Provocative article on BBC website?

Your first four words were further qualified by the remainder of your post which seemed focussed on his lack of tolerance, although at no point have I suggested or stated that you are racist, simply missing the point that it had nothing to do with beliefs other than greed and a desire to break contract and move club.

It is you who has stated your point poorly and then made a rather foolish assumption; I personally believe it is possible to discuss any religion without being accused of racism. Now be careful as you get down off that lofty old horse.

 

I'm afraid this is a disgusting contribution from a moderator. You're as easy to see trough as Agron.

 

Religion is such a ballache. If it gives other people hope in tough times, then I say let them get on with it. But it's caused nothing but trouble since the dawn of time. When you think about the concept of it all, most of it is pretty hilarious. Like people who think the Bible is a play by play of early civilisation. Apparently an elderly man who collected every single species of animal twice and put them on a boat that he built with just the help of his family once walked the Earth.

Whenever I'm confronted by religion, I just remember this quote from the great George Carlin:

"Religion has convinced people that there's an invisible man ... living in the sky. Who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn't want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer, and suffer, and burn, and scream, until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you. He loves you and he needs money."

 

Brilliant quote, Tommy! ^^^^^

I think that if you want a religion, it should be a personal thing - and shouldn't have an effect on others. So that rules out organised religion.

 

In my humble opinion, God seems to be a substitute word for hope. In times that are hard, we manifest hope into a living, all powerful creature, believing that the power we have given this being is enough to solve our problems.

Unless you are a scientologist, in which case you're a dick and you shouldn't be allowed to procreate.

 

Perhaps he was joking?

 

Hmm, are you the guy with two degrees?

 

I hope this is a joke.

I can never tell with you.

 

I'm a guy with two degrees...

 

I'll be troughing in a bit- absolutely Hank Marvin !

 

Prince Charles allegedly had one of the three degrees.

Hope this helps.

 

Nothing like an absurd sweeping statement to invalidate your post......

 

Not really absurd is it? How many wars throughout history have been because of religion?

Even back in 10,000 B.C. there were early civilisations who fought because they believed their belief system was the right way to live.

Can you point to any examples of when religion actually furthered mankind? Think how far ahead we'd be without the Dark Ages having happened. Or without the historical berating of science from the church.

 

One of the problems I see, is the fact that this involves a religion not a race.
With homegrown rules, a team could potentially have an entirely English squad who are all Muslim, you can't just drop the fasting players to the bench then can you? Obviously considerations would have to be made when signing players, like with African players and the ACON, but I'd imagine people being pissed off if their team couldn't sign someone because they already have "too many Muslims".
Also I read that Sikh players are now allowed to play in turbans, (can't think of any pro-footballing Sikhs though) which is fair enough, but is that the usual turban they wear, or just the small black one you see the younger ones wearing? I can't see someone being able to play in the full gear, I doubt they could make a header...
I'm all for equality for everyone, but there's got to be a line when religious acts/ symbolism start to negatively effect your performance.

 

You're almost unwittingly answering your own crude questioning: 'religion' has been used as a pretext for war, conflict and conquest, and continues to do even now (Islam (which curiously seems exempt from criticism from many hostile liberals and atheists (honourable exception Peter Tatchell who has 'dared' to voice his opposition to the sexism and homophobia of Islam when so many of his political allies 'go missing').

Unscrupulous leaders, despots, fanatics and assorted nutters have used a deity to validate and rubberstamp their missions.

It is not the religious texts that are the problem: it is the above loons who use them for their own personal gain.

Similarly, bent clergy and Celtic Football Club use their position or employer to gain access to the vulnerable young.

Is the BBC inherently a peadough company because Stuart Hall and Jimmy Saville used it to molest kids?

Does the BBC charter openly promote kiddy-fiddling?

Or is it just the case that predators have used it for their fiddling?

 

Peadough? Is that like some hippy version of play-doh?

 

But then, what is religion without followers? Christianity wouldn't exist if people didn't believe in it. As soon as one person develops a belief, they are essentially tied to it. If you grow up believing that a monster lives under your bed, you accept it as the norm until somebody proves you wrong. Because religion is theory based, there isn't a way to prove it's right or wrong.

If you take the Bible, specifically the ten commandments, then you have a text which is essentially telling people what to do and how to live. If I'm being blunt, we know stealing is wrong because we've been conditioned to think it is; we've built laws and societies around a text that people believe in and use to make sure their opinion is right. The Bible says "Thou shalt not kill". It doesn't define what species, or in what context killing is wrong. If it was just killing in general, then swatting a fly is a 'mortal sin', comparable to killing an enemy soldier in battle.

In essence (and in my opinion), religion is a totally bollocks concept designed to pray on those who are in desperate need and offer them hope that really isn't there. If a child is starving in Africa, don't sit there praying, go and offer them some ****ing help.

I know this breaks the forum rules, but enforced religion really hacks me off.

 

It has bean used that way.

 

Your beef seems to be with the people who have used 'religion' as a tool to oppress and manipulate people.

You don't need religion to do that.

Why not focus on the positive aspects of religion such as the essentially positive and constructive message many of them contain?

It's silly to focus on a text written two thousand odd years ago and to expect every single word to be relevant, true and applicable.

It's like saying Shakespeare is **** and his work outdated.

It has to be seen in context.

 

On here you are the only guy I have seen claiming to have two degrees, there may have been others, but . . .

. . . Whatever the case, it still seems to make you over-qualified to write some of the ****e you come out with.