The Israel Folau saga

[Sully]

I asked what religion in response to a post which stated it was ok under religious freedom to openly spread hatred of coloured, gay people etc.
Its not ok to promote hatred or violence.

You will no doubt disagree but Folau didnt promote hatred or violence.
For the thousandth time he referred to a passage from the Bible which is the biggest selling book in history and obviously the book upon which Christianity is based.

Also for the thousandth time, not all Christians would have posted what he did or how he did it. However, it is believed by many that he had the right to.

No doubt the lawyers will sort it out if it continues legally.

Of course RA and Qantas could get together and formulate their own politically correct version of the Holy Bible and all contracted players could refer to that under the terms of their contract.

1000 times is enough!

 

[Derpus]

I asked what religion in response to a post which stated it was ok under religious freedom to openly spread hatred of coloured, gay people etc.
Its not ok to promote hatred or violence.

You will no doubt disagree but Folau didnt promote hatred or violence.
For the thousandth time he referred to a passage from the Bible which is the biggest selling book in history and obviously the book upon which Christianity is based.

Also for the thousandth time, not all Christians would have posted what he did or how he did it. However, it is believed by many that he had the right to.

No doubt the lawyers will sort it out if it continues legally.

Of course RA and Qantas could get together and formulate their own politically correct version of the Holy Bible and all contracted players could refer to that under the terms of their contract.

I think you are missing the point again.

Point is, under the proposed Folau law, i could say just about anything and be protected if i say it's an expression of my religion. And religion can be anything. Or would there be a list of formally recognized religions and how they should appropriately be interpreted?

 

[Sully]

This pretty much nails it for me.

https://www.betootaadvocate.com/hea...peech-as-black-origin-players-boycott-anthem/

 

[Sully]

I think you are missing the point again.

Point is, under the proposed Folau law, i could say just about anything and be protected if i say it's an expression of my religion. And religion can be anything. Or would there be a list of formally recognized religions and how they should appropriately be interpreted?

You certainly wouldn't need any sort of proof.

 

[Derpus]

This pretty much nails it for me.

https://www.betootaadvocate.com/hea...peech-as-black-origin-players-boycott-anthem/

I laughed and got dirty looks from my colleagues.

 

[sidelineview]

I think you are missing the point again.

Point is, under the proposed Folau law, i could say just about anything and be protected if i say it's an expression of my religion. And religion can be anything. Or would there be a list of formally recognized religions and how they should appropriately be interpreted?

No you cant say anything you want.
Again your argument is ridiculous.

 

[sidelineview]

This pretty much nails it for me.

https://www.betootaadvocate.com/hea...peech-as-black-origin-players-boycott-anthem/

Nails what?
One bloke's opinion about Koori players not singing the national anthem?
This matter will be divisive but I doubt it will go any further apart from promoting some pub talk.

 

[Derpus]

No you cant say anything you want.
Again your argument is ridiculous.

Okay, you still haven't explained why tho?

 

[elementfreak]

I asked what religion in response to a post which stated it was ok under religious freedom to openly spread hatred of coloured, gay people etc.
Its not ok to promote hatred or violence.

You will no doubt disagree but Folau didnt promote hatred or violence.
For the thousandth time he referred to a passage from the Bible which is the biggest selling book in history and obviously the book upon which Christianity is based.

Also for the thousandth time, not all Christians would have posted what he did or how he did it. However, it is believed by many that he had the right to.

No doubt the lawyers will sort it out if it continues legally.

Of course RA and Qantas could get together and formulate their own politically correct version of the Holy Bible and all contracted players could refer to that under the terms of their contract.

That was my point. Folau has openly promoted hate against gay people and deserves to have his contract ripped up. The point of the law, it seems, is to protect him to promote his hatred under the guise of "religious freedom".

 

[wamberal]

He would claim that he does not hate them, it is their "sin" that he hates.



All they have to do is repent. Meaning, stop being the person that they were born as, and somehow start being somebody different.

 

[I like to watch]

Nails what?
One bloke's opinion about Koori players not singing the national anthem?
This matter will be divisive but I doubt it will go any further apart from promoting some pub talk.

Oh dear, straight over your head.....

 

[sidelineview]

Okay, you still haven't explained why tho?

Because no one in society can say or do what they want. There are boundaries.
The boundary line with Folau's issue is murky, although you will claim it's clear.

 

[sidelineview]

Oh dear, straight over your head...

Oh dear, straight over your head...

Not at all. The irony is evident but not representative of all who support Folau or free speech.
The poster claims free speech allows people to say what they want.
Again, no one in society can do or say whatever they want.
There are limits.
The obvious argument with Folau is .... obvious.
Did he have the right to refer to the Bible in his own time on social media. The controversy was because he mentioned homosexuals as 'sinners' along with a vast array of other 'sinners'

 

[sidelineview]

That was my point. Folau has openly promoted hate against gay people and deserves to have his contract ripped up. The point of the law, it seems, is to protect him to promote his hatred under the guise of "religious freedom".

He didnt promote hate. It's not as simple as that.
He didnt promote hate against drunks either.

 

[sidelineview]

1000 times is enough!

For both sides of the argument or only one side?

 

[Sully]

For both sides of the argument or only one side?

Only the sides who keep repeating the same stuff over and over again.

 

[Adam84]

He didnt promote hate.

Well.... He didn't exactly promote love or even an impartial opinion...

 

[formerflanker]

Well.. He didn't exactly promote love or even an impartial opinion.

"Jesus Christ loves you and is giving you time to turn away from your sin and come to him"

From Izzy's post. He was promoting love.
And for that he is punted from Australian rugby forever.
A tragic over reaction from Castle, Hoare and Clyne.
Soccer would call that an "own goal".

 

[Sully]

"Jesus Christ loves you and is giving you time to turn away from your sin and come to him"

From Izzy's post. He was promoting love.
And for that he is punted from Australian rugby forever.
A tragic over reaction from Castle, Hoare and Clyne.
Soccer would call that an "own goal".

You mean stop being gay? What a joke.

 

[Adam84]

"Jesus Christ loves you and is giving you time to turn away from your sin and come to him"

From Izzy's post. He was promoting love.

Sure... Lets just ignore the part about condemning people to hell