Religion Folau

Monkey King

Brownlow Medallist
Jan 31, 2007
24,672
10,093
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?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

shellyg

Spec Moderator
Dec 27, 2016
6,655
9,704
No Surrender
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
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

Premium Gold
Aug 30, 2018
2,740
4,787
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:

Socrates2

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 11, 2015
6,388
7,152
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, 'poofta 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.
 

shellyg

Spec Moderator
Dec 27, 2016
6,655
9,704
No Surrender
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
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
Suspended
Oct 20, 2014
11,973
7,241
AFL Club
Hawthorn
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, 'poofta 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.
 

shellyg

Spec Moderator
Dec 27, 2016
6,655
9,704
No Surrender
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
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
6,388
7,152
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.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Lebbo73

Brownlow Medallist
Suspended
Oct 20, 2014
11,973
7,241
AFL Club
Hawthorn
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.
How do you know what wacky religious types believe? He wasn’t trolling anyone.
 

deltablues

Club Legend
Jul 16, 2013
1,568
1,605
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

Premium Gold
Aug 30, 2018
2,740
4,787
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:

shellyg

Spec Moderator
Dec 27, 2016
6,655
9,704
No Surrender
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
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
6,388
7,152
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.
 

Slartibartfast

Club Legend
Jan 16, 2016
2,331
4,665
AFL Club
Melbourne
You are far too kind to RA, no prob with your take on reactive/active, you understand my clumsy attempt at expression.
We certainly disagree over RA, whether they were forced to do anything, almost certain to get clarity from the Court case.
ALL RA needed do was acknowledge two points of view, as a tolerant body they accommodate each to their own.
All Issy need to do was not vilify homosexuals.

Thats the problem, not RA.
 

Opine

Premium Gold
Aug 30, 2018
2,740
4,787
AFL Club
Carlton
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.



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.



I'm cool with limiting harmful religious bigotry.
I didn't intend to imply that you're an atheist; and besides it is irrelevant whether you are or not.
I intended to communicate that your position appears to be consistently on the side of the right to express an atheistic or non-theistic belief, and the preference to limit expression of theistic beliefs. I've amended my previous post so that it more clearly reflects this.

Our cumulative beliefs shape our government and our workplace; that's why we, as a nation, are having this important discussion. It's not conducive with our identity as a democratic and pluralist nation to drive expression of any idea underground.

I respect and appreciate your right to voice your concerns and beliefs; regardless of what they are.
 
Last edited:

Slartibartfast

Club Legend
Jan 16, 2016
2,331
4,665
AFL Club
Melbourne
Have you seen Raylene Castles comments about the Bible's/Christians? Tolerant is not exactly a word I would used.

As far as I can tell there was no process and it's even doubtful they spoke to him 12 months ago.
Here is an article after the meeting with RA in 2018 following his homophobic comments.
Interesting to see he said he would walk away from rugby which shows he knew his comments were in conflict with RA.


Issy wanted to play the knowledgeable hero but has just been shown to be a hate filled buffoon.
He wanted to convert the world to his stupid ideals and in doing so keep making comments which were homophobic and contravened RA policy.
 

Slartibartfast

Club Legend
Jan 16, 2016
2,331
4,665
AFL Club
Melbourne
Lol, you need to listen to Tim Costello my christian friend, a bigot is a bigot ,a homophobe is a homophobe and an ex-drunken womeniser is a hypocrite. Everyone knows that Filou and his wife are the two biggest jerks in Australia.
Tim Costello telling christians to pull there heads in.
But Reverend Costello doesn’t believe a Religious Freedom Act is necessary, calling for the debate to focus on “respect rather than rights”.
“I think we can coexist and that’s why I talk about respect rather than rights, with different beliefs and visions flourishing. That’s good for society. We don’t just look to the state or look to the individual.”


Respect!!!!! Hey Issy , have you read this?
 
Top Bottom