Religion
Related: About this forumSt. Louis Cardinals remove religious symbols from pitcher’s mound following fan’s complaints
Michael Vines, who describes himself as a lifelong Cardinals supporter, took offense to the religious images in a "place of hallowed ground not just for Christians, but for Cardinal fans of all religions, including none at all."
By Jaime Uribarri / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Published: Monday, July 8, 2013, 4:16 PM
Updated: Monday, July 8, 2013, 6:41 PM
The St. Louis Cardinals have done away with religion at Busch Stadium after a fan raised hell over Christian symbols on the pitching mound.
Michael Vines, who was watching on TV, noticed what appeared to be a cross and an ichthus better known as a Jesus fish etched on the mound next to the cleat scraper and contacted the Riverfront Times' news blog to express his outrage.
Vines, who describes himself as a lifelong Cardinals supporter, took offense to the religious images in a "place of hallowed ground not just for Christians, but for Cardinal fans of all religions, including none at all."
"How come nobody's mentioning this?" he wrote the Riverfront Times. "It's totally inappropriate."
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/cardinals-fan-raises-hell-religious-symbols-stadium-article-1.1393153
There is irony here.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)This reminds me of the ridiculousness of some of the anti-smoking zealots.
Last year, I woman reamed me out in front of a dive bar for smoking on the outside bench. It seems she was concerned about her 16 year old son's health. This is the 16 year old son who she left sitting on said bench outside said dive bar while she got shit faced.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)Sometimes you meet really interesting people outside places that don't allow smoking.
I smoke, but I very much agree that indoor areas should be smoke free. But I don't like getting harassed in outdoor areas. I am thoughtful and try to keep my smoke out of other's faces, but some people just won't let it be.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)but it was actually a Christian Fish. If it was a tribute to Stan the Man, it was hidden, and not obvious.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)its the most convoluted 6 I've ever seen, and from that angle, looks like the Ichthys symbol.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Why would one not believe that?
At any rate, some one complained, they stopped, end of story.
okasha
(11,573 posts)If it's a fish, of any kind, half its tail is missing.
okasha
(11,573 posts)didn't storm onto the field and dismember the pitcher.
This isn't Brazil, after all.
rug
(82,333 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)After all, didn't Cardinals cover up for pedophile priests?
rug
(82,333 posts)Seems it's no longer among DU's selection of smilies. And I've never really got the hang of posting cartoons, so that's out.
Maybe I can just do an all-caps "CHILD-RAPING PRIESTS" instead?
And maybe I'd better put in another one of these, just in case:
rug
(82,333 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Nice to see you have your priorities in order.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Joking about priests molesting children? I must have hallucinated...
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)and once again, the room's civility scolds are conspicuously silent.
okasha
(11,573 posts)And yes, you must have.
Are you unfamiliar with what this means?
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)It's my main form of communication, but there are some lines that you cross at great risk, and when you sit there making fun of Atheists by mocking a very serious issue which is so often swept under the rug a little smiley face isn't gonna make these things better. It doesn't work for the other guys when they send out hilarious jokes about Obama and watermelon, and it doesn't work for you when you crack jokes about institutional child abuse.
okasha
(11,573 posts)cracking jokes about it. I wasn't mocking "Atheists," either.
I was mocking three or four posters in this room who regularly bring up the issue anytime the Catholic Church is mentioned, regardless of context. Now, I'm glad you know what sarcasm is. And you should have picked up on mine because I clearly labelled it. I used this little thingie here more than once, capice?
How about parody? Do you know what that is? And if you're offended by my parodying those members' posts, why aren't you offended by those members' posts themselves?
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)which you decided to bring up. I would imagine any religious, moral person would be outraged by the actions of the church, but all I see is them being made uncomfortable, and wish it would go away, and then mocking it.
This is no subject to be joking about, and not something that is taken lightly.
Response to Lordquinton (Reply #19)
Rob H. This message was self-deleted by its author.
This place can be really revolting sometimes.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Happens every time the subject is brought up. What I find most amusing, and concerning, is how it was the apologists who broached the subject in an unrelated OP. Perhaps it's always on their mind.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Child-rape apologetics, bordering on delusion.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Stereotypes are bad, and this goes a long way in dispelling that one.
There's that little puking smiley.
And there's the ipecac.
okasha
(11,573 posts)n/t
rug
(82,333 posts)Who knows what accusations will be made.
okasha
(11,573 posts)for the outrageistas when they can't come up with anything substantive.
You've never mentioned ketchup or steak sauce on this forum, right?
rug
(82,333 posts)That's got anchovies in it. Christian fish, you know.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)child raping priests the whole time you've been here. But nice that you and your cohort find child rape and its enabling a subject for levity.
rug
(82,333 posts)I wonder how long it would take you if I posted a picture of a lemon.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)After all, didn't Cardinals cover up for pedophile priests?
Here:http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=87014
Complete with a bunch of snark about how funny that was from others, including yourself.
I guess you just missed all that, including your own participation.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)The genes for apologetics and willful ignorance are apparently the same.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)and eight. All by her little self. I think SHE deserves the award, don't you?
rug
(82,333 posts)Here's a lemon.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)to have those nasty atheists keep bringing up the minor issue of pedophile priests and the decades of malfeasance by the Catholic Church to hide what was going on. It is hilarious, isn't it?
Lol, we've been here too long.
Yes LOL. Indeed.
But that wasn't the point Rug. The first pedophile priest reference was from Okasha. Your attack was total bullshit and no matter how big a picture you post, no matter how much you snark, you can't get away from that fact.
rug
(82,333 posts)Do you deny that there are posters here, yourself included, that are quick to bring up child rape in religious discussion that have nothing to do with child rape?
Whether you're an atheist or not is utterly irrelevant to that pattern.
Before you answer, remember it's you that accuse me of avoiding facts.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)like, anything about the former pope has everything to do with it, it is a hot issue, and RCC apologists try everything they can to get away from it, and now joking about it. Sickening, no other word. Until the Church fesses up to, and atones for, preferably with the head guy responsible behind bars, then there is no reason not to remind every catholic that their church covered up and enabled priests who abused children.
Benedict himself is responsible, not in a "He's the head of the organization so he should come clean" but in a "He was in charge of protecting priests from getting caught by the public"
Until they clean their house, everything about the RCC is tainted, and should be reminded until they can't sweep it away. Like they tried last week with the "Gay faction" bit.
rug
(82,333 posts)And thanks for acknowledging the truth of the post.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Several people have acknowledged how vile those posts joking about child abuse, so you should thank them too.
rug
(82,333 posts)No matter how unrelated the topic is. Using child rape to make an antireligious post is what's vile. It's a bankruptcy of argument.
But, there is a mission.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)and it wasn't me, You can't bring up a subject and then blame others for commenting on it.
While we're talking about bankruptcy, to make jokes about child abuse is morally bankrupt.
rug
(82,333 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)said no one ever.
There are people who always bring God into conversations where it has no bearing, any discussion about the Catholic Church has the specter of the abuse scandal hanging over it.
rug
(82,333 posts)A truly unfunny subject, ill-suited as a rhetorical device.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Don't like it? don't do it.
rug
(82,333 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)I'm not the one who turned this thread from one about baseball into a sick joke.
I also don't take God advice, no way to verify it's source.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)until she did.
So read posts 6 and 8 again, decide who brought the subjects of pedophile priests and child raping priests into this thread, and hand the lemons to her.
rug
(82,333 posts)Check your microscope, scottie.
Conclusions follow repeated observations.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)no one made any of those "predictable" responses except okasha. At best okasha's remarks were crude and you went along for the ride.
rug
(82,333 posts)Let's keep our eyes open for future threads.
I'm all for getting the rude out of this room but it's far from one-sided.
okasha
(11,573 posts)The posts they parodied are crude. That was the point.
Somehow you've never objected to the crudeness of the knee-jerk little puke smilies or the ALL CAPS FLAMEBAIT HEADLINES, though. Double standard much?
rexcat
(3,622 posts)you were crude in your remarks and it is my opinion you are also obnoxious based on your comments in this thread. Your contempt for atheists has been made very clear now and in the past. It would appear that you have narrow minded views concerning atheists. So much for the christian love garbage spewed by people like you.
No one else in this post was crude other than you and rug and I addressed that to rug. Your post that I commented about was over the top. If you don't get it that is your problem. I also happen to like rug, on the other hand not so much for you.
Do sit down before you pop an aneurysm.
1. I'm not a Christian, and have never "spewed Christian love garbage." If you claim that I have, produce the link.
2. Yes, I do have contempt for some atheists, -just as I have contempt for some religious people, who are bigots. I firmly believe in equal-opportunity contemptuousness, and do not discriminate on grounds of race, creed (or lack thereof), color, national origin, sexual orientation or political affiliation.
3. You don't like me? Awwwww, I'm crushed. Really. I mean, really. Really really.
Response to okasha (Reply #68)
rexcat This message was self-deleted by its author.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)your remarks were crude and obnoxious. From your earlier posts in this thread it would make some people think your moral and ethical values are lacking and those attributes have nothing to do with religion or lack there of.
okasha
(11,573 posts)since you took the trouble to invent a fictitious Christian persona for me and continue to respond to my posts.
your remarks were crude and obnoxious. From your earlier posts in this thread it would make some people think your moral and ethical values are lacking and those attributes have nothing to do with religion or lack there of.
You are not a christian, good for you! You seem to be fixated on the Christian thing. My deepest apologies for my mistaken thought that you might be a christian. Now try reading the first paragraph, second sentence because whatever your theological philosophy is your poor humor is reflective of your ethical and moral demeanor. Hopefully if you read it several times you might comprehend it, or possibly not.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)The reason it was removed was because it was done without the clubs permission, by grounds crew, once John Mozeliak, the General Manager of the Cardinals heard about it, from the Post-Dispatch, he told the grounds crew to stop.
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball/professional/cross-removed-from-busch-stadium-mound/article_e0d7dc2a-39f9-5b32-9779-b502c8bee672.html
Oh, and the only prominent person complaining about this is Laura Ingrahm, who isn't even a local, good thing you are on her side!
rug
(82,333 posts)And the complaint was from Michael Vines.
Thanks for keeping me posted about the doings of Laura Ingraham. Make sure you keep me posted on her future activities. I don't read her.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)also, from everything I've heard, Michael Vines complaint wasn't heard by anyone on the Cardinals managing staff. Not to mention the made up BS about a Number 6 (Stan Musial's number) being drawn on the mound, when any honest assessment of the picture shows its actually a Christian Fish.
The fact is that the Cardinals staff did not put the symbols there, and once aware of it, told those who did do it to stop, end of story. The only thing I'm somewhat surprised by is the activity of the blogosphere about this, frankly in St. Louis, we generally don't care.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Not that it would be like the NY Daily News to create an evil atheist strawman ( for the impaired)
rug
(82,333 posts)http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2013/06/busch_stadium_cardinals_christian_symbols.php?page=2
Or any atheists.
Methinks you're unwarrantedly sensitive.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)Who employs the groundskeeper?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Jenoch
(7,720 posts)I believe it was some sort of tribute to Stan Musial.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Whether its due to complaints, or, more likely, the manager didn't want anything that isn't explicitly authorized. End of story.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)First, I was not defending the act of placing the symbols on the mound, I was simply proving and explanation.
Second, replying to someone with an "End of story" is a rude thing to do. Why not keep things civil?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)most likely because it is good for stirring up a fight, as we see right here.
FWIW, all articles I have read on this say that a complaint was registered by a fan, that the grounds crew was doing it as a tribute to a deceased team member and that once a complaint was received, the practice stopped.
Big Whoop.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)and the evil Cardinals (I say that as a Cincinnati Reds fan) the jerseys of the ballplayer on the Cardinals team all have the # 6 on them as a tribute to Stan the Man. Everyone who follows baseball knows that. The "fish" and "cross" go over the line (my opinion and sounds like someone else's). The ballpark is a public venue and it is good to see that the management also thought it was inappropriate when it was pointed out to them. A "6" would have been more appropriate on the pitchers mound.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)let alone any marks in the dirt.
I don't disagree that removing it was the right thing to do once there was a complaint. I do think it is making a mountain out of a molehill, however.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)on TV and the mound is very clear. Those marks on the mound in Busch Stadium would have been very clear on the TV, not so much if someone was at the ballpark. Just saying.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)But I do try to get to a few live games a year.
And I love them.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)need to take my boys to a game. Of the eight games they have seen live with me over the years the Reds have lost every one of them! Very frustrating.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Got to one in Denver last month and will try to see a Dodgers game this season.
Sorry you jinx the team, lol! That must be frustrating.