Wouldn't it be great if we just let athletes be athletes and keep the microphones and cameras away except on game day?

Hey, wait. If you substitute "athletes" with "actors" or "musicians," then what I just wrote sounds a lot like conservative whining about Bruce Springsteen and Susan Sarandon.

When will all the conservatives come out of the woodwork to pronounce that people like Reggie White should just shut up and play football and stop trying to tell the rest of us how to live our lives? And add that if not for his stupendous luck and our disposable incomes, he'd have been flipping burgers instead of living in mansions?

Hmmmmmm?

Matt, you need to get over your authoritarian desire to make everyone approve of you. It's not going to happen. You don't have any right to demand it.

It's ridiculous to call Rev White a "hater." The Bible says clearly a hundred different ways that any sex outside a monogamous marriage between a man and a woman is a sin. Those who actually are real Christians are bound thus to regard homosexual behavior as sin.

That's not hating. There's a common motto that Christians should "hate the sin, but love the sinner." Now, Fred Phelps hates the sinner. That's not Christian.

But Rev White was not Fred Phelps. I never heard any "hate" coming from Reggie White. Disapproval is not hate. Nor is it automatically "hate" to disagree with the Act Up political agenda.

You have a reasonable right to demand tolerance, but not acceptance or special protection. If someone wants to make homosexual behavior illegal and throw you in jail, then I'll be out on the barricades protesting with you.

If, on the other hand, religious folks wish to proclaim your behavior sinful and do not wish to grant you special legal considerations, they're well within their reasonable rights.

Of course, you can disapprove right back. You're within your rights to declare Reggie White a "hater." You're just wrong and presumptuous.

In answer to BHW who opined with this:

"When will all the conservatives come out of the woodwork to pronounce that people like Reggie White should just shut up and play football and stop trying to tell the rest of us how to live our lives? And add that if not for his stupendous luck and our disposable incomes, he'd have been flipping burgers instead of living in mansions?
"

When will Liberals denounce Jessie Jackson for making idiotic statments such as this when asked if he could provide proof the Ohio election results were invalid:

"Based on distrusting the system, lack of paper trails, the anomaly of the exit polls. In Ukraine, there's an exit poll gap, they say, 'Let's have another election.'" He added that Kerry "pulled out too early."

As for the rest, you do have proof that White would have been flipping burgers if not "for his stupendous luck and our disposable incomes,"

And may I add, you are very fortunate, dare I say possess "stupendous luck," to be able have a forum to spew such racist bullshit.

Settle down, there's nothing racist there. I could have said the same thing about Michael Stipe.

Marc, JR has it right. I was literally repeating the words used in comments on my web site by conservatives who denounced the Dixie Chicks and other entertainers who dared to cross over into political discourse. Similar sentiments have been expressed here about Bruce Springsteen and other liberal entertainers when they were out stumping for Kerry. The conservatives came out in near complete unision to say that these entertainers should just shut up and play [or act, or whatever]. I'm just asking if they'll say that Reggie White should have done the same thing and just stuck to football.

For the record, here's the stupendous luck comment. And here's the one about flipping burgers, although the commenter actually said someting about "supersizing my value meal."

If I could figure out how to do a decent search on Blogcritics, I'd find similiar comments here aimed at liberal [white] entertainers who have criticized the current administration or who stumped for Kerry.

As for your Jesse Jackson reference, it has nothing to do with the matter I addressed, which dealt with entertainers spouting their political opinions rather than just entertaining.

I don't object to an entertainer talking about politics, it's just that when they're being foolish they're certainly fair game for getting called out.

As to Reggie White specifically, he seems to have had a whole second career as a preacher. It's perfectly appropriate for a preacher to speak out on moral issues.

I don't object to an entertainer talking about politics, it's just that when they're being foolish they're certainly fair game for getting called out.

Which is basically saying that as long as you agree with the entertainer, you don't mind his/her talking about politics. But when you disagree, well, then, that's another matter entirely.

And that's my point.

It's perfectly appropriate for a preacher to speak out on moral issues.

First, that's not all he spoke out on. Second, he used his football fame to get to the podium -- that's the only reason he was invited to speak, because he was famous. When liberal entertainers do the same thing, conservatives go nuts. Did conservatives go nuts when Reggie spoke out?

No BHW, it's just fine with me if entertainers speak out and say things that I don't agree with. Many people express liberal political sentiments without drawing my ire.

It's when people start saying dishonest or willfully stupid or disreputable crap that I get a bit testy. That goes for anyone, whether a famous entertainer or a fellow Blogcritic.

Even then, however, my complaint isn't that they're entertainers speaking out of turn. It's just that Sean Penn, for example, is a schmuck.

By comparison, I have an even lower opinion of, for example, Maureen Dowd. She's "supposed" to talk about politics, being a political columnist in a newspaper. It's not that her comments are out of place. It's just that they are consistently stupid and schmucky.

By comparison, at least Sean Penn has done some worthwhile work as an actor, which at least justifies him continuing to take up air.

Reggie White's comments shocked me when I heard them, and it did diminish most of the other things he said from that speech to the legislature forward.

BHW, you'll never hear conservatives squeak too much when an entertainer (in this case, a football player) unexpectedly says things a conservative would just as soon say, just as you'll never hear liberals squeak too much when an entertainer (a singer, an actor) says things a liberal would just as soon say.

When White spoke, liberals *did* go nuts.

So then Mike, you hold a low opinion of all serious Christians? Is anyone who thinks homosexual behavior is sinful a diminished person?

Do you hold a similarly negative opinion of Muslims and Jews and other religious types as well?

SOME PERSPECTIVE for Matt:



Reggie White was a football player.

We "admired" him because he was freak steroid-sponge whose special "talent" was speed coupled with extreme violence.

He thought gays were sinners, but he spent his entire life showering with other naked men for money.

He spoke against equal rights for people who faced discrimination.

God struck him down at age 43.

Reggie's pious.

But dead.

You're gay.

And bloggin' about the bastard.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Happy New Year!

PS: Too bad he didn't live long enough to write the Introduction to the fifth printing of Laura Ingraham's book "Shut Up and Sing"

Al, I don't have any use for the concept of sin, since I am not a Christian myself. The Christian concept of sin represents a wrong committed against God. Since I have no god...

The average Christian is extremely careless in his expressions. He turns what is to him a 'sin against God', and makes it a wrongdoing committed by the actor. Reggie White made no effort to say that homosexuality was a sin against his God.

"We allow rampant sin, including homosexuality and lying," White said, "and because it has run rampant in our nation, our nation is in the condition it is today."

What a load of crap. *We* allow sin? Who is this we? Christians? Government? Based on the fact that he was speaking to the legislature, I would infer government. Had he been specific enough to say, "*I* hold it to be a sin," that would have been honest enough, and it would have been less of an issue for me.

But the average righteous Christian is little more than an authoriatrian who would meddle in the private lives of others, backed by the force of law.

So, to answer your question as accurately as possible, I hold in low regard those who would act to prevent people from living their life their way.

So far though, I haven't seen anything where Rev White was proposing to outlaw sodomy, unless you want to read a whole lot into that one word "allow." I'd probably say that he had a better point if he'd said "encourage" rather than "allow," but still.

He was a great football player, who was also a Christian minister believing that homosexual behavior is sinful. I may disagree with him on that point, but I wouldn't hold that as some personal black mark against him.

facts are facts, and Reggie was a racist. He didn't mean to be bad nor did he have ANY hate in his heart... just ignorance. Remember his talk about how Asians were gifted in smarts, and Hispanics were gifted in family and breeding, and it went on and on. He meant to be expressing things he liked about various cultures... but they were simply racial stereotypes.

Personally, I thought it was absolutely hilarious. However, I am a sensitive motherfucker... unlike all y'all.

just kidding, we're cool. Thanks for your time, and GO BRONCOS!

Not to be overly picky, but simply labeling someone as a "racist" is not particularly meaningful. The very marginal at worst racial offenses cited are pretty much of nothing.

If you're going to label any hint of recognition of behavioral differences between different ethnic groups as "racism," then you've pretty well lost any significant meaning for the word.

Calling Rev White's ham handed attempts at multiculturalism really shouldn't be called "racist," thus being equated with such as the Klan. That hardly seems fair.

I have a slightly different take on this issue.

Mr. White said:

Homosexuality is a decision. It's not a race.

I'm a little surprised no one picked up on this point. I believe that it's generally accepted in most of the world that homosexuality is not a "decision" but an orientation. As in: it ain't no choice, bub. We all dig on who we gonna dig on. So in that sense blacks and homosexuals have much more in common than Reggie would have liked to believe. You can't un-choose being born black (as Soul Man wisely taught us) just as you can't un-choose being born gay.

I understand that some (perhaps many) religious people don't believe this: they believe that homosexuality is a sin and should be railed against, etc. Fine. However, I believe it is within my right to call out this (now deceased) ex-football star on his comments.

Finally, it certainly doesn't help matters that Mr. White's rambling, incoherent speech made him appear much more foolish than if he had presented his argument in a clear, cogent manner.

Eric Berlin
Dumpster Bust: Miracles from Mind Trash
http://dumpsterbust.blogspot.com

If I hear one more person tell me that Reggie was a better person outside of football than he was inside football, I'll throw up. He was a football player fist. He wasn't Rev White. He was DE White. We wouldn't even know who this asshole was without the football.

The guy blamed the "condition of our country" on homosexuals and lying.

RIP Reggie. Can't say I'll miss the football, since you don't play anymore. Can't say I'll miss the preaching either.

Still--RIP.

that's first, not fist.

I find the codification of people into "liberal" and "conservative" to be at least as misleading as it is informative. What about people who have liberal, conservative and/or moderate views. Surely these people far outnumber the "consistently" doctrinaire on either side.

Beyond that, I think Matt's approach was very thoughtful and meaningful, giving full weight and credit to White's athletic accomplishments and those off the field, but objecting to his characterization of gays - makes sense to me.

And as far as entertainers speaking out - here's my rpoblem: often when entertainers speak out on political matters, world events, social policy, etc, what they say and the way they say it DOES NOT MATCH THE QUALITY OF THEIR ART. When they expres their ideas THROUGH art or put the time, effort and sophistication they put into their art into their political statements/positions -- whatever side they happen to take -- I have no problem with that at all.

But more often than not they sound like fucking idiots and simpletons who are taking advantage of their celebrity to propagate their gibberish, rather than saying something that deserves to be heard on its own merit.

THAT is what I object to whether it's Toby Keith or Sean Penn

I just wish our politicians would put time, effort and sophistication into their political statements/positions.

that's a fair request as well

There are plenty of "real" Christians -- laypersons, scholars, and theologians alike -- who interpret the bible vastly differently than Mr. White and his ilk. I certainly hope the hate-spreading-footballer rests in peace, but I doubt he'll get that peaceful slumber. As to hate, Mr. White may not have thought he was a hater or disseminating hatred, but imagine how it felt to those of us on the receiving end. (Not that most right-wingers would care about how gays felt.)

There are plenty of "real" Christians -- laypersons, scholars, and theologians alike -- who interpret the bible vastly differently than Mr. White and his ilk.

Yes there are, if by "interpret" you mean make stuff up to suit their own purposes. You may quibble with some of Rev White's phraseology or emphasis, but there's no HONEST way that you can get from the Bible that homosexual behavior is acceptable.

"Plenty" here means absolutely NOTHING. Theology is NOT a democratic study. The US Constitution is a human document, and we can have some votes and change it at will. The Bible, however, is supposedly the revealed word of the living God. You don't get to have a vote to change the parts you don't like.

Ms Davis may lie to herself all she wishes, but the Bible says what the Bible says, and this isn't just taking one or two verses out of context.

As to this issue, it matters not one bit how gays or anyone else FEELS about it. The Bible says what the Bible says, regardless of how you feel about it.

Of course, her implication is supposed to be that the Bible's cool with it, but it's just those mean old hateful conservatives are twisting the Bible to make it say something that is not there. This has certainly been done by liberals and conservatives and all other ideological stripes, but not in this case.

As a non-believer myself, I sympathize with the hurt feelings of being stigmatized by the Christian religion. Not believing rates probably considerably worse as a sin than sodomy. However, it is purely dishonest to blame modern Christians for this. Neither Reggie White nor the Republican National Committee wrote the Bible.

Lastly, I note the flavor of Ms Davis' comments. For supposedly being a compassionate Christian, a peace activist full of God's love, she went out of her way to conjure up a little fantasy about Rev White going to hell. This sounds to me much more like the resentment that Nietzche talked about as the true basis of Christianity rather than anything to do with the compassion of Jesus.

Mr. Barger, I believe the standard counter-argument to your line of thinking goes something like this:

The Bible, while advancing the union of man and woman, also advocates stoning people to death, among all other manner of torturous punishment that seem barbaric and out-of-kilter in the theoretically modern and civilized world.

So, in my view, people who take the Bible as fact, word-for-word, shouldn't pick and choose the tid-bits that please or make sense to them. If you're going to argue that the Bible says that homosexuality as sin, I want to hear "We need more stoning 'round these parts" in the next breath.

~ Eric B. (another heathen in the US of A)

Berlin, ya damned heathen, you may have a point. A few more stonings around these parts might improve the gene pool.

However, Christians have some wiggle room there. Your argument would seem pretty much straight on for Judaism, but Jesus was bringing a new testament.

This was best demonstrated by the story of the woman at the well. Rather than joining the crowd to stone her, he told her to go forth and sin no more.

Note, however, that Jesus did NOT tell her that it was cool to fornicate- just that we fellow sinners shouldn't presume to kill her for it. That judgment will be left to God.

Okay, in that case, let gay people get their love on (and straight people their straight) and let God do the stoning, I say.

Eric, that's Kool and the Gang with me. However, I don't recall seeing anything where Rev White was calling for any stoning to begin with.

Isn't classifying a group of people who, it is widely believed, were born with a certain sexual orientation as Liars or Adulterers tantamount to verbal stoning?

RE: verbal stoning- Sticks and stones may break my bones, etc

Plus, the "born gay" thing only goes so far. Some people are absoluely born with strong proclivities to violence, but that doesn't mean that they don't get judged.

And that's if you actually buy the "born gay" thing, which seems to me an overly simplistic statement at best.

Al - I thought we were pretty close to agreement for a minute, but I think you've gone off the rails with this:

Plus, the "born gay" thing only goes so far. Some people are absoluely born with strong proclivities to violence, but that doesn't mean that they don't get judged.

You're equating violent people with gay people? You're saying that gay people, in whatever fashion, by you or by They or by God, must be judged?

Then we have:

And that's if you actually buy the "born gay" thing, which seems to me an overly simplistic statement at best.

I can't even get into this one at present. Too much to do, and not enough time to drink the coffee necessary to get worked up enough to write a proper response.

~ Eric B.

No, I'm not equating gay with violent. Indeed, I would tend to think of gays as less inclined to violence, though I don't know how much that jibes with reality.

I'm just skeptical of attributing human behavior to genetics, though they are certainly an important factor. Perhaps someone is violent because they were beaten as a child, or perhaps because they found that it worked for them.

I suspect that human sexuality is far too involved to be explained simply by genetic predisposition. There may be some hormonal factors that give some predisposition to homosexuality. I strongly suspect that bad or non-existent relations with the same sex parent are a factor. Certainly individual experiences at critical moments of imprint vulnerability play a role.

I just get real skeptical when people disclaim responsibility for their actions on grounds that they can't help it cause they were born that way, whether it is unacceptable violent behavior or more benign sexual proclivities.

Al, why would gays have/need to claim responsibility for their sexual behavior unless you thought there was something wrong with it? Do straights have to walk around and make proclamations like that? I've never once been put in a position where I had to overtly take responsibility for being heterosexual. In fact, I refuse to take responsibility for it or for its results: sex with members of the opposite sex.

I suspect that human sexuality is far too involved to be explained simply by genetic predisposition. There may be some hormonal factors that give some predisposition to homosexuality. I strongly suspect that bad or non-existent relations with the same sex parent are a factor. Certainly individual experiences at critical moments of imprint vulnerability play a role.

You do realize that you're just making all of this up, right?

BHW, I mean "taking responsibility" in a general way for your own actions primarily to yourself for your own benefit. I'm not talking about laws or legal authority.

As to making all that stuff up, I'll have you know that I have BS degree from Ball State University with a minor in psychology, so obviously my theories are of the highest caliber.

Actually, I'm not making all those things up. Would that I had such creative vision, but their's only one of those threads that I'd claim as representing original thought.

I realize that you're not talking about laws or legal authority. But it's still a ridiculous notion that gays should "take responsibility" for their sexual orientation, while presumably heterosexuals don't need to do the same thing for theirs.

And since you have a degree in psychology, I guess you should know that correlation is not equal to causation. Think about that when you talk about "factors" that influence sexual orientation.

BHW, are bothered by the very concept of personal responsibility? "Orientation" is an amorphous concept, but people do have to take responsibility for their sexual behavior. This of course applies to hetero as well as homosexual conduct- which may in turn come from the same person. You can't really draw clean lines between them.

Either way, it is necessary to take responsibility for your own behavior. A guy might be attracted to other men, but that doesn't mean he can't help hanging out by the glory hole at the local porno shop. Nor do genetics or social engineering excuse the stripper who's getting two or three abortions a year, or the jackasses who are knocking them up.

Do you really find it controversial that I say there are likely lots of factors influencing human sexual orientation and behavior? I'm not making any strong claim about any one thing "causing" homosexual behavior, or any particular heterosexual behavior.

I'm mostly just saying that I find it unlikely that there's anything as simple and concrete as one gay gene that you can point to under a microscope that explains the complexities of human sexual behavior.

This comment is directly related towards the guy named "Shark", you've got some nerve to say that about reggie. In the bible it does say that homosexuality is a sin. He was right, homosexuality is a choice, not a race. People CHOOSE to be gay, god didnt make them that way, if he wanted gays, he wouldn't have made eve, he would have made another male. Just becuase he showered w/ other men doesnt mean he is gay, apparently you dont know anything about football, but im a football player, and thats called being apart of a team. God didnt strike him dead, he thought it was his time to go. He was just speaking the truth, he was preaching from the gospel, if you dont like it well tough, you're gonna have to deal w/ it

We're all missing a key point, and perhaps Reggie missed it, too. The rock-bottom point of the Biblical text is not necessarily condemnation, but forgiveness. Very often, people miss the Big Idea - the message is about hope. We've all sinned and fallen short of God's standards, but we are all given a way out of our deserved punishments. Jesus died for us, assuming the punishment we deserve. Everybody is given the opportunity to follow Jesus. Yes, homosexuality is wrong, and so is a lot of other stuff. But we have been given the opportunity to abandon lifestyles of sin, and follow the Savior.

Reggie White is awsome! So is God! He loves everyone the same! Cool 'eh?