Post game show - how much credit can we give to God?

[football_scooter 0]

So now people should assume what people are going to say???

 

also, speaking of "after a big win" where are these people after a loss??

 

Really - why wasn't Lovie Smith praising Christianity and thanking God for helping them to lose?

 

Did Lovie run a less Christain team than Dungy?

 

I think you're being melodramatic and it's probably just because you like to rile everyone up.

 

in part, sure. I never denied this. Makes for good debate that way.

 

 

Is that the same as starting a 4 page thread bashing him for saying it?

Or bashing anyone for thinking it was ok for him to say it?

 

No one's "bashing" anyone - I certainly didn't bash Dungy for saying it - just stated that it was not the appropriate forum.

 

You and your fellows are the ones blowing this out of proportion with exaggerated spin like this.

 

we could just all agree that it was not appropriate for him to go on to the length/extent he did and be over with it. All of us agree that he could have said, "with God's help" or "thanks to God" or whatever without going on the tangent about Christianity and winning the Christain way. It was the "one step too far" that was inappropriate - not, as you continue to misrepresent, him mentioning God at all.

 

hth

[Grind 0]

If it was said everytime a high-profile public figure had a microphone in his face you would. And, if you wouldn't I would venture to guess that you would have an issue with it if your kids were always subjected to those statements.

 

Picture this, kids everywhere watching the SB then in the post-game they hear the owner and coach give credit and thanks to Satan. Take it a step further, everytime you see an interview with a high-profile athelete he thanks Satan. Take it even a step further, everytime you drive down the street you see a monument to Satan. How would that make you feel?

 

We have the right to do all of those things but THEY'RE NOT SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE. So, why shoud it be socially acceptable for people to constantly praise God when we are a society where people don't all believe in a God or even if we do it may not be the Christian God. If praising Satan isn't socially acceptable than neither should praising God be.

 

 

What is or is not socially acceptable is based on society and not one individual. That said, how can you say something should or should not be socially acceptable? I don't get that one. But again, one having the right to state a personal belief and what is an is not socially acceptable are two different things.

 

Fact is, our society is made up of individuals who have many different beliefs. We couldn't function daily without expressing a belief or two. In addition to my belief in God, I also believe that hard work leads to future success. My belief in hard work, if not vocally expressed, is expressed in action. Should that belief by "put in the closet" and never expressed? Guess I can go back to bed.

 

 

If it was said everytime a high-profile public figure had a microphone in his face you would. And, if you wouldn't I would venture to guess that you would have an issue with it if your kids were always subjected to those statements.

 

Picture this, kids everywhere watching the SB then in the post-game they hear the owner and coach give credit and thanks to Satan. Take it a step further, everytime you see an interview with a high-profile athelete he thanks Satan. Take it even a step further, everytime you drive down the street you see a monument to Satan. How would that make you feel?

 

We have the right to do all of those things but THEY'RE NOT SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE. So, why shoud it be socially acceptable for people to constantly praise God when we are a society where people don't all believe in a God or even if we do it may not be the Christian God. If praising Satan isn't socially acceptable than neither should praising God be.

 

As for my children. If a coach would praise satan while watching a football game with my son/daughter, it would provide me a good opportunity to discuss these topics with them. Stuff like this happens every day as a parent, not always involving religion though. It is called parenting.

 

Really - why wasn't Lovie Smith praising Christianity and thanking God for helping them to lose?

 

Did Lovie run a less Christain team than Dungy?

in part, sure. I never denied this. Makes for good debate that way.

No one's "bashing" anyone - I certainly didn't bash Dungy for saying it - just stated that it was not the appropriate forum.

 

You and your fellows are the ones blowing this out of proportion with exaggerated spin like this.

 

we could just all agree that it was not appropriate for him to go on to the length/extent he did and be over with it. All of us agree that he could have said, "with God's help" or "thanks to God" or whatever without going on the tangent about Christianity and winning the Christain way. It was the "one step too far" that was inappropriate - not, as you continue to misrepresent, him mentioning God at all.

 

hth

 

Sounds a lot like censorship. I take it you believe entirely in censorship of all kinds then. Right?

[football_scooter 0]

Sounds a lot like censorship. I take it you believe entirely in censorship of all kinds then. Right?

 

No, but nice fallacy. I believe that's the "slippery slope".

 

I believe in appropriateness and having enough respect for the diversity of society that you would be sensitive to the fact that not everyone in your billion-strong audience of opportunity is of like faith.

 

Censorship would be me saying that he can't talk about, mention or refer to God at all. As you can see in the post you quoted, I am not saying that.

 

I am saying that this is a big world and it's made up of all sorts of people with all sorts of beliefs. And in a very public forum, say - the Superbowl post game show, one should have a sense of appropriateness in what one says.

 

Thus, thanking God is fine. Espousing the virtues of one's particular religion is not. That is common sense. It is used every day by executives in corporations, by union shop workers, by people in the street or at the coffee shop. You have to have enough respect for the diversity of your fellow man to know where the line is drawn. Common sense dictates it.

 

Why those in support of Dungy insist on spinning this and taking it to such extremes is beyond me. "censorship"? Please.

[VaTerp 0]

If it was said everytime a high-profile public figure had a microphone in his face you would. And, if you wouldn't I would venture to guess that you would have an issue with it if your kids were always subjected to those statements.

 

Picture this, kids everywhere watching the SB then in the post-game they hear the owner and coach give credit and thanks to Satan. Take it a step further, everytime you see an interview with a high-profile athelete he thanks Satan. Take it even a step further, everytime you drive down the street you see a monument to Satan. How would that make you feel?

 

We have the right to do all of those things but THEY'RE NOT SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE. So, why shoud it be socially acceptable for people to constantly praise God when we are a society where people don't all believe in a God or even if we do it may not be the Christian God. If praising Satan isn't socially acceptable than neither should praising God be.

 

THis is ridiculous. Society as a whole, NOT YOU AS AN INDIVIDUAL, decides what is socially acceptable and FORTUNATELY in this country it is FAR MORE socially acceptable to praise GOD than it is Satan. If you dont agree with that then again your opinion but its a fact. Perhaps some reading on both subjects would help resolve your apparent issue with this fact.

 

There are people in here who want to argue this topic to no end for whatever reason. I think its clear to any reasonable person, Christian or not, that Dungy and Irsay were well within their rights (legal and social) to say what they said.

 

Again, I ask could someone please explain how what Dungy and Irsay said NEGATIVELY AFFECTED ANYONE IN ANY POSSIBLE WAY?

[The Next Generation 11]

What is or is not socially acceptable is based on society and not one individual. That said, how can you say something should or should not be socially acceptable? I don't get that one.

 

It is my BELIEF that it shouldn't be socially acceptable. You got a problem with that? At one point it was socially acceptable to own slaves. It is my BELIEF that that shouldn't have been socially acceptable either. I guess you can say I'm ahead of the curve on this one.

 

As for my children. If a coach would praise satan while watching a football game with my son/daughter, it would provide me a good opportunity to discuss these topics with them. Stuff like this happens every day as a parent, not always involving religion though. It is called parenting.

 

Sure it would and I would applaud you for that. But, it's easy to say that when it is an isolated incident.

 

No, but nice fallacy. I believe that's the "slippery slope".

 

I believe in appropriateness and having enough respect for the diversity of society that you would be sensitive to the fact that not everyone in your billion-strong audience of opportunity is of like faith.

 

Censorship would be me saying that he can't talk about, mention or refer to God at all. As you can see in the post you quoted, I am not saying that.

 

I am saying that this is a big world and it's made up of all sorts of people with all sorts of beliefs. And in a very public forum, say - the Superbowl post game show, one should have a sense of appropriateness in what one says.

 

Thus, thanking God is fine. Espousing the virtues of one's particular religion is not. That is common sense. It is used every day by executives in corporations, by union shop workers, by people in the street or at the coffee shop. You have to have enough respect for the diversity of your fellow man to know where the line is drawn. Common sense dictates it.

 

Why those in support of Dungy insist on spinning this and taking it to such extremes is beyond me. "censorship"? Please.

 

[Sho Nuff 720]

Really - why wasn't Lovie Smith praising Christianity and thanking God for helping them to lose?

 

Did Lovie run a less Christain team than Dungy?

in part, sure. I never denied this. Makes for good debate that way.

No one's "bashing" anyone - I certainly didn't bash Dungy for saying it - just stated that it was not the appropriate forum.

 

You and your fellows are the ones blowing this out of proportion with exaggerated spin like this.

 

we could just all agree that it was not appropriate for him to go on to the length/extent he did and be over with it. All of us agree that he could have said, "with God's help" or "thanks to God" or whatever without going on the tangent about Christianity and winning the Christain way. It was the "one step too far" that was inappropriate - not, as you continue to misrepresent, him mentioning God at all.

 

hth

 

 

Exaggerated?

 

Claiming it might give a Muslim the excuse to blow up a school bus was not blowing it out of proportion?

Comparing it to the Crusades was not exaggerating?

 

Please...you have done the exaggerating in your very first post...claiming he excluded anyone.

 

How was it inappropriate for him to say he was proud of how he accomplished it?

 

You have yet to really come up with a good reason. You felt bothered and excluded because you read too much into it and think somehow he was forcing something upon you.

 

Fact is...he wasnt. he was happy with the way he went about his job and that he got to that point and believes his strength comes from God and that being a Christian was the way he did it.

 

 

Again..does any of that mean he thinks you cannot do it any other way?

 

NO....

 

The rest is your spin...nothing more and whining that it was in the wrong forum. BS....

[Grind 0]

It is my BELIEF that it shouldn't be socially acceptable. You got a problem with that? At one point it was socially acceptable to own slaves. It is my BELIEF that that shouldn't have been socially acceptable either. I guess you can say I'm ahead of the curve on this one.

 

 

 

 

Sure it would and I would applaud you for that. But, it's easy to say that when it is an isolated incident.

 

 

 

Ahead of the curve. That is funny. Chuckled at that. I respect your belief and have no problem with you stating your belief.

 

 

I think I understand what you are saying when you say it is easy when it is an isolated incident. The fact is, Dungy made his comments regarding his belief, which most people watched and listened to on TV. I would say over 75% of all television programing is non-religious in nature. It is hard to say that Christian beliefs aren't isolated in most every day life. So those people who feel religion is "on every street corner' just aren't accurate and most likely blow an isolated incident or two our of proportion.

[Sho Nuff 720]

What is or is not socially acceptable is based on society and not one individual. That said, how can you say something should or should not be socially acceptable? I don't get that one. But again, one having the right to state a personal belief and what is an is not socially acceptable are two different things.

 

Fact is, our society is made up of individuals who have many different beliefs. We couldn't function daily without expressing a belief or two. In addition to my belief in God, I also believe that hard work leads to future success. My belief in hard work, if not vocally expressed, is expressed in action. Should that belief by "put in the closet" and never expressed? Guess I can go back to bed.

As for my children. If a coach would praise satan while watching a football game with my son/daughter, it would provide me a good opportunity to discuss these topics with them. Stuff like this happens every day as a parent, not always involving religion though. It is called parenting.

Sounds a lot like censorship. I take it you believe entirely in censorship of all kinds then. Right?

 

No, but nice fallacy. I believe that's the "slippery slope".

 

I believe in appropriateness and having enough respect for the diversity of society that you would be sensitive to the fact that not everyone in your billion-strong audience of opportunity is of like faith.

 

And being sensitive to that means he cannot be proud of how he did something?

 

Censorship would be me saying that he can't talk about, mention or refer to God at all. As you can see in the post you quoted, I am not saying that.

 

But you are censoring how much he can say about God.

 

I am saying that this is a big world and it's made up of all sorts of people with all sorts of beliefs. And in a very public forum, say - the Superbowl post game show, one should have a sense of appropriateness in what one says.

 

Thus, thanking God is fine. Espousing the virtues of one's particular religion is not. That is common sense. It is used every day by executives in corporations, by union shop workers, by people in the street or at the coffee shop. You have to have enough respect for the diversity of your fellow man to know where the line is drawn. Common sense dictates it.

 

Why those in support of Dungy insist on spinning this and taking it to such extremes is beyond me. "censorship"? Please.

 

Where did he espouse any virtues. He said he was proud he did it the Christian way.

 

And you talking about spinning and taking it to extremes is laughable...or do I need to bring up the suicide bomber quote, the comparison to the crusades, and to harassing people at an abortion clinic again.

 

It is common sense that a guy claiming he was proud that he did it the Christian way is not pushing that on you...

 

And the line is not drawn by you...or by "The Next Generation" or the 5 people that posted after I said something that you completetly misquoted.

 

Yes...censorship...when you tell a man what he can and cannot say and therefore limit his freedom of speech.

[The Next Generation 11]

Ahead of the curve. That is funny. Chuckled at that. I respect your belief and have no problem with you stating your belief.

 

I think I understand what you are saying when you say it is easy when it is an isolated incident. The fact is, Dungy made his comments regarding his belief, which most people watched and listened to on TV. I would say over 75% of all television programing is non-religious in nature. It is hard to say that Christian beliefs aren't isolated in most every day life. So those people who feel religion is "on every street corner' just aren't accurate and most likely blow an isolated incident or two our of proportion.

 

It's in our pledge of allegiance and on our money. I see it every day as I drive to work or walk down the street. Our president believes that a mythical super being talks to him directly. Heck, the neighborhoods I grew-up in are all churches, bars and cemetaries. Tell me how it's NOT on every street corner. But I digress...

 

Say the winning coach of the SB were gay. He says at the SB post-game interview that he's glad they could achieve their victory in a homosexual way with homosexual beliefs. Some people would say that a SB post-game interview is not the proper forum to espouse those beliefs. Rather a gay pride rally or whatever would be more appropriate. Much like those people I don't think the SB post-game interview is the proper forum to espouse a controversial belief like Christianity.

[Fumbleweed 555]

Exactly. Can any of you Christian nutjobs honestly say you would not be offended if Dungy were to get up on the podium and thank Satan?

 

This is really uncalled for in the discussion. No one likes to be called a "nutjob" and I for one really don't appreciate it. Express your opinions all you want, but leave the nutjob stuff at the door if you don't mind.

[Fumbleweed 555]

I just wanted to add something regarding Scoot's point around the appropriateness of the forum:

 

Michael Moore makes a political statement accepting an Oscar; the crowd sits on their hands (for the most part) and many many people come out and talk about how it was inappropriate and selfish of him to do so. And that's in a "Hollyood Pinko Commie Liberal Uber-PC" event.

 

Dungy comes out with a highly-specific religious statement and it's defended to no end.

 

Both are inappropriate because of the forum and the types of highly personal statements they embody. I believe that leaving it at 'I want to thank God/Lord/etc.' is the boundary for this type of statement in this type of forum.

 

For some reason, when it comes to religious belief - especially Christian, people give all sorts of allowances for behavior. I am liberal and an atheist and both examples above churned my stomach.

 

Michael Moore was bashing someone....not acknowledging someone. Big difference. If he had taken the time to acknowledge a democratic politician and say that he was proud to be living his life the "democratic" way....there would have been no harm in that. He would have remained positive and not used the forum to bash anyone. Acknowledgment to someone and bashing someone is very different. Moore was not applauded not because he chose to make a political statement, but rather because he chose to make a NEGATIVE political statement.

 

If it was said everytime a high-profile public figure had a microphone in his face you would. And, if you wouldn't I would venture to guess that you would have an issue with it if your kids were always subjected to those statements.

 

Picture this, kids everywhere watching the SB then in the post-game they hear the owner and coach give credit and thanks to Satan. Take it a step further, everytime you see an interview with a high-profile athelete he thanks Satan. Take it even a step further, everytime you drive down the street you see a monument to Satan. How would that make you feel?

 

We have the right to do all of those things but THEY'RE NOT SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE. So, why shoud it be socially acceptable for people to constantly praise God when we are a society where people don't all believe in a God or even if we do it may not be the Christian God. If praising Satan isn't socially acceptable than neither should praising God be.

 

Satan generally is linked with evil and/or negative behavior. If the tenets of a faith in Satan were more positive, it would be more socially acceptable. Society tends to accept that which builds up much more than that which tears down thankfully.

 

But, to go back to something said earlier, it was Dungy's platform. If he wanted to acknowledge Satan from it, I would be disappointed in him as a person, but would not be upset that he had done something inappropriate. He would have the right to express his views at that time as long as the views didn't include profanity (which would go against FCC standards of decency).

[football_scooter 0]

This is really uncalled for in the discussion. No one likes to be called a "nutjob" and I for one really don't appreciate it. Express your opinions all you want, but leave the nutjob stuff at the door if you don't mind.

 

Well said. I completely agree with this.

[The Next Generation 11]

Well said. I completely agree with this.

 

Kiss azz

[gszaszko 0]

Michael Moore was bashing someone....not acknowledging someone. Big difference. If he had taken the time to acknowledge a democratic politician and say that he was proud to be living his life the "democratic" way....there would have been no harm in that. He would have remained positive and not used the forum to bash anyone. Acknowledgment to someone and bashing someone is very different. Moore was not applauded not because he chose to make a political statement, but rather because he chose to make a NEGATIVE political statement.

 

 

Not true, if Michael Moore had said something negative about Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden in that Oscar speech I believe it would have been much more accepted and possibly praised and lauded. Either way it's a political and/or social statement whether it's G.W. Bush, Iraq, or Christianity. Its negativity or positivity has nothing to do with how it was received. Hell, if he'd said, 'Everyone vote for John Kerry if you're concerned about the future of this country.' (a positive statement) he would have been lambasted as well and for the same reasons; because it was seen as tasteless, self-serving, and detracting from the purpose of the event, not because it was negative.

 

I feel the same way about Dungy's statement. He has every right to say it, I just find it tasteless and boorish of him to do so in the manner and to the degree he did.

[Captian America 0]

Look here are the facts Dungy is a Coach who has great faith in his Christian Religion and he acknowledge Jesus for giving him the strength to endure all he had to do to get to the pinnacle of the football world with a Superbowl Championship. He knew that it was with God's help he was able to acheive this and he gave him the praise. Now if this offends some that is to bad because this country was founded by Europeans who wanted to worship their God in this case Jesus. As Christians we are taught that with God all things are possible and thanking him or acknowledging him is something we do.

 

Now for those how say yes but you shouldn't do it at a sporting event may I refer you to a man called Muhammad Ali who after every fight before he would talk to Howard Cosell or some other reporter he would give Muhammad credit for giving him the strengh to be victorius. Now me being a Christian sat there and waited till he was done thanking his God to hear him talk about the fight. Was I offended no. As a matter of fact I have an autograph photo and plaque hanging on my wall of Ali. He had a right to thank his God just as Dungy had a right to thank his God. I think it's great when a winner in sports, movies, or music acknowledges their God when accepting an award.

[football_scooter 0]

Michael Moore was bashing someone....not acknowledging someone. Big difference. If he had taken the time to acknowledge a democratic politician and say that he was proud to be living his life the "democratic" way....there would have been no harm in that. He would have remained positive and not used the forum to bash anyone. Acknowledgment to someone and bashing someone is very different. Moore was not applauded not because he chose to make a political statement, but rather because he chose to make a NEGATIVE political statement.

 

Regardless of your personal view on the matter, you can't say it's ok to say "X" because you aren't personally offended by it, but not ok to say "Y" because you are offended by it, or ok to say "X" because it's a positive message but not ok to say "Y" because it's negative. "positive" and "negative" are in the eyes of the beholder. Thus, whether the message is positive or negative is not at issue here.

 

The point is that he's talking religion at a football game. Moore was talking politics at an awards ceremony. Neither are appropriate. There are countless other examples of people using an opportunity to make a statement to further whatever agenda they have in an inappropriate forum. "negative" is not inherant to the statements - it's in the ears of the audience.

 

That's the bit that so many here fail to comprehend. That regardless that you personally feel Dungy was fine because you personally subscribe to the same/similar religious belief system, there are millions of people in the viewing audience who were not of that faith, and could see it as an intrusion to have that thrown in their face while watching a football game.

 

And in our society, the status quo is that if you think it might be possible to offend a group of people by talking about your specific brand of religion in a public forum, then you should avoid doing so. I'm not just making this up - it's the way our society is. Maybe that's right and maybe it's wrong - but it is what it is.

 

You know, not all things with Christianity through history have been all cool, right? You know there have been a great many atrocities committed in the name of Jesus, right?

 

Maybe Native Americans could be offended by it because of Manifest Destiny?

Maybe Jews could be offended by it because of the Holocaust & Spanish Inquisition?

Maybe alter boys who've been molested, or their families would just assume not have to hear about Christianity when watching sports?

Hell, maybe some folks just don't like mixing thier sports and religion. I know at least one Christain at work who is probably as devout as Dungy - and even she thought he was out of line going that far in that forum.

 

Who knows - I'm just giving a few examples of heinous things that Christianity was at the center of. So before Sho Nuff gets on a soap box, NO, I am not comparing Dungy's speech to any of those things - just trying to paint a picture of why someone might not be all cool with listening to a coach talk about Chritianity at a post-game show.

 

Hey, if Dungy wants to give an interview later and talk about it? Cool - he can say whatever he wants to there. If Dungy wants to write a book or stand on a street corner handing out pamphlets, free country - do what you like. But that post-game ceremony is a Superbowl Trophy & MVP ceremony - it has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, and the billion-strong viewing audience has no expectation that it would.

 

And that's the ever loving truth of the matter - that not everyone is accepting or welcoming of Christianity for whatever reason, and some may be downright offended by the inclusion of it at a sporting event. I know that's nearly impossible for those of you who are devout to accept or understand, but just for a moment try to step outside yourselves. Give the same amount of respect to those who aren't of your faith as you demand from them with regards to you practicing yours.

 

As I stated earlier, the disconnect may be that an integral part of christianity is the proliferation of your religion to the primitive races and the "damned" who have not yet accepted Christ as their personal savior, so to you Dungy was just being a good Christain and spreading the gospel, but to some of us it wasn't kosher.

 

I am not personally offended by what Dungy said - but damn right I felt excluded the moment he proceded to describe how his team won "the Christain way". And how dare some of you (not you Fumbles) tell me that I'm wrong to feel that way, or that if anyone is offended by it that it's their problem.

 

But, to go back to something said earlier, it was Dungy's platform. If he wanted to acknowledge Satan from it, I would be disappointed in him as a person, but would not be upset that he had done something inappropriate. He would have the right to express his views at that time as long as the views didn't include profanity (which would go against FCC standards of decency).

 

And as I stated in response earlier: it was not Dungy's platform. It was the NFL's platform, the network's platform and us, the viewing audience's platform. Dungy was the featured speaker at the moment, and IMO was inappropriately using that platform.

 

Of course this all makes me a "christain basher" in some of your eyes - hey, I can live with that. My religion doesn't even have a hell, so knock yoursleves out judging me.

 

:flashes obscure gang sign resembling "O.T.":

old testament

 

Not true, if Michael Moore had said something negative about Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden in that Oscar speech I believe it would have been much more accepted and possibly praised and lauded. Either way it's a political and/or social statement whether it's G.W. Bush, Iraq, or Christianity. Its negativity or positivity has nothing to do with how it was received. Hell, if he'd said, 'Everyone vote for John Kerry if you're concerned about the future of this country.' (a positive statement) he would have been lambasted as well and for the same reasons; because it was seen as tasteless, self-serving, and detracting from the purpose of the event, not because it was negative.

 

I feel the same way about Dungy's statement. He has every right to say it, I just find it tasteless and boorish of him to do so in the manner and to the degree he did.

 

 

egg-zack-tly

[Sho Nuff 720]

It's in our pledge of allegiance and on our money. I see it every day as I drive to work or walk down the street. Our president believes that a mythical super being talks to him directly. Heck, the neighborhoods I grew-up in are all churches, bars and cemetaries. Tell me how it's NOT on every street corner. But I digress...

 

Say the winning coach of the SB were gay. He says at the SB post-game interview that he's glad they could achieve their victory in a homosexual way with homosexual beliefs. Some people would say that a SB post-game interview is not the proper forum to espouse those beliefs. Rather a gay pride rally or whatever would be more appropriate. Much like those people I don't think the SB post-game interview is the proper forum to espouse a controversial belief like Christianity.

 

So you don't want Churches to be built so that you do not have to see them on street corners? Should they be built underground? You might have a little trouble with the 1st amendment though.

 

There is a homesexual way to coach football? Interesting.

[football_scooter 0]

There is a homesexual way to coach football? Interesting.

As a Packers fan, you should know the answer to that.

 

 

 

 

zing!

[Fumbleweed 555]

Respectfully, we can't worry about everything we do "offending" someone. We are living in an age when everything seems to offend everybody. It's gotten to the point that if you open your mouth, you are being offensive.....to someone.

 

Michael Moore won an award, correct? As such, I think he earned the right to speak his mind on whatever he wanted to. The moment was his and his alone. I just don't have to like what he said. I think this point is where a lot of the argument is getting bogged down as we don't all agree that it was Dungy's moment to do with what he wanted.

[Sho Nuff 720]

That's the bit that so many here fail to comprehend. That regardless that you personally feel Dungy was fine because you personally subscribe to the same/similar religious belief system, there are millions of people in the viewing audience who were not of that faith, and could see it as an intrusion to have that thrown in their face while watching a football game.

 

Answer the question...how is it thrown in your face...how is it an intrusion to hear what another person believes?

Did he force you to believe it?

Does hearing anyone thank God or say they are proud of how they accomplished something offend you?

If he had thanked his mother and said Im glad I did it her way, would you call it inappropriate? I doubt it...so why was it inappropriate to say it with God instead of mother?

 

 

And as I stated in response earlier: it was not Dungy's platform. It was the NFL's platform, the network's platform and us, the viewing audience's platform. Dungy was the featured speaker at the moment, and IMO was inappropriately using that platform.

 

The minute the mic was stuck in his face and he was asked to speak, it became his platform. The NFL and CBS were fully aware of Dungy's beliefs.

[Fumbleweed 555]

Answer the question...how is it thrown in your face...how is it an intrusion to hear what another person believes?

Did he force you to believe it?

Does hearing anyone thank God or say they are proud of how they accomplished something offend you?

If he had thanked his mother and said Im glad I did it her way, would you call it inappropriate? I doubt it...so why was it inappropriate to say it with God instead of mother?

The minute the mic was stuck in his face and he was asked to speak, it became his platform. The NFL and CBS were fully aware of Dungy's beliefs.

 

I'm through with the hardcore debate on the subject, but I agree with everything you've said here.

[Sho Nuff 720]

As a Packers fan, you should know the answer to that.

zing!

 

Yeah...I do know the answer...which is why there is a team in San Francisco.

 

zing right back!!!

[football_scooter 0]

Yeah...I do know the answer...which is why there is a team in San Francisco.

 

zing right back!!!

 

I think we're at the point where we can agree to disagree - it's a fundamental difference of opinion. As Fumbles put it, the point we don't see eye to eye on is whether the forum was appropriate for Dungy to say anything he liked.

 

I and some others believe it was a sporting event, and with such a universally appealing forum that Dungy was inappropriate with the depth of his religious commentary - none of us have said he can't thank God...we all concede that happens all the time. But Dungy went down that road a ways past where I think it was appropriate for that forum.

 

You, Fumbles and others see nothing wrong with what he did, and I respect you all for standing by your convictions.

 

All in all, an interesting debate and we can walk away respecting the other. I'm glad this managed to go 5 pages without war breaking out - contrary to popular belief, while i enjoy spirited argument, I'm more about harmony than conflict.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Ehhh...blow the harmony out your ass.

[gszaszko 0]

 

 

All in all, an interesting debate and we can walk away respecting the other. I'm glad this managed to go 5 pages without war breaking out - contrary to popular belief, while i enjoy spirited argument, I'm more about harmony than conflict.

 

I was glad, and more than a little impressed, it didn't break out into an ideological and idiotic brawl. Of course, Mackgee does seem to be taking a break and all.

[jocstrap 8]

peace to the 10,000 + posters

 

This was a very good subject - 1st of it's kind I do believe after a superbowl victory. Nice debates on all sides, only one nutjob thrown in there, not bad.

[Raider 84 29]

That God for freedom of speech!

[VaTerp 0]

Well, it looks like this has come to a peaceful accord. I was going to make a few more comments about how ridiculous some of the arguments in this thread were . . . but seeing how everyone is getting along so well I'll just leave it alone. Fumbleweed, Sho, and Grind made good points and basically owned Scooter and Co. but its good to see him go down gracefully.

[Fumbleweed 555]

Let's shut 'er down.....