Jonathan Zimmerman takes issue with coach Tony Dungy in last Friday's Philadelphia Inquirer. Zimmerman's problem with Dungy is that Dungy believes his Christian beliefs are right, true, while Zimmerman remains supposedly neutral about religious beliefs.
He takes issue with what he seems to misunderstand Dungy to have said in his post-game comments:
"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?
Huh? Where did Dungy say or even imply they were the first Christian coaches of Super Bowl teams? But even if Zimmerman misunderstood Dungy, it doesn't mitigate his main point in writing the column.
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....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....
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.
Zimmerman's comments exemplify the twisted modern notion of tolerance. He doesn't use the word, but that's what he's talking about. The new tolerance declares that all ideas have to be treated equally without judgment. No one is right or wrong, no views are better or worse.
Ah, but there's the rub. It's not possible to practice this virtue unless one remains mum about anyone else's view they disagree with, which Zimmerman didn't do. He thinks he's right and Dungy is wrong. That's why he's taking Dungy to task for thinking his Christian beliefs are right. But Zimmerman obviously thinks his critique of Dungy is right. While trying to remain the air of modern toleration, he falls right into the camp of "My view is right and yours is wrong. What's his view? Religious pluralism - "There are many different ways to follow the Lord." Zimmerman isn't neutral; he's got a point of view too.
Nothing wrong with that. After all, the reason we believe things is because we think they're right. If you're unsure or unconvinced, you don't believe it. Dungy thinks his Christian beliefs are right; Zimmerman believes his pluralism is right. They're making the exact same kind of claim.
This version of tolerance makes the mistaken assumption that we can be neutral about beliefs, but we can't. It's the very nature of belief to think what we believe is true. The strength of our conviction about the belief may vary, but beliefs by their very nature are not neutral on truth.
The traditional virtue of tolerance was the capacity to respect the other person whose views you disagree with. After all, if you don't disagree or if there is no truth to beliefs, what is there to tolerate? Unwittingly, Zimmerman practices this quality in his piece expressing his disagreement with Dungy while respecting him as a person. I just wish Zimmerman (and others who play out this shadow dance over and over) would drop the pretense of neutrality and admit that he's got a point of view just as much as Dungy does.
