my take on the PZ myers eucharist controversy. UPD
i
haven't been watching the news as much lately, however i have been
keeping tabs on a story concerning a hip biology professor from
minnesota, affectionately dubbed 'PZ Myers'. you may know him as being
one of the big outspoken antitheists of the day akin to chris hitchens
but without the rampant alcoholism.
the story begins with a UCF student who was physically confronted at
mass on campus when he attemped to take a consecrated host out of the
church with him. now the catholic belief concerning the consecrated
host is that it IS the body of jesus christ in the species of
unleavened bread (one of aquinas' questions in the summa regarding this belief, validated by the catechism http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4075.htm#article2).
this is a very big no-no. in fact, this is tantamount to drawing a
picture of mohammed ... but worse. the student made it out with the
host and has since received death threats. now, i am not going to
justify the death threats, that is not christ-like. though i doubt any
are serious, more than likely just some extremely emotional people
caught up in the initial firestorm. the death threats are actually,
strangely, kind of a relief for me since it has seemed to me the value
of the eucharist has diminished in the post-vatican II church. that's a
story for another time though.
in any event, myers got ahold of this story of a college student who
was keeping jesus h(ostage) christ in a ziploc bag and receiving death
threats for it. and so he posted a message in which he asked to "score"
some "crackers" from anyone who is willing to steal them from the mass.
afterwards, he will desecrate them in an attempt to prove "the cracker"
has no power.
in reality though, myers is just trying to stir up a childish and
immature shitstorm. i doubt he's going to go out of his way to
desecrate the eucharist, a practice that is largely a self-fulfilling
prophecy (although given the nature of the sacrament i'm positive it
HAS occured before). supposedly begun as an anti-semitic legend used to
sensationalize hatred of jews (and unfortunately many innocent jews
were killed for this), these legends of host desecration and blood
libel inadvertently encourage people like atheists and satanists to
conduct such behavior just to get a rise out of people. obviously none
of the offending groups would believe in it, thus believe they are
directly hurting christ. they just want to offend christians.
all i can conclude from all this controversy is that PZ myers is an
idiot. not to say bill donahue isn't an idiot. he is as well. but myers
is a 50-something guy with a PhD in academia. and he behaves like this?
the catholic view is to tolerate other religions. not to accept them as
true means of salvation as some mistaken universalists believe, but
also not to completely repudiate the followers and hassle them at any
given chance. PZ myers should perhaps take a page out of the catholic
book on this one (of course he'd probably desecrate that too) and
tolerate catholic beliefs. if someone came up to him and tried to force
their religion on him, perhaps i could see him flipping out and doing
something like this. and sort of being within his right to do so. but
there's no prosletyzing here. he wants to go into the church and take
something out of there. to interfere with our free religious assembly
and violate us and our god.
neo-nazis broke into a synagogue and drew swastikas all over one of
their torah scrolls. obstruction of private property is wrong and hate
crimes are certainly wrong. the body of christ in this instance is, in
effect, private property. obviously christ is for everyone, but legally
it is the church's property and theologically it is only for those in
communion with the church to receive. even if the synagogue is legally
wrong and the host desecration may not be (short of hate crime anyway),
both are ETHICALLY wrong. and should be denounced by anyone who isn't a
raging antitheist at all costs.
this isn't an act of defense by myers. it is an act of offense. and if
he really is the big-time liberal he says he is, he should be ashamed.
he makes liberals out to be what conservative talking heads and
thinktanks ignorantly pin them as: anti-christian, hateful, arrogant,
childish babies.
UPDATE: allegedly, as of july 23rd, he has desecrated the eucharist.
though he has no photographical evidence as promised. he also
desecrated a qu'ran and an unnamed object sent in. perhaps he is making
it up, and even if he had pictures of this, there's no way of telling
if the host was in fact consecrated. if it was though ... god have
mercy on his soul.
you're welcome and likewise. it's pretty refreshing to have a theological debate without all the rage of the ONLY thread.
infant baptism is a little less explicit than reconciliation (in the
bible anyway). however, while the bible does not explicitly promote
infant baptism, it does not say anything against it. the logical basis
for the position lies in several verses. acts 16 shows paul baptizing
people along with their entire family or household. it does not specify
who is in that family. but Christ said to the disciples that
disapproved of the bringing of children to be blessed, "let the little
children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven
belongs to such as these." (mt 19:14)
while a child cannot make a profession of faith, we see in the bible
when Jesus heals the centurion's servant he does it not through his
personal profession of faith in christ but through the centurion's. in
this way parents profress the faith their children will have. much like
when paul calls baptism the new circumcision, the parallel is drawn
because of the initiation aspect, however circumcision is routinely
done on jews as babies. likewise, babies in christianity are able to be
baptized.
lastly, the importance of the infant baptism issue is just a part of a
bigger theological dispute of what baptism actually is. most
protestants maintain it is just a symbolic gesture where you profess
faith in god and enter the church. catholics (and some conservative
protestants) take it very literally in that, as Christ says, baptism of
"water and spirit" allows one to enter the kingdom of God. and then
peter reaffirms this with:
... He was put to death in the body but made alive by the
Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison
who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah
while the ark was being built. In it
only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this
water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of
dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God.
and in acts 2 (i found this cool) peter says:
Acts 2:38 - Peter says to the multitude, "Repent and be
baptized.." Protestants use this verse to prove one must be a believer
(not an infant) to be baptized. But the Greek translation literally
says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must
each be baptized” (“Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.” This,
contrary to what Protestants argue, actually proves that babies are
baptized based on their parents’ faith. This is confirmed in the next
verse.
Acts 2:39 - Peter then says baptism is specifically given
to children as well as adults. “Those far off” refers to those who were
at their “homes” (primarily infants and children). God's covenant
family includes children. The word "children" that Peter used comes
from the Greek word "teknon" which also includes infants. courtesy scripturecatholic.com
so we see that the symbolic saving through water in the OT is now
fulfilled in the NT by the literal saving through water (and spirit of
course, noah's dove. catholics call these things 'types'. i think all
biblical scholars do, but i'm not positive.) it is not the water in and
of itself that saves, but as Christ instructed, we take it literally to
use the tangible resource of water. not just its physical properties
but the properties that god uses to give us grace in the sacrament.
in reading the didache, it is abundantly clear that the catholic idea
regarding baptism was practiced by the apostles, rather than the
figurative symbolic protestant version. but it is not part of scripture
so as a sola scriptura person you may not give it any credence.
Now about baptism, baptize this way: after first uttering
all of these things, baptize "into the name of the Father and of the
son and of the holy Spirit" in running water. But if you do not have
running water, baptize in other water. Now if you are not able to do so
in cold water, do it in warm water. Now if you don't have either, pour
water three times on the head, "into the name of the Father, and of the
son, and of the holy Spirit."
i write way too much. haha.
let me add that baptism is the only way but not NECESSARILY through
water. catholics have two exceptions to this rule as they are found in
the bible. baptism by desire (st. dismas, the thief on the cross, was
not physically able to be baptized but he desired to be baptized and go
to the kingdom of god. baptism by blood is also an exception where a
believer dies for his faith without having been baptized. there are
numerous scriptural references to this in "
Matt. 20:22-23; Mark 10:38-39; Luke 12:50. The Lord says, "I have a baptism to be baptized with" referring to His death.
Hence, the Church has always taught that those martyred for the faith may be
saved without water baptism" [quoted part from scripturecatholic.com due to time constraints]
scriptural basis of clerical celibacy and reconcil
chanting wouldn't be a tradition. that's why it has changed. it's not a dogma or anything. just icing on the cake.
celibacy? that too is not dogma, it is a discipline. it has been
changed before. although there are still arguments for it from the
bible as a discipline.
But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is
without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord:
how he may please God. But he that is with a wife is solicitous
for the things of the world: how he may please his wife. And he is
divided.
1 Cor 7:32-33
this is part of the reason (roman) catholic priests reverted back to
celibacy after a spell of being able to be married. a priest is Christ to his parish. he does everything to serve God and
his Church. the lack of a wife and family allow him to concentrate on
his mission from God. paul, in the verse you quoted, wasn't saying a
bishop had to be married. he was just saying he couldn't be married to
more than one wife. paul himself was celibate. but in Eastern Rites of
the Church, priests are allowed to be married (but only before
ordination). it's not that big of an issue really. Jesus said a similar
thing in matthew 19:12 --
Because some men are celibate from birth, while some are celibate because they have been made that way by others. Still others are celibate because they have made themselves that way for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.
clerical ceilbacy is just a discipline within the priesthood of the
latin rite and a few others. there are married latin rite priests
though that convert after being protestant ministers.
confession is the only thing you mentioned that is actually a tradition
in the sense of a dogma in the church. christ gave the apostles his
ability to forgive sins. no one would question this, because they do it
in the bible.
18 But all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself
by Christ and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation. 19 For
God indeed was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not
imputing to them their sins. And he hath placed in us the word of
reconciliation. 20 For Christ therefore we are ambassadors, God as it
were exhorting by us, for Christ, we beseech you, be reconciled to
God.
2 Cor 5:18-20
21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the
Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22 When he had said this, he
breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23
Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins
you shall retain, they are retained.
John 20:21-23
Christ, during pentecost, gave the apostles the ability to forgive (as
well as the aforementioned keys to bind and loose passage) through the
holy spirit. and through apostolic succession, seen in the appointment
of matthias by the other apostles, not by Christ himself, bishops today
have that power. they grant it to priests, though they have the power
to not let a priest validly hear confessions.
Christ says "as the Father has sent me, so i send you". this is his
declaration that the apostles were to be sent forth to preach His
message and forgive sins, just as Jesus himself was sent down from
heaven to preach and forgive sins.
ultimately, it is God himself who forgives sins. but God knows that we
are physical beings with a penchant for the tangible. hence covenants
in the OT and sacraments in the NT. in confessing to a priest we hear
that we are forgiven by someone standing in persona Christi and are at the same time given a lesson in humility.
response to denizenz: scripture and tradition in t
i appreciate the well thought out and well-cited argument denz presents.
to defend the RCC position on this, let me first of all state that the
traditions carried throughout the church are not 'human traditions'.
human traditions could be classed as the heresies which, though mainly
started by presbyters and bishops within the early church, were never
agreed on by the majority of heirarchy of the church via council or by
the pontiff. traditions in the RCC are passed down through the apostles
and their students and so on. as you quoted, christ said that he
maintains all authority in heaven and on earth. christ knew he would
die though, and to keep 'the church militant' alive he passed down his
authority to the apostles, specifically peter.
[quote=Matthew 16:13-19] And Jesus came into the quarters of Cęsarea
Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the
Son of man is? But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other
some Elias, and others Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. Jesus
saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter
answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.
And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona:
because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who
is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this
rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of
heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound
also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be
loosed also in heaven. [/quote]
so peter is given the keys of the kingdom. he is given the ability to
bind and loose. so what does bind and loose mean? when i learned it i
was told it meant forgiveness. but in judaic circles (which jesus and
the apostles would hav been from) it specifically meant interpreting
scripture, more importantly, laws set forth by scripture. this is
primarily what the catechism of the catholic church is. it is a book of
rules of the catholic church with their biblical basis.
i do not disagree with the fact that the bible contains everything we
need to know. but the bible is also cryptic and difficult to understand
in various places, especially in the modern world with different
languages and different expressions and different hermeneutics.
[quote=Catholic.com]In this discussion it is important to keep in mind
what the Catholic Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to
legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory
customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such
as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or
even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the
teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching.
These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained
in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.
They have been handed down and entrusted to the Church. It is necessary
that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the
Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to
the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the
foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the
Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26,
16:13). [/quote]
it's ironic to me because you used john 14 to try to deflate my
argument, but i see it only helping me. jesus promises his apostles,
the roots of the early church that they will receive the holy spirit.
and the HOLY SPIRIT will teach them all things and bring all things to
their minds. so it is here that the apostolic teaching is validated as
a source of truth because we as christians are to operate under the
disposition that being filled with the holy spirit they are able to
know all things in matters of faith and morals, and therefore if their
words are tantamount to jesus'.
the bible even says, in acts 2:42, a verse i actually quote commonly in
communism arguments haha, that the early christians devoted themselves
to the teachings of the apostles. the gospel of luke in the first
four verses admits that it is a book written down after oral tradition
and teaching of the apostles.
every catholic 'tradition' has a biblical reference. there is nothing
that has a basis completely outside of the bible. the holy spirit
simply spoke through the apostles and likewise there was biblical
evidence to back it up.
... i just wrote this out and then it got deleted. so i'll write it one more time in a dumbed down version.
essentially, i was just listening to a green party debate. kat swift
said that one of her main goals is to protect women's reproductive
rights. then she immediately started talking about abuse of children in
this country whether physical or via lack of educating them properly.
she talked about a perpetual cycle of violence this creates.
obviously, i agree with ms. swift. however we clearly disagree on how
this cycle of violence begins. she doesn't see the irony in those two
comments following one another. this just proves the disconnect that a
lot of 'feminists' have between abortion and murder.
how can we respect children if we can't respect the smallest and most
fragile? it's like king said, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice
everywhere. when we start rationalizing little babies, all else will
follow like dominoes. these are the fruits of things like the
holocaust. after abortion comes eugenics, killing babies because they
have birth defects. then comes euthanasia, the killing of born
individuals with defects bad enough it's deemed in their best interest.
we already have a bullshit superiority complex. we did it once to the
indians, we can do it again. we did it to the blacks once, we can do it
again. we did it to the jews once, we can do it again.
i just can't believe the same people who are up in arms about
"unjustly" banning partial birth abortion have the nerve to feign pity
in cases of child abuse (not swift, just a generalization).
A nation that kills its own children is a nation without hope. - Pope John Paul II
look around. look at the mass depression. the
pessimism. the cynicism. the school shootings. the senseless rampages.
the total lack of compassion in our country and even world. there's no
doubt we are a nation with no hope.
an
often controversial, but ultimately admired, greek orthodox leader died
on january 28, 2008. if he thought something was wrong, he let people
know. he also should be commended as he took huge steps in the
ecumenical movement in meeting with JPII and BXVI. the first time the
pope went to greece in 1300 years and it was this man's doing. god
bless him.
It was You, O
God, Who made Your servant Archbishop Christodoulos a successor of the apostles by
raising him to the episcopal order. May he also be associated
with them forever. We ask this through our Lord, Jesus Christ,
Your Son. Amen.
this
blog will be pretty short on my analysis, but heavy in quotes so you
can infer and synthesize the information for yourself to understand
what i am getting at.
from the catechism of the catholic church, paragraph 2309:
The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration.
The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy.
At one and the same time:
the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
there must be serious prospects of success;
the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.
The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the
"just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral
legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have
responsibility for the common good.
as you can see, the current war in iraq does not pass no. 3 or no. 4.
and if you doubt that conclusion i drew listen to the pope himself.
even from the beginning of the invasion it was opposed by pope john
paul II. so he's up there with obama and kucinich in terms of having
open eyes. he's already more liberal than clinton! haha ...
"When war,
like the one now in Iraq, threatens the fate of humanity, it is even
more urgent for us to proclaim, with a firm and decisive voice, that
only peace is the way of building a more just and caring society," he
said.
The Pope, in a speech to employees of Catholic television
station Telepace, added: "Violence and weapons can never resolve the
problems of man."
The Pope led the Vatican in a diplomatic
campaign to avert war, putting the Holy See on a collision course with
Washington and its backers in the Iraq campaign.
JPII was also quoted as saying that the war in iraq is "a defeat for humanity."
as for pope benedict XVI, whom many of you are quick to jump on the joke bandwagon and call him a nazi, he stated:
"All I can do is invite you to read the Catechism, and the
conclusion seems obvious to me…" The conclusion is one he gave
many times: "the concept of preventive war does not appear in The
Catechism of the Catholic Church."
Even after the war, Cardinal Ratzinger did not cease criticism of U.S.
violence and imperialism: "it was right to resist the war and its threats
of destruction...It should never be the responsibility of just one nation
to make decisions for the world."
Yet perhaps the most important insight of Ratzinger came during a press
conference on May 2, 2003. After suggesting that perhaps it would be necessary
to revise the Catechism section on just war (perhaps because it had
been used by George Weigel and others to endorse a war the Church opposed),
Ratzinger offered a deep insight that included but went beyond the issue
of war Iraq:
"There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq.
To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible
destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking
ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a 'just war'."
so the war in iraq IS unjust. michael novak and various neo-con
catholics tried to appeal to the vatican and say that iraq was a just
war but this was denied.
with
elections coming up soon, i believe this is relevant. this is not a
blog endorsing the democratic party, or the left in general. however,
it is a blog in response to the idea that christians, and more
specifically catholics, can and should only support the republican
party on the basis that they endorse pro-life policies. the purpose is
to let catholics know that they can be in good standing with the church
and be a democrat and why. according to pope benedict XVI (or cardinal
ratzinger at the time) issued a statement about this issue in
particular. in it he said ...
A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so
unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to
deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s
permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does
not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia,
but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote
material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.
these blogs will be an attempt to present you with these proportionate reasons.
first off, i will start with an old joke. mick and patrick are sitting
at their favorite pub discussing the election. mick says to patrick,
"you know, i saw tommy the other day. he told me he voted republican."
patrick's jaw drops and he says to mick, "that's impossible. you must
be mistaken, i saw him at mass last sunday."
there was a time in america when catholic churches were packed full of
democrats. this is mostly due to the fact that the catholics were all
irish and italian immigrants, generally hard laborers and looked down
on by conservatives. the democrats were the labor party and likewise
the catholics joined up, not necessarily for religious reasons (though
we'll get to that soon) but just because of their socio-economic
status. well over time the irish and italians became anglicized and in
addition to this in 1972 the democrats, in an attempt to reinvent
themselves, reached out to morally questionable groups such as gays,
drug users and feminists. roe v. wade
was critical in changing this. but perhaps we should look back to where
the catholic-democrat connection began and why it is still very much
there despite being trounced by the life issue.
in the 1890s the foundation was laid for the struggle between
capitalism and socialism that woudl persist well into the next century.
pope leo XIII saw the weight this issue would carry and decided to
write an encyclical, rerum novarum, rights and duties of capital and labor. the encyclical was addressed to all catholic bishops and concerned the conditions of the working class.
catholic social teaching predates both capitalism and socialism and leo
was not really innovating so much as making an old doctrine more
relevant. he blasted the flaws of both socialism and capitalism.
essentially it all comes down to property. socialism is flawed in that
there is no private property and everyone is forced to be equal.
capitalism is flawed in that property becomes too unevenly distributed
and the gap between ownership and work (i.e. the owners do not work and
the workers do everything, yet the owner makes a disproportiante amount
of money just for being so).
Let the working man and the employer make free agreements, and
in particular let them agree freely as to the wages; nevertheless,
there underlies a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient
than any bargain between man and man, namely, that wages ought not to
be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner. If
through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accept harder
conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better,
he is made the victim of force and injustice.
basically this an example of said compromise between capitalism and
socialism. wages are to be agreed upon, but all men should be
guaranteed, by the state, a just living wage (this is clarified in
later encyclicals). in short, catholic social teaching would support
the forming of unions, the implementation of a just (living) minimum
wage, and laws on working conditions such as hours and environment. the
goal of catholic economics is to be distributist which is an economic
thought spurred by this encyclical and developed by belloc and
chesteron who said, "too much capitalism does not mean too many
capitalists, it means too few capitalists". i.e. the goal is to, in
leo's words, "The law, therefore, should favor ownership, and its
policy should be to induce as many as possible of the people to become
owners."
in american terms this would be closely related to jeffersonian
democracy where private ownership is promoted but in small businesses
and agriculture. all at a very local, small level and no
megacorporations like we have today.
from quadragesimo anno:
Just as the unity of human society cannot be founded on an
opposition of classes, so also the right ordering of economic life
cannot be left to a free competition of forces. For from this source,
as from a poisoned spring, have originated and spread all the errors of
individualist economic teaching. Destroying through forgetfulness or
ignorance the social and moral character of economic life, it held that
economic life must be considered and treated as altogether free from
and independent of public authority, because in the market, i.e., in
the free struggle of competitors, it would have a principle of self
direction which governs it much more perfectly than would the
intervention of any created intellect. But free competition, while
justified and certainly useful provided it is kept within certain
limits, clearly cannot direct economic life.
now contrast this with the stances of the political parties.
conservatives ask that the market control itself, whereas the
center-left will propose the government intervene regularly to insure
justice whether it be a minimum wage law, a law on outsourcing, a law
preventing exploitation of workers. there are morals intrinsically tied
within economic policies.
Now listen, you rich people, weep and
wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. Your wealth has
rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are
corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh
like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages
you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out
against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the
Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence.
You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have
condemned and murdered innocent men, who were not opposing you.
... besides the obvious fact that it's all about money, this is what pisses me off:
1. the game next week being played in england. ok goodell, here comes
the clue train, last stop: you. people in places that aren't america
hate american football. it's completely equivalent to soccer in the US.
a few people here like soccer but you rarely see it on TV and nobody is
going to be lined up around the block to watch a bunch of malnourished
south americans and africans play footsy. likewise, europeans and
company don't want to see big, burly men in tights jumping on top of
each other (although you think they would considering everyone in
europe is an atheist homosexual socialist).
this is a total rip off for the giants and dolphins. you're STEALING a
game from their fans. let me break this down for you. NFL franchises
cost money, a certain percentage of that money comes from city funds.
city funds acquired from the people. not only that ... some people buy
season tickets. unless you're giving them an all expenses paid plane
trip to england to see this, all 60,000 of them, you're being a greedy
cock. why take football to a place where it has repeatedly failed? not
only that: it's the giants vs. the dolphins ... what an awesome matchup.
the brits have short attention spans. they complain about breaks in
action to discuss strategy. you have to give them a high scorer. let's
send the AFL over there! indoor leagues do backflips over people and
throw field-length TD passes. they would like that ... maybe.
couldn't have scheduled the patriots. or the colts. you know ... a game
worth seeing. not only are you showing them football they don't want to
see, you're giving them a shitty game to watch. send ohio vs. michigan
instead. ohio fans suck and michigan fans suck more. but it's a hell of
a game. let's show the brits that one. eh?
2. pass elitists. fuck tom brady. he's a good QB but fuck him. and
manning. i despise this idea that if you don't pass for 576 yds a game
and get 5 TD passes, you're not a great quarterback. the running game
is how football started. it's physical. the passing game is not
physical. everyone needs to shut up with the term "game manager". my
man vic, at jaguars.com, has been complaining about this too. david
garrard has the stats to compare with the greats this season. no
interceptions. a QB rating of about 105. 220 yds per game. and he's a
scrambler (which makes him more likely to be injured, then again look
at leftwich. poor wittle baby hurt his ankle again).
garrard is a damn fine quarterback. and what's wrong with game
managing. he's making a nice mixture of run and pass. the passing game
is confined to 20 yards at most generally. but what's wrong? it's like
they're accusing him of being a pussy. yeah a pussy for knowing
strategy. i hoipe the jags have another 15 min. drive tomorrow night.
the longer manning's off the field the better. the longer our D rests,
the better. game manager? who cares. i can't even believe that's
supposed to be derogatory. i'd rather be efficient and not turn the
ball over rather than be some superstar big shot running out of a 5
receiver shotgun every play throwing interceptions every other drive.
ESPN.
tomorrow.
8:30 EST
colts @ jaguars.
be there.
why i'm (kind of reluctantly) voting for john edwa
...
being on the internet is fun because it's ideal. everybody supporting
their unlikely candidates like ron paul, kucinich, gravel ... begs the
question: does anonymity allow us to come out of our shells and be
honest or does it spur extremism that we don't actually harbor? maybe
those are the same thing. anyway ...
i've been a proponent of dennis kucinich. since he announced his
candidacy, unlikekly since everyone knows me as an angry cynical fringe
libertarian, but i'm not so much really anymore. i'm still pretty
cynical but i try to keep a cool head and dignify both sides to an
argument. in fact i feel sort of good about the democratic party, if
they only had a backbone. let it be known, i'm not a crazy hippie.
however people always attempt to discredit them for being a slightly
left-of-center party. i say great. there's nothing wrong with
conservatism. do we really need to open our minds so much our brains
fall out?
this is why i like john edwards. he's an old-fashioned democrat, or at
least that's the way he's presenting himself. my main concern recently
has been, besides the waste of so many lives in iraq, the US middle
class. more specifically, the blue collar people. where did their jobs
go? edwards campaigns like a pro-union, pro-small business, anti-lobby
kinda guy. and the important thing is he's a front runner. while i
still don't understand his avid support for abortion (even of the
partial-birth kind) while he simutaneously rejects gay marriage because
it goes against his religion (i feel vice versa on the issues), he
seems to be taking the democrats in the direction they need to go.
everything in politics comes down to the economy. the democrats have
been so lost because ever since 1972 they've been stressing all these
social change issues like women's rights ,sexual revolutions and
abortion and pot-smoking (the latter of which is noble, i suppose).
they lost their audience because they're playing to a different crowd.
young teenagers who are over-opinionated and ... hey! love sex and pot!
whoa what a weird coincidence!
edwards is a southern kennedy democrat. in one word: populist. and
that's a good thing ... assuming he's sincere. i'd love for someone to
reform the lobbyists and campaign finances. forever it's been said no
one can get elected who will reform lobbying because that's HOW they
got elected. well maybe we have a shot here. the problem is we let the
government and media make us forget things. like when bush said he was
opposed to nation building. or this:
That day a conservative Texas governor promised more than $8 billion
during his first year in office to help social service organizations
better serve "the least, the last, and the lost." More than $6 billion
was to go for new tax incentives that would generate billions more in
private charitable giving. Another $1.7 billion a year would fund
faith-based (and non-faith-based) groups caring for drug addicts,
at-risk youth, and teen moms. $200 million more would establish a
"Compassion Capital Fund" to assist, expand and replicate successful
local programs. Legislation would ensure that reported government
discrimination against faith-based social service organizations would
end
it goes without saying, it never happened. let's hope the same doesn't happen for johnny.
now i hate telling people that i like john edwards out of the big
three. why? because immediately they tell me it's because i'm secretly
racist and sexist and that edwards is the complacent choice that will
win anyway. maybe not. maybe hillary clinton is a psycho warhawk. maybe
obama is a malleable neo-con pawn.
john edwards is the comfortable candidate becuase you feel like you can
trust him. except he doesn't have any balls when you watch him on the
debates. i remember him answering a question on reparations at the
youtube debates and he says "NO!" just completely bluntly. and i was
like "sweet!" then inevitably he started getting shakey trying to
change the subject to save face in front of his friends. he also gets
nervous when you mention gay marriage.
| My Profile
primusfan's blogs, last updated : July 24, 2008
This,
contrary to what Protestants argue, actually proves that babies are
baptized based on their parents’ faith. This is confirmed in the next
verse.
