He looks like he's auditioning for Faith + 1 in that photo. Other than that, decent interview.

Wait ... is he one of those Chrisians who believes homosexuality is sinful. That's like a sure sign. :-)

Hmm...Mike, my personal theory is that it derailed/went wrong at Dealey Plaza. You?

Wait ... is he one of those Chrisians who believes homosexuality is sinful. That's like a sure sign.

I have no idea. But he does come across in this article as an intelligent, thoughtful person.

They never ask the questions I want answers to.

"As a person of faith, what is your perspective on your wife's Playboy videos?"

A person's faith should be a private matter, imho.

Piazza would be wise to dance around the steroid questions with the impressive back acne he was sporting several years ago.

There was another article where he said that he listens to Rush Limbaugh and believes what he hears. So he's definitely not an intelligent, thoughtful person.

I think Barry Bonds is the greatest player I've ever seen. And probably even without the controversy around him, [one of] the top three players in the history of the game. ... But the true test of his legacy will be 15, 20 years down the line. It's almost impossible now to really form a true evaluation of the situation, because it's so incendiary. Other things have to settle down until we can really put history in perspective. It's very muddied now. Things have to settle, and then we'll be able to see clear.

and in 20 years, it will still be "Barry US Bonds" ..
750 HR's .. 500 SB's ...
That is just sick! Sick I tell ya!

#25

Vaux is definitely not an intelligent and thoughtful person.

Ah, a "person of faith". In my day, they called them "religious", but you can't use that word today without atheists going batsh!t: "What, you believe in some imaginary old man in the sky? Har! Go crawl back under your rock, you bible-thumpin', sister-bangin', NASCAR-watchin' hick!"

There was another article where he said that he listens to Rush Limbaugh and believes what he hears. So he's definitely not an intelligent, thoughtful person.

Er, cite, please?

Vaux is definitely not an intelligent and thoughtful person.

At least he's a Tigers fan...

6. Rich Posted: July 12, 2007 at 03:01 AM (#2438104)
A person's faith should be a private matter, imho.

I've never understood this train of thought. If religious means Christian, as it apparently does in this case, then there is clear instruction in the Bible to witness to other people. Go into all the world and preach the gospel. This does not mean coerce, but to try to persuade. IMHO Those who say faith should be private are not basing it on the founder documents or members of a particular faith but rather a desire to not hear about it themselves. Common decency requires that that should be respected. If someone tells you they don't want to hear about it then be quiet about it but I think the same should go for politics, ethics, environmentalism, baseball, or any other topic. I don't see why faith should be in the unique position that you should not be able to try to persuade someone to your viewpoint.

Shining the Light,
Marty Winn

"What, you believe in some imaginary old man in the sky? Har! Go crawl back under your rock, you bible-thumpin', sister-bangin', NASCAR-watchin' hick!"


strawman.

besides, there aren't that many athiests out there, really. and heck, you need to publically reveal your religion to even run for office in Texas, iirc. (non-sequitor).

i don't understand why some don't realize it's offensive to other peoples beliefs to proselytize to those who aren't interested in hearing about it. it's just not polite, and it's true regardless of what religious beliefs you adhere to.

Ah, a "person of faith". In my day, they called them "religious", but you can't use that word today without atheists going batsh!t: "What, you believe in some imaginary old man in the sky? Har! Go crawl back under your rock, you bible-thumpin', sister-bangin', NASCAR-watchin' hick!"

Actually, I'm pretty sure "person of faith" originated with people on the religious right, not atheists. It's a way of dividing people between believers and non-believers, without distinguishing between different religions on the believer side of the equation. IOW, Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Hindus, etc. are all "people of faith," whereas atheists are not.

Marty Winn beat me to the punch. I'm not saying I wouldn't prefer if people kept faith personal, not saying I would either, I don't know. But in many cases they are doing their cause a disservice in their own eyes if they do that.

With that said I think it may be possible that like many things in the gospel, perhaps the need to actively preach has passed it by. When the gospels were written the need to spread the word about the message, now most people at least in our circumstances have heard the message and believe or disbelieve. Once you have reached that point I'm not sure if it is beneficial to keep preaching. People need to come to terms with themselves when they are ready to, and I don't think I can be persuaded that someone preaching can really speed up the process, once they have been informed of the basics.

Then again there are many many people on this board who know more , and more importantly can express it better that I can.

Ah, a "person of faith". In my day, they called them "religious", but you can't use that word today without atheists going

I don't think that's it.

I haven't RTFI (other than the snippet posted here), but I suspect the interviewer holds a fairly standard contemporary evangelical Protestant view of "faith" (i.e., a "Biblically-based" worldview) being preferable to "religion" (i.e., ritualistic stuff like, say, Catholicism or Orthodoxy). In such circles, the word "religious" often takes on negative, or at least quasi-negative, connotations. As a product of one of the "ritualistic stuff" churches, I'm simply content with the word "religious," but I've known plenty of people who would prefer "person of faith" -- and who would assert its usage, rather than defaulting to it as a matter of political correctness or whatnot.

When the gospels were written the need to spread the word about the message, now most people at least in our circumstances have heard the message and believe or disbelieve. Once you have reached that point I'm not sure if it is beneficial to keep preaching.

True, but everyone hearing the message is different than piecing it together from either Jerry Fawell or the drunken atheist rambling on is really not "hearing the message".

I find it funny (sad maybe) that I have to add drunk and rambling to atheist but feel that saying Jerry Fawell stands alone.

15. Mister High Standards Posted: July 12, 2007 at 09:27 AM (#2438195)
With that said I think it may be possible that like many things in the gospel, perhaps the need to actively preach has passed it by. When the gospels were written the need to spread the word about the message, now most people at least in our circumstances have heard the message and believe or disbelieve. Once you have reached that point I'm not sure if it is beneficial to keep preaching. People need to come to terms with themselves when they are ready to, and I don't think I can be persuaded that someone preaching can really speed up the process, once they have been informed of the basics.

I personally disagree with the idea that the need to preach the gospel has passed. There are many places on the Earth where Christian preaching/literature are rare. That can mean Budhist or Muslim countries it can also mean gang or klan areas. Even within a family that goes to church a non-hyopocritical Christian witness goes a long way compared to a father who mistreats you and also takes you to church. Sometimes having someone your age can make faith more relatable. You really don't know who will be affected by whose witness. Further I think people need reminding. It's easy to coast. I know I need to exercise and eat healthier but it's easy to semi-intentionally forget about it because it's easy to be lazy. Similarly it's easy to not think about faith and eternity because it raises hard questions and requires difficult responses.

With all that said the pragmatic aspect of what sort of or ammount of witnessing is most effective matters relatively little compared to the knowledge that it is commanded by the Lord.

Shining the Light,
Marty Winn

You just can't stay away from Beliefnet, can you, Repoz?

"Persons of faith" in its own way sounds even more stilted and PCish than that other dreadful term, "people of color." Both of them as if they were thought up by a committee of aliens.

Ah, but were those aliens believers or non-believers?

If someone tells you they don't want to hear about it then be quiet about it but I think the same should go for politics, ethics, environmentalism, baseball, or any other topic.

I think the difference is that, for the overwhelming majority of people, belief (or non-belief) is a topic so deeply held, so much at the core emotionally, that it is akin to things like belief that your mother loves you. So while comparing it to another conversation topic (ie. baseball) may make it seem perfectly acceptable, a more appropriate question might be, would you feel comfortable questioning how much somebody is loved?

I'll have a discussion about anything- but I stay away from conversations that involve challenging what is at a person's core. I think it is rude and disrespectful to do so.

In addition, whether or not you understand why, the overwhelming majority of people believe religion is a private matter.

A little more than half of all Americans don't even want their politicians discussing their religious beliefs. How many of them do you think want you not only discussing yours, but actively trying to change theirs?

"If religious means Christian, as it apparently does in this case, then there is clear instruction in the Bible to witness to other people. Go into all the world and preach the gospel. This does not mean coerce, but to try to persuade. IMHO Those who say faith should be private are not basing it on the founder documents or members of a particular faith but rather a desire to not hear about it themselves."

There are two sides to that coin. Matthew 6:5-6 "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

I have no problem with genuine expressions of faith in public, but it seems like a fairly high percentage of the public declamations of faith have their origin in a desire for self-aggrandizement and reflected morality.

As always, there's a time and place for everything.

"Both of them as if they were thought up by a committee of aliens."

AKA non-terrestrials of color.

A person's faith should be a private matter, imho.

He asked to be interviewed about his faith by a website that specifically deals with issues of faith, and he agreed to it. It's that whole little first amendment thingy.

Frankly, I suspect that if Piazza were a Muslim or a Hindu, you wouldn't have made the comment that you did. Of course, if that were the case, the article would never have been posted here at so-called "Baseball for the Thinking Fan".

I have no problem with genuine expressions of faith in public, but it seems like a fairly high percentage of the public declamations of faith have their origin in a desire for self-aggrandizement and reflected morality.

As always, there's a time and place for everything.

I agree as a general matter. As applied to this case, however, he was interviewed by a website that (I'm assuming) targets "people of faith" rather than (again, I'm assuming) a broader audience. In that sense, it's not Beliefnet's fault that Repoz or Can't Stop the Bleeding or whomever picked up on the interview.

I find it funny (sad maybe) that I have to add drunk and rambling to atheist but feel that saying Jerry Fawell stands alone.

These days, not without Jonathan Silverman and the other guy.

Andrew McCarthy I believe.

I don't see why faith should be in the unique position that you should not be able to try to persuade someone to your viewpoint.

It isn't any different from any other viewpoint which creates controversy. When I'm on the subway, or at a baseball game, or simply walking down the street, I don't want to be approached by a stranger advocating his views on abortion, capital punishment, socialized medicine, or the President's competence/incompetence.

I would be equally opposed to an aggressive atheist "selling" lack of belief (even though it's "my side"). It's simply rude to assume that sharing those sorts of discussions with people that you don't know very well is at all appropriate.

I should note that nothing in this interview struck me as preaching from Piazza.

With all that said the pragmatic aspect of what sort of or ammount of witnessing is most effective matters relatively little compared to the knowledge that it is commanded by the Lord.

This is where it starts to make people uncomfortable. Since witnessing is commanded by the Lord, doesn't it make it something that justifies the rudeness of communicating on topics that clearly many are not interested in discussing with strangers?

Exactly what "witnessing" means is highly contested and contestable. The Catholic church, to take one major group of Christians, holds that evangelizing to others is a minor part of the Christian life, and focuses much more on social justice, ritual practice, and orthodox theology. Many denominations hold that "witnessing" is best done through good acts, and attempts at conversion are usually a waste of time that could be spent doing god's work helping the needy, or the like.

To claim that "witnessing" must mean what a certain group of Anglo-American evangelicals took it to mean in the 19th and 20th centuries is not at all a given, and that it must hold pride of place in the Christian life is a particular interpretation of the Bible which is contested by large numbers of Christians throughout the world.

Frankly, I suspect that if Piazza were a Muslim or a Hindu, you wouldn't have made the comment that you did. Of course, if that were the case, the article would never have been posted here at so-called "Baseball for the Thinking Fan".

Your persecution complex is showing. You honestly think that an in-depth discussion of Muslim faith by a practicing ballplayer wouldn't be linked at BTF?

A person's faith should be a private matter, imho.

I believe that people's opinions about whether faith should be a private matter should be private matters.

"Piazza would be wise to dance around the steroid questions with the impressive back acne he was sporting several years ago."


Did you guys take a shower together or something?

I wonder if Alicia Richkter is a "show you tits for Jesus" type?

"I agree as a general matter. As applied to this case, however, he was interviewed by a website that (I'm assuming) targets "people of faith" rather than (again, I'm assuming) a broader audience. In that sense, it's not Beliefnet's fault that Repoz or Can't Stop the Bleeding or whomever picked up on the interview."

Well, yeah, pretty much. There's nothing wrong with a religious website asking Piazza about religion. In fact, it'd be pretty strange if they didn't, since it's their main area of focus. If it'd been a golf site, they probably would've asked him about drivers, or courses, or ugly plaid pants, something like that.

I was trying to address only the broader point from the comment I quoted.

"I wonder if Alicia Richkter is a "show you tits for Jesus" type?"

Linky! (SFW)

"Frankly, I suspect that if Piazza were a Muslim or a Hindu, you wouldn't have made the comment that you did. Of course, if that were the case, the article would never have been posted here at so-called "Baseball for the Thinking Fan"."

Am I drunk, or did we just have an article about ballplayers who practice Santeria on here like two weeks ago?

Matthew 7:6, subsection (iii):

"Though shall look unto any difficult question in one's travails, and simply ask, what would Mike Piazza do?"

Am I drunk, or did we just have an article about ballplayers who practice Santeria on here like two weeks ago?

Miguel Cabrera, wasn't it? Or maybe I'm drunk.

Am I drunk, or did we just have an article about ballplayers who practice Santeria on here like two weeks ago?
Miguel Cabrera, wasn't it? Or maybe I'm drunk.

Ozzie Gullien

Your persecution complex is showing.

No persecution complex at all my friend. I'm not a Christian myself, nor a devotee of organization religion at all. But I do believe in freedom of religion, and I don't hold Christians in contempt the way so many of the loudmouths here do.

But I remain forever an optimist, and I continue to hold out a little hope that one day eventually, this site will go back to being a serious site that discusses baseball the way it once was, and not a place filled with worthless garbage like this.

But I remain forever an optimist, and I continue to hold out a little hope that one day eventually, this site will go back to being a serious site that discusses baseball the way it once was, and not a place filled with worthless garbage like this.

Then why did you post on the thread?

Then why did you post on the thread?

Because I keep hoping that I might encourage others who feel the same way to speak up. I've actually seen it happen a couple of times before, but never to any avail.

To be honest, I think that the deterioration of the site that's been going on over the last three years or so because of garbage like this has chased a lot of people away for good. I can actually remember when this really was a great baseball discussion site. But it's been this way for so long now that I do sometimes think it's never going back.

To be honest, I think that the deterioration of the site that's been going on over the last three years or so because of garbage like this has chased a lot of people away for good. I can actually remember when this really was a great baseball discussion site. But it's been this way for so long now that I do sometimes think it's never going back.

There are still many great baseball-only threads, about stats, history, player moves, etc. I do think a lot of people don't like the religion/race/politics/ethics discussions, and I can see that. And, you can obviously do whatever the hell you want to, but it seems more logical just to stay off these threads. A lot of folks do that with steroids threads.

I second redrobin on that -- there was an extended period of time when I didn't post much because I was basically burned out by steroid threads, and nothing blew up new posters like the old "Backlasher threads". That said, I've found that the vast majority of posters here are extremely intelligent, articulate and engaging people and I enjoy reading conversations about a wide variety of non-baseball topics. IMO, it's a plus that people here see baseball as an interesting/integral part of a larger world and not just some throwaway hobby.

And FWIW, I like posts like this. I'm a Piazza fan, and there's no way I'd have come across this article on my own. He's an interesting guy, and more interesting to me now than before I saw this article.

Seriously, Joey. I have an extremely strong position on these matters and usually avoid the discussion anyway. It's not that hard if you try.

Your persecution complex is showing. You honestly think that an in-depth discussion of Muslim faith by a practicing ballplayer wouldn't be linked at BTF?

There haven't been a lot of threads about Sammy Khalifa. I'm just saying...

I think this is one of those threads where everyone thinks they know what someone else is trying to say, but is actually wrong.

I apologize for the interruption. You can resume arguing past each other.

Actually it seems like the only time I see Joey B is in threads like these.

I continue to hold out a little hope that one day eventually, this site will go back to being a serious site that discusses baseball the way it once was

Any particular facet of the game that interests you? Yeah, there hasn't been much sabermetric talk lately, but there's been some. True, Tango has left and I think some of his fans post more elsewhere nowadays.

I suppose part of it may be that there are more links to mainstream media places than blogs or something interesting. I'm partly to blame for that. I try to be the keeper of the flame and link THT and similar places when I find something interesting. But I get lazy sometimes. But you know what? If something floats your boat you or any other poster can submit a thread now. There are some good writers with team specific blogs that I rarely read like Aaron Gleeman but I'm sure he must sometimes put something out there linkworthy and discussionworthy. If you see it, let the site know.

"There are still many great baseball-only threads, about stats, history, player moves, etc. I do think a lot of people don't like the religion/race/politics/ethics discussions, and I can see that. And, you can obviously do whatever the hell you want to, but it seems more logical just to stay off these threads. A lot of folks do that with steroids threads."

I think the steroid threads have done more to damage the reasonable and intelligent discourse on this site than all the religion/race/politics/ethics threads combined.

Actually it seems like the only time I see Joey B. is in threads like these.

You need to look a little harder.

I don't take part much in the Game Chatters and the Hall of Merit discussions, but I love the game and join in on plenty of threads that are actually related to the game. And it certainly doesn't have to be all heavy-duty math and sabermetrics all the time.

In the last couple of days or so, I distinctly remember commenting on Barry Zito, Tony LaRussa's leaving Albert Pujols stranded on the bench, A-Rod's upcoming contract situation, and I gave my opinion that Bud Selig actually has a real job (in contrast to some people's belief that he sits around and does nothing all day long).

Exactly what "witnessing" means is highly contested and contestable. The Catholic church, to take one major group of Christians, holds that evangelizing to others is a minor part of the Christian life, and focuses much more on social justice, ritual practice, and orthodox theology. Many denominations hold that "witnessing" is best done through good acts, and attempts at conversion are usually a waste of time that could be spent doing god's work helping the needy, or the like.

To claim that "witnessing" must mean what a certain group of Anglo-American evangelicals took it to mean in the 19th and 20th centuries is not at all a given, and that it must hold pride of place in the Christian life is a particular interpretation of the Bible which is contested by large numbers of Christians throughout the world.

Matt: I don't think that's quite right. Maybe, to put it differently, what we RCs believe is that evangelization is not simply "preaching" the Good News, but living it and committing oneself and the Church to justice, liturgy, and other practices. (And it goes without saying that there's a gap in commitment to those things are their achievement.) Pope JP II's writings are replete with references to, definitions of, and practices associated with "the New Evangelization," which, he pointed out, must begin among Christians themselves. (IOW: Evangelization for Catholics is not a one-off thing as it came seem for evangelicals; Christians should constantly be "re-evangelizing" themselves.)

I don't want to be approached by a stranger advocating his views on....socialized medicine...

Don't worry. Your views on the issue are already clear.

Am I drunk, or did we just have an article about ballplayers who practice Santeria on here like two weeks ago?

Miguel Cabrera, wasn't it? Or maybe I'm drunk.

Duh ... He retired like 2 weeks ago, & already I've forgotten Chris Truby.

Maybe, to put it differently, what we RCs

Rookie cards?

Royal Crowns.

Royal Crowns.

That was actually my first thought (my all-time favorite cola [as far as cokes per se go, nothing even approaches red cream soda, of course] when I could drink carbonated beverages, albeit mostly because of fond memories of its '70s peak period), but I wasn't sure if anyone north of the Mason-Dixon line would have any idea what I was referring to ...

A local soccer team (under 12s I think) that used to compete against my brother here in the SF Bay Area was sponsored by RC Cola. They were called the RC Cola Wolves. The year was approximately 1985. It's possible the coach worked for the company or something. They weren't any type of all-star team.

I've only had RC a few times, but I agree that it's superior to Coke and Pepsi (although I do love Coke's simplified new design).

RC was the bomb, as I believe the young people say these days, back when they used cane sugar as the sweetener. Hell, for that matter, Tab was fantastic back before the Illuminati conspired to rid the world of cyclamates. (If cyclamates still existed, I would probably weigh 100 lbs less. It might also help if there were no such thing as cheese.)

I don't think I have seen RC Cola anywhere but Shea Stadium.

Huh. I really thought it was more or less a purely Southern beverage.

Ah, but can you get Moonpies at Shea? I doubt it.

Of course, I'm still reeling from a Mr Pibb sighting last week while vacationing down in the Fla panhandle ...

RC was the bomb, as I believe the young people say these days

I think they said that about 7 years ago. Then again, I am not a young person, so I have no idea.

RC Cola is the king of colas.

I'm in Montgomery, where I have no doubt that the young people are at least 7 years behind the times.

My dad worked for RC towaard the end of his career. He also worked for Coke and Pepsi. It was sort of like Joe McEwing playing the string out at Pawtucket.

Amusingly enough, I'm drinking a Diet RC right now.

The local supermarket only stocks two boxes a week, so you have to jump right on that if you want to get any.

Dude, RC cola is my fav. And I've lived in Seattle my whole life...=) Mason-Dixon line...sheesh.

RC= Roman Catholic

Dude, RC cola is my fav. And I've lived in Seattle my whole life...=) Mason-Dixon line...sheesh.

Well, as alluded to above, if you ain't had an RC with a Moonpie, you ain't had an RC, period.

besides, there aren't that many athiests out there, really.

and as piazza will tell you, there are no atheists in foxholes. and by that i'm implying that he's gay.

A person's faith should be a private matter, imho.

Don't ask, don't tell.

RC used to be the cola choice at all the Arby's locations.

I don't think that's quite right. Maybe, to put it differently, what we RCs believe is that evangelization is not simply "preaching" the Good News, but living it and committing oneself and the Church to justice, liturgy, and other practices. (And it goes without saying that there's a gap in commitment to those things are their achievement.) Pope JP II's writings are replete with references to, definitions of, and practices associated with "the New Evangelization," which, he pointed out, must begin among Christians themselves. (IOW: Evangelization for Catholics is not a one-off thing as it came seem for evangelicals; Christians should constantly be "re-evangelizing" themselves.)

JC - Yes, that's a much better, more informed way of putting it. I was using the word "evangelizing" in context to refer only to the "new evangelism," but yours is a much better articulation of the idea.

I think my claim that the evangelism practiced by certain christians who identify as "evangelical" is quite distinct from that practiced by millions of other Christians, and as such that the pride of place of that evangelism in the Christian life is not fixed and authoritative in the way that Marty and others suggested, still basically holds under your better articulation of Catholic doctrine.

They weren't any type of all-star team.

Burn!

Cheerwine!

I agree, Matt.

And I like Coke best.

To be honest, I think that the deterioration of the site that's been going on over the last three years or so because of garbage like this has chased a lot of people away for good. I can actually remember when this really was a great baseball discussion site. But it's been this way for so long now that I do sometimes think it's never going back.

Joey, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't I see you in a lot of the steroids threads? In fact, and again correct me if I'm wrong, we're usually on the same side in those.

To me, unless you're in a purely technical or abstract statistical thread, I don't see how "politics" in the broader sense of the word can ever be kept of of most of these discussions. Steroids is a purely political issue, since at its heart it goes to your own personal definition of the nature of sport, which has little to do with statistics. And innumerable threads on "who's the greatest this or that" have to deal with non-statistical issues like race and demographics (since they affect the talent pool so dramatically) if they want to convince anyone beyond the SABR choir. It's the clash of competing value systems, and the occasional synthesis or common ground that we miraculously sometimes arrive at, that makes most of these threads interesting. I'm not a big fan of the flame wars, but even those are OK in very small doses.

And for those who love the Baseball Research Journal style articles, there are plenty of those, too. So what's there to complain about?

It's funny, Quilvio. Ever since I reread my post I half-expected someone that played for the RC Cola Wolves team to show up here and contradict what really is a very hazy memory of something that involved my brother more than 20 years ago.

As I recall they used to beat my bro's team more often than not. Now if we could only get retrosheet on the case.

My kind of thread. Half about matters of the soul, half about matters of the gullet.

Why shouldn't religious beliefs be exposed to the same kind of public discourse that other ideas are? Every single day Bill O'Reilly and Al Franken, the NYT and WSJ opinion pages, blogs/websites , political activists, and lots of other people and media organs bomard us with opinions designed to challenge our beliefs. Evangalists do it too, of course. They are constantly either querying our policies, ideas, or beliefs of some sort. Liberalism is a core belief for many people, and we should query that because it has policy implications. But then so does religious faith, of course. Religious faith, in fact, potentially, has much broader implications for public policy and way-of-life issues than virtually any belief held by a large subset of Americans (or any democratic country).

I'm not a person with a religious faith (though I have had a ferocious one in the past), and growing up as the Evangelical movement was blossoming, I witnessed firsthand in my home town how religious-based organizations can tear apart school boards and local government. But people in the community didn't query the officials (or voters, for that matter) about their religious beliefs and how those beliefs could affect school and township policy. And when the district started banning books and programs for overtly religious reasons (including, in one instance, elimating "Pumsey the Dragon"---a self-esteem puppet because members of the board thought it was a thinly disguised anti-religious symbol), there was little sense of how it had come to pass because no one had asked questions about how religious faith would affect policy.

Taken to the personal level, it's long been thought that evangelicals turned out by the pewful for Bush, despite the fact that in many ways his policies and items in his record were and are obviously contradictory to numerous New Testament ideas. Is it possible that a more open discussion of faith and its implications could have helped voters understand Bush The Candidate better?

Think about it environmentally. A woman in our community (not the same community mentioned before) wrote in to our local yokel recently saying that global warming wasn't an issue for her because Jesus was coming back soon. She'd keep doing whatever environmentally questionable things she wanted since she didn't feel she had to answer to anyone but the Lord. Extreme? Sure. But it's not exactly a big leap from revelation to global warming and, especially for the deeply faithful, and she's not the only person who goes to her church. More important, a willingness to have a discussion with this person (and likeminded individuals) might support better environmental practices at the household level. But if there's no talking about faith....

Even in everyday conversation... I worked with a woman who told me that Yoda is an agent of the devil because he came from outer space, and the bible told her that things from outer space were of the devil. This is wacko on a lot of fronts, but she was serious, and she was an otherwise normal person pyschologically (as best i could tell). But I can't query that because it's a core belief? If she'd told me Bill Clinton was a martian, I could query that, but not whether a puppet is of the devil?

Why shouldn't it be OK to ask people why they believe things? Why shouldn't there be public discussion of faith and its implications for everyone?

Wait a minute. JC hangs with these guys?

But to bring it back to TFA (sorry, Father) ... that was a very good interview - Piazza comes off as a thoughtful, articulate person. He's first ballplayer I've ever heard of to cite Freud, anyway. It's almost as though his religious faith supervenes on his vocation as a ballplayer.

Really liked this sentiment (via Gen. George S. Patton, of all people): "No, I don't pray for victory. I pray for the Lord to help me do my best."

And finally ... "there are people sometimes that try to hurt you or physically try to do things to you which aren't really sportsmanlike." Hmmm ... have anyone in particular in mind, Mike?

No persecution complex at all my friend. I'm not a Christian myself, nor a devotee of organization religion at all. But I do believe in freedom of religion, and I don't hold Christians in contempt the way so many of the loudmouths here do.

In that case, this is the exact kind of story you should want to see here. This isn't a piece where an athlete is justifying his bigotry through his religious beliefs, but one where he simply espouses how his belief system is a positive part of his life as a ballplayer. Frankly, I can't see how any Primate could find his opinions offensive or worthy of mockery. And what do you know, none have.

I have been with you on those rather predictable religious threads that started with derisive remarks directed at ALL who hold religious beliefs. But honestly, as someone who follows these threads, well not religiously but closely, the tone of these types of threads on this site has improved considerably in the last six months.

I'm glad Repoz posted this and I echo the thoughts about Piazza that Softball made in 45.

I worked with a woman who told me that Yoda is an agent of the devil because he came from outer space ...

Turn away from the dark side!

Joey, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't I see you in a lot of the steroids threads? In fact, and again correct me if I'm wrong, we're usually on the same side in those.

I do believe that we more or less take the same viewpoint on the steroids issue, and yeah, I've jumped in there. My personal viewpoint is that PDAs have had a huge direct impact on the game, especially in the last ten years or so, so to me that is a legitimate baseball subject. I don't see how Mike Piazza's personal religious views are a legitimate baseball topic, and I don't think they have any impact on the game whatsoever, nor do they impact anyone's life. His personal views on steroids aren't especially significant, and it was rather cute of Repoz to cleverly use that as the "hook" in order to justify posting this silliness here.

To be honest though, I'm kind of tiring of the steroids issue at this point. I've resigned myself to the fact that Bonds is unfortunately going to break the record, so I've decided to just accept it and root hard for Alex Rodriguez to eventually take it away from him, and with luck just maybe enough of the BBWAA will keep him out of the Hall, though I think he'll eventually get in. Also, the more time that drags on, the less likely it looks to me that he's going to receive the indictments I was hoping for. And at least baseball has finally seriously addressed this issue by putting in a policy with some teeth.

I think that just about everything that can be said by both sides of the issue has been said at this point, and ne'er the twain shall meet. It's not as though I'm going to come up with something that someone hasn't said already.

PDAs have had a huge direct impact on the game,

Sorry, I realize that this was entirely a typo and I understood what you meant to say, but imagining the PDA scenario gave me a good laugh.

"Pedroia, stop synching your laptop address book with your Blackberry address book and get in the batting cage!!!"

Yes, that is indeed a rather embarrassing typo! I of course did mean PEDs, though PDAs have no doubt had a huge impact on the ability of players to communicate with their friends and families.

Q. Why are atheism rates so high in Europe compared to the U.S? Just wondering what the general belief on why such huge differences in the belief systems of European people vs. US...

And when the district started banning books and programs for overtly religious reasons (including, in one instance, elimating "Pumsey the Dragon"---a self-esteem puppet because members of the board thought it was a thinly disguised anti-religious symbol), there was little sense of how it had come to pass because no one had asked questions about how religious faith would affect policy

I think you underestimate their powers to see through this evil. "Pumsey the Dragon" is an anagram for "To humpy deranges". And that kind of promiscuity is just not allowed there!

Q. Why are atheism rates so high in Europe compared to the U.S?

We're recovering communists...

Eh, no, the main churches in Europe has traditionally been government-sanctioned and/or controlled. It's hard to believe in the establishment.

I don't see how Mike Piazza's personal religious views are a legitimate baseball topic, and I don't think they have any impact on the game whatsoever, nor do they impact anyone's life. His personal views on steroids aren't especially significant, and it was rather cute of Repoz to cleverly use that as the "hook" in order to justify posting this silliness here.

The demented Repoz is one of the highlights of BTF, so I'll never knock him for putting up whatever he wants, since no matter what it is he always gives it a good lead-in. But yeah, I don't care what Piazza's religious beliefs, sexual preferences, or even his views on steroids are, either.

PDAs have had a huge direct impact on the game,

Sorry, I realize that this was entirely a typo and I understood what you meant to say, but imagining the PDA scenario gave me a good laugh.

"Pedroia, stop synching your laptop address book with your Blackberry address book and get in the batting cage!!!"

See, I took the PDA reference a different way. And seeing how this was a Piazza article...

Eh, no, the main churches in Europe has traditionally been government-sanctioned and/or controlled. It's hard to believe in the establishment.

Since it seems the reverse is true under this administration it explains why so many people find it hard to believe them.

Why shouldn't it be OK to ask people why they believe things? Why shouldn't there be public discussion of faith and its implications for everyone?

I don't have a problem with a public discussion of faith, or questioning people about the source of their beliefs. I do have some discomfort with a total stranger coming up to me on the street and engaging me directly in such a conversation. I have more of a problem when the goal isn't true discourse, but a one-sided "conversation" about how I'd better follow the one, true path if I don't want to burn in a lake of fire.

I don't consider that to be particularly outrageous, or anti-religious, or even anti-Christianity.

Going back as far as my Grandparents and the people they can remember religion in the UK has never been very overt, it's always had the same general position as (after)life insurance. You buy house insurance in case of fire, you go to church in case you die. Sing the hymns have a chat with vicar and gossip with the neighbors.

For a chunk of history The Church was where the spare sons of middle class / gentry would end up. Not because of a burning desire to spread the faith but more of a relaxing career as an amateur scientist / historian / author in a nice country setting that came with a free cottage. E.g. an awful lot of the output of the British Geological Society in the 19th century was from country vicars.

The firebrands have always been in the minority and were treated as the weird uncle that embarasses everybody at family reunions.

Here it likely helps that since the time of Henry the VIII the CofE has been the Government Department of Afterlife Affairs. Governments never do anything efficiently...

Why are atheism rates so high in Europe compared to the U.S?

Are atheism rates higher in Europe?

There's definitely a strong undercurrent of lack of religion representing a defect of morality in this country. It seems like the very worst thing you can be in terms of running for political office is a confirmed atheist; there was a recent poll that had atheists coming in ahead of members of several different specific races or religion as "least likely to elect."

Are atheism rates higher in Europe?

All I've read or heard seems to point in that direction, but then again, I haven't looked into it THAT much.

http://humaniststudies.org/enews/?id=281&article=0

It seems like the very worst thing you can be in terms of running for political office is a confirmed atheist;
I always wonder why if (guessing here) 5% of the US population is non-believer, why there aren't 25 or so congressmen that are atheist. There's probably a bunch of closet atheists there that won't "come out" for fear for their political life. Why people can't accept atheism as a "faith" is beyond me.

After I retire from being a GM, I'll run on a Libertarian/Atheist ticket. Anyone with me? Oh god, why am I talking religion....so anyway, back to zambrano...

After I retire from being a GM, I'll run on a Libertarian/Atheist ticket. Anyone with me?

No, but if you pledge yourself to the Church of Jeter....

I always wonder why if (guessing here) 5% of the US population is non-believer, why there aren't 25 or so congressmen that are atheist.

If they all moved close to each other, maybe there would be.

Certain politicians give more lip service to God than others. I don't think Nancy Pelosi spends a lot of time espousing her Christianity.

So you don't wannabe like chad bradford in every way?

Due to small overall numbers, I don't think that we atheists form the near majority of voters in any voting district. I could be wrong though.

There's probably a bunch of closet atheists there that won't "come out" for fear for their political life.

While I don't know him personally, I wouldn't be surprised if my congressman, Barney Frank, were atheist.

There's definitely a strong undercurrent of lack of religion representing a defect of morality in this country

I'd think it would work the other way.

And this is from a theist.

I agree about a Christian's need to proselityze, but it doesn't do much good if you don't live the faith. Otherwise we fall into a category Jesus' despised about the Pharisees...

"So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach"--Matthew 23:3

However, if you're going to preach: "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."--Matthew 7:12

In other words, respect the other person's feelings and viewpoints. If they don't want to hear about it then that is their absolute, undeniable, irrevocable right. To deprive them of that right is to disown everything you claim to stand for. To look down on them for their decision likewise.

A Christian has no right to a listening ear. It's a privilege that granted to you and should be viewed accordingly. In John 6:66 Jesus said something taken the wrong way, hence "From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him."

He didn't chase after them, he didn't force them to stay, he didn't berate them. He let them go. Jesus once quoted Hosea 6:6: "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings."

In other words, if it isn't from the heart and not for the right reasons (being coerced, trying to please others "Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ"--Galatians 1:10) then any acts of religious devotion have no value in God's eyes.

If you try to obligate/pressure somebody to be a Christian, both your's and their's 'Christian works' are meaningless--so why bother trying to pressure another to follow your course?

Best Regards

John

I think Crosby was talking about perceptions, John, not reality. Although I could be wrong about that.

I'm not real good with reality Joe, you know that.

Best Regards

John