Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by bubblebobble2, Apr 11, 2019.
As you know Jules, I don't agree with you very often. I've gotta agree with you there.
If you were a bit younger Jules, I would say you might want to do some Martial Arts classes with their Meditation involved.
p.s. there is plenty of meditation in Karate, Yoga, Jujitsu, etc. so, age, weight, etc. does not matter.
I suspect his next career is a church with daddy. Then he'll need his ten million and no doubt ask for more once god tells him to.
After all he says that god broke his ankle because he was getting arrogant about his football. His currently developing martyr status is all part of god's plan too no doubt.
And whilst I'm carting water to the desert sands.
Jeez, Jules, you were going well until you brought in this crowd: THE RAT PACK GGLE IT.
The Legendary Count Basie Orchestra
Jeez, you've even got Johnny Carson singing with them. Johnny Who? You have to be at least 65 Years old to know who Johnny Carson is.
It doesn't look like a contractual dispute at all. If a Rugby player cannot express his personal views on his own personal Twitter account, this is a clear infringement of his freedom of speech.
Presenting Zeitgeist is the ultimate troll. Zeitgeist is as accurate as the last "research" presented regarding German/Norwegian/Swedish bibles - ie. Not very accurate.
Here's a layman debunking the fictional research of Zeitgeist.
Lefties wants freedom of speech for themselves, but not for anyone else.
It's all about control.
I'm sure that Rugby AU will be arguing that Folau breeched his contractual obligations because he failed to adhere to the Code of Conduct he agreed to when he accepted Rugby AU's terms and conditions of employment. Freedom of speech comes with limitations, we all accept that (well intelligent, socialised and rational people do). You can't just say what you want and when you like it, freedom of speech is governed on a scale from politeness at one end, to illegal at the other. Folau hasn't done anything illegal, but there is definitely a case to answer in regard to an agreement between the two parties that is enforceable by law.
The controversy surrounding Israel Folau’s Instagram posts has tended to focus on questions of free speech, religious freedom and employers’ rights. But I want to ask a deeper question: is Folau’s position consistent with the teachings and example of Christianity’s founder, Jesus of Nazareth?
In thinking about how one might answer this question, I make the following assumptions:
that, as the incarnation of the divine, Jesus was incapable of error;
that Jesus’s life and teachings are the ultimate source of authority for Christians;
that the words and deeds of Jesus, as recorded in the four canonical Gospels, take precedence over those of any other theologian or interpreter (including Paul the Apostle); and
that the New Testament has priority over the Old Testament ― to the extent that there is any disagreement.
So, what is the essence of Jesus’s life and teaching as revealed in the Gospels? Traditionally, the focus has been on Jesus’s offer of unconditional love and the associated blessing of healing ― both physical and spiritual (the latter through forgiveness of sins).
Jesus does not present himself as breaking with Judaism. He says explicitly that he has not come to overturn the Mosaic Law of his Jewish forebears, but to bring it to its fulfilment, to reveal its essence. On two occasions ― during the Sermon on the Mount and at the Last Supper ― Jesus speaks directly of the core principles on which the Torah is founded. On the earlier occasion, Jesus explicitly states that all of the law is expressed in the two “greatest” commandments: to love God with all one’s heart; to love one’s neighbour as oneself.
However, in the Gospel of John, Jesus goes one step further. John writes that, at the Last Supper, Jesus presents to his immediate disciples a final encapsulation of all his teaching. Affirming his direct connection with the Father, telling them that he is to ascend to heaven but will send a guide in the form of the Holy Spirit, Jesus issues his disciples with a new commandment. This is what John (13:33-35) reports Jesus to have said:
Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you. A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
Unlike the great commandment, with its appeal to the self-love of each person, the new standard for agape (the non-erotic love one bears for another) is to be Jesus’s love for his disciples ― his friends ― and, presumably, for humanity at large.
If the claims of Christians are to be accepted, then Jesus’s new commandment is not a mere act of prophecy, no matter how inspired. It is not an interpretation of a revelatory experience. If you accept the Gospel of John (as I think Christians do), then Jesus has uttered a direct commandment from God; inscribed not on stone but in the hearts and minds of those present. Jesus’s new law is to “love one another as I have loved you.” How then does Jesus love others?
First, each of the Gospels present Jesus as loving unconditionally. Not once does he set a threshold to be crossed before he bestows his love. He heals people without requiring them to become his disciples. He forgives without first requiring a renunciation of sin. He may counsel a better life, but does not make that a precondition of his love. Indeed, he specifically cautions “the righteous” to avoid judging others ― to refrain from casting the first stone.
This is not to say that Jesus is indifferent to sin. In common with the Jewish tradition, Jesus recognises sin as a form of ‘moral servitude’, a loss of freedom. However, there is nothing in the Nazarene’s ministry that condemns homosexuals to eternal damnation ― nor anyone else. Jesus even prays for the forgiveness of those who have ordered and undertaken his torture at Calvary.
Most importantly, Jesus does not merely tolerate those whom others hold in contempt ― he cosies up to them. He touches them. He shares meals with them. He defies the rituals and customs of ‘purity’, even those prescribed in the Old Testament. In doing so, Jesus offends the prevailing piety and invites the censure of those who withdraw from all that is deemed to be ‘unclean’
How, then, does Christianity in our time become a religion so quick to judge and condemn, and so reluctant to love others without qualification? How do Christians, like Israel Folau, come to invoke contempt for others, to believe it acceptable to cast the first stone ― from the safe distance of a social media account? Would not a Christian follow Jesus’s example and offer hospitality to those who others treat with disgust ― share a meal, feel their humanity, offer companionship, without any strings attached?
Why, in other words, are many Christians ignoring Jesus? Perhaps interpreters and theologians, like the Apostle Paul, were more eloquent. Perhaps preachers have come to enjoy a measure of success by playing to the underlying prejudices of their audience. Perhaps human beings find it too hard to embrace Jesus’s message of radical love and forgiveness. As Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor explains ― somewhat apologetically ― in The Brothers Karamazov, if Jesus was to walk the earth today, he would have to be destroyed all over again. The world ― including his church – finds Jesus just too difficult to cope with.
Or, perhaps the truth is something darker. Has a deep and ingrained sense of disgust ― about sex in general, and homosexuality in particular ― bound some Christians in chains even stronger than sin?
While I understand that there is no monolithic “Christian” point of view about homosexuality, I am genuinely confused by the notion that any Christian can see matters as Israel Folau does. This is not to doubt the sincerity of Folau and his Christian supporters. But sincerity does not excuse fundamental error.
Surely modern Christians can grasp that a person’s sexual orientation is not something simply chosen. We are born “hard wired” with our preferences. To say that a homosexual person is destined for hell is to claim that each such person is born an abomination in the sight of God. That is an obscene suggestion ― not only in the eyes of a secular society, but, if the Gospels are to be believed, in the eyes of the founder of Christianity itself. Not once does Jesus indicate contempt for any person.
So, again I ask, how is it that a church founded on the commitment to unconditional love has become home to the demons of righteous indignation? In whose name has that been done? Don’t tell me it is Jesus. If unconditional love, free from any condemnation, is offered to the man who nails you to a cross, then how can it be withheld from someone whose only sin is to have not been born a heterosexual?
In the same spirit, perhaps it’s time to call a truce in the proxy war over free speech and religious freedom. It’s time for his detractors to practice what Jesus preached and reach out to Israel Folau; to extend to him friendship and understanding; to share a meal with him and offer him unconditional forgiveness ― for he knows not what he does.
Dr Simon Longstaff is Executive Director of The Ethics Centre.
Can't turn off the bold sorry folks, but that, I agree with, and can add no more.
Addendum: I got motivated to fix the code folks.
Off topic and I've the odd and sods of Rat Pack before but not that one, The funniest thing I've seen in a long time. Old skool fun, non PC...GOLD. Never knew Carson could sing or work ab lib.
"Can't turn off the bold sorry folks, but that, I agree with, and can add no more."
HAHAHA , Love it Jules. I have the same problem. Pretty soon you will find the colours
They will try to argue that, but they will likely fail. Merely stating an opinion contrary to RA's position is not sufficient grounds for sacking. Imagine if the roles were reversed, and Israel Folau was saying that conservatives would go to hell - that would not be sufficient grounds for sacking.
As in the Ngole vs Sheffield judgement in the UK, RA wrongly confuses the expression of religious views with the notion of discrimination. The mere expression of views on theological grounds (e.g.that‘homosexuality is a sin’) does not necessarily connote that the person expressing such views will discriminate on such grounds.
In fact, if RA sticks to their position, it is likely to cause future legal contests if future players are adherents/supporters of Sharia Law, or a multitude of other Orthodox beliefs. Keeping people who believe in conservative viewpoints in the closet is not very inclusive or non-discriminatory.
In this case, an individual has been sacked for expressing his own personal views, during his own time, on his own device, and on his own Twitter account. The law will hopefully uphold his right to express his beliefs freely - just as the law would and should uphold a Lefty's right to publish shockingly bad research.
I don't know this whole Folau story, but if the law being followed is anything like what he would be facing in the US, I think he will lose. I'm not against the guy, but just saying what I think.
If this involved a US baseball team for example, in their contracts they have clauses that allow the team to dump a player for certain behavior. I refer to them as a "morals clause" for lack of better words. Depending on how they are written, they can limit a person's ability to say and do certain things quite substantially, even in said person's private time.
Here in the US sports is really just a business, just like Hollywood, the media outlets, etc. In today's PC world, everyone gets offended quite easily. Thus these morals clauses are enforced quite liberally. However, a team doesn't want to dump say a talented player unless they really have to.
Here in the US, if the owners wanted him sacked they would say that his behavior offended and alienated a large group of consumers by his postings. Not only did he alienate gays, but also sympathizers that will gladly join any boycott, etc. This could cost the team millions over time in lost revenue. Especially if the player doesn't retract what he said, apologize, grovel for mercy, etc. It is my understanding he is standing firm in his views, etc.
Remember, here the 1st Amendment only protects you from the government. It doesn't protect you one bit at your job. So the issue will come down to contract law. Look at what Roseanne lost for making a single comment about a single person. And Roseanne apologized, repented and groveled but no dice.
If Folau isn't willing to recant and apologize etc, he leaves the team no other choice. If they keep him, he could be a constant liability in this respect.
I'm not clear on all the facts of this case, but from what I've seen the guy posted some verses that say gayness is bad per God, and possibly something about burning in hell, etc. In looking online I saw he had a somewhat similar incident related to anti gay stuff in 2018 (see link below).
If the court or jury hearing the case felt that his current postings violated his contract, then he would lose here in the US. First amendment or freedom of speech doesn't come into play at all. Nor would it matter that he was on his own time or private twitter. Especially when you have a morals clause you are subject to. By signing you are giving up certain "rights", for which you are compensated.
The issue would be is what he said/posted considered a violation of the contract. I'm guessing the weight of the evidence is against him on that issue, depending on the jury pool.
Another issue would be how was the message broadcast? Under what context was it uttered? Was it a private statement intercepted or publicly broadcast on purpose for the world to see?
For example, let's say the guy was being interviewed and was asked about his religion, and then the interviewer asked him about his views on gay stuff. If he said, I'm a Christian therefore I am against such things, he might be OK. He would argue he has a right to answer a question honestly, etc.
But by going into more detail (burn in hell, etc.) and posting in a way that seems provocative (trying to stir up $hit, etc), it would seem to be an easier win for the team/organization in my view.
In fairness he did list other types of "sinners", not just gays, so I think that mitigates it a bit, even without his apology. But probably not enough for him to win.
The team couldn't stop a person from going to church, affirming one's religion in public (saying I am a Christian in public, wearing a cross), etc. But promoting/reciting biblical verses or views that the mainstream finds offensive in a public way probably is going beyond what a person can say is "practicing my religion" I am going to guess.
Again, I don't know all the facts of this case nor the law that applies so I'm speculating.
I’m in the opposite camp. I’m hoping the law will uphold Rugby AU’s right not to be forced to employ someone who is clearly in opposition to the style of business Rugby AU want to practice. It’s a property rights issue to me and in my book property rights rank higher than freedom of expression.
TLDR: Jesus/God/Christianity is unconditional love.
More cringe worthy research and trolling.
i) Dr Simon is looking at the wrong parts of the bible.
- Here's a hint: If you're trying to make a case for what Jesus believed regarding the laws and sexuality, looks at the parts of the bible called: "Books of the Law" or at least the Epistles.
ii) "there is nothing in the Nazarene’s ministry that condemns homosexuals to eternal damnation ― nor anyone else." - by this logic, therefore alcoholism, bestiality, adultery, divorce, etc should be acceptable Christian viewpoints too.
iii) "Surely modern Christians can grasp that a person’s sexual orientation is not something simply chosen. We are born “hard wired” with our preferences." - every biological male has a "hard wired" preference for fornication, does this therefore make adultery not a sin?
RA didn't have to hire him, but they did - and once they did, they had a contractual obligation to him.
It's an improper termination issue - RA terminated his contract because they didn't like what he said in a personal capacity.
They could have put in a Twitter/Social Media clause when his contract was up for renewal, but instead they wanted to punish him for having different views.
They did. And likewise Folau, and he breeched Rugby AU’s Code of Conduct. So they terminated his contract.
He is now free to play for someone else. Though it’s unlikely any one will offer him a job in any code. As Julie said, all he can hope for is a job in a church, unless he apologises, which is unlikely considering his extremist views.
I'm sure everyone will forget about it by next year and he will be playing again. The outrage people will find something else to be outraged about and then the media will focus on that. Or the crash will happen and then people will have something real to be worried about.
God bless Australia, a land where things are so good that the worst thing to worry about is what someone you have never met is saying online.
Separate names with a comma.