PhilStarbucksSilkySkills

Makes you wonder doesn't it?

Of course it is limited to those who share his faith. If the guy he is counselling doesn't share the same spiritual belief, then what good is his spiritual support going to be (unless a conversion is in process).

It's really sad that you feel the need to chatise me so much, when I am trying to have a constructive conversation. You constantly call me biggotted and referring to me as things like "feverred anti religious". You never can merely answer the points. You always have to make it personal. I have never encountered as much hostility as I have from both you and one other member of OWTB. It's pretty disappointing that you feel the need to pigeonhole someone you don't even know as such a hateful person in your effort to win an argument. Why don't you just try keeping it on a rational level?

This may be nitpicking. But I would point out that spiritual support could only be given to those who share the chaplain's spiritual beliefs. Assuming they have any at all. Which many won't.

You're very quick to throw around the word bigot aren't you? Either way. I don't see it as a sound financial move. Even if it would only be a handful of people that might be uncomfortable with it, either consciously or unconsciously. Like you said, he could just as easily have the title "counsellor".

The main point I made, which you have yet to address, was that a chaplain is not uniquely qualified to offer councelling services. You claimed that he was uniquely qualified because it was in his job description. This was a complete non sequitor. I pointed this out to you, but you decided that instead of answering my point that you would correct my spelling.

You seem awfully sure of this Obviously they don't have an issue with it. I'm merely pointing out I believe they should be more clever than that. If he is not trained in the field and he doesn't offer that service, then he is exclusively there to offer religious support. Which means they are all the more endorsing a religion. This is fine if they want to be known as a christian club. It is foolish if they do not.

I've never heard of a non religious chaplain

So you decided to ignore the points I made in exchange for pointing out a spelling error

Well like I said, as a private funded organisation I think they can do as they wish, so I wouldn't bother campaigning either. I'm certainly not one for enforced political correctness. However I still think the club is being very silly in respecting such a devisive tradition. For me, respecting traditions is never an excuse for not moving forward.

I still think he should have the job title of "club councilor" rather than "club chaplain". As it stands, by referring to him as the club's chaplain they are promoting a religion. They are a private organisation and IMO it is their right to do that. But they should be aware how devisive and offputting a job title can be in such circumstances. Does any club really want to be known as having a religious affiliation when they are hopefully trying attract supporters and players of multiple faiths and non religious persuasions?

His job description appears to be "club chaplain". Not "club councilor" And clearly you don't understand what is meant by "uniquely qualified"

And why is a chaplain uniquely qualified for this task?

I'm pretty baffled by the entire concept of a deity to be frank. Particularly one vain enough to desire and expect to be worshipped, and yet leaves no trace of his/her/it's existence. How someone can believe in the existence of any being that is indistinguishable from a fictional one is beyond me.

I guess not even football is secular. Do they have a club astrologist too?

I feel I need to correct a misconception that exists on this board. Science does not deal with proof. What the scientific process delivers is a theory to explain the evidence. It is the amount and strength of the evidence that attests to the strength of the theory. This theory must make predictions and be falsifiable through experimentation. You can then attempt to disprove the theory via this falsifiability. A theory needs to be adjusted or thrown out if it is disproved somehow. What climate change deniars (much like creationists) have failed to do so far is: a ) Succesfully disprove the current climate change model (that increases in man made atmospheric CO2 are responsible for temperature increases) b ) Come up with their own logically sound theory that better fits the evidence This is why a scientific consensus exists on this issue.

Hey don't knock it. I do that quite often. I guess i've always liked to live the high life

It's a bit late for April Fools isn't it? I didn't know people had this done. Was it an inny or an outy? Will he still be taking corners now? Where will he store his cheese dip whilst he's lying on the sofa eating Doritos?

He has not exactly been ripping up trees since his Preston days has he? Plus he's pushing 33. I wouldn't have thought him that much of a coup. He's certainly no better than the class of player we should be realistically aiming to sign.

I feel I need to remind everyone that the events that have stirred all this include films, documentaries, cartoons, an animated TV comedy and a novel. All of these things have been deemed offensive to islam and (by some) worthy of the death penalty. The main reason everyone is doing random images of Mohammed in protest is that it would be somewhat impractical to for us all to do the alternatives. It is really the simplest thing we can do to show that death threats are not sufficient a deterrant to silence any kind of critisism or satirisation of their beliefs. It is a small gesture in a show of solidarity with the people who have been silenced, threatened or killed. It may be more constructive to do a video or an animation (and there are some that have). But how many people have that kind of time or talent?

No, but if the old ladies gave a savage beating to anyone who used the c-word (cantona ) then I would hope you would want to take a stand and show that they cannot control you like that.

Thank you leeslover. First bit of common sense i've read on here for a few pages. To liberty Andy

Whatever you say. I find your constant accusations without justification wanting. It's been like talking to a brick wall anyway.

According to your own logic, calling me a bigot falls under the banner of asserting aggression with words. I guess that makes you a bigot in return. But the truth is that words and drawing are not aggressive unless they themselves threaten violence. To be truly aggressive you must either be violent, or be threatening violence. No. They are CHOOSING to take it personally. There is no aggression intended by the vast majority of those who took part in this show of solidarity. And that includes myself. And lets just remind you that calling me a bigot is offensive to me. You know this and yet you continue to do so. Does this make you a bigot? Again. Who's being aggressive? The people standing up to the men who want to impose their superstitions on us (by drawing a cartoon), or those who seek to impose their superstitions with violence. :nnnng: I am fighting against people who think violence is the answer to being "offended". So who have I threatened to kill lately? I am imposing nothing by drawing a cartoon, writing a book or making a film. What a surprise that the person who disagrees with me so venomously thinks i'm irrational and stubborn. It has got NOTHING to do with religion. It happens to involve religiously motivated people. I would be just as pissed off if it was a people with a political dogma or any other ideology that was trying to pull this crap. I've told you, I'm hostile to oppressive behaviour and nothing else. But it sounds like you would sense hostility from a falling leef.

I am intollerant of oppressive behaviour. Nothing else. That is also my only prejudice (if you can call it that) I'm anything but obstant or irrational. I welcome other opinions and I encourage all opinions to be challenged (including my own). It's when those opinions turn into oppression that the animosity begins. I am hostile to none of those. I disagree with the idea of religion. But I am only hostile to any belief system when it is used as an excuse for oppressive behaviour. Of what?