Rugby Australia: A Cautionary Tale

[47MVEagle]

So it’s fine for you to ridicule every person who professes to be a Christian... because Israel Folau posted that a bunch of people will go to hell if they don’t repent.

You’re posting that every Christian is a hypocritical bigot, and that’s perfectly okay. I don’t really care either way tbh... but it’s a perfect example of the inverted hypocrisy and self righteousness that Christians are supposed to be the masters of.

You claim inclusivity but preach division.

No, I was taking the mickey out of the poster justifying what Folau posted because of perceived persecution against Christians on this forum.

I was also hoping my tongue-in-cheek statement would highlight the irony of someone claiming persecution for their religious beliefs while using the flimsy defence of "freedom of speech" to justify what Izzy posted.

 

[Kevinward777]

Persecution complex. Wow. Well there's another non sequitur.

I brought up the hate against Christians on here because people are speaking about the importance of love and acceptance out of one side of their mouth whilst idly tolerating the calling of religious people "uneducated", "hateful", "idiots" who should be "burnt at the stake". As if what Folau did was self-evidently horrendous despite singling nobody out and being presented in a posture of genuine warning (Peter Singer's article on it was quite good). Meanwhile we have members of our forums actively stirring up hatred against a massive class of people purely due to their religion and nobody says boo. You can't have it both ways.

Beat me to it. However, it’s pointless to even attempt to debate such issues on here.

 

[eaglebuzz]

He was the face of Rugby Australia.

The same way Brett Stewart was the face of the NRL and so it was ok to ban him for four weeks over what later proved to be a false accusation?

Did Folau's contract say he was the face of Rugby Australia?

All of that is immaterial to me. The courts will decide what his contract did or didn't say and how applicable it was to his social media post.

What is more at issue to me is the broader notion of whether it is right for people to live in fear of being fired for posting their views, and the double standards in what does / does not constitute speech that should have "consequences".

 

[Kevinward777]

TBH they ridicle themselves with the while "Faith" thing.

You have faith too mate... you have faith that Jesus is just a fairytale... that a great black void of nothingness awaits you after your final breath. (Or whatever it is you believe) And that is perfectly okay with me. I’m not about to ridicule you for it.

Everyone has faith in something.

 

[47MVEagle]

It proves that people are being selective about how they interpret speech as "hateful". If being a dickhead was a sackable offence there would be no rugby players left.

You have been consistently disingenuous in this discussion, using "whataboutism" & strawmen to make your point, whatever it may be.

You know damn fine what I mean by saying Folau has been a d1ckhead yet you want to dip into playing semantics & using flippancy when it suits you to avoid actually providing any substance to your opinion.

Yes, Folau was employed primarily to play rugby- at the highest level, no less.

I posted a link to the very code of conduct he willingly signed, agreeing to abide by the clauses within it. Did you bother to take a look at it? It's only 2 pages long so it's hardly a task to actually read it instead of trying to be clever (& failing miserably due to auto-correct).

Next time you reply to one of my posts I'll know not to entertain you with any more of my time seeing as you just waste it.

 

[lsz]

The same way Brett Stewart was the face of the NRL and so it was ok to ban him for four weeks over what later proved to be a false accusation?

Did Folau's contract say he was the face of Rugby Australia?

All of that is immaterial to me. The courts will decide what his contract did or didn't say and how applicable it was to his social media post.

What is more at issue to me is the broader notion of whether it is right for people to live in fear of being fired for posting their views, and the double standards in what does / does not constitute speech that should have "consequences".

Check your employment contract

For my company I could get fired (I wrote the clause) if I said something potentially derogatory on social media.

No one is forced to work at my company but if they do they need to follow certain standards which could equal a lack of “free speech”

 

[eaglebuzz]

Check your employment contract

For my company I could get fired (I wrote the clause) if I said something potentially derogatory on social media.

No one is forced to work at my company but if they do they need to follow certain standards which could equal a lack of “free speech”

Who gets to decide what "potentially derogatory" means?

 

[47MVEagle]

I get the feeling some people think they're above the law because they believe in God.

It's almost as though they dont think non-believers should be taken seriously while the whole world should bend over backwards to accommodate what they believe is their right to free speech.

 

[eaglebuzz]

You have been consistently disingenuous in this discussion, using "whataboutism" & strawmen to make your point, whatever it may be.

You know damn fine what I mean by saying Folau has been a d1ckhead yet you want to dip into playing semantics & using flippancy when it suits you to avoid actually providing any substance to your opinion.

Yes, Folau was employed primarily to play rugby- at the highest level, no less.

I posted a link to the very code of conduct he willingly signed, agreeing to abide by the clauses within it. Did you bother to take a look at it? It's only 2 pages long so it's hardly a task to actually read it instead of trying to be clever (& failing miserably due to auto-correct).

Next time you reply to one of my posts I'll know not to entertain you with any more of my time seeing as you just waste it.

My point was all the way back on page 2. Everything else I have said has been in response to your questions and ridiculous totalising overinterpretation of my answers.

Yes, in the eyes of many Folau was a dickhead. Does he deserve to be sacked for it? Not in my book. Did he breach his contract? That's for the courts to decide.

 

[manlyfan76]

You have faith too mate... you have faith that Jesus is just a fairytale... that a great black void of nothingness awaits you after your final breath. (Or whatever it is you believe) And that is perfectly okay with me. I’m not about to ridicule you for it.

Everyone has faith in something.

I work on evidence.
Show me solid, testable evidence and ill most likely take it on board.
Faith is not for everyone.

 

[lsz]

Who gets to decide what "potentially derogatory" means?

In my company, in consultation with our legal team, I did. It is already and well documented what this is and what it means

It is called reputation risk and is pretty standard in most contracts. Your freedom of choice is to accept it (and work there ) or note

 

[eaglebuzz]

I work on evidence.
Show me solid, testable evidence and ill most likely take it on board.
Faith is not for everyone.

What is your solid, testable evidence that you aren't a brain in a vat of chemicals being carefully stimulated to simulate what you believe to have been your entire life to this point?

 

[Kevinward777]

I get the feeling some people think they're above the law because they believe in God.

It's almost as though they dont think non-believers should be taken seriously while the whole world should bend over backwards to accommodate what they believe is their right to free speech.

Yeah... and non believers are the opposite right... Another perfect example of the ridiculous hypocrisy which doesn’t seem to apply to atheists and agnostics.

Go back and read what has been posted on here in multiple threads about Christians, then come back and reread what you have just posted.

 

[Kevinward777]

I work on evidence.
Show me solid, testable evidence and ill most likely take it on board.
Faith is not for everyone.

What happens when we die... empirically speaking? What testable evidence do you have to prove that God doesn’t exist? The Big Bang?

 

[manlyfan76]

What is your solid, testable evidence that you aren't a brain in a vat of chemicals being carefully stimulated to simulate what you believe to have been your entire life to this point?

Im not claiming it, therefore i don't need to prove it. Do i need to prove every claim that someone imagines?

 

[manlyfan76]

What happens when we die... empirically speaking? What testable evidence do you have to prove that God doesn’t exist? The Big Bang?

Im not claiming he doesn't.
There is only faith that she does, surely those claiming she does should come up with the proof?

If there was evidence would there be a need for faith?

 

[Ron E. Gibbs]

Lol, another 6 pages of this dribble. Hurry up and merge this thread with the others so I can continue to push my Satanist agenda!

Muzz, go see "Hail Satan?" It's really good. Plus, it has plenty of lessons about free speech:

 

[Kevinward777]

I work on evidence.
Show me solid, testable evidence and ill most likely take it on board.
Faith is not for everyone.

From this response I assume that you’re a science man. Which means your faith is in the science which you have been taught, read, heard or viewed. Is it not?

 

[47MVEagle]

Yeah... and non believers are the opposite right... Another perfect example of the ridiculous hypocrisy which doesn’t seem to apply to atheists and agnostics.

Go back and read what has been posted on here in multiple threads about Christians, then come back and reread what you have just posted.

I said "some people" not "all believers".

I normally dont get involved in religious discussion but this issue has drawn me in.

In my time here I've seen a few humorous digs at religion but nothing I would consider persecution - perhaps I haven't been here long enough to have seen the worst of it.

At any rate, I respect everyone's beliefs & apologise if my earlier posts offended you, I have no problem with any religion, my philosophy is "live & let live" but I got a bit fired up when I saw eaglebuzz using claims of religious persecution as a means of diminishing & excusing what Folau said.

At the end of the day I just think people should try to get along with each other & rather than arguing about infringement of freedom of speech or religious persecution perhaps more effort should be taken by people to not be offensive, regardless of if it is a religious or non-religious belief they want to publish.

 

[Kevinward777]

Im not claiming he doesn't.
There is only faith that she does, surely those claiming she does should come up with the proof?

If there was evidence would there be a need for faith?

Oh okay... you’re an agnostic... which means your faith is in believing that it is not possible for anyone to prove the existence of God.