|
Post by VolleyTX on Jan 16, 2012 14:23:34 GMT -5
That's great. I did not mean to paint all Christians with so broad a stroke.
There are places were your brand of Christianity is NOT the norm. You can tell just by watching politics? Places like South Carolina and Iowa aren't called values voters for nothing. These states also tend to be quite anti-gay .... as a whole. I could easily through a dozen more or so states in that list.
|
|
|
Post by OptimusPrime on Jan 16, 2012 14:37:09 GMT -5
What everyone seems to forget is that God does not hate people. People hate people. God loves all. God only hates sin. And there is not one, no not one, in any church service that has not sinned. Take this for whatever it is worth to you!
|
|
|
Post by NitneLiun on Jan 16, 2012 14:45:51 GMT -5
Paterno wasn't a witness to Sandusky's sexual abuse crimes. How could he have made a statement to the police? Paterno reported McQueary's story to his superiors and set up a meeting between the AD and VP of Business and Finance, who had direct executive oversight of the Penn State Police Department. It was at that point that things fell apart. It had nothing to do with Paterno. There are errors of commission and errors of ommission. IMO, Joe is CLEARLY guilty of the latter. I don't know why I am trying to convince you though as you're just as adept at "circling the wagons" as they are (were). I don't think you know what an error of omission is. Joe reported what he was told by McQueary to his superiors, including the Penn State executive who has direct oversight of the Penn State P.D. As a person who did not witness the sexual abuse, he could have done nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by NitneLiun on Jan 16, 2012 14:50:02 GMT -5
Wait.... wait... wait..... Once Paterno told his leaders, he was absolved of responsibility? One of his subordinates was being accused of raping a child, IN THE LOCKER ROOM, and all Paterno needed to do was tell his superiors? That is a pretty low moral bar you've set for any individual... let alone someone who runs a multi-million dollar team. The incident in the locker room was in 2002. Sandusky retired in 1999. He was no longer on the staff and hadn't been for three years. He was not Paterno's subordinate. As I said in a previous post, there was nothing more that Paterno could have done, as he was not a witness and did report what he was told by the witness to his superiors, including the Penn State executive who had direct oversight of the Penn State Police Department.
|
|
|
Post by NotKingOfAnything on Jan 16, 2012 15:28:54 GMT -5
As a person who did not witness the sexual abuse, he could have done nothing else. You've said some pretty outrageous and controversial things here on VT, but that is absolute bullcrap.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 16, 2012 15:30:55 GMT -5
It does seem to me that certain schools (or communities) tend to be a bit more religious. i.e. team prays before games, etc. I can see how openly gay players would try to avoid those programs. There may be no open discrimination, but it would be hard to feel like part of a team when in the back of your head you know that many of your teammates think your sexuality is wrong. Depends on the religion.
|
|
|
Post by NitneLiun on Jan 16, 2012 15:50:57 GMT -5
As a person who did not witness the sexual abuse, he could have done nothing else. You've said some pretty outrageous and controversial things here on VT, but that is absolute bullcrap. You tell me what more he could have done at that point.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 16, 2012 15:52:11 GMT -5
You've said some pretty outrageous and controversial things here on VT, but that is absolute bullcrap. You tell me what more he could have done at that point. He could have gone to the DA, as opposed to the AD.
|
|
|
Post by austintatious on Jan 16, 2012 16:15:15 GMT -5
Wait.... wait... wait..... Once Paterno told his leaders, he was absolved of responsibility? One of his subordinates was being accused of raping a child, IN THE LOCKER ROOM, and all Paterno needed to do was tell his superiors? That is a pretty low moral bar you've set for any individual... let alone someone who runs a multi-million dollar team. The incident in the locker room was in 2002. Sandusky retired in 1999. He was no longer on the staff and hadn't been for three years. He was not Paterno's subordinate. As I said in a previous post, there was nothing more that Paterno could have done, as he was not a witness and did report what he was told by the witness to his superiors, including the Penn State executive who had direct oversight of the Penn State Police Department. As a human being he should have followed up. I would want to know, is my assistant coach making this crap up, if so he goes for trying to ruin a reputation of a former coach. If it is true, and I keep seeing this person on campus I want him exiled, expelled, and persona non grata from my university. Paterno was a father figure. He needed to act like a father to all boys, instead it can be seen he acted as a father to his hallowed program and reputation.
|
|
|
Post by NitneLiun on Jan 16, 2012 20:06:07 GMT -5
You tell me what more he could have done at that point. He could have gone to the DA, as opposed to the AD. He could have gone to the DA with what? He was not a witness to the crime. Do you really think he should have bypassed the Penn State chain of command as a non-witness? That means he would have bypassed the AD, the university president and the Board of Trustees with no substantive testimony to give. It's called hearsay.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 16, 2012 20:10:48 GMT -5
He could have gone to the DA, as opposed to the AD. He could have gone to the DA with what? He was not a witness to the crime. Do you really think he should have bypassed the Penn State chain of command as a non-witness? That means he would have bypassed the AD, the university president and the Board of Trustees with no substantive testimony to give. It's called hearsay. It's called "reporting a crime." The whole problem here was the refusal to bypass "the chain of command." That's what got the whole "chain of command" fired. I guess your polarizing glasses can't let you see that, however.
|
|
|
Post by jgrout on Jan 16, 2012 21:13:30 GMT -5
He asked the church board to affix a symbol to the big sign at the entrance that signified that GLBT are welcome at the church. The board decided against the symbol, stating that "all are welcome at God's table", not just GLBT, not just a certain race, nor a certain income level. ALL are welcome. Unfortunately the young man did leave the congregation. I don't know whether or not that young man hated the people who harassed and humiliated him... but I can practically guarantee that he knows people in the LGBT community who do hate their enemies and that try to teach others in their community to hate their enemies in the same way. To me, it's not a group decision whether or not to hate one's enemies... it is a personal decision with group consequences. At least where I live, it appears to be a choice between being an active part of the LGBT community and hating one's enemies or not hating one's enemies and not being welcome among those who do. I find it very difficult to both embrace hatred and identify as a Christian, but it's not an uncommon combination... especially if one looks at all the groups... both left-wing and right-wing... where active participation and ideological purity walk hand in hand.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Jan 16, 2012 21:19:52 GMT -5
He could have gone to the DA with what? He was not a witness to the crime. Do you really think he should have bypassed the Penn State chain of command as a non-witness? That means he would have bypassed the AD, the university president and the Board of Trustees with no substantive testimony to give. It's called hearsay. It's called "reporting a crime." The whole problem here was the refusal to bypass "the chain of command." That's what got the whole "chain of command" fired. I guess your polarizing glasses can't let you see that, however. Sure. If I see or hear of something criminal happening in the office that may be a serious criminal act, I sure as heck am not required to clear it with a superior before going to the authorities. If I hear gunshots fired in the office, I'm calling 911 immediately, and I'm not planning on going up the chain of command. On the other hand, who knows what might have happened. The Penn State VP with oversight of the Penn State Police Dept kept it to himself, although I suppose things could have happened differently had someone reported this directly to the police.
|
|
|
Post by jsn112 on Jan 17, 2012 3:30:50 GMT -5
That's great. I did not mean to paint all Christians with so broad a stroke. There are places were your brand of Christianity is NOT the norm. You can tell just by watching politics? Places like South Carolina and Iowa aren't called values voters for nothing. These states also tend to be quite anti-gay .... as a whole. I could easily through a dozen more or so states in that list. You make quite a generalization here in regard to Iowa and SC. FYI, Iowa approved gay marriage over a year ago. Even if Iowa (or any other States for that matter) doesn't approve the gay marriage thing, it doesn't mean it's out of hatred. Homosexuality is not the only sin mentioned in the Bible. Some of the others are: fornications, idolaters, adulterers, murderers, etc. Jesus didn't teach to hate our enemies, it's the opposite. But he did teach to repent from sin. I am sure this not a new news for you. So in those states, are you asking those people to disregard their religious belief and accept what sin is in their mind? If not, they're anti-gay? I don't think you're going to win those battles. However, with the new generation, you will have a better luck due to lack of convictions of the Christian faith. It's unfortunately or fortunately, it all depends on which side you're on.
|
|
|
Post by NotKingOfAnything on Jan 17, 2012 9:17:43 GMT -5
He asked the church board to affix a symbol to the big sign at the entrance that signified that GLBT are welcome at the church. The board decided against the symbol, stating that "all are welcome at God's table", not just GLBT, not just a certain race, nor a certain income level. ALL are welcome. Unfortunately the young man did leave the congregation. I don't know whether or not that young man hated the people who harassed and humiliated him... NOBODY harassed and humiliated him. He asked the board to affix a symbol to the main sign for the church and the board declined. It wasn't a hate or GBLT thing, it was totally about welcoming everyone, and not singling out any group for being welcome. It was a civil discussion among reasonable adults, and while the young man understood the decision, it was his decision to leave and there was no animosity either way.
|
|