http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10795870/freedom-religion...
Not exactly what you would expect a football program to be facing an investigation for.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
This really interests me. The intertwining of religion (Christianity) and sports in America is such a fascinating subject.
The obvious statement is that if this were any other religion, there would be an uproar. But the truth of the matter is that if he practiced Islam or Judaism (probably less so), he would never have been able to ascend to a head football coaching position.
Unless you edited your post, I can't figure out what others find disagreeable about your statement. The Fighting Gobbler didn't say he agreed with it, but it's an honest assessment.
I added the qualifier about Judaism since there have been Jewish HC's. Religion riles some people up I suppose.
Apparently. I upvoted though.
For some reason I find it hilarious that this guys a terp
I was hoping that was a Clemson shirt.
I find it hilarious that he can move like that at that size.
WHAT'S HAPPENING!! / Dancing Rerun from yosinclair on Vimeo.
BREAKING NEWS-
This just in- Dabo Swinney announces he is
actively compaigning to bring back: "Stick It In!"
This has the makings of a huge lightning rod for debate.
Unless i missed something, Sweeney has 'invited' and 'made available' ... nothing is mandatory. is that wrong?
It could be polarizing and divide alot of locker rooms.
~get yo pop corn reddee!!~
Well I don't think there's a problem with him sharing his faith with those who also believe it. Like saying "Hey I like to pray on Xday and you can join me or come to my church." From my quick gleanings doesn't really seem to be forcing much. I think the part that might set something off is having a team Chaplin, especially if he's being paid. That is where I would draw the line, using university money to pay a religious figure to be with the team or fund the events.
just raising the question.
Religion is prevalent in sports, especially football- prayers before/after games/ during injuries.
should be interesting to see how this plays out.
Most sports teams, professional and collegiate, have a team Chaplain. We certainly do.
Doesn't VT have a Team Chaplain? I think the whole point of a Chaplain is that they are suppossed to be rather non-denominational so they can counsel players of different religions. I could be totally wrong, though. I am basing the entirety of my chaplain knowledge off of Father Mulcahy from old M*A*S*H* re-runs.
*EDIT* I see Hokie_x3_Hi has already answered my first question. That is what I get for being to wordy.
VT has a Chaplain, as does probably every university. And yes, Chaplains are normally made available to players who may need guidance.
In Clemson's case it seems it may be that the players have been made available to the Chaplain for religious education and/or conversion (ie. baptizing and the like).
It is my understanding that the role of the chaplain is to be there for the spiritual support of the player. Often times, these people are Christian, but it is also their role to be a confidant for the players. Many of our guys raved about how great our Chaplain was before he took a position with the Ravens as their team Chaplain. Both of the Hopkins brothers, Zach McCray, LT3, and many others were constantly in contact with him, and retweeting his posts. He's not there to force anything on anyone, but to be there for those who need a purpose, to hear about something greater than themselves, and to keep them grounded. The fact is, there are many more resources available for those of the Christian faith than those of many other faiths, especially for athletes in America. For example, there is the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, but no organization like the Fellowship of Muslim or Jewish Athletes exists.
Just FYI for anyone interested in knowing -
http://www.vtchaplain.org/
As others have said most sports teams at all levels have Chaplains, though I'm pretty sure they're not allowed to be paid by the organization for whom they provide the service. Even with professional teams, they are sponsored by churches or community groups. It's like being a missionary, they raise funds from churches and other private citizens in order to pay for their living expenses.
Ironically, also like a missionary Clemson's Chaplain may be on a mission to convert
but shouldn't any Christian? I mean not forcing on people like hey convert or die....or in this case get off the team or get buried on the depth chart or something.....but sharing the Gospel and the word of God with players on that team in hopes that they do look towards Christ and come to see Him as their savior and Lord. If they don't then they don't but He's not just a "hey lets pray because we want to win but other than that I've got it" type of guy.
Part of being a Christian is spreading the word of God to everyone. You're not supposed to push it down people's throats but you should share the good Word any and everywhere.
Mine was a sarcastica comment, but I think your missing the point. Whether you believe that you personally are meant to spread the word of god and convert, or that you as a Christian are meant to follow the 10 commandments to be a righteous soul and thereby "lead by example" is also a lightning rod type topic. Ultimately it's irrelevant to this issue though.
The thing with Clemson is that it isn't just Dabo saying it but the Football Program and hence the university. That's the no no.
In my opinion, the question will be can one distinguish Dabo or other Clemson employees representing themselves, from Dabo et al representing Clemson? If one can't tell the difference, Clemson has crossed the line.
For a football coach at a high profile University, separating the coaches views and practices from those of the University will be very difficult.
My questions are as follows -
1. Do players who participate in church days, etc., find themselves getting more playing time than those who don't?
2. How are the players treated who don't participate, or practice a religion other than that favored by Dabo?
This is the real question. If there is no difference then there is no issue. However I highly doubt that if Sammy Watkins or Tahj Boyd did participate that they would have seen less playing time or not played at all. At the end of the day Dabo is paid to win. If he's not winning because he buries guys with talent for whatever reason he's not going to be a HC for long.
What if the preference Dabo shows for his Christian players is subconscious? That's why husbands and wives sometimes look like each other, why women marry clones of their dad and why people buy dogs that look like them. The human mind works something like 10x more subconsciously than consciously.
If Dabo shows subconscious preference, then it should be done away with. I have no idea which of my coworkers are Christian or not because it never is discussed.
It really does have that potential.
I think one of the things about this is that, yes, even though nothing is mandatory, someone who disagrees with it might feel pressured to give into it because Dabo is ultimately the guy who holds the decision of playing time above your head, and maybe, just maybe, if you don't go along, you won't be part of his scheme.
A cynical point, maybe, but not out of the realm of possibility.
It seems to me that whenever the term "not mandatory" gets thrown around in football, it does not necessarily mean that such events can be skipped without repercussions. As others have said, the million dollar question is do those that attend and worship with the coach get preferential treatment, intentionally or not?
yeah that could easily happen.
missing bible study = not starting.
hate to think that but its definitely possible.
But if that player feels that pressure that may be internal and only in his head. That player may believe that if he doesn't participate he gets less playing time but I doubt it. If Dabo is as open about his Christianity as he proclaims I highly doubt that he punishes players for not participating. That's not a good way to bring people to Christ. Plus as I stated in another reply I doubt he would suspend or bench Tahj Boyd or Sammy Watkins if they hadn't participated. At the end of the day he is still paid to win football games.
Over / under on the comments staying open here for more than 24 hours?
I'll take the under on that. Be careful fellow TKPers
Just for the record, we are 7 days into this thread... anyone win the over/under?
Totally called the Over. Granted it was about as lopsided odds as picking the winner of FSU vs Eastern Montana State School of Dirt.
I'm going to take the over. This is a subject people feel very strongly about and is going to drag because it's probably going to go off-topic like the Duke Porn thread.
Duke porn thread - glad you brought that up.. here's my take....
In high school, we always said a prayer before heading out to the field. I've seen groups of players sit together and pray at practice, but haven't heard of something so organized like at Clemson.
The issue, I believe, at least from this foundation's standpoint is not so much on being organized rather that the organization creates a pressure to join the religious activities. I think everyone who played sports understands the peer pressure involved in locker rooms. Add to that a head coach and staff that are "encouraging" kids to join in and learn the Bible, be baptized, convert, etc. and it encroaches on the line of harassment.
If for example they find that non-religious kids or those that don't participate in organized activities play far less than those that do then you have a bit of an issue. That player(s) could just be not as good as the other, or could be they get discriminated against even if unconsciously, or could be coaches tend to spend more time with those "in the program" than those without... very difficult to answer anything like this definitively and so usually they look at trends. How many kids in the program fall under this same condition, then to past players and staff... and so on.
It is an extremely interesting development.
Great elaboration fernley. Yes, it will be interesting to see how it plays out. Especially, if this hits all of the media the same way as the 'NCAA Pay for Play' topic' did/is hitting media outlets.
Over/under on the number of days for the national media to start referring to this as "Pray for Play"
Coincidentally, that's exactly what I do at 1:45 AM at the bar every Saturday night.
haha... nice edit. In it i see your problem though. You're in a bar, Horse. Get your ass to some stables and you'll have better luck.
Bar:
Stables:
I need to rethink my life decisions
Can't pick your parents!
What were we talking about again?
Please read the sign - it clearly states: "NO Horse pray"
OH REARRY?
'Organized' might not be an issue. 'Compulsory' definitely is.
Coercion is also an issue. Is there pressure to be a team player? What if you have a different religious belief? Will you be considered an outcast? Is this a recruiting tool?
It is without a doubt a recruiting tool, but that's not exclusive to Clemson. If you've seen Mike London's recruiting tactics, Christianity is a large part of his recruiting.
I'll be brave and offer my OPINIONS on the rest. There is pressure to be a team player and join in organized activities, religious-based or otherwise. The amount of pressure depends on the coach/leadership and can range from a team prayer after games to participation in Church Days. My high school teams (baseball and football) said the Lord's Prayer regularly, and while there was no explicit requirement to join, it was undeniably easier to join rather than isolate yourself from the team and potentially cause a stir. Alternative religious beliefs weren't discussed and I doubt the subject really comes up in Clemson's case either. If you had strong convictions otherwise, you might have to express those to your teammates and coaching staff so as not to seem disrespectful for not joining, which can be uncomfortable when you're a member of a team, but I don't think you would be considered an outcast.
I think I can relate this to a similar experience I had playing rugby. Many of you may be familiar with the stereotype that ruby players tend to be heavy drinkers and spend much of their time off the pitch pounding beers, which isn't really all that far from the truth. Now, myself and a handful of others didn't drink much, didn't attend many of the socials, etc. (there are other "events" I'll leave out for the protection of the innocent and guilty alike, but you get the idea). Did my lack of participation - voluntarily chosen - in this aspect of the team's culture sometimes make me feel left out, or like I didn't quite fit in? To an extent. However, it never impacted my teammates' recognition of my skills and abilities. It didn't keep anyone from tossing me the ball or calling a play I was involved in. It didn't keep my coach from putting me on the field (and rugby coaches are much less involved in the actual game than coaches of just about any other sport anyways). While I understand this isn't precisely an apples-to-apples comparison, my point is that I see no problem with what Dabo is doing because I'm pretty sure he understands that his job is much too important and unstable to play only those players that fit in with his personal belief system and fit perfectly into his culture.
Just about any college football team has a chaplain. Tech does. After practice last week, I watched him lead some players in prayer. Some players walked by, some joined in. About equal number of both parties were starters, and no one seemed to mind afterwards who was part of it and who wasn't. I'm sure if anyone had requested a rabbi or imam, one would be provided. So Dabo is more vocal about what he does, but he and Beamer are doing the same thing - offering spiritual support for any player that wants it.
actually they aren't the same, at least from the contention of the foundation. The difference being that Dabo and his staff, together with the Chaplain have colluded to form a Christian run program that sponsors Christian indoctrination and conversion. It organized and it's intentional. (Being careful to not say forced, mandatory or coerced)
As a representative of the government running a government institution Dabo cannot do this.
Contrast with Beamer and staff that merely provide access to a Chaplain for players is vastly different.
One of the draws for Billy Ray Mitchell to the VT program was that Grimes was "a big Christian guy." You mean to tell me that at no point in their conversation religion came up? It's the same thing (on a smaller scale) that Dabo is doing. He provides the support for his players and encourages them to use it. If they don't, no big deal. If they do, splendid. If they have other needs, he does his best to meet those as well. Honestly, I view the Freedom From Religion Foundation people exactly the way I view the Westboro Baptist Church. Any good intentions their cause had have been made completely irrelevant by the way they "raise awareness" about their particular views.
I'm sorry but I fail to see where the Westboro Baptist Church had any good intentions...
I think that's a pretty drastic comparison...and unfair to the FFRF. They may be kind of crazy, but they aren't remotely similar to WBC
Sorry, but this is still wrong.
VT: "Coach is a big Christian guy" and a Chaplain being provided for players.
Clemson: A group of government employees have organized a structure within a government body on government property to hold Bible Study, Bus players to Church and be baptized. (and possibly more)
On the one hand, with VT, it is individuals. On the other its an organized government body saving souls. Again vastly different.
I would not call this foundation anything close to Westboro either. Westboro has a hate agenda whereby they picket funerals of soldiers, celebrities and individuals. they burn religious doctrine not of their own and public call down judgement from God on people they personally disagree with. It is nothing like this foundation.
I can understand everyone's frustration with the comparison to Westboro Baptist Church and that Freedom from Religion Foundation. I think a more valid comparison would be the ACLU. They picket, protest, or raise a stink about what fits their political agenda, but completely disregard anytime the civil liberties of others that is being denied does not fit their narrative of the world. I truly believe that the Freedom from Religion Foundation does the same thing. They are quick to jump on any instance of Christians making poor decisions, but when it comes to any other religion doing something similar they turn a blind eye. Organizations like these would have a lot more credibility if they fought their own biases and tried to remain neutral.
IMHO they do not wait for an error, they wait for an opportunity to present itself that they can use to exploit because they can use it.
Football player at a well known university gets baptized after practice with the coaches and team there, in a university building, in university owned training equipment?
As we listen in on a meeting of their board:
"Oh yes, we can spin this to make it look coercive especially since it'll only be our side of the story that gets out for months."
"If it goes to court, we might win or, if we lose we can blame it on the big, bad, machine and at worse other public colleges will clamp down on their teams just to avoid the cost of the lawsuit. This type of action against a major div 1 university will be covered in sport venues so the publicity will be widespread and our supporters will open pockets. Win win for Freedom From Religion."
Good call, you said what I failed to get across.
yes I agree with this. As a Foundation they are extremely opportunistic. That doesn't mean they are wrong though. At least in terms of how Church and State are defined.
I agree that just because they're opportunistic does not mean they're wrong, but it also doesn't mean that they're right.
Although I disagree with their tactics I do believe they are right.
You feel they are wrong because you feel they are limiting the religious freedom of a Christian. They may be opportunistic but they are keeping government faithful to remain without religion. Remember Clemson is publicly owned, a government institution. Those that believe this is wrong feel this way because they are in the majority. Would you feel the same if we allowed religion into government and the majority of the USA became Hindi, Sikh, Russian Orthodox or whatever? That means the government would be making policies based on one religion's teachings and it may not be yours. Would you feel this foundation is wrong then?
Those that feel a university or football team is different than actual government, let me ask you why? The best policy is for all or nothing. For me, I do not want religion deciding politics. Frankly, politicians are barely, if at all, trustworthy as it is now without religion, and people in power are corruptible. The corruption of power is a unifying theme in the Bible. You are also forgetting that if Dabo truly felt that his "duty" as a Christian were his primary motivating force in life then he would simply elect to coach at a private college. He's not stupid. He knows he works for a publicly funded university, so it would appear his want of winning football at a major D1 school is a higher priority.
Gotta respectfully disagree but I understand we're close to agreement just differ on where the line was drawn.
Recognize that the original intent was to protect citizens from having to toe the line to the religion of the choice of their government or risk being beheaded or burned at the stake.
Ask Tom Cromwell what the hazard of a government religion may be.
The point was not to prevent government from being involved in religion in any way as the government is actually the embodiment of the people in a modern democracy and especially where the people's funds and resources are appropriated and allocated.
the difference between our points is simply where the tripwire is located. Currently, the tripwire is located very close aboard. I think it's a bit too close and begins to look as if no religion is tolerated and in my opinion, that was not the intent.
Leg to you though for a coherent argument.
The big problem I have for the tripwire you describe is not where it is placed, but it's fragmented placement. Most people accept and don't care about and tolerate a sect of Christianity getting close to government or something public. When it's threatened to be limited then it's the government infringing on the 1st amendment. However when another religion entirely would try that everyone would be fine and praise it being stopped.
I'm fine with religion being tolerated and supported by the government, but all religions even the lack of. This is not the case so you have to put a blanket ban on them all in government and public schools because people can't behave themselves. You can't tolerate one religion and go up in arms when it's not allowed as deeply as you want while at the same time not wanting or fighting any other for wanting equal rights with yours.
I have not seen evidence of that. In fact I see evidence where there's a hair trigger on Christians in particular. the argument being that there must be a hair trigger on Christians because they are so much more prevalent than other religions.
In cases that I have observed, there are questions about other religions, it's just that, not an attempt to stop other religions but a curiosity where there is a lack of exposure to other customs. Big difference between not knowing how to show respect to other cultures due to a lack of knowledge of that culture and repression.
Christians will place their left hands upon their dinner table and some other cultures see that as ghastly and offensive.
It's not deliberate but, that doesn't mean others don't see it as offensive.
I suspect you mean the original point of the Freedom of Religion in the Constitution. Overlooking the fact that you are not including the subsequent findings of the Supreme Court that have explicitly defined Separation of Church and State you would be better to say that the point was to grant people a freedom of government oppressing religion, any religion, upon them. It was meant as an individual freedom from government. And even if you apply that simplistic reasoning to this situation you still have a government body promoting a religion on its members. A clear violation of any individual's right to freedom of religion from government.
You have not answered the question I posed though, so let me ask a bit more specifically. In this situation, you as a Christian player, would you feel differently if the Chaplain was Muslim and was offering spiritual guidance from the Koran, and attempting to guide non-Muslims to conversion? Or do you feel just as passionately that the Muslim Chaplain has as much right to proselytize as the Christian Chaplain and can follow his duty to spread the word of Mohammed and convert?
I knew somebody that their civil liberties were getting stomped on. He contacted the ACLU. They responded in writing that they felt for him, and agreed his civil liberties were being abused, however they would not assist as there was no money in it for them.
This would be a great comparison ... except that it is factually incorrect. I tend to be on the opposite side from the ACLU most of the time, but if you follow the news closely and make an effort to see through confirmation bias, you'll notice that the ACLU defends virtually any point of view (if they're asked).
The ACLU only defends if there is money (and or significant publicity) in it for them.
Although I appreciate your input I will respectfully disagree. To say that they will "defend virtually any point of view" is more than just a stretch. Why do they have to be asked to defend? It seems like in many cases that they are involved in there isn't any time for them to have been asked, they're just on standby for anything that fits their narrative.
This is the bottom line. Is he neutral on religious matters and provides equal treatment?
Would his christian fans be offended to find out he might send a kid to an imam, a rabbi, a wiccan high preist or priestest, or a monk?
Makes no difference what his Christian fans think, it's whether he does do it or not. Also, why do you assume the chaplain is a Christian?
In the Navy I had a number of different chaplains that were varies religions and variants of Christian. One wore a yarmulke and at least one other was not a Christian. They half non- denominational services except some could not perform certain sacraments such as hearing confession or performing certain Passover rites and other specific rites per particular religions.
They would all refer or try to arrange for specific services.
I have never had ANY of my chaplains, in college or military try to "convert" anyone and each had open doors to anyone regardless of belief or lack thereof. And yes, I had a buddy "convert" from Christian to Buddhist while in the Navy and he was supported by the Christian chaplain aboard our command. Also, I think another guy moved to Shinto while I was stationed in Japan.
I have a very regard for these guys, they are there when a young man or woman needs them. A good chaplain is a good thing to have around.
Not assuming. He is Christian, leads Christian bible studies, performs Christian baptisms. He is the rep for the CFA as well.
I think the issue is that it appears that there is an agenda by Trapp introduce Christian faith to players and performing his "duty" to convert. Until more details come out this is all debatable though.
Agreed.
Agree about the chaplains.
My comment about the fans is that they can quickly turn on a coach if they don't like what he is doing. If you look at the christian theme t-shirt near the bottom of this thread you will see there are some christian fans that think it really matters a lot. He will get plenty of support from the conservative christian base unless they find out he is non-denominational (as required by law in his offical duties) or even helps kids that are not christian. This whole issue is not an attack on christianity but some feel it is. Why bring religion into football? I know, religion is brought into everything in the south. Unfortunately, if you complain you are labelled as someone that hates christianity.
I'm just gonna read these comments like...
first of all, its Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion. This drives me crazy. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that a government employee cannot express his/her religious beliefs.
Here's my two cents: If playing time or treatment by coaches/teammates is somehow tied to this, I'll be the first to admit that's wrong. That's imposing your religion on another. However, I have absolutely no problem if Sweeney is merely creating opportunities for players to share in faith community if they choose to. We're not talking about minors here who have yet to formulate opinions on religion yet. We're talking about 18-23 year olds who I'm sure have well defined views on religion by now.
I think you're understanding this incorrectly. Freedom OF Religion includes your rights to not participate and to practice your own religion. This is what the Foundation is saying. The organized Christian religion within the program is impacting the right of those that don't participate, are not religious or are not Christian. Being that Clemson is a public university and not a private university it is a government body, a body that must follow Separation of Church and State. In both cases Clemson may have crossed the line.
Agreed. Of and From are one in the same.
To expand just a little: they're not the same, but they're first cousins.
establishment clause = freedom from religion
free exercise clause = freedom of religion
Correct, though I believe Horse was stating that OF and FROM are derived from the same origin, as you pointed out, and therefore are one and the same.
I think both of you get my overall point, but to elaborate a little, I am not necessarily contending that the statute says this, but it certainly is my personal opinion:
Everyone has the freedom of religion, and, because you can choose to follow no religion, you have the right to be free from other religions, not to be coerced into a religion, not to face any sort of discrimination based on your choice of not identifying with a religion, etc...
Very eloquent for a talking horse...
How is it impacting the rights of those that don't participate?? No player brought this up as an issue. This group came on it's own to try and solve a problem that doesn't exist at this university. The 1st Amendment is designed to keep government out of religion and trying to run it or profess one religion. It is not there to keep religion out of any aspect of the government.
Also separation of church and state does not exist in the Constitution. I think Dabo and Clemson is completely justified in this. Groups like the FFRF stick there nose where there is any hint of a religion and government in the same sentence or something. Nobody's rights are being infringed here. Dabo is providing an opportunity. People seem to automatically think he is denying playing time if they dont' participate but I highly doubt this. Does he pick up the entire team before church??
I just want to say that I am in no way saying that Dabo or Clemson has done anything wrong. Only providing clarification from my opinion. I tend to dislike any extremist lobbying group no matter on right or left of issues.
That being said the issue is actually not directly with constitution but with Supreme Court findings that interpreted the constitutional meaning and validity of Separation of Church and State. In it that publicly funded education centers must adhere to providing a structure that does not promote any single religion.
Again the issue is not with Dabo personally but the fact that seemingly the entire football staff and Chaplain have created an atmosphere that is pro-Christian and has undertaken measure to bring young lambs into the flock. This is a big issue for non-religion groups that whether you personally agree or disagree are able to exploit previous Supreme Court findings to their advantage and stop/block such activities. The fact that no student has complained is not necessarily relevant unless students now do start to complain.
To retort -- If that's the case, why don't they have an imam or rabbi or priest to talk about all faiths? Why is it only one that's being expressed?
Because it is the coaches personal expression of what he believe, as I think should be his freedom. Now if someone was to request a rabbi or imam to meet their spiritual need, it would be the coaches responsibility to provide an imam or rabbi, in respect for others religious freedoms, if he wanted to continue to express his. But a denial of that isnt even in question here. What is in question here is a group of people, with their own opinions, trying to quiet the opinions/expressions, of another.
couldn't have said it better
I don't agree with that logic. If the coach wants to express his faith then let him do it in a church in his own privacy. Let him wear a cross under his shirt too if he wants. But that's not the case here when it is overtly emphasized on the players. I would find it hard to believe if someone else on the team was doing it with another religion that it wouldn't cause some discomfort in the team.
Let's apply the logic that a coach who is a public employee shouldn't exercise his religious freedom on campus to other rights:
If a student wants to speak freely, they should go to a University that isn't publicly funded.
If someone wants to assemble freely, they can't do so in a public park
If someone wants to report the news, they can't do so in the school paper, since it's publicly funded.
I would argue thst public spaces, especially colleges are one of the most important places for individual rights to be protected. Unfortunately colleges have become very limiting places when it comes to the rights of employees and students. This is one of the less political examples I know of which deals with a pair of posters a professor hung outside his office, but there are many more examples of schools violating the rights of employees and students, usually because they don't want someone to be offended:
Your examples are missing key components. They are about random people doing things not influential government employees. The government is not allowed to mandate a state religion, however if an employee is making an effort to expose his religious beliefs and influence his subordinates then issues arise.
My comment in that instance was focused narrowly on the assertion that Dabo should limit his exercise of religion to when he is at church and hiding a cross under his shirt. My point was that he wouldn't be prohibited from religious activities that take place outside of a church because he's a government employee. Perhaps a better example would have been a professor instead of a student (like in the FIRE video I posted). Assembly and the press are a little harder to relate to this specific situation, there was probably a better way to do those examples too.
He doesn't have to just practice at church and home, but he can't push his religion on the students in practice and other university events or with university funds.
These situations are always interesting because both sides are passionate about it. However it's always lopsided when it's limiting the influence of Christianity since it's so widespread. I wonder how many people would be supporting the FFRF if Dabo was Islamic or Hindu and doing the exact same thing.
I'd probably be more disturbed if he was pushing atheism than if he was Shinto. Tough to admit but, I think that's truly how I'd feel about it.
I find people that are actively trying to find finding the boogyman behind every cross more bothersome than the guys that come knocking on my door trying to proselytize.
you make a terrific point.
the problem is that nobody can really look at the situation objectively. Religion plays such a large role in so many peoples' lives that it influences their emotional response to everything without them realizing it. You(figuratively) can try as hard as you want to look at something like this objectively but you're going to have some unintended emotional influence from years of being submersed in whatever religion you grew up practicing.
That being said, since a vast majority of the people posting here, the people involved in the Clemson situation, and most of the south in general, is Christian, everyone is going to have an unintentional emotional bias against the FFRF...
Part of my distaste for the FFRF stems from their existence to be negative and prevent people from doing things. Everything they do is to undo something someone else has already done such as remove the cross from Mt. Soledad because it somehow offends their sensibilities or to prevent a chaplain from helping young men from dealing with the stress of a D1 football program in a period in their life that can be very tough.
Can anyone point to anything positive the FFRF has done other than protect the masses from the evils of religion?
They do offer scholarships each year...
I agree though, I wish they were more proactive instead of responsive. I would like to see them sponsor math/science education, especially in poorer areas of the country.
Jesuits provide more scholarships to excellent schools every year.
Jesuit schools are consistently some of the best Universities. Math and science included.
I meant that I wanted to see educational funding at younger ages in more rural and underprivileged areas. There are plenty of good Jesuit colleges and prep schools.
This Clemson story is a 'scandal' because it involves the government funding a nonsecular practice. If the government supports a nonsecular practice, it can appear that they are supporting one religion over another. This should be avoided for reasons already discussed.
Clemson paying a Chaplain isn't that big of a deal in itself, however, historically, legal precedents have been created from relatively mundane cases/issues (Miranda v. Arizona anyone?). The FFRF's goal is to keep religion out of the government (NOT to convert everyone to atheism). You may or may not agree with this cause, but every time something like this happens, it could be a potential opportunity to set a precedent. It would be unwise for the FFRF to avoid this.
I am not religious but IMHO, the original intent was not to prevent religion in public life but to prevent the government from requiring religious adherence or risk death or to prevent it from becoming an excuse to confiscate property or harass political opponents. The intent was not to prevent the mere appearance of a religious figure from appearing as a leader or counselor to a football team.
I understand the FFRF is treating it almost as if they were defending a trademark.
From a legal standpoint that may be a good thing but where should the line be drawn? Preventing religious symbols such as crosses or the Star of David from placement anywhere that can be seen from a public road? The history of the FFRF is that they are aggressively pursuing the hint of religion in the air.
BTW, wonderful discussion.
Nobody expects the FFRF Inquisition.
My personal opinion is that none of these things should be government funded. Not only does it send (in my opinion) the wrong message, but our money is better spent elsewhere. There are plenty of individuals/non-religious organizations doing good things. Put that money towards helping a returning Veteran with PTSD. Use that money towards newer textbooks at school. Help fund meals a local homeless shelter.
I just don't see an positive that can come from a cross on a courthouse, but I do understand how people can be offended. Kind of like the saying "If you don't have something nice to say then keep your mouth shut," I think we should apply "If there's nothing positive that can come of it, we shouldn't do it."
Actually if you've been checking the news and the economy, it would seem that there isn't plenty of money.
Exactly the government has no business shelling out cash to put religious symbols on courthouses. Spend the money elsewhere. If it's a donation, use it elsewhere.
But that's a whole other topic for another time.
+1 for Monty Python Reference:
Hypothetically...do you think Dabo would like it if one of the players said he wanted to start Muslim prayer sessions in the locker room or asked the coaches to organize rides for them for another religious service?
I don't know Dabo's personal beliefs in the matter, so I'll quote-ish Menace II Society:
Is Dabo in support of religion or in support of his own religion? I would hope the former. This would be a good question to get down to the meat of the issue.
Good point HOAT...well said.
How many people here know that the statement "separation of church and state isn't even in the constitution.
It comes from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. In that letter, referencing
the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes: "Believing with you that religion is
a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship,
that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign
reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of
separation between Church and State."
In full contexts it speaks to me that Jefferson's intent was to reaffirm that Congress should not FORM A
STATE RELIGION, but allow persons to practice their faith however they see fit before their god. Looking at
reasons why persons left England to settle in the original Colonies, for religious freedom, that makes since.
Today people are taught that it means that no one is allowed to speak their faith in places overseen by the
State (ex: Schools, . I do not believe that that was even close to our founding fathers intent. I believe
this modern take on Jeffersons statement is actually stealing individuals freedom of speech. I strongly
believe that this popular quote has been taken out of context completely.
Everything I have stated above has been what I perceive as undeniable fact, political and not religious at
all. My personal opinion: Good for Swinney for standing strong in his convictions.
I really hope people don't go down the political religion road, but to clarify.
yes I do know this. However, this is:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."
which formed the basis for multiple Supreme Court decisions that founded the actual wording of Separation of Church and State as law. The 2 major cases being Reynolds v USA, and Everson v. Board of Education. The latter in which Justice Black wrote:
"In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."
Findings that did not limit it to forming of State Religion but that Government would be wholly apart from Religion.
Though it is still a hotly debated topic, to say that just because it is not expressly written in the constitution it is not something in which this country upholds as law is false. Dabo's convictions as personally just as they may be by law should not be a part of a Public University.
EDIT: Changed to reply more specifically to HvilleHokie's comment
"Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The real question that keeps these activist going is WHERE religion should be allowed to be exercised freely. As citizens we want to be careful and make sure our space where we can practice free speech and religious beliefs is not being squeezed too tightly by those in government. Because after all they are there to serve us...right?
I don't disagree entirely, but I don't think this hits on the critical point.
I've heard people say something like the following, "Your right to swing your fists around in the air ends at the other guy's nose". Implying, of course, that your freedoms are absolute until you start to infringe on someone else's.
In this case, I think Dabo comes precariously close to the religious beliefs of his players' noses, and Clemson, being a taxpayer-funded institution, has the responsibility to hold their student's noses in high regard when it comes to this type of thing.
I could see the point if a non-Christian, taxpaying, resident of the state of South Carolina objected to having these things, directly or tangentially, supported by the school, either financially or implicitly by allowance.
I like that Clemson has said that no repercussions, good or bad, happen to any players based on their participation or lack thereof. But let's not be naive, either. Anywhere you go, if there is a group of people going off and doing something together, those who don't go are 'outside the group'.
Ever work somewhere where there were cliques?
Ever decide to not go to the 'Holiday Party' your company throws?
Ever skip out on the happy hour after a big project is done?
Ever skip out on a co-worker's baby shower, or miss a good friend's wedding?
What if it were your boss organizing it?
Are you still as tight with everyone in those groups as you were before? Are the people who did participate now closer than you are to the others that participated? Were you not invited to the next event? Even if religion isn't involved, the social dynamics change. And when it includes one person in a uniquely powerful position, the situation gets real dicey.
Yes. It takes Charactor and Integrity. Example, I don't watch rated R movies or TV shows with nudity. I have never seen "Game of Thrones." Sincerely, nothing against the people who watch it, it is just my convictions in life, nudity might not affect others, but it affects me and I don't hold anyone else to my convictions, they're mine. But, when ya'll talk about that on here, I have no idea what you are talking about, same goes for at work too. Yet I compromise that sometimes when accessing this site, but you don't see downvotes from me when someone posts pictures of girls. It is all good, but I am not going to post them. I don't drink, how many of ya'll would like me at your tailgate now, though I feel comfortable around those who do drink, and would crack jokes and laugh with ya'll. Some people who drink sometimes see people who don't as a drag. That makes me different from a lot of people on this site. I am cool with that, are you? But again that is just me. I respect what Joe has going on here, I am a Hokie, and I don't expect all Hokies to think, act and have the same beliefs as me. I respect everyone else's opinions, and am not threatened by them. I don't expect this website to cater to my convictions. Are my convictions and opinions really a hit in your nose? Did you get hit in the nose when Demitri Knowles quoted a scripture that strengthened him throughout the week on Beamer's website? EDIT: Would you have had Logan Thomas take off his "I AM SECOND" wrist band, because he was the leader of our team? Or make him retract that statement that Coach Frank Beamer "is a real christian guy?"
Integrity, what ever happened to that word? People should be focused on trying to build it up in there families, and the people they care about. Not trying to infringe on another person's freedoms to make life easier for them.
I'll get off my soapbox now. I'm done. I really enjoy your site Joe, thanks for letting me be here.
Gave you a leg because I really admire and respect your strength of convictions. I don't necessarily agree completely, but I think you can't help but admire someone with convictions like yourself.
I would happily have you at my tailgate. First and foremost, you are a Hokie and therefore by definition AWESOME. Secondly, I try respect everyone's personal beliefs. I'm very libertarian in that way. Finally, as Rocket said I also respect people who stand by their convictions so long as those convictions don't affect others.
That being said, I think you are missing the issue. Dabo's personal convictions are not the issue. Everson v. Board of Education and it's findings that religion must not in any way be promoted within a publicly funded education center is the issue. This foundation is using finding to their advantage to further serve their agenda as much so as some pro-religion foundations do with their own agendas. I personally don't like either in practice but if you want to talk about this from a law centric discussion then it appear as though Clemson has a bit of problem.
I don't think this is in the same ballpark as the rest of this discussion. Ain't no one got a problem with someone being who they are, nor does/should anyone have a problem with someone expressing themselves. Freedom of expression, no?
Neither of these examples establishes a support structure for the entire program based around one faith. If that's what's happening at Clemson, then the situation changes.
I'm not sure what the integrity paragraph means.
so is anyone that is a current athlete on the Clemson football team or anyone of the parents who pay for tuition or any taxpayers to the state of South Carolina complaining about this as a misuse of their funds or bias against their beliefs and punishment for such beliefs?? If no, then where is the problem?
As a current coach at a high school in South Carolina, I find all of this irresponsible on the part of Clemson. We go to great lengths on our team to separate ourselves from making religious expression a mandate. We offer a "team chaplain" during the season but it is at the end of practice once a week, and made completely optional. I think it is best to offer the opportunity, but in a completely voluntary form. Never mandated, and never tied to participation on the playing field.
What proof is there that any of the playing time is tied to participation? As much as it pains me to say it, Clemson has put a solid product on the field for the past couple years and as such I find it hard to believe that every single player has been out there because they're "playing the game" and attending the religious events. Dabo may be a bit of a tool, but he understands that his paycheck is based solely on the performance on the field, not how many people convert. If he has a better player on the team, he's going to play him whether he's Christian, Muslim, Buddhists, or any other religion. To imply that he is doing anything other would mean Clemson has the talent and players to win every national championship every single year but chooses not to in order to favor those that attend a Christian service or bible study... It's just not realistic.
he didn't say it was tied to participation. He said that he and his staff make sure that they are not pushing an religion on anyone because it would be unfair of him to do so. Is it really a coach's place to do so anyway? As a parent I would be pissed if he did so without my expressed permission.
No one needs to complain for their to be a problem. A government body cannot promote religion. Simple as that. You are still looking at it from individual motivation which is irrelevant. Dabo/Chaplain/Staff are a government body promoting a specific religion on government property. This cannot be done, even if there is never any complaint.
This is a misconception that most Americans seem to believe. The original colonies that everyone is referring to up north were not settled for religious freedom. The Puritans were essentially extremists and did not tolerate the other sects of Christianity in England. They were most definitely not open to living in a community with religious freedom. Instead, they wanted everyone to follow their religious rules.
Sorry, I know it's nitpicking, but I felt the need to throw that in.
Eh. I think 18-23 is still well in the timeframe where people might still be figuring out their own beliefs.
I'm much older than that and still trying to figure mine out.
same here (well..not MUCH older..)
The number of classmates I had that went to different religions, found religion, or forsake them was huge. Part of college is figuring out who you are and your religious affiliation is a big part of that
Would you feel similarly if the coach was an atheist and spent time with his team talking about his (lack of) beliefs?
Why would anyone spend any time discussing their lack of belief in any topic. That's not human nature and a waste of time and effort. People almost always discuss their belief in a topic. It's the way we are wired.
Some atheists I know would talk to you all night about why you should be an atheist. Talking to persuade others is human nature no matter what you're talking about.
It's still a belief in something they are talking about. It's not a lack of belief in any way.
This is exactly why London doesn't discuss timeouts.
yes and thats the point i was trying to make. you have a right to express your beliefs whatever they may be
I just finished a season in NCAA 14 and didn't have to deal with any of this religion stuff in the game...I will stick to video games and won't touch this topic.
Did Northwestern have a union? and if so, did it affect the outcome of any of their games?
Yes, it is so realistic! Alabama pays its players, Northwestern unionized, Jameis Winston was accused of sexual assault and FSU swept it under the rug, Chad Kelly was a tool, Chris Mangus transferred, Bucky Hodges is 7 ft tall, Sam Rogers won the Heisman, and Logan Thomas converted to Tight End...other than that it totally unrealistic.
Oh boy... walking into this thread feels like taking the Kobayashi Maru
some other classics
one more
I've always wondered about these "classic" gifs. As they've really only been around for a short period of time....
Animated gifs have been around for a long time actually. I remember them from the days of dial-up modems as sort of a lame alternative to streaming video. The crazy thing is that they weren't all that big back in the early 2000s, yet they have enjoyed a large resurgence in popularity in recent years despite streaming video being widely available.
My take:
- If Clemson football players are being forced to attend religious events/sessions or their attendance or lack thereof affects their standing with the team- this is wrong.
- If it is truly voluntary and has nothing to do with the player's standing on the team, then who cares? They're allowed to believe what they want and practice their beliefs how they like.
I second this. He's allowed to say whatever he freakin' wants, so long as it doesn't impact every player's opportunity to play/contribute to the team. Shoot, London's whole deal is "Faith, Familiy, Football" if I remember correctly.
So I thought about weighing in here...
I'm not a Christian but I don't view maybe doing a prayer with a group of Christians as wrong. If we all believe in there being a God then I don't think it really matters how you pray. From what I read he never punished players for not going to any of these things or forced them to go to anything so I don't see the problem.
As a previous poster said and most people don't realize, separation of church and state is not in the constitution. It says that the government shall not make a law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. But it doesn't prohibit any government employee from encouraging his peers (or players in this case) to voluntarily take part in religious activities.
Someone pointed out the whole "it's not in the Constitution, it's based on letters Jefferson wrote" thing on the original ESPN article. I couldn't resist trolling a little and mentioning that Jefferson also founded UVA, so I'm gonna take anything he said or did with a grain of salt.
Everyone gets a mulligan.
Theres no bigger mulligan than Jefferson's for UVA.
If you learn from your mistakes, TJ's learned ALOT.
thats all.
There was nothing wrong with UVA when he created it.
It was the nitwits that came later that screwed it up.
I also agree with what's been mentioned above- if one player asks for religious services for a religion outside Christianity, Clemson must then provide that. You can't have a circumstance where only one religion is provided for free to the whole team, unless the whole team is all Christians and want that.
Not saying that they shouldn't have a chaplain, clearly a lot of players appreciate it, but it's certainly an interesting situation.
How deep does it go I wonder? Do you think Dabo only recruits Christians?
I'm in no way trying to say that he does. I have no idea. I don't know if anyone could prove whether or not there is any kind of discrimination occurring during the recruiting process. I'm not saying that it's not a possibility either.
I would like to think that there is no such discrimination. I don't know if it's possible to know for sure whether or not there is. I think it's probably safe to say that Christianity is the most popular religion practiced in this country. Especially in the south; The south also happens to be home to some pretty rich football recruiting hotbeds. Is it possible that there are non-christian football players recruited by Clemson? Certainly. Is it likely that there is discrimination? I doubt it. To me, if there is...that is a much more serious problem than what has been presented to us so far.
...just something to think about...
Considering that they mentioned Hopkins being baptized in front of his teammates, I would assume that he recruits players who aren't Christians.
Firstly, I doubt anyone believes Dabo says, "are you a Christian, son? If not, don't bother coming to Clemson." Either way, that's not necessarily true since there are many denominations and belief systems that fall under the Christian umbrella. Plenty of people were raised as Christians and would say they are Christian if asked, but later decide they need to be saved, born-again, baptized, etc. to demonstrate their renewed relationship/dedication to Jesus. If Hopkins wanted to handle snakes and drink venom in front of his teammates, I'd say many people (Christians included) would find that inappropriate and appalling. However, some Christians would find that to be perfectly acceptable.
My understanding is that Clemson doesn't actually provide the chaplain., his activities are privately funded The only thing they definitely provide is access to the team and their facilities. So if a Muslim player requests access to an Islamic Chaplin, the University at most would contact the local mosque to see if they would be able to provide one.
Yes, that is correct. also note that it is a chaplain, not a brother, priest, emam, rabbi, miko, monk, etc.
The chaplain is non-denominational and a big part of their job is to provide guidance to help an individual locate someone to guide them in specific rituals/sacraments and help them get assistance they need.
Chaplains are not there to push a religion on an individual but to help them with their needs of a non-material nature or just someone to act as a guidance counselor. These guys have the same protections as attorney/client privilege.
You have young men here in an environment without their parents, probably for the first time, in a high stress life, someone they can trust and can talk to can make or break a person. There is no attorney client privilege with the coach, who may be the source of the stress in this young man's life.
The last thing this guy would do is try and force a particular religion or to force any religion on a kid. It's counterproductive for the service they perform.
The article clearly states the issue with Clemson's chaplain:
That statement, if we accept all it says, really says no rule was broken and invokes the Constitution simply as a talisman.
It says Swinney invited the chaplain but claims it is against the rules and constitution to hire one. They imply that it is somehow illegal for a university to hire a chaplain. It is not. The Supreme Court has ruled that is not illegal to hire chaplains and the presence of a chaplain or prayer does not constitute a violation of the 1st Amendment.
Please note that the Freedom From Religion Foundation has already successfully done this same thing to Appalachian State, their coach is no longer with Appalachian State and other coaches at AS have been warned. So, they ran a test case against a small school and got exactly what they wanted, now they are taking what they learned and have applied it to a big school.
That's not what it says. It says it violated the university's rules for selection which state that student group must select the chaplain and seek approval from university. Regarding the Constitution I believe they are speaking about Freedom of Religion, which is debatable.
You may debate it however, the Supreme Court has already ruled on it. Chaplains may be hired by public entities and prayer may be used as part of public events and organizations.
I know these want to eliminate prayer and hassle organizations into being afraid of it but, the Supreme Court is solidly in on that. If there was a slight error in the manner in which a university rule is applied that is one thing but, breaching a university rule does not a constitutional violation make.
This FFRF is all about bending people to their will. They are religiophobes.
Sorry, but this is extremely incorrect.
the Supreme Court has already ruled on it
I am not debating anything because Everson v Board of Education clearly states that religion must be separate from publicly funded institutions of education. So not sure what you are trying to prove by bringing up the Supreme Court. In fact, it is so explicitly clear that Clemson cannot in anyway proselytize, evangelize, preach or promote any religion that this isn't even debatable. There have been many subsequent findings to support this original judgement.
What you are referring to regarding Chaplains and constitution is that there is a freedom of religion granted to every individual and any university, or government body, may have someone of faith to provide individual spiritual guidance. The Supreme Court does not ever, in any way whatsoever, say that the Chaplain can lead conversion or promote any specific religion in a manner that is organized within said government body.
Just because you are Christian and your Chaplain is Christian does not mean he can promote Christianity, no matter how much you want it to be so. If you as a player go to the Chaplain seeking advice they can simply offer the guidance that their faith teaches them. It is not specific to Christianity or any religion, just that he can provide spiritual guidance.
We are 100% in agreement here and as I suspected were hampered by the media in which we converse.
I do however, suspect the Clemson case is much ado about nothing except furthering the cause of atheism as promoted by the Freedom From Religion Foundation by making universities loathe to allow anything that even comes close to religion. My tell is in whether we need to split hairs to discover a violation.
gotcha. yes better convo face-to-face for sure. leg back at you (from above)
I agree that the foundation is using this to further their agenda. While I support Church and State I do not agree with this foundation's means to take action.
Not sure how the violation would go. The NCAA really has no jurisdiction in religious violations, so I suppose it would go to a court if anything. I haven't read into the App State case to know why those involved left. Were they dismissed? fired? ... not sure.
In this case, I think the most it will be is that Trapp will be asked to leave and Dabo to not organize anything promotional on campus.
Trapp is actually a University employee and has a position with the university outside the football team essentially as a chaplain and life coach at the school.
Not sure the point you are trying to make. Do you mean that I said he wasn't a university employee?
I mean to say that I don't think Trapp will be asked to leave as his involvement with the football team is a small part of his duties at the university.
If I was Dabo, I'd have the team vote on who they'd like as their chaplain. Get that individual as the team chaplain.
Problem solved.
Actually Trapp is the Chaplain and also listed as a Recruiting Assistant. Read this article. He is heavily involved with the team from the recruitment of it's players to day to day activities of the team. That's why I think he would be dismissed.
https://chronicle.com/article/With-God-on-Our-Side/143231/
In my opinion just because he's a chaplain should not prevent him from doing anything.
Why should he be prevented from performing in any capacity in any job just because he's religious?
It is illegal to discriminate for creed.
Two reasons:
1) Church and State clearly says that a government body cannot promote religion on government property. Again see Supreme Court rulings (eg. Everson v Board of Education)
2) If Trapp was simply a inter-faith Chaplain and didn't perform baptisms on campus then there wouldn't be an issue. However, he is a Christian Chaplain promoting a singular religion on a group of kids that he's been made responsible for, not only as a man of faith, but as a paid employee on the football staff.
No one is discriminating against anyone except for maybe the pro-Christian staff that promote only that religion and therefore are discriminating against other religions by not doing so just as ardently.
Until we can locate a super chaplain that is a Buddhist monk, priest, Mormon brother, shahman, Shinto spiritual leader, cleric, witch or warlock, Wiccan and satanic spiritual leader that can perform all of the sacraments or rites of all religions, it's an impossible standard and therefore grounds for groups like the FFRF to sue.
A chaplain can only be ordained in 1 religion by the definitions of that church (etc.) and therefore by your definition cannot be employed by a government body. Which is not correct.
My Navy chaplain performed baptisms but could not perform confession or lead the daily prayers pointing to Mecca or certain Passover. Because he could lead curtain prayers and rites in 1 religion did not force him from his paid post.
Not saying that the Chaplain needed to be a person of all religious faiths, just not a proponent of any singular religion.
And was your Navy Chaplain recruiting young men and women to join the Navy whereby he and the commanding officers ran a Christian organization? If not, then it's really not the same as Trapp and Clemson.
My chaplain wasn't but chaplains are not barred from recruiting duties.
Why would it be illegal to send a guy out to visit with prospects with similar interests?
I don't think it would be an effective tool to send out an evangelist to talk prospects into attending that school so their souls could be saved unless we're talking Liberty and mom and dad were footing the bill, forcing the kid to go there.
It's like sending out a recruiter that shares and interest in antique cars. Also, I think it's a bonus he can send this guy in certain cases. For instance, you think it might be good for the student and parents of a troubled young man to talk about life coaching, not just football coaching? I do.
Again, I find this even with no smoke, let alone no flame. Some dust perhaps kicked up by the FFRF cavalry they are pointing at and calling smoke while trying to build their own campfire.
Paraphrasing what we heard from Jerry Falwell at the beginning of my first two years at LU:
"There are always about a dozen or so new students who don't really want to be here and by the end of the first week they all will have found each other."
Also Liberty is an FCS school (63 scholarships), so mom and dad wouldn't be footing the bill for most recruits.
I love how these comments are getting so skinny.
It's a metaphor and there are no perfect metaphors.
You're missing the point. Sorry, but having similar interests is irrelevant.
What is cogent is the structured proselytizing of a specific religion by a Tapp/Dabo/Coaches/Staff (a government body) on a public university campus (a government property). Again under Church and State as defined by the Supreme Court this would be the issue the foundation can exploit, whether you agree or not.
I personally am not saying Chaplains are bad, but I am saying that in regards to Church and State Trapp seems to have an agenda that crosses the line. Not meaning it is meant maliciously or even consciously, but it is happening. It appears most people on the other side of the argument are stuck on the individuals involved (Dabo, Trapp, etc) and their personal convictions, which are indisputable, however definitely not the salient issue of government employees promoting a religious government organization on government property.
The foundation needs a victim to sue Clemson however they do not need a victim to file for an injunction through the court. Neither path involves the personal character of Dabo, Trapp or any single individual.
I have not seen evidence of structured proselytizing of a specific religion by a Tapp/Dabo/Coaches/Staff.
If no structured proselytizing of a specific religion by a Tapp/Dabo/Coaches/Staff occurs then no harm, no foul. Except the school cannot win, even if the court sides for them. FFRF knows this.
I see evidence of the FFRF seeking to suppress all religious expression whether relevant to offenses against the 1st amendment or not.
Even if they lose in court, they know that the schools will suppress the expression of religion for them because it's too much expense to take on an additional lawsuit and win. Not just Clemson.
BTW, that's not me downvoting.
As defined, any type of pro-religion structure is unlawful, whether it be conspicuous or inconspicuous, malicious or unintentional. Not sure if you read the article I posted on a few comments but it describes a football staff that has created a pro-christian body that is actively informing its players about Christianity. Ultimately how you or I interpret the information that is there is the debatable part, until a court does so. In my view though, any handing out of material, active funneling to and from religious classes/church/etc, baptisms or other religious rite whereby the entire staff is complicit and actively engaged is structure proselytizing, and I would say both from the ESPN article and the other one I posted Clemson certainly is that.
I know you are not downvoting, so no worries. However, I do find it almost exclusively that downvotes on this thread are on those posts falling more on the violation side of the argument. It's not 100% that way but almost. I find it a tad ironic.
Some schools may do that, but that could in turn get them sued by groups on the other side of the issue.
Hahaha! I remember this awesomely bad movie. Love the mime punch out.
I don't think that I ever saw the movie all the way through, but the trailer was on the VHS for one of my TMNT movies.
I don't want to always bring up the fact that I went to Clemson my freshman year but this is as good a time as any.
There's a large pressure to conform at Clemson and really in the Deep South as a whole. The pressure is sometimes subconscious but it's always there. As an outsider you can feel judged, I felt more judged than I ever did in high school, at Tech, or any other time in my life.
Anyone who has ever lived in the DS knows that religion and politics are the two biggest things to conform to. In many communities not being "saved" makes you not an accepted part of that community. The football team is a community and pushing religion can cause those who are not a part to be outsiders. Whatever anyone says about it being voluntary or asking for other religions to be represented don't matter, the pressure to conform is too much. I'm Jewish, it's not easy, or even really acceptable sometimes, to be different there. Don't want to put out the wrong vibe, but for those who argue that it's ok because part of being Christian is spreading Christianity, that hasn't always happened peacefully.
Lastly
You're not allowed to force people into a certain religion at a public university under the Constitution
And only recruiting Christians isn't discriminatory since all recruiting is in its nature discriminatory.
Agreed.
Trying to spread Christianity to someone else is viewed as a duty. But to the target, it feels like harassment. When the whole community pressures to conform, it ends up being intimidation. To one person, it's their duty, but to another, it's stepping on their religious freedom.
This is where I think the crux of the issue lies. Those who support Dabo's efforts are trying to claim that his religious freedom is being limited, but fail to see that the players are currently in the system may already have their religious freedoms limited by Dabo. Cloudy issue.
There hasn't been any evidence released that suggests he limited the religious freedoms of his players. He didn't force them to go to any religious events, and didn't punish players based on their religious beliefs. Being encouraged to go to a Christian event is not limiting your religious freedoms when you can just say that you don't want to go.
He is in a position of authority at a public instituion. Kids are on scholarship and have to follow his rules. If attending religious events is openly and publically encouraged by those in authority (coaches) then there is an environment that could be or could become intimidating.
Those in authority need to be careful in their actions. Those in public institutions/government have a responsibility to be neutral in religous (and other potentially discriminatory) matters when it comes to their official duties. What he does on his own time outside the institution is his own concern. Unless it is illegal or immoral, in which case he would likely be fired.
You can't avoid displays of religious activities and can't avoid seeing others practice their religion. We should and generally do tolerate religious differences. It is the state sponsorship or practice (in their official duties) by those in authority that is the issue of debate. How much is too much?
If a player, and it would probably be a former player, were to come out and say he was religiously discriminated against by the coaches. It was investigated and proven to be true, then I'd say that the situation is wrong. But that hasn't happened, all of the information coming out says that the coaches aren't forcing players to have their beliefs. This is all coming from an organization that is 1000 miles away and has never been in the Clemson locker room.
None of this matters though. They don't need a student to say something for it to be an issue. The problem is that Dabo and the football staff work for a publicly funded university and cannot as an organization promote any religion or try to convert them. People here can disagree with Separation of Church and State all they want but the foundation has a case nonetheless.
They showed no evidence of trying to convert anyone. Making one religion more accessible does not mean someone is trying to convert you. You are taking the evidence of making one religion more accessible and making the leap to converting kids. They can absolutely promote a religion, they just can't make it punishable to not have their same beliefs.
If they don't need a student (the people who are said the be affected by this situation) to think it's an issue then who is to decide that it is an issue? People who are completely unaffected by the situation? This organization is trying to create a problem where there is no problem.
(from article)
Holding baptisms is conversion.
The Supreme Court. They already have decided this on numerous judgments.
This has the same validity as saying: Just because no student has voiced displeasure doesn't mean there isn't any. So it's a moot point, and again irrelevant to problem Clemson faces.
add this:
converting people to Christianity (or any religion, for that matter) requires some peer pressure. Any time you're pressuring someone into doing something, you've crossed a line. Sure the Bible studies and prayer groups and everything is 'optional' and there isn't any evidence that players who attend those religious gatherings are getting preferential treatment over players who might not attend but you can't argue that there is no pressure to partake in those activities. These players may not be forced physically to go, or threatened with playing time, but you better believe they feel pressure to attend.
these players might not be told that they will lose playing time if they don't go to bible studies, but I'll bet money they're afraid that they will lose playing time if they don't go. Fear is a powerful element of religion and it's used a great deal. It's coercion through fear. Tough to detect and impossible to prove. That's why it's been such a successful tactic for converting people to any religion for hundreds of years.
EDIT: Removed some lines that may be offensive to certain groups. (overall message the same)
He asked to be baptized, that's not conversion by the coaches. You have no clue what Hopkins was doing religiously before that, maybe he just never got baptized for some different reason. That's drawing conclusions from something that wasn't said.
The Supreme Court never said government employees couldn't be religious, if that was the case then every single politician that has ever commented on religion is breaking the law.
You're right, it is the same thing. However, you'd think that if someone had a problem with it they'd come out and say it after this report came out (it came out a couple days earlier on Yahoo).
Either do you. And that's why it's moot. No one but Hopkins knows. We also don't know if for the time up to his baptism he wasn't bombarded with peer pressure to save his soul. It's all speculation and again irrelevant to the issue. Whatever his motivation to be baptized the school as a government body cannot organize, nor perform.
You're still talking about individual people, which is again irrelevant. Every politician being individually religious and supporting that religion? Not a problem. Congress being an organization that is Christian and actively seeks to indoctrinate and convert every politician that enters its halls? Big problem. This is the issue.
Yes and no IMO. I agree that the assumption is that if it were a problem someone would com forward, however history suggests otherwise. Look how hard it is for whistleblowers of any organization to decided to come forward. Once they say something they will most likely be immediately ostracized by all their friends and/or family. And then it will get into the press and in our modern day hyperbolic media you would be known as the "God Hating Football Player"... and it's not hard to see that if someone did want to come forward they have second thoughts about doing so.
If nobody knows why Hopkins got baptized then why did you bring it up? That was my point, I was just offering an alternative to what you had assumed about the situation.
People would still come forward in my opinion, plenty of players did it against Tim Tebow. Anyway, this is one of those arguments that is going nowhere quickly because we are both set in our opinions.
Sorry to keep repeating the same thing but his reasoning is irrelevant. The relevant points of his baptism are as follows:
Football Staff and Chaplain have colluded to create Christian organization within a government body. An organization that actively promotes and will, voluntarily or coerced, perform baptisms of its members on government property by government employees.
You need to separate out the individual motivations and see Dabo/football staff/Chaplain as a government institution. As Separation of Church and State is defined currently the government cannot do such things.
Yeah, I'm not saying people won't come forward and I'm not saying people will. I am saying that a) for this to be an issue with Church and State it doesn't matter if any do, b) if somebody does come forward Clemson & Dabo are in for a world of hurt, and c) I can see reason why someone would not want to come forward even if they could.
This.
Any player who may have felt manipulated or uncomfortable with this is highly unlikely to speak out about it. In their mind (and I can't say I wouldn't have the same approach) it's so so much easier to just go with the flow and keep your mouth shut. Even if it's uncomfortable or you don't like it, it's still a lot less comfortable to face the potential consequences of blowing the whistle. Most of these kids are just trying to get to the next level. They want to play football and get drafted to the NFL where they can make money and make their own decisions. They're not going to interfere with a system that will get them there. If it means going to Bible study groups even if you don't really want to, then suck it up and go. That's the approach I would probably take and it wouldn't surprise me if there are players who go that route. It's the path of least resistance.
If there are players who are uncomfortable with Clemson's policies and practices, I doubt you'll hear anything from them.
Baptisms are to conversion what a marriage ceremony is to a romantic relationship. While there are differences according to denomination, most evangelicals (which I'm assuming to be the case here) tend to view it as symbolic and a celebration of something that has already occured. I'll take the analogy a little further, having a baptism after a practice wouldn't be any different than if a player wanted to have a wedding on the football field. I would assume that Hopkins considered his teammates to be like family and wanted them to be present for an important moment in his life. He may have even chosen that time/location to be more sensitive to his teammates with different beliefs. Having it at a church would probably mean the teammates who show up to support him having to sit through an entire religious service they disagreed with while having it on the field after practice might only take up a couple minutes and involve less proselytising than would have otherwise been the case. It also could have just been a time consideration, college athletes only have so much time available and having his baptism right after practice could have been the easiest time for the players who wanted to attend to all be able to make it.
Not sure where you are getting your information from.
Baptism is a religious rite whereby the baptized are provided an opportunity to identify with the death of Christ and be reborn (and as with babies) named in the light of God. They are one part of the conversion process dating back to ancient times and in some churches something that must be done to be considered converted.
Definitely not like a marriage ceremony.
All that being said, the issue is not with him wanting to be baptized. The issue is the football staff, a government body, performing it on government property.
As I said it varies by denomination, my personal experience is with evangelical (specifically Southern Baptist) practices and theology. I fully realize that different denominations have different views, but made an educated guess that this instance was an evangelical style baptism. Everything I've ever been taught, from Sunday School and Church up through collegiate Theology classes regarding baptism in an evangelical setting points towards it being a symbolic "act of obedience" and a celebration of the conversion that has already occurred.
I might have misread or misrembered from earlier, but I don't remember it being stated that the coaches played an active role in the baptism, just that they were present for it. I would concede that if the coaches made an announcement about it at the end of practice and encouraged the players to stick around for it, then it could be over the line of what is acceptable. But I don't have a problem with religious activities taking place on public property, so long as there would be equal access if another player wanted to have an activity after practice.
Baptism:
whether a rite or a celebration is really not of importance. As you state it is tied to the process of conversion.
and
I believe what they are contending is that Dabo and the coaching staff structure a pro-Christian program and promoted the religion onto its players. Part of that structure was offering baptisms. This article makes mention of Hopkins asking permission to be baptized in front of coaches and team mates on school property. While the coaching staff may not have been the ones to baptize they did create and manage the pro-religion structure that allowed/encouraged it to happen. Being that they are a government body on government property that is a violation.
Also should be noted that many players have found God and been baptized while playing at Clemson. in this article:
https://chronicle.com/article/With-God-on-Our-Side/143231/
Aaron Kelly, a former receiver and Jehovah's Witness, estimates "10 to 15 receivers were baptized from 2004 to 2008, when he was there." And that's just the receivers. Without polling all the D1 schools it's hard to know if that figure compares to other programs but it does seem quite high. He also doesn't say how many, if any, were on campus or if they were organized by coaching staff.
The article is quite an interesting read and being that it is date Nov 2013 could have been the genesis of this whole issue Clemson has now with the foundation.
It is entirely possible that there were and are currently, players that feel uncomfortable with this. As others have said, it is tough to report this stuff and it is tough for people to come out in the spotlight and complain.
People should not be put in the position to feel uncomfortable about religion at a public institution.
That being said, I support everyone's individual religious beliefs...just please don't tell me about it, pressure me or try to save me.
Totally agree with this. Anyone who grew up in Mid Atlantic then moved to South can attest to the pressure in the bible belt.
Given that my personal beliefs don't fit the typical Christian mode, I've learned to keep my mouth shut unless asked. Personally, I wish more people did the same. It does get irritating when people repeatedly ask you to join in Christian activities and you politely decline, only to be asked again, at least once by the same person, then again from others. It's kinda like in Office Space, when Peter's been asked to add a cover sheet to his TPS report, and EVERY SINGLE PERSON says something to him about it. No it's not forced on me, but it's annoying.
I vehemently disagree with this statement! Recruiting may seem discriminatory to an extent but they're recruiting players to do a job. You wouldn't go out and hire an engineer to be a psychologist. It's not considered discrimination in the professional world when you decide not to hire somebody because their qualifications don't meet the requirements for the job. In the same way, you go out and look for the best WR to fill your WR position. That's not discrimination. If you decide to hire someone based on their religious views, you're gonna have a bad time. In much the same way, it should be illegal and punishable if you recruit someone because of their religious views. Companies can get into a ton of trouble for doing that because it IS DISCRIMINATION. Football programs should be treated the same way.
uh... did we slider into the labor union topic?
I'm sure most people on here agree that we'd rather have a 4-star recruit with great character, rather than a 5-star recruit with many off the field issues (Marcus Vick). What if Dabo chooses kids with great character and they just happen to be Christian? I'm not saying recruits that are Christian are immune from off the field issues, but that may give them another reason to stay out of trouble. This could apply to recruits of any religion, it's just that Dabo recruits the South and Christianity is the overwhelmingly popular religion.
I am not alleging that Dabo does discriminate. I would like to think he doesn't and I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. That's not what I'm saying. I realize that Christianity is practiced by an overwhelming majority of Clemson's recruiting ground and I don't see the fact that every single one of his players is Christian as a red flag indicating any such practices.
What I'm saying, is that IF there is religious discrimination during the recruiting process it needs to be punished. I realize that it's very difficult, if not impossible, to determine if that discrimination is occurring. My disagreement with the statement is that we can't just brush off religious discrimination because the recruiting process employs other types of discrimination too. That is just plain wrong.
"Because s/he's a good Christian" is a qualifier that should NEVER EVER be used as a reason for putting someone in any type of position. Coaches should not be hired with consideration of their religious backgrounds. Players should not be recruited with religion being an item on the check list. It's impossible to police and I'm sure it happens to some degree at some institutions but it is discrimination.
I think I agree with some of what you are saying, but I think this line is WAY off base.
"And only recruiting Christians isn't discriminatory since all recruiting is in its nature discriminatory."
So if Beamer said he would ONLY recruit Muslims and that all Christians had to go somewhere else?...That wouldn't be discriminatory?
As we all stated before, if he was forcing this on players then it is completely wrong. I also completely agree to offer religious services to players of other religions, and to do it respectively. That being sad, Dabo has a duty being a Christian. He is mentoring young men to become tomorrow's leaders. He is also in the spotlight and very influential. As a Christian, it's more important to me to have my soul saved and save others, than anything else. Spreading the Word the right way is being loving and welcoming, never forceful or in an intimidating manner. If he's doing it the right way, which I believe he is, I applaud him. Until this article, I never liked Dabo. I always thought he was annoying and over dramatic. However, I now have a new respect for him, not because my other views on him have changed, but because he isn't forgetting what's truly important in this world to us Christians. That is spreading the Word of God, and our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. If you don't believe in this, I truly understand and would never judge. I'm not trying to step on any toes. Happy Easter and Go Hokies!
I believe that is the problem. He must tiptoe the line since he is so influential. I was born and raised in the Baptist Church. I believe in God, but not the "show" the church is today. Lots of people show Christian to the World in the spotlight but are different in private in the dark. It may be Dabo's duty to God to spread the Word, but it is not why Clemson interviewed him as an Asst and eventually Head Coach. If he had won three games over the past 3 years he would have been fired, Faith notwithstanding.
Has it ever occurred to you that many people not only do not care for the proselytizing but find it to be harassing whenever someone is trying to force those beliefs on them? You might see it as trying to spread the good word, but to others, all you are doing is taking your values and trying to place it upon them while at the same time saying "the way in which I think about things is better than the way in which you think about things".
There are some who would say being a jihadist is doing the right thing for the Muslim faith. And there are some that would consider the evangelical Christians, who are out trying to convert as many as possible, without asking or caring if others even want to hear what they're saying are every bit as damaging to the psyche through brainwashing and peer pressure techniques as the scariest Muslim terrorist regimes we have grown to know. Just because what he is doing may be right to you doesn't mean it is right to others.
Except that you just admitted you do when you said you didn't respect Dabo until you learned of his Christian ways. Before you knew, you didn't respect him. Once you learned of it, you respected him. Without you even realizing it, you are silently judging anyone who doesn't share the same beliefs as you. You are not loving your neighbor as you love yourself.
And another thing. The whole "Our Lord and Savior"... That right there is what I am talking about when I say Christians are forcing their beliefs on others. To many, many people around the world, Jesus is not their Lord and Savior. When you use the qualifier "Our", you don't even realize that you're including these people in that, the same people who don't care for your beliefs nor want those beliefs forced upon them. You're much better off saying "My Lord and Savior" because thats what it is. Its YOUR beliefs. Yes, I know this is a saying promoted by the Church, but have you ever stepped back to understand WHY they have you say it this way?
Except you are, and you don't even realize it.
Look, as a qualifier, I am a Christian, but I do not believe in or agree with the notion that you should be out trying to convert as many non-believers as possible. That's cult-ish. Your beliefs are your beliefs. At the end of the day, Christians, Muslims, and Jews, we all believe in the same God, we just have small differences in how we do it.
so far, this is the best comment I've seen on this board. I strongly agree with most of what you're saying.
As I Christian, I believe it's my job to try to introduce everyone to Jesus Christ. If they don't accept it then it's their choice, I won't force it on them. If you look in the Bible you'll see it mentions to be a disciple of Jesus and the Word several times. Not trying to be disrespectful, just my opinion. Go Hokies!
When you 'introduce' people to Jesus Christ, do you first stop to ask whether or not these people even WANT you to do so? What you call 'introducing' others will see as a proselytizing and a forcing of your religious beliefs on them. And I understand that you don't even realize that you're forcing your religious beliefs on anyone else, as this is exactly what the church is telling you to do every Sunday, to go out and spread the word to as many as possible. (once again, did you ever consider WHY the Church says to do this? They want converts. Converts means more butts in seats. More butts in seats means more money in the pot when you pass around the tithing basket).
Put it to you this way, you wouldn't like it at all if someone you knew (or maybe even a stranger on the street) started coming up to you telling you about the great work that Muhammad did and introducing you to the teachings of the great Allah if you didn't even say you wanted to hear it in the first place.
While I don't think we'll agree on this, the view that most evangelical Christians have is that it's similar to telling someone with a terminal illness about a cure. Or as one anecdotal (in other words, I've heard it the story before, but I don't know if this ever actually happened) atheist said, "If I believed what you believe about Hell, I'd crawl over broken glass to keep people from going there." As I said, I don't expect this to change your view on proselytizing, but I wanted to mention it to show the viewpoint that leads to proselytizing by evangelical Christians.
Call me crazy, but I'm one of those rare individuals who invite Jehovah's Witnesses in to discuss religion when they show up. (and of course my wife is frustrated because she has to deal with them when they show back up while I'm out)
You're crazy.
I'm open for discussion with anyone, if they wanted to try to convince me about the Great Green Arkleseizure, I'd welcome it. I wouldn't be convinced, and would try to commit them to some sort of Mental Institution, but I'd be entertained as they tried.
And that's how some atheists and people of other religions feel about you trying to convert them or introduce it to them. It makes no sense and sounds crazy to them. It just becomes a lot less funny and amusing if you actually believe it and are trying to convert them than if you're just trolling them. It's like those annoying salesmen who try to convince you to buy a new dishwasher when all you wanted was a knife block.
It's just my belief and my interpretation of the Bible, I think I'm entitled to that. I don't go up to strangers and preach to them. I believe it's all about forming relationships and showing someone the love that I believe Christ showed us. It's more about being an example of what a Christian should be. And on the subject of a Muslim approaching me and preaching to me, I would listen to what he has to say. Its my choice whether to believe it or not, it's not like he's forcing anything on me. I don't listen to what the Church says to to, I listen to what the Bible says to do.
And for the record, I upvoted hokiealum10's post. I don't think its right he or she is getting downvotes for stating beliefs or opinions. Downvote people who are trolling, not those who are sharing their thoughts with others.
Ok, I'm going to go ahead and grab the 3rd rail here. I hope anyone that reads the following understands that, as Alum07 prefaced, I am a baptized Christian and I am only writing the following from a theological perspective academically and not by stating virtue, or right or wrong. So here goes:
A lot of the pro Dabo crowd have made essentially the same comments as hokiealum10, which is:
That duty being to Spread the Word of God. hokiealum10 writes very eloquently that:
And though hokiealum10 doesn't mention in his post, others saying the same argument have stated that in fact the constitution itself does not included specificity on what defines Separation of Church and State, nor even the exact words, and therefore an individual has the right to "spread the word" as ardently as they wish whether within a government body or not.
However, and again from an academic point of view only, there is conflict in the foundation of this statement. In the New Testament there are nearly 30 references to an individual's duty to actively Spread the Word and convert the masses to save souls. However, in the untranslated Old Testament it makes no mention of an individual's responsibility to do so. It states, that Abraham, Israel and the others are merely vessels of God's light. A beacon, you could call it, that would draw the masses unto God's will, but not actively engaged to evangelize the world.
I stated in a comment far above this one, as you can imagine, this is a hot button issue within the religious communities.
But I bring it up for two reasons.
1) Those that are saying "Separation of Church and State is not written in the constitution" as a basis for an argument are failing to understand that the constitution, as with the Bible, is something that has changed over time and was meant to, and so stating that because it was not specifically written in the constitution means it is not fundamental to our nation is wrong. Just as someone stating New Testament teachings are not fundamental to your beliefs because it is different than Old Testament is also wrong.
and,
2) that even in your own faith the understanding of God's will from the Old Testament to the New Testament has changed to serve a modern religious belief. And if you applied what you are saying about the constitution to the Bible then you must follow the original text which says that you as in individual are not charged with saving the souls of the masses with a mission to convert, and in fact are charged to live righteously as defined by the Lord to be his vessel of Light to draw the masses to God's will.
I personally believe that every single human being has the DUTY to respect and protect each other no matter faith, religion, politics, etc. I personally also believe that it is man's hubris to believe that God, any god of any religious belief, would need man to individually spread the word. God is limitless and needs no help from myself, a flawed human, to contact and fill with light any single person in humanity. That God has given man free will to find his message or not.
And so while I strongly believe Dabo is of good character and in his beliefs is intending only the best, I also believe that both in view of the United States Constitution that what he is doing is wrong and that in my beliefs as a Christian what he is doing is flawed in it's intention. And that if he merely provided that beacon of light and did not actively seek out to exercise his "duty" to convert he would draw in those students that wished to be and not have this problem.
Very well stated! If I could give you 1000 legs, I would.
I'm addmitidly not sure if I'm completely following what you are trying to say here regarding the Bible and Old/ New Testaments. Regarding the Constitution, I would posit that it wasn't meant to change but rather be changeable if necessary, hence the amendment process. The courts don't change the constitution, merely interpret what it says and how it applies. There are instances where they have later admitted they were wrong, most notably in Dred Scott v. Sanford, and doubtlessly other cases they will later decide they ruled on wrongly.
If I am following you correctly then I would first put forward that although trying to save others and conversion isn't as obvious and overriding a theme in the Old Testament, it is present. The entire story of Jonah is about God commanding him to go to Nineveh, the capital of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, and preach against the way they were living. There are notable examples of foreigners who had integrated into the Hebrew way of life including Uriah the Hittite and Ruth who was from Moab. It could also be argued that some of Daniel's actions during his captivity were evangelistic.
Further your point can be countered more simply, without getting into any differences in teaching, by viewing the New Testament the way we would a Constitutional Amendment in that it would superscede in places where there is disagreement.
Old v New Testament: What I am saying is that they are very different, which they are.
Constitution Change v Changeable: Changeable is the same as change. Amendments (and the repeal of) are the process to change the constitution.
Supreme Court Interprets: Yes, as I have said many times in this thread that people looking for Church and State in the Constitution are not recognizing the interpretations of the Supreme Court, especially Everson v Board of Education, in which they interpreted the Constitution and defined Church and State and its Constitutional implications.
Old Testament has conversion: yes, many people see this differently and therein lies the issue. As I said above the New Testament is very different than the Old. And the modern translation of the Old is very different than the ancient translations of it, as are the various ancient translations of it different from each other. The problem lies in that the untranslated version uses words that are interpretative. You could translate Jonah's trip to Nineveh as an order to convert or you could translate it as an order to preach. Vastly different.
Bible passages:
Jonah: Most translations read somewhat like this: Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee. (King James Bible) There is never a comment about being on a mission to evangelize anyone. Only to go preach. Thus the difference I am referring to between viewing yourself as "duty" bound to convert or being a beacon of light. While you may interpret Jonah as on a mission to convert I see it simply as being God's beacon. Those that wish to be drawn to his beacon shall. No more than this.
Uriah and Ruth: Not exactly sure why you are mentioning them other to say that they appear to have been converted. I am not saying that conversion didn't happen just that it is arguable that there never was a call to be duty bound to do so.
Daniel: I personally would not view Daniel's actions as evangelistic. To me it was more a test of faith for himself and his fellows. Again being the beacon of God's will to show everyone else if they follow his will they too would be rewarded, in this case with good health. I do not read it as he was in the prison on a mission to convert.
New Testament = Amendment?: I definitely disagree that the New Testament is meant to supersede the Old. It is simply too different. In some cases holistic changes were made. I see it as a reinterpretation to fit modern society but in no way something that could be termed superseding the Old. But I do understand the point you are making and would say this is precisely why basing an argument on Church and State not being in the Constitution because it is not expressly written is wrong.
While I see the difference in the words, the result is the same: Jonah (reluctantly) going to a foreign city and telling them their actions are wrong/what God would have them do differently.
Yep, they were just the most prominent examples of OT conversion in my mind.
I thought it was a stretch myself which was why I included the "It could be argued" part.
Probably wasn't quite expressing my thoughts correctly here, it may be more accurate to say that Christians view the OT through the interpretive lens of NT teaching, especially when the NT teaches about it directly. So for example the OT laws regarding the Sabbath are viewed through Jesus' teaching that the Sabbath is for man's benefit, rather than for God's benefit.
Jonah:
Agreed he was told to go to Nineveh under a command but I believe it's interpretive to say he was commanded to actively convert or simply be God's vessel of light.
Uriah and Ruth: While I agree they read to having been converted. The difference is in how you interpret how they converted. The Bible does not say that god commanded anyone to go forth and specifically convert Uriah or Ruth. Only that they themselves became followers of God, so I would not call their conversion evidence of God's command to go forth and evangelize.
NT v OT: Christians view the OT through the interpretive lens of NT teaching Agreed. I think this is a fair description.
I am Christian myself, but one of my pet peeves is when people start pushing their opinion on others. It ruined a friendship of mine when the friend starting trying to "save" me.
"I now have a new respect for him, not because my other views on him have changed, but because he isn't forgetting what's truly important in this world to us Christians."
This is the comment that might offend people..."Us Christians"....not everyone is Christian.
Personally, I believe in separation of church and state. I let everyone believe what they want, I just don't want to hear about it at work, on the playing field, in the schools, etc. (Unless it is a private religious school)
I fully support everyone believing in whatever they want to believe in...or to not believe in anything.
Just don't tell me about it...
Also, big shout out to TKP community.
97 posts so far and all classy. This thread could have gotten side tracked, high jacked, & tossed back on a couple of other boards.
But not here. Lovely.
Agreed, this is probably the most civil way this discussion could take place.
^This. I'm proud of us discussing this in a civilized way. Good on y'all
Is this issue becoming a recruiting tool for Clemson?
Maybe...
Recruit: "Man, I could go to Clemson, get an education, play football, AND get a ride to church!?"
Now that I think about it, maybe it should be considered an "extra benefit" by NCAA rules.
Some people might consider Dabo Swinney a recruiting "tool"...
Ok, now this is getting obnoxious. I keep clicking on the tread to read the debate but it's just you posting abandon thread gifs. It was cute the first 5 times.
Now, now. There's nothing in the Constitution or the Bible that prohibits him from posting all the "abandon thread" gifs he wants. He's nor forcing it down your throat or trying to convert anyone to his "abandon thread" religion. It's just available for those that want to join.
Thank you, I'll be here all week, don't forget to tip your server.
10% right?
Will anyone be organizing state funded transportation to said Abandon Thread Religion meeting? If so, I'm in...gas ain't cheap after all...
that post deserves an 'abandon thread' gif!
GO Constitution! GO HOKIES!
I detest groups like Freedom From Religion. Get a life. That is all.
why?
This debate has gone T-shirt level:
http://www.logosoftwear.com/shareandsell/?store=ClemsonFaith
I wonder if any FFRF supporters will make the anti-shirt...
...and to think I started this thread primarily because it involved an ACC school....
Here is Dabo's response today:
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10826834/dabo-swinney-coa...
I guess this is where Dabo's reasoning bothers me. On the one hand you have to applaud him for being strong in his beliefs. He believes he is doing something good. On the other hand if he really devoutly believed in his faith then his players would recognize that and follow him to church. Christian faith, or any faith, wouldn't need to be made so readily available within the locker room in the hopes that non-Christian players will be saturated by it enough to convert. This is what I mean by being God's vessel vs a perceived "duty" to convert.
The shepherd guides the flock home from the field, he doesn't sheer the sheep in the field.
I gotta fart
As long as it's not forced I don't see the problem. I mean this is America and freedom of religion is something that we have here for a reason.
In times such as these, I feel like these bumper stickers are suitable.
Opinions
Whoa there, buddy. Smdh
I know this is the thread that won't die, but I wanted to share a quote from a former VT football player (Grant Bowden) regarding his interactions with VT's former Chaplain:
Source: http://www.newsadvance.com/sports/liberty_university/article_152b6b86-1b...