Going back to the issue of the cross (not that the Married with Children discussion isn't fun), the story indicates that the cross is only there at times, meaning it's likely a few pitchers who either did it themselves, asked for it, or who the groundskeepers knew wouldn't mind.  If a particular pitcher wants to scribble something in the dirt, that's his business. 

I remember a few years back we had a pitcher (maybe PJ Walters), who had a child die and would scribble the child's initials in the dirt.  Should he have been told not to do that?

Remember back when Josh Hancock died in the car accident.  The Cardinals hung his uniform number and initials in the bullpen.  What if that offended someone from the organization M.A.D.D.?  Should the Cardinals have taken it down?

This isn't society or even the Cardinals organization promoting Christianity.  It's one player's display of his Christian faith in his "office" for that particular night.  I think someone really has to be looking to be offended to be offended by something like this.

"The first year, year-and-a-half was brilliant, and it was at least watchable until David Garrison left."

And they replaced him with Ted something or other (the guy who played the quarterback in Revenge of the Nerds), who basically made a living of joining shows after they had jumped the shark.  I seem to remember he also joined Happy Days around the time Fonzie literally jumped the shark.

forsberg_us wrote:

"The first year, year-and-a-half was brilliant, and it was at least watchable until David Garrison left."

And they replaced him with Ted something or other (the guy who played the quarterback in Revenge of the Nerds), who basically made a living of joining shows after they had jumped the shark.  I seem to remember he also joined Happy Days around the time Fonzie literally jumped the shark.

Ted McGinley, AKA the Show Killer.
 

artie_fufkin wrote:

"This isn't society or even the Cardinals organization promoting Christianity."

They are, Fors. This event obviously doesn't go forward without DeWitt's approval, and they've been advertising it on TV during the games.
As TK suggested, the DeWitts may be doing nothing more than playing to a portion of their audience to get them to buy tickets, t-shirts and hot dogs, but there's at least tacit if not outright sponsorship of this event.

There has been stories on the post about it.  The team does promote more then i ever remember.  Still i domt think they shove it down our throats.  I think it is easy to ignore by those who dislike it.  If the teamhas a group of guys who want to promote making good moral decision, is that a bad thing just because they use religion to get there.  Come on, it is a hell of alot better then anything the nfl or nba has going.  
 

artie_fufkin wrote:

"This isn't society or even the Cardinals organization promoting Christianity."

They are, Fors. This event obviously doesn't go forward without DeWitt's approval, and they've been advertising it on TV during the games.
As TK suggested, the DeWitts may be doing nothing more than playing to a portion of their audience to get them to buy tickets, t-shirts and hot dogs, but there's at least tacit if not outright sponsorship of this event.

Sorry, my reference was intended to be to the cross in the dirt, not the Christian Family Day.  In the case of the latter, of course the Cardinals are involved.  My point was simply I doubt that Dewitt's approval is needed before someone scribbles on the mound.

Last edited by forsberg_us (6/28/2013 12:10 pm)

APIAD wrote:

tkihshbt wrote:

"Married With Children" did not suck, and the problem was that it was considered pretty crude for 1987.

Well it was before my time and i never acfually tried to get into it.  All i got out of it was that oger looking guy whined like a macho version of ross from friends.  
 

The Santa Claus episode is a classic. A guy dressed as Santa with a sack full of gift certificates is supposed to arrive by helicopter at an upscale mall that's putting the mall with Al's shoe store out of business, so Al doesn't get the bonus he expects and the Bundys have to go without Christmas presents. Except Santa falls out of the helicopter on the way to the mall and lands on the Bundys' back porch. The Bundys take the gift ceritificates, go to the mall and buy themselves gifts. Happily ever after, right?
The other great episode from the first year is when Al and Peg mistakenly get a letter addressed to Steve and Marcie and take their place as contestants on a Newlywed Game-type of show where they have to subject each other to torture-type challenges to win the prizes. The best part is when Peg lets Al get between a mattress and a box spring. The challenge is how many obese women Peg will let sit on top of the mattress before she lets Al quit. After about a dozen fat chicks are on top of the mattress, the game show host - David Leisure in an excellently cast role - asks Al how he's doing, and he responds "I can taste my spleen!!!"

artie_fufkin wrote:

APIAD wrote:

tkihshbt wrote:

"Married With Children" did not suck, and the problem was that it was considered pretty crude for 1987.

Well it was before my time and i never acfually tried to get into it.  All i got out of it was that oger looking guy whined like a macho version of ross from friends.  
 

The Santa Claus episode is a classic. A guy dressed as Santa with a sack full of gift certificates is supposed to arrive by helicopter at an upscale mall that's putting the mall with Al's shoe store out of business, so Al doesn't get the bonus he expects and the Bundys have to go without Christmas presents. Except Santa falls out of the helicopter on the way to the mall and lands on the Bundys' back porch. The Bundys take the gift ceritificates, go to the mall and buy themselves gifts. Happily ever after, right?
The other great episode from the first year is when Al and Peg mistakenly get a letter addressed to Steve and Marcie and take their place as contestants on a Newlywed Game-type of show where they have to subject each other to torture-type challenges to win the prizes. The best part is when Peg lets Al get between a mattress and a box spring. The challenge is how many obese women Peg will let sit on top of the mattress before she lets Al quit. After about a dozen fat chicks are on top of the mattress, the game show host - David Leisure in an excellently cast role - asks Al how he's doing, and he responds "I can taste my spleen!!!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chSPeP8XvuU

JV wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

APIAD wrote:

Well it was before my time and i never acfually tried to get into it.  All i got out of it was that oger looking guy whined like a macho version of ross from friends.  
 

The Santa Claus episode is a classic. A guy dressed as Santa with a sack full of gift certificates is supposed to arrive by helicopter at an upscale mall that's putting the mall with Al's shoe store out of business, so Al doesn't get the bonus he expects and the Bundys have to go without Christmas presents. Except Santa falls out of the helicopter on the way to the mall and lands on the Bundys' back porch. The Bundys take the gift ceritificates, go to the mall and buy themselves gifts. Happily ever after, right?
The other great episode from the first year is when Al and Peg mistakenly get a letter addressed to Steve and Marcie and take their place as contestants on a Newlywed Game-type of show where they have to subject each other to torture-type challenges to win the prizes. The best part is when Peg lets Al get between a mattress and a box spring. The challenge is how many obese women Peg will let sit on top of the mattress before she lets Al quit. After about a dozen fat chicks are on top of the mattress, the game show host - David Leisure in an excellently cast role - asks Al how he's doing, and he responds "I can taste my spleen!!!"

One episode that stands out for me is the one in Season 1 or 2 when Al got a tiny inheritance check and took the family to dinner. After a classic feeding frenzy scene, Bud and Kelly got hold of the check and bolted for the Tears 'n Vomit concert, leaving Al and Peggy with no way to pay for the meal.

Another episode had a scene where Peg came home from a yard sale with a mounted boar's head, leading to this exchange:
[Peg]   Hi, honey.
[Al]      Hi, pookie. What you got there?
[Peg]   It's a boar's head.
[Al}      I know, but what's behind your back?
[Kelly] No, I saw it, daddy. It is a boar's head.
[Al]      Rest, honey. Peg, why did you buy a boar's head?
[Peg]   Well, if you must know, it aroused me. Glassy eyes, stuffing for brains, nothing below the neck. Nail it to a toilet bowl, it could be you.
[Al]      No, it couldn't, 'cause unlike me, someone loved him enough to put a bullet in his head.

Excellent. My all-time favorite line in the series is when Steve is lecturing Al about nutrition after Al admits he only eats fast food from a drive-through.
Steve: You can't spend the rest of your life ordering food from a clown's mouth.
Al: Sure I can ... (getting in Peg's face) ... COOK ME SOME FOOD!!!
 

APIAD wrote:

Max wrote:

APIAD wrote:

Blah blah blah.  We wouldnt even know about this if the dispshit who got his panties in a wad wouldnt have complained.  All he did wasdraw more attention to what he feels is offensive.  In the day and age where it is okay to do anything in the name of individuality i dont think drawing a cross in the dirt is a big deal.  If u dont like it ignore it. 

I am sort of closer to the ACLU on issues like this.  Symbols are important and telling the minority to ignore them is not the sign of a society that respects its minorities, IMO.
 

who gives a fuck about respecting the minority.  Last i knew the majority ruled. 

As for respecting the minority . . . ,

" The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities."
--Lord Acton

Last edited by Max (6/28/2013 10:38 pm)

APIAD wrote:

I mean if it is wrong to do it because it hurts someones feelings then it is just as wrong to tell others they cant do it.  If u dont have tolorance in todays world then u need to move. 

There is a common, but flawed, argument that maintains that the intolerance of intolerance is intolerance.  

Doesn't work that way, AP.

APIAD wrote:

beacuse likely only the minority has a problem with the cross.  There for the majority is being disrespectfull.  Max is just sticking up for those  poor suppressed souls.  
 

What if the next pitcher is Jewish, or Muslim, or some other religion?  What if the groundskeeper had etched a Jewish or Muslim symbol on the mound, and some fundamentalist Christian pitched for the other team?  Well, nine times out of ten, people would just duck their heads and get on with it.

But the problem with that math is that when you are the minority, you are ducking you head and getting on with it a lot more often than is the majority.  That is why the basic test of freedom in modern nations is in how they respect the rights of the minority.  

I lived in areas where Christians could not even build churches or attend mass of any kind, because the majority took the argument, "we are the majority and they have to respect our wishes".  

We think the fabric of civilized society is strong, but history shows it is easily torn.  Even here, listen to the argument, "who are the assholes complaining about crosses on a playing field?"

Last edited by Max (6/28/2013 10:51 pm)

forsberg_us wrote:

Going back to the issue of the cross (not that the Married with Children discussion isn't fun), the story indicates that the cross is only there at times, meaning it's likely a few pitchers who either did it themselves, asked for it, or who the groundskeepers knew wouldn't mind.  If a particular pitcher wants to scribble something in the dirt, that's his business. 

I remember a few years back we had a pitcher (maybe PJ Walters), who had a child die and would scribble the child's initials in the dirt.  Should he have been told not to do that?

Remember back when Josh Hancock died in the car accident.  The Cardinals hung his uniform number and initials in the bullpen.  What if that offended someone from the organization M.A.D.D.?  Should the Cardinals have taken it down?

This isn't society or even the Cardinals organization promoting Christianity.  It's one player's display of his Christian faith in his "office" for that particular night.  I think someone really has to be looking to be offended to be offended by something like this.

That's an argument that has some merit, but where it falls down in my mind, Fors, is that the opposing pitcher needs to take the mound, too, and religion is a touchy subject, touchy enough to spark wars.
 

Last edited by Max (6/28/2013 11:05 pm)