Israel Folau
Comments
-
No. Religions demand proselytizing and spouting damning speech is an obligation for any follower of religion so the powers that be are restricting free speech and religious freedom.
Homosexuality is forbidden in all religions so one must take to social media to condemn it.0 -
Shirley Basso wrote:No because according to nickice, religious people are obliged by their religion to spout their views damning non-conformists to hell on social media with no consideration of their position in the public eye.
They're not obliged to but spreading the faith is a major part of Christianity. And he didn't condemn anyone to hell. He thinks he's trying to save them. The first time he got in trouble for it it was a few years ago and in response to specific question? Should he have refused to answer it?
There was no harm done here. Anyone who doesn't like it is free to ignore it. Diversity includes diversity of thought and opinion. It's doing a great disservice to gays to think that they are so fragile that they can't just ignore this kind of thing.0 -
HaydenM wrote:'Mob' justice is fine if the 'mob' are the ones you are trying to get into sport. If your employer has a set of objectives and you deliberately speak out with opposing views then why wouldn't they sack you? He's not going to prison, he's lost his job for saying things they disagree with.
And what are the set of objectives that he has spoken out against?0 -
nickice wrote:Shirley Basso wrote:No because according to nickice, religious people are obliged by their religion to spout their views damning non-conformists to hell on social media with no consideration of their position in the public eye.
They're not obliged to but spreading the faith is a major part of Christianity. And he didn't condemn anyone to hell. He thinks he's trying to save them. The first time he got in trouble for it it was a few years ago and in response to specific question? Should he have refused to answer it?
There was no harm done here. Anyone who doesn't like it is free to ignore it. Diversity includes diversity of thought and opinion. It's doing a great disservice to gays to think that they are so fragile that they can't just ignore this kind of thing.
It isn't really any more.
There is harm done though - which is why his employer fired him. By accepting / overlooking this viewpoint and letting it slide, it emboldens people who share his outdated (and frankly ridiculous) view that homosexuals are in some way wrong or different and will go to hell if they don't repent.
As for the ridiculous statement that people think gays are 'so fragile' - have a read of the several case studies of homosexuals who were at the point of taking their own lives prior to coming out. Nigel Owens, Gareth Thomas,
Another here: https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article ... vickerman/
Your ignorance and blinkered view on the impact of Falou's comments is astounding.0 -
Shirley Basso wrote:nickice wrote:Shirley Basso wrote:No because according to nickice, religious people are obliged by their religion to spout their views damning non-conformists to hell on social media with no consideration of their position in the public eye.
They're not obliged to but spreading the faith is a major part of Christianity. And he didn't condemn anyone to hell. He thinks he's trying to save them. The first time he got in trouble for it it was a few years ago and in response to specific question? Should he have refused to answer it?
There was no harm done here. Anyone who doesn't like it is free to ignore it. Diversity includes diversity of thought and opinion. It's doing a great disservice to gays to think that they are so fragile that they can't just ignore this kind of thing.
It isn't really any more.
There is harm done though - which is why his employer fired him. By accepting / overlooking this viewpoint and letting it slide, it emboldens people who share his outdated (and frankly ridiculous) view that homosexuals are in some way wrong or different and will go to hell if they don't repent.
As for the ridiculous statement that people think gays are 'so fragile' - have a read of the several case studies of homosexuals who were at the point of taking their own lives prior to coming out. Nigel Owens, Gareth Thomas,
Another here: https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article ... vickerman/
Your ignorance and blinkered view on the impact of Falou's comments is astounding.
If you want religious people to be shunned then just say that. That's effectively what you're doing. But it would be better if you just say it. I think it's a stupid view too but I don't believe that gay people aren't strong enough to just ignore it. Especially if they're not a Christian. Why would you care if you weren't religious?
If this guys was abusing specific players in a homophobic way that would be different. But he's not, so it isn't. Read his story and you'll see that he's basically harmless. Misguided but harmless.0 -
I kind of have to give up as I have some work to do, but if you can't see it, you can't see it.
I don't care that he's religious or not. The issue is a very high profile sportsperson using social media to spread views about minorities which could impact others.
It doesn't matter that the religion tells him to, it doesn't matter that if your not religious it should be water off your back. It doesn't matter that he is misguided and the fact that he himself is harmless is also irrelevant.
The impact on others spreads far beyond the actions (or words) of the individual and sportspeople are hugely revered by millions worldwide and are looked up to for support. You could even say that the actions of firing Folau weren't done to patronise the tough people out there, it was to protect the more vulnerable.0 -
I see perfectly well that it's an ignorant view and I see exactly what you're saying but, at the same time, I don't see why even a famous sportsperson should be forced to deny what he believes. It will end up at the stage where only certain opinions are held to be the acceptable ones (not forgetting that almost within my lifetime his views, or at least the view that homosexuality was wrong were pretty common in the general population). He thinks he's spreading a message of love.
What the rugby authorities in Australia could have done it to release a statement saying they strongly oppose his views and that it is not their official position but that they are just that: personal views. That would have been proportionate. Sacking him not so much, especially as they will almost certainly back down.
Finally, it was a stupîd thing to post but I think that if he'd been asked directly if homosexuality was a sin, he'd probably still be in trouble.0 -
nickice wrote:I see perfectly well that it's an ignorant view and I see exactly what you're saying but, at the same time, I don't see why even a famous sportsperson should be forced to deny what he believes. It will end up at the stage where only certain opinions are held to be the acceptable ones (not forgetting that almost within my lifetime his views, or at least the view that homosexuality was wrong were pretty common in the general population). He thinks he's spreading a message of love.
What the rugby authorities in Australia could have done it to release a statement saying they strongly oppose his views and that it is not their official position but that they are just that: personal views. That would have been proportionate. Sacking him not so much, especially as they will almost certainly back down.
Finally, it was a stupîd thing to post but I think that if he'd been asked directly if homosexuality was a sin, he'd probably still be in trouble.
There are a lot of views that were commonly held within living memory that are generally not acceptable now.0 -
nickice wrote:I see perfectly well that it's an ignorant view and I see exactly what you're saying but, at the same time, I don't see why even a famous sportsperson should be forced to deny what he believes. It will end up at the stage where only certain opinions are held to be the acceptable ones (not forgetting that almost within my lifetime his views, or at least the view that homosexuality was wrong were pretty common in the general population). He thinks he's spreading a message of love.
What the rugby authorities in Australia could have done it to release a statement saying they strongly oppose his views and that it is not their official position but that they are just that: personal views. That would have been proportionate. Sacking him not so much, especially as they will almost certainly back down.
Finally, it was a stupîd thing to post but I think that if he'd been asked directly if homosexuality was a sin, he'd probably still be in trouble.
There are a lot of views that were commonly held within living memory that are generally not acceptable now.0 -
I also now see what you are saying but unfortunately with the position of being a global superstar also comes responsibility for what you decide to broadcast, unprovoked, on social media and refuse to take it down.
If he wants to use his position to be a poster boy for Christianity, then by all means go for it, but he may need to consider different messaging.0 -
nickice wrote:HaydenM wrote:'Mob' justice is fine if the 'mob' are the ones you are trying to get into sport. If your employer has a set of objectives and you deliberately speak out with opposing views then why wouldn't they sack you? He's not going to prison, he's lost his job for saying things they disagree with.
And what are the set of objectives that he has spoken out against?
Presumably that they are trying to make rugby a free and open place where people aren't told they are going to hell for something which isn't their choice. They have said it's against their values, I don't see what the problem is.
One thing that really p1sses me off about these people is that they act as if homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. We know it isn't, it's a clear and evidencable scientific fact (rather than a moral choice like adultery) so using thousands of years old teachings is clearly ridiculous.
Incidentally I am a drunk, fornicator and an atheist which are also on his list but I couldn't care less about his comments because I don't believe in Hell. Although if I was gay I might be put off rugby if I thought that a lot of people in my team had those views.0 -
nickice wrote:I see perfectly well that it's an ignorant view and I see exactly what you're saying but, at the same time, I don't see why even a famous sportsperson should be forced to deny what he believes. It will end up at the stage where only certain opinions are held to be the acceptable ones (not forgetting that almost within my lifetime his views, or at least the view that homosexuality was wrong were pretty common in the general population). He thinks he's spreading a message of love.
What the rugby authorities in Australia could have done it to release a statement saying they strongly oppose his views and that it is not their official position but that they are just that: personal views. That would have been proportionate. Sacking him not so much, especially as they will almost certainly back down.
Finally, it was a stupîd thing to post but I think that if he'd been asked directly if homosexuality was a sin, he'd probably still be in trouble.
Good post but re the bit in bold, he doesn't need to deny it, just shut up about it on social media when his employer is presumably not of the same opinion
0 -
KingstonGraham wrote:nickice wrote:I see perfectly well that it's an ignorant view and I see exactly what you're saying but, at the same time, I don't see why even a famous sportsperson should be forced to deny what he believes. It will end up at the stage where only certain opinions are held to be the acceptable ones (not forgetting that almost within my lifetime his views, or at least the view that homosexuality was wrong were pretty common in the general population). He thinks he's spreading a message of love.
What the rugby authorities in Australia could have done it to release a statement saying they strongly oppose his views and that it is not their official position but that they are just that: personal views. That would have been proportionate. Sacking him not so much, especially as they will almost certainly back down.
Finally, it was a stupîd thing to post but I think that if he'd been asked directly if homosexuality was a sin, he'd probably still be in trouble.
There are a lot of views that were commonly held within living memory that are generally not acceptable now.
Which is my point exactly. Punish people for views and one day you'll be punished for your own views.0 -
He's not being punished for his views. See HaydenM post.0
-
HaydenM wrote:nickice wrote:I see perfectly well that it's an ignorant view and I see exactly what you're saying but, at the same time, I don't see why even a famous sportsperson should be forced to deny what he believes. It will end up at the stage where only certain opinions are held to be the acceptable ones (not forgetting that almost within my lifetime his views, or at least the view that homosexuality was wrong were pretty common in the general population). He thinks he's spreading a message of love.
What the rugby authorities in Australia could have done it to release a statement saying they strongly oppose his views and that it is not their official position but that they are just that: personal views. That would have been proportionate. Sacking him not so much, especially as they will almost certainly back down.
Finally, it was a stupîd thing to post but I think that if he'd been asked directly if homosexuality was a sin, he'd probably still be in trouble.
Good post but re the bit in bold, he doesn't need to deny it, just shut up about it on social media when his employer is presumably not of the same opinion
Firstly, people who believe that homosexuality is a choice (including George Michael as I seel to recall) are seriously mistaken. To grudgingly give religious people credit, I don't think that many of them think same-sex attraction is a sin but acting up on it is. I think it's hard to separate the two but that's their opinion.
Secondly, diversity and inclusion must surely mean diversity of opinion. Especially as many minorities are often completely opposed to each other.
In a way I have more respect for this guy than someone who had made a homophobic comment then later apologised. He obviously has principles and is prepared to lose a lot for them. They're not my principles but nonetheless it' s impressive in a way.0 -
Shirley Basso wrote:He's not being punished for his views. See HaydenM post.
We can agree to differ but there's not much point in being allowed to hold a view if you can't share it.0 -
nickice wrote:Firstly, people who believe that homosexuality is a choice (including George Michael as I seel to recall) are seriously mistaken. To grudgingly give religious people credit, I don't think that many of them think same-sex attraction is a sin but acting up on it is. I think it's hard to separate the two but that's their opinion.
That's ironic isn't it? If he had held that view but not acted upon it, he'd have been OK.0 -
nickice wrote:Shirley Basso wrote:He's not being punished for his views. See HaydenM post.
We can agree to differ but there's not much point in being allowed to hold a view if you can't share it.
Yes. Especially if it is outdated and shows intolerance to minorities and you are a a global superstar with a worldwide following.
If you have nothing nice (or sensible) to say, don't say anything at all.0 -
nickice wrote:Shirley Basso wrote:He's not being punished for his views. See HaydenM post.
We can agree to differ but there's not much point in being allowed to hold a view if you can't share it.
He has shared it, duuh.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:nickice wrote:Shirley Basso wrote:He's not being punished for his views. See HaydenM post.
We can agree to differ but there's not much point in being allowed to hold a view if you can't share it.
He has shared it, duuh.
And been fired for it.0 -
nickice wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:nickice wrote:Shirley Basso wrote:He's not being punished for his views. See HaydenM post.
We can agree to differ but there's not much point in being allowed to hold a view if you can't share it.
He has shared it, duuh.
And been fired for it.
He is allowed to share it however. We know this since he has and he’s still a free man.0 -
Being fired is a very high price to pay. One that most people wouldn't want.0
-
-
Rick Chasey wrote:nickice wrote:Being fired is a very high price to pay. One that most people wouldn't want.
That’s his choice that he made.
So he effectively can't share his opinion..If your claim is that he's allowed to share something but must accept the harsh consequences, you might also argue that people are free to incite violence.0 -
nickice wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:nickice wrote:Being fired is a very high price to pay. One that most people wouldn't want.
That’s his choice that he made.
So he effectively can't share his opinion..If your claim is that he's allowed to share something but must accept the harsh consequences, you might also argue that people are free to incite violence.
What?
No. You don’t understand.
The criteria for jobs is very different to laws.
Why can’t you understand that?
If I told a client who was gay he was a sinner I would be sacked instantly and rightly so, since, aside from the discrimination I was showing, it would cost the firm business.
I’ve let people go for lying. The lie he made wasn’t against the law - he’s entitled to lie if he wants - but it wasn’t good business so I sacked him.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:nickice wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:nickice wrote:Being fired is a very high price to pay. One that most people wouldn't want.
That’s his choice that he made.
So he effectively can't share his opinion..If your claim is that he's allowed to share something but must accept the harsh consequences, you might also argue that people are free to incite violence.
What?
No. You don’t understand.
The criteria for jobs is very different to laws.
Why can’t you understand that?
If I told a client who was gay he was a sinner I would be sacked instantly and rightly so, since, aside from the discrimination I was showing, it would cost the firm business.
I’ve let people go for lying. The lie he made wasn’t against the law - he’s entitled to lie if he wants - but it wasn’t good business so I sacked him.
I understand perfectly what you said. I work in the law as I've mentioned before. But your example is not one of discrimination. Your liberal use of the word sums up how broadly you tend to apply words like that (I'm still waiting for evidence of my bigotry, by the way)
If he directed it at an individual I might agree that it's a case of harassmen (and stupidity)t but it was an instagram post where he was sharing his faith. And lying always has been viewed negatively by all cultures. Hardly comparable to homosexuality.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:nickice wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:nickice wrote:Being fired is a very high price to pay. One that most people wouldn't want.
That’s his choice that he made.
So he effectively can't share his opinion..If your claim is that he's allowed to share something but must accept the harsh consequences, you might also argue that people are free to incite violence.
What?
No. You don’t understand.
The criteria for jobs is very different to laws.
Why can’t you understand that?
If I told a client who was gay he was a sinner I would be sacked instantly and rightly so, since, aside from the discrimination I was showing, it would cost the firm business.
I’ve let people go for lying. The lie he made wasn’t against the law - he’s entitled to lie if he wants - but it wasn’t good business so I sacked him.
So we have a situation where you have a right to hold religious views however if you communicate them to the wider public you are free to do so but then lose your job. Maybe it is time we openly said that under the equality act that religion whilst being a protected characteristic is less protected that a sexual orientation or race characteristic to give two examples.
Spend a minute reading the discrimination section of the equality act having previously read the defined characteristics and you will see just how difficult it is for religion to comply without actually changing their views.0 -
john80 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:nickice wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:nickice wrote:Being fired is a very high price to pay. One that most people wouldn't want.
That’s his choice that he made.
So he effectively can't share his opinion..If your claim is that he's allowed to share something but must accept the harsh consequences, you might also argue that people are free to incite violence.
What?
No. You don’t understand.
The criteria for jobs is very different to laws.
Why can’t you understand that?
If I told a client who was gay he was a sinner I would be sacked instantly and rightly so, since, aside from the discrimination I was showing, it would cost the firm business.
I’ve let people go for lying. The lie he made wasn’t against the law - he’s entitled to lie if he wants - but it wasn’t good business so I sacked him.
So we have a situation where you have a right to hold religious views however if you communicate them to the wider public you are free to do so but then lose your job. Maybe it is time we openly said that under the equality act that religion whilst being a protected characteristic is less protected that a sexual orientation or race characteristic to give two examples.
Spend a minute reading the discrimination section of the equality act having previously read the defined characteristics and you will see just how difficult it is for religion to comply without actually changing their views.
Exactly. (Edit: if they happen to offend people and your employer doesn't like it)
I think as an international sportsman he just needed to take into account the values that his employer are trying to uphold. He can share his faith if he wants but his employer thought it associated them with things they don't agree with and sacked him. They are trying to hold up sports people as role models and get more people into sport. If he worked for a company with religious/homophobic values then he wouldn't have been sacked.0 -
john80 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:nickice wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:nickice wrote:Being fired is a very high price to pay. One that most people wouldn't want.
That’s his choice that he made.
So he effectively can't share his opinion..If your claim is that he's allowed to share something but must accept the harsh consequences, you might also argue that people are free to incite violence.
What?
No. You don’t understand.
The criteria for jobs is very different to laws.
Why can’t you understand that?
If I told a client who was gay he was a sinner I would be sacked instantly and rightly so, since, aside from the discrimination I was showing, it would cost the firm business.
I’ve let people go for lying. The lie he made wasn’t against the law - he’s entitled to lie if he wants - but it wasn’t good business so I sacked him.
So we have a situation where you have a right to hold religious views however if you communicate them to the wider public you are free to do so but then lose your job. Maybe it is time we openly said that under the equality act that religion whilst being a protected characteristic is less protected that a sexual orientation or race characteristic to give two examples.
Spend a minute reading the discrimination section of the equality act having previously read the defined characteristics and you will see just how difficult it is for religion to comply without actually changing their views.
Disastrous legislation, of course as, like you said, the protected characteristics are often in opposition to each other.0 -
