'The Rangersââ?¬â?¢ ââ?¬â?? Our Identity Explored

[bmck 117]

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 8,148]

calscot:

 

I understand what you're trying to say. There's no doubt some do use such songs to win others up. However, many more - despite not being religious (myself included) - use them as simply songs to show our support taking the words in their own personal meaning.

 

EG: 'Derrys Walls' message is one that celebrates freedom from tyranny. The Battle of the Boyne meant a lot of things and some will appreciate it's message therein. For me, I understand that, but mainly I use the 'No Surrender' message not because I still want to fight for freedom but because I don't want our team to give up.

 

As such, I feel your Boruc analogy - while partly correct - is also wrong because doesn't use his religion in a positive way but merely to perpetuate the divides. As a well-paid professional he should be above the kind of behaviour that should be left to the lowest common denominator of the Olf Firm fan.

[Frankie 8,148]

Also, a fine post bmck...

[calscot 0]

Frankie, in my opion, Derry's Walls is a different kettle of fish from The Sash.

 

Unless the singers or their fathers are members of the OO then I cannot think of a valid reason for them singing the song bar to wind up Celtic fans - who seem very bigoted towards the OO, just as some Rangers fans are bigoted towards people crossing themselves.

 

However, the sentiment of, "No surrender," is a very valid one for anyone in life, and applies extremely well to football.

 

I realise there is nothing inherently wrong with singing The Sash, but then there is nothing inherently wrong with crossing yourself. What seems less that genuine to me, is when either of these is done in specifically to wind up people who find it offensive.

 

Both deeds are guilty of exacerbating and perpetuating a divide we should actually be doing our best to reduce.

 

So while it is hard to persuade people to stop singing songs which seem to serve no other value except to provoke and divide, I am dead against the encouragement of these type of songs due to some false and frankly dishonourable tradition.

 

Society has enough problems so let's not use tradition as an excuse or vehicle to add to them.

 

Celtic have many songs and traditions that are equally as distasteful and divisive but let's concentrate on Rangers just now.

 

Like I said I can see some value in Derry's Walls, but with regards to the battle of the Boyne, you would have a greater case if most of the singers knew much at all about that battle and the ramifications you mention.

 

I find it hard to believe those who glorify at doing so for other reasons that the fact the prods beat the micks, they happen to be a prod, and the micks hate it.

 

Maybe if your case is correct then we should perhaps champion the positive consequences of the battle rather than the battle itself. One of which was supposed to be religious tolerance.

 

So, while Boruc is a professional and can't get away with the same kind of insidious behavour as the lowest common denominator of the OF crowds, the Trust actually has more of responsibility in what it encourages the fans to do.

 

They have to be careful about what aspects of our traditions that they encourage the crowds to follow.

 

For me, The Sash, as well as other less genuine songs and traditions, should not be included.

[Frankie 8,148]

As long as people don't add any offensive crap such as *** to The Sash or the like then I'm completely comfortable with people singing it - history educated or not.

 

The songs have been sung for a long, long time and as I showed in the original post there are genuine reasons why this is the case. While these traditions may well have decreased over time that doesn't mean we should stop singing the songs just because some don't understand their literal meaning.

 

Of course a few will sing it just to annoy Celtic supporters. However, as long as the references are not offensive (and they're not nowadays) then that's part and parcel of the game.

 

Similarly, if Boruc wants to cross himself - I couldn't care less. It's the other actions that accompany that act which has caused him problems - not the act itself, which happens reasonably often without reaction at Ibrox.

 

I think we need to stop second guessing people's intentions with regard to songs. As long as they don't cause immediate offence then there should be no problem with the fans who sing them.

 

Derrys Walls and the Sash are popular songs amongst the support and I think it's unfair to generalise on just how many people sing it for specific reasons.

[calscot 0]

Again, I never said to stop people singing The Sash.

 

To me, it’s that we have to be very careful about what we discourage people to sing and what we encourage people to sing.

 

We should only completely discourage or ban songs that are truly offensive or discriminatory, but at the same time we should only encourage songs that are completely honourable and valid.

 

The Sash to me lies in between these extremes. In my opinion it should neither be actively discouraged nor actively encouraged.

 

It's easy to say that we shouldn't second guess people's motives but how far does that extend? If Boruc is sticking his middle finger up to the fans should we give him the benefit of the doubt that he may be checking the stitching in that finger of his glove? Did Lennon deliberately spit on a Rangers scarf or was he just careless when getting rid of some flem?

 

But sometimes you just have to take into account how we are perceived. I disaprove of the red hand salute as many people mistake this for a Nazi salute, and many songs and intentions can be misinterpreted the same way.

 

Tradition is a funny thing, it's almost like a religion for the sake of it and tends to mostly end up restricting freedom of choice and thought. Like Christmas there are many things we do in the name of tradition which are only recent additions. Seems to me, that if you do something three times, it becomes a tradition. Therefore, just as some Rangers traditions have been invented recently, we can invent a new tradition any time and abandon others too.

 

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.)

 

What I am concerned about it that if we start making our traditions official in some way, then we need to be very careful about what we promote.

 

Is an older tradition more important than a recent one? Should we base our traditions on the sporting values of our founders in 1873, or the dignity and moral values of the great man, Bill Struth? Maybe we should go back to the 17th century and define what the Battle of the Boyne was all about, or should it just be based on the songs and actions of the support over the last ten or twenty years?

 

I think if we're going to promote our traditions, we should be careful and choose the most honest and honourable ones and those most relevant to the club and the fans.

 

If we are going to promote ourselves to be, "more than a club," and, "we are the people," then I hope it's going to be for very positive reasons.

 

To me it should be underlying principles which don't change much with time, historical events or cultural evolution.

 

It seems a pretty serious undertaking.

[Frankie 8,148]

I don't think we're asking any traditions to be made official (some such as Unionism already are) but just making the point that we do have them and should not need to apologise (or remove) them just because others may not share them.

 

After all that's what certain people are trying to do when they criticise our background, songs and banners.

[calscot 0]

I agree with your sentiments and often defend our club and fans in that respect.

 

Although I have no real feelings for the OO either way, I think one of the biggest issues that perpetuates the problem is that many Catholics and Cetlic fans are actively against them in way that crosses the boundaries of bigotry.

 

Yet, this specific bigotry does not seem properly recognised by our society and somehow seems to be deemed, "acceptable," and preposterously, "justified."

 

Not only that, it is somehow great to fly a flag from another country and sing their anthem but then deemed bigoted and wrong to fly the flag of your nation and sing your own anthem.

 

I'm not fond of the latter actions or some people's sentiments behind it, but I am appalled by the injustice and double standards that cause people to find it unacceptable and to be able to display them without any objections.

 

However, I find it a bit uncomforable on our high horse when we are not exactly guilt free ourselves.

[bmck 117]

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.

[calscot 0]

Rangers FC being a football club and not a religious order should mean that it is fundamentally secular. Therefore any connection to a religious persuasion has to have been (and to be) via shared philosophical viewpoints and principles; and maybe not least to having a sizable proportion of the fans from that religion.

 

I myself, as a Rangers fan with an unspecified religious view, would probably feel alienated if Rangers instated official intrinsic values which could only be shared by those believing in one specific religion.

 

I'm also can’t see how supporting Rangers is directly equivalent to Protestantism.

 

I hope that most Rangers fans, and fans of any other club, are fans by choice and not as a direct result of whichever religion they were indoctrinated into, or of pressure to support a team chosen by their school.

 

Celtic FC, to me, is the worst example of this, and I really hope Rangers become less like them, rather than follow their example.

 

Maybe the truth is, I want to gloss over some of our history as I can't see how having a pro-Protestant (and pro-pseudo-Protestant) stance with an anti-Catholic (and anti-pseudo-Catholic) stance, is that admirable or something to be proud of and celebrate.

 

Let Celtic fans do that, but for me, Rangers have been first and last a football club and I have never supported them for any other reason.

 

I would like all people in this modern age, regardless of religion or whether they are even religious, to feel comfortable about choosing Rangers as a sporting club to support.