Is Stanford discriminating against Christians?

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Asher
Ron Brown has already caused national controversy with his comments with his previous employer.

He's caused controversy nationally with his comments before, what's to stop him from doing it again?

National controversy? Since when is a controversy in Lincoln, Nebraska a national controversy? I live here and can tell you that Lincoln is the only place on Earth less important than Calgary. I least you have a giant rodeo...

Anyway, I'll say again (hopefully for the last time) that I understand why Stanford didn't hire him and think that the decision is well within their rights. That being said, I do think that their decision is hypocritical in light of Stanford's stated commitment to diversity. As for your belief that Stanford has no such commitment...

Stanford University supports a diverse community in which beliefs of all faiths are welcomed and accepted.

says the Stanford Athletic Director. Seems like hypocrisy to me...

I still can't get over the fact that you have no idea who Noam Chomsky is...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
National controversy? Since when is a controversy in Lincoln, Nebraska a national controversy? I live here and can tell you that Lincoln is the only place on Earth less important than Calgary. I least you have a giant rodeo...

Do a google search, it was apparently news back in 1999.
Hell, CNN did a story on it.

That being said, I do think that their decision is hypocritical in light of Stanford's stated commitment to diversity. As for your belief that Stanford has no such commitment...

Stanford University supports a diverse community in which beliefs of all faiths are welcomed and accepted.

says the Stanford Athletic Director. Seems like hypocrisy to me...

So they're also hypocritic if they denied admission to racists, too?

There is a thing called absurdity, and you crossed it long ago. Who cares if you think they're being hypocritical? They want to save their asses from potential liability.

You'd better be just as up in arms if they refuse to employ a skinhead Neo-Nazi, since the Athletic Director said they accept all faiths and beliefs.

I still can't get over the fact that you have no idea who Noam Chomsky is...

Why would I know of or care about an MIT Linguistics professor?

Get off your high horse. You're starting to act like a jackass.

You've changed your argument numerous times since this started and you still can't make a logical statement about any of it.

[Sprayber]

Asher: Don't try and justify it man. Just say it's Stanford's right to choose anyone they want for a position at their campus. Just like Baylor has every right to choose who they want. It's all pretty much the same isn't it? Baylor wants to foster a certain image just like Stanford claims to do.

He should have pretty much guessed that would happen when he went for the interview.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Asher
Get off your high horse. You're starting to act like a jackass.

Speaking of hypocrisy...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Sprayber
Asher: Don't try and justify it man. Just say it's Stanford's right to choose anyone they want for a position at their campus. Just like Baylor has every right to choose who they want. It's all pretty much the same isn't it? Baylor wants to foster a certain image just like Stanford claims to do.

He should have pretty much guessed that would happen when he went for the interview.

I'm not trying to justify anything.
And I actually said exactly what you said in one of my first posts.

Draken disagrees, and now all he has left for an argument is the university is being hypocritical because they say they welcome all faiths.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Asher
Draken disagrees, and now all he has left for an argument is the university is being hypocritical because they say they welcome all faiths.

I thought that's what he's been saying all along.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Speaking of hypocrisy...

It's really cool how you keep ignoring all my points.

Would you call it hypocritic still if Stanford denied to employ a skinnhead neo-nazi? Yes or no.

If yes, you're simply crazy.

If no, how is this different than the Ron Brown situation? One line is drawn closer than the other?

When they say those comments, they mean all faiths that don't compromise the rights, dignity, and respect of the other faiths on campus.

If you've got someone going around saying that homosexuals are sinning and the Church can save them -- that's not respecting the rights of the homosexuals on campus.

[Asher]

Originally posted by loinburger
I thought that's what he's been saying all along.

Look at the thread title.

Stanford's not discriminating against Christians, but rather against someone with an unpopular political opinion that goes against what the vast majority of students at the university believe, as well as being a political liability for having a tendancy to publically express these beliefs.

And now the argument is reduced to technicalities and semantics over what the Athletic Director meant when he said all faiths are welcome, and apparently Draken can't see some obvious exceptions to that comment.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Sprayber
Asher: Don't try and justify it man. Just say it's Stanford's right to choose anyone they want for a position at their campus. Just like Baylor has every right to choose who they want. It's all pretty much the same isn't it? Baylor wants to foster a certain image just like Stanford claims to do.

He should have pretty much guessed that would happen when he went for the interview.

Draken disagrees, and now all he has left for an argument is the university is being hypocritical because they say they welcome all faiths.

Actually, Asher, I totally agree with Sprayber's statement. Stanford has the right to choose whoever they want for a job (as I've said several times). My point has always been that it is hypocritical to screen job applicants by their religious beliefs while at the same time purporting to run a university that is inclusive of all faiths. Is this really so hard to understand?

First you try to speak for Ron Brown, now you're trying to speak for me. I'd appreciate it if you let me decide what I agree or disagree with.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Actually, Asher, I totally agree with Sprayber's statement. My point has always been that it is hypocritical to screen job applicants by their religious beliefs while at the same time purporting to run a university that is inclusive of all faiths. Is this really so hard to understand?

Yes, because they don't care for his religious beliefs.
You think no Christians work at Stanford?

They care because there's already public knowledge about the Coach's controversial opinions, which he expresses publically.

Therefore, he's not hired. This is not hypocritic, because it has nothing do with his faith, but rather his history and how he enjoys running his mouth about homosexuals.

First you try to speak for Ron Brown, now you're trying to speak for me. I'd appreciate it if you let me decide what I agree or disagree with.

When did I try to speak for Ron Brown *OR* for you?

BTW, you can bet your ass Stanford wouldn't hire an Atheist who said all Christians need to saved from themselves for believing in something that doesn't exist, either. Is that discriminating against Atheists, or against one man who is a potential liability?

Why is it so difficult for you to differenciate between those?

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Asher
Look at the thread title.

I'm sorry that I didn't think that "Is Stanford hypocritical for denying a conservative Christian employment while at the same time claiming to be a diverse institution?" would be a good title for this thread. Sorry for confusing you. I guess I was wrong in assuming you could read my posts and comprehend what my argument was...

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Asher

I'm not trying to justify anything.
And I actually said exactly what you said in one of my first posts.

Draken disagrees, and now all he has left for an argument is the university is being hypocritical because they say they welcome all faiths.

Ok. I gave up reading on the first page.

Of course they are being hyporcritical. They are human after all. I don't hold self styled open minded people any higher than I hold self styled righoutous people. Bottom line is that they, like Baylor, has the right to project whatever image that they desire. If they appear hyporcritical to those that don't hold the same views,like Baylor, then oh well. Thats life. Thankfully, there are other places to go besides Baylor and Stanford. Choice is what it's all about.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I'm sorry that I didn't think that "Is Stanford hypocritical for denying a conservative Christian employment while at the same time claiming to be a diverse institution?" would be a good title for this thread. Sorry for confusing you. I guess I was wrong in assuming you could read my posts and comprehend what my argument was...

Here's your first post:

Personally, I think that this definitely seems like discrimination. I don't agree with Brown's views on homosexuality, but I certainly think that he is entitled to believe whatever he wants. I've never heard of an incident where his personal beliefs have affected his performance as a football coach, so I don't really see what basis Stanford has for their decision.

Tell me what we didn't cover? Thanks.
And where's the bit of hypocrisy?

You added that cr*p (which is pointless, btw) long after your original post was generally shot down by most people here, which you now concede to seeing the logic behind.

[Drake Tungsten]

I give up. You ***** about getting into an argument about technicalities and semantics, yet you're the one searching old posts for the word "hypocrisy" to try and prove that you are right. I never mentioned hypocrisy directly in my first posts, but it was implied to anyone with any knowledge of Stanford and its commitment to diversity. Loinburger was smart enough to note it, but you can't seem to. You have run me off with your concentrated and sustained idiocy. You shouldn't be (but probably are) proud...

[Asher]

Man, that's so lame.

Kudos to you.

I don't try to read subtexts to what people say, because then you get into stupid little things called assumptions, which aren't very nice.

I take things for face value.
If you wanted to discuss hypocrisy, you should have dicussed hypocrisy. You're using it as some kind of salvation for your horrible argument in the thread, and even then you haven't established if it even matters that they're being hypocritical about it.

It's in their right to do it, it makes sense to do it, they did do it. It may be hypocritical, but you've ignored my question twice now of whether it'd still be hypocritical if they denied employment to a Neo-Nazi.

You're just pissed off because you ran out of things to argue about.