The history of the Catholic Church is one full of prestige, glory, power, and pride. It is one of the oldest surviving institutions today, and is currently the largest church in the world with over 1 billion members. The Church dates back to the early 300's, when Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity with the Edict of Milan. After the legalization, practicing Christians sought to reach a unified decision on orthodox and sort out the specifics of Christendom in the first Seven Ecumenical Councils, beginning with the First Council of Nicea in 325 and ending with the Second Council of Nicea in 787. In 382 during the crucial Council of Rome, Biblical canon was established when the accepted books of the Old Testament and New Testament were listed out.
A history as rich and time-honored as that of the Church could not have happened without some cover-ups, and the stepping-on of some toes, right? Right. The Church has ensured that Catholicism was vaulted to the forefront of religious organizations on a global scale. They oppressed those that spoke out against the Church so many years ago, most notably the pagans. When people nowadays hear the word "pagan", they immediately think of a "devil worshipper" and the Satanic church. In reality, the pagans were a peaceful religion that was in tune with nature and believed in the beauty of Mother Earth. However, they weren't Catholic, so a widespread smear campaign was launched, leading to the erroneous assumption that pagans are connected to Satan and the general demise of the religion on a societal basis.
Another more recent example of the aforementioned "vaulting" (although this one is true for most all denominations of Christianity) deals with the suppression of information. Ever hear of the Book of Philip? No? Not surprising. The "Gospel" of Philip was a Gnostic manuscript that was lost to the ages until discovered by an Egyptian peasant in 1945. The book carries a theme of Sacraments, and is also the source of the idea that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. This was also a book that portrayed Christ as not an immortal deity, but a "mere mortal" (one of the main reasons it was kept from publication). This writing would shake the foundation of the Church, as would the release of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The latest scandal involves pedophilia among the highest members of the papacy. It's brought debate concerning mandatory celibacy for priests, and also the members of the Church's hierarchy that failed to report the crimes, despite knowledge. Between 1950 and 2002, there were 10,667 reported cases of sexual abuse by the clergy towards minors. The 149 priests who had over 10 allegations made up for 3000 cases, showing that repeated offenses are common. My question is, where and when was this okay? I don't know what time period these people want to be in, but here and now, what is going on there is not okay. Every single priest, bishop, and cardinal found guilty of this heinous crime should be banished from that church, or whatever it is they do. They already have ultra-conservative sects of the Church such as the famed Opus Dei creating a bad light, and now with this widespread abuse, corruption, and cover-up nonsense, are they really above the law? I'm not sure who's God commands THAT, surely it's unacceptable.
Time to show some ownership.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Monday, April 12, 2010
The Enemy of My Enemy
Out of all the topics I've covered, I think I've mentioned the Tea Party the most. To recap, the whole platform that the party is based on revolves around less government spending and lower taxes. Relatively minute taxes. I've also mentioned that, while I don't consider myself a Tea Partier, I agree with most of the fundamental principles that the party is based on, especially in current times. I believe that lower taxes are better in the present state of the economy. I believe that government spending should lower drastically or be cut (minus critical operations) completely until the severe recession is over.
The Tea Party (it shall be referred to by it's proper name, no homophobic slurs here, Countdown) is undoubtedly is a right-leaning party. It is predominantly conservative. That said, it has its share of liberals who also oppose the large spending undertaken and proposed by the Obama Administration. Since the party rose to power, it has been embraced by Fox News, chastised and blasted by PMSNBC, and given neutral media attention by CNN. Go figure. Keith Olbermann, one of my least favorite people (no use denying it), said "How many (African-Americans) have you seen at a Tea Party event?", which was a racist accusation against the party. It is insane to believe that the Tea Party is completely white, even with a large number of African Americans being liberal. There is also the typical "conservatives are stupid" mantra consistently played by the left-wing (again, no use denying it, it's like the right-wing calling the left communists). It's an extremely broad and unfair generalization that all conservatives are stupid. I can find those that aren't, and I can find liberals that are. Same with calling a liberal a communist. This is a dangerous and narrow-minded way of thinking, and it is a problem in society.
To the point, the Tea Party is becoming more and more of a factor in today's politics. 28% of Americans consider themselves a supporter of the Tea Party, 26% oppose it, and 38% "don't mind it". It's a prominent third-party. If the Tea Party leadership decides to put forth it's own candidates in November's midterms, they'll certainly draw away a lot of votes. But from who? Yeah, sure, there are the independents and the moderates that will vote for a Tea Partier over a Democrat, but not as many as those that will vote for the Tea Party over a Republican. Tea Party leadership needs to carefully consider who they're hurting here. Putting their own candidates out there will effectively cripple Republicans in those elections, and ensure the very thing they're set out to prevent - record spending, increased taxes, and more government intervention in the economy- far from the non-interventionist, free market ideals of the Tea Party.
The Tea Party (it shall be referred to by it's proper name, no homophobic slurs here, Countdown) is undoubtedly is a right-leaning party. It is predominantly conservative. That said, it has its share of liberals who also oppose the large spending undertaken and proposed by the Obama Administration. Since the party rose to power, it has been embraced by Fox News, chastised and blasted by PMSNBC, and given neutral media attention by CNN. Go figure. Keith Olbermann, one of my least favorite people (no use denying it), said "How many (African-Americans) have you seen at a Tea Party event?", which was a racist accusation against the party. It is insane to believe that the Tea Party is completely white, even with a large number of African Americans being liberal. There is also the typical "conservatives are stupid" mantra consistently played by the left-wing (again, no use denying it, it's like the right-wing calling the left communists). It's an extremely broad and unfair generalization that all conservatives are stupid. I can find those that aren't, and I can find liberals that are. Same with calling a liberal a communist. This is a dangerous and narrow-minded way of thinking, and it is a problem in society.
To the point, the Tea Party is becoming more and more of a factor in today's politics. 28% of Americans consider themselves a supporter of the Tea Party, 26% oppose it, and 38% "don't mind it". It's a prominent third-party. If the Tea Party leadership decides to put forth it's own candidates in November's midterms, they'll certainly draw away a lot of votes. But from who? Yeah, sure, there are the independents and the moderates that will vote for a Tea Partier over a Democrat, but not as many as those that will vote for the Tea Party over a Republican. Tea Party leadership needs to carefully consider who they're hurting here. Putting their own candidates out there will effectively cripple Republicans in those elections, and ensure the very thing they're set out to prevent - record spending, increased taxes, and more government intervention in the economy- far from the non-interventionist, free market ideals of the Tea Party.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Entitled to What?
Greetings, sports fans.
A lot of people would say that they have a favorite sport, no? Football? Basketball? Baseball? Tennis? Also, if you have a favorite sport, then you most likely have a favorite player. Peyton Manning? LeBron James? Derek Jeter? Roger Federer? All of these athletes are superstars, no question. During their respective seasons, they are endlessly covered by the media. Hyped up. Vaulted onto a pedestal. Sensationalized.
As they should be. These people are great at what they do. They possess an unrivaled amount of athleticism and skill at the game they're paid exorbitant amounts of money to play. Could that money be better used for something else? Yes. But, that's a completely different topic.
Too much hype and spotlight on the wrong people can have adverse affects, however. Plaxico Burress? Gilbert Arenas? Donte Stallworth? Tiger Woods?
The problem is that when certain people are hailed as saviors and worshiped as the second coming of Jesus, they begin to experience a sense of entitlement. They're above the law. They're above the rules that others play by. They're above commitment. The only time anything applies to them is when they're on the court. Field. Course. Whatever suits their sport.
My question is, why do these people think they're entitled to anything more than you or I? Is it because they get paid million upon millions of dollars? Is it because of the radically obsessive, sensationalistic news coverage that ESPN, ESPN2, The Golf Channel, and networks like that provide? Either way, athletes that think that are completely delusional. Just because you can beat me in 1-on-1 does not mean you can pull a firearm on someone. Just because you can "mow the course" with me doesn't mean you can disregard the sanctity of marriage and sleep around. In fact, just because you can beat me at ANYTHING does not give you the right to break the law or do anything that normal upstanding members of society cannot do.
Gilbert Arenas got off easy. Plaxico got 2 years, and Gilbert dodged jail time? The guy pulled a gun on another person. Plaxico shot himself in the leg. Very clear difference here, but the subtle distinction was that there was no proof that Arenas had his gun loaded. Hmph. Justice be damned.
To tie everything together, this false sense of entitlement is damaging the world of professional sports. Even golf is being hit. Perhaps that's why I stick with college football, because that tends to be under the radar of incidents such as those. Let's knock on wood that it continues.
A lot of people would say that they have a favorite sport, no? Football? Basketball? Baseball? Tennis? Also, if you have a favorite sport, then you most likely have a favorite player. Peyton Manning? LeBron James? Derek Jeter? Roger Federer? All of these athletes are superstars, no question. During their respective seasons, they are endlessly covered by the media. Hyped up. Vaulted onto a pedestal. Sensationalized.
As they should be. These people are great at what they do. They possess an unrivaled amount of athleticism and skill at the game they're paid exorbitant amounts of money to play. Could that money be better used for something else? Yes. But, that's a completely different topic.
Too much hype and spotlight on the wrong people can have adverse affects, however. Plaxico Burress? Gilbert Arenas? Donte Stallworth? Tiger Woods?
The problem is that when certain people are hailed as saviors and worshiped as the second coming of Jesus, they begin to experience a sense of entitlement. They're above the law. They're above the rules that others play by. They're above commitment. The only time anything applies to them is when they're on the court. Field. Course. Whatever suits their sport.
My question is, why do these people think they're entitled to anything more than you or I? Is it because they get paid million upon millions of dollars? Is it because of the radically obsessive, sensationalistic news coverage that ESPN, ESPN2, The Golf Channel, and networks like that provide? Either way, athletes that think that are completely delusional. Just because you can beat me in 1-on-1 does not mean you can pull a firearm on someone. Just because you can "mow the course" with me doesn't mean you can disregard the sanctity of marriage and sleep around. In fact, just because you can beat me at ANYTHING does not give you the right to break the law or do anything that normal upstanding members of society cannot do.
Gilbert Arenas got off easy. Plaxico got 2 years, and Gilbert dodged jail time? The guy pulled a gun on another person. Plaxico shot himself in the leg. Very clear difference here, but the subtle distinction was that there was no proof that Arenas had his gun loaded. Hmph. Justice be damned.
To tie everything together, this false sense of entitlement is damaging the world of professional sports. Even golf is being hit. Perhaps that's why I stick with college football, because that tends to be under the radar of incidents such as those. Let's knock on wood that it continues.
Exceeding the Right
The First Amendment is a wonderful thing. It gives us the freedom to express ourselves, the freedom to choose whatever religion we want, the right to hold a peaceful gathering, and on the topic of this writing, petition or protest the government.
Protest is healthy. I believe I've covered this before. The Tea Party, for example, is a perfectly legitimate organization with a reasonable goal that is currently notorious for protesting. THAT kind of protesting is what the Framers had in mind. Challenging things (laws, measures, proposals, etc) put forward by the government in a reasonable, responsible manner.
Here's a list of things that in no way fall under "reasonable and responsible":
1)Throwing a brick through an office window.
2)Cutting the gas lines to someone's house.
3)Sending a letter to 3/5ths of the state governors telling them to "get out or be removed".
4)Recruiting members to a lunatic fringe organization and issuing semi-automatic rifles intended to be used against government officials.
And so on and so forth. These are things that go far beyond the right to petition the government and approach the definition of terrorism. If you are cutting the gas lines to someone's house or issuing guns to a "patriotic" militia with the intent to shoot up the government, then you can get the hell out of my country because that is NOT how things work here. We vote in change if we want it, or vote to keep the status quo if that's what we want. I don't care how badly you think President Obama is doing, or how much you hate the Health Care bill, or how wrong one side of the spectrum is. You do things respectfully, responsibly, and democratically.
If you don't like the Republicans in Congress, let them hear it through constituent services or in the midterm election. Same with the Democrats. Bricks through the window and other scare tactics are immature and unnecessary.
Today's America has little room for extremism.
Protest is healthy. I believe I've covered this before. The Tea Party, for example, is a perfectly legitimate organization with a reasonable goal that is currently notorious for protesting. THAT kind of protesting is what the Framers had in mind. Challenging things (laws, measures, proposals, etc) put forward by the government in a reasonable, responsible manner.
Here's a list of things that in no way fall under "reasonable and responsible":
1)Throwing a brick through an office window.
2)Cutting the gas lines to someone's house.
3)Sending a letter to 3/5ths of the state governors telling them to "get out or be removed".
4)Recruiting members to a lunatic fringe organization and issuing semi-automatic rifles intended to be used against government officials.
And so on and so forth. These are things that go far beyond the right to petition the government and approach the definition of terrorism. If you are cutting the gas lines to someone's house or issuing guns to a "patriotic" militia with the intent to shoot up the government, then you can get the hell out of my country because that is NOT how things work here. We vote in change if we want it, or vote to keep the status quo if that's what we want. I don't care how badly you think President Obama is doing, or how much you hate the Health Care bill, or how wrong one side of the spectrum is. You do things respectfully, responsibly, and democratically.
If you don't like the Republicans in Congress, let them hear it through constituent services or in the midterm election. Same with the Democrats. Bricks through the window and other scare tactics are immature and unnecessary.
Today's America has little room for extremism.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Welcome to the Izzone
Tom Izzo is one of the greatest coaches to ever grace a Michigan sports program.
There. I said it. Now, that doesn't mean he touches the likes of Bo Schembechler, or Fielding Yost, or any of the other greats, but he is spectacular. He rivals the Lloyd Carr of recent U-Mich football, only because Lloyd was notoriously great in the season but lackluster in the post-season bowls. Prior to the NCAA tournament, Doug Gottleib of ESPN said the following: "The Spartans are a team that is in disarray right now... they lack polish, and are in for a shallow tournament run". Couple that with the fact that they were a 5-seed in a region with (1)Kansas, (2)Ohio State, (3)Georgetown, (4)Maryland, and (6)Tennessee, and one would tend to agree. The Midwest was loaded with high caliber teams.
After making it past the 12-seed New Mexico State, the Spartans faced (4)Maryland. This is the worst possible time to have a team leader go down, and Kalin Lucas did just that. The Spartans lost their on-court leader and top scorer with one false step. However, State won that game in thrilling fashion with a last-second buzzer beater made by the increasingly clutch Korey Lucious. They went on to play (9)Northern Iowa, which had upset overall #1 Kansas in a shocker that not only shattered my bracket, but millions of others. They beat Northern Iowa in their biggest win of the tournament, winning by a marginal seven points.
The scattered and fractured rag-tag group of basketball players that camps out in East Lansing had just stumbled into the Elite Eight, with a game against Bruce Pearl's Tennessee Volunteers looming. The Spartans again eked that one out 70-69, with another game decided in the closing 30 seconds.
Wait... Michigan State is in the Final Four? AGAIN? Prior to the tournament, this team wasn't even an outside contender. They were struggling to find their identity. Players lacked work ethic, or "weren't good teammates" according to Izzo. Couple that with losing your starting point guard, offensive and defensive star, and overall team leader at the same time, and this tournament run becomes increasingly unlikely.
Nevermind that they lost to Butler. People forget that Butler is no slouch. They're a physical team with a young, energetic coach, and an easy-to-love star in Gordon Hayward. This game was a grind-it-out style of basketball, with it only ending up 52-50. The Spartans didn't give it away. Butler won it. That's the beauty of Izzo's teams - when they lose, it's because they got beat. They don't self-destruct or beat themselves; they don't lose because they lacked heart or effort. This team stepped up when it counted and provided one of the most memorable tournament runs in history for me.
That doesn't make the loss easier to swallow. People had State favored. After the game, Joseph H. Bedford of "The Bedford Revue" had the following comments: "Gross. I hate Butler. That game was typical Big-10 basketball - first to 50 wins". Spoken like a true Spartan. A phone call to Mr. Bedford was not returned by press time.
Next year, Coach. Next year.
There. I said it. Now, that doesn't mean he touches the likes of Bo Schembechler, or Fielding Yost, or any of the other greats, but he is spectacular. He rivals the Lloyd Carr of recent U-Mich football, only because Lloyd was notoriously great in the season but lackluster in the post-season bowls. Prior to the NCAA tournament, Doug Gottleib of ESPN said the following: "The Spartans are a team that is in disarray right now... they lack polish, and are in for a shallow tournament run". Couple that with the fact that they were a 5-seed in a region with (1)Kansas, (2)Ohio State, (3)Georgetown, (4)Maryland, and (6)Tennessee, and one would tend to agree. The Midwest was loaded with high caliber teams.
After making it past the 12-seed New Mexico State, the Spartans faced (4)Maryland. This is the worst possible time to have a team leader go down, and Kalin Lucas did just that. The Spartans lost their on-court leader and top scorer with one false step. However, State won that game in thrilling fashion with a last-second buzzer beater made by the increasingly clutch Korey Lucious. They went on to play (9)Northern Iowa, which had upset overall #1 Kansas in a shocker that not only shattered my bracket, but millions of others. They beat Northern Iowa in their biggest win of the tournament, winning by a marginal seven points.
The scattered and fractured rag-tag group of basketball players that camps out in East Lansing had just stumbled into the Elite Eight, with a game against Bruce Pearl's Tennessee Volunteers looming. The Spartans again eked that one out 70-69, with another game decided in the closing 30 seconds.
Wait... Michigan State is in the Final Four? AGAIN? Prior to the tournament, this team wasn't even an outside contender. They were struggling to find their identity. Players lacked work ethic, or "weren't good teammates" according to Izzo. Couple that with losing your starting point guard, offensive and defensive star, and overall team leader at the same time, and this tournament run becomes increasingly unlikely.
Nevermind that they lost to Butler. People forget that Butler is no slouch. They're a physical team with a young, energetic coach, and an easy-to-love star in Gordon Hayward. This game was a grind-it-out style of basketball, with it only ending up 52-50. The Spartans didn't give it away. Butler won it. That's the beauty of Izzo's teams - when they lose, it's because they got beat. They don't self-destruct or beat themselves; they don't lose because they lacked heart or effort. This team stepped up when it counted and provided one of the most memorable tournament runs in history for me.
That doesn't make the loss easier to swallow. People had State favored. After the game, Joseph H. Bedford of "The Bedford Revue" had the following comments: "Gross. I hate Butler. That game was typical Big-10 basketball - first to 50 wins". Spoken like a true Spartan. A phone call to Mr. Bedford was not returned by press time.
Next year, Coach. Next year.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)