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.co...rns-religion-divided-washingtons-locker-room/
Page 1 of 3
-
-
MrClean Inglourious Basterd Club Member
TiP54, unifiedtheory, vt_dolfan and 10 others like this. -
2015 Season Dolphin Chatter Thread Part 2 Dan Campbell takes over as interim HC
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. -
MrClean likes this.
-
Ohiophinphan Chaplain Staff Member Luxury Box
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. -
Unlucky 13 likes this.
-
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?MrClean, Aqua4Ever04, DevilFin13 and 6 others like this. -
Ohiophinphan Chaplain Staff Member Luxury Box
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. -
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.Unlucky 13, Fin D and Finfangirl like this. -
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.Wyvern_Bob, ToddPhin, Claymore95 and 1 other person like this. -
MrClean likes this.
-
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. -
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. -
-
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.ToddPhin likes this. -
-
Ohiophinphan Chaplain Staff Member Luxury Box
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? -
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. -
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. -
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. -
Ohiophinphan Chaplain Staff Member Luxury Box
As to your second point, I concede that freely. The difference between a cult and a faith is often simply the number of adherents. I do not pretend that the preconceptions of the Christian faith are from a pre-rationalist time when truth and fact were different and metaphor was often accepted uncritically. Your example of the frenzies induced at sales seminars of home sale companies is quite apropos. They often have aspects of the fervor of a "religious experience". Yet I stand by my point as to why people of faith often find the need to express their feelings even when they are not called for. -
Ohiophinphan Chaplain Staff Member Luxury Box
As to moralities, much of the same argument would hold for me. Some faiths are more law based. If you do this then god will do that. Those moral codes are often rigid and arbitrary and could be secular.
I understand a progressive revelation of God, that is we as a community of faith come to understand what God wants us to do in a certain circumstance as a growing, evolving experience. That is both freeing and dangerous in the same breath.
BTW, your point of most folks changing their long held positions slowly and incrementally is spot on. Which is beyond scripture, why I have a tremendous problem with so-called "decision theology". It is not Biblical to my mind and from a social science point of view makes little sense. -
Of course I do. I think all religions have at minimum one thing good in them, but I think they are all wrong and corrupt as institutions. But again, no one adheres to their religion 100%, so its fruitless to find the things that are objectionable and harp on them, because they are already picking choosing. Faith is malleable. People bend it to their will all the time. That's why I say go after the individual.
-
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkOhiophinphan likes this. -
Ohiophinphan Chaplain Staff Member Luxury Box
A specific example would be the Old Testament book of Jonah. Is that a truth story or a fact story? Today we want to know whether it "happened". When it was written, I very much doubt whether that question even arose. I pick that because in the Gospels, Jesus uses the Jonah account as a model for His time in the tomb.
That presents a problem for today's reader. Can you believe the Jonah story was a mythic account intended to reveal a truth about God and His relationship to His people and yet still believe that Jesus literally spent from Good Friday to Easter morning in the tomb? I can but folks who can't get by their rationalist upbringing often have trouble blending the two.
Not sure that helps but I am trying. -
Ohiophinphan likes this.
-
Back to the story. I don't think Zorn and Smith's actions were illegal. I think it is only illegal to discriminate while hiring based on religion, but that freedom of religious speech extends to the work place even in a superior/subordinate relationship.
In many workplaces, if people complained or word got out, you'd be asked to stop.
I wonder if the vector of Zorn's life is so religious that he's tone deaf about atheism, just viewing people as either repentant and saved or unrepentant, unsaved sinners.
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkOhiophinphan likes this. -
Ohiophinphan Chaplain Staff Member Luxury Box
-
First you have to understand that people thought differently before the Enlightenment then they did after.
So we need to understand how the thinkers of AE (After Enlightenment) view the concepts of "fact" and "belief".
"Fact" essentially means something we know because we can prove it. (Johnny is Sarah's brother.) Let's give this the color blue.
"Belief" means something we have faith in even though we can never prove it. (Johnny will never let anything bad happen to Sarah.) Let's give this the color red.
These concepts are opposites. You cannot prove a "belief", because the second you do, it becomes a fact. You can't have faith in a fact, because faith is about not knowing something to be a fact but believing it anyway. Something cannot be red and blue. If you mix them then you get something that is neither red nor blue.
If you understand that, then realize the thinkers from BE didn't see the difference between those concepts. It was neither red nor blue, it was purple. Fact and belief merged together (which is basically philosophy) so people of the time developed the concept of "truth". Now its not "truth" like we know it today, as in something that is provable like a fact. They meant it as what is the excepted truth or what is true to them. Which means for something to be a "truth" back then, it was neither provable by their means nor was it necessarily felt in their hearts..it just was. Its similar to when you're a kid and your parent says if you sit too close to the TV you'll go blind. The average kid doesn't have the faculties and resources to prove or disprove that. They also don't feel a deep seeded need to believe that in their hearts, so they just accept it...to them it is just the truth.
Did that help?Zippy and Unlucky 13 like this. -
Fin D likes this.
-
First, rationalist thought was invented millennia before the Enlightenment. I won't bother with a list of Greeks, Romans, East Indians and Chinese. You know who I'm talking about. They just lacked the later science and technology.
Second, pre-Enlightenment religious philosophers (they call them theologians now) have stood on the shoulders of rational philosophers since at least Jerome. Think of Aquinas and Luther, too, so as not to leave Ohiophinfan and his flavor of Christianity out.
Third, reason and faith are not mutually exclusive the way I see it. Reason can take you to faith, because you go as far as you can with reason and have faith in what you intuit from your reason but can't prove objectively. -
The idea of fact vs. faith is indeed at the root of a lot of controversy.
To me, fact is something that has been proven to a reasonable logical certainty, based on objective knowledge regarding which there is little or no reasonable dispute.
But a lot of people of faith do not believe, or profess not to believe, in what most people accept as fact, because the fact is inconsistent with the construct of their faith.
Think Copernicus and Darwin.Fin D likes this. -
Honestly, if a person tried to prove their faith as a fact, then in reality, they have have weak or no faith. If their faith was strong, they wouldn't need to change it into a fact. -
More specifically, some Christians could say that Genesis is an epic allegorical poem, and that the garden, origin of humanity and animals, and the flood never happened. But they could not say that the death and resurrection might have never happened, and still be Christians. The thing is: believers have faith that the written accounts in the new testament were facts when they were written, just that they are not verifiable now.Ohiophinphan likes this.
Page 1 of 3