Disappointed in Charles Barkley

[Ranger12 46]

Rant on>

I have always liked Charles because first of all he was an AU man and also liked what came out of his mouth most of the time. I liked that he spoke his mind even though there were times that I did not agree with him, but it was never on a major issue. However, I do believe that Sir Charles has crossed the line with me. I heard an interview he did in Birmingham and then Finebaum replayed it today for those that did not get to hear it. Charles thinks that "religious zealots" are responsible for alot of problems in the state and they need to quit trying to press their morals on others. When a reporter asked him "well, I guess I know how you stand on the Ten Commandments" and Barkley responded by saying, and I am paraphrasing, " I know where I would like to put it, but it may be too big for there." That went beyond any tasteless comment that I think Barkley had ever made before. He then was asked about AU being left out of the MNC. He then said that he does not think that AU really wanted any part of that USC team, but he knows we would not have gotten beaten that bad. As a former player and alumni, I am surprised he was not more definite and supportive about his alma-mater in regards to that issue, at least publicly anyway.

Rant off>

[tiger88 934]

I couldn't agree with him more about the religious zealots thing, although I wouldn't have went with the wording he used about sticking it somewhere. How much more peaceful a world it would be if certain factions didn't try to cram their religious beliefs down everyone elses throats. Of course, they know what is best for everyone .

I don't think it's fair to limit the scope to the state of alabama though.

afa usc, I REALLY wish we could have played them in a plus one game.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

I couldn't agree with him more about the religious zealots thing, although I wouldn't have went with the wording he used about sticking it somewhere. How much more peaceful a world it would be if certain factions didn't try to cram their religious beliefs down everyone elses throats. Of course, they know what is best for everyone  .

I don't think it's fair to limit the scope to the state of alabama though.

afa usc, I REALLY wish we could have played them in a plus one game.

142185[/snapback]

This guy seems to agree with you:

George Washington

"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause.

Letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792

[AURainman 6]

I have no problem claiming religious zealots are the problem. I just have a problem when people define religious people as religious zealots.

[Auburn85 432]

I have no problem claiming religious zealots are the problem.  I just have a problem when people define religious people as religious zealots.

142248[/snapback]

agreed. One problem is no matter what group you are with religious or not, someone always tend to judge you by the actions of others.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Believe it or not, I tend to agree with Sir Charles on nearly every point. Like you, he can sometimes make me shake my head, but on the whole, I respect him for speaking his mind in an intelligent and articulate way.

Like tiger88 said, I don't agree with his anatomically incorrect statement, but I think (and this is just a guess, I have no idea what he really thought) that he was probably referring to the monument, not necessarily the "Ten Commandments" as a whole. And to be quite honest, now that the whole story about Judge Moore and the monument has come out, I will confess to being a little put out with the Judge for the way he did things. I have a problem with religious extremism - or ANY extremism, for that matter. I don't think that simply putting that monument up was in itself equivalent to shoving beliefs down someone's throat. The Ten Comandments are a set of laws, recognized as such by more than one religion, and I don't think having them in a government building is wrong. But using them for political gain is, and I also believe that the person that had the monument put in place was purposefully and deliberately trying to do just that - force his beliefs on other people, with the ultimate goal of bringing attention and notoriety to himself to further other political goals. And that is wrong. Religious zealots - and anti-religion zealots - are causing a lot of problems in a lot of places. So I have to go with Sir Charles on that one.

As far as Auburn and USC goes - as much as it kills me to say it, I don't think Auburn would have beaten USC - ON THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT. Leinart was in a zone, the receivers were making inhuman catches, and even tho OK was bad, USC made them look worse than they really were. Sometimes a team can just have "A GAME" - where EVERYTHING goes just right - the penalty calls or no-calls as the case may be, special teams, improbable catches, etc. And I think USC was having one that night. SoI agree with Sir Charles on that one too - I don't think we would have beaten USC THAT NIGHT, but I also agree when he said that we wouldn't have gotten beaten that bad - USC would have had to work for it. Auburn would not have rolled over and shown it's belly half way thru the second quarter.

So ease up on the Round Mound - he may just be your next Governor!!!!!!

[Auburn85 432]

I agree. I have no problem with the monument in the bulding, but he went about it all wrong. And yes, he's USING it as a political platform.

He will probably run for governor, but I highly doubt that I will vote for him.

They were right in removing him from the bench.

[Ranger12 46]

Sorry guys, but I have to agree to disagree with most of you. Like somebody said, too many people want to label anybody religious and not ashamed of talking about their faith, as a "zealot". As far what has "come out" about Roy Moore, you must remember where the info is coming from and how it may be getting spinned to make him look bad. Remeber that most of the time, anybody that brings their faith outside the church door and into such a public forum is usually made to look bad and said to have some other motives. Let's don'd forget that Jesus was accused by the Pharisees of wanting to overthrow the government. Going by what some of you guys are saying by stating that Roy Moore and some others were extremists, then that would mean that Moses, Esther, David, Paul, and Jesus himself would be part of the problem. According to the way they lived their faith, preached it, and went against man's law to do it, they would be the same group that Barkley tried to talk down about.

To say that Moore was using it as a political forum, yes, maybe he was, but what is wrong with that. I agree that it has a place in politics, not seperate from it.

TT, as for your little quote by George Washington, do you really want me to start bringing out all the quotes by our founding fathers again? You know, the ones from GW and all the others that state this country was founded upon the belief in God.

[AURainman 6]

As I recall, no one attacked Roy Moore's ability to believe in God, practice his religion, pray, etc. They simply thought the Ten Commandments monument was a religious icon in a State building. Personally, I think (regardless of its truth/untruth) it could easily be a secular monument as well. Obviously, this one is left up to interpretation. However, Mr. Moore decided to turn the argument into STATE v. GOD. Never was it meant to be that way. If anything it was STATE v. MAN WHO BELIEVES A MONUMENT ACKNOWLEDGING GOD SHOULD BE IN THE COURTHOUSE.

I don't agree that it should've been removed, because I see it as a historical monument. I have a problem with the fact that no one has ANY problem with Greek/Roman mythology being taught in schools, but Christianity is Taboo. But the way Mr. Moore handled the issue was reprehensible.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

As I recall, no one attacked Roy Moore's ability to believe in God, practice his religion, pray, etc.  They simply thought the Ten Commandments monument was a religious icon in a State building.  Personally, I think (regardless of its truth/untruth) it could easily be a secular monument as well.  Obviously, this one is left up to interpretation. However, Mr. Moore decided to turn the argument into STATE v. GOD.  Never was it meant to be that way.  If anything it was STATE v. MAN WHO BELIEVES A MONUMENT ACKNOWLEDGING GOD SHOULD BE IN THE COURTHOUSE.

I don't agree that it should've been removed, because I see it as a historical monument.  I have a problem with the fact that no one has ANY problem with Greek/Roman mythology being taught in schools, but Christianity is Taboo.  But the way Mr. Moore handled the issue was reprehensible.

142317[/snapback]

Definitely what he said.

Going by what some of you guys are saying by stating that Roy Moore and some others were extremists, then that would mean that Moses, Esther, David, Paul, and Jesus himself would be part of the problem. According to the way they lived their faith, preached it, and went against man's law to do it, they would be the same group that Barkley tried to talk down about.

The difference here, ranger, at least to me, is that when Jesus, Moses, Esther, et al, did what they did, it was AGAINST THE LAW - they were prohibited from living their faith IN PRIVATE even, much less preaching it or demonstrating it in public. NO ONE ever told Roy Moore he couldn't be a Christian, couldn't go to church, couldn't represent Christianity in his daily life. But his whole intent and purpose in putting that monument in the courthouse was to provoke a controversy. Why else place it there in the dead of night? And his actions after the fact just show that his motivations were for the glory of HIMSELF, not for the glory of God or His laws. Jesus and his followers lived their lives as an example for others. Roy Moore just wants to be governor.

Past threads on this topic will show that I was a supporter of the judge at first - but the more he attempts to parlay his "martyrdom" into a political office, the more he is revealed as a sham. And if this is what he has done to be elected, imagine what he will do if her ever actually gets in office - do you really want your tax dollars spent defending the State of Alabama against lawsuit after lawsuit brought by people and issues targeted by Roy Moore as being at odds with his personal way of thinking? He couldn't represent the people of the State of Alabama without letting his own personal belief system get in the way. He would see the governorshipa s a theocratic dictatorship. Like a pro-life US Attorney General - he or she may not agree with the abortion laws in this country, but that is still the law of the land and the AG has taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution and our laws. His or her personal feelings cannot and should not interfere with the job at hand. Same with the governor of the state.

[Ranger12 46]

If I remember correctly Paul was persecuted because he preaced a faith, publicly that went against the "accepted" teachings. Remember that the Pharisees were very public about their faith, but did not like what Jesus teached, so the twisted it to convince the Romans that Jesus was actually trying to subvert the government. Faith was not against the law back then, going against the Roman government was. So the "religious leaders" had to convince the Romans that these great men of God were actually doing it for political reasons, not spiritual reasons. That is the same thing Roy Moore is being accused of right now. I never said that anybody on this board was questioning Moores right to believe in God. I was questioning some of you guys questioning his motives. Jenny, what has come out about Roy Moore that makes you question his motives? Is this nation not founded about the laws that Roy Moore made a monument of? Sure a stone monument is nothing, but it is the words that are important and unless we make sure we keep those words in a public place where the can be seen by all, to remind us of the laws we live by and what this country is founded upon, then we will forget. Maybe not by us or the next generations, but future generations will not know what this country was founded upon if we rely on the schools to each it and we let liberal judges and lawyers tell us what we can put in government buildings. Moore, was putting something in that state house that he thought should be there as a part of our law's history and if that is grandstanding and doing it for some other reason, then so be it. If he does have some sort of "wrong" intention for self-gain, then that is something he needs to answer to God about, but that still does not change my mind about the fact that I still think that monument belongs in that rotunda and should have never been removed.

[AURainman 6]

Ranger. The difference is Paul was a epostle that was spreading the Gospel in a climate that forbode it. Paul was persecuted. (In fact he once was the persecutee.) Paul was put to death for spreading the Gospel.

Roy Moore was in a government position. He took an oath to the office to interpret and follow the law. The law was interpretted by his superiors that the monument was unconstitutional (the same constitution that supports our freedom of religion). Because he had the position of power, he was not fit to build a religious monument in a public building.

No one fired Roy Moore for hanging the religious items on his wall at home. (Something Paul would've been killed for.) No one fired him for praying in his free time. (Something Paul would've been killed for.)

Basically, the gov't saw this as establishing a religion at his work. His work just happened to be a gov't job, which put him in violation of the constitution.

Personally, I don't agree with the gov't on this one, but I will not defend the way Mr. Moore fought his superiors.

To me, Roy Moore's actions were not establishing a gov't religion, but they were deemed so by his superiors. Holding a government office does not permit you the civil disobedience he displayed.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

ranger, I don't mean that some "secret info came out" - I just meant that I was disappointed in the way Judge Moore has conducted himself in the time since he was removed from office. Here's an example:

In a new book, "So Help Me God," Moore describes that night as the completion of a lifelong mission to use his position as the state's highest judge to publicly acknowledge God.

Link

That right there is a contradiction of terms. He was the state's highest judge - he had NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER using that GOVERNMENT post as a platform to publicly acknowledge God. There is a line that should never be crossed in the pursuit of justice - all men should be treated fairly and equally in a court of law, and with Moore's flaunting of his strong religious views, how could any non-Christian ever feel comfortable in Moore's courtroom? And don't they have a right to receive equal justice under the law?

And I am not trying to be all tolerant and diverse and PC and stuff - stupid example, but what about the judge in the Young case being a Tennessee grad? Don't you think that if there is an unfavorable outcome for Young that there will be speculation about the judge's personal feelings? Whether the judge even let his feelings for his alma mater come into play or not, there is always room for others to proscribe prejudice towards his opinion. A judge should be, above all, neutral and impartial, and Judge Moore just is not those things. Besides, he broke the law - like it or love it, the law said no, he defied the law and was removed from his job. He agreed to support and defend the constitution and he didn't when it didn't suit him to support and defend.

Look, I respect him for having strong beliefs and for standing up for what he thinks is right, but when you are a judge or even worse, a governor, you have to represent ALL the people, not just the Christian ones, and you have to uphold ALL the laws, not just the ones you agree with. Just because he broke the laws in the name of Christianity does not make it right. He can't impose his personal beliefs from a government pulpit - if he were a private business owner, or a preacher - fine, merry Christmas, say whatever you want. I could hang fifty copies of the Ten Comandments in my office if I wanted to. But I am not a judge or a government employee. The government is there to serve everyone, not just a select few and it isn't up to Judge Moore to decide who those select few are. He would make a TERRIBLE governor if he viewed all the myriad number of problems Alabama has through the eyes of religious fundamentalism. Face it, he is a fundamentalist and I think he would be ineffective and inefficient as a governor because he would never get anything accomplished, and would attract more lawsuits than the AGs office could handle. Is that how you want your tax dollars spent?

[tiger88 934]

When I think of a religious zealot, I don't think of just any religious person. Someone can be extremely devoted to his religion w/o being a zealot. I think the zealot/excessive part comes in when he/she is so sold on his/her religion that they feel the need to force their beliefs on others.

Ranger, everybody and their brother knows this country was founded with a belief of God in mind. The point is that no single religion was favored over the others in this countries founding. Open mindedness w/ respect to religion seems to have been the idea.

Jenny, I think we may have taken them in a plus one game because they would be extremely overconfident just having made sex partners out of the OU guys and having beaten us the two previous years. The only thing I wwonder about is, could they expose our secondary? I think it is very possible, and if they did I don't know if we coulda outscored them with their d.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Jenny, I think we may have taken them in a plus one game because they would be extremely overconfident just having made sex partners out of the OU guys ...

142520[/snapback]

I don't think OU can claim "partner" status in that encounter.

[tiger88 934]

Yeah, you're right. I really didn't want to use the word rape though.