Israel Folau, Billy Vunipola and the intolerance of tolerance

troyzer · 04-05-2019 8:08pm

Communism disappeared in the 80s as well.

Maybe that's why suicides have supposedly gone up.

We need Papa Joe back.

one world order · 04-05-2019 8:12pm

troyzer wrote: »

There are a myriad of other, more real world reasons for that.

Such as a massive recession, changes in social behaviour and relationships and economic insecurity.

Crime is way down historically, can secularism take the credit for that?

Correlation =/= causation.

Crime rates in Ireland were at its lowest in the 1950s. You didn't even need a lock for a bike back then.

sydthebeat · 04-05-2019 8:19pm

one world order wrote: »

This is something you don't want to accept..

Do not assume to know what I want or not please.

I've explained to you why it's happening in Ireland, and I put the blame at the foot of the church.

one world order wrote: »

But I do believe in what the bible says and it's important to have a healthy relationship with God for self worth and happiness.

Good for you, but it's absolutely not necessary to have the crutch of religion to have a healthy self worth and happiness.

To need god to feel self worth is actually sad in my eyes as I see that as an inheritant weakness caused by indoctrination.

I believe humanity to be ultimately godlike in itself. I think we can all be our own deities in that we judge ourselves on our actions and thoughts, and the ultimate goal of life is to be happy and to bring happiness to others and reduce suffering where you meet it.

one world order · 04-05-2019 8:30pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

Do not assume to know what I want or not please.

I've explained to you why it's happening in Ireland, and I put the blame at the foot of the church.

Good for you, but it's absolutely not necessary to have the crutch of religion to have a healthy self worth and happiness.

To need god to feel self worth is actually sad in my eyes as I see that as an inheritant weakness caused by indoctrination.

I believe humanity to be ultimately godlike in itself. I think we can all be our own deities in that we judge ourselves on our actions and thoughts, and the ultimate goal of life is to be happy and to bring happiness to others and reduce suffering where you meet it.

God created you whether you want to believe it or not. You will die one day and that soul that occupies your body will leave it and go to the spiritual world. It's the same for everyone including those that deny they have a soul or deny gods existence. You blame the church and say it has caused the increasing suicide rates. But yet as more and more people continue to leave the church, the suicide rates continue to increase.

troyzer · 04-05-2019 8:32pm

one world order wrote: »

God created you whether you want to believe it or not. You will die one day and that soul that occupies your body will leave it and go to the spiritual world. It's the same for everyone including those that deny they have a soul or deny gods existence. You blame the church and say it has caused the increasing suicide rates. But yet as more and more people continue to leave the church, the suicide rates continue to increase.

Do you know what correlation even means?

You still haven't even established that suicide has gone up.

homer911 · 04-05-2019 11:18pm

With some exceptions, I'm seeing a lot more intolerance of tolerance on this thread. Unbelievers seem to want to deny the right of Christians to their beliefs, despite it being shared in love and truth. If you don't believe us, why you feel enmity towards us? This is the Christianity forum. What do you expect? Either Jesus was a madman and we are crazy to follow him, or he is the beginning and end of everything, and nothing is more important. Does that threaten you?

Shefwedfan · 05-05-2019 12:00am

homer911 wrote: »

With some exceptions, I'm seeing a lot more intolerance of tolerance on this thread. Unbelievers seem to want to deny the right of Christians to their beliefs, despite it being shared in love and truth. If you don't believe us, why you feel enmity towards us? This is the Christianity forum. What do you expect? Either Jesus was a madman and we are crazy to follow him, or he is the beginning and end of everything, and nothing is more important. Does that threaten you?

The folau issue is more to do with employment law. He broke the T&C of his contract so gets fired....

homer911 · 05-05-2019 9:33am

Shefwedfan wrote: »

The folau issue is more to do with employment law. He broke the T&C of his contract so gets fired....

That's what the legal debate is all about - he signed a contract without a social media clause, then was asked to sign a separate social media clause and declined, so it appears that he has not actually broken any contract (assuming you consider the social media clause, that he didn't sign, to be broken)

"Folau and his barrister Adam Casselden will argue that RA did not include a specific social media clause in his new contract and that his posts were merely passages from the Bible and not directly his words."
https://www.news.com.au/sport/rugby/rugby-australia-reportedly-face-financial-ruin-in-israel-folau-case/news-story/ade87e84d652ec3fc644265588556a40

Nobelium · 05-05-2019 1:17pm

homer911 wrote: »

With some exceptions, I'm seeing a lot more intolerance of tolerance on this thread. Unbelievers seem to want to deny the right of Christians to their beliefs, despite it being shared in love and truth. If you don't believe us, why you feel enmity towards us? This is the Christianity forum. What do you expect? Either Jesus was a madman and we are crazy to follow him, or he is the beginning and end of everything, and nothing is more important. Does that threaten you?

The likes of folau and some of christians here aren't sharing anything "with love" and truth, the first thing christians need to do every day is take a look at themselves, and what they themselves should be doing that day, what they say and how they say it, before they go preaching what other people should do.

homer911 · 05-05-2019 2:14pm

Nobelium wrote: »

The likes of folau and some of christians here aren't sharing anything "with love" and truth,

I disagree. If I hated drunkards, to use one of the examples, and was happy for them to condemn themselves to hell for all eternity, all I would need to do is say nothing at all. By sharing this bible verse, I expect that Folau was encouraging people to reflect on their own sinfulness and to turn away from it, knowing the promise of eternal salvation for those who do and trust in God - surely this is an act of love?

the first thing christians need to do every day is take a look at themselves, and what they themselves should be doing that day, what they say and how they say it, before they go preaching what other people should do.

This I do agree with as I said earlier. Becoming a Christian doesn't make us perfect, we are all works-in-progress, but the Bible tells us we should not do anything that would turn others away from the faith, while being truthful to what that faith is

Nobelium · 05-05-2019 6:04pm

homer911 wrote: »

I disagree. If I hated drunkards, to use one of the examples, and was happy for them to condemn themselves to hell for all eternity, all I would need to do is say nothing at all. By sharing this bible verse, I expect that Folau was encouraging people to reflect on their own sinfulness and to turn away from it, knowing the promise of eternal salvation for those who do and trust in God - surely this is an act of love?

not like a banging gong or a clanging cymbal it's not

homer911 wrote: »

This I do agree with as I said earlier. Becoming a Christian doesn't make us perfect, we are all works-in-progress, but the Bible tells us we should not do anything that would turn others away from the faith, while being truthful to what that faith is

which contradicts your first point and is exactly what Folau did. Folau is a mouth and was not saying anything "with love"

10fathoms · 05-05-2019 6:14pm

one world order wrote: »

God created you whether you want to believe it or not. You will die one day and that soul that occupies your body will leave it and go to the spiritual world. It's the same for everyone including those that deny they have a soul or deny gods existence. You blame the church and say it has caused the increasing suicide rates. But yet as more and more people continue to leave the church, the suicide rates continue to increase.

Must be lovely living such a delusional existence!

Cabaal · 05-05-2019 9:52pm

one world order wrote: »

Read the bible and you will find the answers. It was written over 1,600 years from the time of Abraham to the early Jewish christians. It warns us of the false prophets after Jesus came into this world and of the time in the future those that control this world give everyone the mark of the beast.

The Bible eh?
the book that uses stories stolen from other faiths that predate the Christian and Jewish faiths.

Yep, seems reliable alright.

Cabaal · 05-05-2019 9:56pm

one world order wrote: »

There have been people within the Catholic Church that have gone against the bible and what God has told us. Those people will be punished by God. .

So countless cardinals, bishops and priests. Oh and numerous popes including the current pope.

Perhaps you can agree with the above and agree that if your he'll exists numerous popes will be going to it.

Cabaal · 07-05-2019 3:11pm

https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/48184011

Israel Folau has been found guilty of a "high level breach" of Rugby Australia's player code of conduct after he said "hell awaits" gay people in a social media post.

A three-person panel who presided over his hearing will now consider what punishment the 30-year-old will face.

The Waratahs full-back, contracted with RA until 2022, escaped punishment for similar comments last year.

....In April, Australian rugby league's governing body ruled out Folau returning to the NRL.

He signed up to a code of conduct and he broke it, its that simple.

If he didn't like the code of conduct and wanted to preach his hate then perhaps he shouldn't have taken the job?

homer911 · 12-05-2019 6:12pm

1. It appears he never signed up to a social media contract - he had already signed his main contract and declined to sign this extra
2. Context is everything, if anyone quotes the bible and you take offence, does this mean it was quoted in hate?

recedite · 12-05-2019 9:02pm

Cabaal wrote: »

He signed up to a code of conduct and he broke it, its that simple.

That's what they are saying alright, but its not that simple at all.
Here's the players Code of Conduct.

1.1 Your safety and the safety of your team mates and opponents comes first. Be aware of, and always comply with, the Rugby AU Safety Policies and Guidelines.
1.2 Be a good sport, displaying modesty in victory and graciousness in defeat.
1.3 Treat everyone equally, fairly and with dignity regardless of gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, cultural or religious background, age or disability. Any form of bullying, harassment or discrimination has no place in Rugby.
1.4 Do not repeatedly breach the Laws of the Game relating to Foul Play or Misconduct (as those terms are defined in World Rugby Regulations).
1.5 Accept and respect the authority of a referee, assistant referee, touch judge or other match or team official. Do not abuse, threaten or intimidate, use crude language or gestures, or show unnecessary obvious dissension, displeasure or disapproval towards a referee, touch judge or other match official, whether on or off the field, or a selector, coach, manager or other team official.
1.6 Do not make any public comment that is critical of the performance of a match official, player, team official, coach or employee/officer/volunteer of any club or a Union; or on any matter that is, or is likely to be, the subject of an investigation or disciplinary process; or otherwise make any public comment that would likely be detrimental to the best interests, image and welfare of the Game, a team, a club, a competition or Union.
1.7 Use Social Media appropriately. By all means share your positive experiences of Rugby but do not use Social Media as a means to breach any of the expectations and requirements of you as a player contained in this Code or in any Union, club or competition rules and regulations.
1.8 Do not otherwise act in a way that may adversely affect or reflect on, or bring you, your team, club, Rugby Body or Rugby into disrepute or discredit. If you commit a criminal offence, this is likely to adversely reflect on you and your team, club, Rugby Body and Rugby.
1.9 You must assist in any investigation or disciplinary proceedings and ensure that no inaccurate and/or misleading information is provided by you during the course of an investigation or hearing under this Code or in relation to any other disciplinary proceedings.
1.10 You must disclose any incident, matter or set of circumstances (irrespective of when it occurred) that does, or has the potential to, render you an unfit or improper person to be a Participant in Australian Rugby. This includes any incident, matter or set of circumstances that could damage the game of Rugby or bring into question the integrity and good character of its Participants.

Download it yourself here, if you want.

Which bit of the code does he break by having fairly standard and well known Christian beliefs about homosexuality? (similar beliefs also shared by Muslims and many others)

These are the two questions that need to be asked;

1. Did Folau harass or bully any LBGT player, or did he seek to prevent any such player from participating in the game? IMO the answer is No.

2. Did anyone else harass or bully Folau on account of his religious beliefs, or did they seek to prevent him from participating in the game?
IMO the answer is Yes.

smacl · 13-05-2019 10:17am

1.3 - Treat everyone equally, fairly and with dignity regardless of gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, cultural or religious background, age or disability. Any form of bullying, harassment or discrimination has no place in Rugby.

1.7 - Use Social Media appropriately. By all means share your positive experiences of Rugby but do not use Social Media as a means to breach any of the expectations and requirements of you as a player contained in this Code or in any Union, club or competition rules and regulations.

Stating that gay people and atheists will go to hell if they don't repent is clearly discriminating against people based on sexual orientation or religious background. He had already been warned of this previously yet persisted in the full knowledge that his actions were in breach of the code of conduct. As already mentioned, it is that simple.

recedite · 13-05-2019 5:00pm

smacl wrote: »

Stating that gay people and atheists will go to hell if they don't repent is clearly discriminating against people based on sexual orientation or religious background.

No it's not, because he is not selecting the players; he is after all, only a player himself.

The fact that he has been de-selected because he expressed his religious beliefs is a breach of the code though.

homer911 · 13-05-2019 6:06pm

smacl wrote: »

Stating that gay people and atheists will go to hell if they don't repent is clearly discriminating against people based on sexual orientation or religious background. He had already been warned of this previously yet persisted in the full knowledge that his actions were in breach of the code of conduct. As already mentioned, it is that simple.

There cant be discrimination unless you now consider him to be God and he is making the decisions about Heaven and Hell. Also how can quoting the Bible be perceived as discrimination? The world has yet to come up with a law that considers pointing out to sinners their future, as being discriminatory or racist. I'm also pretty sure that this Bible quote was directed at Christians, warning them not to live like pagans

sydthebeat · 13-05-2019 6:30pm

homer911 wrote: »

There cant be discrimination unless you now consider him to be God and he is making the decisions about Heaven and Hell. Also how can quoting the Bible be perceived as discrimination? The world has yet to come up with a law that considers pointing out to sinners their future, as being discriminatory or racist. I'm also pretty sure that this Bible quote was directed at Christians, warning them not to live like pagans

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.

recedite · 13-05-2019 6:47pm

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 · 13-05-2019 6:48pm

recedite wrote: »

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. or prevented the participation of a homosexual in rugby.

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

recedite · 13-05-2019 6:50pm

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 · 13-05-2019 6:54pm

I don't know why it being in the Bible makes it okay.

If Folau wasn't religious but just a deeply committed skinhead, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

A view isn't valid just because it's religious. This is something religious people don't understand. Your beliefs may be sacred to you but in the market place of ideas they shouldn't enjoy special protection. You have freedom of religion and speech but you are not free from consequences.

recedite · 13-05-2019 7:20pm

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.

troyzer · 13-05-2019 7:24pm

recedite wrote: »

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.

Freedom of speech protects you from the state. It has never protected you from public opinion.

Politicians lose elections when they say stupid stuff. Speech has consequences but you are free to say it. Nobody is going to silence you but they don't have to listen to you either.

It's not rocket science, he signed a contract with made him the very public face of an organisation struggling financially. 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 Rugby Australia had two choices:

1) Side with a bigot and go bankrupt.

2) Tell a bigot he's a bigot and keep the sponsors on-board. It's absolutely a no brainer.

amcalester · 13-05-2019 7:25pm

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.

recedite · 13-05-2019 8:02pm

amcalester wrote: »

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

But what does "discriminatory" mean? It means disadvantaging a person, or trying to prevent their participation.
Folau was AFAIK trying to steer people (atheists, drunks fornicators and homosexuals) away from hell and towards heaven instead. That would seem to be the opposite of discrimination, because he invites participation and he wants them to share in the advantages.

recedite · 13-05-2019 8:07pm

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 · 13-05-2019 8:11pm

recedite wrote: »

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.

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.

recedite · 13-05-2019 8:29pm

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 · 13-05-2019 8:40pm

recedite wrote: »

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.

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.

recedite · 13-05-2019 9:10pm

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 · 13-05-2019 9:24pm

recedite wrote: »

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?

When did I say that he was violent?

I never ONCE said that.

I'm not calling him a skinhead. 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.

Nothing to do with violence. Skinheads are not necessarily violent.

recedite · 13-05-2019 9:41pm

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.

recedite · 13-05-2019 9:43pm

troyzer wrote: »

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

No its not. That is utter nonsense.
One is a belief, or a thought. The other is an assault.

troyzer · 13-05-2019 10:15pm

Right. We need to clear a few things up because you clearly haven't got a clue what a skinhead or gay bashing in.

A skinhead is a member of a subculture of post punk rockers who for the most part have been taking over by far right bigots who hate gay people and are usually white supremacists.

Gay bashing is the act of maligning and belittling the gay community verbally. It's not physical assault. Bible bashing is when a Christian uses the Bible to force their beliefs down someone else's throat.

I never brought up assault or violence.

What I'm saying is that Israel Folau shares many beliefs with a class of person (skinheads) who I think you and I would both agree are horrible people. He is not a skinhead and certainly doesn't share their white supremacist views. But he does share their bigoted views on homosexuality.

What I'm saying to you is if a skinhead (not Folau) was sacked for expressing strong anti gay views, we wouldn't be having this conversation. You wouldn't care.

People are sacked all the time for outrageous comments in the workplace, I've seen this myself.

Christians are desperate to make this about faith. It's not. His faith is irrelevant. He has expressed a view which places gay people on a step below himself. They are less pure and worthy than him. This is a backwards and unacceptable view and he was sacked much like a skinhead or neo-nazi would be for having exactly the same views. Just with a lot less fanfare.

recedite · 14-05-2019 12:07am

troyzer wrote: »

Right. We need to clear a few things up because you clearly haven't got a clue what a skinhead or gay bashing in.

A skinhead is a member of a subculture of post punk rockers who for the most part have been taking over by far right bigots who hate gay people and are usually white supremacists.

That's a bit of a generalisation.

Gay bashing is the act of maligning and belittling the gay community verbally. It's not physical assault.

So now gay bashing has been re-defined, has it?
Is that because there is little or no real gay bashing going on anymore in western countries, so the LGBT lobby decided to lower the bar so that they could still claim to be victims?
This is real gay bashing, and it was a sickening phenomenon.

I never brought up assault or violence.

Yes you did, you talked about people being battered outside night clubs.

What I'm saying to you is if a skinhead (not Folau) was sacked for expressing strong anti gay views, we wouldn't be having this conversation. You wouldn't care.

Yes I would. You presume a lot. Maybe I don't automatically assume somebody is a bad person just by looking at the way they dress, or the length of their hair. Or by whether they approve of homosexual sex.

People are sacked all the time for outrageous comments in the workplace, I've seen this myself.

The guy disapproves of homosexual sex, drunkenness, infidelity and atheism. Its not exactly outrageous. The majority of people in the world would probably agree with him. The holy books of the two major world religions, Christianity and Islam, both agree with him.
Maybe you're a bit "closed minded"? Do you think people should be sacked just for disagreeing with your view?

Hotblack Desiato · 14-05-2019 2:43am

recedite wrote: »

The majority of people in the world would probably agree with him.

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

Lyle Lanley · 14-05-2019 3:13am

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.

'They' want to take away your freedom to continue to treat them as less human because they do not share your exact beliefs. Seems fair enough to me.

AngryHippie · 14-05-2019 3:29am

recedite wrote: »

But what does "discriminatory" mean? It means disadvantaging a person, or trying to prevent their participation.
Folau was AFAIK trying to steer people (atheists, drunks fornicators and homosexuals) away from hell and towards heaven instead. That would seem to be the opposite of discrimination, because he invites participation and he wants them to share in the advantages.

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.

theological · 14-05-2019 6:49am

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.

This is post-modernism, and it isn't what Christians actually believe about God.

Christians don't believe that their faith is only make believe and that they believe to keep themselves happy. I know atheists might want Christians to think this, but we don't. If it were so then Israel Folau wouldn't have posted this material in the first place.

Christians believe that there is an objective God, who created the world. An objective God who physically stepped into this world to bring salvation in Jesus God's Son by His objective death on the cross, and His objective resurrection from the dead in history. They also believe there is an objective judgement, for clear disobedience to God.

Just reading this thread, particularly from Cabaal's posts and from the posts of others, they are just assertions based on a particular worldview. In order to be able to discuss this with understanding from a Christian worldview, you need to be able to take off atheist assumptions and actually understand Christian assumptions. We all have presuppositions and these need to be discussed to get to the heart of the issue.

If Israel Folau believes that sin leads to God's rightful judgement against humanity for sin and rebellion against Him, then it is genuinely loving to warn people to repent before it is too late. Israel Folau doesn't believe like most of the secular world in the west that sexual relationships are the highest form of experience in this life. Rather he believes that a living relationship with the only true God is the highest form of experience in this life.

Unless we're willing to discuss and analyse the idolatry and deification of sexual relationships in the West then we won't get to the heart of the matter.

Berating Christians from a secular perspective for being intolerant, bigoted, homophobic etc is just a bit boring after a while. Why? It misses the heart of the issue. We're perfectly happy being called all these things because we follow Jesus and what He says. Why are we happy to be called all these things? We're happy because we know that it isn't true, and we know that it is indeed loving to warn people of their sin before it is too late.

smacl · 14-05-2019 7:16am

recedite wrote: »

No it's not, because he is not selecting the players; he is after all, only a player himself.

The charter doesn't refer to other players though, it refers to everyone.

1.3 - Treat everyone equally, fairly and with dignity regardless of gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, cultural or religious background, age or disability. Any form of bullying, harassment or discrimination has no place in Rugby.

smacl · 14-05-2019 7:32am

theological wrote: »

Berating Christians from a secular perspective for being intolerant, bigoted, homophobic etc is just a bit boring after a while.

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.

AngryHippie · 14-05-2019 8:02am

theological wrote: »

Unless we're willing to discuss and analyse the idolatry and deification of sexual relationships in the West then we won't get to the heart of the matter.

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".

theological wrote: »

If Israel Folau believes that sin leads to God's rightful judgement against humanity for sin and rebellion against Him, then it is genuinely loving to warn people to repent before it is too late. Israel Folau doesn't believe like most of the secular world in the west that sexual relationships are the highest form of experience in this life. Rather he believes that a living relationship with the only true God is the highest form of experience in this life.

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

smacl · 14-05-2019 8:43am

AngryHippie wrote: »

An honest conversation about love first, and about sexual relationships following on from that would benefit those with a "Christian worldview".

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.

theological · 14-05-2019 9:21am

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.

smacl · 14-05-2019 9:32am

theological wrote: »

From what I read, the thread is about berating Christians who hold to historical Christian, Biblical views on sexuality for being these things.

I think it has more to do with sanctioning a rugby player for breach of conduct for repeatedly pushing this point of view when warned not to. Of course you are allowed hold and express whatever your beliefs happen to be, but if that expression runs contrary to what society considers acceptable there may well be consequences. Freedom of speech can and does carry consequences where that speech is deemed by society to be hurtful to others.

homer911 · 14-05-2019 12:49pm

troyzer wrote: »

Bible bashing is when a Christian uses the Bible to force their beliefs down someone else's throat.

I have yet to see anyone become a Christian by having Christian beliefs "stuffed down their throat" and object to your discriminatory view of Christians
https://biblehub.com/revelation/3-20.htm

Israel Folau, Billy Vunipola and the intolerance of tolerance

Comments