The first bit of crazy you need to remember is the Lenski Saga, in which Schlafly accused badass scientist Richard Lenski of fraud and deceit. Unsurprisingly, Lenski... well... kicked Schlafly's ass. And then, just for a bonus, PNAS proceeded to kick Schlafly's ass as well after Schlafly complained incoherently to them. So, in short: Schlafly complained about some of Lenski's pro-evolution research, Lenski smacked down the arguably slanderous nonsense, Schlafly complained to PNAS, PNAS told him he was being stupid, and Schlafly subsequently viewed all this as a win. It is as though Schlafly honestly cannot distinguish success from failure.
The second bit of crazy is the Conservative Bible Project, about which I've written before. The basic idea, for those who are curious, is that the bible has become "too liberal" and needs to be retranslated more accurately so as to return it to its conservative roots. No, I'm not kidding, and not only has Schlafly been on the radio with this schtick, but he's actually suggested replacing the word "damsel" with "bimbo" in his new "translation." It's hard to know what to do with something like this, especially when even World Net Daily recognizes how stupid it is. I mean, hell, that is about as stupid as it can get, right?
Well, apparently not, because we have a new bit of awesomeness brewing at Conservapedia. You see, it seems that they've decided to write another letter, only this time it's going to Douglas Moo, a professor at Wheaton College and a member of the committee that produced the TNIV edition of the bible. Why do I think this is going to be awesome? Well, take a look at the announcement on the front page:
Or, in plain text:
In our famous dialog with Professor Lenski, we asked him to release his data underlying his claims. Continuing our tradition, we ask Professor Douglas Moo to release his draft translation of the Bible, announced with great fanfare over nine months ago. We welcome public suggestions on our Draft Letter to Douglas Moo.
Oh, wow! So, we're "continuing our tradition" of making ourselves internet laughingstocks, are we? Of doing things so stupid that even our ideological allies distance themselves from us? Please, Schlafly, carry on! And the letter he's drafting* is so awesome that I feel compelled to reproduce it verbatim:
Or, again, in plain text:
June __, 2010
Professor Douglas Moo
Wheaton Graduate School
Chairman, Committee on Bible Translation
Dear Professor Moo,
I hope this letter finds you well in your capacity as the Chairman of the Committee on Bible Translation, which reportedly oversaw the TNIV translation and is reportedly producing a new revision of the NIV translation.
On Sept. 1, 2009, the USA Today explained that your Committee is working on an "update" of the NIV. That was over nine months ago. Has a single word of your new translation been made available for public review? I have not been able to find even one word of your Committee's new version. If unavailable to the public, then why the secrecy? During this same period we completed our translation of the entire New Testament (wrapping it up over a month ago), in a fully public process. We have also made progress on our Old Testament translation.
I have concern that your Committee might produce a liberal translation that distorts, changes and conceals references to the unborn child in appeasement of the pro-abortion position. Conservapedia has identified nine instances where the NIV downplays or omits biblical references to the unborn child, and in each of these instances the NIV mistranslation denies or obscures biblical confirmation of pro-life truths. Please feel free to visit the Feminist Bible entry on Conservapedia if you dispute any of these examples, and I would be happy to post any defense you might have. I'm not optimistic that you can defend the NIV's bias against acknowledging the existence of the unborn child in all the biblical references. (The bias in the subsequent TNIV on gender issues was so great that many prominent ministers completely rejected that translation.)
Perhaps you were or are not responsible for the NIV distortions, but pro-life Christians are not going to accept another ideologically pro-abortion translation of the Bible. Most college professors support abortion, and if you are unwilling to allow public review of your Committee's efforts then such secrecy would heighten my concern. Applying a famous saying to the class of liberal professors, "fool me once, shame on them; fool me twice, shame on me."
You harshly criticized our translation effort, pompously and publicly declaring that "Silly is probably as kind as I could be about it." Yet we completed our work in the New Testament over a month ago, all in full public view. Where, pray tell, is yours?
P.S. I will make your reply public on Conservapedia unless you request otherwise.
cc: Jerry Falwell, Jr., President of Liberty University
Presbyterian Church of America [emphasis original. No, seriously, it is]
And how can you not love that? We have an internet whacko with a decrepit website that is so looney even World Net Daily says they're idiots, writing a respected bible scholar to call him out for a "bad translation"! And is he seriously going to cc Jerry Falwell? As if Falwell gives a rat's ass about Schlafly? Honestly, this has the markings of being the crown jewel in Schlafly's crown of failure as he manages to somehow combine the awesomeness of the Lenski saga with the absurdity of the Conservative Bible Project. And, like Voltron, Schlafly's insanity gets more awesome the more of it you hook together.
Stay tuned, folks, because however this goes down, it stands a good chance of being epic!
* The non-static version of the letter can be accessed here.