Izzy Folau

[Bill]

And how are you going to go about that? And how long is that going to take?

I'm not aiming to do anything. But the thousands of people bleating online about Folau might have been more effective bleating online about the Bible.

It's an episode like this which presents a prime opportunity for kicking the discussion off. And as we've seen in recent years, such discussions can happen very quickly indeed once they've started. The opportunity seems to have been missed though, because people thought it would be easier to stick the boot in to one guy.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

For what it's worth on religion btw, I do think it should be more of a personal thing. Obviously I'm in no position to advise on creation, and sometimes my mind does turn to what could have done all this, as well I suppose as where is it all leading. And if people have faith then kudos to them. I personally though struggle with the Christian narrative, even if I think it contains a lot of good messages. To me there's a conflict though between having a society where hate speech is recognised and criminalised, and having religious texts distributed which contain messages that at the end of the day represent hate speech and discrimination by today's standards. I don't see this as walking a thin line, I see it as walking a non existent line, and it strikes me that we are shying away as a society from tacking the fact that this huge conflict exists between our popular society & our modern laws and the religious texts which form the cornerstone of the religions which many of us follow. I think it needs to be addressed.

I for one would advocate a more flexible religious teaching which can rely in parts upon historic scriptures but which encourages people to develop spirituality in a more individual and personal way.

I'm not aiming to do anything. But the thousands of people bleating online about Folau might have been more effective bleating online about the Bible.

It's an episode like this which presents a prime opportunity for kicking the discussion off. And as we've seen in recent years, such discussions can happen very quickly indeed once they've started. The opportunity seems to have been missed though, because people thought it would be easier to stick the boot in to one guy.

So I'm just trying to explore your point of view a bit further here...

I haven't seen what the thousands of people have been saying but there have been lots of people on here saying that the scripture is up for individual church's and individual person's interpretation.

What more can realistically be done within a timeframe that makes this route the sole viable route given that people will be feeling the effects of discrimination until that route's destination is reached.

Churches are hardly going to change or completely dismiss the current scripture any Time soon, no matter how much discourse there is.

 

[BobbyM]

So Bill I responded to several of your messages cogently and politely addressing the points you were raising. It would be great if you could have a look back and respond as it might help to move the discussion forward.

Addressing your point regarding people challenging the bible, I (and others) have done so on this thread with regards to criticising some of the content of it. The problem with saying "oh there's archaic and immoral things in the bible" is that it isn't hugely productive. It is demonstrably true, but (and I mean this with no disrespect to those who follow the teachings from it) it is just a book. An inanimate object if you will.

What is more interesting is how people interpret this book and live their lives, as that is the thing that can be changed/challenged. Which brings us to Folau and the discussion that has taken place on this thread.

 

[Bill]

So Bill I responded to several of your messages cogently and politely addressing the points you were raising. It would be great if you could have a look back and respond as it might help to move the discussion forward.

Addressing your point regarding people challenging the bible, I (and others) have done so on this thread with regards to criticising some of the content of it. The problem with saying "oh there's archaic and immoral things in the bible" is that it isn't hugely productive. It is demonstrably true, but (and I mean this with no disrespect to those who follow the teachings from it) it is just a book. An inanimate object if you will.

What is more interesting is how people interpret this book and live their lives, as that is the thing that can be changed/challenged. Which brings us to Folau and the discussion that has taken place on this thread.

Bobby, appreciate your response. I have to say though I think you're ducking the issue a bit.

I don't think that your inanimate object argument works.

Let's forget Folau for a minute.

My understanding is that in countries including the UK and Australia, it is illegal to condemn someone on the basis of their sexuality.

It's my understanding that religious texts such as the Bible. the Koran and (possibly) the Torah, condemn homosexuality.

And yet these texts are widely distributed within the UK and Australia, and their teachings are followed by millions of citizens of both countries and are taught within schools and religious establishments.

I don't get the distinction between something being spoken and something being written down. If someone wrote on a wall something offensive to homosexuals, I don't believe for a minute that he could rely on a defence that he wrote it down he didn't say it.

So why are these religious texts which are circulated to millions not challenged by the criminal justice system ?

It's not a question of interpretation btw. It's in black and white.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Bobby, appreciate your response. I have to say though I think you're ducking the issue a bit.

I don't think that your inanimate object argument works.

Let's forget Folau for a minute.

My understanding is that in countries including the UK and Australia, it is illegal to condemn someone on the basis of their sexuality.

It's my understanding that religious texts such as the Bible. the Koran and (possibly) the Torah, condemn homosexuality.

And yet these texts are widely distributed within the UK and Australia, and their teachings are followed by millions of citizens of both countries and are taught within schools and religious establishments.

I don't get the distinction between something being spoken and something being written down. If someone wrote on a wall something offensive to homosexuals, I don't believe for a minute that he could rely on a defence that he wrote it down he didn't say it.

So why are these religious texts which are circulated to millions not challenged by the criminal justice system ?

It's not a question of interpretation btw. It's in black and white.

So let's assume for sake of following your argument that in an ideal world there would be no bibles. But then let's look at making that happen from this world we currently live in. It's a question of practicality. Let's say you were to make the bible illegal. It would do more harm than good. You can't quit the bible cold turkey

 

[Bill]

So let's assume for sake of following your argument that in an ideal world there would be no bibles. But then let's look at making that happen from this world we currently live in. It's a question of practicality. Let's say you were to make the bible illegal. It would do more harm than good. You can't quit the bible cold turkey

So we're bashing Folau because it's impractical to bash on the Bible ?

I'm not suggesting making the Bible illegal per se btw. I'm talking about editing a few bits of it. Maybe prohibiting use of the unedited form in churches, schools etc.

 

[BobbyM]

. My original point was that I think it's likely that he hasn't posted the comment for the purpose of offending people. It's even possible that he posted it because he was trying to help people. Unfortunately trying to establish this appears to have been deemed irrelevant, so we don't know.

I think it fairly likely that was what he believed, and indeed he has said as much. What is clear though is that he intended to say what he said. Which is more relevant when considering the code of conduct breach.

Assuming though that it wasn't intended to offend, but merely represtented what he passionately believed, then whilst I agree he should be sacked for embarrassing his employer or whatever

he was sacked for a code of conduct breach, specifically articles 1.1, 1.3, 1.6 and 1.7. Embarrassment has nothing to do with it.

I don't think it should turn into a public crusade against him as an individual.

I'm not in a position to dictate how people should react, although not civility should be key to any reaction.

What should be under investigation and subject to criticisim, should be the misguided teaching that has led him to think like this. That's the underlieing problem that needs to be addressed and discussed, even if that means reviewing the appropriateness of religious texts.

Hopefully I've addressed this in my previous post but note again that I agree education for all on the topic of tolerance is important. I'd be nervous though about how one would go about "reviewing the appropriateness" of religious texts, could you elaborate on this?

It needs a mature conversation about the place for religious teachings in today's society, not a free for all against one guy whose doing what he believes is right.

you'll be pleased to note that in many places around the world, and indeed those untouched by the Folau incident, there are regular discussions on this topic. I'd suggest a light skim through YouTube would draw out numerous such discussions.


Addressing your most recent post, many people have written critiques of the bible and other religious texts. There's degrees one can take in it. To them it is interesting and helps them understand life, beliefs, spirituality and morality at the times they were written.

Why would one want to re-write it though? You have;

1) people who follow everything in the bible
2) people who follow some things in the bible
3) people who follow nothing in the bible

Now group 1 has 0 people in it. Given the litany of inconsistencies and contradictions in the bible, it is ideologically impossible to follow it all.

Group 3 I would presume are people who are non Christian, so re-writing the bible doesn't have any affect on them.

So we're left with group 2, which I would suggest is every Christian. Given they are following some but not all of the teachings in the bible, there's already a choice there of what to believe/follow and what not to. So people are already making that decision. Thus, given people are able to make a decision of which bits to follow and which to ignore, what is the value of removing or editing not followed. Using the buffet analogy, if you swap out some food for other food, people are still going to pick and choose what they want on their plate.

Regarding the prohibiting of it in schools, I refer you to the above argument that people are already able to pick and choose which bits to believe.

When you say prohibiting "use" do you mean stop allowing people to read the bible? I'm struggling to think of what else one "uses" a book for. If that is the case I'd actually be wanting more children to read the bible, and other holy books. In terms of understanding society and where we come from in terms of the development of morality, poetry, storytelling, these religious texts are extremely helpful in educating about that time.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

So we're bashing Folau because it's impractical to bash on the Bible ?

I'm not suggesting making the Bible illegal per se btw. I'm talking about editing a few bits of it. Maybe prohibiting use of the unedited form in churches, schools etc.

No, we're holding people accountable for voicing their interpretation of the bible, and pointing out that it's an individual choice to voice offensive beliefs, and some are encouraging the idea that it is an individual choice how to interpret the bible in the first place.

And no, the impracticality aspect applies to your argument, not the majority of arguments on here. The majority of arguments aren't advocating bible bashing at all.

But like I said before, I don't know what the thousands of people are saying. But that's hardly relevant to this thread.

Definitely public discussion about offensive elements of the bible and that they don't have to be considered as the truth is useful, but that has been discussed here.

Discussion has also taken place about the elements of Folau contract, which has nothing to do with what you are talking about, and about legal or moral aspects of offensive speech. People who are saying offensive hate speech doesn't belong in society are trying to tackle issues that are occurring right now. Discussion about offensive elements of the bible, whether or not people think that's a good idea, won't tackle the issues of today.

And yeah, I didn't think Folau hates homosexuals either, but he certainly acted in an offensive and stupid way.

And as I posed to that other Poster who is anti-trans-rights, try telling someone who has been the subject of homophobia or racism to "ignore" it.

 

[Bill]

So we're left with group 2, which I would suggest is every Christian. Given they are following some but not all of the teachings in the bible, there's already a choice there of what to believe/follow and what not to. So people are already making that decision. Thus, given people are able to make a decision of which bits to follow and which to ignore, what is the value of removing or editing not followed. Using the buffet analogy, if you swap out some food for other food, people are still going to pick and choose what they want on their plate.

Ok, so if it's ok to give someone a Bible which you know condemns homosexuality, on the basis that it's up to that person to take what they want from it, now Israel folau's unemployed, would it be ok for him on the same basis to carry on posting his stuff on twitter ?

if not, why not ?

 

[Bill]

No, we're holding people accountable for voicing their interpretation of the bible, and pointing out that it's an individual choice to voice offensive beliefs, and some are encouraging the idea that it is an individual choice how to interpret the bible in the first place.

What are the options for interpreting these bits ?:

"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)

"and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error". (Romans 1:26-27)

 

[BobbyM]

Ok, so if it's ok to give someone a Bible which you know condemns homosexuality, on the basis that it's up to that person to take what they want from it, now Israel folau's unemployed, would it be ok for him on the same basis to carry on posting his stuff on twitter ?

if not, why not ?

Well, legally it appears no laws have been broken by Folau. My understanding of hate speech in Australia is limited, but noting that there is no criminal investigation ongoing, it would appear he can post the same thing on Instagram (remember, not twitter).

Could you please clarify on the "use" point too?

 

[Umaga's Witness]

What are the options for interpreting these bits ?:

"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)

"and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error". (Romans 1:26-27)

Here is one interpretation: they are wrong ( the passages, not the homosexuals). If you believe they are the word of god, then maybe you could consider that god was concerned about potential extinction of the species? At the time he wrote it I mean.

 

[Bill]

Well, legally it appears no laws have been broken by Folau. My understanding of hate speech in Australia is limited, but noting that there is no criminal investigation ongoing, it would appear he can post the same thing on Instagram (remember, not twitter).

Could you please clarify on the "use" point too?

Well there you differ from many posters on here, whose condemnation of Folau goes further than criticising for breaching the terms of his employment contract.

With regards to "use", what I'm questioning is whether the Bible and other religious texts which explicitly condemn homosexuality should - in their current format - be treated in the same way as any other literature spreading a similar message. If it's illegal to distribute leaflets saying those things about gay people, and if it's illegal to be in possession of such leaflets (I don't know if it is or not), or if it's illegal to read the content of the leaflet out to others, then I'm asking why is the same not applied to the religious texts which contain the same messages ?

 

[Bill]

Here is one interpretation: they are wrong ( the passages, not the homosexuals). If you believe they are the word of god, then maybe you could consider that god was concerned about potential extinction of the species?

But you are condemning Folau for interpreting them as not being wrong. I think that's harsh. The texts are pretty clear, and if you're blaming for Folau for reading them literally, I don't see how you don't blame his twitter users for reading his tweets literally.

Look, I don't want to push things too far, but I've made my point, which I hope provides some food for thought at least.

 

[BobbyM]

What are the options for interpreting these bits ?:

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

the author of Leviticus (traditionally thought to be Moses) didn't like homosexual men.

"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)

the author of Leviticus REALLY didn't like homosexual men.

"and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error".

Paul the Apostle, not a fan of the gays either.

Well there you differ from many posters on here, whose condemnation of Folau goes further than criticising for breaching the terms of his employment contract.

With regards to "use", what I'm questioning is whether the Bible and other religious texts which explicitly condemn homosexuality should - in their current format - be treated in the same way as any other literature spreading a similar message. If it's illegal to distribute leaflets saying those things about gay people, and if it's illegal to be in possession of such leaflets (I don't know if it is or not), or if it's illegal to read the content of the leaflet out to others, then I'm asking why is the same not applied to the religious texts which contain the same messages ?

This is where it comes to an interesting consideration with the topic of "literary merit". So in the UK as far as I am aware there are no "banned books". There have been at times books banned in the UK, Lolita for example being one of the most famous ones.

In your example comparing the bible to leaflets there's two clear differences;

-the bible is not being "produced", it is being republished. Those who wrote it are a little out of the reach of the authorities here.
-there is limited literal merit or value in a leaflet.

To give you another consideration; Mein kampf. It is a book that is legal to buy and sell (and "use" in terms of reading or studying) in Germany, where there are tight anti-semitism laws. One is able to distinguish between the book itself, which as above is an inanimate object, and those who seek to promote anti-semitism today.

 

[Bill]

the author of Leviticus (traditionally thought to be Moses) didn't like homosexual men.

the author of Leviticus REALLY didn't like homosexual men.

Paul the Apostle, not a fan of the gays either.
.

The Bible doesn't contain a selection of opinions for entertaining its readers, it contains a set of instruction for how readers should pursue their lives.

In your example comparing the bible to leaflets there's two clear differences;

-the bible is not being "produced", it is being republished. Those who wrote it are a little out of the reach of the authorities here.
-there is limited literal merit or value in a leaflet.

To give you another consideration; Mein kampf. It is a book that is legal to buy and sell (and "use" in terms of reading or studying) in Germany, where there are tight anti-semitism laws. One is able to distinguish between the book itself, which as above is an inanimate object, and those who seek to promote anti-semitism today.

It's a complete invalid analogy though. Religious people don't read the Bible because they are interested in it as a historical artifact, they read it because they intend to follow its teachings (see above).

 

[BobbyM]

But you are condemning Folau for interpreting them as not being wrong. I think that's harsh. The texts are pretty clear, and if you're blaming for Folau for reading them literally, I don't see how you don't blame his twitter users for reading his tweets literally.

Look, I don't want to push things too far, but I've made my point, which I hope provides some food for thought at least.

Also worth noting that none of those passages you referenced mention hell.

Now if we actually consider the bible passage he was referencing in his Instagram post;

"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these , adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revelings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Galatians 5:19-‬21 KJV‬"‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬

Now couple points here;

You'll note he only selected a subset of the "works" in his post
There isn't a reference to hell, merely a suggestion that such individuals would not "inherit the kingdom of god". He has this taken a leap of his own in suggesting that Hell awaits.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

But you are condemning Folau for interpreting them as not being wrong. I think that's harsh. The texts are pretty clear, and if you're blaming for Folau for reading them literally, I don't see how you don't blame his twitter users for reading his tweets literally.

Look, I don't want to push things too far, but I've made my point, which I hope provides some food for thought at least.

No, just "condemning" him for publicising those beliefs. Maybe that's harsh, but is it more harsh than what he said? If not (hint, it is not) then "condemning" him in this way will likely prevent others from acting similarly. That's a net benefit there.

Is there a better way? Not this week there's not.

He has not denied what he said, therefore it can be taken literally.

And problem is, I don't think you have made your point. You came back in here with a great long passionate post that made most people see you as a raving lunatic. I doubt many people have read the rest of what you've said, especially not with the consideration, due or not.

 

[BobbyM]

The Bible doesn't contain a selection of opinions for entertaining its readers, it contains a set of instruction for how readers should pursue their lives.

You asked what the options were for interpreting the passages and I gave you my interpretation =D

It's a complete invalid analogy though. Religious people don't read the Bible because they are interested in it as a historical artifact, they read it because they intend to follow its teachings (see above).

I suggest that given the rise of Neo-nazism, where this is their "bible", it is actually a very appropriate analogy. Individuals purchasing and reading the book are well within their rights to do so. Frankly people can read a book for whatever reason they want to; suggesting otherwise tiptoes into thought crime. However, acting on the teaching of that book (say by promoting or publicly supporting the suggestions in the book) is illegal.

Also, could I request you don't do the partial quoting thing? You have not addressed the main thrust of my post (which was that banning books is not how we approach controversial ideas and ) but instead chosen to quibble a side point.

Now on your response, I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation on why christians read the bible. Instead, I would suggest they read the bible for guidance on how to live their life. Would you agree?

Would you also agree that Christians then take some of what is written in the bible on how to live their lives and follow these selections, as per above?

So again it comes down to the choice of what bits to "follow" and what bits not to. Folau made the choice to follow the bits of the bible that are homophobic. Conversely, he hasn't appeared to be on board with the whole slavery thing they've got in there, so he can make some choices. I am quite happy criticising him for choosing to follow the homophobic bits of the bible, and many pages ago I highlighted my moral objections to his post (about homosexuality being a state of existing v an action etc).

 

[BobbyM]

You also managed to not address the differences I highlighted between a homophobic leaflet and the bible. Do you concede on this point with reference to the differences I highlighted when you asked what thosr differences were?