St. Louis Cardinals remove religious symbols from pitcher’s mound following fan’s complaints

[rug]

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]

1. It was a tribute to a deceased team member done by members of the grounds crew.

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]

2. Many smokers in NYC call the area that people smoke outside a bar as the Bloomberg Lounge.

[cbayer]

3. That's funny.

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]

18. Actually, no it wasn't, some claim a number 6 was drawn on the field...

but it was actually a Christian Fish. If it was a tribute to Stan the Man, it was hidden, and not obvious.

[cbayer]

28. Where do you get that information?

[Humanist_Activist]

31. Look at the first picture, does that really look like a 6 to you?

its the most convoluted 6 I've ever seen, and from that angle, looks like the Ichthys symbol.

[cbayer]

34. I don't care if it's a six or a fish. The grounds crew said it was a tribute.

Why would one not believe that?

At any rate, some one complained, they stopped, end of story.

[okasha]

36. Look at it more closely.

If it's a fish, of any kind, half its tail is missing.

[okasha]

4. At least he and the other outrageistas

didn't storm onto the field and dismember the pitcher.

This isn't Brazil, after all.

[rug]

5. I'm waiting for a demand to change the name of the city.

[okasha]

6. I'm sure it'll be forthcoming.

After all, didn't Cardinals cover up for pedophile priests?

[rug]

7. You left out the little puking smiley.

[okasha]

8. Ooops.

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]

9. Lol, we've been here too long.

[okasha]

10. Truth.

[skepticscott]

12. Wow..joking and fist bump over child rape

Nice to see you have your priorities in order.

[Lordquinton]

19. Did that seriously just happen?

Joking about priests molesting children? I must have hallucinated...

[skepticscott]

20. It sure did

and once again, the room's civility scolds are conspicuously silent.

[okasha]

37. No, it didn't.

And yes, you must have.

Are you unfamiliar with what this means?

[Lordquinton]

42. Yea, I know sarcasm

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]

59. Uhm, I wasn't mocking the issue of pedophilia in the church or anywhere else, or

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]

69. I'm offended by the actions of the Catholic Church

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.

[Rob H.]

39. Yep

This place can be really revolting sometimes.

[cleanhippie]

49. Pretty standard stuff for child-rape apologists.

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]

50. And then tried to claim someone else did it

Child-rape apologetics, bordering on delusion.

[cleanhippie]

51. At least its breaking the stereotype of being religious means being honest and morally upstanding.

Stereotypes are bad, and this goes a long way in dispelling that one.

[rug]

53. Lol!

There's that little puking smiley.

[cleanhippie]

57. Lol!

And there's the ipecac.

[okasha]

60. By their smilies ye shall know them.

n/t

[rug]

62. I better not answer you.

Who knows what accusations will be made.

[okasha]

64. "Eating babies" is always a good fallback

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]

65. Only Worcestershire.

[okasha]

66. Oh, dear.

That's got anchovies in it. Christian fish, you know.

[skepticscott]

11. And the Catholic Church has been covering up and enabling

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]

13. Congratulations. You've gone from an OP about baseball to child rape in 11 posts.

I wonder how long it would take you if I posted a picture of a lemon.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. Interesting, the pedophile references started with the poster okasha.

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]

15. Thanks for saving me the trouble

The genes for apologetics and willful ignorance are apparently the same.

[skepticscott]

16. Okasha did it in six

and eight. All by her little self. I think SHE deserves the award, don't you?

[rug]

21. Not at all. The reference was to the eagerness in here to turn discussion to child rape.

Here's a lemon.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. Shameless bullshit, smirking snark about how unpleasant it is

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]

41. Oh, I don't think she said atheists at all.

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]

47. It gets brought up so it's not forgotten

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]

48. Good luck with your mission.

And thanks for acknowledging the truth of the post.

[Lordquinton]

55. What truth did I acknowledge?

Several people have acknowledged how vile those posts joking about child abuse, so you should thank them too.

[rug]

56. The truth is that there are many who turn unrelated posts about religion into posts about child rape

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]

58. You know who brought that into this thread

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]

63. There were no jokes bout child abuse. There were jokes about people always talking about child rape.

[Lordquinton]

71. A truly funny subject

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]

75. We were talking about interjecting pedophilia into discussions, not interjecting religion.

A truly unfunny subject, ill-suited as a rhetorical device.

[Lordquinton]

77. We were talking about injecting things where they don't belong

Don't like it? don't do it.

[rug]

79. God advice. Follow it.

[Lordquinton]

83. You should be telling another person that

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]

27. Which nobody had actually done in this thread

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]

40. Oh, I can't fault her for commenting on the predictable responses.

Check your microscope, scottie.

Conclusions follow repeated observations.

[rexcat]

43. Come on rug...

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]

46. That is true for this thread.

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]

61. Of course the remarks were crude.

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]

67. I do have to agree with you on one point...

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.

[okasha]

68. Dear me.

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.

[rexcat]

72. Who cares what you think...

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]

80. Apparently you do,

since you took the trouble to invent a fictitious Christian persona for me and continue to respond to my posts.

[rexcat]

81. Again...

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]

82. And just keep on responding....

[MyOwnPeace]

52. Good one!

[Humanist_Activist]

17. Your headline seems, at best, inaccurate....

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]

22. The headline is from the newspaper.

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]

24. I just find it curious that you pick a news source with a certain slant, a non-local one at that...

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]

25. Yeah, I'm going to go with the local newspaper

Not that it would be like the NY Daily News to create an evil atheist strawman ( for the impaired)

[rug]

54. Kindly show where this is about "evil atheists".

Vines is Jewish but says he would not want a Star of David on the mound either.

http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2013/06/busch_stadium_cardinals_christian_symbols.php?page=2

Or any atheists.

Methinks you're unwarrantedly sensitive.

[Jenoch]

26. "The fact is that the Cardinals staff did not put the symbols there..."

Who employs the groundskeeper?

[Humanist_Activist]

29. Should have said manager didn't authorize it, my bad. n/t

[Jenoch]

30. Even if it was a fish symbol along with the cross,

I believe it was some sort of tribute to Stan Musial.

[Humanist_Activist]

33. Doesn't matter, the managers didn't authorize it, so told the groundskeeper to stop.

Whether its due to complaints, or, more likely, the manager didn't want anything that isn't explicitly authorized. End of story.

[Jenoch]

35. A couple of things.

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]

32. This is such a non-story, but HuffPo and WaPo have both picked it up -

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]

44. If you follow baseball...

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]

45. I don't know about you, but when I go to a game, I can barely see the pitcher

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]

73. I watch more than a few ball games...

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]

74. I don't get much TV, so I'm kind of out of the loop on that one.

But I do try to get to a few live games a year.

And I love them.

[rexcat]

76. I have not been to a Reds game this year...

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]

78. I love going to a game.

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.