Matthew Le God

Would it not be better if the anthem was something every Englishman could sing with passion about his country at sporting events?

Given what you said in the first two sentences, how can you then sing a national anthem with God and monarchy at its core passionately if you don't agree with its sentiment?

We've lost 1 player and pre-season training for those not at the World Cup is 10 days away. There really isn't a need for panic stations and jumping to conclusions.

The same probably does apply to a lot of countries as most anthems go back in time to an era before parts of Western Europe for example were largely secular. Change doesn't go down well with some people and they hold onto traditions for better or worse. About time mankind moved on from bronze age myths when they couldn't explain things so used a God to fill the knowledge gap in their understanding of the world around them.

I respect those with a rational argument no matter what they believe, but I'm yet to see any rational argument from anyone religious as to why their version of God is correct and everyone else's is wrong. Is it really too much to ask for mankind in the 21st century to use rational arguements? Can you outline a rational argument why the Christian God exists and all the other 10,000+ deities recorded in human history are wrong?

You continue to jump to the conclusion that because the club aren't giving fans a minute by minute outline of their transfer dealings that the club is doing nothing to line-up new players. Just because they aren't telling us what they are doing doesn't mean by default nothing is happening. Les Reed has now stated publicly on a number of occasions they have a number of targets even before a new manager joined.

Lallana has said he is looking forward to meeting Koeman, Koeman and Reed have said they will do everything they can to keep the best players. Lallana, Shaw and Lovren might leave, but you've jumped to the conclusion they definitely will leave.

I don't. Do you not believe in evolution then? I think you need to look up the definition of evangelical.

I'm sure Saint Charlie didn't use to be this negative. In the last 6 months you have been jumping to a large number of very negative conclusions with very little evidence to support it.

I still don't fully know your position as all you've done so far is throw petty insults. Can you explain why you think a nation of 60 million people should have a national anthem about the Christian God and a monarch? The U.S. constitution separates church and state (despite what the Bible belt may think), it would be good if the British did the same.

Nope. Never owned a pair of dungarees and I think competitive sport in schools is a very good thing. What I object to is a sweeping generalisation that in order to be patriotic you have to support the monarchy and believe in the Christian God. Something which isn't the case for a very high % of the population of this country, so it isn't a representative anthem at all. Rather than follow along like sheep just because it is "tradition", how about have a national anthem that doesn't alienate people from being patroitic? The sign of someone without a strong point is resorting to petty personal insults. Something that applies to a number of people in this thread who have been supporting the monarchy and the Christian God inclusion in the national anthem. They don't have a rational argument, so start making irrational insults.

I'd say that applies more to someone who makes petty insults and doesn't explain why they disagree with a point.

Like this...?

We need a song about England that has no references to... - monarchy - religion - Empire building Any serious suggestions?

So would you sing the national anthem regardless of its lyrical content? Do you draw no lines? You are right, people should be proud to represent the country. But why does singing about a God there is no evidence for and an unelected head of state make you proud? Is it really representative of England to have a song about a deity not everyone believes in and a monarchy not everyone supports at the song's core.

"Land of hope and glory" is a song about a Christian God and Empire building. I think we should stay clear of it representing the views of a country as a whole.

Why should it even be used in those circumstances? Even if you do support a British royal family, why does the Christian God need to be involved?

Wouldn't you like to live in a true democracy? At the moment the UK isn't one, as the role of head of state is only available by fluke of birth. To compare not wanting the Queen as head of state to the views of ISIS is ridiculous.

Anderton was born in Southampton and went to Bitterne Park School.

Perhaps they are all republican atheists. I don't like the national anthem for that very reason. Its about a God I don't believe in "saving" (whatever that is meant to mean) a head of state I don't think should be head of state as they are unelected and by fluke of birth born into the position. I don't sing it, but that doesn't mean I don't like our country. Its just a very poor choice of song.

On what is any of that based? Because Les Reed has said on a number of occasions all money from player sales would be reinvested in the team. That is ontop of money they would spend if no-one was sold. That suggests will be spending big money this summer.

No he wasn't.

Erwin Koeman played in the final as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joop_Hiele