LGBTQ+ inclusion and Religion Debate in Football

Iker Quesadillas said:
Right there in the second paragraph it says:

"The paradox has been widely discussed within ethics and political philosophy, with varying views on how tolerant societies should respond to intolerant forces. John Rawls, for instance, argued that a just society should generally tolerate the intolerant, reserving self-preservation actions only when intolerance poses a concrete threat to liberty and stability."

So there is some room for disagreement.
Click to expand...
The counter argument to Rawls is that intolerance is a threat to liberty. And is the seeds of a threat to society.
 
BenitoSTARR said:
So if I’m understanding this correctly one persons views on homosexuality has meant an entire organisation has not taken part in a campaign designed to promote acceptance?

And some people are defending this decision?

Mazraoui has every right in the UK to not want to publicly support this campaign. He does not have a right though to not be judged for that decision.

We should have respected his right to freedom of expression and supported the cause with the rest of the squad.
Click to expand...
They're still supporting the cause, just with the default way (armband). This seems like someone had an idea born from a good place and then realized it's a bad idea as it'll isolate one (or more) players to criticism. So they bailed on the plan. This is fine and the right thought process, the issue was the idea in the first place and not thinking of an idea that wouldn't isolate any players nor cause any controversy when it got leaked like this has. Sloppy, but not shitty I'd say.
 
moses said:
Honest question, you think wearing the armband is trampling on Islam?
Click to expand...
Didn't say Islam, I would not begin to say I know enough about Islam to comment, I am on about an individuals religious beliefs and there is division within every religion on this subject.

As I say I am atheist but I always fall back on the Christian adage that judgement is the lords, I do not think anyone on earth should presume to judge another for what they hold in their head and their heart
 
moses said:
Well yes, but I meant the silliness you were arguing against. It's become a bit of a sound bite for the day.
Click to expand...
Ah, yeah - but it all deserves attention in a thread like this, where the arguments for intolerance are flying by everywhere.

I know you know that. :)
Pogue Mahone said:
Annnnnnnyway. Back to football. No Amad seems like a hell of a call. Is today the day the fans first turn on the new guy?
Click to expand...
This is a CE thread now, so let's continue on the actual topic I'd say.
 
Zed 101 said:
Didn't say Islam, I would not begin to say I know enough about Islam to comment, I am on about an individuals religious beliefs and there is division within every religion on this subject.

As I say I am atheist but I always fall back on the Christian adage that judgement is the lords, I do not think anyone on earth should presume to judge another for what they hold in their head and their heart
Click to expand...
There is no Lord though. And people are not judging him for what he holds in his head. It's his actions that have issues with. It was in his head yesterday and nobody gave a fiddlers.
 
BenitoSTARR said:
So if I’m understanding this correctly one persons views on homosexuality has meant an entire organisation has not taken part in a campaign designed to promote acceptance?
Click to expand...
It's a very strange story.

Maybe some group of players have little commitment to this so were willing to do it only when there was little potential for controversy.
 
Zed 101 said:
I agree but I am talking about beliefs not actions, you cannot legislate against beliefs
Click to expand...

If people don't act on their beliefs we will never know. Actions reveal the beliefs. It's the actions we are discussing.
 
Red00012 said:
Ya , anti Nazi and anti LGBT is a great comparison :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
There is an order of magnitude difference (probably, historically), but what's the conceptual difference? Protection against racism is important but against gender and sexual discrimination isn't?
 
United as usual making a silly decision. If Maz didn't want to wear it, that's on him. Why the club thought to all follow that to "protect him" is baffling.
 
Dirty Schwein said:
United as usual making a silly decision. If Maz didn't want to wear it, that's on him. Why the club thought to all follow that to "protect him" is baffling.
Click to expand...
It's pretty reasonable. The issue was that the decision got leaked. Liverpool and Salah have never seen controversy over this because their plans for it don't ever include every player wearing a message of support for it.
 
bosnian_red said:
They're still supporting the cause, just with the default way (armband). This seems like someone had an idea born from a good place and then realized it's a bad idea as it'll isolate one (or more) players to criticism. So they bailed on the plan. This is fine and the right thought process, the issue was the idea in the first place and not thinking of an idea that wouldn't isolate any players nor cause any controversy when it got leaked like this has. Sloppy, but not shitty I'd say.
Click to expand...
A company has changed its intended response to a supportive campaign based on one person’s view.

Mazraoui absolutely has every right not to be involved. But as a club we should be doing better and as a society.
 
It’s a bit shit that it’s 2024 and we’re still not fully supportive of people’s sexuality.

I think any religion or other belief that would make someone not want to live and let live on this is outdated at best.
 
90 + 5min said:
I would love that people stop putting people of certain group/religion in same bucket because of individuals. I know many, many that accept, have friends and support people from LGBTQ. Why wouldn’t they. We are all humans and equal.
Click to expand...
Would you consider Islam tolerant of homosexuality?
 
Like we can beat around the bush here or just be honest that Islam and many other religions are homophobic. I don’t see how we could argue Islam isn’t?
 
bosnian_red said:
It's pretty reasonable. The issue was that the decision got leaked. Liverpool and Salah have never seen controversy over this because their plans for it don't ever include every player wearing a message of support for it.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
moses said:
There is no Lord though. And people are not judging him for what he holds in his head. It's his actions that have issues with. It was in his head yesterday and nobody gave a fiddlers.
Click to expand...
True but is it action or inaction? anyway don't want to fall out

I return to an earlier point which is that given the fact that the premier league has many players from different cultures and beliefs making this a thing to be done rather than a voluntary thing was insensitive and ill judged.

I would agree 100% that something needs to be done to end the homophobic nature of sport and society I just think this was poorly judged, not because it doesn't come from a good place but because it will cause resentment from those who hold homophobic views and who will see Maz, or Guehi as some point of rallying point to put forward their hateful agenda

I have taken part in pride marches, I have been there shouting down the EDL, but that was my choice, that is what I object to, somebody making a choice for somebody else and then jumping on them because they abstain.

But hey love and peace, I know you think I am wrong but at least we both can agree that the homophobic nature of sport needs to change
 
Should always be up to the players whether or not they want to participate.

Well done the lads for sticking by Maz.
 
Zed 101 said:
True but is it action or inaction? anyway don't want to fall out

I return to an earlier point which is that given the fact that the premier league has many players from different cultures and beliefs making this a thing to be done rather than a voluntary thing was insensitive and ill judged.

I would agree 100% that something needs to be done to end the homophobic nature of sport and society I just think this was poorly judged, not because it doesn't come from a good place but because it will cause resentment from those who hold homophobic views and who will see Maz, or Guehi as some point of rallying point to put forward their hateful agenda

I have taken part in pride marches, I have been there shouting down the EDL, but that was my choice, that is what I object to, somebody making a choice for somebody else and then jumping on them because they abstain.

But hey love and peace, I know you think I am wrong but at least we both can agree that the homophobic nature of sport needs to change
Click to expand...
Unfortunately for him, he was placed in a situation where it was an action to choose not to wear the symbol.

The club made a balls of it and exposed him to criticism.
 
DevilRed said:
Should always be up to the players whether or not they want to participate.

Well done the lads for sticking by Maz.
Click to expand...
The point is that we were going to go ahead with it. Then one player showed discomfort (which they are allowed to do) and now we’ve abandoned it.

A company has not participated as intended because of one persons objection to participation. Not progressive at all. Not a good message.
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
I'm guessing Rawls thought of that once or twice.
Click to expand...
Yes, and if you saw my response to your post, you'll have noticed that Rawls ultimately also wants intolerance repressed. He's just more specific about the threshold.
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
I'm guessing Rawls thought of that once or twice.
Click to expand...

What's your point?

You selectively edited the information you were given, ignoring the thrust of it.

You seem intent on making snarky arguments but to what end I'm not sure.

I have zero idea what you've been trying to say since you interacted with me first.
 
BenitoSTARR said:
A company has changed its intended response to a supportive campaign based on one person’s view.

Mazraoui absolutely has every right not to be involved. But as a club we should be doing better and as a society.
Click to expand...
Yes. But it was a bad idea in the first place like I said. The people in charge of these things should look at the potential pitfalls of these plans... Having a Moroccan international part of our squad is an obvious potential issue. Just like Salah being a Liverpool player is an issue for them if they tried to do this. Whoever thought of the plan and didn't think about what could go wrong didn't do their job properly.
 
Cheimoon said:
There is an order of magnitude difference (probably, historically), but what's the conceptual difference? Protection against racism is important but against gender and sexual discrimination isn't?
Click to expand...
This is what I meant , I think comparing it to something historically which caused 6 million deaths isn’t a good comparison
 
bosnian_red said:
It was a bad idea in the first place (born from a good place, but not thought through). Rainbow armband, great. Video of support, great. You don't need every player to openly participate in something that in Mazraouis situation, could be a lose lose either way given where he is from. So that's why it was scrapped. Either the others wear it and he gets shit on, or nobody wears it and they hoped nobody would find out about the possible idea. The idea was leaked, so he gets shit on anyway.

We are still wearing the rainbow armband which is the standard move of support, just not doing the "above and beyond" move. It's sloppy, but IMO isn't the club dismissing it. Just choosing to protect their player and looking for an alternative way to do it.

As I mentioned before... Liverpool and Salah have never received criticism for something like this because they've just managed it well and have never asked every member of their team to participate in it. It was always the captain as with most clubs (including us).
Click to expand...

You keep offering up possibilities for his actions that are not the reality. For instance, if it was simply a choice he made to avoid reactions from his personal community or his country, then he wouldn't have gone out of his way to support Zakaria Aboukhlal. It is simply not credible, he is very clearly doing what he's doing because of a personal conviction.
 
bosnian_red said:
Yes. But it was a bad idea in the first place like I said. The people in charge of these things should look at the potential pitfalls of these plans... Having a Moroccan international part of our squad is an obvious potential issue. Just like Salah being a Liverpool player is an issue for them if they tried to do this. Whoever thought of the plan and didn't think about what could go wrong didn't do their job properly.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure why it was a bad idea?

What is bad about public support of this cause? Should the personal views of an individual outweigh the overall positive support a company may wish to provide towards these causes?

Isn’t that a sort of censorship?
 
It's disappointing to see this from Mazraoui, especially in light of the fact that he has spoken in support of Palestine. It's always odd to me when a person advocates for one marginalized group while taking a stand against another.

If your religion gets in the way of showing the simplest support for a group of people that are often terrorized worldwide just for being who they are, maybe it's time to start questioning whether or not your religion is morally sound.
 
NotThatSoph said:
You keep offering up possibilities for his actions that are not the reality. For instance, if it was simply a choice he made to avoid reactions from his personal community or his country, then he wouldn't have gone out of his way to support Zakaria Aboukhlal. It is simply not credible, he is very clearly doing what he's doing because of a personal conviction.
Click to expand...
I don't even know who that is and I don't care what his reasons are personally. I don't care what his personal thoughts are. This story shouldn't have happened in the first place if the club thought through what would happen. Everyone else is doing rainbow armbands and now we are as well. Wanting the entire squad to wear a rainbow coat or whatever was always a bad idea when you have very different nationalities and cultures part of your squad. Just have the captain represent everyone, make a video with a handful of players take part in it, those that truly want to support it, and let everyone else have their own thoughts to themselves in a way that won't get them attacked or isolated. That's what a smart marketing/PR group does. There was a million ways this could have been handled but we thought of a shit idea, backed out of the idea when somebody mentioned the obvious issue, and then that decision got leaked which then compounds the issue.
 
Zed 101 said:
But what makes you right or gives you the right to condemn them, the problem with tolerance is that you have to be tolerant, the minute you draw lines it breaks.

For the record I would wave a magic wand and make a different, free and accepting world of only I could.
Click to expand...
We already draw lines. There's lots of things in society we aren't tolerant of. You absolutely do not have to be tolerant about any and everything.
 
BenitoSTARR said:
I’m not sure why it was a bad idea?

What is bad about public support of this cause? Should the personal views of an individual outweigh the overall positive support a company may wish to provide towards these causes?

Isn’t that a sort of censorship?
Click to expand...
The bad idea is wanting every player in your squad to wear something. And then if it's optional and all but 1 or 2 wear it, then those 1 or 2 get isolated as homophobes or bigots. So the second they had that plan, the issue began. Either the few that don't wear it get attacked, or the club backs out, it gets leaked, and the club and those players then get attacked.

As a club the size of Man United, you just have to be smarter than that. There are a million ways to show support without doing something that'll isolate some players with differing views or put them in awkward spots. Like I said. Not once has Salah been in any controversy over this, because he isn't the Liverpool captain and they have never asked him to publicly support it. I have no idea if he would or wouldn't wear anything in support of it, and that is why Liverpool have just been smart about it.
 
BenitoSTARR said:
I’m not sure why it was a bad idea?

What is bad about public support of this cause? Should the personal views of an individual outweigh the overall positive support a company may wish to provide towards these causes?

Isn’t that a sort of censorship?
Click to expand...
I think it's at least in part because people keep exaggerating what the rainbow stuff actually stands for. Some in here if talked about 'promoting' 2SLGBTQI+ - as if the FA and United are trying to 'convert' people into something, or whatever else 'promoting' might mean here. That's obviously nonsense. The rainbow campaign is simply about fighting discrimination and promoting tolerance and inclusivity. Stuff like, 'treat gay people like anyone else'. It's super banal as a concept, which is also exactly why it stands out so much when players actively refuse to take part.
 
bosnian_red said:
I don't even know who that is and I don't care what his reasons are personally. I don't care what his personal thoughts are. This story shouldn't have happened in the first place if the club thought through what would happen. Everyone else is doing rainbow armbands and now we are as well. Wanting the entire squad to wear a rainbow coat or whatever was always a bad idea when you have very different nationalities and cultures part of your squad. Just have the captain represent everyone, make a video with a handful of players take part in it, those that truly want to support it, and let everyone else have their own thoughts to themselves in a way that won't get them attacked or isolated. That's what a smart marketing/PR group does. There was a million ways this could have been handled but we thought of a shit idea, backed out of the idea when somebody mentioned the obvious issue, and then that decision got leaked which then compounds the issue.
Click to expand...

You have a bunch of comments in different threads offering various possible reasons for people's motivations to not support LGBT+ people by a simple gesture, so it would be strange if you don't actually care at all. But, no matter if you do or don't, the answer is that he's not doing it out of self-preservation, so there's no need to mention it as a possibility you either care or don't care about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.