Petition Against Chaplain

[herbiedoobie]

The difference is that those scientists had evience that supported their writings. While each signer of the Constitution (I think) had other writings of their beliefs, while they were behind closed doors, it is next to impossible to say, with certainty, what their intentions were with each word chosen. Because of the ambiguous language used, it appears that they wanted it to be interpretated instead of taking the document word-for-word. Certain words were left unclear, while others, that they wanted kept stable, used explicit language. That's why were left not knowing exactly what they meant in their mnds when it was written and decided upon.

Ummm. There is a ton of evidence that supports precisely what the framers of the Constitution meant. Two amendments of the Bill of Rights leap right out. The 2nd and the 10th. The 2nd was initially two amendments, which were combined because they were related. (There ARE state constitutions, rough drafts, and the Federalist Papers that explain this very thing) The 2nd amendment is routinely violated by various levels of .gov because they SAY it is vague. Bullsh*t, it's vague. "The people" does not mean the national guard. If that was true, the 1st Amendment would only apply to government owned printing presses.

The 10th amendment quite clearly prohibits the formation of things like the Federal Department of Education, but those with an agenda choose to "not understand" or claim that it is "vague." Bullsh*t, again.

 

[Kyle]

For some crazy reason I feel the need to throw my two cents in on page 9...

1. I'm not terribly comfortable with the team chaplain thing. I could support it if done right and be against it if done wrong. I think their are potential benefits to the players and team in having a "counselor" type figure available. It would also be a great help in recruiting the south. If they guy they hire really is just there to provide guidance to those seeking it then that would be fine. However, there are a lot of ways it could seemingly go wrong. If the guy is proselytizing to those who don't really want to hear it then that is a problem. If his presence creates an atmosphere that pressures players that could also be a problem.

2. I have no problem with the guy being Christian, but I'm not sure that it should be a required part of the job description. I'd prefer if it was just a "chaplain" or "adviser" rather than a "Christian Chaplain." Someone earlier mentioned how this was a Christian initiative and how the department wouldn't get the money if it wasn't. This raises red flags for me. The goal should be helping players and the team, not promoting Christianity.

3. The constitutional argument made by the professors is not as completely laughable as people seem to think. If the donation goes to ISU and then is used to pay the chaplain (which seems the most logical scenario) then I'm not sure how much it matters that it is a private donor providing that money. It would still be a state institution spending it. Additionally, there is still the endorsement of a religion issue. The argument can be made that by hiring a religious adviser of specific religion that the school is promoting that religion. I'm not sure that either of these arguments would be successful in a lawsuit, but they are there.

Here is an analogy. Suppose some private party wanted to donate money to build a small church on central campus. This I would clearly have a problem with. It wouldn't matter that ISU wasn't spending its own money. The problem would be that by building that church they would be endorsing a particular religious view.

 

[PsychedClone]

Re: Let's simplify this whole thing

I don't think the argument is about having a chaplain or not having one, but more about having a chaplain that advocates Christianity.

Sad but true; if the chaplain were a Muslim cleric, the silence on this issue would be deafening. The four professors would be mum and the whole situation would somehow be perfectly acceptable.

 

[Cyclone62]

Sad but true; if the chaplain were a Muslim cleric, the silence on this issue would be deafening. The four professors would be mum and the whole situation would somehow be perfectly acceptable.

I'm not convinced that that would be the case. I would have a problem with anybody advocating a religion of any sort to the team. I think that is these people's intention with the petition.

 

[RedStorm]

I am all for provideing every tool possible to help a young man, or young woman, succeed. Having a Chaplian available is another resource provided the athlete to help them acclimate and succeed......

 

[joepublic]

I am all for provideing every tool possible to help a young man, or young woman, succeed. Having a Chaplian available is another resource provided the athlete to help them acclimate and succeed.....] while following a Christian path.

 

[trevn]

The hypersensitivity of the American population today is mind-boggling. We are so preoccupied with being "politically correct" or "non-offensive" that we have rendered ourselves unable to say hardly a thing at all. I won't go as far as some people would and say that in essence, freedom of speech right is taken away, but I do feel we're heading down that road. I think one thing that needs to happen here is the American people need to discern what "infringes on their rights" and what "hurts their feelings." Hurt feelings, in my mind, are typically the result of a sense of entitlement, something that plagues our society as well. I think people get their feelings hurt way too often in today's world and use the "infringing on my rights" argument. If you have a right taken away from you, you have every reason in the book to make it known and to use legal recourse for retribution.

Going on to the more specific issue of a proposed Christian chaplain. For those of you assuming that a Christian chaplain would coerce an individual to abide by the laws of Christianity, why do you jump to that conclusion? I am a Christian. I grew up the son of a minister in a church with no denominational affliation. My father has said a couple things that I feel ring true. 1.) Christianity is not about coercing someone to Jesus. 2.) Christianity is not about guilting someone to Jesus. So many churches have these two things wrong, but I digress. The point in the matter is, assuming a Christian chaplain would force someone to become Christian is very dangerous, and in my mind not right.

 

[RedStorm]

Joepublic....

Once agian twisting things out of context....to attempt t be funny or intelligent not sure which.

"POSTED BY JOEPUBLIC

I am all for provideing every tool possible to help a young man, or young woman, succeed. Having a Chaplian available is another resource provided the athlete to help them acclimate and succeed.....] while following a Christian path.


You added that line....I am not a Christian, born again christian....or even a practiceing Catholic as I was brought brought up. You added the bolded underlined statement. That was not the context of my quote.....all I was saying is "this is another tool" for a kid that want to utilize it....if a kid does not want to...then he/she won't. It goes along the same lines of..."If you don't like what Howard Stern says....turn the dial and don't listen to him, but don't bar everyone that wants to hear him because you don't like it."

If anything I sit on the fence on this issue....I could care less there is going to be a Chaplian....I see no evil in it. But on the same note.....I could care less if there was one. I just don't think it is a bad idea. I served with many Chaplians in the Military across all faiths.....they were all good people and I saw first hand how they raised the morale of the troops, and were there to talk to the people that "asked to talk", and not once "forced" anything on anyone. I could care less if a kid follows a Christain path, that would make me a hypocryte, but just because I do not go to church every Sunday.....I don't think we should deprive the kids a valuable resource such as this one. If a kid does not want to go see the Chaplian....then don't. Just like I choose not to go to church on Sunday. But that does not mean it is not available to me, I have any less respect for people that do, or would go on a cruesade to make sure church was not available to anyone because I don't go. But, nice attempt to twist my quote to furthur your own agenda, which is..."if I believe or don't believe in someting....I am going to manipulate it to justify my thoughts and actions."

 

[Cyclone62]

So many churches have these two things wrong, but I digress. The point in the matter is, assuming a Christian chaplain would force someone to become Christian is very dangerous, and in my mind not right.

You sort of answered your own question about that conclusion with that first sentence. The Chaplain should be non-denominational, I think that's the issue. It's not just Christians that use guilt and coercion to their faith, in a way, all religions do that. If there was a Muslim cleric as the Chaplain, and he used his faith before making a guidance decision, I think many people would have a problem with that, since a majority is Christian; they'd feel their faith was being brushed aside. That's where the infringement comes in; your being pressured to live by rules that aren't your own. Would any of you accept a public official (so to speak) telling you to live by the Islamic rules?

 

[PsychedClone]

I'm not convinced that that would be the case. I would have a problem with anybody advocating a religion of any sort to the team. I think that is these people's intention with the petition.

I respect your opinion and don't doubt your sincerity. I'm sure there are many individuals, however, who take their position based on what the "politically correct" flavor of the day happens to be.

 

[trevn]

You sort of answered your own question about that conclusion with that first sentence. The Chaplain should be non-denominational, I think that's the issue. It's not just Christians that use guilt and coercion to their faith, in a way, all religions do that. If there was a Muslim cleric as the Chaplain, and he used his faith before making a guidance decision, I think many people would have a problem with that, since a majority is Christian; they'd feel their faith was being brushed aside. That's where the infringement comes in; your being pressured to live by rules that aren't your own. Would any of you accept a public official (so to speak) telling you to live by the Islamic rules?

I guess we differ in opinion. The only thing I could speak about is if I was chaplain. I would provide a resource for those who wish to use it. It's an optional thing. If you are given an option, no infringement takes place.

 

[Cyclone62]

I'm sure there are many individuals, however, who take their position based on what the "politically correct" flavor of the day happens to be.

This is true, however, as you said, I am not one of them. You do know what "politically correct" really means, right? When you say you're politically correct, you're really saying "I'm an idiot who can't think for myself." :wink0st:

 

[Cyclone62]

It's an optional thing. If you are given an option, no infringement takes place.

True, but I have no problem with a chaplain being there. I would have a problem if anyone allowed their faith to cloud their advice for the student(s) who used that resource. I guess that's my take on it. If my advisor told me to pray to God, or that God told her that I should take X class, I'd tell President Geoffroy that I need a new adviser.

 

[jbhtexas]

True, but I have no problem with a chaplain being there. I would have a problem if anyone allowed their faith to cloud their advice for the student(s) who used that resource. I guess that's my take on it. If my advisor told me to pray to God, or that God told her that I should take X class, I'd tell President Geoffroy that I need a new adviser.

Just curious...what would you tell Prez G. if your advisor told you that there was no God, that your faith was meaningless, that practicing religion was a stupid waste of time, and that anybody who did so was an intellectual midget?

 

[cyclonenum1]

I see that you're lumping everyone in the same category. Loose Construction of the Constitution is just as viable as Strict Construction. I believe that the "Right to Bear Arms" was created as a way for the citizens to overthrow the government if we started moving toward a Monarcy, Totalitarian state, Dictatorship, etc. However, I personally don't believe that wiretapping without a warrant is constitutional. I also don't think that I'm "anti-freedom" or "unpariotic" or "anti-american" because of these views even though I have been called them before. I think that if we begin to give up our rights to live individualisic lives (wiretapping/CSA (is that what it was?)) then we are making ourselves more vulnerable to the government. Maybe it's just me, but I think that we overemphasize what the terrorists do, and underemphasize the vulnerability of giving up rights to the government little by little.

That's the problem. How can we really tell what they intended to say? Unless we find that infernal Flux Copacitor, we really can't. We can speculate, and make informed guesses, but we don't know for certain.

Actually, it is quite easy...just read the Constitution...it is quite concise and direct. And if you want further information you can read the writings of James Madison...he is often referred to as the "Father of the Constitution". He wrote quite extensively on the subject...I would encourage you to read The Federalist Papers or any of the compendiums of his extensive writings on the subject.

 

[Cyclone62]

Just curious...what would you tell Prez G. if your advisor told you that there was no God, that your faith was meaningless, that practicing religion was a stupid waste of time, and that anybody who did so was an intellectual midget?

I'd tell him that her personal faith clouded her judgment when advising students, and that she wasn't fit for the job. Even though I agree with the organized religion aspect, when you let something like that interfere with your professional life as an educator in this instance, you're in a position of power implicitly telling a student that you won't give them the best advice unless they follow your beliefs.

 

[Cyclone62]

Actually, it is quite easy...just read the Constitution...it is quite concise and direct. And if you want further information you can read the writings of James Madison...he is often referred to as the "Father of the Constitution". He wrote quite extensively on the subject...I would encourage you to read The Federalist Papers or any of the compendiums of his extensive writings on the subject.

Alright, I'll bite again. What's to say that the way I read those supporting texts and take away the same meaning that supports the way I see the Constitution? Why do you think there's so much literary criticism? One can use words in many ways, and nothing written by man is infallible.

 

[cyclonenum1]

Alright, I'll bite again. What's to say that the way I read those supporting texts and take away the same meaning that supports the way I see the Constitution? Why do you think there's so much literary criticism? One can use words in many ways, and nothing written by man is infallible.

I would bet that you have never read anything written by Madison. Our liberal educational system has a vested interest in making sure people don't fully understand the Consititution.

I have read numerous Madison writings (The Federalist Papers are great) and they go into great detail on the rationale for why the Constitution is constructed as it is.

No one is saying that man is infallible but in previous posts you have proclaimed that "we cannot know what the framers were thinking"...that is just patently not true since the primary framer, Madison, wrote extensively on exactly what they were thinking and why they constructed the constitution as they did.

I commend the writings of Madison to you.

 

[PsychedClone]

This is true, however, as you said, I am not one of them. You do know what "politically correct" really means, right? When you say you're politically correct, you're really saying "I'm an idiot who can't think for myself." :wink0st:

I don't agree with your position but I love your comment. :yes4lo:

 

[jbhtexas]

Alright, I'll bite again. What's to say that the way I read those supporting texts and take away the same meaning that supports the way I see the Constitution? Why do you think there's so much literary criticism? One can use words in many ways, and nothing written by man is infallible.

If you read the supporting texts on a particular point of the constitution and come away with meaning "A", but your present understanding of that point in the constitution is meaning "B", that should throw up a red flag that your interpretation of one or the other might be (or probably is) wrong. It should prompt you to further research the descrepancy in your understanding. You just might come to the conclusion that the meaning "B" that you have been holding for years is flat out wrong. It can be scary and quite humbling to realize that a position that one has been holding for years is errant. Been there, done that...