Thursday, December 28, 2006
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
bored
Just to stir up some fun (I hope):
Apparantly there is a huge uprising in the Episcopalian Church. You can read about it here. But to save you the time, I'll just tell you what it's about. Basically, specific churches are seceding over the church's decision to annoint an openly gay bishop (V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire). Which makes absolutely no sense because by Episcopalian tradition, no bishop can operate outside the boundaries of his diocese. So churches even within New Hampshire but outside his diocese aren't affected, let alone in places like Virgina, California or Nigeria. I think the best guess here is that these jackoffs (as they will now be so lovingly referred to) are so preoccupied with forcing conservative dogma down the throats of those too simple to think on their own that they have thrown all pretense of reason into the wind - which shouldn't be and isn't a very big surprise when it comes to dealing with religion and zealots.
Essentially, what they are protesting is his being openly gay. Had he never come out, things would have been fine and no one would have moved for a rift in the church. In other words, it would have been more acceptable for him to continue living a lie (which he did do for some time to the point of marrying and having children before accepting his homosexuality). I'm not sure what message these jackoffs are trying to send through their secession, but the act is essentially saying that a collected group of devout Episcopals would rather their leader and Bishop lie to them.
Herein lies the problem with religious devouts: they are unable to think reasonably when confronted with an issue challenging to their faith. The immediate answer is "The Bible says it's wrong so it's wrong." The whole purpose of a Bishop is to oversee the work his subordinates do in spreading the Word of God. Does being gay in any way affect this? I fail to see how it would. Is it hypocritical to the context of the faith? Perhaps. But let us consider a two points:first, the fact that he was raised to his current status not only by the normal voting procedure, but by that procedure being carried out during the Episcopal General Convention of 2003. Which means had it been an issue that horrendously upsetting to the faith, there is no way he would have ever passed the ELECTION PROCESS. Let me say that again in case you missed it: he was elected. His office was gained within the proper tenants of Church Law in the presence of representatives from parishes all over the country. A democratic procedure isn't something that is used when convenient and the results make everyone happy. If there was only one point of view, there wouldn't be a need for democracy. Nonetheless, when the system fails your cause, you don't abandon it. To me, the Episopal Church should make no effort whatsoever to accomodate these hypocrytical, self-satisfying jackoffs. They are using it to achieve their own selfish ends when it's convenient to use. Their cause would be much more noble and tolerable to the sensible if they remained a part of the Church and used their faith to try to defend their point of view. What they are doing now is simply taking their faith and going home because they didn't get their way.
Secondly, am I expected to believe that God would speak to the masses through the mouth of someone so profainly vested in sin? Or is he not speaking through the Bishop at all? Is it more that He has turned his back to his followers? The implications on these lines seem to suggest that the faith should be abandoned completely. If you believe that God is active in your faith, how can you believe that He would allow something so dreadfully wrong to occur in the upper echelons of the faith? I am forced to conclude that a God worth worshipping would have enough wherewithall to not allow something profain to the faith to reach such a standing in the Church.
More to the point, as I said earlier, being gay does not affect his ability to perform his job. I have a rampant love affair going with my hand and it doesn't affect my ability to do my job. And I can assure you thuoghts of my hand consume more time than his love of men. Because it's pretty much all the time. Which makes sense. When you have the penile equivalent of the Hope Diamond you pretty much have to fawn over it all the time. It's only a matter of time until it gets taken away and put in the Smithsonian. Cherish it people! Cherish it!
Apparantly there is a huge uprising in the Episcopalian Church. You can read about it here. But to save you the time, I'll just tell you what it's about. Basically, specific churches are seceding over the church's decision to annoint an openly gay bishop (V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire). Which makes absolutely no sense because by Episcopalian tradition, no bishop can operate outside the boundaries of his diocese. So churches even within New Hampshire but outside his diocese aren't affected, let alone in places like Virgina, California or Nigeria. I think the best guess here is that these jackoffs (as they will now be so lovingly referred to) are so preoccupied with forcing conservative dogma down the throats of those too simple to think on their own that they have thrown all pretense of reason into the wind - which shouldn't be and isn't a very big surprise when it comes to dealing with religion and zealots.
Essentially, what they are protesting is his being openly gay. Had he never come out, things would have been fine and no one would have moved for a rift in the church. In other words, it would have been more acceptable for him to continue living a lie (which he did do for some time to the point of marrying and having children before accepting his homosexuality). I'm not sure what message these jackoffs are trying to send through their secession, but the act is essentially saying that a collected group of devout Episcopals would rather their leader and Bishop lie to them.
Herein lies the problem with religious devouts: they are unable to think reasonably when confronted with an issue challenging to their faith. The immediate answer is "The Bible says it's wrong so it's wrong." The whole purpose of a Bishop is to oversee the work his subordinates do in spreading the Word of God. Does being gay in any way affect this? I fail to see how it would. Is it hypocritical to the context of the faith? Perhaps. But let us consider a two points:first, the fact that he was raised to his current status not only by the normal voting procedure, but by that procedure being carried out during the Episcopal General Convention of 2003. Which means had it been an issue that horrendously upsetting to the faith, there is no way he would have ever passed the ELECTION PROCESS. Let me say that again in case you missed it: he was elected. His office was gained within the proper tenants of Church Law in the presence of representatives from parishes all over the country. A democratic procedure isn't something that is used when convenient and the results make everyone happy. If there was only one point of view, there wouldn't be a need for democracy. Nonetheless, when the system fails your cause, you don't abandon it. To me, the Episopal Church should make no effort whatsoever to accomodate these hypocrytical, self-satisfying jackoffs. They are using it to achieve their own selfish ends when it's convenient to use. Their cause would be much more noble and tolerable to the sensible if they remained a part of the Church and used their faith to try to defend their point of view. What they are doing now is simply taking their faith and going home because they didn't get their way.
Secondly, am I expected to believe that God would speak to the masses through the mouth of someone so profainly vested in sin? Or is he not speaking through the Bishop at all? Is it more that He has turned his back to his followers? The implications on these lines seem to suggest that the faith should be abandoned completely. If you believe that God is active in your faith, how can you believe that He would allow something so dreadfully wrong to occur in the upper echelons of the faith? I am forced to conclude that a God worth worshipping would have enough wherewithall to not allow something profain to the faith to reach such a standing in the Church.
More to the point, as I said earlier, being gay does not affect his ability to perform his job. I have a rampant love affair going with my hand and it doesn't affect my ability to do my job. And I can assure you thuoghts of my hand consume more time than his love of men. Because it's pretty much all the time. Which makes sense. When you have the penile equivalent of the Hope Diamond you pretty much have to fawn over it all the time. It's only a matter of time until it gets taken away and put in the Smithsonian. Cherish it people! Cherish it!
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Libyan Vacation
Victor Davis Hanson has a brush with death in Libya and lives to tell about it. Can you imagine having to have an emergency appendectomy in some poor Islamic clinic? Frightening.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
ha ha, maureen dowd
Catching up on my reading lately, In the Nov. 16 Rolling Stone (I don' t know why I get it) John Stewart says of his interview with Maureen Down (NY Times columnist): "I didn't know we were going to have to be high for this interview."
More on everything else later while both you and I absorb this comment.
More on everything else later while both you and I absorb this comment.
Saturday, December 02, 2006
Rematch?
After watching the USC/Notre Dame game last week, I thought OSU/USC matchup would be a good one. Plus there is some old Rose Bowl rivalry history to go along with such a game.
Assuming Florida wins the SEC championship game and USC loses to UCLA, Florida could be said to deserve a shot.
Who deserves to go? That is a tough question. Michigan's only loss is to the Buckeyes. Florida and USC both lost to lesser teams. You could also say that Michigan had their shot, and that USC or Florida deserve a shot at OSU. I fail to see how Michigan would be eliminated from a playoff system though since they will finish 4th at worst in the polls/BCS. Florida is perhaps more deserving considering the tougher schedule they had than USC.
Florida is the least interesting matchup national TV/rivalry wise, and I don't think Chris Leak can hang with the Buckeyes. A USC matchup has a broader national appeal than either Fla. or Michigan. It'll likely be USC. If the Buckeyes win, Florida will have the biggest grievance. That said, what Buckeye fan wouldn't want to beat Michigan twice in the same year?
Assuming Florida wins the SEC championship game and USC loses to UCLA, Florida could be said to deserve a shot.
Who deserves to go? That is a tough question. Michigan's only loss is to the Buckeyes. Florida and USC both lost to lesser teams. You could also say that Michigan had their shot, and that USC or Florida deserve a shot at OSU. I fail to see how Michigan would be eliminated from a playoff system though since they will finish 4th at worst in the polls/BCS. Florida is perhaps more deserving considering the tougher schedule they had than USC.
Florida is the least interesting matchup national TV/rivalry wise, and I don't think Chris Leak can hang with the Buckeyes. A USC matchup has a broader national appeal than either Fla. or Michigan. It'll likely be USC. If the Buckeyes win, Florida will have the biggest grievance. That said, what Buckeye fan wouldn't want to beat Michigan twice in the same year?
More on the rematch
I agree with John, but am not sure whether I want a rematch or not. I'm truly ambivalent. I kind of want a rematch for these reasons: I really think UM is better than anybody else out there (excluding us, of course), and a rematch could cause the kind of outrage that would make people start thinking seriously about a tournament (see Urban Meyers' comments from a few weeks ago). I want to avoid a rematch, however, because of the following: I honestly fear getting beat the second time (call me a pessimist), and playing them again--especially after that unbelievable game on the 18th--seems kind of unnatural, like necromancy or trying to raise a loved one from the dead (not that I "love" the Wolverines, but we do share a kind of necessary, existential connection that transcends football). At any rate, this ambivalence has rendered me unable to root for either side in either of USC's final two games. I just want it to be over so we can start concentrating on who we'll play.
Friday, December 01, 2006
OSU-Mich rematch
While I agree with Nick that it would probably be the best game, I think it would be a perfect example of why college football will never be able to crown a legitimate champion (especially if Mich wins, which means each team is 1-1 against the other) owing to the fact that in a playoff system (which seems infintely more appropriate and respectful than the rooting through dog puke methods the BCS uses now) Michigan would have been eliminated from championship contention. You shouldn't get a mulligan when playing for something as "prestigious" as the national college football championship. That would make it even less respectable than it is now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)