The Israel Folau saga

[Strewthcobber]

Strewth, it is a fair question. I remember at the time Israel came out and said he was disappointed about how Raelene had reported the meeting to the media and I thought 'hello. He hasn't agreed to anything other than to hear them out, I bet.'

So I reckon a new contract was signed and having already expressed his views he figures it's a new discussion and its a matter of principle now to say 'you are being unfair'.

I just don't see him as a duplicitous person

I wonder if Ralene feels the same way? I bet she wish she'd known that was Izzy's plan before he signed on to the code of conduct and inclusion policy and took the $4m.

 

[sidelineview]

And noting that the post is still up on instagram with it being reported that if he removed the post then that would show contrition and his charge would be less and that it is reported that he intends to breach the code of conduct in the future by doing the same thing again.

If the reports are correct, then RA appear to have given him opportunities to continue his rugby career but he is not interested.

I note that slightly ironically, the instagram post says that Liars also go to hell and his action since this post are completely in contradiction to his statements last year where he said



and



Sure he has admitted that he is a sinner too but I really struggle to have respect for someone who is so inconsistent in what he decides to stand firm on.

He also mentioned that later he watched Castle interviewed on TV and was disappointed. He felt she misrepresented his position and comments in order to appease other people.

He also said "This is not about money or bargaining power or contracts. It’s about what I believe in and never compromising that, because my faith is far more important to me than my career and always will be.”

That first incident came from him answering a question on social media about God's plan for gays.
He replied honestly and said Hell unless they repent and turn to God.

His answer was so far out of step with political correctness its not funny, but thats what he believes and he's sticking to it.

 

[wamberal]

Political correctness. The last refuge of the bigoted, backward, backwoodsmen. And backwoodswomen, to be scrupulously politically correct.

Get a proper argument, mate. Lots of normal people who have normal political views believe that Izzy is right out of line.

 

[I like to watch]

BH to me that is splitting hairs. He won't see it that way. Hell, I wouldn't see it that way if someone came and told me to retract views I'd posted in these threads. If his post comes down it is because he is being told he isn't allowed to say it, by definition. Political correctness in three words: 'you can't say that'.

It is just as invidious to say 'rugby players must be held to a higher standard.' Who's higher standard and why is it higher?

The whole point is the man does hold himself to a higher standard, an unachievable one he believes in.

RA could write contracts stipulating that players are not allowed to post any religious beliefs on social media, or that any such posts have to be approved by some RA appointee. Do you think for a second he'd have signed it? And frankly even if he had, it would almost certainly get discarded by the courts for being oppressive.

This is not the same as having an opinion on referees, or breaking professional confidences when you are employees. He has posted a religious belief and people are telling him as a rugby player he can't because they don't like it.

The conversation is going to go something like this:

'Izzy, can't you see some people are hurt by what you've said?'

'I suppose, but sometimes the lord's message hurts. If we sin, we must repent. It is my duty to share the word of God. How else can I save people?'

'But they don't believe in God'

'Well I hope they learn to, but if they don't why does what I said hurt?'

'OK but what about the gay Christians. You've said they're going to hell.'

'No, I'm sharing God's message. It's right there in the bible. I'm helping them. It might hurt to hear God's message, but we all need to hear it. How else can we be saved?'

And so on and on. So yeah, nah, Rugby Australia trying to tell someone who is as religious as Israel that his views can't be shared isn't going to fly. And nor should it frankly. What's next, telling players they can't represent Australia if they can't play on Sundays for religious reasons?

Telling players they must play on Sundays (against their religious beliefs) is not analogous to protecting the viability of RA.
They literally can not operate without these major sponsors.

Seriously, it’s not that hard not to be offensive.
But if it is, then he can’t be part of the organisation any more.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Izzy even had 46 posts in the last year where he managed it.

 

[Athilnaur]

Political correctness. The last refuge of the bigoted, backward, backwoodsmen. And backwoodswomen, to be scrupulously politically correct.

Get a proper argument, mate. Lots of normal people who have normal political views believe that Izzy is right out of line.

From my perspective political correctness is the first refuge of those without a better argument: 'Our view is right, Agree or else.'

But I agree, loads of us think he was 'out of line' though I think your choice of metaphor is telling.

It is just that some of us think he shouldn't be fined for saying his religious views in social media, let alone lose his job for it.

 

[I like to watch]

Ath, I don’t understand the line of thought that he can do or say whatever he likes, based on his religious beliefs,at no cost to himself.

Yes he has rights, but he has responsibilities as well.

If his actions are going to cost his employer millions,on what basis should he not be accountable?

 

[Ignoto]

How people can conflate what has been posted by Folau as "Hate speech" is beyond me.
...
Real hate speech would target individuals or groups AND attempt to incite some sort of retribution/action against those individuals or groups

I don't think people are right in saying what Folau is hate speech. More that the views Folau expressed are no longer tolerated by a lot of members of our society. Women and black/coloured Australians, Americans and across the globe had to push the status quo to gain the same rights as their husbands and white coloured citizens.

It's the same here. Perhaps I haven't articulated myself well enough, but I've been constantly trying to push that the words themselves aren't too much of an issue. BUT on a grander scale, people like Israel are villifying a particular sub-set of our society.

Haidt and co talk about how words by themselves don't hurt anyone and I agree with that. However, because our society has treated the LGBT community so poorly and looks down upon them, thousands across the globe have been killed by people who think being gay is an issue. This in my mind, goes way further than just being words. You need to tell these people that their attitudes towards our gay members is no longer acceptable.

I'm not too sure if you saw an earlier post I replied to Spik, but there are clear situations where people have been killed because they were/are LGBT. These people are targeted by certain members of our society because we accept that a book written 1000's of years ago should still be acceptable today. Somehow, we were able to get over some of the other 'trivial' crap like women being slaves, but somehow we still need to cling onto homosexuals as being the devil?

In an isolated vacuum, what Folau said wouldn't be a problem. However, with the history behind how shit we've treated people because they love people of the same gender, it continues to perpetuate a belief that more and more people globally are not tolerating.

 

[sidelineview]

All of that may be correct and I don't claim any particular knowledge of classical Greek, certainly not enough to translate. But again, when translating any language, you don't do it word by word you look at the whole context as there are rarely straight word for word translations and different language employ different syntax and grammar so that the same word can mean something completely different depending on the context.

However, that wasn't the point I was trying to make. From everything we've been told and from other things he's posted that RA have objected to the word 'homosexual' and the idea that they are going to 'hell'. I simply point out that the word 'homosexual' doesn't appear in most standard translations of the Bible, so that he could have made the same statement without the word and satisfied his conscience and beliefs while at the same time not causing offence. I'd also point out that none of the translations seem to include the word "hell" or the phrase 'going to hell' but use something like "will not inherit the kingdom of God", which again is less likely to cause offence.

In general terms, I'm on Israel's side in this. He strikes me as an honest, decent young man who has a deep faith and desires to do good. I just think it's unfortunate that he's got himself into all this trouble by letting the core values of the New Testament of love, repentence and forgiveness be obscured by highliting isolated passages out of context. Paul's letters have to be read in context and completely to fully understand what he is saying.

I'll leave you with what he says at the end of 1 Corinthians in Chapter 13

13 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

I understand what you mean but it's highly unlikely he'll compromise, sanitise or retract his post.
It is what it is and the word homosexual or words to that effect are contained in the relevant Biblical passages of the different Bibles.

People seem to think RA can coerce him into expressing a socially acceptable, politically correct version of his beliefs and he should go along with it to keep the peace, but its an unrealistic expectation.

I dont think anyone should assume Folau hasnt love for his fellow man.
Call it misguided, awkward, badly worded, harsh; call it what you want but it's in keeping with the context of the relevant Biblical passage.

Its about Paul the Apostle rounding up his ''lost sheep'' who have strayed and who have fallen into sin of all description, including homosexual acts. He goes crook on them but ultimately wants to bring them back to the path of righteousness.
Unfortunately, mentioning homosexuals in a negative light in today's society hits a huge raw nerve.

Thats what Christians do, they call out the ''sins'' and help to ''save'' people; not all, but the ones who have the evangelical fire in their belly do, which describes Folau.

It should also be noted that Christian evangelists expect to be opposed or persecuted for their beliefs. Jesus and all the Apostles bar one were martyred for their faith. All were persecuted.

It should also be noted that the true Christian belief is that all are sinners and need their faith to stay on the right road to combat their humanity.

King David was a murderer and adulteter but later described by God as a man after his own heart.

Matthew the Apostle was a tax collector, thought to be the scum of the earth in those days. Jesus befriended him and he converted, followed him and became a leader.

Peter denied Christ three times before he was crucified but went on to become the rock upon which Christianity was built.

Paul the Apostle was a cruel Jewish persecutor of Christians but had a revelation on the road to Damascus and had a 360 turn around to become the greatest Apostle of all. He was imprisoned and had his head chopped off for his trouble.

All flawed individuals.

People can call it out as BS but this helps to describe the Christian mentality (not pertaining to all Christians of course)

It's unfortunate whats happened with Folau but it is what it is.

 

[Athilnaur]

Ath, I don’t understand the line of thought that he can do or say whatever he likes, based on his religious beliefs,at no cost to himself.

Yes he has rights, but he has responsibilities as well.

If his actions are going to cost his employer millions,on what basis should he not be accountable?

Great question and for me the nub of the issue.

Should employees be allowed to ruin an employers business? Hell no.

But the question here is a deep one. Can employers proscribe employees posting religious views the employers do not agree with?

It seems to me sports organisations should not be running a ruler over players religious views, and that includes their right to share those views.

Sure, some religions would be problematic - Aztecs leap to mind. But where's the real danger here?

Are spectators going to boycott matches because Israel Folau posted a religious opinion? How many will boycot Qantas for sponsoring rugby if it doesn't sanction him?

I'd suggest more are likely to boycott Qantas for being so sanctimonious.

In this I think the ABC had it right when they dealt with the Magied matter and I think that was far more problematic given she was a journalist for an organisation that is supposed to be apolitical.

 

[I like to watch]

Punters boycotting Qantas is no help to RA if they bin their sponsorship.

That’s the issue,last time he blurted out on social media several sponsors made it clear they were seriously considering their relationship.

I don’t really care about the Anzacs or Magied when talking about this.
To me it’s about RA protecting their commercial interests.

In what business can an employee antagonise key partners,refuse to retract,apologise,or even commit to not repeating their offending behaviour?

If Izzy wants to crusade, and there is a price to pay, it’s him,not RA who should foot the bill.

 

[Adam84]

ASICS and LandRover binned Folau as their ambassador, don’t know why you blokes are so caught up discussing QANTAS.

 

[Derpus]

In what business can an employee antagonise key partners,refuse to retract,apologise,or even commit to not repeating their offending behaviour?

None.

But AJ sniffs a crusade.

 

[Athilnaur]

Yeah but Qantas has no business being so naieve, nor is it. It will lose far more business stomping on the views of Christians than it will by not issuing an ultimatum to Rugby Australia.

Joyce has said it is a matter for RA. As a sponsor Qantas gets to be concerned. But like most businesses they don't get the luxury of being naieve about them. If they did Qantas wouldn't operate in half of the countries (by numbers of flights) it does.

RA has publicly stated it disagrees with Israel's views. In my opinion it didn't need to - it was sufficient to say 'his religious opinions are his own, he has not shown any discriminatory actions on the playing field. Naturally Rugby Australia can not be held accountable for the religious views of it's players.'

Qantas operates on slim margins - watch how fast those margins evaporate if every Christian, Jew and Muslim in Australia who flies regularly starts boycotting their flights wherever possible. Add in people like me who believe in freedom of speech.

 

[I like to watch]

ASICS and LandRover binned Folau as their ambassador, don’t know why you blokes are so caught up discussing QANTAS.

Because Qantas tips in millions into RA coffers,which is at risk due to his actions.
That’s why RA should have the right to discipline him.

If it was just his own comnercial interests he was destroying, then play on.

 

[Adam84]

ASICS and Land Rover tip in millions as well, my question was more about why people are so fascinated with QANTAS when other sponsors have taken action as well.

 

[Quick Hands]

I understand what you mean but it's highly unlikely he'll compromise, sanitise or retract his post.


It's unfortunate whats happened with Folau but it is what it is.

I haven't quoted your whole post to save space. I broadly agree with you, but I don't think it's a question of sanitising it's more a question of putting things in a way which can get a message across in a positive way rather than a negative way.

As a thought, I wonder how many converts that Israel has attracted with these posts. It seems to me that the only people reading them are people who agree with him and people trying to catch him out on a post like the one that has caused the problem. I suspect that he could be a far more effective Christian evangelist if he adopted a different mode of delivery without altering the message. At the end of the day that's a question for him.

It may well be at the moment he's a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

 

[Dctarget]

ASICS and Land Rover tip in millions as well, my question was more about why people are so fascinated with QANTAS when other sponsors have taken action as well.

Idk, their CEO is gay and I'm a homophobe?

 

[Gnostic]

I don't think people are right in saying what Folau is hate speech. More that the views Folau expressed are no longer tolerated by a lot of members of our society. Women and black/coloured Australians, Americans and across the globe had to push the status quo to gain the same rights as their husbands and white coloured citizens.



It's the same here. Perhaps I haven't articulated myself well enough, but I've been constantly trying to push that the words themselves aren't too much of an issue. BUT on a grander scale, people like Israel are villifying a particular sub-set of our society.



Haidt and co talk about how words by themselves don't hurt anyone and I agree with that. However, because our society has treated the LGBT community so poorly and looks down upon them, thousands across the globe have been killed by people who think being gay is an issue. This in my mind, goes way further than just being words. You need to tell these people that their attitudes towards our gay members is no longer acceptable.



I'm not too sure if you saw an earlier post I replied to Spik, but there are clear situations where people have been killed because they were/are LGBT. These people are targeted by certain members of our society because we accept that a book written 1000's of years ago should still be acceptable today. Somehow, we were able to get over some of the other 'trivial' crap like women being slaves, but somehow we still need to cling onto homosexuals as being the devil?



In an isolated vacuum, what Folau said wouldn't be a problem. However, with the history behind how shit we've treated people because they love people of the same gender, it continues to perpetuate a belief that more and more people globally are not tolerating.

I cannot agree. The highlighted part is just patently false. Nobody has been vilified. It is pure and simple a wilful misinterpretation of what has been said and what is extremely well known doctrine. Nobody has been vilified. That would be targeting a person or group specifically with some sort of negative speech. What was actually posted is simply a doctrine statement from a conservative, somewhat fundamentalist religion. Shock horror. Given the generational possibly centuries long cover up of paedophilia by various churches I would think they had zero credibility to be preaching to anyone not of their congregation, so why does anybody care?

As for the arguments about ACTUAL hate crimes, yes they took place and still take place, but supressing speech which is not actually inciting any action is a pathway to radicalise the fringes as they seek excuses as to why the "centre" is so corrupt action can be justified to their warped senses.

Furthermore the idea that we must somehow supress free speech on an issue, to somehow make amends for past discrimination is along the lines of quotas and yet another great way of actually fragmenting society instead of bringing people together, or at least having aired their differences.

As an example have a look for an American news interview last week I think, where "transgender girls" born male but identifying as female dominated the athletics events. The girls interviewed repeatedly stated that they had been unable to speak out against the inclusion of these people in the events due to the backlash that speaking out would generate. Now this is not just a matter of fairness in sport some of these athletes were competing to gain scholarships worth 100s of thousands of dollars. So because of the sensitivities of transgender people we cannot discuss the very likely situation of corrupt individuals taking advantage of a system which allows them to set themselves up for life financially. The risk is virtually nil but the reward great.

As I said before in this case Folau used his free speech and to many his comments showed him to be a small minded person of limited intellect. Good say that, he may well be offended by it, that's fine as well. Call him out on any number of doctrinal hypocrisies.

 

[louie]

Let’s call time out for one minute and all enjoy this: