St. Louis Cardinals Order Cross Removed From Mound After Complaints

I’d written previously about a controversy surrounding a cross drawn on the back of the mound at Busch Stadium in St. Louis to honor slugger Stan Musial who passed away earlier this year. Musial, apparently a devout Catholic and the best Cardinals hitter of all time, was being honored by the grounds crew with the symbols scratched in the dirt before every game.

But after some fans saw it and expressed their outrage, Cardinals management decided to remove it.

“It’s just not club policy to be putting religious symbols on the playing field or throughout the ballpark,” Cardinals general manager John Mozeliak told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. “I didn’t ask for the reason behind it. I just asked for it to stop.”

The stadium belongs to the team, and the grounds crew works for the team, and the St. Louis Cardinals can, of course, set any policy they want regarding religious symbolism in their parks. But c’mon. It was a symbol honoring one of baseball’s all-time greats in a manner consistent with his strongly-held religious faith.

We live in a free society with a lot of diversity when it comes to religious belief. A prerequisite for functioning in that society is tolerating the religious displays of others. Or, that should be a prerequisite anyway.

Chalk up another victory for the curmudgeons who demand tolerance from everyone else, but are unwilling to give a little tolerance of their own.

Rob Port is the editor of In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters.

Related posts

  • mikemc1970

    More anti-christian bigotry from the left.

  • JoeMN

    The militant Atheists here say out of “tolerance” the cross must be removed on behalf of Hindu’s, Muslims ect.
    So we are left with a barren mound, devoid of any personal religious symbolism.
    Does this mean one can only meet the objectives of “diversity” by practicing Atheism in public ?

    And furthermore, must any religious views you may hold be conducted behind closed doors, lest a a militant Atheist be “offended” ?

    • sbark

      I just notice all the time, the Leftists and atheist are never just too offended by any signs of Islam or sharia law…………..they seem to be just fine with those

      • JoeMN

        Islam with it’s sharia is in itself a form of totalitarian government that masquerades as a religion.

        Complete with punishments for non compliance which include, but are not limited to amputations of fingers, hands, beatings, stoning, beheadings, ect.

        At the risk of being accused of proselytizing, I believe Christians are personally called to forgive those who sin against them.

        This is just too much for the “tolerance” crowd to tolerate.

  • yy4u2

    Star Parker’s recent article kinda touches on maybe too much diversity.

    Pat Buchanan lays out some very good reasons for less diversity (in terms of nationalism and ethnonationalism) in his book Death of a Superpower.