• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Izzy Folau

Yeah I'm not too bent of out of shape about it, but self-righteousness kind of gets my goat. I'm absolutely not defending Israel Folau. I think he's wrong and I think the texts he bases his views on are worthless. However, his views whether stated or not remain his views. Even if he never spoke them, they would still be wrong. Allowing the religious to prevail regarding issues of freedom for others is the ultimate slippery slope for me. The authorities are playing a game of "it's O.K to be a fundamentalist as long as you never speak about it". That for me is a cop-out.
 
you cant control peoples thoughts...because we dont know what they are thinking unless they say them. And i would say all of us have had weird thoughts in the past..."i wonder what would happen if..." but conscientiously decide not to do or say anything...how are you to punish me for that?

you've never had a dream where you were walking around naked? technically if we applied laws to thoughts then such a dream could be charged with indecent exposer

if people try and over shoot on these issues you'll just end up missing the immediate target, sure i would love for everyone to have nothing but love for their fellow man...but there is no silver bullet for these issues...let just concentrate on the actions of people that actually affect others
 
Last edited:
Yoshi it feels like your problem is more with religion than Folau's comments themself.

FOLAU'S COMMENTS ARE NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MAJORITY OF CHRISTIANITY!

There are bigots of every colour and creed out there, and first and foremost they are biggoted and simply need to find an excuse why it is justified.

You will find atheists who are homophobic, he is using religion to justify it, but as demonstrated by the millions of non-bigoted and homophobic religious people around the world, that should not be considered the issue here.

Folau is a bigot who used a platform provided by Australia rugby (whether you agree with that or not it seems fairly simple that had he not been involved with Australia rugby ----> he would be a nobody and noone would give a **** what he thought) to spread hateful bigotry disguised as the views of a higher power and was rightfully fired as a result of breaching his contract, not for holding bigoted views.

People who think socially unacceptable things exist in all walks of life. You or I have no right to tell them what they can or cannot think, or what is wrong or right... BUT!!! If they sign a legal document saying they can't say bigoted **** then they shouldn't say bigoted **** and not expect the consequences.

Vunipola was an idiot in expressing his opinion in the way he did because he almost definitely has a similar clause in his contract to folau. BUT I think the crucial point here is to recognise the amount of PI or BME players who originally liked that post. This is an issue of culture and anthropology rather than anything else. It is ignorant and verging on xenophobic to expect the entire world to correspond to Western values, this in it's essence is self righteous as Yoshi has said he despises so much.

I disagree with Folau (especially as according to my own Christian values which to me preach acceptance and love for all) but feel that some (in this case Yoshi) have let this argument be construed as some anti religious crusade, in which the essence of the case is lost.

I hope all international rugby teams play the Japan world cup with rainbow laces and that folau finds a more accepting church to frequent that the one he does now (which apparently is more like a cult).

Lots of love for all of you, my gorgeous bum chums xx
 
Jabby said:
you cant control peoples thoughts...because we dont know what they are thinking unless they say them. And i would say all of us have had weird thoughts in the past..."i wonder what would happen if..." but conscientiously decide not to do or say anything...how are you to punish me for that?

you've never had a dream where you were walking around naked? technically if we applied laws to thoughts then such a dream could be charged with indecent exposer

if people try and over shoot on these issues you'll just end up missing the immediate target, sure i would love for everyone to have nothing but love for their fellow man...but there is no silver bullet for these issues...let just concentrate on the actions of people that actually affect others
Click to expand...


Essentially this.

We can't (yet) do anything about what people think, but we can do something about what they do!
 
To put it into perspective, I think there will be plenty of pro rugby players who are thinking the same way as Folau and Vunipola. But they know better than to post about it on social media. If remarks like that was said in South Africa, you'd be looking at jail-time, or even a hefty fine.

Remember there are laws in relation to social media, and things you say, can be used against you in a court of law. Penny Sparrow is prime example of this, and is now serving a prison sentence for her racist rant. Which was caught on video and shared on social media.

Notwithstanding the contractual obligations you have with your employer, there is no need for these remarks in public. Public opinion on this is even a bigger career-killer than anything else. I wonder what the clubs would do when the LGBTQ community would stage a protest on game day, and prevent the people from attending the match? It's the quickest way to get rid of the "bad apple" as he's the one causing the protest and in effect costing the club tonnes of money.
 
I'd suggest also with Binny that this is his first instance of such activity (is my understanding) and thus a formal warning is a suitable punishment. If he continues to commit contract breaches it could be escalated.
 
Interesting stats...8 games hardly a sample set but still

upload_2019-4-16_19-22-45.jpeg
 
BobbyM said:
I'd suggest also with Binny that this is his first instance of such activity (is my understanding) and thus a formal warning is a suitable punishment. If he continues to commit contract breaches it could be escalated.
Click to expand...
Well he's now had formal warnings from both club and country. He'd have to be spectacularly dense to repeat offend.

Social media's lethal. Religion's lethal. Mix together, add in a pinch of daft rugby player and you've got a toxic outcome.
 
"During the meeting the player expressed genuine regret at his public comments and understood that he had caused hurt and offence as a result of his actions."
 
There are many good points in here.

Yoshi and others are not wrong that the religion or cult or whatever you want to call it is in some sense to blame, and that fundamental religions that discriminate are a problem for the rest of society.
And others who have pointed out not all religions are the same.
But this particular religion is a bad one. I think it was Cruz who basically said Folau is the symptom, not the cause. Folau doesn't hate gays, he just truly believes they will go to hell , and if you believed that wouldn't you try and stop them? How do you stop people from being brainwashed by such religions? Real, not rhetorical, question by the way. I think the most powerful messages on this particular issue are the ones coming out of Christian churches that are disagreeing with folaus stance. They are providing alternate views to young Christians who may be influenced by Folau. Better yet, I'm hoping they're providing comfort to young gay christians who have been harmed by Folau words.

I think the whistle has been blown on the question of his firing. He broke the contract. Nuff said.
Cruz and others feared that his sacking may backfire. I too am worried but don't disagree with the outcome , just really wish he hadn't said the things to begin with.
I'm interested in the, to be tolerant you must be intolerant of the intolerant paradox, and Cruz point 'but who decides?'. I think it is a paradox, but maybe if you change the semantics slightly to 'not discriminate' and discriminate, then the paradox isn't there, because discriminate implies an action, whereas tolerate implies a thought . This ties into the punish the action not the thought that many have put forth.

Lastly, let us not forget that Folau has also said Islamic people are going to hell. Idolation was one of the sins mentioned, which I understand to mean the worshipping of false idols, to which Mohammed fits the bill, or maybe even allah, though at the time the bible was written god and allah were one and the same. I'm no expert on religion so my apologies if I've got this wrong. I'm glad that the homosexuality aspect of what Folau said has got as much attention as it has, because it really demonstrates how far society has come in recent times. But he has offended Muslim's too.
 
This one barely even warrants local news status: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-47946755

A school assistant has been sacked after reacting to plans for teaching LGBT relationships in primary schools.

Kristie Higgs, 43, was dismissed for gross misconduct by Farmor's School in Fairford, Gloucestershire.

She shared and commented on Facebook posts which raised concerns about relationship education at her son's Church of England primary school.

The academy dismissed her for reasons including illegal discrimination.

She said she had been punished for sharing concerns about relationship education.

"I hold these views because of my Christian beliefs - beliefs and views which are shared by hundreds of thousands of parents across the UK.
Click to expand...
 
I think there are a lot of misguided perceptions in relation to religion and beliefs.

I am a Dutch Reformed Christian and my grandfather was a reverand of our church and a professor of theology at the University.

Our church's national body's stance on homosexuality is that it's wrong, and will not be condoned at our church. But our reverend's doesn't go and spew hatred towards homosexuals or that we as church-goers should have a hatred towards them or any other belief/religion/sexuality/race etc.

Our church rather focuses on the love thy neighbor principle, and tries to have it's congregation look at the positive things in life, and how a person can use their faith to improve themselves.

But the other part of the equation is that the people in the church have their own minds, and the way they interpret what is being said in the bible, at church and other ways of communication between the church and it's people.

Yes, people take things very literally from scripture, such as an eye for an eye, and the eldest son must inheret everything (i wish). But the church is merely there to give guidance and keep people on a certain path. If a person doesn't stay within the rules of the church, the church has the right to kick that person out of it's congregation.
 
TRF_heineken said:
I think there are a lot of misguided perceptions in relation to religion and beliefs.

I am a Dutch Reformed Christian and my grandfather was a reverand of our church and a professor of theology at the University.

Our church's national body's stance on homosexuality is that it's wrong, and will not be condoned at our church. But our reverend's doesn't go and spew hatred towards homosexuals or that we as church-goers should have a hatred towards them or any other belief/religion/sexuality/race etc.

Our church rather focuses on the love thy neighbor principle, and tries to have it's congregation look at the positive things in life, and how a person can use their faith to improve themselves.

But the other part of the equation is that the people in the church have their own minds, and the way they interpret what is being said in the bible, at church and other ways of communication between the church and it's people.

Yes, people take things very literally from scripture, such as an eye for an eye, and the eldest son must inheret everything (i wish). But the church is merely there to give guidance and keep people on a certain path. If a person doesn't stay within the rules of the church, the church has the right to kick that person out of it's congregation.
Click to expand...

I'll try and keep this as respectful as possible but as soon as you have:

"Our church's national body's stance on homosexuality is that it's wrong, and will not be condoned at our church."

The damage is already done. Regardless of the lack of vitriol shown by the congregation or clerics a precedent has been set that homosexuals and homosexual practices are "wrong" and by "wrong" I'd suspect that the scriptural basis leads to them being rather more than "wrong" but "sinful".As soon as you're in "sinful" territory there's obviously jeopardy for your mortal soul. From there's it not that far of a slippery slope to end up saying things like homosexuals go to hell. The "hate the sin lover the sinner" line is usually rolled out to justify this position. It's still immediately creating a lesser class of humans based on their sexuality.

Anyhow, I note I've been called out (gently and fairly) on my somewhat anti-religious tone. I'll dip out of this one from here. I understand the benefits that faith can bring both individuals and communities. However, I strongly believe that religious practices that clash with law / prevailing social mores should be granted no special protection when exercised publicly. Hiding behind 2000 year old words with dubious authority behind them in order to justify treating people in certain ways sits ill with me.
 
Yoshimitsu said:
I'll try and keep this as respectful as possible but as soon as you have:

"Our church's national body's stance on homosexuality is that it's wrong, and will not be condoned at our church."

The damage is already done. Regardless of the lack of vitriol shown by the congregation or clerics a precedent has been set that homosexuals and homosexual practices are "wrong" and by "wrong" I'd suspect that the scriptural basis leads to them being rather more than "wrong" but "sinful".As soon as you're in "sinful" territory there's obviously jeopardy for your mortal soul. From there's it not that far of a slippery slope to end up saying things like homosexuals go to hell. The "hate the sin lover the sinner" line is usually rolled out to justify this position. It's still immediately creating a lesser class of humans based on their sexuality.

Anyhow, I note I've been called out (gently and fairly) on my somewhat anti-religious tone. I'll dip out of this one from here. I understand the benefits that faith can bring both individuals and communities. However, I strongly believe that religious practices that clash with law / prevailing social mores should be granted no special protection when exercised publicly. Hiding behind 2000 year old words with dubious authority behind them in order to justify treating people in certain ways sits ill with me.
Click to expand...

The church's national body follows the scripture. So there's not much we can do about their stance on a certain issue, as it's their rightful choice to have an opinion about it.

But all they are saying, is that it is wrong. They aren't saying that a person will go to hell, or that it's worse than the 10 commandments. All they are saying is that it's wrong.

Also, we follow the rule that every person is born with sin, and that by being repentant, and faithful and doing acts of kindness, will cleanse your soul in the hereafter. By being homosexual, or getting a divorce, or cheating on your wife, or obsessing about someone else's property, is in the church's eye a sinful act. And that you can rectify it by doing rightful things and being faithful to your church and God and being repentant.

The church isn't going to give you 7 lashes for these acts of sin. It's part of being human, and they accept that everyone does something sinful. And yes, I fully understand that homosexuality can't be compared to the others as they are something completely different, and that homosexuality is just how a person is. But in the eye of our church, it's sinful. Our church won't deny a homosexual the right to live, or act normally or change behaviour or ask for exorcism or whatever else some sects or cults want.

Remember that many countries like New Zealand, Australia, England, South Africa and so on have their current laws built by Canon Law, or laws invoked by religious groups. 2000 year old words have meaning. 2000 year old words have built empires. 2000 year old words have stopped wars, tyranny, evil deeds.

While you might have a very disdainful outlook on religion, many of us are religious. But we can all live in harmony. There is no need to be enemies.
 
Groundhog said:
Folau now saying he wants a disciplinary hearing. Half expect him to demand a hearing by combat at this stage. Can't get much more backwards.
Click to expand...
Its not quite like that.

Folau was sacked, but he was entitled to appeal that decision, and had 48 hours to do so. (until 2pm today AEST). He has decided to appeal, as is his right.

This thing here is that he is very, very unlikely to be reinstated to playing for either Waratahs or the Wallabies... that ship looks to have sailed with the Waratahs standing him down permaently, and Cheika saying he doesn't want him in the Wallabies environment.

What will almost certainly be at issue here is that Folau will try to argue that he didn't breach his contract that he is entitled to spread his religious opinion, and any contract that says he cannot is illegal on human rights grounds that it inhibits his freedom of religious expression, and therefore, the sacking was unwarranted..... all of this is code for "I want my money!" He was contracted until 2022, so he want his next three years of pay.

Frankly, I think his chances of success fall somewhere between zero and zippo.

There is also another issue though; one that could drop him in legal jeopardy on the off chance that he succeeds. There is a possibility that legal authorities could become involved. All it will take is for just one LGBTQ+ employee of Rugby Australia to make an official complaint to the NSW Police, and it could trigger this....

The NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (Section 49ZT) states: "It is unlawful for a person, by a public act, to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground of the homosexuality of the person or members of the group".
 
Last edited:
TRF_heineken said:
2000 year old words have stopped wars, tyranny, evil deeds.
Click to expand...

My personal opinion is that everyone is free to believe what they like, so long as it's a personal belief to them. I think organised religion is one of the biggest problems in society and throughout history as it has been used horrifically over thousands of years to justify many despicable acts. Take for example the inquisition, selling of pardons, the Holy Wars in the Middle East. This is why I quoted that part of your post. Religion has cause just as much wars, tyranny and evil deeds as secular reasons. Across all religions some people use their religion to justify their intolerance, bigotry, sexism etc... under the guise that their god or religion told them to.

The problem comes in that 2000 year old words don't directly apply to the current world and society, therefore they can be misinterpreted by a few people (I say few, but just look at the amount of homophobic American Christians in the mid-west) to justify their views.

Now I took this from Wikipedia, but I assume it's accurate "This conservative group also opposes the ordination of women." I'll let you guess which group that is. Simply do you agree that only men should be ordained and be able preach the word of God as part of your church, or that 2000 year old words written by MEN to preserve a patriarchal society, don't necessarily apply anymore and that there is no justification for sexism, especially as this is all based on the teachings of a man who supposedly preached equality and tolerance?
 

Latest posts

Top