The key question viz. library classification is why the Library of Congress puts the Bible under BS.

Me too! The other six I knew about and could more or less understand as hate figures:
Charles Darwin – obviously, suggested people descended from MONKEYS
Karl Marx – invented international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify America
Sigmund Freud – implied honest people have naughty thoughts
John Dewey – a bit less sure; but I’m guessing that he offended Christian glassblowers by classifying glass-blowing as 6.66 in his system of library classification.
John Maynard Keynes – invented socialism
Soren Kierkegaard – bit the heads off ferrets.

So, will they take out the Sermon on the Mount, with lines like “Blessed are the peacemakers” which seem pretty liberal to me?

After those who doubted George Bush have been proven wrong over and over again, after he has been vindicated in every particular, do you still find yourself doubting that he is a genius anointed by God (sorry the Lord!) to rule humankind? If so, don’t you think to open your mind to the truth free of liberal bias?

BTW, Wide as the Waters: The Story of the English Bible and the Revolution It Inspired is a pretty good history of the King James bible.

Given that the context here is supposedly “scholarly”—that is, Conservapedia intends to be some kind of reliable authority—I think it is extremely revealing that they would even contemplate a bible translation outside of competency in the language of the original texts. This makes it clear that they are intellectual frauds.

At least a lot of evangelicals attempt to learn some koine—my experience is that they tend to be much less competent than they think they are, but still—and so it’s not as if Conservapedia couldn’t enlist people who have at least a small clue about what they’re attempting. But then, of course, any knowledge of the original texts would tie their hands to some degree, wouldn’t it?

“Just as liberal feminists are frequently content with a minimal agenda of legal and social equality for women and ‘pro-choice’, so liberal (and even some socialist) mathematicians are often content to work within the hegemonic Zermelo-Fraenkel framework (which, reflecting its nineteenth-century liberal origins, already incorporates the axiom of equality) supplemented only by the axiom of choice.”

i’m thinking that schlaffers never figured out the sokal hoax is a hoax.

I confess to having thought, in response to Robert P’s comment, “eh, as opposed to the straightforward reasons the rest of us are vaguely bothered by it?”

Wikipedia is delightfully incisive about this: “The existence of nonmeasurable sets, such as those in the Banach–Tarski paradox, has been used as an argument against the axiom of choice. Nevertheless, most mathematicians are willing to tolerate the existence of nonmeasurable sets, given that the axiom of choice has many other mathematically useful consequences.”

Willing to tolerate sounds about right—granted I’m just an apprentice at this point, but that seems consonant with folks’ feelings. Isn’t the purpose of axiom selection to maximize the mathematically useful consequences we can achieve, under the constraints of parsimony and consistency?

So he can’t swallow the Banach-Tarsky paradox. What’s so odd about that?

I am so excited I’m off to commit the Sin of Onan.

Liberal names! “Axiom of Life” would clearly be superior.

What an obsessive weirdo.