Tweet
Dan Snyder, owner of the Washington team. AP Photo
What happens when you ask a religious man to defend changing Washington’s racist team name? You get schooled in the most respectful, compassionate way possible.
Editor’s Note: When the President of the Central Atlantic Conference (a support organization for United Church of Christ churches and clergy) received a complaint that a Christian organization like the CAC was involved with the Change the Name resolution, his response was just too good to share. These letters are being reprinted with permission.
Sirs:
With all due respect … “Tell me Padre, what chapter & verse is that in the Bible?”
I am appalled that a Christian organization would embroil itself in an obvious liberal agenda a imed at defaming an organization that has had it’s name since the 1800′s! There are American Indians on both sides of the issue; the Oneidas are known agitators looking for headlines. It may surprise you to know that some Indian tribes enjoy the name recognition, and support the Washington Redskins.
Why don’t you call for a boycott of the team names that glorify criminals who raped and pillaged ? I’m talking about the horrible Oakland Raiders, the Minnesota Vikings, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the Pittsburgh Pirates!
Let’s address those teams that clearly send the wrong message to our children; the San Diego Chargers promote irresponsible fighting or even spending habits. Wrong message to our children.
The New York Giants and the San Francisco Giants promote obesity, a growing childhood epidemic. Wrong message to our children.
The Cincinnati Reds promote downers/barbiturates. Wrong message to our children.
The Milwaukee Brewers—well that goes without saying . . . Wrong message to our children.
And how ’bout the tomahawk chop war hoop that Atlanta Braves fans sing out during games: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYc_s4vLFNI
If you’d done your homework on this, you would have avoided it and focused on what the church is called to do, save lost souls.
I’m beginning to wonder if you’re one of the churches in America where Jesus quietly removed himself from its presence, and you didn’t even see him go …
[name redacted]
Mr. Thomas’s response:
Mr. [Redacted]:
Thank you for your thought provoking message. As long as we can engage in dialogue, we are making progress. Since you offered “due respect” in the opening of your comments, I’ll give you your due respect as well, but let me address a few of your points, if I may.
Let me start with a little history.
First of all, the NFL franchise now representing the Nation’s Capital, did not exist in the 1800′s. It was founded in 1932 and changed its name from the Boston Braves to the Boston “R” word in 1933. The owner of that franchise, at the time and in 1937 when the team moved to Washington, was George Preston Marshall, an avowed racist whose overt words and deeds would make even Donald Sterling blush. Perhaps you were not aware of the fact that the Washington NFL franchise was the very last franchise in the league to employ African-American players and did so, kicking and screaming so to speak, when then Attorney General Robert Kennedy, in 1962, told Marshall that his team would not be granted a lease to play in the brand new D.C. Stadium unless it integrated. Marshall’s steadfast determination to maintain an all white roster was motivated, in large part, by his desire to endear the team to die-hard southern segregationists and his plan was quite successful as Washington was Dixie’s team for several generations. The team’s fight song was once replete with disparaging stereotypical references to Native Americans. The fact that some Native Americans today are willing to say that the name doesn’t offend them is irrelevant to the discussion, in my opinion. There are African-Americans today who use the N-word when referring to themselves and other black people. Some of them earn significant incomes and live lavish lifestyles by exploiting that vile and denigrating term. Does the fact that some, and I dare say many black people, find nothing offensive in the N-word, in your opinion, make use of that term acceptable? You don’t have to answer that question. It was rhetorical.
You refer to members of the Oneida Nation as “agitators looking for headlines” as if the term “agitator” somehow carries a negative connotation. Let me remind you that Charles Hamilton Houston, Thurgood Marshall, Martin Luther King, Jr., Medgar Evers, Rosa Parks, Susan B. Anthony, Fannie Lou Hamer, Caesar Chavez, Andrew Goodman, James Chaney, Michael Schwerner, the Freedom Riders, the Little Rock Nine, Mahatma Ghandi, Nelson Mandela and even Jesus the Christ were called agitators, or people looking for headlines, in their day. I don’t expect you to take my word for the reference to Jesus. Read it for yourself. Read John 7:12 which talks about how people accused Jesus of stirring up the crowd and read Luke 12:51 where Jesus, in his own words, said that he didn’t come to bring peace, but rather division or, in other words, to separate those who were willing to take a stand for righteousness from those who were content to go along with the status quo.
You asked for Biblical chapter and verse. You can start with those two. But here are a few more and since I suspect you may be most familiar with the King James version (please correct me if I’m wrong), these quotes are from that version:
“He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” – Micah 6:8. The United Church of Christ’s Central Atlantic Conference (CAC) has taken a stand against the use of a term which is disparaging and demeaning to a race of people because justice demands it, no matter how long that name has found safe haven or how many people, even today, profit from its merchandizing.
“And the King shall answer and say unto them, ‘Verily I say unto you, In as much as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me’.” – Matthew 25:40. If the R-word is hurtful and offensive to some Native Americans, even if not a majority (and I suspect that it is offensive to a great majority despite the spin the team has been putting on it), we ought not be using it. That’s the bible-based position of the CAC.
“What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, ‘Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled’; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.” – James 2:14-17. You say the church is called to save lost souls. No argument there. But just what does that mean? Does that means bringing sinners into a building, or under a big tent, to listen to stirring sermons and heart pounding gospel music and then sending them out shouting and praising God but not committed to doing anything tangible to relieve the suffering of their fellow human beings? The United Church of Christ, and in this case, the CAC in particular, doesn’t think so. We are a body of believers who know that God is still speaking and still calling us to put our faith into action. If that means speaking out against an injustice like the perpetuation of demeaning stereotypes then so be it.
You characterized the CAC’s recent action as being defamatory. Webster’s dictionary defines defamation as “the act of saying false things in order to make people have a bad opinion of someone or something.” Blacks’ Law Dictionary defines defamation as “an intentional, unprivileged, false communication, either published or publically spoken, that injures another’s reputation or good name.” The key word in both definitions is “false”. I challenge you to identify any statement in our well crafted resolution that is false.
You also referred to an “obvious liberal agenda” as if we are supposed to see that as some kind of insult. It might surprise you to learn that we don’t. If by “liberal” you mean in opposition to the reactionary agenda of those who label themselves as political conservatives in the current lexicon, we proudly accept the liberal label. In matters such as this, what are the so-called “conservatives” trying to conserve? Bigotry? Racism? Privilege?
Now, having said all of that, it might surprise you to learn that I agree with you that there are other symbols in the world of sports and in our society in general that need to be addressed. We in the CAC have chosen to, figuratively speaking, eat this elephant one bite at a time. We’re starting with this issue, getting rid of a name and logo which we find to be an offensive throw back to a time we all hoped would have been a distant memory by now. If you would like to organize a movement to address any of the other offensive icons, be my guest. You may find that members of the CAC will join in and support your movement as well.
By the way, on a personal side note, I’m a die-hard fan of the team. A little piece of me dies every time they loose a game. But as far as the name is concerned, wrong is wrong if everybody else is doing it and right is right if nobody else is doing it.
Thanks again for engaging in this dialogue. I suspect that you are a decent person with good intentions. We just have a very pronounced difference of opinion on this topic but if you’re ever in the area, please stop into one of our CAC churches. You will be welcomed as a brother in Christ and you just might find that Jesus is still here after all.
Bradley A. Thomas
President, Central Atlantic Conference Board of Directors
The post How Does a Christian Man Respond When Told His Battle Against the R*dskins Team Name Is Un-Christian? appeared first on The Good Men Project.