Thursday, October 06, 2011

Footballers must not quote the Bible

Rugby Union is a football code mostly played in the Pacific Islands, Australia, New Zealand and England (where it originated). Many Pacific Islanders are devout Christians.
"The International Rugby Board, already accused of draw rigging, penny pinching and racism during the World Cup, has set its sights on a new target - the Bible.

The sport's ruling body has issued a directive to the tournament's eight remaining teams that any players wishing to write inspirational biblical passages on wrist strapping worn during matches must have the words approved in advance by the IRB.

Wallaby winger Digby Ioane, a devout Christian, said: "I don't write Bible passages on my strapping but I know a lot of guys from other teams who do.

"They are saying that you can draw a cross but any words you have to write down and take it to the manager who has to show it to the IRB. I'm just glad they haven't told me to take my tattoos off."

The IRB yesterday confirmed the directive, saying it would take a "commonsense approach" to the matter. "There is no blanket approach," a spokesperson said. "You find a lot of Fijians, Tongans and Samoans like to write Bible passages on their wrists. We just want to make sure there are no offensive or political statements."

Source

16 comments:

Bird of Paradise said...

I bet they will allow them to quote from THE ORIGION OF THE SPECIES or THE KORAN instead

Anonymous said...

Oh yes do please quote what you think they would quote from "THE ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES" that's in any way relevant (though I'm overlooking your spelling error + misquote of the actual title of Darwin's famous work).

Legs Sparrow said...

Darwins theory hasnt been proven yet and theyll never prove it becuase evolution never ever happned

Vulture said...

"becuase evolution never ever happned"

Then, why do your children look like you? If they don't, your wife screwed the mailman.

Anonymous said...

It doesn't sound like the policy is all that unreasonable. It mostly seems like they want to head off any controversy at the pass, like is someone wote "Bitches and Hos away I go" or something like that. We'll have to see how they execute the policy in practice though.

Anonymous said...

'Bird of Paradise' and 'Legs Sparrow' sound like the same uneducated avian to judge by the spelling style. I very much doubt they/he/she has read, much less understood, any work by Darwin or knows anything about biological evolution.

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:28 sez in his charming style, "Children look like their parents because of DNA, dumbass."

And what happens after this is repeated hundreds of thousand time?

Why are people taller now than they were thousands of years ago?

Evolution, dimwit.

Anonymous said...

"Why are people taller now than they were thousands of years ago?

Evolution, dimwit."

N, dumbass, it's called variation within the species, NOT EVOLUTION.

Anonymous said...

Just like with dogs, at the beginning of the 20th century, there were less than half of the breeds that there are now. A great example of variation within the species. From the smallest Pomeranian to the largest St. Bernard, they are all still just dogs and are capable interbreeding. Just like the tallest and the shortest human beings are capable of interbreeding because they are still all humans.

Anonymous said...

When "variation" within a species proceeds but geographical or other physical barriers separate populations, there will come a point where any two of the separated populations would no longer be able to interbreed due to genetic drift and they would by definition become two different species. Over millions of years this is how species evolved - is that so hard to understand? Oh sorry I forgot, all the species on earth, including humans, derive from two or a few representative examples coming off Noah's ark just a few thousand years ago. What a lot of incestual interbreeding must have gone on (but could not possibly account for the variety of life on this planet today!).

Anonymous said...

"there will come a point where any two of the separated populations would no longer be able to interbreed due to genetic drift and they would by definition become two different species. Over millions of years this is how species evolved - is that so hard to understand?"

No they do not become a different species. When they become unable to interbreed, they become a subspecies of the original species. Just like the American Sparrow and one of the European Sparrows that are no longer able to interbreed. They are not new species, ditwad, they are still sparrows.

I recommend that you go to evolutionfacts.com it will completely destroy your naive view of evolution. And will actually quote what the major evolutionists say despairingly about their own theories which are only fairy tales for grown-ups.

Anonymous said...

"fairy tales for grown-ups"

You mean like your invisible daddy in the sky? The bible is the biggest book of fairy tales EVER written.

Anonymous said...

EVOLUTION HANDBOOK
FORMERLY: THE EVOLUTION CRUNCHER

Updated 2006

Vance Ferrell

This book is based on extensive research
and is highly recommended by scientists and educators

http://evolutionfacts.com/Handbook%20TOC.htm

Afraid to have your faith in evolution challenged? Your standard biology textbook does not contain discoveries and facts that disprove their fairy tale of evolution. If they did, everyone would dismiss it.

Ever read Darwin? Now that is a real scientific book-NOT. When a so-called scientist like Darwin, who was not a scientist at all, uses phrases such as; Let us imagine, We can suppose, Let me propose, etc.etc.etc...., shows that he only used his imagination to dream up a fairy tale. He had no facts, no experiments, no evidence whatsoever to support his so-called theory.

Anonymous said...

Darwin wrote in a 19th century style and was not trying to be dogmatic like religionists of his day, or even to-day.

Anonymous said...

Trying to pick holes in current scientific opinion (tho' often through misunderstanding - wilful or otherwise), does not by default prove or make more plausible christian or moslem beliefs about the origin of life or the universe; and no scientific evidence is ever presented about the biblical accounts other than vague claims or resort to mere "faith".
Why don't religious fundamentalists challenge the atomic theory or the germ theory, etc. - oh that's right because no mention is made in their "faith book" because the bronze age authors hadn't a clue about such science.

Someone who actually read the article. said...

The article doesn't say they can't quote the bible.