Ozzie Guillen's so-called apology
 

I am a big White Sox fan, but I have lost any respect I had for Ozzie Guillen.

I am not upset for the reason the media pundits are crying about, that he used a sexual slur against Jay Marriotti and offended homosexuals. I couldn't care less if gay folks get offended by the word "fag." For cryin' out loud, they call each other "queen" and "girl" and many other names, including "fag." Nobody gets upset at that word if they are truly gay.

It isn't the gay people that Ozzie should apologize to in the first place. I say that he should directly apologize to Jay Marriotti for calling him a fag!

Ozzie's lame "sorry if I offended anybody" style half-hearted apology is going to fall on deaf ears anyway, and I would be offended if a major league manager called me a homosexual. What, Ozzie's all of a sudden an authority on Marriotti's sexual preference? Hardly.

The media's take on this doesn't surprise me at all. They completely miss the point, as usual. The offended party here is Jay Marriotti, who is himself a troublemaker, but not deserving of being labeled as gay by the classless Guillen.

hes a joke and i cant wait till he gets the boot. enough said.

I agree,but the white sox like him to much so it probably wont happen...

Then again,you never know.

It's funny what happens with time...

...just a few short years ago, Phil Jackson was the toast of the town.

...Dusty could do no wrong.

...Dave Wannstedt was thought of as a defensive genius.

...Ozzie was an average player that no one could understand.

The White Sox getting rid of Ozzie for a comment is about as likely as a walk off home run hitter missing a touch.

What upsets me is Reinsdorfs(sp?) lack of action on the homophobic comments Guillen directed at Jay Mariotti. He was one of the main players in the witch hunt against Marge Schott when she made racial comments about her players. What a hypocrite.


Tim.

I'd say that's terribly uninformed as a gay man (leader of some local gay pride/rights chapter) was on WGN news last night saying he and many of his friends were offended. (Although, I don't know if he was "truly" gay).

While I myself can't speak on this as a gay man (being happily married to a beautiful GRIT (girl raised in the south) with two kids), my wife and I have several gay friends who would be offended by being called a "fag".

I am glad, however, that you can speak for the entire gay community.

As an aside (and I admit my memory may be fuzzy...so I could be wrong) but didn't you a month or two ago take a poster to task for making a comment derogatory about overweight people or overweight umpires? (I admit my memory may be wrong). Just wondering.

Well let's just say I have known many gay people in my years as a taxi driver in San Diego, as taxis are the preferred form of transportation to and from the many gay bars in the area. I know many personally, and have had many a carload of them, and trust me, the only reason they would be offended is for political purposes. In their real lives, they call each other every kind of name imaginable, and laugh their a$$es off about it. I am quite sure I know many more gay people than you do, so yes, I feel like somewhat of an authority.

Ever heard of Act Up? The militant gay political organization? Their slogan is "we're here, we're queer, and we're in your face!" Does this sound like people who are upset by the word fag?

All groups get offended all of a sudden when it gives them a political platform.

Yes, I got pissed when derogatory comments were made about fat people, because it is socially acceptable to make fun of fat people. You can't make racial or sexual slurs, but apparently it's always open season on fatties. Fat folks are constantly the butt of jokes. You don't hear too many people publicly telling gay or black jokes when gay or black people are right in front of them, but you can bash fat people right to their face. You can poke fun at them, and laugh your butt off about them while they are standing right there!

Just look at the mock outrage about Guillen's remarks. Do you think if he had called Mariotti "fat" that anyone would have gotten upset? Do you see the difference now?

So, I repeat....Ozzie owes the apology to Jay Mariotti, not the gay community. It was Mariotti who should feel offended.

Is Guillen so desperate for attention that he continues to have to make outrageous comments in the press like this? This is almost as bad as the crap spewing out of the mouths of the Dixie Chicks.

is this a political forum there orioles35??????

BASEBALL...HOTDOGS......AND APPLE PIE......AND POLITICS????

In America, the only Unpardonable Sin (tm) is losing.

During his apology, Guillen said that he had nothing against gay people and that he had gay friends, went to WNBA games and has gone to a Madonna concert.

I heard that on my way to work and I had to pull the car over I was laughing so hard.

I wonder what Guillen would say if Marriotti called him a "dirty spic."



Tim.

Tim,

I would guess Ozzie would laugh.

Now, he should not have called Marriotti a "fag" - because he isn't. Besides, it's kind of insulting to British cigarettes. He should have called him a "spineless prick hack" - because he is.

As to your surprise regarding Mr. Reinsdorf's failure to publicly reprimand Ozzie, I can only assume you were unaware that Jerry absolutely detests Jay Marriotti - not without reason. I'm guessing that Jerry is secretly giving Ozzie a bonus that is at least double whatever the amount he was fined by MLB.

Of course, the absolutely "priceless" aspect of the whole situation is that Messrs. Selig and Watson have sentenced Ozzie to - get this - "sensitivity training"!! No, I am NOT making this up! You CAN'T make up stuff this good. Never realized Bud had a sense of humor.

JMO.

JM

I don't know what the big deal is, after all 'fag' is in wikipedia.

Faggot (epithet) or fag, a generally pejorative term for a gay man, or for men who are judged to be "unmanly", weak or effeminate

Perhaps Ozzie just felt he was unmanly for not talking to him face to face.
Give the wetback a break!

I would love to watch that 'reality series' on Fox :D

I must be gay and extremely jolly then!:D And a faggot is also defined as a bundle of sticks.:p

That's quite an assumption considering you have never met me. LOL. I don't know how many gay people you "know"...but then you don't know how many I "know". I'm also guessing that I get to know my gay clients better than you get to know the gay men in the backseat of your taxi cab.

I don't think the man interviewed on WGN was looking for a political platform. His comments were limited to the Ozzy situation. He didn't make some big political statement about how gays are mistreated all the time in Chicago/Illinois and/or USA.

It is not socially acceptable in many places that I go. For instance, do it in my work place and you'll be fired. Am I suggesting that calling someone "fat" is as unacceptable in our society as using the "n-word"....no, I'm not. Should it be...yeah.

And as for this argument that they call each other "queen", "queer", "fag" and "gay", so that they can't be offended when someone else does: I know many African-Americans who call each other the "n-word" in their social circles...that does not mean that they're telling me or any of my lilly-white relatives that they wouldn't be offended if I called them that. I think the context is highly relevant.

But, again, I just find it humorous that you have the ability to state as fact that all gay men are not offended by Ozzy's comments...because if they are offended they aren't really gay, or they're just acting offended to make a political statement.

And again I think its quite a double standard that you can state that calling someone "fat" is unacceptable, but calling someone what Ozzy did is o.k.

I'm guessing you're offended at "fat" because you are overweight (for whatever reason...medical condition, etc.)...and I'm just guessing that if you were gay, too, you would have been offended at Ozzy's comments.

Personally, I'm not overweight, nor am I gay...but I'd be uncomfortable being in the presence of a person saying either slur/put-down. And I'd take it as an insult to my overweight and/or gay friends.

I had a long post made in rebuttal to yours, but I deleted it. This is not the proper forum for this type of argument. I stand by my statements, and you are free to do the same.

Ozzie offended Jay Mariotti, and that is to whom he owes an apology, not the gay community. I don't wish to elaborate any further, or this will turn into a discussion about sexual preference and moral values. If it does continue, I'll just delete the whole thread, as it is supposed to be about Ozzie Guillen's half-hearted apology to no one in particular, and to whom I feel it should have been directed.

Then "stand by" you and I shall both do.:)

OUT of SHEER DEVIL'S ADVOCATE Couriosity,

Shouldn't the Gay community really be more upset that the writer found the comment offensive (if he did) than that the Comment was made??

Well, probably because most people are not gay, and the majority of those people think that homosexuality is sinful. Being referred to as gay is offensive to the majority of heterosexuals, and has nothing to do with homophobia, a word that was invented by the far-left to excuse homosexual behavior, and to attempt to normalize it.

"Not that there's anything wrong with it." - Jerry, Elaine, Cosmo, and George:)

Now I'll agree and I hope most will that the statement most people are not gay is a correct assumtion. However the statement that most of the non gay community think that being Gay is sinful is a major crock of crap.

I would say the majority of the non gay world think that being gay is about as important to them as what level someone sets the toaster on. Now most of the Religious Zealots think that being gay is sinful I'll agree. But again most of the non gay world probably barely think of the word sinful let alone associate Gayness with it. I would bet that most of the world thinks being a religious Zealot is worst than being "the Gay & Beastiality Champion of the world".

Not to sound racially motivated,but if Ozzie was white do you think he would still have his job? Remember the uproar from that relief pitcher from the Braves a few years back.I think his name was Rocker, who made a comment in jest about the gays in New York and was ultimately railroaded out of baseball.Sounds like good old reverse descrimination to me.:confused:

Yes he would. This was not an issue of race, this was an issue of sexual orientation which is a very different issue. Stop trying to say "I am white and life is not fair" BS. The bottom line life is not fair. If there was not a history of whites preventing people of other races opportunities then white people would not have to bare the burden of racial comments. Someone like Dusty Baker can make comments and get a pass because there is not he same history in this country of Black people holding out white people from opportunities in baseball or other aspects of society. The Negro Leagues did not systematically hold out white people from playing baseball. Also this issue was about sexuality not race. That is a different issue and different set of circumstances. I can tell you African-Americans are probably more against gays or are much more homophobic than the general public. So if another manager said this that it would be treated the same way. They would have to apologize, but not much would be done about it unless they probably managed in San Francisco. A place like Chicago (which had a well known Gay Pride parade this Sunday) not everyone really cares.

Peace

I never said that being gay was sinful. Being gay in not sinful, but homosexual acts are. This being a Christian founded nation (fact, just do the research and don't try to argue the point) and that the majority of people in the US consider themselves Christian in some capacity, even though many do not practice their faith, it goes to reason that the majority of people in the US think that the practice of homosexual acts is a sin. It is not so-called "Religous Zealots" who feel this way. It is your mainstream, run-of-the-mill Christian. 87% of the people in the US consider themselves either Jewish or Christian (Catholic or Protestant).

I am not going to apologize for my beliefs, or have you disparage them. There are plenty of other things that God considers sin, and I'm no angel. But I recognize my sinful nature, and repent of it. Believing in God is not being a religous fanatic, sorry but you can't even go there.

You can believe whatever you want, but the Bible, which is the best selling book of all time BTW, of which I believe everything from the Table of Contents to the Maps, says that God loves the sinner but hates the sin. God loves homosexuals (and all mankind), but He abhorrs homosexuality. It is an abomination unto The Lord, and nothing you can rationalize it away with will change that fact.

Now, don't even come back and say that this nation was founded by "diests" and "agnostics" because that is a lie, and the people who say it know it's a lie. The founding fathers, by and large, were God fearing, Christian men, and put that faith into every single document and law that this great nation was built with. I can produce hundreds of quotations to back this up, so don't even try to refute what I say. Just read The Federalist Papers by John Jay and Thomas Jefferson for starters.

All that being said, I, much like God, love people. Somebody said, "we know that you hate Joe West" to which I answered, if you recall, that I don't "hate" anybody. Sure, there are people I dislike, but all men and women are brothers in my way of thinking, and all deserve the love that God loves us with. Gay, straight, black, white, brown, you name it! They are all God's children.

Ummm,

Uh oh. ;)

JM

Okay, just one more crack like that and you're gone, coach!!!:D :D :D

"If Religion be not within cognizance of Civil Government, how can its legal establishment be said to be necessary to Civil Government? What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of Civil authority; in many instances they have seen the upholding of the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberty of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it (liberty) needs them not.”

James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, June 20, 1785

I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and i do not find in our particular superstition of christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."
"- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia

"The United States was in no sense founded on the Christian religion."

The 1796 treaty with Tripoli, written under the direction of President George Washington and signed by President John Adams

"all natural institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit"-

Thomas Paine

"Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."

Benjamin Franklin, Works, Vol. VII


Thomas Jefferson's original words: "All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable," were changed by congress to read "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights."

My point? Yes, there were Christians among the founding fathers, and Jews and Freemasons and Deists and atheists. They all worked together to keep religion out of government.

And, since you are too polite to ask, yes, I consider myself a practicing, church attending, parish council member, Christian. But my faith doesn't require that I ignore history.

Now Steve,

I was not trying to "show up the ump" in any way.

Rather, as in baseball, while your comments above might be considered perfectly correct under one "ruleset", they might be considered equally incorrect under another.

While I would not dispute your comments regarding the religious sensibilities of those who made this country a nation (in the modern sense), I believe they had the wisdom to both realize AND stipulate that government and religion are two separate matters. Since freedom of religion was a primary motivation for creating this nation, they made it a matter of law.

And I still think that it's a "hoot" that Ozzie was "sentenced" to sensitivity training, and I still think that Jay Mariotti is a spineless hack. Have any of you ever read what he writes. I have, and I wouldn't encourage anyone else to waste his time doing so. I also find it ironic that there was virtually no comment when Ozzie called him a "piece of $hit" and the media has their panties in a wad because he called him a "fag". What a hoot.

JM

Edited to add:

I see that Garth has posted while I was composing my post. I would just like to say that I find his "cites" both on point and illuminative.

Garth,

Good quotes, and I did say that by and large the founding fathers were Christians. Hundreds more quotes from the Christian founders could be added, but I didn't think it would be necessary. Of course, Jefferson, Franklin, and some others were exceptions. My seventh generation grandfather was Alexander Hamilton, and I come from a long line of Scottish Rite Freemasons and Eastern Star members, so I know the history involved there too.

The Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, both speak of God, our creator. Nowhere in either of these documents do they denounce the existence of God.

You said that they all worked together to keep religion out of government, when from all I've researched they mainly were working to keep government out of their religous freedoms, which is why they left England and the Mother Church, which was run by the government. The so-called "Separation of Church and State," which in reality does not exist, was an effort to stop the government intervention into the church's business, not the portrait being painted nowdays by the athiests, who want to tear down all the crosses at the war memorials on public land because they feel they are in violation of this mythical separation.

Here are just a few quotes from the Bible-believing Founding Fathers:

“All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.” - Noah Webster

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” - James Madison, 1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia

“ The Law given from Sinai [The Ten Commandments] was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code.” - John Quincy Adams. Letters to his son

Quotes by George Washington:

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible."

"It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors."

“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.” - George Washington in a speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779

A Portion of George Washington's personal prayers:

“O Most Glorious God, in Jesus Christ, my merciful and loving Father; I acknowledge and confess my guilt in the weak and imperfect performance of the duties of this day. I have called on Thee for pardon and forgiveness of my sins, but so coldly and carelessly that my prayers are become my sin, and they stand in need of pardon.”
“ I have sinned against heaven and before Thee in thought, word, and deed. I have contemned Thy majesty and holy laws. I have likewise sinned by omitting what I ought to have done and committing what I ought not. I have rebelled against the light, despising Thy mercies and judgment, and broken my vows and promise. I have neglected the better things. My iniquities are multiplied and my sins are very great. I confess them, O Lord, with shame and sorrow, detestation and loathing and desire to be vile in my own eyes as I have rendered myself vile in Thine. I humbly beseech Thee to be merciful to me in the free pardon of my sins for the sake of Thy dear Son and only Savior Jesus Christ who came to call not the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Thou gavest Thy Son to die for me.”

"Make me to know what is acceptable in Thy sight, and therein to delight, open the eyes of my understanding, and help me thoroughly to examine myself concerning my knowledge, faith, and repentance, increase my faith, and direct me to the true object, Jesus Christ the Way, the Truth, and the Life, ..." - [from a 24 page authentic handwritten manuscript book dated April 21-23, 1752]

John Adams and John Hancock:
"We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!" - [April 18, 1775]

From John Adams:

“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
“[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.” – John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - October 11, 1798

"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." - December 25, 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson

John Adams believed that government should never impose a denomination or particular religion upon the people, and didn't like the bickering that went on between the different Christian denominations.

There are so many more quotations that refute the athiests attempt to deny our nation's Christian heritage. These people have many websites dedicated to their anti-God agenda. They take quotations by the Founding Fathers out of context, snip parts to suit their own purposes, and totally misrepresent the original thoughts of these great men in history.

And speaking of Alexander Hamilton:

Alexander Hamilton:

Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great:

(1) Christianity

(2) a Constitution formed under Christianity.

“The Christian Constitutional Society, its object is first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States.”

On July 12, 1804 at his death, Hamilton said, “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.”

"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests." - [1787 after the Constitutional Convention]

"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man."

And back to Ben Franklin:

“God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.” –Constitutional Convention of 1787

“In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?” [Constitutional Convention, Thursday June 28, 1787]

In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."

In 1787 when Franklin helped found Benjamin Franklin University, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning, built on Christ, the Cornerstone."

My favorite quote:

"Hundreds more quotes from the Christian founders could be added, but I didn't think it would be necessary." San Diego Steve.

Quotes are funny things. Some people see quotation marks and a claim by someone that so-and-so said these words and they believe. Not every quote is accurate. Research has shown, according to one of his biographers, that half the quotes attributed to Mark Twain are not really attributable to Mark Twain.

Similarly, the quote above you attribute to James Madison has been denounced as fraudulent by at least four of his major biographers and several Supreme Court justices. Several others are not independently and academically verifiable. The one you cited regarding the founding of Ben Franklin University is not regarded as a Ben Franklin quote. In short quotations marks do not lend authenticity.

This is why I listed verifiable sources for the quotes I used and did not include such quotes as "According to Gouverneur Morris, Washington told him he had as much use for Christianity as he did." and "No one found it strange that Washington did not participate in any of the church sacraments including communion, and refused, on his deathbed, to pray or receive a local pastor."

While these are included in biographies, no direct, verifiable reference is listed so I do not consider them valid.

What I do know first hand about Washington is that none of his surviving letters contain any reference to any belief in Christianity or God. Take a look.

While a mention of a "creator" is made in the Declaration of Independence, which is not a governing document, by the way, I do not find the word "God" in either the Declaration of Independence or in the U.S. Constitution. Neither are the words Jesus, Bible, Ten Commandments, or Christianity to be found. The constitution does, however, clearly state that: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3).

This, brought to it's normal conclusion, would never be concluded. Although you and I seem to share a faith, we do not share the same opinion of what is fact and what is not. My faith is solid enough to withstand the honesty of history.

Therefore, this will be my last word on this very off-topic, topic. And I assure you, unlike someone :D, I will not go back on what I have just written.

Pax vobiscum

Okay, you got me with the Latin, no hablo.:)

I said that I didn't think it would be necessary to post quotes. I found that it was. I never said I wouldn't list quotes. People have been trying to refute the influence of God in the original Founding Fathers since the birth of this nation. It's not surprising that many quotes have been subject to scrutiny and that many have been refuted.

If I go any farther, I'll start to preach, and this really is not the forum for it.

I will let the subject rest as is. At least until someone else says "religious zealots.":D

You may not be a religious zealot, but you sure argue like one.

Sounds more like a Bible believing Christian than a "zealot." I did not want to have to argue with non-believers. Not on this forum, which is supposed to be about umpiring. The thread got off track, but it is my thread, so I control its destiny.

These were caveats to my thread.

So, get your own thread and post whatever you please with my blessings.

Sorry if I came off like the Great And Powerful Oz.

Because I, much like the Wizard of Oz, love people.:)