Suppose a Christian school comes up with a new contract for its staff which says that no staff member shall act in a way that goes against the basic principles of the school at any time, and all the staff sign it.

After a few weeks three events make the school board very cross.

1. The religion teacher publishes on Facebook that he has had a revelation, and that the Jews were right. All Christians will spend eternity in hell, along with the fornicators and atheists.

2. A science teacher publishes on a science forum that he is an atheist, but even if he wasn’t, the theory of evolution would still be perfectly consistent with Christian principles.

3. A science lab assistant publishes on a religious forum that as a devout Christian he considers the idea of hell to be totally inconsistent with the concept of a loving god, especially for those whose only sin is to have had sexual relations with a person of the same sex.

The school board members are all fundamentalists and literalists and want to sack all three of them.

Can they do this under contract law?

Should they be able to do this?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Can they do this under contract law?

Should they be able to do this?

Yes.

No.

For the moment, yes they can. Their mission, their reason for existence, is to churn out students drummed in their particular version of religious doctrine and interpretation.

Should they be allowed to?No, I think not.

I’ll return to this tomorrow.

In my world, the only religious schools of any kind that would be permitted would be those with only adult students, and they would receive no government funding.

So I wouldn’t really be concerned about their contracts or lack thereof. Presumably they’d have to meet minimum standards of employment practice as determined by law.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Suppose a Christian school comes up with a new contract for its staff which says that no staff member shall act in a way that goes against the basic principles of the school at any time, and all the staff sign it.

After a few weeks three events make the school board very cross.

1. The religion teacher publishes on Facebook that he has had a revelation, and that the Jews were right. All Christians will spend eternity in hell, along with the fornicators and atheists.

2. A science teacher publishes on a science forum that he is an atheist, but even if he wasn’t, the theory of evolution would still be perfectly consistent with Christian principles.

3. A science lab assistant publishes on a religious forum that as a devout Christian he considers the idea of hell to be totally inconsistent with the concept of a loving god, especially for those whose only sin is to have had sexual relations with a person of the same sex.

The school board members are all fundamentalists and literalists and want to sack all three of them.

Can they do this under contract law?

Should they be able to do this?

Agree with 303, yes, they can do that under contract law. As for whether, well, there are a lot of problems with education. Some countries (Finland or Slovenia perhaps) ban non-government schools outright.

I once went along to an open day by the local catholic school. Religious schools in Australia have to pussyfoot around the topic of religion, they accept children who are atheists and children whose parents are atheists. They need to avoid pushing religion down anyone’s throat or there will be a mass walk-out.

(A mass walk-out, catholic school, did I just say that).

As a religious school it had one, and only one, great selling point.

Free counselling for parents.

That’s free counselling for dealing with any of life’s problems, not just difficulties in bringing up children, but also financial and job related difficulties, dealing with difficult people, grief, mental health difficulties, problems with addiction. A lot of people could benefit from that at some time in their lives. Although religion plays a huge part in the counselling industry, all counselling by religious people that I’ve encountered is completely religion-free unless the client specifically asks for religious advice.

For many people, free and immediate counselling from someone you trust is a damn tempting offer.

Public schools don’t offer that.

Should we treat other public figures like journalists, tv presenters and personalities the same way? I don’t think one could mount an argument that said a sportsperson was any less an ‘entertainer’ than an actor for example.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Should we treat other public figures like journalists, tv presenters and personalities the same way? I don’t think one could mount an argument that said a sportsperson was any less an ‘entertainer’ than an actor for example.

Treat them the same way as school employees?

I wouldn’t say that journalists, tv presenters and personalities and actors were all one group. I’d put actors and sportspeople in a similar category to teachers, which is a different category to non-teaching school employees. I’d say journalists and tv presenters (and politicians) were another level again.

So the consensus seems to be that the contract governs for all 3 cases.

I don’t think so.

Firstly any contract clause that is inconsistent with the laws of the land is invalid.

Secondly the contract does not define “Christian principles”, and it does not state that these principles are whatever the school board says they are.

And thirdly we have the imbalance of power which may affect how contract terms are interpreted.

It seems to me that a sacking for Case 1 would certainly be valid under the contract, since both parties recognise that the teacher is no longer following Christian principles and because he/she is actively involved in the teaching of religion.

Sacking for Case 3 I think would certainly not be valid under the contract, because it is a matter of opinion whether Christian principles were followed, and lab assistants do not have direct teaching responsibilities.

Case 2 is more debateable, but I would say that the teacher had a strong case because:
1) Discrimination on the basis or religious belief is against the law.
2) He/she is not involved in the teaching of religion.
3) The education authority syllabus requires the teaching of the accepted Theory of Evolution.
4) Teaching the Theory of Evolution is not against Christian Principles, or at least it is a matter of opinion.

So if we assign a score of -10 for Case1, 0 for Case 2 and 10 for Case 3, where would we put the Folau sacking on that scale?

I’d rate it about a 5 I think, maybe higher.

The Rev Dodgson said:

So the consensus seems to be that the contract governs for all 3 cases.

I don’t think so.

Firstly any contract clause that is inconsistent with the laws of the land is invalid.

Secondly the contract does not define “Christian principles”, and it does not state that these principles are whatever the school board says they are.

And thirdly we have the imbalance of power which may affect how contract terms are interpreted.

It seems to me that a sacking for Case 1 would certainly be valid under the contract, since both parties recognise that the teacher is no longer following Christian principles and because he/she is actively involved in the teaching of religion.

Sacking for Case 3 I think would certainly not be valid under the contract, because it is a matter of opinion whether Christian principles were followed, and lab assistants do not have direct teaching responsibilities.

Case 2 is more debateable, but I would say that the teacher had a strong case because:
1) Discrimination on the basis or religious belief is against the law.
2) He/she is not involved in the teaching of religion.
3) The education authority syllabus requires the teaching of the accepted Theory of Evolution.
4) Teaching the Theory of Evolution is not against Christian Principles, or at least it is a matter of opinion.

So if we assign a score of -10 for Case1, 0 for Case 2 and 10 for Case 3, where would we put the Folau sacking on that scale?

I’d rate it about a 5 I think, maybe higher.

But it’s all written in English.

The Rev Dodgson said:

So the consensus seems to be that the contract governs for all 3 cases.

I don’t think so.

Firstly any contract clause that is inconsistent with the laws of the land is invalid.

Secondly the contract does not define “Christian principles”, and it does not state that these principles are whatever the school board says they are.

And thirdly we have the imbalance of power which may affect how contract terms are interpreted.

It seems to me that a sacking for Case 1 would certainly be valid under the contract, since both parties recognise that the teacher is no longer following Christian principles and because he/she is actively involved in the teaching of religion.

Sacking for Case 3 I think would certainly not be valid under the contract, because it is a matter of opinion whether Christian principles were followed, and lab assistants do not have direct teaching responsibilities.

Case 2 is more debateable, but I would say that the teacher had a strong case because:
1) Discrimination on the basis or religious belief is against the law.
2) He/she is not involved in the teaching of religion.
3) The education authority syllabus requires the teaching of the accepted Theory of Evolution.
4) Teaching the Theory of Evolution is not against Christian Principles, or at least it is a matter of opinion.

So if we assign a score of -10 for Case1, 0 for Case 2 and 10 for Case 3, where would we put the Folau sacking on that scale?

I’d rate it about a 5 I think, maybe higher.

“Christian principles” are entirely matters of opinion. Religious schools don’t have to follow anti-discrimination laws that apply elsewhere.

And “discrimination on the basis of religious belief” is not necessarily against the law (especially not in the case of religious schools and other religious bodies).

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

So the consensus seems to be that the contract governs for all 3 cases.

I don’t think so.

Firstly any contract clause that is inconsistent with the laws of the land is invalid.

Secondly the contract does not define “Christian principles”, and it does not state that these principles are whatever the school board says they are.

And thirdly we have the imbalance of power which may affect how contract terms are interpreted.

It seems to me that a sacking for Case 1 would certainly be valid under the contract, since both parties recognise that the teacher is no longer following Christian principles and because he/she is actively involved in the teaching of religion.

Sacking for Case 3 I think would certainly not be valid under the contract, because it is a matter of opinion whether Christian principles were followed, and lab assistants do not have direct teaching responsibilities.

Case 2 is more debateable, but I would say that the teacher had a strong case because:
1) Discrimination on the basis or religious belief is against the law.
2) He/she is not involved in the teaching of religion.
3) The education authority syllabus requires the teaching of the accepted Theory of Evolution.
4) Teaching the Theory of Evolution is not against Christian Principles, or at least it is a matter of opinion.

So if we assign a score of -10 for Case1, 0 for Case 2 and 10 for Case 3, where would we put the Folau sacking on that scale?

I’d rate it about a 5 I think, maybe higher.

“Christian principles” are entirely matters of opinion. Religious schools don’t have to follow anti-discrimination laws that apply elsewhere.

And “discrimination on the basis of religious belief” is not necessarily against the law (especially not in the case of religious schools and other religious bodies).

Would atheism be allowed to say no religion using the above as a precedence

The Rev Dodgson said:

Secondly the contract does not define “Christian principles”, and it does not state that these principles are whatever the school board says they are.

I read the words in the OP: “…contract for its staff which says that no staff member shall act in a way that goes against the basic principles of the school at any time” as having the opposite meaning.

Cymek said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

So the consensus seems to be that the contract governs for all 3 cases.

I don’t think so.

Firstly any contract clause that is inconsistent with the laws of the land is invalid.

Secondly the contract does not define “Christian principles”, and it does not state that these principles are whatever the school board says they are.

And thirdly we have the imbalance of power which may affect how contract terms are interpreted.

It seems to me that a sacking for Case 1 would certainly be valid under the contract, since both parties recognise that the teacher is no longer following Christian principles and because he/she is actively involved in the teaching of religion.

Sacking for Case 3 I think would certainly not be valid under the contract, because it is a matter of opinion whether Christian principles were followed, and lab assistants do not have direct teaching responsibilities.

Case 2 is more debateable, but I would say that the teacher had a strong case because:
1) Discrimination on the basis or religious belief is against the law.
2) He/she is not involved in the teaching of religion.
3) The education authority syllabus requires the teaching of the accepted Theory of Evolution.
4) Teaching the Theory of Evolution is not against Christian Principles, or at least it is a matter of opinion.

So if we assign a score of -10 for Case1, 0 for Case 2 and 10 for Case 3, where would we put the Folau sacking on that scale?

I’d rate it about a 5 I think, maybe higher.

“Christian principles” are entirely matters of opinion. Religious schools don’t have to follow anti-discrimination laws that apply elsewhere.

And “discrimination on the basis of religious belief” is not necessarily against the law (especially not in the case of religious schools and other religious bodies).

Would atheism be allowed to say no religion using the above as a precedence

I’d imagine atheist institutions would be entitled to stipulate that their employees need to be atheists, if employed in capacities where their beliefs are relevant.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

So the consensus seems to be that the contract governs for all 3 cases.

I don’t think so.

Firstly any contract clause that is inconsistent with the laws of the land is invalid.

Secondly the contract does not define “Christian principles”, and it does not state that these principles are whatever the school board says they are.

And thirdly we have the imbalance of power which may affect how contract terms are interpreted.

It seems to me that a sacking for Case 1 would certainly be valid under the contract, since both parties recognise that the teacher is no longer following Christian principles and because he/she is actively involved in the teaching of religion.

Sacking for Case 3 I think would certainly not be valid under the contract, because it is a matter of opinion whether Christian principles were followed, and lab assistants do not have direct teaching responsibilities.

Case 2 is more debateable, but I would say that the teacher had a strong case because:
1) Discrimination on the basis or religious belief is against the law.
2) He/she is not involved in the teaching of religion.
3) The education authority syllabus requires the teaching of the accepted Theory of Evolution.
4) Teaching the Theory of Evolution is not against Christian Principles, or at least it is a matter of opinion.

So if we assign a score of -10 for Case1, 0 for Case 2 and 10 for Case 3, where would we put the Folau sacking on that scale?

I’d rate it about a 5 I think, maybe higher.

“Christian principles” are entirely matters of opinion.

That’s what I said.

Bubblecar said:

Religious schools don’t have to follow anti-discrimination laws that apply elsewhere.

They have some relaxations, but they are not free to do as they like.

Bubblecar said:

And “discrimination on the basis of religious belief” is not necessarily against the law (especially not in the case of religious schools and other religious bodies).

But it certainly is against the law in some cases, even for religious schools.

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Secondly the contract does not define “Christian principles”, and it does not state that these principles are whatever the school board says they are.

I read the words in the OP: “…contract for its staff which says that no staff member shall act in a way that goes against the basic principles of the school at any time” as having the opposite meaning.

My presumption is that these principles would be written, and it would be stated who are the arbiters of this list.

party_pants said:

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Secondly the contract does not define “Christian principles”, and it does not state that these principles are whatever the school board says they are.

I read the words in the OP: “…contract for its staff which says that no staff member shall act in a way that goes against the basic principles of the school at any time” as having the opposite meaning.

My presumption is that these principles would be written, and it would be stated who are the arbiters of this list.

I don’t know why you would presume that, but for the sake of argument lets say that the contract did not define what the principles were, or who would define them.

Since the clause is dealing with activities outside the school, the assumption would have to be that the individual would use their best judgement on these questions, wouldn’t it?

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

party_pants said:

I read the words in the OP: “…contract for its staff which says that no staff member shall act in a way that goes against the basic principles of the school at any time” as having the opposite meaning.

My presumption is that these principles would be written, and it would be stated who are the arbiters of this list.

I don’t know why you would presume that, but for the sake of argument lets say that the contract did not define what the principles were, or who would define them.

Since the clause is dealing with activities outside the school, the assumption would have to be that the individual would use their best judgement on these questions, wouldn’t it?

It’s basic contract law that such terms are defined

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Should we treat other public figures like journalists, tv presenters and personalities the same way? I don’t think one could mount an argument that said a sportsperson was any less an ‘entertainer’ than an actor for example.

Treat them the same way as school employees?

I wouldn’t say that journalists, tv presenters and personalities and actors were all one group. I’d put actors and sportspeople in a similar category to teachers, which is a different category to non-teaching school employees. I’d say journalists and tv presenters (and politicians) were another level again.

I’m interested specifically to know whether you think it would be okay for an actor on a prominent program to speak out like Folau did and be unpunished by their employer?

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

My presumption is that these principles would be written, and it would be stated who are the arbiters of this list.

I don’t know why you would presume that, but for the sake of argument lets say that the contract did not define what the principles were, or who would define them.

Since the clause is dealing with activities outside the school, the assumption would have to be that the individual would use their best judgement on these questions, wouldn’t it?

It’s basic contract law that such terms are defined

So if the terms are not defined the contract is invalid?

In that case the employees cannot be sacked in any of the 3 cases.

But I do not agree that a contract having some undefined terms is invalid.

I think the Rev needs to accept that not all religious views are going to be regarded as acceptable by broader society.

What is and is not socially acceptable tends to change with time. Anti-gay views now tend to be seen as anti-social, to a much greater degree than was the case a couple decades ago.

Therefore there is going to be a higher social penalty to pay for promoting such views, and “religious freedom” will increasingly be seen as an invalid excuse.

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t know why you would presume that, but for the sake of argument lets say that the contract did not define what the principles were, or who would define them.

Since the clause is dealing with activities outside the school, the assumption would have to be that the individual would use their best judgement on these questions, wouldn’t it?

It’s basic contract law that such terms are defined

So if the terms are not defined the contract is invalid?

In that case the employees cannot be sacked in any of the 3 cases.

But I do not agree that a contract having some undefined terms is invalid.

No. I meant it is Legal Contracts 101. Any lawyer worth his salt would write it into the contract. Any school board exercising due diligence would have employment contracts drafted by a proper lawyer.

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Should we treat other public figures like journalists, tv presenters and personalities the same way? I don’t think one could mount an argument that said a sportsperson was any less an ‘entertainer’ than an actor for example.

Treat them the same way as school employees?

I wouldn’t say that journalists, tv presenters and personalities and actors were all one group. I’d put actors and sportspeople in a similar category to teachers, which is a different category to non-teaching school employees. I’d say journalists and tv presenters (and politicians) were another level again.

I’m interested specifically to know whether you think it would be okay for an actor on a prominent program to speak out like Folau did and be unpunished by their employer?

I suppose it would depend on the specific circumstances, but I’m struggling to think of any circumstances where it would be OK to punish an actor for stating their religious beliefs in public, no matter how high profile that actor might be.

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

It’s basic contract law that such terms are defined

So if the terms are not defined the contract is invalid?

In that case the employees cannot be sacked in any of the 3 cases.

But I do not agree that a contract having some undefined terms is invalid.

No. I meant it is Legal Contracts 101. Any lawyer worth his salt would write it into the contract. Any school board exercising due diligence would have employment contracts drafted by a proper lawyer.

It may be, but I don’t see how that is relevant to the discussion.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Treat them the same way as school employees?

I wouldn’t say that journalists, tv presenters and personalities and actors were all one group. I’d put actors and sportspeople in a similar category to teachers, which is a different category to non-teaching school employees. I’d say journalists and tv presenters (and politicians) were another level again.

I’m interested specifically to know whether you think it would be okay for an actor on a prominent program to speak out like Folau did and be unpunished by their employer?

I suppose it would depend on the specific circumstances, but I’m struggling to think of any circumstances where it would be OK to punish an actor for stating their religious beliefs in public, no matter how high profile that actor might be.

The circumstance in which they are stating views that are widely regarded as socially unacceptable.

An actor stating that women who have sex outside of marriage should be stoned to death might find employment in somewhere like Saudi Arabia, but would be unlikely to find a job in a Western country.

Bubblecar said:

I think the Rev needs to accept that not all religious views are going to be regarded as acceptable by broader society.

What is and is not socially acceptable tends to change with time. Anti-gay views now tend to be seen as anti-social, to a much greater degree than was the case a couple decades ago.

Therefore there is going to be a higher social penalty to pay for promoting such views, and “religious freedom” will increasingly be seen as an invalid excuse.

I think Bubblecar needs to accept that not all atheistic views are going to be regarded as acceptable by broader society.

If he wants to continue to have the freedom to express his views without financial penalty, even if some people find them offensive, he should also accept that others must have this freedom, even if he and many others finds their views offensive.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I’m interested specifically to know whether you think it would be okay for an actor on a prominent program to speak out like Folau did and be unpunished by their employer?

I suppose it would depend on the specific circumstances, but I’m struggling to think of any circumstances where it would be OK to punish an actor for stating their religious beliefs in public, no matter how high profile that actor might be.

The circumstance in which they are stating views that are widely regarded as socially unacceptable.

An actor stating that women who have sex outside of marriage should be stoned to death might find employment in somewhere like Saudi Arabia, but would be unlikely to find a job in a Western country.

And to protect the reputation of their substancial should they be allowed to limit the free speech of their employees under the pain of voiding their contract?

Perhaps religion shouldn’t get an exemption for discrimination when related to employment, bit of an outdated concept and a cop out for being a bigot.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

I think the Rev needs to accept that not all religious views are going to be regarded as acceptable by broader society.

What is and is not socially acceptable tends to change with time. Anti-gay views now tend to be seen as anti-social, to a much greater degree than was the case a couple decades ago.

Therefore there is going to be a higher social penalty to pay for promoting such views, and “religious freedom” will increasingly be seen as an invalid excuse.

I think Bubblecar needs to accept that not all atheistic views are going to be regarded as acceptable by broader society.

If he wants to continue to have the freedom to express his views without financial penalty, even if some people find them offensive, he should also accept that others must have this freedom, even if he and many others finds their views offensive.

However, that’s not the case. Atheism is not widely regarded as socially unacceptable in this country and in fact is becoming increasingly commonplace.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I suppose it would depend on the specific circumstances, but I’m struggling to think of any circumstances where it would be OK to punish an actor for stating their religious beliefs in public, no matter how high profile that actor might be.

The circumstance in which they are stating views that are widely regarded as socially unacceptable.

An actor stating that women who have sex outside of marriage should be stoned to death might find employment in somewhere like Saudi Arabia, but would be unlikely to find a job in a Western country.

And to protect the reputation of their substancial should they be allowed to limit the free speech of their employees under the pain of voiding their contract?

Substancial investment.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I’m interested specifically to know whether you think it would be okay for an actor on a prominent program to speak out like Folau did and be unpunished by their employer?

I suppose it would depend on the specific circumstances, but I’m struggling to think of any circumstances where it would be OK to punish an actor for stating their religious beliefs in public, no matter how high profile that actor might be.

The circumstance in which they are stating views that are widely regarded as socially unacceptable.

An actor stating that women who have sex outside of marriage should be stoned to death might find employment in somewhere like Saudi Arabia, but would be unlikely to find a job in a Western country.

In that case they would be promoting an illegal act, which s illegal.

As far as I know Folau did not promote any illegal act. He merely stated religious views that are shared by millions of people.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bubblecar said:

The circumstance in which they are stating views that are widely regarded as socially unacceptable.

An actor stating that women who have sex outside of marriage should be stoned to death might find employment in somewhere like Saudi Arabia, but would be unlikely to find a job in a Western country.

And to protect the reputation of their substancial should they be allowed to limit the free speech of their employees under the pain of voiding their contract?

Substancial investment.

You mean substantial :)

Yes they should be entitled to sack performers who make public comments that are widely seen as highly offensive or anti-social. It quite often happens in these days of social media rantings etc.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

I think the Rev needs to accept that not all religious views are going to be regarded as acceptable by broader society.

What is and is not socially acceptable tends to change with time. Anti-gay views now tend to be seen as anti-social, to a much greater degree than was the case a couple decades ago.

Therefore there is going to be a higher social penalty to pay for promoting such views, and “religious freedom” will increasingly be seen as an invalid excuse.

I think Bubblecar needs to accept that not all atheistic views are going to be regarded as acceptable by broader society.

If he wants to continue to have the freedom to express his views without financial penalty, even if some people find them offensive, he should also accept that others must have this freedom, even if he and many others finds their views offensive.

However, that’s not the case. Atheism is not widely regarded as socially unacceptable in this country and in fact is becoming increasingly commonplace.

I fear you are wrong on that. Atheism is very widely regarded as evil and socially unacceptable in this country. Whether such views are increasing or decreasing is not clear to me, but t is quite possible that it is the former.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I suppose it would depend on the specific circumstances, but I’m struggling to think of any circumstances where it would be OK to punish an actor for stating their religious beliefs in public, no matter how high profile that actor might be.

The circumstance in which they are stating views that are widely regarded as socially unacceptable.

An actor stating that women who have sex outside of marriage should be stoned to death might find employment in somewhere like Saudi Arabia, but would be unlikely to find a job in a Western country.

In that case they would be promoting an illegal act, which s illegal.

As far as I know Folau did not promote any illegal act. He merely stated religious views that are shared by millions of people.

In Western countries, a shrinking number of people, fortunately.

But you seem unwilling to embrace laudable social progress.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I think Bubblecar needs to accept that not all atheistic views are going to be regarded as acceptable by broader society.

If he wants to continue to have the freedom to express his views without financial penalty, even if some people find them offensive, he should also accept that others must have this freedom, even if he and many others finds their views offensive.

However, that’s not the case. Atheism is not widely regarded as socially unacceptable in this country and in fact is becoming increasingly commonplace.

I fear you are wrong on that. Atheism is very widely regarded as evil and socially unacceptable in this country. Whether such views are increasing or decreasing is not clear to me, but t is quite possible that it is the former.

I think you’re mistaken.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I think Bubblecar needs to accept that not all atheistic views are going to be regarded as acceptable by broader society.

If he wants to continue to have the freedom to express his views without financial penalty, even if some people find them offensive, he should also accept that others must have this freedom, even if he and many others finds their views offensive.

However, that’s not the case. Atheism is not widely regarded as socially unacceptable in this country and in fact is becoming increasingly commonplace.

I fear you are wrong on that. Atheism is very widely regarded as evil and socially unacceptable in this country. Whether such views are increasing or decreasing is not clear to me, but t is quite possible that it is the former.

It is would reasonable people care if you are atheist

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The circumstance in which they are stating views that are widely regarded as socially unacceptable.

An actor stating that women who have sex outside of marriage should be stoned to death might find employment in somewhere like Saudi Arabia, but would be unlikely to find a job in a Western country.

In that case they would be promoting an illegal act, which s illegal.

As far as I know Folau did not promote any illegal act. He merely stated religious views that are shared by millions of people.

In Western countries, a shrinking number of people, fortunately.

But you seem unwilling to embrace laudable social progress.

I am very happy to accept laudable social progress.

One type of laudable social progress that I am happy to accept is protection of the freedom of individuals to express their religious beliefs, whatever they are, so long as such expression does not promote illegal activity.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

However, that’s not the case. Atheism is not widely regarded as socially unacceptable in this country and in fact is becoming increasingly commonplace.

I fear you are wrong on that. Atheism is very widely regarded as evil and socially unacceptable in this country. Whether such views are increasing or decreasing is not clear to me, but t is quite possible that it is the former.

I think you’re mistaken.

I think you must lead a very sheltered life.

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

However, that’s not the case. Atheism is not widely regarded as socially unacceptable in this country and in fact is becoming increasingly commonplace.

I fear you are wrong on that. Atheism is very widely regarded as evil and socially unacceptable in this country. Whether such views are increasing or decreasing is not clear to me, but t is quite possible that it is the former.

It is would reasonable people care if you are atheist

I don’t know what that means.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

In that case they would be promoting an illegal act, which s illegal.

As far as I know Folau did not promote any illegal act. He merely stated religious views that are shared by millions of people.

In Western countries, a shrinking number of people, fortunately.

But you seem unwilling to embrace laudable social progress.

I am very happy to accept laudable social progress.

One type of laudable social progress that I am happy to accept is protection of the freedom of individuals to express their religious beliefs, whatever they are, so long as such expression does not promote illegal activity.

I don’t find that laudable or progressive.

There are quite a lot of anti-social religious beliefs that should be actively discouraged.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

In Western countries, a shrinking number of people, fortunately.

But you seem unwilling to embrace laudable social progress.

I am very happy to accept laudable social progress.

One type of laudable social progress that I am happy to accept is protection of the freedom of individuals to express their religious beliefs, whatever they are, so long as such expression does not promote illegal activity.

I don’t find that laudable or progressive.

There are quite a lot of anti-social religious beliefs that should be actively discouraged.

I haven’t suggested otherwise.

There are also quite a lot of anti-social non-religious beliefs that should be actively discouraged.

That doesn’t mean that people should be financially punished if they express those views, even if they do play rugby.

Better go and do some work.

In summary, I disagree with what both Israel Folau and Bubblecar say, but I shall fight to the point of mild inconvenience to defend their right to say it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I am very happy to accept laudable social progress.

One type of laudable social progress that I am happy to accept is protection of the freedom of individuals to express their religious beliefs, whatever they are, so long as such expression does not promote illegal activity.

I don’t find that laudable or progressive.

There are quite a lot of anti-social religious beliefs that should be actively discouraged.

I haven’t suggested otherwise.

There are also quite a lot of anti-social non-religious beliefs that should be actively discouraged.

That doesn’t mean that people should be financially punished if they express those views, even if they do play rugby.

If you publicly express anti-social views, don’t be surprised if your employer understandably regards you as a liability, especially if you’re employed in a highly visible public role.

I really don’t see why you have a problem with that.

BTW, anybody else care to give the Folau case a rating on the -10 to +10 scale?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I fear you are wrong on that. Atheism is very widely regarded as evil and socially unacceptable in this country. Whether such views are increasing or decreasing is not clear to me, but t is quite possible that it is the former.

It is would reasonable people care if you are atheist

I don’t know what that means.

Would a reasonable person care if you are atheist, religious people might call you out on it but then you can reply in kind and you point of view has logic on its side

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I am very happy to accept laudable social progress.

One type of laudable social progress that I am happy to accept is protection of the freedom of individuals to express their religious beliefs, whatever they are, so long as such expression does not promote illegal activity.

I don’t find that laudable or progressive.

There are quite a lot of anti-social religious beliefs that should be actively discouraged.

I haven’t suggested otherwise.

There are also quite a lot of anti-social non-religious beliefs that should be actively discouraged.

That doesn’t mean that people should be financially punished if they express those views, even if they do play rugby.

If they signed something then they knew the consequences

scAustralians, such

www

what about good ol’ Col Rand then eh, what about cr Kaepernick

?

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

I don’t find that laudable or progressive.

There are quite a lot of anti-social religious beliefs that should be actively discouraged.

I haven’t suggested otherwise.

There are also quite a lot of anti-social non-religious beliefs that should be actively discouraged.

That doesn’t mean that people should be financially punished if they express those views, even if they do play rugby.

If you publicly express anti-social views, don’t be surprised if your employer understandably regards you as a liability, especially if you’re employed in a highly visible public role.

I really don’t see why you have a problem with that.

Don’t worry, I shall continue to defend your right to state such short-sighted and illiberal views.

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

I don’t find that laudable or progressive.

There are quite a lot of anti-social religious beliefs that should be actively discouraged.

I haven’t suggested otherwise.

There are also quite a lot of anti-social non-religious beliefs that should be actively discouraged.

That doesn’t mean that people should be financially punished if they express those views, even if they do play rugby.

If they signed something then they knew the consequences

So the circle is complete once again.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I haven’t suggested otherwise.

There are also quite a lot of anti-social non-religious beliefs that should be actively discouraged.

That doesn’t mean that people should be financially punished if they express those views, even if they do play rugby.

If you publicly express anti-social views, don’t be surprised if your employer understandably regards you as a liability, especially if you’re employed in a highly visible public role.

I really don’t see why you have a problem with that.

Don’t worry, I shall continue to defend your right to state such short-sighted and illiberal views.

And I’ll continue to be convinced that you have no idea of the meaning of “illiberal”.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

If you publicly express anti-social views, don’t be surprised if your employer understandably regards you as a liability, especially if you’re employed in a highly visible public role.

I really don’t see why you have a problem with that.

Don’t worry, I shall continue to defend your right to state such short-sighted and illiberal views.

And I’ll continue to be convinced that you have no idea of the meaning of “illiberal”.

Likewise, I’m sure.

I guess the contract has a theme, or gist, not all of which can be formalized.

have to say it’s a bit retarded when a third party is (strategically) involved in a way to intentionally compromise (test) the basics of the agreement.

fucken dishonest

Rev, you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that we have free speech in Australia. We don’t. See the case of the Rabelais editors.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I haven’t suggested otherwise.

There are also quite a lot of anti-social non-religious beliefs that should be actively discouraged.

That doesn’t mean that people should be financially punished if they express those views, even if they do play rugby.

If they signed something then they knew the consequences

So the circle is complete once again.

I do find it a bit stupid but if you signed something then you can’t claim ignorance especially if given a warning, even being high doesn’t excuse you.

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

It is would reasonable people care if you are atheist

I don’t know what that means.

Would a reasonable person care if you are atheist, religious people might call you out on it but then you can reply in kind and you point of view has logic on its side

It doesn’t matter if they are reasonable or not.

But if someone is convinced that atheists are doomed to eternity in the fires of Hell, then it would be perfectly reasonable for them to regard people who promote atheism as evil.

It’s not “illiberal” that anti-social behaviour often results in social penalties. It’s what one would reasonably expect in a society in which anti-social behaviour is discouraged.

And losing your job as a result of anti-social behaviour can be a perfectly reasonable social penalty, in various contexts.

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

If they signed something then they knew the consequences

So the circle is complete once again.

I do find it a bit stupid but if you signed something then you can’t claim ignorance especially if given a warning, even being high doesn’t excuse you.

Personally I wouldn’t be offended as I would think the person saying them is an idiot for saying such a thing based on a fiction book

transition said:

I guess the contract has a theme, or gist, not all of which can be formalized.

have to say it’s a bit retarded when a third party is (strategically) involved in a way to intentionally compromise (test) the basics of the agreement.

fucken dishonest

Want another go?

I have no idea what your point is (or even which side of the argument it supports, if either).

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t know what that means.

Would a reasonable person care if you are atheist, religious people might call you out on it but then you can reply in kind and you point of view has logic on its side

It doesn’t matter if they are reasonable or not.

But if someone is convinced that atheists are doomed to eternity in the fires of Hell, then it would be perfectly reasonable for them to regard people who promote atheism as evil.

They might but antitheists think religion is dangerous and may regard them as evil

btm said:

Rev, you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that we have free speech in Australia. We don’t. See the case of the Rabelais editors.

No, I labour under no such misapprehension.

Free speech is obviously a myth.

The question is purely about what sorts of speech should be curtailed, and who should have this power.

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

If they signed something then they knew the consequences

So the circle is complete once again.

I do find it a bit stupid but if you signed something then you can’t claim ignorance especially if given a warning, even being high doesn’t excuse you.

I don’t think anyone suggests he is or should be claiming ignorance.

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

Would a reasonable person care if you are atheist, religious people might call you out on it but then you can reply in kind and you point of view has logic on its side

It doesn’t matter if they are reasonable or not.

But if someone is convinced that atheists are doomed to eternity in the fires of Hell, then it would be perfectly reasonable for them to regard people who promote atheism as evil.

They might but antitheists think religion is dangerous and may regard them as evil

Exactly.

>But if someone is convinced that atheists are doomed to eternity in the fires of Hell, then it would be perfectly reasonable for them to regard people who promote atheism as evil.

Yes, but their belief that atheists are doomed to eternity in the fires of Hell is mistaken. What they believe is rubbish, therefore the ethical conclusions they draw from it are also rubbish.

Bubblecar said:

>But if someone is convinced that atheists are doomed to eternity in the fires of Hell, then it would be perfectly reasonable for them to regard people who promote atheism as evil.

Yes, but their belief that atheists are doomed to eternity in the fires of Hell is mistaken. What they believe is rubbish, therefore the ethical conclusions they draw from it are also rubbish.

I absolutely agree.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

>But if someone is convinced that atheists are doomed to eternity in the fires of Hell, then it would be perfectly reasonable for them to regard people who promote atheism as evil.

Yes, but their belief that atheists are doomed to eternity in the fires of Hell is mistaken. What they believe is rubbish, therefore the ethical conclusions they draw from it are also rubbish.

I absolutely agree.

No, you’ve said that their ethical conclusions are “perfectly reasonable”.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

>But if someone is convinced that atheists are doomed to eternity in the fires of Hell, then it would be perfectly reasonable for them to regard people who promote atheism as evil.

Yes, but their belief that atheists are doomed to eternity in the fires of Hell is mistaken. What they believe is rubbish, therefore the ethical conclusions they draw from it are also rubbish.

I absolutely agree.

No, you’ve said that their ethical conclusions are “perfectly reasonable”.

Meaning that they are a reasonable conclusion given the starting assumption.

But once again, whether I consider them to be reasonable or otherwise is totally irrelevant.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I absolutely agree.

No, you’ve said that their ethical conclusions are “perfectly reasonable”.

Meaning that they are a reasonable conclusion given the starting assumption.

But once again, whether I consider them to be reasonable or otherwise is totally irrelevant.

So you’re saying that ethically speaking, whether people’s ethical beliefs are based on rubbish or not is “totally irrelevant”?

That’s a strange ethical position.

I don’t agree with folau but I also do not follow him on social media and would never have heard about what he posted if it wasn’t all over the news. I would suspect that people who are hurt by his post probably do not follow him on social media either, given his past history. The media and others who weren’t hurt, but were obviously offended, spread it around and increased the exposure. This exposure is what cost him his job. I also do not believe he should have lost his job over this. Sponsors have a right to withdraw him from their advertising, or whatever, but that is as far as it should go. If it is perfectly legal to be a christian and believe in the words of the bible then it should also be perfectly okay to quote those words provided it isn’t a quote to incite illegal activity…

furious said:

I don’t agree with folau but I also do not follow him on social media and would never have heard about what he posted if it wasn’t all over the news. I would suspect that people who are hurt by his post probably do not follow him on social media either, given his past history. The media and others who weren’t hurt, but were obviously offended, spread it around and increased the exposure. This exposure is what cost him his job. I also do not believe he should have lost his job over this. Sponsors have a right to withdraw him from their advertising, or whatever, but that is as far as it should go. If it is perfectly legal to be a christian and believe in the words of the bible then it should also be perfectly okay to quote those words provided it isn’t a quote to incite illegal activity…

Furiosly agree with all of that.

furious said:

I don’t agree with folau but I also do not follow him on social media and would never have heard about what he posted if it wasn’t all over the news. I would suspect that people who are hurt by his post probably do not follow him on social media either, given his past history. The media and others who weren’t hurt, but were obviously offended, spread it around and increased the exposure. This exposure is what cost him his job. I also do not believe he should have lost his job over this. Sponsors have a right to withdraw him from their advertising, or whatever, but that is as far as it should go. If it is perfectly legal to be a christian and believe in the words of the bible then it should also be perfectly okay to quote those words provided it isn’t a quote to incite illegal activity…

Yes the media love to make up outrage and probably aren’t offended but do it shit stir

furious said:

I don’t agree with folau but I also do not follow him on social media and would never have heard about what he posted if it wasn’t all over the news. I would suspect that people who are hurt by his post probably do not follow him on social media either, given his past history. The media and others who weren’t hurt, but were obviously offended, spread it around and increased the exposure. This exposure is what cost him his job. I also do not believe he should have lost his job over this. Sponsors have a right to withdraw him from their advertising, or whatever, but that is as far as it should go. If it is perfectly legal to be a christian and believe in the words of the bible then it should also be perfectly okay to quote those words provided it isn’t a quote to incite illegal activity…

Again, I think you have to accept that the ethical status of various religious beliefs changes as society progresses, it’s not somehow ethically neutral.

Beliefs that were regarded as socially acceptable become socially unacceptable once their injustice and harmful effect is made more apparent.

Christians (and other believers) are going to have to eventually accept this in regard to their anti-gay views. Many already have.

Cymek said:

furious said:

I don’t agree with folau but I also do not follow him on social media and would never have heard about what he posted if it wasn’t all over the news. I would suspect that people who are hurt by his post probably do not follow him on social media either, given his past history. The media and others who weren’t hurt, but were obviously offended, spread it around and increased the exposure. This exposure is what cost him his job. I also do not believe he should have lost his job over this. Sponsors have a right to withdraw him from their advertising, or whatever, but that is as far as it should go. If it is perfectly legal to be a christian and believe in the words of the bible then it should also be perfectly okay to quote those words provided it isn’t a quote to incite illegal activity…

Yes the media love to make up outrage and probably aren’t offended but do it shit stir

Plus I bet sponsers aren’t offended either but it might cost them money so they did on that basis but pretend it upset them

Bubblecar said:

furious said:

I don’t agree with folau but I also do not follow him on social media and would never have heard about what he posted if it wasn’t all over the news. I would suspect that people who are hurt by his post probably do not follow him on social media either, given his past history. The media and others who weren’t hurt, but were obviously offended, spread it around and increased the exposure. This exposure is what cost him his job. I also do not believe he should have lost his job over this. Sponsors have a right to withdraw him from their advertising, or whatever, but that is as far as it should go. If it is perfectly legal to be a christian and believe in the words of the bible then it should also be perfectly okay to quote those words provided it isn’t a quote to incite illegal activity…

Again, I think you have to accept that the ethical status of various religious beliefs changes as society progresses, it’s not somehow ethically neutral.

Beliefs that were regarded as socially acceptable become socially unacceptable once their injustice and harmful effect is made more apparent.

Christians (and other believers) are going to have to eventually accept this in regard to their anti-gay views. Many already have.

Do antigay views by Christians upset you or do you just think they are sad people and take no notice

Cymek said:

Bubblecar said:

furious said:

I don’t agree with folau but I also do not follow him on social media and would never have heard about what he posted if it wasn’t all over the news. I would suspect that people who are hurt by his post probably do not follow him on social media either, given his past history. The media and others who weren’t hurt, but were obviously offended, spread it around and increased the exposure. This exposure is what cost him his job. I also do not believe he should have lost his job over this. Sponsors have a right to withdraw him from their advertising, or whatever, but that is as far as it should go. If it is perfectly legal to be a christian and believe in the words of the bible then it should also be perfectly okay to quote those words provided it isn’t a quote to incite illegal activity…

Again, I think you have to accept that the ethical status of various religious beliefs changes as society progresses, it’s not somehow ethically neutral.

Beliefs that were regarded as socially acceptable become socially unacceptable once their injustice and harmful effect is made more apparent.

Christians (and other believers) are going to have to eventually accept this in regard to their anti-gay views. Many already have.

Do antigay views by Christians upset you or do you just think they are sad people and take no notice

I think they are sad people but I think it would be socially irresponsible to “take no notice” when they’re actively promoting anti-social views.

Religious anti-gay views can cause a lot of harm, particularly to young people in vulnerable circumstances, but also to older people who might be isolated and feel threatened by such undeserved hostility.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

I guess the contract has a theme, or gist, not all of which can be formalized.

have to say it’s a bit retarded when a third party is (strategically) involved in a way to intentionally compromise (test) the basics of the agreement.

fucken dishonest

Want another go?

I have no idea what your point is (or even which side of the argument it supports, if either).

all three examples you gave involve the introduction of third parties (an audience, social media, whatever), with some purpose or intention to compromise and test agreements. And even if such an act quite accidentally caused the original agreement to be compromised, or potentially compromised, at best it may null and void the agreement, and at worst it may be corrupt.

God, by the way, can be seen as a third party, totally unanswerable, so he can fuck off.

Bubblecar said:

Cymek said:

Bubblecar said:

Again, I think you have to accept that the ethical status of various religious beliefs changes as society progresses, it’s not somehow ethically neutral.

Beliefs that were regarded as socially acceptable become socially unacceptable once their injustice and harmful effect is made more apparent.

Christians (and other believers) are going to have to eventually accept this in regard to their anti-gay views. Many already have.

Do antigay views by Christians upset you or do you just think they are sad people and take no notice

I think they are sad people but I think it would be socially irresponsible to “take no notice” when they’re actively promoting anti-social views.

Religious anti-gay views can cause a lot of harm, particularly to young people in vulnerable circumstances, but also to older people who might be isolated and feel threatened by such undeserved hostility.

True
We have a women in our office who has a son who is transgender and the other is gay (I think I am not sure) and she is completely supportive, she mentioned she was religious but became an atheist and I wonder if it was the church telling her something was wrong with them that put her off religion.

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

I guess the contract has a theme, or gist, not all of which can be formalized.

have to say it’s a bit retarded when a third party is (strategically) involved in a way to intentionally compromise (test) the basics of the agreement.

fucken dishonest

Want another go?

I have no idea what your point is (or even which side of the argument it supports, if either).

all three examples you gave involve the introduction of third parties (an audience, social media, whatever), with some purpose or intention to compromise and test agreements. And even if such an act quite accidentally caused the original agreement to be compromised, or potentially compromised, at best it may null and void the agreement, and at worst it may be corrupt.

God, by the way, can be seen as a third party, totally unanswerable, so he can fuck off.

He is isn’t he so it makes no sense at all

• God, by the way, can be seen as a third party, totally unanswerable, so he can fuck off.

Let’s see a “sport star” post that on social media and watch what happens. Would be interesting…

The huge irony of the “religious freedom” position is that the Churches often criticise secular society for what they imagine is the “moral relativism” of secular thinkers, compared with their own supposed “moral absolutism”.

But secular humanists are of course not usually “morally relativist” at all – our positions are based on tightly argued concepts of right and wrong and we try to be very consistent with them.

And when the Churches find that this is the case – that in fact their own moral beliefs on this or that issue are criticised for being demonstrably wrong – they suddenly go all indignant and start promoting moral relativism: “You shouldn’t say our beliefs are wrong, they’re just different but equally valid, blah blah blah.”

Sorry but no, they’re not “equally valid”, they are absolutely wrong.

Bubblecar said:

The huge irony of the “religious freedom” position is that the Churches often criticise secular society for what they imagine is the “moral relativism” of secular thinkers, compared with their own supposed “moral absolutism”.

But secular humanists are of course not usually “morally relativist” at all – our positions are based on tightly argued concepts of right and wrong and we try to be very consistent with them.

And when the Churches find that this is the case – that in fact their own moral beliefs on this or that issue are criticised for being demonstrably wrong – they suddenly go all indignant and start promoting moral relativism: “You shouldn’t say our beliefs are wrong, they’re just different but equally valid, blah blah blah.”

Sorry but no, they’re not “equally valid”, they are absolutely wrong.

Seems that way doesn’t it, basic rights and equality for all works well from a logical point of view, we are all humans and deserve the same decent treatment any nonsense that some fictional deity says no is absurd

Cymek said:

Bubblecar said:

The huge irony of the “religious freedom” position is that the Churches often criticise secular society for what they imagine is the “moral relativism” of secular thinkers, compared with their own supposed “moral absolutism”.

But secular humanists are of course not usually “morally relativist” at all – our positions are based on tightly argued concepts of right and wrong and we try to be very consistent with them.

And when the Churches find that this is the case – that in fact their own moral beliefs on this or that issue are criticised for being demonstrably wrong – they suddenly go all indignant and start promoting moral relativism: “You shouldn’t say our beliefs are wrong, they’re just different but equally valid, blah blah blah.”

Sorry but no, they’re not “equally valid”, they are absolutely wrong.

Seems that way doesn’t it, basic rights and equality for all works well from a logical point of view, we are all humans and deserve the same decent treatment any nonsense that some fictional deity says no is absurd

Aye.

• Seems that way doesn’t it, basic rights and equality for all works well from a logical point of view, we are all humans and deserve the same decent treatment any nonsense that some fictional deity says no is absurd

Problem is, their deity of choice is not fictional, to them. Therefore, the “word” of that deity is, well, gospel. Whether or not an unbeliever is offended by their beliefs can’t come into it, lest they be cast into the pits of hell too. No matter what is thrown at them, they must continue to believe if they want to enter into their version of heaven. If secular society wants to dictate to religious orders what they think is, and isn’t, acceptable then religion itself, in its entirety, should be banned…

Are we back yet??

• Are we back yet??

I think everybody’s gone to the rapture…

Peak Warming Man said:

Are we back yet??

I don’t think anyone has changed their minds.

Israel Folau’s sacking shines light on confusion between athletes and sports bodies on religious expression

Didn’t know you could go to hell for variance or emulation.

It’s a worry.

I put my hand up to say that before reading this thread I had to look up patheticals.

Peak Warming Man said:

I put my hand up to say that before reading this thread I had to look up patheticals.

It seems that Pun Gent is sorely missed :)

(Or is he still here?)

you make all the teachers casual, move them around a bit and reduce their hours when they start displaying signs of mental illness – then finally give them no more hours.

you build a war chest from their wages to fight off any legal action taken by them ( you add two dollars on every hour to go into an account dedicated wholly on fighting off legal action)

Just read Ian’s link (well worth reading, IMO), and it says pretty much what I was going to say, but I’ll say it anyway.

Let’s pretend we are all agreed that Folau’s sacking was not only a legal application of the contract he signed, but also fully justified ethically.

Just what would he be allowed to say without being sacked for it?

Can he make direct quotes from the Bible if they list who will end up in hell?

Can he give the reference without fully quoting it?

Can he say that he believes everything written in the Bible is true?

Can he say he is a Christian Fundamentalist?

Can he say he is a Christian at all?

It seems to me that where we draw the line is quite problematical.

That doesn’t mean that the line doesn’t need to be drawn. Obviously it does unless we say there are absolutely no restrictions or sports people can’t make any public statements, but it does need to be discussed.

>Just what would he be allowed to say without being sacked for it?

all comes down to what would likely unnecessarily trouble other people, and if looking for an (unnecessarily expanded) audience to do that, then assumptions about the intention to trouble others can be made.

the concept of hell is a device of terror, a form of terrorism, and if i’m wrong then someone sue me and prove otherwise.

transition said:

>Just what would he be allowed to say without being sacked for it?

all comes down to what would likely unnecessarily trouble other people, and if looking for an (unnecessarily expanded) audience to do that, then assumptions about the intention to trouble others can be made.

OK, but that’s a matter of opinion.

If people are going to get sacked for it there need to be clearly stated defined limits.

transition said:

the concept of hell is a device of terror, a form of terrorism, and if i’m wrong then someone sue me and prove otherwise.

OK, so if a sports person is to mention in public that they are a Christian (or Jew, or Muslim), should they also be required to state that they reject the concept of hell?

I think religious schools should be banned.

Teaching things that do not exist is unethical, not logical and deceives people and distances them from reality.

Teaching that God exists when thee is no proof is deceitful and unethical.

Distancing people from reality using specific unproven concepts is unethical and deceitful.

Prove God exists then have religious schools.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

the concept of hell is a device of terror, a form of terrorism, and if i’m wrong then someone sue me and prove otherwise.

OK, so if a sports person is to mention in public that they are a Christian (or Jew, or Muslim), should they also be required to state that they reject the concept of hell?

Hello no

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

the concept of hell is a device of terror, a form of terrorism, and if i’m wrong then someone sue me and prove otherwise.

OK, so if a sports person is to mention in public that they are a Christian (or Jew, or Muslim), should they also be required to state that they reject the concept of hell?

Hell no

transition said:

the concept of hell is a device of terror, a form of terrorism, and if i’m wrong then someone sue me and prove otherwise.

Neither it nor heaven have been thought out too well, they are concepts of reward and punishment to make you behave or not

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

the concept of hell is a device of terror, a form of terrorism, and if i’m wrong then someone sue me and prove otherwise.

OK, so if a sports person is to mention in public that they are a Christian (or Jew, or Muslim), should they also be required to state that they reject the concept of hell?

Hello no

So where would you draw the line?

The concept of heaven does not exist

The concept of hell does not exist.

The concept of God does not exist.

Why teach them at all?

Cymek said:

transition said:

the concept of hell is a device of terror, a form of terrorism, and if i’m wrong then someone sue me and prove otherwise.

Neither it nor heaven have been thought out too well, they are concepts of reward and punishment to make you behave or not

Agreed, and if we reject hell and heaven we should think about what we replace them with.

But that’s another question.

Tau.Neutrino said:

The concept of heaven does not exist

The concept of hell does not exist.

The concept of God does not exist.

Why teach them at all?

Also another question.

Where would you draw the line on what sports people can say about their personal religious beliefs in public?

Teaching concepts of reward and punishment

Teach reward with freedom.

Tech punishment with jail.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, so if a sports person is to mention in public that they are a Christian (or Jew, or Muslim), should they also be required to state that they reject the concept of hell?

Hello no

So where would you draw the line?

I find it weird someone would need to preach morals on social media instead of just keeping quiet you are asking for repercussions deserved or not. Why this sportsman felt the need to spout judgemental nonsense knowing what would happen comes across as him either taking a typical religious moral high ground or him not being smart or both. Why can’t people just talk interesting things instead of telling us they are this or that religion. I wouldn’t tell complete strangers I’m an atheist and think religion is dumb

Tau.Neutrino said:

Teaching concepts of reward and punishment

Teach reward with freedom.

Tech punishment with jail.

Where would you draw the line on what sports people can say about their personal religious beliefs in public?

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

Hello no

So where would you draw the line?

I find it weird someone would need to preach morals on social media instead of just keeping quiet you are asking for repercussions deserved or not. Why this sportsman felt the need to spout judgemental nonsense knowing what would happen comes across as him either taking a typical religious moral high ground or him not being smart or both. Why can’t people just talk interesting things instead of telling us they are this or that religion. I wouldn’t tell complete strangers I’m an atheist and think religion is dumb

That’s your choice.

Where should the legal line be drawn for sports people making statements on public media?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The concept of heaven does not exist

The concept of hell does not exist.

The concept of God does not exist.

Why teach them at all?

Also another question.

Where would you draw the line on what sports people can say about their personal religious beliefs in public?

saying anything that conflicts with human rights

saying anything that is discriminatory

anything that is offensive

any form of hate speech

anything sexist

anything racist

possibly others

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The concept of heaven does not exist

The concept of hell does not exist.

The concept of God does not exist.

Why teach them at all?

Also another question.

Where would you draw the line on what sports people can say about their personal religious beliefs in public?

saying anything that conflicts with human rights

saying anything that is discriminatory

anything that is offensive

any form of hate speech

anything sexist

anything racist

possibly others

All of those limits are very poorly defined.

The law needs to be specific.

Can sports people talk about what their religion is in public?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

So where would you draw the line?

I find it weird someone would need to preach morals on social media instead of just keeping quiet you are asking for repercussions deserved or not. Why this sportsman felt the need to spout judgemental nonsense knowing what would happen comes across as him either taking a typical religious moral high ground or him not being smart or both. Why can’t people just talk interesting things instead of telling us they are this or that religion. I wouldn’t tell complete strangers I’m an atheist and think religion is dumb

That’s your choice.

Where should the legal line be drawn for sports people making statements on public media?

Hard to say I suppose when you start insulting people and saying God’s going to smite them it’s going too far, why do it.
It shows you aren’t a nice person if you do it beliefs or not, we have self control even if we dislike a person(s).
He obviously judged millions of people on preconceived ideas
If other people started it then yes you defend yourself but if you are the attacker then it’s game on for whatever happens next.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Teaching concepts of reward and punishment

Teach reward with freedom.

Tech punishment with jail.

Where would you draw the line on what sports people can say about their personal religious beliefs in public?

the line is always mostly invisible, an informal business, causing restraint, contingent on the failure of good sense, repressive lending to the inhibitory mechanisms of the mind, sort of a behavioral prophylactic, the caution of good manners that helps with avoiding embarrassment and humiliation, that disconcertedness of a stupid observed or discovered.

How many angels are dancing upon this pin?

:)

I find myself again embarrassed by finding myself in full agreement with The Reverend. When will this torment end?

sibeen said:

How many angels are dancing upon this pin?

:)

I find myself again embarrassed by finding myself in full agreement with The Reverend. When will this torment end?

Never!

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Teaching concepts of reward and punishment

Teach reward with freedom.

Tech punishment with jail.

Where would you draw the line on what sports people can say about their personal religious beliefs in public?

the line is always mostly invisible, an informal business, causing restraint, contingent on the failure of good sense, repressive lending to the inhibitory mechanisms of the mind, sort of a behavioral prophylactic, the caution of good manners that helps with avoiding embarrassment and humiliation, that disconcertedness of a stupid observed or discovered.

Yes good manners which a religious belief doesn’t exempt you from

I think we should just be nice to each other, don’t you sibeen?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Also another question.

Where would you draw the line on what sports people can say about their personal religious beliefs in public?

saying anything that conflicts with human rights

saying anything that is discriminatory

anything that is offensive

any form of hate speech

anything sexist

anything racist

possibly others

All of those limits are very poorly defined.

The law needs to be specific.

Can sports people talk about what their religion is in public?

Yes they are poorly defined but Im not the one to define them, I have opinions on them.

Yes The law needs to be specific.

Yes within limits set by both their own religion and the sports authority or club concerned or whatever organization it is.

Maybe look at religion and organization contracts of agreements?

ChrispenEvan said:

I think we should just be nice to each other, don’t you sibeen?

Yes life is hard enough without having a go at someone because of belief, sexual orientation, etc

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Teaching concepts of reward and punishment

Teach reward with freedom.

Tech punishment with jail.

Where would you draw the line on what sports people can say about their personal religious beliefs in public?

You seem a bit obsessed with highly specific rules :)

Why not just leave it up to the requirements of their job, as determined by their employer?

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

I find it weird someone would need to preach morals on social media instead of just keeping quiet you are asking for repercussions deserved or not. Why this sportsman felt the need to spout judgemental nonsense knowing what would happen comes across as him either taking a typical religious moral high ground or him not being smart or both. Why can’t people just talk interesting things instead of telling us they are this or that religion. I wouldn’t tell complete strangers I’m an atheist and think religion is dumb

That’s your choice.

Where should the legal line be drawn for sports people making statements on public media?

Hard to say I suppose when you start insulting people and saying God’s going to smite them it’s going too far, why do it.
It shows you aren’t a nice person if you do it beliefs or not, we have self control even if we dislike a person(s).
He obviously judged millions of people on preconceived ideas
If other people started it then yes you defend yourself but if you are the attacker then it’s game on for whatever happens next.

So where would you draw the line?

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

saying anything that conflicts with human rights

saying anything that is discriminatory

anything that is offensive

any form of hate speech

anything sexist

anything racist

possibly others

All of those limits are very poorly defined.

The law needs to be specific.

Can sports people talk about what their religion is in public?

Yes they are poorly defined but Im not the one to define them, I have opinions on them.

Yes The law needs to be specific.

Yes within limits set by both their own religion and the sports authority or club concerned or whatever organization it is.

Maybe look at religion and organization contracts of agreements?

>>>Maybe look at religion and organization contracts of agreements?

This is where the sports authority concerned foes to the specific religion of the sports player to define specifics within the contract

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

All of those limits are very poorly defined.

The law needs to be specific.

Can sports people talk about what their religion is in public?

Yes they are poorly defined but Im not the one to define them, I have opinions on them.

Yes The law needs to be specific.

Yes within limits set by both their own religion and the sports authority or club concerned or whatever organization it is.

Maybe look at religion and organization contracts of agreements?

>>>Maybe look at religion and organization contracts of agreements?

This is where the sports authority concerned foes to the specific religion of the sports player to define specifics within the contract

correction

This is where the sports authority concerned goes to the specific religion of the sports player to define specifics within the contract

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

That’s your choice.

Where should the legal line be drawn for sports people making statements on public media?

Hard to say I suppose when you start insulting people and saying God’s going to smite them it’s going too far, why do it.
It shows you aren’t a nice person if you do it beliefs or not, we have self control even if we dislike a person(s).
He obviously judged millions of people on preconceived ideas
If other people started it then yes you defend yourself but if you are the attacker then it’s game on for whatever happens next.

So where would you draw the line?

Posting about god punishing people because they are gay or you yourself thinking they are evil, just keep quiet

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Teaching concepts of reward and punishment

Teach reward with freedom.

Tech punishment with jail.

Where would you draw the line on what sports people can say about their personal religious beliefs in public?

the line is always mostly invisible, an informal business, causing restraint, contingent on the failure of good sense, repressive lending to the inhibitory mechanisms of the mind, sort of a behavioral prophylactic, the caution of good manners that helps with avoiding embarrassment and humiliation, that disconcertedness of a stupid observed or discovered.

Fair enough, the “line” is gong to be a bit fuzzy, no matter how defined.

But what would be the most extreme act that definitely wouldn’t cross the line?

What would be the least extreme act that definitely did cross the line?

sibeen said:

How many angels are dancing upon this pin?

:)

I find myself again embarrassed by finding myself in full agreement with The Reverend. When will this torment end?

Probably eternal :)

We’ll end up in a fiery cave together, with occasional visits from Mr Bean.

The Rev Dodgson said:

sibeen said:

How many angels are dancing upon this pin?

:)

I find myself again embarrassed by finding myself in full agreement with The Reverend. When will this torment end?

Probably eternal :)

We’ll end up in a fiery cave together, with occasional visits from Mr Bean.

… And the only evidence you’ll have of reality will be the shadows on the walls.

Employers are normally entitled to determine the requirements of the job for which they are inviting people to apply.

And if an employee fails to meet those requirements, they are normally entitled to terminate their employment.

Here’s an example of a nurse fired for preaching to patients who then complained about her behaviour. She appealed but the appeal was rejected:

Nurse’s dismissal: Christian Legal Centre loses yet another case

A BRITISH nurse who told a cancer patient that the only way to get to God was though Jesus, and then asked him to sing the ‘Lord is My Shepherd’ has lost her unfair dismissal appeal

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/thefreethinker/2019/05/nurses-dismissal-christian-legal-centre-loses-yet-another-case/

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

Hard to say I suppose when you start insulting people and saying God’s going to smite them it’s going too far, why do it.
It shows you aren’t a nice person if you do it beliefs or not, we have self control even if we dislike a person(s).
He obviously judged millions of people on preconceived ideas
If other people started it then yes you defend yourself but if you are the attacker then it’s game on for whatever happens next.

So where would you draw the line?

Posting about god punishing people because they are gay or you yourself thinking they are evil, just keep quiet

If your paying players millions of dollars then a quick meeting with the player, the priest of the player, the club, to discuss those matters in the contract.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Teaching concepts of reward and punishment

Teach reward with freedom.

Tech punishment with jail.

Where would you draw the line on what sports people can say about their personal religious beliefs in public?

You seem a bit obsessed with highly specific rules :)

Why not just leave it up to the requirements of their job, as determined by their employer?

Because even if we accept that employers are entitled to dictate what their employees can say outside work, at least when their employment is playing rugby, it seems reasonable that there should be a well defined statement of what those limits are.

It seems that everyone except sibeen and I agrees that quoting a list of those destined to hell from the Bible clearly crosses the limit. I’m interested in what rugby players can say without crossing this limit.

> Can he give the reference without fully quoting it?

Not sure that I follow.

Anyway, Folau has referenced 1 Corinthians 6:9-10  – New International Version

 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers  nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

.
> It seems to me that where we draw the line is quite problematical.
That doesn’t mean that the line doesn’t need to be drawn.

Yes. Where do you draw it?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Where would you draw the line on what sports people can say about their personal religious beliefs in public?

You seem a bit obsessed with highly specific rules :)

Why not just leave it up to the requirements of their job, as determined by their employer?

Because even if we accept that employers are entitled to dictate what their employees can say outside work, at least when their employment is playing rugby, it seems reasonable that there should be a well defined statement of what those limits are.

It seems that everyone except sibeen and I agrees that quoting a list of those destined to hell from the Bible clearly crosses the limit. I’m interested in what rugby players can say without crossing this limit.

What does it say in their contracts?

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

Hard to say I suppose when you start insulting people and saying God’s going to smite them it’s going too far, why do it.
It shows you aren’t a nice person if you do it beliefs or not, we have self control even if we dislike a person(s).
He obviously judged millions of people on preconceived ideas
If other people started it then yes you defend yourself but if you are the attacker then it’s game on for whatever happens next.

So where would you draw the line?

Posting about god punishing people because they are gay or you yourself thinking they are evil, just keep quiet

Can they make reference to the document that lists those punishable by hell?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Where would you draw the line on what sports people can say about their personal religious beliefs in public?

You seem a bit obsessed with highly specific rules :)

Why not just leave it up to the requirements of their job, as determined by their employer?

Because even if we accept that employers are entitled to dictate what their employees can say outside work, at least when their employment is playing rugby, it seems reasonable that there should be a well defined statement of what those limits are.

It seems that everyone except sibeen and I agrees that quoting a list of those destined to hell from the Bible clearly crosses the limit. I’m interested in what rugby players can say without crossing this limit.

I think a general rule along the lines of “don’t make public statements attacking or criticising people’s race, sex or sexual orientation” would be adequate.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

So where would you draw the line?

Posting about god punishing people because they are gay or you yourself thinking they are evil, just keep quiet

Can they make reference to the document that lists those punishable by hell?

Can they make reference to the document that lists those punishable by threats?

Is that the same?

Bubblecar said:

Employers are normally entitled to determine the requirements of the job for which they are inviting people to apply.

And if an employee fails to meet those requirements, they are normally entitled to terminate their employment.

Here’s an example of a nurse fired for preaching to patients who then complained about her behaviour. She appealed but the appeal was rejected:

Nurse’s dismissal: Christian Legal Centre loses yet another case

A BRITISH nurse who told a cancer patient that the only way to get to God was though Jesus, and then asked him to sing the ‘Lord is My Shepherd’ has lost her unfair dismissal appeal

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/thefreethinker/2019/05/nurses-dismissal-christian-legal-centre-loses-yet-another-case/

Well that’s an activity within the work place, which clearly would have different limits on the powers of the employer.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

So where would you draw the line?

Posting about god punishing people because they are gay or you yourself thinking they are evil, just keep quiet

If your paying players millions of dollars then a quick meeting with the player, the priest of the player, the club, to discuss those matters in the contract.

I don’t see that the players salary level is relevant myself, but by all means include this in your definition of the limits if you do.

> Probably eternal :)
We’ll end up in a fiery cave together, with occasional visits from Mr Bean.

With no toilets… “Eternity without relief.”

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

So where would you draw the line?

Posting about god punishing people because they are gay or you yourself thinking they are evil, just keep quiet

Can they make reference to the document that lists those punishable by hell?

If they do it with proper referencing they I suppose so

Ian said:

> Probably eternal :)
We’ll end up in a fiery cave together, with occasional visits from Mr Bean.

With no toilets… “Eternity without relief.”

In Preacher they had toilets but the toiler paper was gaffa tape

Ian said:

> Can he give the reference without fully quoting it?

Not sure that I follow.

Anyway, Folau has referenced 1 Corinthians 6:9-10  – New International Version

 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers  nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

.
> It seems to me that where we draw the line is quite problematical.
That doesn’t mean that the line doesn’t need to be drawn.

Yes. Where do you draw it?

My position is unchanged. I think people who play rugby should have the same limits as unemployed or self-employed people. If it is legal, they can say it. If it isn’t legal it’s up to the legal authorities to determine that, nothing to do with their employers.

btm said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

You seem a bit obsessed with highly specific rules :)

Why not just leave it up to the requirements of their job, as determined by their employer?

Because even if we accept that employers are entitled to dictate what their employees can say outside work, at least when their employment is playing rugby, it seems reasonable that there should be a well defined statement of what those limits are.

It seems that everyone except sibeen and I agrees that quoting a list of those destined to hell from the Bible clearly crosses the limit. I’m interested in what rugby players can say without crossing this limit.

What does it say in their contracts?

Their contracts are not clear.

If they were clear, are you saying that any restriction placed in a signed contract is OK?

The question still remains though, what would you personally regard as a reasonable restriction for a person who plays rugby for a living?

sibeen said:

How many angels are dancing upon this pin?

And how many notes on saxophone, which is I think is the more profound question.

ChrispenEvan said:

I think we should just be nice to each other, don’t you sibeen?

I don’t respond to ridiculous hypotheticals.

Peter Beatie from the NRL says Falou would not be welcomed back into the code.
However they have welcomed back some pretty unsavoury people, people who have been convicted of serious crimes, drug dealing/home invasion/assault etc.
Falou has not committed any crime to my knowledge.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

You seem a bit obsessed with highly specific rules :)

Why not just leave it up to the requirements of their job, as determined by their employer?

Because even if we accept that employers are entitled to dictate what their employees can say outside work, at least when their employment is playing rugby, it seems reasonable that there should be a well defined statement of what those limits are.

It seems that everyone except sibeen and I agrees that quoting a list of those destined to hell from the Bible clearly crosses the limit. I’m interested in what rugby players can say without crossing this limit.

I think a general rule along the lines of “don’t make public statements attacking or criticising people’s race, sex or sexual orientation” would be adequate.

Did you read Ian’s link?

That makes the case quite well that such a general statement is not adequate.

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

Posting about god punishing people because they are gay or you yourself thinking they are evil, just keep quiet

Can they make reference to the document that lists those punishable by hell?

Can they make reference to the document that lists those punishable by threats?

Is that the same?

I’m interested n what you think, not what I think.

But I think that clearly it isn’t the same, but the underlying insult/offense is the same; just not so explicitly stated.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ian said:

> Can he give the reference without fully quoting it?

Not sure that I follow.

Anyway, Folau has referenced 1 Corinthians 6:9-10  – New International Version

 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers  nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

.
> It seems to me that where we draw the line is quite problematical.
That doesn’t mean that the line doesn’t need to be drawn.

Yes. Where do you draw it?

My position is unchanged. I think people who play rugby should have the same limits as unemployed or self-employed people. If it is legal, they can say it. If it isn’t legal it’s up to the legal authorities to determine that, nothing to do with their employers.

It’s legal for employers to sack people for failing to meet the requirements of their job, as determined by the employer.

For your views to hold sway, new laws would have to be introduced that would severely curtail the rights of employers to determine what they require from employees in this or that job.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Where would you draw the line on what sports people can say about their personal religious beliefs in public?

You seem a bit obsessed with highly specific rules :)

Why not just leave it up to the requirements of their job, as determined by their employer?

Because even if we accept that employers are entitled to dictate what their employees can say outside work, at least when their employment is playing rugby, it seems reasonable that there should be a well defined statement of what those limits are.

It seems that everyone except sibeen and I agrees that quoting a list of those destined to hell from the Bible clearly crosses the limit. I’m interested in what rugby players can say without crossing this limit.

>Because even if we accept that employers are entitled to dictate what their employees can say outside work, at least when their employment is playing rugby, it seems reasonable that there should be a well defined statement of what those limits are.

sport involved a lot of sponsorship, so the boundaries of what might bring the game (business/organizations) into disrepute goes wider.

>It seems that everyone except sibeen and I agrees that quoting a list of those destined to hell from the Bible clearly crosses the limit. I’m interested in what rugby players can say without crossing this limit.

just grunt impressively as they take a digit in the fundamental.

Peak Warming Man said:

Peter Beatie from the NRL says Falou would not be welcomed back into the code.
However they have welcomed back some pretty unsavoury people, people who have been convicted of serious crimes, drug dealing/home invasion/assault etc.
Falou has not committed any crime to my knowledge.

Damn.

Looks like we’re going to end up with PWM in the cave as well.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ian said:

> Can he give the reference without fully quoting it?

Not sure that I follow.

Anyway, Folau has referenced 1 Corinthians 6:9-10  – New International Version

 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers  nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

.
> It seems to me that where we draw the line is quite problematical.
That doesn’t mean that the line doesn’t need to be drawn.

Yes. Where do you draw it?

My position is unchanged. I think people who play rugby should have the same limits as unemployed or self-employed people. If it is legal, they can say it. If it isn’t legal it’s up to the legal authorities to determine that, nothing to do with their employers.

It’s legal for employers to sack people for failing to meet the requirements of their job, as determined by the employer.

For your views to hold sway, new laws would have to be introduced that would severely curtail the rights of employers to determine what they require from employees in this or that job.

Those new laws would also inevitably have the effect of removing at least some of society’s safeguards against anti-social behaviour.

Aggressive public expressions of racism, sexism, homophobia etc would be given a powerful green light.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ian said:

> Can he give the reference without fully quoting it?

Not sure that I follow.

Anyway, Folau has referenced 1 Corinthians 6:9-10  – New International Version

 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers  nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

.
> It seems to me that where we draw the line is quite problematical.
That doesn’t mean that the line doesn’t need to be drawn.

Yes. Where do you draw it?

My position is unchanged. I think people who play rugby should have the same limits as unemployed or self-employed people. If it is legal, they can say it. If it isn’t legal it’s up to the legal authorities to determine that, nothing to do with their employers.

Unemployed or self-employed people are not de facto representatives of their country.

The Rev Dodgson said:

My position is unchanged. I think people who play rugby should have the same limits as unemployed or self-employed people. If it is legal, they can say it. If it isn’t legal it’s up to the legal authorities to determine that, nothing to do with their employers.

It’s not just legalities. It’s bringing the game, Code and employers into disrepute.

In the case of Rugby Australia, they celebrate and embrace diversity (apparently). To have a player publicly denounce his team mates are going to hell is bringing disrepute to his employer. It’s going against what his employer stands for.

Divine Angel said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

My position is unchanged. I think people who play rugby should have the same limits as unemployed or self-employed people. If it is legal, they can say it. If it isn’t legal it’s up to the legal authorities to determine that, nothing to do with their employers.

It’s not just legalities. It’s bringing the game, Code and employers into disrepute.

In the case of Rugby Australia, they celebrate and embrace diversity (apparently). To have a player publicly denounce his team mates are going to hell is bringing disrepute to his employer. It’s going against what his employer stands for.

The Rev doesn’t believe that employers are entitled to demand that their employees refrain from anti-social behaviour.

Cymek said:

Ian said:

> Probably eternal :)
We’ll end up in a fiery cave together, with occasional visits from Mr Bean.

With no toilets… “Eternity without relief.”

In Preacher they had toilets but the toiler paper was gaffa tape

:)

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ian said:

> Can he give the reference without fully quoting it?

Not sure that I follow.

Anyway, Folau has referenced 1 Corinthians 6:9-10  – New International Version

 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers  nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

.
> It seems to me that where we draw the line is quite problematical.
That doesn’t mean that the line doesn’t need to be drawn.

Yes. Where do you draw it?

My position is unchanged. I think people who play rugby should have the same limits as unemployed or self-employed people. If it is legal, they can say it. If it isn’t legal it’s up to the legal authorities to determine that, nothing to do with their employers.

It’s legal for employers to sack people for failing to meet the requirements of their job, as determined by the employer.

For your views to hold sway, new laws would have to be introduced that would severely curtail the rights of employers to determine what they require from employees in this or that job.

Not at all. We are not discussing anyone’s activities as a rugby player. We are discussing how far their employer should curtail their rights outside their work.

More specifically, we are discussing where the limits should be if we accept that listing people who will go to Hell is a sackable offence (regardless of my opinion on the matter).

Bubblecar said:

Divine Angel said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

My position is unchanged. I think people who play rugby should have the same limits as unemployed or self-employed people. If it is legal, they can say it. If it isn’t legal it’s up to the legal authorities to determine that, nothing to do with their employers.

It’s not just legalities. It’s bringing the game, Code and employers into disrepute.

In the case of Rugby Australia, they celebrate and embrace diversity (apparently). To have a player publicly denounce his team mates are going to hell is bringing disrepute to his employer. It’s going against what his employer stands for.

The Rev doesn’t believe that employers are entitled to demand that their employees refrain from anti-social behaviour.

I’m fairly certain that The Rev has stated no such position.

sibeen said:

Bubblecar said:

Divine Angel said:

It’s not just legalities. It’s bringing the game, Code and employers into disrepute.

In the case of Rugby Australia, they celebrate and embrace diversity (apparently). To have a player publicly denounce his team mates are going to hell is bringing disrepute to his employer. It’s going against what his employer stands for.

The Rev doesn’t believe that employers are entitled to demand that their employees refrain from anti-social behaviour.

I’m fairly certain that The Rev has stated no such position.

I know for a fact that he has, repeatedly. Read the thread.

Ian said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ian said:

> Can he give the reference without fully quoting it?

Not sure that I follow.

Anyway, Folau has referenced 1 Corinthians 6:9-10  – New International Version

 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers  nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

.
> It seems to me that where we draw the line is quite problematical.
That doesn’t mean that the line doesn’t need to be drawn.

Yes. Where do you draw it?

My position is unchanged. I think people who play rugby should have the same limits as unemployed or self-employed people. If it is legal, they can say it. If it isn’t legal it’s up to the legal authorities to determine that, nothing to do with their employers.

Unemployed or self-employed people are not de facto representatives of their country.

So where is the limit that you would apply to these people?

(Not that I agree that representing your country as a sports person should affect your rights off the sports field, but my opinion on that isn’t relevant to the current discussion, I’m trying to get others to say what they think, with very little success so far.)

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

My position is unchanged. I think people who play rugby should have the same limits as unemployed or self-employed people. If it is legal, they can say it. If it isn’t legal it’s up to the legal authorities to determine that, nothing to do with their employers.

It’s legal for employers to sack people for failing to meet the requirements of their job, as determined by the employer.

For your views to hold sway, new laws would have to be introduced that would severely curtail the rights of employers to determine what they require from employees in this or that job.

Not at all. We are not discussing anyone’s activities as a rugby player. We are discussing how far their employer should curtail their rights outside their work.

More specifically, we are discussing where the limits should be if we accept that listing people who will go to Hell is a sackable offence (regardless of my opinion on the matter).

Folau has many followers on social media directly due to the fact that he is a sports celebrity, thus his public statements inevitably form part of his public sports celebrity role.

It’s entirely reasonable that sports employers require that his public sports celebrity behaviour should fall within socially acceptable boundaries.

Divine Angel said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

My position is unchanged. I think people who play rugby should have the same limits as unemployed or self-employed people. If it is legal, they can say it. If it isn’t legal it’s up to the legal authorities to determine that, nothing to do with their employers.

It’s not just legalities. It’s bringing the game, Code and employers into disrepute.

In the case of Rugby Australia, they celebrate and embrace diversity (apparently). To have a player publicly denounce his team mates are going to hell is bringing disrepute to his employer. It’s going against what his employer stands for.

I disagree, but the question remains, how far would you curtail the rights of people who play rugby to talk about their religious beliefs?

Bubblecar said:

Divine Angel said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

My position is unchanged. I think people who play rugby should have the same limits as unemployed or self-employed people. If it is legal, they can say it. If it isn’t legal it’s up to the legal authorities to determine that, nothing to do with their employers.

It’s not just legalities. It’s bringing the game, Code and employers into disrepute.

In the case of Rugby Australia, they celebrate and embrace diversity (apparently). To have a player publicly denounce his team mates are going to hell is bringing disrepute to his employer. It’s going against what his employer stands for.

The Rev doesn’t believe that employers are entitled to demand that their employees refrain from anti-social behaviour.

What I believe has nothing to do with the question I am asking.

I’m just trying to get a clearer definition of what other people think on the matter.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

It’s legal for employers to sack people for failing to meet the requirements of their job, as determined by the employer.

For your views to hold sway, new laws would have to be introduced that would severely curtail the rights of employers to determine what they require from employees in this or that job.

Not at all. We are not discussing anyone’s activities as a rugby player. We are discussing how far their employer should curtail their rights outside their work.

More specifically, we are discussing where the limits should be if we accept that listing people who will go to Hell is a sackable offence (regardless of my opinion on the matter).

Folau has many followers on social media directly due to the fact that he is a sports celebrity, thus his public statements inevitably form part of his public sports celebrity role.

It’s entirely reasonable that sports employers require that his public sports celebrity behaviour should fall within socially acceptable boundaries.

So where would you define the limit of socially acceptable boundaries, as regards a statement of personal religious belief?

Peak Warming Man said:

Peter Beatie from the NRL says Falou would not be welcomed back into the code.
However they have welcomed back some pretty unsavoury people, people who have been convicted of serious crimes, drug dealing/home invasion/assault etc.
Falou has not committed any crime to my knowledge.

Would the NRL get rid of players saying that they are a Nazi?

Peak Warming Man said:

Peter Beatie from the NRL says Falou would not be welcomed back into the code.
However they have welcomed back some pretty unsavoury people, people who have been convicted of serious crimes, drug dealing/home invasion/assault etc.
Falou has not committed any crime to my knowledge.

I would imagine that a lot players get sacked from clubs for breaking agreements across all sports.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Peter Beatie from the NRL says Falou would not be welcomed back into the code.
However they have welcomed back some pretty unsavoury people, people who have been convicted of serious crimes, drug dealing/home invasion/assault etc.
Falou has not committed any crime to my knowledge.

I would imagine that a lot players get sacked from clubs for breaking agreements across all sports.

Does not make them criminals.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Not at all. We are not discussing anyone’s activities as a rugby player. We are discussing how far their employer should curtail their rights outside their work.

More specifically, we are discussing where the limits should be if we accept that listing people who will go to Hell is a sackable offence (regardless of my opinion on the matter).

Folau has many followers on social media directly due to the fact that he is a sports celebrity, thus his public statements inevitably form part of his public sports celebrity role.

It’s entirely reasonable that sports employers require that his public sports celebrity behaviour should fall within socially acceptable boundaries.

So where would you define the limit of socially acceptable boundaries, as regards a statement of personal religious belief?

I’ve given my example of a simple general rule. It’s then up to the employer to interpret whether that rule has been broken in this or that instance, and I’d imagine they’d have a strong vested interest in being reasonable in their interpretation.

Which is pretty obviously what happened in this case, given that Folau as a player is regarded as a valuable asset and they’re hardly going to kick him out for trivial reasons. In fact he wasn’t kicked out until he’d offended multiple times.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ian said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

My position is unchanged. I think people who play rugby should have the same limits as unemployed or self-employed people. If it is legal, they can say it. If it isn’t legal it’s up to the legal authorities to determine that, nothing to do with their employers.

Unemployed or self-employed people are not de facto representatives of their country.

So where is the limit that you would apply to these people?

(Not that I agree that representing your country as a sports person should affect your rights off the sports field, but my opinion on that isn’t relevant to the current discussion, I’m trying to get others to say what they think, with very little success so far.)

Oh, I think bubbles states it fairly closely.

:)

Ian said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ian said:

Unemployed or self-employed people are not de facto representatives of their country.

So where is the limit that you would apply to these people?

(Not that I agree that representing your country as a sports person should affect your rights off the sports field, but my opinion on that isn’t relevant to the current discussion, I’m trying to get others to say what they think, with very little success so far.)

Oh, I think bubbles states it fairly closely.

:)

The only clear statement he has made is that it should be up to the employer.

I guess that’s pretty clear.

A ridiculous infringement of personal liberty in my opinion, but clear nonetheless.

In the original hypothetical for instance he would support the school sacking the devout Christian lab assistant who did not accept that homosexual people were bound for Hell.

There’s an element of Faustian Bargain in becoming a high profile player in a commercial team sport like rugby. The sport will give you fame and fortune, but you can’t use your fame for your own ends. But they own your public persona so they can use it to perpetuate the sport. You only get it back after you retire.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ian said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

So where is the limit that you would apply to these people?

(Not that I agree that representing your country as a sports person should affect your rights off the sports field, but my opinion on that isn’t relevant to the current discussion, I’m trying to get others to say what they think, with very little success so far.)

Oh, I think bubbles states it fairly closely.

:)

The only clear statement he has made is that it should be up to the employer.

I guess that’s pretty clear.

A ridiculous infringement of personal liberty in my opinion, but clear nonetheless.

In the original hypothetical for instance he would support the school sacking the devout Christian lab assistant who did not accept that homosexual people were bound for Hell.

That’s an example of an employer sacking someone for refusing to uphold anti-social beliefs so no, I wouldn’t support it.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ian said:

Oh, I think bubbles states it fairly closely.

:)

The only clear statement he has made is that it should be up to the employer.

I guess that’s pretty clear.

A ridiculous infringement of personal liberty in my opinion, but clear nonetheless.

In the original hypothetical for instance he would support the school sacking the devout Christian lab assistant who did not accept that homosexual people were bound for Hell.

That’s an example of an employer sacking someone for refusing to uphold anti-social beliefs so no, I wouldn’t support it.

But you said it was up to the employer?

If it isn’t up to the employer the question again becomes unanswered, how should the limit be set?

party_pants said:

There’s an element of Faustian Bargain in becoming a high profile player in a commercial team sport like rugby. The sport will give you fame and fortune, but you can’t use your fame for your own ends. But they own your public persona so they can use it to perpetuate the sport. You only get it back after you retire.

OK, so people who play sport for a living lose all rights to express their personal opinion or beliefs. Fair enough.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The only clear statement he has made is that it should be up to the employer.

I guess that’s pretty clear.

A ridiculous infringement of personal liberty in my opinion, but clear nonetheless.

In the original hypothetical for instance he would support the school sacking the devout Christian lab assistant who did not accept that homosexual people were bound for Hell.

That’s an example of an employer sacking someone for refusing to uphold anti-social beliefs so no, I wouldn’t support it.

But you said it was up to the employer?

If it isn’t up to the employer the question again becomes unanswered, how should the limit be set?

I said it’s up to the employer to interpret pro-social requirements (such as the rule that employees refrain from racism, sexism, homophobia) in a reasonable way.

I didn’t say that employers should be free to demand that their employees behave in an anti-social manner.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

That’s an example of an employer sacking someone for refusing to uphold anti-social beliefs so no, I wouldn’t support it.

But you said it was up to the employer?

If it isn’t up to the employer the question again becomes unanswered, how should the limit be set?

I said it’s up to the employer to interpret pro-social requirements (such as the rule that employees refrain from racism, sexism, homophobia) in a reasonable way.

I didn’t say that employers should be free to demand that their employees behave in an anti-social manner.

But in the original example the school board would say that they were interpreting pro-social requirements, and that denying the word of the Bible the employee was engaging in anti-social behaviour.

If the interpretation of anti-social behaviour is up to the employers then some will interpret it in ways you would not agree with.

If it isn’t up to the employer, how is it decided?

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

There’s an element of Faustian Bargain in becoming a high profile player in a commercial team sport like rugby. The sport will give you fame and fortune, but you can’t use your fame for your own ends. But they own your public persona so they can use it to perpetuate the sport. You only get it back after you retire.

OK, so people who play sport for a living lose all rights to express their personal opinion or beliefs. Fair enough.

Not quite. The right to express personal opinion exists but is alienable, f you want to frame it in legal terms. It exists by default, but you can enter into a contract which gives it up or restricts it. It is not one of those inalienable human rights.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

But you said it was up to the employer?

If it isn’t up to the employer the question again becomes unanswered, how should the limit be set?

I said it’s up to the employer to interpret pro-social requirements (such as the rule that employees refrain from racism, sexism, homophobia) in a reasonable way.

I didn’t say that employers should be free to demand that their employees behave in an anti-social manner.

But in the original example the school board would say that they were interpreting pro-social requirements, and that denying the word of the Bible the employee was engaging in anti-social behaviour.

If the interpretation of anti-social behaviour is up to the employers then some will interpret it in ways you would not agree with.

If it isn’t up to the employer, how is it decided?

What’s pro-social and what’s anti-social is determined by the most widespread social standards, so obviously we as concerned citizens should be encouraging the most ethically defensible standards. This is why I applaud Rugby Australia for adopting decent standards and then taking their social responsibilities seriously.

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

There’s an element of Faustian Bargain in becoming a high profile player in a commercial team sport like rugby. The sport will give you fame and fortune, but you can’t use your fame for your own ends. But they own your public persona so they can use it to perpetuate the sport. You only get it back after you retire.

OK, so people who play sport for a living lose all rights to express their personal opinion or beliefs. Fair enough.

Not quite. The right to express personal opinion exists but is alienable, f you want to frame it in legal terms. It exists by default, but you can enter into a contract which gives it up or restricts it. It is not one of those inalienable human rights.

Good response, I think that encapsulates nicely the fundamental reason for the difference in my opinion and that of everyone else, other than sibeen, obviously.

UN article of inalienable human rights, No. 18:

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

In the original hypothetical for instance he would support the school sacking the devout Christian lab assistant who did not accept that homosexual people were bound for Hell.

—

Seems to be an unlikely scenario.

It’s all pretty tame stuff compared to the middle ages and their execution by fire and torture, or castration of homosexuals.

Ian said:

In the original hypothetical for instance he would support the school sacking the devout Christian lab assistant who did not accept that homosexual people were bound for Hell.

—

Seems to be an unlikely scenario.

Well it was supposed to be one extreme end of the spectrum.

Ian said:

It’s all pretty tame stuff compared to the middle ages and their execution by fire and torture, or castration of homosexuals.

True, and tame compared with treatment of homosexuals in some 21st Century countries, but I’m not sure what that has to do with it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, so people who play sport for a living lose all rights to express their personal opinion or beliefs. Fair enough.

Not quite. The right to express personal opinion exists but is alienable, f you want to frame it in legal terms. It exists by default, but you can enter into a contract which gives it up or restricts it. It is not one of those inalienable human rights.

Good response, I think that encapsulates nicely the fundamental reason for the difference in my opinion and that of everyone else, other than sibeen, obviously.

UN article of inalienable human rights, No. 18:

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Big problem with Article 18: there are some very nasty religious beliefs out there, that violate all kinds of other human rights.

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, so people who play sport for a living lose all rights to express their personal opinion or beliefs. Fair enough.

Not quite. The right to express personal opinion exists but is alienable, f you want to frame it in legal terms. It exists by default, but you can enter into a contract which gives it up or restricts it. It is not one of those inalienable human rights.

Good response, I think that encapsulates nicely the fundamental reason for the difference in my opinion and that of everyone else, other than sibeen, obviously.

UN article of inalienable human rights, No. 18:

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

I don’t think that article stretches quite far enough to cover the Folau situation. There seems to be no right to proselytize.

Bubblecar said:

What’s pro-social and what’s anti-social is determined by the most widespread social standards, so obviously we as concerned citizens should be encouraging the most ethically defensible standards. This is why I applaud Rugby Australia for adopting decent standards and then taking their social responsibilities seriously.

Just to add:

Obviously there are competing ethical standards fighting it out in the social arena all the time.

If you are a “moral relativist”, you’ll argue that all these competing views have the same value and should all be seen as legitimate. But “moral relativism” is essentially “value-free” or nihilistic.

If instead, you commit yourself to specific ethical standards because you believe they are the most just and most rationally defensible, then like me you’re going to join in the war and fight against the baddies :)

And you’re going to applaud others who also seek to reinforce the ethical standards that you believe are worth promoting and defending. This is how societies ethically progress.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

Not quite. The right to express personal opinion exists but is alienable, f you want to frame it in legal terms. It exists by default, but you can enter into a contract which gives it up or restricts it. It is not one of those inalienable human rights.

Good response, I think that encapsulates nicely the fundamental reason for the difference in my opinion and that of everyone else, other than sibeen, obviously.

UN article of inalienable human rights, No. 18:

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Big problem with Article 18: there are some very nasty religious beliefs out there, that violate all kinds of other human rights.

A problem with generalised human rights in general.

Nonetheless, so long as it does not contravene the law of the land, the inalienable right of individuals to manifest their religious beliefs should remain inalienable, in my opinion.

Not because I accept this particular aspect of the traditional interpretation of Judaist religions, but rather because I value my freedom to express my rejection of all religions, and in a world where religions exist, you can’t expect the one freedom without accepting the other.

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

Not quite. The right to express personal opinion exists but is alienable, f you want to frame it in legal terms. It exists by default, but you can enter into a contract which gives it up or restricts it. It is not one of those inalienable human rights.

Good response, I think that encapsulates nicely the fundamental reason for the difference in my opinion and that of everyone else, other than sibeen, obviously.

UN article of inalienable human rights, No. 18:

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

I don’t think that article stretches quite far enough to cover the Folau situation. There seems to be no right to proselytize.

Eh?

It explicitly says that everyone is free to manifest their religion with others and in public, including teaching.

How does what Folau did not come within that right?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Good response, I think that encapsulates nicely the fundamental reason for the difference in my opinion and that of everyone else, other than sibeen, obviously.

UN article of inalienable human rights, No. 18:

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Big problem with Article 18: there are some very nasty religious beliefs out there, that violate all kinds of other human rights.

A problem with generalised human rights in general.

Nonetheless, so long as it does not contravene the law of the land, the inalienable right of individuals to manifest their religious beliefs should remain inalienable, in my opinion.

Not because I accept this particular aspect of the traditional interpretation of Judaist religions, but rather because I value my freedom to express my rejection of all religions, and in a world where religions exist, you can’t expect the one freedom without accepting the other.

You can respect people’s right to hold nasty beliefs, while also demanding that they refrain from using those nasty beliefs as an excuse to behave in an anti-social manner.

And the public expression of nasty beliefs can itself count as “behaving in an anti-social manner”. Telling gay people that they’re going to burn in hell is not a harmless exercise in free speech.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ian said:

In the original hypothetical for instance he would support the school sacking the devout Christian lab assistant who did not accept that homosexual people were bound for Hell.

—

Seems to be an unlikely scenario.

Well it was supposed to be one extreme end of the spectrum.

Ian said:

It’s all pretty tame stuff compared to the middle ages and their execution by fire and torture, or castration of homosexuals.

True, and tame compared with treatment of homosexuals in some 21st Century countries, but I’m not sure what that has to do with it.

Well, just imagine how long a thread such as this would have been.

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Good response, I think that encapsulates nicely the fundamental reason for the difference in my opinion and that of everyone else, other than sibeen, obviously.

UN article of inalienable human rights, No. 18:

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

I don’t think that article stretches quite far enough to cover the Folau situation. There seems to be no right to proselytize.

Eh?

It explicitly says that everyone is free to manifest their religion with others and in public, including teaching.

How does what Folau did not come within that right?

“Teaching” requires a consenting audience.

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

I don’t think that article stretches quite far enough to cover the Folau situation. There seems to be no right to proselytize.

Eh?

It explicitly says that everyone is free to manifest their religion with others and in public, including teaching.

How does what Folau did not come within that right?

“Teaching” requires a consenting audience.

And “manifesting”?

When two parties enter into a contract for the provision of services for the exchange of money they set out the terms of the contract.
If a party or parties breaks a term or terms of the contract the other party has the right to cancel the contract.
If that is contested by one of the parties it then becomes a legal matter where chaps in robes argue the case for and against and a chap or chapett in even finer robes and a little hammer decides the outcome.

party_pants said:

“Teaching” requires a consenting audience.

Religious teaching certainly should, if the rights of the “students” are being upheld.

But alas that’s another problem with Article 18: adults are held to have an “inalienable right” to subject children and other adults to religious indoctrination whether they like it or not.

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Eh?

It explicitly says that everyone is free to manifest their religion with others and in public, including teaching.

How does what Folau did not come within that right?

“Teaching” requires a consenting audience.

And “manifesting”?

I read that as his own personal conduct, in public and in private.

Bubblecar said:

party_pants said:

“Teaching” requires a consenting audience.

Religious teaching certainly should, if the rights of the “students” are being upheld.

But alas that’s another problem with Article 18: adults are held to have an “inalienable right” to subject children and other adults to religious indoctrination whether they like it or not.

Which has nothing to do with posting stuff on social media, that everyone is free to read or not, as they wish.

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

“Teaching” requires a consenting audience.

And “manifesting”?

I read that as his own personal conduct, in public and in private.

I read it as saying that everyone is free to say what their religious beliefs are, in public and private.

Ian said:

It’s all pretty tame stuff compared to the middle ages and their execution by fire and torture, or castration of homosexuals.

……. and witches. Don’t forget the witches.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

party_pants said:

“Teaching” requires a consenting audience.

Religious teaching certainly should, if the rights of the “students” are being upheld.

But alas that’s another problem with Article 18: adults are held to have an “inalienable right” to subject children and other adults to religious indoctrination whether they like it or not.

Which has nothing to do with posting stuff on social media, that everyone is free to read or not, as they wish.

It would be very hard to avoid Folau’s anti-gay postings, since they’ve been widely discussed across the news media.

Due to the fact he’s a high-profile sports celebrity. Whose employer required that he keep his public behaviour within pro-social bounds, and he deliberately decided to flout that requirement.

Bubblecar said:

Bubblecar said:

What’s pro-social and what’s anti-social is determined by the most widespread social standards, so obviously we as concerned citizens should be encouraging the most ethically defensible standards. This is why I applaud Rugby Australia for adopting decent standards and then taking their social responsibilities seriously.

Just to add:

Obviously there are competing ethical standards fighting it out in the social arena all the time.

If you are a “moral relativist”, you’ll argue that all these competing views have the same value and should all be seen as legitimate. But “moral relativism” is essentially “value-free” or nihilistic.

If instead, you commit yourself to specific ethical standards because you believe they are the most just and most rationally defensible, then like me you’re going to join in the war and fight against the baddies :)

And you’re going to applaud others who also seek to reinforce the ethical standards that you believe are worth promoting and defending. This is how societies ethically progress.

I meant to reply to this moral relativism nonsense before, but got distracted.

I do not think that all moral views have the same value. That is obviously nonsense.

What I do argue is that if you expect the freedom to express your moral views, so far as that is within the laws of the land, then you must accept the freedom of others to do the same, even if you find their views repugnant.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Bubblecar said:

What’s pro-social and what’s anti-social is determined by the most widespread social standards, so obviously we as concerned citizens should be encouraging the most ethically defensible standards. This is why I applaud Rugby Australia for adopting decent standards and then taking their social responsibilities seriously.

Just to add:

Obviously there are competing ethical standards fighting it out in the social arena all the time.

If you are a “moral relativist”, you’ll argue that all these competing views have the same value and should all be seen as legitimate. But “moral relativism” is essentially “value-free” or nihilistic.

If instead, you commit yourself to specific ethical standards because you believe they are the most just and most rationally defensible, then like me you’re going to join in the war and fight against the baddies :)

And you’re going to applaud others who also seek to reinforce the ethical standards that you believe are worth promoting and defending. This is how societies ethically progress.

I meant to reply to this moral relativism nonsense before, but got distracted.

I do not think that all moral views have the same value. That is obviously nonsense.

What I do argue is that if you expect the freedom to express your moral views, so far as that is within the laws of the land, then you must accept the freedom of others to do the same, even if you find their views repugnant.

I’ll repeat this from my post earlier:

You can respect people’s right to hold nasty beliefs, while also demanding that they refrain from using those nasty beliefs as an excuse to behave in an anti-social manner.

And the public expression of nasty beliefs can itself count as “behaving in an anti-social manner”. Telling gay people that they’re going to burn in hell is not a harmless exercise in free speech.

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

And “manifesting”?

I read that as his own personal conduct, in public and in private.

I read it as saying that everyone is free to say what their religious beliefs are, in public and private.

Once again, we get into a murky area. The offending statements were a condemnation of unbelievers, not a statement of personal belief. I think that does and should fall outside the protection of inalienable rights.

Hmm, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights would appear to be somewhat self contradictory.

Guess we’ll have to let football leagues do the front running.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Religious teaching certainly should, if the rights of the “students” are being upheld.

But alas that’s another problem with Article 18: adults are held to have an “inalienable right” to subject children and other adults to religious indoctrination whether they like it or not.

Which has nothing to do with posting stuff on social media, that everyone is free to read or not, as they wish.

It would be very hard to avoid Folau’s anti-gay postings, since they’ve been widely discussed across the news media.

Due to the fact he’s a high-profile sports celebrity. Whose employer required that he keep his public behaviour within pro-social bounds, and he deliberately decided to flout that requirement.

The discussion is whether employers should be legally allowed to impose such restrictions, and if they are, where should the limits be placed.

I’m now moving to the position that unless the employment is directly involved with religious duties, employers should not be able to place any restriction whatsoever on the legal expression of religious belief, at least outside working hours.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Just to add:

Obviously there are competing ethical standards fighting it out in the social arena all the time.

If you are a “moral relativist”, you’ll argue that all these competing views have the same value and should all be seen as legitimate. But “moral relativism” is essentially “value-free” or nihilistic.

If instead, you commit yourself to specific ethical standards because you believe they are the most just and most rationally defensible, then like me you’re going to join in the war and fight against the baddies :)

And you’re going to applaud others who also seek to reinforce the ethical standards that you believe are worth promoting and defending. This is how societies ethically progress.

I meant to reply to this moral relativism nonsense before, but got distracted.

I do not think that all moral views have the same value. That is obviously nonsense.

What I do argue is that if you expect the freedom to express your moral views, so far as that is within the laws of the land, then you must accept the freedom of others to do the same, even if you find their views repugnant.

I’ll repeat this from my post earlier:

You can respect people’s right to hold nasty beliefs, while also demanding that they refrain from using those nasty beliefs as an excuse to behave in an anti-social manner.

And the public expression of nasty beliefs can itself count as “behaving in an anti-social manner”. Telling gay people that they’re going to burn in hell is not a harmless exercise in free speech.

That is your personal opinion, that you are free to express.

The limit on what others are free to express is governed by the law of the land, not by what you think about it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Which has nothing to do with posting stuff on social media, that everyone is free to read or not, as they wish.

It would be very hard to avoid Folau’s anti-gay postings, since they’ve been widely discussed across the news media.

Due to the fact he’s a high-profile sports celebrity. Whose employer required that he keep his public behaviour within pro-social bounds, and he deliberately decided to flout that requirement.

The discussion is whether employers should be legally allowed to impose such restrictions, and if they are, where should the limits be placed.

I’m now moving to the position that unless the employment is directly involved with religious duties, employers should not be able to place any restriction whatsoever on the legal expression of religious belief, at least outside working hours.

I’m suspecting that you’re allowing your hostility towards employers to get in the way of any other consideration :)

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

I read that as his own personal conduct, in public and in private.

I read it as saying that everyone is free to say what their religious beliefs are, in public and private.

Once again, we get into a murky area. The offending statements were a condemnation of unbelievers, not a statement of personal belief. I think that does and should fall outside the protection of inalienable rights.

Once again, eh?

It was a direct statement of what it says in The Bible. He believes The Bible to contain only true things. It is therefore a statement of his religious beliefs.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I meant to reply to this moral relativism nonsense before, but got distracted.

I do not think that all moral views have the same value. That is obviously nonsense.

What I do argue is that if you expect the freedom to express your moral views, so far as that is within the laws of the land, then you must accept the freedom of others to do the same, even if you find their views repugnant.

I’ll repeat this from my post earlier:

You can respect people’s right to hold nasty beliefs, while also demanding that they refrain from using those nasty beliefs as an excuse to behave in an anti-social manner.

And the public expression of nasty beliefs can itself count as “behaving in an anti-social manner”. Telling gay people that they’re going to burn in hell is not a harmless exercise in free speech.

That is your personal opinion, that you are free to express.

The limit on what others are free to express is governed by the law of the land, not by what you think about it.

Here you go again with the legalese :)

So I’ll have to repeat: employers are LEGALLY ENTITLED to require that employees refrain from anti-social behaviour, and not just in working hours.

Ian said:

Hmm, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights would appear to be somewhat self contradictory.

Guess we’ll have to let football leagues do the front running.

In what way?

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I read it as saying that everyone is free to say what their religious beliefs are, in public and private.

Once again, we get into a murky area. The offending statements were a condemnation of unbelievers, not a statement of personal belief. I think that does and should fall outside the protection of inalienable rights.

Once again, eh?

It was a direct statement of what it says in The Bible. He believes The Bible to contain only true things. It is therefore a statement of his religious beliefs.

Yes but let’s remind ourselves: he is wrong, the Bible contains all kinds of bullshit.

Unless you’re a moral relativist, you will not regard that as “irrelevant”.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

It would be very hard to avoid Folau’s anti-gay postings, since they’ve been widely discussed across the news media.

Due to the fact he’s a high-profile sports celebrity. Whose employer required that he keep his public behaviour within pro-social bounds, and he deliberately decided to flout that requirement.

The discussion is whether employers should be legally allowed to impose such restrictions, and if they are, where should the limits be placed.

I’m now moving to the position that unless the employment is directly involved with religious duties, employers should not be able to place any restriction whatsoever on the legal expression of religious belief, at least outside working hours.

I’m suspecting that you’re allowing your hostility towards employers to get in the way of any other consideration :)

My hostility towards employers is zero.

I just don’t think they should be able to alienate unalienable human rights.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

I’ll repeat this from my post earlier:

You can respect people’s right to hold nasty beliefs, while also demanding that they refrain from using those nasty beliefs as an excuse to behave in an anti-social manner.

And the public expression of nasty beliefs can itself count as “behaving in an anti-social manner”. Telling gay people that they’re going to burn in hell is not a harmless exercise in free speech.

That is your personal opinion, that you are free to express.

The limit on what others are free to express is governed by the law of the land, not by what you think about it.

Here you go again with the legalese :)

So I’ll have to repeat: employers are LEGALLY ENTITLED to require that employees refrain from anti-social behaviour, and not just in working hours.

If such a right exist, but they are legally not entitled to unalienable human rights, then clearly the particular circumstances need to be examined to determine which governs.

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I read it as saying that everyone is free to say what their religious beliefs are, in public and private.

Once again, we get into a murky area. The offending statements were a condemnation of unbelievers, not a statement of personal belief. I think that does and should fall outside the protection of inalienable rights.

Once again, eh?

It was a direct statement of what it says in The Bible. He believes The Bible to contain only true things. It is therefore a statement of his religious beliefs.

If we accept that, then Article 18 basically turns the exercise of religious discrimination and bigotry into an inalienable right. Which I think it is the opposite of the intention. The intention is clearly to protect the individual from such abuses.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ian said:

Hmm, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights would appear to be somewhat self contradictory.

Guess we’ll have to let football leagues do the front running.

In what way?

The way (proper) Football does e.g. with bans on religious symbols on uniforms.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

Once again, we get into a murky area. The offending statements were a condemnation of unbelievers, not a statement of personal belief. I think that does and should fall outside the protection of inalienable rights.

Once again, eh?

It was a direct statement of what it says in The Bible. He believes The Bible to contain only true things. It is therefore a statement of his religious beliefs.

Yes but let’s remind ourselves: he is wrong, the Bible contains all kinds of bullshit.

Unless you’re a moral relativist, you will not regard that as “irrelevant”.

No, your statements there are simply illogical.

You are confusing the right of people to hold and express opinions that others consider to be wrong with a ridiculous philosophical position that all opinions are of equal value.

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

Once again, we get into a murky area. The offending statements were a condemnation of unbelievers, not a statement of personal belief. I think that does and should fall outside the protection of inalienable rights.

Once again, eh?

It was a direct statement of what it says in The Bible. He believes The Bible to contain only true things. It is therefore a statement of his religious beliefs.

If we accept that, then Article 18 basically turns the exercise of religious discrimination and bigotry into an inalienable right. Which I think it is the opposite of the intention. The intention is clearly to protect the individual from such abuses.

The intention is clearly to allow the expression of religious beliefs, within the limits of the law, regardless of the whether those beliefs may be considered offensive by others.

Ian said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ian said:

Hmm, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights would appear to be somewhat self contradictory.

Guess we’ll have to let football leagues do the front running.

In what way?

The way (proper) Football does e.g. with bans on religious symbols on uniforms.

We are discussing out of work activities here.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Once again, eh?

It was a direct statement of what it says in The Bible. He believes The Bible to contain only true things. It is therefore a statement of his religious beliefs.

Yes but let’s remind ourselves: he is wrong, the Bible contains all kinds of bullshit.

Unless you’re a moral relativist, you will not regard that as “irrelevant”.

No, your statements there are simply illogical.

You are confusing the right of people to hold and express opinions that others consider to be wrong with a ridiculous philosophical position that all opinions are of equal value.

Let me remind you: some of Folau’s Biblical beliefs are anti-social beliefs. That is highly relevant to this overall ethical debate.

You still haven’t conceded that the expression of anti-social beliefs can have a harmful effect, i.e., that such expression can itself be anti-social behaviour.

You are treating ethically bad beliefs as if they’re ethically neutral, and even claiming the “moral high ground” for this value-free relativism.

I haven’t read all of this thread. I am relatively happy for people to have whatever religious beliefs they want, as long as they discuss it only within their own religious group, (no proseletyzing) and they afford the same freedoms to everyone else.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ian said:

Hmm, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights would appear to be somewhat self contradictory.

Guess we’ll have to let football leagues do the front running.

In what way?

Should have added TIC.

However, the FA says…

In addition, posting false or defamatory material might not only leave you open to punishment from your club and/or from The FA and legal action, it may also have the effect of seriously damaging your public image.

..don’t know about religion/discrimination

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Once again, eh?

It was a direct statement of what it says in The Bible. He believes The Bible to contain only true things. It is therefore a statement of his religious beliefs.

If we accept that, then Article 18 basically turns the exercise of religious discrimination and bigotry into an inalienable right. Which I think it is the opposite of the intention. The intention is clearly to protect the individual from such abuses.

The intention is clearly to allow the expression of religious beliefs, within the limits of the law, regardless of the whether those beliefs may be considered offensive by others.

I’m probably not going to have time to come back to this for the rest of the afternoon.

The intent of Article 18 is clearly more than just protecting the expression of faith, it is protecting the right to choose what your faith is, or to change your faith, without the intervention or imposition of consequences of outside parties, in particular by the state.

A problem arises when the faith by its own self-definition is inconsistent with Article 18. If the faith requires believers to act in a way contrary to the article, then the article breaks down. It is hard to defend religious tolerance if certain religions require intolerance as an article of faith. Endorsing the article while at the same time accepting the self-definition of what constitutes religiously acceptable behaviour leads to a situation where article can be twisted into defending what it is opposing.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Yes but let’s remind ourselves: he is wrong, the Bible contains all kinds of bullshit.

Unless you’re a moral relativist, you will not regard that as “irrelevant”.

No, your statements there are simply illogical.

You are confusing the right of people to hold and express opinions that others consider to be wrong with a ridiculous philosophical position that all opinions are of equal value.

Let me remind you: some of Folau’s Biblical beliefs are anti-social beliefs. That is highly relevant to this overall ethical debate.

You still haven’t conceded that the expression of anti-social beliefs can have a harmful effect, i.e., that such expression can itself be anti-social behaviour.

On the contrary, I have explicitly agreed that the statement of some beliefs would be illegal, which implies that there are other beliefs that whilst not illegal are anti-social, so expressing these views would be ant-social behaviour.

I have also said that whether expressing these views is permissible or not is a matter for the law, not the employer.

Bubblecar said:

You are treating ethically bad beliefs as if they’re ethically neutral, and even claiming the “moral high ground” for this value-free relativism.

Again, I have explicitly said otherwise, you just choose to ignore it.

Neither am I claiming a “moral high ground”. I am merely stating the things we need to accept if we wish to preserve our freedom to hold and express opinions that others would consider repugnant and/or dangerous to society, such as the non-existence of Hell, or anything remotely resembling the Judaist God.

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

If we accept that, then Article 18 basically turns the exercise of religious discrimination and bigotry into an inalienable right. Which I think it is the opposite of the intention. The intention is clearly to protect the individual from such abuses.

The intention is clearly to allow the expression of religious beliefs, within the limits of the law, regardless of the whether those beliefs may be considered offensive by others.

I’m probably not going to have time to come back to this for the rest of the afternoon.

Me neither.

party_pants said:

The intent of Article 18 is clearly more than just protecting the expression of faith, it is protecting the right to choose what your faith is, or to change your faith, without the intervention or imposition of consequences of outside parties, in particular by the state.

Agreed. It explicitly states those things.

party_pants said:

A problem arises when the faith by its own self-definition is inconsistent with Article 18. If the faith requires believers to act in a way contrary to the article, then the article breaks down. It is hard to defend religious tolerance if certain religions require intolerance as an article of faith. Endorsing the article while at the same time accepting the self-definition of what constitutes religiously acceptable behaviour leads to a situation where article can be twisted into defending what it is opposing.

Which is why there is an implicit proviso that the expression of religious belief complies with the law. For instance a statement that it is OK to murder atheists if they refuse to repent would clearly be illegal, and thus not protected by Article 18.

If what Folao posted might be considered hate-speech under Australian law, then he should be prosecuted. If it isn’t then he should be free to post it without getting sacked for it.

>I have also said that whether expressing these views is permissible or not is a matter for the law, not the employer.

This is your main weaknesses in this debate. You seem to think that only “the law” has any social role to play in regulating anti-social behaviour.

Just imagine how unworkable society would be if that were the case. Someone working in a crowded office, making a constant pest of himself with racist and insulting comments, without actually breaking any laws.

It seems that in your scheme of things, because he’s not breaking the law he’s not doing anything that should justify any social penalties. He might lose friends, but that’s only because those friends are “illiberal” – he’s not breaking any laws by being an arsehole, so what right have they to socially penalise him by not being his friends?

Ditto – and especially – his boss has no right to demand that he improve his behaviour or face dismissal. It’s a matter for the law, not the employer.

In real life of course, anti-social behaviour attracts social penalties from all kinds of quarters, as indeed it should. “The law” plays only a minor role, usually only in relation to behaviour extreme enough to attract criminal convictions.

The society we have today is far less racist, sexist, homophobic etc than that of a few generations ago. A lot of this is due to high quality ethical debate in which the more just and rationally defensible side has prevailed, but the maintenance and reinforcement of this victory has also relied on anti-social attitudes and behaviours attracting social penalties from people prepared to exercise that social responsibility.

Anti-social people lose friends, lose social standing, lose opportunities and yes, where appropriate, they may also lose their jobs.

If their behaviour was actually only policed by “the law”, they’d face hardly any social penalties at all, and society would have very little way of regulating anti-social behaviour.

>I am merely stating the things we need to accept if we wish to preserve our freedom to hold and express opinions that others would consider repugnant and/or dangerous to society, such as the non-existence of Hell, or anything remotely resembling the Judaist God.

And that’s where you’re being contradictory. Because I do of course firmly agree that as far as the law is concerned, people should be free to believe what they like.

But this simply emphasises that there are all kinds of anti-social beliefs and behaviours that need to be mostly regulated not by the law, but by social penalties provided by society in general – including employers requiring their employees to refrain from anti-social behaviour.

Bubblecar – sorry, but if you are just going to ignore what I have repeatedly said then it’s a waste of time responding in any detail.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar – sorry, but if you are just going to ignore what I have repeatedly said then it’s a waste of time responding in any detail.

I’ve just responded calmly, reasonably and fairly to your last post.

Have a read of it.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar – sorry, but if you are just going to ignore what I have repeatedly said then it’s a waste of time responding in any detail.

I’ve just responded calmly, reasonably and fairly to your last post.

Have a read of it.

I have read it.

It is almost entirely repudiation of stuff I have neither said nor implied, and ignores many things have said.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar – sorry, but if you are just going to ignore what I have repeatedly said then it’s a waste of time responding in any detail.

I’ve just responded calmly, reasonably and fairly to your last post.

Have a read of it.

I have read it.

It is almost entirely repudiation of stuff I have neither said nor implied, and ignores many things have said.

You’ve said Folau shouldn’t have been sacked, and then spent hours trying to justify this position. I’ve pointed out why you’re wrong.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

I’ve just responded calmly, reasonably and fairly to your last post.

Have a read of it.

I have read it.

It is almost entirely repudiation of stuff I have neither said nor implied, and ignores many things have said.

You’ve said Folau shouldn’t have been sacked, and then spent hours trying to justify this position. I’ve pointed out why you’re wrong.

Which has apparently necessitated repudiation of stuff I have neither said nor implied, and ignoring many things I have said.

I have also asked what a reasonable limit would be on what he is allowed to post on social media, without any response as yet.

In fact this entire thread was supposed to be Folau-free, but I’ll accept a part of the blame for getting sucked in and responding on that topic.

I’ve said in regard to the “reasonable limit”, that this isn’t something that needs to be highly specified (which would be very impractical anyway), because it should be possible to use general rules and then reasonably interpret them in relation to this or that specific comment.

You also need to bear in mind that this isn’t going to be some eternal struggle. More and more religious believers, at least in the West, are gradually accepting that they need to ditch or highly modify beliefs that are anti-social in nature and effect.

The more frequently they face social penalties for promulgating bigoted views, the sooner they’ll realise they need to adapt or be pushed increasingly to the social margins.

Bubblecar said:

I’ve said in regard to the “reasonable limit”, that this isn’t something that needs to be highly specified (which would be very impractical anyway), because it should be possible to use general rules and then reasonably interpret them in relation to this or that specific comment.

You also need to bear in mind that this isn’t going to be some eternal struggle. More and more religious believers, at least in the West, are gradually accepting that they need to ditch or highly modify beliefs that are anti-social in nature and effect.

It doesn’t need to be struggle at all. If you don’t like it ignore it.

Bubblecar said:

The more frequently they face social penalties for promulgating bigoted views, the sooner they’ll realise they need to adapt or be pushed increasingly to the social margins.

The more frequently they face social penalties the more deeply entrenched they will become, and the more they will treat people who do not share their views as “The Enemy”, rather than as people who just don’t share their views.

>It doesn’t need to be struggle at all. If you don’t like it ignore it.

If we’d taken that attitude, we’d still be facing prison for having gay relationships.

>The more frequently they face social penalties the more deeply entrenched they will become, and the more they will treat people who do not share their views as “The Enemy”, rather than as people who just don’t share their views.<

Except that’s not what’s happening. All the mainstream churches have modified their views on homosexuality over the last few decades, and are now generally much less hostile than they used to be. And the process is continuing, with homophobic attitudes attracting more social penalties within these churches, from their own members.

At the same time, they’re losing members at a very rapid rate. So it’s not far-fetched to expect that the churches will eventually become either entirely accepting of homosexuality, or (more likely) will eventually become such tiny organisations as to be of very little social consequence.

Bubblecar said:

>It doesn’t need to be struggle at all. If you don’t like it ignore it.

If we’d taken that attitude, we’d still be facing prison for having gay relationships.

>The more frequently they face social penalties the more deeply entrenched they will become, and the more they will treat people who do not share their views as “The Enemy”, rather than as people who just don’t share their views.<

Except that’s not what’s happening. All the mainstream churches have modified their views on homosexuality over the last few decades, and are now generally much less hostile than they used to be. And the process is continuing, with homophobic attitudes attracting more social penalties within these churches, from their own members.

And that has all happened without a single sports person being sacked for publicly stating their traditional Christian views.

The transition from homosexuality being illegal to it being not only legal, but also not in any way reprehensible (at least in the eyes of many), has not been achieved by imposing penalties on those who hold differing views, but rather by rational discussion on how those with differing views may live together in harmony, in a free society.

Bubblecar said:

At the same time, they’re losing members at a very rapid rate. So it’s not far-fetched to expect that the churches will eventually become either entirely accepting of homosexuality, or (more likely) will eventually become such tiny organisations as to be of very little social consequence.

The traditional major churches are losing members, others are gaining them, and other religions are increasing in numbers.

I doubt that relying on religions disappearing is a good strategy for those who want to have sexual relations with people of the same sex, eat pork, or openly dispute the veracity of traditional religious teachings.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Suppose a Christian school comes up with a new contract for its staff which says that no staff member shall act in a way that goes against the basic principles of the school at any time, and all the staff sign it.

After a few weeks three events make the school board very cross.

1. The religion teacher publishes on Facebook that he has had a revelation, and that the Jews were right. All Christians will spend eternity in hell, along with the fornicators and atheists.

2. A science teacher publishes on a science forum that he is an atheist, but even if he wasn’t, the theory of evolution would still be perfectly consistent with Christian principles.

3. A science lab assistant publishes on a religious forum that as a devout Christian he considers the idea of hell to be totally inconsistent with the concept of a loving god, especially for those whose only sin is to have had sexual relations with a person of the same sex.

The school board members are all fundamentalists and literalists and want to sack all three of them.

Can they do this under contract law?

Should they be able to do this?

We are talking about a Christian school when? Which era, eon or whatever you think applies?

In my day we were taught that all and everyone in outside life would be attempting to change the direction the school and church had led us. That if we didn’t wish to fall into the wayside of sinners, we’d be best to follow the teachings. None of us were ever threatened with any worse than damnation to hell.

Meanwhile we had Religious teachers who wanted to play with our private parts and they were never sacked, simply moved to different parishes.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Suppose a Christian school comes up with a new contract for its staff which says that no staff member shall act in a way that goes against the basic principles of the school at any time, and all the staff sign it.

After a few weeks three events make the school board very cross.

1. The religion teacher publishes on Facebook that he has had a revelation, and that the Jews were right. All Christians will spend eternity in hell, along with the fornicators and atheists.

2. A science teacher publishes on a science forum that he is an atheist, but even if he wasn’t, the theory of evolution would still be perfectly consistent with Christian principles.

3. A science lab assistant publishes on a religious forum that as a devout Christian he considers the idea of hell to be totally inconsistent with the concept of a loving god, especially for those whose only sin is to have had sexual relations with a person of the same sex.

The school board members are all fundamentalists and literalists and want to sack all three of them.

Can they do this under contract law?

Should they be able to do this?

We are talking about a Christian school when? Which era, eon or whatever you think applies?

In my day we were taught that all and everyone in outside life would be attempting to change the direction the school and church had led us. That if we didn’t wish to fall into the wayside of sinners, we’d be best to follow the teachings. None of us were ever threatened with any worse than damnation to hell.

Meanwhile we had Religious teachers who wanted to play with our private parts and they were never sacked, simply moved to different parishes.

and we always had what were known as Lay-Teachers who didn’t necessarily have to follow the faith nor teach it. My mother was one.

>The transition from homosexuality being illegal to it being not only legal

…has been achieved by many years of hard struggle – the struggle you told me we “didn’t need at all”. And you genuinely seem to have no idea how insulting that is.

Throughout my life there has been a constant struggle for gays to achieve the same basic right rights that straight have – not just the right to be gay without being locked up, and to have the same basic rights as de facto straight couples, and ultimately the right to marry, but also the right to walk down the street without being abused or bashed, the right to go to school without being bullied to the point of suicide, etc etc.

And throughout that struggle the most prominent, persistent and powerful enemy has been organised religion.

>And that has all happened without a single sports person being sacked for publicly stating their traditional Christian views.

For publicly insisting that gay people deserve an eternity of excruciating sadistic torture – burning in hell – for being gay. No, they haven’t often been sacked for that in the past, but it’s a damn good thing that it’s happening now, because it’s making many religious people realise just how revoltingly anti-social such views really are.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Suppose a Christian school comes up with a new contract for its staff which says that no staff member shall act in a way that goes against the basic principles of the school at any time, and all the staff sign it.

After a few weeks three events make the school board very cross.

1. The religion teacher publishes on Facebook that he has had a revelation, and that the Jews were right. All Christians will spend eternity in hell, along with the fornicators and atheists.

2. A science teacher publishes on a science forum that he is an atheist, but even if he wasn’t, the theory of evolution would still be perfectly consistent with Christian principles.

3. A science lab assistant publishes on a religious forum that as a devout Christian he considers the idea of hell to be totally inconsistent with the concept of a loving god, especially for those whose only sin is to have had sexual relations with a person of the same sex.

The school board members are all fundamentalists and literalists and want to sack all three of them.

Can they do this under contract law?

Should they be able to do this?

We are talking about a Christian school when? Which era, eon or whatever you think applies?

In my day we were taught that all and everyone in outside life would be attempting to change the direction the school and church had led us. That if we didn’t wish to fall into the wayside of sinners, we’d be best to follow the teachings. None of us were ever threatened with any worse than damnation to hell.

Meanwhile we had Religious teachers who wanted to play with our private parts and they were never sacked, simply moved to different parishes.

For the contract law question, lets say now, under contract law as it is today.

For the “should they be able” question, I don’t think the era matters, does it?

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Suppose a Christian school comes up with a new contract for its staff which says that no staff member shall act in a way that goes against the basic principles of the school at any time, and all the staff sign it.

After a few weeks three events make the school board very cross.

1. The religion teacher publishes on Facebook that he has had a revelation, and that the Jews were right. All Christians will spend eternity in hell, along with the fornicators and atheists.

2. A science teacher publishes on a science forum that he is an atheist, but even if he wasn’t, the theory of evolution would still be perfectly consistent with Christian principles.

3. A science lab assistant publishes on a religious forum that as a devout Christian he considers the idea of hell to be totally inconsistent with the concept of a loving god, especially for those whose only sin is to have had sexual relations with a person of the same sex.

The school board members are all fundamentalists and literalists and want to sack all three of them.

Can they do this under contract law?

Should they be able to do this?

We are talking about a Christian school when? Which era, eon or whatever you think applies?

In my day we were taught that all and everyone in outside life would be attempting to change the direction the school and church had led us. That if we didn’t wish to fall into the wayside of sinners, we’d be best to follow the teachings. None of us were ever threatened with any worse than damnation to hell.

Meanwhile we had Religious teachers who wanted to play with our private parts and they were never sacked, simply moved to different parishes.

For the contract law question, lets say now, under contract law as it is today.

For the “should they be able” question, I don’t think the era matters, does it?

OK. I’d probably have to look up the current contract law but I was actually talking about Christian Schools and whatever they called a contract.
As for the latter, not really, no.

Bubblecar said:

>The transition from homosexuality being illegal to it being not only legal

…has been achieved by many years of hard struggle – the struggle you told me we “didn’t need at all”. And you genuinely seem to have no idea how insulting that is.

Throughout my life there has been a constant struggle for gays to achieve the same basic right rights that straight have – not just the right to be gay without being locked up, and to have the same basic rights as de facto straight couples, and ultimately the right to marry, but also the right to walk down the street without being abused or bashed, the right to go to school without being bullied to the point of suicide, etc etc.

And throughout that struggle the most prominent, persistent and powerful enemy has been organised religion.

>And that has all happened without a single sports person being sacked for publicly stating their traditional Christian views.

For publicly insisting that gay people deserve an eternity of excruciating sadistic torture – burning in hell – for being gay. No, they haven’t often been sacked for that in the past, but it’s a damn good thing that it’s happening now, because it’s making many religious people realise just how revoltingly anti-social such views really are.

I have not once remotely suggested nor implied that the struggle for homosexuality to be accepted was unnecessary.

What I am suggesting is that to focus on the public statements of an individual because he is a high profile sports person is likely to be counter-productive.

Bubblecar said:

>The transition from homosexuality being illegal to it being not only legal

…has been achieved by many years of hard struggle – the struggle you told me we “didn’t need at all”. And you genuinely seem to have no idea how insulting that is.

Throughout my life there has been a constant struggle for gays to achieve the same basic right rights that straight have – not just the right to be gay without being locked up, and to have the same basic rights as de facto straight couples, and ultimately the right to marry, but also the right to walk down the street without being abused or bashed, the right to go to school without being bullied to the point of suicide, etc etc.

And throughout that struggle the most prominent, persistent and powerful enemy has been organised religion.

>And that has all happened without a single sports person being sacked for publicly stating their traditional Christian views.

For publicly insisting that gay people deserve an eternity of excruciating sadistic torture – burning in hell – for being gay. No, they haven’t often been sacked for that in the past, but it’s a damn good thing that it’s happening now, because it’s making many religious people realise just how revoltingly anti-social such views really are.

I can assure you that I was never taught that homosexuals had dissimilar rights to anyone else. Yes, there were a lot of abusers of all types in the full spectrum of variables.

Bubblecar said:

>The transition from homosexuality being illegal to it being not only legal

…has been achieved by many years of hard struggle – the struggle you told me we “didn’t need at all”. And you genuinely seem to have no idea how insulting that is.

Throughout my life there has been a constant struggle for gays to achieve the same basic right rights that straight have – not just the right to be gay without being locked up, and to have the same basic rights as de facto straight couples, and ultimately the right to marry, but also the right to walk down the street without being abused or bashed, the right to go to school without being bullied to the point of suicide, etc etc.

And throughout that struggle the most prominent, persistent and powerful enemy has been organised religion.

>And that has all happened without a single sports person being sacked for publicly stating their traditional Christian views.

For publicly insisting that gay people deserve an eternity of excruciating sadistic torture – burning in hell – for being gay. No, they haven’t often been sacked for that in the past, but it’s a damn good thing that it’s happening now, because it’s making many religious people realise just how revoltingly anti-social such views really are.

I noticed that when we had the vote on gay marriage those in my office against it were Catholics and for no reason except God said (it probably didn’t) it was wrong

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

>The transition from homosexuality being illegal to it being not only legal

…has been achieved by many years of hard struggle – the struggle you told me we “didn’t need at all”. And you genuinely seem to have no idea how insulting that is.

Throughout my life there has been a constant struggle for gays to achieve the same basic right rights that straight have – not just the right to be gay without being locked up, and to have the same basic rights as de facto straight couples, and ultimately the right to marry, but also the right to walk down the street without being abused or bashed, the right to go to school without being bullied to the point of suicide, etc etc.

And throughout that struggle the most prominent, persistent and powerful enemy has been organised religion.

>And that has all happened without a single sports person being sacked for publicly stating their traditional Christian views.

For publicly insisting that gay people deserve an eternity of excruciating sadistic torture – burning in hell – for being gay. No, they haven’t often been sacked for that in the past, but it’s a damn good thing that it’s happening now, because it’s making many religious people realise just how revoltingly anti-social such views really are.

I have not once remotely suggested nor implied that the struggle for homosexuality to be accepted was unnecessary.

What I am suggesting is that to focus on the public statements of an individual because he is a high profile sports person is likely to be counter-productive.

Which indeed in its simplicity is truth itself.

Jacinta Adern is a shining example of not making an example of notoriety into a counter productive ooutcome.

Cymek said:

Bubblecar said:

>The transition from homosexuality being illegal to it being not only legal

…has been achieved by many years of hard struggle – the struggle you told me we “didn’t need at all”. And you genuinely seem to have no idea how insulting that is.

Throughout my life there has been a constant struggle for gays to achieve the same basic right rights that straight have – not just the right to be gay without being locked up, and to have the same basic rights as de facto straight couples, and ultimately the right to marry, but also the right to walk down the street without being abused or bashed, the right to go to school without being bullied to the point of suicide, etc etc.

And throughout that struggle the most prominent, persistent and powerful enemy has been organised religion.

>And that has all happened without a single sports person being sacked for publicly stating their traditional Christian views.

For publicly insisting that gay people deserve an eternity of excruciating sadistic torture – burning in hell – for being gay. No, they haven’t often been sacked for that in the past, but it’s a damn good thing that it’s happening now, because it’s making many religious people realise just how revoltingly anti-social such views really are.

I noticed that when we had the vote on gay marriage those in my office against it were Catholics and for no reason except God said (it probably didn’t) it was wrong

Which showed that they had never actually applied the thought process to much at all other than money in, money out.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

>The transition from homosexuality being illegal to it being not only legal

…has been achieved by many years of hard struggle – the struggle you told me we “didn’t need at all”. And you genuinely seem to have no idea how insulting that is.

Throughout my life there has been a constant struggle for gays to achieve the same basic right rights that straight have – not just the right to be gay without being locked up, and to have the same basic rights as de facto straight couples, and ultimately the right to marry, but also the right to walk down the street without being abused or bashed, the right to go to school without being bullied to the point of suicide, etc etc.

And throughout that struggle the most prominent, persistent and powerful enemy has been organised religion.

>And that has all happened without a single sports person being sacked for publicly stating their traditional Christian views.

For publicly insisting that gay people deserve an eternity of excruciating sadistic torture – burning in hell – for being gay. No, they haven’t often been sacked for that in the past, but it’s a damn good thing that it’s happening now, because it’s making many religious people realise just how revoltingly anti-social such views really are.

I have not once remotely suggested nor implied that the struggle for homosexuality to be accepted was unnecessary.

What I am suggesting is that to focus on the public statements of an individual because he is a high profile sports person is likely to be counter-productive.

Which indeed in its simplicity is truth itself.

Jacinta Adern is a shining example of not making an example of notoriety into a counter productive ooutcome.

OK. I forgot the apostroophe.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

>The transition from homosexuality being illegal to it being not only legal

…has been achieved by many years of hard struggle – the struggle you told me we “didn’t need at all”. And you genuinely seem to have no idea how insulting that is.

Throughout my life there has been a constant struggle for gays to achieve the same basic right rights that straight have – not just the right to be gay without being locked up, and to have the same basic rights as de facto straight couples, and ultimately the right to marry, but also the right to walk down the street without being abused or bashed, the right to go to school without being bullied to the point of suicide, etc etc.

And throughout that struggle the most prominent, persistent and powerful enemy has been organised religion.

>And that has all happened without a single sports person being sacked for publicly stating their traditional Christian views.

For publicly insisting that gay people deserve an eternity of excruciating sadistic torture – burning in hell – for being gay. No, they haven’t often been sacked for that in the past, but it’s a damn good thing that it’s happening now, because it’s making many religious people realise just how revoltingly anti-social such views really are.

I have not once remotely suggested nor implied that the struggle for homosexuality to be accepted was unnecessary.

What I am suggesting is that to focus on the public statements of an individual because he is a high profile sports person is likely to be counter-productive.

Right, so it makes more sense to focus on the private statements of some unknown individual?

The fact that his statements are out there, deliberately loud and clear in the social arena, and made by an ostensibly popular public figure, is precisely why those statements need to be loudly challenged and why they need to attract appropriate social penalties, and be seen to do so.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

>The transition from homosexuality being illegal to it being not only legal

…has been achieved by many years of hard struggle – the struggle you told me we “didn’t need at all”. And you genuinely seem to have no idea how insulting that is.

Throughout my life there has been a constant struggle for gays to achieve the same basic right rights that straight have – not just the right to be gay without being locked up, and to have the same basic rights as de facto straight couples, and ultimately the right to marry, but also the right to walk down the street without being abused or bashed, the right to go to school without being bullied to the point of suicide, etc etc.

And throughout that struggle the most prominent, persistent and powerful enemy has been organised religion.

>And that has all happened without a single sports person being sacked for publicly stating their traditional Christian views.

For publicly insisting that gay people deserve an eternity of excruciating sadistic torture – burning in hell – for being gay. No, they haven’t often been sacked for that in the past, but it’s a damn good thing that it’s happening now, because it’s making many religious people realise just how revoltingly anti-social such views really are.

I have not once remotely suggested nor implied that the struggle for homosexuality to be accepted was unnecessary.

What I am suggesting is that to focus on the public statements of an individual because he is a high profile sports person is likely to be counter-productive.

Right, so it makes more sense to focus on the private statements of some unknown individual?

The fact that his statements are out there, deliberately loud and clear in the social arena, and made by an ostensibly popular public figure, is precisely why those statements need to be loudly challenged and why they need to attract appropriate social penalties, and be seen to do so.

Nobody has suggested that what he had said was acceptable. Be it by a public figure or a nobody like me. I am however an unknown individual and I can assure you that hardly anybody ever hears what I might say to nobody in any specific reality while my thought process was handling whatever came in.

However, as you have pointed out, his comments were put up in an arena which is currently afire with challenge.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

>The transition from homosexuality being illegal to it being not only legal

…has been achieved by many years of hard struggle – the struggle you told me we “didn’t need at all”. And you genuinely seem to have no idea how insulting that is.

Throughout my life there has been a constant struggle for gays to achieve the same basic right rights that straight have – not just the right to be gay without being locked up, and to have the same basic rights as de facto straight couples, and ultimately the right to marry, but also the right to walk down the street without being abused or bashed, the right to go to school without being bullied to the point of suicide, etc etc.

And throughout that struggle the most prominent, persistent and powerful enemy has been organised religion.

>And that has all happened without a single sports person being sacked for publicly stating their traditional Christian views.

For publicly insisting that gay people deserve an eternity of excruciating sadistic torture – burning in hell – for being gay. No, they haven’t often been sacked for that in the past, but it’s a damn good thing that it’s happening now, because it’s making many religious people realise just how revoltingly anti-social such views really are.

I have not once remotely suggested nor implied that the struggle for homosexuality to be accepted was unnecessary.

What I am suggesting is that to focus on the public statements of an individual because he is a high profile sports person is likely to be counter-productive.

Right, so it makes more sense to focus on the private statements of some unknown individual?

The fact that his statements are out there, deliberately loud and clear in the social arena, and made by an ostensibly popular public figure, is precisely why those statements need to be loudly challenged and why they need to attract appropriate social penalties, and be seen to do so.

With it being sports it would quite likely reinforce to his fans about its OK to bash them poofters, sports hasn’t exactly been kind to them previously

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

>The transition from homosexuality being illegal to it being not only legal

…has been achieved by many years of hard struggle – the struggle you told me we “didn’t need at all”. And you genuinely seem to have no idea how insulting that is.

Throughout my life there has been a constant struggle for gays to achieve the same basic right rights that straight have – not just the right to be gay without being locked up, and to have the same basic rights as de facto straight couples, and ultimately the right to marry, but also the right to walk down the street without being abused or bashed, the right to go to school without being bullied to the point of suicide, etc etc.

And throughout that struggle the most prominent, persistent and powerful enemy has been organised religion.

>And that has all happened without a single sports person being sacked for publicly stating their traditional Christian views.

For publicly insisting that gay people deserve an eternity of excruciating sadistic torture – burning in hell – for being gay. No, they haven’t often been sacked for that in the past, but it’s a damn good thing that it’s happening now, because it’s making many religious people realise just how revoltingly anti-social such views really are.

I have not once remotely suggested nor implied that the struggle for homosexuality to be accepted was unnecessary.

What I am suggesting is that to focus on the public statements of an individual because he is a high profile sports person is likely to be counter-productive.

Right, so it makes more sense to focus on the private statements of some unknown individual?

There you go again. Make a totally ridiculous leap and pretend its implied by what I said.

It makes more sense to focus on the authorities that people like Folau respect, and pressure them to modify their teachings.

The Rev Dodgson said:

The fact that his statements are out there, deliberately loud and clear in the social arena, and made by an ostensibly popular public figure, is precisely why those statements need to be loudly challenged and why they need to attract appropriate social penalties, and be seen to do so.

No-one has suggested that his statements should not be challenged.

Protecting the right to challenge is the principle reason to protect his right to make statements we both disagree with.

It could down to the rights of real people with feelings and emotions getting hurt overrides the rights of someone expressing the views of a make believe being that is against these real people

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Right, so it makes more sense to focus on the private statements of some unknown individual?

There you go again. Make a totally ridiculous leap and pretend its implied by what I said.

It makes more sense to focus on the authorities that people like Folau respect, and pressure them to modify their teachings.

The Rev Dodgson said:

The fact that his statements are out there, deliberately loud and clear in the social arena, and made by an ostensibly popular public figure, is precisely why those statements need to be loudly challenged and why they need to attract appropriate social penalties, and be seen to do so.

No-one has suggested that his statements should not be challenged.

Protecting the right to challenge is the principle reason to protect his right to make statements we both disagree with.

You’re keen Rev.. arguing with yourself now :)

OTOH could be just a formatting stuff up.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-24/israel-folau-social-media-posts-damaged-rugby-chairman-says/11148000

Michael V said:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-24/israel-folau-social-media-posts-damaged-rugby-chairman-says/11148000

““I don’t really want to comment on what’s going on inside the Wallaby camp … but we’ve made it very clear to the players they are not being silenced, they are absolutely free to express their views on their faith and other matters, but the threshold is those views, or views on any matter, cannot cause offense,” Clyne said.”

… and since almost all views on religious matters will be offensive to somebody, they are not free to express their views on their faith, or any other matter that may cause offence.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Michael V said:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-24/israel-folau-social-media-posts-damaged-rugby-chairman-says/11148000

““I don’t really want to comment on what’s going on inside the Wallaby camp … but we’ve made it very clear to the players they are not being silenced, they are absolutely free to express their views on their faith and other matters, but the threshold is those views, or views on any matter, cannot cause offense,” Clyne said.”

… and since almost all views on religious matters will be offensive to somebody, they are not free to express their views on their faith, or any other matter that may cause offence.

excepting touretters