Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
General Rugby Discussion II
Options
Comments
-
Let's also not forget that the job of a pro rugby player at his level is simply not the same as your standard office worker. His job is to publicly represent his club, country and sport. Anything he puts out on social media has a greater bearing on his job than it would on, say, mine. And even at that I wouldn't expect to publicise stuff like that free of consequence.0
-
Former Former wrote: »He has a right to religious freedom, no-one has a right not to be offended. This is the difficulty they might face. The ARU can't say that what he posted is morally unacceptable because about 3 billion people belong to religions which teach exactly the same thing, including the majority of boards.ie posters who are all so exercised about it.
He has a right to religious freedom (which nobody is disputing) but he doesn't have an absolute freedom of speech, nobody in this world does. They are two fundamentally different things. He can believe in and pray for what he wants. That doesn't give him (or anyone) an unlimited freedom to publicly say what he wants based on that religion.Former Former wrote: »If you're a Catholic and you go to mass on a Sunday, can you be hauled in front of your boss on a Monday? Of course not. But what if I find your membership of that particular religion and what it teaches to be offensive? Who draws the line of what is acceptable and what is not?
Ah come on. Going to mass is not offensive. Hate speech is. Common sense tells you what is acceptable and what isn't. Private v public comes back into it.0 -
Exclamation Marc wrote: »He has a right to religious freedom (which nobody is disputing) but he doesn't have an absolute freedom of speech, nobody in this world does. They are two fundamentally different things. He can believe in and pray for what he wants. That doesn't give him (or anyone) an unlimited freedom to publicly say what he wants based on that religion.
Agreed. My point is, can the ARU be the judge of that? What if the QANTAS CEO was a deeply conservative Christian fundamentalist rather than a gay man and LGB activist? Do you think Folau would have been sacked? Of course not. The ARU are completely compromised. Folau can argue he was never going to get a fair hearing.
Having to keep your beliefs to yourself is not religious freedom btw, it's the opposite.0 -
-
Former Former wrote: »Agreed. My point is, can the ARU be the judge of that? What if the QANTAS CEO was a deeply conservative Christian fundamentalist rather than a gay man and LGB activist? Do you think Folau would have been sacked? Of course not. The ARU are completely compromised. Folau can argue he was never going to get a fair hearing.
Having to keep your beliefs to yourself is not religious freedom btw, it's the opposite.
You are not allowed verbally insult fellow employees in most offices. You try going up to a gay person in the office and telling them they will burn in hell for being who they are. Let's see what happens.
Yup ARU have to figure where the line is because no one else will step in. The courts can decide if they stepped in too soon. Maybe ARU would have taken the bigoted line if their sponsors were that way. That would be unfortunate but not the situation we are in.
A Falou win would only promote office bullying. As soon as you impinge on the rights of others freedom to religion stops.0 -
Advertisement
-
Former Former wrote: »Agreed. My point is, can the ARU be the judge of that? What if the QANTAS CEO was a deeply conservative Christian fundamentalist rather than a gay man and LGB activist? Do you think Folau would have been sacked? Of course not. The ARU are completely compromised. Folau can argue he was never going to get a fair hearing.
Having to keep your beliefs to yourself is not religious freedom btw, it's the opposite.
No one's religious beliefs freedoms are being curved, no one's being told they can't thank god, pray as they enter and on a pitch, go to church etc...
Folau got the sack for saying something homophobic and trying to hide it as religion. Especially as he didn't post scripture0 -
Former Former wrote: »Exclamation Marc wrote: »He has a right to religious freedom (which nobody is disputing) but he doesn't have an absolute freedom of speech, nobody in this world does. They are two fundamentally different things. He can believe in and pray for what he wants. That doesn't give him (or anyone) an unlimited freedom to publicly say what he wants based on that religion.
Agreed. My point is, can the ARU be the judge of that? What if the QANTAS CEO was a deeply conservative Christian fundamentalist rather than a gay man and LGB activist? Do you think Folau would have been sacked? Of course not. The ARU are completely compromised. Folau can argue he was never going to get a fair hearing.
Having to keep your beliefs to yourself is not religious freedom btw, it's the opposite.
He can express his opinion in private settings all he wants. For as long as he is publicly representing the ARU, rugby union and his country then his public persona is relevant.0 -
He can express his opinion in private settings all he wants. For as long as he is publicly representing the ARU, rugby union and his country then his public persona is relevant.
I agree that public figures are always on the clock to some extent. That's the trade-off for the privileges they get and they have to accept that. If Folau had been pictured snorting coke, clubbing a baby seal or putting regular rubbish into the recycling bin, then absolutely sack him. If he'd simply said "I hate atheists" then sack him.
It's the religious freedom aspect that completely muddies the waters. You can't restrict it. Saying you can believe what you want so long as you keep it to yourself is a restriction in itself. If Folau signed a contract which curbs his religious freedom then that clause is invalid. Your employer can't be the judge and jury of something so fundamental to your rights. That's what his lawyer will claim anyway.
The ARU had no choice but to sack him, I get that and I'll shed no tears for him, but does he have a case for damages? Looks to me like he does.
As an atheist myself I'd happily abandon all this nonsense btw. But everyone is happy to hide behind religion when it suits them, not sure we can turn the tables on Folau now.0 -
This is more misrepresentation. The rule is not even close to being that you can believe what you want so long as you keep it to yourself. It’s actually deeply problematic to see it that way.
There are plenty of Christian athletes. Katie Taylor did her ring walk with a biblical reference on her chest. Sponsors and NGBs have absolutely no problem with that whatsoever. There are plenty of deeply religious rugby players who talk about their faith all the time. Even in Ireland. None of them get any trouble for it, in fact I’d say it can greatly increase their value in certain areas.
The ARUs rules say absolutely nothing whatsoever about keeping your religious beliefs to yourself.0 -
Former Former wrote: »He can express his opinion in private settings all he wants. For as long as he is publicly representing the ARU, rugby union and his country then his public persona is relevant.
I agree that public figures are always on the clock to some extent. That's the trade-off for the privileges they get and they have to accept that. If Folau had been pictured snorting coke, clubbing a baby seal or putting regular rubbish into the recycling bin, then absolutely sack him. If he'd simply said "I hate atheists" then sack him.
It's the religious freedom aspect that completely muddies the waters. You can't restrict it. Saying you can believe what you want so long as you keep it to yourself is a restriction in itself. If Folau signed a contract which curbs his religious freedom then that clause is invalid. Your employer can't be the judge and jury of something so fundamental to your rights. That's what his lawyer will claim anyway.
The ARU had no choice but to sack him, I get that and I'll shed no tears for him, but does he have a case for damages? Looks to me like he does.
As an atheist myself I'd happily abandon all this nonsense btw. But everyone is happy to hide behind religion when it suits them, not sure we can turn the tables on Folau now.
But hes never been asked to keep it to himself. You've said that a few times now and the purpose of the post that you replied to was to indicate that this wasn't happening. If he wanted to have that conversation privately with hundreds of people he was entirely free to do that. And I'm sure he did have that conversation with people in private too.
His religious freedoms haven't been impinged at all IMO. The ARU themselves said he was free to believe what he wanted. He did this kind of thing before and wasn't sacked that time. Everyone knew where he stood on religion and associated topics and he wasn't sacked. His religion does not demand though that he go on to social media and spread that stuff over the internet. His religious freedom simply doesn't cover that action. And the day that it does we are in for a world of trouble as it legitimises hate speech as long as you can hide behind faith. And that's incredibly dangerous.0 -
Advertisement
-
20 years ago Glen hoddle was rightly sacked from his job as England manager for stating on a radio show that, in his religious beliefs, disabled persons were being punished for sins of a former life.
I see very little difference between this and what folau did.
Claiming religious beliefs, therefore freedom to express, cannot be with impunity. If Folau wants to preach his words, then the ARU are fully within its rights to tell him that he cannot be their employee if that's what he wants to do.0 -
Former Former wrote: »It's the religious freedom aspect that completely muddies the waters. You can't restrict it. Saying you can believe what you want so long as you keep it to yourself is a restriction in itself. If Folau signed a contract which curbs his religious freedom then that clause is invalid. Your employer can't be the judge and jury of something so fundamental to your rights. That's what his lawyer will claim anyway.
The ARU had no choice but to sack him, I get that and I'll shed no tears for him, but does he have a case for damages? Looks to me like he does.
As an atheist myself I'd happily abandon all this nonsense btw. But everyone is happy to hide behind religion when it suits them, not sure we can turn the tables on Folau now.
You're really not getting this.
Nobody cares or has issues with him being homophobic in private. Nobody is saying he can't be religious, can't follow any religion or he can't be homophobic in private. He is not being restricted on his religious beliefs.
He does however not have a right to vocalise those homophobic beliefs on the basis of that religious belief or otherwise. He is being told he cannot vocalise these homophobic beliefs but if he wants to privately still feel that way, that's his right.
And yes you can restrict it. Nobody's right to speech or say what they want is absolute. That has long been established. I can't wander into an airport and yell 'bomb' and claim I have freedom of speech based on any belief or thought process, religious or otherwise.
You need to separate the religion from this. Nobody really cares where what he's saying is coming from. They care because he's saying it, irrespective of where it comes from.0 -
sydthebeat wrote: »20 years ago Glen hoddle was rightly sacked from his job as England manager for stating on a radio show that, in his religious beliefs, disabled persons were being punished for sins of a former life.
I see very little difference between this and what folau did.
Claiming religious beliefs, therefore freedom to express, cannot be with impunity. If Folau wants to preach his words, then the ARU are fully within its rights to tell him that he cannot be their employee if that's what he wants to do.
The big difference is that there is no religious text or canon law to support hoddles view but what Folau said is one of the basic tenets of Christian teachings.0 -
sydthebeat wrote: »20 years ago Glen hoddle was rightly sacked from his job as England manager for stating on a radio show that, in his religious beliefs, disabled persons were being punished for sins of a former life.
To be honest, Hoddle was treated more harshly and was under a microscope relative to Folau. He worked with disabled organisations prior to the comments which he claimed were taken out of context (it was an interview with a paper) and then publicly apologised. The comments were nuts but it was a bit of a stitch up. Folau was a repeat offender and then doubled down.
The FA were 100% looking for a way out with Hoddle following the Eileen Drury reports and the poor start to Euro 2000 qualification. Following the poor results, they knew the public would easily support the call.0 -
Guinness has expressed their concern over the transfer of Paddy Jackson to London IrishThe drinks giant’s parent company Diageo has told the Irish Daily Mail it will meet the club this week to discuss the decision, which ‘is not consistent with our values’.
https://extra.ie/2019/06/10/blind/now-guinness-sees-red-over-paddy-jacksons-london-irish-move0 -
joeguevara wrote: »The big difference is that there is no religious text or canon law to support hoddles view but what Folau said is one of the basic tenets of Christian teachings.
Thats not the point
The point is that folaus argument is that ANY religious belief should be allowed to be expressed in the workplace.
why should Christianity (albeit a very fundamentalist aspect of it) be acceptable and other beliefs not?
edit: and Hoddles views were basically based on a "reap what you sow" tenant, which is an aspect of born again Christians beliefs.
Leviticus 21:16-23:And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 'Speak to Aaron, saying, None of your offspring throughout their generations who has a blemish may approach to offer the bread of his God. For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, a man blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb too long, or a man who has an injured foot or an injured hand, or a hunchback or a dwarf or a man with a defect in his sight or an itching disease or scabs or crushed testicles. No man of the offspring of Aaron the priest who has a blemish shall come near to offer the Lord's food offerings; since he has a blemish, he shall not come near to offer the bread of his God. He … shall not go through the veil or approach the altar, because he has a blemish, that he may not profane my sanctuaries, for I am the Lord who sanctifies them.'0 -
But hes never been asked to keep it to himself. You've said that a few times now and the purpose of the post that you replied to was to indicate that this wasn't happening. If he wanted to have that conversation privately with hundreds of people he was entirely free to do that. And I'm sure he did have that conversation with people in private too.
His religious freedoms haven't been impinged at all IMO. The ARU themselves said he was free to believe what he wanted. He did this kind of thing before and wasn't sacked that time. Everyone knew where he stood on religion and associated topics and he wasn't sacked. His religion does not demand though that he go on to social media and spread that stuff over the internet. His religious freedom simply doesn't cover that action. And the day that it does we are in for a world of trouble as it legitimises hate speech as long as you can hide behind faith. And that's incredibly dangerous.
While you're making some excellent points, I had to smile at you saying "the day it does happen"... people have been saying and doing all kinds of crazy sh*t for thousands of years and getting away with it because, well, that's my religion, it's what god wants. And everyone goes along with it for fear of being smitten down or denied eternity or whatever else.
While we're all open and inclusive now, any Irish person over the age of 30 should be old enough to remember a time when Folau wouldn't have been criticised for this, he'd have got kudos for summing things up pretty nicely actually.
Does his religion demand that he go on social media? Unless Jesus foretold the coming of the internet, probably not. But it's a fair bet that it demands that he spreads the word of the lord and that he challenges evil and sin wherever he sees it. That's part of being a Christian right? Now, if you have a platform of tens of thousands of Insta and Twitter followers, what's the best way to get your message out and thus fulfil your religious duty?
Let's remind ourselves of the context. Tasmania had just legislated for gender neutral birth certs and Folau's post was a response to this. He obviously doesn't believe this is part of God's plan for the natural order of things. Now, if he stays silent and keeps his opinions to himself, maybe he's committing a sin of omission. The only way he can avoid that is by challenging it as forcefully as he can - which in his case is through his social media.
By denying him that right, you are forcing him into sin and that is incompatible with his religious freedom.
And I'll say it again;The ARU themselves said he was free to believe what he wanted.
Religious freedom is not about being allowed to believe what you want, it's about being allowed to practice your faith.0 -
Some very good points there FF, but what of your religion (or even your interpretation of your religion) required you to act violently towards others? What if there was specific reference to stoning your child for example?
People have a right to practice their religion, but not regardless of how that impacts others. There is and always has been a line. With time and with societal development that line has moved. And will continue to. This is another example of that. And a welcome one too.0 -
Former Former wrote: »While you're making some excellent points, I had to smile at you saying "the day it does happen"... people have been saying and doing all kinds of crazy sh*t for thousands of years and getting away with it because, well, that's my religion, it's what god wants. And everyone goes along with it for fear of being smitten down or denied eternity or whatever else.
While we're all open and inclusive now, any Irish person over the age of 30 should be old enough to remember a time when Folau wouldn't have been criticised for this, he'd have got kudos for summing things up pretty nicely actually.
Does his religion demand that he go on social media? Unless Jesus foretold the coming of the internet, probably not. But it's a fair bet that it demands that he spreads the word of the lord and that he challenges evil and sin wherever he sees it. That's part of being a Christian right? Now, if you have a platform of tens of thousands of Insta and Twitter followers, what's the best way to get your message out and thus fulfil your religious duty?
Let's remind ourselves of the context. Tasmania had just legislated for gender neutral birth certs and Folau's post was a response to this. He obviously doesn't believe this is part of God's plan for the natural order of things. Now, if he stays silent and keeps his opinions to himself, maybe he's committing a sin of omission. The only way he can avoid that is by challenging it as forcefully as he can - which in his case is through his social media.
By denying him that right, you are forcing him into sin and that is incompatible with his religious freedom.
And I'll say it again;
Religious freedom is not about being allowed to believe what you want, it's about being allowed to practice your faith.
Freedom of speech and expression are not absolute. I keep banging the same drum yet you keep ignoring it.
You don't have the absolute freedom to say anything based on any belief or thoughts, religious or otherwise.0 -
The ARU are not denying Folau the right to practice his crazed distortion of the Christian faith. They are correctly denying him the oxygen of the publicity he would garner as a top rugby player whom they employed. He can do and say what he likes within the laws of Australia but his employers also have the right not to be complicit with the lunatic ravings of a demented cretin.0
-
Advertisement
-
jacothelad wrote: »The ARU are not denying Folau the right to practice his crazed distortion of the Christian faith. They are correctly denying him the oxygen of the publicity he would garner as a top rugby player whom they employed. He can do and say what he likes within the laws of Australia but his employers also have the right not to be complicit with the lunatic ravings of a demented cretin.
that seems to be missed in all of this...
Folau is as free to post whatever he wants today as he was back in april.
absolutely no one is denying him that freedom.
however, he does not have the right to do this and also take a wage, and represent, an organisation, whos stated inclusion polices is in direct contravention with his views, without consequence.0 -
Guinness has expressed their concern over the transfer of Paddy Jackson to London Irish
https://extra.ie/2019/06/10/blind/now-guinness-sees-red-over-paddy-jacksons-london-irish-move
Wouldn't be surprised if this sparks a worry among London Irish. You don't want to annoy someone like Guinness.
They can't say they're concerned then let something like that go. It'd be awful PR and Diageo's marketing image is one of the best in the world.0 -
Wouldn't be surprised if this sparks a worry among London Irish. You don't want to annoy someone like Guinness.
They can't say they're concerned then let something like that go. It'd be awful PR and Diageo's marketing image is one of the best in the world.
They’ll just say nothings wrong, Guinness are actually concerned about something entirely different and there’s nothing to see here0 -
Some very good points there FF, but what of your religion (or even your interpretation of your religion) required you to act violently towards others? What if there was specific reference to stoning your child for example?
Good question.
What I told you I was going to take a knife to the genitals of an 8-day-old boy? I'm not a doctor, there's no anaesthetic, and loads of people are going to come watch. That's my religion, it's all here in this book and if you don't like it you're an intolerant bigot.
So can we agree that doing things in the name of religion buys you a lot of leeway to do things that would otherwise be considered unacceptable?People have a right to practice their religion, but not regardless of how that impacts others. There is and always has been a line. With time and with societal development that line has moved. And will continue to. This is another example of that. And a welcome one too.
I would welcome such a line and the further we can move that line towards the absolute removal of religion from daily life, the better as far as I'm concerned. If Folau gets told that his 'religious belief' stance is unacceptable, I'll be absolutely delighted.
As an atheist with kids in a Catholic school, I live with other people's religion being forced down my throat every day. The f**king line can't move quick enough as far as I'm concerned.
However, I don't think that posting some nonsense on Instagram is so damaging to anyone else that it meets the threshold for a guy losing his livelihood. That's what ARU have to prove and it's a big job for them to do so IMO.0 -
Former Former wrote: »Good question.
What I told you I was going to take a knife to the genitals of an 8-day-old boy? I'm not a doctor, there's no anaesthetic, and loads of people are going to come watch. That's my religion, it's all here in this book and if you don't like it you're an intolerant bigot.
So can we agree that doing things in the name of religion buys you a lot of leeway to do things that would otherwise be considered unacceptable?
I would welcome such a line and the further we can move that line towards the absolute removal of religion from daily life, the better as far as I'm concerned. If Folau gets told that his 'religious belief' stance is unacceptable, I'll be absolutely delighted.
As an atheist with kids in a Catholic school, I live with other people's religion being forced down my throat every day. The f**king line can't move quick enough as far as I'm concerned.
However, I don't think that posting some nonsense on Instagram is so damaging to anyone else that it meets the threshold for a guy losing his livelihood. That's what ARU have to prove and it's a big job for them to do so IMO.
Verbally attacking colleagues based on sexuality is a no go and trumps religion. Just that alone should do it. You say what he posted to an lgbt colleague and see how quickly your case holds up in front of hr. Shouting it through a megaphone hardly makes it better.
Falou will lose or office bullying becomes legal in Australia if you can argue it in your religion (and religions have a lot of scripture hating a lot of different people).0 -
irishbucsfan wrote: »They’ll just say nothings wrong, Guinness are actually concerned about something entirely different and there’s nothing to see here
What?
They are meeting with the club it.
What are they actually concerned about?0 -
-
sydthebeat wrote: »that seems to be missed in all of this...
I'm not missing anything. I'm looking at things from a different perspective.0 -
Former Former wrote: »I'm not missing anything. I'm looking at things from a different perspective.
You're not. You're assuming that people can say or do what they want if they claim its religious because they have a right to practice. And that is categorically not the case.
The right to practice religion is not even in question here.0 -
Advertisement
-
Former Former wrote: »Some very good points there FF, but what of your religion (or even your interpretation of your religion) required you to act violently towards others? What if there was specific reference to stoning your child for example?
Good question.
What I told you I was going to take a knife to the genitals of an 8-day-old boy? I'm not a doctor, there's no anaesthetic, and loads of people are going to come watch. That's my religion, it's all here in this book and if you don't like it you're an intolerant bigot.
So can we agree that doing things in the name of religion buys you a lot of leeway to do things that would otherwise be considered unacceptable?People have a right to practice their religion, but not regardless of how that impacts others. There is and always has been a line. With time and with societal development that line has moved. And will continue to. This is another example of that. And a welcome one too.
I would welcome such a line and the further we can move that line towards the absolute removal of religion from daily life, the better as far as I'm concerned. If Folau gets told that his 'religious belief' stance is unacceptable, I'll be absolutely delighted.
As an atheist with kids in a Catholic school, I live with other people's religion being forced down my throat every day. The f**king line can't move quick enough as far as I'm concerned.
However, I don't think that posting some nonsense on Instagram is so damaging to anyone else that it meets the threshold for a guy losing his livelihood. That's what ARU have to prove and it's a big job for them to do so IMO.
I'm pretty sure if you were to speak to a few young rugby players who are struggling with their sexuality you might find that posts like that are very distressing. Even more to the point, posts like that which are allowed to go unpunished is likely to create serious anxiety. Imagine the sport you love basically giving a platform to people (and we know Folau isn't alone) to target you and others like you with intolerance like this. Because let's be clear, Folau has the number of followers that he has because of his profile in union, which the ARU in essence provided for him. So anything that he does on social media gains all the more traction because of his association with rugby, the ARU and Australia as a whole.
Letting something like this go without very serious reprimand will ultimately encourage further posts of this nature. And that will, at best, simply drive some people away from the game. But at worst it could have very serious impacts on people who already feel somewhat vulnerable and alone.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement