Previous 21 - 30 Next
You're right, it doesn't excuse the behavior. And I'm not trying denigrate the victim here. My concern is that people like James Brown and the rest of the media are getting tunnel-vision with this issue, focusing so hard on it that they don't see the bigger picture. There is room for context in these difficult issues. And that in no way denigrates the suffering of the victim.
I'm not defending anyone. I'm just trying to add a little perspective because I think everybody in the media is getting overly emotional about this issue and when people get emotional, they tend to ignore reason and context.
This is all very serious, but James Brown left out one very important piece of information: domestic violence on the whole is down. It has declined considerably since 1993 according to statistics from the Justice Department. We're doing a better job of dealing with it today than we did in decades past. And presenting this in this doomsayers type context is unwarranted because it evokes the kinds of emotions that lead to irrational decisions.
Domestic abuse, like all forms of violence, have happened at all times during human civilization. And it's actually getting better. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, violence between intimate partners declined by 64 percent from 1994 to 2010. This incident with Ray Rice really skews that. I think we have reason to be hopeful about the future of intimate partner relations. It's a sign that we as a people are getting better at rejecting our violent inclinations.
Domestic violence is such an emotionally charged issue. And because it's so emotional, it's next to impossible to make rational judgments. This issue would certainly qualify as an emotional reaction. We don't know the full context of the situation. We don't know what led to Ray Rice striking his wife. Without a doubt, he deserves condemnation. But I think it's important to understand the context. This is not the worst thing a man has ever done to a woman. This is not the worst thing a professional athlete has ever done to a woman. I'm concerned that the media and the NFL are getting tunnel-vision, focusing on Ray Rice in particular and using him as a scapegoat of sorts to highlight this one issue. The same thing happened last year with the big bullying issue on the Jonathan Martin scandal. The same thing is happening right now with the Redskins change. Emotionally charged people are focusing on this issue and ignoring the larger context. Is there no room for reason? Here's the context as we understand it. Ray Rice did not have a history of domestic violence. This is, by all accounts, his first transgression. He came out and apologized. His now wife even came out and spoke out against it. She even forgave him. If a man seeks forgiveness and the woman does so, why is that not enough? Why does it have to be this big spectacle? Is it not the Christian thing to do to champion forgiveness over outrage? Now if Rice does it again, that changes the context. Until then, this is becoming dangerously emotional and no logical decisions are ever made when people get emotional about something.
In response to:

ISIS Seeks 'Cyber Caliphate'

HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Sep 12, 2014 9:03 AM
I think this is giving these people way too much credit. Keep in mind, these are radicals who adhere to an extremely strict interpretation of their holy texts, much of which clashes with real science. It would be quite a push to assume that they're capable of creating competent scientific endeavors. We've seen what happens when religious extremists try to limit science. They fall behind so why should this be any different? And keep in mind, the United States and many other western institutions have far deeper pockets and far greater resources when it comes to countering these sorts of attacks. These are not supervillains we're dealing with. These are fallible human beings with plenty of human limitations.
In response to:

No One is Born Gay

HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Sep 10, 2014 7:37 PM
What does your non-sequiter have to do with the points I made? The fact that the bible is a collection of books organized by many different people over many different time periods only makes it more fallible.
In response to:

No One is Born Gay

HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Sep 10, 2014 7:34 PM
Ad hominum attacks do not invalidate what I have said. Calling someone names is childish and accomplishes nothing. There is no bigotry in promoting that all minorities, including homosexuals, be treated with respect and dignity. There is also no bigotry in pointing out that using ancient holy texts to justify atrocity against homosexuals is unwarranted. Insult me as much as you want. It won't make you or Darby any less wrong.
In response to:

No One is Born Gay

HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Sep 09, 2014 3:16 PM
That same natural law you mention gives us all a sense of compassion and empathy for our fellow man. Yet you seem to balk at it, denying it to homosexuals or pretty much anyone you don't agree with. How is that not an even greater affront to God? Homosexuality is consistent with natural law. It's common throughout the animal kingdom and has been present in some form or another in every human civilization that has ever existed. You don't have to like it, but you're not entitled to your own reality.
In response to:

No One is Born Gay

HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Sep 09, 2014 2:41 PM
There's no need for one person to have authority to declare the bible fallible. One only needs to do a little research on the history, time period, and culture in which it arose. There is nothing about the bible's history that makes it more unique than that of other holy texts. It claims devine authority, just as every other holy text claims it. They all can't be right, but they all can be wrong. So the onus is on those who worship these holy texts to provide some proof that their texts are somehow free of human error. To date, none has been provided. That means we must conclude that these texts are like all texts in that they're subject to human error and most decidedly not the work of a diety. And besides, wouldn't an all-powerful God seek a more efficient way to distrubite truth rather than relying on holy texts crafted thousands of years ago during a time when only a fraction of the population was even literate?
In response to:

No One is Born Gay

HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Sep 09, 2014 2:27 PM
If homosexuality weren't in God's plan, then why is it so common throughout nature? And why does so much research indicate that homosexuality is inborn, the product of genetics and hormones that manifests while in-utero?
Previous 21 - 30 Next