|
|
Post by goz on Jun 25, 2019 21:22:55 GMT
overtaking all the news channels, AND the most important topic we can discuss here. This is my third thread about it as it is THE most topical thing in religion right now in a modern Western society. www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/comment-it-makes-me-feel-sick-last-night-the-israel-folau-debate-raged-across-every-tv-channel/ar-AADnKtz?ocid=spartandhpBasically it boils down to which right can and should override which. Please read the whole article. As I have said before, this example is local and proving VERY divisive in my community. In the US, you had the wedding cakes and the woman who refused to process gay marriage certificates. To me each society is going to have to come to grips with where they mandate on individual rights. To me it also comes down to which is the active participant 'telling other people what to do' in the name of THEIR religion and views which are their right to have butt NOT impose on others as universal. The passive participant is just trying to live their lives as best they can and doesn't NEED this harrassment. At best it is unChristian and at worst hypocritical and immoral. In short, in our modern Western secular societies just WHY should religion 'freedom' ( which can be used to vilify others) trump ( I love using that word in its proper sense) the rights of others? |
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Jun 25, 2019 21:41:01 GMT
I also thought two other points about this whole story are interesting.
1. His original post (the one that all the fuss was about) also said that all atheists were going to burn in hell - as well as gay people (and thieves and the rest of the "bad" people he listed). No-one is getting in the slightest worked up about the fact that he was happy to have a pop at atheists. Not that we believe in hell, but the sentiment that he wishes us all harm isn't very nice.
2. His gofundme page (an American company) found him to be in breach of their T&Cs and removed him. Which I found quite amusing.
As far as I'm concerned he should be (at the very least) be shunned and stripped of his team membership. If he'd come out and said "kill all the Jews" we wouldn't be having this debate would we? Why is "acceptable" because he dresses it up with a Christian label?
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 25, 2019 22:04:00 GMT
It doesn’t
The freedoms are equal.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 25, 2019 22:11:49 GMT
It doesn’t The freedoms are equal. Then why should the passive party ( who mind their own business) have to put up with the vilification of the active party, when it slanders them and causes them harm??
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 25, 2019 22:22:48 GMT
I also thought two other points about this whole story are interesting. 1. His original post (the one that all the fuss was about) also said that all atheists were going to burn in hell - as well as gay people (and thieves and the rest of the "bad" people he listed). No-one is getting in the slightest worked up about the fact that he was happy to have a pop at atheists. Not that we believe in hell, but the sentiment that he wishes us all harm isn't very nice. 2. His gofundme page (an American company) found him to be in breach of their T&Cs and removed him. Which I found quite amusing. As far as I'm concerned he should be (at the very least) be shunned and stripped of his team membership. If he'd come out and said "kill all the Jews" we wouldn't be having this debate would we? Why is "acceptable" because he dresses it up with a Christian label? Your first point is very apt. The difference between the recipients of his vilification, however, is that one is a particularly vulnerable group ( ie homosexuals transgenders etc particularly if they are young and struggling with their identity which can be problematic in general in our society ) and have just had a long and very bitter debate in this country over the referendum on gay marriage that was not a referendum, and is still in everyone's minds. Also the Christian right had to be reigned back over wanting to mandate that they could discriminate against gay teachers and students in their private religious institutions. It is still hot topic, which is why there are so many donors from the religious right for his GoFundMe and fund raising efforts in this case. The bigots have come out in full support. This refers more to your second point. That is what is referred to in the article where they want a 'Religious ights Bill' so they can freely discimiate and override secular vilification and hide under freedom of speech and freedm f religion laws. I totally agree on your last point and also find it interesting that he didn't put Muslims in there too. He frankly didn't dare due to the recent Christchurch attack. Cowards do this and he now wants to be seen as if not a Christian martyr, a victim. I agree with Ms Rugg and it makes me sick that some members of what I thought was a 'fair go' Australian society are doing this to their fellow man and in such a hypocritical unChristian manner.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 25, 2019 22:24:12 GMT
It doesn’t The freedoms are equal. Then why should the passive party ( who mind their own business) have to put up with the vilification of the active party, when it slanders them and causes them harm?? No one is asking them to be passive. A belief wouldn't slander them anyway
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 25, 2019 22:38:30 GMT
Then why should the passive party ( who mind their own business) have to put up with the vilification of the active party, when it slanders them and causes them harm?? No one is asking them to be passive. A belief wouldn't slander them anyway Are you seriously NOT getting the difference between some one vilifying someone else and the victim/recipient of that vilification? The belief is not what is at work here. It is the slander/libel and the vilification that is the illegal thing. NO-ONE is saying, least of all me, that evangelicals can't hold those beliefs. The whole point is whether they have a right to slander and vilify others by airing those beliefs on public platforms and wanting the laws to be changed to allow this, especially since it DOES cause harm to the individuals who are the recipients. Courts are full of slander and libel cases where harm is proven and money values are allocated. It is disingenuous of you to claim that there is no such thing as slander and libel and/or that religious beliefs should be exempt. It is the public iteration of that belief that is the problem. A health conscious and egalitarian sporting team does not want this to happen in their name, due to the celebrity of one of its member and have put that into their contract. There are BOTH specific wrongs here in this case and general ones. [/quote]
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 25, 2019 22:58:53 GMT
No one is asking them to be passive. A belief wouldn't slander them anyway Are you seriously NOT getting the difference between some one vilifying someone else and the victim/recipient of that vilification? The belief is not what is at work here. It is the slander/libel and the vilification that is the illegal thing. NO-ONE is saying, least of all me, that evangelicals can't hold those beliefs. The whole point is whether they have a right to slander and vilify others by airing those beliefs on public platforms and wanting the laws to be changed to allow this, especially since it DOES cause harm to the individuals who are the recipients. Courts are full of slander and libel cases where harm is proven and money values are allocated. It is disingenuous of you to claim that there is no such thing as slander and libel and/or that religious beliefs should be exempt. It is the public iteration of that belief that is the problem. A health conscious and egalitarian sporting team does not want this to happen in their name, due to the celebrity of one of its member and have put that into their contract. There are BOTH specific wrongs here in this case and general ones. [/quote] Yoi always go on the rants when your answers could be simpler. I think you’re deflecting. I asked this in one of the myriad threads you started in this but ill try again. Does Australia ban religious teaching on the basis of hurt feelings or not? |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 26, 2019 0:40:21 GMT
Are you seriously NOT getting the difference between some one vilifying someone else and the victim/recipient of that vilification? The belief is not what is at work here. It is the slander/libel and the vilification that is the illegal thing. NO-ONE is saying, least of all me, that evangelicals can't hold those beliefs. The whole point is whether they have a right to slander and vilify others by airing those beliefs on public platforms and wanting the laws to be changed to allow this, especially since it DOES cause harm to the individuals who are the recipients. Courts are full of slander and libel cases where harm is proven and money values are allocated. It is disingenuous of you to claim that there is no such thing as slander and libel and/or that religious beliefs should be exempt. It is the public iteration of that belief that is the problem. A health conscious and egalitarian sporting team does not want this to happen in their name, due to the celebrity of one of its member and have put that into their contract. There are BOTH specific wrongs here in this case and general ones. Yoi always go on the rants when your answers could be simpler. I think you’re deflecting. I asked this in one of the myriad threads you started in this but ill try again. Does Australia ban religious teaching on the basis of hurt feelings or not?[/quote] Sorry my quoting and stuff is not working. Answer: NO, of course not. We don't ban religious teaching at all We have a true freedom of religion here.
|
|
