Latest Breaking News

And not in the way most people would think.

The King James Version is preferred by several Protestant communities - the more conservative ones in particular - in part because it was written not long after the Reformation and during a time when Catholic vs Protestant was a thing all over the European continent.

The KJV is sometimes seen as not just sufficiently pure, but also sufficiently anti-Catholic.

By insisting on this version, the bowsers who came up with this policy aren't just pushing Christianity - they're pushing a version of evangelical Protestantism that is inherently anti-Catholic.

I gave up Catholicism for Lent a while back, and it kinda stuck. I'm not even remotely happy with the way American conservative Catholics have inserted themselves into politics in this country* - indeed, it's one of the reasons I've distanced myself - but I also know they don't speak for every Catholic in the country. I still have many fond memories of my time involved with the Catholic student centers at my undergrad and graduate schools, and I find real beauty in how Catholics are expected to treat the poor and downtrodden. For this reason, the thought of requiring a version of the Bible that came from an explicitly anti-Catholic mindset really bothers me.

I actually would support a course on Biblical history at the high school level. But I don't mean teaching the Bible as history. Rather, I mean teaching the history of the Bible, which is seriously fascinating stuff.


*I will take bishops' threats to Catholic politicians who support women's reproductive rights seriously when they start issuing the same threats to Catholic judges, prosecutors, jurors, and prison officials who take part in executions. Official Catholic doctrine opposes both for the very same reason.