 |
IG Promotional Podcast
|
|
Last 100 Shows in descending Order
|
| |
|
Opinion: Conservatizing The Bible
|
|
The eager young men at Conservapedia are p.o.'d that the Bible might be seen as too liberal. So they've come up with the Wiki-style Conservative Bible Project, to make sure the Lord doesn't go all wobbly on us. Excerpt:
As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines:[1]
Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level[2]
Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;[3] defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle"
Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";[4] using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census
-Article continues off site, courtesy Belief.net
|
|
Opinion: The Texas-Size Debate Over Teaching Evolution
|
|
By Christopher Hitchens
Mention the name "Texas" and the word "schoolbook" to many people of a certain age (such as my own) and the resulting free association will come up with the word "depository" and the image of Lee Harvey Oswald crouching on its sixth floor. In Dallas for the Christian Book Expo recently, I had a view of Dealey Plaza and its most famous building from my hotel room, so the suggestion was never far from my mind.
But last week Texas and schoolbooks meant something else altogether when the state Board of Education, in a muddled decision, rejected a state science curriculum that required teachers to discuss the "strengths and weaknesses" of the theory of evolution. Instead, the board allowed "all sides" of scientific theories to be taught. The vote was watched as something more than a local or bookish curiosity. Just as the Christian Book Expo is one of the largest events on the nation's publishing calendar, so the Lone Star State commands such a big share of the American textbook market that many publishers adapt to the standards that it sets, and sell the resulting books to non-Texans as well.
In many ways, this battle can be seen as the last stand of the Protestant evangelicals with whom I was mingling and debating. It's been a rather dismal time for them lately. In the last election they barely had a candidate after Mike Huckabee dropped out and, some would say, not much of one before that. Many Republicans now see them as more of a liability than an asset. As a proportion of the population they are shrinking, and in ethical terms they find themselves more and more in the wilderness of what some of them morosely called, in conversation with me, a "post-Christian society." Perhaps more than any one thing, the resounding courtroom defeat that they suffered in December 2005 in the conservative district of Dover, Pa., where the "intelligent design" plaintiffs were all but accused of fraud by a Republican judge, has placed them on the defensive. Thus, even if the Texas board had defiantly voted to declare evolution to be questionable and debatable, its decision could still have spelled the end of a movement rather than the revival of one.
-Article continued off site, courtesy Newsweek.
|
|
Opinion: How Will Religion Regard Nanotechnology?
|
|
When it comes to the world of the very, very small — nanotechnology — we may have a big problem: Nano and its capacity to alter the fundamentals of nature could be failing the moral litmus test of religion.
In a report published today in Nature Nanotechnology, survey results reveal some sharp contrasts in the perception that nanotechnology is morally acceptable. Those views, according to the report, correlate directly with aggregate levels of religious views in each country surveyed.
In the United States and in European countries where religion plays a larger role in everyday life, like Italy, Austria and Ireland, nanotechnology and its potential to alter living organisms or even perhaps lead to synthetic life is perceived as less morally acceptable. In less religious European countries like France and Germany, individuals are much less likely to find nanotechnology ethically suspect.
-Article continues off site, courtesy Reuters.
|
|
Opinion: It's Time to Update the Pledge
|
|
Under God mourns the loss of the minister who persuaded President Eisenhower and Congress in 1954 to insert into the Pledge of Allegiance the phrase "under God" -- an idea whose time was then.
Now, with the passing of the Rev. George M. Docherty, who died Thanksgiving Day at the age of 97, let us review why the phrase was added in the first place and why we should consider updating the pledge.
Docherty's contribution to American civil religion came during a sermon he preached at Washington's New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in honor of Lincoln's birthday in 1954, the height of the Second Red Scare. As Post reporter Matt Shudel notes in Sunday's obituary, Docherty, a native of Scotland, argued that the then-godless American pledge could just as easily apply to the communist Soviet Union.
"I could hear little Muscovites recite a similar pledge to their hammer-and-sickle flag with equal solemnity," said Docherty. He suggested adding Lincoln's phrase "under God" from the Gettysburg Address to the pledge. "To omit the words 'Under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance is to omit the definitive character of the American Way of Life."
Maybe then. Not now.
-Complete article off site, courtesy On Faith
|
|
Opinion: Palin: average isn't good enough
|
|
By Sam Harris
September 3, 2008
So let us ask the question that should be on the mind of every thinking person in the world at this moment: If John McCain becomes the 44th president of the United States, what are the odds that a blood clot or falling object will make Sarah Palin the 45th?
The actuarial tables on the Social Security Administration website suggest that there is a better than 10% chance that McCain will die during his first term in office. Needless to say, the Reaper's scything only grows more insistent thereafter. Should President McCain survive his first term and get elected to a second, there is a 27% chance that Palin will become the first female U.S. president by 2015. If we take into account McCain's medical history and the pressures of the presidency, the odds probably increase considerably that this bright-eyed Alaskan will become the most powerful woman in history.
As many people have noted, placing Palin on the ticket has made these final months of the already overlong 2008 campaign much more interesting. Is Palin remotely qualified to be president of the United States? No. But that's precisely what is so interesting. McCain not only has thrown all sensible concerns about good governance aside merely to pander to a sliver of female and masses of conservative Christian voters, he has turned this period of American history into an episode of high-stakes reality television: Don't look now, but our cousin Sarah just became leader of the free world! Tune in next week and watch her get sassy with Pakistan!
Americans have an unhealthy desire to see average people promoted to positions of great authority. No one wants an average neurosurgeon or even an average carpenter, but when it comes time to vest a man or woman with more power and responsibility than any person has held in human history, Americans say they want a regular guy, someone just like themselves. President Bush kept his edge on the "Who would you like to have a beer with?" poll question in 2004, and won reelection.
Artcle Continues (Off Site)
Courtesy LATimes
|
| |
What a Shot!
High Score set by
 millaspa
with 99
|
|
|
