'Thought Police' Target NFL Super Bowl-Winning Coach for 'Intolerance'
Former Super Bowl-winning coach and current NBC football analyst Tony Dungy became the latest target for the "Thought Police" last week, when he said he wouldn't have drafted openly gay player Michael Sam because of the distractions it would cause for the team.
Said Dungy, "I wouldn't have [drafted] 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."
And for his innocuous comments, Dungy was dubbed the "World's Worst Person in Sports" by ESPN's Keith Olbermann, and other swift attacks on Dungy came from all over.
American Family Association President Tim Wildmon said the Christian coach is the latest in a long line of those who have been targeted because their views don't match the politically correct agenda....
I don't know which of your statements is more ignorant. Just that you would suggest : "Is the reason you speak so against cheerleaders because you did not make the cut to be one as a teenager?" clearly indicates that you find something of merit in being one.If that's the case,you need to check your heart. And fyi, I wasn't always saved, and by the world's standard, I've been there, done that...which, if it hasn't occurred to you, my heart in the matter is actually one of my concerns, as stated previously, that our country's children are not subjected and molded by such. ...but, this will probably fall on deaf ears. Again, time to get off of the merry-go-round.
"look",john", You obviously are not grasping what I have had to say. That's why I had directed you to someone who deals with the subject matter in question. It's your choice as to whether or not you listen to what Cooley says. As far as "lewd" statements, if one is offended by someone pointing out women who are in their underwear, then I would think that they would all the more be upset that there are women in their underwear or what the Bible would deem as "naked". The statement was not for shock value. It was for the purpose of pointing out the "big,pink elephant" which, seemingly, Christians would rather ignore. If Christians addressed the obvious, then they would have to choose to continue in their "ignorance" or to concede that it is a problem.They might even have to choose to give up an "idol". In any case, because you choose to avoid the crux of what is a concern when Christians have double standards, I really can't help you to understand. You can go to the Bible, which I would highly recommend, unless you are steeped in catholicism and only view it is as an interesting book which is only the product of man. Other than that, aside from their limited entertainment value,going around in circles in revolving doors is vain.
honestly sc, first you never showed where anyone posted a pro cheerleader comment.
Then, here is an example of how you posted.
I come to my door to answer the knock. When I open the door you are standing there visibly upset. I ask how may I help you. You say, "Why did you kill my dog?" I tell you I have not been out today could not have killed your dog. I advise you that you should not be accusing me of something I didn't do, and you say, hey I was only asking a question. No, you were accusing me of killing your dog.
So, no, there is no difference in what you said to John Yurich just because you formed it as a question, the implication was clear you were saying that John Yurich would have no problem accepting the position because he didn't agree with your view of things. Same goes for your "question" to Unprofitable Servant stating he would not have an issue with any type of cheerleader.
Instead of advising me to read posts more carefully, it would do you well to be more careful how you word your post. I am not the only one saying this to you. You are still implying that I have no problem with how cheerleaders dress. One, I would to God all women and men would be modest in their apparel and two I don't spend time pondering how cheerleaders dress.
Reading posts carefully would help. I did not accuse him (John). I posted : "I suppose you would take a job where women are bumping and grinding in what essentially amounts to underwear?" Note the "?" There is a difference between stating that someone would do something (accusation) and asking if someone would do something which would be consistent with the views which they seem to hold. You are making this so complicated. Cheerleaders were germaine to the issue because Dungy was emphatic in his view against homosexuality. I was pointing out the double standard. If one doesn't have a problem with scantily clad cheerleaders in the NFL, then they ought not to have a problem with homosexuals in the NFL. Sexual immorality is sexual immorality whether it's hetero or homo. Again, if you seriously want a Biblical perspective, please consider listening to the Naked Truth by Jason Cooley. He is very clear, direct, gracious and unapologetic in dealing with essentially the same subject matter. I suggest this to you as we are not making any progress in communication. Cooley's sermon would be very beneficial to you in this regard.
s c, where in anybody's post, site date and time please, do you see them saying it is ok for cheerleaders to be immodest? You are making your opinion the standard by which all other comments must be judged in this thread. There was no mention of cheerleaders in the article. Five people made comments about the article before you posted, none of them mentioned cheerleaders or scantily clad women. You are the one brought that into the discussion. John Yurich replied to you, saying nothing about them and you accused him of being willing take a job where women do inappropriate things and then basically said he watched football and ogled cheerleaders on his tv. (by the way when you make an accusation with no knowledge or proof that is a slanderous statement) Unprofitable Servant wrote that coaches don't have anything to do with cheerleaders and you stated he wouldn't have a problem with transgender or homosexual cheerleaders, implying he also had no problems with any cheerleaders. (again that would be a slanderous statement) Also you implied that he would have no standards for his children. He left the thread and pennned even pointed out you were making demoralizing statements about people who post.
slander - (verb)making false and damaging statements about someone
Thank you, Dorcas. Jason Cooley did a fine job. I would highly recommend it to "look". Perhaps he would grasp Mr. Cooley's take on it better than mine. "look"...your slanderous statements of me "slandering" are erroneous. You seem to misunderstand my line of reasoning. Again, it all boils down to the bottom line: One can't hold to a double standard and be credible/have integrity at the same time. What you take as slander was simply the only reasonable conclusion that could be drawn given that one would not have a problem with naked women. "Yes". Naked women...and being around them. I really would encourage you to listen to the Naked Truth by Jason Cooley on SA as Dorcas suggested. It is very clear and from a Biblical perspective at that. Isn't that the perspective we all should desire to have when something is in question? So...my advice to you, look, is to search the Scriptures and see if these things are not so.
You said I certainly couldn't judge Dungy's heart but Christian NFL coaches, players or celebrities lack credibility
then you proceeded to slander three different people on this board
John Yurich with the opening sentence too offensive to repeat on 7/29 9:56
Unprofitable Servant in your 7/30 7:03 post
me on 8/1 8:08
Does that mean if the article was about slander and character maligning, you would choose not to comment because just as it is inappopriate for the coach to speak against homosexuality, you would not comment because you would lack credibility? or do you view it as virtuous to do so?
It's interesting that you call me "accusatory (most post) slanderous (7:59 9:56;7/30 7:03) proud (7/30 3:07 --and the general I know-it-all and nobody has a handle on this like I do"
Just in saying that, you give everyone a very candid look at yourself..as it describes what you do when you accuse me and give your broad assessment. No wonder you are incognito. I don't know why it's so difficult to grasp the concept that one doesn't have to watch or actually be somewhere to know what goes on at events. The NFL is very much on the front burner when it comes to news items. The news will frequently comment on items such as collegiate and high school cheerleaders dressing more like the nfl cheerleaders. And no one can escape the talk of the superbowl. Almost any one can tell you who is performing on it...and on and on. Your attempt to dodge the crux of the matter is lame. Cheerleaders dress like hookers. True or false? You should know since you're telling me that you should act as the "thought police" and inform me that I don't know anything about it as if cheerleaders were modest and demure. The bottom line is: if cheerleaders are immodestly dressed then no one, including Christians, should voice an opinion against homosexuals in the nfl. That's called hypocrisy/double standard
s c wrote: I might add, "look in the mirror" that since you were so bold to say: "you can be crass (7/29 9:56) accusatory (most post) slanderous (7:59 9:56;7/30 7:03) proud (7/30 3:07 --and the general I know-it-all and nobody has a handle on this like I do throughout your posts) Nothing could top the arrogance and pride one must have to suggest that "nobody has a handle on this like I"...Blasphemy!! Are you above the Holy Spirit?
I was referring to you! (didn't you read the post?) need to look in the mirror. Also, could you point out where I said cheerleaders are ok? (yet another slander, does that ever bother you that sc could stand for slander constantly?) Still don't know how you comment on something you haven't seen, but drone on please because it will only serve to prove my point.
I might add, "look in the mirror" that since you were so bold to say: "you can be crass (7/29 9:56) accusatory (most post) slanderous (7:59 9:56;7/30 7:03) proud (7/30 3:07 --and the general I know-it-all and nobody has a handle on this like I do throughout your posts) Nothing could top the arrogance and pride one must have to suggest that "nobody has a handle on this like I"...Blasphemy!! Are you above the Holy Spirit?
look in the mirror, get a clue. It is hypocritical to slam homosexuals when one isn't bothered by hetero sensuality. I'm can only conclude that you wouldn't have a problem with "queerleaders" since you don't have a problem with cheerleaders who are scantily dressed shaking their pon pons in front of our country's children. Oh yeah, you can readily find them at football games. Go figure! And, I still find it interesting that everyone wants to try to make me the subject. Dungy and his comment was the topic on the table. Unless he stays silent in regards to homosexuals, he is error of having a double standard. Truth is truth...I guess you must be under conviction? ouch!!!
s c wrote: "look in the mirror", here's a newsflash: One doesn't have to go dumpster diving to know that there is garbage in the dumpster. Your "logic" fails. And, one isn't, as you say, "on their high horse" if they take someone to task for having a double standard. I'm not the one with a beam in my eye. We already know, from his own words, what Dungy thinks of homosexuals. Why does he not have a problem with the heteor sensuality then unless he has a double standard?...a very simple question. Unless you can show that Dungy is consistent in his views, his opinion on homosexuals should be discarded. It lacks validity then.
you can be crass (7/29 9:56) accusatory (most post) slanderous (7:59 9:56;7/30 7:03) proud (7/30 3:07 --and the general I know-it-all and nobody has a handle on this like I do throughout your posts) and yet think you're a paragon of virtue and condemn others for what you see as their hypocrisy. By your own standards we shouldn't listen to your comments.
sc, I don't expect sinners to be consistent, but at least he said it would be below his dignity to have guys hitting on his football players while they are in the locker room.... talk about a way to clear the room. good for him!