Israel Folau, Billy Vunipola and the intolerance of tolerance

sydthebeat wrote: »

If the Bible discriminates and espouses hate, as folaus interpretation is of it, then that hateful message should not be allowed to be spread. Simples.

That's your opinion that its a message of hate, and not a friendly warning.
What you're advocating now is a ban on the bible's message, which is really a separate free speech and/or freedom of religion issue.


But if this player is accused of "discrimination" then you must show how he somehow disadvantaged a homosexual, or prevented the participation of a homosexual in rugby.

amcalester wrote: »

Discrimination isn’t measured by the outcome, it’s measured by the intention.

Then at least show how he intended to somehow disadvantage a homosexual, or prevent the participation of a homosexual in rugby.

troyzer wrote: »

You have freedom of religion and speech but you are not free from consequences.

That's a strange kind of "freedom".
In fact, its not freedom at all.


The problem with the LGBT lobby 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.

recedite wrote: »

Then at least show how he intended to somehow disadvantage a homosexual, or prevent the participation of a homosexual in rugby.

That wouldn’t be the test, the test would be whether the reasonable person would think his statements were discriminatory.

recedite wrote: »

That's a strange kind of "freedom".
In fact, its not freedom at all.


The problem with the LGBT lobby 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.

Freedom of speech relates to the government not an employer.

It’s irrelevant to this discussion.

troyzer wrote: »

One very reliant on sponsors who themselves are in business to associate with positive messaging and achievement. This goes both ways.
Sponsors are under no obligation to continue paying to associate themselves with a toxic brand and several of them threatened to terminate their contracts.

So now we come to the kernel of the matter. The sponsors. Money.
Corporate fear of a negative social media campaign organised by the LGBT lobby.


Still, you can't just fire a person for being ugly, or unpopular, or because their religion is unpopular. That would be an unfair dismissal.

troyzer wrote: »

It's not about corporate fear or a lobby. I'm a consumer and I want the brands I use to be ethical. There is no gay lobby. I feel the same way around sustainability, sweat shops and human rights.

We want our corporations to behave more ethically. It isn't a bad thing for them to accept that they a responsibility. Enabling gay bashers is unacceptable.

You can fire somebody for incompetence. And when you sign on the dotted line for a job that means you have a lot of visibility and represent your country, then saying pretty hateful things is incompetent.

As I said already, if he was just a skinhead or a neo nazi, you wouldn't be defending him.

When was Folau involved in gay bashing?
If you make that claim with zero evidence, then "its a pretty hateful thing to say".
Comparing a Christian professional rugby player to a violent skinhead is a very low and dishonest tactic.

troyzer wrote: »

The principle that being gay is inherently wrong or sinful is gay bashing.

I never said a violent skinhead? I'm comparing him to skinheads which would share many of his views on homosexuality.

By the way, if Sonny Bill Williams (a Muslim who plays for the Blues) came out with an Instagram post saying Catholics will burn in hell or something like that, I'd be saying the same thing. Gay people aren't a special class. I'm against anyone who treats their fellow human beings as less than them.

Having said that, mass homophobia and the distressing suicide rate among LGBT teens means we need to be acutely aware of any attempt to tell those vulnerable teenagers that there's something wrong with them. Especially when it's one of their idols doing it.

It's important to show that this is not okay. He was given a chance after last time and I supported that. But not twice. He's not repentant and not only will he do it again if kept on, he would be emboldened by the inevitable fanboys of the global Evangelical hard right who are never short of desire for posterboys sticking it to the Man. The Man being teenagers who don't want to be battered at a nightclub by thugs because they were born gay.

You're saying a lot of things, but mostly you seem to be insinuating that Folau is the same as violent skinheads battering people outside a nightclub.
Unless you just mean you think his hair is too short?

troyzer wrote: »

I'm saying his views are shared by skinheads and you wouldn't be arguing if Rugby Australia had just sacked a player for expressing exactly the same views if they had just been a skinhead.

I'm a bit confused about what you are saying then.

Most sportsmen have very tight haircuts because its more practical and easier to keep clean.
Are you saying if he was white and short haired he'd be just a skinhead, and then nobody would defend him?
That's just wrong.
Its not the skin colour, or the hair length, or the tattoos that count, its whether one person is assaulting another.

And there was no mention of assault in this thread, until you brought it up for your own reasons. I suppose if you throw enough mud, some of it might stick.

smacl wrote: »

The point is not about berating Christians for being homophobic though, it is berating homophobia regardless of its source. The principal idea behind secularism is freedom of religion and freedom from religion. A secular society acknowledges the importance of religion but makes its rules based on the consensus of all the people, where many religions and none might be represented. So if society arrives at the conclusion that discrimination based on sexual orientation is not acceptable, that is independent of religious belief and religious belief does not excuse public displays of this type of discrimination. This is as true whether the discrimination is inspired by Christianity, Islam or alt-right conservatism. Certainly in this country, the majority of Christians are not homophobic and consistently vote in a secular manner.

From what I read, the thread is about berating Christians who hold to historical Christian, Biblical views on sexuality for being these things. This is your entitlement and you're welcome to do so. I just choose to follow Jesus and hold to what He says about sexuality, marriage and anything else. That's also my entitlement in a free society. Even if it is no longer my entitlement I will still hold to it.

There's nothing "discriminatory" about saying you disagree with how others view life. I object to secular views of sexual ethics, marriage and on a whole host of other issues because I follow Jesus Christ.

AngryHippie wrote: »

I think it's the devout religious people that are hung up about sexual relationships, not the other way around, most homosexuals have worked out (or are in the process of working out) how they feel, who they love and sexual behavior stems from that.
An honest conversation about love first, and about sexual relationships following on from that would benefit those with a "Christian worldview".

Not particularly. I don't give a lot of my thought to it to be perfectly honest. There's a whole host of other areas that I struggle to follow Jesus in. I'm much more concerned about ensuring that those who I serve in a Christian context grow to know and love Jesus Christ and His word better. Part of following Jesus however is coming to view things in the way that God does rather than how the rest of the secular world does. This makes us stand out like a sore thumb admittedly, but the cost is worth it for our relationship with God now, the family He gives us in the church, and for eternal life with Him after we pass on from this life.

AngryHippie wrote: »

This is what was posted. Its got nothing to do with the highest form of life, or trying to save people.

Of course it has everything to do with the highest form of life.

If these things (amongst others) keep us from having fellowship with God (which Christians believe is the life that God created us for, and therefore is the highest form of life), and keep us from coming into relationship with God, then telling people to repent and come to Jesus is genuinely caring and genuinely loving.

As I said in my first post. If you genuinely want to understand why Christians believe this - then we need to take off secular assumptions and work through how they differ with Christian assumptions and why. This gets to the heart of the issue. The whole berating Christians for being allegedly homophobic, or bigoted or whatever is pretty boring at this stage. We're pretty used to it, we just choose to follow Jesus and not you.

smacl wrote: »

While Folau expresses "a Christian worldview" it is certainly not the only Christian worldview and definitely not the majority one in this country or Australia for that matter. e.g. we are a majority Christian country that voted to allow same sex marriage. Australia is a Christian majority country that does not allow rugby players on its national team discriminate against anyone based on their sexual orientation. More extreme Christians might suggest that they represent a majority but I don't believe the evidence supports this position.

Throughout the history of Christianity since it's inception with the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and the Holy Spirit descending on His people at Pentecost, Christians have held that marriage is between a man and a woman.

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.

I'm more than happy to be called an "extremist" if being "extremist" means that I hold to the teachings of Jesus Christ on this matter and on all other matters.