Sins Of The Past Can Never Be Forgiven–Jon Gruden And The Bloodlust Of The American Taliban Left

All sins can be forgiven, the Church teaches, even the most heinous and mortal, if confessed with true penitence and remorse. This sense of forgiveness is derived from Biblical text, interpreted by Church Fathers in the early centuries of Christianity, and woven into doctrine by the fourth at the Council of Nicaea.  

Jesus died on the cross to forgive the sins of all humanity because there were too many and too grave to be remitted alone.  It was God’s look at a world he created in hope and expectation but failed in its promise.  The Flood – God’s acknowledgement of the gross imperfection of his creation and desire to begin again – was futile; for the survivors lived to  recreate the same, sinful, disrespectful world he had hoped to destroy. 

By sending his son on a mission of sacrifice, repentance, and universal redemption he could devolve moral responsibility to individuals, accord them the choice of damnation or salvation, and offer ways to personal penitence.  In so doing he could leave his Old Testament rage and vindictiveness behind.

Although the world has changed little since the Crucifixion and it still produces generation after generation with consistently questionable  behavior, the Christian ethos remains.   Not only can sins be forgiven, but a greater sense of a universal humanity which might be prone to moral error and misjudgment but redeemable nonetheless can be created.  We are all imperfect, fallible, and unsure in our search for meaning; but understanding of our human nature will create a more tolerant, respectful world in which spiritual evolution can be assured.

Given this religious, philosophical foundation for America’s Christian culture, it is surprising that the concept of forgiveness is so remarkably absent today.  The Christian ethos was not meant to be uniquely spiritual, but intended to provide guidance for secular affairs as well.  The brotherhood which Christ preached was not to be restricted to his followers.  The spirit of understanding, compassion, and forgiveness was meant to be universal.

So what to make of the Left’s intemperate, judgmental, unforgiving, harsh, and punitive approach to human error?  How to explain its Taliban-like executions of those judged to be apostates?

Recently Jon Gruden, a well-known, successful professional football coach, was forced to resign from his post because ten years ago he had used ‘inappropriate language’, epithets and characterizations common in locker rooms but rarely used outside them; usage which by no means signified deep-seated, ingrained racism, homophobia, or misogyny. 

Not only has the coach been admired and respected by the black players on his team, but none of those under him ever felt intimidated or discriminated against because of their race.  The language used in the days long past was clearly offhand, casual, and insignificant. 

The fact that the coach has always been a model of social propriety, respect, and racial fairness made no difference to the Leftist executioners who called for his head. 

Worse still, for the Left there is no statute of limitations for social sins.  Any expression used twenty, fifty, or a hundred years ago which goes counter to prevailing censorious culture must be condemned; and the works and successes of those who made them ignored.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was a great, courageous man; but he was also a Lothario who cheated on his wife and was as much of a sexual wastrel as JFK.   Did these moral failings disqualify these men from leadership or high public office? Should one disregard their notable achievements?  If they were alive today, would they be as roundly and universally chastised and thrown out as the football coach?

Many women immediately disqualified Bill Clinton from any further political consideration after he had sex with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office. If he cheated on his wife, they said, he will most certainly cheat on us.  There can be no separating personal peccadillos from political ones.

Immanuel Kant said, “'The Jews still cannot claim any true genius, any truly great man. All their talents and skills revolve around stratagems and low cunning. They are a nation of swindlers.”

George Bernard Shaw said, “Stop being Jews and start being human beings”. Theodore Dreiser said, “New York is a 'kike's dream of a ghetto,' and Jews are not 'pure Americans' and 'lack integrity”. 

 
Are we to burn their books? Consign them to the trash heaps of literary history?

Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and many of the Founding Fathers and their inheritors were slave-owners, not uncommon at the time.  Should their memory be erased because of engagement in a system which was legal, widespread, historically common, and culturally accepted? And should they be thrown out with the trash along with Kant?

The answer of the Left to these questions is a resounding ‘Yes’.  All of history must be looked at through a contemporary lens and judged accordingly.  Books must be burned, statues toppled, streets and institutions renamed all in the name of doctrinal purity.  No quarter must be given in the rush to a progressive utopia.

Today’s living victims of this arrogant bloodletting have it worst of all.  They feel they must apologize for occurrences in the distant past regardless of social and cultural context, prevailing norms and attitudes, and laws and legislation.  Ninety percent of men over a certain age today used language deplored today in their youth – language which reflected an era where racial, ethnic, religious, and gender differences were highlighted, characterized and caricatured.  It was an age of reflexive commentary, not deep-seated animus or hostility.

If any of these men felt they went beyond such cavalier comments and acted in an immoral, discriminatory, and hateful way; then they should have admitted it, confessed it, and done penance for it.  Words without action are only words; and only today have they become as potently significant as actual acts.

The one-issue morality of the Left ignores human complexity and the ability to hold conflicting views at the same time, to be inconsistent, and to be ignorant and brilliant at the same time.  It is ignorant, backward, and antithetical to any moral code.  The progressive Left has, in fact, forsworn Christian morality itself.  It is condemnatory, self-righteous, and profoundly ignorant of human nature.

There is only one criterion of judgement that should have been applied to the now disgraced football coach – has he in his position of authority racially abused, demeaned, derogated, or dismissed players of color?  If not, then he is innocent of charges of racism and should be left to his professional career.  If he feels that any past action whether word or deed exceeded the cultural bounds of the time, then it is a matter of private confession and hope for forgiveness – not any public apology.