Hey Gator, this is an interesting read. Speaking of politics and religion, that would be our Thomas Jefferson, founding father and all. Here's some background.
willy, unfortunatley your first link appeared to be a 404 error. While I think there are numerous translations that are good in portraying what the original bible's purpose was (pointing everyone to faith in Christ) there is one version that is widely accepted by Greek and Hebrew scholars as being the most literal word for word translation to the original texts. This would be The New American Standard. I have a copy of it, it's not the easiest to read, but if you are looking for accuracy, I think you would probably find it there. The NASB is less readable than the NIV, which is usually what I quote because it is easier for most to understand. I think anything that purposely omits from what the original manuscripts likely had to say are sorely missing key points that need to be included in any book that can be known as "the bible".
What are you calling "the original manuscripts"? The Bible as we know it today was put together by a committee (the Council of Nicea) convened by a pagan Emporer of Rome (Constantine). The Pauline letters were written by a man that never had the pleasure of knowing Jesus of Nazareth. Copius amounts of period literature generated by early Christians was declared heretical. The authors and their works were destroyed. Apocryphal books are in the Catholic Bible, but not in reformist Bibles. Other unknown books are referenced in both. We can take as a matter of faith that the Bible is the revealed word of God, but whose faith and to who revealed? Oh, try this link...
politics and religion effect each other indirectly. Decisions made by politics are somewhat influenced by religion and religion has an understanding of politics.
those who mix both of them can be called nothing but chickens who hide in the closet of one to gain acceptance in another.