bmck

if KM and KB do swap then IMO I think this would be one of the worst bits of business I have ever seen..............I personally would not want to see KM back at Ibrox ever!!!

agreed!!! that would be awful, he's terrible.

i wasnt saying we should become a protestant club - just that we shouldn't take things like Freedom of Speech, Equality and the like and sell it as the current incarnation of protestantism, because it would severely deconstruct actual protestants.

i agree we should shy away from any protestant leaning notions - and we should be able to differentiate between the consequences of protestantism (free speech etc) that we value, and protestantism itself.

football matches are not suitable fora for theological confrontation - seems obvious to me.

As Barry point out, the Protestant religion is fundamentally anti-tradition. It's has a radical philosophy which advocates freedom of thought, equality and progress. It actually preaches us to challenge traditions and to reject them if they are no longer valid. (Well that's what I learned from the recent telly programmes on the subject.)

i think the freedom of thought etc was actually an intellectual consequence of the reformation - it wouldn't be right to think of protestants as viewing these things as of Value Unto Themselves (as we - where 'we' is most people, if not me - view it now). the process of challenging the dominant and repressive philosophy of the time undertook these things implicitly, but we can't over-secularise it either. because protestants were ACTUALLY CONCERNED with the right way to approach God, the positioning of Christ to the Church etc - the dissolution of the preisthood/laiety dichotomy was a theological undertaking, it just so happens that the consequences of which brought about ideas that were in tune with enlightenment thought: the things you mention, Freedom of Thought, Equality etc. the truth is that the dominant Reformation theology viewed/views men as predestined to eternal life or death (as per Augustine), and that any kind of 'independent' thought that denied the existence of God as presuppositonally flawed.

basically, protestantism involved, to some extent, freedom of thought, equality etc, but these were not its ends - as with secularism. i think that it may suit our ends to equate freedom of thought with protestantism, but its somewhat sophistic and pretty untrue to protestantism as practiced by believing protestants.

it may be best to see rangers as carrying on the consequences in intellectual history of the Reformation (of which the Romanist would seek destroyed), but it would be dishonest to view these things as equal with protestantism. were i protestant, i would feel patronised by that - because Freedom of Thought, Equality etc are not the teleos of protestantism.

^ written sedated, read charitably.

i'll have to be brief. i may have to wander hospitalwards for a few days so wont have the chance again if that is to be the case.

as you know i'm a christian, but couldn't comfortably call myself either protestant or catholic. i understand them both theologically, but i disagree with both at their most fundamental, presuppositional, type stage.

the problem is, for this discussion, is that there is no such thing as protestant traditions. things that we call protestant traditions (such as the aforementioned presbyterian tradition) are how certain religious dispositions manifest themselves in culture.

in a very real sense protestantism, at its core, is anti any sort of tradition. to sum it up, it said "hold on a minute, all these traditions rubbered stamped by the pope, and binding to us, have came about not as some divinely ordained event, but as a political power play by the bishop of rome when constantine made christianity the state religion of the roman empire - fuck that, we're cutting out these middle men, and put man straight into contact with God, with no popes and no preists, no rosary beeds - a one to one relationship".

however, this idea of a one to one relationship with God still needed organising, so the only thing they could be assured of as God Inspired was the bible. and so it has been since that protestantism, in its various forms, has called Good Christian Values whatever the current intellegentsia read into the bible. protestantism came about at the same time as the enlightenment, the revolutionary middle class - decorum, manners etc.

the things calscot mentioned in the previous post aren't christian/protestant values, but Enlightenment humanist, or secular values. but the reformation and the Enlightenment pretty much go hand in hand - and as Enlightenment values have eroded with the failure of science as a worldview, so has Good Old Protestantism.

its no co-incidence - it was bound to happen. protestant values will move with the times because in purely practical terms they believe man should have a personal relationship with god, and that the best way to do this is to read the bible and apply it to their lives. their reading will be shaped by whatever view is dominating.

i've said it once, though, and i'll say it again - if you are looking for something to base a tradition on, that would include both the hardcore fringe, and the (what i believe to be dominant) liberal secularists who believe in freedom of speech, you could do worse than argue that the ideas brought about by the cultural offspring of protestantism (freedom of speech, democracy, etc) and thus this history should be able to be sang about etc without impingement.

protestants and eastern orthodox catholics and atheists all likewise say "fuck the pope", because any statement that the pope does not have the complete and utter right to govern man's behaviour on earth makes one immediately expelled from the roman catholic church. we should be willing to argue that any expression of catholicism implicitly includes the threat of hell for those who deny the authority of the pope, and that this is no less offensive than "fuck the pope" is the other way round.

be pragmattic - we sing derry's walls because it sounds good. and we need no justification further than that. if it offends people they can fuck off, because it says more about the offended party than the offender.

frankie i'll get back to you on the religious aspect in a bit, man. i'm fooked at the minute, but i do have some thoughts on it.

thats spot on.

frankie, i thought your analysis was excellent. i also enjoyed nokiss' riposte. it might be an idea to newsnow his response, and you provide a response again yourself - build up a sort of dialogue for people to take (amicable) sides on.

just an idea.

who am i to deny our fine upstanding members the ability to portray burping, rangers and wanking? i'll get on it as soon as i've got over this horrible flu.

It's all about opinions Gribz,I happen to think Buffel is shite,Boyd gets far too much criticism IMO

i'l take that further - anyone who thinks boyd is shite knows nothing about football, so we shouldn't even be taking their opinion on buffel into consideration :fish:

please, dear goodness, no. dont let this happen.

i'm with p&p to some extent - we need to regain our superiority complex with a quickness. i should be in bed. i'm ill. but when i saw the rampant conspiracy mindset that arose after one old firm game in the celtic support, it just became clear what a burden they still carry. the paranoia, the conspiracy mindset - the persecution complex. thats what we, in our best times, rose so far above as to condescend those below.

we need a custodian who'll restore that vision.

i'm just no well.

i agree with jon's agreement.

this is fuckign terrible man. his samsonic strength and determination is clearly linked to his hair.

get this on newsnow.

It would be great to see the Scotland Team in the Oylimpics

we're talking about a british team though.

But this is football and the English football fans enjoy rioting.

and scottish fans enjoying being a parody of a stereotype and think they're great because they're not violent. hopefully the overly independent/nationalistic morons from either side will be weeded out, and those decent nice thinking folk'll realise that getting together to support a common cause when we're all on the same side isn't really such a bad idea.

eta: not implying by the above that anyone who doesnt support the idea is a moron, just that the moronic element (hooligans etc) will be weeded out because they'll be too nationalistic.

just read this man. great read!

we managed to fight two world wars together ffs, lets get a grip here.

hate to agree with gribz, but he called it. faye is abject pish.

but at least he's wrong about buffel, who is likewise unfortunately a waste of a player. got talent, barely uses it. not a Winner.

absolutely we should.

pete, to butcher english by way of a compliment, these taxi posts are well good man.

I cant view the previous page as my internet police wont allow me to open the page.

edited: i see what you're saying now, you'll need to wait till you get home.

thats exactly what i thought, gribz. cheers for clarifying, though i think that most people round here would know precisely what you meant anyway.

Why is it your allegiences are always questioned when you dare to go against the grain?

i'm not sure i mentionedyour allegiances. and given that your assessment of the response to the pictures was wrong, its not much of a jump to assume gribz' intentions were just poorly worded. we've had open and honest debates on polish workers here before - with both for and against views expounded frankly, so we can be sure to be able to get reasonably, via a discussion, to whether someone is actually racist without resorting to reactionary accusations. even a simple 'you cant really htink all polish are dodgy, by being polish do you?' would have been constructive.

you weren't going against any grain, because you a) misinterpreted sectarian overtones, and b) uncharitably and unquestioningly assumed some underlying racism without questioning it. and your allegiances were only brought up by you. which actually does make me suspicious because you can only then be talking about footballing allegiancess and celtic fans who aren't themselves bigotted tend to get on well here without hiding (though there is debate as to whether they should be allowed, it being a rangers forum and all).

i wouldn't think you were a celtic supporter because i dont imagine there's much to be gained here if you were even minded.

eta: these pictures are stupid - boruc makes enough of an arse of himself without our 'help'.

So a Celtic player is a wanker because he has a picture of a former Pope on the wall?

can you point out where someone called him a wanker because he has a picture of the pope up? no-one. you sound at it to me m8.

Or is it because the Sun mis-translates an article in a Polish paper stating that he alleged that Rangers players spat at him and the Trust jumps in with two feet without checking the source?

no, i think its really just because he's widely considered a wanker. walks like a, talks like a, etc. i dont have enough energy to care, personally, but still.

We really need to get a life,if the MOPES were to read these comments of intolerance, especially the one about racial stereotyping then tey would have a field day.

"these comments of intolerance" are a product of your mind - gibberish paper talj. the only one comment that could be remotely accused of racial stereotyping is ambiguous, given the context. why start on about field days and MOPES instead of just asking him to clarify? its very easy, look:

'gribz, do you tihnk that polish people are, always and invariably, dodgy, simply because they are polish?' or did you just mean it as 'i've came across quite a few dodgy polish people'? we can clarify right up so simply.

hmm.