Our Club and Its Principles

Would I welcome him at Goodison? Yes, if he was good enough to get into the first team and didn't mind wearing a shirt that promotes a company that manufactures and sells alcohol.

I am very proud of the way EFC conducts itself (Everton in the community) and they way it looks after its ex-players.

I think you might have started something here Gavin.

So, if he came to Everton, would he not have a similar problem with our sponsorship by a brewery? Boozery is just as frowned upon as usury, after all.

Principles are fine to have from a position of wealth or status, but almost impossible to live with if you're downtrodden and penniless.

So, whilst Cisse may believe he is sticking to that particular principle, how difficult would it to be to do so from a Rooney from Croxteth given an opportunity of a lifetime?

My mind is always drawn to remember a line from "Boys from the Blackstuff" where Chrissie tells a dole investigator, "I wouldn't BE you".

Somewhere along the way, principles are watered down because it's easier to go with the flow, there are somethings in life we would never be, somethings we would always say no to... principles are a necessity for, without them, we cannot aspire to better things.

In most inner city areas you will find a "money lender"; if they were arrested and found guilty of charging the knock-on rates these payday loan companies charge, they would go to jail.

To answer the question,they should not be allowed to sponsor shirts.

Do I agree with his stance - in principle, yes. But personally&I know little about him and could be totally wrong but sounds like a load of bollocks to me and u think he just wants a move for more money!!! NUFC sponsored by Northern Rock, then Virgin Money who took over .... To now say I'm not wearing Wonga's shirt seems contradictory to me.

EFC's principles - I believe our foundations are built upon it - we do have class in this regard with work we do for past players, schools, kids and people of all ages with disabilities. Whilst big business and whilst I'd love a zillionaire I would not like us to be like Chelsea.

sums up the whole evil advert-based money-lending problem I think..

I think it's hypothetical, but I'm sure he'd be fine at Everton. He could wear the Chang Soda shirt (the one marketed to kids, supposedly) and the Premier League would have no issue with that.

Without wishing to enter a debate here, Islam is a religion full of contradictions, something that the £40k a week striker should remember...

I understand your point, Christine, but makes me wonder why there are not more players publicly backing Cisse. Many players will have seen high interest loans causing misery in the communities they come from. Sadly players are more likely to back each other after racist comments or a bit of premier biting.

But wouldn't it be funny to see MotD/Sky pundits exploring the issues of extortionate credit. They probably have Wonga shares

Compromising ones principles and beliefs is often necessary on the route to such riches. I wouldn't be surprised if amongst the myriad of clauses in his contract he signed, there's something akin to "wearing the shirt which will contain any sponsor's logo that the club enters into an arrangement" etc. etc. in exchange for £40k a week minimum.

I do agree there's an issue with pay-day loan companies (they have an appalling failure rate on repayment but still make a packet - proof positive they target the most vulnerable), but whilst they are legitimate businesses they should be permitted to market themselves in this way.

Remember Papiss would have no doubt objected to the first sponsors we ever had - even if the idea of a Senagalese striker at that time would've been... somewhat alien to the spectators.

There are a lot of potential grey areas / double standards / hypocrisy as pointed out by Seb and Peter but maybe there are certain things Cisse could live with - banks - and others that he couldn't - glorified loan sharks.

About 20 years ago I literally got through the month by being able to cash cheques with a money lender a week before payday for a fee of about 20% because it was a service which suited me at the time. It is undoubtedly a slippery slope if your not careful though, as was illustrated by one of my mates who got himself into thousands of pounds of debt, and the immorality probably rests with the lenders not only knowing that but depending and thriving upon it.

I've dealt in business with a firm who run car park management - to the uninitiated they're offering a service, to the experienced theyre glorified car clampers and when you get to know them, they are the scum of the earth. Horrible, horrible people and I imagine Wonga are no different.

So - all in all, well done Cisse. Stick it up 'em.

What about clothing companies making use of very cheap and sometimes child labour? Drinks companies leeching off the alcoholics? Multinationals who artificially move their profits around the world to avoid paying taxes, which increase the burden for all of us, including the very low paid?

If its not simply personal morals, but religious grounds that are the tipping point for Cisses stance, then as Seb points out many other more traditional sponsors would fall foul too.

Given that probably a sizable number of newcastle fans may well be customers of pay day loan firms, what does cisse think about his extortionate £60k / week paid for in large part by those very fans quite a few of whom are struggling on the bread line?

For many, football could be considered similar to religion. Its tribal and people have grown up for generations wanting to be part of the tribe. Except since the advent of player-power, in order to be part of the tribe they need to pay extortionate fees to watch their team so a handful of very rich individuals like cisse can get richer.

If you're in a very highly paid job and not giving a lot of that money away to those less fortunate - especially when the less fortunate directly contribute to your vast wealth - I personally think its difficult to take a public moral stance such as this and be taken seriously.

It's a load of bollocks to be honest, it's just a way out of the back door for Cisse. If it is Islam that he is using then he would not be in the country at all. The whole of the UK is run on borrowing from banks and secondary lenders. How many Muslims have a mortgage? These companies that fleece the public are scum but they are legal at the moment so what can any of us do apart from not use them?

Cisse should be thankful that Newcastle gave him a chance in this country, never mind judging them. None of us like the Wongas of this world but let's not kid ourselves that footballers and there agents are not greedy bastards who fleece the fans at every opportunity. Cisse included.

You've got to make a call on things, some you get wrong, some you might be weak on but I wouldn't criticise Cisse for making a stand on a principle, even if it might be contradictory. Like I said though, thought your post was really good.

A little bit disturbing, the last paragraph of your post.

Nothing's off limits in football anymore for me, and I consider myself a highly principled person. I make many decisions on a moral/ethical position but supporting my football club isn't one. Football sold its soul many moons ago — all I want now is good players and good football. I'm numbed to this stuff.

In all seriousness I try to give them a bit of slack. They're young men, sometimes not particularly well rounded ones, living a bit of a surreal existence - and the papers revel in revealing their misdeamours but rarely report the good they do (Craig Bellamy I thinks quite a good example).

Also, I regard myself as a good man with a strong sense of justice etc which I follow but when I look at some of the things I've done in the past the media would have a field day with me had I been a professional footballer.

I recommend the synopsis of our club and LFC's creation as an indicator:

http://www.liverpoolwiki.org/History_of_Everton_FC

Compare and contrast the original EFC model with today via this excerpt:

"Houlding had exclusive rights to sell refreshments at the ground, although no alcohol had ever been sold. The selling of alcohol was opposed by many on the Liberal minded Everton FC Committee. With many members in temperance societies, a liquor license application by Houlding was feared. .....
The club being financed by a brewer was an uncomfortable situation to be in. Houlding's nearby Sandon Hotel being used both as the club’s unofficial headquarters and a changing area for the team on match-days was also an emotive issue for the Everton FC Committee. The affair caused the Everton FC Committee to re-assess the principles on how the club was to be run. The root crux of the matter was:

The Liberal minded Everton FC Committee wanted a more democratic structure of a wide spread of shares amongst the fans. They saw the club as central to the community and an influence in behaviour and sobriety.

Houlding wanted a small group of owners, owning the majority of the shares giving returns in the corporate model. The control would be in the hands and dictates of a few people."

We now sell booze and live in a tin-pot dictatorship.

I guess my whole point is that footballers live a privileged life, are massively paid, and part of that fortune derives from increased sponsorship payments. Although the league are happy for a compromise, his employers, Newcastle, seem like they're refusing to budge. Therefore the best solution all round is if he moves on. Sorry, but half of these pricks are fortunate to have the talent to earn a fortune - if it weren't for their footballing skills, they'd likely be regular customers of Wonga and their ilk, ironic.

I knew what you meant re Hafnia.
The pause........ after "would have been somewhat alien to the spectators" was pretty stereotypical.

I admire his stance, whether its from a religious or humanistic basis. I would guess that all religions have their internal contradictions so people takes their pick in terms of principles.

The media only report the divvys mate.
The ones doing the good things don't make the headlines.

Here in Australia we have a mob called "Cash Converters". I detest this company because its shops are full of stuff that people have sold in desperation. It reminds me a of a pawn shop. I would never buy anything from one of its shops.

So if Everton signed a sponsorship deal with Wonga – yes for me it would be a step too far. Perish the thought – the club would loose its soul.

I loathe Google, Amazon and Starbucks for tax evasion but use two of them constantly, I hate what Tesco have done to independent traders and suppliers but shop there all the time, I am sickened by profits made by the oil companies but drive daily and though I regarded tobacco companies as amongst the most unethical companies in existence I used to smoke 20+ a day. Thank God I don't live in the US, I would almost certainly own a gun.

All the more to respect what Cisse's doing, in my eyes.

Personally, I think I think it's horrible that Wonga and the like are allowed to flaunt themselves on the radio, TV and on footy shirts - but then again, I also feel uncomfortable with all of the gambling companies that feature as football sponsors. Alcohol manufacturers don't bother me, but then again, maybe they should.

I was really picking up on a previous post that said it was acceptable for such companies to market themselves and wanted really to provide a counter to that by saying, well yes, but a player has the right to oppose it.

But I agree on your point, while it might be acceptable for Wonga etc to advertise (?) that doesn't mean we'd be happy to see our players wearing Durex (!! - the mind boggles - images of David Cameron as portrayed by Steve Bell).

On the subject of the morals of Everton, I think we are dodgy ground if we try and make ourselves out to be whiter than white so to speak.

Charging families in inner Liverpool £50 for a home shirt and about £100 for a kids kit including numbers and EPL badges etc is disturbing enough, but then factor in that the kids or poorly paid workers in the third world who produced it won't have been paid 10p leaves that one aspect of Everton's activities alone open to question.

It all comes down to what people will accept and most of us opt for a quiet life. Putting your head above the parapet can be a dangerous game, just ask that Evertonian who had the temerity to criticise the Everton Free School! Banned from Goodison for life and hounded by the police!

And then there is the question of the web of deceit surrounding who actually owns the club and who is benefitting from its version of payday loans from Vibrac.

I think you'll find football is pretty well rotten to the core morally. As for Cisse I applaud him, although sad to say part of me can't help wondering if it is just a convenient way of engineering a transfer and another payday!

I'm pretty sure the regulator would block a porn site being the main sponsor. Would bring a new meaning to 3 at the back...

Incidentally some of those teams with perimeter advertising including Asian bet sites is causing all sorts of ructions in the overseas TV broadcast markets in certain countries - which now have access to all 380 games in a season. Wouldn't surprise me if clubs get banned from accepting their advertising deals.

Right, I'm off to watch Dr & The Medics in a field - very questionable behaviour.

Fantastic thread, Gavin with great contributions by all. At least we're thinking about it if not necessarily doing anything about it. :)

I strongly recommend this piece on comically bad football shirt sponsors:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1553923-25-worst-club-sponsors-in-world-football

Including Heitinga wearing his Dutch cap? (now I know why we call him Johhny!)

What Mike @379 admits to doing, we all do. The night before we go on holiday, my wife and I always have McDonald's for our dinner. It's part of our holiday at this stage. I'm sure McDonald's isn't the healthiest food to eat and their corporate strategies are probably shady as well. But we do it and will continue to do so.

As fans, we are happy to also get sponsorship form an alcohol company. If Starbucks or Google offered us ten million a year for sponsorship, would we demand that the club turn's it down?

A lot of my clients in work are in the early stages of Recovery and I've seen the damage addiction can do for the client, their family, their opportunities in the future, the stigma of addiction and everything else. Am I then a hypocrite for not complaining about Chang's name being on my favourite team's kit?

Shirt sponsorship is just another example of consumerism. If we are going to be moralistic about Wonga, then why not complain about Chang, or Budweiser sponsoring the FA Cup, or Barclay's Bank's sponsorship of football because of the banks' role in the recession. Why not complain about how mortgage interest rates are legalised extortion and boycott that sponsorship as well.

We could complain, at times we feel like we should, but in the end we won't. We like Starbuck's coffee, we like the internet and how Google helps deliver it. We like our football as escapism. Nothing will change.

People can and do complain about things - that's how they change!

I know a number of people who won't use Starbucks or Amazon because they don't pay the proper corporation tax! They are exercising their power as consumers, and good luck to them. Personally, I was so impressed with the six women who (illegally) climbed The Shard in London a week or two ago – as a protest about that oil-drilling in the Arctic – that I signed up with Greenpeace. People CAN make a difference.

On a different kind of tack, I was always rather cynical when the artist who was known as Cat Stevens converted and moved to Brazil. Brazil mind... not Saudi or Iran. Just sayin'...

Where's Paul Ferry when you need him? Up the workers!

Money & power in football only lead down one path, corruption. Look at Fifa, the most powerful body in world football – and the most corrupt,morally destitute of all sporting bodies. Bribery is rife, and guilty parties are not even prosecuted when evidence is readily available.

I gave up worrying about these issues a long time ago.

What was meant was that people in general do seem to have a more lax attitude towards stuff like this than they should. And I do include myself in this. Should I be more discerning, yes. Am I, no. This doesn't mean I don't have a conscience.

If you do avoid using some of these types of companies then fair enough. I genuinely give you credit for that. But don't bite my head off for saying what I think. I wasn't lecturing you, don't lecture me.

If Cisse was so upset by wearing a shirt with a money lending company, he'd also give his wages to charity wouldn't he? Isn't greed against the Muslim Shariah Laws as well?

If anyone reading this does get offended, I will apologise right now. These comments weren't meant to offend in any way.

Lots of multinationals have used cheap labour, parts made in China with oppressive human rights. We have a drinks company on ours, hardly a good advertisement for children. Banks and financial institutes preying on the poor. Plane companies who burn large amounts of fossil fuels. Gambling sites preying on fools with more money than sense.

I hate the preachers – of whatever faith, race, colour or creed – who seek to impose their `beliefs` on others but who might well be seen by those they target as less than perfect in their own lives.

As far as I know, young Cisse is not seeking to impose his views on his team mates but feels offended enough to make a personal stance against the money lenders. But that, in itself, begs the question why he`s happy to ply his trade in the Barclay's Premier League in the first place, given that this sponsor is a far bigger exponent of the 'sin' of usury than the embattled Wonga company.

Get my drift?

What would he prefer, constant racial abuse, or wear a shirt with the logo of a pathetic money lending firm on it?

I'd pick B...

GCSE RE here for you giving away a portion of your wages to the poor is one of the pillars of Islam (Cisse's charitable donations are his business). Wearing a shirt promoting a legal loan shark every week sort of chafes against that pillar. Islam is also against usury – charging excessive interest on loans.

Linking Cisse to extremist Muslims is rather crass and offensive. I mean really Ross, I'm not a Muslim or someone with a great deal of love for Islam, but there's a billion Muslims in the world and not all of 'em are committing horrific atrocities. Its almost as offensive as basing your views of Evertonians on the output of BlueKipper!

They are against interest full stop – not just excessive interest, so why no protest against Barclays?

I fully realise that not all Muslims are extremist, but it is just sad that this sacred religion is being tarnished with this "terrorists" tag.

As you so correctly said David, there are billions of good Muslims in the world, but the religion they follow is being tarnished by the actions of a minority group.

Once again, apologies for my first post.

He's realised he's at a shit team and wants out. He can sugar coat it all he wants. Hiding behind his 'beliefs' without asking for a transfer, smart lad.

And if it is to do with 'beliefs', well more fools them (Newcastle) for putting up with it.

But without money we cant survive so in essence we are all evil.

Try and find an answer to that in the Koran or the Bible.

Humans have been established on hypocrisy.

It is not OK to kill a human being (except in war!!) but it is OK to kill a pig or a cow.

It is not OK to experiment on humans but it is OK to mutilate rats and monkees.

We march for peace and then throw petrol bombs at police and loot shops.

Life is full of breaches of morality and principles — otherwise we wouldn't need police, armies and judges.

Why is interest prohibited in Islam?

http://theislamicinformant.info/why-interest-is-forbidden-in-islam/

I was more hoping for an answer from yourself rather than a link to a website.

From what I can gather, a Muslim should earn their money rather than accrue it with little to no effort.

It's hard to fathom how anyone could live by those principles in this day and age - particularly a grossly overpaid individual. A Muslim should not hoard or take more than he needs. What's he on, £40k p/w? Then he drops to his knees to thank Allah after hitting the back of the net and claiming a £5k goal bonus.

Absurd.

Not like consistent 'an eye for an eye'/'thou shall not kill' Christianity then.

Ross (418) - "This is what I don't get about extremist Muslims, they forbid money lending and drinking alcohol as they are against their Shariah Laws etc, but yet they seem content to make people's lives a misery by causing war and committing horrific atrocities all over the world to make a sacrifice to Allah."

Sorry, I have no idea why you have mentioned 'extremist Muslims'.

What's the difference between extremist muslims and extremist Christians?

Extremists of EVERY 'religion' have bombed, killed and caused misery and suffering for others in the name of their ludicrous gods for centuries - seems a little (too) selective pointing the finger at Islam, imo.

Dear Lord. The moral judicious and fair corporate route to the better and more even-handed existence.

Yes let's let these corporate monsters – Starbucks and Amazon have been chucked in the hat – exploit all the loopholes that they possibly can because they can and that is a more lofty morality than say a porous set of laws.

God help us one and all.

They are perfectly reasonable, Mr Sammon says, to exploit loopholes like the ones that let them exploit hard-up workers getting paid bare minimums for working round the clock.

Mr Sammon, have you seen documentaries about, for instance, Walmart or Amazon? Hey let them exploit loopholes and places that have not seen robust regulation. After all, they are probably Mexicans and we got more than a few loopholes to exploit with that lot.

Perhaps Mr Sammon you can have a word in the ear with our director Green who just scopped a £280 million windfall through tax dodges? Good luck to you Greeny, eh, exploiting loopholes in dodgy laws. Nothing wrong with what he did eh Phil, and perhaps he might give the club a few of his shameful sponds.

Morals, fuck who needs morals when there are leaky laws to bend. Good on ya Amazon and your fair-minded treatment of your packers.

Unfettered and unbrbidled exploitation is fine because the law is a mess. What a disgusting unprincipled and yes immoral point of view. Let's let the boardroom bastards piss all over decent workers because, well because they can.

So, Mr Sammon, will you be campaigning hard to reform the law and plug gaps so Green and his cash-carressing cronies will no longer be able to sidestep the law and shun morality?

Up the workers.

What a terribly constructed, incoherent post.

If you're searching for examples of corporate immorality, look no further than the trade union you are most likely a member of.

Why would a company ever pay more than it has to?

Phil, let's not cloud issues.. Do you have an issue with Cisse or with the prohibition on interest in the Islamic faith????

If you have an issue with Cisse take it up with him, cos he is not a flag bearer for the Islamic faith. Also, do you know personally what he does with his wealth???? How do you know that he hoards??? Or what proportion he gives to charity?? So don't judge ...

With regards to how anyone can live with those principles in this day and age , there are a lot of people ..... I for one thank God every day for that fact that I am not involved in any way with interest .. And to tell you the truth , I'm getting along very very fine thank you.. . And there are millions like me.. Work hard with the correct intention and God will provide.. So don't undermine millions of Muslims who practice on the pure teachings of the faith...

Poorly constructed! Ha. What a devastating riposte, just devastating: "If you're searching for examples of corporate immorality, look no further than the trade union you are most likely a member of".

There's no way back from that one is there? Simply devastating and prosaically perfect and perfectly constructed.

White flag.

You're right, I'm gonna go out right now and find an elderly minimum-wage worker to kick like a football.

Down with principles and morals.

Up the workers!

Most of us suffer in one way or another due to the lack of moral fibre of a few, but many of us let it slide as we can't see a way of organising our society to be fairer. There will always be fluctuations of behaviour from outright greed to philanthropic generosity and generally there is an acceptable level of fairness, but sometimes like recent history suggests there is a gulf between what the ordinary person sees as fair and what huge corporations see as fair - this issue has to be addressed in order for society to function in a peaceable way.

His attitude towards Zaid is shameful.

There are many things in normal Western European life that are opposed to Muslim principles, not just usury, of which payday loan companies are a particularly gross example, but there are also different expressions of faith hence why other Muslim players are OK wearing the shirt. And there is room for all of that in the Premier League.

I don't think he is angling for a move with this, I really don't, but I presume at some point he decided that was a price worth paying. I think it must be hard to uphold all his muslim principles and live in the Western system without some compromises.

@Jay - 442 - the Bible says 'The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil', not money itself and thats a very important distinction.

I have said nothing disrespectful to Zaid so you can get off your high horse with that one. If he or you choose to be offended by my opinions on religion then that's your problem. Likewise, you are entitled to your own views.

The point I initially raised was that you cannot expect a massive company to operate ethically. They answer only to shareholders and lawmakers. The former wants to see profit and rarely questions how it comes. So long as its legal, the former and the latter are satisfied. The solution is simple. Don't rely on morality when it comes to taxation.

I have never set foot in a Starbucks in my life because I strongly oppose their aggressive business model. I have morals, I'm not the shallow beast you seem to be trying to portray. I pick and choose where I spend my money. The thing I can't understand is people expecting a huge corporation to have the same morals as their own.

Good on ya re. Starbucks.

Nice to see middle ground there and that not everything in this world is rigid polarity.

Just asking like.

Moneylenders, banks, building societies we all use them, its just a matter of degree.

You will see hoe real corruption works in the good ole' US of A.

My "contradictions" statement is my view alone. But it's far less extreme than the view of the UK Media or EDL. (Yes, I put them in the same bracket).

I apologise Eugene if you mis-construed what I was saying - I purposely said I didn't (and don't) want to get into a debate here.

BTW the most interesting religion I ever came across on my travels was Caodaism. Went to their main temple in Vietnam and it was eye-opening (watching from the balcony). We could all learn a lot... (Wish I wasn't a $cientologi$t now).

I am not referring to you, but in general people create perceptions regarding the faith of Islam based on the views and actions of less than half a percent of the Muslim population world wide. What about the other 99.5 percent of the Muslims following the teachings of the Holy Quran. Yes we are all are not perfect, and we all will make mistakes and falter as we go through the trials of life , but why don't we focus on the positives .. Again, I say this, read the Quran in its entirety and your view will change. Don't make a judgement based on what you hear in the press or based on the actions or statements of terrorists

I visited Goodison last year for the Derby, and was so impressed by the lengths that the club went to to accommodate my religious needs as simple as they were. Hats off to all at Goodison , including Graeme Sharp and security stewards who went out of their way find a room for me to perform my prayers during the game ( we pray 5 times a day , and one of those prayer times was during the game) With regards to negative statements regarding Steven Pienaar and his drinking , yes he may not be perfect , but I know him personally and he is a really good guy at heart and he is doing a lot of good work back at home for charities etc.

I am from South Africa and a few years back Hashim Amla took a similar stance against Cricket South Africa. He refused to wear the Castle sign on his cricket gear as Islam prohibits alcohol. Cricket South Africa chose to embrace his religious views and today Hashim is without a doubt one of the most respected sportsman in south Africa amongst Muslims and non Muslims. He stood by his principles and he was respected for it by both Muslims and non Muslims including Castle Lager.

Again, focus on the positives and not lets not focus on the faults of others when they are trying to stand up for what they believe...

Excuse me.....? Why not?

The company I work for turns over £9 billion p.a., is the second largest employer in the country and continually gets amongst the highest scores in the UK for corporate and social responsibity.

To say it can't be done is either ignorance, a cop out, or the root of why we're up a moral shit street nowadays.

I didn't say that it couldn't be done. I meant that you'd be very naive to assume a huge company has the same morals that you hold dear.

Now whilst I'm sure your company is one of the 1% (it isn't), the real root of the problem is they are only driven by one motive - maximising shareholder value. The root of all corporate evil lies with satisfying shareholder demand. In my Utopian view, shareholders role is to provide cheaper loans than the banks, once that's done, get rid. Sadly too many companies start being driven towards strategies to maximise profits, not "welfare" or what they were set up to do.

At least I've taken this convo off religion.

Because it doesn't happen. They get to the top by trampling the competition. They may throw some money at starving kids in Africa and get a few choice photos in the paper, but its all a front.

I think you need a reality check.

All I can say is I know it can be done and I've seen it done. It brings with it it's own problems too but there we are.

I respect your views though, genuinely, and I too at 40 Matt am as cynical as the best of them :)

Have a nice evening.

It's this simple: if you don't or aren't prepared to accept the (lawful and above board) terms of loan, then don't apply for it in the first place. It is absurd to contend, as some seem to be, that people have to loan, or are forced into these loans, from Wonga through no choice of their own or as a consequence of matters entirely out of their responsibility, influence or control.

Those who agree that Cisse's motive is to obtain a release from Newcastle are entirely correct. Hypocrisy of a fairly high order: he's happy, as someone pointed out, to reap the rewards of playing in a league sponsored by a major userer. His objection to Wonga therefore is no more than it is a 'bigger' usurer than Barclay's – insofar as the former charges more interest than the latter (apparently); although the latter surely obtains far more money from usury than the former (including from 'working class people' – whoever or what it or they is or are these days). Great point of principle that.

Not money but the lust thereafter. I Timothy 6:10 says that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. Currency is, as a matter of fact, unavoidable. Greed is what's bad.

If Cisse is actually concerned about the morality of the sponsor's who pay him, the difference between Wonga and Barclay's is that Barclay's is not unethical in its essence. Though there may be corrupt individuals within such a corporation, the idea of western banking is not essentially corrupt. A payday advance company is borderline thievery.

In communication theory, it is believed that each individual has a range of acceptance regarding opposing beliefs. A Norwegian woman was recently sentenced to jail time for reporting a rape in Dubai. That event is outside of my spectrum of acceptance. My western morals don't go along with ideas such as forcing women to wear head coverings but jailing a woman for reporting a rape is a step too far against human rights. Perhaps Cisse sees Wonga's involvement with Newcastle in a similar way. Western lending practices aren't okay with him but he'll roll with it to an extent. Payday loans are just a step too far.

Odds are, he is just trying to get away from Joe Kinnear, who isn't exactly the model of western morality (or any morality) but it's a more interesting discussion if you give him the benefit of the doubt.

Just saying

"To what extent do we expect to see our club behave ethically?" I'm not sure its possible to explain an 'extent' but I definitely expect us to act ethically, more so than other clubs. I want my club to be something I can be proud of.

"Also why is his behavior being contrasted with that of his teammates who are also Muslims? Why anyone should think that Muslims are any more likely to have principles than Christians is beyond me." I'm not sure you're quite up to speed on this. Islam specifically prohibits lending for profit. Muslims are told they must earn their money in an honest way. If Cisse feels he is earning money from Newcastle, who get some of it from a payday loan company, who earn it 'dishonestly', then he feels he is directly contradicting a religious law, and so the link between his stance and his religion is clear and explicit. Therefore to compare it to other Muslims is natural. Freddie Kanoute initially refused to wear Seville's sponsor a few years ago as it was an online casino and gambling is also 'haram' for Muslims. The club allowed him to wear a plain shirt for a while, but eventually he, and whoever advised him on his religion, decided that he wasn't doing anything wrong himself, and that as an employee of the club he simply had to accept the situation. This sentiment is echoed by most Muslims, and Ali Al Habsi explained it in the recent BBC documentary The Muslim Premier League, as Wigan were also sponsored by an online casino last year.

"If Everton has an ethos what is it? Nil Satis Nisi Optimum? It’s difficult to relate to that when we are selling our best players each season." Maybe that is our ethos, but it doesn't have to mean the best at football. To be honest, our latin motto is a bit of a pain in the arse. Its a bit of 19th century bravado from the people who set up the club, but some people seem to take it to mean that if we don't win the league every year or a player decides they'd rather be at another club with more chance of success we must wail and gnash our teeth bemoaning our lot in life. Its a nice sentiment, a bit of tradition, but we must stop using it as a millstone around our necks preventing us from enjoying being anything other than the actual best football team in the world. Your article is about ethics and principles, I'd rather we aspired to be the best at that.

Overall I'd say everyone and every institution in the world has an obligation to act honourably, Everton is no exception, and as I said before, I want us to be noticeable in actually keeping to it, even when perhaps others don't.

The only reason I can think of is if he expects to go on a free as a result - which would make a transfer both easy and highly lucrative for him.

I can't see any suggestion of this though and I think he's agreed to play for the club but won't wear the logo (something the sponsors have understandably rejected), which all pours cold water on the idea that he's not serious about the principle, doesn't it.....?

Someone mentioned that as they are currently legitimate companies, payday loan companies should be allowed to market themselves in this way. However, tobacco companies are legitimate companies and are not allowed to market themselves in this way, so there is at least a precedent for preventing them, although I don't see it happening.

Tony Muslims have special banks for specifically this reason.

"Charging families in inner Liverpool £50 for a home shirt and about £100 for a kids kit including numbers and EPL badges etc is disturbing enough" Sorry but I've never agreed with this. Nobody has to buy them. Families in inner Liverpool or anywhere else for that matter need to take responsibility for managing their own money, rather than trying to blame someone else. If no-one paid the £50 the price would come down.

I have to say I'm slightly disturbed by some of the anti-Islamic sentiment coming through in a few posts. I definitely didn't think that's what we're about. Why would we doubt whether Cisse follows the rest of his faith? What position are you in to speculate about that?

Ross' post @ #418 is typical of some of the ignorance on here. Cisse does give at least 2.5% of his wages to charity as required by Islam, all Muslim players do. This is called Zakat and is one of the absolute minimum requirements of being a Muslim. Muslims would ordinarily make further contributions beyond this as well. (I've since read your apology Ross so please don't worry, I picked yours as an example but there are plenty of others).

Jay #442 I think others have dealt with the initial main problem but I think that's one of the worst posts I've ever read. I don't think you make a single valid point.

"Those who agree that Cisse's motive is to obtain a release from Newcastle are entirely correct." Breathtaking that you have the arrogance to feel you 'know' that. How could you know that?!

'Religion' to try to take it as an abstract noun, has developed essentially as a way to try to formalise human decency and encourage and motivate everyone to have it. The fact that it doesn't always work doesn't necessarily mean its a bad thing, or that religious people should all be tarred with the same brush as the worst members of their religion. The situation is so much more complicated than that.

------------

Mike - They word it differently but they have mortgages and pay interest just like the rest of us.

I have to say, I don't think there's been any 'anti-Islamic' sentiment on this thread, bar a poor choice of words from Ross, who has since apologised.

There's been a fair amount of questioning of Cisse's morals. That would be happening regardless what religion he chose to follow (or not follow).

My guess is that he is just trying to engineer a move and if that is so and he is using his religion to do this then he should be shunned by all the top clubs and people within his religious community that genuinely live their lives through their faith.

I think you might learn just how erudite and educated the man was if you read through some of his essays which are not about religion, Mark Twain or Karl Marx for instance. I think you are doing one of the finest writers of the last 50 years a great dis-service, he was far more than a WUM!

By the way can you actually argue against the quote?.... I didn't think so.

"Bizarrely, the press has chosen to explain his stand by referring to his religion. This is offensive on many levels. It’s depressing to think that the only reason they can think of someone having principles is if they are religious."

I hear where your coming from Gavin - for example you might want to make a stand on pay day loans because you are a socialist or perhaps you are philanthropist, or even "an Israelite in whom there is no guile".

It seems during the course of the thread we may have fallen into the "religion" trap. This of course diverts us from the real issue - as human beings how far are we willing to compromise the truth that is written in each of our hearts?

Speaking for myself - too far - too many times. But I'm working on it.

So back to the question of lending money to desperate people at exhorbitant interest rates. My dad ( god rest his soul) was a socialist ( and a one eyed Evertonian). When I was a little boy (about 55 years ago) he gave me a book to read entitled "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists". I remember in particular one section which referred to a thing called "the great money trick". It is worth reading. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uxMWPY5w3PQfD-WngYeYcBOTPZb0_QG9uD9iE_ekErs/mobilebasic?pli=1.

Brent at 458 : The gospel of St Matthew 19:24. "And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

Like I said Gavin - I think you have started something here.

I am seeing a clear image of your character from the posts above.
Blunt Yorkshireman?
Calls a spade a spade?

I've no idea if that's how I come across Paul. The Yorkshire bit is right of course.

Makes the heart fond..

As for the substantive issue - Objection is a long a hard won tradition..long may it continue.

PS . and that goes for those who object to the objection!

When it comes to principles, it's difficult to judge someone one doesn't know – sometimes even difficult to know why you yourself would do something or oppose something, never mind someone else. I have no reason to doubt Cisse's principles – and even if many such issues in Islam are interpreted differently in various cultures and countries of Islam, it's still nice to see people standing up for their beliefs.

Of course it gets difficult if you get personal in terms of scrutinising people's lives to see who they are to make such a claim to moral high ground – in which case, no-one is clean or can thrown stones. Nonetheless, I can't come to work for a company who make microelectronic chips and after 2 weeks tell them I don't agree with their environmental policies... or move to the airport region and join an anti-airport expansion group...

It's an interesting debate but also an endless one.

As for being erudite and educated, those aren't good things in and of themselves, only for what they are intended to lead on to.

You may be right about Christopher Hitchens' other work, but he seemed happy to gain fame, notoriety and, presumably, money for talking and writing some absolute garbage.

Interested to know what parts of Hitchens work you perceive to be 'absolute garbage'?

Perhaps your thinking of his erstwhile brother...who does inded talk and write absolute garbage most of the time..

What's absolute garbage? I'll settle for his ideas on religion, his attempt to create the term 'anti-theism' and pretty much anything he ever wrote about the Iraq war or the general simplistic thrust of his reaction to the 9/11 attacks.

He's part of the Dawkins-inspired anti-religion movement which seems to have appropriated atheism and is intolerant of any form of reasonable dialogue about what religion actually is as an expression of humanity.

For a start he treats 'religion' as an abstract noun as a coherent concept in itself, when in fact the word refers to any number of different ideas and is open to all kinds of interpretation.

But if you write something simple, which enough people agree with, and can make them feel intelligent for agreeing with you, you're onto a winner.

If anything your analysis appears to contradict the narrative of God is not Great..

The subtext of that book is certainly not one of 'intolerance'..

He certainly doesn't hold back when it comes to the misappropriation of altruism by modern organised theism...But that's a well founded and cogent argument.

To lump him in with Dawkins is frankly lazy..

Kevin O'Regan, you are of course right but this website is unique amongst it's peers which is one of the reasons why it excels. I love football and Everton of course but this website is about so much more than that to me, it's a revelation (no religious pun intended).

Come on Kate, keep those legs closed!!!

Why?

I'm not saying that they necessarily argue the same thing all the time, but they certainly belong in the same general category. I'll call it militant atheist fundamentalism.

As you can probably tell, I have not read God Is Not Great, but it was quite a big deal so have come across much of what he has said, watched him in debate and so on, so I can only talk to you about his ideas in general, rather than speak with authority about the specifics of that book.

As is the modern way, I've now looked at the summary on Wikipedia and started looking at some critical reviews. I'm not starting to feel stupid or out of my depth yet.

Laurie #608. Point of interest, Robert Tressel is buried in a Liverpool cemetry.

This, apparently, is the mother's idea who turns out to be a rabid blue; the father, we know, is a Villa fan.

Exciting news, there are, apparently, 7 Evertonians born every two hours.

Some are cynical of Cisse's stance and point to his vast salary. So, what exactly is the maximum one can earn and retain some morals? Are footballers not entitled to a social conscience? It appears that wealthy actors are.

The 'rich man / eye of a needle' allegory is all about degree. If all you care about is the money that you have accrued then it is a bad thing, but earning lots of money is not intrinsically a bad thing and can be off-set by the way you then use that money. I have heard that 'eye of the needle' was a term for pedestrian only entrances in ancient middle eastern cities. Generally, it was difficult for camels to squeeze through them (especially if laden with goods) but not necessarily impossible.

I also think there is a distinction between 'Cash Converters' / pawn shops and the extremely high interest charging loan companies. Selling excess possessions when you need the money for something more crucial can be useful and shouldn't be likely to drag you into a spiral of rapidly-increasing debt. It may be taking advantage of someone else's misfortune, but it is not actually adding to it.

I think it is sad that people think that the only corporate model is the one that automatically goes for the jugular. I blame this attitude for the modern curse of poor quality managers who are actively depriving their workers of the more benevolent work conditions they enjoyed themselves purely to protect their own interests. There is actually room in a capitalistic system for everyone to take a share of the profits as long as the most powerful do not get too greedy.

There should be balance in all aspects of our life and that is what I expect from 'my club'; the intent to be as successful as we can be without resorting to the lowest denominators evident in society.

Now, this might be a bit of a bunny trail here but Hitchens wasn't far from the truth in God is Not Great. The basic premise of the book was that religion corrupts man. That is close but not dead on for 2 reasons.

It isn't just religion that should have been the target but rather any ideology that attempts to explain the existence of human life. The Nazis ideas about eugenics were a perversion of Darwinism in the same way that suicide bombings are a perversion of Islam or indulgences were a perversion of Christianity.

Flawed human nature corrupts these ideologies, not the other way around. I'm not saying we are essentially bad. I'm saying we understand the consequences of doing good and doing evil. If someone like Hitler can pervert a peaceful ideology to provide incentive people to kill each other, people like Hitler can use such perversions of ideology to gain power.

Phew.. Ok.. Crisse made a choice but did not balance his principles, merely decided the priority of importance at this particular time. He does so from a position of strength and financial security having balanced his risk. He is lucky to have that choice.

They will (or would of in one case) all happily tell you they have NO answers to some questions, religious cults claim to be infallable, that is the difference.

They subscribe to the ethos of "Only a fool knows everything, a wise man knows how little he knows" I personally cannot see anything wrong with humility but if your beliefs directly go against someone else's then people begin to take it personally instead of subjectively, that is why there is no chance for debate in my opinion.

I can see that you are all open to the debate which you claim is not possible because of "militant atheism", a term not unlike one which Mike pulls Hitchens up for, hypocrisy?

-----------------------------

What questions are those Pat?

I found your comment about "degree" quite thought provoking it took me back once again to Gavin's original post and the question in it "to what EXTENT do we expect our club to behave ethically?

I hope you understand where I am coming from. You went on to say about Cash Converters and Pawn Shops - "It may be taking advantage of someone else's misfortune, but it is not actually adding to it."

I can say with absolute certainty that I would never ever buy anything from cash converters - and I'll tell you why - it's taking advantage of someone else's misfortune.

So in answer to Gavins question - I would like Everton Football Club to conduct its business as a Premier League club in such a way that it would attract the attention and support of men and women of good will throughout the world.

Go TW!

Funny because this morning (on youtube) I was having a Doug Stanhope session and heard him talk about both (and I agreed with every single word).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS5DaTIF1a0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpMHRkIkjWY

By the way, if Doug died tomorrow, in 30 years he'd be revered in the same way as Bill Hicks is now..imo.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/whos-casino-surely-its-not-2079145

Blackjack and a footballer - who'd have thought it?

Maybe people can begin to understand, that after the large scale scandals we have witnessed in EVERY church,large corporation and government, why people like me laugh when being lectured by these lying, two faced, corrupt kiddie fiddlers.

To me, religion is a form of child abuse.

It's now plainly obvious that Cisse is using his cherry picked beliefs of Islam to engineer a move away from Newcastle instead of handing in a transfer request and thus waiving his right as an employee to lucrative fees which would come his way with a move. The perfect ambassador for religious ambiguity.

Will someone have the guts to stand up for him?

No tin hat required.

Hicks was absolutely superb, but if you suggest Stanhope (or Louis CK for that matter) are involved in some sort of 'rip-off' then (format-wise) the same could be leveled at Hicks re George Carlin (and possibly Richard Pryor)

I have listened to (and read) everything that exists from all the comedians I've just mentioned - there's no 'rip-off' at all, just funny.

Hicks in death has now (possibly as a result of students needing angry, contrary messiahs) achieved saint-like status, but Stanhope and Louis CK are, every year, producing a ton of hilarious, clever, thought-provoking, funny and original comedy.

(you might have had a point had your accusation been leveled at Denis Leary).

As for 'not as funny', again disagree.

I thought Bill Hicks was amazing, but if I put aside the sainthood aspect (and I do) Stanhope and CK are providing just as many laughs (imo).

Question - how many of these males are NOT sinning in this way?

My guess is you could count them on the fingers of one mitten.

Doug Stanhope is right, most of those that have a religion actually DON'T have a religion, simply their own user-friendly version of it.

"Yeah well obviously it doesn't LITERALLY mean...."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20026938

-------------------------------

That's a different argument. I've yet to see anything from Cisse on his stance being related to his religion..

Maybe he just think Wonga are a bunch of cunts..

As for selectivism... I think that's pretty much the MO for the human race...

C'est la vie..

That would be my thoughts......If I wasn't so cynical and think he is doing it for a move away without losing any "loyalty" bonus

Loyalty??? Don't make me laugh!

Pat #795, I agree completely with your third paragraph. Its any ideology that can convince someone that they're 'Right' and that their 'Rightness' and ideology is more important than human welfare that will cause problems.

Ciaran #811, the questions are things like "How should we behave?", "Where did we/the world come from?" and "Why are we here/what purpose is there to life?". These questions may not have an answer, whereas scientific investigation is intended to deal with things that do have an answer. Its a distinction made clearly by John Polkinghorne and is his own way of defending religious faith.

I personally see religion as fulfilling various roles for human beings, one of which is that it means they don't have to think about difficult philosophical questions and can just accept a ready made answer that someone else has prepared for them. In a way I see it as being to philosophy what McDonald's is to food.

Eugene #861, I think that's where you and I see religion differently. Many people seem to see it as a bunch of rules that everyone in a religion must follow to the letter or they're not a member. I'd say we ALL, atheist and believers alike, have a user friendly version of some kind of code of beliefs that suits us. To quote a great philosopher I once read: "As for selectivism..I think that's pretty much the MO for the human race..."

Religious people are just signed up to an older, more traditional code of beliefs with more physical rituals than most of us, probably, ultimately for the Freudian reason that they feel a bit safer doing so. We shouldn't think of them as gullible, simple, stupid or be angry with them for doing so.

I also have a dichotomous opinion when it comes to players wages. Yes they're obscene, but if they were only earning a "basic" wage, where would the money go? Owners pockets. My arl fella still regales me with tales of being on the bus going to matches, with a player stood behind him, boots slung over the shoulder.

I know a few football agents, and others in the biz, and at one time I was thinking of setting up a gossip website. I said earlier on this thread that half were thick as pigshit, lucky to be earning what they get etc. and was called out on it. There are some great guys out there, but there also are some seriously horrid individuals.

Maybe Whales are only a few years off doing standup themselves.

Cut to Beluga in a bow-tie resting a flipper on a mike-stand.

"My missus, nag nag nag, once she over-inflates the vestibular sac in her blowhole, she won't shut up".

As for defending Cisse, if he's really just been caught gambling then there's no way to do that is there? However, another philosophical point (maybe Ciaran can back me up here) is that just because you assumed 'x' despite having no evidence, and 'x' turned out in fact to be true, you weren't necessarily right to assume it.

Kevin Tully #838, I considered ignoring your ill-thought out post, but I thought I'd give this a try. You yourself point out that religion, corporations (presumably business) and government are all susceptible to lying and corruption. This seems to be a point that religion itself is not the problem, but powerful and hierarchical corporate power structures of any nature, and maybe especially the type of men who succeed in rising to prominence in them, whether religious or not.

You are again treating 'religion' as if it is one single, coherent entity. It isn't. 'Religion' is just as much little old ladies turning up to make tea for homeless people, or volunteers changing the lives of entire communities in African townships as it is Catholic arch-bishops covering up child abuse. And it is myriad things in between. We use the word as its convenient, but don't get confused and conflate everything that could be referred to as 'religious' in together. You're a football fan, does that make you responsible for or connected to all the worst things any football fan has ever done?

Are you saying people cannot be the most wonderful human beings, yet have nothing to do with religion, or any other ancient beliefs?

It's my children's choice whether they want to believe in a certain faith, and I believe it should be the choice of every person when they are old enough to make that decision for themselves.

I can take any religion in the world, and give you many reasons why indoctrinating children is wrong.

Religion & royalty go hand in hand, they only exist because of power, money, greed, and lies, not because they help humanity. Good people help humanity.

Is Scientology going to be seen as mainstream in 100 years?

Ancient religion is just a cult that has morphed into what the masses would like to hear, tailored to suit those in power.

The cult of Bill Kenwright will soon be upon us!

---------------------

You can be cynical and still accept the premise of his stance ... It wouldn't matter if he was Harold Shipman .. the issue of Wonga stands on its own merit.

I don't think there's any need for inquisition beyond that...

-------------------------

The point I would obviously make in regard to this position - is why does science have no place in the potential answers?

In my opinion that's the true arrogance...simply labelling these as answers that are beyond science and matters of philosophy (which has far more in common with science than religion) pre-empts the answer.

There were many questions that were considered as singularly matters of theism even a couple of hundred years ago - now they are well grounded in science..

I'd even go so far to suggest that science is well on the way to explaining the questions you ask above... 'No gold in china' and god of the gaps - isn't really an answer..

Scientific investigation is CERTAINLY NOT designed to deal with things that 'have an answer'..that's a misunderstanding of science..

It's about finding answers through empiricism...and that's something that's had the churches worried for a long time..

Mike #875, that's fine although I do not agree with you.

Ciaran #887 "The point I would obviously make in regard to this position - is why does science have no place in the potential answers?

In my opinion that's the true arrogance...simply labelling these as answers that are beyond science and matters of philosophy (which has far more in common with science than religion) pre-empts the answer"

Nail on head. Out of interest do you at all know any works by the majestic Philosopher Anthony Grayling? you certainly seem well versed!

This most pertinent story I would suggest reading in regard to this whole argument of ethics/morality/science and religion... Is that of the great George Price - whose mathematics on altruism and it's potential mirror image led him to suicide..

I'm still stuck on disagreeing with you about the type of question that science can answer. Surely science must strive for objectivity, it is this I'm referring to when I say it 'has an answer', whereas questions of meaning and purpose can only be subjective. Even if we found an 'objective' meaning/purpose of life (we kind of have haven't we? To replicate one's own genes) we could disagree with it, dislike it, ignore it or contradict it if we so chose.

By the way, I'm not saying science has no place in the answers, it is absolutely vital in increasing our knowledge in order to think in a more informed way. Nor am I advocating the 'God of the Gaps', far from it.

I actually wrote my dissertation on evolutionary ethics, including George Price's ideas which feature in a book called The Darwin Wars by Andrew Brown, which is basically a summary of evolution has affected moral philosophy.

Kevin, "Alternatively Mike, you don't have to label goods deeds as 'religious' at all, do you?" No. That's absolutely my point. People do the good things, people do the bad things, 'religion' doesn't do any of it.

"It's my children's choice whether they want to believe in a certain faith, and I believe it should be the choice of every person when they are old enough to make that decision for themselves." I hope you don't apply that to football. My 3-year-old will chant "Everton" on command and asked if we could play 'Everton' in the garden the other day. She's fully indoctrinated.

I think it's a cop-out.

If you choose to use the word, I think you should at least have the courage of your convictions to spell it out as our good Anglo-Saxon ancestors intended (if only they could write!).

This business of blocking out letters is fundamentally disingenuous. I think a case can be made that, if you can't look at the word as she is wrote, then you should not be using it.

Anyway, just wondering what the score was. Not really any clearer. Stay on topic, don't say 'cunt' — especially not more than a couple of times.

I realise that, particularly where the first two words are concerned, there are regional differences over which word is deemed more offensive but given our international audience, I would argue (and, indeed, as a father of two girls, would agree) that the word c**t in particular is offensive and grossly gratuitous.

As a nod towards decency, in the interests of the standards we aim to uphold around here, and with the fact that we do have minors reading the site in mind, I don't want the word on my site. I often remove excessive uses of the word fuck in some submitted comments as well for the same reason. It just loses its power of emphasis and just becomes gratuitous after a while.

Yes, there is the argument that "it's nothing you won't hear at the match" but a) we're not at the match and b) that doesn't make it any more acceptable for a broad audience such as ours, in my opinion.

I see decency in the meaning behind the word, and granted such words are often used to insult, but not always.

What an enlightening thread this is.

Everything event has a cause, therefore, every event exists within an infinite causal chain.

In order for any and all causal chains to begin, there has to have been at least one uncaused event.

Therefore, there has to be something supernatural, an unmoved mover whose existence is independent of any sort of time-space continuum.

I'm not saying there isn't a refutation to that argument. I am however saying that almighty science can only offer a very limited rebuttal. I feel therefore, that it is appropriate to lump Hitchens in with Dawkins and even with theists who believe that science is the best way to answer the question of where we came from.

Thanks to our good friend, Monty Python, this all does relate to football: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2gJamguN04

• Steven Weinberg — The First Three Minutes
• Lawrence Krauss — A Universe from Nothing

It is very far removed from what you mistakenly call a "very limited rebuttal". The second book is particularly brilliant.

Oh, and the Afterword by Richard Dawkins is one of the most stunning pieces of prose I've ever read.

The English language is a fantastic instrument for communication, and any censorship of its words should be resisted. To write c**t instead of cunt... I mean who the fuck is fooling who here? Grow a pair of balls and either use the real word or — if you don't like it — then don't use it. But to block letters out in some prissy pretence that this now renders the word acceptable is complete and utter nonsense.

I used the word because I couldn't think of a more appropriate word to describe Wonga... I blanked it out the very reasons Lyndon articulates above..

Personally I think it's a crackin word... there's no other word like it in the dictionary. But I understand some people don't agree and therefore use it under caution..

Pat,

Your argument which regresses to a designer on what appears to be nothing other than a failure to understand the mechanics of the universe is utterly unconvincing...

To be honest the suggestion that science has little to rebut this position is not only a fallacy, it's an absurdity – in terms of rebuttal, physics and mathematics have made massive steps in areas such as infinite universe theory and string theory – they are in their infancy, but that's not bad for an organism who only discovered the double helix 60 years ago..

The absurdity in your position is that you are asking science to rebut something which you've presented as an a priori fact via the blunt tool of 'causation' – a posit for which you demand no empiricism... Why demand proof from science, whenever you fail to ask it of god?

I think I hate it because it is a form of censorship. And it's something the trashiest newspapers have glommed onto as a way of adding to their shock appeal.

When it comes to the English language as a "fantastic instrument for communication", I think you should be able to manage to communicate effectively with the other 249,999 other words available and the restriction of one word (which is deemed highly offensive by some) shouldn't be such cause for consternation.

Again, it's all about decency, not censorship.

The tone of your response is emblematic of the Dawkins/Hitchens model of "militant atheist fundamentalism" while Michael's response is an example of someone who strongly but respectfully disagrees. The argument that I posed was first penned by Thomas Aquinas and labeled the cosmological argument. A more modern scholar who held a similar view was C.S. Lewis. A version of the cosmological argument can be found in his book, Mere Christianity. Both of the aforementioned gentlemen had a much better understanding of the mechanics of the universe than you or I do.

With that, I am done arguing. Whether I'm right or not, I'm not educated enough on the matters at hand to sufficiently articulate my point. I would recommend reading the works of C.S. Lewis and William Lane Craig. They lay out some of the same arguments I would but they do so in a much more comprehensive manner.

Michael, I am somewhat familiar with Lawrence Krauss' work though I haven't actually read his book. I didn't bother reading it because from what I gathered, it was an explanation of how matter could have formed out of nothing. I am more concerned with cause and effect and finding an original cause than with what theoretically happens in a vacuum. If you think Krauss or Weinberg were able to find an original cause of sorts, I'd be interested to read what they have to say. Let me know what you think.

Science does have a limit.. And that limit is our capacity to understand our surroundings..

Im also well aware of the ontological argument.. I find it a truly amazing piece of man made frippery..

For your information, im not actually an atheist.. I would class myself as a pantheist. But nice to know I would be classed with the 'fundamentalists' for questioning your position.

However , I have enjoyed the debate - despite the allegations of belligerence..

If you intended your post to be polite and it just came across as harsh, I apologise for making that assumption.

My personal beliefs by the way are just Christian enough to not be considered agnosticism. I think there are a lot of things that we think we know but we really don't. The agnostic side of that is likely down to my distrust of empiricism.

A vacuum is not the same as what existed before the big bang, because we have no way of removing forces like gravity which did not exist before the event itself. Therefore, all experiments that show the creation of matter within a vacuum within an existing universe are fundamentally flawed and not the proof of principle they are being promoted as. As a scientist I am acutely aware of the problems with over-extrapolating from limited data - ultimately you end up with things that are a matter of 'faith'.

The simple problem with demonstrating that a supernatural entity isn't a necessity for natural phenomena is that it doesn't actually exclude the possibility that a subtle, omnipresent and omniscient being could still use those natural phenomena without anyone being aware of it.

Having the humility to admit that you don't have all the answers (that is why it is called faith) applies to both sides of the divide. I find Richard Dawkins a supercilious prick because he routinely plays up the lunatic fringe as typical and avoids engaging with moderates. Consequently a lot of not very bright individuals these days think that they are showing great sophistication and scientific awareness when they dismiss the notion of a creator out of hand.

In one of his documentaries ("Root of All Evil?" Later re-named to accompany his book "The God Delusion") he even interviews an Anglican vicar or bishop, and just as the guy begins to explain an intelligent moderate position he is faded down and a Dawkins voice-over inserted over the top dismissing the position he hasn't even allowed to be explained. Its one of the worst pieces of television I've ever seen.

I absolutely am an atheist, if we're talking about religion from an objective, absolutist point of view, and our definition of God is at least close to that represented in the Abrahamic tradition. I just don't think we should look at religion in that way. I also accept that there might be something I might sensibly call 'God' although I don't believe it would have will, intention or the kind of consciousness that would make sense to us. We could even refer to the entire universe.

This is my main problem with Dawkins and Hitchens and their ilk. They make/made money out of keeping the debate on the lowest possible level. The more subtle, intelligent and sophisticated positions won't make a book that can sell a million copies, so no-one is going to get to read/hear them.

As for science and the origins of the universe. Stephen Hawking this year has attempted to explain the Big Bang through quantum randomness, and although its quite an exciting idea, he still doesn't address the question of why there was anything there in the first place.

Much of this can be watched on YouTube, I forget the name of Hawking's programme but it wouldn't be hard to find, and I'll recommend Alain De Botton and Atheism 2.0 again as that's a 20-minute lecture that's easy enough to find on either YouTube or Ted.

I certainly can't agree that Williams was promoting an 'intelligent moderate position'..The problem with these arguments is that faith can't be reconciled with science..It's an argument stopper..

While I don't always agree with the way Dawkins approaches the subject, and his opponents - I can certainly understand his frustration whenever someone manipulates scientific knowledge to promote a faith based posit... It's an infinitely circular argument.

-------------------

In essence I probably agree... Put it down to me liking my new found freedom and wanting to keep the hosts happy.

-------------------------

A very important point Si... even Susskind openly admits that the application of maths to the real world is simply a postulate. Mathematics in this context is not a fact.. leaving the likes of string theory open to ardent attacks..

The mathematical model certainly appears to fit ... but the beauty of science is that it knows what it doesn't know...Religion on the other hand, claims to know...

Apologies in advance to those who boycott the Sun. I will not be using the website myself once their paywall goes up next week.

No site apart from TW will have a footy matter lead to the following comments:

" absolutely am an atheist, if we're talking about religion from an objective, absolutist point of view, and our definition of God is at least close to that represented in the Abrahamic tradition."

"While I don't always agree with the way Dawkins approaches the subject, and his opponents - I can certainly understand his frustration whenever someone manipulates scientific knowledge to promote a faith based posit"

"even Susskind openly admits that the application of maths to the real world is simply a postulate. Mathematics in this context is not a fact.. leaving the likes of string theory open to ardent attacks.."

Hats off to you. But can you express mid match anger in such beautiful language ? I look forward to it !

If that`s the case, I've decided against becoming a Muslim!

Fearing for his life Dawkins shouted "Oh God" to which (much to his surprise) he heard a response from on high "yes my son?"

Dawkins, still not believing, said "if you really exist then turn this bear into a good Christian."

Eager to oblige God accedes to Dawkins' request.

At which point the bear drops to it's knees, places it's paws together and raises it's eyes to heaven saying;

"Lord, for what I am about to receive....."

His name is John Lennox. His credentials are pretty impressive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lennox

In this interview he addresses many of the issues raised in this thread.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?
v=CJMp6p3tLj4&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DCJMp6p3tLj4

Back to Gavin's original post. Would I want Wonga or any other loan shark as a sponsor of Everton Football Club - definitely no.

Perhaps Michael - you could run one of those online surveys that you do like "should we sell Nimrod to Mugsborough Wanderers"

There's an uncensored version on YouTube where you get a sense of what is really being put forward.

Not a big fan of the Dawkins approach to be honest. He has no need to adopt a 'shout the loudest' strategy..

As far as god is concerned, I think the worshipers of the sun were close to the money.

If you must have a god, energy fits the bill, everything in the universe is full of energy, its the driver of all things!

I also agree with Michael in that people should take responsibility for what they are posting and if the mean something they should say it and not hide behind a watered down version which essentially cops them out but still leaves a mark.

Both stances I believe, used together responsibly, can ensure the site remains open, accessible, true and responsible.

So - for me, having two editors with different perspectives on this strengthens the quality of the site, it doesn't diminish it.

I think the answer to your question is "it can't be done". It's a bit like Pi. It's a number but nobody has been able to say what it is "in its entirety". That doesn't stop us using the number though - which I think is rather interesting.

Gavin, you started a very enjoyable thread here - I think most would agree on that. You put to us a number of very interesting questions - I for one would like to see what you made of our responses.