Wizards' Jason Collins

[Soxbadger]

Eh, yeah I guess. I meant more that he didn't go to another level with it.

 

What wait?

 

So he just said he was a sinner, which implies eternal damnation?

 

So he didnt go out and say "Kill Jason Collins".

 

Well glad that our standards are so low now, congrats Broussard you didnt actively advocate for a hate crime.

 

This is seriously nonsense and Im judging the s*** out of anyone who thinks what Broussard said is at all tolerable.

 

Yeah I own up to my judging, because when Im doing it, I stand by my damn opinions. I dont wilt away and hide behind "Oh its my religion".

 

So what, if my religion is ass backwards, I cant run around and be a complete douche without expecting people to hold it against me.

 

He has a right to his opinion, I have a right to show him for the clown he is.

[StrangeSox]

But again, you realize the topic was about a gay basketball player coming out right? That's the conversation he was having. I'd imagine if he was willing to say that stuff on TV he's also got some pretty strong beliefs/comments about other people who sin and who aren't Christian too.

 

Again, it's larger than just Broussard and Collins. Broussard is saying some pretty boiler-plate stuff which, again, is almost always directed at the LGBT community and not at any other self-identifying Christian who commits a sin. Which would be every last one of the billion-plus of them, including Broussard. It's not a topic of discussion for any other sin precisely because nobody really gives a s*** about the high levels of adultery among professional athletes and certainly don't routinely say they're not Christians because of it. Or gambling, or any other sin that people frequently commit. That it's a topic of discussion over whether or not someone who is LGBT is a "real Christian" or is living in "open rebellion" but it's not a topic for any other number of sins is exactly the problem and highlights how LGBT gets targeted.

 

And yeah, it's frequently brought up because it's exactly what happens. It's a double standard that you can speak your mind but only if you think like me.

He can speak his mind as much as he wants. He's not entitled to a national media platform to do so, though, and we're all free to speak our minds in response. Would you be cool with someone calling for a return of racial exclusion in sports on ESPN? Hey, he's just speaking his mind! I thought you were tolerant!!!

 

Tolerance doesn't require accepting bigotry as a legitimate viewpoint.

[RockRaines]

But he didn't add any moral qualifier to it. He didn't say it was "wrong." He's saying it doesn't fit with Christianity (and again, his version of it). That's a key distinction here.

You cannot make a statement like someone isnt a christian without judging them. Who is he to say who is christian and who isnt. Its bulls***. Its his way of condemning Collins while hiding behind his faith.

[iamshack]

But he didn't add any moral qualifier to it. He didn't say it was "wrong." He's saying it doesn't fit with Christianity (and again, his version of it). That's a key distinction here.

Yeah, I agree with you...it's pretty hard to even give an opinion without "judging."

 

My issue is more is Chris Broussard suddenly an expert on Christianity and how Christianity views homosexuality or is evolving in their beliefs about homosexuality, and secondly, why on earth was this necessary on the same day of the announcement? Just do it this weekend on the Sunday show and it is much less offensive to me.

[StrangeSox]

Yes, one of the biggest problems with Christianity is the double standard in condemnation of some sins more so than others.

 

Catholics who use birth control aren't told that they aren't Catholic, because being free from sin is not a requirement to be Catholic, but most priests will remind them that their use of birth control is a sin.

Yup, and that's my point. Every single Christian on the planet "lives in sin," yet the LGBT community gets singled out for scorn and derision and exclusion (by some, not by all). That represents the bigotry behind this position as being something different than simply being religiously motivated; religion is used as the excuse to justify the bigotry, not as the source.

[StrangeSox]

But he didn't add any moral qualifier to it. He didn't say it was "wrong." He's saying it doesn't fit with Christianity (and again, his version of it). That's a key distinction here.

lol, I don't think you need a moral qualifier when you're telling someone they're living in sin, that they're openly rebelling against God and Christ and that they cannot be a Christian. It's nothing but a moral statement that implies that Collins will suffer for eternity in hell for his sins.

 

And Broussard never added this "my version of Christianity" qualifier you keep tossing out there. In fact, he was explicitly claiming that his version is superior to Collins' own version.

[Soxbadger]

Im just going to be straight, I dont care what your religion says. If you parrot it, you own the statement now.

 

You can keep silent, you can say nothing, but as soon as you parrot, you own it.

[Jenksismyhero]

Again, it's larger than just Broussard and Collins. Broussard is saying some pretty boiler-plate stuff which, again, is almost always directed at the LGBT community and not at any other self-identifying Christian who commits a sin. Which would be every last one of the billion-plus of them, including Broussard. It's not a topic of discussion for any other sin precisely because nobody really gives a s*** about the high levels of adultery among professional athletes and certainly don't routinely say they're not Christians because of it. Or gambling, or any other sin that people frequently commit. That it's a topic of discussion over whether or not someone who is LGBT is a "real Christian" or is living in "open rebellion" but it's not a topic for any other number of sins is exactly the problem and highlights how LGBT gets targeted.

 

 

He can speak his mind as much as he wants. He's not entitled to a national media platform to do so, though, and we're all free to speak our minds in response. Would you be cool with someone calling for a return of racial exclusion in sports on ESPN? Hey, he's just speaking his mind! I thought you were tolerant!!!

 

Tolerance doesn't require accepting bigotry as a legitimate viewpoint.

 

Self-identifying Christians talk constantly about sin and actions that are not "Christian-like." They might not talk about it on ESPN, but when was the last time there was an OTL segment on the problem with professional athletes and adultery or gambling? Those discussions happen all the time. Whether or not they end up on TV is up to the producers. That doesn't mean those conversations aren't being had.

 

And why isn't he entitled to a national media platform? It's a free country, ESPN can do what they want.

 

And the last bit is just "his opinion is wrong and doesn't deserve tolerance." I think you're using an incredibly broad definition of bigot here.

[Jenksismyhero]

lol, I don't think you need a moral qualifier when you're telling someone they're living in sin, that they're openly rebelling against God and Christ and that they cannot be a Christian. It's nothing but a moral statement that implies that Collins will suffer for eternity in hell for his sins.

 

And Broussard never added this "my version of Christianity" qualifier you keep tossing out there. In fact, he was explicitly claiming that his version is superior to Collins' own version.

 

Every interpretation of the Bible is personal. It's a book with words in it. You can believe what you want to believe. Others in this thread identify as Christian and don't agree with Broussard. That he was speaking from his own interpretation is obvious.

[Balta1701]

Self-identifying Christians talk constantly about sin and actions that are not "Christian-like." They might not talk about it on ESPN, but when was the last time there was an OTL segment on the problem with professional athletes and adultery or gambling? Those discussions happen all the time. Whether or not they end up on TV is up to the producers. That doesn't mean those conversations aren't being had.

 

And why isn't he entitled to a national media platform? It's a free country, ESPN can do what they want.

 

And the last bit is just "his opinion is wrong and doesn't deserve tolerance." I think you're using an incredibly broad definition of bigot here.

I found 5+ OTL features involving gambling in the last 4 years just by googling.

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

[StrangeSox]

Self-identifying Christians talk constantly about sin and actions that are not "Christian-like." They might not talk about it on ESPN, but when was the last time there was an OTL segment on the problem with professional athletes and adultery or gambling? Those discussions happen all the time. Whether or not they end up on TV is up to the producers. That doesn't mean those conversations aren't being had.

These conversations about whether some athlete was "living in sin" and in "open rebellion against God and Christ" who isn't a real Christian because they committed adultery don't happen outside of religious settings if they happen at all. The bigotry and exclusion and condemnation is reserved for the LGBT crowd and not other sinners.

 

 

And why isn't he entitled to a national media platform? It's a free country, ESPN can do what they want.

Yes, they are. They are entitled to decide whether or not Broussard gets a national media platform. Broussard himself is not entitled to any platform.

 

And the last bit is just "his opinion is wrong and doesn't deserve tolerance." I think you're using an incredibly broad definition of bigot here.

One that includes condemnation and exclusion of LGBT people isn't that broad.

[cabiness42]

Yup, and that's my point. Every single Christian on the planet "lives in sin," yet the LGBT community gets singled out for scorn and derision and exclusion (by some, not by all). That represents the bigotry behind this position as being something different than simply being religiously motivated; religion is used as the excuse to justify the bigotry, not as the source.

 

I know there are different "versions" of Christianity, but an overwhelming majority of those versions teach that homosexuality is wrong. However, television has been about the worst invention ever for Christianity. It is very difficult to accurately convey the Christian message using that medium.

 

The message of Christianity is intended to be discussed on a personal level using scripture as a guide. It just doesn't work well being discussed on television, or even in person to large audiences. You can speak in general terms about what things are and aren't sins, but when it comes down to discussing the specific sins of an individual or a group and how to deal with your sins, those discussions are meant to happen in person and in private. One problem is that a lot of Christians don't understand this, and the problem is compounded be the fact that communicating the message appropriately through television (or a message board for that matter) is very difficult even for people who do understand it.

 

I don't really like the phrase "Love the sinner, hate the sin" because it is so cliche, but it is a very good reminder that Christians need to treat every person with the same level of dignity and respect regardless of their lifestyle. At the same time, I would like to remind those on the liberal side of things that you are more than welcome to call out Christians who actually discriminate against gays, but as long as there is a religion that has a view that homosexuality is wrong, the first amendment must protect the rights of people to hold that opinion.

[Balta1701]

I know there are different "versions" of Christianity, but an overwhelming majority of those versions teach that homosexuality is wrong. However, television has been about the worst invention ever for Christianity. It is very difficult to accurately convey the Christian message using that medium.

The number of religious channels that are stuck in my TV package seems to disagree with this.

[StrangeSox]

Every interpretation of the Bible is personal. It's a book with words in it. You can believe what you want to believe. Others in this thread identify as Christian and don't agree with Broussard. That he was speaking from his own interpretation is obvious.

But he didn't add these qualifiers. He stated, without qualification, that Collins cannot be a Christian. He claimed superiority for his version of Christianity. You're doing a lot of backpedaling for Broussard and I'm not sure why.

[Jenksismyhero]

lol, I don't think you need a moral qualifier when you're telling someone they're living in sin, that they're openly rebelling against God and Christ and that they cannot be a Christian. It's nothing but a moral statement that implies that Collins will suffer for eternity in hell for his sins.

 

And Broussard never added this "my version of Christianity" qualifier you keep tossing out there. In fact, he was explicitly claiming that his version is superior to Collins' own version.

 

Right/wrong isn't based on religious belief.

 

And it's clearly a personal interpretation. Is there a key to The Bible you know about that no one else does?

[Jenksismyhero]

These conversations about whether some athlete was "living in sin" and in "open rebellion against God and Christ" who isn't a real Christian because they committed adultery don't happen outside of religious settings if they happen at all. The bigotry and exclusion and condemnation is reserved for the LGBT crowd and not other sinners.

 

 

 

Yes, they are. They are entitled to decide whether or not Broussard gets a national media platform. Broussard himself is not entitled to any platform.

 

 

One that includes condemnation and exclusion of LGBT people isn't that broad.

 

His statements don't do this. He's condemning them in the context of his personal religion and he's not excluding Collins or gays from anything. This is a serious stretch.

[cabiness42]

The number of religious channels that are stuck in my TV package seems to disagree with this.

 

I didn't say that those religious channels haven't been "successful" but look what they've done to the image of Christianity in this country. Long term, that is not a positive thing for Christianity.

[Jenksismyhero]

But he didn't add these qualifiers. He stated, without qualification, that Collins cannot be a Christian. He claimed superiority for his version of Christianity. You're doing a lot of backpedaling for Broussard and I'm not sure why.

 

Again, do you have a code somewhere for the ultimate definition of what being a Christian is/isn't? That's been debated for thousands of years. One guy saying something definitive isn't representative of the entire religion. People in this very thread identify as Christian and totally disagree with him.

 

 

[cabiness42]

But he didn't add these qualifiers. He stated, without qualification, that Collins cannot be a Christian. He claimed superiority for his version of Christianity. You're doing a lot of backpedaling for Broussard and I'm not sure why.

 

Within the confines of Christianity, it is perfectly acceptable for a church to discipline one of its own members, so the statement he made in itself isn't necessarily wrong, but television is not the appropriate place for such discipline to be carried out, and without knowing a lot about Broussard he is probably not the appropriate person to do it.

[StrangeSox]

At the same time, I would like to remind those on the liberal side of things that you are more than welcome to call out Christians who actually discriminate against gays, but as long as there is a religion that has a view that homosexuality is wrong, the first amendment must protect the rights of people to hold that opinion.

 

Nobody disagrees with that. He is free to hold all sorts of awful, terrible opinions. He is free to voice them, and we are free to respond. That doesn't mean we need to accept those beliefs any more than we need to accept what people at stormfront dot com think about blacks, Jews and Catholics.

 

I'd like to say clearly, too, that it's not all Christians who act or think this way. My parents are both Christian and there was never a single issue when my brother came out. His boyfriend is over at 'family dinner' every week, especially after his own family disowned him for his sexuality. My wife's family are devout Catholics who go to church every week. Her uncle was gay and came out to his brothers in the 80's. They never had any problem with it. That's why I believe that the bigotry isn't really religious, it's just that religion gets used as an excuse and justification for the bigotry.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Oh f*** that. This is a perfect example of the double standard that exists with people that cry out about discrimination and tolerance. Broussard says that Collins being gay doesn't compute with his version of Christianity and people are saying he should be fired. God, how dare he have a personal belief and some conviction to tell people about it! That's so progressive and tolerant to be understanding of other people that way. So accepting!

 

I don't want a black quarterback on my team. They're extra sinful, because they're descendents of Ham.

 

HEY HEY HEY watch the backlash, this is just my personal religious belief that I have conviction about!

[StrangeSox]

Within the confines of Christianity, it is perfectly acceptable for a church to discipline one of its own members, so the statement he made in itself isn't necessarily wrong, but television is not the appropriate place for such discipline to be carried out, and without knowing a lot about Broussard he is probably not the appropriate person to do it.

I'm not aware of any religious authority that Broussard has. This wasn't Collins' priest saying it, it was some other guy who also happens to be a Christian claiming that someone else can't be a Christian because they do something Broussard believes to be a sin.

[StrangeSox]

His statements don't do this. He's condemning them in the context of his personal religion and he's not excluding Collins or gays from anything. This is a serious stretch.

Bigotry doesn't mean "actively exclude somebody from something." His views on LGBT are bigoted, full-stop. I'd argue that you're the one stretching by making an incredibly narrow definition for bigotry.

[Balta1701]

His statements don't do this. He's condemning them in the context of his personal religion and he's not excluding Collins or gays from anything. This is a serious stretch.

When this country finally gets around to banning discrimination against homosexuals in everyday life like it has most other minorities, then we'll stop connecting these type of comments to the fact of legally enforced discrimination.

[StrangeSox]

Right/wrong isn't based on religious belief.

 

That's news to me. I thought most of Christianity held that morality was defined by God.

 

Either way, he was making an explicitly moral argument. You can't accuse someone of committing a sin, a transgression against the rules of God, without making a moral claim. You're being ridiculous here and I don't even know what point you're trying to make.