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.

 

Rooney banned from talking about religion

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Rooney banned from talking about religion


www.brisbanetimes.com. au


England striker Wayne Rooney was blocked from discussing his religious beliefs by a Football Association official at the World Cup.

Rooney had offered an insight into his Catholic faith by explaining why he wears a prominent cross and rosary beads around his neck when he's not playing. He said: "I've been wearing them for about four years now and you don't usually watch training (to see them.) I obviously can't wear them in games. It's my religion."

That prompted a further question.

But Mark Whittle, the FA's head of media relations, interrupted Rooney in the off-camera briefing by saying: "We don't do religion."
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 17-6-2010 by v01i0]




posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 08:15 AM
link   
I am posting this even I know what kind of debate this may ignite. It'll be interesting to see what religious people will think about this, and on the contrary, how those against religions may find this appropriate action.

Does religion belong in football? Why Rooney couldn't talk about his views? What about freedom of speech and expression? I am bit surprised to see that if this is FA politics, howcome he can wear the cross around his neck? He can't, except when training.

-v

www.brisbanetimes.com. au
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 08:52 AM
link   
But if he was a Muslim it would either be applauded or would be allowed without question. Again double standards was are free to follow which ever religion we wish, idiots and civil servant wannabes at the football federation should hold their forked tounges.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by On the level
But if he was a Muslim it would either be applauded or would be allowed without question. Again double standards was are free to follow which ever religion we wish, idiots and civil servant wannabes at the football federation should hold their forked tounges.


this I agree ... if he was a muslim they wont say # ...

but I dont agree with any religion, just telling the truth



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by v01i0
 


I'm an Atheist and I don't have a problem with anyone spouting their nonsense, so long as I have a way to 'block my ears' so to speak.

However, in this case, he's probably 'on the job', and so has to follow certain rules. You'd have to read his contract to know whether he has a right to discuss certain topics while 'on the clock' or not. Really no way to tell. I don't see this as a big deal.

Now if it was a private citizen being silenced by government, THEN you have a problem.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 08:58 AM
link   
This may be interesting to discuss.

It occurs to me that religion belongs wherever the religious are. The freedom to express your beliefs, inclinations, and that which a person feels is important seems to be suspect the minute a person speaks of their faith.

If players wore 'in memory of' ribbons for breast cancer, autism, P.O.W.'s, Gay rights, or other such things, many would applaud the 'reminder'; but if he chooses to wear a cross, or rosaries as encouraged by his faith, it becomes somehow a problem.... Something his 'leadership' can declare "we don't do."

Seems a bias, not against a particular religion, but religious belief in general. It reminds me of the repressive doctrines of the former Soviet Union, where religion was shunned.

Why is that exactly? What possible harm could come from speaking about one's faith?

I hope others can illuminate the rationale, because I think restricting expression in this way, smacks of a denial of a person's right, and more troubling, the denial is born of something antithetical to freedom.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 09:07 AM
link   
It is almost like there are unseen forces at work coaxing people to become less or untolerant of anything religion...

A slow sterilization of religion from any public forum or place where people hear others speak..

First it was being cleansed from any forms of government,
now it is being demured by others. At least it seems we hear about it more than ever before and being shunned like Maxmars said above.

Pretty strange indeed..



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Well sports in general can also be pretty bad. Sports riots mostly, flipped cars etc. I find the riots childish, but people are ignorant and ignorance begets violence..

Religions of the world are programs for people to follow and be distracted from Dialectic Materialism.

I find Christianity an odd one since some of the books of the Bible are left out, the Book of Thomas and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Those are ones I know of, and there is likely more in the Vatican Libraries.

I personally am Buddhist since it is more a philosophy on life and there is no mindless worship. Except mindless meditation, which I think is beneficial just from the relaxation I get.

Religions shouldn't have a place in the world since most controversies were because of religions.

Lets go back to the Crusades, Christians were brutally killing people for paper documents that were signed for land.

The Jewish Zionists play a real-estate game. You sign a Mort-Gauge (a death pledge) and they control money and the economy (it is corporate Fascism). So the point of the crusades was to find pieces of paper so that property may be kept and not stolen out from under them. It's Usury and it is fairly common throughout the world and its history.


Edited to add: If people want to have a religion it should be on their own time and in their private life. Religion is a choice and should be talked about in other situations. Like a previous poster said, perhaps it was in the contract of air time.

[edit on 17-6-2010 by Quickfix]

[edit on 17-6-2010 by Quickfix]



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   
What the hell is wrong with FIFA lately?


First they allow those stupid vuvuzela horns, than they put Dutch girls in jail for so called "commercial" orange dresses (that had no visible sponsor name).

And now it's the second time the FIFA tells people what not to talk about.


Something is obviously wrong at that organization.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   
I'm not a fan of religion, but he should be able to talk all he wants about his own personal beliefs. I can't imagine anything he said or was about to say was going to be in any way offensive. This sort of thing would never be allowed in the U.S., but not every place has the same sort of First Amendment guarantees that we do.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


I agree Max, if the pope would visit the a football match he could keep his cross on his neck and they would even make a shot of it because it's great advertising.

The current Hypo-crisis makes me sick.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quickfix


Religions shouldn't have a place in the world since most controversies were because of religions.




With all due respect for your position; I disagree with this statement.

Yes, people have performed mental gymnastics to justify their warped take on reality and use the least concrete form of justification possible - faith. The religion itself did not do it; people HAD to act on it. In most of the cases you cited, people did. But not all.

Religions are what people make of them, much as ideologies in general.

The problem has never been the search for unity with God, or the universe, the problem lies in the searchers, the proclaimers of the ends justifying the means, those absolutists who insist that their dictum carries the infallibility of deification, and that not only can they not be wrong, but to disagree is everything from an affront to blasphemy.... sort of like many atheists, fundamentalists, and political partisans we encounter.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   
If Rooney is a devout Christian he's going to have to take a stand.

The question begging to be asked?

Will he?

You can be sure if he was a Muslim he would....

peace



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   
It's not necesarrily FIFA just that Media Relations individual
maybe he was just too quick to jump the gun

Anyone should be able to say whatever they want



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by v01i0
 


It wasn't a private interview, it was interview being conducted officially for the team. I like the teams approach not talking about religion at all..what does religion has to do with sports? If it was a private interview it would be something else...the player can talk about his sex life, what color socks he is wearing, what's his underwear size etc. but it's not. I don't see a problem here.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


I think that the "ban" was put in place because of the unifying nature of the sport, and that it is and has been for some time now, non political and non religious, or at least, it aspires to be.

Because of this, it's entirely possible that some FA (Football Association, England) jobsworth has decided that to make too much of a high profile players religion could have the effect of "non-unifying" different religions.

In England, we know that our FA are proper little jobsworths, who follow every FIFA directive to the letter, without applying common sense.

The result of this is that Rooneys faith has become news, which it probably wouldn't have been if the guy from the FA had just kept his gob shut.

I do so love the irony of backfiring beuarocracy.




[edit on 17/6/2010 by budski]



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by name pending

..what does religion has to do with sports?



The point I was making that it is not up to us what anyone's religion has to do with their lives (sports or otherwise) it's up to them, and they should be free of constraints in expressing that matter.

"We" shouldn't have the "power" to "tell" anyone that their own definition of themselves (including their faith, if that is of personal value to them) is subject to restriction because of other people's similar but distinct convictions.

It's not a matter of what does it have to do with sports... it's a matter of what it has to do with the individual. If that is his inspiration or a significant aspect of his life and conduct it has EVERYTHING to do with WHATEVER that person does. Restricting a person's ability to say so seems ridiculously repressive; especially if the injunction is 'institutionalized' as some sort of quasi-'virtue'.

Why should it be of anyone's concern that he be silenced form expressing who he is? If you don't want to know, don't ask.

But in the end this is much ado about nothing. I doubt many people will give it a second thought. It seems more like having a spiritual conviction is becoming akin to being homosexual in the early 20th century... keep it in the closet, society can't cope with individual choices, so we won't discuss them.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


In the end people still kill in the name of God, or Allah or what ever label you wish to give the so called holy deity.

I said most controversies, not all.

I try to explain it better then what I previously posted.

Christians are manipulated by the Jewish Zionists. How is religion not a main cause of killing?

Let me give you some Jewish Laws in their holy books.

www.akhlah.com...

here is a link.

The most prominent is Jubilee which is supposed to be forgiveness of our debtors on the 7th year of labor. But the Zionist Jews let it go forever and then enslave your children to pay for your debt that you owe. Usury is punishable by death, usury is used to collapse countries and starve Millions of people at a time, that is the real art of war.

And the Jewish Religion gives rules (about 615 laws not all include finances) about finances and everything, they have been doing this usury game for about 2,000+ years and have gotten extremely proficient at it.

They bring about foreclosures, the court system (also copied from the Temple, priests, Pharisees, and Sagasis. Judges, Lawyers, and clerks of the court), the money system, the military industrial complex, It all came from the Jewish Zionists...

As if invaded by a foreign foe, Trading with the Enemy Act and the Patriot Act. You are an Enemy of the U.S. corporate elite which is run by the Zionist Jew's which hail from Israel.

The Rothschild banking family actually comes from one of the money changers at the temple Jesus was supposedly at.

It is all bloodline lineage and the passing on of ones assets to their family to continue their banking rule.

I respect your opinion, but I just see what is and make my own assessments. People can agree or disagree, I does not effect me either way. I just try and spread the truth of what happens and why it happens.

Follow the money.




[edit on 17-6-2010 by Quickfix]

[edit on 17-6-2010 by Quickfix]

[edit on 17-6-2010 by Quickfix]

[edit on 17-6-2010 by Quickfix]



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Good.

I wish this site (ATS) had a ban on talking about Religion.

Religion is completely asinine.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Quickfix
 


I cannot refute that people kill in the name of religion; it is the most convenient of all excuses. That, and political ideology.

But why people claim to kill, and why they kill are two separate things.

Hate is the number one reason, pride the next.

I understand your position and it is not entirely invalid, (although it seems rather black and white) but that is not all that religion (or anything else for that matter) does.

Religion is neither good nor bad. It is the people who adopt it, and what they do that makes the problem. Unless you are among those who feel that faith of any kind is 'evil' (which I find ironic in that as axioms go, that's pretty 'religious'.)

Not trying to change your mind, just expanding on my perception. Thanks for keeping it logical.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join