Religion Folau

[raskolnikov]

Quite the slur isn’t it.

Outrageous how the left so easily throws smears like that around in public.

You have been smearing Alan Joyce for the last week.

 

[Rettolalia]

Just from Googling If you are in WA we may be talking about a different Paul Murray.

No we have access to Sky News over here.

We are talking about the same man.

 

[Rettolalia]

You have been smearing Alan Joyce for the last week.

Not on the grounds of his sexuality I haven’t.

 

[raskolnikov]

Not on the grounds of his sexuality I haven’t.

Problem is if she gets the bullet, the same ‘woke’ voices that created this circus will circle away from attacking Folau, and instead double back and now launch fire on RA, for daring to fire a women, toxic masculinity culture etc etc. Even though it was that ‘women’ bending over to the rainbow Irishman that caused all this.

Pretty sure you weren't using "rainbow Irishman" in an affectionate way here.

 

[Crankitup]

Just from Googling If you are in WA we may be talking about a different Paul Murray.

Yes. It's a different Paul Murray.

 

[Rettolalia]

Pretty sure you weren't using "rainbow Irishman" in an affectionate way here.

Whats the harm in that?

 

[ApplecrossWC]

I wonder who the bushfires will be after next Izzy? Idolaters, drunkards, maybe atheists are next in line.

Hopefully izzy's house is next in line.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Look, I'm sorry, are you saying that people should be allowed to say that Christians are evil and should be beheaded? Do you reckon that's within the bounds of freedom of speech? I would argue that in an intelligent and enlightened society, such hate speech and incitement to violence should be a criminal offence, which I believe in Australia it is. Persecuting someone or a group of people due to the colour of their skin, sexual orientation, religion is also against the law in Australia and rightly so I believe.

I'm saying the highlighted about as much as you were in the initial post that I responded to.

To say, "If some f****ng idiot said that all Christians are evil and should be beheaded, there would be initial outrage but it would quickly dissipate." is an absolutely ridiculous thing to say. Are you seriously suggesting that people should be allowed to say that because "it would quickly dissipate"? That's how propaganda works! You say something often enough and eventually some people believe it and then you have a situation develop that has severe consequences. Surely that is an easy concept to grasp?

See above and don't be such a drama queen.

I don't know if you remember or were around when the first images of children starving in Africa hit our television screens years ago? What happened was that there was initial shock and horror and people asked how this could happen? Well after a while, people became desensitised and the images of starving and dying kiddies would come on the telli and the same people who were initially shocked would say, "there are those kids again" and go back to eating there dinner as if it was "normal" and the horrific situation for those kiddies and the consequences that lead to that situation, just kept on happening because no one cared!

The reason they went back to eating their dinner is because after Live Aid, they found out how much of their donated money had and was being squandered.


The whole idea of the Discrimination Act is to protect everyone's civil rights; from Churches to individuals and to stop persecution of said organisations and individuals and central to that, is to stop f****ng idiots saying, for example, "Christians are evil and should be beheaded", "Homosexuals are an abomination and will burn in hell", "red headed people carry the flame of the devil", "people that say that they are Aboriginals but have blond hair and blue eyes are liars" etc etc. By outlawing these types of statements made in public, eventually, hopefully, will lead to people becoming more sensitive to others and stop perpetrating these lies and stop persecuting others. This surely can only benefit society?

There's nothing in the above paragraph worth commenting on.

Of course, there will always be some who are just nasty, bigoted and racist, some who deem themselves to be superior to others but the thing is, when these f***k wits pop up and start making these disgraceful statements, a decent, intelligent, enlightened society should just laugh at them, not take them seriously at all but that's the problem we have in Australia today. F**k head supremacists, racist and bigoted bastards are given air time and treated as if what they have to say is important and matters and to top it off, some members of the public who are normally decent, honourable people, fall for this, "I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend your right to say it" con job thinking that they are doing something noble. Well it's not noble to support and defend Supremacists or racists or bigots but unfortunately, this is what people are encouraged to do and they do it, without given one moments thought as to what they are actually doing.

They're given air time because people such as yourself give it to them. Imagine if you saw the headline saying that Folau said ……… and you just kept scrolling on by. You'd probably sleep better at night.

Using "I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend your right to say it" out of all context, leads to what happened in Nazi Germany where Goebbels was very successful in using the propaganda technique of saying something that is not true, repeating it again and again and again which other people start to repeat again and again and which eventually, leads to a general acceptance of something that is not true. A far better saying to adopt would be, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” (Edmund Burke, 1770).

Wow, we've gone from a dullard like Folau to Goebbels.

Rugby Australia should have been congratulated by the vast majority of decent, straight thinking Australians for standing up to a moronic Supremacist in their employ who used his high profile position within their organisation, to promote hatred and to persecute a section of the community who had done absolutely nothing wrong and broken no Australian Laws but it was the frothing minority, Jones, Bolt, Sky News, Murdoch hacks that turned what was a perfectly reasonable and legitimate stance by Rugby Australia, into some kind of significant "test case on freedom of religion and freedom of speech" and whipped some in the community into a frenzy and turned Folau into some kind of hero. If an AFL coach said via a press conference or twitter that homosexuals were an abomination and are going to burn in hell, do you reckon the AFL or the club that employs him would just ignore it? How about if they said that all Christians are evil and should be beheaded? Do you reckon that "there would be initial outrage but it would quickly dissipate."?

Rugby Australia should be ridiculed for their ineptness and accompanying jelly knees. When an AFL coach in his presser says what you're suggesting, let's come back and have a discussion about it.

How about an NRL/AFL player or coach getting on twitter and saying that pedophiles are just misunderstood and that they shouldn't be jailed or prosecuted but welcomed into our communities with open arms. Do you reckon that Bolt or Jones, Sky News, Murdoch press and all those in the community that got right behind Folau because all he did was exercise his "freedom of speech", do you reckon that they would stand up for the coach or player that was sacked by his club/AFL/NRL for saying that pedophiles are valuable members of our society? Do you reckon they would trot out the line, "I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend your right to say it"? Of course they wouldn't because that is absurd; just as absurd as having a go at Rugby Australia for sacking Folau over his disgraceful comments and by doing so, making it known to all and sundry that there is no place in their organisation for those who espouse vile and reprehensible ideals and ideas in 21st century Australia.

Paeodophilia is against the law. Let's come back and have a discussion about it when a NRL / AFL player or coach says what you're suggesting.

There are those in our society at present who seek to water down our Constitutional and legislative protections in order to allow some with outmoded and sectarian ideals, the freedom to exert their wishes and ideals upon all of us and use the Folaus of this world, to try and prosecute the case for watering down our Constitutional and legislative protections. They turn something that is a quite reasonable response to continually outrageous utterances that persecute others into an attack on a person's "freedom of speech" and the perpetrator(s) of such hate speech, into heroes.

Tell me in as few a words as possible how Folau persecuted anyone? Tell me how Folau was persecuted because of his religious beliefs?

I get paid out for making some of my posts rather long but I couldn't portray what I wanted to say in a couple of glib lines and it would have been rude to you to try and do so.

A lot of effort and not too much of it worth a lot or making a lot of sense.

 

[Carringbush2010]

How stupid does rugby Australia look now.

Yeah since their contradictory code of conduct policy now.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Hopefully izzy's house is next in line.

That would be arson, not an act of God - Izzy'll tell ya!

Is that Alan Joyce with a box of matches that I just saw............................?

 

[Kwality]

Great column from Paul Murray.

Where was Murray writing, link?

 

[Snake_Baker]

Hopefully izzy's house is next in line.

In the big scheme of things, Folau probably doesn't rate in the top 1 million arseholes in this country.

 

[Evolved1]

Guess the other side of your comments are those with an anti religion agenda ?

There is no agenda. I'm here to discuss and debate social issues because I enjoy doing so in the safer confines of the online world. I'm openly anti-theistic which may come through in my posts on the rare occasion.

 

[Evolved1]

By paying $8M.

Has that figure been confirmed?

 

[Rettolalia]

Has that figure been confirmed?

Figure subject to a confidentiality agreement

 

[Crankitup]

Where was Murray writing, link?

#6,326

 

[Evolved1]

Figure subject to a confidentiality agreement

His initial claim was $10 mil with an extra $4 mil of cream on the top for claims stemming from missed opportunities that were never going to happen like future captaincy and world cup wins.

In my opinion, the claimed payout of $8 mil is extremely unlikely. I think something in the vicinity of a payout of his contract is more likely, and online sources put that figure at $5 mil.

 

[Rettolalia]

His initial claim was $10 mil with an extra $4 mil of cream on the top for claims stemming from missed opportunities that were never going to happen like future captaincy and world cup wins.

In my opinion, the claimed payout of $8 mil is extremely unlikely. I think something in the vicinity of a payout of his contract is more likely, and online sources put that figure at $5 mil.

Thats what I suspect.

Anything between $5 and $8 mil is prob accurate.

But we will never know.

 

[Evolved1]

In the big scheme of things, Folau probably doesn't rate in the top 1 million arseholes in this country.

Even my physical arseh*le clenches up with an inferiority complex because of size of that behemoth arseh*le called Israel Folau.

You must know a lot of massive assholes.

 

[Crankitup]

Thats what I suspect.

Anything between $5 and $8 mil is prob accurate.

But we will never know.

I think we'll have a pretty good idea what it was when RA's annual report comes out.

 

[Evolved1]

Do these big beautiful Polynesian-Australian smiles say 'we were only paid out a measely $2.5m'? I think not. Those are $8m smiles my friend.

View attachment 790684

Those are rookie grins in this racket. I, myself, grin like that at least twice a day.

 

[Evolved1]

In their statement, RA said they could not tolerate Folau's controversial views. Paul Murray - "In other words, the boofheads complaining about purported discrimination chose intolerance as the antidote."

RA were tolerant and gave Folau many chances to meet somewhere in the middle. When Folau couldn't compromise, he was cut loose.

Negotiating a reasonable compromise with religious extremists isn't an easy task.

 

[Rettolalia]

RA were tolerant and gave Folau many chances to meet somewhere in the middle. When Folau couldn't compromise, he was cut loose.

Negotiating a reasonable compromise with religious extremists isn't an easy task.

Indeed.

 

[Crankitup]

RA were tolerant and gave Folau many chances to meet somewhere in the middle. When Folau couldn't compromise, he was cut loose.

Negotiating a reasonable compromise with religious extremists isn't an easy task.

RA apologised.

“The social media post reflected Mr Folau’s genuinely held religious beliefs, and Mr Folau did not intend to harm or offend any person when he uploaded the social media post,” RA said in its agreed statement. “While it was not Rugby Australia’s intention, Rugby Australia acknowledges and apologises for any hurt or harm caused to the Folaus.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In its non-legalistic and basic meaning, discrimination is the recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another. It’s one of the intellectual qualities that sets humans apart from less intelligent beings. Once again, RA chose to focus on the issue of “sexuality” — meaning homosexuality — when all of Australia now knows the player’s posting on Instagram was also aimed at drunks, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolators. RA decided to sanction its player because his social views did not accord with those they want to be seen to be supporting, in particular its powerful virtue-signalling sponsors like Qantas.

Tolerance is the human ability to accept the existence of opinions or behaviour that one dislikes. And preference is the liking for one option over another.
While I don’t hold Folau’s views, I prefer tolerance to discrimination. Folau published his comments to those who chose to follow him on Instagram, no one else. Don’t like them? Unfollow. End of story. I was hoping the case would get to court because there is a strong argument in Folau’s favour that would have made for an interesting adjudication on our freedoms.

RA has framed its whole action against Folau around the issue of homosexuality. However, the singular focus on his supposed discrimination against homosexuals is the very weakness in the argument. Folau’s post said: “Warning. Drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolators. Hell awaits you. Repent! Only Jesus saves.” The very fact that Folau included homosexuals among a wide group of others he regards as sinners is proof he did not discriminate against them.

 

[Evolved1]

RA apologised.

“The social media post reflected Mr Folau’s genuinely held religious beliefs, and Mr Folau did not intend to harm or offend any person when he uploaded the social media post,” RA said in its agreed statement. “While it was not Rugby Australia’s intention, Rugby Australia acknowledges and apologises for any hurt or harm caused to the Folaus.”

I don't understand your point tbh. That reads like a carefully worded fake apology written up by lawyers, with input from Folau, and agreed to by RA after several edits. It's bs.

You do realise that it's all for show, right?

Have you ever seen two 8yr old boys being forced to apologise to each other after a physical fight? I have, and it's a lot like that.