• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Australian Rugby / RA

S

sidelineview

Guest
Spruce Moose said:
I struggle to believe its not about money when he ups his claim from 10 to 14 mill. Surely if it weren't about money he'd just want his contract reinstated and RA to admit they were wrong? Of course in the eye of his supporters its a victory but for others who don't believe people should be discriminated against for their sexuality its a win for them as he is no longer part of Rugby.

Whats the warning? RA have got rid of him and their insurance covers the cost, to many this has been good media attention of RA taking a stand against discrimination. He is still sacked and not other leagues/sports will employ him so surely its a warning that RA/sport in general won't tolerate discriminatory behavior.
Click to expand...

But he was referring to the Bible and following his beliefs; that's where the twist came in.
He wasn't just going on a personal rant of bigotry.

This was acknowledged by the governing bodies.

A statement from RA, RNSW and Folau said the post reflected Folau’s “genuinely held religious beliefs” and that he “did not intend to harm or offend any person when he uploaded the post”.

Should rugby players be banned from quoting the Bible on social media?
 
wamberal

wamberal

Phil Kearns (64)
sidelineview said:
But he was referring to the Bible and following his beliefs; that's where the twist came in.
He wasn't just going on a personal rant of bigotry.

This was acknowledged by the governing bodies.

A statement from RA, RNSW and Folau said the post reflected Folau’s “genuinely held religious beliefs” and that he “did not intend to harm or offend any person when he uploaded the post”.

Should rugby players be banned from quoting the Bible on social media?
Click to expand...

"Referring to the Bible" - to use your words - is not the same thing as "quoting the Bible". Folau has admitted that he was actually quoting somebody else's farrago of fundamentalist bullshit. He was certainly not "quoting the Bible".

Rugby players should conform to the terms of their employment. If they do not want to play under those terms, let them go and play another sport. Izzy was editorialising, at the urging of his father apparently. They are both obviously bigots of the worst kind, and I speak as a recognised Lay Preacher in a mainstream denomination.
 
Spruce Moose

Spruce Moose

Fred Wood (13)
sidelineview said:
But he was referring to the Bible and following his beliefs; that's where the twist came in.
He wasn't just going on a personal rant of bigotry.

This was acknowledged by the governing bodies.

A statement from RA, RNSW and Folau said the post reflected Folau’s “genuinely held religious beliefs” and that he “did not intend to harm or offend any person when he uploaded the post”.

Should rugby players be banned from quoting the Bible on social media?
Click to expand...


Yes, just because its in a book written centuries ago doesn't mean you don't need to read it absorb it, put it into context and understand if those values are still relevant today or might discriminate against people or hurt them before just copy pasting them.

There are many passages in the bible that shouldn't be used anymore. A couple of winners regarding slavery:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. Ephesians 6:5

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. Exodus 21: 7-8
 
S

sidelineview

Guest
wamberal said:
"Referring to the Bible" - to use your words - is not the same thing as "quoting the Bible". Folau has admitted that he was actually quoting somebody else's farrago of fundamentalist bullshit.

Rugby players should conform to the terms of their employment. If they do not want to play under those terms, let them go and play another sport.
Click to expand...

Should those terms be to refrain from referring to or quoting the Bible in case someone became offended?

Wouldn't that open up a controversial can of worms? would it infringe on a person's rights? and would the PI players agree to this?
 
S

sidelineview

Guest
Spruce Moose said:
Yes, just because its in a book written centuries ago doesn't mean you don't need to read it absorb it, put it into context and understand if those values are still relevant today or might discriminate against people or hurt them before just copy pasting them.

There are many passages in the bible that shouldn't be used anymore. A couple of winners regarding slavery:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. Ephesians 6:5

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. Exodus 21: 7-8
Click to expand...

Yeah, good point but what about this one? those quotes are from the Old Testament by the way.

Corinthians 6: 9-10 (New Testament): “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God”.

Should the words ''homosexuals'' and ''sodomites'' be excluded from this passage if a player posted this on social media because SSM is now allowed in our society and it may offend?

Or should a Christian person's beliefs based on this Bible passage be tolerated?
 
cyclopath

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
What other works of fiction, fantasy, re-written history or ideology are acceptable tomes to quote at will with no consequence? Or is it just yours?
 
wamberal

wamberal

Phil Kearns (64)
sidelineview said:
Should those terms be to refrain from referring to or quoting the Bible in case someone became offended?

Wouldn't that open up a controversial can of worms? would it infringe on a person's rights? and would the PI players agree to this?
Click to expand...



It is instructive that Izzy made the claim, very late in the day, that he had been "acting out of love". Christian evangelism should be about love, not about attacking people. I think most civilised people understand that people who are attracted to those of the same sex do not choose to be what they are, they are born that way.


What sort of God would create people who are bound to transgress the divine will?



Question number 2. What did Jesus say that might be relevant? "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"? Lots more along these lines. When he attacked people, his targets were mostly those who were obsessed with money. Sounds a lot like Izzy to me, frankly.
 
S

sidelineview

Guest
cyclopath said:
What other works of fiction, fantasy, re-written history or ideology are acceptable tomes to quote at will with no consequence? Or is it just yours?
Click to expand...

It's not mine; its the Bible, the best selling book in history.

Australia was founded as a Christian society.
 
S

sidelineview

Guest
wamberal said:
It is instructive that Izzy made the claim, very late in the day, that he had been "acting out of love". Christian evangelism should be about love, not about attacking people. I think most civilised people understand that people who are attracted to those of the same sex do not choose to be what they are, they are born that way.


What sort of God would create people who are bound to transgress the divine will?



Question number 2. What did Jesus say that might be relevant? "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"? Lots more along these lines. When he attacked people, his targets were mostly those who were obsessed with money. Sounds a lot like Izzy to me, frankly.
Click to expand...

Corinthians 6:9-10 as quoted above from the New Testament was a warning and an appeal to come to order to the congregation at the time, not an attack.

It's in the context of all people are flawed beings and can be tempted etc etc.
It's quite a common theme for sermons but delivered in different ways, preferably out of love and care for the congregation rather than condemning anyone to the fiery depths of hell.
 
wamberal

wamberal

Phil Kearns (64)
Any congregation which was subjected to frequent sermons on one tiny slice of the Bible has my condolences. Any monkey can prove anything based on a quote of a couple of verses from the Bible.


Again, if you want to evangelise, try the words of Jesus. Heard of him?
 
ruggy

ruggy

Herbert Moran (7)
I feel like the Israel Folau argument often goes in circles and it's hard to establish a conclusion (it's based on beliefs)

I really like what the NBA do. 'Free Speech' is encouraged.

Players can freely express their views, opinions and beliefs. The ramifications for the player come in terms of contracts and salary down the track.

Note, guidelines are in place to what players can say about the NBA while contracted - therefore offensive remarks towards players, officials and franchises can result in a fine.

Why I love this is because the NBA put the onus on the individual and not the organisation, unless it is about the organisation.
 
Ignoto

Ignoto

Peter Sullivan (51)
Aurelius said:
Good article.

Interestingly though Rita Panahi opposes the government's proposed religious freedom bill on the grounds that it might backfire and (I think) make it easier for organisations to exclude people who don't share their beliefs.
Click to expand...

Yeap, I can 100% this happening. There's more reported instances in Western societies of religious groups forcing out teachers or excluding students who don't follow the same faith than there are martyrs like Izzy.
 
ruggy

ruggy

Herbert Moran (7)
Probably wasn't the best timing to make an NBA connection haha.

I'm probably missing the bigger picture here, but.. RA could have avoided disrepute by putting the onus completely on Folau, after announcing their stance.

The population of rugby fans can then happily sit on whichever side of the fence, cheering or booing Folau at every opportunity. Folau would limit his options later down the track and that's his issue not RA.

I get Folau's a big name player, but there are plenty of blokes that represent the game in a polar opposite view (e.g. Pocock).

The only reason I see this as not a logical option (from RA perspective) is the fact he posted his views after going through a warning process the year before.

Still plenty of pro's and con's from this but I think it's less damage for all?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top