Religion Folau

[Ron The Bear]

Why should religion be a free pass on discriminating against others?

Well that's another of the issues raised.

 

[nobbyiscool]

Why? You are stating a deeply-held belief based on scripture. If quoting religious texts on social media is forbidden, where does it end?

So the guy who wants to ban all Muslim immigration is now defending ones right to their religion and religious texts?

What could this contradiction possibly be based on?

It's off topic anyway - as has been stated a number of times in this thread, it's not about freedom of religion, it's about going against his employment contract despite already being warned, when his conduct was contrary to the codes values and a threat to their sponsors.

 

[Ron The Bear]

So the guy who wants to ban all Muslim immigration is now defending ones right to their religion and religious texts?

What could this contradiction possibly be based on?

Once we allow them in, they have the same rights as the rest of us. Maybe more.

 

[Upgrayedd]

Probably not since you're inciting violence.

“This is what the Lord Almighty says... ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)

Why can the bible/qoran incite violence and genocide but I can't?

 

[Ron The Bear]

“This is what the Lord Almighty says... ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)

Why can the bible/qoran incite violence and genocide but I can't?

Did Folau quote those tracts? Do Christians in general practice them?

Are we going to put the Bible on trial?

 

[Occidental]

Why? You are stating a deeply-held belief based on scripture. If quoting religious texts on social media is forbidden, where does it end?

The Law must take precedence over all religious beliefs. Our law givers are elected to govern. They represent all of us and if the majority are unhappy with them, then they can be replaced. Religious leaders are not appointed by the people. They do not represent us and thus should have no say over us.
You personally can believe whatever you like, but when it runs counter to our secular laws, then the law must prevail.
What is the alternative, that our society recognises scripture as law?
We are not going back to the Dark Ages.

 

[kranky al]

It is interesting that the most outraged people are the ones who dont believe in it.

So why care ?

Atheists are happy to mock sky fairies, but not so happy when told they are going to an imaginary hot place.

We wouldnt feel the need to mock sky fairies if the people who believed in sky fairies would

A) f}#% right off from insisting that their sky fairies rules be the laws of the land - you are welcome to worship whoever you want - you are not welcome to insist that we obey his/hers/ its/ strictures.

And

B) letting the skyfairies chief spokesmen get away with molesting kids - not reporting them to police and indeed moving them around so they can do it to more kids. Thus ignoring the rules of the land that are good.

 

[Ron The Bear]

The Law must take precedence over all religious beliefs. Our law givers are elected to govern. They represent all of us and if the majority are unhappy with them, then they can be replaced. Religious leaders are not appointed by the people. They do not represent us and thus should have no say over us.
You personally can believe whatever you like, but when it runs counter to our secular laws, then the law must prevail.
What is the alternative, that our society recognises scripture as law?
We are not going back to the Dark Ages.

Agree in principle. Unless one side backs down, that is what's going to be tested (I expect there will be a resolution before it gets to court). But if RA's stance was to be upheld legally, it would have major implications for all religions in Australia and free speech generally.

 

[CharacterFirst]

 

[Slartibartfast]

Agree in principle. Unless one side backs down, that is what's going to be tested (I expect there will be a resolution before it gets to court). But if RA's stance was to be upheld legally, it would have major implications for all religions in Australia and free speech generally.

Churches will still be able to have the right to say it opposes homosexuality.
It’s members once they have signed an employment contract which is inclusive and does not allow for discrimination based on sexuality can rightfully be sacked if they do.

This where Issy was silly , his deliberate ploy to be provocative is what has got him in trouble.
If he had posted “my personal opinion is i am against homosexuality” he may have got away with it as it is just that, personal opinion and that in itself is not discrimatory IMO. It does not imply homosexuality is wrong or evil but just says i don’t approve of it myself .
To come out and list it as one of the things which get a free ticket to hell was plain stupid, especially when you consider he had been warned about saying these things the previous years.
His freedom of speech has not been impaired. His decision to make a statement as fact is what has got him in strife.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Churches will still be able to have the right to say it opposes homosexuality.

Once the ball starts rolling, nobody can be sure where it will end. How can you say with certainty that delivering a sermon that condemns homosexuality will not be considered discriminatory?

If he had posted “my personal opinion is i am against homosexuality” he may have got away with it as it is just that, personal opinion and that in itself is not discrimatory IMO. It does not imply homosexuality is wrong or evil but just says i don’t approve of it myself .

Disagree completely. That would be like saying "I don't like Asians".

He's not opposed to homosexuality for the sake of it, and has provided the basis for his views.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Once the ball starts rolling, nobody can be sure where it will end. How can you say with certainty that delivering a sermon that condemns homosexuality will not be considered discriminatory?


Disagree completely. That would be like saying "I don't like Asians".

He's not opposed to homosexuality for the sake of it, and has provided the basis for his views.

I agree with your first point. As the world moves forward all religions will endure further struggles with being relevant and maintaining respect within the community.
I think this change will be slow though, generational.

My point being his absolute statement you will end up in hell left the authorities with no wriggle room for interpretation or opinion. He knew this was provocative and they had no choice but to act.

 

[Socrates2]

If you want to be homophobic then suffer the consequences. It's bad enough that in a supposed secular society, that religions get tax breaks and government school funding more than other schools. Religions are now causing more harm than good in society if you consider all the homophobia, paedophilia, refugee bashing by Christians, anti science on climate change, denial of evolution, attacking people who get an abortion, Andrew Bolt, The Australian newspaper Christians ,women's rights ect. Folou is an example of the NRL not clamping down earlier and pandering to moronic religious beliefs.

 

[Ron The Bear]

My point being his absolute statement you will end up in hell left the authorities with no wriggle room for interpretation or opinion. He knew this was provocative and they had no choice but to act.

Even if objectors have seized upon a single word, it was a general entreaty for sinners (i.e. all of us) to repent. He claimed we're all destined for hell unless we accept Jesus. We're all free to choose not to be outraged.

 

[Ron The Bear]

If you want to be homophobic then suffer the consequences. It's bad enough that in a supposed secular society, that religions get tax breaks and government school funding more than other schools. Religions are now causing more harm than good in society if you consider all the homophobia, paedophilia, refugee bashing by Christians, anti science on climate change, denial of evolution, attacking people who get an abortion, Andrew Bolt, The Australian newspaper Christians ,women's rights ect. Folou is an example of the NRL not clamping down earlier and pandering to moronic religious beliefs.

What happened to your previous post? Second thoughts? Or modded out?

 

[Slartibartfast]

Even if objectors have seized upon a single word, it was a general entreaty for sinners (i.e. all of us) to repent. He claimed we're all destined for hell unless we accept Jesus. We're all free to choose not to be outraged.

Yes but a single word that included something he said he would not discriminate against, sexuality.
It may have been part of a group of classes that would suffer the same fate but he had been told explicitly the previous year this was a no go area.
His choice to be provocative and not be mindful of his contractual obligations put the rugby bosses in a difficult position.
They were told by sponsors that this kind of reference would jeopardise there financial support.
Rugby is not in a position to sacrifice sponsorship for the sake of one players idealistic beliefs.
The game is bigger than one player.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Yes but a single word that included something he said he would not discriminate against, sexuality.
It may have been part of a group of classes that would suffer the same fate but he had been told explicitly the previous year this was a no go area.
His choice to be provocative and not be mindful of his contractual obligations put the rugby bosses in a difficult position.
They were told by sponsors that this kind of reference would jeopardise there financial support.
Rugby is not in a position to sacrifice sponsorship for the sake of one players idealistic beliefs.
The game is bigger than one player.

Well that's the crux of the matter, really. The constitution provides some protection for free exercise of religion. Whether his contract violates that right remains to be seen.

 

[Socrates2]

What happened to your previous post? Second thoughts? Or modded out?

Thanks for your interest Ron.I don't put anything on the main board that any individual mod might not like, for fear of being suspended.I can't remember what I posted but I deleted it as I thought this was the Bay.I hope this reply is to your satisfaction Ron.

 

[Socrates2]

Probably not since you're inciting violence.

Isn't saying that you're going to hell, a place of unending torture and pain, an incitement to violence as well?

 

[Buzzasto DaSilva]

I remember when I heard that we were chasing Buddy Franklin, I was disappointed as I thought it would stunt the development of Israel Folau in our forward line.

2012 was a weird, weird time.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Thanks for your interest Ron.I don't put anything on the main board that any individual mod might not like, for fear of being suspended.I can't remember what I posted but I deleted it as I thought this was the Bay.I hope this reply is to your satisfaction Ron.

Didn't bother me except I had a nice reply typed up when it disappeared.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Isn't saying that you're going to hell, a place of unending torture and pain, an incitement to violence as well?

He's just saying you're going, it's a fait accompli. Not that he'll send you there or someone else should send you there.

 

[Socrates2]

He's just saying you're going, it's a fait accompli. Not that he'll send you there or someone else should send you there.

Oh right ,what a top bloke he is.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Oh right ,what a top bloke he is.

Maybe hell's not so bad, Mitch McGovern volunteered to go there.

 

[Evolved1]

Do they want the money that comes with the gig?

In this case, Folaus comments could very well cost RA a lot of money in Corporate sponsorship dollars.

Is there some reason it's fair his employer should be left out of pocket every time he wants to breach his employment contract?

It's that simple. The lesson here is to not shit where you eat.