Same old same old. Gets us nowhere.

academics for years have been teaching the arrival of British resulting in 'genocide'. Of course it is complete nonsense nonetheless they are happy to stir ignorant activist to hatred. Amazing how often Issy comes up. Wasn't to many years ago that our Indigenous boxing champion tweetting that homosexuals should be put to death. Not all that much outrage. As shown in America for the leftist academics its all about sides. They know that far more hate and violence is committed by the likes of antifa and other marxist thugs but instead pick up on so called hateful comments from conservatives. The swamp needs draining.

The racists keep tearing at the scabs of racism & the criminals make insidious use of PC under the guise of Democracy/Socialism !
If it weren't for those deranged, these subjects would not be raised !

How can we guard against harmful or hateful speech when freedom of speech is highly cherished in democratic societies?

- Do what our parents did and teach your kids this:
'Sticks and stones may break my bones but names can never hurt me.'

"We do not have to think too hard to realise that calling out 'fire' in a crowded theatre cannot be accepted on the basis of freedom of speech."

I really hate people telling me what to do, now I instantly feel like your trying to sell me something.

We do we not have to think too hard about it?
Why not? And who's we?
Maybe YOU want us to not think too hard about it.

Lets think about this seriously.
You wouldn't have a problem with someone calling 'fire' in a crowded theatre if there was an actual fire would you?
So really the argument you used is really an argument against lying, but you've hijacked it to argue that free speech has its limits.

Now you gave us definitions of 'Hate Speech' and 'Free speech', but it may also be helpful to look at the definition of disciminate.

discriminate

1.
recognize a distinction; differentiate.
"babies can discriminate between different facial expressions"
More
separate, tell apart;
separate the sheep from the goats, separate the wheat from the chaff
"at birth, a baby cannot discriminate between foreground and background in its visual field"
perceive or constitute the difference in or between.
"features that discriminate this species from other gastropods"
2.
make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age.
"existing employment policies discriminate against women"

[Cont.]
Now what if the 18 - 22 year old in your example said this.

"I don't like asians.
They don't look like me, they eat different food and they're not really from Australia they're from Asian countries."

- Has this 18 - 22 year old not merely recognised a distinction between oneself and others?
Not different than seperating sheep from goats?
On a basis on merit?

Could his statement NOT fair and accurate or NOT be considered an extension of his true beliefs?
- Covered under an exemption in Section 18D Clause C?

(c) in making or publishing:

(i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or

(ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment.

Finally lets talk about harm.
"...the only legitimate ground to interfere with our liberty and coerce us is to prevent harm."

Lets think about this seriously.
'Harm' is a bit of an ambiguous word, and it can be a blanket statement and misused.

Because 'harm' itself is actually essential to the process.
Lets say you have a young kid that like to punch other kids.
You can tell him to stop doing it and treat others nicely but may not stop because there hasn't been any real consequences.
Let's say you smack that kid, or another bigger kid finally punches him.

Only then, from that child himself being harmed can he begin to learn that actions have consequences;
And that it's important to treat others the way you'd like to be treated.

You don't learn that 'fire' (such as in a crowded theatre) is harmful
Unless you've already been HARMED (burned) by it, do you not?
'Harm' therefore is essential to the process of learning.

[Cont.]
I myself tend to think or word JS Mills harm principle a little bit differently.
I say 'Everybody has the right to live however they choose so long as it doesnt affect others in an adverse manner.'
In this I'm trying to highlight the bigger picture.

Lets say we're walking along together and you trip (because you're not watching where you're going)
And I laugh and make fun of your mishap as blood streams down your knee.
You may feel as though my response was impolite but was my making fun of you actually harmful?
Because in truth what was harmful was you tripping over;
And my response (whilst not nice) might also be considered a non-violent form of correction.
That me humiliating you serves a bigger purpose to make you learn to pay attention where you walk in future.
- So that you don't hurt yourself again.

Do animals in the animal kingdom not gently bite or nip their young to correct bad behaviour?
For the bigger picture purpose of not been killed and eaten by another predator?
'Harm' is essential.

It always, absolutely always, comes down to the same issue. Who decides what is and isn't hate speech?

When hate speech is defined as 'something I don't want to hear' and then this becomes the means to stop such speech, free society is over.

At one time conventional wisdom/men of Letters apparently believed in a flat world?

Others believed even more strongly that planet earth was a little more than six thousand years old, at the centre of a universe that revolved around us. That we all of us came from a single couple as descendants, that the world was flooded nearly wiping out all mankind, beast and crawling insect.

That from this tiny-tiny, two by two, gene pool. All that then survived became the ancestral stock from which all else sprang.

Others believed that there was a great exodus from Egypt by the 'CHOSEN PEOPLE" Led by the prophet Moses, to the promised land, given to them by the hand of God.

Yet in spite of the lack of any credible evidence, these myths/legends have been the basis for several religious beliefs. A cohort who believe to a generic man, they're divinely inspired to force-fed these beliefs.

And protected by alleged freedom of religion.

While it's true the freedom of speech is protected as is freedom of worship. It can't be used as a tool to persecute or preach condemnation on all disbelievers.

Or label natural difference and sexual bias as sinful!

Imagine we still believed that left-handed people chose to be left-handed by choice, continued age-old, cruel medieval punishment to try change nature.

If the freedom of speech is sacrosanct so's the truth, but more so!

If what you believe, cannot be proven! But, in fact, the only credible evidence available says otherwise. You don't have the freedom or right to spread your, learned lies! Or medieval bigotry.

Stone age bigotry allows some folk/control freaks, to believe they've a right to exert control over a woman's body, decide that the medical termination she wants to proceed with, is not her right!

That they, protected by freedom of religious expression, has rights to harras/harangue folk who just don't share their learned beliefs, nor their, "I KNOW THE MIND OF GOD" (like Folau?) pedantic absolutism!

I say. They have no such rights. That INDIVIDUAL freedom of worship is just that! No more!
Alan B.

had a bit of coffee today Armchair?

Harm?

If someone is driven to suicide by bullying or the hate speech of others, dressed up as freedom of religious expression! Then there is real harm. An outcome! A result! A consequence, and whether the bully or the religiously inspired persecutor likes it or denies it, a personal responsibility for that harm/hanging (price to pay at the end of the day) belongs to them!

It's all well and good to rant on about sticks and stones.

But factually bullies do far more harm than they know or care about!

And the better men among us must call it out and every time!

Otherwise, the supremacists, Nazis, Homophobes and other trash will continue with their persecution dressed up as freedom of speech/religious freedom! When no such freedom actually exists! And the reason these same flawed individuals, wants 18C abolished!

And a right bestowed to discriminate and persecute, dressed up as freedom of religious expression!

Alan B.

Hi O'Tossers

I dunno what the problem is:

The Nazis expressed Hitler given freedom of speech against Jews.

So Izzy can invoke Christianity in his freedom of speech against Gays.

Nailed it in one Pete!
Cheers, Alan B.

A life lived unexamined is not worth living. So also a belief system inculcated from birth and never ever questioned.

And some of those literal beliefs include a man surviving days and weeks in the belly of a whale. Even though the digestive juices would have left little more than a skeleton. that some trumpet player blew so loudly and with such decibel force he destroyed a defensive wall.

Another than two young men walked in and out of a fiery furnace unharmed. That a man walked on water and fed a multitude from a single basket of bread and fish.

That we descended from just two people and that incest is sinful!

Now, I don't go round telling folk that they need to see a shrink for believing such myth and fable nor do I admonish them for their simple childlike belief! ( Anyone who believes they need to see a psychiatrist, ought to have their head examined)

It's their right to worship and believe how they choose. But none to compel me to believe as they do through, control freak, threats of eternal damnation.

Nor does any of the aforementioned posses a right to condemn, persecute or discriminate on the grounds of difference, as Pete has so adroitly pointed out.

The homophobes commenting here, need to take a good long hard look at themselves, get their own life and house in order and just allow others the freedom to do the same! Too easy!
Alan B.

Rivta Witenburg, and the rest of the loony Left, have a real problem. The Left side of politics once championed the rights of the working and disadvantaged classes, and championed "progressive" political issues, of which free speech was uppermost. Anyone who advocated censorship of any kind was classed as a Conservative or a Reactionary.

But the very numerous working class is turning away from modern Leftist ideals, so the Left needs somebody else to represent. They have chosen as a substitute, every minority group that you can point a stick at. Unfortunately, the behaviour of many of these minority groups that the Left champions, leaves a lot to be desired, and this has resulted in valid criticism of these groups. So the Left needs to shut down debate on their favoured minority groups by making their behaviour beyond criticism. This is especially so in the case of Muslims, who go absolutely, murderously, nuts if you criticise their religion. Shooting cartoonists gives multiculturalism a bad name.

So what Rivta proposes, is that school students must be taught a contradiction. That is, that free speech, and any opinion which criticises the Left's favoured minorities, are two different things. The Left can say what they like, because that is free speech. The Right only talks in "hate speech", so they can shut up, or else. Making people believe absolute contradictory BS has been around for donkey's years, just look at religion. Talking snakes, virgin births, the universe created in 6 days, and people rising from the dead. This art is called "conditioning" by psychologists, and "brainwashing" by everybody else.

What Rivta has done is write a very nice and apparently reasoned argument which explains why brainwashing kids on behalf of Left wing causes is a virtue. The Inquisition, Pol Pot, Hitler, and Stalin, would applaud her logic.

The right of a free people in a democracy to speak or publish on any political or social issue is a moral absolute, Rivta. If you don't believe in free speech, Rivta, then you have become the very thing you once fought against in your youth

Al

Incest meaning:
the crime of having sexual intercourse with a parent, child, sibling, or grandchild.

Show me anybody who subscribes to the theory that incest is acceptable.

Are you now dodging the subject most deserving of respect to you, that of homosexuality, often termed "sodomy"

Sodomy meaning:
anal intercourse.

Hope you read your free copy of the well researched book on the perils of homosexuality, I attempted to lead you towards recently.
Here it is again in case you missed it...

Link:

https://www.amazon.com/Health-Hazards-Homosexuality-Psychological-Research/dp/1539983811

Selection from Amazon profile of the book…

*…There is an astoundingly disproportionate incidence of medical and psychological pathologies among homosexual men, lesbians, and bisexuals. Yet the general public knows little about the baneful nature of homosexuality and its associated addictions and behaviours that invite disease…*

And from a reviewer (Dr).

*...Admittedly, this 500 page tome with 98 pages of references in the endnotes, is a challenge to read. It is a challenge on more than one level, in that it presents facts about homosexuality to which the very people who need them won't listen...*

Dan

Al

PS

it would be much less boring if you toned down your blistering attacks on people holding religious views on immorality issues.

Dan

Thanks Alan B.

I appreciate it.

Yes Izzy's biblical fundamentalism has more holes than a priest's orgy in a choirboys' dormitory.

The Bible is so full of:

- Miracles that could impress the pre-science ignorant who couldn't read in English let alone the firewall against questioning of Vatican Latin

- "Putting To Death" for a host of things - not only homosexualality but "Disobeying your parents" etc, etc http://www.thedailybeast.com/all-the-things-the-bible-wants-to-execute-you-for

And the Bible accepted SLAVERY (including in the New Testament) eg. selling 13 year olds quietly for sex Handmaidan Style.

OLO's rightwing fundamentalists should checkout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery

Just to lighten things up a bit.

A Russian and an American were discussing freedom
of speech. The American told the Russian:

"Here in Washington DC, we can come out and say that
Donald Trump is not fit to be President of the United
States. What can you say to that?"

The Russian smiled, thought for a moment and replied:

"In Moscow, we can also say that Donald Trump is not
fit to be President of the United States!"

There you have it. Freedom of speech depends on how its
presented.

If we had not listened to the academic fools that created such a snowflake generation we would not have so many offended people. To many people and leech careers have depended upon making people offende by 'hate' speach. On one hand you have the biggest bigots and haters like antifa carrying on like animals and claiming to protect people from hurtful hateful words.

We have unborn babies now called parasites by those wanting to justify murder, homosexuality called alternative lifestyle, and those who don't nod their heads to the gw scam called deniers. I think the left have a mortgage om hatred, bigotry and violence and yet a decent man quoting the bible loses his job and career.

I don't think I can agree with most of what ALAN B. said in his comments, but I think these points have merit.

"While it's true the freedom of speech is protected as is freedom of worship.
It can't be used as a tool to persecute or preach condemnation on all disbelievers."

"If what you believe, cannot be proven!"
"You don't have the freedom or right to spread your, learned lies! Or medieval bigotry."

That said, I'm no supporter of the gay agenda.
I could care less what people do in their bedrooms but I don't like the indoctrination of kids, the unfair persecution of others and the normalisation of homosexuality.

Oh and btw, as a male I don't think I'm abnormal because I'm not keen on having another man shove his penis up my date vigorously;
- I think those that do are the ones who are abnormal -

Normally, the male plug is made to go in the female socket.

It's not the paradoxical nature of freedom of speech. Just the paradoxical nature of standing against hatred. But making it a rule "you can not hate." You allow a punishment for those that do, thus breaking the rule yourself. To fight the hatered harder the more you will cross the line and do the things you thought you were fighting against.

Freedom of speech is a stand alone concept that is not a paradox in itself. That only comes from trying to enforce a rule against hatred. To balance the paradox of such rules that have been used in the past to curb racism and sexism to a degree, consider how to do this: Love your enemy. If a person can do this, then they can stand against what they think is wrong, without committing something just as bad or worse while doing so,

It's almost like deja vu.
I wonder if anyone has looked at this 'free speech, hate speech' thing when it involves, specifically, religion.
You do all realise religion is a fantasy, a fable, a play on words, a farce, and so on.
I think you get my drift.
There are comments after comments, throwing hints at you all, and yet you have all missed them.
The hints are telling you that religion is not based on anything 'real' or 'tangible'.
Recap and you will see that, a person walking on water, turning a singular pieces of food into a banquet, dies and comes back to life, and the list goes on.
I've got news for you all, it's all the makings of a or several fertile imaginations, with a very big agenda.
I will believe in all these 'miracles? and fantasies, if/when God himself either summons me or makes himself known to me and tells me himself.
Until then people, REALLY?
I would like just one pragmatic, objective, mature, person to tell me they really and truly believe in these stories, and make no mistake, these ARE STORIES as told by Mathew, John, Luke, and only God knows who else.
Pun intended.
To make my case even more solid, don't forget, the original 'scripts' were written in another time (over 2000 years ago) language and place, with different beliefs than today, and has been re-written and interpreted a quadrillion times by as many different people with completely, sometimes, varying beliefs and interpretations of the original messages the scripts actually meant to convey to the reader.
I don't want to discriminate, so to clarify, I mean ALL religions, which are actually 'cults'.
700 later we get another con-man, only this one pushes the boundaries of hate, and other vial teachings to a new low, and so another generation of gullible and scared people are conned into being followers and believers.
So anyone remotely intelligent, mature, reasonably informed with an objective view on life and all it's foibles, please treat this topic with the level of respect and comments it deserves.
NONE!

The good news about freedom of speech is that you don't get fired, by speaking up about your convictions and beliefs. Even if you get fired up talking about it all, so long as you don't actually cause harm to anyone a person is free to speak.

Now I get a lot of you don't get things from a religious perspective, and how would you unless someone from a specific religion explained themselves. Don't water it down to be about all religions if it's a specific religion in conversation. A Christian can better explain things from a Christian perspective then they can from a Hindu perspective, or a Buddhist viewpoint. The same is true about Hindus and Buddhists, they're far from being good to explain or understand the things that are the things of any other religion that they aren't part of. Religions aren't the same as other religions so it's worth while to discern which religion your talking about instead of talking about all religions as if they are the same. Atheists and agnostics that don't understand this basic concept to differentiate between religions are ill informed to explain the concepts in any of those religions they refuse to differentiate between.

That brings back to the one sentence said before. Love your enemy. After all freedom of speech is quite a problem when it means hearing things you don't agree with and don't want to hear. Creates quite a conflict that can instill and instigate all kinds of violence and vandalism. The conflict of it all is encouragement enough to go overboard, regardless if is about religion, politics, business, or even a fight over two football fans who argue over different teams.

To resolve the paradox of standing up to hateful speech without being hateful yourself a simple practical approach is worth while. Love your enemy. Love the person you are against. Do this and no one's rights will be harmed while you still are able to take a stand on whatever is the stand your taking.

N_N.S, 'Love your enemy'?
Really?
No way mate, can't do that, nor should I.
If a situation has occurred where-by you have been left in such a position of hatred for someone, I would imagine the appropriate action thereafter will not be one of forgiveness, nor should it be even considered, unless the situation was out of his control, well then clearly, we are not dealing with the same circumstances that would lead to 'hate', quite the contrary.
Irrespective of what the 'snowflakes' say, they must not be listened to, they have emotional and therefore mental issues, so be true to the conversation and true to yourself and 'always' say what you mean and mean what you say.
If one is looking for a good example of freedom of speech, hate speech is a perfect one!
The test for me is, does someone have the right to say what they want?
The answer is a resounding YES, if for no other reason you cannot stop them from saying freely what they have the right to say.
And by that reasoning it must include any and all comments, hateful or otherwise!
To do otherwise will be, CENSORSHIP!

ALTRAV,

You say it can't be done? Whether it should be done or not is a separate issue, and to those who support anti-hate laws I hope they consider the possible outlook carefully. But can it be done? Very much so.

Look at the legal system and the justice system. Much of the point of it is to do two things. 1) Be a deterrent to crime. And 2) To restrain itself enough to be fair in it's judgements and punishments. The point of being fair to a criminal is one that marks several good qualities. It shows a respect for people on the basis of being human, it stifles the corruption to harm, imprison, or kill anyone a government leader has an issue with. And it also shows a kindness of fairness to those caught in harming the people. Criminal rights is the best example of love your enemy, because who can be more your enemy then the guy who murders, steals, and vandalizes. If love your enemy can be done for a criminal to a small extent, then it can be done for anyone else.

(Continued)

(Continued)

A second example is in the business world in the long fought battle against sexism and sexual abuse in the work place. After a long battle already fought most places I see have as part of their business codes and rules a section on censoring verbal sexual abuse. The rules go further if the person does more then just talk in a degrading way to the other sex, or talk in a sexual way to an employee or coworker. Nonetheless it still takes the fight to censoring people while at the workplace. However if anyone shows they are sexist in one way or another (and just doesn't break any of the rules made), then that person can be considered the enemy to the women they work with. Love your enemy in this sense would still mean to show fairness and professionalism to the coworker, even if they are someone the woman doesn't want to be around. Going further then that doesn't mean that they forgive the guy for what he does, but might include helping him out if he's suffering a hard time. (For example, a death in the family, an accident that breaks an arm or leg, or just common struggles of being a parent if he is one).

Fairness across the board doesn't mean forgiveness. Nor does kindness in a person's struggle mean forgiveness of their wrongs. But they are an example of loving your enemy enough to be fair to them and not wish them any harm.

N_N.S, you cannot/must not legislate or dictate to people, if they feel so inclined to do/say something.
If someone feels the need to say something to someone, it is no ones business, especially for govt's to comment, let alone legislate to stop him from saying what he feels like saying.
If you can't see the huge flaw in that, I can't help you, you are missing a fundamental part of what it means to be 'truly' free.
We live in a democracy, which makes laws about a lot of things involving social expectations, but changing a persons DNA is not one of them.
We must keep in mind that if we refer to even something like the ten commandments, forget they are from a religious source for a moment and think of them as a set of rules some guy once produced as a guide for humankind to live by.
Nowhere does it say engage in hate speech.
The closest reference is, 'love thy neighbour'.
Even though one is tempted to tie the two in together, you can't as they both differ from each other.
You see emotions are intangible and manifest themselves naturally.
Each of us varies in our emotions and how we react in similar scenarios, so we cannot legislate or create a 'one size fits all', rule or laws.
We have laws which are meant to stop us from raping women, how's that going?
Women are still getting raped!
If we force people to not hate people, we are only forcing some other reaction from them, because they will not turn the other cheek if they cannot feel that way.

ALTRAV

I fully agree with you that it should not be the governments business to control what people say. However it seems like the world is going in the direction of what can and can't be said. Regardless if it's mandated by the government or not, businesses media and social media all have their versions of a witch hunts passed on what a person says. (And each has a different magnitude for how strong a witch hunt and punishments can be). The best we can do is either fight it all together and put legislative restrictions on what people can do as a reaction to what's said, (for government, business and personal reactions); such as legislative measures to say a company can go this far in disciplinary actions for one action and not as much for another action. However, that kind of legislative measure defeats the purpose of freedom just as much as PC restriction on what can and can't be said defeats what it means to be free.

On the other hand I do think there are some good rules to apply for people on what to say or do, that should not be enforced by the government, by companies, or by large mobs. Some rules are there that have a good justification for them, but none of them should be enforceable and punishable (aside from a parent saying to their kids they can or can't say something in their house).

.

Dear Rivka (the author),

.

Israel Folau's outburst reminds me of that phrase in William Penn's (the founder of Pennsylvania) book « Some fruits of solitude », 1693:

« If thou hast not conquer'd thy self in that which is thy own particular Weakness, thou hast no Title to Virtue, tho' thou art free of other Men's. For a Covetous Man to inveigh against Prodigality, an Atheist against Idolatry, a Tyrant against Rebellion, or a Lyer against Forgery, and a Drunkard against Intemperance, is for the Pot to call the Kettle black. »

The divine triumvirate – God the father, his only son Jesus of Nazareth and that spooky character known as Holy Ghost, who is purported to have inseminated (surreptitiously) a young married lady whose husband had not yet consumated their maariage – is an eclusively all-male divinity that, surprisingly, does not appear to be at all abhorrent to Israel Folau. He seems to think it's perfecly normal.

Loving and worshiping an exclusively all-male divinity is, apparently, not a problem for him. Strange, isn't it ? Particularly with a character like the spooky Holy Ghost hovering around. As that slippery shyster has already been up to some hanky-panky in the past, you never quite know what he might get up to.

But, when it's all said and done, perhaps our rugby player friend realizes it's all just a question of belief after all – nothing to do with reality.

Bit of a paradox, though, as you say.

.

Left wing definitions.

"Freedom of speech.".....anything a left wing person says or writes about immigration, multiculturalism, and refugees.

"Hate speech".....anything a right wing person says or writes about immigration, multiculturalism, and refugees.

Banjo, by your comments, you seem to have a problem with men.
I am at pains to understand why you believe this.
Do you have anything to clarify your stance.
I am not criticizing, I am merely curious and hopefully stand to learn something I did not previously consider.

.

Dear ALTRAV,

.

You advise :

« … you seem to have a problem with men »

That's an interesting comment, Altrav, but I don't think it's true as a general rule. I'm a pretty easy-going sort of a fellow. I usually try to get along with most people whatever their sexual orientation. Same goes for politics, ideologies, religions, etc. – as long as nobody tries to force their beliefs and convictions on me. Naturally, I don't reject them but try to understand them.

However, understanding is not necessarily agreeing and adopting.

I'm a man and my five lifetime friends are all men too. I have been very happily married for the past 51 years with my one and only wife and we have 2 grown-up children and 3 grandchildren.
.

You add :

« I am at pains to understand why you believe this »

I presume you are referring to what I wrote in my post to Rivka Witenberg, the author of the article we are discussing on this thread.

In that post, I was not expressing my « beliefs », Altrav. I was referring to the belief of Israel Folau in the Christian doctrine of the Trinity (God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost) – a triumvirate of all-male characters.

It seems paradoxical to me that Izzy should love and worship so fervently an exclusively all-male divinity and, at the same time, harrass and menace not only people who indulge in same-sex relationships (as he does, himself, because of his religious beliefs), but, also, people who are fornicators like the Holy Ghost, i.e., people who have sexual intercourse with someone they are not married to.

Perhaps Izzy should envisage a change of religion. I think there are still a number of religions around that do not have same-sex and fornicating divinities like Christianity. He might be able to find one that keeps him out of trouble and makes him feel more comfortable – so that he can get on with doing what he knows how to do best – rugby.

.

.

Dear ALTRAV,

.

The founders, developers and promoters of the Christian religion have tied-themselves-up in knots with their doctrine of the Trinity as justification for considering Jesus of Nazareth as the authentic son of their monotheistic god.

As I explained in my previous post, they now find themselves in contradiction with the message of Saul of Tarsus' in Corinthians 6:9-10, that was paraphrased by Izzy in a graphic he posted on Instagram on April 10, 2019, as follows :

« WARNING: Drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists, idolaters, Hell awaits you. Repent! Only Jesus saves ».

An obvious (but unlikely) alternative to the suggestion I made in my previous post (that Izzy should, perhaps, envisage a change of religion to one that does not have same-sex and fornicating divinities like Christianity), would be for Christian theologians to try to find a justification (for their belief in Jesus as the son of God) that is more compatible with the rest of the narrative of the bible, than the doctrine of the Trinity – at least, in its present form.

Of cource, the problem with that solution is that the bible narrative, itself, may be considered just as offensive by some people as Izzy's paraphrased version of paragraphs 9 and 10 of chapter 6 of Saul's first letter to the Corinthians. It is difficult to imagine that any court of justice in a modern, democratic society could find Izzy's version, posted on Instagram, more offensive than the original text published in the bible and distributed to millions of people throughout the world ever since Gutenberg invented the printing press in the 15th century.

If Izzy Folau's action is judged offensive, then the action of the publishers and distributers of the bible should also be judged offensive.

.