Sport: leave the religion out thanks.

[Liverpool]

Would it bother you if a Muslim player somewhere got up and thanked Alla or Mohammed and would their be such an outcry from the people on this site?

Absolutely it would bother me. It bothers me if ANY sportsperson of ANY religious background gets up there and thanks their God. This is an extension of what I have just been saying above. The moment we start getting people from all sorts of religious backgrounds thanking their God, then that’s an inference that “my God was better than yours today” and becomes the catalyst for the very angst we are all striving to avoid in this world. Getting my point ?

Redford,

I see your point.

The only problem with this though, is where do you draw the line?

If someone thanks their mother and father....will that mean that "my parents were better than your parents"?
Do we ban thanking parents?

If someone thanks their coach.....is that saying "my coach is better than your coach"?
Do we ban thanking coaches?

My point, is that if a winner of an event has earned the opportunity to thank people in their life that they personally deem important enough to thank, then it shouldn't matter if they thank their parents, their coach, or their messiah.

While I agree that it is shallow, if athletes are thanking God/Allah/Buddha,etc as just a throwaway line.....at the end of the day, if the winner has earned that right to speak for a couple of minutes to thank things or people that they believe helped them be successful....then good on them!

If they aren't a devoted follower, and are just using the "I want to thank God" line as a means to be seen to be popular on TV....then I guess God/Allah/Buddha will punish them when the time is right, eh?

 

[Disco08]

I must be a bit slow, because I kinda thought the whole point to Red's argument was that one person thanking God, the way many athletes do it, was insulting to their opponent(s) because it's clearly saying God was on my side, not yours.

The difference with your arguments to Red's Liverpool is that many people share the same God, but they don't share the same parents or coach.

 

[poppa x]

I must be a bit slow, because I kinda thought the whole point to Red's argument was that one person thanking God, the way many athletes do it, was insulting to their opponent(s) because it's clearly saying God was on my side, not yours.

The difference with your arguments to Red's Liverpool is that many people share the same God, but they don't share the same parents or coach.

I'm still an agnostically challenged atheist and perhaps I shouldn't weigh in to the debate. But here's my 2c.

Surely there's a difference between thanking your God/Parents/Wife/Husband/etc for being important in your life and crediting them with the victory? When I see Hayden crossing himself I don't immediately think he's given the credit for the 100 to his God. I just think he's a religous bloke who can bat a bit. On the other hand I get cross when I hear sayings like "God Bless America" as they prepare to attack an enemy. Or the Islamic equivalent "God is Great" as they send an other truck load of bombs to murder more innocents. This implies they all think God is on their side. What if he isn't? We'll never know.

 

[Disco08]

totally agree poppa, there's a big difference between saying "god was on my side today", to saying "god gave me inspiration to perform the way I did".

 

[Redford]

I must be a bit slow, because I kinda thought the whole point to Red's argument was that one person thanking God, the way many athletes do it, was insulting to their opponent(s) because it's clearly saying God was on my side, not yours.

The difference with your arguments to Red's Liverpool is that many people share the same God, but they don't share the same parents or coach.

Exactly right Duckman.

Parents, coaches, friends etc. are, 99% of the time not divisive. Thus, when a sportsperson thanks them there is no harm or offence or angst that's created when doing so.

However, religion IS a divisive subject...nobody can deny that....and my point is that when you consider sport is one of the few domains on this earth that brings people from all backgrounds together, then introducing religion into sport imo can only serve in the long run to undermine this wonderful element that sport carries.

Just like politics, I say keep religous banter out of sport.

 

[evo]

Just out of interest Red.Would you like to see sporting associations legislate your wishes?

 

[Redford]

Just out of interest Red.Would you like to see sporting associations legislate your wishes?

Would have thought that would be impossible to do.

 

[evo]

Just out of interest Red.Would you like to see sporting associations legislate your wishes?

Would have thought that would be impossible to do.

So for you it's a bit of political correctness type issue.

Sport people should careful what they say, lest they be divisive.

Fair enough I suppose-personally I'm happy for them to thank whoever or whatever they see approriate.

But then they should be willing to accept that it may draw some critisism from people who think they've been 'slighted'

In short,I like free speech.

 

[Redford]

Just out of interest Red.Would you like to see sporting associations legislate your wishes?

Would have thought that would be impossible to do.

So for you it's a bit of political correctness type issue.

Sport people should careful what they say, lest they be divisive.

Fair enough I suppose-personally I'm happy for them to thank whoever or whatever they see approriate.

But then they should be willing to accept that it may draw some critisism from people who think they've been 'slighted'

In short,I like free speech.

No, for me its primarily about protecting one of the few realms on this earth that is relatively free from religous divide and bickering, and the discriminatory undertow that comes with it. Simple.

 

[evo]

Yeh I know,but by wishing that sport remain free of politics and religion(an admirable goal) you're calling for the participants to be mindful what they say.

This is a call for a form of political correctness(not necessarily a bad thing).

( Not so simple.)

 

[Redford]

Yeh I know,but by wishing that sport remain free of politics and religion(an admirable goal) you're calling for the participants to be mindful what they say.

This is a call for a form of political correctness(not necessarily a bad thing).

( Not so simple.)

I would have thought that having sport remain as free as possible from politics and religion is actually moving away from the application of political correctness.... seeing as they are so closely related with it or are the chief drivers of it.

 

[Tygrys]

And personally I don't want every politician out of touch with that ethos (whilst we still remain a predominantly Christian country)

IMO - Religion has become more out of touch with the modern day Australian Ethos than the politicians - an increasing number of Australians these days are having naming ceromonies rather than baptisms - Civil Marriage Celebrants rather than church weddings - and non-denominational funerals rather than the church services.

The exception to these is the older people in our community who had their childhood during the days when the church did rule the state and thus were brainwashed all those years ago. Even some of these aged people are seeing through what the Church has to offer. As one said to me recently what right do they have to tell me that to talk to God I have to go through them - I have been talking to God directly for years!

And another - "the church has got it wrong - it should not be a museum for saints - it should be an emergency ward for lost souls!"

You just can't have simply agnostics, atheists or anti-religious people running the country (it's not practical, it's not fair and there are several examples in which one can use in the 20 century where one could argue it is in fact dangerous) and when so much about govenrment is determining what is right, of course politicians are going to naturally use as a reference point what they learnt as private citizens in terms of morality. And that for vast numbers of people still largely derives from religion.

I could suggest it is not fair to have the narrow mindedness of the church and its vastly different interpretations of the bible running the country either.

And as for church/religious morality as a reference point for politicians - I think you will find in this day and age politicians use only the number of votes an issue may gain or cost as a reference point - particularly our astute Prime Minister!

And it is my opinion politicians who partake in religious ceremonies like Peter Costello and Tony Abbott do so to increase their public profile more than to sate their faith.

Your post has a 1950s Australia aroma about it - exactly back to where our Prime Minister wants to take us! And that was a great era - Korean War - Communist under every bed - Petrov Affair - the origins of the now failed DLP (a church run political party if there ever was one) - a womans place was barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen whilst the man of the house brought home the bacon and his word was God in his own houeshold. And the masses just followed their Church and political leaders without question.

Australians are now too well educated for that - and now we vote through our hip pocket - this is the era of "whats in it for me" - the era of individual greed and instant gratification! The Traditional Religions have no place in such an era!

A number of points worth making

1. During the 2001 census, almost 70 percent of Australians declared membership of an Australian christian church whilst only 15 percent stated they had no religion. There may or may not be an increasing number that are going for civil marriage celebrants etc but it's still a fraction when compared to that of church sanctioned ceremonies. Australian Christianity is far from dead.

2. If 70 percent of Australians have declared themselves as church members it must be more than just the elderly that maintain that affiliation. Unless some demographic timebomb exploded that I don't know about and the vast majority of the country is on the verge geriatric death, again Australian Christianity has some time left I would suspect.

3. I drew a distinction between a church run theocracy or politicians accepting the dictates of church leaders, and Christians rightfully playing a part in politics and applying a morality in their decision making based upon a Christian ethos. Perhaps the distinction is too subtle for you. At any rate if you can't tell the difference between the two then I guess the logical conclusion that one must reach is that you believe that anyone that attends a church or is baptised or declares themselves a Catholic, Anglican, Baptist or whatever etc should automatically be banned from public service or at least should ban themselves. So if a Christian (one of the 70 percent majority) wants to vote for another Christian (eg a Howard or Rudd) who believe in a Christian ethos as they see it - tough luck.

4. In regards to why Costello, Abbot or even Howard or Rudd attend church - frankly your opinion is just that, nothing but an opinion - the reality is you haven't got a clue. You can't see into a mans soul, and as astounding as it might be, they might actually believe in it. Millions of Australians go to church each Sunday for precisely that reason (and for the record I don't know either why these politicians go specifically, I'm not God, but there is no way I could declare one way or another).

5. I find it amusing that because I defended the right of someone who is a Christian, to run and serve for public office in a country that (like it or not) remains predominantly Christian makes me a throw back to the 1950s. I didn't say no one else could run and I didn't say belief in God was a prerequisite, I said that being a practising Christian shouldn't be a bad thing and in my opinion is in fact quite a good thing (as horrific as that thought might be). I have no idea what the rest of your rant was about - barefoot and pregnant etc. True I am no fan of communism but I guess any genocidal ideology directly responsible for the deaths of over 100 million people during the 20th century will always have issues for me. But I guess as long as the leaders that you follow without question are politically correct, no-matter how murderous, that's ok then.

6. Finally being a Christian is not simply the domain of the uneducated or (through inference) the stupid (unless we assume that the 70 percent are simply all those in our community that dropped out from high school). For what it's worth I have three University degrees including a Masters from Melbourne University. And I hear that a great Tigerman and Richmond Supporter Cardinal George Pell has a few degrees also under his belt:

http://www.sydney.catholic.org.au/Archbishop/bio.shtml

Again apparently a pretty brainy guy, and in a debate between yourself and the archbishop I know who I'd back.

 

[jayfox]

Wow. Great points Tigers R Us! The only thing that I would add is this -
aRTy, seeing as you brought it up, do you really think that the world is a better place now than in the 1950's?
In 2007 compared to 1950 we have far greater problems with - Global warming, natural disasters, terrorists, suicide bombers, threats of nuclear war, rogue states with nuclear weapons, poverty, millions dying of AIDS, pedophiles, rapes, murders, overpopulation, pollution and the list goes on and on and these are just the global issues.
Domestically we have greater - droughts, stress, problems with drug and alcohol addiction, suicide rates, divorces, abortions, break-ins, home invasions, rapes, murders, obesity, anorexia, cancer rates, and many of the children of today have no respect for their parents or elders because many forms of discipline have become politically incorrect. Sheesh, our kids aren't even suposed to drink out of the hose anymore!
Not that he can, but if our Prime Minister could take us back to the 1950's then we should all be grateful.

 

[poppa x]

the amount of cutting and pasting is over the top. Have some care for the sites bandwidth please. IMO it's just not necessary.

My 2c.

 

[jayfox]

the amount of cutting and pasting is over the top. Have some care for the sites bandwidth please. IMO it's just not necessary.

My 2c.

Amended a little, as requested Poppa Smurf.

 

[Rosy]

the amount of cutting and pasting is over the top. Have some care for the sites bandwidth please. IMO it's just not necessary.

My 2c.

Yep it's an issue poppa. There's no need to quote entire posts several times, and even less need to include several quotes. Better to edit them and just leave the relevant part we're responding to. Images shouldn't be repeated in quotes at all. It's all just multiplying the bandwidth usage and hogging valuable space on our host's server. It also makes things harder to follow. I wouldn't imagine too many would read through all the quoted stuff to find the valid point.

Another thing is there's a tendancy lately to post links to other sources with no explanation of what they're about or the posters own opinion. Out of courtesy for those with slow, dodgy dialup or bandwith limits a bit more info about why they were posted might hlp them decide whether they want to click on the link or not.

If people don't know how to use the quotinator properly we're always happy to help out. Just give a hoy.

 

[tigersnake]

Not that he can, but if our Prime Minister could take us back to the 1950's then we should all be grateful.

So god hates new fangled ideas? Interesting. You seriously want to ga back to the 1950s slyfox? Women pretty much didn't have a choice to work or stay home, both worthy choices, but there was no choice then. Blacks couldn't vote and got paid a third of the white wage. Divorce wasn't really possible. Pubs closed at 6. Only restuarants were chinese. And the clincher, richmond didn't win a single flag.

 

[Disco08]

At least we weren't letting the US trash our environment with DU we sold them n the '50's. Fair points otherwise though.

 

[RemoteTiger]

JF & Tygtrys

"There are none so blind as those that refuse to see"

Your arguments above are from a brainwashed life that Christianity is the only religion - there is but one God etc. etc. etc.

70% of Australians are Christians - funny I put that down on the census too - because I was baptised - but I am not a church going practicing Christian and I'd bet a majority who said they were Christians on the census are the same as me.

Next is - the 1950's are better than today - but for aides all the things you mentioned were around in the 50's too - but they were kept quiet - swept under the rug by society's leaders of the time and we all know they were all Church goers back then hence the Church had a huge say in what was to be done and seen to be done.

Guys I have practiced Christianity I have seen it up close and real and I have seen what it can and still does do to the minds of those that get mentally hurt - you maybe right that it is not true christianity because it is the particular Churches dogma and tenets not the true word of Christ - but it still comes under the banner of Christianity (Part of your 70%).

Christianity is not the bed of roses and the only way - you guys preach it is - it is has been used in the past and will be used in the future by corrupt leaders to enhance their chances of power. And as for your communism killing millions - it is still a long way behind the carnage Christianity and other religions have caused over the past 2000 years.

I nought said that a Christian should not be in public office - I was in fact replying to your statement that you feel it would be unfair to have an atheist as a leader or members of our parliament.

I believe the Australian Parliament is for all not just Christians.

I have seen many people who do not have the courage to think outside the square or the tenets of their church - one day as an inteligent being they wake up and realise what is happening to their lives. They lose the fear of thinking thoughts that previously they were not allowed to - they move their mind to a level of self belief and take pride in who they are and become far greater and active members of our society.

As I have said previously - have your faith - if it works for you - great - but do not foist it on others as the dogma and tenets of Christianity insist you do. Because I have seen the other side of your religions - the mentally scared and hurt individuals and those results are appalling.........

 

[jayfox]

So god hates new fangled ideas? Interesting. You seriously want to ga back to the 1950s slyfox? Women pretty much didn't have a choice to work or stay home, both worthy choices, but there was no choice then. Blacks couldn't vote and got paid a third of the white wage. Divorce wasn't really possible. Pubs closed at 6. Only restuarants were chinese. And the clincher, richmond didn't win a single flag.

Stuff all difference to now with regards to Richmond so losing nothing there. I agree that there were social issues that needed amending in the 50's but there are far greater global threats today and we are facing a more and more uncertain future. Tell me something, how much longer do you think the world can go on like this with increasing poverty, natural disasters, droughts, disease, terrorism, wars and nuclear weapons. Previously only the world 'superpowers' hade nuclear weapons. Now, nations who condone, and even support, suicide bombers are able to get the technology to make them. In the past everyone was afraid to use nukes, nowdays, do you really think that someone who was willing to blow themselves up for their cause would be afraid to push a button to kill millions?
Would I rather the world go back to the 50's, yeah. I love living in our times but I can see that we have made some big mistakes in the past 50 years that could have a monumental effect on the world.