Dissatisfaction with the new NIV among Biblical Bloggers

    The following Old Testament scholars who blog have expressed dissatisfaction with the new NIV:

Charles Halton: The New NIV Online – Sadly the Online Version Falls on its Face. Halton gives examples of tendentious translation, inconsistency in translation, and euphemistic translation; Halton’s proposals fell on deaf ears.

Claude Mariottini: The Revised NIV: A Step Backward. Mariottini notes a stark example of harmonization in translation.

Doug Magnum: NIV Ads: Just Marketing or Plain Misleading. Magnum points out an example of gender sensitivity gone amok.

John Hobbins: A Review of the New NIV of Qohelet 11:1-2; PETA is right about the Bible; NIV 2011 Isaiah 19:16 is a Weak Translation. Hobbins points out an example of paraphrastic translation; discusses the degendering of language in reference to animals; and analyzes Doug Magnum’s example in depth.

    So far as I know, the only blogger/ Biblia Hebraica scholar who offers praise for the new NIV is Joel Hoffman. He expressed satisfaction for the its gender-sensitive modifications of NIV 1984; he describes them as gender-accurate. These kind of changes satisfy some but raise the hackles of others. In Roman Catholic and Southern Baptist contexts – the largest church polities in the US – a reaction against gender-sensitive translation has set in. Both faith traditions seek to retain a degree of independence from prevailing cultural trends. This is no doubt salutary. At the same time, it would be easy to build bridges across some of the divides if the debate were not dominated by Ninja warrior types on both sides.

    If I had to name my biggest beef with the new NIV, it would be its frequent decision to reword language that applies to an individual and apply it instead to a plurality such that a third person singular gender-generic masculine pronoun does not have to be used. When preaching or teaching from the Bible, it makes sense to explain gender reference when there might be some uncertainty based on a translation that makes use of gender-generic masculine pronouns. But I don’t like a translation that pluralizes language applied to a “one among many,” as in Psalm 1. It makes more sense to expect and invite readers to correctly disambiguate gender-generic pronouns and other gender-generic language in English – gender-generic masculine language continues to have wide currency among English speakers -it is rarely difficult to do.  

 

Comments

[C. Stirling Bartholomew]

The use of the term gender-accurate is certainly one of the most delicious ironies of this interminable[1] brouhaha.

[1] it certainly predates the publication of the NRSV.

[Mike Aubrey]

The thing is, John, you don't like translations period.

[JohnFH]

Hi Mike,

For someone who doesn't like translation, I certainly do a lot of it.

I simply side with the Puritans, whereas you perhaps side with the Cavaliers:

http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1550/article_detail.asp

[Brian Mitchell]

One Bible search engine I use comes with over 43 English translations! And, that is probably not even half of the currently available translations in the English language. It also has three different versions of the NIV, and now a new revision has been released.

Now I feel compelled to beg the question!
( Yes, I know I am committing a logical fallacy by doing so)

Was there really a need for so many translations into one target language? Not to mention the various re-packaging of translation to create things like "the boy's Bible", "the quest study Bible", "Adventure Bible", "Archaeological Study Bible", "busy Mom's Bible", "the Women devotional Bible", "the Women's faith study Bible", the Life application" and the list goes on to include about 147 specific repackagings of the NIV.

And now, (post TNIV), yet another revision of NIV has been released. Which probably means they will have to/ want to update all their resources and 3rd party Bible-software packages from the older NIV to the new revised version(and re-licensed version).

I am guessing Zondervan got rid of the TNIV (like they did with the NIrV) because it was not as widely adopted as they hoped for (and didn't bring in enough revenue), therefore another revision of the NIV was called for.

Here is a somewhat dated article on the subject (it doesn't include the recent layoffs and downsizing efforts by the company).

http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/history2/30/Zondervan-Publishing-House

[David Sigrist]

Thanks for the list of sites! There's definitely a lot of issues to consider when evaluating translations. Is it good or bad that there are so many different translations? Do you lean towards dynamic equivalent or functionally literal? Do you suggest more people learn Greek and/or Hebrew, maybe publish parallel columns (like Muslims tend to do with the Quran)?

For what it's worth, I posted on my blog about this and linked to here as well:

http://bibleimmersion.blogspot.com/2011/06/some-other-blog-comments-on-niv2011.html

[JohnFH]

Hi David,

Lots of questions! Thanks for the link to your insightful blog and to discussion in the WELS fold.

Here are some replies.

I would prefer to see Christians, from Roman Catholics to WELS Lutherans to Southern Baptists, back a single, royalty-free translation in the King James translation tradition. Clearly, then, my preference is for a translation that is as literal as possible and as free as necessary.

At the same time, I regard DE or functionally equivalent translations to be useful for comparative purposes.

I also concur with Tom Nass ("disclaimer": Tom and I studied together, and I regard him as a friend; I also regard him as a witness to the gospel in a thousand different ways) that ESV is not as readable as it should be.

To put things very briefly, I am unhappy with ESV in many of the same places he is, but I am unhappy with NIV in some of those same places - and in many other places which Tom does not deal with.

I have no idea why Christian high schools do not offer Hebrew and Greek. I think they should, and I believe we are amiss in not raising up and training a cadre of teachers to make that possible. In Italy where I served as a pastor, those who attend the liceo classico take Greek and Latin for years and years - some of them learn to read one or both very well.

For a brief description of the translation I would invest a great deal of energy producing, if a team were assembled:

http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2011/06/q-a-about-bible-translations.html

[seth sanders]

Hankering for an Adventure Bible, NESV (New Extreme Sports Version).

[Gary Simmons]

John, we still need to teach the young grammar first. Until students understand the concepts of word classes and a TAM system in their own language, it becomes remarkably difficult to teach them the biblical languages. We simply must emphasize oral reading of discourses, I say, both to conserve the endangered practice of reading aloud and to engage the mind in a sustained argument rather than a sound byte.

My experience comes from using Davis' Beginning Grammar and the Wallace textbook for second and third years. John, would you be interested in another post on how to help students engage the languages better?

[JohnFH]

Hi Gary,

I think there is a great need for better resources in the areas you mention. It says something about the field of linguistics that it seems impossible to find a concise overview of tense, aspect, modality, and evidentiality in languages linguists have spent a great deal of time with, such as modern European languages and ancient languages such Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin.

In 5000 words or less each, describe the TAM system of standard English, standard German, and standard Italian. In 5000 words or less each, describe the TAM system of ancient Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.

I might try my hand at an essay or two of this kind. I wish I didn't have so many other things on my plate at this time.

[Mike Aubrey]

In Roman Catholic and Southern Baptist contexts – the largest church polities in the US – a reaction against gender-sensitive translation has set in. Both faith traditions seek to retain a degree of independence from prevailing cultural trends. This is no doubt salutary. At the same time, it would be easy to build bridges across some of the divides if the debate were not dominated by Ninja warrior types on both sides.

John, I can't say this nicely, so I'm tempted not to. But I can't. This is utter nonsense. This reaction against gender-sensitive translation is linguistically naive. It is not salutary. It's rampant ignorance. If they were rejecting it for good linguistic reasons (e.g. "men" truly is gender neutral is some areas), that would be fine, but it's not. It never has been. The argument isn't "language changes at different rates in different places." The argument is "The CBT is a bunch of feminists!!!" The moment these stupid culture wars were brought into the question, it ceased to be about the nature of language. It's about ideology. The moment culture wars take over, that's the moment that it stops being about accuracy.

Your paragraph here is an embarrassment and you've lost my respect.

[JohnFH]

Mike,

I agree with you that it is about culture wars. Even if you are right that NIV 2011 simply tracks language change, that change is heralded by one side as a victory for equal rights and by the other as an attempt to bring a non-scriptural conception of equal rights into the church.

On my part, I encourage you to look at the changes made in NIV 2011 in the name of gender-sensitivity more closely. The elimination of phrases like "God and man" and "man and beast" does not track language change. "God and men" in which "men" is gender-neutral is current English even if *you* - and NIV 2011 avoid it. It was not necessary to pluralize singular constructions to the extent that NIV 2011 chose to do. It would have been possible, and wiser, to take a more cautious approach (check out the new Grail Psalms for a mediating solution). Take a look at my PETA post and the other on Isa 19:16.

Whether you like it or not, the reaction against gender-sensitive translation is politically sophisticated on the part of organizations committed to standing in some tension with ongoing cultural change.

Be honest: as far as you are concerned, the more cultural change in the direction the Catholic Church and SBC feel uncomfortable with, the happier you will become.

And that's fine with me, Mike. But let's be clear: it's not about being linguistically correct so much as competing definitions as to what is politically correct.

[Gary Simmons]

John. After my last comment, I tried to find my Davis grammar on my bookshelves. I was dismayed when I could not. I was later elated to find the entire thing online. I was dismayed to realize it was written in the 1920s.

I had taken its presentation of the Greek TAM system as something of a cookie-cutter understanding. I thought that was simply selbstverständlich. Yet apparently it wasn't. Wallace may be burdensome in his treatment of tense and case uses, but at least it's more workable. (Now, if only he'd explain discourse functions other than those of the article, that'd be something.)

Feel free to write those essays whenever you get the chance. I would most especially enjoy being able to compare Hebrew to Aramaic, since I haven't yet learned the latter.

[Gary Simmons]

Mike: it seems to me that John is praising the Catholics and Southern Baptists (or as we call them in Texas, "Baptists") for choosing to be critical Bereans. He applauds them for not following along uncritically. While he may have different conclusions from them after critical reflection, he can appreciate the common ground he (and I) share with them: a careful mistrust of cultural trends.

Could you at least respect Baptists and Catholics for not being infants tossed about by waves, air-borne by every wind-teaching blown out by human "innovation"?

[Mike Aubrey]

But let's be clear: it's not about being linguistically correct so much as competing definitions as to what is politically correct.

Bull, John.

Bull.

That statement is nothing more than a cheap cop-out.

Mike: it seems to me that John is praising the Catholics and Southern Baptists (or as we call them in Texas, "Baptists") for choosing to be critical Bereans.

No. He praises SBs for being ignorant. He praising them for not doing their homework on the nature of language. He praising them for scandalizing the years of work of many godly men and women in the name of political correctness. The CBT doesn't have an agenda. The CBT is made up of scholars from a variety of perspectives on the issue of the roles of women in the church--many of them agree theologically with the perspectives of SBC and the Catholic Church. The Southern Baptist Convention *does* have an agenda. Exactly who is being the critical berean? It definitely isn't people like Denny Burk. Its people like William Mounce. Oh wait. He's on the CBT. Oops.

[JohnFH]

Mike,

You say: "a cheap cop-out": do you care to argue for your position, as opposed to simply enunciating it? Is there any special reason why you have a bone to pick with the SBC? It makes no sense after all to criticize a church polity for having an agenda. The only polities that do not have an agenda are those that have lost their way.

You are awfully self-assured on this question; I don't know why.

You are right about one thing: it's possible to be a complementarian in terms of marriage and a traditionalist in terms of the role of women in the church, and come down in favor of retaining a rather lean dose of generic masculine language in Bible translation (so the new NIV).

You might also conclude that it's possible to be an egalitarian in terms of marriage and the role of women in the church, and come down in favor of retaining a relatively stronger dose of generic masculine language in Bible translation - my position, and that of many others, men and women: witness the heavy use of generic masculine language in NAB 2011 and in the revised Grail Psalms (2010).

I don't expect to regain your respect, Mike; to be honest, I don't remember ever having it, at least not on this issue. But it would be nice if you dialed down the Sturm und Drang a bit.

[Mike Aubrey]

You might also conclude that it's possible to be an egalitarian in terms of marriage and the role of women in the church, and come down in favor of retaining a relatively stronger dose of generic masculine language in Bible translation - my position, and that of many others, men and women: witness the heavy use of generic masculine language in NAB 2011 and in the revised Grail Psalms (2010).

I might. But I'm yet to see the evidence that I should. You like to pretend that the Hebrew classificatory system is equivalent to English's natural gender system. Perhaps you can point me to the study that shows how the Hebrew emic classificatory system corresponds so amazingly directly to the English emic natural gender system. Show me how Hebrew noun classes work, perhaps in the same way that R. M. W. Dixon (Where have all the adjectives gone? 1982) showed us how the Dyirbal classificatory system works and then show me how that system necessitates that we pair them with the English natural gender system and then perhaps I'd dance to your tune. If you did that I'd have great respect for you and your argument here. But until then, all you've given me is supposition and that's not how I move. All I've seen so far is rather forced analysis that hasn't show respect for these two amazing language systems.

But it would be nice if you dialed down the Sturm und Drang a bit.

The same thing could be said for a good number of your blog posts (not to mention every single conversation you've had with Sue in the comments on my own blog). You're one of the smartest guys I know, but you're also incredibly reactionary in your writing. At least let a few people follow in kind.

[Mike Aubrey]

Let me make one more thing clear:

I have absolutely no problem with an English masculine generic in principle. There are perfectly good arguments that SBC could have made against that NIV2011 to which I would have responded: Yes!. But they didn't make those arguments. Had SBC presented things like this:

"We cannot accept the NIV2011 because demographically SBC tends to populate regions and population centers where the English masculine generic continues to have a strong dialectal foothold. We recognize that in some places, this situation is changing, but we believe that currently, other translations suit our dialectal needs."

That's a good argument. My own dialect doesn't not have a masculine generic--other than "guys," which I'm not sure if its even masculine anymore. Many people of my generation use it with reference to all females groups. I certainly do.

But SBC didn't make that argument. The argument they made in it's stead was nonsense akin to what I find when I write Strunk and White: smart people, perhaps even very good writers (E. B. White certainly was), but writing ability and knowledge of language aren't the same thing.

The biggest problem with the NIV2011 (and all contemporary English translations) is that it assumes English as a monolithic language. So does the ESV. The problem is that they assume in opposite directions and neither of them are right.

[JohnFH]

Mike,

I might be well-advised not to respond to your 1:14 pm comment at all, and just regard it as a bad penny, given that your 1:51 pm comment moves, and I thank you for doing so, in the direction I clamor for in the post at the top of this thread.

I noted in the body of the post that the gender-sensitive modifications of NIV 1984 in NIV 2011 satisfy some and raise the hackles of others. I went on to note that in the largest church polities in the US, a reaction against gender-sensitive translation has set in. I further noted that those polities embrace faith traditions that are known to strive for a degree of independence from prevailing cultural trends, a characteristic I suggested is "no doubt salutary." I concluded as follows:

At the same time, it would be easy to build bridges across some of the divides if the debate were not dominated by Ninja warrior types on both sides.

In these debates, that has been my consistent position. Recovering fundamentalists (you mention "Sue," who IMO falls into that category), no less than those who have found a purpose in life by rejecting an aimlessly progressive upbringing, not to mention true believers on the extreme ends of the spectrum, will have none of my position. They prefer to polarize the debate further.

That said, I will nonetheless respond to your 1:14 comment in a spirit of dialogue, no matter how difficult you make the attempt, given the language you use.

By referring to my writing as "incredibly reactionary" perhaps all you mean to say is that I stick to my guns and express myself forcefully. If so, I plead guilty.

If instead you are using the word "reactionary" in the commonest usage, as an insult, the kind of epithet progressives without arguments throw in the face of those who question their assumptions, I wear the insult proudly.

What passes for progress in the world today is in grave need of critical analysis. I offer such analysis on a regular basis; it's the least I can do since my social and confessional location is within a progressive milieu that is slowing unraveling.

You know very well that I am not reactionary= extremely conservative and, moreover, speak from a location within a church (the United Methodist) committed to being catholic in the sense of embracing people who are everything from extremely conservative to extremely liberal.

So I'm guessing that your choice to use the word "reactionary" is a way for you to communicate your sense of betrayal given that I express respect for the SBC and the Roman Catholic Church, in particular, for the extent to which they stand within the "Christ against culture" and "Christ transformer of culture" paradigms, whereas you want them to follow the "accommodation model" to culture, at least when it comes to gender construction in language, not to mention gender construction in real life.

That's understandable, but the contribution I feel I can make to the debate involves a destabilization of your point of departure, and those of other partisans in the debate. And I am willing to buck no end of insults in order to make that contribution.

I have written plenty on this blog against biblical egalitarianism and biblical complementarianism. Like Sarah Sumner, I see them both as fatally flawed.

Like the late Don Browning, I believe what has passed for progress in terms of the institutions of marriage and family in late capitalism is in need of a sharp and sustained critique.

If I'm not mistaken, we have no points of agreements here. Judging from previous conversations we have had, it seems to me that you are looking for a way to construe Scripture that proves your complementarian opponents wrong. Conversely, your complementarian opponents over at CBMW look for ways to construe Scripture that stick it to the feminists. It's a shell game, and I will have none of it, especially from fellow egals, who ought to know better. Both sides absolutize the relative, a procedure that is self-defeating.

[JohnFH]

Re: how much generic masculine language ought to be used in Bible translation

On that score, we have different points of departure. My point of departure is the same as that stated in the preface to NABRE (2011), which I will discuss in an upcoming post.

Briefly, the assumption that the Bible, most certainly, those portions which are written in literary prose and elegant poetry, should be translated into crisp, contemporary, non-literary English of whatever dialect is open to question.

NABRE (2011) and the Revised Grail Psalms (2010) choose instead to translate much of the Bible (perhaps too much) into a literary register in which a far larger dollop of generic masculine language sounds perfectly natural. Therefore expressions like "blessed is the man" in which "man" is generic, "God and man," and "man and beast," are not ruled out in principle, but are in fact used, more often than not.

In my experience, RSV, NIV 1984, and ESV raise no one's 21st century eyebrows when they are read from the pulpit. The same is the case, Catholic friends assure me, when RSV CE, NABRE, and the revised Grail Psalms for example are read in worship and/or Bible study.

Sure the language of these translations is quaint in more than one way, the amount of generic masculine language far greater than in contemporary spoken English, the vocabulary and diction saturated with Biblish (NIV 1984 less so, but only by a relatively small margin), the syntax, especially that of RSV and ESV, unduly stilted. But a great number of people see these things as features, not bugs. The features require them to slow down and listen more carefully, to translate all over again if you will the words they hear (which we must do, I submit, in any case).

The language of RSV, ESV, HCSB, and to a somewhat lesser extent NIV 1984 is *traditioned* language that goes back to Tyndale, the Geneva Bible, and KJV. It is fascinating to note the extent to which NABRE, not to mention RSV CEs, Catholic translations one and all, accommodates this same language tradition.

How different is NIV 2011 from NIV 1984? Not very. In my view, the gender-in-translation question is part of a larger one: to what extent should a Bible translation be written in (1) pure, natural English, as opposed to (2) language reflective of a relatively universal church tradition.

My relative dispreference for NIV depends on my relative preference for translations of type (2).

[Mike Aubrey]

John (sorry I've take so long to reply, I've had family in town),

I did not intend reactionary as an insult. It was supposed to be merely descriptive, but it seems to have had a completely wrong affect. Many of your posts consist of making extremely strong claims that grasp your reader's attention and then only in the comments do readers actually find that you are more moderate than you initially appear. Historically, this is my experience with you:

You say something I find outrageous.
I leave a comment.
You leave a comment.
I leave a comment.
You leave a comment.
I realize that in spite of the initial post we actually are in nearly complete agreement.

As a recent example, there are a number of point in your PETA post that I found quite outrageous, but already know ahead of time that your view is far, far more reserved than what you actually wrote (maybe I'll e-mail you what I mean. This thread is getting a little long...)

There was no insult intended in the word "reactionary." But I sincerely apologize if you were insulted. I never wanted that. It seems that you and I have very different encyclopedic knowledge regarding the meaning of the word "reactionary." What you have describe does not fit at all with my own conceptualization, but I'm not exactly sure how else to word my meaning.

Likewise, I am highly disturbed that you have interpreted past conversations with me as demonstrating that I am always seeking to prove complementarians wrong. I have never intended to do such a thing. For a little of my own history. I was raised egalitarian and was one through many years, but in 2006 I was convinced otherwise by arguments to which I did not have an answer. And I spent a good year as a complementarian after that. It was only through reading the Apostolic Fathers that I realized (what I view) as the flaw in the arguments that had initially convinced. The fact remains, however, that I became a complementarian for a good portion of time because of the evidence put before me--even though it was a rather difficult realization to make. And I did spend that year looking for ways to prove the view wrong. My reading of the fathers was 100% independent of that and thoroughly caught me off guard (it was pleasure reading) when I wasn't thinking about the issue at all. It was one of the biggest surprises I've ever had.

That is to say, you are mistaken. We have substantial agreement on the theological and exegetical questions of marriage in the church--probably around 75% (and 100% of the issues you mention din your comment. But theology and translation are different.

Going back to translation. I view that issue as utterly distinct from the question of theology. If you want to make this about the theology of gender, I can't stop you. But I view them as separate issues and I would appreciate it if you would try to recognize that at the very least in your discussions with me. To reiterate what I've already: If SBC had made a very different argument against the new NIV, I would have accepted it through and through and likely would have written a blog post similar to yours here approving of what they said. But they didn't. They made a silly PC argument that is an affront to the good men and women who worked on the translation.

As for Sue--I have no idea why you put her name in scare quotes--you're right. She does tend to polarize the debate. But at least in the comments on my blog, you did nothing to help that. I eventually just hid them all because I didn't know what to do with that discussion--both of you were quite frustrating. The fact that you two have a background shows beyond internet interaction is quite plain to see and I would suggest that it affects how the two of you treat each other and it isn't pretty on either front. I'm sorry for my bluntness here, but I've been thinking it for years and haven't said a word.

Lastly, I would still appreciate it if you would take the time to respond to the content, specifically about how you view the relationship between the Hebrew classificatory system compared to English's natural gender system. That's a major point for me and in all seriousness I'm yet to see a good explanation of it from either side. Let me expand on that:

Vern Poythress wants to make a similar claim to the one you make in your PETA post, but like you, he provides no explanation or description of how Hebrew noun classes and English natural gender should be related to each other. I want to see that, if I'm going to be convinced that should happen--and even then, there are numerous details to be worked out in terms of what that should look like. Conversely, D. A. Carson generally wants to me a similar claim to that of Berger: gender is arbitrary. That's not etic though, FYI. That's just false (e.g. see Corbett, Gender 1991). Gender classes are thoroughly grounded in the conceptual system of the language. They are probably one of the most emic parts of a language (see Lakoff Women, fire, and dangerous things 1987). So in my view, Poythress unsubstantiated claims (that Hebrew and English gender should be treated the same) and Carson makes demonstratively false claims. And I'm seriously interested in feedback you have on this. That is to say, is there a published piece of research on Hebrew grammatical gender as noun classes? There isn't for Greek, but there needs to be. I'm not satisfied by the NIV2011 entirely. I want what Rich Rhodes termed a 4G translation.

I don't expect you to respond to all of this. That's fine. If I were to request that you'd touch on anything I've written it would be these three in order by priority:

1) Would you be willing to adjust your perception of me with reference to egalitarianism/complementarians in terms of what I've stated here rather than my apparent (perhaps lost in emotion) words and claims of the past?

2) Would you be willing to accept (recognize?) that my interests in talking about the quality NIV2011 aren't motivated by this incredibly stupid (and exhausting) theological debate about women's roles, but motivated by linguistic concerns? And this relates to my third...

3) Could you point me toward any studies of Hebrew noun classes (gender) that discuss it in detail? I'm not going to be willing to connect English and Hebrew together on that front without a (nearly) complete understanding of how both work. I would like to hope that such a desire is reasonable.

[JohnFH]

Mike,

Lots of questions!

I am gone for the day whitewater canoeing and will be back tomorrow. I hope to respond then.

On a side note, I have to say that I am amused at the number of bloggers who host heated conversations and then unpublish them.

Perhaps I need to emphasize that my policy is the opposite. I do not unpublish heated conversations. If someone says something they later wish they hadn't, it stays up if, rightly or wrongly, I let it stand initially. I think of blogging as, among other things, a public record of controversy.

[Mike Aubrey]

On a side note, I have to say that I am amused at the number of bloggers who host heated conversations and then unpublish them.

I've only done it once. "Heated." That's one way of sanitizing (justify?) your behavior. You are a sinner. And you have sinned my blog and it was shameful.

[Mike Aubrey]

that a serious side note...

[JohnFH]

Mike,

That I am a sinner, no less than you and everyone else I know, is a truth I hold dear.

Aside from that, you are making a very bold claim. Perhaps you are right that I sinned [on] your blog "and it was shameful," but how would anyone know? You have unpublished the evidence.

I have no idea what conversation you are referring to, why you have chosen to bring it up now, why, after an unspecified period of time, you chose to unpublish it, and what it is that impels you to make sordid accusations out of the blue.

You are welcome to explain yourself. If you don't explain yourself, I can't help but think that the entire reason for your commenting here is to throw me under your ideological bus.

If so, you've succeeded. I bounce pretty good and I know how to shake off the mud people throw. I wish you well, but I don't plan to board your bus, which I'm afraid may be careening toward a precipice you have not yet noticed.

In short, no hard feelings and no harm done - except, perhaps, to your own reputation.