Religion Folau

[donkeypunchd]

Okay, now seriously think about the question I am about to ask you.

Do you support the right of corporations to engage in selective political and religious actions?

Corporations or private companies aren’t obliged to disengage from advocacy provided it’s within the bounds f the law. Coopers has engaged with the Bible society in the past, private schools fire personnel who have different views to the schools official creed. Why should Folau receive special consideration for his views when the churches in this country are not inclined to offer such consideration to those who disagree with them (and hide behind the values argument too).

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Do you support it?

I’ve made it clear I don’t support RA being able to, but have no issue with a crowd funder not platforming him.

Who should enforce that they platform him?

 

[Opine]

The Bible is also clear that women shouldn't speak in church or have authority over men. They should also wear head coverings in church as a sign of submission to men.

Western statutes were also imposing somewhat similar restrictions at particular points in time; and not so long ago. Society changes, laws change, the church has and is changing.

You're selectively labelling fragments of text and swinging between literal and purposive interpretation of that text to advance your argument.


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Snake_Baker]

I’ve made it clear I don’t support RA being able to, but have no issue with a crowd funder not platforming him.

An odd comment. If RA doesn't eventuate, then neither does the issue.

Who should enforce that they platform him?

Corporations should never have the right to engage in political or religious selectivity.

This includes political funding (Phillip Morris, McDonnell-Douglas, etc., etc.)

 

[MrKK]

I’ve made it clear I don’t support RA being able to, but have no issue with a crowd funder not platforming him.

Who should enforce that they platform him?

I don't see any way it could be enforced, but it's troubling. Individually they are a private business that can refuse someone's custom for any reason. But how far do you take that principle?

Should every bank, utility company, shop etc all be able to refuse to serve anyone who shares Folau's opinions? You could end up with people totally ostracized. And what will be the future 'beyond the pale' opinions? Eating meat? Voting Liberal?

I think we should acknowledge GFM's right to take the page down, while simultaneously not support them exercising that right nor lobbying them to do so.

 

[GuzzLG]

Corporations or private companies aren’t obliged to disengage from advocacy provided it’s within the bounds f the law. Coopers has engaged with the Bible society in the past, private schools fire personnel who have different views to the schools official creed. Why should Folau receive special consideration for his views when the churches in this country are not inclined to offer such consideration to those who disagree with them (and hide behind the values argument too).

The Church’s objects are to promote their religion. They can legitimately hold a view that employing certain personnel goes against their objects.

RA’s objects are for the promotion of sport. Folau’s beliefs about hell are 100% irrelevant to this.

Maybe the ACNC should investigate RA’s tax exempt status. They seem to be going beyond their charter here.

 

[Goosecat]

The Principal Lawyer for one of, if not THE, biggest litigation law firms in the country goes on the public record with an approximation of costs in the largest profile case currently in the public sphere and you accuse him of lying and being in some sort of conspiracy?
You can stop making a dick of yourself any time you like. Mr. Knowitall..

LOL
You really do have no idea how it works within the media do you?
It's not a 'conspiracy" it's just the game. The angle required to stir up more division and saleable click-bait was to further cast Folou as the Anti-hero by demonstrating he is demanding too much money.
Now go and get and lawyer to verify they can do it cheaper, Gee that was hard wasn't it.
Go and do some research.

 

[Sainteric]

So I should just tolerate his intolerance?

No of course you oppose it but then let it go.

Or Maria hasn't been fully crucified yet go after her and ban the Bible.

 

[chelseacarlton]

Western statutes were also imposing somewhat similar restrictions at particular points in time; and not so long ago. Society changes, laws change, the church has and is changing.

You're selectively labelling fragments of text and swinging between literal and purposive interpretation of that text to advance your argument.


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

A text that is about as usual to forming a decent society as Harry Potter is.

 

[Opine]

A text that is about as usual to forming a decent society as Harry Potter is.

And yet, a major aspect of the society you live in has been based on its underlying principles.

 

[GuzzLG]

I don't see any way it could be enforced, but it's troubling. Individually they are a private business that can refuse someone's custom for any reason. But how far do you take that principle?

Should every bank, utility company, shop etc all be able to refuse to serve anyone who shares Folau's opinions? You could end up with people totally ostracized. And what will be the future 'beyond the pale' opinions? Eating meat? Voting Liberal?

I think we should acknowledge GFM's right to take the page down, while simultaneously not support them exercising that right nor lobbying them to do so.

This is exactly it.

Society has agreed to a bunch of rules governing conduct and put them into law.

If we all agree that certain speech is perfectly lawful then don’t try to then disingenuously say that “you’re completely free to say that but you may be allowed to be excluded from every part of society because of what you say”.

Just be more honest about it and legislate to outlaw certain speech if we all agree it’s abhorrent rather than pretending speech is free and then tolerating the speaker being depersoned.

 

[Monkey King]

No it wasn’t.

It sure was. France was the first to abolish slavery. The Roman Catholic Church condemned slavery in the 17th century, followed thereafter by the UK, who blockaded slave ships. In America, the Quakers and other Christian groups led the initial push for the abolition of slavery.

I’d like to hear your version though.

 

[Craven Morehead]

LOL
You really do have no idea. Go and do some research.

No, I suggest you take it up with the lawyer in question because someone is lying here and it makes no sense for it to be him. Especially in such a public domain.
Remember, he made an approximation which was roughly $2m under what Folau is begging for, and that includes an appeal up to High Court with top shelf silks all along the way.
$2 million!

Or, alternatively, you could let us all in on this massive conspiracy which you keep alluding to.

 

[Gough]

And yet, a major aspect of the society you live in has been based on its underlying principles.

I don't remember the ancient Greeks going all that big on the bible, nor the Romans, and the 10 commandments are basic common sense. You sky pilots don't own morality.

 

[chelseacarlton]

And yet, a major aspect of the society you live in has been based on its underlying principles.

Lol.
Societies were formed and created using logic and reason well before the Torah bible and quran.
The Chinese built their civilisation without the need for deities and were far superior to the Mid East, so to the Greeks and Romans, Mesopotamians, Sumerian’s etc etc.
The Abrahamics just stole everything they valued and reinterpreted it full of hate and bigotry.
Thanks for trying though.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I stated a few pages back that personally I'm untroubled by Folau's comments.

If you're not a Christian, you don't believe in hell anyway, so what he said is simply laughable.

And if you ARE a Christian, Folau's words are straight from the mouth of St Paul, so your problem is with the system you chose to believe in; a much bigger problem for you than one former GWS legend mouthing off.

So I don't necessarily agree with the always-erudite David Marr below, but gee, full marks to him for highlighting the breathtaking hypocrisy of the church on this (specially the Sydney Anglican Diocese.)

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...ree-speech-that-keeps-gays-in-the-firing-line

 

[chelseacarlton]

It sure was. France was the first to abolish slavery. The Roman Catholic Church condemned slavery in the 17th century, followed thereafter by the UK, who blockaded slave ships. In America, the Quakers and other Christian groups led the initial push for the abolition of slavery.

I’d like to hear your version though.

Wrong.
They fell into line with the secularists, well after the writing was on the wall.

 

[Echoes]

Which bit is reassuring? The 53% that think GFM were right to take down his page? 21% who think his wife should be sanctioned for supporting her husband in an employment dispute?

It's the attempted unpersoning of Folau and now his family that's the most chilling part of this for me. Who's to say who will be the heretics that the mob will come after in the future. And I say that as someone who voted that he deserved to be sacked.

Whose trying to unperson Folau and his family?

 

[Opine]

I don't remember the ancient Greeks going all that big on the bible, nor the Romans, and the 10 commandments are basic common sense. You sky pilots don't own morality.

It’s clear to me that you’re pursuing the high your getting from conflict itself; suspect that, for you, gay rights are just a vehicle for conflict. Your not really interested in achieving equality, your get off on the intimidation.

Why don’t you think about what the fork you really want to get out of this situation. At present all your doing is baiting for conflict.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I’d say both sides of this coin are as screwy as one another.

Well, no.

If you're convinced you can disprove an accepted scientific theorem, go right ahead, and see how you go.

Although this is missing the point anyway.

The thing to keep in mind about what religious folk believe is not that it's unproven.

It's that it's unprovable.

Any old idiot can believe in the unprovable.

 

[Goosecat]

No, I suggest you take it up with the lawyer in question because someone is lying here and it makes no sense for it to be him. Especially in such a public domain.
Remember, he made an approximation which was roughly $2m under what Folau is begging for, and that includes an appeal up to High Court with top shelf silks all along the way.
$2 million!

Or, alternatively, you could let us all in on this massive conspiracy which you keep alluding to.

It's not a lie, it's an "estimate". It's how the game is played.
If I was so inclined I would have no trouble getting an estimate covering my expectations for top level representation from the best, covering every level including the initial conciliation attempts employing high level legal representation right now, then the appeal initially to the supreme court, then the appeal to the federal court, then the full bench of the federal court, then the high court, plus every delay and argument thrown in between, including being kicked back down and then back up again and the possible opposition cost awards etc etc. I'll have no problem getting that estimate I'm after and I'm also sure the initial figure wasn't just plucked out of thin air. It's just the angle of the story has no vested interest in that position.
Lawyers and service costs/estimates is literally another arguable stack of shit that is so entrenched, the courts themselves are full of lawyers and clients arguing over just how much people ended up being "over charged", after being given indications otherwise at the beginning, including amongst lawyers representing other lawyers themselves!
The article was just another click-bait attack on the Anti-hero and nothing more.

 

[Rusty Brookes]

I don't remember the ancient Greeks going all that big on the bible, nor the Romans, and the 10 commandments are basic common sense. You sky pilots don't own morality.

Democracy was pretty much unheard of until around 1900 - the vast majority of the world was living in autocracy. Political freedom is a relatively new concept for humans and it's terrific to see it grow around the world. It most likely came out of the thoughts generated via the scientific enlightenment. The more education takes hold, the more politically free people are.

Democracy

How has democracy spread across countries? Are we moving towards a more democratic world? Explore global data and research on democracy.

ourworldindata.org

 

[raskolnikov]

Western statutes were also imposing somewhat similar restrictions at particular points in time; and not so long ago. Society changes, laws change, the church has and is changing.

You're selectively labelling fragments of text and swinging between literal and purposive interpretation of that text to advance your argument.


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

Congratulations on completely missing my point. And not just missing my point, actually reinforcing my argument. Kudos.

 

[Opine]

Lol.
Societies were formed and created using logic and reason well before the Torah bible and quran.
The Chinese built their civilisation without the need for deities and were far superior to the Mid East, so to the Greeks and Romans, Mesopotamians, Sumerian’s etc etc.
The Abrahamics just stole everything they valued and reinterpreted it full of hate and bigotry.
Thanks for trying though.

Ah yes, the Chinese legal system is currently extremely well renowned for its deity free promotion of civil rights.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

We’ve got camps with kids locked up, government raiding media, actual nazis in the senate, and its 2 private companies choosing not to platform a bigot that elicits anti fascist pearl clutching?

Brilliant post. A bit of perspective for once.