Bob Eschliman is the editor of the Newton Daily News.  He is also an outspoken conservative Christian.  Yesterday he wrote an article on his personal blog entitled “The deceivers are hard at work.”  You can find it here since he has taken his blog down today.  Eschliman after quoting Matthew 24:4-14 wrote:

No, I’m not suggesting the end times are near, although there are days one has to wonder. Instead, I’d like to talk a little bit about deceivers among us, most notably the LGBTQXYZ crowd and the Gaystapo effort to reword the Bible to make their sinful nature “right with God.”

A few weeks ago, I came across the website for the Queen James Bible (because King James was a flaming homo, don’t you know). The editors are very keen to let folks know they didn’t remove passages from the Bible, but instead reworded them to “make it more relevant.”

Calling other versions of the Bible “anti-LGBT versions,” the editors are very clear about their intent. They want to erase all references to sodomy as a sin.

He went on to point out other such efforts to interpret the Bible to fit into the worldview of homosexuals and those who believe it to be perfectly fine.

Apparently somebody with an axe to grind decided to send this article to his boss and also sent it to Jim Romenesko, a national media blogger with a demand that Eschliman be fired.  Rommensko wrote:

I asked Eschliman in an email if his paper can cover gay issues fairly and objectively when he’s declared gays the enemy. I also asked if he’d let one of his reporters write a similar blog post.

The Des Moines Register then jumped on this non-story as well.

I’d like to ask Romenesko and The Des Moines Register if he they think newspapers and reporters can cover conservative or Christian issues fairly and objectively when they consistently allow columnists and editorials that critique – say a traditional position on marriage or any number of conservative positions on different issues.  Seriously have they read their own stuff?

Putting the topic of homosexuality aside let’s look at the root problem with this particular story.  Somebody disagrees with Eschliman and demands he be fired mainly because that person doesn’t like where he stands on a particular issue.

That’s dangerous territory.  Media outlets should encourage free speech.  I know of journalists who won’t join anything in order to have a guise of being unbiased.  That’s ridiculous.  Everybody has a bias, everyone.  I’d prefer to know where somebody stands and as long as they can be balanced in their reporting I’m fine.  What I can’t stand is the bias of omission under the guise of being unbiased.  That’s disingenuous and the examples of liberal bias towards conservatives in the mainstream media under the guise of “news” are legion.

The Des Moines Register has a liberal bias to their editorial page.  Should we call on those editors to be fired?  No, and they’re getting paid to share their opinion.  Eschliman expressed his opinion on his person blog on his own time and he expressed it as an opinion.

Even newspaper editors have a right to their opinion, but apparently some don’t believe they do when they criticize homosexuality which, ironically, reinforces his use of the term “Gaystapo.”

6 comments
  1. If Bobs blog is down, then the Gaystopo has won. They do not seek debate only terror and silence. I cannot imagine anything more wicked or unAmerican than that.

    1. Word associations with Hitler and the Nazi’s (Gaystopo, Feminazi) is usually a turn off for most people if for no other reason then it minimizes the evil perpetrated during the rise of Hitler. Gays and Jews were both executed for just being gays and Jews. To me, that is not very Christian-like.

      1. I agree Bruce for the most part. I typically avoid terminology like that. I want to speak truth, but do so in a loving manner. I mentioned “Gaystopo” in my last sentence in reference to what Bob wrote.

  2. Just curious. Where is your outrage over the “persecution” of Donald Sterling? Aren’t all American citizens allowed freedom of speech without consequences?

    1. Bruce, I think banning Donald Sterling from the NBA for life was over the top even though I personally disagree with what he said.

      Disassociate yourself? Sure personally. Fire somebody? Only if the comments violate their employment contract or code of conduct. Otherwise you’re opening yourself up to a lawsuit. If his employer didn’t want him blogging on his personal time they should have made that clear.

      Re. newspapers… please. Maintaining an image means jack squat. It’s a facade, and I find it insulting when one feigns being unbiased when exercising that bias in the form of omission (like not getting all sides of a story or not interviewing certain people) or overemphasizing issues that are consider the make-up of the general public are not that newsworthy. Happens all of the time in the mainstream media.

      Re. Bible translations (versions like what Bob discussed are not translations) not that many really, but there are some that I believe are more faithful to the original Greek and Hebrew than others. My three favorites are ESV, NKJV and NASB – all that mostly use a word by word translation. Other translations are more dynamic, that doesn’t mean they are necessarily wrong, but they are not the type I want to use when I study.

      Versions of the Bible like say the “Patriots Bible” include extrabiblical information or study notes. There are a lot of those out there. What the editors of the Queen James Bible wants to do is reword Bible passages to fit their worldview. That’s wrong, and is not faithful Bible translation.

  3. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

    Freedom of speech means THE GOVERNMENT cannot censor you.

    When someone gets fired from the NBA or a newspaper or the top position at Mozilla for bigoted things they’ve said or done, that isn’t a violation of their first amendment rights because it is not government censorship. They’re private businesses. Private businesses get to make decisions like that. But instead of defending their right to do so, you sit here and moan about how LGBT people and allies are totes Nazis for making decisions you don’t like.

    I’m sorry that the first amendment doesn’t magically and exclusively protect your specific ideals. It must be very difficult to live so unprotected.

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Who Doesn’t Understand the First Amendment (or History)?

Dr. Walter Brasch writing for The Moderate Voice demonstrates the same lack of knowledge of the First Amendment and history that he accuses Christians of.

Atheism, Communism, Nazism: Understanding The Connection

Marx viewed religion as something negative to get rid off, and his followers certainly tried their best, criminalizing religion and killing millions.

Profanity (Part One): Dragging God’s Holy Name Through the Mud.

Mel Gibson is in the news again and it is not good.…