Coach Zorn and religion in the locker room.

"Finfangirl wrote:

This is technically not dolphin related, but it is something that we've discussed as something that goes on in terms of who the dolphins were signing. (mods im not opposed to moving this to the general NFL thread, but i really think there is some validity to having it here)

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/10/20/cooley-portis-say-zorns-religion-divided-washingtons-locker-room/

But if we don't let the Zorns of the world shove their religious beliefs down our throats we are depriving them of the chance to practice their religious freedom. :pity:

2015 Season Dolphin Chatter Thread Part 2 Dan Campbell takes over as interim HC

"Finfangirl wrote:

This is technically not dolphin related, but it is something that we've discussed as something that goes on in terms of who the dolphins were signing. (mods im not opposed to moving this to the general NFL thread, but i really think there is some validity to having it here)

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/10/20/cooley-portis-say-zorns-religion-divided-washingtons-locker-room/

I think this probably belongs in PoFo, but it's a very interesting point. Maybe the mods will move it so we can keep talking about it without ruffling anyone's feathers.

Look at it this way. The other side of the coin is that Zorn has disciplined his life and obtained very positive results from a value system based on his religious beliefs. What he wants to do is instill discipline in the team by applying the same system, and requires the players to buy into it and the team culture based on it.. He's the head coach. He gets to say how the team is disciplined.

Of course, one can argue that if a player rejects the underlying religious teachings, he is entitled to be free from someone else's religion, so that the attempt to discipline and motivate the team in that manner is inappropriate. But think of Notre Dame. The team may be more pluralistic these days, and I don't really know how it is there, but religious beliefs still seemed part of the team culture if you watch "Knute Rockne - All-American," and you may be an outlier if you don't buy in.

I would recommend to you an old book (70's) named "North Dallas 40." It used to be a counterculture favorite. It's about a good defensive back who encounters a similar culture under Tom Landry (the names are changed, but you know who the characters are) and what ends up happening to him. It's very entertaining and deals with this issue.

"cdz12250 wrote:

I think this probably belongs in PoFo, but it's a very interesting point. Maybe the mods will move it so we can keep talking about it without ruffling anyone's feathers.

Look at it this way. The other side of the coin is that Zorn has disciplined his life and obtained very positive results from a value system based on his religious beliefs. What he wants to do is instill discipline in the team by applying the same system, and requires the players to buy into it and the team culture based on it.. He's the head coach. He gets to say how the team is disciplined.

Of course, one can argue that if a player rejects the underlying religious teachings, he is entitled to be free from someone else's religion, so that the attempt to discipline and motivate the team in that manner is inappropriate. But think of Notre Dame. The team may be more pluralistic these days, and I don't really know how it is there, but religious beliefs still seemed part of the team culture if you watch "Knute Rockne - All-American," and you may be an outlier if you don't buy in.

I would recommend to you an old book (70's) named "North Dallas 40." It used to be a counterculture favorite. It's about a good defensive back who encounters a similar culture under Tom Landry (the names are changed, but you know who the characters are) and what ends up happening to him. It's very entertaining and deals with this issue.

Wide receiver. The character was based on the author, Pete Gent, who was a WR for the Cowboys in the early 60s. Phil Elliott was similar to Gent. Seth Maxwell was similar to Don Meredith, etc.

"MrClean wrote:

Wide receiver. The character was based on the author, Pete Gent, who was a WR for the Cowboys in the early 60s. Phil Elliott was similar to Gent. Seth Maxwell was similar to Don Meredith, etc.

I stand corrected, sir. Thank you. Your memory is obviously less impaired than mine. I got comfused with Johnny Sample's book, "Confessions of a Dirty Ballplayer."

"Finfangirl wrote:

This is technically not dolphin related, but it is something that we've discussed as something that goes on in terms of who the dolphins were signing. (mods im not opposed to moving this to the general NFL thread, but i really think there is some validity to having it here)

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/10/20/cooley-portis-say-zorns-religion-divided-washingtons-locker-room/

We have had this discussion a few times in the religion forum and indeed in here when discussing other coaches. The arguments brought up are on point. Does it become obsessive versus does it provide discipline and focus for young men who perhaps have not had any in their lives? Both points have merit and the "line" is very personal, what may be over the line for one player may be just what another needs.

Jimmy Johnson had a priest as team chaplain. He did not simply have prayer and Bible study sessions for those players who wanted it but was also involved in counseling and player evaluation. Johnson, not a person of a particularly public faith position, thought it would be helpful.

I have served as chaplain for units of first responders. Many were people of faith, many (maybe even most) were not. I served all of them and they were evaluated on their own merits. Football players ought to be allowed that same freedom. In both directions.

"Finfangirl wrote:

This is technically not dolphin related, but it is something that we've discussed as something that goes on in terms of who the dolphins were signing. (mods im not opposed to moving this to the general NFL thread, but i really think there is some validity to having it here)

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/10/20/cooley-portis-say-zorns-religion-divided-washingtons-locker-room/

There is a difference though. Completely imposing your faith on your players, to where you are treating them differently based on their faith and dividing the lockerroom b/c of that... I haven't heard any reports of that.

"FinNasty wrote:

There is a difference though. Completely imposing your faith on your players, to where you are treating them differently based on their faith and dividing the lockerroom b/c of that... I haven't heard any reports of that.

As Ohio said, we've talked about this in the other forums before. I don't know about the NFL, where I think they likely keep a lid on these things pretty well, but there have been multiple cases in the news the last few years where public high school coach has attempted to force his players to participate in prayer, and/or punished players who didn't join in. It happened at my high school while I was there, but it was the early 90s and in WV, so the student was just kicked off of the team, and that was it.

IMO, unless it's a football team of an expresssly religious college, like BYU where they have their extreme honor code for example, it's none of the coach's business what his players do and believe, and at the NFL level, where he's their boss, that goes to another level.

The problem isn't having a set of beliefs, the problem is punishing (formally or informally) players for not having the same or similar beliefs.

If someone in charge has a set of values they want those beneath them to follow, then they need to make those things official rules and all religious connotation needs to be removed from them. You can't force people to pray, for example but you can have behavior clauses, like don't get arrested, etc. I don't even care if a coach has a chaplain or whatever.

It is no one's job to decide and or punish what another adult believes or doesn't believe.

As a side note, I wonder if there'd be more outrage if Zorn had been Muslim and instituted Sharia Law in the locker room?

"Ohiophinphan wrote:

We have had this discussion a few times in the religion forum and indeed in here when discussing other coaches. The arguments brought up are on point. Does it become obsessive versus does it provide discipline and focus for young men who perhaps have not had any in their lives? Both points have merit and the "line" is very personal, what may be over the line for one player may be just what another needs.

Jimmy Johnson had a priest as team chaplain. He did not simply have prayer and Bible study sessions for those players who wanted it but was also involved in counseling and player evaluation. Johnson, not a person of a particularly public faith position, thought it would be helpful.

I have served as chaplain for units of first responders. Many were people of faith, many (maybe even most) were not. I served all of them and they were evaluated on their own merits. Football players ought to be allowed that same freedom. In both directions.

Sounds fine in theory but why is it in these situations that when there's discrimination and people being made to feel unwanted, it's almost always the faithful who are guilty of it?

"Third Man wrote:

Sounds fine in theory but why is it in these situations that when there's discrimination and people being made to feel unwanted, it's almost always the faithful who are guilty of it?

Some of that is quite true. Sometimes it is media perception. I have shared how my faith has been regularly belittled or even insulted. It happens. I do think many people of faith are so filled with joy because of their faith they want others to experience that same joy. Christianity and Islam both share a mandate to proselytize and many folks do it badly.

Look at the responses in this thread. The majority are not supportive of the Christian faith. Yet I know from my experience folks here have been respectful of me and my vocation. One needs to learn how to share and when. Discrimination is always wrong and doubly so if done in the name of a loving God.

"Ohiophinphan wrote:

Some of that is quite true. Sometimes it is media perception. I have shared how my faith has been regularly belittled or even insulted. It happens. I do think many people of faith are so filled with joy because of their faith they want others to experience that same joy. Christianity and Islam both share a mandate to proselytize and many folks do it badly.

Look at the responses in this thread. The majority are not supportive of the Christian faith. Yet I know from my experience folks here have been respectful of me and my vocation. One needs to learn how to share and when. Discrimination is always wrong and doubly so if done in the name of a loving God.

Many or most? It is inherently rude, wouldn't you say, to have god say that it's your duty to make people agree with you? That is a route that leads inherently and inevitably to mischief (or worse), and it would be idle to dismiss that.

I mean, I think most people cringe away from door to door salesmen or people in the mall trying to get you to change your cell phone carrier, but at least their pitch isn't that you're being immoral and will live in eternal torture unless you agree to their particular doctrinal interpretation. Even when a message of religious proselytization is put at its nicest it still retains an inescapable core -- that there is one true morality and way to live and we are bound to live by it regardless of our own views. That is totalitarianism, and "hell" is a threat the way a gulag is a threat. Assuming a religious person doesn't kill you or throw you in an earthly jail as an earthly punishment with an option of forever more after that.

It is not a nice message, no matter how nice a person is or tries to make it sound. A guy like Zorn (if the report is accurate) or any number of people like him are acting in a perfectly natural and reasonable way according to the doctrine. It's the doctrine itself that's the problem.

"Third Man wrote:

Many or most? It is an inherently rude thing to do, wouldn't you say, to have god say that it's your duty to make people agree with you? That is a route that leads inherently and inevitably to mischief (or worse), and it would be idle to dismiss that.

I mean, I think most people cringe away from door to door salesmen or people in the mall trying to get you to change your cell phone carrier, but at least their pitch isn't that you're being immoral and will be sentenced to hell unless you agree. Even when a message of religious proselytization is put at its nicest it still retains an inescapable core -- that there is one true morality and way to live and we are bound to live by it regardless of our own views. That is totalitarianism, and "hell" is a threat the way a gulag is a threat. Assuming a religious person doesn't kill you or throw you in an earthly jail for not obeying.

It is not a nice message, no matter how nice a person is or tries to make it sound. A guy like Zorn (if the report is accurate) or any number of people like him are acting in a perfectly natural and reasonable way according to the doctrine. It's the doctrine itself that's the problem.

Its my understanding (which is limited as a staunch atheist since my teens early-20's) that a good Christian was supposed to prosthelytize by example. Live a good righteous life, and people will naturally follow. Its also my understanding that they are just supposed to "share the word" not indoctrinate or punish or hate, etc.

Here's the thing, we have to stop blasting the faith and start holding the actual people responsible. There's nothing inherently wrong with the Christian faith for example, the problem is many of its followers. Hold those people's feet to the fire and leave the faith out of it. If you don't want a belief or faith shoved down your throat, then don't try and shove your thoughts and beliefs down someone else's, instead hold the individual person responsible for their actions.

Zorn didn't alienate and punish his players BECAUSE he was a Christian. He did it because he was an self absorbed ***hole.

"Fin D wrote:

Its my understanding (which is limited as a staunch atheist since my teens early-20's) that a good Christian was supposed to prosthelytize by example. Live a good righteous life, and people will naturally follow. Its also my understanding that they are just supposed to "share the word" not indoctrinate or punish or hate, etc.

Here's the thing, we have to stop blasting the faith and start holding the actual people responsible. There's nothing inherently wrong with the Christian faith for example, the problem is many of its followers. Hold those people's feet to the fire and leave the faith out of it. If you don't want a belief or faith shoved down your throat, then don't try and shove your thoughts and beliefs down someone else's, instead hold the individual person responsible for their actions.

Zorn didn't alienate and punish his players BECAUSE he was a Christian. He did it because he was an self absorbed ***hole.

There's nothing wrong with the Christian faith if you ignore certain parts of Christian doctrine. Likewise there's nothing wrong with Islam if you ignore certain parts of the Koran and the Hadith. But that's a rather watery standard, wouldn't you say? It seems unfair that I'm not allowed to take the doctrine at face value in either case. Neither book presents itself as a list of "suggestions", after all.

"Third Man wrote:

There's nothing wrong with the Christian faith if you ignore certain parts of Christian doctrine. Likewise there's nothing wrong with Islam if you ignore certain parts of the Koran and the Hadith. But that's a rather watery standard, wouldn't you say? It seems unfair that I'm not allowed to take the doctrine at face value in either case. Neither book presents itself as a list of "suggestions", after all.

If your goal is to argue with a religious person than do as you please. If your goal is create change, even if its small like causing just one person of faith to second guess before they judge someone, then don't attack the faith.

If you aren't a person of faith then that generally means you fancy yourself a person of reason. How can you change the minds of the faithful with facts when faith is literally the opposite of facts? You can't really. So let people believe what they want, and only fight them when their actions cross the line.

Think of it like this....many non believers know, for a fact, that every holy text has been written/edited/compiled by humans. We know the message of that holy text is then further filtered through even more humans through preachers/holy men/clergy/etc. That's one of our main tenets when we try to argue AGAINST being faithful. Yet, we forget that knowledge entirely when it comes down to assessing blame. We blame the faith, not the people bastardizing it. You can win an argument against person, you CANNOT win an argument against a nebulous concept. Its why the War on Drugs doesn't work.

"Fin D wrote:

If your goal is to argue with a religious person than do as you please. If your goal is create change, even if its small like causing just one person of faith to second guess before they judge someone, then don't attack the faith.

If you aren't a person of faith then that generally means you fancy yourself a person of reason. How can you change the minds of the faithful with facts when faith is literally the opposite of facts? You can't really. So let people believe what they want, and only fight them when their actions cross the line.

Think of it like this....many non believers know, for a fact, that every holy text has been written/edited/compiled by humans. We know the message of that holy text is then further filtered through even more humans through preachers/holy men/clergy/etc. That's one of our main tenets when we try to argue AGAINST being faithful. Yet, we forget that knowledge entirely when it comes down to assessing blame. We blame the faith, not the people bastardizing it. You can win an argument against person, you CANNOT win an argument against a nebulous concept. Its why the War on Drugs doesn't work.

That way lies madness. Beyond that, it's disingenuous. I never presume that my goal is to make faithful people lose their faith and I should avoid useful lines of inquiry because it might turn them off. I just try to make the most sound logical argument I can. That's hard enough as it is.

The war on drugs analogy is somewhat bizarre, especially since a fan forum offers a much more apt one: homerism. Some people believe the Dolphins are gonna make the playoffs and challenge for the Super Bowl every year, regardless of anything else that might be going on. Is my goal when debating them (if I'm dumb enough to do so) supposed to be convincing them -- actually getting them to change their mind, even if that means ignoring some factually relevant point (for example, not pointing out to a Jet hater that the Jets are better) -- or should I just stick to saying what's right so far as I can see it and letting ridicule do whatever else it can do?

What I hope to get out of a debate most of all is a sharpening of my own mind and points of view. It's not to "win", though of course those things are related. Anything beyond that -- substantially changing people's minds or points out view -- is an arrogant goal, imo. And not itself a reasonable one, which makes it ironic for a person appealing to reason. Which is why, like I said, that way lies madness.

"Third Man wrote:

That way lies madness. Beyond that, it's disingenuous. I never presume that my goal is to make faithful people lose their faith and I should avoid useful lines of inquiry because it might turn them off. I just try to make the most sound logical argument I can. That's hard enough as it is.

The war on drugs analogy is somewhat bizarre, especially since a fan forum offers a much more apt one: homerism. Some people believe the Dolphins are gonna make the playoffs and challenge for the Super Bowl every year, regardless of anything else that might be going on. Is my goal when debating them (if I'm dumb enough to do so) supposed to be convincing them -- actually getting them to change their mind, even if that means ignoring some factually relevant point (for example, not pointing out to a Jet hater that the Jets are better) -- or should I just stick to saying what's right so far as I can see it and letting ridicule do whatever else it can do?

What I hope to get out of a debate most of all is a sharpening of my own mind and points of view. It's not to "win", though of course those things are related. Anything beyond that -- substantially changing people's minds or points out view -- is an arrogant goal, imo. And not itself a reasonable one, which makes it ironic for a person appealing to reason. Which is why, like I said, that way lies madness.

Fair enough. As I said, if your goal is just argue, then do as you please.

Just one thing, people change their minds all the time.

At one point in my life I was a christian, smoking, meat eating, conservative. Now, I'm a atheist, non smoking, vegan liberal.

"Fin D wrote:

Fair enough. As I said, if your goal is just argue, then do as you please.

Just one thing, people change their minds all the time.

At one point in my life I was a christian, smoking, meat eating, conservative. Now, I'm a atheist, non smoking, vegan liberal.

https://vid.me/3QC/marc-maron-atheist-vegan-clip

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

https://vid.me/3QC/marc-maron-atheist-vegan-clip

That was funny.

I just hope he knows he's a hypocrite.

"Fin D wrote:

Fair enough. As I said, if your goal is just argue, then do as you please.

Just one thing, people change their minds all the time.

At one point in my life I was a christian, smoking, meat eating, conservative. Now, I'm a atheist, non smoking, vegan liberal.

People do change their minds all the time, but I can't think of a single instance in my life where I went from thinking one thing to thinking the complete opposite just because one person made an immaculately framed argument. And even if I could think of such an instance my reaction would not be one of appreciation for that person but horror at a) having such a flimsy initial argument, and b) buying the second argument wholesale. Major life decisions should be made slowly, and usually are. People who go from thinking one thing, then read a book (or whatever), and start thinking something completely different, are without fail emotionally and intellectually immature. Not the kind of prize worth having, in other words.

As I keep saying, the fact that people do change their minds does not make it your responsibility to craft disingenuous arguments designed for that purpose. It's patronizing, and I'm sure you do not enjoy being patronized. Arguing in good faith is an end unto itself.

None of this is an argument for not having tact, by the way. I'm sure someone could interpret it that way. I simply don't agree that attacking the specifics of religious doctrine is a breach of decorum even if that's a case religious people are always eager to make. Am I really supposed to agree that it's off limits to talk about the fact that the Koran says -- in black and white -- that apostates should be killed? I'm the bad guy if I say that maybe this has something to do with the fact that people take it seriously and literally and go through with it? I find it remarkably bizarre such a statement made by me is considered more immoral than the preachment itself.

"Fin D wrote:

Fair enough. As I said, if your goal is just argue, then do as you please.

Just one thing, people change their minds all the time.

At one point in my life I was a christian, smoking, meat eating, conservative. Now, I'm a atheist, non smoking, vegan liberal.

Sounds like you're just trendy to me. :chuckle:

None of us know enough people to know whether "many" fits or "most". Probably "most" Christians here and abroad never speak about their faith at all in any context.

"Third Man" if the only Christians you have met are the cartoon caricatures you describe then I can understand why you say what you do. I would also submit that what you are describing as a Christian's duty or responsibility is alien to me. I neither bludgeon folks into agreeing or threaten those who disagree with condemnation. In context I teach and otherwise I proclaim my faith through example and when asked, proclamation. I am not sure where you obtained your understanding of "doctrine" but it is nothing like anything I work with or teach. A more proper understanding of Christian doctrine would be, I don't do "good works or proselytize, or whatever" in order to EARN God's merit, I do it because I have been GIVEN God's merit through Grace. That's a gift I find joyous and will share where I can.

If any of you would like to take this further into a discussion of doctrine, belief, and/or practice I would be happy to start a thread in the religion forum and discuss it.

Within the specific context of this thread, I readily agree that if Coach Zorn is making decisions based on perceived faith versus football skill then is wrong from the point of view of being a football coach and likewise from the point of view of "living a Christian life". I understand it and can even in some sense sympathize with it but he is wrong.

Sympathize how? How about this as a "for instance" Hypothetically player A is harming themselves by misuse of drugs, alcohol, risky behaviors, whatever. We Christians are not called to judge but unlike the non Christian population we are mandated by our faith to "Bear one another's burdens". So Coach B says to Player A, you need to stop those behaviors, they are harming you as a player and as a person. Within context, Coach B is trying to "love his neighbor". If Coach B has found solace from his own inner demons through prayer, meditation, worship, etc. why wouldn't Coach B offer his own experience as a model?

"Third Man wrote:

People do change their minds all the time, but I can't think of a single instance in my life where I went from thinking one thing to thinking the complete opposite just because one person made an immaculately framed argument. And even if I could think of such an instance my reaction would not be one of appreciation for that person but horror at a) having such a flimsy initial argument, and b) buying the second argument wholesale. Major life decisions should be made slowly, and usually are. People who go from thinking one thing, then read a book (or whatever), and start thinking something completely different, are without fail emotionally and intellectually immature. Not the kind of prize worth having, in other words.

As I keep saying, the fact that people do change their minds does not make it your responsibility to craft disingenuous arguments designed for that purpose. It's patronizing, and I'm sure you do not enjoy being patronized. Arguing in good faith is an end unto itself.

None of this is an argument for not having tact, by the way. I'm sure someone could interpret it that way. I simply don't agree that attacking the specifics of religious doctrine is a breach of decorum even if that's a case religious people are always eager to make. Am I really supposed to agree that it's off limits to talk about the fact that the Koran says -- in black and white -- that apostates should be killed? I'm the bad guy if I say that maybe this has something to do with the fact that people take it seriously and literally and go through with it? I find it remarkably bizarre such a statement made by me is considered more immoral than the preachment itself.

Well, now I think you're treading into a different territory.

First of all, the thread wasn't about doctrine.

Secondly, I'm not being disingenuous or patronizing at al.

Thirdly, the other reason what you're doing is folly is because every single person you're gonna argue with that is religious, already picks and chooses what they believe from whatever doctrine there is. Telling someone that Verse X proves their faith is doing something wrong, when they already ignore Verse Y, is the real exercise in futility.

Fourth, anyone that's never had their mind changed by a sound argument, then WADR, they need to look within themselves.

Fifth, this isn't about tact either. Maybe you noticed in one of my 60K+ posts, but tact isn't my strong suit. There's just is something to be said about (pardon the pun) practicing what you preach. If you're ticked off that people are trying to shove their beliefs down your throat, then don't do the same thing back. That's the kinda of thing that makes a person a hypocrite.

Sixth, back to the third point, all of the doctrine that you dislike or feel is wrong is open to interpretation. All of it, top to bottom can literally have any meaning someone wants to give it. You are basically trying to fit a nebulous concept, into a concrete box.

This is why I say make it about the person. Kim Davis was empowered by the fact people attacked her religion. She got a whole lot of support. If people had focused on the fact that she was marriage hypocrite who had no Biblical justification for what she did, then MAYBE she doesn't become a hero.

"Ohiophinphan wrote:

None of us know enough people to know whether "many" fits or "most". Probably "most" Christians here and abroad never speak about their faith at all in any context.

"Third Man" if the only Christians you have met are the cartoon caricatures you describe then I can understand why you say what you do. I would also submit that what you are describing as a Christian's duty or responsibility is alien to me. I neither bludgeon folks into agreeing or threaten those who disagree with condemnation. In context I teach and otherwise I proclaim my faith through example and when asked, proclamation. I am not sure where you obtained your understanding of "doctrine" but it is nothing like anything I work with or teach. A more proper understanding of Christian doctrine would be, I don't do "good works or proselytize, or whatever" in order to EARN God's merit, I do it because I have been GIVEN God's merit through Grace. That's a gift I find joyous and will share where I can.

If any of you would like to take this further into a discussion of doctrine, belief, and/or practice I would be happy to start a thread in the religion forum and discuss it.

Within the specific context of this thread, I readily agree that if Coach Zorn is making decisions based on perceived faith versus football skill then is wrong from the point of view of being a football coach and likewise from the point of view of "living a Christian life". I understand it and can even in some sense sympathize with it but he is wrong.

Sympathize how? How about this as a "for instance" Hypothetically player A is harming themselves by misuse of drugs, alcohol, risky behaviors, whatever. We Christians are not called to judge but unlike the non Christian population we are mandated by our faith to "Bear one another's burdens". So Coach B says to Player A, you need to stop those behaviors, they are harming you as a player and as a person. Within context, Coach B is trying to "love his neighbor". If Coach B has found solace from his own inner demons through prayer, meditation, worship, etc. why wouldn't Coach B offer his own experience as a model?

Most of my family -- and now that I think about, the balance of my friends -- are Christian. I'm well within my bounds to speak through anecdotal examples. Most are not proselytizers, but that was sort of my point. Of those Christians I know or have met that do proselytize, most do it badly and patronizingly. That's the "most" I was referring to. It is as you say impossible to make a judgement about billions of Christians which is why it didn't occur to me to clarify on that point.

As for the second bolded point: I understand where you are coming from, however you realize that this is also the kind of thing someone who is in a cult would say, right? It is not, in other words, a defense of any particular behavior. And I'm not even necessarily talking about a religious cult here. If you know people who are into Crossfit or trendy diets or whathaveyou you know what I mean. "Joy" is relative. It is very natural and common for people to have a blindspot about what gives them joy... that because it gives them such joy it will give others similar joy, if only they would realize it. That certain religions (most of them Western) encourage people to go out and spread the word makes this sort of rude behavior all the more common.

"Fin D wrote:

Well, now I think you're treading into a different territory.

First of all, the thread wasn't about doctrine.

Secondly, I'm not being disingenuous or patronizing at al.

Thirdly, the other reason what you're doing is folly is because every single person you're gonna argue with that is religious, already picks and chooses what they believe from whatever doctrine there is. Telling someone that Verse X proves their faith is doing something wrong, when they already ignore Verse Y, is the real exercise in futility.

Fourth, anyone that's never had their mind changed by a sound argument, then WADR, they need to look within themselves.

Fifth, this isn't about tact either. Maybe you noticed in one of my 60K+ posts, but tact isn't my strong suit. There's just is something to be said about (pardon the pun) practicing what you preach. If you're ticked off that people are trying to shove their beliefs down your throat, then don't do the same thing back. That's the kinda of thing that makes a person a hypocrite.

Sixth, back to the third point, all of the doctrine that you dislike or feel is wrong is open to interpretation. All of it, top to bottom can literally have any meaning someone wants to give it. You are basically trying to fit a nebulous concept, into a concrete box.

This is why I say make it about the person. Kim Davis was empowered by the fact people attacked her religion. She got a whole lot of support. If people had focused on the fact that she was marriage hypocrite who had no Biblical justification for what she did, then MAYBE she doesn't become a hero.

Do you think the doctrine of (some) religions themselves are part of the problem, or not? Are all religions equally moral or immoral... or are some worse than others?

I have already explained that my main goal in any argument -- not just a religious argument -- is to sharpen my own mind and positions. The best way to test your positions and discover new ideas is by writing and forming an argument. That is not folly. It is, as I've been saying, the only sane approach to take. I'm only responsible for what's in my own mind. If I get something across to the other person then that's gravy.