Steve you just conjtradicted yourself. You stated in a previous post that a teacher from a religious school would of course be disciplined if he stated views on social media contrary to christian principles.
Npw your saying its OK to do that if you are a Christian. Can you not understand why people like me view this as hipocrasy?
No I have been consistent in what I have said. I think the problem is you are taking a black and white view of this complex issue. Social media is a forum for people posting stuff about their private lives and ex[pressing their personal views. The only time a person may be disciplined for saying some negative on social media is when an organisation has a specific clause about social media in the contract. That is exactly what I said about Folau in that RA did not have a clause on this and was only relying on a general clause.
Then I further clarified that even this is not clear when an organisations clauses clash with other peoples rights/laws like religious freedom because the government has not laid out exactly when religious freedoms can and cannot be used. I said even if an organisation has a specific clause about social media that still does not resolve the dispute as laws protecting religious freedoms can trump this as an organisation also has to protect a persons religious rights.
What you are assuming is that Folau has made a personal attack with no justification. The reality is he has not made any personal attacks but made a general statement quoting the bible which is a legal and well used book. He was justified to do that because this was his religious beliefs which the law says he has a right to do.
There's no such law. By all means quote the section of the Act if you have evidence of that but I know that's innaccurate
Of course it is law, in fact it is law across all areas of work. Every public organisation has codes of conduct and ethics which are based on laws such as anti-discrimination. While at work you have to abide by those. Examples
Personal beliefs and medical practice
48. You must treat patients fairly and with respect whatever their life choices and beliefs.
52. You must explain to patients if you have a conscientious objection to a particular procedure. You must tell them about their right to see another doctor and make sure they have enough information to exercise that right. In providing this information you must not imply or express disapproval of the patient’s lifestyle, choices or beliefs. If it is not practical for a patient to arrange to see another doctor, you must make sure that arrangements are made for another suitably qualified colleague to take over your role.
54. You must not express your personal beliefs (including political, religious and moral beliefs) to patients in ways that exploit their vulnerability or are likely to cause them distress.
Personal beliefs and medical practice
The medical profession accommodates the fact that there will be times when there will be a conflict between a doctors beliefs and what the medical profession requires them to do. The code of practice accommodates doctors to avoid doing certain things that are against their conscience. But they cannot push their personal beliefs onto people.
Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 1.1.7
Preserving opportunity for physicians to act (or to refrain from acting) in accordance with the dictates of conscience in their professional practice is important for preserving the integrity of the medical profession as well as the integrity of the individual physician, on which patients and the public rely.
Physicians’ freedom to act according to conscience is not unlimited, however. Physicians are expected to provide care in emergencies, honor patients’ informed decisions to refuse life-sustaining treatment, and respect basic civil liberties and not discriminate against individuals in deciding whether to enter into a professional relationship with a new patient.
Physician Exercise of Conscience
Yes - just like all rugby players. At last, you see the point of all this. Folau broke the code of conduct. Making PR statements when representing the code is expressed in his contract as well. Finally, you seem to get why he got sacked - and deservedly so.
Yes this is while at work. But a doctor has the right to express his personal views outside work if he disagrees with abortion for example. Folau cannot and did not go around while at work telling anyone they were going to hell. He did this in his personal time acting as a preacher. That is what preachers do. Are we to ban all preachers from preaching in their personal time if they happen to have another job.
Steve, you seem reasonable so this should be a lesson to a lot of groups. You know I truly adored Izzy. My teammates and I followed him for years. He stabbed all of us in the heart when he told us how wicked we and our parents were - and that we are so terrible we are to go to hell and burn forever.
I agree that he should have probably used more tact in what he said and I do not necessarily agree with how he goes about preaching. But what he said and the approach he took is in the bible and part of Christianity and is wide practiced in many churches and on street corners. Our society measures time by Jesus Christ and center a lot of our activities around what the bible says ie Christmas, Easter, the courts (swearing on the bible as a representation of truth). The verse Folau quoted came from Saint Paul who was an avid follower of Christ. Do we stop people quoting the bible or stop Christianity in the public forum all together.
We are coming to a crunch where there is a clash between biblical and Christian beliefs and secular societies worldview. As a society we have to ask ourselves should we allow the bible in mainstream society. If we do can we start cutting things out of the bible just because some disagree or feel it offends some. Does religious rights allow people to hold these beliefs which may be central to their faith. We have accepted that the bible tells us that people who commit adultery, are sexually promiscuous, have sex before marriage, get divorced etc are sinners and are at risk of ending up in hell. How come people leading these life styles are not upset and understand that this is part but not all of Christianity.
Religious belief is like politics. There are some policies in politics that people are offended by such as liberals not supporting climate change. This could mean a matter of life or death for our future. But we don't go around saying we have to ban people from stating their views on this. Where do we draw the line. A free society allows different views even if that may offend some.
And he re[teated numerous;y. He betrayed us all and threw our love and support back in our faces. I now despise him.
The problem is people are only seeing and focusing on one small part of who Folau is. He does help the needy including gays. It was the same for Margaret Court. They bagged her for one statement about same sex. Yet she has been tirelessly helping the poor with over 3,000 meals a week and various and charity work as part of her Christian belief. People seem to jump on the small things and make them big. Society is becoming an outraged society about anything and everything.
He could have said so many positive messages wearing the Gold Jersey of the wallabies - Kids don't take drugs. Jesus loves you even when you make dumb mistakes - there's always people to help you..... stuff like that.
Yes he could have and that would have been my approach. But there are some who take the harder line and not just in religion but also in politics ie test all addicts and cut them off the dole if they test positive or all single mums need to get back to work regardless of their circumstances. These policies are more or less targeting certain lifestyles and some criticize them on social media as being dole bludgers using up tax payers money. This is an accepted part of free speech and opinion. Some people take a harder line and sometimes that is needed.
But no - he just wanted to knife the people that supported him emotionally and financially for years. He's a betrayer - a devil. I hope Christians like you advise elite people better than the advice Folau received. What good has become of this? Division, upset, he's lost his job, reviled - What good did he achieve. Did he bring anyone to Christianity with his messages of hate? Is this what you would do Steve?
I can see it has upset you and therefore his message has not obviously worked for you. This is a question for Christianity. Many said the past approach of hell and brimstone was wrong as it scared people away and this is true to a point. Jesus says to love your neighbor as yourself. But I can understand sometimes a tough line can be needed.
You have to remember that a Christian believes there is a soul which goes on after life and that there is a judgement day. All Christian believe this whether they take the love approach or the hard-line approach. The question is when should each approach be taken as there is a time and place. Some may get this wrong as they use this for their personal motives and not Gods. But if there is a soul then telling people that sin leads to separation form God is actually trying to save them and not hurt them.
It would be like telling someone that taking drugs will lead to bad consequences and even death. Perhaps Folau meant well and was trying to take a loving approach. He did say Jesus loves and saves. But he could have been more tactful in his approach.
But regardless of what some thing of Folau's approach the question is do people have a right to express their beliefs even if it may offend some. There are a lot of people who think Folau was wrong but he had a right to express his beliefs and no one wants to take that away in a free society. The issue of religious freedom is still not resolved and we will see more situations like this in the future.
