Petition Against Chaplain

[Kyle]

Those poor Senators are forced to participate in religon or otherwise look like they are not part of the team. If that's not enough, then they get the Pledge of Allegiance shoved down their throats too. It's a sad state of affairs.

There is a big difference between a U.S. Senator and an 18 year old kid who just came to college. That should be fairly obvious.

What would you do if you ever had to take an oath of office or testify in court? Curious minds would like to know.

Neither of those requires any religious affirmation. Almost any time you see someone swearing with their hand on a bible or whatever it was just a publicity stunt they did after the real thing.

 

[chadm]

There is a big difference between a U.S. Senator and an 18 year old kid who just came to college. That should be fairly obvious. quote]

How does the judical system make a difference between the two?
I thought both will be charged as adults. So for the goverment invovlement how is this any different?

 

[Kyle]

Re: Let's simplify this whole thing

If we got rid of everything that "just one person" had a problem with we wouldn't have anything left. Even at Iowa State... if I had a problem with Family and Consumer Sciences being offered at ISU should we get rid of it? Or if we want to stick with religion, I'll guarantee you can find more than one person on campus that disagrees with every single religion class that is taught on campus. The difference is that they just won't sign up for the class rather than fight to get it removed. If enough people don't sign up for the class, eventually ISU will get rid of it. In the same way, if there really isn't a demand for the Chaplain and nobody goes to see him then I would guess they will do away with that position as well.

In my opinion, things should be made available because there is a demand FOR THEM, not gotten rid of just because there are a few people against them.

This is a strawman. This is a separation of church and state issue, not a "get rid of anything you don't like issue." There are multiple campus religious groups (aka Salt Company) that are despised by many, but there is no effort to get rid of them because there is no separation of church and state issue. There is also a HUGE difference between teaching about religion (religious studies) and promoting it (a potential issue with having a chaplain).

 

[Kyle]

There is a big difference between a U.S. Senator and an 18 year old kid who just came to college. That should be fairly obvious.

How does the judical system make a difference between the two?
I thought both with be charged as adults. So for the goverment invovlement how is this any different?

It's primarily a practical distinction which may or may not be important to the judiciary. It certainly is important to me though. Promoting religion among a close-knit peer group of young people, (many of whom probably aren't even sure what they believe or why they believe it), is a far cry from a token religious gesture among a group of politicians (people who have spent much of their life debating and defending their views). The amount of pressure exerted in the two situations is not even close.

 

[Kyle]

Re: Let's simplify this whole thing

In my opinion, things should be made available because there is a demand FOR THEM, not gotten rid of just because there are a few people against them.

This might appeal to a few of a the conservatives here... Who should make it available? A public institution or the private sector?

 

[dmclone]

Re: Let's simplify this whole thing

I somewhat agree with what you say but I don't think you can compare religion to ice cream. Well maybe you can.


For your whole life, the only ice cream you've ever had was vanilla. You were told on TV that vanilla was the best, your coach prayed to the great vanilla bean in the sky, and when you went to play football for the great ISU football team they offered a chaplain that also spoke about his love for vanilla.

A few years after graduating from ISU you decided to be a rebel and try a little chocolate ice cream. You instantly fell in love with this new flavor and wondered why no one had ever offered you any other flavors.


Just because 80% of the people support something doesn't mean it's the right choice for everyone. Internet Explorer is the most popular browser, but for me choosing FF was a better choice.

I think that's the problem with the thinking of people anymore..."if even one person thinks that something is contradictory to their beliefs then it need to be changed". As has been said many times in this thread, it is just another option. The people throwing a fit about it remind me of the person who is ticked off when they put a new soft serve ice cream machine into their cafeteria because it only serves vanilla and chocolate ice cream with no strawberry. Nobody is forcing you to eat the vanilla or chocolate, so at the very least you can go on eating your lunch like usual, and who knows...maybe you'll be hungry for chocolate or vanilla ice cream some time and give it a try where you might not have otherwise had the chance.

If we got rid of everything that "just one person" had a problem with we wouldn't have anything left. Even at Iowa State... if I had a problem with Family and Consumer Sciences being offered at ISU should we get rid of it? Or if we want to stick with religion, I'll guarantee you can find more than one person on campus that disagrees with every single religion class that is taught on campus. The difference is that they just won't sign up for the class rather than fight to get it removed. If enough people don't sign up for the class, eventually ISU will get rid of it. In the same way, if there really isn't a demand for the Chaplain and nobody goes to see him then I would guess they will do away with that position as well.

In my opinion, things should be made available because there is a demand FOR THEM, not gotten rid of just because there are a few people against them.

 

[Cyclone62]

If we got rid of everything that "just one person" had a problem with we wouldn't have anything left. Even at Iowa State... if I had a problem with Family and Consumer Sciences being offered at ISU should we get rid of it? Or if we want to stick with religion, I'll guarantee you can find more than one person on campus that disagrees with every single religion class that is taught on campus. The difference is that they just won't sign up for the class rather than fight to get it removed. If enough people don't sign up for the class, eventually ISU will get rid of it. In the same way, if there really isn't a demand for the Chaplain and nobody goes to see him then I would guess they will do away with that position as well.

Then why don't we just build churches on our public campus because most people are Christian? I mean, if a Mosque was built on campus, none of you would have a problem with that, or would you? Careful, you may be contradictory.

 

[tigershoops31]

Then why don't we just build churches on our public campus because most people are Christian? I mean, if a Mosque was built on campus, none of you would have a problem with that, or would you? Careful, you may be contradictory.

If there was enough demand for an on-campus church or an on-campus mosque then why not build it? I'm not saying I'd go to either of them, but would it be deeply wounding me for them to be there? As far as what should be publicly funded, I think that the majority should decide that. If there is enough demand for something, it will be built. If America turns around and becomes Muslim or Scientologist and it's a big enough deal to people, they'll pack up and move to a place that suits them better. Even though this is privately funded (which makes it a non-issue in the first place) the argument that it shouldn't be publicly funded because it's a majority thing is completely worthless. If you aren't going to publicly fund things that the majority wants then what the heck are you going to fund? We'd be better off doing away with the government and not paying taxes if we aren't going to publicly fund anything except for what we can all agree on.

 

[chadm]

Then why don't we just build churches on our public campus because most people are Christian? I mean, if a Mosque was built on campus, none of you would have a problem with that, or would you? Careful, you may be contradictory.

Would this be considered a public campus? The Air Force Academy chapel.

 

[Kyle]

If there was enough demand for an on-campus church or an on-campus mosque then why not build it? I'm not saying I'd go to either of them, but would it be deeply wounding me for them to be there? As far as what should be publicly funded, I think that the majority should decide that. If there is enough demand for something, it will be built. If America turns around and becomes Muslim or Scientologist and it's a big enough deal to people, they'll pack up and move to a place that suits them better. Even though this is privately funded (which makes it a non-issue in the first place) the argument that it shouldn't be publicly funded because it's a majority thing is completely worthless. If you aren't going to publicly fund things that the majority wants then what the heck are you going to fund? We'd be better off doing away with the government and not paying taxes if we aren't going to publicly fund anything except for what we can all agree on.

You realize your position would make the establishment clause essentially worthless right?

 

[RedStorm]

"Would this be considered a public campus? The Air Force Academy chapel."

Which I might add was funded with FEDERAL MONEY, and serves all faiths....

 

[Cyclone62]

Which I might add was funded with FEDERAL MONEY, and serves all faiths....

Well, now that it's known that it serves all faiths, the government isn't advocating one religion over any others.

 

[chadm]

"Which I might add was funded with FEDERAL MONEY, and serves all faiths....

Thanks for adding.

 

[ISUFan22]

If you've never been to the AF Academy and are looking for a reason to go on vacation - visit Colorado and go to the AF Academy. It's awesome.

And the chapel - amazing. I think we've still got some photos of it in the gallery.

Carry on...

 

[chadm]

Well, now that it's known that it serves all faiths, the government isn't advocating one religion over any others.

Definition of chaplain: A chaplain is a priest or a member of the clergy serving a group of people who are not organized as a mission or church. For example a chaplain is often attached to a military unit, a private chapel, a ship, a prison, a hospital, parliament and so on. Many historical royal courts and noble houses also had their own private chaplains.

Well, now that it's known that it serves all faiths, the government isn't advocating one religion over any others.

 

[Cyclone62]

Like I've said before, then the chaplain shouldn't be affiliated with any church. However, I think the issue is that it's going to be a chaplain who advocates Christianity. That has always been the issue.

 

[cyclonenum1]

Re: Let's simplify this whole thing

This is a strawman. This is a separation of church and state issue, not a "get rid of anything you don't like issue." There are multiple campus religious groups (aka Salt Company) that are despised by many, but there is no effort to get rid of them because there is no separation of church and state issue. There is also a HUGE difference between teaching about religion (religious studies) and promoting it (a potential issue with having a chaplain).

My friend, you need to re-read the first amendment...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

 

[cyclonenum1]

Well, now that it's known that it serves all faiths, the government isn't advocating one religion over any others.

But it is advocating religion...is it not? I'll bet there are a lot of hard working, tax paying atheists that aren't too happy with this building. And as discussed on numerous prior posts...the team Chaplain will serve all faiths.

 

[Kyle]

Re: Let's simplify this whole thing

My friend, you need to re-read the first amendment...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Convenient you didn't bold the first part. You know, the part that would actually apply.

 

[Cyclone62]

Re: Let's simplify this whole thing

My friend, you need to re-read the first amendment...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

So, you're trying to say that by allowing a christian advocate into a situation that may go against another athlete's belief, thus hindering their ability to worship their own way isn't acceptable? I agree.