That's it! I've had it!

As long as I'm talking about football...

Now in its ninth season, it's officially time for the Andy Reid-era to end. We're obviously not fooling anyone anymore. Who else lets their fragile QB get sacked 12 times in a game? Hey, here's an idea. RUN THE BALL! I mean, it's not like our RB is averaging 6.1 yards per carry in the game or anything. I'm so sick of these post-game press conferences he has. Show some emotion, will ya! It's always the same thing. "I need to do a better job of getting our guys ready to play." or "A lot of what happened falls on my shoulders." No shit, you fat Mormon asshole!

Don't accuse me either of being one of those "typical" disrespectful Philly fans who can't appreciate when someone does well, either. Listen, I'll say that the Andy Reid-era has largely been wonderful. It's been incredibly exciting, and I'll even go so far as to say he is the best coach in Eagles' history. But really, who the fuck are we fooling these days? Here's the game plan to beat the 2007 Eagles. Do something right one time, and then do it repeatedly throughout the game, because obviously we're incapable of adjusting to anything.

Football and faith

I'm on a hot streak when it comes to angry letter-writing these days. This article on espn.com last week was just begging me to respond. No. It was waking me up at night, saying to me, "Dude, look. You love football and hate religion. You must not go silent!" And I just couldn't not when it contains bad points such as this:

"Yet, for some reason, the thought that God was somehow involved in Kitna's recovery just seems to rub people the wrong way. Kitna didn't say God wanted him to play the fourth quarter, or that God made sure the Lions won. He just said God took the pain away. Isn't that the kind of spiritual benevolence 91 percent of Americans say they also believe is possible? And if that is the case, then why is Kitna saying what he said loony?"

Um, let me take a stab at that last question. Because it's retarded and devoid of evidence. How's that for an answer?

Anyway, my letter to the author challenged him on his assertion that because most Americans believe in God, then it's unfair to challenge Kitna's statement. This type of thinking is kind of like saying that if the majority believes something - even if it's contradictory to evidence - then they must be right and be immune from criticism. When we alter our normal modes of truth-testing this way, I can't help but think about the lead up to the Iraq war. Most people thought the invasion was a good idea. Those who disagreed were often accused of being unpatriotic, and their voices often were silenced. Look where this discourse has lead us.

Expecting my posting in ESPN's comment box to fall on deaf ears, I was rather amazed to find the following email in my inbox the next morning:

"First, thanks for such a thoughtful response, I do
appreciate it. And you bring up some very valid
points. I was not suggesting that Kitna, or anyone
else of faith, should not face critics. But that was
the majority of what I heard-- critics. In a nation in
which 90 percent are suppose to believe in God I found
their silence deafening. And faith is the evidence of
things unseen. I know it's not scientific but then
science once dictated the world was flat and at the
center of the universe."

Wow! Where do I even begin? They say that brevity is the soul of wit, but this brief response is full of so many bad ideas that it's staggering. Well, here it goes...

Thank you for responding, but mostly I appreciate your willingness to discuss such important topics that are too often taboo to discuss.

It may be strange for you to hear such criticism of Kitna's remarks when, as you rightly point out, most Americans believe in God. But do keep in mind that believers probably saw what he said, and frankly, thought nothing of it because those sentiments were shared. Therefore it seems virtually inevitable that criticism will always be the loudest.

I'm not sure how, as you put it, "faith is the evidence of things unseen". For instance, I had total faith that my beloved Philadelphia Eagles would win their opening game at Green Bay. Despite my unwavering faith, it certainly did not make it true. Again, as I stressed in my initial comment, it's only when we deal with matters of religious faith that our normal pursuit of truth-testing is thrown out the window. This is a double-standard by which I cannot abide. Faith, whether specifically religious or not, is merely the suspension of belief in the face of evidence.

Yes, there was a time when people believed the Earth was the center of the universe. Fortunately, it has been because of (not in spite of) science that humanity has discovered this is not the case. That's the great thing about science. It's a wonderfully self-correcting mechanism that can constantly change in the face of new evidence. Faith, on the other hand, is unwavering. The Bible hasn't changed in 2000 years. It hasn't corrected its mistakes about cosmology or the origin of life. And by paying lip service to these mistakes we're paying a terrible price evidenced by the number of people whose faith is so strong that they take their holy text literally.

Thanks again for your time.

Sadly I have yet to hear from the author again.