Jump to content
Peter

Israel Folau

Recommended Posts

On 10/05/2019 at 6:18 PM, -- AJ -- said:

 

And one to end with

But if you really want an out of context verse to aggravate your local Christians and "prove" that the Bible is just an early "50 Shades of Grey", try this one...

"There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses." (Ezekiel 23:20)

 

Never let it be said, I don't give you anything

AJ

I can’t help but wonder how Tarantino chose to have Jules in Pulp Fiction quote another passage from Ezekiel, instead of this gem 🤔

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it be OK if Folau tweeted this? 

Ephesians 

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, A2K said:

Would it be OK if Folau tweeted this? 

Ephesians 

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.

Would Maria let him tweet that? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tyno said:

Would Maria let him tweet that? 

She has to. She has to submit to him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, A2K said:

She has to. She has to submit to him. 

Go up one verse where Christians are told to submit to one another, then down a couple where husband's are told to love their wives like Jesus loves the church and give up their lives for them.

And then maybe we can all agree that quoting one liners isn't the best way to discuss religion, much like one liners for policy are insufficient. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dazaau said:

Go up one verse where Christians are told to submit to one another, then down a couple where husband's are told to love their wives like Jesus loves the church and give up their lives for them.

And then maybe we can all agree that quoting one liners isn't the best way to discuss religion, much like one liners for policy are insufficient. 

Except that this isn't about discussing religion. This apparently to some people and I don't know if you're one of them, is about religious freedom. Specifically in regards to Wallabies players who are contracted to Rugby Australia. What I'm trying to understand is where is the line, or is there even a line when it comes to these players expressing their beliefs on social media? Does religious freedom mean that a player, regardless of their chosen religion, can express their beliefs, or quote a verse from their holy book and keep their job? I personally think that's an untenable position and Rugby Australia were right to set a precedent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone is going on about him getting in trouble for quoting text from the bible. Unless someone has doctored the tweet that I've seen, the bit he's in trouble for isn't a quote from the bible, one liner or not.

D3yQyaQWwAAG5MW.jpg

 

The quote to the right and the words he put above it would probably have passed judgement, and Izzy would be playing Rugby still. The image on the left is what he's in trouble for. That's not from the bible. That is simply someones interpretation, and in my opinion, a hate piece.

Edited by Ex-Hasbeen
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

legally that makes sense, even if the wording is the same or not though, he really didn't need to post any of it. If the point was to express his faith, he could have chosen an uplifting and inclusive passage from the bible i would think, instead of this. 

Fear or hate is not going to get anyone running to church. 

Edited by Prince
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, A2K said:

Except that this isn't about discussing religion. This apparently to some people and I don't know if you're one of them, is about religious freedom. Specifically in regards to Wallabies players who are contracted to Rugby Australia. What I'm trying to understand is where is the line, or is there even a line when it comes to these players expressing their beliefs on social media? Does religious freedom mean that a player, regardless of their chosen religion, can express their beliefs, or quote a verse from their holy book and keep their job? I personally think that's an untenable position and Rugby Australia were right to set a precedent.

fair enough. But the whole area is a mess, so I'm not too sure where you go with it. Most of us have a social media conditions to some degree in our employment now. It's questionable as to what extent your employer can tell you what you can and can't say outside work. We also don't have an inherent right to freedom of speech in Australia, so it is murky to some people what is and isn't included in practicing your religion. 

Representing your country is perhaps an even more special case because you represent your employer more than just "on the field". It is sad that some of the conduct of rugby players off the field is allowed to continue while a facebook post is cracked down on though, and one wonders what the outcome would have been if Israel was muslim and said the same thing? 

I'd add that IMO Israel wasn't wise in his posting. I don't think that he is being effective if his aim was to bring people close to God. However, I am uncomfortable with people being told what they can and can't say by their employers, particularly when they believe it pertains to practicing their religion. 

It could set a worrying precedent. It's a fine line between telling people what they can and can't say because they "represent you" and telling people what they can and can't believe. I know a guy who was told quietly that he didn't get a job because he had posted too much pro life stuff on his personal facebook, and should clean it up. He is an analyst. Whether or not you agree with him, Is it right that he misses out on job opportunities due to his views? 

Dangerous waters is all I am saying. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

Everyone is going on about him getting in trouble for quoting text from the bible. Unless someone has doctored the tweet that I've seen, the bit he's in trouble for isn't a quote from the bible, one liner or not.

D3yQyaQWwAAG5MW.jpg

 

The quote to the right and the words he put above it would probably have passed judgement, and Izzy would be playing Rugby still. The image on the left is what he's in trouble for. That's not from the bible. That is simply someones interpretation, and in my opinion, a hate piece.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10. You could argue he is conflating lists. You can also argue that the verse speaks against homosexual acts and not people who are same sex attracted - which Israel's post lacks. 

I think Prince points out well (above) that Israel could have shared in far more effective ways. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Prince said:

Fear or hate is not going to get anyone running to church.

Religion is based on fear.  

It's up to individuals as to whether they believe in all that jibber jabber.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

That is simply someones interpretation, and in my opinion, a hate piece.

Sorry Ex I disagree. I consider hate speech as something like "All Jews must be killed" or "All blacks should be slaves" or "Women are whores and should be raped". 

What he's saying - and by your own admission it's an interpretation - is simply his belief of the consequences of not following the Bible. I'm sure in his eyes he's not deciding the punishment, he's just relaying the message. We're not even sure if he created the meme or just reposted it.

As I've said before, as an atheist I don't have any reason to support anything he says, but to describe it as 'hate speech" is over the top (in my opinion).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Falou has just said that he won't appeal through AR as he doesn't believe they would be fair and he said his dismissal has 'damaged his reputation".  He sounds like he is going for the $4 mill plus damages. wow, this is going to be huge. trial of the century. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Prince said:

Falou has just said that he won't appeal through AR as he doesn't believe they would be fair and he said his dismissal has 'damaged his reputation".  He sounds like he is going for the $4 mill plus damages. wow, this is going to be huge. trial of the century. 

Trial of the Century?  Really? 

ARU will settle.  Mind you, no idea how they will find 3 or 4 million.  They have less money that a washed up professional triathlete that won Hell of the west and nothing else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well trial of the month maybe. But i would think it would interest a "top lawyer"  the publicity will be huge. It has so many implications. He could ask for a lot couldn't he AJ, Andrew? any other lawyers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Prince said:

well trial of the month maybe. But i would think it would interest a "top lawyer"  the publicity will be huge. It has so many implications. He could ask for a lot couldn't he AJ, Andrew? any other lawyers?

I would assume, given the NRL have said they won’t take him, there would be a fair whack of future earnings compensation sought, plus some damages. If the ARU get out with 3-4 mill, or less, they’d be happy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Tyno said:

I would assume, given the NRL have said they won’t take him, there would be a fair whack of future earnings compensation sought, plus some damages. If the ARU get out with 3-4 mill, or less, they’d be happy. 

They don’t have 3 or 4 mill. 

Grass roots players are keeping it afloat.  

Similar to triathlon in Australia. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter if they have it, chances are Folau's people are gunna be asking for that and  more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he wins, he'll have a hell of a lot more claim to damages to future earnings than Rebel Wilson ever did. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tyno said:

I would assume, given the NRL have said they won’t take him,

Given the indiscretions of many players who have been either readmitted to or not dumped from the NRL, it would surprise me if they hold that line indefinitely.

While the expectations of players from both society and sporting bodies have definitely changed over the years, it's difficult to view Folau's tweet unfavourably when compared to the behaviour of the likes of Carney, Pearce, et al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

Everyone is going on about him getting in trouble for quoting text from the bible. Unless someone has doctored the tweet that I've seen, the bit he's in trouble for isn't a quote from the bible, one liner or not.

D3yQyaQWwAAG5MW.jpg

 

The quote to the right and the words he put above it would probably have passed judgement, and Izzy would be playing Rugby still. The image on the left is what he's in trouble for. That's not from the bible. That is simply someones interpretation, and in my opinion, a hate piece.

"Uncleanness"?

Plenty of triathletes going to hell for for pissing themselves on the bike. :devil2:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Paul Every said:

"Uncleanness"?

Plenty of triathletes going to hell for for pissing themselves on the bike. :devil2:

I think a lot of us may have been able to strike off most of that list in our younger days in the sport. :blush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

Everyone is going on about him getting in trouble for quoting text from the bible. Unless someone has doctored the tweet that I've seen, the bit he's in trouble for isn't a quote from the bible, one liner or not.

The quote to the right and the words he put above it would probably have passed judgement, and Izzy would be playing Rugby still. The image on the left is what he's in trouble for. That's not from the bible. That is simply someones interpretation, and in my opinion, a hate piece.

Read my fairly extensive post on Page 4 about the difference between the image the the quote he posted. Nothing in the scripture mentions homosexuals but does explicitly mention anybody who has se outside of marriage... By picking out homosexuals he is clearly being homophobic.

@trinube I get what you're saying but you are conflating "hate speech" and "incitement to violence". The latter would clearly be unacceptable but what he said does, in my opinion, fall into the former.

Swap out homosexuals for black people, disabled people, women or many other ways of labelling people and see if we would have people arguing that it's OK then.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A friend posted this to Facebook the other day - interesting perspective:

60420458_663472790783220_2142029413196234752_n.thumb.jpg.7eb38fddc8eace14774f9033e2380074.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, trinube said:

A friend posted this to Facebook the other day - interesting perspective:

 

But it's not the bible quote that is offensive! It's the interpretation and the attacking of specific subsets. I'm pretty sure that's the angle they will take. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, dazaau said:

It could set a worrying precedent. It's a fine line between telling people what they can and can't say because they "represent you" and telling people what they can and can't believe. 

 

Sorry, I disagree. It's a really big clear line. Believe what you like. Don't spread it publicly if it contravenes the position of your employer. If you wish to do so then coolio, you're free to find another employer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, monkie said:

Sorry, I disagree. It's a really big clear line. Believe what you like. Don't spread it publicly if it contravenes the position of your employer. If you wish to do so then coolio, you're free to find another employer.

I definately see that angle. You are probably right. I suspect if Israel was a ceo of a large company, a high ranking public servant or the chief of police he would be in a similar position, except much less controversy. He does represent his employer at a high level. 

I still think it has some tricky elements though. You are entitled to a private life, belief and opinion as well as a work life. But I'm out on this one, I'd rather it just goes away. We'll all just have to wait and see how the mess unfolds.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't sack someone for posting such a thing, if they say something bad about the company i would. Our present policy states this, but it would be a minefield if we sack people for their facebook posts. if your in a certain other profession, i.e teachers, it may be different. Also, nothing wrong with having certain beliefs, its when you share them,, you may have an issue, you are also responsible for what you get back.  

Edited by Prince

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Prince said:

I wouldn't sack someone for posting such a thing, if they say something bad about the company i would. Our present policy states this, but it would be a minefield if we sack people for their facebook posts. if your in a certain other profession, i.e teachers, it may be different. Also, nothing wrong with having certain beliefs, its when you share them,, you may have an issue, you are also responsible for what you get back.  

Yup, and social media is not homogeneous. Sharing something to your "friends" on Facebook is different to Twitter or Instagram.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ARU had no problem with Folau sharing his religious beliefs on social media. If you look at his Instagram there is 12-15 post in the last 12 months, All quotes or interpreting passages from the bible. No one really cared. It was only after he posted his last message that was homophobic that he was asked for a please explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Sacked Wallabies star Israel Folau 'makes extraordinary bid to return to the NRL by offering the league vetting power over his social media posts' - and clubs are interested

That didn’t take long. 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peter said:

That didn’t take long. 

Yet he said his religion came before Rugby, and that he would not change his social media posts because they disagreed with them. The whole thing is a load of bollocks.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/05/2019 at 1:24 PM, Ex-Hasbeen said:

 

D3yQyaQWwAAG5MW.jpg

 

If you repent just before drawing your last breath, do you still inherit the kingdom of God?

If so, can all those dodgy priests use that as a get out of Hell free card?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and rugby league have said no to him too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ComfortablyNumb said:

If you repent just before drawing your last breath, do you still inherit the kingdom of God?

If so, can all those dodgy priests use that as a get out of Hell free card?

It’s what the Catholics believe.  

They are wrong.  There is nothing there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, zed said:

and rugby league have said no to him too.

Reckon they missed a massive marketing opportunity here.  Think of the crowds that would come to every game he played.  Half to support him and half to abuse him.  For a footy code that is generally suffering from a distinct lack of Bums on Seats at games, this would have been a welcome boost to coffers for at least one game a week.

 

And at the risk of going to Hell myself...is anybody else completely disinterested about Origin this year?

AJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, -- AJ -- said:

And at the risk of going to Hell myself...is anybody else completely disinterested about Origin this year?

AJ

Its a pretty good game for a queenslander.  If they hold on. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/05/2019 at 1:34 PM, dazaau said:

However, I am uncomfortable with people being told what they can and can't say by their employers, particularly when they believe it pertains to practicing their religion. 

It could set a worrying precedent. It's a fine line between telling people what they can and can't say because they "represent you" and telling people what they can and can't believe. I know a guy who was told quietly that he didn't get a job because he had posted too much pro life stuff on his personal facebook, and should clean it up. He is an analyst. Whether or not you agree with him, Is it right that he misses out on job opportunities due to his views? 

Dangerous waters is all I am saying. 

 

 

Sorry,  but doesnt this cut both ways. 

My wife is a teacher in a Catholic school.  Her contract says the type of things she is and isn't allowed to say/ support - words about upholding Catholic world view and all that.  We know gay teachers who have lost their jobs etc for not following the rules, and plenty more who simply don't have contracts renewed etc because they don't toe the line. 

One particular guy was pulled aside for the chat about how they would never progress him in the system (despite being excellent at his job) because of his 'lifestyle'. 

Where's all the outcry about 'free speech '  when the shoe is on the other foot?

It seems religious people are hypocrits!

Religious people:  i should be able to say whatever i want at all times, regardless of what my employer thinks. 

Also religious people:  i want to be able to tell people what they can and can't say when they work in an organisation we endorse.

 

Edited by TryTriB4Forty
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Pencil_Towel said:

QLd could definitely use him come origin time next season

You think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So.... this little book you find in hotel rooms the world over........ do people actually open them. 

What on earth for.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, TryTriB4Forty said:

Sorry,  but doesnt this cut both ways. 

My wife is a teacher in a Catholic school.  Her contract says the type of things she is and isn't allowed to say/ support - words about upholding Catholic world view and all that.  We know gay teachers who have lost their jobs etc for not following the rules, and plenty more who simply don't have contracts renewed etc because they don't toe the line. 

One particular guy was pulled aside for the chat about how they would never progress him in the system (despite being excellent at his job) because of his 'lifestyle'. 

Where's all the outcry about 'free speech '  when the shoe is on the other foot?

It seems religious people are hypocrits!

Religious people:  i should be able to say whatever i want at all times, regardless of what my employer thinks. 

Also religious people:  i want to be able to tell people what they can and can't say when they work in an organisation we endorse.

 

Yeah that's fair I suppose. Obviously if it is in your capacity as an employee it's unacceptable. Bit more blurry when it is outside of work. However I accept that in some roles there is little distinction between representing your employer and "not representing them" in practice. It may reflect on them regardless of if you think it's just a personal opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IronmanFoz said:

So.... this little book you find in hotel rooms the world over........ do people actually open them. 

What on earth for.

 

To find out where to eat?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, IronmanFoz said:

So.... this little book you find in hotel rooms the world over........ do people actually open them. 

What on earth for.

 

I find the Gideons fascinating. Think of the logistics, financial resources supply chain etc. that they deploy to get bibles into every hotel room. What if they took all that money, focus, talent etc. and put it towards actually helping people? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All you really need out of religion can be summed up in one phrase - Don't be a C***

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, chris said:

He will finish up in French rugby, Toulon is my prediction 

That was his goal all along... even better if he gets a payout of some sort as well... well played sir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...