Never said there wouldn't be consequences, but he is still free to post anything he wants.I don't understand, that is why he was sacked for posting the bible verse. That sort of says they are restricting him from posting certain bible verses.
People keep saying that Folau had a social media clause in his contact but the fact is he did not and even the boss of RA admits this.
RA did not negotiate this in the collective bargaining agreement with the Rugby Union Players Association. They cannot just put it in one players contract that would be discrimination.
Just as rugby stated the code of conduct in the first place. But you seem ok a religion can impose dismissal but no other employer can.No you have misunderstood what I said. We were just taking about how a religious organization may need to have their employees of the same faith. There is a good reason for that in that they may need to preserve a culture. I said they will advertise for a person of the same faith and that will be the criteria for that position. If that is all important and part of the job criteria and it is there for a very good reason how can the organization function with someone promoting conflicting beliefs. It would undermine the entire culture. The teacher turned Islam has then breached the original criteria they were employed. If a Liberal political party advertises for a public relations officer and they then turn Labour do you think they will want that person in that position. Do you think they have then failed to meet the job criteria.
That is the reason the exemption is given in the first place as religious organization may need to uphold their conscience on these matters. As I stated earlier if they employ a person as a science teacher without any prerequisite to them being of the same faith then they cannot sack them. But some schools may believe that all their teachers need to be of the same faith regardless of the subject for the sake of maintaining a consistent culture. Therefore they have every right to advertise for a science teacher of their same faith. They are not doing anything wrong as they have stated the criteria in the first place. If they have not stated the criteria and sack someone that is a different matter.
It is not as simple as that. If the employer wanted a particular culture and they allowed people with religious beliefs to join then they had to train and educate those employees in that. They also had to clearly put this in the contract in relation to religious beliefs as this is also a legal right to have. RA did neither. Also what was the culture they were trying to create. I don't think RA even knew, was it inclusion of all sexuality, was it inclusion of all religious beliefs. It was not clear. Folau also said that the RA boss was not clear and that if it was made clear to him that he was not allowed to express his beliefs he would have walked away from the game. The fact that RA offered him 2 mill to go shows they knew they had not done the right thing.Huh? That's the very basis of the problem in this case. It isn't anyone's religion, it is an employee saying things in public which are hostile to the culture the organization wished to create.
I totally agree with you. I get very uncomfortable when people make statements as to who they think are going to hell, whether they think they're being 'loving' or not. Verbally consigning someone to hell conveys a lack of mercy and when these words are made public, people become scapegoated and it incites others to view them with contempt. James 2:12 states that we are to speak and act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. It states, in no uncertain terms, that God will show no mercy to those who judge without mercy.Everyone is a sinner. Sometimes it's best to reflect on your own sins before those of others.
No RA did not have a clause in Folau's contract about his religious beliefs and social media. Because they did not train him or anyone else in how to manage that and because they did not get expert advise on how to work with people of religion and their right to express their beliefs it is the fault of RA for any ambiguity that followed in what position they had. Even after the first incident happened Folau stated that RA boss said it was OK for him to post his beliefs on social media but to be careful about what he posted. But what does that mean. They still were not clear and as Folau had 100s of posts that seem to be OK alluding to the consequences of sin what was OK or not was also not made clear.Just as rugby stated the code of conduct in the first place. But you seem ok a religion can impose dismissal but no other employer can.
No I am not saying that. If someone has breached their contract then fair enough. But what is inclusiveness. Is it including any lifestyle or is it including the freedom of religious belief. This clarity has never been settled so people will think they have their rights. Religious organizations are usually clear as religious belief goes deeper than most things as it is a matter of conscience. The employment of a person is not just based on their area of expertise alone. In fact I would say 50% if not more is about fitting into the organization. So to say that religious organizations have to be forced to employ a math teacher just because they teach math is unreal.Even though inclusiveness is critical to rugby yet knowing the Bible has nothing to do with the role of a maths teacher. It's hypocrisy that's legal, but none the less hypocrisy in the extreme they are complaining what religion has always done.
Which part the one that says a persons sexuality should be included or the one that says a persons right to religion should be included. It is not that simple. In the context of the entire situation that is a very ambiguous code which leaves people unsure. In Folau's eyes he felt he was doing nothing wrong.OK, he violated the code of conduct rather than a social media clause. I don't see how that fundamentally changes the discussion.
If this is not what the article said then why did the boss of RA admit that there was no clause in Folau's contract about social media. Why did she admit quote " the decision would change the landscape for sport across Australia and perhaps internationally" in relation to sacking Folau. Doesn't this indicate that they have made a decision that is unprecedented and therefore they never really had any clear basis to do it.That's not what the article says.
It is not as simple as that. If the employer wanted a particular culture and they allowed people with religious beliefs to join then they had to train and educate those employees in that. They also had to clearly put this in the contract in relation to religious beliefs as they are also a legal right to have. RA did neither. Also what was the culture they were trying to create. I dont think RA even knew, was it inclusion of all sexuality, was it inclusion of all religious beliefs. It was not clear. Folau also said that the RA boss was not clear and that if it was made clear to him that he was not allowed to express his beliefs he would have walked away from the game. The fact that RA offered him 2 mill to go shows they knew they had not done the right thing.
So Christians need special instruction to be able to behave in a civil manner.
And do note that this was NOT a first infraction of his part. He had been counseled and warned before for the same offence.
Folau's claim that if things had been made clear to him he would have walked away from the game is rather dubious since he could walk away now and is actively refusing to do so.
If liar's are doomed to Hell Folau seems to have a problem.
It looks like the RA considers any preaching from the Bible that gives proud unrepentant sinners worldly sorrows as behaving in an uncivil manner. Has our society got totally insane or what? The only liars is the RA directors by stating that they respect people of religious beliefs but then they sack people if their religious beliefs make them feel uncomfortable. Folau is not walking away by suing them because he wants to seek justice by exposing the insanity of our society.
How so, is not what he quoted from the bible and a fundamental part of belief.
If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.
BTW can you find the scripture he quoted? AS best I can find there is not one that lists the sins he did and says they are hell bound. Hell bound is different from will not inherit the kingdom of heaven, which probably would have not created any problems. Nor would John 3:16. There are only a handful of verses that can be taken as uncivil and the majority of then even have to be twisted a bit to do so. (Such as taking verses clearly addressed to Christians and readdressing them specifically to non-Christians).
You have it the wrong way around. The human rights commission has given special instruction that allows religious organizations to choose to only employ people of the same faith if they choose to do so. But really this is not a big thing as non-religious organizations do the same.So Christians need special instruction to be able to behave in a civil manner.
Folau stated that the only meeting he had was with the RA boss Raelene Castle who did not warn him but had an informal talk about the use of social media. Besides why would she say that in hindsight she could have handled things better in relation to Folau and that her hands were tied as far as doing anything about Folau in the legal sense. What Miss Castle viewed as inappropriate Folau viewed as OK in expressing his beliefs. The problem is that RA did not educate its players in the use of social media or seek advice on how to handle and accommodate peoples religious beliefs. This created an ambiguous situations for some. So even if he was warned there was conflicting views which caused people to question things.And do note that this was NOT a first infraction of his part. He had been counseled and warned before for the same offense.
Folau is pursuing his rights for being sacked for expressing his beliefs. Just because he wants to defend his rights does not mean he wants his job back. The point here is he has lost his career and has been tarnished so he wants to clear his name.Folau's claim that if things had been made clear to him he would have walked away from the game is rather dubious since he could walk away now and is actively refusing to do so.
If liar's are doomed to Hell Folau seems to have a problem.
Maybe so but I think most people know that not going to heaven means that they end up in hell. The thing is people have stated and warned countless times that sinners will end up in hell and it has all been OK. People often paraphrase the original text. It is widely done in academic referencing. So long as the original meaning is upheld that is fine.If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.
BTW can you find the scripture he quoted? AS best I can find there is not one that lists the sins he did and says they are hell bound. Hell bound is different from will not inherit the kingdom of heaven, which probably would have not created any problems. Nor would John 3:16. There are only a handful of verses that can be taken as uncivil and the majority of then even have to be twisted a bit to do so. (Such as taking verses clearly addressed to Christians and readdressing them specifically to non-Christians).
That's not so - When registering as a player or official you have to agree by the code of conduct - I had to do it - Folau would have had to do it.No RA did not have a clause in Folau's contract about his religious beliefs and social media.
Because they did not train him or anyone else in how to manage that
Even after the first incident happened Folau stated that RA boss said it was OK for him to post his beliefs on social media but to be careful about what he posted
There you go - Oh wait - except in religious institutions which can get away with what no other employer can do - Apparently, by law, they are immune to overt discrimination.If someone has breached their contract then fair enough.
The employment of a person is not just based on their area of expertise alone.
The code of conduct also mentions the right to religious freedom, so RA also had to support and protect Folau's rights in that regard and at the very least this created a conflicting situation. The other point is what RA believes is being discriminatory regarding Folau quoting bible verses and discriminating against any group of people others will believe that it is not and that is the point of religious freedom in allowing different views. Folau and other religious people believe that calling out sinners is being loving and no one can say that is not what they truly believe.That's not so - When registering as a player or official you have to agree by the code of conduct - I had to do it - Folau would have had to do it.
They have not addressed the particular circumstances in what has happened in Folau's case and that is why it has become a test case. They may have had some generic training but they did not have specific education in how to accommodate and help players with their religious beliefs. They have just taken a one size fits all approach and that is at the root of the problem. As stated by the article below.That's not true either. Every player and official has training in this matter - its part of the registering process and for someone at Folau's level would have been in much greater detail.
That is not what the bible says nor what Folau intended, it is a general statement about sin and not individuals. Besides people have accepted this and other bible verses saying similar for years as being part of Christian belief. It is yours and others views that this is what the bible verse means. This is at the crux of the matter, you have stated that this is your opinion and Folau and others have a different opinion. Who says that your view is the only one or even the right one and not something based on a misunderstanding.Its Ok to state a belief - Its not Ok to tell all players, officials, supporters that we will burn in hell forever - that's counter-productive to both Christian endeavours IMO but its certainly counter to Rugby ethos.
Well this is also up for dispute and there is a disagreement as to what was said and how it was said in the meeting. Once again, I have to refer to the article regarding RA lack of taking the right sort of action and support to address this matter hence, they offered him 2 million to walk away in realizing this.He was told, retold, retold again - and since he didn't get it and insists on pouring rubbish onto the rest of us - he was fired.... and good riddance.
I have already addressed this in previous posts and you are misinformed about what exemptions under religious rights means and does not mean. Religion does not get a open ticket to discriminate and can only do this in certain situations which is a reasonable position to take and something the UN human rights has stated so. But this is irrelevant to Folau’s case and just a distraction. But for more detail on this refer to answer below.There you go - Oh wait - except in religious institutions which can get away with what no other employer can do - Apparently, by law, they are immune to overt discrimination.
First a religious organization is different to other organizations, so you are comparing apples with oranges which is an unfair comparison. There are certain situations where religious belief needs to be upheld such as the right to employ people of the same beliefs who understand their ways and to protect the culture they have. If they believe that it is important for all their staff in a religious organization should be of the same faith, then they can advertise for this. But if they employ someone without that stipulation then they are subject to the same anti-discrimination laws.And that kinda rankles - its how it is for every single employer - except the religious groups who won the right to target groups based on gender, sexuality, your sexual activities (legal and heterosexual) religious belief, and whether your pregnant.
I am not familiar with the case so I cannot comment. I am not saying the church is not guilty of discrimination and in fact when you consider the child sex abuse, they have plenty to be accountable for. But so, do non-religious organizations. This still does not and should not take away from the fact that there are situations where certain organizations should have the right to discriminate to protect their beliefs or culture otherwise it will be undermined. But this is all irrelevant to Folau’s case and this is about whether RA had the right deny Folau his religious rights in this particular situation.Its how they got away with expelling some nuns from their order because they were raped by priests and fell pregnant. No-one knows hypocrisy better than the churches.
The code of conduct also mentions the right to religious freedom, so RA also had to support and protect Folau's rights in that regard and at the very least this created a conflicting situation
RA did not educate themselves by seeking expert advice as to how to accommodate people with religious belief in these matters and therefore fails on two fronts.
They have just taken a one size fits all approach and that is at the root of the problem.
That is not what the bible says nor what Folau intended, it is a general statement about sin and not individuals. Besides people have accepted this and other bible verses saying similar for years as being part of Christian belief.
You have taken a default position by claiming to know Folau's mindset and his motivation.
First a religious organization is different to other organizations, so you are comparing apples with oranges which is an unfair comparison.
First a religious organization is different to other organizations, so you are comparing apples with oranges which is an unfair comparison. There are certain situations where religious belief needs to be upheld such as the right to employ people of the same beliefs who understand their ways and to protect the culture they have. If they believe that it is important for all their staff in a religious organization should be of the same faith, then they can advertise for this. But if they employ someone without that stipulation then they are subject to the same anti-discrimination laws.
The courts in Australia have already decided the law in relation to religious freedom. This has been established by UN human rights and the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. So it is in Australian law which means it has been tested and scrutinized for its fairness and legitimacy. At this point religious organizations can choose who they have represent them.And this is what courts will need to decide. Where religious action is counter to employment requirements.
This is at the heart of the matter when you say those of us who are not Christians think it is wrong. There are many Christians who do not see it that way and in even non Christians considering that the majority of people have supported Folau's right to religious freedom. The real point to the Folau case is whether Folau in quoting a bible verse was criticizing people. Considering that we have established that people may not see things the same way because they have different worldviews what may be seen as criticizing by some can be a loving act by others.I can see you are adamant Folau and other christians should be free to criticise his supporters providing he is using a verse of the bible. Those of us not christian think that such an attitude isn't consistent with OUR values.
I am not sure that things are that extreme as you say. A nurse would not be allowed to do that and even Christians accept that while on the job they conform to the codes of conduct of the organization. There is no right in religious freedom for nurses to force their religion on others. Can you give me links to these cases.Other employees are troubled. Hospitals, for example, are troubled that Christians will demand the Sabbath off duty, OR islamic doctors will leave the emergency department floor because they need to pray, OR christian nurses will tell a pregnant teen the bible says she should be punished. I mean heck - they are just staying true to their religion - that's what this is all about. Religious people imposing on the rest of us.
So tell me - is the nurse within her rights to slag off the pregnant teen by quoting the bible about stoning such women?
As far as RA not educating players you need to refer to the article. Even RA admitted they have handled the situation badly. As far as a religious organization having the right to sack a math teacher who becomes agnostic, the law in Australia states that a religious organization has the right to decide how it should apply its criteria to employment in upholding its religious culture. That law has been reasoned out by Australian legal system and the UN for good reason. The exemption in the discrimination act for religious organizations is not a loophole for them to discriminate but a “key feature of the architecture of discrimination law around Australia, designed to balance religious freedom rights with the right not to be unjustly discriminated against”.I can't say whether you are correct or not - but Id say your view here is common to all employers INCLUDING religious institutions. The church may now come under scrutiny for its approach to a maths teacher who loses their faith and decides they are agnostic. Right now churches argue they can do what they want in that regard
But you have misunderstood why he has reiterated his position. You have taken a skeptical and perhaps biased position that religious people may be hypocrites or religion itself is destructive and this will taint your view towards the negative. Whereas Folau has made his position clear to stand up for his belief and not back down to others trying to force him to deny and reject his beliefs.Im not sure how you can argue it was not what he intended since he has since reiterated his position clearly just to ensure we understand we are so evil we should all burn.
Well he keeps saying it - so yeah after repeating himself and then going on to talk about it on host shows and in his church - yeah I think we have it clear.
I would like to see the original links so I can get to know the context of these situations. But as I have mentioned there are good reasons why religious organization have exemptions in certain situations. Do you think that there are situations where an organization has the right to decide who they employ?And that's what rankles - We religious institutional employers and should be allowed to do what no other employer does [then list reasons that the rest of the community appalled by]
Do you think it fair a pregnant nun raped by a priest should be evicted from her order?
Do you think it fair that nurses should be interviewed regarding their faith when employed at a hospital?
I never said that. I said they can put in the criteria for the job that the employee must hold their religious beliefs. That is self explanatory as far as what is considered right and wrong according to that belief and they don't have to go into detail. If they find out later that the employee does not hold and practice those beliefs, they then have grounds to dismiss them because they have not met that criteria. As explained above with how belief can influence all aspects of life this can even apply to a math teacher if the organization thinks that this is an important part of upholding their culture. You may say it is not important but others may think it is important. Who is right in these matters. I think it is important that the organization has the right to determine that as they are the ones running it.And that's all total rubbish.
Churches DO NOT write in either their advertisement or job description, you will be fired if you decide you are gay, or fall pregnant, or lose your faith.
As mentioned above beliefs affects all aspects of life and it should be up to the organization to decide how this may affect their culture. In every other aspect of life religion crosses all areas and cannot be contained to one section of life. Not just that as mentioned above with modern management theory that successful organizations need to have an overall agreement of all employees who invest in the values and mission statement of the organization whether they are a math teacher or not. So there is even non-religious support for organizations to have all their staff on the same page if they are to be successful in achieving their aims.A religious institution can put in the job description requirements for the job. If they need to teach religion then so be it.
As mentioned above they only have to state that the person must be practicing their faith which automatically means that there are certain values and standards attached to that. But think of it from their position. If their faith demands that they practice sexual morality and then allow someone who is openly promiscuous wouldn’t that create a divided culture. If the mission statement and values of the organization is to uphold their moral values would not create a double standard that could undermine any position they have taken.How many times do religions impose sexuality requirements on employees and do not pretend that its written in their job description and advertised - it is not. The fact that churches can impose discrimination when it has zero to do with their job is totally repugnant when the rest of Australia has a completely different standard.
The child sex cases has nothing to do with Folau's situation and you are bringing in irrelevant things. I agree that there is an anti religious aspect to society but that should not take away the rights to religious freedom. These rights also apply to non-religious organizations as I have already explained with places such as women's or men's only organizations or with political parties needing like minded people.We have seen this insistence from the church to separate themselves from law time and time again - it blew up in their face with child sexual abuse, but they still insist they would not report child sexual abuse if they found about it all in the confessional. Now while that issue is off-topic, it demonstrates this ongoing issue the community has with the churches that insist they should be allowed to have a separate set of behaviours that is completely out of step to law and ethics imposed on the community.
.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?