So you're saying Hoddle saying disabled people sinned in a past life and are facing their punishment is right?. It's his religious beliefs after all.
He made some pretty offensive remarks, and that cost him the England job. But that was bloody years ago man. Isn't he entitled to get on with his life after all this time?
Yes, and all that stuff Charles Manson did, that was years ago, forgive and forget yeah? Anyway, I'd like to point out that I didn't actually bring it up, and I only chimed in after Saintupnorth started defending his beliefs.
Charles Manson? He got life didn't he? The punishment is supposed to fit the crime, in his case it did. anyway, good luck to Glenda. Lest we forget, he was a truly great player, very much in the mode of our own Saint Matt, who let's face it has made a few gaffs himself.
Blimey! I didn't realise that nowadays the sadistic, ritualistic murder of a pregnant girl was seen as the moral equivalent of causing offence by making an ill-advised and confused statement. I must be getting old!
Yes, because that's clearly what I was saying. My point is that a person shouldn't just be absolved of blame or criticism for something merely because some time has passed. It wasn't an ill-advised and confused statement, it was a statement which he clearly believed, and it's perfectly reasonable to assume that he hasn't changed a whole since then. It takes pretty some twisted morals to make the statement he made.
Hoddle was wrong in being drawn in to a discussion with a journalist on something like this. He apologised and explained that his comments were misrepresented, misconstrued and misreported - wouldn't be the first time this has happened in the media. If a journalist asks questions in the right way they are very skilled at making the story the way they want. Not condoning the words just suggesting there is often more than one side to a story like this. I hope he gets the job, his style of football would fit perfectly with the forest history and I hope he can get them back where they belong along side us in the top flight.
He had a confused understanding of reincarnation and karma. He didn't commit a crime. We, the public, have forgiven footballers for worse things.
Yes, newspapers can exaggerate things, but the news they print has to be based upon true facts. Hoddle also got in trouble more recently for saying something stupid about Chinese people live on air didn't he? I think it was going a little far for the media to call it a racist comment, but I think it says plenty about what he's like as a person.
So we can agree he's a bit of a knob? He should keep his mouth shut and get on with his job- if he's allowed to be rehabilitated into society, following his "crime"
Whilst I don't condone what he said, he's a football manager, not a politician or important public figure who'se decisions affect peoples lives. The England manager's job is one of significant national importance. The Forest job is not. Adolf Hitler can have it for all I care.
Just like to point out I was not defending hoddles opinions just pointing out that mocking and abusing someone's personal beliefs because you don't agree with it,is not right ,I'm not religious at all but respect others beliefs even if I don't agree ,I find the abuse on here at times disrespectful, childish and at times moronic ,no wonder football fans are regarded by the general public as thick yobs like the players they follow
I'm partially in agreement with this. However, some people have beliefs which you just cannot defend. There are plenty of decent Christians, Muslims, etc. who are entitled to their beliefs and I wouldn't argue with them even if I don't think they're correct, but some people have beliefs that are just unacceptable and you can't defend these people. If your religion leads you to have derogatory beliefs about people who are disabled, gay, of a different religion to you, or whatever, then you deserve to have your opinions mocked. Just as a random example, Mormons have stupid, offensive beliefs and I will gladly mock them. On the other hand Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is a respectable man with respectable opinions. I don't agree with his opinions, but I see no reason to mock them.
When a persons belief insults others then people have a right to have a go. Just because it's some one's beliefs religious or not do's not give them free reign to spew vile at others. I respect all beliefs up until that point.
Why not mock the mainstream religions? For example: Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" - That offends me more than Joseph Smith and his ilk. Or how about,from The Hadith.... Tabari 7:97 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, "Kill any Jew who falls under your power." Seems that some people had a problem with other religions. This sort of thing doesn't fall into the unacceptable category? What's your particular problem with the Mormons (other than the Osmonds)?
Yeah but it's only the very radical fundamentalists who believe that stuff. Most modern Christians and Muslims realise that you can't interpret every word of their holy book literally. Those who do are obviously very evil people. The Mormons have some ridiculous beliefs, such as that black people are the descendants of Cain, and their skin is tainted black because of their evil ancestry. Mitt Romney (yes, the future most powerful man in the world possibly) had his own Grandfather given a posthumous Mormon baptism, because he had lived as an atheist.
