Ron Brown Returns to Nebraska as Director of Player Development

[Guy Chamberlin]

49 minutes ago, Sgt Red said:

We have people saying that RB hates the rule of law because he disagrees with the ruling of some legislators.  That this position makes the Bible a small portion of the conversation and somehow it is acceptable to segregate Christians off into their own schools or locations.  Does it make things all better when you don't have to see and hear a Christian in your public space?  Somehow, a Christian cannot disagree with the local, state, or federal laws without being an evil person.  People say he is pushing his view onto people.  Well how about the pushing of the homosexual agenda onto Christians.  You cannot watch a TV show, a movie, read a magazine without homosexuality being pushed and glorified.  But a Christian must be silenced.

 

 

Christian voices speak up. Christian voices find both supporters and detractors. That's how it is with everyone, including Colin Kaepernick.

 

Ron Brown has his views on homosexuality challenged. The state University that employs him (and provides him state celebrity) frowns on Brown taking a stand against civil rights on a public forum involving binding public policy. But that's all it is: a frowning. No one is silencing Brown or segregating Brown. Ron Brown has thrown himself into the court of public opinion. Again, not unlike Colin Kaepernick (a devout Christian himself), he has to face a world of public consequences.

 

By choice, Ron Brown chooses to go to Liberty University, where he champions its willingness to promote his brand of Christianity. Even at Liberty, anti-gay rhetoric is becoming less acceptable. Times are changing. You can call it segregation, but sometimes the free market is setting its own bar.  

 

Fun fact: in a simpler time, Ron Brown would have his life and family threatened for acting so uppity to the town council of Lynchburg, Virginia.

[Landlord]

3 hours ago, Moiraine said:

Maybe using his position during his arguments was minor but what he was fighting for was not. He was fighting against a law that would make it illegal to discriminate against/fire employees solely for their sexual orientation.

 

I guess I thought it was minor because most people don't take Ron Brown seriously? Maybe I'm giving people too much credit though lol

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Enhance said:

while simultaneously saying LGBTQ citizens were undeserving of equal protection under the law

 

Wouldn't this more technically be described as special protection under the law for LGBTQ citizens, in order to foster equal protection in the workplace? Might seem like quibbling, but that's closer to the perspective of any Christian fundamentalist who disagrees with the notion.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Sgt Red said:

No, it is spot on.  The only reason RB is being attacked is for his adherence to the God of the Bible.  The argument is always the same and their ignorance of Scripture such as Leviticus 19:27 is never researched in context or as part of Scripture as a whole.  Attackers do not care about anything other than trying to shame people into silence as if it is shameful to believe the things Ron Brown believes in.

 

You're off in fantasy land, man. As someone who's gone through theological training, worked in ministry for years, and is not ignorant of Scripture, Coach Brown is being 'attacked' because 1) his actions were inappropriate, and 2) the opinion of many are that his thoughts/ideas about certain people are harmful and hurtful and antiquated.

 

I'm not trying to shame him into silence, and I don't think it's shameful to believe the things he believes in. But if you want to so ferociously use your influence as a pulpit for your beliefs, and when your beliefs are centered around the idea of loving your neighbor as yourself, you better be prepared to be held accountable to that standard.

[southernoregonhusker]

58 minutes ago, Sgt Red said:

We have people saying that RB hates the rule of law because he disagrees with the ruling of some legislators.  That this position makes the Bible a small portion of the conversation and somehow it is acceptable to segregate Christians off into their own schools or locations.  Does it make things all better when you don't have to see and hear a Christian in your public space?  Somehow, a Christian cannot disagree with the local, state, or federal laws without being an evil person.  People say he is pushing his view onto people.  Well how about the pushing of the homosexual agenda onto Christians.  You cannot watch a TV show, a movie, read a magazine without homosexuality being pushed and glorified.  But a Christian must be silenced.

Not once has a gay person come to my door and talked about homosexuality.    

[knapplc]

Just now, Husker_Bohunk said:

Really? Where did the University frown on him taking ANY stand?

 

The statement put out by the University after the incident in Omaha specifically stated that University employees have the right to speak on any issue as long as they make it clear they are not speaking for the University and only for themselves.

 

The actual statement was releasing a statement at all.

 

Husker coaches speak at functions and reference God all the time. Not once has the University issued a statement about them. Referencing God, faith, prayer, the Bible, etc is perfectly fine. Ron Brown did more than that, and earned a response from the Administration. 

[Guy Chamberlin]

I don't think this is a nostalgia hire. Scott Frost is putting together people he knows and trusts, with extra points of they understand the Nebraska landscape. Ron Brown fit the bill.

 

I do wonder if there was a conversation about the inevitable blowback, which they could have avoided with almost any other hire. Will be curious of Brown issues a statement of his own.

[Saunders]

It's already been said once, but lets keep this civil ya'll. Mass namecalling & labeling of groups is not cool.

[Guy Chamberlin]

4 minutes ago, Husker_Bohunk said:

In the video Ron Brown states he is not for special protections for anyone because he feels that it leaves others unprotected. I don't see that as being proactively against civil rights.

 

 

 

In the video Ron Brown states that the City Council is incapable of rendering the correct decision because he doesn't believe they have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Ron DOES have that personal relationship, and it informs him categorically that homosexuality is a sin. 

 

The proactive part is where he drove 50 miles to a public meeting to hold forth with moral superiority and a Memorial Stadium address. 

[PasstheDamnBallGuy]

3 minutes ago, Husker_Bohunk said:

In the video Ron Brown states he is not for special protections for anyone because he feels that it leaves others unprotected. I don't see that as being proactively against civil rights.

 

In a way, I agree with Ron, we shouldn't need laws to tell us to do the right thing, like treating everyone you meet with the same amount of dignity and respect you (not you personally) would like to be treated with. That is my goal every day and sure, there's times I fail in that endeavor but when I fail, I pick myself back up and try again.

 

Hmm I guess I didnt see it that way, but if that's actually how he feels I'm fine with that. Im always for having as little governmental interference as possible. Good points man

[TAKODA]

3 minutes ago, Saunders said:

It's already been said once, but lets keep this civil ya'll. Mass namecalling & labeling of groups is not cool.

 

My Bad Saunders; I grouped (not intentially) Knapp and Mav as being part of the Obese group on page two. While I have no personal knowledge of this fact (belong or not in the group), it was mentioned they were heavyweights by another poster, who I choose not to  incriminate, (which I took literal) as fact.   

[Saunders]

3 minutes ago, TAKODA said:

 

My Bad Saunders; I grouped (not intentially) Knapp and Mav as being part of the Obese group on page two. While I have no personal knowledge of this fact (belong or not in the group), it was mentioned they were heavyweights by another poster, who I choose not to  incriminate, (which I took literal) as fact.   

[Cdog923]

16 minutes ago, Husker_Bohunk said:

In the video Ron Brown states he is not for special protections for anyone because he feels that it leaves others unprotected. I don't see that as being proactively against civil rights.

 

In a way, I agree with Ron, we shouldn't need laws to tell us to do the right thing, like treating everyone you meet with the same amount of dignity and respect you (not you personally) would like to be treated with. That is my goal every day and sure, there's times I fail in that endeavor but when I fail, I pick myself back up and try again.

 

Who remains unprotected by banning discrimination based on sexual orientation? 

[Sker fer life]

Ugh. I just want my skers to win more ballgames.  

[HuskerInLostWages]

1 hour ago, Husker_Bohunk said:

The bolded part made me laugh.

 

As to the part in italics, thanks and you just never know.

 

As for the rest, sadly, you're right, but it doesn't just end with the LGBTQ community. Far to many folks can't live and let live.

What people do in the privacy of their home is their business not mine so im for whatever floats your boat.  I just find flaunting ones sexuality just to do it and try to offend people like some do distastful.  I try to look at who the person is rather than base everything on their sexuality, religion, political view etc etc.  I also believe people should not be raked over the coals simply because they have a differing opinion.

[knapplc]

3 minutes ago, Husker_Bohunk said:

The only thing Ron Brown did that was wrong that night was to give his address as One Memorial Stadium.

 

Clearly that's not a universal opinion.

 

Nebraska: Fire assistant football coach Ron Brown

 

Nebraska football hires anti-gay activist and coach to lead player development

[Cdog923]

2 minutes ago, Husker_Bohunk said:

Ask Ron.

 

I'm asking you: Who remains unprotected by banning discrimination based on sexual orientation?

 

I'll ask a follow-up, too: who doesn't benefit by extending discrimination protection to LGBTQ members of society?