Weirdness Abounds (or the Idrissa Gana Gueye Thread)

[Romey 1878]

I wish he'd done something truly worth of getting offended by like modelling for a magazine in his own time, then I'd understand why there's a big discussion.

[Sibdane]

 

1 minute ago, Romey 1878 said:

I wish he'd done something truly worth of getting offended by like modelling for a magazine in his own time, then I'd understand why there's a big discussion.

Well everybody is in agreement that what DCL did is truly heinous. No need to debate. 

[MikeO]

16 minutes ago, SpartyBlue said:

I agree that in general he should not be forced to promote a cause.

I'd contend that he's never been asked to promote or advertise an LGBT+ lifestyle, just to promote tolerance and inclusivity. I'd wear the shirt but would never think of saying to one of my kids (or anyone), "Hey, have you ever thought of trying homosexuality?"

 

[Formby]

32 minutes ago, RPG said:

There are still varying degrees and if you talk to an Islamic Scholar I am sure they will be happy to explain.

I do, on a daily basis - in Urdu. Part of the day job. Hence, my statement. Alcohol and gambling are absolutely haram. There are other acts which are makruh (disliked). Maybe you're referring to them. 

[SpartyBlue]

2 minutes ago, MikeO said:

I'd contend that he's never been asked to promote or advertise an LGBT+ lifestyle, just to promote tolerance and inclusivity. I'd wear the shirt but would never think of saying to one of my kids (or anyone), "Hey, have you ever thought of trying homosexuality?"

 

Splitting hairs a bit there. I’m sure Gana is interpreting this as being asked to support an LGBT lifestyle. I agree the club’s intentions with this are likely to be as you describe. 
 

I’m speaking more generally. Take an example where one was asked to support Ukraine as a Russian player or a particular political party or something. Again, I’m curious how it is contractually. I’m sure they have to wear the promised shirt sponsors. Does that apply to whatever a club wants to stick on there?

[Shukes]

2 hours ago, RPG said:

But you see, this is the whole crux of the issue. What right have you, I or anyone to say that Gueye’s decision not to support LGBT is a mistake? To him, it is the right thing to do and if we are really going to respect each other’s right to diversity then we have to respect his right to that opinion. I believe he did respect the LGBT community by keeping his beliefs to himself until PSG put him in a very difficult position. Once PSG did that, Gueye had no choice but he still, I believe, behaved respectfully by simply declining his active support - which is very different to actively speaking out against LGBT.

He doesn’t have to support them though does he. 
He could have just wore the shirt and carried on about his business. I have brought the new shirt…. It doesn’t mean I’m supporting gambling. But I’m not making a statement against it either.

Not wearing it is making a statement of intent against it surely?

[Romey 1878]

2 minutes ago, SpartyBlue said:

Splitting hairs a bit there. I’m sure Gana is interpreting this as being asked to support an LGBT lifestyle. I agree the club’s intentions with this are likely to be as you describe. 
 

I’m speaking more generally. Take an example where one was asked to support Ukraine as a Russian player or a particular political party or something. Again, I’m curious how it is contractually. I’m sure they have to wear the promised shirt sponsors. Does that apply to whatever a club wants to stick on there?

In cricket the Muslim players often play without the sponsor on their shirt if it's a betting company, alcohol etc.

[SpartyBlue]

34 minutes ago, RPG said:

There seem to be ‘extremists’ attached to every viewpoint and cause nowadays and that makes it very difficult to construct a ‘one size fits all’ type of reply - especially in the anonymous environment of the internet. Trying to engage in polite debate with the moderates while identifying (and fucking off) the extremists, trouble makers and agenda driven zealots is an entire subject matter in its own right and I am sure that none of us have got that judgement 100% right 100% of the time.

’Disagreeable’ again, is a subjective term. What you may find disagreeable, Gueye and many like him do not. Perhaps the way to go is to not tell them that their opinions are disagreeable but to try to explain why you have an issue with them and then listen sympathetically to the ‘Gueyes’ (no pun intended) of this world if they should choose to explain why they think the way they may do. They may well choose not to explain as that is ingrained in the culture and, to a certain extent, even in the religion. That does make it difficult as you then have to accept their actions without visible supporting evidence. But it is a very personal relationship between a Muslim and his God and very few are comfortable to open up to the degree that would be necessary to engage meaningfully in the debate on this thread. They just like to quietly go about their own business and the actions of clubs such as PSG can cause great discomfort for some people who have no desire to offend but cannot be supportive of certain lifestyle choices. Even more so in the case of a famous sportsman.

Certainly people on the margins have become more mainstream over the last number of years and that exists on all sides to some degree. 
 

Of course ‘disagreeable’ is subjective. The point there is that people are going to be judged based on the things they say and do. That’s the way the world works and it should be. Everyone has the right to an opinion but nobody has the right for that opinion to be respected or free from criticism. Nobody has to accept their actions, with or without supporting evidence (whatever that means in this case). 
 

While I don’t believe Gana should have been forced to make a decision between wearing the badge and playing I also don’t think the club has to consult the players on how it wants to represent itself. There might be a player who disagrees with an anti-racism badge. Should they forego displaying one because it causes that one player discomfort? Football players on that level are public figures to some degree. Their personal decisions being on display for public scrutiny comes with the territory. But there is always a choice as it’s not a profession anyone is forcing them to pursue. 

[SpartyBlue]

10 minutes ago, RPG said:

No he didn’t. You don’t understand his religion so I understand why you said that but you are judging him by western standards and he isn’t playing to those rules. This is what people need to understand.

Of course he had a choice. He chose to adhere to his religious/personal beliefs in this case. He might have felt he was compelled to make the decision that he did but that doesn’t mean he didn’t have an option to do something else. Even if PSG had told him that he wears the badge or he’s fired he would still have a choice. To suggest he could not have done anything else is silly.

[SpartyBlue]

13 minutes ago, Romey 1878 said:

In cricket the Muslim players often play without the sponsor on their shirt if it's a betting company, alcohol etc.

I guess it comes down to the contract they sign eh.

[Matt]

44 minutes ago, Sibdane said:

I keep seeing “neutrality” being thrown around(other posts). Just because someone is silent doesn’t mean they are neutral. He can still be silent and support policies that are anti-LGBQ, and he doesn’t have to say a word about it to anyone. I’m not saying he’s done that, but I’m merely pointing out that not saying anything doesn’t have to mean shit. 
 

Sure, it’s within his right to think that way, but it’s not a view that is accepting of a different lifestyle(that is not a choice), and that is not okay. 

….really not looking forward to this thread coming back. 
 

Yes and no. That different view is a lifestyle choice that you strongly disagree with, so then why is it ok for you to say your way is OK and the other way not? It's hypocritical (even if I agree with you).

Neutral is fine for me, so long as Neutral means keeping it to themselves. As soon as they start promoting it, teaching it, acting out on it then it's a major issue. Someone going about their day with a grudge or dislike of something else but keep to themselves requires quite a bit of effort, self discipline and awareness of others with I respect in an odd way. 

[SpartyBlue]

8 minutes ago, Matt said:

Yes and no. That different view is a lifestyle choice that you strongly disagree with, so then why is it ok for you to say your way is OK and the other way not? It's hypocritical (even if I agree with you).

Neutral is fine for me, so long as Neutral means keeping it to themselves. As soon as they start promoting it, teaching it, acting out on it then it's a major issue. Someone going about their day with a grudge or dislike of something else but keep to themselves requires quite a bit of effort, self discipline and awareness of others with I respect in an odd way. 

We all have our own moral codes. If I encounter someone behaving in a way that disagrees with that code I am free to make a judgement on that person’s character. There is a difference in saying Gana (or anyone) can’t have an opinion and being critical of that opinion. 
 

You seem to be suggesting that nobody should ever be critical of a different view or lifestyle choice because of hypocrisy. That’s an absurd position to me as it would effectively end debate on every topic, be the end of law and order etc… I’m happy to judge a person who has a view that the Earth is flat or who lives a lifestyle where it’s acceptable to kick puppies. 

[Matt]

16 minutes ago, SpartyBlue said:

We all have our own moral codes. If I encounter someone behaving in a way that disagrees with that code I am free to make a judgement on that person’s character. There is a difference in saying Gana (or anyone) can’t have an opinion and being critical of that opinion. 
 

You seem to be suggesting that nobody should ever be critical of a different view or lifestyle choice because of hypocrisy. That’s an absurd position to me as it would effectively end debate on every topic, be the end of law and order etc… I’m happy to judge a person who has a view that the Earth is flat or who lives a lifestyle where it’s acceptable to kick puppies. 

Not remotely what I said, pretty much the opposite in fact. 

[Palfy]

52 minutes ago, Shukes said:

He doesn’t have to support them though does he. 
He could have just wore the shirt and carried on about his business. I have brought the new shirt…. It doesn’t mean I’m supporting gambling. But I’m not making a statement against it either.

Not wearing it is making a statement of intent against it surely?

Maybe he didn’t want to wear the shirt because he felt it compromised his beliefs, and some people stand up for what they believe in and make a stance, and that was his stance. Your indifferent to gambling as you said you have no axe to grind with it so wearing the shirt makes no difference to you, as for me I don’t believe in the advertising of gambling sites yet have to online accounts, but that’s another story for another day, but will buy the shirt for my collection and won’t wear it. Let’s not forget where he comes from Senegal in Africa where still in a lot of countries it is still illegal to have gay relationships, where Christianity is preached in it’s basic text’s that same sex relationship’s are wrong, and twisted by those who stand at the pulpit spurting out their vile yet still convincing the congregation they are right. Personally I don’t want him back because I don’t rate him as a footballer, his beliefs are 180 degrees opposite to mine and hopefully most of the world, yet I feel I understand why he had that belief, but for the years he’s played in Europe I can’t comprehend how he hasn’t seen a greater understanding that being a gay isn’t evil or disgusting and for that reason he deserves all the criticism he gets because he’s had more than enough time to see what he was taught is wrong. If he comes here will he booed or cheered, will people forget he’s homophobic and support him I sincerely hope not. 

[SpartyBlue]

41 minutes ago, Matt said:

Yes and no. That different view is a lifestyle choice that you strongly disagree with, so then why is it ok for you to say your way is OK and the other way not? It's hypocritical (even if I agree with you).

I would ask you to clarify this then. 
It certainly seems as if you’re saying different views are just lifestyle choices and so why is it OK for a person to disagree with someone else’s choices. 

[SpartyBlue]

8 minutes ago, Palfy said:

Maybe he didn’t want to wear the shirt because he felt it compromised his beliefs, and some people stand up for what they believe in and make a stance, and that was his stance. Your indifferent to gambling as you said you have no axe to grind with it so wearing the shirt makes no difference to you, as for me I don’t believe in the advertising of gambling sites yet have to online accounts, but that’s another story for another day, but will buy the shirt for my collection and won’t wear it. Let’s not forget where he comes from Senegal in Africa where still in a lot of countries it is still illegal to have gay relationships, where Christianity is preached in it’s basic text’s that same sex relationship’s are wrong, and twisted by those who stand at the pulpit spurting out their vile yet still convincing the congregation they are right. Personally I don’t want him back because I don’t rate him as a footballer, his beliefs are 180 degrees opposite to mine and hopefully most of the world, yet I feel I understand why he had that belief, but for the years he’s played in Europe I can’t comprehend how he hasn’t seen a greater understanding that being a gay isn’t evil or disgusting and for that reason he deserves all the criticism he gets because he’s had more than enough time to see what he was taught is wrong. If he comes here will he booed or cheered, will people forget he’s homophobic and support him I sincerely hope not. 

I don’t want to get too much more into the weeds here than we already are but I would speculate that for a lot of people (and perhaps Gana) questioning something you believe as a result of your religion opens up a door that a person may want to keep closed. Much easier to just toe the line than it is to really be introspective about the tenets of your religion and whether or not that agrees with the world you see and your personal sense of right and wrong. 

[StevO]

Just three points to make here. 
Firstly, PSG owner is a Muslim who apparently is very conservative (according to what I’ve just read on wiki).

Secondly, he married his cousin. Proper weird that. 
 

Lastly, and probably most important, it seems the females all have bint as part of their name. And though it may be their culture, I found it funny. 

[SpartyBlue]

Just now, StevO said:

Just three points to make here. 
Firstly, PSG owner is a Muslim who apparently is very conservative (according to what I’ve just read on wiki).

Secondly, he married his cousin. Proper weird that. 
 

Lastly, and probably most important, it seems the females all have bint as part of their name. And though it may be their culture, I found it funny. 

Haha. Thanks for that bit of levity.

Interesting on the owner. Perhaps he’s allowing the badges for a commercial purpose or so as not to annoy too many ticket holders. Or perhaps he’s enlightened enough to realize that whatever his objections, it’s more about human rights than endorsing a lifestyle. I’d be curious to know if he’s made any statements. 

[MikeO]

15 minutes ago, Palfy said:

...where Christianity is preached in it’s basic text’s that same sex relationship’s are wrong, and twisted by those who stand at the pulpit spurting out their vile yet still convincing the congregation they are right.

On the subject of which I can highly recommend @Cornish Steve's excellent book, Kindle edition now free; totally takes apart the argument.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Thoroughly-Christian-Study-Homosexuality-ebook/dp/B016WUQM4O/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1JCJYWK4ZML9X&keywords=steven+longstone&qid=1659021849&s=books&sprefix=steven+longstone%2Cstripbooks%2C82&sr=1-1

[Matt]

15 minutes ago, SpartyBlue said:

I would ask you to clarify this then. 
It certainly seems as if you’re saying different views are just lifestyle choices and so why is it OK for a person to disagree with someone else’s choices. 

I'm not sure how to clarify it further if that's how you're reading it. But I'll try. 

Don't judge someone else's view that different to yours without recognising their take on yours. 

1 hour ago, Matt said:

Sure, it’s within his right to think that way, but it’s not a view that is accepting of a different lifestyle(that is not a choice), and that is not okay. 

From the initial post I was replying to for context. I was pointing out that that phrase is not accepting of the other lifestyle. So rather than never being critical of others, as you've somehow interpreted, I was saying that be critical of yourself too.

[SpartyBlue]

Just now, RPG said:

He has no choice and you don’t understand that because you don’t see (and neither did I until I married a Muslim) how deeply the religion affects and controls almost every aspect of the daily life. There really was no choice for Gueye. He had previously exercised the only choice he had which was to remain silent/neutral on the matter but his club then took that choice away from him.

It’s ok. I don’t expect you to understand but maybe you can try to accept that Gueye is conditioned to think in a different way to you. Not better or worse, just different.

There is always a choice, even if it’s a difficult one or one with no happy outcomes. Pretending that he can make no decisions for himself because of his religious affiliation is absurd. He’s choosing to be a Muslim. He could choose not to be. No matter how personally difficult that decision would be for him it is his decision to make. He could also choose to be a Muslim and a human being who recognizes that these shows of support are about human rights and not endorsing a particular lifestyle.

I’m not sure of Gana’s specific stance but I’m happy to say that if his different way of thinking is that gay people are not deserving of the same rights and protections as any other human being than his views are worse than mine and most people. 
 

The idea that you believe he has no faculty to make his own decisions because of his faith reveals the insidious nature of some religions. 

[SpartyBlue]

1 minute ago, RPG said:

I think you have inadvertently hit the nail on the head. The religion is rigid and there is no way for those of the faith to challenge their religion on these issues. Whether that is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ is irrelevant. That is the way it is and it will not change anytime soon.

It’s not inadvertent. You should be more cautious about making assumptions as to what people whom you don’t know understand or don’t. 
 

Whether it is right or wrong is the most relevant aspect of this. That his religion prohibits asking questions and challenging its tenets reveals its weakness. In any other area of life this would be obvious. 

[SpartyBlue]

11 minutes ago, Matt said:

I'm not sure how to clarify it further if that's how you're reading it. But I'll try. 

Don't judge someone else's view that different to yours without recognising their take on yours. 

From the initial post I was replying to for context. I was pointing out that that phrase is not accepting of the other lifestyle. So rather than never being critical of others, as you've somehow interpreted, I was saying that be critical of yourself too.

I apologize if you think you’ve been misinterpreted but I’m still struggling to see quite how.

It is self evident that someone whose views I’m critical of has a different view than my own. 
 

 

[StevO]

6 minutes ago, RPG said:

Not bint but binti. I like it though. Binti means daughter of and bin means son of.

Nope. Bint. 
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moza_bint_Nasser

https://www.instagram.com/mozabintnasser/?hl=en

https://www.mozabintnasser.qa/en
 

Got me questioning your Muslim credentials if you don’t even know the basics.

[StevO]

7 minutes ago, RPG said:

No there isn’t a choice but I don’t expect you to understand. It’s ok.

You will need to speak to an Islamic Scholar and be ready for a very long lesson to understand why - and even then you may not.

He could just speak to @Formby He seems to know more than anyone about this stuff. 

[MikeO]

10 minutes ago, RPG said:

I think you have inadvertently hit the nail on the head. The religion is rigid and there is no way for those of the faith to challenge their religion on these issues. Whether that is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ is irrelevant. That is the way it is and it will not change anytime soon.

Some would disagree with that view...

"Because Islam has no central governing body, it is not possible to state clear policies regarding issues of interest to LGBTQ people. Depending on nationality, generation, family upbringing, and cultural influences, Islamic individuals and institutions fall along a wide spectrum, from welcoming and inclusive to a level of rejection that can be marked by a range of actions ranging from social sequestration to physical violence. In the United States, there is a growing movement to create inclusive communities for LGBTQ Muslims and their allies. This encompasses scholarly work that interprets sacred texts through a lens shaped by Muhammad’s own celebration of the diversity of Creation."

https://www.hrc.org/resources/stances-of-faiths-on-lgbt-issues-islam

[Palfy]

24 minutes ago, MikeO said:

On the subject of which I can highly recommend @Cornish Steve's excellent book, Kindle edition now free; totally takes apart the argument.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Thoroughly-Christian-Study-Homosexuality-ebook/dp/B016WUQM4O/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1JCJYWK4ZML9X&keywords=steven+longstone&qid=1659021849&s=books&sprefix=steven+longstone%2Cstripbooks%2C82&sr=1-1

I read it about 6-8 months ago, I thought he wanted to remain anonymous because of threats and reprisals. 

[Palfy]

Just now, Palfy said:

I read it about 6-8 months ago, I thought he wanted to remain anonymous because of threats and reprisals. 

You have probably just condemned him to a life on the run and safe house’s

[MikeO]

5 minutes ago, Palfy said:

I read it about 6-8 months ago, I thought he wanted to remain anonymous because of threats and reprisals. 

He wrote it under a pen name because of that, but I don't think it was ever a secret on here; we have no members with a radical right wing conservative Christian creationist agenda as far as I know, and even if we did they'd not be able to identify him from his profile. That said, if he asks me to remove the link I will.

[Matt]

26 minutes ago, SpartyBlue said:

I apologize if you think you’ve been misinterpreted but I’m still struggling to see quite how.

It is self evident that someone whose views I’m critical of has a different view than my own. 
 

 

No need to apologise dude.

You're saying you read that I said don't be critical of anyone. I'm saying if you're going to be critical of someone, review your own stance too, I.e. be critical of all involved.