Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Great article from Rathbone.........
https://www.playersvoice.com.au/cly...g1qRgIMbFn2n4oFmcaDc//url#HWltt7Ezibt1Re4Y.97
https://www.playersvoice.com.au/cly...g1qRgIMbFn2n4oFmcaDc//url#HWltt7Ezibt1Re4Y.97
The Israel Folau saga
- Thread starter The torpedo
- Start date
- Status
The Honey Badger
Jim Lenehan (48)
Anyone able to cut and paste the story
I like to watch
David Codey (61)
I enjoy all his articles.
Would be a fascinating dinner guest.
KOB1987
John Eales (66)
The Oz via Panda suggesting that there will be a 3-0 vote in favour of terminating Folau's contract. I have to say that after I saw his address to the church over the weekend my viewpoint on the matter changed. He's officially lost the plot and really I just feel sorry for him that he has been brainwashed by this sect.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sp...u/news-story/625a935e9389c8b444b91f22b65b4284
The panel does not have to be unanimous in its decision, although given Folau has shown no remorse and given no guarantee he won’t repeat actions that the panel members have already found it to be a high-level breach of Rugby Australia’s professional players’ code of conduct, the trio are all expected to enforce his axing.
Folau said at the weekend that an offer made to him to take down his offensive Instagram post was a deal from Satan, and he would not comply.
The Wallabies star believes the world is nearing an end and wants to continue to spread his Christian messages, and could not guarantee during his hearing that he would refrain from posting further inflammatory material.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sp...u/news-story/625a935e9389c8b444b91f22b65b4284
The panel does not have to be unanimous in its decision, although given Folau has shown no remorse and given no guarantee he won’t repeat actions that the panel members have already found it to be a high-level breach of Rugby Australia’s professional players’ code of conduct, the trio are all expected to enforce his axing.
Folau said at the weekend that an offer made to him to take down his offensive Instagram post was a deal from Satan, and he would not comply.
The Wallabies star believes the world is nearing an end and wants to continue to spread his Christian messages, and could not guarantee during his hearing that he would refrain from posting further inflammatory material.
It's not his representative. It's an independent committee member nominated by RUPA. RA gets to nominate one and then the third is one they both agree on.
They are all meant to be impartial.
S
sidelineview
Guest
I dont believe he's in a sect and I dont believe he's been brainwashed.
He has a strong faith and he's sticking to it.
He has a lot of support from within the community.
Rathbone referenced Slavery, torture & murder which is from the Old Testament. It's misleading.
It is a line in the sand moment for society.
If it goes to court the lawyers will argue about employment law.
Christianity is divisive in our modern progressive society. The only way it cannot be divisive is if people dont express their faith publically which is what social media becomes.
Its disappointing the coach and players were allowed to voice their opinions before a decision was handed down.
If Folau was to play again I believe the players would adjust and get on with it.
He has a strong faith and he's sticking to it.
He has a lot of support from within the community.
Rathbone referenced Slavery, torture & murder which is from the Old Testament. It's misleading.
It is a line in the sand moment for society.
If it goes to court the lawyers will argue about employment law.
Christianity is divisive in our modern progressive society. The only way it cannot be divisive is if people dont express their faith publically which is what social media becomes.
Its disappointing the coach and players were allowed to voice their opinions before a decision was handed down.
If Folau was to play again I believe the players would adjust and get on with it.
As much as the public debate has focused on the religious aspect, I think that Folau's behaviour after the post is just as important in understanding RA's motivations. According to Georgina Robinson:
And by the sounds of it his behaviour once contact was made was less than conciliatory.
It's been said before but warrants another mention - this is an issue of workplace discipline more than it is one of religious freedom.
How can RA put him back in the Wallabies in a World Cup when he's carried on like he has? How can his team-mates trust him in the sheds when he's shown such a disregard for them and the team more broadly?
.
And by the sounds of it his behaviour once contact was made was less than conciliatory.
It's been said before but warrants another mention - this is an issue of workplace discipline more than it is one of religious freedom.
How can RA put him back in the Wallabies in a World Cup when he's carried on like he has? How can his team-mates trust him in the sheds when he's shown such a disregard for them and the team more broadly?
.
James Pettifer
Jim Clark (26)
And then in 12 months he does exactly the same thing again ...
He promised not to go down this path again.
This is from him 12 months ago
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
That sounds like a mental health issue. I had read elsewhere that his particular brand of Christianity was very cult-like.
I wonder if in 10 years we'll be reading about how Folau was being unduly influenced by his religious community and he regrets throwing his career away.
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
This is quite the contradiction.
I don't think Folau can return without issue. He's clearly not a team player and is more interested in other things. We've seen time and again in sport how the team needs to be the more than the sum of its parts to succeed.
I like to watch
David Codey (61)
It’s not misleading.
Rathbones point, is that it’s folly to use certain quotes in the bible to justify your POV, when there are clearly other quotes in the same bible that cannot be supported.
Anyway, the argument is not about the contents of the bible, it’s about Izzies behaviour.
I don’t understand why Izzy has every right to express his opinion,no matter the cost.
But you think his team mates and coaches shouldn’t express theirs?
S
sidelineview
Guest
No, they shouldn't have been allowed by RA to publically comment once it was known it was going to a hearing.
It's no point repeating the same old points but he did refer to the New Testament and it's been well documented that Chtistians in general oppose same sex sexual unions, hence the opposition to redefining marriage.
Its not hate, bigotry or homophobia. It's a belief.
The ARU didn't consider the opinions or beliefs of their players or fans when they endorsed the YES vote.
His behaviour is to stick firm with his right to express his religious beliefs.
Whether its right or wrong, naive, misguided or whatever is up to individual opinion.
The lawyers will no doubt argue that point if it gets that far.
People who refer to his statement that he would walk away from the game without referring to his other statement about his disappointment in Castle misrepresenting his position and comments in order to appease other people are only telling half of the story.
It's no point repeating the same old points but he did refer to the New Testament and it's been well documented that Chtistians in general oppose same sex sexual unions, hence the opposition to redefining marriage.
Its not hate, bigotry or homophobia. It's a belief.
The ARU didn't consider the opinions or beliefs of their players or fans when they endorsed the YES vote.
His behaviour is to stick firm with his right to express his religious beliefs.
Whether its right or wrong, naive, misguided or whatever is up to individual opinion.
The lawyers will no doubt argue that point if it gets that far.
People who refer to his statement that he would walk away from the game without referring to his other statement about his disappointment in Castle misrepresenting his position and comments in order to appease other people are only telling half of the story.
S
sidelineview
Guest
The South Pacific players may disagree
Bandar
Bob Loudon (25)
Depends on which ones you talk to.
Believe it or not, just like the rest of society there are some who agree with him and some who disagree
S
sidelineview
Guest
We agree: its divisive in camp and throughout society.
Just another point to consider:
It's ironic that traditional rugby Christian based schools are more than significant in promoting the game and developing talent.
This may be a divisive issue within those schools but I'm not sure if anyone within those schools would deny that Folau referred to the Bible.
Apart from that personnel within those schools may be just as divided in opinion as everyone else.
Tex
Greg Davis (50)
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
This is, again, perplexingly contradictory.
Israel has the right, free from consequence, to publicly state his negative religious position on homosexuals but people are not allowed to comment on his views subsequently?
That doesn't happen in any other scenario. All legal proceedings (save a very select few due to special circumstances, typically where a minor is involved) are open to the public to both witness and comment on.
Tex
Greg Davis (50)
I tend to agree with SLV, but only from a strategic perspective. If the panel found that his actions didn't breach his obligations to RA and Waratahs and he was expected to return to the fold, it would be useful if the coach and his colleagues had only offered a public straight bat rather than a line in the sand against which accountability could be expected.
Other than that, they have every right to express their views and be exposed to the potential consequences of expressing them.
Other than that, they have every right to express their views and be exposed to the potential consequences of expressing them.
- Status