General Rugby Discussion II

Guy:Incognito

Hey look, at the end of the day he's just talking about how gay people are evil and deserve to suffer for eternity, while first having lived with less rights than straight people.


It's not like he txt his mate in private and said some things that weren't very complimentary to a woman.




Wonder if another player decided his made up religion condemns black people as a less sub species, would folau support the airing of his religious beliefs?

irishbucsfan

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Wonder if another player decided his made up religion condemns black people as a less sub species, would folau support the airing of his religious beliefs?

Pretty sure Folau was a member of that religion until 2011!

Jack Kanoff

Folau will receive no sanctions, and he could quite possibly tweet along the same lines again as he can hide behind religious freedom

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Hey look, at the end of the day he's just talking about how gay people are evil

He didn't say or imply that.

and deserve to suffer for eternity

He never said or implied they deserved it.

while first having lived with less rights than straight people.

He didn't say that either.

It's not like he txt his mate in private and said some things that weren't very complimentary to a woman.

Freedom of religion (in varying forms) is a recognised human right. Freedom to by a misogynist isn't. Just as you have a right to political expression up to and including actions that would be illegal if they were done for any purpose other than political expression. Freedom of religion does not allow him to discriminate against or abuse anyone, but there is no evidence he did either.

Wonder if another player decided his made up religion condemns black people as a less sub species, would folau support the airing of his religious beliefs?

He never claimed homosexuals were lesser, just that they were sinners and would go to hell if they didn't repent. The same applies to people who commit adultery, sex outside of marriage, eat certain foods on certain days, and hundreds of other stupid anachronistic rules.

If you feel so strongly about the subject, it deserves a bit more thought from you before you post a message which essentially consists of you lying about what he said to get your point across. It isn't cool.

stephen_n

Deleted User wrote: »

He didn't say or imply that.


He never said or implied they deserved it.


He didn't say that either.




Freedom of religion (in varying forms) is a recognised human right. Freedom to by a misogynist isn't. Just as you have a right to political expression up to and including actions that would be illegal if they were done for any purpose other than political expression. Freedom of religion does not allow him to discriminate against or abuse anyone, but there is no evidence he did either.


He never claimed homosexuals were lesser, just that they were sinners and would go to hell if they didn't repent. The same applies to people who commit adultery, sex outside of marriage, eat certain foods on certain days, and hundreds of other stupid anachronistic rules.

If you feel so strongly about the subject, it deserves a bit more thought from you before you post a message which essentially consists of you lying about what he said to get your point across. It isn't cool.

Are sinners not evil? Is that not implied in the Bible?

Hell is depicted as eternal suffering, so if he believes they deserve to go to Hell, then he does imply they deserve to suffer for eternity.

Is a sinner not a lesser person in the eyes of god?

thomond2006

Get the feckin' Crunchies outta the car.

stephen_n

stephen_n wrote: »

Are sinners not evil? Is that not implied in the Bible?

No. Committing sin isn't the same as being inherently evil.

Hell is depicted as eternal suffering, so if he believes they deserve to go to Hell, then he does imply they deserve to suffer for eternity.

No, where does "deserve" come into this in any way? Someone who drives at 200km/h on a public road and dies in a fatal accident doesn't "deserve" death but people state that death is the foreseeable outcome of the event happening.

Homosexuality = sin, sin without repenting = hell. It's an "A=B, B=C" thing. "Deserving" isn't an innate part of it.

Babies/children that die without being baptised, in a strict interpretation of the bible and according to early theologians, went to hell. This was later ameliorated to them going to limbo. I don't think anyone who still takes that view (and there are plenty) think that "babies deserve to go to hell or limbo".

Is a sinner not a lesser person in the eyes of god?

So Folau is God now?

This is taking a weird turn.

irishbucsfan

Former Former wrote: »

GONE

Folau isn't a catholic?

Are the majority of people on this forum really catholics? What's your basis for that?

He didn't say Folau was Catholic, he said Folau shared the same principle on homosexuality that Catholicism does.

78.3% of people in the last census self-identified as Catholic.

Former Former

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Folau isn't a catholic?

Are the majority of people on this forum really catholics? What's your basis for that?

Most people on this forum are Irish and three-quarters of Irish people are Catholic. Is that not a fair assumption?

Folau is not a Catholic, but I didn't say that he is.

Edit: deleted my earlier post, I don't want to offend anyone's beliefs, but I just think Folau is entitled to the same consideration.

irishbucsfan

Former Former wrote: »

Most people on this forum are Irish and three-quarters of Irish people are Catholic. Is that not a fair assumption?

Folau is not a Catholic, but I didn't say that he is.

No, it's obviously not a fair assumption that because 3/4s of the millions of people in Ireland said they are catholic, that 3/4s of the hundred odd people who read the boards.ie rugby forum are also catholic. For many, surely obvious, reasons.

It also ignores something we all know, which is a massive dissonance between the label of a particular religion in Ireland and the actual practice of it. Over half of the people in Ireland claim they practice no religion at all.

Also ignores the fact that rugby has a reputation as a bleedin forrin invader church of de royilty sport!

ScrubsfanChris

thomond2006 wrote: »

Get the feckin' Crunchies outta the car.

Dont talk to me like that you big pile of sh*te

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It also ignores something we all know, which is a massive dissonance between the label of a particular religion in Ireland and the actual practice of it. Over half of the people in Ireland claim they practice no religion at all.

I think that may have been part of FF's point. Many people will be commenting on Folau's views while self-describing in the census as Catholic and while doing things like baptising their kids, even though the Catholic Church's views on homosexuality have far more in common with Folau's views than yours or mine would.

There is an innate hypocrisy in that that Irish people are loathe to ever look at, in my experience. When I asked my sister why she was having her child baptised even though neither her nor her partner were religious, her answer was she didn't want her child to miss out on communion or confirmation when all her peers would be going through them. She got married in the church because of tradition/"the image". The mind boggles.

I'm strictly agnostic, but I've had a lot of interactions with different faiths with travel/work which makes me take a different (and unpopular) perspective.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I think that may have been part of FF's point. Many people will be commenting on Folau's views while self-describing in the census as Catholic and while doing things like baptising their kids, even though the Catholic Church's views on homosexuality have far more in common with Folau's views than yours or mine would.

There is an innate hypocrisy in that that Irish people are loathe to ever look at, in my experience. When I asked my sister why she was having her child baptised even though neither her nor her partner were religious, her answer was she didn't want her child to miss out on communion or confirmation when all her peers would be going through them. She got married in the church because of tradition/"the image". The mind boggles.

I'm strictly agnostic, but I've had a lot of interactions with different faiths with travel/work which makes me take a different (and unpopular) perspective.

You've answered your own point there. Many people don't agree with or really believe in the church at all. They may however believe in god and they don't have any other conduit for that belief other than the Catholic church.

It's nonsense that people who never go to mass and never formally pray (unless something is going seriously wrong) still comply with church traditions and occasions but in a way it's very understandable.

I'm not at all religious and whilst I've long since broken whatever tether I had to the church I can still understand why others have difficulty doing so. The concept of Religion, God and existence beyond life is fraught with some very challenging questions and for some the easiest course of action is to take the parts they like and leave the rest.

It's hypocrisy for sure but at the same time given the complexity of the issue I'm not inclined to label such people as hypocritical. I'm also not inclined to hold people to account for the wider teachings of the church.

I feel incredibly lucky to have had the parents I have. I certainly don't agree with them on everything though. The church in many ways has a similar relationship with many of those that still engage with it.

molloyjh

His religious beliefs are not the issue. For me anyway. What I'm taking issue with is the publicising of those beliefs when there was absolutely no need for him to do so. I couldn't care less if he thinks he's the Supreme Being and us mere mortals nothing but ants beneath his feet. You can believe whatever you want. But at the end of the day if you publicise those beliefs then you are fair game for response. Those beliefs can, when announced like this, have profoundly negative impacts on other people. I'm all for a live and let live attitude. If you're not hurting anyone then fire away. In this case you can be sure he has hurt people. So he should be called out on it. Claiming now that he is somehow a victim in all this is like a bully in school crying foul when his classmates tell him to cop on and stop being a bully.

Buer

Just because people aren't religious doesn't mean they should not partake in religious ceremonies as part of cultural heritage and, whether we like it or not, Catholicism is inherrently linked to the people of this country.

There's a significant element of hypocrisy in it but many participants look forward to a wedding in a church or a day out for their child's communion as it's part of our culture. It's completely understandable although I think it will die out more and more now that our culture is shifting. Non-denominational schools are becoming more popular now. Civil ceremonies are starting to increase rapidly in their frequency and people are more comfortable with having them not necessarily because they would see themselves as religious/non-religious but simply because it's more acceptable. People have been married in religious ceremonies for decades simply because it's the "done thing".

The publication of some of the more unpleasant comments about Folau doubtless have negative impacts on people who share his beliefs and/or religion. The calls for him to be silenced in public have doubtless had negative impacts on many people who share his faith, or have a faith that can be divisive and unpopular. There is a significant degree of ostracisation to people who are Christian in many westernised countries including our own. Plenty of people who feel frightened/ashamed to express their religious views.

Perhaps you should live up to your own moral code and start by deleting any posts you have made that are critical about him expressing his beliefs?

He was asked a direct question in a comment, by someone who deliberately wanted a controversial response and responded according to his religion. He didn't go up to someone and tell them they're going to burn in hell simply for their sexuality. If you want to castigate him over what he said, by all means, but to cloak it in some sort of moral superiority is a bit sad.

Yeah_Right

It's a shame that Owens isn't refereeing any of the Australia v Ireland matches this summer.
"Gold 15. Yellow card."
"Why?"
"Because you're a homophobic ****wit. Make that a red card. I'm going to hell anyway."

stephen_n

Buer wrote: »

Just because people aren't religious doesn't mean they should not partake in religious ceremonies as part of cultural heritage and, whether we like it or not, Catholicism is inherrently linked to the people of this country.

There's a significant element of hypocrisy in it but many participants look forward to a wedding in a church or a day out for their child's communion as it's part of our culture. It's completely understandable although I think it will die out more and more now that our culture is shifting. Non-denominational schools are becoming more popular now. Civil ceremonies are starting to increase rapidly in their frequency and people are more comfortable with having them not necessarily because they would see themselves as religious/non-religious but simply because it's more acceptable. People have been married in religious ceremonies for decades simply because it's the "done thing".

I think in fairness the church part of weddings, christenings and communions are the bits most dreaded.

Guy:Incognito

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He didn't say that either.



.

He opposed same sex marriage last year.

Former Former

Yeah_Right wrote: »

It's a shame that Owens isn't refereeing any of the Australia v Ireland matches this summer.
"Gold 15. Yellow card."
"Why?"
"Because you're a homophobic ****wit. Make that a red card. I'm going to hell anyway."

Owens should not have commented. It was totally inappropriate.

But everyone's on board and no one will pull him up on it because he's expressing the "right" sentiments.

Even if Owens had been due to ref any games this summer, he couldn't do so now

ScissorPaperRock

Former Former wrote: »

Owens should not have commented. It was totally inappropriate.

But everyone's on board and no one will pull him up on it because he's expressing the "right" sentiments.

Even if Owens had been due to ref any games this summer, he couldn't do so now

I think it's a bit more transparent that he did. He would have had these sentiments about it anyway, and this way at least he's upfront about it.

ScrubsfanChris

Former Former wrote: »

Owens Folau should not have commented. It was totally inappropriate.

FYP

molloyjh

Deleted User wrote: »

The publication of some of the more unpleasant comments about Folau doubtless have negative impacts on people who share his beliefs and/or religion. The calls for him to be silenced in public have doubtless had negative impacts on many people who share his faith, or have a faith that can be divisive and unpopular. There is a significant degree of ostracisation to people who are Christian in many westernised countries including our own. Plenty of people who feel frightened/ashamed to express their religious views.

Perhaps you should live up to your own moral code and start by deleting any posts you have made that are critical about him expressing his beliefs?

He was asked a direct question in a comment, by someone who deliberately wanted a controversial response and responded according to his religion. He didn't go up to someone and tell them they're going to burn in hell simply for their sexuality. If you want to castigate him over what he said, by all means, but to cloak it in some sort of moral superiority is a bit sad.

He didn’t have to respond is my point. Nothing forced his hand. He chose to make a public statement that is harmful to others and promotes bigotry. He does not get to play the victim. And anyone who shares his opinion also does not get to play the victim. If you’re going to judge others for who they are then you should expect to get judged for your actions. Judging people based on what they choose to say and do is far fairer than who they have no choice in being.

Seriously, this idea that discriminators are victims is pretty pathetic.

molloyjh

molloyjh wrote: »

He didn’t have to respond is my point. Nothing forced his hand. He chose to make a public statement that is harmful to others and promotes bigotry. He does not get to play the victim. And anyone who shares his opinion also does not get to play the victim. If you’re going to judge others for who they are then you should expect to get judged for your actions. Judging people based on what they choose to say and do is far fairer than who they have no choice in being.

Seriously, this idea that discriminators are victims is pretty pathetic.

'You didn't have to respond is my point. Nothing forced your hand. You chose to make a public statement that is harmful to others and promotes bigotry.'

I portrayed him (or others) as being victims to show how regressive many of the opinions expressed on this topic were by turning the subject around and pointing out how subjective morals based on "well, someone somewhere was maybe hurt or offended by this opinion?" doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. They are absurd and antithetical to any modern western society, and to have people blithely throwing them around is disappointing.

Tariq Modood is a somewhat well known sociologist who researches in the fields of pluralism, secularism and multiculturalism and said the following:

If people are to occupy the same political space without conflict, they mutually have to limit the extent to which they subject each others’ fundamental beliefs to criticism.

Also, and shamelessly stolen from his wikipedia page:

Modood defines equality as: "not having to hide or apologise for one's origins, family or community but requiring others to show respect for them, and adapt public attitudes and arrangements so that the heritage they represent is encouraged rather than contemptuously expect them to wither away."

Modood is critical of policies that force secular identities upon religious minorities, he has coined the term "radical secularism" for this and commented that it "cannot be secured without illiberal measures". He has also said that some people feel "that religious people are not worthy of protection; more than that, they should be subject to not just intellectual criticism but mockery and ridicule..."

I'll be honest, if you want to talk about ideas being pathetic, I'll once again suggest you look inward before judging outward.

@Guy:Incognito so in all but one of your statements, you were stretching the truth by several miles but it's ok because one of them was actually referring to a tweet from 9 months ago?
*shrug*

Former Former

molloyjh wrote: »

He didn’t have to respond is my point. Nothing forced his hand. He chose to make a public statement that is harmful to others and promotes bigotry. He does not get to play the victim. And anyone who shares his opinion also does not get to play the victim. If you’re going to judge others for who they are then you should expect to get judged for your actions. Judging people based on what they choose to say and do is far fairer than who they have no choice in being.

Seriously, this idea that discriminators are victims is pretty pathetic.

See, you're coming at this as though it's his own opinion he's giving. It's not, it's his religious belief. There is a crucial, critical difference between the two.

The sequence of events was:
1> Folau posts a pretty harmless Insta picture of "God's Plan", containing nothing about gays, offensive or otherwise.
2> Random internetter trolls Folau trying to get a response from him.
3> Folau responds.

Folau could have ignored the random gob****e, but then is he denying his faith, and why should he, why should he have to hide what he believes because the majority no longer share that belief (even though we did up until relatively recently)?

This is not like saying that there's too many immigrants coming in, or that we pay dole scroungers too much, or that the government are idiots. It is not a political or social commentary, it's his core religious belief.

ARU have announced that Folau will face no sanction and will not have to apologise, that's the right and only call. Forcing everyone to have the "right" religious beliefs is a very dangerous path to go down.

molloyjh

Deleted User wrote: »

I portrayed him (or others) as being victims to show how regressive many of the opinions expressed on this topic were by turning the subject around and pointing out how subjective morals based on "well, someone somewhere was maybe hurt or offended by this opinion?" doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

Sorry now, but while I don't have any concrete examples of people being harmed by what Folau said I'm as certain as I can be that people were. Imagine being a young gay rugby player in Australia today. Someone who is wrestling with their identity. Someone not too dissimilar from a Nigel Owens or a Gareth Thomas. A major rugby comes out to say you are going to Hell unless you repent your gayness and "turn to God", in other words stop being gay. Then the ARU decide that it has no issue with that statement. How secure do you think you are going to feel about coming out? This sad affair is going to do nothing but hurt you.

On the other hand all I'm saying personally is that Folau can believe what he wants, but should refrain from publicly proclaiming his beliefs because of the impact it will have on others. In other words show a bit of kindness towards his fellow man. Quite how what I'm doing is even in the same sphere as what he did is utterly beyond me. I'm not telling him to change who he is or to believe anything different. I'm simply saying he should be aware of the impact of what he says has on others and act accordingly.

I'm sure you think you've a wonderful point there, but I'm afraid you don't. I'm not asking Folau to change who he is, just how he behaves in public where it has the chance to be harmful to others.

molloyjh

Former Former wrote: »

Folau could have ignored the random gob****e, but then is he denying his faith

What!? No, he's just ignoring a troll looking to get a rise out of him. Not responding to someone who is trying to bait him is not denying his faith.

I find it quite disturbing how far some people are willing to go to defend bigotry. Because ultimately that's what is going on here. Apparently he should have the right to pronounce bigotry because it's in a religion. Would the same logic apply if it was racism? "Ah sure it's okay that Joe Bloggs believes that Asians are sub-human because his religion says they are". Does that mean that white supremacists around the world just need to set up their own religion and they can practice racism without fear of condemnation? Or is the fact that it's a new religion somehow different to older more established religions? Where exactly is the line in all of this?

Former Former

molloyjh wrote: »

What!? No, he's just ignoring a troll looking to get a rise out of him. Not responding to someone who is trying to bait him is not denying his faith.

I find it quite disturbing how far some people are willing to go to defend bigotry. Because ultimately that's what is going on here. Apparently he should have the right to pronounce bigotry because it's in a religion. Would the same logic apply if it was racism? "Ah sure it's okay that Joe Bloggs believes that Asians are sub-human because his religion says they are". Does that mean that white supremacists around the world just need to set up their own religion and they can practice racism without fear of condemnation? Or is the fact that it's a new religion somehow different to older more established religions? Where exactly is the line in all of this?

Whoooaaaa there chief.

I am not defending what he said at all. Don't you dare throw that in there. I absolutely abhor any discrimination against gays, blacks, women, whatever. But then I don't belong to a religion that actively preaches it, so that helps.

I just find the hypocrisy and double standards a bit much.

thomond2006

Ah, it's just a headache.