Pharyngula

Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | October 5, 2009 10:19 AM

What about "Conservapaedia"?

Posted by: Richard Eis | October 5, 2009 10:24 AM

But if I go there and read it...I will probably get dumberer.

Posted by: Mu | October 5, 2009 10:25 AM

Won't that get them in trouble with the King James Version only folks, who think that it's the only God inspired translation?

Posted by: Michelle R | October 5, 2009 10:27 AM

Conservapædia... ah, I love going there for the lolz.

Hey, are hippies considered liberals by these guys? cuz really, Jesus looks like a hippie to me.

Posted by: Free Lunch | October 5, 2009 10:28 AM

Woo-hoo, they're doing so much cherry-picking in their selection of translations (it is clear that no one involved in this has any capacity to do an original translation of either testament) that they'll have a who case full of cherry pies when they are done.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 5, 2009 10:28 AM

Wow, I didn't know that conservatives were allowed to do textual criticism. This kind of shifts the whole fundamentalist/modernist separation. What does it mean to the certainty of salvation through Christ, if God allowed the scriptures to be altered?

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 5, 2009 10:31 AM

Schisms a-comin'.

Posted by: LRA | October 5, 2009 10:36 AM

Rev 22:19 "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

Hey conservatives, please don't alter the Bible. I don't want you in hell with all of us fun people.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | October 5, 2009 10:38 AM

... anyway, so I inquired as to where they were taking this, and man, am I stoked. Revisions currently under review include:

a) Song of Solomon: to be replaced with sex scenes from Ayn Rand and New Gingrich... 'pouting sex kittens' lusting after cuts to the capital gains tax to figure prominently...

b) Genesis: 'And on the eighth day, God created the Republicans, to have dominion over congress...'

c) Ecclesiastes: 'Meaningless, meaningless, crieth the teacher... Ever since Reagan done died, it's all been meaningless...'

d) Sermon on the Mount: '...fucked are the poor, for we really don't much give a shit...'

(/Leviticus: pretty much the same, actually...)

Posted by: Ray Moscow | October 5, 2009 10:41 AM

I love to tease "conservative Christians" with the Bible. These people wouldn't allow someone as liberal (albeit crazy) as the Jesus of the gospels to serve as dogcatcher, much less as a leader, yet they pretend to call him "Lord".

Posted by: Alyson Miers | October 5, 2009 10:42 AM

The circular thinking boggles. These idgits trick people into listening to them by invoking the Babble Bible, only they see where the Bible doesn't back them up, so they're taking it upon themselves to decide what the Bible is supposed to say.

Treat women as sub-humans! Persecute and pathologize sexuality! Worship the free market! Piss on that wishy-washy "forgiveness" nonsense, and don't let anything in there for the liberals to latch onto! Why, you ask? Because the Bible says so! Because we made sure it says so!

Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 5, 2009 10:48 AM

Wow, well, I really don't believe it as yet. That someone trolled them seems more likely.

It's not that hard to get around the "commie bits"--either ignore them or figure out why they don't mean what they seem to mean.

So no, this sounds more like a spoof, something that few of the real boobs would even begin to think up, having already decided that god wants you to just kill that damned Samaritan.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: Alverant | October 5, 2009 10:50 AM

So what are they going to do about the bible passages that approve of slavery? Keep them in or cover them up?

I remember reading an op-ed last week from Raw Story about how conservationism has become a religion (and the comments by conservatives inadvertently supported that claim). Now it seems they're trying to make it official.

Posted by: Paul Burnett | October 5, 2009 10:52 AM

What do bet bet Conservapædia will leave in all the parts of the Bible approving of incest and ethnic cleansing and slavery and scientific illiteracies such as Joshua stopping and re-starting the rotation of the earth?

Posted by: Blondin | October 5, 2009 10:54 AM

Now you can choose from the KJV, NIV or CQM* bible.

* Conservative Quote Mined

Posted by: kalibhakta | October 5, 2009 10:54 AM

arrggh-- experiencing serious Poe vertigo here...

Posted by: MB | October 5, 2009 11:00 AM

I'm beginning to suspect that Christianity doesn't really exist. Just a billion people working on their own Poe's Law spoof. Each trying to come up with the craziest idea that people will believe.

Or maybe I'm just being overly hopeful.

Posted by: se-rat-o-SAWR-us | October 5, 2009 11:01 AM

I'd like to cast lots that Conservapædia will not edit out the liberal addition of the Comma Johanneum—err, Trinitarian Comma (sorry fur dem big wurdz).

The Trinitarian Comma was fraudulently (and liberally!) added to the Latin translation of 1 John 5:7-8 to provide scriptural support of the doctrine of the Trinity that does not appear in the original texts. John Calvin thought the Trinitarian Comma was part of scripture and had Servetus burned at the stake for questioning the authority of scripture. Calvin:

“Whoever shall maintain that wrong is done to heretics and blasphemers in punishing them makes himself an accomplice in their crime and guilty as they are. ... We spare not kin, nor blood of any, and forget all humanity when the matter is to combat for His glory.”

Also, WTF with their criticism of Luke 23:24!? (NIV linked here to annoy them.) You can read Luke 23:24 in the Greek:

“ο δε ιησους ελεγεν πατερ αφες αυτοις ου γαρ οιδασιν τι ποιουσιν διαμεριζομενοι δε τα ιματια αυτου εβαλον κληρον”

Then go right over to Google translate and verify the translation. And the few words that Google doesn't know are discussed at length at scripturetext.com.

I don't know whether to conclude that these people are getting more dementedly crazy, or that they were this dementedly crazy all along.

Posted by: se-rat-o-SAWR-us | October 5, 2009 11:04 AM

I'd like to cast lots that Conservapædia will not edit out the liberal addition of the Comma Johanneum—err, Trinitarian Comma (sorry fur dem big wurdz).

The Trinitarian Comma was fraudulently (and liberally!) added to the Latin translation of 1 John 5:7-8 to provide scriptural support of the doctrine of the Trinity that does not appear in the original texts. John Calvin thought the Trinitarian Comma was part of scripture and had Servetus burned at the stake for questioning the authority of scripture. Calvin:

“Whoever shall maintain that wrong is done to heretics and blasphemers in punishing them makes himself an accomplice in their crime and guilty as they are. ... We spare not kin, nor blood of any, and forget all humanity when the matter is to combat for His glory.”

Also, WTF with their criticism of Luke 23:24!? (NIV linked here to annoy them.) You can read Luke 23:24 in the Greek:

“ο δε ιησους ελεγεν πατερ αφες αυτοις ου γαρ οιδασιν τι ποιουσιν διαμεριζομενοι δε τα ιματια αυτου εβαλον κληρον”

Then go right over to Google translate and verify the translation. And the few words that Google doesn't know are discussed at length at scripturetext.com.

I don't know whether to conclude that these people are getting more dementedly crazy, or that they were this dementedly crazy all along.

Posted by: Tulse | October 5, 2009 11:09 AM

If we're lucky, this act by Conservapædia will lead to a big internal fight that will eat up their time and energy.

That presumes that Conservapædia is actually taken seriously by anyone outside its small cabal of contributors.

they won't be pleased about what is claimed to have happened to Ananias and Sapphira

Would that have been the first socialist death panel?

Posted by: se-rat-o-SAWR-us | October 5, 2009 11:12 AM

Check out the edit history of Conservapædia's “Conservative Bible Project” page—it's basically all Andy Schlafly's doing. Conclusion: they were this dementedly crazy all along.

Posted by: Desert Son | October 5, 2009 11:13 AM

I love Movable Type: it won't let me in the first two times I try ("Forbidden!"), but the third time it acknowledges the sign-in. It's all very Vogon-bureaucracy: "filed in triplicate, sent out, sent back, lost, found, lost again, and buried for three months . . . ."

[conservative fundamentalist] As far as the subject topic goes, I for one am glad for the reworking: if English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone! [/conservative fundamentalist]

This is one of those things that simultaneously prompts hyena belly laughter and an uncomfortable shudder.

It's always ironic to hear about the intractability and the eternal nature of divine content, only to find revisionism going on. Historically significant throughout so many religious traditions. Why, it's almost like thought about theology changes (dare I say, evolves?)! Of course, the immediate defense on the lips of the faithful is "imperfect human understanding of divine perfection." *sigh*

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: Speedwell | October 5, 2009 11:15 AM

Blockquote close fail. My part starts, of course, with "OK, I call bullshit."

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | October 5, 2009 11:19 AM

Let them make fools of themselves in front of their own ranks of the chronically inept.

Tis the best way to distract the sheeple and their self proclaimed erstwhile arbiters of morality.

From Republican conservative to barking creationist they might all get so involved and strident in insuring that all their pet dislikes and prejudices are maintained, or clearly supported without recourse to ambiguous subjective translation, or even crave newly introduced maxims within the 'new' translation, that it should keep them occupied a tad.

That might actually give the rest of society a well needed break from the incessant caterwauling of xians proclaiming intolerance and hatred of jeebus by the rest of non-theistic folk.
Seeing as the shiny eyed will be distracted directing their god-given gaze to their own bigoted positions and jostling for inclusion in the melee!

Besides the bleating and whining is discordant and disturbs the cosmic balance along with the irritation and utter despair of dealing with ignorance and blatant dogmatic juvenile stupidity time and time again.

It is rather predictable and boring to be incessantly called 'evilutionists' and immoral and sub-human along with the rest of their colorfully turgid toxic spleen with other general prat like attempts to shore up the moral of the shoddy minions that they rely on for money and prestige.

Seeing as they all so bitterly disagree on the maintainance and practice of their personal delusion anyway methinks that it would make little practical difference, but it might distract them for a while, allowing the rest of society to function as it should, peacefully in cordial relationship.

Well for a time anyways, until it dawns on the deluded and they realize the danger of the inevitable reemergence of rational thought amongst the populace in their august absence that it might make their particular brand of religion absolutely redundant,it seems ignorance must be maintained at all costs, tis the only reliable tool they have, they will not leave that unattended for long...they dare not.

"There will be some little problems with commenting on this article (besides the usual boneheaded glitches in the Sb commenting system)"

Yep...seems this ended up on the thread that reported the lunacy...it was meant for this thread...it is getting really irritating...never had this nonsense before...the Sb initiated one...not the xian version.
Anyway apologies to all for the duplicate posts...not intended!

Posted by: Curt Cameron | October 5, 2009 11:25 AM

Minor correction - it doesn't say it uses the word "comrade" three times, it says "defective translations" use it three times as often as the word "volunteer."

I'm not sure why they measure that particular ratio. Obviously, "comrade" is bad because the commies use it. But why do they imply that "volunteer" is good? Volunteerism sounds like socialism to me! Jesus meant to say that you should expect to be paid for work you do!

Posted by: Hypatia's Girl | October 5, 2009 11:26 AM

@Speedwell

That was exactly my question. The King James whose version holds some of this wicked liberal bias was King in the early seventeenth century. That King James also supported the idea that the sovereign was outside of the law (which led to problems and ultimately a beheading of his successor Chas. I). Something in me doubts strongly that there is found in the KJV a real liberal bias.

In other words, this is the most amazingly dumb thing I've heard of for a while.

Posted by: Free Lunch | October 5, 2009 11:32 AM

I wonder how many of the folks who worship the King James Version (actually, the Authorized Version, but that's being way too picky) think that James actually translated it (aside from the Ma Fergusons out there who think that Jesus spoke in English).

Posted by: Puck Mendelssohn | October 5, 2009 11:36 AM

Old version: "Jesus wept."

New version: "Jesus calmly leaned on Lazarus's tomb and took a deep draw of his Marlboro. Jesus loved Lazarus, but not in any gay sort of way. They'd fought the Bedouin animists back in the days when the Roman occupation had been a heyday for conservative Jews, but now Pilate had gone all soft. Taxes were up, and socialism was on the rise. Times had changed, and the new war to come would need tough old warriors to fight it. Lazarus was dead, sure. But Jesus knew what needed to be done."

Posted by: lordshipmayhem | October 5, 2009 11:39 AM

Why does this exercise remind me of the Bowdlerized Bible?

Posted by: Standard Curve | October 5, 2009 11:42 AM

Wow... you never think the stupid can go deeper, and then it does.

Still, very amusing.

Posted by: raven | October 5, 2009 11:48 AM

The so called biblical literalists fundies will consider this heretical or blashemy.

But the idea has a certain amount of merit in a wacky, humorous way. I foresee a number of new bibles:

The Liberal bible.
The New Age bible. Jesus is into crystal power, alternative medicine, and various other sorts of woo.
The Goth bible.
The Hippie bible.
The NRA bible. Jesus drives a pickup, owns 10 assorted firearms including a mortar and a machine gun.
The Buddhist bible. Jesus is a mellow guy who claims he doesn't really exist but neither does the world.
The Existentialist bible.
The Agnostic bible.

For anyone into Presuppositionalism, Post Modernism, or fiction writing, this is going to be a golden age.

PS This seems to be either confirmation that conserv**pedians are indeed crazy or a hoax. Nutcases, hard to tell the difference.

Posted by: Paul Burnett | October 5, 2009 11:49 AM

"lordshipmayhem" (#56) wrote: "Why does this exercise remind me of the Bowdlerized Bible?"

More like the Klingon Bible - http://klv.mrklingon.org/

Posted by: gyeong-hwa | October 5, 2009 11:54 AM

I thought these people's argument was that the bible was not rewritten and infallible where as science like evolution is constantly rewritten and therefor untrustworthy. By writing out liberal bias, won't they be proving that the bible is very fallible? lol.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 5, 2009 11:54 AM

Andy Schlafly is changing the Holy Spirit to the Divine Guide.

"I have baptized you with water, but He shall baptize you with the Divine Guide."

Posted by: Aaron Baker | October 5, 2009 11:56 AM

I also noticed this gem: "The committee in charge of updating the bestselling version, the NIV, is dominated by professors and higher-educated participants who can be expected to be liberal and feminist in outlook."

Damn those pesky people-who-actually-know-what-they're-talking-about! Somehow, they're always getting in our way.

Posted by: raven | October 5, 2009 12:05 PM

I'm beginning to suspect that Christianity doesn't really exist.

It doesn't. There are 38,000 sects, all claiming to be the one Real Xianity. Many of them have nothing in common. Many of them hate each other.

The fundie perversion is an inversion, a phenomena known in sociology and abnormal psychology. It looks a lot like satanism, except it exists and satanism doesn't.

1. Worship an inept, malevolent monster of a god check
2. Practice human child sacrifice by withholding medical care check
3. Lie constantly and hate a lot check
4. Try to destroy society and civilization. Hope that god wakes up and kills 6.7 billion people check

Really what is the difference between satanism and fundie xianity? I can't see any.

Posted by: teachingsapiens.wordpress.com | October 5, 2009 12:06 PM

As Nigel pointed out (#45) if we start cutting things out that are in only one gospel or contradict each other between gospels, we won't be left with much. Of course, thats fine with me.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | October 5, 2009 12:12 PM

I know that poetry is probably anathema to these hard-bitten conservative folks, with the connotations of wasteful, inefficient, liberal frippery inherent to florid language. However, I'm starting to think that their bowdlerization of the bible has as much to do with removing any vestige of lyricism from the language, as with expunging liberal bias.

I think we may need to start calling this the Vogon's Bible.

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 5, 2009 12:20 PM

I've spend too long reading Heidegger. - Hypatia's Girl

Five minutes?

Posted by: Ray Moscow | October 5, 2009 12:23 PM

Raven @ 75: Anyone know what the most readable and accurate modern translation of the bible is?

The New Revised Standard Version is considered pretty good and is often quoted by biblical scholars. I like it and its predecessor the Revised Standard Version. Both are available in the Oxford Annotated Bible format, which has good scholarly notes.

Posted by: jpf | October 5, 2009 12:29 PM

The Conservative Bible article links to "Best New Conservative Terms" [find it your own damn self!] which has this entry:

decrypt 1935 military code-breaking, which played an instrumental role in World War II in deciphering enemy codes that many felt were unbreakable; illustrates the "can do" approach of conservatism in a patriotic way

Also note that Conservapaeioudia's article on Alan Turing makes no mention of the circumstances of his death, although the talk page is emphatic that his homosexuality is of no relevance and any mention of it would be propaganda.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | October 5, 2009 12:34 PM

Raven @75:

Semi OT Anyone know what the most readable and accurate modern translation of the bible is?

May I offer a bible for teenaged girls?

True Images is packed with edgy graphics. You’ll love its personal notes, cool quizzes, challenging insights, smart advice and open discussion about the realities of life today. But don’t let the fun format fool you—this is a serious Bible that is as sincere about your walk with God as you are. Everything in these pages is designed to help you build a closer relationship with him and to help you discover his will for all areas of your life, including dating, family, friendships, work, sports and so much more. Following Jesus isn’t stuffy or theoretical—it’s as practical and down-to-earth as you can get.

http://www.amazon.com/NIV-True-Images-Bible-Girls/dp/031092815X
Personally, I only read books that feature a "fun format" -- and no stuffy Jesus for me! Oh wait, Stuffy Jesus™ would make a great addition to my stuffed animal collection.

Posted by: Chris Jones | October 5, 2009 12:43 PM

I just wasted time perusing the page on this, and my observations:

1) This doesn't appear to even be a ground-up retranslation from manuscripts, but rather is starting with the already crappy KJV and making changes from that.
2) The "translation bias" they're so pissed off about isn't IMO actually bias, but like most conservative bitching, is the failure of the previous translators to have deliberately skewed the translation to appease a conservative reader.
3) Several of the examples of offensive wording in the other modern English translations were actually ACCURATE translations. The implication of this is that the Cons-rv-pedia's complaint is actually against the original author and not against the translator -- though they STILL blame the translator for not deliberately altering the translation to avoid the sentiment that was expressed in the original text.
4) I agree with them only with respect to a couple of examples of the oldest mss not containing a passage that was clearly added in later mss and carried along in the KJV and others that didn't apparently use those older mss. However, were they to use one of the better modern translations such as the NRSV, those passages are segregated and noted as "not in the oldest and best mss", but I suppose they aren't going to use the NRSV because it also offends them on many other counts.
5) They never explicitly claim to be aiming for a "fair and balanced" translation, surprisingly. I do wonder whether they are cognizant of the fact that they are NOT producing an unbiased "translation" (actually re-phrasing of the KJV) but are instead producing a very biased CONSERVATIVE reading that DOES NOT always reflect the meaning and intent of the original text? I'd sure like to see them admit this.
6) Their desire to express certain of the parables as "explicitly supporting free-market principles" is just hilarious. Who are they kidding, us or themselves?

Posted by: Matt Heath | October 5, 2009 12:45 PM

John's Gospel is, of course, out as he was obviously a drug-smoking liberal hippie -- just look at that weird "Revelations" shit he wrote a few years later!

Posted by: arrakis | October 5, 2009 12:50 PM

Problems in the Bible?

Errors and bias?

Say it ain't so!

/sarcasm

Posted by: CJO | October 5, 2009 12:52 PM

If they really want to go back to the earliest texts, doesn't that mean they'll have to give up the resurrection? After all, it's not in the oldest existing Bible.

That's the Codex Sinaiticus, which is indeed among the earliest manuscripts of the collected bible, but it is not the earliest manuscript of any one of the gospels, all of which have at least extant fragments from as early as the late 2nd - early 3rd centuries. And the business about the resurrection was not reported well by most media outlets in their stories on the launch of the online-viewable Codex. The issue is the omission in the Codex of the so-called Markan Appendix, verses added to the original ending of Mark at some unknown time in antiquity. These verses do have post-resurrection appearances (along with the famous passages about handling vipers and drinking poison), which are absent in Mark, but two points: the original of Mark still has an angel at the empty tomb so it's not like Mark doesn't treat the resurrection at all without the addition; and the Codex's versions of Matthew and Luke contain their respective resurrection appearances. So there are no manuscripts of the gospels that would compel one to give up the resurrection.

Aren't the virgin birth and the raising of Lazarus also one-gospel-only events?

Lazarus, yes. It's only in John. But the virgin birth is in both Matthew and Luke, though that's pretty much where the two birth narratives part company. Also unique to John is the turning of water into wine at the wedding in Cana.

Which raises the question: wine is one a them librul perfesser drinks ain't it?

I hope there's a schism over whether Jesus really turned the water into Kentucky bourbon, Tennessee whiskey, or Coors Light.

Posted by: davem | October 5, 2009 12:57 PM

Conservapoopia:

And as Jesus emerged from the water, the heavens opened and the Divine Guide descended like a dove upon Him:

Posted by: Lynna, OM | October 5, 2009 12:59 PM

the Cons-rv-pedia's complaint is actually against the original author

Posted by: se-rat-o-SAWR-us | October 5, 2009 1:00 PM

are they also going to fix the OTHER commonly mistranslated passages (mistranslated for theological consistency) such as Isaiah 7's reference to a "virgin" when the passage is actually referring to a "young woman"

Andy Schlafly is already on it with his suggested translation using the word "bimbo" in Mark 6:28.

You can't make up this shit.

Posted by: Walton | October 5, 2009 1:02 PM

I sometimes think that Conservapædia is a phenomenally successful Poe. I edited there for a while, a couple of years ago; I was (vaguely) Christian in those days, and more socially conservative than I am now, but was nevertheless accused of being a "liberal" after I tried to rewrite some evolution-related articles to remove the extreme YEC bias. I eventually gave up in frustration, as the majority of the site's admins and editors were, to put it bluntly, batshit insane.

Posted by: SC OM | October 5, 2009 1:08 PM

MLV (Mad Libs Version):

http://www.insolitology.com/games/biblelibs.htm

The Conservative Bible article links to "Best New Conservative Terms"

They must stop. My side will eventually split.

Also note that Conservapaeioudia's article on Alan Turing makes no mention of the circumstances of his death, although the talk page is emphatic that his homosexuality is of no relevance and any mention of it would be propaganda.

I wonder what they'd make of Miriam Rothschild:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miriam_Louisa_Rothschild

Posted by: Lynna, OM | October 5, 2009 1:21 PM

Oh wait, Stuffy Jesus™ would make a great addition to my stuffed animal collection.

This is an excellent idea having Japanese manufacturers design and produce Stuffy Jesus™! After all, it is the Japanese who brought us plush versions of piles of poop.

Posted by: catta | October 5, 2009 1:24 PM

Bad news, guys. Or good, depending on preference. But there's a plethora of Stuffy Jesuses out there already. Try a google image search on "jesus" + "plush".
Some of them look hilariously angry, too!

Posted by: druidbros | October 5, 2009 1:26 PM

These guys think they can rewrite everything. It just makes them look more unbelievably stupid.

Posted by: CJO | October 5, 2009 1:36 PM

they don't appear to be doing any actual translating from the original source texts.

Well, no shit. They wouldn't even know how to appear to be doing that, much less how to actually do it. Being avowedly and rabidly anti-intellectual pretty much rules out facility with Koine Greek.

I haven't enjoyed a train-wreck so much in years. Can we get Bill Buckingham involved in this? I'm getting nostalgic for the days of the Dover PA school board.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | October 5, 2009 1:46 PM

A. Noyd:

Now I've got the image of a Japanese-style plushie mascot Jesus stuck in my head. It's horrifying.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | October 5, 2009 1:51 PM

Bad news, guys. Or good, depending on preference. But there's a plethora of Stuffy Jesuses out there already. Try a google image search on "jesus" + "plush". Some of them look hilariously angry, too!

Holy fuck! I never would have believed that my sarcastic Stuffy Jesus™ would be a reality in some Christian's messed up mind. You are right, there are all kinds of plush toys based on Jesus. Well, so much for my business plan. Maybe we can specialize in a Jesus on a cross that bleeds real blood when squeezed?

Personally, I prefer the stuffed poop doll from Japan to some of those supposedly huggable Jesus toys. Jeeezzuss shivers.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | October 5, 2009 1:58 PM

A. Noyd, one can also purchase a plush Jesus with googly eyes. (Just wanted to add to the quotient of horror for you.)

Posted by: T_U_T | October 5, 2009 2:01 PM

I think I figured out, what is going on. I am afraid, we will need some comrades volunteers to traverse various monster filled dungeons in search of some artifacts and squishy internal organs. because it seems that we need to destroy an compelling orb once again :)

Posted by: Nebula99 | October 5, 2009 2:09 PM

@#133: Flat-earthers have square and circle factions?! I am (somehow) shocked. As for whether this is a Poe, a compelling orb, or prions... my gut says it's for real, and probably the same neurological phenomenon behind YECs, apocalypse nuts, et cetera. In the words of Hitchens, our prefrontal cortices are to small, are amygdalas are too big, and our thumb-finger opposition isn't what it could be.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | October 5, 2009 2:17 PM

This would crack me up if I wasn't afraid that they'd use their version to try to get some new laws passed. I can just imagine them citing the prophet Bob in the book of Jethro at the next Kansas Board of Education meeting.

You did see the part on their site where they suggest that one good use for the conservative bible would be as a text book in schools, right?

a Conservative Bible could become a text for public school courses

Posted by: Mike Wagner | October 5, 2009 2:24 PM

I have a better nickname for it:

Whackypedia.

Thank you. Thank you. I'll be here all night.

Posted by: Faid | October 5, 2009 2:35 PM

People, this can't be real. IMO, Conservapædia got haxx0r'd.

Posted by: se-rat-o-SAWR-us | October 5, 2009 2:43 PM

they're in danger of creating an Arian Bible

Apropos of the Aryan Bible:

a Nazi bible ordered by Adolf Hitler to replace the old and new testaments [with] … a thoroughly Nazi version that would remove all references to Jews and all compassion.

Posted by: rlrr | October 5, 2009 2:53 PM

I like to refer to as Stupidpedia...

Posted by: kopd | October 5, 2009 2:57 PM

Lynna:
Ugh. Creepy.

MikeM:
That comment made my day. I'm going to quote that later if you don't mind. :-)

Posted by: octopod | October 5, 2009 3:01 PM

ARGH ARGH ARGH they changed "Pharisees" to "intellectuals"! THAT'S NOT WHAT THAT MEANS aaargh

::clutches head::

Posted by: Toast | October 5, 2009 3:03 PM

Best ever:

Damsel → Bimbo → Floozy

Posted by: CJO | October 5, 2009 3:09 PM

It's somewhat interesting to note that redaction in this very direction seems to have occured within the NT tradition itself. Matthew's beatitudes (blessings), which kick off the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5), include "blessed are the poor in spirit" and "blessed are those who hunger after righteousness", where Luke's version of the beatitudes just has "blessed are the poor" and "blessed are those who hunger."

Critics generally consider these units to come from a common source (Q), and it's unlikely, if the original tradition had Matthew's more spiritualized figurative poverty and hunger, that the author of Luke would have 'de-spiritualized' them. So, right there in the tradition itself, we can see discomfort with blessing the poor and downtrodden, or, at least, a rejection of asceticism on the part of the author of Matthew.

Posted by: Beth B. | October 5, 2009 3:24 PM

That's just precious. I guess it's marginally more honest than the usual conservative Christian MO of simply ignoring the offending parts of the Bible (while , of course, loudly blasting their more liberal brethren fo doing the same with the more nasty parts).

Posted by: se-rat-o-SAWR-us | October 5, 2009 3:27 PM

Epin WIN!

Girl → Damsel → Bimbo → Floozy → Temptress

Constructive dialogue between Andy Schlafly and a translator on how to describe the girl who in Mark 6:28 is used by Herod to behead John the Baptist for John's condemnation of Herod's marriage to his sister-in-law:

TR: Oh, boy. I'm not sure "bimbo" is the best translation of κορασιον, which means "young girl" or "virgin." What is wrong with maiden? "Bimbo" has a ton of implications that are just not there in the Greek.

AS: It seems obvious what was meant and thus justified to convey what was meant despite inadequacies in the Greek.

TS: I can't help but feel uneasy about replacing a word of the original text of the Bible, a word which every source I can find translates as "young girl," with so pejorative a word as "bimbo." I confess taking the translation "κορασιω -> damsel" and replacing it with "κορασιω -> bimbo" makes me uncomfortable. If the meaning of the word is clear from the context, then we may safely leave it to the context to give that impression.

AS: this is a rare case where the Greek itself is inadequate. The dancer, who was likely provocative in an immoral way, is not simply a "girl" … I think it is a mistake to be slavishly bound to imprecise Greek when the real meaning is clear.

TS: Regarding κορασιω, I think a more descriptive word, informed by context (such as "floozy," "temptress," etc.) is good so long as we note in the analysis that the word means "girl" or "damsel," and that the translation is due to obvious context. That way, the goal of producing a clear translation is achieved, and yet nobody can accuse us of altering the meaning.

AS: Temptress" is also a terrific suggestion that has more gravitas than the informal "floozy". I'll update it now. Thanks for your insights, from which I've learned enormously.

Posted by: Victor | October 5, 2009 3:41 PM

7. "Why is this man speaking such blasphemy? Who can forgive our sins but God himself?" 8. Jesus perceived immediately what the intellectual types were thinking, and he asked them, "Why are you so hostile to this?

I, actually, see this as being a fair translation. Opportunities for quote mining aside, the passage shows Jesus doing a healing miracle in front of educated doubters (NIV uses "teachers of the law", the ASV uses "scribes). Jesus is a dick to them in the original, he's a dick to them in the Conservative version, too.

What that passage shows is that educated men in the first and second century CE were shown to not believe in miracles, either. A pretty good lesson to take away, IMO.

Posted by: Chiroptera | October 5, 2009 3:55 PM

Victor, #142: I, actually, see this as being a fair translation.

It's actually are very poor translation. The Pharisees were not just intellectuals; the Pharisees were members in a particular social movement and/or advocate of a very particular school of thought. When the New Testament criticizes the Pharisees, the intent is not to criticize intellectuals; it is to criticize a particular movements view of Judaism. To simply translate "Pharisee" as "intellectual" is to lose this much more specific meaning.

Now it may very well be that the Apostles had a dim view of intellectuals, but this view isn't reflected in the stories of the conflicts between Jesus and the Pharisees. These stories are meant to reflect a conflict between Jesus' teachings and the teachings of a particular dominant school of Judaism.

Posted by: Eamon Knight | October 5, 2009 4:03 PM

I must say it's a surreal sort of day when we see on a Pharyngula thread:
1) A serious discussion of Biblical criticism.
2) Heddle is on the same side as everyone else ;-).

Posted by: Chris Jones | October 5, 2009 4:14 PM

The passage in question does refer to "scribes", but it is still as inaccurate to generalize this into a reading against "intellectual types". Scribes were a specific profession who served a specific purpose, which in my estimation loses as much meaning as "Pharisee" would have lost in generalizing to "intellectual types".

Posted by: Leon | October 5, 2009 4:25 PM

Raven said:

Semi OT Anyone know what the most readable and accurate modern translation of the bible is?

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Posted by: DaveL | October 5, 2009 4:31 PM

I have to admit to being endlessly amused by the very idea of the Conservapædia gang trying to come up with a translation of the Bible untainted by the kind of intellectual snobbery that would lead a person to learn a second language.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | October 5, 2009 4:38 PM

There are two types of people in Andy Schlafly's world, conservatives and liberals. To be a Schlafly conservative, one not only has to be politically conservative but also a YEC, a Biblical literalist, a supporter of home schooling, and be able to find a liberal bias in almost anything. For instance Schlafly dislikes the Theory of Relativity because of a connection he makes to "Moral Relativity."

Posted by: se-rat-o-SAWR-us | October 5, 2009 4:48 PM

you realize that 'Arian' isn't a variant of 'Aryan'

I would hope that everyone here knows their heresies inside and out. Quick—what's the difference between monophysitism and monothelitism?

Posted by: charley | October 5, 2009 4:49 PM

This project isn't much different from the process that produced the pack of crap the Bible is now. Taking liberties with interpretations, making things up, editorializing, cutting and pasting to reinforce a point of view, etc., has all been done before, and it hasn't stopped people from accepting the result as the infallible word of God. Evangelicals are never taught about where the Bible actually came from, but they are conditioned to treat it with unquestioning reverence.

Put a fancy cover on it, make up a fake history about recovering God's original intent, and give them out to home school parents to replace those bleeding heart NIV's, and it just might take hold.

Posted by: se-rat-o-SAWR-us | October 5, 2009 4:50 PM

what's the difference between monophysitism and monothelitism?

And invoking miaphysitism doesn't count!

Posted by: StThomas | October 5, 2009 4:51 PM

for a wonderful pisstake of the bible try http://www.thesisters.demon.co.uk/bible/
converted from the Authorised Version by a perl script into Polari, a "language" used by many gay men before 1967 .
The guy who did this gave the Almighty a camp name! and Jesus as well. A nice piece of irreverence

Posted by: Eamon Knight | October 5, 2009 4:54 PM

This illustrates the true meaning of Poe - you really cannot tell. If it is a Poe, then the folks at conservapedia can't tell either. If it is not a Poe, then these folks really are nuts.

CP was (and for all I know, still is) the target of Poes contributing articles lampooning their insane take on conservatism -- and indeed, many of those seem to have been accepted. This particular effort, however, seems to have Assfly, the Chief Lunatic of the Ayslum himself, behind it.

If he's a Poe, then he's a damned long-running, deep-cover one.

Posted by: Chiroptera | October 5, 2009 5:07 PM

Cimourdain, #147: Not entirely unreasonable ambitions if you're, say, a Cambodian intellectual, East German small businessman, Russian freethinker, a Sudanese Black, a Lebanese Maronite...

Why would it not be unreasonable for a Cambodian intellectual want to kill Rosa Luxembourg? Or for a Sudanese Black to want to Tony Shalhoub?

Posted by: Liveliest Crib | October 5, 2009 5:10 PM

Heh, and we thought it was bad when they cherry picked. Literally rewriting the book to remove the good parts is hilarious! Like Jefferson in reverse . . . uh . . . and without the honesty.

I can't wait until they start doing this to the U.S. Constitution.

On the original copy of the First Amendment, the word "no" does not appear. It was inserted by hippies in the late 1960s, around the same time they corrupted the public school system. We must go back to the original version: Congress shall make law respecting the establishment of religion.

Posted by: CJO | October 5, 2009 5:21 PM

One other thing about the stories of the Pharisees in the gospels, they were probably the leading opponents to Paul of Tarsus' sect that was breaking the religion apart.

It's tempting to read back into history a schism of this magnitude. But it assumes that there was a normative "judaism" to be "broken apart" instead of a pre-broken apart loose agglomeration of sects holding in common a literary tradition and not a whole lot else, and that Christianity in the first two centuries of the era had enough adherents to appear to contemporary observers as a threat to older, established traditions. Neither assumption is warranted in my view.

The Pharisaic sect does appear to be the progenitor of the rabbinic Judaism of the 2nd century and following, so I've no doubt that from a nascent Christian perspective in the 1st century, they were identified as the bad guys. From the Pharisee's perspective though, I imagine that Judaic Christianity looked like just another kooky apocalyptic sect misappropriating the sacred writings for their own misguided ends and spending way too much time talking to goyim.

It's also worth noting that the scribes take most of the harshest criticism in terms of doctrinal matters. Jesus more often comes down on the Pharisees for hypocrisy than for mistaken doctrine; i.e. it would seem that early Judaic Christians had little quarrel with the content of Pharisaic teaching, but they accused them of failing to practice what they preached.

Posted by: A. Noyd | October 5, 2009 5:22 PM

catta (#104)

Bad news, guys. Or good, depending on preference. But there's a plethora of Stuffy Jesuses out there already.

None of them have quite the cute-factor of a proper Japanese mascot, though. I tried drawing up the idea that was in my head only to find out my scanner doesn't work. (Well, it probably works, but there's no Vista driver.) So you'll have to make do with this computer sketch with revolting colors, instead. Since every mascot needs a stupid name, I'm calling him Iesu! Puriizu (イエス！プリーズ) which can mean either "Jesus! Please" or "Yes! Please."

Posted by: A. Noyd | October 5, 2009 5:26 PM

Hmm, apparently Tripod doesn't let you link to images. Well, damn. Maybe copy/paste the URL: http://a.noyd.tripod.com/iesupuriizu.jpg

And if that doesn't work I'll um... try something else.

Posted by: Cimourdain | October 5, 2009 5:28 PM

CJO,

That's a very interesting post. Do you happen to know any reason why it was the one messiah, and none of the others whose cult took off? I mean, Jerusalem was swarming with wannabes.

Posted by: Mrs Tilton | October 5, 2009 5:41 PM

Ah, thank you, Ændy Schlæfly. Cønsêrvåpædïą: the gift that never stops giving! Good luck with your Republican Jesus Bible Project, Andy. I mean, it's been done before, but every generation has a need for entertainment.

One of the few downsides to the loss of my former Christian faith is that I now think the possibility that Jesus is real and alive and omnipotent and just waiting to get mediæval on Schlafly's pasty white ass is vanishingly small.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | October 5, 2009 5:46 PM

Cimourdain #173

KG, I keep forgetting that you're the most stereotypical example of the parochial stupid American who doesn't know there's a world beyond his shores, and lacks tenth grade reading comprehension skills. Cannot, for example, connect the word "communist" in the quote with, say, "cambodian intellectual".

Apparently you're unaware that Knockgoats is English.

Posted by: Mrs Tilton | October 5, 2009 5:54 PM

Schlafly is right, of course. Clearly the bible has been infected with communist texts that were never in the original. For example, somebody obviously mixed in the blatantly godless-communist "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" from Marx's Kritik des Gothaer Programms.

Posted by: Sean3:16 | October 5, 2009 5:59 PM

Cimourdain,

I'm with you on many things. Atheism is often misused as a blunt sword to whack a path for leftist ideologues, and is not without its many troubling coalignments.

As for why Jesus took off, and not the other wannabes, well that's a good question. More interesting yet, why wasn't Christianity more hellenized than it actually became? Much of it is historically contingent. Jesus popped up in a time when the Roman Republic was overstretched, and cultural forms were less than spiritually sustaining. Also, the tirless efforts of dissemination and emiinent learning of early theologians that could sway and integrate much of classical thought, and it was key that they continued to sacralize the old testament to add weight of historical authority. Finally, the Gospels are just firghtfully interesting reads, and they became the subject of many an intellectual debate, gaining currency that way too. Nothing necessary or sufficient about Jesus himself, though.

There are some good studies out there about origins. Obviously the lesson today, and with conservapedia, is that who knows in what ways Christianity can and will continue to morph when it is completely severable from anything but textual status.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 5, 2009 6:04 PM

I keep forgetting that you're the most stereotypical example of the parochial stupid American

ROTFLMAO

but his chameleon-like abilities to turn into an American at will might explain why our Anti-British bias does not affect him.

fucking priceless.

Posted by: CJO | October 5, 2009 6:06 PM

Jerusalem was swarming with wannabes.

Indeed, but I don't think a certain Yeshua ben Yosef of Nazareth was one of them, that is, I don't think that any such figure lived in history. Some time around the supposed crucifixion, I believe an apocalyptic revival movement began with an already resurrected savior figure modeled on various passeges in the prophets and the psalms. Though this figure was imagined to have lived at some time in the mythic past, that wasn't important, or knowable; what was important was that he had risen from the dead and was now appearing to his chosen, announcing the imminence of the Kingdom of God and the resurrection of the faithful. Paul is our witness of this stage of the tradition.

Later inheritors of the idea were for various reasons dissatisfied with the lack of specificity regarding the time and place of the earthly existence of the savior figure. In addition, we can imagine, a fair number of sayings and parables had been appropriated to the movement and invented by its leading adherents, and, in the ancient world, such a collection fairly begged to be attributed to an authoritative figure. Enter the historicized Jesus of the gospels, "according to the scriptures": a portrait no doubt informed by legendary material passed along by the followers of your many wannabes.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 5, 2009 6:09 PM

I should probably also mention that East Germans of all flavors are increasingly yearning for the "good old days" of Communism, for a whole variety of reasons. "Ostalgia" is fucking rampant, and the only people who are safe from it seem to be the disaffected youth that turned to Neo-Nazism instead.

Posted by: condignaction.wordpress.com | October 5, 2009 6:22 PM

...there is a deep distrust of atheism. The reason is that atheism is seen as inextricably mixed up with the kind of pansy-left...

I don't see it. I don't see Conservative connecting atheists with the pansy-left: effeminate males who timidly and demurely appease the playground bully or the international terrorist. I would have assumed that pejorative was more closely associated with the ecumenical lite-christian denominations and with the various New Age "spiritual" and "self actualization" movements.

Anyway, are you suggesting that if atheists as a group espoused a more aggressive foreign policy then people who believe in invisible magic protectors will stop feeling threatened when I assert such beliefs are childish make-believe? Really?

Now, if only we could get Richard Dawkins to stop being such a pansy-leftist... with all his lovey-dovey talk about Islam being a religion of peace and how Saddam was just misunderstood and all that... damn you Richard!

Posted by: shatfat | October 5, 2009 6:45 PM

Well, the possible lulz from infighting sound exciting, but come on, the last time this happened (NIV) it didn't really kill the conservative/evangelical/fundamentalist movement either. The lulzy bit is that these guys are so inept about it.

These microencephalatoi are targeting an audience impressed by arguments from authority. Find a sufficiently impressive authority, doll it up with fake quotes, and presto, an irresistable act of persuasion. Or not.

There have been pages of fake quotes by famous people on the intert00bs since the mid 1990's. They also like to make up Shakespeare stanzas and excerpts from the US Constitution.

There's a saying beloved of rigid thinkers: if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. I say it should be: if you won't look up the source, you'll fall for anything.

Posted by: shatfat | October 5, 2009 7:00 PM

@Lynna 63

Let's make a man out of that wimpy champion of the poor.

You and C.S. Lewis, not to mention scads of less-talented creepy Real Men Who Love Jesus™. Remember the Lamb of God? Well, in Lewis' well-intentioned but rather inane version of Our Cult (it's good because it's useful & because it's ours & we rock, duh), that lamb has been traded for the fearsome yet majestic Lion version! Yup, because who's impressed by a lamb being led to slaughter? Why, I call that dinner! But a talking lion who roars shit into being--now there's a deity I can crouch down and worship! (I hear he like skritchies!!)

Posted by: Lynna, OM | October 5, 2009 7:19 PM

@196:

@Lynna 63
Let's make a man out of that wimpy champion of the poor.

You and C.S. Lewis, not to mention scads of less-talented creepy Real Men Who Love Jesus™.

shatfat, from what I can tell, you got that I was employing sarcasm directed at the C.S. Lewis version of Jesus, and at the Conservæpedia version of Jesus. I just wanted to make it clear (just in case) that neither Cliché Jesus as "turn the other cheek" myth, nor Jesus as a Real-Man-Who-Shits-Bricks is admirable. Both are cartoon characters set up to rake in money and consolidate power. Both are so far from mapping onto reality that I also don't see how either myth can provide "comfort" -- so there's not even a pillow on which you can rest your head in hard times. Stuffy Jesus™ on the other hand, can at least be used as a pillow.

Posted by: howdy-lentils | October 5, 2009 7:26 PM

If you don't like it, just rewrite it. What a novel approach to scripture. Oh, I guess it isn't that novel, when you consider how many overlapping and redundant parts of the Old Testament there are. Don't like the way Genesis reads? We'll cover all of that material again later, in a completely different order.

Of course, "God is not the author of confusion." It's his followers who are the authors. I guess he's the "Ghostwriter of Confusion."

Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | October 5, 2009 7:32 PM

se-rat-o-SAWR-us @ 156:

I would hope that everyone here knows their heresies inside and out. Quick—what's the difference between monophysitism and monothelitism?

Posted by: Dreamer | October 5, 2009 7:41 PM

Can I say "Conservapedophilia"?

Cool!

Anyway . . . How can people claiming to be Bible-believing Christians think they can change the Bible to suit their perspective? Do they have any Biblical History scholars there, to at least deal with transmogrifying . . . er, translating?

I don't think this will fly at all. It's one of the things that makes me wonder if Conservapedophilia is a parody.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | October 5, 2009 8:01 PM

Can I say "Conservapedophilia"?

Yes, but then some will gripe that you should spell it "Conservapaedophilia".

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | October 5, 2009 8:12 PM

It's one of the things that makes me wonder if Conservapedophilia is a parody.

Unfortunately it isn't. Dig around RationalWiki for an indepth, extremely biased view of Conservapædia.

Posted by: mtgap.wordpress.com | October 5, 2009 9:03 PM

When you started talking about how the Bible was too liberal, I thought you surely must have been joking.

Oh dear.

P.S. How do I create a Conservapedia account? I can't find the "create account" option and I want to, er, improve some pages.

Posted by: Creature of the Universe | October 5, 2009 9:26 PM

I really doubt god signed off on this project. (I feel an earthquake or meteor strike coming)

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space | October 5, 2009 9:35 PM

gyeong-hwa, Oh, everything bad--from genocide to athlete's foot--is a result of going against Cimourdain's libertarian ideals. Well, at least on his planet.

Posted by: pdferguson | October 5, 2009 9:39 PM

These guys at Conservapedophilia really should hook up with the National Association to Modify Biblical Language and Authority, or "NAMBLA"...

Posted by: Kamaka | October 5, 2009 10:49 PM

How can people claiming to be Bible-believing Christians think they can change the Bible to suit their perspective?

It's what they do best.

Posted by: David Utidjian | October 5, 2009 11:06 PM

pdferguson @216 Wins the Internets :)

-DU-

Posted by: Luis Mack | October 6, 2009 12:04 AM

At first glance, I noticed the following: In John 2:1, they translate the KJV's "And the third day..." as "Three days later...". I suspect that the text should read "Two days later..." because of inclusive counting, where you count the beginning period as th first, not the zeroth.

For a fuller explanation, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting#Inclusive_counting

Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right | October 6, 2009 1:02 AM

Here you go, Kamaka: Easter Morning before meeting the risen Jesus was added. Codex Sinaiticus, Mark 16:

5 And they entered the sepulcher and saw a young man, sitting at the right side, clothed in a white robe; and they were amazed.

6 But he says to them: Be not amazed. You seek Jesus the Nazarene who was crucified; he has risen, he is not here: see the place where they laid him.

7 But go, tell his disciples, especially Peter, that he goes before you into Galilee: there you shall see him, as he said to you.

8 And going out they fled from the sepulcher; for trembling and astonishment had seized them; and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid. [END OF CHAPTER]

Posted by: BC | October 6, 2009 1:27 AM

his brings up so many, many thoughts.

1. American conservatives are doing a Church of England: Creating a new union of political & religious power based around Republicans.

2. American conservatives are doing a Ministry of Truth on the Bible, which is fascinating in its self-referential audacity.

3. If American conservatives have a problem with the liberal of the KJV (I wasn't previously aware of the existence of the modern American liberal progressive in 1611), learn Greek and read the original New Testament. That was how it was originally written and thus the inerrable word of their God.

4. Its the bible. Its a bunch of very old stories allegedly about some cult leader who didn't get forgotten. Who cares if conservatives re-write it? They are entitled to change their fiction to suit as much as they want.

=my2c
BC

Posted by: Cimourdain | October 6, 2009 2:22 AM

gweng, it's worth reading what I wrote about tenth-grade reading abilities.

KG's nationality here or there, he does an amazing impression of Joan Garofolo style gormlessness.

condignaction, the term originates from George Orwell. I'm not sure when he first used it, but it was basically a description of the ones who were saying "Wellll, this Hitler chap may be bad - but what about the Raj? Can't we talk about that instead? Isn't that the 'real issue'?" If this sounds vaguely familliar, it should.

I'll give you that the most prominent exponents of atheism - Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq etc. - get it about Islam. However, I invite you to take a look at the Hitch speaking at the FFRF meeting, and listen to some of the questions thrown at him.

I can verify that from personal experience. I've lost count of the number of atheists who are very loud about religion in general but turn green rather than speak about the psychoses of Islam in particular.

Incidentally, you've got this wrong:

Libertarianism is to economics what Creationism is to Science.

Actually, capitalism is to economics, what evolution is to biology, and statism is to economics what creationism is to science - let's have the Big Brother, the Intelligent Designer, it's all too complex!

To tie this up, as I'm not particularly in the mood for dealing with a ray & others tantrums, and don't really have the time to get their toys back into their prams, what I've noticed, looking at the broad left/right division, I notice that the right has its brands of unreason - Creationism, anti-Stem Cell research and so on. However, these, while irritating, don't really go anywhere much. Take creationism. Whenever the religious right pushes this stuff, it gets its ass handed to it.

Conversely, the left has its own brands of unreason - belief in the U.N., belief that International Law can exist without US enforcement, belief in all brands of statism, belief in environmentalism (i.e. the idea that nature in and of itself, distinct and apart from human beings and human benefit is a primary good) - that aren't just wrong, but Creationism level wrong. That is, they're on a par with the 'Just a theory' and 'Show my the missing link' arguments, and can, just as those, be dealt with in a few sentences, though a thorough explanation of their foolishness can take up several books. However, unlike rightist unreason, leftist unreason is virulently active, and gets a great number of people killed. To take environemntalism, look at Greenpeace blocking GM foodaid and GM development, look at the attempts to prevent the Third World from using its coal, oil, gas and uranium resources, look at the DDT ban. To take belief in the UN, right at the start of the Darfur crisis, everyone knew that going through the UN was a death sentence for those people. And so on, and so on.

Posted by: The Patriarch's Bible - The Revising Committee | October 6, 2009 3:17 AM

Argumentum ad Marxium? Sad.

Posted by: Drosera | October 6, 2009 5:01 AM

polution = pollution

Posted by: Coryat | October 6, 2009 5:39 AM

Edit: I meant your vulcan NERVE PINCH Cimourdain. My apologies for any offense caused.

Posted by: GBJ | October 6, 2009 7:44 AM

What's the big deal? All religious people pick and chose from their favorite books. These guys may be a basket of numbskulls, but they aren't actually doing anything out of character!

Posted by: Anri | October 6, 2009 8:33 AM

Cimourdain sez (in part):

Conversely, the left has its own brands of unreason - belief in the U.N., belief that International Law can exist without US enforcement, belief in all brands of statism,...

Ok, well, I'm not certain from your post if you're against international law (which is, in theory, the primary purpose of the UN - well, that, and giving countries a forum to talk things over rather than start world wars) or for it (with US enforcement, presumably), so I'll let that pass.
I am not exactly certain what you mean by 'statism', and what 'international law' would mean if you don't accept the concept of countries, so I'll pass on that as well, leaving me with:

...belief in environmentalism (i.e. the idea that nature in and of itself, distinct and apart from human beings and human benefit is a primary good) - that aren't just wrong, but Creationism level wrong.

Thanks in advance.

Posted by: bcoppola | October 6, 2009 9:25 AM

Right now (Tues 10/6 09:18 EST) the Conservapædia site seems to be down - keep getting Server Not Found on Firefox v. 3.5.3 (Mac OS 10.5.8). Have they perhaps withered away in embarrassment? (Nah...)

Posted by: laughingman83 | October 6, 2009 12:38 PM

There is an article on PZ at Conservapædia.

Posted by: maddyhatter | October 6, 2009 4:53 PM

There's just no way they aren't a parody. I refuse to believe they aren't playing a huge joke on all of us and other conservatives falling for it is to help their "credibility."

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | October 6, 2009 5:40 PM

Despite the many arguable, biases and stupid comments that looneytarians Cimourdain and Walton dangle in front of me, I will not assist them in derailing this thread.

Posted by: johnb300m | October 6, 2009 5:56 PM

I'm left speechless.

Never did I imagine the right-wingnuts ever going here.

Posted by: nothing's sacred | October 7, 2009 7:27 AM

Cimordain: Actually, capitalism is to economics, what evolution is to biology, and statism is to economics what creationism is to science - let's have the Big Brother, the Intelligent Designer, it's all too complex!

Walton: To some extent I agree

Then to some degree you're a cretin agreeing with a moronic category error.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 7, 2009 7:50 AM

Libertarian diarrhea of the keyboard.

I wish there was some form of Pepto Bismol for those afflicted with Libertarian Keyboard Diarrhea. It's a terrible condition and I have pity for them.

Even if they wanted to hold it in, at some point it's just going to spew out making a big mess and stinking up the place. The proper thing to do is to find a toilet, not release their bowls all over the floor and bar.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 7, 2009 10:19 AM

For instance, while I disagree with Paul Krugman on many things, I respect his expertise as an economist, and I think it's clear that his centre-left opinions are worth taking seriously - just as leftists ought to take seriously the views of leading libertarian economists such as Milton Friedman.

No.

No, you don't get to have it that way,

because you said:

Just as we trust the consensus of biologists on evolution, I would suggest that so too we should trust the consensus of economists on free trade, rather than accepting the heterodox conclusions of a small minority motivated by ideology. ... The paper cited by strange gods represents a viewpoint which is highly controversial, and rejected by most economists; indeed, the paper makes clear that it sets out to challenge the "accepted history" of capitalism. Not being an economist myself, I am not equipped to dismantle its claims in any detail - just as, not being a biologist, I am not personally equipped to dismantle the claims of Behe or Dembski. But, in economics as in biology, I trust the consensus of experts rather than the fringe.

You don't get to have it both ways. Mainstream economics is Keynesian-derived. Libertarian economics is not mainstream, and the Austrian school is everywhere else regarded as batshit heterodox.

You need to either take Ha-Joon Chang seriously, or never speak of Hayek again.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | October 7, 2009 10:39 AM

You don't get to have it both ways. Mainstream economics is Keynesian-derived. Libertarian economics is not mainstream, and the Austrian school is everywhere else regarded as batshit heterodox.

You need to either take Ha-Joon Chang seriously, or never speak of Hayek again.

Milton Friedman won a Nobel Prize. His economic views may not be shared by the majority today, but I'd say the fact that his work received the most prestigious academic award in the world places him firmly within the "mainstream". The fact that he won a Nobel Prize for his economic work doesn't mean that all his conclusions are right, but it does mean that you ought to take him seriously - just as I take Krugman and Stiglitz seriously.

I don't see Ha-Joon Chang, or anyone who shares his views on free trade, in the running for a Nobel Prize. If he were, then I - and many other people - would have to reconsider our positions on free trade, and take his ideas a little more seriously. But just as no creationists are winning Nobel Prizes for biological research, so too no protectionists are winning Nobel Prizes for their economic research - because both groups are considered cranks by the mainstream academic community.

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 7, 2009 10:54 AM

Walton,
As I've noted before, there is simply no comparison between biology and economics with regard to the degree of consensus that exists, or the degree of political colouring of rival theories (the same is pretty much true of the broader contrast between the natural and social sciences).

In any case, are you sure you want to place that evil scumbucket Friedman, who supported the murderous tyrant Pinochet, in the glibertarian camp? If so, you are admitting everything anti-glibertarians say about the utter hypocrisy of glibertairan claims to care about freedom.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 7, 2009 11:30 AM

Milton Friedman won a Nobel Prize.

Oh, really? Which Nobel Prize did he win?

Physics?
Chemistry?
Physiology and medicine?
Literature?
Peace?

His economic views may not be shared by the majority today, but I'd say the fact that his work received the most prestigious academic award in the world places him firmly within the "mainstream".

No, it most certainly does not. This is a complete misunderstanding of what the Sveriges Riksbank prize is.

It is not an award for "this person's work." It is an award for specific achievements. Friedman won the Sveriges Riksbank prize "for his achievements in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy."

Notably, none of that had anything to do with libertarian economics. It is entirely possible for a Sveriges Riksbank prizewinner to accomplish something coherent enough to win the prize, and be a complete nutcase in every other detail of their work. That's Friedman.

The prize is not an endorsement of anything else that the person has ever done, except for the specific achievement noted by the committee. You definitely cannot extend his Sveriges Riksbank prize for Keynesian-derived economics to cover any of his libertarian economics. That's completely against the spirit of the awards committee.

just as I take Krugman and Stiglitz seriously.

If you take Stiglitz seriously, and Stiglitz takes Chang seriously, then as Stiglitz undoubtedly knows better than you do whether Chang is worth taking seriously, maybe you should take Chang seriously.

By the way, you're now trying to claim that you won't read Chang because he is a protectionist. But that's not what the paper is about. He isn't advocating protectionism, as he isn't advocating anything. He's making an empirical historical study. You have no grounds on which to dismiss such a study.

You know who never won a Sveriges Riksbank prize? Ludwig von Mises, heterodox economist. I'd better never hear you talk about him again.

Posted by: Cimourdain | October 8, 2009 3:10 AM

Let's see now: rants, tantrums, name-calling... Honestly, isn't there any of you that can argue above a three year old level? Haven't you ever been taught how to think?

To take one or two egregious examples:

2) International Law predates the US. In some cases (e.g. Israel's illegal actions) the US actively obstructs it, in others in the not-too-distant past (invading Iraq, funding terrorism against Nicaragua) it has been one of the main violators.

KG a law, by definition, is something that can be enforced. If you can't enforce it, it isn't a law, merely a suggestion. Now, which nation is the only one currently willing and capable of providing the muscle to enforce things like the genocide convention?

Of course, you can believe in your mystic 'international law' if you want, and go the UN route. You can see what that just wrought in Darfur. I hope all you UN fetishists are real proud of that.

What fuckwit Cimourdain refers to is ecocentrism or "deep green" philosophy.

Even a cursory glance at the writings of, say, Al Gore and Philip Shabecoff proves that wrong, not to mention the various activities of Greenpeace etc. That's obvious if you know anything about the philosophical routes of environmentalism - Muir, Thoreau, Carson etc.

I notice with interest that my assertion about the number of people killed by this insanity goes unquestioned. Of course, those are only poor, dark skinned people in distant countries. Your lot has never given a damn about them, have you?

----------------------------------------

Walton,

Likewise, I don't think that protectionism and tariffs - at least in developed Western countries - can be seriously defended on any intellectual ground. Virtually all serious economists support free trade; protectionism is as intellectually bankrupt as creationism.

Correct. But why does it persist? Same reason as creationism persists. That's what I mean about leftist unreason being far more virulent - some knuckleheads don't believe in evolution; how does that skin my cat? I can continue my research just fine. But I grew up seeing the immiseration wreaked on the wretched of the earth by these anti-capitalist, anti-globalization fools.

You make interesting points elsewhere, but it is this basic point I repair to. We know what cures poverty: free trade, capitalism and hard work. There's no single place on earth that that hasn't worked. Compare Hong Kong under Copperwaith with China under the communists. Look at North and South Korea. Compare the states of East and West Berlin. We don't have to have this kind of global immiseration, but because of tenth rate, mediocre pseudointellectuals who are too ignorant even to know that they are ignorant, this mess is allowed to continue. It's a complete fucking disgrace.

Posted by: Coryat | October 8, 2009 9:25 AM

cimourdain (may I call you Tuvok?) could you please be a little less pompous? The only thing worse than an ignoramus is one who's also smug.

Posted by: Drosera | October 8, 2009 2:05 PM

Cimourdain,

The champion of DDT (you @229) thinks that one can separate conservationism from environmentalism. A coconut has more brains than you.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 9, 2009 5:37 PM

found it. I edited it to make all the references non-links (didn't feel like having the thing stuck in moderation; but it still might, if the filter reacts to link-like text as well). just insert http://www in front of all link-references :-)



1)DDT is not generally banned. it is banned for agricultural use, because

a)it has been strongly correlated to developmental damage in humans, especially in regard to birth-weight, pre-mature births and lactation, all of which are causes of infant mortality in developing nations (.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol9no8/03-0082.htm)

b)agricultural use of DDT has been proven to be responsible for the development of DDT resistance in mosquitoes (.nature.com/nature/journal/v293/n5829/abs/293181a0.html), so that it can actually be responsible for a RESURGENCE of malaria.

2)DDT is being phased out as an anti-malarial treatment because

a)it has been illegally used for agriculture, leading to the above mentioned problems

b) resistance is developing slowly but surely in any case, decreasing its effectiveness as compared to other anti-malarial insecticides (.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7495366?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=2&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed)

c) the WHO now demands testing for resistance before DDT is used, also because of the environmental problems

3)other, less human-toxic treatments work better or equally well, (.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15119065?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=3&log$=relatedreviews&logdbfrom=pubmed and .ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11297094?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=3&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed),

and even protect against other diseases (.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/trstmh/article/PII0035920394902003/abstract)

and are in some cases far more cost effective (.ajtmh.org/cgi/reprint/65/4/279)

Posted by: Cimourdain | October 11, 2009 4:16 AM

Credit where credit's due, at least jadehawk, you try to bring actual facts to the table, which is more than I can say for most on this board.

agricultural use of DDT has been proven to be responsible for the development of DDT resistance in mosquitoes (.nature.com/nature/journal/v293/n5829/abs/293181a0.html), so that it can actually be responsible for a RESURGENCE of malaria.

This doesn't even pass muster on an internal logical level. If DDT was working, but becomes less effective, it's responsible for a resurgence? If it doesn't work in all cases, we should get rid of it entirely? And those are just the internal problems with that statement.

Resistance to DDT is a term that is routinely, and willfully misunderstood. Even when they are resistant, mosquitoes still avoid the stuff:

"Both insecticidal and behavioral effects of insecticides are important, but the relative importance of one versus
the other is controversial. Field studies in Africa, India, Brazil, and Mexico provide per suasive evidence for strong behavioral avoidance of DDT by the primary vector species.
This avoidance behavior, exhibited when malaria vectors avoid insecticides by not entering or by rapidly exiting sprayed houses, should raise serious questions about the overall value of current physiological and biochemical resistance tests. The continued efficacy of DDT in Africa, India, Brazil, and Mexico, where 69% of all reported cases of malaria occur and where vectors are physiologically resistant to DDT (excluding Brazil), serves as one indicator that repellency is very important in preventing indoor transmission of malaria."

Reference here, American Journal of Tropical Hygene: http://www.ajtmh.org/cgi/reprint/50/6_Suppl/21

Furthermore, when DDT resistance does emerge, it is due to agricultural, not medical use. Spraying houses can and has saved millions, but how many millions have died because this was opposed?

"New insecticides, chemicals and drugs are clearly needed. However their development and use are hampered by insufficient funding (in Africa), excessive reliance on the precautionary principle (particularly in Europe), and drug approval delays and the ever-present threat of multibillion-
dollar liability judgments (especially in the United States). Even if they might someday be a reliable substitute for DDT, tens of millions are likely to die in the meantime.

Simply put, the suggestion that alternatives to DDT exist now or will in the near future is little more than wishful thinking in its deadliest form – promoted by people who have staked out an ideological position against DDT anywhere, anytime and under any circumstances, and cling
to their position like limpets to a rock."

http://www.eco-imperialism.com/Sustainable_Mosquitoes_-_Expendable_People_-_Chapter_Excerpts.pdf

DDT is not generally banned

Correct. Countries were just told that if they used it, no more foreign aid for them. What is not deniable is that following the EPA's decision, malaria made a comeback that is truly nightmarish to behold. Fortunately, it did not reach its previous leels, but even one life sacrificed on the Green Altar would be unacceptable.

"To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT... In little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths, due to malaria, that otherwise would have been inevitable."

[National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Research in the Life Sciences of the Committee on Science and Public Policy. 1970. The Life Sciences; Recent Progress and Application to Human Affairs; The World of Biological Research; Requirements for the Future.]

Extensive hearings on DDT before an EPA administrative law judge occurred during 1971-1972. The EPA hearing examiner, Judge Edmund Sweeney, concluded that "DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man... DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man... The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife."

[Sweeney, EM. 1972. EPA Hearing Examiner's recommendations and findings concerning DDT hearings, April 25, 1972 (40 CFR 164.32, 113 pages). Summarized in Barrons (May 1, 1972) and Oregonian (April 26, 1972)]

other, less human-toxic treatments work better or equally well

Perhaps they do now, after hecatombs have been filled up. Yet are these alternatives as cheap? That's quite the problem elsewhere.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol3no3/roberts.htm

"A study of DDT alternatives for malaria control in Ecuador showed that the cost of other insecticides was many times higher than the cost of $1.44 to spray one house per year with DDT (16). The prohibitive cost of DDT alternatives has been a problem in malaria control (16). From 1986 to 1988, Mexico evaluated DDT alternatives in its national malaria program but discontinued their use because of unfavorable responses and high costs (17). High costs and downward trends in foreign aid suggest that many countries cannot afford the switch to DDT alternatives"

As regards human toxicity, I hope that this isn't a repeat of the bogus cancer claims (yes, I can provide a string of references to support that.

There's a much more basic point. The studies cited in your paper all follow the ban. That was never cited in opposing the use of the stuff. It was the most egregious example of a long list of human sacrifices on a green altar. Others that I cited, which you didn't try to criticise, were the blocking of development, of food aid and so forth.

I also hope that the environmental decastation you refer to isn't the tired nonsense about the effects it supposedly has on bald eagles (began their decline before DDT was widely used), peregrine falcons (ditto), Brown pelicans (ditto again) and so on.

The basic point I repair to is the following: whenever and wherever DDT was used, malaria took a nosedive. You really did see millions of lives saved. Whenever and wherever it was discontinuned due to political logrolling, malaria came back with a vengeance. This is unacceptable.

Eco Imperialism, the website I cite above, contains a list of the truly hideous consequences of this vile faith. Believe you me, I can substantiate a great number more. My basic point still stands: Environmentalism - the belief that the environment in and of itself, beside or above human use or needs, is a good in itself, is a hideous faith that causes a great deal of death.