Who is Online

We have 23 guests and no members online

Israel Folau refuses to back down, tells Rugby Australia he’s prepared to quit code

(Headline - Weekend Australian - 13 April 2018)

 

Israel Folau is a fundamentalist Christian Rugby League footballer who was asked on Instagram: "what was God's plan for gay people??".  He replied: "Hell... Unless they repent of their sins and turn to God".

As it happens he's not Robinson Crusoe in this belief. It's there in black and white in the Old Testament (the Torah) and thus found its way into the Koran. And for Christians it's repeated in the New Testament.

While it's unlikely anybody would take religious advise from a Rugby League footballer, and less than 40% of Australians opposed same sex marriage in the recent plebiscite so it's evident that most Australians think his views are nonsense, failure by the League to discipline him has put such material things as sponsorship at risk.

But surely Israel's just as entitled to express his religious beliefs as either of the Christian Archbishops of Sydney, the Rabbi of The Great Synagogue or the Mufti of the Lakemba Mosque.

Australia lacks a Bill of Rights. Yet one of the few fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of Australia is religious freedom: The Commonwealth of Australia, and thus by agreement the member States, are precluded from making laws prohibiting the free exercise of any religion.

As a person who voluntarily became an Australian Citizen back in 1976 I strongly endorse this (Section 116) and accept that if I want my beliefs to be tolerated then there is a quid pro quo - I must allow others to hold and express their religious views - no matter how silly they seem to me.

So if we Australians are to enjoy our own religious freedom we must allow Israel to freely express his, provided he's not advocating harm to others or breaking the law in some other way.

Even people who believe in Hell could not possibly construe his assertion as advocating harm, unless they think he can influence God come Judgement Day - whenever that might be.

Personally, I have no belief in a person's ability to continue to think, or to experience anything, in any meaningful way, after death - so there can be no post-mortem Heaven or Hell. But I don't mind hearing what others believe and I'm prepared to stand-up for Israel's right say what he believes.

Israel's defence that he was simply responding to a question from a fan is as transparent as a 'Dorothy Dixer' asked by a fellow party member in Parliament.   But that's not the point he's just as constitutionally entitled to express his beliefs without such 'framing'.

For more on the beliefs of Fundamentalist Christians read about ex US President Jimmy Carter's change of heart... 

Read More...

 


On Thu, May 10, 2018, at 5:04 PM, peter mckie wrote:
As the security code didn't show/refresh, I send my comment direct - for you to append.

Hi Richard, little brother Peter here,
Much as I agree with the right to believe what you want, flat earth, chemtrails, vaccines cause whatever, coffee colonics, auras, crystals, even Deities, in the religious lexicon threatening "Hell" on another IS wishing them harm. In fact; torture for eternity. It's hate speech. Same as the Mufti that called for uncovered women to be raped. 
Point being the "fundamentalists" don't read their own books. Had they, they would see Leviticus was just a (broad-scope) hateful prick, King David was gay, Jesus was a feminist, LGBT tolerant socialist, and Paul (the antichrist) wrote the 'hate' back in as a marketing exercise to raise appeal among the Roman patriarchy.
Bottom line is all Abrahamic religions are "fundamentally" "advocating" harm to others. 
Perhaps next time, instead of hate speech on social media, Israel should read Matthew 6.5.
Just sayin'  


Nice to hear from you 
The Security Code on my site is ineffective at the moment due to (Russian?) hackers - I had to turn it off.
I'll append your comment manually.  


You could be right regarding hate speech.  I suppose I'm so used to being told I'll go to hell in jest that I assume that everyone thinks it's a joke.  But I'm still inclined to regard freedom of expression, such as yours, as having a higher social and intellectual debating value than the cost of a few noses out of joint.

Big Brother

 

 

No comments

Travel

Italy

 

 

 

 

A decade ago, in 2005, I was in Venice for my sixtieth birthday.  It was a very pleasant evening involving an excellent restaurant and an operatic recital to follow.  This trip we'd be in Italy a bit earlier as I'd intended to spend my next significant birthday in Berlin.

The trip started out as planned.  A week in London then a flight to Sicily for a few days followed by the overnight boat to Napoli (Naples).  I particularly wanted to visit Pompeii because way back in 1975 my original attempt to see it was thwarted by a series of mishaps, that to avoid distracting from the present tale I won't go into.

Read more: Italy

Fiction, Recollections & News

On Point Counter Point

 

 

 

 

Recently I've been re-reading Point Counter Point by Aldus Huxley. 

Many commentators call it his masterpiece. Modern Library lists it as number 44 on its list of the 100 best 20th century novels in English yet there it ranks well below Brave New World (that's 5th), also by  Aldus Huxley. 

The book was an experimental novel and consists of a series of conversations, some internal to a character, the character's thoughts, in which a proposition is put and then a counterargument is presented, reflecting a musical contrapuntal motif.

Among his opposed characters are nihilists, communists, rationalists, social butterflies, transcendentalists, and the leader of the British Freemen (fascists cum Brexiteers, as we would now describe them).

Taken as a whole, it's an extended debate on 'the meaning of life'. And at one point, in my young-adult life, Point Counter Point was very influential.

Read more: On Point Counter Point

Opinions and Philosophy

Australia's carbon tax

 

 

Well, the Gillard government has done it; they have announced the long awaited price on carbon.  But this time it's not the highly compromised CPRS previously announced by Kevin Rudd.  

Accusations of lying and broken promises aside, the problem of using a tax rather than the earlier proposed cap-and-trade mechanism is devising a means by which the revenue raised will be returned to stimulate investment in new non-carbon based energy. 

Read more: Australia's carbon tax

Terms of Use

Terms of Use                                                                    Copyright