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

Israel Folau, Billy Vunipola and the intolerance of tolerance

homer911

I'm surprised by the lack of discussion on this topic here, perhaps its been well covered on twitter, but I'm not a user.

The secular world seems intent on punishing two rugby players for expressing a respectful opinion about something they have been brought up to believe. I wish I had half the courage to speak up about things I am required to tolerate as a Christian in a secular world

http://www.christiansinsport.org.uk/news.asp?itemid=7695&itemTitle=Folau%2C+Vunipola+and+the+intolerance+of+the+culture+of+tolerance&section=0001000100190024

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

AngryHippie

theological wrote: »

Any group that claims that same sex marriage is compatible with Christianity departs from Christian orthodoxy as expressed through the church for thousands of years. On top of this, as far as I can tell they are very much a small minority within the Christian church.

What is under discussion is much deeper and more far reaching than same sex marriage though. It is homosexuality itself.
Orthodoxy and Dogma are clearly a major part of the problem, as are sweeping assertions about what is the view of a "minority of the Christian Church"
Considering there is no such thing as the "Christian Church" there is a "Christian Faith", encompassing all of those reading from the New Testament but this extends to all of those listed that have agreed that they can reconcile homosexuality with their faith:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_affirming_LGBT
So at the back of it all, it is the dogged old Roman Catholic Church and older sects that hang on to their dogma and orthodoxy to continue to condemn and damn a whole portion of society for how they feel about another human being.....?

For what its worth:

theological wrote: »

I just choose to follow Jesus and hold to what He says about sexuality, marriage and anything else

If you'd been paying attention at mass, the end of every reading will tell you exactly whose words you'd just been listening to (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) and everything else (Particularly anything that vile human Paul had to do say to everyone with ears) is an interpretation of Jesus' teachings by someone who used to hang out with him and had dinner.

Its this part of the story that loses me. Paul literally throws an entire gender under the bus for two Millennia as needing to be subservient, neither seen nor heard and the Vatican just runs with this patent garbage as being a valid piece of scripture in order to protect their own Frat-House.

Its the 21st century and the RCC lost their mandate to dictate human behavior when they protected those who should have been pilloried, and this continues to this day.

Cabaal

recedite wrote: »

The problem with the LGBT lobby black people these days is that they have gone way past the point at which they gained their own equality and freedom, and now they want to take away other peoples freedoms.

One easy edit and it feels like its 1950's America,

How dare LGBT people get rights and then be outraged when people call them names and try to discriminate against them. They've gotten their rights now...so they should shut up eh?

Posts like like yours about LGBT lobby will be a shameful part of our history, much like photos like this which were just people expressing their religious held beliefs.....apparently.
:rolleyes:

By your logic its grand for people in the above photo to express their views, people should just shut up and saying nothing.
The reality is people don't have to accept such hateful views, views against LGBT are no different and if you join a company or club that has a code of conduct and you break it then you deserve what you get.

recedite

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

People are sacked all the time for outrageous comments in the workplace

Its not exactly outrageous. The majority of people in the world would probably agree with him.

Ah, the good old argumentum ad populum rears its head again.

When deciding whether something is "outrageous" or not, it is perfectly acceptable to refer to whether or not it is a commonly held view.
How can something be "outrageous" if it is not even unusual?

recedite

AngryHippie wrote: »

AFAIK being the fundamental problem.

As Far As Anyone KNOWS There is no heaven, or hell. It is an article of FAITH as such it is your own personal heaven or hell and can only be entirely subjective it exists only in your imagination. There has never been a shred of proof, nor by definition can there be.

As such he is telling people how to live and threatening them with his damnation as a result of how they live their lives.

He is totally delusional if he thinks this will be possible while having an active role as the poster boy of any of the three major sports code that he has been fortunate enough to fulfill. He has had some very bad advice from a "spiritual" leader who has pressured him into spouting his nonsense, or he has taken it as his own personal mission.

Either way, the supporters and sponsors of those sports pay his wages and they don't have to tolerate his BS.
That is the message that is being sent.
Personal belief is fine, using your profile and social media audience to spout hate speech is not fine.

You have a lot of pent up anger there, angry hippie.
There are laws against hate speech. If you believe these guys spouted hate speech then call the police.
In fact you'll find that calling on sinners to repent, or quoting verses from the bible, falls very far short of the definition of hate speech. It's simply speech.
The word "nazi" has been mentioned in this thread a few times, but If somebody refuses to approve of homosexual sex acts it does not mean they are "literally a nazi".

theological

AngryHippie, you say that what is under discussion is deeper and further reaching than marriage. I agree, this is much further reaching than marriage. It's much further reaching than sexuality. At its most abstract level, it is about all rejection of God.

You are right to say that Christians (those who hold to the gospel that has been communicated since Jesus and the Apostles) oppose any sexual relationships outside of heterosexual marriage. Christianity holds to the position that the right place for expressing sexuality is in a marriage between a man and a woman (Matthew 19:4-6).

Christianity involves repenting of this and a multitude of other things that God in His word says no to and accepting that He knows what is best. Not because we are saved because of works.

Every Christian who repents and believes in the gospel is a part of the Christian church (Ephesians 2:19-22). They have heard Jesus' voice (John 10:27) calling them out of the world to live and speak for Him.

It isn't my place to "damn" anyone. I hold to what God has spoken to us in the Scriptures. People condemn themselves by rejecting the God who made them. (John 3:18, Romans 1:24-25).

I don't go to "mass". I'm a Protestant. I don't divide Jesus from the teaching of the apostles. Paul followed the path of Jesus, and offered himself for the gospel.

I don't think that any particular denomination has the right to "dictate human behaviour". God alone has every right to speak into His creation and has done so in His Son (Hebrews 1:1-2). He alone has the right to judge those who reject Him and give life to those who repent (John 5:22-25). We simply share His Word to others. As Israel Folau discovered, it can be very costly because people hate the gospel (John 15:18-19).

AngryHippie

recedite wrote: »

You have a lot of pent up anger there, angry hippie.There are laws against hate speech. If you believe these guys spouted hate speech then call the police.
In fact you'll find that calling on sinners to repent, or quoting verses from the bible, falls very far short of the definition of hate speech. It's simply speech.

Its not a case of these guys. Its a case of this guy.

I think there is something you are missing here, canon law doesn't run the world (Thankfully)

The line that has stops short of his nonsense constituting a crime is:

49ZT HOMOSEXUAL VILIFICATION UNLAWFUL
(1) It is unlawful for a person, by a public act, to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground of the homosexuality of the person or members of the group.
(2) Nothing in this section renders unlawful:
(a) a fair report of a public act referred to in subsection (1), or
(b) a communication or the distribution or dissemination of any matter on an occasion that would be subject to a defence of absolute privilege (whether under the Defamation Act 2005 or otherwise) in proceedings for defamation, or
(c) a public act, done reasonably and in good faith, for academic, artistic, religious instruction, scientific or research purposes or for other purposes in the public interest, including discussion or debate about and expositions of any act or matter.

If it was viewed in Tasmania or Queensland

A person, by a public act, must not incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or a group of persons on the ground of –
(a) the race of the person or any member of the group; or
(b) any disability of the person or any member of the group; or
(c) the sexual orientation or lawful sexual activity of the person or any member of the group; or
(d) the religious belief or affiliation or religious activity of the person or any member of the group.

If he had been playing for the Reds instead of the Waratahs, this could have been a very different reaction in law.

Federally and in NSW it does constitute hate speech, but it isn't a criminal act.

The point I think you are missing from a secular perspective is that in your own 'promotion' of your religious beliefs, you are alienating yourselves from rational thinking people instead of being approachable and tolerant.

I have deliberately avoided quoting the bible, as I don't consider it to be any more reliable a source than The Famous Five (at least they had a single author) But while we are at it, I presume you'd all be referring to Genesis 19 as a starting point....where two 'Angel' visit Sodom and a crowd of men gather outside Lot's house and want to 'know' them....which is hardly conclusive of anything. Perhaps a bit of Leviticus 18 and 20, where we have a few abominations thrown in, but no mention of hell, but plenty of good old fashioned putting to death. Which brings us nicely round to our old friend 'Saint' Paul who finally brings it all into perspective with some proper fire and brimstone hate speech and damnation.

In all honesty Jesus himself in the Gospels has virtually nothing to offer on the subject other than nodding to Leviticus which is ambiguous at best.

I don't have any pent up anger at all recedite, but I can't believe people are trying to defend Folau's actions on religious grounds.

Within his own church, and as a private person, he can do and say as he pleases, but what he has done is to commit a public act and as a bare minimum we should all be able to agree that it is inappropriate and witless.

If he wants to 'spread the word' then by all means go for his life as a preacher and enjoy the religious protection that he would deserve and be provided, but there is an irreconcilable conflict of interest between being in a position of such influence as a representative sports star and such a divisive broadcast.

recedite

AngryHippie wrote: »

Its not a case of these guys. Its a case of this guy.

As per the thread title, Vunipola and some others appear to support Folau.

AngryHippie wrote: »

Federally and in NSW it does constitute hate speech, but it isn't a criminal act.

No it does not, otherwise somebody would have arrested him.
Hate speech would be if he shouted "lads, lets get drunk and then go queer bashing"
Or... "Why is that queer still on the team, we don't want him in the changing rooms"

I have deliberately avoided quoting the bible, as I don't consider it to be any more reliable a source than The Famous Five (at least they had a single author) But while we are at it, I presume you'd all be referring to Genesis 19 as a starting point....
I don't have any pent up anger at all recedite, but I can't believe people are trying to defend Folau's actions on religious grounds...

Personally, I'm defending his right to free speech and freedom of religion.
That doesn't mean I agree with his religion.

Did I mention that..

recedite wrote: »

I'm an atheist

Your opinion, as expressed above, is that holy scripture is on the same level as an Enid Blyton children's novel. That could be construed as blasphemy. I'm happy that in our society you are allowed to say that without fear of being sacked or imprisoned.
Why not allow the same freedoms to religious or other people who may hold a different view to you?

theological

I'm interested in what you've said about being rational. You assume that atheists are the rational ones and that Christians are not. I disagree. A person is rational on the basis of whether or not they interact with the source data in a logical manner.

The Christian position is internally consistent based on the building blocks of creation, sin and the fall, Jesus and the cross, and salvation and judgement. (Discussing these building blocks would be where a decent conversation could be had).

The things listed in the image that Israel Folau shared are only symptoms of a root cause. The things that He lists are symptoms of saying no to God. I'm not anywhere near as interested in the symptoms that He lists, as I am in the rejection of God that causes them. All of them are things that God speaks against in Scripture.

The Christian position about repentance in the face of judgement is rational given the building blocks that I've mentioned above. If we've been created in God's glory then it makes sense that the creation reflects the glory of our creator. If we've rebelled against God by saying no to living in relationship with Him, and if we continue living in a way that He commands against in His world then of course He has the right to judge sin. In the light of Jesus coming into the world in history and dying on the cross and rising from the third day to save us from our sins it is loving to warn others of the judgement that is to come.

What you said about alienation is even more interesting. I hold to the concept of predestination, which is pretty helpful. It means that God knows who will come to Him. People will come to Him and people do come to Him. The gospel does two things, it either brings salvation or judgement to the one who hears it. (John 9 and the blind man who is saved and comes to Jesus, and the Pharisee who is blinded from God's truth show both sides of the coin)

Cabaal

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/international/israel-folau-sacked-by-rugby-australia-over-homophobic-post-1.3895449

Wallabies full-back Israel Folau has been sacked by Rugby Australia over homophobic social media posts.

Rugby Australia chief executive Raelene Castle told a press conference: “We are here to announce that Wallabies and Waratahs player Israel Folau has today been issued a sanction directing termination of his playing contract for his high-level breach of the professional players’ code of conduct.

“The three-member panel of John West QC chair, Kate Eastman and John Boultbee, provided its final written decision today in relation to the code of conduct hearing over Folau’s social media post on April 10, 2019.

“While Rugby Australia accepts the panel’s decision directing termination of Israel Folau’s contract for his high-level breach of the code of conduct, we want to stress that this outcome is a painful situation for the game.

“Rugby Australia did not choose to be in the situation, but Rugby Australia’s position remains that Israel, through his actions, left us with no choice but to pursue the course of action resulting in today’s outcome.

“This has been an extremely challenging period for rugby. This issue has created an unwanted distraction in an important year for the sport and for the Wallabies team.

“But our clear message for all rugby fans today is that we need to stand by our values and the qualities of inclusion, passion, integrity, discipline, respect and teamwork.”

Castle said she had been in touch with players to “make it clear that Rugby Australia fully supports their right to their own beliefs, and nothing that has happened changes that.

“But when we’re talking about inclusiveness in our game, we’re talking abut respecting differences as well. When we say rugby is a game for all, we mean it.

“People need to feel safe and welcomed in our game regardless of their gender, race, background, religion or sexuality.

“Israel is a great rugby player and we are disappointed and saddened by the fact that he will not see out his four-year contract and commitment to the Wallabies and also with the Waratahs.”

The right decision, he knew the rules and he broke them.
He also had a previous chance and he still broke the rules again.

recedite

“But when we’re talking about inclusiveness in our game, we’re talking abut respecting differences as well. When we say rugby is a game for all, we mean it.
“People need to feel safe and welcomed in our game regardless of their gender, race, background, religion or sexuality.

Can these people not see the irony of excluding a person from the game because of their religious beliefs, and then claiming its done in the interests of "inclusivity"?

We now await the appeal, and the arrival of the unfair dismissal lawyers.

troyzer

recedite wrote: »

“But when we’re talking about inclusiveness in our game, we’re talking abut respecting differences as well. When we say rugby is a game for all, we mean it.
“People need to feel safe and welcomed in our game regardless of their gender, race, background, religion or sexuality.

Can these people not see the irony of excluding a person from the game because of their religious beliefs, and then claiming its done in the interests of "inclusivity"?

We now await the appeal, and the arrival of the unfair dismissal lawyers.

Again, we wouldn't be having this discussion if he was a Nazi. You wouldn't be talking about the merits of inclusivity then.

amcalester

recedite wrote: »

Can these people not see the irony of excluding a person from the game because of their religious beliefs, and then claiming its done in the interests of "inclusivity"?

We now await the appeal, and the arrival of the unfair dismissal lawyers.

He's not being excluded because of his beliefs, he's being excluded because what he posted online was deemed to be a breach of contract.

I work in the medical industry, if I was to start making anti-vax statements online or elsewhere then I should expect my employer to take issue with it.

Just because I believe that vaccinations cause autism doesn't mean my employer has to entertain it, particularly when posting such beliefs breaches my contract of employment.

salmocab

recedite wrote: »

Can these people not see the irony of excluding a person from the game because of their religious beliefs, and then claiming its done in the interests of "inclusivity"?

Not why he’s being excluded as you well know. Turning this into some anti religious thing is just wrong and it’s looking to make victims of people who are not.

recedite

troyzer wrote: »

Again, we wouldn't be having this discussion if he was a Nazi. You wouldn't be talking about the merits of inclusivity then.

And if the moon was made of cheese we would be mining it.

amcalester wrote: »

I work in the medical industry, if I was to start making anti-vax statements online or elsewhere then I should expect my employer to take issue with it.

Only if your employer was making the vaccine.
If you want to make a valid analogy, that would be equivalent to Folau saying that rugby was a shít game, and soccer was much better.

Lets be clear, Folau is not trying to prevent any gay person from playing rugby, but gays are trying to prevent him from playing.

troyzer

recedite wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

Again, we wouldn't be having this discussion if he was a Nazi. You wouldn't be talking about the merits of inclusivity then.

And if the moon was made of cheese we would be mining it.

amcalester wrote: »

I work in the medical industry, if I was to start making anti-vax statements online or elsewhere then I should expect my employer to take issue with it.

Only if your employer was making the vaccine.
If you want to make a valid analogy, that would be equivalent to Folau saying that rugby was a shít game, and soccer was much better.

Lets be clear, Folau is not trying to prevent any gay person from playing rugby, but gays are trying to prevent him from playing.

You can hand wave it all you want but it gets to the core of the issue.

People like me don't care that it's a religious view. Religious views are not a special class of speech protected by free speech laws.

I care that a man has spouted homophobic views, I don't care that he's religious. But you do.

And what I'm saying is that if they weren't religiously motivated, you wouldn't care. This isn't about the content of his words or what he's saying, you're just picking a fight to make a martyr out of him. You think he's being bullied for his religious views

He's not. He's being sacked for his unacceptable, backwards and harmful views.

Which is why I keep asking would you care if he was a Nazi? And I believe you've given your answer which is to deflect and ignore. Basically confirming my suspicion.

recedite

troyzer wrote: »

You can hand wave it all you want but it gets to the core of the issue.

People like me don't care that it's a religious view. Religious views are not a special class of speech protected by free speech laws.

I care that a man has spouted homophobic views, I don't care that he's religious. But you do.

The core of the issue is that you want to allow one view, but not the other.
I'm quite happy to ban homophobic activity (eg actual gay bashing) or hate speech (incitement to actual gay bashing).

But when it gets to the stage where we are not even allowed to express a disapproval of any kind of homosexual activity, then it has gone too far.
Especially when its a well known fact that the major world religions (and therefore most of the world's population) do not approve of it.

amcalester

recedite wrote: »

And if the moon was made of cheese we would be mining it.

Only if your employer was making the vaccine.
If you want to make a valid analogy, that would be equivalent to Folau saying that rugby was a shít game, and soccer was much better.

Lets be clear, Folau is not trying to prevent any gay person from playing rugby, but gays are trying to prevent him from playing.

It wouldn't matter if my employer made the vaccine, what would matter is what is contained in my contract. If my actions breached the contract then I should expect to be sanctioned.

Folau can believe what he likes, where he like, when he likes. What he can't do, or shouldn't do, is say or do things that he has agreed not to.

amcalester

recedite wrote: »

The core of the issue is that you want to allow one view, but not the other.
I'm quite happy to ban homophobic activity (eg actual gay bashing) or hate speech (incitement to actual gay bashing).

But when it gets to the stage where we are not even allowed to express a disapproval of any kind of homosexual activity, then it has gone too far.
Especially when its a well known fact that the major world religions (and therefore most of the world's population) do not approve of it.

You want to have your cake and eat it though, you want to be able to express these opinions and be free of any consequences, and that's not how the world works.

Actions have consequences.

troyzer

recedite wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

You can hand wave it all you want but it gets to the core of the issue.

People like me don't care that it's a religious view. Religious views are not a special class of speech protected by free speech laws.

I care that a man has spouted homophobic views, I don't care that he's religious. But you do.

The core of the issue is that you want to allow one view, but not the other.
I'm quite happy to ban homophobic activity (eg actual gay bashing) or hate speech (incitement to actual gay bashing).

But when it gets to the stage where we are not even allowed to express a disapproval of any kind of homosexual activity, then it has gone too far.
Especially when its a well known fact that the major world religions (and therefore most of the world's population) do not approve of it.

Disapproval of who people are and the way they are born is unacceptable.

You cannot reserve the right to disapprove of "the blacks" or "the women" and expect to not have any consequences. Being gay is no different.

Eventually the rest of humanity is going to realise that.

sydthebeat

recedite wrote: »

Lets be clear, Folau is not trying to prevent any gay person from playing rugby, but gays are trying to prevent him from playing.

wow... apart from being factually incorrect.. youve let your homophobic veil slip there

Cabaal

recedite wrote: »

Lets be clear, Folau is not trying to prevent any gay person from playing rugby, but gays are trying to prevent him from playing.

No you are right, he's suggesting much, much worse
He wants them to burn in agony and suffer for eternity in hell. A much more serious wish on any person.

As I've said before, we wouldn't be having this discussion if he said black people should burn in hell. But because you have an issue with gay people here you are trying to defend his homophobic position
:rolleyes:

santana75

I saw in the news this morning that Israel Folau has been sacked by the Australian rugby federation. As far as I know, what he did was quote from Corinthians on twitter. And reading the comments here and in other forums people are saying he deserved what he got because he expressed Homophobic views. So I just want to be clear, are people now saying that when someone quotes from the scriptures that this is considered "Hate speech" and non inclusive? Do people genuinely believe that the word of God is hate speech and as such anyone expressing biblical truths publicly will be vilified and lose their job?

troyzer

santana75 wrote: »

I saw in the news this morning that Israel Folau has been sacked by the Australian rugby federation. As far as I know, what he did was quote from Corinthians on twitter. And reading the comments here and in other forums people are saying he deserved what he got because he expressed Homophobic views. So I just want to be clear, are people now saying that when someone quotes from the scriptures that this is considered "Hate speech" and non inclusive? Do people genuinely believe that the word of God is hate speech and as such anyone expressing biblical truths publicly will be vilified and lose their job?

It's not about religion. It's about homophobia. It doesn't suddenly become okay just because it was written in a book ages ago.

sydthebeat

santana75 wrote: »

I saw in the news this morning that Israel Folau has been sacked by the Australian rugby federation. As far as I know, what he did was quote from Corinthians on twitter. And reading the comments here and in other forums people are saying he deserved what he got because he expressed Homophobic views. So I just want to be clear, are people now saying that when someone quotes from the scriptures that this is considered "Hate speech" and non inclusive? Do people genuinely believe that the word of God is hate speech and as such anyone expressing biblical truths publicly will be vilified and lose their job?

i find it even more unbelievable that there are people out there that really believe that a book written by a myriad of different people, in a myriad of different languages (translated into a myriad of different languages), over the stage of about 2000 years, starting 3500 years ago, is accepted as literally being the "word of god" and to be followed to the letter in our modernity....

do you at any stage accept that even one of the ancient people could be, you know, wrong?

santana75

troyzer wrote: »

It's not about religion. It's about homophobia. It doesn't suddenly become okay just because it was written in a book ages ago.

I just want to be 100% clear about what youre saying here: Youre saying that the word of God is Homophobic? Do I understand you correctly?

santana75

sydthebeat wrote: »

do you at any stage accept that even one of the ancient people could be, you know, wrong?

So you believe that the word of God is wrong?

amcalester

santana75 wrote: »

So you believe that the word of God is wrong?

In order to answer that question one must first accept that there is a god.

Until it is established that he exists, his words can neither be right or wrong as any answer would be based on belief not facts.

troyzer

santana75 wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

It's not about religion. It's about homophobia. It doesn't suddenly become okay just because it was written in a book ages ago.

I just want to be 100% clear about what youre saying here: Youre saying that the word of God is Homophobic? Do I understand you correctly?

I'm saying that a book written 3,000 years ago, which you claim is the word of God, reflects the values of 3,000 years ago. Homophobia is one of them.

Nick Park

troyzer wrote: »

People like me don't care that it's a religious view. Religious views are not a special class of speech protected by free speech laws.

No, they are a class of speech protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

sydthebeat

santana75 wrote: »

So you believe that the word of God is wrong?

its obviously wrong....

with a very, very small bit of research you can find absolute fallacies, errors and inaccuracies which exist within any of the 450 different ENGLISH versions of the bible.... not to mention in any of the over 2,200 version in other languages.

you really are blind if you actually think a book written over the course of over 2000 years by so many different people in many different language doesnt contain contradictions and errors.

its actually staggering that people can be so ignorant to this