So let me get this straight...
Chris Broussard is allowed to be on TV talking about how offensive Donald Sterling is, but its ok for ESPN to continue to have him on there despite the fact he is the president of an anti-gay ministry?
I am not by any means saying Sterling is not in the wrong. Of course he is. Now personally, I have read plenty about Sterling and this is the least bit surprising but sadening and pathetic none the less. But Broussard has his own issues, and I wish espn would stop acting like he is just "speaking freely", when the way Clippers players must be offended that their owner is complete racist and fool, Jason Collins should be offended every time this bigot idiot is in his lockerroom.
I was definitely expecting to click this thread and see the next words as "you put the lime in the coconut"...
I'm not in America so I don't know as much about these issues in your society. But from an outsiders perspective...this is what I see.
1) Donald Sterling is an old man with out-dated values. This is prevalent in his generation and unfortunately he's too old to change. He's wrong, he's unpopular and he'll get beaten to a pulp for it. But his generation is thinning out, and being replaced by a newer, more tolerant generation. So have some patience my multi-racial American Friends.
2) TMZ - What do shows like this say about your national culture? It's a disgrace. This was the biggest set-up on an old man who was already unpopular I've ever seen. People from foreign countries such as myself see this garbage and shake our head. Hollywood doesn't portray your society in a very positive light at times.
3) I bet Colonel Sanders wasn't racist. Thanks for the KFC my US friends. They include potato and gravy over there in the 3-piece dinner box over there? Mmmm
One of the best posts ever !
somebody is calling out Broussard on this or at least I hope so. The only difference is Broussard owned his bigotry and then quoted why religiously he believed it. I still think that qualifies you as a bigot and makes it even worse because you can't even grow from your bigotry because its dogmatically engrained. If Sterling owned it like Broussard I would still think he is a bigot but I would respect him more ( I mean he doesn't hide it much but a soliloquy in public saying why you are rascist would be fun to see). Society has to find ways for people to unveil there bigotry, so it can be challenged. (IDK how you incentivize open bigotry but I would rather have it out in the open then in the closet)
The best thing about this is now I get to have a good conversation with my 9 year old son about it.
Even know these are not positive situations by any means I draw alot of positives from them. Sounds crazy a homophobic sports announcer "in gods name" and an ancient jewish billionaire who thinks he is a slave owner...hard to find any positives.
Yet if you think about it this really shows how much we are advancing as a society here in North America, the mixing pot of the world. Today something like this is disgusting and criminal. 600 years ago when Donald Sterling was born it was a way of life and generally accepted by all parties. This shows major progression.
It is almost safe to say with the current tolerance for these actions af an extreme minimun when we are all buried, incinerated, decomposed and gone the generations after us will not consider race as a dividing factor within society.
Hopefully sooner than later.
"Personally, I don't believe that you can live an openly homosexual lifestyle or an openly premarital sex between heterosexuals, if you're openly living that type of lifestyle, then the Bible says you know them by their fruits, it says that's a sin. If you're openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, not just homosexuality, adultery, fornication, premarital sex between heterosexuals, whatever it may be, I believe that's walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ. I would not characterize that person as a Christian because I do not think the Bible would characterize them as a Christian."
- Chris Broussard, following Jason Collins coming out.
I don't know if I have a problem with what Broussard said. He claimed that he doesn't view openly gay people as Christian, because being gay conflicts with Christian values. I think he has an argument. Keep in mind that he's also said the following on the same subject:
"Just like I may tolerate someone whose lifestyle I disagree with, he can tolerate my beliefs. He disagrees with my beliefs and my lifestyle but true tolerance and acceptance is being able to handle that as mature adults and not criticize each other and call each other names."
- Talking about his relationship with (openly-gay) co-worker LZ Granderson
"I believe Jason Collins displayed bravery with his announcement today and I have no objection to him or anyone else playing in the NBA."
I think Broussard's views are misguided, but they're the product of Christianity. As far as I know, he's hasn't tried to supress gay-rights or personally attack anyone in particular. He's been respectful, and that alone sets him apart from Sterling. Is it hypocritical of him to be so outraged at this incident? Perhaps, but that shouldn't void his opinion either way.
Thank you! I dont see anything wrong with what Broussard said. He didnt attack anyone, only stated his beliefs and explained why he has those beliefs.
Respectful? This is still spitting in the face of anyone who is gay. Just because he wasn't vulgar about doesn't make it respectful.
First he puts gay people on par with cheaters (even monogamous gay people), says they need to apologize (unrepentant sin), and then... amazingly, claims they can't be Christian. Really? Sure, if you break the law, cheat on your spouse... heck, murder someone, and you can still be Christian. But not gay people? THAT is where he shows his true colors. In his view, being gay is the only sin that cancels you out of the Christian religion. How is that not offensive? How is that respectful?
The Christian religion believes you can't get into heaven unless you're Christian. By saying that gay people can't be Christian, he found a covert way of saying all gay people are going to hell.
What he's said, like all others who espouse the same dribble, IS damaging to the rights of gay people. In 1954 when people fought segregation all those who spoke against equality were threatening the rights of others by affecting the public mood and discourse. Yes, his speech attempts to chip away at gay-rights. It's just another person... and more importantly... a famous person getting more anti-gay dialogue circulating our country that can later be picked up and used by children. Speech changes things.
I don't care if he's a byproduct of his religion. I'm Christian too. If you're the byproduct of abusive parents, you don't have the right to beat people when you're an adult. He is accountable for what he says now.
The main difference between Broussard and Sterling is that Sterling's beliefs are less publically acceptable and Sterling speaks more bluntly.
"First he puts gay people on par with cheaters (even monogamous gay people), says they need to apologize (unrepentant sin), and then... amazingly, claims they can't be Christian. Really? Sure, if you break the law, cheat on your spouse... heck, murder someone, and you can still be Christian. But not gay people? THAT is where he shows his true colors. In his view, being gay is the only sin that cancels you out of the Christian religion. How is that not offensive? How is that respectful?"
No, he also mentioned that premarital sex is an "open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ". I posted his exact words in the post you replied to.
As for him saying that openly-gay people cannot be Christian in his eyes, I can see how Christians may object to that. Many people choose to focus on what Christ wanted to teach, which was tolerance and love (as far as I know, he never openly condemned homosexuality). Other Christians choose to take a more fundamentalist approach and take the bible literally. I'm not Christian, so I don't think I have a stake in this specific discussion; but as long as you aren't harming anybody, I don't think there's any wrong way to be a Christian.
Which brings us to your main point: Is Chris Broussard harming gay people with his views on the subject? He never said that Jason Collins shouldn't play in the NBA. He never said that gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married or adopt children. He never claimed that gay people were wicked. He never even (really) said it was wrong. He only said the act went against his personal belief system.
If he said that Jason Collins shouldn't be allowed to play because he would make locker rooms uncomfortable or that this was all part of a gay-agenda that's going to ruin the country; I would have been the first to criticize the man. However, all he did was state his opinion. No toxic bull&$#%#&@!, or trying to justify it with hate, he just said that he thinks that his God is against it. It's respectful, if only relatively so compared to so many other anti-gay groups.
I don't know much about Chris Broussard, but I think his opinion should be respected. Gay-rights supporters shouldn't shame or insult people on the other side of debate unless they really have it coming (Westboro, or that &$#%#&@! Rick Santorum, for example). If we just slam everybody who doesn't completely agree with us, then we're being intolerant too. That creates a divide, when as a culture we need to try to bridge that gap. That's why I think it's okay if people disagree with the gay lifestyle, as long as they aren't trying to take away the rights that everybody should deserve.
I understand where you're coming from and disagree with Broussard, but I don't think that he should be labeled as a bigot for what he said.
No matter how many times I read the quote, I still see that he’s talking about gay people, that is the topic and that’s who he’s saying can’t go to heaven. Yes, that opinion is DIVISIVE. He is being divisive, not me… and you are defending his divisive statements. You are claiming we should “bridge the gap” when you are standing there defending the divisiveness itself.
Let’s not pretend what is right is finding the balance between tolerance and intolerance. Tolerance is right and intolerance isn’t. We don’t need to bridge that gap. Intolerance needs to cave. We don’t need to defend the intolerant, we need to defend those who are not being tolerated.
Due to religious beliefs, in 1957, Orval Faubus refused to let nine black children go to school with white kids. While I’m sure you would side with federal law, would you defend Faubus right to his beliefs if he “respectfully” expressed his reasons for keeping races separate? Would you try to “bridge the gap” and get me to understand his point of view?
Broussard is publically diminishing the standing of a group of people to the masses and that is HARMFUL. It is an idea that spreads, is repeated, gets into the public discourse, and gives a defense for those who are intolerant and can be used as a weapon against gay people.
We see the "divisiveness" differently, and I think we'd define the word "tolerance" differently as well.
Our primary disagreement is the line where a belief stops being an opinion and becomes toxic. I see Broussard on one side of the line, you see him on the other. I think it's clear we'd both view Sterling and Faubus on the same side though, so I won't engage your hypothetical.
I appreciate your arguments, and think this is an important conversation to have. Lots of food for thought in this topic.
I don't want to make it a religous discussion here, but the Pope (who is the leader of catholicism, a christian religion) said that gay people should be considered christians if they look for God. So clearly generalizing christians as intolerant people is incorrect as well.
Did I claim that all Christians were intolerant? That wasn't my intention.
Pope Francis is pretty liberal relative to other Popes, but he still fights against gay rights:
"Let's not be naive: This is not a simple political fight; it is a destructive proposal to God's plan. This is not a mere legislative proposal (that's just its form), but a move by the father of lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God ... Let's look to St. Joseph, Mary, and the Child to ask fervently that they defend the Argentine family in this moment... May they support, defend, and accompany us in this war of God."
I'm having a hard time understanding how Chris Broussard compares to Donald Sterling?
Just because you believe homosexuality is a sin doesn't mean you dislike, hate or bash gay people. I know plenty of Christians who are friends with homosexual people.
This old man Sterling was mad his girlfriend took a picture with a black man. Told her don't bring black people to his games. He has a history of being unfair to blacks and minorities. Has no problems making money off of black basketball players, but doesn't want black people or other minorities at his games. This guy is the definition of a bigot.
You may not agree with Broussards beliefs of what's a sin or what's not, but I think you're REALLY reaching trying to compare him to this creep.
No, Chris Broussard is the definition of a creep. Look up the KING ministry if you don't believe me.
The whole "belief" thing is bs. If you want to reach for "The bible says homosexuality is bad" then you can also reach for parts of the bible that talked about slaves.
Also, the pope has said "Who is he to judge" gay people, so if the leader of the Catholic religion doesn't have a problem with it, its nothing more than a weak excuse to hide behind thinkings its a sin. Again, you can't say that being against homosexuality is different than being against racism. Its not.
Just because you believe homosexuality is a sin doesn't mean you dislike, hate or bash gay people. I know plenty of Christians who are friends with homosexual people.
That is because your friends aren't stupid. You can easily believe in Christianity, and live a Christian life, and not waste your time judging other people. Chris Broussard has clearly done that. Look it up.
If you believe Chris Broussard is a creep because he believes what's in the bible, then there are millions upon millions of creeps all over this world. I didn't find anything on KING ministry. Regardless... There's no way that Broussard, a man who hasn't bashed or treated gay people or anyone else unequally compares to a man who's bashed blacks/minorities, settled cases for discrimination and treated people unequally.
The last thing I feel like doing is getting into a debate with somebody about the bible, but when it comes to slavery in the bible, you have to understand that slavery in the biblical times wasn't like the slavery of black people. Black people were enslaved strictly because of the color of their skin and white people literally believed they were inferior human beings. It was forced slavery. Back in the new testament times, "slaves" were like doctors, lawyers, politicians, etc. People actually voluntarily sold themselves into "slavery" to pay off their debts or take care of their families. It wasn't race based nor forced. The bible condemed race based and forced slavery. I mean, look at the slavery the Hebrews experienced while in Egypt.
And as far as the Pope... I mean, he may not judge homosexuals, but according to the catholic church (look it up), homosexuality is a sin. However, homosexuals are still encouraged to come to church. I mean, it's no different in Christianity.
You may not like what Broussard believes in and that's your business. But you can't compare a man who's TREATED people unequally and bashed people to one who hasn't. That doesn't make a lot of sense in my opinion.
Here is KING's "manifesto" that Chris wrote:
This is creepy stuff. Not some regular christian/catholic guy.
All of your points about how the bible's view on slavery has nothing to do with today's times because they are so different is exactly the same with homosexuality. Last time I checked, that part of the bible wasn't written in the 2000s.
You can believe whatever you want to, and I couldn't careless what you believe in for yourself. But anyone who has a problem with someone else being gay is a bigot, plain and simple, and there is no excuse.
I also liked how you just shook off the Pope's feelings like they aren't important. If the guy who leads the Catholic church doesn't have a problem with it, its amazing to me how all the bigots out there like you have to come in to defend anti-gay bullshyyt.
My point was about Broussard, who is a self-admitted bigot and a creep. Yes I have a problem with him commenting on another guy's bigotry. Its hypocritical. You can defend this crap all you want because its clear you agree with the view that its okay to say being gay is wrong as long as you pull the "sin" card, but what people time and time again fail to realize is that they can believe whatever they want. But that has nothing to do with what other people do.
Bigots like me??? So now I'M the bigot lol? I'm a bigot because I don't think a guy who hasn't discriminated against anyone, bashed or treated anyone unfairly compares to someone who has?
Smh. Convo over.
You were same guy whining when Collins came out over a year ago.
Chris Broussard does discriminate against gay people. If you honestly believe he doesn't, then you are probably the most foolish and gullible person on this entire website. His entire response to Collins coming out was discriminatory. Just stop.
A bigot is someone who is intolerant or hateful of a belief, idea, or creed other than their own. Chris Broussard sounded tolerant of homosexuals in the NBA, and never says he hates homosexuals or has a problem with homosexuals. Broussard believes homosexuality is a sin because of his particular faith in God. He also believes premarital sex makes you a sinner as well. Broussard simply stated exactly what the Christian Bible says is a sin. I'm not a Christian by any means but Broussard wasn't being hateful towards homosexuals in any way. He was simply saying that as a Christian man he doesn't believe it's right to be a homosexual because of the wording in the Bible, which he believes is the true word of God. He's a fundamentalist Christian meaning that anyone deviating from the morals set by the word of God ( the Bible) is leading a sinful life.
There is a lot of tolerance that needs to be had in a free society. One of them is the freedom of speech and religion. Broussard is not promoting hate or intolerance in any way! Now I don't know Broussard personally, he may be a bigot. But he can't be compared to Sterling in this instance, from what we know he doesn't tell people he is close with to avoid homosexual people, as Donald Sterling told his girlfriend to avoid black people. He states in his interview that he has zero problem with homosexuals playing in the NBA. He also states that he has a friendly relationship with LZ Granderson and enjoys hanging out with him.
This is very well written and actually makes me respect your point of view on it because it is logical.
My problem with the entire idea is this. The bible was written by man, not by god. So saying that Collins, by being gay, is "in an open rebellion against god"is not fair to me, and it is still bigotry to me when he makes a statement like that.
I also find it odd (to me) that the first line in a manifesto for a religious group is about sexual purity, specifically that you cannot engage in homosexuality. To me, in my mind, if I am starting some kind of religious group, that isn't the first paragraph that I'm writing. But apparently I am in the minority.
Broussard offends me personally, I am not gay, but I hate people who believe that being gay is something that is wrong. No matter what your reason is, whether you are religious or just some redneck scumbag, it is a point of view I have no respect for. Anyone can lead a Christian life without being worried about if other people are gay or not, and I think the Pope's take on that is very accurate to what I would think true followers of god would believe in.
When I see him on TV reacting to Sterling, who is 100% wrong in all of this, it just upsets me that this is the same guy who is clearly predjudice against another group himself. I have read about Chris. I have read about his group. I have heard everything he has said on TV about his feelings on this topic. Maybe he hasn't straight forward said "I'm a bigot" but the writing is on the wall. I also find it amazing that ESPN has tons of NBA writers, tons of college football writers, and tons of NFL writers, but Chris is the only one in either the Collins or Michael Sam case to go on Tv to air his negative feelings torwards this. Is no one else at ESPN christian? Does no one else at ESPN live a heterosexual lifestyle? No, but no one else at ESPN runs a ministry that's main bullet point is don't be gay. If you are okay with Chris, then I am sorry if my comparison offended you.
Thanks and I understand your point of view. This is a really heated discussion topic in the world today. Fundamentalist Christians are a really outspoken group of people. I know some and that's how I know all about their beliefs. They do sound intolerant at times because they like to tell people they are going to hell for doing X, Y, and Z.
I'm not gay but I am a sinner according to fundamentalist Christians that I know. Now I don't love being told that God looks down on things I do as a sin or that I'm going to hell for having sex before marriage or anything else but if they aren't making law against certain sins or threatening to hurt me or openly expressing hate towards me then I can't call them hateful. This also does not mean that some Christians out there are not hateful. There are plenty of Christian biggots, I just am not seeing how Broussard is expressing intolerance or hate. Even LZ Granderson spends time with him and they have discussed these issues before so I doubt Broussard is a hateful person. However we don't know how he is behind closed doors.
I look at it this way. Fundamentalist Christians aren't bigots because they don't hate you for being gay. Or for being an adulterer. Or for being a murderer. They want to change your heart. They think they are helping you by stating their beliefs. They want people to be like them because they honestly believe all of us sinners are going to Hell. They don't want to see this happen and they feel the moral laws in society are fading away. Now obviously to us non Christian people that sounds crazy and ridiculous. But people like Broussard do not mean to exclude people from society at large or send them to death by hanging.
They are simply saying yes we tolerate and even love sinners but we are warning you that you will not be going to Heaven if you continue in your sinful ways. Thanks for the warning Christians but meh I don't lose sleep at night over their warnings. However I might lose sleep over hateful people like Sterling running the world. This guy is rich and influential, it is kind of alarming that many of these extremely wealthy white people behind closed doors might feel this way towards black people. They can influence laws and decisions in society. He basically talks about black people as if they are circus animals and that is completely wrong and disgusting. I was really alarmed by that attitude even more so than people with openly ugly language towards black people. He basically is dehumanizing a group of people which is scary.
Broussard is singling out gay people, saying that he's a Christian and they can't be (which insinuates they can't go to heaven for being gay... so they go to hell). Meanwhile, all others are allowed to be Christian (rapists, murderers, thieves. ec.)... but not gay people. That's interesting. Maybe it's just because he's a bigot. Only gay people are exempt.
This isn't about believing or not believing in the Bible. What he is showing by excluding gay people from his heaven list is that he believes they are lesser. It doesn't matter how nice you say it, it still means the same thing. By making these statements he is TREATING gay people unequally.
The bible is all about interpreting things however you want and forgetting or diminishing whatever doesn't fit while accepting what you choose to listen to. The bible is whatever you want it to be.
Which is exactly why it's weird when people take it so literally with the homosexual stuff. The bible contains a lot of stupid sh!t. This is about Sterling though and I think it's blatantly obvious he's in the wrong here and that the NBA should do what they can to punish him.
Good point. I agree with that completely llperez. Certain sects of Christians feel like they know exactly what the Bible says and there is no other interpretation which I think is wrong.
The point is that as long as the Christians or any other religion isn't &$#%#&@! in my cheerios or other people's cheerios then I don't care what they believe. We have to allow weird archaic ideas to exist as long as they aren't causing harm to other people. I don't feel like Broussard would be ok with harming LZ Granderson or Jason Collins. I feel like Donald Sterling could watch a black man being beaten and not even bat an eyelash. Scary but that's how Sterling comes off.
It sound like you have a serious Cherios problem.
I'm briefly going to put on my philosophy prick hat and mention that this statement could be used for anything and it would still be true. Everything is only how it's interpreted. If a tree falls in a forest, if you meet the Buddha on the road, etc...
"The ______ is all about interpreting things however you want and forgetting or diminishing whatever doesn't fit while accepting what you choose to listen to. The _____ is whatever you want it to be."
The bible is an interesting case though. It was originally written by 40 different men in an effort to help guide people through life. It has since been altered and translated countless times by numerous people with who-knows-what kind of agenda. Taking it literally seems foolish (the Earth is obviously more than 6,000 years old and females should be allowed to teach), but there's still some wisdom to salvage in there, and it seems to help certain types of people.
How about turning the other cheek.
I don't know much about the bible,but I know that's in there.
Your posts in this thread were GREAT and I enjoyed reading them. I think probably the best posts on this topic that I've ever seen on this website or in a lot of places to be honest. You really broke it down and you did it in a way without bashing somebody else's beliefs, calling people idiots, etc. And you know what you're talking about too. One thing I can't stand is people who have a lot to say, but have no clue what they're talking about.
Neg away if you're against tolerance.
Hey guys... how about we discuss some basketball now? There are some great series being played at the moment!