Conservatives Are Rewriting the Bible to Free It From "Liberal Bias"

Women already have to go to great length to even FIND women talked about in the Bible. Now, any of them that will be found will all be "women of loose morals" type, according to this rewritten Wiki thing. How is that going to be inspiring to little girls to want to continue in their faith? I know that my mom didn't raise me to let my gender hold me back, yet the church she took me to DID give the impression that I was second-class. Automatically deciding every woman/little girl in the Bible is a slut? Crazy, and wrong.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jesus believed in helping the poor and the sick. Jesus did not believe in War. He said turn the other cheek. He said if you want to follow me sell all your stuff and give up your money to help those less fortunate. Jesus only lost his temper once, when people were trying to profit off God. I think he would be rather annoyed with this latest attempt to make money and gain power by twisting his words. America has not gone through the Religious Wars that Europe went through (though we had an inkling of them at the start of this experiment)and we let people be any of the Christian variations, Muslim variations, Jewish, Native Religions, or no religion. If Shafly cherry picks the Bible he is doing the same thing bin Laden did with the Koran. It's not honest and God said "Do Not Lie".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Andy Schlafly's Conservative Bible Project is so over-the-top revisionist that it has come under fierce attack from -- you guessed it -- conservatives.

More precisely, Christian fundamentalists who believe the Bible as the literal word of God are publicly slamming Schlafly for daring to "tamper with God's holy word."

Leading the attack against Schlafly is WorldNetDaily's publisher Joseph Farah, who in blistering column on the right-wing Web site, openly ridiculed the CBP. "I've seen some incredibly stupid and misguided initiatives by 'conservatives' in my day, but this one takes the cake,' Farah writes."Because the Bible has been rewritten to conform with the agenda of 'liberals,' a self-described 'conservative' is spearheading an effort to rewrite it to his liking."

Farah went on: "I'm almost too embarrassed to write about this kind of trivialization and politicization of the Scriptures, but something needs to be said. Either the Bible is the Word of God, or it's not.

"If it is, how dare anyone rewrite it!" Farah fumed, "If it's not, why bother?"

Farah warns: "Rewriting the Bible to fit man's ideas is always a bad idea – no matter who the man is or what his beliefs. It's also a profoundly dangerous practice spiritually."

With Schlafly's other online project, Conservapedia, -- a right-wing alternative to Wikipedia -- having been ridiculed by historians as inherently misleading at best and riddled with outright falsehoods at worst, Farah's attack on Schlafly's attempt to produce a simon-pure right-wing Bible should surprise no one who understands that fundamentalists tolerate no tampering with the Bible.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This propaganda project brings to mind a Lewis Carroll quote:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - - that's all." (Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What will they change on "Thou Shalt not Covet Thy Neighbor's Ass?"

And "Thou Shalt not Kill" will be changed to "Thou Shalt Not Kill Jews and most Christians, but Muslims Thou Shalt Slaughter"

But don't take out all those OT stories about drunken incest and rape and mass murder.

Who really knows what was originally in the Bible? It was passed on by word of mouth for over 60 years before being put in writing.
People can't even pass on a juicy gossip story without changing the original rumor so how could humans pass verbatim a very long text without major changes and omissions?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

even moreso than Mom.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Klingon Language Institute was in the process of translating the bible into Klingon - they said they where having trouble phrasing certain concepts. I guess this is a solution, if you don't get it or agreee with it, just leave it out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ROTFLMAO

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

has been ongoing since 2006 or so and can be viewed here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
When one commentator on the talk page suggested that the translators should “go back to the Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic etc.,” in translating the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, for example, Schlafly retorted that the Bible was written in Greek, adding that the commentator seemed “unsure in identifying the original language.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

How very reminiscent of the Fundamentalist preacher who thundered to his Congregation that "..if English was good enough for God to write the Bible, then it's good enough for me"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Greeks who put together the bible we have now made political decisions about what to include and what to leave on the cutting room floor. There are many other books that tell the story of Christ. Christianity was appropriated by the Roman and turned into a religion used to control the masses and so it remains today. This is nothing new.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'd read about this before. Actually that passage of the woman taken in adultery has been questioned by serious scholars as to its authenticity. However it is quite a bit like you would expect Jesus to be

This liberal / conservative mania has reached a truly incredible position when it wants to change the basis of religious knowledge. I wonder what the underlying agenda for this is.

It seems to me that anyone involved in this project has discredited themselves. It seems preposterous to me and I'm not a believer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I always worry when we laugh at these folks. Then they go ahead and get away with it.

Not a good time to be an Athiest.

F.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's just proof for certain so-called Christians that Jesus was just too liberal for them. Case of a bad conscience, perhaps.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a liberal to get into heaven.

The only begotten son of God, George W. Bush ...

666 is the mark of God

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Bible has been misunderstood forever!What makes this "Yahoo"any more capable than anyone else to interpret it for us? Does he need his 15 minutes of fame also?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've always wondered: why do conservatives & christians need separate schools and even a separate online encyclopedia?

Do states have different capitals in conservo-whacko-land? Does 1 + 1 equal something other than 2? Water freeze at 42 degrees?

I absolutely love Schafly's definition of a liberal as someone who can't think logically. Religion is based on faith - the exact opposite of thinking logically.

Seems like a good segue to some quotes from Robert A. Heinlein...

Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.

Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other “sins” are invented nonsense.

It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics.

The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Prison administrators often refer to the Book as the "Alibible" because so many criminals use "I'm a Christian and I'm forgiven" in their legal appeals. Conservatives have discovered this concept and are writing their own.

Not that they've read it in advance--their Jesus states that damnation will follow any who add or remove to the Scriptures.

The Southern adherence to the King James Version derives from a Dixie family related to/descended from one of that king's translation crew, a politically astute individual who substituted "witch" for "pythoness" as a capital crime, so that the king's Scottish countrymen could continue stealing land from old ladies. This is the same crew who removed several books, including the Maccabees, from the Old Testament--books still included in the Jewish and Catholic editions.

And there is the legendary Book of Mary Magdalene, reputed to reside in the Vatican library under lock and guard...

Nashville is reputed to have "editors" in their religious print houses which will change the Book of Revelation's beast mark to any deformity, mark, or disfigurement needed for their relatives to ostracize and rob from landed but disempowered prey. The "Face Bible" was outed in the 1950's, but equivalents still circulate in Southern backwaters.

Just proves Christianity is a con job, designed by thieves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It was not liberals who put Jesus to death. It was liberals who listened to him and followed him.
It was conservatives, such as the Pharisees, who called for his death. He was a threat to their old ways.
The word liberal or derivatives thereof appears eight times in the bible, always favorably; the word conservative not once.
Also, Schlafly will have to go to some lengths to expunge the word "laborer" from the Bible, as in Luke 10:17 "...the laborer is worthy of his hire," and I Timothy 5:18 "...the laborer is worthy of his reward." God Forbid.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Christians argue they are no longer under Mosaic Law, because Paul referred to his background as a former Pharisee and previous adherence to Mosaic Law as "so much garbage."

Nothing in the synoptic gospels suggests a break with Judaism. Jesus was called "Rabbi," meaning "Master" or "Teacher," 42 times in the gospels. Jesus' ministry was a rabbinic one. He went to the synagogue (Matthew 12:9), taught in the synagogues (Matthew 4:23, 13:54; Mark 1:39), expressed concern for Jairus, "one of the rulers of the synagogue" (Mark 5:36) and it "was his custom" to go to the synagogue (Luke 4:16).

Jesus himself said, "Do not suppose I have come to abolish the Law and the prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill...till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or tittle pass from the Law till all is fulfilled. Whoever, therefore, breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven...unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:17-20)

Jesus also upheld the Torah in Luke 16:17: "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the smallest portion of the Law to become invalid."

Nor do these words refer merely to the Ten Commandments. Jesus meant the entire Torah: 613 commandments. When a man asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus replied, "You know the commandments." He quoted not just the Ten Commandments, but a commandment from Leviticus 19:13 as well: "Do not defraud." (Mark 10:17-22)

Jesus' disciples were once accused by the scribes and Pharisees of violating rabbinical tradition (Matthew 15:1-2; Mark 7:5), but not biblical law. Jesus never says anywhere in the entire New Testament that the Law is abolished; this was Paul's theology.

Sometimes Christians cite Matthew 7:12, where Jesus says "Do unto others..." and this "covers" the Law and the prophets. But Jesus was merely repeating in the positive what Rabbi Hillel taught a generation earlier. No one took Hillel's words to mean the Law had been abolished--why should we assume this of Jesus?

If Jesus really came to abolish the Law and the prophets, Simon (Peter) would not have resisted a divine command to kill and eat both "clean" and "unclean" animals (Acts 10), nor would there have been a debate in the early church as to what extent the gentiles were to observe Mosaic Law (Acts 15). When Paul visited the church at Jerusalem, James and the elders told him all its members were "zealous for the Law," and they were worried because they heard rumors Paul was preaching against Mosaic Law (Acts 21). None of these events would have happened had Jesus really come to abolish the Law and the prophets.

Paul says if anyone has confidence in the Law, "I am ahead of him."

Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus, who said he did not come to abolish the Law and the prophets? Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus, who said whoever sets aside even the least of the Law's demands shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:17-19)?

Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus, who taught that following the commandments of God is the only way to eternal life (Mark 10:17-22)? Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus who said that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the smallest portion of the Law to become invalid (Luke 16:17)?

Paul may have regarded the Law as "so much garbage," but it should be obvious JESUS DIDN'T THINK THE LAW WAS "GARBAGE"!

Christians believe in Paul, not Jesus. Bertrand Russell called Paul the "inventor" of Christianity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Y'know how the righties adore telling us that Sodom was nuked because they had gays and lesbians? All for a very bad interpretation of the word "know"?

I have to wonder, when they do this rewrite, will they take out the smoking gun of Sodom's demise?...

Ezekiel 16:49-50:

"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned, they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."

Yeah, take that out, way too liberal, eh?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It doesn't matter what words are used in the Bible as long as it remains "Divinely inspired."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why is everyone so surprised and up in arms about this? MEN (as in MALE) wrote the Bible to begin with (not a GOD). So why would anyone object to MEN writing it again.

The Religious Right Nutbags have been throwing the Bible in the face of the rest of us and now they have decided that rewriting it to comply with their beliefs would be even better.

This sort is hippocracy is EXACTLY why I quit organized religion 30 years ago.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why not just remove any reference to that c.o.m.m.i.e. pink o jesus from the bible all together?
Then we could get back to some good ol' righteous petty vengeance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Find out what really lurks behind right wing politics.Understand the true nature of why the conservatives tamper with culture.Find famous or infamous wing-nuts throughout history.Are we living in the age of the decline of Fascism? Oh God,I hope so. Find out the answers to these questions and more,go to IDIOTPEDIA.COM
Join in a real knuckle dragging discussion forum.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

... they are finally just cutting that inconvenient god and jesus out of the whole thing and just making up their own religion to cater to their own prejudices.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Or at least bisexual... at least, according to the dreaded Wikipedia he was. So maybe that's why conservatives are now suddenly, after 400 years, so suspicious of his translation of the Bible. Conservatives are obsessed with queerness nowadays, in a way they never were in the past.

Btw, doesn't Phyllis Shoo-fly have another son who is gay?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My question is: what will he have left once he edits out Jesus, who was a liberal??? The answer, of course, is a resounding NOTHING111

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

..in that it condemns (illicit, and thus female-inspired) sex but tolerates violence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Most religious texts are written in bizarre language that ranges from complete nonsense to phrases with multiple interpretations.
The fact that many different religions claim to have a monopoly on the absolute truth and yet contradict each other hasn't made enough people skeptical about religion.
Perhaps the proliferation of various versions of the Christian Bible that contradict each other will at least create more skeptics in the US, where religiosity is rampant.
Imagine ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Scripture has been re-written and re-tooled so many damned times to suit the political, personal and social agendas of megalomaniacal assholes that it's just about a requirement for Reverend Wifebeater, if he wants a big church, to get himself a big ol' personal study bible with his special translations in RED to go right along with it.

Tell us something we don't know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So, now what? Instead of reading about the Whore of Babylon, we'll instead read about the Bimbo of Babylon? This CBP only shows just how far over the edge American "conservatism" has gone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And I'll show you a Woozy Floozy.
If morons want to re-write the bible or even write their own, let 'em; it's no big deal.
The archaic language it's written in is probably too much for their tiny minds to get around, anyway.
They can change all the names to Bugs Bunny, Scooby DOO, and Little Orphan Annie, for all the reality that's there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If the concept of heaven and hell is central and integral to the New Testament, why would the Old Testament, lacking this concept, be included in the Bible?

How can Jesus be more liberal than most of his followers? See Matthew 25.

The Treaty of Tripoli, written in 1796, Art. 11: “...As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”

If references to Jesus’ divinity or any supernatural event were removed from Thomas Jefferson's Bible, why did Congress publish Thomas Jefferson's Bible in 1902?

Why do Christians refuse to see the Founding Fathers as Deists and Freemasons?

How can the Bible be so fluid a document when its followers appear so inflexible?

Why wasn’t an association made between the Conservapedia project and Reconstructionism (Biblical vs. secular law) and Dominionism (Christian vs. secular nation)? Strip the Bible of any sense of equality and compassion and what follows is slavery and stoning.

And why would any sane woman ever join the church?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

During the 1980s I saw a movie (in a church) that Dobson had made, where he is adamant that kids just entering puberty are to blame for the lust and sexual crimes of men. It was the clothing the girls were wearing that proved it, according to my pastor. Whether they wore pants or dresses didn't make any difference, he said. The idea was that boys couldn't be expected to control themselves in the presence of "young women."

I believe that those ideas are still prevalent in churches that are fundamentalist. The problem was that my young Quaker pastor was arguing in favor of those ideas. I almost left the church right then. I did leave the church a few months later because another man put forward the idea that men should always be preferred to women preachers, even if they were not trained pastors or experienced as the women were. The young pastor did not offer or invite any argument against that, which was very unlike his previous demeanor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If the bible "crack-heads" want to know all about Jesus, there's only one place to go. Check out Dr. Barbara Thiering, she has written three major books regarding the dead sea schrolls and the life of Jesus .Her research took over 20 years and consist of facts, not fiction. The bible is fiction!! If you don't read these books, you know nothing. Happy reading, Mosby

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thomas Jefferson's views on were in keeping with his concept of separation of state and religion when he noted that:

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Xtians committed cultural theft to invent their Bible, so what's one more, right?

Gotta go back to makin' a golem...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jesus in my opinion was famously socialist....good works and good dead's keep us sane and occupied...Helping others does help you, it fosters security and a sense of community...love all, so that no one is without a sense of emotional security or ostracized....judge not for none are without fault....These are the things that Jesus taught us and i don't really see how you could "man this up" or how relevant masculinity or femininity really even fits in here. It is my understanding that we would all be on equal footing in the eyes of god. That no man or women is worth more than another, each with the potential for greatness. Well i digress....this is truly terrifying, radicalizing a slowly dying philosophy for political and a really manic ideology.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm always amazed when I read the majority of proclamations from the Religious Right at the degree to which they:

1) don't seem to have actually read Jesus' teachings,
2) don't seem to have ever looked in a mirror and recognized the existence of some of the faults they see so easily in others,
3) have totally lost the capacity for irony,
4) appear to be able to read the entire Bible and miss the part about who's actually supposed to judge and who isn't?

I know too many amazing people who have studied the Bible for years without suffering damage to either their ability to reason or their capacity for genuine compassion - otherwise I would seriously wonder whether Biblical study leads to brain damage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Bible has always treated women and children as inhuman property, tought homophobia, racism, and every form of bigotry known to humanity. Only a sick, perverted, Evil fuck would follow a "god" especially one who almost certainly hates them. And considering the fact there are hundreds of other gods and goddesses who were known BEFORE no name generic Bible"god" was ever heard of, deitys who are far more sane and benovlent, why not chose one of them (or just be an athiest)? Only a total fool sells their soul to a THING who's name they doent even know, "liberals" can't "get" the Bible because once the IQ reaches a certain point (usually around 100-110) the ability to believe historical revisionist fictions and scientificly impossiable insanity becomes impossiable to digest (unless one is completely brainwashed). My parents spent decades researching and tracking down the real idenity of the actiual historical enity the "god" of the Bible is. If these self-rightious retards had any clue what the DEMON they have sold their souls to they would shit themselves and ttremble in fear to the core. They can deny the facts all they want in this world, but when they die they are in for a RUDE awakening, and an eternity of unimaginable sadistic torture and slavery. I feel no pity for them, any group this stupid has it coming.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I guess right-wingers can keep Leviticus 18:22 (Old Testament) and Romans 1:47 (New Testament).
Both passages specifically condemn homosexuality.
Now, what else do you leftists want to delete from the Bible? If you are going to condemn the Right for tampering with the Bible, take a good look in the mirror!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

just call it the "I'm just making this shit up as I go" version of the BuyBull.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The announcement of a conservative version of the Bible is good news for modern liberals. It tells us that the far right wing nuts who came up with this idea have opted to piss all over a great many people found in what still remains of the Republican base. Thie can only be helpful to liberalism. Most of these "good", fundamentalist, Christianoid morons fervently believe that God himself wrote the Bible, and particularly declared the KJV to have His divine approval as the "official" version. Now the wingnuts are going to tell the "faithful" that their holy book must be rewritten to be more in line with conservative politics. How well do you think that's going to go over to the terminally superstitious?

These slimy bastards will soon be the target of outraged Jeremiads from Christianoid pastors across the nation and around the world. And there goes a huge chunk of the political base these neo-cons have drawn much of their support from. What it boils down to is that where Jesus tells us that we should "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's",--now the CBP tells us that we have to choose between Caesar and God and that we'd better choose Caesar. How well do you think that will play in Crawford, TX? The fools are preparing to shoot themselves in the head with this latest insanity. It might even lead to a sweeping revival of the liberal approach to Christianity. It certainly will do nothing but irreparable harm to the conservative program and their attempts to establish a religious despotism in the USA, supported by corporate fascism.

Happy days are here again, people. Rejoice and let freedom ring from every steeple across America.

With love under will,

Bob, Adastra,
The Wizzard of Jacksonville

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So all the REST of Christian nagging "What would Jesus do?" (regarding Iraq) which serves to remind us all, on the Christ's TEXT-BASED position, that Jesus basically strove to teach love, not hate?

"Thou shalt love thine enemies as thyself", and "Turn the other cheek"??? What about all that?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm sure the Pharisees would have loved for Jesus not to stop adulteresses from being stoned. How do you think they got rid of their mistresses when they were done with them?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Women already have to go to great length to even FIND women talked about in the Bible. Now, any of them that will be found will all be "women of loose morals" type, according to this rewritten Wiki thing. How is that going to be inspiring to little girls to want to continue in their faith? I know that my mom didn't raise me to let my gender hold me back, yet the church she took me to DID give the impression that I was second-class. Automatically deciding every woman/little girl in the Bible is a slut? Crazy, and wrong.
auto insurance

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]