Out of curiosity, what would people's reactions have been if the USWNT had required all of its players to wear uniforms with crosses as a show of solidarity with persecuted Christians in non-Christian countries? Depending on one's reaction to this, that would tend to shed some insight on this dispute.
I doubt that everyone here knows you are referring to the great James Baldwin. I was lucky enough to hear him speak once. I've taught his novel GIOVANNI'S ROOM and his nonfiction work THE FIRE NEXT TIME at NYU and will be teaching Baldwin's novel IF BEALE STREET COULD TALK this fall. I encourage everyone to read these books and anything else written by Baldwin. At the historic civil rights March on Washington in 1963, James Baldwin--already a famous and courageous writer on civil rights issues--wasn't allowed to speak because he was gay.
No it wouldn't because the cross is proselytizing a specific religion. Being gay is not a religious belief. Showing rainbow colors is not fostering the belief of "gayness". These things are not the same.
Or, let me propose a reverse question. What if the USWNT, to show its support for persecuted Christians, required every team member to wear a jersey with a quotation of a biblical verse prohibiting homosexual conduct? I am curious to see how people debate the issue in this context.
This is something brought to my attention so I don't get full credit. The same day the USWNT won the WWC the men played in the GC final. Typical final which included the typical Mexican slur whenever the opposing team takes a free kick. How many fans were booted throughout the tournament? How many times has Mexico been forced to play in a closed stadium or a game suspended? What's worse, not wearing a statement you disagree with or allowing a slur to be used for years? Point being, as long as the money rolls in, USSF happily takes it and turns a blind eye. Hinkle is a convenient scapegoat and rainbow numbers are an empty gesture.
Presumably the "proselytizing" is in essence that religion's proclamation that one should affirm the truth of that religion. Aren't the rainbow colors meant to affirm the assertion as truth that being gay is to be accepted? How is one not an affirmation of a truth and the other not?
If this grows and NWSL fires her, I will be appalled. Again, when Hinkle left for personal reason she had the support of club and country teammates. We went through this before the WWC began. If Hinkle was the one who reposted the video or claimed the USWNT hated Christians it's fair game. Hinkle did none of those things.
Yes I do live in the South, and as such, I'm not surprised by your unnecessary dig. Before you accuse me of being an old, white, male Christian, I'm not. I'm a young, black, female who grew up around Christians even though I didn't attend church myself. You might not realize it, but a lot of black people live in the South (in fact I think a majority do), and they attend churches where homosexuality is not supported. So it's not just slavery and segregation supporting churches who believe that. Thank you for the link to Pew poll. I've seen them before, and I still don't believe they're accurate compared to what I see with my own eyes. Just as I don't think the new poll from GLAAD or whoever is accurate when it says LGBT acceptance has declined among young people. I'm not saying that no Christians support the acceptance of homosexuality, just that I don't believe the majority do. Even in the poll you posted, 46% percent don't. Obviously, you're not going to agree with me, and that's fine.
Well, is it a dig or is it just factual. And yes, Black Churches in THE SOUTH, tend to be against same sex marriage. Which is represented in this poll. LGBT acceptance among young republicans is on the decline. I don't find that shocking, considering this current evironment.
The question was whether homosexuality should be "accepted by society." I bet if the survey asked whether homosexuality should be "celebrated by Christians" you'd get a different result.
Someone may have already said this, but why is there not a Straight Pride Flag jersey? If there was such a thing, would some of the players on the team be cool with wearing it? Of course not. They would throw a hissy fit. Like even typing it sounds so stupid, but that’s what silly things like rainbow numbered shirts represent. Let’s all be real.... is it necessary? What exactly is the point? It’s like so common these days...do we still need to have days to celebrate it? Because I can be very accepting to my neighbors on either side of my house who are gay and lesbians, or have friends at work who are homosexuals.....
Gay pride was not born of a need to celebrate being gay, but their right to exist without persecution. their fight for equality (there are NO federal protections for gay people and they can still be fired or denied housing in 30 states) So, instead of wondering why there isn't straight pride jersey, be thankful you don't need one. Does this make sense to you, sincerely?
You don't have to "accept" gayness, any more than you have accept the existence of gravity. Gay people are gay irrespective of your acceptance. The rainbow colors are about solidarity with their right to exist as such in our society without persecution or oppression. Trying to portray that as "political" is disingenuous or misguided at best; more deeply, it is inherently bigoted. You are reducing their basic civil rights to a difference in philosophy. Screw that.
Yeah let's also get rid of Black History Month, Native American Herritage Month, Latino Herritage Month, Women's Empowerment Month, and heck... eliminate Martin Luther King Jr. day, Cesar Chavez Day, because who needs them anymore? Let's not celebrate it or acknowledge it.
You don't need straight rights because straight people have been in the power of authority and leadership and oppressing gays forever. That's like saying we need to have a Mens Rights, celebrating the hardships of being a white male or we need to have White Power Month to remind people that white people also matter. All of it is bigoted and unfortunately thriving in this fascist climate of the Trump administration.
I would say there is value on remembering persecution of human groups. The way I understand it is that the first Pride marches recalled events where LGBT fellas finally responded against prolonged violence from police. Stonewall riots, if I recall well. Some ppl might use that date in more festive manners today, but remembrance of persecution is still there. People throughout the world march on May 1st, generally as part of workers' / labor events. The first marches remembered the Haymarket incidents of 1886, where American workers were bombed while protesting for an 8-hour workday. (Edit: and policemen were killed too in the bombing). Newer generations will easily forget what previous oppressed groups had lived through without these events. It cultivates respect for previous victims, and we are less likely to repeat past horrors.
It's not political? This is interesting coming from the ideological perspective that views literally everything as a political act. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
Please note I used quotes; I was referring to the use of "political" by the post I was responding to, so address your remark to them.
This is a refreshingly lucid and non-angsty post on this subject. One question (and I'm sure it's far too late), but remembrances of these things are quite important in this spirit: Is compulsion to ostentatiously display the symbols of <insert oppressed group> in keeping with said spirit?
Oh boy.... I didn’t mean to open that can of worms. Excuse my ignorance on any human rights activism. I sincerely don’t mean to sound apathetic, but I just don’t get bogged down with all that. I live my life as an accepting person to all, and try to keep things segmented. When you’re on a soccer pitch, play soccer. When you’re in church, worship. Talking about sexuality or intimacy really isn’t anyone’s business other than my own.
And USSF is the organization to get behind? Really? Did you not hear the slurs during the Gold Cup? Are you unaware of the treatment of gays in Russia and Qatar? Was USSF always at the forefront of gay rights or is this a recent, feeble attempt to appear relevant? I'm not attacking you personally but I see a lot of hypocrisy from USSF and a lot of people who are willing to ignore some damning relationships our Fed happily keeps.
Okay. I confess I started thid whole discussion in the other thread to disrupt the USWNT in it's effort to beat the Orange Lionesses in the Olympic Final. By that time our wingers will have found back their form and you will miss Hinkle as the best back you have, plus the seeds of division has been planted in the team. I'm very pleased with myself. Signed: The intrigant