Anti-Christian Bigots Target Clemson Football Program

http://leomcneil.net/2014/04/17/anti-christian-bigots-target-clemson-football-program/ ^ | April 17, 2014 | Leo McNeil

[LeoMcNeil]

Something called the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) has sent a demand letter to Clemson University regarding its football program. It appears head coach Dabo Swinney has had the unmitigated audacity to hire a team chaplain and have Bible studies. Three privately funded buses took the team to a church. Even more outrageous, three players spoke of their faith in Jesus Christ at a Fellowship of Christian Athletes breakfast. The real horror is that their teammates heard about that faith in person. FFRF is a meddling group from Wisconsin intent on eliminating faith from the public square. Interestingly there isn’t a single Clemson player speaking out against Swinney’s inclusion of Christianity in the football program.

[DonkeyBonker]

““Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF)”

Someone should sue the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) for not having anyChristians in it’s organization.

10 posted on Thursday, April 17, 2014 7:39:36 AM by HereInTheHeartland (Obama lied; our healthcare died.)”

LOVE IT!!!

[shibumi]

Glad you asked, chesley.

Leo - you might find this interesting reading too.

Here’s what Jim has said on he matter -

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3109294/posts?page=64#64

[envisio]

Thats what I was thinking.

I thought that was the reason FR has a ‘bloggers and personal’ sidebar.

[jsanders2001]

The only way people like Gaylor can be touched is by experiencing the true love of Christ through another Christian which eill have to be orchestrated by God through prayer.

[jsanders2001]

> The Founders decided that was a lot better plan that the current religion police that the Freedom from Religion Foundation apparently wants to use to prosecute those who don’t practice religion their way.

Athiesm is a religion of non-religion...: )

[shibumi]

Read my post directly above yours.

[envisio]

I missed the part where the coach is forcing these players to pray.

All he has to do is make it clear to the players that these bible studies are voluntary.

[chesley]

No it doesn’t bother me.

If what he posts interests me, then I will hit his blog. If not, then I won’t. He’s not using me, I’m not a victim.

I make my own choices, and I’m glad to have the opportunity to make them.

But let me dig a little further. Even assuming that he is, what is the harm to you?

[envisio]

I wonder if this FFRF outfit would raise cane if the players had a “Cultural Diversity Enlightenment Day” where they all had to sit on rugs facing Mecca and pray to Mohamed. This... in the name of cultural sensitivity™.

Would the atheists pitch a fit about that?

[humblegunner]

Even assuming that he is, what is the harm to you?

Street thugs with sagging pants don't harm me but I'm free to dislike the practice.

Decent folks don't do it, that's enough reason for me to object.

Blogpimping is no different.

[xzins]

A court ruling at some point listed atheism as a religion. Alamo-girl used to have it memorized, iirc. :>)

[chesley]

Furthermore, I’m not big on “rules.” You won’t see me posting rules for bloggers. The rules for bloggers on FR are the same as the rules for everyone else. If you are a good conservative activist and are willing to work with US on OUR goals and causes and not against US, then you’re welcome to post to FR. But unless we say otherwise your blog material should be posted to our bloggers forum and it would be best if you do not excerpt your own material and if you would actually join in on the discussion here on FR. We’re not really that interested in driving OUR traffic to YOUR blog. But if our readers see that you post useful information then they might start reading your site and that’s fine by me.

I can see Jim's point, and it is his site, so I have no objection. He wants the site to contribute to his goals. OK, i get that, and, in fact, I have bee aware of his views.

Great. As I mentioned, he has the ability to do something about it.

But, for myself, I disagree. I enjoy these posts; I choose which blogs to visit, and I don't understand people who are not the site's owner objecting so vociferously.

They are entitled to their opinion, same as me. I just don't feel that way about it, and don't understand it..

[shibumi]

OK - Here’s my opinion, in more depth.

I’d personalize the response for you, but I’ve got to run, so I’m using a previous post as a shortcut.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3143762/posts?page=11#11

[LeoMcNeil]

The notion that a coach like Dabo Swinney will sit players because they aren’t Christians is ridiculous. He’s paid to win football games. Most of these coaches are practical. He knows if he loses his job because he doesn’t win football games he won’t be able to share faith in Christ with his team.

[angryoldfatman]

It’s the only thing he “contributes” to FR. Give the poor guy a break.

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed, that one was hard to miss. It was

Kaufman v McCaughtry in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

I hope that one day, Christian attorneys will seize on this decision to show that atheism has been established as the religion of the land and thereby get that first ruling banning prayer in publicly funded schools (which led to the empowerment of atheist activism) finally set aside.

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed, dear brother in Christ. The First Amendment, as Justice Clarence Thomas said (paraphrased) guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

[chesley]

Thanks. I have a better understanding of your position, now.

Don’t say that I agree with it; but at least you give valid reasons. I don’t like broccoli, either, but there are those that do, and I can’t say they are wrong..

Thanks, again for your explanation.

[jsanders2001]

And there's the magic parapraphs which spell it out: The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545U.S. 844, 125 S.Ct. 2722, 162 L.Ed.2d 729 (2005).   The Establishment Clause itself says only that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls “nonreligion.”   In McCreary County, it described the touchstone of Establishment Clause analysis as “the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.”  Id. at *10 (internal quotations omitted).   As the Court put it in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479, 86 L.Ed.2d 29 (1985): At one time it was thought that this right [referring to the right to choose one's own creed] merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism.   But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all.

[SunkenCiv]

> Interestingly there isn’t a single Clemson player speaking out against Swinney’s inclusion of Christianity in the football program.