Religion Folau

[Sainteric]

Yassmin Abdul-Magied

On the job not in private and not for protected religious regions.

There is nothing remotely similar between the two other than the hypocrisy of the left on both issues

 

[M Malice]

Yes, but we are atheists because we grew up in a secular state that granted the freedom to formulate and express our own opinions. It would not have been so easy if we were born in a religious state.

Likewise, Folau also has the right to express his own beliefs.

Agree, as I have posted earlier Folau has every right to express his views, and anyone else has the right to challenge them, particularly when put forward in a public forum.

Nothing stopping him from continuing to post similar bigoted biblical tripe.

 

[Chief]

Sorry Pauline
Who lost their job?

This wasn't about a lost job. This is about:

Izzy comes through the front door off the street through a massive media pack, Castle and cronies slink in the back through a basement car park protected by security.

Good look RA

 

[Sainteric]

Folau come out the front door announces he is very disappointed an agreement couldn't be reached, but he will keep fighting for freedom for all of us

Castle scuttle back to the basement to disappear.

This circus is making RA look worse every minute.

 

[Sainteric]

This wasn't about a lost job. This is about:

It was correct yes?

Gill will be loving this it makes him look half reasonable running the afl

 

[Le Grille]

On the job not in private and not for protected religious regions.

There is nothing remotely similar between the two other than the hypocrisy of the left on both issues

Not really mate, she was sacked due to comments she made as was Izzy, I hate this being a left/right issues surely most people asses issues on their merits

 

[Mofra]

On the job not in private and not for protected religious regions.

There is nothing remotely similar between the two other than the hypocrisy of the left on both issues

They were both tweets.

This is a contractual issue. Nothing more, nothing less. The only hypocrisy here are the people who both damned Yassmin and support Folau.

 

[Chief]

It was correct yes?

Gill will be loving this it makes him look half reasonable running the afl

Huh?

 

[Monkey King]

You're getting into some deep and meaningful stuff there MK ie. what is the nature of our reality? Do we have free will? Do we exist in a simulation? Not the thread for that discussion though.

Maybe not a topic for this thread, but it’s no less at the core of my thinking as the biological basis of homosexuality may be for you. As much as we mightn’t like it, there is a biological basis for higher adultery among males than females. These men can’t choose not to sexually desire other women anymore than some can’t choose not to desire a same-sex partner.

The choice to act on the desire will be judged by a set of social standards they’re deemed to have agreed to. These standards have clearly begun to shift for homosexuality; perhaps the future will also see a shift in perceptions of non-monogamous relationships and Folau’s post would draw more outrage on behalf of the stigmatised adulterers.

I have little interest in issues surrounding where this sliding needle may sit at any given point in time. The only thing that makes me shift in my seat is when I see people actively trying to restrict and control others who think differently from them. Regardless of the noble intent, it’s a well trodden path to tyranny that is worth the price of putting up with idiots like Folau to avoid.

 

[M Malice]

Maybe not a topic for this thread, but it’s no less at the core of my thinking as the biological basis of homosexuality may be for you. As much as we mightn’t like it, there is a biological basis for higher adultery among males than females. These men can’t choose not to sexually desire other women anymore than some can’t choose not to desire a same-sex partner.

The choice to act on the desire will be judged by a set of social standards they’re deemed to have agreed to. These standards have clearly begun to shift for homosexuality; perhaps the future will also see a shift in perceptions of non-monogamous relationships and Folau’s post would draw more outrage on behalf of the stigmatised adulterers.

I have little interest in issues surrounding where this sliding needle may sit at any given point in time. The only thing that makes me shift in my seat is when I see people actively trying to restrict and control others who think differently from them. Regardless of the noble intent, it’s a well trodden path to tyranny that is worth the price of putting up with idiots like Folau to avoid.

Agree, I can easily put up with idiots like Folau, and he has to put up with idiots and good people calling him out.

 

[Le Grille]

So if I say Pell is going to hell then it’s ok, I’m allowed to criticise church figures for violating the terms and conditions of the bible?

 

[raskolnikov]

The only thing that makes me shift in my seat is when I see people actively trying to restrict and control others who think differently from them.

But isn't this what Folau is doing?

 

[Not Important]

They were both tweets.

This is a contractual issue. Nothing more, nothing less. The only hypocrisy here are the people who both damned Yassmin and support Folau.

right on. and folly suggesting his post was out of kindness. what a turd.

i see folly and r.a couldn't reach agreement. off to court we go.

 

[Monkey King]

Agree, I can easily put up with idiots like Folau, and he has to put up with idiots and good people calling him out.

Absolutely. The right to express is for all. I have no issue with people addressing his words with their words. His ideas with their ideas. Sounds pretty healthy to me. It’s when things go beyond that and livelihoods are taken away, and fundraisers get shut down, that it’s gone beyond simply “calling him out”.

 

[Sainteric]

They were both tweets.

This is a contractual issue. Nothing more, nothing less. The only hypocrisy here are the people who both damned Yassmin and support Folau.

They were both tweets is where any similarity ends. Yasmin did not post as a private person, Folau did. Yasmin posted a posted a horrible about returned soldiers, Folau quoted the bible. Folaus words were protected, Yasmin's weren't. Folau was sacked for his religious beleifs which is unlawful, Yasmin was not sacked because even though she admitted her post was hateful bigoted and inappropriate

 

[Kurve]

Not really mate, she was sacked due to comments she made as was Izzy, I hate this being a left/right issues surely most people asses issues on their merits

Scott McIntyre was also sacked from SBS for inappropriate Anzac Day tweets.

 

[Opine]

You understand the massive effort that went into shutting down extreme Islamic rhetoric over social media and the pressure that went on Australia's Imams? And why? What that rhetoric can lead to?
Hanan Dover lost her job over preaching against gay people at the university. I don't recall any protest.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

You make some very good points.

If we refer to s15 of the Vic Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act as a guide, which appears to incorporate the values which we've universally declared, in UDHR and ICCPR, as underpinning our nation, the right to express a belief protects not only favourable information or ideas; but also, amongst other things, unpopular ideas including those that ‘offend, shock or disturb. Noted, the right to express ideas is limited to the extent that it doesn't interfere with national security, public peace and safety, the rights and reputation of others, public health or public morality.

I'm assuming that your reference to extreme Islamic rhetoric relates to rhetoric invoking violence? If so, do you consider that the expression of a religious belief, proclaiming salvation via adherence to set of religious principles and citing a religiously inspired destination called 'hell," poses a threat to national security; and or threatens public peace and safety?

Do you consider that preclusion of a group, from a religiously inspired destination , namely "hell", literally removes the right of access to heaven; thereby effecting the reputation of others?

I think it's open to argue, as is already being done, that religious expression may interfere with public health and morality; I think this discussion should continue to take place.

Does the likelihood that a previous case failed to garner a particular level of public support mean that all future cases shouldn't garner a greater level of support?

 

[M Malice]

Absolutely. The right to express is for all. I have no issue with people addressing his words with their words. His ideas with their ideas. Sounds pretty healthy to me. It’s when things go beyond that and livelihoods are taken away, and fundraisers get shut down, that it’s gone beyond simply “calling him out”.

I disagree on the bolded if-

If Folau has agreed to an employment agreement that he would not post anti gay opinions like he posted on Instagram then Rugby Australia has the right to terminate his employment. Still to be decided in court by the look of it.

GoFundMe is a privately owned company it has every right to decide what they deem to be appropriate fund raising on their site IMO.

AGAIN- Nothing stopping Folau from continuing to post biblical tripe on social media or airing those views elsewhere. He found another host for his fund raising so no foul there.

 

[Monkey King]

But isn't this what Folau is doing?

No. It’s not. Folau posted a list of behaviours that, according to his belief system, have afterlife consequence. You are free to post that they don’t. No one has acted to stop you from thinking or saying what you believe.

 

[Monkey King]

I disagree on the bolded if-

Yes. We disagree on those points. And the courts will decide on one of them for us.

 

[RupieDupie]

No. It’s not. Folau posted a list of behaviours that, according to his belief system, have afterlife consequence. You are free to post that they don’t. No one has acted to stop you from thinking or saying what you believe.

Out of curiosity, where did he get this list from? Is this from his organisation? Is this list a certified list by his organisation?

 

[Snake_Baker]

Regardless of the noble intent, it’s a well trodden path to tyranny that is worth the price of putting up with idiots like Folau to avoid.

Bin-Go!

 

[Le Grille]

They were both tweets is where any similarity ends. Yasmin did not post as a private person, Folau did. Yasmin posted a posted a horrible about returned soldiers, Folau quoted the bible. Folaus words were protected, Yasmin's weren't. Folau was sacked for his religious beleifs which is unlawful, Yasmin was not sacked because even though she admitted her post was hateful bigoted and inappropriate

Hold up Folau was sacked for his comments not his religion you might think I’m splitting hairs here but there is a difference.

Here’s what I mean, folau used a one to many communication to state a group of people are going to hell, which is in it self portraying these groups in a negative light, based on them as a collective and not on their individual characteristics. One of these groups is subject to all matter of persecution.

These comments due to reaching a large group of people would likely increase the level of persecution this group faces from fans of folau and potentially followers of the church.

Can he believe these things ? Yes he can, it’s not my beliefs but whatever. Should he be able to condemn a group of others who experience regular persecution for a legal lifestyle ? Absolutely not.

Had he promoted the church, god et al I. A positive way without pointing out individual groups he’d still have a job and things will be groovy.

A business, his employer has policies to protect groups of people and promote inclusivity, that’s their choice as a business. He transgressed that policy once , was warned then he does it again. As this damages their particular business strategy and policy they are merely reserving their rights.

I don’t particularly mind that he is seeking judgement from the courts, I think while it’s a bit poor that he is crowdfunding but that’s his call just as it is anyone who chooses to allow or not allow him to use their service.

But this is not religious censorship, allowing comments on the ground of religion is a slippery slope to all manner of issues.

 

[RupieDupie]

Hold up Folau was sacked for his comments not his religion you might think I’m splitting hairs here but there is a difference.

Here’s what I mean, folau used a one to many communication to state a group of people are going to hell, which is in it self portraying these groups in a negative light, based on them as a collective and not on their individual characteristics. One of these groups is subject to all matter of persecution.

These comments due to reaching a large group of people would likely increase the level of persecution this group faces from fans of folau and potentially followers of the church.

Can he believe these things ? Yes he can, it’s not my beliefs but whatever. Should he be able to condemn a group of others who experience regular persecution for a legal lifestyle ? Absolutely not.

Had he promoted the church, god et al I. A positive way without pointing out individual groups he’d still have a job and things will be groovy.

A business, his employer has policies to protect groups of people and promote inclusivity, that’s their choice as a business. He transgressed that policy once , was warned then he does it again. As this damages their particular business strategy and policy they are merely reserving their rights.

I don’t particularly mind that he is seeking judgement from the courts, I think while it’s a bit poor that he is crowdfunding but that’s his call just as it is anyone who chooses to allow or not allow him to use their service.

But this is not religious censorship, allowing comments on the ground of religion is a slippery slope to all manner of issues.

If truth be told, Folau wasn't sacked for quoting The Bible, his Bible quote didn't even mention homosexuals...

 

[chelseacarlton]

I don’t value your opinion. Had the French, British and Roman Catholic Church not condemned or outlawed slavery, the chances are that Christian groups in the U.S.A. would never have started pushing for abolition.

Nor I yours.
Lol
Yes because the British French and Catholic Church are the pillars of freedom and cultural colonialism.