Airing Religious Views

Bannasidhe · 18-04-2019 12:41pm

weldoninhio wrote: »

What branch of Christianity does he follow??

He was raised Mormon but converted to the Pentecostal Assemblies of God in 2011.

Which means he believes the Bible is the word of God without error... apart from the bit about tattoos and he has spun, in his mind, the bit about 'keeping holy the Sabbath' to meaning he can play professional rugby because his God made him good at it so it's kinda like praying really...

BattleCorp · 18-04-2019 12:43pm

robinph wrote: »

He posted an opinion on a platform afforded to him by his job that did not match the views that his employer expect of their employees to be using that platform for. What is so difficult to understand?

It's difficult to understand how someone can be sacked from their job for having a religious belief and stating that belief in public.

And (I am not a lawyer) it's a belief that isn't against the law. You are free to believe any group you like will go to hell as long as you don't discriminate against that group.

And there's no law that says it's ok to hold a religious belief as long as you don't post it on twitter.

Did he post his statement on the official ARU twitter account? No he did not. He posted it on his own personal account.

I would be fine with the ARU coming out and distancing themselves from Falou's comments, but I don't agree with them sacking him.

Bannasidhe · 18-04-2019 12:43pm

robinph wrote: »

He only has the following on social media because of his job, it's not because of his religious views.

Plus he was wearing his 'uniform' (Wallabies kit) in his profile photo.

PCeeeee · 18-04-2019 12:43pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And posters here are saying Folau is simply being a devout Christian and is being penalised for following the tenets of his religious beliefs.

Yet - he doesn't follow them all now does he?
He chooses which to follow and which don't suit him.

Bible says xxxx - so I'm gonna tweet about that cos it's the word of the Lord.
Bible says xxxx & xxxx - yup, I'm just gonna ignore those bits.

Plus if you can't see the stunning hypocrisy of promoting a gay/inclusive tournament in honour of a gay rugby player killed by religious extremists and then tweeting that gays, according to your beliefs, are damned than I can't help you.

Ah I see. You'd respect his views more if he followed the bible more literally.

sbsquarepants · 18-04-2019 12:45pm

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

You can if your contract says you are not to act like 'a bit of a twat' whilst in our employ.

We're going round in circles here.

Then you are being sacked for "breach of contract" - happens all the time.

There simply is no offence of "being a bit of a twat"

Anteayer · 18-04-2019 12:46pm

From his employers' and sponsors' point of view, imagine you were running a company and hired a receptionist who decided once in a while to tell your customers they'd burn in hell for being atheists or gay.

I'd say their career in your company would be rather short.

He's an ambassador for his team and for his sponsors and his profile is in large part due to their organisations.

cgcsb · 18-04-2019 12:47pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

apart from the bit about tattoos and he has spun, in his mind, the bit about 'keeping holy the Sabbath' to meaning he can play professional rugby because his God made him good at it so it's kinda like praying really...

What if god made a man super good at fellatio? Never mind, I guess they aren't rugby players for their critical thinking ability.

Bannasidhe · 18-04-2019 12:48pm

PCeeeee wrote: »

Ah I see. You'd respect his views more if he followed the bible more literally.

Actually, I would.

I would still disagree with his beliefs but would respect his commitment and that he practices what he preaches.
Instead - he practices some of what he preaches and ignores the parts that don't suit him.

As for his sacking - I think that is between him and the ARFU.
If he has breached the terms and conditions of his employment after been given a warning then he made his choice as a grown man.

sbsquarepants · 18-04-2019 12:49pm

robinph wrote: »

He only has the following on social media because of his job, it's not because of his religious views.

You could argue he has the following because he's a fantastic rugby player. If he was employed by another team, he'd still have the following, so it's not really down to his employer.

If Robert DeNiro said something controversial on twitter - who would you say afforded him his platform? Whoever he happened to be working for at the time?

Anteayer · 18-04-2019 12:51pm

I wonder though if someone could actually take everything in the Bible literally and live by it, without picking and choosing. It was written over a very long time and comes in two distinct volumes; the New and Old Testaments, which take very different views of the world.

A lot of what it says in one part completely contradicts things it says in other parts.

It doesn't make sense to me that someone could live by a literal interpretation of it.

Akrasia · 18-04-2019 12:52pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Firstly, I think religion is stupid. But hey, if you want to partake, work away.
Secondly, I have no problem with gay people. Live and let live.

https://news.sky.com/story/israel-folau-rugby-star-to-be-sacked-over-anti-gay-social-media-post-11694460

That said, it's troubling me that Israel Folou is in so much hot water for airing his own religious views that homosexuals are going to go to hell. To be fair, that's pretty much what the Catholic church teach. It's pretty much what's written in the bible. I think Islam pretty much teaches the same.

So why is he being sacked for airing his religious views, views that are common amongst many? Is it now a crime to air your religious views?

Is it really discrimination to say that gays are going to hell, especially when it's the teaching of many churches around the world?

I could understand the outrage if he said to get your pitchfork and kill gays but he did nothing of the sort.

Or is it a case of it's ok to believe what you like but keep your mouth shut.

Even if the view is something that I don't agree with, I don't agree with silencing that view. If we go down that road, it's not a nice place to end up.

The homophobic, bigoted, divisive and cruel belief systems attached to organised religion have always been wrong. It's just that when a religion has it's grip on society, people are brainwashed into thinking that it's not just ok to be homophobic and misogynistic, but that it's what they're actually supposed to believe.

The immoral nature of these beliefs becomes apparent when you take away the compulsion attached to religious dogma, and people are allowed to think these things through for themselves.

Religion doesn't just 'allow' you to hold religious beliefs, religion compels their adherents to hold certain world views. The 'sacred scripture' that they believe is the written instruction from an omnipotent omniscient deity tells the that they themselves are immoral if they don't hold the beliefs that are part of their creed. Religious congregations routinely practise rituals where they declare in unison that they all believe the same thing and they all subscribe to the same perfect texts. The apostles creed in Roman Catholicism is said at every mass and every mass goer is expected to confirm that they believe the tenets of the faith including adherence to the old testament versions of hell and eternal judgement for 'sins'. Every Catholic says at every mass that they believe that god will judge them and if they don't live up to the standards set down in the bible, they will be sent to hell.

In modern secular society, people are able to go through lip service and say the words without really meaning them. That's the only way we can reconcile the existence of these ancient religious beliefs with the modern world where we don't stone people to death for the most frivolous of infractions. When people do genuinely believe in the bible and scripture, they stick out like a sore thumb and their views are abhorrent to people with enlightenment values. In theocratic societies, where they still adhere to the religious dogma and enforce it on their populations, the people are often subjugated and people are put to death and imprisoned for doing things that are a normal part of life in modern society.

Akrasia · 18-04-2019 12:55pm

Anteayer wrote: »

I wonder though if someone could actually take everything in the Bible literally and live by it, without picking and choosing. It was written over a very long time and comes in two distinct volumes; the New and Old Testaments, which take very different views of the world.

A lot of what it says in one part completely contradicts things it says in other parts.

It doesn't make sense to me that someone could live by a literal interpretation of it.

It was tried and turned into a book called 'The Year of Living Biblically'

here's his ted talk

Bannasidhe · 18-04-2019 1:00pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You could argue he has the following because he's a fantastic rugby player. If he was employed by another team, he'd still have the following, so it's not really down to his employer.

If Robert DeNiro said something controversial on twitter - who would you say afforded him his platform? Whoever he happened to be working for at the time?

And his employer has said we already told you your views are not compatible with the ethos of this organisation and requested that while employed by us you do not repeat them in a manner in which we can be associated with them.

One year later on an account where employee is wearing company uniform he repeats the views he was asked to keep to himself.

Company cans him.

Why is this so hard to understand?

robinph · 18-04-2019 1:02pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You could argue he has the following because he's a fantastic rugby player. If he was employed by another team, he'd still have the following, so it's not really down to his employer.

If Robert DeNiro said something controversial on twitter - who would you say afforded him his platform? Whoever he happened to be working for at the time?

If Robert DeNiro said something controversial then he'd probably struggle to get the next job. But if someone whilst promoting their current job film, erm for example Liam Neeson, said something controversial would that impact badly on his current employer film and the job he was meant to be doing promoting them?

Niska · 18-04-2019 1:09pm

The Rugby Australia's Code of Conduct can be found here:

https://www.rugbyau.com/about/codes-and-policies/all-codes-and-policies

The specific codes brached are:

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.

and

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.

His use of social media (1.7) clearly breaches (1.3) - he clearly breached his contract, and thus his termination (after a warning last year) is justified re the code of conduct.

When he signed his contract he (or his agent) should of noted whether 1.3 was compatible with his beliefs or not. If he felt his freedom of belief was constrained he should either have not signed the contract, or requested an amendment to accommodate him.

Grayson · 18-04-2019 1:13pm

Captain Flaps wrote: »

He's exercising his freedom of speech, he won't go to jail for it and it's not a crime. His employer has simply exercised their own right to disagree with him and assert that such beliefs are at odds with the ethos of their organisation so they have severed ties with him. I don't see a problem with this. He's not been silenced at all, he's still free to post whatever he wants on social media (although instagram are equally free to remove him if they choose).

Too many people conflate freedom to air views with the right to a platform. He can express his views anywhere he wants at any time, but nobody has to entertain him if they don't want to.

I kinda agree and disagree. I agree because it was (is it still?) legal for a school under religious patronage to fire a single mum because of their views on sex and marriage.

I disagree because there are times when a particular view can cause a hostile work environment or really damage a businesses image.

I think there's a thin line in these situations between the right for a person to hold a view and a companies ability to do business.

sbsquarepants · 18-04-2019 1:18pm

Niska wrote: »

His use of social media (1.7) clearly breaches (1.3) - he clearly breached his contract, and thus his termination (after a warning last year) is justified re the code of conduct.
.

There we have it, guilty m'Lord. Case closed

That was the entirety of my question, he either breached his contract or he didn't.

I couldn't give a rats arse about the moral outrage brigade on either side of the argument.

jmayo · 18-04-2019 1:22pm

Iang87 wrote: »

Its not a crime to air his views, he's very much allowed to.

I'm at work now and if I walk into the LGBT council meeting here and say "Well lads ye are all going to hell" then I fully expect to find my p45 on my desk when I get back.

What do you mean an LGBT council ?

Maybe I am getting wrong end of stick here, but is this a representative group at work ?
This is something I don't get why any group be it race, religion or sexual persuasion should have a grouping or representative body in place of work.
Everyone should be equal and represented by say a union that is open to all.

Iang87 wrote: »

Your views are your views but employers, that pay you, may not share your views which is their right also. If they no longer want to keep you because you don't fit what they feel is best for their company then out you go.

This is the thing that a person can be associated with employer and their views can adversely affect the employer.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

He was raised Mormon but converted to the Pentecostal Assemblies of God in 2011.

Which means he believes the Bible is the word of God without error... apart from the bit about tattoos and he has spun, in his mind, the bit about 'keeping holy the Sabbath' to meaning he can play professional rugby because his God made him good at it so it's kinda like praying really...

So doesn't have the courage of his convictions unlike the great Michael Jones who refused to play even world cup match because it was on Sunday.

Folau is an eejit on a few counts.
1. he spouts such stuff on social media in this day and age.
2. he was warned before and yet keeps at it.
3. he believes the cr** in the first place.

Plumbthedepths · 18-04-2019 1:22pm

sbsquarepants wrote:

There simply is no offence of "being a bit of a twat"

Contracts can be specific ie with certain contracts if you have a role which is public you are expected to uphold a certain type of behaviour, fail in that and you can be sacked. Not sure why you can't seem to grasp that. But it's not my job to educate you. Take care.

sbsquarepants · 18-04-2019 1:24pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And his employer has said we already told you your views are not compatible with the ethos of this organisation and requested that while employed by us you do not repeat them in a manner in which we can be associated with them.

One year later on an account where employee is wearing company uniform he repeats the views he was asked to keep to himself.

Company cans him.

Why is this so hard to understand?

As I said already - case is closed, looks like a clear breach of the rules he agreed to to me.

But that's the important part - the rules he agreed to be bound by. If I banged my head tomorrow, experienced some Damascian conversion and took to tweeting hell fire and brimstone crap in my spare time- I wouldn't expect to be fired for it. I couldn't be fired for it in fact.

sbsquarepants · 18-04-2019 1:29pm

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Contracts can be specific ie with certain contracts if you have a role which is public you are expected to uphold a certain type of behaviour, fail in that and you can be sacked. Not sure why you can't seem to grasp that. But it's not my job to educate you. Take care.

Just as well really:D

So lets say you breached your specific contract. You could be sacked for...

A: Being a bit of a twat
B: Breach of contract.
C: Cos you were mean and deserved it, so there.

I've left a clue in there for you!

robinph · 18-04-2019 1:42pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

As I said already - case is closed, looks like a clear breach of the rules he agreed to to me.

But that's the important part - the rules he agreed to be bound by. If I banged my head tomorrow, experienced some Damascian conversion and took to tweeting hell fire and brimstone crap in my spare time- I wouldn't expect to be fired for it. I couldn't be fired for it in fact.

He wasn't tweeting in his spare time though. As a professional sports person he's always on the clock as far as his team, their sponsors, his sponsors, the sport is concerned and how his behaviour can impact on those various brands.

He free time for spouting controversial views comes when he retires.

cgcsb · 18-04-2019 1:44pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You could argue he has the following because he's a fantastic rugby player. If he was employed by another team, he'd still have the following, so it's not really down to his employer.

Then the other team would discipline him then:rolleyes:

BattleCorp · 18-04-2019 1:46pm

cgcsb wrote: »

Then the other team would discipline him then:rolleyes:

He could always go play rugby in Brunei. :pac::pac::pac:

uck51js9zml2yt · 18-04-2019 1:50pm

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Well actually it doesn't say either because the oldest version you can find of that or any other bible verse will not be written in English.

Have you a point to make ?

RobbieTheRobber · 18-04-2019 2:33pm

Aubrie Thoughtless Spy wrote: »

Have you a point to make ?

Yes that your correction of someone else's bible verse was also incorrect.

You were wrong, they were wrong, there is no right english bible verse because every english bible verse is at some point a translation and all the other ambiguites of the bibles creation aside a translation is an iterpertation.

padd b1975 · 18-04-2019 2:39pm

Sonics2k wrote: »

He is absolutely free to state and declare his own personal beliefs.

However, in turn his employer has the right to act on their own beliefs. Everything is just as it should be.

So you'd have no problem with let's say.... refusing to bake a cake with a particular message?

Just acting on their own beliefs of course as is their right.

weldoninhio · 18-04-2019 3:21pm

Hopefully he gets reinstated or his contract paid out in full. Let the lunatics know they aren't the thought/belief police and they don't run the asylum.

Bannasidhe · 18-04-2019 3:31pm

weldoninhio wrote: »

Hopefully he gets reinstated or his contract paid out in full. Let the lunatics know they aren't the thought/belief police and they don't run the asylum.

More like let the lunatics know that when you sign a contract you are expected to keep to the terms and conditions of that contract and cannot claim 'religious beliefs' as an excuse to break your word.

18-04-2019 3:32pm

As threats go, airing religious views is so last century. Any chance we could have a ban on airing commercial views? In Ireland in my lifetime there have been far, far more attempts at brainwashing coming from that quarter than there has ever been from religion.

Imagine shops, buses, airports, hairdressers and all the rest with quietness rather than pumping out that commercial shít on tv and radio 24/7. Bizarrely, all the cool adults accept this far more pervasive capitalist fundamentalism but get upset by the odd religious fundamentalist on a (very rare) street corner.

Airing Religious Views

Comments