It’s a Miracle! Not.

Posted by Alex Horovitz on January 15, 2012
Atheism, Daily Life, Football, Youth Sports / No Comments

The latest run of Miracle madness got started on October 11, 2011, when it was announced that Tim Tebow would replace Kyle Orton as the Broncos’ starting quarterback.

In his first start, Tebow would lead the Broncos in a come-from-behind 18–15 overtime victory over the Miami Dolphins, after being down 15–0 with under three minutes to go in the game. On November 22, 2011, Orton was waived and since the quarterback change, the Broncos went 7–4, including four consecutive game-winning drives in the fourth quarter or overtime against the New York Jets in Week 11, the San Diego Chargers in Week 12, the Minnesota Vikings in Week 13 and the Chicago Bears in Week 14.

It should be pretty clear to football fans everywhere that Tebow is a pretty good quarter back. Just ask Ben Roethlisberger. With Tebow at the helm, the Broncos set the NFL overtime record for the fastest victory ever, beating the Steelers in 11 seconds with a quick 80 yard passing play. Where this all comes to a crashing halt is around the cult of Tebow.

Tebow seems like a nice guy. He seems to be a very positive, generous, and caring man. Terry Bradshaw even stated on Fox Sports yesterday that he hoped the Bronco’s would win because Tebow was such a positive role model for the kids of today. Or is he?

Tebow is an outspoken evangelical Christian whose penchant for last-minute heroics this season gave him a reputation as a miracle worker. He credits the Bible for informing his morality and defining his clean lifestyle. But as he is someone who holds the bible as the literal and true word of god, there is a dark side that we do not hear about.

Tebow publicly espouses the biblical virtues of kindness and forgiveness, but he also is likely harboring the dark twisted parts of the bible underneath. Tebow says he follows ALL of the bible, and regards it as the literal word and law of god. Also, like the Taliban, Tebow wants god’s law to be human law. Sharia!

My objection is not so much with Tebow, but with the mass media. Their reports of Tibow’s string of victories event as if they constituted divine intervention are, frankly, stupid. Reading the papers or glancing at the television, one could have got the impression that His Holiness the Tebow was the accepted moral tutor for the entire world.

The press has given Tebow an open mic to opine on abortion, virtue, and piety. When will reporters ask Tebow to share his views on gay marriage, the subservience of women, the power of the devil, were the dinosaurs too big for the Ark, or the age of the planet?

Tebow’s overt Christianity has resounded with the American public, most of whom claim to be Christian. The sad truth is that Tebow’s medieval, fundamentalist, demon fearing, tongues speaking beliefs are the antithesis of what most Americans believe. In fact, Tebow likely thinks YOU (and most Americans) are going to Hell.

Tebow was home-schooled, forced to memorize bible passages, and indoctrinated with fundamentalist ideology like a Wahhabi boy in a madrasas. If a guy in a robe “Tebowed” in the aisle of a plane, he would get tackled by an air marshal or passengers. He shares the same fervor and faith as women’s clinic bombers and the god Hates Fags people.

Why should we treat Tebow any different than any other radical fundamentalist?

You might be rethinking your Tebowtion but the mass media had a complete absence of critical thinking on the subject. The sense that one received from the mass media, which very often reported the “miracle” without even troubling to mention the contrary evidence, was that Tebow was a miracle worker. The best that even skeptical reports could do was to cite those “for” the miracle and those “against,” as if by quoting both sides they had fulfilled the duty of objectivity. Some devoted Denver priest says Tebow had god on his side, but this Boston priest says god loves all football players and doesn’t intervine. Who knows? We report . . . you decide.

The notable exception of presenting contrary evidence was last night’s CNN Breaking news:

From: “CNN Breaking News” <BreakingNews@mail.cnn.com>
To: textbreakingnews@ema3lsv06.turner.com
Subject: CNN Breaking News

The New England Patriots don’t give Tim Tebow the chance for a miracle in a 45-10 playoff rout of the Denver Broncos.

I wonder how it felt to face the anti-christ in the form of Bill Belichick. After all, who else has the power to thwart god’s will?

When you say Mumbai, what are you really saying?

Posted by Alex Horovitz on December 27, 2011
Commentary, Daily Life, Politics, Religion, Travel / Comments Off

Growing up, my mother always spoke fondly of her friends from the UN who lived in Bombay.

Since the adoption of it’s constitution on the 26th of January 1950, India has always maintained a constitutional commitment to secularism. The roots of this commitment are found in the preamble which states:

WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;

EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;

and to promote among them all

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity of the Nation;

IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.

It could be said that India’s modern commitment to secularism got off to a rather shakey start. To his credit, Mahatma Gandhi held the view that all religions are equal and gave rise to religious tolerance in modern India. Yet, history also notes that Gandhi was killed by a religious person for his adherence to minority appeasement ( his so called “secular principles”).

Oddly enough, the whole Mumbai/Bombay issue is likewise an issue of secularism versus religious extreemism. It is an outcropping of Hindu fundementalism purportaited on the the city through and with the rise in the 1980′s of the Shiv Sena party. When you stop and think about the players involved in this name change, you must also think seriously about what your are saying everytime you use Mumbai to refer to Bombay.

Some background from wikipedia and other sources:

(1) The Marathi people or Maharashtrians (Marathi: मराठी माणसं or महाराष्ट्रीय): are an Indo-Aryan ethnic group, that inhabit the Maharashtra region and state of western India. Their language Marathi is part of the southern group of Indo-Aryan languages. Although their history goes back more than a millennium, the community came to prominence when Maratha warriors under His Majesty, His Highness Shivaji Maharaj established the Maratha Empire in 1674.

(2) Bombay: A widespread popular etymology of Bombay holds that it was derived from a Portuguese name meaning “good bay”. This is based on the facts that bom is Portuguese for “good” and baía (or the archaic spelling bahia) means “bay”. However, this literal translation would have been incorrect in grammatical gender, as bom is masculine, while baia is feminine; a correct Portuguese rendering of “good bay” would be boa ba(h)ia. Having said this, baim is an archaic, masculine word for “little bay”.

(3) Shiv Sena (Marathi: शिव सेना Śiv Senā, meaning Army of Shiv, referring to Shivaji, also SHS): a political party in India founded on 19 June 1966 by Balasaheb Thackeray. The party originally emerged out of a movement in Bombat broadly favouring increased influence of Maharashtrians in Maharashtra. It built a strong base amongst the Marathi community in the sixties based on its ideology that Maharashtra belonged to the Marathi community and that they be given preference over migrants from other Indian states.

So, what happened? How did the name change from Bombay to Mumbai? Well, it all started in back in the 1960′s when Balasaheb Thackeray first began Shiv Sena. Disatisfied with what he saw as the lack of influence on the part of Hindu’s generally, and Maharashtrians specifically, he began his campaign to change the name of the city.

When my mother talked of the Bombay of our friends it was a place of great excitement and liveliness. It was Asia’s answer to New York City. Bombay was in her descriptions youthful, fun, and busy. Everyone dashing around busy and happy. Bombay was a city that never slept. A person could buy kebabs at Haji Ali well-after midnight, or sip coffee at the Shamiana even as the garbage collectors swept the city. Some even suggest that the hit song ‘The city never sleeps at night’ was written with Bombay in mind!

Saddly for Bombay, in 1995 the right-wing Hindu nationalist party Shiv Sena won elections in the state of Maharashtra and presided over a coalition that took control of the state assembly. After the election, the party announced that the port city had been renamed after the Hindu goddess Mumbadevi, the city’s patron deity. Federal agencies, local businesses, and newspapers were ordered to adopt the change.

The relgious violence of the 1990′s, in particular the violence targeted against Muslims by Shiv Sena were a principle cause of the city dividing up along religious lines. The name change in 1995 was in many ways perfunctory. The sad truth is that Mumbai is simply the capital of Maharashtra. The largest city in India’s richest state but limited by its regional identity. It’s insular and parochial.

That’s Bombay’s sad story so far. But what of this Balasaheb Thackeray and his son who run the Shiv Sena party? You shouldn’t go about thinking that this is a run of the mill political party. When you call Bombay by the name Mumbai you are making a political statement. A statement of agreement, even if only by association, with two men and a party that welcomes suicide bombing in service to their political goals.

In 2002, Thackeray issued a call to form Hindu suicide squads to counter alleged Muslim violence: “If such suicide squads are formed only then can we take on perpetrators of mindless violence.” Asia Times further reported on Thackeray’s rhetoric:’to take the Muslims head on’. ‘Trouble-making Muslims should be wiped out from the country… kick out the four crore [40 million] Bangladeshi Muslims and then the country will be secure’, the Shiv Sena leader said. Urging Hindus to start calling India ‘Hindu rashtra’ (Hindu nation), he maintained that only ‘our religion Hinduism is to be honored here’.

Surprised? You shouldn’t be. Thackeray also thought very highly of another 20th century despot. In the AsiaTimes he offered the following in an interview: ”I am a great admirer of Hitler, and I am not ashamed to say so! I do not say that I agree with all the methods he employed, but he was a wonderful organizer and orator, and I feel that he and I have several things in common…. What India really needs is a dictator who will rule benevolently, but with an iron hand.”

Should we reward fanaticism? I say no. This need not be a requiem for Bombay. It is, rather, a plea to reverse history and honor India’s secular commitments to posterity. Perhaps the old name can be resurrected — in St. Petersburg and Volgograd that is precisely what has happened.  Are there not a few old values we should preserve forever like old names? Values like tollerance and respect?

In your every day conversations, recall the rich history and traditions of Bombay by using and prefering Bombay over Mumbai.  Otherwise memories will be the only thing left, and the world will have once again acquiessed to extreemists.

लंबे समय तक रहना Bombay

 

 

« Previous Page