"His employer is not obliged to give him a platform for his speech."
The platform Izzy Folau used was a social media platform avaiable to any one who wants to sign up to it.Do employers have the right to restrict your use of social media outside working hours?
If they had not decided to intervene in this area outside of his working life none of us would have even known about it.Now that we do know about it I ask one question of everyone on this forumsDo you believe each of us have the right to think and believe for ourselves or do we have to be slaves to the prevailing views of others. There was once a time when people blindly accepted that slavery was just part of the economy particularly in the deep south of America.What if the courageous reformers who had a different view had been silenced and prevented from simply stating their views?

david f,

No need to explain all miracles, just the ones at Lourdes, for which there is plenty on the web.

Surely as a person who does not believe in God you should have no difficulty in shewing those that believe, or are merely curious, where the truth lies and how the shams are worked?

Religion? Or intolerance? Notwithstanding his undoubted sporting prowess he was nevertheless an elitist bigot against anybody whose lifestyle he disapproved of. He wore the Australian jersey ... not the folau jersey. He represented the country and all who live here no matter who they are. He stood for ALL australians.. not just the handful he happened to approve of. If he's got a beef he might like to take it up with Ian Roberts.

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

You wrote :

« I know your atheism did not come from the Judeo-Christian world and life view … »
.

Christianity began as a tiny sect and later grew into a religion but, like all religions, it has gradually metamorphosed into a culture. I am culturally a Christian, imbued in the Christian world-view, life style, morality, etc.

Christianity confronted me with the God hypothesis which I took very seriously and investigated for the best part of my life before concluding that it was insufficiently substantiated for adoption on the basis of existing evidence.

My understanding is that the biblical texts were written nearly 2,000 years ago for the New Testament and well over 2,000 years ago for the Old Testament, by people who claim to have been inspired by a monotheistic deity whom they never encountered and were incapable of describing in any detail. That does not qualify as good solid evidence in my humble opinion.

As I indicated on a previous occasion, I respect your beliefs, but I, personally, am not prepared to have blind faith in texts that are several generational – more or less faithful – copies of original ancestral manuscripts whose authors claim to have been inspired by some hypothetical deity.

I consider that the question of the existence of a deity is far too important to be treated lightly. For such a monumental question it is totally unreasonable to accept as perfectly accurate the multi-generational copy of the bible which is the only version available to us today.

Even if we disposed of the autographs themselves, for all intents and purposes, their value as testimony would be negligible due to the fact that they were written (or dictated) by devout religious individuals already gained to the cause.

Solid evidence, for a matter of this importance, should consist in a rate of concordance of at least 90% between the versions of two totally and indisputably independent, perfectly valid non-religious sources.
.

If the Christian label seems inappropriate, perhaps you will accept to consider me as just “an ordinary person”.

.

.

Oops! My post got amputated ...

.

« I know your atheism did not come from the Judeo-Christian world and life view … »
.

Christianity began as a tiny sect and later grew into a religion but, like all religions, it has gradually metamorphosed into a culture. I am culturally a Christian, imbued in the Christian world-view, life style, morality, etc.

Christianity confronted me with the God hypothesis which I took very seriously and investigated for the best part of my life before concluding that it was insufficiently substantiated for adoption on the basis of existing evidence.

My understanding is that the biblical texts were written nearly 2,000 years ago for the New Testament and well over 2,000 years ago for the Old Testament, by people who claim to have been inspired by a monotheistic deity whom they never encountered and were incapable of describing in any detail. That does not qualify as good solid evidence in my humble opinion.

As I indicated on a previous occasion, I respect your beliefs, but I, personally, am not prepared to have blind faith in texts that are several generational – more or less faithful – copies of original ancestral manuscripts whose authors claim to have been inspired by some hypothetical deity.

I consider that the question of the existence of a deity is far too important to be treated lightly. For such a monumental question it is totally unreasonable to accept as perfectly accurate the multi-generational copy of the bible which is the only version available to us today.

Even if we disposed of the autographs themselves, for all intents and purposes, their value as testimony would be negligible due to the fact that they were written (or dictated) by devout religious individuals already gained to the cause.

Solid evidence, for a matter of this importance, should consist in a rate of concordance of at least 90% between the versions of two totally and indisputably independent, perfectly valid non-religious sources.
.

If the Christian label seems inappropriate, perhaps you will accept to consider me as just “an ordinary person”.

.

Hasn't much of this been talked about some time ago? If I remember right there were several discussions about Margaret Court a tennis player who spoke out on homosexual marriage around November of last year. From scanning the articles though this is the only one I could find. (Weren't there a few dedicated to this when it happened?)

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=20022

It should be clear that the homosexual agenda has a tight hold on sports in Australia. In order to be in any of those sports, a person can not speak about homosexuality in a negative fashion.

There should not be that much control over the lives of athletes as what is occurring in the cooperations owning Australia's sports industry.

As for what Israel said. Where are the angry atheists clambering on in insult? They were compared to the same sins that homosexuality was. Yet only the homosexual narrative is outspoken on this. People can choose to have sex with the same sex, regardless of attraction. In the same way people can choose to murder when angered, or they can just be angry and let it go. People can choose steal when they want something, or restrain themselves from being a thief when they see something they want. People can choose to ignore God in favor of alternative perspectives that sound better to them.

These are what Israel Folau spoke on in his Twitter post on going to hell, was it not? That these actions, these choices are condemned? Instead of any of that conversation and what is part of that discussion, Australia Rugby has decided that Israel has over steeped his bounds and somehow his voice represents Australian Rugby and therefore must be dealt with.

(Continued)