Is it Ethical to be fired for stating Christian beliefs

[NBB]

No thats not what the sport is I think perhaps you are confused and thinking of various forms of martial arts


There were several issues he pointed to in addition to homosexuality, including sex outside of marriage.

The sporting union has every right to attempt to be inclusive and not bring into disrepute, players or followers because of who they choose to love, or whether their mother is a single mum, or they live in a defacto relationship.

Is that not a fair expectation of the sport?

More inclusive is people who have different beliefs be able to tolerate each other their differences.

 

[Zoii]

More inclusive is people who have different beliefs be able to tolerate each other.

Exactly - practice your religion - but dont go around speaking your religion when you represent a national sport.

 

[RDKirk]

I owe God nothing except my love.

“If you love me, keep my commands."

 

[Zoii]

Some not realize that telling that people are going to hell if they practice sin is actually doing someone a favour and not 'hate speech'. If you don't agree just let the christian guy live in peace with his beliefs, they are not hurting anybody really.

That view is not supported by the rugby union administration at national and international levels ..... It is not supported by his team mates..... it s not supported by the Australian public at large. He represents the sport. Therefore his views will reflect on the sport. The view held is that his statements highlight several cohorts of people ie those unmarried and having sex, those that are gay, those that drink etc etc - that they are bad [sinners] people going to hell. Now while christians may believe that, it is not the view of the employer he represents.

He has enjoyed significant benefits from the rugby community. It is therefore a slap in the face to the community that has given him so much, to make statements that are totally contrary to the Code of Conduct for players, his contract, and explicit instructions and warning from his employer.

If he felt so strongly, would it have been more ethical to simply not have renewed his contract? But no - he wanted the lucrative benefits that the rugby community has provided him, while flagrantly disregarding his obligations to that community.

 

[JackRT]

Is it ethical that atheists are banned from running for public office in the state of Texas?

 

[Zoii]

“If you love me, keep my commands."

Fair enough - But more importantly to this issue - If you love the sport that rewards you so handsomely, abide by the player Code of ethics and conduct.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Is it ethical that atheists are banned from running for public office in the state of Texas?

No. But, in this case since these rules have been ruled unconstitutional, it's just unethical, arguably, to keep such laws on the books.

 

[FireDragon76]

No thats not what the sport is I think perhaps you are confused and thinking of various forms of martial arts


There were several issues he pointed to in addition to homosexuality, including sex outside of marriage.

The sporting union has every right to attempt to be inclusive and not bring into disrepute, players or followers because of who they choose to love, or whether their mother is a single mum, or they live in a defacto relationship.

Is that not a fair expectation of the sport?

That sort of proves the point: this is the language of Puritanism more than genuine inclusion and pluralism, I am afraid. It could have been an opportunity for the Rugby association to clarify their own beliefs, but recognize his rights to believe what he wants. If he persisted, then perhaps it would be time to discipline him. But to not even make that sincere effort does not seem to be anything but scapegoating.

 

[NBB]

Fair enough - But more importantly to this issue - If you love the sport that rewards you so handsomely, abide by the player Code of ethics and conduct.

For christians, being told they can't express what they believe is a big deal, since christians hold very strong the belief that God is going to judge the world one day, and we need to repent and believe in Jesus, who is the only way to eternal life. For christians there is much at stake. And not only we believe but we have seen God working in our lives, the gospel is not just a set of beliefs, but actually be able to know God.

 

[RDKirk]

No. But, in this case since these rules have been ruled unconstitutional, it's just unethical, arguably, to keep such laws on the books.

The politicians want to avoid seeming to "send the wrong message" by supporting a bill to ban such invalidated laws. The Oklahoma legislature held on to its anti-miscegenation law for a couple of decades after Loving v. Virginia for that reason.

 

[Tinker Grey]

The politicians want to avoid seeming to "send the wrong message" by supporting a bill to ban such invalidated laws. The Oklahoma legislature held on to its anti-miscegenation law for a couple of decades after Loving v. Virginia for that reason.

Sad, huh?

 

[RDKirk]

What we're seeing here and in other places is what evangelism becomes when it has been in the hands of the socially powerful....

....but Christ intended it to be handled by the socially weak.

How did Jesus approach evangelism? We have an example with the Samaritan woman at the well.

Jesus could have sat down at the well, cocked his head at the woman, and said: "I doth perceive that thou art a ho. Repent or get thee to hell!"

That's not the route He took, however. Rather, Jesus prodded her in the spot she was tender.

This is what I mean: We "holy folk" look at a "sinner" and see her most glaring, obvious sin. Say, looking at a woman on the street and seeing that she is a prostitute. In our minds, what we see is what we need to point out to her that needs fixing. "You a ho, and you're going to hell, if you don't repent!"

But in fact, that will be the very thing that in her mind and by circumstances of the world she will have built the strongest bulwark of defensive rationale. She will have a million reasons why it's necessary for her to be a prostitute, and why it's unreasonable for her to be anything else....and you won't have an answer for those reasons.

You're going to say, "But, but...hell!" and she will say, "What is hell to me? If I don't show up tomorrow morning with money, my pimp is going to give me hell. What are you going to do about that?"

But if she's been enabled by the Father, He will have already been prodding her in the very spot that she has not built a bulwark to defend.

For the woman at the well, it was the loneliness of being outcast from the local society of women, which she was forced to face every time she had to draw water separately from the other women. The burden that she felt directly was not that she was living with a man not her husband--she had a rationale for that. Her burden was loneliness...and Jesus offered her respite from her burden.

This is the gospel: Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls, for my yoke is easy and my burden is light.

When Christians rush to assert "hellbound," they are not speaking the gospel of Jesus, they are speaking the condemnation of the Accuser.

 

[RDKirk]

It shows that those who live godly in Christ shall suffer persecution. He is being fired because he refuses to offer his pinch of incense on the altar of homosexuality. !

Was he required to? I suspect he was still being allowed to ignore it.

Oh, I do think that at some point--and I've said and thought this for close to three decades now--that Christians in the West will be demanded that "pinch of incense" to homosexuality, the sacrifice to the dead Caesars. But that hasn't happened yet.

But I will also argue that Christians are using the wrong strategy in the face of that. We are using a strategy based on having social power--supported by the weapons of carnal warfare-- rather than being socially weak and depending on the weapons of spiritual warfare, and that is why we in the West are failing Christ's mission.

It was never the mission of the Body of Christ to fix the Roman Empire. That's still not the mission of the Body of Christ.

How many people know that Denzel Washington is a Christian? He doesn't make a big deal about it--he doesn't allow himself to be proclaimed as a "Christian celebrity" or, worse, a "celebrity Christian."

But when he's in small, private groups talking to young actors--people who in that moment are listening intently to him, yearning to learn from him, hoping to be influenced by him--he'll talk about acting. Then, as they are leaning forward to soak in every word, he will talk to them about Jesus.

That was something Israel Folau could have been doing. He could have been a constant influence on those people to whom God had made him most influential. Maybe he was.

But there is this thing in the West that we want Christians who are celebrities to be celebrity Christians. But that's not going to work for us--celebrity is what the world runs after.

 

[Zoii]

That sort of proves the point: this is the language of Puritanism more than genuine inclusion and pluralism, I am afraid. It could have been an opportunity for the Rugby association to clarify their own beliefs, but recognize his rights to believe what he wants. If he persisted, then perhaps it would be time to discipline him. But to not even make that sincere effort does not seem to be anything but scapegoating.

Perhaps you havent been following the thread - The RU Admin VERY CLEARLY clarified for him [and all players] their belief set via the Code of Conduct, and policies associated with media statements and the use of social media platforms.

He persisted despite several warnings regarding his conduct.
Finally they have responded by sacking him

 

[FireDragon76]

What we're seeing here and in other places is what evangelism becomes when it has been in the hands of the socially powerful....

....but Christ intended it to be handled by the socially weak.

How did Jesus approach evangelism? We have an example with the Samaritan woman at the well.

Jesus could have sat down at the well, cocked his head at the woman, and said: "I doth perceive that thou art a ho. Repent or get thee to hell!"

That's not the route He took, however. Rather, Jesus prodded her in the spot she was tender.

This is what I mean: We "holy folk" look at a "sinner" and see her most glaring, obvious sin. Say, looking at a woman on the street and seeing that she is a prostitute. In our minds, what we see is what we need to point out to her that needs fixing. "You a ho, and you're going to hell, if you don't repent!"

But in fact, that will be the very thing that in her mind and by circumstances of the world she will have built the strongest bulwark of defensive rationale. She will have a million reasons why it's necessary for her to be a prostitute, and why it's unreasonable for her to be anything else....and you won't have an answer for those reasons.

You're going to say, "But, but...hell!" and she will say, "What is hell to me? If I don't show up tomorrow morning with money, my pimp is going to give me hell. What are you going to do about that?"

But if she's been enabled by the Father, He will have already been prodding her in the very spot that she has not built a bulwark to defend.

For the woman at the well, it was the loneliness of being outcast from the local society of women, which she was forced to face every time she had to draw water separately from the other women. The burden that she felt directly was not that she was living with a man not her husband--she had a rationale for that. Her burden was loneliness...and Jesus offered her respite from her burden.

This is the gospel: Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls, for my yoke is easy and my burden is light.

When Christians rush to assert "hellbound," they are not speaking the gospel of Jesus, they are speaking the condemnation of the Accuser.

The truth is, we don't know the full circumstances of the woman at the well. Christians have tended to read the story moralistically, when I don't think that was intended. Jesus is really just acknowledging her shame, not making her feel like garbage.

 

[Zoii]

For christians, being told they can't express what they believe is a big deal, since christians hold very strong the belief that God is going to judge the world one day, and we need to repent and believe in Jesus, who is the only way to eternal life. For christians there is much at stake. And not only we believe but we have seen God working in our lives, the gospel is not just a set of beliefs, but actually be able to know God.

Im not disputing that Christians hold strong beliefs. So too do Moslems and Hindus.

But players, regardless of religion sign the code of conduct. If the Christian ideal is so strong that he knowingly could not abide by the terms of contract, then it was highly unethical - actually quite immoral of him, to none the less give both a legal and moral undertaking to abide by the Codes prescribed by Australian rugby.

 

[FireDragon76]

Perhaps you havent been following the thread - The RU Admin VERY CLEARLY clarified for him [and all players] their belief set via the Code of Conduct, and policies associated with media statements and the use of social media platforms.

He persisted despite several warnings regarding his conduct.
Finally they have responded by sacking him

Then I think that's fair enough.

 

[Zoii]

Then I think that's fair enough.

I want to also add - this is such a shame. He is an extremely likeable individual. Very generous with his time to followers of the game. He is talented in the extreme.

No-one would have bothered if he had been better counselled as to how to be a christian AND an international sporting identity. He could have used his sporting star status for the benefit of both Christianity and rugby alike - a legend of the game who spreads love. But he was poorly counselled and instead sold a message of exclusivity - eg You lot over there are bad and will go to hell..... regardless of whether that's what christians believe.

Now he has lost both his livelihood and an opportunity to be a role model for sport, and for Christianity. I hope this is a lesson to evangelists - Get off your high horse and sell your message with greater humility and with respect to contractual obligations of those in elite positions.

 

[FireDragon76]

I want to also add - this is such a shame. He is an extremely likeable individual. Very generous with his time to followers of the game. He is talented in the extreme.

No-one would have bothered if he had been better counselled as to how to be a christian AND an international sporting identity. He could have used his sporting star status for the benefit of both Christianity and rugby alike - a legend of the game who spreads love. But he was poorly counselled and instead sold a message of exclusivity - eg You lot over there are bad and will go to hell..... regardless of whether that's what christians believe.

Now he has lost both his livelihood and an opportunity to be a role model for sport, and for Christianity. I hope this is a lesson to evangelists - Get off your high horse and sell your message with greater humility and with respect to contractual obligations of those in elite positions.

I think its just a failure to develop emotional intelligence. Christians talk about rebirth and things like that but when somebody is so insensitive and intransigent, it doesn't speak to any kind of graciousness the world can recognize.

Of course, alot of his has to do with how fundamentalist evangelicalism ticks. It has alot of faith in moral reform efforts, and not alot of respect for realism or subtlety, which is often interpreted (wrongly) as failthlessness. But I think its also important to point out that isn't true for all Christians. Just an extremely vocal group that happens to be popular in the US and Australia.

 

[RDKirk]

The truth is, we don't know the full circumstances of the woman at the well. Christians have tended to read the story moralistically, when I don't think that was intended. Jesus is really just acknowledging her shame, not making her feel like garbage.

Jesus says nothing about her "shame" until after she has accepted His offer to relieve her from having to draw water from the well.

He does not bring up her shame first.

As we study this example of perfect evangelism, we have to think about what He did and ponder why He did it that way...and not the way we commonly do it.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Does Australia have a freedom of religion similar to the United States?

I was thinking about freedom of speech, actually. Easter and Christmas are on Australian calendars.