Announcement

**Drake Tungsten** · April 12, 2002, 01:21

Asher, you're just as close-minded and arrogant as conservative Christians are. The only difference is that your side is the popular one right now. A pox on both your houses.

**Asher** · April 12, 2002, 01:24

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Asher, you're just as close-minded and arrogant as conservative Christians are. The only difference is that your side is the popular one right now. A pox on both your houses.

How am I being close-minded for telling you how it is?

You simply do not appoint people with controversial views in very public places in today's world.

Why is that close minded?

Why am I close minded for not caring that a man is whining that because of his public comments about how homosexuals are "not morally correct" he lost a job in a place with many homosexuals? I don't understand.

Stanford's a private place with a reputation. This makes perfect sense.

The reason my side's the popular one is because it's rational.

**Drake Tungsten** · April 12, 2002, 01:24

Originally posted by MrFun
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.

How exactly do you know this? Like I said before, you guys are setting out to demonize a person you don't know anything about based upon their beliefs. Your are judging a man on his beliefs, not his actions and you can't deny that.

**MrFun** · April 12, 2002, 01:27

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

How exactly do you know this? Like I said before, you guys are setting out to demonize a person you don't know anything about based upon their beliefs. Your are judging a man on his beliefs, not his actions and you can't deny that.

That's like saying that the Ku Klux Klan would never reenact segregation laws if it was within their power --- after all, it's only their THOUGHTS.

If this coach consistently speaks out against homosexual relationships, then his actions, if he had the power to do so, would be consistent with his thoughts. But, granted, there could be factors where, due to human nature, he might be inconsistent with his thoughts and action.

Are we getting philosophical now with thoughts and action??

**Asher** · April 12, 2002, 01:27

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Your are judging a man on his beliefs, not his actions and you can't deny that.

His actions involve denouncing homosexuality on his radio show.
He would have been in a public position at a private university with a large homosexual population.

And I'm out "demonizing" him by saying that it's perfectly fair for Stanford to deny employment to someone who has already publically denounced homosexuality?

It seems like you're trying to paint him as a martyr or something.

**Drake Tungsten** · April 12, 2002, 01:31

I'm calling you close-minded because you called the man a "whacko" just because his views differ from yours. Believe it or not, there are many people in this world who don't agree with you on this topic. Are they all whackos too? The arrogance...

You simply do not appoint people with controversial views in very public places in today's world.

Explain to me how Noam Chomsky still has a job then.

The point of this whole thread was to expose Stanford's hypocrisy. They claims to be respectful and inclusive of all cultures and ideals, but then discriminate against a man whose beliefs they don't find palatable. Hypocrisy gets on my nerves.

**MrFun** · April 12, 2002, 01:33

Drake, time for multi-tasking.

Get back to me with my latest post when you can.

**Asher** · April 12, 2002, 01:34

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I'm calling you close-minded because you called the man a "whacko" just because his views differ from yours. Believe it or not, there are many people in this world who don't agree with you on this topic. Are they all whackos too? The arrogance...

Whackos are, by definition, people with abnormal views as seen by the general public. It's a term.

He is a whacko, accordingly.
Don't worry, I'm a whacko in some cases too.

Don't get me strted on those.

Explain to me how Noam Chomsky still has a job then.

Who?
Maybe he was given the job for the free publicity behind it?

The point of this whole thread was to expose Stanford's hypocrisy. They claims to be respectful and inclusive of all cultures and ideals, but then discriminate against a man whose beliefs they don't find palatable. Hypocrisy gets on my nerves.

You're right, Stanford IS hypocritic.
They should allow admission to *EVERYONE*. ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE. High school dropouts included.

And how dare they not allow Bin Laden to go there. THEY HATE ALL ARABS.

Death to the hypocrites at Stanford!

And please, btw, find me a link where Stanford says they're inclusive of all cultures and ideals. Even assuming they did say that, it obviously doesn't include views like racism for employees.

There's a term for that: liability.

It seems you're so lost in defending your thread you have no idea what it's about. Either that or you don't have a logical thread in your mind, at all...

**MrFun** · April 12, 2002, 01:38

Originally posted by Asher
It seems you're so lost in defending your thread you have no idea what it's about. Either that or you don't have a logical thread in your mind, at all...

Now, now --- give the poor guy some time.

He might prove himself with his yet-latest response to my latest post.

**Drake Tungsten** · April 12, 2002, 01:41

Originally posted by Asher
He would have been in a public position at a private university with a large homosexual population.

He has already proven himself to be a qualified candidate. Right now he is in a public position at a public university with a large homosexual population. The majority of the people in this area will readily admit that Brown is a good man and upstanding citizen, regardless of what they think of his personal beliefs. Maybe I'm just from a "whacko" part of the country, where we judge people by what they do, not what they think.

That's like saying that the Ku Klux Klan would never reenact segregation laws if it was within their power --- after all, it's only their THOUGHTS.

I'm not even going to comment on this. I draw the line at comparing a black football coach to the KKK. My absurdity filter can only handle so much.

And Asher, I've said several times that Stanford is well within its rights to not hire Brown based on his beliefs. My question all along has been about whether Stanford's actions were right and whether they were hypocritical or not. You've done a good job of avoiding these questions, but why don't we get back on topic?

**MrFun** · April 12, 2002, 01:45

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

That's like saying that the Ku Klux Klan would never reenact segregation laws if it was within their power --- after all, it's only their THOUGHTS.

I'm not even going to comment on this. I draw the line at comparing a black football coach to the KKK. My absurdity filter can only handle so much.

Again, you miss my point -- I am not comparing a black coach to applying for membership of the Ku Klux Klan. You are denying the premise of my argument.

We have a disagreement on the connection between thought and action. Before we can proceed further on this issue, we need to have common ground established on any connection between a person's thought and action.

You are using the straw man fallacy intentionally, or by mistake with no intention by weakening my argument into something else.

**Asher** · April 12, 2002, 01:47

Maybe I'm just from a "whacko" part of the country, where we judge people by what they do, not what they think.

Okay, and I'm judging him by his actions he took on his radio show. He's shown that he doesn't rate homosexuals as the same level as heterosexuals, since they're "not morally correct", so what's to guarantee that he won't say that again and embarass his new employer?

I judge people upon their history (actions) and what they believe in. This man has a history, and he believes in something I find highly offensive, as do a great many people in today's world.

My question all along has been about whether Stanford's actions were right and whether they were hypocritical or not. You've done a good job of avoiding these questions, but why don't we get back on topic?

Maybe I'm crazy, but the thread topic to me reads as: " Is Stanford discriminating against Christians?". To which the answer is a resounding no, unless all Christians condemn homosexuality (which they all haven't, last I checked).

Stanford's actions were "right" in the sense that it's not illegal, and it's perfectly making sense to me why they haven't. I mean, it's Stanford. They can afford to be picky with this kind of thing.

How have I avoided that topic, btw? I thought we beat that to death.

And again, your hypocritical statement hinges on evidence that Stanford said that they're "inclusive of ALL ideologies" or whatever. I'm sure people they consider liabilities don't make it on their payroll unless they have to, which is how most private institutions work.

**Drake Tungsten** · April 12, 2002, 01:51

The Plot Thickens...

Well, the administration at Stanford just made the following comments on the article.

Religion not a consideration

An article in the April 11 edition of the Daily Nebraskan, "Religious beliefs present hurdles for coach's career" asserted that the religious views of Nebraska football Coach Ron Brown were a consideration in his candidacy for the head football coaching position at Stanford University.

The article inaccurately portrayed the issue of religion in Stanford's decision not to hire Coach Brown.

Ron Brown has established himself as one of the finest assistant coaches in college football, and we were honored he would consider coming to Stanford. I enjoyed my discussions with Ron regarding the head coaching position at Stanford and thought him to be an excellent candidate. However, we simply decided to go another way.

Religion played no role in our decision-making process, and to assert that Ron's religious views were a consideration is inaccurate.

Stanford University supports a diverse community in which beliefs of all faiths are welcomed and accepted. Discrimination in this manner is not tolerated. Our previous football coach, Tyrone Willingham, who left Stanford to become the head coach at Notre Dame, had a strong religious background and enjoyed seven very successful seasons at Stanford.

Ted Leland

Stanford University

director of athletics

Comments misrepresented

In response to the April 11 article, "Religious beliefs present hurdles for coach's career," comments attributed to me were misrepresented by the reporter.

My comments were of a general nature and not specific to Ron Brown or his candidacy for the head football coaching position at Stanford University.

I have known Ron Brown for more than 25 years and consider him to be a friend. He is an excellent football coach, and an outstanding candidate for a head coaching position. I endorsed Ron's candidacy for the position of head football coach at Stanford University and, in fact, recommended him to Stanford Athletic Director Ted Leland.

The comments attributed to me in the article were taken out of context. Ron's religious views were not a consideration in the decision-making process.

Alan Glenn

Stanford University

assistant athletic director

Human Resources

Editor's note: The Daily Nebraskan maintains the validity of all Stanford officials' comments in an April 11 story regarding Assistant Football Coach Ron Brown.

I don't really know what to make of this response. They certainly don't make Brown sound like a homophobic whacko, however.

**MrFun** · April 12, 2002, 01:55

Re: The Plot Thickens...

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

I don't really know what to make of this response. They certainly don't make Brown sound like a homophobic whacko, however.

This latest development is not going to let you off the hook.

We have yet to establish common ground on the connection between thought and action. Read my latest post if you wish to continue the current argument.

thanks

**Tingkai** · April 12, 2002, 01:55

What did I tell you.