Diaco Hired as Purdue DC

[Rhode Irish]

I knew you'd be the first to comment Rhode. Let me go back and edit for Italics for those that can't sense sarcasm. Carry on.

Ha OK. My bad. So used to people being hysterical about stuff like this around here....

 

[tko]

Ha OK. My bad. So used to people being hysterical about stuff like this around here....

it's a "hysterical" time no doubt about that.

 

[Irish#1]

"War Judge Wapner, Dapper Dan Hair Products and Soft Shell Defenses"

I swear Rome’s only redeeming feature is he is like the only guy out there that will really talk hockey…

And he hates soccer.

He is...just...terrible.

Rack 'em!

 

[STLDomer]

“@desmondconner: Hearing Anthony Poindexter, safeties coach at #Virginia set to join #UConn staff as defensive coordinator”

 

[PANDFAN]

STORRS, Conn. (AP) — The president of the University of Connecticut is taking issue with public comments from a member of the school's new football staff.

Former Notre Dame staffer Ernest Jones, hired as a running backs coach and director of player engagement, told The Hartford Courant in a story published Saturday that he and others are going to make sure UConn's players understand that, "Jesus Christ should be in the center of our huddle."

President Susan Herbst said in a statement Tuesday that all students must feel welcome and employees at the public school cannot appear to endorse any particular religion.

She says Athletic Director Warde Manuel and new football coach Bob Diaco agree, and have made that clear to the staff.

Diaco and Jones both come to Connecticut from Notre Dame, a private Roman Catholic University.

 

[KPENN]

STORRS, Conn. (AP) — The president of the University of Connecticut is taking issue with public comments from a member of the school's new football staff.

Former Notre Dame staffer Ernest Jones, hired as a running backs coach and director of player engagement, told The Hartford Courant in a story published Saturday that he and others are going to make sure UConn's players understand that, "Jesus Christ should be in the center of our huddle."

President Susan Herbst said in a statement Tuesday that all students must feel welcome and employees at the public school cannot appear to endorse any particular religion.

She says Athletic Director Warde Manuel and new football coach Bob Diaco agree, and have made that clear to the staff.

Diaco and Jones both come to Connecticut from Notre Dame, a private Roman Catholic University.

 

[WakeUpEchoes]

Good lord.

 

[AdmiralBackhand]

I knew I liked Jones.

 

[rtrn2glory]

that's awesome...good for him

 

[Irish#1]

Too funny.

 

[KPENN]

that's awesome...good for him

Explain how it's awesome?

 

[NDPhilly]

Haha good for Jones

btw Susan Herbst graduated from what school??? USC.

 

[ThePiombino]

that's awesome...good for him

No. It's not. Not at a public school.

Explain how it's awesome?

Exactly.

Haha good for Jones

btw Susan Herbst graduated from what school??? USC.

Whether or not that's the case, how would you like it if someone tried to convince you that Allah or Shiva or Buddha were in the middle of your huddle? Mr. Jones needs to realize he's not in Kansas anymore and can't be doing that at UConn.

 

[wizards8507]

No. It's not. Not at a public school.

Exactly.

Whether or not that's the case, how would you like it if someone tried to convince you that Allah or Shiva or Buddha were in the middle of your huddle? Mr. Jones needs to realize he's not in Kansas anymore and can't be doing that at UConn.

If you're arguing separation of church and state, you're remarkably incorrect. The government cannot endorse a particular religion. That's it. That's as far as "separation of church and state" actually goes.

1. "Jesus Christ" is not a religion.

2. A football coach isn't "the government," even at a public school.

3. If a Buddhist told me that Buddha was swell, I'd probably think, "It makes sense that he said that... He's a Buddhist," not cry about it to the University.

4. Football coaches have first amendment rights too.

All that said, UConn might have some rules about this kind of thing, but the Constitution ain't it.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

 

[rtrn2glory]

i believe the same things that coach jones believes, you can choose to not believe the same thing as I...it's your call.

so imo i commend him for believing and endorsing what a Christian should endorse according to the guidelines we are taught to live in the Bible.

that's all i'll say...we can take it to PM if it's that important to any of you.

 

[ulukinatme]

Whether or not that's the case, how would you like it if someone tried to convince you that Allah or Shiva or Buddha were in the middle of your huddle?

Can Buddha play NT for us?

 

[wizards8507]

Can Buddha play NT for us?

I think he's a soft verbal at USC.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

 

[Cackalacky]

Can Buddha play NT for us?

Shiva the Destroyer FTW please.

 

[dublinirish]

Vishnu got the wingspan to fend off those speed rushers

 

[Cackalacky]

If you're arguing separation of church and state, you're remarkably incorrect. The government cannot endorse a particular religion. That's it. That's as far as "separation of church and state" actually goes.

1. "Jesus Christ" is not a religion.

2. A football coach isn't "the government," even at a public school.

3. If a Buddhist told me that Buddha was swell, I'd probably think, "It makes sense that he said that... He's a Buddhist," not cry about it to the University.

4. Football coaches have first amendment rights too.

All that said, UConn might have some rules about this kind of thing, but the Constitution ain't it.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

The bolded contradicts #4. The players have first amendment rights too and the Constitution takes precedent over everything else (LOL). He is operating on the assumption that all of his players are christians (which may or may not be the case). Either way it can be deemed inappropriate at a minimum.

I find it funny that anyone who does not believe in christianity has to go crying to the university. People have a right not to be proselytizing to. But Christians don't get that because its their belief proselytizing is a good deed. Well if you are not a christian, its annoying and most likely offensive.

 

[wizards8507]

Shiva the Destroyer FTW please.

Vishnu got the wingspan to fend off those speed rushers

The bolded contradicts #4. The players have first amendment rights too and the Constitution takes precedent over everything else (LOL). He is operating on the assumption that all of his players are christians (which may or may not be the case). Either way it can be deemed inappropriate at a minimum.

The players' first amendment rights aren't being violated. Freedom of religion is not the same as freedom FROM religion. As long as an individual isn't harassing you, he or she is free to share his or her beliefs just like you're free to ignore them. You can say "Christian things" to a non-Christian and nobody's rights are being violated. The First Amendment is designed to protect what you can say, not restrict what you feel like hearing. The rights belong to the speaker, not to the listener. Nobody has a right to "not be offended by shit."

 

[Cackalacky]

The players' first amendment rights aren't being violated. Freedom of religion is not the same as freedom FROM religion. As long as an individual isn't harassing you, he or she is free to share his or her beliefs just like you're free to ignore them. You can say "Christian things" to a non-Christian and nobody's rights are being violated. The First Amendment is designed to protect what you can say, not restrict what you feel like hearing. The rights belong to the speaker, not to the listener. Nobody has a right to "not be offended by shit."

By Austin Cline:
Myth:
You have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.



Response:
This claim is common, but it rests on a misunderstanding of what real freedom of religion entails. The most important thing to remember is that freedom of religion, if it is going to apply to everyone, also requires freedom from religion. Why is that? You do not truly have the freedom to practice your religious beliefs if you are also required to adhere to any of the religious beliefs or rules of other religions.

As an obvious example, could we really say that Jews and Muslims would have freedom of religion if they were required to show same respect to images of Jesus that Christians have? Would Christians and Muslims really have freedom of their religion if they were required to wear yarmulkes? Would Christians and Jews have freedom of religion if they were required to adhere to Muslim dietary restrictions?

Simply pointing out that people have the freedom to pray however they wish is not enough. Forcing people to accept some particular idea or adhere to behavioral standards from someone else’s religion means that their religious freedom is being infringed upon.

Freedom from religion does not mean, as some mistakenly seem to claim, being free from seeing religion in society. No one has the right not to see churches, religious expression, and other examples of religious belief in our nation — and those who advocate freedom of religion do not claim otherwise.

What freedom from religion does mean, however, is the freedom from the rules and dogmas of other people’s religious beliefs so that we can be free to follow the demands of our own conscience, whether they take a religious form or not. Thus, we have both freedom of religion and freedom from religion because they are two sides of the same coin.

Interestingly, the misunderstandings here can be found in many other myths, misconceptions and misunderstandings as well. Many people don’t realize — or don’t care — that real religious liberty must exist for everyone, not just for themselves. It’s no coincidence that people who object to the principle of “freedom from religion” are adherents of religious groups whose doctrines or standards would be the ones enforced by the state.

Since they already voluntarily accept these doctrines or standards, they don’t expect to experience any conflicts with state enforcement or endorsement. What we have, then, is a failure of moral imagination: these people are unable to really imagine themselves in the shoes of religious minorities who don’t voluntarily accept these doctrines or standards and, hence, experience an infringement on their religious liberties through state enforcement or endorsement.

That, or they simply don’t care what religious minorities experience because they think they have the One True Religion.

The coaches are paid state employees and therefore the argument could be made that he is a state representative and therefore cannot (more like should not) do what he did.

 

[wizards8507]

The coaches are paid state employees and therefore the argument could be made that he is a state representative and therefore cannot (more like should not) do what he did.

Your article makes my point perfectly.

Freedom from religion does not mean, as some mistakenly seem to claim, being free from seeing religion in society. No one has the right not to see churches, religious expression, and other examples of religious belief in our nation — and those who advocate freedom of religion do not claim otherwise.

What freedom from religion does mean, however, is the freedom from the rules and dogmas of other people’s religious beliefs so that we can be free to follow the demands of our own conscience, whether they take a religious form or not. Thus, we have both freedom of religion and freedom from religion because they are two sides of the same coin.

Saying "Jesus is in this huddle" or whatever is not forcing someone to comply with "rules or dogmas" of Christianity.

Also, Austin Cline? You're going to use an Atheism blogger as your source?

 

[Cackalacky]

Your article makes my point perfectly.



Saying "Jesus is in this huddle" or whatever is not forcing someone to comply with "rules or dogmas" of Christianity.

Also, Austin Cline? You're going to use an Atheism blogger as your source?

I agree in part with some of your points which is why I posted the article, but there are other points in the article which are directly applicable from the other side (for example the position you take regarding its acceptability from adherents to not see the other side or others view, or even give a shit about others views). And yes, Austin Cline has a fairly good track record for examining religious aspects of society. I have others if you would like, say Sam Harris or even Martin Luther. I am not promoting atheism, just that proselytizing by a state paid employee on behalf of a state run football program may not be the smartest thing.

 

[stlnd01]

Your article makes my point perfectly.



Saying "Jesus is in this huddle" or whatever is not forcing someone to comply with "rules or dogmas" of Christianity.

Also, Austin Cline? You're going to use an Atheism blogger as your source?

No one's forcing Jones to be an assistant football coach at a state university, either. He could go work for Liberty (or Notre Dame) and it wouldn't be an issue.
A football coach is in a position of authority over his players. He shouldn't be prosletyzing his religious beliefs to them, or in public, without regard for their religious beliefs. Especially at a public institution. It's not the end of the world, but UConn's right to tell him to knock it off.

 

[Cackalacky]

And for the record with proselytizing, I take the Mason's approach:

2B1Ask1. Otherwise keep it to yourself and wherever you go to worship. That seems the most respectable path to take.

 

[Bluto]

Since this thread took this detour

Group unveils Satan statue design for Oklahoma

 

[Cackalacky]

Since this thread took this detour

Group unveils Satan statue design for Oklahoma

In response, the Oklahoma Capitol Preservation Commission recently placed a moratorium on considering any new requests.

"Anybody can still make their request, but we'll hold off on considering them until the lawsuit is adjudicated," commission Chairman Trait Thompson said.

The push by the Satanic Temple has rankled elected leaders in this conservative state known as the buckle of the Bible Belt, who say such a proposal would never be approved by the commission.

"I think you've got to remember where you are. This is Oklahoma, the middle of the heartland," said Rep. Don Armes, R-Faxon. "I think we need to be tolerant of people who think different than us, but this is Oklahoma, and that's not going to fly here."

While Greaves acknowledges the Satanic Temple's effort is in part to highlight what it says is hypocrisy of state leaders in Oklahoma, he says the group is serious about having a monument placed there.

Hahaha. Translation: We don't give a flip about the constitution.

 

[CHIDomer9]

Growing up in a small town that was majority Baptist & Methodist, this was the nice thing about being Catholic.

Catholicism required you come to church. It didn't require you take church to 2nd period Algebra or organize a Bible study before school to show your friends how "christian" you were.

 

[bigedefense]

If you're arguing separation of church and state, you're remarkably incorrect. The government cannot endorse a particular religion. That's it. That's as far as "separation of church and state" actually goes.

1. "Jesus Christ" is not a religion.

2. A football coach isn't "the government," even at a public school.

3. If a Buddhist told me that Buddha was swell, I'd probably think, "It makes sense that he said that... He's a Buddhist," not cry about it to the University.

4. Football coaches have first amendment rights too.

All that said, UConn might have some rules about this kind of thing, but the Constitution ain't it.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

Agree! Reps to you