www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Disturbing News From The World Of Sport

The law is tyrannical and anti-Catholic anyway you look at it. We are volitional beings, yet this law rewards those who say in essence, "I have no self control and I may become violent if I see someone blessing themself". I'm well aware of the songs the Rangers fans sing that malign the Pope, and of the obscene ones about the Queen of England, that many of Celtics followers hurl back at them, but to make the sign of the cross a criminal offense under any circumstance is just wrong in my estimation, and a very dangerous precedent.

I don't get it, don't Anglicans also make the same sign? Who's offended? the Methodists?

Dear Michael,

The Church of Scotland is Presbyterian, not Anglican. I do not think they are enamored by things they would consider "Popish". Our posters have to remember that many of these laws in the United Kingdom concerning religion go back at least 400 years when the break with Rome occured and the century thereafter. Catholics were only given property and voting rights again in the mid-19th century with the passage of the various Acts of Toleration, and are still barred constitutionally from the monarchy.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

I think the following will explain the incident:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/5292656.stm

Dear Father Anthony,

And to add to what you said, in Northern Ireland, the more recent problems started because only property owners were allowed to vote. Since most property owners were Protestant, this insured that the Protestants would have their say in the land. The Catholics had the greater populations growth, yet their rights were ignored, forcing them to immigrate to Ireland for jobs.

The fear and threat was of course, that if the Catholics had equal rights and became a majority, that they would be forced to unite with Ireland. That would make the Protestants a minority, and so on and so forth...giving rise, (I believe), to the IRA.

Britain might have kept the two Irelands from uniting, by seeing to it that Northern Ireland was more prosperous in the same way that she insured that Cyprus would not want to unite with Greece, by helping Cyprus become more prosperous ...through trade, etc. It was an easy way to keep countries separated, and to insure Britains safety and prosperity.

In the case of Cyprus, she was promised to Greece during both the First World War and the Second one. Winston Churchill made the promise, but he lost out in the election after WW II. Also, the British government realized that Greece was not that stable, (it was in a civil war after WW II), and Cyprus was within Britains lifeline. To close to the Suez Canal I guess. :rolleyes:

Did the Brits arouse the Turkish Cypriots in order to insure that the island remained independant? I don't know! It could have been the other way around. Turkey itself might have put pressure on Britain in the same way that the Protestants might have put pressure on the British. Either way, Catholic Ireland was not at war with Germany in WW II...so there was a threat to Britain there, and the Greeks of Cyrpus were not that reliable either.

What is known is that there were not that many Turks on the island of Cyprus at that time. Most of the Turks were brought in from the mainland after the ethnic cleansing of the northern area, and that was after the Turkish invasion.

But look! It's always better to blame some superpower for one's problems, and Great Britain was one at the time.

Zenovia

Great Britain, in her past (and a little in her present), has been responsible for some of the most horrendenous human rights, democratic rights, economic rights, fill-in-the-rights violations of all time. That empire spanned from the Western Hemisphere to the Farthest East, no group could control so much without totalitarian rule. It's no wonder many nations harbour resentment against them.

Dear Michael,

I think Great Britain's actions should be taken in relation to the time's those actions occurred. I recall hearing that English airplane pilots in WW I were not allowed parachutes for fear they would leave their planes too readily. Life it seems was cheap. But then again, 20,000 men were dying each day of that war, with a complete indifference by either the German, French and English Generals. Those Generals should have been executed, and if it was today, they at least would have been court marshalled.

I also recall hearing an Englishman stating that in Russia at the time of the revolution during WW I, an English soldier jokingly took a shot at a Russian General because as an Englishman, he was superior. Also that when a soldier shot a Chinese man, the officer replied, "well there are plenty more where he came from".

Racism was something that was common throughout the world, or at least it became that as the world mimicked the Europeans, and we also had our own faults. Immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe was stopped in the 1920's. I think though that all in all, we were probably more charitable than any other country, and the British Empire was probably second. I say this because foreigners would move to Britain more comfortably than any other country in Europe.

It's funny how certain things are politically correct at one time in history, but not in another. I remember when I was young, our teacher was highly critical of India because of the caste system. The English discrimination towards the Indian's was ignored. Today we seem to pay more attention to the English in that respect.

Zenovia

Isn't it strange and sad that one can look at another and see an "Englishman" a "Frenchman", a "German" a "Pole" (and a thousand other ethnic variants) first instead of saying.....

"There is my BROTHER CHRISTIAN with whom I share the same Father".

How terribly terribly sad that one's ethnic status is give such god-like honor and one's membership in the family of God is disdained.

I hope I will always think of myself as a Christian first and foremost and an American (or even Irish and Italian, which are my backgrounds) secondly and least importantly.

Brother Ed

To the original post, I'm always disappointed when folks get angry at an athlete for making the Sign of the Cross.

We've all seen it done by soccer players, Russian figure skaters, tennis players, etc. I can tell you that when I cross the finish line in a marathon I Cross myself.

For many people, sport, just like other aspects in daily life, has a religious attribute to it. In my longest races, I say a quiet prayer at every mile marker I pass. After having heard a a fellow marathon runner who is a priest tout the benefits of prayer on the run, I've been an avid devotee. You can think a lot over those miles and you might as well put your thoughts to higher things.

Sometimes sport is a discipline that puts us closer to our faith, maybe in an unusual sort of way, but it does.

St. Paul spoke to many of us Christian jocks when he said "run so as to win" and explained the analogy between "all the runners in the Stadium" competing for the garland that withers versus the race toward the more important eternal, spiritual "win." Corinthians. Good stuff. Something to think about during competition. (If more people thought about the full message, we'd have less cheating going on for that fleeting garland.)

If athletes want to Cross themselves or thank God in any way for the joy of sport, so be it. I worry more about people who get offended. Or who react with extreme negativity.

(Of course, soccer hooligans really do need to get some new and better priorities going in their lives...obviously!)