12/21/24
July 26, 2006
Faith Day: After the Braves game Thursday, you can attend a Christian music concert and hear John Smoltz talking about his life-changing conversion to the Christian faith. And Atlanta is not the only team: the Arizona Diamondbacks are having their own Faith Day later this season, and the Marlins will have one next season.
mike sweeney of the kc royals does this at least twice a year. considering the fact that he is the royals franchise player and has averaged playing only about 60 games per year for the past four seasons, and gets 10 million per year for a small market team, this is big for him. I believe he has only played in about ten games this year, but he does a lot for the city. I am sure that he is a big wuss and is always hurt, but he has always contended that he began his career in kc and wants to finish it here
posted by hawkguy at 07:44 PM on July 26, 2006
A set of big brass ones, thank you. I really think the article explores every angle from a very neutral point of view. It brings people to the ballpark, so in a sense it's purely marketing. In the south I can see it working, since religion is a much larger part of the culture. It is going to alienate a lot of non-religious people, but maybe the new fans brought in for the religion will balance it out.
posted by dusted at 07:46 PM on July 26, 2006
I also find the promotion of evangelical protestant Christianity (born agains) over other sects and religions to be suspect. It's one thing to "praise God," clichéd as that is, but it's quite another to promote one idea of faith. This quote says it a little better: "Baseball at its best has always aspired to be a celebration of what unites us; it's the great secular Americanizer," says sportswriter Dave Zirin... "So [Faith Day] is a rather remarkable and shocking step backward from that ideal."
posted by dusted at 07:51 PM on July 26, 2006
It is well known in Kansas City that Sweeny is a Baptist, but the events he promotes, and pays for, never push his church, beliefs, or denomination. Can this really be a bad thing?
posted by hawkguy at 07:53 PM on July 26, 2006
I'm almost compelled to conduct a GIS for bobblehead Noahs and camouflage Bibles.
posted by lilnemo at 07:54 PM on July 26, 2006
Definitely not, hawkguy, but the Braves are a Major League team and they are definitely pushing at minimum a belief system, if not a specific denomination.
posted by dusted at 07:55 PM on July 26, 2006
Can this really be a bad thing? No one is saying that it is. But then again, we're not commenting on Mr. Sweeney or his faith. We are talking about a handful of MLB clubs holding "Faith Days" at the ballpark. On preview, Dusted has it.
posted by lilnemo at 07:59 PM on July 26, 2006
Interesting post Dusted- I know if I ever posted something like this, I would get hell for it for eternity. Anyways, I think that the whole Faith Day can be a great thing. I wouldn't be suprised if lots more teams develpoed the same sort of thing in the near future. As long as it dosent turn into some cheap marketing scheme, I think that this can be very beneficial. Who knows, maybe some kids will get some positive role models out of the thing too.
posted by redsoxrgay at 08:06 PM on July 26, 2006
Teams are privately owned, so there's none of this no involvement between state and religion to deal with. Having said that "Faith" days still make my skin crawl. It's like the team is saying we only care about having Christian fans and evangelical ones at that. I think it's terrible PR.
posted by commander cody at 08:08 PM on July 26, 2006
I'm really looking for Muslim Extremist Day at Fenway. I've already got a Yankees Suck Birka picked out and everything. Its going to be the balls.
posted by jerseygirl at 08:08 PM on July 26, 2006
Definitely not, hawkguy, but the Braves are a Major League team and they are definitely pushing at minimum a belief system, if not a specific denomination Are the braves guys holding a gun at every exit, making people stay to hear the testimonials?
posted by hawkguy at 08:13 PM on July 26, 2006
I think it's kind of funny that everyone is afraid to talk about it. If it's OK to have a Faith Day after a Braves game at Turner Field, it's OK to talk about it! As long as it dosent turn into some cheap marketing scheme, I think that this can be very beneficial. Did you read the article? Camo Bibles!
Part evangelism, part marketing, all baseball, the Faith Day movement began in baseball's minor leagues after 9/11, capturing the mood of a country that began singing "God Bless America" during the seventh-inning stretch. "Faith does coalesce with sports in a more substantial way today than [in the past]," says Andy Overman, a former athlete and minister who teaches classics at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minn. But rarely has that intersection been so explicit. During and after the game on its "Faith Nights," the Nashville Sounds minor league team also hands out bobblehead Noahs and camouflage Bibles instead of free T-shirts and bats. Minor league teams from Buffalo, N.Y., to Huntsville, Ala., are holding similar promotions. The effect on ticket-sales is often dramatic. Faith Nights in Nashville regularly increase ticket sales by 60 percent. The Las Vegas Gladiators, the arena football team, had its highest Sunday attendance ever during a Faith Day event this spring. Results like those captured the attention of big-league promoters, who are determined to bring the phenomenon - without the flashiness of camo Bibles - to "The Show."(Emphasis mine)
posted by dusted at 08:17 PM on July 26, 2006
Dusted's posts simply remind us that there are more important things in this world than sports.When players openly acknowledge their faith, whether it is part of a team promotion or simply making the the sign of the cross as they step into the batters box,they exemplify something truly special.When proper respect is shown, this type of thing might help polish baseball's tarnished image.
posted by judgedread at 08:22 PM on July 26, 2006
When players openly acknowledge their faith, whether it is part of a team promotion or simply making the the sign of the cross as they step into the batters box,they exemplify something truly special Good call, judgedread. Does it really matter what faith they proclaim, as long as they believe enough to proclaim it? As I previously mentioned, it's notlike people stand in the exit aisles forcing the crowd to stay...
posted by hawkguy at 08:29 PM on July 26, 2006
I figured that having been a Phillies fan for the last 20 years that I couldn't possibly dislike the Braves any more than I already do. I was wrong.
posted by DudeDykstra at 08:31 PM on July 26, 2006
When players openly acknowledge their faith, whether it is part of a team promotion or simply making the the sign of the cross as they step into the batters box, they exemplify something truly special. (emphasis mine.) I truly hope you can see that one of these things is a small, innocuous act; an individuals personal connection with god. And the other is a privately owned company using said players faith to sell tickets.
posted by lilnemo at 08:32 PM on July 26, 2006
I really don't see what the big deal is here. It's similar to say....the Lakers playing at noon at Staples, and the Kings, or Clippers playing at 7:30 that night. Multipurpose stadium, gee, we're generating more revenues. The way I read the article, they're going to clear the stadium, and you have to purchase a seperate ticket and re-enter the facilities. What's the big hulabalo about anyway? If you're interested in hearing John Smoltz talk about his faith, you'll stick around, if not, the 7,000 (just a guess) sticking around are going to make it easier for the rest of the crowd to leave more quickly and get home a little faster as the roads will be not so busy. Personally, I'm not a devout Christian, but it might be interesting to hear a pro athelete talk without going on about his contract, his bling, crib, or ho's. There isn't a price for tickets listed that I could see, but I'd be real surprised if the proceeds, or at least a significant share didn't make their way to charity.
posted by tommybiden at 08:39 PM on July 26, 2006
but it might be interesting to hear a pro athelete talk without going on about his contract, his bling, crib, or ho's. You're assuming this talk won't entail how Christ made all these things possible.
posted by lilnemo at 08:47 PM on July 26, 2006
You mean Jesus does or does not wear a Rolex?
posted by commander cody at 08:55 PM on July 26, 2006
Something to that effect.
posted by lilnemo at 08:57 PM on July 26, 2006
Part of what bothers me about athletes crediting God or Christ for their success is that in a backhanded way it's the same as saying the reason you're not as successful as me is that my faith is stronger and God likes me more.
posted by commander cody at 09:06 PM on July 26, 2006
All-in-all, great post dusted. Enjoyed the converation, all. Am tempted to end my post with a verse, but think I may never be allowed to post again if I do...
posted by hawkguy at 09:07 PM on July 26, 2006
I have very few principles*. However one of them is to never attend sporting events that involve cheerleaders. I can now add another that requires me never to attend sporting events that push religion. Is nothing secular? *If you don't like them, I have others. (Groucho Marx)
posted by owlhouse at 09:09 PM on July 26, 2006
I don't know what faith master Sri Chinmoy espouses, but I wouldn't be offended if he and his meditators ran around AT&T Park a few thousand times. I think it would be cool. So, if the Christians want to hold Faith Days, I guess I have no problem with that either. I would, however, have to draw the line at NAMBLA Nights. That would just be taking it too far.
posted by forrestv at 09:25 PM on July 26, 2006
Having grown up in the heart of the Bible Belt and graduating from Baylor (OMFG, the Baptists are crazy, except for when they're not in the minority of the crazy), I've just two things to add to the conversation: The ticket sales increases on faith nights? Marketing schtick to youth groups. Offer 'em discounts for groups of 15+, coupons for hot dogs, play a, I dunno, P.O.D. song during halftime, and they'll shell out just like any demographic desperate for some mainstream like-minded "me-too!"-ness. Point two: I went to the Mavericks vs. Hornets game in OKC this past November and, depsite the fact that I really don't believe it was a faith-based night, they had an invocation right after the national anthem. On the PA. That creeped me the. fuck. out. I've dealt with enough armchair religious zealotry that my hackles pretty much raise at anyone trying to openly profess their beliefs to anyone and everyone they encounter that I tend to either just remove myself from the situation or dismiss them as more sheep in the herd. Do it at your damn misogynist Promise Keeper events. Scream it from a soapbox in Hyde Park. But keep it out of my Pro Sports, please.
posted by Ufez Jones at 10:58 PM on July 26, 2006
AMEN!
posted by commander cody at 11:12 PM on July 26, 2006
Ufez, that's how we roll in OKC. Praying before games and potentially making spectators uncomfortable? A-ok. Paying public school teachers more so they aren't the 48th lowest paid in the nation? I've said too much.
posted by igottheblues at 11:41 PM on July 26, 2006
Having grown up in the heart of the Bible Belt and graduating from Baylor (OMFG, the Baptists are crazy, except for when they're not in the minority of the crazy) I know what ya mean. Several years ago I took a job managing a Holiday Inn in Weatherford OK and my God I couldn't believe some of the people there! The hotel owner was always happy to say what a pillar of the church he was (a Baptist) and how Jesus guided his life. In public that is. When he was out of the public eye he abused his employees, could drink many of them under the table at the topless bars in OKC and cheated on his wife every chance he got. When he was running for State Representative from that area he ran on a strong pro-life platform and I asked if he really meant it. He laughed (he was a bit drunk) and said sure, unless some nigger got one his daughters knocked up and then he'd force her to abort. Lovely man. He lost (thank God?) Truth is there really were some great people there, but I noticed they rarely went to the local church.
posted by commander cody at 11:42 PM on July 26, 2006
Oh, who cares? Let them have a day, yo. I could've sworn some teams (maybe WNBA) had celebration days for gays and lesbians. They have days when you can bring your dog, meet other singles, burn disco records. When the article says "part evangelism, part marketing", read: "all about ticket sales"
posted by vito90 at 11:49 PM on July 26, 2006
Hell. I didn't want it to come to "hey Ufez, GYOB, fuckwit", but I'm feeling a bit inspired. commancody, blues, I appreciate the comments, but they've little to do with Pro Sports and much more to do with the clusterfuck that this Oklahoma politics. This is neither the time nor place (I'd be very willing to entertain e-mails, though). That said, vito (who owes me beer! I'll make it back to Seattle someday and we can laugh it up, and you can pay the tab) Oh, who cares? Let them have a day, yo. I could've sworn some teams (maybe WNBA) had celebration days for gays and lesbians. Yeah, they have. And I'm no more comfortable with that than I am the Religious Right* having stadium days. Sports, on a philosophic level to me, are one of the great binding factors in a community. You can support your team of choice regardless of gender, religion, race, income level, political leanings, lifestyle, or choice of deodorant. It's anecdotal, for sure, but I've sat many a time in pretty much every section of the AAC during Mavs games over the past years and found that, in spite of how much you paid to get in or what you're wearing or who you know, when it gets to the 8 minutes left in the 4th, we're all one in the same. I *love* that. Introducing any marketing gimmick, be it the NRA, NOW, ACT, NAACP, or Nader is my God, just cheapens it. There's no place for it period. *Hint: they're neither.
posted by Ufez Jones at 12:16 AM on July 27, 2006
As an addendum, the more vito, the better SpoFi is.
posted by Ufez Jones at 12:21 AM on July 27, 2006
My thoughts exactly vito90. Why is it that some who claim to be so "tolerant" are often the most hateful and intolerant people toward Christians? Seems a little inconsistent to me. I think that a lot pf the problem is that many "professing" Christians are not really Christians at all (see commander cody's example above for a possible example). This is something people of the Christian faith need to own up to and do something about. In the end, most preachers of "tolerance" are just as intolerant against religious fundamentalists as the fundamentalists are against them. If you don't believe it, challenge a "non-religious" person's "right for you, but not for me" doctrine; they often times explode. As far as the faith days go, i am all for it, as long as there is a conscientious effort to not debar anyone who would like to join in the post-game festivities who is not a Christian. if so, let them proceed.
posted by brainofdtrain at 12:22 AM on July 27, 2006
You're exactly right Ufez. It really has not much to do with sports and this really isn't the forum. I admit that I sometimes tend to wander off topic in cases like these. I may take you up on the email soon though. Oh and you're right also brain, it's the phony christians that make me grind my teeth in my sleep. I have nothing but respect for the sincere ones, even if I rarely agree with them.
posted by commander cody at 01:05 AM on July 27, 2006
You have a most interesting home page, brainofdtrain, and congrats on your recent nuptials. I seriously doubt that the Braves (Ted Turner) are/is using this as a way to generate revenue, I would be very surprised if that were indeed the case, I would imagine that the proceeds are going to the organization putting on the event, whoever that may be. It is completely voluntary, occurs after the game, and, maybe, some "sincere ones" will turn out and have a blessed time.
posted by mjkredliner at 01:20 AM on July 27, 2006
Praise the LORD now we need to ban Beer at the parks so we can take our familes and have a good time without worring about the drunks
posted by bubbashaffer at 04:51 AM on July 27, 2006
Why is it that some who claim to be so "tolerant" are often the most hateful and intolerant people toward Christians? Such people are unquestionably hypocrites. They are hypocrites in the same way that self-professing God-fearing folks are when they stand in judgment of others on questions of morals, and use their religion to further causes of bias and hatred. The pendulum swings both ways on that one.
posted by psmealey at 05:36 AM on July 27, 2006
Praise the LORD now we need to ban Beer at the parks so we can take our familes and have a good time without worring about the drunks You'll be staring at an empty field. At $6/beer, a drunk is a wonderful customer to have. Carrie Nation provides a little less margin.
posted by yerfatma at 06:13 AM on July 27, 2006
Why is it that some who claim to be so "tolerant" are often the most hateful and intolerant people toward Christians? Seems a little inconsistent to me. It would be inconsistent, if it weren't a vague generalization, and if Christians -- particularly fundamentalist evangelical Protestant Christians -- didn't have such an extremely dominant upper hand in every intersection of religion and public life in the United States. Look, people. If you love the idea of thumpin' Bibles with a bunch of like-minded fundies after a baseball game, I'm not going to harsh on your tastes; chacun a son gout, and some people still think Fiesta ware is hip after all. But when you start suggesting that you are, or might be, one among many faiths that do so, that's when the BULLSHIT airhorn goes off. Because if you're being even a little tiny bit of honest, you will admit that no other stripe of religion gets this kind of access, promotion, cooperation and complicity from sports. brainofdtrain, you cite an "example" of people preaching tolerance who are intolerant of Christians; tell me this, when was the last time you saw some other stripe of religion welcomed into a ballpark when evangelical Christianity was locked out? Hell, when was the lsat time you saw some other stripe of religion at all? This whole disingenuous "I don't care, let's have all kinds religions in da ballpark!" hooey needs to go. Sure, we're all diverse and wonderful, and we got all kinds flavors, and you can have whatever flavor you like, as long as it's fundamentalist Christian. Call it like it is.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 06:44 AM on July 27, 2006
Amen, lbb.
posted by psmealey at 06:59 AM on July 27, 2006
It's all Kate Smith's fault. I've always feel public displays of one's religion were a bit much. It's always twisted though. Players point to the sky after a home run, but never a strike-out. By allowing hordes of these cults in the games I fear for the safety of fans. "Iintentional ministry" means the stands will have people proselytizing. Who knows how many will be enticed to join the cult that day?
posted by ?! at 07:13 AM on July 27, 2006
whether it is part of a team promotion or simply making the the sign of the cross as they step into the batters box,they exemplify something truly special. Sure they do. In the former, it is, as you said, a "team promotion." Why do teams stage promotions? To make money. Very Christian, indeed. As for the latter, Jimmy Swaggart was very pious publicly, but when the sun went down, he whored around the backstreets like a true degenerate; Jim Baker prayed like a champ in public, and when nobody was looking, ripped off his congregation and banged a church secretary; and several Catholic priests crossed themselves incessantly, handed out communion, listened to confessions, and generally did all the things that the pious do, then molested altar boys in the church building itself. Acting like a Christian in public doesn't mean shit; truly believing in your mind, your heart and your soul is what counts. If it takes a special night at the ballpark for you to prove/show your faith, then I suggest that you are a little more wanting in that that department than you might want to admit.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 07:53 AM on July 27, 2006
Interesting article and the discusion that follows.
posted by daddisamm at 08:28 AM on July 27, 2006
simply making the the sign of the cross as they step into the batters box This has always struck me as being more superstitious than pious. Then again, that might be just be my Calvinist programming telling me that. At any rate, the Black Hand is totally right on. And Matthew 6:5-18 will back both of us up on that.
posted by psmealey at 08:33 AM on July 27, 2006
I find the whole thing pretty much bullshit. The idea that this is somehow a real example of Christianity spreading it's tentacles into secular life (it's one freaking day), the idea that Christianity and patriotism are historically linked (which is the wicked PR win for evangelicals - baseball and apple pie), the idea that this is being done for the good of the community (Ted Turner is in the business of selling baseball tickets - don't be an idiot). The idea that the attendence figures are a geniune reflection of the current strength of Christianity (packages to youth groups; creative target marketing - as outlined by Ufez). Folks, it's just one big pile of bullshit. This is a company partnering with an organization to sell some tickets and engage the audience in a safe, like-minded value added program following the game. Bring your friends next year and all. I'm sure everyone there will have a good time. There won't be a Muslim day because you won't sell enough tickets. Maybe in NY. (Which would be fine, except that the Christians would likely declare the end of family values to hear of it.) The Jays have Gay Day. Doesn't offend me. Other teams set up baseball workshops after the game so fans can oogle the ballplayers (gay and straight). If it's an interesting marketing program that takes advantage of people's sameness and need to feel that they're right in their thinking - and can get them to come out and spend money - team's will be all over it. It's not a dialogue or a debate, it doens't further anything beyond the end of one's own nose. To wit - it's pretty much harmless and, like most of the rest of these types of selling strategies, safe, unchallenging bullshit. I think one of the more interesting cultural trends that this may (repeat, may) indicate is the need for everyone to be segmented and separated in society. We're all part of a group that demands specific recognition. And doesn't want to share space with another group. Also, the idea that "safe fun" excludes all others who think differently. I recall safe fun being that time when my dad put the power tools out of reach - not when he invited me to think exactly like him. That's an overstatement, but I'm always a little suspicious of people that get together in large groups and start chanting. Can ya blame me? Great FPP.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 09:00 AM on July 27, 2006
Then again, that might be just be my Calvinist programming telling me that. You were predestined to think that.
posted by yerfatma at 09:02 AM on July 27, 2006
Here's an idea, if you don't want to attend, leave when the game is over. They do not lock you in the ballpark. A lot of parks have concerts, fireworks, etc after games. I do not hear much uproar when some country music artists performs after a game. Seem's like people latch onto any thing associated with religeon and stir up "politicallly correct" issues. It's not a big deal people, lighten up. I'd be happy if I was gonna be at the braves game because i could get out in less traffic if others stayed for anything that i was not interested in.
posted by louisville_slugger at 09:16 AM on July 27, 2006
You guys (and gals) have your undies all in a knot over this and I say CHILL!! A very important part of the story was left out. It reads "But the Braves and promoters are careful to point out that the post-game fellowship takes place not on the mound, but in the outfield. Fans have to buy separate tickets for Faith Day and have to physically leave and reenter the stadium in order to avoid confusion. "We've been very careful to make sure what we're not about is ambush evangelism," says Third Coast Sports president Brent High, the mastermind behind the events. So you see, Christianty IS NOT being shoved down anyones throat. As with accepting Christ as your Savior, it's still a CHOICE.
posted by Brucewells62 at 09:23 AM on July 27, 2006
We're all part of a group that demands specific recognition. Damn straight, I'm waiting for the Yankees to have a day for near sighted, left-handed, bi-sexuals of Austrio-Hungarian descent. For too long have myself and others like me had to live in a world where a major league baseball didn't take time out after a game to recognize our importance society. This agression will not stand, man.
posted by HATER 187 at 09:27 AM on July 27, 2006
I don't object on grounds of "political correctness", l_s, I object on purely religious ones. I fear that these well-intentioned people might be unwittingly committing blasphemy by praying as the heathen do (see referenced chapter in Matthew above), and it makes me concerned for their souls. By the way... I'm KIDDING.
posted by psmealey at 09:28 AM on July 27, 2006
In other news, the leading bidder for the Braves is being opposed for being a smut peddler. I guess my take on the whole thing is that it's somewhat crass, but I don't really see any coercion or government involvement, so let people pay for what they want to pay for, I guess.
posted by holden at 10:09 AM on July 27, 2006
lil_brown_bat: It would be inconsistent, if it weren't a vague generalization, and if Christians -- particularly fundamentalist evangelical Protestant Christians -- didn't have such an extremely dominant upper hand in every intersection of religion and public life in the United States. I find this statement disconcerting, as you do the exact same thing you "accuse" me of doing! You use four terms that aren't always, and in some cases are never, together. Not all fundamentalists are evangelicals, nor are all evangelicals fundamentalists, protestants aren't evangelicals at all if you use the term correctly and not always fundamentalists, and the label "Christian" doesn't always apply to any of these. Being a Christian is more than just saying you are. I know what you are getting at though. My hope is that we can move forward in mutual understanding, despite our imprecise terms. Either way, i think WeedyMcSmokey is dead on with this observation: There won't be a Muslim day because you won't sell enough tickets. I think you have your answer here: Christians dominate sports b/c they are so large in America; why should they be penalized for this? They get the access in large part because they have the people, which no doubt is enticing to people in suits. Let me ask you this lil_brown_bat: if in five years the majority of America are muslims, do you think Ted Turner and the like will not have a Muslim day, out of their "allegiance" to the Christian faith? This is not a conspiracy, just marketing. Also, it has been established in previous posts that Christians aren't "locking" other people out. If the goal in part for Christian organization is evangelism, they will probably want them to come in. Finally, although i have no need to defend myself, i have had stimulating conversations and interactions with Hindus, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, athiests, agnostics, and New Age followers. Some of my family and friends are mormons. One of my closest family members is a practicing homosexual. I am also a product of three divorces. Not to be rude, but it seems like you are doing what i talked about in my first post. Not all Christians are fundamentalists, and i certainly don't want to be one. I would rather be like Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King Jr., or Dietrich Bonhoeffer; those people made an impact on the world, were Christians, and are respected in the world as well. Later.
posted by brainofdtrain at 10:25 AM on July 27, 2006
If it is seperate event, as was mentioned in the comments then I don't see the big deal. It'd be different if you had to attend in order to watch the game, then it'd be forced. It isn't, so chill.
posted by Fence at 10:42 AM on July 27, 2006
" One of my closest family members is a practicing homosexual. " Make sure you let us all know when he stops practicing and starts in for real.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:46 AM on July 27, 2006
Damn, and I used to like Smoltz. I cannot stand it when athletes use their fame to stump for their religious beliefs. I hated when Andy Pettitte did his "personal relationship with God" commercials and actually started actively cheering against him. Please, just play the game and keep your religion to yourself, just like your sexuality and your politics.
posted by fenriq at 11:15 AM on July 27, 2006
Ufez, were you out here in Seattle and didn't ring me up? You know I still have Catholic guilt over that 6 pack of Pike Place I owe you? many thanks for the complement as well...
posted by vito90 at 11:20 AM on July 27, 2006
Just to let you guys know. Ted Turner doesn't own the Braves. Time Warner does.
posted by sonson20 at 11:31 AM on July 27, 2006
I can't stand it either. Curt Schilling went from being a player I loved to a player I can barely watch after I heard him say that God was the reason they won the World Series. Really, Curt? God gives a fuck about the World Series? Any God who cares about a damn baseball player hitting a home run with all of the awful shit going on in the rest of the world can suck my ass. Curt Schilling is an arrogant fuck and he can suck my ass too.
posted by DudeDykstra at 11:31 AM on July 27, 2006
Make sure you let us all know when he stops practicing and starts in for real. Line of the day.
posted by smithers at 11:37 AM on July 27, 2006
Brucewells62 points out the important part of this story. The event occurs after the game, you have to leave and re-enter the building, and you have to get a special ticket to attend it. Essentially, this is a whole other event being held in the same building, but at the different time. I would equate this to a Muslim/Jewish/JW/7th Day group renting out the Air Canada Centre for a big gathering. Sure, it might not be right after a Leaf/Raptor game, but maybe it's the next day. I don't think anyone would get too upset about it under these circumstances, so why does a compressed time difference (1 day down to 1 hour) matter?
posted by grum@work at 11:39 AM on July 27, 2006
Ufez, were you out here in Seattle and didn't ring me up? Nah, haven't been since pre-SpoFi days (June of '01), but I'm itching to get back up there. Looks like this year's vacation will be accompanying the SO to San Fran for a conference of hers, though. But someday soon, meaning, in the next decade or so.
posted by Ufez Jones at 11:41 AM on July 27, 2006
I can't stand it either. Curt Schilling went from being a player I loved to a player I can barely watch after I heard him say that God was the reason they won the World Series. God was also the reason he left philly. Go GOD!
posted by justgary at 11:49 AM on July 27, 2006
I hope people actually start reading articles before posting in the future. If you dont understand what you read, then please ask for help.
posted by Drallig9399 at 11:57 AM on July 27, 2006
Ufez, were you out here in Seattle and didn't ring me up? You know I still have Catholic guilt over that 6 pack of Pike Place I owe you? i will be in seattle next month and will gladly take Ufez's beer in his place.
posted by goddam at 12:24 PM on July 27, 2006
brainofdtrain: I find this statement disconcerting, as you do the exact same thing you "accuse" me of doing! You use four terms that aren't always, and in some cases are never, together. Not all fundamentalists are evangelicals, nor are all evangelicals fundamentalists, protestants aren't evangelicals at all if you use the term correctly and not always fundamentalists, and the label "Christian" doesn't always apply to any of these. Look, dude, I did you a favor: I didn't say "Christians", because guess what, it's not the case that every flavor of Christianity is trying to hold come-to-Jesus meetings in the ballpark. I don't see the Catholics or the Eastern Orthodox or the Episcopalians out doing it. It's one range of flavors, a very loud, vocal, pushy and yet narrow (when you consider the range of Christianity) flavor: fundamentalist AND evangelical AND Protestant. If you want to carp about misuse of the term "Protestant", do so to the people who are misusing it as regards themselves; me, I tend to use the labels people use for themselves. Either way, i think WeedyMcSmokey is dead on with this observation: There won't be a Muslim day because you won't sell enough tickets. I think you have your answer here: Christians dominate sports b/c they are so large in America; why should they be penalized for this? They get the access in large part because they have the people, which no doubt is enticing to people in suits. Are you familiar with the concept of a necessary but insufficient condition? The money/market clout of fundamentalist evangelical Christians is one such condition, in this case. Most (not all) sports franchise owners wouldn't go for this if there wasn't money to be made on it, but that's only part of the picture. Another big part is that you have people in positions of authority who are predisposed to think "oh, they're like me" when a Christian group asks for special access, but "wtf?" when some other group asks. And then there's the general pushiness and feeling of entitlement. Let me ask you this lil_brown_bat: if in five years the majority of America are muslims, do you think Ted Turner and the like will not have a Muslim day, out of their "allegiance" to the Christian faith? This is not a conspiracy, just marketing. You're wrong about that. It is promotion, and the motivation behind that promotion varies, and a given individual can have several motivations. Also, it has been established in previous posts that Christians aren't "locking" other people out. If the goal in part for Christian organization is evangelism, they will probably want them to come in. Who was complaining about being "locked out"? Strawman. Finally, although i have no need to defend myself, i have had stimulating conversations and interactions with Hindus, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, athiests, agnostics, and New Age followers. Some of my family and friends are mormons. One of my closest family members is a practicing homosexual. I am also a product of three divorces. Not to be rude, but it seems like you are doing what i talked about in my first post. What, dissing Christians? Get in line; I'll diss a fundy evangelist who can't leave it at home and has to make a public display, any day of the week. You call that being intolerant? Render unto me a break. People who make out in public invite cries of, "Get a room!" This is no different. Not all Christians are fundamentalists, and i certainly don't want to be one. I would rather be like Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King Jr., or Dietrich Bonhoeffer; those people made an impact on the world, were Christians, and are respected in the world as well. Your personal choice notwithstanding, if you persist in viewing a dislike for PDRs as opporession of Christians, we're never going to see eye to eye.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 12:39 PM on July 27, 2006
It is impossible to gauge how genuine these events are unless you can examine the motives of those involved. That said, until someone can devise a way to get into the heads of the people promoting these events, we will never know what their true motives are It's kind of like when I'm in traffic and someone cuts me off. They are an asshole and they meant to do it. If I cut someone off because I'm fiddling with the radio or not paying attention, it's an accident.
posted by hawkguy at 12:41 PM on July 27, 2006
Why can't they just have "RootBeer FloatDay" like they had at Oakland A's field yesterday, problem solved.
posted by airman at 01:14 PM on July 27, 2006
Please, just play the game and keep your religion to yourself, just like your sexuality and your politics. I always wonder what those in the sports world think about stuff like this. Do they feel they are being told to just shut up and dance? Yes, I'm sure they all have better things to do than worry what we think, but as in the A-Rod case, sometimes when we aren't in their corner, it does seem to get to them (though judging from the success of "pro wrestling", fans LOVE being told to piss off.)
posted by forrestv at 01:14 PM on July 27, 2006
lil_brown_bat_: tell me this, when was the last time you saw some other stripe of religion welcomed into a ballpark when evangelical Christianity was locked out? This was your first post that caught my eye and i responded to. I saw the words "locked out," and responded thinking that you were implying that, in a way similar to the "glass ceiling" phenomenon that women face, other faiths are debarred from similar activities. Did i misunderstand you? I don't think that i did, but let me know. Honestly, i thought that when you made this initial comment you were setting up a strawman, b/c this idea wasn't relevant to the current discussion. It would be inconsistent, if it weren't a vague generalization, and if Christians -- particularly fundamentalist evangelical Protestant Christians Not to be rude, but it looks to me that you did say "Christians." Also, i am not discussing this issue with other Christians who misuse terms, i am discussing it with you. So trying to wiggle out of imprecise definitions (Fundamentalist-protestant,etc) by blaming others' lack of thoughtfulness doesn't really work. This sounds like special pleading to me. On top of that, i came from some of those backgrounds, but don't use them incorrectly, so based on your criteria you should define them as i do, since you "tend to use the labels people use for themselves." Finally, not ALL people define those terms as you (or I) do, so your criteria fails in this respect as well. This way of thinking eventually collapses on itself. Another big part is that you have people in positions of authority who are predisposed to think "oh, they're like me" when a Christian group asks for special access, but "wtf?" when some other group asks. And then there's the general pushiness and feeling of entitlement. Can you demonstrate this to be true with any evidence, b/c that's a pretty big statement, or are you basing your point on your intuition? Intuition is fine, but unfortunately it flows out of one's preformed understanding of the world around them. So if this is based on intuition, then you are really just reinforcing your prejudice. This statement really just begs the question for me. Can you help me out here? Your personal choice notwithstanding, if you persist in viewing a dislike for PDRs as opporession of Christians, we're never going to see eye to eye. Here's the bottom line for me: It's okay if i get made fun of for being a Christian, or for sharing my faith. I think that Christians should expect those type of things. Fundamentalist or not (which, i would like to reiterate, i am not), these things will happen. How you treat others in view of the teachings of Jesus determines whether or not you deserve the insults or anything else. Oftentimes fundamentalists do some pretty aweful things, which would in one view justifies insults. That being said, i do like to stand for truth, so at times i will call people on their statements. When i look at your last statement, i am disheartened, because i see that you are not willing to fully live out your beliefs. If every moral decision is one's personal choice and none are wrong, then you have NO RIGHT to pass judgment on the fundamentalist; you should rejoice in his "personal freedom" to ruin your sporting event with his "PDR." It seems to me that everyone is okay with being a relativist until someone tells them they are wrong or hurts them; then all of the sudden they believe in objective right and wrong real quick. Thanks for the great dialogue lbb, i really enjoyed it. I think that you and i should continue this via email, and not clog this site up with philosophical arguments anymore (Although you probably want to post you reply here first). Thanks a bunch. Later.
posted by brainofdtrain at 01:32 PM on July 27, 2006
While it is correct that they intend to have people leave and come back -- this isn't a simple matter of "separate groups using the same facility." "Fans must have a Braves game ticket and concert ticket in order to attend the “Faith Days” performances after the games." -- Third Coast Sports The concert idea is for the Braves is to attract customers. In the case of the three "Faith Days" they hope to have an increase in the attendance of god-fearing folk.
posted by ?! at 03:12 PM on July 27, 2006
Ah well, the way I see it, if you don't like it, you can quit watching baseball, switch allegience to another MLB franchise, blow off said team for the evening, attend the game but not the concert, or piss and moan about it. Was this big a deal made about whichever WNBA franchise had a gay/lesbian gathering, and was that franchise accused of "at least, pushing a belief system", if not a lifestyle choice? If you don't like it, lump it, just as many people probably did about the aforementioned gay/lesbian gathering. Both deals sound inocuous to me.
posted by mjkredliner at 03:52 PM on July 27, 2006
Was this big a deal made about whichever WNBA franchise had a gay/lesbian gathering, I guess you'll never know, since you can't name the franchise in question, if this ever did happen. No, no, no, really, some guy at work said something about it happened, or someone told him it happened, or maybe it was your brother-in-law who told you, or maybe you read it on the web somewhere...
posted by lil_brown_bat at 06:49 PM on July 27, 2006
Exactly, lbb, right up near the top of the thread.
posted by mjkredliner at 06:55 PM on July 27, 2006
brainofdtrain: lil_brown_bat_: [quoting me] tell me this, when was the last time you saw some other stripe of religion welcomed into a ballpark when evangelical Christianity was locked out? This was your first post that caught my eye and i responded to. I saw the words "locked out," and responded thinking that you were implying that, in a way similar to the "glass ceiling" phenomenon that women face, other faiths are debarred from similar activities. Did i misunderstand you? Well, yes and no. First, I was talking about religious groups being allowed to make a public or semi-public spectacle of themselves at sporting events. Your original response to the words "locked out" was -- paraphrased -- "Oh, no, the Christian groups aren't locking anyone out! They want people to join them!" Not what I was talking about. As far as that goes, though...look, fess up: evangelical fundamentalist Christians and no one else puts on these kind of shindigs because of a combination of reasons: - They're a proselytizing religion (not every religion is), - They're a flavor of the dominant religious flavor of the culture, - Their particular sect has gotten very good at networking, marketing, calling in favors, etc. to get public fora, and - They believe strongly that religion -- not any religion, but their religion -- should be part of public life. I'd say for all intents and purposes that yes, other religious groups are locked out. I'd dearly love to see one of them try to do the fifty-yard-line come-to-deity-of-choice huddle. It would be inconsistent, if it weren't a vague generalization, and if Christians -- particularly fundamentalist evangelical Protestant Christians Not to be rude, but it looks to me that you did say "Christians." Yes, I can see that. I wrote it. What is it exactly that you're taking issue with? Also, i am not discussing this issue with other Christians who misuse terms, i am discussing it with you. So trying to wiggle out of imprecise definitions (Fundamentalist-protestant,etc) by blaming others' lack of thoughtfulness doesn't really work. This sounds like special pleading to me. I explained this to you once; I will do so a second and final time. I call people by the names they claim for themselves. If you dislike the conflation of fundamentalist and protestant, your fight is with the people who stuck both adjectives on themselves, not me. I'll call you whatever you want, but you don't get to choose for other people. Another big part is that you have people in positions of authority who are predisposed to think "oh, they're like me" when a Christian group asks for special access, but "wtf?" when some other group asks. And then there's the general pushiness and feeling of entitlement. Can you demonstrate this to be true with any evidence, b/c that's a pretty big statement, or are you basing your point on your intuition? Sure. Go do a websearch on the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and read everything you find. Look at how they get their ins and outs. It'll drop the scales from your eyes. Your personal choice notwithstanding, if you persist in viewing a dislike for PDRs as opporession of Christians, we're never going to see eye to eye. Here's the bottom line for me: It's okay if i get made fun of for being a Christian, or for sharing my faith. I think that Christians should expect those type of things. Yeah, you should. Welcome to my world. Welcome to how everyone else lives. Look, son, whatever "get[ting] made fun of" you get for being a Christian isn't a patch on what non-Christians get in this country. It adds insult to injury when Christians, the dominant group in this country, a group that contains sects and members who actively work to oppress those with different convictions, plays the oh-we're-so-persecuted card. That being said, i do like to stand for truth, so at times i will call people on their statements. When i look at your last statement, i am disheartened, because i see that you are not willing to fully live out your beliefs. Son, you don't know thing one about my beliefs. If every moral decision is one's personal choice and none are wrong, then you have NO RIGHT to pass judgment on the fundamentalist; you should rejoice in his "personal freedom" to ruin your sporting event with his "PDR." And why not my living room while they're at it? Sorry. Your rights end where my nose begins. Thanks for the great dialogue lbb, i really enjoyed it. I think that you and i should continue this via email, and not clog this site up with philosophical arguments anymore (Although you probably want to post you reply here first). Since you didn't do your "take it to email" until the end of your post, when I'd written my reply, that's the way it's gonna be. I'm not interested in email, nor in continuing this here; I'm repeating myself and have no hope that simple repetition will do the job.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:12 PM on July 27, 2006
- They're a proselytizing religion (not every religion is), - Their particular sect has gotten very good at networking, marketing, calling in favors, etc. to get public fora... More and more, Christianity is looking a lot like Amway.
posted by Texan_lost_in_NY at 07:27 PM on July 27, 2006
More and more, Christianity is looking a lot like Amway. it's a natural progression really. one of my roommates in college went from being an über frat-boy, to amway freak, to born-again christian. the proselytizing got to be a bit much, but there was never a shortage of cleaning products in the apartment.
posted by goddam at 09:09 PM on July 27, 2006
there was never a shortage of cleaning products in the apartment. That's true. At least with Amway at least you got something out of the deal. All you get from born-agin-er's is preaching and attempts at guilt trips. My brother-in-law quit drinking after he was born again. Before he was an obnoxious drunk asshole, now he's an obnoxious sober asshole who is convinced everyone is a sinner if they so much as sip a cold beer.
posted by commander cody at 11:46 PM on July 27, 2006
I think Faith Night is good as long as it is not just used to make money. America's pasttime is baseball and America is a Christian country so it is a good thing. Commander cody, I'm sorry u feel that way about Christians. Not all Christians are like that. What u don't need is a guilt trip, but what u do need is the truth. The Bible does say that drunkenness is sin, but I'm not here to say that u will go to Hell if u drink a beer every once in a while. Besides, God has better things for people to do than get drunk. He has a plan for us that is much greater. I'm out.
posted by sportsg at 12:33 AM on July 28, 2006
lil_brown_bat cite an "example" of people preaching tolerance who are intolerant of Christians. Done. Look familiar? Kinda like that reference right up near the top of the thread that you inferred was a product of my imagination? It should, it was a link in the thread on Ozzie last month. commander, we get your point, you don't like "born agains". Are you that guy at the airport bar who knows 5 people who have done everything, about every subject, too?
posted by mjkredliner at 12:47 AM on July 28, 2006
Using "u" instead of "you" is a sin. God hates you for doing it. On preview: I have no plans to visit Seattle any time soon, but if there's free beer in the balance, I'll damn sure think about it.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 05:35 AM on July 28, 2006
Anyone remember the teacher on charlie brown? She just mumbled and rambled on and on and they could never figure out what she was saying.
posted by louisville_slugger at 07:47 AM on July 28, 2006
My anti-Chrisrtian bias is a product of my upringing. You see I was raised by Uncle Kenny and Aunt Michael in a traveling circus and born agains cut thier trapeeze wires while they were preforming with out a net. I now fight the good fight against the opression of Christianity as masked crusader known as Diocletian. Together with my lions Sodom and Gomorrah we will rid the world of these intolerant bigots.
posted by HATER 187 at 08:24 AM on July 28, 2006
Never be so tolerant that you tolerate intolerance? Anyone? Bueller? I don't have a problem with Faith Day, that's a private place and organization that's simple taking advantage of these good goofy folk. Mjk - your link is one where I wholeheartedly support the city's resistance. Damn right - stop recruiting kids in public forums, you crazy bastards. Drugs and rebellion are an essential part of growing up. Take your agenda of intolerance somewhere else. And I've visciously against anything that has even a faint whiff of anti-gay... Which pretty much every damn one of these evangelicals has - only it's a powerful stench. I'm sure I'm much worse than lbb.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 08:38 AM on July 28, 2006
"She just mumbled and rambled on and on and they could never figure out what she was saying." No, I recall that the voice of the teacher on Charlie Brown was actually a muted trumpet, and seem to remember that good ol' Charlie had no trouble in understanding her. Mr Shulz apparently did not deem it necessary for you to know exactly what she was saying, louisville_slugger, one could infer from Charlie's response what was said. "I'm sure I'm much worse than lbb" If you say so. I have no anti-gay agenda, I cited the example that lbb asked for, if you will see my post a little further up, you will see that I said that both the concert to be held , and an alleged gay/lesbian gathering, both sounded innocous to me.
posted by mjkredliner at 08:54 AM on July 28, 2006
Sorry, I believe I misspell "innocuous" every time I try to use it, I hope the meaning is clear nonetheless.
posted by mjkredliner at 09:03 AM on July 28, 2006
I am upset I missed the hoopla while I was gambling and drinking and sinning.
posted by jerseygirl at 10:55 AM on July 28, 2006
I am upset I missed the hoopla while I was gambling and drinking and sinning. I'm sure you had more than enough hoopla during your triumverate of fun.
posted by grum@work at 11:07 AM on July 28, 2006
Came home a little better than even. Should have stopped when I was WAY ahead.
posted by jerseygirl at 11:19 AM on July 28, 2006
Well that guy holding the towel in a Las Vegas bathroom told me, "If you come in with $100 and leave with $100, you were a winner."
posted by MrFrisby at 11:29 AM on July 28, 2006
This discussion has been interesting. These types of promotions have been held at other stadiums both major and minor. At our local minor league park we have all sorts promotions and concerts. Yes there was a "faith night" with some christian bands playing after the game. The people who didnt want to listen to the music-didnt stay period. Some of you people tend to jump to conclusions when the word Christian is mentioned. Just a note to the people who like to point out that I cant spell-Today I really dont care. Its hot and humid, I have rash from my Chemo therapy and my pains pills have me strung out. So it wont bother me a bit if you tear apart my spelling. Go Twins!
posted by daddisamm at 12:15 PM on July 28, 2006
Well that guy holding the towel in a Las Vegas bathroom told me, "If you come in with $100 and leave with $100, you were a winner." Then I am a winner!
posted by jerseygirl at 12:40 PM on July 28, 2006
Using "u" instead of "you" is a sin. God hates you for doing it. That's right and don't forget, everytime you sin God kills an angel. Sleep tight!
posted by commander cody at 12:49 PM on July 28, 2006
Came home a little better than even. Should have stopped when I was WAY ahead. Everytime someone says that, Las Vegas casinos smile. It means you'll probably want to come back, AND you'll probably convince someone else to give it a try.
posted by grum@work at 02:12 PM on July 28, 2006
The trick is to stop after that big win. Go buy your friends a drink or two, maybe a nice steak. Then maybe think about going to bet some more. At least, that is how I do it. If I wanted to blow money, I'd develop a massive coke habit.
posted by garfield at 02:29 PM on July 28, 2006
mjkredliner: lil_brown_bat cite an "example" of people preaching tolerance who are intolerant of Christians. Done. Look familiar? Yeah, I heard you the first time. Only, I guess your browser is broken, because you apparently only read a very small and selective part of what I wrote. A more complete version, with entire sentences and all: brainofdtrain, you cite an "example" of people preaching tolerance who are intolerant of Christians; tell me this, when was the last time you saw some other stripe of religion welcomed into a ballpark when evangelical Christianity was locked out? Hell, when was the lsat time you saw some other stripe of religion at all? So I guess you're not "done" after all. You can be if you want to, though. As I said before, repeating myself isn't convincing anyone, and if people truly believe that a)evangelical Christian prayer meetings in center field make sense and that b)Muslims could have Friday prayers in center field, too, if they'd just get their act together, I've already said everything I could say to convince them otherwise.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:59 PM on July 28, 2006
Well lbb, I'm kinda one of them there non-denominational Christians, 'cause I really don't like one church professing to be better than another, when we are all basically monotheistic, salvation religions. Evangelical Christians, Fundamentalist Christians, Orthodox Christians, whatever, in that regard, I am much like you, I will call you whatever you wish to be called. I don't personally see other religions as being locked out, how do we know that Muslim groups have not, or will not, attempt to do this sort of thing as well? Are there financial reasons that may preclude this from happening? Or is it just a matter of there not being enough interest, or Muslims, interested in this? I say, if people want to sing the praises of God, in a general purpose, multi function stadia, of their own free will, then let them, and any other religion that so wishes should be free to do the same. I do not see that it can do any damage, and until shown otherwise, that is my opinion, which, I am entitled to, just as you are yours. By the way, the first time the link was used was by L.N. Smithee, not myself.
posted by mjkredliner at 04:32 PM on July 28, 2006
Weedy McSmokey: Mjk - your link is one where I wholeheartedly support the city's resistance. Damn right - stop recruiting kids in public forums, you crazy bastards. I feel the same way as you do, Weedy. STOP RECRUITING KIDS IN PUBLIC FORUMS! But darn the luck, those so-called Gay Straight Alliances in public high schools practice Constitutionally-protected free speech, just like the rally by the non-violent Christian group whose free speech you and the hypocrites in San Francisco condemn.
posted by L.N. Smithee at 04:43 PM on July 28, 2006
It means you'll probably want to come back, AND you'll probably convince someone else to give it a try. Not really. Wasn't super impressed.
posted by jerseygirl at 04:52 PM on July 28, 2006
I feel the same way as you do, Weedy. STOP RECRUITING KIDS IN PUBLIC FORUMS! But darn the luck, those so-called Gay Straight Alliances in public high schools practice Constitutionally-protected free speech, just like the rally by the non-violent Christian group whose free speech you and the hypocrites in San Francisco condemn. You can't "recruit" someone into being Gay. A person is born Gay or not. The idea that a person can be somehow turned Gay is complete right wing Christian nonsense. So having Gay Straight Alliances is about promoting understanding between the groups, not trying to get one to join the other.
posted by commander cody at 05:22 PM on July 28, 2006
You know Weedy you might have been a little tough on the guy in the link. After all maybe this Ron Luce guys just really likes working with young people. Young teen men. With firm soft skin. Pale blue eyes. Whispy blond hair. Tight jeans covering rock hard young buttocks......mmmmmm..... Ahem, anyway maybe the Boy Scouts or Catholic Church didn't want him. So cut the guy a break. He's probably just in for the kids...er...I mean the kids sake.
posted by commander cody at 05:43 PM on July 28, 2006
Weedy McSmokey: Drugs and rebellion are an essential part of growing up. Rebellion, yes. Drugs? Nonsense. But I guess you are just speaking from your own experience, "Weedy." Take your agenda of intolerance somewhere else. And I've visciously against anything that has even a faint whiff of anti-gay... Which pretty much every damn one of these evangelicals has - only it's a powerful stench. The preceding statement is, in itself, a statement of intolerance. By definition, tolerance recognizes no ideology, so it's hypocritical to say, "I am a tolerant person, but I'm intolerant of intolerance." No matter how much it pains the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, it remains a fact: the city is in the United States of America, where you are free to believe that homosexuality is indeed condemned in the Bible, despite craftfully pieced-together revisionist theological points-of-view popular here. That's what makes America a better place to live than Somalia, the Sudan or Iran -- if you don't believe in the same things the people running your city do, they can't run you out on a rail -- which the Board of Stupes sounds like it would have done if it could. And they had the nerve to call others "fascists." If you are demonstrably opposed to the agenda of another person, there's no law against that, but don't climb on a pedestal and lie and say "I'm tolerant!" when what you mean is "I have my OWN agenda."
posted by L.N. Smithee at 05:55 PM on July 28, 2006
I feel the same way as you do, Weedy. STOP RECRUITING KIDS IN PUBLIC FORUMS! Damn. There goes my entire campaign to recruit people to intelligence. Fuck! I had avatars and GoogleAds and everything. No matter how much it pains the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, it remains a fact... homosexuality is indeed condemned in the Bible If you are demonstrably opposed to the agenda of another person, there's no law against that, but don't climb on a pedestal and lie and say "I'm tolerant!" when what you mean is "I have my OWN agenda." So when you climb atop your pedestal, you just yell "I'm intolerant AND have my own agenda!" to keep it real, huh?
posted by jerseygirl at 06:02 PM on July 28, 2006
jerseygirl: So when you climb atop your pedestal, you just yell "I'm intolerant AND have my own agenda!" to keep it real, huh? I'll tell you how I "keep it real"; I don't climb on a pedestal like the S.F. politicos and say "I'm so tolerant," because I understand what the word means even if the people who have hijacked it don't. By definition, if I were "tolerant," it wouldn't have bothered me that the mayor of my city was breaking the law and was marrying people of the same sex. It bothered me. Also, by definition, if the Board of Supes was "tolerant," they would have ignored the Christian group's gathering. They chose to go out of their way to condemn it and insult them. commander cody: You can't "recruit" someone into being Gay. A person is born Gay or not. Are you suggesting that there are no homosexuals that attempt to seduce people who are not? It is to laugh. I happen to know people who were "recruited," identified themselves as "gay," and who are now happily and monogamously married who say different.
posted by L.N. Smithee at 09:20 PM on July 28, 2006
Is this rollicking yet, or just freewheeling? 'Cause I'm trying to keep a card, here. What jersey does in Vegas, stays in Vegas.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 09:23 PM on July 28, 2006
I am saying that a person is born Gay or straight. No one ever "becomes" Gay. It's simply physically impossible. Of course some people are Bi and that's fine if that's their choice, but it is a choice because they are either Gay or straight and just enjoy sex with their own gender from time to time as something different. To break up the monotny as it were. If you have a friend who "walked on the wild side" and is now living a straight life they either were not Gay in the first place or are in denial now. It is not possible to turn a person who is not Gay, Gay anymore then you can make a Gay person straight. A person is what they are. They can alter their behavior or suppress their true self, but they can not change who or what they are.
posted by commander cody at 09:56 PM on July 28, 2006
To paraphrase John Varley, the fact that there have always been homosexuals throughout history, even in societies that have had insanely repressive sanctions against homosexuality, strongly argues for the fact that sexuality is not purely a matter of will or choice. Or, to put it another way: do homophobes really think anyone wants to put up with their bullshit?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:18 PM on July 28, 2006
Well said lbb.
posted by commander cody at 10:21 PM on July 28, 2006
Where did homephobes enter the discussion?
posted by daddisamm at 09:25 AM on July 29, 2006
About 30-35 posts ago I'd say.
posted by commander cody at 03:25 PM on July 29, 2006
commander cody No one ever "becomes" Gay. It's simply physically impossible. Huh? What physical changes are required to become gay? Isn't that the whole point of being "gay"? Or, to put it another way, isn't what's good for the goose, also good for the goose?
posted by mjkredliner at 04:23 PM on July 29, 2006
No physical changes. If one is born straight or Gay it is because they are genetically straight or Gay. In order for a straight person to become Gay (or viceversa) it would require that their genetic make up change. That is physically impossible. If you are attracted to your own gender or the opposite sex is decided before you're born.
posted by commander cody at 04:46 PM on July 29, 2006
Your genetics are physical, mjk. Where did homephobes enter the discussion? Somewhere when the idea that people can choose to be gay or not entered the discussion.
posted by jerseygirl at 05:25 PM on July 29, 2006
commander cody: Bullshit, that is hypotheticel at best, and at worst, is only a lame attempt by homosexuals to justify their lifestyle choice. The American Psychiatric Association says " There are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality, all indications are that homosexuality is a choice". Just because I do not post something in a thread, (unlike you, I do not know someone who has done everything, nor do I feel compelled to kiss ass) does not mean I do not read it. Your calling myself and, I assume, L.N. Smithee, SOB's, in the "Tour De Fake" thread, is just about as chickenshit as I would expect from you, given your predeliction for comments that I would presume come from a smarmy, weasel faced, mama's boy. I would welcome the opportunity to teach you some manners. The_Black_Hand: I thought you were above what basically equates to talking behind anothers back, much less dragging the debris from this thread into another, I guess I was wrong. Also, there is no hate the sinner attitude here, at least , for myself. "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23 Myself included.
posted by mjkredliner at 06:29 PM on July 29, 2006
mjkredliner: Please cite your source. Was it the 2000 pamphlet? Are you referring to the same APA that listed homosexuality in the DSM until 1973? Why quote psychiatrists about biological information? Would you go to a plumber for your electrical problems?
posted by ?! at 07:22 PM on July 29, 2006
Psychiatrists are all registered M.D.'s, ?!, perhaps you have them confused with psychologists, who are not required to be Medical Doctors. Also, The American Psychiatric Association has probably done more research in the field than any other Medical Association.
posted by mjkredliner at 07:50 PM on July 29, 2006
What I meant was that gay rights has noting to do with this post.----OOOPS wait a minute... The post had a Christian theme..SO.. some people have to drag out ALL of thier negative anti-christian tales. It always seems to b the same old arguements This gets to be so predictable and so dull!
posted by daddisamm at 08:12 PM on July 29, 2006
I apologize, ?!. my source is here. If you care to, perhaps you would like to list a legitimate medical association that says otherwise?
posted by mjkredliner at 08:15 PM on July 29, 2006
Classic Neoconservative response. Note the puffing up of the chest. The verbal equivalent of tearing off his jacket or shirt in preparation for a cyber fight. The out and out threats from the safety of a keyboard. Typical. I call it the George W. Bush safe at home threat. What the hell, it worked for him in Vietnam and Iraq, didn't it? Not to worry though, if approached with caution most neocons are quite harmless. When a perceived threat nears, the average neocon finds a need mark it's territory by quoting out dated authoritative sources that reinforce it's position. (Johnny, can we get a shot of Jim Fowler in the truck chasing this boy down?....thanks Johnny) The one here is from 6 years ago and is based almost wholly on an article from NARTH (National Organization of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality), an organization whose sole function is to try to "convert" homosexuals to straight lifestyles. (Johnny, can we grab a shot of snakes shedding here.....thanks) Something which, if you do read the article, the APA strongly disapproves of. It also ignores the groundbreaking work of such Biologists as Dr. Simon LeVay whose studies proved that there is a basic difference between the brains of straight men and Gay men. These results have been reconfirmed many times, most notably at The University of Oregon. (Look it up, it's not my job, nor obsession, to track down more links. Besides I'm just not good at inserting links for some reason? Hmm....) Anyway, note also the insults to myself as a person and a man (can you say "compensating" boys and girls?) as if I really care about the opinion of someone I barely know and respect less. While one does see this behavior in many snakes, it's important to remember that there is no chance of venom exchange here. Then finally the gentlemanly threat of a good thrashing. As if it makes up somehow for the childish street talk of the previous threats. Well stated! Bravo! Last, but certainly not least, we have the obligatory quote from the bible. Now this is an absolute must for a good neocon post. It is as required as a sex scene in a Harold Robbin's novel. It gives the writer the voice of God himself! The unquestionable authority that comes from an old book written 2000 years ago by scared men in a Middle-Eastern desert who were trying to explain to their unwashed masses how they got stuck there and why life sucks in Middle-Eastern deserts. (Johhny, can we get a close up on the scared masses on camera 4?....thanks again) All in all, classic, but not very exciting. Perhaps we'll have more action next time when you join me, Marlin Perkins, for "Mutual of Omaha's Wild Neocon's" Fade to black annnnnnnnnnndddddd Cut!
posted by commander cody at 11:00 PM on July 29, 2006
Oh and Black_Hand, my apologies if some of what mjk had to say sprayed on your shoes there. You know what happens when you step in the wrong place. It's just makes a mess everywhere!
posted by commander cody at 11:02 PM on July 29, 2006
mjkredliner: So, yes, it was the 2000 pamphlet and no, I did not confuse psychiatrists and psychologists. A psychiatric M.D. does not a neuroscientist make. Because it is my job: Dr. Simon LeVay
posted by ?! at 11:12 PM on July 29, 2006
Thanks for the link ?!. My step-son pointed me in the direction of Dr LeVay and I have only just begun to read some of his, so far, brilliant writings. He lives in the same neighborhood as my wife and myself (West Hollywood) and I hope to have the pleasure of meeting him someday.
posted by commander cody at 12:51 AM on July 30, 2006
Dr. Simon LeVay, after reading "A Biology of Sexual Orientation", I must say that I am very impressed, by your work, and your credentials. However, in the chapter titled "candidate gene study"I notice this: "One approach to the question of genes influencing sexual orientation is to pick a gene that might conceivably play a role and to compare it's DNA sequence in gay and straight people. One group of researchers picked the androgen receptor gene, a gene that plays the key role in mediating testosterone's influence on the body and the brain. (Macke, Hu et al 1993) They could not find any differences between gay and straight men, however. In the chapter titled "Gay genes and evolution", I notice this: "The existence of genes promoting homosexuality is counter intuitive" etc. 1.Gay genes might persist etc. 2.A gene might cause homosexuality etc. 3.A gene for sexual attraction to men would cause homosexuality in men but might cause a hyper sexuality in women-thus increasing their reproductive sucess and vice-versa. etc. (I did not see that this gene was identified) 4.It's possible that, through much of human evolution, people have been socially compelled to marry and have children regardless of their sexual orientation. In this case, the negative effect of a gay gene on reproductive success might be small, and might be outweighed by some other, unknown benefit conferred by the gene. 5.The elimination of gay genes by the population (by non-reproduction of gay people) might be balanced by the occurrence of new mutations. For this to be the case, the mutation rate for gay genes would have to be exceptionally high. "Comment: None of these theories are particularly persuasive. The evolutionary value of gay genes may become clearer if and when such genes are identified and their mechanism of action determined. In your "General Comments", at the end, you state: Although quite a few of the findings here are inconsistent between studies or awiat independent replication, my general conclusion is that biological process, especially the prenatal, hormonally-controlled sexual differentiation of the brain, are likely to influence a person's ultimate sexual orientation." Yet, in the chapter titled Pre-natal hormone:background, I read the following: "Nevertheless, prenatal/perinatal hormones may not be the entire story." & Attributing sexual orientation to prenatal hormone levels is not an ultimate explanation, because the question remains as to how those levels (or the brains response to them) come to be different in pre-gay and pre-straight fetuses. I am not trying to be difficult, nor do I pretend to know more than you, but, at best, these findings seem to speculative and inconclusive. In fact, almost all of your comments seem to say as much, or, to even deny the possibilities that you are commenting on, and it appears to me, that APA is correct in saying that "There are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality." Are you prepared to say otherwise? I ask only because you not have refuted it. To the peanut gallery: I will say again, I have no anti-gay agenda, I have a family member whom I love very much who happens to be gay, her sexual orientation does not diminish how I feel for her in the least, nor do I value other gays any less than other humans. commander, I admit my part in egging you on in this thread, but you have neither admitted calling names first, nor offered an apology, going back to the Pat Tillman thread. Your own stupidity reveals itself well, just keep on posting. That is all I have to say on this matter.
posted by mjkredliner at 02:25 AM on July 30, 2006
Someone needs to get a life, but I don't think it's me. Ahh well, time for sleep. Nighty nite. (yawn)
posted by commander cody at 03:09 AM on July 30, 2006
There was just a study mentioned in The Economist that found an unusually high correlation between men with older male siblings and homosexuality. No conclusions have been drawn, but to suggest you're sure biology doesn't enter into it is a brave stance.
posted by yerfatma at 03:09 PM on July 30, 2006
Well, considering that Dr. Simon LeVay is admittedly gay, (meaning that there just may be a hint of bias in his findings)(and his interview appears on a page advertising: Find someone to take a cruise with to explore Uranus!) and his data is admittedly less than conclusive, I'll take my chances. If someone has concise, proven data that says otherwise, I will gladly reconsider my position. By the way, that hypothesis is explored in Mr. LeVay's "A Biology of Sexual Orientation" as well. Perhaps, one day Science will figure out why some say tomaytoe, and some say tomahtoe as well.
posted by mjkredliner at 03:59 PM on July 30, 2006
No conclusions have been drawn, but to suggest you're sure biology doesn't enter into it is a brave stance.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 04:00 PM on July 30, 2006
mkredliner: "Perhaps, one day Science will figure out why some say tomaytoe, and some say tomahtoe as well." Ok, now you're just tossing off. Believe research or not, but please just stop spouting nonsense. If your sports opinions are as ill researched as your knowledge of biology, neuroscience, and linguistics then I suggest you limit yourself to the darts forum. Good luck to you, sir, and I hope you don't teach in any school system.
posted by ?! at 08:16 PM on July 30, 2006
Good luck to you, sir, and I hope you don't teach in any school system. Bravo ?!! And seconded!
posted by commander cody at 09:03 PM on July 30, 2006
I hope you all had a chance to watch the Hall Of Fame induct Buck O'Neil today, he was very gracious, professed his faith, talked at length about it, and had the crowd singing and holding hands, laughing, and truly enjoying themselves. It was a great moment. Sorry some of you couldn't appreciate it. I hope someone does an FPP about it, but, in case they don't, here you Oh, and Bruce Sutter made mention of his relationship with God, too, thanking him for the blessings he has had in and out of baseball. It was a great day in Cooperstown.
posted by mjkredliner at 11:08 PM on July 30, 2006
?!, My statement was an analogy, meant to mean that Science may someday figure out why some people choose to say tomaytoe, rather than choose to say tomahtoe. The spelling of the vegetable, or fruit, was just a pronunciation guide, if you will. Ok, now you're just tossing off. Well, well, another asinine disparagement. Keep your foreign insults in your own damn mouth, wanker. Har har, I always wanted to say that. Believe research or not, I do believe that he has researched the subject of "The Biology of Sexual Orientation", quite well as a matter of fact, and there is nothing in his research that even remotely hints at replicated studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. If there is, I wish you would kindly state where in the piece it may be. I do not see that you are any type of expert in the fields you listed, either, in fact, your statement "believe research or not", strongly suggests that you are not, for, what is there to believe about research, in your usage of the word, other than that it may be a collection of information about a particular subject? Just because it is research, does not mean it is a fact, Mr. LeVay himself doesn't claim that any of his theories are fact. I suggest you limit yourself to the darts forum And I suggest you limit yourself to the farts forum.I hope you don't teach in any school system. The feeling is mutual, pal. Good luck to you, sir And you as well.
posted by mjkredliner at 12:07 AM on July 31, 2006
I know I'll get called on this, but it was not Buck's induction speech, but it was very moving, anyway.
posted by mjkredliner at 01:36 AM on July 31, 2006
I suggest you limit yourself to the darts forum And I suggest you limit yourself to the farts forum. Boys, children, infants, fetuses even... Listen. Way to ramp it up a notch on the maturity level. Bravo. Banner day for SpoFi. One of you fucking bow out, be a grown man and stop responding so this ends. This is getting tired -- and this isn't what SpoFi is about. If you absolutely need to continue this stupidity, take it to email and spare us all the infantile not-sports-related bullshit. There's nothing else to be said and clearly, with the farts comment, we're pretty much done here. I also think this stops the inevitable awesome comeback of "Maybe you should stick to the BOOGERS forum." The guy who delivers my newspaper looks like Morgan Freeman with an awesome afro. That is all.
posted by jerseygirl at 05:06 AM on July 31, 2006
Well, I was just tryin' to top the "tossing off" comment, or bottom it, as the case may be.
posted by mjkredliner at 10:27 AM on July 31, 2006
Well, I was just tryin' to top the "tossing off" comment, or bottom it, as the case may be. But he started it, Mom!!!
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:30 AM on July 31, 2006
I don't care who started it. I'm gonna pull this car over and spank all of you to make sure I get the right one.
posted by MrFrisby at 11:09 AM on July 31, 2006
The guy who delivers my newspaper looks like Morgan Freeman with an awesome afro. Really? Too bad he lives in Jersey or I could introduce him to my son. I don't much care for his current boyfriend (the bum).
posted by commander cody at 11:13 AM on July 31, 2006
I don't live in Jersey. I couldn't possibly wear that much hairspray. (Bah dum ching! Hi-yo! Thank you, try the veal! goddam is going to kill me.) Just enjoy the song.
posted by jerseygirl at 11:16 AM on July 31, 2006
jerseygirl: While I appreciate the sentiment, I'm afraid you're mistaken. As long as the admins do not delete such threads or comments they are allowing such discussions to flourish. Over the years there have been cries of "stop feeding the trolls" and it never works. The only way to limit discussion is from the admin level. The advantage of a board of this design is that only an individual thread goes down the tube. And, once it does, disinterested parties can skip it. As one who also commented on this thread I am sure you had your reasons for responding. Why did I answer such comments with links to information? I truly believe "silence is the voice of complicity" and reason can stand in the howling wind of superstition. I believe to trust a poster's arguments you must respect their reasoning -- irrespective of the subject. Unfortunately, my last comment was indicative of my exacerbation at the slippery reasoning in this debate. I did feel I kept it as sportsfilter related as possible as "tossing off" is a perfectly normal baseball expression. :) But, I am finished with this thread. Anyone who truly wants to learn more about the neurological basis of gender identity and sexuality can write me and I'll point them to research. Otherwise you can find me elsewhere on Sportsfilter. We must live in the same neighborhood. The men in the dark car outside my house look like Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones.
posted by ?! at 11:31 AM on July 31, 2006
But he started it, Mom!!! Your're darn tootin'. If I had made resentful, hateful remarks about gays, such as those made about Christians in this thread, I would have been reviled, ridiculed, and, quite possibly, whatever verbal equivalent there is to being tarred and feathered. As it is, do not expect me to take the verbal equivalent of a sucker punch lying down, I'm gonna whap you upside the noggin with whatever is the closest thing I can grab. I see no response to my accusations from CC or TBH, I guess that with the handy dandy time/date stamp on the comments, they figure I can pretty well back up my claims. I know some members are looked upon more favorably than others, but I will not take a personal insult without responding to it, and I don't see that anyone else here should, either. Kinda like the stance on terrorism, you wanna play rough, we'll play rough. ?!, nice try but you can't bullshit a bullshitter, we all know what your meaning was.
posted by mjkredliner at 11:39 AM on July 31, 2006
I don't care who started it. I'm gonna pull this car over and spank all of you to make sure I get the right one. Mmmmm....spankings!
posted by commander cody at 11:44 AM on July 31, 2006
We must live in the same neighborhood. The men in the dark car outside my house look like Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones. I live in West Hollywood and sometimes when you think you see Will Smith or Tommy Lee Jones in a dark car, you really do! Sorta surreal! Like wow man, I see it too! Look at the colors! Pass that over and quit bogarting it!
posted by commander cody at 11:52 AM on July 31, 2006
?!, there is no mistake about it. Because the thread exists, doesn't mean the admins want the back-and-forth dumbassery to continue. This thread devolved to absolute total garbage, with personal attacks and threats, and general immature idiocy. Not to mention it's veered to full-on nasty debate about whether people were born gay or not sprinkled with a very serious, very heavy coating of Christianity just to make things super complicated and ensure that someone is going to get pissed off, which they totally have. But hey, let me know if any of what I described is remotely sports related. We're way beyond silence being the voice of complicity. Is anything being accomplished aside from back and forth third-grade bullshit and threats? Ask yourself that. Someone, anyone of you gentlemen, has to step back and say, "Fuck it, it's an internet message board and I've been fighting for three days without making progress and someone just used 'fart' as an insult. I fold." The messy, stupid result at the end of the thread no way resembles the initial direction (which was probably steering the ship into an iceberg anyway) of the poster or topic. Active community self-policing is a great way to limit discussion without having admins have to hold our hands. Telling them to take it to emails isn't out of bounds. You advocated the same by inviting people to do so. Enough is enough but three days of this is more than plenty.
posted by jerseygirl at 12:00 PM on July 31, 2006
This thread devolved to absolute total garbage, with personal attacks and threats, and general immature idiocy. Not to mention it's veered to full-on nasty debate about whether people were born gay or not sprinkled with a very serious, very heavy coating of Christianity just to make things super complicated and ensure that someone is going to get pissed off, which they totally have. But mom! Awww....you never let us have any fun anymore. Geeezzz....ok (digging my toe in the dirt)...I'll stop and not play with the neocons anymore.....geeezzz...I want to go live with Dad...he lets me play as much as I want!
posted by commander cody at 12:05 PM on July 31, 2006
goddam is going to kill me. nah. you caught me in a half-way decent mood today. in fact, i'll give you some more fodder to poke fun at us. njguido.com. party like a rockstar! (i'm sure there are some pictures on there that are NSFW)
posted by goddam at 12:20 PM on July 31, 2006
My God! Now I know why I live in L.A.!
posted by commander cody at 12:29 PM on July 31, 2006
goddam: Hey, I'm descended from that same line. :) jerseygirl: I agree and promise to immediately fold any future thread where someone farts... unless ESPN7 carries the World Farting Tour.
posted by ?! at 02:56 PM on July 31, 2006
Me too. Even though neocons are like catnip filled toy mice (you know you're never going to get any real satisfaction, but you just can't help batting them around some) whenever it reaches fart level I promise to back out too. damn
posted by commander cody at 03:02 PM on July 31, 2006
Even though neocons are like catnip filled toy mice (you know you're never going to get any real satisfaction, but you just can't help batting them around some) commander cody, you know, as much as my position closely corresponds with yours on the topics of religion (read: evangelical Christianity) in sports and the status of gays in our society, I don't find this one bit attractive. Shit-disturbing is shit-disturbing no matter what color stick you're using. I guess it's down to each of us to decide when something needs to be said, when silence creates a problem, and of course we're not always going to agree on that..but when you are, by your own admission, just in it to fuck with someone for your own entertainment, that's disruptive to the community. That's where we really have to start drawing the self-policing lines: if we're not ready to say, "I'm just doing this to mess with someone," and not go there, we're not suited for the kind of community we claim to want. And yeah, I know, physician, heal thyself. Well, ya know, I kinda did. See above.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 04:03 PM on July 31, 2006
agreed.
posted by commander cody at 04:27 PM on July 31, 2006
:-(
posted by commander cody at 04:28 PM on July 31, 2006
This one is for goddam and haters of guidos everywhere. We have a major infestation problem where I live.
posted by HATER 187 at 09:18 AM on August 01, 2006
And don't forget these useless bastards. check out the many pages of useless bastards
posted by jerseygirl at 09:40 AM on August 01, 2006
nice. now i have to de-grease my monitor.
posted by goddam at 10:48 AM on August 01, 2006
I recently read an article about "Faith Days" in Atlanta. Please tell me that my beloved team, The Cards, won't stoop to this level. Isn't there a separation of Church and Baseball? There should be. I cannot figure out for the life of me why MLB would do something so controversial and divisive? Many of my male friends have ONE thing in common: our love of sports. Why does MLB see the need to add dogma to the peaceful and often universal (for males anyway) language that is sports. I don't need to know you from Adam, but I bet we could converse about last night's game without ever digressing into politics or religion. I know many may find this hard to belive but, I find this whole episode more disturbing than steroids and cheating. If you need evidence of how divisive this topic is you need look no further than this thread. Thanks a lot for bringing dogma into basball. (The article I read: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060814/zirin) Thanks, Aaron PS I hate Bud Selig more than ever and how that is possible I do not know, I thought that snake had sunk as low as he could.
posted by stonejunkie at 03:53 PM on August 01, 2006
This just in: MLB no longer allows Atheists, Jews, or Arabs to enter stadiums and blacks are forbidden to play at all. MLB has taken one step forward and century back.
posted by stonejunkie at 04:07 PM on August 01, 2006
Oh Jaysus, jerseygirl, that's the funniest thing I've ever seen. Thanks for making this thread worth all the pain. Edit: I mean, come on! 
posted by dusted at 07:07 PM on August 01, 2006
And don't forget these useless bastards. My God! Women don't actually go out with those idiots...do they? Pickings must be getting pretty slim if these are all girls of today have to choose from. Does make me feel less silly about my disco outfits though.
posted by commander cody at 11:15 PM on August 01, 2006
This sort of promotion makes sense for some teams in MLB. One wonders why it took this long to do. Personally, I don't dig it. Not that I'm the most religious person, but hitching ones faith to the backend of a ballgame seems a bit gauche. Dusty, you have some balls posting this.