With a few alternate word choices, journalists could express these issues with more comprehension, and thereby help readers understand. Above, I introduced the phrase “appreciation of each person,” whereas the article employs “tolerance.” In a society which is trying to adopt equality among human beings, there is no place for the sentiment of “tolerance” and its variations, like “tolerant.” No person owns the higher ground from which to feel “tolerant” over another human, even though it is done all the time by many people. Certainly, tolerance is better than abuse, but they are both on the wrong side of equality. Even “respect” is often insufficient, since most humans deserve appreciation. And they deserve consideration during every decade of their lives, since each one is on a different path toward psychological maturity during their chronological progress. Even the intended child deserves appreciation. The word “person” is also a key. The word choice could be “spirit” or “soul” which would be particular to the believer. The phrase “different Gods” expresses a contradiction, perhaps even arrogance against the God. Herb Freiler taught me a clarifying reference to any person's quotation of “god.” The entity in a believer’s mind and/or heart might be understood by people of other beliefs as “god” but not as “God.” Additionally, whatever may be in control of what-is, if there is control, could be not “God” but “the God.” When Abraham Lincoln spoke of both sides in the Civil War, the meaning seems to have been that they prayed to the same “god”; it could not have been the God, unless the God was responsible for the war. I think journalists could help the public comprehend the God by always referring to what one person or a like-minded group believes as “god,” never omitting the quotation marks or using capital “g.” For example, Rivers’s statement is precise with “I don’t think there’s any [‘god’] cheering for one team over another.” Also, “god” expresses deference to the God, whatever that is. With these ideas, Rivers might have said, “I don’t think the God cheers for one team or another.” Now to the most important symantics: a “spiritual connection with every team” is doubtful, but a “civic connection with every team” is obvious.Rivers, in addressing the majority regarding termination of team prayer, said, "This is not church." Likewise, the public arena is not church.
Returning to Amick’s article, Mark Jackson “sees great value in sharing his spirituality with his players.” Many in the league practice public prayer and a couple teams conduct public prayer in their basketball arena. Jackson cites Phil Jackson, who formerly
Returning to semantics, the article refers to and sometimes quotes “spirituality” and a player’s “soul.” Synonyms of “spiritual” include religious, holy, saintly, pious, sacred, devout, and divine. Thus, someone who claims to be “spiritual” is expressing if not claiming all those lofty qualities, contrasting the person who is “secular.’And “soul” refers to the “spiritual” part of a human, not as a man. However, “secular” is the antonym of “religious,” and therefore, has no meaning until the believer defines his “religion.” Only the believer can define “religion,” and thus, the so called “secular” human has no argument in the matter. He is not considered, let alone respected or appreciated, by the self-righteous "spiritual" man. Is self-righteous a synonym for spiritual? Were “secular” players out of Phil Jackson’s former formula for commercial success? I practice yoga and think it helps my body, mind, and person. Wishing to be a good citizen, when someone makes the traditional statement about yoga helping my soul or spirituality, I respond, “I doubt soul but know it helps my body, mind, and person.” If players cooperate because of Phil Jackson’s record, are they, intentionally or not, compromising their person? In a civic setting, which the NBA seems to be, it might be best for people to agree to be civil, keeping religion private, as the article suggests. There is no doubt that civic governance should not be church.
I would be remiss not to address the motivation for Amick’s article: the recent trend to approve of LGBT lifestyles at the expense of religious tradition. Americans are bemused when they represent heterosexual bonding as a Judeo-Christian tradition. Heterosexual bonding for the majority is no more traditional than homosexual bonding for a minority of the populations. This has been true among placental animals for some 65 million years. Heterosexual bonding is preferred by some couples, both because they prefer its benefits and because procreation may naturally occur. In same-sex bonds, technology has always been required for procreation, in the past, by ménage à trois or ménage a quatre. Thus, children of technology are subjected to increased risks, both biological and psychological. Monogamy in either heterosexuality or homosexuality should be appreciated, and promiscuity in both practices should be discouraged. These are civic, corporeal issues that should not be compromised as supernatural or spiritual--incorporeal. They should be addressed by cooperatively autonomous citizens who voluntarily compromise to accommodate each other including any intended children.
By all means, mutual accommodation including intended children is change I am trying to promote on this blog. America should at last focus on its civility, putting religion in its proper place: among the private interests. Whereas “god” divides citizens, a supermajority committing to and trusting in the preamble’s seven civic goals offers justice, freedom, and integrity, so that everyone can pursue happiness as they perceive it.
BTW, Amick’s article introduced me to Ubuntu philosophy. After brief consideration, I perceive that the preamble is a favorable alternative and plan to write an essay to discover my opinion.