Evidence for God from Science

JediMasterAaron wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Look, is an individual is being discriminated against because of race NOW, then yes something MUST be done, period.
Case by case.
If people want special privileges because of what happened to their grandfather or that a country was racist 50 years ago, I don't care.
I can tell you some horror stories as to how Portuguese immigrants were treated in the 60's and 70's but that is NOT relevant NOW, so it doesn't matter NOW.

Yes, there WAS systemic AND systematic racism in the US in the past but that is NOT the case now EVEN THOUGH you still do have cases of INDIVIDUAL racism.

You have had a black president for Christ's sake and you have black professionals making millions and billions.
You don't see how that is evidence that "institutionalized" racism isn't a factor?
You don't see that society looking at black athletes and actors and singers as role models and such is also evidence that "institutionalized racism" isn't a factor?
Again, individual racism, yes but the majority of a country supporting black athletes and celebrities and politicians is evidence that "systemic" or "institutionalized" racism is not a factor.

No one is asking for special treatment, never have been. It's not the surface stuff either, obviously we've become a better country, the whole point is to bring awareness that there is some lingering racism in our society, undercover racism, not as blatant as 50+ years ago. No one is blaming all white people for the problems in the AA community, at least I'm not, but there are still some past wounds that need to heal. Could the NFL players have handled this better? Probably, but both sides refusing to listen to each other isn't going to help anybody.

Sorry but some are asking for special treatment.
See, equality means that everyone gets treated the same regardless of age, race, sex or sexual orientation.
And by the same I mean THE SAME ( the old military adage is appropriate here: treated all the same, like [poop]).
BUT when you have special provisions for minorities ( blacks only scholarships) or hiring quotes or making special rules for sexual identifications then people are NOT being treated equally.
When certain views are acceptable and others that are different are not even allowed to be voiced ( see Berkeley) then you do not have equality.
I can go on and on and one, but I assume you get the point, yes?

NFL protest: It's racially and politically divisive, poorly executed, prone to great misinterpretation, and done in the shadow of the one symbol that all of us, as a nation, unite under, that represents our constitution that attempts to treat all equally under the law - that seen by vast millions as a big middle finger to those desiring harmony and unity across all people. And how rich that athletes, making astonishing amounts of money for playing a game they love, that additionally offers them all kinds of endorsement opportunities, immense recognition and honor, assert such disrespect of our nation and its symbol. And it's clearly breaking down along racial lines - so sad. I've even seen reference to the rich white owners and the players as modern-day slaves. Have people lost their minds, in saying such things? Any of us would be incredibly blessed to have the wealth and opportunities of many of these players. If it continues, you'll see the demise of the NFL - but that will pale in light of the greater societal divisiveness it will cause! Again, many of those players are upset about many of the same things I am - even if selectively so. But their method of reflecting that is highly divisive. And NO Christian should take part in something that is so unnecessarily divisive. And every bit of good they wish to accomplish by protesting is being destroyed by it's methodology! Again, these athletes are being used by the agenda-laden left that is looking high and low for ANY thing they can protest and use to divide us.

RickD wrote:

jedimasteraaron wrote:
...Probably, but both sides refusing to listen to each other isn't going to help anybody.

Both sides?

Who exactly is on each side?

Well for this particular issue, I guess everyone who is offended by the protest and people who aren't.

PaulSacramento wrote:

JediMasterAaron wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Look, is an individual is being discriminated against because of race NOW, then yes something MUST be done, period.
Case by case.
If people want special privileges because of what happened to their grandfather or that a country was racist 50 years ago, I don't care.
I can tell you some horror stories as to how Portuguese immigrants were treated in the 60's and 70's but that is NOT relevant NOW, so it doesn't matter NOW.

Yes, there WAS systemic AND systematic racism in the US in the past but that is NOT the case now EVEN THOUGH you still do have cases of INDIVIDUAL racism.

You have had a black president for Christ's sake and you have black professionals making millions and billions.
You don't see how that is evidence that "institutionalized" racism isn't a factor?
You don't see that society looking at black athletes and actors and singers as role models and such is also evidence that "institutionalized racism" isn't a factor?
Again, individual racism, yes but the majority of a country supporting black athletes and celebrities and politicians is evidence that "systemic" or "institutionalized" racism is not a factor.

No one is asking for special treatment, never have been. It's not the surface stuff either, obviously we've become a better country, the whole point is to bring awareness that there is some lingering racism in our society, undercover racism, not as blatant as 50+ years ago. No one is blaming all white people for the problems in the AA community, at least I'm not, but there are still some past wounds that need to heal. Could the NFL players have handled this better? Probably, but both sides refusing to listen to each other isn't going to help anybody.

Sorry but some are asking for special treatment.
See, equality means that everyone gets treated the same regardless of age, race, sex or sexual orientation.
And by the same I mean THE SAME ( the old military adage is appropriate here: treated all the same, like [poop]).
BUT when you have special provisions for minorities ( blacks only scholarships) or hiring quotes or making special rules for sexual identifications then people are NOT being treated equally.
When certain views are acceptable and others that are different are not even allowed to be voiced ( see Berkeley) then you do not have equality.
I can go on and on and one, but I assume you get the point, yes?

Yes.

To deal with racism we need to grasp that it is more about culturalism and tribalism than race ( that is why black people kill black people in Africa or sell them into slavery).

Blacks are not oppressed since we have amble evidence of blacks ( and I can use other ethnic backgrounds as examples also) succeeding very well in the USA.
Extremely well even.
To the highest pinnacles even.

No one can deny this, it is fact.

That said, there is no doubt that they are issues in the black community ( and other communities as well, including whites) and you know what they are?

In every community that exists the following, you will see higher crime, lower education and more poverty:
Single Motherhood.
Promiscuous sex and drug use.
Breakdown of the family structure.
Sense/excuse of being oppressed.
Sense of entitlement ( I should be rich, drive a nice car, etc, etc).

The community can be black, white, latino, asian, it doesn't matter.

He sums up my view 100%:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZNvlbLeFVA

PaulSacramento wrote:He sums up my view 100%:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZNvlbLeFVA

Thanks for sharing. I found nothing I disagreed with.

PaulSacramento wrote:He sums up my view 100%:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZNvlbLeFVA

Rubin makes some good points, but he couldn't be more wrong on one point that he keeps saying. The players protesting DO NOT have a right to free speech. They work for a private company, this isn't a 1st amendment issue. There is no right to free speech in private companies. Rubin is right that the players can choose to protest by kneeling during the national anthem, and may face consequences for their actions. But right to free speech? Nope.

Not to mention that the NFL is hypocritical when it comes to what they allow players to do, to make a point about something. Players are allowed to disrespect the flag, but aren't allowed to wear a sticker on their helmets to honor police who were murdered. They aren't allowed to wear pink cleats to honor their mothers who had breast cancer, unless it's in breast cancer awareness month.

Rick: Rubin makes some good points, but he couldn't be more wrong on one point that he keeps saying. The players protesting DO NOT have a right to free speech. They work for a private company, this isn't a 1st amendment issue. There is no right to free speech in private companies. Rubin is right that the players can choose to protest by kneeling during the national anthem, and may face consequences for their actions. But right to free speech? Nope.

Not to mention that the NFL is hypocritical when it comes to what they allow players to do, to make a point about something. Players are allowed to disrespect the flag, but aren't allowed to wear a sticker on their helmets to honor police who were murdered. They aren't allowed to wear pink cleats to honor their mothers who had breast cancer, unless it's in breast cancer awareness month.

VERY true! In the real world, companies dictate the terms of employment - AND, they can change or add to their policies any time they want to. If I were an NFL owner, seeing what is going on, realizing that not only profits are going to be ruined, but perhaps even their franchise ruined, what I would do is make a policy about what is expected of the players - perhaps even providing an APPROPRIATE and alternative forum for them to make statements of their societal concerns - which should take away the excuse that not standing for the anthem has some good reasoning behind it. Right now, the reasoning is very nebulous and undefined. Course, the players can rebel and be fired, or suspended. End of the day, you just don't blatantly offend the people who are ultimately responsible for your employment (owners), or those ultimately making your salary possible (fans!), or TV coverage (advertisers!).

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:He sums up my view 100%:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZNvlbLeFVA

Rubin makes some good points, but he couldn't be more wrong on one point that he keeps saying. The players protesting DO NOT have a right to free speech. They work for a private company, this isn't a 1st amendment issue. There is no right to free speech in private companies. Rubin is right that the players can choose to protest by kneeling during the national anthem, and may face consequences for their actions. But right to free speech? Nope.

Not to mention that the NFL is hypocritical when it comes to what they allow players to do, to make a point about something. Players are allowed to disrespect the flag, but aren't allowed to wear a sticker on their helmets to honor police who were murdered. They aren't allowed to wear pink cleats to honor their mothers who had breast cancer, unless it's in breast cancer awareness month.

Everyone has a right to free speech Rick, even within the confines of the company they work for.
They may be punished for it, but they have the right to express their views which means that no private company can prohibit a person expressing their personal views about something though they most certainly CAN punish them IF there is just cause.

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:He sums up my view 100%:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZNvlbLeFVA

Rubin makes some good points, but he couldn't be more wrong on one point that he keeps saying. The players protesting DO NOT have a right to free speech. They work for a private company, this isn't a 1st amendment issue. There is no right to free speech in private companies. Rubin is right that the players can choose to protest by kneeling during the national anthem, and may face consequences for their actions. But right to free speech? Nope.

Not to mention that the NFL is hypocritical when it comes to what they allow players to do, to make a point about something. Players are allowed to disrespect the flag, but aren't allowed to wear a sticker on their helmets to honor police who were murdered. They aren't allowed to wear pink cleats to honor their mothers who had breast cancer, unless it's in breast cancer awareness month.

Everyone has a right to free speech Rick, even within the confines of the company they work for.
They may be punished for it, but they have the right to express their views which means that no private company can prohibit a person expressing their personal views about something though they most certainly CAN punish them IF there is just cause.

Paul,

The 1st amendment simply does not apply to private companies.

https://www.americanbar.org/publication ... ooler.html

If this use of economic power to punish speech sounds un-American, remember that the First Amendment limits only the government’s ability to suppress speech. It provides that “Con­gress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” Courts have extended this prohibition to all feder­al, state, and local government officials but have consistently emphasized that the First Amendment’s strictures do not apply to private-sector employers. Accordingly, the only people who enjoy First Amendment protection vis-à-vis their employers are people employed by the government.

Is there a caveat in the 1st amendment?

As I discovered today, there is an actual RULE in the NFL about the anthem:


The specific rule pertaining to the national anthem is found in the NFL Game Operations Manual. It states:

The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem.

During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition.

It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country.

Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.


This person clearly states his case with conviction and facts:

https://youtu.be/LCvhM8aKC5w

Paul,

Even if those rules are written, it's up to the discretion of the NFL to discipline or not discipline. Which gets back to the point I made before, about the NFL and its hypocrisy when it comes to "free speech". They simply pick and choose what "free speech" they will allow.

This is how it is SUPPOSED to work:

https://youtu.be/2KHEwLaxULc

RickD wrote:Paul,

Even if those rules are written, it's up to the discretion of the NFL to discipline or not discipline. Which gets back to the point I made before, about the NFL and its hypocrisy when it comes to "free speech". They simply pick and choose what "free speech" they will allow.

Oh, agreed 100%, no argument there.
The NFL has no problem censoring and punishing "free speech" that THEY want to punish and censor.