Izzy Folau

[Bill]

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?

Bobby. I don't agree with you on that point no. In fact it's clear that we disagree on the issue of the Bible, and whist it's quite obvious to me that your arguments fail, I recognise that you are entitled to raise them.

I note though that we are in agreement on the majority of the issues, and I thank you for providing your supportive views which back up much of the thrust my comments. I can't agree with your more extremist views on Biblical texts, but we are generally singing from the same hymn sheets so to speak from the looks of things:

ME
1. Folau was rightly punished by his employer for the tweet which went contrary to his employment.
2. Folau should not be held accountable beyond that.
3. The aspects of the Bible and other religious sources which include hate speech should be subject to more accountability.

YOU
1. Folau was rightly punished by his employer for the tweet which went contrary to his employment.
2. Folau should not be held accountable beyond that.
3. It would be acceptable for Folau to continue tweeting homophobic messages now that he doesn't have any obligations towards an employer.
4. The Bible is fine as it is (because the contents only represents the authors' opinions and is not intended to be followed by others, because Christians don't read the Bible to obtain religious teaching, because the Bible is just an "inanimate object", and because Hitler's memories are legally published and they are similar to the Bible).

I got a bit of attention from some of the more liberally minded posters on the board earlier in the discussion, and no doubt with your more extremist views you'll be getting some of the same ! I wish you best of luck in finding a compromise position with those guys though.

Cheers.

 

[Bill]

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.

Oh right ! So I backed you into a corner where basically your argument had been shown as total rubbish, but then out of good grace said that I wasn't going to push it so let's leave it at that to think about, and you've responded to that generous gesture by saying the most people see me as a raving lunatic. lol. nice.

 

[Bill]

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)

Bobby's view : They were just the authors' individual opinions. Noone was expect to take what they said seriously or follow what the Bible says.

Umaga's view : God was just worried when he wrote it that the species might become extinct. (but Folau should know that the species isn't extinct so should have interpreted the comments differently ??).


Does anyone else have a view ?

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Summarising other people is a little arrogant...I'm sure they would rather do it them selves

 

[Bill]

Summarising other people is a little arrogant...I'm sure they would rather do it them selves

Well, I wanted to do it, it's fine.

Btw Jabby, I note that you've given me several 'dislikes', but haven't expressed any views yourself.

Are you going to tell use where you stand on the issues raised ?

 

[Derpus]

Its crazy how much **** izzy has stirred up. He really seems to have struck a nerve with tonnes of people on both sides of the debate.

Setting aside the free speech issues (of which i am more convinced than ever that there are none).

At the end of the day, even if sacking him wasnt originally the right move, he refused to speak to RA when **** hit the fan, he refused to take the post down despite the problems it was causing for everybody. Even if it was his right to post it, what sort of dipsiht actually does it? seeing the mayhem that it has caused for a nearly broke union who pay him millions to be the face of rugby and the general division its resulted in. For a bloke who claims to act out of love his actions scream otherwise.

Its just poor form and the sooner hes a distant memory the better.

 

[BobbyM]

Bobby. I don't agree with you on that point no. In fact it's clear that we disagree on the issue of the Bible, and whist it's quite obvious to me that your arguments fail, I recognise that you are entitled to raise them.

Can you please expand on what was controversial about the differences I highlighted between a homophobic leaflet and the bible? Just saying that it is obvious the arguments fail without explaining why you feel they fail is meaningless. The rest of this paragraph about what I am "entitled" to do or say is redundant.

 

[BobbyM]

I note though that we are in agreement on the majority of the issues, and I thank you for providing your supportive views which back up much of the thrust my comments. I can't agree with your more extremist views on Biblical texts, but we are generally singing from the same hymn sheets so to speak from the looks of things:

Not only is it false that we are in agreement, but the wording above, as others have suggested, is arrogant. You'll note instead that I asked you what you believe, not attending to falsely misstate it it make it appear there's others here who are in broad agreement with you.

 

[BobbyM]

ME
1. Folau was rightly punished by his employer for the tweet which went contrary to his employment.

For what must be the 5th time, it was not a tweet. It was an Instagram post. And for clarity it was "contrary" to his employers code of conduct. So are you now not saying it was due to embarrassing his employer? That was your argument previously.

2. Folau should not be held accountable beyond that.

See this is where you show your faux intelligence. Held accountable is such a broad and sweeping statement that it is again meaningless. Does this mean that you don't think he is accountable for what he does and says if his religious texts includes guidance on it? Or do you mean he shouldn't be subject to criminal proceedings? If there's been some great rush of people arguing for a criminal prosecution then please do point it out.

3. The aspects of the Bible and other religious sources which include hate speech should be subject to more accountability.

Again what does this mean? Do we stick a bible in the dock and read it it's rights? Or we ban or redact the bible?

There are places like that in the world, those bastions of tolerance and openness such as Saudi Arabia. Is that where you're lining up your views? If it is have at it bud.

 

[BobbyM]

YOU
1. Folau was rightly punished by his employer for the tweet which went contrary to his employment.

Please refer above to my clarifications on this point as I don't think your comment effectively captures the essence of what it appears you're trying to say.

2. Folau should not be held accountable beyond that.

I said my understanding was that there wouldn't be a criminal prosecution for what he posted. While I'm not intimate with Australian hate speech laws I think it would be very challenging to suggest he was inciting violence against homosexuals. His Instagram post was, however, homophobic. He is also personally responsible for what he posts, as it is a conscious choice to create an Instagram point.

3. It would be acceptable for Folau to continue tweeting homophobic messages now that he doesn't have any obligations towards an employer.

I was going to suggest that we found a nugget of truth in your post but alas on second reading it appears not. So few points here;

• I believe Folau's contract for the moment is still in place as the final outcome of the disciplinary hearing hasn't been reached so he is still bound by its code of conduct.
• Once it is terminated he won't have obligations to RA with regards to complying with their employee/player code of conduct, as he will no longer be a player for them.
• He will have obligations to future employers and their codes of conduct as an when he signs a contract with them.
• Legally as above it appears that his posts, in and of themselves and while being distasteful and homophobic, do not breach the threshold of criminal incitement to violence or discrimination. He is though of course responsible for what he posts on Instagram.

There was such much wrong with your 4th bullet it deserves a post all of its own, tune in soon for it =D

 

[BobbyM]

4. The Bible is fine as it is (because the contents only represents the authors' opinions and is not intended to be followed by others, because Christians don't read the Bible to obtain religious teaching, because the Bible is just an "inanimate object", and because Hitler's memories are legally published and they are similar to the Bible).

I mean firstly; dude, full stops. Use them. Let's leave James Joyce to the English students. You seem to have missed the bit that I said people read the bible for guidance on how to live their lives? I'll post it again as you appear to have missed it.

Christians read the bible for guidance on how to live their lives.
Christians then take some of what is written in the bible on how to live their lives and follow these parts, but don't follow "all" of the bible.

The bible it itself a collection of books. These books in and of themselves are, like all books, inanimate objects. Some people believe that they contain the word of God, and derive guidance from them, but the Bible is still inanimate. Let me put it another way; you can't have a conversation with a bible. To say I think Hitlers memories(?!) are "similar" to the bible it a complete and utter fabrication and I would ask you kindly to correct yourself on it. What I will say is that there are distasteful elements of the bible, and distasteful elements (all of it really) in Mein kampf. I was using hitlers book as an analogy of the difference between words written on a page a long time ago, and the actions one takes in the present.

I got a bit of attention from some of the more liberally minded posters on the board earlier in the discussion, and no doubt with your more extremist views you'll be getting some of the same ! I wish you best of luck in finding a compromise position with those guys though.

A shout out to the TRF community; have my comments been extremist? And I mean what I actually have said, not what some other poster has tried to claim erroneously that I said?

A casual inspection of my posts shows a small but positive number of likes and no dislikes on this thread, so it appears that folk aren't particularly aggrieved by what I have posted.

While I can't speak for why others responded to you, I did as you were posting points that were illogical, incoherent (hence the large numbers of questions I've asked you throughout this thread, noting the vast majority haven't been answered), unpersuasive, disagreeable and borderline homophobic.

 

[BobbyM]

Bobby's view : They were just the authors' individual opinions. Noone was expect to take what they said seriously or follow what the Bible says.

Bobby's actual view: The writers of these passages didn't like homosexuality. These were, when written, the beliefs of the individual writers. They also most likely reflect in some part societal views in that part of the world at the time. In deciding what should be included in the bible we could also argue that those who decreed what books should be included in the bible weren't fans of homosexuality.
Of course the bible was constructed to be the ultimate guide to being a Christian and those who constructed it wanted people to follow the teachings of the bible, noting of course that;
- it (the King James Version at least) has been translated numerous times so it isn't the original unadultered collection of books the authors penned.
- it was constructed over 1600 years ago
- it contains numberous inconsistencies in terms of its contents.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Oh right ! So I backed you into a corner where basically your argument had been shown as total rubbish, but then out of good grace said that I wasn't going to push it so let's leave it at that to think about, and you've responded to that generous gesture by saying the most people see me as a raving lunatic. lol. nice.

Hey I was just helping you out, from start to end. giving you the chance to climb out of the hole a bit, or be at peace with its darkness. Oh, and my argument we weren't really discussing, just the real word validity of yours. An my previous post to which you are suggesting I was backed into a corner I had simply posed a question to give you the opportunity to explain your view. There was no corner. I could move freely in the single dimension of your world, or step out into dimensions that you apparently can't enter.

My point that you hadn't made your point was to help you understand that if you want people to listen to your point you have to be more respectful, and that your point is not the perfect rant worthy solution you think it is. If you can admit that then people might actually listen to you. and you might listen to others. Instead, no-one gained anything, despite all my help.

 

[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)

Bobby's view : They were just the authors' individual opinions. Noone was expect to take what they said seriously or follow what the Bible says.

Umaga's view : God was just worried when he wrote it that the species might become extinct. (but Folau should know that the species isn't extinct so should have interpreted the comments differently ??).


Does anyone else have a view ?

Clearly we weren't even talking about my view. you were asking how someone might interpret those bible passages. i provided two different interpretations. You decided to choose one that most definitely is not mine.

For what gain? Do you have any wish to discuss things or just to insult people?

 

[Bill]

Hi chaps.

I've done some checking, and (as you guys have suggested) it appears that the Bible does not expressly say that gay people will go to hell. As already cited above though, it does say (in one chapter) that gay people should be murdered !!

On this basis, I'd be interested to look again at both the Bible question, and the Folau question:

FOLAU
What he has written is an interpretation which he has given to what was written in the Bible. If he had instead simply repeated Leviticus's contention that gay people should be murdered, instead of providing his own interpretation about going to hell, should his actions be looked at with more leniency than in the current circumstances, or is it just as bad notwithstanding that he doesn't interpret anything himself ?

THE BIBLE
On the basis that the Bible appears to state that gay people should be murdered, should the Bible be regarded as contravening legislation which makes disparaging people based on their sexuality illegal ?

Thoughts ?

 

[BobbyM]

Disappointed that you've not (yet) addressed any of the points that I made in my posts above, but we shall persist with this discussion regardless.

Many people here including you have quoted directly from the bible specific passages which suggest that homosexuals should be killed. Now what is important here is the context. Without wanting to say what you believe, my understanding is that you did not share those passages as you concurred with the sentiment contained in them?

Now if you had posted those quotes and said this is what I believe then that is a different question. As above, it is about context. Similarly, one can do a book review quoting horrendous passafes from lots of different books. The specific act of quoting a "horrendous" passage is innocuous, but not particularly meaningful. It is the sentiments of support or criticism that lead to the actions being taken by others (his employer in this case.)

Have you researched the bonfire of the vanities at all Bill? I think you would find it interesting, and may find s k8ndred spirit in Savonarola in his bids to rid the world of unsavoury literature.

To be frank, I can't be bothered reiterating the points I've already made about a 1600+ year old collection of books being in parts inconsistent with modern morality.

 

[Bill]

Disappointed that you've not (yet) addressed any of the points that I made in my posts above, but we shall persist with this discussion regardless.

Many people here including you have quoted directly from the bible specific passages which suggest that homosexuals should be killed. Now what is important here is the context. Without wanting to say what you believe, my understanding is that you did not share those passages as you concurred with the sentiment contained in them?

Now if you had posted those quotes and said this is what I believe then that is a different question. As above, it is about context. Similarly, one can do a book review quoting horrendous passafes from lots of different books. The specific act of quoting a "horrendous" passage is innocuous, but not particularly meaningful. It is the sentiments of support or criticism that lead to the actions being taken by others (his employer in this case.)

Have you researched the bonfire of the vanities at all Bill? I think you would find it interesting, and may find s k8ndred spirit in Savonarola in his bids to rid the world of unsavoury literature.

To be frank, I can't be bothered reiterating the points I've already made about a 1600+ year old collection of books being in parts inconsistent with modern morality.

Ha ! I take your point to an extent. I also apologise for not directly addressing some of your earlier comments.

For me there is a difference between a novel and a book which seeks to teach right and wrong and how people should behave. That said, if there is a reasonable interpretation of a novel that it presents in a favourable or ambiguous light, an argument that gay people should or will go to hell or should be murdered, I would think it likely that it would be on very thin ground indeed.

It appears that we just hold different views on this, but whilst I still keep my personal opinion on it, I do find at least some persuasion in your approach based on your latest explanation.

 

[mania]

thanks izzy. u are the fk outta here
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...olaus-explanation-to-rugby-australia-tribunal

 

[Bill]

thanks izzy. u are the fk outta here
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...olaus-explanation-to-rugby-australia-tribunal

Damn it. There goes my Bible argument.

 

[smartcooky]

"'God spoke to me'. That was the explanation Israel Folau gave for his second round of inflammatory social media posts when he fronted a Rugby Australia disciplinary hearing."

The explanation of direct communication with God was the first time Folau had offered a rationale for his actions of a month ago, which came after an identical scenario last year and the following 10 months of sensitive negotiations to sign off on a four-year, multi-million dollar deal.

As has been reported, he expressed no remorse, refused to take down the posts and acknowledged he might take the same action again.

Folau is a liability to the game. He has to go.