The unseasonably cool weather at the end of last week was refreshing and welcome, but it gave me a bit of writer's block.
OK, more like "I have no urge to write" block, and then "I can't write because I'm too busy scratching mosquito bites" block.
Therefore, I'm always happy when readers suggest topics to address. I'd take my cat's suggestions, but I doubt anyone wants to read about catnip and laser toys, plus his point of view on dogs is highly suspect.
George Aldrich asks about R words used frequently in editorials and letters--reputable, reliable, etc.--citing specifically another reader's letter invoking "responsible media outlets." He believes that reader's definition of "responsible" likely means "conservative-leaning." I'd say he's probably right.
The primary dictionary we use here is Webster's College Dictionary, though I consult onelook.com for multiple dictionaries (told you I was a word nerd). Webster's defines responsible thusly:
"1. expected or obliged to account (for something, to someone); answerable; accountable.
involving accountability, obligation, or duties: a responsible position.
that can be charged with being the cause, agent, or source of something: the moisture that is responsible for the rust.
able to distinguish between right and wrong and to think and act rationally, and hence accountable for one's behavior.
(a) readily assuming obligations, duties, etc.; dependable; reliable; (b) able to pay debts or meet business obligations."
I think the keywords are "accountable" and "reliable." Oxford puts it even more simply: "Capable of being trusted."
Still, that may differ from person to person. For me, media outlets that stand behind their stories with hard facts rather than speculation and use a wide array of sources and--more importantly--are willing to correct themselves when they get it wrong are to be more trusted. We all get it wrong at some point (I had some strangled language in last week's column, for example), but if we can't admit that, we're missing the point.
When "responsible" comes to mean only those outlets that reflect your own point of view, that's problematic as far as getting a full picture of what's happening in the world. However, if you want to cite those sources, go ahead. But don't blame us when other readers call you on it.
From one R word to another--religion. Richard Frothingham suggests that I rethink the policy on Bible verse citations--as I stated several weeks back, the Voices page doesn't use chapter and verse citations.
Mr. Frothingham mistakenly believes I contradicted myself by saying I'd allow a short quote or paraphrase. However, a full chapter and verse citation would be something like this: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have eternal life," John 3:16. The chapter and verse citation is only that little bit at the end; the bit in quotes is just the verse.
I understand his reasoning, and space isn't really the issue (though that "John 3:16" does take up space that could be better used making your argument). As I've said before, the Voices page isn't the Religion section, even though there have been complaints of it becoming that--it's a delicate balance to maintain at times. It's also not Bible study, Bible Bowl or Sunday School, or a big game of "Gotcha."
Most people interested in the religion letters are going to know where in the Bible those verses originated, and those who aren't sure can--if they're so inclined--head to sites like BibleGateway.com that have keyword and verse searches as well as multiple translations for comparison and contrast. The site just did a redesign which I have yet to try out, but also has a link to its old site (which I always thought was just fine).
The Bible is, quite honestly, one of the easiest sources to check, whether online or in the printed version (give that concordance a workout). Of course, if someone cites something from one of the seven additional books in the Catholic Bible or something from the "lost books" and heads start exploding, that's not on me.
I've always believed knowledge isn't just handed to you--you have to work for it, and those who are interested will do the work. That kind of hunger for knowledge is a good thing, and it hurts nothing to encourage it. Using the citations, though, would only encourage more letters like a recent one (unpublished) that was nothing but a list of verses.
We're a nation of many religions, not just the many flavors of Christianity, and allowing full Bible citations would mean we'd need to extend that policy to all other religious texts. I have a very strong feeling that that would not meet with a positive response from quite a few people who don't believe in those other sacred texts.
Put this in the category of "not going there."
------------v------------
Assistant Editor Brenda Looper is editor of the Voices page. Read her blog at blooper0223.wordpress.com.
Editorial on 07/23/2014