Recently, Husker assistant football coach Ron Brown has made headlines with his outspoken comments on gay rights. He spoke against a proposed ordinance (since passed) in Omaha that banned discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. At the time, Brown stated he's "not in favor of discrimination", but didn't think homosexuals should receive "special privileges". While testifying, he gave his address as "1 Memorial Stadium", prompting a mild public rebuke by chancelor Harvey Perlman.
In the follow-up to this issue, Brown has refused to back down from his beliefs, stating "They tell me to stick to my place and shut up," He also said, "Biblical truth is at stake, Nebraska is teeter-tottering, and could go either way." He frames the issue as one between right and wrong, and all about religious freedom.
Ron Brown is wrong on every level. His views are based in bigotry and prejudice, and his viewpoints are not only contrary to University policy, they make him unsuitable for his job working with college students.
You can not logically be against discrimination of a group and be opposed to making such discrimination illegal. Many conservative people like to talk about consequences for behavior - anti-discrimination laws allow consequences to be applied to illegal behavior.
In addition, what special privileges are we granting people? The right to hold a job? Get married? Rent or buy a place to live? In what way are those things different than what you and I take for granted every day? Keep in mind, no one is saying you have to hire a gay or lesbian person if they're not the most qualified - you just can't deny them employment because of their sexual orientation. Why should we oppose anyone deciding to share their life with the person of their choice? How is this any different than refusing to hire someone because of their race or religion?
Some people are "uncomfortable" being around someone who is gay. So what? Does that mean they shouldn't be able to move in to your apartment building? What if they're uncomfortable around African-Americans - should they also be able to refuse to rent to blacks? Let's make this clear: your level of discomfort is YOUR problem - don't expect someone else to pay a price to make you feel more at ease.
How about religious freedom? Is Ron Brown being persecuted for his beliefs? His beliefs are his business, but his BEHAVIOR is subject to scrutiny. How many of us would be allowed to publicly challenge our employer's policies? I learned long ago that there is a time and a place to disagree with the boss - and that time and place is NOT in a public forum. Add to that the fact that Mr. brown is in a position to have great influence and visibility regarding this issue, and it's clear he's stepped over the line.
Mr. Brown has been coaching at Nebraska for about 22 years, having virtually unlimited contact with the entire team of over 100 young men, in addition to his contact with fans and school students due to his speaking engagements. Of the thousands of those young people he's addressed, how many were homosexual - 100? 200? More? Who knows - what can't be disputed is that whatever the number, there's a price paid when this role model, this person they look up to, insists that they are immoral - that their behavior is evil. Again, change the bigotry to that against a racial or ethnic minority, and it's clear the university wouldn't put up with it. Why is this any different?
People talk about the right to free speech. I agree with this right - it's one of the most important rights in a free society - the right to speak up, even when you disagree with the government or society in general - but the right is not absolute, and it doesn't insulate you from the consequences of your beliefs. If you feel strongly about something, speak up. If you are in a position that represents a public university, expressing bigoted, evil beliefs may result in the loss of your job. Ron Brown has reached the point where his continued, public statements negatively impact the University of Nebraska and the athletic department. He should continue spreading his small-minded bigotry as a private citizen.
You're right, Gregg. If Ron Brown wants to preach his bigotry, he should become a preacher. He has become a detriment to the University of Nebraska.
ReplyDeleteCertainly, no one with that kind of attitude should be working with young people.
The University of Nebraska along with Tom Osborne has lost all of my pride, respect and support.
DeleteWhy would they allow someone with this much hatred and small mindedness be a role model, mentor and coach to our children unless the Administration also shares his beliefs.
Ever since Ron Brown's appearance at the Omaha City Council meeting, I have been amazed by the bigotry, intolerance, hatred, and small mindedness displayed in multiple forums. Although it has to hurt at some level, I pray that Ron perseveres in spite of the reality that he is a target of all of these.
ReplyDeleteSorry Anonymous, I just can't agree with you here. I don't think Ron Brown has been the target of anything.
DeleteKeep in mind, he spoke in Omaha AGAINST an ordinance that prohibits discrimination. It's not about his religious beliefs - it's about whether or not someone can refuse to hire someone or rent an apartment to someone, based strictly on their sexual orientation.
He can have any opinion he wants, but it doesn't insulate him from criticism for it.
What if he was speaking out in favor of racial discrimination? Would that be OK?
The answer is no, it wouldn't. Neither is this.
The ordinance creates a protective class based upon behavior. This is very different from someone's race. The argument about being born that way doesn't hold water here, since there is still a choice about behavior.
ReplyDeleteNot a target of anything? He speaks out a against an ordinance based upon religion. Others did as well (and 4 of 9 council members voted against it). So, this was certainly not 1 person versus everyone else. Yet the response in blogs, newspaper articles, etc. absolutely targets him with intolerance, bigotry, etc.
Feel free to disagree with him. Feel free to want him to be fired. However, to disagree with the reality that I noted is intellectually dishonest.
I don't think the ordinance says anything about behavior - it simply bars discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. I don't think it matters whether you were born that way or not.
DeleteGoing by your logic, it would be OK to discriminate based on someone's religion, right? After all, that's a choice.
I think the comparison to racial discrimination is spot on. Don't forget - religion was used to justify slavery, too.
Ron Brown is certainly free to hold his views. I'm talking about his behavior. His religion doesn't doesn't allow him to be excused from the consequences of his behavior.
I don't believe Ron Brown is qualified for his position with the University of Nebraska.
The law is based on sexual orientation-yes. Mostly likely it will be implemented based on behavior though. In most circumstances, the orientation wouldn't otherwise be known.
ReplyDeleteThe "religion was used to justify slavery" line is tired. It was wrong to do that since God's word does not endorse slavery. God's word does regard homosexual acts as a sin. We all sin. That doesn't make the sin okay.
I never said it was okay to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation and neither has Ron Brown. He never been shown to do that. In fact, the would be contrary to who he has always been.
What behavior has made Ron Brown unqualified for his position?
Dear Ron,
ReplyDeleteJesus embraced the poor,the sick those that society looked down on...he didn't check to ask if they were gay. If you were a student of Jesus you would understand compassion and reject bigotry. You went to one of the nation's top universities and learned nothing. Hitler condemned homosexuals...christian values? Your brand of Christianity is extreme, dangerous, and the antithesis of the actions of Jesus. The same hatred you spew about gays was said about people of color for too long. History will record that you were a passionate man who simply didn't get it.
The 12 Apostles
Jesus embraced the poor,the sick those that society looked down on...he didn't check to ask if they were gay.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure you're making a point here. My guess is Ron would agree with the statement, though. Explain how his actions convey hatred? In all the commentary from recent months (there is a lot of it), I haven't seen one person do that. I've seen accusations, but that's it.
Ron Brown is speaking out AGAINST an ordinance that prohibits discrimination. He is IN FAVOR of discriminating against a minority.
ReplyDeleteI never said, in my original post, that he "hated" anyone. I said he was a bigot, and, as such, was not qualified for his position with the University of Nebraska.
He certainly has the right to preach is bigoted, small-minded beliefs. I'd just like to see him do it elsewhere, rather than in our state university.
I have no problem with freedom of religion. I also have the right to criticize someone for holding beliefs that are evil and wrong. Ron Brown, and others speaking out against this ordinance, are on the wrong side of history.
Gregg said...Ron Brown is speaking out AGAINST an ordinance that prohibits discrimination. He is IN FAVOR of discriminating against a minority.
ReplyDeleteDo you really think that is a logical assertion? The first sentence is true. To get from there to the second sentence takes a HUGE leap. Similar to the "hate" issue, this is an accusation but is unproven.
A "HUGE leap"? I don't think so. He spoke out against an ordinance that prohibits discrimination in housing and employment. He is in favor of allowing people to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. That means, he thinks is is perfectly OK for a person to be fired from their job for something completely unrelated to their job performance. In my opinion, that puts him clearly in the camp of those who favor discrimination.
ReplyDeleteIn no way is that a "huge leap" - more like a tiny shuffle.
Is he against fair housing laws? Should a landlord be able to refuse to rent to him because he's African-American? How about because he's Christian? Should an employer be allowed to fire someone because they're Muslem? Chinese? Most reasonable people would say no to these questions. What is different about homosexuals?
20 years from now, we'll look at Ron Brown the same way we now look at those who fought against inter-racial marriage.
BTW, how would you describe someone who would refuse to hire an African-American? Or thought they shouldn't be allowed to marry? Wouldn't that be a hateful stance? In my book, if someone preaches love but practices evil, it speaks of their true nature. I don't know what's in Ron Brown's heart, I can only look at his behavior. I would not him to influence my child.
Yes, a huge leap...
ReplyDeleteYou said...In my book, if someone preaches love but practices evil, it speaks of their true nature. I don't know what's in Ron Brown's heart, I can only look at his behavior. I would not him to influence my child.
Either one operates from a biblical worldview on this or not. I wish I were half the man Ron Brown is when it comes to having an influence on my children.
I appreciate your passion about this. I encourage you to really take time to listen to what he has said on this over the past 10-15 years. He has confronted Christians on how they treat homosexuals while not wavering on the biblical truth of sin (yes, sin).
I'm sure you deal with people every day that you respect or love though you see the destructive pain of their own sin in their lives. You may not think of it that way but you accept them where they are at and hope for a better future for them (even though they may not see the need themselves). It's not judgmental, hateful, intolerant, or bigoted that you care.
There's so much more on this. It's really too deep of an issue for this forum can handle (the worldview thing).
Yes, it will be interesting to see where we are in 20 years...
For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 2 Timothy 4:3
This is not my debate, but note that there are many different "biblical worldviews," Anonymous. Christians widely disagree about almost everything in the Bible. Furthermore, you don't think that accusing people of "sinning" is being judgmental?
DeleteBut the main problem here is just trying to force everyone else to follow your own religious beliefs. You can think anything you want about "sin." But it's a very different thing when a person can lose his job for his sexual orientation (or when two consenting adults can't get married).
Why can't we just mind our own business? Why can't you decide for yourself, and let everyone else do the same? Is someone else's sexual orientation really your business? Why?
This is exactly like the past controversy about inter-racial marriage. We hear the same arguments we did against that - and yes, opponents of racial civil rights also cited the Bible. For the most part, we've gone past that kind of bigotry, and we'll get past this kind of bigotry, too.
It's ok to make it your debate. This is an issue of our day that has great impact on our world. You should care about it :)
ReplyDeleteCalling this or something else a sin is not judgmental. A sin is a sin regardless of my religious beliefs or yours or my decision or yours or whether it's cloudy that day or sunny or windy. We all sin every hour of every day.
This sin may not impact me, be any of my business, or be my decision. It doesn't really matter. Should I care when someone seeks equal treatment under the law based upon that sin? Absolutely.
Go back to what Ron Brown said in Omaha. He noted that if someone is not a believer in Jesus Christ that the things he was saying (or that I'm saying now) will not make any sense to them. If you are a believer, though, it's a different matter....
Either way, it doesn't change the reality that this (along with many other things in this world) are a sin against God...not me or someone else...God. What we think or believe really doesn't change or create that reality. We certainly shouldn't create a protected class of citizen based upon it.
Again, this forum really isn't big enough. :)
Anonymous, since you have a "biblical worldview," no doubt you want to put homosexuals to death, along with disobedient children and people who do yard work on Sundays (or Saturdays or Friday or whatever your conception of the "Sabbath" might be).
DeleteAnd, undoubtedly, you think that hybrid cattle are an abomination, as well as wearing clothing of mixed fibers. Well, you have the right to believe anything you want, no matter what I might think of it. But in a civilized society, you can't force those beliefs on everyone else.
A "sin" is just a religious term, nothing more, and we have freedom of religion in America. Atheists don't have sins (they do think that some things are wrong, of course). Different believers have different sins. You won't even get all Christians to believe in the same sins, let alone members of other religions.
If you think that eating pork, or beef, or shellfish is a sin, if you think that drinking wine or coffee is a sin, that's fine. But in a civilized society, "sins" are entirely your own business. We don't legislate on the basis of sin, because that's entirely a religious concept. And a secular government of a diverse people stays out of such things. Freedom of religion, you know?
You are perfectly free to dislike inter-racial marriage because of your biblical worldview. But freedom means that other people don't need your permission to get married. You are perfectly free to think that Jews are going to Hell. But you can't fire an employee for being Jewish. See how that works?
This is Civil Rights 101. You may think you know what your god wants - how, I have absolutely no idea - but so what? Other people have different beliefs (or complete disbelief). And this isn't the Dark Ages, where you can burn heretics alive. We all have rights.
We can live together in peace because we respect each other's rights. We separate government from religion so that everyone can follow their own conscience. I don't care in the slightest what you think is a sin and what you don't. Your religious beliefs are none of my business, as long as you don't try to force them on everyone else.
This isn't my blog, and I know that Gregg can answer you very well, but it's hard for me to stay out of these kinds of discussions. I'll try, though. :)
As usual, Bill makes a lot of sense (it just KILLS me to admit that).
ReplyDeleteThese discussions always break down when the underlying rational for someone's point of view is their interpretation of religion. Bill's comment contains a good example of why that is true - most people today would view a ban on eating shellfish as stupid and intrusive. Many of us see discrimination against homosexuals in the same light. It's difficult to discuss this when someone's argument always comes back to "because god said so" - many of us just don't recognize that as a valid point.
Anonymous is certainly welcome to his definition of "sin" - just don't expect that to carry a lot of weight with me in a discussion of morals. Morality and sin are two entirely different things. As Bill stated, a person can have a strong moral compass without the need to tie it to any god.
As an aside to "Anonymous": Although I suspect we won't agree on many things, your comments are always welcome here - I'll try to disagree, when I must, in a rational and polite manner. Please consider registering with Google and signing your comments so that I and other commenters can address specific remarks to you.
I appreciate the invitation to sign up on google, at this point I should probably maintain the anonymous title. You know me when I sign in :)
ReplyDeleteRegarding your thoughts on sin...Our belief in something isn't what makes it a reality. If something is true, it's true whether we believe it or not. Using your example, an atheist doesn't need to believe in sin for the reality of their sin to exist (We have all sinned and fall short of God's glory.). You're allowing yourself to be seduced by moral relativism. This is the crux of this entire discussion, TRUTH IS TRUTH WHETHER ANY OF US BELIEVES IT OR NOT.
Bill's references to sins (shellfish, etc.) were all Old Testament excerpts from the law. The law existed to show us that we are not capable of fulfilling it...to show us that we sin. When Jesus walked the earth, much of this law went away. The sin we've been discussing, homosexuality, is discussed not only in the old testament but the new testament as well. This is a clear indication that every Christian should recognize it as sin (I know not all do...). Again, a non-Christian isn't expected to fully grasp it. It's still true for everyone, but it's unrealistic to expect the non-Christian to understand it.
Regarding Civil Rights 101...Until now, I have deferred from engaging you with the fact that the ordinance in question could eventually (at least indirectly) to violating someone's religious liberties. I know this may draw your ire, but it's hard to deny it...I have a feeling you will, though :)
Finally, Jesus said "I tell you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin." He also said, "If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
Ah, so you've thrown out that whole "Ten Commandments" thing, Anonymous? Just Old Testament nonsense, huh? Well, that's your business, not mine.
DeleteBut no, I was talking about diverse beliefs. Ask a Jew, ask a Muslim, ask a Hindu, ask a Mormon, ask an atheist what God wants. Heck, ask ten Christians and you might get ten different answers. You seem to have missed my point entirely (or decided to ignore it).
And yeah, maybe - technically - it violates your religious liberty when you're prohibited from burning witches and heretics alive, when you have to treat women and racial minorities as people, rather than property, when you have to let gay people live their lives without your supervision.
But this isn't your church, it's a free nation of diverse beliefs. Kick homosexuals out of your church if you want. I have no problem with that. But you don't have the right to force your beliefs on everyone else, whether they're true or not (and you have no way of knowing if they are true).
"Anonymous",
ReplyDeleteFreedom of religion is not absolute, nor should it be. You can't stone adulterers, or have sex with minors - regardless of what your religion tells you to do.
I can draw all the pictures of Mohammed I like, and you can't (legally) do anything about it. If you have children, you may not mistreat them in the name of religion.
Your right to free expression of religion ends where it interferes with another's rights. You can refuse to associate with homosexuals, blacks, atheists, or anyone else you want, but you can't deny them the right to live their lives - including the right to rent or own a home, vote, and marry.
The prohibition against homosexuality is purely a religous issue. As such, it should have no force of law.
WCG...Good try, bad example. 9 of 10 commandments were repeated in the New Testament. The other one (the 4th one) is discussed more than once as though it is assumed it is repeated.
ReplyDeleteAlso WCG...I didn't ignore your point. In fact, I presented a differing point of view that directly addresses your point. You seem to have missed my point entirely (or decided to ignore it).
Gregg...You noted that you can't stone adulterers. That's genius! I wish I were smart enough to think of that example myself. Jesus saved a woman guilty of the sin of adultery from being stoned to death. He said that whoever is without sin can be the first to throw a stone...no one wanted to test that one. Then, he he told her to "leave your life of sin." It looks like Ron Brown is following the same line of thinking. I've know him to confront Christians about their attitudes toward homosexuals without wavering on the issue of the sin itself. Thanks Gregg!!!
For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Philippians 2:9-11
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteDid you read the first sentence of my reply? Freedom of religion is not, and has never been, absolute.
It doesn't matter that your particular strain of Christianity doesn't stone adulterers. I assume you also don't approve of your religious leaders involved in marrying off 13 year old girls. The point is, some religions think you should do those things. They're not allowed - IT IS AGAINST THE LAW! The right to freedom of religion ends when it starts to restrict the rights of others.
So, should all religions have absolute freedom to practice any beliefs they have, or just yours? Where is the line drawn? Suppose someone's religion says races shouldn't be mixed - should they be allowed to deny housing or employment to those in mixed-race relationships? Should we let Fred Phelps' wacko group determine how homosexuals are treated?
The constitution says no religion should be favored over others, so if we allow Christians to discriminate based on their religious views, we need to provide the same opportunity to others. Clearly, that's not going to happen.
I'm not knowledgeable, or interested, in scripture. The bible, Koran, or any other religious text, should have no bearing on our laws. I have no problem with anyone practicing their religion - but religion is not a valid reason for denying rights to others.
Gregg...First, it's hard to directly address every point without writing endlessly. I could do so, but....
ReplyDeleteI get where you're coming from. Think of this, though. What about the laws we do have? I'm thinking the simple ones that everyone agrees with (i.e. murder, theft, so on). Who ever said that these were wrong? The basis of these laws is absolutely in religion. Although it's bad that many of these are wrongs against other people (horizontal sin), it's more important that they are sins against God (vertical sins).
The right to freedom of religion ends when it starts to restrict the rights of others...You've now stated this twice. What about the privileges of another group restricting ones religious rights, though? As I noted earlier, that could eventually happen in this case.
That's a point I mine that was ignored. Also ignored was my note about Ron Brown's history of confronting Christians on their attitude toward homosexuals. So, maybe I'm not the only one selectively responding :)
Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except through me."
This is getting absurd........
ReplyDeleteTo address your three points in order:
I don't agree that the basis of laws against murder, theft, etc. have a "basis in religion". All societies that I'm aware of had laws against murder. I understand some or most religions have rules against murder, but it's absurd to say that without that, we'd be running around murdering people. I'm not sure what that has to do with our discussion here, anyway. I'm pretty sure I never accused Ron Brown of murder. If your point is that religion has made the world a better place, we'll have to disagree. I'm not going to post on that, but I'm sure WCG has something on it on his blog. Paste this link into your browser for an eye-opener:
http://garthright.blogspot.com/2012/01/jessica-ahlquist.html
When you're done with that, read some of his other posts on religion - he's better equipped to talk about the "value" of religion to society.
I'm not sure what you're calling a "privilege". Is it the "privilege" of being allowed to have a job? How about the "privilege" of having a place to live? Maybe it's the "privilege" of being able to choose who you will live with. Sorry, I believe all those are rights. And, speaking of the right to work, I do understand that in Nebraska employees may be terminated for no reason. They can't, however, be terminated for the WRONG reason. You can't, for instance, fire someone because they're black. Does this infringe on someone's religious freedom? Should you be able to fire someone because they're Muslim? If so, that means you could fire someone for being a Christian. Fortunately, both of those are illegal. This "infringes on your religious freedom", but that's tough, because you're taking away the "privilege" of that person to earn a living. The fairness ordinance doesn't give homosexuals any rights that you and I don't already enjoy. I can't be fired from my job because I live with my wife - do you think I should be?
As for your last point, I can't comment on Ron Brown's alleged "history of confronting Christians on their attitude toward homosexuals". I've never seen it or heard any real talk about it. You know what else? I don't really care! So what - he's not as bad as the Fred Phelps bunch. Big whoop! He's still wrong, wrong, wrong on this issue. He is speaking out against a law designed to prevent discrimination. I"ll say something good about Ron Brown when he comes out in favor of equal treatment for everyone. I'll be impressed when he loses the "holier than thou" attitude and starts setting a good example for his players. I might even have some respect for him if he admits he was wrong and apologizes to those he hurt with his statements.
I really don't have much else to say on this - I'm not going to write another post about it (although I may if something new happens), and I'm clearly not going to change your mind. At some point, the vast majority of our population will be on the fair side of this issue.
This is getting absurd........I guess it is isn't it? Did either of us think we had a prayer of changing the other's mind? No, we both "know" we're right and we both think we "won" the argument about some important topics of our day. Honestly, I only submitted my last couple of posts, because I appreciated your passion. The world needs more passionate people.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I checked out that link. Based on what I read, I don't really see anyone being "right" in that deal. I encourage you to look at this side of Christianity...if only for 5 minutes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyheJ480LYA
Best wishes Gregg.