Conservopedia takes on the Bible!

[Jon Loomis]

Yep--the geniuses at Conservopedia (the trustworthy encyclopedia!) have decided to edit the Bible, to make it more reliably conservative. Because apparently the King James has, you know, a liberal bias. I can't wait to see what they do with all that camel/needle stuff.

http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

[B.R.Stateham]

I read the story about the bible being Liberal. If they're saying the King James version is liberal, it only goes to show you this group of conservatives have no grasp of history whatsoever. If they did just a tad of research they'd see and know what a true conservative was in the times of King James.

Damn, I'm getting so tired of these kinds of misinformed misfits pointing to anything and everything they don't like or agree to and calling it 'Liberal.' They wouldn't know a true Liberal if one came up and bit them in the ass with a set of toy Halloween fangs.

[John McFetridge]

Then you're going to love the Conservapedia definition of Liberal:

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.

This is why it's so hard to be a writer of fiction. How can we compete with that?

[B.R.Stateham]

Kinda reminds you of the witch-hunting days of early Puritan colonies.

[Jude Hardin]

They must be planning to delete the entire New Testament.

[Albert Tucher]

I think Sasha Baron Cohen is at it again.

If it's real, the scariest statement in the whole site might be, "Founded initially in November 2006 as a way to educate advanced, college-bound homeschoolers, this resource has grown into a marvelous source of information for students, adults and teachers alike."

[Jon Loomis]

I've had a few Christian home-schooled kids in my (freshman) classes. The smart ones are thrilled to finally be encouraged to think for themselves.

[Dana King]

I looked all over for the Onion's logo and didn't find it. I thought it was pretty funny until I realized t wasn't.

I can't wait for Jon Stewart to get a look at this.

[I. J. Parker]

Hah! I see the devil lives. One had hopes.

[Pepper Smith]

I can just imagine what's going to happen to the part where Jesus refuses to take part in politics.

[Dana King]

This might be just as well; this whole "What Would Jesus Do?" think was irritatingly hypothetical. If Conservatives really want a role model, they should be walking around asking "What Would Al Swearingen Do?" Their solutions are often closer to his than to Jesus' anyway. (This is why I have two tee shirts and a hat with that catchy phrase on them. Much more practical advice in these times.)

[Benjamin Sobieck]

Wow, that's pretty brash regardless of political affiliation. Bible rewrites nowadays typically involve modernizing the verbiage, not politicizing it. That job is usually reserved for the reader, not the author. To go into an adaptation with an admittedly partisan bent is, well, kind of sick.

Political persuasions of all types, from anarcho-capitalists to statists, could find ideas similar to theirs in the religious texts of the world. Saying God subscribes to one political theory over another creates harmful divisions between faith traditions, which only leads to marginalization and, possibly, violence. Just look to the Middle East for a prime example of this.

[Jon Loomis]

It's fucking goofy, is what it is. You can't claim that one of the foundational tenets of your political philosophy is the literal truth of the King James Bible (gay marriage bad, abortion bad, pre-marital sex bad, sex education bad, etc.) and then decide to rewrite the freaking thing because you dislike its evident liberal "bias" (love your enemy, give everything[!] to the poor, don't mix commerce and religion, keep out of politics, etc., etc., etc.). The only explanation is that they've run out of meth and started smoking grandpa's rat poison.