Not All Convictions Are Courageous

Before, during, and now even after the Super Bowl, there's been some controversy. No, not around Tony Dungy's smack talk or Saints coach Gregg Williams promises to beat down Peyton Manning. The controversy revolved around Tim Tebow's decision to star in a commercial which (if you visit a website) presents his pro-life convictions. Predictably, a great deal of passion was whipped up on both sides of the debate. Putting aside the fact that the commercial was incredibly understated and I can't imagine even the most-ardent pro-choice advocate finding the ad the least bit provocative. The friends with whom I was watching the game couldn't help but mutter sarcastically, "Wow, that was offensive," after viewing the commercial.

I thought that ESPN writer Jemele Hill raised an intriguing point last week in stating that Tim Tebow should be lauded for the courage in putting action behind his convictions, regardless of whether or not one agreed with his convictions. Hill makes some very interesting comparisons of Muhammad Ali, Tommie Smith and John Carlos (of the famous Olympic black power salute) to Tim Tebow in her article, and predictably, one will only resonate with the analogy depending on whether you fundamentally agree with the positions that the "crusaders" chose to take. Hill writes:

Ali, Smith and Carlos championed their views at a time when not everyone supported the idea of equality, and when refusing to serve your country was considered blasphemous. Their views, to put it mildly, were thought to be inappropriate, militant and, in Ali's case, completely anti-patriotic.

And while abortion has been legal in America since 1973, it remains a toxic issue in our society. A large percentage of women will tell you they don't like anyone telling them what to do with their bodies. People have lost their lives fighting for and against abortion, and now here comes a college football player and his mother joining the emotional debate.

But here's where I actually disagree with Hill. Hill makes the assumption that to have sincere beliefs and to stand up for them is honorable in the face of public condemnation is laudable, regardless of whether these beliefs are inherently "correct" or not. Is this really the case?

Is it courageous for a suicide bomber to blow himself up and take the lives of 50 other people because he or she was sincere in his convictions and despite universal condemnation, had the principled fortitude to pay the ultimate price for his beliefs? Even if we limit the scope to "non-violent" protest, do we really believe that a Ku Klux Klan member is courageous because he's willing to burn a cross on his own lawn to stand against the influx of minorities that he believes is poisoning American society? Am I really obligated to salute their bravery?

What makes a stand courageous is for someone to take a stand for what is right, even if that stand is unpopular. I happen to believe that what Tim Tebow stands for is right, and as such I find honor and courage in his stance. While I believe in absolute truth, I recognize that not everyone shares Tebow's pro-life views, and it makes all the sense in the world why they wouldn't view his stance as courageous.

And here's the freedom of speech balance - the obligation that everyone must have is to acknowledge people's right to express their point of view. Anything beyond that - your regard of that person's principles, honor and courage - is completely up to you.

Not everyone supports Tim Tebow or thinks highly of his principles, and that's their right. I do, and that's mine.