Rick Reilly, the Wrestler, and Doubting the “Courage” of Conviction
ESPN columnist Rick Reilly did something rare last week. He criticized a decision that had been made out of religious conviction. Reilly takes a male wrestler to task for refusing to hit the mat with a girl during the Iowa state finals. Joel Northrup refused to wrestle Cassy Herkelman because, he said, "As a matter of conscience and my faith I do not believe that it is appropriate for a boy to engage a girl in this manner." He forfeited the match, killing his chance for a state title.
As sure as the sun rises, Northrup was praised for his courageous stand, even by Herkelman’s parents. Nothing makes the tears flow in faith-obsessed America like a public display of the courage of one’s religious convictions.
Reilly wasn’t buying:
Joel Northrup, left, with Cassy Herkelman, right.Does any wrong-headed decision suddenly become right when defended with religious conviction? In this age, don’t we know better? If my God told me to poke the elderly with sharp sticks, would that make it morally acceptable to others?
And where does it say in the Bible not to wrestle against girls? Or compete against them? What religion forbids the two-point reversal?
Setting aside the imprecise nature of Reilly’s analogy [poking the elderly with sharp sticks is, presumably, illegal in most places], he nonetheless makes the perfectly valid point that faith-based decisions shouldn’t be immune from scrutiny because, well, they’re faith-based decisions.
Unfortunately, that runs counter to the ever evolving rules of religious discourse in our country. With the exception of the mindless ramblings of TV preachers trying to explain epic disasters [“tsunamis are the ACLU’s fault”], we tend to overlook even the craziest decision or opinion if it is claimed to have religious belief at its root.
This deference to ideas with origins in belief plays out in a number of destructive ways. The rise of the Christian right can in part be attributed to an uncritical granting of authority on issues on which its position is based on faith, not fact. Here’s a perfect example.
Reilly makes the point that regardless of Northrup’s motivation, his decision was selfish. What about Herkelman’s right to compete, which was perfectly within the rules of a competition for which Northrup had signed up? This point can’t be ignored simply because he claimed faith made him do it.
To be sure, there’s a cultural pull toward religious faith in this country that we would be naïve not to acknowledge. If the debate over the existence of god in this country were an American football competition, the believers would start every possession at the nonbelievers’ 10-yard-line, the nonbelievers always on the defensive.
But we shouldn’t give acts committed out of faith a pass simply because that’s the stated motivation. Faith is just one of a variety of factors involved in our decision-making processes, and those factors should all be subject to the same degree of scrutiny.
