Israel Folau, Billy Vunipola and the intolerance of tolerance

robinph wrote: »

He may have posted other things that were direct quotes from the bible, but "WARNING...Homosexuals... HELL AWAITS YOU. REPENT!" wasn't one of them. That may be his interpretation of what a certain passage says, but it's not a direct quote from anyone other than Folau or whoever he got the JPG from.

Ok, fair enough. I should have been clearer. The list of sins that Israel Folau posted is lifted directly from 1 Corinthians 6, topped and tailed with a brief and blunt call to repentance / threat of hellfire. I've already made clear that while I believe what he said to be true, I don't think his manner or means of expressing it was helpful. I don't think his post is a good example of speaking the truth in love, something that Christians are called to do.

robinph wrote: »

But the whole thing is that Folau is wanting to be able to tell homosexuals that they are going to hell, society has determined that that is no longer acceptable behaviour, christians are then getting upset as they cannot tell homosexuals they are going to hell anymore.

So it's wrong because society says so? Does that mean that it used to be ok because society didn't have a problem with it?

Do you think there are things that people do or say that they should stop doing even if their society thinks it's ok?

robinph wrote: »

christians are then getting upset as they cannot tell homosexuals they are going to hell anymore.

So you do want to suppress freedom of religion then? Or is it just the bits you find disagreeable? So much for tolerance.

robinph wrote: »

If your religion is defined by the ability to shout and threaten homosexuals that hell awaits them, then yes your religious freedoms are being restricted. But maybe the religion needs to take a hard look at itself and find something better to get worried about. The world has moved on and whilst the UN may protect religion I don't think you will find they support any religions "right" to spread messages of hate against homosexuals.

Ah come on, Christianity is not defined by this and well you know it. Why are you so unwilling to interact with Christianity on its own terms? It comes across as wanting to shout down and silence dissent. You're absolutely free to do so of course, but at least be willing to put on your big boy pants and admit that's what you're doing.

If the world has moved on then why do you even care enough to post about this?

robinph wrote: »

God made me say it isn't a defence for spreading hateful messages. If he doesn't believe that gays should be going to hell then he could simply not have said it.

Again, not what I said.

robinph wrote: »

To an extent you are probably right in that his interpretation of what his deity wants is offensive however it is tried to be dressed up, but religion doesn't have to hate homosexuals or threaten them with hell.

Disagreeing with certain behaviours, or even someones way of life does not mean that you hate them. You obviously disagree sharply with what I'm saying, does that mean I should conclude that you hate me?

robinph wrote: »

Many religions are perfectly fine in welcoming everyone without threats of eternal damnation because of who you happen to love.

That's as may be, but we're not talking about them. And Christianity does not threaten eternal damnation for anyone because of "who they happen to love." Our fundamental problem is that we reject God, everything else that we call sins are just symptoms of that fundamental problem, and flow from that root.

robinph wrote: »

It doesn't mean that it was OK before, just that society has become more enlightened and has corrected itself for previous errors in what is acceptable or not.

As for if there are things that are currently acceptable, which won't be in the future. Definitely.

A few follow up questions on this, if I may.
Is it liberal western society specifically that has the final word on these things, or do other societies get to decide what's right for them?
How do you know that our society is more enlightened than it was before, is there some other yardstick that you measure that against?

robinph wrote: »

It is not freedom of religion to spout hate speech against another group.

Absolutely, I know that is not what defines christianity. But why are you trying to defend Folau and his "right" to speak hate speech about people whilst hiding behind the banner of christianity then?
He has a right to hold whatever beliefs he likes, he doesn't have the right to shout about those threats to all and sundry though. If those views are not appropriate for christians to be spouting then other chritisans shouldn't be providing him with cover to do so.

So are you claiming that Folau is allowed to say what he likes because he is just repeating what he has interpreted it says in the bible, and he is therefore not responsible for those words?

I don't hate you and you are fully entitled to believe that homosexuals are going to hell. But I would consider that to be a hateful belief and you are not entitled to go and shout about that on the street, or on Twitter and expect to keep your job.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on what constitutes hate speech. If you've honestly and sincerely read everything that I've posted and still come to the conclusion it's hateful, then I can't force you to change your mind, nor would I want to. I think you're wrong, but that's ok.

If we delve behind the disagreement over Folau's post, we're left with a clash of worldviews that goes well beyond the scope of this thread. I believe that my christian worldview makes best sense of all the available data (the world, ourselves etc.) and is fully consistent with that data. My worldview has some foundational presuppositions, that I've already outlined further up the thread (God exists, he has revealed himself etc.). I can only assume that you believe similar things about your atheistic worldview. My ambitions for a discussion like this are fairly limited, and if we both come away with a slightly better understanding of one another then it would be great. At a minimum I hope you see that Christians aren't hate filled homophobes who have commited intellectual suicide, but if that is your sincere conclusion then that's ok too.

Another potential fruitful area for reflection, and again beyond the scope of the thread, is on the nature and meaning of our sexuality. Christianity sees sexuality primarily in terms of what we do, whereas contemporary culture (at least in the west) increasingly sees it in terms of who we are. That is an important distinction, and brings us to even more fundamental questions of what it means to be human. Part of the reason we are talking past one another is because you think that Christians are asking people (specifically homosexuals) to deny who they are. Part of my response to that is "your idea of who and what we are, and of what makes us truly human, is mistaken."

Again, I don't say any of this to be flippant or dismissive, and I realise that it's easy to forget there is a real person at the other side of a discussion forum. The Israel Folau incident does illustrate a growing desire to push Christianity out of the public square, and I hope you understand why that might be of concern to Christians.

Cabaal wrote: »

If a religious person claimed their religious beliefs meant they should refer to black people as n***ers and that they should say that all black people should burn in hell.

Would you find this agreeable?

Honest question.

As I've said before, replace gay with black and we simply would not be having this discussion.

No, I would not find it agreeable in the slightest. People can and do hide behind religion to justify all manner of disgusting behaviour. I'm going to copy paste in something I just said below in another post:

"Another potential fruitful area for reflection, and again beyond the scope of the thread, is on the nature and meaning of our sexuality. Christianity sees sexuality primarily in terms of what we do, whereas contemporary culture (at least in the west) increasingly sees it in terms of who we are. That is an important distinction, and brings us to even more fundamental questions of what it means to be human. Part of the reason we are talking past one another is because you think that Christians are asking people (specifically homosexuals) to deny who they are. Part of my response to that is "your idea of who and what we are, and of what makes us truly human, is mistaken.""

My initial response to a racist religious person would probably take a similar track. I would imagine they see white people as somehow superior or "more truly human" than non-whites. That is clearly incorrect, and not in keeping with Christianity or a scripturally informed Christian worldview. I know that Christians in the past (in the US for example) have followed exactly this wrong line of thinking, and would simply say that they were wrong and sinful in doing so.

In short, I think both you and the racist religious person are wrong in your assessment of what it means to be human (not saying you are just like them BTW). I also think you are making a category error in comparing sexuality and race.

robinph wrote: »

If liberal western society is following the rule "don't be a dick" to each other then it's probably pretty well placed in the scale of defining the rights and wrongs of the world. Other societies obviously get to decide their own systems, but we would hope that over time they see the light and change.

Are you really asking how do we know we are more enlightened today now that we don't allow homophobia to go unchallenged?

Well the obvious question in response is "who get's to decide what "don't be a dick" means, and how do we judge what is hateful and what isn't?" If your answer is "we do, and that is codified by society," then that's fine but it doesn't give a very firm foundation to critique opposing views. You have your truth, and I have mine. Now what?

In fact, it seems to me that western society borrows substantial capital from it's Christian heritage when making these kinds of judgments.

robinph wrote: »

I completely see where your train of thought goes in thinking that you are actually telling someone that you love them when telling them they are going to hell. I get that.

It is as 100% wrong as you think I am in saying god doesn't exist though. Actual people are affected by other people posting "warnings" on twitter about them going to hell, those people do not feel loved by christianity from those words.

If I'm wrong about god then that's my problem when it comes to it, nobody else has been affected. If Folau is wrong about hell and god though then actual real living people have been affected by his comments and the message of hate.

I don't believe for a moment that christians are hate filled homophobes. There are hate filled homophobes who are using chritianity to hide behind and christians should not be defending them.

If you are not asking homosexuals to deny that they are homosexual, then what is it that you are asking of them... or what is it that you believe god is asking of them if you must?

I understand what you're saying here and Christians should seek to be as sensitive and careful as they can when talking to others, especially when talking about matters that are so closely intertwined with how someone thinks about themselves, their identity and their place in the world. And yet, Christianity is claiming that there is something fundamentally broken in every one of us, and that none of us as we are meant to be.

The only way around that is to redefine Christianity is, to tolerate it even though you don't like it, or to seek to chase it from the public square until it becomes as irrelevant as flat-earthism.

zoobizoo wrote: »

If there is a God, he made gay people.

Why do religious question God's decision to create gay people?

Are you questioning God's wisdom?

That's a good question, but it's already been addressed several times on this thread. I don't really have anything to add to what I and other posters have already said.

Blueshoe wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

I'd cancel my season ticket. A lot of people would

Why though?

Because I don't want him playing for my team. He's a toxic presence and doesn't represent the values of community and inclusion that are important to Leinster Rugby.

Not that I'd ever have to, he'll never play rugby again except maybe Japan or possibly France in a few years.

There are different perspectives on this which the title of this thread alludes to.

Do you tolerate the intolerant? Personally I don't think so.

Paddy Jackson was given the boot ultimately for the content of private texts. We have standards for our players.

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

There are different perspectives on this which the title of this thread alludes to.

Do you tolerate the intolerant? Personally I don't think so.

Paddy Jackson was given the boot ultimately for the content of private texts. We have standards for our players.

It might help move things forward if you could define what you mean by tolerant and intolerant.

Agree with you re. Paddy Jackson by the way, and public figures should be held to a high standard.

So Paddy Jackson making derogatory comments about women and being sacked is fair enough but not derogatory comments about gay people?

And I know what you're going to say: "They're not derogatory, they're out of love blah blah".

Well I'm sorry but the vast majority of Ireland does not subscribe to that. When you start with the principle that there is something intrinsically wrong with the way another person was born, then I have no time for you.

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

So Paddy Jackson making derogatory comments about women and being sacked is fair enough but not derogatory comments about gay people?

And I know what you're going to say: "They're not derogatory, they're out of love blah blah".

Well I'm sorry but the vast majority of Ireland does not subscribe to that. When you start with the principle that there is something intrinsically wrong with the way another person was born, then I have no time for you.

Christians believe that there is something intrinsically wrong with the way everyone was born, without exception, including ourselves.

It really would be helpful if you could outline what you mean by tolerant and intolerant, but if you don't want to then that's absolutely fine.

Well by tolerate I mean allow someone to have a platform absolutely free of any consequence for what they say.

And by intolerance, in this case, I mean somebody who has an innate homophobia.