Religion Folau

Remove this Banner Ad

Evolved1 said:
I was only discussing his beliefs and his right to share them, but I see your point.

If a religious believer posted on social media that black people have a future in Hell unless they change their skin colour, and that post resulted in their employment being jeopardized, would you support their rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion?
Click to expand...

I would support their rights to tweet it , I would also think they are a ******* idiots. I honestly prefer people not being scared to tell me their true beliefs, it makes it a hell of a lot easier to judge people. I think there are lines that can be crossed and there are laws in place to account for that, if no laws are broken I fail to see how people can be punished for their beliefs. If it is a breach of contract argument I believe that belongs in the courts.

People always talk about the suicide rate in the gay community and bring that up as a reason to protect them from anything offensive. Well lets look at the suicide rate of men compared to woman . Men commit around 75% of all suicides but I don't see anyone attacking nut job feminists like Clementine FORD or Van BADHAM for contributing to the Male suicide rate and calling for their jobs.
 
CheapCharlie said:
1 Corinthians 6:9
Click to expand...
This indicates that the 'quote' is from the alleged writings of Paul of Tarsus. In fact, there is no record of either he or Jesus mentioning the word, 'homosexual'. I know this is nitpicking, but this is a common misunderstanding of what the bible contains.

Paul was the first, and greatest, professional public relations operative. He came to this in a fit of guilt, caused by his previous denial of the divinity and miraculous works of Jesus. His self-revelation on the road to Damascus changed the course of the promotion of the Jesus story. His subsequent promotional activities put Joseph Goebbels to shame.

Paul never met Jesus, so had no first-hand knowledge of him. It wasn't until the second century, in the year of our Lord (another example of the effectiveness of Paul's unrelenting campaign) that the christian church accepted/promoted his works as being a 'reliable' record of the jesus story, putting him on the same level of knowledge as those who actually met jesus. All of Paul's writings were meant as compensation for his previous lack of belief. There is nobody more devout or obsessive than a convert. Some of the works attributed to him were subsequently found to have not been written by him at all.

His alleged reference to, "men sleeping with men" has had so many disparate interpretations and conflicting translations placed upon it as to render any hope of finding out what was actually meant or written ludicrous.

Now, I'm no biblical scholar, but the shallow and simple assessment I've made here is not even contemplated by those such a Foolau. Thinking is not at the forefront of their minds (pin intended). Their only interest is in being able to learn, by rote, the black squiggles on a page. Any deeper analysis is beyond them and of no interest anyway. They think they know, because they have been inculcated from birth with a story - for them, THE ONLY story. Their parents and the structured churches wouldn't lie to them about a such an important topic, would they? They, and the book, are irrefutable proof of the righteousness of their obsession.

To hang ones hat on Paul's confected meanderings as a record of what was allegedly said by jesus is no basis for the certainty embraced by those such as Fouloo.

He is not put out about the prospect of being thrown out of football. Martyrs go straight to heaven. This is his real endgame - a rolled gold lunatic, with a vicious bent, topped off with a tendency to self-flagellation.

End of rant. Sorry, I get a bit wound up when I encounter those who deny their human existence by living their lives in baseless, deluded and unthinking certainty that theirs is a 'special' personal relationship with a man who has been dead for over 2,000 years. Therein lies egocentric madness and a sordid obsession with necrophilia.
 
Echoes said:
Put your coffee down....









I added the last few letters for dramatic effort 🤫.
Click to expand...

Perhaps so, but a cursory google search suggests this is now in common vernacular! In fact, they are actually reserving their rights to come up with many and more new identities in the future as they see fit:

• L.G.B.T (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) and. • L.G.B.T.Q.Q.I.A (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual) The PLUS (+) in our name ensures that we will always be inclusive of all identities to make our community feel welcomed and that nobody is left out.
Why the Plus — MY LGBT PLUS

Well you can’t say they are not inclusive! I have to say I question the extra Q for Questioning...if you are questioning then why attribute a label at all, in fact why even let your sexuality define you at all really? It kinda flies in the face of the fundamental basis for the progressive movement for equality in that people shouldn’t be defined by their sexuality/race/gender/religion etc etc we are all equal as human beings...isn’t that the point?
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

skilts said:
This indicates that the 'quote' is from the alleged writings of Paul of Tarsus. In fact, there is no record of either he or Jesus mentioning the word, 'homosexual'. I know this is nitpicking, but this is a common misunderstanding of what the bible contains.

Paul was the first, and greatest, professional public relations operative. He came to this in a fit of guilt, caused by his previous denial of the divinity and miraculous works of Jesus. His self-revelation on the road to Damascus changed the course of the promotion of the Jesus story. His subsequent promotional activities put Joseph Goebbels to shame.

Paul never met Jesus, so had no first-hand knowledge of him. It wasn't until the second century, in the year of our Lord (another example of the effectiveness of Paul's unrelenting campaign) that the christian church accepted/promoted his works as being a 'reliable' record of the jesus story, putting him on the same level of knowledge as those who actually met jesus. All of Paul's writings were meant as compensation for his previous lack of belief. There is nobody more devout or obsessive than a convert. Some of the works attributed to him were subsequently found to have not been written by him at all.

His alleged reference to, "men sleeping with men" has had so many disparate interpretations and conflicting translations placed upon it as to render any hope of finding out what was actually meant or written ludicrous.

Now, I'm no biblical scholar, but the shallow and simple assessment I've made here is not even contemplated by those such a Foolau. Thinking is not at the forefront of their minds (pin intended). Their only interest is in being able to learn, by rote, the black squiggles on a page. Any deeper analysis is beyond them and of no interest anyway. They think they know, because they have been inculcated from birth with a story - for them, THE ONLY story. Their parents and the structured churches wouldn't lie to them about a such an important topic, would they? They, and the book, are irrefutable proof of the righteousness of their obsession.

To hang ones hat on Paul's confected meanderings as a record of what was allegedly said by jesus is no basis for the certainty embraced by those such as Fouloo.

He is not put out about the prospect of being thrown out of football. Martyrs go straight to heaven. This is his real endgame - a rolled gold lunatic, with a vicious bent, topped off with a tendency to self-flagellation.

End of rant. Sorry, I get a bit wound up when I encounter those who deny their human existence by living their lives in baseless, deluded and unthinking certainty that theirs is a 'special' personal relationship with a man who has been dead for over 2,000 years. Therein lies egocentric madness and a sordid obsession with necrophilia.
Click to expand...

Only a Sith deals in absolutes :p
 
Downhill Skier said:
I would support their rights to tweet it , I would also think they are a ******* idiots. I honestly prefer people not being scared to tell me their true beliefs, it makes it a hell of a lot easier to judge people. I think there are lines that can be crossed and there are laws in place to account for that, if no laws are broken I fail to see how people can be punished for their beliefs. If it is a breach of contract argument I believe that belongs in the courts.

People always talk about the suicide rate in the gay community and bring that up as a reason to protect them from anything offensive. Well lets look at the suicide rate of men compared to woman . Men commit around 75% of all suicides but I don't see anyone attacking nut job feminists like Clementine FORD or Van BADHAM for contributing to the Male suicide rate and calling for their jobs.
Click to expand...
Clem is called out continually.
Opposition to her is dismissed as misogyny, male privelege, Patriarchy.. etcetera
 
skilts said:
This indicates that the 'quote' is from the alleged writings of Paul of Tarsus. In fact, there is no record of either he or Jesus mentioning the word, 'homosexual'. I know this is nitpicking, but this is a common misunderstanding of what the bible contains.

Paul was the first, and greatest, professional public relations operative. He came to this in a fit of guilt, caused by his previous denial of the divinity and miraculous works of Jesus. His self-revelation on the road to Damascus changed the course of the promotion of the Jesus story. His subsequent promotional activities put Joseph Goebbels to shame.

Paul never met Jesus, so had no first-hand knowledge of him. It wasn't until the second century, in the year of our Lord (another example of the effectiveness of Paul's unrelenting campaign) that the christian church accepted/promoted his works as being a 'reliable' record of the jesus story, putting him on the same level of knowledge as those who actually met jesus. All of Paul's writings were meant as compensation for his previous lack of belief. There is nobody more devout or obsessive than a convert. Some of the works attributed to him were subsequently found to have not been written by him at all.

His alleged reference to, "men sleeping with men" has had so many disparate interpretations and conflicting translations placed upon it as to render any hope of finding out what was actually meant or written ludicrous.

Now, I'm no biblical scholar, but the shallow and simple assessment I've made here is not even contemplated by those such a Foolau. Thinking is not at the forefront of their minds (pin intended). Their only interest is in being able to learn, by rote, the black squiggles on a page. Any deeper analysis is beyond them and of no interest anyway. They think they know, because they have been inculcated from birth with a story - for them, THE ONLY story. Their parents and the structured churches wouldn't lie to them about a such an important topic, would they? They, and the book, are irrefutable proof of the righteousness of their obsession.

To hang ones hat on Paul's confected meanderings as a record of what was allegedly said by jesus is no basis for the certainty embraced by those such as Fouloo.

He is not put out about the prospect of being thrown out of football. Martyrs go straight to heaven. This is his real endgame - a rolled gold lunatic, with a vicious bent, topped off with a tendency to self-flagellation.

End of rant. Sorry, I get a bit wound up when I encounter those who deny their human existence by living their lives in baseless, deluded and unthinking certainty that theirs is a 'special' personal relationship with a man who has been dead for over 2,000 years. Therein lies egocentric madness and a sordid obsession with necrophilia.
Click to expand...
Isnt all this talk of the intracies of the bible and meaning kind of attempting to make facts out of what is largely a fiction?
 
Last edited:
Cooldude said:
Ancient Europe was very gay before the Christians got into power and started murdering gay people

They've gone a long way to shaping anti-gay attitudes in the west for centuries. They can't kill them anymore because increased secularism and the fact that they are no longer the power used to be, but you bet if they could they would, just listen to some of the crazy preachers in the US
Click to expand...
Your history is very wrong. Many of the elite of Greece and Rome had wide ranging sexual proclivities, but they were also seen as decadent and depraved by their contemporaries. For example, Plato consistently excoriated the physical act of homosexuality, describing it as unnatural in his Symposium.
 
Aussie in exile said:
In the past i have had a fair bit to to with contracts and they can be a legal nightmare and down to definition.
With the ARU offering Folau a million bucks to walk away recently says to me they are not confident in this case.
Click to expand...

So have I, and if his legal counsel are any good I'd expect a settlement of around 3 million, refer earlier post, RA do not want this dispute to drag on....
 
Wow, people get so wound up about Folau when half of them don't even believe in God and Hell. Stop bullying Folau and talking about his posts and all that crap if half of you don't believe in what he was saying.

Sorry if I offend anyone but jeez people need to get a grip and stop getting so offended at stupid stuff.
 
its free real estate said:
Your history is very wrong. Many of the elite of Greece and Rome had wide ranging sexual proclivities, but they were also seen as decadent and depraved by their contemporaries. For example, Plato consistently excoriated the physical act of homosexuality, describing it as unnatural in his Symposium.
Click to expand...

I would amend that a little. The term 'homosexuality' referring to a mental illness in a small number of individuals who have permanent and exclusive attraction to the same sex was invented by psychiatrists at the end of the 19th century. Before that only the sexual acts were referred to.
 
sorted said:
I would amend that a little. The term 'homosexuality' referring to a mental illness in a small number of individuals who have permanent and exclusive attraction to the same sex was invented by psychiatrists at the end of the 19th century. Before that only the sexual acts were referred to.
Click to expand...
Yeah I’m retconning, but Plato distinguished between same sex love that was non physical (literally “Platonic”) as good, and the actual physical acts of same sex love as negative.

Which isn’t that distinct from Christian arguments about the same.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

CheapCharlie said:
Clem is called out continually.
Opposition to her is dismissed as misogyny, male privelege, Patriarchy.. etcetera
Click to expand...

Where is old Clemmy these days anyway?

Haven’t been paying attention since she got the arse from Fairfax to be honest.

What a tragedy for gender issues in this country that was.
 
deanc said:
Yes, but in legal terms that will be a small factor.
I suggest legal counsel for Folau will simply present two options to Rugby Australia:
1. Drag this dispute on for the rest of the year (an easy thing to undertake) with plenty of media coverage or
2. Negotiate a settlement
Legal counsel will also note that Mr Folau didn't write anything, he simply shared a religious script from the old testament composed by some goat herder 3000 years ago...
They will also argue it's essentially the same Bible our Prime Minister's, Governor General's and our Supreme court Justices have place their hand on at some stage throughout their lives....

ps. I call J.Christ as witness for the defence...
Click to expand...

As I stated earlier in this thread, this is the conundrum. To avoid hypocrisy the prosecution needs to prove that Folau openly stated that homosexuals should repent or be sent to some mystical hell - not just quoted.

Of course it's not homosexuals it is sinners. Everyone's got their nose out of joint because the bible quotes them as sinners............ and really that's what this is all about. We don't want the flavour of the month shone in a bad light do we?

So if the argument is solely based on Folau quoting the bible as breaking the code of conduct of the ARU then would the ARU then be in danger of discrimination of one of it employees religious beliefs?

Surely the defence could argue questionable character of the ARU if the ARU is to disagree with a quote from the bible could it not? Seeing how everyone in court who testifies has to swear their honesty with their hand on the bible................... or forever be guilty of perjury as far as the bible is concerned.

The bible MUST then = should not be used to swear honesty by in a court of law, that would be hypocritical and certainly a conflict of interest.
 
Carringbush2010 said:
As I stated earlier in this thread, this is the conundrum. To avoid hypocrisy the prosecution needs to prove that Folau openly stated that homosexuals should repent or be sent to some mystical hell - not just quoted.

Of course it's not homosexuals it is sinners. Everyone's got their nose out of joint because the bible quotes them as sinners............ and really that's what this is all about. We don't want the flavour of the month shone in a bad light do we?

So if the argument is solely based on Folau quoting the bible as breaking the code of conduct of the ARU then would the ARU then be in danger of discrimination of one of it employees religious beliefs?

Surely the defence could argue questionable character of the ARU if the ARU is to disagree with a quote from the bible could it not? Seeing how everyone in court who testifies has to swear their honesty with their hand on the bible................... or forever be guilty of perjury as far as the bible is concerned.

The bible MUST then = should not be used to swear honesty by in a court of law, that would be hypocritical and certainly a conflict of interest.
Click to expand...


Some good points but having been involved in similar cases (although not at this level) I would be very surprised if this ends up in court, noting that 90% of these type of disputes don't.

After Rugby Australia's recent decision that Folau has committed high level breaches on his contract the three proceeding actions Rugby Australia have and are currently deliberating on are:

FINE - highly unlikely unless RA hire a genius PR spin doctor that can convince the general populace that this was all just a misunderstanding. Furthermore it would require Folau to firstly remove the offending online post and then make a public apology.

SUSPENSION - possible but unlikely as it doesn't solve the dispute and may also create further issues if he is 'suspended with pay' and conditions of lifting the suspension will still require the above undertakings from Folau.

TERMINATION: very likely and should be the end of the dispute providing both parties agree to a settlement.
 
deanc said:
Some good points but having been involved in similar cases (although not at this level) I would be very surprised if this ends up in court, noting that 90% of these type of disputes don't.

After Rugby Australia's recent decision that Folau has committed high level breaches on his contract the three proceeding actions Rugby Australia have and are currently deliberating on are:

FINE - highly unlikely unless RA hire a genius PR spin doctor that can convince the general populace that this was all just a misunderstanding. Furthermore it would require Folau to firstly remove the offending online post and then make a public apology.

SUSPENSION - possible but unlikely as it doesn't solve the dispute and may also create further issues if he is 'suspended with pay' and conditions of lifting the suspension will still require the above undertakings from Folau.

TERMINATION: very likely and should be the end of the dispute providing both parties agree to a settlement.
Click to expand...

Oh no doubt that RA and Qantas will try to deflect and quiet the situation with a likely termination. But that's the issue for both of them AND the court system, there is no wriggle room - if there is testimony swearing honesty while placing one's palm on the holy bible about quoting hateful speech from the holy bible then that is the very definition of hypocrisy at the very very least a conflict of interest.

Public will already know this even though most of the noise is the disdain of Folau yet knowingly ignoring the inescapable of the above.
 
Carringbush2010 said:
Surely the defence could argue questionable character of the ARU if the ARU is to disagree with a quote from the bible could it not? Seeing how everyone in court who testifies has to swear their honesty with their hand on the bible................... or forever be guilty of perjury as far as the bible is concerned.
Click to expand...

Um, never heard of an affirmation, before giving evidence in a court case, as opposed to swearing on a bible?
 
skilts said:
Um, never heard of an affirmation, before giving evidence in a court case, as opposed to swearing on a bible?
Click to expand...


No affirmation, you obviously have never served on a jury or be called as a witness, no worries most people never have.
In Australia it is not mandatory for non-christian's to swear on the bible, is this your point?
 
Last edited:
deanc said:
No affirmation, you obviously have never served on jury or be called as a witness, no worries most people never have.
In Australia it is not mandatory for non-christian's to swear on the bible, is this your point?
Click to expand...
For a witness appearing in court, the form of affirmation is as follows:
"I solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

You sure?
 
The Cryptkeeper said:
Freedom of speech does not equal freedom from consequence.

Folau can spout whatever garbage he likes but reasonable people are equally entitled to ridicule him for it. As his employer is entitled to tear up his contract.
Click to expand...

You’re confusing issue

Freedom of speech does mean freedom of consequence by its definition.

The issue at hand isn’t freedom of speech rather employment law and contract law and their reasonable reach and application.
 
Rusty Brookes said:
Religious beliefs do not give you the right to work outside the secular laws of the land. If part of his contract of employment was not to tweet offensive stuff then I can't see how he wins. Why couldn't be tweet something like "Proud to be a Christian" or "God Bless You All" - that is an expression of his religious beliefs without attacking a large part of the population.
Click to expand...

Sadly religion, unions and politicians use fear as it resonates with a larger portion of society.

Positive people simply don’t need these groups, thus there is no $ appealing to this segment of society
 
Bradesmaen said:
For a witness appearing in court, the form of affirmation is as follows:
"I solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

You sure?
Click to expand...

That affirmation is correct. Am i sure of what? I think you are responding to the wrong poster..?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top