Respect, pass it on.

[TradeNurkicNow]

"It's" means "it is." Never anything but.

This kind of thing is why the linguistics experts get paid the big bucks!

Damn right. /falls asleep on a big pile of dirty laundry

 

[The_Lillard_King]

"It's" means "it is." Never anything but.

This kind of thing is why the linguistics experts get paid the big bucks!

Maybe this" it's" feels like an "its" all of its existence. We should respect it's feeling and recognize and use it as an "its" eventhough it was created as an "it's"

 

[Denny Crane]

Maybe this" it's" feels like an "its" all of its existence. We should respect it's feeling and recognize and use it as an "its" eventhough it was created as an "it's"

I'd chalk it up to the moronic autocorrect feature in apple products.

 

[maxiep]

Well, we are "Trail Blazers". I applaud the effort (although I think we all should have civil unions, with marriage being a religious covenant), but wonder why a sports team would involve itself in politics? We have a separation between Church and State (i.e., there shall be no state-sponsored religion). How about a separation between politics and sports?

 

[Boob-No-More]

Well, we are "Trail Blazers". I applaud the effort (although I think we all should have civil unions, with marriage being a religious covenant), but wonder why a sports team would involve itself in politics? We have a separation between Church and State (i.e., there shall be no state-sponsored religion). How about a separation between politics and sports?

I vote for separation between sports and religion. No more locker room prayers, no more thanking god after a victory, no more Tim Tebow genuflecting, etc. Seriously, if there is a god, I hope he has more important things to worry about than who wins a specific game - and why would he chose to favor one team over the other? God could make a killing betting on the games and his teams would be unbeatable in a fantasy league.

BNM

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I vote for separation between sports and religion. No more locker room prayers, no more thanking god after a victory, no more Tim Tebow genuflecting, etc. Seriously, if there is a god, I hope he has more important things to worry about than who wins a specific game - and why would he chose to favor one team over the other? God could make a killing betting on the games and his teams would be unbeatable in a fantasy league.

BNM

Most religious players don't believe that God has a rooting interest in the game. They generally thank God for the gifts that allow them to perform at that level, giving Him the credit for their ability, rather than claiming the credit for themselves.

 

[Denny Crane]

I vote for separation between sports and religion. No more locker room prayers, no more thanking god after a victory, no more Tim Tebow genuflecting, etc. Seriously, if there is a god, I hope he has more important things to worry about than who wins a specific game - and why would he chose to favor one team over the other? God could make a killing betting on the games and his teams would be unbeatable in a fantasy league.

BNM

No more divine intervention?

Yikes!

 

[Boob-No-More]

Most religious players don't believe that God has a rooting interest in the game. They generally thank God for the gifts that allow them to perform at that level, giving Him the credit for their ability, rather than claiming the credit for themselves.

Tell that to the Fighting Irish.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

No more divine intervention?

Yikes!

Yeah, and then the Immaculate Reception would be nothing but a lucky bounce (exactly what it was).

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I vote for separation between sports and religion. No more locker room prayers, no more thanking god after a victory, no more Tim Tebow genuflecting, etc. Seriously, if there is a god, I hope he has more important things to worry about than who wins a specific game - and why would he chose to favor one team over the other? God could make a killing betting on the games and his teams would be unbeatable in a fantasy league.

BNM

No more Hail Mary's in football?!?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Tell that to the Fighting Irish.

BNM

Did I say all? No. And in any case, when was the last time a Notre Dame player claimed that God wanted them to win?

The point is, the examples you gave do not point to what you think it points to, and it's insulting to the majority of the religious population to assume that they think what you think they think.

Respect, pass it on.

 

[RR7]

Most religious players don't believe that God has a rooting interest in the game. They generally thank God for the gifts that allow them to perform at that level, giving Him the credit for their ability, rather than claiming the credit for themselves.

Steve Johnson:

"I PRAISE YOU 24/7!!!!!! AND THIS HOW YOU DO ME!!!!!" he tweeted late Sunday afternoon. "YOU EXPECT ME TO LEARN FROM THIS??? HOW???!!! ILL NEVER FORGET THIS!! EVER!!! THX THO…"

just playing around, btw.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Did I say all? No. And in any case, when was the last time a Notre Dame player claimed that God wanted them to win?

The point is, the examples you gave do not point to what you think it points to, and it's insulting to the majority of the religious population to assume that they think what you think they think.

Respect, pass it on.

Since it wasn't obvious: I was being facetious.

BNM

 

[Shooter]

How about the Blazers speak out in support of The Second Amendment? Every state in the union has enacted illegal infringements against it, as has the feds. Don't the Blazers believe in The Bill of Rights? Only certain rights for certain select groups? What about the child/slave labor camps that make Blazers gear the fans buy? How does that fit in with the whole good guy image they're desperately grasping for? What's their stand on Syria, or North Korea?

Nobody gives a fuck. We just want you to win a fucking title. It's been 35 years and you've used every excuse in the book.

To paraphrase Frank Zappa, Shut Up And Play Your Game.

We agree on very little, but you are so right about this. I couldn't care less what political position Paul Allen and his crew hold on anything. All I want from him is a Blazer team that will win another title. Period.

 

[MARIS61]

No apostrophe in "its". Show some respect for punctuation!

Obvious typo.

I'm pretty sure he meant "tits".

 

[MARIS61]

odd hyperbolic and pointless rambling aside, it's been 36 years.

To quote Kingspeed, learn the game, then post.

Julius, I post with Kingspeed. I know Kingspeed. Kingspeed is a friend of mine. Julius, you're no Kingspeed.

(I don't count the season following the title simply because until Walton went down that was the best basketball ever played by a team in the NBA.)

 

[crandc]

When Seattle voted on funding a shiny new stadium for the Seahawks, was that not meddling in politics?

When sports teams put on celebrations of U.S. military power, is that not politics?

There is no such thing as a sports team NOT involved in politics.

 

[MARIS61]

When Seattle voted on funding a shiny new stadium for the Seahawks, was that not meddling in politics?

When sports teams put on celebrations of U.S. military power, is that not politics?

No.

The first is private citizens investing their tax money in a business.

The second is the team promoting the military industrial complex, which is the biggest business of all.

 

[dviss1]

Well, we are "Trail Blazers". I applaud the effort (although I think we all should have civil unions, with marriage being a religious covenant), but wonder why a sports team would involve itself in politics? We have a separation between Church and State (i.e., there shall be no state-sponsored religion). How about a separation between politics and sports?

Marriage was around way before religion was so why have it as a religious covenant? A marriage is a contract between two people that doesn't require a church at all. Also Civil Unions carry over 1000 less rights than marriages do. 2 gay people getting married will not affect anyone's marriage so why deny them the right to pursue the ultimate happiness? Equal Marriage is covered by the constitution. DOMA has been struck down. People need to just accept it and move on.

 

[Denny Crane]

Marriage was around way before religion was so why have it as a religious covenant? A marriage is a contract between two people that doesn't require a church at all. Also Civil Unions carry over 1000 less rights than marriages do. 2 gay people getting married will not affect anyone's marriage so why deny them the right to pursue the ultimate happiness? Equal Marriage is covered by the constitution. DOMA has been struck down. People need to just accept it and move on.

Thiss1

 

[crandc]

Right on almost everything, dviss, except that while people pairing off and producing children is literally as old as our species (and of course predates our species) "marriage" as a legal contract is quite new. In fact "religion" as defined as a belief in supernatural beings predates a legal marriage contract.

As for the private citizens in Seattle, does Maris really believe the team did not run PSAs? Have flyers at games? Contribute money to the initiative?

 

[Reep]

Mods: does this have anything to do with basketball? Can it be moved to OT like the previous thread on the same subject?

 

[e_blazer]

Marriage was around way before religion was so why have it as a religious covenant? A marriage is a contract between two people that doesn't require a church at all. Also Civil Unions carry over 1000 less rights than marriages do. 2 gay people getting married will not affect anyone's marriage so why deny them the right to pursue the ultimate happiness? Equal Marriage is covered by the constitution. DOMA has been struck down. People need to just accept it and move on.

I'd say you've managed to provide a synopsis of the problem in your post. For people who aren't "religious", marriage is just a contract between two people who want to live together and have their relationship identified as having the legal and social benefits accorded married couples in our society. For those who have a life centered around their faith, marriage is viewed as a commitment that is made before God and is in accordance with the principles of their faith. They're not likely to "just accept" and "move on" with a substantive change in the very definition of something that is at the core of the principles by which they live .

"Equal marriage" is not, in fact, covered by the Constitution. Marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or any of the subsequent Amendments. The closest you'll come to a constitutional argument on the subject would be that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment (which states, "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.") somehow means that same-sex couples have to be afforded the right to marry if heterosexual couples have that right. So far no federal court decision has been made that would make that interpretation so individual states presently have the power to make laws either way relative to marriage.

I think that the move towards same-sex marriage is doubtless going to continue its march across the country. There may eventually be a Supreme Court decision on the topic that will decide it, but I think that many people of faith are coming around to the notion that same-sex marriage should be allowed as a civil right, even if they don't find that it fits within the theology of their religion. My bet is that when the matter is brought before the people of Oregon again, it will pass this time. As I said yesterday, I think that Christians should feel free to have an additional ceremony within the church that recognizes the religious implications of their marriage vows, but I don't think that denying a civil right to marriage for same-sex couples will continue in the near future. At least, that's the way I feel. There will be hard core fundamentalists who will continue their opposition, but I think that they will be in the minority.

 

[HailBlazers]

Marriage was around way before religion was so why have it as a religious covenant? A marriage is a contract between two people that doesn't require a church at all. Also Civil Unions carry over 1000 less rights than marriages do. 2 gay people getting married will not affect anyone's marriage so why deny them the right to pursue the ultimate happiness? Equal Marriage is covered by the constitution. DOMA has been struck down. People need to just accept it and move on.

"We hold these truths to be sacred, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

And God was around way before Marriage. I can accept that the United States has turned it's back on God and what God has proclaimed is right, and I'll continue to love and respect everyone regardless, as Jesus commands. But respect is a two way street, and by coming out in favor of what the Blazers deem is "right," they're making a side of their fan base wrong, and that IMHO is a tactless thing for a sports franchise to do.

 

[e_blazer]

"We hold these truths to be sacred, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Just for clarity, that's from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

 

[Denny Crane]

Just for clarity, that's from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

And it was rhetorical. The implication is we're born with rights, not given rights by some king who's authority comes from "God."

 

[e_blazer]

And it was rhetorical. The implication is we're born with rights, not given rights by some king who's authority comes from "God."

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

"

I understood it was rhetorical, but it could have been misconstrued as a comment on the constitutional argument that was in my previous post, which is why I said I was posting for the sake of clarity.

 

[Denny Crane]

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

 

[e_blazer]

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

And your point is?

 

[Denny Crane]

And your point is?

He was a deist and that in any of his writings, the term "Creator" does not mean "God", be it a christian, muslim, or jewish one, etc.

My quibble isn't with you. I'm clarifying for anyone who cares about it.