So who is being excluded, everyone is invited and its not a mandatory thing. Its there for the players to use and if they dont want to then fine. I doubt he figures out a starting lineup based on attendance. I doubt some college football player really cares if his team mate shows up or not for a religious service. You all act like its some type of cult or players being punished for not being Christians.

 

I don't think anybody is saying this. There are a couple of key points that I think people are trying to explain. The first is that Clemson is a State University, and there is supposed to be that separation between Church and State, and while what he's doing isn't necessarily wrong, it may not be legal, and could create an environment that is uncomfortable for those who do not participate in the religious activity. The second point is that many of us here feel that this would be a completely different story, and not so favorably received if Sweeney was a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Satanist (or any other minority religion here in the US) and held the same meetings and get togethers. Nobody has referred to Sweeney as leading a cult and was waiting for the alien ship to save the good. Although again, if he were, then I think that would be a big problem. Cults in themselves aren't illegal, and protected under Our Freedom of Religion. So I guess you ARE saying under some circumstances, (like if it were a cult like situation) this wouldn't be ok. If that's the case, he shouldn't be doing it period, whether it's Christianity or Ancient Greek Mythology, in a State run University. Doesn't make him a bad guy, or evil, however he chooses to worship.

The CONSTITUTION protects ones right to practice any religion one chooses. You know...that document that you cite when talking about gun rights?

You, and others, are missing my point. One member compared a coach holding voluntary Christian meetings with "the church of Satan". The United States was founded on Christianity, which is the exact opposite of "the church of Satan".

 

If you want to defend "the church of Satan" go ahead, but I will not.

You, and others, are missing my point. One member compared a coach holding voluntary Christian meetings with "the church of Satan". The United States was founded on Christianity, which is the exact opposite of "the church of Satan".

 

If you want to defend "the church of Satan" go ahead, but I will not.

 

And you, too, are missing the point. The USA was not founded with a preference to Christianity. It was founded on the principle of religious freedom, which means people are free to worship how they please. And while I don't condone it, that also means Satanists are afforded that right just like any others.

And you, too, are missing the point. The USA was not founded with a preference to Christianity. It was founded on the principle of religious freedom, which means people are free to worship how they please. And while I don't condone it, that also means Satanists are afforded that right just like any others.

So be it, but the founders of the country specified God when speaking of religious freedom. Worshiping Satan was not even considered to them. Defend it if you want, but nothing anyone says here, or elsewhere, will cause me to defend Satanism as a religion.

So be it, but the founders of the country specified God when speaking of religious freedom. Worshiping Satan was not even considered to them. Defend it if you want, but nothing anyone says here, or elsewhere, will cause me to defend Satanism as a religion.

 

There's a joke about FreeMasonry in there somewhere, which makes me wonder if the Founders didn't consider a lot of crazy things from a religious standpoint.

 

Overall, I don't disagree with your point w/re to Satanism. However, the Founders wrote it in a way that allows for it, and many other religions, whatever their relative merit.

 

With regard to your point about God, I would ask if you think the God the Founders referred to is the God of Abraham?

There's a joke about FreeMasonry in there somewhere, which makes me wonder if the Founders didn't consider a lot of crazy things from a religious standpoint.

 

Overall, I don't disagree with your point w/re to Satanism. However, the Founders wrote it in a way that allows for it, and many other religions, whatever their relative merit.

 

With regard to your point about God, I would ask if you think the God the Founders referred to is the God of Abraham?

I do. The history has to be applied to what they wrote, and they clearly only considered Christianity as a possibility, they said as much. Why did they specifically separate Church from state? Was it to allow people to worship Satan? No, it was due to the persecution that they received in their previous home country because they refused to practice things that they seen as non-scriptual, not from the Bible. They were Christians, but they did not want to do things that went against the Bible, which their old government was making them do through fear of loss of position, and fear of loss of life. They did ask for, and assure, "freedom of religion", but they were not asking to be free to worship Satan, they were asking for freedom to worship God, without infringement by the government.

"In God We Trust" is printed both literally and figuratively on everything this country prints. Doesn't sound like the Church of Satan to me.

 

"In God We Trust" was not even part of the Founding Father's thinking. It was added to coinage in 1861 by Salmon P Chase. It was added to paper money in 1957 by Eisenhower, who also added (in God) to "The Pledge of Allegiance". The first 6 Presidents were all very unclear and jumped back and forth with their Christian beliefs, but strongly supported separation of church and state. Many were Unitarians or Deists. Madison tried very hard to push Christianity in the Constitution, but was met with great resistance. Later in life he admitted he was wrong in doing so by saying advocating Christianity was unconstitutional. There have been a few religious Presidents, but most kept it to a personal level.

 

 

Eisenhower, by the way was raised a "Jehovah's Witness", but later moved away from that. many believe that Jefferson, Lincoln, and Taft were atheists, although they probably were not.

 

Lincoln rarely, if ever, spoke or wrote of anything with religion or Christianity and was not affiliated with any, Taft was quite outspoken about not affirming Jesus Christ as a savior and was Unitarian, and Jefferson it is really hard to tell, he was all over the place.

^ and furthermore:

 

Melkote Ramaswamy, an Hindu American scholar, writes that the presence of the phrase “In God we trust” on American currency is a reminder that “there is God everywhere, whether we are conscious or not.”[25] In Judaism and Christianity, the official motto "In God we trust" resounds with several verses from the Bible, including Psalm 118:8, Psalm 40:3, Psalm 73:28, and Proverbs 29:25.[26] Feisal Abdul Rauf, a Muslim imam writes that the phrase “In God we trust” also resonates with early Islamic teaching, adapted from Christianity and Judaism, offering two verses from the Qur’an, Quran 3:193 and Quran 2:285.[27]

 

No I didn't: reference to a God team unifying Christianity, Judaism, and Islamic reference. :sssh: don't tell anyone!

So be it, but the founders of the country specified God when speaking of religious freedom. Worshiping Satan was not even considered to them. Defend it if you want, but nothing anyone says here, or elsewhere, will cause me to defend Satanism as a religion.

 

 

I'm not arguing that it was, and don't expect you to defend Satanism. It is an organized religion and I just used it to illustrate how people would probably feel differently if his religion weren't Christianity.

 

To me, it's somewhat telling if the complaint didn't come from inside the program (or someone inside the program who complained to someone else and wanted them to file the complaint so as to remain anonymous). If all he was doing was passively inviting his team to church then I do think it's unfair to him that it's went down like this. I remember seeing an interview years ago where Bobby Bowden said that he required his team to attend two church services, one at a predominantly white church and one at a predominantly black church, as a team building activity. I can see differences with his approach, however, as his interview certainly came off as more of a team building type activity than one where he promoted a religion.

 

I just think it's kind of a dangerous thing for someone in a high profile position at a state university to be doing much more than announcing it in the same manner that he would a secular event. If he were at a private school, it'd be different. Not saying that Sweeney getting dimed out was right, just that I could see how it might happen.