I Don't Want to Hear It

When retired coach Tony Dungy was asked if he would have drafted Michael Sam (the gay guy who plays football) on his team, he made a serious mistake. He gave an honest answer. He said he wouldn't have, "not because I don't believe Machael Sam should have a chance to play, but I wouldn't want to deal with all of it." In his subsequent clarification, he said it was not about a problem with Sam, his sexual orientation, or his ability. It was about the media attention and the distraction that brings. That, of course, is still unacceptable. Well, that kind of thinking was acceptable when it was Tebow with too much media hype over his religious views -- no one rallied to his defense -- but this is something else entirely.

Yahoo Sports writer Dan Wetzel was irate. Tony Dungy was the first African-American to win the Super Bowl. He benefited from inclusivism rather than racial exclusivism. And now he's trying to exclude someone just because he's gay. Sam Champion^[1] was quite sure that Tony would not draft Michael Sam because he 's gay ... which, of course, is the opposite of what Dungy said. And so it goes. The tirades have all been against Dungy.

Now, I wish to be clear here. I am not writing this because Dungy was right (or wrong) or because his detractors were wrong (or right) or because Michael Sam should (or shouldn't) play football as a gay player. What I find most interesting in all this is an underlying reality. In the public world, you're free to have private views, but we are not willing to listen to them in public if they don't agree with our own. Especially on certain issues. Like sexual orientation, gender identity, Christian values and morality, politics ... well, the list starts to grow rapidly. Here's the thinking: "If you disagree with me, I don't want to hear it." We will not analyze the disagreement and figure out where the truth lies and where the errors are. We will not engage in a civil exchange of ideas, a dialog where you can tell me more fully what you think and I can give you the reasons why I think what I do. No. We will have a loud, emotional response, resort to namecalling and character assassination, and figure out any other way we can silence and destroy the opposition. Because we just don't want to hear it.

My point? I am convinced that those who are unwilling to discuss, unwilling to examine, unwilling to evaluate opposing ideas (especially as they are rather than as we make them out to be) are actually unsteady on their own ideas and values. If one is thoroughly convinced of one's views because of careful thought and examination, there is no threat in listening to the other side. No harm will come from hearing it. So when the anger rises because someone says something with which I disagree, there ought to be a little warning light that goes off in the back of my head that says, "Methinks you doth protest too much." Because I'm convinced that those who are unwilling to hear and examine the opposition are likely not fully convinced of their own views.
________

^[1] You know Sam Champion. He's well-known in the sports world for his sports prowess, experience, and wisdom ... as an NBC weatherman.