Tuesday, March 17, 2015
After Speaking Honestly About His Religious Views, Baseball Player Instructed to Only Talk Sports
Baseball player Daniel Murphy thinks it’s wrong to practice a gay “lifestyle.” Now he’s no longer allowed to talk about his religious beliefs.
Why is the nation even discussing what Murphy, a second baseman for the New York Mets, thinks about gays and lesbians? Well, because after Billy Bean, a gay former Major League Baseball player who now serves as the League’s Ambassador for Inclusion, visited the Mets, a reporter talked to Murphy.
According to the NJ Advance Media report, Murphy “is ready for a gay teammate, “ and “Murphy, a devout Christian, said he would embrace Bean despite a divergence in their beliefs.”
Murphy took pains to clarify that while he opposed Bean’s choices, he was open to getting to know Bean. “I disagree with his lifestyle,” Murphy said of Bean. “I do disagree with the fact that Billy is a homosexual. That doesn’t mean I can’t still invest in him and get to know him.”
And that’s the last we’re going to hear from Murphy on the subject. On Wednesday, an ESPN story headlined “Murphy now to talk baseball only” appeared. The story’s first line was “New York Mets second baseman Daniel Murphy will no longer address his religious beliefs and will stick to baseball, a team spokesman said Wednesday.”
Where’s the tolerance?
Americans are divided on a host of controversial issues—from abortion to wars to vaccines to, yes, same-sex marriage. The way to work together and live in harmony isn’t to pretend we all agree. It isn’t to silence those who have controversial positions.
Instead, we need to keep having honest and genuine conversations about these matters, as awkward and painful and frustrating as those conversations can be.
SOURCE
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
And now Bean and the rest can stop voicing their opinions on the matter and only talk sports. That won't happen though, will it. Only those with correct opinions are allowed to speak.
Yes - stick to sports. Why should anyone else be interested in irrelevant prejudiced views on other people's "lifestyles"!
Anon 2:44 - We listened to your irrelevant prejudiced view when we read your comment.
4:47 AM - And we read your even more pointless and witless response to 2:44 AM (who is apparently not someone prominent in sports or the media).
He was specifically asked about this topic, and his reply was essentially "well, I respectfully disagree but I won't be judgmental and I'll keep an open mind."
"Insufficient enthusiasm" is an old Stalinist crime and if you find yourself resurrecting it, it's time for a blunt self-assessment.
The concept of thought crimes alive and well in the United Socialist States of America. Freedom was great while it lasted.
Time to tell these collage adminastrators to GO POUND SAND
I don't know how Murphy's response could have been more polite and respectful while still holding to his own beliefs.
7:53 You are being judgmental, but so is everyone. I am judgmental of murderers, rapists, drunks, drug abusers, spouse beaters, and other anti-social people.
There you go Anon 7:53, being judgmental again. If you don't understand this comment, I won't be at all surprised.
Christians should only be in the "judgement" business when it comes to others who also claim to be Christians. The rest of the world is lost, and to expect them to behave in a way that is NOT lost is expecting too much.
If I meet a man who claims to be Christian, yet rejects in his actions and words the teachings of Christ, I have an obligation to let him know he brings disgrace upon Our Lord.
If I meet a man who is making no such claim, I am to love him, respect him, but place no obligation on him to follow my chosen path. The fact that I am a Christian and he is not means we already disagree on a host of issues. My obligation is to demonstrate what Christianity means, and why I have accepted it.
So yes, as far as it goes, we should not be "judging" the world - Christians believe that God will do that Himself in His own good time. Judging fellow Christians, however, is another matter, and I would appreciate it if the world left that to Christians to work out.
12:04 - you obviously don't understand logic. It is in order to criticize (be judgemental)about judgementalism, just as it's in order to be intolerant about intolerance. But I guess you're too dumb to figure that out.
Forget it, Anon7:53. It's Chinatown.
A 1:40....... there ya'go, doin' that judgement thing again. Really there's no hope for some people.
I'm "judging" 4:07/12:04 as being or acting dumb, which is an accurate observation rather than a prejudiced view.
Actually Stan is closer to the truth than most people here.
People love to say that Christians are "judging" people (and sometimes they do) but in the original language, "judge" or "judging" means "to pronounce a sentence."
That means that saying "that is wrong" is not judging. If that were the case no one could raise a child, teach, be a cop, have morals, etc. What is wrong is when people say "you're going to hell!" for a specific incident.
People who come along and say "don't judge" when someone says something is wrong are simply distorting the meanings or demonstrating ignorance.
2:02 - this begs the question as to what is "wrong". Something may be considered wrong by a Christian but not by a Muslim or a secularist, etc. Or what a secularist considers wrong may be okay with a Christian or a Muslim.
Only the legal code of any particular society can enforce a right/wrong decision, and for everything else it's a matter of argument.
3:26,
I don't think it "begs the question," but I agree with your point. What may be wrong to one person may not be wrong to another and vice versa.
But that question does not take away from the point that "judging" in the Bible (which is what this "thou shalt not judge hypocrisy" is based) is not merely saying "that is wrong." "Judging" is a sentence pronounced upon someone. In this case, Daniel Murphy did not say anything other then he thought that Bean's lifestyle was wrong and sinful. Murphy did not say Beans should be arrested, hung, shot, or anything other than he thought it was wrong.
This incident seems to be a case where someone is brought in under the guise of having a "conversation"on a topic and instead the result is a lecture where no one can disagree or say anything contrary to that of the original speaker.
"Conversations" usually allow an exchange of thoughts - not "listen and shut up."
4:29 It seems pretty futile for one party to say something is wrong and sinful, and not expect the other party to say similar back. Then it becomes a puerile exchange of "you are!" / "No, you are!".
Clearly it's better to avoid being the first to be opinionated on the subject of someone else's lifestyle.
6:02,
You are more than entitled to your opinion. In my experience, discussions on lifestyles, morals, beliefs, etc can be an interesting and educational exchange.
In some cases, it can even lead to life changing decisions.
yes 7;07, but not so much of value if one side or both is being demeaning, self-righteous, or in effect insulting towards the lifestyle of the other. Although in this case only one side was delivering a negative opinion on another person's lifestyle.
7:07,
If there was a demeaning, insulting side to this, it was from Bean and the Mets organization.
Post a Comment