Israel Folau, Billy Vunipola and the intolerance of tolerance

salmocab · 21-08-2019 2:09pm

recedite wrote: »

Nobody seems to care about the atheists, drunks and fornicators that Folau mentioned in the same sentence.
Its definitely the gay lobby that are behind the power of the anti-Folau campaign.

Atheists as a group are I would think very unlikely to be worried about eternal damnation. Gay people on the other hand are possibly religious.
All the other things on his list are choices.

sydthebeat · 21-08-2019 2:30pm

must be the forth or fifth time the same water has been thread in this argument.
Obviously opinions are polarised and the arguers will never see the opposite viewpoint.

tritriagain · 28-08-2019 8:23am

recedite wrote: »

Nobody seems to care about the atheists, drunks and fornicators that Folau mentioned in the same sentence.
Its definitely the gay lobby that are behind the power of the anti-Folau campaign.

Absolutely. I'm an atheist. I wasn't offended by what he said. He thinks I'm going to hell and I think he's an idiot.

Peregrinus · 29-08-2019 2:56am

tritriagain wrote: »

Absolutely. I'm an atheist. I wasn't offended by what he said. He thinks I'm going to hell and I think he's an idiot.

Would you take the view that only a religious person could take offence, or could reasonably take offence, at what Folau said?

Hobosan · 29-08-2019 3:19am

salmocab wrote: »

Atheists as a group are I would think very unlikely to be worried about eternal damnation. Gay people on the other hand are possibly religious.
All the other things on his list are choices.

Yes, he got into trouble because exclusively religious homosexuals became worried that a rugby players comment consigned them to hell.

That's what it was all about.

salmocab · 29-08-2019 5:52am

Hobosan wrote: »

Yes, he got into trouble because exclusively religious homosexuals became worried that a rugby players comment consigned them to hell.

That's what it was all about.

Well that’s not even close to what I was saying but you can work away with it if you want.

Guy:Incognito · 17-11-2019 5:28pm

Guess who's being a prick again. https://7news.com.au/sport/rugby-union/israel-folau-links-bushfire-crisis-to-legalisation-of-same-sex-marriage-c-561104

Surely even if you believe in god, youd agree that it'd be easier for him to show up, just the once maybe , in a busy place, and tell a large amount of witnesses that you exist and what way you want people to live. Encourage them to film it too. and not as a scruffy , human looking homeless man that everyone will think is just someone crazy, something big and unmistakable. That has to be in everyones best interest?

But I suppose one vague book and then silently smiting the world in various ways is a better solution. Who knows, not me, Im not god.......

smacl · 17-11-2019 6:12pm

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Guess who's being a prick again. https://7news.com.au/sport/rugby-union/israel-folau-links-bushfire-crisis-to-legalisation-of-same-sex-marriage-c-561104

Surely even if you believe in god, youd agree that it'd be easier for him to show up, just the once maybe , in a busy place, and tell a large amount of witnesses that you exist and what way you want people to live. Encourage them to film it too. and not as a scruffy , human looking homeless man that everyone will think is just someone crazy, something big and unmistakable. That has to be in everyones best interest?

But I suppose one vague book and then silently smiting the world in various ways is a better solution. Who knows, not me, Im not god.......

Wow, at what point do you distinguish between religious zeal and full on homophobic hate mongering? I can't imagine that many Christians would agree with his take on things, nor for that matter can I see him wearing the jersey of a high profile rugby club any time soon.

eagle eye · 17-11-2019 6:43pm

Well I don't agree with his views, I staunchly disagree in fact. I'm not religious either.
You guys say he is homophobic. He is talking about god and his belief system here. I don't hear him saying that anybody should be beaten up or anything like that.
I think his views are wrong and I think you guys are wrong to call him homophobic.
Any anyways it's a sermon in a small church in Australia, who really cares what goes on there?

smacl · 17-11-2019 7:01pm

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't hear him saying that anybody should be beaten up or anything like that.
I think his views are wrong and I think you guys are wrong to call him homophobic.

He is blaming the unrelated and tragic death of innocent people on societies unwillingness to discriminate against gay people. That's blatantly homophopic from where I'm sitting, not to mention hugely insensitive to the families of the deceased and further is also incitement to hatred.

Any anyways it's a sermon in a small church in Australia, who really cares what goes on there?

The rest of the world apparently, given that it is featuring in the media and we're sitting here discussing it on the other side of the planet.

eagle eye · 17-11-2019 7:32pm

smacl wrote:

He is blaming the unrelated and tragic death of innocent people on societies unwillingness to discriminate against gay people. That's blatantly homophopic from where I'm sitting, not to mention hugely insensitive to the families of the deceased and further is also incitement to hatred.

Religion is insensitive at the best of times if you don't believe in it. I don't but I'm never offended by it because I understand that there are many people who follow religion.
You just have to accept that before deciding about comments from religious people.
I don't believe that there is any intention to wish ill on gay people from Israel Folau. I believe he is genuinely religious and as such I don't consider it homophobic.
If I thought somebody was intentionally using religion to air their views then it would be homophobic.

salmocab · 17-11-2019 8:23pm

eagle eye wrote: »

Religion is insensitive at the best of times if you don't believe in it. I don't but I'm never offended by it because I understand that there are many people who follow religion.
You just have to accept that before deciding about comments from religious people.
I don't believe that there is any intention to wish ill on gay people from Israel Folau. I believe he is genuinely religious and as such I don't consider it homophobic.
If I thought somebody was intentionally using religion to air their views then it would be homophobic.

Something being part of a religious belief doesn’t stop it being something else whether it’s homophobia, racism or believing that the colour red is blue it’s still all these things just the belief may have started for different reasons but is nonetheless still what it is. He’s entitled to his views but not entitled to not be judged.

Guy:Incognito · 17-11-2019 8:24pm

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't believe that there is any intention to wish ill on gay people from Israel Folau..

Yeah, he just wants them to stop being gay, is that too much to ask..........

smacl · 18-11-2019 9:21am

eagle eye wrote: »

I believe he is genuinely religious and as such I don't consider it homophobic.

Of course there is, saying gay people will go hell unless they repent is homophobic. Say gay people should not be afforded the same rights as straight people is also homophobic. Saying recent tragic deaths, with many more to follow, are a result of society refusing to discriminate against gay people is homophobic and hateful.

I see in the press this morning that other conservative Christians in Australia that have supported him up until this point are now telling him to shut up, https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2019/1118/1092536-australia-fires-folau/

"They were appalling comments and he is a free citizen, he can say whatever he likes. But that doesn't mean he can't have regard to the grievous offence this would have caused to people whose homes have been burnt down," said the prime minister.

Even one of his most staunch allies, former Wallabies coach and conservative radio host Alan Jones, was unimpressed.

"Israel is a lovely human being, I know him well. But, Israel, button up," Mr Jones said on his 2GB radio programme. "These comments don't help."

Iscreamkone · 18-11-2019 12:02pm

He may be right though...

The mathematics of probability would suggest otherwise

smacl · 18-11-2019 2:02pm

salmocab wrote: »

He’s entitled to his views but not entitled to not be judged.

This pretty much sums up the whole debate. He has decided to judge modern societal values based on his archaic religious beliefs and society has judged him right back.

Given from the broad negative reaction, his comments appear repugnant to most people and don't represent anyone's views other than his own.

AngryHippie · 20-11-2019 12:25pm

I wonder how long it will be before he busts out of the closet ?

Margaret Court's been in there pretty deep for a long time. Also a batsh1t crazy religious nut (independent Pentecostal minister)

sad to see. in more enlightened times we may fully accept religious fervor as the delusional optimism that it scientifically must be.

theological · 14-12-2019 8:57am

Seems like Rugby Australia settled with Folau so it won't see court.

This is a good outcome for religious freedom and freedom of expression. He'll probably be able to play club rugby again soon enough.

salmocab · 14-12-2019 9:16am

theological wrote: »

Seems like Rugby Australia settled with Folau so it won't see court.

This is a good outcome for religious freedom and freedom of expression. He'll probably be able to play club rugby again soon enough.

He was always able to play club rugby just like he always had religious freedom and freedom of expression, he lost his job. I would think it’s unlikely he’ll have many offers though as most clubs are unlikely to want a homophobe on their pay roll.

theological · 14-12-2019 9:43am

salmocab wrote: »

He was always able to play club rugby just like he always had religious freedom and freedom of expression, he lost his job. I would think it’s unlikely he’ll have many offers though as most clubs are unlikely to want a homophobe on their pay roll.

I and others have already argued at length about how believing what the Bible says about sexuality isn't hateful you can read through the thread. I've got nothing to add on this point.

I simply wanted to update the thread with the conclusion which I think is a good one.

salmocab · 14-12-2019 9:46am

theological wrote: »

I and others have already argued at length about how believing what the Bible says about sexuality isn't hateful you can read through the thread. I've got nothing to add on this point.

I simply wanted to update the thread with the conclusion which I think is a good one.

Good for you, I’ve read the thread and nothing you or others said convinced me. He’s a homophobe and lost his job for what he said. It was nothing to do with religion it was a man doing something he’d signed on to not do and losing his job.

eagle eye · 14-12-2019 9:47am

This is good. It'll be great to see him back playing rugby.
I wonder will he stay in Australia, I'm sure there are huge offers from many European clubs. I think he'd like to stay in Australia though.

salmocab · 14-12-2019 9:52am

eagle eye wrote: »

This is good. It'll be great to see him back playing rugby.
I wonder will he stay in Australia, I'm sure there are huge offers from many European clubs. I think he'd like to stay in Australia though.

He was sacked by rugby Australia there is close to no chance of him getting a job there.

eagle eye · 14-12-2019 10:00am

salmocab wrote:

He was sacked by rugby Australia there is close to no chance of him getting a job there.

It's been settled and RA made an apology as part of the settlement.

salmocab · 14-12-2019 10:00am

eagle eye wrote: »

It's been settled and RA made an apology as part of the settlement.

So? You think that changes anything

eagle eye · 14-12-2019 10:07am

salmocab wrote:

So? You think that changes anything

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

Yellow_Fern · 14-12-2019 10:10am

troyzer wrote: »

Some views simply shouldn't be tolerated.

If Folau had come out and said black people will burn in hell or Jewish people, you wouldn't accept him being raised to believe it as an excuse. There's no difference.

The suicide rate among gay teenagers is shocking as well as the almost non existence of rugby players willing to come out. Both of these things can be attributed to a historic intolerance of who they are. We are trying to stamp that out.

Backwards views are backwards. I don't care if they're sincerely held. If you believe something that is morally repugnant, you are morally repugnant.

Such an absurd conflation. Neither of those things can be attributed to anything let alone historic intolerance. You have not solved the problem of depression and suicide so stop acting like you have.

Yellow_Fern · 14-12-2019 10:12am

AngryHippie wrote: »

I wonder how long it will be before he busts out of the closet ?

Margaret Court's been in there pretty deep for a long time. Also a batsh1t crazy religious nut (independent Pentecostal minister)

sad to see. in more enlightened times we may fully accept religious fervor as the delusional optimism that it scientifically must be.

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.

salmocab · 14-12-2019 10:13am

eagle eye wrote: »

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

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

sosndt · 14-12-2019 10:17am

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.

eagle eye · 14-12-2019 10:19am

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 · 14-12-2019 10:20am

eagle eye wrote: »

Where did you get those facts?

What facts?

eagle eye · 14-12-2019 10:25am

salmocab wrote:

What facts?

That all doors are shut.

salmocab · 14-12-2019 10:26am

eagle eye wrote: »

That all doors are shut.

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

eagle eye · 14-12-2019 10:28am

salmocab wrote:

I didnâ€™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 · 14-12-2019 10:33am

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 · 14-12-2019 10:38am

salmocab wrote:

Again thatâ€™s not what I said

Well you made it sound like that.

sydthebeat · 14-12-2019 10:39am

eagle eye wrote: »

Well you made it sound like that.

Hahaha

Seriously????

salmocab · 14-12-2019 10:41am

eagle eye wrote: »

Well you made it sound like that.

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

theological · 14-12-2019 12:39pm

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 · 14-12-2019 12:44pm

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 · 14-12-2019 5:34pm

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 · 14-12-2019 8:59pm

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 · 14-12-2019 9:18pm

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 · 15-12-2019 12:16am

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 · 16-12-2019 5:31am

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 · 16-12-2019 11:02am

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 · 16-12-2019 12:11pm

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 · 16-12-2019 12:41pm

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 · 16-12-2019 1:42pm

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.

Israel Folau, Billy Vunipola and the intolerance of tolerance

Comments