Is our athletic department "too religious"?

[ballrun44 0]

Here' my spin on hiring practices that seem to be germane to this topic :

Say you are hiring a new Jr. Executive in your firm. You whittle the choices down to two guys who both interviewed well and look the same on paper - except ONE area. One has a degree from Auburn and one from Alabama. You are a Dye Hard Auburn fan. Who do you chose? I'd take the Auburn guy. Why? Because we'd have a lot more in common and share some like interests. Is this discrimination? If so, on what grounds?

Since JJ is a Christian, why wouldn't he feel more comfortable hiring someone he understands in a deeper way. He knows the motives of the individual. He shares common worldviews, etc. It isn't necessarily "discrimination" as much as it is a practice of hiring someone you are more familiar with.

Hiring based on "familiarity goes on ALL THE TIME in the world - it is only brought up negatively against Christians.

WAR EAGLE

[homersapien 11,373]

Here' my spin on hiring practices that seem to be germane to this topic :

Say you are hiring a new Jr. Executive in your firm. You whittle the choices down to two guys who both interviewed well and look the same on paper - except ONE area. One has a degree from Auburn and one from Alabama. You are a Dye Hard Auburn fan. Who do you chose? I'd take the Auburn guy. Why? Because we'd have a lot more in common and share some like interests. Is this discrimination? If so, on what grounds?

Since JJ is a Christian, why wouldn't he feel more comfortable hiring someone he understands in a deeper way. He knows the motives of the individual. He shares common worldviews, etc. It isn't necessarily "discrimination" as much as it is a practice of hiring someone you are more familiar with.

Hiring based on "familiarity goes on ALL THE TIME in the world - it is only brought up negatively against Christians.

WAR EAGLE

Not until it becomes a public issue.

Otherwise I don't take issue with your post. The real question is how those religious prejudices are expressed in the department and the team.

[stealthyfan 124]

Different is not crazy. Being insistent that others adopt your viewpoint is equally crazy if any are.

Defined: Zealot and my point as well.

[stealthyfan 124]

Here' my spin on hiring practices that seem to be germane to this topic :

Say you are hiring a new Jr. Executive in your firm. You whittle the choices down to two guys who both interviewed well and look the same on paper - except ONE area. One has a degree from Auburn and one from Alabama. You are a Dye Hard Auburn fan. Who do you chose? I'd take the Auburn guy. Why? Because we'd have a lot more in common and share some like interests. Is this discrimination? If so, on what grounds?

Since JJ is a Christian, why wouldn't he feel more comfortable hiring someone he understands in a deeper way. He knows the motives of the individual. He shares common worldviews, etc. It isn't necessarily "discrimination" as much as it is a practice of hiring someone you are more familiar with.

Hiring based on "familiarity goes on ALL THE TIME in the world - it is only brought up negatively against Christians.

WAR EAGLE

LOL

Substitute White man for Christian and read that out loud.

[walker77 0]

^^^^^^^Over 40 years old white males^^^^^^^

[walker77 0]

The problem you have is your slanted interpretations. Religion and public acknowledgment of same are two entirely different topics. Let help you out....I consider myself a Christian and thus a believer but I never publicly acknowledge that in the work place. Those are 2 different topics but BTW..I don't care if someone feels compelled to announce their Christianity or their atheism...in case you missed it both of those are beliefs. Your last comment provides a pretty good indication that you take yourself AND your points of view entirely too seriously....son! :hellyeah:/> I would like to add that I don't believe this is a right and/or wrong debate. People are entitled to believe whatever they wish without fear of reprisal. My comments are primarily directed at answering the question in the OP and is my opinion.

Everybody has slanted interpretations... based on their worldview...

That is part of what is driving this thread. Now as far as separating our religion from our job, shopping, coaching, or playing rec league ball... Regardless of what one thinks, each of our religious belief systems will be evident and will be seen by others... Not necessarily evangelism, but rather the testimony of what we believe will be evident in our demeanor, attitudes, integrity, etc., will be seen by others. This is why we need coaches with excellent coaching skills AND a strong Christian character in my opinion.

[IndianTiger 95]

Its all about "Fairness" isn't it, if our beliefs are going to cloud our fairness. Very simple. A friend forwarded this story to me http://michigantoday.umich.edu/story.php?id=8593%23.UXBqiBXD-P8#.UXKiTrVJN10

[auburn4ever 1,266]

If you are honest and it truly comes from your heart when talkng about your faith, then no. you can't be too religious about your Christian faith as long as you mean what you say.

[homersapien 11,373]

The problem you have is your slanted interpretations. Religion and public acknowledgment of same are two entirely different topics. Let help you out....I consider myself a Christian and thus a believer but I never publicly acknowledge that in the work place. Those are 2 different topics but BTW..I don't care if someone feels compelled to announce their Christianity or their atheism...in case you missed it both of those are beliefs. Your last comment provides a pretty good indication that you take yourself AND your points of view entirely too seriously....son! :hellyeah:/> I would like to add that I don't believe this is a right and/or wrong debate. People are entitled to believe whatever they wish without fear of reprisal. My comments are primarily directed at answering the question in the OP and is my opinion.

Everybody has slanted interpretations... based on their worldview...

That is part of what is driving this thread. Now as far as separating our religion from our job, shopping, coaching, or playing rec league ball... Regardless of what one thinks, each of our religious belief systems will be evident and will be seen by others... Not necessarily evangelism, but rather the testimony of what we believe will be evident in our demeanor, attitudes, integrity, etc., will be seen by others. This is why we need coaches with excellent coaching skills AND a strong Christian character in my opinion.

Well speaking for myself, that is not what I am talking about. I am referring specifically to organizing and directing group activities involving prayer or religious discussion. I have no problem with people in authority exhibiting their religious beliefs indirectly through their actions or even statements as long as they do it in a way that is non-coercive to those with different beliefs.

By non-coercive, I mean avoiding the impression that subordinates are evaluated by those religious standards or otherwise made to feel they need to accept them to please the one in authority.

[Mikey 16,600]

Quote: ".... I am referring specifically to organizing and directing group activities involving prayer or religious discussion..."

And that's all this thread was ever intended to be about, at least as stated by the OP. "Coercion" is what happens when those in authority organize or direct an activity. Period.

[Aufan59 62]

I don't mind it being overly religious. Faith can keep these young men out of trouble and give them direction. It is the same reason you lie to your kids about Santa Clause.

[stealthyfan 124]

I don't mind it being overly religious. Faith can keep these young men out of trouble and give them direction. It is the same reason you lie to your kids about Santa Clause.

This is the funniest post of the day!

[AUIH1 1,515]

Quote: ".... I am referring specifically to organizing and directing group activities involving prayer or religious discussion..."

And that's all this thread was ever intended to be about, at least as stated by the OP. "Coercion" is what happens when those in authority organize or direct an activity. Period.

Exactly and it was a good, legitmate question.

wde

[Tigerbelle 5,299]

Its all about "Fairness" isn't it, if our beliefs are going to cloud our fairness. Very simple. A friend forwarded this story to me http://michigantoday...P8#.UXKiTrVJN10

Thanks for that link! Fascinating story.

[ausburn 159]

Quote: ".... I am referring specifically to organizing and directing group activities involving prayer or religious discussion..."

And that's all this thread was ever intended to be about, at least as stated by the OP. "Coercion" is what happens when those in authority organize or direct an activity. Period.

Exactly and it was a good, legitmate question.

wde

Where is the coercion? No mention of coercion in the start of the thread. Only reference listed was the old Tony Franklin article from two head coaches ago and the posters opinion. You have made coercion the simple act to organize or direct an activity. That would include dinner, bingo, bowling, watching TV, etc. The other view stated above is that the only coercion that is incorrect involves prayer or religious discussion. That view appears to imply the removal of any activity or discussion of a religious nature. I don't think any of our players have been demoted on the depth chart, had their scholarships removed, or moved up the depth chart because they did or did not attend a group activity involving prayer or religious discussion.

[Mikey 16,600]

If you don't understand the coercion involved when persons in authority espouse a particular religious or political belief, I can't explain it to you. Once you've been on the receiving end it becomes very clear.

[AUIH1 1,515]

Quote: ".... I am referring specifically to organizing and directing group activities involving prayer or religious discussion..."

And that's all this thread was ever intended to be about, at least as stated by the OP. "Coercion" is what happens when those in authority organize or direct an activity. Period.

Exactly and it was a good, legitmate question.

wde

Where is the coercion? No mention of coercion in the start of the thread. Only reference listed was the old Tony Franklin article from two head coaches ago and the posters opinion. You have made coercion the simple act to organize or direct an activity. That would include dinner, bingo, bowling, watching TV, etc. The other view stated above is that the only coercion that is incorrect involves prayer or religious discussion. That view appears to imply the removal of any activity or discussion of a religious nature. I don't think any of our players have been demoted on the depth chart, had their scholarships removed, or moved up the depth chart because they did or did not attend a group activity involving prayer or religious discussion.

Speaking only for me, my concern about the AU athletics possibly being "too religious" thus undermining the success of the AD comes not from the coaching staff(s) actions towards the players; my concern comes from how religion may have affected hires, contracts and decisions made by the Athletic Director.

wde

[ausburn 159]

Quote: ".... I am referring specifically to organizing and directing group activities involving prayer or religious discussion..."

And that's all this thread was ever intended to be about, at least as stated by the OP. "Coercion" is what happens when those in authority organize or direct an activity. Period.

Exactly and it was a good, legitmate question.

wde

Where is the coercion? No mention of coercion in the start of the thread. Only reference listed was the old Tony Franklin article from two head coaches ago and the posters opinion. You have made coercion the simple act to organize or direct an activity. That would include dinner, bingo, bowling, watching TV, etc. The other view stated above is that the only coercion that is incorrect involves prayer or religious discussion. That view appears to imply the removal of any activity or discussion of a religious nature. I don't think any of our players have been demoted on the depth chart, had their scholarships removed, or moved up the depth chart because they did or did not attend a group activity involving prayer or religious discussion.

Speaking only for me, my concern about the AU athletics possibly being "too religious" thus undermining the success of the AD comes not from the coaching staff(s) actions towards the players; my concern comes from how religion may have affected hires, contracts and decisions made by the Athletic Director.

wde

I see your concerns. As a theory it might have merit, but as a practice I don't see it. I understand how a person may or may not be comfortable with the discussion of religion, but I don't see it having been approved as a condition of hiring or formulated into a contract. It appears to be a reason to further not like or support an Athletic Director based upon an expression of personal beliefs. I don't think an expression of belief meets a standard of coercion. I don't like hearing roll tide and talk shows expressing the greatness of Saban, but because I don't like it doesn't mean it is coercion. Say someone has a boss who is a big Bama fan that attends their games, talks about Bama in the work place, and invites fellow workers to attend games. Does it affect his hiring, contracts or decisions as it related to non Bama fans? Some times your boss likes things you don't like, but you do what you were hired to do.

[homersapien 11,373]

Quote: ".... I am referring specifically to organizing and directing group activities involving prayer or religious discussion..."

And that's all this thread was ever intended to be about, at least as stated by the OP. "Coercion" is what happens when those in authority organize or direct an activity. Period.

Exactly and it was a good, legitmate question.

wde

Where is the coercion? No mention of coercion in the start of the thread. Only reference listed was the old Tony Franklin article from two head coaches ago and the posters opinion. You have made coercion the simple act to organize or direct an activity. That would include dinner, bingo, bowling, watching TV, etc. The other view stated above is that the only coercion that is incorrect involves prayer or religious discussion. That view appears to imply the removal of any activity or discussion of a religious nature. I don't think any of our players have been demoted on the depth chart, had their scholarships removed, or moved up the depth chart because they did or did not attend a group activity involving prayer or religious discussion.

Speaking only for me, my concern about the AU athletics possibly being "too religious" thus undermining the success of the AD comes not from the coaching staff(s) actions towards the players; my concern comes from how religion may have affected hires, contracts and decisions made by the Athletic Director.

wde

I see your concerns. As a theory it might have merit, but as a practice I don't see it. I understand how a person may or may not be comfortable with the discussion of religion, but I don't see it having been approved as a condition of hiring or formulated into a contract. It appears to be a reason to further not like or support an Athletic Director based upon an expression of personal beliefs. I don't think an expression of belief meets a standard of coercion. I don't like hearing roll tide and talk shows expressing the greatness of Saban, but because I don't like it doesn't mean it is coercion. Say someone has a boss who is a big Bama fan that attends their games, talks about Bama in the work place, and invites fellow workers to attend games. Does it affect his hiring, contracts or decisions as it related to non Bama fans? Some times your boss likes things you don't like, but you do what you were hired to do.

It doesn't.

But if you institute prayer, particularly a sectarian prayer, as part of the routine in any team activity, it naturally implies to any member of the team, they should participate. After all, it's a team. And if given an option to opt out, exercising that option in front of your team is even worse.

There is no justifiable reason to put individuals into that position, and it is certainly not necessary.

[ausburn 159]

Quote: ".... I am referring specifically to organizing and directing group activities involving prayer or religious discussion..."

And that's all this thread was ever intended to be about, at least as stated by the OP. "Coercion" is what happens when those in authority organize or direct an activity. Period.

Exactly and it was a good, legitmate question.

wde

Where is the coercion? No mention of coercion in the start of the thread. Only reference listed was the old Tony Franklin article from two head coaches ago and the posters opinion. You have made coercion the simple act to organize or direct an activity. That would include dinner, bingo, bowling, watching TV, etc. The other view stated above is that the only coercion that is incorrect involves prayer or religious discussion. That view appears to imply the removal of any activity or discussion of a religious nature. I don't think any of our players have been demoted on the depth chart, had their scholarships removed, or moved up the depth chart because they did or did not attend a group activity involving prayer or religious discussion.

Speaking only for me, my concern about the AU athletics possibly being "too religious" thus undermining the success of the AD comes not from the coaching staff(s) actions towards the players; my concern comes from how religion may have affected hires, contracts and decisions made by the Athletic Director.

wde

I see your concerns. As a theory it might have merit, but as a practice I don't see it. I understand how a person may or may not be comfortable with the discussion of religion, but I don't see it having been approved as a condition of hiring or formulated into a contract. It appears to be a reason to further not like or support an Athletic Director based upon an expression of personal beliefs. I don't think an expression of belief meets a standard of coercion. I don't like hearing roll tide and talk shows expressing the greatness of Saban, but because I don't like it doesn't mean it is coercion. Say someone has a boss who is a big Bama fan that attends their games, talks about Bama in the work place, and invites fellow workers to attend games. Does it affect his hiring, contracts or decisions as it related to non Bama fans? Some times your boss likes things you don't like, but you do what you were hired to do.

It doesn't.

But if you institute prayer, particularly a sectarian prayer, as part of the routine in any team activity, it naturally implies to any member of the team, they should participate. After all, it's a team. And if given an option to opt out, exercising that option in front of your team is even worse.

There is no justifiable reason to put individuals into that position, and it is certainly not necessary.

Do you say the pledge of allegiance, sing the national anthem, sing the Auburn alma mater, or remain silent for a moment of silence at games? No one makes you take part in singing, reciting' or standing for any portion of those group events. Do you excuse yourself and leave the stands in objection? No one judges you if you do or don't. Someone can be excluded/offended from a team event for many reasons. A prayer would not be mutually exclusive as the only means to be alienate a player. (Edit clarification: Feeling uncomfortable or not included in a group setting can occur for reasons other than religious. Should have written mutually excluded.) I see your view but will not exercise an option out which would be worse. These items have been meted out in the courts on numerous cases. Let's close this discussion. No offense but this is not what is wrong with our athletics.

[TheBlueVue 177]

I would almost bet any amount of money the "problems" that have pretty much been "cooked up" in this thread, as it relates to the AD being too religious, are not even a small hindrance much less a problem for the kids on Auburn's roster.

[homersapien 11,373]

Quote: ".... I am referring specifically to organizing and directing group activities involving prayer or religious discussion..."

And that's all this thread was ever intended to be about, at least as stated by the OP. "Coercion" is what happens when those in authority organize or direct an activity. Period.

Exactly and it was a good, legitmate question.

wde

Where is the coercion? No mention of coercion in the start of the thread. Only reference listed was the old Tony Franklin article from two head coaches ago and the posters opinion. You have made coercion the simple act to organize or direct an activity. That would include dinner, bingo, bowling, watching TV, etc. The other view stated above is that the only coercion that is incorrect involves prayer or religious discussion. That view appears to imply the removal of any activity or discussion of a religious nature. I don't think any of our players have been demoted on the depth chart, had their scholarships removed, or moved up the depth chart because they did or did not attend a group activity involving prayer or religious discussion.

Speaking only for me, my concern about the AU athletics possibly being "too religious" thus undermining the success of the AD comes not from the coaching staff(s) actions towards the players; my concern comes from how religion may have affected hires, contracts and decisions made by the Athletic Director.

wde

I see your concerns. As a theory it might have merit, but as a practice I don't see it. I understand how a person may or may not be comfortable with the discussion of religion, but I don't see it having been approved as a condition of hiring or formulated into a contract. It appears to be a reason to further not like or support an Athletic Director based upon an expression of personal beliefs. I don't think an expression of belief meets a standard of coercion. I don't like hearing roll tide and talk shows expressing the greatness of Saban, but because I don't like it doesn't mean it is coercion. Say someone has a boss who is a big Bama fan that attends their games, talks about Bama in the work place, and invites fellow workers to attend games. Does it affect his hiring, contracts or decisions as it related to non Bama fans? Some times your boss likes things you don't like, but you do what you were hired to do.

It doesn't.

But if you institute prayer, particularly a sectarian prayer, as part of the routine in any team activity, it naturally implies to any member of the team, they should participate. After all, it's a team. And if given an option to opt out, exercising that option in front of your team is even worse.

There is no justifiable reason to put individuals into that position, and it is certainly not necessary.

Do you say the pledge of allegiance, sing the national anthem, sing the Auburn alma mater, or remain silent for a moment of silence at games?

That is not an equivalent situation. I am referring more to small groups that work together and know each other. In other words, a cohesive social group. Large public gathering of essentially strangers is a completely different dynamic. No one knows or cares if you participate or not. (But even then, things like prayer (or the pledge of allegiance for that matter) have the power to make a given individual feel estranged from the group.)

No one makes you take part in singing, reciting' or standing for any portion of those group events.

Never claimed they did. Ya'll need to drop this argument. No one has suggested anyone is literally forcing someone to do anything. I am talking social coercion.

Do you excuse yourself and leave the stands in objection? No one judges you if you do or don't.

Doesn't matter if I do or not. No one knows who I am, nor is there any reason to think they will be involved in my life in the future, so it's not likely I would feel coerced as much as simply somewhat alienated.

Also, as an aside, none of those things you list, possibly except for the Pledge of Allegiance, are the sort of things that would make someone feel alienated. Certainly not to the extent a prayer would.

If someone doesn't feel comfortable in a group setting that is not mutual to only an expression of religion. I see your view but will not exercise an option out which would be worse.

Sorry, but this doesn't make any sense.

These items have been meted out in the courts on numerous cases. Let's close this discussion. No offense but this is not what is wrong with our athletics.

The courts have agreed with my position regarding sanctioned prayer in public schools. I think the same principles apply to an athletic team in a public university.

And, no offense(?), but I never said this was "what is wrong" with our athletics. But, considering the public face that has been put on their religious beliefs by the previous administration, some of whom are still there, I think it's a legitimate topic of discussion.

There's no reason to get upset about it. If you prefer, think of it as a matter of simple courtesy instead of coercion. I hope the current administration will read this and reconsider how they are doing things (if it's relevant at all).

As far as closing the discussion I have said all I need to, so I am OK with that. But I reserve the right to respond to additional posts.

[keesler 5,924]

I would almost bet any amount of money the "problems" that have pretty much been "cooked up" in this thread, as it relates to the AD being too religious, are not even a small hindrance much less a problem for the kids on Auburn's roster.

I'm beginning to believe this as well Vue. Not even one person has been able to show evidence that religion of any kind is even an issue at Auburn let alone a "problem" for the athletic dept.

[DyeCampAlum 335]

"Jacobs, who peppered many of his comments with religious imagery, said he started and ended every meeting with Tuberville with a prayer, and thanked Auburn supporters for their 'prayer time.'"

"We have fans all over the US and I think it is time that they RISE UP and snatch back what satan, himself, has stolen."

No. Nothing to see here at all.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"Jacobs, who peppered many of his comments with religious imagery, said he started and ended every meeting with Tuberville with a prayer, and thanked Auburn supporters for their 'prayer time.'"

"We have fans all over the US and I think it is time that they RISE UP and snatch back what satan, himself, has stolen."

No. Nothing to see here at all.

What is the source of that quotation? Ive never seen it or heard it.