AU, UGA, and SC asked to remove team chaplains

#26
#26
bamawriter said:
Unless he or she holds another position at the school, then it's very unlikely that your tax dollars are paying for a team chaplain.
Click to expand...

I agree. That's why I said I don't understand why tax dollars are used for team chaplains.
 
#29
#29
GAVol said:
I don't personally have an issue with it. It's just surprising to me that the concept has survived this long given that it's effectively an endorsement of a particular religion.
Click to expand...

How do you feel about the FCA being involved in high schools and colleges? It's pretty much the same concept.
 
#30
#30
GAVol said:
I don't personally have an issue with it. It's just surprising to me that the concept has survived this long given that it's effectively an endorsement of a particular religion.
Click to expand...

Im sure if individuals on the team had an issue with it, it would probably already be gone across the board.

Ive had friends that played college ball in different sports that have told me some of the players choose not to participate. And they shouldn't be forced to.
 
#31
#31
99bubble said:
I know you probably don't mean it in a bad way, but "gets away with" just doesn't sound right to me. In God we trust is on our currency, we are founded by mostly Judeo Christian principles, and a chaplain is not a bad thing. Truth is, for me, I probably wouldn't use the services of the chaplain, but I respect the thought of having one there.
Click to expand...

In God We Trust was added in 1957 on paper money, and coins in 1864, both well after the country already had money naturally.

We also didn't add "Under God" to the pledge of allegiance until 1954.

Most of our founding fathers were agnostic, atheist, or a derivative of Christianity (as we forget the colonies were formed to get AWAY from mainstream religion, and because money/east india company, but still) that wasn't extremely popular. The Treaty of Tripoli and several other first hand words from those fathers (and their choices of slavery and women's lack of rights) show that they were more about a strong country with no real care what the religion was, and most believed no religion was the best way to go for ruling.

I have no problem with Chaplains or Prayers before games or anything of that nature, but either every single denomination needs to be represented or none needs to be, and none is just far easier and simpler (and less of an argument between religions.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#32
#32
Daloth said:
Most of our founding fathers were agnostic, atheist, or a derivative of Christianity that wasn't extremely popular.
Click to expand...

Most?

The majority of signors of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were not only Christians, they were Anglicans (Episcopalians following the Revolution).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#33
#33
It is none of the Freedom From Religion Foundation's business if a football program wants to have a chaplin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#35
#35
bamawriter said:
Most?

The majority of signors of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were not only Christians, they were Anglicans (Episcopalians following the Revolution).
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing, and they didn't come here to get away from religion as a whole, but to have freedom to believe different from the way they were supposed to in the mother land. I may be remembering it wrong, but I'm like you on those singing those documents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#37
#37
As I have grown deeper in my faith I find myself asking why those that believe in nothing and want respect of that in turn seek ways to remove something of those that do? Isn't that it's own form of religion? I think in a perfect world a non-denominational unpaid (by the school) chaplain could counsel all walks with respect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#38
#38
BearCat204 said:
Would you have a problem with a Muslim Chaplain?.......wait I already know the answer, you would think they were always carrying a bomb strapped to their chest.
Click to expand...

This assumption is beyond ignorant. Of course ignorance is to be expected from you. Keep thinking you have a clue, it's funny.

To answer your question, no I would not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#41
#41
As I read this thread, I just shake my head because everything is so petty.

I don't care about team chaplains or most things "religion" as I am not very religious.

However, damn near everything has a religious link to it. Trying to eliminate religion is impossible. Maybe people know the answers to these questions, but I don't.

What happens if a witness in a court of law doesn't want to swear on a bible? What if they are Hindu? Do they still swear on a bible? Same thing goes for politicians taking the oath of office. What if you are an atheist?

Does how we record time violate the separation of church and state? I never see this one mentioned. But, we are in the year of our lord (anno domini), 2015. What if you're a Buddhist? Is today's date offensive? Damn near every legal document in this country has a date on it.....which is based on the birth of Jesus Christ. How has this one slipped by everyone and not sent people running to file a lawsuit?

Does how we record time have to be changed? If so, to what?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#42
#42
99gator said:
As I read this thread, I just shake my head because everything is so petty.

I don't care about team chaplains or most things "religion" as I am not very religious.

However, damn near everything has a religious link to it. Trying to eliminate religion is impossible. Maybe people know the answers to these questions, but I don't.

What happens if a witness in a court of law doesn't want to swear on a bible? What if they are Hindu? Do they still swear on a bible? Same thing goes for politicians taking the oath of office. What if you are an atheist?

Does how we record time violate the separation of church and state? I never see this one mentioned. But, we are in the year of our lord (anno domini), 2015. What if you're a Buddhist? Is today's date offensive? Damn near every legal document in this country has a date on it.....which is based on the birth of Jesus Christ. How has this one slipped by everyone and not sent people running to file a lawsuit?

Does how we record time have to be changed? If so, to what?
Click to expand...

I'm all for changing the time thing as long as its moving it ahead two weeks, and football can start tomorrow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#43
#43
joevol33 said:
I was thinking the same thing, and they didn't come here to get away from religion as a whole, but to have freedom to believe different from the way they were supposed to in the mother land. I may be remembering it wrong, but I'm like you on those singing those documents.
Click to expand...

He's right just couldn't say it to a bammer fan. They wanted freedom of religion, so they could choose what religion and not have a government telling them that they had to believe. That's oone of the reasons for separation of church and state.
 
#44
#44
BearCat204 said:
Would you have a problem with a Muslim Chaplain?.......wait I already know the answer, you would think they were always carrying a bomb strapped to their chest.
Click to expand...

I for one would have no problem with Muslim Chaplains at public universities. Who knows though, this could "blow up" in my face. :neener2:
 
#46
#46
volfanngatorland said:
Not at all. Could help the team become more explosive.
Click to expand...

a_560x375.jpg
 
#47
#47
99bubble said:
I know you probably don't mean it in a bad way, but "gets away with" just doesn't sound right to me. In God we trust is on our currency, we are founded by mostly Judeo Christian principles, and a chaplain is not a bad thing. Truth is, for me, I probably wouldn't use the services of the chaplain, but I respect the thought of having one there.
Click to expand...

The Treaty of Tripoli from 1796 was passed by the U.S. Congress UNANIMOUSLY. Not ONE dissenting vote. And the Founders were still alive and made up Congress at the time.

It included Article 11, which reads:

"As the government of the United States of America IS NOT IN ANY SENSE FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

(Emphasis mine.)

And President John Adams wrote this about this treaty, and spoke it aloud to the nation:

"Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed, and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof."

How do you explain that if this country was founded on Christianity?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#48
#48
OrangeDonkey said:
The Treaty of Tripoli from 1796 was passed by the U.S. Congress UNANIMOUSLY. Not ONE dissenting vote. And the Founders were still alive and made up Congress at the time.

It included Article 11, which reads:

"As the government of the United States of America IS NOT IN ANY SENSE FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

(Emphasis mine.)

And President John Adams wrote this about this treaty, and spoke it aloud to the nation:

"Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed, and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof."

How do you explain that if this country was founded on Christianity?
Click to expand...

Because according to Nancy Pelosi you don't know what is in a "treaty" until you pass it? :dunno:

Or... perhaps... you are referring to the same John Adams who also wrote to Thomas Jefferson and stated “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity.”

The key difference being that the treaty uses the word "religion" and most founding fathers would agree that the "principles" of Christianity do apply. As someone else had already posted many of those coming to the U.S. at the time were fleeing "religion" and it's dominant role in government. In terms of context, at the time, the inclusion of that statement was nothing more than an assurance by the U.S. to a deeply religious (Muslim) government (based on that religion not just it's principles) that we would not depose their government and impose Christianity in it's place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#49
#49
BigOrangeTrain said:
Why do you have a problem with a chaplain?
Click to expand...

Why should religion be promoted in America--or anywhere for that matter? I get that a lot of people get comfort from religion--but it is cultish nonsense, and there is a general pressure in America to be religious or to accept religion, and that is wrong. We have ministers saying prayers at sporting events and at public meetings--religion is pervasive in America, which is an odd thing for an advanced nation. We've come to accept this notion that religion is wonderful when it isn't--it is silliness, and it is oppressive to people who are not religious and do not want to be religious. Further, the U.S. constitution forbids the establishment of a religion. People latch onto religion because they are scared of their mortality--and hence want to think that if they go to church and say prayers that "god" will send them to "heaven" when they die, where they will gambol with all their loved ones. It's 3rd-grade fairy tale stuff--and a lot of people don't like having 3rd-grade fairy tales pushed on them constantly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#50
#50
The idea that America was founded on christian principles is a myth. Yes, some founders were religious--but so what? There is nothing rational about religion--ZERO. "God" is no different from santa claus and the tooth fairy--and yet people pretend otherwise. Why? Because it is comforting to believe--silly, irrational, but comforting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top