Get HuskerMax™ on your iPhone. Click here for details. Get tickets for all home and away games here.
Page 14 of 15 FirstFirst ... 412131415 LastLast
Results 261 to 280 of 285

Thread: Elephant in the room?

  1. #261
    nm

  2. #262
    Guest

    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    North of the Pecos, East of the Missouri
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by Californication View Post
    The Bible is not data, it is fable/parable. Believe what you need to to get by, but don't call it data.
    BTW, you're missing the point. The bible is a set of data for a worldview. You can argue the veracity. You obviously build your worldview on something else. If you care to be specific, I'm sure you'll get lot's of comments and we can examine its veracity.

  3. #263
    Guest

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    The end of the earth
    Posts
    2,022
    Quote Originally Posted by beans View Post
    For Christians their "data" is the bible.
    For the secularist their "data" is science.

    They're both dead in and of themselves. Neither one has anything to do with tolerance, love, forgiveness, acceptance, etc. That's why Jesus despised the Pharisees.

    As the Apostle Paul himself declared in Romans 7: "Who will set me free from this body of sin?" (Note "who", not "what")

    "He declares Christ Jesus will!"

    Life is in a relationship, not facts and data. Christians would do well to remember that just as much as they apply it to the secular/material world.

    And those who seek life beyond the deadness of the material and the bondage of the "law" should find encouragement in Paul's statement: "There is therfore no condemnation in Christ Jesus."

    Live in that "truth" and you'll find true freedom. From God's viewpoint (assuming you believe there is one) all of our aguments are defanged. Life is no longer about "data" or "law", it's about relating to a life giver.

    It works. All you have to do is give up on self and start filling that vacuum with your Creator's love. And we'd all do well to remember we're on that journey together. The destination is the same for everyone. God will sort it out when we get there.

    Good thing since men are lousy at it and history proves it in spades. We can all at least agree on that, can't we?
    Beans, you seem like a pretty leveled headed individual. I agree with you on a number of points here but I personally don't see any reason to take it to a level of bringing in a creator God. But that's just my view.


    First, science is open to inspection, debate, peer review, and findings need to be able to stand the test of time. Then when scientific discoveries are made that render past discoveries flawed, the scientific community changes with it, or at least debates the new discoveries and the data then continues to be questioned, inspected, reviewed, etc, ad infinitum.

    Certain aspects of our existence on this planet too have been reviewed, inspected, tested, and can be proven as beneficial. Many of these aspects are the foundation of Christianity, actions that not only benefit the receiver but also the giver. They are age old and I'm not sure anyone can argue their value to society.

    Giving is good
    Patience
    Kindness
    Tolerance
    Not harming others
    Not harming oneself
    Sacrifice
    Selflessnes
    Humility
    A certain level of restraint...these things are good.

    But Christianity does not corner the market on these values. Many, many cultures, long before Christ was born, taught and lived by these values. That's what rubs many people wrong with some Christians is that they believe they have the all the answers, that others don't, and that they need to impose their ideas on others who may already live a moral, productive life. The only problem I have with some Christians is when they feel they have license to impose their beliefs on others who are doing no harm to anyone else.

    There is more than one way to arrive at these truths. Gandhi said at one point after a life believing that God is Truth, that in reality Truth is God.

  4. #264
    Guest

    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    North of the Pecos, East of the Missouri
    Posts
    3,337
    Good points, all. You are absolutely correct Christianity does not have a corner on virtue. Some of the finest, and I might add people I respect highly are not Christians. But God has a real problem with virtuous people, moreso virtuous "religious" people including many Christians. Pharisees were extremely religious and virtuous and Jesus detested them. The answer is pretty radical by human thinking: God isn't looking for virtue and righteousness (despite what many Christians want to believe). Life as He defines and gives it isn't about "getting it right." It's about knowing Him. Speaking personally, it's one heck of a journey. Failure, pain, despair, joy, love. Suffice it to say it's often as paradoxical as apparent. But that's the real joy and beauty.

    I'm sure some here misread some of the stuff posted. But believe me, I don't have to be right. The God I've come to know can take care of it and I've gladly learned to let him.

  5. #265
    Quote Originally Posted by Californication View Post
    The Bible is not data, it is fable/parable. Believe what you need to to get by, but don't call it data.
    True it's not data. How about group/population/herd knowledge, shaped by time. Would one laugh at migration route knowledge? No matter how smart the caribou, it pays to stick with the group. Nature is beautiful in the way it allows so many variations in a population, some turn out to really help the population with environmental changes.

    So, you can go with tradition or wing it. Buy stocks or lottery tickets.

    I agree with Ron brown, but I think it's important to say that I wish peace and the love of god to people who don't agree. I think homosexuality is wrong. I will fully admit there are those who disagree and may very well be better Christians than me.

    A columbine priest once told me we are called to be hypocrites, so be gentle, but keep trying to follow the bible.

  6. #266
    Guest

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Siberia or South Dakota
    Posts
    16,054
    Coach Brown has a right to his opinion and pulpit. We all do (within the law). I wonder why he isn't coaching receivers?? He was one of the best under TO.

  7. #267
    Guest

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Copperas Cove, TX
    Posts
    194
    As much as I wholeheartedly disagree with what Brown is saying, he has a right to say it. Whatever the outcome of this situation, one thing that is guaranteed is that unless he breaks some sort of criminal law, he will not be deprived of his freedom for saying what he is saying.

    That being said, regardless of the fact that our constitution guarantees a right to free speech, there are other consequences one can face besides legal proceedings for what one says. Just as Coach Brown can say he thinks being gay is a sin, other people have an equal right to disagree with him. Those that disagree might be in positions of authority over him and have every right to fire him from his job if they feel what he is saying projects an image that is incongruent with the mission of the University of Nebraska.

    It is far too easy to take a situation like this and lose sight of the core issue. The core issue, to me, is the question over whether or not Ron Brown has the right to make the anti-homosexual statements that he has been making. The answer, according to the law, is yes. He is well within his rights. However, like I said, the University is justified in firing based on the fact that those statements he is making are incongruent with University policy of providing a (physically and emotionally) safe learning environment for students. Anyone can see the obvious contradiction between a man who, on one hand, professes love and acceptance of all people and then turns around and preaches against a certain class of people based on his own world view.

    The fact of the matter is not everyone in this country is a heterosexual Christian. Not all of our elected officials fit that description, either. However, that aforementioned group often preaches and legislates as if it is the only "right" way to live. While they are perfectly within their rights to think that way, it is NOT morally or ethically correct to make laws as such.

    I disagree with Coach Brown's statements. I agree that he has a right to make them. The University has a right to act against Brown. That is not infringing on Brown's freedom to make said statements. It is simply a consequence for making them.

  8. #268
    Quote Originally Posted by Formo View Post
    He is? It looks to me that he's just expressing his views on government policy with a certain set of people.
    Yes, that government policy he is advocating (or lack of policy) is to not provide non driscrimination laws for homosexuals, which would mean he would be ok with people discriminating against homosexuals.
    He said gays and lesbians do not deserve the same protections as groups that historically have been discriminated against, such as blacks and women.
    He refers to Brown. Article is here: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/colle...own/54542922/1

  9. #269
    Guest

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,046
    Quote Originally Posted by carlfense View Post
    As much as I wholeheartedly disagree with what Brown is saying, he has a right to say it. Whatever the outcome of this situation, one thing that is guaranteed is that unless he breaks some sort of criminal law, he will not be deprived of his freedom for saying what he is saying.

    That being said, regardless of the fact that our constitution guarantees a right to free speech, there are other consequences one can face besides legal proceedings for what one says. Just as Coach Brown can say he thinks being gay is a sin, other people have an equal right to disagree with him. Those that disagree might be in positions of authority over him and have every right to fire him from his job if they feel what he is saying projects an image that is incongruent with the mission of the University of Nebraska.

    It is far too easy to take a situation like this and lose sight of the core issue. The core issue, to me, is the question over whether or not Ron Brown has the right to make the anti-homosexual statements that he has been making. The answer, according to the law, is yes. He is well within his rights. However, like I said, the University is justified in firing based on the fact that those statements he is making are incongruent with University policy of providing a (physically and emotionally) safe learning environment for students. Anyone can see the obvious contradiction between a man who, on one hand, professes love and acceptance of all people and then turns around and preaches against a certain class of people based on his own world view.

    The fact of the matter is not everyone in this country is a heterosexual Christian. Not all of our elected officials fit that description, either. However, that aforementioned group often preaches and legislates as if it is the only "right" way to live. While they are perfectly within their rights to think that way, it is NOT morally or ethically correct to make laws as such.

    I disagree with Coach Brown's statements. I agree that he has a right to make them. The University has a right to act against Brown. That is not infringing on Brown's freedom to make said statements. It is simply a consequence for making them.
    Class of people--Does a particular type of behavior truly make up a protected CLASS? That is a big question to me. If that is the case, couldn't other groups, theoretically be protected classes, like ex-cons after they had served their time for instance? They paid their debt to society, therefore, a law could be passed to protect them from any discriminatory act or talk against them.

    Can't property owners choose to exclude what types of behavior be practiced on and in their property, even with the consequence of losing potential income? I am talking about behavior, not necessarily aprotected class yet in Omaha or Lincoln.

    If not, haven't they lost some of their management rights to their own property.


    Of course, I am being facetious and that will never happen, but in theory, could it not happen? How about bigamy or giving tickets for large, unruly parties or noise ordinances? or people with certain communicable diseases not practicing unprotected, promiscuous sex. Could these behaviors be considered for class protection. Should people practicing certain any certain behaviors be considered a legal class, like race, disability, or, yes, religion, whether christian or even witchcraft?

    Will certain religious ministers preaching at the pulpit their belief that homosexuality is wrong someday run a risk of being prosecuted by breaking a city ordinance? Theoretically, couldn't that evolve?

    Unless the University contract for RB specifically says he is directly violating his contract, it would seem there could be a pretty lengthy and expensive legal battle. There may be some general rules included in his, but it would seem that would be tough seeing how RB has a Constitutional right to free speech and religion. (I, obviously am no expert, but maybe some experienced contract or Constitutional attorneys on here have commented or can comment.)

    Just wondering.

    Morally--that is really what RB is arguing, isn't it? His point of view is that he disagrees with a "moral" choice that some people make. He thinks that particular behavior is morally wrong. He has that right.

    Morality and ethics are assessed by using one's point of view developed over time and after formulation of certain beliefs. These are relative to the individual. Those views can change over time in any individual, which gives support for the notion they are relative.

    RB has no direct contact or power over any other students (I don't know that he teaches any other classes under University contract) other than football in his capacity under University contract. Do his views directly impact a safe and comfortable general student environment?

    RB was stating his views in a public hearing where any citizen was invited to do so. It's not like he broke into the Unicameral's meeting hall while they were in session to yell out his belief's. He didn't break any laws and, in fact, was working within the law to try to prevent a law being passed---well before it is passed.

    Therefore, if the University argued that his termination is justified by his contract because the University disagreed with his stance, and if the University won the case, a dangerous precedent would be set, as was pointed out earlier in this thread. What would be next to justify loss of rights? -----Criticizing the government, a politician, a law, a court decision, an executive order, freedom to exercise civil disobedience, freedom of association, etc., etc.?

    When one person loses a right to do something under the Constitution don't we all lose that right--then more and more rights? History has shown this to be consistently true.

  10. #270
    Guest

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Copperas Cove, TX
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by RedEd View Post
    Class of people--Does a particular type of behavior truly make up a protected CLASS? That is a big question to me. If that is the case, couldn't other groups, theoretically be protected classes, like ex-cons after they had served their time for instance? They paid their debt to society, therefore, a law could be passed to protect them from any discriminatory act or talk against them.

    Of course, I am being facetious and that will never happen, but in theory, could it not happen? How about bigamy or giving tickets for large, unruly parties or noise ordinances? or people with certain communicable diseases not practicing unprotected, promiscuous sex. Should people practicing certain any certain behaviors be considered a legal class, like race, dissability, or, yes, religion, whether christian or even witches?

    Unless the University contract for RB specifically says he is directly violation his contract, it would seem their could be a pretty lengthy and expensive legal battle. There may be some general rules included in his, but it would seem that would be tough seeing how RB has a Constitutional right to free speech. (I, obviously am no expert, but maybe some experienced attornys on hear have or can comment.)

    Just wondering.
    That's an excellent point. I am sure many ex-cons who have served their time who try to reenter the workforce face a lot of discrimination. However, one could also view that as another consequence of committing a crime. Do they deserve legal protection from discrimination? I think a case could be made. It probably wouldn't hold up given the fact that those people committed a crime.

    However, the main difference here is that homosexuality is not a crime in the eyes of the law. Homosexuals do face discrimination and are frequently the target of bullying and other, more severe crimes. The reason homosexuals are a protected class of people in many situations is because they face discrimination for no other reason than being gay. The recent debate over DADT illustrates that perfectly... otherwise exemplary servicemen and women being discharged because of their sexual orientation. When a group of people face discrimination like that, protection under the law is a necessity. The only purpose of those laws are to make blatant discrimination in the public square illegal. Nothing more. You can't change peoples' minds by legislation. That takes the passage of time and the natural moral progression of society.

    Quote Originally Posted by RedEd View Post
    Morally--that is really what RB is arguing, isn't it? His point of view is that he disagrees with a "moral" choice that some people make. He thinks that particular behavior is morally wrong. He has that right.
    Except that the basis for those statements is false. For the vast majority of people, homosexuality is not a choice. It has been proven over and over again that tendencies like sexual orientation are more nature than nurture. Is that true for every last person who is homosexual? Probably not. But the overwhelming majority? Surely.

    Here's a point to ponder... Even if homosexuality was 100% a choice, what RIGHT does anyone have to discriminate against those people. Sure, it says in the Bible that homosexuality is bad in God's eyes. What about people who don't believe in God? They have rights under the law too. Just because it says in one group's holy book that something is wrong does not give those people a right to discriminate or commit crimes against another group.

    Quote Originally Posted by RedEd View Post
    Morality and ethics are assessed by using one's point of view developed over time and after formulation of certain beliefs. These are relative to the individual. Those views can change over time in any individual, which gives support for the notion they are relative.
    Totally agree with you here.

    Quote Originally Posted by RedEd View Post
    RB has no direct contact or power over any other students (I don't know that he teaches any other classes under University contract) other than football in his capacity under University contract.
    As far as I know you're right.

    Quote Originally Posted by RedEd View Post
    Do his views directly impact a safe and comfortable student environment?
    That depends on what you mean by directly. Is Ron Brown actively trying to make the University a hostile environment for gays? No. At his core, he is a great, great man. He cares deeply about teaching and developing young men into the best people and players they can be. I wouldn't lob out an accusation that Brown is doing anything maliciously. However, when people in power make comments like the ones he is making, that gives validation to a lot of people less scrupulous and moral than he and might be inspired to take more action against groups they deem wrong or immoral. Great generals never fire a gun. They inspire others to.

    Quote Originally Posted by RedEd View Post
    RB was stating his views in a public hearing where any citizen was invited to do so. It's not like he broke into the Unicameral's meeting hall while they were in session to yell out his belief's. He didn't break any laws and, in fact, was working within the law to try to prevent a law being passed--well before it is passed. Therefore, if the University argued that his termination is justified by his contract because the University disagreed with his stance, and if the University won the case, a dangerous precident would be set, as was pointed out earlier in this thread. What would be next to justify loss of rights? -----Criticizing the government, a politician, a law, a court decision, an executive order, freedom to exercise civil disobedience, freedom of association, etc., etc.?
    Yes, he was in his LEGAL right to do that. It's not the court system that'd be firing him. It would be his boss. That is a very important distinction to make. While legally you are entitled to do a lot of things, your employer is also legally entitled to take action if those things you say contradict the mission of the place of employment. It clearly says on www.unl.edu that UNL is an equal opportunity educator and employer. That means that they are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of a number of things, including sexual orientation. Brown's comments could easily be taken as discriminatory. Does he have a legal right to say them? Yes. Does the law say he must remain employed regardless of what he says? Nope. That's up to the employer. If I were to suddenly to start swearing up a storm at my students, I would promptly be fired. Does the First Amendment give me the right to do that? Yes. Should I expect to lose my job? Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by RedEd View Post
    When one person loses a right to do something under the Constitionm don't we all lose that right, then more and more? History has shown this to be consistently true.
    When in US History has any group of people actually lost the right to do anything per the constitution? When our constitution was written, only wealthy, white, protestant men could vote or own land. And look at where we are now.

  11. #271
    RedEd, there are a number of protected classes that are based upon behavior. The most obvious one based on the current discussion is religion. Religion is not an inherent characteristic, the religion one choses to practice is a chosen behavior. And (with some minor exceptions based upon conflicts with other laws) one cannot be discriminated against based upon that chosen behavior.

  12. #272
    Guest

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    On the course...
    Posts
    698
    Quote Originally Posted by SpringsHusker View Post
    RedEd, there are a number of protected classes that are based upon behavior. The most obvious one based on the current discussion is religion. Religion is not an inherent characteristic, the religion one choses to practice is a chosen behavior. And (with some minor exceptions based upon conflicts with other laws) one cannot be discriminated against based upon that chosen behavior.

    Actually, that's not correct. Other than religion (which requires a showing of a "sincerely held" belief), there are no other protected classes based upon one's behavior.

    What some find troubling about sexual preference protection is that many of the laws that have been enacted at the state and local level do not require the individual to demonstrate some level of commitment to a given lifestyle; theoretically, a person could have a one-time experience and then turn around and claim protection. In that regard, these types of ordinances are very different than existing anti-discrimination laws.

  13. #273
    Guest

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Copperas Cove, TX
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by Okie-Husker View Post
    What some find troubling about sexual preference protection is that many of the laws that have been enacted at the state and local level do not require the individual to demonstrate some level of commitment to a given lifestyle; theoretically, a person could have a one-time experience and then turn around and claim protection. In that regard, these types of ordinances are very different than existing anti-discrimination laws.
    ...How many people do you know would hop the fence for a day to claim that protection? Would you?

  14. #274
    Guest

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    On the course...
    Posts
    698
    Quote Originally Posted by carlfense View Post
    ...How many people do you know would hop the fence for a day to claim that protection? Would you?
    Not at all, but that wasn't really my point. I help employers deal with harassment and discrimination issues all the time. Not surprisingly, there are many people out there who file baseless discrimination claims after an adverse employment action. I think what concerns some people is that many of these laws would allow a person to essentially "opt in" to a protected class and then assert that the employer was aware of his/her membership in that class. I guess my point is that laws designed to "protect" need to be carefully considered because of the potential for abuse...

  15. #275
    Guest

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Copperas Cove, TX
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by Okie-Husker View Post
    I guess my point is that laws designed to "protect" need to be carefully considered because of the potential for abuse...
    Good point. However, for every abuse of that system I'm willing to bet there are a lot more instances that exemplify the reason why those laws are in place. No matter what the law is, there will be people who abuse it. Always.

  16. #276
    Recruit
    Howlin Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    952
    My last thought on this issue occurred today. Would Liberty University be a good fit for Ron Brown?
    He would get all the backing he is looking for but not the Press he might be looking for.
    I think he knows someone there.

  17. #277
    Quote Originally Posted by Howlin Wolf View Post
    My last thought on this issue occurred today. Would Liberty University be a good fit for Ron Brown?
    He would get all the backing he is looking for but not the Press he might be looking for.
    I think he knows someone there.
    I agree with you...I've said he should go off to a private/christian school and do his coaching/preaching there. Turner Gill wouldn't mind.

  18. #278
    Quote Originally Posted by Okie-Husker View Post
    Actually, that's not correct. Other than religion (which requires a showing of a "sincerely held" belief), there are no other protected classes based upon one's behavior.

    What some find troubling about sexual preference protection is that many of the laws that have been enacted at the state and local level do not require the individual to demonstrate some level of commitment to a given lifestyle; theoretically, a person could have a one-time experience and then turn around and claim protection. In that regard, these types of ordinances are very different than existing anti-discrimination laws.
    We may be on different wavelengths here, but there are most certainly other classes that are based on choices, not inherent characteristics, that receive legislative protection (not Constitutional protection) against discrimination. In certain states (and probably cities, although I am not specifically aware of any) certain classes of jobs receive legislative protection against discrimination. There are laws protecting against discrimination based on union membership (and more recently against choosing to not join a union). There are laws against discrimination based on membership in fraternal organizations, such as the Freemasons. I could go on.

  19. #279
    Guest

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    4,108
    Anybody read Orwell's Animal Farm? Once everyone is protected, nobody is.

    We started treating women with equal rights. Then minorities. Then religion. Then gays. Then who knows what.

    The problem is that it's an ever-deepening circle. Once you define a protected class, you immediately have to redefine those who aren't in that class as well. We've created so many protected classes, it's damn ridiculous.

    The only reasons for creating those classes is to fight discrimination, which is really the main issue. Stamp out discrimination instead of creating these "band aid" rules for fixing the symptoms.

  20. #280
    Junior Varsity
    The Big Red Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    5,515
    Quote Originally Posted by DuckTownHusker View Post
    Anybody read Orwell's Animal Farm? Once everyone is protected, nobody is.

    We started treating women with equal rights. Then minorities. Then religion. Then gays. Then who knows what.

    The problem is that it's an ever-deepening circle. Once you define a protected class, you immediately have to redefine those who aren't in that class as well. We've created so many protected classes, it's damn ridiculous.

    The only reasons for creating those classes is to fight discrimination, which is really the main issue. Stamp out discrimination instead of creating these "band aid" rules for fixing the symptoms.
    Yeah, that pesky Civil Rights Act wasn't really needed. No need for the 13th, 15th or 19th Amendments either. All you have to do to "stamp out" discrimination is do what..wish it away?
    ~Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, uh, your opinion, man.~
    J. Lebowski


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •