Saturday, May 4, 2013

Thanks, but "no THANKS"...not if it's to God, anyway.

Do you think THIS is fair?  A student in Texas's track team won a big race, put his hand "near his ear and pointed to God in thanks".. and the whole team was disqualified because of the gesture.  The link is very short, please take a look.  It was a HUGE win and a HUGE and crushing blow for the team and the school when they were disqualified.

What kinds of gestures at the finish line in sports have you seen that would even warrant a law that you can't have any excessive gesturing in celebration?   Can you still spike a ball?   Maybe if the kid had put both hands up, though that's a cool show of elation on a win, right?  This kid just put his hand 'near his ear and pointed up'!

I don't think this was an anti-God law, though this might be the way secularists are going to get their way once and for all..slowly but surely.....It's just that I think it's NUTS and I'm wondering what you've ever seen in sports that warrants a law prohibiting any physical celebration...........
Will this gesture be banned?   Or are his arms low enough?    GeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeZ.
Thanks.

47 comments:

Always On Watch said...

Such gestures or other expressions of faith are not unusual in the NFL or in MLB. Any teams disqualified?

Joe Conservative said...

Goobermint uber alles!

Robert Sinclair said...

What should have happened is that everyone present grab hold of the official, rip his body to shreds, and stomp his remains into mincemeat. Other officials in the future would think carefully before making stupid decisions.

And it would be a nice first step toward taking back our country.

Texas had the opportunity to lead on this issue, and they let it pass them by. That's the saddest part of the whole story.

Dave Miller said...

It's both fair and stupid.

Fair because it is a state rule that each team and athlete should have benn made aware of by their coach.

Stupid because its dumb policy which leads to situations like this.

AOW, many college teams lost touchdowns on celebrations just like this last year and the NFL, sometimes known as the No Fun League has also instituted a no celebration policy after touchdowns.

Ducky's here said...

The ruling is excessive and more than a little absurd. I'm surprised it happened in Texas of all places.

It's also more than a little foolish to believe the divine is involved in sporting events but the gesture is hardly a reason to penalize the team.

It looks absolutely asinine when a ball player points to the sky after a home run. Either cut out the nonsense or point to the sky after a double play.

conservativesonfire said...

We can't celebrate winning. It's "unfair" to the loosers. Equality and fairness will be achieved when we are all losers.

Mustang said...

I think that all laws, rules, and regulations must demonstrate a compelling interest within society. If the compelling interest was to restrict religious demonstrations, which is a right guaranteed to us under the Constitution (free expression), then it would appear to me that the law, rule, or regulation violates the rights of citizens. How is this particular expression offensive, while burning an American flag acceptable? How is raising a hand to one’s ear and then toward the sky invasive, while flipping a police officer the bird suitable “free expression?”

sue hanes said...


Z - This is a tough one. In the link the rule clearly states no hand gestures. But it doesn't seem fair to eliminate the team because of a small gesture like pointing to heaven.

Z said...

Mustang asks the question for which I blogged this.

As I said in the post, it's THE LAW, we all get that; my point is WHY IS IT THE LAW?

I asked if any of you have seen really egregious, upsetting, somehow crowd-threatening gestures that would cause a law like this.

I do know that spiking the ball isn't allowed; had one hit somebody? (by the way, what was more fun and exciting at a TD then when a guy spiked the ball in jubilation?)

And could someone raising their hand (It wasn't raised in this case, as I said in my post, he held his hand by his ear and pointed to God, so I'm thinking the guy knew the rules but who'd think THIS was a problem??) even cause an injury or insult to the crowd by doing so?
Most religious types feel our strength is largely from God; something wrong in acknowledging that in a public way?

Is it anti faith or physically dangerous to someone watching?
WHAT COULD CAUSE THE LAW?


Steve American Patriot said...

Mr. Barack “I want to help the Middle Class” Obama’s spends $7 million on his last Hawaii vacation! Is this a slap in the face and an insult to America’s struggling middle class? Or am I being to harsh?
This spending maniac doesńt care one bit about America and the struggling middle class people at all. He just says whatever he wants to in order to get re-elected. This buffoon and his power grabbing Wookie care about is all the freebies that come with the job. It just boggles the mind why anyone would vote for this team of leech’s.

Dave Miller said...

Z, most of these rules have arisen out of a perceived need to limit taunting. Rather than give officials the discretion to interpret events, one persons taunting is another's semi-private celebration, they have largely adopted a one size fits all approach.

That way no official gets sues for unequal imposition of the rule.

Sam Huntington said...

It has been said that the American people are much like the frog floating in a pot of water that never seems to notice an increase in the temperature of the water until it is boiling —and it is too late to do anything about it. Those of us who are complaining about such things as this rule have noticed that the temperature of the water is changing. We are alarmed, and we want to do something about it. The soothing “voices of reason” seek only to convince us we are not in danger. Nothing could be further from the truth.

And yet, as Robert suggested above, no one seems inclined to do anything about this violation of our human right of free expression. If Mr. Miller’s claim is true, we are a sorry people. Limiting free expression is no solution to bullying. And let us note that the biggest bully of all is “government.”

Pris said...

This is just another example of political correctness gone mad, and idiotic not to allow individual exuberance.

I still remember Jesus Alou crossing his bat on home plate three times when he came up to the plate, and John Roseboro (the catcher)saying to him, "why not leave God alone, and just play ball?" I thought that scenario was amusing.

I myself am a bowler, and if I get a string of strikes I yell, "thanks to the bowling Gods!" It's all in fun, and everyone chuckles.

If I pick up a tough split, I take a bow. It's all tongue in cheek though and it's obvious I'm having fun.

We are all individuals, and behave as such. Yes I can be silly, but that's me. Ummmm not exactly consistent with the ridiculous collective crap or PC.

So now there are rules in professional sports, to interfere with players as individuals? Pretty soon the fun and exuberance, will die off just as anything which offends someone.

I say be yourself and to hell with the creeps who can't join in with fun, or understand why some choose to thank God for their good fortune. One size will never fit all, so deal with it!

Pris said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Constitutional Insurgent said...

I'm as secular as they come, where it regards official positions, but this is ridiculous...in the same vein as the other asinine 'zero tolerance' rules we have allowed to be passed in our school system.

If an athlete wants to appreciate a deity [though I'm not sure why God cares about sporting events], I see no harm, as long as their not disrupting the event.

Ed Bonderenka said...

God may not help teams, but he does help people.
That rule is typical of those in the NFL to prevent showboating, which is not a sportsman like virtue.
This guy was obviusly engaging in humility, which is.
But idiots and legalism abound.
You expect sound judgement from those you pay to judge an event.

FreeThinke said...

Well what about THIS?

Timothy Richard "Tim" Tebow (pron.: /ˈtiːboʊ/; born August 14, 1987) is an American football player. He is an unrestricted free agent who has previously played quarterback for both the New York Jets and Denver Broncos.

He played college football for the University of Florida, winning the Heisman Trophy in 2007 and appearing on BCS National Championship-winning teams in the 2006 and 2008 seasons. Tebow was chosen by the Denver Broncos in first round of the 2010 NFL Draft.

Tebow is a dual-threat quarterback, adept at both rushing and passing. He chose to attend the University of Florida, where he played for the Florida Gators football team. Tebow became the Gators' starting quarterback during the 2007 season when he became the first college sophomore to win the Heisman Trophy.[1] In 2008, Tebow led Florida to a 13–1 record and its second national championship in three years, and was named the offensive MVP of the national championship game. The Gators again went 13–1 in 2009, his senior year.

At the conclusion of his college career, he held the Southeastern Conference's all-time records in both career passing efficiency and total rushing touchdowns, appearing second and tenth (respectively) in the NCAA record book in these categories.[2]

As a member of the Denver Broncos, he started the last three games of his rookie season and became the team's full-time starting quarterback beginning in the sixth game of 2011. The Broncos were 1–4 before he became the starter, but began winning with him on the field, often coming from behind late in the fourth quarter until they won their first AFC West title and first playoff game since 2005, defeating the Pittsburgh Steelers in overtime.[3]

Despite his successes, Tebow was traded to the New York Jets during the offseason after the Broncos acquired free agent quarterback Peyton Manning.[4]

On April 29, 2013, the Jets released Tebow after drafting quarterback Geno Smith.[5]

Tebow is known for sharing his Christian faith with fans and in clinics, hospitals, market places, schools, and orphanages.[6][7]

Now how do you like THEM apples?

CHEESE-US-H.-KEEEEEEERIST! Don't it make yer blood boil?

If it doesn't, there's something WRONG with ya.

FreeThinke said...

The kicker there is "DEPSPITE HIS SUCCESS," they traded him, then TWO teams dumped him in rapid succession. Two teams that ought to have been damned glad to get him. And now is considerable talents are unemployed.

WHY?

What does this treatment of Tim Tebow SAY about the sorry, sick state state of our NATION?

And the incessant screaming against "ANTI-SEMITISM" rages on, while we blithely IGNORE this spectacular ANTI_CHRISTIAN OUTRAGE.

If this isn't anti-Christian PERSECUTION, I can't imagine what would be? Why aren't WE marching on Washington demanding OUR rights? We are STILL the MAJORITY here. GOD DAMMIT TO HELL!

Z said...

FT, I don't follow much football but I thought Tebow was on a downward slide; i could be wrong.
However, we all saw how his Christian faith was taunted and I've never thought that had zip to do with this latest situation.


Re "taunting"...MY QUESTION'S STILL NOT QUITE GETTING ANSWERED :-)

Can someone give us an example of SUCH TAUNTING in sports that this law needed codifying?
Is spiking a ball SO horrible?
Is cheering with one's arms above one's head at a track finish SO awful?
HOW????

OR, FOLKS...IS THIS MORE OF WHAT WE'RE DOING TO OUR POOR CHILDREN WHEN THEIR TEAMS CAN'T SCORE ANYMORE BECAUSE IT'LL MAKE AMERICAN KIDS COMPETITIVE (as we were raised to be when this country was strong and wonderful, by the way?)??

Today, MANY teams just play 15 minutes and change sides; that way, no poor child feels badly ..
Today, no scores are kept.

I'm not even sure all children teams CAN win...are allowed to, so NOBODY LOSES!!! ??? Is this silly "no spiking the ball" and this Texas law part of THAT???
Just another attempt at bringing America and her people to their knees for having been so good, for having applauded winning, for having won so many competitions with the world, for BEING WINNERS?

Is it that we're so on the downslide as a country ourselves that this is just one small way to raise people not desirous of WINNING?

This is a stretch, probably..but IS IT?


ALSO:I think we should all know that when someone thanks God for a win it's not that the pray-er thought God cared about the win; it's praying for God's strength and the blessings He gives all of us that are nice to thank Him for from time to time, particularly when we're really succeeded.
No, I don't think God cares about football or track.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Claiming that Teebow's removal from the roster is an example of 'anti-Christian bogotry' falls flat in the utter and complete absence of any evidence to that end.

Teebow has always had a throw-release and accuracy problem to overcome, with an NFL worst completion average of 47.9%. The Jets also had a QB roster six deep with Teebow.

Z said...

Cons. True, that's why nobody did say that. 'I've never thought that had zip to do...' is a far cry from "claiming" anything, of course!
You sure do jump on the secular/faith stuff.
you must be absolutely NUTS for Mikey at the Pentagon :-) He so echoes you!

No...I even mentioned that TEbow's not been playing that well :-) But, that the media and others didn't insult his outward show of faith, and being so sure it had absolutely nothing to do with his career, is naive.


Bob said...

This is just another case of little people making decisions, and probably of liberal bed-wetters making rules.

As far as Tim Tebow, he is apparently not a decent pro quarterback. The only religion in the NFL is money, and Tebow's lack of passing skills will not be able to generate wins which translate into money.

Z said...

Bob, you're right.
Why did Tebow get SUCH huge media since he really wasn't SO great? Because of his visible Christian faith?..or???, slamming him about his faith which made him more an icon, or...?

Dave Miller said...

Free, Tebow was released because he cannot deliver a pass accurately to a specific place consistently under pressure from NFL defenses.

He is just unable, after many coaches have tried, to QB at the level needed to be successful in the NFL.

You can be sure if he could perform at the level, he'd have a spot on a team. The owners are businessmen afterall.

Pris said...

Taunting can work either way, depending on who is being taunted. Some folks press if they're taunted, and don't do well, and then there are others who rise to the occasion! They buckle down and focus better.
I'd say most competition is between the ears, if you get my drift.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Z - "...that's why nobody did say that. 'I've never thought that had zip to do...' is a far cry from "claiming" anything, of course!"

Come on Z, you're better than this. Perhaps I should have clarified further, though I didn't think it necessary, but I was referring to Free Thinke's explicit claims of "anti-Christian outrage" and "anti-Christian bigotry". Sans facts.

That you would rebuke my post and not his, though I at least provided a factual basis for Teebow's dismissal...illustrates that lack of objectivity you [at least at times] display when it comes to religion. Since when is a reliance on factual basis naive, but rank speculation not?

Are you now claiming that an industry that cares first and foremost about profit, would decline said profit based on someones 'outward show of faith'?

And Mikey Weinstein....really? Just because I support religious freedom without special privileges.....doesn't put me in his camp, thank you very much.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

"Why did Tebow get SUCH huge media since he really wasn't SO great?"

Teebow got huge media coverage because he was a great college football player, and Heisman Trophy winner. The NFL is a different kind of football, and the field is littered with those who excelled in college, but not the NFL.

Irrespective of Teebow's trademarking of his faith.

Z said...

Const. Insurg...honestly, I didn't read FT's second comment; I figured it was more of the same. I hate to admit it, but it's true.

And, you're probably right; had Tebow been a much better player, I suppose nobody'd care about his outward shows of faith.
I do, however, am sorry for the bad press he got for that and we should all be concerned.

And, I have to admit, CI...had Tebow not been a man of obvious faith, I'd never have heard of him no matter how good a footballer he was. The only stuff I saw on him in the press was insults re that.

re Mikey Weinstein; tell me how you're different. I'm not even 100% against all of what he's doing. When military guys insult the non-Christians, I think that's wrong, and that has been done....not widely, but even a little shouldn't happen.

I thought you were the same way and really didn't mean an insult. I thought you're apparently all for faith as long as it doesn't infringe on others...

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Mikey gets offended at the slightest display of religion. He has some arguments of merit, but he simply takes the crusade too far. He is an extremist, where being one isn't warranted.

IMO, one can fight FOR religious liberty and AGAINST special privileges based solely on objectivity and the Constitutional merits. I do find many arguments from the faithful to be spurious, but I find many of Mikey's to be of the same vein.

Kid said...

I'll bet a muslim replacement would have been allowed/ignored/applauded.

FreeThinke said...

Te material in my first post was lifted straight out of Wikipedia, which I though very obvious. Their article said NOTHING about Tebow's having gone into a slump. I do not follow sports, so I had no idea. I do follow "sociological trends" and implication seemed very clear in the WIKI article that Tebow's overt demonstrations of enthusiasm and reverence for Jesus Christ had been the reason behind what-the article-made-to-seem-like shabby treatment.

Sorry, if I was mistaken. I'll try never to quote Wiki verbatim again.

Elmers Brother said...

... lack of objectivity..

I think Z has always been clear that she's a conservative. As Kierkegaard pointed out, once objectivity becomes the ideal, it's no longer objective.

Z said...

Elbro, I am conservative and very proud of conservatism, but I would also say I'm usually objective.
The liberal friends I know always tell me I'm one of the few conservatives who'll engage in conversation and listen to their points of view and even change my mind on some subjects ...

Also, I think we ALL have a lack of objectivity on some subjects.
don't you?
Kirkeaard was right.



CS.. ..we're pretty much in agreement, but what "special privileges" do you allude to?

My feeling is that the cadets who are Christians ought to just live it as they know it and never say things like "you're going to hell if you don't"...that's not square in ANY situation, military or not.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

As a personal ideal, I disagree with Kierkagaard....objectivity should always be the ideal. Truth finds a more honest home in objectivity than in subjectivity.

And one can be both true to a philosophical tenet and objective......they need not be mutually exclusive.....though in practice often are.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Z - I couldn't agree with you more. Someones religious faith or sexual orientation are none of my business, nor pique my curiosity.

Elmers Brother said...

As a personal ideal, I disagree with Kierkagaard....objectivity should always be the ideal. Truth finds a more honest home in objectivity than in subjectivity.

The question might better be said, Can "objective" truth be found?

One would have to assume the premise that finding the truth can only be found objectively. Kierkegaard didn't disregard objective truth, he found it necessary in science and mathematics for example, but to know objective truths is meaningless unless one does something with them. Then it becomes subjective.

Z of course you try to be objective, but you asked in the post whether this was 'fair'. An objective answer to this question is very difficult to be found, in fact I would venture to say that it may not be found objectively. Any inductive argument suggests truth but does not guarantee it.

Law and Order Teacher said...

Z,
This is proof positive that trying to legislate human behavior is sketchy at best. I don't have a problem with what the kid did. I do have a problem with a kid taunting a fellow competitor.

Having said that the coach should control the behavior of his/her players. I coach high school soccer. I won't allow my players to taunt others. I've told them it's not enough to win. We need to win and lose with class and dignity.

That's my responsibility. I'll accept nothing less.

Elmers Brother said...

from Wikipedia:

Kierkegaard does not advocate for subjectivism in its extreme form (the theory that something is true simply because one believes it to be so), but rather that the objective approach to matters of personal truth cannot shed any light upon that which is most essential to a person's life. Objective truths are concerned with the facts of a person's being, while subjective truths are concerned with a person's way of being. Kierkegaard agrees that objective truths for the study of subjects like mathematics, science, and history are relevant and necessary, but argues that objective truths do not shed any light on a person's inner relationship to existence. At best, these truths can only provide a severely narrowed perspective that has little to do with one's actual experience of life.[65]
While objective truths are final and static, subjective truths are continuing and dynamic. The truth of one's existence is a living, inward, and subjective experience that is always in the process of becoming. The values, morals, and spiritual approaches a person adopts, while not denying the existence of objective truths of those beliefs, can only become truly known when they have been inwardly appropriated through subjective experience. Thus, Kierkegaard criticizes all systematic philosophies which attempt to know life or the truth of existence via theories and objective knowledge about reality. As Kierkegaard claims, human truth is something that is continually occurring, and a human being cannot find truth separate from the subjective experience of one's own existing, defined by the values and fundamental essence that consist of one's way of life.

Z said...

Law and Order...I guess when our kids aren't learning class and dignity, they must be told they can't show ANY emotions about winning...I think that's dreadful, but I understand that class and dignity are lacking more than they have ever been in America; to the point where they're laughed at, frankly.

Did you read my comment above about schools and how they can't score anymore lest the other poor little children feel THEY LOST? Think this could have something to do with that?

I hear you can't even make parents at their kids' games behave with class and dignity, so they kids see real bad behavior. :-(

Law and Order Teacher said...

Z,
I get what you say. I have not been bashful about turning to parents in the stands who are acting like jerks, and letting them have it. I probably offend some but I've never had anyone chew me out and the comments I've had, are from parents who are embarrassed by others' conduct.

I always say to my students/players that "I used to be a cop. Everybody hated me." I can no longer be offended and I really don't care what others think of me.

We need to have the courage to do the right thing. It's too bad that requires a thick skin but I've seen too much and I'm too old to care.

I have a sign in my room that reads, "What's popular isn't always right and what's right isn't always popular."

I try to control my little corner of the world. Hopefully it spreads as the players go out into the world.

Always On Watch said...

Dave,
many college teams lost touchdowns on celebrations just like this last year and the NFL, sometimes known as the No Fun League has also instituted a no celebration policy after touchdowns.

Yes, but small gestures such as the one that Z has posted about?

I know that small gestures occur all the time in the MLB. I am unaware of any penalty for those.

Sam Huntington said...

The law demands far more than enforcement; it demands scholarly inquiry. That was what Z was attempting to do, but what she received was a bunch of mumbo-jumbo about NFL teams, taunting, and other forms of avoidance. I believe she was asking, “What right does any government have to impose such rules on our society, when such rules deny our inalienable right of free expression?” The answer is, “No right at all.” Notice, however, that the people of Texas simply went along with the ruling. They have accepted that this official can penalize someone of exercising their constitutional right. There is something very wrong with people who are so accepting of government will.

Z said...

Always, thanks...exactly right.

And Sam, too..."WHAT RIGHT? WHat made it necessary?"
Something is SO OFF in our world.

Always On Watch said...

Sam,
Notice, however, that the people of Texas simply went along with the ruling. They have accepted that this official can penalize someone of exercising their constitutional right.

What has happened to Texas?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that Texas wasn't a state with such disregard for the Constitution.

I'm reminded of "First They Came." I'm sure that you're familiar with that particular piece.

JonBerg said...

Sam,

"There is something very wrong with people who are so accepting of government will"

I add: ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S TEXAS!
The invasion of the "Lone Star State" must be worse than I thought!

Average American said...

The real sad part is that I'll bet a frigging muslim could have pulled out a prayer rug and spent 10 minutes thanking allah and not a damned thing would have been said.

Lisa said...

I gues it would be ok if he said The Arabic Call to Prayer is the most beautiful sound on Earth"