The thing no one wants to say about Israel Folau

If Mr Folau was born 200 years ago he could have been a slave to some Christian white guy. "When a slave owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property. (Exodus 21:20-21)" To day he has two choices about the Bible. Slavery is morally reprehensible in all situations. The Bible allows slavery. Therefore the Bible is an unreliable moral guide. or The Bible is a reliable moral guide. The Bible allows slavery. Therefore slavery cannot be morally reprehensible in all situations. Religious freedom of speech only when it doesn't offend.

“As a species, we will one day have chose between them. I’d like to think the countdown to that day ticked down a second or two in recent months” If this case in England is any indication... https://www.smh.com.au/national/folau-s-prospects-bolstered-by-landmark-religious-freedom-ruling-in-britain-20190704-p5240w.html

Ken catchy, Again, I can agree with most of what you say. Both homosexuality & religion are here to stay, as they both have existed for thousands of years. However, homosexuality now has a legitimacy long denied. Also however, in the tide of human affairs, the pendulum is always inclined to swing too savagely from one direction to the other. Now we need to guard against reverse discrimination against religions. They need to be protected also. Or anew if need be. Too much of political correctness speech these days is absolute bunk, & follows the maxim of, when we talk about destroying hate speech, we mean any speech that a particular sub-group might hate. It might come down to the militancy of any particular sub-group. This saga hopefully, might lead to useful outcomes. I am particularly interested in the primacy of big business management over freedom of expression having their power to influence, curtailed. At the end of the day, they are part of society, not the determinants of it.

Sheek, when I noted the inevitability of this social discourse, I was not specifically thinking of resolving the social tensions around the the SSM decision. I was thinking of the inevitability of the public questioning of fundamentalist thought itself, which would include the judgemental utterances of extreme religionists, ‘unfettered free’ market champions, and yes, also the extreme reactions of the ‘entitled’ and ‘offended’. We live, I believe (see what I did there?), in a world where many hold their opinions too tightly, with much too certainty. And we rush too rapidly to ostracise and bully the maverick, whether he or she be sexually, socially, politically or religiously divergent. For all the ‘mob’ and ‘elite’ labels being applied by the Izzy apologists here, they look very much to me like a divergent group gathered around a common hatred, aka a ‘mob’. And of course, on the other side, those applying unkind, unnecessary and inaccurate labels to the man at the centre of the drama are doing their stated priority of ‘inclusiveness’ an ironic disservice. Another colour of judgement. Personally, I believe (again) that this is a simple legal argument. Man was paid by employer to do a job, which included keeping good will with all investors, did not. The money talked and it said good night. Yet it is not just a legal matter. Because it questions the very definition of the ‘good will’ expected of the employee. A definition made more complex by the wide spectrum of opinions about ‘good’, ‘free will’, ‘belief’, ‘gay’, ‘religious practice’, ‘biblical quotation’, ‘free speech’ and what really was Jesus’ favourite meme? Which places the current dilemma in the same mysterious category as ‘life, the universe and everything’. Mysteries by definition defy certainty. It’s a big universe and we have only small brains. The only reason we haven’t annihilated each other yet with our human limitations is because we also have expansive potential, and a recognised need - one for the other. And that expansion does not happen with our brains alone. Using only our brains leaves us all with the painful aftermath of repetive head butts (like the feeling after reading a thousand Izzygate posts). Expansion needs open mindedness, yes, but ultimately open heartedness. And that cannot happen amongst the certain. Izzy isn’t in the dock in the current court case. Certainty is. And (I believe) it deserves thorough cross examination.

quote Cameron Clyne " “We would also potentially be in litigation with employees who are gay and who would say we’re not providing a workplace that is safe or respectful.” Oh God almighty. What has that to do with it? I suspect it's all nonsense

Suzy Poison, Yes, I agree with your last sentence. And most of the rest is okay too.

Sheek, it's not the "gay folk" as you call them causing the problems. They are not posting Christians go to hell. Of course, according to Australian law they are quite entitled to, unless they signed a contract and represent Australia. (free speech does not mean hate speech is ok) The problem is, Homophobia is a not not a religious freedom. Christianity needs to evolve to stay relevant to today's society. It can if it wants to, it's not that hard. Most Christians believe in gay rights and most voted Yes, for marriage equality.

Steve, I feel sorry for you that you don't think there is a God or that in Australia we should be free to tell people the truth, especially if its truth that helps them see they are on a dangerous path and one that puts their eternal soul in grave jeapardy. Do you remember the sign put on top of the Harbour bridge to celebrate the work of Arthur Stace who came to believe in God. That word, of course was 'eternity'. By the way, how did you get to be on this earth? Are your parents really that clever?

Ken Catchy, "We're engaged in a social debate we were always going to have". I agree with this 100%. If there's any good come to from the Folau saga, it is that we are having a debate that should have accompanied the SSM plebiscite. Hopefully, it might force the courts & govt to arrive at sensible laws protecting both religious folk & gay folk, freedom of speech in general & religious speech in particular. Of course, using sensible in the same sentence as govts & courts, is a stretch, I know that.

Sheek, learning ‘to co-exist with each other day-to-day in the same uneasy fashion as socialists & conservatives are required to do’ is too stagnant a scenario for mine. Like being forced to sit stoically next to an obnoxious kiwi (or Aussie) at a Bledisloe. Without productive engagement it’s not much fun. No I think we can do better. We need better than a dualist quasi-equilibrium. We need a system that fosters respectful productive debate (like the current debate except for the respectful and productive bits) that propels us collectively along a path to at least a third way. Or a fourth, and so on. Extremism at ten paces is like a kid pegging rocks over the fence at the neighbouring kid he doesn’t like, and it’s just as mature. One good thing about this debate (and there have been other things) is the Anzac alliances that have been built (on both sides of Izzygate) There are a few green shoots of humanity sprouting out of the manure OZ rugby finds itself in. At this present juncture in the war I would like to thank my learned colleagues from both sides of the debate, in New Zealand, South Africa ,Britain, Argentina, Istanbul and Sweden for their lively contributions. Also those from other planets, such as the NRL. I’ve said it before. We are engaged in a social debate we were always going to have. It just so happens to be acting out in our young nation, in the middle of our beloved (but weak) code, around this player, in this World Cup year. We’re just lucky.

Folau added the caveat, “if you don’t repent”. - he said in an interview re homosexuals on this issue " just don't do it " wtf

Sheek - you only take into account the people that actually voted. There would be less opposing as the under 18's couldn't vote and the great majority would've supported SSM. Also, just because you don't follow a religion, doesn't mean you're an atheist. Another factor is that probably the percentage saying they have a religion is lower - many people would put down their parents religion or what they were bought up in, even though they no longer follow said religion.

Say hello to my invisible friend. He doesn't like gays.

I didn't realise there was an intrinsic link between rugby and homosexuality. Last I heard, he was hired to perform athletic feats, which he did very capably. As long as he represented Australian rugby talent, he was representing what he was paid to.

That would be the same SBW who said that banking is unclean and that its unconscionable to wear his sponsor's logo? Do we have double standards for Islam and Christianity, do we?

He's salivating while waiting for the day that religious people no longer receive the normal protections of a liberal democracy. It's pretty gross.

The point is that you treat your perceived forms of wrongthink as worse than actual crimes. Ironically, its a trait that you share with fundamentalists throughout history. I don’t expect proportionality, but a bit less maliciously motivated disproportionality would be nice.

Sheek.....i think your onto something here.The Godbotherers interpretation of the bible is Hetros are the only true believers,if your not your condemned to Hell ,and supporting the Maroons.

Well Sheek, I think its Kevvies move if this were a chess game . Is he gunna do the pick n stick or follow Freddy's lead? Not that i want to give Qld any advise ..... but really are Glassby n Wallace the cream of the crop.I suggest he promotes Fafita and picks Capewell on the bench.That Qld pack was sub standard to what whe're use to.Where are the skillful forward like Scott,Parker n Thaiday? As for the backs - just show em the SOO 2 video - that should motivate them.One more thing ,pick a genuine hooker B Hunt is a great half but an average DH.

.....what is this Christian preoccupation with the goings on with the genitals of other people?