The 2013-2014 NFL Offseason/Coaching/Free Agency (non-draft) Thread

[molson]

People are going to be really disappointed when this turns out to be not a big deal at all.

Edit: And I don't follow the NFL very closely in the off-season, but I haven't heard a single thing about Sam between the draft and these two guys trying to make themselves the story.

[gstelmack]

I agree that the media should take some responsibility for making things like this much more difficult than it actually needs to be.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Here's what Dungy said:

“I wouldn’t have taken him,’’ Dungy told the Tampa Tribune. “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.’’

You can try spin this all you like, but what that says is "it's ok for me to be a bigot since external forces may cause me some inconvenience". There's nothing right about that statement. Nothing right at all.

He's basically saying that, as a head coach/GM, Michael Sam's talent is not worth the media circus that comes with selecting him. And, regardless of whether you think that's "right" or not, 31 other teams said the same thing by not taking him in the draft. So, the "Tony Dungy mentality" is a lot more prevalent in the NFL than your viewpoint. So, we should probably talk about that and see what can be done to minimize this moving forward. And, to be honest, the biggest thing should be calling out the media when they try to make it an issue in camp. That's going to be the distraction, not how the players or coaches handle it.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by molson

People are going to be really disappointed when this turns out to be not a big deal at all.

I will be very happy if that ends up being the case. I have my doubts that media will have the level of self control needed to make that happen, but I can hope.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Arles

I will be very happy if that ends up being the case. I have my doubts that media will have the level of self control needed to make that happen, but I can hope.

I think the media will try briefly but they'll lose interest quickly when there's no hooks for stories. Already they're resorting to feuding with each other to make stories. Fans aren't going to be chanting slurs at Sam. If one does he'll be kicked out of the stadium. Teammates aren't going to be hazing him or harassing him. If one says something offensive he'll be broadly criticized and maybe cut. This is not Jackie Robinson in the 40s. It certainly would have been if some athlete came out a few decades ago, but that ship has sailed.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Arles

He's basically saying that, as a head coach/GM, Michael Sam's talent is not worth the media circus that comes with selecting him. And, regardless of whether you think that's "right" or not, 31 other teams said the same thing by not taking him in the draft. So, the "Tony Dungy mentality" is a lot more prevalent in the NFL than your viewpoint. So, we should probably talk about that and see what can be done to minimize this moving forward. And, to be honest, the biggest thing should be calling out the media when they try to make it an issue in camp. That's going to be the distraction, not how the players or coaches handle it.

Er, no. Nice try, but no.

31 teams passed on Sam, just like 31 teams passed on over 500 other draft-eligible players. 31 teams passed on Teddy Bridgewater. You have NO IDEA why teams passed up on Sam. Too slow? Poor fit for the 3-4? Trying to paint all of them as bigots reflects poorly upon you. As far as I know, Dungy is the only one out there saying he'd have passed on Sam because he wouldn't want "to deal with it".

There isn't going to be a media circus about this until/unless Sam is on the bubble for a roster spot. Then there will be some attention paid. But here's the thing - generally, no one cares unless someone from inside the team somehow makes a big deal about it. Which won't happen. That Dungy, who has many past ties to anti-gay groups, feel this way is telling. I wonder how he'd feel if the Dodgers "didn't want to deal with it" and didn't go after Jackie Robinson.

Now close to the final cuts - if Sam is still there - I expect there to be some media interest. But a frenzy that causes a distraction? No, because the NFL already knows how to deal with media on stories that are far, far more interesting than this one. Molson is right, this isn't going to be a big deal. The big deal here is that Dungy feels it's ok to be a bigot if it avoids a potential distraction on his football team.

[flere-imsaho]

I'm sure some of the 31 teams who didn't select Sam did so because either a) they didn't like the fact he was gay or b) didn't want to deal with their other players' reactions or c) didn't want to deal with the media circus.

But I very much doubt all 31 teams didn't choose Sam due to any one of those reasons.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I agree that the media should take some responsibility for making things like this much more difficult than it actually needs to be.

Originally Posted by Arles

I will be very happy if that ends up being the case. I have my doubts that media will have the level of self control needed to make that happen, but I can hope.

Originally Posted by Arles

He's basically saying that, as a head coach/GM, Michael Sam's talent is not worth the media circus that comes with selecting him. And, regardless of whether you think that's "right" or not, 31 other teams said the same thing by not taking him in the draft. So, the "Tony Dungy mentality" is a lot more prevalent in the NFL than your viewpoint. So, we should probably talk about that and see what can be done to minimize this moving forward. And, to be honest, the biggest thing should be calling out the media when they try to make it an issue in camp. That's going to be the distraction, not how the players or coaches handle it.

The media is a huge part of this. It's like dealing with people who aren't happy unless they're miserable.

As a hockey fan, I see many complaints about Crosby being "shoved down our throats" by the NHL/NBC. Is it Crosby asking to be put in front of the camera, or is it the league/TV partner doing their part to generate buzz?

I don't agree with Dungy's sentiment. But he could have saved himself a bunch of crap by qualifying the original statement with the "I don't feel his talent level warrants the distraction to the team that will happen by the accompanying media circus".

He was perfectly fine championing for Mike Vick to return to the league...because he felt the talent level outweighed the negatives.

By only clarifying afterwards, he left himself open to be questioned why he was OK with the distraction of a dog killer in the league on a team he doesn't coach, but not the distraction of a gay man in the league on a team he doesn't coach.

[flere-imsaho]

It would be interesting to have someone ask Dungy if he would have drafted Mathis or Sanders if they had been gay. Is the "distraction" a relative thing, or an absolute one?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Suburban Rhythm

I don't agree with Dungy's sentiment. But he could have saved himself a bunch of crap by qualifying the original statement with the "I don't feel his talent level warrants the distraction to the team that will happen by the accompanying media circus".

If we assume Dungy isn't a homophobe, then I would agree that this would have been a good clarification. It still wouldn't make sense when compared to Vick, though.

He was perfectly fine championing for Mike Vick to return to the league...because he felt the talent level outweighed the negatives.

If you go back and read the interviews / press releases at the time, Dungy is very clear that his goal for Vick to get back into football was to hold him up as a redemption story (and a heavily Christian one at that) and thus a role model for young men. Dungy, in fact, wanted Vick to be at least a bit of a media circus upon re-entering the NFL so as to help spread that gospel even further.

Thus, two items of hypocrisy:

1. It's OK for Vick to be a media circus because it supports Dungy's message (specifically redemption, based on Dungy's prison Christian ministry work). But it's not OK for Sam to be a media circus because that message isn't as good?

2. Dungy actively lobbied NFL teams to take Vick despite the media circus, but now says the media circus is the problem with Sam.

On #2, I take the point that Sam probably doesn't project with as much value as a post-prison Michael Vick does/did. Each NFL team, however, makes their own judgment based mainly on their own needs and a cost/benefit analysis. One team I would not have been surprised to take Sam, the Patriots, would likely not have batted an eyelid at the media circus or affect on the team as these are two areas in specific the Patriots have locked down. But they didn't take Sam because he didn't fit a need for them.

Here's the key, though: Dungy's not talking from the perspective of managing a team with specific needs. He's not saying some teams could have taken him and some couldn't. He's making a blanket statement. In Dungy's eyes, Sam doesn't belong in the NFL because of his distraction level.

Which is why the comparison with Vick is even more damning.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Arles

He's basically saying that, as a head coach/GM, Michael Sam's talent is not worth the media circus that comes with selecting him. And, regardless of whether you think that's "right" or not, 31 other teams said the same thing by not taking him in the draft. So, the "Tony Dungy mentality" is a lot more prevalent in the NFL than your viewpoint.

It's not like he was a first-round talent who fell because he was gay. He was a middle-round talent. So I don't know that 31 teams passed on him during the window that was commensurate with his talent level.

[Logan]

You could debate what someone else saying the exact words as Dungy would mean all you want. But when it comes from a guy who has been vocal in backing up bans on same-sex marriage, and has actively helped raise money for organizations fighting the rights for gay people to marry...frankly, it's all a crock of shit. He can couch these comments and backtrack all he wants, anyone who knows his history knows what he really means.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Suburban Rhythm

I don't agree with Dungy's sentiment. But he could have saved himself a bunch of crap by qualifying the original statement with the "I don't feel his talent level warrants the distraction to the team that will happen by the accompanying media circus".

Agreed. That's what I took his message to mean, but he wasn't very eloquent. I fully admit that Dungy isn't the greatest messenger on this issue, but it is still one that should get flushed out. It would be great if we can eventually get to a time where this is no longer an issue.

Originally Posted by Kodos

It's not like he was a first-round talent who fell because he was gay. He was a middle-round talent. So I don't know that 31 teams passed on him during the window that was commensurate with his talent level.

IMO, I don't think the NFL GMs are all homophobes. I think there is a ton of "risk assessment" with each pick. And, unfortunately, right now being openly gay is on the same level of "distaction risk" as drugs/violence. So, in order to overcome that risk, you need to have a very high talent level. My hope is that the media doesn't make this Sam situation into a circus in camp and next draft things change. Maybe then, a GM can look at the Sam situation and say "You know, I'm a little hesitant to take [openly gay player X] in the fourth round. But, the Sam thing worked out fine and I think this guy is a fourth round talent so I will go for it".

But, the media needs to understand that the distraction ball is 90% in their court. If they don't make this an issue, then future openly gay players will have fewer barriers to being higher picks.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

If we assume Dungy isn't a homophobe, then I would agree that this would have been a good clarification. It still wouldn't make sense when compared to Vick, though.



If you go back and read the interviews / press releases at the time, Dungy is very clear that his goal for Vick to get back into football was to hold him up as a redemption story (and a heavily Christian one at that) and thus a role model for young men. Dungy, in fact, wanted Vick to be at least a bit of a media circus upon re-entering the NFL so as to help spread that gospel even further.

Thus, two items of hypocrisy:

1. It's OK for Vick to be a media circus because it supports Dungy's message (specifically redemption, based on Dungy's prison Christian ministry work). But it's not OK for Sam to be a media circus because that message isn't as good?

2. Dungy actively lobbied NFL teams to take Vick despite the media circus, but now says the media circus is the problem with Sam.

On #2, I take the point that Sam probably doesn't project with as much value as a post-prison Michael Vick does/did. Each NFL team, however, makes their own judgment based mainly on their own needs and a cost/benefit analysis. One team I would not have been surprised to take Sam, the Patriots, would likely not have batted an eyelid at the media circus or affect on the team as these are two areas in specific the Patriots have locked down. But they didn't take Sam because he didn't fit a need for them.

Here's the key, though: Dungy's not talking from the perspective of managing a team with specific needs. He's not saying some teams could have taken him and some couldn't. He's making a blanket statement. In Dungy's eyes, Sam doesn't belong in the NFL because of his distraction level.

Which is why the comparison with Vick is even more damning.

Yeah I'm not saying I believe the garbage he spews. But he himself could have avoided this by including the risk/reward or talent/distraction payoff in his original statement.

Still wouldn't change I think he's a fraud. But he could have avoided being questioned why he felt one way for Vick, and another for Sam.

Originally Posted by Logan

You could debate what someone else saying the exact words as Dungy would mean all you want. But when it comes from a guy who has been vocal in backing up bans on same-sex marriage, and has actively helped raise money for organizations fighting the rights for gay people to marry...frankly, it's all a crock of shit. He can couch these comments and backtrack all he wants, anyone who knows his history knows what he really means.

What Logan said.

And as I said above. Just comes across as a fraud of a human. If he's cool with that label, wear it with pride.

[Chief Rum]

Isn't Vick more talented than Sam? Or at least considered to be?

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Arles

Agreed. That's what I took his message to mean, but he wasn't very eloquent. I fully admit that Dungy isn't the greatest messenger on this issue, but it is still one that should get flushed out. It would be great if we can eventually get to a time where this is no longer an issue.

Which it hasn't been since the OWN show cancellation. Sam and the Rams could tell that was going to be a distraction and squashed it. Dumb from the start, smart to resolve.

But, the media needs to understand that the distraction ball is 90% in their court. If they don't make this an issue, then future openly gay players will have fewer barriers to being higher picks.

Like a broadcaster for NBC Sports not igniting the story? Does that fit?

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by Arles

Agreed. That's what I took his message to mean, but he wasn't very eloquent. I fully admit that Dungy isn't the greatest messenger on this issue, but it is still one that should get flushed out. It would be great if we can eventually get to a time where this is no longer an issue.


IMO, I don't think the NFL GMs are all homophobes. I think there is a ton of "risk assessment" with each pick. And, unfortunately, right now being openly gay is on the same level of "distaction risk" as drugs/violence. So, in order to overcome that risk, you need to have a very high talent level. My hope is that the media doesn't make this Sam situation into a circus in camp and next draft things change. Maybe then, a GM can look at the Sam situation and say "You know, I'm a little hesitant to take [openly gay player X] in the fourth round. But, the Sam thing worked out fine and I think this guy is a fourth round talent so I will go for it".

But, the media needs to understand that the distraction ball is 90% in their court. If they don't make this an issue, then future openly gay players will have fewer barriers to being higher picks.

Disagree with the bolded.

Drug/felony/etc charges are commonplace and acceptable at this point for even average players.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Isn't Vick more talented than Sam? Or at least considered to be?

But that's not what Dungy said.

Just that, as a coach, he wouldn't want to deal with "it".
When, as flere said earlier, he craved media attention for Vick because it fit the redemption parable.

So logic says only two things can be what separates "good" media distraction and "bad" media distraction. Talent or the type of distraction.

Dungy never mentioned talent...until pressed a day later.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Suburban Rhythm

The media is a huge part of this. It's like dealing with people who aren't happy unless they're miserable.

...

I don't agree with Dungy's sentiment. But he could have saved himself a bunch of crap by qualifying the original statement with the "I don't feel his talent level warrants the distraction to the team that will happen by the accompanying media circus".

A key point to keep in mind here is that this was a side question by a Tampa newspaper reporter during a much longer interview about Derrick Brooks. A reporter who did not follow up what seemed to be a surprising comment by Dungy. A reporter who is now getting interviewed by ESPN about it (and admitting it seemed out of character for Dungy at the time).

[Logan]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

A key point to keep in mind here is that this was a side question by a Tampa newspaper reporter during a much longer interview about Derrick Brooks. A reporter who did not follow up what seemed to be a surprising comment by Dungy. A reporter who is now getting interviewed by ESPN about it (and admitting it seemed out of character for Dungy at the time).

Cop out.

Tony Dungy Raised Money For Anti-gay Organization - Outsports

Colts' Dungy: 'I embrace' same-sex marriage ban - USATODAY.com

[gstelmack]

I was unaware of those. It does change the context a bit.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Logan

Cop out.

Tony Dungy Raised Money For Anti-gay Organization - Outsports

Colts' Dungy: 'I embrace' same-sex marriage ban - USATODAY.com

In 2006 and 2007 that would put him line with the majority of Americans, including the current president. That doesn't necessarily make him a raging homophobe in 2014, though he could be.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by molson

In 2006 and 2007 that would put him line with the majority of Americans, including the current president. That doesn't necessarily make him a raging homophobe in 2014, though he could be.

2012: Twitter / TonyDungy: “@regfolden31: @TonyDungy ...
2013: Twitter / TonyDungy: @StampedeBlue I don't agree ...

Yeah, he's still a bigot.

[Chief Rum]

Am I the only one who doesn't equate objecting to gay marriage for religious reasons with being a bigot?

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Am I the only one who doesn't equate objecting to gay marriage for religious reasons with being a bigot?

Rephrase the question this way:

Am I the only one who doesn't equate objecting to interracial marriage for religious reasons with being a bigot?

What's your answer?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Am I the only one who doesn't equate objecting to gay marriage for religious reasons with being a bigot?

Hatred and intolerance of others hidden behind religion is still hatred and intolerance.

Why should anyone have a right to dictate how someone lives their life and what rights they should have because of a god they worship?

[Suburban Rhythm]

I probably shouldn't be shocked by the hypocrisy, but it's amazing that all the people connected to the NFL who hold such strong Christian convictions are able to easily overlook the drugs, children out of wedlock, rapes, spousal abuse, murders...or even something as small as keeping the Sabbath holy. But a gay guy is just way too much for them.

[jeff061]

I've been saying Dungy is a fraud for years. The image he has cultivated disgusts me.

The fraud can sit there any say it's all about the media circus. But the media circus didn't phase him with Vick. No, it's all about Dungy hating gays, which means he's both a fraud and a liar.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by jeff061

I've been saying Dungy is a fraud for years. The image he has cultivated disgusts me.

The fraud can sit there any say it's all about the media circus. But the media circus didn't phase him with Vick. No, it's all about Dungy hating gays, which means he's both a fraud and a liar.

I think he's a bigot but I don't believe that he's a fraud or a liar.

I think it's possible to have a major logical disconnect and a massive blind spot when it comes to views on some subjects, especially for those who claim to follow an invisible being because some book told them to. That blind spot (and we probably all have 'em) just doesn't allow people to see things correctly. From what I know of Dungy - all the way back to his Steeler days - I think he's probably a good person who intends to do the right thing. In this case, he's not doing the right thing and should be called out for it, but I don't find a need to demonize him because he's got Bible Blinders on.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Suburban Rhythm

I probably shouldn't be shocked by the hypocrisy, but it's amazing that all the people connected to the NFL who hold such strong Christian convictions are able to easily overlook the drugs, children out of wedlock, rapes, spousal abuse, murders...or even something as small as keeping the Sabbath holy. But a gay guy is just way too much for them.

Amen.

[Matthean]

I still hate the fact that when Cadwell was being pushed for the Lions head coaching job the only two noteworthy things about him being pushed was that he coached Peyton and Dungy recommended him.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I think he's probably a good person who intends to do the right thing. In this case, he's not doing the right thing and should be called out for it, but I don't find a need to demonize him

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Suburban Rhythm

I probably shouldn't be shocked by the hypocrisy, but it's amazing that all the people connected to the NFL who hold such strong Christian convictions are able to easily overlook the drugs, children out of wedlock, rapes, spousal abuse, murders...or even something as small as keeping the Sabbath holy. But a gay guy is just way too much for them.

But to follow up Blackadar's point, I think the opposite happens too. If you have the wrong view on gay marriage, there are plenty of people who will see you as the scum of the earth in all respects and beyond any redeeming, worse than any criminal.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

If you have the wrong view on gay marriage, there are plenty of people who will see you as the scum of the earth in all respects and beyond any redeeming, worse than any criminal.

Let's discuss an example.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by molson

But to follow up Blackadar's point, I think the opposite happens too. If you have the wrong view on gay marriage, there are plenty of people who will see you as the scum of the earth in all respects and beyond any redeeming, worse than any criminal.

Just saying you have a guy in Dungy who was OK with dozens of these types of players on his rosters every year he coached. He was able to overlook those indiscretions. But not this one. Why didn't he have any issue with any of these other things? A sin is a sin, in the bible. When you are going to use your religion to explain your stance, apply it consistently.

Maybe I was a little harsh earlier calling him a fraud...he's not a fraud as a person. But certainly a fraud of a Christian.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by molson

But to follow up Blackadar's point, I think the opposite happens too. If you have the wrong view on gay marriage, there are plenty of people who will see you as the scum of the earth in all respects and beyond any redeeming, worse than any criminal.

But I think there is a distinction that has to be made.

I have no issued if someone is against gay marriage or homesexuality.

I do have issues when people against those things claim gays shouldn't be afforded the same rights as everyone else. That crosses from your belief to telling someone else how they can live their life.

IMO this is where Dungy erred, he basically said he wouldn't have given Sam a chance because of his sexuality and the attention it could bring. He never mentioned talent being an issue or a factor until AFTER it blew up on him. IMO that is holding someone back because of personal bias, and that isn't OK.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Suburban Rhythm

Just saying you have a guy in Dungy who was OK with dozens of these types of players on his rosters every year he coached. He was able to overlook those indiscretions. But not this one. Why didn't he have any issue with any of these other things? A sin is a sin, in the bible. When you are going to use your religion to explain your stance, apply it consistently.

Maybe I was a little harsh earlier calling him a fraud...he's not a fraud as a person. But certainly a fraud of a Christian.

It's a little muddy because we don't know exactly what he thinks. If he thinks gays should not be banned from the NFL because homosexuality is an affront to god or whatever, but he's OK with all murderers or rapists or other criminals being in the league, then I'd agree. If he would never want any gay person on his team because he thinks that's against god's law, but he would be OK with other non-repentant sinners on his team, than I'd agree.

And I don't think "all sins are sins" to a Christian. Christians will see people who commit a sin but are trying to make things "right" completely differently than someone who they perceive as actively and currently choosing a sinful lifestyle. And actually in that way, Dungy (and I think most Christians outside the extremes) seems to see homosexuality as a much lesser sin than other things. At least from his comments, he has more tolerance for Sam and Collins then he would say, a murderer or rapist who continues to murder and rape and doesn't think it's wrong. That's who you'd have to compare a gay person to, not just someone who committed some sin in their past and is trying to repent. That's one of the drives of Christianity, to help people do that. If Sam was trying to "repent" (god forbid), I'm sure Dungy would be a huge supporter of him and would want him on his team, just like he'd want a repented criminal on his team.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Rephrase the question this way:

Am I the only one who doesn't equate objecting to interracial marriage for religious reasons with being a bigot?

What's your answer?

I believe that there is a difference between bigotry, which is an active act of hatred, and being a conscientious objector on religious reasons.

I do believe that religious reasons are used to hide bigotry. But I don't automatically make the leap to bigot when someone says they object to something for religious reasons.

Frankly, the people who do make that automatic leap are as much a problem as the bigots themselves.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Hatred and intolerance of others hidden behind religion is still hatred and intolerance.

Why should anyone have a right to dictate how someone lives their life and what rights they should have because of a god they worship?

Hatred and intolerance is hatred and intolerance, of course. But that doesn't mean conscientious objecting is hatred and intolerance.

And I agree, I don't think anyone should have the right to project their religious views on the lives of others, at least on a social level.

Keeping in mind that our entire legal system is based on a series of mores that have at their core religious values (but sensible ones, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, etc.), of course, so some "projecting of religious beliefs" is impossible to avoid when it comes to protecting commonly held basic human rights.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by Lathum

IMO this is where Dungy erred, he basically said he wouldn't have given Sam a chance because of his sexuality and the attention it could bring. He never mentioned talent being an issue or a factor until AFTER it blew up on him. .

And then he lied and said it was about the circus. I suppose I am being particularly hard on him because I've felt this way about Dungy for a long time and this just further cements the opinion I already had.

I wish he'd lock himself up somewhere and never speak in public again. Maybe he should focus on his family for once instead of his fame and carefully crafted image.

[Chief Rum]

From what I have seen and heard about the man, I don't think Dungy is a bigot. I think he is a conscientious objector. I don't believe he hates homosexuals or wishes to interfere in and control their lives. He just never has struck me as the type.

There are a lot of actual bigots out there who deserve a lot more hate than this guy, IMO, even if I disagree with his stance.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by jeff061

And then he lied and said it was about the circus. I suppose I am being particularly hard on him because I've felt this way about Dungy for a long time and this just further cements the opinion I already had.

I wish he'd lock himself up somewhere and never speak in public again. Maybe he should focus on his family instead of his fame and carefully crafted image for once.

And it's also possible I just don't have a clear image of the man, perhaps being only aware of his carefully crafted image as you put it. Maybe he is a bigot. I can only relate to what I have seen or heard about myself.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I don't believe he hates homosexuals or wishes to interfere in and control their lives.

Arguably, if he is actively working to support organizations that are working to block gay marriage, he is looking to control people's lives.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Arguably, if he is actively working to support organizations that are working to block gay marriage, he is looking to control people's lives.

But that doesn't mean he is a bigot. That means he has stated beliefs and he supports groups that share his beliefs. You and I may believe it is wrong for religious groups to project their beliefs on others, but clearly that's not the case for everyone.

I just think everyone leaps to bigot too quick. It's too easy for everyone, it's either 0% or 100%. That's silly. There's a lot of gray area, and just because someone doesn't share your beliefs, doesn't mean they automatically must be a hatemonger.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

But that doesn't mean he is a bigot. That means he has stated beliefs and he supports groups that share his beliefs. You and I may believe it is wrong for religious groups to project their beliefs on others, but clearly that's not the case for everyone.

It's very close to the stated definition, though:

"a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"

But you are right that it's not 0% or 100%. Is there a better word for Dungy? I have gone with hypocrite & coward, myself.

[molson]

Everybody wants to impose their values on others to some degree. That's what laws are.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by molson

It's a little muddy because we don't know exactly what he thinks. If he thinks gays should not be banned from the NFL because homosexuality is an affront to god or whatever, but he's OK with all murderers or rapists or other criminals being in the league, then I'd agree. If he would never want any gay person on his team because he thinks that's against god's law, but he would be OK with other non-repentant sinners on his team, than I'd agree.

And I don't think "all sins are sins" to a Christian. Christians will see people who commit a sin but are trying to make things "right" completely differently than someone who they perceive as actively and currently choosing a sinful lifestyle. And actually in that way, Dungy (and I think most Christians outside the extremes) seems to see homosexuality as a much lesser sin than other things. At least from his comments, he has more tolerance for Sam and Collins then he would say, a murderer or rapist who continues to murder and rape and doesn't think it's wrong. That's who you'd have to compare a gay person to, not just someone who committed some sin in their past and is trying to repent. That's one of the drives of Christianity, to help people do that. If Sam was trying to "repent" (god forbid), I'm sure Dungy would be a huge supporter of him and would want him on his team, just like he'd want a repented criminal on his team.

I say this as a practicing Catholic, but I've got more of a problem with someone who does harm, over and over, then quits and claims sorrow and seeks forgiveness (Vick) than someone who isn't harming anyone and merely living their life, even if others disagree with it (Sam).

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I'd argue Sam's living that much more than the Vicks and Ray Lewises of the league. But at no point during their tribulations did Dungy feel the need to save them. So, if in the example above, where was he when others were committing more egregious sins?

He's certainly entitled to whatever feelings he has. I just don't buy the religion excuse when he's never exercised it in the past.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

It's very close to the stated definition, though:

"a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"

But you are right that it's not 0% or 100%. Is there a better word for Dungy? I have gone with hypocrite & coward, myself.

Sticking with fraud

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I believe that there is a difference between bigotry, which is an active act of hatred, and being a conscientious objector on religious reasons.

I do believe that religious reasons are used to hide bigotry. But I don't automatically make the leap to bigot when someone says they object to something for religious reasons.

Frankly, the people who do make that automatic leap are as much a problem as the bigots themselves.

Ah, the ole' "your intolerance of my intolerance makes you a bigot/evil/wrong" defense. That one doesn't work for me. As I said before, rephrase the question this way:

Am I the only one who doesn't equate objecting to interracial marriage for religious reasons with being a bigot?

What's your answer?

Seriously, I think this needs to be answered and to be fair I'll give you mine in advance. My answer is that the reasoning doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if it's because someone has Bible Blinders on, or Thumps the Torah, or Quaffs the Koran, or they were mugged by someone, or anything else. Bigotry with an "excuse" is still bigotry.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

It's very close to the stated definition, though:

"a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"

But you are right that it's not 0% or 100%. Is there a better word for Dungy? I have gone with hypocrite & coward, myself.

I don't see the hatred and intolerance in the simple act of supporting your religious beliefs.

That doesn't mean it doesn't exist--I am sure there are (unfortunately) plenty of members of such religious organizations who in fact are hateful and intolerant of of homosexuals.

But the act itself of supporting the implementation of one's beliefs in society is not in and of itself a definition of or requirement for hatred and intolerance.

So, no, I don't agree that your definition is even remotely close to the stated definition.

There are hatemogers. There are conscientious objectors. One approaches with hate. The other approaches with only the conviction of their own beliefs, no other judgment given. But they both support these organizations for very separate reasons.

Would you lump all such people, many of wom may have no hate for the gay community at all, under the term bigots simply for supporting their religious beliefs?

IMO, doing so is kind of a bigotry of its own sort.