NEWS Top Bronco sends SOS to Israel

[theshed]

I wondered if Onan, the biblical character was the first 'wanker' ! Instead, lovely old god killed him for throwing his spooty on the ground rather than throw it into Ers missus.

Do your grand kids know you say ‘spooty’ on the internet?

 

[BooKhaki]

Another bullshit story, but would love to sign him. He has stupid opinions but at least he isn't bashing his missus or doing illegal shit in his car.

 

[Huge]

Do your grand kids know you say ‘spooty’ on the internet?

Have to have them first! I've only got one son and if I want to become a grandad, he's going to have to find and marry a pregnant woman! He's that lazy!

 

[Xzei]

Then Folau has no place here

So inclusive...

 

[WASSHHH]

The final step Israel Folau must take ahead of NRL return

Israel Folau’s return to rugby league is the story that just won’t die.

www.news.com.au

Some quotes from V’landys:

“If some NRL club wants to put an application in for Israel Folau, that’s when the questions (of him playing NRL again) will be really answered.

I don’t know if we can say for sure he will be registered because no NRL club has submitted an application for him to be considered.

If someone wants to sign Israel Folau, the Commission will consider their application.”

Which we all know really means, if the Roosters or Rabbitohs wish to sign him, everything that needs doing will be done and no questions will be asked. If any other club wants to sign him, submit your application and the commission will pretend to review it before inevitably denying it.

 

[Allo]

I’ve yet to put forward my thoughts, and while I’ve gone against Folau before, it’s more so about why people don’t understand (or don’t want to) why he hasn’t been allowed back rather than what he said.

He’s obviously a great player and would more than likely be an improvement to any team he may sign for.

But in regards to us, you have to look at his conduct. What he said, is in a way irrelevant, it was the fact he refused to agree to not say it or anything similar again.

Contrast that with TPJ who, while totally different offences, agreed to all the stipulations placed on him and has come out the other side with a new perspective and attitude.

So if there’s any hint of refusal from Folau to shut his gob, then I don’t want him anywhere near our club.

Now to what he said. While he cast the net fairly wide, it did catch a large subsection of society that has and does face a lot of prejudice. Mostly stemming from religion and religious people. The rest of the ‘hell-goers’ is just basically everyone else in the world, and so no one else really felt targeted.

You can believe and think what you want, as we all do, but to include them or any group that has a specific social or racial identities, particularly minority or marginalised, then you need to be aware that there will be some backlash.

This whole ‘cancel culture’ we live in has gone overboard at times I agree, and I do hope that Israel meant it from that well-intentioned or naive place that a lot of religious folk do when they say things like that.

I get there’s a ton of hypocrisy, particularly when it comes to women in league round when you remember you could easily make up a ‘DV 17’ team, but that’s on clubs, the NRL and the judicial system.

Israel didn’t do anything illegal, just shot off his mouth without considering the bigger picture consequences.

To sum up my soapboxing, provided he doesn’t treat contract conditions as a joke and keeps his potentially offensive views and thoughts to himself, it’s hard to argue against him playing based on precedence of other disreputable actions players have committed.

It’s entirely possible however the NRL have put out a silent stonewall memo to clubs to avoid having to deal with it. Can’t refuse to register if no one attempts to sign him

 

[rnabokov]

So inclusive...

This is actually a great point because societies, whatever their ethical foundations, have to draw lines in the sand as it were or they lose their integrity, be it moral, ethical or even the internal logic of their moral value systems. So the question for any given society is where does one draw the line between what is and is not acceptable. So where do we draw that line?

I hear there's a neo-Nazi peptide salesman (etc etc) about to be released from prison who is better than Tedesco and Lockyer combined, and he is on the market! Let's sign him now and include him

 

[Midean]

This is actually a great point because societies, whatever their ethical foundations, have to draw lines in the sand as it were or they lose their integrity, be it moral, ethical or even the internal logic of their moral value systems. So the question for any given society is where does one draw the line between what is and is not acceptable. So where do we draw that line?

I hear there's a neo-Nazi peptide salesman (etc etc) about to be released from prison who is better than Tedesco and Lockyer combined, and he is on the market! Let's sign him now and include him

This topic is a slippery slope.

How can an organization ban Folau, for following his beliefs (his faith dictates he must practice Christianity by spreading gods word) but not ban the religion itself.
I mean, are we to believe its perfectly ok to follow radical ideology so long as we don't talk about it? In that case, to use your analogy, its perfectly fine to hire a known neo nazi peptide pushers, so long as they don't talk about it.

What exactly is Folau being ostracized and barred from his profession for here? Is it for his beliefs? Or is it just him practicing his beliefs by spreading gods word according to his religion?
At what point does this become discrimination based on religion?

I personally think his beliefs are asinine and backwards, and i am not a religious person, so feel he is being brainwashed by the church, the same as every other religious person out there.
That being said, should he not be allowed the freedom to earn a living, regardless of his faith or its teachings?
And if the faiths teachings are the problem, shouldn't the faith itself be banned from the NRL?
This is some seriously murky water here, because what is happening is one individual is being punished for the ideology of an entire religion. And that is wrong in so many ways.
IF the NRL are going to play hardball on Izzy, then they need to apply that to Islam, Christianity and any other practitioners of these religions who are currently playing in the NRL.

 

[Huge]

This topic is a slippery slope.

How can an organization ban Folau, for following his beliefs (his faith dictates he must practice Christianity by spreading gods word) but not ban the religion itself.
I mean, are we to believe its perfectly ok to follow radical ideology so long as we don't talk about it? In that case, to use your analogy, its perfectly fine to hire a known neo nazi peptide pushers, so long as they don't talk about it.

What exactly is Folau being ostracized and barred from his profession for here? Is it for his beliefs? Or is it just him practicing his beliefs by spreading gods word according to his religion?
At what point does this become discrimination based on religion?

I personally think his beliefs are asinine and backwards, and i am not a religious person, so feel he is being brainwashed by the church, the same as every other religious person out there.
That being said, should he not be allowed the freedom to earn a living, regardless of his faith or its teachings?
And if the faiths teachings are the problem, shouldn't the faith itself be banned from the NRL?
This is some seriously murky water here, because what is happening is one individual is being punished for the ideology of an entire religion. And that is wrong in so many ways.
IF the NRL are going to play hardball on Izzy, then they need to apply that to Islam, Christianity and any other practitioners of these religions who are currently playing in the NRL.

Oh, I don't think his right to earn a living is at risk here. I mean, he can clean toilets, serve customers, push trolleys, ****, the world's his oyster here. What he cannot do is use his high profile and role model status to promote views that a rational thinking human finds repulsive. No biggie, essentially shut the **** up about things you cannot possible know and stick to the guidelines outlined.

 

[Midean]

Oh, I don't think his right to earn a living is at risk here. I mean, he can clean toilets, serve customers, push trolleys, ****, the world's his oyster here. What he cannot do is use his high profile and role model status to promote views that a rational thinking human finds repulsive. No biggie, essentially shut the **** up about things you cannot possible know and stick to the guidelines outlined.

His living is as a footballer, that's his profession, are you telling me he is not allowed to be a footballer because of his religion?
Is that not discrimination? I mean, in that line of logic, you are one step away from saying Christians cannot be footballers, as their faith instructs them to spread the word of God.

Islam and Christianity both teach that homosexuality is a sin, and will buy you a ticket directly to hell.
Does that mean Christians and Muslims are not allowed to be footy players because of their beliefs?
Or is it like i said in my previous post, they can believe what they like, so long as they don't talk about?
So you would be ok with allowing Neo Nazi's and racists to be footballers, so long as they don't talk about it and keep their views private?
Its not so cut and dry Huge.
Weirdly, the only people that should take Izzy's stupid posts with any seriousness, are religious people who believe in hell in the first place.
Otherwise its just nonsense some weirdo is spouting on the internet.

Sane, logical people know that what Izzy says is crazy religious propaganda, but modern freedoms also say that he has every right to believe what he wants without fear of discrimination, no matter how backward you or i might find his beliefs.

 

[broncoscope]

So i wonder what guidelines he had to follow when he signed with Catalan if any and did he follow them.
You'd think after the storm of controversy he's caused after his last comments, that he wouldn't be stupid enough to open his mouth again.
Maybe he's worth a try for the right money but with a heap of rules put in place to keep his mouth on a short leash in the future or be sacked on the spot.

 

[Midean]

Oh, I don't think his right to earn a living is at risk here. I mean, he can clean toilets, serve customers, push trolleys, ****, the world's his oyster here. What he cannot do is use his high profile and role model status to promote views that a rational thinking human finds repulsive. No biggie, essentially shut the **** up about things you cannot possible know and stick to the guidelines outlined.

Also, to add, does this mean any high profile individual, from sports starts, to celebrities, to politicians, cannot talk about their faith in public, for fear of losing their jobs? You specifically said Izzy cant use his high profile and role model status to promote his views, regardless of how irrational you or i find them to be.
Sounds like discrimination and suppression of free speech to me Huge, and that can lead down a path where you are suppressed if your views differ from others, regardless of what side of the fence you sit on.

 

[Foordy]

Also, to add, does this mean any high profile individual, from sports starts, to celebrities, to politicians, cannot talk about their faith in public, for fear of losing their jobs? You specifically said Izzy cant use his high profile and role model status to promote his views, regardless of how irrational you or i find them to be.
Sounds like discrimination and suppression of free speech to me Huge, and that can lead down a path where you are suppressed if your views differ from others, regardless of what side of the fence you sit on.

If they've agreed to certain conditions to get their substantial pay cheques, then absolutely

 

[Midean]

If they've agreed to certain conditions to get their substantial pay cheques, then absolutely

Agreed, however, are those conditions themselves not discriminatory? I mean, would those conditions be ok if you were to tell a gay person they cant talk about their sexuality to keep their job?

 

[Huge]

Also, to add, does this mean any high profile individual, from sports starts, to celebrities, to politicians, cannot talk about their faith in public, for fear of losing their jobs? You specifically said Izzy cant use his high profile and role model status to promote his views, regardless of how irrational you or i find them to be.
Sounds like discrimination and suppression of free speech to me Huge, and that can lead down a path where you are suppressed if your views differ from others, regardless of what side of the fence you sit on.

Mmmm, you attribute to me a position I don't hold. If someone is stupid enough to talk about something they cannot possibly have any understanding about they deserve everything they get. That said, if they offered an opinion instead of declarations of certainty I'd be way more understanding.

There is no place for talk about magic except in a dedicated space or forum.

 

[Huge]

Agreed, however, are those conditions themselves not discriminatory? I mean, would those conditions be ok if you were to tell a gay person they cant talk about their sexuality to keep their job?

Not the same thing. Apples compared to apples please.

 

[Midean]

Mmmm, you attribute to me a position I don't hold. If someone is stupid enough to talk about something they cannot possibly have any understanding about they deserve everything they get. That said, if they offered an opinion instead of declarations of certainty I'd be way more understanding.

There is no place for talk about magic except in a dedicated space or forum.

I attribute nothing to you.
Izzy is preaching his faith, he is allowed to do that.
Unless of course, its made illegal to preach your faith, which it is not.
That's why discrimination enters the conversation.
And regardless of your interpretation of religion as magic, it does not give you the right to dictate where and when another person can talk about their beliefs.
Unless of course those beliefs are made illegal, which they are not.

This is the slippery slope and murky water im talking about.
I personally find religion to be a poison to our species, but because i cannot disprove the existence of a god, or gods, who am i to say others cannot believe in it, or talk about it?

 

[Midean]

Not the same thing. Apples compared to apples please.

Here's the thing.
We live in a society where religion is prevalent.
Every town has a church and a mosque, and every town has its share of religious followers who congregate in those places to be taught (indoctrinated) about their faith, and the laws and beliefs that make up the foundation of their religion.
It doesn't matter if you or i agree with those teachings, we have no right to tell them what to believe or how to behave.

One of the core teachings of Islam and Christianity is that certain sins will send you to hell.
Both faiths teach their followers to spread the word of their respective deities, and modern freedoms allow them to do this, again, regardless of weather or not you agree with this, they are perfectly, and legally within their rights to do so.
So to restrict a persons employment based on their religion, and religious practices is discrimination no matter how you spin it, as it is not illegal to do any of these things regardless of how morally reprehensible we may find them.

I am playing devils advocate here and have made it perfectly clear that i wholeheartedly disagree with Izzy's views.
However, to think that there are contracts being made in professions telling a person they cannot practice their faith in public for fear of losing their jobs is in itself an act of discrimination no different to telling someone they cannot work here if they talk about their sexuality in public.

Edit: There is a reason ARU payed Folau a settlement for this very topic we are discussing, and also i think, the reason the NRL are being as delicate as they can with it, as the law is on Izzy's side in this.