Pete Rose Rides Again
by sarabeth at 12:30 pm on September 18th, 2006 in EntertainmentThe New York Daily News is reporting that Pete Rose has signed 30 baseballs which say “I’m sorry I bet on baseball”.
Why would he do this? Who knows? (Except for the NSA, maybe?)
The balls are going to be auctioned, and are expected to fetch a thousand dollars each. So maybe that’s why.
Or maybe he just ran out of patience hoping to be unbanned, and he’s now just out to embarrass the game:
Rose has been banned from baseball since 1989 for betting on the game. He consistently denied ever betting on baseball until 2004, when he admitted in an autobiography that he placed bets on baseball while he was a player and manager for the Cincinnati Reds.
Although baseball commissioner Bud Selig has met with Rose to discuss a possible reinstatement, Selig has never acted on Rose’s application.
Personally, I was struck by what the balls don’t say. For example,
• I’m sorry if I bet on baseball.
• I’m sorry if fans were offended by my betting on baseball.
• I’m deeply sorry for the reaction to stories that I bet on baseball.
Pete Rose may not be the classiest guy on the planet, but at least he knows how to make an apology. Too bad the Pope is not likely to catch this story.
sac wrote:
What do you make of this, both the event the story is describing and the writer’s take on it?
I can’t think of an equivilant to a “Day of Rage” in Christian theology as it is practiced today. I could be wrong. Mostly I’m pissed that I’m finding myself agreeing with some Chrisitan leaders lately. The Pope made an error in judgement by including that quote in his speech, but that doesn’t excuse the reaction from many Muslim leaders. You have rhetoric on one hand and calls for violence on the other. I’ll take the former.
Posted 20 Sep 2006 at 8:34 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Calls for violence are also just rhetoric, aren’t they?
Posted 20 Sep 2006 at 9:59 am ¶
sac wrote:
Yes, that’s true, but you would never hear that kind of rhetoric from Christian leaders. Or Buddhist or Hindu or just about any other religion I can think outside of Islam. Again, I’m not religious, I’m not really rooting for one or the other, but I do see a problem when a major religious figure(s) calls for rage and/or violence. Don’t you? And would you not say that that kind of rhetoric is far worse than what the Pope did? And thinking in terms of “he should have known better because everyone knew what the Muslim reaction would be” is to treat Muslims like uncontrollable children. Muslim leaders should be able to withstand criticism without resorting to violence or violent rhetoric.
Posted 20 Sep 2006 at 10:14 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
I do see a problem when someone who read that post describes a call for civilized protest as a call for rage simply because the literal translation of the Arabic phrase involved is “day of rage”.
Posted 20 Sep 2006 at 11:43 am ¶
sac wrote:
Have the protests so far been civilized? “Death to the pope,” etc.?
I’m all for civilized protests. We’ll see how it goes down. Also, why does Islam get such broad interpretability while other religions are held to every word? You read the pope’s speech, it was not about Islam at all, yet he is held to that one quote. And yet, we are expected to interpret “Day of Rage” as meaning civilized protest. You seem to be a stickler for intrpreting only what is on the page around here. So I, and many others, interpret “rage” for what it is.
I don’t see a place for rage anywhere in religion or philosophy, and will not view those who do with all that much respect.
Posted 20 Sep 2006 at 11:51 am ¶
sac wrote:
This is more like it. I truly hope to see more Muslims leaders stepping up and calling for rationality as those in Indonesia have done.
Posted 20 Sep 2006 at 12:01 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
The call was a call for civilized protests, it wasn’t a call for violence.
Cultural terms can only be understood in a cultural context. But you seem to be determined to misunderstand the term even though it is very clearly explained in that piece.
Feel free to explain what that means, and what I should be doing instead according to you.
Posted 20 Sep 2006 at 12:03 pm ¶
sac wrote:
I know about cultural contexts, and I know that terms like “jihad” are meant as a personal struggle and not an external war. And yet, as I’m sure you’re aware of, people misinterpret their own religious terms all the time. And so we get “jihads” conflated with “fatwas” and civilized protests labeled as days of rage.
If on Friday, the protests are filled with calls of “death to the pope” and “Islam will conquer Rome,” will you condemn such statements? And will you expect Muslim leaders to do the same?
Posted 20 Sep 2006 at 12:20 pm ¶
sac wrote:
Also, I’m very interested as to why you even give a shit what the Pope said about Islam. At worst, it was a critique of certain aspects of Islam (and not even that, really) and yet I remember you saying that you have major problems with organized religion. Shouldn’t you be welcoming criticism of a religion? What if a major Muslim figure were to proclaim something like “Christianity has brought nothing to the world but pain and suffering.” Would you agree with that statement? And would you be expecting an aplogy from that Muslim leader?
And by the way, if something like that was ALL many Muslim leaders were saying about Christianity and the West in general, I’d sleep better.
Posted 20 Sep 2006 at 12:25 pm ¶
sac wrote:
I meant that in the past, you have been very clear that you do not appreciate people interpreting what you mean if it wasn’t there in print.
Posted 20 Sep 2006 at 12:36 pm ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
One reason why what the Pope says is significant is because he has a state, not to mention almost a billion followers. No mullah can claim either. Though the Vatican might seem insignificant as a state, China (for example) has a state-sanctioned version of the Catholic religion yet no analog for Islam, which has more followers than the Pope. Why? Hint: See Realism.
Posted 20 Sep 2006 at 2:10 pm ¶
sac wrote:
I agree completely.
Posted 20 Sep 2006 at 2:19 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Stupidity is stupidity, whether it comes from your mouth or Bush’s or the Pope’s.
Stupidity that has the effect of adding fuel to an already blazing fire is bad enough coming from anyone, it is certainly much worse — and deserving of criticism — coming from a world leader, especially a religious leader whose professed role in world affairs is to spread love and light.
The fact that I am deeply distrustful of all forms of organized religion doesn’t change any of that.
The suggestion that I should approvingly embrace the pope’s stupid fuel-on-the-fire comment simply because it involved criticism of a religion is truly preposterous.
Posted 20 Sep 2006 at 2:39 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
In this case, the meaning of the Arabic phrase “Yaum al Ghadab” (as opposed to its literal translation) is laid out in black and white in the article you cited. It is there in print, if you insist on putting it in those terms. The same source that gives you the literal translation gives you the real meaning.
Despite your “I know about cultural contexts”, you seem to have decided out of some sense of irritation that you will ignore the explanation, and decide that “Yaum al Ghadab” is a call for rage. And you have somehow persuaded yourself that this is reasonable. But the fact of the matter is that when you say “So I, and many others, interpret “rage” for what it is.” that is not the voice of reason. In fact, it sounds very much like the voice of prejudice.
I do think it is one of the ugliest things you have ever said here.
Posted 20 Sep 2006 at 2:57 pm ¶
sac wrote:
I guess we’ll have to wait until Friday to see how Muslim protesters interpret it.
I’ll agree with that. “My bad,” as the kids say.
Posted 20 Sep 2006 at 3:43 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
How hotheads on the street end up behaving has very little to do with what the meaning of the phrase “Yaum al Ghadab” is.
Posted 20 Sep 2006 at 3:48 pm ¶
sac wrote:
Sorry, one more. Could you respond to this part of one of my previous comments?
I’m not saying 2 wrongs make a right, but I also don’t think it’s wrong for a major religious figure to include a criticism of the practice of other religious figures calling for violence. It needs to be said. And also, that same day, the Pope called for inter-faith talks. The fact that such reasonable speech results in global anger points not to the inappropriateness of the Pope’s quotation, but to the irrationality of many (not all) Muslim leaders. Would you not say calling for a “Day of Rage,” and I will accept your interpretation of that phrase to mean “civilized protest,” is pouring a whole lot more gasoline on the fire?
Posted 20 Sep 2006 at 3:50 pm ¶
sac wrote:
Not true. What the text is “supposed” to mean is irrelevant if it manifests another way in real life. Texts, especially religious texts, do not live in a vacuum on the page, they are meant to be incorporated into daily life. Isn’t that one of the main problems with religion in general? Shouldn’t the mullahs know that people could take their words the wrong way and, perhaps, call for a day of prayer instead? Or maybe take the Pope up on his offer of inter-faith talks?
I really resent that kind of esoteric belief in the text as king. Interpretation is everything.
Posted 20 Sep 2006 at 3:56 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
I would condemn that piece of stupidity too. Whether or not I would expect an apology would depend on how much of an idiot that major Muslim figure is, in my opinion.
If it was the Grand Multi in Jerusalem, I would condemn it every bit as strongly as I did the pope’s idiocy, and I would expect an apology every bit as strongly.
If you have, in fact, agreed that “The Pope made an error in judgement by including that quote in his speech” can we drop these arguments that maybe it wasn’t a stupid mistake for him to have said what he said the way he did?
Would you not say this is precisely the fire that the pope fueled?
Posted 20 Sep 2006 at 4:05 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
I repeat: How hotheads on the street end up behaving has very little to do with what the meaning of the phrase “Yaum al Ghadab” is.
And that statement has zilch to do with “esoteric belief in the text as king”. (Esoteric?)
It’s just plain common sense. The meaning of an utterance cannot be defined by the worst or stupidest public mis-interpretation of the statement.
Posted 20 Sep 2006 at 4:13 pm ¶
sac wrote:
Repeating it doesn’t make it any truer. If the majority of protests are civilized, meaning no calls for violence, then the interpretation of the phrase would allign with the intended meaning. If the majority are not civil, then the meaning has been lost. People are judged by their actions, not their intentions.
And I’m out for today…
Posted 20 Sep 2006 at 4:19 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Ox-crap. If you disagree with what I said, you’re arguing people are judged by the actions of others (who misinterpret their words).
Posted 20 Sep 2006 at 5:42 pm ¶
sac wrote:
Only 24 hours until the day of civilized protest. Isn’t this exciting!?
Posted 21 Sep 2006 at 8:26 am ¶