NCAA ignores some constituents in attacking Indiana law

We’re pretty sure that NCAA President Mark Emmert’s statement that the new Indiana religious freedom law violates the organization’s core values was only meant to cover the organization’s posterior.

“The issue important to us because we’re an employer here in this state. But most importantly … it strikes at the core values of inclusion and diversity,” he said.FCA

He’s covering his ass, in other words. But, in doing so, he ignores an important constituency.

No recognition of the importance of Christian beliefs to those who hold them. The NCAA is apparently oblivious to the faith of student athletes within its fold. The Fellowship of Christian Athletes has dozens of chapters at schools across the country, including a very strong contingent at the University of Louisville.

There’s also no mention of sexual preference, the driving force behind all the opposition to religious freedom. The issues of “inclusion and diversity” are diversionary, as is the effort to equate the cause to the civil rights movement. Sexual preference, in their world, takes precedence over religious beliefs. They emphasize religious opposition as if only people of faith aren’t comfortable with the lifestyle.

Seattle Mayor Ed Murray, who is gay, has banned government travel to Indiana. Houston Mayor Annis Parker, who is gay and sought to subpoena the sermons of Christian ministers, is opposing efforts for a referendum on a constitutional amendment allowing Texas businesses to deny service based on rights of conscience.

Tim Cook, the gay CEO of Apple, warned in an op-ed piece in the Washington Post, “There’s something very dangerous happening in states across the country. These bills rationalize injustice by pretending to defend something many of us hold dear. They go against the very principles our nation was founded on, and they have the potential to undo decades of progress toward greater equality.”

We seriously doubt the founders had sexual preference in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights. They were explicit, however, in the first sentence, declaring that government “shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

What the LGBT lobby really wants is social and legal acceptance of a lifestyle, in addition to the financial benefits that accrue from them. Polls indicate that a growing number of Americans are more accepting. They cross the line, however, when they try to force their lifestyle on other citizens, whether it be through political pressure on religious organizations, businesses or individuals.

Author: Charlie Springer

Charlie Springer is a former Louisville editor and sportswriter, as well as a public affairs consultant, a UofL grad and longtime fan.

7 thoughts on “NCAA ignores some constituents in attacking Indiana law”

  1. Mr. Springer,
    I click on “Card Game” daily and enjoy your insights about Cardinals sports. Sometimes I think you are a bit too negative, but that’s okay. I tend to be too much of an apologist for the team’s failings. Your views make me think and balance my tendencies.
    However, I thought your essay regarding the NCAA reaction to the recent Indiana law was extreme, out of character, and very off-putting. I assume the whole situation hit a nerve and caused you to express yourself so strongly. I certainly respect your right to voice your political and religious views, but I suggest that they are best expressed among friends and family, not in a sports blog. As strongly as your feelings on the topic may be, many of your readers, myself among them, disagree intensely.
    Let’s stay friends.
    Go Cards!

    1. Dave, thank you for commenting. i focus from time to time on societal issues, especially when they affect sports and athletes at the University of Louisville. I think it’s important to speak up occasions when the debate gets a little too one-sided. Keeping my opinions to myself is not within me.

      1. What I appreciate most about being an American is our right to free speech. That includes the right of Charlie to invest his time and treasure in creating and maintaining this blog. In that context he has the unquestioned right to post his true opinions about whatever subject he wants to here or anywhere else for that matter. Likewise it is the right of any reader or contributor to his blog space to read and decide to hang around and participate or not.

        What is most chilling to me is what seems to be a general consensus among many in the media and business that free people should somehow subordinate their views because others don’t agree with them. Not only is it the antithesis of what America is all about it is Orwellian in it’s intent and nature.

        This assumption that if someone doesn’t think like you they shouldn’t speak is not only unfortunate, it is dangerous. I would find the fact that Dave decided to come on Charlie’s blog and tell him how to express his views to be humorous if it wasn’t so ironic.

        So here’s a friendly suggestion for Dave…don’t tell others how to express how they feel particularly when you come into their house to do so. Just because you think and believe a certain way doesn’t make it right and it certainly doesn’t limit the rights of others.

        I don’t know Charlie personally but I’m betting that he could care less if you remain his friend or not if that friendship is somehow conditioned upon him buying into your views and expecting him to self-censor.

        Go Cards!

        1. Thanks, Burn. Your views coincide with mine. I had expected some blowback because there are strong feelings on the issue. Dave and I can agree to disagree on this one, but continue to share an affinity of UofL athletics.

  2. Charile is the Observer. It’s what he does. He is also tolerant of all opinions here. Thank you.

Comments are closed.