View: Religous People And Leadership - OzChess

**Firegoat7** · 06-13-2009, 07:52 PM

Hi,

Most people would be aware that I am a firm believer in open democracy. I believe open democracy is very important for society. It is extremely important for the building of democratic institutions. Most rational people would further believe that a functional democracy requires grassroot participation. Participation, in my view, ought to be founded on cultural plurality if its goal is democratic inclusion of people.

Religion on the other hand seeks to exclude people who do not share the same faith. This makes sense for religous identity, but it invariably excludes non believers, which is undemocratic. This becomes even more problematic when people with religous views become leaders of public institutions. Leaders set policy which affect their institutions. Yet faith is seen as a personal belief system. I think that religous people should be open and honest about their faith before they accept any position of leadership.

Australian chess seems to have numerous people with religous affiliation leading its institutions. It is generally noted that religous people tend to be conservative. Should they declare their belief systems before obtaining office? Discuss?

**Just2Good** · 06-13-2009, 08:04 PM

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

Hi,

Most people would be aware that I am a firm believer in open democracy. I believe open democracy is very important for society. It is extremely important for the building of democratic institutions. Most rational people would further believe that a functional democracy requires grassroot participation. Participation, in my view, ought to be founded on cultural plurality if its goal is democratic inclusion of people.

Religion on the other hand seeks to exclude people who do not share the same faith. This makes sense for religous identity, but it invariably excludes non believers, which is undemocratic. This becomes even more problematic when people with religous views become leaders of public institutions. Leaders set policy which affect their institutions. Yet faith is seen as a personal belief system. I think that religous people should be open and honest about their faith before they accept any position of leadership.

Australian chess seems to have numerous people with religous affiliation leading its institutions. It is generally noted that religous people tend to be conservative. Should they declare their belief systems before obtaining office? Discuss?

Well, my view is that religion and chess should be kept separate, and one needs to be leery of the motives of anyone who tries mixing the two together.

**Lakshman** · 06-14-2009, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

Hi,

Most people would be aware that I am a firm believer in open democracy. I believe open democracy is very important for society. It is extremely important for the building of democratic institutions. Most rational people would further believe that a functional democracy requires grassroot participation. Participation, in my view, ought to be founded on cultural plurality if its goal is democratic inclusion of people.

Religion on the other hand seeks to exclude people who do not share the same faith. This makes sense for religous identity, but it invariably excludes non believers, which is undemocratic. This becomes even more problematic when people with religous views become leaders of public institutions. Leaders set policy which affect their institutions. Yet faith is seen as a personal belief system. I think that religous people should be open and honest about their faith before they accept any position of leadership.

Australian chess seems to have numerous people with religous affiliation leading its institutions. It is generally noted that religous people tend to be conservative. Should they declare their belief systems before obtaining office? Discuss?

Valid Question FG.

Firstly, mixing of religion with any activity is a very dangerous time-bomb waiting to explode. Believe me, I have seen this happening in real life. I do not intend to mention any specific country or names, but i have seen this happening and people getting killed in the name of religion.

There is no need for anyone to declare which or what religion system they belong to before obtaining any office or any other leadership position. As a matter of fact it is the Knowledge,Skills and Leadership qualities that help person attain a top position and not his religion. Maybe because he is conservative, he may adopt a different management style, but still should not relate to religion.

Any one religion or belief should be respected in its own form and should not be used as a tool to either obtain office or influence in decision making.
Show me one sport where leaders or players are not affliated to any religious institution/s? Definitely, the answer would be 'NO'.

**Sobriquet** · 06-14-2009, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by laksh

Valid Question FG.

Firstly, mixing of religion with any activity is a very dangerous time-bomb waiting to explode. Believe me, I have seen this happening in real life. I do not intend to mention any specific country or names, but i have seen this happening and people getting killed in the name of religion.

There is no need for anyone to declare which or what religion system they belong to before obtaining any office or any other leadership position. As a matter of fact it is the Knowledge,Skills and Leadership qualities that help person attain a top position and not his religion. Maybe because he is conservative, he may adopt a different management style, but still should not relate to religion.

Any one religion or belief should be respected in its own form and should not be used as a tool to either obtain office or influence in decision making.
Show me one sport where leaders or players are not affiliated to any religious institution/s? Definitely, the answer would be 'NO'.

Top post Laksh, right on the money.

**Just2Good** · 06-14-2009, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by Sobriquet

Top post Laksh, right on the money.

Wasn't my post also a top post, and right on the money?

**Firegoat7** · 06-15-2009, 01:40 AM

Originally Posted by laksh

V
There is no need for anyone to declare which or what religion system they belong to before obtaining any office or any other leadership position.

Thanks for your reply. I think there is a need for people to declare their religous views before they obtain leadership of any position. So we have to differ on this view.

Originally Posted by laksh

Maybe because he is conservative, he may adopt a different management style, but still should not relate to religion.

I disagree. The current MCC tourney is a classic example. Currently we have a Christian arbitar breaking the rules of chess for reasons he has not clearly articulated. I am almost certain that such exceptions would not be made for weaker players, but for some unexplained reason they are found for stronger players. The players in the tournament are asked to accept the arbitars decisions based on faith. Which is exactly how he lives his life.

cheers,

**darkhorschessers** · 06-15-2009, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

Thanks for your reply. I think there is a need for people to declare their religous views before they obtain leadership of any position. So we have to differ on this view.

I disagree with you FG7, I can't see any reason as to why people have to declare their religious views before they obtain leadership of a position. As Laksh rightly said; their beliefs and religion did not get them the position. Rather, their capability and knowledge did.

**Just2Good** · 06-15-2009, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

Currently we have a Christian arbitar breaking the rules of chess for reasons he has not clearly articulated.

Well, to be fair I have come across some non-religious arbiters and directors of play who broke the rules of chess whenever it suited them, or when they have an axe to grind with someone.

That doesn't mean its right when this MCC arbiter does it, it doesn't mean its right when non-religious arbiters do it, but I don't know what the answer is - and to be honest, I've stopped caring.

**Lakshman** · 06-16-2009, 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

Well, to be fair I have come across some non-religious arbiters and directors of play who broke the rules of chess whenever it suited them, or when they have an axe to grind with someone.

That doesn't mean its right when this MCC arbiter does it, it doesn't mean its right when non-religious arbiters do it, but I don't know what the answer is - and to be honest, I've stopped caring.

I agree with AO's comments.

The MCC incident seems to be a one off case but surely cannot set a precedence to mixing of religion in other sporting activities or leadership in general.

Tomorrow you might end up having a Hindu,Muslim or other religion arbiter making decisions best suited for the game, but that does not necessarily mean that their decision was influenced by the religion they belong to.

The bottom-line is that whether it is Chess,Sports,Politics,Community Services or any other field on the planet, decision making process should be specific to that particular field showing absolute professionalism and should not be linked to religion,caste,creed or color.

Imagine a doctor who belongs to say "X" religion and is operating on a patient who belongs to say "Y" religion, are we trying to say that because the patient is not of a particular religion which the doctor would like him to be, his diagnosis would be different in any way. The answer is 'No'. His decision and actions should be purely based on ethical Medical practices.

Cheers.
PS: I have to regretfully say that "Religion" is one such topic which can have so many arguements back and forth but will never arrive at any mutually agreeable solution. Hence it would be better off to leave it as it is and try concentrate on much more pressing issues facing us today.

justaknight · 06-24-2009, 12:00 AM

Originally Posted by laksh

Imagine a doctor who belongs to say "X" religion and is operating on a patient who belongs to say "Y" religion, are we trying to say that because the patient is not of a particular religion which the doctor would like him to be, his diagnosis would be different in any way. The answer is 'No'. His decision and actions should be purely based on ethical Medical practices.

Cheers.
PS: I have to regretfully say that "Religion" is one such topic which can have so many arguements back and forth but will never arrive at any mutually agreeable solution. Hence it would be better off to leave it as it is and try concentrate on much more pressing issues facing us today.

I have to admit that this is one of the best well balanced arguements I have ever seen in any forum and congratulations to Laksh!

This is from a person (myself - Elliott Renzies) who agrees 100% with FG's position about the particular person's performance as an arbiter!
In fact and not wanting to be placed in the fence sitting brigade if the whole thing was ever put on a vote, I would vote for FG's position!
Laksh's statement indicates a highly educated, well informed and civilised person expressing and explaining his ideas in an eloquent. clear and dialectically sound way.
Unfortunately we live in a world whose traits are far apart from Laksh's ideal values.
To his doctor / patient well put example let me juxtapose the following:

If a fanatic, ecnrazed and biased zealot attacks me with a sword, if I have to either shoot him or talk him out of his lunatic attitude make no mistake I will choose the first option!

**Grant Szuveges** · 06-24-2009, 01:05 PM

David and Elliot

Can you please email me who this arbiter is and what he actually did? At MCC in 2009, we have used 5 arbiters so far:

1. Grant Szuveges (me) - ANZAC Day weekender, Novices Tournament and Saturday allegro

2. Bill Jordan - Australia Day weekender

3. Malcolm Pyke - City Of Melbourne Open

4. Marcus Raine - Club Championship

5. Carl Gorka - Saturday (formally Friday) Ballroom Blitz

By telling me which arbiter it is, and more importantly, what he has actually done (which is not mentioned anywhere in this thread), it simply ends speculation (which is unfair on all 5 arbiters). It also gives us the appropriate information, so that we can identify whether there is an issue or not, and if so, we can then address the issue appropriately.

I would rather that this issue (if there is one) be nipped in the bud and put to bed very quickly before it turns into something bigger. I know that you both care for the MCC greatly and have its interests at heart - so please email me or call me asap so that we can sought this one out before it becomes worse.

**Just2Good** · 06-24-2009, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by justaknight

I have to admit that this is one of the best well balanced arguements I have ever seen in any forum and congratulations to Laksh!

Agreed!

justaknight · 06-25-2009, 02:58 AM

Originally Posted by Grant Szuveges

David and Elliot

(...) Can you please email me who this arbiter is and what he actually did? or call me asap so that we can sought this one out before it becomes worse. (...)

Hi Grant
extensive e-mail has been sent!
Regards

**Just2Good** · 06-25-2009, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by justaknight

Hi Grant
extensive e-mail has been sent!
Regards

Show one, show all!

06-13-2009, 07:52 PM	#1 (permalink)
Firegoat7 Moderator Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Getting owned by White in the Dragon and trying to recover lost positions from shock paralysis OTB Posts: 2,044 ICC Handle: guest	View: Religous People And Leadership Hi, Most people would be aware that I am a firm believer in open democracy. I believe open democracy is very important for society. It is extremely important for the building of democratic institutions. Most rational people would further believe that a functional democracy requires grassroot participation. Participation, in my view, ought to be founded on cultural plurality if its goal is democratic inclusion of people. Religion on the other hand seeks to exclude people who do not share the same faith. This makes sense for religous identity, but it invariably excludes non believers, which is undemocratic. This becomes even more problematic when people with religous views become leaders of public institutions. Leaders set policy which affect their institutions. Yet faith is seen as a personal belief system. I think that religous people should be open and honest about their faith before they accept any position of leadership. Australian chess seems to have numerous people with religous affiliation leading its institutions. It is generally noted that religous people tend to be conservative. Should they declare their belief systems before obtaining office? Discuss? __________________ "...What I meant? Dear Mr Ian Rout (ACF news publisher) could you please put Ozchessforum in the next news letter! There is no reason to hide this forum from the Australian chess public. What they meant? Sorry, No english!- Amir Karibasic

06-13-2009, 08:04 PM	#2 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,233 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by Firegoat7 Hi, Most people would be aware that I am a firm believer in open democracy. I believe open democracy is very important for society. It is extremely important for the building of democratic institutions. Most rational people would further believe that a functional democracy requires grassroot participation. Participation, in my view, ought to be founded on cultural plurality if its goal is democratic inclusion of people. Religion on the other hand seeks to exclude people who do not share the same faith. This makes sense for religous identity, but it invariably excludes non believers, which is undemocratic. This becomes even more problematic when people with religous views become leaders of public institutions. Leaders set policy which affect their institutions. Yet faith is seen as a personal belief system. I think that religous people should be open and honest about their faith before they accept any position of leadership. Australian chess seems to have numerous people with religous affiliation leading its institutions. It is generally noted that religous people tend to be conservative. Should they declare their belief systems before obtaining office? Discuss? Well, my view is that religion and chess should be kept separate, and one needs to be leery of the motives of anyone who tries mixing the two together. __________________ . "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

06-14-2009, 10:14 AM	#3 (permalink)
Lakshman Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Melbourne Posts: 329	Originally Posted by Firegoat7 Hi, Most people would be aware that I am a firm believer in open democracy. I believe open democracy is very important for society. It is extremely important for the building of democratic institutions. Most rational people would further believe that a functional democracy requires grassroot participation. Participation, in my view, ought to be founded on cultural plurality if its goal is democratic inclusion of people. Religion on the other hand seeks to exclude people who do not share the same faith. This makes sense for religous identity, but it invariably excludes non believers, which is undemocratic. This becomes even more problematic when people with religous views become leaders of public institutions. Leaders set policy which affect their institutions. Yet faith is seen as a personal belief system. I think that religous people should be open and honest about their faith before they accept any position of leadership. Australian chess seems to have numerous people with religous affiliation leading its institutions. It is generally noted that religous people tend to be conservative. Should they declare their belief systems before obtaining office? Discuss? Valid Question FG. Firstly, mixing of religion with any activity is a very dangerous time-bomb waiting to explode. Believe me, I have seen this happening in real life. I do not intend to mention any specific country or names, but i have seen this happening and people getting killed in the name of religion. There is no need for anyone to declare which or what religion system they belong to before obtaining any office or any other leadership position. As a matter of fact it is the Knowledge,Skills and Leadership qualities that help person attain a top position and not his religion. Maybe because he is conservative, he may adopt a different management style, but still should not relate to religion. Any one religion or belief should be respected in its own form and should not be used as a tool to either obtain office or influence in decision making. Show me one sport where leaders or players are not affliated to any religious institution/s? Definitely, the answer would be 'NO'. __________________ God is Great

06-14-2009, 11:15 AM	#4 (permalink)
Sobriquet Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 129	Originally Posted by laksh Valid Question FG. Firstly, mixing of religion with any activity is a very dangerous time-bomb waiting to explode. Believe me, I have seen this happening in real life. I do not intend to mention any specific country or names, but i have seen this happening and people getting killed in the name of religion. There is no need for anyone to declare which or what religion system they belong to before obtaining any office or any other leadership position. As a matter of fact it is the Knowledge,Skills and Leadership qualities that help person attain a top position and not his religion. Maybe because he is conservative, he may adopt a different management style, but still should not relate to religion. Any one religion or belief should be respected in its own form and should not be used as a tool to either obtain office or influence in decision making. Show me one sport where leaders or players are not affiliated to any religious institution/s? Definitely, the answer would be 'NO'. Top post Laksh, right on the money.

06-14-2009, 01:39 PM	#5 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,233 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by Sobriquet Top post Laksh, right on the money. Wasn't my post also a top post, and right on the money? __________________ . "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

06-15-2009, 01:40 AM	#6 (permalink)
Firegoat7 Moderator Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Getting owned by White in the Dragon and trying to recover lost positions from shock paralysis OTB Posts: 2,044 ICC Handle: guest	Originally Posted by laksh V There is no need for anyone to declare which or what religion system they belong to before obtaining any office or any other leadership position. Thanks for your reply. I think there is a need for people to declare their religous views before they obtain leadership of any position. So we have to differ on this view. Originally Posted by laksh Maybe because he is conservative, he may adopt a different management style, but still should not relate to religion. I disagree. The current MCC tourney is a classic example. Currently we have a Christian arbitar breaking the rules of chess for reasons he has not clearly articulated. I am almost certain that such exceptions would not be made for weaker players, but for some unexplained reason they are found for stronger players. The players in the tournament are asked to accept the arbitars decisions based on faith. Which is exactly how he lives his life. cheers, __________________ "...What I meant? Dear Mr Ian Rout (ACF news publisher) could you please put Ozchessforum in the next news letter! There is no reason to hide this forum from the Australian chess public. What they meant? Sorry, No english!- Amir Karibasic

06-15-2009, 11:39 AM	#7 (permalink)
darkhorschessers Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 142	Originally Posted by Firegoat7 Thanks for your reply. I think there is a need for people to declare their religous views before they obtain leadership of any position. So we have to differ on this view. I disagree with you FG7, I can't see any reason as to why people have to declare their religious views before they obtain leadership of a position. As Laksh rightly said; their beliefs and religion did not get them the position. Rather, their capability and knowledge did. __________________ Everyone knows cricket is the best sport/game/pastime in the world! Why the heck are we playing chess??!!

06-15-2009, 03:46 PM	#8 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,233 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by Firegoat7 Currently we have a Christian arbitar breaking the rules of chess for reasons he has not clearly articulated. Well, to be fair I have come across some non-religious arbiters and directors of play who broke the rules of chess whenever it suited them, or when they have an axe to grind with someone. That doesn't mean its right when this MCC arbiter does it, it doesn't mean its right when non-religious arbiters do it, but I don't know what the answer is - and to be honest, I've stopped caring. __________________ . "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

06-16-2009, 07:29 AM	#9 (permalink)
Lakshman Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Melbourne Posts: 329	Originally Posted by Arrogant-One Well, to be fair I have come across some non-religious arbiters and directors of play who broke the rules of chess whenever it suited them, or when they have an axe to grind with someone. That doesn't mean its right when this MCC arbiter does it, it doesn't mean its right when non-religious arbiters do it, but I don't know what the answer is - and to be honest, I've stopped caring. I agree with AO's comments. The MCC incident seems to be a one off case but surely cannot set a precedence to mixing of religion in other sporting activities or leadership in general. Tomorrow you might end up having a Hindu,Muslim or other religion arbiter making decisions best suited for the game, but that does not necessarily mean that their decision was influenced by the religion they belong to. The bottom-line is that whether it is Chess,Sports,Politics,Community Services or any other field on the planet, decision making process should be specific to that particular field showing absolute professionalism and should not be linked to religion,caste,creed or color. Imagine a doctor who belongs to say "X" religion and is operating on a patient who belongs to say "Y" religion, are we trying to say that because the patient is not of a particular religion which the doctor would like him to be, his diagnosis would be different in any way. The answer is 'No'. His decision and actions should be purely based on ethical Medical practices. Cheers. PS: I have to regretfully say that "Religion" is one such topic which can have so many arguements back and forth but will never arrive at any mutually agreeable solution. Hence it would be better off to leave it as it is and try concentrate on much more pressing issues facing us today. __________________ God is Great

06-24-2009, 12:00 AM	#10 (permalink)
justaknight Suspended Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 282	Originally Posted by laksh Imagine a doctor who belongs to say "X" religion and is operating on a patient who belongs to say "Y" religion, are we trying to say that because the patient is not of a particular religion which the doctor would like him to be, his diagnosis would be different in any way. The answer is 'No'. His decision and actions should be purely based on ethical Medical practices. Cheers. PS: I have to regretfully say that "Religion" is one such topic which can have so many arguements back and forth but will never arrive at any mutually agreeable solution. Hence it would be better off to leave it as it is and try concentrate on much more pressing issues facing us today. I have to admit that this is one of the best well balanced arguements I have ever seen in any forum and congratulations to Laksh! This is from a person (myself - Elliott Renzies) who agrees 100% with FG's position about the particular person's performance as an arbiter! In fact and not wanting to be placed in the fence sitting brigade if the whole thing was ever put on a vote, I would vote for FG's position! Laksh's statement indicates a highly educated, well informed and civilised person expressing and explaining his ideas in an eloquent. clear and dialectically sound way. Unfortunately we live in a world whose traits are far apart from Laksh's ideal values. To his doctor / patient well put example let me juxtapose the following: If a fanatic, ecnrazed and biased zealot attacks me with a sword, if I have to either shoot him or talk him out of his lunatic attitude make no mistake I will choose the first option!

06-24-2009, 01:05 PM	#11 (permalink)
Grant Szuveges Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,003	David and Elliot Can you please email me who this arbiter is and what he actually did? At MCC in 2009, we have used 5 arbiters so far: 1. Grant Szuveges (me) - ANZAC Day weekender, Novices Tournament and Saturday allegro 2. Bill Jordan - Australia Day weekender 3. Malcolm Pyke - City Of Melbourne Open 4. Marcus Raine - Club Championship 5. Carl Gorka - Saturday (formally Friday) Ballroom Blitz By telling me which arbiter it is, and more importantly, what he has actually done (which is not mentioned anywhere in this thread), it simply ends speculation (which is unfair on all 5 arbiters). It also gives us the appropriate information, so that we can identify whether there is an issue or not, and if so, we can then address the issue appropriately. I would rather that this issue (if there is one) be nipped in the bud and put to bed very quickly before it turns into something bigger. I know that you both care for the MCC greatly and have its interests at heart - so please email me or call me asap so that we can sought this one out before it becomes worse.

06-24-2009, 01:05 PM	#12 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,233 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by justaknight I have to admit that this is one of the best well balanced arguements I have ever seen in any forum and congratulations to Laksh! Agreed! __________________ . "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

06-25-2009, 02:58 AM	#13 (permalink)
justaknight Suspended Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 282	Originally Posted by Grant Szuveges David and Elliot (...) Can you please email me who this arbiter is and what he actually did? or call me asap so that we can sought this one out before it becomes worse. (...) Hi Grant extensive e-mail has been sent! Regards

06-25-2009, 01:20 PM	#14 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,233 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by justaknight Hi Grant extensive e-mail has been sent! Regards Show one, show all! __________________ . "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread: