The Ron Brown Religion & Persecution Thread

[Micheal]

Ron Brown shouldnt be fired and I dont think its gonna happen anyway. Tom and Bo are okay with him stating his opinion on stuff. And I'd say that Ron Brown is a good man who has helped mold the lives of many young men while at Nebraska.

[robsker]

Ron Brown shouldnt be fired and I dont think its gonna happen anyway. Tom and Bo are okay with him stating his opinion on stuff. And I'd say that Ron Brown is a good man who has helped mold the lives of many young men while at Nebraska.

Ron Brown shouldnt be fired and I dont think its gonna happen anyway. Tom and Bo are okay with him stating his opinion on stuff. And I'd say that Ron Brown is a good man who has helped mold the lives of many young men while at Nebraska.

your assessment of this seems quite reasonable to me... I'd think each point you forward is indeed more likely to be true than not

[knapplc]

Ron Brown shouldnt be fired and I dont think its gonna happen anyway. Tom and Bo are okay with him stating his opinion on stuff. And I'd say that Ron Brown is a good man who has helped mold the lives of many young men while at Nebraska.

 

How many of those young men have you talked to, and specifically, about Coach Brown in the locker room/meeting rooms? I had the same opinion as you until I made a former player talk to me about it, seriously, not just skimming the surface. The Party Line coming out of Memorial Stadium is one thing. But that doesn't exactly represent what those players truly feel.

[kchusker_chris]

too much non-football drama on this coaching staff if you ask me.

 

(especially when Bo is hiring "his guys" - you'd think it would be calmer)

[robsker]

Ron Brown shouldnt be fired and I dont think its gonna happen anyway. Tom and Bo are okay with him stating his opinion on stuff. And I'd say that Ron Brown is a good man who has helped mold the lives of many young men while at Nebraska.

 

How many of those young men have you talked to, and specifically, about Coach Brown in the locker room/meeting rooms? I had the same opinion as you until I made a former player talk to me about it, seriously, not just skimming the surface. The Party Line coming out of Memorial Stadium is one thing. But that doesn't exactly represent what those players truly feel.

Ron Brown shouldnt be fired and I dont think its gonna happen anyway. Tom and Bo are okay with him stating his opinion on stuff. And I'd say that Ron Brown is a good man who has helped mold the lives of many young men while at Nebraska.

 

How many of those young men have you talked to, and specifically, about Coach Brown in the locker room/meeting rooms? I had the same opinion as you until I made a former player talk to me about it, seriously, not just skimming the surface. The Party Line coming out of Memorial Stadium is one thing. But that doesn't exactly represent what those players truly feel.

I'd surmise that if your (Knapplc) sampling size were larger --- say you had detailed interchange with 50 or more players... and, in addition, 50 or more High School students who have attended Ron Brown's formal presentations --- and you assessed the composite impressions of the 100 or more persons (re: was the message you heard appreciated, helpful... or was it something you did not appreciate) --- you would likely get a wide spread of opinions with a good subset in each camp... perhaps a Gaussian distribution of opinions.

 

That some have benefited from his talks is almost certain... and yes some are offended too.

[knapplc]

That some have benefited from his talks is almost certain... and yes some are offended too.

 

I have no doubt both are true. But the former does not make up for the latter.

 

And for the record I fully understand that my example is highly anecdotal, and unsourced, etc. I'm usually the first to point that out, so don't think I'm being hypocritical by expecting everyone to automatically take what I'm stating as truth. Take it with the same anecdotal grain of salt I bring up. Fair is fair.

[robsker]

too much non-football drama on this coaching staff if you ask me.

 

(especially when Bo is hiring "his guys" - you'd think it would be calmer)

too much non-football drama on this coaching staff if you ask me.

 

(especially when Bo is hiring "his guys" - you'd think it would be calmer)

of this there can be no doubt.

 

That said, is this a function of the social media/internet context simply highlighting and placing on center stage what has always been there? I do not know. Drama in any organization is ever present (to varying degrees) --- when that drama is placed in the media constantly, the impression may be that the issues are greater than they are.

 

Again, I do not know which is the case here. But... I do agree that a great deal of non-football stuff is out there re: our staff.

[Nobody]

SMH

 

http://www.facebook.com/APNews/posts/280063938751296

[robsker]

Knapplc:

 

This was an interesting quote from you...

 

 

"I have no doubt both are true. But the former does not make up for the latter"

 

Why this contention? Is it possible to state publicly something substantive and thought provoking w/o offending some (perhaps many people)? I may be misunderstanding your thoughts here... but if we refrain from public proclamation of substantive content for fear of the position stated being offensive --- would anything be proclaimed?

 

Again, maybe i am unclear on your position... perhaps it is more an issue of how that content is delivered? If so, that is certainly reasonable --- for it is possible to forward challenging content that can be offensive to some (on the basis of the content) and so so in a caring and as non-offensive manner as possible.. or be obnoxious about it. I am not sure what you are saying, actually. So... please expound...

[Saunders]

Not to put words in Carlfense's mouth, but I believe he's referring to a past conversation we've had here in this forum. It's vaguely familiar that we discussed this in the last year-ish. We talk about a lot here, so who knows.

Ah, ok.

[knapplc]

It's not OK to discriminate against people in the name of your faith. I think that's a pretty easy concept to grasp. Coach Brown is very welcome to think what he thinks, but when he states that gays are "bad" (paraphrasing) that creates a hostile environment. And it's not for Coach Brown to say if it is or isn't, it's for the people saying it's hostile to make that call.

 

In much the same way that I have striven to temper the religious debates on this forum from "you are bad" to "I don't believe what you believe," I fully support Coach Brown if he says that he believes that homosexuality is contrary to God's teachings. But when he tries to advocate taking away rights from Gays, which he did in that Omaha council meeting, that's a problem.

 

I have been both a Christian and a non-believer during my time here at HuskerBoard. In both instances I have done my best to express my views in a non-threatening, non-accusatory way. But I don't get to tell people they are not offended by what I say, they get to tell me that my comments are offensive, and it's on me to change my delivery. Same goes for Coach Brown.

[Saunders]

It's not OK to discriminate against people in the name of your faith. I think that's a pretty easy concept to grasp. Coach Brown is very welcome to think what he thinks, but when he states that gays are "bad" (paraphrasing) that creates a hostile environment. And it's not for Coach Brown to say if it is or isn't, it's for the people saying it's hostile to make that call.

 

In much the same way that I have striven to temper the religious debates on this forum from "you are bad" to "I don't believe what you believe," I fully support Coach Brown if he says that he believes that homosexuality is contrary to God's teachings. But when he tries to advocate taking away rights from Gays, which he did in that Omaha council meeting, that's a problem.

 

I have been both a Christian and a non-believer during my time here at HuskerBoard. In both instances I have done my best to express my views in a non-threatening, non-accusatory way. But I don't get to tell people they are not offended by what I say, they get to tell me that my comments are offensive, and it's on me to change my delivery. Same goes for Coach Brown.

The problem is, I don't think that's what he's saying. He's saying that homosexuality, the act/choice/whatever is bad, and he doesn't believe the government should condone it. People don't chose to be black or white (unless you're michael jackson), just like people don't (normally) chose their gender. That's why those are protected from discrimination. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they haven't found the "gay gene" yet, no?

[HuskerFanChuck]

But he didn't advocate 'taking their rights away', knapp. That's YOUR reading on it. MY reading on it is much different, probably because of my political philosophies. I don't believe he was saying to take ANYONE'S rights away in his statements. What he was SAYING was not to give them special status within the non-discrimination laws of the city. There is a big difference in those statements. Just because you're not getting non-discrimination status based on your sexual preference doesn't mean that anyone was taking any rights away from you. In fact, you haven't LOST anything by inaction. You don't GAIN that preferred status, but you don't LOSE any rights. I don't believe in granting that status either, but that doesn't mean I WANT anyone to be discriminated against, it means I don't believe that should be a preferred status within the law. Huge leap to go from one to the next in that context.

[robsker]

But he didn't advocate 'taking their rights away', knapp. That's YOUR reading on it. MY reading on it is much different, probably because of my political philosophies. I don't believe he was saying to take ANYONE'S rights away in his statements. What he was SAYING was not to give them special status within the non-discrimination laws of the city. There is a big difference in those statements. Just because you're not getting non-discrimination status based on your sexual preference doesn't mean that anyone was taking any rights away from you. In fact, you haven't LOST anything by inaction. You don't GAIN that preferred status, but you don't LOSE any rights. I don't believe in granting that status either, but that doesn't mean I WANT anyone to be discriminated against, it means I don't believe that should be a preferred status within the law. Huge leap to go from one to the next in that context.

But he didn't advocate 'taking their rights away', knapp. That's YOUR reading on it. MY reading on it is much different, probably because of my political philosophies. I don't believe he was saying to take ANYONE'S rights away in his statements. What he was SAYING was not to give them special status within the non-discrimination laws of the city. There is a big difference in those statements. Just because you're not getting non-discrimination status based on your sexual preference doesn't mean that anyone was taking any rights away from you. In fact, you haven't LOST anything by inaction. You don't GAIN that preferred status, but you don't LOSE any rights. I don't believe in granting that status either, but that doesn't mean I WANT anyone to be discriminated against, it means I don't believe that should be a preferred status within the law. Huge leap to go from one to the next in that context.

 

well stated.

[knapplc]

He absolutely wants to take away gays' inalienable rights. Those rights are currently being taken away due to shady hiring practices in Omaha. Omaha responds by making a specific law prohibiting this discriminatory practice - a law which restores the inalienable rights to gays that all people should have. Ron Brown spoke out against that law. By speaking out against that law, he's stating that it should be OK to take away their rights.

 

This is not ambiguous. At all.