Have you ever given money to church? Have you ever bought a lottery ticket? Which one did you do for the potential (however misguided) financial reward? Lottery ticket. Not church, right? Right.
This week I happened to see a segment on the Christian Broadcast Network. Don’t ask how or why, I just did. It’s apparently pledge drive time at the ol’ CBN and to that end Pat Robertson made quite a promise. Donate money to CBN and you will see financial reward come back to you. He wasn’t talking Heavenly reward. He was talking payday here on Earth. He said that the government will break their promises, people will break their promises, but God won’t. And God is promising financial rewards if you’ll just send in a little cash. He quoted scripture and ran out a few examples. A guy suddenly inherited $10,000 after donating and another miraculously found a job right after he started to tithe. These two, according to Pat, are all the proof you need to whip out that check book and fire off a donation to the largest tele-ministry on earth. Then sit back and wait for the riches to roll in. That’s called spin, baby.
Every so often it’s pledge drive time for public television too. They have great spin. It goes something like this: “if you like what you see, send us some money and we’ll keep showing it.” I enjoy the cooking shows. I like to watch the travel shows and I like the fact that Sesame Street has a spot on the dial. I usually give them money, because I like what I see and want them to keep showing it. Same story with public radio. I love to listen to Car Talk and Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me. I’ll pay for those programs. Here’s my check. If the next NPR pledge drive says “send us some money and you will reap financial rewards” then I’m out because that’s a lie.
So the CBN isn’t getting any of my money. In fact they’re getting a little of my ire for being so deceitful. Donating money to church won’t make you rich. Sorry. Let’s look at the numbers. I go to church with about 1,000 other people. Let’s say 30% of them give money. 300 people giving money. In any given week do you think something good happens to one of those 300 people? Yes it does. Do you think something good happens to one of the 700 who don’t give? You bet. These are independent events people. It is wrong, dare I say sinful, for Pat to stand there in your television set and promise your desperate soul that if you give him your hard earned cash you will get money in return. Shame, shame, shame.
I don’t have a problem with giving money to churches or preachers. In fact, I think faith-based giving plays a bigger role in making the world a better place than it gets credit for. As is the case so often, however, my problem is with the spin. Imagine how much more appealing it would be if Pat said “hey, we do a lot of good in the world. We spread the word of God, we build water wells and school houses in poor nations, we fight disease and starvation. If that’s important to you then send us a check and we’ll keep doing it.” Now you’re talking my language Pat.
I have two little thoughts eating away at my brain, though, as to why Pat doesn’t speak my language. One is that maybe the reality is “hey, we need to make big mortgage payments and buy new Cadillacs but you wouldn’t send us your money if I told you that.” The second is “hey, I know other people’s suffering and our good works don’t move you so I’m looking for the most effective way to separate you from your money.” Do they really know what the Christian part of CBN stands for anymore?
Friday, May 22, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
Give me a break
Sometimes you just can’t win. I am Catholic and completely fed up with all these other Catholics getting so upset over a little fiction set against the backdrop of the Catholic Church. Seriously, don’t we have a little more to be worried about?
I’m talking of course about Angels and Demons, the latest Dan Brown book made into a blockbuster movie. Catholics far and wide, well, at least vocal ones, are condemning the film as a “gratuitously outrageous” portrayal of the Church. It has been called “outlandish.” I’ve got another word for it: fiction.
Storytelling has been entertaining people for thousands of years. Whether from cavemen around campfires or modern movie makers, we all want to hear a good tale and be entertained. Would Harry Potter be such a smash if it were about a bunch of normal kids? No. Would you care about Harold and Kumar if they just went out and got a few hamburgers? No. Normal kids and fast food are the stuff of ordinary life. We want to see something extraordinary when we go to the movies.
How do you think the Catholics would like the Church portrayed in movies? I saw a movie a few years ago called The Barbarian Invasions. It’s a pretty misleading title, I’ll give you that, but in one scene the son goes to a Catholic Church in Canada. It’s essentially abandoned. All the statues and other religious things are in the basement in storage because the congregation withered away. That’s a pretty realistic portrayal of today’s Catholic Church in Canada – or so I’m told. Where are the news stories of Catholics saying “See? See? This is the true Catholic Church, The Da Vinci Code is sooooo unrealistic.”
One of these vocal bishops somewhere said that it was irresponsible to stir up anti-Catholic sentiment with this movie. I agree that stirring up “anti” sentiment is bad, but we’re not talking about the Holocaust here. We’re not talking about racial prejudice. We’re not talking about anything new, either. The Catholic Church did plenty to stir up anti-Catholic sentiment by covering up decades of sexual scandals. Don’t blame Ron Howard for that. Perhaps the Church should look in one of those fancy, gold covered mirrors in the Vatican museum and stop pointing the finger at Hollywood.
Let’s not even talk about the Church’s stance on female priests, contraception, and abortion. I’m not saying I disagree with the Church. I’m saying the Church has taken strong positions on these issues and these issues are divisive. That stirs up a lot of anti-Catholic sentiment with or without a new movie.
So I’m excited to go see Angels and Demons. I loved the book. So far it’s been a great movie season with X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Star Trek. Don’t even get me started on these two though, they were sooooo unrealistic…
I’m talking of course about Angels and Demons, the latest Dan Brown book made into a blockbuster movie. Catholics far and wide, well, at least vocal ones, are condemning the film as a “gratuitously outrageous” portrayal of the Church. It has been called “outlandish.” I’ve got another word for it: fiction.
Storytelling has been entertaining people for thousands of years. Whether from cavemen around campfires or modern movie makers, we all want to hear a good tale and be entertained. Would Harry Potter be such a smash if it were about a bunch of normal kids? No. Would you care about Harold and Kumar if they just went out and got a few hamburgers? No. Normal kids and fast food are the stuff of ordinary life. We want to see something extraordinary when we go to the movies.
How do you think the Catholics would like the Church portrayed in movies? I saw a movie a few years ago called The Barbarian Invasions. It’s a pretty misleading title, I’ll give you that, but in one scene the son goes to a Catholic Church in Canada. It’s essentially abandoned. All the statues and other religious things are in the basement in storage because the congregation withered away. That’s a pretty realistic portrayal of today’s Catholic Church in Canada – or so I’m told. Where are the news stories of Catholics saying “See? See? This is the true Catholic Church, The Da Vinci Code is sooooo unrealistic.”
One of these vocal bishops somewhere said that it was irresponsible to stir up anti-Catholic sentiment with this movie. I agree that stirring up “anti” sentiment is bad, but we’re not talking about the Holocaust here. We’re not talking about racial prejudice. We’re not talking about anything new, either. The Catholic Church did plenty to stir up anti-Catholic sentiment by covering up decades of sexual scandals. Don’t blame Ron Howard for that. Perhaps the Church should look in one of those fancy, gold covered mirrors in the Vatican museum and stop pointing the finger at Hollywood.
Let’s not even talk about the Church’s stance on female priests, contraception, and abortion. I’m not saying I disagree with the Church. I’m saying the Church has taken strong positions on these issues and these issues are divisive. That stirs up a lot of anti-Catholic sentiment with or without a new movie.
So I’m excited to go see Angels and Demons. I loved the book. So far it’s been a great movie season with X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Star Trek. Don’t even get me started on these two though, they were sooooo unrealistic…
Thursday, May 7, 2009
I'll take what he's having.
I’ve never been suspended in my life. Not from school. Not from work. Not from the ceiling… Manny Ramirez sure has been though. 50 game suspension handed down by Major League Baseball for violating their substance abuse policy. As a result Manny will lose approximately one-third of his $25M salary. So he’ll just have to scrape by on $15 or $16M this year. And he gets his summer off. Sort of like school teachers only rich (and stupid.)
Let me ask you, if you could make $15M and have the summer off, would you view that as a punishment? I wouldn’t. I’m going to have to work every season of every year until the day I die to hopefully put one million in the bank to – ironically enough – retire. And that’s if the stock market rebounds and I manage to keep my job. Now let me ask you this: is Manny really being punished? No, he’s not.
So what in the world do we do with all these cheaters in baseball? Let’s look around. How does Laos deal with drug dealers? Firing squad, that’s how. I don’t know about you, but if I ever fire up a meth lab it’s sure as hell not going to be in Laos. They have a pretty low rate of drug use there too. Curious. But seriously, we can’t kill Manny Ramirez. So let’s look at the athletic equivalent: the SMU football-Mustangs. In the mid-80’s these repeat offenders were dealt the death penalty by the NCAA. Football was cancelled. Twenty years later this once perennial contender for the National Championship plays to empty stadiums in a second tier conference. Hmmm. So I submit to you – as an SMU alum – that SMU was really punished.
So I propose this: Dodgers, because of Manny Ramirez’ violation you forfeit 50 games this year. Sorry. All you Dodger fans who bought season tickets? Sorry. We’ll just cancel those games. Ask the Dodgers for a refund. Sorry Frank McCourt (Dodger’s owner) you don’t get gate revenue for those 50 games. Or parking receipts. Or concession sales. Or TV money. Sorry Dodgers local TV affiliate, you have to show reruns instead of games. And lose advertising money. All because Manny did steroids.
Now think about this: sorry Dallas Cowboys, but Pacman Jones just cost you two games for off-field behavior. Hey New York Yankees, pay attention to what A-Rod’s cousin is bringing him from the Dominican Republic because it might cost you 30 or 40 ball games. Listen up Baltimore Ravens, if Ray Lewis kills somebody again you forfeit the 2010 season. Is anybody going to want to take a chance on Michael Vick? Anybody?
What if the penalty for an athlete’s abuse really affected the team rather than just the guy? And don’t give me any lip about Manny’s absence affecting the team because he can't play blah blah blah. When I say affect the team I mean money-wise. Would the Dodgers have signed Manny if they knew he might cost them 50 games worth of money? No. Would professional teams take on troubled, but talented, athletes if they stood to lose substantial income as a result of that athlete’s indiscretions? No. Would the SMU boosters have paid players if they knew it would cost them their football team forever? No.
In this day and age where professional athletes make so much money that no fine or fee is truly punishment I say punish the owners. The owner put that bad apple on the team. Let's hold him accountable. And then we'll get rid of the dopers and thugs. Could my scheme return us to the days when professional athletes could be role models for kids? Listen up Charles Barkley!
Let me ask you, if you could make $15M and have the summer off, would you view that as a punishment? I wouldn’t. I’m going to have to work every season of every year until the day I die to hopefully put one million in the bank to – ironically enough – retire. And that’s if the stock market rebounds and I manage to keep my job. Now let me ask you this: is Manny really being punished? No, he’s not.
So what in the world do we do with all these cheaters in baseball? Let’s look around. How does Laos deal with drug dealers? Firing squad, that’s how. I don’t know about you, but if I ever fire up a meth lab it’s sure as hell not going to be in Laos. They have a pretty low rate of drug use there too. Curious. But seriously, we can’t kill Manny Ramirez. So let’s look at the athletic equivalent: the SMU football-Mustangs. In the mid-80’s these repeat offenders were dealt the death penalty by the NCAA. Football was cancelled. Twenty years later this once perennial contender for the National Championship plays to empty stadiums in a second tier conference. Hmmm. So I submit to you – as an SMU alum – that SMU was really punished.
So I propose this: Dodgers, because of Manny Ramirez’ violation you forfeit 50 games this year. Sorry. All you Dodger fans who bought season tickets? Sorry. We’ll just cancel those games. Ask the Dodgers for a refund. Sorry Frank McCourt (Dodger’s owner) you don’t get gate revenue for those 50 games. Or parking receipts. Or concession sales. Or TV money. Sorry Dodgers local TV affiliate, you have to show reruns instead of games. And lose advertising money. All because Manny did steroids.
Now think about this: sorry Dallas Cowboys, but Pacman Jones just cost you two games for off-field behavior. Hey New York Yankees, pay attention to what A-Rod’s cousin is bringing him from the Dominican Republic because it might cost you 30 or 40 ball games. Listen up Baltimore Ravens, if Ray Lewis kills somebody again you forfeit the 2010 season. Is anybody going to want to take a chance on Michael Vick? Anybody?
What if the penalty for an athlete’s abuse really affected the team rather than just the guy? And don’t give me any lip about Manny’s absence affecting the team because he can't play blah blah blah. When I say affect the team I mean money-wise. Would the Dodgers have signed Manny if they knew he might cost them 50 games worth of money? No. Would professional teams take on troubled, but talented, athletes if they stood to lose substantial income as a result of that athlete’s indiscretions? No. Would the SMU boosters have paid players if they knew it would cost them their football team forever? No.
In this day and age where professional athletes make so much money that no fine or fee is truly punishment I say punish the owners. The owner put that bad apple on the team. Let's hold him accountable. And then we'll get rid of the dopers and thugs. Could my scheme return us to the days when professional athletes could be role models for kids? Listen up Charles Barkley!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)