Shameful lack of tradition

[47MVEagle]

Keep thinking. You'll work it out!

Oh I get it now - because refusing to eat the non-kosher meal is the Jewish person's way of saying they believe homosexuality is a sin!

THAT'S why it's a relevant analogy.

 

[highlandeagle]

Oh I get it now - because refusing to eat the non-kosher meal is the Jewish person's way of saying they believe homosexuality is a sin!

THAT'S why it's a relevant analogy.

Not even close. Try again!

 

[HK_Eagle]

Sorry Ron but that's just value judgements. Do you think you are right in what you say. It is only right to you. Its not in itself right. As I've suggested many times there is no right or wrong. They are merely constructs and develop in different ways depending upon the society. I have an opinion, but its not right, its merely right for me at this particular time. If you assume there is an ultimate right, then I would suggest you have been conditioned to think that way. Take a look around the World at different cultures and they all see right and wrong in a particular way. The one advantage we have in Australia is that we dont have the equivalent of Thought Police determining how we should think. We are free to think and believe as we choose, whether others think we are wrong or not. People travel a long road in their life that leads them to think and believe what they do. It is embedded in their life. We couldnt change it even if we wanted to. And how I think is right for me at this time, just as with these Polynesians, what they think is right for them. We have no right to demand that they think otherwise because in the end that assumes that we are right, and I would suggest that's merely our conditioning

That’s another belief.

We can change beliefs and people do. Fact.
I have changed my own beliefs throughout the course of my life time.

 

[The Who]

Principle? You know the topic people are debating here? The advertising isn't relating to anything illegal, and the wearers of the jerseys are individuals, who may or may not agree with what's written on them (gambling, drinking, types of butchery, swearing etc - are all aspects various religious views don't accept). Why is THIS the mountain the one they want to climb?

Live and real example: You realise four X (alcohol / beer) support the maroons & advertise on their jersey? If this is the case, you're suggesting muslims shouldn't wear the jersey, because the quran forbids the consumption of alcohol?

Or is that different in yours, and everyone else's ethical thermometer? Better tell Corey Paterson he's going to hell, for not standing against the jerseys he wears:

Hypocrisy from you and many others? Exactly.
View attachment 21724

Dear Ryan, I would have played in the jersey because I don't feel strongly about the issue. Likewise in a jersey with a gambling logo because, even though I'm anti certain forms of gambling, I don't feel strongly enough about it. Ditto the alcohol logo.
But the seven players -- I understand there any more of this same belief in the lower grades -- do feel strongly about it and I respect that.
During my working career there were three occasions I can recall in which I knocked back a client for reasons of principles. I don't understand how you suddenly throw the label "hypocrite" at me or those who are supporting the rights of the players when you are supporting the club . . . the club you have previously urged us to march upon and demand revolutionary change.

 

[Michael Clare]

Sorry Ron but that's just value judgements. Do you think you are right in what you say. It is only right to you. Its not in itself right. As I've suggested many times there is no right or wrong. They are merely constructs and develop in different ways depending upon the society. I have an opinion, but its not right, its merely right for me at this particular time. If you assume there is an ultimate right, then I would suggest you have been conditioned to think that way. Take a look around the World at different cultures and they all see right and wrong in a particular way. The one advantage we have in Australia is that we dont have the equivalent of Thought Police determining how we should think. We are free to think and believe as we choose, whether others think we are wrong or not. People travel a long road in their life that leads them to think and believe what they do. It is embedded in their life. We couldnt change it even if we wanted to. And how I think is right for me at this time, just as with these Polynesians, what they think is right for them. We have no right to demand that they think otherwise because in the end that assumes that we are right, and I would suggest that's merely our conditioning

The fact that they pick and choose which of their religious doctrine they follow today is what is grinding me. I get that there is no respect and acceptance of same sex relationships in Polynesian society. I also understand that in that culture and in the religions these players were identified as following... gambling and alcohol are similarly non grata... yet there is a hardline stand against sexual expression and same sex relationships but they turn a blind eye to gambling and alcohol given Manly's strong connections with those industries and Pointsbet features prominently on the jerseys. They also demand that their religion and culture is respected and their views and beliefs accepted but wont accept the views/beliefs/lifestyles of others in society. Hypocrisy on so many levels.

I have no wish to be argumentative, but I think it's important to understand where these boys are coming from if you take a literal or fairly traditional interpretation of the Bible. I am fairly sure they would tell you that the Bible condemns drunkeness rather than alcohol. The Apostle Paul suggested that believers could drink wine, and Jesus turned water into wine at a wedding. Likewise, the early church cast lots from time to time, and there is no Biblical directive to refrain from gambling although the excess love of money is certainly condemned. In the case of homosexual relations, however, (and I make no judgement here) in the New Testament Paul expressly prohibits such behaviour amongst believers. I hope this helps explain why gambling and alcohol logos do not cause the same religious tensions for these seven young men in our team.

 

[Ryan]

Dear Ryan, I would have played in the jersey because I don't feel strongly about the issue. Likewise in a jersey with a gambling logo because, even though I'm anti certain forms of gambling, I don't feel strongly enough about it. Ditto the alcohol logo.
But the seven players -- I understand there any more of this same belief in the lower grades -- do feel strongly about it and I respect that.
During my working career there were three occasions I can recall in which I knocked back a client for reasons of principles. I don't understand how you suddenly throw the label "hypocrite" at me or those who are supporting the rights of the players when you are supporting the club . . . the club you have previously urged us to march upon and demand revolutionary change.

Anyways, at least Trent Robinson agrees with me, and so do the Chooks players, so despite playing for a **** club, it shows I'm not on my own in my line of thinking.

 

[HK_Eagle]

I have no wish to be argumentative, but I think it's important to understand where these boys are coming from if you take a literal or fairly traditional interpretation of the Bible. I am fairly sure they would tell you that the Bible condemns drunkeness rather than alcohol. The Apostle Paul suggested that believers could drink wine, and Jesus turned water into wine at a wedding. Likewise, the early church cast lots from time to time, and there is no Biblical directive to refrain from gambling although the excess love of money is certainly condemned. In the case of homosexual relations, however, (and I make no judgement here) in the New Testament Paul expressly prohibits such behaviour amongst believers. I hope this helps explain why gambling and alcohol logos do not cause the same religious tensions for these seven young men in our team.

If interpretation of the bible is causing so much angst in our lives, how about thinking for ourselves? Novel, I know, but could be revolutionary. The bible can be an excellent guide for all sorts of general thoughts and reflections on life, but let’s not get caught up on somebody else telling us what it means and what we should do… especially since many of those are human and lost themselves.

You mention an explanation of separating alcohol from drunkenness… how about exercising the same latitude for LGBTIQ tolerance?

 

[Brisbane Tragic]

I have no wish to be argumentative, but I think it's important to understand where these boys are coming from if you take a literal or fairly traditional interpretation of the Bible. I am fairly sure they would tell you that the Bible condemns drunkeness rather than alcohol. The Apostle Paul suggested that believers could drink wine, and Jesus turned water into wine at a wedding. Likewise, the early church cast lots from time to time, and there is no Biblical directive to refrain from gambling although the excess love of money is certainly condemned. In the case of homosexual relations, however, (and I make no judgement here) in the New Testament Paul expressly prohibits such behaviour amongst believers. I hope this helps explain why gambling and alcohol logos do not cause the same religious tensions for these seven young men in our team.

Yawnnnnnnnnnnn

 

[Brisbane Tragic]

If interpretation of the bible is causing so much angst in our lives, how about thinking for ourselves? Novel, I know, but could be revolutionary. The bible can be an excellent guide for all sorts of general thoughts and reflections on life, but let’s not get caught up on somebody else telling us what it means and what we should do… especially since many of those are human and lost themselves.

You mention an explanation of separating alcohol from drunkenness… how about exercising the same latitude for LGBTIQ tolerance?

as I said the hypocrisy is at another level... the liberal interpretation of the scriptures... of any kind can be easily done on any issue to validate your position. I am sure that in the Bible or other scriptures that there are conflicting statements about many issues including homosexuality, gambling, drinking if you read the words literally... it is the interpretation that can be construed to support your position/contentions and in this case to take a hard line stance on this issue but not on gambling and alcohol. I read a heap of information yesterday that made it pretty clear that in Polynesian/Mormon etc cultures that gambling and alcohol consumption are not acceptable. Anyway - as I said it is the interpretation... you can interpret anything to spin something how you want it to be. Again though it does not explain their rightful expectation that they want to be treated with respect and that we rightfully respect their values yet they refuse to accept the values of others!!!!!!!! Hypocrisy at its absolute best!

 

[Budgie]

Unfortunately the elitists can't see it from their high horse.

The elitists? We're Silvertails ffs!!!

 

[Michael Clare]

If interpretation of the bible is causing so much angst in our lives, how about thinking for ourselves? Novel, I know, but could be revolutionary. The bible can be an excellent guide for all sorts of general thoughts and reflections on life, but let’s not get caught up on somebody else telling us what it means and what we should do… especially since many of those are human and lost themselves.

You mention an explanation of separating alcohol from drunkenness… how about exercising the same latitude for LGBTIQ tolerance

 

[Michael Clare]

I'm just explaining what a literal interpretation of the Bible (which I don't necessarily hold or condone) entails. This is why gambling and alcohol present less of a difficulty for these players than homosexuality. Fundamentalists believe that Paul's words were inspired by the Holy Spirit and are still relevant today. As for your second point, I am not sure asking these players to abandon sincerely held beliefs of personal faith (with which we may or may not agree) has anything at all to do with LGBTIQ tolerance.

 

[StuBoot]

Dear Ryan, I would have played in the jersey because I don't feel strongly about the issue. Likewise in a jersey with a gambling logo because, even though I'm anti certain forms of gambling, I don't feel strongly enough about it. Ditto the alcohol logo.
But the seven players -- I understand there any more of this same belief in the lower grades -- do feel strongly about it and I respect that.
During my working career there were three occasions I can recall in which I knocked back a client for reasons of principles. I don't understand how you suddenly throw the label "hypocrite" at me or those who are supporting the rights of the players when you are supporting the club . . . the club you have previously urged us to march upon and demand revolutionary change.

Yes, agree with this.

We all have a line in the sand - we may not know exactly where it is, what it is that triggers it.
It may move over time.
It could be rubbery and it's in different spots for different people but only the individual knows when it's about to be crossed, we may not have consciously thought about it either yet it's there...somewhere.
Yet we feel when it's about to be crossed and then we have a decision to make, sometimes we have to think about it and other times it's easy.

There is a difference in acceptance and endorsement and that may be where the line is.
In this case it could be the third time that line has been visited - after alcohol and gambling sponsorship may have been begrudgingly accepted, yet not expressly endorsed, we'll never know.
It could be something else altogether but Des showed empathy by not holding a gun to their heads and allowing them to own their decisions.

 

[Tragic Eagle]

Still struggling to understand how simply wearing a jersey with a couple of extra colors is abandoning your faith. Next they will refuse to play with or against anybody that is gay.

 

[Buck]

I'm all for the occasional jersey change as a merchandising initiative or to promote important issues, such as Indigenous culture, ANZACs, LGBTQ+ etc.

But this is getting ridiculous. A community jersey, retro jersey, crazy socks, now a pride jersey .. can we just wear the traditional Manly jersey for while please.

Why can't we celebrate/promote these events in other ways that don't involve wearing a monstrosity of a jersey (that's you, awful blue community jersey).

AFL clubs would never trash their jersey in this way.

Been saying the same thing for years. I haven't bought a jersey for years for this very reason. Our traditional look has become so watered down over time that aside from the use of maroon & white, it lacks any recognition. You often think you are looking at a certain team on the TV with the multiple jersey variations, only to discover it is a different team all together. I don't like AFL but credit where it is due, they don't compromise the identity of their jersey.

 

[The Who]

Anyways, at least Trent Robinson agrees with me, and so do the Chooks players, so despite playing for a **** club, it shows I'm not on my own in my line of thinking.

Yes. There are plenty of people who agree with you, and a lot with the same opinion as me. The issue has created division and I blame the club for creating the problem. Had they stuck to what they are supposed to -- rugby league -- then we all would be looking forward to tonight's match and supporting our best 17 players.

 

[highlandeagle]

Still struggling to understand how simply wearing a jersey with a couple of extra colors is abandoning your faith. Next they will refuse to play with or against anybody that is gay.

Totally different playing with someone who is gay,person of colour or religious beliefs to be asked to wear a jersey that does not represent who you are

 

[47MVEagle]

Totally different playing with someone who is gay,person of colour or religious beliefs to be asked to wear a jersey that does not represent who you are

Can you please elaborate on your use of 'person of colour' there.?

 

[StuBoot]

Still struggling to understand how simply wearing a jersey with a couple of extra colors is abandoning your faith. Next they will refuse to play with or against anybody that is gay.

As I wrote above, there's a difference between acceptance and endorsement.

I have a gay daughter, no probs from me = acceptance
But I'm not about to wear a gay pride shirt around = endorsement.

Wearing the rainbow jersey may be implicit endorsement by some players and fans but seen as expressed endorsement by others.

 

[highlandeagle]

Can you please elaborate on your use of 'person of colour' there.?

For you No. Everyone else would get that these players do not have a problem playing with a person who is gay or of colour or of a different religion. They do not want to wear a jersey they are not comfortable representing. It was in reply to Tragic eagles comment of what next, that they will refuse to play with or against someone gay.