Good article as usual, it's a confusing issue, however it can be cleared up if church would create some cool work pathways for their congregants and embrace a neo-gothic design approach to christian living spaces

'Homosexuality, although rare, is a natural occurrence in the human race. It is not a wrong. In condemning it, Israel Folau was being discriminatory.'

sorry Peter I have no intention of allowing university academics telling my kids what is right and wrong. Encouraging sodomy is wrong at every level.

Runner has spoken, therefore let there be no argument on the matter.
Good article Peter.

Though he was unwise, he certainly was moral. It's what he believes. Nor was it discriminatory; he wasn't treating anyone differently nor calling for anyone to be treated differently. And Peter Bowden's claim that it's discriminatory to contradict the prevailing moral standards of the time is utterly absurd.

Homosexuality isn't particularly rare. It's natural, but what's natural doesn't equate to what God wants. And though most people regard sexuality as binary, the truth is far more complicated.

The Old Testament did not simply expire when Jesus died on the cross. Though we are not subject to the OT laws, their purpose is still important. And while Jesus didn't condemn homosexuality, if you look in Matthew's Gospel you'll see that Jesus revealed God's purpose for human sexuality.

A bigger issue IMO was Folau's subsequent failure to clarify his intentions in sending that tweet; many people are now under the impression that he was motivated by hatred. Folau's own inaction on this matter has done far more harm than Rugby Australia's actions.

Folau has a right to hold and practice any religion (almost) that he believes in, even stone age views such as he holds along with a quite massive misinterpretation of biblical text!

None of which is backed in any way shape or form by so much as a single scaric of verifiable evidence. Just flat earth myth and legend!

But none at all to ram his massive misrepresentation of completely unproven and unprovable ancient biblical text! And as a breach of agreed to lawful contract!

Even if one accepts there's truth in some biblical text, when one visits the original Greek, the term homosexual doesn't mean what the term homosexual in literal English means, or Folau's narrow and misrepresented interpretation, ditto many other words and phrases and our incorrect translation. Let me give you one, for instance, example.

The Lord's prayer says, and do not lead us into temptation. As if the God of Love would ever do that!

So, when the original Greek text is revisited, the words more accurately translated mean, And do not put us to the test!

Fornication is between unmarried folk, yet when couples used to marry, that's how they selected their mate for life. Marriage, as we know it as a church ceremony, has only exist for around 300 years

That's so different and so are the admonishments against all that Folau claims a truth! When there's no factual proof that any of his, brainwashed from birth, superstition has anything remotely resembling the ring of truth.

Indeed may find himself facing his maker at the end of the day for being the very catalyst responsible in no small way for the suicide of dozens of confused and conflicted young folk, who sadly believe the garbage he's spouting!?

(Suggested reading should include the historically accurate religious expose, The pillars of the earth) A ripping good yarn! That'll keep you gripped until the final chapter and happy ending! There's also a three-set trilogy on DVD. But dated!
Alan B.

Peter Bowden is certainly not an arbitrator on morals. He has undoubtedly made up his own mind, and he is not really asking a question.

Peter,

So Folau’s warning about that list of sinners destined for hell unless they repent ‘was immoral’, as are the ACL’s ethics?

In determining the boundaries of morality, you called on the views of Kant’s categorical imperative, moral theories on virtue, Dalai Lama, 2 passages from the Book of Proverbs in the OT, Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain philosophies, etc.

You left out a large chunk of the boundaries of morality by failing to include the 10 Commandments (Exodus 20). Nine of the 10 commandments are in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7).

You want to have morality that includes the ‘do not harm’ theme. There is more to the boundaries.

<<Israel Folau’s attacks against homosexuals, supposedly drawing on his Christian faith, are based on the old testament.>>

This is false. Folau is a rugby player and not a NT scholar. In his rambunctious footballer way he paraphrased 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Cor+6%3A9-11&version=ESVUK.

Then he included the essence of 1 Timothy 1:15, ‘Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost”.

<< Homosexuality, although rare, is a natural occurrence in the human race. It is not a wrong.>>

False again. 1 Corinthians 6:10 states that homosexuality is ONE of many sins, if not forgiven, will prevent the person from ‘inherit[ing] the Kingdom of God’.

<< Israel, in continuing his discrimination, has not behaved in an acceptable moral manner.>>

In my understanding, this is false also. Folau has properly warned wrong doers about their eternal destinies. That could hardly be called immoral!

<< Paul was not one of the apostles, repeating the teachings of Jesus Christ>>

That’s contrary to Scriptures: ‘For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth’ (1 Timothy 2:7). He was not an apostle in the sense of the 12 apostles of Jesus but for you to say he wasn’t an apostle who repeated the teachings of Jesus, is false.

Why? In 1 Corinthians 11: 23-26 Paul stated what Jesus taught. See: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+11%3A+23-26&version=ESVUK.

As usual the bible thumping hypocrites are tying themselves in knots cherry picking bits from their sacred text which support their political / social agenda of the moment, (something they are very skilled at) thus ensuring the survival of their particular brand of faith. The freedom to say anything carries consequences. In Izzy's case, what he said has real consequences for vulnerable young people. By refusing to recognise or accept those consequences, Izzy has and continues to act immorally. If christians claim his words were an act of love, I sincerely hope that their god is around to protect them when they say something hateful.

Quoting various alleged biblical text as if it were truth or the writer was a divinely inspired apostle when he or she could be anybody or even one of the pagan sun worshipping Conttitine'spersonal appointees?

Proves naught but the brainwashed beliefs of those who quote this or that, alleged biblical text, as if it had a foundation in truth as opposed to messages mean to control a body of believers.

Who like most ancient illiterate people, ready to believe anything and the very worst of their fellow (different) humans.

Quoting any biblical text as if it were divinely inspired truth is fraught. And merely identifies the text reliant quoter as another brainwashed believer, mired in stone age, medieval superstition based entirely on unproven/unprovable, myth and legend. And in vogue when scholars and men of letters, also believed and taught flat earth theory.

Even threatened Galileo with excommunication for stating we were not at the centre of the universe but like all the planets revolved around the sun. And threaten by a cadre and cohort that included burning Saints at the stake and Bishops at the head of sword welding blood-lusting armies. And boy buggerng, baby raping clergy.

And a sty in the eye of God! Who now, like "Saint Folau", think they speak for God and set themselves up to lecture the rest, i.e., your God-given natural instincts are wrong and sinful!

And never ever handed such or divinely inspired, save if you exclude his inculcation from birth by his bible bashing parentage/tribe!
Alan B.

'Homosexuality, although rare, is a natural occurrence in the human race. It is not a wrong.
runner,
Immorality, wrongdoing, wrong, wickedness, badness, evil-doing, evil, iniquity, villainy, venality, impurity, corruption, corruptness, misconduct; sin, sinfulness, ungodliness, godlessness, unholiness, unrighteousness, profanity; depravity, degeneracy, turpitude, sordidity, perversion, pervertedness, dissolution, dissipation, debauchery, decadence, lasciviousness, lewdness, lechery, lecherousness, degradation; crime, transgression, offence, immoral act, evil act, act of wickedness, fall from grace; archaic trespass; rare peccability, peccancy. ANTONYMS virtue, righteousness.
So, they're not wrong either ?

Peter Bowden's article criticizing Israel Folau is immoral.

Morality is simply the generally agreed upon limits to personal behaviour necessary to live within any peaceful, functioning community. These moral values become the basis for written law. But morality constantly changes as changing circumstances alter the fundamental premises upon which any moral value is based. Peter talks about a "universal morality." There ain't no such animal, Peter. By even claiming that there can be a "universal morality", Peter, you are no different from the most fundamentalist ideologue from every religion and ideology ever invented. Pol Pot thought he was moral. So too, ISIS, the Inquisition, the Nazi Party, and the Greens.

The weirdest thing about the continuing furor over Israel Folau is the complete double standard studiously ignored by his critics, like Peter Bowden. When Malcolm Fraser invited "moderate" Islamic leader Sheik Shady Suleimon (no pun intended) to dinner, the good sheik informed Turnbull that homosexuals should be executed. This particular moral value is universally advocated by all Muslim leaders. Yet the good sheik's comments did not get any where near the media mileage as Israel Folau, who did no more than say that certain classes of "sinners" (including homosexuals) should repent, or they will go to hell. Where is an article from Peter Bowden's condemning Islam? Nowhere, that's where. Islam always get's a free pass from the "ethicists" like Peter, who exhibit selective myopia, and want to impose their own particular brand of morality on the majority.

If Israel Folau had given a press conference demanding that homosexuals should be executed, the whole loony left would have been running around, frothing at the mouth in red faced apoplexy. But he did not. He expressed an opinion. He basically said that he did not approve of a group of people's collective behaviour. There is nothing wrong with that. Some people disapprove of my behaviour in shooting rabbits, foxes, goat cats, and pigs, as well as eating meat. That is their privilege. They think I am immoral, and I think that they are lunatics. I disapprove of homosexuality. That is my opinion.

There's a lot of heat being generated with a Bible verse being
bandied around by everyone from sports heroes
to journalists saying that homosexuals (among others)
will go to hell. But what if the
Bible verse they so casually quote doesn't
mention homosexuals
at all? Are the journalists actually doing
their job responsibly?

Why aren't church leaders and theologians saying, " Hang on a
minute your translation from Greek to English just may not be
correct."

We need to bring in some balance to this
heated debate by emphasising the
importance of freedom of speech and the
right of diverse religious beliefs. This is
also an invitation to reflect on the appropriate
edges to this freedom. When does freedom of
speech tip over into hate speech?

Someone wrote on the web that:

" One of the perks of being an atheist
is that you get to decide how to be a good
and loving human all by yourself. If you find
yourself preaching bigotry, intolerance or
hatred it's all on you. You can't excuse it
by saying you read it in a book."

Issy aside, allowing misgendered characters go around libaries and filling kids heads with absolute trash is a million times worse than statements from the bible. No wonder believers and unbelievers alike have donated to Issy's cause. Next we will have blokes dressed as girls serving the tea on qantas flights. Its bad enough that blokes are starting to clean up at women's sports events.

"When does freedom of speech tip over into hate speech", asks Foxy?

It doesn't. Free speech is free speech.

What if right wing views were in the once again overwhelmingly mainstream and somebody said that advocating homosexual "rights or criticising Donald Trump or Pauline Hanson was "hate speech".

It works both ways, Foxy.

Either you recognise the absolute right of a free people to freely discuss any social issue at all without legal sanction, or you are just another fascist using force to shut down debate on topics you don't want to have discussed. You have become the very narrow minded, bigoted person that real liberal progressives from my generation once fought against.

When I was young my generation ran around screaming "freedom! freedom!" Now your generation runs around screaming "hate speech, censorship!" And you actually think that you are a progressive liberal?

Misgendered characters going around libraries and filling
kids heads with ...? or
Qantas employees dressing as ...?

Now those are statements that prove that if you
find yourself preaching bigotry, intolerance or
hatred it really should all be on you.

And you really should not be able to
excuse it by saying you read it in a book.

Do the head honchos of High "let me at dem choirboys" Churches backup Izzy?

Speakin of "Onward Christian Soldiers" as they say in armies "Never leave your mate's behind!"

Hear, hear and extremely well said, Foxy!
Alan B.

LEGO,

Free speech has never been about saying whatever
you want and being protected from the consequences
of what you say.

It's not absolute, and like any human right, free
speech carries with it responsibilities.

A recent story has revealed that social media posts
and emails today are at the centre of the majority of
defamation cases in Australia.

That means that ordinary people increasingly
find themselves defending defamation actions
in court often representing
themselves in complex and expensive area of law.

This is really an important issue on social media because
it's where cyber trolls, bullies, stalkers and revenge
posters are, and there's a whole bunch of hatred and
people are targeted, sometimes very personally.

The Folau case will be an interesting one in what the
courts decide.

Aries54,

<<As usual the bible thumping hypocrites are tying themselves in knots cherry picking bits from their sacred text which support their political / social agenda of the moment, (something they are very skilled at) thus ensuring the survival of their particular brand of faith.>>

To whom are you referring? Am I the guilty hypocrite who cherry picks verses from the biblical text?

Or, is this fallacious reasoning of the Ad Hominem (Guilt by Association). See: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/10/Ad-Hominem-Guilt-by-Association.

I do wish you would engage in a debate of the issues, as I tried to do from a biblical perspective. When you use logical fallacies like this, we cannot have a rational discussion.

.

Dear Peter (the author),

.

It appears that sex has been commonly practised independently of reproduction throughout the animal kingdom since time immemorial. It is, by no means, an exclusivity of humankind. It is a perfectly natural phenomenon.

It is also commonplace for heterosexual married couples to practise various forms of birth control, including annal sex, which is, by no means, an exclusivity of homosexual couples. Both practise some form of sterile sex – sometimes the same.

Also, marriage contracts in Australia do not impose any obligation to procreate. Nor is procreation one of the principal purposes of marriage. Many people procreate outside marriage and many people who are married neither procreate, nor contemplate doing so. A significant number of married persons cannot procreate either at the time of the marriage or subsequently – an obvious example being a post-menopausal woman. Similarly, it is inappropriate and incorrect to suggest that consummation is in any way a requirement to the creation of a valid marriage. Subsequent to the passage of the Marriage Act (1961), inability to consummate a marriage ceased to be a ground for making a declaration of nullity.

I think it is worth noting that Izzy Folau's message relates to sexual relationships and behaviour that are perfectly legal when practised by freely consenting adults in Australia.

His message proferrs a menace which some of those who feel concerned may take seriously. I should not be at all surprised if that menace were to be sanctioned by a court of law – independently of any contractual engagement he may have made with his employer not to repeat such behaviour following a previous incident.

.

Is this a case of whether Isaiah Folau was moral, or whether homosexuality is moral. There is a difference. On the grounds of morality, does that excuse the actions or Ruby Australia? Can anyone be fired based on a slippery defination of morality?

Let's look at a practical approach. Not based on whether people will be offended or angered, but solely on whether people are harmed, or placed in danger. If a moral ambugitey doesn't harm someone else then everyone can disagree on it and voice their disagreements on it and no actual harm is caused outside of being angry and offended by everyone involved who get anger at each other.

When a moral ambugitey crosses the threshold of actually being a danger to others, then yes, stand up against it. Take extra actions if it is needed. The moral ambugitey of taking drugs can and should be a line crossed in employment. Because in any job it compromises their ability to work, and their ability to be safe or make good judgements. In Rugby and any other sport taking drugs goes the opposite direction of cheating the sport such as taking steroids. These are moral issues that can and do affect the workplace they are involved in and so should be fireable offenses. Speaking out against homosexuality does not harm homosexuals or pose a danger to them, all it does is cause anger or offense. It doesn't affect the game of rugby at all either.

Morally speaking this is a non issue when compared to the consquences that were handed out. It's comparable to drinking excessively as being immoral, but as long as the person only does it on their time off and they aren't driving or causing fights the moral issue only affects the person and their liver. Morally speaking they shouldn't be fired even if the employer hates drunks.

Speaking out in one's privite time on an issue that you don't agree with their stance on is not a fireable offense. Unless there shows some actual harm or danger in motion.

Foxy, the absolute right of a free people living in a democracy to discuss any social issue without the fear of legal sanction is the keystone of democracy. How can the people of any democratic society decide for themselves whether any issue is right or wrong unless they are free to discuss the issue among themselves?" Even a pseudo "progressive" like yourself should be smart enough to figure that one out. However, every totalitarian of every political and religious stripe would agree with your previous statement. You had better start figuring out which side you are on. Are you with the democrats or the totalitarians? Are you a real liberal or are you a reactionary ideologue determined to shut down free speech on any topic that you consider must not be discussed?

I once met a recently arrived Yugoslav migrant who expressed to me utter amazement that in Australia, people could make derogatory remarks about political leaders and not get banged up in jail for doing so. Apparently, criticising political leaders in Yugoslavia at the time was their version of your "hate speech." According to Mark Steyn, in the days of the Soviet Union, over a million people were in gulags for telling jokes about the Politburo.

Australia is supposed to be a free country, that means we are supposed to have free speech. And you want to turn the clock back to totalitarianism? Free speech in western countries is a done deal. If you keep trying to impose political censorship then you are going to make enemies of the real intellectuals and the real liberals, which just happens to be what is happening, right now.

Libel, slander, contempt of court, and the Official Secrets Act form no part in political debate and have never been considered free speech. If Australia keeps section 18c, then stop calling Australia a free country, because it is no longer that, and we have taken our first giant leap towards totalitarianism.

You are on the wrong side of history with this one, Foxy.

LEGO,

Lets leave out the personal attacks.

People who enjoy the rights of free speech have a duty
to respect other people's rights. A person's freedom
of speech is limited by the rights of others - for
example their right to maintain their good reputation
and their right to privacy.

All democratic societies put various limitations on what
people may say. They prohibit certain types of speech
that they believe might harm the government or the people.
We have laws covering libel and slander, laws that offend
public decency, urging violence, and many more.

In the case of Folau - it's a simple matter of his
breaking his employment contractual agreement. The
code of conduct that he signed. The courts have thousands
of such cases up before them currently - with people claiming
"unfair dismissal." It will be up to the courts to
decide whether Folau has a case.

We shall have to wait and see what the decision will be.
He had many warnings, including in writing - that he was
entitled to his views - but he was not entitled to express
them in a public sphere.

He did not keep his contractual
agreement - and continued despite the warnings to act
as he pleased. When you sign a contract and get paid $4 million
a year to keep that contract - and then you continue to go
against it - there's something wrong with your mentality.

Perhaps Folau has brain damage as a result of rugby?
His lawyers should know better
and advise him. I doubt if he will win this case. The law
is pretty straightforward.

Foxy,

<<Lets leave out the personal attacks.

People who enjoy the rights of free speech have a duty
to respect other people's rights.>>

Then what do you do in the very same post? You stated:

<<Perhaps Folau has brain damage as a result of rugby?>>

Even though you include a question mark, yours is still a personal attack on Israel through a question.

Please be consistent with your own standards.

Alan B,

<<Quoting various alleged biblical text as if it were truth or the writer was a divinely inspired apostle when he or she could be anybody or even one of the pagan sun worshipping Conttitine's (sic) personal appointees?
Proves naught but the brainwashed beliefs of those who quote this or that, alleged biblical text, as if it had a foundation in truth as opposed to messages mean to control a body of believers.>>

When I cite biblical texts, I quote documents that are trustworthy and have been proven so by competent historians.

In those reliable documents, God declares, 'The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures for ever' (Psalm 119:160). You don't like the fact that God's word is truth forever. Truth is not only the opposite of falsehood but what which conforms with reality.

Jesus confirmed he is 'the truth' (John 14:6), the one who declared reality, and the way to Father God. Truth is not determined by Alan B and his denigration of Christianity.

<<Proves naught but the brainwashed beliefs of those who quote this or that, alleged biblical text, as if it had a foundation in truth as opposed to messages mean to control a body of believers.>>

Those are your dogmatic presuppositions enforced on those who read this thread. Do you hate those who demonstrate the Bible is reliable literature and become born again Christians?

If Australia promoted God's absolutes and our laws demonstrated support for them, this nation would not be in the mess it's in.

Foxy,

Folau did not break his contractual agreement.

This is going to largely be in his favour.

SM,

Israel Folau broke the professional code of conduct
that was in the contract he signed and one that he
agreed to abide by. The law is clear on this matter.

OzSpen,

My question regarding Israel Folau and brain damage
was a legitimate concern. It was not an insult or a
slur but was based on the fact that Rugby has one
of the highest incident of concussion of all contact
sports.

And every time you're concussed your brain is damaged.
It is what it is and it's irreversible. And we need to
know that, and to hear it. We need to have this
conversation.

As Ian Roberts tells us:

"I'd played nearly 250 games of rugby league and been
concussed over a dozen times. I wasn't getting out
without a scratch, but " irreversible long-term
brain damage? It hit me right in the guts!"

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/feb/10/ian-roberts-concussion-is-irreversible-brain-damage-we-need-to-have-this-conversation

There was a documentary on television recently studying
the medical effects caused by two sports - rugby league as
played in Australia, New Zealand, and the UK and grid iron
as played in the US showing head scans of players with
irreversible damage and their effects on players behaviour.

Based on this doco it's legitimate to inquire if any
damage has been caused to Israel Folau. Who signed
and agreed to a code of behaviour in his employment
contract and chose to break it even after at least three
warnings from his employer as well as a letter, making
things quite clear to him what would happen if he persisted
in his behaviour. He chose to ignore everything despite
being told of the consequences.

That is not rational behaviour.

Foxy, if your employer told you that you could not publically express any political and social opinion when you are in your own time, I'll bet you would be outraged. Yet you go into bat for Football Australia when it did the same thing to Israel Folau. All Folau did was say that "adulterers, fornicators, liars, adulterers, homosexuals, atheists and thieves" would go to hell. That means he pointed the bone at every single person in Australia. I'll bet even pious Runner has done a bit of fornicating in his youth. Nobody is offended, except Football Australia, QANTAS, and the hyper sensitive, always outraged homosexuals.

The only reason why there is a problem at all is because Folau is a Christian, and he quoted Christian biblical morality. If he had quoted the bloody Koran every psuedo social progressive "liberal" would had been pretending that he said nothing wrong at all.

You keep claiming that the absolute right of a free people in a free democratic country to state their opinions upon any social or political matter, is the same as restrictions on incitement to violence, libel, contempt of court, breaking the Official Secrets Act, and the production and dissemination of child pornography. It isn't.

Pseudo social progressive liberals such as your good self have a problem. You are supposed to support free political speech in order to claim that you are a progressive. But you support a left wing ideology which insists that certain minorities must be beyond criticism, with homosexuals the top of the list. So you have invented the term "hate speech" to try to censor what your political opponents say, and insist that by censoring their political and social opinions, you are somehow still protecting free speech. That is akin to the Flat Earth Societies (yes, it exists) claim that satellite photos of a spherical earth have been doctored by NASA.

If you won't support free speech, do you approve of burning your political opponents books too? Just label them "hate books" and burn away. Foxy and the Bonfire of the Vanities.

Foxy,

<<Based on this doco it's legitimate to inquire if any damage has been caused to Israel Folau. Who signed
and agreed to a code of behaviour in his employment contract and chose to break it even after at least three
warnings from his employer.... That is not rational behaviour.>>

It is a BIG leap, based on your assumptions, to Izzy having 'brain damage as a result of rugby'. I'm not doubting that has happened to some players.

Have you seen Folau's contract so that you can unequivocally state that he <<signed and agreed to a code of behaviour in his employment contract and chose to break it even after at least three warnings from his employer.>>?

Do you KNOW that his contract states, 'Thou shalt not quote or paraphrase any portion of the Bible that offends "Drunks, Homosexuals, Adulterers, Liars, Fornicators, Thieves, Atheists, Idolators unless they repent"?

Do you know for sure it's in Folau's contract?

Folau is accountable to God who wants him to share the Gospel, which is at the core of his faith. He has done that in a small way as a rugby player. He was too abrupt in his approach for me, but he's being obedient to his call as an evangelical Christian. It may cost him his job.

That's in the hands of the court now.

OzSpen,

Rugby Australia terminated Folau's employment
contract after a Tribunal determined his actions
breached the organisation's code of conduct.

The offending behaviour was an Instagram post by
Folau warning homosexuals (among others): "Hell
Awaits You. Repent! Only Jesus Saves!"

Folau has now brought a claim to the Fair Works
Commission alleging the termination was because of his
religion and therefore was unlawful. That he was being
discriminated against.

Rugby Australia maintains that Folau was dismissed not
because of his religious beliefs, but because he breached
the player code of conduct.

Raelene Caste, The Chair of Rugby Australia has explained
numerous times in television interviews that the code is
typical of that of many businesses.

It requires players to treat everyone equally and with
dignity, regardless of their sexual orientation; not to
use social media to breach expected standards of
behaviour; and not to make public comments or otherwise
clearly act contrary to the best interests of the game.

Clearly, Folau did not heed the warnings as Ms Castle
stated including the letter he received and his
actions breached the player code of conduct.

Case Law tells us that Section 351 of the Fair Works
Act requires the employee to prove an employer was
motivated to discriminate against him or her because of
religion.

If an employer can point to an employee's breach of
their employment obligations as the reason for their
dismissal - instead of a discriminatory motive -\then the employee's claim fails.

It shall be interesting what the court decides.

See you on another discussion.
This one for me has now run its course.

LEGO,

This case is not about freedom of speech or freedom
of religion. It's about keeping one's contractual
obligations.

LEGO,

<<Foxy, if your employer told you that you could not publically express any political and social opinion when you are in your own time, I'll bet you would be outraged. Yet you go into bat for Football Australia when it did the same thing to Israel Folau.>>

You stated this so well in your post. However, I wish you would not have been so insulting to those who base their religion on the Qur'an.

Can you imagine employees in ALP offices and unionists being forbidden from making Facebook or Instagram posts in support of the ALP or their Christian values? The same applies to any other political party or organisation that promotes certain views. It is accepted that an employee with Toyota will promote his/her product or Islam in the public square. There should be no blink about that.

But when Izzy comes out and includes homosexuals in his list of wrongdoers who need to repent, all hell breaks loose. I haven't heard the liars, thieves, atheists and adulterers kicking a stink against Folau.

Aidan says " he certainly was moral. It's what he believes". "Nor was it discriminatory; he wasn't treating anyone differently nor calling for anyone to be treated differently"

Well that is not true:believing in anything does not make it moral, And he was calling fro all those he was vilifying to go to hell,

coming to a library near you. I believe we have our Australian versions.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/500-mom-strong-group-leads-rally-against-drag-queen-story-hour?fbclid=IwAR2vFZssZem9iKrZ9D4YQrJVdmh2siMJpDE49BFUYLvZ8ouyhON4nLVPzR4

'“The Spokane Public Library South Hill has decided to host a ‘Drag Queen Story Hour’ on June 15th, at 2pm. This is misogyny; drag queens are very offensive to women. They are grotesque hypersexualized caricatures of women. They mock women and debase our womanhood and femininity. A drag queen is no different than a racist donning black face,” she continued.

yep these mums caring for there kids are real 'haters'.

Foxy, when morality is against you, you argue the letter of the law. When the law is against you, you argue morality.

Thank you Ozpen for your kind words.

LEGO,

I did not want to talk about morality regarding
the case of Folau. because I did not
want the discussion to tip over into the area of
vilification. Inevitably, it seems that this can't be
avoided.

The fact is, condemning gays (and others) to hell is
vilification.

Talking about morality? One of those attacking Rugby
Australia's code of conduct was Sydney's Anglican
archbishop Glenn Davies, who as David Marr points
out in his 27th June article for The Guardian, strongly
defended Folau's "right as a citizen to speak of what he
believes without threat to his employment."

This is the same archbishop who compelled 34 Anglican
headmasters and headmistresses last year to sign an open
letter demanding the laws continue to allow them to sack
gay teachers and expel gay students.

Marr suggests that there's one rule for religious schools
and another for the rest of society.

In other words, Folau should be free as a footballer to
vilify gays and others without losing his jobe but were
he coaching rugby at a Sydney Anglican school and tweeting
approval of gays it might see him shown the door.

If you are demanding rights for yourself which you
won't extend to others, that's not freedom. It's
privilege.

Marr tells us that we're now in the midst of this
pandemonium because Folau changed his mind.

For a $4 million contract he initially agreed to go easy
on denouncing, among other vices, the evils of
homosexuality. He traded his freedom of speech for money.

So, Marr asks why say yes in the first place and sign a
contract if that is such a profound violation of his
rights and his faith?

And why does he expect more millions from Rugby Australia
because he's copped the ordinary consequences now of
going back on his word?

According to Marr - it appears that Folau's target is
everything in this scenario.

If Folau were insisting on vilifying say Jews, Rich people,
women, the disabled, would anyone object to Rugby
Australia insisting he shut up about it?

Yes, lets talk about morality.

Foxy,

<<Rugby Australia terminated Folau's employment contract after a Tribunal determined his actions breached the organisation's code of conduct.>>

Again I ask, 'Have you seen the contract that forbids him from expressing his Christian faith in the public square?' Honestly, have you?

<<The offending behaviour was an Instagram post by Folau warning homosexuals (among others): "Hell Awaits You. Repent! Only Jesus Saves!">>

Why single out homosexuals when Folau mentioned many other sinners?

Would the LNP forbid its employees from promoting Christian values in public discussion or on Instagram? Which employer would write into a contract, 'You must not, when you are not on the job, promote your religion in public'?

I find it strange that Folau mentioned these sinners were going to hell unless they repented: Drunks, Homosexuals, Adulterers, Liars, Fornicators, Thieves, Atheists and Idolators. However, the homosexuals seem to be the loudest in objecting to Folau's values. Where are the liars? Why exclude others in this list of sinners?

Judgment is in the hands of the courts, and ultimately with God.

PeterBo,

<<believing in anything does not make it moral, And he was calling fro (sic) all those he was vilifying to go to hell,>>

No, Folau paraphrased God's warning in Scripture which states:

"Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were...." (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

This is not vilification of sinners/wrongdoers but a warning of eternal consequences of their continuing sins. They will not inherit God's kingdom, i.e. they will go to hell = Hades/Gehenna.

I find it outrageous that you have turned a warning into vilification.

OzSpen,

If judgement is with the courts and ultimately
with God than Folau doesn't stand a chance.
He'll lose on both counts. According to the law
and morality.

cont'd ...

The Jesus I know does not discriminate.
Men do. As the Anglican archbishop has
shown by his actions.

Foxy,

<<If judgement is with the courts and ultimately with God than Folau doesn't stand a chance. He'll lose on both counts. According to the law and morality.>>

That's a clear example of the fact you don't know Scripture and the warning God gives to unrepentant sinners. From your posts on OLO I note you refuse to examine many issues from God's perspective as declared in the Christian Scriptures.

<<The Jesus I know does not discriminate. Men do. As the Anglican archbishop has shown by his actions>>

The Jesus I know personally DOES discriminate. On Judgment Day, "All the people of the world will be gathered before him. Then he will separate everyone into two groups. It will be like a shepherd separating his sheep from his goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the king will say to the godly people on his right, ‘Come, my Father has great blessings for you. The kingdom he promised is now yours'.... Then the king will say to the evil people on his left, ‘Get away from me. God has already decided that you will be punished. Go into the fire that burns forever—the fire that was prepared for the devil and his angels'" (Matthew 25: 32-34, 41).

These Scriptures declare that both you and the Anglican Archbishop promote false teaching. There is clear discrimination here. Take a read of the story in Luke 16 of the rich man and Lazarus. Again, Jesus discriminates on the destiny of believers and unbelievers.

God's judgment on Izzy, the evangelical Christian, is on whether he was faithful to this Gospel call: "Tell everyone God’s message. Be ready at all times to do whatever is needed. Tell people what they need to do, tell them when they are doing wrong, and encourage them. Do this with great patience and careful teaching" (2 Timothy 4:2).

Folau is on God's side and judgment is in his favour as he was faithfully doing it as a rugby player, not as a New Testament scholar.

I really think you Christians are braindead morons sometimes sorry Ozspen.
Don't you realise that all you've done in supporting Israel Folau is to do the heavy lifting for your adversaries?

Because if Israel has a legitimate right to say what he said;
Then Muslims and Jews (under the 2st century religion of EQUALITY)
will also have a legitimate right to say their stuff.

And their stuff is far more hostile than yours:
Kill infidels and rule over Goyim.

You're against homosexuals, but you Christians just raised a hell of a lot of money for the right to bend over and pull your own butt-cheecks apart.
It's almost as intelligent as taking a shotgun and blowing one of your legs off just for fun.
Great Job.

Now watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dXD2H0m74g

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Warburg
"We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest."

25 Point Plan for World Domination

1. Use violence and terrorism rather than academic discussions.
2. Preach “Liberalism” to usurp political power.
3. Initiate class warfare.
4. Politicians must be cunning and deceptive – any moral code leaves a politician vulnerable.
5. Dismantle “existing forces of order and regulation.” Reconstruct all existing institutions.”
6. Remain invisible until the very moment when it has gained such strength that no cunning or force can undermine it.
7. Use Mob Psychology to control the masses. “Without absolute despotism one cannot rule efficiently.”
8. Advocate the use of alcoholic liquors, drugs, moral corruption and all forms of vice, used systematically by “agenteurs” to corrupt the youth.
9. Seize properties by any means to secure submission and sovereignty.
10. Foment wars and control the peace conferences so that neither of the combatants gains territory placing them further in debt and therefore into our power.
11. Choose candidates for public office who will be “servile and obedient to our commands, so they may be readily used as pawns in our game.”
12. Use the Press for propaganda to control all outlets of public information, while remaining in the shadows, clear of blame.
13. Make the masses believe they had been the prey of criminals. Then restore order to appear as the saviors.
14. Create financial panics. Use hunger to control to subjugate the masses.

15. Infiltrate Freemasonry to take advantage of the Grand Orient Lodges to cloak the true nature of their work in philanthropy. Spread their atheistic-materialistic ideology amongst the “Goyim” (gentiles).
16. When the hour strikes for our sovereign lord of the entire World to be crowned, their influence will banish everything that might stand in his way.
17. Use systematic deception, high-sounding phrases and popular slogans. “The opposite of what has been promised can always be done afterwards… That is of no consequence.”
18. A Reign of Terror is the most economical way to bring about speedy subjection.
19. Masquerade as political, financial and economic advisers to carry out our mandates with Diplomacy and without fear of exposing “the secret power behind national and international affairs.”
20. Ultimate world government is the goal. It will be necessary to establish huge monopolies, so even the largest fortunes of the Goyim will depend on us to such an extent that they will go to the bottom together with the credit of their governments on the day after the great political smash.”
21. Use economic warfare. Rob the “Goyim” of their landed properties and industries with a combination of high taxes and unfair competition.
22. “Make the ‘Goyim’ destroy each other so there will only be the proletariat left in the world, with a few millionaires devoted to our cause, and sufficient police and soldiers to protect our interest.”
23. Call it The New Order. Appoint a Dictator.
24. Fool, bemuse and corrupt the younger members of society by teaching them theories and principles we know to be false.
25 Twist national and international laws into a contradiction which first masks the law and afterwards hides it altogether. Substitute arbitration for law.”

Peter Bowden

23. Call it The New Order. Appoint a Dictator.

"Novus Ordo literally translated means 'new order', this is the proper term for the way Mass has been celebrated in the Roman Catholic Church since 1965.

What do you know about the 1958 Conclave of Cardinal Siri
http://novusordowatch.org/fbi-consultant-cardinal-siri-elected-pope-1958/

Also this, and have a question:

http://onepeterfive.com/400-years-ago-our-lady-sent-us-a-message-from-ecuador/

Do you think it's possible that people with inside knowledge of secret agendas but opposed it may have passed the knowledge on to others who then used the idea of a miracle 'seeing an apparition who foretells the future';
- As a legitimate cover to expose the secret inside knowledge that had come into their possession?

(I'm just throwing it out there)

And finally relating to your website on the topic of whistleblowing:

You HAVE to get the backstory on Assange, and the governments plan to place backdoors into the (so-called) 'secure' dropboxes of online mainsteam news organisations to funnel and access the whistleblowers before the news is leaked to the public.

Watch these:
FLASHBACK Aug 2018 Manning May Have Hacked For DNC Since 2005, Hacked NYC, London Wikileaks Office
http://youtu.be/qL2TYGXoFXU
April 19th, 2019 Was NATO Behind The Takedown Of Julian Assange?
http://youtu.be/3xwhb6zjziE
April 20th, 2019 Taking Down Trump And Assange With Carl Bildt's Chaos Computer Club
http://youtu.be/TnzXD8pzwQo
April 21st, 2019 Assange Takedown Leads Straight To Trump Takedown, All School Play
http://youtu.be/X2LWXM6R7FE

Morality is strongly tied to having a strongly founded sense of ethics and personally adhering to them. The problems come when one person's ethics differ from others and either he tries to force them on others or others try and force their ethics on him.

Folau's ethics are based on a fundamentalist Christian base, to which he appears to adhere, and other than stating his beliefs he has not tried to force them on others. (Foxy, quoting scripture cannot be classed as vilification)

The problem is exactly the reverse in that the ethics of the majority have shifted over a few of decades and far from the tolerance that the activists of the new order preach the high priests of the gender debate have their own inquisition and thought police to sumarily try and punish any deviation from the newthink.

Shadow Minister,

Israel Folau inserted the reference to homosexuals
in his Instagram post. It is vilification.
You can't preach bigotry and try to excuse it by saying
you read it in a book.

Armchair Critic,

<<I really think you Christians are braindead morons sometimes sorry Ozspen.>>

You did not express sorrow, AC.

You do not deal with the issues but instead attack me personally with an Ad Hominem (Abusive) logical fallacy. This is your way of deflecting attention away from the issues to say whatever you want in ridicule and not deal with the content of biblical Christianity.

It is fallacious reasoning.

Foxy,

As an atheist that supports gay rights, I don't approve of what Folau posts, but only the most oversensitive snowflake could inflate it to the status of vilification.

Considering that many that are for gay rights are openly anti Semitic bigots I hold little stock in their faux outrage.

OzSpen

usually Armchair is quite rational until he gets into his silly conspiracy theories about Israel (ie the nation not person). Then he gets totally irrational with all sorts of conspiracy theories quoted by various links. The left is very predictable and irrational on almost all topics like misgendering, race politics, hatred of borders etc etc. Armchair is different and harder to work out as he seems reasonably sensible on most things until it comes to the nation of Israel.

Shadow Minister,

<<Morality is strongly tied to having a strongly founded sense of ethics and personally adhering to them. The problems come when one person's ethics differ from others and either he tries to force them on others or others try and force their ethics on him.>>

You have summarised the problems that arise when relativism dominates ethics, i.e. all people do what is right in their own eyes. When that value system dominates society, we are moving towards chaos.

If a person chooses one value that I oppose, say, paedophilia, who am I to oppose when relativism reigns? I can't stop you from murdering or raping either as they are your values. They are the logical consequences of such a world view.

However, there is a better solution that many bloggers on OLO will reject.

The Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia begins: 'WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established', http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution/preamble.

Therefore, the Constitution of Australia calls upon 'the blessing of Almighty God' of Christianity and its foundation is in the Almighty God of Scripture and the universe. It is He who provided absolute ethics to govern a society: Exodus 20 (the 10 Commandments) and Jesus' commandments in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7).

How better off Australia would be if we followed those absolute commandments which include the negatives of the 10 commandments and the positives of the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:1-12).

"You did not express sorrow, AC."

And how do you know what I think and feel?
Have you been reading the bible so much you think you're Jesus himself now?

I am sorry.
Sorry that your so stupid that you don't see the bigger picture that you're doing the heavy lifting for your adversaries.

And also sorry that you people are selfish and only think of yourselves and don't consider the effect of what you're doing might have on others.

What if this leads to Muslims being also allowed to publicly spout their beliefs?

Way to go empowering the Muslims on a religious level.
You may as well give them all a free bag of meth.

It's at this point I'll be able to say that you've succeeded in placing every single Aussie citizen at risk.

And for what?

"If a person chooses one value that I oppose, say, paedophilia, who am I to oppose when relativism reigns?"

If you possess at least half a brain and a conscience then you should know it's wrong to have sex with children.

Were you not a child once?
Do you not know to treat others the way you'd like to be treated?

What does religion have to do with anything?

OzSpen

Trying to float a straw man that has murder and rape as part of his code of ethics is facile, as is the attempt to constrain them by the legal system. It is possible to be a complete bastard yet not break any laws.

The teachings of the Christian faith may have its flaws, but it is far better than most of the alternatives.

ALTRAV,

<<Until I receive absolute proof of all this religious posturing, I must go with what I know and not with what I am told. In fact QzSpen, I feel disappointed and conned that I am expected to believe in something without any proof.
Well, I don't scare easily and if God exists and he wants me to believe in him, he knows where 'I' am, I have no idea >>

I'll try one more time and leave our discussion if you don't consider this as evidence for God's existence. Take a look at the complex world we live in. God states He created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1) and science admits it had a start with a Big Bang.

What did this creation at the beginning provide. This is but one example: there is a gum tree at my back fence that is so large at its trunk that three people with hands joined together couldn't hug it.

How did it start? There is a progress in development from a flower to a seed that falls to the ground or is planted for seedlings. Those seedlings produce trees that flower and produce more seeds. Leaves fall to clog the gutters of my house. The bark peels as it grows. Here in creation we have wonderful order with the eucalyptus tree created by God.

Then I look to the enormity of the universe that works with such precision. This is not accidental stuff. It is due to the 'hand' of a great and creative Designer who created and continues to sustain the universe.

The design of the solar system should cause you to pause and wonder at the Creator's intelligence and creativity. See: http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/solar-system/our-solar-system/overview/

And I haven't examined the intricate functions of the human body. See: http://www.livescience.com/37009-human-body.html

All of this evidence (plus more) demonstrates God's existence (Romans 1:18-20); 'The heavens proclaim the glory of God. The skies display his craftsmanship' (Psalm 19:1); 'Thank you for making me so wonderfully complex! Your workmanship is marvelous—how well I know it' (Psalm 139:14).

Are your eyes open to it?

Armchair Critic,

<<If you possess at least half a brain and a conscience then you should know it's wrong to have sex with children. Were you not a child once? Do you not know to treat others the way you'd like to be treated?>>

I was demonstrating the logical consequences of the ethics of relativism. If I choose what is right for me and I'm the arbiter of right and wrong for me, I must allow all of the people in the universe to pursue the value system that is right for them.

I gave paedophilia as one example of a relativist who chooses to have sex with children. If anyone supports relativism he/she has no grounds for opposing gross wrongs (based on a biblical view of ethics).

I have a full brain and am thinking logically about the consequences of an anything goes morality. You don't seem to get it.