you're reading...
Christianity, Theist Wackiness

The Bible is Too Liberal, Damn It!

According to a group of conservatives, the Bible is just too gosh-darned liberal, and needs to be edited again so that liberals will stop holding up signs about how Jesus was a socialist.  The Conservative Bible Project thinks some creative cut and snips, as well as a few word changes, would do the world a lot of good.  Among their proposals:

  • Avoid using unisex or neutral language where patriarchal or misogynistic language would be better.
  • Using “Powerful Conservative Terms”… whatever that means.
  • Apply the logic of Hell in full force.  No dumbing down for the weak hearted.
  • Clearly express “free market parables.”  Jesus was not a goddamned hippie!
  • In general, support a “Framework against Liberal Bias.”

In all fairness, I’ve got to hand it to these folks.  Never let it be said that fundamentalists won’t go down with a sinking ship.   In the face of a president and Congress that could possibly pass as center-right moderates anywhere else on the planet, the right wing wackos are doing their best to make sure that extremism is jackhammered into the public psyche, leaving no hope of reconciliation or compromise with those damn godless heathens.

They’re nothing if not determined.

Advertisements

Discussion

14 thoughts on “The Bible is Too Liberal, Damn It!

  1. Stunning. Christians are such nice people.

    Posted by Joe Bible | October 7, 2009, 1:25 pm
  2. So in other words, they’re willing to alter the so called word of God to fit into their bigot views.

    Posted by Alison | October 7, 2009, 3:08 pm
  3. Yeah… shocking, wouldn’t you say, Alison?

    It’s almost as if the newly-revised word of god gives them permission to be bigots, isn’t it! I mean… if they were just doing it because they’re bigots, they’d have to keep a little quieter about it, but now, they have the mandate of almighty God on their side!

    Posted by hambydammit | October 7, 2009, 3:20 pm
  4. Yeah, Hamby, so instead of getting to the core issue of their bigotry, let’s just take away one of the billions of justifications for bigotry.

    That’ll learn ’em!

    I mean look at Kevin, he doesn’t have the inspired word of God by his side, but that doesn’t stop him from being a Jackass.

    It’s like trying to get somebody to stop smoking, then just getting them to do it in the privacy of their home so they could poision their own family.

    Where as if we address the core of their smoking habit [Most likely nicotine addiction] we could actually get them to stop, as opposed to chastising them when they light up in public.

    Posted by Alison | October 7, 2009, 3:40 pm
  5. I feel like there’s a point in there somewhere, Alison, but you’re just rambling.

    “Religious belief provides a moral framework with two qualities: 1) Non-falsifiability, and 2) Grounds for Certainty, within which people who are otherwise inclined towards bigotry can express and even legislate their bigotry while claiming the moral high ground.”

    Refute, please.

    Posted by hambydammit | October 7, 2009, 5:29 pm
  6. I never said religion was rational, or that the Bible doesn’t say bad things.

    I already argued about this on the boards. [with Eloise no less]

    In other words, if your goal is to reduce bigotry, you’re doing it wrong.

    You would have to show that religion is the ONLY thing that makes 1) and 2), which it isn’t, so what’s stopping them from getting something else with those properties?

    It’s like taking an AK-47 from a bank robber, he’ll just grab an M16.

    Posted by Alison | October 7, 2009, 8:16 pm
  7. It’s like taking an AK-47 from a bank robber, he’ll just grab an M16.

    This may be the worst analogy I’ve ever heard. I mean, for starters, you’re admitting by way of comparison that religion is as dangerous as an assault weapon, which is… well, from someone trying to defend the religious rights of others, pretty puzzling.

    But even aside from that, the (supposedly) analogous scenario is absurd. By this reasoning, then, there is no point in a police officer attempting to disarm an armed convict, as somehow the status of being a criminal imbues them with the ability to be constantly armed; they can (I guess) just materialize new guns out of thin air because they are bank robbers.

    And then this bewildering assessment of reality just goes to show us that if you take religious justification away from bigots, well, they’re still bigots anyway, and that status means that they will always have a justification of some sort at their disposal.

    One word: Insane.

    That you, Alison. All you.

    Posted by Kevin R Brown | October 8, 2009, 2:46 am
  8. I mean look at Kevin, he doesn’t have the inspired word of God by his side, but that doesn’t stop him from being a Jackass.

    …I’m, well, flattered. We haven’t talked in, what, must be a month or so by now? And yet I still get special mention in internet posts.

    Alright; just FYI Hamby, I’ll concede this one. You’re right – she wants it fucking bad.

    Posted by Kevin R Brown | October 8, 2009, 2:52 am
  9. This may be the worst analogy I’ve ever heard. I mean, for starters, you’re admitting by way of comparison that religion is as dangerous as an assault weapon, which is… well, from someone trying to defend the religious rights of others, pretty puzzling.

    Do you know what an analogy is? Are you an idiot?

    Wait, don’t answer the last one.

    If I say that religion is like drinking a strawberry milkshake, does that mean I think that religion is sold at cafes for $5?

    You’re taking the analogy too literally.

    Maybe I’ll just have to explain it to you.

    The AK is the justification. If you take away the AK from somebody who wants to rob a bank, they will buy another one to rob the bank.

    someone trying to defend the religious rights of others,

    I’m getting rather tired of this strawman, quite frankly.

    Challenging yours, or Hamby’s assertions in no way implies that I think religion is the best thing since sliced bread, or that I think religion should stay.

    Go ahead and quote me on this:

    I have never argued that we should keep religion.

    If you want to challenge a YEC about the age of the universe, I’ll help, if religion were to disappear and everybody were atheist tomorrow, I wouldn’t even bat an eye.

    I, however, refuse to support fallacious arguments regardless of what they support, or even if I agree with the conclusion or want the conclusion to be true.

    And then this bewildering assessment of reality just goes to show us that if you take religious justification away from bigots, well, they’re still bigots anyway, and that status means that they will always have a justification of some sort at their disposal.

    One word: Insane.

    One word: Logic.

    Prejudice is in our nature Kevin.

    …I’m, well, flattered. We haven’t talked in, what, must be a month or so by now?

    And you’re still a jackass. Funny that.

    Alright; just FYI Hamby, I’ll concede this one. You’re right – she wants it fucking bad.

    I want what bad?

    Posted by Alison | October 8, 2009, 4:09 am
  10. The AK is the justification. If you take away the AK from somebody who wants to rob a bank, they will buy another one to rob the bank.

    This is still a bad analogy; you’ll note than the core problem is still the gun / the existence of the guns (which you have said, in terms of the analogy, represents religion). If there no other guns for him to grab (no other religion to go to, because religions – in our hypothetical world – are faux paus), he cannot very well rob the proverbial bank (…and this is why the analogy itself is so awful; there’s no basis for comparison between these two activities, so you can’t really explore the analogy without it completely breaking down).

    You can’t just say, ‘Religion is like strawberry ice cream’ and claim that to be an analogy. The two things are so vastly different that the comparison is almost always going to break down immediately. Analogies will serve you best if you restrict them largely to verbs.

    Perhaps this is part of that communicating disorder you have (or have claimed to have in the past).

    I’m getting rather tired of this strawman, quite frankly.

    Challenging yours, or Hamby’s assertions in no way implies that I think religion is the best thing since sliced bread, or that I think religion should stay.

    Go ahead and quote me on this:

    I have never argued that we should keep religion.

    If you want to challenge a YEC about the age of the universe, I’ll help, if religion were to disappear and everybody were atheist tomorrow, I wouldn’t even bat an eye.

    I, however, refuse to support fallacious arguments regardless of what they support,

    Alison, this is not a strawman; you are being disingenuous. You’re a deist; this means that you have an inherent bias towards anything encompassing religious beliefs. It’s also silly to dramatically claim that you *never* support any fallacious arguments while you yourself are a theist, given that degrees of your understanding of the universe are based on blind faith.

    You have ever flat out said, ‘We need to keep religion’? Probably not, but the argument is easy enough to infer from some of your past statements.

    I mean, you claim you help out, but I’ve never seen it happen. You would make cynical comments on the board and otherwise ignore or defend fundamentalist actions.

    One word: Logic.

    Prejudice is in our nature Kevin.

    First, you are not in authority to tell anyone what is or is not within ‘human nature’ (I buzzword I dislike, as it suggests a permanent & homogeneous set of behaviors that always have been and always will apply to all humans. We’ve known since Plato’s ideas about the ‘Perfect Essences’ fell out of favor that this notion is false) as you are not an expert in the field, are you?

    I’m certainly not either, but then, I don’t go around telling people what it is that all of humanity categorically is or is not (well, except on days where adrenaline gets the better of my brain, anyway).

    Second, you haven’t put together a logical argument at all (formal or not), so no, it’s not logic. Here, I’ll try to help you out – look at this video:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks#p/u/3/Qt98_kjvm6w

    …*This* is a fair analogy to start with. Officer attacks a kid (for whatever reason; I think Cenk and Ana nailed it), using the dress code (an irrational set of rules) as a justification. Now, obviously, the dress code was not the direct causal agent for the officer to attack the kid. This is where we always get hung-up, though: you tend to say, one way or another, that the irrational rule (in this case, a simple dress code) is irrelevant. That the cop would’ve attacked the kid either way (Cenk and Ana appear to agree, though I won’t put words in their mouths). I would say that this isn’t true – perhaps the officer would have done it anyway (we’ll never know), but consider how hugely different, in terms of framing the issue, it would be if we simply saw the officer slam the kid around while offering no justification other than, “Meh. I felt like beating up that bum.”

    Now, this particular instance has a justification that is so shallow that no sane person is going to hear it out regardless, and in fairness, religions are starting to also lose their defensive power this way. But that’s besides the point – people will still take the shield and run with it, and whether or not they’d have gone running away from their sensibilities either way, the point is that the shield should not be offered in the first place. There’s no reason for a dress code to be at the school for anyone to pick up and defend their authoritarianism with, and similarly, there’s no need for an imaginary deity to clutter up our social structures with equally imaginary laws.

    Why can’t gay people get married? Why can’t Israelis and Palistinians just friggin’ share a plot of land, like everyone else does? Why can’t people in many states take their clothes off in public? Why can’t people be sold alcohol during certain days of the week in certain states? Why can’t many kids in many states learn proper, comprehensive, sexual education? Hell, we don’t even get proper sexual education up here in Canada, do we? We get a dumbass slide show about how to put a condom on, what the anatomy of our genitals are, and some stern words about not having sex until you’re ‘ready’, whatever that means.

    Why don’t we get taught how to get someone to orgasm? Why don’t we get taught about the social dynamics of sex? Why don’t we get taught about sexual positions, sexual fetishes, sexual roleplay, etc? Why the flying fuck is there just a giant black box of censorship drawn over everything that you *should* be learning in a course that alleges to be teaching people about sex?

    Because several authoritarian voices, some more distant in the past than others, decided that controlling, persecuting and making misery were the orders of the day, and they codified these irrational rules in the name of an ‘ultimate authority’ (just like the conservatives are doing right now). It seems ridiculous to us today, but clearly we still endure the sinister effect, and it wasn’t so ridiculous back when the rules were codified.

    Clearly religion isn’t then ‘the source’ of our misery, and wasn’t somehow always destined to be (oriental religions like Buddhism are notably devoid of much authoritarian nonsense); it’s been used, in Western culture, as a vector for authoritarian memes and a defensive instrument that was – up until a point of time not so long ago at all – absolutely impune to argument.

    Is ‘human nature’ the real actual source? I don’t think so (as first someone would need to tell me what ‘human nature’ is, exactly), you certainly wouldn’t know either way, and it’s not relevant. We keep batting this back and forth and I don’t even understand at the end of the day what the disagreement is. You seem to give a thumbs-up that western religion vectors destructive/authoritarian memes (so we’d agree there), that religion is not the source of our problems (so we’d agree there), that religion does not cause all of our problems (so we agree again)… and I don’t even really know what else is being said that you are taking issue with.

    I want what bad?

    My boner in your vagina.

    Any other questions?

    Posted by Kevin R Brown | October 8, 2009, 5:55 am
  11. This is still a bad analogy; you’ll note than the core problem is still the gun / the existence of the guns (which you have said, in terms of the analogy, represents religion).

    The problem is the guy who wants to rob the bank. Owning a gun in of itself is not immoral. Using it to rob the bank is.

    you yourself are a theist

    O RLY?

    You have ever flat out said, ‘We need to keep religion’? Probably not, but the argument is easy enough to infer from some of your past statements.

    How?

    First, you are not in authority to tell anyone what is or is not within ‘human nature’ (I buzzword I dislike, as it suggests a permanent & homogeneous set of behaviors that always have been and always will apply to all humans. We’ve known since Plato’s ideas about the ‘Perfect Essences’ fell out of favor that this notion is false) as you are not an expert in the field, are you?

    Ask Hamby then if you don’t believe me.

    It’s not me, Kevin, crack open a decent psychology book.

    …*This* is a fair analogy to start with. Officer attacks a kid (for whatever reason; I think Cenk and Ana nailed it), using the dress code (an irrational set of rules) as a justification. Now, obviously, the dress code was not the direct causal agent for the officer to attack the kid. This is where we always get hung-up, though: you tend to say, one way or another, that the irrational rule (in this case, a simple dress code) is irrelevant. That the cop would’ve attacked the kid either way (Cenk and Ana appear to agree, though I won’t put words in their mouths). I would say that this isn’t true – perhaps the officer would have done it anyway (we’ll never know), but consider how hugely different, in terms of framing the issue, it would be if we simply saw the officer slam the kid around while offering no justification other than, “Meh. I felt like beating up that bum.”

    Or maybe it was the that the cops were power hungry wannabes anyway, and would look for any reason to act tough?

    Posted by Alison | October 8, 2009, 2:44 pm
  12. Actually Kevin, I think I’ll use your example to make a better point.

    My response to it on my last post didn’t get too the point enough.

    Say you are on the review board and that cop is in front of you.

    What do you do?

    Addresss the dress code of the school?

    Address why the cop was so aggressive?

    How will getting rid of the dress code, help reduce police brutality?

    Once again, I’m not saying we should KEEP the dress code, or that the dress code was rational, that is not the issue.

    I’m saying that getting to the core of the issue will help reduce police brutality, rather than getting rid of every stupid little rule/law.

    Posted by Alison | October 8, 2009, 6:15 pm
  13. Ask Hamby then if you don’t believe me.

    It’s not me, Kevin, crack open a decent psychology book.

    Fuck that; cite me a source. Name a specific textbook, and cite the pages or chapter within the textbook that categorically state that all humans are prejudiced.

    I’m currently attending a school with a full library, so I’ll go check it out.

    Addresss the dress code of the school?

    Address why the cop was so aggressive?

    Both, actually.

    You ignored half of what I wrote. First, we do not know how the officer would have acted if he did not have a dress code to justify his outburst with, do we?

    Or maybe it was the that the cops were power hungry wannabes anyway, and would look for any reason to act tough?

    I already *said this*, but you ignored it, and so the circle jerk just fucking goes on.

    *Sigh*

    You’re right, Alison. There’s no point in getting rid of bad rules, irrational statements or psuedoscience at all.

    Free market for the win.

    Posted by Kevin R Brown | October 9, 2009, 3:14 am
  14. Here’s the book:

    http://www.amazon.ca/Social-Psychology-Second-Canadian-Aronson/dp/0131200011/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255111269&sr=1-1

    If you want specifics about prejudice in humans:

    pages 500-501

    About how Right Wing Authoritism is associated with prejudice [and is a personality trait] and how Religious Fundamentalism is the religious manifistation of RWA

    I’m not typing out two pages when you can just pick it up from the library.

    There you go, have fun.

    But you once again missed the point of my post about the cop.

    The intent is to reduce police brutality, and I don’t think that adressing the stupid little laws is going to do anything.

    If you want to challenge the dress code, do so on it’s own merits. Have the board come up with a rational reason to have it, if not, then you can get rid of it.

    However, that still doesn’t get to the core of the police brutality.

    What if the cop beat the shit out of a bank robber? Should we re-evalute the laws against robbing banks?

    Was that cop indocdirnated that if a kid didn’t have his shirt tucked in, the world will fall apart? Unlikely.

    You see Kevin, it may not have been that specific kid, but I’m quite sure somebody was getting their ass kicked, if he couldn’t justify beating on that kid, he would have just seeked out somebody else. Some one speeding, loitering, etc…

    Posted by Alison | October 9, 2009, 2:26 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow Me On Twitter!

%d bloggers like this: