General Rugby Discussion II

Former Former

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You don't really believe that over 75% of the country actually agree with him, though. Because obviously they do not.

Has he faced any official repercussions?

No, of course they don't. But they do identify themselves as part of a religion that teaches exactly what Folau said, and later this year hundreds of thousands will turn out to cheer the man with supreme authority over that church and it's policies, including the "gays to hell" policy.

Just an observation on the nature of modern religion I suppose.

I'd imagine Folau couldn't face any sanction, but I've no idea what the law in Australia is on stuff like this.

Edit: apparently he'll be asked to explain himself to ARU tomorrow but seems all he'll get is a request to tone it down. Fair enough.

thomond2006

He's not the sharpest.

Sangre

Former Former wrote: »

No, of course they don't. But they do identify themselves as part of a religion that teaches exactly what Folau said, and later this year hundreds of thousands will turn out to cheer the man with supreme authority over that church and it's policies, including the "gays to hell" policy.

Just an observation on the nature of modern religion I suppose.

I'd imagine Folau couldn't face any sanction, but I've no idea what the law in Australia is on stuff like this.

Edit: apparently he'll be asked to explain himself to ARU tomorrow but seems all he'll get is a request to tone it down. Fair enough.

Thought the eggchasher podcast dealt with this point quite well.

A very religious guy was directly asked for his views on religion and he gave his honest answer. In the absence of trying to incite violence or hatred, this guy should be allowed to express his views without receiving a ban. Now at the same time, everyone else is allowed to think he is a twit for doing so and he will have to face the financial repercussions vis-à-vis sponsors etc. No doubt some of his teammates (eg Pocock) have a view.

We live in a strange world where we celebrate and encourage people who follow a faith, but then publicly denounce those persons when they purport to follow the teachings of that faith.

pickarooney

Former Former wrote: »

He gave it a bit of lip service but the official position of the Catholic Church remains that engaging in homosexual acts is a mortal sin and failure to repent can only land you in one place... So no, I don't think he disagrees that much.

To be clear; I find Folau's views absolutely repugnant. I just find it hard to square the outrage against him with the clearly defined teachings of the major religion of this country.

Did the pope not officially announce that there was no such thing as Hell last week?

Whose position do the 75% need to adhere to now, that of their book or that of their leader?

Is it not more intellectually honest to estimate the Irish populace's stance on homosexuality on their overt actions in voting for marriage equality rather than the tacit assumption that if A is B and B says C then A believes C?

Sangre

Sangre wrote: »

We live in a strange world where we celebrate and encourage people who follow a faith, but then publicly denounce those persons when they purport to follow the teachings of that faith.

Yeah I agree with you and Folau is entitled to his views. However there is a distinction to be had here, he isn't saying it's wrong, he actively desires that those who are homosexual spend eternity suffering. It's a fairly old testament world view and even the somewhat religious people I know wouldn't in anyway associate themselves with those sentiments.

Folau just isn't a nice person, regardless of his religion imo.

Should that rule him out of sport? That's his coaches decision, his 'opinions' haven't broken any laws.

prawnsambo

Sangre wrote: »

A very religious guy was directly asked for his views on religion and he gave his honest answer. In the absence of trying to incite violence or hatred, this guy should be allowed to express his views without receiving a ban. Now at the same time, everyone else is allowed to think he is a twit for doing so and he will have to face the financial repercussions vis-à-vis sponsors etc. No doubt some of his teammates (eg Pocock) have a view.

He was trolled though. There's no doubt the question was asked to elicit the very response he gave. He could just have ignored it.

thegreycity

pickarooney wrote: »

Did the pope not officially announce that there was no such thing as Hell last week?

Whose position do the 75% need to adhere to now, that of their book or that of their leader?

Is it not more intellectually honest to estimate the Irish populace's stance on homosexuality on their overt actions in voting for marriage equality rather than the tacit assumption that if A is B and B says C then A believes C?

Are there actual references to hell as a punishment to the unrepentant sinful in the Bible?

errlloyd

My brother and his husband got their three adopted kids Baptised in an Anglican Church in the UK yesterday.

They had a pretty strong attendance from their friends, so the church ended up being about 50% conservative older parishioners, and 50% young well dressed men in tight trousers and half buttoned shirts. (many of them had also brought adopted kids).

Whatever hate Folou's church has for the gays, I didn't see it yesterday. Church services aren't my thing, but there was something mildly heart warming about the banter between some of my brothers most over the top friends and the members of the parish committee serving tea and biscuits.




Edit: Just realised this isn't the Off Topic Thread. So eh, my opinion is that Folou would be best not saying that sort of stuff - it's really bad for brand and brand is important. But at the same time, Sonny Bill Williams actively refuses to be sponsored by a bank, and he can still play.

Sangre

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah I agree with you and Folau is entitled to his views. However there is a distinction to be had here, he isn't saying it's wrong, he actively desires that those who are homosexual spend eternity suffering. It's a fairly old testament world view and even the somewhat religious people I know wouldn't in anyway associate themselves with those sentiments.

Folau just isn't a nice person, regardless of his religion imo.

Should that rule him out of sport? That's his coaches decision, his 'opinions' haven't broken any laws.

Well, he was asked what 'God's plan' was not what is plan was. I don't think you can necessarily use that response to say he personally wants them to burn in hell. Its a fine line though.

@prawnsambo - yes agreed, he doesn't strike me as the brightest spark.

Former Former

pickarooney wrote: »

Did the pope not officially announce that there was no such thing as Hell last week?

No.

pickarooney wrote: »

Whose position do the 75% need to adhere to now, that of their book or that of their leader?

They are one and the same.

pickarooney wrote: »

Is it not more intellectually honest to estimate the Irish populace's stance on homosexuality on their overt actions in voting for marriage equality rather than the tacit assumption that if A is B and B says C then A believes C?

As I've stated, I'm fully aware that most people, Catholic or otherwise, have no problem with homosexuality. I'm just pointing out some of the complexities around giving people stick for their religious beliefs. If some people want to opt in to or out of certain aspects of their faith, then absolutely that's their right. Equally it's Folau's right to stick to whatever he believes and to defend his faith.

We can certainly disagree with Folau's views; personally I don't believe in God, hell or heaven so he may as well be saying gay people go through a wormhole to the Lost City of Atlantis as far as I'm concerned, but I don't like seeing people having their beliefs ridiculed, and if saying that gay people will go to hell is "incitement to hatred", then we need to get some Catholic clergy in cuffs, asap.

errlloyd

I thought that Gareth Davies try at the weekend looked familiar.

http://youtubedoubler.com/?video1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Da0X1oaeDQ0s&start1=15&video2=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DWGa-c4IUxOo&start2=191&authorName=why+we+slap

stephen_n

Former Former wrote: »

In theory, three-quarters of the population of Ireland agree with Folau.

In reality 62.1% clearly didn’t

molloyjh

Former Former wrote: »

No.



They are one and the same.



As I've stated, I'm fully aware that most people, Catholic or otherwise, have no problem with homosexuality. I'm just pointing out some of the complexities around giving people stick for their religious beliefs. If some people want to opt in to or out of certain aspects of their faith, then absolutely that's their right. Equally it's Folau's right to stick to whatever he believes and to defend his faith.

We can certainly disagree with Folau's views; personally I don't believe in God, hell or heaven so he may as well be saying gay people go through a wormhole to the Lost City of Atlantis as far as I'm concerned, but I don't like seeing people having their beliefs ridiculed, and if saying that gay people will go to hell is "incitement to hatred", then we need to get some Catholic clergy in cuffs, asap.

Ah this "he has a right to his own opinion" stuff is all well and good. And of course he does. But he doesn't have the right to announce that opinion publicly without be judged for it. And he's cherry picking the elements of his religion that he wants to believe in. Tattoos are a no-no in parts of the Bible while slavery is fine. I doubt he or the Church actually buy into that stuff. So why do they continue to choose to buy into bigotry? Because in essence that is what this is. And they should absolutely all be called out on that. That it's their opinion doesn't provide them some short of bullet proof shield.

thomond2006

Former Former wrote: »

No.



They are one and the same.



As I've stated, I'm fully aware that most people, Catholic or otherwise, have no problem with homosexuality. I'm just pointing out some of the complexities around giving people stick for their religious beliefs. If some people want to opt in to or out of certain aspects of their faith, then absolutely that's their right. Equally it's Folau's right to stick to whatever he believes and to defend his faith.

We can certainly disagree with Folau's views; personally I don't believe in God, hell or heaven so he may as well be saying gay people go through a wormhole to the Lost City of Atlantis as far as I'm concerned, but I don't like seeing people having their beliefs ridiculed, and if saying that gay people will go to hell is "incitement to hatred", then we need to get some Catholic clergy in cuffs, asap.

The freedom to believe and the freedom to ridicule are as important as each other.

Former Former

molloyjh wrote: »

Ah this "he has a right to his own opinion" stuff is all well and good. And of course he does. But he doesn't have the right to announce that opinion publicly without be judged for it. And he's cherry picking the elements of his religion that he wants to believe in. Tattoos are a no-no in parts of the Bible while slavery is fine. I doubt he or the Church actually buy into that stuff. So why do they continue to choose to buy into bigotry? Because in essence that is what this is. And they should absolutely all be called out on that. That it's their opinion doesn't provide them some short of bullet proof shield.

I have absolutely no idea what his religion is, let alone if he's cherry-picking parts of it or not. Just because something appears in the bible does not mean it's automatically part of a religion. Christians are supposed to follow the teachings of Christ, I've no idea what his take on tattoos was but I'd imagine he was not in favour of slavery.

And I'll re-emphasise that I really don't like what he said.

Just religion always puts a weird spin on things. If he came out and said "I hate gays", then that's totally unacceptable - but I'm sure the guy genuinely believes that gay people go to hell unless they "repent". That's not the same as hating gays, it's part of his faith. As I said, it's exactly the position an adherent Catholic would have; hate the sin, love the sinner and all that.

He'd have been better off saying nothing, I think we can all agree that, but I'd be slow to be too critical of him just for saying what he believes.

Yeah_Right

He's Mormon isn't he? Those guys can have some pretty extreme views. He follows their teachings on homosexuality but not on the 'no play or work on Sundays'. I find it interesting the amount of Pacific Islanders who are Mormon yet think fa'afafines are ok. The two just seem so incompatible.

Former Former

Yeah_Right wrote: »

He's Mormon isn't he? Those guys can have some pretty extreme views. He follows their teachings on homosexuality but not on the 'no play or work on Sundays'. I find it interesting the amount of Pacific Islanders who are Mormon yet think fa'afafines are ok. The two just seem so incompatible.

The google machine tells me he's a member of Assemblies of God, which is a new one on me I must say.

razorblunt

Yeah_Right wrote: »

He's Mormon isn't he? Those guys can have some pretty extreme views. He follows their teachings on homosexuality but not on the 'no play or work on Sundays'. I find it interesting the amount of Pacific Islanders who are Mormon yet think fa'afafines are ok. The two just seem so incompatible.

Not to mind the Tour behaviour!

Buer

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I find it interesting the amount of Pacific Islanders who are Mormon yet think fa'afafines are ok. .

Jesus, I forgot about that whole culture. Last time I remember hearing about it/discussing it was in relation to how there could have been another Tuilagi player but he was raised as a fa'afafine.

molloyjh

Former Former wrote: »

I have absolutely no idea what his religion is, let alone if he's cherry-picking parts of it or not. Just because something appears in the bible does not mean it's automatically part of a religion. Christians are supposed to follow the teachings of Christ, I've no idea what his take on tattoos was but I'd imagine he was not in favour of slavery.

And I'll re-emphasise that I really don't like what he said.

Just religion always puts a weird spin on things. If he came out and said "I hate gays", then that's totally unacceptable - but I'm sure the guy genuinely believes that gay people go to hell unless they "repent". That's not the same as hating gays, it's part of his faith. As I said, it's exactly the position an adherent Catholic would have; hate the sin, love the sinner and all that.

He'd have been better off saying nothing, I think we can all agree that, but I'd be slow to be too critical of him just for saying what he believes.

I don’t think Christ ever said anything about homosexuality either AFAIK. The only place that homosexuality is an issue is in the bible and in the organised religion(s). Either way that is still a choice.

Sangre

molloyjh wrote: »

I don’t think Christ ever said anything about homosexuality either AFAIK. The only place that homosexuality is an issue is in the bible and in the organised religion(s). Either way that is still a choice.

I think you either need to accept religion or you don't. Trying to find any consistent logic in it or its teachings is a futile exercise.

The bible is a cherry picked collection of books translated umpteen times from its original source. Hardly a concrete source for Christ's teaching.

I don't you can question the source of his beliefs though. That being said, I think Isreal Falou is a silly boy and we as a society should let him know he is out of touch. I'm sure some sponsors will distance himself from them.

Yeah_Right

Former Former wrote: »

The google machine tells me he's a member of Assemblies of God, which is a new one on me I must say.

From what I remember hearing about them back in NZ they're one of those ultra-conservative, evangelical churches from the States. Their beliefs are much more fire and brimstone. If he has converted to them then I'm not surprised he's spotting this ****. They would view a catholic mass in the same way they would Sydney Mardi Gras. Nutters.

irishbucsfan

Sangre wrote: »

I think you either need to accept religion or you don't. Trying to find any consistent logic in it or its teachings is a futile exercise.

The bible is a cherry picked collection of books translated umpteen times from its original source. Hardly a concrete source for Christ's teaching.

I don't you can question the source of his beliefs though. That being said, I think Isreal Falou is a silly boy and we as a society should let him know he is out of touch. I'm sure some sponsors will distance himself from them.

Interestingly, I read today that the CEO of ARU's main sponsor is gay and was one of the most public campaigners in favour of their marriage poll.

It doesn't make what Folau said any more/less ridiculous, but could be a very uncomfortable discussion for Raelene Castle...

pickarooney

Former Former wrote: »

I have absolutely no idea what his religion is, let alone if he's cherry-picking parts of it or not. Just because something appears in the bible does not mean it's automatically part of a religion. Christians are supposed to follow the teachings of Christ, I've no idea what his take on tattoos was but I'd imagine he was not in favour of slavery.

And I'll re-emphasise that I really don't like what he said.

Just religion always puts a weird spin on things. If he came out and said "I hate gays", then that's totally unacceptable - but I'm sure the guy genuinely believes that gay people go to hell unless they "repent". That's not the same as hating gays, it's part of his faith. As I said, it's exactly the position an adherent Catholic would have; hate the sin, love the sinner and all that.

He'd have been better off saying nothing, I think we can all agree that, but I'd be slow to be too critical of him just for saying what he believes.

Christ was never depicted as a bigot. His teachings were all about loving your neighbour and do unto others. If you claim to follow his teachings and act like a prick to your fellow man you're a fraud and your beliefs deserve no special consideration.

molloyjh

molloyjh wrote: »

Ah this "he has a right to his own opinion" stuff is all well and good. And of course he does. But he doesn't have the right to announce that opinion publicly without be judged for it. And he's cherry picking the elements of his religion that he wants to believe in. Tattoos are a no-no in parts of the Bible while slavery is fine. I doubt he or the Church actually buy into that stuff. So why do they continue to choose to buy into bigotry? Because in essence that is what this is. And they should absolutely all be called out on that. That it's their opinion doesn't provide them some short of bullet proof shield.

If you go back to the earliest versions of the bible, the word that eventually became translated to "tattoo" refers solely to the tradition of marking the names of heathen Gods on bodies in nations neighbouring ancient Israel.

It wasn't akin to the modern concept of tattooing, though that's a popular misconception.

Also, if the tattoos predate his finding <God/faith/whatever>, as long as he repents for it I think he's ok? Not my area of expertise admittedly.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

If you go back to the earliest versions of the bible, the word that eventually became translated to "tattoo" refers solely to the tradition of marking the names of heathen Gods on bodies in nations neighbouring ancient Israel.

It wasn't akin to the modern concept of tattooing, though that's a popular misconception.

Also, if the tattoos predate his finding <God/faith/whatever>, as long as he repents for it I think he's ok? Not my area of expertise admittedly.

What if you had a tattoo that said 'I hate Jesus'?

Checkmate God!

errlloyd

Deleted User wrote: »

If you go back to the earliest versions of the bible, the word that eventually became translated to "tattoo" refers solely to the tradition of marking the names of heathen Gods on bodies in nations neighbouring ancient Israel.

It wasn't akin to the modern concept of tattooing, though that's a popular misconception.

Also, if the tattoos predate his finding <God/faith/whatever>, as long as he repents for it I think he's ok? Not my area of expertise admittedly.

I know it's not the same, but when SBW was performing the UMRAH he visited Mecca. Tatoos are also Haram in Sharia Law, but as a new convert he just had to repent for them and he was all good.

swiwi_

Buer wrote: »

Jesus, I forgot about that whole culture. Last time I remember hearing about it/discussing it was in relation to how there could have been another Tuilagi player but he was raised as a fa'afafine.

What is fa’afafine?

Is that saying something’s ok with a bad stutter?

Buer

swiwi_ wrote: »

What is fa’afafine?

Is that saying something’s ok with a bad stutter?

F-f-f-uck off!

stephen_n

swiwi_ wrote: »

What is fa’afafine?

Is that saying something’s ok with a bad stutter?

Your sister (said with a northside accent)