Now the Bible Is Too Darn Liberal

Does this mean that if it cuts out all the liberal passages, then all of Jesus' teachings will be cut out?

A lot of the things they are suggesting aren't all that crazy. The Bible has been translated a whole bunch of times and each time it's done through the eyes of the translators. Many of the people today who have the knowledge to improve the translation are in academia where there is a liberal bias in general. There must have been work in the past, for instance, to remove a patriarchical slant from the translation where the translators thought it was not justified by the text.

What's so strange about this program is couching it so directly in political terms. I'm not convinced conservative and liberal have much meaning outside of our immediate context. Clarifying stuff so that the Bible endorses the free market seems bizarre, simply because no one thought in such terms 2,000 years ago.

Why don't they just start at the beginning with the Torah? I'm sure the Jewish community would love to hear their corrective instruction as they root around in their ancient texts. Speaking of excitement, it would be an E ticket ride baby!

Take out "liberal" passages, but leaVE IN THE absurd literal translations like the world is only 6000 years old. LOL

I hear scientists are also considering a new version to reflect scientific reality.

The line has been changed to "Let there be photons!"

Seriously, I want to know what they will do with the word "humility;" it's pretty clear they don't know it's current meaning. How can fundamentalists say that the Bible is the divine Word of God, but then improve it to reflect their political bias? The Devil loves such self-righteous, they do his work for him.

So... will they have to burn all the unedited copies then?

"There must have been work in the past, for instance, to remove a patriarchical slant from the translation where the translators thought it was not justified by the text."~pacatrue
********

What a great spin! Actually the reverse is true. Jesus' original teachings and ministry included women amongst his ministers. Magdalene had her own gospel that was redacted clear out of the picture when the romans retooled Jesus' presence on earth to serve political agendas. Lets say that women had their place in Rome but it wasn't necessarily on top [unless the man demanded it that night]...lol..

Another redaction? Sure, why not. If you're going to follow the voice of the devil, you might as well finish the job and leave every single shred of what Jesus stood for out of "The Bible"..lol..

For instance MedMob would like to see "Be Thy Brother's Keeper" left clear out ouf the picture..

There have already been multiple translations of the Bible, and various sects accept various iterations and/or interpretations as the "Word of God." Sects which teach a very literal interpretation and 'sola scriptura' (teaching based only on the Bible, rather than Bible plus tradition) find it more necessary to have the 'correct' translation.

So there's nothing unusual about this except that the methodology that they're using is very transparent in its attempt to formulate an end product that suits an agenda.

As for Jews and the Torah, Father Time, rabbis are famous for esoteric debates over the various interpretations.

And as for the oft repeated canard about the Bible proving that Jesus would be a modern day liberal, instead of needing to redact passages, I'd say those who advance that claim need to show a single quote where he told his followers that they need to organize through the government in order to care for their neighbors.

Maybe they'll add the gnostic gospels too?!?!? When you go back and look at how the bible was put together, like a Readers Digest more or less, then think about the number of translations that it has gone through, and then consider that these gospels came from the dreams and recolections of men....

It kind of makes you wonder how anyone can believe that the English NIV is the literal word of God.

It's too bad that we keep trying to politicize our religious beliefs and use religious beliefs to justify political views. Should the Bible be written as a liberal or conservative document? That's the wrong question to me. The real question should be: why should a religious work be infused with, or interpreted as having, a political preference in the first place?

For those with religious preferences, let them believe what they wish and express those beliefs in their various places of worship. And, let the government govern without resort to religious justification, but rather on behalf of the best interests of all.

Just a little wishful thinking.

CStanley, why do you call it a "canard"? Figuring out the philosophy of Jesus isn't exactly rocket science, and while he would certainly not exclude his coverage to one party or another, he'd have to be blind not to take note of the wide, wide chasm between the practices of certain political philosophies and his own teachings. Of course I'm just a secular-humanist-science-based-environmentalist-heathen, so what do I know?

JSpencer- you'd have to be blind to think that he'd endorse either of our political parties.

A good book which looks at his teachings as they actually relate to political philosophies, written without an agenda, isThe Political Teachings of Jesus by Tod Lindbergh. There are elements which could be used to justify either a conservative or liberal bias, but you have to cherry pick in order to support either argument.

Eh, I suppose rewriting the Bible to suit the political interests of those doing the rewriting has been done about as long as the Torah and subsequent gospels have been around. Much the same thing has happened for most (or likely all) of the other holy books as well. For those of us who take what we want from each of the holy books and try to look for the lessons and not the "facts" in the parables, fables, and mythology contained therein, it doesn't really much matter if the stories are written at a 7th grade level or if they use the words "casting lots" or any of those fairly silly things.

The sad part, of course, is that those who miss the forrest for the trees, hanging on each particular word instead of gathering the message, those people will use a "conservative" version of the Bible to justify whatever it is they want to justify. Again, this is nothing new.

"Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level"

"Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness"

Does anyone else find the juxtaposition of these two bullet points to induce little giggles? 'Cause I find it pretty darn funny. "Liberal Wordiness". We liberals and all of our.. "words". We're intellectual "elites" AND "dumbed down". Love this logic.

Don't worry. Like most Bibles, people still won't read it.

Less cherry-picking and more common-sense-big-picture-ism would help weed out the more absurd rationalizations and inconsistencies - which I think goes to the point made by roro80. I wish my expectations for a return to reasonable standards were higher, but alas, I've had the misfortune to have been paying attention to goings on political in the 21st. My bad. ;-)

CS, "So there's nothing unusual about this except that the methodology that they're using is very transparent in its attempt to formulate an end product that suits an agenda."

Agree with your whole post CS and the quote particularly points out the problem with this, to be kind let's call it a "Translation". It may not even be the first time the Bible was edited for political purposes. It's still an affront on the work of Jesus and true meaning of Christianity.

"And as for the oft repeated canard about the Bible proving that Jesus would be a modern day liberal..." No more of a canard than what's used by those on the right either. Personally, I think he'd be a moderate but that's just me.

I know this is a little off-topic, but has anyone else read the Bible that Thomas Jefferson rewrote to reflect his beliefs? Totally fascinating. (To be clear: I haven't read it all, just snippets.)

Has anyone noticed that the crowd that wants to re-interpret the Bible is the same crowd that goes berserk if a court tries to interpret the Constitution to conform with the 21st century?

They'll get my JPS (Jewish Pubication Society) copy of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) over my cold, dead body.

... rabbis are famous for esoteric debates over the various interpretations

Yes, but they didn't edit the words of the Torah in order to do that. Interpretation is not rewriting.

I'd say those who advance that claim need to show a single quote where he told his followers that they need to organize through the government in order to care for their neighbors.

There was no concept of government in Jesus's time such as you refer to.

C'mon, C. Stanley, you need to stop making intelligent remarks and accept the inevitable conclusion, that Jesus was a World Community Organizer [tm], as well as a Democrat, naturally.

That would be an awesome zinger....if anyone had said that.

There was no concept of government in Jesus's time such as you refer to.

Right. And if he were advocating that the people create such a govt, then the "Jesus was a liberal" crowd would be correct.

Yes, but they didn't edit the words of the Torah in order to do that. Interpretation is not rewriting.
I was trying to make that point myself, but perhaps wasn't clear. Some religious leaders preach a literal interpretation of the writings and those groups need to rewrite/edit in order to justify their interpretations. Other groups (including Jews, and Catholics at least since the Council of Trent in the 1500s) rely on interpretation, not rewrites.

The basic concept isn't that much different though- either people have a text for which the religious leaders give an authoritative interpretation, or they make their authoritative interpretation more permanent through editing. In my view, what matters is the basis for their interpretation (which was my criticism of the group that is written about in the article- because they're starting with a predetermined conclusion and working backward to 'prove' that it's a more accurate interpretation.

Jesus is not a liberal nor a conservative but more likely a Chomsky/Ron Paul type(pick either). Meaning so far off the range that it is not really even worth debating.

I was preoccupied with stating the obvious, not trying to be "awesome." [sigh]

"And as for the oft repeated canard about the Bible proving that Jesus would be a modern day liberal..." No more of a canard than what's used by those on the right either.
I agree, but I was responding to someone who used the liberal canard here, while no one was pushing the "Jesus was a Republican" meme.

Personally, I think he'd be a moderate but that's just me.
He didn't seem to take kindly to moderation in general but if you mean more like 'independent', I'd concur.

Has anyone noticed that the crowd that wants to re-interpret the Bible is the same crowd that goes berserk if a court tries to interpret the Constitution to conform with the 21st century?

Not really. I think most conservative strict constructionists are libertarians and fairly secular. I don't think there's much crossover between those types and Christian conservatives.

Besides, groups like this who are re-interpreting the Bible aren't doing so in order to 'bring it up to date' or have it conform with the 21st century- they're actually trying to edit out portions that could be interpreted by some as supporting a more 'modern' view.

Examples of more liberal translations exist too though, and the editors' goals in those cases would align fairly well with the liberal idea of a 'living Constitution'.

I think you were only preoccupied with imagining the "obvious" . . . ;-)

"I don't think there's much crossover between those types and Christian conservatives."

Well, the tent flaps come flying open whenever votes are needed don't they. And of course when that old family values religious meme was being thrown around a lot there was no dissent from those "secular" (so-called) conservatives. So whatever happened to "family values" anyway? I'm guessing that particular bit of posturing just got too embarrassing. Because if there was really any concept of family as priority then it would necessarily be a philosophy important enough to extend to the "national" family, as opposed to just the partisan family - and we all know what a sham that is.

CS, "I agree, but I was responding to someone who used the liberal canard here, while no one was pushing the 'Jesus was a Republican' meme."

I wasn't making a jab to you, I'm sorry if it came out that way. I was stating that I've see both canards used often enough.


CS: "He didn't seem to take kindly to moderation in general but if you mean more like 'independent', I'd concur."

In that I don't think he'd be a Democrat or a Republican by today's standards and would look at each situation in a more non-partisan way then yes 'independent' fits which is what I meant by saying 'moderate' the first time.

"In my view, what matters is the basis for their interpretation (which was my criticism of the group that is written about in the article- because they're starting with a predetermined conclusion and working backward to 'prove' that it's a more accurate interpretation."

Exactly! Which is really just circular logic or at best self-fulfilling-prophecy.

Let's cut to the chase on this, anyone who sees Jesus anywhere in the political spectrum clearly has no idea what the man was or or what beliefs he held.

Asking which party Jesus would belong to makes as much sense as trying to decide what color bicycle would be my dog's favorite. Political apples and spiritual oranges. No wonder Jesus wept.

CS -

First I agree with you that "libertarians"and secularists have many points of diffusion/separation from the religious right. However, they share some common traits, among them a generally similar view of Constitutional interpretation. To the extent they differ, libertarians and secularists actually want a broader interpretation of the Constitution to preserve, for example, a right of privacy, which is not actually in the document. Religious righters want a more literal interpretation in order to get rid of Roe v. Wade, some gay rights rulings, prayer in school, etc.

Second, I've never met a "strict constructionist" and don't think they exist, though they sincerely believe they do, just as many Christians sincerely believe that their interpretation of the Bible is actually a literal reading. Truth is, conservatives want the Constitution interpreted to accommodate their views and liberals want the Constitution interpreted to accomodate their views. The most "activist" judge today, in my opinion, is Antonin Scalia. Btw, I don't have a problem with that; at least he believes in something other than counting "process points" to see who wins.

Finally, the link actually does talk about bringing the Bible up to date at least in using more modern terms; "gambling" instead of "casting lots" was the example used. Gambling, of course, is much much broader than casting lots, just as many interpretations of the Constitution are much broader than the document originally envisioned in agrarian 18th century America. This is where Scalia recognizes a need to expand on original intent as relates to corporate rights for example, or to restrict individual liberty contrary, or so it appears at times, to the literal language of the Bill of Rights.

As always with politics, it's not right or wrong, but who's ox is being gored that moves the reflex meter.

Well, the tent flaps come flying open whenever votes are needed don't they. And of course when that old family values religious meme was being thrown around a lot there was no dissent from those "secular" (so-called) conservatives.
One could only say that if one hasn't been reading any conservative blogs or publications over the last 6-8 years. The fight between secular , fiscal conservatives and Christian social conservatives for control over the party's messaging has been fierce.

I don't see why it's some kind of revelation that two groups that disagree with each other would unite in a common cause though- that happens within all parties, and the Democrats have their own internal factions. It still doesn't prove the point that tidbits made, that those two subgroups are one in the same or that there's hypocrisy involved. If one wing of the Dem party believed one thing and another wing was pushing something that wasn't consistent with that, it would still not be true that there was some irony there, just because the two groups came together to vote for a "D" candidate.

Because if there was really any concept of family as priority then it would necessarily be a philosophy important enough to extend to the "national" family, as opposed to just the partisan family - and we all know what a sham that is.
That extension might be your opinion, but one concept doesn't follow as a logical necessity from the other.

And if he were advocating that the people create such a govt, then the "Jesus was a liberal" crowd would be correct.

You are operating under the modern concept of there being a division, or a distinction, between government and society in general, with some functions belonging to the latter and others appropriate only for the former. Jesus lived at a time when people did not think that way. Yes, there were governing authorities, but they were not thought of (and were not set up as) a whole separate institution, with government being one entity and the private sector another.

Jesus would not have felt any need to "create a government" to carry out religious obligations to feed the poor, care for the sick, welcome the stranger, clothe the naked, etc. This was the obligation of the entire community, which was by definition both religious and governing.

Also, I don't say that "Jesus was a liberal." There were no political parties in Jesus's time. What I say, and what others of like mind say, is that if Jesus were living today, he might be a liberal, because contemporary liberals share many of the same values that were part of Jesus's Jewish tradition.

CS said "It still doesn't prove the point that tidbits made, that those two subgroups are one in the same or that there's hypocrisy involved."

For the record, that's not the point I made. All I said was that the same crowd that wants to reinterpret the Bible goes berserk over interpreting the Constitution. I did not, and did not intend to, conflate the religious right with secular conservatives as being "one in the same". Please see my subsequent comment for additional clarification.

Love having discussions with you, but please don't read more into a pithy one sentence comment than is there. Thank you. And, if I was unclear, my apologies.

In my view, what matters is the basis for their interpretation (which was my criticism of the group that is written about in the article- because they're starting with a predetermined conclusion and working backward to 'prove' that it's a more accurate interpretation.

This, I agree with. I forgot to include that in my other comment.

Edit the Bible? Why not. People have "edited" God's word to fit their own opinions for centuries. That's how so m any denominations came into being. There was only one Church in the 1st century.

And if you read Romans, it is your duty to obey the government. Since, in America, WE are supposed to be the government, that puts the Constitution as Caesar. And we're not doing such a good job at that.

:)

Yes, but remember, Mike Huckabee wants to rewrite the Constitution to reflect right-wing ideology (which he calls "the word of God").

"Yes, but remember, Mike Huckabee wants to rewrite the Constitution to reflect right-wing ideology (which he calls "the word of God")."

Doesn't he have just the best sense of humor? :) And, he's a decent bass guitar player. Secret delusion. He reminds me of Jimmy Swaggart, also charismatic and a very good musician.

Not to worry, Kathy, we're so divided right now we couldn't get the votes in D.C. or in the states to add or subtract a comma from the Constitution.

My apologies- I didn't intend to overinterpret your initial comment. I agree with some of your extended response (though not the part about judicial activism, but that's a discussion for another day :-) )

I better move before a lightning bolt hits this thread. If you need me I'll be looking for goat to burn.

... we're so divided right now we couldn't get the votes in D.C. or in the states to add or subtract a comma from the Constitution.

I think that statement deserves a gold medal for Best Silver Lining Sighting of the year. :-)

CS - Thank you. Yes, we could have a very interesting discussion on activist judges in the future. Look forward to it.

I always appreciate your intelligent and well reasoned comments. You have a couple of Likes from me on this thread as a result.

In anticipation of our next discussion,

tidbits

CStanley, I like the first part of your comment. But I do not agree with the last part, "And as for the oft repeated canard about the Bible proving that Jesus would be a modern day liberal, instead of needing to redact passages, I'd say those who advance that claim need to show a single quote where he told his followers that they need to organize through the government in order to care for their neighbors.'

First of all, wasn't Jesus a community organizer? And didn't teh GOP speak with disdain about community organizers during the campaign? Second of all, Jesus taught compassion, not judging others, treating others fairly, etc. None of which the current conservative leadership does (though I know many fine conservatives who are average Americans and Christians and do not fall into this category)..... especially when the conservative leadership and their followers believe it is fine to torture innocent people in the name of national security.

So Jesus may not have spoken about government, but given the actions and statements of the conservative leadership, it is clear that Jesus would be considered a liberal, especially since he went out among prostitutes, lepers and other outcasts of society to help them. This is unlike today's conservative leaders who want everyone to be the same and if you're not, then you are banished. Remember the Republicans joke about being the party of "haves and have mores". The Republicans do not have a place for the "have nots" who were the followers of Jesus. Let's not forget the conservative leadership would sooner bring harm to Americans if it meant a rise in their own political standing and a decline in the Dems (or Obama's) standing.

To be clear I don't think Jesus would proscribe to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. Both parties have many people who understand the teachings of Jesus. My quarrel with Jesus being labelled a conservative is strictly with the conservative leadership in the Republican Party. And to be clear I think there are plenty of Dem elected officials who fall into the same category as many of the Republican leaders... It just seems to me that the Republican leadership needs to learn the Bible more, especially if they are going to quote it and tell others to live by it (which is not something most Democratic elected officials do). And if the GOP wants others to live by Jesus' lessons, they can begin by setting the example.

That's my bone.

That is not true about Mike Huckabee. He wanted to "bring the Constitution back 'in line" with the Bible" as the founding fathers first did. I brought this up on a previous thread when folks were bashing Christian hypocrits in the GOP - Liberals bash them when they are hypocrits and they bash them when they are faithful (Huckabee).

You liberals bend over backwards attempting to say that our nation was not founded on Christian beliefs. We that's true and false. It was not founded with a Christian theocracy in mind. According to the writings of the founding fathers themselves (Jefferson, Madison, etc), the nation and government should always have God at the forefront, giving Him all credit and praise. They set it up under the Constitution, with a "unitarian" God. In other words, call Him what you want (God, Allah, Yaweh, Vishnu, Jehovah, etc), but just call Him, and worship Him however you choose.

Once again.... I don't expect you to reply. I have yet to hear a liberal deny the writings of the Founding fathers in this debate. They are inrefutable.

First of all, wasn't Jesus a community organizer?

Yes and no. His ministry was mostly about how to keep your head down and be true to the Jewish faith while under Roman occupation. His acts of charity certainly supported his community, but they were individual, not institutional--closer to the way the right practices charity than the left.

Acknowledging the necessity to "render unto Caesar" was about as supportive as he got of government. And the relationship obviously went south from there, until they finally had to kill him.

"Jesus was a community organizer".

Not true in the way you intended. He was an organizer of individuals. For each person to come to Him, not entire communities was His goal. The relationship with the Father is highly personal for every one who believes and obeys. Christ put the plan of savlation out there, and it was each person's responibility to hear it, believe it, repent, confess, and be baptised for that salvation. Jesus did tell his followers to obey the government and its laws "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesars - and unto God that which is God's", etc. In that respect, WE are now Caesar in the Democractic form of government, so one could postulate that we should then be involved in the government - but that's a stretch (and way too many stretches have been made in relation to the Bible).

Christ was love. Each of us should love our fellow man and especially our enemies.

Should the Bible be edited? Absolutely not. The Word is perfect.

Dr. J and JD have beaten me to the main points of response to "Wasn't Jesus a community organizer?" (it's actually a bit funny because earlier someone responded to a joke that DLS made about that claim by pointing out that no one here was saying that!)

And didn't teh GOP speak with disdain about community organizers during the campaign? You mean like ACORN??? If the scales haven't fallen from your eyes yet about that organization (which encompasses a wide array of other groups, going under hundreds of other names) and the corruption at their core, then I don't know what to say. You don't think that at least some of the skepticism/criticism of modern day 'community organizers' was apt? Seriously?

The take home point is that groups that are aligned with government gain power and as a result have a propensity for a great deal of corruption, which is why I don't believe that Jesus would have advocated for such a structure (that's the pragmatic reason- theologically there's also a huge, insurmountable problem of abdication of free will- we are called to do works of charity voluntarily to create God's kingdom- not by coercion or rule of law.)

My quarrel with Jesus being labelled a conservative is strictly with the conservative leadership in the Republican Party. And to be clear I think there are plenty of Dem elected officials who fall into the same category as many of the Republican leaders... It just seems to me that the Republican leadership needs to learn the Bible more, especially if they are going to quote it and tell others to live by it (which is not something most Democratic elected officials do).
Baloney. Someone recently analyzed Obama's campaign speeches and showed that he speaks of religion more than GWB did. Many, many Dems have campaigned in liberal churches, particularly black congregations. The distinction you make is a false one based on seeing things on one side that you apparently ignore on the other, and accepting a common narrative among liberals that religion is coapted by the right but not the left.

I have no problem with your taking offense at GOP leaders using religious themes but not practicing them- but I see just as much offense among Democratic leadership. In fact even the vast corruption of community organizers is an example- these groups ally themselves with churches in many cases, and have a facade of caring for the downtrodden, and meanwhile the leaders of those groups are forming unholy alliances with govt officials and in some cases, the leaders of the community organizing groups are fleecing their own (and the taxpayers and donors) as in the case of Rathke embezzling from ACORN. Why is that not an obvious example of hypocrisy regarding the values that the group is supposed to represent?


Second of all, Jesus taught compassion, not judging others, treating others fairly, etc. None of which the current conservative leadership does (though I know many fine conservatives who are average Americans and Christians and do not fall into this category)..... especially when the conservative leadership and their followers believe it is fine to torture innocent people in the name of national security.
I don't think it's quite fair to say that anyone 'believes it is fine to torture innocent people'. I think some people wrongly believe that it is fine to torture people that we already know are guilty, in the name of defense (a wrongheaded application of the principle of self defense in the face of a violent attacker.) Personally I believe that torture is wrong in all cases (though some would define torture more loosely than I would) AND that such people are also wrong to assume that we always know who is guilty and can apply these kinds of interrogations only on the guilty, not the innocent. But I think that if you wish to convince anyone of your way of thinking, it's important not to misunderstand what they actually believe or they will dismiss you without even considering where they are going astray.

CS If Jesus is so adverse to corrupt bureaucracies, why doesn't he send a plague to eradicate the bureaucrats runing the catholic church. Protecting the bottom line by leaving urban areas for the upscale suburbs and filing bankruptcy to protect pedophile priests is not protecting the weak and the children...

Aw, plagues are so Old Testament, Rudi.... not quite Jesus' style (that was his Dad's thing.)

In all seriousness though, it's interesting that you brought up the corruptibility of Church bureaucracy because that was running through my mind as I wrote some of the comments here. I often wonder why it is that some people see every reason to distrust organized religion (or private corporate bureaucracy, take your pick) even as they turn a blind eye to the same phenomenon as it exists in government. There always seems to be this naive attachment of the idea that our elected reps are simply stand ins for 'we the people' and that the institution of our government can be trusted when we elect people who voice the appropriate concerns.

"with the liberal idea of a 'living Constitution'."

This has always been a "living, breathing" lie, and of course is selective -- not only in the revised meanings that are claimed to be (such as Nina Totenberg dishonesty describes them as) "modern interpretations" of the Constitution (i.e., substitution of liberal desires for what was actually meant and what the law still means; it has nothing to do with clarification or extension of valid construction of what was made law to modern things like aircraft and their use, for example). Not only that. It is selective; so often what matters is only what certain rights are seen as fit for misapplication ("free speech" constituting any and all kind of degenerate or offensive behaviors) or for deliberate neglect (the Second Amendment being favored for this treatment) while the others are retained (or misused).

"I have yet to hear a liberal deny the writings of the Founding fathers in this debate."

It's impossible (nobody can correctly say, as so many libs do, that "red" now means or should mean green, and that colors and words and meanings are "living, breathing," and fully malleable to liberal goals), and inconsistent (actually, hypocritical), since many losers'-resorts include reliance on the First Amendment ("free speech," except when it's campaigning for the GOP or against the Dems and involves more money than the other side is able or willing to raise and spend; then it should be illegal, as well as any and all pro-GOP-con or anti-lib-Dem speech on the airwaves, which is "unfair") as well as misconstruction (deliberately) of the "general welfare" clause (often involving low-IQ equivocation), or (the most laughable losers' staple) references to the Preamble, etc.

Of course, deliberate misconstruction ("modern interpretation") of the Constitution is sought not only as a way of getting the judiciary to function as legislature, too, but because doing things the legitimate way, through the legislative process, first requires that these people actually win plenty of elections. They don't, which is one reason why they misuse the law -- a bypass, not only a short cut.

Fortunately, Obama's recent Supreme Court choice doesn't raise decent, intelligent people's concerns too highly when it comes to this threat; it could have been much, much worse.

"If the scales haven't fallen from your eyes yet about that organization (which encompasses a wide array of other groups, going under hundreds of other names) and the corruption at their core...[)]"

The concern about corruption of the Census (and subsequent redistricting and related matters) remains in effect.

In the case of our corrupt incompletent government, we are allowed to vote in or out our representation. In the case of corporations or the church, no vote...

You vote with your feet, and wallet, Rudi. Church membership is voluntary. Don't like what they're doing or what they stand for, you leave. Don't want to financially contribute, then don't (unlike taxation which is coerced and punishable by law.)

As for the govt, unfortunately many of the crooks don't get voted out. Often their corruption isn't seen by the public, and even when it is some people choose to look the other way. And in best case scenario when they are voted out, there's usually damage already done.

"Don't want to financially contribute, then don't "

Except, of course, that churches are tax-exempt in all their profits, unlike any individual or corporation or politician. So we don't really have a choice in that, do we?

Here I think JD is getting the "Word" (i.e., Christ as the incarnate Word) confused with the "words" of the bible. The words of the bible are clearly not perfect, if perfect means "without error." Just have a look at the early Judaic understanding of genetics in Genesis 30: 37-39:

Then Jacob took fresh sticks of poplar and almond and plane trees, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white of the sticks. He set the sticks that he had peeled in front of the flocks in the troughs, that is, the watering places, where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred when they came to drink, the flocks bred in front of the sticks and so the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted.

The words are also not perfect in the sense of "without contradiction." There are simply many passages in the words of the bible that contradict each other.

So JD, do you mean Christ the Word is perfect, or the words of the bible?

No, the Bible does not contradict itself.
And yes, the hebrews added all kinds of stories in the Bible. I'm not defending the Old Testament. The Old Testament remains God's Word, and explains (very well) the journey through the Patriarchal age, the Mosaic age, up to and including the New Covenant within the New Testament. The lineage, law, and everythign else was in place to bring about the Christ and establish His Kingdom. Once that goal was reached, the Word was made perfect (complete).

So....to answer your question. Both Christ the Word and the Word of the Bible are indeed perfect. And there is no contradiction in the Bible. I've studied every supposed contradiction and found it to be nothing more than misunderstanding and lack of research.

Without wishing to be rude, it's hard for me to imagine that you have studied every supposed contradiction in the bible, objectively. Scholars spend lifetimes on this topic, and frankly your writing doesn't come across as very scholarly. I could be wrong, though. (Is that something you would ever consider saying?)

However, your choice not to defend the OT is certainly interesting, and I'm sure plenty of people would take umbrage at it, including observant Jews, fundamentalist Christians, and some mainline folks.

But I'm going to stop writing about this b/c it's sort of off topic, and because it isn't good for my soul, frankly, to deal with you.

Last comment.
I couldn't let that last one go unanswered, even if I am illiterate.

You should know that I did not intend to say that I research every single charge of contradiction in human history. Only the ones brought to my attention. The fact of the matter is that the entire existence of the Jews and God's protection of them was for the purpose of bringing forth a Christ. Even Jews will tell you that - they are still waiting for a Christ, because the Christ didn't come across as "kingly enough". They were waiting for another David or Elijah, and what they got was a lowly carpenter who acted as a servant. Even though the Jewish Prophets predicted just that - a lowly servant (Daniel, Jeremiah, etc).

Then came the Kingdom, or Church. There was one Church (and still is) in the first century. Then the "scholars" of which you are so fond, came up with better more interesting ways of doing things. Shortly thereafter, came off-shoots and denominations. First the Catholic Church, then the "reformation", and so on. There are even "scholars" today that say the Bible just isn't meant for "Today's churches".

The point I'm trying to make (and it is, indeed, good for your soul), is that you, I, and any other person out there that proclaims Christianity are members of the same Church. (assuming that you are a Christian). People will continue to follow creed books, false doctrine, and men instead of God's Word. As long as they do, they are separated from Him.