bmck

You say 'we', but you're not really included, just us. You're anonymous. I ask honestly, would you turn round and chastise the real person next to you at a Rangers game for going quiet when the word came up in a song as playing into their hands or are you only as bold as this when it's easy? I don't know you, obviously, so I can't say.

Alrighty troops. I can't promise anything will follow from it, but let's have a discussion about whether the F word should be starred out. This isn't a discussion about whether the word is sectarian, but rather whether it should be starred out. I'm not sure what my own position on the whole thing is, but here's why it is starred out as I understand it: 1) In the prosecution of the Famine Song person, the F word was deemed to refer not to "the American brotherhood founded in the 1850s, but rather to persons of Irish ancestry or Roman Catholic faith" (see http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Magazine/54-8/1006871.aspx). The supporting evidence was the person saying Ef Tee Pee and The Famine Song itself. 2) If we're going to be - as we often are - laying into the sham of the anti-sectarian industry, we want to do so from a position that's beyond reproach - even if the reproach is bullshit. The point here is rather that we don't want to be seen to be sectarian. We are not sectarian, regardless of what people say, but our position goes against the 'wisdom' of politicians, the media etc and as such it is canny to ensure we cannot be accused of saying one thing about sectarianism while on the other hand tolerating it. Now I understand fully that many could justifiably perceive this to be a weak case. 1) The chances of prosecution are infinitely small. So long as it's not accompanied by breach of the peace, and accompanying sentiments about the pope etc, it's doubtful whether the law could be applied. 2) In starring the word out, we're conceeding ground that should be contested - ie: whether such words really are sectarian. 3) Just because someone uses the word, doesn't mean they are necessarily using it in a sectarian way - so it's just overkill. It's arguably more sectarian in '****** bastard' than it is in a discussion of the movement with which it is associated, and this makes it just a blunt instrument made for saving moderating time. 4) It's just not a big deal . Considering both sides, people can form their own conclusions and vote accordingly. I would say that while people are making their decision about whether it should be starred out or not they should remember that in the context of websites, they're not actually responsible for what they say - we are. As the owner of the domain registration and the supplier of the server it is Frankie and I who are named as being responsible, and the only reason we make the decision to blank out words or not allow links for feeds to be publically stated is that ultimately anything comes back to us - it's not a reflection of our own held views. We've had legal threats before - though none to do with sectarianism obviously - and it's a pain in the ass to deal with, and one I personally don't have time for. Having thought about it myself I'm not sure it should be starred out at all. It just always has been. It could very well be that MF is right that it's tacitly accepting the bullshit stance of Murray we often spend so much time arguing against. On the other hand, it's a little rich to point to us as the cause of the problem while we're merely reacting to it. The word has, by everyone's account, been deemed to be associated in vague and unpredictable ways with sectarianism - I don't want to be labelled sectarian, or anything I'm legally responsible for, and while I'm happy for some widespread systematic response to this abuse of free speech, and would support it, the obligations on everyone - not us. Anyway, look forward to your thoughts.

A ban in full compliance with law. We also don't allow filesharing or child porn. Of the three only the latter is a law that doesn't protect the pathological interests of faux-persecuted minorities, but we're still the ones legally resposible for what's on the site. Personally I've seen and heard the word used more frequently to refer to Catholics than historical movements, I just think it's ridiculous that you're not allowed to dislike a religion. I think it's perfectly sensible people don't get jip for something they can't choose (IE race, skin colour), but once you've made a choice (religion, politics) you're fair game. Instead of moaning at us for not taking risks with the law because you don't like the law, petition to get the law changed.

Out of interest JMS what was it you done and people didnt' support?

And possibly still could mate. The time would perhaps be at the changeover of owners - if it ever happens!

I think the concerns of Zaps etc are real though. I don't know what thing you're referring to but lots of protests / activism seem to be about more than one thing, and if it's something you're going to put your name behind you need to be sure. I'll bet there were a fair few student protestors who went home thinking "This isn't what I'm here for". I'm not sure what stand you took, and whether I would have supported it, but I've got a funny feeling most of the sorts of protests people imagine will end up being quite worthless or involve something I wouldn't be happy saying I believed in. We look at Celtic's activism and see it's "success" and think if we done something similar, standing up for ourselves, there would be similar results. I don't think it's true though - the reason Celtic are getting everything their own way at the moment is because their message chimes with the prejudices of our time - they can twist and turn their bitterness to make it look like they are oppressed, subject of racism and sectarianism - the very thing our media, and educated classes are most anxious about. We won't be able to do that as succesfully, and it's playing them on a pitch they're always going to win on. They've got a brand new generation of people in the influential classes of society who are willing to take up their cause - we don't have that. We don't have politicians strong enough to say that all this protection of 'minorities' is OTT and undermining society, because they are all too scared to look like racists or bigots. We similarly don't have a media strong enough to say the same thing for the same reasons. The truth is, you'd need a protest with placards reading "I say ******, and I'm not a bigot" and "I think the famine song's funny, this doesn't make me racist", "Ef Tee Pee - When Dawkins says it, it's philosophy" - who would be happy to hold one of those? I'm happier just being thought of as a bigot. The problem we have, in a nutshell, is that their message - though bullshit - is very simple and taps easily into current prejudices. Our response is essentially subtle - saying it's wrong to criminalise elements of life that, while maybe unsavoury, are nonetheless not that serious and doings so just panders to extremists trying to make themselves look civilised.

Quite bloody right. Big Eck's blue & white army!

I think this latest episode with the SFA is showing that this issue is becoming bigger than a Rangers problem. There's a militant political catholicism in Scotland that will, because it's inherent within the theology, keep growing until it's met with some actual cultural resistance. I think we've seen some resistance in the response to the SFA thing, but disconcertingly little. You get the impression that what's happening to us is just one small part of something larger.

Oh, I thought it would be delivered. I see what you mean. Reminds me of something I meant to say the other day - it seems fashionable these days to not like the Orange Order, even among some aspects of our own support. The other week we were up visiting Pauline's dad's grave. We turned the corner towards the cemetry in the car and there were loads of people out marching. I'll admit I was a bit annoyed as we'd have to get out, walk for a long while, and it was freezing. When we got out we noticed a van following the back of the march with old gentlemen in it. We weren't quite sure what was going on and it didn't become clear until we got into the cemetry, where the the Orange Order alone had lain rememberance wreaths at the monument at the gates. It was freezing cold, there was no-one else in the whole cemetry or out on the streets - the only people who'd taken the time to honour them were the Orange Order, who'd had a service and taken the time to actively remember. Oh, I'd just like to re-iterate the sincerest thanks to MF. It's disappointing the costs weren't fully covered, but I you did say you were going to donate whatever was taken anyway. I think you should just choose what you think is most fitting from the suggestions.

I like JMS' idea. I think it is a bit more personal than a cheque.

If the hotels near Upton Park have corridors of endless doors I'm not going.

When he signed from Fiorentina in 94. Oh, you said God, not Godrup. My bad.

Although I think the buy on fear sell on greed maxim applies especially to property, it's just the bold bit that bothers me. I don't see Whyte being duped by a less succesful businessman. I 100% understand this from Ellis' perspective, why he would need Whyte, but not why Whyte would need Ellis.

Whyte doesnt need Ellis as some sort of partner for that. If someone owned Rangers, and wanted to develop the land around it, they'd just phone an architect and or a property developer and pay them as a client. They'd maybe even phone Ellis, but why would he need him involved in a bid to buy the thing in the first place?

I'd be ashamed to hand in a sick note for a week never mind a month with a broken finger.

Not only what's in it for him, but what's in it for Whyte? Ellis has no money, but seems to making every effort to ride someone's coat-tails to a position of power at Ibrox (MF, no comparisons!). I just don't understand his involvement at all. If only we had access to someone to phone him and ask him

I certainly don't know them mate. But in Timmy world that at least one person knows them is to prove bigotry in everyone. It's like saying because Germans know the first verse to their national anthem, but choose not to sing it, they're still closet Nazis. Only with tim logic.

He wouldn't be so casual with this if he knew the accompanying verses which they convieniently don't sing at matches and pretend not to even know but have in their hearts and sing in their heads which prove beyond any doubt and without hyperbole the evil establishment sectarian nazi racism shown by Rangers fans. Wonder how many emails this actual-Irishman is going to get teaching him about Irish history from pretend Irishmen.

On a serious note, MF, how would you go about fighting back on this issue?

If you're a Rangers supporter, yes, and like other things like, uhm Britain. But if you're upper middle class and liberal, it's fine - ala, Dawkins etc - it's just philosophical viewpoint. When Stephen Fry criticises the Catholic Church, it's witty, but when Rangers fans do it, its EVIL. I don't think, on the current understandnig, its possible to be Catholic and a bigot. They're a poor minority dontchaknow, a part of a wee church whose wealth could wipe out world poverty. The most confusing thing for me is in the absurdity of extreme (and sadly altogether more common) Celtic supporters is that they're proud cafflicks yet left wing and anti-establishment. Yet the catholic church is an anti abortion, anti gay, morally conservative organisation that once governed most of the world through tyranny and fear (and still does its best) and is the furthest thing anyone could ever imagine from the poor persecuted (and contradictory) causes Celtic supporters seem to align themselves with. They're an utterly fucking vacant lot. They create their persecution so they can get drunk on feeling self righteous.

Thanks for that Gaz.

Sorry mate I've writing essays teh whole weekend and today and am in that mode I think. Basically, the idea is that we can only really 'see' religion once it's in decline. For example, Christianity a few hundred years ago was not the same thing as it is now - we now think of it as a choice, but back in the day Christian is just what you were. While some people were, say, devoted Christian, even people who never set foot in Church in their lives would consider themselves Christian - something like what we call cultural christianity. Christianity was implicit in the education system, the newspapers, the writings, everything that the country produced - like you if you lived in a world where everything was blue, you'd have no need for the word blue. People became Christian just by living, not by looking at it and deciding if they wanted to take part. Christianity was just the lense to which everyone, to varying degrees, looked through the world. Kids become Christian by their parents being Christian and so on. It's all these things that people who object to religion dislike - they dislike that religious people don't get there by analysis, but rather just accept values that are simply taken on faith. Fast forward to now and multiculturalism has much of the same characteristics. I don't know many racist people, and it's not because everyone's sat down at looked at the issue rationally - indeed, it's barely possible to look at rationally. The idea that all humans are equal regardless of the colour of their skin can only be taken on faith as a value - and this value tends to be transmitted implicitly through tv, media, education etc. Racism is just one branch whose root is multicultural tolerance - something taken as an article of faith, and is believed in with varying degrees of religious devotion by almost everyone but the fringes of society (BNP etc). Just like particularly devoted Christians would sometimes go raj an do absurd things like torture people to save their soul, those particularly devoted to tolerance will crusade against anything that even looks like intolerance with religious fervour and feel righteous while doing it. Just like in days go by, if some prominant person said "That's unchristian" the papers or whatever the opinion making thing was at that time would have to listen, and take it seriously, because Christianity was the invisible foundation of everything , now if someone says "that's bigotted" or "that's intolerant" we are so scared, in the way only religious people can be, of being intolerant that we'll endure and give air time to anyone that says it. People don't understand our devotion to tolerance as religious - containing within itself all the virtues and horrors that come with religion - because we're still in that historical period. They rather accept devotion to tolerance on faith and think everything else is (false) forms of religion. Why we seem to get so much stick is because we think the RCC is crap. One of the internal contradictions of cultural tolerance is that in thinking all religions are equally good you implicitly think all religious are equally bad. What's most important is that you respect their right to exist. By singing No Pope in Rome and such things we commit, essentially, the cardinal sin of religious tolerance - you're allowed to believe in your religion (or your lack of religion), but not if you start believing in it so much it causes you to think other religions are bad. Not sure if that's any better

No need to apologise to me, mate, I'm not religious in the manner I was. I have a more mystical/mythological than dogmatic outlook these days, it lets be get madwaeit and bury the guilt under layers of denial. That said, religion is important to all societies, and we shouldn't confuse the decline of particular organised religions with the decline of religiousness. It is precisely because the functionally religious devotion to the multi-cultural form of secularism that is dominant in our academic/media classes that this gets so much airing. Religions are in decline once they lose their ubiquity - that we don't yet understand our multicultural securalism as a religion is testament to the fact that it's still ubiquitous.

Cammy this is one of the best things I've read in ages. Thanks so much.

S_A I think that idea is practically pointless - Rangers cant punish other clubs. However, as a subtle form of protest and public expression of our distaste at being uniformly tarred with the sectarian brush, I think it could be good.