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

robinph

recedite wrote: »

Expressing a religious belief is not the same as discriminating against somebody.
Apart from the guy who obviously was sacked, can you name one single victim of discrimination based on religion or sexual orientation in Australian rugby?

Can you be sure that because of his tweet there isn't young rugby players in minor teams not being discriminated against by others as they have been shown by Folau that it is OK to pick on them, or being afraid to be who they are, or feeling suicidal because of it?

[Deleted User]

robinph wrote:

Can you be sure that because of his tweet there isn't young rugby players in minor teams not being discriminated against by others as they have been shown by Folau that it is OK to pick on them, or being afraid to be who they are, or feeling suicidal because of it?

Hang on. He is responsible for his behaviour, not anyone elses.

He hasn't called for people to kill themselves.

That is crazy.

recedite

robinph wrote: »

Can you be sure that because of his tweet there isn't young rugby players in minor teams not being discriminated against by others as they have been shown by Folau that it is OK to pick on them, or being afraid to be who they are, or feeling suicidal because of it?

Folau did not advocate banning, sacking, or discriminating against gay players in any way.
I feel sure that if any such discrimination was occurring, the victim's complaint would be taken very seriously, and dealt with appropriately.

robinph

Deleted User wrote: »

Hang on. He is responsible for his behaviour, not anyone elses.

He hasn't called for people to kill themselves.

That is crazy.

:eek:

I'm finding it hard to believe that you are so blind.

[Deleted User]

robinph wrote:

I'm finding it hard to believe that you are so blind.

I'm finding it hard to believe that you have an issue with me completely disagreeing with the rugby player but being disgusted that he can be fired for holding his belief.

smacl

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah. His views are (in my opinion) wrong. I still think he should be allowed state them without being fired. His job had nothing to do with his religion.

That's up to his employer. If he'd be working in McDonalds and told the customers that if they we're gay, atheist or drunk they'd be going to hell, he'd also have been fired. This type of behavior will get you the chop in most jobs. It is not like he hadn't already been warned. Nobody wants their business or product tarnished in this way,

Part of the remit of being on a national sports team is to represent the team whenever you're in public. Broadcasting to people who don't share your rather whako interpretation of Christianity that they're going to hell is clearly not an image that the team wants to be associated with.

[Deleted User]

smacl wrote:

That's up to his employer. If he'd be working in McDonalds and told the customers that if they we're gay, atheist or drunk they'd be going to hell, he'd also have been fired. This type of behavior will get you the chop in most jobs. It is not like he hadn't already been warned. Nobody wants their business or product tarnished in this way,

That's my issue. Having a "wrong think" opinion will get you fired these days.

[Deleted User]

If your wife was dying and you had the choice between the best doctor in the world (who held dubious moral beliefs) and a decent doctor that was completely politically correct, who would you choose?

sydthebeat

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's my issue. Having a "wrong think" opinion will get you fired these days.

He didn't think it.... He broadcasted it.

HUGE difference.

And he got rightly fired for it.

smacl

Deleted User wrote: »

That's my issue. Having a "wrong think" opinion will get you fired these days.

As someone who's been employing people for the last three decades, I heartily disagree. You pay someone who is public facing to represent your company they can leave their public expressions of religious fervor, politics and any other personal baggage at the door. You can think whatever you like, but that is not the same as using Instagram as a makeshift pulpit to broadcast to the masses. Worth remembering all this repent or go to hell nonsense was side by side him wearing team colours in action on the pitch.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

As someone who's been employing people for the last three decades, I heartily disagree. You pay someone who is public facing to represent your company they can leave their public expressions of religious fervor, politics and any other personal baggage at the door.

When they are off-duty, you don't get to control every aspect of your employees lives, and all their thoughts.
If you sack them because you have seen their religious opinions expressed on their own Facebook page, Twitter account or whatever, you will quite rightly be up in court for unfair dismissal of an employee.

Professor Moriarty

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's my issue. Having a "wrong think" opinion will get you fired these days.

I think you miss the central point. People in the public eye are subject to public opinion. It is because he is a well known person, who is expected to be mindful about what he says and does, that his controversial beliefs should not be made public. There are very many similar cases. For instance and staying with rugby, Paddy Jackson was found not guilty but was fired by Ulster. Folau's mistake was not that he had homophobic opinions but that he made those opinions public.

recedite

In Paddy Jackson's case it was a bit more than a thoughtcrime.

Professor Moriarty

recedite wrote: »

When they are off-duty, you don't get to control every aspect of your employees lives, and all their thoughts.
If you sack them because you have seen their religious opinions expressed on their own Facebook page, Twitter account or whatever, you will quite rightly be up in court for unfair dismissal of an employee.

When you are a high profile rugby player you are never off-duty when it comes to your behaviour in public. If you don't understand that then you don't understand professional sport.

theological

smacl wrote: »

Islam in many regions where it predominates, in my opinion, is a deeply homophobic and misogynistic religion. Christianity used to be, but for the most isn't any more in Europe at least. The likes of Folau's sentiments in relation to homosexuals, atheists, drunks etc... aren't representative of most Christians, certainly not those in this part of the world who openly stand up for the likes of same sex marriage. I'd suggest that it is Folau's religious expression that is abnormal here, which is why we're having this discussion.

Christianity has for the course of 2,000 years stated that marriage is between a man and a woman and that sexual expression is right within that union. The vast majority of Christians still hold to this persuasion. You're right to say a small portion have departed from orthodoxy in this regard.
Biblical Christianity also doesn't encourage us to identify by sexual orientation or any other characteristic primarily. It encourages us to identify ourselves as followers of Jesus first and foremost above all things.

This truth about sexuality has implications for how all of us live. That's worth pointing out. It means a Christian married man shouldn't commit adultery, it means an unmarried Christian woman shouldn't sleep with her boyfriend, it means that a single Christian man shouldn't lead people on sexually in an unhelpful way before marriage.

Are these things offensive? Yes, but so what? People get offended every day. It is up to you as to how you respond to what people say.

Christians don't "hate" others for simply disagreeing as to the appropriate place for sexual expression and marriage in the same way as I don't think it discriminates against rich people for saying the love of money is the root of all evil or for saying it is as hard for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for them to enter the kingdom of God.

I've heard all the things I apparently can't say in the new age of secular thought police but I choose to state my belief and live by my belief in love of Jesus and the gospel and of a world that denies God to its detriment.

I think I'm done with that. Thanks for the discussion.

recedite

Lets say Folau had been up in court for murder in a high profile case, but was acquitted OJ Simpson style, then there would be a case for saying his behaviour had been unbecoming of an Australian rugby player.
But he wasn't up in court. All he did was quote the bible.

Professor Moriarty

recedite wrote: »

In Paddy Jackson's case it was a bit more than a thoughtcrime.

Indeed. To be fair to Paddy, he never suggested that gay people should burn in Hell. He also apologised for his behaviour unlike Folau.

recedite

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Indeed. To be fair to Paddy, he never suggested that gay people should burn in Hell. He also apologised for his behaviour unlike Folau.

Unbelievable. You actually think Folau should apologise for being a Christian and not hiding it.

Professor Moriarty

recedite wrote: »

Unbelievable. You actually think Folau should apologise for being a Christian and not hiding it.

Unbelievable. You actually think that's what I said. Unless you were deliberately misinterpreting. Let's assume not.

smacl

theological wrote: »

The vast majority of Christians still hold to this persuasion.

Not in this country they don't as evidenced by results in all the recent referendums. The majority of Christians in this country are in fact in favour of same sex marriage. I would rather doubt that many of them believe that homosexuals are going to hell.

Biblical Christianity also doesn't encourage us to identify by sexual orientation or any other characteristic primarily. It encourages us to identify ourselves as followers of Jesus first and foremost above all things.

This truth about sexuality has implications for how all of us live. That's worth pointing out. It means a Christian married man shouldn't commit adultery, it means an unmarried Christian woman shouldn't sleep with her boyfriend, it means that a single Christian man shouldn't lead people on sexually in an unhelpful way before marriage.

Are these things offensive? Yes, but so what? People get offended every day. It is up to you as to how you respond to what people say.

Christians don't "hate" others for simply disagreeing as to the appropriate place for sexual expression and marriage in the same way as I don't think it discriminates against rich people for saying the love of money is the root of all evil or for saying it is as hard for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for them to enter the kingdom of God.

I've heard all the things I apparently can't say in the new age of secular thought police but I choose to state my belief and live by my belief in love of Jesus and the gospel and of a world that denies God to its detriment.

I think I'm done with that. Thanks for the discussion.

You should maybe ask yourself what proportion of those people that identify as Christians in this country would share your worldview? Not a large proportion at a guess.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

Not in this country they don't as evidenced by results in all the recent referendums. The majority of Christians in this country are in fact in favour of same sex marriage. I would rather doubt that many of them believe that homosexuals are going to hell.

You should maybe ask yourself what proportion of those people that identify as Christians in this country would share your worldview? Not a large proportion at a guess.

You're not wrong there. If you're talking about evangelical Christians, then there are approximately 100,000 in Ireland. What's that, 2% of the population?

So definitely not normal

Turtwig

Mod:

No more mention or discussion of pedophilia in this thread, period. Make the points you wish to make via other analogies. Homosexuals have spent years being contrasted to child abusers and within the context of this thread the comparisons made have been anything but constructive.

Posters carder, thread reopening. . .

Nobelium

Folau's whole problem, is that he failed to grasp one of the most basic concepts of Christianity.

Christianity is not about what other people are doing and not doing, it's about what you yourself, are doing and not doing.

AngryHippie

recedite wrote: »

On the other hand, being an overt Christian is fast becoming abnormal, as Israel Folau has discovered to his cost.

Where did you get the cross Ted ?

AngryHippie

Deleted User wrote: »

You should be allowed say what you want as long as it is not a call to violence.

But your not. The law says you are not. As I clearly posted what seems like pages of strawmen and reams of whataboutery ago.

If it causes shame, ridicule or offense, then it is discriminatory and unacceptable. particularly in the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Australia and state of NSW where he was employed.
It is not a criminal offence, but constitutes a breach of the same discrimination act that protects his right to believe in the man in the sky and point to his bible as his moral code and practice the rituals within.

The line sits at using public media platforms to broadcast discriminatory or hate speech and hiding behind scripture and good deeds is as gutless and witless as the act in the first place in my opinion.
He crossed the line, did the wrong thing (on more than one occasion, as he was given a second chance previously) again.

Stop hiding behind religion to villify homosexuality - problem goes away.
Stop telling people who don't subscribe to your belief how to live - problem goes away.

For a "Majority" organization, you sure do put on your little victim hat very quickly when it comes to a rational discussion about your behaviour... Poor persecuted Christians.....https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/05/christians-remain-worlds-largest-religious-group-but-they-are-declining-in-europe/

AngryHippie

Deleted User wrote: »

he can be fired for holding his belief.

He wasn't fired for holding his belief.
He was fired for broadcasting it in a manner that caused offence, ridicule or shame.

No amount of hiding behind "saving" them from hell will change that.

If he is truly Christian, he'll be delighted to be presecuted for his belief and will put on some barbed wire underpants and flagellate himself for not trying harder to "save" them.

eagle eye

It's completely wrong that the best rugby player in Australia is not allowed play for his country because of his religious beliefs.

[Deleted User]

AngryHippie wrote:

For a "Majority" organization, you sure do put on your little victim hat very quickly when it comes to a rational discussion about your behaviour... Poor persecuted Christians.....

I'm not a Christian. But would you be so quick to mock other religions I wonder?

AngryHippie wrote:

Stop hiding behind religion to villify homosexuality - problem goes away. Stop telling people who don't subscribe to your belief how to live - problem goes away.

So nobody should say anything publicly in case other people don't believe it and are offended by it?

Was he hiding behind his religion to vilify drunks?

So what I gather here is that if you are religious, just shut up then you will have no problem?

[Deleted User]

AngryHippie wrote:

If he is truly Christian, he'll be delighted to be presecuted for his belief and will put on some barbed wire underpants and flagellate himself for not trying harder to "save" them.

Was there any need for that?

Cabaal

eagle eye wrote: »

It's completely wrong that the best rugby player in Australia is not allowed play for his country because of his religious beliefs.

He can believe what he wants,
But expressing it via a public medium that reaches millions is another thing altogether.

If he said black people should go to hell would you still defend him?