Sorry guys, this is where I draw my line. I completely disagree with Green's statments, but as a Redskins fan and more importantly as a Christian I can't stand for his stances being savaged. I find Green's statements to be out of touch but he's coming at them with a good heart and honest intentions. I don't feel that mocking someone's faith, while certainly out of the mainstream, is very productive.

I also don't find is that necessary because as good as Green was as a corner, he'd be that bad as a candidate for public office. Despite his name recognition, he offers no real threat  in the 33rd. Let's limit our sacrifices to those who are viable candidates for public office.

Any Miller supporter who wants to slap me on the wrist for defending Green and not Harris is free to do so.

I don't think that we are bashing Green for his faith.  I think he is doing a disservice to this country by using his status as future Hall of fame football player (and an African American football player) to preach intolerance.  Reggie White savaged gays as well after he left the NFL.  Why are African-Americans savaging another minority group?  What kind of topsy-turvy world are we living in when Darrell Green stands with a Psuedo-Christian nutball like Rick Santorum.  Sorry, but if Rick Santorum ACTUALLY represented real Christian values, then Christian's might as well be worshipping Satan.  It is one thing to be a Christian, it is another to be a fake Christian, manipulating people's faith. 

You would think there would be a natural affinity for blacks and gays but there is not. It is mostly rooted in religion - and the black ministers are playing it that way. I'm sure you've heard of the term onthe "down low."

Expect more black folks to become Republican over this issue. Too bad we lost Coretta Scott King - she was one of the few black leaders who understood that civil rights are civil rights, no matter whether you're black or gay (or both).

He's expressing bigotry towards gays, oppression towards women ("submit" to their husbands, yeah right!), and an extreme set of religious beliefs ("dominion theology") that put him on the far-far-far right wing of American politics ABD religion.  Perhaps he DOES have a good heart, but I don't see it vis-a-vis gays and women.  And what's the defense of Green?  That he used to be a great football player?  That I'm "mocking" his faith?  So, you're saying that the religious views of candidates for political office should never be relevant - for better or for worse?  No matter how extreme?  What if Green were a member of a David Koresh-like cult?  Would that matter?  Just curious...

P.S.  This "good heart" line reminds me a great deal of what Bush said about Russian President Vladimir Putin, aka the "Butcher of Chechnya"  So much for trying to figure out what's in peoples' hearts.

A person should be judged based on their deeds, not on their faith.  Heck, the BTK killer was a leader of his church.  He probably presided over numerous charitable events.  Does that mean he should be judged by that, or the binding, torturing, and killing thing? 

The problem with "faith" is that it is hard to tell who is being sincere about their faith.  How people act on their faith is more important.  A preist who molests a child is nothing more than a filty child molestor.  Same with the Rabbi in Northern Virginia who was caught on Dateline traveling to a home to have sex with a young boy.  Heck, Osama Bin Laden supposedly has "faith". 

But back to Darrell Green.  He hasn't done anything as  horrible as those mentioned above.  He may have a "good heart".  However, I disagree vehemently with what he said, and I don't think his words have much to do with real Christian values. That being said, I have one question Mr. Green: 

What did the gay community ever do to you? 

...that Darrell Green is telling me how to live my life.  Especially now that he has joined the great moral crusader - Rick Santorum.  What's next Darrell?  Are you going to tell me how unpatriotic I am for not supporting the continuing debacle in Iraq?  How about telling me how U.S. intervention in the genocide in Darfur is wrong because those people aren't in our national interest?  How about taking a page from good old Pat Robertson who said that as a Jew, God doesn't hear my prayers? 

Forgive me Darrell, but take your moralizing to me and shove it up your steroid-taking ass.  Didn't you spend your life running into people at full speed for entertainment?  Sure, you probably gave a lot to charity.  Just too bad that your Republicanism and gay bashing is now taking away from all the good work you have done.  Are you going out and talking to African American children about how evil gays are?  That's a really good lesson, isn't it?  "Hey kids, the blacks in America were oppressed for 350 years.  Intolerance tried to break us as a people, and we stood up and marched non-violently towards racial equality.  Oh, by the way, remember that Fags are evil, and shouldn't be tolerated".

So, once again, I say to someone who should know better - You are a disgrace.  You are just another Clarence Thomas.  Bite me.

Is anyone here actually in his district or are we all just bashing him because he is a minority and a Republican? Democrats are slowly but most definitly loosing the minority vote.

Ha, more like the opposite with regard to Hispanics/Latinos. In fact, I'd say that Republican efforts to win over Hispanic/Latino voters have been set back 10 years with this harsh, House immigration monstrosity..er, bill.

As far as "bashing" Darrell Green, this is known as "politics."  I perceive Green as a potential threat to Mark Herring, and I'm going to do what I can to prevent that.  If he were white and had made these comments, I'd say the exact same things.  In fact, I DID...please see everything I wrote about Chris Craddock last year.  And, FYI, if a DEMOCRAT said the crap that Green is spewing out, I would say something as well.  Luckily, most Democrats don't say shit like that (wives submitting to husbands, pre-marital sex 99% with married people, no place for gay people), and hopefully don't believe it either.

I am bashing him because he is a local sports hero and supposed to be a role model.  He is using his career with the Redskins as a way to subjugate people and take advantage of them.  He is being a scumbag.  I don't care what color he is.

If I might interject --

  I likewise am a lifelong fan of the Redskins and especially of Darrell Green.  The first game I ever attended in person was the last game of his career because I wanted to say that I saw him in person.  I also disagree with him rather strongly on his political positions and seeming choice of friends.  That said, let me wade through the rhetoric, and see if I can't interpret and respond.
  I personally am not devout, but have long wondered what being devout is like.  Whenever I run this thought experience, I consider Darrell Green specifically.  The man had accomplished everything there was to accomplish in football and stayed in the league and on the team in the last couple of years explicitly (I'm pretty sure I saw him say this in a TV interview) because he felt that being in the league longer raised his profile and permitted him to do more charitable work.  I have little doubt that he is committed to what he says, committed to what he believes, and genuinely committed to helping people.
  I think it is important for us to try and find ways to appreciate the complexity of a person's character and recognize that a man may be "good", even if he clings to beliefs we find outdated or occasionally abhorrent.  This is not the sum of a person.  Surely you know somebody, maybe in your family, who is casually, incidentally, maybe unintentionally racist.  Would it be better if they weren't?  Yes.  Does it stop you from appreciating who they are as essentially good?  I hope not.

To DukieDem --

I don't believe Lowell's initial post was "mocking" Darrell Green's religious beliefs, rather he highlighted their manifestations in intolerance.  It seems to me -- and feel free to disagree if you think I'm reading something into it that isn't there, or marginalizing you -- it seems to me that your stance is founded almost on the belief that "oh, he's just a football player who doesn't quite know the implications what he's saying and all these sleazy politicians are taking advantage of him."  I would reject this, and I would reject the idea that he is not a serious candidate.  He is articulate, and more than that, he comes across as sincere and a genuine sports hero.  This is not naturally a democratic seat he would be vying for, so to dismiss him as an unserious candidate disregards his considerable stature (for a guy who is 5'10" tops) and is foolish besides.

To Lowell --

When Darrell Green says that 99.9% of sex is extramarital and with somebody else's husband or wife, what I think he means is that the person you have sex with today is ultimately going to marry somebody else down the road, not that they are currently married.  This is the only possible rational interpretation of what he said.  Yes, I think even this is a little ridiculous, but it does little good to not understand him in the first place.  He is conservative and a God Fearing.  Matter of fact, there was a flap that blew up about 10 years ago during some Southern Baptist convention or some such in which specific language was adopted or ratified or codified what have you saying that wives had to submit to their husbands.  I think this made a brief political appearance because the Clintons were Southern Baptist and questions were raised of them that used to be reserved for implying that Catholics candidates were beholden to the pope.  I digress.  Is it antiquarian of Green to believe this?  Absolutely.  Should we vilify him for it?  Well . . . I suppose this is much the same question of whether we vilify the founding fathers for being slaveholders who never dreamed women would vote (John Adams excepted).  One might argue that it was the social norm then -- but really only in the colonies.  Most of Europe had gotten rid of the practice.  And so, yes, it would be great, I *personally* would feel better about my fanhood of Darrell Green if he were more progressive.  Given that he holds these beliefs, if I were in his district, I would not vote for him (though it pains me to say it because in many respects I can't imagine how he would be but an upstanding legislator) -- but I don't not consider him to be a good man because of it.

To Dan --

As I think I covered above, I agree with you politically, but you don't do well to both hype and misstate the facts.  Unlike most sports heroes, Green is the real deal.  He *is* a role model, if not necessarily in his beliefs, then certainly in his work ethic and personal practices both on and off the field.  I don't know this firsthand, of course, but there certainly aren't any rumors to the contrary about him that I've ever heard.  But for the narrow-mindedness of his interpretation, he is perhaps one of the best examples of how devotion to God can translate into real measurable good in terms of his life, career, family, and community works.  I am at best agnostic, but I marvel that if I could trick myself into believing somehow, that that belief could be the springboard for such amazing things.  For you tart up phrases like "steroid taking ass" betrays either extreme ignorance or a far better source of inside information than I ever had.  The man was 5'10", covered receivers who were 6'5", played for 20 years, barely lost a step, and had a fanatical work ethic.

For you to suggest that this is "politics" is just foolish.  Anybody who liked Green and happened across the rather incendiary language you use is not going to think, "Oh, this guy Dan who doesn't seem to know what he's talking about *really* trashes my football player hero, I guess I won't vote for him."  Gay rights may be as natural as racial equality in the big picture, but the average voter does not equivocate them.  I thought it was a ridiculous pander, but there are all sorts of people who support civil unions but not gay marriage.  I've yet to hear a coherent reason for this (and I vowed to support any Democrat in the '04 primaries who admitted that this stance lacked cohesion, but that he felt this was what voters were prepared to support -- sadly, none actually said this) but it's true.  If you're trying to persuade people on the bubble, you can't foam at the mouth while you're doing it, no matter how passionately you may feel.  I can't imagine any convert as a result of that kind of rhetoric -- and if you *did* win somebody over that way, I can't imagine we'd particularly want that sort on our side.  (A vote's a vote, but I'm still sufficiently naive that I'd like for them to actually use their faculties of reason to come to believe we're right.)

If you want to tear down Darrell Green, a man perceived as a hero, do some oppo research.  Dig into his charities -- maybe they *aren't* as squeaky clean as they should be.  Attend some youth function, take note if he is indoctrinating kids with anti-gay rhetoric.  Find somebody, *anybody* to say the man took steroids.  Maybe it's all there.  I doubt it.  He's a football player, not a politician, so when he professes faith, he does it with a disarming genuineness that feels far realer than any Cowboy Christian Crusader image GWB has ever been able to evoke.  But your blog posts are insufficiently persuasive rhetorically to damage my image of him as a personality, and insufficiently factual to damage my image of him as upstanding.

And back to Lowell --

Depending on how wide a readership you have, this may or may not matter, I guess.  But I would urge you to seriously consider just how you go about attacking Darrell Green.  Not because I don't want to beat him if he runs -- in fact, it is precisely because I want to beat him if he runs.  I can't claim to know the best way to approach it, but I would strongly urge you to consider long and hard, if you plan to do more posts about Green, how to properly frame him, what sort of language to use, what angle to take -- and then be consistent in your follow up posts.  Consider him different from any other run-of-the-mill politician you might attack, because he is.  He is an unknown, never-been-poll-tested (publically, anyhow) political quantity.  As you wouldn't (I hope) ridicule John Warner (who at least has a political record) in quite the same way you would George Allen, so too is Darrell Green not Chris Craddock.  I wouldn't vote for any of them, but I respect the first two as serious people, even if I don't yet respect Green as a serious politician.

He is a rich guy with life experience.  He can't tell the difference between a disgusting fake-Christian charlatan like Rick Santorum and real Christian like Martin Luther King Jr.? 
Does he support George Allen who refused to recognize King's birthday?  If he can't tell the difference between the two, he is a freaking moron, no matter how many charities he does.  Like that guy on Blue Collar TV, "you can't fix stupid".

I had pre-marital sex and it was definitely not with a married woman.  Ah well, we've got our own football star anyhow (Heath Shuler of NC).

and I will do everything I can to ensure that Mark Herring is re-elected. I have enjoyed watching Darryl Greene throughout his career and he is one of my 5 favorite Redskins but I won't vote for him. I also like the Rolling Stones but I wouldn't want Keith Richards representing me.

The people of the 33rd district are concerned about real issues and won't be easily fooled into a cult of personality. Besides, this area is so transient now that a significant percentage of the residents didn't live here when Greene retired.

From the always excellent Norm Chad, the WaPo sports columnist/humorist, writing today about Lynn Swann running for governor of Pa.:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/16/AR2006041600760.html

"Anyhow, it's one thing for an underqualified, underprepared individual to stumble into Congress -- you can be buried in committee hearings there for years with not so much as having to raise your hand -- but it's another thing for that same person to be chief executive of an entire state.

Now, I'm just as wary of "professional politicians" as Swann is. Indeed, those holding public office should come from all walks of life. I just think the bar ought not be too low. I'm not saying all office-holders need to be the best and the brightest, but when you've spent much of your adult life under a football helmet or a catcher's mask -- that's right, Timmy McCarver, don't get any ideas! -- I don't know if your abilities are best-suited to make decisions for millions of fellow taxpayers.

And couldn't Swann just start out running a state with fewer people, like one of the Dakotas or something?"