There comes a time during any endeavour when you have to ask, is this worth all the hassle? News revealed by Phil MacGiollabhain last week and swiftly picked up by the newspapers today that an SFA executive has had his life threatened for what some regard as holding a firm line on application of the game’s rules, are one of these occasions.
This is sport, it is not the struggle against apartheid. It really, really, isn’t worth putting your life on the line for.
The SFA executive who received the threat has not been named but he will hopefully find a degree of fortitude in the face of such intimidation. We have called for resignations from the SFA but not under these circumstances. If the recipient of the threat continues to work as normal they should be commended for their bravery.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to put football back on solid ground but whatever our game looks like in future, it must take on a different face. Ordinary football fans want their sport back, a sport where honesty and endeavour can be rewarded by success on the field.
That will have consequences for us. Celtic are far too powerful for any other club in Scotland to genuinely compete. 35 of our 41 clubs figured out they can do without Rangers and 34 of them know they can do without Celtic too.
They should remind Sevco rules are there for a reason and tell Celtic to stop mumbling about finding another league to play in and go do something about it. I could not be more convinced that every other club in Scotland would be better off if Celtic Park and Ibrox didn’t exist.
Question is, do the rest of the clubs have the balls to do something about it? Is the ‘Arab Spring in Scottish football’ over, or does it still have another chapter?
1,234 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- ...
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- ...
- 33
- »
Neil canamalar Lennon hunskelper extrordinaire on 25 July, 2012 at 22:23 said:
Percy Vere,
if marriage is just a word, why not just secularise the communion of two people as a union, rather than homogenise the word
—————————————————————————
I don’t know why folk seem to want to attribute views to me that I haven’t expressed. I don’t see marriage as just a word. Whilst I’m not a big fan of marriage, I fully accept, and respect, that for many others it has a great significance. I just don’t see why, given that marriage is open to secular heterosexual couples, it shouldn’t be open to homosexual couples.
————————————————————————–
The Olympic Pimpernel on 25 July, 2012 at 22:36 said:
Percy Vere.
Are you a Catholic, practising or otherwise?
————————————————————————–
No. I was a practising Catholic until my early twenties, when I found I could not reconcile my beliefs on a variety of issues with the Churches teachings.
—————————————————————————
Dontbrattbakkinanger on 25 July, 2012 at 22:56 said:
The views of the RC church on this [ gay marriage] are the same as those of other denominations and faiths [Kirk,Muslims, Jews]
But for some reason it’s only the pronouncements of the RC church on this issue that get subjected to this level of analysis.
Funny , that.
————————————————————————-
Don’t know if you’re referring to my contributions, but I only got involved in this debate because SonOfDan suggested that the Scottish Government’s decision to legislate for same sex marriage was an attack on Catholics. And there are religions and groups within religions, who support same sex marriage, eg Unitarians, Rabbis, Church of Scotland Ministers.
HH
PV
A House of Steel
Magnificent…,
I expected outrage there :oD)))
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6Tto1JnLXc
Sfunny,
Wen i was in lundin, knaow wot ah mean mate? Knew a couple of gay guys – nicer blokes you couldnt meet. Could tell u a few things about disrimination and bigotry, much like we moan about here. Get a grip of yerselves – and not in that way.
And no, im not.
Any fitba’ oan? :)))
Weefra HH
Peter McMahon, Deputy Editor of The Scotsman is given airtime on Scotland Tonight to spout about the negative effects on the Catholic Church, thus obeying the law not to offend the Church of Scotland, Muslims and other religions.The word ‘equality’ is used. Pah.
His name rings a bell in connection with the bomb threats to Neil, and the attack at Tynecastle. Anyone remember him?
Hamilton Tim
Glad to hear that, although it would appear that theglasgowcelticway disagrees…
theglasgowcelticway on 25 July, 2012 at 23:17 said:
So you agree with the church that discrimination is wrong.Since marriage has now been redefined,do you now think that polygamy,group marriage,polandry and other forms of relationships should be made equal?Should the only prerequisite to marriage now be consent?
why dont you just get to your point, who are the much maligned roman catholic church to tell us how to live our lives.
Worth talking about?
Weefra HH
The bould b`hoys….. Tá ár lá anois..!!! on 25 July, 2012 at 23:22 said:
Magnificent 7
Who’s to say, ones as valid as the other, just like the gay man feels it’s his in his nature..?
To me homosexuality is just as perverse….I admit that I don’t understand it. But each to their own. I don’t agree that the Church should be forced to teach anything other than what it believes to be right though
remember we are not just talking gay men here…….although that seems to be what you have focused on…. I don’t think any church is being forced to do anything
perverse you say……your thinking in linking animals and humans in the same context seems a little perverse to me
One night ole Des mistook some tippex instead of Viagra ….he woke up the next morning with a huge correction …
Hat..coat ..goodnight
Two Gay muggers on argyle st in glasgow,
Mug a middle aged woman
One held her down, and the other done her hair
Few weeks old, just come across this – a newspaper touting players for Celtic. It will never catch on.
http://www.herald.ie/sport/soccer/blazing-bohs-rout-rovers-3154320.html
even hetrosexuals like a bit of kitty
Canamalar
Ma pal you’re mistaken, the Catholic Church aren’t telling you how to live your life.
The Catholic Church has a set of guidelines/rules which it expects those who are active members to follow.
If you ain’t a member you don’t need to pay no dues buddy :-)
News just in…
Marraige didnt start, and is not the sole preserve, of the roman catholic church.
King Priam, Solomon, and.. err.. Mary and Joseph, would disagree
Mate of mine got charged with raping a cat but we knew he was innocent cos he’s never put anything into a kitty in his life.
percyvere,
its the celebration of the intention of procreation, sorry pal but I’ll repeat, until the koran men generally accepted they could not birth.
If they invent a wee blue pill for woman we are all f@c&ed:0)))))))))))))
(thumbsup)
theglasgowcelticway on 25 July, 2012 at 23:17 said:
So you agree with the church that discrimination is wrong.Since marriage has now been redefined,do you now think that polygamy,group marriage,polandry and other forms of relationships should be made equal?Should the only prerequisite to marriage now be consent?
share on F’book or Twitter
————————————————————————–
I think I’ve made it quite clear that I believe discrimination is wrong. As for your second question, no, I don’t. I think I was quite clear earlier that I believe that gay couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples. Bringing in polygamy and polyandry does your argument no favours. My grasp of Latin is more tenuous than many on here, but I believe your last argument was reductio ad absurdum.
HH
PV
Magnificent7
Gay Man/Women….the point still remains. I’m sure that particular example is not exclusive to males.
Yes, I think homosexuality is perverse….. As is beastiality. However, I admittedly could have used a better example like say polygamy.
As I originally said, where do you draw the line. The Church has drawn a line and the Government want to change that.
Neil canamalar Lennon hunskelper extrordinaire on 25 July, 2012 at 23:06 said:
I thought the cornerstones of any religion, and certainly Catholicism, were tolerance and love.
The Catholic Church’s attitude to gays and same-sex marriages shows very little of either.
A bit like its attitude to married priests, or opening up the priesthood to women.
From the Oxford English dictionary;
Definition of marriage
noun
1the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife:
When did wee ‘eck get the authority to rewrite this?
Nothing to do with religion, it’s defined in our language.
Jeg…,
your talking about the teachings of the Christ, who was an unorthidox jew, when he said love they neighbour, I dont think he meant pump him
the interview with Paul67 has been put on the Celtic app.
Mark Hateley say that Polygamy and Polyandry are like two new signings.
Neil canamalar Lennon hunskelper extrordinaire on 25 July, 2012 at 23:39 said:
percyvere,
its the celebration of the intention of procreation, sorry pal but I’ll repeat, until the koran men generally accepted they could not birth.
————————————————————————-
I’m not following you, What is it you think the Qur’an says about men being able to give birth?
HH
PV
Silas,
Who obtained the authority to write this? And why dont we have the same authority to change it? They are only “other men” – no-one has sanctioned them
Feel the love ;)
how can any religon that requires a birthright teach tolerance
percyvere,
you know how to spell it, so you can find clarify if it tells us the second coming (and they do refer to it as the second coming) will be born of an man, please check
Neil canamalar Lennon hunskelper extrordinaire,
Just read back. I see the point you were making….
HH
PV
There’s a second coming?
Ahh hell, how many new religions and oligarchs are gonnie spring from that one
JimmyQuinnsBits on 25 July, 2012 at 23:57 said:
There’s a second coming?
—————-
Only if you eat your greens.
I’m a long since lapsed Catholic. I still think the religion has a lot to offer and I still enjoy feel comfort in the company of practicing Catholics – they have to my mind almost invariably warm and giving people. I envy them their faith at times.
However – I have my severe reservations regarding Catholic Clergy hierarchy – I fear they need to move with the times – religion should provide a moral framework and tools on decision making within that framework – not a didactic approach that tells followers ‘what’ to think.
I’m a live and let live person. I’m not gay or religious but people who are either or both are my equals and should IMO have equal rights..
I don’t feel the new Archbishop will help reverse dwindling congregations in Scotland. His comments today were well out of order and well out of step with public opinion.
Neil canamalar Lennon hunskelper extrordinaire on 25 July, 2012 at 23:45 said:
Good one :) but in a way that’s the point.
The teachings of Christ have been interpreted by men. Mortals. Who are influenced by all the things mere mortals like us are influenced by – the politics of their day, for instance.
You can read the Bible and pull out justification for just about anything, as you can with the Koran and any other sacred text.
And the only neighbours I used to celebrate pumping are the late and unlamented Huns.
How many people have died in the name of religion since the beginning of time. Answer..Bilions. If brainwashing had been banned since the beginning of time??? How many people would ha…..? Well ye get ma drift. Yes I am a Catholic, but not practicing. Honestly, with everything that is going on in the world at the moment, you would think that Learned people that contribute to this site would know better. Ma head is buzzing with this stuff. Night Night.
Weefra HH
Good late evening bhoys & ghirls
Had a fine night out with Smashing Milk Bottles and our 2 main topics of conversations were the death of the huns and how we can help wee Oscar.
Thinking about the latter (laughing about the former) and indeed thinking about Jude2005 comments today about the donations slowing down, we are thinking we need to think outside the box.
So we need your help. Do you sit in block 403 to 408 at CP? If so, and you want to help, can you drop us an email asap at CQNbadges@gmail.com
HH
CRC
I don’t know why anyone is getting worked up about the second coming of Jesus Christ.
Don’t you know it happened in 1914. It’s just that Jesus, when he came back decided to remain invisible.
Just ask the Jehovah’s Witnesses.