Israel Folau

I think really it's all a point of where do individuals draw the line of what they themselves find acceptable. Do you say if it's a religious belief people should be able to say anything they want without anything coming back to bite them? What about a general belief? Only.on social media etc etc. Once you accept that individuals draw their own lines why can't organisations within the law?

No 7&1/2 wrote:You did say you felt his view was offensive though LD or at least people would find it so which is the same thing for me. You also said he was trying to force his beliefs on people.

Yes, and I can see why that would cause offence. Believing something does not give you the right to force others to believe it, and that is what he could be guilty of, but after reflection, I do not think he is doing that either.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Given we all think Folou believes what he reads in the bible (?) He presumably thinks homosexuals are disgusting and or loathsome.

This is where I start finding things offensive, you are presuming, when you know nothing of what he thinks, yet here you are passing judgement. Also, it does not say homosexuals are loathsome or disgusting in the bible. Even with what it does say, why does it offend you ? You are an Athiest aren't you ?

Abomination means disgusting and or loathsome LD. Presumably Folou believes that. Or is he picking and choosing which bits to follow?

And to answer your question because homophobia even in the name of religion offends me.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think really it's all a point of where do individuals draw the line of what they themselves find acceptable. Do you say if it's a religious belief people should be able to say anything they want without anything coming back to bite them? What about a general belief? Only.on social media etc etc. Once you accept that individuals draw their own lines why can't organisations within the law?

If you say something that is a bit different, and it is going to cause a stir, then everybody in all walks of life should be challenged, countered, and pointed out if they are wrong.

But nobody should pass judgment. But there has been accusations of hate, and worse on this topic. I do not see any hate, phobias, isms or anything in what he has preached. I just see a far right Christian who cares far too much about what he believes in, and believes that everybody believes the same as him, when, they do not.

And that is coming from me, a man who has been brought up through the church, and had to endure hours and hours of sermons on a Sunday morning whilst growing up.

My first job ever, I was 16, I was an apprentice baker in Asda. My parents were horrified when the laws were changed to allow Sunday trading and I had to work on the Sabbath. Now it's the norm, and I open my business for trading on a Sunday, and my parents do not bat an eyelid, sometimes my old man steps in and helps out, he is part of the business after all, funny how I do not see him when it's caravan season though.

But am I wrong for not keeping the Sabbath holey ? Some would say yes. I would say to them to take a hike. I would not demand justice.

So again there is a line in the sand for you LD. Just a question of where it is. Given that and Folou s employers drew that line and said do not pass what's the issue?

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think really it's all a point of where do individuals draw the line of what they themselves find acceptable. Do you say if it's a religious belief people should be able to say anything they want without anything coming back to bite them? What about a general belief? Only.on social media etc etc. Once you accept that individuals draw their own lines why can't organisations within the law?

There are people who will use their religion justification for doing and saying things. Most of us would probably say it is wrong to use religion to justify killing people. Of course it happens all the time, whether it is ISIS murdering mostly Christians in Sri Lanka, White Supremacists murdering Muslims in New Zealand or White Supremacist Christians murdering Black Christians in the Southern states. 

Slightly fewer of us would denounce the Christian preacher recently banned in Ireland who has praised the shooter who murdered 40+ homosexuals in Florida. Perhaps slightly more of us would denounce the Islamic preachers who support violent Jihad.

There starts to become much less conformity about where we denounce people for what they say when it comes to their religious and moral beliefs. We would, probably, denounce someone for justifying racism by citing their religion and scriptures. Yet people generally are more tolerant of those who share their religion than any other doubly so when it comes to beliefs they share. This is human nature, but if we want to live in a multicultural society one we have to tackle. Perhaps humans were not made to live in multicultural societies, perhaps we should all retreat to our on enclaves and only commune with like minded individuals. As the father of two mixed race daughters I sincerely hope not.

Getting back purely to Folau. Yes there was an outcry, and yes people could have looked to be more tolerant. However this was not teh first time and tolerance levels can wear thin. He is not being punished for his beliefs. He is being punished for expressing them in a manner and on a forum that damaged his employers.

Yup indeed LT.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So again there is a line in the sand for you LD. Just a question of where it is. Given that and Folou s employers drew that  line and said do not pass what's the issue?

There is no issue, as long as Folau is being punished for breaking the agreement with Rugby Australia, then fine. What I do not want to see is Israel Folau being made an example of just to appease the masses.

LordDowlais wrote:


My first job ever, I was 16, I was an apprentice baker in Asda. My parents were horrified when the laws were changed to allow Sunday trading and I had to work on the Sabbath. Now it's the norm, and I open my business for trading on a Sunday, and my parents do not bat an eyelid, sometimes my old man steps in and helps out, he is part of the business after all, funny how I do not see him when it's caravan season though.

But am I wrong for not keeping the Sabbath holey ? Some would say yes. I would say to them to take a hike. I would not demand justice.

I hope you mean holy

I hope that if you had an employee who did not wish to work on their Sabbath on religious grounds you would accommodate that (when I draw up the rotas I have to account for a Presbyterian not working on Sundays and a Jewish person not working from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday).

However if said employee started telling everyone you were going to hell for keeping the business running while they were on Sabbath, well then I feel you would have grounds for dismissal. I am fully supportive of showing tolerance for people's religion, but I do expect that tolerance to be two way.

LondonTiger wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think really it's all a point of where do individuals draw the line of what they themselves find acceptable. Do you say if it's a religious belief people should be able to say anything they want without anything coming back to bite them? What about a general belief? Only.on social media etc etc. Once you accept that individuals draw their own lines why can't organisations within the law?

There are people who will use their religion justification for doing and saying things. Most of us would probably say it is wrong to use religion to justify killing people. Of course it happens all the time, whether it is ISIS murdering mostly Christians in Sri Lanka, White Supremacists murdering Muslims in New Zealand or White Supremacist Christians murdering Black Christians in the Southern states. 

Slightly fewer of us would denounce the Christian preacher recently banned in Ireland who has praised the shooter who murdered 40+ homosexuals in Florida. Perhaps slightly more of us would denounce the Islamic preachers who support violent Jihad.

There starts to become much less conformity about where we denounce people for what they say when it comes to their religious and moral beliefs. We would, probably, denounce someone for justifying racism by citing their religion and scriptures. Yet people generally are more tolerant of those who share their religion than any other doubly so when it comes to beliefs they share. This is human nature, but if we want to live in a multicultural society one we have to tackle. Perhaps humans were not made to live in multicultural societies, perhaps we should all retreat to our on enclaves and only commune with like minded individuals. As the father of two mixed race daughters I sincerely hope not.

Getting back purely to Folau. Yes there was an outcry, and yes people could have looked to be more tolerant. However this was not teh first time and tolerance levels can wear thin. He is not being punished for his beliefs. He is being punished for expressing them in a manner and on a forum that damaged his employers.

I agree, but Folau has done none of that.

If we were talking about those incidents, then I would whole heartedly agree with you, but we are not, we are talking about Israel Folau.

LondonTiger wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:


My first job ever, I was 16, I was an apprentice baker in Asda. My parents were horrified when the laws were changed to allow Sunday trading and I had to work on the Sabbath. Now it's the norm, and I open my business for trading on a Sunday, and my parents do not bat an eyelid, sometimes my old man steps in and helps out, he is part of the business after all, funny how I do not see him when it's caravan season though.

But am I wrong for not keeping the Sabbath holey ? Some would say yes. I would say to them to take a hike. I would not demand justice.

I hope you mean holy

I hope that if you had an employee who did not wish to work on their Sabbath on religious grounds you would accommodate that (when I draw up the rotas I have to account for a Presbyterian not working on Sundays and a Jewish person not working from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday).

However if said employee started telling everyone you were going to hell for keeping the business running while they were on Sabbath, well then I feel you would have grounds for dismissal. I am fully supportive of showing tolerance for people's religion, but I do expect that tolerance to be two way.

I have a guy working for me, from my church, he is a family friend, he does not work on the Sabbath, nor would I expect him to. I always get told I am going to hell, for one thing or another, I tell them to shut up.

I haven't been following this thread in detail, however we are 11 pages in now and it seems like the same debates are happening over and over again, generally with the same people.

Is that a fair comment?

This is obviously a very controversial topic that transcends the game of rugby. I'm just very conscious that this a rugby forum and while non-rugby chat is of course OK (have you seen the Scottish threads!) I'm wondering if this debate has run its course.

I'm happy to keep the thread open if people think there is more to talk about, but other than news updates on what happens to Folau I well and truly think it's been done to death.

The only thing to come is his actual punishment but he seems intent on walking away anyway.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So again there is a line in the sand for you LD. Just a question of where it is. Given that and Folou s employers drew that  line and said do not pass what's the issue?

There is no issue, as long as Folau is being punished for breaking the agreement with Rugby Australia, then fine. What I do not want to see is Israel Folau being made an example of just to appease the masses.

Yes. It's for repeatedly breaching the terms of his contract. He did it last year as well, and his only punishment was being talked to and handed a renewed contract. But he breached it again this year, and Rugby Australia has clearly decided that the potential damage to its own reputation and popularity outweighs the cost of losing him as a player.

RDW wrote:I haven't been following this thread in detail, however we are 11 pages in now and it seems like the same debates are happening over and over again, generally with the same people.

Is that a fair comment?

This is obviously a very controversial topic that transcends the game of rugby. I'm just very conscious that this a rugby forum and while non-rugby chat is of course OK (have you seen the Scottish threads!) I'm wondering if this debate has run its course.

I'm happy to keep the thread open if people think there is more to talk about, but other than news updates on what happens to Folau I well and truly think it's been done to death.

I have another couple of essays to write

However yeah, we are discussing the same things in ever decreasing circles.

Can I make the last comment before you lock it?

Collapse2005 wrote:Can I make the last comment before you lock it?

Only if it's written on the form of a Haiku!

Ha fair enough but I concede im not creative enough

Homophobic tweet
Unrepentant Israel
Cherry blossom falls.

I know we are about to lock, but I was interested to see this in the NZ Herald:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=12230648

A South African Super Rugby coach says being forced to play on Good Friday led to a mental breakdown.

Swys de Bruin, coach of the Johannesburg-based Lions and a Springboks assistant, quit a tour in April just before the Lions were due to play the Chiefs in Hamilton.

De Bruin told You magazine that he was tormented by the Good Friday assignment and also the indecent assault conviction against the team's defence coach Joey Mongalo, after an incident in Sydney last year.

The 59-year-old de Bruin said his hotel bed sheets were drenched after he broke out in a cold sweat, and his wife Marilize ordered him home.

"The Lions are a Christian team and I found it incredibly difficult to play on Good Friday," said de Bruin, who led the Lions into last year's final against the Crusaders.

"Many of our supporters criticised us for that too. I felt I should've taken a stand, but I didn't.

"I started getting a hollow feeling in my stomach and thought 'today I'm saying goodbye to the world'. I called my wife and told her I felt as if I were drowning, but didn't know why. She said I should come home immediately."

I mentioned before that devout Christianity isn't just characteristic of Pacific Islanders. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald, says one of Folau's South African Waratah team mates, Le Roux Roets, has joined Folau's church.

Folau has also recruited Waratahs second-rower Le Roux Roets to the church, with the young South African recently filmed receiving a baptism by Folau's younger brother John, who is also at the Waratahs. Roets also gave a "testimony" at the church on Sunday, during the same service in which Folau spoke thoughtfully on the cost of his recent actions.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-union/key-folau-relationship-on-the-rocks-as-end-looms-with-rugby-20190513-p51mtj.html

Poorfour wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So again there is a line in the sand for you LD. Just a question of where it is. Given that and Folou s employers drew that  line and said do not pass what's the issue?

There is no issue, as long as Folau is being punished for breaking the agreement with Rugby Australia, then fine. What I do not want to see is Israel Folau being made an example of just to appease the masses.

Yes. It's for repeatedly breaching the terms of his contract. He did it last year as well, and his only punishment was being talked to and handed a renewed contract. But he breached it again this year, and Rugby Australia has clearly decided that the potential damage to its own reputation and popularity outweighs the cost of losing him as a player.

Has anyone actually seen the contents of the contract that Folau is said to have breached?

Now the end is here.
Winter has come for this thread
Time to say goodbye

Israel is Goneburger

Castle called the decision "a painful situation for the game" but said Folau left them with no choice.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12231464