Is it Ethical to be fired for stating Christian beliefs

[Paidiske]

Was he talking about Indian Christians or was he talking about Christian England and Christian South Africa who still had their boots on the necks of black and brown people?

I believe he was talking about his experience of South Africa, but that then shaped his perception of Christianity in India, too.

 

[keith99]

Was he talking about Indian Christians or was he talking about Christian England and Christian South Africa who still had their boots on the necks of black and brown people?

I'm pretty sure both and more. He is reported to have said something like 'I rather like your Christ, it is your Christians I cannot abide, they are so unlike your Christ' to Bonhoeffer.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

It really depends....

I have no issues with him saying these things on his own time, or off season, or in situations completely unrelated to his job.

If however, he is representing his team in any way....in uniform, being interviewed for rugby coverage, or perhaps even just during the season...he's part of a business that gets to decide what kind of image they want to project. If he's conflicting with that image or otherwise drawing negative attention to the team, they have every right to sack him.

I felt the same way about Kaepernick.

 

[RDKirk]

I believe he was talking about his experience of South Africa, but that then shaped his perception of Christianity in India, too.

But was that the Christianity of England in India or the Christianity of Indian Christians?

See, my point is that Indian Christians were (and are) a tiny minority that has never had the power to be bad. It would be like Martin Luther King bothering to have a bad opinion of Bahai.

Unless, of course, Bahai was the religion of a nation that had conquered and colonized you...but then, when you spoke unkindly of Bahai, who was pictured in your mind? The face of a local Bahai or the face of one of the colonizing Bahai?

As evil as white Christians have been to blacks in America, Malcolm X failed to prove his point in part because Christian blacks thinking of "Christian" pictured their grandmothers rather than Bull Connors.

 

[Zoii]

It really depends....

I have no issues with him saying these things on his own time, or off season, or in situations completely unrelated to his job.

If however, he is representing his team in any way....in uniform, being interviewed for rugby coverage, or perhaps even just during the season...he's part of a business that gets to decide what kind of image they want to project. If he's conflicting with that image or otherwise drawing negative attention to the team, they have every right to sack him.

I felt the same way about Kaepernick.

The last episode of his comments were tweeted ie posted on a social media platform. He is contracted - thus what season it is or what he is wearing isnt part of the consideration as fas as his employer is concerned.

 

[Zoii]

If anyone is interested, this is the post in question. Personally, I think he should sue them for unfair dismissal.

It may be the other way around - that he will be sued - and if it happens will almost certainly lose. His breach of contract is quite clear.

That said last I heard he was going to appeal his dismissal. I do not know if he will proceed through the civil judicial system though.

 

[Occams Barber]

And yet it excludes those who believe in following the Bible.

Folau didn't get into trouble because he was a Christian. His problem was that he chose to publicly denigrate several groups of people in spite of signing a contract with Rugby, agreeing, among other things, to not denigrate other groups. He did this on several occasions and was counselled each time it happened. The reason he chose to denigrate others (i.e., Christian belief) is irrelevant. The problem would have been exactly the same had he chosen to make similar comments for secular reasons.

Christians need to learn that they cannot use religious belief as cover for insulting others.
OB

 

[Zoii]

For those who think this is an injustice, try to imagine it like this.

You are a Christian school. You hire a brilliant teacher but he happens to be Moslem. You say look, I want to hire you because you are brilliant at your work. But this is a Christian school so you can't go preaching Islam at school, and since you represent our school, off duty I dont want to see on social media things that criticise christianity.

But he does so you warn him. He does it again so you warn him again. When he does a third time - what do you think you should do?

 

[Ana the Ist]

The last episode of his comments were tweeted ie posted on a social media platform. He is contracted - thus what season it is or what he is wearing isnt part of the consideration as fas as his employer is concerned.

And that may be how the law works there...I was simply speaking to what I believe is reasonable. The idea that as a rugby player he completely loses the ability to express an opinion unpopular to his club...is a bit much.

Kaepernick is the closest parallel I can think of....and if his comments were strictly on Twitter and he was fired, I would have argued that he should have gotten his job back. As it was, he made his "protest" on the field, in uniform, while representing his team. It certainly wasn't a popular opinion at the time...but I felt the team was well within their rights to do so. They need not support the views of their players...especially if it hurts their bottom line.

 

[Zoii]

And that may be how the law works there...I was simply speaking to what I believe is reasonable. The idea that as a rugby player he completely loses the ability to express an opinion unpopular to his club...is a bit much.

Kaepernick is the closest parallel I can think of....and if his comments were strictly on Twitter and he was fired, I would have argued that he should have gotten his job back. As it was, he made his "protest" on the field, in uniform, while representing his team. It certainly wasn't a popular opinion at the time...but I felt the team was well within their rights to do so. They need not support the views of their players...especially if it hurts their bottom line.

To understand the mindset of Rugby Australia, they would have been happy for him to say 'jesus loves you.' 'God loves those that are humble and forgiving' 'blessed are the peacemakers'. These are images that do not disrupt the culture and image of Rugby. They do not care what religion you are, and what you may have to say when describing it EXCEPT when it aims to denigrate or exclude others. ... They have players, children and followers whose parents are unmarried or in defacto relationships or may be gay, or [insert from Folau's list]. That's the part which s unacceptable and Israel knew that before he signed the contract. All players know that. If he felt that honouring his contract was impossible based on religious convictions, then he shouldn't have signed it.

 

[Larniavc]

Rugby is being turned into civic religion,

Don’t be silly.

It’s a team sport that has a lot of lessons to teach young people (it did for me).

One man’s desire to input his unsolicited divisive views into something positive is awful.

 

[Mountainmike]

I am certain he was talking in this instance about the Brits.
One poster referred to a similar remark made in south africa.
I am fairly confident he repeated it later in India referring to the behaviour of some of the occupiers.

Was he talking about Indian Christians or was he talking about Christian England and Christian South Africa who still had their boots on the necks of black and brown people?

 

[pc_76]

This has become the new rule of the West: Don't talk openly about anything even slightly suggestive of Christian or conservative beliefs or else face any persecution.

 

[FireDragon76]

To understand the mindset of Rugby Australia, they would have been happy for him to say 'jesus loves you.' 'God loves those that are humble and forgiving' 'blessed are the peacemakers'. These are images that do not disrupt the culture and image of Rugby. They do not care what religion you are, and what you may have to say when describing it EXCEPT when it aims to denigrate or exclude others. ... They have players, children and followers whose parents are unmarried or in defacto relationships or may be gay, or [insert from Folau's list]. That's the part which s unacceptable and Israel knew that before he signed the contract. All players know that. If he felt that honouring his contract was impossible based on religious convictions, then he shouldn't have signed it.

But what if he was asked a factual question about his religion? Is he supposed to lie or be dishonest? Reporters regularly try to do this with people, to be sensationalistic and entrap them into saying something controversial and offensive. Empathy is the last thing on the list of their concerns now days, unfortunately (that's a theme in the 2016 film Christine, about a Florida reporter that committed suicide on air, frustrated that her human interest stories were sidelined in favor of blood and guts).

Senator Bernie Sanders tried to do this months ago when interviewing one of Trump's appointees about his religion. That sort of thing is actually forbidden under the Constitution (religious tests), but apparrently Bernie didn't care about it. But the whole point was to put the man's evangelical faith on trial, and that's not right.

 

[RDKirk]

This has become the new rule of the West: Don't talk openly about anything even slightly suggestive of Christian or conservative beliefs or else face any persecution.

No, not true.

 

[RDKirk]

But what if he was asked a factual question about his religion? Is he supposed to lie or be dishonest? Reporters regularly try to do this with people, to be sensationalistic and entrap them into saying something controversial and offensive. Empathy is the last thing on the list of their concerns now days, unfortunately (that's a theme in the 2016 film Christine, about a Florida reporter that committed suicide on air, frustrated that her human interest stories were sidelined in favor of blood and guts).

Senator Bernie Sanders tried to do this months ago when interviewing one of Trump's appointees about his religion. That sort of thing is actually forbidden under the Constitution (religious tests), but apparrently Bernie didn't care about it. But the whole point was to put the man's evangelical faith on trial, and that's not right.

But even Christian conservative interviewers will do that to Christians they deem not conservative enough.

 

[RDKirk]

I'm pretty sure both and more. He is reported to have said something like 'I rather like your Christ, it is your Christians I cannot abide, they are so unlike your Christ' to Bonhoeffer.

When he said "your" he was talking to a European.

 

[FireDragon76]

Folau didn't get into trouble because he was a Christian. His problem was that he chose to publicly denigrate several groups of people in spite of signing a contract with Rugby, agreeing, among other things, to not denigrate other groups. He did this on several occasions and was counselled each time it happened. The reason he chose to denigrate others (i.e., Christian belief) is irrelevant. The problem would have been exactly the same had he chosen to make similar comments for secular reasons.

Christians need to learn that they cannot use religious belief as cover for insulting others.
OB

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.

 

[FireDragon76]

No, not true.

I do think there are real problems, though, as evidenced by that incident with Sen. Sanders. Respect for other peoples religious beliefs is declining, and there is less empathy and people are taking things personally.

That's one reason I like more moderate voices like Andrew Sullivan, who is an openly gay Catholic man BTW, but who simply does not demonize people who believe homosexuality is a sin. He just believes they are sadly mistaken and missing the bigger picture of Jesus' teachings. But he's not out to persecute people that disagree with him.

I don't know the full details of what happened in Australia but it sounds like it's a bit of an "open season" on people that disagree with what is deemed politically correct. And among many irreligious people in the US, there does seem to be declining respect as well.

 

[RDKirk]

I do think there are real problems, though, as evidenced by that incident with Sen. Sanders. Respect for other peoples religious beliefs is declining, and there is less empathy and people are taking things personally.

That's one reason I like more moderate voices like Andrew Sullivan, who is an openly gay Catholic man BTW, but who simply does not demonize people who believe homosexuality is a sin. He just believes they are sadly mistaken and missing the bigger picture of Jesus' teachings. But he's not out to persecute people that disagree with him.

I don't know the full details of what happened in Australia but it sounds like it's a bit of an "open season" on people that disagree with what is deemed politically correct. And among many irreligious people in the US, there does seem to be declining respect as well.

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.