posted
[rant] Rush gave racists a bad name by claiming that one of the better quarterbacks in the game got his position because the NFL and the press really wanted a black quarterback to promote. He hasn't been forced to apologize...yet. Instead his reaction to the negative press has been "see, I'm right, otherwise people wouldn't be getting so upset with what I said." Sure, Rush. You're right... we were just jerking our knees here.
Rush's brother has published a new book talking about how the "liberals" are ruining the country for Christians.
I've never thought much of Rush Limbaugh. He's mastered the art of convincing people by talking loudly and rapidly, IMHO. The fans who call into his show are called "Dittoheads." Need I say more?
As for the younger Limbaugh, I don't know much about him, but he was interviewed on Sean Hannity's religious broadcasting show (oh, sorry, it's called "the unvarnished truth show" or something like that) and I have to say that he was a little short on substance in his interview. Could've been Hannity's fault, at that, but still... The main point (that Liberals are "attacking" Christians and making the world safe for every religion EXCEPT Christianity) was accepted as a foregone conclusion by host and guest, so there wasn't really any explanation as to the theme of the book or specific examples of how the left is pulling the rug out from under Christians. Just that "THEY ARE!!!"
Well, I gather that anything that tries to allow equal time for other religious ideas is an attack on Christianity. But other than that??? Or, rather, that any program that bans religious presentations as part of government (paid for by ALL taxpayers) events or institutions is also an attack on Christianity.
Doesn't seem like a new theme, at any rate.
I'm so tired of these people. Honestly. I wish these beleaguered Churches would just give up their billions in tax exemptions and then look back to see how well we in America supported them throughout our history, even unto today.
Jerks!
And when was the last time a person was killed in America for being a member of a Christian sect? Oh, wait, Branch Davidians... IS that who was being persecuted? Those wackos?
Recent news seems to be filled with those het up on God's voice inside them doing things like killing abortion doctors or dragging homosexuals out to get beaten up. (Both perpetrated in Christ's name, I'll remind us all). Or the various parents killing all of their multiple offspring because they were afraid the devil might get them... Uh huhn...
Oh wait! I'm persecuting Christians by pointing out that SOME Christians do wacky stupid things in God's name, and I've failed to tar other religions (especially Muslims) at the same time...
Is that it?
Or is it that the nasty left likes to sneer when people claim to know what God wants FOR ALL OF US?
God wants white quarterbacks, for sure. Otherwise, why did He make so many of them white?
Darnit, there I go again. I'm confusing my Limbaughs.
Better get a scorecard. I can't tell them apart anymore.
quote:The fans who call into his show are called "Dittoheads." Need I say more?
Surely you're not suggesting that a group can best be characterized by the names they are called by those who don't like them?
quote:Recent news seems to be filled with those het up on God's voice inside them doing things like killing abortion doctors or dragging homosexuals out to get beaten up...
...and running planes into buildings, and kidnapping and raping teenage girls...
Maybe it isn't Christians with which you are fed up, but instead the scummy things humans do to each other. It just seems worse when its done by people who profess to know better.
I'd hug you, but would it irritate you? I don't want to do that.
posted
It not only seems worse. It IS worse. It's worse because those people aren't just in the position of "they should know better." They have put themselves in the position of saying they DO KNOW BETTER. And that they KNOW BETTER FOR ALL OF US.
(and K, I think you skipped a sentence in there along the way where I asked if maybe I wasn't being hard enough on Muslims. It's sort of ironic you bring that up as a defense of Christianity, though. That zealots from other faiths have done worse isn't a good enough reason to stop pointing out that self-righteous bigots in our own culture deserve our censure and ridicule, no matter what religious affiliation they wrap their biases in. The fact that Christianity is the domininant "religion" in the US simply means that it is the one most often cited when people try to justify their claims to moral superiority.
I've often thought that excommunication is a wonderful way for religions to purge themselves of the real wackos. I'd be really interested to see some of our larger faiths start sanctioning the truly insidious types out there -- the people who kill abortion doctors or slay their own children, or go on TV and radio and claim that God is going to send Hurricanes to Florida because Orlando allowed some rainbow flags to be displayed on public light posts.
I'm probably just the sort of person that Limbaugh was complaining about. I support Christianity as a faith but I do not support it as a means of public instruction (thus inserting itself into school curricula) or as a method of governance (thus inserting itself into modern law making or selection of leaders). I think if each individual votes his or her conscience, then that gives religion enough influence over every facet of life. We don't need more of it in secular institutions. And we don't need government to pay for or in any way sponsor non-secular institutions.
That's not an attack on Christianity unless Christians feel like they deserve an unequal voice in how the country is run.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way...I'm not really "back" I just have a cheap internet connection from my hotel and some "dead time" waiting to make a call.
And hugs aren't bad. I've been known to misinterpret them, though. So unless you are looking for a marriage proposal, you might want to rethink this whole "hug" thing.
posted
Katharina, its Rush who calls his callers "dittoheads".
I missed the Football Foot-n-mouth episode. I tried listening to Rush a few times. He divides people into three groups. The Right people, who agree totally with him. The Wrong people, who disagree on anything with him, so they must be completely and totally wrong on everything. The Undecided, who are really the Wrong people, but who are too cowardly to stand by their opinions, or the opinions he chooses to give them.
Oh, and watch your Rush-bashing/Christian Creep bashing. Some in Texas have been known to hang yankee's for that type talk.
posted
Rush Limbaugh, and his brother, Whatsisname Limbaugh, are idiots.
You know how I know? I live in their hometown. We have a mural about our city that includes the man. We get his weekly column in our paper. I tried reading it once, just to get a feel of what the other side is thinking. It literally made me want to throw up. Hatred, stupidity, and closed-mindeness dripping out of every pore.
And I live in the town that thinks he's a hero.
Posts: 3658 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob- I think that what Kat is trying to say is that you are mixing up your cause and effect. The folks who want to tell you how to live will do so whether they be christian or no. The people who kill abortion doctors are killers whether they be christian or not.
It is an impossible expectation that any institution will have such a vast effect on its adherents that they will cease to do the things which humans have always done.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually they played the exact quote on the news. I wish I could type it word for word but what he said wasn't that Mr McNab got his position because he was black but that Mr McNab was over rated because The Press wanted to see a black quarterback succeed.
Which was really stupid for him to say because there are so many people out there that dispise him for his political beliefs that he could have said "The Raider's colours are Silver and Black" and they still would have jumped all over him for being racist. "SEE! He said Black! The Raiders are in Oakland! Oakland is mostly black! He hates Black People!!!!"
quote: "I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well," said Limbaugh, the outspoken conservative radio talk show host who joined ESPN this season. "There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."
posted
Jaccare, I understand that, but its their Christianity (or Islam, or Wiccan or Communism or what ever "ism" they are following) that gives them the smug, "holier than thou" hypocritic attitude that Bob seems to find insufferable.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What gets me is his focus on McNabb, who had a couple of bad games to start the year. There are several other starting QB's who are black (7, with 2 more out with injuries IIRC).
quote:``I don't think he's been that good from the get-go,'' Limbaugh said about McNabb on last Sunday's pregame show. ``I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL.
``I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They're interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there's a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn't deserve. The defense carried this team.''
quote: Jaccare, I understand that, but its their Christianity (or Islam, or Wiccan or Communism or what ever "ism" they are following) that gives them the smug, "holier than thou" hypocritic attitude that Bob seems to find insufferable.
Well sure- they base their morality on some sort of philosophy and then become smugly "holier than thou". The point is that pretty much any group you can name has folks of this stripe. This is hardly a uniquely christian problem.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob: I didn't miss your statement - I was pointing out that just because you are aware of the accusation, it doesn't mean you don't do it, that the accusation isn't true.
I also wasn't defending Christianity as much doing exactly what Jacare said I was. All those horrible crimes listed have been part of humanity since it began, and while the nominal reasons change, I think it always will be. Even if a religion tries to stamp it out.
Rush calls his own callers dittoheads? My stars. Obviously, I've never listened to it.
Okay, I wasn't defending Christianity before, but I am now. Don't mix up the religion with the behavior of its adherents. The only way to scrub the scumminess out of all of humanity to do exactly what is both impossible and often decried - some sort of brainwashing and control. That doesn't happen.
This happens all the time - looking at the people who say they support a mode of thought or a philosophy or an organization and saying that the method must be bunk because the people are still acting like people. People will ALWAYS act like people, and that includes those who belong to a religion that tells them to knock it off.
You can disagree with, say, Rush because of what he says (and what he said was very racist), but not because your neighbor who listens to Rush backed over your mailbox and didn't pay for it.
What was it that Chesterton said? "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried."
The abortion-doctor and baby killers are not obviously not trying.
I'll be convinced that Christianity itself is the pernicious evil when it can be shown that it encourages as part of its doctrine unpleasant behaviors that are not shared by the rest of humanity.
posted
Oh, and I've listened to Rush off and on for years and the "dittohead" thing refers to a call he had many years ago where someone lavished praise onto Rush only to have the next person who called say "Ditto everything that guy just said" so now, instead of wasting half the show with callers sucking up they just say "ditto" or "megadittos" or some variation there of.
quote: GOLDEN, Colo. - A county treasurer is handing out booklets to potential jurors saying they are answerable "only to God almighty" and not to the law when it comes to deliberations.
Jefferson County Treasurer Mark Paschall, a former state lawmaker known for his anti-abortion and pro-gun views, said the booklets are "my personal gift to the people." He said the booklets, many stamped with his name and elected title, were bought with $500 to $600 of his money and that of two political allies who work in the treasurer's office.
The 61-page booklets promote "jury nullification," a concept promoted by conservative groups that say juries have the right to not only decide guilt or innocence, but also whether laws are just and adhere to God's law.
See, that's what bothers me. When they use their God to justify their beliefs/actions.
I wonder how he'd feel if he got the ever-loving-bejesus kicked out of him and his attacker's jury "answered only to God" and aquitted him. (My God said he had it coming. ) Man, I'd seriously consider paying to see that jury verdict come in. (This week on Pay-Per-View: Jury nullification.)
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm... It's tricky, the whole fanatical minority thing. I certainly don't judge all of Christianity by the small minority who bomb abortion clinics or wave "God Hates Fags" signs outside funerals. But what does it even mean to judge all of Christianity? There are literally hundreds of recognized Christian sects in the world, each a little different. Looked at one way, it's not really meaningful to speak pejoratively about Christianity as a whole. But, looked at another way, you can't really say "judge our religion by its doctrine, not by its adherents" because doctrine changes from group to group. I feel like there must be groups that self-identify as Christian who advocate violence as a matter of doctrine, whose clergy preach intolerance and hate. Does that mean we should judge other, more peaceful, more loving groups by those actions? Maybe we need to just stop talking about Christianity as a single, cohesive whole.
I do find Bob's excommunication comment intriguing, though. It seems like at least some of the violent, hating people who call themselves Christians belong to a sect that doctrinally eschews such tactics. Is there, then, any reason for that sect not to excommunicate the offender? And, if not, does this actually happen? And, if not, why not?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
If this is a 1 on the rictor scale of racism, can we at least agree that it was really rude?
Hmmm... well I'm trying to understand Rush's point of view on this. Why on earth would he say such a thing, even if he thought it was true?
Was it necessary for him to try and 'expose' the media's bias in this case? It's really nothing he can prove or substantiate.
For that matter, is it a bad thing for the media to want a successful black quarterback in the first place?
I played under a black quarterback when I was in highschool. Very talented guy. I know that if someone had said publicly that he was given more attention than he deserved simply because he was black, he would have been very upset. And rightfully so.
Is there any context in which Rush can say this and not be offensive?
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Rush's brother has published a new book talking about how the "liberals" are ruining the country for Christians.
I know a lot of people who think this way (like my whole family) and I used to buy into it, but I've figured out sorta how I really feel about it. The point is that the country is supposed to be a place where people can have whatever religion they want. But it's not a country where someone can force their religion onto anyone else. Unfortunately, in a way, this is what Christians are supposed to do, at least in the eyes of non-Christians. We Christians are supposed to take our gospel to everyone and do our best to get laws passed that reflect our value system. (Everyone does this to some degree, it's just that many Christians believe this is mandatory for us...and I'm one of 'em.)
It's no wonder things seem to be getting harder on Christians. We are fighting to make the country do what WE think is right, in a world where people are taught to be true to themselves, and that people who try to make you change should be stopped, because they don't love you for who you are. (Notice that I am trying to put the same neutral emphasis onto both points of view. This is me making an attempt at seeing things from far away.)
The point is that America is changing, and it is beginning to not allow the Christian way of life, meaning that we won't be able to go around telling people how to live for much longer. But let's get this straight. (The following is aimed at Christians who believe the above quote.) It's not the liberals who are screwing things up for us. We have chosen a life that makes us hated. Jesus said that to be His disciple, you should expect to be hated and persecuted. Why? Because we're telling people something that they don't really want to hear. It's our job. Throughout the centuries, life has been hard for Christians all over the world. It's nothing new. The only reason America has been so "safe" for Christians up til now is because the majority of Americans were Christians. In fact, the places that were safe for Christians in the past were also mainly Christian areas. Now they're not. Prepare to have to do what almost all Christians have had to do in the past, and that's go against the current. I don't know why Christians seem so set on blaming someone for making things tough on us, when they should have seen it coming. Not that I'm saying I agree with the way the world is, I just know who is in charge of this world, and I'm not talking about God.
If that's what you were saying, I totally agree. People wrap themselves in Christianity the way they wrap themselves in the flag (or other symbols that have a moral or ethical connotation in our culture) as a way to justify their actions to themselves and others. In the process, they devalue the power of the symbol (by virtue of doing bad things in the name of that particular institution).
But, that's not the point of Limbaugh's book, as I understand it. His point is that liberals are bashing Christians, not bashing people who CLAIM to be Christians.
And my point back to him is that I need some specific examples. The ones I can think up (where I bash people who are saying they are doing what they are doing because they are Christian) seem rather weak.
Pix, are you saying Rush's comments aren't all that bad? To me, they sound little better than the guy who yelled into the mic "Look at that little monkey go!" (wasn't that Jimmy the Greek?)
I jumped on it mainly because it offers proof of Rush's lack of a clue. If he can be so off base on this kind of thing (that ultimately doesn't matter) how off base might he be overall?
And I've heard callers to his show refer to themselves as "dittoheads," so I think it's a perfectly fine point of attack.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Limbaugh didn't back down from his comments during his syndicated radio talk show Wednesday.
"All this has become the tempest that it is because I must have been right about something," Limbaugh said. "If I wasn't right, there wouldn't be this cacophony of outrage that has sprung up in the sports writer community."
But let's get back to Rush or the separation of Rush and Nate (or whatever his brother's name is). The last name says it all, either Limbaugh is a schmuck. Rush for being just who he is and his brother for suddenly pushing his own fame based on an idiotic statement made by Rush Limbaugh. Does anyone even think that for one minute Rush's brother would be getting any media airtime if Rush hadn't stuck his foot so deeply in his mouth?
Here's where I'd like to see Dennis Miller return to TV Football to replace Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh simply does not understand the game or any of its history. Miller, who drops names like Terrel Owens drops passes, at least had the historical knowledge of the game that the average or above-average football fan has. Rush is so out of touch that he thinks that black quarterbacks are still something of a novelty in the game. heck, the media pretty much quit acknowledging black quarterbacks for being black, in what, 1984 or so?
There's no media attempt to oversell McNabb's capabilities just to push a case for blacks being good quarterbacks. There's plenty of evidence that there have been good and bad black quarterbacks in roughly the same proportion of good and bad white quarterbacks.
If anything, he forgets that no matter the color of the quarterback (color, not race, we're all one race with different shadings), the media has a tendency to shout loudly about their local QBs successes and failures. McNabb was spoken so highly of before because he WAS that good and was an integral component of his team's prior successes. This year, he's really been THAT bad and his team hasn't found that much success. But who do you praise/pick on? The middle linebacker or free safety, or do you put the spotlight on the QB?
Bah, McNabb has been treated just like every other quarterback by the press. And if the press was so hot on "over-promoting" black quarterbacks, how come they never had much nice to say about Rodney Peete? As a Carolina fan, I knew he was a steady if mediocre player, and that's how they've always covered him. No sugar coating. Cordell Stewart was praised highly and then slammed just as hard.
Rush isn't a racist, he's just a big old windbag that would rather listen to his own voice rather than do his homework.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:"All this has become the tempest that it is because I must have been right about something," Limbaugh said. "If I wasn't right, there wouldn't be this cacophony of outrage that has sprung up in the sports writer community."
Oh, so everything Rush says that isn't surrounded by a calphony of outrage is wrong?
posted
I found Bob's comment on excommunication insightful as well, and I've been looking for some data on what church excommunicate, how often, and for what. I have found nothing, so I decided to yell Kayla and ask for help. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Catholic Church has historically been the people who "excommunicate" their people. Others just kick you out of the church.
You can be kicked out of the church, but that doesn't mean you are a non-christian. There is no over arching Christian conclave that has the power to kick people our of christianity.
Though some Baptists do think its them--hence their desire to reconvert all you heathen members of LDS.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think excommunication is probably limited to:
- Catholics - Episcopalians
I'm like 99% sure that Baptists have no mechanism to formally censure anyone, even ordained ministers. The various "conventions" might take a stand on some person or notion, but those judgements are non-binding on individual congregations.
I know that other sects have more centralized control over their clergy (dkw told me about Methodists having regional control, for example) so there would at least be a some way to censure a renegade preacher. But an individual who claims to be from one sect or another? I'm not sure. It seems like any sect that emphasizes ones "personal relationship with God" must, by definition, eschew any attempts to control its members' behavior.
Hmm...
I wonder if people start suing the church to which someone claimed affiliation after particularly heinous crimes committed in God's name, if we might start seeing a change in how seriously the churches pursue doctrinal exactitude.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Jehovah's Witnesses excommunicate people. The first JWs I ever met were excommunicated, and that was a wild experience.
Mormons also excommunicate - most often for sexual sins (unrepentant adultery).
That's all the anecdotal data I'm aware of, however. I was trying to find an outside source. My word, NO ONE WRITE ABOUT THIS. I can't even get something off of beliefnet.com. This is frustrating.
quote:I wonder if people start suing the church to which someone claimed affiliation after particularly heinous crimes committed in God's name, if we might start seeing a change in how seriously the churches pursue doctrinal exactitude.
How could you justify it? You might as well start suing state governments because the people involved were citizens of that state.
Does this mean if I go crazy and off my roommate, her family should be able to sue the Cards because I post on Hatrack?
posted
Nooooo Bob! Scientologists don't make people disappear, permanently.
They just take them out into the desert, show them the space ship and make them write a big check. Then they lightly scrub the brain with soap and water and return the person to normal society with eyes as wide as a spot-lit doe's.
posted
No offense, Kat, but if you took into your head to kill a bunch of people and then claimed that your decision was "faith-based" I think your victims surviving relatives would have every right to sue the church that you affiliated yourself with.
They might not win.
On the other hand, a jury might decide that your pastor and elders were 1% liable for not reining you in after noticing that you were acting a little bit odd lately. That could open the church up to all sorts of damages in a lawsuit. Assuming that it's legal to sue a church.
Which it is, obviously, or the Catholic US Bishops would've just ignored the parishioners over the sex scandals.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the past few years their have been several nominally LDS people who have made the news for fanatical violence including most recently the self proclaimed prophet who kidnapped and raped a teenage girl. In all the cases I remember, the wacko's had been excommunicated long before the crimes were committed.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:if you took into your head to kill a bunch of people and then claimed that your decision was "faith-based" I think your victims surviving relatives would have every right to sue the church that you affiliated yourself with
Why?
If I went to a class and was urged to start killing people, then yes.
What if I went to church and there was a lesson on the basics of the gospel - love your neighbor, control your base impulses, and mourn with those who mourn. I went home and thought "But I want to kill my neighbor, and she's annoyed me and she didn't mourn with me, so she's not following what we learned in church, and God doesn't like people who don't mourn with those who are mourning, and she shouldn't be allowed to do it. In fact, she shouldn't be allowed to have the chance to commit a sin like that." I go next door and slit her throat, and claim that God approved of me.
That's the fault of the church? Where, exactly?
quote:your pastor and elders were 1% liable for not reining you in
You believe that the leader of my congregation is responsible for what I do?
Are you kidding?
The Catholic church is being sued because those who were committing the abuse were church employees, and they did it on church property and with the church's knowledge it was a risk. The Catholic church isn't being sued for the abuse committed by one of the lay people. In that case, they'd pay out any time any Catholic committed any kind of crime.
I can only see the liable thing if the action taken was either encouraged by the church or else allowed to happen through the church's negligence and tacit approval (i.e. putting a known pedophile in as Scoutmaster and sending them on a campout).
quote: What if I went to church and there was a lesson on the basics of the gospel - love your neighbor, control your base impulses, and mourn with those who mourn. I went home and thought "But I want to kill my neighbor, and she's annoyed me and she didn't mourn with me, so she's not following what we learned in church, and God doesn't like people who don't mourn with those who are mourning, and she shouldn't be allowed to do it. In fact, she shouldn't be allowed to have the chance to commit a sin like that." I go next door and slit her throat, and claim that God approved of me.
That's the fault of the church? Where, exactly?
In that context, no, it's not the fault of the church. I think Bob is talking about crazy religions like those that say, "kill all that don't convert to your religion." He's not saying ALL religions.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
They are also being sued for a concerted effort on the part of the church to not just hide the incidents but to hide the perpetrators of the crime by shipping them off to distant dioceses rather than handing them over to the authorities. And apparently, they did it knowingly.
I'm not bashing Catholics, just a group of people within the heirarchy who placed themselves above the law and actively shielded people they knew to be pedophiles. I've wondered why no one was ever charged with aiding and abetting or obstruction of justice in these cases?
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
A jury could easily decide that your defense (your faith led you to your crimes) means that your church bears some of the blame for your actions.
Especially if there's some evidence that they knew you weren't quite right and did nothing to correct your mistaken beliefs.
I'm not saying this isn't just another example of tort liability gone haywire, but I could see it happening without too much of a stretch. And I could see a church losing too.
I'm also not saying that I advocate it or that it would make much sense. I think that when people sue record companies over lyrics (no matter how much they might sound like a direct incitement) it's just bad law. It's people going after the deep pockets because they know that if they sue the perpetrator of a crime they are likely to never get any money. Shoot, that person is probably already broke from paying for the defense in a criminal trial. And if they were found guilty, they aren't going to be out there gainfully employed so that wages could be garnished. Nope, you don't sue the criminal for damages. You sue anyone who might've influenced that person.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Especially if there's some evidence that they knew you weren't quite right and did nothing to correct your mistaken beliefs.
But that's assuming that someone else, an organization, is responsible for what I, an adult, think.
What would it take to do something? Teach lessons on loving your neighbor? Once a year, have a rundown on the ten commandments and say "Yep. Still valid."?
Because I'm pretty sure most churches do that - teach good ways to be. If they don't, then it isn't something the church covers, in which why are they being held responsible? I mean, I belong to professional organizations, too. Would it be a good idea to sue them?
Anyway, if it ever happened, there's your example of an attack on the religion instead of the person. There's a perfect case of blaming and holding responsible a religion for the crazy and unChristian actions of the one of their adherants. If it happened, it would prove every one of the beleaguered Churches justified in their complaints.
-----
I can understand the temptation - rich, organized, formal, and, from a certain perspective, smug. A perfect target. Still not right, though.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is the environment, all these beliefs and ideas being circulated around in a circle of people. I can never understand why it is that a group of people will condemn gay people or people who get abortions or a whole host of other people and yet turn around and think it's perfectly alright to create a climate to make it so much easier to kill and hurt people and then turn around and say that it's God's will. Not very moral. Not one bit. What would really be moral would be to do the right thing, no matter what, even as morality shifts and change. To really LOOK at these ideas spread around in a religion.
You cannot know how angry the actions of the Catholic church in light of these acusations make me.
And Rush Limbach is an annoying moron.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do people hate Rush so much? In the book Reservation Blues the main charcter takes a shot at Rush when he actually says, "If God were good, why would he create Rush Limbaugh?"-Thomas Builds-the-Fire
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: And my point back to him is that I need some specific examples. The ones I can think up (where I bash people who are saying they are doing what they are doing because they are Christian) seem rather weak.
He does give many examples in his book. One that I know is about a ten years old boy who was taught that he should give thanks in prayer before every meal was suspended from school for bowing his head in silent prayer.
Another, two sisters had their bibles confiscated and thrown in the trash in front of the rest of the school. They had brought them to read silently to themselves durring recess.
Now, I do not agree with all that Limbaugh postulates but, this holiday season watch and see how often "Merry Christmas" is said during the station identification. I bet you will never see it. But in contrast, you will see "Happy Hanakah" and "Happy Qwanza".
This is an example where it is okay to mention other religions but the christian is taboo. I don't care. Religion to me is personal and I could care less if "Merry Christmas" was ever said in a public forum. As long as people allow me to worship as I want I waill be happy to reserve it to appropriate places, and not scream it at the top of my lungs. But, kids should be allowed to silently pray at lunch in school.
Posts: 1244 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: this holiday season watch and see how often "Merry Christmas" is said during the station identification. I bet you will never see it. But in contrast, you will see "Happy Hanakah" and "Happy Qwanza.
To be completely fare, you should count the number of hour and 2 hour long Christmas specials in contrast with the number of Hanakah and Qwanza specials shown during the month of December. Can you honestly believe that Merry Christmas doesn't get said on network television?
I am very wary of trusting the anecdotes Limbaugh prints in his book because many of them have been proven to fraudulent. The type of actions you report are clearly illegal. Schools have been sued (by the ACLU no less) for similar actions and lost. The number of verifiable cases where non-christian children (or children who are not members of the major local christian sect) have been persecuted in school far out number the verfiable cases of persecuting the christian majority.
[ October 01, 2003, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This christmas specials are usally, "frosty the snowman" and other dealing with Santa Clause. Not about the birth of Christ. And yes, I took the challange last year. I could not find one of the networks who would put "merry Christmas" or play music that would be consider religous. The music was holiday music not Christmas music.
Yes there are Christmas stories that try to convey the "Christmas Spirit". I think all should be equal and time should be given to all. But watch the little blurbs during the comercial, what are called the station Identifiers, they usuall double with adds for the upcoming news, they will not say "Merry Christmas", at least not here in Pheonix.
Again I say, I don't care. I am all for the seperation of church and state, but that does not mean that I can't read the bible or pray silently in public, that is my right.
Posts: 1244 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you are hunting for bias. Do they show the Charlie Brown Special? Do they actually tell you anything about Judaism in the Happy Hanukah spot? Do they do anything at all during Yom Kippur or Ramadan? I hardly think it shows anti-christian bias when the station broadcasts an hour long Merry Christmas special and then flashes Happy Hanukah on the screen for 5 seconds during station ID. I think if you were to count the seconds during which genuine christian messages were conveyed on network television verses the seconds dedicated to any aspect of any other religion, you would see where the real bias lies.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to point out that the context the character's comment was made in was him actually questioning the existence of God, it was not a joke on his part.
You can argue that someone is an idiot all you want but its simply a matter of differing political views.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm siding whole-heartedly with HDD on this one. If you want to have your head handed to you anymore, start by saying, "Hi, I'm a Christian."
Honestly, most Christians could care less what others profess as their beliefs and wish you well in pursuing your life and dreams. But try and mention that you are of the Christian faith and you are blamed for everything in sight AND they tell you to stay out of their business and to quit telling them what to think.
It's just incredibly tough to publicly be a Christian nowadays. But, I guess, when has it ever really been easy to follow that path? It was never meant to be.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Actually, that was Howard Cosell. And, while they said it was racist, I strongly disagree. He used the same phrase about white players multiple times, and it was a common phrase about his grandchildren.
Jimmy the Greek's huge mistake was the following comment.
quote: "The black is the better athlete," The Greek said. "And he practices to be the better athlete, and he's bred to be the better athlete because this goes way back to the slave period. The slave owner would breed this big black with this big black woman so he could have a big black kid. That's where it all started."
I don't necessarily think Limbaugh was wrong. On the other hand, black athletes haven't had the same support system that whites have. Sure, doesn't anyone wonder why some of the best athletes in pro football are black, but all the quarterback all-stars are white? The quarterback position is the "thinking" position. Do you really think a coach wants a black kid in that powerful position, the team leader? I don't think so. It's also the reason there aren't enough black coaches. Know what? I think the league should be doing more to get blacks in the quarterback position and coaches office. The boy's club mentality, however, is "Hey, we made them coaches and quarterbacks and they just can't cut it." I wonder how many of you could walk into a trade type job (blacksmith, electrician) and figure out what to do without help, or "help" but not the kind that they other apprentices get. (See, they've been apprenticing since they were born, and they get training 24/7, while you get attention only begrudgingly.)
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Kayla, Donovan McNabb, the quarterback in question, was a two-time Pro Bowl quarterback. And I don't believe he was the first, by a long shot.
And the head coach position in professional football... well there are 32 teams..., only 28 of which have been in business for more than 10 years. Most head coaches are brought up through the coaching staffs of teams or are hired out of head coaching positions from College teams. Other hirings are takeaways from one pro team to another. I hate to say it, but it's a rarified atmosphere in that job... 32 head coaches out of 260 million or so Americans... And yes, there have been a number of successful black coaches. But they, just like the other coaches, got there for one reason and it had nothing to do with race. It had everything to do with ability and experience.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Bob's back! I'm glad. I missed you.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
I wonder how many of you could walk into a trade type job (blacksmith, electrician) and figure out what to do without help, or "help" but not the kind that they other apprentices get. (See, they've been apprenticing since they were born, and they get training 24/7, while you get attention only begrudgingly.)
