Israel Folau - HIGHEST PAID PLAYER in the AFL. What a joke.

[Slartibartfast]

That in itself is debateable (and I note you didn't mention drunks or atheists) - however you on conflating two different issues - which is highly common - because unless you froth at the mouth and demonise Folau on every issue - you are labelled a homophobe.

The "issue" is people demonising both Folau's right to seek a judicial enquiry as to whether he breached his terms of employment. And secondly people's right to donate to the prosecution of a legal case. Whilst I am sure Maria Folau probably agrees with her husband's religious views - she has not done so publicly. All she has shared is his request for funds to pursue his legal right. That isn't hate speech - that is a fundamental democratic right afforded to even the most heinous people in our society.

Whether the original Insta post is or isn't hate speech I am sure will be a key component of the legal case prosecuted by both Folau and Rugby Australia.

Do I agree with Folau's view? Hell no - fundamentalist religion is scary as ****
Do I think saying someone should repent or their punishment will be imaginary is hate speech - I'm on the fence. There's hardly any negative outcome from it in my view. He isn't encouraging those so named to be bashed or assaulted or have their human rights taken away. He's saying in his delusion view (my opinion) there is some magical mystery place where they'll be punished.
Do I think he should be afforded our legal rights? Absolutely


Question for you - if all Israel Folau did was quote the bible - and you think that is hate speech - should the bible be banned in this country?

Issy does not have the right to vilify homosexuals, that is what is in question here.
Trying to turn the discussion to points that suit yourself will not work.
Drunks and atheists choose there course in life.

Being gay is not a lifestyle choice, being told you are going to hell because of it IS hate!

 

[Rockford]

Saying black people are going to hell is not hate speech?????

That in itself is debateable (and I note you didn't mention drunks or atheists)

What debate would you make that it isn't hate speech?

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Issy does not have the right to vilify homosexuals, that is what is in question here.
Trying to turn the discussion to points that suit yourself will not work.
Drunks and atheists choose there course in life.

Being gay is not a lifestyle choice, being told you are going to hell because of it IS hate!

Again you miss the point.

You make a broad statement about what FOlau can and can't do. Got some bad news for you mate - you don't make the rules. Neither do I.

The arbiter of that decision is the courts - and each one of us has the right to prosecute an argument there,

Now you may indeed be very well correct and he doesn't have that right. But the angry mob don't decide that - our legal (and political) system will.

Now answer the question - is the bible hate speech?

 

[The Falcon Strike]

What debate would you make that it isn't hate speech?

The debate that the only negative thing mentioned is "Hell" which is a delusion and therefore asking someone to go there is nonsensical and immaterial.

Ultimately the courts will decide.

I'm on the fence about it - I see both sides.

 

[Rockford]

Now answer the question - is the bible hate speech?

There's parts of it that certainly are.

The debate that the only negative thing mentioned is "Hell" which is a delusion and therefore asking someone to go there is nonsensical and immaterial.

Ultimately the courts will decide.

I'm on the fence about it - I see both sides.

It will be for the courts to decide the legal argument. If the debate is whether or not the punishment prescribed to a group based on their sexuality/gender/race is imaginary or not then I think there's probably not that much to debate, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Again you miss the point.

You make a broad statement about what FOlau can and can't do. Got some bad news for you mate - you don't make the rules. Neither do I.

The arbiter of that decision is the courts - and each one of us has the right to prosecute an argument there,

Now you may indeed be very well correct and he doesn't have that right. But the angry mob don't decide that - our legal (and political) system will.

Now answer the question - is the bible hate speech?

I know your trying to frame the argument to suit your bigoted beliefs.
Folau beliefs are based on hate, that is what this is about.
Anyway, it is not the bible that is the issue, it is the fools and their interpretation of it which is the problem.
When you get imbeciles like Folau who take this fractured fairytale called the bible to be a literal account problems are are going to occur.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

There's parts of it that certainly are.

Then why isn't it banned? And in fact should it be banned?

And should the act of giving a bible to someone be seemed as propogating hate and therefore punished?

 

[The Falcon Strike]

I know your trying to frame the argument to suit your bigoted beliefs.

Ahhh... the old "you don't froth at the mouth therefore you are a bigot" argument

What bigoted beliefs do i have? (Please answer succinctly)

And I am not the one conflating two completely different issues.

Folau beliefs are based on hate, that is what this is about.

Yes they probably are.. and no it isn't

Anyway, it is not the bible that is the issue, it is the fools and their interpretation of it which is the problem.

Well that quote is largely taken direct from the bible - so how is it not the issue you seem so passionate about?

When you get imbeciles like Folau who take this fractured fairytale called the bible to be a literal account problems are are going to occur.

Agree wholeheartedly

 

[DapperJong]

There's hardly any negative outcome from it in my view.

This is naive. And it's also inferring that there's a positive to come out of it.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

This is naive.

Possibly - i see both sides.

There is no direct negative outcome to it - put it that way. Unless of course you believe in hell.

There is potential indirect consequences to do with mental wellbeing and self-worth for those who perhaps identify as drunks/gays/perjurors et al.

Therein lies the balance beam - how indirect does it need to be to be material - how long a bow has to be drawn before it is no longer a material consequence. Many feel that balance is out of kilter - and truthfully this issue seems to be a bit of crux for a wider issue on political correctness.

If he said that homosexuals should be stoned (here on earth) - then send him to gaol IMO. But his comment related to a fictional fantasy place.

It is akin to saying all brown eyed people go to a "windy fartista dystopia".

And it's also inferring that there's a positive to come out of it.

No it doesn't. There's clearly no positive side (unless you are a religious zealot who truly thinks they are healing the world)

 

[DapperJong]

There is potential indirect consequences to do with mental wellbeing and self-worth for those who perhaps identify as drunks/gays/perjurors et al.

I think this is very much a given rather than a potential. In fact I know it's not. I have a gay friend who has confided in me about it.

No it doesn't. There's clearly no positive side (unless you are a religious zealot who truly thinks they are healing the world)

I know you didn't mean it that way.

 

[josephine666]

If you're a gay kid in a small conservative town with religious parents, and people like Folau reinforce backward religious views, is that likely to help or hinder? Are you more or less likely to self harm, experience depression, suicide? Is it more or less likely that the local kids will ostracise and assault you?

On top of that, abusing vulnerable minority groups is a **** way to go about life.

I agree, I don't applaud Folau. What he believes is demented. But if we stop him from publicly stating his beliefs, rather then discuss it, how will any of those imprisoned by these cults have any hope of being freed?

I abhor all religion, partly for the reasons you outline above. At least Folau's (pentecostal) are inclusive. All you need do is repent your sin and you will go to heaven. I've been to one of their events. People stand up and say proudly "I was a thief...", "I was a rapist..", "I murdered 2 people"... but I have repented' and the crowd cheers and they are all so happy and proud of their degenerates. I asked my colleague (who suckered me into going) how he felt towards the victims and their families. Should they join in the celebration of their rapist or the murderer of their father? He had never thought about it. It troubled him. There was a flicker of free thought. So have the conversation, dont shut it down.

Despite being totally deluded, at least his posts come from a good place. He wants homosexuals (and athiests etc.) to get to heavan. It is the religions that call for the persecution and punishment (often death) in the real world that I abhor the most. I don't want their views underground, I want to know who these *ers are!

 

[The Gong]

I agree, I don't applaud Folau. What he believes is demented. But if we stop him from publicly stating his beliefs, rather then discuss it, how will any of those imprisoned by these cults have any hope of being freed?

I abhor all religion, partly for the reasons you outline above. At least Folau's (pentecostal) are inclusive. All you need do is repent your sin and you will go to heaven. I've been to one of their events. People stand up and say proudly "I was a thief...", "I was a rapist..", "I murdered 2 people"... but I have repented' and the crowd cheers and they are all so happy and proud of their degenerates. I asked my colleague (who suckered me into going) how he felt towards the victims and their families. Should they join in the celebration of their rapist or the murderer of their father? He had never thought about it. It troubled him. There was a flicker of free thought. So have the conversation, dont shut it down.

Despite being totally deluded, at least his posts come from a good place. He wants homosexuals (and athiests etc.) to get to heavan. It is the religions that call for the persecution and punishment (often death) in the real world that I abhor the most. I don't want their views underground, I want to know who these ******s are!

You should write a column. Your posts are really entertaining. Seriously.

 

[josephine666]

You should write a column. Your posts are really entertaining. Seriously.

Oh, cheers, you've made my day. Bigfooty and quite a few posters entertain me too....for hours..when I should be working.. I'm usually just an observer, mostly because someone has already said what I'm thinking and much more eloquently then I ever could.

 

[Drakescoffeecake]

I agree, I don't applaud Folau. What he believes is demented. But if we stop him from publicly stating his beliefs, rather then discuss it, how will any of those imprisoned by these cults have any hope of being freed?

I abhor all religion, partly for the reasons you outline above. At least Folau's (pentecostal) are inclusive. All you need do is repent your sin and you will go to heaven. I've been to one of their events. People stand up and say proudly "I was a thief...", "I was a rapist..", "I murdered 2 people"... but I have repented' and the crowd cheers and they are all so happy and proud of their degenerates.

Thief, rapist, murderer. All choices. Does homosexuality fall into that category?

 

[nob2210]

Thief, rapist, murderer. All choices. Does homosexuality fall into that category?

Don’t really want to open up a can of worms, but I would suggest that whilst homosexuality may not be a choice, just as my heterosexuality may not be a choice, the acts of homosexuality are definitely a choice, just as the acts of my heterosexuality, in the wrong context, are a choice, and are considered just as sinful...

 

[Ghost of Punt Road]

I'm happy for these people who have an imaginary friend in the sky, to blow all their money on lawyers. May they all become poorer.

Pity Folau will just spend the money on his next Lamborghini. That's the problem with religious types. They will believe anything and are too easy to manipulate by the greedy.

 

[mxett]

I'm happy for these people who have an imaginary friend in the sky, to blow all their money on lawyers. May they all become poorer.

Pity Folau will just spend the money on his next Lamborghini. That's the problem with religious types. They will believe anything and are too easy to manipulate by the greedy.

amazing how some people are lumping all 'religious types' in the same basket

 

[Fire]

Nah it has gone past that

The rusted on "tolerance promoters" are about as vitriolic as there is.

Many people vehemently disagree with Folau's view. Many also have no issue with his sacking.

However - he fundamentally has the right to test his case in a court of law.

So many armchair lawyers scream "breach of contract" - but that is exactly what Israel wants to test. In an actual court - not by those who virtue signal.

We saw in the AFL recently that an "independent panel" arranged by the code itself often comes up with self-serving decisions.

Israel HAS the right to our court system, and people have the right to donate to his court costs if they so choose. And his wife has the right to share her husband's request for donations. These are our legal rights as citizens.

None of that is homophobic or hate speech - it is a fundamental right to our court system. The court itself will then decide the merits of the argument.

No one is bleating that the alleged Claremont Serial Killer has rights to the court system. And indeed if he wanted to raise money for his legal defence - he is well within his rights as well.

It is a very slippery slope when the angry mob is the one who decides what can and can't be said. And equally this same angry mob have launched some of the most anti-christian commentary - that if it was launched at another religion they'd be up in arms.

And this from a bloke raised in a catholic school system that thinks the whole religion thing is a crock of ****.

That was a hell of a lot of words to say nothing at all.

I'm not even sure who's arguments you are addressing? Where are the people saying he should have no legal access to the courts? Or to ask for donations? Or, fundimentally, that he had no right to say what he said?

You're mistaking criticism of his actions for demands such actions be illegal. It's bizzare.

 

[josephine666]

Thief, rapist, murderer. All choices. Does homosexuality fall into that category?

No, I think attractiveness to one sex or the other (or to both) is inherent. If it were not, then I would choose to be bi-sexual as it would immediately double my options. I might sound flippant but I'm serious.

In terms of my little pentecostal annecdote, choice is not relevant. There were other 'sinners' who got up on stage, including those claiming to be former non-believers and former homosexuals. I am a non-believer. This isn't a choice for me. If I said I suddenly saw the light and believed, it would be a lie. Much like I imagine for someone who is gay to suddenly claim to be straight. So my original point in this thread still stands. I am not offended by someone who thinks I will be burning in hell when I know that hell is a concept made up to scare a bunch of subservients.

Neither am I offended by being on a list when some of the categories have negative overtones. Athiests, fornicators and homosexuals have absolutely no negative connotations for me whatsoever, only positive. Excessive drinking in moderation is a good thing in the book of Jo as well (as are oxymorons). That Folau and a billion or two other minions believe otherwise just exposes their lack of evolvement.

I understand why the big religions (Islam and Christianty) considered homosexuality a sin. These religions are about power and control. The bigger the army, the more power and control they have. Couples of the same sex were unable to procreate (back in the day) so add it to the list. While a lot of fornication would increase the population, I guess they had some idea that inbreeding leads to increased genetic defects. Add it to the list. Keep them having sex with one person all their lives and minimise the defects. Wedlock it in. Chuck Adultery on there in case the wedlock loses it's lustre. All quite reasonable when you consider the ultimate goal of an every increasing mass of followers.

A few thousand years later and we have evolved, as have the more intelligent religions that are all about inclusivity and embracement of all. The ones stuck in the dark ages just continue to roll out the old sales pitch because they are well aware there is still a sucker born every minute. They breed them.

 

[FreoMonocle]

Question for you - if all Israel Folau did was quote the bible - and you think that is hate speech - should the bible be banned in this country?

He didn't just quote the bible though. It was a pointed section of the bible and very public. If I was a student of History and was reading sections of Mein Kampf aloud at a tutorial and asking questions about it, that is different to reading it aloud at a neo-nazi rally - same thing, merely reading it (aloud)...

The gist of the section and how it's used is I am righteous, you are vile. So yes, his very public use of it in that fashion is hate speech. That is unrelated to the bible being banned, just as it would be ridiculous to ban a historical document like Mein Kampf, though context is everything and a ban of it in post war germany makes perfect sense.

 

[wc_eagles_since86]

I'll state this first. I'm a-religious, not a fan of organised religion and certainly no fan of ye olde bible. I'm pro gay marriage and gay rights in general. I'm not in favour of hanging people by their necks for saying they don't approve or like gay people. It's their right to disagree and say that gays disgust them. It's free speech and offensive speech is not hate speech. If that offends you, I feel sorry for you. I'd say the same to Folau if someone said all Christians are scum and he was offended.

I'll further state I think Folau is an overrated player: he's inconsistent and has been shut down on many occasions. Not saying he's crap, just saying he's way, way too hyped up. Since the grand days of the Wallabies of old, we've had a sad run of hyping players as the second-coming of Campezi, Eels and the like. He's not that great, at least not as good as everyone says he is. To be fair, it isn't hard to shine in the Wallabies these days.

Lastly, as a kid who was raised by Rhodesian parents, I was given rugby from the get-go. I'm sad to say, the Wallabies and the ARU are the laughing stock of the world. How far do we have to fall before a drastic change happens? Cheika I think is one of the worst coaches for the ages, perhaps after Eddie Jones (who of course is performing wonders for England and was a blight on our team).

I'm a huge advocate of free speech, something we DO NOT have in Australia: not if you want to keep your job, not if you want to keep your reputation in tact. The sad truth is, intent does not matter. Folau should've been smart enough to realise this. The fact is, Australia is ridiculously PC in the public sphere. Not so at certain jobs I've had, or behind closed doors, or among friends. In the media though, everything is squeaky clean these days. You're a multi-million dollar player, representing a national team, surely you'd be bright enough to realise, you're not above reproach. Certainly not these days.

I don't espouse Folau's values. I don't give him a thumbs up for quoting the bible, regardless of his intent. I don't think he meant malice. I know there are lots of offended people, looking for their excuse to witch-hunt someone and call-out / shutdown .. and in our current climate we all know his intent doesn't matter. The torches are lit and he's gone.

We all know Qantas sponsor the Wallabies. That was game-set-match when their CEO has very different ideas. To hush hush that connection is ridiculous. Secondly, Folau is a ******* idiot and the company has the right to sack him. I defend his right to say those things but he's an employee of a company which has a public profile and in no way, shape or form could possibly be seen to back him. He's literally in the ocean without a friend. Can't say I'm sympathetic, but I do think that firing people based on their beliefs is a dangerous precedent: what denotes hate speech? There also seems to be the ever-present danger that firing people for offensive stuff is ok. If that is the case, most of you at some point should have lost your job for something you said. Do we really want to live out 1984?

I'm not mourning his loss, but I do think it raises questions which need to be debated in a civil manner, without torches and without calling out people for their beliefs because you feel offended.

 

[FreoMonocle]

Hoping Folau kicks arse, he's standing up for FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

Except he's not.

He lost his gig with Rugby because he breached his employment conditions and the court action is about that, the cops aren't stopping him from saying similar stuff. Are people yelling at him a bit - yep, it happens when you say offensive things, but he is still free to keep saying those offensive things.

If a bank manager in a radio interview were to say that laws on shagging sheep should be overturned because it's just a bit of harmless fun - while the suggestion of a change of law isn't illegal, their personal view on the subject made public like this would see them lose their job because they would be bringing the bank into disrepute.

Is he free to say offensive things when he represents others - yes, but they are free to reconsider their relationship with him.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Except he's not.

He lost his gig with Rugby because he breached his employment conditions and the court action is about that

I do find it amazing that so many people have intimate knowledge of

A) his contract terms
B) employment law

The courts will decide whether he has

I’m not sure a rugby convened panel is the most reliable source of truth

Just like an afl convened panel wasn’t the most reliable source of truth on the Essendon doping scandal

I actually hope rugby win - freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom of consequence

I don’t want one of my employees sprouting fundamentalist crap

 

[The Falcon Strike]

That was a hell of a lot of words to say nothing at all.

I'm not even sure who's arguments you are addressing? Where are the people saying he should have no legal access to the courts? Or to ask for donations? Or, fundimentally, that he had no right to say what he said?

You're mistaking criticism of his actions for demands such actions be illegal. It's bizzare.

So you think the demonising of maria Folau is appropriate ?

All she has done is support her husbands right to legal counsel

That’s not hateful or homophobic in the slightest and yet ANZ and Liz Ellis (so there are specific names) have demonised her

You know if the shoe was on the other foot - Liz Ellis would be called a racist for piling on a woman of colour