nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?

antiskeptic

Haven't read the detail but in essence a rugby players career called a halt to because he said gays and various other sinners will go to hell.

Leaving aside his dodgy theology (if God was in the business of excluding sinners from heaven then nobody would "get there"), is this not a case of LGBT sensitivity gone mad?

You are now not allowed to state your belief?

I can understand that some in A&A might rejoice but surely many can see the deeper ramifications: that at another time and place, their own expression of belief might not be of the moment and be condemned for mere expression.

Thin end of a thick wedge, this one.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

splinter65 wrote: »

Well that’s another thread,and nothing to do with homosexuality, but if Catholics see abortion as murder ( they do) then they will do everything they can to stop the murder, as anyone would.

Again not all Catholics. You're defining Catholics by either your personal beliefs of what a real Catholic is, or simply by the church stance.

sydthebeat

splinter65 wrote: »

And you think that this guy saying that gay people are all going to hell would result in not only a charge but a conviction !!!
DOUBLE LOL!

wow.....

please find for me where i said that.

antiskeptic

sydthebeat wrote: »

its hate speech.

telling people they are going to hell because they are a certain way... is hate speech.

you clearly do not agree, and thats fine... but it doesnt change the fact that its hate speech.

There's a few lumps of pyrite in these foundations.

1. I am going to assume you hold the view that Hell doesn't exist.

In that case, what you appear to mean, regarding the statement: "homosexuals et al are going to Hell" goes something like:

"although it doesn't exist, suggesting that homosexuals deserve to go to such a place is hate speech"

Hell, in your mind, would then be on a par with a something that does exist. A rubbish dump where the fire never go out (one translation of Hell is Gehenna, is a rubbish dump outside biblical-times Jerusalem, in which the fires never went out). Or perhaps you mean a furnace (extermination camp connotations come to mind)

Etc.

I would agree with you, save for one important fact. The existence or not of Hell hasn't been established for those who like proofs of the empirical kind. Folau believes it does exist. And from that perspective, the hate speech easily transforms into warning speech. He isn't (nor ought he) be confined to obtaining what he know via the philosophy of empricism (the veracity of which, ironically, has no empirical proof. Empiricism is a belief system)

Which leads me onto..

2. His statement was a warning statement.

Hell unless repentance (a.k.a. turn to God and be saved, even if your a homosexual, adulterer, drunkard. Even if you remain a homosexual, adulterer, drunkard afterwards).

3. Despite my asking, no one has responded to my query regarding their presumptions.

Folau neither stated nor implied that homosexuals, adulterers, drunkards... and every other kind of unrepentant sinner deserved (in his view) Hell. Yet the implication in your post and in many others is that he has stated that, whether explicitly or implicitly. That he himself thinks that homosexuals etc, deserve Hell

(sinners do deserve to go to Hell, but their deserving stems from an argument presented by God which involves God's holiness and how it is confined to dealing with sin, not from Folau himself. You don't have to believe in God to understand from whence Folau is coming.

Conclusion

Folau has come to believe in the existence of heaven and hell. As I came to believe it. And from that place, he realises that the world around him is full of people who don't know this (in "know" I am switching to his perspective)

And he wants to warn people. As anyone who had an iota of concern for his fellow man wants to warn them of impending Tsunami, earthquake, climate castastrophe. That you don't believe in Hell doesn't alter his believing in Hell. Nor does it alter the existence or otherwise, of Hell.

Question: would you, if fully believing in Hell and despite the storm you know it will bring down on you, warn your fellow man regarding it?

Question: should you be quietened from expressing your belief-unto-warning .. by people who don't believe what you believe. That their beliefs somehow ought trump your beliefs? Maybe you should just shut up warning folk about nailing warmboard to their walls

pauldla

Have we reached peak LGBT nonsense or peak religious believer nonsense...?

smacl

@antiskeptic, your argument basically boils down to the assertion that the hate speech that Folau is spouting isn't to be taken seriously because it is based on delusional nonsense. The hateful intent isn't his, it belongs to the hateful religion he practices. While I agree that what he says is delusional nonsense, and that it emanates from indoctrination in a hateful religion, your argument falls over on two counts. The vast majority of Christians don't preach homophobia on the basis of their literal interpretation of the bible. These more extreme expressions of Christianity are the exception, and it is entirely reasonable to call out cases of hate-speech as they're atypical. Secondly, many Christians are also gay, may share some notion of hell and be genuinely hurt by all this. Other gay people may be treated differently by their Christian friends who are swayed by this delusional vitriol, so again the harm is genuine.

I'd also question your own motives for starting a thread about 'LGBT nonsense' as you call it on the A&A forum. Why here and not the Christianity forum? My guess is that the good people on that forum would also label Folau's nonsense as unacceptable hate speech but on that forum you'd struggle to hide behind the argument that this was an acceptable expression of Christianity.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

@antiskeptic, your argument basically boils down to the assertion that the hate speech that Folau is spouting isn't to be taken seriously because it is based on delusional nonsense.

That question isn't settled. It's your belief about his belief vs. his belief about his belief.

You ought to know that by now.

The vast majority of Christians don't preach homophobia on the basis of their literal interpretation of the bible. These more extreme expressions of Christianity are the exception, and it is entirely reasonable to call out cases of hate-speech as they're atypical.

Unrepentant sinners going to hell is a drumbeat message of Christianity. I appreciate not all major on hellfire and damnation - the modern mood in Christianity is for apologetics (give a reason for your faith). Whether that modern mood is as appropriate as it's purveyors suppose is open to question. The hellfire "for unrepentant sinners" message is clear as a bell in the bible however, so nothing wrong with it from a Christian perspective.

You would have to highlight homophobia as opposed to a message from the bible about the destination of unrepentant sinners. If you consider the bible homophobic then that's a different matter.

Secondly, many Christians are also gay, may share some notion of hell and be genuinely hurt by all this. Other gay people may be treated differently by their Christian friends who are swayed by this delusional vitriol, so again the harm is genuine.

Indeed, many Christians are gay. If they differ from the view expressed by Folau (that unrepentant sinners of whatever hue) go to hell then they differ on theology. Which comes first: expressing a theology firmly held or saying nothing because it hurts those who have a different theology?

In my experience, the message of Christianity is highly offensive.

I'd also question your own motives for starting a thread about 'LGBT nonsense' as you call it on the A&A forum. Why here and not the Christianity forum? My guess is that the good people on that forum would also label Folau's nonsense as unacceptable hate speech but on that forum you'd struggle to hide behind the argument that this was an acceptable expression of Christianity.

As you know, there is significant migration across neighbouring forums. I don't think Christians are precluded from engaging here.

I consider it a nonsense for the reasons I've been outlining here.

1. Can you declare where Falou himself condemned anyone

2. Can you do other than merely suppose his beliefs a nonsense - your argument rests on same afterall. You might start by providing empirical proof for your guiding philosophies (empiricism / rationalism). Because all you appear to have is a position based on undemonstrable belief.

recedite

Folau may challenge in court whether that warrants the termination of his contract – and also whether the termination constituted discrimination against religious belief. However, a legal expert has warned this avenue may not be open to the player since NSW has no statutory protection for religious discrimination.

Seems like the local laws are very weak on discrimination. Otherwise he'd have a good case for unfair dismissal.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/apr/18/israel-folau-hearing-could-turn-on-point-of-nsw-law-expert-says

sydthebeat

recedite wrote: »

Seems like the local laws are very weak on discrimination. Otherwise he'd have a good case for unfair dismissal.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/apr/18/israel-folau-hearing-could-turn-on-point-of-nsw-law-expert-says

no he wouldnt.....

he broke his own contract

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

That question isn't settled. It's your belief about his belief vs. his belief about his belief.

You ought to know that by now.

Nothing to do with my belief. You're previous argument, specifically "although it doesn't exist, suggesting that homosexuals deserve to go to such a place is hate speech", is predicated on the non-existence of hell.

Unrepentant sinners going to hell is a drumbeat message of Christianity.

Firstly, not all Christians even believe in hell. Secondly, most Christians aren't literalist bible-thumpers and quietly ignore the deeply homophobic sections of Romans and Leviticus. You are making a mistake in implying that most Christians are defined by their religion. Most demonstrably diverge from their religion where it becomes openly hateful and repressive. The few more extreme elements repeatedly fail to rally the more moderate masses as has been seen in local referendums here.

In my experience, the message of Christianity is highly offensive.

I agree, I think many aspects of the bible are homophobic and misogynistic, but then so are most texts from that era. This leaves those who identify as Christians in a bit of a dilemma with a number of possible options;

1) Stick with the bits they like and simply ignore the nasty stuff, e.g. a-la-carte Catholics.
2) Dump the religion entirely and become atheists or choose an alternative religion.
3) Change over to a church that rejects and re-interprets the meaning of Christianity based on modern social norms, e.g. Michael Burrows version of Anglican Christianity.
4) Become or a remain a Christian that views a very literal interpretation of the bible to be the one true faith, including all that is offensive.

Relatively few choose this last option, but many of those that do seem to be very vocal about it. They get called out for preaching hate speech because that is what they are doing and it is by their own choice. This is the category Folau falls into in my opinion.

smacl

Can you do other than merely suppose his beliefs a nonsense

Yes, I can state that they are in all probability a nonsense. They are a supposition with no objective support whatsoever. We can imagine an infinite number of alternate contradictory possibilities, e.g. hell does not exist and gay people go there, hell does exist but only straight people get sent there, when we die we all end up in the good place, etc, etc... Given an infinite number of contradictory possibilities, only one can be true. In the absence of supporting evidence each is as likely to be true as any other. Thus the likelihood of any one being true is one divided infinity, and Folau's supposition is infinitely unlikely to be true.

Saying every word in the bible is truth is a bit like playing the euromillions lottery in the firm knowledge that you'll win, only orders of magnitude less likely. As such it can reasonably be considered delusional.

Bogwoppit

The last time Folau was warned about his comments he said he’d gladly walk away from any contract if he was told not to air them in public. He didn’t care about the money apparently. There was less than a year left on his contract at the time.

This time he’s doing anything but walk away, why? There’s 3 years left on his contract at 1 million dollars a year. Guess what? He’s refusing to walk away.

Just shows how much conviction this scumbag has in his own beliefs.

eagle eye

Bogwoppit wrote:

Just shows how much conviction this scumbag has in his own beliefs.
This time heâ€™s doing anything but walk away, why? Thereâ€™s 3 years left on his contract at 1 million dollars a year. Guess what? Heâ€™s refusing to walk away.

He'll easily increase his income by 33% at a minimum if he comes to the northern hemisphere.
He mightn't want to leave Australia because of religion and family but he won't have any problem finding a big contract waiting for him if he decides to come to Europe.

Bannasidhe

eagle eye wrote: »

He'll easily increase his income by 33% at a minimum if he comes to the northern hemisphere.
He mightn't want to leave Australia because of religion and family but he won't have any problem finding a big contract waiting for him if he decides to come to Europe.

I find that hard to believe.
His contract with ARFU was worth au$1 million a year. I can't see any team adding 33% to that tbh. And it would have to be a team like Racing as he won't get a 'national' contract. Or do you think the IRFU would be willing to pay him over a million to play for Leinster or Ulster?
To qualify to play for a Northern H national team he would need to be resident in that country and playing for 3 years - which would bring him over the date of 20/21 season when it become 5 years to qualify - by which point he would be 35. Who wants a 35 year old full back who costs over a million a year?

Can't see the IRFU/SRFU/WRFU being interested.
That leaves England and France - or maybe Italy.

Plus - what sponsors of N H Rugby are going to want their brand associated with him?

magicbastarder

eagle eye wrote: »

He'll easily increase his income by 33% at a minimum if he comes to the northern hemisphere.

because northern hemisphere teams love to hire players who are proud to announce they don't care about the conditions set down in their contract?

eagle eye

magicbastarder wrote:

because northern hemisphere teams love to hire players who are proud to announce they don't care about the conditions set down in their contract?

No, it's because they want to win. Folau increases their chances of doing that.

Bannasidhe

eagle eye wrote: »

No, it's because they want to win. Folau increases their chances of doing that.

I'm not sure you understand how much of a team effort rugby is.
You can't just pick a player because he is good in team a and expect them to simply slot into seamlessly into team b and be equally good.

It's not soccer you know.

eagle eye

Bannasidhe wrote:

I'm not sure you understand how much of a team effort rugby is. You can't just pick a player because he is good in team a and expect them to simply slot into seamlessly into team b and be equally good.
It's not soccer you know.

I watch international rugby, super rugby, top 14, premiership, pro 14 and Rugby sevens too.
Folau is a rare player, probably the best in the world catching a high kick. He immediately improves a team because of his catching prowess. It creates another option for half backs off a ruck ball. He can play as a centre or on the wing.

Bogwoppit

The only clubs who might take him would be one of the big French spenders, either Racing or Toulon. An English club such as Saracens would love to have him but I don’t think they’d want the hassle.

He won’t get the colour of the contract he’s on with the ARU.

sydthebeat

Bogwoppit wrote: »

The only clubs who might take him would be one of the big French spenders, either Racing or Toulon. An English club such as Saracens would love to have him but I don’t think they’d want the hassle.

He won’t get the colour of the contract he’s on with the ARU.

Toulon owner has come out and called Folau a moron and ruled out signing him.

Rugby League in australia have said they will refuse to register him as he wouldnt be compliant with their code of conduct.

Highly unlikely that any english team would sign him as neither of stuart olding or paddy jackson had any sniff of a contract in england even after been found not guilty of a crime in NI.

he fight to get a pay off.... he'll end up playing for some obscure japenese Top 14 team.

salmocab

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I find that hard to believe.
His contract with ARFU was worth au$1 million a year. I can't see any team adding 33% to that tbh. And it would have to be a team like Racing as he won't get a 'national' contract. Or do you think the IRFU would be willing to pay him over a million to play for Leinster or Ulster?
To qualify to play for a Northern H national team he would need to be resident in that country and playing for 3 years - which would bring him over the date of 20/21 season when it become 5 years to qualify - by which point he would be 35. Who wants a 35 year old full back who costs over a million a year?

Can't see the IRFU/SRFU/WRFU being interested.
That leaves England and France - or maybe Italy.

Plus - what sponsors of N H Rugby are going to want their brand associated with him?

He can’t qualify for any other national team regardless of how long he stays

eagle eye

This is absolutely ridiculous anyways. It's social media ruling the world again. Social media needs to be ended imo, the amount of stupidity is overwhelming. When did a guy stating his religious beliefs become hate speech?
I'm not looking for extreme examples here like somebody who prays to Hitler.
Most Christian religions believe that gay sexual relations between men is wrong as far as I'm aware.
That's their belief and they're entitled to them.
I don't agree with them, I'm not religious but I'm pro free speech.

SoundsRight

There was a rumour Rory McIlroy was bankrolling some of Ulsters big name southern hemisphere signings a few years ago. I'm sure he could be persuaded to dust off the chequebook again if Folau decides he's had enough of the handwringing..

Tell me how

SoundsRight wrote: »

There was a rumour Rory McIlroy was bankrolling some of Ulsters big name southern hemisphere signings a few years ago. I'm sure he could be persuaded to dust off the chequebook again if Folau decides he's had enough of the handwringing..

Yeah, just what Ulster Rugby needs in the PR stakes after the experience they had throughout last year....

Also, sincerely doubt McIlroy was bankrolling anything.

sydthebeat

SoundsRight wrote: »

There was a rumour Rory McIlroy was bankrolling some of Ulsters big name southern hemisphere signings a few years ago. I'm sure he could be persuaded to dust off the chequebook again if Folau decides he's had enough of the handwringing..

literally the LAST club Folau could end up at !!!!!

thats laughable.

smacl

eagle eye wrote: »

Most Christian religions believe that gay sexual relations between men is wrong as far as I'm aware.

But most Christians don't pay any heed to religious dogma though and couldn't give a damn what sexual activity consenting adults get up to. I'm pretty sure that if you looked closely at the bible you'd find it isn't big on masturbation either (every sperm is sacred and all that) but do you honestly believe that Christians masturbate any less than anyone else?

SoundsRight

sydthebeat wrote: »

literally the LAST club Folau could end up at !!!!!

thats laughable.

How so? There's a very strong Christian vein running through the squad. It's what attracted a lot of the big name South Africans to the province. The shenaningans of Jackson & co were an aberration.

Bannasidhe

eagle eye wrote: »

I watch international rugby, super rugby, top 14, premiership, pro 14 and Rugby sevens too.
Folau is a rare player, probably the best in the world catching a high kick. He immediately improves a team because of his catching prowess. It creates another option for half backs off a ruck ball. He can play as a centre or on the wing.

Have you ever played rugby?

Bannasidhe

eagle eye wrote: »

This is absolutely ridiculous anyways. It's social media ruling the world again. Social media needs to be ended imo, the amount of stupidity is overwhelming. When did a guy stating his religious beliefs become hate speech?
I'm not looking for extreme examples here like somebody who prays to Hitler.
Most Christian religions believe that gay sexual relations between men is wrong as far as I'm aware.
That's their belief and they're entitled to them.
I don't agree with them, I'm not religious but I'm pro free speech.

I can't believe you still don't get this.

Folau was fired because he signed a contract with an employer whose code of conduct clearly states:

1.3 Treat everyone equally, fairly and with dignity regardless of gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, cultural or religious background, age or disability. Any form of bullying,harassment or discrimination has no place in Rugby.

1.7 Use Social Media appropriately. By all means share your positive experiences of Rugby but do not use Social Media as a means to breach any of the expectations and requirements of you as a player contained in this Code or in any Union, club or competition rules and regulations.

He broke the terms and conditions of his contract for the second time. First time he got off with a warning. Then he did it again.

The only person who should have stepped away from social media is Folau.

[Deleted User]

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I can't believe you still don't get this.

Folau was fired because he signed a contract with an employer whose code of conduct clearly states:

1.3 Treat everyone equally, fairly and with dignity regardless of gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, cultural or religious background, age or disability. Any form of bullying,harassment or discrimination has no place in Rugby.

1.7 Use Social Media appropriately. By all means share your positive experiences of Rugby but do not use Social Media as a means to breach any of the expectations and requirements of you as a player contained in this Code or in any Union, club or competition rules and regulations.

He broke the terms and conditions of his contract for the second time. First time he got off with a warning. Then he did it again.

The only person who should have stepped away from social media is Folau.

So far I think the tactic is this:
First whine about how it's suppression of free speech. And when the above is pointed out, the argument changes to how he "actually wasn't saying anything bad about gay people at all." Then when that starts looking shaking, go back to free speech...

eagle eye

What rule did he break. I don't see anything there except pleading with people to repent to save themselves from hell?
I don't see anything in what he said which indicates that he considers anybody as less than an equal either.
All I see is a religious belief that all the people he mentioned are committing sin and need to repent.
There is no hate speech, there is no racism, there is no talk about being better than anybody else.