It’s ironic that the general manager of the New York Mets, the former Marine officer and – presumably – conservative republican Sandy Alderson welcomed the openly homosexual former Major League player Bill Bean to Mets camp as Bean tours baseball in his role as Ambassador for Inclusion while one of the Mets players, Daniel Murphy, made it a point to openly state that he disagrees with Bean’s lifestyle. Murphy used his standing as a Christian to bolster the point and shield himself from any and all negative connotations surrounding his position. If he’d come out and said, “I ain’t interested in havin’ no faggots ‘round here,” it would’ve been equally as offensive, but it wouldn’t have been as cloudy with so many openly defending him for his supposed beliefs.
Only Murphy knows if it’s homophobia of not wanting a guy looking at him in what he thinks might be a sexual manner in the locker room or if he’s truly adhering to the tenets of the sections of the bible he purports to read and follow. But here’s a question: If Murphy’s beard wasn’t out of a stylistic choice but was, in fact, a religious necessity; if he had a skullcap and prayed five times a day as a devout Muslim and said that Bean’s homosexuality was an affront to Islam, an insult to Allah and that he would face judgment one day in a deserved fashion for his disgusting proclivities, would there be anyone defending him? What would the Christians who are nodding approval or shrugging off his comments say? Would he even be in the big leagues? What if he referenced Shariah law and advocated the harshest punishment possible for those who offend the tenets of his beliefs – that which he sees as completely tangible and real? Would the Christians who have so avidly come to his defense be saying the same thing they’re saying now?
What if he were a Jew? A Buddhist? A Scientologist? How would his comments be framed then? There’s a safety in numbers argument to the “I’m not a bigot, but…” tone of Murphy’s comments. Because so many follow the same religious he supposedly does, he can say whatever he wants and have it disappear into the scrum of ambiguity as to how these biblical passages are interpreted.
These arguments are similar to those that kept baseball segregated until Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in 1947. “Yeah, ‘they’ can play, but it’s probably not right for Major League Baseball to integrate at this time.” “It’s got nothing to do with racism, but I don’t see America as being ready for black players in Major League Baseball.” “Maybe someday, but not now.” “It’s not about race – I’ve got lots of black friends – but there’s something not right about mixing races.”
That some didn’t use the word “nigger” didn’t serve to lessen the racism.
For a long time, Japanese players weren’t able to come to North America for a multitude of reasons, including that their league was viewed as the equivalent to a Triple A affiliate at best and the idea that many of their cultural preferences, skills and techniques wouldn’t translate.
On and on. Keeping the black players and the Japanese players out, albeit in vastly different ways, doesn’t look all that bright now. Actually, it looks retrospectively stupid. Those who truly want to justify their belief systems can find a way to do so. Some of these will be treated as the absurdities that they are; others will spur widespread agreement because it’s based on a bastardized interpretation of the teachings of a man of flesh and blood – Jesus – whose feats have somehow morphed into him being Superman.
I don’t want to hear about Jesus. I’m sure there are a large number of players, media members and fans who agree with me but are afraid to say it in order to keep the peace. When a player references God or Jesus, they roll their eyes, nod their heads sarcastically, take a small deep breath of derision, act as if they’re taking it seriously keeping their mouths shut. That some of these same players go boozing, drugging and whoring a few hours after bible study and condescending self-righteousness only renders the hypocrisy more pronounced and jades the secular observers further.
It’s masked bigotry disguised as belief.
A ludicrous assertion regarding Murphy’s statement was that he didn’t volunteer it, but was asked the question and simply answered. So because he didn’t place a couple of boxes in the center of the clubhouse, hold up the New Testament (or the Koran or the Old Testament or Dianetics) and start bellowing about how Bean is heading for eternal damnation for his lifestyle “choice,” it’s fine that Murphy’s presenting opinions on matters that have nothing whatsoever to do with him?
Bean is treading lightly as he finds the right tone in dealing with players who might not understand or want to hear what he has to say; who will ridicule him and call him names after he leaves. He undoubtedly knows this. If he wasn’t trying to educate and enlighten without offense, he’d point out the reality that the players who are petrified of homosexuals have definitely played with and dealt with homosexuals for their entire lives without even knowing it. Some might be gay themselves. If he were more aggressive, he would be entirely justified in replying to Murphy’s comments by saying, “I don’t give a damn what you approve or disapprove of. It’s none of your business.”
Because it’s none of Murphy’s business. It’s not my business. And it’s not your business. The idea that an openly gay player might alter the team chemistry is not something to ignore, but when it’s folded into some bizarre religious recipe to hide the taste of Murphy’s brain dead comments, then it is an issue because it’s a feeling that many share and will try to expand upon because the end result will justify the means by which it was achieved.
The fact that he was asked and didn’t volunteer the statement makes it even worse because the sentiment remains and no one will call him out on it because he’s using Christianity as a foundation to protect himself from biases that are present and validated because it’s a religion that a vast majority share, making it somehow okay.