Politics invades the Nationals Clubhouse

[miami_fan]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2167486

Nationals suspend chapel leaderESPN.com news services


WASHINGTON -- The chapel leader for the Washington Nationals was suspended Tuesday after a flap over a repsonse to a question about Jews.

Jon Moeller will not be allowed access to the clubhouse while the team investigates. The Nationals have asked the Christian ministry Baseball Chapel, which appoints and oversees the volunteers, to provide a replacement.

According to an article published Sunday in The Washington Post, Nationals outfielder Ryan Church said he asked Moeller if Jews are "doomed" because they do not believe in Jesus. Church said Moeller nodded, the Post reported.

A team statement Tuesday quoted Church as saying he is "not the type of person who would call into question the religious beliefs of others." The statement also quoted team president Tony Tavares as saying the reported remarks "do not, in any manner, reflect the views or opinions of the Washington Nationals franchise."

In a release distributed by the team on Tuesday, Church said: "Those who know me on a personal level understand that I am not the type of person who would call into question the religious beliefs of others. I sincerely regret if the quote attributed to me in Sunday's Washington Post article offended anyone."

Vince Nauss, president of Baseball Chapel, said the group understood the Nationals' position, but added that Moeller had served the team well. In an e-mail to The Associated Press, Nauss said the group planned to talk with the team before taking any action. Moeller could not be reached for comment.

"The Nationals did a good job about bringing hate into the locker room," said Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld, who leads the city's oldest Orthodox synagogue, Ohev Sholom Talmud Torah.

Herzfeld said he met with Tavares for about 30 minutes Tuesday after denouncing the reported remarks at a news conference interrupted by security officials outside RFK Stadium.

He described the meeting with Tavares as productive, but said he would continue to follow the situation.

Ron Halber, executive director of the Jewish Community Council of Greater Washington, said it would be more appropriate if non-denominational prayers were offered so players of all backgrounds could participate.

Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.

[Ajaxab]

I suppose just about anything that would be Christian teaching would be offensive to Jews, if offensive means that which would imply Christ being the Messiah and only way to God with the consequence that all others who do not believe in Him are 'doomed'.

I find it interesting that this should be construed as hateful. If it is hateful, then it is hateful to all ethnicities who would not accept Moeller's position. But couldn't Moeller make the argument that, for him, it is the most loving thing to answer the question posed to him in a truthful way? Could he still live with himself and dodge the question or lie? Could he still say he loved the Jews and lie in response to the question?

In some respects, the discussion hinges on how we define love and how we define hate.

[Subby]

Just taking the story at face value, I think that Moeller handled the question from Church pretty poorly. Instead of just nodding, he should have taken the opportunity to teach about tolerance and understanding and how they relate to God's Word.

Anyway, the overreaction from every side on this is going to be fun to watch.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by Subby

Just taking the story at face value, I think that Moeller handled the question from Church pretty poorly. Instead of just nodding, he should have taken the opportunity to teach about tolerance and understanding and how they relate to God's Word.

Anyway, the overreaction from every side on this is going to be fun to watch.

I think it's already begun.


Church's comments were interesting too. Why does he feel he needs to defend himself for asking a question? The article implies that he felt like he offended someone in simply asking the question. If I ask a question about another belief system, does this mean that I am participating in something offensive?

BTW, what exactly does the phrase "call into question the beliefs of others" mean anyways?

[MrBigglesworth]

This isn't really politics, this is good old fashioned religious intolerance. It's no big secret that according to their beliefs, Christians think Jews are going to hell. That should be the expected response to that question to the chapel leader.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

This isn't really politics, this is good old fashioned religious intolerance. It's no big secret that according to their beliefs, Christians think Jews are going to hell. That should be the expected response to that question to the chapel leader.

So the religious intolerance is on the part of the Nationals for banning the chaplain? Or are we talking about religious intolerance in that some Christians believe non-believers are going to hell, and why the heck would any MLB team want to promote that in their clubhouse to begin with?

[Klinglerware]

I thought this thread was going to be about Barry Bonds (my fantasy baseball savior) taking shots at the federal government's Katrina response...

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

I thought this thread was going to be about Barry Bonds (my fantasy baseball savior) taking shots at the federal government's Katrina response...

I went to the Nats game last night and saw him park on in the upper deck. That was an absolutely amazing shot.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

So the religious intolerance is on the part of the Nationals for banning the chaplain? Or are we talking about religious intolerance in that some Christians believe non-believers are going to hell, and why the heck would any MLB team want to promote that in their clubhouse to begin with?

The Nationals are stupid for banning him, because what did they expect? Christian doctrine has strongly held that Jesus is the only path to salvation. That's why they have been sending missionaries all over the globe for centuries. If the Nationals didn't want this kind of stuff in the clubhouse, they shouldn't of hired a team chaplain.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

The Nationals are stupid for banning him, because what did they expect? Christian doctrine has strongly held that Jesus is the only path to salvation. That's why they have been sending missionaries all over the globe for centuries. If the Nationals didn't want this kind of stuff in the clubhouse, they shouldn't of hired a team chaplain.

Playing Devil's Advocate here - can you really blame the team? They are new to the city, working on putting down long lasting roots and building a strong relationship with the fanbase. How would it have looked to the tens of thousands of jewish residents in this area had they not reprimanded this team chaplain on some level?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Subby

Playing Devil's Advocate here - can you really blame the team? They are new to the city, working on putting down long lasting roots and building a strong relationship with the fanbase. How would it have looked to the tens of thousands of jewish residents in this area had they not reprimanded this team chaplain on some level?

They had to make that move, I guess where I really think they were stupid is in putting themselves in the situation. Or, I suppose the really stupid party is society. We all know this is the thinking, we accept it if it is kept quiet, it's just for some reason not polite to say it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

They had to make that move, I guess where I really think they were stupid is in putting themselves in the situation. Or, I suppose the really stupid party is society. We all know this is the thinking, we accept it if it is kept quiet, it's just for some reason not polite to say it.

Good grief ... I find myself agreeing with Mr. B. on something.

Suddenly, I find myself in need of a very stiff drink.

[Solecismic]

All this does is illustrate why employers should not bring chaplains into the workplace. I don't see it as offensive in any way, other than the usual bickering about why professional sports franchises don't have to follow the same rules every other employer must follow.

I read a piece a few years ago about a professional football player who happens to be an atheist. Because he didn't take part in the team's pre-game prayer, some of his teammates were unpleasant.

I also hate it whenever I see Jack McKeon lighting up a stogie in the dugout.

[Critch]

Judging by the last two games against San Diego and last nights game, this guy didn't have a direct line to God anyway.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

All this does is illustrate why employers should not bring chaplains into the workplace. I don't see it as offensive in any way, other than the usual bickering about why professional sports franchises don't have to follow the same rules every other employer must follow.

I read a piece a few years ago about a professional football player who happens to be an atheist. Because he didn't take part in the team's pre-game prayer, some of his teammates were unpleasant.

I also hate it whenever I see Jack McKeon lighting up a stogie in the dugout.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[ISiddiqui]

I'm with Jim... why do teams need a chaplain in the clubhouse? They can pray by themselves and if they need spiritual guidance, it is not like they are in a place without any men of the cloth that they can confide in. Just go down the street to any church that shares your beliefs!

Otherwise, provide a team rabbi, imam, etc, etc.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Not in DC

SI

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by Critch

Judging by the last two games against San Diego and last nights game, this guy didn't have a direct line to God anyway.

What can I say? The NL West: It's FAAAAN-TASTIC!

[stevew]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

This isn't really politics, this is good old fashioned religious intolerance. It's no big secret that according to their beliefs, Christians think Jews are going to hell. That should be the expected response to that question to the chapel leader.

The Jews are god's chosen people, I hadnt heard they were headed to hell? Maybe i missed that part.

[Dutch]

Do Christians ever do anything right?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by stevew

The Jews are god's chosen people, I hadnt heard they were headed to hell? Maybe i missed that part.

The Jews are God's chosen people, Jesus is the way to salvation, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the only way to get to the big stripper factory and beer volcano in the sky.

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Do Christians ever do anything right?

Sure

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Mustang

Sure

Nah, they fucked that up by closing on Sundays.

Seriously though, could the chaplain have handled it differently? Probably. Should he? Probably. Should he have lied? No. I lay the blame at Church though. I don't really have a problem with him asking the question, but do it in a different setting. And really, should it matter if your ex is going to hell. As long as she feels safe and secure in whatever she believes, it really shouldn't matter how you feel about it.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

"Yeah, well sometimes a cigar is a big brown dick. With a white business asshole sucking on the wet end of it."

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Should he have lied? No.

This is the problem I have with the whole god thing. It's malicious. These people are genuinely taught to believe that those who are not like them are going to be rewarded with an eternity of torture.

That's the motivator mechanism for the entire system.

You'd think that the manipulations of suicide bombers in some Islamic churches would be warning enough that teaching this type of belief is dangerous.

Absolutely, the chaplain answered the question irresponsibly. There's a difference between lying and understanding that your belief is by no means proof of scientific fact.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

There's a difference between lying and understanding that your belief is by no means proof of scientific fact.

From what they tell me, "faith" to the religious crowd is more important than scientific fact.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

From what they tell me, "faith" to the religious crowd is more important than scientific fact.

This is clearly a necessary and insightful comment, relevant to the above discussion and in no way is just a cheap shot to one of the sides arguing above.

SI

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

This is clearly a necessary and insightful comment, relevant to the above discussion and in no way is just a cheap shot to one of the sides arguing above.

SI

What are these "sides" that are arguing? If there is some Christian/Non-Christian argument going on, I was on the side of the Christians and against the Nationals in this thread, and was actually correcting an anti-faith post. One of Jim's points was that the chaplain should realize that his faith is not a scientific fact, while I countered that faith is more important to him than scientific facts, implying that taking that line of reasoning to the chaplain would be fruitless.

[timbuc2]

pretty much they need to either not have a chplain or not condemn everyone who says something politically incorrect.

[Bubba Wheels]

The chaplain gets lambasted for stating an obvious Christian belief. Jews believe the same about their faith, Muslims the same about theirs. So if you want to call the chaplain 'bigoted', or 'intolerant', you are pretty much making the same statement about all those with faith in general, regardless of religion.

And if you're an atheist, your probably falling back on some smug belief that you're 'superior' to everybody else because you don't belief in any religion. That just makes you self-righteous and bigoted in your own regard.

As to the chaplain, the military set the model by having chaplains from all three major religions along with some other sects (even Satanists and witches, from what I hear.) Based upon percentage of population (you don't need 3 of every chaplain kinds if 90% of the troops are Christian, 5% Muslim and 5% Jewish, you get the picture.)

Common sense has already provided the solution. Could the Chaplain have used better discretion and tact? Yes. Should he be condemned as 'hateful' by those with the very same personal beliefs about their own religion/set of values? Just more hypocrites.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

And if your an atheist, your probably falling back on some smug belief that your 'superior' to everybody else because you don't belief in any religion. That just makes you self-righteous and bigoted in your own regard.

I'm only cringing slightly at the first three uses of "your" above.

No, I don't feel superior about it. It helps many people who can't cope with the unknown - there's nothing wrong with that.

I just wish that religious people would accept that faith is what it is, and not try and impose it on others. The world would be a better place. Not without religion, but if religion were better understood and kept private. Religion is the opposite of science.

[Bubba Wheels]

Fixed it, and threw in a corrected believes/beliefs in the process. Hope that helps!

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I'm only cringing slightly at the first three uses of "your" above.

No, I don't feel superior about it. It helps many people who can't cope with the unknown - there's nothing wrong with that.

I just wish that religious people would accept that faith is what it is, and not try and impose it on others. The world would be a better place. Not without religion, but if religion were better understood and kept private. Religion is the opposite of science.

What does this phrase 'impose it on others' mean?

[LastWhiteSoxFanStanding]

Just wanted to point out Bubba Wheels is wrong about the Jewish view of salvation. I don't know how it works for Islam or other religions, but for Jews I found a reasonable summary of it at this website.

http://www.biblehistory.com/Salvatio...sh%20View.html

"Humankind, created by this one God, is inherently good. There is no original sin, no instinctive evil or fundamental impurity; human beings are made in God's image and are endowed with an intelligence that enables them to choose between good and evil. They need no mediator, such as Christians have in Christ, but approach God directly. All people--Jews and Gentiles alike--attain immortality as the reward of righteous living, although concern for life after death is an issue of minor significance for Jews."

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by LastWhiteSoxFanStanding

Just wanted to point out Bubba Wheels is wrong about the Jewish view of salvation. I don't know how it works for Islam or other religions, but for Jews I found a reasonable summary of it at this website.

http://www.biblehistory.com/Salvatio...sh%20View.html

"Humankind, created by this one God, is inherently good. There is no original sin, no instinctive evil or fundamental impurity; human beings are made in God's image and are endowed with an intelligence that enables them to choose between good and evil. They need no mediator, such as Christians have in Christ, but approach God directly. All people--Jews and Gentiles alike--attain immortality as the reward of righteous living, although concern for life after death is an issue of minor significance for Jews."

Which sect? Orthodox, Reformed of other? And if so, then what were the animal sacrifices for? And when did the need for that change? And why are the Israelis gearing up to restart animal sacrifices again once the Temple of David/Solomon is rebuilt? Or is that all incorrect information?

[LastWhiteSoxFanStanding]

I am unaware of a movment looking to restart animal sacrifices. Not saying this isn't true, but the majority of Jews would not be part of this movement.

Also the three main sects are Orthodox, REFORM and conservative. Just wanted to make sure you get your terminology correct so you don't look foolish.

As far as your serious inquiry into the practice of animal sacrifices I will refer you to another website.

http://judaism.about.com/od/abcsofju...fice_replc.htm
Prayer has taken the place of sacrifices in Jewish practice. Hosea 14:3 reads, "Take with you words, and turn to the Lord. Say to Him, forgive all iniquity and receive us graciously, so we will offer the words of our lips instead of calves."

In some ways, Jewish prayer services parallel the ancient sacrificial practices. The extra service on the Jewish Sabbath, for example, parallels the extra Shabbat offering.

Even in Biblical times when sacrifices were made, Jews saw repentance as the most important and sacrifice as the least important way to gain forgiveness from God.

Few sins required animal sacrifice. According to the Torah, forgiveness for an intentional sin could only be atoned for through repentance, not through an animal sacrifice (Psalms 32:5, 51:16-19).
Sponsored Links

May We Pray for You?Volunteers will pray for each prayer request by name and need.www.DailyGuideposts.com

Jewish CustomsFree to Join. 1000's of pictures & video's of Beautiful Jewish singleswww.JPeopleMeet.com

Discover Jewish CultureFind books of Jewish fiction or Learn about Jewish Culturewww.nextbook.org
Animal sacrifices were only prescribed for unintentional sins (Leviticus 4:2, 13, 22, 27; 5:5, 15 and Numbers 15:30). The one exception was when an individual who was accused of theft swore falsely in an effort to gain acquittal (Leviticus 5:24-26).

Furthermore, sacrifices could not make amends for a crime unless the person making the offering sincerely repented before making the sacrifice and made restitution to any person harmed by the sin.

In addition, sacrifices could only be made in the Temple, while prayers could be recited anywhere. Upon completion of the building of the Holy Temple, King Solomon asked that prayer be used by those away from the Temple to obtain forgiveness (I Kings 8:46-50). Even during the time of the Temple, synagogues were used for prayer.

Thus, even in Biblical times, prayer and repentance were important means to atonement. Today Jews no longer practice animal sacrifice, but they gain forgiveness from God via prayer, repentance and good deeds.

Please continue to ask questions for I feel this dialogue will be incredibly helpful to you.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Fixed it, and threw in a corrected believes/beliefs in the process. Hope that helps!

Survey says...

And if you're an atheist, your probably falling back on some smug belief that you're 'superior' to everybody else because you don't belief in any religion. That just makes you self-righteous and bigoted in your own regard.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by LastWhiteSoxFanStanding

I am unaware of a movment looking to restart animal sacrifices. Not saying this isn't true, but the majority of Jews would not be part of this movement.

Also the three main sects are Orthodox, REFORM and conservative. Just wanted to make sure you get your terminology correct so you don't look foolish.

As far as your serious inquiry into the practice of animal sacrifices I will refer you to another website.

http://judaism.about.com/od/abcsofju...fice_replc.htm
Prayer has taken the place of sacrifices in Jewish practice. Hosea 14:3 reads, "Take with you words, and turn to the Lord. Say to Him, forgive all iniquity and receive us graciously, so we will offer the words of our lips instead of calves."

In some ways, Jewish prayer services parallel the ancient sacrificial practices. The extra service on the Jewish Sabbath, for example, parallels the extra Shabbat offering.

Even in Biblical times when sacrifices were made, Jews saw repentance as the most important and sacrifice as the least important way to gain forgiveness from God.

Few sins required animal sacrifice. According to the Torah, forgiveness for an intentional sin could only be atoned for through repentance, not through an animal sacrifice (Psalms 32:5, 51:16-19).
Sponsored Links

May We Pray for You?Volunteers will pray for each prayer request by name and need.www.DailyGuideposts.com

Jewish CustomsFree to Join. 1000's of pictures & video's of Beautiful Jewish singleswww.JPeopleMeet.com

Discover Jewish CultureFind books of Jewish fiction or Learn about Jewish Culturewww.nextbook.org
Animal sacrifices were only prescribed for unintentional sins (Leviticus 4:2, 13, 22, 27; 5:5, 15 and Numbers 15:30). The one exception was when an individual who was accused of theft swore falsely in an effort to gain acquittal (Leviticus 5:24-26).

Furthermore, sacrifices could not make amends for a crime unless the person making the offering sincerely repented before making the sacrifice and made restitution to any person harmed by the sin.

In addition, sacrifices could only be made in the Temple, while prayers could be recited anywhere. Upon completion of the building of the Holy Temple, King Solomon asked that prayer be used by those away from the Temple to obtain forgiveness (I Kings 8:46-50). Even during the time of the Temple, synagogues were used for prayer.

Thus, even in Biblical times, prayer and repentance were important means to atonement. Today Jews no longer practice animal sacrifice, but they gain forgiveness from God via prayer, repentance and good deeds.

Please continue to ask questions for I feel this dialogue will be incredibly helpful to you.

Well, I do very much appreciate the information. Interesting about the animal sacrifice/prayer thing, as Christians believe that the death of Christ on the Cross was the ultimate sacrifice, that animal sacrifices before His death were 'types and shadows' of the one to come. Christians believe that our prayers and worship are acceptable sacrifices to God today because of what Christ did for us with His sacrifice.

But if I'm not mistaken, the first five books of our Bible and the Torah are identical, so according to your explanations what about God stating in Genesis "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness for sin." (Paraphrased, will look it up later with more time if you want.)?

Much more to get into but no time, so I'll just start with that one.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Subby

Just taking the story at face value, I think that Moeller handled the question from Church pretty poorly. Instead of just nodding, he should have taken the opportunity to teach about tolerance and understanding and how they relate to God's Word.

Anyway, the overreaction from every side on this is going to be fun to watch.

This is how I see it too. This isn't the kind of comment/assertion that you just throw out there in a position like a professional sports team's minister. In that role you have to be all things to all people, and really need to soften that response.

Perhaps saying something along these lines "Well we have a completely different perception of Jesus. I think Jesus was the messiah and is the true way to salvation...Jewish belief teaches that Jesus was a prophet, and that the Messiah has yet to arrive. Those are pretty different beliefs. I have faith that I'm correct about my belief of Jesus, and I'm sure Jewish believers have faith in their perception. They consider me to be just as misguided as I could ever consider them"

[LastWhiteSoxFanStanding]

I am not sure why I am bringing this up again because I am not even religious, but to clarify: Jews do not believe Jesus is a prophet.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, that's Islam. Jews just think Jesus was a crazy person basically .

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yeah, that's Islam. Jews just think Jesus was a crazy person basically .

That's pretty much the choice Jesus gives you, either He is the Son of God and your Savior if you accept His sacrifice for you or or He is a total nut case. At least the Jews according to your statement aren't trying to have it both ways. And nobody gets to do that anyway. Its all or nothing.

[Galaxy]

Wow...

[timbuc2]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Perhaps saying something along these lines "Well we have a completely different perception of Jesus. I think Jesus was the messiah and is the true way to salvation...Jewish belief teaches that Jesus was a prophet, and that the Messiah has yet to arrive. Those are pretty different beliefs. I have faith that I'm correct about my belief of Jesus, and I'm sure Jewish believers have faith in their perception. They consider me to be just as misguided as I could ever consider them"

why say all that when you can summarize it with a good ol' nod of the head?

I say: ask a loaded question and expect an answer your not going to like.