Religion Folau

Remove this Banner Ad

Not sure Christians managed to wipe out 84,000 people in 2017 but hey draw all the equivalencies you like.
All religions are as bad as each other yet you target muslims? Are you xenophobic?And do you identify as a fundamentalist christain?
 
We all know what I’m talking about.

The culture people like you have created where you can’t criticise a certain religion, or religious comments made by people of a certain religion, without having the ‘phobe label attached to you.’

Whilst criticism of Folau and his viewpoint is considered fair game.

Not saying i agree with Folau, because I don’t.

It’s the hypocritical double standard, of moral short people like you that I take issue with.

Do I have to debunk this particular myth again?

Well here it is. Anthony Mundine went full hate on homosexuality, hid behind both his religion (Islam) and his race (Aboriginal) and was roundly condemned for it.

 

Log in to remove this ad.

Is anyone still pretending that this isn't just an attack on homosexuals?

Folau is a piece being played. It's a Trojan horse issue.

It's being used to undermine homosexuals, and allow more discrimination against homosexuals.

The battle is whether people can go back to openly saying homosexuality is wrong, or if they have to keep that bigoted view to themselves for the betterment of society.

It's the usual 'free speech' crusade, that only ever seems to be used for bigoted discriminatory bulls**t. While ignoring genuine free speech issues.

That's a very narrow view there cm.

For starters why do you think this is continuing in court? Because there is an argument that RA breached it's policy by discriminating through termination.

To suggest it's some conspiracy by a minority to allow the hatred of homosexuals is at best naive or deliberately ignorant.

It's not some "Trojan horse", Folau is using I'm a devout christian card to milk RA and their sponsors - whether or not he actually believes that rubbish or is a money whore homophobe is also irrelevant.

Why is this s*** show continuing? Because there is reasonable argument that RA's policy is in contradiction with itself.

No one but no one can argue that two men bedding each other and christianity at it's endth degree are good mates - they're enemies and that's what Folau is using.

This is what happens when you try to include two minority groups that oppose each other.

Zero to do with your hyperbolic conspiracy theory, there'd literally be a handful of people in this country that truly want this to end up with homo's being an outed section of the community.
 
One exception, maketh not the rule

All examples of zealots being roundly condemned (or even charged) for hiding behind their religion. Quite rightly so and I don't see any evidence that Islam is being spared criticism in mainstream media in this country. Ergo, Folau is fair game for his comments just as as anyone else is, regardless of their religion.




 
That's a very narrow view there cm.

For starters why do you think this is continuing in court? Because there is an argument that RA breached it's policy by discriminating through termination.

To suggest it's some conspiracy by a minority to allow the hatred of homosexuals is at best naive or deliberately ignorant.

It's not some "Trojan horse", Folau is using I'm a devout christian card to milk RA and their sponsors - whether or not he actually believes that rubbish or is a money whore homophobe is also irrelevant.

Why is this s*** show continuing? Because there is reasonable argument that RA's policy is in contradiction with itself.

No one but no one can argue that two men bedding each other and christianity at it's endth degree are good mates - they're enemies and that's what Folau is using.

This is what happens when you try to include two minority groups that oppose each other.

Zero to do with your hyperbolic conspiracy theory, there'd literally be a handful of people in this country that truly want this to end up with homo's being an outed section of the community.
How's it discrimination when he signed a contract that he wouldn't be a homophobe and attack gay people. Filou is a pathetic pawn in the game backed by hypocritic bigots like Alan Jones who was arrested for an indecent act in a public toilet.
"On 6 December 1988, Jones was arrested in an underground public toilet on Broadwick Street in the Soho area of London. He was taken to the Mayfair police station and charged with 'outraging public decency' and 'committing an indecent act'. "
So how can Alan Jones pontificate when according to Filou, he is going to hell.I mean the hypocrisy is startling.
 
Haven't Christians been slaughtering native populations and non-christians for thousands of years? And covering up paedophilia for 100's of years? And harrassing people at abortion clinics and calling Homosexuals sick animals for 100s of years?.

Probably yes, but the can of worms we have now is that the right to believe that doctrine has been accepted by RA it's in its policy, what's also in that policy is the right be an included minority that is in direct opposition to that doctrine.

Pointing out the ills of a religion is so what? The fact religion is widely accepted and even protected by government and employers is folly.
 
All religions are as bad as each other yet you target muslims? Are you xenophobic?And do you identify as a fundamentalist christain?
Umm, I gave an example of a book making people carry out abhorrent acts. You then came out with the equivalency junk.

Yes I agree re “all religions...” Pity we’re not able to criticise them without a dose of “Whataboutism” should one be criticised and not all of them.
 
How's it discrimination when he signed a contract that he wouldn't be a homophobe and attack gay people. Filou is a pathetic pawn in the game backed by hypocritic bigots like Alan Jones who was arrested for an indecent act in a public toilet.
"On 6 December 1988, Jones was arrested in an underground public toilet on Broadwick Street in the Soho area of London. He was taken to the Mayfair police station and charged with 'outraging public decency' and 'committing an indecent act'. "
So how can Alan Jones pontificate when according to Filou, he is going to hell.I mean the hypocrisy is startling.

Oh yes the hypocrisy is laughable, religion itself in it's endth degree has been in direct opposition to mainstream western society for centuries and yet it's idealogues has been protected by governments throughout. - that's the reason we have this s*** show in continuation.

Barking at Jones has zero to do with why this case is going ahead.
 
All examples of zealots being roundly condemned (or even charged) for hiding behind their religion. Quite rightly so and I don't see any evidence that Islam is being spared criticism in mainstream media in this country. Ergo, Folau is fair game for his comments just as as anyone else is, regardless of their religion.





Ok let’s look at it another way, and it’s perhaps an entirely seperate argument, which is my fault.

How easy is it for joe public or even non Joe Public to be critical of Islam?

In compared to say I don’t know, Christianity?

I know which one will get you a round of applause, and which is more likely to get you kicked from within.

And potentially killed from without.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Probably yes, but the can of worms we have now is that the right to believe that doctrine has been accepted by RA it's in its policy, what's also in that policy is the right be an included minority that is in direct opposition to that doctrine.

Pointing out the ills of a religion is so what? The fact religion is widely accepted and even protected by government and employers is folly.
He was sacked by the sponsors because he was damaging their brand with his hate speech. Does Israel Filou, a former drunk and womanizer have the right to slander 15% of the population , ie 1.5 million people? This Andrew Bolt 'right to be a bigot' line is hate speech dressed up as freedom of speech.It is as disgusting . He still has the right to post his crap, but he broke an agreement he had made with RA.He is clearly not a man of his word and a hypocrite.
 
How easy is it for joe public or even non Joe Public to be critical of Islam?

In compared to say I don’t know, Christianity?

I know which one will get you a round of applause, and which is more likely to get you kicked from within.

And potentially killed from without.
There are entire political parties designed to restrict Islamic immigration, sitting ministers have spoken about some Islamic immigration being a mistake, a news network uses it as a punching bag.

Start considering evidence; little of what you say can be supported by anything.
 
He was sacked by the sponsors because he was damaging their brand with his hate speech. Does Israel Filou, a former drunk and womanizer have the right to slander 15% of the population , ie 1.5 million people? This Andrew Bolt 'right to be a bigot' line is hate speech dressed up as freedom of speech.It is as disgusting . He still has the right to post his crap, but he broke an agreement he had made with RA.He is clearly not a man of his word and a hypocrite.

I don't disagree Folau is a piece of filth and he damaged the brand. The point you're missing is that it can be argued that RA also discriminated Folau in it's own policy even if after the fact.

The RA policy does not allow any employee or the employer itself to discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs or sexual orientation. Those two are in direct contradiction.

I don't think many care for Bolt or Jones and they have zero to do with the contradiction, that's the issue not Bolt or Jones.
 
Ok let’s look at it another way, and it’s perhaps an entirely seperate argument, which is my fault.

How easy is it for joe public or even non Joe Public to be critical of Islam?

In compared to say I don’t know, Christianity?

Well, again - these idiots decided to have a go at atheists in Melbourne and copped a terrific return serve



People should be (and are) condemned for their actions. The difference is not to tar all with the same brush. So for instance, are all Muslims homophobic? Well no they are not and here's my evidence


So all organised religion should be (and is) fair game. But that doesn't mean all people who are religious should be fair game. Zealots, fundamentalists, street preachers, those that try and impose their religion on others definitely but those who quietly go about following their religion not so much.

That leaves us with the way religion is criticised. Criticise Islam the religion? For sure. Criticise all Muslims - not so sure. And yes, the same should apply to all religions. And I believe it does in this country.
 
Well, again - these idiots decided to have a go at atheists in Melbourne and copped a terrific return serve



People should be (and are) condemned for their actions. The difference is not to tar all with the same brush. So for instance, are all Muslims homophobic? Well no they are not and here's my evidence


So all organised religion should be (and is) fair game. But that doesn't mean all people who are religious should be fair game. Zealots, fundamentalists, street preachers, those that try and impose their religion on others definitely but those who quietly go about following their religion not so much.

That leaves us with the way religion is criticised. Criticise Islam the religion? For sure. Criticise all Muslims - not so sure. And yes, the same should apply to all religions. And I believe it does in this country.


All fair points,

The problem is though Folau is using I'm a devout (read hard lined) christian card and "RA you can't discriminate against me through termination, it's in your policy".

The fact that RA's employment policy has enabled Folau to have an argument is the egg on the face of RA. Not that Folau looks much better depending on your view he's either a homophobic bigot or a brainwashed religious nut.

Neither party is going to come out looking clean or competent - it's a lose lose. Folau might get his money but his reputation is now beyond repair.
 
That's a very narrow view there cm.

For starters why do you think this is continuing in court? Because there is an argument that RA breached it's policy by discriminating through termination.

To suggest it's some conspiracy by a minority to allow the hatred of homosexuals is at best naive or deliberately ignorant.

It's not some "Trojan horse", Folau is using I'm a devout christian card to milk RA and their sponsors - whether or not he actually believes that rubbish or is a money whore homophobe is also irrelevant.

Why is this s*** show continuing? Because there is reasonable argument that RA's policy is in contradiction with itself.

No one but no one can argue that two men bedding each other and christianity at it's endth degree are good mates - they're enemies and that's what Folau is using.

This is what happens when you try to include two minority groups that oppose each other.

Zero to do with your hyperbolic conspiracy theory, there'd literally be a handful of people in this country that truly want this to end up with homo's being an outed section of the community.
CB, I think this issue is bigger than Folau, and the vast majority of people supporting Folau aren't supporting him for him, but they're supporting him because it's a fight against 'pollitical correctness', 'the left', 'Marxist indoctrination', 'safe schools'. Etc.


It's being used to weaken the foundations of acceptance and equality that the 'gay community' have been working for since I've been alive.


If the issue was about workers rights, there are plenty of people with none of this baggage that could use such public media-pushed support.
If it was about religious persecution, look at the political parties who exist for warning us against Islamic religions.
If it was about Rugby Australia, there are a ton of controversies that should have received much more attention.


What's special about this issue, is that it allows us to strip away support for homosexuals, under multiple different guises.

Suddenly we are back to talking about homosexuality being a choice.


The public needs an enemy. That enemy is 'the left'. And unfortunately homosexuals lay under that umbrella.
 
All fair points,

The problem is though Folau is using I'm a devout (read hard lined) christian card and "RA you can't discriminate against me through termination, it's in your policy".

The fact that RA's employment policy has enabled Folau to have an argument is the egg on the face of RA. Not that Folau looks much better depending on your view he's either a homophobic bigot or a brainwashed religious nut.

Neither party is going to come out looking clean or competent - it's a lose lose. Folau might get his money but his reputation is now beyond repair.
Folau reputation has already been affected IMO it won't change people's views even if the outcome of the court case favours him. Pretty likely that Castle and RA will lose most from this situation.
 
CB, I think this issue is bigger than Folau, and the vast majority of people supporting Folau aren't supporting him for him, but they're supporting him because it's a fight against 'pollitical correctness', 'the left', 'Marxist indoctrination', 'safe schools'. Etc.


It's being used to weaken the foundations of acceptance and equality that the 'gay community' have been working for since I've been alive.


If the issue was about workers rights, there are plenty of people with none of this baggage that could use such public media-pushed support.
If it was about religious persecution, look at the political parties who exist for warning us against Islamic religions.
If it was about Rugby Australia, there are a ton of controversies that should have received much more attention.


What's special about this issue, is that it allows us to strip away support for homosexuals, under multiple different guises.

Suddenly we are back to talking about homosexuality being a choice.


The public needs an enemy. That enemy is 'the left'. And unfortunately homosexuals lay under that umbrella.
Alternatively it can be argued that it is a fight to have the ability to practice your faith without punishment.

If it is truly about attacking homosexuals then why wasn't the laws against discrimination on sexuality being removed or flagged to be changed by the government? Furthermore why did criticisdm come from Folau himself regarding how Magda Szubanski was getting abused and also asked for it to end?

The claim that there is this desire to strip away rights from homosexuals is a smokescreen from lefties who want to simply stop people who practice religion from having the same rights as others (including homosexual) to not be discriminated against on faith for the simple reason that they don't like their comments when expressing their views.
 
I think the Bible did that. He just paraphrased it.

Im waiting for him to declare that children who disobey their parents should be dragged to the city gates and stoned.

Its interesting how infrequently Christians quote the New Testament.

I assume Hillsong never talk about Jesus overturning tables in the Church because making money out of religion was thievery.

Most impressed by your knowledge of the contents of the Bible - have the contents impacted your life or like me, you choose your own path regardless of the opinions of others.
 
If the statement has history then it can be seen as a threatening.
If you have been persecuted as a group then you have a right to be sensitive and perceive statements in the worst possible light.

Agree but if I perceive 'in the worst possible light' what is my remedy, am I entitled to tell others my view has some priority.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top