it almost makes me nervous to write baout this topic...bc it is such a sensitive topic amongst the fragile framework of students at this precious school. so apparently the big question is whether we can accurately report on a religion if we are a part of it. here is my absolute simple answer. yes. HOWEVER...i feel like something like this needs to be "peer reviewed'. i believe that this is essential because if not, then it will undoubtedly have an unequal weight towards one side or the other.
even moreso i feel like it needs to be "peer reviewed" if a member of one religion is to write about another religion. the book that BYU uses for it's Survey of World Religions class is an exceptional literary piece. i love how they present the information, and then, before publishing the book, they gave those chapters to someone of said religion to be reviewed...and just to make sure that they were accurate in their writings.
anyway...what a deep topic...covering religion...
it is actually interesting to see this "A Study Showed" that they have up in class...it's so true. it's talking about the coverage of religions and what the majority of coverage is. For example, "Roman Catholicism is more often linked with bad deeds and criminality than with Catholic beliefs and values"
so interesting...because it's SO true! i actually enjoy CNN's page on religion, because...it's people's blogs. it's their take. it's the people defending themselves. i like how it shows the different viewpoints on all the subjects from people in the actual religion. what does the Catholic church think about the war...how about Islam? it's so different when you ask the people that actually belong.
can i just say...http://www.cbn.com/ <------------that guy is a moron.
in the name of Jimmer, Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment