World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[ZeroAX]

You mean to say it didn't start out as one? XD

[RCBH928]

@Sano

yes, I believe in M.A.D.

It's crazy to think how many people died to defeat fascism 70 years ago, and now scum like Marine Le Pen are gaining in the elections in places like France and Hungary. Europe is going to the shitter faster than anticipated. Might take a decade or two, but the roots of ethnic fascism are still deep rooted there.

Well if people voted for them, then its the right thing, isn't this what democracy is all about? majority rules?

(for those who don't know russia passed a law banning "gay propaganda")

Why would a secular democratic country ban gay propaganda? I am not expert on Europe, but IIRC Italy, Spain, and Ireland are a lot more religious than Russia (Is it not the communist the one who burned churches down or something like that?) and they are much more open about the subject.

[Erik_Twice]

Why would a secular democratic country ban gay propaganda?

To call Russia "secular" or "democratic" is kind of stretch. Not that there's any need for a goverment to be religious or undemocratic to be homophobic.

I am not expert on Europe, but IIRC Italy, Spain, and Ireland are a lot more religious than Russia

Spain is actually not very religious and people that are tend to keep it in private. Any kind of religious interference in politics is also extremely looked down upon.

[ZeroAX]

Also tolerance doesn't have anything to do with religion, it has to do with being educated. In fact I would argue that the TRUE believers are the ones who would fight for gay rights more than anyone, since they believe in equality and compassion for all people (at least that's what the orthodox christian teachings are about).

The problem is that usually a less educated populace is going to also be more religious, leading to what people call "bigotry".

[jvalentine98]

Wow the US has become extremely anti free speech, and really just freaking uptight about everything.

When Michael Sam, the 1st openly gay NFL player was drafted, a Miami Dolphin player tweeted "Oh my, horrible" when Sam and his boyfriend kissed on TV.

The Miami player was fined and suspended. Since when is not ok to have your own feelings about something? It's not illegal to believe homosexuality is wrong, or did I miss something?

If my religion teaches it's not ok to be gay, and you force me to accept gay people with your laws and rules, you can't go back and try to amend my religion because freedom of religion.

The world has officially lost its mind.

[jvalentine98]

Also, Christianity can't be kept in private.

Christianity teaches you to be a fisher of men. Go out and spread the word and try to get as many followers as you can to believe.

What are you gonna do, tell Christians to change their religion because you don't want to have someone try to convert you? That's kind of what the religion is.

[SirGawain]

It is just the way America has become. If you disagree with someone's lifestyle choice, you cannot speak your opinion, but everyone is allowed to degrade your opinion because it isn't politically correct. I personally do not have a problem whatsoever with homosexuality, but I do respect someones right to disagree with anything.

[Jmustang1968]

While I agree the US has by and large become hyper-sensitive to everything, and on all sides of the political and religious spectrum, he did not do anything illegal. However, the team can fine a player for breaking team or league rules. This can be anything from missing practice, being late to a meeting, bad mouthing a ref, or saying things in social media they deem unacceptable. Freedom of speech protects an individual from government persecution, not discipline at work.

[dedalusdedalus]

If my religion teaches it's not ok to be gay, and you force me to accept gay people with your laws and rules, you can't go back and try to amend my religion because freedom of religion.

I love it when people articulate their rights without even understanding them. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion prohibit the government and not private entities from interfering with free speech or the practice of religion.

The NFL is neither the government nor an agent of the government. It's a private organization, and it's making the judgment call that having one of its players express anti-gay remarks would be bad for its bottom line. That's the kind of thing that might possibly lead to boycotts or pulled endorsements.

Christianity teaches you to be a fisher of men. Go out and spread the word and try to get as many followers as you can to believe.

What are you gonna do, tell Christians to change their religion because you don't want to have someone try to convert you? That's kind of what the religion is.

Again, you miss completely the government actor / private entity distinction.

The government can't act against your proselytizing, but as a private individual, I'd be fully within my rights under the law to tell you to STFU.

[prfsnl_gmr]

Agreed.

The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution prevents only government action infringing on the freedom of association, expression, and speech. In this respect, the U.S. has never been more free. We have recent decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court holding that - for better or worse - corporations enjoy the first amendment protections and that restrictions on the use of money for political advertisements violates the first amendment.

Private actors - such as individuals, corporations, etc. - are always free to punish speech within the bounds of the law. If someone makes bigoted or offensive statements, private actors are not only permitted to disagree with those statements publicly, but they are also free to disassociate from the person who made them by terminating his or her employment, canceling advertising contracts, requiring him or her to sell a professional sports team, boycotting his or her business, etc. As long as their actions are otherwise within the bounds of the law - i.e., you can't murder someone because he or she said something offensive - the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution in no way restricts their behavior. (Were it otherwise, the first amendment would be restricting that person's freedom.)