I took a philosophy class at ISU year ago. The professor of the class clearly was advocating atheism, although he framed it as "trying to make us think". What's the difference? If you breathe, you're doing to advocate something whether you do it intentionally or not. If this was a Muslim/Buddhist/etc. chaplain, I doubt these same professors would be speaking out.
Petition Against Chaplain
- Thread starter ia8manfan
- Start date
Well, yes, because our founding fathers weren't actually Christians... it was over 200 years ago and we couldn't possibly know that they weren't writing the constitution to be interpreted the way we do today... the constitution is a living, breathing document, and it should be interpreted the way that we want to interpret it... :rolleyes5cz:
Anyone else buying my paraphrased B.S.?
The constitution and bill of rights were written in purposely vague terms to allow them to be malleable over time. To address this issue, the founding fathers invented a 3rd branch of the government called the "Judicial Branch" to interpret the bounds of constitutional law.
The Supreme Court has the ultimate last word in what is constitutional and what is not. They have ruled that state sponsored religion is unconstitutional. Technically the Chaplain would be privately funded, so I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that it legally falls inside the bounds of what has been ruled constitutional. However, that can not prevent people from protesting (i.e. writing a petition).
Unfortunately we have a lot of judges who interpret the word "interpret" to mean "make".
Indeed, both liberal and conservative. But that is the nature of government run by people, and the primary reason for having checks and balances.
It is still a remarkable form of government, and the founding fathers were brilliant men.
What I've never understood about this argument is that it is those who don't believe in God that always want to raise a stink about it. How can you be offended by something, that in your mind, doesn't exist? I could see if your Jewish or Hindu, etc. Being offended by your religion not being represented, but, it's always the people who don't believe in God that seem to have the issue. Wouldn't it be easier for an atheist (A person who believes in no god or higher power) to just say, "This is stupid, but, for the sake of the team and community, I'll play along" As opposed to forcing someone not to pray who truly believes it helps them and gives them a little inner strength. Publicly funded or not, it's a free country. If the team wants to pray, then they should be allowed. It shouldn't be a forced issue, but, as a team, if they wish to, they should be allowed.
I'm never offended by Ghosts or UFOs. Aliens bother me a little though, ever since that probe!:laugh8kb:
I'm never offended by Ghosts or UFOs. Aliens bother me a little though, ever since that probe!:laugh8kb:
Just to play devil's advocate, what if you were a Muslim football player and wanted some spiritual direction or counsel. Would it be fair if you Christian teammates had a Chaplin but you had no Imam? There are a lot of Muslim athletes playing football. I think it’s a serious question.
I couldn't help but notice that Ellen Fairchild is a lecturer of curriculum and instruction, this means that she is not a professor and does not hold a PhD. And yes, Warren Blumenfield is a familiar name in issues such as this. I do believe he lead the charge against decorating the evergreen tree on central campus during Christmas time. I also believe is the the faculty sponsor of the aethiest group on campus. Needless to say, I don't think he is as worried about the potential legal issues as he says, he has an agenda to eliminate organized religion from American society, this is just a cover for the petition.
Frankly for professors of music and curriculum instruction, and one psuedo prof, to try to petition this move based on legal grounds is rediculous, they are no more qualified to make that judgement than anybody on this board. Frankly, I find it offensive that they use their state funded positions to push a fringe political agenda completely unrelated to the job that they have been hired to do. If anybody needs to be removed from Ames it is these wastes of tax payer dollars, not some chaplain paid for by private donors who want to provide some easy, voluntary access for our student athletes to someone that can help them with whatever challenges they are facing in life.
So, to you: all knowing, all compassionate, all enlightened, defenders of free society professors and wanna-be professor, I would like to give you all a fine secular, non-offensive, politically correct, up yours!
Frankly for professors of music and curriculum instruction, and one psuedo prof, to try to petition this move based on legal grounds is rediculous, they are no more qualified to make that judgement than anybody on this board. Frankly, I find it offensive that they use their state funded positions to push a fringe political agenda completely unrelated to the job that they have been hired to do. If anybody needs to be removed from Ames it is these wastes of tax payer dollars, not some chaplain paid for by private donors who want to provide some easy, voluntary access for our student athletes to someone that can help them with whatever challenges they are facing in life.
So, to you: all knowing, all compassionate, all enlightened, defenders of free society professors and wanna-be professor, I would like to give you all a fine secular, non-offensive, politically correct, up yours!
Actually, he's Jewish.
Also, how are they using their positions for leverage? Would it be any different if they were garbage men/women? If any of those people sign the petition, should we give them the boot too? They're a "waste of tax-payer dollars" as well. They're just voicing their own opinion. I don't see why so many of you actually care. I'm with Joepublic and Cyphor on this one. If it's going to be a christian chaplain, what does that say to those that aren't christian on the team? That their faith doesn't warrant representation with the same availability?
If the United States was exactly the same as it was in 1776. You would be right on. However, this country and its constitution are constantly evolving and adapting to current affairs. A lot has changed since the constitution was originally written. The United States has gained an incredible amount of religious diversity; we have Muslim leaders in local, state, and federal government. Heck, the GOP front runner is a Mormon.
We are much more religiously tolerant thanks to the flexibility and foresight the founding fathers wrote tinto he Constitution. They understood that Nations are dynamic and in constant flux, and that the constitution would have to be equally flexible to accommodate new challenges.
Going back to the founding fathers is simply impossible. It's 2007, not 1777. It's important to weigh their opinions, but ultimately the constitution is interpreted by us who live in the present.
Last edited:
That is a valid question and one that I think should be addressed - part of the problem as well is that it's not like a Muslim player would have access to an Imam as easily as a Christian player would a pastor or a priest.
I have no problem questioning the fairness, because in my opinion it wouldn't be fair to provide a chaplain and not an Imam. The only thing that chaps me about this is they are arguing the legality and they don't have a leg to stand on there, especially since the chaplain would be funded from private donation.
Zaid Abdul-Aziz said he wouldn't have a problem with it though.
The ratio of Christians to Muslims is huge. Honestly...how many Muslims do you think are on the ISU football team? 2? 3?
The problem this country is creating is that we now need to cater to the 5% of people instead of the 95% majority.
And the Nazi party catered to the 95% majority while dismissing the 5% minority as irrelevant. That worked out well, no?
Follow up question - do we have anyone on the team currently that's not Christian or atheist? I don't think the atheists need a chaplain of any kind and if there aren't any Muslims on the team, it would be a real waste of money on an Imam.
I could give you extreme examples too. There are exceptions to about everything.
If there is a demand for a Imam on the team....get someone to privately finance him. Problem solved.
There is obviously enough demand (and someone willing to donate) for a Chaplain.
There is obviously enough demand (and someone willing to donate) for a Chaplain.
I just think it's fair to cater to everyone. 95% of the country gets whatever they want whenever they want. I care about the 5% (probably larger) that has to scrap for what's left. I'm sorry but when the majority is inconvenienced and starts complaining, I just don't care. They are simply experiencing what the minority deals with all the time.
Probably right, it’s mostly a hypothetical question. However what’s to say ISU won’t recruit a Muslim player (or player of some other religion) in the future?
It's a shameful display of self-promotion by the professors. Anything to get attention. I'd say the same thing for garbage men/women. It's about manufacturing an issue where there is no issue. It's private money paying for this, leave it alone. That's how I see it.
