Your confusing inherent and or manifested evil, the murderer at Va Tech, along with the murderous terrorists, with people who do not either know and or understand the Gospel.

As a former "non-believer" given your stance, you wouldnt get the chance to share the Good News to me because we did not share the commonality of Christ. Utterly antithetical to the Sermon on the Mount.

Your selectivity of passages and anecdotes to support your contention are less than persausive. You can take any document, lift accurate qoutes, splice them into "your" argument and it does not make "your" argument accurate.

I agree, paranthetically, Christians are called to be in the world not of it. It is not one or the other. In fact, Jesus himself, commands it's inclusivity. To ignore that, to try to slide by it to suite your perspective is to deny it.

Don't mistake my response as surrendering to murderous terrorists. Don't mistake my response as vasilating or surrendering my belief that Jesus Christ was and is the one and only Son of God. You would be incorrect on both accounts.

But the faith is open to all, regardless. That is why I asked that you read the entire Book of Acts. It chronicles the lives of the first believers living in a World that either dispised them, were bemused by them or were unaware of their belief. So they went into "foreign lands" amongst foreigners and other Jews and shared the Good News. Even if it cost them their earthly existence. Don't confuse that with a believer costing other folks their lives because of the believers belief. Wholey, unbiblical.

You want to effect the world for the kingdom? Don't close the door and lock it.

Christianity is the religion of America and it has been since the beginning in the 1600's. I don't think there are many people living in America who have not heard the gospel of Jesus Christ. My point is that our immigration policies are so loose that we don't care who we allow into this country and what their religion is. We certainly don't expect them to convert to Christianity given the current backlash against Christianity and quite frankly a rather sorry state of the church. If you want to convert Muslims, fine, get on a plane and go to the middle east. But why willingly bring people here who are known to have hostility to the Christian faith whether they be violent or not? Who says we will convert them? I guess I'd rather live in peace like we do now instead of like what it is in the middle east or Nigeria. The muslims in the northern sections of Nigeria persecute the Christians in the south--they murder them, burn their churches, etc. Please don't tell me this garbage I hear on college campuses that you should respect everybodies religion because everybody is entitled to what they believe, etc. Yeah, right, except that these Muslims hate us and want to kills us. Somehow that fact doesn't quite work its way into their thinking. I mean at the very least they want churches replaced with Mosque's and throw rugs. They want their religion broadcast over loudspeakers 5 times/day, but they want us Christians to shut up about it. These 2 religions can not peacefully coexist within the same borders.

Heck, we don't even insist that illegal Mexicans speak English. When I go to the laundromat, I hear them screaming Spanish at the top of their lungs--and it's that way where ever they happen to be. So, do you think our culture is going to insisnt that Muslims convert to Christianity?

First off condolences to those suffering. Let's not forget their pain to prove political points.

As for some above posts. Most Korean Americans are Christians. Historically, Koreans are mostly Buddhist pacifists but US and Western missionsries have converted a good portion of the population to Christianity. This disturbed young man is from a Christian background and his suicide video references Christ, religious hypocrisy and his own manias.

A key point to remember. The US has far more mass murders/shootings/serial killers than any other country (a few others are equally violent but the violence is more targeted). Almost every one of these cases is perpetrated by men, usually young, with deep psychological conflicts with their manhood. They use violence to assert that they are real men and tend to first target women or homosexual men. Amish girls, a girl he likes, his mother, etc... Most well regarded doctors/academics who study these types of killers determine that they express violent rage to deal with conflcits about not being man enough in some form. This VT killer is a perfect example, stalked women, started by killing a girl he liked, recently became obsessed with working out and handling weapons, etc ... The killer of the Amish schoolgirls, B2K, Columbine, Pine Ridge, 1966 U of Texas massacre, Ted Bundy, Green River Valley, Jeffrey Dahmer, almost to a T this is the profile. they are usually white Christians but the sick club includes some of everybody...

While everyone seems to want to put this in terms of race or religion, it is really about masculinity and how America glorifies violence as an expression of ultimate manhood. Easy gun access contributes to the extent of bloodshed but clearly gun control issues are not simplistic. Some countries have equally high gun ownership rates but low gun violence. Usually, these are places without extremely violent histories. As Americans we should be honest with our violent past, violent presence and status as the worlds primary arms supplier and sutainer of military conflcit. We may be a primarily Christian nation, but that is because we ethnically/religiously cleansed the continent, mostly through gun violence, of it's non Christians. Also, for the record it is much easier to get a travel visa or actually immigrate from predominantly Christian nations than anywhere else if you measure visas/green cards vs. population numbers.

I haven't read every news item and post on the events at VT, but here are some of my thoughts on the talking points:

First, in a country of nearly 300 million people and a relatively open society at that, it doesn't particularly surprise me that a handful of walking timebombs are out there, ready to go out "in a blaze of glory." These events become a little more commonplace as there is more media outlets and insta-coverage than there were 20 years ago, giving the perpetrator even more attention he craves, even in post-mortem (as silly as that sounds).

There are questions abound about what VT could've done in those two hours between the first and second shootings. But murderers who are willing to die in the process are almost impossible to stop.

I agree with pono in that part of the problem is that violence via guns is, unfortunately, engrained in our history and woven into our culture. Switzerland's citizens are armed to the teeth but have a very low crime rate. The question becomes if gun control or ban is the answer. It's hard to argue with the desire to have a gun-less society. However, there is some grain of truth to the old adage, "If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns." It would be a quasi-prohibition, where the law-abiding citizens turn in their weapons, while street thugs and crackpots keep theirs or get one off the streets. Additionally, I'm always hesitant when something is banned because a tiny percentage abuse and cause harm with such-and-such product or service. Not to mention guns used in cases of protection against a criminals rarely gets media coverage.

Endzone2 Wrote:Christianity is the religion of America and it has been since the beginning in the 1600's. I don't think there are many people living in America who have not heard the gospel of Jesus Christ. My point is that our immigration policies are so loose that we don't care who we allow into this country and what their religion is. We certainly don't expect them to convert to Christianity given the current backlash against Christianity and quite frankly a rather sorry state of the church. If you want to convert Muslims, fine, get on a plane and go to the middle east. But why willingly bring people here who are known to have hostility to the Christian faith whether they be violent or not? Who says we will convert them? I guess I'd rather live in peace like we do now instead of like what it is in the middle east or Nigeria. The muslims in the northern sections of Nigeria persecute the Christians in the south--they murder them, burn their churches, etc. Please don't tell me this garbage I hear on college campuses that you should respect everybodies religion because everybody is entitled to what they believe, etc. Yeah, right, except that these Muslims hate us and want to kills us. Somehow that fact doesn't quite work its way into their thinking. I mean at the very least they want churches replaced with Mosque's and throw rugs. They want their religion broadcast over loudspeakers 5 times/day, but they want us Christians to shut up about it. These 2 religions can not peacefully coexist within the same borders.

Heck, we don't even insist that illegal Mexicans speak English. When I go to the laundromat, I hear them screaming Spanish at the top of their lungs--and it's that way where ever they happen to be. So, do you think our culture is going to insisnt that Muslims convert to Christianity?

Please, please, please don't ever let anyone squelch yor voice. It needs to be heard. In fact I hope that you are putting this kind of thoughtful analysis out there in every conceivable forum. And please be sure to remind people that you are anti-Democrat, anti-liberal and pro-right wing. People need to hear the truth so be sure you get that last piece in-write letters to major magazines, newsnetworks, etc. we really need you to reach a lot of folks with this message. And again, be SURE to let them know which side of the political fence you stand on. Thanks.

pono Wrote:The killer of the Amish schoolgirls, B2K, Columbine, Pine Ridge, 1966 U of Texas massacre, Ted Bundy, Green River Valley, Jeffrey Dahmer, almost to a T this is the profile. they are usually white Christians but the sick club includes some of everybody...

We may be a primarily Christian nation, but that is because we ethnically/religiously cleansed the continent, mostly through gun violence, of it's non Christians. Also, for the record it is much easier to get a travel visa or actually immigrate from predominantly Christian nations than anywhere else if you measure visas/green cards vs. population numbers.

That's an interesting point about those murderers. It's interesting that they aren't black given that black crime is committed at a rate 8.3 times greater than white crime and that even though blacks are only 12% of the population they are 55% of the prison population. Statistically you would think there would of been a lot more black guys in there. I know the Green River killer had a Christian influence in his life and I think Ted Bundy and Dahmer did too. Did the guy at UT have a Christian background? It would be interesting to know more about that.

Regarding the Indians, thank God those white Christian folks got rid of most of them. They were a savage and ruthless people who acted like animals. Their god was dirt, anminals, the sun and what else? I have absolutely zero sympathy for the Indians. The history of this relationship between Indians and the white settlers has been completely distorted by history and feel-good humanist IMHO. There's another example of a group whose religion was completely incompatible with ours. And don't give me that, "they were there first crap". It has never worked like that for all of human history. It's always whoever posseses the land. Do you think anybody is going to shed a tear for us white folk when the Miexcians take over? ;-)

I think Cho was under a heavy dose of Muslim stuff, and I think he probably got most of it off the internet. Certainly that isn't the only thing he was under the influence of--demons were certainly another thing and other psychological factors like other posters have said. I think VT is under a heavy dose of humanism (equality, we love all religions, all races, all people regardless, blah blah blah) and that's why Cho was never dismissed or even disciplined at VT.

H2Oville Rocket Wrote:

Endzone2 Wrote:Christianity is the religion of America and it has been since the beginning in the 1600's. I don't think there are many people living in America who have not heard the gospel of Jesus Christ. My point is that our immigration policies are so loose that we don't care who we allow into this country and what their religion is. We certainly don't expect them to convert to Christianity given the current backlash against Christianity and quite frankly a rather sorry state of the church. If you want to convert Muslims, fine, get on a plane and go to the middle east. But why willingly bring people here who are known to have hostility to the Christian faith whether they be violent or not? Who says we will convert them? I guess I'd rather live in peace like we do now instead of like what it is in the middle east or Nigeria. The muslims in the northern sections of Nigeria persecute the Christians in the south--they murder them, burn their churches, etc. Please don't tell me this garbage I hear on college campuses that you should respect everybodies religion because everybody is entitled to what they believe, etc. Yeah, right, except that these Muslims hate us and want to kills us. Somehow that fact doesn't quite work its way into their thinking. I mean at the very least they want churches replaced with Mosque's and throw rugs. They want their religion broadcast over loudspeakers 5 times/day, but they want us Christians to shut up about it. These 2 religions can not peacefully coexist within the same borders.

Heck, we don't even insist that illegal Mexicans speak English. When I go to the laundromat, I hear them screaming Spanish at the top of their lungs--and it's that way where ever they happen to be. So, do you think our culture is going to insisnt that Muslims convert to Christianity?

Please, please, please don't ever let anyone squelch yor voice. It needs to be heard. In fact I hope that you are putting this kind of thoughtful analysis out there in every conceivable forum. And please be sure to remind people that you are anti-Democrat, anti-liberal and pro-right wing. People need to hear the truth so be sure you get that last piece in-write letters to major magazines, newsnetworks, etc. we really need you to reach a lot of folks with this message. And again, be SURE to let them know which side of the political fence you stand on. Thanks.

Really? You men us radical right wing Christian conservtives have a right to express our opinion now? That's great news!

I had to use a GPS to confirm where this discussion has gone as you are all over the map.
Hoo 2 rocket please use the tongue in cheek emoticon. Your kidding right?
First, from a political, social and economic perspective I find few more conservative than myself. Anyone who was read by drivil and tripe on the old Bronco Illustrated Board will attest.

You mingle border security with murderous terrorists, immigrants legal or not who are not fluent in English, liberal academic elitists and pin heads, early Puritan immigrants, bad poets, racial and ethnic slurs, throw in some third world tyrants with a sublte geography quiz.

First, Christianity is not the religion of any country. Why would you limit the Saviors dominion and sphere of influence? Short sighted on your part, but who am I to judge.

Second, I wont question that America has been uniquely blessed. Though far short of perfect in every aspect it far outshines others. I attribute that, in spite of human frailties and outright sin, to God's direct blessings. As individuals, groups, a country, government and society we continue to both shine and sin. It's called being human. That's not to excuse it, inexcuseable behavior is just that, inexcusable.

Third, you discuss the inequity of our open society vs closed ones. Concluding that if we let in all sorts, and "they" don't we should be equal in response. You spiced up your logic with a little "towel head" here and a little "screaming in Spanish" there. Implying that if different from you it equates to bad and or inferior. Very Christ like of you.

Fourth, you mention you would rather live in peace implying that "they" should stay over there and "we" can be left to ourselves, in peace, I assume. You express your support for my going over there to convert them, but you would rather sit at home.

In summary, your "religion" appears to be yours. You label it Christian, as if it were some exclusive, gated, like looking and speaking country club. Sitting around, with like folk and pointing out the differences of others. Sounds like the Pharisees.

I feel for you brother.

At least one other guy agrees with me. Article by Pat Buchanan:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...E_ID=55302

Quote:If there is a lesson to be taken away from this horror, it is that we, as a society, are becoming too tolerant of the aberrant. For, in retrospect, the signs Cho was a disturbed and dangerous young man, who belonged not on a campus but in an institution, are many.

He stalked one girl until she complained to police. He e-mailed another until she, too, went to police. Cho was taken to a psychiatrist, who concluded he was a "danger to himself and to others." He wrote plays for a creative writing class so full of hate and violence they alarmed one teacher to the point where she pressed him to get counseling. Another teacher had demanded and gotten his removal from her class.

Suite-mates in Harper Hall found him so uncommunicative they thought he could not speak English. All those who lived with him seemed to know about him is that he never spoke, turned away when spoken to, watched TV, worked his word processor incessantly and went to the gym.

Though he spent four years on campus, no one knew who Cho was, which bespeaks a larger point. Colleges have grown into city-sized universities of tens of thousands and have ceased to be communities, even as the United States is ceasing to be a country, a nation and a people.

We are told that is a good thing. We are ever admonished to respect differences, to be tolerant of what we might think of as bizarre behavior. We are told that among the worst of sins is to be judgmental about how others behave.

Multiculturalism is what we are about. Diversity is our strength. All cultures, all people, all lifestyles are to be treated equally. At Blacksburg on Monday, we learned that there is such a thing as too much tolerance.

gobaseline Wrote:Hoo 2 rocket please use the tongue in cheek emoticon. Your kidding right?

Well, maybe just a little. ;-)

Regarding the Indians, thank God those white Christian folks got rid of most of them. They were a savage and ruthless people who acted like animals. Their god was dirt, anminals, the sun and what else? I have absolutely zero sympathy for the Indians. The history of this relationship between Indians and the white settlers has been completely distorted by history and feel-good humanist IMHO. There's another example of a group whose religion was completely incompatible with ours. And don't give me that, "they were there first crap". It has never worked like that for all of human history. It's always whoever posseses the land. Do you think anybody is going to shed a tear for us white folk when the Miexcians take over? ;-)

I was hoping this part was satire for a few sentences, but i think you are serious. You are portaying a mythic history. Read the primary source memoirs and writings of the early conquistadors, settlers, pilgrims, Columbus (few of the indians are left to tell their story)... their early contact with the native peoples describes awe at the health, appearance and happiness of the people they encountered. communities are described as generally peaceful and ideas of individuality and personal freedom were shocking. These ideas made their way back to europe and influenced the development of the ideologies which shaped democracies.

However, as contact with the native communities continued and people are forced to work the mines, sometimes take revenge on murders and rapes and become slaves the writers opinions change greatly. columbus for instance initially writes with great admiration of people he later slaughters by the literally hundreds of thousands and calls savages. the young priest and 16th century plantation owner bartolome de las cases transcribed columbus's journals and wrote the most definitive histories of the times from the conquering christians point of view. a few quotes about the indians in hispanola, part of one of the worlds most peaceful, productive and populated regions in the 15th century, " marriage laws are non-existant. men and women alike choose their mates and leave them as they please, without offense, jealousy, anger. they multiply in great abundance, pregnant women work to the last minute and give birth almost painlessly; up the next day, they bathe in the river and are as healthy as before giving birth... they live in large communal bell-shaped buildings housing up to 600 people at one time made of very strong wood and roofed with palm leaves... put no value on gold and other precious things ... are extremely generous with their possessions" later he writes "endless testimonies prove the mild and pacific temperment of the natives but our work was to exasperate, ravage, kill, mangle and destroy; small wonder, then, if they tried to kill one of us now and then".

Europeans, of course, were emerging from a period of great wars, plagues, inquisitions and advancements in weaponry.

I'm not trying to steer you to a political viewpoint. I just think it ridiculous to pretend that we didn't root the nation in violence. as einstein said, "we can't solve problems by using the same type of thinking we used when we created them."

Also a historical footnote. Half of the united states used to be mexico. after they allowed us to immigrate there we began a takeover beginning with texas (previously mexico) and then continuing with the mexican war, begun on false pretenses and highly unpopular in the states because of unexpected casualties and war profiteering, which resulted in us taking about half of the rest of mexico.


I'm still holding out for sarcasm, at least partially?

Zone, for practical purposes of national defense, economics, in principal I stand on your side of the fence. I understand and agree in pricnipal with Buck's "Roman Empire" theory of "over accomodation, extension of territorial responsibility that resulted in dilution, dilusion, the weakening and ultimate demise of the RE.

You irresponsibly blend "your" religion with national policy topics that frankly discredit "your" take on Christianity.

Though the Old Testament is replete with segregating God's Chosen people, it was not about segregation, but rather about obeying the one, true God. "Back in the day", unlike since Christ's resurrection, God made himself physically visible in various and obvious forms, no mincing of words or confusion of intent. Yet this chosen group continued to exercise their free will to "know and do better". Each time resulting in tangible and protracted consequences. But everytime, God provided "an out", an opportunity of redemption. A theme that reached its pinnacle on Calvary, and continues today for ANYONE who would receive Jesus as their Lord and Savior, no exceptions! However, like in OT days, we have choices.
You gave an OT example of "intermixing cultures", hence "validating" segregation. The "segregation" you refer to was a segregation from innoculation of "other ways to live or to God", not from the people themselves. In Numbers 12 Aaron and Miriam call out Moses for taking a wife not from the "clan". Pointing to it as a violation of what he had been promoting as Gods directive. Read it. It communicates clearly that to "intermingle" was not the issue, it was a question of "who is your God?"
Moses proved faithful and obedient and Aaron and Miriam as frauds.

The New Testament is the history of Gods, extension of redemption of His entire creation, by faith in Christ.

The book of Acts specifically points out with well known accounts, of both Peter and Paul (they in themselves are a dicotomy, one "well bred" the other a commoner, well schooled vs hard knocks, connected, not, wealthy, hand to mouth) going through out the Mediterranean purposefully seeking, sharing the good news with all. Macedonians, Greeks, Romans, Assyrians, Medes, Ethipoians (Eunuch's too) and on and on.
All putting into practice the great commission and exercising the great commandment.
Utterly a minority, by faith and in action changed history via God's pesonality (Holy Spirit). Your calander is a good example.
To the point, you feel as the 'majority" that it is time to sit on your duff and live in peace.
Instead, I suggest you disconnect your "holier than thou" perspective from your religion and policy making and instead of "protecting the turf" go out and share the Gospel.

Someone earlier, accurately commented on how the Korean Peninsula was at one time was significant mission field. Now adays, many of them, are coming here to return the favor. As a culture, IMO, our hedonist secular narcistic desires have lead to some serious societal ills. This country is indeed a ripe mission field. However, your take is to add by subtraction.
I for one know that the principle of freedom this country was and is based on emminates from the Biblical perspective of the Founding Fathers. Principles are only as "good" as their being carried out. Our history is full of missteps, some under the guise of "religion". As a nation we have survived and even thrived. Not perfect, again, human.
That freedom allows me to carry out what God has commanded, and that is to "share" the good news. Not use it "up the side of the head" on some, "rewrite it" when others accept it so they too are continued to be excluded or exclude it from others because they have their own take.

I for one believe that the Gospel is so compelling that when shared it will continue to shape the world we live in. Devoid of it, we would fall back to the intimidation, narcistic ways of any empire from the past.

You, "my brother" need to sit down with some of our S. Korean believers and hear how the inclusivity has taken them from being "lost" to now being "found". Better yet, I can put you in contact with folks at the only Church in Cairo Eygpt, the Nile Theological Center. In spite of being in the vast minority lmfao and threats from the government and "isolationist/exclusionsit " Mosques in the area, they faithfully and diligently keep extending the hope Jesus offers. Not a friendly "road" game but one that we are all called to strap on the gear and go out live.

Quote:I'm not trying to steer you to a political viewpoint. I just think it ridiculous to pretend that we didn't root the nation in violence.

It's not that I disagree that America's past is pockmarked with violence and prejudice, and that may in some way contribute to current violent mindsets. But doesn't every continent harbor violent pasts full of invasions, "ethnic cleansing", border wars, etc? Even looking at Europe in more recent times, the 1940s Holocaust wasn't that long ago, the Iron Curtain oppression lasted decades, and the Balkans bloodshed was just this past decade.

In a way, I'd say that crime is consistent across the globe, but on first glance the US tends to lead the pack in the violent kind. Go to any major city in Europe, and on-the-street robberies, pickpockets, and con-man swindles are rampant in certain areas, even more than US major city downtowns. But the difference is that we normally don't see as many mass-murdering type citizens roaming around Europe.

An off-topic... It's almost paradoxial that, despite America being known for its so-called ruthless competitiveness, that our sports matches are relatively quiet and peaceful compared to much of the rest of the world. We have our isolated Artest-Pistons, Miami(FL)-FIU, etc, incidents, but these don't compare in volume to the ongoing hooliganism and violence that surround soccer matches beyond our shores. Not to mention that Greece even suspended all sports due to a recent riot at a womens volleyball match, of all things.

Moreover, black soccer players in Europe routinely hear racist abuse from crowds that is now generally rare here in the US.

America's got its problems. This is true. But where I grow tired is when I hear pundits in the media acting as if other countries - namely European - are somehow immune to violent and racist behavior.

I still love international soccer and the World Cup, however, even if most Americans hate it. 8-)

America is rooted in violence? Please..the world is rooted in violence. Do you think the House of Hapsburg became so powerful because they always said "please" and "thank you"?

Flip......I think Genghis Khan extended his empire through artful negotiation. ;-)

More recently, here in Chicago, I see heir Khan has taken a different tact in world conquest with a chain of Mongolian restuarants.

I am admittedly a slave to their barbecue ribs. :uberbow:

I too read of the "Mongol Hordes" in high school. Later, I did some actual study and found out that the reality was actual closer to the "artful negotiation" side. Certainly, the Mongols were feared and used their expert horsemanship to confuse and bum rush their enemies and win battles. However, being a very small army and limited bureaucracy for an empire, the Mongols depended on winning over the people they conquered to a great extent. Their empire existed for many decades despite small numbers because of their skills in running things more than the history book pillaging we now associate with them. I'm sure their cooking didn't hurt either.

As for violence. Well, the US has no monopoly on it. However, we do have a particularly bloody past and present. Perhaps, 40,000,000 native people were killed in the Americas by the conquering conquistadors/Spanish/Pilgrims/Americans/Portuguese,etc..., hundreds of thousands of Filipinos killed by US troops in the recolonization of the Phillipines, millions killed in slavery, detonating of atomic bombs on primarily civilian populations, the massively deadly aerial bombings of WW2 in 43 and 44 were by US planes. We do rank either first or in the top 10 in murders, rapes, imprisonment, executions, war deaths/kllings, etc... in modern times. I'm in no rush to move to Germany. I think the difference is that they forced themselves to acknowledge their worst actions and teach about their atrocities and became a less violent and hateful place for it. Not to say that's made them cute and cuddly or better cooks or musicians. For America it is basically considered subversive and unpatriotic to look at our violent reality. I also think it's irresponsible. You can't rid yourself of every mixed up punk or pervert, but we also nourish these people somehow. There is a psychological foundation linking violence/manhood/homophobia in America that makes too many young men want to prove themselves with a gun. Now, most of us work it out less harmlessly than that, but it is a problem that could be improved if we began to celebrate violence less as a solution and see it more as a last resort of self defense to be used only with great responsibility.

Try their ribs, then you'll agree that they are great cooks!

Musicianship? :band: All depends if you like to dance. :dirtyvegas:

I've read a couple of more articles regarding this pervading "inclusive" attitude on all our public university campuses. This kind of attitude seems to be prevelant except perhaps at private schools. My question is how did we ever get here? Now, we can't make judgments based on morality or appearance or skin color or clothes or country of origin or ANYTHING! This way of thinking was so evident at Va. Tech. If people had been permitted to make rational judgments, Cho would have been out of there a long time ago. I wonder how long a 21 year old white guy would last if he persisted in sticking his cell phone under his desk and trying to taking pictures of girl's legs and crotches? Would the university suddenly have smelled the coffee and come to their senses or do you think it wouldn't have made any difference?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...E_ID=55334

Another article along the same lines with Penn State describing their "non discriminatory" policy:

Penn State Hires Washington As Coach
By GENARO C. ARMAS (AP Sports Writer)
From Associated Press
April 23, 2007 4:22 PM EDT

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. - Penn State hired Coquese Washington as the women's basketball coach on Monday, replacing successful but controversial Rene Portland, who resigned earlier this month.

"I am ecstatic to be here. It is an awesome opportunity to come into a program that has such a rich tradition," Washington said in a statement. She was to be introduced at a news conference Monday afternoon at Beaver Stadium.

Washington was an assistant at Notre Dame under coach Muffet McGraw the past eight years.

Portland went 606-236 at Penn State in a 27-year career, stepping down a month after she and the university settled a lawsuit by a former player who claimed Portland had a "no-lesbian" policy.

Washington played for the Irish from 1989-93, helping the program to its first NCAA tournament appearance in 1992. She went on to play in the now-defunct ABL and the WNBA, where she guided the Houston Comets to the 2000 WNBA title.

An assistant at Notre Dame since 1999, Washington was promoted to associate head coach two years ago. She helped McGraw lead Notre Dame to the 2001 national title.

Washington has a law degree from Notre Dame, and served as the first president of the WNBA Players Association.

Earlier this season, Portland became the ninth women's basketball coach to win 600 games at one school. Portland guided Penn State to 21 NCAA tournament appearances.

But the program slipped to 13-16 in 2005-06 - the Lady Lions' first losing season in 33 years - and finished 15-16 this season.

Allegations from former player Jennifer Harris dogged her, too.

In a December 2005 lawsuit, Harris accused Portland of "humiliating, berating and ostracizing" her, and claimed she was told she needed to look more feminine. The suit alleged Portland tried to force Harris, who says she is not gay, to leave the team.

Penn State conducted an investigation last year and threatened to fire Portland for any future violation of the school's nondiscrimination policy. She was fined $10,000 by the university and ordered to take professional development "devoted to diversity and inclusiveness."

Portland maintained Harris' departure was related to basketball issues and disagreed with the school's findings.