Why didn't she wear the uniform? The only thing you have said is; "that's not why". No facts, no evidence to back anything up. ps - a lot of christians disagree with Hinkle on this one. pss - We live in secular nation, where Hinkle's religious belief's don't dictate who can get married. So, does it really what Muslims or extreme Christians think on this matter?
Yes, my point does follow. Re-read it maybe. Are you actually going to make a comment or point on topic or will your obsession with me continue?
If you don't want to participate, that's fine, I guess, but it's not going to stop me trying to understand. Let me ask it more directly: do you believe that North Carolina doesn't care about gay kids killing themselves because they didn't force their employees to wear a symbol?
An NWSL team choosing to HAVE a Pride game, but choosing NOT to have rainbow letters doesn't mean they don't support LGBT youth. I understand what you're trying too say, but you're making false equivalences here. The question doesn't make sense and the circumstances are different.
Of course and I agree with all this. However, my point is that it’s Ellis’s job to control and monitor all this stuff. It became an issue because Hinkle was put into a position where she had to choose. Now chose for 1 game, sure, I get it. The jersey thing was something US chose to do, she wasn’t on board and didn’t do it. However, from what all I can see is that she got blackballed by the coach for that. That’s why this is all on the coach. If she regained control of the room and told both gay and non gay players to shut their mouths about this whole issue (and if not, they are off the team) it wouldn’t have been an issue. But she allows this behavior. So is this the best group of players, who knows? Why? Because she allowed non soccer issues cloud everyone’s mind. And this is my knock on Jill Ellis and why Id like to see someone new. Someone who’s focused on soccer and not all the political, religious, sexuality topics.
I think your time line is off. When Hinkle walked away from the team, she had support of her teammates at both club and country. Her reasons were later leaked to the public by a USWNT member and she was getting booed. Her 700 Club video came later. This was covered months ago on this forum. Fast forward to yesterday and I still don't understand why Harris would attack Hinkle and not the preacher. Hinkle has every right to voice her opinion on social or other media. She has accepted the consequences of her choices. Certainly, there are other, bigger villains to chase.
I honestly don't see where Ellis focused on this in any way in particular. What we do know is that Hinkle hasn't been asked back. What we don't know is whose decision that was - not really. This is USSF. That in itself is a possible factor. They don't shy away from making messes of things. The USWNT is run as a closed shop, with a deliberately exclusive small club that at one point virtually ran a coach out of his job because he wanted to evaluate young talent. How much is that a factor? We don't know.
Ellis has less authority than the players. Ellis doesn't pick who has contracts and has little to no control over players personal behavior. The players run the show and it has been that way for decades. This raises the other issue of whether the USWNT should be a contracted job or an open player pool. The players have made it clear they value the contracts above all else.
She didn't wear the uniform because the uniform represents something. Its not neutral. Its not apolitical. Its multifaceted despite attempts to paint it as purely altruistic motivations. If you don't agree with that message or ideology you don't have to participate. Just like if the US decided to wear religious symbols on their uniforms I wouldn't expect for non-religious players to just go along with it. This is no different than when those chess players refused to compete in Iran because of the required head coverings. A lot of Christians do disagree with Hinkle but the vast majority of them are unsurprisingly white mainline Christians i.e. the ones from dying congregations. Most Christians agree with Hinkle.
But we're all guessing that this was the case. I highly doubt that Ellis blackballed Hinkle under the circumstances you noted above. From what I remember it was Hinkle that left camp. Perhaps based on their conversation Jill Ellis felt that Hinkle was so anti wearing the jersey, she could potentially turn into a locker room distraction and subsequently alienate other players. Let me use another example. I'm a big Kelia Ohai fan and believed that Jill Ellis did not give her a fair shot at making the squad since Kealia called her out for being the only top talent individual from the Under 20 2012 WC winning team not called to camp. However, after having seen Ellis win back to back WC"s, with the current squad being as tight as they are, perhaps she was right to leave Kealia off the team. Maybe in her mind she figured that Kealia would be difficult to work with. I can't question the results.
I'm curious: If the uniform had been for racial equality and against racism, would you say it's "not neutral" or "not apolitical"?
Agree. Ellis obviously got the chemistry component down to achieve the results she did. From that standpoint, clearly can’t argue that. And yes, chemistry is such a hard thing to manage. And we’ve seen how team chemistry can transform an average team into giant killers. Someone made the comment that the players run the show. I guess that is the case. You supposedly have players like Long who apparently are only on the team because of their relationship with Morgan. And we obviously don’t want to make Morgan mad. I had posted an article in another thread that apparently back in 2017, the players had a revolt against Jill. I guess it all seems to make sense now. The coach really doesn’t have that much control at all and the players pick and choose who they want on the team, etc. In a way, it makes me look at this team completely different. Like, no respect for authority, say and do what they please... but at the end of the day, when your ranked #1 in the World, that’s what you’re able to do.
Again, there's a lot of conjecture here. Just because someone on a fan forum states that the only reason Long is on the team is to make Morgan happy does not necessarily make it true. This is the world cup. Morgan was going to play no matter what. At the end of the day the US won the tournament, so whatever decisions made by Ellis proved to be right. Sometimes coaches bring along a couple of players that are perfectly comfortable with being bench warmers (unless there are injuries) instead of pushing to play significant minutes.
The more likely scenario is that just about everyone less about 2 or 3 players were already locked in to The Club, as set out in the CBA, and there were only a couple of discretionary choices available.
huh? The rainbow represents LGBT rights and gay marriage in this instance. As we have been saying the entire time. It's exactly why Hinkle wouldn't wear it. The second hypothetical of teams wearing religious symbols is neither here nor there. It has nothing to do with this topic. No, most Christians do not agree with this form of bigotry. The "Christians" that do support this are cut from the same cloth that used religious texts to support slavery and religious texts to support other forms or racism and bigotry that has happened in this country for centuries.
Here I thought a rainbow meant fake Irish accents and pots of gold and the sky at a particular hour after a heavy rain followed by sun.
Most Christians do. Many churches even have it spelled out for you on their website. I don't even know how that's debatable. Christians who believe as Hinkle does are not in the minority. They may be one day, but they aren't right now.
haha, no, you guys are not correct. The majority of christians believe homosexuality should be accepted. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...-groups-grow-more-accepting-of-homosexuality/ I'm assuming you guys live in the South? Yes, perhaps there..the same churches that supported slavery and then segregation. The majority of churches in the Northeast and West coast do not feel this way. And most young people do not feel this way.
@Tokonta I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually. - Baldwin. PS - I don't know which posters are gay or not. But, I haven't seen anyone here call you or anyone here bigots or homophobes.
Citation needed. First of all, start with the question: Which Christians? Next, maybe look at *data* (not in the Bible, btw): https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/views-about-same-sex-marriage/ Unfortunately, it's not clear from this what the combined percentages would be because they break it down among various denominations. So, that said, and keeping in mind the poll is 5 years old, at least Catholics and Orthodox Christians are majority pro same-sex marriage. Maybe you can find a poll with a unified question for "all Christians". Edit: And even as I was typing this, @BrooklynSoccer found a more recent poll with unified data.
The big non denomination mega churches here in Texas say they welcome homosexuality, but then try to change you. They say it’s a sin to ACT on it...so as long as you don’t act, it’s all good in how you classify yourself. Lol but let’s get real, people are going to act on their desires. It’s all facade and hypocritical. Anyone who is to the extreme either side of this discussion is hypocritical really. That’s why we should leave this any aspect of politics and sexuality out of the game of soccer....but people just can’t help themselves. US soccer loves to spin it at “unity”.... lets get real. The only reason why it becomes relevant is.... $$.
To Christians, no. Those humans were considered inspired by God and therefore it is God that is the force behind the Bible and not humans. Or at least that's the impression I was always given. A quick Google search pulled up this link: https://www.focusonthefamily.com/fa...ow-the-bible-is-true/how-did-we-get-the-bible I'm guessing the criteria listed at the end of the article and divine inspiration guiding humans to select the appropriate books is how Christians came to believe the Bible is whole and no book was left out that should have been in it. As for the bible verses that you quoted, I'm not a Christian scholar (or any type of expert on Christianity beyond the people that I know), so I did a quick Google search again. A common explanation seems to be that there's a difference between civil, ceremonial, and moral laws. When Christ instituted a New Covenant, the laws of the Old Covenant were fulfilled, and Christians are not bound by the same laws as Israel was under the Old Covenant. To be honest, I don't think it's something you can get with a few Google searches, and I'm probably not explaining it right (and that's not counting that different Christian denominations may believe something else entirely). I'll leave a couple of links for anyone interested in a more coherent explanation than mine: https://jdgreear.com/blog/why-dont-we-follow-all-of-the-old-testament-laws/ https://answersingenesis.org/christ...christians-follow-all-the-old-testament-laws/ https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/why-we-are-not-bound-by-everything-in-the-old-law
This dude straight up has "Pure Breed" as his profile bio. You might as well just write "Aryan" and cut to the point. GTFOH acting like you know what loving America even entails.
I'm not religious and I am mildly irritated by public expressions of religion. All religions. All expressions. But, based on what I've heard Hinkle say, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. I would be more persuaded that Hinkle is poisonous in the locker room if she wasn't playing regularly for the North Carolina Courage, the best club team in the U.S. and maybe the world. If Hinkle gets thrown off the Courage, or something similar occurs, then I'll accept that her critics are correct, that she is homophobic and bigoted and preaching hate.