The Israel Folau saga

[sidelineview]

But that's the sting in the tail. What theological training do the board and CEO of RA have? How are they qualified to make religious judgements on anyone? Who decides what is "positive" and "inclusive" and on what basis? Are RA going to establish what parts of each religion are acceptable to them and which parts aren't?

Even a retired Supreme Court judge describes the whole issue as a legal and moral minefield. Why on earth would RA want to try to make themselves the arbiters?

It wouldn't have mattered how much Folau sugar coated his beliefs, as soon as he mentioned homosexuality in a negative light his head was in the noose.

Apparently its OK for other contracted players to publically criticize and judge him with no restrictions. No gag orders there.

 

[Ignoto]

But that's the sting in the tail. What theological training do the board and CEO of RA have? How are they qualified to make religious judgements on anyone?

I think similar arguments could be said about men/women making changes and rulings that apply to the other sex i.e. What does a Woman know about what it's like to be a Man and vice versa?

Even a retired Supreme Court judge describes the whole issue as a legal and moral minefield. Why on earth would RA want to try to make themselves the arbiters?

Sure, you can ask why they should spend the time and effort dealing with these moral issues. But why shouldn't they? The Australian society as a whole shy's away from the tough questions and answers. We predominately brush the problems under the carpet rather than deal with the problem in front of us.

If the RA and the other codes don't put a line in the sand (after all, sport in Australia is probably the biggest aspect of our society), who will? The Government sure as hell won't, they're more concerned about losing votes than leading. Should it be the likes of BHP, Rio Tinto etc? Should it be the extreme groups from either side that cause more issues than they solve.

I personally will support a company that does something rather than a company that sits by and does nothing to help address these issues that we as a society need to deal with.

 

[sidelineview]

Whatever happens I think we can safely assume that Izzy will never don Wallaby or Waratahs colours again.


Religion should be a unifying factor, not a divisive one. It only becomes divisive when the fundamentalists get to work and spew their intolerant views (and sometimes actions) all over the innocent.


If Izzy had wanted to reach out to those of who need healing, he would have been far more effective to show up at the Wayside Chapel, or the Exodus Foundation, and served the needy.

Henri Nouwen (a priest and theologian) wrote:


"For Jesus there are no countries to be conquered;
no idealogies to be imposed;
no people to be dominated.
There are only children, women, and men to be loved".


I think Nouwen is a fair bit closer to the mark than Izzy.

There have been some examples of religious intolerance manifesting into actions around the world lately.

Folau wont back down. He has the support of his fellow Christians, the Australian Christian Lobby and a section of the public.

Also, he will be strengthened in the knowledge that Jesus and all the Apostles except one were martyred for their faith. Despite this and because of their good work Christianity flourished around the world.

It's not flourishing now though; it's under attack.

 

[Slim 293]

You know you’re on the wrong side of the debate when you have the support of Alan Jones, Mark Reason, Barnaby Joyce, and the ACL.........

 

[fatprop]

You know you’re on the wrong side of the debate when you have the support of Alan Jones, Mark Reason, Barnaby Joyce, and the ACL...

Yeah, well, even they can get it right some times, I will just put this here

 

[Derpus]

Yeah, spot on. Assuming, which is apparently self evident, that all gay people are atheistic.

Alan Jones has never been right about anything and i don't think he's in danger of starting now.

 

[Slim 293]

Ah, the old "don't be offended" argument resurfaces.........

 

[fatprop]

Ah, the old "don't be offended" argument resurfaces...

It is a reasonable argument, these ideas are not unknown or shocking. I am sure "if" they are right I will be going to hell too

But there isn't so ....................... I don't care

 

[Derpus]

It is a reasonable argument, these ideas are not unknown or shocking. I am sure "if" they are right I will be going to hell too

But there isn't so ......... I don't care

Even if there is a single person out there who believes in both hell and is a homosexual then the comments are likely offensive and in breach of the code of conduct.

Whether they should take offence is not relevant, though i definitely agree that as a general rule you should not care much about what other people think.

 

[Athilnaur]

You know you’re on the wrong side of the debate when you have the support of Alan Jones, Mark Reason, Barnaby Joyce, and the ACL...

Aah, Slim, meet Ad Hominem. Ad Hominem, this is Slim. I think you two will get on well.

 

[fatprop]

Even if there is a single person out there who believes in both hell and is a homosexual then the comments are likely offensive and in breach of the code of conduct.

Whether they should take offence is not relevant, though i definitely agree that as a general rule you should not care much about what other people think.

Whilst in complying with the code of conduct you are correct, it appears we have an unwritten oppression priority criteria within the code whereby sexualty trumps religion.

And "likely offensive" is a very tenuous starting point. By whose standards? the offended? or the everyman? or an actual legal test?

 

[Slim 293]

Aah, Slim, meet Ad Hominem. Ad Hominem, this is Slim. I think you two will get on well.

Is he a commentator on Sky after dark?

 

[Athilnaur]

Derpus, that presupposes that as long as anyone takes offence at something said or done then that something is a breach of the code of conduct. I'd be very surprised if this is the case. I would expect that the test is a 'reasonable person' test. If any instance of a person being offended by what a player did or said meant a breach, practically every player ever would have been up for code of conduct hearings.

 

[Derpus]

Derpus, that presupposes that as long as anyone takes offence at something said or done then that something is a breach of the code of conduct. I'd be very surprised if this is the case. I would expect that the test is a 'reasonable person' test. If any instance of a person being offended by what a player did or said meant a breach, practically every player ever would have been up for code of conduct hearings.

Whilst in complying with the code of conduct you are correct, it appears we have an unwritten oppression priority criteria within the code whereby sexualty trumps religion.

And "likely offensive" is a very tenuous starting point. By whose standards? the offended? or the everyman? or an actual legal test?

Yeah, i guess. I don't know what the threshold is. I don't see any reason why it should be the reasonable person test though. If i was running RA i would demand a pretty high level of responsibility from my public figures.

Sexuality ought to trump religion, too.

 

[fatprop]

Yeah, i guess. I don't know what the threshold is. I don't see any reason why it should be the reasonable person test though. If i was running RA i would demand a pretty high level of responsibility from my public figures.

Sexuality ought to trump religion, too.

I think, in actuality, it is whether a sponsor may be in any way possibly offended and they are twitchy at the moment about the potential to be twitter mobbed, the rest is window dressing

 

[Derpus]

I think, in actuality, it is whether a sponsor may be in any way possibly offended and they are twitchy at the moment about the potential to be twitter mobbed, the rest is window dressing

Regardless, i think the issue of what breaches the code of conduct and how people ought to react are pretty distinct and separate issues.

 

[fatprop]

Regardless, i think the issue of what breaches the code of conduct and how people ought to react are pretty distinct and separate issues.

I am more cynical than you it appears, my impression of large businesses and social conscience/ "codes of conduct" is that they really don't care unless it is going to markedly affect their bottom line

 

[Set piece magic]

You know you’re on the wrong side of the debate when you have the support of Alan Jones, Mark Reason, Barnaby Joyce, and the ACL...

yet Barnaby Joyce is a member of the incumbent government of Australia, and Jones while not representing a majority of people represents a legitimate number of particularly older Australians

I have the demographic sheet which shows exactly how many listeners jones has and at what time and I can assure you its a lot more than you

I think we'll be listening to them before a Canberra based public servant on the public teet anyday of the week!

 

[KOB1987]

You know you’re on the wrong side of the debate when you have the support of Alan Jones, Mark Reason, Barnaby Joyce, and the ACL...

It doesn't mean that at all, it just means that you're on the other side of the debate and that you generally disagree with all of these people.

My personal view is that as soon as Fitzsimmons made some left field analogy about wearing a T shirt to work as his primary argument that I knew I was on the right side of the debate.

 

[Set piece magic]

Peter Fitzsimons, the man behind the incredible stadiums campaign, which involved the incredible electoral rout and removal of a government exit polls saying less than 10% of people cared about it