Petition Against Chaplain

[tigershoops31]

Re: Let's simplify this whole thing

So, you're trying to say that by allowing a christian advocate into a situation that may go against another athlete's belief, thus hindering their ability to worship their own way isn't acceptable? I agree.

Assume for a minute (as you have done in this entire thread without even knowing who the Chaplain is or how they will conduct themselves in their new position) that the Chaplain IS an open advocate of Christianity. How in any way does having a Christian Chaplain hinder an athlete of another faith's ability to worship in their own way? If a Muslim player is bold enough to pray openly in the locker room to Allah, do you think that having a "Christian Chaplain" present is going to make this stop? That would be an extreme example. If there are Muslim players on the team, more likely they pray and worship in private. In this case, having a "Christian Chaplain" would not hinder them in any way whatsoever. It's all about choice, and they will have their choice of how and Whom to worship just as they always have. The only difference is that IF THEY FEEL THE NEED, there will be somebody there to talk over spiritual matters with them.
Now this whole situation was hypothetically saying that the Chaplain is a vocal advocate of Christianity, which in your opinion is probably the worst case scenario. I guess my thought is that even if he is such, it doesn't hurt anybody who belongs to a different religion, it just doesn't help them. They can worship just like they always have, while most of the team has an extra spiritual option to consult.

 

[Cyclone62]

Re: Let's simplify this whole thing

Assume for a minute that the Chaplain IS an open advocate of Christianity. How in any way does having a Christian Chaplain hinder an athlete of another faith's ability to worship in their own way? If a Muslim player is bold enough to pray openly in the locker room to Allah, do you think that having a "Christian Chaplain" present is going to make this stop? That would be an extreme example. If there are Muslim players on the team, more likely they pray and worship in private. In this case, having a "Christian Chaplain" would not hinder them in any way whatsoever. It's all about choice, and they will have their choice of how and Whom to worship just as they always have. The only difference is that IF THEY FEEL THE NEED, there will be somebody there to talk over spiritual matters with them.
Now this whole situation was hypothetically saying that the Chaplain is a vocal advocate of Christianity, which in your opinion is probably the worst case scenario. I guess my thought is that even if he is such, it doesn't hurt anybody who belongs to a different religion, it just doesn't help them. They can worship just like they always have, while most of the team has an extra spiritual option to consult.

Where does spirituality come in in the football locker room? That's the issue, not if it's a christian, satanist, muslim, jew, etc. Any advocate of any religion should not be preaching their beliefs to them at all. How would you feel if when you went into work, and your boss suddenly said that there is someone in the building to help you out, but they're going to give you advice that strictly adheres to the Koran? This chaplain should not preach AT ALL to these students. That is the issue, not whether or not it's a christian or someone of a different denomination. Too many people are trying to skew this argument into a "religion war" when it's really about whether there should be anyone who will only give advice in regards to their own beliefs and bending things that way.

 

[tigershoops31]

Re: Let's simplify this whole thing

Where does spirituality come in in the football locker room? That's the issue, not if it's a christian, satanist, muslim, jew, etc. Any advocate of any religion should not be preaching their beliefs to them at all. How would you feel if when you went into work, and your boss suddenly said that there is someone in the building to help you out, but they're going to give you advice that strictly adheres to the Koran? This chaplain should not preach AT ALL to these students. That is the issue, not whether or not it's a christian or someone of a different denomination. Too many people are trying to skew this argument into a "religion war" when it's really about whether there should be anyone who will only give advice in regards to their own beliefs and bending things that way.

I never said anything about preaching their beliefs to the team. I was just hypothetically granting your assumption that the Chaplain was an advocate of Christianity. I guess if the only problem you have with the Chaplain is that they not preach to the students you should be all for it, because the way I understand it the only preaching they would do would be an optional service on the road when the players couldn't make it to church. Other than that they'd just be a consult to those that wanted it. I don't see how this is a that big of a deal. If my boss said they had hired somebody to give me advice only from the Koran I wouldn't get my panties in a bunch. I just wouldn't go talk to the person and I'd be just as well off and happy as I was before. I just don't see how the Chaplain arrangement should be any different other than that he likely WOULDN'T be just giving advice from the bible but rather general moral guidance when called upon. The only other difference is that he will represent the belief of the majority of the players while the guy in your example would probably not represent anybody's religion at my job.

 

[jbhtexas]

Re: Let's simplify this whole thing

Convenient you didn't bold the first part. You know, the part that would actually apply.

He didn't put the "first part" in bold because it doesn't apply. To my knowledge, Congress has never passed any laws that establish a state religion. That's all the "first part" says. If the Founders had intended it to say more, they would have further elaborated, as they did in other parts of the constitution. All the "first part" was ever intended to do was to prevent a state-run church from being established by law as the "official" church of the nation, such as was the case in England at the time that the US was founded. Read the words...that's what they say. If you can provide any supporting documents to show that the Founders meant anything other than this, please provide links.

The "first part" was never intended to prevent religious activites from taking place at government-sponsored events or on government property. The Founding Fathers, starting with the Continental Congress in 1774, opened those sessions of congress with prayer, and prayed during those sessions. This is a matter of recorded history. Do you honestly think that the Founders would have crafted an amendment to prevent them from doing something that they had been doing for quite some time (and continued to do after the first amendment was ratified)?

The term "Wall of Separation" mentioned by Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists was in response to the DB's concern over religious liberties in the state of Connecticut. The term was used by Jefferson to assure the DB's that their religious liberties would be protected. The letter is on the Library of Congress website. Read it yourself. The term was not used in the context of preventing religious activites from taking place at government-sponsored events, or on government-owned property.

 

[Wesley]

What religion is the future chaplain? Just as I thjought, he is his own man and does not say he is Baptist or Catholic or something else. He/she cuts across all streams.

 

[Cy-banger]

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.

Assuming that every chaplain would abuse this position in that manner is unfair and wrong, but hardly dangerous. It would be dangerous though to not acknowledge that there is potential for such coercion.

 

[trevn]

Assuming that every chaplain would abuse this position in that manner is unfair and wrong, but hardly dangerous. It would be dangerous though to not acknowledge that there is potential for such coercion.

So labeling and stereotyping isn't dangerous...interesting

And for the record, I'm not ignoring the potential for coercion. It's a possibility. But I have faith JP and Chizik wouldn't allow a person to become coercive when it comes to faith.

 

[PolkCityClone]

We all know that God is an Iowa State fan.

 

[PolkCityClone]

The point of the separation of church and state was to avoid having a theocracy. Plain and simple. The founding fathers didn't want to have the church running the government. Look at Iran and you will understand what they didn't want to happen.

 

[jbhtexas]

The point of the separation of church and state was to avoid having a theocracy. Plain and simple. The founding fathers didn't want to have the church running the government. Look at Iran and you will understand what they didn't want to happen.

On what do you base that conclusion? The pilgrims and others who started the colonies fled England (primarily) and other European countries, where there existed state-sanctioned churches that did not tolerate diverse religious viewpoints. They didn't flee Europe because the church was running the government...

 

[herbiedoobie]

Like I've said before, then the chaplain shouldn't be affiliated with any church. However, I think the issue is that it's going to be a chaplain who advocates Christianity. That has always been the issue.

Actually, if the majority of the football players are Christian, he/she should be a Christian advocate; with access to the appropriate denominations/religions that are represented within the team.

We are STILL arguing about lack of knowledge of what constitutes a chaplain. And a somewhat childish understanding of the constitution. There is no right to "not be offended".

 

[Kyle]

Re: Let's simplify this whole thing

He didn't put the "first part" in bold because it doesn't apply. To my knowledge, Congress has never passed any laws that establish a state religion. That's all the "first part" says.

There have been many Supreme Court justices that would disagree with you. Even Scalia, whose jurisprudence you would probably like second only to Thomas, has said that the establishment clause is a very difficult area of the law. If the case went to court, that would be the clause at issue. It is hence the applicable part of that amendment.

If the Founders had intended it to say more, they would have further elaborated, as they did in other parts of the constitution. All the "first part" was ever intended to do was to prevent a state-run church from being established by law as the "official" church of the nation, such as was the case in England at the time that the US was founded. Read the words...that's what they say.

What constitutes an establishment of religion? Clearly an official state religion is out. What if the state provides tax money to only one denomination? What if the state only funds churches of one general religion? What if the state just gives land to one religious group? What if they tax one group using different standards? What if public school teachers denounce some religions in the classroom? What if they just actively advocate their own? What if the state creates monuments and displays that clearly favor one religion? What if the state gives preferential hiring status to people of a particular religion? What if one of the qualifications for an employee of a state institution is that they be Christian?

I don't propose to answer these, but I think this clearly demonstrates that the establishment clause is not as simple as you make it out to be.

The "first part" was never intended to prevent religious activites from taking place at government-sponsored events or on government property. The Founding Fathers, starting with the Continental Congress in 1774, opened those sessions of congress with prayer, and prayed during those sessions. This is a matter of recorded history. Do you honestly think that the Founders would have crafted an amendment to prevent them from doing something that they had been doing for quite some time (and continued to do after the first amendment was ratified)?

The term "Wall of Separation" mentioned by Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists was in response to the DB's concern over religious liberties in the state of Connecticut. The term was used by Jefferson to assure the DB's that their religious liberties would be protected. The letter is on the Library of Congress website. Read it yourself. The term was not used in the context of preventing religious activites from taking place at government-sponsored events, or on government-owned property.

I do have to admit that I am not exceptionally well versed in historical writings regarding the constitution. Perhaps I shall have to make that a Summer goal. I think it is important to note though that it is not easy to talk about "the founders" as a cohesive group that agreed as to the way everything in the constitution was to be interpreted. There were disputes not long after it was written as to whether the government even had the power to establish a bank. There were also lot of interesting characters in that group as well. Jefferson for instance was a deist (as opposed to a theist). I think there were others that were too, although I think I'm basing that on my recollections from the history channel.

Additionally, the textualist/originalist position you are advancing is not the only method of constitutional interpretation. It could certainly be argued that there are larger principles embodied in the constitution that are not explicitly spelled out as such.

 

[cyclonenum1]

Re: Let's simplify this whole thing

Convenient you didn't bold the first part. You know, the part that would actually apply.

Congress has made no law making Christianity our national faith nor have they made any law mandating a Christian Chaplain at ISU...so the first part actually does not apply.

All that is happening here is we have some people (these professors starting this petition) trying to limit the free exercise of religion by others (the ISU FB offering the resources of a Chaplain).

 

[cyclonenum1]

Re: Let's simplify this whole thing

So, you're trying to say that by allowing a christian advocate into a situation that may go against another athlete's belief, thus hindering their ability to worship their own way isn't acceptable? I agree.

First of all, the Chaplain will serve all of the players (not just the Christians). Secondly, using the resource of the Chaplain would be optional...not mandatory. Thirdly, no one is looking to "hinder" the ability of anyone to worship as they see fit...only to provide an additional faith resource for those inclined to use the resource.

 

[cyclonenum1]

Re: Let's simplify this whole thing

He didn't put the "first part" in bold because it doesn't apply. To my knowledge, Congress has never passed any laws that establish a state religion. That's all the "first part" says. If the Founders had intended it to say more, they would have further elaborated, as they did in other parts of the constitution. All the "first part" was ever intended to do was to prevent a state-run church from being established by law as the "official" church of the nation, such as was the case in England at the time that the US was founded. Read the words...that's what they say. If you can provide any supporting documents to show that the Founders meant anything other than this, please provide links.

The "first part" was never intended to prevent religious activites from taking place at government-sponsored events or on government property. The Founding Fathers, starting with the Continental Congress in 1774, opened those sessions of congress with prayer, and prayed during those sessions. This is a matter of recorded history. Do you honestly think that the Founders would have crafted an amendment to prevent them from doing something that they had been doing for quite some time (and continued to do after the first amendment was ratified)?

The term "Wall of Separation" mentioned by Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists was in response to the DB's concern over religious liberties in the state of Connecticut. The term was used by Jefferson to assure the DB's that their religious liberties would be protected. The letter is on the Library of Congress website. Read it yourself. The term was not used in the context of preventing religious activites from taking place at government-sponsored events, or on government-owned property.

Very well stated. I agree!

 

[Cyclone62]

Congress has made no law making Christianity our national faith nor have they made any law mandating a Christian Chaplain at ISU...so the first part actually does not apply.

All that is happening here is we have some people (these professors starting this petition) trying to limit the free exercise of religion by others (the ISU FB offering the resources of a Chaplain).

But why does the chaplain have to be affiliated with any church, whatsoever? Why can't there just be a counselor on the team, instead of someone who is there to give "spiritual" advice? When the government gives preferential treatment to a particular religion, whatever it may be, they are invalidating the others implicitly. Why should someone who is not of the chaplain's faith not offered the same kind of advice that has nothing to do with a religion? We have enough worship spaces throughout Ames that a spiritual "guider" for lack of a better word, isn't necessary on the team. Why not just a non-denominational no belief structure biased counselor?

 

[jparker22]

The best part about this is that a chaplain has been hired by Our Head Coach, so the opinions on this board relating to his affiliation with Christianity are all moot points. (or a moo points...like a cow's opinions...they just don't matter) It's the guy that Gene wanted there to help with the athletes that our staff will be recruiting. I am going to go ahead and take a leap of faith that GC knows what he is doing and hired the right man for the job. If he wanted a sports psychologist or counselor he would have hired one. Why not just agree that the guy we all lauded as the great GM/CEO of our football team is making the right decisions for our/his football team?

 

[pcyclonatrist]

I can't believe this ridiculous argument has lasted this long. We need to consult a Higher Power to resolve this. Let's make a pilgrimage to the Powerhouse Church of the Presumptuous Assumption of the Blinding Light...

"O Blinding Light! O Light that blinds! I cannot see! Look out for me!"

 

[PsychedClone]

I think the most pressing questions of the day are:

How long into the future will this thread endure?

Who will have the honor and distiction of getting in the "last word" with their post? :rolleyes5cz:

 

[cyclonenum1]

But why does the chaplain have to be affiliated with any church, whatsoever? Why can't there just be a counselor on the team, instead of someone who is there to give "spiritual" advice? When the government gives preferential treatment to a particular religion, whatever it may be, they are invalidating the others implicitly. Why should someone who is not of the chaplain's faith not offered the same kind of advice that has nothing to do with a religion? We have enough worship spaces throughout Ames that a spiritual "guider" for lack of a better word, isn't necessary on the team. Why not just a non-denominational no belief structure biased counselor?

Actually, without personal knowledge of this, I would bet that the ISU FB team has numerous "counselors" that are paid by the University and assigned to the team for various duties. It sounds to me as though you fear someone on the team seeking spiritual advice.

Because the Congress begins its sessions with a Christian prayer has it invalidated all other religions. I think not. In fact, if you look around the world you will see that the USA has the most religious tolerance of any nation with significant numbers of people practicing many, many religions.

Again, having the resource of a Chaplain does not mandate that anyone on the team use that resource. As I said earlier, it's kind of like the Parks Library...it is there for those that want to use it but no one is forced to use it.