Religion Folau

Define more religious freedoms, give us some examples?

This is what I don't understand. They already have special rights to discriminate, WTF else do they want? How much more protection does it need?

Religion of all stripes has got in behind the ACL, scratch around you'll find it.
 

Socrates2

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 11, 2015
9,041
9,787
AFL Club
Richmond
How to be a hypocrite 101

Israel Folau has opened up about the battles he faced as a professional footballer.

The Wallabies fullback revealed he drank and partied to excess in his time in the NRL, particularly after moving from the Melbourne Storm to the Brisbane Broncos in 2009.

The 27-year-old admitted his ego got the better of him when he was a young rugby league star earning praise from all corners.


"I got caught up in all the party things and I guess I'd say my head was above the clouds.
"I just thought that I was untouchable.

"It got a lot worse when I moved back to Brisbane and played for the Broncos."


"It got really bad," Folau said. "I just got caught up in the alcohol, women and all that sort of stuff.
 

Herne Hill Hammer

Cancelled
10k Posts
Jun 22, 2008
24,580
21,272
AFL Club
Geelong
This is what I don't understand. They already have special rights to discriminate, WTF else do they want? How much more protection does it need?

Religion of all stripes has got in behind the ACL, scratch around you'll find it.

So really nothing is what you're saying? It's not about who is siding with who, you put up a hypothetical about groups supporting more religious freedoms, what sort of extra freedoms do you envisage? You must have something in mind or else you wouldn't have posted it up.
 

Opine

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 30, 2018
7,352
12,278
AFL Club
Carlton
You're looking at these discussion points through the angle of an apologist using pro-Christian rhetoric. I can argue that the strongest proponents of Western slavery were Christians, and they were completely justified taking that stance since their source material for ethics is the bible; refer Exodus 21:20-21, Exodus 21:2-6, Leviticus 25:44-46, Numbers 31:17-18 (sex slavery), Deuteronomy 20:10-14.

In the new testament, Jesus gave tacit support to slavery (Mt 18:23-25), and other NT writers urged slaves to serve their masters wholeheartedly (Ephesians 6:5-8, Colossians 3:22-24, 1Timothy 6:1-2, etc).

The Enlightenment and removing the yoke of Christianity led to the freedoms we have today. The fact that many Christians like Galileo and Mendel were responsible for great scientific discoveries is a moot point when it comes to arguing a link between xianity and science. In that time, Christianity was far more prominent in society than it is now, so naturally a large proportion of great minds were Christian. The church fought the advancement of science, and continues to do so, whenever it is in opposition to theological positions and values. How was Galileo treated by the church, for example?

Christian groups still seek to wield power and exert undue influence whenever possible. Look at the opposition to euthanasia, womens reproductive rights, gay marriage...every step of the way, the church is the largest obstacle in Western society to advancement in modern freedoms. In the US, 'God' is still infecting their money and their pledge of allegiance.
Undue influence? ummm ok.
 
So really nothing is what you're saying? It's not about who is siding with who, you put up a hypothetical about groups supporting more religious freedoms, what sort of extra freedoms do you envisage? You must have something in mind or else you wouldn't have posted it up.

Isn't this thread about Rugby Australia and their right to breach Folau for religious bigotry and discrimination? I wouldn't like to see that taken away particularly from a sporting organisation.
 
Jan 31, 2007
27,310
15,514
In N Out
AFL Club
Carlton
They're homophobic jerks mate. There's no place for it in this modern world.

What would you do if you had a gay family member? Would you tell them they are going to burn in hell? Good luck with that.

Billions of people were categorised as sinners in Folau’s post. Folau didn’t express any more aversion to same-sex partnerships than he did extramarital one’s, so to isolate “homosexuals” from his list is not rational. You and others have done that for him and then decry him for it. It’s just not rational. What would you call that? A homophobophobe?
 
Maybe Jones is a bit smarter than you and sees the broader picture. Your problem is that you think it's straight out homophobic, bigotry and therefore can't understand why gay people may be sticking up for Folau's side. It's a lot more than that.

I find it really difficult not to suspect partisan zealotry from anybody who sledged Abdel Magied but is now fiercely backing Folau.
 

Opine

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 30, 2018
7,352
12,278
AFL Club
Carlton
What would people on this thread say if they thought Hizb ut-Tahrir had allied with the Australian Christian Lobby in the drive for even more protections for religious freedom?
I think you're confusing the meaning of religion; as it relates to the source of the protections your objecting to. It incorporates the freedom to express anti religious ideals. You seem to be more concerned with advancing one ideology over another; this isn't overly differently to what Folau did is it? I'm seeing a great deal of overly thin skin in all this. We are a much more robust society than this.
 
Last edited:

Opine

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 30, 2018
7,352
12,278
AFL Club
Carlton
They're homophobic jerks mate. There's no place for it in this modern world.What would you do if you had a gay family member? Would you tell them they are going to burn in hell? Good luck with that.
Who are they?
 

Socrates2

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 11, 2015
9,041
9,787
AFL Club
Richmond
Billions of people were categorised as sinners in Folau’s post. Folau didn’t express any more aversion to same-sex partnerships than he did extramarital one’s, so to isolate “homosexuals” from his list is not rational. You and others have done that for him and then decry him for it. It’s just not rational. What would you call that? A homophobophobe?
He's been posting homophobic rubbish for a while now.Australia already has religious freedom, probably more so than any one country.
He didn't break any laws whatsover, he reneged on his word and his contract and was sacked by the sponsors. He is totally free to post his hateful messages. If he is so principled, why is he begging for money off people who can't afford it? He has probably 8 million dollars in the bank from his AFL and rugby salaries yet I sit in amazement at the conga line of backward hateful people rushing to defend him. The guy is a jerk, he can leave Australia and go live in the Philippines if he wants, they hate gays over there.
I'm surprised at how many people fall for this freedom of speech crap, he broke a contract not to be a hateful homophobe, that's why he was sacked.
Maybe if he wins his case, 'NTTAWWTta bashing' will come back into vogue .That would be great wouldn't it .
What sort of a-hole defends George Pell and Israel Filou? They are called hateful religious zealots and don't belong in this country.
 
I think you're confusing the meaning of religion; as it relates to the source of the protections your objecting to. It incorporates the freedom to express anti religious ideals. You seem to seem to be more concerned with advancing one ideology over another; this isn't overly differently to what Folau did is it? I'm seeing a great deal of overly thin skin in all this. We are a much more robust society than this.

I'm not confused nor am I confusing anything, my position is clear and I have also been consistent. I'd like to see religious organisations with less power to discriminate not more, I'd like to see it pushed back into the private sphere and it to start paying it's way like any other business in tax.
 

Lebbo73

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 20, 2014
18,274
19,358
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Liverpool
He's been posting homophobic rubbish for a while now.Australia already has religious freedom, probably more so than any one country.
He didn't break any laws whatsover, he reneged on his word and his contract and was sacked by the sponsors. He is totally free to post his hateful messages. If he is so principled, why is he begging for money off people who can't afford it? He has probably 8 million dollars in the bank from his AFL and rugby salaries yet I sit in amazement at the conga line of backward hateful people rushing to defend him. The guy is a jerk, he can leave Australia and go live in the Philippines if he wants, they hate gays over there.
I'm surprised at how many people fall for this freedom of speech crap, he broke a contract not to be a hateful homophobe, that's why he was sacked.
Maybe if he wins his case, 'NTTAWWTta bashing' will come back into vogue .That would be great wouldn't it .
What sort of a-hole defends George Pell and Israel Filou? They are called hateful religious zealots and don't belong in this country.
Wrong and misguided opinions alone. Definitely not hateful though. They are his religious beliefs and he felt that he was trying to save people. Btw, show me where he broke his contract? You’d probably think he was racist as well if he wasn’t coloured.
 
Wrong and misguided opinions alone. Definitely not hateful though. They are his religious beliefs and he felt that he was trying to save people. Btw, show me where he broke his contract? You’d probably think he was racist as well if he wasn’t coloured.

He deliberately trolled Rugby Australia Lebbo in reposting the same meme they objected to a year before. His motivation the second time was not to save anybody.
 

Socrates2

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 11, 2015
9,041
9,787
AFL Club
Richmond
I think you're confusing the meaning of religion; as it relates to the source of the protections your objecting to. It incorporates the freedom to express anti religious ideals. You seem to be more concerned with advancing one ideology over another; this isn't overly differently to what Folau did is it? I'm seeing a great deal of overly thin skin in all this. We are a much more robust society than this.
Rubbish,
Wrong and misguided opinions alone. Definitely not hateful though. They are his religious beliefs and he felt that he was trying to save people. Btw, show me where he broke his contract? You’d probably think he was racist as well if he wasn’t coloured.
He broke his contract, that's what the while thing is about, do your own research.
 

deltablues

Cancelled
Jul 16, 2013
1,891
1,950
Rapid City, South Dakota
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Sturt, Green Bay Packers
Look it up yourself Mr Lazy
As I've said above somewhere, contracts are not enforceable if they break the law. They are subject to the law. O/wise [for example] you could sue your hitman upon having failed to have slaughtered your mother in law.

If you are actually interested in the outcome [putting aside partisan politics] then focus on the Q - has Folau's statement/contract breached the law [statutory/common]?
 
Last edited:

Opine

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 30, 2018
7,352
12,278
AFL Club
Carlton
I'm not confused nor am I confusing anything, my position is clear and I have also been consistent. I'd like to see religious organisations with less power to discriminate not more, I'd like to see it pushed back into the private sphere and it to start paying it's way like any other business in tax.
Yes, your position appears to be consistently on the side of atheistic , or non-theistic belief.
In anycase, it's clear that your advocating for removal of freedom to publicly express a theistic belief.

Importantly, the originating source of the protection in your "WTF do they want" comment is arguably Article 18 of the ICCPR. The Human Rights Committee has interpreted the phrases religion and belief, in that Article, as incorporating theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief. That logically translates into a protection of the right to hold and express anti-theistic or atheistic beliefs, as well as the right to hold and express theistic belief; such as those which you're seemingly in preference of driving underground into the private realm.

If you're ok with limiting the expression of theistic beliefs, then you should also expect that the same limitations would apply to opposing beliefs. Otherwise, all you are really advocating for is the right of one ideology over another; and that is not what the protections seek to do.
 
Last edited:
Yes, your position appears to be consistently on the side of aesthetic, or non-theistic belief.
In anycase, it's clear that your advocating for removal of freedom to publicly express a theistic belief.

I'm not advocating for the removal of publicly expressing theistic belief, I'm backing up Rugby Australia for all the reasons I've already stated. If you're implying I must be an atheist you would be wrong, I wish I could be as sure as they seem to be but seeing how 'christians' have reacted to the Folau issue by the time this is over I might be ready.

Importantly, the originating source of the protection in your "WTF do they want" comment is arguably Article 18 of the ICCPR. The Human Rights Committee has interpreted the phrases religion and belief, in that Article, as incorporating theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief. That logically translates into a protection of the right to hold and express anti-theistic or theistic beliefs such as yours, as well as the right to hold and express atheistic belief; such as those which you're seemingly in preference of driving underground into the private realm.

We've already got that so I don't see the point. When I say I would like to see religious organisations pushed back into the private realm, I mean I'd like to see it's influence out of government and the workplace. That isn't driving it underground.

If you're ok with limiting the expression of theistic beliefs, then you should also expect that the same limitations would apply to your own beliefs. Otherwise, all you are really advocating for is the right of one ideology over another.

I'm cool with limiting harmful religious bigotry.
 

Socrates2

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 11, 2015
9,041
9,787
AFL Club
Richmond
As I've said above somewhere, contracts are not enforceable if they break the law. They are subject to the law. O/wise you could sue you hitman upon having failed to have slaughtered your mother in law.

If you are actually interested in the outcome [putting aside partisan politics] then focus on the Q - has Folau's statement/contract breached the law [statutory/common]?
Go away troll it's all on the public record what his contract was.Great to see you taking the side of homophobia as usual.
 
Back