Religion

Bible Collection

I have a collection of Bibles in different languages.  It’s an odd collection, I know, but there are two logical reasons for this collection.  The first is that it is a collection of the most widely published and translated work in the world.  No other literary work is available in so many languages.  I am a foreign language buff, so the Bible is a logical book to choose when collecting works in other languages.

The second purpose is that a Bible collection is a “living collection”; that is, I collect Bible translations when I find them and give a localized Bible to someone who can read it in that language and needs a copy.  Last year a Paraguayan friend saw that I had a copy of the Bible in Guarani and marveled that I had one because they weren’t readily available in Asuncion.  So I gave it to him and bought another one.  Whenever these books serve a greater purpose than collecting dust on a shelf, I am happy to give them away.  So far I’ve collected over 50 Bibles in different languages from around the world.  Yesterday I found four more in a Lusaka bookstore translated into different African languages, including Bemba, an indigenous language widely spoken in Zambia.  If I come across someone who needs one of them, it’s theirs to keep.  I’ll get another.

I also enjoy the challenge of finding Bibles in local languages wherever I travel.  I’ve been able to collect indigenous Bibles in virtually every country I’ve visited.  When I can’t find it locally, I buy one online.  The only Bible I haven’t found to date is an Egyptian Coptic Bible.  I didn’t have any luck finding one when I visited Egypt in 2001-02, and I couldn’t find it for purchase online.  Here in Zambia, the challenge will be to find the Bible translated into the countries’ seven major indigenous languages.  Yesterday I found Bibles in Bemba and Kaounde.  Two down, five to go.

[table id=8 /]

So many choices

Have you ever had a long day where you were faced with a myriad of choices but could only choose one or two of them?  What would you choose to do?  If you were tired, would you go to sleep if you knew you had work to do?  Would you do the work or skip it and do it later?  If you had many tasks to do, which one(s) would you choose to do? 
 
I faced that choice tonight, as I often do.  I felt tired after another long day at the office and wanted to go to sleep early tonight.  It’s only Monday, and I have a long week ahead of me.  But I knew I needed to pay some bills tonight and research my next assignment.  So I pushed aside the drowsiness and went to work, spending another three hours in front of the computer.  My body would have preferred to rest, but here I am.  I finished the work I needed to do tonight and sneaked in a little personal time here blogging my thoughts for the day.  It may not be sleep, but at least it’s not work.

Does the democratic process trump democratic institutions?

Lately I’ve been reading The Economist, one of the world’s premier magazines.  I don’t particularly like it, but it seems to be the magazine of choice for policy wonks, so I knew I needed to become acquainted with it.  I appreciate their obscure articles on far-flung places around the globe.  However, I think they shamelessly editorialize and hide behind cute monikers such as "Lexington" (American affairs), "Charlemagne" (European affairs), and "Bagehot" (British affairs).  Apparently the writers and editors want the full weight of The Economist’s reputation behind its editorializing rather than letting one writer put their own name on the line when they skewer someone like new British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.  The Economist has strong opinions, and it lets its readers know it.
 
One standard belief of the magazine is that the democratic process trumps democratic institutions.  That is, if a dictator is legitimately elected and then proceeds to rig up the political system to suit his own purposes, that is more palatable than prohibiting said autocrat from running for office and subduing democratic institutions.  Preserving democracy in and of itself is more important than upholding democratic institutions.  Do you agree with this contention?  Is it preferable that democratically-elected Venezuelan President be allowed to asset control over Venezuelan public institutions, including the legislative and judicial branches, and the bureaucracy, strategic industries, and the press?  Or is it preferable that the Thai military leadership stepped in to forcibly remove the previous, duly-elected prime minister under the pretense, true or otherwise, of preserving democracy?  While neither is desirable, which would you prefer?  The Economist would choose the former.  I’m not sure I buy it.