A lot has been made of it but they didn't demand she not play - they chose not to because of their beliefs. Is that belief silly/stupid/whatever? Just depends on who you are and what you think. I don't have a single problem with what they did because they didn't force their beliefs on others - they elected not to play. The world would be a much better place if people would do that rather than demand someone else change to reflect their views.
Makes me think of Biggest Loser this season - Mark and Buddy thought what they were doing was wrong so they stuck with their beliefs and left. I actually think that's great that people would care about their beliefs more than some temporary glory or money but that's just me and I think they've made a much bigger deal out of this than it really is but that's the way media works these days...
OT - Grantland on the Girl/Baseball issue from last week
A lot has been made of it but they didn't demand she not play - they chose not to because of their beliefs. Is that belief silly/stupid/whatever? Just depends on who you are and what you think. I don't have a single problem with what they did because they didn't force their beliefs on others - they elected not to play. The world would be a much better place if people would do that rather than demand someone else change to reflect their views.
And it appears that they believe in holocaust denial, women should not go to college and that the US government caused 9/11 (probably related to some crazy Jewish conspiracy theory). I can’t really jump on board with the whole “they were just standing up for their beliefs” argument. Their beliefs are dangerous (see Nazi Germany) and they are educating kids which could be seen as forcing beliefs on others. I have no problem calling the school out on all this.
This isn't Germany so it's not illegal to say the holocaust didn't happen not is any of their other beliefs. Do I think they are stupid? Absolutely but that's part of having a free society - what if you believed something that 99.9% of people think is stupid and you were forced to give that up because of majority rule? It's a slippery slope to be sure but unless we continue to legislate what freedom really means we can't force them to change their views. You don't have to be friends with them, you don't have to agree with them but, ultimately, they haven't broken any laws so..
Just to be clear - I think what they did was stupid and the argument about contact is pushing it as best since its baseball but if they really believe that and they are willing to forfeit to support that they are fully within their rights (as annoying as that may be).
This is a free society? Must have missed that.
That they should have been prevented from forfeiting the game. They are free to hold, and advocate, their opinions and beliefs. Government does not have the right, nor should it, to stop them.
The media, internet posters and the average citizen have every right to call them out as being wrong however. They also have the right to dig into the organizations history and previous statements to make arguments demonstrating why they are wrong. Free speech works both ways. You can say what you want free from government interference. Everyone else is also free to comment on your speech and call you out on things they find objectionable.
Freedom of speech, religion and assembly are some of the greatest things about America. It does allow people to advocate really ugly positions (see the Westboro Babtist Church), but I am more than willing to accept the trade off for freedom. Since we agree that government should not restrict speech, or determine what is “dangerous”, it is up to the citizens to identify objectionable beliefs and ideas and offer arguments for why the organization or individual is wrong. I think that is what the people who object to the Schools actions are doing. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism of your beliefs.
I just finished reading some stuff about them, no where did I see anything that you mentioned. Please let me have some links to validate said wild stories.
EDIT: ok, upon further reading, the group does have some Anti-semitic leanings and does not seem to be as nice as you might think. Still I have a tough time not letting them be who they want to be, even if most all of us would disagree with them.
It is ironic that you call their beliefs "dangerous" because the Nazis used to do the same thing with Communists, Social Democrats, etc.
Do I believe that their ideas are asinine? Yes, but that doesn't mean they do not have the right to hold those beliefs.
First, I am not advocating that they cannot have their beliefs or that government should do something about their beliefs. I would also agree that governments have used the idea of dangerous beliefs to restrict freedom and advance their agenda for most of history. This does not however mean that dangerous beliefs don’t exist. Dangerous beliefs become a problem when those who have the beliefs gain power and enforce the beliefs on others. One way to prevent those with dangerous beliefs from gaining power is to point out the problem with their belief.
Examples of dangerous beliefs
- Women who have sex out of wedlock should be stoned to death. This is particularly dangerous if you are an unmarried women in the mid east.
- All Mexican are drug smugglers. This is a problem if the law enforcement officer who pulled you over thinks this and you are a Mexican
- The college bowl system should be eliminated in favor of a NCAA playoff. This is a problem if you are a bowl director making $500,000 per year and the majority of the school presidents come to believe this.
labeling beliefs "dangerous". Are Noam Chomsky's beliefs dangerous because they cast the US in a very negative light? To many Americans they are insofar they aware of who Noam Chomsky is.
What is dangerous very much depends on who is applying the label. For example, some think support for gay marriage is a "dangerous" activity because it threatens(in their view) a pillor of the Christian Civilization. The use of the word danger implies that the object being labeled so is an imminent threat to person/country/insitution. It implicitly encourages the listeners to "do something" to eliminate that danger.
The only time I would use the word dangerous is if a person makes an explict threat to the safety of a person or place. Otherwise, ideas are just ideas.
That sounds wonderful, except for the fact that what it reveals about their views of women. Refusing to play baseball against a girl reveals an obvious belief in female inferiority. That's the problem I have with the whole ordeal.
They deprived Mesa of the chance to play in a championship game. Their decision didn't affect them alone.
Grant land is awesome.
I'm glad they are writing about more and more subjects.
Thank you, Bill Simmons.
On a related note, 30 for 30 is coming back. It is going to include poscasts and interviews that will be featured on Grantland.
You could keep this post respectful...by deleting it.
The 'kicker' ruins the article for me. I hate when writers can't articulate their point strongly enough and fall back to middle school-style arguments of "well you just didn't want to lose to a girl".
Regardless of how nutty the leaders of this sect of the church are, they're entitled to refuse to play when something doesn't fit their beliefs. They didn't say Paige couldn't play in the baseball league; they said we refuse to play your team based on our beliefs. The majority of people in this country can disagree with it but that's the entire point of protecting freedom of religion.
The whole article seems to miss the primary issue at hand here.
And it's second baseman. Not baseperson. Regardless of sex. There is no baseperson position. Ask Rich Eisen (bottom right).
I have to agree... for such a well-written, and clearly well-researched article, the "kicker" is childish at best. To take so much time to explain this group's ideology and its background, and then to throw it all out the window and suggest they forfeited because they're "scared to lose to a girl" really takes away from any journalistic credibility built up in the first umpteen paragraphs.
That article is as much about religion as it is about sports... treading dangerous waters here....
I'll wait for the fireworks.
How can it scare you? That movie's hilarious!
That is becuase your Catma photo is afraid of Dogma.
If the team refused to play because the other team had a Black, Jewish, Hispanic, something different person rather than because it was a girl, would that be OK?
Valid but...this is a very small (minority opinion) group not accepting the majority group concept. The previous cases were where the majority was forcing the minority into a situation. In this case the minority opted out of the situation. While similar I think it is different enough to be non-threatening.
Not in a "we don't need to integrate the MLB" way. But today. Right now. A team refused to play against a team with a black player, ala Willis Ward. Would that change the situation?
Sure it would. I get the linkage but I still don't see it as the same level of offense. Let me word it two different ways.
1) We hate girls in boys sports and want you to take her off the team.
2) We don't believe in girls and boys engaging in close physical sports together and our team will choose not to participate.
Option 1 really puts the onus on the other team, suggesting that they in fact are wrong and must change. It also seems to come from someone who is used to being in authority.
Option 2 states that they don't think it is correct to have mixed sports and will not participate, it is their choice not to participate.
It makes a difference on how it is stated and communicated. I think the SSPX has some backwards ideas, but we (America) have been known to allow that, see Amish, Hutterite, or any number of minority religious groups. They are not using political muscle to force the rest of us to accept their beliefs or to interfere with anything else. At the end of the day, it was a baseball game, that is all, nothing more, nothing less. One team one and one team lost. It has already been blown up more than it should have.
Specifically for sports - are guys allowed to play collge softball? What about women's basketball or in the WNBA. Subtitute their rules (no boys) with a race/religion and every single league, organization, anything that excludes a certain group is outrageous. So, by your argument women's sports that don't allow men are outrageous... The blade swings both ways...
She had no other option if she wanted to play a baseball-ish sport.
Bigmc6000's point is still valid in drawing that parallel, just use a different sport.
How do you feel about letting men participate on women's gymnastics, field hockey, and crew teams at schools that don't offer those for men?
My public high school didn't allow men to participate on our volleyball team but offered no other option for me to participate in volleyball. I suck at volleyball and wouldn't have made the team, but the point still remains that it can be a double-edged sword when you start comparing situations.
There is a specific league rule that says that she can play on the boys team because her school does not have a girls softball team. She is a completely legitimate member of the team.
I said you can't just say if you replace the word "female" with "Jewish" and you realize it's outrageous. She is a legit member of the team and she deserves to play. However, the other is in their right to forfeit because of it - they didn't say she wasn't allowed to play. They know she's allowed to play and they knew they would have to forfeit so they did.
You're really missing the point that's being made.
I don't think anyone here has an issue with her playing or said she wasn't part of the team. The point is that there IS a rule for those girls playing boys sports and ISN'T a rule that says boys can play on the women's team (if there isn't a boys team) but people aren't screaming OUTRAGE. The idea is that the logic being tossed around in the arguments above can go both ways - male or female.
I don't know how I can be more direct about this.
"substitute some other category of person for girl (race, religion) and you realize how outrageous this is..." ....unless the category is "boys".
If you think there is a lack of opportunities for boys to play sports you are kidding yourself. The rule was put in place to allow a girl to play on the boys team in situations where tere weren't enough girls to field a team. The school in question barely has enough boys to field a team. They only have 11 players including the girl.
The idea that boys are somehow being held back because they aren't allowed to play women's volleyball or women's field hocky is ridiculous.
That was you missing the point for a second time. You're disagreeing with something I didn't even say. No one has said boys are held back because they aren't allowed to play women's sports. We both agree that is ridiculous. I am trying my best here - the point is a response to MWolv: It sounds ridiculous to substitute another group (religion, race, etc.) for the girl in this situation. How does this sound:
"New Berlin Little Hitlers refused to play Troy Athens because Troy has a Jewish shortstop and the Little Hitlers don't believe in inter-race sports."
That's pretty bad. Now how do you feel when you read this:
"The Marian volleyball team refused to play Seaholm because they have a boy on their team and their faith doesn't believe in boys playing womens' sports."
Id bet there's a lot less outrage and more "why is the boy on the girls' volleyball team" but it's still the same situation - a team is refusing to play an opponent because of an individual's characteristics. I'm not arguing anything boys or girls or religion or race. I'm just showing an example from a contrarian viewpoint and how a similar situation elicits different responses. If this doesn't work, I give up. MWolv already gave the TL;DR version.
How do I feel about that? Well I think the Martians are pretty stupid that they need something as complicated as religion to tell them something as basic and obivous as "boys aren't allowed to play women's sports", That's what I think.
Your whole substitution point works fine when you are substituting another race/religion in for the girl. It breaks down in the case of a boy on a girls team because you are talking about someone who may have a built-in physical/biological advantage over all other contestants. There is a difference between being discriminated against because someone is trying to "keep you down" and being kept out of a league because you are too good for the league. It's similar to the age limit in Little League--you are trying to restrict the league to a certain skill set, and allowing men in a women's league kind of upsets the apple cart. How do you feel when I say
"The Marian volleyball team refused to play Seaholm because they have a girl on their team who is too old to qualify under league rules."?
Does that upset you? Leagues have rules to promote certain levels of competition. I think restricting the league to only women is a perfectly reasonable thing for a league to do.
That being said, I do feel for that boy that loves field hockey, as there are just no men's leagues that play that. in the US. I don't know what the answer is.
Perhaps more to the point: college football eligibility rules that prevent professionals from coming in and beating the crap out of college students.
All sports are meant to be conducted in competitive atmosphere; it just so happens that the one this blog covers most closely does one of the worst jobs of creating a generally level competitive environment.
This whole argument really comes down to a violation of the spirit of athleticism, not prejudice. That the esprit du sport was violated because of prejudicial beliefs is what makes it so outrageous. But come back to the core of the problem here and it's that the championship game for the entire league of schools had to be canceled over one school's prejudicial beliefs.
The reason the Olympics are an international peace mission unto themselves, the reason college sports have conferences, the reason that privately owned professional sports franchises are organized by leagues with almost limitless powers of direction over those sports, all comes down to the most basic and essential thing about sports: It's a fucking game!
You don't play Monopoly against someone who says Ventor Ave. doesn't count when they land there. You don't play baseball against a team who decides they can change up their lineup any time they want. And if your league says a girl who can hack it with the boys and has no like-sport offered at her school wants to play, you either leave the game because you don't want to play by those rules, or you play the game.
The world and its rules and animosities and prejudices and everything else is suspended and replaced by the game. When you step on that field, you are bound by the agreed upon rules of the game. You compete to win the game. It is an escape, and any animosities from outside that you bring to it must be handled within the context of the game itself. This extends to the organization. If you join a league, you are agreeing to compete by the game's laws, in the game's world. That means if you have a problem with the gender of the other team's 2nd baseman, you must handle it within the context of the game.
This school violated the very foundation of athletic competition because they believed their personal beliefs are more important than the rules of the game that they previously agreed to. We neither need to justify nor condemn those beliefs, because their approach to sports is quite simply chickenshit enough to condemn them out of the league.
have a headache. This is such a 1970s issue. I remember when girls first started to nplay on my Little League team. Oh the outrage from the Old timers. Thank God my coach was a level-headed person. He saw the raw talent and this girl not only could play, she was our starting pitcher on a championship team. I just loved to tease the other guys.
This situation is just a way for the coach to protect his boys from humiliation. I get it. Just dont hide behind Jesus. Im sure He had His popcorn and waiting to watch a good game. It is game and only a game. What is wrong with playing the game?
No matter how much he simplifies it. He's not saying it's a grave injustice that boys aren't allowed to play (and dominate) a women's field hockey team. He's saying that comparing that, or the opposite, to race or religion or whatever, is a false comparison, because there are legit reasons to separate boys and girls from playing, and there aren't any for people of different races, etc.
Your example actually illustrates it perfectly. The girl is allowed to play because they're not able to field a softball team full of girls. But likewise a boy isn't allowed to join a field hockey team because a school doesn't offer boys field hockey (and a lot of high schools don't have ice hockey teams either). It's exactly the same thing, with different results. Your answer that "a boy who can't play those volleyball can go play baseball or football" while at the same time saying "a girl HAS to play baseball, because she can't play softball" rather than saying she should go play volleyball or field hockey is the only ridiculous contradiction here.
The point is to give both boys and girls the SAME opportunities. By allowing women to do something and not allowing men is reverse sexism. Being treated equal doesn't mean being treated better.
Do you really think there are just tons of guys out there clamoring to join women's sports teams that are being denied the opportunity? Really? Yeah I know there is that one guy who wants to play field hockey and seems pretty sincere about it. Outside of him and a handful of other guys over the years, what guys are really being denied sporting opportunities by saying they can't play on the girls team?
These things have to be handled on a sport-by-sport basis. I think this one makes sense. The preferred solution is to field a softball team. If you can't do that, then you let the girls play on the baseball team. I can't believe that solution is causing people to whine about guys not being allowed to play women's volleyball.
It gets tough. I'm very sympathetic to the young man who's not being allowed to play field hockey (link below). The problem arises when you imagine a world in which a bunch of boys try out for field hockey and eventually dominate that sport and most other girls sports (I don't think they would dominate gymnastics, FWIW), leaving little room for girls to be involved in athletics...I suppose if I was running a school that I wouldn't prohibit either gender from playing any particular sport unless and until I was running the risk of having something other than a 50/50 split in terms of overall participation (I realize that balancing that would be difficult).
I know you asked about the general idea, but it's worth remembering here that Mesa did not have a rule against the young woman playing. She tried out for and made the team. It was Sorrows who declined to fulfill their commitment to the league by pulling out of the championship game.
There is a HS in central Ohio that has allowed boys to play on the girls field hockey team in the past (the school name escapes me, it was featured on ESPN a few years ago) bc there is no boys team. Title IX does work both ways...odd I know, but this particular story bothers me bc if a girl/woman has the fortitude to play organized sports with boys/men more power to them. I've played football against a team that had a girl playing for them, just treated her like any other player, and that's how it should be. Between the lines, an athlete is an athlete regardless of anatomy.
I feel bad for both teams here... I suspect you have two teams of kids who just want to get on the field and play ball for the championship. Leave it to the adults to screw it up for everyone.
Why did Sorrows already play them in the regular season, but then chose not to play them in the championship?
To me, it does sound like they didn't want get their asses handed to them again.
Out of respect for their beliefs, sat the girl. No idea why but that's what they did. I think they should had made them forfeit if they didn't want to play against a girl for whatever reason.
...and the young woman chose to sit out those games out of respect for their beliefs given that the games were at their field.
This entire story is disturbing on many levels. I have many thoughts, but I will just outline them & keep this brief.
- From my perspective, Our Lady of Sorrows is loony and out of touch. It particularly bugs me that they in some way suggest their position is based on the Bible. I appreciate and agree with the Grantland article on this point.
- At the same time, I respect their right to forfeit the game. They are being ridiculed for standing up for their convictions. I actually applaud them for their consistency in this regard.
- I don't much care for the Grantland article. The author (Pierce) is patronizing at best and mean-spirited and manipulative at worst.
- As for his argument that Our Lady didn't want to be beat by a girl, it would help if he provided support for this. As in, how many games did they actually play previously (two or four?) Did Paige actually play against them previously? If so, what was her batting average against Our Lady?
- This whole incident highlights something in our culture I don't much care for. Namely, under the guise of tolerance and broad-mindedness, there is quite often a complete lack of tolerance for those whom the general culture disagrees with. As stated above, I don't agree with the position taken by Our Lady of Sorrows, or the schismatic organization behind it. Nonetheless, I respect their right to take an unpopular position and to follow it through consistently.
I really like your point #5 and have never really thought about it that way, but that is so true in so many situations.
If they were sitting out because they refused to play against a black or a Hisplanic player, would you still respect it?
Their position is bigoted and mysogynistic. Since they are a private school I suppose they have the right to behave this way (as long as they actually provide teams for their girls to play on), but they really should find a sports league that consists of like-minded neanderthals to play with rather than ruining the league for everyone else.
That's the problem. They're not a private school, they're a charter school, so they're being funded at least in part with public money.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rally/keeling-pilaro-male-field-hockey-player-banned-being-160713816.html So this is obviously bigotry? I don't remember seeing two threads expressing outrage about this subject...
Also, I don't think the argument comparing races to this is completely accurate, as there are real differences between the genders biologically speaking, not so much between "races" (whatever they may or may not be).
A number of peole have linked to that when discussing this story and expressed sympathy for the young man.
There is grey area in terms of what it means to "respect" their right to take an unpopular stance. I respect it in the sense that I think they ought not to be prohibited by the government from taking it. I also believe, though, that I can say that I think it's dumb despite the fact that it's an opinion based in religion. The fact that an idea comes from religion shouldn't be a "get out of jail free card" that allows you to evade criticism of your actions in the public arena.
The freedom to express your religious beliefs does not also guarantee you freedom from being criticized for those beleifs. It just means you can't be persecuted for them or denied your rights because of them.
In fact, that is the same logic behind the right to free speech. People are often very confused as to this and think that if they say something controversial and someone critcizes them for it, that their rights have been violated (Sara Palin is one that does not get this).
I also do not respect Our Lady of Sorrows (she must be in sorrow because she can't play), but understand they are in their rights. I also do not respect the KKK, but understand they have the right of free speech or religious affiliation. Just because they have these rights, does not mean we have to respect them for exercising them.
As noted, I disagree with Our Lady's position. (Having two daughters who play sports, and one who is currently on a coed travel soccer team, I better disagree!) I also agree with you that you should prepare to be criticized, disliked and often despised for taking an unpopular position. However, some of the suggestions I have read in the comments are moving into the area of persecution, or seeking to coerce or force Our Lady into abandoning their position. And our culture, particularly a supposedly open-minded university culture, is moving more in the direction of not allowing dissent from popularly accepted positions. This is what gives me great pause, and what causes my concern.
I would really, really like to give you a couple of actual examples of such coercion happening right now at Michigan and on other campuses. They are there. However, to do so would move the topic too far afield, invite flaming, and move posts to the penalty box, so I can't and won't do this. Suffice to say, there are real incidents right now where adult administrators are enforcing group think, not allowing unpopular positions, and forcing groups to disband because of their positions. I am concerned when our country and university are both moving in this direction, and denying basic freedoms for which many people and groups initially came to the US from Europe and the rest of the world.
I admittedly haven't read all the comments on these threads because I'm afraid I'll get too religious, but I have a general question. Why is this any different than a Jewish school refusing to play basketball on the Sabath? Does the fact that one school's belief is more socially acceptable make their position any more correct? Both are standing up for their beliefs and aren't infringing on anyone else's rights, other than the "right" to compete. Thankfully the basketball tournament rescheduled the game, but there didn't appear to be a similar solution in the baseball case, other than to make the girl sit. While I don't agree with their position, I respect Sorrows' right to their beliefs.
The Jewish team said that it wouldn't play because the game was on a given day. Their refusal wasn't directed at any particular player or team. Sorrows said, on the other hand, that it wouldn't play because a member of Mesa's team wasn't the right gender.
My point is that a belief is a belief. Just because one involves an otherwise arbitrary day and the other an arbitrary belief about competition, why is one ok and the other discrimination? If this had happened in a qualifying game rather than the championship would that make it less wrong?
The Jewish team didn't make an implicit statement about whether or not a given player or players on another team ought to be playing basketball. It didn't make a statement about another player or team at all. It just said, "We don't play on Saturdays." Sorrows, on the other hand, said, "We're not playing because you have a girl on your team."
One school discriminated against a day of the week. Another discriminated against a person.
You are deciding whose reasoning is correct and whose is flawed. You can't do that with someone's belief system. If there are concrete facts and indisputable reasons for believing something it becomes fact instead of a "belief". IMHO, the Jewish team is implying that there is something wrong with teams that DO play on Saturdays. What if they said they would not play on Martin Luther King Jr day or the 4th of July instead of Saturday, would you then think they were wrong? That's implying there's something wrong with Dr. King or the USA. Sorrows is not telling the girl to get off the field, they are removing themselves from the field. To me there is a difference, but I guess we'll probably just have to agree to disagree.
They joined a league and then cost another high school to lose the chance to play for a championship because they don't like the gender of one of that team's players. They've entered the public sphere and are accordingly open to criticism for their actions - regardless of the motivation for those actions.
Just for the record, I don't agree with the position of the Sorrows team. I also think they have opened themselves up to ridicule for their beliefs. I guess I can disagree with their position but still respect them for at least staying true to their beliefs. I see far to many people sway with the breeze of public opinion.
As far as the league and the championship game, there are all kinds of reasons a team may have to forfeit and thus cost the other team the chance to compete. You just disagree with this reason. I respect your right to do so.
As far as the league and the championship game, there are all kinds of reasons a team may have to forfeit and thus cost the other team the chance to compete. You just disagree with this reason.
You say that as if forfeiting because half of your team has the flu is the same as forfeiting because you don't want to play against a girl because you believe that a girl's place is not on a ball field. The two just aren't the same. The first is a blameless example of bad luck. The second is a conscious decision rooted in a belief of the inequality of the sexes. I don't "just" disagree with it. It's wrong.
I hate to break this to you, but there is a difference in the sexes and inherent athletic inequality. If you don't believe me, watch a WNBA and then an NBA game. You are chosing to be offended by the rest of what's implied by this sect's religious beliefs.
The NBA allstars would beat the WNBA allstars, sure. That doesn't mean that there's something wrong with this particular young woman playing baseball. Sorrows didn't object to her b/c of her ability. They objected to her b/c she's a she.
That's true, and I just read the comment about her hs not having a softball team so she has to play baseball if she wants to play that type of sport. That makes a difference to me for some reason.
I'm not sure that leap can be made. A Jewish team that doesn't play on Saturdays doesn't seem to be implying that all who do play on Saturdays are incorrect or wrong.
The Sorrows team on the other hand. Their choice to forfeit is more specific and impactful because of where and how it's aimed. At a specific person/group of people/etc.
I don't think a Jewish team not playing on Saturday is a condemnation of anything.
I do think a team forfeiting because a girl is on the other team is most definitely a condemnation.
But, unfortunately, it's a falsely paternal world, homie. Driven by fear.
I feel that the Jewish team is saying "It's wrong for Jews to play on Saturdays" is more that line of reasoning. Similarly it could be that the Sorrows team is saying "It's wrong for Sorrows boys to play against girls"... but that's not really what I got from the situation, especially taking into account some of the Pious X's people's takes on women and women's roles.
If I understand correctly, you are saying that a Jew can differentiate between his personal belief system and that of others and not condemn them for said unbelief. However, you do not believe that the Sorrows team can have a personal belief system and carry out that belief without condemnation to others. Interesting.
Edit: That response was supposed to be to JBE. Not sure what happened there. Also, I'm not equating Judaism to this sect of the Catholic church. I agree with most of Judaism. The other, not so much.
I didn't like the word choice before, so I changed condemning to impacting, although I do feel Sorrows is definitely condenming a certain range of thought here.
What is a team - a Jewish team being used in this circumstance - that doesn't play on Saturdays directly impacting?
And then what is a team that doesn't play a game because a girl is on the field directly impacting?
I can seem to muster some answers for the second question, although they're long and complicated. Something about both the positive and negative implications, mostly negaitive, of the act, in consideration of social spheres and spaces, notions of gender, or maybe even systemic attitudes, etc.
But I can't seem to answer the first one. I can't see how a team not playing on Saturdays directly, positively or negatively, impacts anyone excpect those within that culture that choose not to participate, or choose to participate for that matter, in the activity.
So please tell me how a team that doesn't play on Saturday impacts anyone besides the people making that choice - people outside that group or culture? And please don't say scheduling conflicts.
I don't think that a team not playing on Saturday in itself causes problems for anyone. I also don't think that a team not playing another team because they have a girl causes problems for anyone. If the girl decides to be offended because of the act then she is helping them accomplish their goal of discriminating against women (I'm assuming that's one of your negative items). They did not ask for her to be removed from the field. As far as I know, they didn't intimidate her in any way. I would tell my daughter that she did nothing wrong, they are entitled to their beliefs, and enjoy your championship. We would have beat the crap out of them anyway.
My comparison of the Jewish team and the Sorrows team was meant to be taken on a level of how they hold their beliefs sacred and how those beliefs color their view of the society around them. Everyone appears to be offended by how the Sorrows school views women and their role in society. I may be wrong, but don't Jews (and many other religions, including mine) believe that anyone who doesn't follow their belief is going to Hell or some equivalent? That was were the equivalent of not playing on the Sabbath came in. If you are a Jew and don't keep it, that's a sin. If you aren't a Jew, you can not be redeemed. I guess I just don't understand how the MGoCommunity seems to be so offended by one and able to just brush off the other.
First, Jews don't believe in a hell, generally speaking, but anyway...
Second, believing something and taking action on a belief in the public sphere are two different things.
First, my understanding of Sheol is that it is a place of punishment and pain and generally a place you don't want to be for eternity. Otherwise there are a whole bunch of rules established to avoid a place that really isn't that bad. Second, what is refusing to play on Saturday other than taking action on a belief? Again, you are deeming one ok and one offensive, but you already said you were allowed to do that, so I say agree to disagree.
but it's not emphasised. Satan exists too, just as a kind of embodiment of evil, not a fallen angel etc. etc.
There are a whole bunch of rules established without a whole bunch of dogmatic justification. It's a totally different set up than the general "Do this to get to Heaven" idea that is prevelant in other religions.
I believe the line in Torah is "If you pick up a bundle of wood on the Sabbath you'll be struck down" and killed. Which... yeah, there's an idea of punishment, but at the same time how literally you accept every word and then act on it is really up to the individual.
You asked why we aren't offended by a given religion's belief that everyone who doesn't hold their beliefs is going to hell. The reason is that it isn't an action (not that I can speak for anyone else)...Not all actions are offensive, though (at the risk of stating the obvious). As has been well explained here, refusing to play on a Saturday is different than refusing to play b/c the other team has a female player. I'm not just deeming the two acts to be different. They are different.
Let's take an admittedly extreme* example: The Taliban enters an Afghan village and starts beating any woman who it sees doing something other than domestic work (however they'd define that). That would be very different than a basketball team refusing to play on Saturday, but both involve people taking action based on religious belief. My point being: You can't just say, "Well, Group X is engaging in Action Y because of a regligious belief, and you can't criticize or disprove a belief" and not think about it any further. Not all religiously-motivated acts are the same.
*Please, again, note where I said "admittedly extreme."
I understand what you are saying. I think I keep getting hung up on the idea that the girl is automatically injured or wronged by the other team's belief. There are many people who think Polish people are stupid but I have to make a choice to let their beliefs have a negative impact on my life.
This young woman and her team lost the chance to play in a championship. That chance is gone regardless of the message that they take from it.
I guess they lost a chance to earn it but they are still the champions. They beat every team they had the opportunity to play in the tournament and that is all they could do. If they feel cheapened by the way it ended, then they should challenge the last team that lost to the Sorrows team to a game for the championship, then they will have won it on the field.
Fair enough. Beliefs on their own are harmless. It's how they're used that can be harmful or helpful. I just feel the way Sorrow used belief was impactful on a variety of levels, and the way belief was used in the Jewish team example was not very impactful.
And Sorrow did forfeit. And the whether or not this was a passive aggressive ploy to impose their beliefs is very subjective. And even though you may tell the girl it's not her fault, that these people just think a different way, honey, it still plants a seed, a seed that often is very real and grows very large in society.
As a Jew I don't speak for all of us or the religion as a whole, but we're much less concerned with what everyone else does than many other religions. We don't really believe in Hell or an equivalent, or the idea of redemption/salvation that is popular in, say, Christianity.
Judaism doesn't preach that all non-Jews are making huge mistakes, Judaism really focuses on how to live your life as a Jew. I've seen a lot more Jew-on-Jew hate due to varying opinions on observance than I have seen Jew-judging-others-for-not-being-Jewish.
Like I said, I'm not a Jewish scholar and I really just used the example of the Jewish team because it was recently in the news. I'm sorry that I misrepresented your beliefs.
No harm no foul. You've been extremely respectful throughout the whole conversation and I haven't felt offended by anything you've said. I can only share my experience with Judaism, I can't speak for all of us. One of my best friends grew up Catholic and he had heard all the things about how Jews had horns etc. My girlfriend also grew up Catholic and had never heard any of that. Just because it's the same religion doesn't imply identical experiences. Other Jewish posters on the board could have totally different beliefs and experiences.
Plus, I don't want to make it seem like we Jews have everything figured out either. Depending on who you ask (which group of Jewish Scholars) you'll get very different answers on simple things. A simple dietary law for example. Food can be milk, meat, or neither, and you can't mix milk and meat groups. Everyone agrees that after you consume any food that's classified as "Milk" you have to wait at least 3 hours before consuming anything that's classified as "Meat". But, depending on who you ask, after "meat" you have to wait 3, 6, or 8 hours before you have "Milk". This all stemmed from a line in Torah about how you "shouldn't cook a kid (baby goat) in it's mother's milk."
One of my best friends grew up Catholic and he had heard all the things about how Jews had horns etc.
You just explained something I never understood about the copy of Michelangelo's Moses my dad has. I wasn't aware of that belief among Catholics (my dad grew up in a church that held mass entirely in Polish and Latin). I think I'm glad he decided to let me figure out religion on my own. I appreciate the insight. I am listening to the Bible in a year on my lunch breaks and this actually helps me understand a lot of the Torah (I'm halfway through Deuteronomy(14:21 mentions the kid in mother's milk, but I think it was also in Numbers or Leviticus)).
I dunno many places on the internet where discussions around (essentially) religion and politics can be this civil and well thought out.
Also, I'd argure your first mistake is delving into translated historical texts... but that's another discussion for another time. The Torah reads very differently in hebrew than it does in any other language, just like newer texts should be studied in aramaic or greek. The other issue is after you get through Torah the order of the rest of the books. They were all individual scrolls that were cannonized by people to fit a specific story. For example, the Tanach (or the Old Testament books) in their Jewish cannon end with talk of redemtion and returning to the land of Israel. Most Old Testaments end with talk of the messianic age and it goes right into the start of the New Testament and the birth of Jesus.
Religion sure would be simpler if weren't for all the people involved....
I have tried to read the New Testament in Greek. I took a year of ancient Greek to fulfill the second year of my foreign language requirement in college. One year does not prepare you for all the ways that language can be translated, not to mention the tenses, etc we don't have in English. I agree on the civility, I'm glad we didn't take this to a dark place (myself included).
Happened to me all the time in high school hockey. I'm Jewish and teams would often try to schedule games on either Rosh Hashanah or Yom Kippur. Many other teams in the area didn't have Jewish players, so there was no reason they couldn't schedule games on those days. My teams often had at least one other Jew, but levels of observance differ. I wouldn't play either day (easiest way to explain it) and I was one of 2 goalies on the team.
Some opponents worked with us and scheduled around it. Some didn't. Some were total assholes about using it to try to get a win. As one of 2 goalies, if I didn't dress and the other goalie got hurt, we would have been in big trouble. I wasn't in the scheduling meetings, but I know it was broached early in the meetings that "We don't want to play on this day" (like a Jewish team making it known they won't play on Saturday or BYU making it known that they won't on Sunday). Some people respected that, some didn't.
Hey, while reading through this part of the discussion, something just struck me as funny and I started laughing out loud. First let me state that I am not picking on anyone or trying to be rude. I was reading your post and I envisioned a Mel Brooks type skit in the hockey locker room, where the Jewish kids (they were the Hasidic Jews, with the long side burns and the big hats. They were wearing those as part of the hockey uniform) and the Christian kids who were dressed somewhat like the Catholic alter boys. They were arguing and shouting about scheduleing games and what was acceptable as a sports drink...it was weird but it really just made me start laughing.
Sorry, I was not trying to offend anyone, just thought I would share.
Saying that you won't play on a certain day of the week because of a religious observance is not being hurtful or using your religion as a weapon to harm others. It is expressing a religious belief that YOU should not play on that day, so YOU are not going to. You aren't going to play any games on that day regardless of anyone or anything else.
Saying that you won't play another team because of the content of their team IS hurtful and is using religion as a weapon. It is blaming the other team for the entire problem. "We would play, if you would just get rid of (player X). It is a tactic that has been used to persecute minority groups in the past.
I see the two as being very very different. I don't personally agree with either choice, but I find one to be acceptable and the other to be reprehensible.
Another example of a team not playing on a specific day is Wheaton College, located in Wheaton, Illinois, not far from where I live. They have been very successful in Division III sports, with several athletes going on to the NFL and MLB. As a school with an evangelical affiliation, they don't schedule games on Sundays. In their leagues, which I believe are largely made up of other Christian schools, this isn't a problem. (After all, Michigan doesn't schedule football games on Sundays either.) However, because of Wheaton's success, it created problems in the post-season. I have been told by an assistant coach that at least in lacrosse, post-season scheduling took their stance into account. Lacrosse tournament and championship schedules avoided having games on Sundays where Wheaton might be forced to forfeit.
won't play any Sunday events.
I disagree with tolerating intolerance for the sake of saying we are a free and open society. Sure they can hold that belief, but I am not going to tolerate it and I will fight against it. Their belief is nothing but bigoted bullshit under the guise of religious freedom. Their beliefs on women's roles in society has no acceptable place here. Most, if not all, of us are disgusted about marginalization of women in the Middle East, why not here?
I think women in the Middle East would be offended by the comparison of their struggles and a high school girl's struggle for acceptance on a baseball field.
I really wasn't comparing their plight to the Mesa AZ situation as a matter of magnitude. The metaphysical basis of intolerance between the two is eerily similar though.
Duplicate post kittens
So, because it is not YOUR beleif, it is bullshit? Last time I went to war, it was so that people in this country could do just this very sort of thing.
That said, freedom of speech is not the same as freedom from the consequenses of saying something inflammatory.
You went to war so that a school could make a public display of its backwards, spiteful opinion of women? I kinda wish you hadn't done that.
Look, I get that we don't want the government to outlaw the contemptible shit this school is spewing in this case, which is not even very thinly veiled misogyny. But saying you don't want it to be illegal is a far cry from saying such opinions or actions should be tolerated in a social sense.
Where is she being marginalized? Doesn't she play for the team? One group elected not to play against her because of their misguided beliefs, but even they didn't demand that she not play.
You haven't read up on these St. Pius X blokes, have you? They believe in traditional roles and no shorts. Where would we be with out women in shorts?
The kids had any say in the matter. Their parents on the other hand, I seriously question.
You do NOT hear about it happening in conservative catholic schools more than once a decade. You hear about children protesting in schools in relatively liberal, usually public schools.
I'm not Catholic, much less a member of this particular sect, but the first paragraph of that story seems unnecessarily inflammatory. (Incidentally, the author's contention that there is no Biblical justification for Jesus creating a church would seem to be refuted by Matthew 16.)
sport in this league should have a girl on it just so this team can't compete.
I disagree with your sentence, "but they did exact a price on the young lady and her school by preventing them from winning a championship on the field."
I think she exacted a price on the young boys and their school by preventing them from winning a championship on the field.
Yeah, the right thing to do would be to drop the mitt, pick up an apron and get back where she belongs, right?
Strawman aside, it's sad that anyone would choose to blame her here.
You've passed the test. Well done.
If you really think that the little girl bears any responsibility for this situation, then I hope you don't have daughters.
Well, the Pius team took their stand. They do not have any obligation to abandon it. It was known well before the championship how they felt. It was known well in advance what would happen if their opponents chose to play a girl.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS!!!!!!!
However, who is to say that the opposing team did not choose to play the girl in the championship, simply knowing the Pius team would then be forced to forfeit? Id guess that is something that has crossed the minds of the poor kids from Pius that were denied the chance to play for the championship they had earned a crack at.
It wasn't a ploy.
Since the line in caps was missed....
I do not believe it was a ploy, however, what about the kids on that team, who worked hard, practiced, and played well enough, only to get their chance at a championship yanked from them, through no fault of their own. After all, it isn't like kids in a conservative catholic school have any other choice.
It wasn't clear...But, yes, it is too bad for the kids on the Sorrows team. I feel bad for them like I'd feel bad for a bunch of kids whose coach wouldn't let them play a team who had a black player.
He still didn't get to the key thing. WHAT THE HECK ARE THEY DOING PLAYING IN A LEAGUE AGAINST EACH OTHER?
If they want to say I made up the reason I have very little extended family beyond my grandparents' generation, whatever, that's their perogative. But why is any other school playing baseball games against them if they're going to cancel the championship game?
At a very basic level, this is what conferences are about in college sports. Athletic competition is expected to be competitive, and conducted in a spirit of respect for each other. There's nobody in the world with their head on straight who can respect that school, so don't compete against them.
The article seems to purposely try to bend this toward politics (his egregious mistake of calling it a "charter" school, now corrected, is still there as a stain upon the whole enterprise). His crux is to make a moral argument: the school is bad guys, therefore they didn't play, therefore the school is bad guys. This is a useless crux -- judging that school and their beliefs isn't the most important action anyone can take here. No shit they're bad guys, but if they're bad guys then obviously there's nothing you can make them do. I rather think they pulled out on purpose because they, as radicals do, love the attention. They're trolling.
In this case, again, there is a positive corrective action that is justified and can serve as an example in other cases where bad guys interfere with the esprit du sport. Kick them out of the league. Ostracize them.
The league they play in is the Arizona Charter Athletic Association. Our Lady of Sorrows is not a charter school, but it's not like there's an athletic association for extremist schools. If they'd like to start one, they're hardly the only nutbags in the region--they are quite close in fact to many other cults, white supremecist separatist groups, 2012-er communities, and militias. I'm sure the neo-Nazis' kids like to play baseball just as much as the neo-Cons' (charter school joke - c'mon!) kids do. I say rather than let this one school cancel the ACAA championship, kick them out.
I have read many comments of people who say they respect the school for exercising its rights even if they disagree with the school. I don't see it quite that way. There is a distinchtion to be made between respect for the existance of a right and respect for someone who chooses (wisely or unwisely) to exercise those rights.
I do not respect any and all idiots who exercise their right of free speech by putting their foot in their mouth. I don't respect the KKK who exercises their right of free speech/assembly. I do not respect the school for exercising its freedom of religious choice by participating in a league where girls may complete against them and then denying those girls and the teams on which they play the opportunity to play in a championship game against them. By doing so they are projecting their beliefs that girls should not compete in boys sports onto all the other teams in their league. Seems to me the other teams in the league should consider whether such bigotry should be tolerated in their league.
I do respect the right of people/organizations to make fools of themselves but I do not have to respect them for exercising those rights.
That says it's immoral to play baseball against a girl. Because I can't find it in mine.