Jump to content

Breakout: Ron Brown and religion


Recommended Posts

Don't like the idea that the University would hire someone proactively against civil rights, but you have to work with people who have different opinions sometimes. Just the way things are. Hopefully the University will be watching him closely. 

 

I do feel bad for the poor persecuted Christians though, who just cant seem to catch a break. As the majority religion in a country ruled by only Christian people it must be tough when they cant share bigoted opinions without people disagreeing with them online. :dunno

  • Plus1 6
Link to post

  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

In honesty, some of the anti-gay rhetoric from conservative Christians essentially locks the gays in the burning building, then shakes its head sadly at the fate they chose.

Don't like the idea that the University would hire someone proactively against civil rights, but you have to work with people who have different opinions sometimes. Just the way things are. Hopefully

You have spectacularly missed the point. 

Posted Images

 

Some levity here with this image but honestly, when my time comes, I am going to try to cut in line in front of you, as I am a sinner and have an abundant number of sins that I have asked for forgiveness for. 

 

PG.jpg

 

Link to post

I'll ask again: 

 

39 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? 

Link to post

Since there is a lot of rehashing of something that Ron Brown said in 2012, it is worth noting some of the differences between then and now when it comes to the legal landscape. There is no specific federal protection based on sexual orientation, but the EEOC is now choosing to enforce the Civil Rights Act in such a manner that employment discrimination based on one's sexual orientation violates the act's prohibition of sex discrimination. This has been upheld by several higher courts. Across the nation, same-sex marriage is now legal, based on SCOTUS's interpretation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

 

At the state and local level, depending on where you are, progress is still in the kicking and screaming stages, but public opinion has shifted dramatically in support of equal rights over the past few years.

 

Ron Brown was voicing opposition to a city ordinance in Omaha that would protect against sexual orientation discrimination at the local level. Omaha subsequently voted for it. Lincoln later voted against it shortly thereafter, if I remember correctly (I don't live in Nebraska anymore, so I don't know what else has changed locally).

 

For someone to make the same arguments now, only 6 years later, would almost seem silly, as there have been sweeping changes since that time in the direction of equality, which have hurt absolutely no one and have sent nobody directly to hell, that we know of. 

 

Yet within some of the statements here on Huskerboard, not only are we arguing about Ron Brown's usage of his position, and the impact of his hire on the football team, but I see some comments trying to re-litigate whether it is right or wrong to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. There were ample discussions on HB at the time that this happened. Not just about Ron Brown's opinions, but also about the interpretations of Christianity on this topic and the legal and moral direction that our world is taking.

 

But, I'm always fascinated by those who say that laws that grant equal protection and prohibit discrimination actually somehow grant "special" protection and are unfair toward the majority, and are therefore unnecessary. I think those arguments are nonsense: ignorance at best, but most likely obfuscation and dishonesty about the issue. But is there a rational argument against these changes? 

 

I wish I could say that Ron Brown's opinions in this day and age are trivial because the tide of progress has overtaken such thought, but we live in a time when racism and sexism has come back in vogue, so none of these things are trivial. 

 

 

  • Plus1 2
Link to post
7 minutes ago, Ulty said:

But, I'm always fascinated by those who say that laws that grant equal protection and prohibit discrimination actually somehow grant "special" protection and are unfair toward the majority, and are therefore unnecessary. I think those arguments are nonsense: ignorance at best, but most likely obfuscation and dishonesty about the issue. But is there a rational argument against these changes? 

 

In much the same way as laws against robbery provide "special" protection for banks.

 

We create laws based on societal needs. If nobody ever robbed a bank, we wouldn't have laws prohibiting it. Once bank robbery became a thing, we created laws to fix that flaw in our society.

  • Plus1 1
Link to post

47 minutes ago, Ulty said:

But, I'm always fascinated by those who say that laws that grant equal protection and prohibit discrimination actually somehow grant "special" protection and are unfair toward the majority, and are therefore unnecessary.

 

 

I agree with you, just want to point out that these are two different things. There's nothing wrong, and there's plenty good and needed, about 'special' protection laws, but of course it's not a zero sum game or unfair towards the majority.

Link to post
5 hours ago, Ulty said:

“I feel like I’ll have a national platform at Liberty at a time when people who believe like I do — in terms of Christianity — need to have voices."

 

 

Ron Brown seems to be implying here that Christians are being silenced, when the opposite of that is the truth.

 

I also don't get why he thought he'd reach more people at Liberty. That's preaching to the choir.

Link to post

:ahhhhhhhh  Well this thread is a joy to read.:sarcasm

 

My reaction to Ron's hiring was gladness.  Not because he is a Christian, or because he was outspoken before but because he has had an overall positive impact on  the men he has coached - period.  AA and him were very close as athlete/coach but far away on religion.   My gut feeling is that the gay issue will be a non-issue going forward.  Times have change.  Coach Brown can and will have a positive impact on our players in the years to come.  He was a good role model.

That is all I have to say about that.

Forrest G.

 

Link to post
1 hour ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Ron Brown seems to be implying here that Christians are being silenced, when the opposite of that is the truth.

 

I also don't get why he thought he'd reach more people at Liberty. That's preaching to the choir.

 

 

Or he's just implying that culture is less and less taking the voices of Christians seriously and are ignoring their input.

  • Plus1 1
Link to post

10 hours ago, Sgt Red said:

By making this statement you show how much you do not know about the Bible.

It kills me that people want Christians to "check their baggage" at the door or to shut up at work or in public. I don't mind that people disagree because it is part of our God given freedoms articulated in the Constitution.  I find it pitiful that there is no tolerance for the 10's of millions of guys like Ron Brown. I'm sure he would not tell you how much he would "love to tell you where to put your selective tolerance". 

 

I know far more about the bible than you could even imagine.  As an atheist I study and read the bible probably far more than 80% of christians do.  

 

Simply stated, and this is all I am going to say: You cannot use the bible as justification for bigotry and/or discrimination if you're going to selectively pick and choose which things to rail against.

 

The point here: if you believe being LBGTQIA is an abomination, worthy of being sent to hell for, then you better rail against the godless heathens who eat pulled pork and shrimp; because god clearly calls them detestable and an abomination as well. 

 

To the point of Ron Brown, yes he (as well as you, me, or anyone else) we all pretty much have to check our political and religious beliefs at the door when we are at work.  There is no law requiring that, but given the intensity with which those subjects can be discussed, in a work environment it is generally best to keep those types of topics out of the realm of discussion.

 

As an employee of the University of Nebraska, Ron Brown's views on certain subjects runs contrary to the policies of his employer.  Therefore, prudence would be to err on the side of caution and say nothing.

 

If Ron Brown doesn't like that, then he should return to Liberty where rampant bigotry and ignorance are not only allowed, but encouraged.

 

So f'ing done with this....I am so tired of certain religious people acting like their right to be a bigot supercedes my right to exist.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Plus1 3
Link to post
1 minute ago, Making Chimichangas said:

 

I know far more about the bible than you could even imagine.  As an atheist I study and read the bible probably far more than 80% of christians do.  

 

Simply stated, and this is all I am going to say: You cannot use the bible as justification for bigotry and/or discrimination if you're going to selectively pick and choose which things to rail against.

 

The point here: if you believe being LBGTQIA is an abomination, worthy of being sent to hell for, then you better rail against the godless heathens who eat pulled pork and shrimp; because god clearly calls them detestable and an abomination as well. 

 

You might know plenty about the Bible, but you're missing a pretty obvious and fundamental understanding of how Christians view Old Testament law vs New Testament teaching/revelation. Those who think being gay or _______ is sinful don't rail against eating pulled pork and shrimp, because their fundamental argument has nothing to do with the reasons you are claiming it does.

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, Landlord said:

Or he's just implying that culture is less and less taking the voices of Christians seriously and are ignoring their input.

 

In other words, they're the crazy uncles of the American family...

Link to post
46 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

You might know plenty about the Bible, but you're missing a pretty obvious and fundamental understanding of how Christians view Old Testament law vs New Testament teaching/revelation. Those who think being gay or _______ is sinful don't rail against eating pulled pork and shrimp, because their fundamental argument has nothing to do with the reasons you are claiming it does.

 

This definitely belongs in the P&R thread. But the answer to this is: The average Christian doesn't spend enough time studying the Bible to be cognitive of the difference.  While they know the word "covenant" most can't explain previous covenants between God & Man, and how the current one differs from the others.

Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.






×
×
  • Create New...