Israel Folau, Billy Vunipola and the intolerance of tolerance

eagle eye

Cabaal wrote:

If he said black people should go to hell would you still defend him?

That's not even closer see to the same thing. You are born black, no action is involved.
It's the sexual acts of homosexuality that he was saying will send you to hell not the fact that a person is gay.

robinph

eagle eye wrote: »

That's not even closer see to the same thing. You are born black, no action is involved.
It's the sexual acts of homosexuality that he was saying will send you to hell not the fact that a person is gay.

That really isn't what he said in the slightest.

eagle eye

robinph wrote:

That really isn't what he said in the slightest.

Really, what did he say then?

robinph

eagle eye wrote: »

Really, what did he say then?

https://scontent-lhr3-1.cdninstagram.com/vp/8e7c839a8d49d5794af6e80b77c60acc/5D9E33DB/t51.2885-15/e35/55736850_413307239403376_7823342407742317428_n.jpg?_nc_ht=scontent-lhr3-1.cdninstagram.com

No mention of a difference between being gay or participating in gay sex.

eagle eye

robinph wrote:

No mention of a difference between being gay or participating in gay sex.

It's clear to me that's it about people committing acts from that.

smacl

eagle eye wrote: »

It's clear to me that's it about people committing acts from that.

Why so? Reason I ask is a good friend of my daughter's is gay and identifies as such but being quite young is less likely to be sexually active. She also plays rugby and is a Christian FWIW.

eagle eye

smacl wrote:

Why so? Reason I ask is a good friend of my daughter's is gay and identifies as such but being quite young is less likely to be sexually active. She also plays rugby and is a Christian FWIW.

Fornicators, adulterers, those are sinful acts according to his religious beliefs. He is asking them all to repent for their sins.
I'm not religious, I don't agree with him either but imo hey s entitled to his opinion and beliefs.
He is being prevented from playing for his country because of his religious beliefs.

smacl

eagle eye wrote: »

Fornicators, adulterers, those are sinful acts according to his religious beliefs. He is asking them all to repent for their sins.
I'm not religious, I don't agree with him either but imo hey s entitled to his opinion and beliefs.
He is being prevented from playing for his country because of his religious beliefs.

I've zero sympathy for him. While I'm not gay, I am an atheist which actually involves doing nothing other than not subscribing to his religion. So by not doing anything, he is telling me that I will be damned for all eternity? Now that's a belief he's entitled to hold, but even though it is entirely specious from my point of view, it is also clearly insulting. I can fully understand why his employer, who actively promote inclusivity, would not want him broadcasting this guff over public media as a member of the national team.

sydthebeat

eagle eye wrote: »

He is being prevented from playing for his country because of his religious beliefs.

no he is not.

he broke his contract because of his broadcasting of his discriminatory views..... after been warned previously.

he could have still held his religious beliefs and played on with no problem.

Therefore he himself is the reason he cannot play for his country, so if he wants to point a finger at who is preventing him from playing all he has to do is find a mirror.

smacl

smacl wrote: »

I've zero sympathy for him. While I'm not gay, I am an atheist which actually involves doing nothing other than not subscribing to his religion. So by not doing anything, he is telling me that I will be damned for all eternity? Now that's a belief he's entitled to hold, but even though it is entirely specious from my point of view, it is also clearly insulting. I can fully understand why his employer, who actively promote inclusivity, would not want him broadcasting this guff over public media as a member of the national team.

Why exactly is it insulting for you as an atheist that someone believes you will be damned for all eternity in a place you don't believe in?

Professor Moriarty

sydthebeat wrote: »

no he is not.

he broke his contract because of his broadcasting of his discriminatory views..... after been warned previously.

he could have still held his religious beliefs and played on with no problem.

Therefore he himself is the reason he cannot play for his country, so if he wants to point a finger at who is preventing him from playing all he has to do is find a mirror.

Exactement. Amazing and ironic how people persist in seeing this as discriminatory. If it's the man serving you a pint in the local who is spouting this nonsense, then no problem. If it's a world renowned rugby star, it's a completely different matter. I think some people are wilfully blind to this simple fact.

eagle eye

sydthebeat wrote:

he could have still held his religious beliefs and played on with no problem.

I don't know what age you are but 30 years ago if you were gay in this country you were told to keep your mouth shut and don't tell anybody.
Do you think that was fair?
Do you think it's fair to tell anybody to do that?
Regardless of his contract he should still be allowed play for his country. Preventing him because of his religious beliefs is wrong.
If he went on social media and said godl loves all gay people would he lose his job? I don't think so.

Professor Moriarty

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't know what age you are but 30 years ago if you were gay in this country you were told to keep your mouth shut and don't tell anybody.
Do you think that was fair?
Do you think it's fair to tell anybody to do that?
Regardless of his contract he should still be allowed play for his country. Preventing him because of his religious beliefs is wrong.
If he went on social media and said godl loves all gay people would he lose his job? I don't think so.

In actual fact, 30 years ago homosexuality was illegal in this country.

sydthebeat

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't know what age you are but 30 years ago if you were gay in this country you were told to keep your mouth shut and don't tell anybody.
Do you think that was fair?
Do you think it's fair to tell anybody to do that?
Regardless of his contract he should still be allowed play for his country. Preventing him because of his religious beliefs is wrong.
If he went on social media and said godl loves all gay people would he lose his job? I don't think so.

i really dont know what point your trying to make here??

you just keep repeating the same factually incorrect stuff in order to do what?? hope it sticks?

He broke his contract.

HE DID.

no one else.

is that really hard to fathom?

robinph

eagle eye wrote: »

If he went on social media and said godl loves all gay people would he lose his job? I don't think so.

How would saying "god loves gay people" be taken as hate speech?

However, if he had said "christians are all homophobes" then I'd equally expect him to have been sacked and out of a job.

recedite

robinph wrote: »

How would saying "god loves gay people" be taken as hate speech?

However, if he had said "christians are all homophobes" then I'd equally expect him to have been sacked and out of a job.

We have had posters on this thread saying the contents of the Catechism of the Catholic church is homophobic hate speech.
Is there a penalty for that?
Its a fine line between saying that the doctrine is homophobic hate speech, and saying people who subscribe to the doctrine are homophobes.
I'm not sure that line in the sand even exists, in reality.

smacl

Deleted User wrote: »

Why exactly is it insulting for you as an atheist that someone believes you will be damned for all eternity in a place you don't believe in?

Intent. Say I said to you in all seriousness that I don't like your behaviour, and unless you did as I asked you were going to suffer terribly for it. That is a still a threat and an insult even if it you don't believe what I'm saying. It is also deeply disrespectful, in that I'm entitled to my freedom of religious belief and this is a threat that attempts to deny that. As Nobelium commented earlier, Christians should be, and in my opinion for the most are, concerned about their own sins first and foremost and be less concerned about trampling on the beliefs of others.

smacl

Nobelium wrote: »

Folau's whole problem, is that he failed to grasp one of the most basic concepts of Christianity.

Christianity is not about what other people are doing and not doing, it's about what you yourself, are doing and not doing.

I agree with this for the most part, but note that Christianity has a strong tradition of evangelizing and proselytizing through the likes of missions. Those involved in such activity show a clear lack of respect for other people's beliefs and as such do not have my respect.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

Intent.

The intent is Repent. They mean well.
Christians have been going around for the last two thousand years trying to "save" other people.
We know this. Its nothing new.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

I agree with this for the most part, but note that Christianity has a strong tradition of evangelizing and proselytizing through the likes of missions. Those involved in such activity show a clear lack of respect for other people's beliefs and as such do not have my respect.

This is nonsense. You might as well say Coca Cola and Pepsi show a lack of respect for each other, by not respecting each others established markets.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

The intent is Repent. They mean well.
Christians have been going around for the last two thousand years trying to "save" other people.
We know this. Its nothing new.

That they've been doing it for years is no excuse. Saying repent is saying that their belief system is right and every contradictory belief is wrong. Saying repent or go to hell is adding a threat to give weight to that argument. Yes, to you or me it is an empty threat, but it is a threat nonetheless.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

That they've been doing it for years is no excuse. Saying repent is saying that their belief system is right...

And all of a sudden this has become hate speech?

smacl

recedite wrote: »

This is nonsense. You might as well say Coca Cola and Pepsi show a lack of respect for each other, by not respecting each others established markets.

Indeed, and while their marketing is pushy, I don't remember Coke or Pepsi suggesting I'd suffer for all eternity if I didn't buy their product. As a civilised society we don't allow that kind of nonsense, yet Christianity and Islam are allowed do this with impunity.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

And all of a sudden this has become hate speech?

It has always been hateful. The difference is that as society has progressed we now call it out as such and have become intolerant of it.

robinph

smacl wrote: »

Indeed, and while their marketing is pushy, I don't remember Coke or Pepsi suggesting I'd suffer for all eternity if I didn't buy their product. As a civilised society we don't allow that kind of nonsense, yet Christianity and Islam are allowed do this with impunity.

Well, companies are pulled up on their advertising when they go a step too far with their claims and what their product can do for you, or what will happen to you if you don't use their product.

Professor Moriarty

recedite wrote: »

We have had posters on this thread saying the contents of the Catechism of the Catholic church is homophobic hate speech.
Is there a penalty for that?
Its a fine line between saying that the doctrine is homophobic hate speech, and saying people who subscribe to the doctrine are homophobes.
I'm not sure that line in the sand even exists, in reality.

It is hate speech. To suggest that a cohort of people should be burnt for eternity just because they were born with a certain sexual orientation isn't exactly very 'Christian'. Sounds like hate to me.

eagle eye

sydthebeat wrote:

He broke his contract.

What line exactly in his contract did he break?

sydthebeat

eagle eye wrote: »

What line exactly in his contract did he break?

https://www.google.com/search?q=ISRAEL+FOLAU+FIRED+FOR+BREACH+OF+CONTRACT&rlz=1C1AZAA_enIE750IE750&oq=ISRAEL+FOLAU+FIRED+FOR+BREACH+OF+CONTRACT&aqs=chrome..69i57.6935j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

go find out for yourself :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

recedite

eagle eye wrote: »

What line exactly in his contract did he break?

Its the question nobody seems to be able to answer.

sydthebeat

recedite wrote: »

Its the question nobody seems to be able to answer.

do you honestly think someone random on the internet would have access to the wording of a private employment document??

:D:D:D:D:D

god bless but your naivety is boundless :P

robinph

recedite wrote: »

Its the question nobody seems to be able to answer.

Seeing as Google seems to be defeating you:

https://www.lawinsport.com/topics/articles/item/israel-folau-and-rugby-australia-s-code-of-conduct-hearing-the-likely-legal-arguments

Cabaal

eagle eye wrote: »

That's not even closer see to the same thing. You are born black, no action is involved.
It's the sexual acts of homosexuality that he was saying will send you to hell not the fact that a person is gay.

You are born gay same as you are born atheist, but yet he wants both to go to hell.
:rolleyes:

He didn't say you'd go for hell for having gay sex like you are trying to suggest, now you just creating stuff out of thin hair that simply didn't exist in his twitter post.

So as I've said, we simply we not be having this conversation if he posted gay people should go to hell.

We'd all agree that he would be racist, but yet its acceptable to some for him to make the same comment about gay people....says a lot about people defending his post.

Cabaal

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't know what age you are but 30 years ago if you were gay in this country you were told to keep your mouth shut and don't tell anybody.

Wow, just wow

It was a little more then being told to shut up, it was illegal

Sections 61 and 62 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 criminalised buggery, which made sexual activity between two men illegal, and section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 criminalised gross indecency between men. The catholic church approved of these laws.

It took David Norris going to the European Court of Human Rights to get force change in what was still a country sadly in the grip of the catholic church.

This only changed in 1993 (thats less the 30 years ago for those that can't count)

Perhaps when you talk about being told to shut up you are referring to teachers in state funded schools who until very recently they were told to shut up and not tell anyone they worked with they were gay in case they might be sacked.
:rolleyes:

recedite

robinph wrote: »

Seeing as Google seems to be defeating you:

https://www.lawinsport.com/topics/articles/item/israel-folau-and-rugby-australia-s-code-of-conduct-hearing-the-likely-legal-arguments

Its a good article, but its only speculation. It does show that this is a legal quagmire, and far from a straightforward case.
Of note here is the fact that originally RA said they were terminating his contract because he had breached the players contract. But now they have rolled back on that, apparently because he has not breached it.

Rugby Australia will not, it appears, be relying on any express or specific term in the player’s contract; rather, their arguments will be premised on the general and standard contractual clause that players employed by Rugby Australia must abide by the Code

If he has breached a players code of conduct (which is not proven either) that is a far less serious matter than a breach of the main contract, and it would not normally be a sacking offence.

sydthebeat

recedite wrote: »

If he has breached a players code of conduct (which is not proven either) that is a far less serious matter than a breach of the main contract, and it would not normally be a sacking offence.

and yet the tribunal determined he had provided a "high level" breach of the code of conduct, for which termination of the contract was the result.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

We have had posters on this thread saying the contents of the Catechism of the Catholic church is homophobic hate speech.
Is there a penalty for that?
Its a fine line between saying that the doctrine is homophobic hate speech, and saying people who subscribe to the doctrine are homophobes.
I'm not sure that line in the sand even exists, in reality.

The Catholic church have themselves acknowledged that the wording of the catechism is problematic. From our friends on Wikipedia

At the 2015 Synod on the Family, Archbishop Charles Chaput said that the phrase "intrinsically disordered" turns people off and "probably isn’t useful anymore." While making clear that any new language adopted should make clear the Church's teaching, he said that this particular phrase should be put "on the shelf for a while, until we get over the negativity related to it." In 2019, Cardinal Joseph W. Tobin said it was "unfortunate language" and expressed his hope that the Church would adopt different language that was "less hurtful."

If you read the rest of the article it would seem that the Catholic church is backing away from its historically homophobic position at a rate of knots. A large part of the Anglican church are already well ahead of them in this regard.

eagle eye

sydthebeat wrote:

go find out for yourself

You are the one saying it so prove it.

robinph

eagle eye wrote: »

You are the one saying it so prove it.

It's Australian Rugby saying he breached the terms of his contract.

sydthebeat

eagle eye wrote: »

You are the one saying it so prove it.

it been reported in numerous sources... just click on any link that i gave you :rolleyes:

youre the one looking for an exact clause of a contract

Professor Moriarty

smacl wrote: »

The Catholic church have themselves acknowledged that the wording of the catechism is problematic. From our friends on Wikipedia



If you read the rest of the article it would seem that the Catholic church is backing away from its historically homophobic position at a rate of knots. A large part of the Anglican church are already well ahead of them in this regard.

In 1999, an openly gay man became Anglican Bishop of Edmonton. Poor man is going to burn in Hell for eternity though.

recedite

sydthebeat wrote: »

and yet the tribunal determined he had provided a "high level" breach of the code of conduct, for which termination of the contract was the result.

They did. But lets just say, that finding was "a bit of a stretch".

sydthebeat

recedite wrote: »

They did. But lets just say, that finding was "a bit of a stretch".

Who are you quoting there?
Can you provide a link to that statement?

Or maybe you were actually at the tribunal and you are giving your own opinion.....

recedite

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

In 1999, an openly gay man became Anglican Bishop of Edmonton. Poor man is going to burn in Hell for eternity though.

RCC has lots of gay clerics too. Officially they are supposed to be celibate, in which case they do not breach the doctrine.


You can't just ask somebody whether they are sexually active, but if they are married its a default assumption. Which is why same sex marriage is not permitted in the Anglican communion and why those who have married in civil ceremonies are in a tricky situation once they leave their own parish...

Married gay bishops will be invited to a global gathering of the Anglican Church for the first time — but have been told not to bring their spouses.

The day these openly gay clerics are accepted as married and in an open sexual relationship is the day the worldwide Anglican communion will split apart.

recedite

sydthebeat wrote: »

..you are giving your own opinion.....

Of course I am giving my own opinion. This is a discussion forum, isn't it?

Nobelium

smacl wrote: »

The Catholic church have themselves acknowledged that the wording of the catechism is problematic. From our friends on Wikipedia

If you read the rest of the article it would seem that the Catholic church is backing away from its historically homophobic position at a rate of knots. A large part of the Anglican church are already well ahead of them in this regard.

according to catechism **** is also "intrinsically disordered", and sexual pleasure is termed "morally disordered" when sought for itself. They are going to have to sort that wording out as well

sydthebeat

recedite wrote: »

Of course I am giving my own opinion. This is a discussion forum, isn't it?

But you quoted something?? What did you quote?

recedite

smacl wrote: »

The Catholic church have themselves acknowledged that the wording of the catechism is problematic. From our friends on Wikipedia
If you read the rest of the article it would seem that the Catholic church is backing away from its historically homophobic position at a rate of knots. A large part of the Anglican church are already well ahead of them in this regard.

Your interpretation is highly selective. A few clerics are named there who don't like the phrase "intrinsically disordered" and would prefer different words to be used.
I don't see any change mentioned whatsoever, in the historic RCC doctrine.

recedite

sydthebeat wrote: »

But you quoted something?? What did you quote?

I used inverted commas to indicate a somewhat sardonic or mocking tone, when using a particular turn of phrase.

Nobelium

Folau posted a screenshot of a meme which listed various groups, including “homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves”, bearing the words, “WARNING: HELL AWAITS YOU. REPENT. ONLY JESUS SAVES”. Rugby Australia immediately denounced the post as homophobic.The next day, Rugby Australia announced their intention to terminate his contract. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Folau

I wonder if he had left out the word homosexuals would he have gotten away with it, and why should he have ?

sydthebeat

Nobelium wrote: »

I wonder if he had left out the word homosexuals would he have gotten away with it, and why should he have ?

Yes he would, as none of the others are a grouping that suffers discrimination for who they are.... But are rather a decription for what they do.