BC2

EDIT (by Frankie): Your inane crap from years ago (which I certainly cannot remember) has nothing to do with the subject.

calscot ââ?¬â?? I certainly respect the quantity of what you write. As an atheist I am one of the last people to defend any religion and agree that almost every single horrendous act against humanity throughout history has religion as its basis. I am concerned, however, that you seem to believe the Catholic Church is far more guilty in this respect than any other religion. Comparisons between the Catholic Church and the Orange Order are made difficult by the fact that the Orangeism is not strictly a religion and also includes political aspirations, namely unionism, as a key part of its agenda. The acts of which you accuse the Catholic Church, however, are historical; the intolerant anti-catholicism of the Orange order continues. The Catholic Church is mainstream; the Orange Order is extreme. You then try and make a chicken and egg type argument. The Catholic Church was not founded with the hatred of the Orange Order as one of its corner stones. The Orange Order, however, would not exist without the Catholic Church. Which is the chicken and which is the egg seems clear enough to me. Next you proceed to make some incredibly sweeping generalisations about catholics and protestants which even manages to offend an atheist with its arrogance, all of it seeming based on your opinion of a pal. Your argument about the religious make up of the teams gets sillier and sillier. One thing Big Jock bloody well did know was that if had the choice of a catholic and protestant player of similar ability, he would sign the protestant as Rangers would never sign the catholic player. I am not damning the number 0; the number damns Rangers. You then seem to shoot yourselves in both feet and the genitals ââ?¬â?? why do you think Celtic, as you correctly claim, were able to choose the best of the 18%? Surely Rangers were trying to sign the best catholic players too? Werenââ?¬â?¢t they? Without even trying, I can think of at least one Jewish Celtic player. He scored twice against you at Ibrox about 8 years ago if that helps you. What point are you trying to make anyway? It is a statistical inevitability that small groups will often be under or over represented. Think of your own club and former Austria Vienna players last season for an interesting example of the latter. 18% of a country with a population of 5 million people, however, is not a small number, and for Rangers to have gone decades without signing a single catholic is not some simple statistical anomaly. If 30 (instead of 23) was a typo you must have a very unusual layout to your keyboard. Maurice Johnstone may have been a hero to many Rangers fans, but you must recognise that a significant minority never accepted him. You must also recognise that the reaction of some Celtic fans was due to the fact he signed for Rangers after agreeing to resign for Celtic rather than simply the fact that he was a catholic playing for Rangers. Even accepting that you genuinely define fen1an as you state, how many of your fellow fans do you think allude to this when they use the word? Are you seriously suggesting that Rangers fans sing Billy Boys (being up to your knees in somebodyââ?¬â?¢s blood usually means theyââ?¬â?¢re dead) and FT P because catholics chose not to sign for Rangers? Frankie butted in at this point and made the same mistake our impartial CEO of the SFA made. It is one thing to state that ââ?¬Ë?no-one can claim the moral high-groundââ?¬â?¢, but why is suggesting one is worse than the other false. Firstly (as Frankie has challenged me) where is the evidence? Why is the default position that both are equally bad? Secondly (and more importantly) surely statistically the chances of this in any case are absolutely miniscule. As I said earlier it is about as likely as your garden having exactly the same number of weeds as mine. Are Italian women exactly equally as beautiful or ugly as Belgian women? Itââ?¬â?¢s just nonsense. You should choose or reject a team to support, but in Rangersââ?¬â?¢ case they did actually reject catholic players and did effectively reject catholic supporters. Donââ?¬â?¢t you understand that? Then we have more ridiculous generalisations. You pluck figures of 0% and 100% out of thin air. Rangersââ?¬â?¢ idea of acknowledging Billy Boys was to ask their fans to stop singing it in case the club was punished. I am still to hear ââ?¬Ë?Sirââ?¬â?¢ David, anyone else at Ibrox or even a single fan acknowledge it by asking their fans to stop singing it because it is plain wrong. I accept most of your examples of false accusations of sectarianism. I could draw up a similar list for my club. You may not be aware that Celtic were very nearly thrown out of the league by the SFA for flying the Irish flag above their stadium in the 50s. I understand that Rangers, to their credit, supported Celtic. We are regularly criticised about republican songs. Gerry McNee, recently referred to ââ?¬Ë?Irish toshââ?¬â?¢ on Scotsport. Try substituting the word Pak1 in there and he would have been arrested. These examples, however, do not in the main form the basis of accusations of sectarianism made against your club. I am sure that there have been some Celtic fans with a low IQ and/or prejudice who hold these mistaken views and from time to time get their moment on some stupid phone in or in the letter section of their paper, but almost all of the constructive and informed criticism concerns FT P, Billy Boys and the like.

And why exactly is it pointless and disingenuous to quantify who is worse than the other, unless you secretly know for sure it's you?

Frankie- perhaps very hard, by its very nature, to prove in a strictly legal sense, but I would equally struggle to prove that Maradona was a better player than Darren Jackson, but we both know the reality. I have slightly mixed feelings about Graham Spiers. The standard of sports journalism in Scotland is so utterly execrable that he is, in my opinion, regardless of what you think about what he has said about Rangers, one of the best. That is not saying a lot. I suspect that the problem most Rangers fans have is that you have enjoyed hugely favoutable coverage for so long. I therefore admire Spiers for having the balls to discuss things previously regarded as off limits. I agree that he can be arrogant and pompous and rather enjoys winding you guys up, sometimes (but not always) slightly gratuitously.

Calscot is one of the best posters on GersNet, but this is not one of his best posts and the congratulations from others leave me scratching my head. I agree in the broadest sense that the problems in Scotland are an almost inevitable consequence of its particular demographics rather than one religious group being inherently more intolerant than the other. After that he completely loses me. Comparisons between the Church of Scotland and the Catholic Church are valid; the Orange Order, however, are an extreme and anti-catholic organisation. It IS different, completely different. If your friend is 'a catholic atheist' then I (through my upbringing) am a 'protestant atheist'. In reality both of us are simply atheists. I should know. More importantly, I have no idea what an anecdotal version of a single Celtic fan's views brings to the debate. It is rather like your fellow fans trying to damn my club for a single cretin running onto the pitch a couple of weeks ago while defending literally tens of thousands of your fans singing rampant and blatant bigotry for decades. I am no lover of either the Catholic Church or the Church of Scotland. Force me to choose and I'd pick the latter. That does not mean I dislike anybody who follows either. I don't accept your comparison between the Catholic Church and the Orange Order or Klu Klux Klan, both of whom hold a fundamental dislike of other creeds as central to their beliefs. The Catholic Church does not. Anyone with an IQ over about 70 can see the obvious statistical flaws in your arguement about signing policy. For starters, try turning numbers into percentages and you'll find 0% looks pretty poor compared to any other number. I could go on but I suspect even you recognise how feeble your case is here. You rather spoil your only semi-valid point by ridiculous exagerration. Maurice Johnstone was signed (to the disgust of many Rangers supporters) in 1989 which is 18 years ago, barely more than half of your claim of 30 years. Rather damaging for your credibility and indeed that of your club. What exactly is contetious about the word 'fen1an'? What exactly is political about the word 'fen1an'? We move on to catholics choosing their football team. Why would anybody in their right mind choose a football team whose fans sing about killing members of their religion and of wishing to have intercourse with their leader? Protestants have a valid choice when it comes to this, catholics do not. That is why many protestants support Celtic and almost no catholics support Rangers. Or do you believe that protestants are somehow more open minded and therefore better than catholics? 'How could they reject catholics' - you're having a laugh, surely? In your final paragraph you totally miss the point. Perhaps (and only perhaps) Rangers fans do acknowledge their problems more, but like the entire Scottish establishment you incorrectly assume that one side has as much to acknowledge as the other.

My club see sectarian songs as sectarian. They see political and offensive songs as political and offensive respectively. Your definition of offensive and their definition may differ or may be the same. I am even more certain than you about the first song on Saturday - not sectarian or political but offensive to anybody with an once of decency. I don't even have to name it, do I? Your last but one paragraph is completely anecdotal, highly unlikely and proves nothing anyway. What do you mean 'ain't a 50-50 problem any more' - when do you believe it ever was?

I believe that a great many Rangers fans are intolerant of catholics. The number of Celtic fans intolerant of protestants in my opinion is far smaller. I agree with most of the rest of your post, and the use of religion as a wrapper in particular. Celtic and Rangers fans tend (more than other football rivals) to be different in ways other than religion. The biggest difference between a Hibs and a Hearts fan is likely to be the team they support. This is often not the case with Celtic and Rangers fans.

No, there is the very rare example of a catholic supporting Rangers, but there is no example of Rangers fans loving catholics.

Don't quite follow you at the end craig. These things by their nature are very subjective. Rangers deserve some credit for the improvements that have happened in the last year or so. I have two main issues however, one with Rangers and one with Scottish society. I am still to hear anybody from Rangers criticise Billy Boys because it is offensive and plain wrong - the fans have been asked not to sing it only because the club may be penalised by the authorities. My other issue is that the authorities, media and Scottish establishment scandalously ignored your club's bigotry until UEFA highlighted it.

And your point is...................?

I don't think the sun shines out of his arse if that is what you are asking - he is no Hugh McIllvaney - but I greatly admire him for having the balls to go into areas conveniently ignored by the Scottish establishment for decades. 'Questions the fallacy' would have been a better choice of words. The fallacy had been destroyed in my eyes a very long time ago.

You may be 'pretty sure' but I'm sure as hell not. Not saying it's a one way street, just that it's not 50-50.

craig - fair point. In a court of law requiring guilt to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, I accept that proving a case against Rangers is difficult. While you are not required to do this, however, may I suggest to you that proving their innocence beyond reasonable doubt would be nigh on impossible. There is equally absolutely no evidence that the scale of the problem is equal at the two clubs. There are few facts in this debate, but one that stands out to me is that nobody seriously suggests Celtic are the worse offenders here. The worst accusation seems to be that they are no better than Rangers. Am I reading too much into this? I have stated my opinion, one supported by a former supporter of your club.

No it is not. Even if you choose not to look at the facts, your statement is about as likely as your garden having the same number of weeds as mine. Why should this be the case? It may suit the agenda of journalists who are at best lazy and more likely biased, but has no basis in reality.

bmck - Rangers' alleged anti-catholic agenda is not really a topic that should be raised as a mere subplot, hence my reason for only a brief reference. Try and read the following statement with a straight face: Rangers Football Club and their fans love catholics. No, I didn't think you could manage either.