• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

Israel Folau


Hillmanhunter1

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
2,219
It is not a religious issue.

Folau have quite clearly painted himself outside his faith to make his argument.
John 11:35.

Take a few minutes to learn the tenets of his faith and you will see that his Instagram post was entirely within those tenets:

"What God has defined as sin in the Bible remains sin. Being our Creator, His definitions of sin are objective reality and could not be subjectively altered by any human being. His definitions of sin affect equally both heterosexuals and those that have homosexual conduct. The prohibition for committing the sin of adultery found in the Decalogue and addressed towards heterosexuals is to be observed with the same force and carefulness as the prohibition for committing the sin of having same sex-relationships found in the Levitical Code and addressed to those who are inclined towards such acts. God’s general definition for the consequences of sin is clear: “The wages of sin is death …” (Romans 6:23). There is no worse consequence than spiritual death, which breaks relationship with God and does not allow one to enter the kingdom of God. Jesus himself upheld the gravity of breaking God’s sovereign characterization of what is sin and pointed out that at the end of time “The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 13:40-42)."

This notion that Folau is flying solo is false - he is expressing the views of a church with 70m members, and shared by a vastly larger number of the adherents to the Abrahamic faiths.

World AG Fellowship | Bylaws, Membership & Position Papers
 


AyaanMyHero

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Messages
658
Oh I don't have any illusions that RA care about how society is ordered, they mostly want to make sure their employees don't alienate potential fans by insulting them or their family.

Seems pretty reasonable to me.
Of course, they don't want to alienate fans or players. That's why they should just stay silent on referenda and the like. If they do that then they do not risk narrowing their market. A diverse robust market is what you want in any business. A voluntary action to publically support one or other side of a refendum question is not so reasonable. Do you see the point that it is simply not in their own self interest ?
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
30,721
Of course, they don't want to alienate fans or players. That's why they should just stay silent on referenda and the like. If they do that then they do not risk narrowing their market. A diverse robust market is what you want in any business. A voluntary action to publically support one or other side of a refendum question is not so reasonable. Do you see the point that it is simply not in their own self interest ?
We're not discussing whether or not RA should have taken a stance on the referendum issue. If you want to start a thread on that I'll be happy to discuss it there, and we may well be in agreement.

But on this threa, the question is whether, given that RA have taken a stance, to what extent is it reasonable for them to require their employees not to express open disagreement about the policy on social media.

And while I know that legal conflict around social media use is still an evolving domain, I think employers' rights to require some degree of discretion from their employees is sufficiently well established to more than cover Israel Folau's actions.

Unless, as has been suggested already, it's decided that religious opinions are inherently more worthy of respect than personal ones.
 

Paddyc

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
9,298
John 11:35.

Take a few minutes to learn the tenets of his faith and you will see that his Instagram post was entirely within those tenets:

"What God has defined as sin in the Bible remains sin. Being our Creator, His definitions of sin are objective reality and could not be subjectively altered by any human being. His definitions of sin affect equally both heterosexuals and those that have homosexual conduct. The prohibition for committing the sin of adultery found in the Decalogue and addressed towards heterosexuals is to be observed with the same force and carefulness as the prohibition for committing the sin of having same sex-relationships found in the Levitical Code and addressed to those who are inclined towards such acts. God’s general definition for the consequences of sin is clear: “The wages of sin is death …” (Romans 6:23). There is no worse consequence than spiritual death, which breaks relationship with God and does not allow one to enter the kingdom of God. Jesus himself upheld the gravity of breaking God’s sovereign characterization of what is sin and pointed out that at the end of time “The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 13:40-42)."

This notion that Folau is flying solo is false - he is expressing the views of a church with 70m members, and shared by a vastly larger number of the adherents to the Abrahamic faiths.

World AG Fellowship | Bylaws, Membership & Position Papers
What you're quoting there is not backed up by scripture.

It gives the impression that it's backed by quotes from the bible but isn't. There is no New Testament biblical reference there to homosexuality.

It's the usual cherry picking from Leviticus ignoring the bits about shellfish and mixed fabrics.

RA are fully entitled to expect their players to not condemn supporters to hell for being who they are and QANTAS are similarly fully entitled to not be associated with a fundy condemning potential customers (or employees) of QANTAS to hell for being who they are.

I notice that you are silent on ASICS dropping the fundy like hot snot.
 

AyaanMyHero

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Messages
658
We're not discussing whether or not RA should have taken a stance on the referendum issue. If you want to start a thread on that I'll be happy to discuss it there, and we may well be in agreement.

But on this threa, the question is whether, given that RA have taken a stance, to what extent is it reasonable for them to require their employees not to express open disagreement about the policy on social media.

And while I know that legal conflict around social media use is still an evolving domain, I think employers' rights to require some degree of discretion from their employees is sufficiently well established to more than cover Israel Folau's actions.

Unless, as has been suggested already, it's decided that religious opinions are inherently more worthy of respect than personal ones.
If you are trying to solve a problem in a wide sense, then you look at root cause. If you propose solutions, without looking at root cause then the solution won't last and you will be back in square one. Maybe I am on the wrong track but your response is honestly a bit disappointing.
 

Hillmanhunter1

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
2,219
The Code of Conduct Committee is clearly struggling to finalise a decision. The decision, originally expected on Wednesday, will not now be issued until Friday at the earliest:
Rugby: Israel Folau verdict delayed another day - report

Attention is also beginning to turn on another key player in this saga, Raylene Castle - CEO of Rugby Australia:

"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 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."

But she didn't!

The article is well worth a read:
Contract debacle that left rugby vulnerable in Folau storm
 

Paddyc

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
9,298
The Code of Conduct Committee is clearly struggling to finalise a decision. The decision, originally expected on Wednesday, will not now be issued until Friday at the earliest:
Rugby: Israel Folau verdict delayed another day - report

Attention is also beginning to turn on another key player in this saga, Raylene Castle - CEO of Rugby Australia:

"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 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."

But she didn't!

The article is well worth a read:
Contract debacle that left rugby vulnerable in Folau storm
Worst case scenario for RA, they pay off the remainder of his contract and send him on his merry way.
Like I said already, he'll pick up a contract somewhere, he's too good not to, but on less than he's on now and his post rugby potential earnings are on the floor.

But he can offer it up to Jesus.
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
30,721
If you are trying to solve a problem in a wide sense, then you look at root cause. If you propose solutions, without looking at root cause then the solution won't last and you will be back in square one. Maybe I am on the wrong track but your response is honestly a bit disappointing.
You're conflating entirely different issues though. The solution for social injustice is not for everyone else to stay out of it. That approach would have meant that segregation would be nobody's business and it would probably still be the norm in some states. Same in Northern Ireland, where Derry City Council's gerrymandering would have been nobody's business except themselves. I disagree.

Similarly, the root cause of bigotry against homosexuals is not Qantas or RA, and them staying out of the argument won't reduce Folau's homophobia one bit. You could make a case that their actions may be counterproductive or have other unwanted consequences (on anther thread) but you really can't make the case that they are the root cause of Folau's declarations.

They might even have said nothing about the subject, but still require him to stop making his declarations just because they don't wish to alienate those of their supporters who also support same sex marriage.
 

Hillmanhunter1

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
2,219
What you're quoting there is not backed up by scripture.

It gives the impression that it's backed by quotes from the bible but isn't. There is no New Testament biblical reference there to homosexuality.

It's the usual cherry picking from Leviticus ignoring the bits about shellfish and mixed fabrics.

RA are fully entitled to expect their players to not condemn supporters to hell for being who they are and QANTAS are similarly fully entitled to not be associated with a fundy condemning potential customers (or employees) of QANTAS to hell for being who they are.

I notice that you are silent on ASICS dropping the fundy like hot snot.
I'm no theologian, if you think you are right take it up with the Assemblies of God - I quoted verbatim from their publication.

As for ASICS I haven't referred to it, and will not, because although it relates to the same behavior it is not relevant to the sanctioning of Folau by RA.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
45,994
The Code of Conduct Committee is clearly struggling to finalise a decision. The decision, originally expected on Wednesday, will not now be issued until Friday at the earliest:
Rugby: Israel Folau verdict delayed another day - report

Attention is also beginning to turn on another key player in this saga, Raylene Castle - CEO of Rugby Australia:

"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 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."

But she didn't!

The article is well worth a read:
Contract debacle that left rugby vulnerable in Folau storm
The effort to scapegoat a Rugby Australia executive and to blame everything on semantics, makes shyte of your own case, and you do not seem to realise it!

So nothing moral or ethical here, then, nothing to do with freedom of speech or freedom of religion? Just a dry dispute about what was written on paper, or whether he said she said.

Nothing to see here, folks, move along now.
 

Paddyc

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
9,298
I'm no theologian, if you think you are right take it up with the Assemblies of God - I quoted verbatim from their publication.

As for ASICS I haven't referred to it, and will not, because although it relates to the same behavior it is not relevant to the sanctioning of Folau by RA.
Asics dumped him for the same reason RA are in the process of dumping him and for the same reason Land Rover took their car back from him. His views are toxic and no company in the world wants to be associated with those views.

This is precisely why QANTAS are making their views known:

"We don't sponsor something to get involved in controversy."
That's the beginning and end of it. Folau has thrown Australia's World Cup preparations into a tail spin and I would be amazed if he ever dons that jersey again.
 

Hillmanhunter1

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
2,219
Asics dumped him for the same reason RA are in the process of dumping him and for the same reason Land Rover took their car back from him. His views are toxic and no company in the world wants to be associated with those views.

This is precisely why QANTAS are making their views known:


That's the beginning and end of it. Folau has thrown Australia's World Cup preparations into a tail spin and I would be amazed if he ever dons that jersey again.
ASICS reasons might be the same, but the issue I took umbrage to was his sacking by RA. If you want to talk about ASICS (or Land Rover) fire away, it doesn't interest me.

As for playing again with Australia I don't think that anyone imagines that, whatever the outcome, that is likely. Relationships have broken down irreparably.
 

Hillmanhunter1

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
2,219
The effort to scapegoat a Rugby Australia executive and to blame everything on semantics, makes shyte of your own case, and you do not seem to realise it!

So nothing moral or ethical here, then, nothing to do with freedom of speech or freedom of religion? Just a dry dispute about what was written on paper, or whether he said she said.

Nothing to see here, folks, move along now.
I'm not scapegoating anyone - this issue is raging in the media of the Southern Hemisphere and I merely reported a relevant article. Did you read it?
 

riven

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
2,220
But on this threa, the question is whether, given that RA have taken a stance, to what extent is it reasonable for them to require their employees not to express open disagreement about the policy on social media.
It is perfectly reasonable to which Folau's only defence was to lie and say that this was a religions issue.
Unless, as has been suggested already, it's decided that religious opinions are inherently more worthy of respect than personal ones.
It is not a religious issue. Folau has made these comments ignoring the requirements of his religion thereby placing himself outside the religious argument. He has also presumed judgement, committing 3 cardinal sins in the act..
 

Paddyc

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
9,298
ASICS reasons might be the same, but the issue I took umbrage to was his sacking by RA. If you want to talk about ASICS (or Land Rover) fire away, it doesn't interest me.

As for playing again with Australia I don't think that anyone imagines that, whatever the outcome, that is likely. Relationships have broken down irreparably.
Have a look at the Wallabies jersey.

Then come back to me and tell me that ASICS aren't relevant.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
45,994
I'm not scapegoating anyone - this issue is raging in the media of the Southern Hemisphere and I merely reported a relevant article. Did you read it?
Nah, because I think it is a side-issue.

Just part of an attempt by Folau and his lawyers to wring a better financial settlement out of Rugby Australia.
 

Hillmanhunter1

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
2,219
Have a look at the Wallabies jersey.

Then come back to me and tell me that ASICS aren't relevant.
My position is set out in the OP.

I'm interested in the free speech issue primarily, and what I consider to be the unfair dismissal of Folau by RA, at least partly because of a fear of fallout from their principal sponsor, Qantas.

If you want to take a frolic down ASICS lane off you go - I don't have to go with you.
 

Hillmanhunter1

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
2,219
Nah, because I think it is a side-issue.

Just part of an attempt by Folau and his lawyers to wring a better financial settlement out of Rugby Australia.
Well, you are entitled to consider it a side issue, but take a look at this coverage. Folau must have fabulous lawyers/PR people:

Israel Folau hearing, Rugby Australia, Raelene Castle, Wallabies, Kurtley Beale, Waratahs, RUPA | Fox Sports
Has Rugby Australia contradicted its own policy in Israel Folau ruling?
Raelene Castle had failed meeting with Israel Folau in November over social media contract clause
Contract debacle that left rugby vulnerable in Folau storm
How Rugby Australia botched Folau contract

There is far more coverage in Asia about this issue, and it seems to be a robust debate that focuses on both sides.
 

AyaanMyHero

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Messages
658
You're conflating entirely different issues though. The solution for social injustice is not for everyone else to stay out of it. That approach would have meant that segregation would be nobody's business and it would probably still be the norm in some states. Same in Northern Ireland, where Derry City Council's gerrymandering would have been nobody's business except themselves. I disagree.

Similarly, the root cause of bigotry against homosexuals is not Qantas or RA, and them staying out of the argument won't reduce Folau's homophobia one bit. You could make a case that their actions may be counterproductive or have other unwanted consequences (on anther thread) but you really can't make the case that they are the root cause of Folau's declarations.

They might even have said nothing about the subject, but still require him to stop making his declarations just because they don't wish to alienate those of their supporters who also support same sex marriage.
OK, let's first define the problem or problems
Problem One: There is bigotry against protected groups (you see I broaden the problem that you suggest). This problem has been addressed by defining laws and human rights but maybe that is insufficient. We could look at the root causes again e.g. one root cause of bigotry against homosexual group is religious belief.
Problem Two: There is unresolved conflict between two protected groups. In this case, it is between homosexual and religious groups. Even if that is a gross over-simplification, that is how one could position it. (it is already at this stage: homo-sexual and anti-religious groups vs, religious and free-speech groups)
Problem Three (which is the one I was thinking about): In conflicts, between two protected groups, employers linking their business to one side or the other is heightening the conflict (it is counter-productive as you suggest) and employees right to freedom of expression and possibly right to work can be encroached upon.

My position is that encroaching on rights of expression (as in problem 3) is incredibly damaging and causes incredible resentment among people in general (irrespective of race, gender, and sexual orientation). That resentment will be felt particularly by the more educated/intellectual people since this encroachment threatens their ability to develop knowledge. This resentment will make many new people take sides on the conflict at issue in problem 2 for indirect reasons. Lots of unintended things will happen. It may happen that the homosexual group will be blamed for encroaching on freedom of others (worsening problem 1), it may happen that people join the religious group because it upholds freedom of expression more-so than the other side, it will undoubtedly make it harder to have a resolution in favor of the homosexual group in problem 2. Problem 2 becomes a more difficult problem to resolve as a result of the extra complexity brought into it.

As far as I can see, you need to try and limit the effect of problem 3 first. That's if you care about finding strong solutions that last.

As for tighter relevance to this thread, according to Wikipedia, Folau's first social media statement on homosexuality came on the back of the RA's public statement of support for gay marriage (he said he did not support gay marriage, no reaction from RA AFAIK). The next one was on the back of someone baiting him on social media (this statement was exclusively about homosexuality, Folau got some type of RA warning for that one). The third statement was not exclusively related to homosexuality but did mention it (this the one got him dismissed by the RA). The RA's public statement is at least partially responsible for opening his conflict with the RA and hence, the progressive lobby. Yes, his actions played a part in the escalation but they did not start the conflict.
 

Buchaill Dana

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
6,591
Conflict? Seriously?

Its all a bit childish now. Hillman is refusing to answer as to whether he has a job. Same question to you.
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top