FFRF goes after Auburn, Rev. Chette Williams

[homersapien 11,373]

Would you say that to him face to face?

Say what? That's he's calling me a liar by continuously rejecting my assertion I wasn't implying what he claims?

Certainly I would. Then I'd ignore him and carry on.

No, would you tell him to go f*** himself, face to face?

Sure I would. Face to face. Go F*** yourself.

Otherwise I wouldn't have said it on this forum.

Is that clear enough?

Said as an anonymous message board keyboard jockey. Yeah okay bud.

Seriously? You keep pestering me for a response until you finally get it, then play the "you're internet tough" card?

That's really lame. :-\

[homersapien 11,373]

As usual, homie makes the crazy claim that AU is denying mullahs, shamans, and rabbis and when it is pointed out that it is ludicrously untrue tries to say he never really said that. SSDD around here.

Again, I have never said anything like that so if you inferred it, you are mistaken. I have explained this several times but apparently, that's just not good enough for you. You obviously intend to deliberately misrepresent my statements or you simply think I am lying.

Regardless, if you don't respect me enough to accept my word on this, it's pointless for us to continue this or any future discussions.

I am done with you.

[Weegle777 78]

[homersapien 11,373]

And I'm confused Weegs. I thought you were all about real manly men.

Someone says I'm lying, I'll tell them to go **** themselves, in person if possible. I figured a real manly man such as yourself would relate to that. Instead, you offer up passive-aggressive cartoons?

(Not to mention the weasely way you kept after me until I said it - must have had those cartoons ready to go, huh?)

[AUloggerhead 2,231]

It would be nice to read one thread on this forum without all the snark going back & forth from the usual suspects.

I think it was Tony Franklin who first mentioned the issue with the coercive nature of Christian influence on the AU team. Of course, he was embattled on all fronts while at AU so it's hard to distinguish from all the complaints that he had which was bothering him the most.

That said, I think the FFRF is off base on their unconstitutional claim because it focuses on the 1st Amendment's "establishment" clause, but conveniently ignores the "free expression thereof" clause. If a university's athletic team freely chooses to have a chaplain minister to their team, then isn't that their right? As long as no team members are forced to adopt the faith of the chaplain, then what's the problem? Freedom to partake or not in religious activities is the ultimate in freedom. I don't see an issue with FFRF attempts to educate/inform athletes of their civil rights -- if that is the true goal.

[aubfaninga 16]

As usual, homie makes the crazy claim that AU is denying mullahs, shamans, and rabbis and when it is pointed out that it is ludicrously untrue tries to say he never really said that. SSDD around here.

Again, I have never said anything like that so if you inferred it, you are mistaken. I have explained this several times but apparently, that's just not good enough for you. You obviously intend to deliberately misrepresent my statements or you simply think I am lying.

Regardless, if you don't respect me enough to accept my word on this, it's pointless for us to continue this or any future discussions.

I am done with you.

Carefull, he might put you on ignore

[aubfaninga 16]

Knowing of the situation internally I can tell you with 100% confidence that A: No one is forced to enter into the FCA program in Auburn and B: No one is shunned or mistreated for not being in a program that Mr. Williams leads. He is a very positive influence and I'm going to support him 100%.

This is just another attempt to go after Christians.

More than that, it seems to be a part of an illogical narrative that believes, the best way to stop people you perceive as imposing their will on others, is to impose your will on others.

This post is above this forum

[aujeff11 6,243]

It would be nice to read one thread on this forum without all the snark going back & forth from the usual suspects.

I think it was Tony Franklin who first mentioned the issue with the coercive nature of Christian influence on the AU team. Of course, he was embattled on all fronts while at AU so it's hard to distinguish from all the complaints that he had which was bothering him the most.

That said, I think the FFRF is off base on their unconstitutional claim because it focuses on the 1st Amendment's "establishment" clause, but conveniently ignores the "free exp<b></b>ression thereof" clause. If a university's athletic team freely chooses to have a chaplain minister to their team, then isn't that their right? As long as no team members are forced to adopt the faith of the chaplain, then what's the problem? Freedom to partake or not in religious activities is the ultimate in freedom. I don't see an issue with FFRF attempts to educate/inform athletes of their civil rights -- if that is the true goal.

I would like a link to Tony Franklin''s statement.

[DKW 86 7,423]

Homer:

[DKW 86 7,423]

It's a message board of anonymous people. Why get so bent out of shape? You don't even know these people.

Don't know 'em my ass. :-\ I think all of the long timers on this forum know each other - or at least their personas - pretty damn well.

Frankly, I think the standards for intellectual honesty are way too low. I'm not going to list all of the problems because they are obvious to anyone who really cares. And I'm not saying I am perfect by any means.

But there's something about making up stuff I neither said nor implied then essentially calling me a liar for truthfully saying I know what I meant, obviously.

Perhaps it hits my hot button because IMO one of the problems on this forum is a casual lack of regard about what was actually said (written).

I am careful of what I write and I expect any reader to first closely respect my words before responding and if they have a question, or want to make an inference then either ask or confirm it before charging off "in my name". And for God's sake, don't imply I am a liar for simply setting you straight.

That ends this discussion as far as I am concerned.

And there it is folks! The penultimate case of irony ever posted on this site. We can all quit now until after football season, the IRONY METER is now completely busted and may have to be retired. homie, you have made a living around here shoving words in other peoples' mouths. If anyone questions, forget disagrees with anything you post you go off the deep end and call them anti-science etc. Even if the disagreement is at the extreme margins, you feel compelled to rewrite whole posts for them and then feign misunderstanding. You completely misconstrue whole discussions. YOU ARE THE ONE NOT READING AND RESPECTING THE WORDS OF OTHERS Brother.

Ex: I have morphed big time on some policies. After looking and dealing with friends, people i love dearly not get insurance etc, I now support the ACA. I support not going back to war in Iraq. Hell we agree on probably 80-90% of the topics on this board and yet i am still treated by you and the sewing circle as some right wing freak. I grew up in the 70s when we were told we had a Looming Ice Age coming over and over and over. Now, these same "scientists" insist that we are in a Global Warming Period caused by man. I UNDERSTAND AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT. I dont blindly buy that these same scientists that were apparently so wrong back in the 70-80s are now so infallible today, that is all i am saying.

So, you quit ramming and cramming words into our mouths and maybe we will stop it with you.

[alexava 6,973]

It would be nice to read one thread on this forum without all the snark going back & forth from the usual suspects.

I think it was Tony Franklin who first mentioned the issue with the coercive nature of Christian influence on the AU team. Of course, he was embattled on all fronts while at AU so it's hard to distinguish from all the complaints that he had which was bothering him the most.

That said, I think the FFRF is off base on their unconstitutional claim because it focuses on the 1st Amendment's "establishment" clause, but conveniently ignores the "free exp<b></b>ression thereof" clause. If a university's athletic team freely chooses to have a chaplain minister to their team, then isn't that their right? As long as no team members are forced to adopt the faith of the chaplain, then what's the problem? Freedom to partake or not in religious activities is the ultimate in freedom. I don't see an issue with FFRF attempts to educate/inform athletes of their civil rights -- if that is the true goal.

I would like a link to Tony Franklin''s statement.

i don't remember reading it anywhere but i heard it live on paul finebaum. He accused auburn of using religion as a "crutch" . said all the meetings started with prayer and it made him uncomfortable because his faith was very private and personal to him.

[aujeff11 6,243]

It would be nice to read one thread on this forum without all the snark going back & forth from the usual suspects.

I think it was Tony Franklin who first mentioned the issue with the coercive nature of Christian influence on the AU team. Of course, he was embattled on all fronts while at AU so it's hard to distinguish from all the complaints that he had which was bothering him the most.

That said, I think the FFRF is off base on their unconstitutional claim because it focuses on the 1st Amendment's "establishment" clause, but conveniently ignores the "free exp<b></b>ression thereof" clause. If a university's athletic team freely chooses to have a chaplain minister to their team, then isn't that their right? As long as no team members are forced to adopt the faith of the chaplain, then what's the problem? Freedom to partake or not in religious activities is the ultimate in freedom. I don't see an issue with FFRF attempts to educate/inform athletes of their civil rights -- if that is the true goal.

I would like a link to Tony Franklin''s statement.

i don't remember reading it anywhere but i heard it live on paul finebaum. He accused auburn of using religion as a "crutch" . said all the meetings started with prayer and it made him uncomfortable because his faith was very private and personal to him.

If that is true, then FFRF has a valid point and Franklin should be their mouthpiece.

[homersapien 11,373]

It would be nice to read one thread on this forum without all the snark going back & forth from the usual suspects.

I think it was Tony Franklin who first mentioned the issue with the coercive nature of Christian influence on the AU team. Of course, he was embattled on all fronts while at AU so it's hard to distinguish from all the complaints that he had which was bothering him the most.

That said, I think the FFRF is off base on their unconstitutional claim because it focuses on the 1st Amendment's "establishment" clause, but conveniently ignores the "free expression thereof" clause. If a university's athletic team freely chooses to have a chaplain minister to their team, then isn't that their right? As long as no team members are forced to adopt the faith of the chaplain, then what's the problem? Freedom to partake or not in religious activities is the ultimate in freedom. I don't see an issue with FFRF attempts to educate/inform athletes of their civil rights -- if that is the true goal.

I'm sure the basis of their legal claim (if they have made one) is that Auburn is a publicly supported institution. The "free expression" clause applies only to private individuals and organizations.

Regardless, the moral problem with institutionally sanctioned support of a particular religion is it creates a coercive atmosphere. But like I said earlier, if there is a significant number of non-participates (as EMT suggested) that's a good sign that such an atmosphere is not a problem in this case.

Oh, and I apologize about the thing with DKW. I don't mind being told I am flat out wrong or even crazy - after all that's the purpose of the forum. But no one should waste their time with someone who thinks they are just dishonest. I wanted to make sure that was his position before I put him on ignore for the future, thus the repetition.

[homersapien 11,373]

It would be nice to read one thread on this forum without all the snark going back & forth from the usual suspects.

I think it was Tony Franklin who first mentioned the issue with the coercive nature of Christian influence on the AU team. Of course, he was embattled on all fronts while at AU so it's hard to distinguish from all the complaints that he had which was bothering him the most.

That said, I think the FFRF is off base on their unconstitutional claim because it focuses on the 1st Amendment's "establishment" clause, but conveniently ignores the "free expression thereof" clause. If a university's athletic team freely chooses to have a chaplain minister to their team, then isn't that their right? As long as no team members are forced to adopt the faith of the chaplain, then what's the problem? Freedom to partake or not in religious activities is the ultimate in freedom. I don't see an issue with FFRF attempts to educate/inform athletes of their civil rights -- if that is the true goal.

I would like a link to Tony Franklin''s statement.

i don't remember reading it anywhere but i heard it live on paul finebaum. He accused auburn of using religion as a "crutch" . said all the meetings started with prayer and it made him uncomfortable because his faith was very private and personal to him.

If that is true, then FFRF has a valid point and Franklin should be their mouthpiece.

I agree. Starting a routine team meeting with a prayer would be way out of line.

[AUloggerhead 2,231]

It would be nice to read one thread on this forum without all the snark going back & forth from the usual suspects.

I think it was Tony Franklin who first mentioned the issue with the coercive nature of Christian influence on the AU team. Of course, he was embattled on all fronts while at AU so it's hard to distinguish from all the complaints that he had which was bothering him the most.

That said, I think the FFRF is off base on their unconstitutional claim because it focuses on the 1st Amendment's "establishment" clause, but conveniently ignores the "free exp<b></b>ression thereof" clause. If a university's athletic team freely chooses to have a chaplain minister to their team, then isn't that their right? As long as no team members are forced to adopt the faith of the chaplain, then what's the problem? Freedom to partake or not in religious activities is the ultimate in freedom. I don't see an issue with FFRF attempts to educate/inform athletes of their civil rights -- if that is the true goal.

I would like a link to Tony Franklin''s statement.

I don't have a link, and my recolleciton stems from an article I read after he was fired as AU's OC. My recollection was he made no official statement and he didn't go into great detail -- it was more like, as an outsider, he observed what was going on and he mentioned that he felt a certain pressure to conform and he questioned whether this should be going on in a publicly-funded institution.

[Weegle777 78]

After he was fired?

[finxster 4]

Bless his heart...Satan has a warm chair beside him waiting for Tony Franklin...

"That's all they do is pray — and talk about praying and religion," Franklin said of the Auburn athletic department. "It's a constant thing with them, and it's just overwhelming at times. A lot of people use religion as a crutch, and I think that's the case there. Every word coming out of their mouths is something about religion, and most of it is just a joke.

"I don't want to come off as anti-religion or that I'm not a Christian, but the best people in the world — the ones who do truly great things — they just do good things for people. You don't know most of the time if they're Muslim or Christian or anything else, because they never talk about it. But it was constant with them, and it was uncomfortable sometimes. When you talk about your religion so much, it comes off as fake or phony. That's the way I think of several of those people [at Auburn] as fake."

[AUDub 11,148]

I would like a link to Tony Franklin''s statement.

Here. The only other source I saw was behind a paywall at the Montgomery Advertiser.

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Headlinin-Tony-Franklin-redefining-offensive-?urn=ncaaf-168657

Franklin was also troubled by the constant talk about religion within the athletic department. From Tuberville to [athletic director Jay] Jacobs to most of the assistants, the talk of God and prayer never ended.

"That's all they do is pray -- and talk about praying and religion," Franklin said. "It's a constant thing with them, and it's just overwhelming at times. A lot of people use religion as a crutch, and I think that's the case there. Every word coming out of their mouths is something about religion, and most of it is just a joke."

[AUDub 11,148]

Bless his heart...Satan has a warm chair beside him waiting for Tony Franklin...

[finxster 4]

Bless his heart...Satan has a warm chair beside him waiting for Tony Franklin...

Haha! Maybe I should have used the yellow font?

[AUloggerhead 2,231]

I'm sure the basis of their legal claim (if they have made one) is that Auburn is a publicly supported institution. The "free exp<b></b>ression" clause applies only to private individuals and organizations.

Regardless, the moral problem with institutionally sanctioned support of a particular religion is it creates a coercive atmosphere. But like I said earlier, if there is a significant number of non-participates (as EMT suggested) that's a good sign that such an atmosphere is not a problem in this case. ...

Isn't it possible for a religious presence on campus to be non-coercive? And, should faith-based individuals (e.g. Richt, Bowden, Tuberville, etc.) be forced to give up practicing their faith in the manner that they choose upon accepting a position in a publicly-funded institution?

[alexava 6,973]

It would be nice to read one thread on this forum without all the snark going back & forth from the usual suspects.

I think it was Tony Franklin who first mentioned the issue with the coercive nature of Christian influence on the AU team. Of course, he was embattled on all fronts while at AU so it's hard to distinguish from all the complaints that he had which was bothering him the most.

That said, I think the FFRF is off base on their unconstitutional claim because it focuses on the 1st Amendment's "establishment" clause, but conveniently ignores the "free expression thereof" clause. If a university's athletic team freely chooses to have a chaplain minister to their team, then isn't that their right? As long as no team members are forced to adopt the faith of the chaplain, then what's the problem? Freedom to partake or not in religious activities is the ultimate in freedom. I don't see an issue with FFRF attempts to educate/inform athletes of their civil rights -- if that is the true goal.

I would like a link to Tony Franklin''s statement.

i don't remember reading it anywhere but i heard it live on paul finebaum. He accused auburn of using religion as a "crutch" . said all the meetings started with prayer and it made him uncomfortable because his faith was very private and personal to him.

If that is true, then FFRF has a valid point and Franklin should be their mouthpiece.

I agree. Starting a routine team meeting with a prayer would be way out of line.

i don't think it was team meetings, but staff or AD meetings.

[Weegle777 78]

Franklin just sounds butthurt. Got any better examples?

[DKW 86 7,423]

Was Franklin sober when he said it? I have never seen Franklin sober. Never saw him in clean clothes, hair combed, with his shirt tucked properly either. He was drunk the morning he was fired.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Franklin just sounds butthurt. Got any better examples?

Was my understanding that another of our sports, not football, had volunteer prayer meetings and bible study type things under a ex coach. According to players I knew attendance did have a role in playing time.