KC Chiefs kicker complains about "emasculation of men," gay pride & says women should be homemakers

Open Societies and the Rockefeller foundation are foundations paid for by leftist billionaires. Also, DEI nationalism and DEI supremacy are a thing because leftists whine, complain, and even demand employees be fired from their jobs when they express a religious belief inside the walls of a private religious institution that does not conform to DEI ideology. Even inside the walls of a private religious institution, DEI advocates think they have the divine right to tell that private religious institution to conform to their ideology. This is not a pluralistic ideology in any way whatsoever. It arrogantly claims dominion over the public square and even public corporate entities, who must kneel in servitude to the precepts of their ideology or pay the price. That is narcissism. That is arrogance. That is bullying. That is not pluralistic in any way whatsoever. The equivalent of that would be Christians saying all corporate entities should fire all employees who ever publicly expressed any opinion any where that are contrary to Christianity. That is how it might work in an Islamic country with Islam, except in some of those Islamic countries you might actually die if you directly criticized Islam. DEI supremacy has not gone that far yet, but "not as bad as Islam" is a pretty low bar for comparison.

 

Yeah? What do you know about pluralism? Nothing you have ever posted suggests to me you understand that concept or support it in any way. You think capitalist billionaires donating to liberal capitalist institutions are 'leftists,' and think corporate diversity efforts are a form of "nationalism." I cant really tell if you are just mad people call you a nationalist and are just doing it back or you actually think its a thing. You are just a person who has absorbed a lot of jargon you picked up from dumb people trying to sound smart, but its pretty obvious you don't actually know anything.

 

Actually it's anti-bullying directed towards those that would install Christian nationalist viewpoints on the entire country over the wishes of a majority of Americans.

 

I believe in pluralism. I don’t expect you to admit that I believe in pluralism, though.

But this goes back to the bullying nature of DEI. You shout these accusations at people. Then they are wrong because you are God and you can’t be wrong about them and their underlying motives. Narcissism, arrogance, hatred, prejudice, and all kinds of evil swirl underneath the surface of this godlessness that you promote.

 

What exactly happened to Butker other than social media posts with opposing opinions? He called a career diabolical which generated the interest.

 

You’re way off on what he said. He said that women are being told diabolical lies that their fulfillment would be found primarily in a career and he disagrees. He did not call careers (for women) diabolical. When you move the goalposts on what was said and presented there’s no value in discussing anything with you.

 

Do you? Your accusations of hatred, arrogance, prejudice, narcissism don't speak for God, nor have those you accuse claimed to speak for God. Your posts bring to mind an angry prize fighter punching at targets who contradict or question your rigid, brittle theological beliefs, eliciting your anger. Your contentiousness towards others with whom you disagree belies your claim, "I believe in pluralism."

 

Splitting hairs. But my question went unanswered. What has happened to Butkers?

 

What exactly are the “diabolical lies” and who is telling them!? Are these women so weak minded they don’t know how they even ended up in that room, except for the lies that put them on the college path? Also Butker apparently thinks only some of those college graduating women will actually pursue careers (inferring that most will skip that, as they should under his worldview).

I think it’s a bit rich to accuse this poster of being dishonest, when even the nuns interpreted Butker’s words exactly as that poster did. And to be frank, there hardly seems wiggle room without doing some serious goal post moving of your own.

Would you say the same words to those Benedictine Nuns, that their understanding is so bad there’s no value discussing anything with them?

 

Probably the same people who are emasculating all the men.

 

I do not speak for God, but God does not condemn deductive reasoning. If bearing false witness is wrong (it is), and a person has beared false witness against me (they did) then that person is guilty of sin.

That happened in post #542. He lied. It was unloving. It was bullying. It was hateful. It was self-seeking. Bearing false witness is all of those things.

I called him out on it, and I call you out on it for rushing to the defense of evil. Your response is wrong. It is wrong to defend sin, and you are defending sin by rushing to this poster’s defense.

Might I remind you that I don’t agree with Harisson Butker’s religion. I am not a Catholic, but I’m one of the biggest defenders of Butker’s having the right to free speech within the walls of a religious institution. And I never criticized him for speaking his religious conviction within the walls of a private religious institution. Have I stated my disagreements with Butker’s religion? Absolutely, I have, but criticize him for exhorting others based on his strongly held religious convictions in a religious context? No, that was you who judged his motives for speaking his religious convictions at a privately held religious gathering where he was invited to be the speaker.

I think you should examine yourself in this matter.

 

Harrison Butker Finally Responds to His Critics, Makes Them Look Small and Pathetic

 

The response you took issue with was not a defense of post 542 or @wgbgator . It was a response to your claim to believe in pluralism, with its curious remark, "I don’t expect you to admit that I believe in pluralism, though."

Why should you expect him to "admit" something for which there is no evidence. Your religious brand provides no quarter for its adherents to accept or tolerate other religious traditions.

Without question. Your anti-Catholic screeds have tempered in recent years, but were a prominent feature in many of your posts 15 years ago.

I don't recall 'judging' Butker's "motives for speaking his religious convictions at a privately held religious gathering where he was invited to be the speaker."

If that is what you perceive give context and provide the post# where you think I "judged his motives."

 

Lets start with definitions. Here is a definition of religious pluralism from Wikipedia:

• Religious pluralism is an attitude or policy regarding the diversity of religious belief systems co-existing in society. It can indicate one or more of the following:
  • Recognizing and tolerating the religious diversity of a society or country, promoting freedom of religion, and defining secularism as neutrality (of the state or non-sectarian institution) on issues of religion as opposed to opposition of religion in the public forum or public square that is open to public expression, and promoting friendly separation of religion and state as opposed to hostile separation or antitheism espoused by other forms of secularism.

​

I support a neutrality of government with respect to different religious factions, while acknowledging the government's role in upholding basic human rights such as the right to free speech, the right to private property, the right to religious freedom, and the right to life. I also support the universal right of all people in society to participate in government regardless of their religion or philosophy. I am undecided on whether felons should be able to vote or not, but that is not religiously excluding an entire block from voting. That is having a minimal moral standard for participating in government. I don't think Islam gets to carve out exceptions to the right to life to wage holy war. I also don't think leftists get to carve out an exception to the right to life so they can commit genocide against their own offspring. Not all participation in government is necessarily equally virtuous or morally commendable, but I support universal participation of all groups in government. Participation is a responsibility, though, one that can be exercised for good or evil.

I don't seek to do away with religious pluralism just because people disagree with my position and my religion, but I believe people answer to the Lord Jesus for their deeds including their political deeds. And I believe they should turn to Christ in repentance and faith for the forgiveness of their sins if they have used their political power to oppose the Lord Jesus.

Now this interesting. I would love to hear your definition of tolerance. I don't accept both sides of a contradiction as being equally valid. If one religion is the truth, then all other religions that contradict that are false on the points where they contradict that religion. That is a consequence of the nature of truth.

Read post #391 and post #393. Your response in post #393 is an emphatic agreement with post #391, which insinuated Harrison Butker was motivated by pride.

 

He and you are being quite condescending. These women graduates do not need either of you two suggesting they have been the victim of "diabolical lies" when you have zero idea what people are saying to them. Particularly condescending is the "thought" it takes a male to point it out to them. What worked for the kicker and his wife is fine, it is not. however, a one size fits all solution nor do these women require male intervention to determine the life journeys they chose to go on.

 

Some posters view of “pluralism” that they support

 

It's good to support a neutral government and rights guaranteed by our constitution. I'm pleased for all of us that you do.

You assert you "don't seek to do away with religious pluralism just because people disagree with [your] position and religion," but because you believe people answer to Jesus for their deeds (or misdeeds?) including their political deeds. Believing they should turn to Christ in repentance and faith for the forgiveness of their sins if they have used their political power to oppose the Lord Jesus.

That's all well and good for you, but there are a good many politicians - local (the Sarasota school board member and Moms for Liberty founder), state (Boebert), and national (Trump) - who wear sheep skins posing as something they are not. And even more credulous or overly trusting people who believe their lies and deceitful political tropes. The combination has this nation in a death spiral. I'm not labeling you as one who wears a Christian disguise as I think your self identity is genuine, sincere. What baffles me is why you back and support the Trump fueled MAGA extremists. You are an intelligent person with an excellent education, raised in a stable home to the best of my knowledge. But your Christian faith seems more centered on archaic dogmas, doctrines requirements of belief and laws than what Jesus said to the man who asked him what is the greatest commandment in the law. To Love - from Matthew 22

Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

One belief I hold - we will not be saved by what doctrines we believe or confess, but by how we live our lives and deal with circumstances thrown at us in our life's journey.

As I recall some years back you were listening to a Calvinist wacko who thought it would be a good idea to bomb the Kaabah in Mecca. Totally a baad idea. And one that does not embrace pluralism or mutual respect.

Perhaps you are looking for or manufacturing contradiction where there is none? There is creative tension within paradox.

Religious tolerance allows, permits, perhaps even teaches one to appreciate spiritual values, beliefs and practices which are different from their own. I don't think Truth is exclusive to Christianity or any one religious paradigm. Jesus taught from an inclusive and radically unselfish place. But evangelicals today are rejecting what he taught in favor of self preservation. It will fail.

Truth can, and will, be found in places and times one may not think to look for it or be expecting to find it. Salvation is not found in dogmas and doctrines, or any one of multiple theories of atonement. I have faith sincere seekers will find and recognize what they need and seek to know when they are ready or prepared to know it.

Pride may have been on my mind when I posted that response. I don't recall. But I do remember thinking Butker absolutely addressed and told his listeners what he wanted them to hear. I don't fault him for that. Benedictine was perhaps the one place he could do that. Is he proud? Perhaps, but I don't think pride was the motivation for giving that particular speech. He spoke what he did because he is convinced he is right and wanted to share his self perceived insight with others. In time he will learn what he needs to know.

 

First of all, you can name anything and someone is saying it. But do you really think that women are being swamped with this 'family isn't important' stuff? Who do you think it's coming from?

It seems to me that what has changed is that people feel like they have more choices than they used to. But that's being painted as someone is manipulating them. If a woman puts a career first in her life, then she's been lied to. If a guy doesn't drive a pickup and workout or something, he's been emasculated.
Who are these sinister forces you think is causing all this?

 

The same Patrick Mahomes who along with other teammates and Head Coach Andy Reid came out this week in support of Butker. A

You have swung and missed once again. What a shocker.