Diaco Hired as Purdue DC

ulukinatme

Carr for QB 2025!
Messages
31,518
Reaction score
17,389
I'm curious whether or not UCONN drops to a knee right before they leave the locker room on gameday to say a quick prayer.

I went to a public high school and we did this before every game. I'm fairly certain this is common around the country, both at high schools and colleges.

Yeah, this is common for most sporting events. My guess is the coach made his statement, some players thought it was amusing and were joking about it afterwards. Someone overheard it, had a stick up their butt, and complained to the higher ups. I doubt anyone on the team was actually offended by the statement.
 

ThePiombino

The OG "TP"
Messages
16,476
Reaction score
6,245
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

My argument has nothing to do with church and state. It has to do with a coach force feeding his beliefs on others who may not share the same faith as he, especially at a public school where there is no emphasis on Jesus Christ.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
My argument has nothing to do with church and state. It has to do with a coach force feeding his beliefs on others who may not share the same faith as he, especially at a public school where there is no emphasis on Jesus Christ.

I guess you and I have different notions of what constitutes "force feeding." I hear this story and my immediate response is "who GAF? GTF over it."
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
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.

I guess you and I have different notions of what constitutes "force feeding." I hear this story and my immediate response is "who GAF? GTF over it."

Textbook.
 
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
My only interest in this case is to see whether or not this guy can keep a program together. He is off to a rocky start.

As far as the religion in America thing. It was painfully not celebrated in any government administration in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and early twentieth century, so no one felt left out, slighted, or disfavored. Christmas was entirely kept out of the books.

Eisenhower and Kennedy were the first ones to make big displays of Christmas and create the illusion that there ever had been religion crossing the country's business. Kennedy and send out cards (officially). Eisenhower had a tree and some decorations. Honest Abe made sure there was at least one cabinet meeting on that day. There was no celebration, whatsoever.
 
Last edited:

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
48,947
Reaction score
11,226
Well, this thread went places... It's like we left home headed for Huntington Beach and four days later arrived in Baton Rouge...
 

MJ12666

New member
Messages
794
Reaction score
60
My only interest in this case is to see whether or not this guy can keep a program together. He is off to a rocky start.

As far as the religion in America thing. It was painfully not celebrated in any government the eighteenth, nineteenth, and early twentieth century, so no one felt left out, slighted, or disfavored. Christmas was entirely kept out of the books.

Eisenhower and Kennedy were the first ones to make big displays of Christmas and create the illusion that there ever had been religion crossing the country's business. Kennedy and send out cards (officially). Eisenhower had a tree and some decorations. Honest Abe made sure there was at least one cabinet meeting on that day. There was no celebration, whatsoever.

This is not entirely true. There were actually five states (after the US constitution was approved) that recognized a specific religion as the state's official religion per each state's constitution. Connecticut (eliminated in 1818), Georgia (eliminated in 1789), Massachusetts (eliminated in 1780), SC (eliminated in 1790), and Virginia (eliminated in 1786). Additionally, NC and NH both had provisions in their constitution that specifically required members of their legislators to be Christian and Protestant respectively; both constitutions were changed in the 1870's.

What is interesting is that all the changes to these states constitutions were enacted via the specific state's legislative process and not via a court ruling.
 
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
This is not entirely true. There were actually five states (after the US constitution was approved) that recognized a specific religion as the state's official religion per each state's constitution. Connecticut (eliminated in 1818), Georgia (eliminated in 1789), Massachusetts (eliminated in 1780), SC (eliminated in 1790), and Virginia (eliminated in 1786). Additionally, NC and NH both had provisions in their constitution that specifically required members of their legislators to be Christian and Protestant respectively; both constitutions were changed in the 1870's.

What is interesting is that all the changes to these states constitutions were enacted via the specific state's legislative process and not via a court ruling.

A) Jefferson re-wrote Va's laws. Basically, VA had a copy of the English Penal Laws (enforced with devastating effect in Ireland), which were wholly unconstitutional the minute that the United States was born. The Va law was basically a monopolistic protection of the Anglican Church Franchise (within the state). Not only did you have to be Anglican to be a lawful resident of the state, but if you weren't, in addition to having rights and privileges withheld, you had to pay a steep additional "tithe" to the church.

B) Many states did stupid things. Massachusetts, which followed the charter of the Massachusetts Bay Company, acting as if it were following the words of Jesus, practiced early religious tolerance and offered haven to "Catholics and Jews." Anything else ever put on the books was just that, toilet paper.

A good example of the stupidity that the founding fathers had to deal with and untangle was found with the Colony of Maryland. Most of us were taught that it was a haven of religious freedom from the earliest days, as founded by Lord Baltimore.

Freedom of religion was first applied as a principle in the founding of the colony of Maryland, also founded by the Catholic Lord Baltimore, in 1634.[2] Fifteen years later (1649), the first enactment of religious liberty, the Maryland Toleration Act, drafted by Lord Baltimore, provided: "No person or persons...shall from henceforth be any waies troubled, molested or discountenanced for or in respect of his or her religion nor in the free exercise thereof." The Maryland Toleration Act was repealed with the assistance of Protestant assemblymen and a new law barring Catholics from openly practicing their religion was passed.[3] In 1657, Lord Baltimore regained control after making a deal with the colony's Protestants, and in 1658 the Act was again passed by the colonial assembly. This time, it would last more than thirty years, until 1692,[4] when after Maryland's Protestant Revolution of 1689, freedom of religion was again rescinded.[2][5] In addition in 1704, an Act was passed "to prevent the growth of Popery in this Province", preventing Catholics from holding political office.[5] Full religious toleration would not be restored in Maryland until the American Revolution, when Maryland's Charles Carroll of Carrollton signed the American Declaration of Independence.

Kind of like the gawkward back and forth on IE, isn't it?

3) Most scholars believe that every states official religion law were abandoned with the predecessor colony's representative signing the Declaration of Independence. The may have been kept on the books for ammunition in the states' rights argument looming.

4) Here is the intent, mood, and opinion of one of the early Congresses, as exemplified by the senate vote to ratify a treaty. These treaties were very big things, without them, no country would recognize our infant nations government.

Signed on November 4, 1796, the Treaty of Tripoli was a document that included the following statement:


As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

This treaty was submitted to the Senate and was ratified unanimously on June 7, 1797, and then signed by President John Adams on June 10, 1797. In accordance with Article VI of the Constitution, on that date this treaty became incorporated as part of "the supreme Law of the Land".
 
Last edited:

dshans

They call me The Dribbler
Messages
9,624
Reaction score
1,181
Ah, yes. Fox News. Fair and balanced. Unbiased, never opinionated and always tolerant of opposing views using ordered, intellectual and reasoned argument.

Also on the Front Line of creating, roiling and promoting the fantastical "The War on Christianity."

Secular Humanists are clearly demons; spawn of the Devil. They'll bring Apocalypse upon us at any moment.

Sheesh ...
 
Messages
2,475
Reaction score
237
SEC is also in the Bible Belt... it all makes sense now.

Jesus is rewarding his faithful with national championships.

Get to praying people.
 
P

Pachuco

Guest
Maybe, maybe not. I did a quick read (with a short break to visit the vomitorium) and I think the punctuation was correct ...

I thought this line might have sent you to the vomitorium (sp?):

"Jones, along with new head coach Mike Diaco, had previously worked at the University of Notre."

So much wrong...

grammar.jpeg
 
Last edited:

CanadalovesND

Well-known member
Messages
6,525
Reaction score
5,946
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/dl3DjyLkcUk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

mick2

JRPG's are for nerds!
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
135
dude is gonna be a star! can't wait to see what uconn looks like in the coming years.
 

IrishLion

I am Beyonce, always.
Staff member
Messages
19,127
Reaction score
11,077
He was actually pretty straight-forward in that video lol. I'm excited to see what he can do with that program.
 

GBdomer

People's Champion
Messages
6,845
Reaction score
555
He has actually normal and I understood what he was talking about maybe for the first time in my life.
 

IrishBlood81

New member
Messages
1,748
Reaction score
88
He has actually normal and I understood what he was talking about maybe for the first time in my life.

Haha! I was gonna say the same. I think he finally learned that speak American English is a good idea when coaching football and its good for the fans to know you're normal and sane.
Great ad, some real good content, I'm a bit surprised.
Defo hear some Kelly speak in there.
 
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
I have to tell you all, I think I work as hard to follow the way Jesus taught us as the next man, and I am willing to admit how often I fail! But I cannot help looking at this furor of silly, stupid shit, at UConn, that earlier events this winter at ND have been a bit of an exorcism, or expectoration, at the very least.

Jesus said to love others as you would love me, and to treat others the way you would want to be treated. What part of this whole stupid circus has anything to do with his way?

To me the pertinent issue is the blindness to which this act was entered. Who would not see this train-wreck of idology on the horizon?

Where is the loving others as you would yourself. No, there is a furor of getting a point in. This is all (from an honest psychological perspective) about hiding each ones own adequacies by decrying the other. Pretty soon you will have some asshole pining for the good old days of the Crusades.

I will point things out, the same are true of me and all others. What happened to the directions of love one another? That is gone from here (the UConn events). It is gone from most modern-media, American Christan religious discussion (any perspective), and it was never at Fox in the first place.
 
Last edited:

greyhammer90

the drunk piano player
Messages
16,825
Reaction score
16,090
Exciting product on the field? I guess he's going to change his defensive strategy.
 

BeauBenken

Shut up, Richard
Staff member
Messages
16,041
Reaction score
5,491
He has always been one of my favorites coaches and personalities because he is so very authentic. I love Coach Diaco. I think he has some things to work on still, but I feel like he works very hard for what he has. He is what you want in a ball coach. He just does work.
 
Top