Israel Folau, Billy Vunipola and the intolerance of tolerance

eagle eye

salmocab wrote:

Both sides apologised it means nothing from either side. Doors that were previously shut to him are still shut now.

Where did you get those facts?

salmocab

eagle eye wrote: »

Where did you get those facts?

What facts?

eagle eye

salmocab wrote:

What facts?

That all doors are shut.

salmocab

eagle eye wrote: »

That all doors are shut.

I didn’t say all doors are shut but you work away with that

eagle eye

salmocab wrote:

I didn’t say all doors are shut but you work away with that

You said he won't ay in Australia again. Have you proof of that?

salmocab

eagle eye wrote: »

You said he won't ay in Australia again. Have you proof of that?

Again that’s not what I said

eagle eye

salmocab wrote:

Again that’s not what I said

Well you made it sound like that.

sydthebeat

eagle eye wrote: »

Well you made it sound like that.

Hahaha

Seriously????

salmocab

eagle eye wrote: »

Well you made it sound like that.

No you saw something that didn’t exist that’s all

theological

sosndt wrote: »

Not commenting on the article just your own words.
Your beliefs n all things should be private and once you decide to make them public it is open season.
You have brought it on yourself. You have no more right to say something then the next person.
If you share an unpopular opinion and you share it you should expect and receive negative reactions.
The fact that your beliefs are old do not protect them or you.

So effectively what you're saying is that people should only be allowed to express popular opinions?

That sounds like a horrible world to me. That there are "consequences" if you say something that someone else doesn't like. From my standpoint saying things that others don't like is liberty.

I understand that people may express opposition to what others say, but this isn't just expressing opposition is it?

It seems like Rugby Australia weren't convinced enough of their position to let it have it's day in court either. I wonder why? Maybe they thought that they might lose?

Yellow_Fern

sosndt wrote: »

Not commenting on the article just your own words.
Your beliefs n all things should be private and once you decide to make them public it is open season.
You have brought it on yourself. You have no more right to say something then the next person.
If you share an unpopular opinion and you share it you should expect and receive negative reactions.
The fact that your beliefs are old do not protect them or you.

Arguing that Australia Ruby are closed minded jerks for firing him is not the same as saying they have no right to fire him.

smacl

eagle eye wrote: »

Yes I do. An apology like that suggests all doors are open for him I'd imagine.

Given that a major source of pressure to dump Folau came from sponsors and commercial partners, I can't see many other major clubs being keen to take him on. He's made himself a liability and his attitudes are clearly divisive which is the last thing you need on a team sport.

sydthebeat

The fact that no one has picked him up already screams to his toxicity.

I wouldn't be surprised to see him ending up playing with some obscure rugby league team

uptherebels

theological wrote: »

So effectively what you're saying is that people should only be allowed to express popular opinions?

That sounds like a horrible world to me. That there are "consequences" if you say something that someone else doesn't like. From my standpoint saying things that others don't like is liberty.

I understand that people may express opposition to what others say, but this isn't just expressing opposition is it?

It seems like Rugby Australia weren't convinced enough of their position to let it have it's day in court either. I wonder why? Maybe they thought that they might lose?

Maybe they looked at the cost of settling Vs the cost of going to court!
People can express all the unpopular opinions they want, but there are consequences to your actions/decisions/comments especially in the commercial/business area. The more high profile you are the bigger those consequences can be.
I'd have preferred for them not to give him any money and go to court but as with giving him the boot, it was probably a business decision.

salmocab

sydthebeat wrote: »

The fact that no one has picked him up already screams to his toxicity.

I wouldn't be surprised to see him ending up playing with some obscure rugby league team

Did the NRL not say they would not register him? His options would be very narrow I would think.

AngryHippie

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

The idea that opposing anal means you are closet gay is a clever but devious propaganda tool to normalize it. There is no evidence of this.

He didn't say anything about anal.
Plenty of Hetro Anal happening in the modern world.
He spoke to homosexuality. attraction to the same sex, male-male, female-female.
But then considering the bible actually has next to nothing to say about either and both are completely absent from the gospels, getting preachy about it is all just devious propaganda anyway.
Evidence.....https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2019/09/03/conversion-therapy-center-founder-who-sought-turn-lgbtq-christians-straight-now-says-hes-gay-rejects-cycle-shame/

theological wrote: »

So effectively what you're saying is that people should only be allowed to express popular opinions?
That sounds like a horrible world to me. That there are "consequences" if you say something that someone else doesn't like. From my standpoint saying things that others don't like is liberty.
I understand that people may express opposition to what others say, but this isn't just expressing opposition is it?
It seems like Rugby Australia weren't convinced enough of their position to let it have it's day in court either. I wonder why? Maybe they thought that they might lose?

RA did the sums on how much it would cost to go to court and offered a lesser sum as a settlement. Nobody knows how a trial will turn out.
Fact of the matter is his statement was meant to belittle people and make them feel like they were doing something wrong. Something that is not their choice. It's a pretty fcuked up rock to stand upon in a freedom of speech argument. Again, he had signed a contract, then deliberately breached it. Then got a load of other gobsh1tes to crowdfund his legal defense. It's pathetic

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Arguing that Australia Ruby are closed minded jerks for firing him is not the same as saying they have no right to fire him.

Again, why were they wrong to fire him ?
He was behaving in a manner that caused damage to their organisation and in breach of his contract, how does that make them closed minded jerks ?
It's not a freedom of speech argument, at best its a "time and place" argument.

ChrisJ84

AngryHippie wrote: »

He spoke to homosexuality. attraction to the same sex, male-male, female-female.
But then considering the bible actually has next to nothing to say about either and both are completely absent from the gospels, getting preachy about it is all just devious propaganda anyway.

There really isn't a lot of mileage in this argument. The Bible has always been understood as prohibiting homosexual activity, and remains so today. Very few Christians who make an argument in favour of same sex marriage etc. do so on the basis of scripture; in my experience most do it by taking a step away from biblical authority and the universal applicability of what the Bible says.

AngryHippie wrote: »

It's not a freedom of speech argument, at best its a "time and place" argument.

Kind of agree with you here, as a conservative evangelical Christian I don't think Folau should have posted what he did. It was a stupid way to approach a very complex and sensitive subject, and I doubt anyone was rushing along to a church after reading it. Unless he is a complete idiot he must have known it would provoke this kind of reaction, and I really wonder what he thought he was going to achieve.

That said, "don't say this outside of work or you will get fired" does make it a bit of a freedom of speech issue.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

There really isn't a lot of mileage in this argument. The Bible has always been understood as prohibiting homosexual activity, and remains so today. Very few Christians who make an argument in favour of same sex marriage etc. do so on the basis of scripture; in my experience most do it by taking a step away from biblical authority and the universal applicability of what the Bible says.

I wouldn't be so sure. From an IT article on the debate regarding marriage equality

“This debate is being framed as religious people being no voters with everyone else voting yes. This couldn’t be further from the truth. People of all faiths support sharing the freedom to marry with gay and lesbian couples.

“The Christian tradition affirms the fundamental equality and dignity of all people, whether we are heterosexual or gay. Faith leaders should not marginalise or exclude people who are gay rather they should promote equality and inclusion.”

She also highlighted the “progressive elements” within religious traditions, which she argued can be marshalled in support of a yes vote in the referendum. Among them were “concepts of dignity, justice, equality, human flourishing and well-being”.

“This is the basis on which the moral case for marriage equality based on religious values can be established,” she added.

Rev Canon Dr Ginnie Kennerley said the stance adopted by religious institutions may be related to “conflicts between factuality and scripture”.

“There has always been disagreement on what is and is not permitted by the bible,” she said. “There have been conflicts between factuality and Scripture as we have understood it down the centuries – over the flat earth, over slavery, over evolution, over apartheid, over the position of women.”

Kind of agree with you here, as a conservative evangelical Christian I don't think Folau should have posted what he did. It was a stupid way to approach a very complex and sensitive subject, and I doubt anyone was rushing along to a church after reading it. Unless he is a complete idiot he must have known it would provoke this kind of reaction, and I really wonder what he thought he was going to achieve.

That said, "don't say this outside of work or you will get fired" does make it a bit of a freedom of speech issue.

I agree it was stupid but the freedom of speech issue is somewhat moot as the social media platform he posted to was one where most of the followers are rugby fans (his work) and most of the other pictures are pictures of him in team gear playing rugby (work). He had also been warned against doing this by his employer.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

I wouldn't be so sure. From an IT article on the debate regarding marriage equality

Interesting article, but I would contend that Christians are on a hiding to nothing by conforming to the wider culture. Historically, Christianity has been at it's most vibrant when it has been clearly counter cultural. A couple of lines from what you quoted strike me as particularly interesting:

“This is the basis on which the moral case for marriage equality based on religious values can be established,” she added."

There's a phrase that can mean absolutely anything if ever I saw one!

“There has always been disagreement on what is and is not permitted by the bible,” she said. “There have been conflicts between factuality and Scripture as we have understood it down the centuries – over the flat earth, over slavery, over evolution, over apartheid, over the position of women.”

To me, this is gobbledygook. If scripture is inerrant (orthodox, historical Christian position) then there is no conflict, really. We can misunderstand or misinterpret, but that's really our problem rather than the Bible's.

It's been rehashed a few times on this thread already, but Christians (and everyone) look to somewhere for our final authority. Evangelicals like me look to scripture; other Christians may look elsewhere. I realise this is of limited relevance to non-Christians like yourself, but it seems odd to me to say that you esteem the bible on the one hand, while ignoring what it says on the other.

smacl wrote: »

I agree it was stupid but the freedom of speech issue is somewhat moot as the social media platform he posted to was one where most of the followers are rugby fans (his work) and most of the other pictures are pictures of him in team gear playing rugby (work). He had also been warned against doing this by his employer.

Agree that it's somewhat different for Folau than joe punter, as he is a public figure and there isn't as clean a line between his work and private life. There are countless other ways he could have witnessed effectively to his faith.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Interesting article, but I would contend that Christians are on a hiding to nothing by conforming to the wider culture. Historically, Christianity has been at it's most vibrant when it has been clearly counter cultural.

I'd argue that one of the main reasons that Christianity is so pervasive is precisely that it is syncretic, borrowing from local culture and tradition and weaving this into local Christian practise.

To me, this is gobbledygook. If scripture is inerrant (orthodox, historical Christian position) then there is no conflict, really. We can misunderstand or misinterpret, but that's really our problem rather than the Bible's.

That the Rev Kennerley takes a very different position serves to illustrate the variety of positions that different Christians take though. Is it reasonable to imply her's, or any position contrary to your own, is misinterpretation?

It's been rehashed a few times on this thread already, but Christians (and everyone) look to somewhere for our final authority. Evangelicals like me look to scripture; other Christians may look elsewhere. I realise this is of limited relevance to non-Christians like yourself, but it seems odd to me to say that you esteem the bible on the one hand, while ignoring what it says on the other.

I'd argue whether it is reasonable to speak for all Christians and everyone though. While some might, I doubt everyone looks to a single source for final authority on everything. Rather they consider context, subjective understanding and moral sensibilities.

Agree that it's somewhat different for Folau than joe punter, as he is a public figure and there isn't as clean a line between his work and private life. There are countless other ways he could have witnessed effectively to his faith.

Agreed. There's also an arrogance in persisting once you've already been warned on no uncertain terms that what you're saying is causing offense and hurt to many people. Suggesting bush fire deaths were an expression of God's wrath has no doubt cemented in many people's minds that Folau is a rather unpleasant individual.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

I'd argue that one of the main reasons that Christianity is so pervasive is precisely that it is syncretic, borrowing from local culture and tradition and weaving this into local Christian practise.

True to an extent, yet there is a common thread of belief that runs through Christianity around the world and through history. I've seen this in my own experience, interacting with Christians who are different from me in almost every other way.

smacl wrote: »

That the Rev Kennerley takes a very different position serves to illustrate the variety of positions that different Christians take though. Is it reasonable to imply her's, or any position contrary to your own, is misinterpretation?

We all have blind spots, that's true of me every bit as much as Rev Kennerly. If she believes in Jesus as her lord and saviour then she is a sister in Christ, no matter what else we disagree on. But that doesn't mean that our differences don't matter. I would critique her position on this, and she would likely critique my position on something else.

Assuming that God exists, and is able to reveal himself in a way we can understand, then all of us can think and believe things that are more or less in line with that revelation. I think it is nigh on impossible to argue honestly that the bible is neutral on the matter of homosexuality, never mind positive or affirming. Rev Kennerly hints at that in the article, where she talks about the clash between "factuality and scripture". Clearly, "factuality" comes from somewhere else and is the final authority in this case.

smacl wrote: »

I'd argue whether it is reasonable to speak for all Christians and everyone though. While some might, I doubt everyone looks to a single source for final authority on everything. Rather they consider context, subjective understanding and moral sensibilities.

Sure, I'm being overly simplistic. But with all the factors at play, we are going to give more weight to some and less than others. And in reality, we all often shortcut the process and go straight to "it's wrong" or "it's right." I'm interested in what influences those decisions and why.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Rev Kennerly hints at that in the article, where she talks about the clash between "factuality and scripture". Clearly, "factuality" comes from somewhere else and is the final authority in this case.

Purely speculation, but the argument that I've heard from another very religious friend is roughly as follows. Human decency is central to Christianity (e.g. love thy neighbour as thyself). Biblical texts are open to a degree of interpretation, which is reasonable given the bible contains inconsistencies. Where that interpretation runs contrary to our understanding of what it means to be a decent human being, it is the interpretation that is incorrect. Worth remembering that most Christians in this country aren't biblical literalists so the scope for this line of reasoning is much greater. We also have a situation here and elsewhere where there is a breakdown of trust between the church hierarchy and the laity, such that many people's take on what it means to be Christian is more about personal belief than religious instruction.

And in reality, we all often shortcut the process and go straight to "it's wrong" or "it's right." I'm interested in what influences those decisions and why.

Very much the same. I'd imagine trust plays a major role, where trust in authority from the church is low and in the government not much better.
There's no doubt more peer communication that at any time in the past, much of which is open to manipulation, which also exerts a significant influence.

theological

I believe in a God of decency who conveys what that means in Scripture. I don't need a secular definition of that. Jesus Christ is the embodiment of decency shown towards the very people who hate Him. That's a much more powerful definition than what you, your mate or even the Revd can give me.

smacl

theological wrote: »

I believe in a God of decency who conveys what that means in Scripture. I don't need a secular definition of that. Jesus Christ is the embodiment of decency shown towards the very people who hate Him. That's a much more powerful definition than what you, your mate or even the Revd can give me.

I don't doubt that you believe all the above to be true. At the same time I think other people may have a different understanding of human decency to the one you hold. You might take an "I'm right and they're wrong stance" but it remains a subjective position, as illustrated in the linked article.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

Purely speculation, but the argument that I've heard from another very religious friend is roughly as follows. Human decency is central to Christianity (e.g. love thy neighbour as thyself).

The immediate question is "How do we know what loving our neighbour looks like in situation x?" If we disagree on what the loving action is in a given circumstance, how do we figure out which of us is right (or more right)? Do you think that is even possible?

I believe it is, and that love good and right have been perfectly shown to us in the person of Jesus Christ, and that they are communicated to us today in the scriptures.

I also believe that what Christianity has to offer is better than any of the alternatives, be it societal consensus, just following our heart or whatever. The bible calls those broken cisterns, that can't hold water. I think that about sums it up.

smacl wrote: »

Very much the same. I'd imagine trust plays a major role, where trust in authority from the church is low and in the government not much better.
There's no doubt more peer communication that at any time in the past, much of which is open to manipulation, which also exerts a significant influence.

Totally agree. This is one of the reasons why placing ultimate trust in anything (including ourselves) other than God will ultimately lead to disappointment. Maybe not for every individual in this life, but your examples at least indicate that some of the places we've looked to in the past have been dead ends.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

The immediate question is "How do we know what loving our neighbour looks like in situation x?" If we disagree on what the loving action is in a given circumstance, how do we figure out which of us is right (or more right)? Do you think that is even possible?

While it is subjective to a large degree, we can agree a minimum standard how we treat one another which we describe as basic human rights. My opinion is that any genuine form of love for someone will not breach their basic human rights. Of course love goes much further than this, but it is common ground for a starting point.

I believe it is, and that love good and right have been perfectly shown to us in the person of Jesus Christ, and that they are communicated to us today in the scriptures.

I also believe that what Christianity has to offer is better than any of the alternatives, be it societal consensus, just following our heart or whatever. The bible calls those broken cisterns, that can't hold water. I think that about sums it up.

Holding that belief is a basic human right and offering to share it is perfectly reasonable. Saying anyone must share your belief isn't and is unfairly trampling on their beliefs. I don't share your beliefs just as you don't share mine but this is better as point of discourse rather than enmity. Going back to Folau for example, we see the imperative form of "turn or burn" Christianity which many people such as myself find unreasonable. Asking someone if they want to talk about Jesus is entirely reasonable, telling them to Repent! is not.

Totally agree. This is one of the reasons why placing ultimate trust in anything (including ourselves) other than God will ultimately lead to disappointment. Maybe not for every individual in this life, but your examples at least indicate that some of the places we've looked to in the past have been dead ends.

Personally, I'm not convinced that those who have ultimate trust in anything experience less disappointment than than those who are more generally stoical or even those who approach life with measured cynicism. I'd be suspicious that any statement that makes comments about everyone is guilty of hasty generalization.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

While it is subjective to a large degree, we can agree a minimum standard how we treat one another which we describe as basic human rights. My opinion is that any genuine form of love for someone will not breach their basic human rights. Of course love goes much further than this, but it is common ground for a starting point.

And again we ask where those standards come from. Either we are the authority, or we appeal to authority elsewhere. Or is it turtles all the way down?

smacl wrote: »

Holding that belief is a basic human right and offering to share it is perfectly reasonable. Saying anyone must share your belief isn't and is unfairly trampling on their beliefs. I don't share your beliefs just as you don't share mine but this is better as point of discourse rather than enmity. Going back to Folau for example, we see the imperative form of "turn or burn" Christianity which many people such as myself find unreasonable. Asking someone if they want to talk about Jesus is entirely reasonable, telling them to Repent! is not.

Important to clarify what you mean by "must" here. Christianity makes objective claims that are equally applicable to all people everywhere. For example, I believe that all people are lost apart from faith in Jesus Christ and would like to persuade them of that fact. In that sense, everyone must believe.

That doesn't mean that I get to be rude or arrogant, or shout you down, or try to force you to comply. But we do disagree, and Christianity in particular has some hard things to say that people will not always want to hear.

Disagreeing on matters that we both believe to be very important while still being able to interact with one another in a civil way is the very definition of tolerance, and I want to share my faith winsomely and persuasively, without being a jerk

smacl wrote: »

Personally, I'm not convinced that those who have ultimate trust in anything experience less disappointment than than those who are more generally stoical or even those who approach life with measured cynicism. I'd be suspicious that any statement that makes comments about everyone is guilty of hasty generalization.

Christianity is not a path to an easy and pain free life, quite the opposite in fact. My point is that Christians have a hope that transcends our subjective experiences (whatever they are) and which simply can't be compared to anything the world has to offer. Pie in the sky to you, life and breath to me.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

And again we ask where those standards come from. Either we are the authority, or we appeal to authority elsewhere. Or is it turtles all the way down?

A consensus position arrived at and continually being refined by people from civilised societies across the globe, including Christians, Muslims, Hindus and those of every other faith and none. Not so much turtles all the way down as people all the way up

Important to clarify what you mean by "must" here.

By 'must', I mean any command, instruction, or imperative statement. By all means feel free to try to persuade others that your beliefs are true but in doing so be prepared for others to do likewise with their contrary beliefs in equal measure. Similarly, I'd take issue with any measure to impose religious belief that involves threat or bribery. e.g. Repent or burn in hell! or Get sanctified or get french fried.

Christianity makes objective claims that are equally applicable to all people everywhere. For example, I believe that all people are lost apart from faith in Jesus Christ and would like to persuade them of that fact. In that sense, everyone must believe.

On what basis do you claim that Christianity makes objective claims and could you list a few of them? I would consider anything based on your personally held beliefs to be subjective until evidenced. Suggesting everyone 'must' believe firstly requires you to evidence your beliefs as objective truth and secondly for others to accept that evidence.

That doesn't mean that I get to be rude or arrogant, or shout you down, or try to force you to comply. But we do disagree, and Christianity in particular has some hard things to say that people will not always want to hear.

Disagreeing on matters that we both believe to be very important while still being able to interact with one another in a civil way is the very definition of tolerance, and I want to share my faith winsomely and persuasively, without being a jerk

Agreed.

Christianity is not a path to an easy and pain free life, quite the opposite in fact. My point is that Christians have a hope that transcends our subjective experiences (whatever they are) and which simply can't be compared to anything the world has to offer. Pie in the sky to you, life and breath to me.

Again subjective, on my part this time, but cynically I'd say that most religions are very much in the business of selling hope but that doesn't make that hope well founded. I'd tend to go with Marx when it comes to the value of religious hope.

theological

smacl wrote: »

I don't doubt that you believe all the above to be true. At the same time I think other people may have a different understanding of human decency to the one you hold. You might take an "I'm right and they're wrong stance" but it remains a subjective position, as illustrated in the linked article.

I take the God has spoken stance, which isn't the same as saying "I am right". It is saying that God is right.

Your assumptions don't allow you to accept that conclusion because you reject God's existence. Therefore my view must be "subjective". I don't accept this, and it is a cul de sac in terms of conversation.

Those who you mention are effectively secularists. People who say that God is wrong, and that worldly individuals are right have things the wrong way around.

It is a sad scenario where people who have departed the faith ideologically stick around and expouse secularism in religious garb. And it is possible, both in the history of God's people with God's people turning against Him for idols to clerics turning away from God's word for respectability.

The Bible tells us that this is a salvation issue, I take it seriously as a result. Those who reject God's word need to repent. God speaks into this world and we need to turn to Him. It isn't that we speak to God and that He bends to us.

AngryHippie

theological wrote: »

Those who reject God's word need to repent.

What do you consider to be God's word ?
Gospels?
the entire Old and New Testament ?
Everything the Pope says is good to go ?


If someone lives a good life, (obeys commandments, does good deeds, treats others as they wish to be treated etc.) and the only "wrong" they have committed is to reject the nonsensical tosh that makes up 90% of scripture (of which there is absolutely zero credible evidence to suggest it is the word of God) why should they regret or repent this ?
There are elements to scripture that conflict with ethical behavior (eye for an eye, stoning etc) that as an agnostic I find barbaric and cannot accept

1 Timothy 2:12, in which the saint says: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent."
WTF

Exodus 22:18: "Do not allow a sorceress to live."
So its not just God now, but you have to believe in witches too....

Psalm 137 had a good run until the Second Vatican Council, at which stage it was deemed to be a bit risque, being about infanticide...

And don't get me started on St. Paul's letter to the Romans, which is the normal source of the shade thrown at homosexuals.

I was raised catholic, baptised, received communion, was confirmed etc. but I got to a point (Based on behavior of clerics) where I started to question the source of their righteousness and I had a good read of the bible. Lots of it contains very valuable guides for good living and wholesome relationships, but the majority of it is just cobblers. It was being made up on the fly by a bunch of loons who had somehow managed to claim some moral authority due to their written word (and the burning and destruction of lots of other written words) and the adoption of the faith by those in power.

I see traditional religions as being no different than Scientology or Mormonism, just older, wealthier, more heavily subscribed and more heavily guarded.

I find the whole thing quite bizarre on logical reflection.