Former NFL punter Chris Kluwe rips Christian fundamentalists who want to turn U.S. into Iran | The Raw Story

40

Former Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe spoke out against Christian fundamentalism in a YouTube interview on Saturday.

During the interview, atheist activist David Viviano asked Kluwe if he believed Vikings special teams coach Mike Priefer made anti-gay comments because of his religion.

“I think that might have been a factor in it because I know that especially with Christianity there is very much, you know, a lot of stuff in the Old Testament about, you know, stone the gays, don’t allow it, homosexuality is a sin, stuff like that,” Kluwe replied. “And it is really unfortunate because there is a lot of very nice people who are Christians who don’t believe that, but there are also a lot of very not nice people who are Christians who do believe that, and they give the other Christians a very bad name.”

“They’re very vocal, they’re very active, and they’re treating people really badly,” he continued.

“The problem is that they don’t understand that if the tables where flipped, where they the ones being persecuted, they would be screaming and yelling about how they’re rights were being trampled and how dare you do this to me… but they don’t see how they’re doing the exact same thing to someone else.”

Kluwe also said he was familiar with the so-called “war on Christmas,” and thought it was “unfortunate” that fundamentalism appeared to be on the rise.

“Fundamentalism is never a good thing in history,” he said. “Fundamentalism leads to really terrible things, and so my position has always been: I don’t have any problem whatsoever with religion, I have no problem whatsoever with whatever your beliefs are, all I care about are your actions. What do you actions say about you as a person? Because that is the only way any of us can ever judge each other.”

Kluwe warned that if fundamentalism was unchecked, the United States could see a form of government like the Iranian theocracy. He said that many Christian fundamentalists were “terrified” of Islamic Sharia law being imposed within the United States, yet wanted to turn the United States into a “Christian theocracy.”

Watch the video for more!
Written By: Eric W. Dolan
continue to source article at rawstory.com

40 COMMENTS

  1. Wow, since Pat Tillman, I cannot name an NFL player worth listening to on any intellectual front. And then Chris Kluwe comes along and makes me rethink my disdain for the collective intellects of those that smash into one another repeatedly and then are caught off guard by their concussions, depression, arthritis, etc…

    I am being a bit two faced here, as i do like sports and football is an ok game with me. However, the praying and ceremony and utter vapid players and the endless, meaningless chatter by ex players before during and after games can be excruciating. This guy breaks the mold and I am thankful for that.

    • In reply to #2 by crookedshoes:

      Wow, since Pat Tillman, I cannot name an NFL player worth listening to on any intellectual front. And then Chris Kluwe comes along and makes me rethink my disdain for the collective intellects of those that smash into one another repeatedly and then are caught off guard by their concussions, depres…

      Damn, You said it all……

    • In reply to #2 by crookedshoes:

      Wow, since Pat Tillman, I cannot name an NFL player worth listening to on any intellectual front. And then Chris Kluwe comes along and makes me rethink my disdain for the collective intellects of those that smash into one another repeatedly and then are caught off guard by their concussions, depres…

      Arian Foster, Houston Texans, made some interesting statements on religious faith and children.

      • In reply to #6 by Nunbeliever:

        In reply to #5 by Stafford Gordon:

        “…there IS a lot of very nice people…”; No, there ARE a lot of very nice people.

        I hope this is some weird inside joke of yours.

        I never joke; no sense of humour.

        Concise Oxford English Dictionary: Is; third person singular of be.

        Are; second person singular present and first, second and third plural present of be.

        I always choose to use “is” in the singular, and “are” in the plural.

        Would you for instance say : there are a nice town and there is a lot of people in it, or, there is a nice town and there are a lot of people in it.

        Your not American are you?

          • In reply to #20 by Alan4discussion:

            In reply to #18 by Stafford Gordon:

            “…there IS a lot.

            Just the one lot!

            And, thankfully, his line is continued because of his daughters’ resourcefulness! ;-)

            On another note, how is this fair? I brought up the “I before E…” rule on another thread and was reprimanded, and adjusted my pedant threshhold (“PT”) accordingly. On this thread, the Mods don’t say a word and the original subject-verb faux pas is corrected! I call foul! ;-)

            I’m keeping my PT where it is, but I would just like to say that pointing out and/or correcting the “vagaries of English…” should not be seen as an attempt to embarrass or ridicule posters whose first language is not English. It is a “teachable moment”, and can help the interested further their understanding and fluency with the Mother Tongue. I’m done now.

            Steve

          • As I long ago made the career migration from laboratory scientist and teacher to medical proposal/grant writer (with all of the attendant proofreading and editing duties that go along with) I have become acutely aware of the vagaries and various obscenities committed to and with the English language. Alas, I commit many myself and I am usually (though alas, not always) the first to catch them when I do a 1st or 2nd draft proof. It always humbles me when I see something glaring that I’ve committed as I know what my knee jerk reaction is when I see others commit similar linguistic atrocities. And I try to use that as a teachable moment as well, with myself first and others as appropriate.

            In a forum environment when we often do not know the contributors native nationality, much less their area of expertise (many with education greater than I can’t write or spell their way out of a paper bag), this becomes exceedingly difficult. So while my first instinct is to make corrections (this piece as originally posted is a good example as it was rife with syntactical and other errors) I typically stay on the sidelines these days and let the rest of you battle it out, ha.

            In reply to #21 by Agrajag:

            In reply to #20 by Alan4discussion:

            In reply to #18 by Stafford Gordon:

            “…there IS a lot.

            Just the one lot!

            And, thankfully, his line is continued because of his daughters’ resourcefulness! ;-)

            On another note, how is this fair? I brought up the “I before E…” rule on another thread and was…

          • In reply to #22 by Steven007:

            As I long ago made the career migration from laboratory scientist and teacher to medical proposal/grant writer (with all of the attendant proofreading and editing duties that go along with) I have become acutely aware of the vagaries and various obscenities committed to and with the English language…

            I love language and there are few things I like more than reading an author who really knows how to use English. It’s one of the things I like about Dawkins, not only his command of the concepts but his ability to express them in a way that is both precise and engaging, even poetic at times.

            But I’ve never understood people who get all worked up over grammatical errors on blogs or comments. First of all what we take as “proper English” is nothing more than a set of conventions. Except for the French there is no official organization that defines what is and isn’t the proper use of the language. Second, the conventions are constantly in flux anyway. Also, some of the best prose (e.g., Mark Twain) is very ungrammatical and captures the way people actually use the language not the way some people in an Ivory tower decree it has to be used.

        • In reply to #18 by Stafford Gordon:

          In reply to #6 by Nunbeliever:

          In reply to #5 by Stafford Gordon:

          “…there IS a lot of very nice people…”; No, there ARE a lot of very nice people.

          I hope this is some weird inside joke of yours.

          I never joke; no sense of humour.

          Concise Oxford English Dictionary: Is; third person singular o…

          Well, yes. I perfectly understand your point. I just think it’s rather silly to point out a trivial grammatical error (especially since it’s a quote from a live interview) that has no bearing on the contents of the article. Hence, I presumed your comment was tongue-in-cheek. Which I still do.

        • In reply to #18 by Stafford Gordon:

          In reply to #6 by Nunbeliever:

          In reply to #5 by Stafford Gordon:

          “…there IS a lot of very nice people…”; No, there ARE a lot of very nice people.

          I hope this is some weird inside joke of yours.

          I never joke; no sense of humour.

          Concise Oxford English Dictionary: Is; third person singular o…

          You’re?

        • Surely you mean “you’re not American”In reply to #18 by Stafford Gordon:

          In reply to #6 by Nunbeliever:

          In reply to #5 by Stafford Gordon:

          “…there IS a lot of very nice people…”; No, there ARE a lot of very nice people.

          I hope this is some weird inside joke of yours.

          I never joke; no sense of humour.

          Concise Oxford English Dictionary: Is; third person singular o…

    • In reply to #5 by Stafford Gordon:

      “…there IS a lot of very nice people…”; No, there ARE a lot of very nice people.

      Maybe this depends on whether the verb to be applies to “lot” (singular), or “people” (plural)? Feel free to condemn me to within an inch of my life if you think I’m wrong, though :)

    • In reply to #5 by Stafford Gordon:

      “…there IS a lot of very nice people…”; No, there ARE a lot of very nice people.
      No, the article was correct.
      The noun phrase ‘a lot of very nice people’ is headed by the noun ‘a lot’ which is singular. Think about it, you wouldn’t say ‘There are a bowl of very nice apples’.

    • In reply to #8 by Bob Springsteen:

      Why does Kluwe only mention the Old Testament when it comes down to persecuting Gays? In the New Testament, St Paul calls for the Killing of homosexuals (Romans 1:18-32).

      My guess is that since he’s talking about fundamentalism the more radical fundamentalists refer more often to the crazier Old Testament God than the kinder, gentler Palestinian carpenter, when they recommend death for common infractions. The Old Testament and the crazy jealous God is shared by the big three.

    • In reply to #10 by localwes:

      Paul does not call for the killing of homosexuals. In vs 32 he states “Though they know God’s decree”. They knew what God’s law was and ignored it. It was not an opinion of Paul.

      .. . .. and Paul’s channel of communication with god was??? Oh yes! an epileptic fit with visions, which in his OPINION was a revelation! – Perhaps with a few OT bronze-age myths thrown in.

  2. In reply to NUMBER 10 by localwes. The killing of homosexuals: Why would St Paul oppose God’s punishment? Even Jesus endorsed Old Testament Law (Mathew 5:18-19). St Paul even endorses the practice of slavery (Ephesians 6:5).

  3. As an NFL fan I have been long bothered by the ceremony and pre/post game prayers as well as the call outs and thanks to Jesus, ostensibly because he helped them play well and/or win. You know, because he has some kind of stake in the game. Perhaps he bet on it, ha-ha. Funny, you never hear a losing player thanking their lord and savior Jesus Christ. And oh yeah, you gotta love the pointing and/or looking to the sky after they score. There must have been a divine hand guiding that football. ‘Forget about the famine, death and mayhem world wide – I’ve got an NFL game to interfere with!’ This came to a fever pitch with the whole Tim Tebow thing. He couldn’t start an interview without first thanking “my lord and savior Jesus Christ”. I always wanted to ask, ‘thank him for what exactly? And don’t you think he heard you the first time, and second, and hundredth? Is his ego that gigantic that he must hear praise with every breath of oxygen?’

    As weird and senseless as this behavior is to most of us, the one player who owns it is Steelers S Troy Polamalu. He is the only player that crosses himself after EVERY play, regardless of the outcome of the play, good or bad. As silly as I think that act is I at least give him credit for his conviction and lack of hypocrisy on the playing field. He’s not just praising his lord after the good plays. More on topic, Kluwe is a thoughtful player obviously. There have been more than a few through the years. They just tend not to bark as loud as the god heads. Perhaps that’s changing a bit now. You know, the trickledown effect.

    • I always wanted to ask, ‘thank him for what exactly?

      I think that they are forever astonished that they stand back up after each violent collision. I think they pray for safety and give thanks for the randomness of injury to somehow skip them for another play/game/day/week/contract.

      There really is no reason that they should be multi multi millionaires; it truly is selection at it’s core.

      In reply to #13 by Steven007:

      As an NFL fan I have been long bothered by the ceremony and pre/post game prayers as well as the call outs and thanks to Jesus, ostensibly because he helped them play well and/or win. You know, because he has some kind of stake in the game. Perhaps he bet on it, ha-ha. Funny, you never hear a losing…

  4. I’m surely not alone in seeing parallels between strong fans of a sports team, and those exhibiting the crude, side-choosing mindset of many religious subscribers. Does anyone else think that to outsiders (from humanity) the multi-billion dollar sporting industry would possibly seem ridiculous if not hilarious? A career where it’s alright to use only the muscles and reflexes you’re born with, to earn more wealth than the smartest or hardest working people on the planet? Is it right that perhaps on occasion, the time the ball is in the air from a quarterback’s throw, sees him earn as much as a years salary for a high school biology teacher?

    Admission: I have spent countless hours watching test-match cricket. It does, of course imbue wealth less than a meaningful fraction of say, NFL, NBA, Golf, Tennis. Ancestors of mine have played for State and National sports teams, but weren’t paid. I don’t seek arguments regarding the validity of paid sports. Just wish it noted I’m one who certainly questions the justified presence of wealthy ball-chasers. Let alone the gambling institutions they prop up.

    Having just witnessed “Australian of the Year” go to a sports person, again (seemingly every second year at least, in my memory) I’d like very much to hear comments regarding this aspect of humanity’s values.

    • It’s an interesting topic, Timothy. Personally I enjoy watching as mentioned. But I really think it’s rather benign (the watching). Of course it, like many other things can be taken to extremes. The word fan, lest we forget, comes from fanatic. That alone justifies some of what I believe to be the crux of your post. But the community, the social aspect of fandom (tailgating, crowd dynamics, etc) can certainly resemble that of some religions to be sure. However outside of the extremes of fandom I really think there are fundamental differences I probably don’t need to mention (lack of supernatural attributes, revelation, etc).

      Now the issue of finances and compensation I have more of a problem with. This is of course driven by capitalism. Not all that long ago (relatively speaking) NFL players, now among the most well compensated athletes, had to hold a second job. At this point the minimum rookie salaries are greater than 99% of the population. It seems like there will would/should be a tipping point somewhere along the line.

      In reply to #16 by Timothy McNamara:

      Am I alone in bracketing strong fans of a sports team as akin to those needing the crude, side-choosing mindset of many religious subscribers? Does anyone else think that to outsiders (from humanity) the multi-billion dollar sporting industry would possibly seem ridiculous if not hilarious? It’s alr…

  5. As a Minnesotan, I’ve been a fan of Chris Kluwe for years — both on the field for his kicking ability and off the field for his activism. Glad to see that he shares my view on religion as well.

  6. Moderators’ message

    Please keep all comments on the subject of the OP and avoid derailing discussions.

    **We would also repeat our recent request to refrain from making negative comments about other users’ spelling and grammar. They don’t further the discussion, just risk derailing the thread – as has happened here – and are not conducive to the civil, thoughtful discussion that is the aim here. **

    **Thank you. **

    The mods

    • In reply to #25 by Moderator:

      Moderators’ message

      Please keep all comments on the subject of the OP and avoid derailing discussions.

      We would also repeat our recent request to refrain from making negative comments about other users’ spelling and grammar. They don’t further the discussion, just risk derailing the thread – as h…

      We were just having some fun with each other….otter?

    • In reply to #25 by Moderator:

      Moderators’ message

      Please keep all comments on the subject of the OP and avoid derailing discussions.

      We would also repeat our recent request to refrain from making negative comments about other users’

      spelling and grammar. They don’t further the discussion, just risk derailing the thread – as h…

      Whoops! Sorry.

      S G

  7. I agree with Kluwe on everything I have ever heard him say. However I never thought it was wise of him to wage that battle from the football field. In general I would rather celebrities of all varieties just stick to their craft, and not preach from their platform on a pet issue.

    Even if I happen to agree (which is usually the case since I am a social liberal along with most celebs), actors, musicians, and athletes don’t have the credentials to seriously advance the discussion. Of course, creating music, films, art and otherwise speaking through your work to say something political is completely different and very powerful.

    • In reply to #29 by plaidandpolkadots:

      In general I would rather celebrities of all varieties just stick to their craft, and not preach from their platform on a pet issue.

      Although I have no knowledge of or interest in the sport I see no reason why individual celebrities should not let us know their opinions. The only reason not to do so might be to avoid a negative impact on their own careers. It is, of course, frustrating if the celebrity in question airs a view that I do not share, but commonly I’d suggest the only reason that the zeitgeist progresses in the direction of tolerance is because celebrities pick up on popular view long before politicians and certainly before religious figureheads.

      I find it very refreshing that a public figure is voicing what is actually quite a strong attack on Christian fundamentalism in a country with a very high proportion of Christians. I say he is being very brave so good on him. A round of applause.

      • In reply to #30 by naskew:

        Although I have no knowledge of or interest in the sport I see no reason why individual celebrities should not let us know their opinions.

        They have as much right to voice their opinion as you are I. With regard to Atheism especially, I always take an interest to find out if a public figure is a non believer. I will often go out of my way to Google what they have to say on certain subjects, depending on how interesting I find the individual outside of their work. Hearing a celebrity opinion is quite different than a full blown celebrity activist.

        …because celebrities pick up on popular view long before politicians and certainly before religious figureheads

        I wouldn’t march too proudly under the banner of being more in touch than politians and clergyman. That’s not difficult. Still, I’m not confident how firmly their finger is on the pulse of the masses. Certainly there are those who use their spotlight in a sincere fashion with their activism. I tend to be suspicious though, of individuals in a profession where narcissism is rampant, that they are not just hijacking another opportunity to get in front of a camera and hear the sound of their own voice.

        The only reason not to do so might be to avoid a negative impact on their own careers.

        Kluwe was cut from his team and his outspoken opinions on gay rights works heavily against him working in the National Football League. I will give it to him that he went down with the ship. I’m not convinced that people like him are helpful to the cause, though. People don’t want their sports mingled with talk of gay marriage. I don’t want to go to a concert and hear the musician talk about the Iraq war. I don’t know where the proper calibration level is for all these areas mixing together. But mostly it turns me off.

  8. Steven007
    “Funny, you never hear a losing player thanking their lord and savior Jesus Christ.”

    Actually, I believe it was last season where Buffalo Bills wide receiver Stevie Johnson blamed god in an aftergame rant after he dropped what would have been an easy game-winning touchdown. It was damned funny!

    • Yes, I do remember that woefulb! Thanks for the reminder.

      In reply to #35 by woefulb:

      Steven007
      “Funny, you never hear a losing player thanking their lord and savior Jesus Christ.”

      Actually, I believe it was last season where Buffalo Bills wide receiver Stevie Johnson blamed god in an aftergame rant after he dropped what would have been an easy game-winning touchdown. It was damned…

Leave a Reply