Green brigade songbook

[michael duffy]

I get really phuqed off sometimes,diversity is a wonderful thing,butracism, sectarianism and all the the other "isms ,ffs" inventions of men with agenda's to keep the elites in power. to maintain the status quo and keep the sheep in their place,work for them,provide for them, fight for them,die for them,keep us divided. through race and religion,two world wars,working people killing working people,because we speak different languages and have different cultures,and us "the masses" never learn "divide and conquer or the workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains! but hey we have our songs, our choice! sorry for the cynicism,

 

[michael duffy]

Why should it be outlawed?
Give legitimate reasons.

Most?
You know exactly what BBB has got to do with majority of Celtic supporters.
What does a song have to do with Supporting Celtic got to do with banning it?
Should they will be coming down the road be banned from scotland games?
Should swing low sweet chariot be banned from England games?

Your personal belief is most find it embrarassing? Even if that was true why should that be reason to ban the song.

Should always look on the bright side of life be banned?
For its grand old team to play for. That might embarasses some people. It might even be disputed by some people who don't support Celtic should it be banned?

I know lots of history scholars. Why would their embarssement be reason to ban a song.

Now in your case i can understand why you might not like the song. Can understand your reason for maybe even getting the boak when you hear it.

But what right does that have to people who don't get boak and enjoy the song for whatever reason?

Opinions are fine
But unless they breach virtue or law they should not be banned even if they trigger embarrassment.

Thats not a legitimate reason for outlawing a song.

If someone wants to sing Little miss muffet at the game then thats his right.

What right does anyone have to say shut up mate your embarassing yourself. Strange example i know. But what Im looking for is legitimate reasons for having that opinion.

Does it offend someone?
Is that a good enough reason to have it blocked.

Where do you draw the line.

What constitutes the right too decide a song should be banned if it breaches no law or virtue?

Je t'aime!

 

[Anton]

Why should it be outlawed?
Give legitimate reasons.

Most?
You know exactly what BBB has got to do with majority of Celtic supporters.
What does a song have to do with Supporting Celtic got to do with banning it?
Should they will be coming down the road be banned from scotland games?
Should swing low sweet chariot be banned from England games?

Your personal belief is most find it embrarassing? Even if that was true why should that be reason to ban the song.

Should always look on the bright side of life be banned?
For its grand old team to play for. That might embarasses some people. It might even be disputed by some people who don't support Celtic should it be banned?

I know lots of history scholars. Why would their embarssement be reason to ban a song.

Now in your case i can understand why you might not like the song. Can understand your reason for maybe even getting the boak when you hear it.

But what right does that have to people who don't get boak and enjoy the song for whatever reason?

Opinions are fine
But unless they breach virtue or law they should not be banned even if they trigger embarrassment.

Thats not a legitimate reason for outlawing a song.

If someone wants to sing Little miss muffet at the game then thats his right.

What right does anyone have to say shut up mate your embarassing yourself. Strange example i know. But what Im looking for is legitimate reasons for having that opinion.

Does it offend someone?
Is that a good enough reason to have it blocked.

Where do you draw the line.

What constitutes the right too decide a song should be banned if it breaches no law or virtue?

I have never stated that I have the right to deny anyone anything and I believe you are well aware of that, TET.

Where do you get the right to tell me what you can sing?

Basically, you could save yourself a lot of time and effort by stating you don't give a toss about what I think. That is the main thrust of your argument.

All I want is a debate opened up by the GB on the singing of pro-IRA chants at our football matches.

When finished, they can tell us their reasoning.

Then the debate can really begin.

 

[boab1916]

Aftermath. His brothers George Oliver Plunkett and Jack Plunkett joined him in the Easter Rising and later became important IRA men. His father's cousin, Horace Plunkett, was a Protestant and unionist who sought to reconcile unionists and nationalists.

It interests me that you think Wellington was a horrendous character (need to know some history to make that judgement) and its not so easy to move on when you know history.

You suggest all religion is man made. That in itself is very volatile statement. Much more aggressive than singing BBB. It also has undertones of rebellion of a different kind. For in my opinion no law will ever be relevant or enforceable if all humanity sprung from animals. You also allude that BBB makes people want to have a physical fight that ends in bloodshed. Cant see why you would even think that ever?

We need to do our bit to move on? A song about ethical resistance to oppression should be binned for the need to move on. I would suggest getting back to virtue theory and confronting all unresolved injustices would be better way to move on and end injustice.

The BBB is ahistorical song relevant to the time it was made about real injustice and hypocrisy. Now i realise that many who sing the song may not fully be aware of the full history. But moving on when that very injustice and hypocrisy is still prevalent in modern world, maybe even be now worse since its now clandestine, will not aid the moving on process.

Holster empty are a sign that they are not needed. In a world where political power and the clandestine agendas of clear injustice are promoted the only way known to man historically to fight against unjust armed oppressors is prayer or violence. Neither of which you believe is righteous since you don't believe in virtue. Which was the gift of God taught on the sermon on the mount.

I dont condone holding a gun but I do understand why it may be necessary to hold unjust power to account. And i for one under extreme duress would quite possibly be forced to take up arms to fight for truth. Now you may take the Pilate position and say what is truth when you stand eyeball to eyeball with the man who claims he is the way the truth and the life. But if someone with your confused opinions get power I might need to stand up for my reasoned truth against your clandestine power grab. Stalin who trained to be a priest became your move on for mankind commander. He killed more men than anyone i can think of for the benefit of moving on. Probably need that holster and gun back together just incase The stalin world view gets the nod again. No free press. No free anything, All comrades unless you have proper understanding of love. And sometimes a gun is needed to stand up for love.

Now you will probably say I've gone off on one with nonsense. Thats my right based on my study of religions and history. And i can assure you your opinion is not new, its not modern and it it doesn't lead to moving on for the good of mankind. Its the same dialogue used by all megalomaniacs just before they seize power and enforce their kind of truth.

I would suggest your opinion on this matter is really just tokenism as you put it. Now if people don't want to sing broad black trimmer. Thats allowed. If you don't get the meaning or agree with it. Thats allowed. You are entitled to an opinion on anything. Thats allowed. But to try and suggest somehow it prevents moving on is a misinformation. That cause should never be forgotten. It was just. It may not be Celtic related. But if its a common thing with section of celtic support and its not illegal then your opinion aint any more important that the people who sing it. And how do you know the players don't enjoy the atmosphere generated when its sung with gusto.

You want to suggest some highly offensive suggestions thats your right. But to suggest your opinions which aren't that well thought out are worth attention and somehow the majority view is strange egotistical viewpoint.

And even if the majority of the fans don't want people singing songs they don't particularly like, unless there is a much more legitimate reason for outlawing the song than the nihilistic viewpoint your opinions allude to then since they aren't illegal and enjoyed by a a section of the support and give them strong voice of unity under a just cause, then I will defend anyones right to sing a song they enjoy singing. Singing songs of glorying in oppression or injustice should be outlawed by modern society. Singing songs about murder or unjustified rebellion should be outlawed. But again that would require proper education with virtuous reasoning.

In fact if you don't rate history why do you even have any opinion on anything? Why not just take up meditation and live in the moment letting the peepo treat you like a sub species who are there to be their slave.

History is very important.
Moving on takes more than tokenism
And every suggestion you passed as modern leads to oppression.

I will defend the right of anyone to sing broad black trimmer anywhere.
Its just and pure.
Your tokenism is not just.

But i will defend your right to express your opinion perhaps I might need to do it with a gun in my holster one day.

I hope not.

The only thing in your opinion i agree on is it takes both sides to compromise after addressing past injustice.

Until the past is properly addressed the compromise is not legitimate and moving on into future without clear understanding of history is unsatisfactory.

TET the same people who want CP to be their wee paradise are been told whats acceptable and whats not but thats not for the Celtic pride its for the Celtic accounts, for example Rod the mod:
Is Grace accepatable singing at CP remeber selective listening is not an option.
Yes or no
Joseph Mary Plunkett Rod siad was a love song, JMP would shoot you in a minute for his beliefs so is it right to glorify him in his song.

Aftermath. His brothers George Oliver Plunkett and Jack Plunkett joined him in the Easter Rising and later became important IRA men. His father's cousin, Horace Plunkett, was a Protestant and unionist who sought to reconcile unionists and nationalists.

I rest my case let the people sing

 

[TET]

I have never stated that I have the right to deny anyone anything and I believe you are well aware of that, TET.

Where do you get the right to tell me what you can sing?

Basically, you could save yourself a lot of time and effort by stating you don't give a toss about what I think. That is the main thrust of your argument.

All I want is a debate opened up by the GB on the singing of pro-IRA chants at our football matches.

When finished, they can tell us their reasoning..

Then the debate can really begin.

Im not stating your opinion is worthless. Im not stating I couldn't care less what your opinion is. Im very grateful to dialogue with you on any topic. Your voice is just as important to mine. And to certain extent since you have first hand knowledge of certain organisation then perhaps your opinion should be taken into consideration than mine.

My point is law, rather than taste. Unless its illegal I don't think taste should be taken into consideration. Why?

Because taste is not really got much to do with law unless it infringes against some human law or virtue.

Now you could argue law and virtue are also subject to taste. But right and wrong are the basic points. Should Gammon be banned because it doesn't quite suit my taste? Should beer be banned because it doesn't suit his taste? Should certain songs be banned because it doesn't suit your taste?

Well I think in all cases the advantages and disadvantages should be taken into account on all topics. But at the end of the day, unless its a legitimate reason that is enforceable under some kind of standard thats not biased or at least properly justifiable according to recognised virtuous rational tradition then I don't think particular taste issue are sufficient.

Because at the end of the day, we all have certain bias and heuristics that need some kind of standard to keep in check.

 

[Theverdict]

It interests me that you think Wellington was a horrendous character (need to know some history to make that judgement) and its not so easy to move on when you know history.

You suggest all religion is man made. That in itself is very volatile statement. Much more aggressive than singing BBB. It also has undertones of rebellion of a different kind. For in my opinion no law will ever be relevant or enforceable if all humanity sprung from animals. You also allude that BBB makes people want to have a physical fight that ends in bloodshed. Cant see why you would even think that ever?

We need to do our bit to move on? A song about ethical resistance to oppression should be binned for the need to move on. I would suggest getting back to virtue theory and confronting all unresolved injustices would be better way to move on and end injustice.

The BBB is ahistorical song relevant to the time it was made about real injustice and hypocrisy. Now i realise that many who sing the song may not fully be aware of the full history. But moving on when that very injustice and hypocrisy is still prevalent in modern world, maybe even be now worse since its now clandestine, will not aid the moving on process.

Holster empty are a sign that they are not needed. In a world where political power and the clandestine agendas of clear injustice are promoted the only way known to man historically to fight against unjust armed oppressors is prayer or violence. Neither of which you believe is righteous since you don't believe in virtue. Which was the gift of God taught on the sermon on the mount.

I dont condone holding a gun but I do understand why it may be necessary to hold unjust power to account. And i for one under extreme duress would quite possibly be forced to take up arms to fight for truth. Now you may take the Pilate position and say what is truth when you stand eyeball to eyeball with the man who claims he is the way the truth and the life. But if someone with your confused opinions get power I might need to stand up for my reasoned truth against your clandestine power grab. Stalin who trained to be a priest became your move on for mankind commander. He killed more men than anyone i can think of for the benefit of moving on. Probably need that holster and gun back together just incase The stalin world view gets the nod again. No free press. No free anything, All comrades unless you have proper understanding of love. And sometimes a gun is needed to stand up for love.

Now you will probably say I've gone off on one with nonsense. Thats my right based on my study of religions and history. And i can assure you your opinion is not new, its not modern and it it doesn't lead to moving on for the good of mankind. Its the same dialogue used by all megalomaniacs just before they seize power and enforce their kind of truth.

I would suggest your opinion on this matter is really just tokenism as you put it. Now if people don't want to sing broad black trimmer. Thats allowed. If you don't get the meaning or agree with it. Thats allowed. You are entitled to an opinion on anything. Thats allowed. But to try and suggest somehow it prevents moving on is a misinformation. That cause should never be forgotten. It was just. It may not be Celtic related. But if its a common thing with section of celtic support and its not illegal then your opinion aint any more important that the people who sing it. And how do you know the players don't enjoy the atmosphere generated when its sung with gusto.

You want to suggest some highly offensive suggestions thats your right. But to suggest your opinions which aren't that well thought out are worth attention and somehow the majority view is strange egotistical viewpoint.

And even if the majority of the fans don't want people singing songs they don't particularly like, unless there is a much more legitimate reason for outlawing the song than the nihilistic viewpoint your opinions allude to then since they aren't illegal and enjoyed by a a section of the support and give them strong voice of unity under a just cause, then I will defend anyones right to sing a song they enjoy singing. Singing songs of glorying in oppression or injustice should be outlawed by modern society. Singing songs about murder or unjustified rebellion should be outlawed. But again that would require proper education with virtuous reasoning.

In fact if you don't rate history why do you even have any opinion on anything? Why not just take up meditation and live in the moment letting the peepo treat you like a sub species who are there to be their slave.

History is very important.
Moving on takes more than tokenism
And every suggestion you passed as modern leads to oppression.

I will defend the right of anyone to sing broad black trimmer anywhere.
Its just and pure.
Your tokenism is not just.

But i will defend your right to express your opinion perhaps I might need to do it with a gun in my holster one day.

I hope not.

The only thing in your opinion i agree on is it takes both sides to compromise after addressing past injustice.

Until the past is properly addressed the compromise is not legitimate and moving on into future without clear understanding of history is unsatisfactory.

Wellington was a horrible character, great general perhaps, but bit s nice fellow. Gods remember there is over 10,000 are man made. Evolution is a fact, even the Vatican acknowledges that. I don’t think the BBB helps the team. I think people professing a love of Republicans should do more than sing at away games. That’s my points in a nutshell

 

[Anton]

Im not stating your opinion is worthless. Im not stating I couldn't care less what your opinion is. Im very grateful to dialogue with you on any topic. Your voice is just as important to mine. And to certain extent since you have first hand knowledge of certain organisation then perhaps your opinion should be taken into consideration than mine.

My point is law, rather than taste. Unless its illegal I don't think taste should be taken into consideration. Why?

Because taste is not really got much to do with law unless it infringes against some human law or virtue.

Now you could argue law and virtue are also subject to taste. But right and wrong are the basic points. Should Gammon be banned because it doesn't quite suit my taste? Should beer be banned because it doesn't suit his taste? Should certain songs be banned because it doesn't suit your taste?

Well I think in all cases the advantages and disadvantages should be taken into account on all topics. But at the end of the day, unless its a legitimate reason that is enforceable under some kind of standard thats not biased or at least properly justifiable according to recognised virtuous rational tradition then I don't think particular taste issue are sufficient.

Because at the end of the day, we all have certain bias and heuristics that need some kind of standard to keep in check.

My point has nothing to do with law, it has to do with Celtic values.

Your arguments, on your view about basic acceptance of standards, is all well and good, except you are not interested in my viewpoint. You make it clear, time and time again, that my opinion lacks validity in your eyes - irrespective of your protestations to the contrary.

Therefore, there is - sadly - no point in either of us debating the singing of pro-IRA songs at CP. If you, truly, believe there is no reason to be embarrassed at those songs then we are so polar in our trenches that it saddens me to my very core.

Why? Because the love we have for our club is so blatantly obvious that it, at times, actually hurts!

I don't understand the need to glorify past troubles at a game of football. You, for whatever reason, do!

There is nothing, and I mean nothing, you can say or do that shall ever justify these songs at CP, to me.

I have the same rights as you as a Celtic supporter.

Once more; what gives you the right to tell me, or anyone, what you can sing at our games?

The answer is simple - you don't have any right whatsoever!

 

[Micmac]

I originally referenced Wellington to make an observation and to show one point of view that I happen to agree with , for what its worth. The fact that he was the nemesis of someone who subverted the republican cause has been brought into focus but this thread evolving. Allez Humbert and all the gallants of 1798. The croppies will not lie down.

 

[TET]

Wellington was a horrible character, great general perhaps, but bit s nice fellow. Gods remember there is over 10,000 are man made. Evolution is a fact, even the Vatican acknowledges that. I don’t think the BBB helps the team. I think people professing a love of Republicans should do more than sing at away games. That’s my points in a nutshell

Wellington was a horrible character. That is opinion. Personally I don't like the man, but thats personal opinion based on segments of his character. Ive never really looked into any of his biographies to make a proper judgement call.

There may well be more than a million Gods recognised by some group in history of man. But again thats not really sufficient reason to suggest there is not a creator with rational spirit and purpose.

Evolution is a fact. Thats a debatable point on its own for another blog perhaps. I would suggest it all depends on what you think evolution actually is referring. There are many many flaws in the evolution theory that can't be reconciled even among evolutionists. It may well be that in your mind they are factual but does that actually add any veracity to the debate?

To my knowledge Vatican has never once stated the evolution theory of darwin is fact. In fact it would nullify their doctrine. Whether you believe the vatican holds the truth is also for another blog thread or debate. Because in your mind you are satisfied that its been concluded doesn't make it so.

I don't think BBB helps the team? Why would that be a good reason to ban the song? I don't think eating pie at hal;f time helps the team or my belly or health generally but should that be reason not to sell pies?

I think people professing love of Republicans should do more than sing at away games? Depends what you mean by republicans perhaps. What more do you suggest the singers of these songs should do to legitimise the song? Should they turn up to the game with actual empty holsters? Would that make the song more authentic?

My opinion in nutshell is I can't see the point of law that is being breached in singing BBB in particular. I do understand the traditional aspect why that song was sung by Celtic fans. I don't see how that particular song breaks any laws. I do think it carries a message that is virtuous even if the people who sing it perhaps aren't familiar with that history. And I think i would set a bad precedent to ban songs that hold virtuous opinions.

 

[Theverdict]

I don’t believe in outlawing anything, that would never work. I would hope we stop doing it as it is damaging to Celtic. That’s different. You could never force it. That would be counter productive, but if anybody thinks these songs lift the team, I would disagree. I want our support to put as much energy into doing that by singing songs that do. Give the players a lift. Most on here never played for our team, but if we did, to hear our fans singing songs about you as a player mustvbe the greatest feeling. I would like more of that. Especially in difficult times like now when they need us. It’s just my view. I know many don’t agree, but I have every right to say that.

 

[TET]

I don’t believe in outlawing anything, that would never work. I would hope we stop doing it as it is damaging to Celtic. That’s different. You could never force it. That would be counter productive, but if anybody thinks these songs lift the team, I would disagree. I want our support to put as much energy into doing that by singing songs that do. Give the players a lift. Most on here never played for our team, but if we did, to hear our fans singing songs about you as a player mustvbe the greatest feeling. I would like more of that. Especially in difficult times like now when they need us. It’s just my view. I know many don’t agree, but I have every right to say that.

I dont dispute your right to do or say anything. Im not the voice of judgement mate. Just like you I'm putting forward my personal opinion. Its for others to decide what or can be useful.

Im not against or for banning songs that appear relevant or not. But I share my opinion just like you do.

 

[Theverdict]

Wellington was a horrible character. That is opinion. Personally I don't like the man, but thats personal opinion based on segments of his character. Ive never really looked into any of his biographies to make a proper judgement call.

There may well be more than a million Gods recognised by some group in history of man. But again thats not really sufficient reason to suggest there is not a creator with rational spirit and purpose.

Evolution is a fact. Thats a debatable point on its own for another blog perhaps. I would suggest it all depends on what you think evolution actually is referring. There are many many flaws in the evolution theory that can't be reconciled even among evolutionists. It may well be that in your mind they are factual but does that actually add any veracity to the debate?

To my knowledge Vatican has never once stated the evolution theory of darwin is fact. In fact it would nullify their doctrine. Whether you believe the vatican holds the truth is also for another blog thread or debate. Because in your mind you are satisfied that its been concluded doesn't make it so.

I don't think BBB helps the team? Why would that be a good reason to ban the song? I don't think eating pie at hal;f time helps the team or my belly or health generally but should that be reason not to sell pies?

I think people professing love of Republicans should do more than sing at away games? Depends what you mean by republicans perhaps. What more do you suggest the singers of these songs should do to legitimise the song? Should they turn up to the game with actual empty holsters? Would that make the song more authentic?

My opinion in nutshell is I can't see the point of law that is being breached in singing BBB in particular. I do understand the traditional aspect why that song was sung by Celtic fans. I don't see how that particular song breaks any laws. I do think it carries a message that is virtuous even if the people who sing it perhaps aren't familiar with that history. And I think i would set a bad precedent to ban songs that hold virtuous opinions.

Evolution is a fact and there is no areas that scientists disagree on with its central tenets. There is overwhelming evidence from fossils, DNA to show how all living organisms in this planet share common characteristics. Gods are man made, it’s interesting that most religious people will happily say every god but theirs is true. What are the odds that you just happen to be born in the true variation of your particular god?

There is absolutely no evidence for any god. If God’s had the same amount of evidence as evolution I would never be out of whatever gods had that, be that a church or mosque or synagogue or temple.

There is nothing. Literally nothing apart from the books to back up any god. The books themselves didn’t even know that thecwarth went around the sun. As people if that age thought. Why would a creator get that wrong? He wouldn’t it was men who write it. There are countless contradictions and just plainly wrong statements. The Bible endorses slavery, genocide, infanticide and sees women as chattels. This was the norm back in those days, but why woukdcan all living god want that?

He hates homosexuals and shrimps. Jumpers made of mixed fibers, tells us to kill our disobedient children, to burn witches, that have never existed but hundreds of thousands of women died horribly because of that.

It’s a book I would recommend people actually read. Growing up a Catholic I never read the Bible, it was always our catechism. Having read the Bible since I realise why the church didn’t want ordinary folk to read it. It’s horrendous telling people to kill all who don’t share their faith.

No god would write that. And if any did he can go fuck himself. But he didn’t. Because it was written by Bronze Age men who reflected their knowledge of the world the cosmos and morality. I would recommend people have a flick through it and ask themselves would a living god come out with the kind of stuff in it. Get everything wrong about what he created and condemn shrimps.

 

[TET]

My point has nothing to do with law, it has to do with Celtic values.

Your arguments, on your view about basic acceptance of standards, is all well and good, except you are not interested in my viewpoint. You make it clear, time and time again, that my opinion lacks validity in your eyes - irrespective of your protestations to the contrary.

Therefore, there is - sadly - no point in either of us debating the singing of pro-IRA songs at CP. If you, truly, believe there is no reason to be embarrassed at those songs then we are so polar in our trenches that it saddens me to my very core.

Why? Because the love we have for our club is so blatantly obvious that it, at times, actually hurts!

I don't understand the need to glorify past troubles at a game of football. You, for whatever reason, do!

There is nothing, and I mean nothing, you can say or do that shall ever justify these songs at CP, to me.

I have the same rights as you as a Celtic supporter.

Once more; what gives you the right to tell me, or anyone, what you can sing at our games?

The answer is simple - you don't have any right whatsoever!

Look Anton Im not telling you to do anything.

The polar point you make may be the very issue. Im not taking any polar position. Im taking the neutral position but to do that I need to offer an opinion that based on reason which for good reason makes you hold fast to the extreme end of a particular dialectic that has legitimate reasons in your particular case.

I am certainly not against you voicing your opinion.
I am certainly not against you.
I am certainly not glorifying past troubles.
I am most certainly interested in your viewpoint and it saddens me to hear you think anything I have said makes you think contrary.
I have never stated in my eyes your points have no validity. I have however stated that they are not legitimate reasons for banning the song outright. They may well encourage people to not sing them. But thats their personal choice. I will state again. At CP I have never once sung a rebel song that I can remember off hand. But I have absolutely no problem with people who do. And to be embarrassed by any song that has valid morality is strange position to hold. Even if that song has bad connotations for particular people.

Anton lets get one thing straight. I may come across as a know it all. I may come across as an arrogant twat. I may come across as nutcase.

But I am not telling you what is right or wrong. Its a debate. I have nothing against you or your opinion even if I don't convey that well in my communication. I have deep empathy for your particular circumstances. I Can see why people might not enjoy these songs.

But I can also see why people would feel aggrieved if they were forced to bin them due to political correctness rather than virtuous. And in my eyes at least these songs are virtuous and therefore acceptable as Celtic songs which in my eyes is a virtuous organisation. But again disputed by many other fans of other clubs erroneously in my opinion.

 

[Anton]

Look Anton Im not telling you to do anything.

The polar point you make may be the very issue. Im not taking any polar position. Im taking the neutral position but to do that I need to offer an opinion that based on reason which for good reason makes you hold fast to the extreme end of a particular dialectic that has legitimate reasons in your particular case.

I am certainly not against you voicing your opinion.
I am certainly not against you.
I am certainly not glorifying past troubles.
I am most certainly interested in your viewpoint and it saddens me to hear you think anything I have said makes you think contrary.
I have never stated in my eyes your points have no validity. I have however stated that they are not legitimate reasons for banning the song outright. They may well encourage people to not sing them. But thats their personal choice. I will state again. At CP I have never once sung a rebel song that I can remember off hand. But I have absolutely no problem with people who do. And to be embarrassed by any song that has valid morality is strange position to hold. Even if that song has bad connotations for particular people.

Anton lets get one thing straight. I may come across as a know it all. I may come across as an arrogant twat. I may come across as nutcase.

But I am not telling you what is right or wrong. Its a debate. I have nothing against you or your opinion even if I don't convey that well in my communication. I have deep empathy for your particular circumstances. I Can see why people might not enjoy these songs.

But I can also see why people would feel aggrieved if they were forced to bin them due to political correctness rather than virtuous. And in my eyes at least these songs are virtuous and therefore acceptable as Celtic songs which in my eyes is a virtuous organisation. But again disputed by many other fans of other clubs erroneously in my opinion.

As a self-confirmed 'twat' I can tell you are not one, mate ?

Busy atm, hopefully reply in more detail later.

I have a lot of time for ya, TET.

(I'd need to, your posts are so long ?)

Take care ?

 

[Theverdict]

TET the Vatican accepts it. It does what it has always done, when science finds out the truth that totally proves things, it just claims it’s all part of gods plan. Similarly when Galileo found out the earth circumvents the sun, they were going to kill him and he was held under house arrest for the remainder of his life for contradicting the Bible. Well we know he was right now. But religion when faced with overwhelming evidence just claim it as further proof that god is great. It raises the question. If they always thought god wrote it, how did he get it so wrong? He didn’t, men did the men who wrote it


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/re...volution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.html

 

[TET]

Evolution is a fact and there is no areas that scientists disagree on with its central tenets. There is overwhelming evidence from fossils, DNA to show how all living organisms in this planet share common characteristics. Gods are man made, it’s interesting that most religious people will happily say every god but theirs is true. What are the odds that you just happen to be born in the true variation of your particular god?

There is absolutely no evidence for any god. If God’s had the same amount of evidence as evolution I would never be out of whatever gods had that, be that a church or mosque or synagogue or temple.

There is nothing. Literally nothing apart from the books to back up any god. The books themselves didn’t even know that thecwarth went around the sun. As people if that age thought. Why would a creator get that wrong? He wouldn’t it was men who write it. There are countless contradictions and just plainly wrong statements. The Bible endorses slavery, genocide, infanticide and sees women as chattels. This was the norm back in those days, but why woukdcan all living god want that?

He hates homosexuals and shrimps. Jumpers made of mixed fibers, tells us to kill our disobedient children, to burn witches, that have never existed but hundreds of thousands of women died horribly because of that.

It’s a book I would recommend people actually read. Growing up a Catholic I never read the Bible, it was always our catechism. Having read the Bible since I realise why the church didn’t want ordinary folk to read it. It’s horrendous telling people to kill all who don’t share their faith.

No god would write that. And if any did he can go fuck himself. But he didn’t. Because it was written by Bronze Age men who reflected their knowledge of the world the cosmos and morality. I would recommend people have a flick through it and ask themselves would a living god come out with the kind of stuff in it. Get everything wrong about what he created and condemn shrimps.

Evolution is a fact and there is no areas that scientists disagree on with its central tenets. There is overwhelming evidence from fossils, DNA to show how all living organisms in this planet share common characteristics. Gods are man made, it’s interesting that most religious people will happily say every god but theirs is true. What are the odds that you just happen to be born in the true variation of your particular god?

There is absolutely no evidence for any god. If God’s had the same amount of evidence as evolution I would never be out of whatever gods had that, be that a church or mosque or synagogue or temple.

There is nothing. Literally nothing apart from the books to back up any god. The books themselves didn’t even know that thecwarth went around the sun. As people if that age thought. Why would a creator get that wrong? He wouldn’t it was men who write it. There are countless contradictions and just plainly wrong statements. The Bible endorses slavery, genocide, infanticide and sees women as chattels. This was the norm back in those days, but why woukdcan all living god want that?

He hates homosexuals and shrimps. Jumpers made of mixed fibers, tells us to kill our disobedient children, to burn witches, that have never existed but hundreds of thousands of women died horribly because of that.

It’s a book I would recommend people actually read. Growing up a Catholic I never read the Bible, it was always our catechism. Having read the Bible since I realise why the church didn’t want ordinary folk to read it. It’s horrendous telling people to kill all who don’t share their faith.

No god would write that. And if any did he can go fuck himself. But he didn’t. Because it was written by Bronze Age men who reflected their knowledge of the world the cosmos and morality. I would recommend people have a flick through it and ask themselves would a living god come out with the kind of stuff in it. Get everything wrong about what he created and condemn shrimps.

Everything you stated is opinion based on your particular heuristics. Im not debating evolution or God with you. I could spend hours of writing to correct every error you make. But thats part of your nature. And it would take a miracle to swing your opinion away from what you have accepted as fact. You need to have a lot of faith to be an atheist. Now thats a fact.
1 short rebuttal

Chaos cannot create order.
If something has a beginning what is eternity.
All science is a theory until it has been categorically proven. Think about that it begins in the mind as theory with rules that you think are true then you test it to see if its true.
What is the mind if its not a spiritual thing?

And i can tell you 100 percent that evolution is still a theory and not evolution fact.

And there are many many anomalies that cannot be understood by evolution theory presently therefore it will still remain a theory.

Just like general relativity theory and string theory and quantum mechanics theory are all still theory although very decent theories they are not yet fact.

They don't apply in all cases.

God is a concept. A theory if you will. Trying to convince someone of a theory is like trying to force someone to not sing a song because its bothers a few people.

You need just as much faith to believe in God as you do not to believe in God.

My particular viewpoint is irrelevant. Other than your facts are actually just your personal opinion and maybe that good enough for you to conclude its fact. Might be why you chose the verdict as your handle. Self Justication.

I do think its much more evidential that a god exists than not. It seems so obvious to me. But it would be like trying to describe the colour green to a man born with no eyes. You would need more than words to put that concept into the blind mans eyes. And when he tells you that its your imagination because no-one can see anything let alone colours its very difficult to convince him otherwise.

For his faith in blindness is just as strong as your faith in sight.

 

[Theverdict]

Everything you stated is opinion based on your particular heuristics. Im not debating evolution or God with you. I could spend hours of writing to correct every error you make. But thats part of your nature. And it would take a miracle to swing your opinion away from what you have accepted as fact. You need to have a lot of faith to be an atheist. Now thats a fact.
1 short rebuttal

Chaos cannot create order.
If something has a beginning what is eternity.
All science is a theory until it has been categorically proven. Think about that it begins in the mind as theory with rules that you think are true then you test it to see if its true.
What is the mind if its not a spiritual thing?

And i can tell you 100 percent that evolution is still a theory and not evolution fact.

And there are many many anomalies that cannot be understood by evolution theory presently therefore it will still remain a theory.

Just like general relativity theory and string theory and quantum mechanics theory are all still theory although very decent theories they are not yet fact.

They don't apply in all cases.

God is a concept. A theory if you will. Trying to convince someone of a theory is like trying to force someone to not sing a song because its bothers a few people.

You need just as much faith to believe in God as you do not to believe in God.

My particular viewpoint is irrelevant. Other than your facts are actually just your personal opinion and maybe that good enough for you to conclude its fact. Might be why you chose the verdict as your handle. Self Justication.

I do think its much more evidential that a god exists than not. It seems so obvious to me. But it would be like trying to describe the colour green to a man born with no eyes. You would need more than words to put that concept into the blind mans eyes. And when he tells you that its your imagination because no-one can see anything let alone colours its very difficult to convince him otherwise.

For his faith in blindness is just as strong as your faith in sight.

Do you now accept the Vatican accepts evolution? Or is that article fake news? It is yiu who refuses to see the evidence. You do that from a position of faith I presume. Because the evidence shows faith to be no guarantee of truth. If it was every person who had faith, and the world us bursting at the seams with them, would all be right. They can’t all be right, sobfauth diesnt cut it. If you look at science and what we now know, then you see the gaps. Religious people use the gaps in knowledge to put god in there. There is much we don’t know, some stuff we may never know, but to just say, well god did it is an intellectual cop out. It’s too easy.

Atheists don’t have faith. Faith is defined as belief without evidence. Show me evidence and I will believe. I can show you evidence if the solar system that contradicts scripture. I can show you evidence for evolution, now accepted by mainstream Christianity, which they originally refuted. I can show you evidence that dragons never existed, the giants never existed, and many other mythical creatures Bronze Age people thought we’re real. I can show you evidence that there was no great flood. Can you show me one piece of evidence that god exists?

One that does not rely on faith or the books themselves?

 

[Theverdict]

Everything you stated is opinion based on your particular heuristics. Im not debating evolution or God with you. I could spend hours of writing to correct every error you make. But thats part of your nature. And it would take a miracle to swing your opinion away from what you have accepted as fact. You need to have a lot of faith to be an atheist. Now thats a fact.
1 short rebuttal

Chaos cannot create order.
If something has a beginning what is eternity.
All science is a theory until it has been categorically proven. Think about that it begins in the mind as theory with rules that you think are true then you test it to see if its true.
What is the mind if its not a spiritual thing?

And i can tell you 100 percent that evolution is still a theory and not evolution fact.

And there are many many anomalies that cannot be understood by evolution theory presently therefore it will still remain a theory.

Just like general relativity theory and string theory and quantum mechanics theory are all still theory although very decent theories they are not yet fact.

They don't apply in all cases.

God is a concept. A theory if you will. Trying to convince someone of a theory is like trying to force someone to not sing a song because its bothers a few people.

You need just as much faith to believe in God as you do not to believe in God.

My particular viewpoint is irrelevant. Other than your facts are actually just your personal opinion and maybe that good enough for you to conclude its fact. Might be why you chose the verdict as your handle. Self Justication.

I do think its much more evidential that a god exists than not. It seems so obvious to me. But it would be like trying to describe the colour green to a man born with no eyes. You would need more than words to put that concept into the blind mans eyes. And when he tells you that its your imagination because no-one can see anything let alone colours its very difficult to convince him otherwise.

For his faith in blindness is just as strong as your faith in sight.

From the Pope

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-wizard/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7c40270744ee

 

[TET]

Do you now accept the Vatican accepts evolution? Or is that article fake news? It is yiu who refuses to see the evidence. You do that from a position of faith I presume. Because the evidence shows faith to be no guarantee of truth. If it was every person who had faith, and the world us bursting at the seams with them, would all be right. They can’t all be right, sobfauth diesnt cut it. If you look at science and what we now know, then you see the gaps. Religious people use the gaps in knowledge to put god in there. There is much we don’t know, some stuff we may never know, but to just say, well god did it is an intellectual cop out. It’s too easy.

Atheists don’t have faith. Faith is defined as belief without evidence. Show me evidence and I will believe. I can show you evidence if the solar system that contradicts scripture. I can show you evidence for evolution, now accepted by mainstream Christianity, which they originally refuted. I can show you evidence that dragons never existed, the giants never existed, and many other mythical creatures Bronze Age people thought we’re real. I can show you evidence that there was no great flood. Can you show me one piece of evidence that god exists?

One that does not rely on faith or the books themselves?

That article is particular perspective. It proves zero. It is also that papers perspective on words written by someone else. If your knowledge of MSM hasn't proven to you to take their particular spin as factual then I rest my case.
God is spiritual?
Can science describe the mechanics of spirit?
Can science describe the mechanics of theoretical?
Can Science ever be more than building block on spiritual?
Does Science overrule the theory its built upon?
What came first science or theory?
If it was Science then theory is irrelevant.
If it was Theory then thats a proof of God.
Did the world begin when man got consciousness?
Did the world begins at big bang?
Did bIg bang really happen?
Are the people promoting Science as factual really trustworthy?
If humans are just evolved animals what gives humans the rights?
If natural law exists how does that get explained by science?
If there was no creation what was before the big bang?

Can science create life from base chemicals?
Does it need DNA to build upon?
What is DNA?
Where did that come from?

There are many many things that cannot ever be adequately describe sufficiently to a scientific level. But they exist. They apply to some code of order.

Evolution suggests that there is no order just concepts. So why would law of science or behaviour have any credence in a world that evolves?

Why does it have survival instinct?
What is nature if its not comparable to perfection whatever that is?
Why do certain things appeal; to certain minds?

The list is endless and leads to nowhere. Faith requires grace. And if you think Reason is manmade you won't ver get the concept of grace which far surpasses Reason without contradicting it. It perfects reason. And if evolution isn't heading towards perfection then what exactly is evolution moving towards?

The order of Heavenly glory far surpasses the order of grace which far surpasses the order of nature which had a beginning in chaos and is heading towards deeper self knowledge as well as deeper universal scientific knowledge.

If your reason is dimmed by self you will most likely reject grace as foolishness or a stumbling block. It would require a strong impulse of grace to correct faulty reason.

Thanks be to god for sending the way the truth and the life full of grace and truth. Evolution is masonic construct in my opinion. And its finality is anarchy nihilism and disorder and destruction. And they are just like the pied piper leading the children of god down the dark rabbit hole.

But like I said thats probably not compatible with your factual opinions. Im just a TET/

 

[Maria]

It interests me that you think Wellington was a horrendous character (need to know some history to make that judgement) and its not so easy to move on when you know history.

You suggest all religion is man made. That in itself is very volatile statement. Much more aggressive than singing BBB. It also has undertones of rebellion of a different kind. For in my opinion no law will ever be relevant or enforceable if all humanity sprung from animals. You also allude that BBB makes people want to have a physical fight that ends in bloodshed. Cant see why you would even think that ever?

We need to do our bit to move on? A song about ethical resistance to oppression should be binned for the need to move on. I would suggest getting back to virtue theory and confronting all unresolved injustices would be better way to move on and end injustice.

The BBB is ahistorical song relevant to the time it was made about real injustice and hypocrisy. Now i realise that many who sing the song may not fully be aware of the full history. But moving on when that very injustice and hypocrisy is still prevalent in modern world, maybe even be now worse since its now clandestine, will not aid the moving on process.

Holster empty are a sign that they are not needed. In a world where political power and the clandestine agendas of clear injustice are promoted the only way known to man historically to fight against unjust armed oppressors is prayer or violence. Neither of which you believe is righteous since you don't believe in virtue. Which was the gift of God taught on the sermon on the mount.

I dont condone holding a gun but I do understand why it may be necessary to hold unjust power to account. And i for one under extreme duress would quite possibly be forced to take up arms to fight for truth. Now you may take the Pilate position and say what is truth when you stand eyeball to eyeball with the man who claims he is the way the truth and the life. But if someone with your confused opinions get power I might need to stand up for my reasoned truth against your clandestine power grab. Stalin who trained to be a priest became your move on for mankind commander. He killed more men than anyone i can think of for the benefit of moving on. Probably need that holster and gun back together just incase The stalin world view gets the nod again. No free press. No free anything, All comrades unless you have proper understanding of love. And sometimes a gun is needed to stand up for love.

Now you will probably say I've gone off on one with nonsense. Thats my right based on my study of religions and history. And i can assure you your opinion is not new, its not modern and it it doesn't lead to moving on for the good of mankind. Its the same dialogue used by all megalomaniacs just before they seize power and enforce their kind of truth.

I would suggest your opinion on this matter is really just tokenism as you put it. Now if people don't want to sing broad black trimmer. Thats allowed. If you don't get the meaning or agree with it. Thats allowed. You are entitled to an opinion on anything. Thats allowed. But to try and suggest somehow it prevents moving on is a misinformation. That cause should never be forgotten. It was just. It may not be Celtic related. But if its a common thing with section of celtic support and its not illegal then your opinion aint any more important that the people who sing it. And how do you know the players don't enjoy the atmosphere generated when its sung with gusto.

You want to suggest some highly offensive suggestions thats your right. But to suggest your opinions which aren't that well thought out are worth attention and somehow the majority view is strange egotistical viewpoint.

And even if the majority of the fans don't want people singing songs they don't particularly like, unless there is a much more legitimate reason for outlawing the song than the nihilistic viewpoint your opinions allude to then since they aren't illegal and enjoyed by a a section of the support and give them strong voice of unity under a just cause, then I will defend anyones right to sing a song they enjoy singing. Singing songs of glorying in oppression or injustice should be outlawed by modern society. Singing songs about murder or unjustified rebellion should be outlawed. But again that would require proper education with virtuous reasoning.

In fact if you don't rate history why do you even have any opinion on anything? Why not just take up meditation and live in the moment letting the peepo treat you like a sub species who are there to be their slave.

History is very important.
Moving on takes more than tokenism
And every suggestion you passed as modern leads to oppression.

I will defend the right of anyone to sing broad black trimmer anywhere.
Its just and pure.
Your tokenism is not just.

But i will defend your right to express your opinion perhaps I might need to do it with a gun in my holster one day.

I hope not.

The only thing in your opinion i agree on is it takes both sides to compromise after addressing past injustice.

Until the past is properly addressed the compromise is not legitimate and moving on into future without clear understanding of history is unsatisfactory.

Our clever, clever bhoy. Respect TET.