this out explicitly)
It's really bad when I honestly can't tell if this is satire, someone trolling the conservapedians, or their actual beliefs.

I should have known they had it in for Greek when they spelled it conservapedia though, instead of conservapaedia.

[Jason McCullough]

For example, Nobel laureate Ronald Coase (http://www.conservapedia.com/Ronald_Coase) described how he was victimized by disparaging whispers at cocktail parties about his conservative (http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative) economic positions.[1] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_friendship#cite_note-0)

Victimized?

[Glenn]

possibly unionized moneychangersand they're banking regulators. Those assholes probably caused the dark ages.

[zengonzo]

Victimized?

Amusingly, in the talk section the author makes an issue of political correctness in the same thought in which he complains about marginalization by a majority.

The very term politically correct developed out of a liberal insistence to censor and banish conservative expression.

Down with hate speech against hate speech!



I also love this bit:

I still remember the day several students from my cohort discovered the scandalous detail that I was a supporter of President Bush and the petrified looks on their Macintosh-loving faces as I gave a riveting defense of the War on Terror.

Where the dude insults the people he apparently tried to remain friends with, but was shunned because of his politics .. Not at all because he was an antagonistic prick, or anything.

[Lorini]

Or just plain stupid.

[Gav]

It's really bad when I honestly can't tell if this is satire, someone trolling the conservapedians, or their actual beliefs.

I should have known they had it in for Greek when they spelled it conservapedia though, instead of conservapaedia.

It's the actual founder of the conservapedia. Here's one of his gems:

A conservative Bible uses the richness provided in part by conservative language to fully convey the concepts. The original Greek and Hebrew may help sometimes, or they may be inadequate.

[ceolstan]

Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
I wonder what they're going to do with Ananias and Sapphira:
1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.
Hmmm.... Communal property. Dammit! That must be Liberal Bias again, tainting the Bible with actual Socialism!



Oddly enough, Acts is not yet translated.

[Calistas]

Yep, reminds me of the Republican outcry against Islam following 9/11. They're all crazy, potential terrorists and where are their moderate voices.

Following 9/11? I saw a Fox News clip stating almost exactly that a week ago!

[Johan O]

I want to give a shout out to the best new conservative word entry.
Powerful, insightful new conservative terms have grown at a geometric rate, roughly doubling every century. For every insightful new conservative term originating in the 1600s, there are two new terms originating in the 1700s, four new terms in the 1800s, and eight new terms in the 1900s, for a pattern of "1-2-4-8". Implications of a geometric increase for new conservative terms include a more conservative future and a correlation between conservatism and truth.

The oddest thing, to me, about parts of the american conservative movement is how deeply radical it is.

[salwon]

I want to give a shout out to the best new conservative word entry.


The oddest thing, to me, about parts of the american conservative movement is how deeply radical it is.

This is...wow.

[zengonzo]

Implications of a geometric increase for new conservative terms include a more conservative future and a correlation between conservatism and truth.

H-what the fuck?

Is this like gendered words? How do they claim ownership of 'despotism'?



The oddest thing, to me, about parts of the american conservative movement is how deeply radical it is.

Apparently, the conservative definition of the word conservative aren't the same.

I look forward to the day when they are completely incomprehensible to me - rather than just mostly.

[zengonzo]

division of labor - increasing productivity through specialization of labor, as in a husband working in manufacturing while his wife cares for children

Oh, man .. Multiple vectors of backwards.

[Gav]

H-what the fuck?

Is this like gendered words? How do they claim ownership of 'despotism'?


They claim ownership of "transistor." Because transistors are used in SDI, which is a conservative idea. (I wonder if they think that wikipedia runs on computers made with vacuum tubes).

[zengonzo]

Goddamn it is easy to be sucked in by this ..

I saw that altruism is apparently a counter to evolution, and I kind of guessed what they would say, but going to the full listing of evolutionary counters brought some really confounding ones:

evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as the brilliant autumn foliage and staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation

Jellyfish in Hawaii swarm to the beaches roughly 9 to 10 days after each full moon, for no apparent evolutionary reason

the extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds, which lack any plausible materialistic explanation

Pterosaurs; a scientist recently stated that they could not have flown, but why then did they evolve wings?

Many bats which live in caves employs a type of sonar in order to navigate and find prey. Evolutionists propose that the bat evolved from a squirrel-like animal, but a squirrel would have no use for a sonar system. The bats can't fly without sonar, and an animal that can't fly doesn't need it. Therefore, bats must have been created with fully functioning sonar and flight.

The human prostate surrounds the urethra and in doing so provides many benefits. Evolutionists consider the structure to be poor design, which should mean that natural selection would have eliminated that design.




It is just such a determined misunderstanding of the theory that I am left baffled. Even for the most basic aspects ..

[Robert Sharp]

Animals can't fly without sonar? What the hell are those birds up to, then?

Yeah, it's a pretty funny site. The evolution parts are fantastic. Nice find.

I think it's sad that conservatism is even loosely associated with ANY of these ideas. I mean to say that it really isn't associated, but I think it's sad that this guy thinks it is.

[Kraaze]

Animals can't fly without sonar? What the hell are those birds up to, then?

Yeah, it's a pretty funny site. The evolution parts are fantastic. Nice find.

I think it's sad that conservatism is even loosely associated with ANY of these ideas. I mean to say that it really isn't associated, but I think it's sad that this guy thinks it is.

We are raising a generation right now that will grow up knowing "conservative" is a shorthand form of "xenophobic fundamentalist christian religious fanatic."

Scary thought no?

[zengonzo]

This really sums it up:

Consciousness - No animal displays self-awareness (such as clothing), morality, tool-making, or self-sacrifice to the same extent that man does. It is unclear how a random mutation could have arisen which accounts for humanity's significantly higher cognitive ability.


Any concept the author fails to comprehend qualifies as a refutation.

[Angie Gallant]

To be fair to the authors here, the site was started for homeschoolers, so we may be making fun of kids with limited exposure to outside thought. Of course, there are plenty of adults who use it too.

[zengonzo]

It's the world according to Schlafly, though. Looking at the edits, he is clearly the final determinant.

[Sharpe]

To be fair to the authors here, the site was started for homeschoolers, so we may be making fun of kids with limited exposure to outside thought. Of course, there are plenty of adults who use it too.

In a way though, doesn't this make it worse? Because the site is obviously funded and maintained by adults and in theory they should be helping to provide good information to the home schooled students on the site. So don't they have at least some minimal duty of fidelity to reality, logic and common sense? Otherwise its just the blind leading the blind off a cliff.

[Mordrak]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Liberals_and_friendship

cripes


We know Liberals all too well here, Humblpi, and are on to your Liberal tricks (http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_tricks). Reflect and improve! Koba 11:50, 12 March 2008 (EDT)


That site is like jumping down the rabbit hole. Who's real? Who's not? Who's just a parody?

And my god...


if you don't like it (something offensive on television), don't watch it (but they don't seem to go for if you don't like whales being killed, don't watch them being killed).

[Preachy Preach]

Given that Koba was one of Stalin's other pseudonyms, I suspect a troll...

[Mordrak]

Given that Koba was one of Stalin's other pseudonyms, I suspect a troll...

Ahh, I quite obviously did not know that, thanks. :)

[Sebmojo]

This (http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog) is my favourite Conservapedia link.

There was an awesome 1000 page long talk thread (http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Richard_Dawkins/Archive_3) where the editors refused to accept that Richard Dawkins was a professor for some reason, but they seem to have (disappointingly) caved on that one.

CP is basically stupidity porn, I always feel a little icky and drained after reading it for too long.

[Robert Sharp]

We are raising a generation right now that will grow up knowing "conservative" is a shorthand form of "xenophobic fundamentalist christian religious fanatic."

Scary thought no?

Yes, it scares me, but not for the reason you might think. It scares me because I think we DO need a good conservative voice in America, reminding us of the values that have made us a successful nation. But we need that voice to be rational. I can't imagine why any rational young person would want to be associated with such things, so I think the conservative movement is at risk of only attracting the wrong sort of people.

[Kraaze]

Actually, that was exactly the reason I thought it would scare you :)

[Sharpe]

Yes, it scares me, but not for the reason you might think. It scares me because I think we DO need a good conservative voice in America, reminding us of the values that have made us a successful nation. But we need that voice to be rational. I can't imagine why any rational young person would want to be associated with such things, so I think the conservative movement is at risk of only attracting the wrong sort of people.

I agree with this sentiment, at least in terms of feeling that we need a viable conservative party / movement to keep liberals honest. It's one reason why I keep pointing out the frustrating lack of substance and lack of good faith engagement on issues of the current talk-radio dominated right wing: they are not filling the necessary role of loyal opposition but instead have metastatized into a frankly destabilizing and fanatical force that operates on minimal fact and reason.

I don't think any one group or point of view is going to right 100% of the time, and I also strongly feel that power corrupts. So I think its healthy to have a reasoned, substantive counterbalance to liberal views. But right now, the right wing is not supplying that, except for a small number of lonely voices in the "RINO" wilderness.

One of the reasons for that failure, as shown in the CP Bible project, and the great Jesus as Founder pic thread, is that a lot of conservatives have confused committment to principle with fundamentalist faith based belief causing the current right wing to at least partially be a very absolutist quasi-religious movement.

[Mordrak]

Yes, it scares me, but not for the reason you might think. It scares me because I think we DO need a good conservative voice in America, reminding us of the values that have made us a successful nation. But we need that voice to be rational. I can't imagine why any rational young person would want to be associated with such things, so I think the conservative movement is at risk of only attracting the wrong sort of people.

So what are the values that have made us a successful nation? How are they are unique to the conservative view point?

[madkevin]

I think we should start a fund to get Flowers to edit the Conservapedia.

[Kalle]

So what are the values that have made us a successful nation? How are they are unique to the conservative view point?

You can't expect Robert to answer that. He works in academia. If he reveals his conservative values his workplace will subject him to an insufferable amount of disparaging whispers whenever there is a cocktail party.

[Cubit]

So what are the values that have made us a successful nation? How are they are unique to the conservative view point?

Robert will correct me if I'm wrong, but I took his use of the word "conservative" literally, meaning simply the values of the past that helped make America successful. This doesn't necessarily mean modern conservative values.

[John Many Jars]

Given that Koba was one of Stalin's other pseudonyms, I suspect a troll...

That right? I didn't know he had other pseudonyms. What does Koba mean?

[bago]

Somewhat related, but you have to understand this is one level of parody away from the original. Link (http://www.shortpacked.com/McNaughton%20Fine%20Art.htm). Here is the original (http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=353).

[Mordrak]

Robert will correct me if I'm wrong, but I took his use of the word "conservative" literally, meaning simply the values of the past that helped make America successful. This doesn't necessarily mean modern conservative values.

Even so, I wonder, what are those values? What weight do they have compared to say, the material specifics of history and geography? What are the metrics of successful?

I'm all for having multiple rational voices or viewpoints acting in good faith toward a specific problem*. It's been shown to be effective in avoiding group think in organizational structures and finding better or "correct" solutions. However, that's not the same thing as much propagated myth, "The truth is always somewhere in between."

*Though, honestly, I think that's more of an issue of group dynamics. The idea is to bring in an "outsider" fresh to the problem to break up group think. That doesn't necessarily mean ideological opposites. If I were to use an analogy from art, once you draw one line, it can be really hard for your brain to make a different line. Your brain keeps making the same mistake. It falls prey to muscle memory. Bringing in an outsider is to break up the group's "muscle" memory so to speak with regard to a specific problem.

[Robert Sharp]

Robert will correct me if I'm wrong, but I took his use of the word "conservative" literally, meaning simply the values of the past that helped make America successful. This doesn't necessarily mean modern conservative values.

Yep. That's exactly what I meant. I was talking about traditionalism itself, rather than anything uniquely conservative in the sense of right wing.

I'm talking about the voice of opposition. That doesn't mean the truth is always in the middle. It just means that having too sides of a debate is almost always good, as long as both sides are making valid points. Screaming about the Bible and making vague complaints about bats with sonar are not valid points. I'm certainly not saying that we have to listen to ALL viewpoints.

As for specifics, there's fraternity, loyalty, discipline, traditional family dynamics, etc. I don't see the left espousing a lot of this. Sadly, I don't see the right doing much of it either, except in words. They talk about loyalty, but it's misguided and certainly not put into practice when the "wrong" President is in office.

[Mordrak]

As for specifics, there's fraternity, loyalty, discipline, traditional family dynamics, etc. I don't see the left espousing a lot of this. Sadly, I don't see the right doing much of it either, except in words. They talk about loyalty, but it's misguided and certainly not put into practice when the "wrong" President is in office.

This I don't get. It seems like a long list of misconceptions. Fraternity to what? Loyalty to what? Discipline? What role do you see for the government in promoting discipline? Traditional family dynamics? You mean "Leave it to Beaver?" Or do you want to return to multi-generational homes and/or rural agrarian life, or urban workers and single women living in basically group homes (I want to say slop houses but it's the wrong term and my brain is being fitzy), or slavery before that?

The left isn't espousing loyalty? You mean as a character trait? What role does government have in promoting that? Loyalty for loyalty's sake doesn't seem like a very good idea...

[Kalle]

Robert, sorry to cherry pick but I'm curious why you think traditional family dynamics helped make America successful. I can see no obvious correlation since all comparable countries, successful and unsuccessful, had the same traditional family dynamics until fairly recently.

[Jason McCullough]

I don't think our success has much to do with culture or family dynamics.

If a Civilization 4 nation had the US's starting position you'd think it was cheating. Once you make it past the British it's just city spamming!

There's a lot of interesting 19th and 20th century differences vs. the other democracies (short version: no holdover feudalism or endless wars) that arguably catapulted us in the per-capita income lead, though.

[RSofaer]

"This liberal attitude towards truth is what leads to claptrap like Particle/wave duality theory and the theory of cosmic microwave background radiation. "

[Sharpe]

As for specifics, there's fraternity, loyalty, discipline, traditional family dynamics, etc. I don't see the left espousing a lot of this.

A lot of liberals take great exception to a generalization like this. In fact, a lot of liberals feel that liberal policies promote these values much more so than conservative policies. Here's a few specifics:

Fraternity: Liberals would say that many conservative polices promote a facade of individualism but in reality often leave the unfortunate individual to suffer harms far out of proportion to the mistakes (or the simple bad luck) that brought the harm on. Liberals would say their policies are about fraternity: helping the community, treating Americans like we are all in this together and so forth.

Loyalty: Liberals would say that conservative policies promote harsh disloyalty: no loyalty to workers who've plowed their work into companies for decades, no fiduciary duty to avoid self dealing and other corrupt corporate practices, and so forth. Liberals would say that by helping to ensure that people have the opportunities they need to succeed, they are promoting loyalty, and creating the conditions for loyalty to be rewarded and flourish.

Discipline: Liberals would say that by mythologizing greed, by creating economic incentives for vast short term profit and shifting of long term risk, by allowing unregulated and very harsh results for many while allowing unfettered profit taking for a few, that conservatives have crapped all over the concept of discipline. Liberals would say that by promoting minimum wage and fair labor laws they create an incentive to work, by investing in education and infrastructure they help create the pre-conditions for discipline to yield rewards, and so forth.

Traditional Family Dynamics: Liberals would say that mouthing platitudes about the "traditional family" while presiding over 40 years of net real decline in median household incomes exemplifies conservative hypocrisy. Liberals would say that conservative policies have made family life harder to maintain: income insecurity, higher bankruptcy rates, decreased bargaining power for the bottom 3/4 of the labor market and so on. Liberals would say that by investing in good roads, good schools, fair labor laws, childcare, and so forth, that they are doing a whole fuckload more for families than a bunch of empty slogans.

I have to say, Robert, this is the first time I really thought one of your comments was this far off base. That statement you made contains a whole host of unjustified negative assumptions about liberals while disregarding the negative realities of the last 40 years of conservative policies.

[lesslucid]

So what are the values that have made us a successful nation? How are they are unique to the conservative view point?

Maybe this argument is coming about from disagreements over what the word "conservative" means. In contemporary discourse, "conservative" is typically used as a synonym for "right-wing", and the antonym of "conservative" is "liberal".

However, historically, "conservative" has meant a person who is in favour of conserving the status quo, maintaining the benefits of what has already been developed rather than risking what we already have in pursuit of what might be. The antonym of this kind of conservative is a radical - the word "radical" coming from the latin "radix", which means root (etymologically related to radish, for example) and being a person who believes that in order to improve society, we need to pull it up by the roots and start again.

In this latter sense, there is (to me) absolutely nothing wrong with conservatism as a political philosophy. There are plenty of good reasons to be careful about tampering with the social and political institutions that have developed over long periods of time and which bring all kinds of benefits that it is easy to overlook.

However... the tendency has been, in the past, for authoritarians, plutocrats and aristocrats to be conservatives, since they are the ones who benefit most from the status quo, while those at the bottom of the social hierarchy, or those ideologically aligned with them, have tended to be radicals, because they see the most to gain from pulling everything up and starting over. Hence the shift in meaning that creates "conservatism" as "right wing" and "radicalism" as "left wing".

The thing is, many people who now purport to be conservatives are actually right-wing radicals. Libertarians, free-market fundamentalists, religious extremists, Cheneyites, &c... don't want to preserve the status quo in order to make slow, cautious, evolutionary developments towards progress that strive to maintain the benefits of our existing institutions. They want to rip everything up and start again so that they can create a world that fits more perfectly with their ideologically pure visions of how things ought to be. "Conservative" is a total misnomer for such people - but it's also their label for themselves.

[Eric P]

Robert, sorry to cherry pick but I'm curious why you think traditional family dynamics helped make America successful. I can see no obvious correlation since all comparable countries, successful and unsuccessful, had the same traditional family dynamics until fairly recently.

to my understanding the climate of certain sections of the new world were more hospitable than the old world which allowed for longer life spans which led to lower mortality rates in the elderly which created a strengthening of familial bonds

i can't recall where i read that so it could all be absolute bunk

[RSofaer]

to my understanding the climate of certain sections of the new world were more hospitable than the old world which allowed for longer life spans which led to lower mortality rates in the elderly which created a strengthening of familial bonds

i can't recall where i read that so it could all be absolute bunk

That definitely is bs. It doesn't make sense on any level.

[Calistas]

Wouldn't countries with lower divorce rates and happier/healthier children be countries with "better" family values than the US? By this count there are probably a large number of first would countries which better embody this notional "value" than America.

[Anders Hallin]

I agree with this sentiment, at least in terms of feeling that we need a viable conservative party / movement to keep liberals honest. It's one reason why I keep pointing out the frustrating lack of substance and lack of good faith engagement on issues of the current talk-radio dominated right wing: they are not filling the necessary role of loyal opposition but instead have metastatized into a frankly destabilizing and fanatical force that operates on minimal fact and reason.
I would obviously rather see the Democrats take their much more reasonable place on the right wing of the political spectrum and a new left wing voice emerge in the US.

[Enidigm]

Traditional Family = Unified Culture.

For reasons that would take awhile to explain, American conservatives feel threatened by cultural diversity and even moreso by a lack of a unifying culture (and there is a tendency to perceive new, "liberal" cultural values as an attempt to create a new, and to them antagonistic, unifying culture)/ When they harp back to the good old days, their remembering an imaginary time when everyone in America believed the same thing, aspired to the same goals, and lived the same lifestyles.

It's not uncommon on religious sites to read that believers feel it a logical imperitive that God exist because otherwise they see no purpose to morality - how can good exist if it's not ultimately rewarded? I think the same gut feeling is being extrapolated out into society at large.

[Eric P]

That definitely is bs. It doesn't make sense on any level.


entirely possible

[salwon]

Before this goes on for another 100 pages, can we get back to making fun of Conservapedia?

[Kraaze]

I don't think our success has much to do with culture or family dynamics.

If a Civilization 4 nation had the US's starting position you'd think it was cheating. Once you make it past the British it's just city spamming!

There's a lot of interesting 19th and 20th century differences vs. the other democracies (short version: no holdover feudalism or endless wars) that arguably catapulted us in the per-capita income lead, though.

I've heard the resources and position argument before and it doesn't seem at all sufficient. Other colonial nations had similar advantages and have gone nowhere special with them. You have to look beyond location and natural resources to explain U.S. successes. There's is (or at least was) some sort of built in cultural advantage that gave the U.S. a leg up.

[red guy]

Before this goes on for another 100 pages, can we get back to making fun of Conservapedia?
I noticed that they marked Genesis for deletion (http://conservapedia.com/Genesis_(Translated)).

[madkevin]

Here's why:

1 In the beginning, God did a cost/benefit analysis and decided that social collectivism was the only sustainable economic paradigm and that the only people that actually go to hell are sinister, self-absorbed, greedy myopic fascists such as those that created Conservapedia.

[Jason McCullough]

I've heard the resources and position argument before and it doesn't seem at all sufficient. Other colonial nations had similar advantages and have gone nowhere special with them. You have to look beyond location and natural resources to explain U.S. successes. There's is (or at least was) some sort of built in cultural advantage that gave the U.S. a leg up.

None of them had the colonial area attached to them. All of the European colonies were a zillion miles away, and the European states were in constant resource-draining wars. Russia is the only other country with an analogous geographical and resource position to the US, and guess who ended up #2 (until very recently when it finally fell over) in spite of a long history of ludicrously awful government and values?

Your political system does matter; it eventually ran Russia into the ground, and Argentina is a great example of a country blowing it with bad government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Argentina#The_emergence_of_modern_Argen tina). It just matters far less than people think.

That's government and economics though; I can't even come up with an "american culture" facet independent of that with an impact.

[James Gutierrez]

I've heard the resources and position argument before and it doesn't seem at all sufficient. Other colonial nations had similar advantages and have gone nowhere special with them. You have to look beyond location and natural resources to explain U.S. successes. There's is (or at least was) some sort of built in cultural advantage that gave the U.S. a leg up.
Which nations do you have in mind? Some may have gotten 1 or 2 of the geographic/resource advantages, but the US got a royal flush.

I'd agree with Jason and just add that whatever isn't explained by geography is probably explained by the fact that, in contrast to the Spanish colonies in the Americas and pretty much all of the African colonies, the US colonies weren't established as purely extractive operations. At least, not all of them were. While the South was pretty much a textbook example of extractive colonialism, settlement of the North was fueled in part by religious emigres intent on permanent settlement and society building. So from the beginning, the (northern) US colonies were building political and physical infrastructure for internal industry and trade. In contrast, the Spanish colonies were just brutally efficient supply chains: power flowed down from Spain to a centralized colonial authority and then out to the colony while resources flowed in the opposite direction. (As an aside, I think it would be interesting to get a list of top X cities by population of all European colonies/ex-colonies circa 1800 and, as a proxy for internal development, calculate a Gini coefficient over population. I'd be surprised if the US wasn't either the lowest or near the bottom.)

For better or worse, this mixture of extractive colonialism and, for lack of a better word, "growth" ("utopian" maybe, but that leads to its own tangents) colonialism is a defining theme of US political history. Taken as an individual entity (ie without the Northern states) and given the circumstances of it's inception, the South by all rights should have ended up a third world nation, or at best something like Argentina. US politics are a bit more comprehensible when you realize that, and I know this is glib, the country has been undergoing a version of German reunification for 200 years.

[Kraaze]

Which nations do you have in mind?


Brazil comes to mind immediately as a colonial nation with a lot of land and resources.


Some may have gotten 1 or 2 of the geographic/resource advantages, but the US got a royal flush.


How so? Keep in mind that to keep this sane, you have to compare the US as the original 13 colonies to other colonial nations. That was the starting point. That does seem to be a nice position, but hardly an overwhelmingly advantageous one.

[Tankero]

Keep in mind that Brazil has weather very much unlike that of Europe, and that, at the time, most of the country was impossible to traverse.

[Drastic]

Also, tropical parasites, which were very much no joke in the colonial heyday. Everything from malaria to candiru. Candiru alone makes civilization very difficult to get ahead, because the sane response to such creatures being in the waterways is to cross your legs tightly and never leave the shelter.

[Enidigm]

There seemed to me to be a few major advantages to the colonial US not shared by the other colonies:

-Closeness to the old world. The New England --> England route was one of the shortest trips

-Colonization based on individual betterment. Although profiteers have always gone to colonies from many nations, America was unique in that it was a desirable place to relocate due to divergent political and religious ideas - and that, most important of all, England wanted and wished to divest themselves of these sects and troublemakers and allow them to go there. That's probably the single most important point of all. The Spanish and French efforts in the New World were hopelessly monarchical and tangled by bureaucracy. It's kind of crazy reading about the meddling of the French crown in the Saguenay Canadian colonies, about fining or imprisoning someone because they cleared too much land that they didn't officially own, or selling one or another good they didn't have licenses for, ect. Most French colonies, and Spanish colonies north of the Rio Grande, were colonized by a combination of compulsion and compensation, and it seemed that voluntary colonists were few and far between. The US exploded in population when it became official or unofficial policy to open up the frontiers (wherever they lay at the time) for settlement by pioneers. And, post Independence, immigration became an increaseing source of strength to the future US - helped a great deal by over a century of non-involvement in European affairs, making the US seem like a neutral observer that acted in good faith but also was far too populated, stable, and successful to be seriously threated from without, remaining all but inviolate to European meddling (as in Mexico).

-French, Spanish/Mexican, British, and Russian imperial "gifts". Basically the US wouldn't exist today were it not for the lucky chance of all of the above major powers giving up their centuries' old claims to what is today the majority of the US, often without a fight and for what were in retrospect, "pennies on the dollar" as they say. The Louisiana Purchase might very well seem like the luckiest thing that ever happened to the US were it not the culmination of centuries of French mismanagement. Had Napoleon not ruined France in the Russian winter, and not sold Louisiana to the US legally, and managed to survive the Napoleanic wars, the massive French fleet then under construction, and the continents' best armies, could have easily squashed any attempt at annexing the Louisiana Territories, and probably would have led to war vs. the US in the medium term, a war that they probably would have won, and in any event, would have changed everything.

-British culture. America was the headbirth of British culture, legal codes, and traditions; and these British attributes were about to beat the French and impose the Pax Britania for the next century. America sprung from the roots of the wealthiest tree (as did Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, all of which are successful nations today as well). The Spanish propensity for Monarchy, and the lingering presence of centuries-old aristocratic landed powers, as well as a huge native population left in uneducated servitude, meant the Latin Spanish speaking nations all got off on the wrong foot and never got their balance back.

-Geography. New England (or perhaps better Virginia) was quite possibly the best place to be in the US before California was annexed. Before air conditioning, anyway. These regions had continental climates that most European immigrants vastly preferred over the alternatives basically everywhere else.

-Political stability and enfranchisement (relatively anyway).

[Brandon Clements]

The Louisiana Purchase might very well seem like the luckiest thing that ever happened to the US were it not the culmination of centuries of French mismanagement. Had Napoleon not ruined France in the Russian winter, and not sold Louisiana to the US legally, and managed to survive the Napoleanic wars, the massive French fleet then under construction, and the continents' best armies, could have easily squashed any attempt at annexing the Louisiana Territories, and probably would have led to war vs. the US in the medium term, a war that they probably would have won, and in any event, would have changed everything.
Umm...the Louisiana Purchase was in 1803, well before any of that happened.

[Enidigm]

What i meant was.. ... well, true :). But basically, had Napoleon not sold it, and not screwed up his wars, and France retained it's claim. I got things a bit too tangled there, but hope that makes sense now.

[Brandon Clements]

What i meant was.. ... well, true :). But basically, had Napoleon not sold it, and not screwed up his wars, and France retained it's claim. I got things a bit too tangled there, but hope that makes sense now.
I'm more of the opinion that Napoleon just recgonized that far-flung undeveloped land that wasn't likely to be under his control in any near future (and in reality, wasn't under much French control since at least the Revolution if not before) wasn't worth it. Cold hard and needed cash was much preferable.

And anyway, the 'Massive French Fleet' was just going to get sunk at some point if not at Traflager; new ships are good, but you do need people to sail them that know how to fight, and the French didn't have that in the post-Revolution era.

[Enidigm]

Right, but like i said previously, that was the culmination of over a century of bad French decisions and bad luck. Losing the French & Indian wars, and Canada, didn't help anything either at that point. It's a question of why Saguenay was basically unpopulated, while New England's population had exploded. The same issue why Texas, despite being "owned" by Spain and Mexico for centuries, was overrun by American, British, and German colonists in a mere decade, making long-term control over it impossible.

There probably is an "ethnic" element to these things as well, as insofar as things were tangled back then, as ethnicity implied a certain cultural continuity. The reason "Anglo-Saxon" and Germanic people spread so far and so fast was in part due to "Anglo-Saxon" culture that they carried with them.

[Anti-Bunny]

But Thomas Jefferson's Bible was the best bible rewrite of all time, etcetc.

[Robert Sharp]

A lot of liberals take great exception to a generalization like this. In fact, a lot of liberals feel that liberal policies promote these values much more so than conservative policies. Here's a few specifics:

I have to say, Robert, this is the first time I really thought one of your comments was this far off base. That statement you made contains a whole host of unjustified negative assumptions about liberals while disregarding the negative realities of the last 40 years of conservative policies.

I think that's because you are taking my comment in the wrong spirit. I was trying to specifically state that this had nothing to do with conservative or liberal as used right now. I would say that both liberals and conservatives believe they are promoting the values I listed. But traditionally, conservativism was about keeping the meaning of those values similar to the existing meaning, because that meaning worked. In other words, conservatism as a movement originally meant sticking to time tested traditions. Now it means madness, and I would agree with everything you wrote about the legitimite gripes that liberals today would have concerning conservatives today.

[Mordrak]

Tested for what? While conservatives may think they are trying to preserve time tested traditions (whatever that means), tradition has been pretty fluid. There is no such thing as traditional family dynamics even if you just look at the history of the United States. All you have have is a series of transitional forms of family structure and dynamics.

Unless, of course, by "tradition" you mean whatever you were raised to be believe and how you were raised. I think TSG really nailed the idea of tradition being code for everyone else being like me, or a unifying culture.

Edit: Look, I don't mean to be hostile and combative. I just don't buy the often proposed narrative of the battle between liberalism and conservatism, where conservatism plays a constructive role in reigning in radicalism that would leave society in ruins. Within the United States historically (that I'm aware of at least), there just doesn't seem to be any indication of a realistic threat in that regard.

[Sharpe]

I think the whole definition of values issue is pretty subjective, but I think most of us can agree to at least this: it is healthy to have a rational opposition party, to keep the other side honest, in the sense that Mordrak posted about challenging assumptions and breaking up adhesions of "mental muscle memory", and also IMO, as a counterweight to the corruptive force of power.

And, I will also concede that it is healthy to have some force in society saying "be skeptical about radical change" as long as that is not an excuse for stagnation, and continuing unhealthy norms.

I think a healthy society needs a mixture of skepticism and idealism, and to the extent that a revived, rational, fiscally prudent, tradition-loving-but-not-ossified conservative movement can provide a counterweight to liberalism, that is both healthy and necessary.

Unfortunately the conservative movement at the present time is pretty far from that. You've got a few voices of reason being drowned out by a swampload of anger, religious fervor, mystical self-delusion, cultural-identity politics, and populist ignorance.

On the other hand, sunlight is the best disinfectant and I actually believe that the more the crazy conservapedians and birthers and tea-party fanatics expose themselves, over the long haul, the more they discredit themselves. I actually think liberals are in the process of winning the big policy and cultural debates of this decade, they are just a little too gunshy and downtrodden to realize it yet :O.

[Robert Sharp]

Tested for what? While conservatives may think they are trying to preserve time tested traditions (whatever that means), tradition has been pretty fluid. There is no such thing as traditional family dynamics even if you just look at the history of the United States. All you have have is a series of transitional forms of family structure and dynamics.

Unless, of course, by "tradition" you mean whatever you were raised to be believe and how you were raised. I think TSG really nailed the idea of tradition being code for everyone else being like me, or a unifying culture.

Edit: Look, I don't mean to be hostile and combative. I just don't buy the often proposed narrative of the battle between liberalism and conservatism, where conservatism plays a constructive role in reigning in radicalism that would leave society in ruins. Within the United States historically (that I'm aware of at least), there just doesn't seem to be any indication of a realistic threat in that regard.

Please be at least fair to what I am trying to say here. Why would I mean however I was raised by tradition? I don't even have a traditional family structure. My parents divorced when I was three. And I know the definition of family has been somewhat fluid (though there have been more consistencies than your phrasing suggests). Tradition doesn't have to be a code word for everyone being the same or for unifying culture. But at the same time, variety isn't inherently valuable either. Some sort of unity of a national spirit (again, however that is defined) can be a good thing.

Obviously the current conservative structure isn't going to create that. If anything, they are the most divisive force in America right now (I don't mean all conservatives, but the ones we are thinking about here when we consider the modern prototype of conservative).

A check on progress can be a good thing, mainly to insure that we are progressing the right way. I'm not talking about stagnation, obviously. But the need to reflect on what past policies have worked and why they have worked is a good thing, IMO. The conservative party could be that voice, but they just aren't right now. And I think that's a bad thing.

On the flip side, the liberal party seems completely ineffectual to me right now, and they have all the power. What amazes me most is not that the conservative party has gone this direction. That just disappoints me. What amazes me is how much sway they have despite, or worse BECAUSE of this.

[Hawkeye Fierce]

My favorite Christian blog, slacktivist, provides its take (http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2009/10/inevitable.html) on the conservative bible:

The satirist and the extremist are thus in a kind of footrace. And, as the Conservative Bible Project demonstrates, the extremists these days are winning. They're getting there first -- beating any would-be satirist to the finish line and the punch line.

[Robert Sharp]

Sadly, that's pretty accurate. I would have sworn this was satire. Seriously. I'm still not fully convinced that it isn't, but I think that's just a sort of cognitive dissonance on my part.

[Lorini]

I would not call liberals ineffectual at this time. Just because Fox News thinks that doesn't make it true. Liberals have saved jobs through the GM takeover, finally forced the tobacco companies over to the FDA, forced transparency in the mortgage process and are still working on policy changes that will create more transparency, will pass a health care reform bill in some form, just forced bloggers and celebrities to disclose possible conflicts of interest, closed Guantanamo, got a Latina on the Supreme court, the list goes on. Liberals have not been ineffectual. They may not get everything but they got a lot more than they ever got in the last eight years.

Robert, ya gotta shut off Fox News, it's warping your brain :) :)

[arctangent]

The conservative party has sway, as you put it, because they are the party that has learned how to best manipulate the masses through the media.

Putting aside politics and the political definition of conservative and liberal for a moment, the divide between conservative (people that fear change and want to delay it) and liberal (people that embrace change when things aren't working right doing them the old way because the situation that engendered the old way of doing things has changed) is psychological in nature and to a greater or lesser degree innate in a person from birth. The extreme conservative wants nothing to change ever for any reason, because change is scary; the extreme liberal wants everything to change always, because change is exciting. Most people of course have both of these mindsets, in varying proportions.

We do not need more conservative political thought or more liberal political thought, we need people who are intelligent and honest and motivated to help everyone, people who actual consider things as they are, and how things can be better, whether that is done through embracing the tried and true or the innovative and different, by not being afraid of change and not making changes for no good reason.

We are not going to get that in this country with the way politics has evolved here and the nature of our political system, without some critical mass of the population understanding this and demanding it from the people it elects to office. And that is unlikely to happen, for a variety of historical and current reasons without the whole thing collapsing in on itself, and maybe (probably?) not even then.

[Jason McCullough]

While that definition is philosophical and good and all, I think the vast bulk of the population "conservative" and "liberal" is code for "who gets what." It's not a coincidence the conservative party is always full of rich people or the more "mainstream" culture.

[XtienMurawski]

A lot of liberals take great exception to a generalization like this. In fact, a lot of liberals feel that liberal policies promote these values much more so than conservative policies. Here's a few specifics...

Great post. Thanks Dan.


-xtien

[foogla]

Sadly, that's pretty accurate. I would have sworn this was satire. Seriously. I'm still not fully convinced that it isn't, but I think that's just a sort of cognitive dissonance on my part.

well that's just reverse Poe's Law (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poe%27s+Law)

[Robert Sharp]

conservative (people that fear change and want to delay it) and liberal (people that embrace change when things aren't working right doing them the old way because the situation that engendered the old way of doing things has changed) is psychological in nature and to a greater or lesser degree innate in a person from birth.


See, this makes me very uncomfortable. I think your definitions here are incredibly loaded. You've basically presented conservatives as people who are afraid and liberals as bold innovators who see the true need for change. That's exactly the shift in thinking that I think the conservatives have created in the perception people have of them, but I think it's very unfair to say that all conservatives are just afraid.

There can be very good reasons for wanting to halt change. Change is not innately good.

As for your point about being born conservative or liberal, I don't buy it. The reason different regions tend one way or the other is because party affiliation is often a matter of nurture, not nature. If you put the child of a conservative into a liberal home to be raised, the child would most likely be liberal. There are obviously exceptions, and many people have different views than their parents (another sign that it's not genetic, btw). My family is far more right wing than I am, just as an example. I'm a centrist, actually, which makes me right wing on this board, but left wing on other boards. As a result, I always feel like an outsider, politically.

Lorini, as you probably know, I don't watch FoxNews. But you are right; I'm probably focusing too much on the plans I'd like to see them implement (such as healthcare), and not enough on what they HAVE actually done. I'm not sure you can give them full credit for the GM thing though, since Bush at least had a hand in that one.

[Robert Sharp]

While that definition is philosophical and good and all, I think the vast bulk of the population "conservative" and "liberal" is code for "who gets what." It's not a coincidence the conservative party is always full of rich people or the more "mainstream" culture.

OK, but it's also not a coincidence that a lot of poor people are liberals. The part that's especially funny, as you know, is the number of poor people who have been convinced by conservatives that one day they, too, will be rich. Of course, I'm sure that it's mostly white males who are swayed by this, since they are the ones presented as most likely to live the dream.

Actually, does anyone have a demographic breakdown of say Glenn Beck's audience?

[Lorini]

Hmm, I wonder if poor people are liberals per se. They are certainly Dem's because they see Dem's as the party who support workers and poor people. But I think most liberals see themselves beyond party affiliations; I know I do.

[Wallapuctus]

Actually, does anyone have a demographic breakdown of say Glenn Beck's audience?

Assholes, age 34-65.

[Sharpe]

Yeah, I don't buy that "conservative = teh stagnation / liberal = teh PROGRESS!!" dichotomy either. The original meaning of those political labels did bear some relation to those definitions but over time, the terms conservative and liberal have changed in at least two important ways. First, as McCullough has pointed out, they are now largely labels for political coalitions; coalitions that by and large have been formed by historical contingency with a dash of ideaological cohesion, and do not really reflect deeply substantive idealogical movements. Second, to the extent that American conservatism and American liberalism do have idealogical components, that philosophical underpinning has developed very substantially since the days of simple "change yay!" vs "change boo!".

The core problem here is that the right wing has over the last 40 years become a caricature of itself. Think about this: the most influential voices on the right are, and have been for a some time, not politicians, not academicians, not policy wonks, not even religious leaders. No, the most influential voices on the right over the last decade or two have been *entertainers*. Seriously.

Instead of sober political or even idealogical leadership, you have a right directed by leaders who are in pursuit of shock value, audience retention and cohesion, and ramping up emotional intensity. And that has in turn opened the door for foolishness like this conservapedia Bible project.

[BlueJackalope]

Article on the sausage making factory of the Conservative Bible in Salon. (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/10/08/conservative_bible/index.html)

Some of Conservapedia's denizens, apparently including Schlafly, have been working on a new version of the Gospel of Mark. That has involved, at times, trying to come up with more modern terms for the Pharisees, a group of Jews who are often seen in the New Testament as Jesus' antagonists. There's been a bit of debate (http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Gospel_of_Mark_%28Translated%29) about what to call them -- one contributor used "intellectuals," for instance, while another said, "In an effort to capture the flavor for conservatives, I suggest changing Pharisees to 'the Self-Proclaimed Elite' or maybe just 'the Elite.' Given modern culture, I think this is more accessible and has a less benign/neutral connotation than 'intellectuals.'"


Another contributor had a better term: "Liberals." That's led to verses like this one, for now Conservapedia's version of Mark 3:6 (http://conservapedia.com/Mark_1-8_%28Translated%29): The Liberals then fled from the scene to plot with Herod's people against Jesus, and plan how they might destroy him.

[Nellie]

They're starting to make the Saudis look quite, ahem, conversative in their efforts to re-interpret and modify the Koran.

[XtienMurawski]

Actually, does anyone have a demographic breakdown of say Glenn Beck's audience?

http://www.quantcast.com/glennbeck.com

(I think that's just his dot com audience, though.)


-xtien

[Hemalin]

Conservapedia seems to be starting to garner more attention.

www.colbertnation.com (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/251994/october-07-2009/tip-wag---conservapedia--louvre---honda-unicycle)

[zengonzo]

http://www.quantcast.com/glennbeck.com

(I think that's just his dot com audience, though.)


-xtien


Weird. I would not have expected the kids thing.

I guess that's just because the audience is so overwhelmingly old.

(But then how did they get on the net?)

[John Many Jars]

Article on the sausage making factory of the Conservative Bible in Salon. (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/10/08/conservative_bible/index.html)

...That's completely backwards. The Pharisees were the conservative establishment!

[Jason McCullough]

OK, but it's also not a coincidence that a lot of poor people are liberals.

Exactly!

The part that's especially funny, as you know, is the number of poor people who have been convinced by conservatives that one day they, too, will be rich.

There's not many of them, contrary Thomas Frank, and the ones that do exist are almost entirely white males. Which fits back into the "dominant culture" thing.

Glenn beck demographics stolen from yahoo answers here (http://www.quantcast.com/glennbeck.com). 2/3rds male, 97% (!) Caucasian. 50% college fits in with the "warring elites" model.

[madkevin]

...That's completely backwards. The Pharisees were the conservative establishment!

But they couldn't possibly have been, because then Jesus would have been anti-conservative, and we all know that Jesus is heavily pro-gun, pro-military, anti-education and anti-human rights.

[wisefool]

Exactly!
97% (!) Caucasian.

What's the other 3%, self-hating minorities?

[Jason McCullough]

Actually, 69% college when you include grad school. It's not the trailer park crowd watching.....

[salwon]

How much of that is stoned undergrads watching ironically?

[Robert Sharp]

147%

Those demographic breakdowns (of the website) don't surprise me. I'm betting the show is similar.

[Linoleum]

But how many of them liked Ultima 8?

[Crispus]

But they couldn't possibly have been, because then Jesus would have been anti-conservative, and we all know that Jesus is heavily pro-gun, pro-military, anti-education and anti-human rights.

I know you're being sarcastic, but really, some would say that telling people to repent lest they go to hell is indeed anti-human rights.

[salwon]

I didn't know Jesus said that.

[unbongwah]

But I think most liberals see themselves beyond party affiliations; I know I do.
Possibly because the Democrats as a whole aren't very liberal any more, the actual liberal parties like the Greens are too small to get much if anything done, while the Republicans are completely batshit fucking insane these days.

So, no, not a lot of incentive for a dyed-in-the-wool liberal to pledge his or her allegiance to a single party. Though definitely a lot of incentive to oppose the GOP.

[goodgimp]

I didn't know Jesus said that.


Yea that was more the Crotchety-Old-Man-Get-Off-My-Lawn flavor of Old Testament deity.

[Mordrak]

Conservapedia seems to be starting to garner more attention.

www.colbertnation.com (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/251994/october-07-2009/tip-wag---conservapedia--louvre---honda-unicycle)

So who's changing John 1:1 to read... "In the beginning was Stephen Colbert and Stephen Colbert was with God, Stephen Colbert was God."

[zengonzo]

Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet Stephen Colbert.
And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, Stephen Colbert cometh; go ye out to meet him.
Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein Stephen Colbert cometh.
And unto Stephen he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
His lord said unto him, Well done, Stephen Colbert: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats, saying 'This is Tip of the Hat - Wag of the Finger':
For I was an hungred, and ye told me to get a job: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye asked to see my green card:
Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye told me I had a pre-existing condition: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and told thee to get a job? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
When saw we thee a stranger, and demanded a green card? or naked, and clothed thee?



[Crispus]

I didn't know Jesus said that.

Lots of debate over what "hell" means, depending on the translation, but yeah...Jesus wasn't as harsh as the Old Testament deity, but he also wasn't a hippie who said "I love everyone and people should do whatever they feel like!" Repentance and avoiding sin were the major portion of his message. Some examples of "not-nice Jesus":

Matthew 5:22
But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Matthew 5:27-30
You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Matthew 11:20-24
Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. "Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."

Luke 13:1-4
Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."

[madkevin]

Jesus wasn't as harsh as the Old Testament deity, but he also wasn't a hippie who said "I love everyone and people should do whatever they feel like!"

That's because I'm not done with my translation yet. Did you know Jesus totally supported gay rights at the Sermon On The Mount?

[Jason McCullough]

Ok, so most random pages on Conservopedia are boring; hitting random is less fun than you'd think. There's a sentence I can't for the live of me figure out on the Hollywood values (http://www.conservapedia.com/Hollywood_values) page though:

Helen Mirren played Queen Elizabeth II in a movie 'The Queen', but admits she used to use cocaine and was date-raped as a result of her poor life choices as a younger woman.

This is under hypocrisy. Because. Because. I HAVE NO IDEA, that's why.

[bago]

life.

[skedastic]

the Hollywood values (http://www.conservapedia.com/Hollywood_values) page

I'm so confused: are good conservatives supposed to be patriotic? Jason's page damns those damn Hollywood liberals for not being patriotic. But if you click on patriotism (http://www.conservapedia.com/Patriotism) you get the famous Pierce and Owen quotes damning patriotism. Damn! The page then confusingly offers that good Christians might not want to be patriotic, because "given that people of other religious dispositions are allowed to vote" (damn their eyes!) no nation can be considered truly Christian. But THEN if you click the link on that page, "What liberals say--patriotism" (http://www.aim.org/wls/category/patriotism/), you find that damn Janeane Garofalo saying bad things about patriotism!

So if I want to be a good anti-intellectual, anti-scientific, bigotted, bible-thumping, fundamentalist Amerocentric asshat, should I be patriotic or should I not? Damn this is confusing.

[zengonzo]

You have to have a complete mindfuck, really.

[Calistas]

Sked: That you can't parse these contradictory ideas and synthesize them into action indicates you're not really their target audience.

[Robert Sharp]

You are supposed to be patriotic, but not nationalist. The difference seems to be that you must support the President, but only if he's a conservative.

[XtienMurawski]

You are supposed to be patriotic, but not nationalist. The difference seems to be that you must support the President, but only if he's a Republican.

Fixed.


-xtien

[cheapfilms]

"Former Power Rangers actor Skylar Deleon, will have three separate trials for four murders. The first trial is set for the murder of Tom and Jackie Hawks, who were allegedly bound to the anchor of their yacht and tossed overboard. He was sentenced to death for committing murder."

Damn man.

[Tankero]

What?

[foogla]

Sylar?!?!

[lesslucid]

I can't wait to see what they have to say about camels and the eye of a needle.

Well, here it is:

And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How unlikely it is that those who worship riches will enter the kingdom of God!" The disciples were astonished to hear this. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is for those who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a man who cares only for money to enter into the kingdom of God."

...and then there's a parenthetical comment on how great it is to clear up the "ambiguous" term "rich" by replacing it with "a man who cares only for money".

...see, God wants you to be rich. You being rich is how he knows you're going to vote for the Republicans, God's own political party. So long as you don't worship those riches, or care for them exclusively, you can forget all that unsettling stuff about camels and the eyes of needles.

[Robert Sharp]

Actually, that's a very common move, and it isn't unique to conservatives. Many people believe the point of that is that overemphasis on money is the problem, not money itself. Since many people, especially in the ME during Jesus's life, became rich by loving money, the rich themselves are targeted.

I think that's a fair change, too. I'd need to see the Greek word for rich (and possibly the Aramaic) and how it should be translated. I suspect it means overly wealthy. Even the KJV suggests that it isn't money itself that is the problem, but the trust in money, or the desire for money.

[ReptileHouse]

"plousios" is likely the word here. To my recollection, there's no negative connotation to word itself. It can be used metaphorically, like in English, for non-material wealth, such as, "He who has many friends is a rich man."

If I can find it and remember when I get home, I'll look it up. Been a long time since I studied Biblical Greek.

And yeah, that interpretation is nothing new. It's considered a corollary to the whole "no idols before me" thing. The gist is, don't put anything, be it other gods, money, or whatever else at a higher priority than you relationship with God. Plenty of room for debate there, of course, but that's the interpretation I ran into most often.

[Blackadar]

Well, we're about 2 months ahead of most folks. This made MSNBC today.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34270487/ns/us_news-faith/

I really don't have a problem with it...do what you want with your "holy" book. I don't care if you use it for a coaster, or if TV Guide is your holy book. But the minute you try to use it to justify any laws that restrict my rights (or promote yours over mine) then I'll take that book from you and beat you to death with it.

[Telefrog]

Ok, so most random pages on Conservopedia are boring; hitting random is less fun than you'd think. There's a sentence I can't for the live of me figure out on the Hollywood values (http://www.conservapedia.com/Hollywood_values) page though:

This is under hypocrisy. Because. Because. I HAVE NO IDEA, that's why.

O. M. G.

I could spend hours looking at this stupidity.

[lesslucid]

And yeah, that interpretation is nothing new. It's considered a corollary to the whole "no idols before me" thing. The gist is, don't put anything, be it other gods, money, or whatever else at a higher priority than you relationship with God. Plenty of room for debate there, of course, but that's the interpretation I ran into most often.

I guess the thing I have a problem with is making an interpretation and then making that interpretation into the text of the original, with the intention of excluding other possible interpretations of that original text. The way that I always took the "eye of the needle" speech was that, while it was theoretically possible for a wealthy person to place God higher in their value system than their material wealth, in practice it was extremely unlikely (because, "where a man's treasure is, there will his heart be also"). In other words, Jesus is saying to the wealthy, you can't just handwave away the idea that your money affects your relationship with God. This stuff is really, really hard to get right. That doesn't necessarily mean that you have to be poor to have a real relationship with God (although that's the official recommendation), but don't kid yourself that being rich doesn't put big obstacles in your way.

Whereas, to my eye at least, the ConservaBible version explicitly closes off that interpretation, and basically invites exactly the kind of handwaving-solution that the KJV seems to me to be warning against. "Yeah, make some token gestures towards caring about other things as well, and being rich ain't no thang".

[Acid]

But the minute you try to use it to justify any laws that restrict my rights (or promote yours over mine) then I'll take that book from you and beat you to death with it.
I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

[Acid]

"People have always done this with the Bible," said Philip Jenkins, a professor of history and religious studies at Pennsylvania State University. "Virtually everyone in a mainstream Protestant or Roman Catholic church in the United States is reading a doctored version of the Bible."

And yet the holy/gullible think they're reading some god's exact words.

[Linoleum]

Hardly. That kind of strict inerrancy definition is a minority.

[Tankero]

When literal interpretations of the Bible are used, it's a nearly sure sign that any methods to escape the conversation should, also, be used.

[JordanP]

I've always interpreted the “eye of a needle” passage to be even harsher. If a person is rich that implies that the person has excess wealth that is either being horded or spent on frivolous things. At the same time others are suffering because they lack basic necessities that this wealth could provide. Every time a rich man spends any amount of money for his own amusement instead of giving it to the needy he is committing a sin. Imagine that we have a fat man sitting on a barrel of apples next to a starving child. He casually watches the child die, while eating dozens of apples, any one of which could have saved the child's life. Did that man murder the child? I believe this situation is allegorical to the current relationship we have between the very rich and very poor. I interpret the passage to mean that in the eyes of God, or at least in the eyes of Jesus, every rich person has the lives of thousands on his or her hands merely by being rich (if he used his money to help others he wouldn't be rich anymore), and thus cannot get into heaven.

This interpretation is anathema to the wealth gospel and to the modern American Christian Conservative movement. It would mean a ringing endorsement of communism by Jesus and by extension God himself. By changing this passage of the bible I believe that they are trying to avoid an interpretation similar to my own at all costs. By changing the wording they prevent anyone from coming to the same conclusions that I have.

This also shows how much variation there can be between so called “simple” readings. I believe that my interpretation is the “simplest” because it takes Jesus at his word. A rich man cannot, cannot, get into heaven. I'm sure others disagree. This is just more evidence that “simple reading” is just a code word for “my favorite reading”.

I'm not a christian, by the way, or a communist. It's too hard, and I like to have nice things. I just think that Jesus may have been one.

[bago]

If Jesus wants you to be wealthy, but wealthy people cannot get into heaven... Draw your own conclusions.

[Calistas]

He's a tricky little fucker?

[Cubit]

I've always interpreted the “eye of a needle” passage to be even harsher. If a person is rich that implies that the person has excess wealth that is either being horded or spent on frivolous things. At the same time others are suffering because they lack basic necessities that this wealth could provide. Every time a rich man spends any amount of money for his own amusement instead of giving it to the needy he is committing a sin. Imagine that we have a fat man sitting on a barrel of apples next to a starving child. He casually watches the child die, while eating dozens of apples, any one of which could have saved the child's life. Did that man murder the child? I believe this situation is allegorical to the current relationship we have between the very rich and very poor. I interpret the passage to mean that in the eyes of God, or at least in the eyes of Jesus, every rich person has the lives of thousands on his or her hands merely by being rich (if he used his money to help others he wouldn't be rich anymore), and thus cannot get into heaven.

This interpretation is anathema to the wealth gospel and to the modern American Christian Conservative movement. It would mean a ringing endorsement of communism by Jesus and by extension God himself. By changing this passage of the bible I believe that they are trying to avoid an interpretation similar to my own at all costs. By changing the wording they prevent anyone from coming to the same conclusions that I have.

This also shows how much variation there can be between so called “simple” readings. I believe that my interpretation is the “simplest” because it takes Jesus at his word. A rich man cannot, cannot, get into heaven. I'm sure others disagree. This is just more evidence that “simple reading” is just a code word for “my favorite reading”.

I'm not a christian, by the way, or a communist. It's too hard, and I like to have nice things. I just think that Jesus may have been one.

Good points, Jordan. The Prosperity Gospel that is taught in many circles is a fucking joke. It is kind of funny watching Christians cover up the extreme left-wing teachings of Jesus with their own conservative rhetoric and interpretations.

[John Many Jars]

The mere fact that people do things like this shows that, deep down, they know it's all made up anyway.

[mrmolecule88]

The mere fact that people do things like this shows that, deep down, they know it's all made up anyway.

Wait...really?


Can I offer you some ad hominem with your trolling, sir? Oh...too late. My bad.

[Anaxagoras]

Can I offer you some ad hominem with your trolling, sir? Oh...too late. My bad.

This... wasn't the slightest bit clever. If you're going to snark, please put at least a little effort into it.

[ceolstan]

Good points, Jordan. The Prosperity Gospel that is taught in many circles is a fucking joke. It is kind of funny watching "fundamentalist" Christians cover up the extreme left-wing teachings of Jesus with their own conservative rhetoric and interpretations.
Fixed.

Remember that there are a lot of Christians who think that Jesus was a Liberal, and think it would be very interesting to see how the Conservatives try to make Acts into a Gospel of Wealth. Maybe they can declare that Acts isn't canonical?

[Funkula]

It was an imaginary story.

[Cubit]

Fixed.

Remember that there are a lot of Christians who think that Jesus was a Liberal, and think it would be very interesting to see how the Conservatives try to make Acts into a Gospel of Wealth. Maybe they can declare that Acts isn't canonical?

Ah, thanks. You are correct that it is mostly fundamentalists doing that.

[Omniscia]

I once knew a Korean lothario who used the Bible to justify his promiscuous ways. In his words, "Jesus said to love everybody."