US Conservatives to purge the Holy Bible of Liberal Bias, will stress Free Markets.

Remove all ads!

When I see "women campaign against abuse", I think it's a topic where the women campaigning were representative of the vast majority of the rest. When I see "US Lawmakers lie to the public", I again assume that, at the least, a sizable number of them are culpable.

What I would have liked Ragusa to title his thread would be something like "Nutty Fringe Element to purge...", yes. Or maybe "A few nutty conservatives to purge..." I would like it made clear to someone who doesn't know what Conservipedia is and has never heard of the Conservative Bible Project that this is not the GOP doing this, nor a major political entity like the Moral Majority, but rather a few right-wing extremists.

And as for the "well, they are conservative" claim, they're also white, and they're male, and their human. Would it be just as appropriate to say White Males to Purge the Holy Bible of Liberal Bias"? Now, sure that doesn't contrast with Liberal as well, but it's just as true. When you make a title like that, though, you imply that the label of the group (US Conservatives) is adequately descriptive to generally identify them. Just because they are part of some group isn't enough, they need to be identified according to what they represent.

 

Tal,
I see it as a political matter - in particular (some, not all) conservatives (but not paleo-conservatives, gun-nut conservatives, fiscal-conservatives, neo-conservatives, social-conservatives and many other conservatives that I may have forgotten to mention) parodying themselves.

That said, such bloated disclaimers to please all make texts unreadable. I will not do that. I expect my readers to possess enough common sense to make that differentiation themselves. It is preposterous that we even do debate this non-point to soothe hurt feelings or to meet demands for political correctness - this time directed towards towards NOG's conservative sensitivities.

It's like Monty Python's People's Front of Judea:

Unlike the People's Front of Judea conservatives like NOG demand exclusive language instead of (gender) inclusive language. This is an involuntary reversal of the punchline from the Life of Brian, underlining that, indeed, only life can beat reality.

 

Ragusa; there are non-offensive ways to make your point. I, for one, am rather offended (or amused, not sure which) that you would even think that I, as a US conservative, would even care what the bible says. And yes, the "New Age Bible" is garbage -- have you read any of that thing? It really dumbs down the bible and softens the lessons (kind of like "The Bible for Dummies and Mamby-Pamby Wimps that Can't Handle the Harsh Realities of Life"). Although I don't advocate changing the bible, I can't really say it matters to me. If Reader's Digest can alter books and offer them in 'condensed versions' then I guess random religious groups can do whatever they want with the bible. But just don't group me with that bag of nuts -- I'm in a different bag all together.

 

Exactly. Nevertheless, it doesn't change the fact that conservatives are suffering an identity crisis. A lot of people are asking the question of whether or not this is the future of the Republican Party. It is a fair question. Consider two fights this last week that broke out within the conservative tent: Rush and David Brooks, and Lindsey Graham and Glenn Beck.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-peyronnin/why-now-senator-graham_b_309718.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/27844.html

 

I have to agree with NOG* (and other conservatives) here. Suggesting that Conservapedia is typical of mainsteam Conservative attitudes (when in fact it isn't) is like suggesting that the KKK represents the typical white person.

* (other than the "humorless Canadians" part )

 

Explain what a "mainstream" US conservative is these days, Splunge?

 

It's what you get when you put them all in a big blender, run it on a medium setting for a few minutes, and then throw the resulting goo into a large stream.

OK, seriously. I know what you're saying, Chandos. U.S. conservatives (or perhaps more accurately, Republicans) are having an identity crisis. So maybe my use of "mainstream" wasn't really a great idea (not that any of my ideas are great). However, given that there doesn't really seem to be a mainstream right now, I think it's still fair to say that Conservapedia doesn't represent mainstream conservative thought, since you can't represent something that doesn't exist. (I know that last part is fodder for a really good joke, but I'm coming up blank right now.)

 

Splunge - Consider that the NYT Best Seller list has Michelle Malkin, Bill O'Reilly, Mark Levin -- who made this amazingly stupid comment:

Yes, he made this "statement" about someone who was just elected to the most powerful office on the planet (denied success?!). What a moron! And conservatives are buying this crap up by the truck load (or should I say, those "other" conservatives). But I saved the best for last:

Yep. The number one best seller on the list (the rest are in the top 15). And Sarah Palin's not released yet book is the #1 pre-order on Amazon. So where is the "mainstream" conservative? I'm having as hard a time, as you are, Splunge, trying to figure that one out.

Note: If Ragusa needs to mind his "political correctness," then I think the other side should do so as well. It would appear that the PC bar has been rasied a bit....

 

Yes. They just "discovered" it has a liberal agenda, after all these years of telling people to read and live by it.

 

Where did I say conservapedia is mainstream? They're ideologues if their hilarious summary on abstinence (only) education is any indication:

not to mention their take on random topics like Condoms, Liberal Hypochrisy, Homosexuality etc. pp. ... they're covering any remotely conceivable Christian-Right or conservative pet or wedge issue. The Christian-Right itself is not mainstream but an active and vocal stream in American conservatism.

What I said is this - that they are certainly sincere, self described conservatives and identify themselves as such. Whoever doesn't like them aligning themselves with his general political movement, well, tough luck. It is not my fault. I am just the (amused) messenger. Blame them, not me.

T2,
I don't know the bible version you're referring to, but I had a 'Children's Bible' myself. I got a real one for grown ups later, so I get the general idea.

The irony is here that those self described conservatives are doing the same thing they accuse the 'liberal dumb-downers' of - in response to real or/and imagined 'liberal bias' they insert their own ideological bias into the bible - with the predictable outcome that the result will be a travesty. What about staying faithful to the text, or reverting to a classic translation? Instead of that - free market as sacred tradition?

Rod Dreher caught the basic problem I have with these people quite well when he said:

 

I did not intend to talk down to anyone on this board. And it is not a deflection -- as I hope I made clear, I don't think that the title of the post necessarily implies that ALL conservatives are in agreement (I said involved in before, my bad for lack of precision) with the aims of those conservatives who are producing this Bible.

Apologies to those who felt I was being a jerk.

 

Again, it isn't the association with conservatives that's the problem. I'd have responded the same if it were liberals, or greens, or what ever other group has a few extremist yahoos out there. It's the fact that you portrayed them as "US Conservatives" and not "US Conservative Extremists" or "US Conservative Fringe Loons" or the like. No, I don't need a mile-long disclaimer, but a simple recognition that these people are not core US conservatives, but rather an extreme fringe element would be appropriate.

Just to make sure on this point, are you or are you not suggesting that Conservipedia is representative of the Christian Right now?

I would but, when you spread it without correction, you propagate it and, thus, support it.

This nails the problem exactly. I would give you positive rep for such a spot-on quote, but I haven't repped anyone else since the beginning of this, so it won't let me.


And again I ask, how would the more liberal members respond if I posted a link to Greenpeace or such a group and accused US Liberals (or liberals from any nation Greenpeace is active in) of terrorism? Would you look at it and say, "Oh, he means those liberals. Ok." or would you object to my use of the term?

 

NOG - When I 1st read the title of the thread, I did NOT assume Rags was talking about all Conservatives, just the group who is actively participating in this venture. Read between the lines on this. To automatically assume he was talking about all Conservatives is just plain not using your head. You know better.

 

Considering what they write and do, they obviously are part of the movement. As for whether they represent the entire Christian-Right - no, obviously not, that's too diverse a group. So while they are obviously not your niche, they are definitely a part of of the larger family. Think of them as the proverbial crazy uncle about everyone appears to have.

No, I do not. I also don't endorse Orly Taitz birther kookery by posting excerpts of her outlandish court filings on SP. I just point at it and grin. Apparently lost on you, but I indicated my view on what they were up to with my closing comment (hint: with very much overt irony), praising their valiant efforts.

PS: You can fix that ugly looking quote by correcting the typo in the markup in the closing tag [/qoote] ...

 

You didn't do so explicitly. But the title of the thread can be interpreted to give that impression (even if unintentionally). And, as T2 pointed out, the fact that this is in the AoLS rather than the AoDA implies more than just a passing political angle.

Anyway, you've made your intention clear now, so all's good (for me, anyway).

 

Does nobody read newspapers anymore? The thread title is constructed exactly like a news headline. If a headline said, "US Soldiers Accused of [whatever]," would you take it to mean a particular group of soldiers or every damn soldier in the force? Would you take "Congressmen on Trial for [whatever]" to mean the whole Congress?

 

Ok. As long as you see them as the 'crazy uncle' and not the 'Head of the Family', I think you're in the right. Actually, 'schizophrenic older brother who refuses to take his meds' may be a better analogy.

When you post about Taitz's kookery, you call it kookery. You call her a nut, an insult to lawyers everywhere, and the like. That's correction.

You also say things like that when you talk about the GOP doing something that you think will shoot them in the foot. It's irony, and criticism, but it's not anything close to distancing them from the mainstream.

In short, you introduced the people behind the project as 'US Conservatives', and then said nothing more than that you (in short) didn't appreciate their efforts.

This is actually very much context dependant, which then means it's very much perception-dependant. If the people being talked about were connected with something associated with their collection (i.e. US soldiers accused of shooting civilians, or Congressment on trial for taking bribes), then yes, I'd assume the article intended to make a larger connection. If it's a more off-point or a-typical case (such as three congressmen accused of a hit-and-run) then no. Furthermore, if the article then did nothing to specify that it was three congressmen accused of something, and not Congress as a whole, or even a widespread investigation of congressmen, then I think the article should never have been printed.

In light of that perspective, I can see how Ragusa may have intended it innocently, but I still think it was, at best, a careless wording.

I'm also curious as to why none of you have responded to my question?

 

Same here....