Petition Against Chaplain

cyclonenum1

Well-Known Member
Nov 30, 2006
7,191
330
83
Well, I said not all Christians because I'm a Catholic, and feel that the organized religion has some ideas wrong. I just can't believe how some people take things that were written hundreds (Constitution) and thousands (bible) of years ago as infallible texts that cannot be changed.

Actually, there is a process to change the Constitution...Article V...Amendments.

I have a problem with those that believe in "loose construction" of the Constitution...this is nothing more than an attempt to change the Constitution through a liberal judiciary. These are the people that in one hand say the clearly defined right to bear arms "doesn't really apply anymore" while coming up with new rights that are not listed anywhere in the document like the right to privacy.

The Constitution should be strictly interpreted and if anyone wants to change it...go through the amendment process!
 

JBone84

Well-Known Member
Nov 30, 2006
2,825
1,378
113
Rochester, MN
Alright, it sounds like you understood most of my point there. I agree with your second paragraph. And, I do listen to other points of view, but when the other side of the equation is unwilling to listen to a different side of the argument, I'll save my breath and just say to shove it. That's what I meant, and many times, people give me hypotheticals such as what is and what is not a sin in the eyes of God as their refutation. Until God himself tells me that something is a sin, I will interpret things my own way because the bible was written by man (who always has some kind of agenda) and man is fallible. I elaborated for you. It's my personal belief that believing that there is a God, and living a moral, accepting, and caring life is what God wants. I don't think God meant for organized religion to become what it has today; a way to condemn your fellow brothers and sisters because they don't live up to your standrds. Will many Christians accept this when I tell them all of my beliefs and values? I've met six who have, the rest tell me that I need to re-read the bible and go to church.



Interesting thought, except that English is a national language. Christianity should not be endorsed by the government.


Except English is not our National language.
 

jbhtexas

Well-Known Member
Oct 20, 2006
14,321
4,370
113
Arlington, TX
Well, I said not all Christians because I'm a Catholic, and feel that the organized religion has some ideas wrong. I just can't believe how some people take things that were written hundreds (Constitution) and thousands (bible) of years ago as infallible texts that cannot be changed.

Nobody here has claimed that the Constitution is infallible. The fact that it has been amended a number of times over the years indicates that it has been found to be insufficient in certain areas.

My point has been that the constitution was written and appproved by the people as one of the documents that governs our country. As such, we need to adhere to it as the writers intended, or change it by the prescribed method if we feel that it is no longer sufficient. Otherwise, why have a constitution if you don't intend to abide by it, or if you intend to pick and choose what you want to adhere to??? Such an attitude will eventually lead to anarchy and chaos.
 

Cyclone62

Well-Known Member
Feb 1, 2007
9,115
213
63
Oldpeopleville
I'm going to break this up a bit for better digestion for my own purposes. Hope you don't mind BryceC.

I understand what you are saying 62, but I would reply by saying that these professors are twisting meanings in the constitution to get what they want politically.

Yup, they are, I agree. However, I just don't understand how people attack them for their beliefs because it isn't the majority, which is what has happened in this thread. They have, what they feel, is a legitimate concern for the students, because our brains keep growing until we are around 23, well into the traditional Collegiate years. I think they have good intentions, but don't fully understand the purpose of a chaplain because it is usually viewed as a Christian and sometimes associated with priests or pastors.

I understand you don't like it when Christians attack people, and judge people, and use the bible as a weapon to attack. I know these kinds of people and they are what really turned me off to religion for a time. But the fact is that the bible is all we really have to go off of so I will base the foundation for my faith on that. If I'm not, then I'm going off of feeling and personal belief and that's not exactly what God had in mind either.

I don't like it when anybody attacks or judges another person regardless of faith. Acceptance and tolerance are two things, that I believe, have fallen to the wayside in organized religions. I believe the bible as well, but I can't take it word-for-word. It was written by man, inspired by God, and man always has an agenda. Therefore, I can't believe everything the bible says literally. When it talks about treating everyone the same, and acceptance, it is my belief that homosexuals, women, various ethnicities, and all classes are included there, not just a few of them.

I try not to use my religion to push my beliefs on other people... but the fact is I am pro-life because of my religion and I wouldn't endorse or vote for someone that wasn't pro life. I don't think that is an example of me pushing my beliefs on anyone, I just think it's me acting in accordance with my moral code. I hope you understand what I'm getting at here, although it didn't come off all that well.

And that's fine, I think differently about first term abortions. I just look at things differently I guess. When a woman gets raped and a child is conceived, I think she should have some kind of choice when she finds out about it. I don't believe in abortion, but I think the choice should be available. Personally, if anyone I'm involved with were to become pregnant, I'd do anything in my power to keep the child alive. When I had a pregnancy "scare" a while back, she talked about going through with an abortion, and I didn't know what to say. I know that if there was an abortion, I would have been devastated because I would have taken the child with no ties to the mother if that was what she wanted. I wouldn't want that on my conscious.

The only way that someone being pro-life pushing their religion on someone else, at least in my view, is when you use the phrase "God is pro-life, are you?" It brings faith into the equation. You can be whatever you want, just don't use the bible and/or God to convince me that you're right. Most people have a similar "moral code," but the cores are usually the same. It's the technicalities that divide everyone.
 

Cyclone62

Well-Known Member
Feb 1, 2007
9,115
213
63
Oldpeopleville
Actually, there is a process to change the Constitution...Article V...Amendments.

I have a problem with those that believe in "loose construction" of the Constitution...this is nothing more than an attempt to change the Constitution through a liberal judiciary. These are the people that in one hand say the clearly defined right to bear arms "doesn't really apply anymore" while coming up with new rights that are not listed anywhere in the document like the right to privacy.

The Constitution should be strictly interpreted and if anyone wants to change it...go through the amendment process!

I see that you're lumping everyone in the same category. Loose Construction of the Constitution is just as viable as Strict Construction. I believe that the "Right to Bear Arms" was created as a way for the citizens to overthrow the government if we started moving toward a Monarcy, Totalitarian state, Dictatorship, etc. However, I personally don't believe that wiretapping without a warrant is constitutional. I also don't think that I'm "anti-freedom" or "unpariotic" or "anti-american" because of these views even though I have been called them before. I think that if we begin to give up our rights to live individualisic lives (wiretapping/CSA (is that what it was?)) then we are making ourselves more vulnerable to the government. Maybe it's just me, but I think that we overemphasize what the terrorists do, and underemphasize the vulnerability of giving up rights to the government little by little.

Except English is not our National language.

Thank you for correcting me. I wasn't positive because of state pushes to make English an official language. I used the fact that foreigners say that we speak "American English" as a basis more than national law.

Nobody here has claimed that the Constitution is infallible. The fact that it has been amended a number of times over the years indicates that it has been found to be insufficient in certain areas.

My point has been that the constitution was written and appproved by the people as one of the documents that governs our country. As such, we need to adhere to it as the writers intended, or change it by the prescribed method if we feel that it is no longer sufficient. Otherwise, why have a constitution if you don't intend to abide by it, or if you intend to pick and choose what you want to adhere to??? Such an attitude will eventually lead to anarchy and chaos.

That's the problem. How can we really tell what they intended to say? Unless we find that infernal Flux Copacitor, we really can't. We can speculate, and make informed guesses, but we don't know for certain.
 

jdoggivjc

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2006
61,625
23,880
113
Macomb, MI
The one thing I do find ironic is that many non-Christians accuse Christians of being intolerant of other people (however true this statement is) with so much venom and judgment that these people tend to not realize they too are being just as intolerant (towards the Christians).

Now that I've gotten that off my chest, I am a conservative Christian. I try to live my life as an example instead of proselytizing and judging (however unsuccessful I am from day to day). However, sometimes I wonder if Jesus were walking the face of the Earth today, who would he be hanging out with? The Christians? Or the homosexuals, druggies, alcoholics, hospitalized, the poor and suffering such as those in Africa, and those who have had abortions that we like to label as "sinners"? I tend to think it would be the latter. Why do I say that? Well, who did he hang out with in the Bible? Was it the Pharisees (the so-called and self-professed "righteous" of their time), or was it the sick, the poor and suffering, widows, prostitutes, and "mixed races" (such as the Samaritans)? It was the latter. If you look at today's Christians, it deeply resembles the Pharisees from 2000 years ago. We tend to be very self-righteous, judgmental, rules-oriented, and not showing the love to each other that Jesus commanded. "Love the Lord with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself." Who's our neighbor? The guy next door? Our friends? Fellow church members? Well, yes, but that group also includes the homosexuals, druggies, alcoholics, hospitalized, the poor and suffering such as those in Africa, and those who have had abortions that we like to label as "sinners". Why are we to love them? Because not only are we no better than them, but we are them! We've all sinned, and because of that we are sinners. God did not categorize sins as "major" and "minor," sins are sins. We may not agree with those listed above, but they are no worse than us, and we shouldn't be treating them like they are.
 

rollcy

New Member
May 13, 2006
11
0
1
Keep it up y'all as the local Birmingham F.M. station is airing a special on the hiring of a Chaplain @ good ole liberal I.S.U. And for your info. the A.D. has responded to the Profs?
 

Cyclone62

Well-Known Member
Feb 1, 2007
9,115
213
63
Oldpeopleville
The one thing I do find ironic is that many non-Christians accuse Christians of being intolerant of other people (however true this statement is) with so much venom and judgment that these people tend to not realize they too are being just as intolerant (towards the Christians).

I understand what you're saying and do agree with it. I think the fact of the matter is that because a majority of the population is Christian, it almost seems hypocritical when the minority speaks against the majority for their own rights, which has been shown throughout history. I don't feel that it is an attack on Christianity, just an attack on the government treating Christianity to a "higher level of acceptance" than the other religions and/or beliefs.

Now that I've gotten that off my chest, I am a conservative Christian. I try to live my life as an example instead of proselytizing and judging (however unsuccessful I am from day to day). However, sometimes I wonder if Jesus were walking the face of the Earth today, who would he be hanging out with? The Christians? Or the homosexuals, druggies, alcoholics, hospitalized, the poor and suffering such as those in Africa, and those who have had abortions that we like to label as "sinners"? I tend to think it would be the latter. Why do I say that? Well, who did he hang out with in the Bible? Was it the Pharisees (the so-called and self-professed "righteous" of their time), or was it the sick, the poor and suffering, widows, prostitutes, and "mixed races" (such as the Samaritans)? It was the latter. If you look at today's Christians, it deeply resembles the Pharisees from 2000 years ago. We tend to be very self-righteous, judgmental, rules-oriented, and not showing the love to each other that Jesus commanded. "Love the Lord with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself." Who's our neighbor? The guy next door? Our friends? Fellow church members? Well, yes, but that group also includes the homosexuals, druggies, alcoholics, hospitalized, the poor and suffering such as those in Africa, and those who have had abortions that we like to label as "sinners". Why are we to love them? Because not only are we no better than them, but we are them! We've all sinned, and because of that we are sinners. God did not categorize sins as "major" and "minor," sins are sins. We may not agree with those listed above, but they are no worse than us, and we shouldn't be treating them like they are.

That is one of the most accurate things that I think I have ever heard anyone of faith say. We're all people, and no one should be denied a right because the majority thinks that it is a "sin."
 

chadm

Giving it a go
Apr 11, 2006
15,418
1,333
113
Midwest
We're all people, and no one should be denied a right because the majority thinks that it is a "sin."
I will take this a little to far. Should we abolish all prisons since the majority think murder, rape etc. is a sin? They are denied their rights.
 

jbhtexas

Well-Known Member
Oct 20, 2006
14,321
4,370
113
Arlington, TX
That's the problem. How can we really tell what they intended to say? Unless we find that infernal Flux Copacitor, we really can't. We can speculate, and make informed guesses, but we don't know for certain.

It's kind of funny...over in that thread about evolution, Darwin's theory was discussed. You'll notice that nobody really disputed what he said, or how his writings were meant to be interpreted. In the same way, nobody really disputes how Einstein's writings on relativity should be interpreted, or how Newton's writings about gravity should be interpreted. These men wrote their ideas down in a common language, and people today can read what they wrote and comprehend it. The same holds true for many scientific documents. Do we really need a flux capacitor to back back and figure out what Darwin or Newton meant to say? I don't think so.

But bring on the US constitution, and somehow, for this one document, we somehow cannot know what the original writers meant. The constitution was not written in some obscure language that nobody today understands. It was written in English. And we have numerous other writings that convey the thoughts of the writers on various issues. Through honest scholarship, we can study what they had to say and determine to a high degree of certainty (if not complete certainty) what they meant.

This theory that we can't really understand what people who wrote the constitution a little over 200 years ago meant to say is a smokescreen designed to cover the true motives of those who wish to covertly change the principles that govern our country.
 

Cyclone62

Well-Known Member
Feb 1, 2007
9,115
213
63
Oldpeopleville
I will take this a little to far. Should we abolish all prisons since the majority think murder, rape etc. is a sin? They are denied their rights.

You did take it too far. The difference is that rape, murder, etc. infringe on the rights of other people. Homosexuality doesn't infringe on anyone else's right. Neither does religion, that's why it should be separated from the government. If the government told me that Islam was the only "real" faith, I'd have a problem with it.
 

Wesley

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2006
70,923
546
113
Omaha
This is on IowaStateDaily.com tonight. Apparently professors in Curriculum and Instruction are experts in Constitutional Law.............

One of the guys in the comments section makes a great point about chaplains in the military.
Professors of petition discuss concerns

Online exclusive

James Heggen/Daily Staff Writer
Updated 5/18/07 @ 9:39 PM CST
Four professors at Iowa State have authored a petition opposing having a team chaplain on the ISU football team.
Ellen Fairchild, lecturer of curriculum and instruction and co-author of the petition, said the reason she is opposed to the football team having a chaplain is because Iowa State is a public institution.
"My personal concern is the separation between religion and government," she said.
Warren Blumenfeld, assistant professor of curriculum and instruction and co-author of the petition, said he was opposed to a team chaplain also because it is violating the separation of religion and government and it will marginalize non-Christian individuals.
William David, university professor of music and co-author of the petition, said the position would be inappropriate and he said he thought it was illegal, as well.
"I believe it's a violation of the Constitution to do this," David said.
Fairchild said it is hard for any person of faith to separate what they do from and his or her faith. She said the person is going to advocate his or her faith as chaplain.
Fairchild said even if the position were to be privately funded, she would be opposed to having a chaplain on the team because Iowa State is a public university.
"It is seen as sanctioned by this institution," she said.
Fairchild said having the chaplain could have a negative effect on the members of the team.
"It's a coercion type of thing," she said.
David also said there may be a sense of coercion among the team members that are not Christian.
"What does that say about every other faith?" he asked.
Blumenfeld said there are many support systems available for Christians available in the area and hiring a chaplain is not only not necessary, but it also promotes a certain religion.
David also wrote in an e-mail that "this is a church/state separation issue with potential legal implications" and not an "anti-athletic" or "anti-Christian" issue.
Athletic director Jamie Pollard and head football coach Gene Chizik could not be reached for comment.

The Iowa State Daily

Link to the petition:

Petition concerning chaplains in its athletic program - News

More hooey from a music teacher. Stay in your lane, lady. Thjis university teaches religions of the world, all kinds of oddball courses like sex for adult males, etc. What is one lowly chaplain paid outside state funds going to hurt. If you are separating the university from religiom, then you need to to keep all religious people off ISU sidewalks. A chplain is only available not mandatory. I think she would also complain about rosary beads in someones front car window. Get a life, lady. I thought chaplains represented all faiths.
 

Cyclone62

Well-Known Member
Feb 1, 2007
9,115
213
63
Oldpeopleville
It's kind of funny...over in that thread about evolution, Darwin's theory was discussed. You'll notice that nobody really disputed what he said, or how his writings were meant to be interpreted. In the same way, nobody really disputes how Einstein's writings on relativity should be interpreted, or how Newton's writings about gravity should be interpreted. These men wrote their ideas down in a common language, and people today can read what they wrote and comprehend it. The same holds true for many scientific documents. Do we really need a flux capacitor to back back and figure out what Darwin or Newton meant to say? I don't think so.

But bring on the US constitution, and somehow, for this one document, we somehow cannot know what the original writers meant. The constitution was not written in some obscure language that nobody today understands. It was written in English. And we have numerous other writings that convey the thoughts of the writers on various issues. Through honest scholarship, we can study what they had to say and determine to a high degree of certainty (if not complete certainty) what they meant.

This theory that we can't really understand what people who wrote the constitution a little over 200 years ago meant to say is a smokescreen designed to cover the true motives of those who wish to covertly change the principles that govern our country.

The difference is that those scientists had evience that supported their writings. While each signer of the Constitution (I think) had other writings of their beliefs, while they were behind closed doors, it is next to impossible to say, with certainty, what their intentions were with each word chosen. Because of the ambiguous language used, it appears that they wanted it to be interpretated instead of taking the document word-for-word. Certain words were left unclear, while others, that they wanted kept stable, used explicit language. That's why were left not knowing exactly what they meant in their mnds when it was written and decided upon.
 

PsychedClone

Member
Apr 11, 2006
384
10
18
Visit site
Let's simplify this whole thing

Why not do this the Amercan way. Let the players vote if they want a chaplain or not. If they want one fine, if not, that's fine too. Whatever happend to the good old American way - majority rules. Isn't that what our democratic system is based on? Let the chips fall where they fall. Let the ones who object wear ear plugs.

Why do we always have to cater to the lowest common denominator?
 

Cyclone62

Well-Known Member
Feb 1, 2007
9,115
213
63
Oldpeopleville
Re: Let's simplify this whole thing

Why not do this the Amercan way. Let the players vote if they want a chaplain or not. If they want one fine, if not, that's fine too. Whatever happend to the good old American way - majority rules. Isn't that what our democratic system is based on? Let the chips fall where they fall. Let the ones who object wear ear plugs.

Why do we always have to cater to the lowest common denominator?

I don't think the argument is about having a chaplain or not having one, but more about having a chaplain that advocates Christianity. At least, that's how I see the whole thing. I see no problem with the players having someone to confide in and that they can trust. And as long as all of the players feel fine with a Chirstian chaplain, I have no problem with that either. However, the instant that even one player feels that someone, anyone, on the staff is advocating a religion that is contradictory to theirs, they need a close look by outside people. Personally, if Chizik goes into each game with a prayer by himself, or one in which he says that anyone else can join in on if they'd like to, is fine. The players themselves have a choice.
 

safmusic

Active Member
May 30, 2006
412
104
43
Darwin's theories can definitely be refuted and is not science. Chizik is a strong Christian as are most of the other coaches. You think he is going to hire anyone else to council his players that he does not believe in? Our culture, ie liberal, thinks all is relative and their are no abolutes and that scares the hell out them--but that still won't save them.. That's what gets people into trouble--they have no base, no faith on the bottom line. Seems to me people are afraid that the chaplain will be like those people holding up the signs at the opening football game last fall and yelling wild stuff like anyone going to the game is going to hell. That definitely is not Christian and certainly poisons how Christians are percieved. It isn't Christian to browbeat someone to be saved as they won't be that way---its up to God anyway. These people that supposedly believe in tolerance, etc,and the rest of the B.S., all I can do is speak with the checkbook.
I am holding up further donations to rest of university that we regularly give to until those people are fired. So I guess they won't get more money from me. I'll still support the athletics.
 

hoosman

Well-Known Member
Sep 4, 2006
2,125
1,618
113
Davenport
Keep it up y'all as the local Birmingham F.M. station is airing a special on the hiring of a Chaplain @ good ole liberal I.S.U. And for your info. the A.D. has responded to the Profs?
I'm glad no one besides ISD is giving publicity to the petition. What is the ADs response? Is Birmingham covering the Chaplin hiring or the ensuing whine-fest?

I'll bet none of the complaining profs have ever attended a football game.
IMO they have a domino theory mentality: don't give Christians an inch or they'll take a mile.
 

Gary_ISU

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2006
321
290
63
Now that I've gotten that off my chest, I am a conservative Christian. I try to live my life as an example instead of proselytizing and judging (however unsuccessful I am from day to day). However, sometimes I wonder if Jesus were walking the face of the Earth today, who would he be hanging out with? The Christians? Or the homosexuals, druggies, alcoholics, hospitalized, the poor and suffering such as those in Africa, and those who have had abortions that we like to label as "sinners"? I tend to think it would be the latter. Why do I say that? Well, who did he hang out with in the Bible? Was it the Pharisees (the so-called and self-professed "righteous" of their time), or was it the sick, the poor and suffering, widows, prostitutes, and "mixed races" (such as the Samaritans)? It was the latter. If you look at today's Christians, it deeply resembles the Pharisees from 2000 years ago. We tend to be very self-righteous, judgmental, rules-oriented, and not showing the love to each other that Jesus commanded. "Love the Lord with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself." Who's our neighbor? The guy next door? Our friends? Fellow church members? Well, yes, but that group also includes the homosexuals, druggies, alcoholics, hospitalized, the poor and suffering such as those in Africa, and those who have had abortions that we like to label as "sinners". Why are we to love them? Because not only are we no better than them, but we are them! We've all sinned, and because of that we are sinners. God did not categorize sins as "major" and "minor," sins are sins. We may not agree with those listed above, but they are no worse than us, and we shouldn't be treating them like they are.

I agree with what you are saying but would like to add a couple points. As a Christian, we are commanded to share our faith with others. It is not really an option. The Great Commission spells it out best. I do a poor job of this but it is still something that I believe Christians need to look to do.

Second, Jesus did associate with those labeled as sinners and certainly if Jesus were walking the earth today he would associate with the groups of people you listed. However, Jesus loved without tolerating sin. Whenever Jesus was with sinners he loved them but instructed them to sin no more, examples the women at the well, Zacheus, etc. The phrase love the sinner hate the sin is used quite often today. Not sure if I like that terminology. Jesus is God and therefore perfect and is capable of perfect love. Mortal man struggles with how to love and not tolerate sin. It tends to go one way or the other. Either Christians tend to become judmental and critical of non-believes or adopt a more liberal approach that anything goes as long as others are not offended. The challenge is finding the balance. I certainly do not have it figured out.
 

jbhtexas

Well-Known Member
Oct 20, 2006
14,321
4,370
113
Arlington, TX
Second, Jesus did associate with those labeled as sinners and certainly if Jesus were walking the earth today he would associate with the groups of people you listed. However, Jesus loved without tolerating sin. Whenever Jesus was with sinners he loved them but instructed them to sin no more, examples the women at the well, Zacheus, etc.

Very astute observation!