The Offishul JKB "Let's discuss religion" thread (merged threads)

[Maple Leaf]

Lots of JKB members seem to have strong opinions on the subject of religion. Whenever it comes up, a lively discussion invariably ensues. Unfortunately, some threads on other matters go badly off-topic as a result. This thread is intended to provide a place where religion might be discussed. Please keep the subject limited to this one thread.

 

Normal JKB rules apply, especially General Rule 1. Always treat fellow members with respect and courtesy.

 

Here's a start for the discussion:

 

God. The all-powerful, all-knowing benevolent Creator, or a Bronze Age myth whose time has passed?

 

Organised religion. A necessary and important part of society, or out-dated institutions who hold back human development?

 

Biological evolution. The only explanation for many observations throughout science, or it's just a theory no better than intelligent design?

 

The Bible. A sacred book intended to provide moral guidance for humanity, or a book of myths by scientifically ignorant people?

[Guest jonesy]

Nothing wrong with a bit of religion, of any background.

 

Some of what people use religion to justify, however, is the issue.

[Gorgiewave]

 

Religion's origin in schizophrenia.

[Toxteth O'Grady]

Religion = Fairy stories for dafties

[Gorgiewave]

What about "This House believes that "religion" is a straw man and we'd be better talking about poverty"?

[Gorgiewave]

And, why, when offered to imagine being able to do away with all religion, did Christopher Hitchens say he would decline?

[Sidelight]

Scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning

did not appear until the first half of the 20th century.

 

The Bible on the other hand has been asserting the fact

for a very long time.

 

[Craigieboy]

To take it down the serious road;

 

I find it hard to believe that humanity with all it's complexities came about without a creator being.

 

The body strikes me as a master stroke of design.

 

However, the fact they we ultimately suffer, grow old & then die negates the idea of an all powerful, loving creator god.

 

Human suffering for me is the clincher.

 

If I had the power to change things (as religion teaches that god has), then I'd do it. In an instant.

 

I don't see any reason for the permission of suffering.

 

But I still can't accept the idea of life existing without the intervention of intelligent design.

 

I think that makes me agnostic.

[Norm]

I don't see any evidence that holds up to scrutiny that there is any God.

 

If people want to believe there is, that's their perogative as long as their beliefs don't infringe or are imposed on the rest of society.

[TheMaganator]

 

I think that makes me agnostic.

Aye, but are you a Protestant agnostic or a Catholic agnostic?

[Norm]

 

 

But I still can't accept the idea of life existing without the intervention of intelligent design.

 

 

 

Why?

[Craigieboy]

 

 

Why?

[Hot since 86]

Catholics are bad tho...right?

[graygo]

To take it down the serious road;

 

I find it hard to believe that humanity with all it's complexities came about without a creator being.

 

The body strikes me as a master stroke of design.

 

 

If we were the perfect design we would be able to fly, our skin wouldn't burn from exposure to the sun, we wouldn't need water or food to exist, we would have 360 degree vision etc etc etc.......

 

To be fair Rudi's left peg is pretty much perfect.

[Craigieboy]

 

 

Why?

 

I think it's because I marvel at just how intricate and wonderful the ability to procreate is. When you see your kid born you have to agree that it's quite something special.

 

Now I can't quite get my head around how that comes about without a designer. A creator.

 

When you think about it.

[Craigieboy]

 

 

If we were the perfect design we would be able to fly, our skin wouldn't burn from exposure to the sun, we wouldn't need water or food to exist, we would have 360 degree vision etc etc etc.......

 

To be fair Rudi's left peg is pretty much perfect.

 

Exactly.

 

Creationists will speak of the perfect design of the earth.

 

Yet, if it was perfect, the sun would be positioned in such a manner that it wouldn't scorch and kill all life due to its closeness.

 

And everything wouldn't freeze at the earths extremities.

 

Yet, the earth continues to spin on its axis and people procreate & keep on producing life along with multitudes of animals & insects. All of which contribute to keeping the balance of life rolling along.

 

I put that down to design. A creator.

 

Which is confusing.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Since I stuck my foot in it deep in the other thread, I'll lay out some basic positions here. Feel free to pick one to disagree with.

 

- Science is a mode of epistemology -- that is to say, it's a means of understanding the world, and of thinking about how we come to know what we know. At its earliest roots, it depends on shared observations, empiricism, rationality, and dialogue. Religion is also a mode of epistemology, with different forms. There is nothing inherently incompatible between religion and science, although they do point in different directions at times. The same holds for truth statements within science and within religious belief structures.

 

- Scientific investigation can address certain peripheral truth claims by religion -- for instance, it is far harder to reconcile available observations with the claim that the earth is 6,000 years old than it is to reconcile them with the claim that the earth is roughly 4.6 billion years old. However, many claims made by religion are flatly beyond the ability for modern western science to prove or disprove. They are questions that are simply outside of science's realm to answer.

 

- On the other hand,. there are plenty of claims about the impact of religious belief that are testable. Current evidence that I've seen indicates that those who regularly attend religious services contribute more money to charity and spend more time volunteering. Research has also indicated that those who "pray" for their spouse or romantic partner, regardless of religious belief, have less domestic conflict and have longer lasting relationships. Research on the degree of hippocampus shrinkage, generally associated with a sort of "closing of the mind," is greatest in evangelical Christians, less in Catholics, still less in atheists and agnostics, but is lowest in ecumenical Christians. (As an ecumenical Christian, I admit my bias that I love that study. However, I think the science is sound there.)

 

- Claims about religion causing most wars and conflict are suspect and are usually phrased in a form that begs the question. Religion and culture have long been very difficult to separate, and it's only in the modernist period that you find large percentages of people identifying as non-religious. Incidentally, during that same modernist period, the mass violence and atrocities committed by the non-religious went way up. Based on this, I assert that while certain religious beliefs lead to more violence, there is nothing inherent about "religion" vs. "non-religion" that correlates with higher or lower levels of violence or conflict.

 

- I interpret the following claims as declaration of various degrees of ignorance:

- Evolutionary theory is just a theory and isn't scientific, or doesn't hold up under scientific evidence

- Religious people are all idiots who can't handle science

- Religion is all about explaining how the world works, and science does a better job

- Science is just another kind of religion (this is one I argued for several years in college. Learning more about religion in general has helped me understand why it was wrong).

 

- The scriptural foundations for condemning homosexuality are incredibly shaky and do not hold up under scrutiny. In the contemporary world, the fight to put legal barriers to gay marriage and to gay ordination violates a greater number and more important scriptural directives than homosexuality does.

 

 

For what it's worth, I'm a member of the Presbyterian Church of the USA, the largest of a handful of American denominations with general roots in the Church of Scotland. Part of my day job is as a geographical scientist.

[Jambo 4 Ever]

How did Adam and Eve's children have children?

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Exactly.

 

Creationists will speak of the perfect design of the earth.

 

Yet, if it was perfect, the sun would be positioned in such a manner that it wouldn't scorch and kill all life due to its closeness.

 

And everything wouldn't freeze at the earths extremities.

 

Yet, the earth continues to spin on its axis and people procreate & keep on producing life along with multitudes of animals & insects. All of which contribute to keeping the balance of life rolling along.

 

I put that down to design. A creator.

 

Which is confusing.

 

For what it's worth, there's a very large Christian tradition, rather forgotten among the a good chunk of the modern western church, that emphasizes mystery. As in, no matter how hard we try to understand these things, they're inherently far, far beyond our understanding. For me, science is the means of reaching for as much of that understanding as we can muster, but religion is the response to the fact that we'll always fall short.

 

My faith is about living in a world where I inherently can't know more than the tiniest bit, and living a life where no matter how hard I try I'm always going to end up hurting others or doing things wrong. I can minimize it, but I can't stop it.

[wibble]

On the (confusing) advice of the mods I have moved this here.

 

Should Heart of Midlothian Football Club engage a chaplain from a church that states on its own website that it takes both old and New Testament literally? It treats homosexuality as an abomination and it sees the place of women in their church as sandwich makers.

 

As an atheist I think the club should steer clear of association with any religion. If they must have a chaplain then one from a mainstream Church would surely be best. To allow a chaplain from a fundamentalist church create an association with the club is a real cause of concern.

 

I would like to think that we would welcome people of all faiths, genders, sexualities at the club and that we would expect everyone associated with the club to do the same. Having read about the church the chaplain comes from, I have to say that they do not exhibit the levels of tolerance that I would expect from an organisation associated with Heart of Midlothian FC. By association Hearts make themselves look less tolerant and supportive of intolerant beliefs.

 

http://www.fiec.org.uk/about-us/beliefs

 

 

 

JKB member Adam, posted the following, which sums up, better than I can, the problem with this club/church relationship ......

 

 

 

Why is it a positive? I think it's a negative story.The guy is a pastor at Charlotte Chapel in Edinburgh. Charlotte Chapel is a member of the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches (FIEC), this organisation endorse some pretty fundamentalist views and believes in a literal interpretation of the bible - every word both Old and New Testaments to be unerring and literally true (http://www.fiec.org....bout-us/beliefs). This in turn leads to an anti-scientific, anti-women and anti-gay view of the world. For example:

they don't allow women to be pastors or church elders - women aren't allowed to teach the bible

they use direct quotes from the Old Testament to justify a very anti-gay marriage stance

believe that Adam & Eve and the Genesis story (including talking snakes) is true

believe that all aspects of human nature has been corrupted and that all humans are guilty sinners

It's one thing for an individual/church to believe in such delusional nonsense, but when an organisation - such as football club - employs people from a church who represent such views then that organisation is by default endorsing such fundamentalist views.

 

What about any young gay footballers we have at the club - what does the employment of such a fundamentalist Chaplain say to him about HMFC's attitude to gay people?

What does it say to the women we employ about the club's attitude to gender equality?

 

If I was a player and he turned up to training I'd tell him to take his views and bolt - if HMFC think they need a counselling service then they should decide what the qualifications are and employ someone on merit, not for their belief system.

 

Also, why does this Chaplain take HMFCs Remembrance Day - it should be secular event. I've never been to Haymarket because of all the religious input, I know other supporters feel the same, it makes it exclusive when it's turned into a religious service. Historically, when national remembrance day gatherings started in the UK they were secular - a moment to reflect with no religion. We should return to that - i.e.speeches from the club manager and captain followed by a moments silence. Then those that are religious can go onwards to a pre-arranged church service, at say Charlotte Chapel in the West End.

 

Seems fair to me and would make the Haymarket gathering much more inclusive. So, what about a secular, inclusive HMFC Remembrance Day gathering to which everyone religious, non-religious is welcome?

Edited by ADAM, 01 May 2014 - 08:34 PM.

 

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

On the (confusing) advice of the mods I have moved this here.

 

Should Heart of Midlothian Football Club engage a chaplain from a church that states on its own website that it takes both old and New Testament literally? It treats homosexuality as an abomination and it sees the place of women in their church as sandwich makers.

 

As an atheist I think the club should steer clear of association with any religion. If they must have a chaplain then one from a mainstream Church would surely be best. To allow a chaplain from a fundamentalist church create an association with the club is a real cause of concern.

 

I would like to think that we would welcome people of all faiths, genders, sexualities at the club and that we would expect everyone associated with the club to do the same. Having read about the church the chaplain comes from, I have to say that they do not exhibit the levels of tolerance that I would expect from an organisation associated with Heart of Midlothian FC. By association Hearts make themselves look less tolerant and supportive of intolerant beliefs.

 

http://www.fiec.org....bout-us/beliefs

 

 

 

JKB member Adam, posted the following, which sums up, better than I can, the problem with this club/church relationship ......

 

 

 

Why is it a positive? I think it's a negative story.The guy is a pastor at Charlotte Chapel in Edinburgh. Charlotte Chapel is a member of the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches (FIEC), this organisation endorse some pretty fundamentalist views and believes in a literal interpretation of the bible - every word both Old and New Testaments to be unerring and literally true (http://www.fiec.org....bout-us/beliefs). This in turn leads to an anti-scientific, anti-women and anti-gay view of the world. For example:

they don't allow women to be pastors or church elders - women aren't allowed to teach the bible

they use direct quotes from the Old Testament to justify a very anti-gay marriage stance

believe that Adam & Eve and the Genesis story (including talking snakes) is true

believe that all aspects of human nature has been corrupted and that all humans are guilty sinners

It's one thing for an individual/church to believe in such delusional nonsense, but when an organisation - such as football club - employs people from a church who represent such views then that organisation is by default endorsing such fundamentalist views.

 

What about any young gay footballers we have at the club - what does the employment of such a fundamentalist Chaplain say to him about HMFC's attitude to gay people?

What does it say to the women we employ about the club's attitude to gender equality?

 

If I was a player and he turned up to training I'd tell him to take his views and bolt - if HMFC think they need a counselling service then they should decide what the qualifications are and employ someone on merit, not for their belief system.

 

Also, why does this Chaplain take HMFCs Remembrance Day - it should be secular event. I've never been to Haymarket because of all the religious input, I know other supporters feel the same, it makes it exclusive when it's turned into a religious service. Historically, when national remembrance day gatherings started in the UK they were secular - a moment to reflect with no religion. We should return to that - i.e.speeches from the club manager and captain followed by a moments silence. Then those that are religious can go onwards to a pre-arranged church service, at say Charlotte Chapel in the West End.

 

Seems fair to me and would make the Haymarket gathering much more inclusive. So, what about a secular, inclusive HMFC Remembrance Day gathering to which everyone religious, non-religious is welcome?

Edited by ADAM, 01 May 2014 - 08:34 PM.

 

I disagree with his church's position on these matters, but as I said in the other topic, a good chaplain should be able to move beyond those problems.

 

If it's an ongoing problem, I'd advocate splitting the duties among rotating chaplains of different traditions. This is commonly done in hospitals.

[wibble]

Science bases it's principals on presenting theories that are then proven or disproven by the scientific community. Religion bases it's principals on presentation of ludicrous theories and then makes it a sin, or seeks to have laws created, to prevent people from questioning them.

 

Trying to draw parallels between religion and science is disingenuous. Science has overtaken religion in explaining the world around us and how we came to be part of it. To say that science has not explained away religion is, frankly a lie.

 

If you are not capable of comprehending what science tells you, then religious leaders will see you as a potential brainwashee.

[wibble]

 

I disagree with his church's position on these matters, but as I said in the other topic, a good chaplain should be able to move beyond those problems.

 

If it's an ongoing problem, I'd advocate splitting the duties among rotating chaplains of different traditions. This is commonly done in hospitals.

 

The question is not about the individual, it is about the organisation he comes from. If this was a Muslim cleric from a fundamentalist branch of Islam I would have the same concerns. We cannot separate the individual from the church or his beliefs. By his own admission he could never leave his beliefs at the door. He lives and breathes his fundamentalist views.

[graygo]

Not the end of the world for me but yes I have concerns about it having read the link yesterday.

 

Not getting in to a debate about it, just wanted to register my concern.

[wibble]

Addressing the individual himself. He presents extreme views on issues such as homosexuality.

 

His sermons are available on the Charlotte Church website for anyone who cares to research the beliefs that he will be representing in his work at Hearts.

What comes across strongly in everything he says is that he takes those beliefs everywhere he goes. You can be sure he does not adjust his message when working with an impressionable player.

 

If I was a parent, sibling or close to a gay player at Hearts, for example, I would be very concerned about this man presenting his extreme views to that player.

 

This sermon declares gay marriage a sin. Brands all humans sinning whores and generally scares the crap out of me that this man plays a part in the development of young men at HMFC.

http://www.charlottechapel.org/audio/mp3/sermon/120819pm.mp3

 

 

 

[Peebo]

As long as no ***** goes to the Willie Bauld dinner.

[davemclaren]

All we have is each other so best get along as best we can. Neither Science or Religion have the answers to the most fundamental of questions.

[Patrick Bateman]

The club shouldn't associate itself with superstition; it makes us seem pretty regressive. Why don't we employ the services of a sports psychologist (if we don't already) or something that actually has scientific merit? Why don't we just sack all the physios and appoint faith healers instead? It's just as ludicrous. I'd be questioning the wider judgement of the person who thought bringing in a chaplain was a good idea; Edinburgh is the home of the Enlightenment, I thought we'd intellectually evolved beyond this nonsense.

[davemclaren]

Bring back the magic sticks.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I don't share his views but if Gary Locke feels that he helps then I have no issue. He isn't breaking any laws. I can't comment on his pastoral care abilities or lack of them.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Organised religion is a crock.

 

However, if you need belief or faith in your life, follow your conscience and if asking for help from mystical beings is part of that, bash on.

[fabienleclerq]

My take on the whole thing was rather than preaching he was being more of a counsellor. Counselling helps people a lot imo, someone independent that helps you get things off your chest is probably pretty valuable at a football club.

 

If the manager thinks he's helping the team then I don't see an issue, I don't want fan ownership to descend into questioning every little detail to the point it undermines the manager.

[Del1812]

I don't like it at all. And I don't think him helping us win games is a justifiable reason for prompting his name. They're only football matches, his ignorant views of certain people in society go a lot deeper than that.

[Sydney]

I dont like it at all.

 

Institutional intolerance has no place in our club.

[Sydney]

Is this thread about religion or about a belief in god?

 

I am 100% atheist. I'll pretend to my kids that santa or the tooth fairy exists, but not god.

 

As for religion? Well, as a means to control the masses and genrate wealth through the promotion of fear and ignorance, it has been successful.

 

It also provides comfort and support to millions.

 

There are many decent human beings who believe in god and many dickheads who dont.

 

On balance, though, I am anti-religion, mainly for their preaching of intolerance.

[BigC]

Addressing the individual himself. He presents extreme views on issues such as homosexuality.

 

His sermons are available on the Charlotte Church website for anyone who cares to research the beliefs that he will be representing in his work at Hearts.

What comes across strongly in everything he says is that he takes those beliefs everywhere he goes. You can be sure he does not adjust his message when working with an impressionable player.

 

If I was a parent, sibling or close to a gay player at Hearts, for example, I would be very concerned about this man presenting his extreme views to that player.

 

This sermon declares gay marriage a sin. Brands all humans sinning whores and generally scares the crap out of me that this man plays a part in the development of young men at HMFC.

http://www.charlottechapel.org/audio/mp3/sermon/120819pm.mp3

 

Ha!

 

So all these folk giving it the "Andy's a good lad" patter were ignoring the fact that he's a homophobic zealot?

 

Get rid.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

Ha!

 

So all these folk giving it the "Andy's a good lad" patter were ignoring the fact that he's a homophobic zealot?

 

Get rid.

If Jason Holt was a homophobic zealot, should he be given a free transfer?

[BigC]

 

If Jason Holt was a homophobic zealot, should he be given a free transfer?

 

If he stood up in front of hundreds of people and made homophobic remarks he should be treated exactly the same way as Leigh Griffiths.

 

I would not expect a sacking for a first offence, but if he was a repeat offender I would fully support his dismissal, so in short, yes.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

If he stood up in front of hundreds of people and made homophobic remarks he should be treated exactly the same way as Leigh Griffiths.

 

I would not expect a sacking for a first offence, but if he was a repeat offender I would fully support his dismissal, so in short, yes.

 

 

Homophobia is not a crime. Feck me, this is into the realms of Orwell's Thought Crime. Is a club chaplain only now acceptable if they pass some sort of 'right on' test. "Oooh, they might want to stop immigration. How can they work with the foreign players at the club if that is the case?"

 

Points to note:

• Andy Prime is not employed by Heart of Midlothian Football Club. He is not therefore bound by any employee code of conduct
  
• No one on here can comment on his ability, or otherwise, in performing chaplaincy duties
  
• From those who can comment, he appears to be doing a good job
  

 

Anything outside of this is people trying to impose their views on others. Who precisely is the bigot in this instance?

 

And FWIW, I do not agree with his views on homosexuality. However, I do believe he has a right to hold them.

[Chester™]

 

 

Homophobia is not a crime.

 

In certain cases it can be. It depends on how its said and the context of how its said, much like for religious intolerance, sexism, racism etc, etc.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

In certain cases it can be. It depends on how its said and the context of how its said, much like for religious intolerance, sexism, racism etc, etc.

True. Saying that homosexuality is a sin or an "abomination" as per Leviticus is not one of those cases though.

 

Should it be? That's a different question entirely.

[Big Chae]

[BigC]

 

 

 

Homophobia is not a crime. Feck me, this is into the realms of Orwell's Thought Crime. Is a club chaplain only now acceptable if they pass some sort of 'right on' test. "Oooh, they might want to stop immigration. How can they work with the foreign players at the club if that is the case?"

 

Points to note:

• Andy Prime is not employed by Heart of Midlothian Football Club. He is not therefore bound by any employee code of conduct
  
• No one on here can comment on his ability, or otherwise, in performing chaplaincy duties
  
• From those who can comment, he appears to be doing a good job
  

 

Anything outside of this is people trying to impose their views on others. Who precisely is the bigot in this instance?

 

And FWIW, I do not agree with his views on homosexuality. However, I do believe he has a right to hold them.

 

You will have been at matches where Scott Wilson reads out a prepared statement adding fans not to take part in any unacceptable conduct which goes on to specifically mention racist, sectarian and homophobic chanting in particular.

 

The clubs position on that is quite clear. They have come out against homophobia.

 

Homophobia is still seen as socially acceptable in the same way that casual racism was socially acceptable 20 years ago, thankfully both are decreasing gradually but homophobia was and is the more socially acceptable of the two as this thread demonstrates.

 

If this chap had come out and said that black people were turned black for their sins, as it says in the bible, no-one in their right minds would want him to continue in this role.

 

But for some reason it's ok to say that gay people are sinful for the way they were born.

 

In 20 years time people will wonder why this is even up for discussion.

[Alba gu Brath]

Might as well believe in Santa as in any of the numerous creation myths. I don't see why the Semite/ Abrahamic myths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam should have any more credence than those of the Aboriginies or Mayans.

 

All should be free to believe what they want though. However, some religions think they should get extra help from the state in 'influencing' young minds. Not good.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

You will have been at matches where Scott Wilson reads out a prepared statement adding fans not to take part in any unacceptable conduct which goes on to specifically mention racist, sectarian and homophobic chanting in particular.

 

The clubs position on that is quite clear. They have come out against homophobia.

 

Homophobia is still seen as socially acceptable in the same way that casual racism was socially acceptable 20 years ago, thankfully both are decreasing gradually but homophobia was and is the more socially acceptable of the two as this thread demonstrates.

 

If this chap had come out and said that black people were turned black for their sins, as it says in the bible, no-one in their right minds would want him to continue in this role.

 

But for some reason it's ok to say that gay people are sinful for the way they were born.

 

In 20 years time people will wonder why this is even up for discussion.

What a crap argument to use a strawman on black skin which is not stated anywhere in the text this man uses.

 

However, I digress. Which part of Scott Wilson's statement has he breached?

[AlphonseCapone]

To take it down the serious road;

 

I find it hard to believe that humanity with all it's complexities came about without a creator being.

 

The body strikes me as a master stroke of design.

 

However, the fact they we ultimately suffer, grow old & then die negates the idea of an all powerful, loving creator god.

 

Human suffering for me is the clincher.

 

If I had the power to change things (as religion teaches that god has), then I'd do it. In an instant.

 

I don't see any reason for the permission of suffering.

 

But I still can't accept the idea of life existing without the intervention of intelligent design.

 

I think that makes me agnostic.

 

The world is a marvellous and complex place. The way I tend to think about how it came to be is in terms of winning the lottery. An individual has a very minuscule chance but that many people play that there is that many attempted combinations that often someone gets the right one. Now you could play all your life and not win and some guy can play once and win but is all down to chance.

 

Life on our planet is the same, we are one player who played the lottery of life amongst billions of billions of other planet players and we happened to be a winner, our combination out of the infinite number out there worked. Interesting questions are, where there other winners? And, were we playing for the first time?

 

As for religion, I disagree with how it is used to justify behaviour, good or bad. Some use religion to justify killing others, that isn't what religion teaches. Others use it to justify charity or a good moral compass, there are as many good charity giving people who are non-religious. In fact, if it takes the wrath of God to convince you to be noble I'd suggest your good acts are a bit more selfish than you acknowledge.

 

I respect others views and beliefs and would never hold them against someone but personally I think religion is an outdated thought and the sooner it goes away, the better.

[Guest jonesy]

How did Adam and Eve's children have children?

 

They were Hibs fans.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

They were Hibs fans.

[BigC]

 

What a crap argument to use a strawman on black skin which is not stated anywhere in the text this man uses.

 

However, I digress. Which part of Scott Wilson's statement has he breached?

 

Are you saying the bible doesn't have a passage that says black people were turned that way for their sins? (Incorrect)

 

Or are you saying that the person in question hasn't quoted this particular passage on his sermons (Which I expect is correct).

 

You are born gay and you are born black. You have the same amount of control over both. There is a clear difference between castigating someone for the way they are born and castigating someone for a viewpoint they hold, which is why saying "who is the bigot" and trying to equate my disagreement with his views and his views as the same thing, they are clearly not.

 

There are obvious differences between being black and being gay, but in terms of the discrimination both groups have faced, they are not that dissimilar so the comparison is not a strawman.

 

I used Scott Wilson's statement to demonstrate that the club's position on homophobia is clear. Not to illustrate that it had been broken at a match by a particular individual.

 

There is a blurred line, because people can use the excuse that they are only against homosexual acts and not homosexuals, hate the sin and not the sinner etc, so people can get away with it by using certain language, but ultimately, any speech by someone in a position of power castigating a minority for the way they are born is wrong.

 

It leads to them being ostracised and targeted. Thankfully in this country the consequences aren't as severe as in places like Africa, but this type of speech still causes a lot of harm to individuals coming to terms with their sexuality.

 

If someone holds a position at a club, regardless of whether it's paid or not then they are a club representative. If Hearts are calling him the "club chaplain" then he can quite easily bring the club into disrepute and in my opinion, calling homosexuals sinners does bring the club into disrepute because it goes against the clubs inclusive ethos.

 

 

[Sten Guns]

Human body is a marvellous design?