Apostles is Latin for up arseholes I believe ..
Current Affairs LGBTQ Good Religion Bad - discuss
- Thread starter Bedfordblue
- Start date
- Status
Tommy Chong
Player Valuation: £70m
I can almost hear your little yelp of excitement as you rush to the keyboard to exclaim your offence.
I sense a paddlin coming soon ….
d34noj
Player Valuation: £40m
There's quite a few of those on here.
Tommy Chong
Player Valuation: £70m
Don't forget this verse, mate...
Can't remember which book it's from, but it's somewhere in there.
If I can try to be somewhat serious... this is one of those things where lots of silly (or at least misguided) things overlap and generate a controversy out of nothing.
1. The FA probably shouldn't need to push things like rainbow captain's armbands. It's like big brands adopting rainbow logos in Pride month, it's not like the organisations really care about the message, it's about being seen to be behind it.
2. Rules like no political, religious messages etc are those well-meaning ones seeking to stop anything controversial but end up becoming political (and controversial) themselves. It's like how Eurovision didn't want to kick Russia out of the competition at first because it would be a political move, but then when a host of other countries threatened to boycott they backed down and did it anyway, because the message was too big for the ban.
3. A footballer isn't being denied freedom of religion if they can't write a special message for Jesus on their clothes. Nor even freedom from expression, as these are rules made up by a private organisation, not a government agency.
4. On the other hand, I don't think it's particularly offensive for a religious person to wear slogans or symbols in support of their own beliefs. As an athiest I find it weird to be that into it, but knock yourself out.
So in summary it's like this:
A message of love for Jesus shouldn't be a problem except the FA have banned political or religious messages because they could include things that are controversial even though they run their own campaigns that include inclusive messaging that really shouldn't be controversional but somehow is; also, his rationale might have been to undercut or subvert the intend rainbow message of inclusivity but also might not, and there's no way to know, but of course he could have just not worn the rainbow armband, but maybe that would have been worse, or not who knows; but I'm sure whatever your view of any of the above you'd agree that the armband message doesn't really need to be written anyway because either Jesus knows that Guehi loves him regardless of whether it's written down or doesn't even exist except as maybe a long-dead man and is therefore unable to react one way or the other to such a professed ideal.
1. The FA probably shouldn't need to push things like rainbow captain's armbands. It's like big brands adopting rainbow logos in Pride month, it's not like the organisations really care about the message, it's about being seen to be behind it.
2. Rules like no political, religious messages etc are those well-meaning ones seeking to stop anything controversial but end up becoming political (and controversial) themselves. It's like how Eurovision didn't want to kick Russia out of the competition at first because it would be a political move, but then when a host of other countries threatened to boycott they backed down and did it anyway, because the message was too big for the ban.
3. A footballer isn't being denied freedom of religion if they can't write a special message for Jesus on their clothes. Nor even freedom from expression, as these are rules made up by a private organisation, not a government agency.
4. On the other hand, I don't think it's particularly offensive for a religious person to wear slogans or symbols in support of their own beliefs. As an athiest I find it weird to be that into it, but knock yourself out.
So in summary it's like this:
A message of love for Jesus shouldn't be a problem except the FA have banned political or religious messages because they could include things that are controversial even though they run their own campaigns that include inclusive messaging that really shouldn't be controversional but somehow is; also, his rationale might have been to undercut or subvert the intend rainbow message of inclusivity but also might not, and there's no way to know, but of course he could have just not worn the rainbow armband, but maybe that would have been worse, or not who knows; but I'm sure whatever your view of any of the above you'd agree that the armband message doesn't really need to be written anyway because either Jesus knows that Guehi loves him regardless of whether it's written down or doesn't even exist except as maybe a long-dead man and is therefore unable to react one way or the other to such a professed ideal.
I’d love to hear Jordan Henderson’s view on all this.
In terms of the actual discussion at hand, pff I don't even know anymore.
LGBT+ support from big corporations, as I've said in other threads, is of course mostly performative. I do think it's a good thing despite this, as I firmly believe that visibility is inherently a good thing regardless of the sincerity of message.
But should people be compelled to support causes? I'm not too sure on that to be honest.
It says a lot about you as a person, mind, if you chose not to.
In this case, though, it's the captains armband issued by the PL which has pride messaging as part of the design. The article says that it is 'optional' for players to wear the armband.
In this case he has not been compelled to wear it, but has chosen to deface it with his own religious message, regardless of his intent (which hasn't been clarified btw)
That's the important thing to remember here. He chose to wear the armband.
LGBT+ support from big corporations, as I've said in other threads, is of course mostly performative. I do think it's a good thing despite this, as I firmly believe that visibility is inherently a good thing regardless of the sincerity of message.
But should people be compelled to support causes? I'm not too sure on that to be honest.
It says a lot about you as a person, mind, if you chose not to.
In this case, though, it's the captains armband issued by the PL which has pride messaging as part of the design. The article says that it is 'optional' for players to wear the armband.
In this case he has not been compelled to wear it, but has chosen to deface it with his own religious message, regardless of his intent (which hasn't been clarified btw)
That's the important thing to remember here. He chose to wear the armband.
Oh my days
Laugh emoji reactions incoming.
Monday - certain group of football fans - how can they force footballers to wear rainbow armbands, it's not right I tell ya.
Tuesday - the same group of football fans - How dare James McLean not wear the poppy, it's not right I tell ya.
If you ban any societal messaging on players, you have to ban it all. Picking and choosing wont work.
Tuesday - the same group of football fans - How dare James McLean not wear the poppy, it's not right I tell ya.
If you ban any societal messaging on players, you have to ban it all. Picking and choosing wont work.
- Status