Israel Folau

riven

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
2,268
One last point. Every Christian, according to both testaments, 'deserves' final judgement. By denying these people final judgement for these people, folau is persuming to be a deity.

The sin of pride outweighs his supposed caring, and shines a bright light on his hatred
 


owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,260
One last point. Every Christian, according to both testaments, 'deserves' final judgement. By denying these people final judgement for these people, folau is persuming to be a deity.

The sin of pride outweighs his supposed caring, and shines a bright light on his hatred
Again, I am not an expert on the Jewish faith, but I do know it is the most un-philosophic of religions, with little or no cosmological teachings about Heaven, Hell or the Soul. Those concepts probably entered Christianity from the Greeks and Romans. The Jews have speculations, but no doctrine, on those topics.

AFAIK, the Old Testament rarely (if ever) leaves punishment for the "next life", its punishments are all in this one, and related to observance (or not) of Jewish rites and customs.

So what actual verse was Folau quoting? The Corinthians passage does not mention Hell at all.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,260
For those who were interested in Stoicism, a podcast by Melvyn Bragg and some academics.


Stoicism did inform early Christianity, especially because it was a system of personal, practical ethics. There was a belief that St Paul had corresponded with contemporary philosophers like Seneca, but that has never been substantiated by evidence.

Apparently, St Jerome said that Seneca could be a Christian saint. This was the same Seneca who was a Minister and Adviser to the Emperor Nero, until Nero forced him to commit suicide.
 

Finbar10

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
2,475
I very much liked Massimo Pigliucci's Nonsense on Stilts about science and non-science. He is both a scientist and a philosopher, plus being a very good writer.

Recently, I listened to this podcast on Epicureanism by Melvyn Bragg, and some classical scholars. Possibly a bit too academic, but The Swerve by Stephen Greenblatt is a great read. It is an account of the rediscovery of Epicureanism through the work of an Italian scholar searching a German monastery library in the 15th century.


Incidentally, another recently discovered Epicurean work is a enormous stone wall at a place called Oinoanda (in Turkey) covering with carvings giving Epicurus' precepts for a happy life. Ones like "Wealth beyond what is natural is no more useful than a container overflowing" remind me of the Tao Te Ching.

I used to be a regular listener to In Our Time with Melvyn Bragg on BBC Radio 4 for a long time, but got out of the habit for some reason (it is a very good programme). Thanks for the other recommendations too (might check them out at some stage). The Greeks/Romans did have some interesting schools of philosophy (with a focus on how to live one's life). Unsurprising that some of these are getting some renewed interest these days.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,260
I used to be a regular listener to In Our Time with Melvyn Bragg on BBC Radio 4 for a long time, but got out of the habit for some reason (it is a very good programme). Thanks for the other recommendations too (might check them out at some stage). The Greeks/Romans did have some interesting schools of philosophy (with a focus on how to live one's life). Unsurprising that some of these are getting some renewed interest these days.
Absolutely, for example Aristotle's virtue-driven ethics made a 20th century comeback, and Aristotle influenced Stoicism. Plato influenced Christianity, permeated it in many ways, and one Oxford professor said "Western Philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato". Not really true (imho) but a great sound-bite.

I have only read popular (as opposed to academic) works on classical philosophy, but Anthony Gottlieb's The Dream of Reason is another good read on the subject.

Just discovered Bragg's podcasts, so I have some enjoyment ahead.
 

Buchaill Dana

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
7,695
I think the writer is a bit more nuanced than that. There's a tension between things like freedom of speech, religious expression and the natural desire of commercial operations to not have employees saying things that might impact their bottom line or impact their reputation. However, as he says, you can't rigidly insist on the cast-iron sancitity of employment contracts over everything else when they stipulate adherence to broad and rather vague codes of conduct. It'll be an interesting one for courts to thrash out and maybe more legislation is needed. IMO it's not a black-and-white but rather grey issue.
His code of conduct was not vague.
 

recedite

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
1,537
One last point. Every Christian, according to both testaments, 'deserves' final judgement. By denying these people final judgement for these people, folau is persuming to be a deity.

The sin of pride outweighs his supposed caring, and shines a bright light on his hatred
Where did you get this idea from? How could he deny anyone "final judgement"?
 

Finbar10

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
2,475
His code of conduct was not vague.
But by their nature, they usually are. They usually expect a person to be a generally "good egg", be a morally upstanding member of society, not bring their organization into disrepute or do something to piss off the customers etc.

What exactly that means is rather vague and very open to interpretation. Does it mean an employee cannot engage in politics (or controversial politics or just the "wrong" kind of controversial politics)? Or religion or controversial religion (or just the "wrong" kind of controversial religion)? Ideally, the employer probably wants the employee to just be a good lad and keep his mouth shut on anything controversial at all. But is it reasonable for a contract to reach this far into a person's life? Controversial can mean different things at different times. Some decades back discovering someone was living with a gay partner could easily have been interpreted as bringing the reputation of a company into disrepute and resulted in a firing under codes.

Looking at some clauses from the actual code of conduct here:

1.2 Be a good sport, displaying modesty in victory and graciousness in defeat.

1.3 Treat everyone equally, fairly and with dignity regardless of gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, cultural or religious background, age or disability. Any form of bullying, harassment or discrimination has no place in Rugby.

1.6 Do not make any public comment that is critical of the performance of a match official, player, team official, coach or employee/officer/volunteer of any club or a Union; or on any matter that is, or is likely to be, the subject of an investigation or disciplinary process; or otherwise make any public comment that would likely be detrimental to the best interests, image and welfare of the Game, a team, a club, a competition or Union.

1.7 Use Social Media appropriately. By all means share your positive experiences of Rugby but do not use Social Media as a means to breach any of the expectations and requirements of you as a player contained in this Code or in any Union, club or competition rules and regulations.

1.8 Do not otherwise act in a way that may adversely affect or reflect on, or bring you, your team, club, Rugby Body or Rugby into disrepute or discredit. If you commit a criminal offence, this is likely to adversely reflect on you and your team, club, Rugby Body and Rugby.
Those are all vague enough mostly. Clause 1.3 seems to impact more directly on the Folau case. Though I guess he didn't treat specific individuals unfairly or with discrimination, he did make a more a blanket statement, which seemed hostile to a particular group. However, it is also a pretty standard belief in many strains of Christianity (based on interpretations of particular New Testament passages). Maybe he was not actually being hostile but sincerely concerned for the souls of what he sincerely believes are sinners in danger of going to Hell? :)

Belief can't be a blanket defence for everything, but IMO neither should employment contracts be allowed to regulate people's lives to the nth degree. The tension between the two is what will make this case interesting in the courts.
 

Finbar10

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
2,475
Absolutely, for example Aristotle's virtue-driven ethics made a 20th century comeback, and Aristotle influenced Stoicism. Plato influenced Christianity, permeated it in many ways, and one Oxford professor said "Western Philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato". Not really true (imho) but a great sound-bite.

I have only read popular (as opposed to academic) works on classical philosophy, but Anthony Gottlieb's The Dream of Reason is another good read on the subject.

Just discovered Bragg's podcasts, so I have some enjoyment ahead.
BBC Radio 4 does produce an almighty variety of stuff. On Bragg's podcasts, there's a huge archive of past programmes available. The show has been on the go for 20 years and he tends to have a weekly show for most of the year. There's well over 800 episodes in the archive at this point! :)
 

riven

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
2,268
Where did you get this idea from? How could he deny anyone "final judgement"?
Because, er, he passed judgement on them.

Or is condemning people "to hell" not a judgement in your opinion?
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,260
But by their nature, they usually are. They usually expect a person to be a generally "good egg", be a morally upstanding member of society, not bring their organization into disrepute or do something to piss off the customers etc.

What exactly that means is rather vague and very open to interpretation. Does it mean an employee cannot engage in politics (or controversial politics or just the "wrong" kind of controversial politics)? Or religion or controversial religion (or just the "wrong" kind of controversial religion)? Ideally, the employer probably wants the employee to just be a good lad and keep his mouth shut on anything controversial at all. But is it reasonable for a contract to reach this far into a person's life? Controversial can mean different things at different times. Some decades back discovering someone was living with a gay partner could easily have been interpreted as bringing the reputation of a company into disrepute and resulted in a firing under codes.

Looking at some clauses from the actual code of conduct here:



Those are all vague enough mostly. Clause 1.3 seems to impact more directly on the Folau case. Though I guess he didn't treat specific individuals unfairly or with discrimination, he did make a more a blanket statement, which seemed hostile to a particular group. However, it is also a pretty standard belief in many strains of Christianity (based on interpretations of particular New Testament passages). Maybe he was not actually being hostile but sincerely concerned for the souls of what he sincerely believes are sinners in danger of going to Hell? :)

Belief can't be a blanket defence for everything, but IMO neither should employment contracts be allowed to regulate people's lives to the nth degree. The tension between the two is what will make this case interesting in the courts.
Folau had already received at least one warning for previous social media posts, and (I gather) plenty of "sensitivity training" so the "Aw, Jeez, you are taking this all wrong ... ", "What I meant was ..." excuses do not work.

He know exactly what he was doing, and he knew exactly the consequences he risked.

Ignorance, by the way, is not a defence. But Folau was not ignorant.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,260

Finbar10

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
2,475
Folau had already received at least one warning for previous social media posts, and (I gather) plenty of "sensitivity training" so the "Aw, Jeez, you are taking this all wrong ... ", "What I meant was ..." excuses do not work.

He know exactly what he was doing, and he knew exactly the consequences he risked.

Ignorance, by the way, is not a defence. But Folau was not ignorant.
Sure, I agree with that. I wouldn't have thought his defence will have anything to do with ignorance.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top