Euan murray

[poolman]

He's decided not to play in the opening game of the 6 nations because it's on a Sunday

If thats what he wants fair play but I thought that attitude was old hat apart from up maybe in the Western Isles regarding this Sunday attitude

[--------]

He's decided not to play in the opening game of the 6 nations because it's on a Sunday

If thats what he wants fair play but I thought that attitude was old hat apart from up maybe in the Western Isles regarding this Sunday attitude


Well now you know it's not.... :wink:

[ancienthibby]

He's decided not to play in the opening game of the 6 nations because it's on a Sunday

If thats what he wants fair play but I thought that attitude was old hat apart from up maybe in the Western Isles regarding this Sunday attitude

Well done to EM - he will be richly blessed for taking this principled stance!

[Viva_Palmeiras]

He's decided not to play in the opening game of the 6 nations because it's on a Sunday

If thats what he wants fair play but I thought that attitude was old hat apart from up maybe in the Western Isles regarding this Sunday attitude

Even if it is "old hat" if its a point of principle for an individual, that all that matters IMO.

I say this as someone who's mother's side of the family were 5 generations+ from the Isle of Skye. I don't practise or observe the Sabbath but believe they have the choice and there is something to be said about keeping Sunday special, a day of rest, whether religious or not.

I don't know the guy but imagine this would be his take regardless of whether it be a friendly, practice or the world cup final. I can see the point, if you make exceptions it kind of makes a mockery of all the other years/decades of devotion - in short it is a big deal.

[GlesgaeHibby]

Even if it is "old hat" if its a point of principle for an individual, that all that matters IMO.

I say this as someone who's mother's side of the family were 5 generations+ from the Isle of Skye. I don't practise or observe the Sabbath but believe they have the choice and there is something to be said about keeping Sunday special, a day of rest, whether religious or not.

I don't know the guy but imagine this would be his take regardless of whether it be a friendly, practice or the world cup final. I can see the point, if you make exceptions it kind of makes a mockery of all the other years/decades of devotion - in short it is a big deal.

:agree: He's got his beliefs and he's not going to compromise them.

I don't follow or practice religion, but I also agree there is much to be said for observing a days rest per week.

[Bishop Hibee]

As a practicing Christian not from the Presbyterian tradition, although I would be quite happy playing sport on a Sunday myself, I admire his stance.

Whether atheist, agnostic or religious, there is something to be said for keeping one day as a day of rest. Sadly, Sunday is becoming just a normal day for many who have to work to make ends meet or are 'encouraged' to work by their employers. The days of double time on a Sunday are also long gone for many.

Food for thought.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Fair play to Euan Murray, it's nice to see that some people have strong principles.

As an aside. Does this mean Harold Abrahams will get to play instead? The boy is due his chance, even if he is a bit Jewish.

[Danderhall Hibs]

Up to him I suppose - he's taking a chance in losing his place. Michael Jones used to do the same when New Zealand had to play on a Sunday.

At the end of the day it's his job though - what would happen if a bus driver (for example) refused to work Sundays?

On a slightly different note - the 6N games should all be played on a Saturday - if TV demand only 2 on the Saturday the 3rd game could be played Friday night. It'd be a better atmosphere than a Sunday anyway.

[Greentinted]

One can only assume he's never popped into a supermarket of a Sunday afternoon or indulge in anything else thats frowned upon by the irrationalist community. Mind you, plenty sporstpersons are known to be superstitious...

[Tazio]

New Zealand had this problem in the first rugby world cup when Michael Jones who was probably the finest loose forward of the time wouldn't play on Sundays.

[Viva_Palmeiras]

Up to him I suppose - he's taking a chance in losing his place. Michael Jones used to do the same when New Zealand had to play on a Sunday.

At the end of the day it's his job though - what would happen if a bus driver (for example) refused to work Sundays?

On a slightly different note - the 6N games should all be played on a Saturday - if TV demand only 2 on the Saturday the 3rd game could be played Friday night. It'd be a better atmosphere than a Sunday anyway.

As this would be on religious grounds nothing. Which is why the SRU would be powerless also. Plus would not be worth their while/hassle due to adverse publicity if they did anything less than respect it.

[GhostofBolivar]

Respect the man, respect the decision.

I dare say the Scotland rugby team will find it just as easy to lose without him as with him.

[AndyP]

Respect the man, respect the decision.

I dare say the Scotland rugby team will find it just as easy to lose without him as with him.

He is rated as one of the best tight head props in world rugby, gave "the Beast an absolute roasting last time they met and having watched him come of the bench for Saints against Newcastle, strengthen their scrum and rampage around in the loose, he will be a large miss against the CESM.

[Viva_Palmeiras]

Seems from the Scotsman article he turned to religion after reckoning his lifestyle was maybe causing his injuries. So scrub the decades of devotion. However in my experience the curious thing with born again/converts (and I include Muslims in this) I've met is they seem to take things to the nth degree.

That said respect to the man.

[IndieHibby]

I don't get it.

He clearly feels that his duty to his religion is more important than his duty to his country. Which is fair enough.

This 'day of rest' nonsense is a little old fashioned though. He doesn't play rugby every day, does he? So surely, he does get a day of rest in somewhere?

Or does he expect everyone to observe their 'day of rest' on his 'day of rest'?

[IndieHibby]

He is rated as one of the best tight head props in world rugby, gave "the Beast an absolute roasting last time they met and having watched him come of the bench for Saints against Newcastle, strengthen their scrum and rampage around in the loose, he will be a large miss against the CESM.

Was that the one where he had to come off, then we completely lost the plot?

Their scrum, IIRC, was falling apart at the seams at his behest.

What a legend.....

[Sergio sledge]

This 'day of rest' nonsense is a little old fashioned though. He doesn't play rugby every day, does he? So surely, he does get a day of rest in somewhere?

He'll most likely be training pretty much every day that he does not have a match, so I'm not sure what you are getting at. Observing the Sabbath is not just about resting though, it is also about giving the day over to God. If you are working/playing sport etc. then you cannot fully concentrate on giving the day over to God, relaxing and spending time worshipping God. He obviously feels he hasn't been able to do this while playing rugby, so fair play to him for making this stand.


Or does he expect everyone to observe their 'day of rest' on his 'day of rest'?

Eh? What gives you that idea?

[ArabHibee]

I don't get it.

He clearly feels that his duty to his religion is more important than his duty to his country. Which is fair enough.

This 'day of rest' nonsense is a little old fashioned though. He doesn't play rugby every day, does he? So surely, he does get a day of rest in somewhere?

Or does he expect everyone to observe their 'day of rest' on his 'day of rest'?

'duty to his country'? It's only rugby for goodness sake!

[Phil D. Rolls]

I don't get it.

He clearly feels that his duty to his religion is more important than his duty to his country. Which is fair enough.

This 'day of rest' nonsense is a little old fashioned though. He doesn't play rugby every day, does he? So surely, he does get a day of rest in somewhere?

Or does he expect everyone to observe their 'day of rest' on his 'day of rest'?

I think this thing about taking the seventh day of the week off goes back quite a while.

[IndieHibby]

'duty to his country'? It's only rugby for goodness sake!

Apologies - that is not how it was meant to come across. I meant that if he wishes to play rugby, for his country, and the games are played on a sunday, he faces a choice between his religion and his country (in so far as playing rugby is concerned).

[IndieHibby]

He'll most likely be training pretty much every day that he does not have a match, so I'm not sure what you are getting at. Observing the Sabbath is not just about resting though, it is also about giving the day over to God. If you are working/playing sport etc. then you cannot fully concentrate on giving the day over to God, relaxing and spending time worshipping God. He obviously feels he hasn't been able to do this while playing rugby, so fair play to him for making this stand.


I suppose 'what I'm getting at' is that he can have his cake and eat it - i.e. he can choose to observe his religion in a way that also allows him to play rugby. The fact he is choosing one over the other, suggest, IMO, that he feels his religious 'duty' is greater than his sporting one. Which, again, is fair enough.

I just don't understand why he can't have both.

[IndieHibby]

Eh? What gives you that idea?

Presumably he wants to play rugby. Evidently, he also wants to have 'his day of rest'. Why does it have to be a Sunday? Surely his religous observance allows for some flexibility?

Or is it that he would rather that games weren't played on a Sunday so he can observe his (inflexible) religious demands?

---------- Post added at 11:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:23 AM ----------


I think this thing about taking the seventh day of the week off goes back quite a while.

Isn't that what I meant by 'old-fashioned'?:wink:

[ArabHibee]

Apologies - that is not how it was meant to come across. I meant that if he wishes to play rugby, for his country, and the games are played on a sunday, he faces a choice between his religion and his country (in so far as playing rugby is concerned).

Apology accepted. :greengrin

[IndieHibby]

Apology accepted. :greengrin

Your mercy knows no bounds...:wink:

[khib70]

It's a tricky one, this. We live in a secular society, but should respect sincerely held religious beliefs. On the other hand, the Eric Liddell parallels are a bit wide of the mark.

Liddell ( who even an atheist like me cannot help but respect for the life he led and his honest humanitarianism) was an amateur sportsman, giving up his own time for his sport, and entitled to make decisions about how much of it, and on what days he gave it.

Murray is a professional who is paid to play the game, and is part of a team. There are no doubt a number of practising Christians in the squad, none of whom seem to have any trouble with Sundays. Murray seems to have been converted to a fairly extreme variant of Christianity, and a minority one at that.

I'd give him the benefit of the doubt, however, since he's still likely to be available for his country a sight more often than most Old Firm footballers.

[ArabHibee]

Your mercy knows no bounds...:wink:

You're very welcome! :greengrin


Presumably he wants to play rugby. Evidently, he also wants to have 'his day of rest'. Why does it have to be a Sunday? Surely his religous observance allows for some flexibility?

Or is it that he would rather that games weren't played on a Sunday so he can observe his (inflexible) religious demands?

I would assume its a Sunday as the religion that he follows has Sunday as the designated day of rest?

On an aside, I remember Brian Irvine (Aberdeen) would also not play on a Sunday, but this was at a time when Sunday games were not as often as they are now.

Also, wasn't there a long jumper who also wouldn't participate on a Sunday due to religious reasons?

[khib70]

You're very welcome! :greengrin



I would assume its a Sunday as the religion that he follows has Sunday as the designated day of rest?

On an aside, I remember Brian Irvine (Aberdeen) would also not play on a Sunday, but this was at a time when Sunday games were not as often as they are now.

Also, wasn't there a long jumper who also wouldn't participate on a Sunday due to religious reasons?
Ah, Mr Irvine. I seem to remember his religious convictions didn't stop him being a sneaky, niggly, fouling, referee manipulator, though.

[Sergio sledge]

Presumably he wants to play rugby. Evidently, he also wants to have 'his day of rest'. Why does it have to be a Sunday? Surely his religous observance allows for some flexibility?

All depends on what sort of interpretation you take on things. He's obviously decided that his relationship with God is the most important thing to him, and in order to give his relationship with God the place he feels it deserves, he needs to stop playing on Sundays. Presumably he will attend Church on a Sunday more regularly now that he isn't playing rugby, and the fact that Christian Church services are all held on Sundays may have had a bearing on his decision.


Or is it that he would rather that games weren't played on a Sunday so he can observe his (inflexible) religious demands?:

I'm sure he would rather there was no rugby on a Sunday, because then he would be able to play all the games. However, I still don't see what you are getting at with the "does he expect everyone to observe their 'day of rest' on his 'day of rest'?" comment. I'm pretty sure he's not expecting anyone to do anything. He's made a personal choice, and is not forcing it on anyone else, so its clear he doesn't expect other people to hold the same views as him. I'm sure he wishes that he didn't have to make the choice that he has made, but he obviously felt he had to.


Liddell ( who even an atheist like me cannot help but respect for the life he led and his honest humanitarianism) was an amateur sportsman, giving up his own time for his sport, and entitled to make decisions about how much of it, and on what days he gave it.

Murray is a professional who is paid to play the game, and is part of a team. There are no doubt a number of practising Christians in the squad, none of whom seem to have any trouble with Sundays. Murray seems to have been converted to a fairly extreme variant of Christianity, and a minority one at that.

I think the comparisons with Liddell are only being made because of the fact that it Liddell's story was made into a famous film.

I agree that the situations are very different, however I don't think you can say that Murray is not entitled to make the decision not to work on a Sunday just because he is a professional player. It is his job, just like any other persons job, and if people had personal circumstances which changed, then there are a lot of employers out there who would be flexible, and understanding and change things to suit, especially if the person being employed was worth keeping on. Murray has obviously negotiated an arrangement with his club, and intimated his desire the Scotland team, and a solution seems to have been reached. If Northampton RFC had said to Murray that they wouldn't allow him to take Sundays off, then he would have had a big decision to make, and might have had to leave the game, but thankfully for him they have accommodated his beliefs.

[Sergio sledge]

Ah, Mr Irvine. I seem to remember his religious convictions didn't stop him being a sneaky, niggly, fouling, referee manipulator, though.

:greengrin

I once played football against a team containing a Church of Scotland minister who was the single dirtiest player I have ever played against! :greengrin

[Woody1985]

'duty to his country'? It's only rugby for goodness sake!

As opposed to 'duty to a big man in the sky'? :devil:

[steakbake]

It's religious correctness gone mad! This country has to bend over backwards to cater for other folk's superstitions.

Next you'll have leaflets in different languages, explaining how to pay your council tax.

If he doesn't want to play for his country, he can bally well go somewhere else etc, seething, etc.

[lapsedhibee]

Also, wasn't there a long jumper who also wouldn't participate on a Sunday due to religious reasons?

That'll be Jonathan Edwards the triple jumper, who initially declined to compete on Sundays but only became really successful after he started competing on Sundays. Now an atheist, apparently (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/athletics/article1991114.ece).

[Phil D. Rolls]

Presumably he wants to play rugby. Evidently, he also wants to have 'his day of rest'. Why does it have to be a Sunday? Surely his religous observance allows for some flexibility?

Or is it that he would rather that games weren't played on a Sunday so he can observe his (inflexible) religious demands?

---------- Post added at 11:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:23 AM ----------



Isn't that what I meant by 'old-fashioned'?:wink:

You can't get any more old fashioned than creation I suppose. :greengrin

---------- Post added at 01:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:44 PM ----------


It's religious correctness gone mad! This country has to bend over backwards to cater for other folk's superstitions.

Next you'll have leaflets in different languages, explaining how to pay your council tax.

If he doesn't want to play for his country, he can bally well go somewhere else etc, seething, etc.

There's times I feel so angry, I could end up doing time. :grr:

[steakbake]

That'll be Jonathan Edwards the triple jumper, who initially declined to compete on Sundays but only became really successful after he started competing on Sundays. Now an atheist, apparently (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/athletics/article1991114.ece).

Just makes you sick, don't it? He rakes in a fortune being a poster-boy for God and hosting Songs of Praise etc, then once he's made his fortune, he packs it all in.

For all we know, Euan Murray's "faith" might be as real as Larry Kingston's "hamstring".

[(((Fergus)))]

You can't get any more old fashioned than creation I suppose. :greengrin

Yeah, but what made Creation happen? :devil:

[lapsedhibee]

Yeah, but what made Creation happen? :devil:

A giant turtle making a sudden unfeasibly loud noise in space, something like that? :dunno:

[CB_NO3]

I noticed a few people here are praising him for his actions, so I have a question for yous. What would your opinion be if there was 2 or 3 top Hibs players that done this and refused to play on a Sunday?, the things you need to consider are, most of our game against Rangers, Celtic or Hearts are a Sunday. Would you accept it?.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I noticed a few people here are praising him for his actions, so I have a question for yous. What would your opinion be if there was 2 or 3 top Hibs players that done this and refused to play on a Sunday?, the things you need to consider are, most of our game against Rangers, Celtic or Hearts are a Sunday. Would you accept it?.

I swear I'd do time!

I would insist on them being shackled at East Mains and marched to the stadium at gun point with the threat that their families would suffer if they ever talked such nonsense again.

[steakbake]

I swear I'd do time!

I would insist on them being shackled at East Mains and marched to the stadium at gun point with the threat that their families would suffer if they ever talked such nonsense again.

Benji and Ramadan?

You're lucky you weren't locked up for everyone's safety while that one went down.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Benji and Ramadan?

You're lucky you weren't locked up for everyone's safety while that one went down.

Chemically castrated more like! I'd *****ing well do it myself with a Poppy pin. It's the only language I understand.

[steakbake]

Chemically castrated more like! I'd *****ing well do it myself with a Poppy pin. It's the only language I understand.

Another thing of the past, thanks to the jack-booted PC Brigade riding rough-shod over the traditions of this once proud nation of ours...

What an outrage.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Another thing of the past, thanks to the jack-booted PC Brigade riding rough-shod over the traditions of this once proud nation of ours...

What an outrage.

It was a different story for Lady Di, an Baby P an the'yre the wons that every1 for-get's :boo hoo:.

Bring back Franko an Moose-el-ini :agree:, they new how to deal with train driver's who thought they could jus lye in they're bed's evray Sun-day!! The sick *******'s!! :ill:

[Twa Cairpets]

A few thoughts on this thread:

- The decision for a professional sportsman, as part of a team, to refuse to play on a sunday does strike me as being a touch arrogant. If he was an individual competitor, then the only person who he potentially damages is himself. But if he is a key team player (and I dont know, as I cant stand rugby), then is he not potentially directly affecting the income and opportunities of his erstwhile teammates?

- A lot of posters have talked about having "respect" for his decision. Why? I have no objection to someone taking a position on the basis of their belief, but I have no need to respect it in any reverential sense. If respect means "accept their right to take it" then fine, but thats as far as it goes. I dont regard it as principled stand or as a commitment to his faith, but as a self-indulgent statement of his christain credentials. Given he is a doing an ultimately pretty pointless job, he has the luxury of saying "nah, no' playing". If he was a doctor, would he say the same? This isn't a spurious point - either the Sabbath is or isnt sacred, it surely cant (in the eyes of the holy) be down to personal choice or interpretation/

- The day of rest thing is solely religious in this context. To say its fair enough for any other reason may be valid, but has nothing to do with this guys decision to observe the Sabbath.

- How far does he take this "no playing" thing. for example, if he plays on a Saturday, and then travels back on a Sunday, isn't that violating the day of rest as he is travelling back from his work?

[(((Fergus)))]

I think this whole issue is entirely Mr Murray's business. If his employers aren't happy with his availability, they can and will find someone else.

[Twa Cairpets]

I think this whole issue is entirely Mr Murray's business. If his employers aren't happy with his availability, they can and will find someone else.

"Mr" Murray?

I disagree with you. Just because it is a religious belief does not make it inviolate regarding discussion. Because he is a professional sportsman, his beliefs are more in the poublic domain than they would be if he was, say, a plumber.

[heretoday]

We've got players who go on Ramadan, eh?

[Twa Cairpets]

We've got players who go on Ramadan, eh?

Ramadan is an observance to do with abstinence from consumption dawn to dusk.

To me, it's an equally daft and arbitrary requirement of religion but in the context of this thread it isnt a refusal to play on a particular day.

[Phil D. Rolls]

"Mr" Murray?

I disagree with you. Just because it is a religious belief does not make it inviolate regarding discussion. Because he is a professional sportsman, his beliefs are more in the poublic domain than they would be if he was, say, a plumber.

So are you saying Murray's responsibility to others overrides his right to follow his conscience?

[Sergio sledge]

A few thoughts on this thread:

- The decision for a professional sportsman, as part of a team, to refuse to play on a sunday does strike me as being a touch arrogant. If he was an individual competitor, then the only person who he potentially damages is himself. But if he is a key team player (and I dont know, as I cant stand rugby), then is he not potentially directly affecting the income and opportunities of his erstwhile teammates?

You could also turn that around and look at it positively in terms of the benefit he will have to the team when he is available. Seems to be a case of optimism or pessimism on this particular point.

I agree though, it could be thought of that way, and some of his team mates may feel the same, but I'm sure if his club felt that it was going to have a major adverse effect on the team they would have done something different than accept it and deal with it. Murray made this decision after having signed for his current club, and I'm sure there will be something in the contract about if players have made themselves unavailable for a certain amount of games, then the employer would have a right to sack them.

They didn't though, and have chosen to play him when available, so they are obviously looking at the positive impact he can have when available.


- A lot of posters have talked about having "respect" for his decision. Why? I have no objection to someone taking a position on the basis of their belief, but I have no need to respect it in any reverential sense. If respect means "accept their right to take it" then fine, but thats as far as it goes. I dont regard it as principled stand or as a commitment to his faith, but as a self-indulgent statement of his christain credentials. Given he is a doing an ultimately pretty pointless job, he has the luxury of saying "nah, no' playing". If he was a doctor, would he say the same? This isn't a spurious point - either the Sabbath is or isnt sacred, it surely cant (in the eyes of the holy) be down to personal choice or interpretation

With regards to the respect thing, why don't you regard it as a principled stance? Is it purely because you don't agree with his personal principals? Do you know him personally to make the assumption that the reason he's done this is to try to show off his "Christian credentials?"

IMHO, that's a bit of a leap to make if you don't know him personally. I do know someone who knows Murray personally, and he is by all accounts a very un-assuming, humble and down to earth guy, and the last thing he does, or wants to do is shove his "Christian credentials" in peoples face. Remember, Murray made this choice months ago, and nothing was heard about it because he did it quietly behind closed doors with his club and the SRU. The only reason this has become big news is because the SRU trumpeted it to everyone. To me it seems more like the SRU trying to show off their inclusive, understanding credentials.

The respect I have for Murray is that he's sacrificed something (albeit for one day a week) which brings him enjoyment, money and recognition to stand up for something which will quite probably bring him a lot of ridicule from the outside world.

This is a contentious issue amongst Christians, and very much does come down to personal interpretation, as some people will see doctors or medical staff as a "work of necessity" and say its ok to do this but not other more menial or less important jobs.

Some people will be of the opinion that no work of any kind, even washing dishes, preparing food etc should be done (Free Presbyterians on the western isles) while others will say that the Sabbath can be kept Holy no matter what you are doing, working or not, and it is about an attitude, rather than physical actions. Personally I would find it a real struggle to work and try to keep the sabbath especially Holy, and set apart from other days of the week, but thankfully I've never been in a position where I've had to make the choice between working on a Sunday or not.

Paul says in Colossians:

"Therefore, do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ."

In other words, we are not to say it is wrong for other Christians to be working on the Sabbath, it is a personal choice, very much between themselves and God. Murray says he has been wrestling with the issue for a while and has decided to make his stand on what he believes so fair play to him.


- The day of rest thing is solely religious in this context. To say its fair enough for any other reason may be valid, but has nothing to do with this guys decision to observe the Sabbath.

- How far does he take this "no playing" thing. for example, if he plays on a Saturday, and then travels back on a Sunday, isn't that violating the day of rest as he is travelling back from his work?

Again its a contentious issue, up until recently you couldn't get a ferry off the western isles on a Sunday, so the attitude over there from some was that travel on a Sunday was very much wrong. Others would see no problem in it. I try to avoid travelling on a Sunday if at all possible, but as far as I know it doesn't say in the Bible "thou shalt not travel on a Sunday," but I try not to judge others on what they choose to do, or not to do....

[Twa Cairpets]

So are you saying Murray's responsibility to others overrides his right to follow his conscience?

No, not saying that, but it might be the case. I think following his conscience here is very insular, and it's and interesting thing to discuss.

[Twa Cairpets]

You could also turn that around and look at it positively in terms of the benefit he will have to the team when he is available. Seems to be a case of optimism or pessimism on this particular point.

I agree though, it could be thought of that way, and some of his team mates may feel the same, but I'm sure if his club felt that it was going to have a major adverse effect on the team they would have done something different than accept it and deal with it. Murray made this decision after having signed for his current club, and I'm sure there will be something in the contract about if players have made themselves unavailable for a certain amount of games, then the employer would have a right to sack them.

They didn't though, and have chosen to play him when available, so they are obviously looking at the positive impact he can have when available.

But surely they would have been happier if he played all the games. maybe im a bad person, but if I was a player getting drafted in and then dropped because of someones belief in keeping the sabbath, iI think I would be hacked off.


With regards to the respect thing, why don't you regard it as a principled stance? Is it purely because you don't agree with his personal principals?

I dont regard it as a principled stance because I dont see any principles being demonstrated. The only person who could conceivably benefit from his action is him in terms of his personal spiritual wellbeing (and potential for future salvation, I suppose). I dont agree with his personal principles as far as his requirement to follow this particular piece of biblical instruction, But I dont respect it because I see nothing worthy of respect.


Do you know him personally to make the assumption that the reason he's done this is to try to show off his "Christian credentials?"IMHO, that's a bit of a leap to make if you don't know him personally. I do know someone who knows Murray personally, and he is by all accounts a very un-assuming, humble and down to earth guy, and the last thing he does, or wants to do is shove his "Christian credentials" in peoples face. Remember, Murray made this choice months ago, and nothing was heard about it because he did it quietly behind closed doors with his club and the SRU. The only reason this has become big news is because the SRU trumpeted it to everyone. To me it seems more like the SRU trying to show off their inclusive, understanding credentials.

No, I dont know him. He may well be Mr Humble from Humble City, West Humble, but it is very naive to assume that whatever agreement he came to with his club wouldnt become public knowledge. He is a paid professional in a sport where peopke want to know whats going on. if the SRU didnt explain why he wouldnt play on a Sunday wouldnt they have got pelters?


The respect I have for Murray is that he's sacrificed something (albeit for one day a week) which brings him enjoyment, money and recognition to stand up for something which will quite probably bring him a lot of ridicule from the outside world.

But its not really a sacrifice is it. Missing a game of Rugby and a possible win bonus is hardly up there on the pantheon of sacrifices.


This is a contentious issue amongst Christians, and very much does come down to personal interpretation, as some people will see doctors or medical staff as a "work of necessity" and say its ok to do this but not other more menial or less important jobs.

Some people will be of the opinion that no work of any kind, even washing dishes, preparing food etc should be done (Free Presbyterians on the western isles) while others will say that the Sabbath can be kept Holy no matter what you are doing, working or not, and it is about an attitude, rather than physical actions. Personally I would find it a real struggle to work and try to keep the sabbath especially Holy, and set apart from other days of the week, but thankfully I've never been in a position where I've had to make the choice between working on a Sunday or not.

Paul says in Colossians:

"Therefore, do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ."

In other words, we are not to say it is wrong for other Christians to be working on the Sabbath, it is a personal choice, very much between themselves and God. Murray says he has been wrestling with the issue for a while and has decided to make his stand on what he believes so fair play to him.

Again its a contentious issue, up until recently you couldn't get a ferry off the western isles on a Sunday, so the attitude over there from some was that travel on a Sunday was very much wrong. Others would see no problem in it. I try to avoid travelling on a Sunday if at all possible, but as far as I know it doesn't say in the Bible "thou shalt not travel on a Sunday," but I try not to judge others on what they choose to do, or not to do....

So his decision is one based on a very specific interpretation, not held in any way universally by his faith. It would have been equally "correct" for him to think that his talent for Rugby is a God given gift, and that he has a duty to demonstrate it at every opportunity. Thats why I see it as both ludicrous and arrogant


but I try not to judge others on what they choose to do, or not to do....

I bet you do you know. Everybody does.

[Sergio sledge]

But surely they would have been happier if he played all the games. maybe im a bad person, but if I was a player getting drafted in and then dropped because of someones belief in keeping the sabbath, iI think I would be hacked off.

I'm sure he probably would, but we can't all make every decision in life in order to not annoy someone else. Perhaps you never hack anyone off with your decisions at work, but I know that I do, and sometimes I do have a choice but I do what I think is right in terms of my work and my principles.


I dont regard it as a principled stance because I dont see any principles being demonstrated. The only person who could conceivably benefit from his action is him in terms of his personal spiritual wellbeing (and potential for future salvation, I suppose). I dont agree with his personal principles as far as his requirement to follow this particular piece of biblical instruction, But I dont respect it because I see nothing worthy of respect.

How do you define principles then? They may not be a set of principles that you agree with, but they are his principles, his set of guiding rules that he tries to live his life by. I wouldn't expect everyone to respect his decision, I was merely explaining why I respected it as you asked the question.

Your point about salvation is totally wrong however, nothing Murray can do himself has any impact on his salvation, he has already been saved due to the Grace of Gad in sending His Son to die for sinners on the cross. Of course he should try to live the way God wants him to, but salvation is not something which can be attained by works and how good he has been.


No, I dont know him. He may well be Mr Humble from Humble City, West Humble, but it is very naive to assume that whatever agreement he came to with his club wouldnt become public knowledge. He is a paid professional in a sport where peopke want to know whats going on. if the SRU didnt explain why he wouldnt play on a Sunday wouldnt they have got pelters?

True, but that wasn't my point. My point was that he wouldn't have set out to do this just to try to show off his credentials as you seem to be suggesting. He did it because he believes it is right, and that is the only reason, not through some desire for personal gratification from anyone. He is not that type of person.


But its not really a sacrifice is it. Missing a game of Rugby and a possible win bonus is hardly up there on the pantheon of sacrifices.

It is still a sacrifice, however small it is in the grand scheme of things.


So his decision is one based on a very specific interpretation, not held in any way universally by his faith. It would have been equally "correct" for him to think that his talent for Rugby is a God given gift, and that he has a duty to demonstrate it at every opportunity. Thats why I see it as both ludicrous and arrogant

Of course, some people will have come to a different conclusion, just like some people make different decisions on what to have for lunch, or what car to buy. Doesn't mean he's arrogant for doing what he believes is right. Certainly people will see it as ludicrous, that is to be expected.



I bet you do you know. Everybody does.

That's why I said "try not to" :greengrin It doesn't always work out that way...:wink:

[Twa Cairpets]

How do you define principles then? They may not be a set of principles that you agree with, but they are his principles, his set of guiding rules that he tries to live his life by. I wouldn't expect everyone to respect his decision, I was merely explaining why I respected it as you asked the question.

I think you are conflating principles with beliefs. I have a lot of very strong principles which differ to other peoples, but they are based on an interpretation of my place in a wider society, and how it is appropriate to behave. Maybe its because I am very strong in my atheist views that I see any stance based solely on religious beliefs as fundamentally flawed, bit the sabbath observance to me is as nonsensical as eating fish on fridays, avoiding Pork or wearing the burkha. If it wasnt in a holy book, it wouldnt be done. These activities are presumably by your definitions principles as as well?



Your point about salvation is totally wrong however, nothing Murray can do himself has any impact on his salvation, he has already been saved due to the Grace of Gad in sending His Son to die for sinners on the cross. Of course he should try to live the way God wants him to, but salvation is not something which can be attained by works and how good he has been.

Of course Catholics may disagree with this


True, but that wasn't my point. My point was that he wouldn't have set out to do this just to try to show off his credentials as you seem to be suggesting. He did it because he believes it is right, and that is the only reason, not through some desire for personal gratification from anyone. He is not that type of person.... Of course, some people will have come to a different conclusion, just like some people make different decisions on what to have for lunch, or what car to buy. Doesn't mean he's arrogant for doing what he believes is right. Certainly people will see it as ludicrous, that is to be expected.

Maybe not showing off, i'll give you that, but it still hits me as a very arrogant thing to do.

[Sergio sledge]

I think you are conflating principles with beliefs. I have a lot of very strong principles which differ to other peoples, but they are based on an interpretation of my place in a wider society, and how it is appropriate to behave. Maybe its because I am very strong in my atheist views that I see any stance based solely on religious beliefs as fundamentally flawed, bit the sabbath observance to me is as nonsensical as eating fish on fridays, avoiding Pork or wearing the burkha. If it wasnt in a holy book, it wouldnt be done. These activities are presumably by your definitions principles as as well?

I don't think I am confusing principles and beliefs. Principles in my definition would be a set of rules or guidelines that you would use to influence your actions and deeds. Beliefs could be defined exactly the same way, and I don't see why they have to be mutually exclusive. Someone's principles may come directly their beliefs, some may come from personal experience or upbringing, some may take their principles from Jordan's latest autobiography. No matter how valid you, or I, think they are, they are still that persons personal principles.

The dictionary defines principles as:

principles, a personal or specific basis of conduct or management

To me that describes perfectly what Murray has done here, his beliefs are the basis from which he forms his principles, which are the basis of his decisions on the way he lives his life.


Of course Catholics may disagree with this

Yup, they would. But Euan Murray is not a Catholic, so you're point was wrong... :greengrin


Maybe not showing off, i'll give you that, but it still hits me as a very arrogant thing to do.

Fair enough, but he's not an arrogant person, and wouldn't have meant it to come across like that at all.

[Phil D. Rolls]

No, not saying that, but it might be the case. I think following his conscience here is very insular, and it's and interesting thing to discuss.

The only person that can tell us what his conscience dictates is Euan Murray though. As it is an individual decision it stands to reason that it is insular. I think we have to preserve people's right to act as individuals.

[Twa Cairpets]

The only person that can tell us what his conscience dictates is Euan Murray though. As it is an individual decision it stands to reason that it is insular. I think we have to preserve people's right to act as individuals.

On the face of it, what you've written there is impossible to argue against. But actually, on reflection, I don't think it's right.

I don't believe that everyones personal opinions, morals, principles or decisions are equally valid. I don't believe that "peoples right to act as individuals" means that this "right" (if it is one) has to be respected or left unquestioned.

You can dislike/object to/argue against peoples views on any number of levels.

Examples:

Blood sport - I dislike it because I dont think its right to terrorise foxes - this is a principled stand, I think.
BNP - I think their views are abhorent becuase they are actively and stupidly discriminatory.
People who believe in derek acorah - I think they are wilfully stupid and gullible, and allow charlatans to earn a living
Anti-vaccination campaigners - dangerously misguided fools who threaten the health of the population at large
Sabbath observance - pointless, arbitrary belief in an element of a book I believe is anti-thinking.

There is a big difference in my level of "anti-ness" of the above, and I do believe people have a right to have positions contrary to mine, but it does not mean I cant argue against it, disapprove of it - and yes, mock it - where appropriate.

[Phil D. Rolls]

On the face of it, what you've written there is impossible to argue against. But actually, on reflection, I don't think it's right.

I don't believe that everyones personal opinions, morals, principles or decisions are equally valid. I don't believe that "peoples right to act as individuals" means that this "right" (if it is one) has to be respected or left unquestioned.

You can dislike/object to/argue against peoples views on any number of levels.

Examples:

Blood sport - I dislike it because I dont think its right to terrorise foxes - this is a principled stand, I think.
BNP - I think their views are abhorent becuase they are actively and stupidly discriminatory.
People who believe in derek acorah - I think they are wilfully stupid and gullible, and allow charlatans to earn a living
Anti-vaccination campaigners - dangerously misguided fools who threaten the health of the population at large
Sabbath observance - pointless, arbitrary belief in an element of a book I believe is anti-thinking.

There is a big difference in my level of "anti-ness" of the above, and I do believe people have a right to have positions contrary to mine, but it does not mean I cant argue against it, disapprove of it - and yes, mock it - where appropriate.

We all see the world from our own personal history and experiences. No one is right or wrong, they are either in line with the consensus or out of line with it.

IMO life's about shades of grey. I think if everyone has the right to think what they want there is going to be disagreement, it is not an unhealthy thing. I think it is scary when everyone agrees.

[lapsedhibee]

We all see the world from our own personal history and experiences. No one is right or wrong, they are either in line with the consensus or out of line with it.

What about the person whose history and life experience is to have had his head stuck in stand for most of it, and who now believes that luckless Hearts owe money to themselves? Isn't he 'wrong'? :confused:

[Twa Cairpets]

We all see the world from our own personal history and experiences. No one is right or wrong, they are either in line with the consensus or out of line with it.

IMO life's about shades of grey. I think if everyone has the right to think what they want there is going to be disagreement, it is not an unhealthy thing. I think it is scary when everyone agrees.

People are either right or wrong about some things, though.

Either Christianity is right or it isnt
Either there are ghosts or there arent
Either domestic violence is wrong or it isnt.

Shades of grey are fine in some areas but dangerously accommodating in others

[Phil D. Rolls]

What about the person whose history and life experience is to have had his head stuck in stand for most of it, and who now believes that luckless Hearts owe money to themselves? Isn't he 'wrong'? :confused:

There are two schools of thought. Followers of Troubled Hearts, and the Rest of the World. In their seperate domains they are correct, however when they cross over into the other domain they are wrong.

Thus if the Yams existed in a vaccuum where the rules of the outside world didn't exist they could well owe money to themselves. It is only when they try to introduce their perceptions of reality to others that words like: "barking"; "tonto"; "insane"; "bonkers"; and "lunacy" can assume their true meaning.

[Phil D. Rolls]

People are either right or wrong about some things, though.

Either Christianity is right or it isnt
Either there are ghosts or there arent
Either domestic violence is wrong or it isnt.

Shades of grey are fine in some areas but dangerously accommodating in others

Not wanting to be trite, but - "says who"?

[steakbake]

Not wanting to be trite, but - "says who"?

Reason itself is not a source of knowlegde or justification.

[IndieHibby]

Chemically castrated more like! I'd *****ing well do it myself with a Poppy pin. It's the only language I understand.

lol. Good stuff, lads, good stuff.

:faf:

[Twa Cairpets]

Not wanting to be trite, but - "says who"?

Anyone who understands logic or evidence.

Are you suggesting that the points above are not black and white?

[Phil D. Rolls]

Anyone who understands logic or evidence.

Are you suggesting that the points above are not black and white?

I am suggesting there is more than one version of the truth. In fact there are many, each is true to the person who holds the belief.

Science is not the only way to interpret the world around us, and logic is overrated.

[Twa Cairpets]

I am suggesting there is more than one version of the truth. In fact there are many, each is true to the person who holds the belief.

Science is not the only way to interpret the world around us, and logic is overrated.

As an intellectual contemplation, you may be right, as a practical and rational way of considering both the physical and moral elements of the world, I think you are just plain wrong, even though you do sound a bit like Confucious.

Science is the only way to interpret things which are scientifically based, but its not appropriate or applicable for moral considerations. Logic can be used as tool for rational analysis of lots of things.

With religion, your point that something is true to person who holds the belief is, frankly, a cop out. If I absolutely, unshakably believe there are magical pixies at the bottom of the garden, it doesnt mean that this is true. It does not mean that my belief has any validity, or is worthy of respect or should be seen as being equal to anyone elses beleif that there are not magical pixies at the bottom of the garden.

Murrays belief in what he has chosen to do being right (which I think is a fair assumption to make) is to my mind a very arrogant, anti-thinking act.

[Phil D. Rolls]

As an intellectual contemplation, you may be right, as a practical and rational way of considering both the physical and moral elements of the world, I think you are just plain wrong, even though you do sound a bit like Confucious.

Science is the only way to interpret things which are scientifically based, but its not appropriate or applicable for moral considerations. Logic can be used as tool for rational analysis of lots of things.

With religion, your point that something is true to person who holds the belief is, frankly, a cop out. If I absolutely, unshakably believe there are magical pixies at the bottom of the garden, it doesnt mean that this is true. It does not mean that my belief has any validity, or is worthy of respect or should be seen as being equal to anyone elses beleif that there are not magical pixies at the bottom of the garden.

Murrays belief in what he has chosen to do being right (which I think is a fair assumption to make) is to my mind a very arrogant, anti-thinking act.

It does make it true to you. Others may disagree but in your reality it is true. No doubt if you held that belief then you'd be very upset if peope tried to tell you otherwise. In the same way someone who believes they shouldn't play Rugby on a Sunday would be very upset if they had to do so.

It's like this picture (http://www.sapdesignguild.org/resources/optical_illusions/images/faces.gif) is it heads or is it a vase - or both? Sometimes there is more than one answer and neither is wrong.

What you are saying is that the beliefs of the majority should be imposed on the individual, despite the distress it would cause him. Now I might go along with this if the person believed they were God almighty and were preparing to wipe out a school or hospital. (I'd take the risk that they weren't). But for a sporting contest, I'd as soon leave them to their own conscience.

Post modernism seems to be something that followers of science are unable to understand, let alone accept. Science does not have, and never will have all the answers, yet scientists insist that their's is the only truth.

All I can say is there are different ways of looking at the world, from where I stand none is wrong. You're not going to get me to change my mind, nor I you - it's like you're arguing in French and I'm arguing in German.

[ancienthibby]

As an intellectual contemplation, you may be right, as a practical and rational way of considering both the physical and moral elements of the world, I think you are just plain wrong, even though you do sound a bit like Confucious.

Science is the only way to interpret things which are scientifically based, but its not appropriate or applicable for moral considerations. Logic can be used as tool for rational analysis of lots of things.

With religion, your point that something is true to person who holds the belief is, frankly, a cop out. If I absolutely, unshakably believe there are magical pixies at the bottom of the garden, it doesnt mean that this is true. It does not mean that my belief has any validity, or is worthy of respect or should be seen as being equal to anyone elses beleif that there are not magical pixies at the bottom of the garden.

Murrays belief in what he has chosen to do being right (which I think is a fair assumption to make) is to my mind a very arrogant, anti-thinking act.

I think you are quite out or order in making this remark, TC. I recall a TV interview (BBC) with Euan late last year (or early this) and a more humble, gentle man you could not meet. He came across as a 'gentle giant' , very soft spoken but with a seeming permanent smile on his face. He simply showed how humbled he was that God had so touched his life.

Also, arrogance is not something that can go hand-in-hand with Christianity. Since the coming of Christ into this world was the most humble act yet, to be followed by a brutal crucifixion, arrogance has no role
in Christianity. There was a shred of it in that interview with Euan M.

[Danderhall Hibs]

What would happen if a minister decided that due to his religion he didn’t want to work on a Sunday? :greengrin

[Phil D. Rolls]

What would happen if a minister decided that due to his religion he didn’t want to work on a Sunday? :greengrin

Would anyone notice?

[Twa Cairpets]

It does make it true to you. Others may disagree but in your reality it is true. No doubt if you held that belief then you'd be very upset if peope tried to tell you otherwise. In the same way someone who believes they shouldn't play Rugby on a Sunday would be very upset if they had to do so.

Missing the point FR. Just because its true to me doesnt make it true in a literal sense of being actualyl correct/accurate/representative of what is actually happening in the universe. Also, I hold lots of beliefs that people disagree with - why should I be upset?


...What you are saying is that the beliefs of the majority should be imposed on the individual, despite the distress it would cause him. Now I might go along with this if the person believed they were God almighty and were preparing to wipe out a school or hospital. (I'd take the risk that they weren't). But for a sporting contest, I'd as soon leave them to their own conscience.
No, absolutely not. This is the antithesis of what I believe. I have no issue whatsoever in defending his right to to believe what he wants, but i also completely have the right, surely, to disagree with it and argue against itss validity. Every belief is not equally valid, or otherwise everyone would just go around agreeing about everything.


Post modernism seems to be something that followers of science are unable to understand, let alone accept. Science does not have, and never will have all the answers, yet scientists insist that their's is the only truth.

If you'll look back, I've said that science only has answers for things that can be analysed scientifically. Belief in a deity - because it is fundamentally unfalsifiable or testable by science (despite the fact that there are mountains of evidence strongly suggestive of a non-creator creation, and very little to the contrary), is something that science shouldnt clain to have an answer on. Equally science - as opposed to scientists - operates diametrically in opposition to the claim of truth. Everything is up for question and re-test.


All I can say is there are different ways of looking at the world, from where I stand none is wrong. You're not going to get me to change my mind, nor I you - it's like you're arguing in French and I'm arguing in German.

Maybe thats where we differ - if someone puts solid evidence or reasoned opinion up that differs to mine, i'll change my mind if it makes sense.

[Twa Cairpets]

I think you are quite out or order in making this remark, TC. I recall a TV interview (BBC) with Euan late last year (or early this) and a more humble, gentle man you could not meet. He came across as a 'gentle giant' , very soft spoken but with a seeming permanent smile on his face. He simply showed how humbled he was that God had so touched his life.

Also, arrogance is not something that can go hand-in-hand with Christianity. Since the coming of Christ into this world was the most humble act yet, to be followed by a brutal crucifixion, arrogance has no role
in Christianity. There was a shred of it in that interview with Euan M.

You're mixing up the man with the action here, ancient. He may be the nicest man in the world, be unfailingly kind to his mum and help out in animal shelters of an evening, but to me his action is arrogant.

I'll not argue your last paragraph, as this would take us down a thread we've been down before...

[greenlex]

Doddie I know you would be busy bu tout of interest do you watch football on a Sunday?

[Phil D. Rolls]

Missing the point FR. Just because its true to me doesnt make it true in a literal sense of being actualyl correct/accurate/representative of what is actually happening in the universe. Also, I hold lots of beliefs that people disagree with - why should I be upset?


No, absolutely not. This is the antithesis of what I believe. I have no issue whatsoever in defending his right to to believe what he wants, but i also completely have the right, surely, to disagree with it and argue against itss validity. Every belief is not equally valid, or otherwise everyone would just go around agreeing about everything.



If you'll look back, I've said that science only has answers for things that can be analysed scientifically. Belief in a deity - because it is fundamentally unfalsifiable or testable by science (despite the fact that there are mountains of evidence strongly suggestive of a non-creator creation, and very little to the contrary), is something that science shouldnt clain to have an answer on. Equally science - as opposed to scientists - operates diametrically in opposition to the claim of truth. Everything is up for question and re-test.



Maybe thats where we differ - if someone puts solid evidence or reasoned opinion up that differs to mine, i'll change my mind if it makes sense.

You're right, I'm right. I can live with it you can't. :dunno:

[Twa Cairpets]

Only one of us is right. You're prepared to question it, I'm prepared to meekly accept it.

Fixed it for you

[Phil D. Rolls]

Fixed it for you

I haven't meekly accepted it, I have thought long and hard about it. I don't claim to be original in this thinking, there have been others that have made much better arguments for it.

Seriously though, thanks for the debate, I don't think you will change my way of thinking, but you sure made me think deeply about it. At the end of the day, it's how I make sense of the world, and it keeps me (I think) relatively sane.

Have a good Christmas mate. Looking forward to crossing swords again in 2010 - or possibly even agreeing! :greengrin

[LiverpoolHibs]

Post modernism seems to be something that followers of science are unable to understand, let alone accept. Science does not have, and never will have all the answers, yet scientists insist that their's is the only truth.

I think anyone who's not taking the piss has a problem accepting post-modernism; scientists or otherwise.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I think anyone who's not taking the piss has a problem accepting post-modernism; scientists or otherwise.

I've not been taking the piss, if that's what you're suggesting.

A debate about beliefs has to take account of the fact that they are formed from individual perspectives of the world. There is no place for right or wrong, it's like saying liking a certain colour is wrong, or a certain type of music.

Science deals in absolutes, but there are many situations where absolutes don't apply. Post (and pre) modern thinking recognises that not everything in life is necessarily logical.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I've not been taking the piss, if that's what you're suggesting.

A debate about beliefs has to take account of the fact that they are formed from individual perspectives of the world. There is no place for right or wrong, it's like saying liking a certain colour is wrong, or a certain type of music.

Science deals in absolutes, but there are many situations where absolutes don't apply. Post (and pre) modern thinking recognises that not everything in life is necessarily logical.

Nah, I wasn't suggesting that.

I'm not sure anyone's ever suggested there is a correct favourite colour or a correct favourite genre of music. The problem is that post-modernism attempts to shift that to every aspect of human existence so that nobody is ever wrong about anything, everyone's beliefs are considered equally valid and worthy of equal consideration and nothing and no-one can ever really be challenged for their beliefs and/or actions.

It's the perfect philosophical accompaniment to neo-liberal capitalism; archness and irony being used to cover for unfathomable cowardliness, lotus-eating laziness, cynicism, post-alienation disengagement and Thatcherite anti-sociality.

[ancienthibby]

Nah, I wasn't suggesting that.

I'm not sure anyone's ever suggested there is a correct favourite colour or a correct favourite genre of music. The problem is that post-modernism attempts to shift that to every aspect of human existence so that nobody is ever wrong about anything, everyone's beliefs are considered equally valid and worthy of equal consideration and nothing and no-one can ever really be challenged for their beliefs and/or actions.

It's the perfect philosophical accompaniment to neo-liberal capitalism; archness and irony being used to cover for unfathomable cowardliness, lotus-eating laziness, cynicism, post-alienation disengagement and Thatcherite anti-sociality.

NY's resolution for LH:

When reading a new textbook or the latest 'in thing' in sociology, do resist the temptation to automatically post same on hibs.net.:devil:

[Phil D. Rolls]

Nah, I wasn't suggesting that.

I'm not sure anyone's ever suggested there is a correct favourite colour or a correct favourite genre of music. The problem is that post-modernism attempts to shift that to every aspect of human existence so that nobody is ever wrong about anything, everyone's beliefs are considered equally valid and worthy of equal consideration and nothing and no-one can ever really be challenged for their beliefs and/or actions.

It's the perfect philosophical accompaniment to neo-liberal capitalism; archness and irony being used to cover for unfathomable cowardliness, lotus-eating laziness, cynicism, post-alienation disengagement and Thatcherite anti-sociality.

Fair do's.

Where I'm coming from is the context of this thread really. One guy believes it is wrong to play Rugby on a Sunday. I can't see any reason about why he shouldn't be allowed to believe that. The alternative is that he has to accept other people's beliefs.

Blaming post modernism for Thatcher is like blaming Jesus for the Spanish inquisition. (Wish that I had thought that line up).

[LiverpoolHibs]

NY's resolution for LH:

When reading a new textbook or the latest 'in thing' in sociology, do resist the temptation to automatically post same on hibs.net.:devil:

Erm, yeah...

Jesus wept.


Fair do's.

Where I'm coming from is the context of this thread really. One guy believes it is wrong to play Rugby on a Sunday. I can't see any reason about why he shouldn't be allowed to believe that. The alternative is that he has to accept other people's beliefs.

Blaming post modernism for Thatcher is like blaming Jesus for the Spanish inquisition. (Wish that I had thought that line up).

Yeah, I don't actually disagree with you on the point in this thread. If he doesn't want to play on a Sunday, he's perfectly entitled not to.

Thatcher was a sympton (and partial cause) of it.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Erm, yeah...

Jesus wept.



Yeah, I don't actually disagree with you on the point in this thread. If he doesn't want to play on a Sunday, he's perfectly entitled not to.

Thatcher was a sympton (and partial cause) of it.

The phrase gained currency during her reign, but the movement began earlier. I believe in the post war period.

When you think about it Punk Rock was post modern, Monty Python was post modern etc

[LiverpoolHibs]

The phrase gained currency during her reign, but the movement began earlier. I believe in the post war period.

Well, yeah. If you're going to chase it to a particular point you'd probably go for the fall-out from the failure of '68; although strands of it had existed before the Second World War. '68 crystallised it.


When you think about it Punk Rock was post modern, Monty Python was post modern etc

Well it depends. I can't think of any band more the antithesis of post-modernism than the Clash. But then you've got groups like the Modern Lovers, X-Ray Spex, Sex Pistols on the other side. My dislike of it as a condition or attitude (or, in reality, ideology since it is at its base just the cultural expression of the supposed pre-dominance of liberal democratic capitalism) doesn't extend to thinking nothing good, artistically, has ever come out of it.

Anyway, apparently it's over and we're onto post-postmodernism now. :greengrin

[Phil D. Rolls]

Well, yeah. If you're going to chase it to a particular point you'd probably go for the fall-out from the failure of '68; although strands of it had existed before the Second World War. '68 crystallised it.



Well it depends. I can't think of any band more the antithesis of post-modernism than the Clash. But then you've got groups like the Modern Lovers, X-Ray Spex, Sex Pistols on the other side. My dislike of it as a condition or attitude (or, in reality, ideology since it is at its base just the cultural expression of the supposed pre-dominance of liberal democratic capitalism) doesn't extend to thinking nothing good, artistically, has ever come out of it.

Anyway, apparently it's over and we're onto post-postmodernism now. :greengrin

There ain't no crime if their ain't no law.

What about movements like Dadaism and Surrealism, surely they were post modern concepts?

[LiverpoolHibs]

There ain't no crime if their ain't no law.

What about movements like Dadaism and Surrealism, surely they were post modern concepts?

I'm not really sure, sooner or later when discussing this you tend to encounter the problem of there not really being a set definition of what post-modernism is.

Surrealism is/was quite a broad movement and I'm not sure you could say that it's implicitly post-modern.

Dadaism, on the other hand, I'd have said was absolutely archetypal modernism rather than post-modernism. Radicalism both of style and subject, social engagement (uniformly anti-war, anti-bourgeois and anti-imperialist/colonialist), confrontationalism etc. etc.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I'm not really sure, sooner or later when discussing this you tend to encounter the problem of there not really being a set definition of what post-modernism is.

Surrealism is/was quite a broad movement and I'm not sure you could say that it's implicitly post-modern.

Dadaism, on the other hand, I'd have said was absolutely archetypal modernism rather than post-modernism. Radicalism both of style and subject, social engagement (uniformly anti-war, anti-bourgeois and anti-imperialist/colonialist), confrontationalism etc. etc.

My understanding is that modernism is the result of the Enlightenment, or Age of Reason in the 18th Century. The thinking was that science, and structure could improve every aspect of life from food production to interpersonal relations.

Post modernism is basically a rejection of that philosophy. It gained popularity from the end of the first war onwards - Dadaism was a reaction to the "logic" that made it acceptable to slaughter people on such a sytematic scale.

Once people saw what Nazism "achieved" through adherence to a scientific approach to humanity, post modernism gained even more supporters. Their assertion was that modernism was flawed and that a new (or older) approach to humanity was needed.

[Twa Cairpets]

Once people saw what Nazism "achieved" through adherence to a scientific approach to humanity, post modernism gained even more supporters. Their assertion was that modernism was flawed and that a new (or older) approach to humanity was needed.

Nah. Linking Nazism with science is akin to linking potatoes with coffee tables. Nothing to do with each other whatsoever. Whatever Nazis might have called science is nothing to do with what it is now, or indeed was then.

[LiverpoolHibs]

My understanding is that modernism is the result of the Enlightenment, or Age of Reason in the 18th Century. The thinking was that science, and structure could improve every aspect of life from food production to interpersonal relations.

Well, again you get wildly differing interpretations.

The two greatest literary modernists (imo, well actually no - I'm right), Eliot and Joyce, couldn't really be further apart on that point. Eliot was absolutely terrified by the prospect of scientific advance and discovery; seeing it as having a degenerative impact on artistic and religious culture. Joyce, on the other hand, saw scientific advancement as bringing about the potential for freedom from the stultifyingly conservative culture in which he had grown up.


Post modernism is basically a rejection of that philosophy. It gained popularity from the end of the first war onwards - Dadaism was a reaction to the "logic" that made it acceptable to slaughter people on such a sytematic scale.

Nah, I don't think that's right. Modernism existed before but really took off after (and largely because of) the end of the war, not post-modernism. Most of the great modernist works are well into the '20s; The Waste Land and Ulysses are '22, Mrs Dalloway's '25 (see Septimus Smith for probably the greatest depiction on a First World War veteran ever).

Then you look at art rather than literature and everything I've said no longer applies as you have almost the opposite reaction with Matisse, Braque et. al and their 'return to order'. It all gets a bit complicated, eh?

I'd probably say that modernism (in all its competing strands) was actually a reaction against supposedly concrete Enlightenment ideas and ideals - which had driven European colonialism and imperialism culminating in the First World War - without succumbing to nefarious postmodern obscurantism, thoroughly dangerous moral relativism, and the complete removal of 'Grand Ideas'.


Once people saw what Nazism "achieved" through adherence to a scientific approach to humanity, post modernism gained even more supporters. Their assertion was that modernism was flawed and that a new (or older) approach to humanity was needed.

I think, as Two Carpets says, that's a monumentally flawed idea. But you're also correct in a way. The Second World War, along with the failure of 'actually existing socialism' and possibly Vietnam, were probably the main driving forces (economics apart) behind postmodern thought. What has come to be seen as the collapse of ideology and explanatory/emancipatory systems of thought has led us all to become inexorable bottlers.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Getting back to the thread, if we don't recognise people's right to their own beliefs, we are forcing people to adhere to a definition of humanity that has been constructed by others.

[Twa Cairpets]

Getting back to the thread, if we don't recognise people's right to their own beliefs, we are forcing people to adhere to a definition of humanity that has been constructed by others.

FR - I dont think anyone at any point in this thread has said he (or anyone else) is not entitled to believe whatever they want, or that anyone is suggesting he be forced to play, believe something else, or adhere to a definition of humanity that has been constructed by others.

However, I still think he's wrong, selfish, arrogant (and of course, to my mind, fundamentally deluded) in believing what he does.

And taking the last sentence again: "we are forcing people to adhere to a definition of humanity that has been constructed by others". Don't you think there is just maybe the slightest hint of unintentional irony here?

[Phil D. Rolls]

FR - I dont think anyone at any point in this thread has said he (or anyone else) is not entitled to believe whatever they want, or that anyone is suggesting he be forced to play, believe something else, or adhere to a definition of humanity that has been constructed by others.

However, I still think he's wrong, selfish, arrogant (and of course, to my mind, fundamentally deluded) in believing what he does.

And taking the last sentence again: "we are forcing people to adhere to a definition of humanity that has been constructed by others". Don't you think there is just maybe the slightest hint of unintentional irony here?

I don't know about the irony. I would agree he is being selfish though. I believe that's his right - providing he can accept the consequences.

[(((Fergus)))]

FR how is observing the Sabbath selfish?

[Phil D. Rolls]

FR how is observing the Sabbath selfish?

For the reasons that have been discussed on the thread above.

[(((Fergus)))]

For the reasons that have been discussed on the thread above.

Can you summarise for me?

[Twa Cairpets]

Can you summarise for me?

Man does thing for purely personal reasons with no (potential) benefit to anyone but himself, whilst directly affecting the (potential) success of his team-mates/co-workers.

Selfish

[(((Fergus)))]

Man does thing for purely personal reasons with no (potential) benefit to anyone but himself, whilst directly affecting the (potential) success of his team-mates/co-workers.

Selfish

How does a person benefit from observing the Sabbath?

[hibsbollah]

So 'selfish' is now defined in a pejorative way as any action done for personal reasons with no benefit except for the self?

By this definition, Euan Murray eating his breakfast or having a morning dump could be defined as a 'selfish' act. What a nonsensical thread.

[lapsedhibee]

How does a person benefit from observing the Sabbath?

Person gets a warm and cuddly feeling from knowing that he/she has carried out the wishes of his/her master/lord/god to a T? :dunno:

[Twa Cairpets]

How does a person benefit from observing the Sabbath?

I thought that would be more my question...

But presumably he doesnt think he'll be damned/in violation of Gods Law/etc etc

[Twa Cairpets]

So 'selfish' is now defined in a pejorative way as any action done for personal reasons with no benefit except for the self?

By this definition, Euan Murray eating his breakfast or having a morning dump could be defined as a 'selfish' act. What a nonsensical thread.

Dont be silly now Hibsbollah. The selfishness is due to the the action being taken being one of absolute choice rather than necessity (like a dump or breakfast), and the potential impact on the his colleagues (unlike a dump or breakfast).

Whether or not you view the thread as "nonsensical", debating the morality of an individuals actions is what half of the threads on the Holy Ground tend to be about, surely? This one just happens to be one about a persons actions as a result of his beliefs. Just because he hasnt done something appalling, violent or insane doesnt make it any less worthy of discussion.

[(((Fergus)))]

How do you know that observing the Sabbath isn't a necessity? Have you tried it and observed the difference?

[(((Fergus)))]

I thought that would be more my question...

But presumably he doesnt think he'll be damned/in violation of Gods Law/etc etc

If you read the Scotsman article: "The 28-year-old prop forward developed his religious views after a string of injuries threatened to end his career."

In other words, he did it because he wanted to keep on playing rugby. He sacrificed one day a week so that he could continue to be available for his club/country six days a week. He benefits AND his club/country benefits. If he had continued with his old lifestyle, he would not be available for ANY games. All in his opinion of course, but then what does he know the non-peer-reviewed/double-blind nut.

[Twa Cairpets]

If you read the Scotsman article: "The 28-year-old prop forward developed his religious views after a string of injuries threatened to end his career."In other words, he did it because he wanted to keep on playing rugby. He sacrificed one day a week so that he could continue to be available for his club/country six days a week. He benefits AND his club/country benefits. If he had continued with his old lifestyle, he would not be available for ANY games.

So he did it so he could keep playing, and not because he felt a religious obligation? Is that what youre saying? Because if you are that is just not true. Here's the link (http://sport.scotsman.com/sport/Christian-beliefs-rule--Euan.5914440.jp) if you want to check your source.


All in his opinion of course, but then what does he know the non-peer-reviewed/double-blind nut.

Nice try, but its got nothing to do with it really has it? I'll argue science based topics with you all day every day when its relevant, but it doesnt really apply on either side of this thread does it?

[hibsbollah]

Dont be silly now Hibsbollah. The selfishness is due to the the action being taken being one of absolute choice rather than necessity (like a dump or breakfast), and the potential impact on the his colleagues (unlike a dump or breakfast).

Whether or not you view the thread as "nonsensical", debating the morality of an individuals actions is what half of the threads on the Holy Ground tend to be about, surely? This one just happens to be one about a persons actions as a result of his beliefs. Just because he hasnt done something appalling, violent or insane doesnt make it any less worthy of discussion.

Lots of people skip breakfast. And whether or not he chooses to take a dump could have dramatic consequences for his colleagues.

Seriously,the selfishness or otherwise of the act is irrelevant, for you this thread is all about sticking your uber-rationalist boot into his Christianity, which is totally predicable. A genuine discussion about morality is totally worthy of discussion, I just dont think this is it.

[Twa Cairpets]

How do you know that observing the Sabbath isn't a necessity? Have you tried it and observed the difference?

What a thoroughly stupid question.

If I was to ask you the same thing, presumably you would come back with something along the lines of because it is in the bible or some such. If thats what makes you happy, I'm delighted for you.

I'll take my chances that there isnt a all powerful being who would be so petty as to object to me doing a bit of honest labour on a Sunday. I would think he might have some other things to worry about at the minute anyway.

[Twa Cairpets]

Lots of people skip breakfast. And whether or not he chooses to take a dump could have dramatic consequences for his colleagues.

Seriously,the selfishness or otherwise of the act is irrelevant, for you this thread is all about sticking your uber-rationalist boot into his Christianity, which is totally predicable. A genuine discussion about morality is totally worthy of discussion, I just dont think this is it.

Partially, maybe, but I'd invite you to look back and see where I have stuck the boot in. I've had a go at his decision, sure, but I've also, I hope, defended his right to take the action, but it is worthy of discussion because it it is, to my mind anyway, odd.

The morality element of it here is maybe less significant than in other threads, but its still interesting. I may well be predictable, but why would that be a bad thing?

[(((Fergus)))]

What a thoroughly stupid question.

If I was to ask you the same thing, presumably you would come back with something along the lines of because it is in the bible or some such. If thats what makes you happy, I'm delighted for you.

I'll take my chances that there isnt a all powerful being who would be so petty as to object to me doing a bit of honest labour on a Sunday. I would think he might have some other things to worry about at the minute anyway.

If one isn't sure of something, then it isn't wise to adhere to a received view about it, however convenient and appealing that view may be in many ways. "Aude sapere, to borrow a phrase.

[Twa Cairpets]

If one isn't sure of something, then it isn't wise to adhere to a received view about it, however convenient and appealing that view may be in many ways. "Aude sapere, to borrow a phrase.

Sorry Fergus, I honestly dont get the point you are making here.

"Dare to know"

:dunno:

[(((Fergus)))]

Sorry Fergus, I honestly dont get the point you are making here.

"Dare to know"

:dunno:

Sorry, maybe we are talking at cross-purposes.