The results of Lifeway's Bible readers survey seems to be another instance of people asking for something they probably don't really want. The results include 61% preferring a "word-for-word" translation and 75% preferring a translation with "total accuracy." Assuming these individuals have actually read a bible cover to cover it would be a shock to me if they paid attention to even a fraction of what they actually read. There isn't a single book of any translation of any version of the Bible that can be read literally. The whole thing is a mass of confusing contradictions and outright refutations of reality. Most "events" and even the supposed moral lessons have two or more versions that not only don't match but in some instances nullify each other. Most of them have to be read selectively in order to get anything resembling a positive moral message. People think it promotes moral behavior but it can just as easily be read to justify any number of heinous crimes and atrocities.
As for "total accuracy", that is not even remotely possible. These readers are also very ignorant of the history of the Bible. There is no single version or translation and never has been. The multiple versions currently available are constructed from roughly 3,000 fragments. We do not have a single book of either the old or new testament that is complete. All of them have been reconstituted from a wide variety of sources. Even if they really wanted a word for word translation, setting aside the horrors contained therein, it can not be done.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Is America Moving Away from Religion?
It would be nice if it were true but I don't see it quite the way Tana Ganeva does in her Alternet piece, "5 Signs That America Is Moving Away from Religion". In the introduction she talks about how fed up people are with the "Tea Party" and the GOP, especially the manner in which they use religion. It does not seem to occur to her that she is conflating a loss of faith in the Religious Right with a shift away from religion itself. Just because people are gradually come to realize that mixing religion and politics is a terrible idea does not mean they as a whole are becoming less religious.
It also seems obvious, once you take a moment to analyze them, that the 5 signs really end up being 2 signs. Again, those two don't necessarily mean there really is a move away from religion. The first sign listed by Ganeva, "American religious belief is becoming more fractured", may help some theists realize that religion is a very personal and subjective aspect of life. This may in turn lead to the conclusion that religion should not be involved in public policy. I would certainly encourage such a process but do not think it helpful to misinterpret it as a sign of irreligion. It isn't. The last "sign" listed, "Getting married by friends", also may indicate a softening of religions influence on peoples lives but then again it may mean something else entirely. It is just as likely an interpretation that people want a more personal ceremony. Most faiths allow some choices within how they conduct marriage ceremonies but civil ceremonies offer far greater options. Part of the trend does seem to correlate with choosing family and friends as officiates. How many people have family members that happen to be clergy?
The last point leads to another distinction that should be made but alludes Ganeva. There is a difference between religion and organized religion. Many mainstream Christian denominations/sects are shrinking in membership. This coincides with a growing trend that amounts to little more than a shift in semantics. A lot of people who end up being classified as "non-religious" in various surveys and studies really are not. The tend to self identify as "spiritual" rather than "religious." What that indicates, apparently, is a move away from a specific denomination/sect. Those who claim to be "spiritual" are still religious they just don't like the term. They are still believers and therefore not "non-religious." It is this lack of distinction and confusion of labels that basically nullifies her second and third "signs." How you identify yourself is important, of course, but that does not change basic facts. If you believe then the label "non-belief" does not make sense.
Ganeva's forth sign, "Hate group that exploited religion to bash gays hemorrhaging funds", makes no sense to me. It is almost entirely focused on one group and it really does not say anything about religion in general. It is revealing only in regard to one version of one faith and even that is more about mixing politics with religion than about anything strictly theological.
It is still an interesting article and in its own way encouraging. Moving away from religion being so influential on public life is certainly a good thing. It is a positive direction for everyone, theist and atheist alike. Strengthening separation of church and state can only help guarantee freedom of thought. The sooner those seeking to use religion for political and economic gain are exposed for the scum they are the better. They may never completely go away but if we can keep them as powerless as possible society will be better off.
It also seems obvious, once you take a moment to analyze them, that the 5 signs really end up being 2 signs. Again, those two don't necessarily mean there really is a move away from religion. The first sign listed by Ganeva, "American religious belief is becoming more fractured", may help some theists realize that religion is a very personal and subjective aspect of life. This may in turn lead to the conclusion that religion should not be involved in public policy. I would certainly encourage such a process but do not think it helpful to misinterpret it as a sign of irreligion. It isn't. The last "sign" listed, "Getting married by friends", also may indicate a softening of religions influence on peoples lives but then again it may mean something else entirely. It is just as likely an interpretation that people want a more personal ceremony. Most faiths allow some choices within how they conduct marriage ceremonies but civil ceremonies offer far greater options. Part of the trend does seem to correlate with choosing family and friends as officiates. How many people have family members that happen to be clergy?
The last point leads to another distinction that should be made but alludes Ganeva. There is a difference between religion and organized religion. Many mainstream Christian denominations/sects are shrinking in membership. This coincides with a growing trend that amounts to little more than a shift in semantics. A lot of people who end up being classified as "non-religious" in various surveys and studies really are not. The tend to self identify as "spiritual" rather than "religious." What that indicates, apparently, is a move away from a specific denomination/sect. Those who claim to be "spiritual" are still religious they just don't like the term. They are still believers and therefore not "non-religious." It is this lack of distinction and confusion of labels that basically nullifies her second and third "signs." How you identify yourself is important, of course, but that does not change basic facts. If you believe then the label "non-belief" does not make sense.
Ganeva's forth sign, "Hate group that exploited religion to bash gays hemorrhaging funds", makes no sense to me. It is almost entirely focused on one group and it really does not say anything about religion in general. It is revealing only in regard to one version of one faith and even that is more about mixing politics with religion than about anything strictly theological.
It is still an interesting article and in its own way encouraging. Moving away from religion being so influential on public life is certainly a good thing. It is a positive direction for everyone, theist and atheist alike. Strengthening separation of church and state can only help guarantee freedom of thought. The sooner those seeking to use religion for political and economic gain are exposed for the scum they are the better. They may never completely go away but if we can keep them as powerless as possible society will be better off.
Ultimate Dead-beat Dad?
"Not every desire, urge, want, or chic cause is automatically a 'right'"*
I agree. I have no interest in financing a frivolous "want" with my tax dollars. If religious people truly believe in God then they should be fine with doing away with tax support of all religious activities and organizations. Make no mistake, we do support them from our wallets. Tax exemptions are a form of subsidy. The various religions run their affairs from buildings that are tax exempt yet use public services. Public roads lead to them and if there are problems public servants, fire and police, deal with them. Since God is most frequently defined as the supreme being, perfect and all powerful, churches are not only unnecessary but a huge waste of resources. After all, how could an all powerful being fail to know what everyone of us is thinking and feeling. Where you are and what you are doing seems irrelevant. So why maintain places of worship and clergy on the tax payer's dime?
This seems much more like a desire or a want than a necessity. I know that is not what the arch bishop meant but when has the Catholic church not been led by liars and hypocrites?
Makes you wonder just how powerful God is if theists constantly need hand-outs. Does this make God the ultimate dead-beat dad? Do we really need to fork over our allowances so poppa can continue to neglect and abuse us with the proceeds?
*part of a statement made by New York Arch Bishop Timothy Dolan in opposition to gay marriage.
I agree. I have no interest in financing a frivolous "want" with my tax dollars. If religious people truly believe in God then they should be fine with doing away with tax support of all religious activities and organizations. Make no mistake, we do support them from our wallets. Tax exemptions are a form of subsidy. The various religions run their affairs from buildings that are tax exempt yet use public services. Public roads lead to them and if there are problems public servants, fire and police, deal with them. Since God is most frequently defined as the supreme being, perfect and all powerful, churches are not only unnecessary but a huge waste of resources. After all, how could an all powerful being fail to know what everyone of us is thinking and feeling. Where you are and what you are doing seems irrelevant. So why maintain places of worship and clergy on the tax payer's dime?
This seems much more like a desire or a want than a necessity. I know that is not what the arch bishop meant but when has the Catholic church not been led by liars and hypocrites?
Makes you wonder just how powerful God is if theists constantly need hand-outs. Does this make God the ultimate dead-beat dad? Do we really need to fork over our allowances so poppa can continue to neglect and abuse us with the proceeds?
*part of a statement made by New York Arch Bishop Timothy Dolan in opposition to gay marriage.
Another Thing Hitler Was Not, a Secularist
Right wingers are notoriously deluded when it comes to history, or facts of any kind. Hitler and the Nazis seem to be a favorite source of ad hominem and guilt by association type attacks. Conservatives, especially the religious right, have for years tried to portray secularism as an invention of Hitler and the Nazis. Below are just two examples of this false idea:
"Next time your liberal friends talk about the separation of Church and State ask them why they're Nazis."
"Next time your liberal friends talk about the separation of Church and State ask them why they're Nazis."
"Did it turn out that by reason of the separation of church and state, the Jews were safer in Europe than they were in the United States of America? I don't think so." Associated Press 11/23/2004
Antonin Scalia
The problem is that history clearly indicates the exact opposite to be true. Not only does the concept of separation of church and state go back to the founding fathers of our country it also predates even them.
Ironically, the Bible itself contains passages that allude to the basic idea (Matthew 22:21, Matthew 6:5-6, among others). It is also a problem since Hitler actively sought the merger of religion with his government. His own writings and speeches are laced with religious ideas and he states in more than one place in Mein Kampf that no government can be successful or be seen as legitimate without God. Below is a rather telling quotation from Hitler's Germany:
"A state that once again rules in God's name can count not only on our applause but also on enthusiastic and active cooperation from the church. With joy and thanks we see how this new state rejects blasphemy, attacks immorality, promotes discipline and order with a firm hand, demands awe before God, works to keep marriage sacred and our youth spiritually instructed, brings honor back to fathers of families, ensures that love of people and fatherland is no longer mocked, but burns in a thousand hearts. ...We can only plead with our fellow worshipers to do an they can to help these new productive forces in our land reach a complete and unimpeded victory."
Easter Sunday Blessing from Protestant Pastors in Bavaria, April 16, 1933
Whatever else Hitler may have been he was definitely not an atheist or a secularist.
Easter Sunday Blessing from Protestant Pastors in Bavaria, April 16, 1933
Whatever else Hitler may have been he was definitely not an atheist or a secularist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)