Religious Freedom

Who is Online

Details: Written by: Richard_McKie; Parent Category: Home; Category: News; Published: 10 May 2018; Hits: 5593

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

Romania

In October 2016 we flew from southern England to Romania.

Romania is a big country by European standards and not one to see by public transport if time is limited. So to travel beyond Bucharest we hired a car and drove northwest to Brașov and on to Sighisiora, before looping southwest to Sibiu (European capital of culture 2007) and southeast through the Transylvanian Alps to Curtea de Arges on our way back to Bucharest.

Driving in Romania was interesting. There are some quite good motorways once out of the suburbs of Bucharest, where traffic lights are interminable trams rumble noisily, trolley-busses stop and start and progress can be slow. In the countryside road surfaces are variable and the roads mostly narrow. This does not slow the locals who seem to ignore speed limits making it necessary to keep up to avoid holding up traffic.

Fiction, Recollections & News

My car owning philosophies

I have owned well over a dozen cars and driven a lot more, in numerous countries.

It seems to me that there are a limited number of reasons to own a car:

As a tool of business where time is critical and tools of trade need to be carried about in a dedicated vehicle.
Convenient, fast, comfortable, transport particularly to difficult to get to places not easily accessible by public transport or cabs or in unpleasant weather conditions, when cabs may be hard to get.
Like clothes, a car can help define you to others and perhaps to yourself, as an extension of your personality.
A car can make a statement about one's success in life.
A car can be a work of art, something re-created as an aesthetic project.
A car is essential equipment in the sport of driving.

Opinions and Philosophy

Climate Change - a Myth?

Back in 2015 a number of friends and acquaintances told me that Climate Change is a myth.

Half a decade on and some still hold that view. So here I've republished a slightly longer version of the same article.

Obviously the doubters are talking about 'Anthropogenic Global Warming', not disclaiming actual changes to the climate. For those of us of a 'certain age' our own experience is sufficient to be quite sure of that the climate is continuously changing. During our lifetimes the climate has been anything but constant. Else what is drought and flood relief about? And the ski seasons have definitely been variable.

Terms of Use

Terms of Use Copyright