david f..

? Which is worse David f, in the evolving police state, to be persecuted by the Anti-morality corporate police, or to be persecuted by the Islamic morality police?
these are the stark choices appearing before us.

Fundamentalism is on the march against the former, get used to the idea. Your on the losing side....

Dan

- I support his right to speak freely -

Section 18D protects free speech so long as it's an extension of ones true beliefs.
(You'll notice they don't show 18D on government websites anymore)

We're also a secular country and enjoy religious freedom.
I don't see any laws broken, in fact I see his rights as a citizen trampled on.

This is 20th Century version of throwing Christians to the lions.

Israel was courageous to speak God's truth. Secularism has led us down the toilet very quickly. The fact that all are hell bound without repentance and turning to Christ makes a person a 'hater' for stating what the Scriptures have always taught. Christophobes are the true haters by trying to conceal the truth. Lying, fornication and homosexuality will always be sin. No wonder of them are so self righteous in proclaiming their gw religion.

I just wanted to draw everyone's attention to this petition https://www.change.org/p/rugby-australia-don-t-discriminate-against-israel-folau. Please sign.

I'd also like to respond to David F's post which is a complete misrepresentation of the passage he quotes, and much as I like David, his posts on these matters seem designed to direct hate at Christians.

The passage he quotes is the Jewish crowd accepting group responsibility for crucifying Jesus. That is not authority for killing Jews, even if some Christians have used it that way. The Christian faith stresses personal, not group, responsibility. Group responsibility is an Old Testament concept, and this passage has to be read in the OT context of Israel being God's chosen people, who are frequently punished as a people.

This is that people finally repudiating God in the person of his son. It's the breaking of the old convenant theologically speaking.

Once you move away from the chosen people concept to God being a God for all, the collective guilt doesn't make sense anymore.

Unilaterally ascribing meaning to particular passages of the Bible without considering context is fundamentalism. No one should read the Bible that way, and they certainly shouldn't use that reading as the basis for attacking Christians.

People were duped into supporting gay marriage. The whole intention was to gather the unthinking crowd behind the corporate Gods new world order; and here it is, right in your face fools!

Israel Folau is a healthy human being and can find some other source of income. Nobody is entitled to a job when his or behaviour goes against the reasonable interests of his or her employer. I believe Israel Folau acted in good faith in expressing his Christian beliefs. However, the expression of those beliefs resulted in losing his job. I do not believe the employer was unreasonable in this case. Obviously others disagree.

What is reasonable and unreasonable is often difficult to determine. Folau can go to court to litigate against unfair dismissal. He has or should have the means. Whatever the results of such a suit some will find the outcome reasonable and others unreasonable. What is fair in one person's judgment can be unfair in another person's judgment. Should Israel Folau's employee be forced to employ him? There are no heroes or villains in this case.