It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Religous intolerence in Scottish football

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 03:33 PM
link   


The Catholic Church has criticised Scottish prosecutors for cautioning a Celtic goalkeeper who crossed himself during a match against Rangers.
Artur Boruc was cautioned for a breach of the peace over the incident at an Old Firm match at Ibrox in February.

The Catholic Church called it "worrying and alarming" as the sign of the cross was a "gesture of religious reverence".

However, the Crown Office said the decision was based on the player's behaviour, rather than a single act.

Source.


Ahh, sectarianism. Now, I am well aware of the religious significance of the two main football teams in Scotland. For those who do not:



The rivalry between Glasgow clubs Rangers and Celtic - known collectively as the Old Firm - is historically tied up in religion.

Celtic were formed in 1888 by Irish Catholic immigrants who began emigrating to the West of Scotland in the 1840s and their descendants.

Rangers, who were formed in 1873, have always been perceived as "the Protestant club" and Celtic "the Catholic club".

Up until 1989, when Mo Johnston signed for them, Rangers had never fielded a high-profile Catholic player.
Source.


Now, ok, it's a murky subject, however I find it most distasteful that a man can be cautioned for crossing himself. Crossing yourself is a globally recognised gesture of religious significance, and to my mind, if we are to be free to practice any religion we want, then as long as we do no harm, we should be allowed to practice whenever, and however we please.

I am not a religious person. To be blunt, I find most religion faintly ridiculous, however, it's obvious to me, regardless of context, that it is completely wrong for someone to be charged for practicing, or displaying their own personal faith. This is an action that curbs personal freedoms, and can have nothing but a negative impact on religious tolerance. What next? Could a Sikh be cautioned for wearing a turban simply because someone else has decreed that it is the wrong place for such displays religious belief? Where do we draw the line? Is this a step towards outlawing personal faith?




posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   
When I was young, I had no sense

I bought a flute, for 40 pence

and the only tune, that I could play

was #$+@ the queen and the U.D.A.


CELTIC!!!!!!



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Thanks for the input Mcphisto, however, I can't help but think that you may have missed the point.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Yes I did miss the point sorry.


Here is my view on this. I think it is a case of overkill by the police, but saying that I have not seen the way he crossed himself, and if it was done to wind up the opposing fans I can see where the police are coming from. I was banned for 3 yrs from every ground in the England and Wales for football hooliganism and I can vouch for the fact that too much beer, and one wrong word from someone and the fists fly!

I am not proud of my little run-in with the law, but now I am older and wiser, I know exactly what they have to deal with. And I bet you that, you can muliply that x10 for an Old Firm derby in Scotland!

McP



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Mcphisto, speaking as a Celtic fan myself, your first post in this thread is frankly an embarrassment. You think coming out with crap like that makes you any better than any other bigots?

This whole episode is an embarrassment to Scotland, though at the same time, in my opinion, it’s indicative of the sea change in attitudes toward the problem. Not the act or the complaints from the bigots, but the overall public reaction to a complaint that in the past would have been viewed as no big deal.

I wrote a bit of a long winded post on this, but wiped it as the history of the Catholic/Protestant divide in the west of Scotland is too long and complicated to go into, but it's basically a spill over from the Northern Ireland religious divide.

The sad basis of this is that a bigoted section of Rangers fans complained that Boruc making the sign of the cross in front them was inflammatory because he didn’t take into account their intolerance of his religion. It really is that stupid.

This episode is repugnant and disturbing, but not any more so than what has gone on in the west of Scotland in the last couple of centuries without as much as a blink of an eye from any authority.

Even in the last couple of decades the view was "well that's just the way it is"

The last fifty years has seen almost the complete elimination of religious bigotry from the workplace and government, the only place it remains is in a very small minority of football fans, and with Rangers public chastisement and fine for discriminatory chanting by UEFA (against Valencia), and cases like this gaining more attention, it won't be long till it's gone completely.

My hope is that Boruc takes this case to court so it can be aired in public. It’s the only way to expose the last vestiges of religious bigotry for what it is.

The bigotry on both sides is dying as the younger generations come through, these are the death throes, not the start of anything new.

As a lifelong Celtic fan, I obviously have a bias in this, but as Mcphisto has inadvertently pointed out, Celtic fans have their fair share of bigots to sort out too.


[edit on 26-8-2006 by kegs]



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 09:29 PM
link   
When I was young, I had no sense

I bought a flute, for 40 pence

and the only tune, that I could play

was #$+@ the Pope and I.R.A.

Make you feel better? If not get over it!



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Well done Mcphisto, here have a biscuit.

You just proved my point there. Is one version better than the other?

And you call yourself a Celtic fan.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Like I said, get over it.

Maybe I got more reason to be angry than you. Ever thought of that? Or can I spend time in your bubble too?


I am not gonna have a head-butting compo with you, so this is it for me.

Thanks for the biscuit.

McP



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Anger? I've many reasons for anger mate, I live in darkest Ayrshire. But you're right enough; it's not a pissing contest.

Just ask yourself what you're actually going to achieve with the repetition of such BS? Is the constant one up manship really worth it?

Does it get you, or indeed anyone, anywhere?




[edit on 26-8-2006 by kegs]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 01:06 AM
link   
Thanks for the insight there. I thought twice about posting this, because the situation in Scottish football is a complicated one, and I don't profess to know all the details, or indeed, half of the details.

My point really, was that this guy, regardless of situation, was cautioned by police for making a religious gesture, one carried out by millions worldwide daily. Could a judgement like this form some sort of precedent? Is it a sign of the state turning against either organised religion, or personal faith? Is this an area in which the law has any business at all?



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 07:29 AM
link   
OK I am going to "gang quote" here because all the comments are interrelated


I can't help but think that you may have missed the point.

but it's basically a spill over from the Northern Ireland religious divide.

My point really, was that this guy, regardless of situation, was cautioned by police for making a religious gesture,


It seems obvious that all have missed one critical point that was barely mentioned then passed over for the "religious" spin. According to the article there were actions by this player prior to the crossing event that were in question.

While it may have connections to the Irish situation it has roots far deeper than that.
Roots that reach as far back as the fight between Robert Bruce(Celtic church) and
Edward Longshanks(catholic) and possibly even deeper, to the Arthur (catholic?) and
Modred(Celtic ) dispute.

His caution was ( again according to the piece) for attempting to " Incite a riot." what were the other actions of his that were included in the cummulative action? Video
is mentioned butno link is provided.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   
The bigotry within scottish football has not really anything to do with religion. It has more to do with which team you support. The religious connotations were, as was mentioned before, attached to these teams many years ago.
Most team supporters aren't even religious but they will still defend the teams perceived religion as they would defend the team. So the fact that this guy crosses himself is more of a "up yours" to the other team than any religious act.




G



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   
I thought I should perhaps update this thread.



Celtic goalkeeper Artur Boruc was cautioned for inciting an Old Firm crowd rather than for blessing himself, the Crown Office has stressed.

In a statement issued on Monday, it said the "very limited" action had been taken against the player for gesticulating at the Rangers support.

He had also blessed himself in the incident during the Ibrox match.

But the Crown Office stressed it would not take action against individuals for "acts of religious observance".

Source.


It now seems a cynical ploy to wrap these actions in some sort of controversy, and perhaps garner support for the player in question. All restrictions placed on personal freedom should be closely monitored, even if some are willing to use those who care about such freedoms for their own pathetic ends.

[edit on 28/8/06 by Implosion]



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 07:55 AM
link   


Artur Boruc was cautioned for inciting an Old Firm crowd

Again , what actions constituted the " inciting"? There was video mentioned but
seems to be illusive.

A very good friend of mine is from Glasgow, he played for the "minor league " team
of thew Celtic s. First and formost this is a cross town rivalry with all the histrionics
,hatred, and loyalty that still today reigns in No. Ireland, and in the Clanton/ Earp
fued in Tombstone Az.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Well as has been said before there are muppets on either side who claim to be supporters but show their real colours in such a case as this...Hopefully as time goes by these people can be reduced hopefully leaving the real supporters left to enjoy the game.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by stalkingwolf

Again , what actions constituted the " inciting"? There was video mentioned but
seems to be illusive.



If you look at the last source I provided and then look to the right of that page, you'll see a video link.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 08:46 AM
link   
I am not a football (soccer) fan but ....

i'll give you a bit of my experience in a few Irish pubs down here

the pub is full with celtic supporters ( know most of them, most of them Irish, but not only, i've experienced drunk luxemburgers singing IRA friendly songs )

A (few) rangers fan(s) enter the pub wanting to see the game on the pubs wide screen
(how do i know they are rangers fans? , they wear rangers jerseys)
the people i have been chatting with stop smiling and the mumbling starts :

- what the f.... are these huns doing here
- f......ing orange b......rds
- the chanting starts
- the "huns" leave
- celtic supporters cheer

i'm not saying all celtic or rangers fans are sectarian bigots , but that's the sort of experience i had on more than one occasion .

[edit on 29-8-2006 by Hvitserk]



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Unfortunately the combination of alcohol and football provide an unhealthy mix when it comes to these occasions.The vast majority of supporters want to watch the games in peace without the sectarian songs and chanting that goes on but hopefully to be eliminated....one day



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Thanks I had missed that link. It would appear from the video and the article associated with it that his other actions were with the intent to incite and provoke. Given the
events of the last couple World Cups, Imo, the officials acted properly.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 09:50 PM
link   


Well as has been said before there are muppets on either side who claim to be supporters but show their real colours in such a case as this...Hopefully as time goes by these people can be reduced hopefully leaving the real supporters left to enjoy the game.


This goes way beyond football.

When has it become a crime to cross yourself?

If you think it will go away then your mistaken.

Both these sides have along history of Sectarianism.

This goes right across Scotland not just at the old firm matches.

Next they will prosicute you if you cross yourself at say a swimming gala just because someone in the crowd gets annoyed over it. Pc Grade once again going OTT. Weither you agree with it or not, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But it will take years before this changes. And I for one cannot see it happenning.

[edit on 14-9-2006 by spencerjohnstone]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join