Religion Folau

[FrakturedHalo]

There is no parallels with 1984

There is, I’m more looking at it in terms of an authority figure/organisation as opposed to strictly “the state”

Or ok fine, scrap that parallel then, make it reminiscent of the Soviet republic or mao’s china

 

[Slartibartfast]

There is, I’m more looking at it in terms of an authority figure/organisation as opposed to strictly “the state”

Or ok fine, scrap that parallel then, make it reminiscent of the Soviet republic or mao’s china

What garbage.
We have rules in all walks of life that have to be obeyed or there are consequences. These work place rules are the norm and are not an exception.

We have rules here but you dont see anyone calling Chief , chairman Chief or comrade chief.

 

[FrakturedHalo]

1984 was a book about the power of the state, the state’s use of propaganda, and the power of the state to exert control over its citizen’s thoughts and actions.

The Folau issue has got nothing to do with the state, it’s about an employer’s relationship with their employee.

See my prior reply to another poster re it not being the state - as I am well aware - it was a tongue in cheek musing about an authority figure - in this case being the AFL rather than the state - exerting control over its citizens’ thoughts. Substitute employees/citizens as you will it was merely a musing.

As for the exert control over their thoughts with propaganda bit, what would you call this?

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...after-liking-folau-tweet-20190419-p51fnj.html


Not that I agree with folaus post or anything I don’t, I just find it an interesting evolution of society that the mass reaction - real or manufactured - generated and proliferated on social media has the power to cause someone to lose their ability to earn an income and lose their job. Cos that’s what this is, it’s not a brand ambassadorship that Folau has lost, it’s his job. And I don’t think that’s a step forward for society

 

[FrakturedHalo]

What garbage.

We have rules here but you dont see anyone calling Chief , chairman Chief or comrade chief.

What are you talking about??

 

[Oprah From Tigerland]

If you choose to live that lifestyle you must face the consequences even if that means great shame and eternal damnation. That’s why I could never become a bible thumper.

 

[Cuzz09]

Aren't Christians Idolators too?

Liers? Mate everyone lies.

Weird.



On SM-G925I using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[76woodenspooners]

See my prior reply to another poster re it not being the state - as I am well aware - it was a tongue in cheek musing about an authority figure - in this case being the AFL rather than the state - exerting control over its citizens’ thoughts. Substitute employees/citizens as you will it was merely a musing.

As for the exert control over their thoughts with propaganda bit, what would you call this?

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...after-liking-folau-tweet-20190419-p51fnj.html

I think there’s some different things going on here ...

Firstly, I don’t think the AFL has exerted any control over Ablett and Kennedy’s thoughts (as in the ‘Thought Police’j. There’s no suggestion that the AFL has made any attempt to re-educate Abblett and Kennedy about the relationship between homosexuality and hell. What the AFL appears to have done is educate them about their public expression of their beliefs, as in “Your personal beliefs are your personal beliefs, and when they diverge from the AFL’s values of inclusiveness you’re not entitled to proselytise your personal beliefs”

Secondly, Australia doesn’t have the freedom of speech explicitly enshrined in its constitution in the way the US does with its first amendment. Nevertheless, even in the US where the first amendment is sacred, there are three exceptions to it, namely (1) Obscenity, (2) Child Pornography and (3) Threats öf violence. In the US it’d probably be a complex issue of constitutional law about whether somebody expressing their religious beliefs in the way Folau did could fall foul of the obscenity category (1). Don’t know. These things change over time and evolve as society evolves. For example, the first amendment protections around expressing opinions about African Americans isn’t what it would have been even 40 years ago.

Thirdly, there can be conflict between institutions of the church and institutions of the state. We saw this last year with the plebiscite where there was conflict between those who saw marriage as an instrument of the church (and thus bound by the rules of the ancient church) and those who saw marriage as an instrument of society (and thus bund by the values of modern society). Ditto Folau and his concept of hell, and whilst in his own head he might be thinking about his own personal hell, or the hell of his church ... hell is a term that also has meaning in secular society.

Not that I agree with folaus post or anything I don’t, I just find it an interesting evolution of society that the mass reaction - real or manufactured - generated and proliferated on social media has the power to cause someone to lose their ability to earn an income and lose their job. Cos that’s what this is, it’s not a brand ambassadorship that Folau has lost, it’s his job. And I don’t think that’s a step forward for society

Folau is a high profile person and this is a high profile case and he can probably rub a few coins together to put food on the table and a roof over his head. However this is now happening all through society to ordinary people who haven’t been paid millions of dollars to run around a paddock with a pigskin. Read this

It goes further, here in Sydney recently there was a high profile case of somebody who was fired for getting drunk at a work Christmas party. Now in that case the Fair Work Commission ruled that it was unfair, but the company involved is actually appealing the decision.

Perhaps it’s more ‘Brave New World’ rather than ‘1984’?

 

[Slartibartfast]

What are you talking about??

After you made a silly reference to 1984 you then went on to refer to Mao and soviet Russia .
“make it reminiscent of the Soviet republic or mao’s china”

Both ridiculously out of touch comments.

Basic rules which Issy cannot follow and will now pay the price.

 

[Gough]

This whole thing has become a new front in the culture war. You'd think the religious right in Australia would get the message at some point.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Great story but...
‘Why should Issy be able to discriminate one the basis of sexuality after he has been formally told not to and signed a contract saying he wouldn’t???

Still hiding behind the old, 'but he had a contract' defense?

Just say you hate Christians and everything they say, believe in and stand for and be done with it.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Still hiding behind the old, 'but he had a contract' defense?

Just say you hate Christians and everything they say, believe in and stand for and be done with it.

Haha, hiding behind nothing. This is what this thread is about him saying he would not do it and signing a contract as such.
Think the simplicity is confusing you.

Don’t hate religion,just hate the hypocrisy of them. Hate that they confuse belief with fact.
Stop playing the victim, if you wish to put all your eggs in to some fractured fairytale you have to live with the criticism that comes with it.

 

[Evolved1]

Still hiding behind the old, 'but he had a contract' defense?

Just say you hate Christians and everything they say, believe in and stand for and be done with it.

If I get sacked for breaking the terms of my employment contract, should I tell my employer that they're discriminating against me because they hate atheists? Lol

Fundies are an odd bunch, whatever their religious flavour of choice.

Did you see the Muslim who refused to acknowledge Australian law when dragged to court...all on the basis that his faith superseded all other forms of law? You're the Christian equivalent.

The rational citizens of this great nation enjoy laughing at your stupidity. Cheers.

 

[Evolved1]

This whole thing has become a new front in the culture war. You'd think the religious right in Australia would get the message at some point.

Why would they? You're looking through a rational viewpoint rather than the eyes of faith.

When the public agree with the religious right, that's proof God has given them favour amongst the people.
When the majority disagree with them, it's proof they're right because the unrighteous can't accept the truth.

All evidence leads to the same conclusion. That's how faith works.

I'm a former board member of an AOG Christian church, now atheist.

 

[Evolved1]

I’m assuming you’re too young to have read 1984

I'm assuming you're too young to understand it.

 

[Evolved1]

Hmm, when their thoughts have been written down so everyone can see them?

Galileo? Sentenced to life imprisonment for daring to suggest that the earth goes round the sun....I can come up with heaps more if you want

Just like I said; nobody has been convicted because of their thoughts.

Do you have a point of disagreement that you want to debate?

 

[FrakturedHalo]

After you made a silly reference to 1984 you then went on to refer to Mao and soviet Russia .
“make it reminiscent of the Soviet republic or mao’s china”

Both ridiculously out of touch comments.

Basic rules which Issy cannot follow and will now pay the price.

Sorry, can you please explain these “rules” as you say they are, that Folau has broken, which makes him deserved of termination of his employment??

 

[jwikked]

Sorry, can you please explain these “rules” as you say they are, that Folau has broken, which makes him deserved of termination of his employment??

His contract likely has clauses that he must follow. Bringing the game into disrepute, for one. There's no doubt a social media policy too.
I've no problem with him sharing his opinion, unlike most people on here I guess, but if his contract specifically says he can't put things like that on social media, then they have every right to sack the guy.
It's nothing to do with infringing his freedom of speech (which we don't have in Australia, anyway) but everything to do with the rules set out by his employer.
If it were up to me, they wouldn't have clauses like that at all.. But they do.

 

[FrakturedHalo]

I'm assuming you're too young to understand it.

No I’m not too young to understand it, unfortunately it seems some people lack the faculties to be able to take the main concept of the book that Orwell was communicating, that being that the danger totalitarianism poses to society and the degree of control a regime can acquire by seeking to rid people of independent thoughts and beliefs and obtain complete power over them by acquiring total belief and love for their sanctioned propaganda messages, and apply it to a modern day scenario

 

[FrakturedHalo]

His contract likely has clauses that he must follow. Bringing the game into disrepute, for one. There's no doubt a social media policy too.
I've no problem with him sharing his opinion, unlike most people on here I guess, but if his contract specifically says he can't put things like that on social media, then they have every right to sack the guy.
It's nothing to do with infringing his freedom of speech (which we don't have in Australia, anyway) but everything to do with the rules set out by his employer.
If it were up to me, they wouldn't have clauses like that at all.. But they do.

Some good points here, I find it both amusing and concerning that some commenting in this thread appear unable to discuss the issue in a rational and logical manner based on specific facts (and not just vague sweeping statements like “rules”) as you have been able to here, shows it can be done!

I would be very surprised if there was some kind of specific clause or item in his contract prohibiting him from expressing publicly his religious convictions, on social media or otherwise. I just can’t see that kind of thing being allowed in a modern employment contract, let alone anyone - much less a person known to be of strong faith like Folau - actually signing such a thing. Which eliminates any clear grounds for terminating his employment on the basis of his tweet. Which realistically would then only leave that he’s in breach of any one or possibly more of the leagues general policies they require employees/players/clubs whoever to abide by, which would mean they’d have to prove that by tweeting what he did it breached [insert policy here] specifically which has then had the effect of [insert causative event here] which has brought the game into disrepute, as you correctly mentioned. Tbh I can’t think of any of the leagues published policies, except for maybe their inclusion policy, that is going to have any legs to stand on from a legal perspective as grounds for rightful termination of his contract? Moral doesn’t equal legal, most people seem to forget that

 

[bresker]

Just like I said; nobody has been convicted because of their thoughts.

Do you have a point of disagreement that you want to debate?

I’m not being capricious; I’m confused. Folau didn’t keep his thoughts inside his head - he wrote them down on his computer & published them. If he was a private individual sharing his thoughts with a few mates it wouldn’t have caused much fuss.

He hasn’t been convicted of a crime anyway. Many people have been convicted when publishing their thoughts via the libel laws. Obviously these don’t apply to Folau as he’s got it in for the entire human race rather than individuals.

Having read some of the insightful opinions in this thread, I’ve changed my mind and decided that he should keep his job. We all have views that others find objectionable. Compassion and mercy are in short supply in this increasingly polarised world. we’re only just getting to grips with social media and the internet. 20 years ago this wasn’t even a thing.

 

[Gough]

Cheika said it best when he said that when Folau plays for the Wallabies he represents all Australians.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Sorry, can you please explain these “rules” as you say they are, that Folau has broken, which makes him deserved of termination of his employment??

He signed a work place contract based oh the Australian human rights commission that he would not discriminate based on sexuality. Where have you been hiding for the last 30 years?? Keep in mind he was told about this the previous year but old Issy knew better and he had to grandstand his ridiculous comments coz he believes it.

Breaking a contract is a rule but more importantly you cannot discriminate on many facets of life. Telling a homosexual he will burn in hell is olne of them.

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/employers/good-practice-good-business-factsheets/sex-discrimination
https://www.humanrights.gov.au/empl...xual-orientation-gender-identity-and-intersex

 

[Slartibartfast]

No I’m not too young to understand it, unfortunately it seems some people lack the faculties to be able to take the main concept of the book that Orwell was communicating, that being that the danger totalitarianism poses to society and the degree of control a regime can acquire by seeking to rid people of independent thoughts and beliefs and obtain complete power over them by acquiring total belief and love for their sanctioned propaganda messages, and apply it to a modern day scenario

Haha, your still on this Orwellian fantasy .
They are just rules , like you cant murder, you cant go through red lights, and like you cant discriminate on the basis of sexuality.

 

[FrakturedHalo]

He signed a work place contract based oh the Australian human rights commission that he would not discriminate based on sexuality. Where have you been hiding for the last 30 years?? Keep in mind he was told about this the previous year but old Issy knew better and he had to grandstand his ridiculous comments coz he believes it.

Breaking a contract is a rule but more importantly you cannot discriminate on many facets of life. Telling a homosexual he will burn in hell is olne of them.

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/employers/good-practice-good-business-factsheets/sex-discrimination
https://www.humanrights.gov.au/empl...xual-orientation-gender-identity-and-intersex

Lol, where have I been the past 30 years? Please tell me exactly how you know for a fact what is contained in Folau’s contract of employment, because if you don’t you are really drawing some long bows with your claims.

Whilst you’re at it, please explain to me also what and how his tweet is discriminating against anyone? Do you know the meaning of the word?

He is also not in the slightest telling anyone they are going to burn in Hell, before you make such silly and ignorant remarks I suggest you go and reread his actual tweet and do a cursory google search on the common interpretation of that passage from Corinthians and how it is meant to be interpreted, scripture is allegory it is not meant to be interpreted literally.

 

[FrakturedHalo]

Haha, your still on this Orwellian fantasy .
They are just rules , like you cant murder, you cant go through red lights, and like you cant discriminate on the basis of sexuality.

Lol please, do yourself a favour and before bleating rubbish about these abitrary “rules” you might want to go and actually read up on what constitutes unlawful discrimination under the Acts you yourself have helpfully posted above, I’m assuming for what you think is my benefit but clearly you aren’t at all familiar with them yourself. Try not to confuse yourself either by lumping it in with your other “rules” like the criminal offences you have quoted, they’re in fact not the same at all.