Friday, July 24, 2020

Thoughts on Sam Coonrod and Kneeling For Black Lives Matter


Before last night's Opening Day game at Dodger Stadium, the two teams lined up on each side of home plate up the foul lines with all of the players and coaches kneeling while holding a long black cloth or fabric that stretched the full length of the two teams.  I have to confess I missed exactly what the cloth represented but I assumed it was related to Black Lives Matter and represented some sort of common thread theme?  There was one player who remained standing along the line, Sam Coonrod, a young pitcher on the Giants roster.  OK, I mean, at least he was out there, but was that some sort of protest of his own AGAINST Black Lives Matter?  I guess it's his right to do that and we could have been left wondering about his motivation, but then he opened his mouth.  This is what came out:

"As a Christian, I can't kneel before anything besides God."  He added, "I'm a Christian, like I said, and I just can't get on board with a couple of things that I have read about Black Lives Matter, how they lean toward Marxism and they've said some negative things about the nuclear family.  I just can't get on board with that."

There is a lot to unpack here.  Let me first say, I respect Sam Coonrod's right to believe, do and say what he wants as long as he is not infringing on someone else's rights in the process, but I also believe some of the things he said here deserve some pushback and from a Christian perspective.  As someone who comes from a Christian background and works in a faith-based environment, I find it deeply disturbing that Christianity has become virtually synonymous with a particular segment of the political spectrum.  In fact, based on my upbringing and reading of the Judeo-Christian Bible, I believe Jesus Christ himself would be more at home with those who are trying to bring about more racial and economic equality than those who currently conflate their religion with a more radical right wing, and even reactionary, political approach.  BTW, I refuse to call the current prevailing political philosophy we see in the Republican Party "conservative".  The root word of conservative is conserve and there is nothing conserving about that political brand right now.  The prevailing philosophy in the current Republican Party is extreme, radical and reactionary, not conservative.

Anyway, sorry for the digression.  Back to Sam Coonrod's statements:

"I can't kneel before anyone besides God." 

OK, speaking for myself and what I was taught growing up in a Christian household, yes, I was taught to kneel and close my eyes WHEN POSSIBLE when "talking to God", otherwise called praying, as a sign of respect.  But I was also taught that we could communicate with God at any time, in any place and that God would still hear our prayers in whatever condition and situation we found ourselves in.  I was never taught that I couldn't kneel at other times for other reasons.  I also fail to see how kneeling in support of Black Lives Matter is mutually exclusive to "kneeling before God."  I'm pretty sure God cares about Black Lives too, and there is nothing wrong with bringing that concern to Him/Her/It on a ballfield where players are coming together out of concern for a very spiritual concept, that a black life is worth just as much as a white life, that too many members of a particular ethnic group are losing their lives for no good reason and should not be killed by police in disproportionate numbers to other ethnic groups.  So, based on my experience and understanding, I see no reason why a Christian could not kneel along with the other players, many of whom I am pretty sure are Christian themselves.  I would also point out that a major part of Jesus' ministry involved defending people who were despised and oppressed by the religious and political establishment at the time.  It is not hard to imagine Jesus supporting people who are being needlessly killed by police because of the color of their skin.

"I have read about Black Lives Matter, how they lean toward Marxism and they've said negative things about the nuclear family."

Based on a fact-check article linked by Andy Baggarly of the Athletic, one of the three women who founded Black Lives Matter described herself and one of the others as "trained Marxists."  However, there is nothing in the Black Lives Matter mission statements espousing Marxism and the movement has grown to include people of diverse political and religious orientation.  At this point, dismissing the entire BLM movement as Marxist seem disingenuous at best.  By the way, growing up as a Christian and then reading about Marxism, I never quite understood why Marx insisted on linking atheism with socialism or communism anyway, because it seemed to me that a lot of what Jesus taught involved transferring wealth from the rich to the poor and actually served as the basis for a lot of socialistic ideas.  Maybe Marx just saw that religion had been too often misused to justify persecution and oppression and just wanted to get that out of the way?  I don't know.  Also by the way, I am not a Marxist nor a communist.  I believe in the principles of free enterprise and private property ownership, but that those rights need to be regulated to prevent monopoly by a few ultra-successful oligarchs which ends up being no different than monopoly by government.

As for the statement of the BLM founder regarding the nuclear family, my reading does not see it as a condemnation of the nuclear family, but a recognition that people need the support of a larger community than just the nuclear family.  Here is the actual statement:  "We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure REQUIREMENTS by supporting each other as extended families and 'villages' that collectively care for one another, especially our children, TO THE DEGREE THAT MOTHERS, PARENTS AND CHILDREN ARE COMFORTABLE."  Again, speaking for myself, I do not see an attack on the nuclear family there, only a recognition we are not required to be part of a nuclear family to be supported and any additional support is only up to the point of what a given nuclear family is comfortable with.

So again, Sam Coonrod has the right to say and do what he wants and believes as long as he is not infringing on the rights of others, but his statements were misleading and misrepresenting of both Christianity and Black Lives Matter, and stand to be corrected.

27 comments:

  1. Thank you for speaking out on this. Well said.

    Good on Sam Coonrod for speaking towards and standing up for what he believes. I disagree 100%, but that's the whole point of the social movements of any era - allow free speech when it is not violent or oppressive, and allow all conflicting voices to have their time to be heard. Coonrod, IMHO, knows nothing of Jesus if he thinks representing those of marginalized voice is anti-Christian, but that's his journey and not mine to judge. Glad to see LA & SF come together over a movement both cities are in the thick of.

    ReplyDelete
  2. One more thought for Sam Coonrod to consider. Dude! I don't know what your relationship status is, but hey Mr. Nuclear Family! If you are married or engaged to be married, did you get down on one knee to propose? If you are not married or engaged, are you planning to get down on one knee when you do propose. If not, have fun explaining the "I'm a Christian" thing to her!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am sure glad you don't get off on these tirades very often, Doc!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tirades? I don't think I am willing to accept the label tirade for what I posted here. This is a Giants and baseball oriented blog and I stay on topic. This was a situation directly related to the game last night and directly related to the Giants and one of their players. I don't see anything wrong with posting an opinion about it any more than it would be wrong to post an opinion about Gabe Kapler's managing.

      Delete
  4. Thanks very much, Doc for your perceptive comments. I always gain from reading your perspective, and I find myself adopting a considerate tone as well when discussing with others.

    Now, let's get a win tonight!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I feel burnt out on this topic and don't feel like these protests are really changing anything. In fact, one could argue that most of the country was so burnt out on this topic back in 2016 that they responded by voting for Trump.

    Remember how the poles all said that Clinton would win but then when it came down to it everyone was shocked that Trump won? Maybe I am totally wrong but if I am right even a little, you could argue that BLM is doing more harm than good.

    Protests are great for changing laws like giving women the right to vote or for influencing the country to pull out of conflicts but I don't see how they are going to change someone who is a racist. The government has no control over people's beliefs and I would bet every penny I have that these same racists are not influenced to be any less racist by these protests.

    Someone much smarter than I once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. Protests against racism have gone on for decades and yet here we are presumably in the same place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I understand how you feel. I think all of us are exhausted by the extreme political rhetoric coming from multiple sides. There are multiple reasons why Trump won in 2016 and "whitelash" was definitely one of them. In addition, Hillary Clinton was an extremely weak campaigner and for whatever reason had extremely high negative perceptions herself. On top of all that, I obsessively followed the opinion polls and there is no question in my mind that James Comey's handling of the e-mail situation was a huge factor in her defeat.

      I think to whatever extent protests remain peaceful like what the ballplayers did last night, they gain support. Rioting and looting is extremely counter-productive and "defund the police" may well be a bridge too far for most voters(and I would point out that Biden has specifically said he does not support "defund the police."

      We somehow need to get back to moderation and decorum in this country and start to seriously solve problems. Protests need to be followed up by voting, and participation in government.

      Delete
    2. Well you can't argue that MOST of the country voted for Trump in 2016 because he only had 63 million votes while Clinton had 65.8 million. An additional 7.8 million voted for other candidates. Peaceful protesting and campaigning for actual liberty and justice for all should draw standing ovations for courage and acted upon by whatever powers that be. I support the Giants helping to keep the BLM campaign for justice alive and in the public sphere.

      Delete
    3. Another major myth about the 2016 election is that the polls got it wrong. The polls were actually quite accurate. 538's final poll average had Clinton up by 3%. She won the popular vote by about 2.5%. 538 said there was a significant chance the popular and electoral votes would be split. That's exactly what happened!

      Delete
    4. I don't know you in person, so these are not meant to be personal in anyway. But many people have the privilege or feeling burnt out and turn their back on the situation. But for many others this is what they face everyday. We should stay active and force the change this time. Turning our back will be doing the same thing all over again.

      Delete
  6. Thank you for the post, Doc. I respect you for speaking about this topic, and I respect Sam Coonrod for being true to his convictions. Form his statements, I don't think him not kneeling was in protest of black lives or a statement in support of racism or to slight any teammates. The kingdom of God is a big and diverse group of people, of which all followers of Christ belong, including Sam. As a fellow Christian like you, I fully abhor all racism. I am troubled by police brutality and hatred. I can, however, relate to his reservations about the BLM organization. Sam's perspective may indeed be politically influenced, but who's to say mine or yours isn't. Perhaps we, too, are victims of our own ideology. I've found it best to remove the log from our own eye before seeking to remove a speck from our brother's eye, as Jesus taught us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sam Coonrod absolutely has the right to express his opinions and to defend his actions. If he had simply said, "I personally believe I should only kneel before God in a place of worship." I would still disagree with him but would have no reason for calling him out. It was his linking that stance to him being a "Christian" I felt needed some pushback. All I am doing here is pointing out that his opinion on kneeling is not an essential part of being a "Christian." He also misrepresented, perhaps unintentionally, BLM, and I felt that also needed to be clarified.

      But yeah, I hope Sam Coonrod is sincerely trying to find his truth and is willing to grow in his faith and as a person. We should allow him the freedom to do that while holding him accountable for statements that misrepresent what others believe.

      Delete
    2. Coonrod is not speaking for all Christians but for himself, just as your opinion does not represent all Christians. Because not all Christians agree with your position, one could say that your statements are misrepresenting what others believe as well, since you made it a point to say that you are a Christian. Aren't you "linking your stance" on being a Christian? It seems as though you are guilty of the same thing you accuse Coonrod of.

      Delete
    3. The way Coonrod said it certainly implied that he was speaking for all Christians or at least what he thinks all Christians should believe and how they should behave. If he was only speaking for himself he should have left out the phrase "as a Christian...." Had he said something like "I believe the Bible teaches me to not kneel for any other reason than to pray to God" I would have no problem with it.

      Delete
  7. I agree with Sam Coonrod. He's my new favorite Giant. I also believe that free speech allows you to kneel, stand, or do whatever. I agree with Sam.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that Sam Coonrod has the right to kneel, stand or stay in the dugout. He also has the right to say whatever he wants, but others have the right and responsibility to hold him accountable for statements that mislead and misrepresent.

      Delete
    2. I don't agree that what Sam Coonrod said was a misreprentation. The bible instructs not to pray or bow to false idols. Jesus gave the example of kneeling only to God the Father (Luke 22:41). Daniel was found to be a man of God because he knelt and prayed only to the one true God. I don't fault other players for showing solidarity with their teammates, but what Sam Coonrod said about who he chooses to bow to has significant biblical backing. In regards to the BLM movement being Marxist, the website does not specifically say that but, as you mentioned, their organizers are open about their background and training as organizers and marxists. This is public knowledge.

      Delete
    3. First of all, as I pointed out, the act of kneeling is not the same as praying. If Coonrod thinks it is, then he should say it is for him. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing when he proposed or proposes to his GF to ask her to marry him, he does not think he was/is praying to her. I am quite sure there were several dedicated Christian ballplayers out there kneeling and none of them thought they were praying to BLM or honoring BLM as a substitute for God.

      I don't dispute that there are people helping to organize the BLM movement who are Marxists. I stand by my statement that to use that to say it is a Marxist movement or "leans Marxist" is a gross misrepresentation of what it is or how most people see it.

      All I am doing her is holding Sam Coonrod accountable for what he attributes to others, not what he personally believes.

      So, maybe Sam is not the most articulate guy in the world and he inadvertently tried to explain what he believes in words that ended up misleading and misrepresenting others. If so, he has an opportunity to clarify is statement to something that is limited to his own beliefs without impuning the beliefs of others.

      Delete
    4. "This is public knowledge" is a weak reference. I do not see anything about Marxism in BLM's actions. Moreover, the even was about systemic racism. not about BLM.

      Delete
  8. Thanks for the comments everybody. This discussion is headed off the rails as most discussions about political and religious beliefs do these days. As always, it's my site so I get the last word. I will not publish any further comments in this thread.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ....er I will not publish any more comments for this post.

      Delete
  9. At least we have some courteous dialog about the BLM issue here. Some of us are frustrated regarding the narratives that are used as arguments for the movement and that seem to impede honest dialog. One narrative is the notion that only white people are racist and that the vast majority of them (white people) are in fact racists or at least not “woke” enough to satisfy those on the other side of the movement. This country is NOT perfect but what country is and why do so many keep coming- opportunity and freedom ! It’s frustrating to listen as all of the faults of OUR (everyone’s) country are amplified and none of the greatness is remembered or recognized. For example, we have engaged in some horrible wars but have also fought wars that have changed the course of history for the better (imagine if the NAZIs had prevailed). Although I acknowledge that the move towards total racial equality has been far too slow- there has been and continues to be progress. Maybe I am naive, but when I see individuals kneeling during our anthem I feel there is a total disregard for the those that fought for the rights of everyone to speak freely and protest injustice. We need an honest discussion regarding the issues of police brutality that much of the BLM movement seems to be based upon. Currently the argument seems to be that law enforcement in this country is overwhelmingly unfair to minority groups. The other side of the argument seems lost as the media chooses to ramp up the emotions that have resulted from the “unfair” argument. Can we actually have discussions regarding the issue and not have groups destroying the property and livelihoods of others- many of whom bear no responsibility for the presumed misdeeds of the police.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK, I will go ahead and post this comment and respond as you seem to be an honest seeker. I agree a big part of our problem in this country is the amplification of issues by the 24 hour news culture. I also feel the sting and unfairness of being labelled racist just because of my color(white) which seems to be the very thing we are trying to fight here.

      On the other hand, it seems quite clear to me that the ubiquitous presence of cellphone videos and cameras has uncovered a dirty secret in our society, that there is a widespread, if not pervasive, culture in some police departments that it's OK to arrest blacks for "crimes" that white people would not be arrested for and it's OK to escalate those arrests into brutal physical attacks and shootings. Those increasingly frequent anecdotes and testimonials are backed up by statistics. As a result, I believe the BLM movement has a legitimate case to prosecute and we as a society have to find a way to hold our law enforcement workers accountable and insist on change.

      Delete
    2. I would also like to point out that this movement for equality is not 100% focused on police and law enforcement, though they bare responsibility for the many faults and systemic culture issues, along with their many distinguishing qualities.

      However, systemic racism is also associated with systems such as bail - whereby wealth allows some to go free, while those without wealth lose their jobs and much more while awaiting trial, often being coerced into plea deals that allow them to exit jail, even if they would later be found not guilty.

      Similarly, the history of US legislation (many examples existing in modern America, not just pre-civil rights) which systemically excluded black and African American peoples from taking advantage of government backed loans, the ability to own land, the ability to prosecute white people for [horrific] crimes against black families, the ability to hold office, the ability to vote, the ability to buy property in "white" neighborhoods; this list is nearly endless. This is what the term "White advantage" speaks to. Generational wealth is no small part of advancing in this society and culture, and most folks eyes are only just now being opened to something that Black people have being calling out for now over a century.

      I appreciate the level of conversation being had on this forum. Thank you everybody. Thank you Dr. B for moderating well.

      Delete
    3. Those are good points. So good I will make one more exception and post this comment.

      Delete
  10. I appreciate people's interest and passion for this subject. I let a couple more comments through. I think we've had a nice balance pro and con the responses have been polite and well reasoned. We need more of this type of discourse in our country. With that, I am going to cut off any further comments from publication and get back to baseball. Thanks again, everybody!

    ReplyDelete