Is Stanford discriminating against Christians?

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Asher
Those who believe that no race is superior to another can talk about their beliefs, but those who think that one race is superior to another are expected to keep their mouths shut.

What, exactly, is your point?

Just providing a counter-point to MrFun's original statement...

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Asher

Those who believe that no race is superior to another can talk about their beliefs, but those who think that one race is superior to another are expected to keep their mouths shut.

What, exactly, is your point?

no they aren't

they have free speach

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Tingkai


The article, which is quite questionable, states:

"In November 1999, Brown drew heavy media attention after he called homosexuality a sin on his Christian radio talk show, then called "Husker Sports Report." On the show, he admitted hating and sometimes harassing homosexuals as a child."

When he was young, who did not?

Jon Miller

[Asher]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
no they aren't

they have free speach

Jon Miller

No, not if you want to keep your job at head coach at Stanford.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can go stand up on a podium and denounce an entire segment of society and then whine when you find out not everyone wants to employ a whacko.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten


It depends. If they only consider the practice of interracial marriage to be immoral, then I wouldn't consider them to be racist. If they considered the practice of interracial marriage to be immoral because one of the people trying to get married is of an unliked racial background, then it is racist.

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
An example of the first would be the practice of some blacks or jews not approving of marriage outside their ethnic groups.
An example of the second would be a white family not wanting their daughter to marry a black man because they dislike blacks.

I hope I explained the difference properly...

So, then, following your logic, a person who is against the actual practice of homosexual relationships because they dislike homosexuals, is heterosexist, or homophobic, right??

A second question --- I diagree with your first example. If blacks or Jews do not want anyone to marry outside of their group, then they are, in essence, being racist anti-Christian.

[Drake Tungsten]

I find it very interesting how the people on this thread who don't agree with Brown's views are attempting to demonize a person they know nothing about. If someone doesn't abide by your system of morals then they must be a "whacko" or think "homosexuals are evil". Anyone want to take bets on when the first Nazi reference will appear?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I find it very interesting how the people on this thread who don't agree with Brown's views are attempting to demonize a person they know nothing about. If someone doesn't abide by your system of morals then they must be a "whacko" or think "homosexuals are evil". Anyone want to take bets on when the first Nazi reference will appear?

I find it funny we have Christian apologists in here that shouldn't been apologizing.

The issue was "Is Stanford discriminating against Christians?". No, they are not.

Stanford IS disciminating against people with controversial (some will say bigoted) attitudes towards a segment of the population, which is quite active at Stanford.

That is completely reasonable to beginwith, and now add to that fact that it's a private institution.

You guys should take your whining elsewhere, nobody cares that he's Christian, just that he's a homophobe. End of story.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by MrFun
So, then, following your logic, a person who is against the actual practice of homosexual relationships because they dislike homosexuals, is heterosexist, or homophobic, right??

A second question --- I diagree with your first example. If blacks or Jews do not want anyone to marry outside of their group, then they are, in essence, being racist anti-Christian.

You're not making any sense Mr. Fun.

According to my logic, you can disapprove of the act of homosexual relationships without hating homosexuals as people.

If someone hates homosexuals, then they are homophobic. If they don't hate homosexuals, then they aren't homophobic. It isn't that hard to understand.

Similarly, a jew can disapprove of marriages outside the jewish community without hating other religions or races.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Asher
You guys should take your whining elsewhere, nobody cares that he's Christian, just that he's a homophobe. End of story.

I'm not a Christian and don't really give a crap if Stanford wants to discriminate against conservative Christians. I just presented a story that I thought was interesting and exposed some of the hypocrisy inherent in the culture of "diversity". You're the one who's spouting off about an article you obviously didn't read. So, who's the whiner here?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
MrFun... in interracial marriages people don't stick their thingies up.. well you know .

Who says we don't?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten


You're not making any sense Mr. Fun.

According to my logic, you can disapprove of the act of homosexual relationships without hating homosexuals as people.

If someone hates homosexuals, then they are homophobic. If they don't hate homosexuals, then they aren't homophobic. It isn't that hard to understand.

Similarly, a jew can disapprove of marriages outside the jewish community without hating other religions or races.

I read my argument over --- it makes sense.

One other question.

One of the ways all people strive for happiness, is to establish and develop an intimate relationship with someone they love and care about.

How can someone deny homosexuals that same human need, and not hate homosexuals??

[Asher]

I'm not a Christian and don't really give a crap if Stanford wants to discriminate against conservative Christians. I just presented a story that I thought was interesting and exposed some of the hypocrisy inherent in the culture of "diversity". You're the one who's spouting off about an article you obviously didn't read. So, who's the whiner here?

Obviously didn't read?
Look at the thing, it's full of evidence and misquotes (notice the brackets inserted for key words?)

It's not an interesting story, it happens all the time.

You do NOT appoint "whackos" in very public positions, as it reflects on the institution/corporation.

Stanford doesn't want someone with a history of public homophobia as a football coach.

What's the issue here?

The issue here is he's trying to make it into a big deal about his religion.
That gets on my nerves.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MrFun
How can someone deny homosexuals that same human need, and not hate homosexuals??

Because human beings, while capable of rationality, aren't necessarily rational. We are more than capable of holding contradictory beliefs at the same time.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by MrFun
How can someone deny homosexuals that same human need, and not hate homosexuals??

How is Brown denying homosexuals their need for relationships? There's a big difference between not agreeing that homosexuality is morally correct and actively attempting to deny homosexuals the right to be together. You're missing the difference between thought and action again...

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten


How is Brown denying homosexuals their need for relationships? There's a big difference between not agreeing that homosexuality is morally correct and actively attempting to deny homosexuals the right to be together. You're missing the difference between thought and action again...

No, I am not missing the difference.

If he had the power to do so, he would definitely set out to enact laws that would deny homosexuals their basic human need for loving relationships.

Whenever anyone has a belief that involves an opposition against something, they would be likely happy if they had the power to systematically go about banning or outlawing whatever they oppose.