• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Izzy Folau

Drop them then.
If they're too stupid to realise the difference between holding views and airing them to hundreds of thousands of your followers....
 
I'm keen to get some opinions from those who feel Folau was just exercising his "Freedom of Speech" rights and was quite within his rights to say what he did, on this case...

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...n-to-be-raped-stood-down-during-investigation

"The health district responsible for the hospital which employs an emergency doctor who said "some women deserve to be raped" has ordered the doctor be stood down while they investigate."

Well?

Was Dr Kwan Chen Lee just exercising his "Freedom of Speech' rights when he said this?

Should he be censured for what he said?

Should be be sacked?
 
smartcooky said:
Its a but much to call two players kicking up a fuss a "player mutiny" - Samu Kerevi and Taniela Tupou are replaceable players. If they want to put their careers in jeopardy, its up to them

However, the majority of Wallabies and senior rugby players in Australia have spoken out against Folau. None of the NZ PI's have said anything in support of Folau; they have either spoken out against him, or remained silent.
Click to expand...
I'm a bit confused by the reporting on this. Did he openly mention Fooou in his support? Looks like he was just supporting Kerevi and was ****** that Kerevi felt the need to apologise.
 
smartcooky said:
Its a but much to call two players kicking up a fuss a "player mutiny" - Samu Kerevi and Taniela Tupou are replaceable players. If they want to put their careers in jeopardy, its up to them

However, the majority of Wallabies and senior rugby players in Australia have spoken out against Folau. None of the NZ PI's have said anything in support of Folau; they have either spoken out against him, or remained silent.
Click to expand...
I'm a bit confused by the reporting on this. Did he openly mention Fooou in his support? Looks like he was just supporting Kerevi and was ****** that Kerevi felt the need to apologise.
 
BobbyM said:
"He included homosexuals in a list of sinners but that list was effectively universal in application." - now if he had said all people are sinners then this wouldn't even be a discussion. He didn't though. He targeted his posts at certain specific groups, including a specific group in society, on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Indeed, one has to wonder why he sought to (again) single out homosexuals in his comments, given he feels we are all sinners.
Click to expand...

The list comes from the Bible not Folau specifically, you would have to ban him from quoting his own religious text. Sorry just don't see including people in a near universal list as targeting.
 
Malleeboy said:
The list comes from the Bible not Folau specifically, you would have to ban him from quoting his own religious text. Sorry just don't see including people in a near universal list as targeting.
Click to expand...
ah what passage is the list? Had a lot of bible study at high school but don't recall the list that Folau stages.

If he is quoting homophobic or racist or sexist comments, and concurs with them, I care not one jot what document he is referring to.

Considering his list specifically, are there perhaps differences between some of the groups he mentioned and "homosexuals"?
 
Malleeboy said:
The list comes from the Bible not Folau specifically, you would have to ban him from quoting his own religious text. Sorry just don't see including people in a near universal list as targeting.
Click to expand...

Does it? Perhaps you can quote scripture on this... I want the chapter and verse that says "homosexuals will go to hell"... anything less then that, and Folau is substituting what it actually says, with his own characterisation.
 
Malleeboy said:
The list comes from the Bible not Folau specifically, you would have to ban him from quoting his own religious text. Sorry just don't see including people in a near universal list as targeting.
Click to expand...
actually ive read the bible but he's just quoting some other bigot.
 
smartcooky said:
Does it? Perhaps you can quote scripture on this... I want the chapter and verse that says "homosexuals will go to hell"... anything less then that, and Folau is substituting what it actually says, with his own characterisation.
Click to expand...

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that they will go to hell.

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

The law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, men who practise homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine. (1 Timothy. 1:9-10)

The bible says that homosexuality is an abomination, and that those who practise it, will not inherit the kingdom of god.

BUT!!!

homosexuality is usually said in the same line with theft, and murder. Which are part of the 10 commandments.

The other issue is that we as Christians are taught to repent, and when we are sinful, to do good deeds, to outweigh the bad/sinful.

Now I'm of the opinion that mercy is a big form Christianity, and that whatever sin you do, whether it's something big like Murder or Rape, or something small like taking a lollipop at the store without paying for it, you will be forgiven.

As for who goes to heaven and who goes to hell, well that's not for me to decide. That ultimately is the decision of the Almighty.

People spewing their hatred towards a specified group, are IMHO even more sinful than those who he/she/they are talking about.
 
TRF_heineken said:
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that they will go to hell.
Click to expand...
Oh dear.
Maybe not in one single verse but it doesnt take a rocket scientist to connect the cots

-You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)

-Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

-But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death. Revelation 21:8

ncurd said:
That's because they are.
Click to expand...
I agree. That is precisely the problem. Belief is protected.
I guess where i disagree with most here is that, given that belief is a protected right, so is talking about it in public.

The problem is not that Folau said what he believes. The problem is that he actually believes that.
Telling people "you are allowed to believe whatever you want without fear of persecution" and then punish them when they quote what their religion preaches is hypocritical.
 
Last edited:
Cruz_del_Sur said:
Oh dear.
Maybe not in one single verse but it doesnt take a rocket scientist to connect the cots

-You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)

-Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

-But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death. Revelation 21:8


I agree. That is precisely the problem. Belief is protected.
I guess where i disagree with most here is that, given that belief is a protected right, so is talking about it in public.

The problem is not that Folau said what he believes. The problem is that he actually believes that.
Telling people "you are allowed to believe whatever you want without fear of persecution" and then punish them when they quote, verbatim, their scripture is hypocritical.
Click to expand...

You are again taking a little part of my post and taking the context out of it. Read the whole F****** thing and then respond.

You are also misinterpreting the difference between freedom and right.

Right is a moral/legal entitlement
Freedom is a state/quality to be free

For example. Everyone has the right to vote which wasn't always the case such as ethnic groups and slaves being prevented to vote.
Because you have the right to vote, you are now free to vote, but you can choose to vote for whoever you want or abstain from voting completely.

I think the other issue is that you are not taking into consideration the battles the Homosexual community had to fight to have their civil rights be made part of legislation.

Homosexuals were always homosexual, but because they didn't have the right to sexual orientation of their choosing, they didn't have the freedom to express their sexual orientation, and in many instances they were killed/jailed/chastised.
 
In many countries homosexuals still don't have equal rights just because they happen to love someone of the same sex.
 
TRF_heineken said:
I think the other issue is that you are not taking into consideration the battles the Homosexual community had to fight to have their civil rights be made part of legislation.
Click to expand...
One question: as per the religion you are part of, would a non-repenting homosexual go to hell when he dies?
I'd appreciate a "Yes" or "no" answer, please, so you can't accuse me of taking it out of context.

Let's show our hands so we can call a spade a spade.
 
Cruz_del_Sur said:
The problem is not that Folau said what he believes. The problem is that he actually believes that.
Telling people "you are allowed to believe whatever you want without fear of persecution" and then punish them when they quote what their religion preaches is hypocritical.
Click to expand...

You are characterising Rugby Australia's stance as anti-religious or anti-Christian
You fail to understand that freedom of belief is unrelated to freedom of expression

For argument's sake, let say you are a Pro rugby player and you are also a Nazi. With that comes a certain set of beliefs that are laid down in Adolph Hitler's Nazi bible, Mein Kampf. It includes things such as Aryans are the superior race, Jews are subhuman and should be exterminated, and that communists should be destroyed. To parallel what you are saying about quoting biblical scripture, much as I find it distasteful, I will quote a passage from that Nazi bible.

Chapter 11 - Race and People
"the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew."

Now, what do you think would happen to you if you, as a pro-elite rugby player, posted that on instagram?
 
Last edited:
Cruz_del_Sur said:
One question: as per the religion you are part of, would a non-repenting homosexual go to hell when he dies?
I'd appreciate a "Yes" or "no" answer, please, so you can't accuse me of taking it out of context.

Let's show our hands so we can call a spade a spade.
Click to expand...

It's not my place to judge whether they are going to heaven or to hell. That is God's decision.
 
Cruz_del_Sur said:
I agree. That is precisely the problem. Belief is protected.
I guess where i disagree with most here is that, given that belief is a protected right, so is talking about it in public.

The problem is not that Folau said what he believes. The problem is that he actually believes that.
Telling people "you are allowed to believe whatever you want without fear of persecution"
Click to expand...

Provided you don't impinge public safety, public order, health or morals and the rights and freedoms of other people. (As per Australian Human Rights legislation ICCPR article 18)

Effectively it is saying beliefs are protected, but that protection is not absolute when what you do or say comes into conflict with laws (such as laws on hate speech).

Again I ask, with reference to the groups that Folau targets, can you see the difference between homosexuals and the other groups? Legally as well as (arguably) morally?
 
smartcooky said:
You are characterising Rugby Australia's stance as anti-religious or anti-Christian
You fail to understand that freedom of belief is unrelated to freedom of expression
Click to expand...
Balderdash. They concatenate. That's precisely the problem.
Rugby Australia's stance is precisely against some very specific aspects of what christianity preaches. If you dont understand how that is anti christian that's your problem, not mine.

TRF_heineken said:
It's not my place to judge whether they are going to heaven or to hell. That is God's decision.
Click to expand...
Rephrase then
1) As per your religion, do unrepented sinners go to hell?
2) According to what your religion preaches, is homosexuality a sin?

The beauty of this is that you cornered yourself into a situation where, if you answer, you would be describing yourself as a homophobe, and if you don't, people would infer it nonetheless but also add hypocrite to the equation.
Have some self-respect and at least be brave enough to nail your colours to the mast, instead of being a wimp and hiding behind this god of yours.

How pathetic does a belief have to be that you aren't even willing to say it out loud?


BobbyM said:
Effectively it is saying beliefs are protected, but that protection is not absolute when what you do or say comes into conflict with laws (such as laws on hate speech).
Click to expand...
Good, see, this i can understand and can work with. Two conflicting rights. I agree, but not hate speech as, first, i understand he would have to be prosecuted if that was the case and that hasn't happened and second, for that to be true you would need a ruling implying that a verse from the bible constitutes hate speech. I would chip in monetarily for that to happen, but i dont think it will. I'll believe it when i see it.

But lets keep it simple: two conflicting rights. Not very acquainted with how it works in Australia, but i suppose it's not that different than elsewhere, so when you have two conflicting rights it's either specified somewhere which one takes precedent or (as i presume it will be here) the judicial makes a call.
Lets wait for the ruling and see how it goes.

As far as i understand, there was no social media clause in Folau's contract.

Again I ask, with reference to the groups that Folau targets, can you see the difference between homosexuals and the other groups? Legally as well as (arguably) morally?
Click to expand...
I see differences, but i dont understand the moral part. This is a legal issue.
Lying, fornicating, being an atheist and getting drunk are (under the right circumstances) all legal.
The questions here are two and only two as far as i understand.
1) Is what Folau posted illegal?
2) Given Folau's contract, can this be unilaterally terminated by his employer because of what he posted.

I think Folau is a world class moron, an imbecile if you will, but i believe the answer to both questions is no.
Let's wait and see.
 

Latest posts

Top