Team Building, My Ass!!

Rebecca just put up a post on Skepchick about some members of a football team who were taken to be baptized. Among those present at the baptism were the coach, superintendent, and a few of the parents.

In the comments of the post, owheelj said:

I can’t say I understand the outrage that much. If you actually believed that it had some power perhaps, but all that really happened was the kids in the football team got dunked in water. No harm in that. The kid with the Catholic dad is still free to choose whatever religion he likes.

I have to correct owheelj on one aspect. I'm not outraged, I'm fucking livid!

What parent wouldn't be outraged at their child being taken somewhere without their consent.

When Dannie Ammons' 16-year-old son, Robert, left on a school bus bound for a neighbouring Kentucky county two weeks ago, he thought his son's high-school football team was off to hear a motivational speaker and enjoy a steak dinner.

So the father wasn't even told where his son was going.

Instead, Robert was baptized and, along with eight other members of the Fighting Tigers football team, accepted Christ as his saviour.

Mr. Ammons, who is Catholic, said his son received the religious sacrament without his knowledge or consent.

Some of the parents weren't told of what the trip actually entailed.

Robert, a sophomore who plays safety, told his father that his coach, Scott Mooney, said partaking in a baptism would be a team-building experience. "He said it would bring the team together," Robert told the Louisville's Courier-Journal.

The coach abused his position of authority and trust, along with peer-pressure.

Roughly half of the team's 40 players participated in the excursion on Aug. 26 to Franklin Crossroads Baptist Church, the coach's church, for which permission slips were not required. That night, Robert and eight of his teammates -- all minors -- swapped their jeans and T-shirts for white robes, and were submerged in baptismal water during a 20-minute ceremony.
[emphasis mine]

None of the players were required to have a permission slip to go on a field trip across county lines? Things must have changed drastically since I was in school. If it wasn't known to the parents, such as going to play at a game or the daily trip to the vocational school, there was a permission slip to be signed.

"I believe the faith was pushed on my son," Mr. Ammons said, adding that he and his wife, who is a Baptist, hoped his son would wait until he was older to decide his faith.

"I think the coach used his faith as a weapon, and my son followed along. We feel like he was brainwashed.... I asked my son if he even knows what it means to be baptized as a Baptist, and he has no clue."

I'm pretty sure that Mr. Ammons is correct on this one.

Superintendent Janet Meeks, who is also a member of the church and who witnessed the ceremony, said she thought parents were aware the event included a church service and said participation was voluntary. "The coach requested the use of a school bus," she said in a statement released last night. "The cost of the fuel was donated, and the driver volunteered."

Superintendent Meeks should have been sure that parents were aware, and damn well shouldn't have allowed the use of school property. If they wanted to get the boys there, they should have provided private transportation.

Although Mr. Ammons said most parents were "kept in the dark," a handful of parents knew their sons were heading to the revival service. In fact, some parents travelled the 40 kilometres to the Baptist church to attend the event.

Who wants to bet that the ones who actually knew were Baptist. Only letting certain parents know what was going on only supports Mr. Ammons suspicions.

"We had invited the coach and his team for a night of encouragement," said Rev. Ron Davis, who baptized the players. "Those boys made the decision in that moment to be obedient and know Christ."

My bullshit detector just went into overdrive. The church is 40 kilometers away, and in another county. I suspect that the reverend was only thinking about proselytizing. I've never met a religious authority figure who was more intent on getting a team to win a football game than preaching the word of their deity.

Also among the 700 congregants was the coach's daughter, who was also baptized at the service. Although Rev. Davis typically seeks parental consent for baptisms involving minors, he said the boys were "bulked up" and looked older than their 16 years.

Wow, they looked older than 16. Perhaps the reverend should have asked to make sure before going through with the baptism.

"I didn't check their IDs," he said, adding that Mr. Mooney -- who has brought players to church services in the past -- did not pre-arrange for the boys to accept the sacrament.

Did any of the ones before get baptized, and where their parents aware of it? Mr. Mooney's judgement has been seriously called into question, now.

"If I had known his mother and father would be upset, I would have tried to persuade him to wait."

Tried? How about, "Not until your mother and father give their permission, or you're a responsible adult." The last of which means the coach isn't ready to be baptized yet, either.

Indeed, Mr. Ammons and his wife, Michelle, are planning to consult a lawyer. "I want something done, this whole thing is just wrong," said Mr. Ammons, adding that his son thinks he is overreacting and fears ruffling feathers among the team. "This doesn't happen every day."

It doesn't matter if this never happened before. It should never happen again. The primary blame goes on Mr. Mooney, and disciplinary action should be taken. He has a responsibility to the parents of the kids on his team. His responsibility concerns football. The conditioning, discipline, and rules of the game should be his concern. Not what religion the members of his team accept.

I don't care if the field trip is to the Creation Museum, or the Museum of Natural History. The school authorities should obtain the consent of the parents, and be honest with the parents as to where the trip is going and what is there. They are there to make sure our children learn. Be it a football coach or biology teacher, their responsibility to our kids is teaching first and religion last. If they get their priorities screwed up, they're too dumb to be in their job.

And I have one other question. Did the boys actually get their steak dinner?

Want to read more?

Summary only...

Munchkin and the Twins

Everyone in our household has had to make adjustments to the twins' arrival. For Princess and me, it's been the late night feedings and logistics. However, the person who's been impacted the most by the twins' birth is Munchkin.

For five+ years Munchkin has been an only child, and the youngest grandchild on both sides. When family came to visit, she didn't have to share attention with anyone else, and even when there were other family around she was always the youngest. Being the youngest meant that most gave her more attention. However, now that Peep and Boo are in the picture, all of that has changed.

We are having to spend a great deal of time with the twins. Since they can't eat their own food, change their own clothes, take their own baths, etc. they require attention. Munchkin is used to having that attention available to her, but now she's adjusting. Having my in-laws, and soon Mama and Padre, here has helped tremendously. It's also given Munchkin the chance to get attention from someone else when we aren't available.

We've made an effort to spend time with her, even if the twins were wearing us out. I get up early enough that I can see her onto the bus, and we both spend time with her in the afternoons going over her kindergarten homework. If the twins are sleeping we put them down and give her our undivided attention for a while, doing something that she wants to do with us. We've also found ways to keep her occupied when we're busy with her sisters.

If I'm changing one (or both) of the twins, she helps me get the diaper, wipes, ointment, etc. If one of us needs to do something we let her hold the less fussy of the twins while we do it, and we're working on setting up a way that she can help feed them.

However, one evening we had a conversation on the difference between "love" and "attention". It went something like this:

Munchkin: “[My friend] said that now you won’t love me as much because you have the twins to take care of, but that's okay.”

[Princess looks at me with surprise]

Me: "That's not true, Munchkin. We love you just as much as we did before we had the twins, but they need more attention. They can't put on their own clothes, eat their own food, or tell us what they need like you can, so we have to spend more time with them. That doesn't mean we love you any less."

Princess: “Do you remember what I told you about when you make me mad?”

Munchkin: “Even when I make you mad, that doesn’t mean that you don’t love me.”

Me: “That’s right. We will always love you, even when you drive us nuts, just like your sisters probably will sometimes.”

Munchkin: ”…”

Munchkin: ”But daddy, I can’t drive.”
...
Munchkin: ”What's so funny?"

Since I don't live in the household of Munchkin's friend I can't say for sure what made her friend say it, but Munchkin's friend has a little sister that isn't quite preschool age. Her father also has health problems, so that would probably play a part in it.

The next time Munchkin's friend visited I sat down and talked to both of them about it. I told Munchkin's friend that if she feels her mom and dad don't love her to talk to them, and if she didn't feel comfortable doing it to come tell me and I'd do what I could to help her.

Thanks to our reassurances, and probably moreso to our actions, Munchkin is coping quite well with the change. She even volunteers to help when I'm changing diapers. Although, I suspect and ulterior motive to helping me change them. She was at the hospital when Boo pooped on me (I won't go into details, here), and I'm pretty sure Munchkin is just waiting for it to happen again.

Want to read more?

Summary only...

Atheist Analogy #5: Spirituality

This atheist analogy is about spirituality. Aaron, who I wrote about in my last post, did a more recent post on Atheist Spirituality.

Aaron saw a tweet by Leonard Sweet that said:

most atheists now claim to be "spiritual;" has spirituality become a shopping bag in which to collect the ultimate in fashion accessories?

My first thought was to question where Mr. Sweet got his information. All too often the term "atheist" is used as loosely as "spiritual". People will use the words, but not actually contemplate what the terms actually mean.

However, instead of questioning what Mr. Sweet actually means by "atheist" the comments had me thinking about the term spiritual.

As I wrote in the comments, if spirituality means "disconnected embodiment of self" then I am most definitely not spiritual. The term "spirit" is often used interchangably with soul, and as I wrote in that piece I don't believe in a soul in a supernatural sense.

The belief that the spirit can transcend the present plane is prominent in many different religions. Even some non-theistic religions, such as some forms of Buddhism, are spiritual in nature. The belief that there is more to a person than just their physical body and mind permeates religions of all types. Without including something "spiritual" that lasts beyond the lifespan of the body most religions would be impossible. An afterlife, reincarnation, transcendence... All would be moot without the inclusion of something insubstantial to benefit from the ideas.

So how can spiritual apply when you don't believe there is anything beyond the physical plane in which we currently exist? If the soul is simply "a byproduct of society, consciousness, and beliefs", then of what use is spiritual?

Perhaps it's spiritual when you look up at the night sky with awe and wonder knowing that there are billions of galaxies up there that only appear as pinpoints of light along with billions of other stars in each galaxy including our own, perhaps it's spiritual when you see your own children born knowing that you not only helped to create a new life but will have a responsibility in making sure that newborn will grow up to become a real person, or perhaps it's just an experience that fills you with emotion. Any of those could be considered spiritual, although in a very loose sense.

However, I have quit using the term "spiritual". The main reason is that it's become so overused that it's became a buzzword. Each time someone says it they seem to be expecting the people around them to react as if they've said something profound. Here's some news. If everyone and their brother, from the New Age movement to mainstream religions, are using the same word it isn't profound. It's boring.

Want to read more?

Summary only...

The Lamb Among the Wolves

Via Mixter I found out about a Christian who attended the Creation Mausoleum with the SSA. As I wrote in an earlier post there was some concern about fanatical Christians joining our group as a fifth column. Fortunately, Aaron (the writer of the post) didn't join the group to cause problems.

"What would it be like to be a Christian and a fly on the wall as a group of atheists peered at exhibits that attempted to prove them wrong? How would the creationist lecturer react to challenges and would he gloat when he wins a point?"

Aaron writes from the perspective of a believer mingling with the heathens, and some of what he says is quite interesting.

I was surprised at the number, and visibility, of the security people, but since Aaron's wife had been there before she had a different perspective. Most places I've been effort has been taken to make the security personel blend in. However, at the Creation Mausoleum the purpose of security seemed to be intimidation instead of keeping of order.

I also caught some of the stares, and was ignored by some if I nodded and said "Howdy" (sue me, I'm southern). I honestly expected it, and it didn't bother me. When you come from a town where everyone knows everybody there are those who know things about you that they disagree with, and if they are of the civil sort they will ignore you. I also never heard the whispers, but then again I was more interested in the displays.

I have to commend Aaron for doing something that not many would even think of doing. He walked a mile (although it seemed like ten to me) in secular shoes, and was disappointed in what he found. His disappointment didn't stem from the actions of the secularists who attended the tour, but of how his own treated his fellow man.

While I don't agree with everything Aaron has written (and I've only read a few of his other posts) I do find his writing thought provoking, and he does seem to be open to conversation and debate. That's why he's soon going to appear on my blogroll.

Want to read more?

Summary only...