Today, a voice of reason amidst the storm of Anti-Religion rhetoric!
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in remarks to students at Colorado Christian University, laid out the Original Intent of the Founding Fathers regarding the role of religion in the United States, as stipulated in the Constitution.
Justice Scalia's remarks leave absolutely no room for the misinterpretation of the so-called "Separation Clause" (a non-existent clause thrown about by those pushing to eliminate any religion from public life.) Let's read his remarks...
"The separation of church and state doesn’t mean “the government cannot favor religion over non-religion,” Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argued during a speech at Colorado Christian University on Wednesday, according to The Washington Times.
Defending his strict adherence to the plain text of the Constitution, Scalia knocked secular qualms over the role of religion in the public sphere as “utterly absurd,” arguing that the Constitution is only obligated to protect freedom of religion -- not freedom from it.
“I think the main fight is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over non-religion,” the Reagan-appointed jurist told the crowd of about 400 people.
“We do Him [God] honor in our pledge of allegiance, in all our public ceremonies,” the conservative Catholic justice continued. “There’s nothing wrong with that. It is in the best of American traditions, and don’t let anybody tell you otherwise. I think we have to fight that tendency of the secularists to impose it on all of us through the Constitution.”
Earlier this year, Scalia joined the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in Town of Greece v. Galloway, which held that the New York town could continue opening legislative sessions with sectarian prayers.
Scalia has since used the case to press for the approval of public prayers in schools, legislatures and courtrooms.
In June, Scalia criticized the Supreme Court for declining to review Elmbrook School District v. John Doe, a case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit ruled that a public school district's decision to conduct graduation ceremonies in a church violated the Establishment Clause.
In a dissent joined by Justice Thomas, Scalia argued that “at a minimum,” the Supreme Court should remand the case for reconsideration, noting that “the First Amendment explicitly favors religion.”
On Wednesday, Scalia also criticized members of the Court who champion a more evolving, “living” view of the Constitution -- a judicial philosophy he has previously said only an “idiot” could believe.
“Our [the Supreme Court’s] latest take on the subject, which is quite different from previous takes, is that the state must be neutral, not only between religions, but between religion and nonreligion,” Scalia said on Wednesday, according to The Washington Times. “That’s just a lie. Where do you get the notion that this is all unconstitutional? You can only believe that if you believe in a morphing Constitution.”
If Americans want a more secular political system that guarantees those distinctions, they can “enact that by statute,” Scalia said, “but to say that’s what the Constitution requires is utterly absurd.”
In another public appearance on Wednesday at the University of Colorado Boulder Law School's annual John Paul Stevens lecture, Scalia compared his efforts to restore constitutional originalism to the challenges faced by "Lord of the Rings" protagonist Frodo Baggins.
“It’s a long, uphill fight to get back to original orthodoxy. We have two ‘originalists’ on the Supreme Court,” Scalia said, referencing Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. “That’s something. But I feel like Frodo … We’ll get clobbered in the end, but it’s worth it.”
Justice Scalia's remarks reflect what I have been advocating regarding the First Amendment and Freedom OF Religion. People who twist and shape the Freedom of Religion clause to adhere to their own interpretations are only damaging (or eliminating) the intent of the clause as envisioned by our Founding Fathers.
By adhering to what the Constitution actually says, rather than interpreting what they (the Founding Fathers) may have meant, we have a clear path to follow, and any unexpected twists and turns of that path are eliminated. Everyone still gets to have their opinions, but the whole issue of religion in the public sphere becomes moot, and those who rail against religion are silenced in their vain attempts to rewrite history.
I applaud Justice Scalia for his insight, and for his determination to right a very serious wrong that is being perpetrated on all Americans by those behind the secularist movement to remove religion from our country, and rewrite its history, and supplant it with the interpretations and whims of man.
I have read that the Constitution of the United States is a near perfect document that guides an entire nation towards peace and prosperity. If the Founding Fathers regarded religion with such reverence and necessity, we need to understand why, then implement their wisdom into our daily lives. In this day and age of technological leaps and growing immorality, we should be looking back to the founding of this country, and find the guidance to continue moving forward as the greatest nation on the earth.
Showing posts with label American Life; Culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American Life; Culture. Show all posts
Thursday, October 2, 2014
Sunday, September 7, 2014
Atlanta Hawks Owner Sells Over Perceived Racial Comments
(This one really ticks me off because people overreact over perceptions...)
It recently came to light that NBA Atlanta Hawks majority owner is voluntarily selling his stake in the franchise due to an email that he wrote more than two years ago in which he was attempting to discuss with other team owners how to increase game attendance and team revenues, while overcoming the racial divide that exists in the Atlanta market.
To quote, "In July, Levenson self-reported an email he wrote to the team's co-owners and general manager Danny Ferry in August 2012 that he called "inappropriate and offensive." The league commenced an independent investigation after being made aware of the comments.
Levenson writes in a statement that the racially offensive comments came as he pondered ways to bridge Atlanta's racial sports divide and increase fan attendance at Hawks' games.
"In trying to address those issues, I wrote an e-mail two years ago that was inappropriate and offensive," he said. "I trivialized our fans by making clichéd assumptions about their interests (i.e. hip hop vs. country, white vs. black cheerleaders, etc.) and by stereotyping their perceptions of one another (i.e. that white fans might be afraid of our black fans). By focusing on race, I also sent the unintentional and hurtful message that our white fans are more valuable than our black fans."
"If you're angry about what I wrote, you should be," Levenson continued in the statement. "I'm angry at myself, too. It was inflammatory nonsense. We all may have subtle biases and preconceptions when it comes to race, but my role as a leader is to challenge them, not to validate or accommodate those who might hold them."
I immediately wrote the following response:
"No one else is saying this, so I will...
So this guy, in addressing ways to increase revenues, and looking for ways to diversify game attendance amongst the various socio-economic groups, iterates things that are true, but which people don’t want to hear; so now he has to sell his interest in his team? Why…Because people are offended?
I’ve spent considerable time in Atlanta, and there IS a huge divide between whites and blacks, open mistrust between the poor and the wealthy, and definite perception issues that may or may not be based in fact and everyday living.
Levenson voices real and tangible issues that exist in the area, and now he’s a bad guy? If he was black, this would be a non-issue altogether. But because he’s white, then the email is viewed as racist. What a load of poo. Truth is truth—even when it is inconvenient to hear, or even acknowledge.
This man should not have to sell his interest in the team. People need to accept the truth and work towards eliminating such perceptions and mistrust. They need to stop being so sensitive to this discussion and instead, put their energies towards resolving these issues to mutual agreement and understanding. Only then can this entire discussion be put to rest.
In the meantime, folks just need to grow a pair and engage in meaningful discussion, rather than feigning offense at the least of racial references, whether warranted or not."
The comments Lenvenson made do not seem to be hateful towards anyone; rather, he is pointing out the issues that are real, and which must be overcome. His words were not even close to the Donald Sterling diatribe which was overflowing with disgust and hate towards anyone of African descent. (If you'll remember, Sterling is the now former, and infamous owner of the LA Clippers)
These comments only spoke truth; and because people these days are complete wimps, they scream racism and demand satisfaction, or there will be hell to pay. What a joke!
This one smacks of the hypocritical double standards put forth by those who claim to want equality between the blacks and whites, but whom in reality, seek only to promote continued racial tensions in order to line their own pockets at the expense of any real movement towards true equality. After all, racism is big business to the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and their ilk. Why bridge the racial divide when there is money to be made from the poor folks these race baiters claim to care about?
Levenson should hold onto his majority stake in the Atlanta Hawks, and continue to look for ways to truly bring in the diverse fan base that exists in that market. After all, isn't that the ultimate goal of the equality movement...Bringing people together and eliminate the mistrust and age old perceptions that only seek to divide us?
It recently came to light that NBA Atlanta Hawks majority owner is voluntarily selling his stake in the franchise due to an email that he wrote more than two years ago in which he was attempting to discuss with other team owners how to increase game attendance and team revenues, while overcoming the racial divide that exists in the Atlanta market.
To quote, "In July, Levenson self-reported an email he wrote to the team's co-owners and general manager Danny Ferry in August 2012 that he called "inappropriate and offensive." The league commenced an independent investigation after being made aware of the comments.
Levenson writes in a statement that the racially offensive comments came as he pondered ways to bridge Atlanta's racial sports divide and increase fan attendance at Hawks' games.
"In trying to address those issues, I wrote an e-mail two years ago that was inappropriate and offensive," he said. "I trivialized our fans by making clichéd assumptions about their interests (i.e. hip hop vs. country, white vs. black cheerleaders, etc.) and by stereotyping their perceptions of one another (i.e. that white fans might be afraid of our black fans). By focusing on race, I also sent the unintentional and hurtful message that our white fans are more valuable than our black fans."
"If you're angry about what I wrote, you should be," Levenson continued in the statement. "I'm angry at myself, too. It was inflammatory nonsense. We all may have subtle biases and preconceptions when it comes to race, but my role as a leader is to challenge them, not to validate or accommodate those who might hold them."
I immediately wrote the following response:
"No one else is saying this, so I will...
So this guy, in addressing ways to increase revenues, and looking for ways to diversify game attendance amongst the various socio-economic groups, iterates things that are true, but which people don’t want to hear; so now he has to sell his interest in his team? Why…Because people are offended?
I’ve spent considerable time in Atlanta, and there IS a huge divide between whites and blacks, open mistrust between the poor and the wealthy, and definite perception issues that may or may not be based in fact and everyday living.
Levenson voices real and tangible issues that exist in the area, and now he’s a bad guy? If he was black, this would be a non-issue altogether. But because he’s white, then the email is viewed as racist. What a load of poo. Truth is truth—even when it is inconvenient to hear, or even acknowledge.
This man should not have to sell his interest in the team. People need to accept the truth and work towards eliminating such perceptions and mistrust. They need to stop being so sensitive to this discussion and instead, put their energies towards resolving these issues to mutual agreement and understanding. Only then can this entire discussion be put to rest.
In the meantime, folks just need to grow a pair and engage in meaningful discussion, rather than feigning offense at the least of racial references, whether warranted or not."
The comments Lenvenson made do not seem to be hateful towards anyone; rather, he is pointing out the issues that are real, and which must be overcome. His words were not even close to the Donald Sterling diatribe which was overflowing with disgust and hate towards anyone of African descent. (If you'll remember, Sterling is the now former, and infamous owner of the LA Clippers)
These comments only spoke truth; and because people these days are complete wimps, they scream racism and demand satisfaction, or there will be hell to pay. What a joke!
This one smacks of the hypocritical double standards put forth by those who claim to want equality between the blacks and whites, but whom in reality, seek only to promote continued racial tensions in order to line their own pockets at the expense of any real movement towards true equality. After all, racism is big business to the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and their ilk. Why bridge the racial divide when there is money to be made from the poor folks these race baiters claim to care about?
Levenson should hold onto his majority stake in the Atlanta Hawks, and continue to look for ways to truly bring in the diverse fan base that exists in that market. After all, isn't that the ultimate goal of the equality movement...Bringing people together and eliminate the mistrust and age old perceptions that only seek to divide us?
Wednesday, September 3, 2014
Airline Rage over Seat Space
There has recently been a spate of air rage incidents on commercial airliners over the issue of personal space. These have all involved passengers easing their seats back into a semi-reclined position. However, doing so is increasingly impinging on the space of the passengers behind you. Why? Because air carriers are demanding putting more passengers within the same space, and are accomplishing this by reducing seat width (now a mere 16 inches), leg room (now just 20 inches from seat back to seat back), reducing restroom size (as if that's possible!) and decreasing the average width of the aisles.
In short, the airlines are greedy, and any way they can increase profit, they gladly do; in spite of growing discontent amongst rank and file passengers. As paying customers, the airlines demand more money, and give less and less in return. While airfares are currently midline, all the carriers are adding baggage fees, port fees, preferred seating fees, charging for pillows and blankets, eliminating food service on long flights (aside from the 1st Class passengers, of course), even charging you to have the audacity of using a check-in person at the airport (!) and pretty much anything else the pencil heads can think of to gouge the customers even more.
It's really nothing more than GREED. Last year the airlines had a collective net profit of some $7.00B dollars; largely due to the plethora of fees they impose on their cash strapped customers. So, with those kinds of profits, why exactly are passengers being treated like cattle on their way to slaughter?
It's disgusting what is happening in the name of 'profit.' You would think with $7B income that air carriers would give passengers a few perks back. Instead of looking at customers as bodies that fill seats, how about giving them some respect...and space?
That will never happen because airlines, like the oil companies, have become addicted to record profits and will fight their customers tooth and nail to keep those dollars rolling in; while passengers have less and less space to sit in, and are denied the most basic of services, as well as respect.
The only way this will change is if the paying public start writing airlines and demand a change towards customer service and comfort. If that doesn't work, start driving instead and deny the airlines your travel budget. After all, money speaks louder than words; and if enough people stop flying, I guarantee you that the airlines will listen.
In short, the airlines are greedy, and any way they can increase profit, they gladly do; in spite of growing discontent amongst rank and file passengers. As paying customers, the airlines demand more money, and give less and less in return. While airfares are currently midline, all the carriers are adding baggage fees, port fees, preferred seating fees, charging for pillows and blankets, eliminating food service on long flights (aside from the 1st Class passengers, of course), even charging you to have the audacity of using a check-in person at the airport (!) and pretty much anything else the pencil heads can think of to gouge the customers even more.
It's really nothing more than GREED. Last year the airlines had a collective net profit of some $7.00B dollars; largely due to the plethora of fees they impose on their cash strapped customers. So, with those kinds of profits, why exactly are passengers being treated like cattle on their way to slaughter?
It's disgusting what is happening in the name of 'profit.' You would think with $7B income that air carriers would give passengers a few perks back. Instead of looking at customers as bodies that fill seats, how about giving them some respect...and space?
That will never happen because airlines, like the oil companies, have become addicted to record profits and will fight their customers tooth and nail to keep those dollars rolling in; while passengers have less and less space to sit in, and are denied the most basic of services, as well as respect.
The only way this will change is if the paying public start writing airlines and demand a change towards customer service and comfort. If that doesn't work, start driving instead and deny the airlines your travel budget. After all, money speaks louder than words; and if enough people stop flying, I guarantee you that the airlines will listen.
Friday, June 6, 2014
70th Anniversary of D-Day
Today is June 6th, and it is the 70th Anniversary of Operation Overlord; the day Allied forces breached Fortress Europe; the day the end of the European side of WWII began.
Many brave men--on all sides-- lost their lives that day on the five beaches of Normandy. It is our duty to remember these men from the Greatest Generation who so bravely, so selflessly waded ashore under a terrifying storm of bullets and cannon fire in order to begin the liberation of France, Belgium and so many other nations. Many of our finest young men failed to return to their families; though their sacrifice will never be forgotten.
Every year I offer a prayer of thanks to these gallant men who paid the ultimate price for our freedom.
As always, my thanks are but few words and feeble; while their sacrifice was extraordinary.
Thank You.
Many brave men--on all sides-- lost their lives that day on the five beaches of Normandy. It is our duty to remember these men from the Greatest Generation who so bravely, so selflessly waded ashore under a terrifying storm of bullets and cannon fire in order to begin the liberation of France, Belgium and so many other nations. Many of our finest young men failed to return to their families; though their sacrifice will never be forgotten.
Every year I offer a prayer of thanks to these gallant men who paid the ultimate price for our freedom.
As always, my thanks are but few words and feeble; while their sacrifice was extraordinary.
Thank You.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
A One-Sided Mocking of BYU
An article in today's Seattle Post-Intelligencer (the PI) by sports columnist Jim Moore was attempting to poke fun of Brigham Young University's football program. To be fair, Mr. Moore usually writes insightful, humorous pieces that help his readers to see another side to whatever subject he is illustrating. However, his article today fell way short of the mark; instead falling into a chasm of ignorance and ridicule. The article follows:
"Steve Sarkisian and I don't have anything in common -- he's a young and successful rich guy who bleeds purple. I'm the polar opposite -- a poor old crimson-bleeder who doesn't have T-shirts that say: "I bark for the Go 2 Guy." Though we're both Cougs, Coach Sark went to BYU, and I went to WSU. At BYU, students are required to follow an Honor Code or risk being expelled from school.
At WSU, if we had a code, I was either not aware of it or not following it very well, preoccupied with chasing coeds and playing countless games of losers-chug foosball at the Billiard Den in Moscow, Idaho. How I graduated is one of life's mysteries on a par with Jim McMahon, the beer-swilling and hell-raising quarterback, being a BYU alum.
The topic of the Honor Code came up at Sarkisian's news conference Monday afternoon as the Huskies prepare for their season opener at BYU on Saturday. I should have asked him football questions relating to the game, but I was more curious to find out if Coach Sark had trouble complying with the Honor Code when he played there in 1995-96."I didn't get kicked out," he said.
If you're properly following the Honor Code at BYU, you're not drinking alcohol, coffee or tea. You're not smoking tobacco or marijuana. You're not carrying a gun on campus. You're not swearing or having pre-marital sex. You're not cheating on tests or breaking the law.
You are also required to follow dress and grooming standards. For men, this means that shorts must be knee-length or longer. Hairstyles must leave the ears uncovered. Sideburns can't go below the earlobes nor onto the cheeks. Moustaches are allowed but must be neatly trimmed and cannot extend below the corners of the mouth. Beards are prohibited.
In April, Harvey Unga, BYU's all-time leading rusher, left school after violating the Honor Code by having pre-marital sex with his girlfriend, who was six months pregnant. Unga was drafted in the seventh round of the NFL's supplemental draft by the Chicago Bears.
Asked for the rule that he had the biggest problem with, Sarkisian mentioned the one about facial hair, saying: "I'm not a big shaver."
Sarkisian was a JC transfer who went to BYU because he was a quarterback who wanted to fill the air with footballs and a student who wanted a degree. "I wasn't there to have a good time," Sarkisian said. He was also a Catholic at a Mormon school."Initially that was a little challenge," Sarkisian said. They tried to get him to convert, but Sarkisian wouldn't do it because he was "a happy Catholic." "It took some time, but then there was a great deal of respect (for me and my decision)," Coach Sark said.
When Sarkisian said he had "plenty" of players who could abide by the rules at BYU, I went searching for some.
Strong safety Nate Williams thought he could follow the Honor Code, saying: "If I went to that school and knew what I was getting into, I could handle it. … At the U Dub, we don't have all those rules. We just have to be smart about what we do and who we hang out with."
But Williams has a mini-beard that would be an Honor Code violation, and it's one he plans to keep. "I think I look better with it," he said. "It gets me more girls."
Outside linebacker Mason Foster said he'd be good to go at BYU. "I don't indulge in any of those activities," he said. "I'm a pretty straight-and-narrow guy. If I had to deal with the Honor Code, I'd be completely eligible." "But they wouldn't let you keep your dreads and your beard," I told him. And just like that, the prim-and-proper Foster disappeared. "I'd have to get outta there then," he said. "I couldn't do that." (Jim Moore, Seattle PI 8/31/10)
On the surface one might think, "Yeah; so what? No big deal." However, looking at the article closer, I found it to be a one-sided, un-humorous, offensive piece because Mr. Moore did nothing to avoid stereotyping both BYU and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I wrote to him with the following response:
"Thanks Jim, for writing ANOTHER article that does nothing but perpetuate the "oddness" of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints amongst the general populace. (Just look at the comments on this piece.)
This type of ignorance and slighted view is exactly the slanderous, ignorant media that constantly demeans and disrespects a membership that seeks to live by a better moral standard every day of the year.
Not once in your story did you ask any players (former or current), aside from Sarkisian, who are church members what they thought of the school's Honor Code, and whether or not they had a difficult time accepting or following it. Instead, you highlight only athletes that have had trouble with, or violated the much [media] maligned Honor Code.
I've got an idea for you--Instead of highlighting this personal Code of Conduct for its oddness, why not ask what makes living by it so desirable to the 30,000 plus students who attend BYU every year? Or, how might the Honor Code make BYU athletes better players? Did you even ask coach Sark if he enjoyed attending BYU?
Try writing a story that actually presents a balanced view; instead of reinforcing a stereotype that only furthers prejudices and biases against a singular group that has does nothing but promote a higher standard of living that extends beyond a Sunday service.
I have to ask you, if the University of Notre Dame had a similar Honor Code, would you be making light of it? Or is BYU an easy target just because they’re “Mormons?”
The following are comments left on the article by PI readers (I've omitted screen names or personal references):
-"I've visited Provo several times, and even though I was never the type at risk of getting arrested for anything, I sure as hell know I couldn't live there. It's like nowhere else on Earth- like a theme park where the theme is not having fun."
-"I take it...not many Starbucks stockholders in Utah?"
-"like a theme park where the theme is not having fun."Great line, captures the feel of the place perfectly.I still can't imagine many red-blooded 18 year old boys thinking this is where they want to go when they leave home..."
-"Mormon girls are closet freaks. And they're hot! They're not supposed to engage in premarital sex, but there's quite a few that do. They just have to keep it on the low. But yes, it's still worlds apart from most other Universities."
When a supposedly humorous article, supposedly intended to poke fun at a football rival, elicits such negative comments about a singular group, then the aim was way off. Personally, I came away from reading this article offended by the ignorance that Mr. Moore displayed in his attempts to be light-hearted and funny. That's not to mention the ignorant respondents who fell directly into the ever-present anti-Mormon rhetoric. Sorry Mr. Moore--it wasn't funny... just offensive.
"Steve Sarkisian and I don't have anything in common -- he's a young and successful rich guy who bleeds purple. I'm the polar opposite -- a poor old crimson-bleeder who doesn't have T-shirts that say: "I bark for the Go 2 Guy." Though we're both Cougs, Coach Sark went to BYU, and I went to WSU. At BYU, students are required to follow an Honor Code or risk being expelled from school.
At WSU, if we had a code, I was either not aware of it or not following it very well, preoccupied with chasing coeds and playing countless games of losers-chug foosball at the Billiard Den in Moscow, Idaho. How I graduated is one of life's mysteries on a par with Jim McMahon, the beer-swilling and hell-raising quarterback, being a BYU alum.
The topic of the Honor Code came up at Sarkisian's news conference Monday afternoon as the Huskies prepare for their season opener at BYU on Saturday. I should have asked him football questions relating to the game, but I was more curious to find out if Coach Sark had trouble complying with the Honor Code when he played there in 1995-96."I didn't get kicked out," he said.
If you're properly following the Honor Code at BYU, you're not drinking alcohol, coffee or tea. You're not smoking tobacco or marijuana. You're not carrying a gun on campus. You're not swearing or having pre-marital sex. You're not cheating on tests or breaking the law.
You are also required to follow dress and grooming standards. For men, this means that shorts must be knee-length or longer. Hairstyles must leave the ears uncovered. Sideburns can't go below the earlobes nor onto the cheeks. Moustaches are allowed but must be neatly trimmed and cannot extend below the corners of the mouth. Beards are prohibited.
In April, Harvey Unga, BYU's all-time leading rusher, left school after violating the Honor Code by having pre-marital sex with his girlfriend, who was six months pregnant. Unga was drafted in the seventh round of the NFL's supplemental draft by the Chicago Bears.
Asked for the rule that he had the biggest problem with, Sarkisian mentioned the one about facial hair, saying: "I'm not a big shaver."
Sarkisian was a JC transfer who went to BYU because he was a quarterback who wanted to fill the air with footballs and a student who wanted a degree. "I wasn't there to have a good time," Sarkisian said. He was also a Catholic at a Mormon school."Initially that was a little challenge," Sarkisian said. They tried to get him to convert, but Sarkisian wouldn't do it because he was "a happy Catholic." "It took some time, but then there was a great deal of respect (for me and my decision)," Coach Sark said.
When Sarkisian said he had "plenty" of players who could abide by the rules at BYU, I went searching for some.
Strong safety Nate Williams thought he could follow the Honor Code, saying: "If I went to that school and knew what I was getting into, I could handle it. … At the U Dub, we don't have all those rules. We just have to be smart about what we do and who we hang out with."
But Williams has a mini-beard that would be an Honor Code violation, and it's one he plans to keep. "I think I look better with it," he said. "It gets me more girls."
Outside linebacker Mason Foster said he'd be good to go at BYU. "I don't indulge in any of those activities," he said. "I'm a pretty straight-and-narrow guy. If I had to deal with the Honor Code, I'd be completely eligible." "But they wouldn't let you keep your dreads and your beard," I told him. And just like that, the prim-and-proper Foster disappeared. "I'd have to get outta there then," he said. "I couldn't do that." (Jim Moore, Seattle PI 8/31/10)
On the surface one might think, "Yeah; so what? No big deal." However, looking at the article closer, I found it to be a one-sided, un-humorous, offensive piece because Mr. Moore did nothing to avoid stereotyping both BYU and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I wrote to him with the following response:
"Thanks Jim, for writing ANOTHER article that does nothing but perpetuate the "oddness" of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints amongst the general populace. (Just look at the comments on this piece.)
This type of ignorance and slighted view is exactly the slanderous, ignorant media that constantly demeans and disrespects a membership that seeks to live by a better moral standard every day of the year.
Not once in your story did you ask any players (former or current), aside from Sarkisian, who are church members what they thought of the school's Honor Code, and whether or not they had a difficult time accepting or following it. Instead, you highlight only athletes that have had trouble with, or violated the much [media] maligned Honor Code.
I've got an idea for you--Instead of highlighting this personal Code of Conduct for its oddness, why not ask what makes living by it so desirable to the 30,000 plus students who attend BYU every year? Or, how might the Honor Code make BYU athletes better players? Did you even ask coach Sark if he enjoyed attending BYU?
Try writing a story that actually presents a balanced view; instead of reinforcing a stereotype that only furthers prejudices and biases against a singular group that has does nothing but promote a higher standard of living that extends beyond a Sunday service.
I have to ask you, if the University of Notre Dame had a similar Honor Code, would you be making light of it? Or is BYU an easy target just because they’re “Mormons?”
The following are comments left on the article by PI readers (I've omitted screen names or personal references):
-"I've visited Provo several times, and even though I was never the type at risk of getting arrested for anything, I sure as hell know I couldn't live there. It's like nowhere else on Earth- like a theme park where the theme is not having fun."
-"I take it...not many Starbucks stockholders in Utah?"
-"like a theme park where the theme is not having fun."Great line, captures the feel of the place perfectly.I still can't imagine many red-blooded 18 year old boys thinking this is where they want to go when they leave home..."
-"Mormon girls are closet freaks. And they're hot! They're not supposed to engage in premarital sex, but there's quite a few that do. They just have to keep it on the low. But yes, it's still worlds apart from most other Universities."
When a supposedly humorous article, supposedly intended to poke fun at a football rival, elicits such negative comments about a singular group, then the aim was way off. Personally, I came away from reading this article offended by the ignorance that Mr. Moore displayed in his attempts to be light-hearted and funny. That's not to mention the ignorant respondents who fell directly into the ever-present anti-Mormon rhetoric. Sorry Mr. Moore--it wasn't funny... just offensive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
