The Israel Folau saga

[Braveheart81]

If you won't post the whole of IF's post you are in my opinion promoting the hate speech you say you oppose. Not posting the whole truth is often more of a lie.

You're still not in any way explaining how the combined post was fine or how the second half of the post mitigated the first.

 

[Samson]

It's really not..... not unless Folau was in disagreement with the above meme, which he was not.

You appear to want to promote the 'Hate'. I don't wish to assist so will refrain from responding to posts of yours that continue down that track.

 

[gel]

Sorry, but what exactly said after this makes it absolutely not a problem?

<Image removed>

Reported for hate speech.

I chose to ignore everything that you wrote in your post and chose to only look at the picture you posted.

Why are you so against homosexuals?

 

[Braveheart81]

Thanks for a valuable contribution to the discussion.

 

[The Honey Badger]

The problems of translation.

So Reverend Father Quick Hands,

Seems to me that this whole section of the bible is very Male orientated. It seems to completely ignore the fairer sex. Its written only in the male perspective. Surely an effeminate Woman would be ok.

Are Males presumes to be the only sinners ? or are Women also bond for Hell?

 

[gel]

Thanks for a valuable contribution to the discussion.

Your rules mate, not mine.

 

[Slim 293]

You appear to want to promote the 'Hate'. I don't wish to assist so will refrain from responding to posts of yours that continue down that track.

 

[Derpus]

Wait, that reinforces my point more. I might not have explained myself.
I'm suggesting that if he said it about Jews instead of homosexuals, no one would protect him and he'd be quickly hung out to dry, with little support.

So, if he can't get away with attacking the Jews (a group you suggest has less protection), he shouldn't be able to do the same to gays.

Oh yeah i agree then

 

[Slim 293]

Your rules mate, not mine.

It really wasn't.........

Reported for hate speech.

I chose to ignore everything that you wrote in your post and chose to only look at the picture you posted.


Why are you so against homosexuals?

Did Folau's words contradict the meme? No?

 

[John S]

I'd suggest it's because, unlike sexuality, religious affiliation is a choice. It's also a shared characteristic of the country's political leaders, many of the business leaders and the default social structure for the most of Australia's history. Hardly a persecuted minority.

Also, while not a persecuted minority, growing up I got used to being made fun of at school in the 90's (and this was a private "christian"school - "God botherer" "wimp" "bible basher" and other more colourful epithets on a regular basis. It's water off a ducks back really.

I'm not trying to compare the two, but the ridicule was there, and you just get used to it. Maybe because it's not on the same level as "gay bashing" or "racist" there's no point complaining about it because of the above arguments. It's the whole "you have no grounds to complain, so why are you?" type thing.

 

[sidelineview]

Sigh all you want, but Galatians 5:19-21 of KJV doesn't refer to it.

We were discussing 1 Corinthians 6: 9-12.
Post # 1515

 

[Tex]

Again, back to the post about selective support from the free speech brigade, Yassmin Abdel-Magied posted the following on facebook:

"LEST. WE. FORGET. Manus, Nauru, Syria, Palestine."

She removed it promptly, apologised and attempted to move forward. The Australian and many of the commentators who have taken up the spears behind IF then published some 90,000 words attacking her directly.

I'm curious about the different responses. Is it because her post was made on anzac day and directly spoke to a national mythology? Is it because IF's post brings religious expression into the mix?

Why does one unrepentant man receive the support of heavyweight backers, when the other repentant woman receives the full strength of the news corp cudgel?

 

[Strewthcobber]

We were discussing 1 Corinthians 9-12.
Post # 1515

Right. Like I said, he didn't quote 1-Corinthians. He posted a meme of his interpretation of it.

He did quote three other parts of the KJV bible which don't mention it

 

[The Honey Badger]

So just say IF agreed to refrain from Social media posts. (I understand that is unlikely). But say he did.

What happens if he goes to church and speaks to the gathering the same stuff? Is he allowed to do that?

And then, what if someone videos it on their phone and releases it to the internet?

 

[Tex]

So just say IF agreed to refrain from Social media posts. (I understand that is unlikely). But say he did.

What happens if he goes to church and speaks to the gathering the same stuff? Is he allowed to do that?

And then, what if someone videos it on their phone and releases it to the internet?

Interesting scenario. I reckon the offended will take the same approach as they've done twice, but RA would let it go through to the keeper.

 

[James Pettifer]

So just say IF agreed to refrain from Social media posts. (I understand that is unlikely). But say he did.

What happens if he goes to church and speaks to the gathering the same stuff? Is he allowed to do that?

And then, what if someone videos it on their phone and releases it to the internet?

I wouldn't agree with his view but he should have the ability to say what he wants in private.

It would be likely that videoing of it and releasing on the internet would be a crime (unless he approved of it).

If he removed the existing post and said he would stick away from similar comments then I am sure that RA would be interested in having a discussion about him having a future in Australian rugby. But he won't do that.

 

[Strewthcobber]

So just say IF agreed to refrain from Social media posts. (I understand that is unlikely). But say he did.

What happens if he goes to church and speaks to the gathering the same stuff? Is he allowed to do that?

And then, what if someone videos it on their phone and releases it to the internet?

Is he wearing the waratah jersey he has on his Instagram account while doing it?

 

[sidelineview]

Right. Like I said, he didn't quote 1-Corinthians. He posted a meme of his interpretation of it.

He did quote three other parts of the KJV bible which don't mention it

OK, he paraphrased it.
Read 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11.
It says virtually the same thing.
He admitted it was harsh and it is, but taken in the context of the overall message of the New Testament and in consideration of his explanations of this and the previous incident, it's not hate speech.
In my opinion.

 

[Set piece magic]

Again, back to the post about selective support from the free speech brigade, Yassmin Abdel-Magied posted the following on facebook:



"LEST. WE. FORGET. Manus, Nauru, Syria, Palestine."



She removed it promptly, apologised and attempted to move forward. The Australian and many of the commentators who have taken up the spears behind IF then published some 90,000 words attacking her directly.



I'm curious about the different responses. Is it because her post was made on anzac day and directly spoke to a national mythology? Is it because IF's post brings religious expression into the mix?



Why does one unrepentant man receive the support of heavyweight backers, when the other repentant woman receives the full strength of the news corp cudgel?

Yasmine Abdel-Magied wasn't discriminated against in her employment as a result of these comments

In fact, she had been on the taxpayer teet for years despite a huge amount of people finding her views disgusting and abhorrent

By the time of these posts she was no longer working at the ABC however

The issue is freedom of speech and its effect on your employment

It has little to do with a free press choosing to (rightfully) editorialise against you. Again, she has the right to make her post and people have the right to tell her she's an idiot, but I don't think they should be able to sack her for what she says.

I think the only time people should be able to be sacked for what they say is when they speak about their employer directly. Political/Religious views should almost never be a sackable offence, except for when they are criminal (such as inciting a riot or violence)

That includes insulting our sacred ANZACS or saying gays should go to hell. The best way to deal with crooked views is to confront them, not silence them

 

[I like to watch]

RA could lose their sponsors as a direct result of Izzy sharing his views,and he should be free of any censure for his actions?

Yep, that’s an exaggeration, but it appears everyone here is arguing at the extremes to make their point.