Tim Wildmon

AFA president

August 2006 – “Something I am getting tired of in this country is the denial of truth in the name of sensitivity,” I said to my lovely and talented wife Alison the other day while reading the paper.

Some people have dubbed this “political correctness.” A couple of items in the news recently reminded me of this.

You recall a few weeks ago Ben Roethlisberger, quarterback for the world champion Pittsburgh Steelers, had a motorcycle accident. He rammed his Suzuki into a Chrysler New Yorker. When these two vehicles collide, the Chrysler New Yorker will almost always come out on top. But Big Ben, as he is called by many, escaped without serious injury, despite the fact that he was driving without a license and without wearing a helmet. However, if you look at a photograph of the motorcycle without knowing the outcome, you would say someone probably died on that bike.

But what got me was the statement by Big Ben’s coach, Bill Cowher. When asked about the fact that Roethlisberger was not wearing a helmet, Cowher said this: “I think it would be very unfair, and I think it’s really irrelevant, to be judgmental about the accident itself.”

Huh?

I don’t get it. What is so wrong about making a judgment about an action that was illegal, irresponsible and obviously boneheaded?

You mean to publicly say it was irresponsible of Ben not to be wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle is somehow “unfair?” That is ridiculous.

Here is what Cowher should have said: “First, let me say that Ben is a good person. Many people are praying for him. However, Ben showed a total disregard for the law, for himself and for his teammates by riding a motorcycle without a helmet. He was very fortunate he was not killed or injured to the point of not being able to play football again. So for all you other motorcycle enthusiasts, let this be a lesson to you. Always wear a helmet. It could save your life.”

Personally, I can’t believe that the Steelers did not write a clause in Ben’s contract that forbids him to ride a motorcycle at all. Roethlisberger’s body is a very expensive commodity and a lot of people depend on his playing on Sunday afternoons in the fall. To risk his career riding a motorcycle is to me, well, foolishness. Ooops! Sorry. I am being judgmental here. Ben, if you are reading this, I didn’t mean to hurt your feelings.

The second example of this politically correct talk came from beloved First Lady Laura Bush. She was speaking about a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Fox News asked Mrs. Bush if the issue should be used as a “campaign tool.”

She responded: “Well, I don’t think it should be used as a campaign tool, obviously. But I do think it’s something that people in the United States want to debate. And it requires a lot of sensitivity to talk about the issue, a lot of sensitivity.”

What the First Lady is saying is, “Don’t make a judgment that two men marrying each other is morally wrong because that might make gay people feel bad.”

And here is what I am talking about. In the world of political correctness, making a judgment about someone’s actions is worse than the actions themselves.

The proposed Marriage Protection Amendment is both a moral and political issue. Some senators are for it; some are against it. So the political component is self-evident. It cannot be denied. Senators had to vote on the proposed amendment, for goodness sakes.  Should they not use it in their campaigns to say, “I am for it and my opponent is against it?”

Yet, the First Lady is saying it should not be used as a campaign tool? That statement makes no sense.

What this really is – if in fact, Mrs. Bush is against same-sex marriage, and that is not certain – is the First Lady not wanting to be called a bigot by the politically correct crowd. If she refuses to take a stand, she avoids the criticism from the liberal media. Which might cause her poll numbers to go down.What if she had said this: “The idea of two men getting married is ridiculous and immoral. Everybody knows God intended marriage to be between a man and a woman which leads to children which leads to families which leads to countries which leads to civilizations. Next question.” That is the kind of statement of moral clarity we should be hearing from the First Lady. We don’t need to hear the sensitivity lecture. If it is “insensitive” to be against two or three men getting married then so be it. There are worse things to be. 

The point is, whether you are a football coach or the First Lady of the United States, when you begin to deny common sense and/or reality in the name of sensitivity or for fear or being judgmental, you lose credibility.