Religion Folau

Remove this Banner Ad

jaaack said:
It literally never ends. Doesn't matter how many rights and protections they are given, there will always be a number that can't bear to live with the thought that someone, somewhere, might disapprove of the things that they do. It's strange when you think about how adamant they are that there actually isn't anything wrong with their habits.
Click to expand...
The religious are the most protected of all protected species.
 
Evolved1 said:
The irony here is twofold. You feel Folau deserves protection while you criticise those who seek protection, and let's not forget that he took the case to court...so I don't see how your point on that topic is valid.
Click to expand...

No I don't, I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy that the employer wants to "protect" two opposing ideals.
Evolved1 said:
Personally, I think religious freedoms need to be reigned in further so we can find the right balance for the good of all. If you're using your religious freedom to attack others because of their race, sexual preference or gender, and you're dumb enough to put a name behind your words, you should be willing to face the backlash.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and yet STILL we swear by the bible in a court of law. Remember we can only speculate whether or not Folau actually believes what he excerpted or is he stupid enough to attack groups online using the excerpt. Unless we can read his mind we can't really know if he's a brainwashed believer or just a bigot. In either case - stupid, the empitome of! - Even then what he believes is irrelevant.

I guess my main point is this case could set a precedent, employers that have contradictory HR policies as it is obviously with RA then this sort of s*** is going to continue.
 
Carringbush2010 said:
No I don't, I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy that the employer wants to "protect" two opposing ideals.


Agreed, and yet STILL we swear by the bible in a court of law. Remember we can only speculate whether or not Folau actually believes what he excerpted or is he stupid enough to attack groups online using the excerpt. Unless we can read his mind we can't really know if he's a brainwashed believer or just a bigot. In either case - stupid, the empitome of! - Even then what he believes is irrelevant.

I guess my main point is this case could set a precedent, employers that have contradictory HR policies as it is obviously with RA then this sort of s*** is going to continue.
Click to expand...
We hear of dips***s getting sacked all the time for posting stupid things on social media. Why should Izzy be seen differently to the dickhead who says we should deport all Muslims and then wonders why they lose their job or that bloke from SBS who get sacked over a Tweet? As said before his faith shouldn't be seen as a get out of jail free card.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Carringbush2010 said:
No I don't, I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy that the employer wants to "protect" two opposing ideals.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Life often requires the juggling of contradictions, and I assume that is especially true in law.

My pov is that the aggressor is usually in the wrong, and the aggressor in religious vs non-religious disputes is more often than not religious. Was Folau provoked by a militant homosexual group trying to break down his heterosexual fort? I doubt it.
Carringbush2010 said:
Agreed, and yet STILL we swear by the bible in a court of law. Remember we can only speculate whether or not Folau actually believes what he excerpted or is he stupid enough to attack groups online using the excerpt. Unless we can read his mind we can't really know if he's a brainwashed believer or just a bigot. In either case - stupid, the empitome of! - Even then what he believes is irrelevant.

I guess my main point is this case could set a precedent, employers that have contradictory HR policies as it is obviously with RA then this sort of s*** is going to continue.
Click to expand...
I have no doubt that Folau thinks his shite doesn't stink, so he believes every word that's being fed to him by pastor Mr Touchy-Feely. He's brainwashed, a bigot, and it's highly likely his IQ is more than 1SD below the mean.

Regardless of your perspective, it's an interesting test case to determine the boundaries of our freedoms.

Folau won't follow this through to completion if my judgement of his character is on target. I see him as a mercenary. Time will tell.
 
Carringbush2010 said:
So 232 pages in no one gets it, STILL!

I've posted this many times and it seems to be ignored.

RA and probably the majority of employers have a contradiction in their HR policies.

You can't possibly be in "protection" of one group and in "protection" of an opposing idealogue i:e religion which in its endth degree is opposed to drunks, fornicators, thieves, homosexuals etc.

This is what I find disturbing, the force majeure trying to "include" everyone when that is simply not possible.

This is idiocy of the highest order!

When is the world going (the noisy minority) going to accept that not everyone shares the same views? When is the world going to grow up and accept that opposing views are opposing views and that it doesn't mean we should go to court over it?
Click to expand...

With all due respect what you have posted is not ignored it just doesn't hold any weight on social media. Social media commentary is about picking a side then running with it regardless. There has always been the 2 main taboo topics to avoid that bring out the nutters in social settings, religion and politics. With social media this is now amplified by a factor never seen before in human history.

Good luck getting anyone to listen. :thumbsu:
 
jaaack said:
It literally never ends. Doesn't matter how many rights and protections they are given, there will always be a number that can't bear to live with the thought that someone, somewhere, might disapprove of the things that they do. It's strange when you think about how adamant they are that there actually isn't anything wrong with their habits.
Click to expand...

But this is the problem, in this case RA got their panties in a knot threw the toys out of the cot and sacked him because "you can't say that about gays, it's in our policy" Folau returned serve and said "no you can't it's in your policy"

Talk about contradiction. :drunk: :drunk:

And now we have an opening where religious groups can throw their arms up in the air and cry "criticism" and now the government has been "forced" to go into bat for religious groups. FMD.

It brings up a broader issue, if you try to include everyone you're going to end up in a s*** fight - it's impossible.

So RA it seems you've picked your preferential group, drunks, fornicators, drug addicts, masturbaters and homosexuals etc. over religious nut bags (which I'm glad!).

Could've saved yourself a lot of goose chasing in the 1st place and made sure your policy excluded religious groups.
 
skipper kelly said:
With all due respect what you have posted is not ignored it just doesn't hold any weight on social media. Social media commentary is about picking a side then running with it regardless. There has always been the 2 main taboo topics to avoid that bring out the nutters in social settings, religion and politics. With social media this is now amplified by a factor never seen before in human history.

Good luck getting anyone to listen. :thumbsu:
Click to expand...
I only pick on those who don't pick sides. That's a factor of my political and religious affiliation.

Now...move on unless you want a fight. :p
 
Evolved1 said:
I have no doubt that Folau thinks his s**t doesn't stink, so he believes every word that's being fed to him by pastor Mr Touchy-Feely. He's brainwashed, a bigot, and it's highly likely his IQ is more than 1SD below the mean.
Click to expand...

You can't be brainwashed and deliberately be a bigot at the same time - that's illogical. It's either he truly believes this s*** or he's deliberately being a bigot, it can't be both - he's claiming "belief" for which the jury will forever be out.

As for the rest of your post, it seems we agree. Now we have a precedent because the "popular" thing is to try and "include" everyone as a result of a noisy few taking offence of anything and everything on behalf of anyone.

Well if you do that this is what you end up with.
 
skipper kelly said:
With all due respect what you have posted is not ignored it just doesn't hold any weight on social media. Social media commentary is about picking a side then running with it regardless. There has always been the 2 main taboo topics to avoid that bring out the nutters in social settings, religion and politics. With social media this is now amplified by a factor never seen before in human history.

Good luck getting anyone to listen. :thumbsu:
Click to expand...

Wouldn't say it doesn't hold any weight, just that no one wants to acknowledge it - too hard basket, won't be able to please and appease everyone. Well duh you can't.

Seems the world (or the noisy offended few) doesn't want to accept it because just merely accepting that fact then some snowflake somewhere is going to throw their toys out of the cot. I say f*** em let em cry for the greater good of the majority.
 
Carringbush2010 said:
You can't be brainwashed and deliberately be a bigot at the same time - that's illogical. It's either he truly believes this s*** or he's deliberately being a bigot, it can't be both - he's claiming "belief" for which the jury will forever be out.

As for the rest of your post, it seems we agree. Now we have a precedent because the "popular" thing is to try and "include" everyone as a result of a noisy few taking offence of anything and everything on behalf of anyone.

Well if you do that this is what you end up with.
Click to expand...
On the first point, I disagree.

The online definition of a bigot is "one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ".

As much as I despise religion, I am of the opinion that the religious deserve a range of legal freedoms to believe in their particular brand of bullshit.

Churches, synagogues, and mosques are much like nudist beaches. Feel free to show your junk within specified boundaries and nobody will give a shite. Just don't expect others to appreciate your uglies as much as you do.
 
Evolved1 said:
On the first point, I disagree.

The online definition of a bigot is "one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ".

As much as I despise religion, I am of the opinion that the religious deserve a range of legal freedoms to believe in their particular brand of bulls**t.

Churches, synagogues, and mosques are much like nudist beaches. Feel free to show your junk within specified boundaries and nobody will give a s**t. Just don't expect others to appreciate your uglies as much as you do.
Click to expand...

On the bolded, Folau claims he believes that his excerpt is not an intolerance - he claims he actually believes he wants people to repent to save themselves.


So again you can't be intolerant and brainwashed at the same time, he's either intolerant or not - can't be both.

As far as religion goes, well that's another kettle of fish. I find it perplexing that you have to swear on the bible to this day given the contents of it are so outdated in a court of law, that is the epitome of :drunk:.
 
Carringbush2010 said:
On the bolded, Folau claims he believes that his excerpt is not an intolerance - he claims he actually believes he wants people to repent to save themselves.

So again you can't be intolerant and brainwashed at the same time, he's either intolerant or not - can't be both.

As far as religion goes, well that's another kettle of fish. I find it perplexing that you have to swear on the bible to this day given the contents of it are so outdated in a court of law, that is the epitome of :drunk:.
Click to expand...
He's strongly partial to his own group; a point which is practically irrefutable. I have no desire to get into an argument related to semantics...especially since I think we otherwise agree.

Ingroup bias has been studied thoroughly by psychologists.

Afaik swearing on the bible is optional, so I have no issue with it. I'd sooner swear on the Herald-Sun :eek:
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

www.news.com.au

Revelation of Folau sting rocks rugby

The mother of a Wallabies player infiltrated Israel Folau’s church to reveal the “truth” about its teachings.
www.news.com.au www.news.com.au

Israel Folau’s church infiltrated by mother of World Cup Wallaby
An undercover operation run by the mother of a Wallabies player aimed at bringing down Israel Folau has left his ex-teammates in disbelief.

Helen Petaia has admitted she used a fake name to exchange messages online with Folau’s cousin, Josiah, to press the 20-year-old student about the beliefs of the Truth of Jesus Christ Church run by Israel Folau’s father, Eni, before leaking what she was told to the media.
Helen is the mother of Jordan Petaia — a young star who made his debut for the Wallabies against Uruguay at the Rugby World Cup in Japan last weekend.


So she set out to be offended .... outrage !!
 
Kwality said:
Set out to USE the little brother, & succeeded - not big on users, you? End justifys the means?
Why did she use a false name, anything but straight up ... too judgemental for you?
Click to expand...
Her behaviour seems like typical methodology for any undercover investigation, so I have no issue with the methods she used. The Folau camp and their church are extremists who need to be exposed for who they are.

The only strange thing about it is that she's the mother of a Wallabies player. I'd be upset if I was a wallabies player and my mum pulled that shite tbh.

Why can't the Folau's, as self professed 'true Christians', not be upfront and honest as the bible instructs them to be?
 
Kwality said:
www.news.com.au

Revelation of Folau sting rocks rugby

The mother of a Wallabies player infiltrated Israel Folau’s church to reveal the “truth” about its teachings.
www.news.com.au www.news.com.au

Israel Folau’s church infiltrated by mother of World Cup Wallaby
An undercover operation run by the mother of a Wallabies player aimed at bringing down Israel Folau has left his ex-teammates in disbelief.

Helen Petaia has admitted she used a fake name to exchange messages online with Folau’s cousin, Josiah, to press the 20-year-old student about the beliefs of the Truth of Jesus Christ Church run by Israel Folau’s father, Eni, before leaking what she was told to the media.
Helen is the mother of Jordan Petaia — a young star who made his debut for the Wallabies against Uruguay at the Rugby World Cup in Japan last weekend.


So she set out to be offended .... outrage !!
Click to expand...
Wow.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Religion Folau

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top