July 7, 2014
Redskins is disparaging because it focuses on skin color? Oklahoma should be on notice–the state’s name is Choctaw for “red people”.
There’s a certain sort of modern irony–a sweet, sweet irony–in the uproar among the very small minority in the media, academia, and in the public at large who find the Washington Redskins to be an offensive team nickname. That is, it would be sweet, if the preposterous nature of the public crusade didn’t involve real attempts to ruin real people. For several years there have been those in the sports media: Michael Silver and Bob Costas, for example; those in the political sphere like Barack Obama and Senate Democrats, and those professional offense-takers and publicity hounds, such as Ray Halbritter and Amanda Blackhorse who equate the naming of a football team the Redskins as akin to using the “N” word for a team nickname.
Let’s pause for a moment. If we are discussing the relative offensiveness of two words and you won’t even say one of them, you already lose. By your own standard.
Read the rest of this entry »
July 2, 2014
When someone says they don’t follow politics or get involved in civics because they are Christians and are concerned most about the Kingdom of Heaven and therefore shouldn’t be concerned with the things of this world… I can’t help but think to myself… Do you know who won the Bachelor?
Are you glued to Royal Wedding/Baby/Bar Mitzvah coverage?
Can you recite the starting lineups of your favorite football teams or the cast of sitcoms?
What about the latest fashions, fads or hit songs?
Can we agree, then, that it is more likely that you personally just don’t care about politics? Don’t dress it up with any higher purpose than that, please. I do have questions for you, though, as a Christian who is disengaged civically but knows all of the lyrics to “Call Me, Maybe”: Which activity do you think is more likely to impact someone else’s life? Politics, or Glee? And, just because you aren’t involved in politics yourself, do you think that precludes politics from becoming interested in you? Many Christians are finding that not to be the case, these days. The hard way.
On the flip side, you shouldn’t be able to name your State Representative or know how many members of Congress there are, but not be able to name the Beatitudes, or to articulate the Gospel. If we claim to be Christians but our religion is informed by our preferences, and our views are conversely not informed by that faith, then we have just crafted an idol for ourselves to worship–not a real, reflective faith. Be informed in all the important areas of life. Just a thought.
June 29, 2014
Occasionally I’m reminded of the downward trajectory of the discourse in America over social issues like gay marriage. And, by occasionally, I mean several times a day. Proponents of gay “marriage” and all sorts of tolerance-toters typically speak in lofty terms about how open-minded and forward-thinking they are. However, when confronted with somebody’s viewpoint which does not fall lock-step in line with what they selectively call “tolerance”, these faux civil rights pioneers quickly devolve into name calling, shouting down opponents, and condescending or degrading those who think differently. After all, as it often is when debating the left, “the debate is over”–even though nearly 50% of Americans still oppose the redefinition of the institution of marriage.
Overstock.com thinks you are un-American if you support marriage, according to a spokesperson.
It will only be a few short years before even the insinuation that you don’t believe that marriage is anything that any small minority of people might decide it is, or you believe that your gender is dictated by your genitalia and not your mood that day will get you fired from most any job (it has already happened to Brendan Eich at Mozilla) and run out of business by the government (cake bakers* and photographers* across the country can say Amen). Calm, reasoned argument is met with insult. Personal attacks; the new standard for a valid argument.
Read the rest of this entry »
May 25, 2014
A 2013 study released by New York Life of 2,000 Americans examined Americans’ financial and family values. The study asked respondents what they would be willing to exchange for a 50% pay increase. The study beamed that “very few” Americans would trade time off with their family. Despite these trying economic times, societal degradation, and moral decay, apparently Americans still value their families! America is okay after all, right?
Let’s look at the actual numbers. Of those surveyed, 43% of people would give up activities or hobbies for the 50% raise, and 35% would give up vacation time. 30% would give up sleep time every night… Fine, but 54% said they would give up evenings off from work! I don’t know too many folks spending their evenings at work who spend a lot of time with their family–and 54% is a strong majority. 45% said they would spend less time with their friends for more money–okay, but 20% said they would spend less time with their spouse (and these are just the people who admit it!).
Read the rest of this entry »
November 28, 2013
Black Friday shoppers prepare to feast on each others’ flesh… Wait, no, they are getting ready to barrel violently down the aisles of Target to get 25% off the Playstation 4. Difference?
Okay, enough is enough. Enough of this self-righteous bullying of Black Friday/Thanksgiving shoppers. I hate the idea of shopping on Thanksgiving more that anyone. I won’t be shopping that day, but for the love of all that is holy, please stop with the judgmental screeds about commercialism and depriving people of time with their families by making them work. If you don’t want to shop that day, great–if you have a job that forces you to work that day–find another one.
First of all, some people don’t celebrate Thanksgiving. Who are you to tell them that they can’t shop that day? Obviously there are plenty of people out there who want to shop on Thanksgiving–otherwise the companies wouldn’t be open in the first place. They are serving a demand. We don’t jump all over Jews for going to the movies on Christmas, do we? And don’t even start about how it is all the fault of the evil companies–each and every sale they make is made to one of us–who line up a day early to save a hundred bucks. Read the rest of this entry »
December 12, 2012
I was thinking today about the Boy Scouts of America’s purpose, what with all of the anti-Boy Scout rhetoric these days due to their adherence to Christian values. Isn’t one of the major purposes of the BSA to prepare boys for the world? I have to say they are doing a pretty poor job. I mean, no gays in leadership? Teaching survival skills? No interneting 101? No Tweeting? Isn’t that fundamental? Their silly oath goes something like this:
“On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight”
Wow! How backwards! Antiquated, even! Might as well throw in some Pennsylvania Dutch, am I right? As a service to the Boy Scouts, I think we can make some progress in dragging the BSA into the 21st century, by revising their oath. Here goes:
“On my honor, I will try, but cannot guarantee,
To respect the God (or lack thereof) of my choosing and my country (though only if it is led by people I agree with),
and to obey the Scout Law when it is convenient;
To help people when I can, but force others to help when I cannot;
To keep myself physically strong by only eating organically, and by promising to avoid the Atkins diet, to remain intellectually dishonest if it suits me, and to affirm all moral codes, including sexual orientations (wait, aren’t I only 10 years old?) regardless of their value.”
That should do it. Now maybe Boy Scout troop meetings can be held in civic buildings again. Do I hear a second?
– David Teesdale is proud to have been a Boy Scout and commends them for standing for moral values in a time when the only thing that society wants to affirm is moral relativity.