Those of us who live in Minnesota have suspected this for a long time.
It is all visible in the following video. PZ is the one with the two big zeros on his shirt:
The University of Minnesota is apologizing for a bit by its Goldy Gopher mascot poking fun at a praying Penn State football player.
A video made before last Saturday’s game at State College shows Penn State defensive end Jerome Hayes kneeling in prayer in the end zone, in front of Minnesota’s cheerleaders.
Goldy Gopher then kneels in front of Hayes. When Hayes stands up, so does Goldy. The mascot tries to make some contact, but Hayes ignores him and trots back to the bench.
Minnesota spokesman Dan Wolter says the stunt was “plainly a mistake” and the mascot didn’t intent to offend anyone or trivialize religion.
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
I don’t see it as mocking. I see it as joining in.
I wanted to see some REAL mocking!
It is actually quite hard to say what Goldie was doing. Goldie is kind of a dork.
I don’t think that’s PZ. The UM-Morris mascot is a cougar, not a 13-striped ground squirrel.
At first I read it as “Godly Gopher”.
My last encounter with goldie was kinda strange too:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/04/goldie_the_gopher_is_a_girl_an.php
Why does anyone think that if God even existed, he, she, or it would give a flying _____ about the outcome of something as insignificant as a football game?
Right. Because religion has already been sufficiently trivialized, as exemplified by a football player wishing to play well getting down on one knee to psychically communicate his desires to the all powerful creator of the Universe. It really doesn’t get much more trivial than that.
I don’t think the mascot’s actions were a mistake, but I do find Dan Wolter’s spineless groveling to be an embarrassment. Overt example of such ridiculous religiosity really do deserve to be mocked. It’s a shame when even such toothless ribbing is deemed over the line.
Stubby October 22, 2009 6:35 PM:
God cares deeply about football because there is nothing more American than football. To not know this, you must be a fascist and a communist. Stalin and Mao never played football, and they killed a hundred million people.
Why does anyone think that if God even existed, he, she, or it would give a flying _____ about the outcome of something as insignificant as a football game?
Actually, not to defend religion, but that part’s in the bible. Matthew 6:26-29. Consider the lilies of the field; or, in the words of Sammy Davis, Jr, “Keep your eye on the sparrow.” Well, well, well, well, well.
The idea that God is personally concerned with every trivial outcome is part and parcel of the Christian contract with reality.
pfft. The praying guy is an idiot.
Everyone knows that any god worth having is a hockey fan.
Who won the game?
I’m glad they apologized. The guy was sincerely expressing his own form of spirituality and should be respected for it. There are reasonable ways of arguing against religion without resorting to bullying – which is exactly what many of the comments here are doing.
Not only are they self-congratulatory and unkind, they’re promoting a form of dialogue which will accomplish the exact opposite of what they set out to do in the first place – which presumably would be to encourage free thought and reason. A lack of empathy and understanding is the surest way to put people on the defensive and disengage from higher-level thinking.
I think the spaghetti monster is as silly as the next atheist, but this guy is playing football and having a nice moment. Give it a rest.
And the mascot was sincerely expressing his/her form of spirituality. Why isn’t that being respected? Why is religion being privileged?
Obviously Hayes had to pray outdoors on the field. Sometimes God doesn’t hear prayers from people praying in their cars or the locker room or sitting on the can (this explains the unanswered prayers of people in crashing airliners.) Too much interference – like listening to AM radio and driving under a bridge or high-tension power lines. Clearly the giant rodent should have kept its distance unless it was deliberately sabotaging communications with the divine!
Seriously, why does public prayer deserve automatic respect and deference? Is one’s god so weak it can’t hear prayers not made in front of thousands? Isn’t Matthew 6:1 pretty clear on this point?
Eli wrote:
Wrong. The goal is not to reinforce magical thinking, which is exactly what you do whenever you tell someone you “respect” their superstition. This attitude is largely responsible for the undeserved status religion holds in the world and in America in particular. Far too many people wear their religions on their sleeves precisely because they think it earns them respect. It needs to stop. Rational, intelligent people need to make it clear that superstition is not something that earns a person respect. That in fact, such behavior diminishes it. You lose sensible people’s respect whenever you talk to invisible spirits.
And I notice this requirement of “respecting” beliefs only seems to apply to religion. No one in their right mind would say that the proper way to deal with racists is by first making it clear that we respect their racist views. No, you make it clear from the outset that such barbaric thinking is improper and untrue.
Oh, it’s not “bullying” for Pete’s sake. At best it’s shaming, which is a perfectly valid social tool for encouraging desirable behaviors and discouraging ones people really should be ashamed of. Most people don’t question the propriety of their religious views until well after they’ve been ingrained. I can count on one hand the number of religious people I’ve known who have abandoned their views due to reasoned arguments. It just doesn’t work on most people. Religion is an emotional/social phenomenon that propagates through communal reinforcement. One effective way to limit it is through negative peer pressure. Enablers like you don’t help.
Bullying, Eli? Really? Mockery is not bullying. As an exercise to understand the difference, I suggest you go up to someone of intimidating stature – a college football player, perhaps? – and call him ‘Sparkles.’ Your behavior would be appropriately termed mockery, and his likely response would almost certainly qualify as bullying.
When people publicly express their beliefs – and this player’s “nice moment” as you call it was not just a public expression of belief, but a downright ostentatious one – they invite public commentary on those beliefs. People who wear their religiosity on their sleeves not only expect nothing but positive public commentary on those beliefs, they treat anything other than warm acceptance and praise of their public piety as a grievous insult and vile personal assault. That massively inflated sense of entitlement is precisely what so richly deserves deflation via mockery, and why so many people here are celebrating it.
In fact, your insistence that religion is automatically deserving of respect – “The guy was sincerely expressing his own form of spirituality and should be respected for it.” – is just another manifestation of exactly the same sense of entitlement and privilege. I see no reason why religious beliefs and/or displays thereof deserve respect, and I have never read or heard any even remotely convincing argument for it. Toleration, yes – but not respect. People have the right to believe any silly-ass thing they want, and to express their beliefs however they want: You even have the right to believe that religion deserves respect and that mockery of religion constitutes “bullying,” and to say so – and I have every right to believe that you are not only wrong but foolish to believe and say such things, and to mock you for it.
You also seem to be suffering from the delusion that the point of mockery is to change the mind of the mocked. After all, who would feel defensive about mockery of public display of religious belief but religious believers? (Or, more appropriate, religious believers who think that public displays of religious fervor are good and appropriate behavior.) You might want to consider that the point of mockery is to say something about the target of mockery to *other people* – in this case, to point out the absurdity and ego of public displays of piety in a way that makes a clear point and lasting impression. After all, the whole point of being a mascot is to draw attention to oneself: By mimicking the praying football player, I think Goldie very effectively – and I think correctly – implied that his prayer was also all about calling attention to himself, which frankly doesn’t strike me as very spiritual at all.
Eli,
Ask yourself this. What if the player, rather than praying, had instead indicated his support for a political cause. Should he still have been respected for doing so ? If not, why not ?
People do not seem to have a problem with attacking political views they disagree with. Indeed the idea that one should not be critical of differing political views is rightly regarded as being antithetical in a properly functioning society. Why should religion be treated any different ?
Or imagine the public’s reaction if a player got out his praying mat right there on the field, aimed it at Mecca, and went down on his knees to touch the ground with his forehead…
Goldy should’ve performed a Haka. That would’ve been entertaining.
Eli,
Why do you disrespect the Gopher’s very sincere mockery? Why is spiritual ritual respectable, but comedic ritual is worthy of denigration and bullying? Why don’t you leave the Gopher alone?
Why are you just so mean, and humorless to boot?
Ahh, it’s always free-speech for me, but not for thee — thou must be cold & rational, but I can be as emotional and irrational as I wish. I guess the Golden Rule only applies to folk within your club.
The football player was trivializing his religion. To do so in public, in front of the opposing team’s cheerleaders, and then use a sign of the cross as he finishes, showing he is a christian. He clearly hasn’t read Matthew where the historically fictional Jesus says to NOT pray in public. So now the U of M apologizes for their mascot who trivialized a player who was trivializing his own make believe religion, oh this is important. This is an institution of higher learning?
Well….all I can say is if you guys think life is full of surprises, just wait until you die…
A Haka would have been cool.
My daughter’s High School color is Black. When I realized that, it seemed natural to suggest that they get Maori cheerleaders. They already have a Ninja dance team.
(for those who may not get the connection: The Blacks have Maori Haka-dancing cheerleeders.)
j smith, and the reason we should give your assertion credence is…?
“The guy was sincerely expressing his own form of spirituality and should be respected for it.”
It’s funny that someone can look at that video and see sincerity while all I see is pious grandstanding. Why not just go sit on your bench and say your prayer to yourself? Why kneel in front of the opposing team’s cheerleaders and mascot in the endzone? It’s a spectacle. I have no respect for that behavior (or the beliefs that probably go with it, for that matter).
Well, it appears I’ve struck a nerve. And one I fully understand – ever since I first heard Sam Harris on book TV a number of years back, boldly calling for an unflinching response to the sheer absurdity of religion and asking why we are always asked to approach it with kid gloves.
And soon after we began hearing about the New Atheists and their supposedly radical agenda. Although whatever that agenda was was a matter of debate. To some, it simply meant “coming out” and actually openly declaring themselves atheist, or dropping the agnostic moniker that has served as a sort of spiritual cover – a sort of peace offering to bridge the gap between the absurd and the agnosticist “possibility of the absurd”.
And others began to go further. Instead of simply adopting a principled, yet passive posture, they went on the attack. They sought to actively promote their Atheism to the blindly religious masses. The famous books were written making the case that, while quite difficult to offer proof that God does not exist, there is actually ample evidence that he is an entirely human construct, and what’s more a contradictory and illogical drawn one at that. Articles were written engaging the New Atheists in dialogue. Movies were made. Billboards erected.
I cheered them on. I still do. I admit I had always felt a need to hide my atheism. The history of oppression and social ostracism is real and powerful. But as science has steadily built up a vast body of data and theory on what people are and why we do what we do, people are more and more becoming skeptical of religion and its increasing anachronism.
But there was also a sort of self-righteousness that irritated me. It seemed like the old human game was being played where people feel like they need to take sides and form teams. This has long been a part of any social struggle – regardless of its legitimacy. There’s an aspect of strategy and tactics to it: strength in numbers, hold the line, surround the enemy, put them on their heels, distract them.
This can all be very effective. But it draws its strength from a deeper human emotion and can end up bypassing reason. Part of its strength lies in just this fact. When reason and reflection come into the equation they can dampen that raw emotional energy and cause people to question whether they ought to keep up the fight. This is what demagogues have always exploited. Pitchforks don’t pump as vociferously through calm rationalism as they do through certainty and allegiance to the cause. And of course we all know what happens when arguments lose reason.
A powerful idea emerged from the New Atheism that, while maybe not originating through emotion, has certainly been weakened by it – effective as it has been as a sort of dark magnet for the cause. This is the idea that religion is not just a negative force, but dangerous. So dangerous in fact that it presents an urgent threat to modern civilization. I think this was triumphantly illustrated by Bill Maher’s Religulous, when near the closing credits images flashed across the screen of religious zealotry and violence while a rousing score blasted (was it Wagner?), tied together in a modern propagandist display of fearmongering. This was the bypassing of reason at its most forceful.
I personally don’t buy it. Sure, I think religion, combined with desperation and ignorance that leads to fundamentalism, can do horrific things. I also thing it is, on its face, stupid. It encourages magical thinking, when thinking should be anything but. It codifies oppression and degradation. It sews division and dischord.
But it is also incredibly human. That is, evidenced by its near universal adoption throughout human history, it seems to come directly out of the way our brain is wired for consciousness and processing of external stimulus. One must begin then to tease out what religion is. In one sense it is a very rational set of rules and beliefs that have their own internal logical structure. But in another it is a purely sensory and irrational experience that allows one to quiet the mind and exist in a state removed from the confines of ordered consciousness.
Religion is both of these things. One exists to serve the other. What are different religions but different ways of organizing how one might tap into that “spiritual” state of unconsciousness. These are all accomplished in degrees. At one end you might have a simple and short re-framing of a conscious experience by appealing to a magical thought, i.e. “That bastard just stole my parking spot. Sweet Jesus have mercy on his soul.”
Now, this example could highlight two very different responses to the same event, with two very different conscious outcomes. The driver, obviously angered by being wronged, appeals to her religion to salve the wound. Instead of allowing the complex to linger, continuing to affecting her conscious state, she does a sort of jedi-mind trick on herself, in the form of obedience to religious teaching, and she moves on.
But two people could perform the same ritual with two very different outcomes, based largely on interpretation owing to emotional and cultural development. Person A might curse and make the same “prayer”, and self-comfort with the notion that “we are all God’s children” and that “they know not what they do”. Situation explained, cognitive dissonance resolved. Persona B might also self-comfort, but instead with the notion “they will burn in hell because they are sinners”. Situation explained, cognitive dissonance resolved.
Both appealed to the same religion, but different versions of the dogma. One could be said to have left with kindness, while the other with anger and hostility. While a simple parking-lot annoyance is quite trivial, at the other end of the spectrum we have serious matters such as war and conflict. Yet one could also make the case that for every warmongering Osama Bin laden, or George Bush, there are those who identify with the religious traditions highlighting pacifism and diplomacy. For every Palestinian suicide bomber or Jewish settler, there are aid groups in Africa or soup kitchens downtown.
Ayan Hirsi Ali, no doubt owing to her personally horrific religious experience, finds many examples of ways in which the Koran explicitly lays out suggestions that only require a simple interpretation to lead believers to commit heinous acts. This may indeed be true. But while religious texts may be dangerous, and magical thinking may lead to conflict, it also has the power for much good. In many cases, religion may be the one thing that is keeping more harm from coming.
Now, the bad may certainly outweigh the good, and thus as a philosophical position is principled. But the reality is that we just aren’t anywhere close to the eradication of religion. We live in a world in which religion is tied up in ethnicity, and cultural tradition is tied up in a complex web of reason and spirituality that does good and harm simultaneously.
This is why I find the argument that some in the New Atheist movement make, that religion is urgently dangerous and needs to be cast completely out of society, both false and impractical. It is certainly sometimes dangerous, but also often very helpful, and in any event deeply tied into cultural and ethnic patterns of thought that aren’t easily separable. For this reason it just isn’t practical to rid society of religion, even if the threat it posed warranted such hostility.
Religion has been compared to other social ills, such as racism, or unjust political movements. But this is reductionist nonsense. Sure, there are specific tenets of specific religious dogma that one can certainly call unjust
and wrong, and intolerable (homophobia being a prime example). But to cast a net over the entirety of religious thought is reaching a bit.
People will always be ignorant and small-minded, with or without religion. They will really on logical fallacies in their thought, they will ignore complexity for easy answers. Religion can certainly contribute to this behavior. But it can also offer people a way to transcend it, or at least the complexities of consciousness that would encourage it.
And so in this way I think it should be given respect. At the very least as a part of one’s cultural behavior that they should not be made to feel ashamed of having accepted.
As for the player at the football game, I thought it was funny. I appreciated it both for its lighthearted ribbing, as well as the meta-commentary on PZ’s zealous atheist antics. But the comments seemed to become tendentious and self-serving. As often happens on the internet, a sort of pajamas mafia began to form: by which I mean to say a small echo chamber of righteousness whose volume is amplified by the safety and anonymity of its non-physicality.
Anyway – this has turned into quite the essay. But don’t mistake its length for any sort of ill will on my part. I appreciate the opportunity to engage with this issue – by no means a simple one. There are certainly many dangers in moderation. In the end I think this may have as much to do with personal temperament as anything.
Cheers.
Eli, you are awfully long-winded. I don’t think you touched a nerve, I think our criticisms of your absurd position touched one of your nerves. Which doesn’t surprise me, since you seem to be all nerve endings anyway.
Eli, I agree with much of what you said, but I didn’t see how it applied to this situation in the slightest. Then you lost me at this line:
We can recognize that religious behavior is cultural and acknowledge the psychological mechanisms which make it appealing. But we should not respect religion for those things, as those are the same qualities which make it so intellectual repugnant. Yes, people use religion as a psychological crutch and willingly accept absurdities which soothe their egos. Such irrationality is extremely troubling, and not less so because it is common. People should be ashamed that they have settled for pleasing falsehoods and primitive superstitions. If you wish for people to be more rational, you must at a minimum express the position that irrationality is undesirable. You can’t expect people to change if you tell them that faith and reliance on authority are perfectly respectable intellectual positions. I understand you not wanting to be part of a mindless angry mob, but I just don’t see that here. Your accusations of bullying are unfounded.
Yes, and your wariness to offend seems based upon that fear. But why would you wish that fear to restrict others with more courage than you?
G. Felis – you’re ad hominem argument fails. Next time try actually saying something worthwhile. It is ironic that your response to my statement on “touching a nerve” would provoke a clearly defensive and emotionally driven (appeal to fallacy) response!
H.H. – I actually do have a respect for irrationality. I respect it as a fundamental aspect of human behavior. Emotion isn’t rational at all, although reason can organize it. To try and declare yourself entirely reasonable is preposterous. You would cease to be human.
Yes, we can all try and be reasonable, and that is usually good. It is certainly always good when communicating with each other. But to try and limit human experience to purely rational behavior is a fool’s errand.
Let me go back to the football player. I think we can be safe in saying he is a Christian praying to God. But suppose that he wasn’t. Suppose he was an atheist who, in the course of a stressful game, took a moment to himself and began performing some focusing techniques – closing his eyes, muttering some motivational mantra, etc.
Would your reaction be any different? He wouldn’t be thinking about imaginary beings, but his behavior wouldn’t be all that different, both in its appearance and its likely effect on his mental state. As a former athlete myself I can relate to many times trying to be as irrational as possible – or maybe “arational” would be more to the point.
This empathetic picture I’m painting of the football player is where I am coming from when I describe the posts here as “bullying”. I realize the line I’m drawing isn’t very straight, and a better word would probably be more descriptive. But I’m not trying to score any points, just to get my point of view across.
To clarify what I meant by bullying (which is another irony since I’ve used it to describe the actions of a minority against an oppressive majority!): the victim in this case was doing nothing to directly harm anyone else. I understand that the mere presence of religion is considered harmful to many, and I tried to address my disagreement with that in my prior post.
If it indeed is harmful, then the “bullying” would be appropriate. Just as it would toward a racist, fascist, etc. But if not, then then I think the label is apt. If someone is doing something that isn’t harming anyone else, I think their right to do so ought to be respected.
I think it may come down to a principled disagreement. And that is a larger debate that we’ll all continue to have.
So put that in your pipe and smoke it! You too Mr. Felis!!! 😉
Important note: the Gopher was going into a 3-point stance, not kneeling for prayer. He must’ve thought Haynes was going to be a bit more exciting (tackle him or whatever), completely not understanding that there is just about no rivalry between Penn State and Minnesota. If you watch mascots during the game, you’ll see a good amount of awkward moments like this, especially with the ones that are in full costume like the Gopher and the Badger (famously, the Oregon Duck and the Stanford Tree-Thing).
PZ’s thread and this one contain a lot of people who assume so much. Nobody knows what’s going through Haynes’s head. This might be a ritual that he does to clear his mind. It could be him thinking he can communicate mentally with someone dead–there’s a lot of players in football who come from difficult backgrounds, so this is quite possible. And he’s the least showy that he possibly can… he’s at the visiting side, after all, in the corner where only the first few rows can even see him.
Overall, this is just an awkward moment that really means nothing on any level.
desantoos: You are absolutely correct.
I know goldie. Well, I don’t know her really well, but I do know her well enough to know she’s a girl, and to know that she can’t see for shit. The girl part is not relevant here (I just find it interesting that everybody calls her a “him”) but the vision thing is very important here.
Eli: Your response to my criticism, since it did not in any way actually address the substance of my criticism, deserved no more response than it got. And I have a job, so I was not at liberty to go to more length – not that I really needed to. If you are going to whine “ad hominem” every time anyone mocks anyone – including you – then you are only going to earn more mockery along the “That word. I do not think it means what you think it means…” vein. I made a cogent criticism of your position – specifically, that your response was more emotional than rational, and did not actually address my criticism (although I don’t doubt that you believe you answered my criticism). I saw nothing but more emoting in your response, and saw – and on re-reading, still see – nothing worthy of a serious response. Sorry. You don’t get to set the terms of every debate. But feel free to keep whining.
That gopher reminds me of the deep sea diving squirrel on SpongeBob Squarepants.
Speaking of infamous blasphemers, besides the Gopher, and PZ Myers, Willem Defoe also attended U Minn at Morris. Defoe portrayed Bozo in the controversial film, The Last Temptation of Bozo.
After watching the video all I saw was two individuals expressing their rights. One expressing their right to freedom of speech and the other freedom of religion.
There is no need for U.M. to apologize.
If anyone should apologize it should be Jerome Hayes for his display of piecey. He intentionally trots down in front of U.M.’s cheerleaders and it’s crowd and continues to mock them with his obnoxious and arrogant display of what a true Christian is suppose to be. And on top of that he refuses to shake Goldy’s hand. Is it not the Christian way to forgive even if one feels that they have been offended? How arrogant is that? What if one of U.M. players was to kneel down with Jerome Hayes in prayer? Would anyone find that offensive? How does anyone even know that perhaps Goldy themself was praying?
And as far as llewelly (#8) is concerned. What makes you think that God even gives a rats’ ass about some football game when he didn’t even give a rats’ ass about any of my prayers when I was a Christian. You know why? Because he DOESN’T EXIST! God is nothing more than a manifestation of ones’ PRIDE. If you don’t know this you must be an arrogant and ignorant dumb-ass.
After watching the video all I saw was two individuals expressing their rights. One expressing their right to freedom of speech and the other freedom of religion.
There is no need for U.M. to apologize.
If anyone should apologize it should be Jerome Hayes for his display of piecey. He intentionally trots down in front of U.M.’s cheerleaders and it’s crowd and continues to mock them with his obnoxious and arrogant display of what a true Christian is suppose to be. And on top of that he refuses to shake Goldy’s hand. Is it not the Christian way to forgive even if one feels that they have been offended? How arrogant is that? What if one of U.M. players was to kneel down with Jerome Hayes in prayer? Would anyone find that offensive? How does anyone even know that perhaps Goldy themself was praying?
And as far as llewelly (#8) is concerned. What makes you think that God even gives a rats’ ass about some football game when he didn’t even give a rats’ ass about any of my prayers when I was a Christian. You know why? Because he DOESN’T EXIST! God is nothing more than a manifestation of ones’ PRIDE. If you don’t know this you must be an arrogant and ignorant dumb-ass.
“An atheist is a man who watches a Notre Dame – Southern Methodist University game and doesn’t care who wins.”
— Dwight D. Eisenhower
I think this means god is an atheist, but since she doesn’t exist, we’ll never know for sure.