GotSteel
Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: dcnovice
Sorry to be slow in responding. It was a long week at work.
Please don't apologize for being productive, I've been feeling pretty busy myself lately.
quote:
ORIGINAL: dcnovice
Thanks for the USA Today article, which I hadn't seen. It was interesting, though it seems a little odd to root your post in a secondary source description of what the CDF said when the primary source was readily available. But maybe that's just the old history major in me.
Well I started to copy and paste quotes out of the primary source and realized that I was just doing what had already been done before. So I saved some time in pointing out the damning pieces of the document with added context to understand some of the vaguer statements by leaving it to the professionals. It made sense to me in the face of a claim of oversimplification to hold up a secondary source and say, I don't think this is oversimplified, frankly it looks pretty directly quoted to me. The author looks to have quoted the original document, asked the nuns in question for a response to it and given a bit of background info. Looks like pretty basic journalism to me, I'm not seeing narrative crafting issues.
quote:
ORIGINAL: dcnovice
Having looked at both the article and (once again) the CDF document, I honestly do think the USA Today writer is setting up a "poor, oppressed nuns versus power-hungry bishops" narrative that reflects a modern, progressive, American, and sociological take on the situation and evidences no effort to understand the very different mindset underlying the CDF's viewpoint. The author's sympathies are clearly with the nuns. I can understand that (mine are too), but it takes a toll on his journalism.
I didn't see the "evil, power-hungry bishops" angle, that's not something I got from the article. My take on it was that the two sides have fundamentally different priorities (just like in the original post). As an example, the nuns made a pro-Obama care statement, that makes all the sense in the world if you prioritize physical concerns (this is something we expect to help quite a few people and save lives).
Their critics on the other hand seem to be coming from a position of prioritizing metaphysical concerns over physical concerns (like in the original post). That whole "the pillar and bulwark of truth" thing you pointed out is their priority. From their frame of reference taking a stand against contraception is more important than the physical health and well being of the people Obama care would help.
The original story isn't the result of a unique thought process. When you think about it isn't prioritizing eternal metaphysical well being over temporary physical well being is a fairly common theme among Christians?
|
RE: Church closes food program because it attracts the ... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread