The Ron Brown Religion & Persecution Thread

[EZ-E]

Ron Brown is a great coach,and entitled to his opinion.If people can't deal with it,maybe They should move on.You can't get rid of coach's everytime they have an opinion you don't like.

 

Wrong-minded on many levels. Let's review:

 

Nobody is saying he's not entitled to his opinion. In fact, in the OP, I supported Coach Brown's right to voice his opinion. The clear difference is that he - HE - continually thrusts UNL into the conversation. He did it again in his statement that he would be more proud to be fired because of his religious beliefs than because of his performance. Wait a second - why are we suddenly talking about employment? This is Ron Brown discussing his opinion on gays. Why is his employment coming into play? Because - and solely because - he put it there.

 

Next, nobody wants to get rid of a coach because we disagree with his opinion. I'm certain there are people for whom I cheer loudly, both players and coaches, who have wildly disparate religious and political views. Those views are wholly irrelevant to why I'm a fan, and I don't care what their views are or how they express them. The ONLY difference is if they wrap themselves in the cloak of UNL to espouse those views. If John Cook suddenly comes out in favor of widgets, and I'm anti-widget to the core, I'm still gonna cheer for him on game day. But if John Cook uses his position as volleyball coach to promote his widget agenda, we have a problem.

 

Ron Brown IS a great coach.

 

Ron Brown IS entitled to his opinion.

 

I SUPPORT Ron Brown's right to not only hold the opinion he holds, but to voice that opinion.

 

I DO NOT and WILL NOT support Ron Brown's choice to promote his opinion under the auspices of UNL. That is not negotiable.

 

Appreciate the wording of the post Knapp.

 

Only thing I am thinking is that this was blown way out of proportion. I didn't see anything than would classify him in the bigot or hateful category.

 

Last, question for everyone:

 

If he argues the opposite way, is there an uproar?

 

The difference is if Ron Brown made the statement: "I fully respect and accept that right of gay men and women to pursue happiness. Their civil and human rights should not be threatened under any circumstances. They should be given equal treatment in our culture, government, and even our football program" he would have made a wholly moral, wholly respectable statement. What he has done is the opposite of that. Aside from simply being morally incorrect in his assessment of homosexuality, he goes further and uses his position as coach thrust himself--and by association, the University--into a battle against civil liberties.

 

If he came out and said that all people should be gay and only gays should be allowed to get married, that would also be a problem.

 

What he needs to do is keep his yap shut and worry about his running backs. It's not that complicated.

 

Semantics aside, which your post was purely all opinion, answer the question.

[knapplc]

EZ-E, you're asking if there's an uproar if Coach Brown speaks in favor of supporting the inalienable rights gays already have?

 

Easy answer: No.

[Husker_x]

Ron Brown is a great coach,and entitled to his opinion.If people can't deal with it,maybe They should move on.You can't get rid of coach's everytime they have an opinion you don't like.

 

Wrong-minded on many levels. Let's review:

 

Nobody is saying he's not entitled to his opinion. In fact, in the OP, I supported Coach Brown's right to voice his opinion. The clear difference is that he - HE - continually thrusts UNL into the conversation. He did it again in his statement that he would be more proud to be fired because of his religious beliefs than because of his performance. Wait a second - why are we suddenly talking about employment? This is Ron Brown discussing his opinion on gays. Why is his employment coming into play? Because - and solely because - he put it there.

 

Next, nobody wants to get rid of a coach because we disagree with his opinion. I'm certain there are people for whom I cheer loudly, both players and coaches, who have wildly disparate religious and political views. Those views are wholly irrelevant to why I'm a fan, and I don't care what their views are or how they express them. The ONLY difference is if they wrap themselves in the cloak of UNL to espouse those views. If John Cook suddenly comes out in favor of widgets, and I'm anti-widget to the core, I'm still gonna cheer for him on game day. But if John Cook uses his position as volleyball coach to promote his widget agenda, we have a problem.

 

Ron Brown IS a great coach.

 

Ron Brown IS entitled to his opinion.

 

I SUPPORT Ron Brown's right to not only hold the opinion he holds, but to voice that opinion.

 

I DO NOT and WILL NOT support Ron Brown's choice to promote his opinion under the auspices of UNL. That is not negotiable.

 

Appreciate the wording of the post Knapp.

 

Only thing I am thinking is that this was blown way out of proportion. I didn't see anything than would classify him in the bigot or hateful category.

 

Last, question for everyone:

 

If he argues the opposite way, is there an uproar?

 

The difference is if Ron Brown made the statement: "I fully respect and accept that right of gay men and women to pursue happiness. Their civil and human rights should not be threatened under any circumstances. They should be given equal treatment in our culture, government, and even our football program" he would have made a wholly moral, wholly respectable statement. What he has done is the opposite of that. Aside from simply being morally incorrect in his assessment of homosexuality, he goes further and uses his position as coach thrust himself--and by association, the University--into a battle against civil liberties.

 

If he came out and said that all people should be gay and only gays should be allowed to get married, that would also be a problem.

 

What he needs to do is keep his yap shut and worry about his running backs. It's not that complicated.

 

Semantics aside, which your post was purely all opinion, answer the question.

 

I already did. You chose not to hear it.

 

If Ron Brown publicly read the statement I prepared for him, there would be no uproar. Why? Because it would be a statement that promotes human rights and civil liberties. That's not an opinion. It's not semantics. The uproar you're referring to is happening because Brown chose to do the opposite.

[The Dude]

If he argues the opposite way, is there an uproar?

Absolutely not. That would actually jibe with UNL's anti-discrimination policy. Not contradict it.

[Landlord]

All of my Christian friends defend Ron Brown because "we don't have any rights except the right to hell".

 

Wow, I am dense. I am not seeing where this was alluded to.

 

 

Nowhere in this thread; I'm referring to my personal life. I'm under fire from my fellow Christian friends for speaking out against what Coach Brown is doing.

[HuskerInLostWages]

It's easier to do as I do. I hate everyone and everyone equally. I tend to tolerate some better than others (read my wife because I HAVE to state this or i'm not getting any), but everyone is treated the same. It's definitely easier when everyone knows I hate them then i don't have to say anything and can't offend anyone.

[EZ-E]

Many here are mistaking the issue. The issue was not with the comments, it was that he associated himself with UNL by giving Memorial Stadium as his mailing address.

 

This type of argument is all opinion and belief. The thing I have an issue is that by popular opinion, this man is being crucified for his belief. I am not saying that I share the same opinion, but he could have said "I as a representative of UNL, fully support gay rights," and there would be no issue. If there is a problem with him taking a side publically on a controversail issue such as this there needs to be the same problem for the opposing side. But there would not be.

 

For anyone to say that this man needed to take the other side of the argument or say nothing is wrong. Again, nobody here is going to prove anything to anyone on this issue. It is all purely semantics. But if you read the above, you will find my take on it.

[Nebula]

Haven't seen this linked yet, so if it has already been posted I apologize.

 

Article about Ron Brown by Rick Reilly. (Who once referred to Nebraska as the "steroid guzzling Cornhuskers," probably because he's a Colorado alum.) http://espn.go.com/e...y-condemns-gays

 

No, Ron Brown shouldn't be fired. He should quit. He works for a school that welcomes homosexuals as equals. Which means he's being paid by people who don't share his moral values. He's living a lie.

 

EDIT: I'm not implying that I agree with the quoted. It just jumped out at me.

[The Dude]

They live a life without faith, that takes conviction in the fact there isn't a God and live by that tennat.

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 makes you agnostic..not an atheist.

 

a·the·ist

 

noun

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

 

________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

It's fair to say I fall into that category.

 

Honestly though, in my day to day life, I have no use for any such monikers. I don't have a special word to signify that I don't believe in chupacabras.

[Nebula]

Double post. I lose the internet game.

[bennychico11]

Normally, I'd agree with you. But atheists now tend to gather together socially online (see reddit /r/atheism) and just pound the crap out of christianity over and over and over and over.

 

If I attempt to use logic, they say 'coolstorybro' and dismiss what I have to say just because I'm a Christian. If I try to give an analogy that logically refutes them, I'm accused of constructing a straw man argument.

 

I mean, I really would have agreed with you that atheism is not a faith system...but I think atheists have faith in their own beleifs on a lack of faith in something. I'd say it's a creed at the very least. I'm just sad that most atheists can't sit at a table (virtual or otherwise) and discuss things in a rational manner without outright dismissing anything and everything a Christian says. Afterall, I used to be an atheist :/

 

{sigh} We've gone of this many many times. I'm sure several times in this thread alone.

Again, I'll start from the bottom up.

 

but I think atheists have faith in their own beleifs on a lack of faith in something

Do you realize this makes no sense? You're basically saying "I think atheists have a belief without evidence about a lack of belief without evidence"

Unless you're going back to the drawing board and asking us to prove a god doesn't exist again.

 

Atheism is purely a response to a question. Someone offers a god claim. An atheist says "I don't believe that because I don't see evidence for it."

That person is an atheist.

Another example. The Dinka people of Sudan believe in Denka a sky, rain and fertility god in their culture. If someone was to present this god to you...you, as a Christian (I'm assuming), would reject this and say, "I don't believe in this god."

Therefore, you are an atheist with regard to the god Denka.

 

As the old quote goes:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours"

 

Atheism is not a belief system because it only makes an assertion in response to a single claim. "Do you believe in X."

There are no tenants, dogma, rituals, belief structure, hierarchy, deities...anything that you can associate with a religion. And at the same time, not all religions accept a god. Raelism IS an atheistic religion. They are a belief structure that doesn't believe in a god.

 

 

 

If I attempt to use logic, they say 'coolstorybro' and dismiss what I have to say just because I'm a Christian. If I try to give an analogy that logically refutes them, I'm accused of constructing a straw man argument.

Many say 'coolstorybro' because they can't debate using logic. I won't say that I can either 100%. Logical absolutes can get kind of confusing. But if you are constructing a logical fallacy, and a person does call you out on it...don't take offense to it, just try and bring the discussion back around and restate what you're saying.

For TAG's argument and it's counter argument see this

 

In the end, there are going to be atheists who just downright don't want to discuss things and shout at you...but there are also Christians who do the same. Still, don't confuse those who do want to have a discussion as people dismissing everything you say purely because you are a Christian...versus someone who is just refuting you based on the merits of your claims.

[bennychico11]

They live a life without faith, that takes conviction in the fact there isn't a God and live by that tennat.

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 makes you agnostic..not an atheist.

 

a·the·ist

 

noun

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

 

________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

It's fair to say I fall into that category.

 

Honestly though, in my day to day life, I have no use for any such monikers. I don't have a special word to signify that I don't believe in chupacabras.

 

maybe more of an agnostic atheist. As some prefer to call themselves.

I don't know for certain a god exists. AND I don't accept the claim that he does until I have sufficient evidence.

 

Knowledge and belief.

[bennychico11]

 

maybe more of an agnostic atheist. As some prefer to call themselves.

I don't know for certain a god exists. AND I don't accept the claim that he does until I have sufficient evidence.

 

Knowledge and belief.

 

I can agree with that That seems to fit the definition. That's kind of what I was back in college after my 3rd year as a religion major...I planned on becoming a minister for my religion and once I discovered a few things, my faith kind of went the way of the dodo...but I wasn't going to give up completely on a higher power...I just wasn't sure God was it.

 

That fit me to a T then so +1 on the definition

 

'cause then you also get into gnostic theist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist, etc. It can get kind of confusing. This may help:

http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/

[JJ Husker]

 

maybe more of an agnostic atheist. As some prefer to call themselves.

I don't know for certain a god exists. AND I don't accept the claim that he does until I have sufficient evidence.

 

Knowledge and belief.

 

I can agree with that That seems to fit the definition. That's kind of what I was back in college after my 3rd year as a religion major...I planned on becoming a minister for my religion and once I discovered a few things, my faith kind of went the way of the dodo...but I wasn't going to give up completely on a higher power...I just wasn't sure God was it.

 

That fit me to a T then so +1 on the definition

Well that piques my curiosity. What changed your mind? We have plenty of people on here who claim they used to be Christian, or otherwise religous, who are now in the agnostic or atheist boat. Can you share what has caused you to move the other direction?

[Count 'Bility]

I'm late to the party. Anybody else see the idiotic irony if possibly firing a guy for speaking out against a law that protects a belief/way of life?