Geoffroy turns chaplain proposal over to advisory council

[joepublic]

Don't most Christian churches beleive Jesus is the true path? That's not a "fundy" thing, IMO.

The "one true path" thing is directed at the different sects that operate within Christianity. The overzealous, rigid, or fundy Catholics say they are the true path, as do the baptists, or the pentecostals, for example. I believe it is a fundy thing.

[cyclonenum1]

What portion of the athletic budget comes from tax dollars?

I don't know at ISU but I would suspect that it is a lot less than you think. Most of the big FB schools are able to totally fund their athletic departments without state tax dollars. They typically create some sort of private foundation to funnel the money through. This happens at LSU, Ohio State, Tennessee, Florida, etc.

[joepublic]

Quote:
Originally Posted by joepublic
What if the ladies softball coach wants a chaplain, but can't drum up a church to foot the bill? How does the university get around that?



GC is making the Chaplian available to ALL athletes and coaches at ISU. Every athelete and coach will have access.....

Thank you for pointing that out.

[Kyle]

I did a little research into case law that should answer some questions people have.

The primary establishment clause test comes from Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). This particular case found state funding of secular subject teachers in private schools unconstitutional. Here is the quote from that case that summarizes the three primary factors that are considered, which is typically referred to as the Lemon test.

"First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion… [and] finally, the statute must not foster ‘an excessive government entanglement with religion."

However, the Court has refused to adopt a rigid test and views the Lemon test as more of a useful guide.

The Supreme Court, while noting that it found Lemon useful in some contexts, only recently reaffirmed its “unwillingness to be confined to any single test or criterion in this sensitive area,” disclaiming a per se or “absolutist” approach and pointing out that even in Lemon it had stated that the Clause erects a “blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier depending on all the circumstances of a particular relationship...

Accordingly, the Court carved out an exception for legislative prayer in Marsh v. Chambers, citing the long history of such activity.

The content of the prayer is not of concern to judges where, as here, there is no indication that the prayer opportunity has been exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief.

When interpreting the "advance" part of the Lemon test a court may use the test used in Duffy v. State Personnel Bd., 232 Cal. App. 3d 1 (1991).

To ascertain whether the statute conveys a message of endorsement, the relevant issue is how it would be perceived by an objective observer, acquainted with the text, history, and implementation of the government act.

This case, dealing with prison chaplains, also offers much insight into why prison and military chaplains are allowed. The basic argument is that since the government has prevented prisoners and soldiers from worshiping as they would otherwise please they may facilitate their religious practices.

Before the government action can be perceived as a permissible accommodation of religion, there must in fact be an identifiable burden on the exercise of religion that can be said to be lifted by government action. Here, the burden is readily apparent, since government incarceration prevents an inmate from worshiping with whom he chooses and at the location of his choice.

FN9. In concurring separately in Abington School District v. Schempp, supra, 374 U.S. at pp. 297-298, 83 S.Ct. at pp. 1611, Justice Brennan commented on the issue before us now: “There are certain practices, conceivably violative of the Establishment Clause, the striking down of which might seriously interfere with certain religious liberties also protected by the First Amendment.[ ] Provisions for churches and chaplains at military establishments for those in the armed services may afford one such example.[ ] The like provision by state and federal governments for chaplains in penal institutions may afford another example. [ ] It is argued that such provisions may be assumed to contravene the Establishment Clause, yet be sustained on constitutional grounds as necessary to secure to the members of the Armed Forces and prisoners those rights of worship guaranteed under the Free Exercise Clause. Since government has deprived such persons of the opportunity to practice their faith at places of their choice, the argument runs, government may, in order to avoid infringing the free exercise guarantees, provide substitutes where it requires such persons to be.” (Fns. omitted.)

That case also provides a useful footnote regarding hiring chaplains of only one faith.

FN7. The question of which chaplains may be employed has been the subject of litigation by inmates asserting free exercise, establishment and equal protection violations by prison authorities. Paying money to prison chaplains of some faiths but not others has been held not to be an unconstitutional establishment of religion. ( Horn v. People of California (E.D.Cal.1968) 321 F.Supp. 961, 965; affirmed (9th Cir.1970) 436 F.2d 1375, cert. denied 401 U.S. 976, 91 S.Ct. 1198, 28 L.Ed.2d 326 (1971); see also, Johnson-Bey v. Lane (7th Cir.1988) 863 F.2d 1308.) An allegation that the state violated the Free Exercise Clause by not supplying a Jewish inmate with a clergyman of his faith although Catholic and Protestant Chaplains were provided was characterized as “the antithesis of the cases arising under the Establishment Clause: This is not a charge that the state is supporting a religion, but a complaint that it is not.” ( Gittlemacker v. Prasse (3d Cir.1970) 428 F.2d 1, 4.) Gittlemacker held that the Free Exercise Clause is satisfied where the state provides an inmate with facilities for worship and the opportunity for any clergy to visit the institution. “But to go further and suggest that the Free Exercise Clause demands that the state not only furnish the opportunity to practice, but also supply the clergyman, is a concept that dangerously approaches the jealously guarded frontiers of the Establishment Clause.” ( Id. at p. 4.) The court held that allegations of discrimination were not factually warranted due to the small number of Jewish inmates at the prison facility and the institution's efforts to accommodate inmates by obtaining a Rabbi on a fee basis. ( Id. at p. 5; see also, Glasshofer v. Thornburgh (E.D.Pa.1981) 514 F.Supp. 1242, affirmed (3d Cir.1982) 688 F.2d 821 [absence of Jewish Chaplains at institution did not violate Free Exercise Clause where the number of Jewish inmates is very small and reasonable accommodations are made].) Where reasonable accommodation is made for the free exercise of an inmate's religion, equal protection is not violated even though inmates of some religions have more immediate access to their spiritual leaders who are state employed. ( Allen v. Toombs (9th Cir.1987) 827 F.2d 563 [no violation where state employed Catholic and Protestant chaplains are immediately available on request and state provided reasonable opportunities for Native American inmates to exercise their faith by allowing volunteer religious leaders to minister to them, even though their availability was limited]; Card v. Dugger (M.D.Fla.1988) 709 F.Supp. 1098; affirmed (11th Cir.1989) 871 F.2d 1023 [no violation where all prison chaplains were Southern Baptists and policy allowed regular contact visits with death watch inmates but prohibited contact visits by nonemployee Roman Catholic priests where reasonable opportunities afforded to exercise faith].)

[Edit: I should also throw in that I didn't find any cases directly on point relating to a chaplain at a state university. Not saying they aren't there, but if they are they are not easy to find. Additionally, I'm fairly confident there are no cases even more directly on point, regarding a privately funded chaplain for a state university's football team.]

[tellmac]

It need not be a clergy. Just call it a counselor. Someone to talk with and help find a resolution to problems and concerns.

[cyclonenum1]

This is a very good issue you bring up. There are some rumblings at Arkansas, for example, that moving up the depth chart is easier for an active christian.

I'd take that with a grain of salt, 1. because of the player and parent sour grapes factor and 2, because Arkansas is a huge mess right now.

99.9% of coaches care about one thing only...WINNING. Most coaches would play the devil himself if it would help them win games. Just look at all of the "second chances" talented players get after they do bad things.

The reality is that guys that are "active Christians" are actually ridiculed and made fun of by most coaches and in most locker rooms. Danny Wuerffel is a great example of this. I have met Danny and he is a great guy...currently the Executive Director at Desire Street Ministries.

[Incyte]

The "one true path" thing is directed at the different sects that operate within Christianity. The overzealous, rigid, or fundy Catholics say they are the true path, as do the baptists, or the pentecostals, for example. I believe it is a fundy thing.

As do the prebyterians. So I guess that's only about 95% of religions within the Christianity umbrella.

Come to think of it, I don't know any Christian religion that believes Jesus isn't the true path to eternal life. I guess all of organized Christian faiths are "fundy" as you might put it.

[dmclone]

If this person is truly not going to preach religion than why not just call this person a counselor?

Lets say that a player goes in and talks to this person about getting his girlfriend knocked up. Do you really think that religion won;t be brought up?

Be honest with yourself, if this was someone with a Muslim background everyone would be up in arms.

[Incyte]

Why is that? My ISU freshman biology prof was allowed to state in class from the lecture podium that she felt any student that stated they believed in creationism should not be allowed to get a degree from Iowa State.

Is Chezik not able to share his faith with players? Having said that, I don't see the need for a paid Chaplain on the staff, but if he is there, there is a reason. This would be like telling a QB he isn't allowed to throw a forward pass at it offends the offensive linemen who don't get to touch the football.

Your freshman prof was a blowhard. That's not my fault.

That being said, Chizik should not share his faith unless someone approached him about it. I'm pretty conservative and religious but I can't justify prostletyzing by a state employee.

[Cyclone62]

My ISU freshman biology prof was allowed to state in class from the lecture podium that she felt any student that stated they believed in creationism should not be allowed to get a degree from Iowa State.

Perhaps it as beause she was talking about believing ID/Creationism is science.

Just a question though. Why do so many of you pee your pants when religious minorities try not to be outcasted? I mean honestly, if there was a "chaplain" of any other faith, most of you would scream and holler because it doen't "represent the majority" and it "would pressure students to convert." How is this any different? It isn't, except it's the side you don't agree with that's making a big stink, and not yourselves. That's why we "godless liberals" are "infringing" on the "free excercise" of your faith.

[Incyte]

Perhaps it as beause she was talking about believing ID/Creationism is science.

Just a question though. Why do so many of you pee your pants when religious minorities try not to be outcasted? I mean honestly, if there was a "chaplain" of any other faith, most of you would scream and holler because it doen't "represent the majority" and it "would pressure students to convert." How is this any different? It isn't, except it's the side you don't agree with that's making a big stink, and not yourselves. That's why we "godless liberals" are "infringing" on the "free excercise" of your faith.

Did you just base your argument on how the other side would hypothetically react in a hypothetical situation? You're grasping at straws. Also, did you just admit that liberals oppose this because they are threatened by Christianity?

I have no problem if a privately funded muslim chaplain was available to the team in the same capacity as this chaplain will be.

[wonkadog]

Me either, any religion/belief system can foot the bill for someone of their organization to be represented in my opinion. I'm a Christian but if the Devil Worshipers of America wanted to make one of their representatives available to the team and it was privately paid for, then have at it.

[Cyclone62]

Did you just base your argument on how the other side would hypothetically react in a hypothetical situation? You're grasping at straws. Also, did you just admit that liberals oppose this because they are threatened by Christianity

Well, actually no. When Islamic churches in Michigan began sounding their calls to prayer, at a similar db level that christian churches ring their bells, that was the attitude the community took. There were countless letters about how it "infringed on their rights" to pactice their own religion. The city forced the muslims to stop announcing their call to prayer around town, but allowed the christian community to continue chiming their bells. How's that for some hypocrisy?

I'll look for the articles about it when I get back from PC3 tonight.

[joepublic]

You're grasping at straws. I have no problem if a privately funded muslim chaplain was available to the team in the same capacity as this chaplain will be.

Wrong 'em boyo. He nailed it and you know it.

The christers would squeal like pigs if this wasn't a christian and you know it. It's an opportunity to proselytize that's too good to pass up, in their view.

[RedStorm]

"Perhaps it as beause she was talking about believing ID/Creationism is science.

Just a question though. Why do so many of you pee your pants when religious minorities try not to be outcasted? I mean honestly, if there was a "chaplain" of any other faith, most of you would scream and holler because it doen't "represent the majority" and it "would pressure students to convert." How is this any different? It isn't, except it's the side you don't agree with that's making a big stink, and not yourselves. That's why we "godless liberals" are "infringing" on the "free excercise" of your faith."

WRONG!

Well in my case anyway....

The big stink for me "is who cares?" If Chizik wants a privatley funded, via FCA, Chaplian. And he was told by GG and JP dureing the hiring process that this could be done....then GG should not balk to the "anti-athletic dept establishement." My issue is.....Why don't these Profs mind there own shops? This whole areguement is based what ifs?

What if the Chaplian does this.....if we allow this then wahts next....BLAH....BLAH....BLAH.....

The athletic dept may or may not have a Chaplian...BIG DEAL. Tell me how it is going to adversley affect anyone on these boards, the profs, or ANY f the players. I guarantee the only answers to that questions will be in the form of "what ifs....okay what about this guy.....this might happen." Give it a shot to get off the ground. If this program goes into effect....I bet by 1st kick off everyone will have forgotten about it. If GG balks then Chiz should be excused from his contract and allowed to leave and I would not blame him. If he was up front and this was part of the negociation and GG leaves him hanging.....then it says something about GG integrity and ISU's commitment to the football program.