jshawaii22 wrote: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!
NorthHawk wrote: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.
jshawaii22 wrote: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!
Stream Hawk wrote: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.
Aseahawkfan wrote: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.
Aseahawkfan wrote: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.
Aseahawkfan wrote: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 wrote: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.
NorthHawk wrote: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?
NorthHawk wrote: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.
Aseahawkfan wrote: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.
trents wrote: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.
c_hawkbob wrote: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"?
c_hawkbob wrote: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.
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."
c_hawkbob wrote: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.
trents wrote: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.
4XPIPS wrote: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 wrote:
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.
River_Dog wrote: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 wrote: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.
c_hawkbob wrote: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.
c_hawkbob wrote: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.
trents wrote: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.
trents wrote: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.
Aseahawkfan wrote: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 wrote:
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.
Stream Hawk wrote: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.
Stream Hawk wrote: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.
Stream Hawk wrote: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.
Stream Hawk wrote: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
Old but Slow wrote: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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests