In spite of having a property portfolio of nearly $6m Folau, the risk of a court case can run into $ms and while Folau is prepared to take on RA on his own, this case is more than just about Folau as it sets a precedent on whether an employer has the right to censor the religious views of an employer.

To this end Folau has started a GoFundMe appeal to build a war chest to take on Rugby Australia in the courts. As of Monday morning 23/6/2019 after only a week the account is at roughly $750 000 with nearly 10 000 donations garnering roughly $100 000 per day. By comparison a counter fund to oppose Folau's legal challenge has raised less than $8000 in 3 days.

I believe Rugby Australia's hopes that this issue would dissappear are fading rapidly.

I heard that idiot Beattie, [rugby league], saying the other day that Folau was taking on the game of rugby.

This is of course as stupid as is usual for Beattie. Folau is taking on the very stupid & dictatorial administration of Rugby, not the game. From their behaviour, as with James Cook Uni, the sooner this management is shown the door, the better the game will be.

The figure raised shows the level of support for Folau, and how freedom of speech is valued by 'quiet Australians'. I note that the ferals have started on the man's wife now. Her organisation seems to be standing by her, though, unlike the boof-headed rugby bogans.

Beattie? There's nothing sadder or sillier than a faded ex-politician.

Just imagine what good a Christian could do with $750,000. He could follow Jesus's instruction: sell what you have and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Much more Christian than threatening people with hell

been thinking of making a donation but not sure how I feel about it. Be good if a few more Christian rugby players had the courage to stand up to the bullies like rugby Australia who claim they promote inclusivism except of course for Christians.

Go Fund Me has just removed Israel’s account, which brings intolerance of personal beliefs to a new level.

Dear runner,

Don't bother mate, the Gofundme page has been taken down due to not ocnforming with its guidelines and the money will be refunded.

Looks like Falou's disdain for guidelines has seen him come a cropper again.

Now we can sit back and watch you all bleat on about how a bloke worth many millions of dollars is being denied natural justice and how he is a victim.

Come on fellas, get some perspective. I personally hope it goes to court because I see an issue about the corporatisation of our sporting codes but Falou can well afford it.

Dear Big Nana,

No it doesn't.

The terms of service are pretty clear;

"GoFundMe’s terms of service say it can take down funds that are “for the legal defence of alleged crimes associated with hate, violence, harassment, bullying, discrimination, terrorism or intolerance of any kind relating to race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, sex, gender or gender identity or serious disabilities or diseases”."

What is your beef with that?

So, what crime did Israel commit?

If quoting from the Bible has become a crime then the courts had better prepare for a huge influx of cases.

It is getting overlooked that this is not just about religion.
If the action of the ARU is upheld it will set a precedent that any
employer can dismiss an employee if in his own time he advocates any
movement, organisation policy or political party that his employer opposes.
Tax concessions come to mind. Global Warming is another.

"Much more Christian than threatening people with hell".

Only non-Christians object to Folou's somewhat dubious claim that homos will go to Hell. So, they have no need to fear a Hell that doesn't exist, for them. The only Bible passage that I can recall off hand actually offers death for then 'abomination' of 'laying with another of the same sex'. No mucking about there!

It appears that Folau's appeal breaks some rules of Go Fund Me. Perhaps that's why it's been taken off? Highly believable - NOT!

I love the ignorance and arrogance of atheists and Christophobes who think that 2,000 years of faith and thinking should be thrown out because we are living in the 21st. Century. Particularly as the same people accept that the teaching of Allah can never be changed.

I'm not a Bible basher, or even a good Christian, but the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Bible are more important now than they ever were. The fact that Christianity has been rejected, sneered at and reviled is the only reason for the mess that Western society is in today.

Steele,

I'm not sure that Israel Folau hates anybody in particular, simply that he has, in accordance with his holy book, observed that certain people - because of their behaviour - will be going to hell unless they quit it - that's simply the word of his God. Not being a believer in hell or God, this sort of goes over my head, although I am hurt somewhat by his characterisation of alcoholics alongside homosexuals.

So ...... this is directed only at any believers who are homosexual, alcoholics, adulterers, thieves, liars, etc. ? The rest of us are sympathetic observers ?

So ...... where is the hate ? If there WAS a hell, yes, I presume as an alcoholic, that's probably where I would end up. But so far, so good - God's been kind.

Ah, I see - any opinion which differs from yours is 'hate' ? Have I got that right ?

Cheers,

Joe

Best outcome that site prides itself in supporting same sex and it seems wrong that he used it
Always think he had every right to his views
But too it is a far different world than the one the *invading missionaries * who brought religion to his people lived in

'Just imagine what good a Christian could do with $750,000.'

Yeah might have a point Cossomby bit a good Christian would also not want people going to hell thus would warn all liars, drunks, homosexuals to turn from their sin and receive forgiveness from the Only One who is qualified to forgive.

One thing Folau has in common with all other footballers: he is a meathead!

Mr Opinions idea

'One thing Folau has in common with all other footballers: he is a meathead!'

Bible states
' The fool has said in his heart, There is no God!' Ps 14:1

opinions are just that. Truth will never change.

Genesis 17:11 - And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin .........

and so you shall go forth in this world as a meathead and be a footballer.

This Mr. Opinion needs to be weaned of the vinegar tit he is on.

There is an innate nastiness in people who carry on like 17th Century witch hunters when it comes to Folou. Most of the people who are 'drunks' and 'fornicators' and, probably, many of the homosexuals have, by now, laughed the whole thing off, and put Folau down has a nutter. After all, if they reckon he is off his trolley, and don't believe what he says, why would they care? And they don't.

But this is not the case with the time travellers from Salem, Massachusetts: the media, the Greens, many of the Laborites and, in particular, the Left gutter press and ABC, who still want him to burn. They have even started on his wife, cowardly bastards that they are. Add the CEO of Qantas to that list.

What these witch-hunters might want to think about is that homosexuality is not universally accepted. Forty percent of voters were against SSM, for instance; and of the other 60%, how many would die in a ditch for homosexuals. Laws cannot control thoughts; laws can only punish after an event.

Just saying.

'Don't bother mate, the Gofundme page has been taken down due to not ocnforming with its guidelines and the money will be refunded.'

thanks for the advice Steelie. gofundme allowed egg boy, Christine Blassey Ford and Sarah Hanson Young to use their services. Seems like you need to be a liar or devious or something to use this forum.

Folau is the sort of person who goes around telling people there's a place in the world called Hell and I get criticised for calling him a meathead! And in extremely poor English I must say.

ttbn while the man is not harming anyone with his views you maybe
Can you please, give some considered thought to YOUR CONSTANT targeting of new posters?
You DO NOT OWN this place we are all guests
While it may be beyond your understanding the more who post here, no matter their views, the better the place works
Mr Opinion as a very ex footballer,any time you wish, I will undertake and IQ test with you
And do so with some confidence, you mate can and have, done much better

'The Daily Telegraph', described by one social commentator as "Tory but working class", has decided that Folau's views on homosexuality are not those of the 'silent majority'. What a clever little rag it is. Most of us can't tell anything from silence. Folau, the Telegraph says, is "out of step with the majority of Australians"; and, it also announces that Folau's views have nothing to do with "religious freedom".

How about common old freedom of speech for all, then?

Folau is entitled to regard homosexuality as a sin; and no, that does not make him 'homophobic'.
Folau did not compare homosexuals with drunks and fornicators, as the Telegraph claimed.
And the issue is not really about contract law, another Telegraph claim.

And, by the way, there is reputedly (the not always reliable media, again) that crowdfunding cannot be used for issues which are 'discriminatory'. So, wonder what happens the $750k donated? And, in the future, we must watch everyone who does ask for many to check whether they are discriminating against anyone else.

Yes it has been taken down but the subject continues
Why was it let get a start, it clearly breached the sites rules
What was that about? the claim not all money raised was to be used in legal bills
Go fund me donors in fact donating ten percent in tithes? maybe
Israel had his dad pushing him, one day he may regret not giving some ground
The Pulpit seems a better place to express such views, not on his page viewed by so many fans of his and the game
He has rights but too duties, as time passes it is clear it is not all one sided

Mr. Opinion,

Accidentally leaving an 'f' of off does not constitute "extremely poor English". It certainly doesn't compare with your ignorant "meathead" remark. Small minds always resort to name calling. What's next. Hitler? Nazi? Racist? They all get slung around here by losers.

Belly,

No. I do not own OLO. Neither do you, so kindly pull in your head. (I hope Mr. Opinion notices that I didn't end with a preposition). You are not the patron saint of new posters.

Why do you want to take an IQ test? You would need to learn how to read and write properly first. I wonder what Mr. Opinion thinks of your English?

Seeing you have decided to take an unprovoked swing at me, did you not tell us in the past that you didn't even finish primary school; that you were a roadworker? Now, I don't judge people by their educational standards - very low in your case- but I think that you are skating on very thin ice when you (not just today) cast aspersions on the intelligence and IQ of others.

There is no point to haranguing me, unless you are hoping to provoke me into saying something that you could run, bawling, to Graham about as you have done once. Sorry to disappoint you. I really can't be bothered.

Mr Opinion,

'Meathead' was the name my foreman gave me in my first factory job.
"Hey Meathead! effin get over here!!"
And I'd be thinking 'Oh crap, what've I done now...'

Anyway as for this thread topic and everyone else, I told them all before...
- This has MORE to do with Alan Joyce than it ever had to do with Israel Folau -

Wow, it really feels like its become a constitutional crisis

Incidently, Go Fund Me, an American company, has made a decision on discrimination in Australia. Thats right, a foreign company is making political decisions in our country. Not only is Qantas up to it's eyeballs in trying ruin Folau, a foreign company has also blatantly crossed the line.

Belly, sorry but the Go Fund Me page did not breach guidelines. The guidelines clearly state that funding cannot be used in defence of a crime connected with discrimination, etc.
Izzy did not commit any crime so according to the guidelines it should still be up.
And Go Fund Me has allowed a page to raise money to build a mosque and I guarantee you would hear far worse denigration of gays within that mosque than anything Izzy has said.
And why are people not up in arms in defence of drunks, fornicators,liars, atheists etc? Is it okay for them to go to hell, or are those people too sensible to worry about what some rugby player thinks about their activities?
And to point out the hypocrisy of Rugby Australia, I guarantee they will not boycott the Rugby World Cup this year when it is hosted by United Arab Emirates, where gays get the death penalty.

For goodness sakes stop fighting between yourselves.
The fact is a footballer employed by a club has in his off work time
written something on his own page about his own religious belief.

Then the CEO of an airline that supports the club for commercial
reasons and because he is offended by what was written, has had the
footballer sacked.

Then the twitterati, who are a nebulous gathering of twits have banded
together to attack the footballer, and his wife who plays netball, and
the netball club.

Not content with that the twits attack a US internet company and force
the footballers Fund to be closed.

Does all this ring a bell, haven't we seen this before a number of times ?
What you are doing here is becoming one of the twitterati.
All they do is wait with bated breadth for someone to say something
they can all rush around in a great tizz and try to get them sacked
from their jobs and anything else they may like to do.
Hey Belly, how about we say lids like twits should not get AR licences ?
I hope my English got approval from the twits !

The taking down of Folau's gofundme page has actually brought Folau's case straight to the headlines, and I am pretty sure that the net result of this spiteful action will do far more damage to GoFundMe than Folau.

Folau has got $ms of free advertising and has shown that he has massive support from 1000s of people that are prepared to put their money where their mouth is, and I am sure that an alternative to GFM will pop up and Folau will garner far more than the $750k donated in a few days.

For GFM they have broken a contract with 10 000 people and will have to spend a fortune refunding each and every donation and have set themselves up for a potential class action suit with their venal action.

Bazz my english is unlikely to improve, that long ago school boy that was me could barely read on leaving school
And I will never know why but never revisited english or such
But have achieved high marks in many tests in life, including my ham radio license,
TTBN is indeed try to be nice, his carer must have told him those words a million times
It remains my view we should welcome newcomers always, and that my poor unfortunate opponent unfairly unwisely and without need targets them always

https://www.acl.org.au/donate_izzy

I see that there is already a new donations site that is virtue signalling free.

P.S.

After only a few hours it is nearly at $300 000

Belly,

"Bazz my english is unlikely to improve, that long ago school boy that was me could barely read on leaving school
And I will never know why but never revisited english or such"

Then try Grammarly and your English will improve.
http://www.grammarly.com/?q=grammar&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Brand&utm_term=grammarly&matchtype=e&msclkid=a6952e0113e01f752c9573104a3b7cf5

and, basically, it's FREE!!

Big Nana points out that there is no uproar on behalf of the fornicators, drunks etc - just the lhomos.

That is down to the power of the Gaystapo, which the do-gooders and screechers fear.

A gentleman returning Australia after several years absence has expressed his shock at:

"The breadth and depth of the grip of rainbow wokeness (in Australia). It has rendered supposedly right-of-centre institutions and erstwhile flag bearers mere useful idiots of the secularist progressive ruling class in the march the towards its total victory." (Paul Collits, Quadrant, 24/6/19)

As Shadow Minister suggests, the foreign, imperialist Go Fund Fund Me has probably engendered even more sympathy for Folau. I hope someone gets a legal opinion on whether the $750k has to be refunded to donors and not passed on to Folau. I'm sure that the donors would want the money to be handed over to Folau by GFFM. Some organisation (couldn't understand the ABC person's nasal mumbling) has already shelled out a hundred grand.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You write;

“For GFM they have broken a contract with 10 000 people and will have to spend a fortune refunding each and every donation and have set themselves up for a potential class action suit with their venal action.”

Oh stop being a sook mate.

GFM will have increased its standing in this country except for the hard right precisely because many people will have not realised that they have solid ethics behind what they will allow their site to be used for. Good on them.

So are you going to stand up for Jaidyn Stephenson the young Collingwood player who place $36 dollars worth of bets and now has the sit out 10 games and possibly miss out on playing finals all because he exercised a freedom we all take for granted, the right to place a bet. Indeed the AFL take millions of advertising and sponsorship dollars form the betting industry.

His contract and the AFL code of conduct specifically forbid what he did but such contracts are worthless in your opinion.

When are you going to insist on justice for Jaidyn?

Anyway it is good to see you against the bosses and sticking up for the worker for once, even if he is one of the most highly paid in the country. One ideology subsuming another?

On this whole Folau thing I'm rather ambivalent. I don't agree with his sentiments, re gays and others go to hell, I simply do not believe there is a hell, or a heaven for that matter, so no ones going to either place, homosexuality does not reward or penalise a person in anyway. His employer giving clear instruction through an employment contract needs to be tested in court, so I'm not opposed to Folau having his day in court. Others lending their support through cash donations, I also don't have a problem with that.

If Folau had engaged in out and out hate speak, like gays should be done away with, then that would be a different story, in my opinion.

SR,

Still only a few hours old Folau's warchest is now nearly $500k and probably will hit several $m. It looks like RA is in for a serious fight (which is probably why it offered Folau $2m to go away)

As for GFM, the problems it now has are:

-Considering that GFM has no problem with pages for a bloke to buy a ferrari and plenty of other dodgy causes, its actions appear to be more virtue signalling than consistent application of principles.

Secondly, while collecting donations are done automatically, the refunds now need to be done manually for 10 000 donors, and based on average business costs for manual transactions at about $30 each, the cost of 300k to refund the 10 000 donors will be a huge hit. And if some details are lost, they will be tied up for ages.

Finally, GFM has now alienated the Christian community which has always been disproportionately generous donors which should be a large chunk of its core market. Which for any business is a bad move.

Paul,

Your last post was factually incorrect. There was nothing in Folau's contract that addressed his twitter post. Only a verbal discussion afterwards.

Hi Paul,

But he didn't, did he ? Simply that - presumably for believing homosexuals, drunks, adulterers, thieves , etc. - their book says that unless they repent, they will go to hell. Why should that worry anybody who doesn't believe in hell, like you and me ? Folau doesn't express any hate in all of that for who he would perceive as the sinner, only for the sin.

Is it a hate crime now to criticise what Folau sees as 'sins' ? Or is what he has said simply criticism ? Or - FGS - is criticism now defined as hate ?

I look forward to the day when snow-flakes can grow a pair. Who knows, with the wonders of gender fluidity and modern medicine ?

Cheers,

Joe

$500k in a couple of days, on top of the $750k that should also go to the fund. It shows that Folau has a lot of support or, at least, there is a lot of resentment about RA's attack on freedom of speech. RA, Qantas and the American company are all looking pretty silly. So is the Gaystapo.

Of course all those who reject the fact that mankind is born corrupt denies heaven and hell. Simple fact is that Light came into the world and men loved darkness more. Hence greed, idolatry, adultery, homosexuality, fornication are all promoted and loved more than repenting and turning to the Only One who can forgive sin.

The main reason that the 'gay' lobby is so loud is because they have been taught the absolute lie that they were born that way. Yep just like some claim they were born to have sexual desires for kids, or born with sexual desires for every available man or woman it is really part of the corrupt nature and desire of mankind. The Scriptures make this clear in many places including the passage Izzy quoted. Simple fact is all mankind will go to hell if they reject the mercy of God found only in Christ and refuse to turn from their sinful lifestyle. I would imagine their are many more fornicators and adulterers than homosexuals.

Freedom of speech to some people, means that Folau can
say what he wants. It does not make him immune
however to the consequences of doing just that.

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 people.

We have laws covering libel, slander, public decency,
urging violence and so on.

The development of freedom of speech in most Western
countries has been brought about through the growth
of democratic governments based on the rule of law.

Some countries, including Great Britain and France,
have restrictions on freedom of information and free
expression in the interests of national security. Such
smaller countries as Denmark and Switzerland have less
concern about security and, consequently, fewer
restrictions. Ireland perhaps has stricter controls
over freedom of expression than does any other
Western country. Some of these controls are based on the
moral teachings of the Roman Catholic Church,
to which a vast majority of the Irish people belong.

Australia being a secular country, it shall be interesting
to see how this Folau case pans out according to the rule
of law and whether Folau's views have a place in our society.
Especially that many hold the belief that people can no more
choose their sexuality than their skin colour and that it is
not a heinous crime for which someone must repent, it's simply
part of who they are.

Israel bigot proudly sponsored by the Australian Bigots Lobby.
Christians have much to be ashamed of and this is just one more to add to the list.
Keep your bigotry and hate to yourselves and leave the judgement and retribution to your magical superfriend in the sky.

'Especially that many hold the belief that people can no more
choose their sexuality than their skin colour and that it is
not a heinous crime for which someone must repent, it's simply
part of who they are.'

yes Foxy and and thinking people also can see that people develop all sorts of sexual and other desires as a result of many influences and experiences in life. Simple biology or design clearly shows what body parts are made for. Amazing amount of women who have had a bad experience with men who decide they are lesbians. No amount of spin or dogma will change reality. People claiming to be born with sexual desire for kids is simply wrong. A 50 year old makle with a desire for sex with a 14 year old boy or girl does not mean he was born that way although according to your logic with those practicing homosexuality that is the case.

My view is changing, the man is the reason, he WAS forced off that page because it DID violate its charter as stated
Christian Lobby has taken over, and got over half a million already
Any tithing? there, are donors giving ten percent to his Church
That Bigoted group now hosting him,in a radio interview this day, it former headlied time and again claiming anti Christian laws targeted him
Israel,give it a miss bloke, great sportsman love to see you play again but keep you north and south closed

Dear runner,

You wrote;

" Foxy and and thinking people also can see that people develop all sorts of sexual and other desires as a result of many influences and experiences in life"

So what is it about being cloistered away with a bunch of celibate males in a seminary investigating the high intellectual leanings of your faith that led these men to have such high rates of abusers of children in their ranks, many many times that of the secular community? It exceeded over 20% in some orders.

What is it about the "influences and experiences" of leadership roles within the Christian faith which so drives the propensity for abusing children?

'What is it about the "influences and experiences" of leadership roles within the Christian faith which so drives the propensity for abusing children?'

yeah steelie probably only surpassed by the 'gay' community and Indigeneous communites including Maories in NZ. Maybe you could come up with the answers. Obviously most abuse among priests was with boys. Maybe if they weeded out those claiming to be born with a desire for other males many could of saved many. But then again you have never been interested in truth and facts so why now?

Hi Mikk,

So 'collective guilt' is alive and well ?

Joe

Peter Kurti, Spectator 25/6, asks us to compare what Folau said to the statement made by reporter, Nikki Gemmell in The Australian that:

"all male gynaecologists are sadists bent on inflicting pain and humiliation on vulnerable women."

Kurti, and possibly others, finds that much more offensive than anything Folau said.

Government subsidies to Rugby Australia have been brought up today because of the Folau affair.

Rugby Australia received $28.4 million from taxpayers over the last two years.

"Given that Australian taxpayers have been committed by our elected representatives to support the code, the near-silence of the political class in defence of free speech in no way encourages faith that they will be any less supine in defending other liberties".

Mikk & Foxy
Folau did not accuse any person of those sins.
It was a quote as a personal opinion and he is totally permitted to
say it or write it.
If you do not believe in hell then why are you so upset ?
Goodness me, people can write or say that Communism is a good thing
despite it caused the death of millions.
If you were an employee of mine and said that what would be your
reaction if I sacked you for saying/writing that ?

Now don't say that religious rules are different to politics or the
moslems will probably kill you for blasphemy !
To be consistent you must ban Islam.

The law is supposed to support difference in employment, not
discriminate and apply employer rules outside work.
Just think where that could end with the millions of employers that we have.

Be careful what you wish for.
Here is something being seriously considered in the United Nations.

http://tinyurl.com/y4w7mqka

That would remove any possibility of free speech.

Bazz,

Israel Folau is free to hold the view that
some people are bound for hell unless they repent.
But freedom of speech and freedom of expression
is not as I stated earlier - freedom from
consequence.

And, Rugby Australia has enacted a consequence for
Folau's repeated use of his social media to vilify
people.

Folau isn't an 18 year old. He's an international
sports star and was an ambassador for rugby and was
renumerated accordingly.

This is not the first time Folau had been vocal in
his views. He had a choice. In the end his choice
was, between what he understood to be his duty to
his employer and what he understood to be his duty to
his God. Folau chose to put his religion first.

Conscience is not a convenient friend.
It often comes with consequences. Some good,
some bad.

Neither Rugby Australia nor GoFund Me have silenced
Folau. He is still acting and speaking in accordance
with his religious beliefs.

He is still able to raise fund for his defence - as
demonstrated by the swift offer of support provided
by the Australian Christian Lobby. Folau still has a
public platform - which he continues to utilise -
as is his right.

As a journalist observed - "kicked out of the temple,
Folau remains free to preach in the market place."

Steele,

That's what happens to churches that don't keep homosexual paedophiles out of their Religious Orders; a more discriminatory selection process is called for.

Is Mise,

A homosexual and a pedophile are two different
things.

And, the church has always had a shortage of priests.
Even more so today.

Getting rid of celibacy which the Pope can do -
might help relieve the problem - and bring some
normality back.

Here is the simple truth;

Democracy rode on the back of Christianity for two hundred years.

Without each other, both are dead.

We have reached the end.

It's every man for himself now...

Dan

Dear runner,

You wrote;

"yeah steelie probably only surpassed by the 'gay' community and Indigeneous communites including Maories in NZ."

Bull.

Name one single solitary figure you can find that would show a higher rate of abusers in these cohorts. Here you are yet again defending the indefensible. You have no moral authority here rather you should be humble, acknowledge the vast moral failings of your faith's leadership rather than trying to squirm away from your responsibility in this matter.

Dear Is Mise,

Yeah right. Many Christian abusers attacked both boys and girls however the access to children for priests and nuns were generally confined to their own sex. The Christian Brothers ran boys schools in the main. Opportunity along with a compliant hierarchy was the overarching factor.

Don't you think a religion which prized celibacy over normal relations had anything to do with it?

Libel and slander are already covered by the law.
Provided you do not break those restrictions and use appropriate
language for the place no one has a valid reason to complain.

Anyone who opposes that arrangement should have a read about
what is happening in Britain. People who criticse Islam for instance
can find themselves being questioned by police as to what their
thoughts were on the matter and the wrong answers can have you arrested.
Yes, George Orwell will be pleased.

If you think I am joking, just look further into it all.
The Tory party recently had a political forum into what laws should be
brought in to cover Islamaphobia. Moslem organisations have been
pressing for laws to prevent anyone insulting the Prophet or Islam.
Christianaphobia was not discussed.

However that is only one part, similar rules are required for other
groups such as Scotsmen. Oh sorry Scotspersons !

This is just more of the persecution and martyrdom complex that fundamentalists Christians suffer from. Usually it's every Easter or Christmas when they claim "they" are trying to ban each event but this takes it to a new level.

There is no threat to Freedom of Expression. I can make the same claim without consequence but Folau was not acting in compliance with an agreed contractual arrangement, like a signatory to agree to work against domestic violence but is also an avowed wife-beater.

If I stood on a street corner with a "God Hates Fags" sign like a member of the Westboro Baptist Church some may accuse me of promoting hate and intolerance. Likewise the Mormons only officially stopped claiming that black people were cursed with The Mark of Cain in the seventies.

What if Folau was Jewish or Muslim? I'm absolutely certain we wouldn't be seeing the same public reaction. They believe the same Old Testament laws and we recall how we were appalled at the recent decision of Brunei to stone homosexuals (in accordance with Old Testament Laws) so what's the difference when it comes to religiously mandated genetic intolerance.

Anyway the joke's probably on Folau himself, with his equally forbidden tattoos and cutting the hair on the sides of his head and all the other Levitican nonsense. He's also better start trying to thread a camel through the eye of a needle when it comes to wealth and greed.

Furthermore the concept of "Hell" is a manufactured myth based on Biblical mistranslations and reinterpretations and came mainly from St Augustine who wanted to send everyone who disagereed with him to such a place. The references that remain are known to have been later added to the Bible and do not appear in the original texts.

The whole thing is sickening and pointless and displays the intolerance of those who use cherry-picked religious verse as an excuse for their latent hatreds and seek to divide the community.

No wonder religion is in decline when it's hijacked by such people.

Foxy,

Given that it has already been established that RA's contract with Folau contained no social media clause, the claim that Folau breached his contract is false.

Secondly, his post on Twitter was as a response to a query and was a quote from the bible. To call this "vilifying people" is pure bollocks.

As an atheist, according to the quote I am also destined for hell, and while I don't agree with Folau's views, I abhor the action taken against him for discussing his faith online.

SM, you can not say with certainty that "it has already been established that RA's contract with Folau contained no social media clause, the claim that Folau breached his contract is false." There will be legal argument as to what was contained/implied in Foleu's contract, what verbal undertakings were given etc. One for the real lawyers to sort out, Falou should have his day in court.

Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of a healthy democracy, but it does not give a person carte blanche to say what they like, to engage in hate speak. Along with the right to speak your mind comes obligations, responsibilities and consequences. The law limits free speech because society recognises that people have to take responsibility for what they say.

What are the limits and obligations, if any, on employees and employers, when it comes to what, or what not, an employee can say. For example should an employee of the Beef Producers Association be at liberty to openly advocate a strictly vegetarian diet for all, that sort of thing.

A case, some may remember this from many years ago. The famous Colonel Sanders after selling out his KFC business to the Pepsi Cola Co, was employed in a promotions roll with KFC. On a visit to Australia to promote the chook business for Pepsi the dear Colonel in an interview was highly critical of the Australian product. The interview certainly made the 6 o'clock news, but not for the reasons the Pepsi Cola Co would have liked. The Colonel's contract was quickly terminated, and the dear Colonel was sent packing back to Kentucky!

Paul,

The main problem with the weasel term "hate speech" is that for the offenderatti on the far left is their interpretation of the term is anything they disagree with. Claiming that an excerpt from the bible is "hate speech" is a bridge too far for reasonable people.

James Cook University got a hiding in court because they based the firing not on the employment contract, but relied on an ambiguous code of conduct.

Rugby Australia's firing of Folau is also not based on the contract, but on an infrigement based on an ambitous interpretation of the code of conduct. And to top it off it is not just a firing, but a ban from playing rugby of any code in Aus for life.

If I was to lay a bet, I would bet that RA is going to lose and lose big.

Foxy,

"A homosexual and a pedophile are two different
things."

Quite right, but when a person preys on children of the same sex as them then they are homosexual paedophiles.

When they prey on children of the opposite sex then they are heterosexual paedophiles.

Comprhe?

Steele,

"Don't you think a religion which prized celibacy over normal relations had anything to do with it?"

No, if Religious were inclined to transgress there was/is plenty of opportunity for heterosexual relationships, the 'priests wife' was/is a respected member of many Catholic communities, and I write with personal knowledge of such relationships in Australia, England, and Ireland.

There are, however, various studies of celibacy which see it as a cause/contributory factor in paedophilia by celibate Religious and studies that refute any connection.

Is Mise,

You need to do a bit more research
on the differences between the two terms and
their meanings.

SM,

A question for you.

Why is it that as a general rule - there's only one
group - that of faith groups, who claim the right
to dismiss people from employment because of their
religious beliefs (or lack of)? And yet they seek
not to be dismissed from employment for their own
beliefs. They don't give the same courtesy to others
yet they expect it for themselves.

For example, a number of religious organisations have
argued that their schools should be allowed to deny
employment to otherwise competent people who do not
practice their religion. It follows from this that
employees who renounce their faith of the school would
be open to dismissal.

Should therefore all employers be allowed to discriminate
against people based on their religious beliefs or lack
of?

A lefty reader has written to The Age asking how they, on the left, can justify "curbing the free speech of Israel Folau. He actually says it exposes them, the Left, as hypocrites! He also questions what the Left thinks it's doing "backing the right of a corporation to tell someone what he can or cannot say in public on a topic unrelated to his job".

Good on you Steven Conte of Warrnambool. Perhaps you are on the wrong side of politics? All due respect to you anyway.

Foxy,

"You need to do a bit more research
on the differences between the two terms and
their meanings"

Ok, a homosexual is one who is attracted to persons of the same sex.
A paedophile is a person who engages in a sexual act or attempts to so do with prepubescent children.

Why do you think that a person who sexually molests children of the same sex is not a homosexual paedophile?

I think that the definition fits well, but please enlighten me.

Foxy,

Once again you have got it wrong. Faith based schools while preferring to hire those with similar views often hire people with different faiths and of various sexual preferences, but with the clear understanding that they are working that they don't behave in a manner or espouse views diametrically different to the faith of the organisation. I am not aware of any social media restrictions.

With both my kids going to church schools in which there were several openly gay teachers who were hired and performed their jobs well and were never in any danger of dismissal. I am also not aware of any teacher being fired for sexual or religious reasons in Australia's history.

That was a bad example to chose.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You write;

"I am also not aware of any teacher being fired for sexual or religious reasons in Australia's history."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-12/gay-teacher-attacks-push-for-religious-school-discrimination/10365816

Now you are.

SR, congrats, you may have found the only relevant case.

Unfortunately, as he refused to say why he was actually dismissed, it is still a moot point.

I see Folau's war chest is nearly $2m now.

' You have no moral authority here rather you should be humble, acknowledge the vast moral failings of your faith's leadership rather than trying to squirm away from your responsibility in this matter.'

yeah we know how much you hate the Head of the Church (Jesus Christ) Steelie. Shows daily in your lies misrepresentations and total lack of rational.

Dear runner,

You have me wrong, I think Jesus was a cracker of bloke. He put a whole bunch of moralising bigots like yourself right in their place. I do think he got a bit up himself by the time we get to John but I suppose he shouldn't be held responsible for the cult that grew around his memory.

From my reading he would have been one of those demanding those in Narau and Manus be set free and properly cared for. He would have found your rabid support of extended mandatory detention an anathema.

And to the topic at hand I think he would have sat down with Falou and ask why he was 'casting stones'?

No mate your Jesus is just a construction you have created for your self to legitimise your bigotry, the one described in the Bible has little resemblance to it.

Dear Steele,

I think there are plenty of deeply frustrated and
embarrassed Australians who see the issue of Nauru
and Manus as our national shame and we're out here
in non-marginal seats where we're seldom recognised
as a political force for change, but we have
both consciences and an interest in maintaining
our humanitarian aspirations by working on solutions.

We don't have to yield to the dog whistle rhetoric
of "floodgates"and "sovereignty"in dealing with
how to set up a more orderly humanitarian program but
we do have to want to do the rights things to overcome
a ridiculous reliance on a carrot and stick approach that
is all stick and no carrot.

Thank You for continuing to post on this forum.
It's people like you that keep me coming back.

Gee some people are thick.

//Unfortunately, as he refused to say why he was actually dismissed,//

"A Perth teacher who lost his job after telling his school he was in a same-sex relationship"

What do you think was the reason Shadow? Nah! couldn't be the Baptist Bigots anti gay stance, by any chance, now could it be that.

Christ as said here was a good man
Unfortunately the bigots, those who use him to prop up extreme right politics, have killed him again
27 percent [check my numbers] said in the last census they had no religion
Ask again *after explaining just ticking you birth faith* is not following or believing?

Peter O'Brien points out in Quadrant today now much of the comment on Israel Folau is ill informed, and quotes an article by ALP blowhard, Graham Richardson. You can read Richardson's nonsense if you want. I am more interested in what the hoi polloi, of which I am a member, thinks rather than meanderings of a has-been politician; and there is an ill informed comment from one of them further down in O'Brien's article:

"I wonder if there would be the same passion for “religious freedom” if Israel Folau’s homophobic views were espoused by, say, a Muslim cleric? At the end of the day, hatred is hatred. No matter what the guise, be it religious, artistic or scientific; intolerance causes the same harm to the targeted group."

What balderdash! There was nothing homophobic about Folau's comments. He merely stated what his faith told him would happen to such people. Muslim cleric? Hey, stupid, Muslims advocate murder for homsexuals; they don't leave it to Allah. They use a tall building or a crane, and kill them in the here and now.

Australian society is certainly topsy turvy, as pointed out by Augusto Zimmerman:

"The agnostic Latham defends freedom of religion and freedom of speech for Christians, but the Christian PM cowardly refuses to make a comment".

Zimmerman goes on to say, quoting sensible fellow-thinker, Paul Collits:

"The Prime Minister's failure to see the Folau case as a flagship freedom-of-speech issue is chilling for anyone with a modicum of understanding of how and why freedom is important".

Very chilling indeed. Morrison might be some improvement on Turnbull, but the Liberal party needs to give serious thought to replacing him, now.

Morrison is a "Christian” Prime Minister who appears to have no regard for freedom of speech and freedom of religion".

Perhaps Morrison is just a self-identifying Christian.

Zimmerman reminds Morrison that he is only PM because "the opposition leader was truly appalling and not a feasible option". Morrison was the better of "two rather undesirable options"

Dear Foxy,

Glad to be of service.

I was wondering today if Falou had instead quoted some of the Gospel of John. This is from Wikipedia;

"The Gospel of John has provided antisemites with grist for their mill. It is the primary source of the image of "the Jews" acting collectively as the enemy of Jesus, which later became fixed in Christian minds."

"John himself has Jesus tell the Samaritan woman that "salvation is from the Jews." For example, in John 7:1-9 Jesus moves around in Galilee but avoids Judea, because "the Jews" were looking for a chance to kill him. In 7:12-13 some said "he is a good man" whereas others said he deceives the people, but these were all "whispers", no one would speak publicly for "fear of the Jews". Jewish rejection is also recorded in 7:45-52, 8:39-59, 10:22-42, and 12:36-43. John 12:42 says many did believe, but they kept it private, for fear the Pharisees would exclude them from the synagogue. After the crucifixion, 20:19 has the disciples hiding behind locked doors, "for fear of the Jews".

End quote.

What if instead of quoting passages about homosexuals headed for hell he had quoted John and claimed that Jews are to be feared and that 'Salvation is from the Jews'?

Would there be millions of dollars floating in for a fund to take RA to court for trammeling his religious freedoms after he was inevitably sacked?

I suspect not.

Dear Steele,

Peter FitzSimons sums things up rather well::

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-union/gofundme-caves-in-to-roar-of-ravenous-mob-and-kills-folau-page-20190624-p520ps.html

yep the haters dig in while multitudes of Aussies donate towards Izzy. Of course the leftist always expect perverted corporates and tax payers to fund their often perverted causes.

Well…I begin.

And we'll I shall continue. For the sordid truth about the vast negative effects of the practice of homosexuality, will escape; irrespective of Qantas and it's CEO.
Allan Joyce needs to be very quickly sacked from his trusted position at Qantas.

What he has achieved towards the spread and normalisation of the unacceptable practise of homosexuality and all of its tangentals in our community, by the incorrigible use of his trusted position, is nothing short of a terrorist attack on a once status quo society of normality.

His efforts have increased harm to the society he is intent on destroying, by normalising a disease propagating practice, which was outlawed in sensible society the world over for centuries, and for very good reason.

He must go!

Dan.

I just watched a podcast (Bolt on Sky) of Gillian Triggs saying that Folau is, in her opinion, entitled to say what he did say, and that he should not have been sacked. His sacking, she said, was “foolish and disproportionate”.

Yes. Gillian Triggs said that. How does that make the Left plonkers on OLO look!

And, on the same podcast, even though Bolt thinks that Morrison is Christmas, he cannot understand why the apparently Christian PM is “too scared” to speak up on the matter

The not the notion that religious organisations may or may not have historically dismissed or refused employment to people on the basis of their sexuality, it's the fact that they want to have that legal right inshrined in law.
Nobody else has that legal right but they specifically want it for themselves. If it worked in reverse and people were refused employment because they held a specific religious belief who would be the first to complain I wonder?

The owner of the failed "Ark Adventure" Theme Park in the USA would only employ people who professed specific religious beliefs and who were prepared to sign an agreement to that effect. It was illegal in that State but he did it anyway.

Folau-wise, if I wore a T-Shirt to work that said "Death to all Jews" I would be justly criticised but if I changed it to read "Death to all Sinners" that would somehow make it OK. Likewise if I was employed by a bakery but spent my lunch hour standing out front and telling random passers-by they were going to burn in hell for all eternity my employer would have a reasonable case for my dismissal.

When they criticise and judge people they call it "religious freedom" but as soon as anybody dares return the favour they immediately call it "religious repression".

tbbn, Some Muslim societies kill homosexuals because it's what the Old Testament demands. Folau is responding to the same texts so what's the difference? For centuries Christians used to keep slaves and burn witches too and didn't stop because the Bible told them to.

Rache,

Folau was not standing outside RA stadiums ranting against sinners. He answered a question by posting a quote from the bible on his personal twitter account.

So we still have no one that was definitively sacked from private schools for being gay, yet we definitely have someone sacked for quoting scripture.

Folau's warchest is now $2.2m

Well as a left plonker may I remind our foolish stone thrower I stood by his right to say as he wished
While the sarga has in part changed my mind, he could have both spoken of his belief and not bought the roof down on his head
In matters of religion we, evenme a nonbeliever, should have the right to our opinion
But would my thoughts be welcome in say hillsong?

"But would my thoughts be welcome in say hillsong?"

Only if you sang them!!

Dear diver dan,

While I think your position on gay people is deplorable I have earlier raised concerns about the power of sponsoring businesses have within our sporting codes. That the Australian team is so reliant on this source to fund themselves gives the contributors far too much say.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I'm pretty sure it wasn't a Twitter post which got him into trouble but rather an instagram one.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-11/israel-folau-slammed-over-latest-anti-gay-comments/10991574

Notice the scripture he quotes to support his condemnation actually doesn't include homosexuals.

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Galatians 5:19-21

One of the hurdles Falou will have to overcome is this statement from him;

"After we'd all talked, I told Raelene if she felt the situation had become untenable — that I was hurting Rugby Australia, its sponsors and the Australian rugby community to such a degree that things couldn't be worked through — I would walk away from my contract, immediately.”

Is this only a promise or is it a legally enforceable undertaking?

SR,

As Folau was dismissed based on the contents of his instagram account with some weight on his previous behaviour and the actions taken against him at that point (which I understand to be severe finger waggings)

A statement of intent is certainly not a contract, and while it can loosely be construed as promise, it is not worth the paper it is printed on.

As RA not only tore up his contract, but banned him for life, the cost of failure will be far higher than the $4m value of the contract.

"tbbn, Some Muslim societies kill homosexuals because it's what the Old Testament demands".

How many Christians kill homosexuals because of the Old Testament? How many homosexuals has Folau killed? Did he say that they should be killed? How many Muslims read the Christian Bible? It is all in the Koran. I don't think that Muslims have started obeying "demands"from the Bible. The Old Testament does, indeed, say that homosexuality deserves death, but there is no instruction to Christians to actually carry out the sentence. Folau just says that they will go to Hell. Not much scope for a quick trip to Hell to do the business and return.

Now lets summarise. Who has the right to say who goes to hell?

runner - no
Issy - no
Steelie - no
Foxy - no
rugby Australia - no
Scott Morrison - no
ttbn -no
homosexual lobby - no
Catholic church - no

God through His word - YES

Dear runner,

And of course you didn't mention Falou.

Which version of a God do you think gets to say who goes to hell?

The Muslim, the Jewish or the Christian to name a few.

If Christian then which version gets the honours? The one that says it is basically impossible for a rich man to get into heaven unless he foregoes all his wealth or your version? The one that says all those who have divorced and remarried are committing adultery and thus will not enter the Kingdom of heaven? If so are the people in your place of worship aware of this prohibition and thus the futility of them even attending your church trying to gain their place in the promised land?

The Pope and even George Pell have said good works will earn you a place in heaven even if you don't believe in Jesus. I wouldn't think your narrow version of God would allow for that especially since John says they must go through Jesus to get there.

So tell us why did you leave off Falou?

Dear runner,

I think I read Issy as Indy. I acknowledge you did include him.

'So tell us why did you leave off Falou?'

actually Steelie re read my list. He is listed number 2.

'The one that says it is basically impossible for a rich man to get into heaven unless he foregoes all his wealth or your version? The one that says all those who have divorced and remarried are committing adultery and thus will not enter the Kingdom of heaven?'

The whole point is that Jesus list as well as Paul's clearly show that unless a man repents and receives forgiveness he can't go to heaven. In other words we are all hopelessly lost without Christ and His forgiveness especially the rich and powerful. I would of thought that's exactly what Folau said.

'The Pope and even George Pell have said good works will earn you a place in heaven even if you don't believe in Jesus'

they are free to add yet another heresy to the catholic church.

and so again if Folau is wrong, if I am wrong if the bible is wrong why are people so offended by it. I suspect because far more deep down believe the Scriptures and realise that unless they receive forgiveness from Christ and turn from fornication, adultery, greed etc they are lost.

Fund now closed just over two million dollars
He, under his Churches rules, must give 200.000 to them Jesus wept

$2 million plus. It seems that the more the likes of Raelene Castle, Go Fund Me, Peter Beattie, Peter FitzSimons, the ANZ bank and Peter van Onselen rage against freedom of speech, the more support Folau gets. Even Gillian Triggs supports him. Don't hear the leftists saying anything about Ms. Triggs now.

This entire situation is very unfortunate and people
are being taken for a ride.

Raelene Castle made it quite clear to Israel Folau
where the line was drawn on his behaviour. His
previous breaches of Rugby Australia's Code of
Coduct were fully explained to him. He was given
several warnings and letters detailing the expectations
of his social media behaviour. He continued to break
all the rules. As Ms Castle has stated - Israel Folau was
very clear where the line was. He chose to ignore it.

Now, he's suing for, wrong treatment?
And if he succeeds the sum is given at being $10 million
from Rugby Australia. Plus the cost of his legal fees will
not be paid by him but by the donations he's receiving.

And all this supposedly in the name of "religious freedom.?"

The mind boggles.

We have very limited legal restrictions on speech.
Attacks on religion and sexuality are not included.
Perhaps this case will be an invitation for a review?

Perhaps Church Leaders could also do their job responsibly
and tell
us all, what was God's plan for Gay people?

Perhaps, the Bible translations from Greek to English just
may not be correct - or at the very least should be
taken in context?

There's a lot in the Bible about punishing people for doing
pretty commonplace things today - like not touching pigskin
on a Sunday (that would knock out playing sport?), disobeying
your parents, not being a virgin on your wedding night,
and so on. When does advocating for such biblical ethics
tip over into being acceptable in our lives today?

Anyway, as someone wrote on the web - Öne 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 say you read it in
a book."

The famous quote

(1Co 6:9) Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor abusers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

(1Co 6:11) And such were some of you. But you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

and such were some of you. Yep just like their are multitudes who have turned and say such was I. Many have stopped adultery, lying, fornicating, homosexuality, abusing etc etc. They have been washed of their sin by a merciful loving God. Thats not hate, that is love.

Some volunteer to be taken for a ride Foxy
Getting their views ready made on Fox/Sky news no need to think just blindly follow the bigotry

Dear runner,

Jesus clearly says those who divorce and marry again are living a life of adultery, which by the verses you have provided means they will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

I ask again, are the divorced people within your flock cognisant of this and do you go out of your way to point out their sinning as you would a gay person?

runner,

Regarding your Bible quotes.

They are open to interpretation as the following link
explains:

http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/no_fems_no_fairies.html

Among some of the teachings in the Bible
according to multiple interpretations, are
things that are quite out of step with our
modern world. And the interpretations are
also open to questioning.

Many people turn a blind eye
to these savage teachings or interpretations,
that as we can see in Folau's case are quite
divisive.

Israel Folau has reminded us, that
they are there, and
instead of facing up to the contradictions he's
highlighted, people have chosen to continue
deluding themselves that these thoughts from
2000 years ago, and a modern, inclusive, and a
progressive society are compatible.

We've spent a Millenia reshaping
our understanding of ancient superstition to suit
our current societal norms, conveniently ignoring
these uncomfortable teachings. And some of us
are still fighting for changes within our Churches.

This latest
sports controversy simply highlights things for us.

Folau's comments have the capacity for real harm
especially on young people struggling with their
identities. I agree with Rugby Australia being
within their rights to terminate his employment.
He went against their code of conduct and had been
warned both in person and by letter that he must
stop publicly doing what he continued to do.
He refused. He's entitled to his views but not
to impunity from his actions.

We live in a world where a sports governing body, the
NRL campaigned aggressively in favour of the legislation
of same sex marriage. Folau being a super star, his
comments not only have the capacity for real harm,
but were also
what is known in the corporate world as "bad optics."
Very bad.

Still, he may yet get $10 million if he wins his case.
And it won't cost him a cent out of his own pocket.

'I ask again, are the divorced people within your flock cognisant of this and do you go out of your way to point out their sinning as you would a gay person?'

Certainly Steelie , someone who divorces un scripturally and then remarries commits adultery. I think Jesus only gave one out. Certainly the trashing of the marriage covenant by the so called sexual revolution of the 1950's and 60's by god deniers and feminist opened the door and has led to the tsunami of homosexuality today. We have women who have been married for decades finding themselves (sinful nature) and leaving husbands to be lesbians and men likewise.

God is so merciful to call people out of the filthy trough of immorality whether it be fornication, adultery or homosexuality.

And yes much of the church has been inconsistent on this. I think the reason homosexuality is mentioned so much is because the 'gay' lobby continues to push their agenda down everyone's throat, brainwash kids and demonise anyone who disagree with them. Interesting in America it is the younger generation who were so accepting of 'gay' marriage that seem to be standing against the sexualisation of kids by the gay lobby.

'Folau's comments have the capacity for real harm
especially on young people struggling with their
identities.'

No Foxy they are the bibles comments. Folau did not make them up. One could argue that by encouraging people into the homosexual lifestyle great harm is being done. Denying biology and design never ends well. Yes their are real issues for young people with strong same sex attraction as their are real issues for people who have strong adultery attractions. I tend to think living God's way has far less complications and no one anywhere is forcing people to live that way. It seems those who are making the biggest issue are the bigots who insist people agree with the gay agenda.

btw

according to the Koran I am going to hell because I am an infidel. Where is the outrage? I am not calling for all practicing muslims to be sacked from their job because they believe I am going to hell because I think Mohammed was a false prophet.

Well done runner. I can't see a problem in any of that....

Foxy said; And all this supposedly in the name of "religious freedom.?"

Wrong, this is a public pushback by the deplorables and the politically
incorrect, and the silent Australians against all the lefty raving
against everything, especially freedom of speech.

The average of the donations is $100.
Doesn't that alone tell you where it is coming from ?

Remember the young lady in Canberra, I think it was, who lost her job
because she supported the wrong party.
Thats what it is all about.

runner,

This might help you understand a few things:

http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/no_fems_no_fairies.html

Bazz,

Would someone be sacked if they called Christians stupid
or deluded? They've just expressed something they believed
in that they regard as a blatant fact.
Maybe they would? But hey it's freedom of speech isn't it?
Works both ways?

Freedom of speech of expression does not mean freedom
from consequences.

tbbn "How many Muslims read the Christian Bible?"

The old Testament is also part of Judaeism and Islam and is the basis of all three Abrahamic faiths. That's the law they are complying with.

Old Testament plus New Testament = Christianity.
Old Testament plus Torah = Judaeism
Old Testament plus Koran = Islam.

The Old Testament also specifies that adulters and people who work on the sabbath should be stoned to death and disobedient children should be "dashed onto the rocks", just to name a few charming examples.
Who was burning witches for centuries (as instructed) and keeping slaves and didn't suddenly stop those practices because of the Bible but in spite of it?

The usual Christian punishment for adulterous women in Alexandria was to stake them out on the ground and have their entrails eaten by pigs but we never mention that inconvenient fact, nor that Hypatia was killed by a Christian mob by having the living flesh carved off her bones with broken tiles and shells. No we've always been much too civilised for that.

Early Christians didn't walk around in a mellowed-out daze like in the movies but were violent fanatical zealots and it was Constantine who tried to restore order in the Empire and unite it by trying to get them to stop fighting among themselves, persecuting Jews and agree on a single story - a "New Testimony". His successor re-banned Christianity because of their increased violence but was assassinated two years later - allegedly by a Christian soldier - a nice beginning we never talk about. The resulting mass slaughter of pagans and the tearing down of their Temples - likewise.

Like all those who get their sanitised history from Hollywood and cuddly Sunday School stories the whole history of religion is conveniently ignored.

But I get what most people here are trying to say - Islam is evil and homosexuality is "yucky". It's just that they want to say it indirectly and hide behind external justification any way they can to shift the blame for personal prejudice elsewhere.

Dear runner,

You write; “someone who divorces un scripturally and then remarries commits adultery”

Okay mate, now you have my interest, what on earth is scriptural divorce? I am really keen to see what torture you are going to put God's word through to justify this one.

Dear Bazz,

You write;

“Wrong, this is a public pushback by the deplorables and the politically
incorrect, and the silent Australians against all the lefty raving
against everything, especially freedom of speech.”

No it isn't, this is the right hijacking, as you are doing, an issue for their own ends.

I think sacking Falou and banning him for life is unfair just as I think Falou going out of his way to single out homosexuals in unfair. The verse he quoted to justify his 'meme' didn't include the word at all. All the other things he mentioned were behavioural but unless you believe that attraction to the same sex is not genetic then he is attacking people for the way they were born. This is patently unfair.

I fully support him getting called out on it and sanctioned appropriately, just not this way.

I have express deep concerns about the control corporations have over our sport. They have every right to withdraw sponsorship if they feel their brand will suffer by association but when it comes to selection in the Australian side this should be done without consideration of sponsors.

In my opinion this is all about dollars not an issue of religious freedom at all and this is where the solution should have been found. Falou should have been fined up to 100% of his match payments for continuing to flout rules set by the code's administrator. If his actions ended up costing sponsorship dollars thus impacting the rest of the team then Falou should have to compensate them.

Money, money, money. Only more highlighted by the malcontents here giving a running score check on how much one of the highest paid sports people in the country has managed to extract from the pockets of ordinary Australians.

"scriptural divorce,"glad you asked, well that's when a man, its a man thing, walks around the little woman three times in an anti-clockwise direction, all the whilst reciting "I divorce thee, I divorce thee, I divorce thee". Some then hit the little woman over the head with a 10 pound hammer, but that's an optional extra, and not absolutely necessary in these enlightened times, a five pound hammer will have the same effect. All done in the name of the Holy Ghost of course, don't forget the holy Ghost, otherwise its not legal.

Foxy,

You asked:

"Would someone be sacked if they called Christians stupid
or deluded? They've just expressed something they believed
in that they regard as a blatant fact."

Firstly, it happens all the time, secondly, I don't see anyone getting fired for it, thirdly, if this is treated the way that Folau was treated there would be many greenies out of a job.

Finally, Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. I think Rugby Australia is beginning to understand this.

It’s all the fault of the “haters and homophobes” according to the “perennially sanctimonious” Kerryn Phelps (Gideon Rozner, The Spectator, 27.6.19).

According to Phelps, all of us haters and homophobes have been waiting ever since the YES vote to start a “revenge” campaign on religious freedoms.

Seems to me that it was Phelps clones who started it all by attacking and demonising a man for thinking that he still enjoyed religious freedom in post-Christian Australia.

Rozner rightly dismisses Phelps as oozing with “sneering elitism”, and points to the truth - that Australians have rejected her those of her kind who are trying to tell us what to do and what to think. We have had enough of the “militant, with-us-or-against-us modus operandi of the professionally woke”.

What Rugby Australia and the “inclusivity zealots” have done is turn a solitary man’s religious beliefs into a “full-blown national brouhaha”, which has exposed them for what they are, and ensured support for Folau.

One of those moments, had page with drawn and could not post
Being honest my views have changed, is that ok?
See he had a contract, it clearly said he must not AGAIN [he has done it before] put such stuff out
He will not win because no one wants to circumvent his rights to his beliefs

It’s interesting that ONLY the self-indulging, self-regarding and whining homosexual community has made a fuss about Folau.

The drunks, adulterers, liars, fornicators, atheists and idolaters -also mentioned by Folau, and more prolific than the homos - seem to be much more well-adjusted; or, perhaps they believe in freedom of speech, don’t care, or are simply normal, well adjusted people who can smile and get on with their particular vices.

People unfamiliar with Australia could be forgiven for thinking that homosexuality and snowflaking are foremost in the minds of all Aussies.

SM,

The results of the Folau case will prove interesting.
What's legal and where do we draw the line.

The following fact sheet - covers discrimination, what the
law says, education exemptions, work exemptions, and it
gives case examples. It's worth a read:

http://www.adcq.qld.gov.au/resources/brochures-and-guides/fact-sheets/religious-based-schools

Foxy said;
Would someone be sacked if they called Christians stupid or deluded?

I would certainly hope not, it is just opinion.
Your employer cannot sack you because you have an opinion on something
that has nothing to do with his business. He would have a valid case
if you criticised his business. As Master he is paying you to support
his business, not denigrate it.

Rache, the Bible and Koran are books of their time. It was a pretty
nasty time then in most areas. Rome was a good example, the Roman
armies massacred their way to build an empire.
While at the same time developing the foundations of government and
our legal systems. These principles they adapted from the Greeks.
However the time known as the enlightenment led to the end of all the
nasty bits of the Bible being ignored as reports of their times.
The Koran has not had its reformation in that sense.
Although reformation for Christianity really refers to the rise of
Protestantism.
Oh dear I am sounding like a religious student which I am definitely not.
I do like the History Channel, and books on ancient history.

Belly said; See he had a contract, it clearly said he must not AGAIN
[he has done it before] put such stuff out

That is the point they are arguing today, "Can an employee talk/write
about anything without his employers permission out of work time ?"
Did DMR approve of everyhing you wrote on here before you wrote it ?
Did you ever talk about the job on the local repeater ?

You see where this is going ? It has very wide implications.
Just read what is happening in the UK.

Example of where it might be reasonable.
Fred works for Microsoft.
Fred is a keen Linux user and comments on a chat site that Windows is
rubbish and is full of security holes whereas Linux is virtually bulletproof.
Now Fred's statement might be true, this argument is religious,like
AGW, and his employer could have a valid complaint.

So you see the problem ?

Bazz,

What if you made those comments in a Christian
school?

Which comment Foxy ?
I do not see anything I just wrote that anyone could or would argue about.
Was it about the Bible being a book of its time, like Herod and the first born ?

No settlement was reached in the court today according to the paper.
So it is OFF TO THE RACES now.

Bazz,

My comment of - would someone be sacked if they made
the comment that Christians were stupid of deluded
to which you responded. I asked what if that
comment was made by a staffer in a Christian school?

Well, I don't think it would be taken very seriously as there are
many Christians who have been notable scientists.
Many have said Australians are stupid because of the way we accept a
lot of the mad trendy stuff. I have to agree.
I think the difference there is a cultural stupidity rather than mental.

I am not sure if Einstein was a Christian but plenty of similar
ranking were.
However the same could not be said of Muslims as it would cause an
uproar. Why does it cause an uproar if you say it of muslims ?
They are touchy about it because of the cousin marriage problem.
Just look at how few Nobel Prizes have been awarded to muslims.

Hi Steelie

'Okay mate, now you have my interest, what on earth is scriptural divorce? I am really keen to see what torture you are going to put God's word through to justify this one.'

best just to stick to the Scripture

(Mat 19:9) And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is put away commits adultery.

An arguement could also be made from Pauls instructions to those who have come to faith

(1Co 7:13) And the woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is pleased to dwell with her, do not let her leave him.

(1Co 7:14) For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.

(1Co 7:15) But if the unbelieving one separates, let him be separated. A brother or a sister is not in bondage in such cases, but God has called us in peace.

With the rapid increase in the Folau fund, the Left and minority-cause sjws might be starting to regret that they started this fight over a trivial Instagram post.

Bazz,

I disagree with you. If you were a teacher in a
religious school and you were to loudly voice
derogatory opinions about Christians you
would lose your job. It has nothing to do with
whether those comments were correct or not.
Einstein by the way was of Jewish ancestry.
And there were twelve Muslim Nobel Prize Laureates.

That doesn't prove though that Christians are smart
and not deluded. No more than it proves that Muslims
are not very bright. There are individual exceptions
in each case.

The point being made however was that
an employer can sack you if you don't adhere to
your contractual obligations. That's why organisations
who require adherence to a shared ethos and behaviour
would be wise to avoid confusion by spelling this out in
employment contracts.

"Rather than giving Israel Folau the benefit of the doubt and a wrap over the knuckles, suspending him for a few games and getting back to the business of winning Rugby games, they have unintentionally elevated him to the status of national hero of the common man. He has become the defender of basic freedoms for thousands at the grass-roots who feel they have been victims of the culture wars and whom the PC Brigade has tried to silence."(A Folau supporter)

Do we want a country where corporate bullies can determine what a person can state on their private social media? Given the very sick record of anz bank and rugby Australia I doubt it. Strange how the regressives/Labour/Greens back the corporate bullies while the conservatives oppose them. God forbid that anyone should challenge the gw religion. Oh that's right a scientist at James Cook did and got sacked. People still ignoring the Koran that states all infidels go to hell. Oh well the hypocrisy among the Christophos continue. Continue to be offended by what they claim is not true or is it that deep down they know we will all be judged one day and God determines the standard not us. Thank God Jesus took the judgement for those humble enough to repent.

He has no case fair work can never overlook he broke a contract
They too, will not buy he, in any way, had his religious conviction challenged

Yes, runner. They squeal about a Christian's thoughts, but don't bat an eyelid at actual barbaric acts committed by Muslims against against homosexuals, adulterers, idolators and even drunks. The hypocrisy of the Left is mind boggling.

Under sharia law, homosexuality is a crime in eighty countries and carries the death penalty in seven.

Australia is a modern country. One in which religious
laws have no legal standing.
And as far as I'm aware we're supposed to be
about egalitarianism and a "fair go," for ALL.
Not just a select few. We're supposed to be about
inclusion, not division and separation.

Ah yes Foxy Einstine was a Jew, I had forgotten.
The Jews have an absolutely fantastic record of Nobel Prizes.
More than any other national groups.
Yes Foxy cousins can have genius babies but literally the dice are rolled against them.

"And as far as I'm aware we're supposed to be
about egalitarianism and a "fair go," for ALL."

But they all do not play the same game. This is getting off topic.

I think Australians are stupid also, you only have to kook at many of
our political policies, Labour and Liberal; water, power, energy sources etc.
Do I need to go on ?
Anyway, the argument is now whether an employer can insert clauses
into an employees contract on matters that do not relate to the employer.
What is the employers interest in the Facebook posting ?

Actually Foxy do you see the dangerous path we are on ?

Using religious belief to target minorities is the mans crime no way he did not know what he was doing
I Truly believe some of his followers are now more interested in targeting others than his rights

drunks, fornicators, liars are hardly a minority Belly. Why are you so desperate to misrepresent.

Foxy,

"One in which religious
laws have no legal standing."

Still labouring under that disillusion?

We were warned that the Gaystapo would not be satisfied with SSM, that they would want more. But the muscle-headed politicians and 60% of voters with similar muscles between their ears would not listen. Now, here they are again, trying to prevent freedom of speech and 'normalise' their behaviour.

The idiot Prince William told a group of homos yesterday that he wished that their perversion could be regarded as normal.

From an anonymous blogger:

(Folau’s case) is complicated by the fact the enterprise in question (RA) is a monopoly and it is part business, part administrator and part regulator. This makes the penalty on Folau extremely harsh because he is effectively being denied employment in Australia by a kangaroo court that is judge, jury and executioner.”

I can now understand why the former Human
Rights Commissioner Prof. Gillian Triggs
came out with her comments in support of
Israel Folau. She was looking at the case
from a legal perspective. What Rugby Australia
has done may be unlawful under -
s772 of the Fair Work Act 2009 - as discrimination
on the basis of his religious beliefs.

Prof. Patrick Parkinson is Dean of Law at the
University of Queensland and Chair of Freedom
For Faith. He is able to look at things from both
the legal perspective and the religious one.
His article listed below is one of the best that
I've read on this case. He feels that the Israel
Folau case has been mishandled from the start
and asks if its too late to fix things?

It's worth a read as the Professor spells out each
of the aspects of the case and presents well
reasoned arguments.

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/the-israel-folau-case-has-been-mishandled-from-the-start/11253210

It's made me re-think the entire matter.

Foxy,

"It's made me re-think the entire matter."

Good on you!!

Is Mise,

Thanks for that.

Have a read of the link.

It certainly has made me re-think things.

ttbn, a slight correction.
So as to not give the queers the idea that they were 'overwhelmingly' accepted; they weren't and still aren't, 'overwhelmingly' accepted.
You said '60% of voters'.
I read it as 60% of 'all voters', which I took to mean 'all' Australian voters was clearly not the case.
It was 60% of those who voted, because the vote was not compulsory, so not ALL Aussies voted.
Haven't bothered to comment on this one, I don't really care, especially after reading the comments so far, but as I have said in the past, I can't stand by and let something incorrect get through, it just leads to mistakes and wrong conclusions.

ttbn, correction; it was not a vote, it was a 'survey'.
This puts a whole new emphasis on the value of both the topic and the outcome.
To 'seal the deal', dare I bring up the 'polls' and their surveys showing that Labour was a 'shoe in', in the last election.
I'm sorry but I still stand by my conviction that the 'majority' of Australians were NOT OK with the SSM farce and it's outcome.
I will say how surprised I have been to see the amount of support for the guy.
You know the support is genuine when people actually put their money where their mouth is.

May have been better to highlight pedophilia in the Churches not target others till you fix your own troubles

ALTRAV,

Yes, that's right. I could have made it clearer. Your clarification makes the facts even stronger.

Belly,

"May have been better to highlight pedophilia in the Churches not target others till you fix your own troubles"

Maybe you ought to take your own advice.

http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2011/08/normalization-of-pedophilia.html

Read Dawkins on paedophillia,
http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard_dawkins_defends_mild_pedophilia_says_it_does_not_cause_lasting_harm/
and this; broaden your outlook.
http://www.algemeiner.com/2011/08/29/a-plea-to-atheists-pedophilia-is-next-on-the-slippery-slope-let-us-turn-back-before-it-is-too-late/

ismise you get a new low for that
Seems you are siding with pedophiles
No child molester should be regarded as human no matter their back ground
EVERY one of them should be locked away forever

Dear Is Mise,

Are you for real?

Thia is what Richard Dawkins said;

"I am very conscious that you can't condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don't look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can't find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today"

Which is a perfectly reasonable position to take.

Tasmania passes a law to raise the minimum age of marriage from 12 for women and 14 for men to 16 and 18 respectively in 1942.

Were all those 12 year olds getting married back then victims of pedophilia and should their husbands now be judged as pedophiles?

Dawkins clearly states he, and indeed the rest of us, judge things differently now. That should have been enough for you.

I in reading about Dawkins, can't help but be reminded of Weinstien, Cosby and so on.
I remember mixed feelings about this new wave of 'historic' cases.
Dawkins seems to be saying that years ago, things that were once brushed aside, (even disregarded as 'no big a deal') are by today's standards, not acceptable.
I lived through these times and I have already written about the shear nonsense and in some cases, outrage at what these stupid maggots are putting these, now old men through, just because we have these annoying, worthless, noisy, irritating, minorities who decided they want to make a name for themselves and use disgraceful tactics like virtue shaming, blackmail and bullying, weak and gutless officials and govts into giving in to their demands.
As Dawkins said times change and so does everything else, morals, ethics, even religion is changing, which is a major player in this topic.
I can empathise with him on the issue of 'soft pedophilia', I too was 'played with' as a younger lad, and I have always wondered what all the fuss was about and in what way was I negatively affected.
By all accounts I have grown up a reasonably aware, intelligent, emotionally well balanced guy, with a more than adequate sense of humour and just enough maturity to know the difference.
So where was the downside I asked?
I find ALL women, (not females/maggots) attractive and yes ogle them
and appreciate them for being women, in every way possible according to natures expectations.
So it is that I cannot find where my exposure to 'soft pedophilia' has affected me in any way.
Unless one seriously believes that being overly attracted and drawn to women is as a result of being exposed to 'soft pedophilia', then OK I'll cop it sweet.
Has anyone noticed how the people today are beginning to act just like the Romans did before they suffered a crushing and irreversible life ending fate. (Orgies full of Homosexuals, Pedophiles,etc;.)
So by all means, keep giving in to these sick people and their sick demands.
Apparently it's NORMAL!

ALTRAV,

Yes, I often think of the fall of the Roman Empire and Sodom and Gomorrah, the latter more related to the current sexual perversion that they are trying to 'normalise', as they denegrate the traditional family by shoving an imitation down our throats. They've even got the idiot youngsters of the royal family in on it. It is not going to end well for anyone.

ttbn, I hear you.
I just wish a few more million out there would too.
The problem is they've had it too good, and are still living the good life.
This type of lifestyle comes from having too much money and too much time along with too little brains or maturity.
If these same idiots had to spend day after day slogging away at a 'real' job, they'd be too buggered to bother with these kinds of issues as they would be spending every waking minute just trying to keep it together.
But with too much free time and money they start to delve into things beyond their immediate need for survival, because that's now taken care of.
So we get these kinds of crappy people making all kinds of crappy demands.
And then we get a crappy govt forming crappy laws so what do we end up with, from the people and the laws?
CRAP!

if anyone does not think that paedophile has not increased dramatically since the destruction of the natural family they are totally naïve or stupid.

Steele,

We don't judge things differently now at all, I was fiddled with in the early 1940s and the teacher was removed from the school, and , after the last time that I mentioned it, I contacted some of the other victims, a few are still alive, and learned that the molester had been moved into an administrative job and was not allowed near children.
He later left the Order, married and by all accounts led a blameless life with his wife and children.

"Were all those 12-year-olds getting married back then victims of pedophilia and should their husbands now be judged as pedophiles?"

No, as they would have not been pre-pubescent.
Paedophiles like little girls and boys, suggest that you read some of the definitions of paedophile.
http://duckduckgo.com/?q=paedophile&atb=v163-1&ia=web

Belly,

"smise you get a new low for that
Seems you are siding with pedophiles"

You should start to learn to read English as well as mutilate it,

I was pointing out that atheists, such as you identify yourself, should look at their record in regard to paedophilia.

runner,

"if anyone does not think that paedophile has not increased dramatically since the destruction of the natural family they are totally naïve or stupid"

I suggest that you have a rethink.

"In the strictly hierarchical society of classical Greece, sexual relations between an adult man and a boy were seen as contributing to the boy's education. In late antiquity this view was questioned by, among others, the poet Ovid and the philosopher Plutarch. They argued that such a relationship was not fulfilling for the adult, since the boy, due to his inferior social status, was not allowed to express his own desire. This devaluated the joy of his adult partner and so men were better served by having sexual relations with women.

With the rise of Christianity, approved sexuality came to be located within heterosexual marriage, with procreation as its sole purpose. This was reflected in medieval legislation that established minimum marriage ages and prohibitions against INCEST and homosexual relations. With the ENLIGHTENMENT and the French Revolution in the eighteenth century, morality was no longer the responsibility solely of the Church. The gatekeeper of public and private morals was to be the state, and nineteenth-century penal legislation built upon this base, adding sections on sexual offenses."
http://www.faqs.org/childhood/Pa-Re/Pedophilia.html

I agree ttbn, the recent years have been noticeable for a decline in
"natural" relationships as the norm.
That series, "A Place to Call Home". shown on Foxtel had one distant
shot of a homosexual act briefly, just to satisfy the producers fancy.
It had no particular point to make in the program.
To me it tarnished the whole program, and destroyed the point they
were trying to make about the families acceptance of the son & heir.

Until some normalancy is restored to society and unnatural behaviour
is understood to be unnatural and is in its proper place as such we
will continue to get the aberrant behaviour we see in other areas.

Men dressing up as girls hnd vice versa has always gone on for fun
and amusement but it has never reached the elevation of a school subject !

Now back to the topic of the Folau case.

Israel Folau's case is an interesting one.
It sets up a clash between employment contract
law and legal protections against discrimination
on the basis of religion.

This could set an important employment law precedent for
future cases like this, which is especially contentious
at a time when religious freedom is being so fiercely
debated in Australia.

Rugby Australia terminated Folau's employment contract
after a tribunal determined his actions had breached the
organisation's code of conduct. The offending behaviour
was an instagram post by Folau in April, warning homosexuals
(among others) that: "Hell awaits You. Repent Only Jesus
Saves."

Folau has now brought a claim under Section 772 of the
Fair Work Act, challenging the termination was because of his
religion and therefore, unlawful.

According to media outlets Folau is claiming aroung $5 million
in lost salary and an additional $5 million in compensation
for other missed opportunities including sponsorships.

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

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; not to make public
comments or otherwise act contrary to the best interest of the
game.

cont'd ...

Just after writing the above I came across a comment about a
transgender man finding he was pregnant and wanting to be given an abortion.
Imagine the paperwork chaos, even computer crashes !

And we are expected to consider this NORMAL !!

cont'd ...

What makes Folau's claims unique is that it depends
on the court's view of whether Folau was dismissed
for reasons that included his religion.

Case Law tells us that Section 351 of the Fair Work Act
requires the employee to prove that 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
dismissal instead of a discriminatory motive, then
the employee's claim fails.

This is going to be an interesting test for the courts.
And it is difficult to predict the outcome.

cont'd ...

Just another thought:

If you want to talk about freedom of speech,
read up on the Australian Federal Police
raiding the ABC for reporting the news, then
think long and hard about whether a foot ball
players social media postings are in the same
galaxy.

Foxy, it does not matter that the case is religion related the same
problem exists whether the subject is religion, politics, energy,
coal, uranium, netball, Labour Party, One Nation, heavens even Global Warming !

Bazz have to admire those lying beggars
Climate changers that is
How did they deliver the hottest ever day to France this week
Raging fires in Spain, last year it was Greece
Beggers are running a convincing campaign

ALTRAV,

The rejection of Labor at the election was a good thing in itself but, as Nick Cater of the Menzies Institute warns, “social conservatives should be wary of claiming victory”.

The election win has not changed the “balance of power” in universities, the media, and in boardrooms. The ‘progressives’ are regrouping, ready to crusade again. The Coalition did not win the culture war “because it did not fight one”.

Government bureaucracies are still at stake, as are police and armed forces. And families are still at risk through the waffle on gender reassignment and same-sex garbage infitrating government schools.

Bazz,

The issue at hand isn't that Israel Folau holds certain beliefs.
It may be baffling to the reasonable person that he does, but
he's totally allowed to and no one's sacking him for them.

The problem is that he's repeatedly put statements trumpeting his
beliefs out into the public sphere and he won't retract them or
make any future guarantees to leave his phone in his pocket
next time he's confronted with the reality that everyone's
different.

Granted, comparing him to the drink-drivers and domestic
abusers of the rugby codes makes him look like a saint,
except for the part where you apologise and show contrition.

As for those who are actually funding an uneducated millionaire's
right to be homophobic? The 20,000 people (out of a population
of 25 million?)
We need to ask ourselves is this the way to improve the
country and the future for our children and grand-children?

There are some big questions here.
How far does a person's right of expression extend?
Does being a Christian necessarily mean you can express views
that hurt others on a public forum?
Does it allow Folau to express his views in the way that he did?

The people who've helped Folau amass the millions for his
war chest for his upcoming legal battle with Rugby Australia
do they realise they are actually funding a religious
fanatic whose backward views are harmful to others?

Apparently giving money to Folau a guy who wants the right to
say disparaging things about the way certain people are born
without defending having to face any consequences - is
to some all about defending Australian's freedom of religion
and freedom of speech.

A real bunch of patriots, these donors are. Given this
whole situation has somehow become a national issue?
The mind boggles.

Foxy as the thread has become about politics I would like to tell you and Paul about this weekend
Please understand I remain Labor to the bone
For the first time NSW Labor members got to vote on our leader
Jody MACKay won, she is from the right of the party, and stood firmly at an ICAC inquiry against both filth in our ranks and rich business men
She is the fresh air we needed, privileged to have worked on her team when she first entered Parliament
The road ahead is long but looks good
Worth noting rank and file, post Rudd, voted for Albo, caucus overruled and installed Bill Shorten

Foxy, why do you find it so hard to accept that we are all different, as you yourself have just pointed out.
The fact that someone has expressed a 'personal' opinion based on his 'personal' beliefs, does not mean we should all start panicking and carrying on.
In reality, everyone other than Falau (who objected to his comments) is at fault.
Starting with the NRL, then, and probably, mostly next to blame is that queer little mongrel from Quantas.
Now, he too is allowed an 'opinion'.
What he is not allowed to do is 'act' on that opinion, think about that a second and you will get why.
The irony of cases such as this is, that by doing something in response we have given credibility to his statements.
Those who responded negatively did so because they believed what he said, so they must be Christians, and if they are Christians then they should have agreed with what he said.
Now on the other hand if you don't believe in God or heaven and hell, then you would not care, let alone even listen to what he said.
You would have glossed over those comments just like someone preaching on a street corner.
Those with your attitude and convictions would have everyone being of the same beliefs, and all of them nice and never a disparaging word.
For example most people like alcohol, sports, theatre, chili, and a myriad of other things which I hate and abhor.
Am I not different from 'mainstream' Australians?
I continually insult people for consuming such food and drink, should I stop voicing my 'opinion', which by the way is based on fact, not fiction, as in Falau's case.
No Foxy, he had EVERY right to say what he did, and we had every right to ignore him.
As for his contractual obligations, it appears there may be evidence that the NRL have broken section 772 of the law, which precedes anything Falau did 'after' he signed the contract.
So it is that because we are ALL different that we conduct ourselves differently.

Foxy said;
Does being a Christian necessarily mean you can express views
that hurt others on a public forum?
Does it allow Folau to express his views in the way that he did?

This where you go beyond the Pale Foxy.
Your belief that nothing should be said that offends another is untenable.
No matter what is said be it religious or not so long as you do not
advocate physical harm to others then that is OK. Sticks & Stones.
The only damage to Rugby Union from all this kerfuffle has been self afflicted.

No one has a right to be not offended and all this twiterati carryon
has been from those looking for something to be offended about.
They sucked you right in didn't they ?

Bazz,

There are competing interests at stake here.

Israel Folau is claiming that Rugby Australia
unlawfully sacked him because of his religion.
The organisation contends the rugby star violated
the terms of his code of conduct by discriminating
against (among others) - LGBTQ people.

I will politely suggest to you to read the following
link taken from Australia's leading libertarian
centre-right blog - catallaxy files on the subject,
written by Justinian the Great. It just may help
to clear things up for you:

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2019/06/28/folau-competing-interests-are-at-stake/

Christian economist and commentator on life, Peter Smith, points out that it IS Christianity to regard homosexuality, among other things, as a sin. And it's not just in the 'outdated' Old Testament. The later version is:

"from the New International Version:

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."

Plain enough.

Of course, the anti-Christian "sanctimonious bigots" don't have to accept it, nor does it matter to them, and there is no point in discussing it with them. " They are out to destroy Christianity, the very foundation of our culture and way of life. It is in their way. It must be weakened, distorted and diluted to suit the progressive fads and fashions of the time."

And, don't be 'deceived' into thinking that the Christophobes and neo-coms are concerned about homosexuals. It's all about politics and crushing dissent

The God that I believe in was about love,
empathy, and compassion. He so loved that
he gave his life up for our sins. He did
not discriminate or preach hatred. As the following
link explains:

http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/no_fems_no_fairies.html

Also, the Bible was written by men thousands of years ago. There
are several interpretations, and needs to be read in context.

Foxy, another of your pre-concieved outcome, links.
Do you again, realise the irony.
What you say and your many links say, are offensive to many here on OLO, therefore it stands to reason, that you must stop commenting, and OLO must 'pull' your comments if you persist.
You malign and berate me for saying things you, and others, find offensive.
So what?
If I intended to offend, I have the right to do so.
If I did not, I have nothing to defend.
I don't care how many links you produce, because you see, you possibly, unknowingly, but never-the-less, have been lying to us all throughout your time on OLO.
You stated categorically that you do not have a pre-concieved agenda.
Well this is clearly not the case, when nearly every link has a message, not just information.
If you wanted to better inform us, you would choose only informative links, but NO, you are trying to get your message across, against our will.
So Foxy, how do you differ from Falou?
You do know the difference between information and indoctrination, don't you?

Foxy,

Are you suggesting that the Bible, that Folau quotes from, preaches hatred ? Doesn't god love and forgive all sinners but not the sins ? As can atheist, I'm puzzled how you can claim to be a believer and yet not support one of the major innovations of the New Testament ?

Are you suggesting that, to point out 'sins', as surely the Bible urges, is to preach hate ? Surely you're not that adolescent :)

Joe

Joe,

I am not suggesting that the Bible preaches
hatred. As a matter of fact I gave a link and
pointed out that it is open to interpretation.
Perhaps you could read what I post before
commenting in future? Thank You.

The hatred in this discussion is not coming from
me. Yet I am being singled out for criticism.
No one else is. I wonder why that is?
But perhaps I'm the one being the adult here?

Foxy you will not find it hard being the adult [your usual position] in this discussion
Would like to see the pedophils in the Church get the spotlight rather than imaginary views someone has been deprived of his rights to worship a phantom that never existed
Unforunatly pedophils did and still do as Churches still, try to cover them up

Dear Belly,

There's a lot of heat being generated as a result
of the Bible verse being bandied around by
everyone from sports heroes to journalists to
many others saying that certain people will go to
hell unless they repent. But what if the Bible
verse they so casually quote is being misinterpreted?

Are the journalists doing their job properly?
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
emphasizing the and reflecting on the appropriate edges
of our freedoms. When does freedom of speech tip over
into hate speech?

Surely, you need to think before you post or speak.
If you find yourself preaching bigotry, intolerance
or hatred you need to take responsibility - you can't
excuse it by saying you read it in a book.

I can still recall the Sunday Sermon that I walked out of
in a leading Cathedral in Los Angeles a few years ago
because of the bile that was being spouted by the parish
priest. I felt so strongly that he was causing me to sin
just by listening to him. I was having such bad thoughts.
So I walked out into the sunshine.

ALTRAV,

If people never said anything that would not offend someone, nothing would ever get said. People whine about being offended or hurt - or, more usually, some virtue-signaller does it for them - simply to shut up people, to stamp out dissent. In reality, most people are not that pathetic, and don't have an attack of the vapours everytime someone disagrees with them.

This whole issue is really about who gets the right to call sin sin. I see it as the greatest act of love ever that Christ paid the price for sin. Many have turned from being adulterers, liars, drunkards, homosexuals etc. The apostle Paul was warning the believers not to be deceived into thinking you can go back to these lifestyles after being forgiven, cleansed, sanctified. This is clear consistent Christian teaching.

Some interpret this as love and some on this forum as hate. Why can't we agree to disagree? Issy obviously interprets God's invitation to turn from sin and receive forgiveness as love. Others are offended that our Designer gets to tell us what is right and wrong.

I can assure you that Rugby Australia, ANZ or Qantas have absolute no qualifications in determining good and evil.

Dear Loudmouth,

You write;

“Are you suggesting that, to point out 'sins', as surely the Bible urges, is to preach hate ?”

Is highlighting the fact that the Bible represents Jews as Christ killers and spawn of the devil preaching hate?

You seem not to think so.

Dear runner,

You write;

“I can assure you that Rugby Australia, ANZ or Qantas have absolute no qualifications in determining good and evil.”

Oh claptrap.

The majority of Australians voted to do the moral thing and allow gay marriage in this country. They recognised it because they were not tied to a religious doctrine that tried to tell them they were sinners for doing so.

You might get to sit there and dictate what you think your brand of faith constitutes a 'sin' against God but you sure as hell don't get to lecture the rest of us on morality or good and evil. By your own words and actions we have that far more covered than you will ever be likely to.

'The majority of Australians voted to do the moral thing and allow gay marriage in this country. They recognised it because they were not tied to a religious doctrine that tried to tell them they were sinners for doing so.'

Sure Steelie and our Creator gives people the choice to receive forgiveness and mercy. The majority are free to reject salvation and choose perversion.

'By your own words and actions we have that far more covered than you will ever be likely to.'

coming from a bloke with atrocious judgment and full of bile!

Foxy, if you are so sensitive to what a 'preacher' says, you should not be engaging in discussions of 'any' kind, let alone such sensitive ones as this one is.
By admitting to such a thing you are submitting yourself to exclusion from any and all discussions, as it appears you are easily upset.
Again you expose your true emotional state and in doing so expose the flaws in your ability to reason with proper emotional and rational thinking.
This finally explains a lot as just another piece in the puzzle that is you.
You ask when does freedom of speech tip over into hate speech.
The answer is; whenever a person feels the need.
People have different reasons for doing the things they do.
It stands to reason then that they feel justified in doing the things they do.
A thief will not reckognise he is doing anything wrong by stealing, even if it requires 'breaking and entering'.
So why then would someone not offend or abuse or insult someone if they felt the situation called for it.
YOU, Foxy, may never feel the need or find yourself in a situation to do such things.
Now we all know that's not true.
We know that in life one cannot avoid such situations, but because of your mindset, and not the situation, that you do not respond as you should, offensively, thereby putting right the situation which clearly called for it.
By not responding offensively, you have effectively given the offending party tacit approval that their behaviour was acceptable, because you.........accepted it, because you did not want to offend them.
What twisted logic, it is you and people like you who misrepresent the difference between freedom of speech and hate speech.

Belly,

Here're a few of your fellow atheists that you might like to read about,

http://listverse.com/2010/06/05/10-people-who-give-atheism-a-bad-name/

Feeling better?

[Deleted for abuse.]

Dear ALTRAV,

God strewth, I really had to wade my way through that turgid dross for you to make such an idiotic point?

By your measure Trump has no legitimacy as President.

Look mate, I don't give a rats how much the result gets your knickers in a knot, your lot could only manage less than a third of the vote. It is done and dusted so sulk as much as you want, I don't even find it amusing any more. Get over it or don't, I really don't care.

Steely,of course you would say that.
Where's your come back?
YEH, that's what I thought.
Still trying to win an un-winable and moot point.
No I'm not letting you off the hook that easily, your going to be told.
Another correction; it was less than 40%, of the 70% or so of the population that voted.
Don't worry I don't sulk, and certainly not when I'm right.
There you've been told!

Foxy, I am reading your reference.
I am appalled that someone would suggest that if an employee would
write something that offended any particular customer could be sacked !
An employee could be a prominent member of any organisation unconnected
to the employers industry but one of thousands customers complains and
he is told not to speak on that subject again.
He does speak again, so he loses his job ?

What possible right for that could that employer have ?
The example your reference gave of Ali is arguable because the Koran
specifies;
“If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy he will be
stoned to death.”
He is advocating harm, indeed death.
You call that a comparison ?
This raises another question, the Koran should be a banned publication
as it advocates death for homosexuals, by throwing off cliffs.
Don't hear screaming by the twitterati on that !

The hypocrisy in this business is appalling !

I KNOW
Truly know, but it remains a valid question, are my rights to claim no God ever existed the same a this mans?
And if I am right is this about nothing?
Remember , please do not change the facts to suit your bias, he was warned once
Told not to do it again
Then did it, he broke a contract
Bazz you use other truths to prop him up
Again, why did he not talk about pedophilia in the faith?
Suffer the little children who come onto me?

To Belly. You asked:

<<are my rights to claim no God ever existed the same a this mans?>>

My guess is that you have more rights then Isreal Folau, just on the basis that you can talk openly about your disbelief in God and have nothing to fear about losing your job or any retirement income. You can do this in public as well as in your privite life without worry from an employer punishing you for what you say off the clock.

With that in mind everyone here posting about this probabley has more expressed rights then Folau because they aren't fighting for their right to free speech in a court. In essence if your rights aren't abused then you have more rights then those who's rights have been abused. The issue for me is that the contract of restricting Folau's speach should not have been made and should be considered a breach of his rights by them just making the contract. No employer should have this much say about someone when they are off the clock unless the person actually harmed someone, or unless it had something to do with the business they are fired from.

Folau's Twitter post harmed no one (though made a lot of people angry), has nothing to do with rugby, nor was it made while in rugby uniform or on the field. Yet he is fired and fighting for his rights in court. Anyone not in court fighting for their rights likely has no abuse on their rights being made and have more rights expressed then Folau.

I find this whole thing amusing.
People are just so childish and lacking in so many ways.
Fools one and all.
Now I can see how easy it was to lead people around by the nose in the good ole' days, in fact, still today.
How easy was it to convince them that if they did not do as they were told that God would punish them or the sky would fall down, or God would send a plague of locusts, and so on and so forth.
People, this is a storm in a tea cup'.
The main reason I find you all lacking is that whether Muslim or Christian, who cares.
What you all suddenly found God?
You've all suddenly realised there are things called religion, and you're supposed to be beholding to it.
You all carry on as if you are compelled to obey the word of God, all of a sudden, when we really know that most people scoff at the mention of religion and anything to do with it.
So why are we suddenly concerned with 'the word of God', and someone preaching it?
People have to give opinions, it makes them feel important.
You people comment as if this was a relevant issue and therefore important.
I comment in jest and ridicule, which is what this topic is really about.
The man gives an opinion which he is legally allowed to give by law, and by rights.
Never mind that he was told by his employer not to, that was illegal and overridden by the law, section 772.
You know the irony of all this?
How do any of you brainiacs know that the poofters will NOT burn in hell?
Do you know something those of us with a sense of humour and objective outlook on life, don't know?

Steele Redux, you can't resist a snide shot at Christians, but the basis of your criticism of the Gospel of John for quoting Jesus calling "the Jews" children of Satan, is wrong. It's pretty clear he is referring to those who were plotting to kill him at the time, not the whole of the Jewish nation. There are also translation issues, which if you wanted to be fair-minded, you could read. Here's a link to a site that tackles some of them https://blog.israelbiblicalstudies.com/jewish-studies/who-are-the-jews-in-the-gospel-of-john/.

Interesting that you would classify as "hate speech" words spoken in an attempt to dissuade one group from killing a person. Jesus is saying that if they kill him, then they are not children of Abraham, but children of Satan. That is they are not righteous, but evil. I reckon that is fair comment.

Belly,

"Again, why did he not talk about pedophilia in the faith?
Suffer the little children who come onto me?"

Probably for the same reason that you appear loath to talk about the appalling record of atheists in relation to paedophilia.

People need to discriminate between what they are arguing about
and why they are arguing.

I watched the Logies last night and saw former 7.30 Report
and Four Corners host Kerry O'Brien being given a standing ovation
as he was inducted into the Logie Hall of Fame.

I read Channel Nine's summary of the event this morning.
And it stated that the forthright O'Brien used his speech to call
for the ABC to be defended and for real reconciliation with
Australia's Indigenous people.

"The ABC is still forging its way through strong headwinds,
probably never threatened more than it is today by a combination
of forces - cash strapped in a
totally disrupted digitally-driven industry
and still confronting the same, sad ideological arguments,"
he said.

"My message to every person working in Aunty's embrace today is
simple, keep your heads held high and your eye firmly fixed on
delivering programs of relevance, quality and integrity for
people in every corner of Australia."

He also called on the Australian public to fight for the ABC,
citing the recent Australian Federal Police raids on the
broadcaster's Sydney headquarters.

"Don't ever again allow politicians to diminish the public
broadcaster. It is one of the most precious institutions we
have," he said.

O'Brien has worked for all commercial television stations and
the ABC, which he described as his natural home.

"The pursuit of excellence wasn't just permitted. It was expected," he said.

O'Brien has also won six Walkley Awards, one of them gold, and is
a member of the Australian Media Hall of Fame.

"Kerry doesn't need to be in this Hall of Fame but this Hall of
Fame needs him if it is going to be complete,
because it is for people like Kerry O'Brien
that Halls of Fame were invented,"
presenter Waleed Aly said.

This moment certainly hit the mark for me. It showed
the best of what we as Australians are capable of.

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

David Stratton's Stories of Australian Cinema
airs late on a Sunday night. Stratton discusses
the genre of Australian films and how many
depicted the "Ugly Australian," in the past.
He stressed that not much had changed over the
years mentioning the film, "Wolf Creek," which
he labelled as "horror." He warned of being
aware of the images that we present to other people
and our global reputation.

With that in mind we need to be aware of our own
words and postings on public forums such as this one.
Do we want to inspire people like Kerry O'Brien
obviously does, or do we we want to go down the path
of the character of "Wolf Creek?"

Best advice - think before you post and the effect it's
going to have on others.

""My message to every person working in Aunty's embrace today is
simple, keep your heads held high and your eye firmly fixed on
delivering programs of relevance, quality and integrity for
people in every corner of Australia.'

Let's hope the ABC hears this message.

Even ‘Crikey’ might be getting sick of every part of our lives getting politicised and something to fight about: On the left-wing website Crikey, Guy Rundle wrote how something could be done to stop the nonsense - by making institutions as neutral as possible.”Rugby Australia no more need a same-sex marriage plebiscite policy than Beaumaris Golf Club needs a Middle East peace plan”

ABC is my station, and as said here last night proved it remains Australia's
Fox/Sky fears it, wants it dead, so very much hey bought a government to try to achieve it

Bloody Hell; all the fuss being made here by the twitterati and yet
they completely ignore this aspect of religion;

http://tinyurl.com/y3e8mzdb

Only 50 killed in Christchurch and look at the uproar.
These attacks are almost daily and not a word in the media.

And what is the argument here about, some words on Facebook !
Bloody Hell !

It reminds me of the 1930s when everyone turned away from Hitler.

Bazz,

I read the link you gave. It's from "Jihad Watch"
which is an anti-Muslim conspiracy blog which
is known for it's anti-Muslim propaganda, inaccuracy,
and intolerant messages.

Its Director and co-founder - Robert Spencer is one
of America's most prolific anti-Muslim figures.
His writings were cited dozens of times by the Norwegian
terrorist Anders Breivik.

Spencer was banned from the United Kingdom as an extremist
in July 2013.

Conflict in the area mentioned in your link is more
complicated than Christians versus Muslims. There are
also quarrels over land and water use, ethnicity and
religion. There's more to the incident given, than what
is in "Jihad Watch" you need to do more research before
quoting from a hate site to us on this forum.

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

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

Dear GrahamY,

You charge; “Steele Redux, you can't resist a snide shot at Christians, but the basis of your criticism of the Gospel of John for quoting Jesus calling "the Jews" children of Satan, is wrong.”

Please reread my post. I posted a quote directly from Wikipedia. If you have an issue with what is written there you can make your own edits and see if they are accepted.

All I did was ask a perfectly legitimate question;

“What if instead of quoting passages about homosexuals headed for hell he had quoted John and claimed that Jews are to be feared and that 'Salvation is from the Jews'?”

Whether that would be construed as hate speech is of course relevant.

Saying there is a particular interpretation of these scriptures is fine. But there are also different interpretations of the very few scriptures relating to homosexuals in the bible.

Take ROMANS 1:26-27 “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”

Mathew Vines who is the author of God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships.” writes “Paul is explicit that the same-sex behavior in this passage is motivated by lust. His description is similar to the common ancient idea that people “exchange” opposite-sex for same-sex relations because they are driven by out-of-control desire, not because they have a different sexual orientation. And while Paul labels same-sex behavior “unnatural,” he uses the same word to criticize long hair in men in 1 Corinthians 11:14, which most Christians read as a synonym for “unconventional.” Christians should continue to affirm with Paul that we shouldn’t engage in sexual behavior out of self-seeking lustfulness. But that’s very different than same-sex marriages that are based on self-giving love, and we shouldn’t conflate the two in how we interpret this text today.”

Steele I don't have a problem with a sensitive reading of the passages surrounding homosexual practices, although I think the person you quote has not fairly dealt with the text. But I do have a problem with people making specious claims, apparently in this case based on what you read in Wikipedia, which are meant to vilify a religion.

Paul doesn't actually refer to "homosexuals" as the concept basically didn't exist at the time. It was the activity that he was criticising. There was no sense that there was a group of people who somehow had a different sexuality in the ancient world.

He was also reacting to the pagan world, where bisexuality was rampant in some Greek and Roman cultures, and what mattered was who was dominant and who was submissive, not who or what you had sex with.

The Jewish belief, which is the Christian one as well, was that you only had sex with someone you were married to. All other sorts of intercourse were forbidden. Lust isn't the issue. Lust for your married partner was fine. Having sex outside of marriage was the issue. Which is why in the list Folau paraphrases adultery and fornication are side by side with men lying with men. Homosexuals aren't actually mentioned - he's done a bad paraphrase.

Sex isn't viewed as being recreational by Christians, but as partaking in God's creative power and his love for the world. This is partly what the Song of Solomon is about.

Rubbish Foxy, you are following the Lefty Useful Idiots propaganda.
I used look for and read where possible in the national countries
news web sites. Google translator is useful there.
Not easy to do but minor errors are found but basic truth is there.
Of course when something is Australian related no errors there
except some geographic errors it is easy to check.
Re the UK well Spencer joined a whole group of people banned for Islamaphobia.
You should understand that the UK is gradually being too frightened
to say boo to muslims. Rather Brits are examined by the thought police
and can end up in court and do risk gaol for saying the wrong thing.
Another place you should keep an eye on is Canada, it is going the same way.

I don't check much now as I found little in the way of errors.
You said this;
His writings were cited dozens of times by the Norwegian
terrorist Anders Breivik.

Now isn't that typical of the twitterati ?
You find some nasty who has quoted your target and use that against him.
Are you on twitter Foxy, I am very disappointed in you.
Cheers

Foxy, just read on Jihad Watch article about children being withdrawn
from classes on Islam in the UK.

Checked the Independant and it was part copied from that newspaper.
I could, but I won't bother, send you one of the French or German
monthly reports of Islamic attacks in those countries.
These reports have daily reports of such problems. There is almost
no days in the month without a report.

You really do need read more widely.
Cheers Foxy but sorry for being so terse.

Bazz,

You don't have to apologise to me for your opinion.
You're entitled to it. As I am to disagree with it.
I am merely concerned. You need to be careful
in what you post, the way you post it, and who your
sources are. You don't want people to get the wrong
impression.

This is
a really important issue today. And there's a whole
bunch of skewed hatred and people are being targeted,
sometimes very personall, on social media.

Intolerant messages and bashings of certain targeted
groups is not very wise in this day and age.
There's too much hatred around as it is.

Foxy highlights my complaint about SOME here
We need contributors and we need to not become a verbal graffiti board that constantly insults each other
Being On one side or the other in this debate does not make anyone a lefty or right wing nut
The community is divided by this issue
I have changed my view after Christians made it about his faith and cash
He will not win, after all the human rights stuff is sifted he broke a contract

Thanks Foxy, well I see that a lawyer has given an opinion that QANTAS
could be found guilty of a third party boycott offense if the court
decides to hear evidence about their interference.

As far as being careful what I say, well that is what it is all about !
I understand that some new legislation came into force yesterday.
There is some "hate speech" legislation coming and I am not sure if it
is what came in yesterday.
So if so I guess I will have to be careful not to say something that a
muslim or a snowflake lefty finds offensive.
Oh dear, would a muslim find that offensive ?

This is where they have got to in the UK. Free speech in the UK is
very much limited these days.
Just googled new legislation and it appears nothing like I thought
came into effect yesterday. However lots of other new laws.

New laws are so prolific hardly anyone knows what is current.

Cheers

Foxy,

I find some of your assumptions problematic:

1 Folau's comment can hurt or harm people. This is pure bollocks, it can offend people which is clearly not the same, and the principle of free speech is that because people are offended does not make the speech either hateful or harmful.

2 If the speech is fundamental to Folau's religious beliefs and not used specifically to vilify anyone, then sacking him for stating his religious beliefs is illegal, and the procedures followed are irrelevant.

3 As his comments on social media were not addressed in the contract, the reliance on a code of conduct is weak reason to dismiss as James Cook university found out.

SM,

Folau's case is not about freedom of speech.
He broke the professional code of conduct in
his contract. He broke his
contractual obligation despite many warnings
and a letter in writing. He understood what
was expected of him, and chose to ignore it.

The law is clear in this matter and he's only
one of many thousands currently suing for
"unfair dismissal." The courts will decide.

If you don't believe me - speak to a lawyer
familiar with industrial dispute cases.

As for the Peter Ridd case?

That's a different more complex matter.
Which I've covered in another discussion on this forum
started by ttbn -
dealing with James Cook University. You're welcome
to go and read my comments there.

Dear GrahamY,

Picking on the poor Wikipedia writers for making perfectly valid points when exulted pivotal figures of the Christian faith have written the following is really a bit rich;

St.  Augustine: “Judaism is a corruption.  Indeed Judas is the image of the Jewish people.  Their understanding of the Scriptures is carnal.  They bear the guilt for the death of the saviour, for through their fathers they have killed the Christ.”

St.  Thomas Aquinas: “It would be licit to hold Jews, because of the crimes, in perpetual servitude, and therefore the princes may regard the possessions of Jews as belonging to the State.”

Martin Luther: “Know, 0 adored Christ, and make no mistake, that aside from the Devil, you have no enemy more venomous, more desperate, more bitter, than a true Jew who truly seeks to be a Jew... a Jew, a Jewish heart, are hard as wood, as stone, as iron, as the Devil himself.  In short, they are children of the Devil, condemned to the flames of hell.”

They were considered intellectual giants of the faith yet it would be impossible to imagine they were 'in fear of being killed by local Jews'. These 'fathers' were mostly inspired John's scriptures which the Wikipedia article quite rightly flagged.

The question still stands; “What if instead of quoting passages about homosexuals headed for hell he had quoted John and claimed that Jews are to be feared and that 'Salvation is from the Jews'?”

The verses Falou used to justify his meme was Galatians 5 19-21 (see link).

“Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-11/israel-folau-slammed-over-latest-anti-gay-comments/10991574

Not a single mention of homosexuals. He went out of his way to introduce them into into his graphic. Far closer to hate speech than just quoting scripture.

Dear Steele,

I've just come across the following link which gives
the issues from an interesting angle:

http://www.jpost.com/Blogs/The-Jewish-Problem---From-anti-Judaism-to-anti-Semitism/Jewish-Problem-Sources-the-gospels-You-are-of-your-father-the-devil-375836

Steele, I'm not disputing that some Christians have used the scripture verses as the basis for criminal un-Christian acts. But you can't convict the passages because others wilfully misinterpret them.

"Men who lie with other men" is a bit clumsy, so Folau paraphrased it. But that doesn't get you to hate speech. Christian theology is that everyone is a sinner, and that we are only saved through God's grace. "Saved" means you don't go to hell. So Folau gave a long list of things which many people do, and reminded them that, from his point of view, they were risking their soul if they did not stop doing them and repent.

He didn't advise anyone to get violent with sinners, or to shun them. He wasn't talking to anyone, but sinners, amongst which he numbers himself.

It's no different from a friend telling you that if you don't lose weight you'll get diabetes and a heart condition.

This is a contrived debate where people like you seem to want to take offence and use the offence to push contrary opinions out of the way. Or to misrepresent what the Bible says, and use it to push Christians out of the way.

And you're happy to misrepresent Bible verses at the same time as you accuse your target of doing the same thing, because you don't care about the accuracy of the interpretation, you just care about shutting down contrary opinion.

If Fulau loses the case and his job is finished have a think about the consequences.

For instance I am a member of an organisation that has had many a
controversy in its time. I make a statement about that organisation's
policies and Belly is very upset about my statement and complains to
my employer about what I said.
Now the employer is not a member and may not even know of its existence.
However Belly may be a customer of my employer, perhaps not even to my knowledge.
My employer tells me not to speak about that organisation again.
I tell him I will or I won't, doesn't matter which.
I speak about the subject (What offset repeaters should use) again.
My employer sacks me.

Is that reasonable ? Go on be brave, speak up !

Bazz,

This is about the law regarding contractual
agreements. 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.

Dear GrahamY,

You write;

“And you're happy to misrepresent Bible verses at the same time as you accuse your target of doing the same thing, because you don't care about the accuracy of the interpretation, you just care about shutting down contrary opinion.”

Goodness me.

Well old chap you will need to show me where I have 'happily misrepresented Bible verses' in my original post.

I didn't. I posted this quote from Wikipedia "The Gospel of John has provided antisemites with grist for their mill. It is the primary source of the image of "the Jews" acting collectively as the enemy of Jesus, which later became fixed in Christian minds."

And then in a follow up post more than adequately showed prime examples of the truth of that statement.

I am more than happy to state the faith's intelligentsia were wrong in taking them out of context and helping drive 2,000 years of brutal anti-Semitic violence. But it should be understood this wasn't just a few doing this, it was accepted across almost the entire breadth of European Christianity.

All I was asking was if Folau, who might be a smart bloke but certainly wouldn't rate as part of the intelligentsia within the church, was to follow nearly 2,000 years of Church doctrine, teaching and custom and use Biblical verses to vilify Jewish people then would this at least be called hate speech?

And with respect there seems to be no haste in furnishing a reply.

Finally I have continually expressed my reservations about the treatment of Falou and have always felt he deserved his day in court.

But to say something isn't hate speech just because it is Bible based as which is what is being implied is just inane.

In my mind when Falou went out of his way to include homosexuals in his instagram post he crossed the line for me. That might not be your opinion but it is mine.

No Foxy, it may or may not be about contracts.
A contract does not make any difference to unfair dismissal law.

Bazz,

The law is not about fairness. It's about
the law. Perhaps that's why the Statue of
Justice wears a blindfold?

This entire case is based on the law
and how it applies to Folau. And, that is what will
be decided in court.

217 posts. How much longer can you lot drag it out!

I received this email today: "Life is short. Make sure you spend as much time as possible on the internet arguing with strangers about politics".

Over a week, and the obsessive are still at it, making not a bit of difference to anything or anyone

Then why are you here?

Dear Bazz,

You wrote;

"A contract does not make any difference to unfair dismissal law."

What?

Rubbish. Only in limited cases at best.

But leaving that aside this applies in NSW;

"If an employee is earning $138,900 or more a year, they are not eligible to make an unfair dismissal application. This is the so called ‘high income threshold’ and the amount changes from year to year."
http://www.slatergordon.com.au/blog/when-can-you-not-claim-unfair-dismissal

Bazz,

A contract makes all the difference.

This is what this case is all about.
Rugby Australia maintains that Folau was dismissed
not because of his religious beliefs, but because he
breached the player code of conduct.

Raelene Castle, The Chair of Rugby Australia has
explained numerous times in TV 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's 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 bec ause
of religion. The employer in Folau's case gave him
three warnings, many interviews, and a letter in
writing so that he would clearly understand that he was
breaching the player's code of conduct. Folau chose
to do it anyway. He ignored all the warnings.

Therefore 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.

In any case, it shall be interesting to see what a
court decides. A Tribunal determined Folau's actions
had breached the organisation's code of conduct.
Now it's up to the Courts.

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

What does the player code say about conduct of religion ?

Of course he upset QANTAS, but they might be in trouble for secondary boycotts.
Oh dear, the decision may generate fairer legislation.
If you think this has been too much, wait till they try and introduce hate speech laws.

Foxy,

You are wrong, that there was no clause that demanded Folau's adherence to social media laws is common knowledge, and RA tried to amend the contract once they discovered the error.

Without the inclusion in the contract the ability to enforce the "code of conduct" is not legally sound as happened with Ridley and JCU.

The new twist is with an RA official stating that Folau had to be sacked because sponsors would withdraw now makes them co defendents.

SM,

I'll take Raelene Castle's word over yours as to
what was in the contract. She outlined it clearly
in the TV interviews. They did want to add
additional clauses to make it even more tight -
but it turned out they were not necessary. The
Tribunal accepted the contract as it was and
found Folau guilty of having breached it.

Let's wait and see what the Courts decide.
According to Case Law 351 of the Fair Works Act
Folau has to prove that he was discriminated
because of his religion for his dismissal.
If he can't his claim fails.

Foxy,

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/112756611/contract-debacle-that-left-rugby-australia-vulnerable-in-israel-folau-storm

"Rugby Australia chief executive Raelene Castle aborted a last-ditch attempt last year to add a social media clause to Israel Folau's contract that could have saved the game a month's worth of pain.

Castle met with Folau in London in November, as the Wallabies prepared for their final spring tour test against England.

According to sources familiar with the meeting, she was intent on asking him to sign an addendum that should have been included in the original contract he had signed a month earlier........

Their oversights appear to have left RA exposed and on shaky legal ground in the ensuing storm. The Sydney Morning Herald understands Folau was the last signatory to his new contract with RA and NSW Rugby on October 10, but the next day received, via his manager Isaac Moses, a note asking that the new addendum be signed and returned as well.

That addendum was a social media clause, requiring that Folau's use of Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and other platforms not be likely to, among other things, jeopardise the reputation of either organisation or bring into disrepute the wider game.

Moses advised Folau against signing it, meaning the organisation had no protection six months later when Folau, in his own words, received a message from God prompting his two inflammatory social media posts."

SM,

The additional clauses were not
added. The Tribunal found that Folau's contract
had enough in it to warrant a breach of conduct
decision, also taking into account - all the warnings and
letter that Folau had received making things clear
to him. He chose to ignore the lot. And, was
found in breach according to the law as it currently
stands.

With all this controversy surrounding religious
beliefs and freedoms of speech - perhaps what needs
to be done now is have the law reviewed regarding
the powers of employers over employees?

Currently all we have to go on is the law as it stands.
And in this case Folau was found to have breached his contract.
For change to occur the law needs to be re-examined.
Which may not be a bad thing. Something good
just may come out of this sports controversy
after all for the future.

See you on another discussion. I have nothing further
to add to this one. And repeating things is getting a
bit tiresome.

Foxy,

With all due respect, the tribunal was put together and employed by RA and would have to consider the action of the sponsors.

My opinion on the fragility of RA's case is based on:
1 The Peter Ridd case where the JCU tribunal had relied on the code of conduct instead of the actual signed contract, which was shot down in flames.
2 RA was sufficiently worried to off Folau $2m to go away which they would never have done if they were 100% sure of their case.

Both of which have nothing to do with the religious issue, which could obviate both of the above.

Shadow Minister,

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.

Foxy,

You keep quoting Raelene Castle as an unbiased expert. She's clearly not. To admit even once that religion had anything to do with IF's dismissal would be to hand Folau an instant victory, at which point she might as well resign.

Labour law is biased towards an employee, and to fire someone requires the employer not only to have a strong case for dismissal, but to have followed the correct procedures. Many employee has been reappointed for the smallest slip up.

That there is a clear and unambiguous tie to Folau's religion in the quote that he posted on Instagram being a quote from the new testament rather than any direct statement of his opinion changes the onus of proof onto RA. Given that the purely contractual basis for the dismissal is also on shaky ground given they are relying on the code of conduct rather than the contract. Add to this a senior member of RA admitting that the support of sponsors was based on the outcome and you have the perfect storm for RA.

If Folau drags the sponsors into court for months of bad publicity, you might well find the pressure on RA to settle becoming irresistible.

The bottom line is don't upset sponsors particularly those that want to push the homosexual agenda.

SM,

We're 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, why say yes in the first place and sign a contract
if that's 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?

It appears that Folau's target is everything in this
scenario.
If Folau was insisting on vilifying say - Jews, or the
rich, or the disabled, would anyone object to Rugby
Australia insisting he shut up about it?

I cant see any good outcome coming out of this honestly Foxy.

If Israel Folau CAN say what he said, other religious believers would have full permission to openly preach what their religious texts say.

If Israel Folau CAN'T say what he said, then it gives too much power to big business to dictate and intrude upon the lives of the people they employ.

It's a no win situation.

AC,

Businesses have always had the power over what was
considered -" acceptable
conduct" of their employees. This is nothing new.
And religious organisations have also always
been allowed to discriminate. Perhaps we need to
review the laws?

Foxy,

Since Folau's contract made no mention of social media, your statement that "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" is pure bollocks.

Hey Foxy,
"Perhaps we need to review the laws?"

I dunno, maybe...

On another thread I kind of had to agree with what Alan B said.

"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."

- Or if not we'll have a situation like this:
A Jew on one corner saying "Its our right to rule over all gentiles!"
A Muslim on another corner saying "Kill all the infidels!"
A Christian saying "Homosexuals and Fornicators are going to hell!!"
A Luciferian saying "Do as thou wilt"

To add to the current mix of:

Politicians saying "Global Governance is Good, Sovereignty is bad!"
Refugees saying "You're all racist and Intolerant!"
Progressives saying "End Facism and Hate Speech!"
Gays saying "Were normal stop bullying us!"
- and Feminists saying "Stop Male Patriachy!", and "All men are rapists!"

It's all pretty nauseating, what a mess.

Maybe it's like quicksand and if you struggle things will just get worse...
- Maybe it's not actually possible to fix it.

SM,

According to The Chair of Rugby Australia -
Raelene Castle - who explained numerous times in
TV interviews - 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's actions breached the player
code of conduct.

AC,

I totally agree. It is a mess, and really
could have been handled much better by
Rugby Australia. All they had to do is
release a letter to the media saying that
Folau was entitled to his private views but they
did not reflect those of Rugby Australia
in any shape or form.

But perhaps that would have been too simple?
Or alternatively, Folau should have shut up
after his first warning from Rugby Australia.
He had more than three of them, including a
letter in writing and several interviews where
things were made crystal clear to him.

Either way - we'll see what happens next.

Foxy,

"All they had to do is
release a letter to the media saying that
Folau was entitled to his private views but they
did not reflect those of Rugby Australia
in any shape or form."

They could have said that but would their sponsor(s) have let them?

Is Mise,

We'll never know will we. Just as Folau
could have kept his word - couldn't he>
Or alternatively put his message across in
a different way.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda.

All a bit late now.

As Judge Judy would say -

"Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining!

Foxy,

It looks like RA and its sponsors are about to get creamed:

https://www.smh.com.au/national/folau-s-prospects-bolstered-by-landmark-religious-freedom-ruling-in-britain-20190704-p5240w.html

"Britain's second-highest court handed down a decision on religious freedom yesterday that will send chills down the collective spine of Rugby Australia. In contrast, Israel Folau and his team will be thanking God for divine providence that is akin to manna from heaven.

In Ngole v the University of Sheffield, the English Court of Appeal has decided: “The mere expression of religious views about sin does not necessarily connote discrimination.”

The factual similarities to Folau’s case are remarkable. Felix Ngole was a social work student at the University of Sheffield and a devout Christian. In 2014, he posted Bible verses about homosexuality on a public Facebook page as part of a political debate. Sheffield University accused Ngole of breaching a vague and broadly worded code of conduct.

Through a hearing and two committee appeals, various bureaucratic apparatchiks repeatedly incanted that quoting Bible verses constituted “views of a discriminatory nature” and breached professional guidelines.

As the British appeal court stated: “The university wrongly confused the expression of religious views with the notion of discrimination. The mere expression of views on theological grounds (e.g. that "homosexuality is a sin") does not necessarily connote that the person expressing such views will discriminate on such grounds.”

Foxy,

Your judge Judy quote is particularly apt post the UK appeal court judgement as modified:

"Don't give me a biblical quote and call it discrimination."

That RA's sponsors are now also in the firing line, it will be a wake up call to the corporate SJWs.

Shadow Minister,

Interesting times ahead.

Foxy,

Indeed. This case has gone from a simple disagreement to possibly setting ground rules for religious discrimination law for years to come.

Dear Shadow Minister,

While there are some similarities there are some very big differences and I think Rugby Australia would find many grounds for solace within the judgement.

One of the strongest criticisms from the court of the university was their hasty conclusion that both the “Appellant and Pastor Omooba were intransigent and defiant”. They deemed there was not sufficient effort to engage and “that underlying attitude may almost certainly have led to a too-rapid and disproportionate conclusion that removal from the course was necessary, rather than the institution of a calm, continuing process of guidance of the Appellant, spelling out what he could and could not properly say, and the circumstances in which he could say it.”

This was certainly not the case with Falou.

I think both courts did a solid job in articulating the issues and are work a read. Both have strengths and weaknesses.
http://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/ngole-v-sheffield-university-judgment.pdf

However there is one important issue both seem to have not addressed. While the judges rightly conceded;

106. On the other hand, the legitimate aim of such regulation must extend so far as to seek to ensure that reasonable service users, of all kinds, perceive they will be treated with dignity and without discrimination. Social work service users cannot usually choose their social worker. The use of aggressive or offensive language in condemnation of homosexuality, or homosexual acts, would certainly be capable of undermining confidence and bringing the profession of social work into disrepute. As the Guidance makes clear, the Appellant had an obligation not to allow his views about a person’s lifestyle to prejudice his interactions with service users by creating the impression that he would discriminate against them.

They deem the language of 'wicked' and 'abomination' to be biblical enough that even used outside of a direct scriptural quote they do not fall under “aggressive or offensive”. I do not think that is sustainable.

I've been following this one in disbelief.
No one has raised the question about relativity and credibility.
To begin with, religion, or more precisely, the bible, is to be viewed in the same context as a fiction novel.
The whole concept of religion is fiction.
It's no different than the tooth fairy, or the Easter bunny.
The fact that a guy called Jesus existed is believable, and the fact that he went around preaching, is also believable.
But beyond that it just gets weird.
He walked on water? turned an item of food into a banquet?, Died and came back to life? (not without 20th century medical intervention)
So it is that religion is the fodder of the foolish and the gullible.
It is just another of many cults.
When God himself confirms that Christianity and all it's teachings, was all his doing, I will have no choice but to accept the stories and the Bible.
Until then, these things called 'religions', remain in the realms of man made stories and have NO spiritual significance or validity.
Therefore anyone suggesting that being a queer will send you to a place which does not exist is a fool for believing such things and treating the comments as anything but irrelevant.
If someone mocked a football team which did not exist, they would not even be given a thought, let alone a response, because it was not referring to anything real, so there's nothing to respond to, and that's what should have happened with Folau.
So who are the fools here for 'taking the bait'?
Folau? for speaking of an unproven, unconfirmed entity?
NRL? for giving his comments, credibility?
Joyce for really showing how overly sensitive queers can be, even when there is nothing to justify his objections to someone suggesting that people like himself were going to hell?
I don't know but maybe hell has been wrongly promoted, because if it exists, it's probably a great place, with parties every night, disco's and so on, and those already there don't want any more 'gatecrashers'?
Can anyone confirm the existence of hell?

SR,

While there are plenty of differences in the two cases in which both of them have many aspects, the precedent set here is as follows with emphasis on the second paragraph:

It was, in fact, the University itself which became entrenched. First, by failing even to explore the possibility of finding middle ground, despite this being suggested by Pastor Omooba, who accompanied the Appellant at the disciplinary proceedings. Second, by unfairly putting the onus entirely upon the Appellant to demonstrate that he did have “insight” and could mend his ways.

The University wrongly confused the expression of religious views with the notion of discrimination. The mere expression of views on theological grounds (e.g. that ‘homosexuality is a sin’) does not necessarily connote that the person expressing such views will discriminate on such grounds. In the present case, there was positive evidence to suggest that the Appellant had never discriminated on such grounds in the past and was not likely to do so in the
future (because, as he explained, the Bible prohibited him from discriminating against anybody).

Yeah right.

Just like Sydney Anglican archbishop Glenn Davies
who eloquently defended Folau's "right as a citizen
to speak of what he believes without threat to his
employment." And then he 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.

One rule for the religious schools and another for the
rest of society.

Folau is free as a footballer to vilify gays (and others)
without losing his job but were he coaching rugby at a
Sydney Anglican school and tweeting approval of gays it
might well see him shown the door.

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

cont'd ...

And definitely discrimination!

Dear Shadow Minister,

It will be interesting now that approval for the appeal has been granted to see where this lands.

But just to tease things out a little further, given what appears to be a preparedness to discuss this like adults, what would be your position if Mr Ngole were to upon visiting the house of a client loudly proclaim "Homosexuality is a sin and an abomination!" and cross himself three times before stepping through the door?

From the judgement;

"As the Guidance makes clear, the Appellant had an obligation not to allow his views about a person’s lifestyle to prejudice his interactions with service users by creating the impression that he would discriminate against them."

How immediate should the expression of religious freedom before you would accept that the "impression" that the client would be discriminated against be sufficient to override Mr Ngole's religious rights?

Foxy,

You continue to bring up this straw man, yet are unable to furnish a single example of a person being fired or expelled from a church school because they are gay. The legislation I would guess is to defend the schools against potential gay activists.

SR,

I am unaware of which case you claim is being appealed. All civil cases by their nature include the right to appeal which is only limited once they reach the highest court which is the high court in Aus and the house of Lords in the UK.

As for your theoretical question, loudly declaring that client being homosexual is a sinner would be highly problematic, pretty much like a gay teacher loudly advocating a gay agenda in a church school.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You state;

“I am unaware of which case you claim is being appealed. All civil cases by their nature include the right to appeal which is only limited once they reach the highest court which is the high court in Aus and the house of Lords in the UK.”

This one is. The court clearly stated they allowed the appeal. What it means in practice is that the whole thing starts again back at the original Fitness to Practise Committee just with a better set of guidelines.

You also put;

“As for your theoretical question, loudly declaring that client being homosexual is a sinner would be highly problematic, pretty much like a gay teacher loudly advocating a gay agenda in a church school.”

Leaving aside the vilification implicit in the first will greater 'religious freedom' mean Mr Ngole will now have more rights than the gay teacher to express his views? More protections to be offensive?

SM,

The following link may help clarify things for you:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-12/gay-teacher-attacks-push-for-religious-school-discrimination/10365816

http://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/devil-in-the-detail-of-lightning-rod-israel-folau-mural-20190705-p524kb.html
Other opinions exist
IF it can be proved [recent events make that doubtful] his right to his faith is the driver I will return to backing him
But as more information comes out, about his wealth, his dads roll ,his being warned not to do it again?
I truly doubt any current group with any real power is trying to stop Christians having their faith
Can we say that about Islam?
The Jewish faith

Amazing: more than fifty years ago, the Free Speech Movement at Berkeley

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_Movement

was avowedly left-wing, very exciting, in the flow of the civil rights movement.

And now, the 'Left' - at least here - are avowedly anti-Free Speech. Totalitarian wolves in sheep's clothing ? Still secretly working towards Soviet-style 'revolution' ? The Party's over, kiddies.

Amazing.

Joe

The Left here are avowedly against free speech?

Really?

Silly me. Here I thought people were against
vilification and discrimination and a set of
rules for some and a different set of rules
for the rest of society. That's not freedom.
That's privilege.

The free speech movement at the University of
California in Berkeley was a totally different
kettle of fish. It began with students protesting
a ban on the campus political activities starting
with the struggle for civil rights and later was
fueled by the opposition to the Vietnam war.

Free speech is not absolute, and like any human
right, free speech carries with it responsibilities
and consequences.

A recent story has revealed that social media posts
and emails are at the centre of the majority of
defamation actions in court often representing
themselves in complex and expensive area of law.

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

I wonder, can we confront the truth?
Yes the bloke both appeared in a game calling for gay rights and then got himself involved in this
He could have used the pulpit, surely no one dare challenge him if he did it there
Remember that thing, the one who called our women raw meat?
Did he and his protector, a fellow poster here once at least, have the right to say that
SOME things are offensive, needlessly so

Everyone, quick, shut up, the speech Nazi is out in force again, quoting the obvious, 'still'.
Would someone please remind her 'again' that FREEDOM of SPEECH, is self explanatory.
It does not come with side bar explanations like 'all speech comes with consequences', DUH!
Why does someone say such stupid things?
I think it is safe to say that every comment is at risk of being challenged and therefore has consequences.
It is arrogant, presumptuous and pompous of someone to carry on as if an authority on 'everything'.
I am forced once again to counter such an overbearing and pompous attitude.
I'm not sure how many ways one can interpret the words, FREEDOM of SPEECH, other than the only meaning it has, and the operative word is FREEDOM!
Any attempt at trying to add anything to those words is pointless and irrelevant.

Foxy,

" .... people are targeted, sometimes very personally."

You mean, like Folau ?

As for 'vilification', while I'm hurt by his reference to drunkards, I would defend his right to criticise them. Criticism is not hate speech. Criticism is not vilification. Criticism is not 'discrimination'. It's free speech. As long as it doesn't incite violence or humiliate, it's okay with me. Even his dreadful attacks on drunkards, which, as a Cristian, he qualifies by offering me the option of repenting: condemn the sin, not the sinner, Foxy.

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

Bulldust.

It is your choice if you decide to be a drunkard.

It is not your choice to be attracted to the same sex as much as it isn't someone's choice to be born black.

You are smart enough to know the distinction so why keep conflating them?

Steely,

Bulldust,

I'll speak at your level, so you can understand me.

Your another self-proclaimed expert and again you are wrong!

Alcoholics, in the main do not have a choice, you only have a choice if you choose to stop drinking.
Like drug addicts, if they chose to stop they would not be drug addicts.
Now this same sex crap, in many cases, especially today, it really 'is' a matter of choice.
I actually know people (females), two of them, extended family members, who started out straight, had kids, then decided to go queer, then some time later, decided to go straight again.
It's in fashion now you know?
So a fail on that one too.
Now you really are reaching if you have to play the 'black' card.
Again fail, so apparently Steely, unlike loudmouth, you're apparently 'not' 'smart enough to know the distinction, so why keep conflating them'?

Steele,

No, I don't believe that. I'm actually appalled that anybody could compare homosexuals to ethnic groups or 'races' like that. What, is it all in the DNA ?

What has the 'Left' come to ? Certainly, let and let live as far as homosexuals are concerned, but let's not pretend that their issues, like those of DINKs everywhere, are somehow inherently progressive.

Joe

Foxy and SR,

When an appeal court "allows an appeal" what they mean is that they have ruled in favour of the appellant.

The university can appeal further to the house of lords but need to get approval from the house of lords itself.

As the UK judicial system is still linked to the Aus system, the judgement by the appeal court of the UK will have a strong persuasive precedent making it difficult for an Aus judge to rule differently.

Joe,

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

One of those attacking Rugby Australia's code of
conduct was Sydney's Anglican archbishop Glenn
Davies who eloquently defended Folau's - " right
as a citizen to speak of what he believes without
a 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 law continue to
allow them to sack gay teachers and expel gay students.

There's one rule for religious schools and another for the
rest of society.

Folau is free as a footballer to vilify gays
without losing his job but were he coaching
rugby at a Sydney Anglican school
and tweeting approval of gays it might well see him shown the
door.

If you're demanding rights for yourself which you won't
extend to others, as I've stated previously numerous
times, that is not freedom. It is privilege.

We are now in the middle of this pandemonium because
Folau changed his mind.

For a $4 miilion 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 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 now expect more millions from Rugby Australia
because he's copped the ordinary consequences of going
back on his word?

It appears that Folau's target is everything in this
scenario. If Folau were insisting on vilifying say -
women, the disabled, Jews, or anyone else, would anyone
object to Rugby Australia insiting he shut up about
it. No, it's the homosexuals who are at fault, afterall
they are not normal - right? God invented Adam and Eve.
(Who then invented Adam and Steve?)

Our resident expert headmistress has again redefined the topic in question.
Apparently condemning queers (and others) to hell (who are these others?), is vilification.
So then it appears that religion, no, nearly half the world are vilifyers by condemning the queers to hell.
Given that, that is such a large number, it must be just, in which case it's OK to condemn the queers to hell.
That's settled then, next fail?
It's good to see she's starting to come around.
She states very clearly and un-ambiguisly that; 'there's one rule for religious schools and another for the rest of society'.
Correct!
Religious schools are where people who know better than the rest of society go, so suck it up, the truth is rarely appreciated by those who don't live it, or make the grade.
Now rights, NO you schlep, 'if you are demanding rights for yourself which you won't extend to others', it IS a right and NOT a privilege, because you are free to demand/ask and if your demands are met or granted, you narrow minded ........ , it is not a privilege it is confirmation and justification in saying that you are worth it, it's NOT a privilege.
You are allowed to feel privileged by the appointment, but you did not just get a job that you're over paid and under qualified for.
That we leave for the females.
Now the contract, why do you insist on mis-representing everything in an insane attempt to always make your case.
That moron in charge of NRL stuffed up by not writing the offending clause in before he signed the contract, which she later tried to get him to sign an amendment.
His manager instructed him not to sign, anyway had he done so that clause and all the subsequent letters of warning you so stupidly attempt to wave in our faces, ARE in-unmissable under sect 772 (or whatever number) of the law, so get it through your thick skull, he has done no wrong, it's only the under achievers aka, the jealous and envious who are wasting time on this.

Foxy,

"The fact is - condemning gays (and others) to hell
is vilification"

Not if they're Satanists.

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

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. It was a normal contract which players sign.

Folau agreed to this contract and signed it. The additional
clauses were not inserted - and as it turns out
were not necessary for Rugby
Australia to sack him especially after three warnings,
many interviews, and a written letter making sure he
understood the consequences of his behaviour.
He ignored it all, and chose to do as he pleased.

Clearly, Folau's actions breached the player code of
conduct that he had agreed to and signed for $4 million
a year, and was warned about.

He had changed his mind. However the fact remains -
he breached his contract.
And Rugby Australia held him to account.

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.

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

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

That, he has yet to prove.

It will be interesting to see what the Courts will
decide.

Is Mise,

Your comment about Satanists is not accurate.
Satanists don't believe in a heaven or a
hell. They reject the notion of an external
mystical dimension and a spiritual afterlife.

Google it for yourself.

But of course Satan has been the best friend
the Church has ever had. He's kept it in
business all these years. (smile).

Here we go again.
Anyone pushing anything but NRL stuffing it up and the little weasel pushing his pathetic weight and sponsorship around is trying to deflect from the real guilty party, the NRL.
Shove the dignity and respect angle, this is not the ladies tea party, this is business, BIG business, and more importantly a very physical and aggressive game.
There is no place for feather-heads, and women in business and here is ANOTHER example of many as to why.
Clearly there is no misconduct, if one looks at what really happened, and not keep on about what they think happened.
Anyone can see that the so called 'experienced, professional' maggot stuffed up big time.
Tried to rectify HER stuff up, now she's got one foot out the door, with any luck she'll be out on her arse after this little stuff up is over.
Folau quoted some religious versus, big deal, if he was aiming his comments at any particular Christians, then they should give thought to their situation, if not, no one cared, either because their not Christian or they just don't care, worse things get said in sports.
Along comes every sanctimonious cretin with their version of what 'the player code of conduct' is and hey presto, Folau is guilty and this moron of a manager is somehow not to blame for this storm in a teacup.
I wish certain people would stop pontificating and continually trying to virtue shame by pushing their insane and quite frankly unfounded, mis-giuded and twisted views.
I'll say it again the NRL maggot stuffed up, (big time).
Folau did nothing wrong, his comments were a broadcast and did not name any one particular person.
Quoting some passages from a religious teaching is him simply preaching.
Quite different from some pathetic, sensitive little wallflowers that will actually leave a church sermon because they were offended by what a PRIEST? was preaching from the pulpit.
These people are sick and mentally deranged, they must not be taken seriously, in fact they should be committed.