I’m going to punt this over to the Game Room, since it’s about sports, more or less.
twickster, MPSIMS moderator
It may have started out about sports, but it has very little to do with sports now.
No, I didn’t. I said it was fair to ask the question, not that the athletes should be "made’ to do anything.
You don’t know what “fairness” means? Try a dictionary.
But it has nothing to do with SPORTS.
The job of the sports journalist is to provide information to the sports fan. You may be personally very concerned about whether Larry Linebacker’s religious convictions are correct, but 99.9% of fans frankly don’t give a shit. The sports journalist who spent his time on interminable, boring arguments over theism would bore his audience, and so would fail in his job.
The first and foremost thing sports fans care about is the score. They want to know who’s winning, who’s losing, why they won or lost, and what new developments may determine who wins or loses in the future. Roy Halladay might be traded? That’s interesting, because it affects the fortunes of his current team, his future team, and the teams that compete against them. Roy Halladay is an Episcopalian who says an Our Father after every 6-4-3? Doesn’t affect the score, so I as a Blue Jays fan don’t care. (In fact, I’ve no idea what Roy Halladay’s religious beliefs are, and I’m a huge fan.)
Any sports fan who’s been following sports for more than a week dismisses the God commentary as meaningless fluff. It doesn’t really affect the score - even devoutly religious sports fans understand that - so they don’t care.
So if Mr. Sports Journalist starts in on a story nobody cares about, nobody will read/listen, and he’s gonna lose his job. And there’s the answer to the question posed in the OP. You’re welcome.
After Mickey Mantle’s liver transplant, one of the doctors remarked to the assembled medical and sports reporters that the same donor had also provided a heart, both kidneys, and a few other organs.*
One of the reporters asked if it would be possible to interview this donor.
The doctor did a double-take, and finally replied, “You’re one of the sports reporters, aren’t you?”
*I forget the exact list, but it definitely included organs that could only be donated post-mortem.
No, I want you to explain it. I don’t think “fairness” is quite so easily dispatched (I don’t think you think so either). You made the assertion, now justify it.
Thanks in advance.
But! If you don’t feel like it, I will take this instead: “I, Diogenes the Cynic, have two sets of standards for when people make controversial assertion: a rigorous one I demand of everyone else and a lenient, self-serving one I use for me.”
How bout them Colts?
No, no. How 'bout them Saints. Their fans have taken to dressing up in glittering gold bishop and nun outfits, it’s awesome.
And if this jerkwad “god” person is making the 49ers lose, even with Singletary’s hugs-ass cross draped around his neck, then I’m never going to church again, ever.
Never mind that I’m an atheist.
So, when an athelete yells “Hi. Mom,” is a reporter supposed to take that as an open invitation to pry into the athlete’s relationship ith his family, and to ask probing questions about his mother?
Put me down as a theist who goes to Mass every Sunday, and who still rolls his eyes a bit when a Kurt Warner gives God all the credit for for him winning a game, and was annoyed Muhammad Ali gave long prepared speeches in praise of Allah and Elijah Muhammad.
But the standard God talk isn’t worth pursuing, any more than the standard sports interview phrases are. Reporters don’t take the God talk any more seriously than they take the “We have to play these games one at a time” cliché.
When Derek Jeter says “We have to take each game one at a time,” do you expect reporters to probe deeper, and ask, “But Derek, isn’t it really better to take games two or three at a time?”
My favorite is after a boxer nearly killed his opponent he thanks Jesus for his win. Jesus apparently is a big boxing fan.
What I think would be funny is after Kurt Warner praises God for assisting with the winning touchdown, the reporter then goes to Brian Urlacher and says, “Brian, Kurt Warner says God made you lose the game; your comments?”
Thanking God has to be one of the most self serving egotistical statements an athlete can make.
“Who was responsible for your win?”
“Just me and the magical man upstairs. He made it possible for me to be my best. Me-Best-God. Thank you magic man.”
It would be nice to hear for a change something like
“Would you like to thank God for your win?”
“Um, no. But I would like to thank some honest to goodness flesh-n-blood people that actually were responsible. My coaches, my teammates, my family, my trainer, etc. etc.”
Congratulations, you’ve just rescued this thread from being a total pointless waste of electrons.
Or, as the kids say, Ell Oh Ell.
I am a sports journalist, and an atheist. I’d never think to ask an athlete about this, unless it were specifically a story about religion and sports. I’d also never print a quote like that in a sports story. It’s just not relevant to a game article.
Any definition in the dictionary will work, but how about this – it’s a reasonable question conforming to the dictates of the reporter’s job, and following logically from the players’ own statements. The reporter’s job is to ask about the game. It’s a follow up question to a statement about the game. It’s not off-topic or unreasonable or “unfair.”
And before you start, I’m not going to get into an endless game of further defining each new word or explanation. You know what “fair” means in the context in which I used it.
Your “double-standard” is moronic because I never said the player should be asked to define “God,” only to elaborate on how “God” specifically influenced the physics of a ball game.
If a player said that invisible elves helped then win, you don’t think it would be “fair” to ask for details?
Obviously, you don’t actually have any interest in that question, or in this topic, you’re just trying (and failing) to score some kind of obscure point against me.
I think it is fair to say that the vast, vast majority of athletes would thank God or Jesus not for personally intervening in the game, but for being a source of emotional/spiritual strength that motivated the person or team to work hard and excel.
I think it is comparable to an athlete thanking one’s spouse, parents, or kids after a victory. That doesn’t mean that ma and pa were literally on the football field or in the boxing ring and made the victory happen. Asking about God’s actions make about as much sense as a journalist asking, “Oh yeah? How did your kids ACTUALLY help you throw that touchdown pass? They’re only 4 and 8 years old! Would you REALLY have us believe you know so little about football that you can be coached by gradeschoolers?!?”
And Kimmy_Gibbler, that is one of the poorest requests for a cite that I have seen on these boards. DtC essentially expressed an opinion, and asking for a factual authority on a matter of opinion indicates to me that either you don’t understand what the term “cite” means here, or it is a very lazy debating technique in which you are seeking to discredit DtC’s argument without actually addressing anything he has said.
You gotta cite for that? What the hell does “fair” mean, anyway? And how do we know you actually “think” that, hmmm?
I won’t answer your question until I get a cite for it.
Atheists get frozen out on sports teams. that is why they don’t come out very often. Sports discrimination against atheists is a problem. I believe I have seen 2 stories on TV about it.
It kind of makes sense though.
Athletes by nature aren’t your most intelligent schooled people. Math, science, and your various intellectual pursuits are not what got them to where they are today. So it kind of makes sense that they fall back onto the supernatural to explain the world around them.
I was amazed by how much superstition there is in professional sports. Jinxes, good luck routines, pitchers magical power necklaces, etc.
Thanking a super being for for special powers (or inspirational support) fits in well with their persona.