Israel Folau, Billy Vunipola and the intolerance of tolerance

Nobelium

sydthebeat wrote: »

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.

True, an important distinction. If he had said sodimisers for example, would he have gotten away with it, and why should he ?

recedite

Nobelium wrote: »

If he had said sodimisers for example

Or "practising homosexuals".
Somehow I think the outcome would have been the same, but the argument against him would have been that little bit more flimsy.
This is a clash within society whose time has come.

smacl

sydthebeat wrote: »

none of the others are a grouping that suffers discrimination for who they are.... But are rather a decription for what they do.

Not sure I agree with that. I'm an atheist which doesn't actually involve doing anything. I was also born an atheist and in my childhood have been bullied for being an atheist.

Nobelium

recedite wrote: »

Or "practising homosexuals".
Somehow I think the outcome would have been the same, but the argument against him would have been that little bit more flimsy.
This is a clash within society whose time has come.

It also seems that Folau is nontrinitarian, so he rejects mainstream Christian doctrine.

smacl

Nobelium wrote: »

True, an important distinction. If he had said sodimisers for example, would he have gotten away with it, and why should he ?

But if by sodomy you're talking exclusively about penetrative anal intercourse, that is a different group of people to homosexuals. What about gay women, gay men who only engage in oral sex or mutual masturbation and heterosexual couples who have anal sex?

Edit: Just looked it up and apparently sodomy includes oral sex with a member of the same or opposite sex, so I'd imagine on that basis it is very common among heterosexuals as well.

Merriam-Webster wrote:

sodomy noun
sod·​omy | \ ˈsä-də-mē \
Definition of sodomy
: anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex
also : copulation with an animal

Nobelium

smacl wrote: »

But if by sodomy you're talking exclusively about penetrative anal intercourse, that is a different group of people to homosexuals. What about gay women, gay men who only engage in oral sex or mutual masturbation and heterosexual couples who have anal sex?

probably covered under fornicators, sexual immoral and sodimisers

smacl

Nobelium wrote: »

probably covered under fornicators, sexual immoral and sodimisers

So on that basis, by homosexuals there is no reason whatsoever to presume he implied practicing homosexuals as this was already well covered. It would seem to me he was explicitly referring to those who simply are homosexual rather than how they act, much the same as for atheists.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

So on that basis, by homosexuals there is no reason whatsoever to presume he implied practicing homosexuals ..

I disagree. He didn't say "celibate homosexuals" and he didn't say "practicing homosexuals" either.

So you can't infer either, but most people would assume the latter. Certainly in a religious doctrine or scriptural context it would be the latter.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

I disagree. He didn't say "celibate homosexuals" and he didn't say "practicing homosexuals" either.

So you can't infer either, but most people would assume the latter. Certainly in a religious doctrine or scriptural context it would be the latter.

Not so. If any kind of sexual activity a homosexual person might engage in is already covered by fornication the only reason to include homosexuals separately is on the basis of a sin other than fornication. If not simply being a homosexual, what sin would that be exactly?

recedite

smacl wrote: »

Not so. If any kind of sexual activity a homosexual person might engage in is already covered by fornication the only reason to include homosexuals separately is on the basis of a sin other than fornication. If not simply being a homosexual, what sin would that be exactly?

That's a very jesuitical argument. Technically its true, but mainly its misleading.
Fornication is cheating on your partner. From a biblical perspective, your partner is assumed to be married to you and of the opposite sex.
If gays are capable of being monogamous and/or faithful to their partner (and I'll assume you won't argue with that) then "fornication" is not the right word to use for their relationship. Even though they would not be married in the eyes of the church.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

Fornication is cheating on your partner. From a biblical perspective, your partner is assumed to be married to you and of the opposite sex. If gays are capable of being monogamous and/or faithful to their partner (and I'll assume you won't argue with that) then "fornication" is not the right word to use for their relationship. Even though they would not be married in the eyes of the church.

No it isn't, fornication is defined as consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other. You seem to be confusing it with adultery.

Nobelium

smacl wrote: »

So on that basis, by homosexuals there is no reason whatsoever to presume he implied practicing homosexuals as this was already well covered. It would seem to me he was explicitly referring to those who simply are homosexual rather than how they act, much the same as for atheists.

yes he was incorrect, Christianity condemns homosexual acts / active homosexuals, and not all homosexuals. Now, whether he agrees or not with this, understands it or not, or is just careless with language, I have no idea. He's also a nontrinitarian who rejects mainstream Christian doctrine, so who know what he believes / doesn't believe. - Nor do I really care about what some obscure rugby player in new south wales believes / doesn't believe.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

No it isn't, fornication is defined as consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other. You seem to be confusing it with adultery.

Yes you are right on that point. But you still can't infer from it that he means celibate homosexuals, just because he also mentions fornicators.

Nobelium wrote: »

He's also a nontrinitarian

If so, how is that relevant? He is obviously an evangelical Christian fundamentalist whose views are informed mainly by the bible.

Nobelium

recedite wrote: »

If so, how is that relevant? He is obviously an evangelical Christian fundamentalist whose views are informed mainly by the bible.

nontrinitarians reject mainstream Christian doctrine, so I have no idea, nor am I going to assume, what else he believes doesn't believe, or how he interprets the bible.

boetstark

robinph wrote: »

So you are upset that you can no longer be intolerant of others then?

There is no mention of intolerance or hatred. The bible clearly states punishment is in the afterlife. These principles have not changed over the centuries so why should they change now.
I would wager most of the people that are so outraged over Israel's comments dont believe in the teachings of the bible, nor do they believe in an afterlife , so what is the issue.
As a Christian I try to live my life according to my beliefs and I will make no apology for this nor will I be forced to conceal my religious beliefs like some dirty secret.
Live and let live I say but I am entitled to my beliefs without advocating violence or hate towards others.

Nobelium

boetstark wrote: »

There is no mention of intolerance or hatred. The bible clearly states punishment is in the afterlife. These principles have not changed over the centuries so why should they change now.
I would wager most of the people that are so outraged over Israel's comments dont believe in the teachings of the bible, nor do they believe in an afterlife , so what is the issue.
As a Christian I try to live my life according to my beliefs and I will make no apology for this nor will I be forced to conceal my religious beliefs like some dirty secret.
Live and let live I say but I am entitled to my beliefs without advocating violence or hate towards others.

yes but you do you agree Israel Folau's controversial posts were pretty stupid, unchristian, and inaccurate ?

boetstark

Nobelium wrote: »

yes but you do you agree Israel Folau's controversial posts were pretty stupid, unchristian, and inaccurate ?

Stupid yes because he must have known the fallout considering he is high profile.
I dont agree the comments were un Christian as the bible does condemn the act of homosexuality. Personally I have never read the condemnation in words such as burn in hell which I consider a tad strong.
But I do agree with the basic just of his tweet.

Nobelium

boetstark wrote: »

Stupid yes because he must have known the fallout considering he is high profile.
I dont agree the comments were un Christian as the bible does condemn the act of homosexuality. Personally I have never read the condemnation in words such as burn in hell which I consider a tad strong.
But I do agree with the basic just of his tweet.

but it wasn't acts Folau referred to, it was homosexuals

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

boetstark

Nobelium wrote: »

but it wasn't acts Folau referred to, it was homosexuals

I see your point but Old Testament Book of Genesis also condemns the homosexual desire.
New testament mostly concentrates on the abomination of the homosexual act.
Personally as I said I do not agree with homosexuality but it is not for me to condemn people. But I still stick by my Christian beliefs.
I respect Folaeu and Vuniupolo for the courage of expressing their beliefs.
Likewise I abhor the hypocrisy of irish Roman Catholics for their ala carte view to thr teachings of the bible.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

Yes you are right on that point. But you still can't infer from it that he means celibate homosexuals, just because he also mentions fornicators.

True, but you can infer that he's not talking specifically about homosexual sexual activity here because that's already covered under fornication. So if not homosexual sexual activity, what precisely? If I'm honest, I'd rather doubt that Folau has actually considered this, he's simply parroting other sources. What is clear however he has been warned in the past that his posts are offensive and unacceptable from a member of the national team and he has obstinately continued to carry on regardless.

recedite

Nobelium wrote: »

nontrinitarians reject mainstream Christian doctrine, so I have no idea, nor am I going to assume, what else he believes doesn't believe, or how he interprets the bible.

That would be an ecumenical matter, as Father Jack would say.

So I'll gladly agree to park that one, and move on...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuW8TaAlBfg

Nobelium

boetstark wrote: »

I respect Folaeu and Vuniupolo for the courage of expressing their beliefs.
Likewise I abhor the hypocrisy of irish Roman Catholics for their ala carte view to thr teachings of the bible.

I'm not really sure I understand your logic that an la carte protestant interpretation of scripture and Folaeu's non trinitarian beliefs are ok, but an a la carte catholics interpretation is not ok. Smacks of double standards and sectarianism to me. Also I'm not sure what their nationality has to do with it ?

recedite

recedite wrote: »

Can these people not see the irony of excluding a person from the game because of their religious beliefs, and then claiming its done in the interests of "inclusivity"?

We now await the appeal, and the arrival of the unfair dismissal lawyers.

I hate to say I told you so, but...

Israel Folau’s unfair dismissal case against Rugby Australia and the New South Wales Waratahs will head to trial in February, 2020 if no settlement is reached beforehand.

sydthebeat

We knew that nearly 3 months ago

recedite

sydthebeat wrote: »

We knew that nearly 3 months ago

The newspaper article is dated August 13th.

The lawyer for the former Australia fullback faced the Federal Circuit Court in Melbourne on Tuesday for a directions hearing where chief judge Will Alstergren encouraged the parties to settle their dispute through mediation on December 13th. Should mediation fail, the case would proceed to trial on February 4th 2020.

Which part of that did you "know" 3 months ago?

AngryHippie

recedite wrote: »

The newspaper article is dated August 13th.

Which part of that did you "know" 3 months ago?

He is going to appeal.

Even had the gall to crowdfund it.
Average joe Footy fan, giving a multi-millionaire donations so he can keep his job despite circulating hate speech about minorities in direct contravention of his million dollar contract.

Its very hard to feel any sympathy for this fool.

sydthebeat

recedite wrote: »

Which part of that did you "know" 3 months ago?

That he was going to sue for unfair dismissal


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/israel-folau-to-sue-rugby-australia-over-dismissal-1.3916617%3fmode=amp

Dated June 6th

recedite

sydthebeat wrote: »

he was going to sue for unfair dismissal

And now he is doing it.

robinph

Win or lose, he still loses though. Slight possibility he gets some cash, but he won't be back playing international rugby either way.

Best case for him would either be to retract his statement, or just stop fighting it and shut up so that he stops wasting his money. He might be able to get a role with a team in some emerging rugby nation, but no Australian club is going to touch him or any other club in another country that anyone has ever heard of.

recedite

robinph wrote: »

Win or lose, he still loses though.

Oh yeah, but there's always a price to pay for sticking rigidly to your principles.


Australian rugby is also losing - very badly.

Without their best player; 36 nil to the All Blacks. Embarrassing.

The All Blacks had the last laugh. Or they would have, had hot rage not fuelled their every carry, tackle, fend and clear-out as they bludgeoned Australia in an 80-minute rampage that finished one point shy of equalling the Wallabies’ largest ever losing margin to New Zealand.

salmocab

recedite wrote: »

Oh yeah, but there's always a price to pay for sticking rigidly to your principles.


Australian rugby is also losing - very badly.

Without their best player; 36 nil to the All Blacks. Embarrassing.

Was that not just a week after Australia beat NZ by a record score?

sydthebeat

salmocab wrote: »

Was that not just a week after Australia beat NZ by a record score?

it was, but obviously his googling didnt go back to a week earlier

recedite

Australia winning 47 -26 in a previous game, when they were playing 15 players against only 14 Kiwis for most of the game, is not particularly noteworthy.

But losing 36-nil is a national humiliation.

robinph

recedite wrote: »

Oh yeah, but there's always a price to pay for sticking rigidly to your principles.

Yep, and in Folaus case it is that he's lost his job for sticking to his "principle" of spouting homophobic abuse online.

Rugby Australia are missing one player, who happened to be pretty good, but there are thousands of others for them to chose from. One player is not the reason for a trouncing, it is a team sport remember.

salmocab

recedite wrote: »

Australia winning 47 -26 in a previous game, when they were playing 15 players against only 14 Kiwis for most of the game, is not particularly noteworthy.

But losing 36-nil is a national humiliation.

Putting the highest score anyone has ever put on the top world rugby nation is particularly noteworthy

recedite

robinph wrote: »

homophobic abuse

We're still waiting here for somebody to name one single victim of this so-called homophobic abuse.
Folau has his general views on homosexuality, which he is entitled to, and which happen to be backed by the religious texts of the 3 main world religions.
He has not verbally or physically abused, or discriminated against, any homosexual player AFAIK. If he had, I think we would know about it.

robinph

recedite wrote: »

We're still waiting here for somebody to name one single victim of this so-called homophobic abuse.
Folau has his general views on homosexuality, which he is entitled to, and which happen to be backed by the religious texts of the 3 main world religions.
He has not verbally or physically abused, or discriminated against, any homosexual player AFAIK. If he had, I think we would know about it.

How is he NOT directing his comments at every single gay person on the planet?

Religion having directed abuse and intolerance at groups of people throughout history does not give them the right to continue to do so. The right to believe in whatever version of a deity, or not, that you want to is protected. However, there is no right to direct abuse at anyone else because you claim that your deity said that you should.

recedite

robinph wrote: »

How is he NOT directing his comments at every single gay person on the planet?

And this is exactly the problem. There was a time when gays suffered from actual abuse and discrimination. Thankfully, that time is gone (at least in the western world)
But now, just expressing an opinion that is not fully pro-homosexuality is being equated by the gay lobby to being an abuse of homosexuals.


Rugby Australia could have issued a press statement to say they didn't endorse the private views of any particular player, and that could have been the end of it.

sydthebeat

recedite wrote: »

Rugby Australia could have issued a press statement to say they didn't endorse the private views of any particular player, and that could have been the end of it.

and thats the crux of the matter

it wasnt a private view, it was broadcasted to hundreds of thousands of people.

robinph

recedite wrote: »

And this is exactly the problem. There was a time when gays suffered from actual abuse and discrimination. Thankfully, that time is gone (at least in the western world)
But now, just expressing an opinion that is not fully pro-homosexuality is being equated by the gay lobby to being an abuse of homosexuals.

He could have kept his mouth shut. No need to promote homsexuality, just accept that it exist and get on with your life and mind your own business.

recedite wrote: »

Rugby Australia could have issued a press statement to say they didn't endorse the private views of any particular player, and that could have been the end of it.

Not sure what press releases Rugby Australia released previously, but they had told Folau to stop doing what he was doing multiple times or he'd lose his contract. He chose to sacrifice his job for the sake of telling homosexuals they were going to hell.

recedite

robinph wrote: »

He could have kept his mouth shut.

Indeed. But thankfully we live in a world where people are allowed to express different opinions. Its called Free Speech.

We draw the line at hate speech or incitement to hatred. If he had crossed the line, he would have been charged as such by the police.

But he didn't, and he wasn't.

recedite

sydthebeat wrote: »

and thats the crux of the matter

it wasnt a private view, it was broadcasted to hundreds of thousands of people.

You're broadcasting your private view right now.
You need to brush up on the difference between what is private and what is not.

Did he say at any point he was giving the official views of Rugby Australia?
And no, wearing a rugby shirt doesn't mean that, not when its his normal daily attire.

sydthebeat

recedite wrote: »

Indeed. But thankfully we live in a world where people are allowed to express different opinions.

and thankfully we live in a world where business can choose what kind of person works for them and thus represents them. so when someone say something which doesn't comply with their inclusiveness policies... thankfully they have the right to end that persons employment and thus not have them misrepresented by their employees.


and also thankfully Folau has not had his "free speech" hindered in that he is as free to say what he wants today as he did back in April.... absolutely no one is stopping him from saying what he wants.... which is the basis of "free speech" isnt it

sydthebeat

recedite wrote: »

You're broadcasting your private view right now.
You need to brush up on the difference between what is private and what is not.
.

LOL

i absolutely am broadcasting my private views right now...

and im FULLY BOUND by the policies of boards.ie in doing so. They control what is allowed to be said on their platform or they can be subjected to legal action....


the irony in that post is hilarious.

recedite

sydthebeat wrote: »

and thankfully we live in a world where business can choose what kind of person works for them and thus represents them.

And thankfully, just as freedom of speech is limited by incitement to hatred laws, the ability of an employer to sack people who's religious views they disagree with is also limited - by anti-discrimination and unfair dismissals legislation.

sydthebeat

recedite wrote: »

And thankfully, just as freedom of speech is limited by incitement to hatred laws, the ability of an employer to sack people who's religious views they disagree with is also limited - by anti-discrimination and unfair dismissals legislation.

completely, great that Folau has the right to appeal along legals lines.

lets see how the case is viewed in court, and hope he doesnt run away with an out of court settlement as that would see him only interested in money.

recedite

sydthebeat wrote: »

i absolutely am broadcasting my private views right now...
and im FULLY BOUND by the policies of boards.ie in doing so. They control what is allowed to be said on their platform or they can be subjected to legal action....

Yes. What is ironic about that?
We're not talking about censorship by the platform here. Folau is still active on the same social media platforms.
You insinuated that it was not a "private" view because he broadcast it, instead of "keeping his mouth shut".
I pointed out that you can broadcast your own private views, which then become public, but they remain your own private views as opposed to the views of your employer.

recedite

sydthebeat wrote: »

lets see how the case is viewed in court, and hope he doesnt run away with an out of court settlement as that would see him only interested in money.

I also hope that won't happen, because then everyone will have their own interpretation of the result.
I'd much prefer to see him win the case, and see RA having to apologise to him.

salmocab

Folau wasn't sacked for his religious views, he was sacked for breaking a contract (which he had prior warning over).

smacl

recedite wrote: »

You're broadcasting your private view right now.

Anonymously. And no offence to the good folks her on the boards Christianity forum but I'd rather doubt that any of these posts have readerships in the hundreds of thousands. Not exactly comparable to a famous international athlete posting alongside pictures of himself in the national team strip now is it?