Tags
blog, blogging, Humor, misc, Miscellaneous, News, Opinion, Politics, random, Random Stuph, random thoughts, Sports, thoughts
- 15,000 people showed up at a church in Georgetown, Texas to hear Tim Tebow preach on Easter Sunday. This gives birth to multiple questions. Aren’t there more qualified people to hear preach? Is Tebow saying something different from any other preacher? Why are people so enamored with this guy? Many people wear their faith on their sleeves such as Tebow does, but they are not as revered as Tebow. So what gives? Is it just because he’s a football player? So what? Why would you listen to a football player over someone who actually went to school to preach to you? Someone who, you know, actually studied the Bible (or whatever) and knows it intimately?
I also have some issues with some of the comments he made. In regards to athletes who claim they are not role models, Tebow said, “Yes you are. You’re just not a good one.” Tim, being an athlete does not make one a role model. If you are a parent and encourage adulation of athletes (or any celebrity for that matter) then you are not doing you job as a parent properly. Sure, it’s nice to have the ability to be an athlete, but just because you have the raw talent to be a football player doesn’t automatically qualify you as role model. Nobel peace prize winners are worthy of adulation and are fitting role models, athletes aren’t.
Secondly, Tebow says that “It’s OK to be outspoken about your faith.” No, it’s not. It’s okay to believe and to have faith, but many people believe different things and are followers of many different religions. The only thing every religion has in common is the belief that their’s is the one true religion and that all other religions are wrong. So if you go out spouting your faith you’re going to run into someone who thinks you’re wrong. Then we have confrontation and conflict.
Believe what you want, but keep it to yourself.
- Wow, talk about a woman scorned. Some Indiana woman broke into her ex-boyfriend’s house, clubbed him over the head, and literally ripped his balls off with her bare hands. Okay, not completely off, but his scrotum was torn. What the fuck? Some people just can’t handle rejection.
- From the “people are stupid” file, the alleged shooter of 5 black people in Tulsa, OK was pissed about his dad being murdered by a black guy two years ago. The guy that did it is in jail, but apparently that wasn’t enough for this dude. So he went on a shooting spree. What’s the logic here? How did this solve anything? I could understand shooting the guy that did it (not defending it), but just because some random black guy killed your dad doesn’t mean they all collaborated on it. If black people use your logic then they’ll start indiscriminately killing white people in retaliation. Stop being stupid, people!
- Pope Benedict XVI held an Easter candle at a basilica vigil Saturday night. Mysteriously missing from the story is when the Pope colored eggs and filled baskets with candy. And who hid the eggs?
- A fully preserved woolly mammoth was discovered in Siberia recently, and is estimated to be roughly 10,000 years old. Creationists have no opinion on this….
- The Titanic Memorial Cruise will retrace the voyage of the original Titanic. The MS Balmoral will set sail from Southampton with 1,309 passengers aboard begging the question: Who signs up for a cruise that ends up at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean?
- A 2-year old child fell into her grandparents swimming pool a died over the weekend. Again, where are the parents, grandparents, or any fucking adult that should have been watching this child? Why was a 2-year old allowed to play near a swimming pool unsupervised? What the hell is wrong with people?
- Some freaky woman was arrested in New York this weekend for stalking Alec Baldwin. If you’re going to stalk a celebrity, shouldn’t it be one that isn’t a gigantic tool? Or one with some talent?
- A handful of people showed up at the Cleveland Indians home opener with signs protesting the use of the name “Indians.” I’m not sure what these people are upset about. They claim that using the name is racist, but I don’t see the connection. Racists terms are normally thought to be derogatory, so why would the owners of the team choose a team name they didn’t respect? If they thought so little of “Native Americans” I doubt they’d keep the name. There’s a quote from one of the protesters in the article stating his belief that the club is somehow subjugating Native Americans by using the name. What?! How on earth do you make THAT connection?
People need to calm down and realize there are more important things to protest. It’s just a team name and no ill-will is intended. They chose the name to honor a Native American who had played on the team in the early 1900′s. Obviously different people are going to have different opinions, but it’s still a freakin’ team name. If you’re going to protest, protest something important like the war in Afghanistan or the attack on women’s reproductive rights. Or even the economy. Make it something worthy of your time.
AMEN!!! lol
All good thoughts. My fav — If you’re going to protest, protest something important like the war in Afghanistan or the attack on women’s reproductive rights.
“Nobel peace prize winners are worthy of adulation and are fitting role models, athletes aren’t.”
The Nobel Peace Prize has been a sad joke ever since about 1994 when Yasser Arafat (terrorist turned “statesman”) was awarded it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_Peace_Prize_laureates). After Arafat came the inept UN (with its “Commission on Human Rights” that included member states with horrible human rights records http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Commission_on_Human_Rights#Criticism), Jimmy Carter (I guess you could say he “promoted” peace by so thoroughly f-ing up the Iran Hostage Crisis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis), Al Gore and the IPCC for their efforts to promote “climate change”, and Barack Obama within a year of his presidency for not being George Bush and for promoting “climate change” (a bit premature since Obama is still conducting war and jumped into Libya all on his own).
The only requirement for a Nobel Peace Prize these days is to appeal to the Nobel Committee’s leftist fantasies. The only Nobel laureates who deserve adulation are the ones who were awarded the other Prizes (Physics, Chemistry, etc.) — they actually had to accomplish something.
And what “attack” on “women’s reproductive rights” are you talking about?
Okay, so maybe not the Nobel peace prize, but you get the point, don’t you?
Yeah, I don’t hold pro athletes in particularly high esteem either.
And what “attack” on “women’s reproductive rights” are you talking about?
http://stopthewaronwomen.com/whats_at_stake/
A lot of it centers around abortion, which I am still anti-abortion, but there are other things going on, too. Republicans have been taking shots at birth control, too. Scott Walker just repealed the requirement that Wisconsin sex-educators teach about contraception. Why?
Why is there a federal bill being sponsored to cut all funding to planned parenthood? Do we want even more mouths to feed on welfare? Do we want the population of this country to skyrocket?
Why does rape need to be redefined in Georgia? Rape is pretty cut and dry.
Why is a bill being sponsored that would allow a pregnant woman to die if pregnancy would kill her and an abortion would save her life?
There’s more, but it’s all just as ridiculous. Again, I’m anti-abortion, but I’m not going to go on some idiotic crusade about it. This nation is facing unimaginable perils in the form of economic collapse, one war with a possibility of two more on the horizon, our people need jobs, healthcare still isn’t settled, racial tensions are palpable, and the GOP wants to legislate against abortions? Give. It. Up. Legal or not, abortions aren’t going away.
So fight a worthy fight. Create some jobs. Balance the budget. Get our troops out of Afghanistan. Reform healthcare. Reform welfare. Do SOMETHING productive, but leave abortion alone. Leave contraception alone. In fact, take your religious beliefs out of your political ones.
The Supreme Court decided that women had the right to have an abortion a long time ago. Like it or not, respect the decision. They need to quit trying to find ways to circumvent that decision.
Besides, these folks were elected on the premise that they would make our lives better, not regulate them and tell us how to live them.
None of those examples have anything to do with “reproductive rights”. There is no such thing as a “right” to receive state sex education about contraception, and Planned Parenthood (or any other private organization) certainly does not have a “right” to taxpayer money. The Georgia bill doesn’t redefine rape, it simply refers to the person making the charge as the “accuser” instead of the “victim”. This is actually consistent with our legal system since the accused rapist is considered innocent until proven guilty, and you can’t be a “victim” until there has been a crime. In any case, this has nothing to do with any “right”, much less a “reproductive right”.
The only actual right that comes anywhere near any of those examples is the right to life in the case of a pregnant woman who would die due to her pregnancy (which I disagree with — hospitals should be allowed to deny abortions in all cases except to save the life of the woman, which is the only reason I support abortion).
Most of the other points at the website you linked to refer to de-funding of various social programs. You are certainly free to criticize them, but again there are no “rights” involved. The government does not have a duty to provide these social programs (more on this here: http://thenullspace.wordpress.com/2011/07/16/on-rights/). And, incidentally, the purpose of these bills from the Republican point of view is to reduce government spending to…balance the budget (which you rightly want legislators to focus on).
“…the GOP wants to legislate against abortions? Give. It. Up. Legal or not, abortions aren’t going away. So fight a worthy fight…The Supreme Court decided that women had the right to have an abortion a long time ago. Like it or not, respect the decision. They need to quit trying to find ways to circumvent that decision.”
I wonder how you would apply that logic to something other than abortion. Like, say, slavery. Imagine yourself at a time when slavery was legal and imagine a slaveowner making a similar argument against your “idiotic crusade” to end slavery and racial discrimination: Give up trying to abolish slavery. Legal or not, slavery isn’t going away. The Supreme Court decided that slavery and racial segregation are legal, blacks can’t be U.S. citizens, etc., a long time ago. Like it or not, respect the decision. Quit trying to find ways to circumvent that decision.
You’re comparing apples to oranges. Slavery and abortion are two different things.
Also, your contention that the GOP are doing the things they are doing to balance the budget is suspect. We all know how the GOP feels about planned parenthood. While you may not agree with what they do, the fact that they provide contraception helps prevent women who can’t afford to have children from having them. Cutting funding to planned parenthood is only going to increase spending by welfare and medicare. So really you’re robbing Peter to pay Paul.
“The government does not have a duty to provide these social programs” Depends on your point of view. It would be pretty shitty for the government to shun citizens in need, wouldn’t it?
Also, cutting planned parenthood would infringe upon some rights to live, as Planned Parenthood also provides mammograms for those who can’t afford them. Per your contention, the only right is the right to live. So no problem there for you? What if it was your mother/grandmother/sister who didn’t catch breast cancer in time because Planned Parenthood couldn’t help her?
“You’re comparing apples to oranges. Slavery and abortion are two different things.”
How are they different? I modeled my hypothetical slaveowner’s argument after your own regarding abortion. What is the flaw in that argument? And how does that flaw not apply to abortion?
“While you may not agree with what they do, the fact that they provide contraception helps prevent women who can’t afford to have children from having them. Cutting funding to planned parenthood is only going to increase spending by welfare and medicare.”
PP is not the only organization capable of providing contraception.
““The government does not have a duty to provide these social programs” Depends on your point of view. It would be pretty shitty for the government to shun citizens in need, wouldn’t it?”
I never said the government should shun citizens in need. I don’t have a problem with the government funding social programs in general, but the government (especially at the federal level) does not have duty to provide them. De-funding of the particular social programs in question certainly does not constitute an “attack” on women or “reproductive rights”.
“Also, cutting planned parenthood would infringe upon some rights to live, as Planned Parenthood also provides mammograms for those who can’t afford them.”
No, one’s right to life is a negative right such that the government cannot kill you. It is not a positive “right” by which the government must fund PP so that they can give you mammograms to (possibly) save your life if you happen to have cancer.
“Per your contention, the only right is the right to live.”
No, your rights are listed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. And they are all negative rights.
“What if it was your mother/grandmother/sister who didn’t catch breast cancer in time because Planned Parenthood couldn’t help her?”
Both my mother and grandmother survived breast cancer entirely without the help of PP. It’s certainly possible. They went to regular doctors. And if they hadn’t been able to pay for the mammograms and consultations with their health insurance due to low income, that’s ostensibly what Medicaid is for. Would you support a measure to divert the PP funds to Medicaid?
“How are they different?”
Because one makes humans property while the other is terminating an unwanted or possibly dangerous pregnancy.
“PP is not the only organization capable of providing contraception.”
But it’s obviously the most well known. Obviously the people that go to PP can’t afford to go to a normal doctor.
“I don’t have a problem with the government funding social programs in general, but the government (especially at the federal level) does not have duty to provide them”
What should be done instead? Where will these women go if PP is no longer an option?
“De-funding of the particular social programs in question certainly does not constitute an “attack” on women or “reproductive rights”.”
Maybe not in your opinion, but most of the programs they are trying to cut funding from benefit women. You know as well as I that the only reason it’s being done is not to balance the budget. The GOP think they have a right to tell people how to live there lives. It’s abortion right now, and it may be birth control later. Who knows what will come after. I’m sure if they looked hard enough they could find other programs to cut funding from to help balance the budget. Scott Walker did it in Wisconsin without cutting funding to any programs that benefited women, although he just snuck his own anti-abortion bill through somewhere that had nothing to do with balancing the budget.
PS. I just looked through the Bill of Rights. The right to live is listed no where….
“Because one makes humans property while the other is terminating an unwanted or possibly dangerous pregnancy.”
That distinction downplays the life lost due to ending the “unwanted pregnancy” and is in any case irrelevant to the hypothetical slaveowner’s argument I made using your argument. The hypothetical argument made no mention of and does not depend on making humans property or terminating pregnancies. The argument’s assumption — which is yours — is that something that is legal and upheld by the Supreme Court should not be fought against or circumvented. So what is the difference that makes the hypothetical slaveowner’s argument wrong but yours right? How would you refute the hypothetical argument while maintaining the logic you used with abortion?
“But it’s obviously the most well known. Obviously the people that go to PP can’t afford to go to a normal doctor.”
So what if it’s well known? You’re basing your justification for funding PP solely because it’s well known?
PP doesn’t even do the mammograms themselves. That was Komen’s stated reason for cutting their own funding from PP (see my post on Komen for the quote from the Komen CEO that PP was just doing referrals). The people who went to PP for mammograms ended up going to a normal doctor anyway. The fact that Komen was going to divert funding direct to the medical providers just goes to show that PP is unnecessary for women — even poor ones — to get mammograms. If anything, it’s almost certainly cheaper to bypass PP.
“What should be done instead? Where will these women go if PP is no longer an option?”
The state government can fund it if they choose, and/or the federal and/or state government can directly pay the actual doctors who perform the mammograms. Private charities like Komen also provide funding.
“You know as well as I that the only reason it’s being done is not to balance the budget.”
Now we’re just guessing what Republicans “really” mean to do when they advance this legislation? Talk about judging others…
“The GOP think they have a right to tell people how to live there lives.”
Both parties do this. The Republicans tend to do this on moral issues, the Democrats tend to do it on financial issues.
“It’s abortion right now, and it may be birth control later.”
More speculation. Birth control has much more support than abortion. Birth control will always be available. Even I support access to birth control.
“I just looked through the Bill of Rights. The right to live is listed no where….”
Yeah, it’s actually in the Declaration of Independence, along with liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These are all natural rights and therefore negative rights by definition.
“A fully preserved woolly mammoth was discovered in Siberia recently, and is estimated to be roughly 10,000 years old. Creationists have no opinion on this…”
Classic.
Also, the recreation of the Titanic’s voyage… wow, really? Your question is the one that needs to be asked, cause I sure as shit wouldn’t sign up for it.
I wouldn’t either. That’s tempting fate….
“Believe what you want, but keep it to yourself.”
Where would be WordPress be with that attitude?
Yeah, simply by writing that statement twindaddy violated it. I know he means religious beliefs, but he’s shared his religious beliefs on here, too…
If Tebow bothers you, just ignore him.
Perhaps I should reword my statement: Believe what you want, but don’t push it on anyone else.
I was referring to religious beliefs with my statement. I have discussed a little of what I believe in comments with you, Null, in an effort to let you understand why I think the way I do. I don’t intend to make anyone else believe what I believe and I don’t try to push my beliefs on anyone else.
I do mention the hypocrisy of the church occasionally, but you should practice what you preach, no? Calling out the church (of any religion) for harboring sodomites or for the way the treat, say, gay people, when their religion says they should love all people equally is not expressing my beliefs.
As to Tebow, I normally do ignore him, but I disagree that you should be constantly pushing your religion around everywhere you go and that’s why I said something about.
“Believe what you want, but don’t push it on anyone else.”
You’re still violating that statement since you are pushing your belief (that you shouldn’t push your beliefs on others) on us.
“I was referring to religious beliefs with my statement.”
Again, why only religious beliefs? Why not all beliefs?
“I don’t intend to make anyone else believe what I believe and I don’t try to push my beliefs on anyone else.”
Strictly speaking, you can’t “make” anyone else believe something. Belief requires an act of the individual’s will. Simply speaking about your beliefs – as Tebow did – is not “pushing” your beliefs.* I believe you and I have demonstrated this in our discussions about Christianity — we have each spoken about our beliefs but neither of us have attempted to convert each other to our own religious beliefs.
* Especially since Tebow was speaking at a church! It’s not his fault the media reported it to you.
“I do mention the hypocrisy of the church occasionally, but you should practice what you preach, no?”
Absolutely! I have no problem with you pointing out the hypocrisy of anyone – church or otherwise.
Right, Tebow was at a church yesterday, but he preaches everywhere he goes. In every interview. Most people don’t have a problem with it because they share his beliefs, but what about those who don’t?
Yes, you and I have had discussions and not tried to push each other’s beliefs on each other, but as I’ve said previously and will say again, you are more open-minded than most. I’ve run into many people in my time that try to push their beliefs onto me or tell me that I’m not living as God wants me to. Or they judge me according to what they believe God wants.
Frankly, I don’t consider “don’t push your religion on me (or anyone else)” to be a religious belief. It’s more of an attitude, but whatever. My point remains. And don’t tell me people don’t try it because Jehovah’s Witnesses are a prime example.
Is Tebow trying to push his beliefs onto you? As far as I know he wears his religion on his sleeve but does not specifically tell people to convert to Christianity or that nonChristians are not living as God wants you to. Please point me to an example of him doing that if you’re aware of one.
Perhaps we should clarify what you mean by “pushing beliefs”.
I’m speaking strictly about religion.
Part of the whole reason to HAVE a blog is to express one’s own opinions. It’s healthy. Keep going, TwinDaddy. You often spur important debates with your random thoughts.
I do agree with expressing opinions, except when it comes to religion. As I have said before, everyone thinks they’re right when it comes to their beliefs and that everyone else is wrong.
I see no gain and only conflict when religious debates occur. I will, however, continue to call out hypocrisy when I see it.
Just to play devil’s advocate (pun intended):
Why keep only religious beliefs private? Why not all beliefs?
For the record, I completely support your expression of all your opinions — religious or otherwise — whether on this blog, my blog, or anywhere else.
Because, as I just replied in another comment, religious debates often turn into conflicts. And also, as I have stated before, every religion believes that their religion is the correct religion and that every other religion is wrong. People get testy when someone tells them their beliefs are wrong.
Personally, I don’t care what you believe as long as you don’t push it on me. If you write about how great Christianity is, I’ll just skip that blog. No big deal. But when someone’s pushing that stuff in your face in person it’s a little harder to ignore and things get tense. In my experience religious debates end in conflict, not necessarily physical, but conflict nonetheless.
Obviously you have the first amendment right to speak about whatever you wish, but I try to avoid discussions of religious beliefs because when there’s a disagreement animosity ensues and I try to avoid conflict when possible.
You, as I have said in the past, are more open-minded than most religious people. Had I said most of what I’ve told you to a majority of Christians they would shun me and tell me I’m going to hell. So, yeah, that’s why I think it should be kept private.
Only religious debates turn into conflicts? Of all the major U.S. wars in the last century (WWI, WWII, Vietnam War, Korean War, Persian Gulf War I and II, etc.) none had any religious beliefs as the primary motivation.
I didn’t say only…and I wasn’t speaking only of wars. They can be personal conflicts as well, which I have been a part of.
You said religious beliefs should be kept private because religious debates often lead to conflict. I point out that nonreligious debates also often lead to conflict (even to war, the height of conflict). If your logic is consistent then:
All beliefs should be kept private because debates over those beliefs often lead to conflict.
I used wars as examples because they are known by everyone (i.e. they aren’t personal anecdotes) and war is the most severe form of conflict. We’ve all been a part of and seen plenty of conflicts due to beliefs on religion, politics, economics, finances, etc.
You’re downplaying what a hot-button issue religion is, which is ironic because that’s what started this whole thread….
No, I don’t mean to come across as downplaying religion as a hot-button issue. It obviously is. I’m just pointing out that there are plenty of other hot-button issues, so it’s strange that you are singling out religion as such a hot-button issue that only religious beliefs should be kept private (but beliefs on other hot-button issues may be publicly stated).
Because, in my opinion, it’s the hottest of those issues and most religious people do not compromise. It’s their way or the highway with no chance to meet in the middle.
Politics is a hot-button issue, too, but I’ve never seen even the most hotly debating political discussion turn as ugly as a religious one.
I’m not under any illusion that people are going to stop talking about or trying to spread their respective religions, but I think things might be a bit more peaceful if they did.