Player gets booed for upholding personal convictions

[fredtoast]

(06-15-2018, 03:19 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Seriously, though, I don't teach my children that Christianity is better than anything.

How do you teach them about Christianity without letting them read the Bible?

[fredtoast]

(06-15-2018, 03:26 PM)PhilHos Wrote: That's debatable (which I don't care to do on this particular subject right now), but the right does follow that more than the left when it comes to charitable giving and charitable works.

Only if you count contributing to your own religious clubhouse as a charity.

Or buying $50-$60 million dollar jets for their preachers.

Church tithes are the only reason the right gives more to charity and most of it goes to paying for their own church and/or preacher instead of the poor.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-15-2018, 03:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: We can't ban all marriage because there are multiple legal rights and issues that revolve around marriage.

And we may very well ban all gender identification except in areas like sports.  I would have no problem with that.

There is no connection between government and religion.  There is no need for the government to be involved in religion for any reason.  In fact it would be impossible to make any laws or regulations based in any way on religion because not all religions agree.  So the best way to handle it is to eliminate religion from all government.

Explain that to the folks in Muslim Nations, where religion is the government, or the folks in India, where you can beaten to death by mob if you accidentally kill a sacred cow. 

[*PhilHos*]

(06-15-2018, 03:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is no connection between government and religion.  

Except for, you know, the PEOPLE.

(06-15-2018, 03:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is no need for the government to be involved in religion for any reason.  In fact it would be impossible to make any laws or regulations based in any way on religion because not all religions agree. 

To which I agree. Do you honestly believe I'm arguing otherwise?

(06-15-2018, 03:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote:  So the best way to handle it is to eliminate religion from all government.

That's one way to handle it. You could always just be more inclusive; you know that thing the left always aruges for except when it comes to religions.

[*PhilHos*]

(06-15-2018, 03:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How do you teach them about Christianity without letting them read the Bible?

Where did I say I wouldn't let them read the Bible?

[*PhilHos*]

(06-15-2018, 03:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Only if you count contributing to your own religious clubhouse as a charity.

I don't have a religious clubhouse, but my church does GREAT things in helping the poor and less fortuntae and those involved in disasters.

fredtoast Wrote:Or buying $50-$60 million dollar jets for their preachers.

Yep, when I'm talking about the good things religions have done, of COURSE, i'm talking about the very few preachers who have bought private jets.

fredtoast Wrote:Church tithes are the only reason the right gives more to charity and most of it goes to paying for their own church and/or preacher instead of the poor.

Try to explain it away all you want, doesn't change the fact that conservatives give more to charity than liberals.

[*PhilHos*]

(06-15-2018, 03:51 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Explain that to the folks in Muslim Nations, where religion is the government, or the folks in India, where you can beaten to death by mob if you accidentally kill a sacred cow. 

To be fair to fred, I believe he's speaking about the American government. Even though he's wrong when you consider the vast amount of religious people within our government.

[Dill]

(06-15-2018, 03:51 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Explain that to the folks in Muslim Nations, where religion is the government, or the folks in India, where you can beaten to death by mob if you accidentally kill a sacred cow. 

Muslim nations where religion is the government?  Are you for that or against that. I can't tell here.

Are you saying that the US should be a theocracy?

PS killing people for killing cows is kind of new in India. They country took a strong right-wing nationalist turn with the election of the BJP's Barenda Modi in 2014. Penalties for killing cows or even possessing beef are suddenly increasing. They'll soon give us many more reasons why religion and state should be separate.

[*bfine32*]

Seems she is getting the Colin Kaepernick treatment:
https://sports.yahoo.com/jaelene-hinkle-blackballed-uswnt-religious-beliefs-054747436.html

Quote:On July 18, however, she (Hinkle) got a call-up. And the reaction was fierce.

“Kick Her Off” screamed one Slate headline. “By giving Jaelene Hinkle a roster spot, U.S. Soccer sold out its LGBTQ fans and players for a better shot at the Women’s World Cup.” It went on to accuse head coach Jill Ellis, who is married to a woman, of “compromising the unity that’s essential for any good team and snubbing a not-insignificant segment of their customer base.”

Monday, five days after being added to the training camp roster, she was cut. But why?

I wonder how many high profile athletes/ media personalities will come to her defense.

[GMDino]

(07-25-2018, 11:42 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Seems she is getting the Colin Kaepernick treatment:
https://sports.yahoo.com/jaelene-hinkle-blackballed-uswnt-religious-beliefs-054747436.html


I wonder how many high profile athletes/ media personalities will come to her defense.

It's soccer...so it's lower profile and so probably not many.

There might be a few though.  How many would be enough to satisfy you?

[*bfine32*]

(07-25-2018, 12:05 PM)GMDino Wrote: It's soccer...so it's lower profile and so probably not many.

There might be a few though.  How many would be enough to satisfy you?

0

I've said all along that She has the right to express her beliefs, the National Team have the right to select who they want to represent them, and fans have the right to side with one or the other. It is the same way I view the kneeling issue. If the Women's team don't want players that opposes SSM it is their prerogative; if the NFL doesn't want players kneeling during the Anthem it is their prerogitive. . But I try not to be hypocritical depending on the issue. 

[fredtoast]

(06-04-2018, 05:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  

 I just took issue with folks booing her because her beliefs are different that theirs;

(07-25-2018, 12:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  fans have the right to side with one or the other.

If fans have the right to side with one or the other then why would you take issue with fans taking the side opposite of hers?

(07-25-2018, 12:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  But I try not to be hypocritical depending on the issue. 

Maybe you need to try a little harder.

[*bfine32*]

(07-25-2018, 05:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If fans have the right to side with one or the other then why would you take issue with fans taking the side opposite of hers?



Maybe you need to try a little harder.

I didn't take issue with folks taking a side opposite hers; simply had issue with folks expressing those views by booing her.


Well no one can accuse you of not trying hard. You just seem to fail more often than not. 

[fredtoast]

(07-25-2018, 05:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I didn't take issue with folks taking a side opposite hers; simply had issue with folks expressing those views by booing her.

So people have the right to have an opinion as long as they don't express that opinion. 

No wonder you have no problem with Trump buddying up with Putin and Kim.  They think just like you.

[*bfine32*]

(07-25-2018, 06:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So people have the right to have an opinion as long as they don't express that opinion. 

No wonder you have no problem with Trump buddying up with Putin and Kim.  They think just like you.

I would prefer they express it in positive ways that's why I said I "took issue" with the booing. I didn't say they should not, I did not say they had they right, I simply said I took issue with them booing; just as I would anyone booing while someone was kneeling during the anthem. 

You attempt to compare me to Putin and Kim has been noted. As I said no one can accuse you of not trying hard.

[Vas Deferens]

(07-25-2018, 11:42 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I wonder how many high profile athletes/ media personalities will come to her defense.

John Rocker said he'd buy her a budweiser

[*bfine32*]

Figured I'd put this here. I didn't want to start a shiny new thread (every other one is locked) and I damn sure didn't want to post it JN; because I love that it is free from politics. But it looks like the Bengals are going to court:
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/arbitrator-hear-eric-reids-complaint-vs-bengals-202445238.html

Quote:The complaint against the Bengals, which was filed on behalf of Reid by the NFL Players Association, has been fast-tracked at Reid’s request. A significant issue at hand, sources have told Yahoo Sports, is whether the Bengals violated a portion of the collective-bargaining agreement by negotiating in bad faith. More specifically, whether the Bengals invited Reid for a free-agent visit and discussed his signing despite knowing the team had no intention of offering a contract if Reid intended to continue kneeling during the national anthem. Reid knelt during the anthem during the 2017 season as a form of protest against social injustice.

We go before an arbitrator on Tuesday.

[*PhilHos*]

(07-26-2018, 09:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Figured I'd put this here. I didn't want to start a shiny new thread (every other one is locked) and I damn sure didn't want to post it JN; because I love that it is free from politics. But it looks like the Bengals are going to court:
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/arbitrator-hear-eric-reids-complaint-vs-bengals-202445238.html


We go before an arbitrator on Tuesday.

I don't see how it's in negotiating in bad faith if they were willing to give him a contract if he promised to STOP kneeling, unless the CBA states the Bengals should've asked if he would continue to kneel via his representatives instead of asking him in person.

[fredtoast]

(07-26-2018, 09:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Figured I'd put this here. I didn't want to start a shiny new thread (every other one is locked) and I damn sure didn't want to post it JN; because I love that it is free from politics. But it looks like the Bengals are going to court:
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/arbitrator-hear-eric-reids-complaint-vs-bengals-202445238.html


We go before an arbitrator on Tuesday.

I would assume there are a lot of things a team could ask a player about that are not against league rules.  Don't see how the kneeling issue would be any different.