Reaction to Lafferty's wedding in a Catholic church

[Danny 0]

I dont think you can read to be quite honest and for some reason you seem to use the term Bigot towards Rangers supporters as a way to feel better about yourself.

 

I think you should state your position then.

[Danny 0]

There's some total pish in this thread from both sides of the Rangers family.

 

There is no Rangers family. Never was. Just a hashtag to gain followers on Twitter.

[der Berliner 3,245]

What bit do you think i misread surely not the condescending remark at the start.

 

You seem to be defending the poster calling me a Bigot or his classic line "people like me" when i have posted nothing bigoted in the thread.

 

So i take it you think calling people a Bigot helps explain Bigotry to them. Why would you and the OP think you could lecture me on Bigotry. its good that you seem to think i would not understand the concept.

 

The reply you quoted and the bold part in there was my remark on your reply to Danny's:

If you're condemning Lafferty for getting married in a chapel, what are you if not a bigot? Would you have condemned him for getting married in a Synagogue? If you're not condemning him at all, but merely defending the bigoted right to free speech, then I object to that a little less.

 

In fact, he did not call YOU a bigot, but anyone who condemns Lafferty for marrying in a chapel. For that "anyone" is indeed a bigot, a religious bigot to be precise. No ifs and buts, it is by definition. Hence my reply. If people understand the concept of bigotry, they would have seen that. And, BTW, I'm not saying that any bigot or any sort of bigotry is by default "evil" or the like. There is a difference between active and passive intolerance though and certainly we can do without the former.

[Frankie 8,150]

Of course there is a Rangers family.

 

Hundreds of thousands of bears work together to support the club on a regular basis. A few hundred/few thousand people online isn't necessarily representative of the support at large. In fact, I'd say is a hugely distorted view of football fans as arguably the majority of supporters don't care for much of the 'political' issues most often discussed online.

 

A club doesn't have 140 years of history if the people behind it don't have a generally positive relationship.

[Frankie 8,150]

Just because someone doesn't agree with Catholicism (or indeed any religion) and by extension disagreeing with someone getting married in a place of worship doesn't make them a bigot.

[Danny 0]

Of course there is a Rangers family.

 

Not from what I see.

 

Hundreds of thousands of bears work together to support the club on a regular basis. A few hundred/few thousand people online isn't necessarily representative of the support at large. In fact, I'd say is a hugely distorted view of football fans as arguably the majority of supporters don't care for much of the 'political' issues most often discussed online.

 

So that 'yank go home' banner didn't happen 'in the real world'? It was from the Internet? Those fans online have different views in the real world to the ones they express away from an iPhone?

 

A club doesn't have 140 years of history if the people behind it don't have a generally positive relationship.

 

There are institutions way older than Rangers with centuries of infighting - religion being a good example. Political parties being another. So, I disagree, respectfully.

[Danny 0]

Just because someone doesn't agree with Catholicism (or indeed any religion) and by extension disagreeing with someone getting married in a place of worship doesn't make them a bigot.

 

You're twisting it. People were complaining about it being a chapel. I can't stand religion or Catholicism indeed but I would never condemn Lafferty for getting married in one. I suspect others wouldn't have complained if he'd wed in a synagogue either. This is an anti-catholic stance from a minority and you well know it.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

no banner saying yank go home has ever been flown at a rangers game.

[der Berliner 3,245]

Just because someone doesn't agree with Catholicism (or indeed any religion) and by extension disagreeing with someone getting married in a place of worship doesn't make them a bigot.

 

He nonetheless favours a bigotted mindset. I know people will be up in arms again for being told, but the concept of being a "bigot" is simple:

 

Someone who thinks unreasonably that their own - strong - opinion is correct, especially about religion, race, or politics.

 

That leaves a wide open range for interpretation, but honestly, we all know what we are talking about here. It's sure not like telling anyone on here that they behave like the KKK when having a go Lafferty, but the mindset is bigotted nonetheless. Matter of fact, it is sectarian along the way. And that is a downright neutral statement.

[Frankie 8,150]

Not from what I see.

 

 

 

So that 'yank go home' banner didn't happen 'in the real world'? It was from the Internet? Those fans online have different views in the real world to the ones they express away from an iPhone?

 

 

 

There are institutions way older than Rangers with centuries of infighting - religion being a good example. Political parties being another. So, I disagree, respectfully.

 

You don't look very far then. I see plenty of Rangers fans working together on a regular basis on and offline.

 

The banners you talk about were organised by people who post online. Almost all such 'political' banners are.

 

Large organisations do have differences of opinion within them. That is healthy and that's why such organisations remain successful. Doesn't mean the majority don't get on when they clearly do.

 

That is true of Rangers fans. Yes we have some who don't get on or perhaps argue a bit too strongly but generally our support is one which an and does work together.