PDA

View Full Version : Johnny Weir v. former Olympic Gymnast, Peter Vidmar



Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7

GarrAarghHrumph
05-09-2011, 08:28 PM
Peter has stepped down from this post, as mentioned earlier. He said he feels his religious beliefs have taken center stage, and that his presence has become a detriment:
http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/news?slug=ap-usoc-chefdemission

And he's right - the attention was being placed on his beliefs, rather than on the work he was supposed to be doing in this role. It's best for him to step aside.

VALuvsMKwan
05-09-2011, 08:41 PM
Peter has stepped down from this post, as mentioned earlier. He said he feels his religious beliefs have taken center stage, and that his presence has become a detriment:
http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/news?slug=ap-usoc-chefdemission

And he's right - the attention was being placed on his beliefs, rather than on the work he was supposed to be doing in this role. It's best for him to step aside.

Does he not still not understand that the overt and public political actions he took, perceived by many to be in favor of discrimination against American citizens, are really the issue instead of his private beliefs? :duh:

GarrAarghHrumph
05-09-2011, 08:46 PM
Does he not still not understand that the overt and public political actions he took, perceived by many to be in favor of discrimination against American citizens, are really the issue instead of his private beliefs? :duh:

I think he feels that his public actions are part of his private beliefs. Making assumptions based on the expectations of some other religious groups, there can be an expectation that if one is in the public eye, one should or even must speak up about the things that the church is campaigning for or against. So to Peter, as an LDS, he may well see his having campaigned against gay marriage to have been part of his church work - part of his private beliefs. The two things cannot be separated.

VALuvsMKwan
05-09-2011, 08:54 PM
I can understand his having that point of view based on what I know of "evangelistic" religions, having grown up in one and living in the home state of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and our present Governor and Attorney General :rolleyes: (and regardless of technicalities, I consider the LDS church just that) - in fact, I thought of adding to my post the phrase "(of course I am fairly certain that he would never see it that way)." :blah:

luCN
05-10-2011, 02:40 AM
I don't understand why this thread can post here.Does it have anything with figure skating???

I'm tired of those buzz Johnny created in order to remain in the limelight.Hope he can stop these things and just skating,Or,please leave skating complete,letting us remember his early years' performance forever...

and for the topic,whether this person do it or not,is not because Johnny,it's just making a news.

political,he always said that,but never know the real political...

REO
05-10-2011, 04:17 AM
Well Johnny is relevant to the topic because he is a two time Olympian. As far as I see it, he was asked his opinion regarding this, gave his opinion, and somehow he became "responsible" for this little protest. I believe others were asked their opinions too, but they just didn't have the same impact. I don't think it was a bid for limelight in this instance. His opinion maybe holds a little more weight in this matter because he is the best known gay Olympian.
You're right though, nothing in this issue is about skating except that it's an Olympic sport.

judiz
05-10-2011, 12:30 PM
Well Johnny is relevant to the topic because he is a two time Olympian. As far as I see it, he was asked his opinion regarding this, gave his opinion, and somehow he became "responsible" for this little protest..


Agreed, if any other skater or athlete had made the same comment, they would had been praised for standing up for others not accused of doing it to be in the limelight. By the way, I have yet to read of any athlete defending Vidmar's position.

barbk
05-10-2011, 07:25 PM
Just curious how many of you folks defending the railroading of Vidmar voted for Obama as president. The same Obama who said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

He campaigned with this - repeatedly - as his stance on gay marriage -- and I'd have to believe that being president is a whole lot more important than being chef de mission for the Olympics. So does that mean that he -- and every other president still living and pretty much all of the Republican or Democratic nominees for President who weren't elected are similarly unqualified because they fail your litmus test on gay marriage?

attyfan
05-10-2011, 09:09 PM
Just curious how many of you folks defending the railroading of Vidmar voted for Obama as president. The same Obama who said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

He campaigned with this - repeatedly - as his stance on gay marriage -- and I'd have to believe that being president is a whole lot more important than being chef de mission for the Olympics. So does that mean that he -- and every other president still living and pretty much all of the Republican or Democratic nominees for President who weren't elected are similarly unqualified because they fail your litmus test on gay marriage?

Marriage has traditionally been a state matter, so the opinion of any Presidential candidate is limited to politics (i.e., will the candidate's stance make it more or less likely that the candidate will win). Indeed, things like DOMA are arguably unconstitutional, not merely because of the equal rights issue, but because the federal government is interfereing in a traditionally state matter.

Also, much of the President's job does not involve "advocacy" for the rights of specific people in the same way that a chef de mission at Olys may act as advocate for the athletes.

VIETgrlTerifa
05-10-2011, 09:12 PM
Yes but Obama also did not publicly donate money to support anti-gay legislation the way Vidmar has. He also had his justice department stop defending cases brought up against DOMA. Not to mention he signed the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell.

Being the President of the United States is a political role and one has to take political stances. People accept that politicians, even ones you support, won't always align with you but people know that they have to sacrifice certain issues (that individuals feel can be sacrified) in order to support the most viable person who is closest to what one wants to be their representative. Being Chef de Mission is supposed to be a ceremonial role that is symbolic of the Olympic spirit. So basically, you have a false analogy.

Listen, nobody is saying Vidmar or anybody for that matter needs to be above reproach or be apolitical, but Vidmar's actions are inconsistent with the Olympic Charter and his actions have politicized this office in a way that was beyond repair for many people.

Andora
05-10-2011, 10:52 PM
Just curious how many of you folks defending the railroading of Vidmar voted for Obama as president. The same Obama who said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

He campaigned with this - repeatedly - as his stance on gay marriage -- and I'd have to believe that being president is a whole lot more important than being chef de mission for the Olympics. So does that mean that he -- and every other president still living and pretty much all of the Republican or Democratic nominees for President who weren't elected are similarly unqualified because they fail your litmus test on gay marriage?

Fair enough, Obama is not a champion of the gay marriage cause. I'm not American, and so I didn't vote. But if the choice was basically between him and John McCain, who is theoretically further to the right, I'm not sure the comparison is applicable.

I was going to say maybe McCain's actually less staunch on this due to influence from his wife-- a face of the NOH8 campaign-- and daughter, but reading over his LBGT stance through time, I'd wager maybe not. :shuffle:

VIETgrlTerifa
05-10-2011, 11:35 PM
Not to mention his reactions after the DADT repeal. Between him and Obama, it's quite clear who was more gay-friendly.

julieann
05-10-2011, 11:51 PM
Not to mention his reactions after the DADT repeal. Between him and Obama, it's quite clear who was more gay-friendly.

or more politically savvy :shuffle:

mag
05-11-2011, 12:16 AM
Looks like Peter has some company...

http://torontoist.com/2011/05/duly_quoted_todd_reynolds_uptown_sports.php

bek
05-11-2011, 12:52 AM
Also, much of the President's job does not involve "advocacy" for the rights of specific people in the same way that a chef de mission at Olys may act as advocate for the athletes.

But what does Chef de mission have to do with marriage? I mean last I checked he's not marrying anyone in this job, telilng people who can marry etc. I mean the Olympics have pretty much nothing to do with marriage, last I checked.

Marriage for many people IS a religious thing, and comes with some deeply personal beliefs. This type of thing is always going to be controversial for some religions. Because some religions do operate with the concept of revealed/handed down truth.

IF people with more traditional views get railroaded out of regular society thats only going to cause a further secular/religious divide. Is there evidence that Vidmar was actually treating gay athletes poorly?


Replace the term "gay marriage" with "miscegenation," and noone would publicly defend Vidmar. BTW, the same arguments that were used against miscegenation in the 1960s are now being used against gay marriage: It violates the teachings of the Bible; it's unnatural; it's bad for children. When a "point of view" nullifies the rights of a segment of society, it's not a valid point of view....it's just bigotry.

That's not really true though. The people argue for the Bible being against interracial/sex dating, have to use a lot of creative versus to get their point. There's no direct verse that says those of a different skin color cannot date/marry. Now there was talk about people of different religions not marrying, but never race. I know the Catholic Church was never really against interracial dating,(and found some of the versus used to be questionable).

In contrast there are some direct versus we are dealing with, when it comes to the other subject. Now of course people will argue that they were really referring to idolatry etc. But there are some direct versus we are talking about it that makes it uncomfortable for some people. Even if they want to feel differently.

People are entitled to feel the way they want about how the Bible should be interpreted. But it just not correct to say the same kind of arguments for both scenarios. When one scenario is more directly mentioned and another isn't.