The following used to be sort of a work in progress. It's very long, and my intention was to edit it down into a more cohesive article. Still, I consider it important enough to include now, because the issues are so important. Forgive me for the evident unedited nature of the piece, especially the repetition.

Dewey's a fundamentalist Christian. He participated last year, but this time he decided against it. Also, he turned his red AIDS ribbon sideways, making it look like a fish symbol. For this, gay leaders and activists are asking the Giants to trade or release him. I'd be very interested to see what would happen if the team did release Dewey on this basis. There's not much in his performance that would indicate an obvious need to dump him, so it would be easy to conclude that such a release would have to do with, oh, I dunno, religious beliefs. I don't suspect a lawsuit would be far behind.

An aide for Carole Migden considers Dewey's actions defiant and called Dewey himself a hypocrite. I understand feeling offended, but what makes Dewey a hypocrite? One answer, courtesy of my boss, who's Christian, was that Christians are supposed to love everybody and not blow off people in need. Erik, who posts to the Usenet newsgroup concerning the Giants, and who calls himself a liberal Christian, said that many Christians would say that, as a Christian, Dewey should want AIDS not to cause all the suffering it does. But, he said, "the way I think of Christianity, Dewey is being hypocritical simply by calling himself Christian and then essentially mocking this effort to help suffering people. Of course, many people understand this differently. I'm sure Dewey thinks that his critics are being hypocritical."

I wasn't sure if this was what Dewey's "critics" intended to say. Either way, to me, that sounds like people who get up in arms when they hear a clergyman say "damn." I don't know that this makes the clergyman a hypocrite. (But I realize that this analogy doesn't describe a particularly volatile situation. It just sounds like the speaker is criticizing Dewey based on his -- the speaker's -- own perception of Christianity. If Dewey's actions went against his -- Dewey's -- own perception, then he could safely be called a hypocrite.)

Dewey himself said that his motive, both this year and last year, was to show compassion for HIV and AIDS victims, but he was turned off by things like "safe sex" programs, which go against his beliefs -- the greater implication being that you're not supposed to have sex outside marriage, period. This is what the man's spiritual beliefs dictate. Now, that should really be the end of the matter. Who has the right to dictate Dewey's spiritual beliefs?

It was pointed out in the article that Dewey signs his autograph by adding a biblical verse. I wasn't sure why this was mentioned, except that the article, to me, has a clear anti-Dewey (and anti-Christian -- and anti-anti-gay) slant. In wearing his ribbon sideways, Dewey -- according to a quoted source in the article -- was saying, "let's not fight AIDs, let's convert everyone to Christianity." Erik feels that this is really unfair to Dewey, and I concur.

Now, I won't pretend that converting people is not on Dewey's agenda, but I think he may have turned the ribbon sideways just to make himself more comfortable with a subject that clearly makes him uncomfortable, irrespective of how other people feel about it.

But the guy who's accusing Dewey of saying (by his actions) "let's convert everybody" has a point. Remember Gary Gaetti in the All-Star Game in about 1987? When they did the close-up on him during the pregame introductions, he held up a batting glove saying "Jesus Is Lord." I found that offensive because I felt he was using a national forum to express his spiritual beliefs, which I didn't think were any of my business under the circumstances. Dewey's fish-symbol maneuver is less obvious, though.

The batting glove issue opened up a can of worms between my best friend, Dave, and me. Dave's a self-described Conservative Fundamentalist Born-Again Christian, and he feels that Gaetti was right in his action. "He's just trying to convey a message," he says. "If you're not receptive to it, you don't have to take it." But you can't unsee it, any more than you can unring a bell. I felt that the All-Star Game was not the place to put forth one's spiritual beliefs. Dave, continuing his "it's just a message" argument, was not dissuaded. And his response to my question, "What if the message was, 'Satan Is Lord,' or 'Jesus Isn't Lord?'" was this: "Well, he'd just look silly because he'd be wrong." This is how I knew I'd won the argument.

Thinking along these lines, apparently, Migden's aide said that Dewey was being defiant in "walk(ing) out there and purposely try(ing) to make a statement where it didn't belong." While I agree that Dewey should've just worn the ribbon as it was -- or not at all -- I also think that what this guy accused Dewey of is typical of what the gay community does frequently, at least in The City. And clearly Dewey doesn't support gays, or at least homosexuality itself; therefore, how can he be expected to show support for AIDS victims (and ergo, in their minds, evidently, gay people)? He feels that homosexuality is objectively a sin, that the Bible classifies it as such, and that's all he needs. That's his spiritual beliefs, and, again, who has the right to change them? But, as Erik points out, Dewey was pretty much backed into a corner: "He wasn't given the option of not making a statement. He was pressured into making a statement he didn't want to make. It should have been completely voluntary." (I agree. Otherwise we're talking about compulsory beliefs. Nancy Gay's story was biased against Dewey and those with similar beliefs. Given her quality as a reporter, this comes as no surprise to me.)

Dewey didn't want to remove the ribbon because he does care about people with AIDS; however, he felt that he was compromising his beliefs by participating last year -- and who are we to tell him to do that?

The person quoted in Gay's article as calling Dewey a hypocrite also stated that he was very offended, and further went onto say that he did not do anything to deserve to die. I understand why he's offended, and I agree that he doesn't deserve to die. What I don't understand, though, is when did Dewey say that he does?

I understand the anger of this AIDS sufferer at being judged; that bothers me, too. However, I accept that lots of people have that mindset, and there's not much I can do about it. And this is coming from someone who has a pretty mainstream life -- I'm straight, married, and have a kid; about the only thing that makes me "not mainstream" is that I'm Jewish (which by itself, of course, invites judgment from lots of people).

Migden's aide said, "If the Giants downplay this, they're making a mistake.'' Sounds like a threat. But what are the expectations here? Do these folks really figure that the Giants are going to can Dewey on the basis of his beliefs? Didn't happen to Bob Knepper, and what he said was at least as offensive -- it had to do, for the most part, with women accepting their "place."

I guess I don't understand why Dewey should be expected to participate in something that goes against his grain, fundamentally. I mean, what if, in December, the 49ers and a whole bunch of people who fight for a particular cause decide to form a human Christmas tree on the field, and Harris Barton, who's Jewish, decides not to? (Again, I realize this isn't exactly as volatile an issue as AIDS.) Does Harris get vilified for refusing to go along?

I can understand why some people would be offended by Dewey's actions and quotes. But I can also see Dewey's side, namely that he doesn't want to compromise beliefs that are fundamental to him. And I don't understand how come 24 participating Giants, plus everyone else in the organization, aren't good enough. I'm not sure whose behavior has the effect of being more divisive.

Tim, another net buddy who happens to be Christian, was pleased that I provided the article for him, along with my comments. He said, "I feel very compassionate for those people afflicted by this disease that did not contract it (in the sinful nature) if you know what I mean... blood transfusions, innocent babies born to the disease and the other reasons. My hat goes off to Dewey for his courage in standing up for his beliefs." Now, I understand how he feels. However, I have compassion for anybody who contracts AIDS, regardless of how. Sure, maybe they're asking for it if they're promiscuous or use drugs, but it doesn't mean they deserve it.

I'm not really on anybody's side; I don't think anyone's the bad guy here. But I do, however, feel that certain assumptions are being made, namely that in failing to participate to the activists' satisfaction, and by stating his beliefs about homosexuality, Dewey therefore believes -- and the assumption of this belief is borne out in one of the quotes toward the end of Gay's article -- that those who are gay deserve to die of AIDS. Whether or not Dewey does feel that way was not addressed in the article.

I discussed this with my boss, who's one of the most caring and compassionate people I know. (It so happens that he's also Christian.) He said: "One of us goes and says that AIDS is God's way of punishing homosexuals, and the next thing you know, people assume all Christians feel that way. Well, we don't."

Gay's article didn't seem very complete to me in that it didn't really get into Dewey's head. She just quoted him as saying the stuff you might expect a Born-Again athlete to say. He said he was compassionate, but he wasn't really allowed to expand on that. I think he was trying to get across the "love the sinner, hate the sin" kind of feeling, but the article made it come out as "hate the sinners, too."

Would this be such a big a deal if it hadn't happened in San Francisco? I really wonder. What's clear, though, is that it's not at all politically correct to dispute even one element of the agenda of the so-called gay community.

I'm not a big fan of prejudice, no matter who exhibits it, even if it happens to be me. I figure that we're all guilty of it to some extent, which just makes it a human thing -- i.e., the tendency to be suspicious of whatever is "not me."

Erik said, "It sounds to me like Dewey genuinely didn't want to offend anyone, and he was forced to make public beliefs that evangelicals usually keep out of the public forum -- I bet Joe Carter, Mike MacFarlane, Jim Eisenreich, Gaetti, and others would agree with Dewey, but nobody forces them to say it, or asks them to go against their beliefs. And I would imagine there's a lot of thoughtless, defensive, even vicious homophobia in MLB that would not have any of the consideration of Dewey's comments. Oh, well."

I'm just waiting for Nancy Gay, or someone else, to get hold of Dave Dravecky for comments (even though he and Dewey were never teammates). I'd figure that among Christian ballplayers, current or former, Dravecky ranks pretty high in terms of both recognition and, I dunno, likability, and therefore whatever he might say on the topic would get plenty of ink.

In the next day's Chronicle, Glenn Dickey, a writer I don't care for, starts his column with the bit about throwing the first stone. Blecch. Using a biblical quote, especially this one, in a context like this is repugnant. I've noticed a tendency for people who bash Born-Again Christians to throw the Bible in their faces whenever possible, as if they -- the non-Born-Again folks -- suddenly have some special knowledge of the Bible that these Christians, many of whom read the Bible daily -- don't have. Does he really think Dewey thinks he's without sin?

I mean, I'm all for the idea that you shouldn't judge people; we all do it, though, because we're human, even Glenn Dickey. I don't suspect he knows much about what Dewey believes except from what he read in Nancy Gay's biased, badly written, badly reported article. What he led with, however, is the statement that Dewey should spend more time reading his Bible.

This made me laugh. I mean, why do I have trouble believing that Dickey's biblical knowledge is not limited to whatever he has to research in order to make his arguments in columns like this? Does he really believe what he's saying, or is he just attempting to mollify someone? (And if that's the case -- and I'm not saying it is -- then who's the hypocrite?)

Dickey then blithers as follows: "The Giants weren't asking Dewey to lead anything. They weren't asking him to renounce his beliefs or make any kind of presentation." How is it Dewey's job to participate, let alone lead anything? Is it in his contract? Again, the situation in the following analogy isn't as volatile, but: how many Jewish people in this country have drawn heat at one time or another because they refused to participate in their school's Christmas pageant? And how many were basically forced to participate? Does Dickey think there's anything wrong with that?

My wife was raised until her teen years as a Jehovah's Witness. Upon telling a teacher that she couldn't salute the flag because it's not consistent with the Witnesses' beliefs, she was told, "Well, isn't that just the stupidest thing I've ever heard."

Maybe the Giants weren't asking Dewey to renounce his beliefs, but those folks quoted yesterday seemed to feel that he should. And so does Dickey, who says that all Dewey had to do was be on the field and show some sympathy. But who says he had to? Who says he's not sympathetic? "He couldn't even do that," says Dickey. "He chose instead to make his own statement by not taking part and by wearing his AIDS ribbon sideways, which showed his feelings." Fact is, all it showed was that he's a Christian. But, again, Dewey definitely shouldn't have done that with the ribbon.

Dickey then babbles about how tough it is for gays in sports, how widespread distrust and misunderstanding are, etc. "It's still a big step from that position to Dewey's," he continues, "but it's all too easy to understand Dewey's position if you've had contact with fundamentalist Christians." Then he describes an in-law who is "convinced heaven is filled only with those who share those beliefs." What does he expect? Don't most religions hold a similar belief? There's a joke -- told about virtually every religious group -- about a bunch of people being led on a tour of heaven. "See those people on that cloud up there?" says the tour guide. "Those people are Mormons." (Or Jehovah's Witnesses, or Fundamentalist Born-Again Christians, or Hare Krishnas, or whatever.) "But don't say anything to them," continues the guide, "because they think they're the only ones here." (I only said it was a joke; I didn't say it was a great joke.)

Dickey talks about distrust and misunderstanding about homosexuals, but does nothing to help their cause. And I really wonder if Dickey has ever attempted to get to know anybody who's a Born-Again Christian, rather than just blowing that person off because he doesn't want to hear about how he's Hell-bound. Believe me, I don't want to hear that kind of stuff, either; in fact, that very thing caused a minor rift between Dave and me many years ago. The way we handled it, though, was to talk it out -- to listen to each other. It didn't make me want to convert, and it didn't make him stop hoping I would.

Dickey then says, "When you have that kind of primitive belief, it's easy to demonize those who don't, to call their way of life a sin or abomination, which makes it possible to forget that they are human beings." But how is this different from what Dickey et al. are doing to Dewey here? Do tell? Then Dickey, still on his high horse, says, "But, homosexual or heterosexual, we are all human beings, and we all deserve sympathy for our suffering." When did Dewey say otherwise? He stressed that he does have sympathy and compassion. He did participate last year. For reasons of his own, he chose not to this year.

As Erik points out, Dewey went way out of his way to say that he did remember that the people he was talking about were human beings who deserved compassion. "Dickey is putting cruel words in Dewey's mouth, which is really unfair," he said.

But Dickey et al. continue to hear what they want to hear; he even accuses Dewey of having no sympathy for Tommy Lasorda, whose son died of AIDS. Well, why wouldn't Dewey be sympathetic? Someone he knows, if even peripherally, just lost his son in a horrible way; who wouldn't be sympathetic, even if it isthe manager of the hated Dodgers? Dewey -- once again -- stated in so many words that he has sympathy and compassion for AIDS victims; who is Dickey to call him a liar?

"Because Mark Dewey is a major league baseball player," says Dickey, "he's paid more than the majority of people in this country. The Giants are not a philanthropic organization, of course, and they've kept Dewey because he's helped them, but they still have given him an opportunity few ever have, and he should appreciate that." But what if the Giants' cause next year is to throw virgins to the Volcano God? If Dewey doesn't participate, does that mean he doesn't appreciate the fact that they've given him a job?

"The Giants are a good organization for players," Dickey continues pointlessly. "Baker is tough but fair as a manager. There are no unreasonable demands about hair length or clothing. Nobody has tried to change Dewey's religious beliefs." Until yesterday.

"Sunday was an important day for the organization," he persists, "which was trying to do something to show the gay community that it supports the fight against AIDS. It was a very nice program and a high-profile effort, important because it helps keep pressure on to fund AIDS research." Um, is AIDS only a gay disease? That's the implication in that quote. "All Dewey had to do was make a minimal effort for an organization that has treated him well, but he couldn't make that effort." Now it's about disloyalty to one's employer. What manipulative caca.

"Now, he has embarrassed the Giants. The good they did on Sunday is being overshadowed by this one thoughtless act, and there are calls to release Dewey.

"That wouldn't make sense because that would only punish the Giants, who would still have to pay Dewey. It would be much better if he'd take some sensitivity courses."

No one would be hurt by sensitivity courses. Even Glenn Dickey.

"It wouldn't hurt to have him read his Bible, too."

Oh, puh-leeeze.

Now, understand, I've never cared for Glenn Dickey's writing. Just the genesis of this feeling has to do with the way he injects himself into a column: "'I went to the store,' said Bonds to a group of reporters, of which I was a part.' He then went on to say, to me, 'And I bought some yogurt. Oh, and some sunflower seeds.' Later, when I saw him on TV, he said, 'I think the Giants may have a good year.'" Another example is in the line about "My vision of Jesus"; who cares about Glenn Dickey's vision of Jesus?

Is the press so afraid of the gay community that they can't say that it's okay for Dewey to hold whatever religious beliefs he wants? Or to say, "Gee, maybe these people overreacted"? It is possible to be supportive of AIDS victims, as well as the gay community, without agreeing with every single one of their beliefs. Ditto Dewey and other Fundamentalist Born-Again Christians?

Nancy Gay's article the next day mentions that Jim Poole didn't wear his ribbon at all. Ooooh! What a bad guy! His reasoning: that's not how he chooses to show sympathy, whether it's for AIDS, cancer, or anything else. Gasp! Independent thought! Oh, nooooo!

(In an episode of Seinfeld this past season, Kramer chose not to wear a ribbon during an AIDS walk and ended up being assaulted by everyone else. Dickey says Dewey should read his Bible; maybe Dickey should watch more Seinfeld.)

Matt, another person who posts messages in the Giants newsgroup, said, "I really get annoyed when the self-proclaimed liberals, activitists, crusaders, insert your group here, talk about the importance of free speech and religious practice turn around and slam people who happen to express beliefs or ideas that they feel should not be expressed. I do not agree with Dewey's religious beliefs, but that does not mean he should be prevented from having them. Just because the cause is AIDS, and the city is SF, does not suddenly relegate Dewey to a second-class citizen who cannot express his own opinions because they are different from those who support the 'AIDS Cure' day. In a word, I find such people (i.e., those who complained about Dewey) to be hypocrites -- say what you want and believe, just make sure it is what we happen to believe is correct. I do not agree with Dewey, but at least I can respect him, that's more than I can say for the 'protesters.'" What I find funny is that in most areas of the country, Dewey's much closer to the mainstream.

Erik said that Dickey sounds as judgmental and much meaner than Dewey. He points out that, yes, the Bible says that Jesus spent much of his ministry among the outcasts of society -- while often telling them they were sinners. Which is the key. Another key is what I'm told is a fundamental tenet of Christianity, i.e., that everybody's a sinner. What that does not mean is that everybody's a jerk; just that everybody blows it at some point or other. But, as Eric says, Dewey has a much better Biblical case than a lot of us like to admit.

Part of that might stem from the fact that a lot of us -- and I can only really speak for myself here, but I imagine it's true for many, many others, too -- don't read their Bibles much if at all. (I'm not making a value judgment here; I'm just offering an opinion.) I mean, mine's still wrapped in plastic, and I have no particular desire to change that.

Dickey seemed to be trying to throw the Bible in Dewey's face while being not nearly as well armed as Dewey with what's in the Bible. I'm not saying all of Dewey's interpretations are dead-on perfect, but I'd guess that he has a much broader and well-read base than Dickey from which to make those interpretations.

Bottom line: Dickey's column shows appalling shallowness, immaturity, and bigotry -- and I'm saying this as someone who is not one to fight alongside either Born-Again Christians or the gay community. I'm just a baseball fan who can sometimes tell when the press is trying to hose him.

Chronicle columnist Jon Carroll writes, "I gather he believes that viruses have sexual preferences and perhaps kinky habits as well." Maybe Dewey does believe that. But he's never been quoted as saying so. "The stupidity of his act was widely noted," Carroll goes on to say. So now Dewey's being called stupid. (I realize that, technically, Carroll is merely calling the "act" stupid. But the implication is that Dewey himself is stupid.) But as you continue to read the piece, you'll realize that the apparent intent of this article is to defend Dewey's right to maintain his beliefs, but the tone is that he's a complete putz for doing so: "Folks, this is America. In America, we get to be stupid in public. We get to put our little fannies on the line for any harebrained set of beliefs, and there are laws forbidding people from discriminatingagainst us simply because we choose to exercise our freedom of speech." Translate this as: "We have freedom of speech in this country, but boy, is Mark Dewey stupid."

Then Carroll calls Dewey's beliefs "deeply ignorant" and says that he confuses a disease with a sexual orientation, and he thinks that God has opinions about what goes on in the bedroom. "But," he says, throwing Dewey a bone, "what he did took a fair amount of courage."

Actually, we don't know whether Dewey confuses AIDS with homosexuality. (A better way to express that might be, "we don't know how closely Dewey associates AIDS with homosexuality." He really would be an idiot if he literally confused the two.) It's possible -- no one has asked Dewey yet -- that he really does feel that AIDS is something that gay people get for being gay. It's also possible that he just didn't want to be out on the field with a bunch of gay people, irrespective of the cause. I'm not defending this viewpoint -- it's bigotry, pure and simple.

But it's hard not to notice how heavily loaded Carroll's statements about Dewey are. Words such as "ignorant" and "confuses" paint a picture here of a barefoot, long-johns-wearin', unshaven, cow-tippin', sister-lovin', "Deliverance"-inspirin' backwoodsman whose two remaining teeth are rotten.

But guess what: The Bible has some very clear things to say on the subject of what goes on in the bedroom -- or, at least, with whom. But Carroll, in the comment above, is basically trashing the Bible, which isn't exactly fair. In that many view the Bible as the actual, per-se, in-fact word of God, it might be considered that God does in fact, per se, have opinions about what goes on in the bedroom.

Carroll says, "It's not easy to stand up for your beliefs when all that's asked of you is a small symbolic moment. It's not easy to say, 'Actually, I don't believe in this and I'm not going to pretend otherwise.'' Dewey's spirit is at the heart of the American character, even if his brain is somewhere over Fargo." Objection, your honor. Counsel is yet again assuming facts not in evidence -- and throwing the defendant another very meatless bone.

Carroll doubts that every ballplayer who participated in "Until There's a Cure Day" is deeply committed to the fight against AIDS, and he has a point. But he says that "they did it because it was part of the job description." Who says? Is it in these players' contracts? Even one of them? "But Mark Dewey drew the line," Carroll continues. "He actually thought about the issues and decided, nope, can't do it. He paid attention; he didn't just go along. And paying attention is the beginning of wisdom."

Blecch. Now Carroll is pretending to give Dewey credit for some intelligence after stating in no uncertain terms that the guy is stupid, provincial, and ignorant. And you know something? If a guy is ignorant, enlighten him; don't just label him. It's not that hard.

Rather than enlightening him, or anyone, for that matter, Carroll talks about how marginal a player Dewey is. True, but but irrelevant. Question, folks: What if it'd been Cal Ripken and not Mark Dewey? Would the public (and press) reaction be anywhere near this hostile? I doubt it. I have the feeling we'd be seeing stuff like, "Oh, Cal chose not to participate so's he could rest up and continue his consecutive-game playing streak; he made that choice for the sake of the team."

In closing, Carroll says, "Most gay men and women grew up in a world of lies -- the lie was that everyone was heterosexual. Most gay men and women participated in that lie at some time; they passed for straight; they heard a slur and did not respond. They hated themselves, but they did it.

"Mark Dewey didn't want to hate himself. Surely there's enough slack around for that."

So now Dewey's he's a hero, a pioneer who speaks his mind. Never mind that he's been called a moron throughout the piece.

Now, in fact, I like John Carroll's writing, by and large. I don't always read him -- and Glenn Dickey even less so (and Nancy Gay I wish even less so, but she's the beat writer, so I feel I've gotta read her) -- but I genuinely think he's a clever, witty, thoughtful writer.

But this column seemed little more than a smokescreen here. I'm not sure what he's smokescreening, though; is it a major rip piece on Dewey in the guise of a "freedom of speech and religion" soapbox diatribe -- or the other way around? In any case, it seems as if he's attempting to placate either those who spoke out against Dewey in Gay's article (or elsewhere), or those who defend Dewey's right to his beliefs. Or maybe both. Ever heard of a mugwump?

In Nancy Gay's beat piece the day after the first Dewey hack job and the same day as the Dickey and Carroll columns appeared, she said that Giants' principal owner Peter Magowan and Vice President Larry Baer "rushed to respond to criticism from some in the gay and lesbian community about pitcher Mark Dewey's actions Sunday." She's the same one who said previously that the Giants had chosen not to comment. But here she quoted Baer as saying, "Mark has a right to his own views. We don't have to agree with those views. His expression was not the way the organization, for over three years, has chosen to express its views.''

Well, Baer pretty much had to say that. Magowan did not have to say this: "I regret the comments that Mark made -- he's certainly not speaking for the organization.''

I passed on all this stuff to Bob Stadille, the father of Pat, a very good friend (and a very good friend himself). Bob didn't mince words: "The whole thing is bullshit! The Giants as an organization choose to support some measure regarding AIDS. Then they expect every ballplayer to play along. Most of the ballplayers don't give a damn about AIDS but go along with the organization because it isn't a big problem (to show up on the field with a ribbon and pretend interest if queried). So... as far as I am concerned, the problem starts with the organization -- the type of support it decides to offer. If they were to stay with their dollar-a-ticket support for an AIDS research program -- that would be fine. (Of course, it'd only amount to about $13,000 a game. -- GP) It would simply mean that the Giants' controlling interests are willing to support AIDS research and back it up with a financial contribution. But no! They must involve the ballplayers -- because, with the ballplayers, it will be an even bigger publicity gig for the organization."

Ding ding ding ding ding! I mean, no question the Giants have an agenda in which AIDS is somewhat on the periphery. I'm not downrapping them for this; they're a baseball organization, not a medical one. But their primary interest has to be to make dough by putting a decent product on the field -- a field which, eventually, should be "fan friendly."

Only one Giants player that I know of, Rod Beck, has been named as a kind of activist who devotes time and resources to the fight against AIDS. I'm sure the rest of the players think, at the very least, that AIDS is a bad thing, but you're right, they probably don't spend more than a waking moment a week thinking about it. But, as Bob said, it probably isn't a problem for them to march and mingle.

"Now Mark Dewey finds the harness placed around his neck -- doesn't think the Giants are doing the right thing -- and rebels," says Bob. "He demonstrates another way of thinking about matters and gets roundly criticized for his beliefs. He wouldn't have said one thing had he not been shackled by the Giants' initial move.

"The big hypocrite in the whole affair is the newshawk. She sees Dewey's move and realizes, 'this is a story.' She thinks, 'I'll write about this mean-spirited little Christian freak -- how he must detest the struggling AIDS patients dying by the thousands in tiny hovels about the country -- unattended, unloved, etc. Wow! I'll have enough copy for a week of articles. The fans will love it (especially in San Francisco).'

"In turn, all the gay organizations pick up on Dewey and do a trip on his 'narrowness.' On and on it goes.

"The Giants aren't going to trade Dewey. And the real fans of baseball wouldn't want them to trade him, either. They want the Giants to win baseball games and don't really give a shit about AIDS.

"The controversy (meaningless) will go on until those who benefit from such bullshit reach the point of diminishing return. The Giants will probably do nothing if Dewey is a successful pitcher -- after all, their biggest weakness is a lack of good throwers.

"TheAIDS organizations don't really give a shit. They got their fill of publicity -- and the woman who wrote the article in the first place will just smile over the flap she has generated. The editors of the newspaper will probably give her a year-end 'humanitarian' award -- knowing full well she's an utter ass; but sometimes even assholes sell newspapers."

Keith Olbermann, in his column on ESPNet, calls all this stuff "more than a little crazy" and feels that Dewey did nothing to merit getting canned or shunned. He agrees (as if he and I are having a chat about this) that Dewey shouldn't have turned the ribbon sideways. But, he said, "the man should lose his job for this? Isn't that just as wrong as those other fundamentalists who argue that a man should lose his job for being HIV-positive?"

The Chronicle, to its credit, ran an editorial -- I don't know who wrote it -- on the same day as the Dickey and Carroll columns. The Chronicle steadfastly defended Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf when he chose not to stand for the national anthem before baskeball games, says the editorial, "because his beliefs must be respected and accommodated. Equal due should be accorded the beliefs of Giants pitcher Mark Dewey... (who) later explained that some elements of the campaign -- such as "safe sex" instead of abstinence -- conflicted with his Christian beliefs."

It's a very good point, and little has been said about it. Dewey, like many Christians, believes that you shouldn't be having sex unless you're married. Period. In fact, the Bible says so in black and white -- and sometimes in red and white. The implication is that sex is only for a married couple, only one of whom is a man, and only one of whom is a woman. It's in the Bible, and Dewey believes what the Bible says. The end. As the editorial says, "The issue here is not whether Dewey's views are correct. The question is whether they are based on his religious beliefs -- and they clearly are.... In that case, he had every right to stay off the field." (I just wonder who noticed he was missing.)

The editorial agrees with me -- again, as if we're discussing this together -- that Dewey shouldn't have turned the ribbon sideways. "Dewey should have anticipated that tampering with the ribbon might be taken as a slap at the spirit of the day." But, say some of the folks who hang out in the Giants newsgroup, as well as at least one caller on KNBR, the Giants' flagship station, Dusty Baker turned his ribbon sideways, too; the difference is, he participated in the soiree.

A newsgroupie called B.W. had this to say about Dewey (I have added necessary punctuation for clarity, and capitalized stuff when necessary):

"I am given to understand from one of the LA papers that Mark (Huey, Louie, and) Dewey decided to wear his red-ribbon sideways (like the Christian fish symbol) because (and this is not a direct quote) he felt that AIDS victims deserved it because it was a punishment from God for their presumed homosexuality ([I] didn't know that Ryan White or Arthur Ashe, to name but two, were gay).

"Apparently (and to no great surprise) the SF gay community were more than slighty p.o.ed at Dewey for his actions.

"Dewey, from what the article says, is one of six Giants who are 'born-again' Christians. I guess from his record that Jesus (who, by the way, Mr. Dewey, has been rather dead for 1960 years) or God has more important things on his/her mind than Mr. Dewey's limited pitching skills.

"Is this a return of the God Squad? I certainly hope not!"

I found this a very lame little message, yet again assuming facts not in evidence, and I responded to it merely by attempting to point ol' B.W. to my previous posts. But, as if in response to B.W., this statement -- an "open letter" -- from Mark Dewey (courtesy of Nancy Gay) was in today's Chronicle:

"I am writing in response to many articles, letters and calls concerning my actions on 'Until There's a Cure' day. Much speculation has been made about my character, but very little is based on the intent of my heart. Everything I have done and said has been to express love and compassion for all people with AIDS, their friends and families, and those who have lost loved ones to the disease; without compromising the teaching of Scripture.

"I have no hatred or ill-will toward homosexuals, I have concern for all who have AIDS, and I am not opposed to the search for a cure or action taken by people for research. I do however hate sin, and the Bible clearly teaches that sexual immorality (fornication, adultery, homosexuality, etc.) is sin.

"I could not be involved with the ceremonies because sexual immorality was condoned and in some cases encouraged. I altered the ribbon for the same reason. I wore the ribbon like a fish to show my love and compassion for lives and well as for souls.

"All I did and said was out of love for God and for people. The bottom line is this. The deadly 'disease' we are battling is sin (it kills body and spirit). ALL have sinned. There is a cure -- the shed blood of Jesus Christ."

This last bit is something I might reasonably expect a Born-Again Christian to say, and though it differs from my beliefs -- I really bristle at the "my way or the highway" school of spirituality -- the rest of it makes sense (i.e., it makes sense that Dewey would believe it, which is the only yardstick I'm using in that statement), and just proves what a rotten reporter Nancy Gay is -- D'oh! I wasn't supposed to say that! -- because if she'd bothered to get this out of Dewey last Sunday, there wouldn't have been all this crap about his supposed intolerance, ignorance, and hatred, not to mention all those demands for him to get canned.

On the other hand, Gay and her editors probably figured that the whole thing made better copy if she ignored Dewey's perspective as much as possible. In fact, virtually the entire text of the open letter is stuff that has been ignored or denied by Dewey's detractors (and the Chronicle) until now, and I have no doubt he's sincere. (He still shouldn't have done the fish thing, though I understand why he did.)

In the letters to the editor in the same day's Chron, a Brookdale reader says, "To equate Dewey's effective repudiation of the gay agenda with defiance because he chose not to take part in the event smacks of hypocrisy. Dewey stood up for his beliefs. Because those beliefs ran counter to the militant gay community, he's being treated with a contempt usually reserved for war criminals. It's surprising how an area so celebrated for freedom and diversity can turn into a den of rabid pit bulls when opposition arises." Well, this is kind of what I've been saying. Evidently it's now politically incorrect to have a thought or feeling that's not exactly in step with the so-called gay agenda. Clearly the Chronicle is afraid of the gay community, because it doesn't question the agenda either, except by publishing letters like this.

A San Francisco reader writes, "I was appalled to read the article in Wednesday's Chronicle outlining Giants pitcher Mark Dewey's representations of his, Jesus' and by extrapolation, the Giants' opinions regarding AIDS." Whose extrapolation? Sounds like the writer's. He goes on to say, "Perhaps Mr. Dewey should read the good book a bit more closely" -- and yet, stunningly, this letter was not written by Glenn Dickey. The guy states that it's the Old Testament that denounces homosexuality, as well as eating pork. He further makes his point as follows: "This helpful list of do's and don't's [i.e., the Bible -- GP] also includes a list of those insects which one may include in one's diet when in a desert climate. Does Mr. Dewey eat insects?" Huh?

(I remember seeing very similar stuff in the 1989 voter pamphlet in 1989 -- an important election because it could have gotten us a ballpark by now, except the earthquake scared about 2,000 too many voters -- which was used then in support of the domestic partners initiative, which failed by roughly the same margin as the ballpark.)

All this guy is saying is, "Um, Mark, your interpretation of the Bible is wrong." Now, there's nothing wrong with that, exactly. Then he says, "Christians believe the laws set forth in the Book of Leviticus were superseded by the laws of self-government set forth by Christ during his life on Earth, who taught us to govern our own selves during this lifetime and let God be our judge in the hereafter. Jesus said nothing on the subjects of safe sex, sexual orientation or AIDS. If he had, I'm sure his best friend might have been offended since she was a prostitute."

That part's kind of funny; when I was discussing all this with Mark, my boss, I showed him the Dickey column -- "Let he who is without sin..." -- and Mark said, "Well, Jesus then said to her, 'Okay, you're absolved. Now go out and sin no more.'" If Jesus' best friend was a prostitute, don't you think she might have heard that once or twice?

Now, I haven't read the New Testament -- and, let's be honest, I avoid reading the Old Testament as well -- so I don't know, but did Jesus direct people to throw the Old one away? If so, why is it even packaged with the New Testament? My impression, however, is that no one ever said that Jesus considered the Old Testament obsolete, and that he did have distinct things to say on sexual topics. Whatever he said, how can Dewey be condemned for living by those rules? We don't have to like other people's religious beliefs; one of my favorite Dave Barryisms is, "The thing about religion is that everybody else's always appears stupid."

The writer closes with, "Mr. Dewey should be made aware that the image he is creating while wearing the Giants uniform is not that of a Christian, but of a bigot, and certainly not a San Franciscan."

This writer is clearly not interested in what Dewey really had to say, which was published, as I said, in the form of an open letter, but wasn't otherwise deemed fit for reportage.

Robin, a woman who's been posting to the newsgroup lately, wrote, "The response in SF to what Dewey said is consistent with our societal consensus that purported religious beliefs -- whether real or feigned -- are not an acceptable basis for prejudice, where prejudice is the belief in the inferiority or wrongfulness of certain people. There are people (who call themselves 'Christians') who genuinely believe that the Bible mandates that black people are inferior to whites and that segregation of the races is God's command. That's fine. They can think whatever they want. But if they say it publicly, they are going to be slammed." I have no problem with that. I'm not down on those who have problems with Dewey's position. I'm down on those who made assumptions -- e.g., that he hates gays, feels that gays deserve to die of AIDS, thinks that AIDS research is wrong, etc. Robin went on to talk about Steve Carlton, who spoke, evidently, on behalf of the "Elders of Zion" about how the Holocaust was a fairy tale. She said that Carlton was "widely criticized," but mostly he was condemned as a nutball.

One C. Smith wrote, "I am exceptionally hard pressed to find anything in "Until There's a Cure Day" that condoned, much less encouraged, sexual immorality." I agree, but Dewey doesn't, and the issue is how he views it.

Matt wrote, "It is one thing to speak against Dewey, and another to call for his firing because of it. By doing the second, you are, in a way, trying to punish or silence the thoughts of the speaker... something I find very ironic when it is the so called "liberal left" calling for Dewey's dismissal." (For "liberal left" substitute "folks who spend a great deal of time angrily protesting against the very thing they're doing to Dewey." And do they have the right to call for the guy's head because his philosophy differs from theirs? What power they must believe they have!)

I said that the path of least resistance probably would have been just to go out on the field, ribbon properly in place, and glad-hand a few fans -- but I'm not Mark Dewey, and I didn't go through what was most likely a tough decision-making process.

A newsgroup member named Nina wrote, "Yeah, well a lot of decision-making processes are tough." I translated that as "get over it," which I consider unhelpful. The fact that a lot of decision-making processes are tough doesn't minimize the difficulty of Dewey's decision. He did, after all, participate last year; this wasn't a snap decision.

Nina went on to say, "I'm sure that, during those weeks right after the strike ended, many players were tired, exhausted, wanted to see their wives, their girl (or boy) friends, their mothers or who/whatever. Yet public relations people on various teams insisted that they stay out in the field and autograph/shake hands with fans. It was really tough, but they put their own feelings/desires/beliefs aside for the good of baseball, their teams, and the fans because that was what was really necessary to help get baseball back on track with fans." But this does not deny Dewey his right to stand by his religious beliefs. The issue at had is one player out of 25 who chose not to participate in a celebration, not 700-plus players trying to placate a nation of angry baseball fans.

In response to the "reports" -- I've still only heard this on the radio and in the newsgroup (and I think I said it first) -- that Dusty Baker wore his AIDS ribbon sideways too, Nina suggested that people were giving Dusty the benefit of the doubt. I think that's true (assuming he really did do the ribbon thing), not just because he participated, but because (a) he's popular (though not for on-field baseball decisions), (b) he's widely considered to be personable, and (c) he supports a lot of good causes. Mark Dewey, however, is just another "who's he?" so he's less likely to get the benefit of the doubt. "In his case," said Nina, "the ribbon may have accidently twisted into a sideways position." It could happen. She feels, though, that Dewey's statement, as quoted by Nando.Net, indicates that he intended to be disruptive in deliberately wearing his ribbon sideways. That is a very fair assessment. As with the Gary Gaetti/batting glove incident, I feel that he made improper use of the forum to state his message (though the two situations are different -- I mean, Gaetti didn't alter the "meaning" of his batting glove).

C. Smith said, "Dewey sees something -- 'I could not be involved with the ceremonies because sexual immorality was condoned and in some cases encouraged' -- that I think by most objective standards just isn't anywhere in sight. 'Until There's a Cure Day' simply raises money to aid the current and future suffers of AIDS. I am at a total loss as too how anyone can object to that." Yeah, that's really what the "Day" is all about, but the key to what C. said is, "Dewey sees something I don't." That's exactly true -- or, to be much fairer, he sees something very differently from the way C. sees it (and the way I see it, for that matter). What he might perceive as the condonement of sex outside of a marriage, we might see as a realistic approach to a realistic circumstance. Frankly, I have to think that, since Dewey's not a moron, he understands the viewpoint that sex-not-between-married-people is going to happen, and that people, if they're going to engage in said sex, should try real hard to avoid getting AIDS. (In other words, just 'cause People Having Sex With People Who Aren't Their Spouses will rot in Hell, in his view, doesn't mean they have to suffer on Earth.) However, he doesn't have to like the idea of sex outside of a marriage to begin with -- and, as far as he's concerned, he's got the Bible to back him up. This means, suddenly, that the issue is how seriously each of us takes the Bible. C. Smith says "by most objective standards," but we're dealing with a standard that (a) seems very subjective to many of us, but (b) is absolutely an objective truth to Dewey.

My beliefs and Dewey's may not have much of an overlap, but I have no problem with his having those beliefs, especially because I believe -- right or wrong -- that one of his main motivations is concern, not hatred or bigotry.

This is pretty much outside the scope of this discussion, but I still wonder if this whole thing would be such a big issue if, instead of a marginal pitcher in The City of Sin, it had been a beloved ballplayer such as Cal Ripken -- or a much-respected and well-liked Christian ballplayer (well, former ballplayer) such as Dave Dravecky. I think I'd prefer that we not find out, though.

Who knows? Maybe Dewey is a bigot; his open letter just detailed his public stance, not (necessarily) his private feelings. But I have the feeling that he genuinely cares about AIDS victims and doesn't want anybody to suffer. Apparently that's not good enough to a lot of people.

As one who lived in The City for fourteen years, I grew pretty tired of the San Francisco elitist mentality. I love The City -- it's my birthplace, for one thing, as well as my son's, and my parents' -- but this "we're too cool for school" stuff is pretty vomitrocious. Plus, who says Dewey considers himself a San Franciscan? He was born in Grand Rapids, Michigan, for crying out loud. He just represents the team that plays in San Francisco, that's all.

This intolerance under the guise of pleading for tolerance really works my nerves.

Bob summed up the whole thing this way: "Nancy Gay got it going --- then Glenn Dickey sticks an oar in --- then the next guy. It will continue until it is no longer 'worth' a column. All this kind of writing hasn't got one damned thing to do with priniciple. Selling newspapers is the bottom line. The columnists are like sharks at a feeding frenzy. Most of what is written or said has to do with someone's ego or pocketbook. So little is communicated that is of any real value. Columns like Dickey's and the Carroll's prove the point. Throughout the year, it is the same old bullshit -- different context like football or basketball -- but the same stuff: old wine in new bottles. Maybe the gardeners of the world have it right: flowers don't talk back."

Back to the EEEEEE! Home Page