Is it Ethical to be fired for stating Christian beliefs

[FireDragon76]

One thing that seems interesting is that non-Christians even care what Christians think is a "sin."

Except that in such countries Christians still have sufficient social dominance that "what Christians say about us" has any real social impact, philosophically the word "sin" should not mean anything at all to a non-believer.

But here is where I think most believers misunderstand the situation--and misunderstand "sin" --with respect to non-believers:

That any particular act is a "sin" is meaningful only to believers even so far as God is concerned. A non-believer is not condemned to any greater extent than his unbelief already condemns him regardless of any act he performs. It doesn't matter whether his actions are heinous or laudatory, he's as condemned as he can possibly be by his unbelief.

Therefore, it's irrelevant, useless, and silly for a believer to talk about acts of "sin" to an unbeliever, much less try to change or control the unbeliever's behavior. We see in both Romans and Hebrews that a non-believer can do nothing righteous.

Discussion of "acts" as sin is relevant only to believers.

No unbeliever is condemned by his actions, nor can he be saved by his actions. So Christians need to stop talking about sinful actions to unbelievers as though it was their actions that condemn them.

Interesting perspective, but Lutherans take that farther. Luther himself said that even for believers, it's always safer to assume our good works were nothing but mortal sins- not really righteous at all. He was merely echoing Clement of Rome, BTW. But that was being lost in the influx of the new theology brought on by Aristotle.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Now before you jump onboard and say 'Of course its ethical' consider the current case that has dominated Australian media and Australian sport in particular.

Israel Folau is one of Australia's (if not the world's) greatest Rugby Union players. He is a match winner. He is talented beyond belief and has won an array of national and international sporting awards. He is currently in the Australian Rugby Union team called 'The Wallabies'.

Despite Israel's strong physical appearance, he is a highly personable, gentle and kind individual. He is extremely likeable. Israel is a Christian of the evangelistic ilk.

Rugby Union has as a very strong code of conduct. You will rarely see referee abuse from players - it prides itself on respect for all players, the referees and supporters. International players have particular responsibilities as so many people, particularly juniors, see them as role models. This added responsibility to acknowledge that whats said publicly must accord with the code of conduct, whether its said on the field or off it, is reinforced in player contracts.

Israel, despite being a very nice person has repeatedly made the following types of statements:
That those that are gay, unmarried people having sexual relationships, those that drink to excess....[the list goes on] are sinful and all going to hell.

Now Israel, of course, is making biblical references inline with his christian beliefs. He's not saying terrible things per se....HOWEVER - it has clearly been a breach of his contract and despite just recently signing a four year contract and despite being Australia's shining star - he has been sacked.

Israel Folau to be sacked by Rugby Australia over homophobic comments

Australian rugby's position is that it goes to great lengths to be inclusive. It is not concerned with who you choose to love, or that your mother is a single mother, or your father is in some sort of defacto relationship. It does not want those representing the sporting code to alter that perception with statements indicating that those following the sport are lesser individuals and are in some way bad for their sexual choices or marital status.

So the debate - religious freedom of speech versus the right of a sporting to code to insist its code of conduct is followed.

This has cost Israel Millions of dollars. He has lost sponsorship worth millions and his International rugby career is ended unless he can change his public statements.

He is correct in the sense that if these people don’t stop these sinful habits they will go to hell. I think it is very admirable of him to risk his occupation to warn people of the consequences of their lifestyle. What’s more important saving souls or playing rugby?

 

[Kaon]

Now before you jump onboard and say 'Of course its ethical' consider the current case that has dominated Australian media and Australian sport in particular.

Israel Folau is one of Australia's (if not the world's) greatest Rugby Union players. He is a match winner. He is talented beyond belief and has won an array of national and international sporting awards. He is currently in the Australian Rugby Union team called 'The Wallabies'.

Despite Israel's strong physical appearance, he is a highly personable, gentle and kind individual. He is extremely likeable. Israel is a Christian of the evangelistic ilk.

Rugby Union has as a very strong code of conduct. You will rarely see referee abuse from players - it prides itself on respect for all players, the referees and supporters. International players have particular responsibilities as so many people, particularly juniors, see them as role models. This added responsibility to acknowledge that whats said publicly must accord with the code of conduct, whether its said on the field or off it, is reinforced in player contracts.

Israel, despite being a very nice person has repeatedly made the following types of statements:
That those that are gay, unmarried people having sexual relationships, those that drink to excess....[the list goes on] are sinful and all going to hell.

Now Israel, of course, is making biblical references inline with his christian beliefs. He's not saying terrible things per se....HOWEVER - it has clearly been a breach of his contract and despite just recently signing a four year contract and despite being Australia's shining star - he has been sacked.

Israel Folau to be sacked by Rugby Australia over homophobic comments

Australian rugby's position is that it goes to great lengths to be inclusive. It is not concerned with who you choose to love, or that your mother is a single mother, or your father is in some sort of defacto relationship. It does not want those representing the sporting code to alter that perception with statements indicating that those following the sport are lesser individuals and are in some way bad for their sexual choices or marital status.

So the debate - religious freedom of speech versus the right of a sporting to code to insist its code of conduct is followed.

This has cost Israel Millions of dollars. He has lost sponsorship worth millions and his International rugby career is ended unless he can change his public statements.

Perhaps he is ignorant of how the world works, and believes he could be a worldly person and a man of faith at the same time. It is always a matter of time before one demands more of the person than the other. If the contract he signed had any legalese that prohibited this type of language, then that is his fault, and his agent's/lawyer's fault. Ethics are between humans; they aren't a universally accepted set of standards. So, ethics in general is subjective.

Firing someone for exploiting their platform to spread religious messages is par the course for these types of figures. I actually agree with it, because if we are to be fair we would have to be open to anyone using their platform to promote religion or doctrine. Ethical? Sure; it is always dangerous for a business and product (which is what the rugby player is) to mix with religion and philosophy outside of business itself.


It is too bad that Israel lost his sponsorship and endorsements, but it isn't much different than an academic losing their scholarly authorship, and getting blacklisted for saying something against the status quo. Religion in sports is redundant, which is why there can be "no other gods..."

 

[RDKirk]

He is correct in the sense that if these people don’t stop these sinful habits they will go to hell. I think it is very admirable of him to risk his occupation to warn people of the consequences of their lifestyle. What’s more important saving souls or playing rugby?

No, he's not correct, not at all. That is dangerous and heretical theology.

Those people will go to hell even if they stop those sinful habits because they are not believers. It's not their actions that condemn them, it's their unbelief that condemns them.

 

[Occams Barber]

Did he actually denigrate them? Saying somebody is going to Hell if they do X is not necessarily denigration. In some churches, it's simply a restatement of what they believe.

Denigrating would be saying "I think gays are horrible, disgusting people", that's denigration.

Of course he's denigrating.

As an atheist I don't believe in hell but, if you publicly pronounce that I'm going to hell, you are obviously casting aspersions on my character and suggesting that I am somehow less than others. By making a public statement you are promoting the idea that I am less worthy and effectively opening the door to hatred and discrimination. Folau's statement is at odds with the standards of broader society. As a private individual he's free to have his own opinion. As a representative of Rugby they have every right to expect him to be inclusive or, at least, to be quiet.

Some Christian denominations regard women as subservient to men. If Folau were to state publically that women should not be regarded as equals should this be acceptable to Rugby Australia simply because it's a teaching of his church? Or would we see it as denigrating women?

OB

 

[FireDragon76]

Of course he's denigrating.

As an atheist I don't believe in hell but, if you publicly pronounce that I'm going to hell, you are obviously casting aspersions on my character and suggesting that I am somehow less than others.

I think that's bringing assumptions to the table that the Christians in question don't necessarily share. It's not a question of virtue so much as divine command for them.

 

[loveofourlord]

Did he actually denigrate them? Saying somebody is going to Hell if they do X is not necessarily denigration. In some churches, it's simply a restatement of what they believe.

Denigrating would be saying "I think gays are horrible, disgusting people", that's denigration.

it could be argued saying someone will go to hell for being who they are is denigrating them, especially if your not Chrsitian that don't agree with that. it's like saying, "You deserve to be tortured for being black." in their eyes.

 

[Occams Barber]

I think that's bringing assumptions to the table that the Christians in question don't necessarily share. It's not a question of virtue so much as divine command for them.

Whether its based on virtue or divine command is irrelevant. The concern is the acceptability of the statement.

We're on a Christian Forum which means that there is an underlying assumption that Christian values are "right". Unfortunately there is a growing gap between Christian values and those of broader society particularly where Christianity is unable to rationally justify it's version of right and wrong behaviour. "It's in the Bible" is not a rational reason for society at large. As long as Christianity continues to insist that we all play by its version of the truth, Christianity will become increasingly anachronistic and continue its slide into irrelevance.
OB

 

[FireDragon76]

Whether its based on virtue or divine command is irrelevant. The concern is the acceptability of the statement.

We're on a Christian Forum which means that there is an underlying assumption that Christian values are "right". Unfortunately there is a growing gap between Christian values and those of broader society particularly where Christianity is unable to rationally justify it's version of right and wrong behaviour. "It's in the Bible" is not a rational reason for society at large. As long as Christianity continues to insist that we all play by its version of the truth, Christianity will become increasingly anachronistic and continue its slide into irrelevance.
OB

I see. So you favor a world where any kind of proclamation of Christianity deemed unacceptable by society should be prohibited? Have we no right to any part of our religion?

 

[loveofourlord]

I think that's bringing assumptions to the table that the Christians in question don't necessarily share. It's not a question of virtue so much as divine command for them.

It doesn't really matter, it's how others will see it or treat it, these kind of statements lead to higher rates of suicides and depression, leads to people treating someone poorly because they are seen as not the right kind of person. To someone who doesn't think they are correct about gays or such it's extrely offensive and rude and demonizing.

 

[FireDragon76]

It doesn't really matter, it's how others will see it or treat it, these kind of statements lead to higher rates of suicides and depression, leads to people treating someone poorly because they are seen as not the right kind of person. To someone who doesn't think they are correct about gays or such it's extrely offensive and rude and demonizing.

But to demonize the other person in turn, without giving any consideration to their perspective, is not necessarily just.

 

[BNR32FAN]

No, he's not correct, not at all. That is dangerous and heretical theology.

Those people will go to hell even if they stop those sinful habits because they are not believers. It's not their actions that condemn them, it's their unbelief that condemns them.

I agree that unbelief is absolutely condemning but our actions can be just as condemning according to the scriptures.

 

[loveofourlord]

I see. So you favor a world where any kind of proclamation of Christianity deemed unacceptable by society should be prohibited? Have we no right to any part of our religion?

I don't think prohibited, but slavery and racism was once backed by the bible as reason for it and such, we have moved past that, people can still say those thigns, but we can still frown upon it and say it's not right. How many would be upset about a Christian using the bible to say blacks are inferior and such and the sin of ham as a excuse being fired from a job where it effects his job? I think thats the main thing about wether it should effect them is, is this a public face for a company or a group.

Also gets into the side stuff of, can a mulsim working out a grocery store checkout counter refuse to touch and put through the cash register alchoholic products. Can a pharmacist working at a place someone else owns be allowed to not sell birth control, even though they are hired to a job. where do religious beliefs and rights of those hiring someone conflict and ho has the bigger rights.

 

[loveofourlord]

But to demonize the other person in turn, without giving any consideration to their perspective, is not necessarily just.

I wouldn't demonize someone, but I would say their words are hateful and harmful. A race realist truely belives that blacks are inferior to whites and shouldn't be allowed in white society, and may even think they are being loving by saying they should go back home where they be happier, doesn't make it less harmful and hateful. I've heard the expression, hate, with a thin veneer of love used to describe these kind of statements.

They are meant in love and kindness and such, but doesn't change that what they are saying are still harmful and hurtful to those they speak it too. a gay person isn't going to see someone trying to be loving, they are going to see someone saying they are worthy of hell, and being demonized.

 

[Occams Barber]

I see. So you favor a world where any kind of proclamation of Christianity deemed unacceptable by society should be prohibited? Have we no right to any part of our religion?

You're free to proclaim your faith from the rooftops just don't expect the rest of us to necessarily agree with you or play by your rules. You should also expect that, if your behaviour is at odds with society, there will be push back.

There's a thing I call Christian Privilege where Christianity has been licensed to behave in ways that are unacceptable for the rest of us. Fortunately this appears to be coming to an end.
OB

 

[BNR32FAN]

I wouldn't demonize someone, but I would say their words are hateful and harmful. A race realist truely belives that blacks are inferior to whites and shouldn't be allowed in white society, and may even think they are being loving by saying they should go back home where they be happier, doesn't make it less harmful and hateful. I've heard the expression, hate, with a thin veneer of love used to describe these kind of statements.

They are meant in love and kindness and such, but doesn't change that what they are saying are still harmful and hurtful to those they speak it too. a gay person isn't going to see someone trying to be loving, they are going to see someone saying they are worthy of hell, and being demonized.

I think that depends on how he actually worded it.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You're free to proclaim your faith from the rooftops just don't expect the rest of us to necessarily agree with you or play by your rules. You should also expect that, if your behaviour is at odds with society, there will be push back.

There's a thing I call Christian Privilege where Christianity has been licensed to behave in ways that are unacceptable for the rest of us. Fortunately this appears to be coming to an end.
OB

What ways are you referring to exactly?

 

[loveofourlord]

I think that depends on how he actually worded it.

how would you word, "being gay will send you to hell." in a way that doesn't make it offensive? Hint saying were all worthy of hell for sinning doens't do it, your still saying who they are is a sin, the very thing they are someting they can't change. Be like saying being black is a sin.

 

[FireDragon76]

You're free to proclaim your faith from the rooftops just don't expect the rest of us to necessarily agree with you or play by your rules. You should also expect that, if your behaviour is at odds with society, there will be push back.

There's a thing I call Christian Privilege where Christianity has been licensed to behave in ways that are unacceptable for the rest of us. Fortunately this appears to be coming to an end.
OB

FWIW, I do not agree with Israel Folau's statement. I just am curious why you seem to have no empathy for where he is coming from, and assume the worst possible motives.

According to this article, Mr. Folau's statement was because he is concerned about gay peoples wellbeing, not because he has any personal animus against them:

Israel Folau explains why he said gay people are going to hell

Now, do I agree with that? I believe his motives are as he says, being familiar with that kind of religious culture, even if I think it's a harmful message. I am capable of separating the effect of the message from the motives behind it.

 

[RDKirk]

I agree that unbelief is absolutely condemning but our actions can be just as condemning according to the scriptures.

Only--possibly--for Christians. It is not because of actions that an unbeliever is condemned. Nobody is saved by works, nobody is condemned by works, but only by faith or lack thereof, respectively.

Scripture speaks of specific actions to believers--warning believers that their behavior counts.