Murph & the Gays

[Guest cooby]

I'm worrying my new Elton cd is going to be corrupted in my head when I listen

[TransMonk]

RealityChuck wrote: I think the statement is better understood if you consider that Murphy probably intended "gay lifestyle" to mean "gay sex." It's not controversial that straight men don't like the idea of gay sex (otherwise they'd be gay or bi). Murphy is saying that, he doesn't like what gays do in bed, but that doesn't mean he can't be civil and friendly to a gay man.

If what you are stating were the case, then why does Murphy bring religion into the conversation? I'm not gay but I don't give any thought to what Billy Bean does in bed...much less approve or disapprove.

Also, the use of the word "lifestyle" to me implies choice. I used to smoke and eat like shit and drink a bit too much. Then I had health issues and decided to change my lifestyle to a healthier one where I don't smoke, eat better and drink less often.

[Guest cooby]

I'm betting he didn't bring the religion part up - the reporter did but left that part out

[Edgy MD]

I'm not sure how him bringing up his religion belies the notion that he's using "gay lifestyle" as a euphemism for "gay sex," which I agree he's doing, however wisely or unwisely.

I mean, clearly neither he nor his faith is speaking out against gym memberships and show tunes, highlights in the hair and Martha Stewart products in household.

[TransMonk]

Straight men disapproving of gay sex is one thing. I'm not sure I agree whole-hog with Chuck's quote: "It's not controversial that straight men don't like the idea of gay sex (otherwise they'd be gay or bi)", but that's how he is reading Murphy's statements.

Christian men disapproving of gay sex is (to me, at least) not quite that same thing.

I think Murph was taking the conversation down one road as opposed to the other. YMMV.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

Edgy MD wrote: I'm not sure how him bringing up his religion belies the notion that he's using "gay lifestyle" as a euphemism for "gay sex," which I agree he's doing, however wisely or unwisely. I mean, clearly neither he nor his faith is speaking out against gym memberships and show tunes, highlights in the hair and Martha Stewart products in household.

That's an interesting point. Is Murphy making the distinction between people who are gay, and what he thinks of as the gay "lifestyle?"

My brother is gay. (Not his choice, and the self-destructive behavior that has been a result of his own discomfort with this for many years has been painful for him and others.) I don't think he leads a different "lifestyle" than you or me. I don't know if Murphy has seen some of the parades or other flamboyant behavior in New York and thinks that is somehow representative of all people who are gay. If that's the case, meeting people like Billy Beane and realizing that not all people who are gay dress like RuPaul or look like they just stepped out of a Maplethorpe photo shoot is part of an ongoing educational process. Just like the way the Westboro Baptist Church members -- or the gun-loving rubes as described by the president -- are not representative of all Christians.

The people who will call Murphy homophobic, dismiss him as ignorant or belittle his beliefs will not help with his education. I'm hoping that someday an active player also speaks openly about his orientation, further enlightening everyone.

I would rather people who think like Murphy be enlightened through positive experiences from people like Beane and my brother, and not only pretend to have their minds changed because they fear abuse and ridicule from people who are, in some ways, equally intolerant.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Guest

[batmagadanleadoff]

Maybe I was too harsh on Murph when I wrote that he was clueless. I mean, his comment is vague enough that it could mean almost anything. So I might not know exactly what he meant even if I think I do. And besides, everybody gets judged. Everybody. People get judged for the haircut they wear. They get judged for the diner they frequent. They get judged for having too much money and they get judged for not having enough money. And nobody's ever gonna change this, especially the 20 of us on this forum in this thread. So maybe Murph should be entitled to his own opinion anyways, especially since he isn't breaking any laws and doesn't seem like the sort of guy that would settle a score with his neighbor by kidnapping his neighbor's cat. The only thing that I can be certain of that Murphy did wrong was to decide to speak his opinion into a live microphone or tape recorder for the benefit of millions of people.

I don't know.

[G-Fafif]

Gay Mets Fan Pens Open Letter to Daniel Murphy, from Mets Merized Online:

To me, you are a great baseball player who has demonstrated commitment and determination when faced with adversity. I have followed you in your quest to become an All-Star second baseman and truly admire what you have accomplished. To my son, you are more � you are a role model. I understand that may not have been something you signed up for, but for better or worse, for him and others like him, you are larger than life. Let me try to explain why what you said was not an innocuous sound byte, but rather an offensive statement. First, I do not have a lifestyle. I didn�t choose my sexuality the same way you didn�t choose yours. Second, being gay is not what defines me, but rather it is just one important part of who I am. So when you say that you disagree with who I am, you are also disagreeing with my son and my family. We are not a lifestyle choice � we are a family. Even though I am extremely disappointed and hurt by your remarks, I am grateful that you spoke your mind, as it has started a national conversation. The discussions taking place today on social media, in bars and churches, and around the dining room table are exactly how GLBT progress is achieved. I know it is hard moving to an unfamiliar position (think about your transition to second base), but with faith, openness and commitment, positive change can truly happen. Some wonder how the gay rights movement has progressed so well so fast. To me it is quite simple: once you recognize that your brother, son, neighbor, or co-worker is gay, you don�t just continue to �love him� but you learn to actually accept and respect him for who he is as a person � and that changes everything. So Mr. Murphy, thank you for starting a very important dialogue. My son and I will be travelling out from San Francisco to root on our Mets this weekend in Port St. Lucie. If you are around we would love to meet you and continue the conversation in person.

[Guest cooby]

Again, I'll bet he was coerced into sharing his views and did not have much time to think about how to state them. I mean, how do you off the cuff give your opinion on anything?

I think he did the best he could in that situation.

Again I say, I am a Christian and I have a number of gay friends and I love all my friends equally without any thought to their personal life. I hope I am speaking for the majority of Christians, but sadly I might not be. All I'm saying is I'm thinking Murphy probably has been around the block enough to encounter enough gays to be accepting of them and he was given an unfair impromptu opportunity to express his beliefs . He couldn't possibly win.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Except, y'know, he's been a professional athlete in the world's media center for seven seasons now, has been through more springs than that, had advance notice about Bean's visit, and then made himself available to the media on that particular day, right?

And then he said this, exactly (emphasis mine):

I do disagree with the fact that Billy is a homosexual. That doesn't mean I can't still invest in him and get to know him. Maybe, as a Christian, we haven't been as articulate enough in describing what our actual stance is on homosexuality. We love the people. We disagree [with] the lifestyle. That's the way I would describe it for me. It's the same way that there are aspects of my life that I'm trying to surrender to Christ in my own life. There's a great deal of many things, like my pride.

You guys are kind, considerate sorts, so I understand your striving for equanimity and even-handedness here, and feel like a prick in the ass for continually pointing this out. But, yeah, he's talking about the gay dude being gay, in esse. And his way of relating to homosexuals is that this essential-- if not definitive-- part of them is something to be excised. It's equatable to his biggest faults, his sin. At best, it's a personality flaw, something to be worked on. At worst, if left unchecked, well... it's something that'll damn them.

He may not be the sharpest Taupin in the Taupincushion, but he knows what he's saying; he just doesn't realize how it will sound to others. Perhaps this is my little, judgmental mind at work here, but I'd imagine that encounters with "the good ones" seem unlikely to change his mind on the matter; that sort of mental paradigm-shift in a grown-ass man tends to require either seismic emotional upheaval or strong personal motivation. And honestly, as a rich, straight big-C Christian family man, what motivation would he have to work on this?

Edited March 5, 2015 by Guest

[Vic Sage]

Gay Mets Fan Pens Open Letter to Daniel Murphy, from Mets Merized Online: To me, you are a great baseball player who has demonstrated commitment and determination when faced with adversity. I have followed you in your quest to become an All-Star second baseman and truly admire what you have accomplished. To my son, you are more � you are a role model. I understand that may not have been something you signed up for, but for better or worse, for him and others like him, you are larger than life. Let me try to explain why what you said was not an innocuous sound byte, but rather an offensive statement. First, I do not have a lifestyle. I didn�t choose my sexuality the same way you didn�t choose yours. Second, being gay is not what defines me, but rather it is just one important part of who I am. So when you say that you disagree with who I am, you are also disagreeing with my son and my family. We are not a lifestyle choice � we are a family. Even though I am extremely disappointed and hurt by your remarks, I am grateful that you spoke your mind, as it has started a national conversation. The discussions taking place today on social media, in bars and churches, and around the dining room table are exactly how GLBT progress is achieved. I know it is hard moving to an unfamiliar position (think about your transition to second base), but with faith, openness and commitment, positive change can truly happen. Some wonder how the gay rights movement has progressed so well so fast. To me it is quite simple: once you recognize that your brother, son, neighbor, or co-worker is gay, you don�t just continue to �love him� but you learn to actually accept and respect him for who he is as a person � and that changes everything. So Mr. Murphy, thank you for starting a very important dialogue. My son and I will be travelling out from San Francisco to root on our Mets this weekend in Port St. Lucie. If you are around we would love to meet you and continue the conversation in person.

yes, i made these points 2 pages ago and nobody really responded to them.

Ignorance isn't harmless. Religious fundamentalism isn't harmless. Not all opinions are created equal and it is not intolerant to decry intolerance. That's just bullshit sophistry and a false equivalency. You don't get to perpetuate false notions about homosexuality publicly because you think you have a sacred book that says you can.

I have no idea what kind of guy Daniel Murphy is and, frankly, neither does anybody else here. But it's irrelevant. He made a public statement that is hurtful, regardless of what we may think his intentions were. He was not joking, or kidding around, or satirizing homophobia. He meant it. And you can parse "gay lifestyle" anyway you want, but the religious right has made its position pretty clear about what they mean by that phrase, and Murphy is parroting it. It's not just about "sex" per se (masturbation and blow jobs are sins of the flesh, too, but those folks don't try to pass laws banning them). Their issue is about gayness as a way of being. They think the very impulse, the innate preference (not just the act) is a sin in and of itself that can be prayed away, or counseled away. If your nature can't (or won't) change, you should simply abstain from loving other consenting adults who may love you, too, if they are of the same gender. And you certainly shouldn't have the civil right to MARRY them. But we love you, so we're not bad people.

But this stuff stops getting propagated, and change happens, when enough people say STFU to people who spout this gibberish, not by minimizing and rationalizing this sort of harmful behavior. kids are still DYING over being who they are, some by their own hand because they can't take the ostracism and self-loathing anymore. This is not a little thing.

Hey, Murph, STFU.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Goddamn you Leiter and Sage. For being on the right side. I called Murph clueless in my first post in this thread, and then immediately felt guilty about that because I knew that my post wasn't gonna please everyone here. So I backtracked and waffled and then wrote that Murphy could have his opinion if he wanted it. And then I was mad at myself as soon as I clicked the send button on that second post for not being honest with myself. I knew I was right the first time. Murph is clueless. And the idea that he should get a free pass just because he's following his church's beliefs is absurd and counter-intuitive. If Murph's church is spreading that message, then that church should be called out as well.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: There's a Billy Bean issue? Great, Mets, you've created a Billy Bean issue.

I'm sure there's a good deal of hindsight going into what I'm about to write, (and some Wilpon antipathy, too) but the more I think about this, what the fuck were the Mets thinking? They invited an openly gay ex-player into camp for a day and created a whole event focusing on his sexual orientation, and didn't consider that one of their own dumb and narrow-minded jocks, unfiltered, and apparently unprepped, might say something colossally stupid and insensitive to a reporter covering the event?

This is #lolmets, right? Give the Mets an "A" for intent and, as usual, an "F" for execution. And that was just day one of the official Spring Training season. Between Murphy and Thor's lunch, the clueless Mets picked up right where they left off last year. Maybe Jay Horwitz is getting too old and too slow for his job.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

I don't think telling anyone "STFU" changes anyone's mind. It just means they are bullied into not talking about their perspective. Society changes through a free exchange of ideas, not one side telling another not to express its thoughts. Especially when one side is demanding tolerance and acceptance -- as long as you agree with it.

I'm proud the Mets have a Jackie Robinson Rotunda. Robinson didn't tell anyone to "STFU." He just demonstrated how they were wrong through his words and deeds and played an important role in society changing.

I'd not defending a word of what Murphy said. I disagree with him entirely. I just don't think telling people "STFU" helps.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

"STFU" is an impolite way to phrase the sentiment; it sure as hell isn't changing any minds. But, frankly, as far as facilitating day-to-day interaction goes... it works. It keeps things running, and keeps people focused on the work at hand. Hell, we are rooting for a team from a municipality that functions mostly predicated on that premise (street-level, anyway). STFU until we get to our stop. STFU and finish the deliveries. STFU and let's get through this cost analysis. STFU and turn the double play. Maybe we'll talk in the break room, when we've got a minute.

And-- really frankly-- let's set the hagiography aside for a minute: Jackie wasn't Buddha, and he wasn't Martin; he was Jack the ballplayer. Though his achievement grew to encompass and mean much more, Robinson's keeping his mouth shut began because that's what the job required.

(And really, really frankly: although everyone deserves a chance to be heard, at least once... not every idea deserves equal time.)

Anyone else want the soapbox? I feel like I've been up here for ages.

[metirish]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Anyone else want the soapbox? I feel like I've been up here for ages.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

"STFU" is an impolite way to phrase the sentiment; it sure as hell isn't changing any minds. But, frankly, as far as facilitating day-to-day interaction goes... it works. It keeps things running, and keeps people focused on the work at hand. Hell, we are rooting for a team from a municipality that functions mostly predicated on that premise (street-level, anyway). STFU until we get to our stop. STFU and finish the deliveries. STFU and let's get through this cost analysis. STFU and turn the double play. Maybe we'll talk in the break room, when we've got a minute. And-- really frankly-- let's set the hagiography aside for a minute: Jackie wasn't Buddha, and he wasn't Martin; he was Jack the ballplayer. Though his achievement grew to encompass and mean much more, Robinson's keeping his mouth shut began because that's what the job required. (And really, really frankly: although everyone deserves a chance to be heard, at least once... not every idea deserves equal time.) Anyone else want the soapbox? I feel like I've been up here for ages.

The whole point of bringing Beane to spring training -- in fact, the entire focus of his job as MLB director if inclusion, or whatever it is -- is to encourage such discussions as a way to break down barriers. Saying, "You are wrong, and I don't think you're point of view deserves equal time, and because I think you are wrong you are ignorant, so STFU," only continues to build those barriers.

[metsmarathon]

thre's two sides to the argument about STFU.

on the one hand, there's the whole, STFU and do your job. you're not being paid to be a philosopher or a theologist. you're being paid to be a ball player, or a bricklayer, or a dentist. so STFU and do that job, and stop letting your mouth get in the way or hitting a ball, building a wall, or filling a cavity.

on the other hand, there's the greater context of expressing differing views in a peaceable democratic society. and in that context, ideally, the expression of differing views can lead to outdated or outmoded ideas being pushed to the wayside, as hearts and minds are changed for the better. and in that context, STFU doesn't really work out so well. instead it can lead to defensive positions being taken, harder stances being forged in the crucible of public ridicule. it can lead to backlash.

the end goal is to seek understanding and acceptance, not fearful submission.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: The whole point of bringing Beane to spring training -- in fact, the entire focus of his job as MLB director if inclusion, or whatever it is -- is to encourage such discussions as a way to break down barriers. Saying, "You are wrong, and I don't think you're point of view deserves equal time, and because I think you are wrong you are ignorant, so STFU," only continues to build those barriers.

I'm not certain that was the whole point of bringing him in, but... fair enough. I was speaking more generally, anyway. When I say STFU about public figures, I'm not arguing against self-expression (obviously); I'm arguing against the Right to a Forum and asserting that not everybody deserves the same-- or any-- time in front of a microphone about a particular topic (without regard to who the famous speaker is, and what their expertise/ability to critically-think extemporaneously is).

[Edgy MD]

metsmarathon wrote: on the one hand, there's the whole, STFU and do your job. you're not being paid to be a philosopher or a theologist.

Theologian, man. Nobody's used theologist since like 1710. STFU.

[Vic Sage]

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I don't think telling anyone "STFU" changes anyone's mind. It just means they are bullied into not talking about their perspective. Society changes through a free exchange of ideas, not one side telling another not to express its thoughts. Especially when one side is demanding tolerance and acceptance -- as long as you agree with it. I'm proud the Mets have a Jackie Robinson Rotunda. Robinson didn't tell anyone to "STFU." He just demonstrated how they were wrong through his words and deeds and played an important role in society changing. I'd not defending a word of what Murphy said. I disagree with him entirely. I just don't think telling people "STFU" helps.

If you cannot or will not see the qualitative difference between being intolerant of certain ideas that harm other people (like racism, sexism, anti-semitism, and homophobia) and being intolerant of other human beings for being what they are, if you insist on making this false equivalency, then our free exchange of ideas isn't going to get very far.

If a philosophy requires Murphy to deny the humanity of others, then it's on MURPHY to change his philosophy, not on me or the rest of society to tolerate it. "I'm entitled to my opinion!" the hateful and stupid will always shout. And they are. I defend their right to be wrong, for Nazis to march in Skokie, for the Klan to don their robes at their local chapter meetings down at the Racoon Lodge. I've written amicus briefs for the ACLU defending that right. But their right is only to be free of governmental restriction or penalty for their views, not a right to avoid criticism. It's a right that is coupled with the requirement that they take responsibility for their words, should they choose to declare them publicly. And it is a perfectly fair and reasonable response for someone to respond to such bigotry with a "STFU you assclown"

I'm all fore a free exchange of ideas. I'm a First Amendment absolutist with documentation to prove it. But the idea that certain people are lesser than because of who they are (not what they THINK, but who they ARE) is an idea that has been freely exchanged quite enough in human history. When people support such views with their holy books, rationality has flown out the window and debate is not possible. The more such ideas continue to be "freely exchanged", the more actual physical harm it does to actual real people. It ceases being a purely philosophical question. And society doesn't change by debating the undebatable (a debate is an argument based on rational and logical principles, not dogma derived from sacred texts whose truths are determined by faith, not reasoning). Society changes when it says "enough already with what you think your god thinks," and ceases to find such views acceptable in civilized company.

Yes, telling a person to STFU doesn't change that person's mind. But it may change the mind of others who feel similarly about spouting their ignorance out loud. And if you can drive ignorance out of the public discourse, then after a few generations people wonder why anybody ever felt that way in the first place. Has racism disappeared? Of course not. But its certainly changed in the last 50 years, and for the better. Such views are whispered, not shouted, and they don't become legislation any more (accept among the "Tea Party", but that's a different conversation). But while there are still states in America that deny certain consenting adults the right to marry, while our high schools are still shutting down productions of a play because it may suggest that 2 men might be in love (see ALMOST, MAINE, in Maiden High School, NC - oh, wait, you couldn't; the church got the principal to cancel it), while gay-bashing is still a thing, while teachers and others hide in a closet for fear of losing their jobs or the respect of their communities, and while kids are still killing themselves because they've internalized this hate, then the time for tolerating intolerance is past (if there was ever any such time to begin with).

And yes, your mileage may vary.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

But while there are still states in America that deny certain consenting adults the right to marry, while our high schools are still shutting down productions of a play because it may suggest that 2 men might be in love (see ALMOST, MAINE, in Maiden High School, NC - oh, wait, you couldn't; the church got the principal to cancel it), while gay-bashing is still a thing, while teachers and others hide in a closet for fear of losing their jobs or the respect of their communities, and while kids are still killing themselves because they've internalized this hate, then the time for tolerating intolerance is past (if there was ever any such time to begin with).

With the play, your beef should be with the school, not a church. (And I say "a church" and not "the church" because the meaning is very different. My church allows gay pastors.) A church has the right to ask that the school not present the play. The school has the right -- and responsibility -- to determine what programs it wishes to allow students to produce. If there was an objection from someone in the community, the school had an opportunity for a teachable moment and a discussion that might have led to the opening of some minds. By caving, the school perpetuates the idea that the kissing is wrong.

Those opportunities for discussion and education can lead to situations where teachers no longer have to hide in closets and where kids no longer internalize the hate. I'd rather have the shouting than the whispers. Shouting leads to discussion and change. Whispers extend the problems. Saying the time for tolerating intolerance is great as long as your views are the ones being tolerated.

Edited March 6, 2015 by Guest

[batmagadanleadoff]

Lemme start some more trouble here.

Americans are turning away from organized religion in record numbers (And thank god for that. Hey! That's my joke. Me! batmags. Get it? "Thank God"? Because there ain't supposed to be a god.)
Lynn Parramore, AlterNet
02 Mar 2015 at 21:58 ET

With fire-breathing religion figuring anew in global conflicts, and political discussions at home often dominated by the nuttery of the Christian right, you might get the sense that somebody�s god is ready to mug you around every street corner. But if you�re the type who doesn�t like to hang your hat on organized religion, here�s a bit of good news: in America, your numbers are growing. There are more religiously unaffiliated people in the U.S. today than ever before. Starting in the 1980s, a variety of polls using different methodologies have come to the same conclusion: people who do not identify with religious labels are on the rise, perhaps even doubling in that time frame. Some call them �nones�: agnostics, atheists, deists, secular humanists, general humanists, and people who just don�t care to identify with any religious group. It�s not exactly correct to call them nonbelievers, because some still have faith and spirituality in some sense or another. A 2012 Pew study noted that 30 percent of these people believe in �God or universal spirit� and around 20 percent even pray every day. But according to the latest research, Americans checking the �none of the above� box will make up an increasingly important force in the country. Other groups, like born-again evangelicals, have grown more percentage-wise, but the nones have them beat in absolute numbers. The nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute has documented this sea change in its American Values Atlas, which it released last Wednesday. The fascinating study provides demographic, religious and political data based on surveys conducted throughout 2014. According to PRRI director of research Dan Cox, �The U.S. religious landscape is undergoing a dramatic transformation that is fundamentally reshaping American politics and culture.� Last year, for the very first time, Protestants lost their majority status in the Institute�s annual report, making up only 47 percent of those surveyed. The religiously unaffiliated, who come in at 22 percent, boast numbers on par with major religious groups like American Catholics. All told, the unaffiliated is the second-largest group in the country. It was also the most common group chosen by residents in 13 states, with the largest share (a third or more) in Washington, Oregon and New Hampshire. In Ohio and Virginia, this group was tied for first place. The unaffiliated don�t find too many like-minded folks down in Mississippi, however, where they make up only 10 percent of the population. The study also found that there are 15 states where the unaffiliated constitute the second-largest group. So what do we know about these people? Nones tend to be more politically liberal � three-quarters favor same-sex marriage and legal abortion. They also have higher levels of education and income than other groups. While about one out of five Americans is unaffiliated, the number is much higher among young people: Pew research shows that a third of Americans under 30 have no religious affiliation. Harvard professor Robert Putnam, who studies religion, thinks the trend among younger people is part of their general lack of interest in community institutions and institutions in general. Last year, the Washington Post ran an article citing research by Allen Downey, a professor of computer science at Massachusetts� Olin College of Engineering, who claims that people become nones mainly for two reasons: lack of religious upbringing (OMG those hippie parents!) and� the Internet. According to Downey, as much as 20 percent of unaffiliation is attributable to Internet use. He found that between 1990 and 2010, the share of Americans claiming no religious affiliation grew from 8 percent to 18 percent while the number of Americans surfing the Web jumped from almost nothing to 80 percent. But he acknowledges, as his critics are quick to point out, that correlation does not causation make. One thing is certain: voting nones are making their presence felt in politics. They are thought to have helped Obama win a second term. But the GOP doesn�t seem to show many signs of reducing the outsized influence of white evangelicals, who represent only 18 percent of the population, at least publicly. Just a couple of weeks ago, presidential hopeful Scott Walker could be seen refusing to answer a question about evolution, as if embracing widely accepted science would make him an apostate. Ordained Southern Baptist Mike Huckabee, also making noises of running, just released a book titled God, Guns, Grits, and Gravy, which kind of makes the Lord sound like the Great Bubba in the sky. But on the secretive big money donor trail, which all serious candidates must follow, the only religion they�ll be talking about much is free market fundamentalism. Your libertarians, your supply siders, and your various fatcats care a whole lot more about their bank accounts than any spiritual reckonings. Getting the government out of their way to leave them to their plundering is their holy scripture. But when talking to voters, the GOP really can�t afford to tone it down, because while monied elites tend to be secular, selling free-market pillage to the people getting robbed is not a very effective strategy. So they still have to mask their agenda behind appeals to popular religion so the non-rich will vote against their economic interests in places like Tennessee, which has the highest share of white evangelicals, at 43 percent. (White mainline Protestants account for 14 percent of the population nationally.) As you might expect, the fact that religion is losing its grip on the daily lives of Americans is freaking a lot of people out. The New York Times� David Brooks is quite alarmed, admonishing nones that �secularism has to do for nonbelievers what religion does for believers � arouse the higher emotions, exalt the passions in pursuit of moral action.� Of course, secularists only form one portion of the unaffiliated group, but considering that Mr. Brooks likes to wax on about the moral probity of America�s founders � your George Washingtons and so on � he might ask himself which box they might have checked.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/americans-are-turning-away-from-organized-religion-in-record-numbers/

[G-Fafif]

In case any of this is still an issue (because I assume it's been solved), Jason and I took our time and presented some thoughts here (Jason's) and here (mine).

[batmagadanleadoff]

Enlightened comments from the comments section of a Christian web-site commenting on the Murphy incident :

Baseballmomof8 � 18 hours ago Murphy did not speak HIS truth. He spoke THE Truth. Alfred Johnson � 19 hours ago Trust those in charge to ruin a moment of respect and actual tolerance between two people of vastly different views. It's a bit like those people who insist on BCE and CE instead of BC and AD, or try to remove nativity scenes at Christmas - they're scared of other people being offended by Christianity despite what the other people actually think. Rev. Alan B. Maria Wharton � 17 hours ago This is not about Billy Bean or Daniel Murphy. This is about the fact that Major League Baseball has signed on to the New World Order social engineering program of normalizing homosexuality and suppressing Christian freedom. One player is free to make public issue of his openly homosexual lifestyle - a matter of moral consequence - while another player is reprimanded for expressing his religious belief that the homosexual lifestyle is immoral. Both of them have a moral opinion, so why is one free to express his views and the other not? The reason is that homosexuality fits into the NWO view of the future, where natural families are suppressed; religious expression threatens the acceptance of the future they are seeking to construct. Unfortunately for America, MLB has decided to lend itself to suppression of religious freedom, freedom of speech, and (perhaps unwittingly) of the family, while promoting the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle. The phrase �as American as Mom, baseball, and apple pie� is going to lose a lot of its meaning for many Americans. Thank heavens we can at least still agree on apple pie. Again, this is not about either of the two players involved. Rather, it is symbolic of the values in play. Godsaves70 Rev. Alan B. Maria Wharton � 5 hours ago You are correct! michael hall Rev. Alan B. Maria Wharton � 10 hours ago Well put � DG � 18 hours ago Would it be OK to express one's natural law views regarding homosexuality? After all, natural law is based on reason alone, rather than on any religious deposit of faith. Or is reason also now banned by the Mets? frrapper � 5 hours ago Goodbye Visa; goodbye Mets. Joseph Ferreira � 2 hours ago Not to worry. He can still express his views on lying, stealing, fornication without being accused of hating liars, thieves fornicators and so on. Just not the homosexual thing of course. I feel truly sorry for the once great USA. True conservatives need to ditch the Republican Party. They're just stringing you all along. Form a new party and let the GOP die. The GOP is really just right of the Dems. Sure they talk a good fight but when it comes down to it. they never go to the mat for unborn babies or marriage. Even Ben Carson has shrunk from expressing his views on homosexuality now. saa5of5 � 4 hours ago This is a pretty good example of the actual person with same sex attraction not being the "problem" but rather those who are pushy and loud who fear an open discussion, insisting a difference in understanding is hateful or "homophobic." Here's a great open discussion: http://gloria.tv/media/N5p8pV9... countypa � 20 hours ago The gays run the USA.....What Next...(dirtandmoredirt com)

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ny-mets-silence-christian-baseball-player-for-expressing-acceptance-but-dis

[batmagadanleadoff]

Former SI cover boy, college football superduperstar and US senate candidate Craig James weighs in on the Murphy incident:



excerpt:

Former New England Patriots running back Craig James spoke out against gay marriage on Monday and asserted that those who support same-sex unions "have a problem with God" and are giving in to Satan.... James then stated that he's read and studied the book of Genesis and commented that the story of Adam and Eve shows that if someone supports gay marriage, they have "a problem with God."

http://www.christianpost.com/news/craig-james-says-support-for-gay-marriage-is-satan-working-on-us-135480/

[Lefty Specialist]

Unfortunately for America, MLB has decided to lend itself to suppression of religious freedom, freedom of speech, and (perhaps unwittingly) of the family, while promoting the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle. The phrase �as American as Mom, baseball, and apple pie� is going to lose a lot of its meaning for many Americans. Thank heavens we can at least still agree on apple pie.

Mmmmm....pie.

Boy, I blamed Bud Selig for a lot of things, but suppression (perhaps unwittingly) of the family wasn't one of them.

Get these people some brown bags to breathe into. They deal with gay people every day and are probably too dense to know it.

Or is reason also now banned by the Mets?

Well, obviously DG hasn't been watching the Mets for the past few years....

[ashie62]

I just want 94 wins.

[Frayed Knot]

"One player is free to make public issue of his openly homosexual lifestyle - a matter of moral consequence - while another player is reprimanded for expressing his religious belief that the homosexual lifestyle is immoral."

I missed the part where Murphy was reprimanded.

[Ceetar]

mostly worthless post in teh patriotpost too as long as we're bringing it up.

https://patriotpost.us/posts/33739

Professional baseball player Daniel Murphy is a second baseman for the New York Mets. �When the League appointed his teammate (and open homosexual) Billy Bean as its �ambassador of inclusion,�� writes Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, �Murphy wasn�t about to sit on the sidelines.�