WindyCitySports

Unfortunately, it has gotten to that point.

So, the official symbol of the University of Illinois, Chief Illiniwek, was retired 6 years ago this month. However, it is an understatement to say that people have not moved on. Alumni are still withholding donations, people are still wearing Chief pins on the backpacks, at every game the crowd still shouts "CHIEF!" after the 3-in-1 (when he used to dance), and tomorrow we are having university elections, which include a symbolic referendum asking, "Do you support Chief Illiniwek as the official symbol of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign?" This vote, which I will be an enthusiastic "YES" on (despite only being symbolic), motivated me to get some outside opinions. Keep in mind that he is much different from some other Native American mascots like Florida State. So, you decide. Here is some help. Chief logo (my avatar as well): http://www.uofiwiki.org/w/images/3/3e/Chief_illiniwek_logo.gif Chief dance: Chief Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Illiniwek

It would not be like that, because that word has an offensive context and is about an entire race. It would be more like if the team was named after a tribe in Africa. Also, the person would study with that tribe and wear clothing sold to him by the tribe.

The Illiniwek tribe is no longer in existence, so that is a problem. The reason FSU has been able to keep theirs is because the Seminole tribe has approved of it. Speaking to everyone, he is actually a depiction of a Sioux indian. His dressing is Sioux and so is his face paint. I would have no problem with him changing to look like an Illiniwek native, but of course they won't accept that. They want him gone all together.

Why shouldn't that person get to explain themselves in a federal court before getting killed? Isn't the the entire point of the 5th Amendment? Innocent until proven guilty, right?

21-0-3

The most amazing thing about all of this, to me, is the way he has united the American people. Here is a bit of a "slideshow" of what I am talking about. Code Pink (far-left group) Young Turks (far-left group) Laura Ingraham (right-wing radio) Herman Cain (conservative politician) Gary Johnson (libertarian politician) Jon Stewart (liberal comedian) Twitter Trend Honestly, whether or not you agree with him, he looked like a leader yesterday. He was bold, passionate about getting things done, and not taking crap. That is exactly what this country is thirsty for. We need someone who is not going to "go along to get along," won't say "we've always done it this way," and tells it like it is. If he runs in 2016 I plan on being an active member of his campaign.

Into the Mystic I can barely type. This song is so amazing it puts me into a state of shock.

20-0-3

Why should we move on? We are paying a ton of money to attend this school, and we are supposed to sit back while a Michigan grad tells us we can't have our symbol of 80+ years? Come on. Do you believe it it racist.

19-0-3

18-0-3

Can't wait for the season to start up! Nothing like summer and baseball.

Love their cover of Thunder Road!

I love my brother and sister very much, and that love is most definitely a different kind of love than intimate love that I cannot put on the same scale as the word "surpassed" does. But, even putting that aside, they were indeed not brothers. I would not go to one of my friends and tell them that their love "surpassed the love of women." Would you? I understand that covenant can mean many things, but the general term when formed between two people frequently means marriage in the Bible. At least we can agree on that. There is so much in the Bible and so much can be interpreted in different ways that it really is important to read and interpret on your own, while still listening to the guidance of the establishment you attend.

I understand that the story of Jonathan and David can be interpreted many different ways, but let's just say I think there is STRONG evidence to show that they had an intimate relationship. First of all, it says that their love "surpassed the love of women." This quote suggests that they may have had stronger feelings toward each other than women. Next, it says that their souls were "knitted together" and they made a "covenant." The first phrase there suggests that they were bound together. The word "covenant" is used frequently in the Bible to describe marriage. Obviously it is a controversial story and I am unsure of whether or not I am convinced that they were lovers, but there is a lot of room for interpretation there and the fact that the story was NEVER mentioned in my years of attending religious services nearly every week frustrates me and has motivated me to do a complete read-through of the Bible this summer. Also, let me point out that the examples that I gave in the OP were quite notable. The story of Jonathan and David took up a good portion of Samuel, and the fourth quote was from Matthew, a book well-known as the words of Jesus himself. The verses used to condemn homosexuality are largely from the Old Testament, most notable Leviticus. In those books, an extreme caution must be taken with historical context, as they also condemn women and condone slavery. In summary, I will not say that the Bible is fully on board with homosexuality, but I think there is a lot of interpreting to do and there have been a lot of passages that have been intentionally hidden over the years to cover up any question to Priest/Pastor's condemnation of homosexuality.

About four years. I started following the Hawks in '09.

16-0-3

Cool story bro.

15-0-3

I am pissed. I don't know if any of you watched Michigan-Illinois today on ESPN, but we had the talent to win that game. This is one of the more frustrating teams to watch. The talent level is there, but they just don't want it bad enough.

14-0-3!!!