Evangelization (anybody)

JimiTime

dvpower wrote: »

:eek:
Where the hell did that come from?
Relax Jakkass. Nobodys out to get you.

The thing is, I think Jackass is being forsightful. Its how this extremist 'meme';) can develop thats a cause of concern. Sneaking in on the back of 'being fair' etc. As this extremist view gets more concentrated with each upcoming generation, you may laugh, but religion could once again be pushed into the catecombs. I think removing it from public life is an agenda some have even now.

JimiTime

toiletduck wrote: »

Well that nurse was complained about by a Christian. But please, don't let that stop the persecution line of thought.

Thats a few times now you've talked about persecution. I don't think presently any of us here feel persecuted (Do we?). Simply scoffing at our concerns with this flippancy is rather languid.

uncleoswald

Originally Posted by Jimitime
Thats a few times now you've talked about persecution. I don't think presently any of us here feel persecuted (Do we?). Simply scoffing at our concerns with this flippancy is rather languid

The same way that an awful lot of people who simpy expressed concern over the OP were scoffed at?



I am genuinly not trying to be smart (my own opinion of the OP's question is that it would make me feel slightly uncomfortable to know my kids coach was doing this but I would not enough to kick up a fuss) but I'm wondering how people here would feel if the coach was praying to Satan for help?

prinz

JimiTime wrote: »

The thing is, I think Jackass is being forsightful. Its how this extremist 'meme';) can develop thats a cause of concern. Sneaking in on the back of 'being fair' etc. As this extremist view gets more concentrated with each upcoming generation, you may laugh, but religion could once again be pushed into the catecombs. I think removing it from public life is an agenda some have even now.

+1

The next step is a campaign to have an over 18's age limit on entry to a Church. Far too much recruiting and infecting of unsuspecting young minds going on. Never mind if the parents, kids, and priests/pastors are all fine with it, because obviously anyone living a Christian life has no interest in protecting the integrity of a child's mind. :rolleyes:

Better to leave them in front of the tv watching advertising aimed specifically at kids because that has no effect on them whatsoever.

toiletduck

JimiTime wrote: »

Thats a few times now you've talked about persecution. I don't think presently any of us here feel persecuted (Do we?).

I'm talking about the following kind of statements

what on earth do these extremists have next in line for us.

religion could once again be pushed into the catecombs. I think removing it from public life is an agenda some have even now.

I wouldn't worry. With leaders of this country ranting and raving about "aggressive secularists" up until recently, I think the lions will have to go hungry for now.

Simply scoffing at our concerns with this flippancy is rather languid.

As opposed to the serious consideration given to the many atheist posters points in this thread?

When you see people attack as outrageous the idea that some people disagree with the prayer before the match and use that with a case of a nurse getting dismissed after previous warnings and a complaint by a Christian, as evidence of some atheist extremist plan to oust religion totally... well it's hard to take these concerns for obvious reasons.

philologos

dvpower: I don't think I'm being persecuted by anyone. I'm just not going to tolerate when people are insisting that I don't have a right to demonstrate who I am to others. My faith is a part of who I am. I will keep it as public as I decide . This extreme secularism shouldn't be tolerated. We've seen what happens when it is in places like France and Turkey. Peoples rights to religious freedom are limited, and I consider that to be wrong whether you are Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Jew or Christian. The idea that we should be ashamed of our religious views because they are unacceptable in a secular society is a joke and it misses the point of what secularism actually intended. Equality between people of varying or no religious beliefs. It did not intend to put atheism on a pedestal. This is an abuse of secularism. I hold skepticism towards anything with the word, because I don't want the rights of people to be restricted.

Yes, people who do not wish for religion to have any role in society are extremists. I personally will not tolerate that kind of ideology.

JimiTime

uncleoswald wrote: »

The same way that an awful lot of people who simpy expressed concern over the OP were scoffed at?



I am genuinly not trying to be smart (my own opinion of the OP's question is that it would make me feel slightly uncomfortable to know my kids coach was doing this but I would not enough to kick up a fuss) but I'm wondering how people here would feel if the coach was praying to Satan for help?

I never scoffed. I expressed empathy, but at the same time thought that the reaction was OTT. As for the Satan thing, I covered such things already.

JimiTime

toiletduck wrote: »

I'm talking about the following kind of statements

what on earth do these extremists have next in line for us.

religion could once again be pushed into the catecombs. I think removing it from public life is an agenda some have even now.

I wouldn't worry. With leaders of this country ranting and raving about "aggressive secularists" up until recently, I think the lions will have to go hungry for now.

You left out the bit about, 'forsight' and 'upcoming generations'. This is not a testiment to the here and now. What Jackass has alluded to, and I happen to agree with, is that we see the seeds been sown.

As opposed to the serious consideration given to the many atheist posters points in this thread?

Again, speaking for myself, I think I've been quite reasonable. I certainly understand where you are coming from, I just think you've all blown it out of proportion.

When you see people attack as outrageous the idea that some people disagree with the prayer before the match and use that with a case of a nurse getting dismissed after previous warnings and a complaint by a Christian, as evidence of some atheist extremist plan to oust religion totally... well it's hard to take these concerns for obvious reasons.

They are very similar. Whilst I have absolutely 'no' issue with the nurse scenario, 'this' scenario 'may' cause a bit of annoyance for me. I direct you here for my views on the matter.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

I would be more receptive to someone coming up to me and saying. Look we're a Catholic-ethos Montessori and we will be carrying out Catholic prayers. Is that okay with you?

Which didn't happen.

Jakkass wrote: »

Right, but you cannot expect the ethos of a Montessori to change to suit you and you alone.

You may have missed the post where I mentioned that they've made changes to suite the children of parents who belong to the muslim and hindu religions.

Are you saying that it's ok for the school to make concessions to the kids of religious parents, but not ok for them to make identical concessions to the kinds of parents who are not religious?

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Which didn't happen.You may have missed the post where I mentioned that they've made changes to suite the children of parents who belong to the muslim and hindu religions.

The Muslims and the Hindus didn't demand scrapping the ethos entirely. You are.

robindch wrote: »

Are you saying that it's ok for the school to make concessions to the kids of religious parents, but not ok for them to make identical concessions to the kinds of parents who are not religious?

If concessions do not require scrapping the schools ethos completely, then yes, I support said concessions. However, if these concessions require scrapping the ethos, I don't think it is fair.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

The Muslims and the Hindus didn't demand scrapping the ethos entirely. You are.

Huh? Where on earth did you get the idea that I'm "demanding" that nobody tells the other kids to pray?

I don't want my kid to be exposed to this stuff. What other parents allow religious people do with their kids is entirely up to them.

Jakkass wrote: »

If concessions do not require scrapping the schools ethos completely, then yes, I support said concessions.

The "ethos" is catholic, so reading muslim and hindu prayers is an anethema. So, yes, they're scrapping it.

robindch

BrianCalgary wrote: »

You are showing intolerance and bigotry toward Christians in general. Face it.

No, not in the slightest!

In fact, in this thread, I've been called intolerant, a fanatic and bigoted. I've been told that I am engaged in vilification and leading an attack, and that I don't like christians. Best of all, one poster implied that I was the kind of person who ought to be kept away from kids! And all this is because (a) I asked if somebody had explicit permission to air his religious views and (b) explained why some people might get upset if their kids were exposed to somebody else's religious views without permission.

This reaction, frankly, is hysterical and it's one of the many reasons why I don't want my kid exposed to religion -- I simply don't want her growing up thinking that this kind of aggressive reaction is reasonable when somebody asks a simple question. Incidentally, I can't help but think that somebody would have put out a contract on me if I'd been so brazen as to suggest that it wasn't appropriate to pray before a coaching session in the first place.

Folks, reach over to the fridge, grab a beer, put your feet up and chill out for a bit.

dvpower

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, people who do not wish for religion to have any role in society are extremists. I personally will not tolerate that kind of ideology.

That may be so, but people who would seek a clearer demarcation are not extremists.

A little bit of balance is required here. On a quick read about that nurse in the UK, one might take the view that if she didn't like the rules of her 'secular' job, she should go and get a job elsewhere. I would think that to be an extreme position to take, but you may recognise the sentiment.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Huh? Where on earth did you get the idea that I'm "demanding" that nobody tells the other kids to pray?

There is no possible way of doing this apart from excluding your child for a few minutes every morning.

robindch wrote: »

I don't want my kid to be exposed to this stuff. What other parents allow religious people do with their kids is entirely up to them.The "ethos" is catholic, so reading muslim and hindu prayers is an anethema. So, yes, they're scrapping it.

Yes, but whether or not you like it. Religion has a role in society and your child will be eventually exposed to it whether you like it or not. Likewise atheism and agnosticism has a role within society and people are going to be exposed to it.

You are suggesting that the practice change entirely. The Hindus and Muslims only want an extra prayer or two with the Catholic prayers. That's fair enough.

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

No, not in the slightest!

In fact, in this thread, I've been called intolerant, a fanatic and bigoted. I've been told that I am engaged in vilification and leading an attack, and that I don't like christians. Best of all, one poster implied that I was the kind of person who ought to be kept away from kids! And all this is because (a) I asked if somebody had explicit permission to air his religious views and (b) explained why some people might get upset if their kids were exposed to somebody else's religious views without permission.

This reaction, frankly, is hysterical and it's one of the many reasons why I don't want my kid exposed to religion -- I simply don't want her growing up thinking that this kind of aggressive reaction is reasonable when somebody asks a simple question. Incidentally, I can't help but think that somebody would have put out a contract on me if I'd been so brazen as to suggest that it wasn't appropriate to pray before a coaching session in the first place.

Folks, reach over to the fridge, grab a beer, put your feet up and chill out for a bit.

Nail on the head to be honest.

This whole tread reminds me of Behead those who say Islam is violent

philologos

dvpower wrote: »

That may be so, but people who would seek a clearer demarcation are not extremists.

I think people are extreme if they want to tell other people how to live their lives and how to live out their faith.

dvpower wrote: »

A little bit of balance is required here. On a quick read about that nurse in the UK, one might take the view that if she didn't like the rules of her 'secular' job, she should go and get a job elsewhere. I would think that to be an extreme position to take, but you may recognise the sentiment.

One might take that view. However whether or not that view is reasonable is another question. Look it's rather simple. "Do you want me to pray for you?". Either answer yes, or no. If you say no, that's fine. No harm done. It's not worthy of the OTT extreme secularism we have seen in that case. I don't see how it impaired her work in any way.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

your child will be eventually exposed to it whether you like it or not.

Yes, that's right. So, I'd like to do my best to ensure that she's capable of dealing with it when the time comes, and until then, I don't want people taking advantage of her immature brain to implant religious ideas, or to make her think that the hysterical reaction I've experienced here constitutes respectable behaviour.

Jakkass wrote: »

You are suggesting that the practice change entirely.

No, I'm not. Where did I say that?

Like I said a few posts back, I don't want my kid exposed to this stuff. What other parents let religious people do with their kids is entirely up to them and I certainly have no interest in trying to stop anybody from doing whatever they want to do. Quite apart from it being their business entirely, and none of mine, I rather suspect there'd be more than a few people out there who'd like to nail me to a tree and cut my legs off, one inch at a time.

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

Behead those who say Islam is violent

Intolerance is the new black.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Nail on the head to be honest.

This whole tread reminds me of Behead those who say Islam is violent

How about we all discuss the issues at hand without the drama queen outbursts? I haven't seen anyone here advocating violence. All I see is a Christian who prays with his football team (apparently with no objections except from those who live on the opposite side of the Atlantic and have never met him or anyone on his team) and some atheists that seem increasingly prone to getting offended at the drop of a hat.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Like I said a few posts back, I don't want my kid exposed to this stuff. What other parents let religious people do with their kids is entirely up to them and I certainly have no interest in trying to stop anybody from doing whatever they want to do. Quite apart from it being their business entirely, and none of mine, I rather suspect there'd be more than a few people out there who'd like to nail me to a tree and cut my legs off, one inch at a time.

And the Christians are suffering from a persecution complex?

stevejazzx

PDN wrote: »

All I see is a Christian who prays with his football tea (apparently with no objections except from those who live on the opposite side of the Atlantic and have never met him or anyone on his team) and some atheists that seem increasingly prone to getting offended at the drop of a hat.

I don't think any of the atheists here siad they were offended. This is where the whole argument is getting all mixed up. The atheists here were pointing out that doing something like that (i.e an impromtu prayer for children without permission of all legal guardians involved) was wrong. Just wrong in that the adult has no right to use his own world view in a situation where it may influence children. Not wrong in the sense that he is directly hurting someone, not wrong in the sense that he is a bad person, not wrong in the sense that it's all harmless (all of these could be contended though) but wrong in the sense that he is introducing something to the children when he is not entirely sure that those childrens parents are ok with it. He is not permitted to do something like this under the normal polite rules of society. I know it happens from time to time and Robin does too, but what Robin is saying is that he doesn't want people doing this (or anything!) to his kid wihtout telling him in advance. I think the christians here are realy overplaying the athiest reaction becasue it somewhat suits them to call us fanatics for a change.

PDN

stevejazzx wrote: »

I think the christians here are realy overplaying the athiest reaction becasue it somewhat suits them to call us fanatics for a change.

So it's quite normal to compare your opponents in a debate to those who advocate execution? It doesn't even sound a teeny bit dramatic to you to characterise other posters of wanting to nail you to a tree and cut off your legs one inch at a time?

Yeah, we're really overplaying things. :rolleyes:

stevejazzx

PDN wrote: »

So it's quite normal to compare your opponents in a debate to those who advocate execution? It doesn't even sound a teeny bit dramatic to you to characterise other posters of wanting to nail you to a tree and cut off your legs one inch at a time?

I think you may have somewhat missed my point or we are at least at cross purposes. I was merely pointing out that as atheists we may be somewhat inclined to call a christian fanatical if he or she insists on biblical litrealism or the like. So in the my post I was simply implying that it might suit them in this thread to turn the tables somewhat. Advocation of execution etc. was not the kind of fanatiscism I was on about.

philologos

PDN wrote: »

some atheists that seem increasingly prone to getting offended at the drop of a hat.

Matthew 11:6 wrote:

'And blessed is anyone who takes no offence at me.’

Yet people do so readily. It's to be expected in all fairness.

stevejazzx

stevejazzx wrote: »

I don't think any of the atheists here siad they were offended? This is where the whole argument is getting all mixed up. The atheists here were pointing....

/\

PDN

Ok, Moderator's Warning (including to those who should know better).

Anyone asserting that other posters are advocating, or would like to, commit any illegal or violent act better have good evidence to back up such a claim. Otherwise you will be infracted or banned. This kind of character assassination is unacceptable.

Húrin

stevejazzx wrote: »

It's not the law. It's a generally accpeted rule of polite secular society. Laying it down? I think he was just trying to highlight the actual issue that is being discussed. He had to highlight it becasue it seems the christians here have somewhat buried their heads in the sand on the matter. And it hardly strikes me as an another culture altogether btw..

We don't actually know how different it is. However I get the impression that it is a culture where evangelical Christianity is better acclimatised than here.

Wicknight is making a whole lot of assumptions, and not taking into account that the prayer sessions quite simply work in terms of making the team feel better about the game.

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

Nail on the head to be honest.

This whole tread reminds me of Behead those who say Islam is violent

And yet here you are still persisting that you are right and that Brian is wrong on the fifteenth page!

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

And yet here you are still persisting that you are right and that Brian is wrong on the fifteenth page!

What?

And my point with the comment that this thread reminded me of "Behead those who think.."(which I would have though would have been blindingly obvious to anyone except those seeking to find something to be deliberately outraged about), was that this entire thread is about religious people objecting to the idea that religious people might object to something religious.

People seem to forget that the principles of secularism were devised to stop one religious group offending another religious group by making them participate in their religious practice because it is quite often a very sensitive subject. By by golly guys you have all demonstrated how non-sensitive the subject or prayer is :rolleyes:

And you are all forgetting (or ignoring) the fact that no one has any issue with BC praying. No one is trying to stop him praying.

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

Wicknight is making a whole lot of assumptions, and not taking into account that the prayer sessions quite simply work in terms of making the team feel better about the game.

Considering that would be irrelevant to my point I fail to see how I'm ignoring it, though this does suggest that you aren't reading what I'm posting.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Ok, Moderator's Warning (including to those who should know better).

Anyone asserting that other posters are advocating, or would like to, commit any illegal or violent act better have good evidence to back up such a claim. Otherwise you will be infracted or banned. This kind of character assassination is unacceptable.

You got me PDN, I was asserting that Brian wants to behead children. That was clearly what my point was :rolleyes:

By Dawkins beard!

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

It is inappropriate to ask children or their parents for approval to carry out a religious act as part of a non-religious activity when refusal to approve said act may cast the child or parent in a negative light among the rest of the group..

I fully understand this is th epoint and have remarked numerous times.
1) No, it is not innapropriate to ask.
2) As I have written, I have a player who sneaks out at the prayer time. He is actually one of my favourite players, in ahving said that, he is on ethe team based on his ability at this level, so this objection holds no water.

At the end of every season the players and parents do a coaches evaluation, they can explicitly ask to not be on a coaches team or ask to be. In all my years I have only vere had one negative evaluation, they are anonymus so I can only guess who it was and if it was the person I believed it to be, they had no worries as the player caused me so much grief anyway.

If the prayer was that big an issue, teh kid just wouldn't be placed on my team again. However, they all want me to coach them, kids and parents. I'm doing something right, and I credit it to inviting Christ to be a part of our team and that is expressed through the pre-game prayer.

Wicknight wrote: »

Now I don't know you BC, I can't say that this is what would happen if someone objected. But look at how you take even the mere suggestion that someone may not want this done. It is clear that you think objecting to such a saying of a prayer in the team huddle is ridiculous. That is the point.

Have you read my piece on the kid who doesn't participate?

So the rest of your comment is pure speculation and incorrect specualtion at that.

So back to my question, which no one has answered, WHERE IS THE HARM?????

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

And you are all forgetting (or ignoring) the fact that no one has any issue with BC praying. No one is trying to stop him praying.

Well, this is news to me. :pac:

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

And you are all forgetting (or ignoring) the fact that no one has any issue with BC praying. No one is trying to stop him praying.

So you've been just wasting our time with the last few pages of discussion?

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I fully understand this is th epoint and have remarked numerous times.
1) No, it is not innapropriate to ask.

Given that you have already done this I don't think anyone here would expect you to find it inappropriate

To use a comparison that you guys might actually understand and relate to, this is similar to asking someone how much money they make.

The reason such a question is considered inappropriate is because both responses (positive or negative) can be considered uncomfortable for the person and creating bad tension.

Financial matters (like religious matters) are often considered private to a person, so the person may not wish to tell someone else who much money they make. But simply saying "No I do not wish to tell you that" can in itself cast the person in a bad light.

So it is considered inappropriate to ask the question in the first place because it can result in a negative imposition for the person either way

Your response to all this debate has been equivalent to saying Well I asked Bill how much money he makes and he seemed happy to tell me, therefore everything you just said above is nonsense Wicknight

BrianCalgary wrote: »

2) As I have written, I have a player who sneaks out at the prayer time. He is actually one of my favourite players, in ahving said that, he is on ethe team based on his ability at this level, so this objection holds no water.

From the way you explain it it doesn't sound like he is objecting BC, he is quietly excluding himself. If you think this is because you are praying during the team huddle the responsible thing to do as team coach (his coach) would be to stop praying during the team huddle and try and get him back into participating in the huddle. You praying is not part of your duties as team coach. It is something you introduced. The point of the team huddle is to build team spirit, not for the coach to practice his religion, particularly if that means that players are then not part of the team huddle.

The very fact that you would apparently put your need to pray during this over the desire to include all of the team is an issue in of itself. You keep saying that no one minds you doing this. Would they mind you not doing it, particularly if that mean that everyone could be part of the team huddle?

What is the point of saying all the players seem happy with it? All the players seem happy with it apart from the one that doesn't who seems to remove himself and you continue on regardless.

Have you asked him would he like you to stop praying during the huddle? If he said yes would you?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

So back to my question, which no one has answered, WHERE IS THE HARM?????

Well I could think of a number of things (not least the principle here that is being ignored based on your insistence that in this instance no one minds), but since you mentioned the player who excludes himself during the team huddle I would think that right there would be the first port of call for evaluating whether you should be doing this or not.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

Given that you have already done this I don't think anyone here would expect you to find it inappropriate

To use a comparison that you guys might actually understand and relate to, this is similar to asking someone how much money they make.

The reason such a question is considered inappropriate is because both responses (positive or negative) can be considered uncomfortable for the person and creating bad tension.

Financial matters (like religious matters) are often considered private to a person, so the person may not wish to tell someone else who much money they make. But simply saying "No I do not wish to tell you that" can in itself cast the person in a bad light.

So it is considered inappropriate to ask the question in the first place because it can result in a negative imposition for the person either way

Your response to all this debate has been equivalent to saying Well I asked Bill how much money he makes and he seemed happy to tell me, therefore everything you just said above is nonsense Wicknight.

And your analogy is off. Religion is not a private matter so your premise is wrong and therefore your argument is invalid.

Wicknight wrote: »

From the way you explain it it doesn't sound like he is objecting BC, he is quietly excluding himself. If you think this is because you are praying during the team huddle the responsible thing to do as team coach (his coach) would be to stop praying during the team huddle and try and get him back into participating in the huddle..

That is the point wick, he excludes himself, for whatever reason. It is not an issue that he does exclude himslf just as the prayer is not an issue. He handles it very responsibly. Quite mature don't you think? The responsible thing for me to do as a coach is to make sure that I create the best environment for my players to have an enjoyable experience of playing an dlearning. As a result the paryer stays becaucse it is a tool that creates the safe environment for learning and fun.

Wicknight wrote: »

You praying is not part of your duties as team coach. It is something you introduced. The point of the team huddle is to build team spirit, not for the coach to practice his religion, particularly if that means that players are then not part of the team huddle. .

The point of a team huddle is for the final preparation for a game. team spirit is built at practices and team get togethers. As part of the preparation a prayer is said and it is used to relax the players and to cut tension, or to get them tense if they are too relaxed.
It is also a time for the final word from the coach or other spokesperson, whatever i snecessary to prepare.

Since one of the duties of a coach is to prepare the players for the game and the prayer succeeeds in doing this, it is therefore one of my duties to say a prayer.

Wicknight wrote: »

The very fact that you would apparently put your need to pray during this over the desire to include all of the team is an issue in of itself. .

I hope by now you understand that the whole team is included, except for the one that nips off every now and again, its his own little way to prepare, so I'm good. And here your conclusion that the prayer is needed by me is dead wrong. Boy you are so wrong in all the assumptions you make. It amazes me.

Wicknight wrote: »

What is the point of saying all the players seem happy with it? All the players seem happy with it apart from the one that doesn't who seems to remove himself and you continue on regardless.

Have you asked him would he like you to stop praying during the huddle? .

If he was unhappy about it he'd tell me. So no need to ask. And before you jump to another assumption, he would tell, because he and I have thattype of relationship.

He just is very mature and tolerant and understands the benefit this act has for the team as a whole, so he accepts it.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well I could think of a number of things (not least the principle here that is being ignored based on your insistence that in this instance no one minds), but since you mentioned the player who excludes himself during the team huddle I would think that right there would be the first port of call for evaluating whether you should be doing this or not.

Back to square one here wick. You have no valid reason, other than you do not like it because it is Christian and you are intolerant.

robindch

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Wicknight wrote:

And you are all forgetting (or ignoring) the fact that no one has any issue with BC praying. No one is trying to stop him praying.

Well, this is news to me. :pac:

Already mentioned last weekend in this post.

Jakkass wrote:

So you've we've been just wasting our time with the last few pages of discussion?

There, fixed You've collectively spent a lot of time arguing against a point of view that none of us hold, because you don't appear to understand the issue, and instead argue against something else (most of the time). Hence all the accusations of intolerance, fanatacism and so on, which aren't justified (though they are revealing).

BrianCalgary wrote: »

So back to my question, which no one has answered, WHERE IS THE HARM?????

It's been answered many times already.

See this post and this post for the immediate issue, and this one, this one and this one for the broader concerns.

.

dvpower

Can we all go home now?

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

And your analogy is off. Religion is not a private matter so your premise is wrong and therefore your argument is invalid.

Religion is a private matter. You have no right to know the religious beliefs of someone else.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

That is the point wick, he excludes himself, for whatever reason.

That is the whole point Brian.

The fact that he is excusing himself because you have taken it upon yourself to start praying during the team huddle should be sending out big neon flashing signs to you as a coach.

Instead you seem to think it is great that he is so respectful to your religious needs that he excuses himself when you high-jack the team huddle for your own religious ritual.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

He handles it very responsibly. Quite mature don't you think?

He handles what very responsibly? You insisting on praying during the team huddle?

I think he is handling it very well, but I don't think he should have to handle anything in the first place.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The responsible thing for me to do as a coach is to make sure that I create the best environment for my players to have an enjoyable experience of playing an dlearning.

And when players start voluntarily excluding themselves from you practising your religion with them that should be telling you something.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

As a result the paryer stays becaucse it is a tool that creates the safe environment for learning and fun.

No, it creates an environment for you to practice your religion.

By your own admission you coach a multi-denominational soccer team.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The point of a team huddle is for the final preparation for a game. team spirit is built at practices and team get togethers. As part of the preparation a prayer is said and it is used to relax the players and to cut tension, or to get them tense if they are too relaxed.
It is also a time for the final word from the coach or other spokesperson, whatever i snecessary to prepare.

It is not necessary for you to pray during this, and in fact doing so appears to be excluding a player from the team huddle.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Since one of the duties of a coach is to prepare the players for the game and the prayer succeeeds in doing this, it is therefore one of my duties to say a prayer.

It is really not Brian, that is nonsense. The responsibility of a coach of a multi-denominational soccer team is not to say a Christian prayer during the team huddle. You say it because you want to, it has nothing to do with your responsibilities as a coach.

And the very fact that doing so possibly causes a team member to voluntarily exclude themselves from important team building experience should be telling you something.

I missed this part originally and for most of this thread have been going on the principle of the matter, rather than this specific instance that I though you had got away with because I understood that all the kids and parents were happy to participate. But you need to look no further than this kid excluding himself to see why you should not be doing this.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I hope by now you understand that the whole team is included, except for the one that nips off every now and again, its his own little way to prepare, so I'm good.

The whole team is included except for the ones that aren't included. Brilliant.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

If he was unhappy about it he'd tell me.

Why would he tell you Brian? So you can tell him he shouldn't be unhappy about it?

How about you stop the prayers and see if he comes back to the team huddles?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

He just is very mature and tolerant and understands the benefit this act has for the team as a whole, so he accepts it.

You keep using the word "whole" there without any awareness of the irony. :rolleyes:

By the way for someone who likes to rail about assumptions how many of your facts about what the kids and the parents do or do not feel about all this are based solely on your assumptions of what they should feel about this.

It seems every time you state that someone is perfectly happy about something it is followed up shortly afterwards with a clarification along the lines of Because if he/she wasn't he would tell me

Do you actually have the full support of the kids and parents or are you just assuming you do?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Back to square one here wick. You have no valid reason, other than you do not like it because it is Christian and you are intolerant.

I don't like it for a number of reasons mentioned numerous times. Not a single one of them is that you are a Christian.

I am certainly "intolerant" of your behaviour though

Zombrex

dvpower wrote: »

Can we all go home now?

I am home. I'm sitting in my basement in my underwear and wife beater t-shirt right now

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Well, this is news to me. :pac:

It shouldn't be, it was mentioned near the start of the thread that no one would object to you taking a private moment for yourself (or anyone who opted in to join you) to pray for what ever you liked.

The main problem here Brian seems to you being unable to understand the difference between you BrianCalgary, devout Christian, the private citizen and you BrianCalgary the coach of a kids multi-denominational football team.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

The main problem here Brian seems to you being unable to understand the difference between you BrianCalgary, devout Christian, the private citizen and you BrianCalgary the coach of a kids multi-denominational football team.

Good for Brian! Being a Christian is who you are, not a little compartmentalised area of your life. And if the organisers of the football teams don't like Brian, devout Christian, being a coach then no doubt they will let him know. But apparently that hasn't happened.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Religion is a private matter. You have no right to know the religious beliefs of someone else.

No it isn't. This is where we are going to forever disagree. For a Christian ones faith cannot be private. It must be public.

Wicknight wrote: »

The fact that he is excusing himself because you have taken it upon yourself to start praying during the team huddle should be sending out big neon flashing signs to you as a coach.

I don't see it as a problem at all.

Wicknight wrote: »

Instead you seem to think it is great that he is so respectful to your religious needs that he excuses himself when you high-jack the team huddle for your own religious ritual.

He isn't hijacking anything. Its a part of the match preparation and no parent has objected, and most of the kids are more than happy to do it, and one of the kids who isn't has opted out respectfully. That's the mature thing to do instead of expecting everyone to stop just for you!

Wicknight wrote: »

He handles what very responsibly? You insisting on praying during the team huddle?

I think he is handling it very well, but I don't think he should have to handle anything in the first place.

I disagree. Opting out should be encouraged instead of insisting on changing everything. Infact that is highly selfish.

Wicknight wrote: »

And when players start voluntarily excluding themselves from you practising your religion with them that should be telling you something.

What?

Wicknight wrote: »

No, it creates an environment for you to practice your religion.

By your own admission you coach a multi-denominational soccer team.

This is really getting tiresome. Nobody has objected.

Wicknight wrote: »

It is not necessary for you to pray during this, and in fact doing so appears to be excluding a player from the team huddle.

There is no reason why Brian should stop. The player has opted out, that's fine. As Brian said, it's very respectful.

Wicknight wrote: »

It is really not Brian, that is nonsense. The responsibility of a coach of a multi-denominational soccer team is not to say a Christian prayer during the team huddle. You say it because you want to, it has nothing to do with your responsibilities as a coach.

Yawn, guilt tripping Brian with your extreme secularism again. Theres nothing wrong with what he is doing at all. If it benefits Brian and the team I don't see why he shouldn't.

Wicknight wrote: »

And the very fact that doing so possibly causes a team member to voluntarily exclude themselves from important team building experience should be telling you something.

This is the fourth time you have mentioned this in your post so far.

Wicknight wrote: »

I missed this part originally and for most of this thread have been going on the principle of the matter, rather than this specific instance that I though you had got away with because I understood that all the kids and parents were happy to participate. But you need to look no further than this kid excluding himself to see why you should not be doing this.

Got away with?

Who says that Brian should be accountable to your guilt-tripping session?

Wicknight wrote: »

The whole team is included except for the ones that aren't included. Brilliant.

Yes, the one who has voluntarily opted out. Now, what was my suggestion for those who didn't want to take part at the start?

Wicknight wrote: »

Why would he tell you Brian? So you can tell him he shouldn't be unhappy about it?

You don't know how Brian relates to his players, therefore you can't assume to know how this chap relates to Brian.

Wicknight wrote: »

How about you stop the prayers and see if he comes back to the team huddles?

Why should Brian if he is quite happy to opt out anyway?

Wicknight wrote: »

By the way for someone who likes to rail about assumptions how many of your facts about what the kids and the parents do or do not feel about all this are based solely on your assumptions of what they should feel about this.

Many or just one?

Wicknight wrote: »

It seems every time you state that someone is perfectly happy about something it is followed up shortly afterwards with a clarification along the lines of Because if he/she wasn't he would tell me

Read above.

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you actually have the full support of the kids and parents or are you just assuming you do?

He has answered this already.

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't like it for a number of reasons mentioned numerous times. Not a single one of them is that you are a Christian.

It pretty much is. Part of Christianity is to keep ones faith public and to let it influence how you relate with others. I don't think Brian has anything to be ashamed of, infact he should be proud of his coaching.

Wicknight wrote: »

I am certainly "intolerant" of your behaviour though

If you are intolerant of people keeping their faith as a part of their public identity, then you are intolerant of a lot of Christians.

getz

the only christian/or other religion that seems to go knocking on doors to spread their gospel, is either the mormans or the jehovah,s witnesses, it would be a nice change to see the church of rome or the anglican church practising what they preached ,in fact has anyone ever had any other church but those two, knocking on your door ?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

No it isn't. This is where we are going to forever disagree. For a Christian ones faith cannot be private. It must be public.

I'm not talking about Brian's faith. I'm talking about the faith of everyone else involved.

How can Brian ask if anyone objects to him saying a Christian prayer during the team huddle without asking them their views on Christian prayer? The mere act of objecting exposes information to Brian that he really shouldn't be asking for in the role as a coach of a local soccer team. It is rude.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see it as a problem at all.

I know you don't. That is the issue.

Jakkass wrote: »

I disagree. Opting out should be encouraged instead of insisting on changing everything. Infact that is highly selfish.

Changing what Jakkass? Who asked Brian to do this? I've played on sports teams since I was 4 years old I've never had a coach say a prayer in a team huddle. It is ridiculous. Brian is doing this because he is Brian, not because of any one has asked him to and certainly not because of any duties as a team coach.

You make it sound like if Brian stopped this the team would fall a part. I imagine if Brian stopped this hardly anyone would even notice, apart from the kid who maybe wouldn't excuse himself any more.

Jakkass wrote: »

What?

That all the kids bonding over the common enjoyment of team sports is far more important than Brian, a grown man's, need to pray with his kids.

This is the crux of the matter.

My view is that if Brian's decision to involve his religion in the team huddle is causing a member of the team to exclude himself from this then Brian should stop.

Brian's personal need to involve his prayer with the kids is not more important than the kids themselves, all of the kids, being part of the experience of a team sport. That is what Brian is therefore. He is not there to be Brian the Christian, he is there to be Brian the coach.

More fundamentally than that my view is that Brian should never have done this in the first place because there is a principle here behind all this precisely because things like this happen, that even if none of the kids this time seemed to mind he still shouldn't have done it because he would not have known no one was going to object and it is unfair to ask people to have to object to something like this, like not asking some one how much money they make or how much they weigh.

You guys apparently (some what mind bogglingly) disagree, that it is more important than Brian (the coach) be allowed to involve his religion with the kids even if that means it makes the kids unhappy, that Brian should do this and if the kids don't like it tough they should exclude themselves from their own team because Brian being able to say a prayer when he wants to and has all the kids are around him in the team huddle is more important than all the kids participating together in a team sport. The kids learn the valuable lesson that Christianity comes first and if you don't like that you can leave.

So 17 pages and we are still at this impasse.

The only person who showed any understanding was Jimi who still though thought it was the kids problem and they should exclude themselves, which makes it sound like the point of a kids soccer team is not for kids to come together and play soccer but for Brian to fulfil his apparent need to pray all the time.

This has been one of the most pointless debates on this forum, and I'm truly sick of it so I'm out of here.

Soul Winner

getz wrote: »

the only christian/or other religion that seems to go knocking on doors to spread their gospel, is either the mormans or the jehovah,s witnesses, it would be a nice change to see the church of rome or the anglican church practising what they preached ,in fact has anyone ever had any other church but those two, knocking on your door ?

It's not the function of the church to go from house to house trying to convert people to Christianity. We just need go to the highest housetop (could be any medium, radio, TV, Internet even a soap box) that we can find and proclaim the Gospel from there. People will either hear or not hear. The same words bring life to some and death to others. The very hearing of the Gospel of Jesus should identify you straight away. If it is foolishness to you then you are perishing, but if you are being saved then it is the power of God.

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

That all the kids bonding over the common enjoyment of team sports is far more important than Brian, a grown man's, need to pray with his kids.

This is a false dichotomy. The enjoyment of the sport and the prayer seem to help, not hinder, each other.

This has been one of the most pointless debates on this forum, and I'm truly sick of it so I'm out of here.

If you're sick of it why have you kept at it so long?

philologos

getz wrote: »

the only christian/or other religion that seems to go knocking on doors to spread their gospel, is either the mormans or the jehovah,s witnesses, it would be a nice change to see the church of rome or the anglican church practising what they preached ,in fact has anyone ever had any other church but those two, knocking on your door ?

I know the Catholic Church evangelises on the street occasionally, likewise through CMS Ireland the Church of Ireland does outreach too. Just because some church does it a different way than another doesn't mean that they are in any way better or worse.

Seaneh

getz wrote: »

the only christian/or other religion that seems to go knocking on doors to spread their gospel, is either the mormans or the jehovah,s witnesses, it would be a nice change to see the church of rome or the anglican church practising what they preached ,in fact has anyone ever had any other church but those two, knocking on your door ?

I don't knock on doors, that just annoys people. I do however do street outreach sometimes, we hand out gum/chocolate/random stuff to people on the condition that they take a tract, we don't make them stop to talk to us though, about 50% of people will stop and ask what it's all about, we talk for a few minutes, they usually have a very positive response, you get the odd smart arse who ends leaving with their tail between their legs within 5 minutes apologising for their assumptions and wishing us well. Most evangelical/penticostal/whatever christian churches will do some form of street outreach.

Seaneh

Wicknight wrote: »

This has been one of the most pointless debates on this forum.

Yes, it has, and you are the one who kept dragging it on this long.