Sunday, November 01, 2009

Son of Eagle Forum founder to rewrite the Bible.

Hi everyone,

Just because Ms. Schlafly has been on the radar here lately, and because her local followers called her in, I thought it'd be useful to get a closer look at the consequences so, for instance:

Conservative to reinterpret the Bible
FAR HILLS, N.J., Oct. 19 (UPI) -- A New Jersey man says he is reinterpreting the Bible to excise what he considers two objectionable passages.

Andrew Schlafly, the son of conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly and head of the Conservative Bible Project, also wants to replace certain terms with language that would make the Bible more masculine, The (Nashville) Tennessean reported Sunday.

Schlafly's Bible would omit verses about snake handling and the story of the adulteress, about whom Jesus said, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." Schlafly said these verses should be cut because they portray Christ as being too easy on sinners.


"..because they portray Christ as being too easy on sinners"?

What's clear is that this kind of Wild West exegetical hubris walnut didn't fall too far from the tree.

If this is the sort of Jesus we can expect from the Eagle Forum, what's their public policy going to look like?

I'm just sayin'.


hiho
Mp

22 comments:

kevin scheunemann said...

So is this worse than Obama, as messiah, re-writing his campaign gospel of pull out in Iraq?

Or the re-writing of the Obama's campaign gospel promising shut down of Guantánamo Bay?

There is more important hypocrasy to be talking about than some no name from New Jersey trying to re-write 2 bible passages....

Anonymous said...

Kevin, why on earth is EVERYTHING about Obama to you?

Anonymous said...

Kevin gets so much Obama through Fox, Boots, Belling, the one fat guy, etc., he can't not think of Obama. Media super-saturation and an inability to look on all politicians with equal skepticism and criticism.

Kevin Scheunemann said...

I'm just fascinated by the "pass" the left gives Obama on broken campaign promises at the center of his campaign....but, instead,

we are going to accuse and denounce this obscure nobody from New Jersey for "hypocrasy". We certainly need to talk about the president's overt hypocrasy first.

I have not heard "OBAMA lied, people died" yet.

Is the American left going pro-war?

That is far more interesting hypocrasy!

Anonymous said...

kevin - its spelled 'hypocrisy' - pay closer attention in Bible study.
and by your 'taxing' logic...its 2 passages this year. then 2 more next year. by golly, when will it end??????????

Anonymous said...

Kevin, you failed to answer the question, "why on earth is EVERYTHING about Obama to you?"

Just answer the question.

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Obama has far more impact than this nobody from New Jersey.

So I take it that "war is OK" now that Obama is conducting it.

Obama promised to end it, immediately. Where are the "Obama lied, people died" chants from the left?

That's a fascinating, and far more important, issue.

My apologies for not correcting my spelling.

Anonymous said...

dear kevin,

***NEWSFLASH***

this is a personal blog. the author can make an entry about whatever he chooses. what does this particular post have to do with 'the pass' you perceive the left giving obama?
for all you know, mr. peterson might very well be disappointed with something obama has or hasnot done. but that doesn't mean he's obligated to post about it.

Anonymous said...

kev, why don't you stop simply complaining about "the "pass" the left gives Obama on broken campaign promises", and do something about it! your incessant rants here are tiresome

Anonymous said...

Kevin - Don't worry about spelling mistakes. They happen to all of us... and, last time I checked, a blog is not a place to post your scholarly articles... it's just about chatting up the issues.

When someone attacks your spelling instead of your point-of-view, it's because they lack the information to argue against your points.

Peterson can attest to that, right? When you can't win an argument, you just attack the person making the argument instead.

Anonymous said...

So if I ever go to one of your DQ's and my burger is burned and I go complain can I expect the teen manning the register to ignore my burger problem because "Obama has far more impact than this" burnt burger? You have said in the past that "everything" is political...

Your inability to talk about ANYTHING without bringing up Obama is as, if not more, sad than the "Bush lied, people died" crowd.

And you aren't clever, so stop trying. It's ok.

PaulyW said...

Anonymoose is awful demanding. Answer my question. Why is it so dang important that we worry about how a word is spelled on a blog? Other than the fact that you try to exercize your superiority...what is your reason?

BTW. Kevin is correct, you find fault with others, yet Obama does no wrong!?

Anonymous said...

holy panty wads!! i retract my comment on his poor spelling.
but then what say you about the second sentence:

"and by your 'taxing' logic...its 2 passages this year. then 2 more next year. by golly, when will it end??????????"

Anonymous said...

There is not a heck of a lot of difference between Republicans or Democrats when one look at US international actions.

The US is not "leaving" Iraq: The US will leave plenty of "advisers" there; the U.S. corporations will hire mercenaries and likely get a big tax break for them. A nice pro-US government will be US assisted, kept in power, and "nurtured" to put down threats. The oil contracts are secure, there's a lot of easy to process sweet crude to pump, and the US wants/needs the oil. Turn off the TV and read books to figure this out.

Clinton's actions snuffed more people than Bush, though it took a little longer. Clinton's Iraq quarantine led to the estimated deaths of 1/2 million Iraqi children according to the UN, and Albright (though against abortion) thought it was worth it, maybe 'cause they were someone else's brown kids.

Obama is still trying to do something in Afghanistan...
1. Shut down opium and heroin production that is poisoning Europeans and funding the warlords, the Taliban, the Afghan government, and likely CIA black ops - Not.
2. Eliminate the Taliban - partially.
3. Prop up a corrupt Afghani government - partially.
4. Prevent the Taliban from toppling the corrupt Pakistani government and take their nukes - likely
5. (Like Clinton and Bush 2) Secure a North/South road and pipeline route to transport raw materials, gas, and oil from the northern 'stans thereby bypassing the USSR transportation controls and tariffs, ensuring these supplies for US markets, and ensuring profits for tax-paying big US corporations - DEAD ON.

Note: Obama has not backed off one bit on the central American "drug" (snuff leftists) war, he has not backed off Cuba or Iran, and he hasn't stilted the Pentagon out of one dime. I'm sure some guy is to this day still paid to monitor this blog and BootsandSabers, a leftover (socialist) government job from the Bush II era.

I'd respect Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama more if they would have said the oil corps pay taxes too; we are in Iraq for the Oil.

References:
1. Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil. Michael C. Ruppert
2. Blowback, Second Edition: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire (American Empire Project): Chalmers Johnson
3. What Uncle Sam Really Wants (about 10 Noam Chomsky books into 100 pages)
4. 10-20 other left/right/centrist history books.

JPenterman

kevin scheunemann said...

Wow...

I really stirred the pot on comparative political issue importance.

After the reaction above,

I wonder now, which would curtail my free speech rights faster in my public official email account:

1.) Attaching a bible passage

Or

2.) Attaching "Obama lied, people died."

It might be a fascinating study of rampant leftist censorship.

Anonymous said...

Kevin, you still haven't answered the question,

Anonymous said...

Kevin, why on earth is EVERYTHING about Obama to you?

Kevin Scheunemann said...

I've counted over 20 posts of mine, on this site, that were not about Obama.

"Everything" is hardly the right term.

However, since Obama seems bent on runing everything, the banks, the auto industry, the mortgage industry, health care, stimulis money,....

Isn't this what liberals want? Having to go to Obama for "everything."

Who else do we beg to?... with our victimhood and oppression?

When Obama is dedicated to running everything, how is everything NOT about Obama?

Am I not singing the Obama hymns loud enough in the church of liberalism?

Sorry about that, my singing may be off, because I caught the flu because Obama couldn't provide enough swine flu shots. (or mist)

Anonymous said...

95% of Republicans voted against funding for the flu vaccine back in June.

Blame Joe Wilson

DanBack said...

Last I checked the auto industry and banking industry went to DC for the bailout, DC didn't go to Detroit or Wall Street.

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Anonymous,

It does not matter that the Republicans voted against it. The Democrats passed it.

...and we see how "effective" government health care is with this swine flu vaccine.

long lines, shortages, rationing...

Dan Beck...

DC goes to Detroit and Wall street all the time, 24/7. Its called taxes if you have not heard of the concept.

DanBack said...

Right, but that's not what I'm talking about. You make it out as if GM were a totally healthy business that Obama just took over under the cover of darkness. GM got themselves in a mess and approached the government for help.

kevin scheunemann said...

GM should have failed. (or reorganized using Bankruptcy.)

Perhaps my favorite liberal postion: GOVERNMENT CORPORATE WELFARE IS ALWAYS BAD.

Obama let us down by embracing corporate welfare for GM!

What really disappoints me is the yawn by the left over this.