Considering how many different versions and translations of the Bible that already exist you have to wonder why anyone would bother with yet another one. I could see producing one if there were at least a few significant discoveries of previously unknown fragments but that is not the case. Stephen Walsh's brief post on CNN's Belief blog is pretty clear about there being no such reason behind this new translation. It is supposedly to make the Bible easier to understand. The Voice, as it has been named, is also suppose to be in more modern language. The Bible is not actually that difficult to read and understand. I'm assuming that this new version is more sanitized. It sounds like part of the release will involve a campaign to get more people to read the Bible. Anyone who has actually read and paid attention to what they read in the "Good Book" but still wants to maintain it as a source of authority must realize that it has to be cleaned up to be accepted by an equally discerning audience. Without massive amounts of interpretation and cherry-picking it is really horrible stuff. I will probably at some point look for a copy out of curiosity. I will be shocked if it is not cleaned up in the guise of modernizing the language.
It is rather telling that the central holy book of two major religions relies so heavily on people not actually reading, comprehending, and contextualizing its content. I have to question the value of any book, "sacred" or otherwise, that cannot be discussed openly and honestly without being afraid of personal consequences.
Friday, April 27, 2012
Misused and Abused: Ignorance
Fairly often, I get the impression that when people speak or write about others being ignorant what they really mean to say is that that individual or group is stupid. Even though it is quite possible that someone who is ignorant may also be stupid, it is still not a synonym.
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
ignorance \ig-n(-)rn(t)s\
noun (13th century) : the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness.
So why is the distinction important? To some degree we are all ignorant about something at some point. The important thing is to be able to acknowledge it and if the topic is of any importance we should seek to mitigate or outright eliminate our ignorance. If an individual is unable or unwilling to do so then perhaps they really are stupid. Personally, I prefer dealing with ignorance. If it is a matter of ignorance then there is a chance that a healthy dose of knowledge may turn an individual or group who would otherwise oppose or hinder you into an ally. Ignorance is a matter of the individual's level of awareness and information on a given topic or set of topics so it is not a question of comprehension.
I also think it is important for the sake of intelligent discussion and debate. There is really no point in engaging an idiot. Nothing can be gained by either side. However, if you end up in a heated argument with someone who may be ignorant and intelligent there are any number positive outcomes. Win or lose, both parties can gain further insight into the topic of discussion. It is also possible to soften the other sides views even if they cannot be outright changed.
Essentially, ignorance is an obstacle but not a dead end. Ignorance can be alleviated or ended. Unfortunately, genuine stupidity is more of a road block than an obstacle.
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
ignorance \ig-n(-)rn(t)s\
noun (13th century) : the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness.
So why is the distinction important? To some degree we are all ignorant about something at some point. The important thing is to be able to acknowledge it and if the topic is of any importance we should seek to mitigate or outright eliminate our ignorance. If an individual is unable or unwilling to do so then perhaps they really are stupid. Personally, I prefer dealing with ignorance. If it is a matter of ignorance then there is a chance that a healthy dose of knowledge may turn an individual or group who would otherwise oppose or hinder you into an ally. Ignorance is a matter of the individual's level of awareness and information on a given topic or set of topics so it is not a question of comprehension.
I also think it is important for the sake of intelligent discussion and debate. There is really no point in engaging an idiot. Nothing can be gained by either side. However, if you end up in a heated argument with someone who may be ignorant and intelligent there are any number positive outcomes. Win or lose, both parties can gain further insight into the topic of discussion. It is also possible to soften the other sides views even if they cannot be outright changed.
Essentially, ignorance is an obstacle but not a dead end. Ignorance can be alleviated or ended. Unfortunately, genuine stupidity is more of a road block than an obstacle.
America, sometimes home of the scary
Even though there is no direct link between these two posts beyond them being published on the same day both are frightening and serve as examples of how dangerously foolish we can be as a nation.
The posts in question are:
"Survey: Religion a key factor in determining support for Obama vs. Romney"
Religion should play no role in selecting a president. The country is far too diverse and religion far too contentious. The president is suppose to represent all Americans and do what is best for all Americans. Mixing religion into politics has never proved to be positive and I find it hard to believe it ever will.
"Kirk Cameron's Growing Circle of Reconstructionist Friends"
That a fool like Cameron is gaining influence among any group is disturbing enough, it is even worse that he seems to getting more media attention. I have no doubt some will still view him as the cute guy who once played a mischievous but lovable character on Growing Pains. They may be willing to overlook some of the details of his new career out of misplaced sentimentality. This thin veneer isn't likely to get him all that far but it may be just enough to gain more attention and resources to do real damage.
Put these two together and I can't help but start feeling pessimistic about our future. Little things can make big differences. Every little step forward made by the religious right is a step back for all of us.
The posts in question are:
"Survey: Religion a key factor in determining support for Obama vs. Romney"
Religion should play no role in selecting a president. The country is far too diverse and religion far too contentious. The president is suppose to represent all Americans and do what is best for all Americans. Mixing religion into politics has never proved to be positive and I find it hard to believe it ever will.
"Kirk Cameron's Growing Circle of Reconstructionist Friends"
That a fool like Cameron is gaining influence among any group is disturbing enough, it is even worse that he seems to getting more media attention. I have no doubt some will still view him as the cute guy who once played a mischievous but lovable character on Growing Pains. They may be willing to overlook some of the details of his new career out of misplaced sentimentality. This thin veneer isn't likely to get him all that far but it may be just enough to gain more attention and resources to do real damage.
Put these two together and I can't help but start feeling pessimistic about our future. Little things can make big differences. Every little step forward made by the religious right is a step back for all of us.
Female Gap
Even before the GOP candidate circus started winding down there were random comments about the lack of enthusiasm for any of the potential nominees among women voters. Now that it seems all but decided that Romney will be the Republican candidate, the talk of a "female" gap has increased. Unfortunately, the majority of media pieces on this aspect of the presidential campaign are incredibly superficial. Virtually all of them have focused on perception and strategy. The various pundits, politicians, and journalists have been talking about how to more effectively sell the Republican platform and/or Mitt Romney.
It is sad that no one in the mainstream media is even bothering with assessing whether the platform is bad for women. Even when a brief comment gets made that women voters are wary of a given issue the line immediately goes into how this view can be changed rather than whether the view has merit or not. Personally, I see the platform and all the candidates as being very bad for the well being of everyone, especially women. Regardless of anyone's personal opinions the media should be assessing the issues and encouraging discussion rather than always playing up the strategy and marketing.
Another point that no one is bringing up at all is the role that religion has played in encouraging sexist policies and political positions. I do not think it is a coincidence that the major candidates all belong to denominations that are patriarchal and outright sexist. Just look at the last four contenders for the GOP nomination. They include two Catholics (Gingrich and Santorum), a Lutheran (Paul), and a Mormon (Romney). Though in theory each of these has liberal factions, the majority and, more importantly, the leadership is very conservative and quite sexist. None of these denomination allow for women in leadership positions or even in the clergy. The closest any of them come to female clergy are Catholic Nuns. Currently nuns are being rebuked by their own religious leaders.
A lot has been said lately about Romney's wife, Ann. Whether, women choose of their own accord to fulfill what are considered traditional roles is not really the issue. I am in no position to guess whether Ann really does like being a "homemaker" or not nor do I particularly care. What is not being examined is that the Mormon faith pushes women into those traditional sexist roles. According to the Latter Day Saint's (Mormons) doctrinal Family: A Proclamation to the World, "... father's are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children." The Catholic Church is not that far from this position either. The entire gang of GOP candidates seemed to subscribe to the mentality that women should be barefoot and pregnant in kitchen.
Maybe, just maybe, that "female gap" exists for a good reason. The convergence in each of the candidates, Romney included, of the conservative movement and the religious right ideologies is just plain horrible when it comes to women.
It is sad that no one in the mainstream media is even bothering with assessing whether the platform is bad for women. Even when a brief comment gets made that women voters are wary of a given issue the line immediately goes into how this view can be changed rather than whether the view has merit or not. Personally, I see the platform and all the candidates as being very bad for the well being of everyone, especially women. Regardless of anyone's personal opinions the media should be assessing the issues and encouraging discussion rather than always playing up the strategy and marketing.
Another point that no one is bringing up at all is the role that religion has played in encouraging sexist policies and political positions. I do not think it is a coincidence that the major candidates all belong to denominations that are patriarchal and outright sexist. Just look at the last four contenders for the GOP nomination. They include two Catholics (Gingrich and Santorum), a Lutheran (Paul), and a Mormon (Romney). Though in theory each of these has liberal factions, the majority and, more importantly, the leadership is very conservative and quite sexist. None of these denomination allow for women in leadership positions or even in the clergy. The closest any of them come to female clergy are Catholic Nuns. Currently nuns are being rebuked by their own religious leaders.
A lot has been said lately about Romney's wife, Ann. Whether, women choose of their own accord to fulfill what are considered traditional roles is not really the issue. I am in no position to guess whether Ann really does like being a "homemaker" or not nor do I particularly care. What is not being examined is that the Mormon faith pushes women into those traditional sexist roles. According to the Latter Day Saint's (Mormons) doctrinal Family: A Proclamation to the World, "... father's are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children." The Catholic Church is not that far from this position either. The entire gang of GOP candidates seemed to subscribe to the mentality that women should be barefoot and pregnant in kitchen.
Maybe, just maybe, that "female gap" exists for a good reason. The convergence in each of the candidates, Romney included, of the conservative movement and the religious right ideologies is just plain horrible when it comes to women.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)