OK, OK, Parts 1 to 85 don’t exist, but it’s been a significant pattern mentioned on this blog and a significant pattern in our culture right now. If one in the public spotlight says anything (and I mean anything) remotely sounding like a criticism of someone who is gay or of anything related to the gay rights movement will suffer excoriation to a high degree.
For one, enter the issue with Tony Dungy. No one could question with any credibility that Dungy is a caring guy and a class act. When asked about Michael Sam, an openly homosexual player drafted out of the University of Missouri by the St. Louis Rams in the 7th round of this year’s draft. Dungy was asked about drafting Sam. Here’s the kicker comment:
“I wouldn’t have taken him. Not because I don’t believe Michael Sam should have a chance to play, but I wouldn’t want to deal with all of it. It’s not going to be totally smooth . . . things will happen.’’
Distractions. The media has spilt much ink on him being the first openly gay player, even hanging around at his house until the 7th round (very unusual) to see his reaction (and subsequent kiss and embrace of his boyfriend) at the Rams drafting him.
Teams don’t like distractions. Tebow is out of a job mostly due to his talent, but also due to the distractions that Tebow brings to the team and fanbase. Coaches by and large do not embrace this.
Dungy gave a response:
“I gave my honest answer, which is that I felt drafting him would bring much distraction to the team,” Dungy says.
“I was not asked whether or not Michael Sam deserves an opportunity to play in the NFL. He absolutely does.
“I was not asked whether his sexual orientation should play a part in the evaluation process. It should not.
“I was not asked whether I would have a problem having Michael Sam on my team. I would not.”
Sam’s size as a football prospect were slim, but his sexuality doesn’t affect this—and most (Dungy included) would not take this in as a factor. But the cameras, the (since pulled) reality show, and continued appearance on talk shows due, not to his talent, but due to his sexual proclivities make one believe that, yes, a distraction will occur. Other players provide plenty of distractions, but if the talent exists in that player, the coaches put up with it.
Matt Walsh begins his article on this topic rather ominously, but making an interesting insight to the ebb and flow of the culture:
The Cult of Leftism has many tenets, and it demands full compliance with all of them, but nothing in its creed compares to the sanctity of their two great sacraments: child murder and sodomy. You must not question these, but tolerance alone will not be good enough. You must celebrate them, too. You must worship at their altar. You must sing hallelujah at the mention of their names. You must fight for a society where infanticide and gay sex are awarded a protected and privileged position. When a man decides to kill babies for a living, you must call him a ‘health care provider’ and a ‘healer.’ When a man decides to announce to the world that he enjoys sex with other men, you must call him a ‘hero’ and a ‘pioneer.’ You must quite literally give him awards for his courage.
Nothing less will be allowed.
It’s hard to argue with Walsh’s assessment. Unconditional embracing of these two issues from certain loud and influential pockets of our society is all that matters.
Again, this is the new fundamentalism. Anything less, you’re intolerant, bigoted, backward, homophobic, and on the ‘wrong side of history,’ etc.
Kevin DeYoung wrote an article today about how much has changed in six years, where both Obama and Biden defined marriage as only between a man and a woman. Two years ago (each of these opinions coinciding with election cycles, thus the timing of these respective pronouncements), they reversed position with a more ‘open’ definition.
Two years. That’s not all that long ago. So in such a short time when companies and owners of said companies face governmental crackdowns for their religious beliefs that coincided with Obama and Biden a scant two years ago, has all that much really changed? DeYoung explains:
Of course, the answer to that question may very well be “yes.” Public opinion has shifted. Tolerance has become militantly intolerant. Every institution and every nation has its orthodoxies to enforce, and it looks like conservative religious persons are the new heretics. No debate is necessary. We haven’t lost the argument on marriage as much as arguments are no longer allowed. To say what our President used to say–and said explicitly while running for President–is quickly becoming unacceptable in polite society.
If bigotry is “the stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own” who is the bigot: the one who tries to provide reasons for his views or the one who says there is no reason your views deserve to be heard (emphasis mine)? If the President’s evolved position proves to be the new mainstream in our culture, is it too much to ask that the position he used to believe in be accorded the protection and freedom the Vice-President once alluded to? Conservative religious persons and conservative religious institutions could be embarrassingly wrong about gay marriage. But if they are, they haven’t been embarrassingly wrong about it for very long.
Yes, a quick turnaround indeed from the powers and influencers that be.
But those who embrace these policies, let me ask: do you remember when you were on the other side of this? When you wished to be heard, but weren’t? When you were ingloriously dismissed out-of-hand? Is this how you wish to be seen? You may be surprised that in time, folks will react to your fundamentalism as you reacted to theirs. Dialogues and conversations now only seem to be with those with whom a person or a group agrees.
Bigotry works in more ways that one.