The High Priests of equality have officially dubbed Tony Dungy a heretic! He has blasphemed against the truth of personal freedom by saying he would not have drafted Michael Sam if he were the head coach of the St. Louis Rams. Regardless of the grounds for his argument, this act is deemed worthy of excommunication and a consequent burning at the metaphorical stake at the hands of the media elites of the Western entertainment and sports industry.
Something I find very interesting in this whole situation is the apparent divisions and compartmentalizations that the modern society so easily adopts. “Personal beliefs” are okay as long as they stay personal. Moreover, these personal beliefs should have no affect on any public area of life. The problem with this kind of compartmentalization is in its inability to perpetuate itself.
As we are beginning to find, all public activity already is the display of a “personal belief.” One person is told that their personal beliefs shouldn’t affect how they conduct their business (whether in sports, entertainment, or business). The only problem with this is that this idea is in itself a “personal belief” that is taking public form as to how people should operate their lives.
The dream of modernity is a public square devoid of religion. Modernity accepted religion on its own terms: “You are free to have your religion over there, at home or at church, but it is not allowed here, in politics/business/etc..”
Why should the modern philosophers be able to claim how and where religion manifests itself? Upon what authority does a politician hem in a religion.
One question I think would really blow open this whole situation (and really put perspective on things) is what would our society’s reaction to Tony Dungy be if he said he would not have drafted Michael Sam because of his Muslim beliefs. Everybody knows that Tony Dungy is a Christian. Moreover, Americans know that Christians, in large part, are afraid to bear their beliefs down on the society. Americans sense that the Church has lost its prophetic voice, the Church prefers to accept the role modernity has given it rather than declare modernity as an idol for destruction. Knowing this, American media elites will always rail on Christians for their “bigotry.”
The question is, what would America’s reaction be to an outspoken Muslim who is against sodomy? It is quite clear that the Muslim faith is as opposed to homosexuality as the Christian faith. Yet it is also as well known that the Muslim faith is not near as prone to cowardice as the current climate of Western Christianity. The Muslim faith is a beehive that the Modern does not want to disturb.
I think this line of questioning sheds light on both the content of modernity and “Christianity” in its current state.
Food for thought.