What's the score then? Has GOT collectively decide Guéhi should he crucified for his actions?
Current Affairs LGBTQ Good Religion Bad - discuss
- Thread starter Bedfordblue
- Start date
- Status
Sean Ashley
Player Valuation: £8m
Top 5 thread
My own pedantic take:
It might be an extreme view, but I don't find it to be an absurd take. Religion as a social institution has motivated (in part) tons of misery/death if you consider things like the Crusades, the inquisition, and tons of circumstances regarding the colonization of indigenous people. There are numerous other examples (e.g., ISIS). One could argue that this is religion-poorly-practiced as it mixes with political ideology and I wouldn't disagree, but religion certainly has contributed its part to human suffering/death...probably not as much as political ideology though (e.g., China 1959-1961, the great purge, the killing fields, etc., etc.)--which is to say that if religion didn't exist, people would still find reasons to kill/hurt each other, but I do believe religion only has added to this.
I get what you're saying, but I think it comes down to whether the power for evil rests in the hands of people and institutions or if certain institutions are more evil than others. Has religion done more harm than the state? More harm than racism? I would absolutely agree that religion is weaponized for harm, but it seems that rarely is religion the impetus. You could argue that the ability of religion to be weaponized is the fundamental harm and therefore it should be eliminated, but isn't that the same dull reasoning that Thatcher suggested against football?
I should have written this as well, so let me add these thoughts. If religion were more powerful to harm than other institutions, then removing religion would be a net gain for people, society, morality, etc. But I think what we see instead is that people are both innately religious and violent; cf football supporters. Not that I agree with Thatcher, but the observation is true.
Noussair Mazraoui: Manchester United scrap plans for LGBTQ+ jacket after player refuses to wear it
Manchester United abandoned plans to wear a jacket supporting the LGBTQ+ community before the Sunday's win over Everton because a player refused to wear it.
www.bbc.co.uk
To be sure, I wouldn't call for religion to be eliminated, as religion is one of the key things that makes humans human. I do think, though, that it has played its role in human misery and this operates over and above other social institutions that have also played this role--so I do think it is has been an impetus for harm**, and just not rarely so. More simply, religion as a concept isn't inherently more evil (and is likely less) than political ideology as a concept, but people have done bad things in the name of religion (just as they have in the name of politics) and in some cases there are inherent teachings in religions that create misery/death--an extreme case being Aztec and other religions requiring human sacrifices to appease the Gods. But eliminating religion is clearly not the answer, any more than is trying to eliminate political ideology, etc.
**it has obviously also been an impetus for good, but that's a different topic.
Personally I'd prefer no taking the knee, no rainbow armbands, no sponsorship logos etc.
I just want to watch people kick a footy around, occasionally into someone's net other than Evertons.
I just want to watch people kick a footy around, occasionally into someone's net other than Evertons.
Personally myself i feel we do want people who identify as LGBT to feel safe and welcome at a football match.
So i think anyone who has a problem with these sort of things and initiatives, well it reflects kind of poorly on them imo.
So i think anyone who has a problem with these sort of things and initiatives, well it reflects kind of poorly on them imo.
Meanwhile...
Efcjake
Player Valuation: £80m
With you so far.Statistically, depending on who one listens to, probably 10% of the population is LGBTO+, and I know that in Ladies' football there are many who are, thankfully, quite comfortable with declaring that they are gay - 12% in last year's World Cup for example.
Record number of out-LGBTQ+ athletes will compete in 2023 FIFA Women’s World Cup
A record number of out LGBTQ+ players will compete in the 2023 FIFA Women’s World Cup in Australia and New Zealand.www.thepinknews.com
The men are much less likely to be open, and I agree we should support creation of an atmosphere in male football, where men are not afraid to be open.
What are the unintended consequences wearing a rainbow armband symbol can lead to pal?
"It's the war on Christmas" now.... alright. I'm just going to ignore that nonsense.
You are correct to say "Intolerance is wrong, but intolerance of someone who for personal reasons opts out of a particular initiative is equally wrong." I think that's fair. I do think that categorizing what Guehi did as "intolerance of someone who for personal reasons opts out of a particular initiative" is sweeping the act of replacing the armband's message with his own about his religious views under the rug. The Ipswich captain didn't want to wear it, just like Gana didn't want to wear any of the rainbow PSG stuff, fair enough I don't like their intolerance but I don't think criticism is the way forward.
I do, however, think it is fair to have a go at Guehi for the act of disrespecting and defacing the armband, regardless of what he wrote on the armband I find the act of doing that and trying to take over the message the armband was trying to send to be a move of very poor taste. There are plenty of times and opportunities afforded to Guehi to communicate his love of Jesus, writing over the rainbow armband is a very disrespectful way to do it and he should be called out for that.
- Status