Is Stanford discriminating against Christians?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Homophobes are whackos by default, that's redundant.

If believing that homosexual sex is repugnant is 'wacko', then a substantial portion of the population is such... including those that are tolerant of homosexuals in every other aspect.

Comon, Imran, you're smarter than this.
He hasn't said anything about the act of homosexual sex, but homosexuals themselves (so your hate the sin, love the sinners BS won't happen here).

Would you still feel the same way if he made remarks about Arabs on his radio show?

[MrFun]

Re: what the hell, I'm a glutton for punishment.

double post

[MrFun]

Re: what the hell, I'm a glutton for punishment.

Originally posted by DetroitDave


No difference at all. The more relevant question should be why my employment, or potential employment, status should be contingent on whether I support or oppose either one.



Mutually exclusive concepts, and a slippery slope to imply one necessarily leads to another. If I oppose gay marriage in Thought, it doesnt mean I'm going to marginalize or discriminate against people in my workplace or other aspects of my life. Same goes for interracial marriage. Most of us carry unfounded opinions and prejudgements against someone or something ( no matter how petty or significant they may be), but we rarely act upon those prejudgements because legal and societal restraints dissuade us from doing so. The exceptions, of course, are the freaks like Aryan Nations and other terrorists who use terror and violence to enforce their beliefs. But that shouldn't force others into silencing their views, no matter how bizarre, because they're environment deems it the "right thing to do" .

Thanks for answering my questions.

Now, onto another question. This means that the opinions of racists should be respected, just as opinions of heterosexists or homophobics should be respected??

I find it very difficult to respect the opinions of heterosexists and homophobics, just as many people find it very difficult to respect the opinions of racists.

[Jac de Molay]

Before you get all pissy, could you at least do me the courtesy of the reading what I've posted, and what I've responded to first? Imran said: "the truly tolerant will tolerate intolerance". I reply: "it's a good thing that people did not tolerate intolerance [in the form of thinking that blacks are lesser people who should be slaves]". At least you admitted that your post was a false dichotomy though, because it certainly couldn't have applied to mine.

A. I never get pissy.

B. I reread what transpired, and I agree with Imran even more.
Consider that slavery was the status quo for 2 or so centuries. It took the minority voice of dissent, i.e. the unpopular voice of "intolerance" in that day, to put abolition on the table. Why? Because those voices, even though unpopular and uncomfortable to the status quo, brought about those changes. The peril of living in a free society is you take the good with the bad. There are the good that bring about change and social justice, and the bad, like racist scum.

MrFun Respect is the wrong word. A free (truly tolerant) society only takes into the account the inherent right to expression, not the content itself. It's up to the individual listener and audience to make of it with they will ("respecting their opinions or not"). We are each our own antenna.

Dave

[Imran Siddiqui]

He hasn't said anything about the act of homosexual sex, but homosexuals themselves (so your hate the sin, love the sinners BS won't happen here).

I was responding to your statement, not the guy. Saying homophobes are wackos doesn't mean just him, since people call people that disagree with homosexual sex as homophobes (like even liberal members of the Church).

A free (truly tolerant) society only takes into the account the inherent right to expression, not the content itself.

Exactly. I wasn't saying that tolerance of those views is good or bad, I was merely pointing out what tolerance meant. In fact, I believe that intolerance isn't always a bad thing (when it means being intolerant of intolerant views)... however we should try to forcible suppress those views, just not tolerate them being as equal as tolerant views.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I was responding to your statement, not the guy. Saying homophobes are wackos doesn't mean just him, since people call people that disagree with homosexual sex as homophobes (like even liberal members of the Church).

I'm not aware of that definition.
Homophobes are people who don't like (to say the least) homosexuals.

It's fine to find homosexual sex to be disgusting, go ahead and talk all you want about it, more power to you.

But to take that a step farther (like this guy did) and to label homosexuals as "morally incorrect" (and I'm sure he's said much more,too) in a public spotlight, and then whine about how a liberal private university didn't hire him because of it, is just retarded.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Asher
Comon, Imran, you're smarter than this.
He hasn't said anything about the act of homosexual sex, but homosexuals themselves (so your hate the sin, love the sinners BS won't happen here).

This isn't even true Asher. You seem hellbent on convincing people that Brown hates homosexuals, but the facts aren't on your side. I think the article makes it clear that he disapproves of the act of homosexual sex, not homosexuals themselves.

"I don't believe homosexuality is biblically correct," he said. "But that doesn't mean I disdain the people or do anything to disrespect anyone here."

Remember this quote? Does this sound like hatred for homosexuals?

Sounds just like "hate the sin, love the sinner" to me...

[Asher]

You left out some of the other quotes.

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.

I applaud is effort of reversing that now by saying "No I didn't mean it, I love them, I just don't think they're morally correct", but it's quite clear that he hasn't changed one bit and has now just clued in that it won't get him very far in public positions to have such views publically.

[MrFun]

Who argues that people who argue against homosexual relationships should be entitled to the same level of respect as people who argue against interracial marriages receive?

[Drake Tungsten]

Oh yes, you're right! Nobody's view on life changes from the views they had in childhood! If he hated homosexuals in his youth, he must hate them now, despite any proof to the contrary![/sarcasm]

Why don't you just admit that you don't have a clue what you are talking about? You're bias towards this subject is affecting your reasoning.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Oh yes, you're right! Nobody's view on life changes from the views they had in childhood! If he hated homosexuals in his youth, he must hate them now, despite any proof to the contrary![/sarcasm]

Why don't you just admit that you don't have a clue what you are talking about? You're bias towards this subject is affecting your reasoning.

Erm...if you consider 2 years ago his "childhood", then perhaps he is a bit immature.

http://www.truthwalk.com/archives/Archives%2099/112399.html

Coach Brown made the following comments on the radio (paraphrased), "One of our responsibilities as Christians is to reach out to and love people struggling with homosexuality. The church must not do anything to ostracize these people, but love them, because they are in real need of the life transforming power of a relationship with Jesus Christ."

What a great man!
He doesn't hate them anymore like he did when he was a kid, but now they require the "life transforming power of a relationship with Jesus Christ."

Gee, I wonder why Stanford gave him the thumbs down.

[Drake Tungsten]

I rest my case. Your quote proves that while Brown disapproves of homosexual sex, he doesn't preach hate toward homosexuals. He is not a great man, but he is also not a hate filled man like you have tried to make him out to be. He is a decent man with an unpopular viewpoint on this issue. Should this viewpoint be used as a reason to deny the man employment? I know what you think, Asher, so why don't we let other people voice their opinions?

[MrFun]

I have voiced my opinions, but you cut our argument off when you started to become intimidated by my rational constructs.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by MrFun
I have voiced my opinions, but you cut our argument off when you started to become intimidated by my rational constructs.

When "rational constructs" begin to resemble the Gordian knot, I begin to wonder whether the discussion is worth continuing...

Not to mention that it was getting pretty late...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I rest my case. Your quote proves that while Brown disapproves of homosexual sex, he doesn't preach hate toward homosexuals.

I never said he preached hate, I said he calls homosexuals sinners and he keeps saying that the need to be healed by Jesus or whatever you want to call it. It's not outright hate, but he's saying that they're freaks and they need to be fixed.

This is way too common an attitude. Many christians (not most, or all) believe homosexuals can be converted, and they believe the power of God can help them convert.

From the quotes I've seen of Ron Brown, he's one of those people. He advocates encouraging homosexuals to go to church, not because he cares about them, but because he wants them to be cured. After all, the church would tell them that they live a life of sin...

He is not a great man, but he is also not a hate filled man like you have tried to make him out to be.

You're the one constantly bringing up hate.
I've said many times now that he's intolerant (as evidence by him still calling homosexuality a sin). I don't care how he dresses it, even if it's in a nice and "We need to help them" sort of way.

He is a decent man with an unpopular viewpoint on this issue. Should this viewpoint be used as a reason to deny the man employment? I know what you think, Asher, so why don't we let other people voice their opinions?

Because nobody else cares.

Stanford is private.
Ron Brown has already caused national controversy with his comments with his previous employer.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with Stanford rejecting his application as Head Coach, as that's a very public position, and they'd rather not deal with the controversy and backlash of having someone with such views and chooses to air them publically.

Did you also miss the quotes from the Stanford students that said he wouldn't quite be welcome there?

You can call it hypocrisy, but I don't think Stanford ever advocated supporting every viewpoint in the world, particularly when that viewpoint is at the expense of minorities.

It's not my reasoning that's flawed, it's yours. I don't care about who the man is. He's caused controversy nationally with his comments before, what's to stop him from doing it again? That's why he didn't get the job.

There's nothing more to troll about, you've run out of steam.
Hey, maybe you can talk more about how I said he's a hate filled man and a demon, then I can sit here arguing that I didn't some more. That's real fun.