PhilStarbucksSilkySkills

How can a club that has Jewish owners "want" to be known as a Christian club?

Makes you wonder doesn't it?

A chaplain can provide spiritual support to anyone who seeks it. It's not mandatory, he's not going to force it upon them, but nor is it necessarily limited to those who share his faith.

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).

The way I see it, it's a problem nowhere else but within your fevered, anti-religious head. You hate religion so much, you feel the need to attack someone who is there for no other reason but to help others. That's really very sad.

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?

Whether it's at a football club or in the army, the role and duty of a chaplain is to give moral, psychological and spritual support to his colleagues, irrespective of their religious affiliations.

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.

I cannot see how that could possibly be "divisive" except to maybe a tiny handful of bigoted fools.

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".

What points? The ones that have been more than adequately taken apart by other posters?

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 are fisihing so I will bite.

It does not seem to have put them off so far.

You seem awfully sure of this

The club directors have made their own religious affiliations pretty clear.

Depsite being from a different religion themselves, they have clearly not had an issue.

Why have you got one?

Obviously they don't have an issue with it. I'm merely pointing out I believe they should be more clever than that.

They have not called him counsellor weither becasue he is preumbly not trained in that field and is not the sort of service he offers.

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.

Not necesarily, a Chaplain typically would be a member of the clergy (as I believe ours is) but you can get non-ordained Chaplains and even non-religious ones.

I've never heard of a non religious chaplain

I understand perfectly well what you meant by "uniquely qualified".

 

However it seems you don't understand the difference between councilor [sic] and counsellor.

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

As I said, he wouldn't need to be a Christian. I believe in the Forces there are chaplains of different faiths. I grant you that doesn't cover people such as me, and I rather suspect me, who don;t believe in all that gubbins, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it. It's clearly a tradition from days when pretty much everyone around the club would have been Christian and more likely than not a churchgoer, I don;t think it does any harm so I'm not going to be arsed campaigning against it!

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.

Often in life people and even footballers have bigger questions than what make of boots shall i wear?

 

A club chaplain from what I understand is someone that is around the club as a point of contact outside of the club for 1-1 chats etc away from the pressures on the shoulders of what are sometimes young men.

 

Take the Andy Liddle situation when he lost his child. I reckon that whether he took up the option or not (we will never know as i imagine there is a confidentiality element to the role) having a neutral around the place would have been helpful for him to talk about things rather than sharing it with whoever he sits next to in the changing room.

 

Now whatever your faith/religion is the reason I guess this chap has the role is that as a local vicar the football club will fall in his parish and he has a responsibility to serve them in the way they feel they need.

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?

Because it's in his job description?

His job description appears to be "club chaplain". Not "club councilor"

And clearly you don't understand what is meant by "uniquely qualified"

Because players and other staff sometimes value time, conversation and sharing of issues with a chaplain.

And why is a chaplain uniquely qualified for this task?

A wonderful quote I heard today about religion: "I don't object to the concept of a deity, but I'm baffled by the notion of one which takes attendance."

 

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?

... which has failed to prove (or disprove) the theory.

 

While that remains the case I will remain on the fence.

 

Science is not a popularity contest.

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.

Footballers having 2 holidays?! thats like going to Tesco then to Asda on the same day,

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.

Indeed, I would hope they were prosecuted and their sticks removed. The flip side I guess is that I could have chosen not to use language whilst walking past the duck pond of a nice park on a Sunday afternoon that I use with my mates in a dirty old pub, and I probably would do. There will be many people walking past old ladies saying Cantona with a complete disregard for how much it upsets them, and whilst I oppose laws to stop the use of that word, on a personal level of behaviour I would make an argument that it's best not to. This is the crucial area to consider in this sort of argument, it's always easy to allow any sort of freedom of behaviour when you agree with it, it's when you don't that it raises challenges. As in many areas of life I think we need to seperate the personal from the legal.

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?

I tend not to say the c-word with respectable old ladies around for example, although I don't believe there is anything intrinsically wrong with it.

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.

I don't think it does Garcon. I prresume that PSSS is willing to have his beliefs mocked and ridiculed in any manner going, as am I. I also expect (granted, when at home) to be able to speak my mind openly. If I think Jesus was a poofter, Mohammed a nonce and the Vishnu a compulsive maturbator, then I will say so. Even if I don't believe it, but it pleases me to say so, then I wish to be free to do so. The offence arrives purely in the CHOICE of the offended believer in holding those views. This ought not to be my legal concern, it is his choice and he should bear the costs of it. Any conflict needs to be borne on the shoulders of the person whose lifestyle choice it is, the religious person.

 

Of course, I am a lovely man and I don't generally go out of my way to offend people for no good reason, which I fear this action may have had potential to do, hence my reservations. I do think however that we need to be very clear that the religious views of any citizen must not infringe on the liberty of any other person.

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

To liberty

Andy

Given the quality (lack of) response I am happy to leave this where it is now. You have been found wanting...

Whatever you say. I find your constant accusations without justification wanting.

It's been like talking to a brick wall anyway.

Do you realise aggression comes in many forms ? Fists, kicks, words, drawings... Can all assert aggression...

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.

You are happy to assert aggression onto muslims through your insulting drawings. It is an aggressive attack upon their culture and beliefs. You are knowingly doing something to offend and enrage them.

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?

The only reason for aggression is to oppress... It's what idiots do when they lose the mental battle and self control.

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.

Like I said, you have become the very thing you say you are fighting for

:nnnng: I am fighting against people who think violence is the answer to being "offended". So who have I threatened to kill lately?

Just another extremist looking to impose their idea of what is right and proper upon the world.

I am imposing nothing by drawing a cartoon, writing a book or making a film.

You are certainly irrational... and how you could every suggested that you are not obstant is beyond me

What a surprise that the person who disagrees with me so venomously thinks i'm irrational and stubborn.

You are hostile towards religion. You are quite happy to offend and totally disregard the thoughts and feelings of billions of people. That is very hostile approach.

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.

Personally I never have felt the need to draw a picture of Mo... why would i? You on the other hand are going out of your way to do so... Sounds hostile to me...

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.

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

I am intollerant of oppressive behaviour. Nothing else. That is also my only prejudice (if you can call it that)

The correct use of the term requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing opinion.

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.

The term is also used to refer to persons hostile to people of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, religion etc.

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.

Open and shut case...

Of what?