Dungy's speech against gay Colts fans

by Brad Wells on Mar 21, 2007 9:04 AM EDT in Colts Analysis

Photo: AP

It's why I don't go to see many movies anymore, even though I'm a big movie fan. I don't care that Angelina Jolie is adopting ANOTHER kid from some poor country. I get it. She likes adopting poor kids. Again, I get it. WHY IS IT ALWAYS ON THE NEWS? One reason is because people like Jolie seek out the news, using publicists and press contacts, in order to bring "awareness" to certain issues. It's like Richard Gere and his China crusade. Remember when he made his silly speech at the Oscars about how evil China was? Drives me nuts when celebrities do things like that. Take the statue, thank your mom, and walk off the stage.

It's for these reasons that I am so annoyed with Tony Dungy for his recent speech for the Indiana Family Institute at the Ritz Charles. 700 people attended the banquet which featured Dungy as the keynote speaker. Hunter Smith and his Christian band Connersvine where also there. That's another thing that will often piss me off: Athletes that think they can sing and play music.

Dungy spoke at this event and made it clear that he agrees, both politically and religiously, with the Indiana Family Institute, an organization with a very aggressive stance against gay people in America. They seek the federal government to ratify a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage. Last I checked, gay marriage was a service that is not allowed in most states anyway. When they talked about it during the 2004 election, it didn't make much sense to me. It's not allowed anyway. Why a Constitutional ban?

As a Colts fan, I find Dungy's speech offensive and wrong, and coach should be ashamed of himself.

Now, before I start getting Jerry Jones hiring-like comments, this has nothing to do with Dungy's specific beliefs or his right to speak his mind. I could care what Dungy believes in, or what anyone else believes. What I am angry with is Dungy shaming and marginalizing other Colts fans, making them feel like crap. Yes folks, there are many Colts fans who happen to be gay. Shocking, I know. They cheer just as loud as straight fans. They paint their faces blue and white, watch every game on Direct TV, and cried their eyes dry when Dungy was hoisted up on the shoulders of his players after Indy won Super Bowl 41. They shell out good money for game tickets, stadium concessions, and parking. It's these loyal fans that Tony Dungy just kicked in the nuts, and that is just plain wrong folks.

I have my own personal beliefs about whether homosexuality is right or wrong, but like most people I usually keep those beliefs to himself. Sure, I argue and debate with friends and family about this and that now and again, but you do not see me using this site to promote my political or religious viewpoints. The reason I don't is because I don't want to marginalize Colts fans.

Sports is one of the very few subjects that can bring people together. It doesn't matter your race, your religion, or your politics. All that is left at the door. Here, you're a Colts fan. It's why I get pissed when MasterRWayne does one of his Purdue rants. There are many Purdue grads who love the Colts. I know, shocking isn't it. I don't like it when someone in athletics uses their power of celebrity to marginalize people. It's the same as if Dungy got up there and said, "Gay marriage is great and anyone who disagrees is stupid." Saying such things only ridicules the very people that cheer for you every Sunday, coach. Why stab Colts fans in the back like that? Why?

I've lost a little respect for Dungy today, as have several other Colts fans. As fans, all we ask of the players and coaches we root for is that they do their job well and with decency. Despite Dungy's intentions, his speech lacked the decency we have come to expect from him. There's nothing decent about ridiculing the very fans that pay money to see you coach. I'm certain the Colts management is none-to-happy about his speech, as it probably just cost them a portion of their fan base. On their site, the Colts make it very clear that they do not take sides on political and religious issues. Well, the face of their franchise (Dungy) just did, and all it will do is marginalize and divide Colts fans.

Please feel free to comment, to agree or disagree. I feel very strongly about what Dungy did, and would like some feedback. As always, thanks for reading and commenting.

Update [2007-3-21 18:26:4 by BigBlueShoe]: AOL Fanhouse has a story up on Dungy's speech by David J. Warner. Again, the main issue here is not Dungy's opinion. The issue here is summed up best by SB Nation's excellent Redskins blogger, Skins Patrol:

Tony Dungy inserted himself into a controversial discussion. He has an absolute 1st Amendment right to do so, but that doesn't mean it was the correct thing to do. It was argued, reasonably in my opinion, that NFL Coaches better perform their jobs when they mediate their public statements. There is nothing equivocal about what Tony Dungy said, and as BBS pointed out many fans of the Colts are homosexuals. Many would disagree with his statements. Many would find his suggestion insulting.

If you think it is a good idea for the Coach of any franchise to insult its fans, just say so. You want to make this about free speech when it isn't; it's about good judgment. If Tony Dungy had said something you find morally reprehensible (what if he advocated human sacrifice?) then I am certain your position would be different.

Tweet Comment 44 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

religious conflicts

this is a case of using his fame as a colt to promote his own religious beliefs. totally inappropriate. he is entitled to his own beliefs, but by speaking out against gay marriage he is sticking his nose into other peoples lives.. what does it matter to him if gay people want to call themselves married? it is a legal piece of paper.. so what?

how would all the women out their feel if he said we should be home barefoot and pregnant.

i wonder how much he thought about the reprecussions of his speech. i thought he was smarter than this.. but either he believes strongly enough to offend many people or he spoke without thinking. not good either way.
to some extent his strong religious views i found a bit uncomfortable since i don't share them, but this offensive..

by bluegirl on Mar 21, 2007 10:14 AM EDT reply actions

I agree

Dungy made his name as a football coach, not a politician or a preacher. It's very annoying to hear him using his fame from the Superbowl to espouse what some people will paint as hate speech, because that's what people in politics do and he's invited that ilk in. I wouldn't personally go that far, but it's certainly distasteful and probably not something you want a representative of your multi million dollar organization doing.

Certainly he has a right to say what he did and the feel the way he does, but it's still disappointing to see a guy squander such a tremendous amount of goodwill he has built up. Once you inject politics into anything, you spoil it. Sports is supposed to be a reprieve from that crap. Even if Tony had come out and said gay marriage should be legalized, I'd still be disappointed in him.

Bleeding Green Nation Philadelphia Eagles Blog

by JasonB on Mar 21, 2007 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions

Get over it

It's his right to say whatever he wants. Just like you have the right. He's not going on Larry King or even the local news. He's speaking to a private group of like-minded individuals. You are way overreacting. Tony having that right is what makes this America. He's not your dad. He's not the mayor. He's your football coach. If he spoke at a pro-choice rally or another liberal cause I'm sure the far right would be all over him. But so what? He's doing what he thinks it correct and he's not doing it in a rude or flashy manner. He's not telling you what to believe, but merely using his rights as a citizen to stand up for a given cause. And for the record I'm not even sure if I agree or disagree with him, its irrelevant frankly.

Visit www.18to88.com for the absolute best Colts analysis anywhere...ever!

by 18to88 on Mar 21, 2007 11:45 AM EDT reply actions

Rights?

Nobody is calling on the government to restrict Dungy's ability to speak. They're just calling him an idiot for saying it. Speech. Counter-speech. America.

by Masson on Mar 22, 2007 9:16 AM EDT up reply actions

Your mind is blurry

Did he say somewhere that he did not like gay people and that they should be punished? The tone and content of your comments would only make sense if that is what he said.

If he says he is against gay marriage (or that he supports organizations that are against gay marriage) then that is a whole different matter.

This is a political issue; it is like saying that you support enforcing current immigrations laws - it does not mean you hate (or are "against" Mexicans.

You know, despite what you hear in the media - not all gay people even support gay marriage.

Like this guy:
http://tinyurl.com/32p68o

Dungy is a devout christian. Part of being a Christian is to spread the word and to minister.

Your headline: "Dungy's speech against gay Colts fans" is very "Florio-esque". He in no way is "against" anyone. Just because he has a POLITICAL disagreement with a tiny sliver of Colts fans means nothing.

If you disagree with someone on a single POLITICAL issue; does that mean that you are against them as a person?

Of the people against gay marriage, only about half of them cite religious reasons. For the rest they are concerned (and rightly so) that this will set a precedence that will allow the legalization of Polygamy and Bestiality. At present the law says that marriage is between a man and a woman. Once that changes - who is to say that a man cannot have ten wives? And why shouldn't his health insurance be forced to cover all of them? How about social security?

I used to have a roommate; I could have said we were gay and then shared health insurance and got tax credits.

Lastly, Dungy went to go speak to a group. He did not call a press conference. He did not bring this up during a interview at the Super Bowl.

YOU are the one who put this in a public forum that is for the discussion of sports.

YOU criticized him for who he chooses to associate with; it seems to me that YOU have made your political beliefs the issue by calling Dungy out on this.

Excuse me Mr. Kettle, Mr. Pot is on the phone for you...

by zilla1126 on Mar 21, 2007 12:16 PM EDT reply actions

Zilla

I agree with your last sentences. Let people speak their minds. Why does BlueShoes get to say whatever he feels, but not another man?

We all knew Tony was a devout Christian when he was hired. Most Christians (including Christ) believed homosexuality is a sin. So what is the big surprise here? Tony is just reaffirming something we already knew to be true about him. This doesn't mean Tony doesn't have love and compassion for gay people. Or that he doesn't want gay Colts fans.

Don't put people in a box and then get angry when they fail to meet YOUR expectations of them...

Visit www.18to88.com for the absolute best Colts analysis anywhere...ever!

by 18to88 on Mar 21, 2007 12:33 PM EDT reply actions

It's all a matter of appearances.

Big Blue Shoe has nobody to represent but himself. He is not the face of anything but this website.

Tony Dungy is paid quite handsomely to be the face of the Colts. In accepting this responsiblity (and the money) he is consenting to assuming the role of a public figure and "face man" of the players, coaches, front office, and ownership. He, in essence, voids his right to free speach as his words no longer represent only himself.

While winning the Super Bowl and being so sucessful grants him all sorts of access toward furthering any sort of political/social agenda, he should not be doing so while being a member of the Colts organization, because his words, right or wrong are directly connected to the team.

Now the question of if that connection is right or wrong might be important, but it's entierely irrelevant as the junction beteween the individual and the organization are hard to seperate.

What happens if the Teams Front Office is forced to distance themselves from the Coach? Did Tony think of that before he gave the speech? I don't agree with his speech, but my biggest problem is that I think it was a rookie political mistake that could start the process of Tony's eventual retirement from the Colts.

So that's my two cents

-Chris

Check out SB Nation's Jaguars Blog at Big Cat Country

by River City Rage on Mar 21, 2007 1:07 PM EDT reply actions

Chris

You never forfit your right to free speech just because hold a certain job, title, or role in life.

Free Speech is one of those 'unalienable' rights we are all born with in America.

If Jim Irsay has a problem with this he can ask Tony to resign. But he won't. BECAUSE HE WINS A LOT OF FOOTBALL GAMES. That's what this site is about isn't it?

Visit www.18to88.com for the absolute best Colts analysis anywhere...ever!

by 18to88 on Mar 21, 2007 1:13 PM EDT reply actions

No one is saying Tony should be arrested

That would be the only way he could be forfeiting his right to free speech.

As to your other points about BBS being a hypocrite... Frankly, BBS is a blogger and in that function it's his job to give opinions and make judgments about things. It's not his job to represent the Colt's organization. That is Tony Dungy's job. If BBS thinks Tony has done or said something that was counterproductive to Tony's job of representing the organization, then BBS is not only correct in saying it but it's his duty IMO.

Bleeding Green Nation Philadelphia Eagles Blog

by JasonB on Mar 21, 2007 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions

of course...

The right to free speach is unrevokable under most circumstances. The constitution is not what I'm arguing here.

It's the acceptance of an "unofficial" voiding of unrestricted speech that I think Tony violated. There are groups in society, head coaches of NFL teams included, that ask their members to choose beteween unrestricted speach of the individual and the goals of the organization.

The individual is co-opted into the groups "philosophy" with money and image, but in return they must speak with the organization, or choose to remain silent.

I'm not saying that Tony needs to become a loudspeaker for the Front Office, my point is that he did not consider his larger obligations in mind.

Do I think that the Irsay Trust will "fire" Tony over this? No way. But I can say without question that the Colts Media Relations department is pretty unhappy today, and that can cause trouble.

-c

Check out SB Nation's Jaguars Blog at Big Cat Country

by River City Rage on Mar 21, 2007 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions

No

You are asking him to void his right to free speech. How can you argue that you are not?

I'm saying that just because Tony is a Colt, doesn't mean he can't speak his mind. His job description is simple: Head Coach. He does that pretty well. He can say whatever he wants as long as he is willing to take the heat.

For a more in-depth viewpoint read our take at http://www.18to88.blogspot.com/

Visit www.18to88.com for the absolute best Colts analysis anywhere...ever!

by 18to88 on Mar 21, 2007 1:41 PM EDT reply actions

Not true

Tony's job is represent the organization. That is absolutely 100% a huge part of a Head Coach's job.

The right of free speech protects you from prosecution. It does not protect you from being criticized or fired. Not that anyone is saying the guy should be fired by any means, but it's perfectly acceptable to say that as a representative of the Colts he should keep his politics to himself.

Tony could retire right and talk about whatever he wants. As a representative of the Colts and the face of the organization he has responsibilities and commitments that should be compelling him to keep his opinions to himself.

Bleeding Green Nation Philadelphia Eagles Blog

by JasonB on Mar 21, 2007 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions

Unclear on the concept

You are asking him to void his right to free speech. How can you argue that you are not?

Nowhere did this post come anywhere close to breathing a word about government restriction of speech. The "right to free speech" is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and it restricts the government's ability to restrict the speech of its citizens.

This is about a fan of a great sports team and a great football coach being disappointed that that coach publicly stuck his nose into a divisive public issue. Nobody is questioning Dungy's "right" to do so -- it's his wisdom in doing so that's seriously at issue.

by Masson on Mar 22, 2007 9:24 AM EDT up reply actions

Its primarily a religious belief

You are injecting your own expecations into how you should feel a head coach should act, and that's fine. But Tony is not obligated to meet your expectations. It's not in his contract that he has to be apolitical...its in your mind.

Again, Get over it. Fire him if you want, root against him if you want, whatever you want to do, but Tony is not going to be silenced because people are offended by his openness about his faith.

Visit www.18to88.com for the absolute best Colts analysis anywhere...ever!

by 18to88 on Mar 21, 2007 2:18 PM EDT reply actions

Good, then we agree

"You are injecting your own expecations into how you should feel a head coach should act, and that's fine"

Same goes for BBS.

Bleeding Green Nation Philadelphia Eagles Blog

by JasonB on Mar 21, 2007 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions

What if

he had said that he hates white people? Or that Christians were evil? Would that affect your thinking on this?

How strongly one feels about Tony Dungy's words in this particular instance can probably be traced to how one feels about homosexuals and marriage. But there's a point being made here (that you are not grasping) beyond the specific content of his opinion. Tony Dungy inserted himself into a controversial discussion. He has an absolute 1st Amendment right to do so, but that doesn't mean it was the correct thing to do. It was argued, reasonably in my opinion, that NFL Coaches better perform their jobs when they mediate their public statements. There is nothing equivocal about what Tony Dungy said, and as BBS pointed out many fans of the Colts are homosexuals. Many would disagree with his statements. Many would find his suggestion insulting.

If you think it is a good idea for the Coach of any franchise to insult its fans, just say so. You want to make this about free speech when it isn't; it's about good judgment. If Tony Dungy had said something you find morally reprehensible (what if he advocated human sacrifice?) then I am certain your position would be different.

by Skin Patrol @ Stampede Blue on Mar 21, 2007 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions

free speech

free speech isn't just a right, it is also a responsibility and that always has to be kept in mind. Dungy is influential because of his position. and he has to consider that influence when he speaks. he spoke at a public forum on a political/religious issue. as a visible sports figure that will give him more weight when he speaks than you or me. it is his resposiblity to consider the team first and the ramifications of what he has said since he is a representative of the that team. no is saying he can't speak out, but i wonder if he really considered what the fall out would be... and if he realized how influential it would be...

yes as fans we knew about his religious beliefs, but mostly he has kept that as part of his personal life. this steps into the public arena and is a whole different scenario. i doubt he would have been invited as a speaker if he had just been a paper pusher in some office job. his status as a superbowl winning coach gave him the platform to speak and public image of him and the team should really have been considered more....

by bluegirl on Mar 21, 2007 2:35 PM EDT reply actions

Very Good!

Yup, you've got it. Head Coaches are more than just Coaches, like BGNJason said, and you've nailed the "responsiblity" aspect as well.

I must say, this is a pretty facinating discussion.

-Chris

Check out SB Nation's Jaguars Blog at Big Cat Country

by River City Rage on Mar 21, 2007 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions

HA

You all seem to have a very lofty idea of what a Head Coach is. He coaches football for a team you like.

He is responsible for a few things, such as not getting DUIs, not slapping his wife around, and generally not embarrassing the franchise. What he said qualifies as none of those things, thus he has met his responsibilities as coach. Quit pretending there is some social contract he has agreed to. There isn't. He is under contract to win.

Coach Dungy isn't required to be your friend or say things you agree with, in fact he isn't your friend.

Visit www.18to88.com for the absolute best Colts analysis anywhere...ever!

by 18to88 on Mar 21, 2007 3:46 PM EDT reply actions

Hmmm

He is responsible for a few things... generally not embarrassing the franchise. What he said qualifies as none of those things, thus he has met his responsibilities as coach.

Your Coach insults millions of people, many of them Colts fans, and you don't think that's an embarrassment to the franchise?

Coach Dungy isn't required to be your friend or say things you agree with, in fact he isn't your friend.

He isn't "required" to refrain from discussing his private sexual encounters, either. But it's generally a good idea to restrain oneself anyways, right? You are trying to make this a legal or contractual issue; it isn't. It is a matter of whether the head coach of an NFL team excercised good judgment. He didn't.

All we're saying is that he made a poor decision in discussing a controversial subject explicitly. It would have been wiser simply to suspend judgment, publicly at least.

by Skin Patrol @ Stampede Blue on Mar 21, 2007 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions

Good judgement

I agree with you Chris, this is an interesting discussion.

I see what you are saying Skin Patrol. To you this is an issue of whether this was good judgement on Tony's part, and from a PR point of view it wasn't - of course.

My point is that being a Christian isn't about what is good for Public Relations and it never has been. Tony is doing what he feels is right. Again, if you read my blog you will see that we don't necessarily agree with what this family group stands for, but I like the fact that Tony is not afraid to do something unpopular (or at the very least divisive).

Again, of course his speech isn't going to viewed as an exercise in "good judgement", but Christ has never been anything if not a controversial figure. You are going to have to accept the fact that Tony is a Christian in word and deed. He probably won't be around as coach for many more years (1 - 2 years maybe), let's just let him be who he is. It's your right to 100% disagree with him.

Visit www.18to88.com for the absolute best Colts analysis anywhere...ever!

by 18to88 on Mar 21, 2007 4:17 PM EDT reply actions

Time for me to walk away from this discussion

so I'll present closing arguments. I think this overtly political or religious and I write a Sports Blog.

My point is that being a Christian isn't about what is good for Public Relations and it never has been.

Again, no one is suggesting that Tony Dungy cease to be a Christian or even cease to hold certain beliefs. It was merely suggested that in his capacity as a Head Coach he would be doing his Franchise and profession a service by mediating his comments. Also the implicit point you're making kind of scares me. Christianity has never been about PR, ok. Does that mean Coaching has or should be about Christianity?

...but I like the fact that Tony is not afraid to do something unpopular (or at the very least divisive).

As I argued earlier, this is merely disingenuous. Unpopular statements happen daily, you blog supportively about the ones you happen to agree with. Had Tony Dungy said "I hate __" -- where the blank is filled with people like you -- then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Had Dungy said "I don't much care for Jews" for instance, the reaction would've been different. If he had said "I think blond haired people are going to hell" then we wouldn't be having this discussion. If you think it's neat that a Coach has stated your personal opinion despite it being an unpopular claim (which in this instance it isn't), then just say so. Don't try and tell us you respect the Coach merely for making controversial claims. Any idiot can do that, Superbowl ring or not.

...but Christ has never been anything if not a controversial figure.

So? Pol Pot was controversial as well. Would you have thought well of Dungy had he said "I agree with Pol Pot regarding political dissent. I'm on Pol Pot's side." The fact is you not only think Christ was controversial but agree with some of the things that person said. There isn't anything wrong with that. But don't expect the rest of us to buy this nonsense about respecting Dungy merely for bravely standing firm with Christ (in America??? What a risk!!!)

You are going to have to accept the fact that Tony is a Christian in word and deed. He probably won't be around as coach for many more years (1 - 2 years maybe), let's just let him be who he is. It's your right to 100% disagree with him.

I think most Coaches are Christians. All of them probably. I am not trying to convert any of them, least of all my own Coach (Joe Gibbs) who is an outspoken Christian. That's neither here nor there in this particular discussion though; no one is suggesting that Dungy convert. We're merely evaluating his behavior and concluding (reasonably in my opinion) that he erred as a Coach. Whether or not you want to acknowledge it, tempering public statements is part of being a good Coach.

As an aside, isn't it sad that our society now draws either moral or else spiritual guidance from people famous for winning football games? Why should anyone care what Tony Dungy has to say about homosexual marriage or God or anything besides the Cover-2, really? In virtue of what, exactly, is he qualified to teach on moral or spiritual subjects?

by Skin Patrol @ Stampede Blue on Mar 21, 2007 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions

Actually

I'd be interested to see the reaction if Dungy came out supporting a Constitutional Amendment mandating execution for anyone who works on Sunday. (Exodus 35:2)

by Masson on Mar 22, 2007 9:29 AM EDT up reply actions

Or...

Not "honoring thy father"...

Bleeding Green Nation Philadelphia Eagles Blog

by JasonB on Mar 22, 2007 10:07 AM EDT up reply actions

Actually...

"But don't expect the rest of us to buy this nonsense about respecting Dungy merely for bravely standing firm with Christ (in America??? What a risk!!!)"

Its riskier than you may think. You won't get arrested, but you may get ripped by thousands of people in the media and on the internet.

Visit www.18to88.com for the absolute best Colts analysis anywhere...ever!

by 18to88 on Mar 21, 2007 6:00 PM EDT reply actions

Look...

if you love Tony Dungy so much, why don't you marry him??? Oh, right...

I'm kidding.

by Skin Patrol @ Stampede Blue on Mar 21, 2007 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions

And i'll add

a have a great weekend just so there aren't any mixed messages or hurt feelings.

Cheers.

by Skin Patrol @ Stampede Blue on Mar 21, 2007 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions

That was a brilliant line

I actually laughed out loud at my desk...

Bleeding Green Nation Philadelphia Eagles Blog

by JasonB on Mar 22, 2007 10:08 AM EDT up reply actions

public vs private

another thing that is really coming out here is the public vs. private lives. what dungy believes is entirely his business, but when you are a public figure (and with all the hype about a black coach winning the superbowl dungy is VERY public) you have to consider your words more carefully.

another thought... if you were a gay player on the colts right now (or had a relative who was and wished to considered married)... how would you feel about your coaches statements? these kind of statements can create a lot of ill will.

also, if you say something publicly ... you open yourself and those around you to public scrutiny and critism. it is one of the things that goes with the big paycheck...

by bluegirl on Mar 21, 2007 6:35 PM EDT reply actions

You know...

Let me begin by saying that when I made fun of Purdue it was for fun and I didn't mean it to be hurtful. Purdue is a fine school if you want to be a farmer! ; )

As for Dungy I am greatly saddened and disappointed. I expected better from him but then he decides to trash millions of people. There is nothing Christian about that and to quote Jesus, "stop looking for specks in my eye when you can't see the plank in your own." I think Tony could practice a little of that wisdom because no matter of religious dogma can defend his actions. Hate is hate and what Dungy did was very, very, very hateful and if he was a real man of faith and compassion (as he professes to be) then he would stop forth and admit his error.

And on a side note... why all the hate against gays from Dungy all of the other member of the Religious Wrong? I mean one of Jesus' major tenets was that money lending leads to hatred and sin in all societies. So why haven't I seen any Christian protest outside banks and "Check 'N Go" stores? Maybe its because many of these counterfeit-Christians own these stores. Talk about cherry picking the gospel.

by MasterRWayne on Mar 21, 2007 8:02 PM EDT reply actions

Ostentatious prayer

Let's not forget about Christ's admonition against ostentatious prayer.

And when ye pray, ye shall not be as the hypocrites: for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thine inner chamber, and having shut thy door, pray to thy Father who is in secret, and thy Father who seeth in secret shall recompense thee. (Matthew 6:5-6 -- from the Sermon on the Mount).

by Masson on Mar 22, 2007 9:33 AM EDT up reply actions

Dungy's

quality is that he has clear vision and shoots straight. He's going to say what he thinks and he isn't going to let political correctness influence him. He lost his first chance at a head coaching job by telling the owner he wouldn't put the team before his family.

The things that make him a great coach and motivator of players is pissing some people off. So what? He's there to win and he's the winningest coach in the NFL right now. I hope he keeps pissing you off--and winning.

Personally, I don't give a damn which way people swing and who they marry.

by will on Mar 21, 2007 11:18 PM EDT reply actions

How Ironic

The first black head coach to win the Super Bowl advocates discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation.

I guess he doesn't understand what it's like to be a second-class citizen. Maybe someday we'll see tolerance in this country, but I'm starting to lose hope.

by ctnyc on Mar 22, 2007 12:05 AM EDT reply actions

good point ctnyc

good point.. religious beliefs don't justify discrimination... a lot of people used the phrase about the sons of ham being hewers of wood and drawers of water to justify the slavery of blacks...

by bluegirl on Mar 22, 2007 7:02 AM EDT reply actions

My final word

Sports is a haven from the kind of issues and politics that plague the news and much of everyday life. When you go to a bar or you go to a game, everyone is of one mind. You aren't there as republicans or democrats, you are there as fans. You aren't red or blue, you are all wearing the colors of your team. This is the reason sports are so great. For one day a week we can all just get together to watch a game and have fun. Work, politics, news ect all takes a back seat for a few hours so we can enjoy ourselves.

I relish that opportunity to get away from it all and watch a game as does everyone I know. We have countless websites and 24 hour news networks to go if we want to hear talking heads opine on the subject of gay marriage. Everyone has that hardcore liberal or conservative to argue with in their office if they'd like.

That's why I don't like what Tony said. He is the face of a pro sports franchise and in that capacity has a responsibility to represent that organization responsibly. Using your celebrity as an NFL head coach to come out and making controversial political arguments and statements is not a way to responsibly represent an organization that exists to serve as an escape from that type of stuff.

Bleeding Green Nation Philadelphia Eagles Blog

by JasonB on Mar 22, 2007 10:31 AM EDT reply actions

Nation of rhetorical weenies

I think we have become a nation of rhetorical weenies. Whenever someone says something we disagree with, we fly off the handle, and rather than arguing with legitimate points we take their position personally and we insist that they must shut up. Because we do not test and discuss our position, it becomes soft and weak.

Dungy is a just a football coach, and he's been involved with the NFL since the 70s. He should not be expected to take 40 years off of politics to be a football coach. Believe me that we wouldn't be having this discussion if he got on national TV to advocate a law allowing gay rights.

They are both viable political positions held by large numbers of people, so you are fooling yourself if you insist there is some other difference here. Therefore, if someone can go out and espouse your position and they are OK, but if they go out and espouse an opposing position they must "shut up" as the face of the franchise, then you must acknowledge that the problem is that you are too lazy to want to defend your positions.

I doubt that the Colts organization will suffer from this. The owner of the Colts is a Christian and has declared such. For every fan that leaves because of this, another one becomes loyal. If the Colts do suffer for it, it is a choice made by the whole organization, and it is merely capitalism at work. Do people derive some value buying tickets from a "Christian" football team? We shall see - but probably not until they have a bad season because I think right now people will buy tickets from a winning football team in any case.

I suggest in the future that when national figures go out and espouse opinions we disagree with, we figure out the reasons we disagree with their opinion and argue those points. Otherwise, we are just adding to the general incivility that seems to permeate our public discourse. No one can talk about anything serious any more without some group calling foul, claiming offense, or just calling on the speaker to shut up.

BGN - you say when we go to a game, "everyone is of one mind." I disagree. People watch football and other sports for many reasons, and they are all legitimate. I don't think football exists to serve as an escape from life. I'm fascinated that football is a game played by PEOPLE, not sports-producing automatons. When I go to Taco Bell, I don't expect a political discussion while I wait for my burrito, but I'm glad to have a beer with the Taco Bell guy after hours and get his views on (insert subject). Dungy isn't preaching from the sidelines - leave the guy alone.

by SteveW on Mar 23, 2007 1:50 AM EDT reply actions

Couldn't disagree more

I will try to keep this on the level of "civil discourse," but I think just about the opposite of everything you've said is true.

This is a complicated issue with many facets and heated passions. It is perfectly legitimate to focus on one facet of the issue. This is a football blog, specifically a Colts blog. As such, what we've focused on here is the football ramifications of Dungy's actions, and specifically how they affect the Colts and the fans. This is an entirely appropriate conversation to have on this site. You seem to believe that if we don't deconstruct the entire issue and come down on side or the other of homosexuality that we're being lazy. Sorry, but that's an intellectually lazy argument. There are plenty of forums where such considerations are appropriate and happen on a daily basis (there are dozens of political blogs on both sides of the divide that can be easily found). I think people here have shown remarkable restraint in sticking to that part of the issue that is related to football, and not devolving into a heated debate about what is essentially a political and religious issue. I can't speak for BigBlueShoe, but my sense is that the purpose of this site is to discuss Colts football, not to solve the problems of the day.

And incidentally, it is the height of tact, diplomacy, and -- yes -- civil public discourse to focus on and explore the topic at hand (i.e. whether Dungy acted appropriately given his position as face of the management side of the franchise), rather than to interject one's personal religious biases into an argument about something else. We're not trying to solve the issue or win converts, we're trying to say that Dungy acted inappropriately. It has been said eloquently by many here. They are neither lazy, nor uncivil, nor wrong.

by ctnyc on Mar 23, 2007 10:14 AM EDT up reply actions

"stick to ... football"

Football is not some compartmentalized little thing that happens on your TV screen every Sunday. We seem to have a narrow view of what "football" is around here.

BBS said - "As a Colts fan, I find Dungy's speech offensive and wrong, and coach should be ashamed of himself."

As a Colts fan - we will be seeking a new coach some year, and the candidates will see how we treat Dungy when he makes some rather minor political commentary in the offseason. (And unlike BBS seemed to suggest, he didn't call anyone stupid or say there were no other legitimate views on this issue.) Dungy is a good person at the top of his game coming off a Superbowl win, and if he can't get any slack, who will?

What does our reaction to this as fans do for the organization that will have to go out and hire people to work for the Colts? I can see the offer letter:

Dear new potential head coach,

If you come here, you better toe the line and shut up. If we see your face away from the game, or if we get a whiff of your "political" views - you better watch out, because that's not "football" stuff.

Now, please, come coach our guys.

Best regards,
Colts Fans

Go Colts!!

by SteveW on Mar 23, 2007 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions

Missing the point

Just about every defense of Dungy's comments that I've seen in this thread wants to pretend that the world is black and white, with no gray areas or room for judgment. The arguments are some variation of: "What Dungy said is not illegal, so it's OK. We have freedom of speech in this country. He's not just a coach, he's also a man and so he has the right to say whatever he wants. "

These are Straw Man arguments. I have not seen anybody argue that he doesn't have the legal right to say what he wants to. I have not seen anybody argue that a football coach cannot hold political views. I have not even seen anybody argue that a coach cannot express some political views. The issue is his judgment. If Dungy wanted to spearhead a ticket giveaway for returning Iraq vets, that would be a political issue (is there a more topical political issue right now than the treatment of Iraq vets?), but I doubt that anybody would have a problem with it.

The difference in this case is that Dungy advocates codifying discrimination against an entire group of people. This is inappropriate in any circumstance, particularly this one. In our nation's history, many groups have been discriminated against. These include Native Americans, Jews, Japanese-Americans, women, and African-Americans. While ignorance and discrimination still exist, we have come a long way. And we have civil rights laws in place to stop such bigotry. Now it's the homosexual's turn. 20 years from now (hopefully less) there will probably be legal protections in place for homosexuals and we will look back on this era as we now look back on the civil rights era of the '60's or the women's suffragette movement. In the meantime, homosexuals will have to deal with the same discriminations as these other groups did. I don't want a football coach, especially MY team's football coach to support this discrimination.

Again, I AM NOT SAYING that the man cannot have political opinions or religious beliefs. It is what he chooses to do with those beliefs that is an issue. If Tony Dungy were not a footballl coach, nobody would care what his views are; he wouldn't have been invited to the event in the first place. He was there because of his fame garnered as a football coach. And he took advantage of that status to advocate discriminating against an entire segment of the population, many of whom are are included in the fan base that he represents. This is inappropriate. We may have to agree to disagree on this, but I know I'm not budging. That is inappropriate and insensitive behavior.

It is not illegal for him to do this. It simply shows a lack of judgment. To use an argument from an earlier comment, what if he had said that Native Americans should not be allowed to marry? Or that being Jewish is immoral? And what if he had strong religious beliefs backing him up? Would that make his comments right or appropriate? Sometimes this substitution method of argument can be quite illuminating. In this case, I believe it's spot on.

by ctnyc on Mar 23, 2007 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions

Speaking of straw men...

I didn't make any of those arguments, so I have no response to that. I would point out that by attributing such arguments to me, and then shooting them down, you are practicing the Straw Man tactic. I agree with you that clearly everything that someone CAN do under the law is not necessarily wise.

Dungy's position is a reasonable one, and that's the difference between this and those other arguments you are talking about. In one view, the institution of marriage is a religious one, and his religion clearly does not allow homosexuals to marry. There are other secular arguments for why the government may rationally limit marriage to opposite-sex partners, but I don't want to turn this forum into that, and I'm not the best advocate for such arguments as I don't agree with them. But that doesn't mean those arguments are unreasonable. In Dungy's case, it may be that he supports domestic rights for homosexuals if we don't call it marriage, although he didn't say anything about that.

Now - I think anyone is a fool for sending their precious institution off to be cared for by the government, but that is where we are on this issue. But just because someone is a fool, that doesn't mean I think that they should not be expressing their opinion. Better that they get it out and then we can all take a look at it.

by SteveW on Mar 23, 2007 5:30 PM EDT up reply actions

Clarification

I appreciate much of what you say, but I still take issue with a couple things. To be fair, I did not attribute all of those arguments to you but rather indicated that they were a summary of most of the arguments on the thread. However, the last one (the "he's also a man and should be able to say what he wants" -- sorry for the paraphrase) is I think a pretty accurate summation of the first two sentences of the second paragraph of your original post (where you say he's "just a football coach" and should not have to take 40 years off from politics). And that, in a nutshell, is one of the major points that I and others have been trying to make. He is not "just a football coach," he is a representative of an entire organization, and a city. It doesn't matter if he doesn't want this responsibility, he has it. It's like the athlete who says "I'm not a role model" when we all know full well that kids are looking up to him. He has one of the most coveted jobs in the country, and is paid handsomely to perform it. With that comes responsibility.

I share your reluctance to get too caught up in the religious and political arguments of the issue -- this was another of the main points in my original post. However, there is one thing. You say that in one view marriage is a religious institution. I agree that this is true in one view. I guess my answer would be that this view is misguided, and therein lies the problem. However the intstitution of marriage began and was popularized (I honestly don't know much about the early history but am led to believe that there is some dissent about its origins), it is clearly a cultural institution now. To be sure it has a strong religious element for some, and absolutely no religion for others. Atheists and true believers alike are allowed to marry. So unlike other religious institutions (communion, confession, titheing, bar mitzvahs, pilgrimages to the holy land, etc.), it has become a secular institution as well. Unless you're gay. And that is why I don't agree with the view that Dungy's position is reasonable. His religious beliefs do not excuse him. Again to use the same methodology as before, many extremist Muslims believe that Jews should be put to death. They use their religion as their guide and quote passages from the Koran to support their arguments. But that does not make their views right (and, of course, many moderate Muslims disagree). It's a different degree to be sure, but similarly, I beleive that the kind of discrimination that Dungy advocates has no place in reasonable society.

At any rate, I thank you for your thoughts and your well reasoned arguments. There's no reason that we can't simply disagree with each other about this. The world would be pretty boring if everybody thought alike.

by ctnyc on Mar 23, 2007 8:14 PM EDT up reply actions

According to the NFL...

According the NFL's main office he was well within his rights to give a political or religious veiwpoint in public. That's all that matters to me.

This nation is split so evenly on so many issues that arguing whether a comment is 'inappropriate' is pointless to a degree. It is important to realize that just because a person takes a biblical view of homosexuality doesn't mean that that person hates homosexuals or is speaking hate. It is possible to share Tony's viewpoint and yet also have total compassion and love for gay people.

Visit www.18to88.com for the absolute best Colts analysis anywhere...ever!

by 18to88 on Mar 23, 2007 1:49 PM EDT reply actions