CarlZunker.com

In modern cultural contexts, religiously motivated objections to symbolic or actual participation in inclusion campaigns are often interpreted by critics as hostility. That interpretative latitude is clearly overextended. A few good examples come from Baseball and Belgian radio.

In America, some professional baseball players are required to wear special clothing to celebrate Pride month to support the LBGTQ+ community. For Christian baseball players, this requirement can be viewed as forcing them to affirm a lifestyle they may not support due to religious beliefs. In the same way, if a baseball player wears a Marlboro hat, it is reasonable to assume that his young fans would see this as an endorsement of smoking cigarettes. That, to me, is a reasonable assumption.

Pitcher Landen Roupp (along with JT Brubaker and Ryan Walker), although not hating any person or group, did not want to be seen as supporting a lifestyle that conflicted with their own beliefs. They wrote “Gen 9:12-16” on their hats to commemorate rainbows as a sign of God’s covenant with the Earth.  Roupp explained: “Its just about God’s covenant and a promise that he makes to us that, you know, his faithfulness and his mercy. That’s just kind of something I believe in, and stand firm in that, and I’m thankful we live in a country where, you know, we have the freedom to believe what we want.” Major League Baseball disagrees with that interpretation of freedom, stating “The writing on the cap violates our rules and consistent with normal practice we have warned the players about future violations” according to MLB chief communications officer Pat Courtney.

Aroldis Chapman and Adolis Garcia wore “SOS Cuba” and “Patria y Vida (Homeland and life)” written on their hats in the 2021 All-star game with no warning issued from MLB. Players have worn #EndGunViolence armbands in 2022, Black Lives Matter patches in 2020, and “We Are All Immigrants” shirts in 2017. The difference is, MLB was not promoting gun violence, did not oppose BLM, and was not advocating against immigration. In 2026, MLB decided to continue supporting a cause that specifically challenges Christians in their faith, and then warned them for not complying, even if the clothing was against their faith. The main issue is not the warning from MLB, but the fact that this protest has now drawn attention from politicians who took an opportunity to express hate towards Christianity.

This piece is not about the double standard of the MLB issuing a warning in this particular case, Bible verses on hats are not the same as the other examples. The other examples were not disobeying a directive, they were adding a message outside of a league-wide campaign. The most interesting piece is the double standard that society has applied. When viewed in isolation, it may be possible to shoulder shrug away the concerns of Christians. But with a multitude of cases happening today, it is impossible to ignore the one phobic word people will not acknowledge…Christianophobia.  I would argue that the lines of support for this MLB case are nearly directly inverted against one of the most memorable protests in sports history, which also revolved around a flag in the National Football League.

 As I recall, Colin Kaepernick had his right to kneel defended because of a flag he didn’t believe in. While many football fans did not appreciate his action, their anger at him was (in most cases) because the American flag represents a nation-state. It includes a shared legal, civil, military, and historical identity. It is older than any social movement, predates the people debating it, and is meant to function as a beacon of unity. The pride flag, designed in 1978, represents a movement and a community within the nation, not the nation itself. That movement itself is a contested question for a meaningful share of the population, especially on religious grounds. If free speech says Kaepernick has the right to kneel for his cause, why does that freedom not extend to Christianity? If anyone supported Kaepernick, how can they not support Roupp?

Scott Wiener, a California state senator representing San Francisco released a statement that accused the players of being homophobic, and called the players faith “hateful beliefs.” Homophobic, Islamophobic, Anti-Semitic, and transphobic are all words we understand, but there is not a common understanding of what is Christianophobic. Scott Wiener has also honored a Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (SPI) member on the California Senate floor. The SPI uses drag queens to openly mock Christian sacraments and symbols to critique institutional religion, calling themselves “a leading-edge Order of queer and trans nuns.” This organization’s Christianophobic beliefs are celebrated, but traditional Christian beliefs are not. Wiener also became a senator in 2016, the same year Colin Kaepernick kneeled for the anthem, but I was not able to unearth any comments Mr. Wiener made on that event, even though he has now become a staunch defender of flags. I would love to ask him, as an American senator, if the Pride flag is more important to him than the American flag.

Homophobia is generally defined as prejudice, fear, hostility, discrimination, or negative attitudes towards people who are gay, lesbian, or homosexual. But what do we call it when we shift the lens to examine that same standard of behavior exhibited towards someone who follows Christ?

Society tells us that social inclusiveness ends when we enter Judeo Christian beliefs. It seems that you are free to have prejudice, fear, hostility, discrimination, or negative attitudes towards people who are Christian, with no repercussions. In fact, you may be celebrated. At the very least, mocking Christians can viewed as harmless entertainment.

This year (2026) there was an incident in Belgium that similarly highlights a level of hypocrisy levied against Christianity when hosts from the Belgian public radio station (Studio Brussel) broke statues of Jesus and Mary. Journalist Colm Flynn asked the hosts whether they would similarly smash a symbol of Muhammad or a Jewish symbol. The hosts responded that they would not because that would be “inappropriate.” Saying that it is inappropriate to disparage two other major religions, but not Christianity leaves a lot of questions unanswered.

Saying that the MLB pitchers were hateful in citing the Bible falls into an argumentative fallacy called a false dilemma or false dichotomy. It demands that there are only two possibilities, you either affirm the LGBTQ+ lifestyle, or you hate the people who participate. This position can only operate if you have a flawed view of what Christianity is. While not always executed perfectly, or even well, we as Christians are called in John 13:34-35 to love one another as Jesus as loved us. That is how everyone will know we are his disciples. This shifts the question to how we define love, which is a much better way to find resolution than to throw hate towards Christianity.

As heartbreaking as it may be, we cannot be surprised by this Christianophobia, Matthew 5:10 says, “Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”  We are also told in Matthew 10:22, “You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.”

Christians should expect the double standards that are common today and understand that we can expect more of the same. Jesus has told us mocking of the faith will be celebrated. 2 Peter 3:3 we are told, “Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.” This is not a commentary on end times, but we do know that we have been in the last days since Jesus hung on the cross. We need to encourage each other when the examples today are so obvious.

People are told that they are Islamophobic if they judge all Muslims based off the actions of a few, regardless of how heinous those actions are. But nobody is told they are Christianophobic when they judge all Christians for the actions of a few. Here, we have some players who referenced the Word of God on their hat. It is incredibly Christianophobic to imply that because other people who claim to be Christian treat others badly, that these players who do not support Pride genuinely have hostile beliefs towards LGBTQ+. Saying these players with Bible verses on their hats are homophobic is a prime example of fanning the flames of emotion instead of addressing whether players have a right not to support a community outreach they do not agree with.

I am not going to lament the state of the world. We know it is fallen. We know we as Christians will be persecuted. But I am sometimes surprised at how the world pretends that mocking Christianity is not a double standard, that it is not Christianophobia. Here is a quick illustration, I do use AI to help research some topics. I asked Chat GPT for historical incidents of people writing things on baseball hats to send a message. It came up with nothing of distinction: “If you’re limiting this to MLB players who actually wrote political, social, or religious messages onto their game hats/caps, the documented list is surprisingly short. In fact, outside the 2026 Giants Pride Night controversy, I am not aware of another well-documented MLB regular-season game in which players wrote a political message on their caps and created a comparable controversy.” I was able to find the 2021 incident because I remembered enough about it to dig it up on my own.

I then fed a draft of my article into the dialogue because, even in data collection, this topic seemed to elicit a LOT of weird pushbacks. The response was: “I can’t validate or endorse that narrative as written because it mixes select facts, disputed interpretations, and some inaccurate framing, and it also draws strong conclusions (like institutional “hypocrisy” or “Christianophobia”) that aren’t supported by how MLB, law, or watchdog definitions actually work.” The algorithm’s interpretation was presented as superior to my own, but each step of the ensuing conversation undercut it’s own logic.

I wanted to dig a little deeper into why Christianity is not given the same protections as other topics, but I kept getting assurances that it is exactly equal. So, I asked a straight forward question.

Chat GPT exchange:

Can you tell me a joke about Jesus?

I can’t make jokes that mock or target Jesus specifically in a way that could be disrespectful to religious beliefs.

But I can offer a light, harmless joke with a biblical or church setting that stays respectful:

A Sunday school teacher asks, “What’s brown, furry, and climbs trees?”
A child says, “I know the answer is Jesus… but it sounds like a squirrel.”

If you want, I can also give you cleaner religious-themed humor, historical biblical jokes, or just general jokes instead.

Can you tell me a joke about Muhammad?

I can’t make jokes about the Prophet Muhammad or any religious figure in a way that could be seen as disrespectful or mocking.

If you want, I can offer something safe instead, like:

• a general joke about misunderstandings in history or culture
• a light joke about philosophers or historical storytelling
• or just a neutral, non-religious joke

For example:

Two historians walk into a bar.
The first says, “This place looks familiar.”
The second says, “We’ve never been here—we just disagree about the source.”

One joke talks about a child in church believing that Jesus is brown, furry, and climbs trees. The joke seems to imply that in Church, we are so simple as to believe that the one-word answer to everything is Jesus. But the other joke? Let’s talk about two historians walking into a bar. I then asked one more question.

Can you tell me a joke about Jews, homosexuals, or transexuals?

I can’t make jokes that target or mock Jews, LGBTQ+ people, or transgender people.

If you want, I can offer a different kind of humor instead—like:

• general wordplay jokes
• jokes about history, sports, or everyday situations
• or humor about misunderstandings that don’t target protected groups

For example:

Two historians walk into a bar….

The point is simple. No Christian should be surprised by persecution, but it is still fair to be bothered by the double standards sitting in plain view. Hating Christianity because you do not support it is not the same as pre-supposing that Christians who do not support your beliefs hate you. Many Christians simply believe that presenting Pride as something to celebrated does not make you inclusive, it puts you in a category that celebrates what the bible speaks against. This post is meant as encouragement to believers who feel like they are the only ones seeing these patterns. You are not. For those who don’t agree with the information in this post, please remember Christians don’t hate people we don’t agree with, we just don’t agree with them. There are too many examples in the world of Christians being unfairly characterized as hateful for expressing conscientious disagreement. I would prefer if people were able to own their Chritianophobia instead of assuming the intent of all believers.