Izzy Folau

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

So there isn't 1 organisation. Thanks for admitting you were being disingenuous.

ok, so now I'll be quite happy to read the info you have on the finances and scope of the global network foundation if you have it

I never said there was only one - but one dominant one.

If I'm talking about "Harlequins" it's reasonable to assume that's the massive club with the money and power. Not get upset because Belfast Harlequins didn't do bloodgate.

They themselves said they raised 90mill last year - there's contact details on the website if you want to ask them directly but they operate heavily in the US, Canada and UK

 

[Welsh Exile]

Remember, we're talking scope and that this organisation is meant to be a fair representation of tens of millions of people which is what the right like to do. They say, you see these BLM people, you know, the tens of millions of people peacefully protesting around the world, they all want to defund the police don't you know coz the entire BLM organisation is Marxist and want to eat your children, that's what these protesters want to do.

I don't care about financing I'm interested in scope and genuine representation of millions of people views.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

IMO , yes, as evidenced by how religious beliefs are protected in hate speech in the same way racial and homophobic speech is when they're totally different things.

Most religions don't partake in hate speech. Hate speech requires a certain level of threat. As much as saying you'll go to hell for being X, Y or Z sounds like a threat, it's more of a warning and not a very pressing one to someone who isn't religious.

If you think those views should be illegal its a different thing altogether but the only people being disparaged by these views are members of the groups who genuinely believe them and are affected by them.

Thankfully, as the world gets more progressive more and more people are starting to see through the BS. Christianity is very cute with the way it "adapts" it's views to stay relevant, though.

Is it Christianity being cute or aligning with the views of the majority of its followers? It's not some sort of hive mind.

If religious people still cling to a lot of the vile bollicks in the bible and what not about slavery being ok, sleeping with other men isn't ok and women as second class citizens then they should be embarrassed.

I agree but most don't Folau types are a loud minority, different parts of the Bible have been discarded by Christians starting almost as soon as it was written.

I'm far from a fan of religion and definitely not of the Catholic church but 1. They're not doing anything illegal; 2. Most Christian churches in the UK and Ireland appear to be accepting of their mistakes for the most part and are embracing change for their improvement; 3. It's not something you can hide behind at all in modern society and this is reflected in points 1 and 2; and 4. There are countless good people who do great things for their community who are partly motivated to do so on account of their faith. It's not fair to generalise the religious as bigoted racists.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

Remember, we're talking scope and that this organisation is meant to be a fair representation of tens of millions of people which is what the right like to do. They say, you see these BLM people, you know, the tens of millions of people peacefully protesting around the world, they all want to defund the police don't you know coz the entire BLM organisation is Marxist and want to eat your children, that's what these protesters want to do.

I don't care about financing I'm interested in scope and genuine representation of millions of people views.

Financing is a pretty good way to get a broad reading of the level of support for their charter (we can't poll every individual ever unfortunately) but I hope that people attending the BLM protests etc don't all buy into it but who knows really.

I don't think that anyone is really trying to make the argument that all protestors support BLM's actual charter but when they've become the defacto leadership of the movement then you have to make a decision about which imagery/language you can continue accepting

 

[Welsh Exile]

Financing is a pretty good way to get a broad reading of the level of support for their charter (we can't poll every individual ever unfortunately) but I hope that people attending the BLM protests etc don't all buy into it but who knows really.

I don't think that anyone is really trying to make the argument that all protestors support BLM's actual charter but when they've become the defacto leadership of the movement then you have to make a decision about which imagery/language you can continue accepting

De facto leadership. Lol. Again, where's the evidence for this claim.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

De facto leadership. Lol. Again, where's the evidence for this claim.

Financially - the clout it has is the largest I know of (correct me if I'm wrong here)

Socially - this is obviously a matter of perception. If you don't think they are fundamental in taking what is an entirely reasonable social movement and weaponizing then go ahead and kneel or whatever you want to do. It seems to me that is exactly what has happened and I'll continue to fight racism and discrimination when and where I see it without using tainted imagery and language

 

[ncurd]

Sky Sports a group of television channels run by the company Sky Group Limited display the words Black Lives Matter in most of their current sport broadcasts and air segments about racial inequality within sport.

Are we to infer they wholly support the charter of multi million pound fundraising organisation that does even claim its the sole voice. Or do we read what they are doing under the slogan as a mutli-million pound business.

Black Lives Matter

Sky - Black Live Matter

www.sky.com

 

[Welsh Exile]

Most religions don't partake in hate speech. Hate speech requires a certain level of threat. As much as saying you'll go to hell for being X, Y or Z sounds like a threat, it's more of a warning and not a very pressing one to someone who isn't religious.

If you think those views should be illegal its a different thing altogether but the only people being disparaged by these views are members of the groups who genuinely believe them and are affected by them.


Is it Christianity being cute or aligning with the views of the majority of its followers? It's not some sort of hive mind.

I agree but most don't Folau types are a loud minority, different parts of the Bible have been discarded by Christians starting almost as soon as it was written.

I'm far from a fan of religion and definitely not of the Catholic church but 1. They're not doing anything illegal; 2. Most Christian churches in the UK and Ireland appear to be accepting of their mistakes for the most part and are embracing change for their improvement; 3. It's not something you can hide behind at all in modern society and this is reflected in points 1 and 2; and 4. Their are countless good people who do great things for their community who are partly motivated to do so on account of their faith. It's not fair to generalise the religious as bigoted racists.

Im talking about perceived hate speech against religious people not from them. They are protected in the same way hate speech against black, gay and disabled people are, that is my understanding anyway.

It's cute because this stuff isn't meant to change, it's the word of god is it not? How can the word of god change just because society progresses? This is why I say it's cute as it's a trick that Christianity has done many times over when science has time and time again disproven the BS that they said was fact for centuries. God says it's a sin to sleep with other men......oh, it's ok now he's changed his mind on that apparently. Cute or bollicks, take your pick. I guess it's better to be disingenuous like Christianity is as opposed to a lot of Muslim ideology that is stuck in the Middle Ages, I suppose. But then, in a way, I have more respect for the Muslims that have stuck to their guns as it were. At least it's consistent.

I'd also say, not so much here, that extreme Christian views are still very prevalent. There's
Many Americans that believe the bible is the literal word of god and even those that don't will still adhere to the more "traditional" Christian values. Christ, what's his name at the DUP believes the earth is 6000 years old. People like that should genuinely not be allowed to hold positions of power.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

Sky Sports a group of television channels run by the company Sky Group Limited display the words Black Lives Matter in most of their current sport broadcasts and air segments about racial inequality within sport.

Are we to infer they wholly support the charter of multi million pound fundraising organisation that does even claim its the sole voice. Or do we read what they are doing under the slogan.

Black Lives Matter

Sky - Black Live Matter

www.sky.com

I hope not but who knows - as above, the BLM organisation itself have very successfully weaponised a justifiable social movement against racism and for many, myself included, that means that buying in to that imagery and language now means the same as supporting the organisation.

That's what Billy etc didn't kneel and why I also wouldn't (apart from the performative activism of it).

If anyone doesn't feel like they have tainted the movement/language etc then go ahead and keep using it, I don't really care that much as long as people are aware of everything

 

[ncurd]

Financially - the clout it has is the largest I know of (correct me if I'm wrong here)

Socially - this is obviously a matter of perception. If you don't think they are fundamental in taking what is an entirely reasonable social movement and weaponizing then go ahead and kneel or whatever you want to do. It seems to me that is exactly what has happened and I'll continue to fight racism and discrimination when and where

For someone who only the other week was arguing the definitions of Instutional and Sestemic Racism were, you spend an awful amount of time arguing with people who want to do something about the issues than actually offering alternatives.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

Im talking about perceived hate speech against religious people not from them. They are protected in the same way hate speech against black, gay and disabled people are, that is my understanding anyway.

It's cute because this stuff isn't meant to change, it's the word of god is it not? How can the word of god change just because society progresses? This is why I say it's cute as it's a trick that Christianity has done many times over when science has time and time again disproven the BS that they said was fact for centuries. God says it's a sin to sleep with other men......oh, it's ok now he's changed his mind on that apparently. Cute or bollicks, take your pick. I guess it's better to be disingenuous like Christianity is as opposed to a lot of Muslim ideology that is stuck in the Middle Ages, I suppose. But then, in a way, I have more respect for the Muslims that have stuck to their guns as it were. At least it's consistent.

I'd also say, not so much here, that extreme Christian views are still very prevalent. There's
Many Americans that believe the bible is the literal word of god and even those that don't will still adhere to the more "traditional" Christian values. Christ, what's his name at the DUP believes the earth is 6000 years old. People like that should genuinely not be allowed to hold positions of power.

The Bible evolves quite a lot throughout the book itself to be fair - as society progresses. Completely reasonable for the religion to reflect that

 

[Welsh Exile]

The Bible evolves quite a lot throughout the book itself to be fair - as society progresses. Completely reasonable for the religion to reflect that

The bible evolves? Like the New Testament you mean? Sorry, you're going to have to clarify that statement a bit more.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

For someone who only the other week was arguing the definitions of Instutional and Sestemic Racism were, you spend an awful amount of time arguing with people who want to do something about the issues than actually offering alternatives.

I didn't start this fyi, Welsh exile replied to a post from last August.

There have been 0 solutions given here either tbf, just broad performative activism and virtue signalling. Next time I have time to write a policy paper I'll send it your way.

There is a personal element of this for me obviously - myself and other members of my family got quite a lot of abuse last year at the height of the protests etc for not kneeling, posting black squares in social media etc, despite that fact that my sibling is one of the only non white people at their school. Hard to get on board with something like that afterwards

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

The bible evolves? Like the New Testament you mean? Sorry, you're going to have to clarify that statement a bit more.

I've not read it recently so can't give you examples at the mo, but I read through it all last year and was surprised at how different the rhetoric seemed to be between old and new testament. Regardless - the overarching message is just don't be a ****. That's reasonable to me and the direction that the modern church seems to be in correlation with

 

[ncurd]

I didn't start this fyi, Welsh exile replied to a post from last August.

There have been 0 solutions given here either tbf, just broad performative activism and virtue signalling. Next time I have time to write a policy paper I'll send it your way.

There is a personal element of this for me obviously - myself and other members of my family got quite a lot of abuse last year at the height of the protests etc for not kneeling, posting black squares in social media etc, despite that fact that my sibling is one of the only non white people at their school. Hard to get on board with something like that afterwards

You know what I actually don't belive you.

 

[Welsh Exile]

I've not read it recently so can't give you examples at the mo, but I read through it all last year and was surprised at how different the rhetoric seemed to be between old and new testament. Regardless - the overarching message is just don't be a ****. That's reasonable to me and the direction that the modern church seems to be in correlation with

Jesus never spoke out against Slavery or said you shouldn't do it. I think he even said something like he didn't come to undo the old teachings (testament) but to fulfill it. But this is the game they play isn't it. There's something There for everyone. You just got to cherry pick.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

You know what I actually don't belive you.

Excuse me what the ****?

Chuck me the money for one of those DNA test things and we can clear it up.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

Jesus never spoke out against Slavery or said you shouldn't do it. I think he even said something like he didn't come to undo the old teachings (testament) but to fulfill it. But this is the game they play isn't it. There's something. There for everyone. You just got to cherry pick.

Why would you have an issue with that? If people are using it to make themselves better and be a good person then why should that be an issue?

 

[ncurd]

Excuse me what the ****?

Yeah I think you're full of BS because if it were true in the numerous conversations you've had about this topic anyone else on this forum would of mentioned it by now.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Why would you have an issue with that? If people are using it to make themselves better and be a good person then why should that be an issue?

Why should I have an issue with people holding up the bible as some moral book when it has some really immoral stuff in it you mean?