OT: Harrison Butker's Speech

[4XPIPS]

I can't understand the amount of public support this individual is getting for his commencement address. Even the skanky daughter Gracie of the Hunt family shared her support for his speech, as said" Well, I can only speak from my own experience, which is I've had the most incredible mom who had the ability to stay home and be with us as kids growing up. And I understand that there are many women out there who can't make that decision. But for me and my life, I know it was really formative and in shaping me and my siblings into who we are." Well yes true Gracie, when you grow up in a billion dollar household.

This is absolutely disgusting, and I believe every time he lines up for a kick this year he is going to get booed

[jshawaii22]

Did you actually listen to the speech? You seem to miss the point that this was not a public speech. It was to a conservative, Catholic, Bible Belt college. No one walked out during the speech. He got a standing ovation from the audience, but it doesn't matter to you because of the 'skanky' daughter of the team owner doesn't see it your way. Got it.
So, talking about being a good parent is now not allowed if it doesn't hold the progressive political motive... hmmm.... I don't think so.
Would you of rather he talked about how progressive we are that we allow post-puberty men in girls lockers because they identify as 'female' or maybe he should of talked about how nice it is for grown men to play girls sports because, well... just because. Oh, to be a Progressive!

[4XPIPS]

Did you actually listen to the speech? You seem to miss the point that this was not a public speech. It was to a conservative, Catholic, Bible Belt college. No one walked out during the speech. He got a standing ovation from the audience, but it doesn't matter to you because of the 'skanky' daughter of the team owner doesn't see it your way. Got it.
So, talking about being a good parent is now not allowed if it doesn't hold the progressive political motive... hmmm.... I don't think so.
Would you of rather he talked about how progressive we are that we allow post-puberty men in girls lockers because they identify as 'female' or maybe he should of talked about how nice it is for grown men to play girls sports because, well... just because. Oh, to be a Progressive!

I did listen to the speech, and whether you want to categorize it as a public speech or not makes no difference as he played his view towards women and the LGTBQ community. You seemed to be quite nerved from my post, because like you I am allowed to formulate my opinion and distaste to HB as much you care to support his agenda. I like how you pick context that makes it validate his position, but yet in his own words

“I think it is you the women who have had the most diabolical lies told to you, going on to explain that those lies were about careers: I can tell you that my beautiful wife Isabelle would be the first to say that her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as a mother"

So what does that mean to you? Women you have all been lied to your whole life, but the truth comes out when you become a mother and a homemaker? Is that where it begins? You can interpret that anyway you want, but that seems to me that he putting women in their lane.

[River_Dog]

I listened to the speech, and although I might not have agreed with everything he said, I had zero problems with it. He was not insulting, did not make any false claims, didn't call out any individuals or groups, was very well spoken and was well received by his audience.

The content of his speech may not have been completely in line with contemporary life, but so what? I thought that the reaction was hugely overblown and was surprised that it's gained so much attention. He was not speaking for the Chiefs or the league. He was simply exercising his First Amendment right to free speech.

[NorthHawk]

The words he's reported to have said (I didn't hear his speech) has been suggested that it puts women back in the kitchen and not fulfilling their personal aspirational goals.
It's odd coming from a guy whose mother is a medical physicist and worked with cutting edge technology. So it would appear he didn't grow up with these values.

[River_Dog]

The words he's reported to have said (I didn't hear his speech) has been suggested that it puts women back in the kitchen and not fulfilling their personal aspirational goals.
It's odd coming from a guy whose mother is a medical physicist and worked with cutting edge technology. So it would appear he didn't grow up with these values.

Here's some direct quotes from the more controversial parts of his speech:

In one particularly scrutinized segment, Butker addressed "the women" graduates directly in an attempt to counter the "most diabolical lies" they have been told. More than professional achievements, he said they should be excited to take on the "vocation" of homemaker, using his own wife, Isabelle Butker, as an example.

He shared that his wife’s life “really started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as a mother," and later said, "Isabelle’s dream of having a career might not have come true, but if you asked her today if she has any regrets on her decision, she would laugh out loud, without hesitation, and say, ‘Heck, no.’"

He urged the men in the graduating class to be "unapologetic in your masculinity, fighting against the cultural emasculation of men."

And here's another section that raised some eyebrows:

Butker described Catholic pride as "not the deadly sin sort of pride that has an entire month dedicated to it, but true God-centered pride," an apparent dig at Pride Month.

On the topic of birth control, he said, "There is nothing good about playing God with having children — whether that be your ideal number or the perfect time to conceive." He called out abortion, IVF and surrogacy as symptoms of "disorder."

I don't agree with him, to contrary, I strongly disagree with some of the things he said. For example, my only grandchild (that I know of) was a product of IVF and of which I contributed to financially. My daughter and son-in-law tried for years to have a child the old-fashioned way. The closest Butker came to calling out a group was when he indirectly described homosexuality as a "deadly sin". But one has to keep in mind where he gave the speech: It was at a Catholic college, a private institution. Had he been speaking to a different audience, he might have chosen his words more carefully. I doubt that he anticipated it being spread all over the globe.

He has a right to speak his mind just as much as does the LBGT community.

[Stream Hawk]

Did you actually listen to the speech? You seem to miss the point that this was not a public speech. It was to a conservative, Catholic, Bible Belt college. No one walked out during the speech. He got a standing ovation from the audience, but it doesn't matter to you because of the 'skanky' daughter of the team owner doesn't see it your way. Got it.
So, talking about being a good parent is now not allowed if it doesn't hold the progressive political motive... hmmm.... I don't think so.
Would you of rather he talked about how progressive we are that we allow post-puberty men in girls lockers because they identify as 'female' or maybe he should of talked about how nice it is for grown men to play girls sports because, well... just because. Oh, to be a Progressive!

It was a great speech - in 1824! This was a COLLEGE graduation commencement speech. What is this "diabolical" lie that women are being fed? That it's OK for them to work for a living? Harrison came off as chauvinistic and patronizing. His own mother is a physician; she must be so proud of her kicker.

I imagine he will hear crazy boos all season.

[River_Dog]

It was a great speech - in 1824! This was a COLLEGE graduation commencement speech. What is this "diabolical" lie that women are being fed? That it's OK for them to work for a living? Harrison came off as chauvinistic and patronizing. His own mother is a physician; she must be so proud of her kicker.

I imagine he will hear crazy boos all season.

The 'great speech' date should be 1954, the year of my birth, not 1824. My mother was a stay-at-home mom for about 10 years until my brother and I were both old enough to attend school. Back then, a person could raise a family on one middle class income. My dad was a clerk in a cannery. And it was a small, conservative Catholic college graduation commencement speech, a very specific audience.

Butker's wife had given up her career in order to raise a family, and IMO he was trying to tell the women graduates that it was OK not to chase a career and that there was no shame in being a homemaker. I agree that the words he chose were probably inappropriate had the audience been more diverse, but his comments seemed to be well received by those he was speaking to.

And yes, you're right, he is going to hear a lot of boos this season. I'm still wondering if he had any idea that it would go so viral as it has. It would be nice to hear from Butker, if he regrets making those comments, if he stands by them, et al.

[Aseahawkfan]

I don't feel the need to care about some conservative speech I don't agree with any more than I want to care about some liberal speech I don't agree with, but I'm firmly of the mind a human should be able to speak their beliefs and not be fired and have their livelihood destroyed unless it is obvious they are encouraging physical harm to others, not just possibly hurting their feelings. People are allowed to have different beliefs without having their livelihoods destroyed.

If you don't feel like buying their jersey or supporting them or the team or organization hiring them, that's your business. Find the alternatives.

I don't feel the need to punish someone for voicing their religious beliefs any more than I feel the need to punish some person for being trans or homosexual even though I'm not particularly interested in either belief or behavior. It's not my business to bother someone about their individual life choices and behaviors so long as it doesn't physically harm others which hopefully the police will handle should it come to that. This is America. You are supposed to be able to walk your own path without the mob trying to punish you for doing so whether it's a religious speech like Butker or being a trans person changing their gender using a surgical and chemical medical process. It's not our business to police everyone's words and choices and try to punish them into conformity.

[River_Dog]

I don't feel the need to care about some conservative speech I don't agree with any more than I want to care about some liberal speech I don't agree with, but I'm firmly of the mind a human should be able to speak their beliefs and not be fired and have their livelihood destroyed unless it is obvious they are encouraging physical harm to others, not just possibly hurting their feelings. People are allowed to have different beliefs without having their livelihoods destroyed.

I moistly agree except for the part about 'not being fired'. It depends on what kind of job you hold. Some companies will make you sign a conflict-of-interest agreement that includes language that more or less says you are not to bring any unwanted attention or scrutiny to the company via the public expression of political, religious, or other personal beliefs. That's how companies can break advertising contracts with personalities who do something of the nature that Butker has done.

If you don't feel like buying their jersey or supporting them or the team or organization hiring them, that's your business. Find the alternatives.

Which is one of the reasons why I've never bought a jersey with a player's name/number on it.

I don't feel the need to punish someone for voicing their religious beliefs any more than I feel the need to punish some person for being trans or homosexual even though I'm not particularly interested in either belief or behavior. It's not my business to bother someone about their individual life choices and behaviors so long as it doesn't physically harm others which hopefully the police will handle should it come to that. This is America. You are supposed to be able to walk your own path without the mob trying to punish you for doing so whether it's a religious speech like Butker or being a trans person changing their gender using a surgical and chemical medical process. It's not our business to police everyone's words and choices and try to punish them into conformity.

Agreed.

[Aseahawkfan]

I moistly agree except for the part about 'not being fired'. It depends on what kind of job you hold. Some companies will make you sign a conflict-of-interest agreement that includes language that more or less says you are not to bring any unwanted attention or scrutiny to the company via the public expression of political, religious, or other personal beliefs. That's how companies can break advertising contracts with personalities who do something of the nature that Butker has done.

I don't personally like corporate power being used to curtail free speech myself. I think there should be laws protecting people from corporations requiring this in almost any way. Then again I don't like corporations and I think they exert way too much political, economic, and social power they were never intended to have in a free society like America. But that's a different discussion.

I also understand in some jobs like face person for a brand, it's important you don't do things counter to the brand. For general corporate jobs or skill jobs within a corporate structure, I don't think it should be legal to fire someone for speaking their mind in public or not. Free speech should not be curtailed by corporate interests when corporations have reached the institutional size and power they currently have as they have become more more like mini-countries such as Disney or Microsoft or Walmart having hundreds of thousands of employees and exerting massive economic, political, and social power on a nearly global scale. If you exert similar economic and political power to a small nation or a state including governmental asset and liability protections, you should be subject to Bill of Rights protections for individuals.

[NorthHawk]

With the NFL actively courting the Taylor Swift fanatics (in the hope of generating more revenue), I wonder if they will be pleased if it turns them off.
They may not be able to do anything about it but then again Kaepernick?

[River_Dog]

With the NFL actively courting the Taylor Swift fanatics (in the hope of generating more revenue), I wonder if they will be pleased if it turns them off.
They may not be able to do anything about it but then again Kaepernick?

Yeah, apparently, it's Taylor Swift's fans who are the most pissed off. The league can't be too happy about that.

I understand the analogy between Butker and Kaepernick, but the big difference, at least in my mind, is that Kaepernick's 'freedom of speech' expression was on the field and in uniform, so he was representing the team and the league, and that obviously wasn't the case in Butker's remarks.

[NorthHawk]

I meant the comparison in the manner that the NFL can make life difficult for a player if they want to, not the positions taken. I should have been clearer.

[River_Dog]

I meant the comparison in the manner that the NFL can make life difficult for a player if they want to, not the positions taken. I should have been clearer.

These players are getting paid so much that I have a hard time generating any sympathy for them on almost any matter.

[River_Dog]

I don't personally like corporate power being used to curtail free speech myself. I think there should be laws protecting people from corporations requiring this in almost any way. Then again I don't like corporations and I think they exert way too much political, economic, and social power they were never intended to have in a free society like America. But that's a different discussion.

I also understand in some jobs like face person for a brand, it's important you don't do things counter to the brand. For general corporate jobs or skill jobs within a corporate structure, I don't think it should be legal to fire someone for speaking their mind in public or not. Free speech should not be curtailed by corporate interests when corporations have reached the institutional size and power they currently have as they have become more more like mini-countries such as Disney or Microsoft or Walmart having hundreds of thousands of employees and exerting massive economic, political, and social power on a nearly global scale. If you exert similar economic and political power to a small nation or a state including governmental asset and liability protections, you should be subject to Bill of Rights protections for individuals.

As you indicated, it depends on the job you hold within the company. If you're the night janitor, then yes, companies should not be restricting your right to free speech. But if you're the CEO, your statements and actions can and do have a direct impact on the company's business so IMO they are completely justified in muting their employees. How far down the corporate ladder one goes with that requirement is up for debate.

[trents]

Butker spoke truth, God's truth, what Scripture teaches, and what is eternal instead of what is existential. He was not putting down women who want to have professional careers. He was speaking out against those who belittle women as inferior who place value on being wives, mothers and homemakers. He was not advocating male chauvinism, who was advocating unashamed maleness.

[River_Dog]

Butker spoke truth, God's truth, what Scripture teaches, and what is eternal instead of what is existential. He was not putting down women who want to have professional careers. He was speaking out against those who belittle women as inferior who place value on being wives, mothers and homemakers. He was not advocating male chauvinism, who was advocating unashamed maleness.

I am troubled by some of the language he used, particularly the way he described homosexuality as a "deadly sin". He's certainly entitled to his opinion and I think way too much has been made out of it, but it's that kind of inflammatory terminology he used in his speech that has caused the uproar.

I'm still wondering if he expected his speech to go viral like it did, and if he did, if he would have altered his speech to account for the larger audience he ended up speaking to had he known that in advance.

[c_hawkbob]

If he were black and speaking at a HBCU about how blacks have the extra burden of their race to contend with in the navigation of the business world how many of you would be shouting "just shut up and kick"?

I haven't commented on this because he was a Catholic at a Catholic institution spouting Catholic dogma, however archaic, but the differences in it's reception are undeniable. I do find it interesting that he got pushback from the institution itself.

[River_Dog]

If he were black and speaking at a HBCU about how blacks have the extra burden of their race to contend with in the navigation of the business world how many of you would be shouting "just shut up and kick"?

So long as the HBCU was private and not a state school, I don't see any difference in the venues, and speaking for myself, I honestly wouldn't be saying "shut up and kick," or at least I hope I wouldn't.

My big problem with athletes and their politics, ie Kaepernick, Michael Bennett, and so on, is that they were using the NFL's platform in front of a much broader audience in mostly publicly funded venues to express their personal opinions. This is different. This was in a private university, pretty much none of my business what they do there.

I haven't commented on this because he was a Catholic at a Catholic institution spouting Catholic dogma, however archaic, but the differences in it's reception are undeniable. I do find it interesting that he got pushback from the institution itself.

I honestly haven't seen that much blowback outside of the initial social media fury. I did see where Andy Reid and Patrick Mahomes supported his right to his opinion while not necessarily agreeing with him, which IMO is exactly how I view the matter.

Like Stream Hawk said, he's sure going to hear it this season whenever he walks onto the field for an XP or FG.

[c_hawkbob]

Pushback, not blowback, which at least sounds more extreme:

An order of nuns affiliated with Benedictine College rejected Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison's Butker's comments in a commencement speech there last weekend that stirred up a culture war skirmish.

"The sisters of Mount St. Scholastica do not believe that Harrison Butker's comments in his 2024 Benedictine College commencement address represent the Catholic, Benedictine, liberal arts college that our founders envisioned and in which we have been so invested," the nuns wrote in a statement posted on Facebook.

"Instead of promoting unity in our church, our nation, and the world, his comments seem to have fostered division," they wrote. "One of our concerns was the assertion that being a homemaker is the highest calling for a woman. We sisters have dedicated our lives to God and God's people, including the many women whom we have taught and influenced during the past 160 years. These women have made a tremendous difference in the world in their roles as wives and mothers and through their God-given gifts in leadership, scholarship, and their careers."

[Aseahawkfan]

If he were black and speaking at a HBCU about how blacks have the extra burden of their race to contend with in the navigation of the business world how many of you would be shouting "just shut up and kick"?

I haven't commented on this because he was a Catholic at a Catholic institution spouting Catholic dogma, however archaic, but the differences in it's reception are undeniable. I do find it interesting that he got pushback from the institution itself.

Not me, which is why you didn't see me saying much about Colin K other than he sucks or caring when people were kneeling.

I'd rather be in a country where a person can kneel at a game to protest something or give a speech at a Catholic College than in a country where you get shot or jailed for saying the littlest bad thing about a leader or country like they do in China or North Korea or being beaten in public even like Singapore.

That's what my grandfathers fought in the wars for. Not for the flag or patriotism or some national pride or idea of perfection, but first for their families and to be free men living in a free nation where you can voice your opinion whether or not someone disagrees with it. That's what they fought for. The flag only means something if it stands for something and our flag stands for freedom of speech and a free nation where people can speak their minds and believe as they wish.

[4XPIPS]

Butker spoke truth, God's truth, what Scripture teaches, and what is eternal instead of what is existential. He was not putting down women who want to have professional careers. He was speaking out against those who belittle women as inferior who place value on being wives, mothers and homemakers. He was not advocating male chauvinism, who was advocating unashamed maleness.

God's Truth, based on what? It's truly sad when religion has so much control over what a person's beliefs are. It's even more sad that how many wars have happened on the basis of religion. I just don't understand why having two men love each other or two women love each other should be a sin. Albeit I support gay rights, but I do not support biological males competing in women's sports, nor do I support biological males allowed to be in a women's bathroom regardless of what they choose to identify as. My uncle from Queen Anne, has been gay since high school, and have to live under threat of violence and acceptance for most of young adult life. However, like him we support pride month but we both strongly disagree of the abuse of the "pronouns" and this belief that being non-binary is a thing.

I don't have an issue with Harrison Butker exercising his right to Freedom of Expression or Speech. I also fully commend his courage to speak freely and do so. However, he is open to public scrutiny and criticism. You are saying he wasn't putting women down and I agree with that. However, the message is pretty clear that women belong in the kitchen being mothers and being a "homemaker."

[River_Dog]

I don't have an issue with Harrison Butker exercising his right to Freedom of Expression or Speech. I also fully commend his courage to speak freely and do so. However, he is open to public scrutiny and criticism. You are saying he wasn't putting women down and I agree with that. However, the message is pretty clear that women belong in the kitchen being mothers and being a "homemaker."

Just a comment about the being open to public scrutiny and criticism. I'm still wondering if Butker knew his speech was going to go viral like it did. I suppose he should have realized that it would make it into the public domain, but it's not as if he were giving a speech at a political convention or the downtown boosters club which are more or less public. This was in a religious, private setting.

The other thing is that I haven't heard Butker come out and either apologize for his remarks or defend/explain them. Maybe he just wants the whole thing to go away and thinks that his coming out would just perpetuate the debate.

[4XPIPS]

Just a comment about the being open to public scrutiny and criticism. I'm still wondering if Butker knew his speech was going to go viral like it did. I suppose he should have realized that it would make it into the public domain, but it's not as if he were giving a speech at a political convention or the downtown boosters club which are more or less public. This was in a religious, private setting.

The other thing is that I haven't heard Butker come out and either apologize for his remarks or defend/explain them. Maybe he just wants the whole thing to go away and thinks that his coming out would just perpetuate the debate.

From what I heard is that he doubled down on his stance because of the immense support he has received from religious politicians, and support from Gracie Hunt. When Chris Kluwe spoke out about Gay Rights, he was cut thereafter and never played again in the NFL. I guess it depends who you rub the wrong way and the support you get when it comes to keeping your position.

[River_Dog]

Just a comment about the being open to public scrutiny and criticism. I'm still wondering if Butker knew his speech was going to go viral like it did. I suppose he should have realized that it would make it into the public domain, but it's not as if he were giving a speech at a political convention or the downtown boosters club which are more or less public. This was in a religious, private setting.

The other thing is that I haven't heard Butker come out and either apologize for his remarks or defend/explain them. Maybe he just wants the whole thing to go away and thinks that his coming out would just perpetuate the debate.

From what I heard is that he doubled down on his stance because of the immense support he has received from religious politicians, and support from Gracie Hunt. When Chris Kluwe spoke out about Gay Rights, he was cut thereafter and never played again in the NFL. I guess it depends who you rub the wrong way and the support you get when it comes to keeping your position.

OK, thanks. I was hoping that he regretted some of the terms he used, but even so, he's still entitled to his opinion.

[trents]

If he were black and speaking at a HBCU about how blacks have the extra burden of their race to contend with in the navigation of the business world how many of you would be shouting "just shut up and kick"?

I haven't commented on this because he was a Catholic at a Catholic institution spouting Catholic dogma, however archaic, but the differences in it's reception are undeniable. I do find it interesting that he got pushback from the institution itself.

I don't find that surprising at all. The Catholic church as a whole has taken a huge lurch toward the left in recent times and has abandoned many of its own basic doctrines. The current Pope is a card carrying theological liberal. Having said that, there is still a contingent of Catholics who honor the historic theological positions of the church. Let me assure you. Modern day Roman Catholicism is anything but theologically monolithic. Butker is apparently a Catholic who remains faithful to the historic teachings of the church.

[c_hawkbob]

If he were black and speaking at a HBCU about how blacks have the extra burden of their race to contend with in the navigation of the business world how many of you would be shouting "just shut up and kick"?

I haven't commented on this because he was a Catholic at a Catholic institution spouting Catholic dogma, however archaic, but the differences in it's reception are undeniable. I do find it interesting that he got pushback from the institution itself.

I don't find that surprising at all. The Catholic church as a whole has taken a huge lurch toward the left in recent times and has abandoned many of its own basic doctrines. The current Pope is a card carrying theological liberal. Having said that, there is still a contingent of Catholics who honor the historic theological positions of the church. Let me assure you. Modern day Roman Catholicism is anything but theologically monolithic. Butker is apparently a Catholic who remains faithful to the historic teachings of the church.

That's not a dichotomy peculiar to the Catholic church. In every religion there are fundamentalist hardliners vs progressives, Old Testament fire and brimstone vs New Testament forgiveness and inclusion, "eye for an eye" vs "turn the other cheek".

[Stream Hawk]

[quote= "River_Dog"] The 'great speech' date should be 1954, the year of my birth, not 1824. My mother was a stay-at-home mom for about 10 years until my brother and I were both old enough to attend school. Back then, a person could raise a family on one middle class income. My dad was a clerk in a cannery. And it was a small, conservative Catholic college graduation commencement speech, a very specific audience.

Butker's wife had given up her career in order to raise a family, and IMO he was trying to tell the women graduates that it was OK not to chase a career and that there was no shame in being a homemaker. I agree that the words he chose were probably inappropriate had the audience been more diverse, but his comments seemed to be well received by those he was speaking to.

And yes, you're right, he is going to hear a lot of boos this season. I'm still wondering if he had any idea that it would go so viral as it has. It would be nice to hear from Butker, if he regrets making those comments, if he stands by them, et al.[/quote]

Fair point about 1954, not 1824. I was trying to exaggerate for effect. Absolutely in the 1950's, and then into the 60's, 70's, and 80's a "mother" could easily be a housewife. Women are much more likely to work and contribute to a household income the past few decades.

I also agree that it was a small Catholic college, so his audience was mostly OK with his stance. But I expect not all of the young graduating women were thrilled; they probably had to repress their opinions, though.

Yep. I expect some serious backlash by fans. I heard someone comment that a defender might choose to bullrush and hit Butker pretty hard, only to be tagged with a 15-yard penalty.

[Aseahawkfan]

I don't find that surprising at all. The Catholic church as a whole has taken a huge lurch toward the left in recent times and has abandoned many of its own basic doctrines. The current Pope is a card carrying theological liberal. Having said that, there is still a contingent of Catholics who honor the historic theological positions of the church. Let me assure you. Modern day Roman Catholicism is anything but theologically monolithic. Butker is apparently a Catholic who remains faithful to the historic teachings of the church.

Even churches must adapt to changing viewpoints to survive, good and bad.

[trents]

I don't find that surprising at all. The Catholic church as a whole has taken a huge lurch toward the left in recent times and has abandoned many of its own basic doctrines. The current Pope is a card carrying theological liberal. Having said that, there is still a contingent of Catholics who honor the historic theological positions of the church. Let me assure you. Modern day Roman Catholicism is anything but theologically monolithic. Butker is apparently a Catholic who remains faithful to the historic teachings of the church.

Even churches must adapt to changing viewpoints to survive, good and bad.

Wrong! That is the problem with a large part of Christendom today. It has felt the need to accommodate itself to the values of the world and in so doing has lost its power to change lives and cultures. It has allowed the world to change it rather than the other way around as the Lord of the church intended.

[trents]

"That's not a dichotomy peculiar to the Catholic church. In every religion there are fundamentalist hardliners vs progressives, Old Testament fire and brimstone vs New Testament forgiveness and inclusion, "eye for an eye" vs "turn the other cheek"."

And that is a common misconception that I often here from those who haven't actually spent much time in the Word. There are plenty of examples of God's of "forgiveness and inclusion" in the Old Testament and plenty of examples of "fire and brimstone" in the New.

[c_hawkbob]

Wrong! That is the problem with a large part of Christendom today. It has felt the need to accommodate itself to the values of the world and in so doing has lost its power to change lives and cultures. It has allowed the world to change it rather than the other way around as the Lord of the church intended.

Definitely the hard line POV. The church (of any religion) has always evolved. I'm sure there were hard liners in Jesus' time calling him a heretic for his sweeping redirection of old testament doctrine. In fact many contend that Mosaic Laws were set aside by the Law of Christ. And yes, I'm aware of the other side of that argument: that Jesus' doctrine was meant to affirm the Mosaic Laws, though I strongly disagree.

I could go on but I won't, these are differences of opinions that people are willing to kill each other over and reasons that I have rejected religion altogether so I'll leave this discussion now.

[River_Dog]

Fair point about 1954, not 1824. I was trying to exaggerate for effect. Absolutely in the 1950's, and then into the 60's, 70's, and 80's a "mother" could easily be a housewife. Women are much more likely to work and contribute to a household income the past few decades.

Some of it was done out of necessity. Particularly in the 70's when we had double digit inflation, you couldn't raise a family on one income and live relatively comfortably. By the time I graduated from college in 1970, it was almost an expectation that both husband and wife worked. It's one of the things that has led to the declining birth rate, that families feel that they can't afford to raise a family.

I also agree that it was a small Catholic college, so his audience was mostly OK with his stance. But I expect not all of the young graduating women were thrilled; they probably had to repress their opinions, though.

No doubt. When in Rome, do as the Romans, especially when the subject involves one of society's three taboos: Sex, politics, and religion. They don't want to rock the boat and bring attention to themselves. I certainly wouldn't want to speak up in that kind of circumstance.

Yep. I expect some serious backlash by fans. I heard someone comment that a defender might choose to bullrush and hit Butker pretty hard, only to be tagged with a 15-yard penalty.

I doubt that any player is going to go to that extreme. It's a good way to get yourself cut. Perhaps I'm being a bit pollyannish, but I believe that the vast majority of players will respect his right to his opinion even though they may disagree with him. IMO the majority will follow Andy Reid and Patrick Mahomes example. Most probably don't give a rip one way or another.

[Stream Hawk]

Yeah, I probably heard that suggestion from some random Twitter account. I like Jason Kelce’s response best!
https://x.com/nfl_dovkleiman/status/179 ... pMkhpLC7ng

[River_Dog]

Yeah, I probably heard that suggestion from some random Twitter account. I like Jason Kelce’s response best!
https://x.com/nfl_dovkleiman/status/179 ... pMkhpLC7ng

That's funny!

Just for the record, I do about 3/4 of the cooking, 3/4 of the laundry, the wife loads the dishwasher in the evening, and I run it and put the dishes away the next morning before she gets up. I also manage all the household expenses. She vacuums and dusts, I mow/maintain the outside, no small job when you live on a 1 acre lot.

[Old but Slow]

While I believe in God, I do not believe in religion. Belief and faith tend to replace thinking and logic, for one, and I feel no need for an administration between me and God.

The Bible is probably the greatest book of all time, the first true history book, and a perfect representation of oral history. Several of the gospels, at least, were written long after Christ died, so they had no direct knowledge, just the stories that were passed down. A great book, and beautiful, but not "divinely inspired". The Bible, for instance, talks of a limited God, with no regard to the vast universe, infinity, and the multiplicity of other universes. My view of God is infinite.

Most religions espouse hate for "others", and Butker's speech, while a typical conservative view, there was an aura of hate there.

And, for those who would prefer a religious state, it has been tried, and they called it the Middle Ages.

On the other hand, many people get great benefit from a church or synagogue, making bonds with their neighbors, developing community, and gaining comfort from their beliefs. More power to them.

But, not for me.

[Aseahawkfan]

While I believe in God, I do not believe in religion. Belief and faith tend to replace thinking and logic, for one, and I feel no need for an administration between me and God.

The Bible is probably the greatest book of all time, the first true history book, and a perfect representation of oral history. Several of the gospels, at least, were written long after Christ died, so they had no direct knowledge, just the stories that were passed down. A great book, and beautiful, but not "divinely inspired". The Bible, for instance, talks of a limited God, with no regard to the vast universe, infinity, and the multiplicity of other universes. My view of God is infinite.

Most religions espouse hate for "others", and Butker's speech, while a typical conservative view, there was an aura of hate there.

And, for those who would prefer a religious state, it has been tried, and they called it the Middle Ages.

On the other hand, many people get great benefit from a church or synagogue, making bonds with their neighbors, developing community, and gaining comfort from their beliefs. More power to them.

But, not for me.

Religious states still exist in the Muslim world and are clearly visible in the modern day. People should clearly see it is still a very, very bad idea to let a book interpreted by a select group of men using violence to enforce it run a nation or world. Middle Ages and past certainly were the period for The Bible to rule that area, but we still see religious rule in the modern day and it still shows itself to be a very bad idea. No need to go to the history books to see how bad religious rule is.

But we've seen forced atheism as well in Communist nations and that isn't great either.

I much prefer how we do it with an idea of individual liberty which is why Butker's speech is part of that liberty to believe as you wish without being punished by the state or mob.

[NorthHawk]

The Christian right want to force everyone to follow laws set up by Christians and for Christians - or at least their very narrow version of faith.
It's a big part of what the next election is about - freedom of religion and thought.

[Oly]

I have no problem with Butker giving the speech. I disagree with nearly all of his views, but the point of the 1st Amendment is that I should listen and be grateful to live in a society where Butker can challenge my beliefs. I supported Kaepernick's right to kneel as a manner of expression and I thought the cancel culture that came after him was un-American, and I support Butker's right to express his beliefs and think any attempt to cancel him to be equally un-American. I just hope that everyone who supported either of those players supports both.

And I'll be clear about what I mean about "un-American": I think that they both had the right to express themselves, and people have the right to cancel them for those views as they see fit. To me, what's American about free speech isn't just the idea that you can't be prosecuted for it (within boundaries), even though that's what the 1A actually expresses. The underlying American value that the 1A represents is the idea that a society works when we take ideas seriously and engage with the ideas on the merits. So, yeah, people who cancelled Kaepernick because of his views were within their rights, just as with Butker. But I'd rather live in a society where we all look at those ideas and even when we disagree with one of them, we don't try to destroy their livelihood by saying that person is the problem. We talk about the ideas. We discuss what kind of society we want to live in, what kind of police force we want, what kind of Church we want, and we get on with our lives without trying to ruin the lives of the Kaepernicks and Butkers of the world in the process.