So there's a lot to unpick with reference to your post Bill but I shall do my level best. I'm not going to add in the additional steps you may have missed in your facts as I now see smartcooky has done so.
The word "homosexual" has an unambiguous definition. Folau has not sought at any point to differentiate how his definition of homosexuality differences from the definition.
Calling this situation a scandal is
a) borderline. Are you able to either demonstrate what you mean by a scandal (i.e. the wider public outrage element of the definition)? Alternatively, we could agree it is a "rugby scandal"? Folau is an excellent rugby player, plays/played for one of the top ranked rugby nations, and also plays/played for a Super Rugby side. This is the rugby forum. Of all the places on the internet this could be discussed, I would suggest this is the place where I would expect the rugby scandal to be discussed.
b) not relevant. Whether one person or 1000 people are talking about it means nothing. What is relevant is his code of conduct, his post, his contract, his previous disciplinary record and the tribunal that is underway as he disagrees with his contract termination.
Agree this is the case. It is worth adding though that NSW Waratahs also terminated his contract. Additionally you could add that he has appealed the decision and a tribunal is ongoing.
Agree. Although I'd suggest that whether he is "high profile" or not shouldn't be relevant. If he was a scrubber playing for the Tahs under 20s on a professional contract it would be the same process followed.
Again largely agree. I would also add for clarity that the contract termination is with specific reference to the code of conduct breach, the RA code of conduct is something we can refer to (and indeed I highlighted the relevant passages in a previous post).
Sorry we may be conflating different points here as "people" is a vague term. Do you mean that you'd be happy for RA to let it go, or for the general public/rugby supporting public to let it go? Taking the former I would expect RA to follow their disciplinary procedures. That is the limit of my expectations with regards to RA.
If you mean the latter, I'm not one to suggest what an individual member of the public should or shouldn't be interested in. That is up to them. I have a personal view that his comments were immoral and should be challenged, and thus I personally wouldn't feel comfortable letting it go.
With reference to above, this as a rugby scandal. The implications of the decision are significant for RA and the Wallabies, particularly in the buildup to a World Cup. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "business". Do you mean that it is something the rugby community has an interest in, and wish to discuss? I'd suggest given the implications it is fairly understandable that people are opining on it.
Homosexuals are a protected minority group legally and within the RA code of conduct. That is the relevant point here. You'll also note that we're not here spamming his social media accounts, or harassing him. We're having a dialogue on an Internet forum. If there are people who are piling in and attacking him directly then I would agree that is unnecessary. Indeed I'd go so far as to say that with regards to his case it is irrelevant.
As you'll note above I said I am all for Folau and others being educated. I would caution though that he had previously been reprimanded for similar posts and "educated" that they are not appropriate, so perhaps he isn't the best pupil; who knows?!
While I do enjoy descriptive language could you be specific when you suggest that people are wading in with pitch forks and burning at the stake any other religious types? I'd like to think I've not done so but if I have please do point it out.
Agree with a lot of this. He did think what he posted was right.
The extent to which he has been brainwashed I have trouble with. He is an adult, and as an adult he is responsible for articulating what he believes. There's been no suggestion that he is part of a cult or has limited opportunities to interact with the outside world, which could be a compensating or explanatory factor in the brainwashing.
I don't know if anyone is angry, I'm certainly not. I also largely agree with the rehabilitation element of your comments here. It is important to educate. Indeed I said so in a previous post. I don't think we need to necessarily "bring it into line" as plurality it opinion is an important and biological construct, but educating people is of value.
There's a couple of specific challenges with educating Folau though;
a) Folau has not shown any interest in acknowledging he could be wrong or that he is willing to be educated. Indeed he has come out and said that rugby is less important to him than his beliefs, suggesting they are a core part of him.
b) Folau, in his interactions with the public, has been increasing his religious postings in recent years (observable from his Instagram account). This suggests he could be moving further and further away from wider contemporary views.
I'm happy to say there's parts of the Bible that are horrific and I criticise in the strongest possible terms. Noting of course though that;
Of course and indeed Folau is allowed to hold his own views. And, if he does something that contravenes his employers code of conduct, his employers are allowed to instigate disciplinary proceedings against him.
Now the interesting point, and I believe the point of contention in the tribunal, is whether the code of conduct for RA restricts religious freedom. Given the potential wider implications I'm not surprised it is taking as long as it is, and can see their are compelling arguments on both sides.
Thanks for posting Bill and I hope you and everyone had a great day
The word "homosexual" has an unambiguous definition. Folau has not sought at any point to differentiate how his definition of homosexuality differences from the definition.
Calling this situation a scandal is
a) borderline. Are you able to either demonstrate what you mean by a scandal (i.e. the wider public outrage element of the definition)? Alternatively, we could agree it is a "rugby scandal"? Folau is an excellent rugby player, plays/played for one of the top ranked rugby nations, and also plays/played for a Super Rugby side. This is the rugby forum. Of all the places on the internet this could be discussed, I would suggest this is the place where I would expect the rugby scandal to be discussed.
b) not relevant. Whether one person or 1000 people are talking about it means nothing. What is relevant is his code of conduct, his post, his contract, his previous disciplinary record and the tribunal that is underway as he disagrees with his contract termination.
Agree this is the case. It is worth adding though that NSW Waratahs also terminated his contract. Additionally you could add that he has appealed the decision and a tribunal is ongoing.
Agree. Although I'd suggest that whether he is "high profile" or not shouldn't be relevant. If he was a scrubber playing for the Tahs under 20s on a professional contract it would be the same process followed.
Again largely agree. I would also add for clarity that the contract termination is with specific reference to the code of conduct breach, the RA code of conduct is something we can refer to (and indeed I highlighted the relevant passages in a previous post).
Sorry we may be conflating different points here as "people" is a vague term. Do you mean that you'd be happy for RA to let it go, or for the general public/rugby supporting public to let it go? Taking the former I would expect RA to follow their disciplinary procedures. That is the limit of my expectations with regards to RA.
If you mean the latter, I'm not one to suggest what an individual member of the public should or shouldn't be interested in. That is up to them. I have a personal view that his comments were immoral and should be challenged, and thus I personally wouldn't feel comfortable letting it go.
With reference to above, this as a rugby scandal. The implications of the decision are significant for RA and the Wallabies, particularly in the buildup to a World Cup. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "business". Do you mean that it is something the rugby community has an interest in, and wish to discuss? I'd suggest given the implications it is fairly understandable that people are opining on it.
Homosexuals are a protected minority group legally and within the RA code of conduct. That is the relevant point here. You'll also note that we're not here spamming his social media accounts, or harassing him. We're having a dialogue on an Internet forum. If there are people who are piling in and attacking him directly then I would agree that is unnecessary. Indeed I'd go so far as to say that with regards to his case it is irrelevant.
As you'll note above I said I am all for Folau and others being educated. I would caution though that he had previously been reprimanded for similar posts and "educated" that they are not appropriate, so perhaps he isn't the best pupil; who knows?!
While I do enjoy descriptive language could you be specific when you suggest that people are wading in with pitch forks and burning at the stake any other religious types? I'd like to think I've not done so but if I have please do point it out.
Agree with a lot of this. He did think what he posted was right.
The extent to which he has been brainwashed I have trouble with. He is an adult, and as an adult he is responsible for articulating what he believes. There's been no suggestion that he is part of a cult or has limited opportunities to interact with the outside world, which could be a compensating or explanatory factor in the brainwashing.
I don't know if anyone is angry, I'm certainly not. I also largely agree with the rehabilitation element of your comments here. It is important to educate. Indeed I said so in a previous post. I don't think we need to necessarily "bring it into line" as plurality it opinion is an important and biological construct, but educating people is of value.
There's a couple of specific challenges with educating Folau though;
a) Folau has not shown any interest in acknowledging he could be wrong or that he is willing to be educated. Indeed he has come out and said that rugby is less important to him than his beliefs, suggesting they are a core part of him.
b) Folau, in his interactions with the public, has been increasing his religious postings in recent years (observable from his Instagram account). This suggests he could be moving further and further away from wider contemporary views.
I'm happy to say there's parts of the Bible that are horrific and I criticise in the strongest possible terms. Noting of course though that;
- this isn't a book club, this is the rugby forum.
- whether or not what he posted is written in that book (and it has been highlighted it isn't explicitly stated in any widely available version of the bible in English) isn't hugely relevant as religious freedom is not absolute.
- More generally lots of people criticise the bible regularly, a quick gander at YouTube could help you see some of this.
Of course and indeed Folau is allowed to hold his own views. And, if he does something that contravenes his employers code of conduct, his employers are allowed to instigate disciplinary proceedings against him.
Now the interesting point, and I believe the point of contention in the tribunal, is whether the code of conduct for RA restricts religious freedom. Given the potential wider implications I'm not surprised it is taking as long as it is, and can see their are compelling arguments on both sides.
Thanks for posting Bill and I hope you and everyone had a great day
