The Israel Folau saga

[Braveheart81]

Folau is never going to retract it, it is something he genuinely believes.

This is such a cop out. Folau could very easily maintain that this is what he believes but also take down the post and agree that certain posts on social media are fine and certain others aren't.

 

[Athilnaur]

I don't think it is a cop out at all. To take it down is to admit the view is wrong. He'll never agree with that. At best you might get a sorry if you find my views offensive but I believe this. You can try and split hairs all you like but telling someone their views can't be said is telling them their views are wrong.

We are not talking about a duplicitous man. The man has integrity whether you or I agree with his views or not and he is going to stand up for them.

It might make you and others happier if he would just be quiet, but it won't make him happier. He'd feel like he was craven and weak when it mattered most.

 

[Braveheart81]

I don't think it is a cop out at all. To take it down is to admit the view is wrong. He'll never agree with that. At best you might get a sorry if you find my views offensive but I believe this. You can try and split hairs all you like but telling someone their views can't be said is telling them their views are wrong.

I don't think he has to admit his views are wrong to take it down. He has to admit that his views are upsetting to some people and that as a public figure his public comments and actions reflect on both him and his employer.

You and others seem to be making the argument that it is unreasonable for Folau not to share every single thing he believes in on social media otherwise he isn't being true to himself and his religion. That is then accompanied from some that for RA not to allow him to express every single one of his views publicly is also unreasonable.

The more that comes out about this, the weaker I think Folau's case gets. He has seemingly been given every opportunity to continue his employment and has refused to compromise in the slightest.

 

[Finsbury Girl]

This is how it works though. RA's Integrity Unit comes up with a charge and potential punishment (in this case a high level breach with the desire to terminate his contract) and then the player can accept that or ask for a CoC hearing.

It has become very clear that if Folau had responded to RA within the first 48 hours and shown any contrition and removed the post it would have never got that far.

Very interesting that it works that way BH, I certainly didn't know that. I reckon it is inherently flawed & cart before horse - I think we will see changes to that process going forward.

The legal ramifications remain however including the objectivity/impartiality/ruling of the CoC hearing

 

[Braveheart81]

Very interesting that it works that way BH, I certainly didn't know that. I reckon it is inherently flawed & cart before horse - I think we will see changes to that process going forward.

The legal ramifications remain however including the objectivity/impartiality/ruling of the CoC hearing

It's like suggesting that a court is tainted because the accused has already been charged with a crime.

Do you really think it would work better if every time RA thought a player had done something wrong they convene a hearing with 3 barristers?

 

[Derpus]

Very interesting that it works that way BH, I certainly didn't know that. I reckon it is inherently flawed & cart before horse - I think we will see changes to that process going forward.

The legal ramifications remain however including the objectivity/impartiality/ruling of the CoC hearing

There are no legal ramifications regarding the impartiality of the internal hearing. It's still internal, that's why it's not being heard in a court.

Its an internal process used to ensure the correct decision is reached on behalf of the organization.

Folau is fully within his rights to challenge any subsequent penalty in a court.

 

[Strewthcobber]

We are not talking about a duplicitous man. The man has integrity whether you or I agree with his views or not and he is going to stand up for them.

Do you think he's acted with integrity since writing that Players Times article?

For me that makes me lose quite a lot of sympathy for Izzy. I wonder if he would have even have been offered a new contract without those (empty) assurances.

 

[Quick Hands]

It's bad luck Izzy didnt use this version of the Biblical passage, but it may have only been a matter of time before he mentioned the word "homosexual" in his religious posts. That's what got him into strife.

It's common for Christians to believe a sexual union should be between a man and a woman only, hence the general opposition to redefining marriage.
That doesnt mean Christians condemn the person. They shouldn't, but some probably do.
The gay community probably see that as patronising and dont need Christian approval. Fair enough.

As far as I was aware the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek.

My New International Version Bible includes the words sexually immoral, male prostitutes and homosexual offenders in the relevant passage.

I did a bit of research and found the following:

King James Version (1611): "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind"

The phrase "abusers of themselves with mankind" translates arsenokoitai also rendered "sodomites" (YLT), or "men who have sex with men" (NIV).

Arsenokoitēs[edit]

The Greek word arsenokoitēs appears in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (TNIV),

The word translated as "practicing homosexuals" has been alternately rendered as "abusers of themselves with mankind" (King James Version, 21st Century King James Version), "sodomites" (Young's Literal Translation), or "homosexuals" (New American Standard Bible), or "men who practice homosexuality" (English Standard Version) or "those who abuse themselves with men" (Amplified Bible) or "for those who have a twisted view of sex" (New International Readers Version) or "for sexual perverts" (Good News Translation) or "for abusers of themselves with men" (American Standard Version). The original term is unknown before Paul. ἀρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoitēs), thought to mean "one who has sexual intercourse with a male" (Greek ἄῤῥην / ἄρσην [arrhēn / arsēn] "male"; κοίτης [koitēs] "bed"), rather than the normal terms from the Greek culture. Within the Bible, it only occurs in this passage and in a similar list in 1 Timothy 1:9-10.

All of that may be correct and I don't claim any particular knowledge of classical Greek, certainly not enough to translate. But again, when translating any language, you don't do it word by word you look at the whole context as there are rarely straight word for word translations and different language employ different syntax and grammar so that the same word can mean something completely different depending on the context.

However, that wasn't the point I was trying to make. From everything we've been told and from other things he's posted that RA have objected to the word 'homosexual' and the idea that they are going to 'hell'. I simply point out that the word 'homosexual' doesn't appear in most standard translations of the Bible, so that he could have made the same statement without the word and satisfied his conscience and beliefs while at the same time not causing offence. I'd also point out that none of the translations seem to include the word "hell" or the phrase 'going to hell' but use something like "will not inherit the kingdom of God", which again is less likely to cause offence.

In general terms, I'm on Israel's side in this. He strikes me as an honest, decent young man who has a deep faith and desires to do good. I just think it's unfortunate that he's got himself into all this trouble by letting the core values of the New Testament of love, repentence and forgiveness be obscured by highliting isolated passages out of context. Paul's letters have to be read in context and completely to fully understand what he is saying.

I'll leave you with what he says at the end of 1 Corinthians in Chapter 13

13 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

 

[Gnostic]

Nice Avatar Gnostic. Might be inappropriate for this thread though.

​

That is high art mate, both the music and the album cover.

 

[Quick Hands]

So Reverend Father Quick Hands,

Seems to me that this whole section of the bible is very Male orientated. It seems to completely ignore the fairer sex. Its written only in the male perspective. Surely an effeminate Woman would be ok.

Are Males presumes to be the only sinners ? or are Women also bond for Hell?

You need to read the whole letter to get the full meaning. And the overall message is love not punishment.

 

[Athilnaur]

BH to me that is splitting hairs. He won't see it that way. Hell, I wouldn't see it that way if someone came and told me to retract views I'd posted in these threads. If his post comes down it is because he is being told he isn't allowed to say it, by definition. Political correctness in three words: 'you can't say that'.

It is just as invidious to say 'rugby players must be held to a higher standard.' Who's higher standard and why is it higher?

The whole point is the man does hold himself to a higher standard, an unachievable one he believes in.

RA could write contracts stipulating that players are not allowed to post any religious beliefs on social media, or that any such posts have to be approved by some RA appointee. Do you think for a second he'd have signed it? And frankly even if he had, it would almost certainly get discarded by the courts for being oppressive.

This is not the same as having an opinion on referees, or breaking professional confidences when you are employees. He has posted a religious belief and people are telling him as a rugby player he can't because they don't like it.

The conversation is going to go something like this:

'Izzy, can't you see some people are hurt by what you've said?'

'I suppose, but sometimes the lord's message hurts. If we sin, we must repent. It is my duty to share the word of God. How else can I save people?'

'But they don't believe in God'

'Well I hope they learn to, but if they don't why does what I said hurt?'

'OK but what about the gay Christians. You've said they're going to hell.'

'No, I'm sharing God's message. It's right there in the bible. I'm helping them. It might hurt to hear God's message, but we all need to hear it. How else can we be saved?'

And so on and on. So yeah, nah, Rugby Australia trying to tell someone who is as religious as Israel that his views can't be shared isn't going to fly. And nor should it frankly. What's next, telling players they can't represent Australia if they can't play on Sundays for religious reasons?

 

[Finsbury Girl]

It's like suggesting that a court is tainted because the accused has already been charged with a crime.

No it is not analogous at all. There is a presumption of innocence in a criminal court. The presumption from the RA was that he is guilty.

Do you really think it would work better if every time RA thought a player had done something wrong they convene a hearing with 3 barristers?

I sure do, all external, randomly chosen from a regularly changing panel.

 

[Gnostic]

I've read the Coddling of the American Mind and listened to a couple of podcasts Johnathn has been on. I don't think what we're talking about here is quite the points he was trying to get across. The main points he and Greg are trying to demonstrate is, we need to build our children up and expose them to the issues they'll face in the real world.



Where I see a distinction in this situation is, Folau is contributing to a section of society that believes the LGBT community is worthless than the hetero world. You could substitute White People instead of Homosexuals in Folau's post and the issue would have kicked up an even bigger storm.

The beauty of the real debate. I believe you are completely wrong here in your distinction. The last sentence in the first paragraph is actually the truth.

The basic freedom of speech and thought brings with it the right to make an ass and fool of one's self and be wrong and as a consequence be held up to ridicule. How people can conflate what has been posted by Folau as "Hate speech" is beyond me. Honestly such people have never been confronted by a truly angry person or somebody who actually does hate. The over blown reaction to such posts does as much if not more harm to the "sensitive" individuals than not, with researchers such as Haidt previously quoted on this thread having shown how our modern culture has reduced the resilience of individuals.

Make no mistake, I couldn't care less what Folau posts, I don't have twitter, now that my kids are no longer kids I don't do Facebook or any other social media apart from the occasional post here. I have found the whole thing to be toxic and a mob think system where anybody who dissents from the "accepted message" is open for trolling, outright bullying and derision, whilst being supported by people from their own echo chamber and often they are re-tweeted/posted by extremists pushing radical agendas. What I cannot accept is that somebody publishing an opinion, long held and extremely well known from a main stream church as being "hate speech" or somehow needing sanction. Who honestly gives a shit unless you subscribe to the beliefs of that church/group. I don't accept the susceptible people/victimology push to excuse the censorship and refer back to the lack of resilience and addressing that is the only real solution to help such people deal with the actuality of life.

Real hate speech would target individuals or groups AND attempt to incite some sort of retribution/action against those individuals or groups.

 

[Athilnaur]

Strewth, it is a fair question. I remember at the time Israel came out and said he was disappointed about how Raelene had reported the meeting to the media and I thought 'hello. He hasn't agreed to anything other than to hear them out, I bet.'

So I reckon a new contract was signed and having already expressed his views he figures it's a new discussion and its a matter of principle now to say 'you are being unfair'.

I just don't see him as a duplicitous person. I see him as a person who is deeply religious who is being tested for his views. And I see him as a person standing up for the right of Christians to preach their views publicly.

Cynics will try and imply he is playing a game to be a martyr. I don't think that is true, but even if it were I'd defend his right to preach his own religious views on social media when it's on his own time and not in rugby related media where he is obligated to take a more neutral approach.

 

[Finsbury Girl]

There are no legal ramifications regarding the impartiality of the internal hearing. It's still internal, that's why it's not being heard in a court.

Its an internal process used to ensure the correct decision is reached on behalf of the organization.

Folau is fully within his rights to challenge any subsequent penalty in a court.

Of course there are legal ramifications. There is an expectation of fairness first and foremost.

 

[Sully]

It's actually quite the opposite of straight forward. The fact that the hearing took many days to determine whether or not the code of conduct was indeed breached and the type of breach it represented is proof of that. That this will most likely be tested in court is a lay down misere.

It probably seemed simple to the CEO & board who certainly did themselves no favours acting prejudiciously. There is certainly a question as to whether the very public summary judgement and execution so to speak, by RA, did unfairly influence/prejudice the panel. Were they in fact under undue pressure by effectively having the verdict dictated to them beforehand?

Furthermore it seems there are quite valid questions on the legality/enforceability of vague codes of conduct such most certainly around the separation of professional and personal life, and far more importantly the restriction of rights (implicit and explicit) under statute, equity and common law et al.

Very very far from simple in fact & there are a huge number of legal questions on this issue.

RA followed their procedures to the letter.

 

[Derpus]

Of course there are legal ramifications. There is an expectation of fairness first and foremost.

Well as far as RA are concerned they followed all their protocols to the letter so from an internal persepective it was fair. As i said, he can challenge this externally no worries.

 

[Derpus]

No it is not analogous at all. There is a presumption of innocence in a criminal court. The presumption from the RA was that he is guilty.



I sure do, all external, randomly chosen from a regularly changing panel.

I agree it would be better if you had infinity million dollars.

 

[Athilnaur]

Heh I suspect Finsbury Girl is a lawyer making a light hearted remark expressing enthusiasm for more money for poor barristers.

 

[sidelineview]

I think its crazy how far people are taking this.

Seemed pretty straight forward to me, from the start. A commercial decision driven by a breach of a contract.

It's obviously unearthed some pretty strong underling emotions.

The issue has engaged the interest of a lot of people in our society and I guess it will continue to grow.
It's in the news, social media, talked about in homes and in the pubs ....
I'd describe the different opinions more as passionate rather than emotional.