As we predicted yesterday, Tony Dungy
had to issue a clarification in re Michael Sam:
The best players make the team, and everyone should get the opportunity to prove whether they’re good enough to play. That’s my opinion as a coach. But those were not the questions I was asked.
What I was asked about was my philosophy of drafting, a philosophy that was developed over the years, which was to minimize distractions for my teams.
I do not believe Michael’s sexual orientation will be a distraction to his teammates or his organization.
I do, however, believe that the media attention that comes with it will be a distraction. Unfortunately we are all seeing this play out now, and I feel badly that my remarks played a role in the distraction.
More at the link. To his credit, Dungy's "clarification" isn't an apology, an important distinction. He had no reason to apologize. I do want to go back to one thing, though. Yesterday's post offered the following observation by Yahoo Sports writer
Dan Wetzel:
This is Dungy not standing up for his own convictions.
Show of hands here -- does anyone believe that Dan Wetzel has any freaking idea what Dungy's convictions are? Or is this Wetzel projecting his own convictions onto Dungy? It's presumptuous as hell for Wetzel to tell Dungy what his convictions are. Perhaps the most pernicious thing about modern liberalism is the way that liberals attempt to control the terms of any debate. The least we can do for Tony Dungy is to let him speak for himself. We need to do a better job of calling out jackasses like Wetzel who deign to tell people what their convictions ought to be.
1 comment:
I, too, question what Wetzel knows about anyone's convictions outside of his own - and I wonder how well he knows his own if they haven't been tested.
A good friend of mine, a devout Christian, shared the other day how his family had taken in a young woman refugee as their nanny. She had had a horrific past, but turned out to be a caring and tender nanny and his kids had loved her. After a few years she came out as a lesbian and began living with another woman, but wanting to continue as the nanny. My friend was torn; on one hand this was something he clearly thought was wrong, but on the other hand she truly loved his kids and they loved her. He prayed about it, asking God for wisdom and to know His will in the matter. He said he was clearly told to keep her and to continue to love her.
A bit later, the young woman came down wtth a terminal illness that was painful and wasting. My friend's family was both the source and the example of her comfort and security throughout, and she ultimately accepted Christ, not out of fear but because of the peace and conviction she had witnessed and utimately wanted to be a part of. Towards the end, she was weeping not because she was going to die, but because she had no one to conduct her funeral. She had not been part of any church. My friend told her, "i wlll do your funeral," and she started crying again for a completely different reason.
Her death and funeral were devastating to his family, but also powerfully uplifting and hope-inspiring. I believe it is an example of getting past the "Do's and Don'ts" of religion and into the "Whys and Wherefores."
Post a Comment