Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Thursday June 11 2020, @01:27PM   Printer-friendly
from the A-See-Change dept.

Many sources are reporting what we can read at ABC News,

NASCAR banned the Confederate flag from its races and properties on Wednesday, formally distancing itself from what for many is a symbol of slavery and racism that had been a familiar sight at stock car events for more than 70 years.

The move comes amid social unrest around the globe following the death in police custody of George Floyd, an unarmed black man in Minneapolis. Protests have roiled the nation for days and Confederate monuments are being taken down across the South — the tradtiional fan base for NASCAR.

[...] The issue was pushed to the fore this week as Bubba Wallace, NASCAR's lone black driver, called for the banishment of the Confederate flag and said there was "no place" for them in the sport. At long last, NASCAR obliged.

"The presence of the confederate flag at NASCAR events runs contrary to our commitment to providing a welcoming and inclusive environment for all fans, our competitors and our industry," NASCAR said. "Bringing people together around a love for racing and the community that it creates is what makes our fans and sport special. The display of the confederate flag will be prohibited from all NASCAR events and properties."

[...] The move was announced before Wednesday night's race at Martinsville Speedway where Wallace, an Alabama native, was driving a Chevrolet with a #BlackLivesMatter paint scheme. Wallace got a shoutout on Twitter from several athletes, including NBA star LeBron James, for using the paint scheme in the race.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday June 11 2020, @04:47PM (10 children)

    by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday June 11 2020, @04:47PM (#1006405) Journal

    Yeah, I felt the same way when the Catholics quit doing the Mass in Latin. Appeasement to get more people to join.

    --
    La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2020, @04:58PM (9 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2020, @04:58PM (#1006413)

    Please note: many of us Catholics (about .1% worldwide) still attend the old Mass in Latin.

    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday June 12 2020, @12:19AM (8 children)

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday June 12 2020, @12:19AM (#1006674) Journal

      Because Jesus spoke so much Latin right? All alllll those Church fathers in places like Greece and Asia Minor (Turkey) were all about Latin, right?

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2020, @12:27AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2020, @12:27AM (#1006682)

        I don't know what language you think this guy [wikimedia.org] would speak, but it ain't none of that brown gibberish.

        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday June 12 2020, @12:40AM

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday June 12 2020, @12:40AM (#1006688) Journal

          Italian, most likely, as like many portrayals of Jesus, he appears to be modeled after Cesare Borgia :D

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Friday June 12 2020, @09:12AM

          by deimtee (3272) on Friday June 12 2020, @09:12AM (#1006801) Journal

          Is he doing the very first ice bucket challenge?

          --
          If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2020, @02:08AM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2020, @02:08AM (#1006728)

        A more logical justification for the modern use of Latin is that it lacks native speakers in the present day. Even on the scale of decades, a language that's commonly used can evolve significantly and its words can take on new meanings. For example, the word "gay" has significantly shifted in its typical meaning over the past 50 years. Using language that lacks native speakers and is typically not used in conversation significantly reduces the chance that a word in an old text will be understood differently than what is intended by the text. The spoken language of Jesus was probably Aramaic and many other ancient texts were written in Hebrew or Greek. The Latin translation from those other languages is imprecise, but further translation into other languages may lose some further meaning from the original text. It's a bit like compressing a WAV as an MP3, then wanting to convert the MP3 to an OGG. The OGG may be a good approximation of the original WAV, but some information is lost each time. None of this is intended to comment on the validity of Catholicism, just to provide a practical explanation for why a religious institution that's nearly 2,000 years old might use a language that isn't spoken natively by anyone.

        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday June 12 2020, @01:00PM (2 children)

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday June 12 2020, @01:00PM (#1006839) Journal

          There are some very good direct translations that don't rely on the Latin at all. I am a big fan of Young's Literal that you can find on biblegateway.org, for example.

          And remember, the Roman Catholic Church is *not* "nearly 2000 years old." It's barely 1695 years old, as it was created by Constantine at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. And Jesus himself would recognize very little of its doctrine or dogma, as would his disciples. Hell, Paul (Saul of Tarsus) was already throwing gravel in the works not 30 years after Jesus' own death...

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2020, @01:06AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2020, @01:06AM (#1008953)

            Undoubtedly there are very good direct translations. The problem with many translations of the Bible is that they were influenced by whatever political or dogmatic positions were favorable to whoever was funding the translation. The King James Version is a fine example of this, as well as a good example of how linguistic drift can be a problem. That's not an easy translation for modern speakers of English to understand.

            Any distinction between 1,695 years and nearly two millennia is arguing semantics and isn't relevant in this context. The New Testament was written in the later half of the first century. If you accept the later end of the range for authorship of Revelation, it could perhaps extend into the very early second century, but it is generally believed to have been written around 95 CE. The doctrine of the Catholic Church was heavily influenced by the Church Fathers [wikipedia.org], whose writings actually spanned several centuries between the second and eighth centuries. While many of the Church Fathers came after the Council of Nicaea, quite a few of them predate it as well. Even over the span of about six centuries between the first and last of the Church Fathers, there was more than enough time for very significant linguistic drift. In that context, the distinction between 1,250 years, 1,695 years, or 1,850 years really isn't relevant.

            Consider how English has changed during that time span. Here are a couple of videos about it:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y63dBBlHlSk [youtube.com]
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fxy6ZaMOq8 [youtube.com]

            Linguistic drift is a significant issue. The translations that are good today might be as difficult to understand in a few hundred years as the King James Version is to modern English speakers in 2020.

            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday June 18 2020, @12:38AM

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday June 18 2020, @12:38AM (#1009361) Journal

              All true, but missing my point: even within a few decades of Jesus' death, Paul was preaching something almost entirely at odds with the Synoptics (and John), *before* these were written, claiming to be a disciple among/above disciples despite never having met Jesus personally. That...is a hell of a claim to make in the face of 12/13 people who knew the man personally for years.

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 2) by Bot on Saturday June 13 2020, @01:28PM

        by Bot (3902) on Saturday June 13 2020, @01:28PM (#1007435) Journal

        The disciples spoke in tongues, Rome had the most influence, and the new alliance was beyond the originally invited. Matthew 22. So Latin is a perfect choice for Roman Catholics. Other churches didn't get so lucky, but the frictions are mostly political. Protestantism is another matter, as it was bloodshed, probably about a two pronged infiltration.

        --
        Account abandoned.