The athletes did not irrationally and destructively mischaracterise gay people.
I disagree, but it really isn't up to us to decide in a discussion. It's the community at large that will do the judging of what actions like those of these athletes mean to them. I'm sure that many people are indifferent, but many, like me, see this behavior from as irrational and destructive. Do you think it's rational or constructive? Is there a reason for treating gay people as second class citizens other than that some people think Jesus is offended? Is this constructive? You might answer yes to either or both of these because you see all of this as loving and divine and leading to soul saving, but much of the community sees it as irrational, hateful, and they disapprove.
Why did you not include Christians in your demographic?
I included three demographics that people have traditionally expressed bigotry at. Christians are not the targets of bigotry. Wherever they're persecuted, it's for unacceptable behavior such as proselytizing in parts of the world where they're unwelcome, and even that shouldn't be considered persecution. There is nothing irrational about disapproving of Christianity's toxic effect in American society. Look at what it has done now and is posturing to do.
I'm assuming that you see Christians and the church as victims of irrational prejudice, and if so, I probably can't modify that view with anything I write. But you might like to know why people feel as they do. All that the church need do is to butt out of the lives of people who aren't interested in what Christians believe and resent being subjected to it anyway. But that will never happen, because that's considered a good thing to do in Christianity.
Moreover, not doing so is considered weak. I recall when I was a Christian being told that if people didn't know that I was a Christian, then I wasn't doing my part, that I must boldly take the message of the gospels - the Good Word, they called it - to the world, don't be afraid to be rejected, for that is Satan in their hearts. It was from this understanding that I kept bringing Christianity to people around me, not listening to their protests and objections, even family. This stopped when I left Christianity, and it was then that I could see how inappropriate my behavior had been. These people didn't want to hear it, but I didn't care, because I had been convinced that their souls were at risk, and not pushing was weak and unloving.
Some in the Church want to dictate societal mores and see it as a war at that level but others in the Church are willing to sit back and be dictated to. I'm one of those.
That's appreciated, but Christians are not being dictated to. They're only being asked to be good neighbors and to honor the Golden Rule. I'm seeing the church not enjoying being treated as the disapproved of "sinner" in this cultural struggle, as being seen as an abomination in the eyes of secular society. It doesn't like the continual critical judgment and disapproval. It understands how that is destructive to it, as do you, which is why you're here defending the church from such opinions. And please note that the Christian opinion about homosexuals is bigotry because it is irrational and destructive. Opposing that is not bigotry, irrational, or destructive except toward a destructive source, making it constructive. It facilitates human well-being.
What ideas do you say that the players who refused to wear the jersey actually expressed?
That they are Christian, that they have been taught that homosexuality is sinful, and that homosexuals who don't do what their religion commands are fit for eternal punishment by an infinitely good god. That's the message: "My god disapproves of you, and therefore so do I."
Do you think that people don't have a right to express their ideas or does that apply only to people who believe homosexual acts are wrong in God's eyes?
Sure they have that right. The Christians can express their bigotry just as the community can express its disapproval of that bigotry.
Yes I guess many people find it hard to see the grey areas and just see in black and white. That's understandable, especially if the message on the media is one that is black and white and creates division and hurt.
So you think that the division and hurt created when these athlete's expressed their beliefs about homosexuals was caused by media coverage of it? Do you think that it's the media that is responsible for the blowback here, as if it has indoctrinated viewers to object? If so, that's incorrect. The media reported what happened, not how to feel about it.
Being judged by secular standards is fine.
The church doesn't like it. One of those standards is deeming this homophobia. No Christian likes that judgment about themselves or the church. The hope is that such judgment will lead to people rethinking their beliefs, and if they can't find a way to be supportive to at least keep their condemnation to themselves. And if they won't choose to do that, they can be subjected to public opprobrium until either they relent, or their church becomes irrelevant in public opinion about homosexuality, depending on how much bad PR the church is willing the church is willing to endure in the process. If the church wants to remain viable, it's best bet is to recognize and respect the values of the community at large. I don't see that happening. I see that the church will need to be opposed until it is unable to influence others, like all other religions.
What do the Muslims say about homosexuality? In the Middle East, they'll kill you for it, but in America, they have to keep their opinions confined to their own community, and not out of respect for the surrounding culture, but because of they understand how harmful that would be to them given their lack of standing in American culture and the general disapproval of their religion by their neighbors. Secular society will not relent against Christianity until it is equally contained to its own community. Freedom of religion entitles one to no more than personal religion. Consider the Muslims again. They can be Muslim, they can read the Qur'an and pray to the Islamic god, they can gather in their homes and their mosques, they can send their children to Muslim schools, their can wear hijabs, and the like - private religion. But bring it to the streets, or consume public funds promoting it (Christians were shocked to see Muslim charter schools supported by tax dollars, but fail to see that they are viewed in the same way by secularists :
Louisiana Lawmakers Object To Funding Islamic School Under New Voucher Program | HuffPost Latest News ), or attempt to pack the Supreme Court in order to make pork illegal, and people object.
You would object. You would call this forcing Islam down your throats, as would I, and you would angrily push back. If you can see that this is the role that the Christian church plays today in America, you can understand the blowback. We don't care what you believe your god commands regarding homosexuality or abortion. Keep Christianity private like the Muslims do, and the church will never hear another word from the secular community. Think about it. Why would it care about private religion? Secularists fought for freedom of and from religion. The religions need to do their part to respect that, whether by choice or attrition of the religion due to social disapproval - what is often called cancel culture.
How much nicer it would be if we could all cooperate and effect this transformation quickly and willingly. And better for church membership, which is surely suffering from these culture wars. Recriminalizing abortion is going to cost the church dearly in my opinion. Wrong choice. Not only will it fail to prevent most abortions, it allows the church's detractors to identify the church as an enemy of women and a cherished American principle - church-state separation, and to use the church's own tropes against it: "I don't agree with Christianity, and I don't want it forced down my throat" and "The church is a destructive force and an enemy of the Constitution," the secular equivalent of abomination and sinner.
, as well.
