"Tony Dungy's Off-Field Fumbles"

[achebeautiful]

Here is an article I found that really enrages me:

"Tony Dungy's off-field fumbles"
He and other born-again Christians imply their version of the religion is the only legitimate one.

*Jonathan Zimmerman teaches history at New York University and lives in Narberth*

It's hard to find a problem with Tony Dungy, who coached the Indianapolis Colts to victory in last Sunday's Super Bowl. By all accounts, he treats his players with genuine respect and decency. He's also a loyal husband and father, suffering through the 2005 suicide of his son with quiet grace and dignity.

And he's a "Christian," as Dungy likes to remind us. That's where the problem begins.

No, not with Dungy's faith. As an American, he has every right to believe what he wants and to recruit others for that belief. That's a no-brainer.

Instead, I'm troubled by the implication that Dungy's version of Christianity is the only "real" or legitimate one. Christians are every bit as diverse as America itself. And lots of them see the world very, very differently than Tony Dungy does.

In a post-game interview on Sunday, Dungy was asked about the "social significance" of the game - that Dungy and the Chicago Bears' Lovie Smith were the first black coaches to face off in a Super Bowl. Dungy acknowledged the importance of race, but said that the coaches' shared faith was even more noteworthy.

"Lovie Smith and I [are] not only the first two African Americans," Dungy told CBS's Jim Nantz, "but Christian coaches showing that you can win doing it the Lord's way."

Huh? Weren't any prior Super Bowl coaches Christian?

By my count, every single one was. Indeed, the championship trophy that Dungy hoisted on Sunday is named after Vince Lombardi, a devout Catholic who spent two years training for the priesthood.

What distinguishes Dungy and Smith is their born-again Christianity, not their "Christianity" per se. And the problem starts when we lose sight of this distinction.

Only one-third of American Christians call themselves "born-again," which refers to a Biblical passage from the Book of John: "Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born again." To achieve eternal salvation, most born-again Christians say, you need an intensely personal and transformative spiritual experience. The rest of us will go... well, you know where we're going.

Politically, meanwhile, born-again Christianity is also associated with opposition to abortion and gay marriage. Not every born-again Christian shares these views, of course. But most do. That's why Tony Dungy will be the guest of honor next month at a dinner hosted by the Indiana Family Institute, which is spearheading a proposed amendment to the Indiana constitution that would deny marriage privileges to homosexuals.

Again, Dungy has every right to endorse this campaign in the name of his Christianity. But most people who support gay marriage are Christians, too - and they are every bit as Christian as Tony Dungy. So are the millions of Christians who reject the idea that we'll all burn in hell unless we get born again.

By ignoring these important distinctions, Dungy and his devotees echo the worst aspect of modern American identity politics: You're either black, or red, or yellow, or "Christian," and there's just one way to be that. Listen to all of the absurd debate about whether presidential aspirant Barack Obama is "really" black, and you'll see what I mean.

Of course Obama is black. African Americans comprise an enormous array of beliefs, values, cultures and lifestyles. And so do Christians. Tony Dungy says he follows the "Lord's way," and more power to him. But there are many different ways to follow the Lord, and Dungy's isn't any better than yours. Or than mine.

*Jonathan Zimmerman ([e-mail]) is author of "Innocents Abroad: American Teachers in the American Century."*

[achebeautiful]

This, in my opinion, is exactly what is wrong with our dialogue today. There is way too much picking apart of every little detail of what a person says. We are dissecting everything a person says with a fine tooth comb, ready to criticize them for the slightest thing.

I do not believe for one second that Tony Dungy was claiming that he and Lovie Smith were the first two Christians to lead their teams to the Super Bowl. It seems very much to me that what Tony Dungy was in fact expressing was that more important than the issue of having two black Head Coaches represent the Super Bowl was that they were both Christians. He was saying that his purpose in life was not to pioneer or advance the black cause by leading his team to the big game, but to serve his Lord by doing things as He commanded. To Tony Dungy, that is the most important issue.

What really bothers me is the assault that Jonathan Zimmerman applies to Tony Dungy. Everyone who knows Tony Dungy in any capacity has nothing but very high regard for him, not only as a great coach, but moreso as a great man. If that doesn't tell you about the context of this man, then you are blind to the ability to see him for who he really is, and deaf to what it is he is really saying.

I find this to be rediculous on Jonathan Zimmerman's part.

One more thing.....if race wasn't an issue any longer, maybe we wouldn't have to keep bringing up the color of a man's skin every single time he succeeds at something. Why can't Tony Dungy simply be referred to as a great coach and man, instead of constantly being portrayed as a black man (as if we can't tell.)

[achebeautiful]

Here's an article in response to Jonathan Zimmerman's that I support:

Defending Dungy
Posted by JAY COST

NYU historian Jonathan Zimmerman penned an interesting column criticizing Colts' head coach Tony Dungy. Unfortunately, he seems to have put words into Dungy's mouth to make his point.

Zimmerman is troubled by the social phenomenon of "born-again Christians" claiming that theirs is the only correct way to follow God. And he accuses Tony Dungy of making that claim in the wake of his Super Bowl XLI win. Zimmerman writes:

In a post-game interview on Sunday, Dungy was asked about the "social significance" of the game - that Dungy and the Chicago Bears' Lovie Smith were the first black coaches to face off in a Super Bowl. Dungy acknowledged the importance of race, but said that the coaches' shared faith was even more noteworthy.

"Lovie Smith and I [are] not only the first two African Americans," Dungy told CBS's Jim Nantz, "but Christian coaches showing that you can win doing it the Lord's way."

Huh? Weren't any prior Super Bowl coaches Christian?

By my count, every single one was. Indeed, the championship trophy that Dungy hoisted on Sunday is named after Vince Lombardi, a devout Catholic who spent two years training for the priesthood.

What distinguishes Dungy and Smith is their born-again Christianity, not their "Christianity" per se. And the problem starts when we lose sight of this distinction.


Actually, the trouble comes with his interpretation of Dungy's sentence. In reality, the sentence is ambiguous, i.e. it is consistent with several unique interpretations. However, not only does Zimmerman not acknowledge this ambiguity, he also selects the interpretation that paints Dungy in the most intolerant light (and the one that therefore enables him to use the coach to make a broad point about the intolerance of "born-again Christians").

Dungy's sentence could indeed mean: Lovie Smith and I are (a) the first two African American coaches to coach in the Super Bowl, and (b) more importantly, the first two Christian coaches to coach in the Super Bowl.

But it could also mean: Lovie Smith and I are (a) the first two African American coaches to coach in the Super Bowl, and (b) more importantly, two Christian coaches who coached in the Super Bowl.

The difference between them boils down to the extent of the word "first." Does it apply to both clauses, or does it apply to just the clause regarding African American coaches? The first interpretation indeed implies that Tony Dungy is claiming that all previous Super Bowl coaches were not Christian, but the second does not.

Again, I think the sentence is ambiguous in its construction. Taking the sentence itself as our only data point, both interpretations are consistent with the wording. But here Zimmerman has made his first mistake. He takes it to be pointing necessarily to the first interpretation, rather than to either the first or the second.

The second mistake is his failure to take in the context of the comment, namely Tony Dungy himself. The man has been in the league for many years. He is not a bomb-thrower. He seems to be loved by pretty much everybody who has ever met him: does he seem like the type of man to make this kind of statement? My answer is a firm no. I think that Dungy - who was interviewed by Jim Nantz after the game (read: he had other things on his mind than the social significance of his victory, and might therefore not be speaking with maximum precision) - meant something like the latter interpretation, but his meaning was lost in the ambiguity of the actual phrasing.

In other words, I don't think the mild-mannered Dungy was using Nantz's question to offer a quicky Jeremiad about the destination of the souls of other ring-bearing coaches. Rather, I think he was doing what he was doing all week -- using questions about the "race factor" to follow the commandment of Matthew 28:19, to proclaim to the world that, first and foremost, he is a follower of Jesus Christ. I would note that Zimmerman ostensibly has no problem with this. Dungy "has every right to believe what he wants and to recruit others for that belief. That's a no-brainer."

I'll take this a step further to say that Zimmerman's chosen interpretation has no leg to stand on - if we take it in the context of what Dungy had recently said about previous championship coaches. Tony Dungy is - in many respect - a student of the legendary (and vastly underrated) Chuck Noll, head coach of the Pittsburgh Steelers from 1969 to 1991 (and Tony Dungy's coach in the '77 and '78 seasons, the latter of which saw the Steelers win their third Super Bowl). This was an oft-covered topic in the lead-up to the Super Bowl. Rob Musselman of the Toledo Blade has a nice write-up on the influence of Noll on Dungy, and how the latter credits the former for much. Dungy has noted that his "Tampa 2" defense is in many respects a modification/amplification of the '75 "Steel Curtain." He also claims to have acquired moral and strategic advice about team management from Noll. Noll was not a bomb-thrower. Noll was a coach who kept his family close to heart. Noll was an even-keel guy. And so on. Dungy learned a lot from Noll about how to lead a football team calmly and decently - both on and off the field. He believes he owes the man a lot, and during the pre-game festivities of the last few weeks, he never seemed to hestitate to lavish praise upon the coach with the most Super Bowl wins. (I can't blame him. As a Terrible Towel waving, "Steelers Polka" singing, black-and-gold bleeding, "yoi and double yoi!" Steelers fan, I can't praise Noll and the '70s Steelers enough!)

So, here's a question for Professor Zimmerman: do you think Tony Dungy really meant to imply that Chuck Noll - in many respects his model for a good and decent head coach - is going to "h-e-double-toothpicks?" Statistically speaking, if we are talking about a "Super Bowl champion coach," most likely we are talking about Noll, who has won more rings than anybody else. So - is that what Dungy thinks of him?

I don't think so.

I am guessing that you don't either, Professor -- at least not now that you know a bit more of the story.

My inference is that Zimmerman never came across the affectionate comments Dungy had been making about Noll in the run-up to the big game (or at least did not identify them as being a falsifying instance of his hypothesis), which in turn means that he rushed out an op-ed blasting Dungy's character without actually doing sufficient research into said character.

Professor Zimmerman: you owe Coach Dungy an apology. It seems to me that your incorrect interpretation, while surely not willful, is predicated in large part upon not doing the research that Dungy clearly deserved and that you - as a professional historian at a top-tier university - know how to conduct. If you are going to characterize a man's moral-spiritual-political-social beliefs, don't you think you owe him the courtesy of checking out his personal story just a little bit?

Zimmerman has put words into Dungy's mouth to personalize a broad-based moral-spiritual-political-social complaint he has against a segment of the population: the "born-agains." Tony Dungy has been a Steeler, a 49er, a Chief, a Viking, a Bucaneer, and a Colt. He has never been a Straw Man. Don't treat him as such, Professor.

[ocelot]

I agree with you, Mark. The basis of this article could have been written about almost every Christian out there. There are very few Christians that don't believe that their Christianity is the right way.

[achebeautiful]

Yes, that is true.....but I really do not believe for even a second that Tony Dungy meant what he said in the way that Jonathan Zimmerman interpreted it. It just does not in any way support his lifestyle, example, and all the great things those who know him say about him. Jonathan Zimmerman is guilty of the very things he accuses Tony Dungy of here, and I think he ought to be ashamed of himself.

[achebeautiful]

Here's some more mindless crap from the editorial pages:

Sports, religion strange bedfellows (CHICAGO SPORTS "JOURNALIST" LAYS INTO INDY COACH TONY DUNGY)
~Chicago Sun-Times


Everybody thinks Indianapolis Colts coach and Super Bowl XLI champion Tony Dungy is a great guy. Including me.

His calm, considerate approach to the violent game of football is a refreshing departure from the manic, brutal skill set of so many other coaches.

Yet there is a part of Dungy's philosophy that troubles me -- and, I believe, many others -- and that is his insistence upon making proper coaching not just a matter of good heart but of religious zeal, even dogma.

God, he said, was responsible for the Colts' 29-17 victory against the Bears.

Indeed, in the relatively brief trophy-presentation ceremony and news conference that followed the Super Bowl victory at Dolphin Stadium in Miami, Dungy, a devoutly conservative Christian, used the word ''Lord,'' ''God'' or ''Christian'' 10 times while referring to the Colts' success.

He made it clear he was more interested in speaking about his Christian values than about his no-huddle offense.

His religious expression even trumped his honor at being the history-setting first African-American coach to win a Super Bowl.

Both he and Bears coach Lovie Smith were not only black coaches, Dungy stated, ''but Christian coaches showing you can win doing it the Lord's way. We're more proud of that.''

It always has seemed peculiar and disconcerting to me that religious beliefs -- mainly fundamentalist Christian ones -- have been so closely aligned with football, especially at the highest levels.

Dungy might believe there is something novel about a Christian coach winning the Super Bowl -- or any major football crown, for that matter -- but it seems more the rule than the exception.

The troubling aspect, of course, is simply that of intolerance.

To wit: Where does the sports teaching end and the proselytizing begin? Where do the religious beliefs of those in authority become standards for those underneath, and when and how does ostracism for those in disagreement kick in?

Would someone like Dungy, for example, be less or more inclined to keep a devout Christian player over, say, a devout Hindu?

We are an overwhelmingly Christian nation. But that is not by design, law or decree, and it seems we sometimes forget this.

Take these post-Super Bowl Dungy statements -- ''The Lord gave me the opportunity,'' ''I think the Lord tests you sometimes to see if you're going to keep the faith,'' ''I think the Lord has really worked on this team,'' ''I wanted to show that you could have Christian principles ... and still be successful,'' ''I'm proud as a Christian coach,'' ''There are a lot of Christian men who can do the job'' -- and substitute the words ''Allah,'' ''Muslim'' or ''Koran'' in appropriate spots and see if your view changes.

Dungy is set to be the honored speaker at the Indiana Family Institute's ''Friends of the Family'' banquet March 20 in Carmel, Ind. There are large Internet posters of him in his Colts coaching garb advertising the event. Tickets cost $75 and will help fund IFI, which is a nonprofit conservative Christian group that recently filed a brief to the 7th Court of Appeals asking that prayer be allowed to start each day on the floor of the Indiana legislature.

IFI is affiliated with Focus on Family, a conservative Christian organization that is gay-repressive and is holding a conference about homosexuality this weekend in Phoenix that will be protested by gay- advocacy groups.

''We will be presenting the truth about homosexuality,'' Focus on Family spokeswoman Melissa Fryrear said in a statement, adding that her group will show gays ''it is possible to walk away from homosexuality.''

It is perhaps ironic that former NBA player John Amaechi just ''came out'' and said he is gay, adding that he didn't think an openly gay player could survive in the pros because of prejudice.

I always have wondered how religion and tolerance bed down.

And I long have wondered if preachers such as Dungy should stick to X's and O's.

[achebeautiful]

I guess what this person is saying is that everybody who knows Tony Dungy likes him and thinks he is a great man and coach, but that he should be less of who he is as a person so that EVERYBODY will like him and think of him as a great man and coach. Well, first of all, it is impossible, and even wrong, to make the goal of having everyone like you your goal. Second of all, if having everyone like you and think highly of you means that you have to become less of who you are as a person, then you are being liked for being someone other than yourself.

One person says that Tony Dungy fumbles in his remarks. A fumble in football means that you lose the ball after having had possession of it. I do not think that Tony Dungy fumbled at all with his remarks. However, I do think that these editorialists are guilty of something that is far worse.....a personal foul! And I think both men should be ashamed of themselves.