The Ron Brown Religion & Persecution Thread

[Whistlebritches]

To the poster from the football section. Yes there is a rumor going around that seems to have some pretty good teeth that Harvey Pearlman has indicated if Ron Brown speaks at the Lincoln city council he will be fired. Tom and Bo have both stated that Brown should be allowed to express his views as long as its clear he doesn't represent UNL the football team or anyone else but himself. They have based this on how he's been allowed to give speeches, hold men's assemblies, and his multiple TV and Radio shows regarding his faith with zero issue from anyone at UNL.

 

My question is how does he do it and only represent himself? If everyone didn't know him before this blew up they sure do now. He can tell me all he wants that his views don't represent the school but at the end of the day he's still an outspoken person in a position of leadership at the university.

[knapplc]

My question is how does he do it and only represent himself? If everyone didn't know him before this blew up they sure do now. He can tell me all he wants that his views don't represent the school but at the end of the day he's still an outspoken person in a position of leadership at the university.

 

And that's the rub. If he speaks against the Lincoln ordnance he drags the UNL name through the mud again. Now that this story has gone national he can't show up and claim to be "just Ron Brown, Citizen."

 

I have no problem with Ron Brown thinking what he thinks. But now that he's put himself out there as "Ron Brown of One Memorial Drive" he cannot continue to protest as he sees fit without disassociating himself from UNL first.

 

I hope Coach Brown has a WWJD bracelet. Because Jesus would not speak at this city council meeting against gays.

[HuskerFanChuck]

Forgive me if this has been covered. I started to read this thread after linking from the locked thread in the football area. I got to page five and saw it was ten pages long and since it was mostly regarding the debate on Gays vs. the bible and not really Ron Brown I skipped to the last two pages and they were clean.

 

To the poster from the football section. Yes there is a rumor going around that seems to have some pretty good teeth that Harvey Pearlman has indicated if Ron Brown speaks at the Lincoln city council he will be fired. Tom and Bo have both stated that Brown should be allowed to express his views as long as its clear he doesn't represent UNL the football team or anyone else but himself. They have based this on how he's been allowed to give speeches, hold men's assemblies, and his multiple TV and Radio shows regarding his faith with zero issue from anyone at UNL.

 

Though I have not personally seen the email or chat logs there seems to be some indications that after Pearlman discussed this with TO and they differed in opinions that Pearlman has sent out feelers to several booster to see how "popular" it would be to fire Brown.

 

The last two days there has been much discussion about this with several of the boosters I have communications with and while HP has not contacted anyone of them, they seem to be very upset about this with several holding back donations until they can make sure Brown does still have a job. Of course the camp I usually communicate with doesn't exactly hold Harvey in high regard which I would gage as been about 3/4 of the major boosters. One very upset booster stated if RB was fired by Pearlman that the board of regents would be encouraged to part ways with him now instead of the 2 years they believe he will remain.

Thanks for that info, da skers. Puts my mind a little more at ease in this situation. That was basically what I would have expected to hear regarding boosters, but it's good to hear that verified a little. There are many things I think of Harvey (several of them not very kind), but one thing I will say for him is he is not stupid. I don't think he'll put his job on the line for this issue. I could be wrong, and I'll see how it plays out, but I would imagine if Ron is fired, Harvey wion't be the Chancellor at UNL much longer. Just a got feeling about this situation. I've had my say on the rest, and I believe my feelings are known. I won't reiterate but to say that as long as Ron explicitly states that its HIS opinion if he speaks at the Lincoln City Council meeting, there should be no repercussions for that.

[The Dude]

The Dude, why do you find it necessary to equate faith with blind belief with no evidence?

For accuracy's sake.

[tschu]

Faith = blind belief with no evidence, by definition

[strigori]

lo country, I'm pretty sure Christianity takes a lot of heat because they dish out a lot. How many other religions have had millions of death done in it's name? How many other religions went on crusades? How many other religions have had so much hate and vitriol spread around in the name of Christ and 'God's will'?

 

I'm not a theological expert, but my basic of understanding of world history and historical religious history is that Christianity is by far and away completely responsible for the criticism it gets.

 

What history witnessed with the crusades was not Christianity. I will not argue theologies or doctrine as to what was the cause, but rest assured it was not Christianity.

But the people on the crusade said it was, and many of the crusades were ordered by the pope at the time. So by definition it was Christianity, regardless of what some modern people want to think and rewrite history.

 

And the crusades are hardly the only case in which Christians have been guilty of hate, violence or other sorts of evil in the name of god. We can go through some major points over the last several hundred years if you really like.

 

That depends. If I wear OU shirts, cheer when OU scores a TD and beats Nebraska, yet call myself a Husker fan, would you really believe I'm a Husker fan?

 

In much the same way, a religion whose VAST majority of teachings focus on peace, understanding, love for your neighbor, etc, being used as an excuse for the Crusades doesn't mean that religion is to blame. MAN is to blame.

 

I said much the same thing in this debate when I identified as a Christian. If I walk up to you and punch you in the jaw and say, "I did this in the name of lo country," are you going to be pissed at lo country, or are you going to be pissed at knapplc? I sure as heck hope you'd hold me accountable - lo doesn't advocate punching people for no good reason.

 

Christianity can't be held responsible for the wrongs committed in its name any more than America can be held responsible for the mass murder inflicted in Afghanistan a month ago by one of our servicemen. It's anathema to us - we abhor such crimes, and have laws against them. It is unfair for Afghanis to blame all of us for the wrongs of one of us. But they will, just like Christians will be blamed - wrongly - for the Crusades, or for the Inquisition, or whatever other evil was done in the name of their god.

 

Islam doesn't condone flying planes full of innocent victims into buildings. Christianity doesn't condone rounding up Muslims and gunning them down into ditches. Let's be better than to fall into the trap of believing the worst of our neighbor because someone put a label on behavior THEY should own.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And tangentially, Atheists/Agnostics cannot help but blame MANKIND for any wrong, perpetuated by any man, anywhere. All religions are an invention of Man. You cannot blame the pacifist Christian or Muslim for the wrongs of all men. All men are to blame for "wrongs." We are the ones - we, the humans - who come up with this stuff. What does it matter what label we put on it?

The difference is what one man does and what a very large group does reflect differently. The crusades were blessed by the popes across about two hundred years. And at the time (around 1100 AD) there were no denominations, so yeah, if the leader of your religion says its how things are... When one person behaves badly, it reflects on the man. When hundreds, thousands or millions of members of a group behave a certain way, you better believe that is a part of that group's belief system.

 

Silent members of a group who do nothing while watching others in the group preform acts against the way they think it should be, are just as guilty. Like the quote "All that is required for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing."

 

The same works for Islam. When you have various clerics calling for killing people, it has the same effect.

 

Weather or not you want to say Christianity preaches hate, many, many priests and preachers do. I've seen it first hand. And this is even without all the thinly veiled threats that are listed in the bible. Hell, there is a bill board off highway 75 sb from I80 that says ""You can run but you can't hide from Me" -God" Sounds like a threat to me.

 

Just about ever religion(Buddhists get a pass here, and I don't know enough about Shinto) over the last two thousand years or so acts exactly the same when they are the dominant power in a region. Non-believers are persecuted, discriminated against, or even killed. Christian ruled lands from the middle ages to the early settlers in North America were tyrannical about enforcing religious dogma. The Middle East still is like this is many to most countries.

 

Its a sad truth of the monotheistic religions.

[knapplc]

The difference is what one man does and what a very large group does reflect differently. The crusades were blessed by the popes across about two hundred years. And at the time (around 1100 AD) there were no denominations, so yeah, if the leader of your religion says its how things are... When one person behaves badly, it reflects on the man. When hundreds, thousands or millions of members of a group behave a certain way, you better believe that is a part of that group's belief system.

 

Silent members of a group who do nothing while watching others in the group preform acts against the way they think it should be, are just as guilty. Like the quote "All that is required for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing."

 

The same works for Islam. When you have various clerics calling for killing people, it has the same effect.

 

Weather or not you want to say Christianity preaches hate, many, many priests and preachers do. I've seen it first hand. And this is even without all the thinly veiled threats that are listed in the bible. Hell, there is a bill board off highway 75 sb from I80 that says ""You can run but you can't hide from Me" -God" Sounds like a threat to me.

 

Just about ever religion(Buddhists get a pass here, and I don't know enough about Shinto) over the last two thousand years or so acts exactly the same when they are the dominant power in a region. Non-believers are persecuted, discriminated against, or even killed. Christian ruled lands from the middle ages to the early settlers in North America were tyrannical about enforcing religious dogma. The Middle East still is like this is many to most countries.

 

Its a sad truth of the monotheistic religions.

 

OK, you're blaming guns for murders, then. Whatever analogy you want to use. Religion is not inherently evil, but it can be used for evil. Guns - same thing. You cannot blame gun manufacturers because people use their products to kill others. It's the responsibility of the person who misuses the thing.

[Landlord]

Faith = blind belief with no evidence, by definition

 

 

 

 

confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another'sability.

 

 

 

belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that thehypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

 

 

 

belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: thefirm faith of the Pilgrims.

 

 

 

belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit,etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

 

 

 

a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewishfaith.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh... you were trying to be funny?

[JJ Husker]

 

I can't speak for every atheist, but I don't claim to know for certain God doesn't exist. I'm just unconvinced He does until adequate evidence can be provided to support that hypothesis.

That is fine and reasonable. But I am curious, given the nature of the existence of God, exactly what do you imagine "adequate evidence" would look like? The rest of us who claim God is real and does exist have to rely on faith. I cannot grasp what hard evidence could ever manifest that could possibly change a persons mind. What is it that you keep an eye out for that could possibly change your mind? I mean it would be overly obvious if he could be seen surfing on the clouds, larger than life, but what short of something like that are you waiting for? (btw- if that did occur, most of the non-believers on this board would write it off as merely anecdotal).

I guess I wouldn't know for certain until the evidence is actually presented. Seeing evidence that everything was created in 7 days would be a good start I guess, but we already have mountains of evidence to the contrary (literally and figuratively).

 

If I could see a giant bearded white guy surfing around the clouds right now, I suppose that would count as physical evidence for... something. As long as everyone could see it, so I knew I wasn't just crazy. It would only be anecdotal if you told me you saw it, it was put through no scientific scrutiny, and I'd just have to take your word for it.

 

I suppose it is much tougher to allow for the possibility of creation IF you use a literal interpretation from the Bible and try to reconcile it with scientific evidence. I have gotten beyond that limitation by acknowledging that at least some of the Bible was written to convey some general ideas and not to be taken word for word in all instances. However, I sure think God could have created everything in 7 days and then thousands upon thousands of years pass to give us the entire body of scientific evidence that we have today. I haven't found any scientific evidence yet that makes creation, God, or the Bible impossible. But, I also haven't found any scientific evidence that proves he exists either. I simply think there are things we as humans are incapable of understanding or ever figuring out. I get that some people place a lot more value in our limited human abilities and think that if they can't comprehend it then it must not be possible. Also, I think at some point the mountains of anecdotal evidence has to become more than some random stories a person doubts. I mean people have been convicted of crimes only on circumstantial evidence. I think the evidence is there and simply lacking the smoking gun too many are waiting for.

[knapplc]

Faith = blind belief with no evidence, by definition

 

confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another'sability.

 

belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that thehypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

 

belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: thefirm faith of the Pilgrims.

 

belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit,etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

 

a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewishfaith.

 

 

 

 

Oh... you were trying to be funny?

 

The two bold are what you're looking for, right? One definition may be more palatable, but the differences are quite slight.

[zoogs]

Landlord, I don't see how you can argue out of this - that faith is by definition blind. A surrender of critical examination of let's say, the Bible, or Jesus's teachings. It isn't as if you can cherry pick what you consider truth from his words, or the words of the new Testament?

[Chimpsmack]

Faith doesn't necessarily have to be blind. Faith traditions generally generate a mountain of evidence to support them, and while this evidence is not empirical, it's not accurate to say it's absent. So it is possible to examine it critically and come to the conclusion that a faith tradition is reasonable with the understanding that different people give different amounts of weight to different types of evidence. I, personally, don't agree with the religious in terms of the value of their faith evidence, their logical methods or their conclusions, I don't think it's fair to assume they make their decisions entirely without consideration.

[The Dude]

Faith traditions generally generate a mountain of evidence to support them

Sure, but logically that's completely backwards. Drawing a conclusion first, then looking for evidence to support it isn't science. It's propaganda.

[Hoosker]

[walksalone]

 

Jesus hates Giraffes?