I firmly believe that this election is an incredibly important one for this country. I've heard many say that the survival of this nation is at stake. How true that is I don't know, but I am getting quite disturbed by the direction the Obama presidency is taking. To wit, Obama has 1) engaged in war by fiat (contrary to the War Powers Act, and thus illegally), 2) put peaceful pro-life and Tea Party groups on the domestic terrorist lists at the FBI, 3) used "recess appointments" while Congress is in session to avoid Congressional approval of his picks, 3) use back-room deals to get legislation passed that increases the Presidents' authority over individuals (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act), 4) failed to uphold current law (as in immigration law), 5) conceiving, implementing, and ultimately covering up Fast and Furious, which led to the murder of a US Border Control Agent, and 6) used Executive Orders to side-step Congress because he faces opposition in Congress. This is in addition to the blatant anti-Christian measures he has resorted to, not only with the HHS mandate (the Catholic Church is not the only Christian group that opposes contraception, sterilization, or abortifacient drugs), but with Belmont Abbey College lawsuit, the covering of the Holy Name at Georgetown, and his lack of support for Christians being persecuted as a result of the Arab Spring (he explicitly referred to Muslim victims of an Islamist attack on a church when no Muslims were injured or killed in the attack). Of course, we can't forget the steps that the administration has gone to push the abortion agenda, suing states who've rescinded Planned Parenthood funding and more. It isn't just the President, however, but it seems that the entire Democratic Party in Washington is complicit in the madness, cheering him on, and encouraging him to do more. Sure, Democrats may have a different idea of how to keep America great...but the things that this Administration is doing is beyond the pall.
So, this brings me to the Republican candidates for President. I will give you a disclaimer: I have supported Rick Santorum from the beginning, for reasons I will not outline here. Below will be my impression of the candidates, from where I sit.
1) Mitt Romney--I put Romney first because he was the front runner since 2008. Romney presents a formidable challenge to any of the other challengers because of that fact. Romney, it appears, maintained much of his campaign structure and infrastructure since 2008. He's got guys on the ground in every important state, and they've been working to not only promote Mitt, but ensure that his message is on target. Besides that, he's got a large warchest with which to operate now and in the general election. There is an issue with that, however. I think Romney and his handlers were expecting to all but walk away with the nomination. A protracted primary simply drains his coffers.
In terms of policy, Mitt is surely not conservative, and most definitely not "severely conservative". His record as Mass. governor shows that. What is concerning about Mitt is the different ways he's attempted to show himself when ever he's been up for election. When he ran for the Senate in Mass., he ran to the LEFT of Ted Kennedy...as if that is possible. When he ran for President in 2008, he labelled himself as the "conservative" (and compared to McCain, he was). Now, he's labeling himself as the moderate. His record shows that as governor of Massachusetts, he oversaw a net loss of jobs, and the Massachusetts economy suffered with him at the helm. He constructed the current health care law that governs Massachusetts, upon which President Obama's monstrous health care law is based. The problem is, he hasn't walked back from it, not one iota, and he hasn't admitted that Massachusetts needed to beg the federal government to help it pay for the implementation of the law because it was so darn expensive. As Americans begin to feel the effects of the Affordable Care Act, namely higher insurance premiums and employers dropping coverage altogether, this is going to be the noose or millstone around Romney's neck. Unlike any of the other Republican candidates, Romney will not be able to use Obamacare to his advantage. Even Mitt's organization of the Salt Lake City Olympics was less than stellar, as they needed to borrow state and federal cash to get the job done. Like Romneycare, this does not bode well for the financial problems we are in. Romney's big selling point is his turning around of private industries, like Bain Capital. This shows his commitment to the free market and an acumen to at least understand how the economy works (unlike President Obama).
Socially, I don't know if I can trust him. LDS adherents tend to be socially conservative, so that's a plus. However, Romney seems to be more of a vote-grabber, and will pursue those things that will promote himself. I mean, first, he runs to the left of Ted Kennedy, then he tries to paint himself as THE conservative in 2008, and now he's saying he's a moderate. It seems too calculated to me.
2) Rick Santorum--I'm discussing Santorum second because he is currently the runner-up. Santorum is known for going on "tangents" and thus people lose what his message is. I blame this not only on Santorum (and his handlers), but also on the current generation who rely on 10-second sound bites for their information. This tendency is not an overly good thing, especially seeing what happened after he gained momentum after his three state sweep a few weeks ago: by going "off message", he gave his detractors some sound bites to use against him. In addition, Santorum spent a good 12 years in the Senate, enough time to compile a less-than-stellar conservative record (his votes on unions and some spending bills are evidence).
Santorum isn't your standard, run-of-the-mill politician, like Romney or Gingrich. He is genuine, and actually believes what he says, so much so that he practices it. In addition, he is consistent. You really don't have to wonder what new position or new spin he's going to come up with on the campaign trail. Santorum has built a reputation as being consistent and genuine, which is definitely a plus when going against an opponent who has created a 3 year portfolio of hypocrisy and dishonesty.
Mr. Santorum's record on social issues is unquestionable. His appeal to evangelicals (who helped to carry President GW Bush over John Kerry) is based on this. Unlike Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, who parrot the pro-life, pro-marriage positions as outliers of their basic platform, they are part and parcel of Santorum's basic platform. You aren't going to get a tabling or a truce on social issues with him...that is why he wrapped up the evangelical support early on.
3) Newt Gingrich--Newt was an admirable Speaker of the House, and has several things going for him. First, his record as a legislator and negotiator during the Clinton administration is astounding. To really consider it, we must remember that under Clinton, politics became more polarizing: the strategy was to appeal to your base and get out the vote, not pander to the center. It was in that climate that welfare reform was passed.
However, a career as long as Newt's is not without problems. Not one of Newt's colleagues while Speaker has endorsed him. Some have argued that this means that Newt's leadership qualities are lacking. I see it differently. First, there were some Republicans who questioned and challenged Newt as Speaker, that cannot be denied. However, they were not the majority. Newt still had the support of a great deal of Republicans in the House. Second, under Newt's leadership, Congress controlled spending and balanced the budget. When Newt left, the floodgates opened. Thirdly, the face of Congress has changed considerably since 1998, when Gingrich was Speaker. Republicans lost the House in 2006, and only regained it 4 years ago. Finally, the attitude of the Republicans in the House has changed. Americans were unhappy with the Republican leadership in the House in 2006, and subsequently voted them out. When Republicans regained the House, they elected as Speaker one of the good-ol' boys from the Bush-era spending spree, John Boehner,who coincidentally, was one of the architects of the anti-Newt movement. Suffice to say that Congress in 2012 is very different than it was in 1998.
Clearly, Newt has political acumen. He knows how to play the game. He is bombastic and not afraid to back down. Where Romney has vowed not to really go after Obama, Newt will attack with a vengeance. Newt understands that he is up against the media, as well (to be fair, Santorum has shown that he gets it too, and can use it to his advantage). Newt knows his stuff, which is clear in the debates. I firmly believe that in any debate setting, Newt would run rings around Obama, and would go for the jugular (which McCain wouldn't do, and Romney has refused to do).
Newt, however, is a bombastic, egotistical, attention seeker. His attack campaign on Romney was viscous and spiteful. He's prone to doing and saying stupid things (sitting on a couch with Pelosi agreeing with global warming, condemning Paul Ryan budget as "right wing social engineering"), which gain him just enough notoriety to remain a household name (sort of). Of course, there is the whole marital infidelity thing. On that, there is only one thing that comes to mind: Bill Clinton's response to his involvement with Monica Lewinski: I did it because I could. Such an attitude reveals a character flaw that I don't want in my presidents: unwavering selfishness.
4) Ron Paul--Clearly, Ron Paul is the outlier in the process. His ideas on the size of government and spending are mainstream, well, at least they are not opposed by the other Republican candidates. Fiscally and economically, Paul's proposals make sense.
Paul's foreign policy is what loses me. At best, its naive, at worst its simply moronic. He completely does not understand the ethos or the threat of radical Islam. Fundamentally, radical Islam is aggressive and imperialistic. His lack of historical perspective on the conflict with radical Islam, which is the single biggest threat to America today. In addition, he fails to grasp that as a result of a globalized economy (which isn't a bad thing), its not sound policy to circle the wagons around our borders in case of an attack.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Saturday, February 18, 2012
The HHS mandate, Contraception, and Freedom of Religion
When the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, Catholic bishops had already decided to play it down, despite the obvious monstrous effects the ruling was sure to have. The reason for this is more cultural and political than religious. Its not like the bishops approved of abortion, rather, they had culturally precluded themselves from making a united stand on such an important moral issue. To wit, since FDR's New Deal, Catholics, with their preferential option for the poor, have been, quietly at the least, supporting government solutions to problems. The American populace, mostly the Catholic ones, have gotten used to the bishops' silence. It could be argued that the bishops' silence is somewhat to blame for the eroded confidence their flock has in them; therefore, when the bishops, and I mean ALL Catholic bishops in the United States, condemned the HHS mandate concerning contraception, there are not a few Catholics who disagree with the bishops approach.
To summarize, the bishops are attacking this as an infringement on religious liberty, and rightly so. Some Catholics are arguing that the bishops should be making this about contraception and its negative impacts, as they see this as the central issue (and religious freedom as the secondary issue). Based on the previous actions of this administration, those criticizing the bishops' approach need to carefully reconsider their argument. To be sure, the nation needs a wake-up call when it comes to the contraceptive mentality that is literally killing our nation, and this event may just be the event that can spark that conversation. However, this issue is first and foremost about religious freedom, when we consider what this administration has done.
First, Obama campaigned on a promise to his secular base of getting rid of GW Bush's faith-based charity initiatives, through which certain faith-based charities received funding to carry out tasks the federal government had done. Obama nearly immediately did that. When Obama appointed a director or leader of his faith-based initiative, it was a militant secularist with no love for any religion whatsoever, particularly Catholicism.
Second, there was the Georgetown debacle, in which the president, prior to giving a speech at the university, requested that the Holy Name of Jesus be covered up, on the chance that people see it when they see the president...indeed, he wanted all religious imagery (at a Catholic school) to be blocked out in some way, shape, or form.
Then, you had the lawsuit against Belmont Abbey College, in North Carolina. To summarize that case, a female employee brought a complaint against the college to the local branch of some overseeing Federal agency because Belmont Abbey, a Catholic college, didn't cover chemical contraception in its health insurance plan, in keeping with Catholic teaching. The local branch dismissed the case, and essentially dropped it...until the actual Federal agency stepped in brought a suit against the College.
Fourth, there was the Hosanna-Tabor case, in which the EEOC (a branch of the Executive branch) attempted to force the church to ordain someone they didn't want to.
Then came this current brouhaha over the HHS ruling that mandates that all health insurance plans cover contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortifacient drugs.
Included in that was the US Army's directive that Catholic Chaplains NOT read a letter by their superior (that would be the Archbishop Broglio, ordinary of Archdiocese of the Military) because it contained words that were derogatory towards the commander-in-chief.
Further, I found this out today: a new rule in the Public Student Loan Forgiveness plan, which used to forgive the debts of individuals who were engaged in public service, which included ministry as a public service, removes the benefit from individuals whose "job duties are related to religious instruction, worship services, or any form of proselytizing. (here)”
If one wants to take an isolated view that this whole HHS this is about contraception, they are limiting their scope. The fact of the matter is, the HHS specifically discussed limiting the religion exemption to only churches and their employees, neglecting religious affiliated organizations and private companies who align themselves with Church teaching. This was done in light of all things that have gone on since President Obama's inauguration in 2009. This is first and foremost an issue of religious freedom.
To summarize, the bishops are attacking this as an infringement on religious liberty, and rightly so. Some Catholics are arguing that the bishops should be making this about contraception and its negative impacts, as they see this as the central issue (and religious freedom as the secondary issue). Based on the previous actions of this administration, those criticizing the bishops' approach need to carefully reconsider their argument. To be sure, the nation needs a wake-up call when it comes to the contraceptive mentality that is literally killing our nation, and this event may just be the event that can spark that conversation. However, this issue is first and foremost about religious freedom, when we consider what this administration has done.
First, Obama campaigned on a promise to his secular base of getting rid of GW Bush's faith-based charity initiatives, through which certain faith-based charities received funding to carry out tasks the federal government had done. Obama nearly immediately did that. When Obama appointed a director or leader of his faith-based initiative, it was a militant secularist with no love for any religion whatsoever, particularly Catholicism.
Second, there was the Georgetown debacle, in which the president, prior to giving a speech at the university, requested that the Holy Name of Jesus be covered up, on the chance that people see it when they see the president...indeed, he wanted all religious imagery (at a Catholic school) to be blocked out in some way, shape, or form.
Then, you had the lawsuit against Belmont Abbey College, in North Carolina. To summarize that case, a female employee brought a complaint against the college to the local branch of some overseeing Federal agency because Belmont Abbey, a Catholic college, didn't cover chemical contraception in its health insurance plan, in keeping with Catholic teaching. The local branch dismissed the case, and essentially dropped it...until the actual Federal agency stepped in brought a suit against the College.
Fourth, there was the Hosanna-Tabor case, in which the EEOC (a branch of the Executive branch) attempted to force the church to ordain someone they didn't want to.
Then came this current brouhaha over the HHS ruling that mandates that all health insurance plans cover contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortifacient drugs.
Included in that was the US Army's directive that Catholic Chaplains NOT read a letter by their superior (that would be the Archbishop Broglio, ordinary of Archdiocese of the Military) because it contained words that were derogatory towards the commander-in-chief.
Further, I found this out today: a new rule in the Public Student Loan Forgiveness plan, which used to forgive the debts of individuals who were engaged in public service, which included ministry as a public service, removes the benefit from individuals whose "job duties are related to religious instruction, worship services, or any form of proselytizing. (here)”
If one wants to take an isolated view that this whole HHS this is about contraception, they are limiting their scope. The fact of the matter is, the HHS specifically discussed limiting the religion exemption to only churches and their employees, neglecting religious affiliated organizations and private companies who align themselves with Church teaching. This was done in light of all things that have gone on since President Obama's inauguration in 2009. This is first and foremost an issue of religious freedom.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, and State vs Religion
I've been following numerous opinions and blogs RE the HHS mandate and the "compromise that doesn't compromise" and the number of references to Henry VIII and Elizabeth I can't be counted on fingers (or toes, for that matter). Essentially, the argument goes something like this: Henry assumed control over the Church in England to promote his lustful ways (namely his "marriage" to Anne Boleyn). Under Elizabeth, the state began wresting control over religion and forming new church. On the surface, this matches neatly with what the President is doing (actually combining two monarchs into one...a pretty nifty trick). Just like Henry VIII established himself as the head of the Church in England, so too has Obama, by issuing and supporting the HHS ruling, established his government over the Church (bishops can't even stop their own schools from offering contraceptives to their employees). Henry had numerous Catholic leaders swear allegiance to the State, and Obama is doing the same thing with this mandate. Elizabeth used her authority to batter down vestiges of Catholicism, just like Obama is doing now.
There are, however, some big problems with said comparisons. For one, as Hillaire Belloc points out in his "How the Reformation Happened" what Henry VIII did wasn't really considered that radical. In fact, Belloc contends that it was not out of the ordinary for a monarch to proclaim himself head of the Church of their region, and eventually, things would get back to normal. The bishops who supported Henry's claim, if this course of action was indeed not extra-ordinary, most likely thought it expedient and harmless, because when Henry's daughter, Mary Tudor succeeded to the throne, those bishops supported her Catholic reign. It should also be noted that Henry wasn't essentially anti-Catholic, and didn't make any drastic anti-Catholic measures in terms of worship or doctrine. The most drastic thing he did was confiscate the money and property of the major religious houses (which was also not out of the ordinary for Catholic monarchs to do). Of course, this action was the deal breaker, for rather than use the treasure to bolster his own royal coffers, he used it to pay off his debtors.
When Mary ascended to the throne, her Catholicism was embraced by the populace and the clergy (as evidenced in Eamon Duffy's The Stripping of the Altars). Even the old aristocracy supported her Catholicism. It was the new aristocracy, those families and gentry that became wealthy off of Henry's plundering of the monasteries, that took offense: if Mary's re-Catholicization continued its course, their wealth would be stripped from them and returned to the religious orders it originate from. As a consequence, they plotted and schemed to get Elizabeth, who at worst was apathetic in regards to religion, on the throne. Once Elizabeth ascended the throne, these men, the force and strength behind Elizabeth, called the shots and over the course of 50 years, de-Catholicized England.
Because of the above facts, comparisons between Henry VIII and Elizabeth and Obama are lacking.
There are, however, some big problems with said comparisons. For one, as Hillaire Belloc points out in his "How the Reformation Happened" what Henry VIII did wasn't really considered that radical. In fact, Belloc contends that it was not out of the ordinary for a monarch to proclaim himself head of the Church of their region, and eventually, things would get back to normal. The bishops who supported Henry's claim, if this course of action was indeed not extra-ordinary, most likely thought it expedient and harmless, because when Henry's daughter, Mary Tudor succeeded to the throne, those bishops supported her Catholic reign. It should also be noted that Henry wasn't essentially anti-Catholic, and didn't make any drastic anti-Catholic measures in terms of worship or doctrine. The most drastic thing he did was confiscate the money and property of the major religious houses (which was also not out of the ordinary for Catholic monarchs to do). Of course, this action was the deal breaker, for rather than use the treasure to bolster his own royal coffers, he used it to pay off his debtors.
When Mary ascended to the throne, her Catholicism was embraced by the populace and the clergy (as evidenced in Eamon Duffy's The Stripping of the Altars). Even the old aristocracy supported her Catholicism. It was the new aristocracy, those families and gentry that became wealthy off of Henry's plundering of the monasteries, that took offense: if Mary's re-Catholicization continued its course, their wealth would be stripped from them and returned to the religious orders it originate from. As a consequence, they plotted and schemed to get Elizabeth, who at worst was apathetic in regards to religion, on the throne. Once Elizabeth ascended the throne, these men, the force and strength behind Elizabeth, called the shots and over the course of 50 years, de-Catholicized England.
Because of the above facts, comparisons between Henry VIII and Elizabeth and Obama are lacking.
Friday, February 3, 2012
On Christian support for the most anti-religious President in US history
The current HHS ruling that religious affiliated employers must violate their consciences and offer insurance that opposes their moral teachings is not the first example of anti-Christian bias by the Obama administration. Several months back, the Administration ordered that Belmont Abbey College, a Catholic college connected with a Benedicitine abbey, be forced to offer contraception to its female employees (in this case, a complaint was brought before a NC department for the reason that the college offered something only men could obtain, but not women, and that only women can take chemical contraception. The NC office denied the complaint, and the case was seemingly closed until the Obama administration took it up). More recently, the EEOC took up the case of a fired teacher at a religious school (Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC)and argued that the school discriminated against the teacher when it fired her. The EEOC's argument was that the teacher, while defined as a minister, had the same duties as a lay teacher, and therefore wasn't a minister, and so was discriminated against. (The Supreme Court ruled against this, 9-0).
As I have read about this, in particular the reaction of the Catholic Bishops to this ruling, I noticed a general attitude that this ruling, indeed all the disasters that have befallen us since the inauguration of Barack Obama as President, would not have happened had not 54% of Catholics not voted for the man in the 2008 general election. Further, there is a sense that the self-same bishops that now condemn the predictable ruling based on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) put themselves in this pickle because they bought into Obama's ideas and support Obamacare. Rather than bemoaning such actions, I think a different perspective must be taken.
The American ideal is to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Despite Barack Obama's lack of a decent voting record (voting present is a cop-out), and hard-core support for abortion promotion, the fact still remains that many Americans see (or saw) Obama as a genuine concerned citizen who is trying to do his best for the country. I think this best describes the Catholic bishops, and other Christian support for Obama. This is laudable...to an extent.
I may be wrong, but I have yet to hear of any Christian group openly and consistently attack a Presidential administration either before or after their election. Sure, there may be criticisms of a person's policies or statements, but generally Christians will show at worst ambivalence, but generally respect for Presidential candidates and Presidents. My experience has been that Christian denominations have provided information to their members, sometimes particularly slanted due to one or more issues, but have not officially endorsed or condemned any candidate or president, unless they have deserved such attention. Not only does this support the American ideal, but this is truly a Christian attitude. I am specifically thinking of Flavius Constantius' (Constantine I's father) tolerant views of Christians. In direct juxtaposition to the official Roman policy of persecution of Christians, Constantius argued that Christians were model citizens, obeying the law, supporting the government, and not causing any problems...despite being persecuted. As Christians, particularly as Pope Leo XIII reminds us, we are to obey and support the State, provided the State doesn't require us to offend God (which the HHS ruling does).
To be short, I think that viciously attacking and condemning a candidate for President for a couple of policies is generally un-Christian. We must give all people the benefit of the doubt, because all men are created in the image and likeness of God. When Mitt Romney says that he believes that Obama is a good guy, he is, while not being a Christian, is acting more Christian-like than say Newt Gingrich (although much evidence has been amassed in the past 3 years that Gingrich is most likely right). There is a reason why certain men are elected bishops: they contain certain qualities that lend themselves to the office of bishop. For this reason, numerous bishops remained ambivalent or even somewhat supportive of Obamacare, providing certain caveats were met. In this regard, they were showing true Christian charity: they believed that Obama was attempting to solve the healthcare situation in the US.
This, however, doesn't not excuse naivete toward the out-and-out pro-abortionists that supported the law. To some extent, it seems that the bishops who were supportive, or at least gave Obama the benefit of the doubt, were blinded to all clues that hinted at the obvious fact that Obama, Pelosi, and Planned Parenthood were using Obamacare to force federal funding of abortion in an underhanded way. Of course, this isn't surprising the way the bishop's conference crafted the Faithful Citizenship document in a way to encourage the "seamless garment" argument that abortion isn't really the re-eminent moral issue of our time (which it is). Even then, some bishops argued that we needed to be cautious and didn't want to rock the boat unnecessarily (honestly, I don't know of a single bishop who has supported abortion, but would rather talk about helping the poor because its less messy).
The real blame lies solely with a President and his administration that has effectively put a wedge between many Catholics and their bishops. A cursory review of modern history reveals that such an action is entirely consistent with Communist and Socialist dictators: silence religion and/or kowtow it to the State. The Communists did this with the Russian Orthodox Church during the years of the Soviet Union (Patriarch Alexius was the last of the Communist-supported patriarchs). This is also seen in China today, as there are two Catholic Churches: a state-approved Church (which does not have the blessing of the Pope) and the True Church, which operates illegally and underground.
Is the President actively seeking to force the Church (and Communists and Socialists have been nearly unanimous on this issue: the single greatest threat to Socialism or Communism is the Catholic Church, which is why it operates so as to undermine or destroy it) to be subservient to the State, or is he simply misguided? I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
As I have read about this, in particular the reaction of the Catholic Bishops to this ruling, I noticed a general attitude that this ruling, indeed all the disasters that have befallen us since the inauguration of Barack Obama as President, would not have happened had not 54% of Catholics not voted for the man in the 2008 general election. Further, there is a sense that the self-same bishops that now condemn the predictable ruling based on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) put themselves in this pickle because they bought into Obama's ideas and support Obamacare. Rather than bemoaning such actions, I think a different perspective must be taken.
The American ideal is to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Despite Barack Obama's lack of a decent voting record (voting present is a cop-out), and hard-core support for abortion promotion, the fact still remains that many Americans see (or saw) Obama as a genuine concerned citizen who is trying to do his best for the country. I think this best describes the Catholic bishops, and other Christian support for Obama. This is laudable...to an extent.
I may be wrong, but I have yet to hear of any Christian group openly and consistently attack a Presidential administration either before or after their election. Sure, there may be criticisms of a person's policies or statements, but generally Christians will show at worst ambivalence, but generally respect for Presidential candidates and Presidents. My experience has been that Christian denominations have provided information to their members, sometimes particularly slanted due to one or more issues, but have not officially endorsed or condemned any candidate or president, unless they have deserved such attention. Not only does this support the American ideal, but this is truly a Christian attitude. I am specifically thinking of Flavius Constantius' (Constantine I's father) tolerant views of Christians. In direct juxtaposition to the official Roman policy of persecution of Christians, Constantius argued that Christians were model citizens, obeying the law, supporting the government, and not causing any problems...despite being persecuted. As Christians, particularly as Pope Leo XIII reminds us, we are to obey and support the State, provided the State doesn't require us to offend God (which the HHS ruling does).
To be short, I think that viciously attacking and condemning a candidate for President for a couple of policies is generally un-Christian. We must give all people the benefit of the doubt, because all men are created in the image and likeness of God. When Mitt Romney says that he believes that Obama is a good guy, he is, while not being a Christian, is acting more Christian-like than say Newt Gingrich (although much evidence has been amassed in the past 3 years that Gingrich is most likely right). There is a reason why certain men are elected bishops: they contain certain qualities that lend themselves to the office of bishop. For this reason, numerous bishops remained ambivalent or even somewhat supportive of Obamacare, providing certain caveats were met. In this regard, they were showing true Christian charity: they believed that Obama was attempting to solve the healthcare situation in the US.
This, however, doesn't not excuse naivete toward the out-and-out pro-abortionists that supported the law. To some extent, it seems that the bishops who were supportive, or at least gave Obama the benefit of the doubt, were blinded to all clues that hinted at the obvious fact that Obama, Pelosi, and Planned Parenthood were using Obamacare to force federal funding of abortion in an underhanded way. Of course, this isn't surprising the way the bishop's conference crafted the Faithful Citizenship document in a way to encourage the "seamless garment" argument that abortion isn't really the re-eminent moral issue of our time (which it is). Even then, some bishops argued that we needed to be cautious and didn't want to rock the boat unnecessarily (honestly, I don't know of a single bishop who has supported abortion, but would rather talk about helping the poor because its less messy).
The real blame lies solely with a President and his administration that has effectively put a wedge between many Catholics and their bishops. A cursory review of modern history reveals that such an action is entirely consistent with Communist and Socialist dictators: silence religion and/or kowtow it to the State. The Communists did this with the Russian Orthodox Church during the years of the Soviet Union (Patriarch Alexius was the last of the Communist-supported patriarchs). This is also seen in China today, as there are two Catholic Churches: a state-approved Church (which does not have the blessing of the Pope) and the True Church, which operates illegally and underground.
Is the President actively seeking to force the Church (and Communists and Socialists have been nearly unanimous on this issue: the single greatest threat to Socialism or Communism is the Catholic Church, which is why it operates so as to undermine or destroy it) to be subservient to the State, or is he simply misguided? I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Why I am Catholic, Part 2
Tradition played a big part in the Catholic Church's initial attraction to me. Being interested in history, I immediately saw its roots and its presence way back at the close of the Roman Empire. I remember reading in one of my many European history books that the structure of the Church that manifested itself in the West after the fall of Rome was instrumental in saving Western European civilization (in that it provided a structure for the disparate people's to fall back on in the presence of a political vacuum). Tradition (small t) provided an attraction, while authority provided a reason.
PART II: AUTHORITY
The Quest
As a teenager, one figure fascinated me: Pope John Paul II. I cannot state clearly enough how un-Catholic I was. I grew United Methodist, with a smattering of Evangelicalism and Christian Reformed thrown in for good measure. I knew nothing of Catholic ecclesial structure, and my medieval history in 6th grade completely ignored the office of bishop. The only understanding I had of a bishop was that my UMC region had a bishop...but it also had a superintendent as well, and I could never really tell the two apart. I was a member of our church's Pastor-Parish Relations Committee, which meant I was (if necessary) part of the group that would be privy to selecting a new pastor. I understood a congregational model as well as a heirarchical model of pastorship, in that in the UMC, the bishop (or was it superintendent?) would give us a choice of three or four candidates, and we would try them out and choose the one we liked best. If we didn't like any, the bishop (or superintendent) would choose for us.
With that in mind, my fascination with Bl. John Paul II can be explained in light of authority. His Holiness had a reputation for holiness and intelligence. He was also a lightning rod for publicity because of his personality. These were not what I focused on. To me, a Methodist youngster with no understanding of Petrine supremacy, or Apostolic Succession, the Pope (and intrinsically, I understood that JPII would pass away, and another man would take his place..it was the office I was drawn to, because of the person occupying it at the time) was THE spokesperson for all of Christianity. I grew up with experiences like a Clyde Dupin Crusade, and nearly weekly doses of Billy Graham. However, these gentlemen were national phenomenon; the Pope was Universal. No other Christian leader drew as much attention as the Pope. No other Christian leader drew crowds like the Pope. Intrinsically, I understood that if one wanted to discuss Christianity, THE person to go to would be the Pope.
Until college, the person of the Pope was simply a figure, a spokesperson, a trigger-man, so to speak. The issue of authority wasn't a big one. I was raised within the ethos of solo scriptura, but even within that ethos, the authority of a pastor to tell us what the Word of God was saying was paramount (after all, they had the years of theology and Scripture study...we did not). I understood that different people would invariably come to different understandings of Scripture, and I accepted that "the main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things". It was within this mindset that my interest in authority grew.
The question on authentic and True interpretation of Scripture was front and center in my interest in authority. Quite quickly, I determined that for all its benefits, solo Scriptura was woefully inadequate. This was due in large part to the discrepancy between what Scripture clearly taught in terms of divorce and how mainstream churches were interpreting that. Essentially, I had read what Christ had to say about marriage and divorce: "what God has joined, let not man put assunder", and yet looked on with astonishment as not only the UMC, but other denominations not once taught the indissolubility of marriage, but also encouraged divorced couples to remarry, in clear violation of Scripture's definition such actions as adultery. Something was clearly amiss. Although not entirely sure of the process, I knew that in the UMC, doctrinal matters were voted on, ultimately, by members of the clergy and the laity. Something was wrong there (to whit, Christ never let His Gospel be open to interpretation or the democratic process, and there was a reason He referred to Heaven as the Kingdom of Heaven, and we all know that kingdoms are democratic).
Perhaps naively, I wanted some one to step in and declare, once and for all, what True Doctrine really was. I looked at the Pope and wondered why we as Methodists didn't have an authority figure like that. It seemed logical to me that we couldn't trust congregations, or an group of congregations to vote on what Scripture was teaching.
The Answer
The issue of authority was, finally, put to rest for me in a round-about way: while attending Mass with my girlfriend (now my wife), the priest's homily made mention of John 6: "Unless you eat of my Flesh and drink of my Blood, you shall not have life within you." As a Protestant, this was offensive. I was always taught that you didn't have to DO anything to be saved (with the exception of "accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior"), and yet here I was being told that I needed to do something. I bristled at this for a while, a long while. I couldn't get over, however, how PLAIN John 6 really was. I tried the typical Protestant reaction to redact what Christ said in most of John 6 with what he says in the end: "It is the Spirit that gives life, and the flesh is of no avail...my words are spirit and life." Logically, however, I couldn't get past the fact that Christ Himself never redacted His statement.
One evening while in college, the local Catholic priest offered a question and answer session for those seeking the Catholic Church. My wife/girlfriend encouraged us to attend, so I could ask my question. My question was asked, and answered, but in all honestly, I walked away with something else: a sense of where authority lies. You see, another participant asked about Apostolic Succession, of which I had never heard. The concept, when explained, made perfect sense. To reject it, I thought, was to reject Reason.
The Apostles, whom all Christians acknowledge received their authority from Christ Himself, wouldn't live forever. It seems rather daft to assume that they would allow their flocks to sway in the breeze without some visible authority figure. Ordaining certain men to follow after them, with their authority, is a sure fire way of ensuring that Christians maintain the Gospel, in the absence of Scripture. It also helps establish what Scripture really means.
As I read the Acts of the Apostles, (as the priest suggested), it became clear that Christ gave ONLY the Apostles His authority. Only Peter raised someone from the dead, only Peter healed people, and only the apostles could send out demons. I then read, as the priest suggested, the Epistles to Timothy and Titus. It became increasingly clear that Paul wrote to those two men as an older brother, not as a father. He considered them his equals in authority. Not only that, but he mandates, at least to Timothy, that the authority they received be passed to worthy and upright men.
Clearly, Christ established a Church with authority, authority that passed down from generation to generation. I knew enough about the Reformation to realize that all Christian denominations broke from the Catholic Church. I knew enough about Medieval history to realize that prior to the Schism between the East and West, there was One, Holy, Catholic, Orthodox, and Apostolic Church. I recognized that it was the Catholic Church which existed before the Schism, and before the Reformation. It was the Catholic Church that existed before the fall of Rome.
PART II: AUTHORITY
The Quest
As a teenager, one figure fascinated me: Pope John Paul II. I cannot state clearly enough how un-Catholic I was. I grew United Methodist, with a smattering of Evangelicalism and Christian Reformed thrown in for good measure. I knew nothing of Catholic ecclesial structure, and my medieval history in 6th grade completely ignored the office of bishop. The only understanding I had of a bishop was that my UMC region had a bishop...but it also had a superintendent as well, and I could never really tell the two apart. I was a member of our church's Pastor-Parish Relations Committee, which meant I was (if necessary) part of the group that would be privy to selecting a new pastor. I understood a congregational model as well as a heirarchical model of pastorship, in that in the UMC, the bishop (or was it superintendent?) would give us a choice of three or four candidates, and we would try them out and choose the one we liked best. If we didn't like any, the bishop (or superintendent) would choose for us.
With that in mind, my fascination with Bl. John Paul II can be explained in light of authority. His Holiness had a reputation for holiness and intelligence. He was also a lightning rod for publicity because of his personality. These were not what I focused on. To me, a Methodist youngster with no understanding of Petrine supremacy, or Apostolic Succession, the Pope (and intrinsically, I understood that JPII would pass away, and another man would take his place..it was the office I was drawn to, because of the person occupying it at the time) was THE spokesperson for all of Christianity. I grew up with experiences like a Clyde Dupin Crusade, and nearly weekly doses of Billy Graham. However, these gentlemen were national phenomenon; the Pope was Universal. No other Christian leader drew as much attention as the Pope. No other Christian leader drew crowds like the Pope. Intrinsically, I understood that if one wanted to discuss Christianity, THE person to go to would be the Pope.
Until college, the person of the Pope was simply a figure, a spokesperson, a trigger-man, so to speak. The issue of authority wasn't a big one. I was raised within the ethos of solo scriptura, but even within that ethos, the authority of a pastor to tell us what the Word of God was saying was paramount (after all, they had the years of theology and Scripture study...we did not). I understood that different people would invariably come to different understandings of Scripture, and I accepted that "the main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things". It was within this mindset that my interest in authority grew.
The question on authentic and True interpretation of Scripture was front and center in my interest in authority. Quite quickly, I determined that for all its benefits, solo Scriptura was woefully inadequate. This was due in large part to the discrepancy between what Scripture clearly taught in terms of divorce and how mainstream churches were interpreting that. Essentially, I had read what Christ had to say about marriage and divorce: "what God has joined, let not man put assunder", and yet looked on with astonishment as not only the UMC, but other denominations not once taught the indissolubility of marriage, but also encouraged divorced couples to remarry, in clear violation of Scripture's definition such actions as adultery. Something was clearly amiss. Although not entirely sure of the process, I knew that in the UMC, doctrinal matters were voted on, ultimately, by members of the clergy and the laity. Something was wrong there (to whit, Christ never let His Gospel be open to interpretation or the democratic process, and there was a reason He referred to Heaven as the Kingdom of Heaven, and we all know that kingdoms are democratic).
Perhaps naively, I wanted some one to step in and declare, once and for all, what True Doctrine really was. I looked at the Pope and wondered why we as Methodists didn't have an authority figure like that. It seemed logical to me that we couldn't trust congregations, or an group of congregations to vote on what Scripture was teaching.
The Answer
The issue of authority was, finally, put to rest for me in a round-about way: while attending Mass with my girlfriend (now my wife), the priest's homily made mention of John 6: "Unless you eat of my Flesh and drink of my Blood, you shall not have life within you." As a Protestant, this was offensive. I was always taught that you didn't have to DO anything to be saved (with the exception of "accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior"), and yet here I was being told that I needed to do something. I bristled at this for a while, a long while. I couldn't get over, however, how PLAIN John 6 really was. I tried the typical Protestant reaction to redact what Christ said in most of John 6 with what he says in the end: "It is the Spirit that gives life, and the flesh is of no avail...my words are spirit and life." Logically, however, I couldn't get past the fact that Christ Himself never redacted His statement.
One evening while in college, the local Catholic priest offered a question and answer session for those seeking the Catholic Church. My wife/girlfriend encouraged us to attend, so I could ask my question. My question was asked, and answered, but in all honestly, I walked away with something else: a sense of where authority lies. You see, another participant asked about Apostolic Succession, of which I had never heard. The concept, when explained, made perfect sense. To reject it, I thought, was to reject Reason.
The Apostles, whom all Christians acknowledge received their authority from Christ Himself, wouldn't live forever. It seems rather daft to assume that they would allow their flocks to sway in the breeze without some visible authority figure. Ordaining certain men to follow after them, with their authority, is a sure fire way of ensuring that Christians maintain the Gospel, in the absence of Scripture. It also helps establish what Scripture really means.
As I read the Acts of the Apostles, (as the priest suggested), it became clear that Christ gave ONLY the Apostles His authority. Only Peter raised someone from the dead, only Peter healed people, and only the apostles could send out demons. I then read, as the priest suggested, the Epistles to Timothy and Titus. It became increasingly clear that Paul wrote to those two men as an older brother, not as a father. He considered them his equals in authority. Not only that, but he mandates, at least to Timothy, that the authority they received be passed to worthy and upright men.
Clearly, Christ established a Church with authority, authority that passed down from generation to generation. I knew enough about the Reformation to realize that all Christian denominations broke from the Catholic Church. I knew enough about Medieval history to realize that prior to the Schism between the East and West, there was One, Holy, Catholic, Orthodox, and Apostolic Church. I recognized that it was the Catholic Church which existed before the Schism, and before the Reformation. It was the Catholic Church that existed before the fall of Rome.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
On Brees and Marino, again.
I was reading some football fan's blog post on why NFL teams don't pass more when passing has a higher effectiveness rate that rushing. They mentioned that in 1978, the NFL enacted some rules changes that increased passing effectiveness. From 1979-1984, when Marino set the old record, passing yards and attempts increased steadily. Marino's record in 1984 was over 1000 yards what the record was in 1978. But it didn't just happen overnight. Dan Fouts threw for 4000, 4700, and 4800 yards, thus pushing the record up. When Marino broke it, he was only about 200 yards from the previous record, and 500 off the 4 year average (not counting 1982's short season). Brees was 400 yards off the previous record and 700 off the 4 year average.
That, however, is not the point of the post. Look at the graph below: it shows the year-to-year passing leaders for the combined NFL from 1973 to 2011. Note the incredible difference in totals BEFORE the rules change in 1978 and after (that dip is the 1982 strike season of only 8 games). Nearly 2000 yards in three years. Note, however, that the leaders' totals have remained somewhat constant for the next twenty years.
Marino's record is largely the result of changing passing rules, as is evident in the success passers had since the rules changes in 1978. The results of those rules changes happened overnight. The same cannot be said of Drew Brees' stellar effort. If the rules changes were so important to his record, you'd think that there would be a burst of records set immediately following the rules changes, which didn't just happen this year; this would mimic the events of 1979. That didn't happen.
So what did? For one, the lockout eliminated training camp, which cut down time for defensive units to mesh. This is evident in the fact that about 7 QBs were on pace to shatter, obliterate, and destroy Marino's, and Brady's passing records by week 3. That evened out as defensive units started their meshing.
In essence, the lockout was an equalizer. In 1984, its hard to think that defensive units had figured out how to stop pass-happy teams like the Chargers and Dolphins when most of the teams still relied on the run. The defense was thus at a large disadvantage. In 2011, sure there were rule changes, but those changes were mitigated by the fact that defensive units have been seeing pass-happy teams for nearly 20 years. Teams have placed high-priority on top-notch corner backs to counter the threat of the passing attack, and pass-rushing linemen and linebacker/linemen hybrids are more and more common.
Thus, it appears to me that Drew Brees effort is at least equal to Marino's.
That, however, is not the point of the post. Look at the graph below: it shows the year-to-year passing leaders for the combined NFL from 1973 to 2011. Note the incredible difference in totals BEFORE the rules change in 1978 and after (that dip is the 1982 strike season of only 8 games). Nearly 2000 yards in three years. Note, however, that the leaders' totals have remained somewhat constant for the next twenty years.
Marino's record is largely the result of changing passing rules, as is evident in the success passers had since the rules changes in 1978. The results of those rules changes happened overnight. The same cannot be said of Drew Brees' stellar effort. If the rules changes were so important to his record, you'd think that there would be a burst of records set immediately following the rules changes, which didn't just happen this year; this would mimic the events of 1979. That didn't happen.
So what did? For one, the lockout eliminated training camp, which cut down time for defensive units to mesh. This is evident in the fact that about 7 QBs were on pace to shatter, obliterate, and destroy Marino's, and Brady's passing records by week 3. That evened out as defensive units started their meshing.
In essence, the lockout was an equalizer. In 1984, its hard to think that defensive units had figured out how to stop pass-happy teams like the Chargers and Dolphins when most of the teams still relied on the run. The defense was thus at a large disadvantage. In 2011, sure there were rule changes, but those changes were mitigated by the fact that defensive units have been seeing pass-happy teams for nearly 20 years. Teams have placed high-priority on top-notch corner backs to counter the threat of the passing attack, and pass-rushing linemen and linebacker/linemen hybrids are more and more common.
Thus, it appears to me that Drew Brees effort is at least equal to Marino's.
Drew Brees, Dan Marino, and Records
Last Monday night, Drew Brees surpassed Dan Marino's single-season passing yards record that stood for 27 years. I wasn't going to say anything about it, I mean, Brees has always been a great QB, and it truly is a remarkable feat. However, I've heard WAAAYYYY too many people say that Brees' record is essentially meaningless as a result of changes in rules that have allowed passing offenses more room.
I'll be honest. I really don't want to agree with such naysaying. Brees' accomplishment is astounding, and the fact that he came close a couple of years ago is further testament to his abilities as a quarterback. Yet, one can't deny that the rules have changed things. To be honest, today's game is much, much different than it was in 1984. In trying to respond to posters on a news piece concerning Brees (the posters said his record was meaningless due to new rules changes) I wanted to argue that in 1984, offenses were more run centric than they were now. In fact, I hypothesized that NFL defenses today are more likely geared for the pass that they were in 1984 since coordinators have had at least a decade of pass-centered offenses. I didn't however want to make this claim without actually looking at the data. I found some stuff at Pro-Football-Reference.com. What I found was actually quite eye-opening, but it proved my hypothesis...sort of.
I wanted to see what the 10 years prior to each record setting year looked like in terms of run vs. pass. My thought was quite simple: if defenses see a majority of passing, they'll be much better accustomed to to defending it. I was right, sort of. On average, from 1974-1983, teams passed about 45% of the time, per game. On average, from 2001-2010, teams passed about 55% of the time. However, I noticed that passing attempts/game increased starting in 1979. From 1979-1983, the pass/run ration was essentially 50/50 (which actually brought the pass/run ratio of the entire decade down to 44/56...it would have been something like 40/60).
Seeing the rise in passing, I hypothesized that perhaps Marino's record could have been influenced by defensive coordinators still not catching up the passing phenomenon. I decided to look at the top passer (because Marino was the top passer that year) to see how they fared in that time frame. I noticed that between 1969 and 1979, only Joe Namath passed for over 4,000 yards (once) and only twice did a passer pass for over 3,500 yards. Then the floodgates opened. From 1979-1984 (actually, to 2011), the only time the leading passer hasn't thrown for 4,000 yards has been during strike-shortened seasons (to be even more precise, Dan Fouts was on pace in the strike shortened season of 1982 to pace for over 5,300 yards). Fouts set the record for yards in a season twice three times in that time period, jumping from 4,020 to over 4,700 in a single season. Such a trend could easily see the 5,000 yard mark as reachable in 1984, and if Marino didn't do it, it could have been Fouts.
Looking at that, it dawned on me that it had only been 5 years since changing the rules prompted more passing, and it generally takes defensive minds a couple of years to adjust. In short, by 1984, extensive passing was still new, and not the beast we see today. Teams that passed a majority of the time weren't the norm. In 1984, 13 of the 28 teams passed more that 50% of the time, and only 2 (the Eagles and Bills) passed at least 60% of the time, while the league average was 51%. Knock out the Bills and Eagles (61% and 60% respectively, and the Chargers (59%) and the league average is 49%. My point is, a defensive coordinator is going to be preparing for an equal dose of run versus pass. Thus, when a team throws 60% of the time against defensive schemes designed to stop the run, large numbers are bound to be put up. Add in quaterbacks of Marino's skills, and you've got a recipe for a record breaking year.
Fast forward to today. Since 1984, there has only been two seasons in which the leading quarterback hasn't thrown for more than 4,000 yards, the shortened season of 1987 (in which there were only 15 games) and 1997. In the decade prior to 2011, only three times has the leading passer thrown for less than 4500 yards. Between 1984 and 2001, the leader passer threw for MORE than 4500 yards 4 times. In 2011, only 5 teams passed 50% or less of the time while, 6 passed over 60% of the time. If you take out the top three passing teams (with percentages of 65, 63, and 61), you still get 55%. What this tells me is that defenses are more accustomed to passing offenses.
From 2001-2011, the average yards the leading passer has thrown for is 4754. Drew Brees' record is 700 yards over the average for the last decade. From 1979-1983 (not counting 1982's shortened season) the average was 4514 yards. Marino's record in about 500 yards over the average. Thus, from a statistical point of view, one could argue that Brees' record is more significant than Marino's.
I'll be honest. I really don't want to agree with such naysaying. Brees' accomplishment is astounding, and the fact that he came close a couple of years ago is further testament to his abilities as a quarterback. Yet, one can't deny that the rules have changed things. To be honest, today's game is much, much different than it was in 1984. In trying to respond to posters on a news piece concerning Brees (the posters said his record was meaningless due to new rules changes) I wanted to argue that in 1984, offenses were more run centric than they were now. In fact, I hypothesized that NFL defenses today are more likely geared for the pass that they were in 1984 since coordinators have had at least a decade of pass-centered offenses. I didn't however want to make this claim without actually looking at the data. I found some stuff at Pro-Football-Reference.com. What I found was actually quite eye-opening, but it proved my hypothesis...sort of.
I wanted to see what the 10 years prior to each record setting year looked like in terms of run vs. pass. My thought was quite simple: if defenses see a majority of passing, they'll be much better accustomed to to defending it. I was right, sort of. On average, from 1974-1983, teams passed about 45% of the time, per game. On average, from 2001-2010, teams passed about 55% of the time. However, I noticed that passing attempts/game increased starting in 1979. From 1979-1983, the pass/run ration was essentially 50/50 (which actually brought the pass/run ratio of the entire decade down to 44/56...it would have been something like 40/60).
Seeing the rise in passing, I hypothesized that perhaps Marino's record could have been influenced by defensive coordinators still not catching up the passing phenomenon. I decided to look at the top passer (because Marino was the top passer that year) to see how they fared in that time frame. I noticed that between 1969 and 1979, only Joe Namath passed for over 4,000 yards (once) and only twice did a passer pass for over 3,500 yards. Then the floodgates opened. From 1979-1984 (actually, to 2011), the only time the leading passer hasn't thrown for 4,000 yards has been during strike-shortened seasons (to be even more precise, Dan Fouts was on pace in the strike shortened season of 1982 to pace for over 5,300 yards). Fouts set the record for yards in a season twice three times in that time period, jumping from 4,020 to over 4,700 in a single season. Such a trend could easily see the 5,000 yard mark as reachable in 1984, and if Marino didn't do it, it could have been Fouts.
Looking at that, it dawned on me that it had only been 5 years since changing the rules prompted more passing, and it generally takes defensive minds a couple of years to adjust. In short, by 1984, extensive passing was still new, and not the beast we see today. Teams that passed a majority of the time weren't the norm. In 1984, 13 of the 28 teams passed more that 50% of the time, and only 2 (the Eagles and Bills) passed at least 60% of the time, while the league average was 51%. Knock out the Bills and Eagles (61% and 60% respectively, and the Chargers (59%) and the league average is 49%. My point is, a defensive coordinator is going to be preparing for an equal dose of run versus pass. Thus, when a team throws 60% of the time against defensive schemes designed to stop the run, large numbers are bound to be put up. Add in quaterbacks of Marino's skills, and you've got a recipe for a record breaking year.
Fast forward to today. Since 1984, there has only been two seasons in which the leading quarterback hasn't thrown for more than 4,000 yards, the shortened season of 1987 (in which there were only 15 games) and 1997. In the decade prior to 2011, only three times has the leading passer thrown for less than 4500 yards. Between 1984 and 2001, the leader passer threw for MORE than 4500 yards 4 times. In 2011, only 5 teams passed 50% or less of the time while, 6 passed over 60% of the time. If you take out the top three passing teams (with percentages of 65, 63, and 61), you still get 55%. What this tells me is that defenses are more accustomed to passing offenses.
From 2001-2011, the average yards the leading passer has thrown for is 4754. Drew Brees' record is 700 yards over the average for the last decade. From 1979-1983 (not counting 1982's shortened season) the average was 4514 yards. Marino's record in about 500 yards over the average. Thus, from a statistical point of view, one could argue that Brees' record is more significant than Marino's.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)