I’m a Dem, @brando_minich is a Repub, and @dmataconis is a Libertarian, but I think we agree that the Constitution & beer are both awesome.
I’m a Dem, @brando_minich is a Repub, and @dmataconis is a Libertarian, but I think we agree that the Constitution & beer are both awesome.
So if I were to disagree and say that beer is not awesome, what would that make me? Hypothetically speaking (he says, fully aware that beer and the Constitution are intertwined in certain ways).
An idiot, I suppose.
(Kidding – I just wanted an opportunity to quote Stan Rogers. Great anti-welfare-state, pro-personal-responsibility conservative song, BTW. The Tea Party should adopt it! “I could have stayed to take the dole / But I’m not one of those /
I take nothing free, and that makes me / An idiot, I suppose” … “But the government dole / Will rot your soul / Back there in your hometown.”)
Of course, Olbermann and Maddow would say that “I’m not one of those” is racist. 🙂
Hey wait a minute, I don’t like beer at all, you are excluding me based on my beliefs you bigot!!!
If you don’t like beer, you aren’t a Real American!!!
In protest, I’m going to build a beer museum & cultural center next to your house. 🙂
My neighbors would love that 🙂
Also, beer was invented in ancent Egypt, how is it American?
Isn’t it ironic that we (the anglophone west) got our terms “beer” and “alcohol” from Arabic and Islam whose Sharia Law forbids enjoyment of either …
Not really al, unless you are alanis morissette… But then you’d have gender issues, and I don’t want to go there
First, beer comes from Latin (bibere) via Old English (beor), not Arabic.
Second, the origins of the word Alcohol had nothing to do with the modern useage of the word i.e. intoxicating beverage
Third, neither come from “Islam” which is a religion.
Fourth, the Arabic language existed before the birth of Mohammed and the creation of Islam.
Fifth, Arabic is the language of non-Muslims as well.
Sixth: Not all Muslims speak Arabic, in fact not even a majority do.
Seventh: Not all Muslims do not drink.
Eight: Not all Christians drink. Oh noes, they must be Muslim terrorists!
Drat ! I was thinking of “booze” and “alcohol” … as documented in a pre-1900s translation of the “1001 Tales of the Arabian Nights” … so – I yield the “beer” point …
Quick Google searches finds :-
booze
alcohol
David and Jim – out of curiosity, just how much of the Koran have either of you actually read ? Just how much of the theology of Islam have you actually studied ? Cuz, from your responses recently, I suspect that Sarah Palin is much better versed on either of those subjects than both of you put together !
I’ve taken courses on various world religions and I have numerous friends and coworkers who are practicing Muslims whom I’ve discussed religion with on many occasions, so I’d say that as usual, you are full of excrement
Alasdair. Stop assuming things you clearly know nothing about.
I’ve read some, not as much as I’d like. Though my understanding from those that know a lot more about these things that I do, is that unless you know Arabic you haven’t really read the Qur’an. As the language is notoriously fussy to translate.
Having spent considerable time studying Latin and to a much lesser extent Ancient Greek I will also tell you that the skill and also agenda of the translator makes a massive difference in the sense of a text. So you are putting a great deal of faith in the translator to make a faithful representation of the original in your language. There is no way around the fact that if you read the Qur’an in a language other than Arabic you are already reading it through one layer of interpretation and your understanding will necessarily be influenced by that layer.
What this means is that if you’ve read Qur’an as translated for wing nuts and I’ve read Qur’an as translated for pacifists we will have dramatically different opinions on what is in the Qur’an. Not only that, but neither of our interpretations will be the same as those of a native speaker of Arabic, who will, with out a doubt, have a much fuller understanding of the text.
There are a great many ways to interpret the Qur’an. Just as there are many ways to read the Bible. To assume that you have the one canonical understanding of it because you’ve read it in an English translation is, to be quite frank, asinine.
By the way, the above issues with translation is one of the reasons I’ve never settled in to read the Bible cover to cover either. I’ve not found a translation I consider sufficiently scholarly. They are all based on one religions interpretation and agenda or another. And I don’t really want to become fully fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Ancient Greek just to read one book and be satisfied that I’ve read it at least reasonably properly. So I remain hopeful that a skilled group of translators releases a scholarly and properly footnoted translation of the Bible in my life time. I think the Oxford translation might be okay, and might just break down and go with that one. But I think they took the Latinate version as their source not the language it was originally written in, so reading that already puts me two layers of interpretation deep.
I’d go with the King James for this. One of the first translations, that really influenced the English language. I like other translations and think they are close to the original Greek and Hebrew, but I think you’d disagree. KJV seems best for you.
I’ve taken comparative religion courses that specifically looked at Islam, directly read perhpas a third of the Koran myself, and I’ve seen a lot of people pedaling the crap you and Gahrie have been about how inherently violent and duplicitous Islam is, and I’ve read *around* many of the passages cited as being so, for context.
I’ve also studied a great deal on Central Asia and the Caucasus in College and in my admittedly short stint as an intern studying the regions. If nothing else this has made clear to me how radically different various peoples’ implementations of Islam can be, something it seems is lost on you two.
B. See, the stuff I’ve read on the KJV seems to suggest that the translation, though certainly powerful in terms of impact on the English speaking world is deeply flawed. So I suppose the question of it’s merit is dependent on your approach to the subject. I would say that the KJV is actually a text unto itself, and worthy of it’s own critical study. But that if you are looking for a faithful translation of the original sense of the texts, it is lacking. That said, perhaps you are right that the KJV is the right way to go specifically because it is, basically, canonical for the English speaking world where as a more “accurate” translation is not. So to read something that was “accurate” would be to perhaps not read what is operative for English speakers when reading the Bible.
Actually, that’s a very interesting discussion… perhaps one worthy of a pint?
Also, what Jim said.
“I would say that the KJV is actually a text unto itself, and worthy of it’s own critical study. But that if you are looking for a faithful translation of the original sense of the texts, it is lacking.”
Very interesting. I’ve read the KJV with that approach (that is, treating as a text unto itself, as though it were a novel of sorts) and found it to be very helpful in understanding literary and cultural allusions, and even the English language itself.
Orwell was notably influenced by the KJV’s style and use of language: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_the_english_language#.22Translation.22_of_Ecclesiastes
I just want to note, because Kcatnd makes me realize it is possible to misconstrue my meaning. I don’t mean to imply that the KJV isn’t or shouldn’t be considered sacred to those that look at it that way. Simply that it is a translation of a text that has taken on a life of its own. Much as the Latinate translation it was based on took on a life of its own separate and distinct from the original Ancient Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Sanskrit that the various books of the Bible were originally written in.