Remove this Banner Ad

Religion Folau

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

HairyO said:
No. But you knew that.

Is irrelevent extremist dogma your only response to this?

If so it seems a sensible win for Folau.
Click to expand...
A simple question about legislation in response to a statement about legislation is 'extremist dogma'?
 
Herne Hill Hammer said:
He still has the right to say what he wants about whomever he wants, he nor anyone else has been banned from public airing their religious views have they?

He may have taken off with the loot but he's still free to say what he wants, so in that sense, he certainly hasn't lost.
Click to expand...
No way, Folau certainly didn't lose, he got the doe! The ones that lost, are the poor bastards who thought that Folau was in it to fight for the principle.
 
Herne Hill Hammer said:
I'm not sure you get it.

Folau is a money hungry grub, but in the end it wasn't even about him.

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.

As others have posted, it's the absolute incompatibility of having any sort of diversity and inclusion policy that includes religion when religion itself generally isn't all that inclusive. How do you get around it?

In the end, it's probably a good thing it didn't end up in a court, it would have just created a mess that would never have been sorted to anyone's complete satisfaction.

Each occurrence is just going to have to be dealt with individually. What will come out of this is that I would think that generally, high profile people of a religious bent may temper their public utterances and organisations won't act in such a knee jerk fashion, unless of course the frothing masses force them to lose all integrity and cave in.

Will be interesting to see if it happens again and what the outcome is.
Click to expand...
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.

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?

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 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?

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.

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).

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."?

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.

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.

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.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Northalives said:
What the hell are you on about? Exonerated? Great for religious freedom nationwide? How can you deduce all of this from and out of court settlement? To be exonerated and to win a great victory for "religious freedom nationwide", it had to be tested in a court of law. All that's happened is that the Rugby mob said to Folau was "let's sort this out without going to court, let's negotiate a pay out - you apologise, we'll apologise and we can forget about the whole thing.". Well good 'ol Israel jumped at the opportunity to get the cash, to hell with taking this to court and trying to win a great victory for religious freedom and to be vindicated for his stance that he can say whatever he likes about whom ever he likes, f**k that, just give me the doe!!!!
Click to expand...
I'm glad someone here gets it!

Folau has Fundie Christianity protocol and prosperity preaching 101 down to a tee.

1) Find an easy target to attack in the name of god.
2) Play the persecution card at every opportunity.
3) Get others to fund everything; whether it be a luxury jet, legal action, or just dinner at a fine restaurant.
4) Whenever there's a choice between principled action and money, take the money and run. There's a bible verse to justify it.

Those claiming a big win for religious freedom are full of shite. The only win here is in Folau's bank account. He's paying back donors on a pro rata basis ffs. The plebs paid ALL of his legal fees, will receive none of the proceeds, and still have no further clarity with regards to the legal boundaries surrounding freedom of speech/faith when they clash with workplace values.

The skeptics knew all along that the primary goal was money, and Folau has proved us right.
 
Northalives said:
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.

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?

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 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?

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.

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).

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."?

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.

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.

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.
Click to expand...
The entire point of freedom of speech is that the government is not able to persecute an individual.
 
quotemokc said:
The entire point of freedom of speech is that the government is not able to persecute an individual.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, I don't understand. Could you explain what you mean please? I understand what you mean about governments not persecuting individuals but I don't understand the reference to freedom of speech.
 
Northalives said:
I'm sorry, you seem to have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. Folau said that he was being discriminated against because of his religious beliefs and that he was going to take Rugby Australia to court to show that he was discriminated against on the basis of those beliefs. The Christian Lobby, or whatever they call themselves, many in the media and the Government as well as people in the community stood shoulder to shoulder with Folau stating that he had a right to say whatever he wanted too because that was his belief. All of these people, I would suggest, saw this as a fight between freedom of religious expression and those who sought to shut him up. Well Israel said bugger you lot, who gives a shit about principles, I'll take the doe thanks. Are you suggesting that because he settled out of court for a sum of money that somehow he won the fight for religious freedom/freedom of speech? Nah, he just wanted the doe. That's why he went from, League to Australian Rules and then to Union, he's in it for the doe. He was confronted with go to court and fight for your principles or take the doe and bugger principles. He chose the doe and the only thing it enforced was what a hypocrite he is.
Click to expand...
But RA conceded? Why would he bother taking them to court if RA paid out. RA admitted they were wrong. Why would you payout $8M if you didn’t have to?
 
Rettolalia said:
You think everyone who supported Folau in this case was a Christian?

Im Agnostic, and as obnoxious as his crowd fund was, and then his bushfire sermonising, I genuinely hoped Izzy won this, as the idea of people being sacked for publicly affirming there religious beliefs ought to be an issue decent Australians stand up and fight for.
Click to expand...
Folau played the crowd into thinking of this as a black and white battle, placing himself in the role of a hero championing workers freedoms. If his primary goal was to defend the right to freedom of speech, why would he accept a payout without a legal precident being set, or at least demand a legitimate apology and backdown from RA?

It's fair to assume that most of Folau's supporters have never actually read the bible in its entirety. There are bible verses stating that women should be quiet in church and submissive to men, others supporting genocide, and many others legitimising atrocities that would probably make the general public re-think the Christian notion that biblegod is good, loving, and fair.

The point is that most of those who cheer Folau's settlement as a win for freedom of speech and religion would turn against someone who believed in and gave public support towards acts of genocide as part of their faith in Jesus.

Only nutcases still publicly acknowledge and support certain parts of the bible, right? If that's true, why can't the homophobic passages be added to that same list of passages to be ignored?
 
Jello_B said:
But RA conceded? Why would he bother taking them to court if RA paid out. RA admitted they were wrong. Why would you payout $8M if you didn’t have to?
Click to expand...
When did RA admit they were wrong?

RA basically apologised for hurting his feelings...poor widdle Folau.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Scotland said:
If it's deemed socially acceptable to preach that gays are bad, bush fires are God's judgement on abortion etc. then what can else can you get away with? Can I hate on the Jews, Romani, Poles? Nothing bad has ever come of that...

Freedom of religion should be about belief. It should grant you the ability to believe (or not) in a god or gods of your choosing. Freedom of religion should not be a carte blanche to practice religious doctrine.
Click to expand...
My personal opinion is that your freedom should end when it encroaches upon the freedoms of others. If someone is using their religion as a battering ram against others on the basis of that person or groups religious belief/sexuality/gender/race, they've crossed that boundary and should face consequences.

People like Folau think that god is an all encompassing get out of jail card for all of their bullshit.

So far, it seems that Folau is right. It would be interesting to see if a Muslim would receive the same level of public support...I doubt it.
 
I was racially abused as a kid. I made it...
That’s a reason you should never morally allow that to happen again, if you can.
 
Lebbo73 said:
I’m more inclined to think that he was paid out his $4m contract plus another mil for compensation and then his legals on top. Probably between five and six million being at the top end of the scale.
Click to expand...

Watch the social media................ reckon there'll be a crowd fund page to start up RA again, don't reckon they're if favour with Joyce Qantas anymore coz he got "vindicated".
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom