home
RSS
December 2nd, 2010
10:28 AM ET

Penalized for thanking God?

Editor's Note: CNN Affiliate KOMO brings us this story.

Tumwater beat East Valley 63-27 on Monday night at the Tacoma Dome during the 2A state semifinal game, but a post-touchdown penalty call was a big surprise for the player responsible.

In the second quarter of the game, Tumwater running back Ronnie Hastie scored on a 23-yard run, took a knee in the end zone and briefly pointed to the heavens above.

For that the referee threw a flag, saying it was unsportsmanlike conduct.

Hastie said he's pointed up as a gesture to God after every touchdown he's scored in every game and never had a problem before.

"It's usually one or two seconds long," he said. "It's something I've done as a tradition."

Hastie said he asked the ref why he was penalized, and the ref responded that Hastie wasn't supposed to draw attention to himself.

"That wasn't the point (of the gesture), so I guess I was a little confused," Hastie said. "I do that to give glory to my heavenly father, Jesus. He gives me the strength. He's the one who gives me these abilities in the first place."

Read the full story from CNN Affiliate KOMO.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Belief • Christianity • Religious liberty • Sports

soundoff (169 Responses)
  1. Tim

    This is ABSOLUTELY ridiculous, penalized for praising god? This is crazy!!
    God bless you Ronnie Hastie. Keep praising the lord like the rest of us!!

    December 2, 2010 at 6:26 pm |
    • Joseph Myers

      Great comment, Tim. You tell these heathens.

      December 5, 2010 at 11:27 am |
  2. prophet

    It is Written In Revelations – and i saw no Temple Because Adonai Is It's Temple

    The Prophet Yirimiyahu {jeremiah} talks a lot about that religious observances are not what is important but it is how we treat each other

    December 2, 2010 at 6:09 pm |
  3. prophet

    monks do this, they become aware of God but keep themselves to themselves.

    December 2, 2010 at 6:02 pm |
    • NL

      Does this awareness prompt these monks to follow any rituals, say any prayers, or make any sacrifices? Those, my friend, are the trappings of religion.

      December 2, 2010 at 6:32 pm |
  4. prophet

    absolutely.

    December 2, 2010 at 5:59 pm |
  5. prophet

    Dear Bob,

    i cannot answer that and even this very question was put to Yeshua by some of the people of the time and Yeshua's Reply was He is not a magician and cannot just instruct God to conjure up things at the will of people

    your question is very valid and even i asked the same question, but from God and then He replied. Ask God and He will Reply and you will know

    December 2, 2010 at 5:50 pm |
    • Bob

      I just asked him and I got nothing. Looks like your mental telepathy didn't work.

      December 2, 2010 at 7:46 pm |
  6. prophet

    God is with you there right where you are and you don't need to join a religion anymore to be aware of God

    December 2, 2010 at 5:36 pm |
    • Bob

      I'm not aware of God. I wonder why he favours to show himself to you and not me.

      December 2, 2010 at 5:37 pm |
    • NL

      Can you be 'aware' of God without letting this awareness influence how you behave, which is religion?

      December 2, 2010 at 5:54 pm |
  7. prophet

    some of the strongest Believers in God have been those who were once known as athiests

    December 2, 2010 at 5:33 pm |
    • Bob

      So what?

      December 2, 2010 at 5:36 pm |
    • NL

      Yes, every baby was once an atheist, then most of them were taught by someone to believe in God.

      December 2, 2010 at 5:46 pm |
  8. prophet

    who out there would really like to know God, then why don't you ask Him. God wants you to ask Him for help so that He can Help you.

    i found that a lot of people who say that the don't belive in God belive that God esists but don't want to believe in Him.

    December 2, 2010 at 5:31 pm |
    • Bob

      So, to get God's help to believe in him, you must first believe in him to ask him for his help.

      Wow, you're a genius.

      December 2, 2010 at 5:37 pm |
    • Yeah

      Hmmmm, the answer I always get is, "None of the 'believers' are correct. They all have it wrong. Enjoy your life – live it the best that you can – and don't worry about it."

      December 2, 2010 at 6:42 pm |
  9. Let Us Prey

    Sorry for the wait. I don't cut & paste.

    December 2, 2010 at 4:55 pm |
  10. JT

    How embarrassing to see ball players do this in their continued zeal to proselytize. So, while their invisible/nonexistent all powerful deity was helping him score a silly TD how many children were r@ped and murdered and how many thousands lay on the ground with bloated bellies begging for a handful of rice? How pathetic!

    December 2, 2010 at 2:49 pm |
    • Mike, not me

      Jt, first look up the word proselytize before using it. Second, because you don't understand "evil" don't call it pathetic to the one that does, God. Your statement makes no sense, not to give thanks because something else happen to someone else.

      December 2, 2010 at 3:13 pm |
    • Bob

      @Mike, not me How do you know the God of the bible isn't really Satan and has tricked you. If you're not going to put the actions of any supernatural being into logical question, by what method would you use to determine if you've been duped?

      December 2, 2010 at 3:47 pm |
    • Let Us Prey

      @ Bob

      That 'method' would be called... Faith. With maybe a little Trust mixed in. At outside appearance the mixture is very dangerous, but to people with the right perspective, it's very satisfying.

      December 2, 2010 at 4:21 pm |
    • Mike, not me

      By definition, if it was Satan that parted the Red Sea, lead His people out of Egypt, prophesied to the redeeming plan at the fall, sent His Son to be the perfect penitence to restore us to Him then is he God? That is who I worship, not the depiction of his own self in the fall, the garden, the dessert and revelation. Where does your idea of Satan come from if not the Bible?
      The argument is, that for I as human to say something is unjust is putting myself above God Himself. Where did I get this idea of just and unjust.
      If I look into a tent for a saint bernard and don't see any it is reasonable to believe there is no saint bernard in the tent, but if I look for a noseeums , is it reasonable to believe that because I cannot see them, they are not there?
      I cannot say when it comes to God to human rights what is “evil”. Human to human I can make the best guess possible but God to human I do not have the eyes to see.

      December 2, 2010 at 4:27 pm |
    • Bob

      @Let Us Prey So let me get this straight. You are shown a particular religion and you put your faith and trust into it. How does that mean it's true. I mean, there are lots of religions out there. Don't you owe to to God, your creator, to worship him in the way he desires?

      December 2, 2010 at 4:31 pm |
    • Bob

      @Mike not me You were not there (a classic fundie line), so how do you know it even happened? I mean, there is no archelogical evidence to support the moses story, so what if Satan made it up to trick you? How would you know? I'm asking you "If the bible was a lie, how would you know it's a lie."

      December 2, 2010 at 4:33 pm |
    • Let Us Prey

      @ Bob

      " How does that mean it's true. "

      True for the believer, or true by application of critical reasoning absent the application of any subjective standard?
      There's obviously a huge difference.

      December 2, 2010 at 4:39 pm |
    • Bob

      @Let Us Prey Let me handle them one at a time...

      True for the believer is not a valid standpoint, because it's not reflective on reality. Either it's true or it's not true. A crazy person may believe that he's napoleon, doesn't make it so.

      As for "True by application of critical reasoning absence the application of any subjective standard." The answer is simple. You cannot determine truth without a standard and critical reasoning.

      So while there is a huge difference between them, they are the same in the fact that they are unable to determine truth.

      The fact of the matter is the truth exists whether or not we can concieve of it or not. However, to make claims on something inconcievable is asinine. It's better to say "I do not know", because that's the only honest answer you'll have.

      December 2, 2010 at 4:43 pm |
    • Bob

      @Let Us Prey

      December 2, 2010 at 4:45 pm |
    • Bob

      @Let Us Prey Very good, you actually had me switching off the discussion point. The question isn't the nature of acceptable truth. The statement in context is "How does faith (ie, belief without evidence) translate into truth." The answer of course is that it doesn't. Therefore, if your faith cannot determine the truth and you only have faith that your religion is real, your religion cannot be known to be true.

      December 2, 2010 at 4:47 pm |
    • Let Us Prey

      @ Bob

      The concept of 'truth' has been debated since the inception of modern religious philosophy. I won't bother with the citations, websites, etc., rather just boil it down.

      Arguments that require empirical science to support religious constructs are inherently moot. Science has nothing to do with religion. Of course there are those that would like to think so... the 5K y.o. dino argument, etc. But 'reasonably' speaking, the scientific method cannot, does not, and can't be expected to explain, justify, or otherwise support, religion.

      Religion is inherently in the mind of the individual. It 'exists' there. It cannot be proven or dispelled by anyone but the holder of the belief.

      December 2, 2010 at 4:54 pm |
    • Let Us Prey

      While we're waiting for Bob... Bob?

      It doesn't matter when Jesus was born.. 12/21, 12/25, or the 4th of July. Immaterial. Arguable? Sure. Relevant? No. Advisable to get a consensus? Sure.

      Doesn't matter where the Ark ended up. Would it be nice to know? Sure. Want a piece of it?

      December 2, 2010 at 5:04 pm |
    • Let Us Prey

      .... and this doesn't preclude some religiously-inclined folks needing physical evidence to justify their belief. It's reassuring to see Jesus' face on the shroud – sure. Feels great to walk where he walked ? Absolutely. And if he didn't really walk there, would you feel any differently? Probably not. Maybe a little disappointed, but he walked somewhere, no doubt.

      December 2, 2010 at 5:08 pm |
    • Mike, not me

      Bob I believe it on authority. Jesus quotes the old testament. Do not be scared by the word authority, 99% of what you believe is on authority. I am going to assume you never took the dimensions of Texas but based on authority you believe where the state lines are located.

      Again if you don't believe the Bible, Where do you get this idea of Satan?

      December 2, 2010 at 5:10 pm |
    • Let Us Prey

      ... I think Bob is gone.

      Bye, Bob.

      Me too. TV time. Bye all.

      December 2, 2010 at 5:12 pm |
    • Bob

      @Mike, not me Let me see if I understand what you're saying. You say you believe it on authority. You then go on to say that everyone believes a lot of things on authority that they really don't have knowledge of. Therefore you contend that belief in religion based on authority is rational given everyone else has done it. As an example you provide the dimensions of Texas.

      Your argument is invalid because your comparison isn't correct. While it is true that people do believe the dimensions of Texas based on authority, the conclusions made are easily investigatable by an individual. Drive across Texas and see how many miles you've gone via car being a perfect example.

      With faith however, the facts are not verifyable by any method that we're aware of. It's all well and good that the bible claims Jesus fed 5000 people with a small quanity of fish and bread, but that's all it is, a claim. And if you or others cannot verify a claim, it's use as proof for something is nil.

      December 2, 2010 at 5:18 pm |
    • Bob

      @Let Us Prey You wrote: "The concept of 'truth' has been debated since the inception of modern religious philosophy."

      The crux of this discussion is if faith is a reasonable method to determine what is an isn't true. You attempt to muddy the waters by saying "Philosophy has been arguing the meaning of truth for blah blah blah." Now we're into a semantics game. I'm not having it, so let me be totally clear.

      Given that faith is subjective to the individual and based on their own interpreations of what their faith is, it's impossible for it to be a reliable tool to determine what is in fact, despite our perceptions, the reality of the situation.

      I ask then given that faith is personal, biased, unreliable and subjective to situations in the persons life, how do you justify your statement that faith and trust are a valid method to determine that your faith is correct.

      December 2, 2010 at 5:28 pm |
    • Bob

      @Let Us Prey You said "It doesn't matter when Jesus was born.. 12/21, 12/25, or the 4th of July. Immaterial. Arguable? Sure. Relevant? No. Advisable to get a consensus? Sure."

      Actually it does matter. Information is never a bad thing. It allows anthropologists to narrow their search for evidence of Jesus. It gives us perspective on what may or may not have been happening in the sky at that time. Thereby determining if a miracle actually occured of if it could be argued that it was a natural event.

      Facts are only "not important" to people who would pay them no heed anyways.

      December 2, 2010 at 5:33 pm |
    • Bob

      Nope, still here Let Us Prey. I was detained for a little while. You're only willing to wait 18 minutes for someone? 😛

      December 2, 2010 at 5:34 pm |
    • Bob

      @Let Us Prey And of course it matters whether or not we find the ark. Finding the ark would blow the lid off many skeptic's heads and turn more then one over to believing in God. The fact that we haven't found it, and given the fact that we now appreciate the logistical challenge of such an endeavour has relegated this squarely into the "99% chance it didnt' happen." category.

      December 2, 2010 at 5:41 pm |
    • Let Us Prey

      @ Bob

      @ Bob

      I'm going to take the subordinate clauses, and descriptive modifiers out and reduce your sentences for clarity to:

      "Given that faith is subjective it's impossible for it to determine (decide or discover?) reality." I think you mean the latter?

      Discover: I see the virgin mary burned into my morning toast. I show it to you, and you see burnt toast. I show it to an impartial third party, they say, "well, it could be the virgin mary... I didn't think her forehead with that big.. but, sure." What's the reality according to each of us?

      Here's the former anyway..
      Decide, as in 'to be a determinate of:' Sure. Create any scenario where 'religion' might be a 'determining' factor.

      So, using the same method on the last sentence:

      "given that faith is subjective to (life) situations..." This makes no sense to me, sorry.
      "how do you justify that faith (is) a method to determine that your faith is correct. The statement is circular.

      Please try again while I address your followups.

      December 2, 2010 at 6:24 pm |
    • Let Us Prey

      @ Bob

      " Facts are only "not important" to people who would pay them no heed anyways. "

      Or those who don't feel compelled to....

      December 2, 2010 at 6:27 pm |
    • NL

      Bob-
      I beg to disagree.
      There is a BIG difference between finding a gigantic ancient boat and leaping to the conclusion that this somehow proves that God must be real. The Chinese built gigantic wooden boats, so it is not really impossible that a really huge wooden boat could not have been built by ancient people without divine guidance. The ancients were pretty industrious. Look at the pyramids and Stonehedge, for examples. Do these structures prove that the Egyptian and Neolithic British gods were real? So a really huge wooden boat built by ancient people using only their own wits isn't impossible.

      Putting a lot of animals onto a big wooden boat isn't impossible either. Putting two of every species is, however, but a representative sample of species in a region might have been possible. Huge floods are also possible. Put all together I wouldn't say that it's impossible for some people to have survived a flood someplace with a number of animals in a really big, wooden boat. That said, there have been many Great Flood myths including the Epic of Gilgamesh and even Atlantis. A really big ancient wooden boat could just as easily carried Atlantian survivors as Noah. Any boat bigger than a fishing trawler built back then away from the shores of the Mid. East likely would have become legendary anyway, and we know how stories grow over time.

      So, you see, there are many, many other explanations for a really big wooden boat to have been built by ancient people, and some that don't involve any ancient myths whatsoever, let alone one about a god who decided to destroy mankind which happens to be a pretty common theme throughout religion.

      December 2, 2010 at 6:29 pm |
    • Let Us Prey

      @ Bob

      " Finding the ark would blow the lid off many skeptic's heads and turn more then one over to believing in God. " From a religious perspective, it's a win-win. If we don't find it, the story lives on. If we do find it, the story is proven. Either way, the story, fable, myth, or otherwise adopted belief is perpetuated.

      December 2, 2010 at 6:30 pm |
    • Let Us Prey

      @ NL

      " I wouldn't say that it's impossible "

      The "voice of authority" speaks. I've missed you. I feel better now.

      December 2, 2010 at 6:33 pm |
    • Let Us Prey

      @ NL

      Did you ever respond to our "mr. pink" conversation in the first billboard string..?

      December 2, 2010 at 6:44 pm |
    • Let Us Prey

      @ Bob

      I'm going to break. Back in an hour. Sorry about the 18', Bob. I was hungry. It seemed longer that that...

      December 2, 2010 at 6:53 pm |
    • NL

      Let Us Prey-
      "Did you ever respond to our "mr. pink" conversation in the first billboard string..?"
      I responded to you in the second billboard tread. Go back and read that, then tell me if I have to explain it to you again. Frankly, from reading your posts, it sounds like you've become a regular Mr. 'Snarky' yourself.

      Now, do you have anything to ask about what I've posted here, or is this just you way of saying "Hi"?

      December 2, 2010 at 7:43 pm |
    • Bob

      @NL I agree that finding a boat does not mean God. I didn't say I'd be convinced, I'd say that some athiests would be. Which is true. 😛

      December 2, 2010 at 7:49 pm |
    • Bob

      I'm going to take the subordinate clauses, and descriptive modifiers out and reduce your sentences for clarity to:

      "Given that faith is subjective it's impossible for it to determine (decide or discover?) reality." I think you mean the latter?

      Discover: I see the virgin mary burned into my morning toast. I show it to you, and you see burnt toast. I show it to an impartial third party, they say, "well, it could be the virgin mary... I didn't think her forehead with that big.. but, sure." What's the reality according to each of us?

      December 2, 2010 at 7:59 pm |
    • Bob

      @Let Us Prey

      BAH! Trying again.

      @Let Us Prey You still are not understanding what I'm saying to you. It's not that you're using "complex words" you're not grasping what I'm telling you.

      You wrote:
      I'm going to take the subordinate clauses, and descriptive modifiers out and reduce your sentences for clarity to:

      "Given that faith is subjective it's impossible for it to determine (decide or discover?) reality." I think you mean the latter?

      My answer:
      No, that's not what I mean. What I mean is that given faith is subjective it's not an accurate tool for determining what is and is not reality. That is to say what occurs in the universe. Either there is a God or there isn't a God, my own faith or thoughts on the matter don't affect that. People wishing for a God similarly does not make one exist.

      So, given that people's thoughts on the matter do not affect what actually is occuring, they cannot have predicitve qualities. Therefore, using faith to determine what is and isn't God's religion isn't valid. You have to find a different methodology for evaluating your religion.

      You wrote:
      Discover: I see the virgin mary burned into my morning toast. I show it to you, and you see burnt toast. I show it to an impartial third party, they say, "well, it could be the virgin mary... I didn't think her forehead with that big.. but, sure." What's the reality according to each of us?

      I reply:
      The reality of the situation is that there is a piece of burnt toast that looks like the virgin mary. What you or I think about the toast doesn't change reality, only that person's perception of reality. What is real is real. What isn't real isn't. Just because someone believes that the toast was made by God doesn't make it so. Just because I think it's asinine that God would make the toast doesn't negate the possibility.

      Given that neither of us can draw a concrete logical line from "Toast of Virgin" to "God", the only reasonable conclusion is that we are unsure of why it has occured. This also has no affect on what actually occured.

      December 2, 2010 at 8:00 pm |
    • Bob

      @Let Us Prey

      To summarize, personal truths are pointless and are useless in predicting or helping us with our knowledge of the universe.

      Therefore, to find the truth, you need to use another methodology. While we may not be able to percieve everything that occurs in reality, some of which might contradict what we see as reality now, we can only try to know what is real with the tools that have been given to us.

      That is to say, we strive to understand the greatest amount of reality with the limited tools we have.

      December 2, 2010 at 8:07 pm |
    • NL

      Bob-
      "I didn't say I'd be convinced, I'd say that some athiests would be."
      I know that I keep saying that you don't have to have a superior IQ in order to become an atheist, but this is ridiculous! 😉

      December 2, 2010 at 9:13 pm |
    • Let Us Prey

      @ Bob

      But my entire point, Bob, is based on the premise that religious believers do not care, repeat, do not care, one iota, about 'proof.' It'd be a welcomed bonus, but it's not requisite to their belief. This is likely the most frustrating aspect of the atheist argument. You want sense. You need sense.. but you... (sorry. I have to do it... ) can't handle the.. premise that religion is based on faith and faith alone. By the simple definition of faith, the ability to accept something without proof, and that's OK with believers. They're perfectly happy without it. But because they have internalized this concept, when an atheist 'attacks' using scientific principles, the believers consider this an attack on one's individuality, an attempt to invalidate the person's humanity based on their 'intrinsic' beliefs alone, which cannot be 'pulled' from their cognition as exhibit #1 for display in a court of public inquiry.

      Your logic is infallible; any atheist logic is (well, most, anyways..) But you're talking apples and oranges. Science and Religion. The empirically-based and the faith- based. Earth and the 'end of the universe'. Doesn't matter. Non-sequitor. I totally understand what you're saying. You sound like a, well, slightly abstruse, however reasonable, individual. But you can't win this argument. It can't be won. It can't even be logically argued by either side, at least not responsibly – witness all the respective frustrations from believers and atheists alike that happen in this ongoing dance of futility. It is, in essence, the perfect discordant 'non-argument.' The 'MAD' of social structure. Either side fights, both lose. The only way to win... is not to fight. But we want to fight, we want to be right, we want vindication for our efforts and recognition for our brilliance, we want to vanquish the threats that we pose to each other. It's against human nature not to fight; it's understandable.

      And some time.. maybe most of the time... perception IS reality. Contrary to reason.

      Tell me you understand? Sorry for the delay. Business.

      December 2, 2010 at 9:20 pm |
    • Let Us Prey

      @ NL

      " it sounds like you've become a regular Mr. 'Snarky' yourself"

      Respect beget respect; snark begets snark. And, because I hang around in here too much, sometimes I just get in a foul mood.

      Hi.

      December 2, 2010 at 9:38 pm |
    • Mike, not me

      This thread may have gotten to long but back to your response from last night let me try and explain again, I believe it on authority of the apostles and other people of that time period. You say there is no way to investigate, but that is only a valid argument for today because they are all dead. It is valid because in Mark there are references to people of his time so the event can be confirmed. Luke, writing to I can get the name right now but in the first 7 verses, again making reference to his references so they can be confirm. Paul appealing to the King pleading that he has heard from his references as to the glory of Christ, again Paul referencing the 500 most still alive at the resurrection.

      How come testimony and doc-umentation is valid in our court systems today but not when we apply it to the biblical text?
      A better example than the Texas one, would probably be the Spanish armada, or the French Revolution? Why do you believe in such things?

      December 3, 2010 at 8:33 am |
    • Bob

      @Mike, not me, you said: You say there is no way to investigate, but that is only a valid argument for today because they are all dead. It is valid because in Mark there are references to people of his time so the event can be confirmed.

      Then, if I was to show you a part of the bible that was internally contradictory, would you then say the bible isn't reliable? Read Mark, Matt, Luke and John's account of the open tomb. Here's what they disagree about...

      – time of day
      – who went to the tomb with Mary
      – whether the stone was in place or moved
      – who moved the stone
      – who was on the stone
      – what happened at the tomb as witnessed by Mary
      – who was in the tomb
      – what did Mary do after seeing the empty tomb
      – who she brought back.

      You'd figure the most imporant event of the bible would at least be consistent.

      December 3, 2010 at 10:13 am |
    • Bob

      @Let Us Prey I understand, but this isn't science. This is critcal thought that you apply to everything else in your daily life, but specifically do not apply in the sphere of religion.

      You use it when a telemarketer calls and asks you for your credit card. Do you say "I have faith that you're not going to rip me off simply because he states so?". You use it when the biggest deadbeat in your office asks you "Can I borrow $20 bucks". Do you have faith that he'll return it despite his reputation?

      Time and time again, people of faith routinely supress their logical thoughts and merely "accept" the religion that they are exposed to.

      Let me summarize all my posts down to one question, as I think it's evident now from what I've been saying.

      "Given that you apply reason to every aspect of your life and it has served you well, why don't you apply it to your faith? Don't you care if what you believe is real?"

      December 3, 2010 at 10:20 am |
    • Bob

      @Let Us Prey you wrote: "And some time.. maybe most of the time... perception IS reality. Contrary to reason."

      No, what is percieved is the reality to that person. It's not reality. Let me explain my viewpoint here.

      Let's say I'm walking down the street and I see a rather large object move quickly across the street. I exclaim "It was a giant dinosaur." Does that mean it's a dinosaur? No. That's only what I saw.

      When I lie in bed, half awake and half asleep, and I feel someone in my room, does that mean absolutely that there is? Of course not.

      You're seeking to label reality as an individual's own perceptions on reality capabilities. That's not accurate and is a rebranding of what the word actually means.

      Everyone on the face of the earth, whether they appreciate it or not, seeks to bring their perception of reality as close as possible to the actual reality given the perceptive tools we are supplied. The reason we do this is because it conveys specific advantages to us.

      If one wasn't concerned with reality, one might very well consider the fact that the road we walk and drive on isn't solid all the time, and a specific section may in fact be made out of a sponge cake. It's only our understanding of reality that allows us to say "That's silly, other cars would have driven into it before me, or the rain would have washed it away."

      This isn't about science. This isn't about facts. Although those are excellent ways to describe why we atheists do not accept the premises put forth about religion.

      The core is that everyone, regardless of faith, actively seeks to try and learn and align themselves with reality. The only difference between atheists and people of faith is that the religious apply it to everything except their belief.

      At least, that's my humble opinion on the matter.

      December 3, 2010 at 10:38 am |
    • Mike, not me

      Read Mark, Matt, Luke and John's account of the open tomb. Here's what they disagree about...

      – time of day
      Matthew at dawn went
      mark, Luke just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb
      John while it was still dark.. from the point of view of leaving (Benthany or Jerusalem)
      No Contridiction

      – who went to the tomb with Mary
      At least
      Matthew - Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James,
      Mark - Mary, Mary and Salome
      Luke - The woman
      John - Mary and Mary
      No Contridiction

      – whether the stone was in place or moved
      Matthew - There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it.
      Mark - But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away
      Luke - They found the stone rolled away from the tomb
      John - a saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance
      No Contridiction

      – who moved the stone
      Matthew - There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it.

      – who was on the stone
      An angel– Matthew

      All four gospels mention the fact that the angles were in “clothes that gleamed like lightning”

      – what happened at the tomb as witnessed by Mary
      Which Mary?
      Mary Magdalene runs off to tell Peter– John

      – who was in the tomb
      All four gospels mention the fact that the angles were in “clothes that gleamed like lightning”
      1 or 2,If the family goes out to dinner and I tell a friend my wife and I went to dinner, are you calling out the "lie"

      – what did Mary do after seeing the empty tomb
      Which Mary?
      Mary Magdalene runs off to tell Peter– John
      The others run off to tell the disciples after instructed - M M L

      – who she brought back.
      Peter and John
      Mark means that the women did not tell the disciples immediately.

      In the battle with skeptics regarding Jesus' resurrection, Christians are in a "no-win" situation. If the resurrection accounts harmonize perfectly, skeptics will claim that the writers of the Gospels conspired together. If the resurrection accounts have some differences, skeptics will claim that the Gospels contradict each other and therefore cannot be trusted. It is our contention that the resurrection accounts can be harmonized and do not contradict each other.

      December 3, 2010 at 1:25 pm |
    • Bob

      @Mike, not me Apparently to Mike, when different things claim different things, it's not a contradiction. ROFL.

      December 3, 2010 at 4:04 pm |
    • Mike, not me

      Bob, sorry you can not see that. Just take the news, do they all give the exact same story to the T?

      Or even two people observing a candle.

      Contridiction
      assertion of the contrary or opposite; denial

      Contrary
      opposite in direction or position

      Which of the above statements are assertion of the opposite?

      December 3, 2010 at 4:32 pm |
    • NL

      Let Us Prey-

      "Respect beget respect; snark begets snark."

      Begets? Man, you just can't help sounding like the bible, can you?

      December 3, 2010 at 4:53 pm |
    • Let Us Prey

      @ Bob

      This is going to be obscenely long. I hope you find it worthwhile. My apology for the length.

      "but this isn't science. This is critcal (sic) thought that you apply to everything else in your daily life, but specifically do not apply in the sphere of religion."
      > Correct! Spot-On. Science is specifically and intentionally 'NOT applied' and is totally unwarranted. The faithful who are somewhat insecure in their belief may require physical proof to varying degrees in order to buttress or maintain their faith. Those folks that are fighting to validate their beliefs with non-believers may see physical evidence as a way to support their claims, but, once again, it's not requisite for belief in and of itself. Bottom line for a believer – "go find the Ark if you need to.. I don't care either way, if it's there, great, but my belief is not predicated on seeing it." I posted earlier on this.

      "Time and time again, people of faith routinely supress (sic) their logical thoughts and merely "accept" the religion that they are exposed to."
      > I disagree. Religion is, more and more, a selective process for many. A person may seek out different faiths out of curiosity, for something they feel is lacking in their life, or to avoid something they dislike about their current religion. They may be driven by the need for empirical study, logic, and the scientific method, and thus reject spiritualism entirely. Or, conversely, they may require a faith which is, by any reasonable external standard, an oppressive, dictatorial, dogmatic nightmare because of their need for external guidance, direction and control. In an 'open society' the option is there for exploration. It's different in 'closed societies' which are, thankfully, becoming fewer as time goes on. And yes, religion is often 'pushed' on people. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just irritating. However it's necessary by design to garner new membership. The faithful are assigned to 'witness' to the uninitiated. Spread the word, etc. (knock, knock, who? No thank you, good day.) Insult me, stick something in my face, assign me blame, etc... and we have a problem. This includes atheists.

      " Let me summarize all my posts down to one question...Given that you apply reason to every aspect of your life and it has served you well, why don't you apply it to your faith?"
      > I addressed this in my December 2, 2010 at 9:20 pm post to you. Second half of the first paragraph.

      " Don't you care if what you believe is real?"
      > Whether I believe in one god, ten gurus or 72 virgins is only important to me. Laugh as you may. Sure, in the extreme religion is used as limp rationale for crusades, jihads or other evil acts. But on it's own it's neither a requisite nor reason for insanity, murder, or any other lack of social grace. It's just a poor 'fall guy' for the real reasons behind any aberrant behaviors.

      "This isn't about science. This isn't about facts. Although those are excellent ways to describe why we atheists do not accept the premises put forth about religion."
      > Fine! Don't! I wouldn't expect you to... it fails your acid test for reality and common sense. You'd be silly to. But you'd also be foolish to impose rather than offer your beliefs on someone who steadfastly refuses your views in preference of their own. You can't 'unscrew' the top of their head and re-wire their personality. That wiring is done 'at the factory' and is not user-serviceable. This is both the source of my offense and my curiosity at the futile but damaging insults flung between the two groups. Neither group can win, only hurt, the other. Yet, 'sound the bell ! It's round 56,659 and we're still waiting for a victory... which will never come.

      "The only difference between atheists and people of faith is that the religious apply reason to everything except their belief."
      > Their religion, their choice. You may 'select' a religion, or not. It's optional. If you don't like the precepts of that religion, find another, or don't. Seek a 'reasonable' (for you) truth / reality / zone, and reap the comfort and satisfaction of it's rewards. And if it make more sense to you to be an atheist, then by all means, go be an atheist, with my heartiest (albeit unnecessary) endorsement. But in your attempts at conversion, please don't insult someone's integrity, intelligence, or personal moral code. It is sacrosanct and, to a great part, defines the individual. And this is where I feel that the modern pop-culture atheism is failing miserably. It really p!sses me off, and it's probably the only reason I participate in the religious v. atheist articles. I use another name, i.e., .308, in the political / pop, etc. stories. And sometimes I get confused.. and don't know who the hell I am...

      But understand that atheism qualifies as a belief also – a belief of 'non-belief' if you will. Complete with many of the trappings and accoutrement of any other religion, some unique, some not. Some innocuous, some offensive, some detrimental...

      "At least, that's my humble opinion on the matter."
      > Mine too. Pleasure talking with you.

      December 3, 2010 at 6:47 pm |
  11. Reality

    Once a day WARNING for new commentators:

    • The moderators of this blog have set up a secret forbidden word filter which unfortunately not only will delete or put your comment in the dreaded "waiting for moderation" category but also will do the same to words having fragments of these words. For example, "t-it" is in the set but the filter will also pick up words like Hitt-ite, t-itle, beati-tude, practi-tioner and const-tution. Then there words like "an-al" thereby flagging words like an-alysis and "c-um" flagging acc-umulate or doc-ument. And there is also "r-a-pe", “a-pe” and “gra-pe”, "s-ex", and "hom-ose-xual". You would think that the moderators would have corrected this by now considering the number of times this has been commented on but they have not. To be safe, I typically add hyphens in any word that said filter might judge "of-fensive".

    • More than one web address will also activate “waiting for moderation”. Make sure the web address does not have any forbidden word or fragment.

    Sum Dude routinely updates the list of forbidden words/fragments.

    December 2, 2010 at 2:37 pm |
  12. NL

    Well, it goes back to the same question: Since both sides and their fans all generally pray to the same God for victory, is making an obvious point of thanking God for favoring your team because of your better performance just rubbing it in, thus const.ituting poor sportsmanship?

    December 2, 2010 at 1:51 pm |
    • Luke

      Yes.

      Also goes back to lovely people that think the Christians and Muslims pray to a different god, thinking god prefers Christians.

      December 2, 2010 at 2:01 pm |
    • USN Atheist

      @ Luke – I thought lions preferred christians? 🙂

      December 2, 2010 at 2:15 pm |
    • Mike, not me

      NL, as stated in the article

      Hastie said. "I do that to give glory to my heavenly father, Jesus. He gives me the strength. He's the one who gives me these abilities in the first place."

      December 2, 2010 at 2:21 pm |
    • Tacoma

      @NL

      In the end it's not about God favoring one team or the other, it's about offering praise to God for the abilities He gave you.

      December 2, 2010 at 2:33 pm |
    • NL

      Tacoma & Mike-

      Luke 20:45-47
      [45] While all the people were listening, Jesus said to his disciples, [46] "Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. [47] They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely."

      Isn't this an example of somebody making a show of their lengthy prayers?

      December 2, 2010 at 5:23 pm |
    • Frogist

      @Tacoma: You left out "not the other guy"... As in " it's about offering praise to God for the abilities He gave you" and not the other guy.

      December 2, 2010 at 5:34 pm |
    • Mike, not me

      NL, no, first the athlete is not a teacher of the law. It was not a lenghty prayer but an acknowledgement, a thank you. This concept can also be found in Matthew 6 were, it does say for those who pray in public beleive they will be heard for their *many* words. But this doesn't mean to not give thanks in public.

      December 3, 2010 at 8:23 am |
  13. Peace2All

    Well, personally, I really could care less if a Christian wants to do a quick celebration after a touch-down to what they think is their Deity to give thanks. 'As long as' if... a Muslim scores a touchdown, and wants to prostrate his/herself in the end-zone in a quick praising to Allah(which I have seen a couple of times), or any other person who practices other religions wants to 'personally' give a quick thanks, then... it's O.K. too.

    Most of you guys know me, and my postings and maybe some of you are thinking..."has Peace lost his marbles" (***lost marbles a long time ago), however, it seems to me to fall in the 'religious freedom' category. The player stated he always does this: it takes a couple of seconds which is not uncommon. I played a lot of sports over the years, all the way up to Div 1 collegiate level, and never had a problem with someone giving a 'quick' praise to what they 'believe' to be their 'god.' When we played private parochial Christian high-schools or colleges, they 'all' prayed, before during and after, and anywhere in between, with a lot of me 'hearing praise god and jesus.' Now that was definitely a little much for me, but ironically, their choosing to go to a private religious insti-tution, well, gave them even more right to do what they heck they wanted, however, annoying to 'me' it was.

    Now, I also, do absolutely have a problem with enforced prayers by coaches for their team, and/or even by the players for the team. I agree with @Luke in his post as far as peer pressure, and potentially opening yourself to abuse and ridicule by 'believers' should you not comply. And, we've all heard enough stories about the 'hazing' that goes on in our U.S. military forces, if one doesn't happen to be a 'believer' or, a 'believer' like they think you should believe. All of that to me is absolutely... 'not' o.k.

    So, you got to keep the game moving... no 'excessive celebration' or 'unsportsman-like' conduct, I am all in agreement with as well, as long as the rules are not being applied unfairly but across the board.

    Does this fall into the 'excessive celebration' or 'unsportsman-like' conduct...? After reading the article, I would have to say no, not in my opinion at least.

    Your friendly 'agnostic'

    Peace...

    December 2, 2010 at 1:31 pm |
    • Luke

      Let's play a game here.

      This said player is running the ball downfield and I run him down. I try to tackle him and I slow his progress, but he keeps his legs about him and is very slowly but surely dragging me into the end zone. I'm religious too. And while he is slowly falling to his knees, I begin praying to God. He feels that he may go down on the one yard line and begins to pray. It's the big game for the State Championship and this guy is going to score the winning touchdown with no time left on the clock unless I can get him down in time! He falls forward and BAM! The nose of the ball comes to rest inside the goal line. He beat us because I couldn't get him down. He begins to pray, thanking the Lord for his mighty skills and his intervening in breaking my tackle. I am left there wondering why the Lord hates me so much. He is still praying. God loves him more.
      Is he showing me up? Is this a penalty? Is this rude? Is this unsportsmanlike? What if I were so angry that the Lord didn't help me, that I going on a violent rampage in the name of god, referencing this player in my testimony?
      Or should the player just spike the ball and shake hands at the 50 yard line?
      Help me out here...

      December 2, 2010 at 1:43 pm |
    • Peace2All

      @Luke

      You Said: "Let's play a game here."

      O.K... hypothetical game here it is.

      You Said: " He begins to pray, thanking the Lord for his mighty skills and his intervening in breaking my tackle. I am left there wondering why the Lord hates me so much."

      I would suggest that like anyone else, you are a free to make your own 'interpretations of events, concerning your personal thoughts of your God' i.e..--"I am left there wondering why the Lord hates me so much."

      You Said: "Is he showing me up?"

      I don't know, again, that would depend on the 'meaning' you, personally assign to his actions.

      You Said: "Is this a penalty?"

      Don't know, I guess on that matter we would have to consult the 'rule book.'

      You Said: "Is this rude? Is this unsportsmanlike?"

      ..."rude?"- Again, open for your personal 'interpretations.' ..."unsportsmanlike?"-- Same thing. Unless.... there is a rule about it. Again, see rule book for definitions.

      You Said: "What if I were so angry that the Lord didn't help me, that I going on a violent rampage in the name of god, referencing this player in my testimony?"

      Well, personally I would conclude that if you were to "go on a violent rampage," whether or not, you were doing it in the 'name of god' that you were:

      #1)Breaking the law, and subject to whatever penalties our courts of law deemed fit, in relationship to whatever your 'violent rampage' was.

      #2)I would also conclude that someone's prayers to whom/whatever, and your relative acting as a 'victim' in this situation, that somehow 'they' caused you to to on a 'violent rampage' that you were 'probably' very mentally ill, and would need serious medical help.

      You Said: "Or should the player just spike the ball and shake hands at the 50 yard line?"

      I am a-ssuming you mean in this hypothetical, when you say (the 'player')... you mean the one that scored the touchdown.

      In my experience, I have had people say a quick thank you to 'jc' or whatever god, they pray to... and then, come out and shake hands after a game. So...?

      In all the years of sports I played and the martial arts I have done– having seen pretty much all kinds of these celebrations, I guess, I never had a problem with it.

      With all due respect -Luke, what's your point...?

      Peace...

      December 2, 2010 at 3:39 pm |
    • Let Us Prey

      @ Luke

      The player you allowed to score was apparently praying harder than you. Put a little more 'oomph' into it next time.

      December 2, 2010 at 3:46 pm |
    • Luke

      Peace2All

      My point is:

      Praying does not get a free pass. The rule book you questioned above states very clearly that a player cannot show boat after a score. Praying does not get a bye. What's the difference between a player taking a knee to pray and another dancing up a storm? Absolytely nothing. I'm nearly positive that there would be a different sort of discussion taking place if the player was thanking the atheist manifesto or paying homage to Hitler in the end zone – even for just 2 seconds.

      December 2, 2010 at 3:51 pm |
    • Peace2All

      @Luke

      You Said: Peace2All... My point is:

      "Praying does not get a free pass. The rule book you questioned above states very clearly that a player cannot show boat after a score. Praying does not get a bye. What's the difference between a player taking a knee to pray and another dancing up a storm? Absolytely nothing."

      O.K., makes sense, Good point...

      Peace...

      December 2, 2010 at 4:20 pm |
    • Peace2All

      @Luke

      Some follow-up thoughts:

      I guess, having played sports for so long, from the time I was 4, never missing a sport, from football, basketball, baseball, etc... and ending up playing at a Div 1 college, and having considered going 'pro,' it just never really bothered me, 'personally.'

      I really didn't give a rats-ass how someone celebrated their success, whether it was dancing a jig, high-five-in' it, or... saying their prayers to the baby jesus, after a touch down, slam-dunk, or hitting a home-run, or beating my team. Or, in getting my black belt in certain martial arts-getting my ass severely kicked a few times along the way.

      Well...let me re-phrase that... yes, of course it(excessive show boating/gloating/celebration) pis-sed me off, as an extreme compet!tor, it certainly would and did bother me on that level, however, I just viewed it as part of being in the compet!tive environment, and playing and competing at such a high-level.

      I guess, at an early age, in order to play, and compete, i must have developed a 'thick skin' about these things.

      Anyways... just got me thinkin' about all of this.

      Peace...

      December 2, 2010 at 4:53 pm |
    • Luke

      Peace2All

      Dude, I played too. I played big time. I had a future in baseball until I ripped up my shoulder. Frankly, the religious nonsense I had to deal with annoyed me more than anything I delt with on and off the field. These religious fruitcakes would thank god after getting a single and pout when gettin picked off of first base. I particularly hated it when they told me god blessed me with talents or told me god played a role in my late game heroics or my dominating night on the mound. F off. I did it. I worked hard and studied the game to get where I was. It was my work and my dedication that made me what I was. And they took their talents for granted – thanking god for hits and blaming others for their misteps, errors, Ks or poor decisions. It was, to put it nicely, pathetic. When I stuck out with the game on the line, I blamed me and tipped my hat to the pitcher. When I laced a double down the line to win the game, I put my head down and shook hands with my teammates and opponents.

      December 2, 2010 at 5:03 pm |
    • Peace2All

      @Luke

      Interesting... That's really cool that you played...! Not so cool on the 'tearing of the shoulder' thing... ouch...!

      Well, we are on the same page about this. I, too, recognized it was me–whatever I did–my doing, my responsibility, hard-work-- whether I scored a touchdown, hit a home run, scored 25 points in a b-ball game, or kicked someone's ass in Jiu-Jitsu or Karate. So, I am definitely with ya' on that one. Although, I have to admit, when I got into doing some fairly heavy bench pressing( 385 max) a few years back, I did 'pray' one-time that the weight wouldn't crush my skull...! 🙂

      Yes, the difference, between you and I, and the believers, is that yes... they(believers) would like to put the wins/losses– success/failure 'outside' of themselves(their god), and guys like you and I took responsibility for said results, whatever they were... ourselves.

      I guess, again for me, maybe after reading your post, I just didn't give a sh!t so much, relatively speaking about what or how the believers were celebrating.

      I was more focused on me, and my 'game' and how I would drive myself to be better.

      Same philosophy for me in life too...

      Thanks for chatting with me -Luke,

      Peace...

      December 2, 2010 at 5:23 pm |
    • Frogist

      @Peace2All: I think you lost your marbles ages ago. 😛 But I see your point. 2 seconds is 2 seconds. It doesn't seem particularly excessive. But it does seem boastful which is something you're not supposed to be if you are a good christian. Personally, it doesn't' bother me too much. But I think maybe that's all besides the point if it's against the rules.

      December 2, 2010 at 5:51 pm |
    • Peace2All

      @Frogist

      You Said: "@Peace2All: I think you lost your marbles ages ago." 🙂

      Ahem... 😯 That one was just for you, my dear friend -Frogist...! 🙂

      You Said: "But it does seem boastful which is something you're not supposed to be if you are a good christian."

      I almost went right on by that comment, but I went back to it, as it caught my eye. Actually, I would think, quite the opposite. If... you are a 'good christian,'..then, it is typically *not* considered to be boastful, but giving praise to god. That is the majority christian thinking on this. They, don't see it as boasting, where we might.

      I, as an athlete, just didn't give a cr@p too much about what or how they celebrated. *sighs* ..o.k... maybe sometimes it did bug the F out of me.

      You Said: " Personally, it doesn't' bother me too much. But I think maybe that's all besides the point if it's against the rules."

      Hence my agreement with -Luke in our discussions. However, it would be interesting to find out what the 'rules' clearly and unequivocally state about this, as it (doing a quick prayer in the end-zone, or whatever), happens 'all' the time... without people being penalized about it.

      Hmmm.. interesting...

      *back to searching for 'lost marbles'... 🙂

      Peace...

      December 2, 2010 at 6:18 pm |
  14. Tom

    The player did not do this for God, it was to draw attention to himself. He could have done this on the sidelines...but then nobody would have seen it.

    December 2, 2010 at 12:57 pm |
    • Bob

      Yeah, apparently when you're playing sports you can't thank god in a private, internal prayer, you need to make a public sight.

      December 2, 2010 at 1:02 pm |
    • JT

      This act is all about proselytizing and Christians have always been given special privileges in order to do so. What's that bibull verse where it says one should talk to their invisible sky daddy in private and not be a show off? Of course this particular kid has discarded that particular one along with the other 90%.

      December 2, 2010 at 2:53 pm |
  15. Mike, not me

    Biggest issue is consistancy

    Hastie said he's pointed up as a gesture to God after every touchdown he's scored in every game and never had a problem before

    December 2, 2010 at 12:44 pm |
    • Bob

      Pointing up is different then kneeling and pointing up. Referees are bound to certain rules. If it says "Showboating is any display that delays the proceeding of the game and/or is designed to be a public specticle" then the flag was legit.

      PS: Why do people point up? Isn't God everywhere? Even in your bathroom when you're taking a poop?

      December 2, 2010 at 1:01 pm |
    • Joseph Myers

      Excellent point, Mike.

      December 5, 2010 at 11:23 am |
  16. David Johnson

    Is there no end to religious idiocy?

    December 2, 2010 at 12:01 pm |
    • Luke

      No.

      December 2, 2010 at 12:22 pm |
    • Bob

      Are you new to the CNN Faith Forums David? 🙂

      December 2, 2010 at 12:23 pm |
    • Tacoma

      @bob

      No, he's been here forever.

      December 2, 2010 at 12:30 pm |
    • Bob

      > . <

      Sigh.

      December 2, 2010 at 1:56 pm |
  17. jeff

    Ronnie, just give the ball to the ref first, then take the knee. The issue reported was not relinquishing the ball. That will be the easiest way to find out exactly what they are after.

    December 2, 2010 at 11:59 am |
    • Let Us Prey

      @ jeff

      Good point.

      December 2, 2010 at 3:18 pm |
  18. Colin

    For every time these athletes thank their sky daddy for winning a game or scoring, they should also thank their sky daddy for losing the same game or for them not catching that ball. It's a great way to blame others for your mistakes!

    December 2, 2010 at 11:00 am |
    • Abejita

      I don't think it's that these athletes are not thankful at other times (like when making mistakes). I think it's just that they realize that they could never accomplish these amazing plays on their own. So...when they accomplish something that they know they could never do in their own strength and power, they just want to acknowledge God for giving them ability to do these things. Just a quick thanks that's all.

      December 2, 2010 at 11:40 am |
    • Luke

      Abejita – They do accomplish feats and fail all on their own already. An imaginary friend does not make them stronger or weaker. It's all in their heads. And you know it.

      December 2, 2010 at 12:22 pm |
  19. Luke

    What's the difference betewen this and unsportsmanlike conduct such as dancing in the endzone? Does religion get a free pass in our culture and on our football fields? Celebration is celebration. 15 yard penalty. Back em up.

    December 2, 2010 at 10:45 am |
    • Let Us Prey

      I guess this means that the coach won't be calling out "take a knee" and saying a team prayer in the locker room before the big game... Flag!!

      December 2, 2010 at 11:08 am |
    • Abejita

      I would agree that the same rules should apply across the board. In my opinion there is nothing wrong with doing a little dance either. Hastie said that he pointed to his Heavenly Father for 1-2 seconds. If someone can do a quick dance for 1-2 seconds, then that should be permitted as well.

      I think the difference is that he is giving God the glory for what he accomplishes, whereas some players like to draw attention to themselves and become a bit boastful.

      December 2, 2010 at 11:21 am |
    • Luke

      Abejita – I'd argue that praying draws attention to yourself, just like dancing. Both of which, are outlawed on the football field.

      Let Us Prey – No coach can force a student to pray in the locker room. That is just patently unconst-itutional. They should not be doing it anyway, since even an unenforced prayer session excludes some players or puts pressure on them to participate. It also could mean that they may lose playing time for not being part of the team.

      December 2, 2010 at 12:21 pm |
    • Mike, not me

      Dancing is showing off, drawing attention to yourself and mocking your oppenent ( as you are dancing all over them)

      Giving praise, should not draw attention (but the media loves it too much), to give praise to other, God, and not your self...

      Come on Luke, I thought you were smarter than that, are you trying to create a stir

      December 2, 2010 at 12:30 pm |
    • Luke

      Mike, not me

      Bothers me. Bothers a lot of people. Clearly calls attention to yourself and is a penalty. Furthermore, I am going to have my children, who happen to be great athletes, pray after they score touchdowns or hit homeruns. In all fairness, I shall ask my children to roll out a muslim prayer mat in the endzone and bow before Allah. I will have another kid recruit two other guys from his team to stand behind him after hits his next homerun and stick their arms out so there are six arms moving in tandem to pay respects to the Lord Vishnu. They will do this on homeplate. Is this ok with you?

      December 2, 2010 at 1:24 pm |
    • Mike, not me

      But it's not about bothering you. It is about taunting. I am sure it bothers you and the other team when they are losing but there is no penalty for that?
      The Muslim worshiping not a problem, the mat itself may be a problem because it’s brining extra equipment o n the field, but the Muslim prayer position not a problem. The Buddhist example is not relevant because that is not the correct form of Buddhist worship and just a hypothetical

      December 2, 2010 at 2:17 pm |
    • Luke

      ok, just to be sure here, you are cool with prayers to the Lord Vishnu on the baseball field after homeruns? And I could hypotheically help my kids roll out a Muslim Prayer Mat in the end zone? You're all good with that? And you think there should be no penalities?

      December 2, 2010 at 2:43 pm |
    • Let Us Prey

      @ Luke

      " No coach can force a student to pray in the locker room."

      Just FYI. I would appreciate a Christian example where this 'allowed.'

      http://www.investorsiraq.com/showthread.php?78653-When-Your-Public-High-School-is-Run-by-Hezbollah-The-Imad-Fadlallah-Saga-Continues-Hezbo-Principal-Hits-Students-Bans-Christians

      December 2, 2010 at 3:31 pm |
    • Let Us Prey

      @ Luke

      There aren't any. And no decent coach would do what you're alleging happens. How about some examples of your assumptions?

      December 2, 2010 at 3:33 pm |
    • Mike, not me

      Luke,
      Thank you for an opportunity to clarify, I think I see where this is going. Let me re-examine, if you mean pray as in 3-hour prayer session, then no that is wrong for the Muslim, Christian, Jew and Hindu, Buddhist don’t believe in a God. The question I would have to ask is it within their worship practices to acknowledge their god for various acts or do they only pray 3 times a day. If it is a standard practice, then it can be practice in the public sphere. If not, then the question is why are you doing it?
      But if they were to do it, especially before the kicker and the kick prevent defense makes it on to the field. Go for it. It is not delaying the game.
      The mat I would still consider wrong because it is an equipment item and you, as a non-player/coach should not be on the field.

      December 2, 2010 at 3:41 pm |
    • Luke

      Let Us Prey – Then why do they allow any praying at all? Where's the line?

      December 2, 2010 at 3:44 pm |
    • Let Us Prey

      @ Luke

      Common courtesy. Civility. Community. Consideration.

      All determine 'the line.'

      December 2, 2010 at 3:50 pm |
    • Luke

      Let Us Prey

      That line can move, depending on what part of the world you're in.

      December 2, 2010 at 3:55 pm |
    • Let Us Prey

      @ Luke

      Agreed. But it's fairly consistent here in the U.S.. Save for that Dearborn issue. For anyone interested, watch the Fordson High School football team's 5 minute doc-umentary. I especially love the coach's statement at 4:00. "We beat them at their own game..." Priceless.

      December 2, 2010 at 4:07 pm |
    • Frogist

      @Mike, not me: I would say it is taunting and unnecessarily mocking to say God blessed my team with this touchdown.

      December 2, 2010 at 5:09 pm |
    • Bruce

      Privicy vs public display. Some in the Christian arena do not oppose a public thank you to God, others do. I happen to think the display brings as much attention to the player as the player wants the attention to go to God. God does not share glory with anyone. To make the public jesture of thanks is out of place since this same jesture is not made when making a passing grade or finding a good parking space. I have found that those who make such public jestures usually do not make it to the Christian finish line as thankful. We can do absolutely nothing to advance God's kingdom by any public display of prayer, praise or advertizement. It is all about a changed life that loves God and fellow men/women in as normal of a way without being like the world.

      December 3, 2010 at 7:28 am |
    • Mike, not me

      Frogist, re-read the article and the comments

      Hastie said. "I do that to give glory to my heavenly father, Jesus. He gives me the strength. He's the one who gives me these abilities in the first place."

      December 3, 2010 at 8:19 am |
    • Tony Arcuri

      Big difference here Luke, most celebrations are about praising themselves, this one is for God not himself.

      December 3, 2010 at 2:57 pm |
    • Frogist

      Mike, not me: Yes, god gave him the ability to make that touchdown, and did not give the opposing side those same abilities. That seems degrading and taunting to the other team no matter how you look at it.

      December 3, 2010 at 4:21 pm |
    • Joseph Myers

      Luke,
      What are you, an employee of the ACLU?

      December 5, 2010 at 11:22 am |
  20. Abejita

    Keep on praising God Hastie! I am so thankful that God let us know that these things would happen, that way we are not taken by surprise.

    ‎1 John 3:13 ~ Do not be surprised, brethren, if the world hates you.

    2 Timothy 3:1-5 ~ But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers,disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these.

    December 2, 2010 at 10:36 am |
    • Reality

      Both references fail with respect to authorship. See Father Raymond Brown's book, An Introduction to the New Testament for an exhaustive review.

      December 3, 2010 at 8:28 am |
    • Suzanne Russell

      I agree with you totatlly! There is no difference here with a person who dances in the end zone as with one who points to God! What's wrong with either one? Nothing! Either you deny or allow BOTH, but not just one! People are watching how differiential people are against Christians and I think they don't like it. Even the ones who aren't Christians don't like abuse or unfairness. I hope they wake up and realize what they are doing.

      December 3, 2010 at 9:12 am |
1 2 3
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.