I wonder if he thanked God after the Tallahassee DA decided that he didn't rape that girl.

tydog;842256957 said:

---

I wonder if he thanked God after the Tallahassee DA decided that he didn't rape that girl.

---

:bravo

philly1121;842256956 said:

---

lol. Probably not but - now that you mention it - why would you put God first? In my code, I put family first. The thing that is tangible.

I just think the "shout out" to God by athletes is a bit over the top. I'm a soccer fan and the one guy that takes it to extremes is Javier "Chicharito" Hernandez. Manchester Utd. striker. He is in the middle of the pitch, practically speaking in tongues, arms outstretched, eyes closed. Seriously?

Again my own opinion but I think that the midfield prayer after games is unnecessary and performed only for spectacle. I read somewhere that evangelicals specifically target athletes and pro and college teams to do these displays which I find particularly distasteful.

But full disclosure: I'm a believer. I just think its a private matter. If I was in Jameis' shoes - I'm thanking my teammates and the coaches.

---

Don't like it in "your face" eh? I think it is a private matter too, especially not being particularly religious. But then I guess you think the U$C band and fan base is in your face too? How about Cal fans near the end of the game taunting "Bear Territory", which of course can never be echoed until the win is guaranteed? Nah, it's really a matter of whose ox is being gored, isn't it? Fans are fans, and most can be really arseholes at times. March along frat row at Cal before any FB game, but especially the SC or 'furd games. See any arseholes?

OdontoBear66;842256856 said:

---

Having been brought up a Lutheran, a pretty relaxed one at that, I know just enough about religion to be dangerous. But when I read what you have written above, it does not resonate with what I think religious people believe. I do not sense that they really believe "God wanted them to win the game" so much as their belief system is such that they feel thankful to God for enriching in them any good that comes from them.

I do not like all the invocations of God in the manner you suggest, but I am not sure that is what a lot of players are really meaning. The residence of God within them is what put them over the top to make that great play, or whatever, is more of what I hear. In that I find it personal to that player, I am more OK with it, unless carried to "gagging" extremes (which I think you are suggesting). If someone wants to cross himself and point to the sky, so be it, but we don't need endless pontification.

---

Having watched/heard the interview (I had to rewind the first few seconds 3 times until I caught on to his speech patterns; he could e-nun-ci-ate more but is not so bad for someone so young who was exhausted, exhilarated, and couldn't hear himself talk b/c of that silly war chant), I agree the poster you quoted is over-reacting in this instance. Winston clearly mentions he told his teammates before the final drive that "we control our own destiny" (0:16) and refers to all their previous efforts to reach that point. That doesn't sound like someone who believes he was simply handed the victory by a pom-pom deity. He does thank God in 2 pitifully short sentences that take up 5 seconds of the 1:37 second interview (1:02-1:05, 1:11-1:13). To characterize 5 seconds as "gagging extreme" and "endless pontification" is somewhat of an over-sensitive distortion.

OdontoBear66;842256856 said:

---

Faith and religion is a personal thing. For the most part, bask all you want in it, but keep a low posture in diverse (believers and non believers) company.

---

gobears725;842256861 said:

---

this last part im pretty sure is in the bible.

---

It always surprises me to hear people say so. Christianity from the very start was an evangelistic and missionary religion. Christ had a 3 year public ministry spanning Israel, Judea, Samaria oftentimes confronting the uneducated and highly educated alike, taking them away from their comfort zones, and making disciples. His departing Great Commission to his disciples was an imperative to continue his work of making disciples "of all nations," baptizing them, and teaching them to observe all his commandments (Matthew 28). His apostles continued that evangelistic faith through missionary trips and church-building throughout the known Greco-Roman world. Their interaction with the amazing diversity of philosophies and people of that era was marked often by particularly public proclamations in Jewish synagogues, the Athenian Areopagus (Acts 17), marketplaces, government buildings, and elsewhere. They did so even at the risk and cost of their lives at roadside torture stakes, dungeons, and coliseums. The Bible does not teach a "low posture" faith; quite the opposite.

Beardog26;842256871 said:

---

Yes, but not all beliefs can be known to be entirely true or untrue, right or wrong. Some clearly can be so classified, others cannot.

I am not speaking specifically to you when I say this, but I find it a bit odd and hypocritical how some feel free to "hat" on others' beliefs/opinions yet will get defensive and somehow feel their rights have been trampled on when their beliefs/opinions are the subject of "hat" emanating from others. Intolerance works both ways.

Anybody is free to "hat" on another's beliefs, and others are free to comment on such "hatting."

---

Not sure to what extent Winston actually said or implied this, if at all, but most of us believe that the notion that God wills certain sports teams to win over others is just wrong.

Anybody disagree?

Big C_Cal;842257028 said:

---

Not sure to what extent Winston actually said or implied this, if at all, but most of us believe that the notion that God wills certain sports teams to win over others is just wrong.

Anybody disagree?

---

ABSOLUTELY DISAGREE. Why the hell would you pray during key moments in the game if you do not believe that GOD can and will help your team? Every game you see on TV shows somebody praying.

Big C_Cal;842257028 said:

---

Not sure to what extent Winston actually said or implied this, if at all, but most of us believe that the notion that God wills certain sports teams to win over others is just wrong.

Anybody disagree?

---

If you believe in God and Christianity you'd know that God answers all prayers, it's just that many times the answer is "no". He doth work in mysterious ways ya know......:beer:

82gradDLSdad;842256678 said:

---

Well, I just watched the post game on-field interview and it didn't seem as bad as what I've heard people say and write. And I was ready to rip the kid given his alleged off-field troubles (I know, not very fair of me). I tend to give QBs a break after I read that one of the reasons the 49ers didn't draft AR was because they thought he was too cocky. I can only imagine a QB has to walk a very, very fine line of being supremely confident but not so cocky that he alienates everyone around him. Winston didn't seem so bad in the interview I saw. Grammar-wise....uh...another story and another topic.

---

We better not watch 9ers games anymore. Kap isnt very bright and betting Gore is one that couldnt read going in to college.

bearfan;842257033 said:

---

ABSOLUTELY DISAGREE. Why the hell would you pray during key moments in the game if you do not believe that GOD can and will help your team? Every game you see on TV shows somebody praying.

---

"God" is a gambling addict. Just cant stand to lose. Watch the games you can see who he had $ on.

personally if i were in winston's position id thank my teammates, coaches, family, friends. a more typical celebration speech. people i know for sure exist...

Big C_Cal;842257028 said:

---

Not sure to what extent Winston actually said or implied this, if at all, but most of us believe that the notion that God wills certain sports teams to win over others is just wrong.

Anybody disagree?

---

Part of our problem in discussing this topic is that most of us think in terms of black and white; yes or no. Many times the answer is not as clearly defined and we do not see the whole truth.

As a religious person I often find the truth (from my perspective) in the most unexpected places.

Futurerama had a great episode where Bender leaves some people trapped and when asked why he doesn't go back to rescue them, he says "Don't worry, God will get them out". Eventually after searching the universe, he discovers that God is a giant robot entity in space. Disillusioned and disheartened by his discovery, he concludes that God will not save those he left trapped. So Bender finally decides to do the right thing and to go back and rescue the people he left trapped.

The closing scene has the "God" entity saying "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

Wikipedia postulates that: The God Entity advises that the use of godlike powers requires a "light touch" so that those one intends to aid will neither lose hope in nor become dependent on supernatural intervention.

So...we can't look to God to save Cal Football. We have to rely on Sonny or his successors. But just maybe God will give a little needed guidance to Sonny in a dream--so that the Cal fans don't lose all hope.

RealDrew2;842256909 said:

---

Is actually a good way to continue the black underclass. Do you really think anyone would hire someone who speaks like that for a job, other than football. So I think your attitude is much more harmful than that of the linguistic purists, and in many ways, more racist.

---

That's perfect, because if I were having this discussion with a speaker of a non-standard dialect/sociolect I would probably say "There are prejudiced employers in the world, and they think you aren't smart if you don't act like them. You seriously need to consider this when thinking about what you want to get out of school and how you want to speak in an interview." Those employers would still be prejudiced, though, and I think that that prejudice merits discussion. Don't you?

berk18;842256725 said:

---

Yes and no. Here are the facts: Language is always changing. This is true of educated English (i.e. its development from Shakespeare to a Cal classroom), and it's true of every other variety of every language that's ever existed. Different speech varieties exist precisely because language is always changing. When speakers of the same language spread out either socially or geographically, the language changes in different ways in those dispersed groups. Key point: Language isn't getting "worse." English (rather, it's ancestor) has been changing since humans learned to speak, and it has never degraded or become incomprehensible despite the fact that organized education has only recently come into existence. It just produced different varieties, all equally good as tools for communication within a specific group.

Standard English has no objective priority over any other variety of English. It started as the version of English that happened to be spoken in London when people decided that there should be a standard, but there have been dialects of English for as long as English has been written down. Some features associated with African American Vernacular English, for example, are just very old regionalisms FROM ENGLAND. So, the variants "ask" and "aks" have existed as long as English has. Many linguistic features came to America not through "mistakes" made by black people, but from English speakers from different parts of England. African Americans learned the language from someone, after all.

Here's where racism comes in: No one speaks standard English. Every spoken variety is "wrong" in a lot of ways. When someone says "That's the man who I see," 95% of the population doesn't bat an eye, because this is a "mistake" made by a specific group of people, so it's OK. We write that off as "Yeah, but EVERYONE says that," when we really mean "Yeah, but MY social group says that." We aren't so forgiving when other groups do things that are different but no worse. Furthermore, we are willing to accept some varieties (i.e. Irish English) as being quaint, and "just the way they speak," but we aren't willing to grant that license to people from the inner city. There's no objective reason for making this distinction. Linguistic prejudice just maps onto and illuminates social prejudice. That's not to say that people who dislike the features of AAVE are racist. Rather, society has been racist for a long, long time, and the rules of what is and is not acceptable linguistically were shaped by that process. Linguistic purists might not be racist, but their linguistic attitudes are shaped by a racist past. These attitudes are still clearly used to justify prejudice against specific groups of people, even if we can mitigate it by saying "I'd hate it just as much if white people talked that way!"

---

I get your point but you overstate the importance of "race".

Race really has not come to the fore until the last 500 years of so. But for thousands and thousands of years, people speaking one language who have perceived economic or political or cultural superiority have looked down on other people without equal economic or political or cultural standing who cannot speak the same language with the same fluency.

The Greeks ridiculed all foreigners who could not speak proper Greek.
Later Romans ridiculed foreigners who could not speak proper Latin.
Chinese have ridiculed people who could not speak the same language as the Chinese overlords.

Moreover, in societies where the ruling class spoke a certain language, the lower classes would try to speak the same language as well as the members of the ruling class did.

You may recall the play and movie "Pygmalion" later turned into "My Fair Lady". Eliza Doolittle was trapped in her lower class status until she was able to speak proper English. That had NOTHING to do with her race. It had everything to do with her standing in society.

The problem in modern day America is that certain modes of speaking connote a lack of education and a lower social status of the speaker. That person might be an African American, an Asian, a Latino, a non-ethnic "Hillbilly" or any other person who was not educated in English.

Luckily for us one way to counter the social stereotypes associated with the manner of speaking is to learn the manner of speech that is commonly heard in what used to be referred to as "polite society". It can be learned. How many times have you heard someone speaking with an "proper" "English" accent who was not ethnically a person of Northern European ancestry.

Learning to speak what is commonly accepted as proper English provides that person with the first step toward access to the portals of power, prosperity and respectability in the US.

Should this be the case? Is it fair? Is it egalitarian? NO!. But that is the way it is.

I am the child of an undocumented Latino immigrant to the US who was later naturalized during WWII. The one thing that my father instilled in me was to get an education and learn to speak proper English. My skin color was going to be enough of a burden; and speaking proper English was one way to defuse the problem.

We can argue all day as to what "proper English" since there are so many dialects. But if you are honest you will admit, you will know it when it is NOT being spoken.

Nasal Mucus Goldenbear;842257021 said:

---

It always surprises me to hear people say so. Christianity from the very start was an evangelistic and missionary religion. Christ had a 3 year public ministry spanning Israel, Judea, Samaria oftentimes confronting the uneducated and highly educated alike, taking them away from their comfort zones, and making disciples. His departing Great Commission to his disciples was an imperative to continue his work of making disciples "of all nations," baptizing them, and teaching them to observe all his commandments (Matthew 28). His apostles continued that evangelistic faith through missionary trips and church-building throughout the known Greco-Roman world. Their interaction with the amazing diversity of philosophies and people of that era was marked often by particularly public proclamations in Jewish synagogues, the Athenian Areopagus (Acts 17), marketplaces, government buildings, and elsewhere. They did so even at the risk and cost of their lives at roadside torture stakes, dungeons, and coliseums. The Bible does not teach a "low posture" faith; quite the opposite.

---

I certainly realize that the Bible does not teach "low posture", but missionary and evangelistic types can be quite offensive in their zeal at times. Put it out there, then if not accepted, give it a rest. The receiver is smart enough to not be bombarded.

GivemTheAxe;842257095 said:

---

I get your point but you overstate the importance of "race".

Race really has not come to the fore until the last 500 years of so. But for thousands and thousands of years, people speaking one language who have perceived economic or political or cultural superiority have looked down on other people without equal economic or political or cultural standing who cannot speak the same language with the same fluency.

The Greeks ridiculed all foreigners who could not speak proper Greek.
Later Romans ridiculed foreigners who could not speak proper Latin.
Chinese have ridiculed people who could not speak the same language as the Chinese overlords.

Moreover, in societies where the ruling class spoke a certain language, the lower classes would try to speak the same language as well as the members of the ruling class did.

You may recall the play and movie "Pygmalion" later turned into "My Fair Lady". Eliza Doolittle was trapped in her lower class status until she was able to speak proper English. That had NOTHING to do with her race. It had everything to do with her standing in society.

The problem in modern day America is that certain modes of speaking connote a lack of education and a lower social status of the speaker. That person might be an African American, an Asian, a Latino, a non-ethnic "Hillbilly" or any other person who was not educated in English.

Luckily for us one way to counter the social stereotypes associated with the manner of speaking is to learn the manner of speech that is commonly heard in what used to be referred to as "polite society". It can be learned. How many times have you heard someone speaking with an "proper" "English" accent who was not ethnically a person of Northern European ancestry.

Learning to speak what is commonly accepted as proper English provides that person with the first step toward access to the portals of power, prosperity and respectability in the US.

Should this be the case? Is it fair? Is it egalitarian? NO!. But that is the way it is.

I am the child of an undocumented Latino immigrant to the US who was later naturalized during WWII. The one thing that my father instilled in me was to get an education and learn to speak proper English. My skin color was going to be enough of a burden; and speaking proper English was one way to defuse the problem.

We can argue all day as to what "proper English" since there are so many dialects. But if you are honest you will admit, you will know it when it is NOT being spoken.

---

Good post. This is also very much a matter of class not race and perhaps not as evident in California where there are not a lot of differences in dialects. But in the Northeast you used to be able to pinpoint someone's socio-economic clan and class by how they spoke-e.g. The Kennedys and Sully from Southie

OdontoBear66;842257117 said:

---

I certainly realize that the Bible does not teach "low posture", but missionary and evangelistic types can be quite offensive in their zeal at times. Put it out there, then if not accepted, give it a rest. The receiver is smart enough to not be bombarded.

---

That also is in the Bible. Plus so is: "preach by letting your actions do your talking".

freshfunk;842256942 said:

---

The guy is expressing his joy of winning a game and talking about how his faith strengthened him. He's not standing there debating religious doctrine.

---

i know i personally dont have a problem with it. its just something i wouldnt have said.

sycasey;842256811 said:

---

It just seems stupid to me. Not the idea of believing in God, but the idea that if there is a God he is out there deciding who wins football games. If that's the case, why even play the game? Why even take the interview? Obviously you had nothing to do with it. What about the other team? Did God just put them there in order to crush their dreams? (Well, in the case of Cal football that last one might actually be true.)

That's not to say I dislike any and all invocations of God in post-game conversation. Players from both teams getting together for a quick post-game prayer? No problem with that. Players thanking God for giving them the physical gifts to succeed in their sport? No problem with that either.

Players claiming God wanted them to win the game? Yeah, I've got a problem with that. I think Winston's comments are more along those lines, but I will grant that he just might have phrased things awkwardly in the heat of the moment.

---

I definitely understand that you do not agree with players that claim God wanted them to win a game. However, I think you fall into a precarious trap when you start to characterize another person's beliefs as stupid. That is an ad hominem attack. That other person could similarly say that he believes that it is stupid to believe that God does not control who wins a game because he believes God controls everything. Other people might say that it is a logically flawed argument to state that God does not take certain actions because you do not understand why God would take such actions or because you think it is unlikely that God takes certain actions. In this case, such a person would say that it is a logically flawed argument for you to conclude that God does not control who wins a football game because you cannot understand why He would do so or because of the questions you raised in your post. It become difficult to have a meaningful discussion when you characterize the beliefs of other people as stupid.

It still surprises me that it bugs you that someone believes something different than you. It seems like that would cause you to be bugged constantly.

gobears725;842256825 said:

---

its not about whether or not people believe in god, but i can tell you that any priest will tell you, god has no interest in who wins the football game. those that praise god for winning a game shows a certain amount of ignorance toward the religion that they supposedly follow.

---

I think you may have misunderstood my question to sycasey. I never said that this was about whether or not people believe in God. I am not sure how you could interpret my post that way.

68great;842257178 said:

---

That also is in the Bible. Plus so is: "preach by letting your actions do your talking".

---

Works for me.

GoldenBearofCalifornia;842257469 said:

---

It still surprises me that it bugs you that someone believes something different than you. It seems like that would cause you to be bugged constantly.

---

Well, look, I'm not losing sleep over it. But when ever I hear some athlete make remarks to that effect I roll my eyes.

And hey, guess what, sometimes people say things that I think are stupid. I'll say so if I think so. Doesn't mean I think they're bad people or always stupid, but this particular thing I think sounds stupid.

GivemTheAxe;842257095 said:

---

I get your point but you overstate the importance of "race".

Race really has not come to the fore until the last 500 years of so. But for thousands and thousands of years, people speaking one language who have perceived economic or political or cultural superiority have looked down on other people without equal economic or political or cultural standing who cannot speak the same language with the same fluency.

The Greeks ridiculed all foreigners who could not speak proper Greek.
Later Romans ridiculed foreigners who could not speak proper Latin.
Chinese have ridiculed people who could not speak the same language as the Chinese overlords.

Moreover, in societies where the ruling class spoke a certain language, the lower classes would try to speak the same language as well as the members of the ruling class did.

You may recall the play and movie "Pygmalion" later turned into "My Fair Lady". Eliza Doolittle was trapped in her lower class status until she was able to speak proper English. That had NOTHING to do with her race. It had everything to do with her standing in society.

The problem in modern day America is that certain modes of speaking connote a lack of education and a lower social status of the speaker. That person might be an African American, an Asian, a Latino, a non-ethnic "Hillbilly" or any other person who was not educated in English.

Luckily for us one way to counter the social stereotypes associated with the manner of speaking is to learn the manner of speech that is commonly heard in what used to be referred to as "polite society". It can be learned. How many times have you heard someone speaking with an "proper" "English" accent who was not ethnically a person of Northern European ancestry.

Learning to speak what is commonly accepted as proper English provides that person with the first step toward access to the portals of power, prosperity and respectability in the US.

Should this be the case? Is it fair? Is it egalitarian? NO!. But that is the way it is.

I am the child of an undocumented Latino immigrant to the US who was later naturalized during WWII. The one thing that my father instilled in me was to get an education and learn to speak proper English. My skin color was going to be enough of a burden; and speaking proper English was one way to defuse the problem.

We can argue all day as to what "proper English" since there are so many dialects. But if you are honest you will admit, you will know it when it is NOT being spoken.

---

I agree with everything you've said here. I've only emphasized race because the original post was about the issue of race in evaluating Winston. As regards policy, surely there are a variety of roads that can lead to a more equitable and fair world. For example, people with backgrounds like yours can change the way that they speak to the standard, gain power, but then hire people based on what they say and not how they say it. I agree that people from marginalized groups have to assimilate for a while to get a foot in the door, but once that foot's in the door they can help create a more reasonable world by hiring based on things that matter. Language isn't one of those things.

Alternatively (or concurrently), civil and reasoned discussion amongst educated people can attempt to counter-act prejudices that exist in society. This doesn't mean we have to tell non-standard speakers to ignore reality and prejudice and live like it doesn't exist, it simply means that we can chip away at the prejudice itself through pointing it out and talking about it.

One issue that hasn't yet come up in this discussion is that plenty of educated, intelligent people would rather not change their way of speech but feel compelled to. Language, like fashion, is a marker of personal identity, and keeping that closeted can wear on some people. Surely that's a concern that we should talk about and, as I would have it, be sympathetic to.

Finally, while we're on the topic of historical precedent, it should be noted that plenty of places in the world throughout history have NOT relied on one standard language, or at least they haven't attached the same stigma to non-standard varieties. The English speaking world is one of the major places where the linguistic attitude is "learn it or get out," primarily because English speakers tend to wipe-out speakers and languages different from their own (see: most of the Celtic languages of the British Isles, including more recent attempts to eliminate Welsh, the loss of most Native American languages, attempts to remove Spanish from American ballots, etc.). It's not the case that the only workable societies involve one prestige language, however. If you go to France or Germany, for example, plenty of people know English, but it's not more prestigious than the way they speak. This should, theoretically, be even easier to do with dialects, and in parts of the Arab speaking world this is exactly the case, with local dialects flourishing alongside Modern Standard Arabic (although often in different spheres). It just takes a conceptual sea-change of sorts.

OdontoBear66;842256969 said:

---

Don't like it in "your face" eh? I think it is a private matter too, especially not being particularly religious. But then I guess you think the U$C band and fan base is in your face too? How about Cal fans near the end of the game taunting "Bear Territory", which of course can never be echoed until the win is guaranteed? Nah, it's really a matter of whose ox is being gored, isn't it? Fans are fans, and most can be really arseholes at times. March along frat row at Cal before any FB game, but especially the SC or 'furd games. See any arseholes?

---

Well, I'm not sure what the point is of your post. I routinely pray that the USC Band and it's fan base would disappear. I know that ain't gonna happen! I certainly wasn't calling athletes that do the whole prayer vigil at mid-field *ssholes.

I did have an issue with some Cal dolt at the tOSU game going "hooooh" late in the 3rd quarter, all by himself. I wouldn't call that typical assholery tho. lol

Do you know Kaepernick? He's very bright. Just because he doesn't engage much with the media......so what? That would make Marshawn Lynch an idiot, which isn't the case either.
Steve Carlton never spoke to the press most of his career. I've seen Kap at social occasions and he is very outgoing, polite, congenial......TOTALLY different than he appears in front of the press. I might like a bit more in depth answers after a game too, but frankly, can you blame him for choosing not to offer up much to the press? There's not a reporter in the Bay Area I have much respect for.....I wouldn't want to spend much time talking to them either. I guess the bottom line is this, you stated that "Kap isn't very bright." Just because he's rather reticent with the press is no reason to make such a statement. He always did well in school and was praised by his teachers for being an excellent student and great to have in class. Guess instead of not watching Niner games, I'll just ignore your ignorant posts from now on.

biely medved;842257042 said:

---

We better not watch 9ers games anymore. Kap isnt very bright and betting Gore is one that couldnt read going in to college.

---

Kap's wonderlic score = 37
Aaron Rodger's = 36

sycasey;842257735 said:

---

Well, look, I'm not losing sleep over it. But when ever I hear some athlete make remarks to that effect I roll my eyes.

And hey, guess what, sometimes people say things that I think are stupid. I'll say so if I think so. Doesn't mean I think they're bad people or always stupid, but this particular thing I think sounds stupid.

---

It is an interesting approach to just call the belief of another person stupid because you do not agree with that belief. What an open-minded and educated approach to life.:sarc:

GivemTheAxe;842257095 said:

---

I get your point but you overstate the importance of "race".

Race really has not come to the fore until the last 500 years of so. But for thousands and thousands of years, people speaking one language who have perceived economic or political or cultural superiority have looked down on other people without equal economic or political or cultural standing who cannot speak the same language with the same fluency.

The Greeks ridiculed all foreigners who could not speak proper Greek.
Later Romans ridiculed foreigners who could not speak proper Latin.
Chinese have ridiculed people who could not speak the same language as the Chinese overlords.

Moreover, in societies where the ruling class spoke a certain language, the lower classes would try to speak the same language as well as the members of the ruling class did.

You may recall the play and movie "Pygmalion" later turned into "My Fair Lady". Eliza Doolittle was trapped in her lower class status until she was able to speak proper English. That had NOTHING to do with her race. It had everything to do with her standing in society.

The problem in modern day America is that certain modes of speaking connote a lack of education and a lower social status of the speaker. That person might be an African American, an Asian, a Latino, a non-ethnic "Hillbilly" or any other person who was not educated in English.

Luckily for us one way to counter the social stereotypes associated with the manner of speaking is to learn the manner of speech that is commonly heard in what used to be referred to as "polite society". It can be learned. How many times have you heard someone speaking with an "proper" "English" accent who was not ethnically a person of Northern European ancestry.

Learning to speak what is commonly accepted as proper English provides that person with the first step toward access to the portals of power, prosperity and respectability in the US.

Should this be the case? Is it fair? Is it egalitarian? NO!. But that is the way it is.

I am the child of an undocumented Latino immigrant to the US who was later naturalized during WWII. The one thing that my father instilled in me was to get an education and learn to speak proper English. My skin color was going to be enough of a burden; and speaking proper English was one way to defuse the problem.

We can argue all day as to what "proper English" since there are so many dialects. But if you are honest you will admit, you will know it when it is NOT being spoken.

---

Good points, but I think you're overlooking the basic need to convey meaning and communicate. I am constantly struggling with my ability to use English to precisely convey information (and I speak no other languages, and don't have much of a regional dialect). I find this really annoying. Adding in a regional dialect or accent can make this even worse. What I do find surprising is the number of cases where for some reason despite language barriers, communication is easy and efficient.

GoldenBearofCalifornia;842258142 said:

---

It is an interesting approach to just call the belief of another person stupid because you do not agree with that belief. What an open-minded and educated approach to life.:sarc:

---

Think what you want to think.

sycasey;842256672 said:

---

The thing that always bugs me is when athletes start claiming that "God" was the one who gave them the victory . . . because obviously God really cares about the outcome of a football game.

I know a lot of them do it, not just Winston, but he pressed the point pretty hard in his interview, and I was like, "Enough already!"

---

[SIZE="2"][COLOR="Blue"]
So, I guess that means God was betting on FSU?? What does that say of a God that would give Auburn so many cardiac finishes, only to shaft them in the end?? What a "loving" God she is !!! Warms my heart and lifts my faith in "imaginary friends" !! I wonder on whom Santa and the Easter Bunny were laying down their wagers??

[/COLOR][/SIZE]

:rant :p :headbang :beer:

Ukrainian;842258209 said:

---

[SIZE="2"][COLOR="Blue"]
So, I guess that means God was betting on FSU?? What does that say of a God that would give Auburn so many cardiac finishes, only to shaft them in the end?? What a "loving" God she is !!! Warms my heart and lifts my faith in "imaginary friends" !! I wonder on whom Santa and the Easter Bunny were laying down their wagers??

[/COLOR][/SIZE]

:rant :p :headbang :beer:

---

Though in fairness, it has been noted that God clearly wants Cal to lose.

sycasey;842258213 said:

---

Though in fairness, it has been noted that God clearly wants Cal to lose.

---

After "The Play" he said we were square and from now on we're on our own.

sycasey;842258213 said:

---

Though in fairness, it has been noted that God clearly wants Cal to lose.

---

There are few schools with a denser population of godless heathens (or those that hate religion) than Cal.

OdontoBear66;842257117 said:

---

I certainly realize that the Bible does not teach "low posture", but missionary and evangelistic types can be quite offensive in their zeal at times. Put it out there, then if not accepted, give it a rest. The receiver is smart enough to not be bombarded.

---

But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

Matthew 6:6

And several other verses in Matthew.

sycasey;842258192 said:

---

Think what you want to think.

---

Thanks for your permission to think what I want to think. Clearly you cannot defend your own position.

GoldenBearofCalifornia;842258314 said:

---

Thanks for your permission to think what I want to think. Clearly you cannot defend your own position.

---

Not against a guy who clearly has a totally different worldview, no. So hey, it's cool, think that I'm a big jerk if you want. That's fine.