Israel Folau

tangled_metal

Is it suppressing thought? He's still free to publish his thoughts on social media. If anything even more free. The sacking isn't from expressing views it's sacking from representing his country in a sport. Part of that is representing the country as a role model for what the country wants to present itself as. Australia is trying to be a truly modern nation I think. His views are not in agreement with that. So it was always up to him whether he would rather represent good country with the limitation that publicly he has to appear as the embodiment of that modern nation or he has to not represent his country if he wants his own views to be what he's representing.

I think it's a choice and he's made it freely. He's now able to have his views and make them at public as he can. It allows others to confront him on the media he chooses to express his views on.

shirley_basso

Agree. He can think what he likes, he just cant broadcast it on social media while acting as a country's representative.

Re: Billy - he has basically expressed remorse and retracted his statement, in a way, so seems fair. Stays on his record for 5 years.

imposter2.0

Vunipola wrote:

"I can see that my recent post has hurt people," said the Sarries forward. "My intention was to express my belief in the word of God.

"These beliefs are a source of great strength, comfort and guidance in my life. Anyone who knows me, knows I live with kindness and love towards ALL people."

Except homosexuals, or any other 'sinners' according to the old testament, obviously. The hypocrisy is astonishing...

nickice

I still have misgivings about this case. On the one hand, I disagree with his views but on the other hand he's expressing a common religious viewpoint and he's not calling for violence. He's telling them to repent which is a common Christian theme. I also think he'd be in the same trouble if a reporter had asked him for his opinion and he'd given it so I feel those saying that he's allowed his opinion but isn't allowed to broadcast it on social media are being disingenuous.

I mentioned earlier that not so long ago, his viewpoint would have been the accepted wisdom of the time. Indeed, homosexuality was more acceptable in certain parts of history than it was in much of 20th centure Britain so it's not necessarily the case that we won't regress to less acceptance of homosexuality. Then what'll happen if someone expresses support for equality?

nickice

Imposter wrote:

Vunipola wrote:

"I can see that my recent post has hurt people," said the Sarries forward. "My intention was to express my belief in the word of God.

"These beliefs are a source of great strength, comfort and guidance in my life. Anyone who knows me, knows I live with kindness and love towards ALL people."

Except homosexuals, or any other 'sinners' according to the old testament, obviously. The hypocrisy is astonishing...

It's quite possible to believe homosexual actions are a sin while still acting with kindness towards homosexuals.

DeVlaeminck

Tangled Metal wrote:

Is it suppressing thought? He's still free to publish his thoughts on social media. If anything even more free. The sacking isn't from expressing views it's sacking from representing his country in a sport. Part of that is representing the country as a role model for what the country wants to present itself as. Australia is trying to be a truly modern nation I think. His views are not in agreement with that. So it was always up to him whether he would rather represent good country with the limitation that publicly he has to appear as the embodiment of that modern nation or he has to not represent his country if he wants his own views to be what he's representing.

I think it's a choice and he's made it freely. He's now able to have his views and make them at public as he can. It allows others to confront him on the media he chooses to express his views on.

Well I'll preface this by saying I don't necessarily disagree with his sacking and I wholly disagree with his views.

Yes it is suppressing thought or at least expression of those thoughts. If by speaking his views he is punished - which I think most would accept has happened - then that is going to act as a disincentive for others to express any similar views they hold.

Arguing otherwise is like saying you can say what you like, you'll be stuck in prison with hard labour for it but we'll let you have access to twitter so we aren't suppressing anything (I've used an exaggerated analogy but the logic stands).

DeVlaeminck

nickice wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Vunipola wrote:

"I can see that my recent post has hurt people," said the Sarries forward. "My intention was to express my belief in the word of God.

"These beliefs are a source of great strength, comfort and guidance in my life. Anyone who knows me, knows I live with kindness and love towards ALL people."

Except homosexuals, or any other 'sinners' according to the old testament, obviously. The hypocrisy is astonishing...

It's quite possible to believe homosexual actions are a sin while still acting with kindness towards homosexuals.

The act of tweeting they are going to hell isn't acting with kindness though. Bit like saying I can act like a nasty bigot here because I live the rest of my life in a good way.

chris_bass

I'm not too sure how to take this, on the one hand if someone came to me and said you are going to hell because of whatever it wouldn't bother me at all, i don't believe hell exists so it would be like saying i was going to end up in Narnia or the island from lost for all i care.

On the other hand, repeating the message that being Gay, or any other thing that isn't something they choose, is inherently a bad thing can impact other people's lives. It can lead to young gay people struggling to deal with their own completely natural feelings, bullying, persecution, isolation etc

it is why wanting to casual homophobia or gay jokes, gay football chants etc isn't PC gone mad, it is normalising the idea that being Gay is somehow bad or wrong.

nickice

DeVlaeminck wrote:

nickice wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Vunipola wrote:

"I can see that my recent post has hurt people," said the Sarries forward. "My intention was to express my belief in the word of God.

"These beliefs are a source of great strength, comfort and guidance in my life. Anyone who knows me, knows I live with kindness and love towards ALL people."

Except homosexuals, or any other 'sinners' according to the old testament, obviously. The hypocrisy is astonishing...

It's quite possible to believe homosexual actions are a sin while still acting with kindness towards homosexuals.

The act of tweeting they are going to hell isn't acting with kindness though. Bit like saying I can act like a nasty bigot here because I live the rest of my life in a good way.

Maybe he thinks he's trying to save them and help them avoid hell?

wongataa

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Well I'll preface this by saying I don't necessarily disagree with his sacking and I wholly disagree with his views.

Yes it is suppressing thought or at least expression of those thoughts. If by speaking his views he is punished - which I think most would accept has happened - then that is going to act as a disincentive for others to express any similar views they hold.

Arguing otherwise is like saying you can say what you like, you'll be stuck in prison with hard labour for it but we'll let you have access to twitter so we aren't suppressing anything (I've used an exaggerated analogy but the logic stands).

Free speech means you can say what you like. It DOES NOT mean you cannot face any repercussions for what you say. There is nothing wrong with someone being punished for saying something unpleasant.

chris_bass

wongataa wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Well I'll preface this by saying I don't necessarily disagree with his sacking and I wholly disagree with his views.

Yes it is suppressing thought or at least expression of those thoughts. If by speaking his views he is punished - which I think most would accept has happened - then that is going to act as a disincentive for others to express any similar views they hold.

Arguing otherwise is like saying you can say what you like, you'll be stuck in prison with hard labour for it but we'll let you have access to twitter so we aren't suppressing anything (I've used an exaggerated analogy but the logic stands).

Free speech means you can say what you like. It DOES NOT mean you cannot face any repercussions for what you say. There is nothing wrong with someone being punished for saying something unpleasant.

that is kind of like what his tweet said!

he didn't say you can't be gay, sleep around or drink etc he just said if you do and don't repent you'll go to hell!

nickice

wongataa wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Well I'll preface this by saying I don't necessarily disagree with his sacking and I wholly disagree with his views.

Yes it is suppressing thought or at least expression of those thoughts. If by speaking his views he is punished - which I think most would accept has happened - then that is going to act as a disincentive for others to express any similar views they hold.

Arguing otherwise is like saying you can say what you like, you'll be stuck in prison with hard labour for it but we'll let you have access to twitter so we aren't suppressing anything (I've used an exaggerated analogy but the logic stands).

Free speech means you can say what you like. It DOES NOT mean you cannot face any repercussions for what you say. There is nothing wrong with someone being punished for saying something unpleasant.

Do you want to live in a world where expressing your personal opinion in your own time, in what has effectively now the public square, is only allowed if it's compatible with the current morals of society?

What do you think the punishment is going to achieve? Do you think he'll change his mind or.stop being a Christian?

imposter2.0

nickice wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

nickice wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Vunipola wrote:

"I can see that my recent post has hurt people," said the Sarries forward. "My intention was to express my belief in the word of God.

"These beliefs are a source of great strength, comfort and guidance in my life. Anyone who knows me, knows I live with kindness and love towards ALL people."

Except homosexuals, or any other 'sinners' according to the old testament, obviously. The hypocrisy is astonishing...

It's quite possible to believe homosexual actions are a sin while still acting with kindness towards homosexuals.

The act of tweeting they are going to hell isn't acting with kindness though. Bit like saying I can act like a nasty bigot here because I live the rest of my life in a good way.

Maybe he thinks he's trying to save them and help them avoid hell?

Or maybe he should just keep his hypocritical bullshit religious views to himself?

DeVlaeminck

wongataa wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Well I'll preface this by saying I don't necessarily disagree with his sacking and I wholly disagree with his views.

Yes it is suppressing thought or at least expression of those thoughts. If by speaking his views he is punished - which I think most would accept has happened - then that is going to act as a disincentive for others to express any similar views they hold.

Arguing otherwise is like saying you can say what you like, you'll be stuck in prison with hard labour for it but we'll let you have access to twitter so we aren't suppressing anything (I've used an exaggerated analogy but the logic stands).

Free speech means you can say what you like. It DOES NOT mean you cannot face any repercussions for what you say. There is nothing wrong with someone being punished for saying something unpleasant.

Actually no, if you are punished for saying something that isn't free speech, it's literally at a cost isn't it. That's in reply to your first sentence.

bianchimoon

Imposter wrote:

nickice wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

nickice wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Vunipola wrote:

"I can see that my recent post has hurt people," said the Sarries forward. "My intention was to express my belief in the word of God.

"These beliefs are a source of great strength, comfort and guidance in my life. Anyone who knows me, knows I live with kindness and love towards ALL people."

Except homosexuals, or any other 'sinners' according to the old testament, obviously. The hypocrisy is astonishing...

It's quite possible to believe homosexual actions are a sin while still acting with kindness towards homosexuals.

The act of tweeting they are going to hell isn't acting with kindness though. Bit like saying I can act like a nasty bigot here because I live the rest of my life in a good way.

Maybe he thinks he's trying to save them and help them avoid hell?

Or maybe he should just keep his hypocritical bullshit religious views to himself?

This, a fair amount of people who hold extreme views are usually hiding something/hypocrites or both

chris_bass

Can anyone point out what he has said that isn't taught in almost all religions?

If people are allowed to be religious (i'm not suggesting they shouldn't be) then how can you say they shouldn't have these views?

meursault

Chris Bass wrote:

Can anyone point out what he has said that isn't taught in almost all religions?

If people are allowed to be religious (i'm not suggesting they shouldn't be) then how can you say they shouldn't have these views?

I don't know what has been said, and I don't care about rugby.

Religious views do not transcend the law. If it is an offence it's punishable by law.

john80

Chris Bass wrote:

Can anyone point out what he has said that isn't taught in almost all religions?

If people are allowed to be religious (i'm not suggesting they shouldn't be) then how can you say they shouldn't have these views?

It is an interesting one. We don't jail people if they think about murdering people or being a pedo, only if they carry out the thoughts. Most religions are are odds with UK equality legislation to various degrees. There are plenty of religious folks would happily get rid of rights for some groups to suit their own ends but then complain bitterly when I chose to ignore their rights for consistency.

shirley_basso

meursault wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

Can anyone point out what he has said that isn't taught in almost all religions?

If people are allowed to be religious (i'm not suggesting they shouldn't be) then how can you say they shouldn't have these views?

I don't know what has been said, and I don't care about rugby.

Religious views do not transcend the law. If it is an offence it's punishable by law.

He wasn't punished by 'law', he was punished by his sports governing body for posting archaic and unacceptable views on a social media platform and refusing to take them down after having done something similar a year previously.

People can think and say what they want but need to remember who and what they represent and the ramifications of that and maybe consider the impact of those comments if published on social media.

nickice

Imposter wrote:

nickice wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

nickice wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Vunipola wrote:

"I can see that my recent post has hurt people," said the Sarries forward. "My intention was to express my belief in the word of God.

"These beliefs are a source of great strength, comfort and guidance in my life. Anyone who knows me, knows I live with kindness and love towards ALL people."

Except homosexuals, or any other 'sinners' according to the old testament, obviously. The hypocrisy is astonishing...

It's quite possible to believe homosexual actions are a sin while still acting with kindness towards homosexuals.

The act of tweeting they are going to hell isn't acting with kindness though. Bit like saying I can act like a nasty bigot here because I live the rest of my life in a good way.

Maybe he thinks he's trying to save them and help them avoid hell?

Or maybe he should just keep his hypocritical bullshit religious views to himself?

Yes, perhaps he should, but Christianity is a proselytizing religion so if you're a follower it might be kind of complicated. Do you mean religious views you disagree with or all religious views? No offence, but I suspect it's the former which isn't really consisten. And I'm struggling to see the hypocrisy in what he posted?

Again, we talk about respect for religions and their followers but then we discover what religious people actually believe it seems to come as a shock. It shouldn't be.

nickice

Chris Bass wrote:

Can anyone point out what he has said that isn't taught in almost all religions?

If people are allowed to be religious (i'm not suggesting they shouldn't be) then how can you say they shouldn't have these views?

You're allowed to be a Christian but only if you ignore the parts that don't fit with the progressive viewpoint. Which isn't really a Christian. So you're not really allowed to be one. Not that I am one but just saying.

imposter2.0

nickice wrote:

Yes, perhaps he should, but Christianity is a proselytizing religion so if you're a follower it might be kind of complicated. Do you mean religious views you disagree with or all religious views? No offence, but I suspect it's the former which isn't really consisten. And I'm struggling to see the hypocrisy in what he posted?

Again, we talk about respect for religions and their followers but then we discover what religious people actually believe it seems to come as a shock. It shouldn't be.

The hypocrisy was in claiming to have 'kindness and love towards all people', while simultaneously holding the view that gay people should 'burn in hell'. I can't really think of a clearer representation of the dictionary definition of 'hypocrisy' than that.

I'm an atheist (more accurately, I'm a Hitchens-style anti-theist), so I'd rather everyone - including rugby players - kept their religious views to themselves. No time for anyone that takes such an absurd delusion to that level of sanctimony.

shirley_basso

I think the quote says they will not that he thinks they should, he's preaching the Bible rather than his own opinon, except that he agrees with it.

nickice

Imposter wrote:

nickice wrote:

Yes, perhaps he should, but Christianity is a proselytizing religion so if you're a follower it might be kind of complicated. Do you mean religious views you disagree with or all religious views? No offence, but I suspect it's the former which isn't really consisten. And I'm struggling to see the hypocrisy in what he posted?

Again, we talk about respect for religions and their followers but then we discover what religious people actually believe it seems to come as a shock. It shouldn't be.

The hypocrisy was in claiming to have 'kindness and love towards all people', while simultaneously holding the view that gay people should 'burn in hell'. I can't really think of a clearer representation of the dictionary definition of 'hypocrisy' than that.

I'm an atheist (more accurately, I'm a Hitchens-style anti-theist), so I'd rather everyone - including rugby players - kept their religious views to themselves. No time for anyone that takes such an absurd delusion to that level of sanctimony.

I don't think that's hypocrisy at all. I'd speculate that he thinks these people are going to hell if they don't change their ways. If he can encourage them to change their ways then they'll avoid hell. In other words, he doesn't want them to go to hell and is trying to help them avoid it. I'd guess he's not very bright generally.

I may be mistaken but I don't remember you adopting much of the attitude of Christopher Hitchens when it comes to Islam.

nickice

meursault wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

Can anyone point out what he has said that isn't taught in almost all religions?

If people are allowed to be religious (i'm not suggesting they shouldn't be) then how can you say they shouldn't have these views?

I don't know what has been said, and I don't care about rugby.

Religious views do not transcend the law. If it is an offence it's punishable by law.

It wouldn't have been a huge effort to read it... If we really applied hate speech laws equally, many religions would be in big trouble. Not that I agree with hate speech laws.

imposter2.0

nickice wrote:

In other words, he doesn't want them to go to hell and is trying to help them avoid it. I'd guess he's not very bright generally.

Perhaps he should just keep his piety to himself and mind his own business.

nickice wrote:

I may be mistaken but I don't remember you adopting much of the attitude of Christopher Hitchens when it comes to Islam.

Don't know what you mean, sorry. Can you be more specific? Incidentally, I didn't say that I was Christohper Hitchens - just that I seem to fit his definition of an anti-theist.

nickice

Imposter wrote:

nickice wrote:

In other words, he doesn't want them to go to hell and is trying to help them avoid it. I'd guess he's not very bright generally.

Perhaps he should just keep his piety to himself and mind his own business.

nickice wrote:

I may be mistaken but I don't remember you adopting much of the attitude of Christopher Hitchens when it comes to Islam.

Don't know what you mean, sorry. Can you be more specific? Incidentally, I didn't say that I was Christohper Hitchens - just that I seem to fit his definition of an anti-theist.

You keep selectively quoting me in order to make a point. Christianity is a proselytizing religion so it's going to be difficult to expect religions to keep their views to themselves. It's not as if he directed it at anyone in particular. I think it's a stupid thing to post and it looks like the sort of thing a daft evangelical would come up with.

There were a few threads on Islamic terror attacks a few years ago. You certainly didn't come across as a Christopher Hitchens style anti-theist on those.

viewtopic.php?f=40088&t=13081072&p=20148592&hilit=MCB#p20148592

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like you're an atheist who's comfortable calling out Christianity but not so much on Islam. You may be an atheist, but certainly not in the style of Christopher Hitchens.

imposter2.0

nickice wrote:

You keep selectively quoting me in order to make a point.

I'm 'selectively quoting' you to save space, nothing more. If you feel I am misrepresenting your points, then please highlight the errors and I will address them.

nickice wrote:

There were a few threads on Islamic terror attacks a few years ago. You certainly didn't come across as a Christopher Hitchens style anti-theist on those.

viewtopic.php?f=40088&t=13081072&p=20148592&hilit=MCB#p20148592

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like you're an atheist who's comfortable calling out Christianity but not so much on Islam. You may be an atheist, but certainly not in the style of Christopher Hitchens.

Like I said earlier, in case you missed it - I feel that I fit the Hitchens definition of anti-theism. It does not make me Hitchens himself.

Having said that, I can't find anywhere on that thread where I defend islam. I did offer a correction in defence of the Muslim Council of Britain though - which is obviously not the same thing, as I'm sure you already understand.

In either case, I am not 'calling out' christianity, or islam per se. But I am calling out hypocrisy and intolerance in both cases. Again, I'm sure you can appreciate the difference.

rjsterry

nickice wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

Can anyone point out what he has said that isn't taught in almost all religions?

If people are allowed to be religious (i'm not suggesting they shouldn't be) then how can you say they shouldn't have these views?

You're allowed to be a Christian but only if you ignore the parts that don't fit with the progressive viewpoint. Which isn't really a Christian. So you're not really allowed to be one. Not that I am one but just saying.

Religions aren't nearly as tightly prescribed as is sometimes portrayed. I someone commenting that given the number of authors and the process by which texts were either accepted or rejected from the Christian Bible, it is a miracle that it is as consistent as it is. Indeed one of the passages often quoted in relation to homosexuality covers Jesus settling an argument between over whether divorce is allowable, on the basis of one OT trumping another. There is academic debate about the most accurate translation of the original Greek, and how this relates to modern versus ancient understanding of sexuality. So I think it is perfectly possible for two people with conflicting views on homosexuality to both be considered 'real Christians'.

It wouldn't hurt whatsisname to acknowledge that there are alternate views of Christian theology.

nickice

I'm 'selectively quoting' you to save space, nothing more. If you feel I am misrepresenting your points, then please highlight the errors and I will address them.

Not to mispresent me but to ignore the part about Christianity being a proselytizing religion.

I feel that I fit the Hitchens definition of anti-theism. It does not make me Hitchens himself.

You're claiming the following quote describes you?

am not even an atheist so much as an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful. Reviewing the false claims of religion I do not wish, as some sentimental materialists affect to wish, that they were true. I do not envy believers their faith. I am relieved to think that the whole story is a sinister fairy tale; life would be miserable if what the faithful affirmed was actually true.... There may be people who wish to live their lives under cradle-to-grave divine supervision, a permanent surveillance and monitoring. But I cannot imagine anything more horrible or grotesque

You also said you were a 'Hitchen style atheist'. That implies you agree with much of what he has said on religion.

Having said that, I can't find anywhere on that thread where I defend islam. I did offer a correction in defence of the Muslim Council of Britain though - which is obviously not the same thing, as I'm sure you already understand.

You claimed the MCB statement regarding the Danish cartoons wasn't extreme. A true anti-theist would simply not have said that. And I didn't accuse you of defending Islam.

In either case, I am not 'calling out' christianity, or islam per se. But I am calling out hypocrisy and intolerance in both cases. Again, I'm sure you can appreciate the difference

.

You are calling out Christianity, though.The very fact of claiming you meet the anti-theist definition from Christopher Hitchens is in essence calling out all religion. And comments like this are calling out Christianity-

Or maybe he should just keep his hypocritical bullshit religious views to himself?