Deion Sanders (who I didn’t like) steps up to the plate
Baltimore Ravens cornerback Deion Sanders challenged all professional athletes to donate at least $1,000 apiece through payroll deductions to benefit the victims of Hurricane Katrina.
Flanked by teammates and Louisiana natives Ed Reed and Alan Ricard, Sanders on Friday called for each team in the NFL, NBA and Major League Baseball, as well as other pro sports, to help him reach a goal of $1.5 million to $3 million for the cause.
NFL minimum salary is about 100k, they can afford to give a lot more – but at least $1,000 each is way beyond reasonable.
Very heartening to see all the relief efforts from those with lots of exposure and lots of money. That’s the sort of unity we need right now.
Minimum NFL salary is over $400000
I think 1% of their salary is plenty — any other posters here give that much — especially you concerned and compassionate lefties…
You know, borna agains donate 10% of their incomes to the Church — way more than Gates or Oprah.
Something to think about, eh?
BTW, try to keep track of how mucj the Churches of all types are giving in money, food, water, supplies, and volunteer help…
Correcting Frank: first, some ‘born agains’ contribute 10% of their income to the church; the vast majority, however, do not.
Second, Frank labors under the misconception that all monies donated or tithed to a particular church or faith wind up in the hands of disaster victims or the needy. In reality, most of the monies end up supporting the church hierarchy in terms of salaries, building infrastructures, and proselytizing efforts.
Not to diminish faith relief efforts but they’re simply gap-fillers in this type of emergency–not the major relief effort.
BTW, just to correct OW–the NFL minimum salary for a first year player is over $200K (this season it’s $230K). Then it proceeds on a scale based on years in the league so that a 10 year NFL veteran would be eligible for a minimum salary of almost $800K.
Yeah, I think we’ve all seen the fruits of those born agains’ ten percent. Pat Robertson, Eric Rudolph, James Dobson and Jerry Falwell. The fundies are all over the internet and the airwaves already, fighting over whether this hurricane was divine punishment for abortion or gays.
Spare us the moral superiority for just one minute, if you can.
SadieB: You’re being ridiculous — born again Christians are involved in hundreds of humanitarian projects all over the world, and they’re probably on their way to the Gulf in great numbers.
No moral superiority, just fact.
You, jadegold, are, as usual, talking out of your anus.
The vast majority of Christians of various stripes tithe and you have no information to the country, except that vast unmapped territory between your ears.
Second, I am completely tired of your stupid, asinine attempts to tell me _ or others – what I think, when you are so completely wrong. Any idiot knows that some of the money contributed to any Church goes to “salaries, building infrastructures, and proselytizing efforts.” A little bit of thought (ask your Mom) would tell you that that leaves plenty of money left over for ongoing humanitarian efforts, not just the disaster du jour, not to mention the fact that “proseletyzing efforts” very often include educating children, educating women in prenatal care, “Peace Corps” style community improvement projects. etc.
“Not to diminish faith relief efforts” — that’s exactly what you were doing. As I said above, try to track all the money, food, water, supplies, and personnel coming in from faith – based sources. I dare you.
Christian relief efforts vary widely. Some are absolutely top-notch, efficient operations. The Salvation Army, which is, people forget, a church organization, is one of the best at providing relief in the world. There are tons of smaller Christian relief organizations that do tremendous work as well. But there are also charlatans as well, who steal from their members to enrich themselves. “Proselytizing” work also varies. In some cases it includes donations and rebuilding projects of a Peace Corps variety. In other cases it involves a few self-important jackasses promising a tiny handout to desperate people if they promise to accept Jesus. I have two friends who just lived in Uganda for the last year and there were tons of missionaries there all the time. They said some were decent and helpful, but a lot more just went there to go on safari. They probably did more to help Africa by contributing to the economy by going on safari then they did any “relief” work. So it all varies.
Also, not many Christians tithe at 10%, outside the Mormon church at least. Southern Baptists and Pentacostals do tithe a lot, but rarely at 10%.
But consider this, many of those athletes contributing money ALREADY tithe.
Sorry, Frank, it is you speaking from your nether-regions.
people giving or tithing 10% or more to churches:
You make it so easy, Frank.
On to your second lie: “A little bit of thought (ask your Mom) would tell you that that leaves plenty of money left over for ongoing humanitarian efforts, not just the disaster du jour,
Congress just authorized $10.5B in emergency funding to support this disaster. Nobody believes that will be the final price tag. Plus–these monies are already on top of existing Govt programs being used to aid recovery efforts.
Tell us, Frank, what churches can cut a check for over $10.5B?
I stand corrected on the salary issue.
And Jesus spoketh – go forth and brag and berate spread the word of god with venom and hatered label and trivialize those you disagree with and they will follow you to the kingdom of heaven….
I just found that passage out of someone’s bible – does not read like the one I was given as a child – maybe that is why the good Christian acts like he do?
Frank: You told us churches easily had enough money to do everything–including, as you put it, the disaster du jour.
Now you’re backing off that claim and saying if the churches had a trillion bucks, you’re sure they’d be able to write the check.
Pretty weak showing, Frank. Even by your low standards.
Zappa: “And the morons shall rant, and the conservatives shall lead them out of the wilderness” Book of Frank, Chap 21, v 17
Jadegold: I never said anything about how much (of our) money was being spent by Congress, but I’m sure that if all the Churches in the US had spendable income of a trillion plus dollars, they would be giving more than 10 billion.
What I said was that you ought to try to keep track of how much churches actually contribute and do, but, of course, pointing out my error and then following it with a non sequitur was more important to you — as usual.
BTW, if I could collect money for charity with a submachine gun (otherwise known as the Internal Revenue Code), I’d have lots of money to give away, too.
Not to mention, nearly the first thing Frank did was to disparage the giving of liberals, evidence free. What scum you are, Frank.
Oops, sorry I forgot to mention Fred Phelps.
TomY spewed forth:
Where did Frank do this?
If you’re responding to this:
Frank disparages nobody, but is merely stating a statistical fact. Not to mention, Bill Gates supported Bush in the 2004 election, which makes it rather to difficult to brand him a liberal.
It occurs to me that my last post is going to cause a lot of faces to go red with rage. So, before the crude ad-hominem starts flowing, I would like to clarify that in no way am I disparaging anyone that donates their hard-earned cash to help complete strangers. Everyone that donates is doing good, regardless of motivation. I merely feel you denigrate your own effort by blatantly, and tastelessly politicizing it.
Jadegold, how does:
translate to:
That you can’t make an argument without twisting the words or your opponent is very telling, and a tactic I have seen you employ often.
On the subject of donations, this is what happens when your humanitarian effort is an exercise in the advancement of your political agenda:
Liberal blogs for hurricane relief (we believe that it’s just as important to highlight who is not welcome to donate):
http://www.dropcash.com/campaign/hurricanerelief/liberal_blogs_for_hurricane_relief
Blogs for hurricane relief (this is not a time for politics, let’s get these people some help!):
http://www.truthlaidbear.com/
No, Phile, can’t get ‘red with rage’ because you and Frank are factually challenged.
As I demonstrated above, relatively few born agains tithe 10% to the church and/or church-based groups.
Additionally, Bill Gates makes about $1M a year–which is a bargain considering the market share for MS. Why Gates is one of the richest people in the world is because he also owns–quite literally–a billion shares of MS. In 2004, Gates gave $627M toward a pledge of approximately $3.35 M to his foundation. If we assume Gates makes good on his pledge, he will have contributed about 12.5% of his net worth.
Oprah makes about $225M annually. Last year she $50M to her foundation and other causes. You can do the math.
Gee, Phile, if you’re going to skewer us libs–you’ll have to try it sometime with facts.
Perhaps secular Americans and liberal Christians don’t brag about their giving in a time of crisis. They just do it.
There was a name in Jesus’ time for the folks who bragged the most about how religious they were, looking down their noses at anyone who didn’t brag too. They were the Pharisees.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
I’m not inclined to challenged your figures, both are very generous givers. That’s really for you and Frank to argue. My only error was to support the original statement, without checking the numbers, myself. But, if you’ll re-read what I wrote, the main point I was making is that Frank disparaged nobody, in his statement.
Futhermore, if you’re main argument is that religious Americans aren’t significantly more generous than secular Americans, it is you that needs to get his facts in order.
rhys, you mean like this?
http://www.dropcash.com/campaign/hurricanerelief/liberal_blogs_for_hurricane_relief
Keep moving those goalposts, Phile; it’s easier than fact-checking.
Again, the fact is a lot of monies donated to churches winds up doing other things than charitable or relief efforts.
What’s amazing to me, TomY, is that you and other liberals in this habitat have been flinging feces at the likes of myself, phile, and Dugger for years, never mind the vicious mindless things you have said about the President.
Yet you can call me “scum” for suggesting that liberals are not generous in their donations to charity. To the best of my knowledge, it is true, but you feel free to call me “scum” for saying so.
Besides, the liberals are probably a little low on funds after contributing heavily to the Cindy Sheehan Whine – and – Moan – athon.
Rhys, this is values issue. Liberals donate less to charity because they tend to believe it’s the government s responsibility to meet the social needs, by disproportionately taxing the rich, in order to raise the necessary funds.
Conservatives tend to rely less on government, to do what they believe is their own responsibility to “help thy neighbor”.
Liberal social conscience takes the form of placards and civil disobedience. Conservative social conscience takes the form of charity and volunteerism.
And yes, there are exceptions to both those generalizations.
I called Frank scum for asserting that liberals “compassionate lefties,” as he sneered, give less to charity than conservatives on the basis of ZERO evidence. In reply I got:
“To the best of my knowledge, it is true” from Frank, and a “you see, Liberals are like this, while STILL a baseless smear on liberals. Frank and phile, you are reprehensible liars.
I don’t know why that link doesn’t work. This one should:
http://tinyurl.com/9gvhh
And we’ve just seen the conservative’s version of government in action. Bush slashed taxes, gutted funding for emergency responders, defunded needed levee work, and shipped most of the troops and equipment needed for an emergency overseas.
I prefer the liberal approach: spread the load and the preparations so that in a time of crisis we aren’t left with our pants down waiting for the “help thy neighbor” crowd to get organised. That’s what governments are for, phile.
Then there is that whole “Render unto Caesar” thing. Tithing to a church does not get you out of your responsibilities to the civil government. Jesus said so himself.
Frank, people like TomY aren’t aware of their own cognitive dissonance, like this idiot woman who posted her heartwrenching experience with a * supporter:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104×4582698
This is what progressive means in 2005.
That’s “liberals are like this, while conservatives are like this.” Still a baseless smear on liberals. When you come back, bring evidence, or bring integrity. But I doubt you have either.
You ever notice how Pharisees are the only people Jesus had anything bad to say about? Well, them and the moneylenders. I mean, the man hung out with tax collectors, adulterers, lepers and pariahs of all sorts, but it was the Pharisees he really had a problem with. He was right, of course, the Pharisees turned around and killed him first chance they got, and they would do so again in a heartbeat.
But maybe some readers here are not Christian so I should explain. Pharisees were a sect that read the Bible for a rule book. They thought morality was a matter of checking the boxes, just do x,y, z and avoid doing a,b,c, and you would be saved, easy as that. Nowadays they go by the name of fundamentalists. Moneylenders were the ones who took advantage of religion to make a buck. Our Lord really did not like them at all!
Uh, phile. Handing around a plate is not bragging. Putting money in the plate is not bragging. Posting on a liberal blog that “I gave but you liberals didn’t” *is* bragging.
Well, that response is tantamount to: “Well, I got nothin’!”
It is you have who have got nothing phile. You’ve just repeated the same blame-shifting rhetoric you’ve been regurgitating for three days now. You must have it in your permanent cut-and-paste buffer. Do you have anything else?
rhys spewed forth:
Someone didn’t fact-check today’s liberal talking-points.
Fact #1:
Funding cuts did not contribute to this week’s disaster. Says who? How about the lead engineer of the Army Corps of Engineers.
Fact #2:
Clinton was also behind huge cuts to levee funding:
http://tinyurl.com/akzfr
Fact #3:
The Lousiana National Guard consists of 11,000 soldiers, of which less than 4000 are deployed abroad (not all the deployed LANG soldiers are in Iraq).
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/12506816.htm
Furthrmore, the LANG’s 225th Engineer Group, which is equipped and trained for disaster relief, is not among those deployed to Iraq.
If there has been a lack of LANG presence to provide relief and security to Katrina victims, the blame falls squarely on the LA government, namely the governor herself.
One more thing to note: Bush urged LA’s governor to call for an evacuation of New Orleans 24 hours before she got up the nerve to actually do it.
Keep shifting that blame phile.
rhys spewed forth:
Someone didn t fact-check today s liberal talking-points.
Fact #1:
Funding cuts did not contribute to this week s disaster. Says who? How about the lead engineer of the Army Corps of Engineers.
Fact #2:
Clinton was also behind huge cuts to levee funding:
http://tinyurl.com/akzfr
Fact #3:
The Lousiana National Guard consists of 11,000 soldiers, of which less than 4000 are deployed abroad (not all the deployed LANG soldiers are in Iraq).
Furthrmore, the LANG s 225th Engineer Group, which is equipped and trained for disaster relief, is not among those deployed to Iraq.
If there has been a lack of LANG presence to provide relief and security to Katrina victims, the blame falls squarely on the LA government, namely the governor herself.
One more thing to note: Bush urged LA s governor to call for an evacuation of New Orleans 24 hours before she got up the nerve to actually do it.
Actually, SadieB, your explanation is incorrect on two counts. First, the Pharisees were not a sect. They were the leaders of the jewish community — in the Gospels, that means they were the leaders of the Jewish community in Judaea. For them there was no difference between morality and religion, as there is now. Right and wrong were determined by vigorous debate over the meaning of the first five books of the Bible, called the Pentateuch [now, of course, not then].
The Pharisees, walking a thin line between the Romams and Jews, had a tendency to “cover their ass” by keeping the Jewish hoi polloi “in line”, using their own interpretation of the rules, as you described. It had little to do with salvation, however.
The Pharisees and the Fundamentalists are about as far away from each other as Ethiopia is from Sheboygan. I don’t where you dream this sh*t up. Fundamentalists believe that one is saved by faith alone, noty by acts or rules. The idea of rules, sacrifices and rituals p[ermeated pre – Christian Judaism.
Also, it might interest you to know that Christianity didn’t formally split form Judaism for more than two centuries after the death of Christ. The Protestant religions, some of which are now called fundamentalist, didn’t come into being until the 1500’s.
For the record: amaritan’s Purse is on the way to the Gulf.
BTW, For a snapshot of what Christian Ministries are doing in the Gulf area, see here =>
I do not understand how such an entry from OW can create such contention and animosity. I don’t understand how in the middle of such a horrible tragedy, we see some resort to the lowest common denominator.
And then I scroll up to read Frank’s opening salvo in what should have been a fairly benign discussion, and I understand. This is a blog, and hardly representative of the way most people think and feel at any given time. Right now, in OW.Com, we’re in nutball territory.
Phile and Franc are people who simply like attention, even if it’s negative attention. They’re not getting it elsewhere, so they come in here and continue their attention getting behavior. If it somehow were not worth their time, they would not be here.
The rest of you are just giving those two what they want. If you’re secure in your liberal ideology, why bother continuing this 2 year discussion with those losers?
This is my favorite blog on the internet–but this is messed up, people. Messed up.
JK
As much as I dislike Microsoft and Bill Gates personally, Jesus couldn’t impeach his passion for philanthropy. He has publicly stated that he intends to give only about a million dollars to each of his kids and give the rest away.
“If you disagree, please respond with some examples of where I have attacked anyone. ”
Let’s rewind the tape …
“TomY spewed forth”, “Frank, people like TomY aren’t aware of their own cognitive dissonance”, “rhys spewed forth”.
And that’s just in this thread. Personal attacks on TomY and myself. You are using the language and phrasing of a bully, not someone interested in “mature dialogue”. You could have simply refuted the points. But no, you had to accuse us of “spewing”.
“Admittedly, that’s a tough thing to find, around here. ”
No one is keeping you here. Feel free to leave at any time.
JK, I sympathise. I’d sometimes like to put it all down to “I’m not going to dignify that with a response” when some neo-con attention-seeker goes off. However, we’ve seen time and again that if you don’t respond at all, they take it as quiet agreement with their point of view. So, they have to be confronted, unfortunately.
And if you think this blog is messed up, try mediamatters. The trolls here are models of gentility in comparison. I like hanging out at OW precisely because the signal to noise ratio makes it possible to actually have a conversation.
JK, look closely and you will see that it’s overwhelmingly the home team that chooses to take an adversarial, and downright crude tone with those of us that dissent with resident group-think.
If you disagree, please respond with some examples of where I have attacked anyone. If merely having to deal with people that don’t share your views is so distasteful, than I submit it is you that has the problem.
My motives for spending any time here is that I enjoy *attempting* to have a mature dialogue with people that don’t share my views. Admittedly, that’s a tough thing to find, around here.
BTW, I was responding to Oliver’s statement:
Trolls come on to the liberal blog to spread lies about how liberals don’t give to charity as much as conservatives do. Then, when liberals call them on their bullshit, the trolls complain about not being treated with kid gloves. The conservatives posting on this board, at heart, are nothing more than common cowards.
I’m liberal and I donated, in addition, several of my liberal friends called me up to ask me to donate more. We are mostly atheists and liberal. Its despicable to suggest that liberals aren’t donating because they think the federal government should take care of everything. Its also despicable for these conservatives trying to pass responsibility away from bush at this time.
As far as I’m concerned, it’s despicable to even mention Bush’s name at this time.
And, TomY, I don’t know why you’re calling the conservatives cowards. We’re all hiding behind the same keyboards.
You haven’t called anybody on their bullshit, you’ve only flung your bullshit. And conservatives don’t want or need to be treated with kid gloves — they just want to be treated with same consideration and respect you would give any stranger.
I am sorry to say that you don’t, and the teatment of conservatives has only become progressively (pun intended) worse.
The dialogue on this thread is descending towards barbarism, and don’t try to tell me it’s the conservatives’ fault.
It takes two to tango.
Frank_D, you are angry that the storyline of ‘Bush does a good job at all times’ is clearly not playing out despite the usual lies, distortions, and accusations of partisanship.
Nobody is being tormented except the people in new orleans starving to death.
First of all. looking for “the storyline of Bush does a good job at all times ” is like looking for a needle in a haystack, the hurricane notwithstanding.
Looking for a positive omment about Bush, for that matter, trying to find anything but negative comments about Bush on this ‘blog is well nigh impossible.
My feeling that I am engaged in a political debate, and not a flamefest, is not related to how you treat (torment?) President Bush — it is related to how you treat me.
It usually begins with some bogus attempt to “tell me how I feel,” which is really how you wish I would feel, so that the way you feel (and, therefore, treat me) is justified.
I am always amazed that cons go to a liberal blog and expect to see messages complimentary of conservatives. Did they take a wrong turn and think this is LGF?
Frank, I can’t lay my hands on my source at the moment, from what I have read, Pharisees were a sect. Are you thinking maybe of the Sanhedrin?
And though yes, technically, the fundamentalists claim salvation based on faith not works, in practice they are as obsessed with ritual purity as any Pharisee ever was, they just don’t use the same vocabulary to express their prejudices. No women preachers, no gays. What is this if not a fear of contamination? A fear of the unclean?
Maybe this will do in a pinch. The Webster’s Dictionary:
Pharisee: a member of a Jewish sect of the intertestamental period noted for strict observance of rites and ceremonies of the written law and for insistence on the validity of their own oral traditions concerning the law
SadieB: Although you’re wrong, you’re right…
Glad we cleared that up….
Frank, I remember you leaving in a huff not too long ago for the very same reasons you are quoting above.
I even remember a reference to masochism from you.
The question du jour is: why have you come back?
You’re right — you don’t want a debate here — this a huge ideologicl circle jerk….
Enjoy!