Sherlock Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 Anyone heard of this before? Hearts fan BRIAN MEIN, founder of the website True Hearts Against Bigotry, lays out his plan to rid the Scottish game of religious and racist abuse. SUNDAY April 10 2005 was the final straw for Brian Mein. A lifelong Hearts supporter, he attended his side's Scottish Cup semi-final against Glasgow club Celtic at Hampden Park - a match that was soon to become headline news across Britain for all the wrong reasons. With Pope John Paul II having succumbed to illness a week earlier and with Hearts' opponents being the world's most famous Catholic club, a minute's silence took place before kick-off... (click link for full article) True Hearts Against Bigotry website Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 Don't know about that but I do remember some Hearts supporters who were involved with Anti-Facist Action handing out Hearts-against-Nazi's leaflets around about the time when the NF / BNP were trying to recruit at Hearts games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.N.T.H. Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 The website misses the point entirely RE: Popegate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawrrrrrrr Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 Anyone who thinks hearts has a major bigotry problem or need for such a group needs to get off kb and attend a few games! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Towzer Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 i think Brian Mein should get a life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyjambo9 Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 Absolutely cringeworthy. I dont know why folk bother with this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigC Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 The website misses the point entirely RE: Popegate. I have to agree. Whilst normally being part of the PC brigade, I am utterly against people being forced to stand silent for somone who has no connection to football and whose only claim to fame is that they speak for the worlds most popular imaginary friend. Anyone who actively discourages contraception in AIDS ridden countries, causing the deaths of thousands does not get my respect. Many people will disagree with me and they are entitled to that opinion, which is fine. It's when other people's religious beliefs are forced on others that there will inevitably be a backlash and it was unfortunate that the backlash tarnished the name of our Club. The people who booed have the right to free speech - when that is abused and they come out saying "I hate catholics" then we should come down hard on them. But when they are forced to be silent for someone they don't respect they have the right to say - this is wrong - I should not be forced into this. They could and should have kept silent because their argument would have been much more legitimate if they had, and it wouldn't have given those who seek to tarnish our name a ready supply of ammo. But at the same time, I respect their right to come out and say - this is wrong. (Of course, I'm not naiive enough to think that all of the people who booed were doing so for reasons of free speech and some of them did just want to wind up the Catholic Celtic supporters, but it should only have been those who were chanting sectarian slogans that should have been condemned). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 I have to agree. Whilst normally being part of the PC brigade, I am utterly against people being forced to stand silent for somone who has no connection to football and whose only claim to fame is that they speak for the worlds most popular imaginary friend. Anyone who actively discourages contraception in AIDS ridden countries, causing the deaths of thousands does not get my respect. Many people will disagree with me and they are entitled to that opinion, which is fine. It's when other people's religious beliefs are forced on others that there will inevitably be a backlash and it was unfortunate that the backlash tarnished the name of our Club. The people who booed have the right to free speech - when that is abused and they come out saying "I hate catholics" then we should come down hard on them. But when they are forced to be silent for someone they don't respect they have the right to say - this is wrong - I should not be forced into this. They could and should have kept silent because their argument would have been much more legitimate if they had, and it wouldn't have given those who seek to tarnish our name a ready supply of ammo. But at the same time, I respect their right to come out and say - this is wrong. (Of course, I'm not naiive enough to think that all of the people who booed were doing so for reasons of free speech and some of them did just want to wind up the Catholic Celtic supporters, but it should only have been those who were chanting sectarian slogans that should have been condemned). I agree BigC, almost entirely. There's only two words in your whole post that I disagree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommythejambo Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 They boo'ed because the pope has the square root of nothing to do with football. There is no need for such a website. If Brian Mein feels the need then he needs to have a look at himself, as much as the few people who sing bigoted songs at games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawrrrrrrr Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 http://www.kickoutbigotry.org/KOB_Incident_Form.pdf What the hell is that form about. Anyone who fills that out yet doesnt have the guts to either confront the person or report it to the police/stewards should be named and shamed too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacDonald Jardine Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 Anyone heard of this before? True Hearts Against Bigotry website My impression is this guy is a left wing extremist before folk start holding him up as the voice of reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Therapist Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 Anyone heard of this before? Yes. It's a total joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hinksikensi Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 When did hearts play Real Madrid in a Scottish cup semi final??? It does say we were playing the most famous catholic club! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo_Gaz Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 What on earth? I'm so incensed by an incident in the pub that I'm going to go home and print off a form so I can then post it on to someone... Left-wing, nanny state nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coppercrutch Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 How amusing. So how long before the person in question comes and admits who they are ? I am certain this person posts on here. I can think of a few candidates...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderstruck Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 Firstly, the link is from Morning Star, a part of the media with an even more tenuous link to reality than the mainstream. Secondly, I do not need anyone to stand up on my behalf when in comes to denouncing bigotry, racism or any other form of discrimination or equality. Living in Glasgow, I am well aware of the cancerous effect of bigotry and, believe you me, anyone who thinks that a couple of hot-heads at a Hearts match suggests bigotry is alive and well down Gorgie way really does need to get through here for a lesson in real bigotry (on both sides of the divide). I resent the good name of Hearts being associated with a campaign that implies that there is a huge problem that needs to be sorted - on the precarious basis of the SC Semi. I would agree that our crusader really does need to get out some more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coppercrutch Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 "Heart of Midlothian Football Club have recognised that the boorish behaviour of some elements among football supporters is hindering them from creating the family atmosphere where everyone can enjoy an afternoon's sporting entertainment that they aspire to." This guy should have his ST, if he has one, removed with immediate effect. Banning 'boorish behaviour'..................................Whatever next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4marsbars Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 I have to agree. Whilst normally being part of the PC brigade, I am utterly against people being forced to stand silent for somone who has no connection to football and whose only claim to fame is that they speak for the worlds most popular imaginary friend. Anyone who actively discourages contraception in AIDS ridden countries, causing the deaths of thousands does not get my respect. Many people will disagree with me and they are entitled to that opinion, which is fine. It's when other people's religious beliefs are forced on others that there will inevitably be a backlash and it was unfortunate that the backlash tarnished the name of our Club. The people who booed have the right to free speech - when that is abused and they come out saying "I hate catholics" then we should come down hard on them. But when they are forced to be silent for someone they don't respect they have the right to say - this is wrong - I should not be forced into this. They could and should have kept silent because their argument would have been much more legitimate if they had, and it wouldn't have given those who seek to tarnish our name a ready supply of ammo. But at the same time, I respect their right to come out and say - this is wrong. (Of course, I'm not naiive enough to think that all of the people who booed were doing so for reasons of free speech and some of them did just want to wind up the Catholic Celtic supporters, but it should only have been those who were chanting sectarian slogans that should have been condemned). Whilst it's fair enough to challenge the Catholic church's teachings, I think that (as you say) you'd have to be extremely naive to think that those who disrespected that minute's silence were motivated by anything other than a wish to wind up the Celtic support. And I'd imagine (but cannot prove it) that a good many of theme also mistakenly believe that Hearts are a "protestant" club. A proper protestant wouldn't boo a minute's silence, since protestants believe in loving their enemies and doing good to those who hate them, and would all be at, or on their way home from, church at that time on a Sunday. I've no idea what it means to have other people's religious views "forced" on you. Being asked to respect someone's views is quite different from being required to accept their truth. It's also interesting that Rangers managed to negotiate their way through that period without being asked to observe a minute's silence.... Re Prancer's point about whether Hearts have a "major" problem, I think mostly our problem is not major but it is a problem. Booing the pope, though, was a major problem, unless you think that getting negative press coverage around the world is a minor issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Therapist Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 Booing the pope, though, was a major problem, unless you think that getting negative press coverage around the world is a minor issue. It wasn't a major problem. It was no problem at all. There is no such thing as bad publicity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boab Mugabe Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 Oh dear. The PC brigade strikes again. Embarassing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4marsbars Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 Oh dear. The PC brigade strikes again. Embarassing. Oh dear. The "let's just label people rather than have a proper discussion" brigade strikes again. Predictable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigC Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 I agree BigC, almost entirely. There's only two words in your whole post that I disagree with. I know which two. Ah, well. We've agreed to disagree in the past. I'm sure we can again! Whilst it's fair enough to challenge the Catholic church's teachings, I think that (as you say) you'd have to be extremely naive to think that those who disrespected that minute's silence were motivated by anything other than a wish to wind up the Celtic support. And I'd imagine (but cannot prove it) that a good many of theme also mistakenly believe that Hearts are a "protestant" club. A proper protestant wouldn't boo a minute's silence, since protestants believe in loving their enemies and doing good to those who hate them, and would all be at, or on their way home from, church at that time on a Sunday. I've no idea what it means to have other people's religious views "forced" on you. Being asked to respect someone's views is quite different from being required to accept their truth. It's also interesting that Rangers managed to negotiate their way through that period without being asked to observe a minute's silence.... Re Prancer's point about whether Hearts have a "major" problem, I think mostly our problem is not major but it is a problem. Booing the pope, though, was a major problem, unless you think that getting negative press coverage around the world is a minor issue. All very valid points. I suppose no-one was forcing religious views on people, but they were forcing us to take part in something that no-one should be forced to take part in. It was utterly wrong. I bought a ticket for a football match, not a remembrance service for an old man of no cosequence to me, yet I ended up with both. Imagine Scotland had a friendly match with Zimbabwe in a neutral country and Robert Mugabe died. There would be many within the Tartan Army who would not wish to take part in a silence and if FIFA or the country the match was being held in forced a minutes silence before the game there would quite rightly be an uproar. I fail to see the difference between that situation and ours. If they had a minute's silence 30 minutes before kick off, which would have allowed all the mourners to go in early and pay their respects and allow those who didnt want to take part to stay outside until afterwards, then fine. What they did was terribly undemocratic and whilst I abhor the views of the majority of those who interrupted the silence, their right to free speech comes first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboRossi79 Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 I have to agree. Whilst normally being part of the PC brigade, I am utterly against people being forced to stand silent for somone who has no connection to football and whose only claim to fame is that they speak for the worlds most popular imaginary friend. Anyone who actively discourages contraception in AIDS ridden countries, causing the deaths of thousands does not get my respect. Many people will disagree with me and they are entitled to that opinion, which is fine. It's when other people's religious beliefs are forced on others that there will inevitably be a backlash and it was unfortunate that the backlash tarnished the name of our Club. The people who booed have the right to free speech - when that is abused and they come out saying "I hate catholics" then we should come down hard on them. But when they are forced to be silent for someone they don't respect they have the right to say - this is wrong - I should not be forced into this. They could and should have kept silent because their argument would have been much more legitimate if they had, and it wouldn't have given those who seek to tarnish our name a ready supply of ammo. But at the same time, I respect their right to come out and say - this is wrong. (Of course, I'm not naiive enough to think that all of the people who booed were doing so for reasons of free speech and some of them did just want to wind up the Catholic Celtic supporters, but it should only have been those who were chanting sectarian slogans that should have been condemned). and if it had been the Queen then the same people would have booed right ? Unless I misread your post that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vini_Hibs Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 I have to agree. Whilst normally being part of the PC brigade, I am utterly against people being forced to stand silent for somone who has no connection to football and whose only claim to fame is that they speak for the worlds most popular imaginary friend. Anyone who actively discourages contraception in AIDS ridden countries, causing the deaths of thousands does not get my respect. Many people will disagree with me and they are entitled to that opinion, which is fine. It's when other people's religious beliefs are forced on others that there will inevitably be a backlash and it was unfortunate that the backlash tarnished the name of our Club. The people who booed have the right to free speech - when that is abused and they come out saying "I hate catholics" then we should come down hard on them. But when they are forced to be silent for someone they don't respect they have the right to say - this is wrong - I should not be forced into this. They could and should have kept silent because their argument would have been much more legitimate if they had, and it wouldn't have given those who seek to tarnish our name a ready supply of ammo. But at the same time, I respect their right to come out and say - this is wrong. (Of course, I'm not naiive enough to think that all of the people who booed were doing so for reasons of free speech and some of them did just want to wind up the Catholic Celtic supporters, but it should only have been those who were chanting sectarian slogans that should have been condemned). Many people use this argument about the Catholic church, but it simply doesn't add up. The Catholic church does not condone sex outside of marriage, but people obviously still do it, ignoring church teaching. Yet somehow we are supposed to believe that they don't use condoms in accordance with Catholic church teaching. You can't have both ways. As for the bigotry among hearts supporters, you should try seeing it from the other side of the street. Sectarian bigotry is far from gone in gorgie. Still that site is cringeworthy. Simple self policing would probably work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboRossi79 Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Many people use this argument about the Catholic church, but it simply doesn't add up. The Catholic church does not condone sex outside of marriage, but people obviously still do it, ignoring church teaching. Yet somehow we are supposed to believe that they don't use condoms in accordance with Catholic church teaching. You can't have both ways. As for the bigotry among hearts supporters, you should try seeing it from the other side of the street. Sectarian bigotry is far from gone in gorgie. Still that site is cringeworthy. Simple self policing would probably work. Just like "casual" racism is alive and well at ER eh ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vic Vespa Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 They boo'ed because the pope has the square root of nothing to do with football. There is no need for such a website. If Brian Mein feels the need then he needs to have a look at himself, as much as the few people who sing bigoted songs at games. Rubbish, would be interesting to see how many people boo when the Queen dies, based on your view it should be everybody. It was unfortunate the game was against Celtic, sort of exaggerated the "fenian blood" mob. IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redm Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 My impression is this guy is a left wing extremist before folk start holding him up as the voice of reason. What gave you that impression? Still, it's a strange one. I haven't been right through the website but does anyone know if this 'group' is officially recognised by the club? Generally speaking, I support the principle behind it...getting rid of that sort of nonsense would be great. But I think it gives the impression that the problem is worse than it actually is. I don't think this is the right way to do it though... I wonder what actually happens if you fill out one of those forms? Is the information simply used to provide reports or are these 'incidents' actually then investigated in any way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigC Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 and if it had been the Queen then the same people would have booed right ? Unless I misread your post that is. No, you just skipped the last paragraph for some reason. I think it would be less likely that Hearts fans would boo a minute's silence for the Queen as our anti-royal brigade is certainly smaller than the anti-catholic brigade. I think that the royal family are a bit less controversial because although there are strong arguments for their removal, the sort that you hear from socialist types, I don't think they could be implicated in any way in the deaths of anyone (although I think Prince Charles's misguided crusade in favour of homeopothy could eventually contribute one day - but I digress). So from that point of view it would be unlikely. Being true to my principals, I have to say that equally, I think it's wrong that people should be forced to observe a silence for a royal. Many people will find them as equally insignificant as I do the pope and a waste of taxpayers money etc. so I could see where an objection could come from. Anyone who organises a minute's silence in a place where it is likely to get disturbed is almost as equally implicated in the disrespect as the person who disturbs it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigC Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Many people use this argument about the Catholic church, but it simply doesn't add up. The Catholic church does not condone sex outside of marriage, but people obviously still do it, ignoring church teaching. Yet somehow we are supposed to believe that they don't use condoms in accordance with Catholic church teaching. You can't have both ways. Pish. People are always going to have sex outwith marriage. The urge to do so is programmes in our genes. The Catholic Church says sex before marriage is a sin. They also say that using contraception is a sin. All they have to do is say that if you are having sex outwith marriage, using a condom does not make it any worse. That would save countless lives. Instead they do everything they can to ensure that condoms are not available to people, so that when they do give into temptation, unprotected sex is the only choice. They stop condoms from getting to non-catholics, because they threaten to stop giving money to local aid programmes if they try to give out condoms whilst doing other aid work. So saying that it's OK, because if you follow the teachings of the church, you won't get AIDS, is a moot point because people who aren't Catholic are also being starved of a simple product that will save their life. Finally, if the other stuff doesn't shock you, there are Catholic bishops in Africa who tell their congregation that condoms give you AIDS, rather than prevent it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7014335.stm http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids (I felt I had to search for some links, because reading back my post, it sounds made up, but I knew I had read all the stories and wasn't wrong). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4marsbars Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 I know which two. All very valid points. I suppose no-one was forcing religious views on people, but they were forcing us to take part in something that no-one should be forced to take part in. It was utterly wrong. I bought a ticket for a football match, not a remembrance service for an old man of no cosequence to me, yet I ended up with both. Imagine Scotland had a friendly match with Zimbabwe in a neutral country and Robert Mugabe died. There would be many within the Tartan Army who would not wish to take part in a silence and if FIFA or the country the match was being held in forced a minutes silence before the game there would quite rightly be an uproar. I fail to see the difference between that situation and ours. If they had a minute's silence 30 minutes before kick off, which would have allowed all the mourners to go in early and pay their respects and allow those who didnt want to take part to stay outside until afterwards, then fine. What they did was terribly undemocratic and whilst I abhor the views of the majority of those who interrupted the silence, their right to free speech comes first. I don't think any force was used. People were invited to take part in something (being quiet for a minute) and a minority exercised their "right" not to take part. With rights come responsibilities. The "right to free speech" has to be moderated with the responsibility to act reasonably and respectfully. If you turned up at the funeral of someone you happened not to have liked, and heckled the minister, you would probably be arrested for breach of the peace and rightly so. You would not have any "free speech" defence. But you would be perfectly entitled to publish an article stating your criticisms of the same person. I think we all know perfectly well that whatever our non-silent minority idiot faction exercised that day was not "free speech". I tried to engage one such person after the game, a young skinhead bearing a union flag. All he could say was "they're different from us" or words to that effect. The Pope means very little to me, but, out of respect I remained silent along with the vast majority of Hearts fans. I think we can have a reasonable discussion about the validity of observing a minute's silence for non-football deceased persons. This kind of thing happened around the world when the Pope died. I imagine it will happen again when some Royal personage dies or there is a major incident (e.g. the Aberfan disaster which happened the day before a Wales v Scotland game, as I remember). I disagree with your very contrived comparison with Mugabe. Mugabe is (in my view, and I guess we are on the same side here) a complete despot who has ruined his country and deserves no respect. In the unlikely event of such a match taking place at such a time, I would go along with some kind of (probably) silent non-compliance. In fact, I would take my cue from the Zimbabwean people, most of whom would not mourn RM. However much we might disagree with particular teachings of the RC church (and its views on sex outside marriage are exactly the same as any protestant church I can think of), you cannot liken the late pope to Mugabe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dipped Flake Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Can I ask the OP what the point of this thread is??? Apart to allow the usual suspects to launch into a defence/attack of our loyalist 'friends'. This is dated April 2005 so why post this now????? I was just enjoying the fact that the first page of jkb was bigot free and then this comes up to allow them to spout their usual garbage again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PTBCAL Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Can I ask the OP what the point of this thread is??? Apart to allow the usual suspects to launch into a defence/attack of our loyalist 'friends'. This is dated April 2005 so why post this now?????I was just enjoying the fact that the first page of jkb was bigot free and then this comes up to allow them to spout their usual garbage again Totally agree. Some of the posters here can hardly contain themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest S.U.S.S. Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Come on, how many of the JKB moral majority have filled in one of these forms? I would imagine none. and they are the people to site creater would be hoping would complete them. Makes the problem look worse than it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makween Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobreath Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Lol. You're late Makween:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Prentice Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Can I ask the OP what the point of this thread is??? Apart to allow the usual suspects to launch into a defence/attack of our loyalist 'friends'. This is dated April 2005 so why post this now?????I was just enjoying the fact that the first page of jkb was bigot free and then this comes up to allow them to spout their usual garbage again I don't think this is fair. I hadn't heard of this web site and I'm glad it was pointed out. While no doubt it's well meaning I find it annoying and simplistic. I'm no friend of the loyalists and have had them on my case before now. I abhor their politics especially their obsequious, self abasing devotion to authority figures, symbols and structures such as the monarch, the union flag and the British state. It's all pretty pathetic and it's never a surprise to find their figureheads (e.g. Haider) have a closet full of skeletons. Having said that, I didn't have a problem with them booing the minute's silence for the pope. Popes are political figures. Religions are just political philosophies with a bit of mumbo jumbo thrown in. The last Pope's politics sucked while his creation of record numbers of saints also indicate that he was way up on the total loonytunes scale. I didn't boo but I did sit down. I also sat down during the equally distasteful minute's silence for Princess Margaret a few years ago at Tynie. I don't think the earlier comparison with Mugabe was unfair. We should not expect football supporters to show respect to controversial political figures. We'll never all agree on a sliding scale of goodness and badness for all political/religious figures. So best to keep them out of football. Equally worrying is the conflation of sectarianism with racism and the assumption that all attacks on religion or religiosity are to be condemned. In my view all religions are simple minded nonsense. So long as their devotees keep their beliefs to themselves and don't ask me to show "respect" or to alter my behaviour then fine. Invariably however they don't. They do demand "respect" both for their hocus pocus politics and their "leaders" - most of whom appear to be old men in frocks. Most of the people who bood will no doubt have a right go at me when I sit down during the minute's silence for the Queen. Nevertheless I still support their right to boo the one for the pope. The old Voltaire saw " I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is relevant. I'm worried by the support for curbs on free speech that the anti sectarian movement tows along with it. Religion is not race or colour or nationality. You're not born with it. You may have it brainwashed into you by parents, church or state but you can reject it. Ultimately you choose whether or not to subscribe or continue to subscribe to a set of religious beliefs ( a.k.a. a political philosophy with a dash of superstition). Opposing religion is politics not racism. I have little or no time for tories or unionists or christians (of whatever flavour) or muslims. Don't ask me to bow my head or hold my tongue for them or their dead leaders when I just came along to watch the Jambos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4marsbars Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Opposing religion is politics not racism. Interesting post, thanks, food for thought. I agree with your statement that opposing religion is not racism, but context is everything, and, in the context of Scottish football, the boo-ing was bound to be construed as sectarian. And I think that most of it was. Sectarianism, in my view, definitely is part of the same family as racism, the idea that people who are in some way "different" from us are also inferior and / or that it is legitimate to hate them. I attended that game with a neutral (weegie, though) friend who is probably the most committed atheist I know. He would have agreed with your views about religious leaders 110%. But he stood in silence and his response to our fellow fans' performance was that they must be some kind of orange bigots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherlock Posted October 27, 2008 Author Share Posted October 27, 2008 Can I ask the OP what the point of this thread is??? Apart to allow the usual suspects to launch into a defence/attack of our loyalist 'friends'. This is dated April 2005 so why post this now?????I was just enjoying the fact that the first page of jkb was bigot free and then this comes up to allow them to spout their usual garbage again Oh dear. It was the first i had heard of it. I simply asked if anyone else had heard of it. Is that alright by you? Do you want me to PM you the details of any future threads i intend to start just to make sure they meet with your approval? Away and throw sheite at yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bomber Harris Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 still have it as my ring tone - all 26 seconds of it anyway, what happened to their message board - I got a mention on it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Its an interesting debate/discussion/argument/fall out (call it what you will). Personally I think booing simply because it was the Pope who died was wrong, despite the fact that the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church mean nothing to me. I was at the game and for the duration of the "silence" I sat on my erse and did nothing. If I had an abject disapproval of such things (silences) I may have been tempted to boo, but then I would also expect myself to do it in all cases. The booing was wrong, but then again actually having a minute's silence at a football match for a non football person was also wrong, in my opinion. I personally think we were set up that day, I think those who organized it knew what sort of reaction there might be, and right on cue it happened. Within a football stadium a minute's silence should be held for persons who have given something to football, be it in a playing/managing/owning/admin/backroom capacity, whatever. We should only have to show respect for our own, and remember them for what they gave to the game. Anything else and there will be dissenting voices of some kind, that dissent could be based on differing political/religious views, or anything else. The only time you will get a situation within a football stadium where all might feel the silence is fully merited is if the person being remembered did indeed offer something to the football family. There are times and places where all other people can be remembered, by those who wish to remember them, I would respectfully suggest a football stadium is not the best place to pay tribute to a religious leader, unless it is in a country where said religion is the denomination of all present, nor to a political leader/figurehead unless all present were of a like mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 still have it as my ring tone - all 26 seconds of it anyway, what happened to their message board - I got a mention on it Haha. That is a bit of a crap ringtone! Do you not get weird looks when people hear booooooo coming from your pocket? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coppercrutch Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Good points PortobelloJambo1. We must also remember the decision to have a minutes silence was taken by an organisation that is 'commited' to removing religion from football grounds in this country. Religion has no place in football grounds in this country according to them... 'Hypocrisy' does not even come close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Its an interesting debate/discussion/argument/fall out (call it what you will). Personally I think booing simply because it was the Pope who died was wrong, despite the fact that the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church mean nothing to me. I was at the game and for the duration of the "silence" I sat on my erse and did nothing. If I had an abject disapproval of such things (silences) I may have been tempted to boo, but then I would also expect myself to do it in all cases. The booing was wrong, but then again actually having a minute's silence at a football match for a non football person was also wrong, in my opinion. I personally think we were set up that day, I think those who organized it knew what sort of reaction there might be, and right on cue it happened. Within a football stadium a minute's silence should be held for persons who have given something to football, be it in a playing/managing/owning/admin/backroom capacity, whatever. We should only have to show respect for our own, and remember them for what they gave to the game. Anything else and there will be dissenting voices of some kind, that dissent could be based on differing political/religious views, or anything else. The only time you will get a situation within a football stadium where all might feel the silence is fully merited is if the person being remembered did indeed offer something to the football family. There are times and places where all other people can be remembered, by those who wish to remember them, I would respectfully suggest a football stadium is not the best place to pay tribute to a religious leader, unless it is in a country where said religion is the denomination of all present, nor to a political leader/figurehead unless all present were of a like mind. Good post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 While obviously it was wrong to ask for a minutes silence Booing did seem to lack class and be a a bit old fashioned In this day and age the correct way to ignore a request for silence is to talk very loudly into your mobile. When the queen pops her clogs I'll spend the minutes silence like this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboRossi79 Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Its an interesting debate/discussion/argument/fall out (call it what you will). Personally I think booing simply because it was the Pope who died was wrong, despite the fact that the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church mean nothing to me. I was at the game and for the duration of the "silence" I sat on my erse and did nothing. If I had an abject disapproval of such things (silences) I may have been tempted to boo, but then I would also expect myself to do it in all cases. The booing was wrong, but then again actually having a minute's silence at a football match for a non football person was also wrong, in my opinion. I personally think we were set up that day, I think those who organized it knew what sort of reaction there might be, and right on cue it happened. Within a football stadium a minute's silence should be held for persons who have given something to football, be it in a playing/managing/owning/admin/backroom capacity, whatever. We should only have to show respect for our own, and remember them for what they gave to the game. Anything else and there will be dissenting voices of some kind, that dissent could be based on differing political/religious views, or anything else. The only time you will get a situation within a football stadium where all might feel the silence is fully merited is if the person being remembered did indeed offer something to the football family. There are times and places where all other people can be remembered, by those who wish to remember them, I would respectfully suggest a football stadium is not the best place to pay tribute to a religious leader, unless it is in a country where said religion is the denomination of all present, nor to a political leader/figurehead unless all present were of a like mind. Totally agree with everything you wrote Spot on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bomber Harris Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Haha. That is a bit of a crap ringtone! Do you not get weird looks when people hear booooooo coming from your pocket? it's actually not boooooing it's hello hello which gets louder and louder each time it's sung a real quality ring tone When was the last time the JT's made front page news in India Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigC Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 Interesting post, thanks, food for thought. I agree with your statement that opposing religion is not racism, but context is everything, and, in the context of Scottish football, the boo-ing was bound to be construed as sectarian. And I think that most of it was. Sectarianism, in my view, definitely is part of the same family as racism, the idea that people who are in some way "different" from us are also inferior and / or that it is legitimate to hate them. I attended that game with a neutral (weegie, though) friend who is probably the most committed atheist I know. He would have agreed with your views about religious leaders 110%. But he stood in silence and his response to our fellow fans' performance was that they must be some kind of orange bigots. Some excellent posts in this thread especially PJ1 and Ford Prentice (and also coppercrutch). For the record I agree with most of your post the bold bit being the exception, and I also stood silent at that game. I would normally have stayed seated, but I didn't want to be associated with the UJ brigade. Being less friendly towards someone for being black/gay/disabled/English is completely different from being less friendly to someone for holding a particular belief. One is outright prejudice and another is an informed decision based on a knowledge of a persons way of thinking. Personally I would say that I don't hate anyone that I've never met. (Serial killers and other obvious examples excepted). But I can say that I think it would be less likely for me to be friendly to someone who blindly follows certain extreme rules of one particular religion. Examples: I don't hate Muslims as a rule, but I do hate anyone who thinks that the punishment for apostacy (death) is a fair one and should be carried out wherever possible. I don't hate Christians but I would find it difficult to become friends with someone who shares the views of Sarah Palin on abortion - i.e. A girl who is raped by her father should not be allowed to have an abortion. When you talk about a set of religious people, you are really talking about a set of principals they subscribe to because that is all that binds them together. That is their only common trait or feature. And it should NEVER be acceptable to stop people from criticising an ideology. If someone says all Catholics/Jews/Muslims are idiots, what they are really saying is that anyone who subscribes to that idea is an idiot. It's not considered acceptable to say it the first way, but it is acceptable to say the second. In my opinion there is no diiference between the two for the reasons I explained earlier in the post. The only difference is manners, which is essentially what the whole thread was about. Booing the popes silence was bad manners of the highest order, but it wasn't and should never be considered unlawful. But once you start legislating to make bad manners illegal, you start to tread a vey dangerous path. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4marsbars Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 Being less friendly towards someone for being black/gay/disabled/English is completely different from being less friendly to someone for holding a particular belief. . I'd differentiate between sectarianism, which is holding a prejudice about people of an entire religious group, and having an honest disagreement about a religious belief. Sectarianism, e.g. as practised in N Ireland between large numbers of Protestants and Catholics, is more about an irrational globalised reaction to members of a group, because they are something "other". It's framed as a disagreement about doctrine, but clearly it isn't. Hating anyone forms no part of any official version of Protestantism, for example. But you can legitimately hold certain religious views in contempt (e.g. your opinions about S Palin) without being in any way sectarian. And, as is clear from this thread, one of the cleverest ruses of our boo-the-Pope element is that they disguise their petty sectarianism as a disagreement about religious belief and, god help us, their right to free speech. But once you start legislating to make bad manners illegal, you start to tread a vey dangerous path. I quite agree. Sectarianism in Scottish football has to be resisted, but criminalising the petty stuff is not the best way. Discussing it here may not always be very productive either, a trap I too easily fall into (again). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coppercrutch Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 I'd differentiate between sectarianism, which is holding a prejudice about people of an entire religious group, and having an honest disagreement about a religious belief. Sectarianism, e.g. as practised in N Ireland between large numbers of Protestants and Catholics, is more about an irrational globalised reaction to members of a group, because they are something "other". It's framed as a disagreement about doctrine, but clearly it isn't. Hating anyone forms no part of any official version of Protestantism, for example. But you can legitimately hold certain religious views in contempt (e.g. your opinions about S Palin) without being in any way sectarian. And, as is clear from this thread, one of the cleverest ruses of our boo-the-Pope element is that they disguise their petty sectarianism as a disagreement about religious belief and, god help us, their right to free speech. I quite agree. Sectarianism in Scottish football has to be resisted, but criminalising the petty stuff is not the best way. Discussing it here may not always be very productive either, a trap I too easily fall into (again). I actually think most of what goes on in NI is more to do with Politics. One side just happen to mostly sit with one religion. The other side sits with another. Hence it is the easist thing to pick out when defining the 'conflict'. IMO it is more to do with whether parts of ireland are part of the UK or not, rather than what Church someone goes to. (These days anyway) Religion just seems to be the easiest way to badge someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest S.U.S.S. Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 it's actually not boooooing it's hello hello which gets louder and louder each time it's sung a real quality ring tone When was the last time the JT's made front page news in India Where on earth did you get an mp3 of that? I wouldnt have thought anyone had their phone on record for a minutes silence. you live and learn:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.