David Tyree is a moron

[thespleenenator]

Wow. I know I wasn't part of the last thread, but I'm really surprised that at least one person hasn't gone on a rant against gay marriage. I personally believe in it, and I think David Tyree is just trying grab attention to himself after the 15 minutes of fame is over, but the fact that no one has argued against it astonishing.

[dfwabel]

Since we're only one page in and this has already been alluded to a small handful of times, I'd like to point out... before Tyree's nonsense becomes more "evidence" of Black Americans' supposed natural inclination towards homophobia... that a far higher percentage of black folks (including Tyree) identify as Christian and that is the primary source of homophobia amongst black people. A decent chunk of blackfolk also identify with Islam which has its own issues with teh gays as well.

Sadly, I'm asked to speak on this far more often than I would hope (I'm often called upon by clueless whitefolks to answer questions they're too afraid to ask anyone whose black once they find out what I'm in school for) and is therefore a source of great frustration for me and has does nothing to make me second guess my assertion that organized religion is the worst thing to ever happen to humankind.

The role of the African-American Church has been talked about numerous times regarding what may be seen as a double-standard. LG Granderson has talked about it numerous times.

That as late as 2004 Tyree was a addict of both alcohol and drugs. Honestly, we have no idea on what he did on the "downlow" to feed his habits.

[Gothamite]

Hey, now.

This isn't about him. It's about his irrational, unsupportable political views and the groups who are exploiting fears like his to deny other Americans their Constitutional rights.

[illwauk]

This is true, but I do find it ironic that those who object to marriage equality on moral grounds oftentimes have no room to point fingers. Newt Gingrich, for example, has shown on numerous occasions what high standards he holds the institution of marriage to.

[dfwabel]

Hey, now.

This isn't about him. It's about his irrational, unsupportable political views and the groups who are exploiting fears like his to deny other Americans their Constitutional rights.

The thread is his name in it yet it's NOT about him? Please. The fact that it took three pages of a thread to even talk about his past with drugs and arrests is more shocking to me.

[Lights Out]

It's not shocking at all, considering his history of drugs and arrests has NOTHING to do with gay marriage.

[Gothamite]

Exactly.

Keep it on the issues - opponents of marriage equality would love to get away from inconvenient facts and repemotional with emotional arguments.

[dfwabel]

Exactly.

Keep it on the issues - opponents of marriage equality would love to get away from inconvenient facts and repemotional with emotional arguments.

1-This is now not an issue for "Sports in General" since Tyree was last under contract by the Ravens in 2009 before his release and getting a Giants contract in 2010 so he could retire as a Giant.

2-His current publicity is based on his previous live (plus backstory), and even while he wrote a book, we do not know how much he lived his life from "fix to fix" like other addicts.

If this was a Prop * or any other gay marriage thread, it would neither be here nor even in The Lounge as we all read various similar threads, but this includes a former NFL athlete, so with his story which is important, his story needs to be said.

[Sterling84]

I think the most dazling part of this whole thing is that Sterling actually posted something. Welcome back, big guy.

I concur. Welcome back, Sterling!

Now, while at risk of hijacking a thread dedicated to a serious topic, I feel I must pose a question: Any thoughts on what direction True North Sports and Entertainment should take in rebranding the soon-to-be-relocated-to-Winnipeg Atlanta Thrashers?

Better yet, any inside knowledge of what direction TNSE is heading in with regard to branding?

Hey Brian! Nice to see some of the old dogs are still patrolling this junk yard. How've you been?

As to your loaded questions? Sure I have tons of thoughts. I'm an opinion machine. But sadly I can offer up no answers. I was hoping you guys could enlighten me. In fact, I started trolling here again only after seeing Chris' Moose/NHL article SPECIFICALLY to see what more I could find out. I got nothing for ya. I'm here to lurk, defend the equal rights of all men and women and hopefully ruffle the feathers of New Era a bit. Nothing more.

Did you notice I got called super old school by Infrared41? How cool is that? I thought I was just super old. =)

Let me circle back on topic for a second..RE: Ice_Caps post about secular intolerance in the USSR and Nazi Germany. I know what you mean by that, but I think it's false equivalence. Reading Hitchens he makes a point of refuting exactly this. Open-minded folks tend to inadvertently cede the moral high ground by granting the premise that there is or was rampant secular intolerance. And further that since Hitler perpetrated one of the greatest evils known to mankind this is evidence of man's evil, not religions. Nazi Germany (though not overtly a religious movement) in many ways functioned much like religious idealogy does...and AS an orthodoxy passed down from a single (infallible?/immortal?) leader whose authority nor motives could not be questioned. Hitler and Stalin, Kim Jong Il and every tryannical, murderous despot/demigod have a lot more in common with religious heirarchy (when it comes to dissention not being tolerated) than not.

I don't think today you could argue there is any meaningful,wholesale secular intolerance left. It's a broad BROAD generalization sure to get me flamed and/or corrected, but at this point on earth...all the real campaigns of hatred are fueled by religion or with religion as a template or backdrop.

And Viper? "Purism is at least as futile in the larger cultural realm as it is in sports. That, it seems to me, is the Achilles' heel of social conservatism in general, not just its opposition to gay marriage: the notion that civilization will fall apart if its underlying culture wanders too far off its reservation. Even if that's true, it's just another way of saying civilization isn't flexible enough to adapt to cultural change, and that's civilization's problem, not culture's." That is some beautiful pile of words right there. Agreed.

[IceCap]

Let me circle back on topic for a second..RE: Ice_Caps post about secular intolerance in the USSR and Nazi Germany. I know what you mean by that, but I think it's false equivalence.

First, let me say welcome back. It's been a while. I'm glad to see you back in (seemingly) good health. Nothing's official yet, but congrats on the fact that your logo is being considered as a primary mark for a NHL organization.

To the quote at hand, I obviously disagree.

Reading Hitchens he makes a point of refuting exactly this.

Christopher Hitchens is, I am sad to say, not someone I take seriously. It's a shame, because he's well spoken and clearly an individual of remarkable intelligence. He is not, however, an authority on anything other then his own agenda. If the topic is "religion" then Hitchens can hardly be considered anything but window dressing, because ultimately that's all he provides. He's not an academic source one can point to as the basis for an argument, he is the argument. His work warrants discussion, but using him in a "is religion good or bad?" debate would be like someone using a Noam Chomsky in a debate concerning globalization. It's just finding someone who's already committed to your "side" and propping their work up as "proof."

You would rightfully roll your eyes if I used the work of Blaise Pascal to justify faith, and I can't help but have a similar reaction when you hold up Christopher Hitchens.

Open-minded folks tend to inadvertently cede the moral high ground by granting the premise that there is or was rampant secular intolerance.

Again, I take issue. Open-minded, in the way you use it here, implies atheists. And this isn't a minor point of disagreement that I find offensive. It's something I find terribly offensive. In a broad sense lets look at one of the largest Christian churches in the world, the Anglican Church. They're marrying gays where it's legal to do so and the Church allows women and openly gay men to serve as priests. Are they not "open-minded"?

In a personal sense lets take a look at myself. I've always supported same-sex marriage, racial equality, and the notion that all people have the right to worship or refuse to worship as they see fit. Am I not "open minded" because I believe in the Almighty? Am I being excluded from the enlightened humanist club for subscribing to a belief structure that fits a category as large and broad as "organized religion"?

I hate to paint in broad strokes, but this is why the atheist movement has alienated me. I was never an atheist myself, but at one time I saw them as people I had a lot in common with. Like myself they're a religious minority (more or less). Like myself they want to make sure the church/state wall remains in place. Like myself they just want the right to believe what they believe without harassment from the state or other citizens. The more the church/state debate evolved, however, the more extreme the atheist movement got, and I came to realize that these similarities simply weren't enough for me to identity with them any longer. At the end of the day I'm going to be lumped in with Bible thumpers just because I maintain my own religious beliefs.

And further that since Hitler perpetrated one of the greatest evils known to mankind this is evidence of man's evil, not religions. Nazi Germany (though not overtly a religious movement) in many ways functioned much like religious idealogy does...and AS an orthodoxy passed down from a single (infallible?/immortal?) leader whose authority nor motives could not be questioned. Hitler and Stalin, Kim Jong Il and every tryannical, murderous despot/demigod have a lot more in common with religious heirarchy (when it comes to dissention not being tolerated) than not.

This just proves my point though. That the evils we associate with religion are not exclusive to religion. If a secular ideology can act on intolerance in much the same way that religion can, if what we see as religious persecution can be replicated with a secular ideology in place of a religious doctrine, then we can conclude that intolerance and persecution are not exclusive to religion. It's human nature, or perhaps a defect within it, that leads some to pervert whatever ideology is convenient in the name of seeking power and killing others.

Being religious predisposes one to being a bigot no more then being a socialist predisposes one to being a Stalinist.

I don't think today you could argue there is any meaningful,wholesale secular intolerance left. It's a broad BROAD generalization sure to get me flamed and/or corrected, but at this point on earth...all the real campaigns of hatred are fueled by religion or with religion as a template or backdrop.

North Korea, the People's Republic of China, Lukashenko's Belarus, among other dictatorships seem to stand in the way of civil rights and personal freedoms without the use of religion.

Groups that espouse white supremacy may use religious window dressing, but their roots are founded in the KKK, which sprung up as a group dedicated to avenging the Confederate loss in the Civil War, and Nazism. The British Nationalist Party, a white supremacy party, uses ethnic nationalism as the basis of their intolerance, not religion.

Further you admit that, at the very least, secular intolerance did exist at one point. Nazism, Soviet Communism, scientific racism, eugenics, all of these movements were intolerant in nature, and yet they were secular. Even after they've lost meaningful influence their existence and one-time prominence is enough to prove that intolerance is not the exclusive domain of religion, that it's capable of growing out of any ideology or belief system that we as humans can come up with.

The only campaign of intolerance that I would say is unmistakably fuelled by religion is the same sex marriage debate. As to that, I addressed it in my earlier post that I slimmed down significantly. I'll re-state it here. I believe the Bible is a work of man, and as such is flawed. I believe the Bible, as it relates to my own religious beliefs (what Christians call the Old Testament) can be divided into two parts. The parts that remain relevant today and the parts which are just vestiges from a bygone era. Leviticus belongs to the latter. It's just a guide for how a desert tribe 5,000 years ago should have lived. It's interesting because of that, but it is not relevant in today's world. What laws and customs may have worked for my ancestors are not relevant to me, a Jew living in the 21st century. I believe that dwelling on these vestiges leaves one blind to G-d's true designs. I believe in the G-d of Israel, but I reject the notion that Leviticus is His word that was meant to be rigidly followed for all time.

I've reconciled my faith, my belief in the Lord, and what I feel is relevant in today's society. I've done that because I honestly believe in both the Almighty and progressive ideals. If others want to dwell on a code of conduct that was relevant to Jews wandering the desert 5,0000 years ago that's their prerogative, but I will object to it and defend those progressive ideals when they try to impose their narrow interpretation on others.

[Gothamite]

I think we can agree that there are people of faith, and whole churches, who are squarely in favor of marriage equality. It's the fundamentalists who insist that they should not be able to practice their faith, all while claiming to defend "religious freedom."

Of course, this level of abject hypocrisy is nothing new from opponents of civil rights. Since we've started talking history, it's a little like the Confederacy's modern apologists pretending that the South was defending the very noble-sounding cause of "states' rights," while hoping others don't notice that the CSA's constitution forbade states from exercising a right to outlaw slavery.

Just as false is the notion that marriage equality poses any conceivable threat threat to churches, existing marriages or the institution itself.

[IceCap]

I think we can agree that there are people of faith, and whole churches, who are squarely in favor of marriage equality. It's the fundamentalists who insist that they should not be able to practice their faith, all while claiming to defend "religious freedom."

The religious freedom approach never held any water. Legalized same sex marriage would not force any church to perform them that rejected the notion. A church's freedom to decide who they marry wouldn't be impacted. The fact that you do have a (growing) number of religious institutions willing to perform same sex marriages is the point I raise when people lump everyone of faith in with fundamentalists who can't see past their own narrow interpretations of the Bible.

Of course, this level of abject hypocrisy is nothing new from opponents of civil rights. Since we've started talking history, it's a little like the Confederacy's modern apologists pretending that the South was defending the very noble-sounding cause of "states' rights," while hoping others don't notice that the CSA's constitution forbade states from exercising a right to outlaw slavery.

The "the CSA was only fighting for state's rights" argument is so 1980s The newest train of thought coming from the Confederate-centric school of historic thought is two pronged, and it's even more ludicrous. The argument coming out of history departments in some prominent southern universities is (and I want to make it clear that this is their interpretation of history, not my own) that slavery was on its way out and that the north imposing itself only worsened race relations by speeding up the process, and that the slave owners were just as much victims as the slaves because they were forced to sink considerable capital into a workforce that was provided with free housing and food. I kid you not. People trained as professional historians, people who obviously have some level of intelligence to make it to this level of academia, are making these arguments.

Just as false is the notion that marriage equality poses any conceivable threat threat to churches, existing marriages or the institution itself.

Same sex marriage has been legal up here for a while now. Churches aren't any less "free," marriage hasn't been cheapened, society hasn't collapsed, and Nazis aren't riding around on dinosaurs. Mr. Tyree's "it's a slippery slope to anarchy" argument is completely invalid. Just look across the border

[DEAD!]

Just as false is the notion that marriage equality poses any conceivable threat threat to churches, existing marriages or the institution itself.

Same sex marriage has been legal up here for a while now. Churches aren't any less "free," marriage hasn't been cheapened, society hasn't collapsed, and Nazis aren't riding around on dinosaurs. Mr. Tyree's "it's a slippery slope to anarchy" argument is completely invalid. Just look across the border

... yeah Vancouver is a great example...

[IceCap]

So the reports about the rioters not being true Canucks fans were true! DAMN TEH GAYZ!

[DEAD!]

So the reports about the rioters not being true Canucks fans were true! DAMN TEH GAYZ!

What? There are no gay Canucks fans? How do you explain Johnny Canuck?

[IceCap]

So the reports about the rioters not being true Canucks fans were true! DAMN TEH GAYZ!

What? There are no gay Canucks fans? How do you explain Johnny Canuck?

He's just a

.

[rams80]

I think we can agree that there are people of faith, and whole churches, who are squarely in favor of marriage equality. It's the fundamentalists who insist that they should not be able to practice their faith, all while claiming to defend "religious freedom."

Of course, this level of abject hypocrisy is nothing new from opponents of civil rights. Since we've started talking history, it's a little like the Confederacy's modern apologists pretending that the South was defending the very noble-sounding cause of "states' rights," while hoping others don't notice that the CSA's constitution forbade states from exercising a right to outlaw slavery.

Just as false is the notion that marriage equality poses any conceivable threat threat to churches, existing marriages or the institution itself.

They drew a hard line central government trumps everything stance on only that?! What the ?! Goddamn obeisance to the altar of state's rights led to, among other things, Georgia getting to decide what precisely it did with its troops. To the general detriment of the war effort and goal of keeping the state untorched. Properly subordinating the state units to the Central Government might not of changed much in the long run, but still, this entire stance is inexplicably stupid in that context.

[thespleenenator]

Again, I take issue. Open-minded, in the way you use it here, implies atheists. And this isn't a minor point of disagreement that I find offensive. It's something I find terribly offensive. In a broad sense lets look at one of the largest Christian churches in the world, the Anglican Church. They're marrying gays where it's legal to do so and the Church allows women and openly gay men to serve as priests. Are they not "open-minded"?

In a personal sense lets take a look at myself. I've always supported same-sex marriage, racial equality, and the notion that all people have the right to worship or refuse to worship as they see fit. Am I not "open minded" because I believe in the Almighty? Am I being excluded from the enlightened humanist club for subscribing to a belief structure that fits a category as large and broad as "organized religion"?

I hate to paint in broad strokes, but this is why the atheist movement has alienated me. I was never an atheist myself, but at one time I saw them as people I had a lot in common with. Like myself they're a religious minority (more or less). Like myself they want to make sure the church/state wall remains in place. Like myself they just want the right to believe what they believe without harassment from the state or other citizens. The more the church/state debate evolved, however, the more extreme the atheist movement got, and I came to realize that these similarities simply weren't enough for me to identity with them any longer. At the end of the day I'm going to be lumped in with Bible thumpers just because I maintain my own religious beliefs.

You're not being clumped with the evangelical crazies, but it is not possible to be 100% open minded if you are religious in any way. To be part of a religion, there are always certain beliefs that you have to adhere to. An open minded person is someone who accepts that anything is possible. If you were open minded, then you would have to accept that Jesus might not have been the most important profit, or that we are reincarnated after we die, or that there is a flying spaghetti monster that rules over the heavens. I think atheist is a term used much to loosely. An atheist is someone who believes that there is no such thing as religion and that there is no possible way that religious beliefs could be correct. This is another group that many people get lumped in with. There are many open minded people who just don't belief in god, but they are always labeled as a evil atheist who wants religious people to die. This is what you were doing when you talked about your experience with atheists.

North Korea, the People's Republic of China, Lukashenko's Belarus, among other dictatorships seem to stand in the way of civil rights and personal freedoms without the use of religion.

China is not a dictatorship. It is a communist/capitalist nation. Dictatorships are run by one person.

[rams80]

China is not a dictatorship. It is a communist/capitalist nation. Dictatorships are run by one person.

It's a single party state with very strong dictatorial leanings. In particular the party itself is dominated by a relatively small oligarchy of people. So while it isn't Nazi Germany, it's close enough in terms of political freedom.

[IceCap]

Again, I take issue. Open-minded, in the way you use it here, implies atheists. And this isn't a minor point of disagreement that I find offensive. It's something I find terribly offensive. In a broad sense lets look at one of the largest Christian churches in the world, the Anglican Church. They're marrying gays where it's legal to do so and the Church allows women and openly gay men to serve as priests. Are they not "open-minded"?

In a personal sense lets take a look at myself. I've always supported same-sex marriage, racial equality, and the notion that all people have the right to worship or refuse to worship as they see fit. Am I not "open minded" because I believe in the Almighty? Am I being excluded from the enlightened humanist club for subscribing to a belief structure that fits a category as large and broad as "organized religion"?

I hate to paint in broad strokes, but this is why the atheist movement has alienated me. I was never an atheist myself, but at one time I saw them as people I had a lot in common with. Like myself they're a religious minority (more or less). Like myself they want to make sure the church/state wall remains in place. Like myself they just want the right to believe what they believe without harassment from the state or other citizens. The more the church/state debate evolved, however, the more extreme the atheist movement got, and I came to realize that these similarities simply weren't enough for me to identity with them any longer. At the end of the day I'm going to be lumped in with Bible thumpers just because I maintain my own religious beliefs.

You're not being clumped with the evangelical crazies, but it is not possible to be 100% open minded if you are religious in any way. To be part of a religion, there are always certain beliefs that you have to adhere to. An open minded person is someone who accepts that anything is possible. If you were open minded, then you would have to accept that Jesus might not have been the most important profit, or that we are reincarnated after we die, or that there is a flying spaghetti monster that rules over the heavens. I think atheist is a term used much to loosely. An atheist is someone who believes that there is no such thing as religion and that there is no possible way that religious beliefs could be correct. This is another group that many people get lumped in with. There are many open minded people who just don't belief in god, but they are always labeled as a evil atheist who wants religious people to die. This is what you were doing when you talked about your experience with atheists.

By your own argument an atheist can't be open-minded either. To be an atheist you denounce the belief in a higher divine authority. By doing so you are not being open-minded, by your own flawed definition.

The only open-minded people, according to you, are agnostics.

Basically if you want to call me closed minded for believing in G-d I can call you closed minded for being an atheist using your own line of reasoning.

Rather then prescribe to your line of reasoning I offer an alternative; that one's religious affiliation is not an indicator of their degree of "open-mindness." To jump to that assumption is a form of intolerance in and of itself.