FLYER Forums

Pete L wrote:I think he’s got a reasonable case for being discriminated against for his religion.

And some of those who hold different religious beliefs to him would suggest that he will end up in hell too. With all the homosexuals. The poor thing!

Dave W wrote:Whereas, with the wisdom of the Ages, at least we now only deny a career to the apostate...

People believe many diverse things, rightly or wrongly. Rather than forcing a particular view on them (which likely won't work, deep down), making a case and convincing them is surely a better course of action for society as a whole, as well as the individuals?

Not really sure what your point is but it is pleasantly Yoda-like on the ear.

Are you saying that Folau shouldn't force his views on others through his twitter account but should try and make a case and convince people not to be gay?

Is the point really that unclear?

I'm saying that force should not be the default means of pushing one's viewpoint on others.

Persuasion is the way to convince others of the rightness of one's position.

I'm also saying that opinions of which others disapprove should not generally result in loss of career.

Also, who nominates the Approval Police?

It is something to be very careful about as a society. Today we may cheer on the Approval Police because their opinions happen to chime with ours.

But what if, tomorrow, the Approval Police disagree with us?

Dave W wrote:But what if, tomorrow, the Approval Police disagree with us?

They already do. Depends on who you think 'us' is.

Well, exactly.

You or me losing our livelihoods for honestly held opinions would be something we might be less blasé about.

So "society" might want to be a bit more careful about positively deciding if the direction in which it currently appears to be travelling is the best one in the long run.

Well, an opinion is one thing. A behaviour, actually speaking out, even through the mouthpiece of twitter, is another.

I'm going to invoke Godwin now. Stand back...

I don't think Hitler personally killed anyone in WW2. But we know he did. Millions. Through his words.

So you are comparing a bloke who said he was going to do something and then did it against a bloke who said some potentially non existent entity will visit judgement at a later date.

It's not even blackmail.

It should be perfectly acceptable to state that you dislike a behaviour in public or private. There's a whole movement #metoo# founded on that.

JoeC wrote: I don't think Hitler personally killed anyone in WW2.

Maybe one. In the bunker in Berlin.

Dave W wrote:Persuasion is the way to convince others of the rightness of one's position.

Very true, however when one's powers of persuasion fail to convince it is not acceptable to condemn others to a fictitious place known as Hell in the name of religion.

Agree. In the same way that it's not inherently acceptable to condemn someone's real-World career for wrongthink.

I'm torn on the employment issue. Whilst I agree we should all be free to believe what we will without our jobs being under threat, I also acknowledge that high profile, arguably influential, 'jobs' are not the quite the same. If DaveW, or indeed Misc. spouts forth about our religious beliefs then it is generally seen as our beliefs. However, rightly or wrongly, when a high profile individual does so it is not unusual for those beliefs to be linked to the organisation.

I'm afraid it comes with the territory. It's not exactly a huge ask to refrain from being publicly vocal about one's religious beliefs if in a high profile role.

Furthermore, the mentality of an individual not able to understand this has to be questioned. Not to mention the insult in the complete and utter nonsense in his message.

How can such an unprovoked attack on innocent individuals be acceptable, yet it is seen as offensive to suggest the religious are irrational?

Pete L wrote:
It should be perfectly acceptable to state that you dislike a behaviour in public or private.

That is exactly what I am doing. Thanks!

Dave W wrote:Agree. In the same way that it's not inherently acceptable to condemn someone's real-World career for wrongthink.

His career was no affected for wrong think - it was for suggesting, via his social media account with > 100k followers, that homosexuals should go to hell, when his employer had already warned him that such behaviour was unacceptable.

Is this chap's tweet point of view equally or more acceptable, than that of the Sultan of Brunei, who actually finds that homosexuals should be stoned to death, no doubt based on his honest and deep religious beliefs, or others who think that gay people should be treated with conversion therapy or just locked up in a psychiatric hospital?

Dave W wrote:Agree. In the same way that it's not inherently acceptable to condemn someone's real-World career for wrongthink.

No-one has condemned him or his career for thinking anything.You keep saying thinking.

He was speaking.

He not only said these things but decided to publicly promote them internationally through Twitter via his 127,000 followers to the the rest of the world.

No-one should ever be condemned for thinking or believing anything. But behaviour, how we act, is what really defines us and we must be responsible for it.

He hasn't lost his job because of what he thought but because he broke a clause in his contract. After a warning for doing it the first time.

edit. Ah, crossed with FD. Same point.

JoeC wrote:

Pete L wrote:
It should be perfectly acceptable to state that you dislike a behaviour in public or private.

That is exactly what I am doing. Thanks!

It may be what you're doing Joe, but it certainly ain't what the rugby player did. He went on to condemn them to Hell! A bit of a difference.

Whilst we are at it I'll confess to never having tried 'homosexual behaviour', generally due to a perceived dislike. But who am I to be judgmental of others and condemn them to some fantasy existence, such condemnation being solely designed to cause stress.

Just whose morality should be being questioned here?