More Active Posts
Front Page
Censoring “sin”
 |
 23 Comments |
The holiday season was a kind of news ceasefire. Notwithstanding the awkward intrusion of reality afforded by the assassination of
But we’re off and running again at the top of January with mayhem in Kenya — and proof once more that if nations didn’t have each other to fight, then the tribes within each nation would fight each other. And if the tribes didn’t have each other to fight, then the members of a family would fight each other.
Good thing there’s no such thing as sin.
You wonder, though, considering the state of things, how the news outlets get along without that particular lexical item — “sin.” Think of how these emporiums of word-smithing unnecessarily hamstring themselves in editorial analysis by their quaintly obstinate refusal to add to their journalistic stock in trade the most perfect word ever coined for capturing all the nuances of the terrible actions they will be reporting in 2008 — “sin.”
Explanations like “poverty” or “discontent” or “frustration” or “long simmering tensions” or “internecine strife” or “tribal divisions” are all well and good, but just don’t cut it when describing why a wealthy politician extorts bribes, or why a Kenyan mob would douse with gasoline and set afire a church full of women and children.
 |
Topic: Front Page, The World |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: journalism, Kenya |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
The race for No. 2
I thought it’d be simple to just say that there’s a “Pluto/Jupiter conjunction in Sagittarius” at the moment, but I cede Andree’s point because “sin” takes up less print space.
My point is that “sin”, just like a “Pluto/Jupiter conjunction in Sagittarius”, is a word/phrase that suggests a particular belief, or belief system, that news outlets can’t be sure their readers adhere to.
In the context of an article in WorldMag, I don’t think there’d be any objection to “that particular lexical item - sin”. But the general media outlets are going to report on the information at hand (without any bias, of course
), and then allow the readers to place that information into the contexts of their own worldviews; be that “sin”, “karmic imbalances” or “hostile planetary alignments”.
For people who want the news reported in the context of their worldview, there are many publications (like World) that cater to that desire.
It must be affirmed that the word “sin” is predominately a spiritual term. Yes, it has explicite physical painful manifestations in the real world. But it is spiritual at its core. It is the invisible virus or cancer that leads to the coughing, sneezing, aching and eventual dying of the patient.
What makes sin so dangerous is that, like cancer, you often cannot detect it easily or early. It can do it’s worst work while we (and of course the media) do not see it, identify it or deal with it.
Why did Jesus come to the earth? Why was the Christ child born?
See 1 John 3:5. It was to deal with “sin.”
And he did!
awkward intrusion of reality
Yes, murder is rather “awkward”. So are a lot of things. Discrimination is one. Very awkward. Violence. Hate. These things are certainly awkward.
How about the words evil, wicked, immoral, or bad?
I’ve always thought the word “evil” to be particularly pungeant with meaning. It would work for me.
I have learned from reading this blog that to some people, the word sin refers to breaking a religious rule, which may or may not be a matter of right and wrong. Thus in their minds, a “sin” may be a proscribed activity but not actually evil, while an evil act that doesn’t happen to be forbidden by a particular religion may not a “sin.”
I don’t know how widespread that view is, but I keep it in mind when talking to people who may not use the word the same way I am used to, and use the words wrong or evil that I am pretty sure connote what I have in mind.
Can you give examples? I’m struggling with this concept. I’ve always equated sin with evil.
Pauline, I’m not sure what you’re saying in #7. Sin, an Old Englsh word, has a clear definition, namely the breaking of a religious law or moral principle, especially through a willful act.
Many modern people, including liberal Christians, are uncomfortable with the idea that people willfully do bad things; so they end around sin by substituting concepts of psychology, race, class, and gender for sin. Andree is quite right that the emporiums of media word smithing tie themselves into knots explaining such atrocities as a Kenyan mob dousing a church holding women and children with gasoline and setting it afire.
Of course we can debate the validity of certain religious laws or moral principles but not really the notion of sin itself.
MIM and Peter Leavitt,
I’m sure someone who sees it that way himself could give better examples than I can, but I’ll try.
A Catholic might consider it sin to eat meat on a day when he’s supposed to eat only fish. (I don’t know whether they still have that rule but it’s a common perception people have of Catholics.) Many Baptists consider it sin to drink any alcohol.
The non-Christian who thinks as I am describing does not say (as I would), “Those aren’t actually sins.” (Though I might add that if the person believes them to be sin, he is violating his conscience by doing them and is evidently putting self above God in order to do them.) Instead he says, “Those are sins because they violate a religious dictate. But they are not ethically wrong.”
On the other hand, there are things that some people would consider ethically wrong, such as burying radioactive waste or testing toxic substances on animals, that may have no clear religious prohibition (depends on the religion, of course).
#9 “Of course we can debate the validity of certain religious laws or moral principles but not really the notion of sin itself.”
I think that the person who would argue as I have been suggesting agree with the concept of sin as you and I understand, but would not use the word “sin” because in his mind it connotes only disobedience to a religious rule, not a universal ethical principle.
I would agree with you that if a person thinks a thing is wrong (even if God didn’t prohibit it) and he does it anyway, then he has sinned or done evil. He thinks he has rebelled against God, and that is evil.
In the other example you give, such as burying radioactive waste, it could be argued that it is sinful or evil, especially if it does harm to fellow human beings. The ten commandments, while being succinct, are still pretty comprehensive.
the “will to power” works to explain the cause of actions many will deem as a sin
Aren’t we witnessing Christian “PC” in regards to Andree’s complaint about the media not using the word “sin”? Why should the news media (or any one of us) buckle under and only use Christian approved language?
The great thing about this world is that people have the freedom to describe and view things in the way that makes sense to them.
Anlir, Andree is far from advocating that the media “buckle under” and use approved Christian language. She in the piece wonders “though, considering the state of things, how the news outlets get along without that particular lexical item — “sin.”
#15 because to use ’sin’ as a description of these events is to assess the news using one’s own moral code, which as we all know differs from one individual to another, and hence, can’t be a standard for reporting to the general populace
Fusion, I’d buy that when it comes to reporting the news, though not in explaining it, which many of the pundits claim to do. Perhaps the greatest weakness of modernism is that, lacking a transcendental dimension, including sin, events, are explained shallowly in some sort of naturalistic terms.
Perhaps the best explanation of the Civil War came when Lincoln in his Second Inaugural went transcendental as follows:
The Almighty has His own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.” If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
I understand that most want some sort of simple worldly explanation for events, though as Andree suggests this is virtually an impossibility.
Apologies to Andree for getting a bit heavy here.
Personally the explanation “sh@# happens” is good enough for me. No naturalistic, materialistic or divine explanation necessary. I’ve studied enough history to realize that direct causal links are almost impossible to discern. Usually self-interest is the core culprit which goes back to the will to power.
HRW, stuff happens because we make it happen. Our actions are a manifestation of what we already believe. Remember, our lives are not defined by what happens to us. Our lives are defined by how we react to what happens to us.
Fusion: I’m not sure I get your point in post #16. When God creates us, we are “made in His image”. That also includes a certain moral code He instills in all of us, there is no moral code of ourselves. That’s what got us in trouble in the garden of Eden in the first place! I am impressed in Andree’s usage of the tem “sin” to berate the national media. They just have no spine!
How many times have we seen during the double church shooting in Colorado the media call mr. Murphy “sick in the head” for drawing a gun on church folk before Jeanne Assam (my new hero)took him down. NO….He was evil. no spin there. He committed an evil act, therefore he was not sick, just evil.
Re: #17&19
This matter is actually not as simple as we might like to make it. For example, Pres. Lincoln saw Slavery as a sin and against God’s will. The Mormons probably back in the day saw blacks as a lower caste fated that way by God. Hence they didn’t feel sinful in their discrimination against blacks. Also, the slave owners then now comprise the deeply Christian south (bible belt), which still has many racist pockets. Some of these people consider themselves good Christians and find nothing morally wrong in their stance and so accusing them of sinning makes no sense to their morality. Honestly, JUSTUS331, based on the differences in cultures around it is impossible to say that we are all born with the same sense of morals.
In terms of calling actions a sin or a person reporting certain news topics transcendentally in our age makes the situation one that divides the people instead of uniting their opinions. For example, ecological conservation, gay-marriage etc when given a religious twist such as using the term ‘sin’ it immediately throws such topics up for debate and creates opposing fractions; successfully ignoring scientific evidence that usually points in a general direction.
Fusion……..might thy first name be Con?
Because after reading that, I am Confused.
JUST US#21
Of course it isn’t ‘con’, I wrote it right before going to sleep, so I understand how it can be inarticulate. Let me clarify;
First part, different moral authorities (churches and other such…) often uphold conflicting moral stances (very true). Hence we don’t all have completely similar perception of what is moral.
2nd half- Using religiously charged language in circular reporting polarizes your audience (into those who support your religious stand point and those who don’t). Hence, in deciding what to best resolve an issue, one might be lead to use religious actions such as prayer rather than a logical (non-religion based) response. I hope I did a better job here than the previous post.
Hey Fusion, I apologize if you took it wrong. I was just joking wiff ya.
Morality is an absolute concept, just like truth is. When the question arises about the morality of something, is it not cut & dry?
Actually, Sir, you’ve done well in thine clarification!
By the way…..my user name is one word: Justus. I got it from 3 references in the new testament, 2 in Acts and 1 in Collosians.
I used it as a pro wrestling name when I worked the southern new england independent circuit.
I used to jokingly say the Monkees even named their CD after me. LOL