Petition Against Chaplain
- Thread starter ia8manfan
- Start date
This is just another step on a long road to forcing religion out of everything. I saw just the other day a great snapshot of what this country is coming to. It showed a women praying at a memorial for the VaTech shootings in her thought balloon, she was asking God why he allowe dthis to happen. His response: I am not allowed in the school. I know He is ominpotent and can go anywhere he wants, but sometimes I wonder what the end game is.
"And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion"
President George Washington - Farewell Address
"And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion"
President George Washington - Farewell Address
Time to get rid of this Department according to these 4 professors... Can't have Religious Studies at ISU since it is government funded!!
Philosophy and Religious Studies
Philosophy and Religious Studies
I agree. The anti-religion fanatics are no less nutty than the fanatics on the other side, whom they oppose.:baffled5wh::baffled5wh::baffled5wh:
In a word: No.
The chaplain, being funded by private donors, is technically legal, but it's really more like a loophole.
Regardless, these profs are just voicing their views. You that would silence them or fire them for this are actually worse, imo.
I think he was the fruit-job who said that the Christmas Tree on central campus offened him, so it should be taken down.
What we should do is start a petition in support of the team chaplain to offset these nutbags that do this crap. I can almost guarantee you the signatures would outweigh this current one 50-1.
I also agree with the poster who said we should eliminate these 4 positions and use their salary money to fund the athletic department.
I also agree with the poster who said we should eliminate these 4 positions and use their salary money to fund the athletic department.
In a word: No.
The chaplain, being funded by private donors, is technically legal, but it's really more like a loophole.
Regardless, these profs are just voicing their views. You that would silence them or fire them for this are actually worse, imo.
What if the view which you are voicing, is that no-one who takes a government paycheck can have an "official" opinion on religion? Sounds like a legitimate viewpoint, to me.
The problem is, these profs are in positions of authority, which have "bully pulpits" where they can just cram their viewpoints down the throats of their students, who have absolutely no recourse, short of committing scholastic suicide. I'm curious as to when, precisely, the taxpayers who fund these folks lose the ability to say what is acceptable or unacceptable.
But then, that is just my 1st Amendment Rights supported opinion. Is my 1st Amendment Rights inferior to Blumenfeld and company just because they are professors?
A petition? Seriously? A petition!!? When have those ever worked? And college professors starting one, no less. Yeah, I know, prof, you're smarter than me - after all you never left college. So why is it you're stooping to the almighty petition route like a bunch of high schoolers trying to bring back the tuesday taco bar in the cafeteria?
They don't think it will work. It's not about it working, it's about a bunch of Christian haters making a stink about something they have no basis to attack. If there were a legitimate way to get this to go away - ie, if it were actually unconstitutional - they would do that. It's just a way to get their name in the paper.
Well, there was a certain petition of 88 Duke professors that was pretty much catastrophic in tarnishing the reputation of 3 certain lacrosse players. What's the saying? "Your right to free speech ends at the point it begins to interfere with my constitutional rights?" I'm pretty sure those lacrosse players' right to due process was interfered with by a bunch of professors who decided to "exercise" their right to free speech. I honestly hope those three decide to file a rather large civil lawsuit against Duke University for what those 88 idiots did and for the administration judging them before they were found guilty.
What does the Duke lacrosse case and our 4 idiotic professors have in common? Not much really, other than a bunch of idiots getting together to "exercise" their right to free speech. And just remember the age-old saying: "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups."
Yeah I dont understand this crap. Im a Christian, but if a Buddhist came in and wanted to do whatever Buddhists do, pray to Budha that we win, I wouldnt care. I could do my own thing inside my head. I wouldnt try to take that away from the Buddhists. Its assinine. Its not hurting anyone. If you dont like it, dont participate.
*Gasp* You mean you are actually tolerant of other people's religions and don't play the "offended card" every time religion is brought up??? How dare you! :wink0st:
It's all about getting your name in the paper and gaining some instant recognition. Find something even remotely controversial, make a big stink about it, write a petition, and boom! everyone knows your name (for all the wrong reasons, but who cares? Your name always looks great in print, right?). I don't agree with what the profs are doing here. It seems to me that more and more professors on college campuses are willing to make huge issues out of non-issues. That's one thing I definitely don't miss about college...
Exactly! Make a stink to make a stink. There are bigger attrocities out there that need a public voice and attention, but they choose to do this stuff. What joke.
How could it be considered a waste if it is privately financed? Someone likes the idea and is willing to pony up the money for it...how can that be considered wasteful?
I was waiting for this to happen...thank God (yes, God) that these secular professors did not let me down!
Maybe these people should actually read the Constitution. It says in Amendment 1 that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
There is no discussion of "separation of church and state" anywhere in the Constitution. I think that the Constitution is quite clear...there will be no law establishing any certain religion as the state sponsored religion and there will be no law prohibiting anyone from exercising their religious freedoms.
So exactly how does the ISU FB Coach wanting a team Chaplain either establish a state sponsored religion of keep anyone from exercising their religious freedom. The answer is that it does not.
The entire "separation of church and state" argument is adding things that simply do not exist in the Constitution as it is written.
Maybe these people should actually read the Constitution. It says in Amendment 1 that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
There is no discussion of "separation of church and state" anywhere in the Constitution. I think that the Constitution is quite clear...there will be no law establishing any certain religion as the state sponsored religion and there will be no law prohibiting anyone from exercising their religious freedoms.
So exactly how does the ISU FB Coach wanting a team Chaplain either establish a state sponsored religion of keep anyone from exercising their religious freedom. The answer is that it does not.
The entire "separation of church and state" argument is adding things that simply do not exist in the Constitution as it is written.
The reason they should be fired or denied tenure is not because of their opinions, but because of their gross misunderstanding of what the constitution actually says, and their apparent complete ignorance of how prayer in public institutions and at public meetings was handled by the Founding Fathers, who wrote the constitution and the Bill of Rights. The stupidity of these professors is an embarrassment to the university.
The same founding fathers who wrote the constitution and the Bill of Rights prayed during public meetings, including sessions of Congress. To this day, sessions of Congress are opened by prayer. This is a matter of fact that is recorded in history. As I recall, the US Supreme Court has already ruled on the matter of chaplains opening sessions of the US congress with prayer.
If the same people who wrote our constitution and Bill of Rights prayed during government meetings, it stands to reason that they did not intend for the First Amendment to prohibit prayer in public institutions and public meetings. Is this so hard to understand??? :baffled5wh:
Last edited:
