Soccer Crusade 2
From the desk of The Brussels Journal on Sun, 2007-12-16 13:03
A quote from eNews2.0, 16 December 2007
According to the Catalan newspaper La Vanguardia, the Spanish football club Barcelona is altering its famous badge in some Arab countries in order to avoid offending Muslims.
The badge is especially altered in Saudi Arabia or Algeria, where the Barcelona shirts are being sold without the red cross of Saint George, the patron saint of the Catalan region which Barca claims to represent, the La Vanguardia newspaper found in a private investigation.
The badge, which was created in 1906, features a single vertical red line in Saudi Arabia and Algeria, due to the fact that there, the red cross represents the symbol of the brutal mediaeval Christian crusades against Islam.
Soccer Crusade, 12 December 2007
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Thu, 2007-12-20 00:28.
I think I'll plead Reynard's 5th Amendment here.Let's just say I was having a W.C. Fields moment,shall we?
Submitted by marcfrans on Thu, 2007-12-20 00:06.
What shall we make of this? (1) Are you going again for the monthly humor price? (2) Are you trying to confuse Kappert further? (3) Or, are you trying to make fun of much of modern academia (especially psychology departments)? What is it?
I suspect it is option (1).
Kappert would do much better reading a good 'elementary' philosophy book on Plato (who lived several millenia ago), instead of more modern psycho-babble. The great 'canon' of Western civilisation, as embodied in the works of William Shakespeare, would also do nicely.
Which sensible person would follow the advice of a "sly old fox"? Do you really think that Kappert would?
The Origins of Morality
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Wed, 2007-12-19 23:43.
Here's an article you might just find of some interest.
After you've read it,perhaps you'd care to take the test,and let us all know how you got on.
Re: kappert's book recommendation
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Wed, 2007-12-19 22:01.
"Confusion now hath made his masterpiece!"
- William Shakespeare
Submitted by atheling on Wed, 2007-12-19 22:09.
Film recommendation for kappert:
Star Wars: A New Hope
"Trust your feelings, Luke... The Force is with you!"
The road to dhimmitude
Submitted by marcfrans on Wed, 2007-12-19 21:40.
I, for one, am not going to waste more time on psycho-babble. That road leads to.....dhimmitude, in 1 or 2 generations. Of course, in some individuals it comes much sooner. For instance, those who let others determine what is "an unnecessary provocation". For, they substitute fear for own (moral) judgment. Indeed, they lose the courage to make necessary judgments. And that is the hallmark of extreme moral relativism.
last comment # 2
Submitted by marcfrans on Wed, 2007-12-19 17:09.
What "education" tells people about 'good and bad' is very different in China, as compared to say Belgium, or Gujarat, or Saudi Arabia, or Bolivia, etc... So how could "education" make (or determine) whether any particular action is morally good or bad? Now that is a serious question for you.
And suppose that 'your' education and culture tells you "what to consider good and bad". Now, would that DETERMINE whether any particular action is or would be actually good or bad? Or would it only determine what you THINK is good or bad? And do you think that what you THINK is the same as what IS?
Please, do not respond to these questions, because I believe that they were never covered in your "education and culture".
very last comment
Submitted by kappert on Wed, 2007-12-19 17:47.
To end the 'soccer-round', I like to recommend a book:
Antonio Damasio: The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of the Consciousness. Harvest Books, 2000.
@kappert's book recommendation
Submitted by atheling on Wed, 2007-12-19 19:17.
"Antonio Damasio: The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of the Consciousness. Harvest Books, 2000."
Of course. Feelings. Nothing more than feelings...
Try using intellect.
The world is a confusion # 2
Submitted by marcfrans on Wed, 2007-12-19 15:40.
Not exactly. Kappert is a confusion, but not most of the world. Most of the world knows very well what 'it' (i.e. they) are all about. But, after reading your latest piece, there is no doubt that you are very confused. Therefore, there is little doubt in my mind that "the world" will burry you and your kind of confused (relativistic western) minds. If you let muslims, or anyone else for that matter, decide what is an "unnecessary provocation", then you can as well crawl right now in your hole (of dhimmitude).
And no, for the last time, morality (or the distinction between good and bad) does not depend on "education". If it did, heaven forbid, one can see what formal education has done to your mind, which is total confusion. Whether a particular human action is morally good or bad, depends on whether it is in accord with human nature. Your, or anybody else's, OPINION about that wil require interpretation on your part about the source and meaning of human life, i.e. its 'nature'. But it is NOT "education", nor "culture", which makes something morally good or bad. Education or culture MAY well determine your opinions about good and bad (to some extent), but they do NOT make anything good nor bad.
Submitted by kappert on Wed, 2007-12-19 16:00.
Well, we have different views. I rather be a 'educated' and 'cultural', which gives me the capacity to weight standpoints, than a 'nature boy' of the human nature you discovered. As there is only one species of humans, their 'nature' must be equal. If morality does not depend on education, then who tells you what to consider good or bad.
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Wed, 2007-12-19 01:51.
Well, I'm sure you are familiar with the saying,"If you can't convince 'em,confuse 'em".
- Harry S Truman.
Submitted by marcfrans on Wed, 2007-12-19 00:54.
I fear that Atlanticist is now trying to confuse you even more, if that is possible. If so, that would be morally 'wrong' on his part - slightly, I think - because come compassion is in order. He is now using the terms "right and wrong" in the sense/meaning of "factually correct or incorrect". That would be very different from the meaning of "morally right or wrong".
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Tue, 2007-12-18 22:35.
"With the black 'n' white formula of right and wrong...we will get nowhere".
There is no confusion in my mind.You claimed that Inter Milan "exposed" the red cross in Istanbul and the article clearly states that they did not.A powerful example of right and wrong; the article is right and you are wrong.And the proof of that fact is in black 'n' white for all to see.
confusion # 2
Submitted by marcfrans on Tue, 2007-12-18 22:04.
Indeed, there is massive confusion in your mind. To illustrate:
1) You still haven't explained why "exposing the red cross in Istanbul" would be "a bad idea". The purpose of the question was to see if you would be able to IDENTIFY the real intolerants. In fact, that had been the gist of Antlanticist's persistant questioning all along. But you continue to 'dance' around it, or away from it, because you do not want to 'own up' for previous ridiculous assertions on your part.
2) Why is an explanation of the difference between public morals and morality "authoritarian"? And what has this got to do with "smokers, alcoholics, gays etc..."? There is indeed confusion here, and it is painful to observe how you can be so "confused" and still feel that you are capable of commenting on serious matters. To the extent that a particular society's laws attempt to regulate what is acceptable behavior IN PUBLIC of "smokers, alcoholics, gays etc...", AND of everybody else, we can talk about 'public morals'. And, yes, morality is not the same thing as public morals.
3) You seem to think that there is no difference between right and wrong, or good and bad? Well, if most people in a society think like you, then indeed society will "get nowhere". And, indeed, as I tried to explain to you before, morality is not the same thing as human "law". But, you obviously do not get it, since you now say the same thing ("moral is not law") thinking absurdly that that is different from what I said.
4) I put signs (' ') around 'methaphysical court' in the hope that you would understand that it is different from any human court, because the latter can not rule on matters of meaning and source of human life (from which "morality" derives). Morality means acting in line with your inherent 'nature', so human morality means acting as a human. Therefore, morality - I repeat - cannot be divorced from one's conception of the meaning and the source of human life. If you prefer the term "God" to "metaphysical court", that is fine with me. Just, do not confuse "morality" with "public morals"!
the world is a confusion
Submitted by kappert on Wed, 2007-12-19 13:02.
The red cross was a bad idea. Knowing what it means to muslims, it was at least an unnecessary provocation. And it is of little matter to exhibit the sign in San Siro or in Istanbul. I do not have the slightest idea wht you may call 'real intolerant'.
How do you call the public regulamention of behaviour? Rules, norms, codes, laws – all emitted by an authority. The examples are widespread because, as a car driver, I probably surpass the laws on a daily bases (driving too fast, stop where I shouldn't, ...). If you distinguish morality (private) and moral (public), it's easy to beat the wife at home and show an evangelical harmony in public.
Differences between the notions 'good' and 'bad' depend on education and culture. A fried dog is good for Chinese, while the English prefer hunting with dogs, what's the moral of the story?
So, metaphysical is not human, that gives my brain something to puzzle what else could it be, since human eagerly what to detect the 'sense of life' and invent metaphysics and other brainstorming phantasies. So, as I may conclude from your explanations: moral is something given by 'God' (the metaphysical court), that's the raison d'etre of all religions, including Islam and Christianity.
Submitted by traveller on Wed, 2007-12-19 13:57.
You are so very wrong and totally besides the point.
Let's ask the Maltese to change their flag, it has a cross, let's change the Union Jack, the Danish, Swedish, Norwegian flags and all others with a cross. Let's change the Red Cross flag.
While we are at it, let's change the Saudi flag, the sword is the sign of the sword of islam, which is by far to warlike.
This is all so ridiculous it isn't even worth thinking or talking about it, let alone going to court for it.
Just stop all this nonsense and let people have their symbols, even if somebody doen't like it, f... them.
Submitted by Arpad on Tue, 2007-12-18 20:00.
FC Barcelona did not sell the shirts nor did they license the shirts.
No dhimmis here, just a bunch of people not able to read and understand a Spanish newspaper article.
Submitted by pet85022 on Tue, 2007-12-18 19:51.
"The red cross represents the symbol of the brutal mediaeval Christian crusades against Islam."
There is a really good book out by Robert Spencer, The politically incorrect guide to islam and the crusades. I just finished reading it and it gave a good insight into who caused the crusades (not Christianity), I don't usually recommend buying a book but you might pick it up at your local library or recommend it to your moslem friends (if you have any).
It is about dhimmitude!
Submitted by marcfrans on Tue, 2007-12-18 17:59.
@ The Undhimmi
You are probably right that it is about "football, greed and money" as far as the management of Football Club of Barcelona is concerned. But, w.r.t. Kappert (and probably most Barcelonans) it is all about 'dhimmitude' (theirs, that is).
How else, could you explain a Kappert-statement like "...to expose the red cross in Istanbul was a bad idea..."? Turks are not ashamed of their symbols. Many Spanish and Catalans apparently are. That is why the Turks will survive as 'Turks' in the long run, and the Spanish/Catalans will lose their identity.
It is bad if one cannot recognise one's own (i.e. yours) tendencies towards 'dhimmitude', but it is worse not to know the difference between "public morals" and "morality". By the way, I did not use the (rather nonsensical) term "public morality", and of course your inability to read accurately does not promote clarity and comprehension.
"Public morals" has to do with a particular behavior code which would be enforced by public authorities in any particular country or place. Obviously, such codes will differ across cultures and time periods, and the justifications for such codes will also differ among different times and places. Any violations of such behavior codes may have to be defended before law courts.
"Morality" has to do with moral questions of 'right or wrong', or 'good and bad'. Its justification cannot be divorced from the ultimate (philosophical) question about the source and meaning of 'human life'. Any questions about violations on that score, i.e. any immorality, will have to be settled by a very different metaphysical 'court', as opposed to the (human) law courts of any particular country.
Submitted by kappert on Tue, 2007-12-18 20:56.
This is getting weird: now it's the Catalans who are ashamed of their symbols? The essay on 'public morals' is much too authoritarian, think about smokers, alcoholics, gays and heteros, burglers, thieves, liars and many others, who are perfectly integrated in society, albeit rule out some parts of 'public morals'. With the black'n'white formula of right and wrong, good and bad, we will get nowhere. Moral cannot be a law, there is no metaphysical court to address. So, only rests the justification of an issue to be recognised as moral and - zip - it is.
Re: More confusion
Submitted by atheling on Tue, 2007-12-18 23:34.
"The essay on 'public morals' is much too authoritarian, think about smokers, alcoholics, gays and heteros, burglers, thieves, liars and many others, who are perfectly integrated in society..."
The fact that you group "burglars and thieves" with "smokers and alcoholics" gives me pause to think that you really are messed up in the head. Generally, "burglars and thieves" are NOT perfectly integrated in society, indeed, when they are caught, they can be taken OUT of society precisely because they fail to adhere to the laws of society.
Secondly, if you think that a mere essay on public morals is "authoritarian", what the hell do you call Soviet jackboots or fascist brownshirts???
You really need to think about what you're writing here, because I think you are in over your head.
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Tue, 2007-12-18 11:41.
Kappert,you still don't get it,do you? I'm more concerned about the inconsistencies in your position than I am about the minutiae.
"In the case of Internazionale,to expose the red cross in Istanbul was a bad idea".
Two points here.First,read the original article again and you will see that Inter did NOT "expose" the red cross in Istanbul.
"Inter Milan consciously decided NOT to wear the controversial shirt during their match in Istanbul,but DID NOT THINK IT WAS NECESSARY TO DO THE SAME WHILE PLAYING THE RETURN GAME IN MILAN". (emphasis added).
Second,even if Inter Milan had done so,wasn't it you who said,"it is intolerant not to respect symbols of (other) cultures" ?
Why are you so quick to act as the resident apologist for the intolerant and the indefensible?
Submitted by kappert on Tue, 2007-12-18 09:56.
My rather sloppy comparisons are really not for taking serious, so I apologize for the low level. So we are discussing 'morality', or 'public morality' (is there a difference?) as a community standard. OK, then, in the case of Internazionale, to expose the red cross in Istanbul was a bad idea. As for the Barça T-shirt, anything what sells is under the umbrella of Western standards. Yet a little anecdote: At the Euro'04 in Portugal you could see the Portuguese flags with little pagodes instead of castles, really nice, made in Asia.
This is just about football
Submitted by The Undhimmi on Tue, 2007-12-18 08:36.
This is just about football greed/money, not Dhimmitude... move along - nothing to see here.
Intolerance,speculation and absurd comparisons
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Tue, 2007-12-18 01:20.
OK I'll play along.
"But I wonder...what about buddhist soccer clubs,if there are,printing...the swastika on their shirts...?"
A comment which has got me wondering,if we were having this conversation in late 1937 and not late 2007,would you be currently advocating tolerance for contemporary Nazi cultural symbolism,in the form of the swastika of the Third Reich,and if not,why not? Afterall,"it is intolerant not to respect symbols of (other) cultures", is it not?
Submitted by marcfrans on Mon, 2007-12-17 22:10.
Hold on, not so fast. You are glossing over some manifest examples of intolerance by making invalid comparisons.
First, I have no idea how a "beautiful naked blonde" symbol would go over in Nebraska. But I suspect that it would not be much different from any other place in the western world (based on what is being shown on 'national' TV networks). I further suspect that you are simply ventilating a 'prejudice' (heaven forbid!) against the rural people of Nebraska, and prejudices are an indication of "intolerance". More importantly, the comparison is not valid. Every society, every community, should have a 'right' to set its own standards for 'public morals' (and public nudity certainly falls under public morals) as part of its own self-determination. The way they "determine" that (i.e. democratically, or not), and the specific content or focus of their 'standards' of public morals) can give you an indication of the nature (or quality) of their culture. Comparing religious symbols with 'public nudity' is absurd. There are good reasons for maintaining community standards, but there is none for displaying intolerance w.r.t. religious symbols.
Second, it is equally ridiculous for you to compare a swastika in Israel with religious symbols (like a cross or a crescent). A bit of context, please! Actually, you might be surprised about the quality of Israelis in general. Admittedly, a buddhist soccer club in a friendly match in Israel is a rather fanciful, not to say "unrealistic", example for you to take. But, if it were to materialise, I think that Israelis would be quite tolerant of a swastika being displayed by 'unsuspecting or innocent' buddhists. The reaction would likely be different if the swastika came from Europeans or Arabs, who in our life time have tried to wipe jews off the face of the earth. It would appear that you harbor a prejudice, not only against Nebraskans, but also against Israelis. Are you a regular BBC-watcher, perhaps?
Finally, are you really trying to deny the obvious, which is that there is massive evidence of intolerance among Muslims and in the Muslim world for 'deviants'? And that this intolerance is generally of a very different order than the one you might encounter in Nebraska or Israel? If you are, then you really got your head in the sand, and you got still some big surprises coming down the road.
P.S. The most important question is not whether one should be "tolerant", or not. No, what truly matters is about what it is that one tolerates and what it is that one does not tolerate. For example, it is much more important that the people of Nebraska and Israel tolerate freedom of political speech than whether they tolerate "naked blondes" in the public square, or not. The latter is peanuts compared with laws that violate freedom of political speech in Europe or the public stoning of women in parts of the islamic world......
Correction – Fake Barca shirts
Submitted by Arpad on Mon, 2007-12-17 20:04.
FC Barcelona has not changed its crest, nor did La Vaguardia ever claim that.
There are modified fake Barca shirts of Asian origin for sale in Saudi-Arabia were the symbol of the cross is prohibited.
Submitted by kappert on Mon, 2007-12-17 16:46.
Indeed, and above all critics, it is intolerant not to respect symbols of (other) cultures. But I wonder, if, just for example, FC St Pauli Hamburg wanted to play in US-Nebraska with their 1970s shirt, exposing a beautiful naked blonde. Or what about buddhist soccer clubs, if there are, printing their unity symbol, the swastika, on their shirts for a friendly match in Tel Aviv?
Submitted by kappert on Mon, 2007-12-17 15:07.
After all, it has little to do with football. That Inter Milano celebrated their anniversary with the Big Cross unfortunately in Turkey, was a bad coincidence. The Barcelona case is more about merchandizing and selling trikots in Arabian countries. Probably these shirts are made in China and on request from local commerce agents the red cross was substituted by a red dash. FC Barcelona itself played around a dozen times in muslim countries, there has never been a problem. The whole issue reminds me the dwiggling between Germany and Israel, when UEFA sort out matches between them.
Submitted by kappert on Mon, 2007-12-17 14:15.
As you can read at the FC Barcelona homepage: "The present crest is based on an adaptation made by designer Claret Serrahima in 2002, in which the lines are a little more stylised, the dots between the letters have been taken away, the name has been made smaller, and there are fewer pointed edges. The lines in this latest design are somewhat simpler, to make it easier for the crest and the club’s corporate identity to be reproduced in all the different formats." I couldn't find any reference to change the emblem when playing in muslim countries. 'La Vanguardia' must have bad phantasies.
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Mon, 2007-12-17 12:41.
Kappert,please tell me,who are the "intolerants" here?
Submitted by oiznop on Sun, 2007-12-16 18:41.
When is the BS going to stop? Before it's too late and we stop celebrating Christmas and stop eating pork and stop drinking alcohol because it "offends" the religion of "peace" What a crock. Screw Islam! First the Italians with that whiny turk and now this! Wake up Europe! And get some stones to just say no to more appeasment of a "religion" that hates you and wants to take over your land!
More self-respect please!
Submitted by Monarchist on Sun, 2007-12-16 20:21.
Previous case with Turks was clearly their fault, because nobody forced them to compete with European teams. This case is different. Club from Barcelona act like prostitute who badly want to exist on some lucrative market. How the hell Muslims could respect all of us if those Europeans who do business over there are ready to sell out everything for money. If Muslims see such behavior then they have only more silly demands.
I know this cant be another way
Submitted by Nuno_PT on Sun, 2007-12-16 18:38.
Every time these muslims can they take a little bit of Europe..a little bit of its identity. I still dont understand why our politicians go along with this.
If i were to follow the same "logic" of these muslim scurge every time i saw a woman wearing a scarve for religious reasons i would rape/beat/kill her because that ofends my values, everytime i heard an iman calling for prayer by megaphone i would start shooting the mosque because i feel offended by that...and so on.
This little exercise i made shows the stupidity of these dumm european politicians into accepting all this. Its just ridiculous.Europe is European and cant be another way.Other opinions are just treason to europeans and should be dealt with prison or simply execution. Europe or DEATH. I saw the light.
P.S.- Now time for some islamic slogans turned the other way:
-Behead all those who insult Europe
-Massacre all those who mock European identity
-Butcher all jihadists.
Does this seem aceptable by any european standards??Why is it accepted only when it comes from islamics??
Submitted by HenrikRClausen on Sun, 2007-12-16 18:06.
In return, we're demanding the crescent to be removed from any insignias from clubs in Islamic countries, right? An apology for Islamic destruction of countless Christian kingdoms would be nice, too.
St George's Cross
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sun, 2007-12-16 13:43.
I'll bet he is,and he isn't the only one!
not brutal enough
Submitted by Cogito on Sun, 2007-12-16 13:33.
Apparently the cruisades have not been brutal enough. Somebody should finish the job.
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sun, 2007-12-16 13:24.