Coach Dungy

I wrote this back in 2007 just after the Colts beat the Chicago bears in the Super Bowl. So it's a little dated. Sue me.

At what point does a seemingly perfectly sane, professional newspaper writer become an idiot?

At issue is an article which appeared in Monday’s edition of the Indianapolis Star written by the Chicago Sun Times Rick Telander. In it, Mr. Telander, quite unashamedly, writes that Tony Dungy, the most recent victorious Super Bowl coach, should quiet his public speech about his Christian faith and that Dungy would be “better off sticking to X’s and O’s.”

Of course, Mr. Telander prefaces his comments by claiming that he, like most others, thinks Dungy is a great guy, even going so far as to say that he thinks Dungy’s “calm, considerate approach” to coaching is a “refreshing departure” from most other coaches approach to the relatively violent game of football.

So I ask; what’s the problem?

Well, Mr. Telander goes on to write: “...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.”

I don’t know what dogma means, and he didn’t say.

Basically, Mr. Telander is bothered by the fact that Dungy insists on giving credit for his prosperous coaching to God. Somehow, Mr. Telander reasons, Dungy is wrong for giving glory to God for the things he does. A football coach, he implies, should leave religion out of the game.

Unfortunately, Mr. Telander is an idiot. Not because he’s not a Christian -- which he clearly is not by Biblical standards – and not because he has totally misinterpreted Dungy’s comments – which he clearly has. No, Mr. Telander is an idiot because he has completely and unequivocally missed the point of his very own opinion.

Mr. Telander suggests that Dungy should stick to the basics of coaching, the “X’s and O’s” as he puts it, and leave religion out of it. Yet, what he fails to admit to is that despite Dungy’s insistence on giving God the glory for his abilities, he still coached his team to the World Championship, which clearly means he’s a great coach. In other words, either God really was responsible for the Colts’ Super Bowl title, or Dungy is better at the “X’s and O’s” than anyone else right now, and his faith doesn’t seem to be distracting him much.

Either way, Mr. Telander is rendered an idiot. Because if one reads his article, one is left to assume that Mr. Telander is making one of two assertions: that God is clearly not involved in football, and thus should be left unmentioned, or that Dungy is somehow less of a football coach because of his emphasis on his faith. Neither is true based on the resulting circumstances making his entire opinion just plain dumb, if not totally irrelevant.

Which is indicative of the problem with many “opinion” writers today. More often than not, many opinion columnists today bash out some story on a keyboard with no basis in fact, and hide behind the mantra that “well, that is my opinion.” Any credible opinion columnist, say, like, the legendary Chicago writer Mike Royko, may state opinions, but does so with some basis of fact. And if they don’t, the piece is usually so tongue-in-cheek that no reasonable reader could assume they’re being serious.

If I were to say it is my opinion that black people are more stupid than white people, not only would I be shot dead before I could reach my car, but most people would justifiably want to know on what data I based that opinion. If I had some solid stats stating it was true, or could quote some viable sources who stated the same, I may still be hated, but at least I’d be right. But given that there is no evidence whatsoever proving knowledge superiority of one race over another, I could never make such an insipid statement and expect anyone to take me seriously.

Take Mr. Telander’s article for example. First, he claims that Dungy said God was responsible for the Colts’ victory. In truth, Dungy has never said anything of the sort, at least not that I’ve seen publicly. In fact, none of the quotes Mr. Telander attributes to Dungy in his article makes such a claim. Dungy does indeed thank God for the opportunity to coach in the Super Bowl, and is proud to show that a man of Christian faith can be successful in the notorious world of secular sports. But he makes no claim that God favored the Colts over the Bears, or that God allowed his team to win and for some reason caused the Bears to lose. How absurd!

Secondly, Mr. Telander makes an assertion that Dungy is being intolerant to others by so publicly confessing his faith. While it is likely true that not every Colts player is a born-again Christian, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that some players feel left out or ostracized by Dungy and his beliefs. Every public interview of any Colts player has shown that player heaping nothing but praise on Dungy, his abilities and his style. None – and I would challenge anyone to find one – has shown a player voice his discontent with Dungy and his faith. What possible basis does Mr. Telander have to make such a claim? If he has some inside or private information, then it is incumbent upon him as a journalist to state as much. At least it would give his claim some modicum of credibility.

Next he makes what is possibly his most moronic statement of the entire column. After listing several Dungy quotes about his faith, Mr. Telander writes, “Now substitute the words "Allah," "Muslim" or "Koran" in appropriate spots and see if your view changes.”

Well, duh!

Of course it changes. One hates to burst Mr. Telander’s bubble, and it may not even be politically correct to say so, but most American’s view of the Muslim faith right now is not all that favorable, if for no other reason than for a little incident a few years back now known affectionately as “9/11.”

Few want to admit it, but right now in the majority American conscience, Islamic beliefs represent violence and death, and Christian beliefs represent peace and serenity. And little has happened over the past few years to dispel those beliefs. Mr. Telander may want to be politically correct and write some deep, philosophical piece about intolerance, but in truth most people don’t want tolerance, they want peace and tranquility. Dungy represents both.

Furthermore, it wasn’t as if Dungy called reporters and said, “Let me tell you about my faith.” He simply coached his team to a Super Bowl title. Is it his fault that cameras keep getting shoved in his face? Who says he shouldn’t be allowed to speak his mind when others impose on his time?

Not surprisingly, the overwhelming majority of responses to Mr. Telander’s article posted on the Indy Star website are very unfavorable to his position. In fact, the only one supporting Mr. Telander in the first 20 responses I read began like this, and I quote, spelling intact: “Excellent article that took a great deal of courage to right.”

Go figure.

Indeed, the first 40 responses only contain two which support Mr. Telander’s views. Read through the next 40, and one finds only five more. Of those seven supportive responses, they pretty much follow the same, “I’m tired of those Christians being so darned vocal,” mantra. Of course, I’m paraphrasing and summarizing those responses, but it’s safe to say none of those seven responses were from Christians, which is to say they weren’t so much interested in supporting Mr. Telander’s point (whatever it was) but that they just liked someone else being negative toward Christians and their views.

Granted, when one weeds out the responses from those who just think Mr. Telander is a sore loser, most of those left against Mr. Telander are Christians, as far as one can gather. But the overriding view – and again, I’m paraphrasing and summarizing here – is that they can’t figure out why Mr. Telander is being so intolerant of Christians in an article in which he is accusing a Christian man of the same, with no basis, no less. Justifiably, most of the Christians who responded felt attacked and can’t figure out why anyone would belittle a man such as Dungy who has made so many feel so good of late, regardless of their faith.

It is true that one has to wonder what Mr. Telander’s real point was. Was it a rile against intolerance, or just an attack against Christianity. It is hard to understand how someone who is writing under the very banner of free speech can seem to be perpetrating the idea that someone else shouldn’t be allowed to speak it.

Finally – and I question whether we even need to go here -- but I must ask; Is it any coincidence that Mr. Telander writes for a Chicago paper? One has to wonder, as many of the responders on the Star website have, would Mr. Telander have even written an article like this had the Bears been victorious? Would he have had the same courage if he had to write these comments about Lovie Smith instead of Tony Dungy?

One can only hope.