Ahh yes ... kind of like worms and machine guns.:laugh8kb:
Or, maybe like "breathe right strips and eye-black". Who was it now that brought that one into the mix?:wink0st:
Direct Quotes from JP and Brett Meyer about the Chaplian.
- Thread starter RedStorm
- Start date
Ahh yes ... kind of like worms and machine guns.:laugh8kb:
Or, maybe like "breathe right strips and eye-black". Who was it now that brought that one into the mix?:wink0st:
And the reasoning as to why the dissentor's shouldn't care is because it doesn't involve them. What's the difference between that and religious people denying homosexual couples the same benefit to heterosexual couples in regards to tax breaks and all that? Short answer is that there isn't. In no way does two people you don't know getting married involve you, yet they spew forth everything from a religious standpoint to advocate their discrimination. "If it doesn't involve you, don't care."
You started wondering about gay marriage, I explained. You continued with it, and thus I re-explained. Until you stop talking about it here, I'll keep saying it; "It doesn't affect you, don't care about it if it happens."
Dude ... was I just called dude? Wow, I don't think I've been called dude since 1990 or so.
That aside, I was simply pointing out the fallacy of the argument that, if it doesn't affect you, you should shut up about it. And certainly homosexuality could come into play with this issue, as has been brought up before on this very topic (although maybe not in this thread). I, however, was not bringing up that area of concern, but was simply using it as an example of how all "groups" of people do the same type of thing.
Dude, the argument of saying people should stay out of things that don't affect them is not a "fallacy" You may say it is a contradiction when comparing it to "the religious right's" view on gay marriage but that is a subject for another thread. One on the Off-topic board. By using Bret Meyer's thoughts that if it doesn't affect the professor he shouldn't be involved and then immediately trying to counter that with the argument that the religious right doesn't do that when talking about gay marriage you have basically painted Bret Meyer to be a republican. He may be, but I doubt you know. "The religious right" is obviously referring to Republicans and Conservatives. Something that has nothing to do with this argument.
Last edited:
Well, after watching him play last year, maybe Brett should spend more time concentrating on being a better quarterback than worrying if his Christian religion will be represented as the official one of the ISU football team.
No one is stopping him from attending his bible study classes, are they? Hey here's an idea. Since Brett would probably prefer his bible study in the convenience of the football locker room why not just do that? What's the harm? Who cares if other players objected, they would just be agitators or not team players.
When did we start letting the players run the asylum in the first place? Here's a little advice JP: You should be a hell of a lot more worried about what ISU fans and alumni think than what the players, or in this case, Christian players think.
I'm sure a Muslim player (if we currently have any) would love to have someone in that capacity with the team, but that would never happen in this day and age.
What happened in the past was fine IMO. The previous guy volunteered. Having a chaplain on salary, privately funded or not, promotes a specific religion. And I don't care if Chizik and his assistant coaches are Christian or if many of the players are. He was hired to build and coach a winning football team, not turn us into Iowa State Christian College. I would really hope he would be focused on other more important things related to the team being he's a first year coach taking over a struggling program with a poor tradition of winning.
As for the donor? He should show some some stones, stop hiding and come forward to explain why with all the things the football program and athletic department need right now, why this is the one that trumps all in terms of importance, and how this will translate to wins on the field. JP and GC should answer that question as well.
No one is stopping him from attending his bible study classes, are they? Hey here's an idea. Since Brett would probably prefer his bible study in the convenience of the football locker room why not just do that? What's the harm? Who cares if other players objected, they would just be agitators or not team players.
When did we start letting the players run the asylum in the first place? Here's a little advice JP: You should be a hell of a lot more worried about what ISU fans and alumni think than what the players, or in this case, Christian players think.
I'm sure a Muslim player (if we currently have any) would love to have someone in that capacity with the team, but that would never happen in this day and age.
What happened in the past was fine IMO. The previous guy volunteered. Having a chaplain on salary, privately funded or not, promotes a specific religion. And I don't care if Chizik and his assistant coaches are Christian or if many of the players are. He was hired to build and coach a winning football team, not turn us into Iowa State Christian College. I would really hope he would be focused on other more important things related to the team being he's a first year coach taking over a struggling program with a poor tradition of winning.
As for the donor? He should show some some stones, stop hiding and come forward to explain why with all the things the football program and athletic department need right now, why this is the one that trumps all in terms of importance, and how this will translate to wins on the field. JP and GC should answer that question as well.
He said nothing about Meyer. He was quoting another poster on this board.
CloneAggie said:
Deacer will throw a fit
DesMoinesRegister.com
ACLU, oh the horrors, the horrors. I'd say it's about 60/40 against Gene getting his chaplain at this point.
DesMoinesRegister.com
ACLU, oh the horrors, the horrors. I'd say it's about 60/40 against Gene getting his chaplain at this point.
Here's a serious question for everyone on this subject. I'm getting my coaching certificate while I'm in school, so I could do this if I get a coaching job. What would you say if I, through "private funds" donated to the public school, hired an aethist to advise my players (if they were your own kids). Most of you know my stance on religion at this point, and I'm in a position to do such a thing. If this passes as a right for me and the school to do so, I could do it, and keeping me from doing so is oppresing religious beliefs (keep that in mind). I'm using private funds filtered through the school to promote my own religious beliefs to your children. How upset would you be?
"I'm using private funds filtered through the school to promote my own religious beliefs to your children. How upset would you be?"
I was with you until you threw the "twist" in....
You have no idea that that is happening that is a straight assumption. But, If I was one of the parents and I might want to talk to you and see what other quallifications he had. Actually, I would not care about his/her religous offiliation.
Let me pose this question.....
Say, as the coach in your postition, what if there was a guy/girl that was better qualified but was not Atheist, or had the same qualifications....would you choose that person over the Atheist? What is your line in the sand?
I was with you until you threw the "twist" in....
You have no idea that that is happening that is a straight assumption. But, If I was one of the parents and I might want to talk to you and see what other quallifications he had. Actually, I would not care about his/her religous offiliation.
Let me pose this question.....
Say, as the coach in your postition, what if there was a guy/girl that was better qualified but was not Atheist, or had the same qualifications....would you choose that person over the Atheist? What is your line in the sand?
Last edited:
If he was there as a general counsel and wasn't forcing his views down anyone's throat, there would be no problem. The biggest problem with this argument is that the people for the chaplain assume his services are strictly optional and if players choose to use them they can, and if they choose not to, that's fine too. The people against the chaplain assume he will come in and begin recruiting players to christianity. If a chaplain is actively recruiting, he is not doing his job as he should and he should be fired. But if he is there as an optional spiritual advisor for anyone to come to if they so choose, there shouldn't be a fight against him. If I was in a group that was mostly muslim and they wanted to lead a non denominational prayer, I would have no problem. If I was in a group with an atheist counselor I would have no problem speaking to him. The only problem I would have with an atheist of muslim in those positions is if they were trying to convert me, w/o me expressing interest in wanting it done. The same should happen w/ a christian chaplain. As long as he doesn't make any non-christian players players feel uncomfortable, he is doing his job. And you have a Muslim like Musa Smith who says he considers himself a better person for having a chaplain on his team, even though it wasn't his religion.
If there was a person of better qualifications (say, a sport psychologist/advisor), and there were the funds available to support it, I'd get them instead. I personally wouldn't do anything to endanger the kids' needs/beliefs/development. However, since I don't really have a clearly defined "religion" to follow, it doesn't cloud my judgment as much as someone whom believes devoutly in a particular religion. That is, someone who believes that there's only one way to help people.
The problem I see arising the most is that the advice will be guided from the bible and/or his own beliefs. If he would be one who wouldn't give adviced based from a spiritual text, that's fine. But if he is an advocate (or the donor is a strong advocate of a particular religion), the red flags pop up that there is some sort of agenda for hiring a person of a specific faith to help the students.
I agree with your answer....I would have answered the same way....I also have no defined religion at the moment, Grew up Catholic, much to the Chagrin of my girlfriend....lol.
That sounds eerily familiar... I'm still there. Ever since I took my "World Religions" course 6 years ago, I've struggled with believing that one religion is "right" while the rest were "wrong" and why the God they all praise would allow the divisiveness that has occured through the different sects. Man, religion can sure mess with your mind...
He could petition to get him fired. It has nothing to do with his position as coach though. Anyone could do it.
I don't think we want to take away the free speech rights of anyone that does anything more prestigious than flip burgers.
I have had numerous professors that have done this. I personally appreciate finding out what my professor's beliefs were as it allows me to better assess what was taught during the class.
He's actually an astronomy professor, although I did see a presentation by him about irreducible complexity that advocated intelligent design. That said, even if he did do as you suggest, it would just give his students a little more to think about. As long as his teaching was relatively unbiased the rest of the year then theres no harm done. Nothing ever happens the last day of class anyways.
What really gets me riled up is when people cannot see the obvious difference between the two. :angry6wn::wink0st:
Last edited:
Sorry, a fanatic is one who can't change his mind, and won't change the subject, right?:biggrin9gp: I appreciate your views, even though they tend to be the polar opposite of mine. However, the obvious difference is that one matches your world view, and one matches mine. My point is that either both have a right to be heard, or neither.
I don't think that is the issue. If whoever the guy is that is going to be chaplain got hired to teach in the religious studies department (which theoretically we will say he is qualified for) he would have every right to express his Christian views so long as he was still properly performing his job duties. He could petition against gay marriage, go talk on Deace's show, or even do a bible study with football players. However, he is not entitled to a position with the University where counseling players from a Christian perspective is part of his job description.
