Is it Ethical to be fired for stating Christian beliefs

[RestoreTheJoy]

Except that if a person is celebrated because of that company association, then he is always speaking "for the company."

A celebrated ball player is celebrated because of his association with the sport. That's why people are following him on social media. His team association gives him his status. If he had not been selected to play on a team, he would not be a celebrity. The extent that anyone cares what he says is dependent on that team association. His association with the team is the team's association with him...and what he says in public.

He is celebrated for being a good player, right?

Not because he is a good player with X team. He was probably celebrated when still in college or high school as well. I agree he is probably more well known because he is on the team. But that doesn't mean he no longer has the right to express his faith (unless that is how his contract reads, which seems unconscionable).

 

[BNR32FAN]

Paul was still always speaking where such speech was expected. The same was true of Peter and John. They spoke in the synagogue where such religious speech was expected. Nor was such speech always in consensus--the Pharisees and the Sadducees were in constant debate in those very same venues.

They were in the right place for such speech, but their speech was prohibited because of what they were saying--the Gospel itself--not because they were saying it in the wrong place.

If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler.

The unique term Peter coined for "meddler" means "bossing people you haven't been appointed to boss." If you are insulted because you were trying to dictate behavior to people you have not been assigned to dictate behavior to, then you don't get saint points when they insult you.

That is what Paul avoided:

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside.

Paul did not try to dictate behavior to people outside the church--he declared that was not his business, but God's business.

Because it's God's business, Christians are out of line and are meddling when we try to dictate behavior to those outside the Body of Christ...and we don't get saint points when they insult us for it.

What are you talking about?! Are you just pulling scriptures out of context to support your view? That wasn’t even Paul who said

If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler.

And this has absolutely nothing to do with preaching or where the apostles chose to preach.

“Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening to you; but to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing, so that also at the revelation of His glory you may rejoice with exultation. If you are reviled for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. Make sure that none of you suffers as a murderer, or thief, or evildoer, or a troublesome meddler; but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name.”
‭‭1 PETER‬ ‭4:12-16‬ ‭NASB‬‬

This has to do with Christians who suffer for the name of Christ. It has absolutely nothing to do with where they preached the gospel.

So your saying posting in a person’s own social media page is an unacceptable place to spread the gospel? It’s his twitter page and if someone doesn’t like his post they don’t have to log into his page and read it. Your not making any sense at all.

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside.

Quoting the scriptures is not passing judgement on someone. Here’s a few examples.

When you follow the desires of your sinful nature, the results are very clear: sexual immorality, impurity, lustful pleasures, idolatry, sorcery, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissension, division, envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and other sins like these. Let me tell you again, as I have before, that anyone living that sort of life will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

Galatians 5:19-21

Let there be no sexual immorality, impurity, or greed among you. Such sins have no place among God’s people. Obscene stories, foolish talk, and coarse jokes—these are not for you. Instead, let there be thankfulness to God. You can be sure that no immoral, impure, or greedy person will inherit the Kingdom of Christ and of God. For a greedy person is an idolater, worshiping the things of this world. Don’t be fooled by those who try to excuse these sins, for the anger of God will fall on all who disobey him.

Ephesians 5:3-6

Now if he had said I think people living sinful lifestyles should go to hell that would be a different story instead he said people living sinful lifestyles will go to heaven which is paraphrasing these verses and many others throughout the Bible. He is not judging anyone. It appears you have simply made a mistake and now your scrambling around the scriptures trying to find anything to support your mistake and resorting to taking scriptures out of context in a desperate attempt to justify it.

 

[Zoii]

Unless you have reviewed his contract, you have no idea what it says, so really are not in a position to comment whether he "lied" to his employer (about what - his faith?), or to the rugby community? Unless you are his attorney or this contract has been publicly posted, none of us knows to what he agreed.

I'm flummoxed by your assertion that his tweets are merely scriptural UNLESS one is affiliated with rugby. I'm not sure how his occupation, nor the age of the possible viewers changes the nature of his tweets.

I can only repeat what Izzy himself has said and Rugby Australia. Izzy though is challenging the decision to sanction him.

As to whether he lied - well since Izzy himself stated in an interview he was aware of his contractual obligations but felt compelled to none the less make his tweets and Instagrams. I cannot see why that isnt a false way to approach a contract - ie you know your going to break your contract but sign it anyway. If your standard does not see that as a lie, then we have different standards.

 

[Zoii]

He was probably celebrated when still in college or high school as well.

No he wasnt playing rugby union at that point

 

[Zoii]

I'm flummoxed by your assertion that his tweets are merely scriptural UNLESS one is affiliated with rugby. I'm not sure how his occupation, nor the age of the possible viewers changes the nature of his tweets.

Im sorry, you're flummoxed - can I recommend you read my post again.

I'm explaining that his post may not have bothered Christians as they were quotations of scriptures.

He targets his followers - a large section of his followers are under 18- and he has targeted those who are gay, or have parents who are gay, or who's parents are unmarried, or who drink alcohol. Of all the messages Izzy could send to those following, he repeatedly elects to send messages of condemnation and division - this is totally contrary to the code of conduct that all players agreed to abide by AND it contravenes the social media policy and his contract.

In a culture as highly ethical as Rugby Union, his actions are an abomination.

 

[keith99]

I'm coming to view Izzy more with pity than scorn or hatred. After reading so many of the posts here that support his actions I realize that he is as much a victim as those he targets. He is simply following a twisted hateful version of Christianity that has been taught to him. One that hears any criticism as persecution and turns a deaf ear to sound advice. Actually worse than that, one that hears sound advice and rejects it and sees it as confirmation that their foolish and unChristlike actions are somehow Christian.

 

[Ken-1122]

Opps!

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

Why does he feel a need to state his Christian beliefs? Why can't he just live them? And why would he agree to and sign a contract that prevents him from stating his Christian beliefs, then proceed to break that contract? Of course he should be fired for doing this.

 

[Zoii]

Why does he feel a need to state his Christian beliefs? Why can't he just live them? And why would he agree to and sign a contract that prevents him from stating his Christian beliefs, then proceed to break that contract? Of course he should be fired for doing this.

I don't wish to be harsh on Izzy - as I've stated before in several posts, I really like and admire him. But I suspect he genuinely believes he's doing the right thing to represent Christianity. I suspect he thinks that by denouncing certain cohorts of people, he is doing his Christian duty. He's NOT saying I hate you all - But unfortunately, he is citing verses that indicate a range of people are sinful (AKA bad) and will be going to hell - and unfortunately those cohorts he points to cover a large swathe of people in and out of the rugby union community. It moves in entirely the opposite direction of what rugby union aims to achieve which is a supportive and inclusive community. I believe he has been poorly counselled by his church leaders.

 

[RDKirk]

Of course it is futile. But that doesn't mean that every single person listening was not engaging in any of the actions that Paul said were prohibited for those who follow Christ.

Are you saying that every single person listening was engaged in those actions? Did you mean to have two negatives in that sentence?

I think it's likely that some of them were, otherwise he would not have been admonishing them. In that, they're not different from congregations today.

 

[RDKirk]

He is celebrated for being a good player, right?

Not because he is a good player with X team. He was probably celebrated when still in college or high school as well. I agree he is probably more well known because he is on the team.

If he were not on a team, he would not be celebrated. Let him get injured permanently injured out of play and see how long he retains his celebrity.[/quote]

But that doesn't mean he no longer has the right to express his faith (unless that is how his contract reads, which seems unconscionable).

That is how the world sees and expresses things: "I have a right!"

If I have a right to do a thing, then it's right for me to do that thing. That's the ethic of the world.

As a Christian, I'm looking at it in terms of the tactics of accomplishing the mission of Christ. Not everything the world gives us a right to do is the right thing to do in accomplishing the mission.

"All things are lawful, but not all things are beneficial. All things are lawful, but not all things build-up."

If I have 140 characters in which to describe Jesus to those who don't know Him...it wouldn't a verse about going to hell, it would be a verse about the benefits of being saved. "Going to hell" verses are for people who already know Jesus and need to know how to live in His way.

 

[Ken-1122]

I don't wish to be harsh on Izzy - as I've stated before in several posts, I really like and admire him. But I suspect he genuinely believes he's doing the right thing to represent Christianity. I suspect he thinks that by denouncing certain cohorts of people, he is doing his Christian duty. He's NOT saying I hate you all - But unfortunately, he is citing verses that indicate a range of people are sinful (AKA bad) and will be going to hell - and unfortunately those cohorts he points to cover a large swathe of people in and out of the rugby union community. It moves in entirely the opposite direction of what rugby union aims to achieve which is a supportive and inclusive community. I believe he has been poorly counselled by his church leaders.

I’m reminded of the ole saying;
“good men will be good, bad men will be bad; regardless of religion. The difference is the religious man will use his religion to justify his actions whether they be good or bad.”
I think Izzy is just using his religion to justify voicing his discontent for people he dislikes.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

If he were not on a team, he would not be celebrated. Let him get injured permanently injured out of play and see how long he retains his celebrity.

That is how the world sees and expresses things: "I have a right!"

If I have a right to do a thing, then it's right for me to do that thing. That's the ethic of the world.

As a Christian, I'm looking at it in terms of the tactics of accomplishing the mission of Christ. Not everything the world gives us a right to do is the right thing to do in accomplishing the mission.

"All things are lawful, but not all things are beneficial. All things are lawful, but not all things build-up."

If I have 140 characters in which to describe Jesus to those who don't know Him...it wouldn't be that verse. That verse is for people who already know Jesus and need to know how to live in His way.[/QUOTE]
But he is in a different place than we are. That wouldn't be my choice either. But I'm not his judge and jury, as a Christian. Neither are you.

That doesn't mean he should be shut down because we don't like what he says.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I’m reminded of the ole saying;
“good men will be good, bad men will be bad; regardless of religion. The difference is the religious man will use his religion to justify his actions whether they be good or bad.”
I think Izzy is just using his religion to justify voicing his discontent for people he dislikes.

You are just judging a public figure there, without any knowledge at all.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Are you saying that every single person listening was engaged in those actions? Did you mean to have two negatives in that sentence?

I think it's likely that some of them were, otherwise he would not have been admonishing them. In that, they're not different from congregations today.

Since you are being intentionally obtuse and attempting to pick apart my grammar instead of deal with the concept, I will just revert to the former response. Of course I am NOT saying EVERY person had engaged in something in this list and been washed clean. But we also can't determine what state any of those in Paul's audience were in, or even if some had just come to believe in Jesus but had not yet stopped this sin. We just don't know, as you seem to understand, given your last sentence.

Look at this scripture: (1 Cor 6: 9-11)

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

No one with any common sense can argue that Paul is saying that he "HATED these people" before, who were engaging in all of those things. (That would be pretty much everybody, by the way).

He is writing to them to be encouraged, that though you did these things, which were wrong, and God did not approve, look - you've been washed and sanctified now. The free gift covers everyone, no matter what he has done.

The constant and erroneous conflation of what someone does with what he is has to stop. It's been very effective but it's wrong.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Im sorry, you're flummoxed - can I recommend you read my post again.

I'm explaining that his post may not have bothered Christians as they were quotations of scriptures.

He targets his followers - a large section of his followers are under 18- and he has targeted those who are gay, or have parents who are gay, or who's parents are unmarried, or who drink alcohol. Of all the messages Izzy could send to those following, he repeatedly elects to send messages of condemnation and division - this is totally contrary to the code of conduct that all players agreed to abide by AND it contravenes the social media policy and his contract.

In a culture as highly ethical as Rugby Union, his actions are an abomination.

Quoting scripture is not "sending messages of condemnation and division".

I have not read his contract. Have you?

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I'm coming to view Izzy more with pity than scorn or hatred. After reading so many of the posts here that support his actions I realize that he is as much a victim as those he targets. He is simply following a twisted hateful version of Christianity that has been taught to him..

Says an atheist.

This assertion is entirely backward.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

No he wasnt playing rugby union at that point

I didn't say that. I said he was probably celebrated as a good player on whatever level team he was on at the time. He had to develop his skills somewhere.

 

[keith99]

Says an atheist.

This assertion is entirely backward.

Generally Ad Hom attacks and their kin are used when there is no rational argument. I'll take this as such.

 

[Ken-1122]

You are just judging a public figure there, without any knowledge at all.

I am just responding based on what the OP said about him. That's what we're all doing; haven't you noticed?