Richard Colbeck has some explaining to do

Senator Richard Colbeck is the Minister for Sport.

Now an interesting development occurred in the Folau saga:

Rugby Australia may have inadvertently opened another legal avenue for Israel Folau to pursue following suggestions that sponsors were threatening to withdraw support if the former Wallaby player wasn’t sacked. 

“[The alternative] would be that we’d have no sponsors at all because no sponsor has indicated they would be willing to be ­associated with social media posts of that sort, and that ­includes government, because we’ve also heard from them,” he said. “We would also potentially be in litigation with employees who are gay and who would say we’re not providing a workplace that is safe or respectful.”

Is the Australian government of the view that the public display of Christianity is a problem that should lead to people being fired from their jobs?

This entry was posted in Cultural Issues, Ethics and morality, Oppressive government. Bookmark the permalink.

177 Responses to Richard Colbeck has some explaining to do

  1. stackja

    Senator Richard Colbeck? Who?

  2. stackja

    Party positions
    Member of the Liberal Party from 1990.
    Delegate to the Liberal Party State Council from 1991.
    Member of the Liberal Party State Executive (Tas.) from 1992.
    Member of the Liberal Party Policy Advisory Committee (Tas.) from 1993 to 1997.
    Member of the Liberal Party Federal Executive from 2000 to 2002.
    President of the Liberal Party State Branch (Tas.) from 2000 to 2002.

  3. stackja

    Appointed by the Governor of Tasmania on 4.2.2002 under section 15 of the Constitution to represent that State in the Senate, vice Hon. J Newman (resigned). Elected to the Senate for Tasmania 2001. Re-elected 2007 and 2013. Defeated at general elections 2016. Declared elected 9.2.2018 as a Senator for Tasmania by the High Court of Australia, vice S Parry (resigned). R-elected 2019.

  4. a happy little debunker

    Colbeck was one of the Turnbull backers that spilled Abbott’s leadership.

    He lost his job in the 2016 election (as blowback for his duplicity), but re-fell over the line in May thanks to the resurgence of conservatives to the LNP in Tasmania.

    The fact that this chump has been promoted by Scott Morrison, whilst the experienced and demonstrably capable Eric Abetz sits listlessly on the backbench – should sound a warning as to the competence and integrity of the current government.

  5. Warty

    Ghost of Malcolm Wormpill, who rushed through virtue-gaining legislation, without the requisite safeguards.
    Said religious freedom was more important to him than same sex marriage, but managed to indulge in a ‘senior’s moment’, conveniently forgetting to rush that inconvenient stuff through.
    Result? A legislative nightmare, with hints of Orwellianism about it all.

  6. Mark A

    a happy little debunker
    #3067335, posted on July 1, 2019 at 8:56 am

    Colbeck was one of the Turnbull backers that spilled Abbott’s leadership.
    should sound a warning as to the competence and integrity of the current government.

    Where does competence come into it?
    We are talking about the libs for God’s sake and ScoMo in particular.

  7. TPL001

    We are indeed entering murky waters:

    116. Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
    The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

  8. 132andBush

    The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

    Then why the hell do we have those stupid “smoking ceremonies”?

  9. Perth Trader

    ” that ­includes government, because we’ve also heard from them,” he said.
    I take that to mean Govt. State, or Fed.? contacted RA. Not RA contacting Govt.

  10. Iva Right

    Step up Morrison or be prepared for the voters to assist you to step down at the next election. The quiet Australians who donated over $2 million to the Falou campaign are the same quiet Australians to whom you owe your slim victory.

  11. Lilliana

    Iva Right
    #3067363, posted on July 1, 2019 at 9:30 am

    Agree – Morrison seems to have a very short memory.

  12. Roger

    Noted at the Cat before anyone in the msm picked it up.

  13. Fred

    After the Williams v Commonwealth case, federal sports funding is on very shaking ground.

    A high court challenge against sports funding and a payment order would bankrupt Rugby Australia.

    Go on Israel, it would be funny. The drag queen would lose her $800,000 a year salary too.

  14. Perth Trader

    According to RA chair some Govt. department or head advice them that Govt. funding would be cut because the ”Govt. did’nt want to be associated with media posts of that sort.” This is getting murky.

  15. max

    The “law-order” of society does not ultimately rest on the political structure and votes, but ultimately on the ethical/religious beliefs of the people.

    if there be no religious test required, pagans, deists, and Mahometans might obtain offices among us, and that the senators and representatives might all be pagans.

    legal pluralism is one of the sources of Western liberty. But note: Western legal pluralism was not a self-conscious pluralism of law-orders, but a pluralism of human institutional sovereignties under a single law-order, God’s law. The absolute sovereignty of any human institution is denied by such a doctrine. It was canon law which broke decisively with any doctrine of the unitary State.

    The Quest for Political Unity

    Political pluralism is a manifestation of polytheism: multiple ethics, multiple gods.

    The strategy of the ancient empires was syncretism. It still is, but today it is called pluralism. The idols of the conquered cities could be brought into the pantheon of the empire’s gods. This was Rome’s strategy. Local idols lost their exclusivity when they entered the empire’s pantheon. Rome sought to maintain the regional authority of the gods of the classical city-state by incorporating them into the Roman pantheon. By honoring the geographical significance of local deities, Rome sought to subordinate them all to the pantheon itself, i.e., to the empire. The Roman pantheon, manifested politically by the genius and later the divinity of the emperor, universalized the implied divinity of the classical city-state.

  16. The BigBlueCat

    132andBush
    #3067356, posted on July 1, 2019 at 9:22 am
    The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

    Then why the hell do we have those stupid “smoking ceremonies”?

    Not sure which “smoking ceremonies” you mean … the Hockey/Cormann one? Or the “welcome to country”?

    The latter is not traditional aboriginal culture, as it was contrived by Ernie Dingo (and a mate of his) because we didn’t have an indiginous ceremony like the Maori’s. See here

    It’s certainly not a religious ceremony – we have the “smoking ceremonies” because “political correctness” and “$’s.

    Suffice it to say there is no disrespect to aboriginal culture to criticise the “welcome to country” ceremony on the basis it is not traditional. The only thing “aboriginal” about it is Ernie and his mate.

    Now waiting for someone to call me a racist …..

  17. max

    A smoking ceremony is an ancient custom among some Aboriginal Australians that involves smouldering various native plants to produce smoke which they believe has cleansing properties and the ability to ward off bad spirits.

  18. Leigh Lowe

    What is his email and phone no?

  19. The BigBlueCat

    max
    #3067396, posted on July 1, 2019 at 10:10 am
    A smoking ceremony is an ancient custom among some Aboriginal Australians that involves smouldering various native plants to produce smoke which they believe has cleansing properties and the ability to ward off bad spirits.

    That’s as may be, but in the context of “welcome to country” ceremonies, they are an artificial “tradition” (though I guess traditions have to start somewhere) … but “welcome to country” can’t be claimed as a religious or ancient tradition. The “smoking” part is the only traditional or ancient bit about it. “Welcome to country” is neither necessary or ancient tradition.

  20. Elderly White Man From Skipton

    Sinclair: your rhetorical question invites reference to the pouint made at the Weekend Australian by Katrina Grace Kelly. That is: should a religious belief be cause for someone to lose their job?
    Kelly made the point that religious groups are in fact legally enabled to sack someone who does not observe their beliefs. The Folau case, in arguments made for Folau, highlights that hole in the law.
    Personally, I do not accept that Folau is in dispute over beliefs. We will see what the evidence brings in court, but it appears at this stage that he breached his agreement with an employer. He might yet cause the churches to lose their right to discriminate in employment, which would be a step forward.

  21. Terry

    @ The BigBlueCat

    “they are an artificial “tradition””

    Indeed, the “tradition” has an “antiques made to order” kind of fell to it.

  22. stackja

    Elderly your bias is showing.

  23. Roger

    Comment: Giving to Israel Folau isn’t patriotic, it’s funding fanaticism

    In a profession that is fast circling the drain of mediocrity, sports journalists are proving themselves to be in the lead.

  24. Sinclair Davidson

    Yes – I saw Kelly’s article. It seems to me that this is a test of the follow reasonable instructions requirement of employment.

    What is the extent of that power? Can you reasonably instruct someone not to be Christian in their own time and space?

    I am not a fan of carve outs so religious organisations losing many of their current legal privileges doesn’t worry me. But I do think that employment law needs to be moved away from the old master-servant relationship and placed firmly on black letter contractual terms.

  25. Bruce of Newcastle

    Mr Skipton – The problem with that is you appear to be implying that Rugby Australia is a religious organization which doesn’t allow Christians to be a part of. RA should be instead marketing rugby to all Australians irrespective of faith. A Christian organisation is not necessarily doing that, depending upon the organisation. They will also refer people who disagree to a different organisation from which they can get services or employment. As RA is effectively a monopoly that isn’t feasible here.

  26. Roger

    Elderly White Man From Skipton
    #3067403, posted on July 1, 2019 at 10:22 am

    Churches have an exemption, sporting codes don’t.

    It’s called freedom of religion, a hard won central tenet of liberal societies for centuries.

  27. Terry

    “We would also potentially be in litigation with employees who are gay and who would say we’re not providing a workplace that is safe or respectful.”

    A “right” preserved for the specially privileged “gay” class of course.

    No need to provide a workplace that is “safe or respectful” for religious beliefs, political views or indeed, any view that does not submit to the political hegemony of the current zeitgeist amongst the parasite class.

  28. dover_beach

    Personally, I do not accept that Folau is in dispute over beliefs. We will see what the evidence brings in court, but it appears at this stage that he breached his agreement with an employer.

    And what was the substance of that purported breach?

  29. Sinclair Davidson

    We would also potentially be in litigation with employees who are gay and who would say we’re not providing a workplace that is safe or respectful.

    I work with unionists and that surely cannot “a workplace that is safe or respectful”.

  30. max

    All rites have religious meaning.

  31. egg_

    Gays are 4% of the population?
    A minority of the size of Aboriginality?
    The 96% majority have to bend to their every whim as the QWERTY brigade is on the march through the institutions?
    Cucked Minister, perchance?

  32. a happy little debunker

    Then why the hell do we have those stupid “smoking ceremonies”?

    It is a newly minted constitutional confection – as opposed to parliament’s recital of the Lord’s Prayer, which is a constitutional convention.

    One providing a sugary hit of virtue signalling – the other, a long held practice.

    You’ll never guess which one the Greens are wanting to abolish?

  33. The BigBlueCat

    P
    #3067397, posted on July 1, 2019 at 10:10 am
    Comment: Giving to Israel Folau isn’t patriotic, it’s funding fanaticism

    People are free to give their money to what ever cause they think is appropriate. That cesspit “GoFundMe” is a place where you see all sorts of funding campaigns. Now, on to what Joe Frost wrote (who the f… is Joe Frost anyway???) ….

    On the other hand, the fools who have helped Folau amass a $2 million war chest for his upcoming legal battle with Rugby Australia are actively funding a religious fanatic whose backwards views are dangerous.

    So what, Joe Frost? Who are you to tell them where they can put their money? Who says Folau’s views are backwards? Who are you to morally judge him or the people supporting him?

    Apparently giving money to Folau – a guy who wants the right to say disparaging things about the way certain people are born without having to face any consequence – is about defending Australians’ freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

    That statement is bigotry writ large. Folau did not disparage anyone or any group, and nor can Frost read Folau’s mind when he says “a guy who wants to right to say disparaging things about the way certain people are born”. Folau wrote from his deeply-held religious conviction that sinners can self-select their destiny by either turning to God and repenting of their sins or not. But the gaystapo and offenderati are only interested in destroying someone who “hurt my feelings”.

    I was staggered when I found out that homosexuality was only decriminalised in New South Wales in 1984 – in fact, the bill was passed the day after my oldest brother was born.

    Nothing to do with Folau. BTW – is being a Christian a criminal offence? Left to some it might become that way ….

    The issue at hand isn’t that Israel holds homophobic beliefs – it may be baffling to the reasonable person that he does, but he’s totally allowed to, and no one’s sacking him for them.

    Does he hold homophobic beliefs? No, he’s been sacked for an alleged high-level breach of RA’s code of conduct, something Folau (and others) dispute. He does not have a termination notice that says “because you are a Chrsitian”, though it is clear that the expression of Christian doctrine is something that RA (and certain sponsors) didn’t like. And went to some effort to have Folau remove them (which Folau refused to do).

    The problem is that he’s repeatedly put statements trumpeting his homophobia out into the public sphere and he won’t retract them or make any future guarantees to leave his phone in his pocket next time he’s confronted with the reality that everyone’s different.

    I think Folau already knows people are different. The gaystapo wants all people to be the same – subservient to their sexuality politics. If Folau retracted them, then RA has influenced Folau’s freedom of expression … what don’t you understand about that? And by attempting to influence Folau, there a rights breach right there! Go look at ICCPR Article 19!

    As for the whole ‘don’t persecute me for my beliefs’ line? Please. Izzy is playing the Wizard of Oz – hiding behind the curtain provided to him by the Bible while pretending that the voice booming forth is truly that of a great and omnipotent being.

    And Joe Frost is hiding behind the curtain of “journalism” and “op ed” …. But Folau isn’t playing Wizard of Oz, he’s dealing with truth as he understands it to be. The Wizard of Oz, however, was deliberate in his deception. Jo Frost is just dealing with false analogies trying to prove his point. Fail!

    As for those who are actually funding an uneducated millionaire’s right to be homophobic? Think ten years down the track. How embarrassed will your kids and grandkids be that you thought this was the way to improve the country and their future?

    That is their right. And you might find that my kids (and their kids) in particular will be thankful. BTW – how many SSM kids (naturally born of both parents) will be thankful? (A: zero! There won’t be any!)

    It’s rhetorical, don’t @ me. They’ll be heaps embarrassed.

    Cowardly statement! It’s you (Joe Frost) who would be embarrassed.

    (I only write all this here because the Joe Frost doesn’t allow comments on msm.com …. it’s real easy for Joe Frost to sit there and pontificate on Israel Folau while rejecting any criticism of his piece. What a PoS!)

  34. egg_

    Etihad might step up to the plate in place of [email protected]?

  35. egg_

    a sugary hit of virtue signalling

    The new piety?

  36. The BigBlueCat

    max
    #3067425, posted on July 1, 2019 at 10:41 am
    All rites have religious meaning.

    Only religious rites have religious meaning. But “Welcome to Country” taken as a whole is a contrived ceremony and certainly not religious in it’s fullest context. And calling it a rite does not make it religious.

    Just because a “smoking ceremony” is included, it doesn’t make the whole ceremony religious. Otherwise, the Lord’s Prayer, spoken at the start of each parliamentary session, would make that parliamentary session “religious” – and I can tell you it ain’t!

  37. FelixKruell

    that ­includes government, because we’ve also heard from them

    I suspect when he says ‘government’, he means various government departments or authorities who advertise/sponsor. That is, the public service, not the Government. Two very different things (at times).

  38. dover_beach

    Apparently giving money to Folau – a guy who wants the right to say disparaging things about the way certain people are born without having to face any consequence – is about defending Australians’ freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

    and

    The issue at hand isn’t that Israel holds homophobic beliefs – it may be baffling to the reasonable person that he does, but he’s totally allowed to, and no one’s sacking him for them.

    Monty has a contender.

  39. egg_

    the way certain people are born

    Fiction.

  40. The BigBlueCat

    He might yet cause the churches to lose their right to discriminate in employment, which would be a step forward.

    EWMFS … and maybe the ALP to sack staff who vote LNP? Or Trades Hall to sack someone who leaves their union? Or the AFL to sack a player who says he loves NRL?? How far do you want this to go? The religious exemptions are there to protect the operation of the religious organisations, so they aren’t white-anted from within. For political parties, unions and footy clubs, the same principles apply. Folau hasn’t white-anted RA (though RA seems to be doing a good job on their own).

    Folau’s case is onr of (alleged) unfair dismissal based on Folau’s expression of deeply-held religious beliefs. RA knew he was a Christian, but didn’t sack him before, and the reason for his termination was not that he doesn’t believe in RA as a sporting code, it’s rules or administrators, or even other players, supporters or sponsors – it was the expression of his deeply-held religious convictions that RA objected to. And Folau doesn’t believe his expressions of deeply-held religious conviction were contrary to RA as they were to the world at large. What Folau wrote in Christian terms is not controversial (it’s not controversial to the other 2 major mono-theistic religions either).

    This is a “values” case – RA’s values are heavily influenced by modern secular worldviews on tolerance and political correctness – that Folau doesn’t share those views (but shares others apparently) should not result in termination (according to Folau and others).

  41. The BigBlueCat

    dover_beach
    #3067444, posted on July 1, 2019 at 10:56 am

    Correct! Maybe Monty IS Joe Frost?

    The issue at hand isn’t that Israel holds homophobic beliefs – it may be baffling to the reasonable person that he does, but he’s totally allowed to, and no one’s sacking him for them.

    Joe Frost manifestly mischaracterises the issue with this one statement – he falsely accuses Folau of holding homophobic beliefs, then says it OK for him to have those beliefs. But the whole tenor of his article is that it’s not OK to hold those beliefs, and if Folau expresses them then Folau has committed a moral error. And RA was right to terminate him. Joe Frost (in my opinion) is a bad writer.

  42. Some History

    Joe frost is editor at The Roar. Haven’t heard of Joe Frost or The Roar. Don’t worry. But his anti-Folau rant at The Roar allows comments.

    https://www.theroar.com.au/2019/06/29/giving-to-israel-folau-isnt-patriotic-its-funding-fanaticism/
    https://www.theroar.com.au/author/joe-frost/

  43. Bruce of Newcastle

    the way certain people are born

    Fiction.

    Irrelevant actually. According to the Bible we’re all born evil, and all have to repent of doing evil things. That goes for people who think they’re born gay just as much as the rest of us who are born to be adulterous lying covetous drunks. As Folau pointed out.

    I love how this issue has hit exactly in the soft spot of Leftist hypocrisy between religion, race, freedom of speech and money. Hopefully RA gets reamed a new arsehole, as a CSM might say.

  44. Des Deskperson

    Just as a matter of interest, I checked out RA’s financial statement in its Annual Report for Calendar Year 2018. It’s income sources – $0’000 – included::

    Broadcasting: 60.582
    Match takings: 20.165
    Sponsorships: 28,233
    Government Grants 3.950.

    Figures for 2017 were much the same, except for a whopping $M 24.810 in government grants. This presumably reflects one off government funding – through UTS – to the Australian Rugby Development Centre.

    it doesn’t say whether the grants are Federal, State or both. Nor, of course, does it include various government deals at state level with individual clubs. In the ACT, I understand that the Brumbies get around 2.5 million pa as a direct cash subsidy as well as various sweetheart deals on rates and taxes.

    The ACT Government would be particularly upset at any suggestion that RA was soft on ‘homophobia’

  45. Roger

    I suspect when he says ‘government’, he means various government departments or authorities who advertise/sponsor. That is, the public service, not the Government. Two very different things (at times).

    Every public servant is answerable to a government minister.

  46. old bloke

    “[The alternative] would be that we’d have no sponsors at all because no sponsor has indicated they would be willing to be ­associated with social media posts of that sort, and that ­includes government, because we’ve also heard from them,” he said.

    I don’t have a subscription to the Australian so I don’t know who “he” is who is mentioned in “he said.” If he is a spokesman for RA, it looks like they are manoeuvring for an Eichmann defence, i.e., RA was just following Government orders.

    There are two issues which haven’t yet come out into the light of day; who was speaking on behalf of the government, and what was the “serious” breach of rules which resulted in Folau’s sacking (RA say it wasn’t Folau’s social media posts.)

  47. stackja

    Some History
    #3067454, posted on July 1, 2019 at 11:22 am

    Moderation policy?

  48. Sinclair Davidson

    Every public servant is answerable to a government minister.

    Increasingly this is no longer the case – and it is a problem.

    Not in this instance though.

  49. dover_beach

    The ARU is not an LGBTIQ organisation. The comparison with religious groups is therefore otiose.

  50. Roger

    If he is a spokesman for RA…

    No less a personage than their chairman, Cameron Clyne.

    An erstwhile banker who presided over the NAB when they were charging the dead for account keeping.

  51. stackja

    Sinclair Davidson
    #3067463, posted on July 1, 2019 at 11:33 am

    All public servants including MPs should be answerable to voters. ScoMo listening?

  52. Some History

    (RA say it wasn’t Folau’s social media posts.)

    RA say that but it was due to his “homophobic” social media post. RA speak with forked tongue, i.e., crap.

  53. Roger

    Increasingly this is no longer the case – and it is a problem.

    A problem created by lazy ministers.

    It used to be that you never saw a public servant move quicker than when a ministerial arrived on his desk.

  54. Leigh Lowe

    Some History

    #3067454, posted on July 1, 2019 at 11:22 am

    Joe frost is editor at The Roar. Haven’t heard of Joe Frost or The Roar. Don’t worry.

    Poorly paid blogger auditions for ABC gig.

  55. The BigBlueCat

    Some History
    #3067454, posted on July 1, 2019 at 11:22 am
    Joe frost is editor at The Roar. Haven’t heard of Joe Frost or The Roar. Don’t worry. But his anti-Folau rant at The Roar allows comments.

    https://www.theroar.com.au/2019/06/29/giving-to-israel-folau-isnt-patriotic-its-funding-fanaticism/
    https://www.theroar.com.au/author/joe-frost/

    I see … Joe Roar has an agenda then …

    One poster made the following post – pretty much sums up what I would want to say:

    I will attempt to lay out the logic, or in my view ill-logic, that is present here.

    Folau says homosexuals, among many other folk, & by extension, pretty much everyone, will go to hell for their sins (behaviour), unless they repent before god.

    This is pretty much the cornerstone of all christian religions. You can be a bad boy, or girl, only as long as you eventually seek forgiveness. Of course, it’s better if you seek forgiveness regularly, just in case you cark it unexpectedly.

    We can’t have you going to heaven if you haven’t sought forgiveness for your sins.

    This is the crux of religion, eternal sin, guilt & seeking forgiveness all go hand in hand.

    Now it seems the “you will go to hell” part is the part that has offended gays & gays’ supporters. This is the part that has been identified as a homophobic slur.

    Many, probably most, but by no means all gays, shun religion because it is the antithesis of their lifestyle. This is fair enough.

    However, by shunning religion, gays shun god & by extension, the existence of hell.

    So if you don’t believe in hell, or no longer believe in hell, how on this earth can you be offended by something you no longer believe in, or never believed in?

    Another roarer, I can’t recall who, told me to stop concentrating on hell. But it is critical to Folau’s alleged homophobic slur.

    Is there a roarer who has visited hell who can tell us all about it? Where is hell exactly? What’s it look like? Who’s there?

    I don’t understand how you can be offended about something you don’t believe exists. Unless of course, you have an agenda.

    I must say, I am NOT generally impressed by the standard of posting on The Roar … it is far worse than even Catallaxyfiles! (And that’s saying something!) I didn’t realise so many rugby supporters are also avid LGBTIQ+ supporters as well (or are they just anti-religion)?

  56. long way away

    To my mind a lot of commentators and opinion writers are missing the whole point of Folau’s post. In quoting from Corinthians he is espousing the one of the tenets of Christian belief that of forgiveness. Would a man who hates the various groups he is alleged to have offended advocate forgiveness albeit of a conditional kind in that you have to acknowledge your faults.

  57. Roger

    To my mind a lot of commentators and opinion writers are missing the whole point of Folau’s post.

    The Left just doesn’t get religion, lwa, and that includes most journalists (there’s a website devoted to that subject).

    Although in their own minds they always understand it better than practitioners do.

  58. duncanm

    Somebody gets it..

    MarkfromCroydon
    Roar Pro
    June 29th 2019 @ 7:54am

    The author of this article has missed the point entirely.
    If you support LGBTIQP rights, you should want Folau to win this case.
    A Folau loss and RA win will make it easier for people to discriminate against LGBTIQP people.
    It’s about the principle, not the side.

  59. Helen

    Can someone give me the link to RA annual report/s? I have been all ovder theri websote and cant find it.

  60. Leigh Lowe

    Des Deskperson

    #3067456, posted on July 1, 2019 at 11:26 am

    Just as a matter of interest, I checked out RA’s financial statement in its Annual Report for Calendar Year 2018. It’s income sources – $0’000 – included::

    Broadcasting: 60.582

    Match takings: 20.165
    Sponsorships: 28,233
    Government Grants 3.950

    The first line of that tally expires in 2020.
    Foxtel is the main broadcaster, with Channel 10 picking up some Wallaby internationals and limited replays.
    Foxtel is under pressure from Netflix, Stan etc in general entertainment, and profitability is suffering.
    Channel Nein has NRL and Seven has AFL. They won’t be interested, and Channel Ten has no cash.
    There is a fair chance that Rugger will end up on Joy-FM radio.

  61. Iampeter

    Is the Australian government of the view that the public display of Christianity is a problem that should lead to people being fired from their jobs?

    Essentially yes. If they are of the view that a business can’t fire someone for this reason, then that swings both ways.
    It’s the fact the government can tell a business one way or the other that constitutes the issue. That’s the violation of our freedoms, including religious freedom.

    What is the extent of that power? Can you reasonably instruct someone not to be Christian in their own time and space?

    Agreements about what you can display in public are pretty routine in some industries. Getting caught wearing a competitors logo by your sponsor is a common blunder and can even be career ending.
    But that’s not the issue here.
    Folau was asked to stop doing something by his employer. Your options at this point should be to either comply or resign.
    Not ignore the request, then try to force them to employ you, or claim breach of contract when you rightly get sacked.
    Not whip up a mob of SJW’s to try and strong arm them.

    The fact that he’s a Christian or upset anyone, are not the essential issues here.
    But identity politics, as opposed to actual politics, is all anyone knows.

    Sadly it doesn’t look like even RA are making the right arguments in defense of their rights.

    But I do think that employment law needs to be moved away from the old master-servant relationship and placed firmly on black letter contractual terms.

    That would require getting the government out these issues and getting rid of bodies like Fair Work.
    They undermine contract law by violating the rights of employers and turning them into slaves of employees.
    This is a consequence of believing that a government should do things other than protect rights and a lack of understanding of what rights are in the first place.

  62. stackja

    Rupert created Super Rugby. Qantas/RA look to be destroying it.

  63. Des Deskperson

    “‘Every public servant is answerable to a government minister.’
    Increasingly this is no longer the case – and it is a problem.”

    Really? Where??

    In the APS, Portfolio Secretaries serve for all practical purposes at the pleasure of the Minister. As the High Court decided in Barrett v Howard, they can be terminated at any time if they lose the Minister’s confidence.

    And APS employees are not directly answerable to their Minister, they are, .of course, answerable to their Portfolio Secretary.

  64. Iampeter

    Churches have an exemption, sporting codes don’t.

    It’s called freedom of religion, a hard won central tenet of liberal societies for centuries.

    Exemptions for churches is identity politics and a violation of religious freedom and numerous other freedoms.

    As usual those screaming the loudest about “religious freedom” are advocating anything but.

  65. Des Deskperson

    ‘Can someone give me the link to RA annual report/s? I have been all ovder theri websote and cant find it’

    Yo

    https://issuu.com/australianrugbyunion/docs/2018_annual_report_web

  66. Des Deskperson

    ‘Government Grants 3.950’

    Oops, it’s actually 3.590 million, my bad.

  67. Iampeter

    Not ignore the request, then try to force them to employ you, or claim breach of contract when you rightly get sacked.

    Sorry this bit should’ve also included, “…and claim your “religious freedom” has been violated, which isn’t even possible in this context.”

  68. Elderly White Man From Skipton

    Sinclair: I thought RA was actually enforcing black letter law.
    Various: It is confusing to say the least when some people want Folau to evade his employer commitments for reasons of belief but at the same time see others lose their job because they work for a church business that doesn’t like their beliefs.
    Let’s hope Folau and his lawyers take this to court, though I suspect the tactics are about settling. Might be an idea to take fewer meals at places where the starters cost $30. Just a tip.

  69. Sinclair Davidson

    I thought RA was actually enforcing black letter law.

    That’s not my understanding.

  70. Helen

    There was somthing going round on FB that RA was sponsored 385 m by the government – must have left a decimal place out.

  71. The BigBlueCat

    Let’s hope Folau and his lawyers take this to court, though I suspect the tactics are about settling.

    Settling under Folau’s terms would be “apologise” and “compensate”. Settling under RA’s terms would be “no apology” and “certain compensation”. I think both recognise that Folau won’t play for RA again.

    The Fairwork arbitration process has failed, so unless RA and Folau are prepared to get together outside of both the Federal Court and Fairwork Australia, then the court case will decide the outcome. Neither party thinks they are wrong in this dispute, and neither party seem prepared to compromise on their position.

  72. Some History

    Sorry this bit should’ve also included, “…and claim your “religious freedom” has been violated, which isn’t even possible in this context.”

    Yep. Yep. Now your comment makes sense. 🙂

  73. Leigh Lowe

    Elderly White Man From Skipton

    #3067516, posted on July 1, 2019 at 12:20 pm

    Sinclair: I thought RA was actually enforcing black letter law.

    Which black letters making up which words in which Act of Parliament, or which landmark precedent?

  74. The BigBlueCat

    Iampeter
    #3067511, posted on July 1, 2019 at 12:16 pm
    Not ignore the request, then try to force them to employ you, or claim breach of contract when you rightly get sacked.

    Sorry this bit should’ve also included, “…and claim your “religious freedom” has been violated, which isn’t even possible in this context.”

    My understanding is Folau is claiming wrongful dismissal because of the expression of his deeply-held religious convictions were found objectionable by RA, not that his religious freedom has been violated (though one probably doesn’t go without the other). I don’t believe he is seeking his job back. He may be seeking punitive compensation for wrongful dismissal, and perhaps he may launch a future defamation case due to damage to his reputation and potential for playing in other codes based on what various RA people and commentators have said or written.

    While there might be a case that his religious freedoms have been violated, this might only be in relation to what prompted RA to sack him in the first place, and their efforts to influence Folau to remove his post. But thus far, Folau has refused to take down the “offending” post, which is his right. Interestingly, Instagram haven’t taken it down either, so it can’t be all that bad. It’s certainly not illegal/unlawful either.

    Exemptions for churches is identity politics and a violation of religious freedom and numerous other freedoms.

    Exemptions for churches existed well before identity politics and arguably reflect the situation that there might be have been much more social upheaval had churches not have those exemptions. I’ve posted a view regarding “white-anting” previously in this thread. Now you could argue that certain churches had no moral issue with pedophilia given that a) pedophilia IS illegal and b) they did not terminate the employment of employees caught/accused of pedophilia. And those pedophiles were both homosexual and heterosexual. (Disclaimer: pedophilia is a heinous, disgraceful, vile, disgusting crime, and anyone justly found guilty such crimes should feel the full weight and penalty of the law.)

    As usual those screaming the loudest about “religious freedom” are advocating anything but.

    They aren’t forcing anyone to read or hear what they write or say and nor do they want to (anymore). In the marketplace of ideas, they merely want the freedom to participate and not have government or others restrict their ability to be in that marketplace of ideas. This RA/Folau case shows the implications of someone participating in the marketplace of ideas when the formal employer/employee rules have been vague (ie. the code of conduct).

    That the employee is not the slave of the employer master is self-evident, but under the terms of the employer/employee agreement, the issues need to relate to the “workplace” and the specific role Folau has been engaged to perform under that agreement. It will be interesting how an independent court will view each party’s obligations under the agreement and the rules, and how individual’s rights (especially freedom of expression) might be a challenge to them, and whether Folau in lawfully expressing himself is somehow a breach of his agreement or other rules.

    But, of course “an employer can sack an employee for any reason”, can’t they? Let’s see what the Federal Court has to say …

  75. FelixKruell

    Dover:

    The ARU is not an LGBTIQ organisation. The comparison with religious groups is therefore otiose.

    Only if you construe it narrowly. ARU has a clear set of values that it’s trying to do business by, and expects its members to live by those values in public. Those values include respect for people of different sexual orientations etc.

    Not that dissimilar to religious groups having a clear set of values (or beliefs), and expecting its members to live by those beliefs in public. If they want to continue to have that right, then its hypocritical not to respect the ARU’s right to do the same.

  76. Entropy

    Which black letters making up which words in which Act of Parliament, or which landmark precedent?

    Or the employment contract for that matter. The relevant clauses seem rather platitudinous pap that anything could be read into them.

  77. Leigh Lowe

    Des at 12:01.
    No doubt technically correct, and I defer to your local knowledge on this one, but how often is this power applied in practice?
    I mean, apart from getting rid of “nuisances” like Bernard Gaynor.
    Of course, we shouldn’t pretend that the private sector has widespread firings, but deliberately opposing a board or CEO directive usually gets it done.

  78. max

    oaths, rite, symbols — they all have some meaning

    The Bible, like the Constitution, is a prop used by politicians to endear themselves to low-information religious voters. Millions of Americans will say, “The President must be a sincere man of God since he’s taken his presidential oath with his hand on the Bible. He wouldn’t lie.” Yes, he would, and so would nearly every politician who takes an oath to uphold the Constitution.

    Broken Oaths and Broken Trust
    Gary North – May 18, 2017

    https://www.garynorth.com/public/16606.cfm

  79. Leigh Lowe

    Or the employment contract for that matter. The relevant clauses seem rather platitudinous pap that anything could be read into them.

    Well, my understanding now is that they are not “clauses” per se.
    They are merely referring to a very generic “motherhood” code of conduct.
    My take is that the Vicar told the Leprechaun that Easy Flower would sign a specific clause.
    Easy refuses and the clause is struck out.
    The Vicar doesn’t tell the Leprechaun.
    Easy puts up his post.
    The Leprechaun insists on a firing.
    The Vicar invokes the non-existent “clause”.

  80. max

    The idea of tax immunity is based on the superior jurisdiction of the church above the state. The church is the bride of Christ. The church extends into eternity. The state has no legitimate authority whatsoever over what the church does with its income. Tax immunity is not based on the idea that the state graciously grants to the church an exemption from taxation. Such an idea places the state above the church in terms of its authority and lawful jurisdiction. Churches should never accept such an idea. Churches should not apply for tax exemption. They should simply say that they are churches, and that they are not subject to taxation. This is possible in the United States. Churches do not need to apply to the Internal Revenue Service in order to be granted tax exempt status under what is known as the 501(c)(3) section of the Internal Revenue Code. They should not apply for this status. They should simply declare that they are churches, and therefore they do not have to file any papers or money with the Internal Revenue Service, other than for salaries paid to individuals who work for the church.
    https://www.garynorth.com/public/16610.cfm

  81. Elderly White Man From Skipton

    LL and Entropy: refer you to Katrina Grace Kelly, an employment law specialist, in the weekend australian. In any case I imagine all will be revealed in court.

  82. Lilliana

    Unless Folau has; refused to play rugby with homosexuals or against homosexuals, was violent or incited violence towards homosexuals, then everything else is none of ARU’s business. Saying certain behaviour is ‘sinful’ and the perpetrators will go to ‘hell’ only matters to those who believe in hell and that there is such a thing as a sin.

    The ARU run football games – people running up and down a field chancing a fucking ball. They should not be social crusaders and need to get out of peoples lives. Similarly companies should stick to their core business and stop being morality police.

  83. FelixKruell

    Lilliana:

    The ARU run football games – people running up and down a field chancing a fucking ball. They should not be social crusaders and need to get out of peoples lives. Similarly companies should stick to their core business and stop being morality police.

    That may once have been the case. But now they run a big business. One that relies on sponsors who care about what/who their brands are associated with. Folau has benefited from that sponsorship himself, so he knows there are strings attached.

  84. Leigh Lowe

    The ARU run football games – people running up and down a field chancing a fucking ball. They should not be social crusaders and need to get out of peoples lives. 

    Well, a bit of context.
    The ARU are actually running a sport which is imploding commercially.
    There is an exodus of senior players, Australian Super Rugby franchises are struggling on the field and are on the brink of bankruptcy.
    I can’t see Foxtel renewing the broadcast rights next year for anything like the $60 meg p.a. they are currently paying. Foxtel are leaking cash on that deal.
    How fortuitous that Issy pops up and provides a convenient excuse for the impending crash.

  85. The BigBlueCat

    max
    #3067575, posted on July 1, 2019 at 1:37 pm

    And this is relevant how?

    And in other news …

  86. The BigBlueCat

    There is an exodus of senior players, Australian Super Rugby franchises are struggling on the field and are on the brink of bankruptcy.

    When they terminate the contract of their (arguably) best player, then you might say it’s self-inflicted ….

  87. Des Deskperson

    ‘No doubt technically correct, and I defer to your local knowledge on this one, but how often is this power applied in practice?’

    Leigh, I am aware of at least 9 Commonwealth Portfolio Secretaries over the last 25 years who were sacked by a Minister who was no longer confident that the Secretary could effectively carry out the Minister’s or the Government’s policies.

    The most recent was Agriculture Secretary Paul Grimes – a good man – sacked by Barnaby Joyce in March 2015,

    This doesn’t include those shifted aside – like Peter Boxall by the Rudd Government – or those who resigned because they knew they wouldn’t be acceptable to a new Government of a new Minister.

    BTW, your ‘take’ at 1.29 pm above sounds eminently plausible.

  88. mh

    Is the Australian government of the view that the public display of Christianity is a problem that should lead to people being fired from their jobs?

    Our government works closely with Beijing, so yes, it is most likely that this is the predominant view.

  89. John of Mel

    There was somthing going round on FB that RA was sponsored 385 m by the government – must have left a decimal place out.

    From ATA newsletter:
    “The government forced taxpayers to spend $385.4 million on a sports package this year.”

    That’s for all sport, not just rugby. Still should be much less if anything at all.

  90. Lilliana

    That may once have been the case. But now they run a big business. One that relies on sponsors who care about what/who their brands are associated with. Folau has benefited from that sponsorship himself, so he knows there are strings attached.

    Well I guess companies have to find out the hard way that going woke equates to lower profits or going broke.
    Folau case may be about contract law – but I see it more about corporate power and social engineering masquerading as ‘protecting their brand’.
    Corporations are infested with leftist activists pushing their agenda (Gillette, Starbucks). How about giving the whole ‘inclusion’, ‘diversity’, PC crap a bit of a rest and focus on making a better product/service?
    Folau has said nothing that would offend a normal person. I’ve guilty of some of the ‘sins’ he mentioned and I couldn’t care less that he thinks I’m headed to ‘hell’ unless I ‘repent’.

  91. “Folau has said nothing that would offend a normal person. “

    Precisely.

  92. Helen

    385.4 m for sport, sounds just like a reef or something …

  93. The BigBlueCat

    Some History
    #3067627, posted on July 1, 2019 at 3:19 pm
    RA chair: If Israel Folau had remained sponsors and govt support would have gone

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/113876914/ra-chair-says-if-israel-folau-had-remained-sponsors-and-govt-support-would-have-gone

    Yeah, you can’t make this shit up! Do they have a list of other lawful expressions of deeply-held religious convictions they find offensive? Does a “thumbs up” on a post count? And what of Maria Folau?

    Name and shame the sponsors … so far, Qantas, ASICS, ANZ Bank … any others?

  94. dover_beach

    FelixK:

    Only if you construe it narrowly. ARU has a clear set of values that it’s trying to do business by, and expects its members to live by those values in public. Those values include respect for people of different sexual orientations etc.

    Let me grant you, for sake of argument, that I’m construing it too narrowly. The broader definition, I assume, is one of being diverse and inclusive. However, it appears that ARU’s own values aren’t diverse and inclusive because they involve silencing players expressing what are orthodox Christian views, in this instance. Also, if disagreement constitutes disrespect, then what can we say about the ARU’s position viz gender and sexuality constitute disrespect of orthodox Jews, Christians, etc.

  95. dover_beach

    FelixK:

    Only if you construe it narrowly. ARU has a clear set of values that it’s trying to do business by, and expects its members to live by those values in public. Those values include respect for people of different sexual orientations etc.

    Let me grant you, for sake of argument, that I’m construing it too narrowly. The broader definition, I assume, is one of being diverse and inclusive. However, it appears that ARU’s own values aren’t diverse and inclusive because they involve silencing players expressing what are orthodox Christian views, in this instance. Also, if disagreement constitutes disrespect, then what can we say about the ARU’s position viz gender and sexuality constitute disrespect of orthodox Christians, etc.

  96. Some History

    Name and shame the sponsors … so far, Qantas, ASICS, ANZ Bank … any others?

    Government – multiple levels.

  97. Iampeter

    LL and Entropy: refer you to Katrina Grace Kelly, an employment law specialist, in the weekend australian. In any case I imagine all will be revealed in court.

    Thanks for this. I haven’t seen her article before and she gets the issue 100% correct.

  98. stackja

    Still more petering out.

  99. Iampeter

    Folau has said nothing that would offend a normal person. I’ve guilty of some of the ‘sins’ he mentioned and I couldn’t care less that he thinks I’m headed to ‘hell’ unless I ‘repent’.

    Then I’m afraid you don’t take morality seriously.
    Those of us who do, would absolutely find what he says offensive.

    It’s offensive to listen to someone spouting irrational nonsense. Whether it’s a bum on a street corner, with his signs, or a millionaire sports star on Instagram.
    It’s offensive to listen to actual immoral acts, like lies, be compared to different lifestyle choices, like homosexuality, or products of actual morality, like atheism.
    It’s offensive to listen to slimy, disingenuous and unscrupulous operators, claim prosecution in bad faith, only to have “moral” Christians and their supporters play along with this, right after lecturing the rest of us about “liars going to hell.”

    Everything about this episode is offensive to rational and moral people.

  100. Iampeter

    I thought RA was actually enforcing black letter law.

    That’s not my understanding.

    Why not? Do you think terminating someone, even for unfair reasons, is going back to master/slave relationships?
    On the other hand, do you think regulations forcing businesses to employ people they don’t want to, is not a master/slave relationship? Is that’s an example of enforcing “black letter law?”

    Or to put it more plainly, do you think moving more in the direction of capitalism or central planning, will move us towards black letter law?

    I think this question is the crux of the bigger issue.

  101. Roger

    If the limit of freedom of speech is that someone is offended we will never make progress on any matter.

    JS Mill (paraphrased)

  102. Some History

    “Rainbow Tick” cultism. The toxic leperchaun, the RA CEO and Chair are on a homosexual “rainbow” power trip. The combination of misguided activism and corporate power has gone to their heads. That’s the big risk with “virtue”-signalling. It can quickly become nasty fanaticism. In this case it’s a ganging up of corporate heavyweights intending to bully an individual player into submission or termination. And the double-talk is extraordinary. No, we did not infringe on Folau’s freedom of religion. All we did was demand censorship of his religious expression. The contradiction is lost on these plonkers.

    It looks as though government, too, suffers this destructive fanaticism. And there are plenty of corporations signing up for the Rainbow Tick. Beware the Rainbow Tick. It can mess up your thinking – fast.

  103. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    Everything about this episode is offensive to rational and moral people.

    I get it, iampeter is gay

  104. FelixKruell

    Lilliana:

    Folau has said nothing that would offend a normal person. I’ve guilty of some of the ‘sins’ he mentioned and I couldn’t care less that he thinks I’m headed to ‘hell’ unless I ‘repent’.

    He seems to have offended quite a few ‘normal’ persons, going by the reaction. Quite a few abnormal people too of course.

    Ultimately it’s for those corporations to figure out what its values are, and whether they will lead to higher/lower sales or profit.

  105. FelixKruell

    Dover:

    However, it appears that ARU’s own values aren’t diverse and inclusive because they involve silencing players expressing what are orthodox Christian views, in this instance. Also, if disagreement constitutes disrespect, then what can we say about the ARU’s position viz gender and sexuality constitute disrespect of orthodox Christians, etc.

    The fact that the ARU don’t live their values consistently makes them MORE similar to religions, if anything.

    Much like religions, the ARU get pretty free range to determine their values, and decide when to enforce them.

  106. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    TPL001
    #3067347, posted on July 1, 2019 at 9:04 am

    We are indeed entering murky waters:

    Indeed. Not only freedom of religious practice, but sports ministries as a nationhood power? I think not. Vettel and the Treaty of Westphalia do not mention racquetball teams. Nor do non-loony constitutions or international (non-sporting) bodies.

    Why do we even have “sports” Ministries?

    I say this as the ATO becomes more and more powerful, even to absurd levels.

  107. The BigBlueCat

    Much like religions, the ARU get pretty free range to determine their values, and decide when to enforce them.

    Isn’t that called “liberty”? What either isn’t allowed to do is discriminate unless there are special protections in place. It would be untenable for a religion to be required to hire staff if that hiree was in a position that required the ethos of that religion to be on display but that person did not accept that ethos. The issue of homosexual teachers in I slamic schools would be a good example of that. And for the record, Folau did not discriminate – it’s RA that had to find the post and work out if they were concerned or not.

    Football players are different … football isn’t fundamentally about an ethos involving lifestyle choices or behaviours – it’s about the “brawl for the ball”. That RA want their players to inclusive is nice, but unless they can fine-tune exactly what that means then there’s another Folau out there in their future ….

    I don’t think RA has free range. What they have done with their code of conduct is keep it deliberately fuzzy because they don’t want to come out and say outright “don’t say anything about homosexuality” – that would be discriminatory.

  108. A Lurker

    “Rainbow Tick” cultism. The toxic leperchaun, the RA CEO and Chair are on a homosexual “rainbow” power trip. The combination of misguided activism and corporate power has gone to their heads. That’s the big risk with “virtue”-signalling. It can quickly become nasty fanaticism. In this case it’s a ganging up of corporate heavyweights intending to bully an individual player into submission or termination. And the double-talk is extraordinary. No, we did not infringe on Folau’s freedom of religion. All we did was demand censorship of his religious expression. The contradiction is lost on these plonkers.

    It looks as though government, too, suffers this destructive fanaticism. And there are plenty of corporations signing up for the Rainbow Tick. Beware the Rainbow Tick. It can mess up your thinking – fast.

    ‘Some History’ should find this article particularly interesting.

  109. Tim Neilson

    Frank Walker from National Tiles
    #3067727, posted on July 1, 2019 at 5:36 pm

    Yes indeed.

    That’s why the cartoon like binary “RA’s not government so it can’t oppress people” bleating that’s being applied in this case to justify RA’s actions is just as infantile as Green-leftists’ converse “taxpayer-funded good – profit making bad” dogma.

    Anyone with a brain cell will have noticed that in our society there’s a very unhealthy convergence of big government, big corporations (including supposed “not for profits”) and big unions, with results that are almost inevitably detrimental to individual citizens.

    Yet some commentators on this issue seem to assume that a virtual monopoly like RA that gets both tax-exempt status and taxpayer funded handouts from a political trougher labelled “Minister for Sport” is somehow the equivalent of Hank Reardon in “Atlas Shrugged”.

    No doubt there’s a spectrum, with regulators like the ATO at one end, ranging through “private” businesses with statutory monopolies and delegated regulatory powers (e.g. “public” transport), right through to a genuine small business with competitors on every corner (and on the internet).

    Exactly where RA fits on the spectrum may be open to debate, but just because it isn’t a formal arm of government is no reason to assume that it should be given carte blanche.

  110. cohenite

    132andBush

    #3067356, posted on July 1, 2019 at 9:22 am

    The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

    Then why the hell do we have those stupid “smoking ceremonies”?

    Hallelujah!

  111. FelixKruell

    Big blue:

    Isn’t that called “liberty”?

    Yep. And I’m arguing both the ARU and religious institutions should be entitled to it.

    Diversity may well be a minor side issue when it comes to rugby. But so is homosexuality when it comes to Christian religions. If church organisations get to use that minor side issue to discriminate against gay staff members, ARU should have the same right to discriminate against Folau for breaching their values on diversity.

    That said, I agree ARU should be far more transparent about its values and what is allowed/not allowed. We may learn more when it goes to court, but from what’s publicly available they haven’t been very clear.

  112. Roger

    If church organisations get to use that minor side issue to discriminate against gay staff members…

    That humankind is male and female appears in Genesis ch 1, the very first chapter of the Bible.

    It is not a “minor side issue”, it is basic to the theological anthropology of the Judeao-Christian worldview that has hitherto underpinned Western culture, as we are now, in our present cultural and religious ignorance, re-discovering.

  113. dover_beach

    If I can summarize what FelixK and the like are saying, it is that corporations can pretty much take whatever public position they like, on any matter, whether or not it has any relation to their actual business undertaking, and if any employee takes a position contrary to it in the public square, the corporation is within its rights to fire that employee.

    I can soon see that saying on your Facebook that a ‘trans-woman’ is not woman gets you fired and we will be told that there is nothing to see here.

  114. dover_beach

    That humankind is male and female appears in Genesis ch 1, the very first chapter of the Bible.

    It is not a “minor side issue”, it is basic to the theological anthropology of the Judeao-Christian worldview that has hitherto underpinned Western culture, as we are now, in our present cultural and religious ignorance, re-discovering.

    Indeed, characteristizing this view as a ‘minor side issue’ is very instructive.

  115. FelixKruell

    Dover:

    If I can summarize what FelixK and the like are saying

    Summarise, or put words in my mouth?

    I’m merely pointing out the hypocrisy..,,

    it is that religious organisations can pretty much take whatever public position they like, on any matter, whether or not it has any relation to their holy book or the service they are providing, and if any employee takes a position contrary to it in the public square, the organisation is within its rights to fire that employee.

  116. FelixKruell

    Dover:

    That humankind is male and female appears in Genesis ch 1, the very first chapter of the Bible.

    I don’t believe Folau took a position on human kind being male and female?

    What he took a position on is homosexuality (amongst other things). Which is a minor issue in both books of the bible, particularly as we now use the term.

  117. John Brumble

    Big Blue:
    I’d say that I hate to say it. But being right has its perks, so I won’t.

    I. Told. You. So.

  118. dover_beach

    I don’t believe Folau took a position on human kind being male and female?

    What he took a position on is homosexuality (amongst other things). Which is a minor issue in both books of the bible, particularly as we now use the term.

    Neither of your points above is true, and as I intimated above, it indicates a profound ignorance about Christian teaching, and about what Roger referred to above as the philosophical anthropology of the Judaeo- Christian world view, which would be obvious to you if you were at all familiar with it.

  119. Roger

    I don’t believe Folau took a position on human kind being male and female?

    Think it through, Felix.

  120. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    I’m merely pointing out the hypocrisy..,,

    there is no hypocrisy, corporates are not religious organisation that are required to abide by their scriptures.

    corporates need to stay out of politics. it’s not smart to piss off half of your customers.

  121. dover_beach

    Summarise, or put words in my mouth?

    I’m merely pointing out the hypocrisy..,,

    it is that religious organisations can pretty much take whatever public position they like, on any matter, whether or not it has any relation to their holy book or the service they are providing, and if any employee takes a position contrary to it in the public square, the organisation is within its rights to fire that employee

    Firstly, no, it accurately reflected your position, and, no, religious organisations are not permitted to discriminate in an unprincipled manner but only in accordance with their doctrines and teachings.

  122. None

    I’ve been pointing out that little phrase in Cameron Clyne’s statements for a couple of days now in the comments so I’m glad you’ve elevated it up into a post.

  123. None

    Corporations don’t take positions. Their objectives are to make profits. If you want to take positions f****** well join a political party and piss off out of our lives. We promise to ignore you as we do politicians

  124. entropy

    it is because we have a situation where big government is too close to big corporate masters. They think everything is political

  125. Seco

    Is the Australian government of the view that the public display of Christianity is a problem that should lead to people being fired from their jobs?

    Well, yes. That is exactly what they’re saying. Them and just about everybody else bar a few. And even then, commentators like Bolt and Panahi cannot offer their support of Folau without the qualifying “but I done agree with his vile opinion of gays”.

    It’s amazing how quickly the wheel has turned for Christians. It’s almost like those that feared a YES for homosexual “marriage” would lead to less freedom of religion, especially for Christians, would be correct.

  126. The BigBlueCat

    Diversity may well be a minor side issue when it comes to rugby. But so is homosexuality when it comes to Christian religions. If church organisations get to use that minor side issue to discriminate against gay staff members, ARU should have the same right to discriminate against Folau for breaching their values on diversity.

    Last time I looked, RA is a sporting code, while Christianity is a religion. One deals with “brawl for the ball”, while the other deals with a wide range of community issues, one of which is linked to objective morality. That RA has determined to play the objective morality card themselves means they are hopelessly out of their depth.

    As others have pointed out (quite correctly I might add), Christianity has always considered homosexual behaviour (along with drunkenness, thievery, murder, sexual promiscuity, lying, prostitution, adultery, etc) as barriers to being close to God and sharing in the Kingdom of Heaven (according to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and other places in the Christian tome known as The Holy Bible). There is nothing unusual about this position – it is not controversial. Everyone who has an idea of Christianity knows this is fundamental. Only an ignorant or irrational person would think this is not part of Christianity. The gaystapo and the offenderati are nuts if they think Christianity will change its views on 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, or will stop teaching and promoting the view that destructive social behaviours and general rebellion against God will be an eternal separation from God unless the individual turns from the sin and accepts Jesus Christ as their saviour.

    But always “hate the sin, love the sinner”, which is what Folau has done and said. He didn’t post what he posted to make people angry – he posted it because he was concerned for their eternal well-being.

    Corporations that play the diversity and anti-discrimination policy game run the risk of inadequately defining the immoral behaviours that represent those they want their code of conduct to address. Instead, they leave it “wishy-washy”, but “they’ll know it when they see it” (which means it’s subjective). Ultimately they themselves become that which they try to prevent – intolerant, bigoted, divisive.

    The RA / Folau issue is literally an issue that is dividing the nation. It is not trivial. It is front-page news everywhere. It will get another run on Q&A tonight. The sheer vitriol we see being directed across the board, in both directions, is astounding. RA has changed the face of “diversity” and “inclusion” and not in a good way. From an issue that should not have raised an eyebrow to a possible High Court test case that may define what an employee can and can’t say (legally) in terms of their religious expression is not something RA should be proud of, and it will cost them mightily.

  127. Seco

    dover_beach
    #3067464, posted on July 1, 2019 at 11:35 am
    The ARU is not an LGBTIQ organisation. The comparison with religious groups is therefore otiose.

    This is the thing though, of all the things for male sporting organisations to die in a ditch over, homosexual “marriage” appears to be it. Hardly anybody is one, even less for those that want to watch a footy game. What gives?

  128. FelixKruell

    Roger:

    Think it through, Felix.

    Nope, still don’t see it. Sex and sexuality are two different things.

    Oh and genesis is wrong – we have lots of variations in between male and female.

  129. FelixKruell

    Dover:

    Neither of your points above is true,

    Care to explain, rather than just assert? How did he take a position on male and female?

  130. FelixKruell

    Zipp:

    there is no hypocrisy, corporates are not religious organisation that are required to abide by their scriptures.

    Who requires them to do that exactly?

  131. FelixKruell

    Dover:

    Firstly, no, it accurately reflected your position, and, no, religious organisations are not permitted to discriminate in an unprincipled manner but only in accordance with their doctrines and teachings.

    That’s amazing, given I haven’t articulated my position.

    And who decides their doctrines and teachings? They never change right?

  132. None

    If you don’t have a WNT4 gene you’re not a woman.

  133. dover_beach

    FelixK, you’re being silly. It doesn’t matter whether you believe sex and sexuality are two different things, in the philosophical anthropology of Christianity they are intimately related which is all that is needed to dissolve your claim that it is a minor matter.

  134. mh

    It’s offensive to listen to someone spouting irrational nonsense. Whether it’s a bum on a street corner, with his signs, or a millionaire sports star on Instagram.

    Iampeter, those signs that the bums on the street corner have are normally along the lines of ‘homeless and hungry’. At least where I am.

    You’re not in San Francisco are you?

  135. Tim Neilson

    I’m merely pointing out the hypocrisy..,,

    it is that religious organisations can pretty much take whatever public position they like, on any matter, whether or not it has any relation to their holy book or the service they are providing, and if any employee takes a position contrary to it in the public square, the organisation is within its rights to fire that employee.

    No, actually you’re bullshitting. No-one has asserted that a religious institution should be at liberty to take actions that have no relation to their “holy book”.

  136. dover_beach

    Oh and genesis is wrong – we have lots of variations in between male and female.

    No, what you have are atypical conditions in less than .07% of births that have failed for different reasons to fully develop as male or female.

  137. None

    We would also potentially be in litigation with employees who are gay and who would say we’re not providing a workplace that is safe or respectful.

    this of course is codswallop because Instagram is not part of rugby Australia’s workplace and if they want to make it so Israel can see their little pants off a failing to provide him with a safe and respectful workplace given the absolute abuse he cops on Instagram.

    I say it again this could have blown over in 3 seconds if they took a sensible mature line like Netball SA. But no no some little schnitz goes snd tells Raylene and the first thing the idiot thpight to do was pick up the phone to Qantas.

    Thanks for all the sunshine Mr Folau. It’s certainly been illuminating.

  138. None

    It’s offensive to listen to someone spouting irrational nonsense. Whether it’s a bum on a street corner, with his signs, or a millionaire sports star on Instagram.

    Hell, Lumpeter, we listen to you. Next.

  139. mh

    Iampeter:

    It’s offensive to listen to someone spouting irrational nonsense. Whether it’s a bum on a street corner, with his signs, or a millionaire sports star on Instagram.
    It’s offensive to listen to actual immoral acts, like lies, be compared to different lifestyle choices, like homosexuality, or products of actual morality, like atheism.
    It’s offensive to listen to slimy, disingenuous and unscrupulous operators, claim prosecution in bad faith, only to have “moral” Christians and their supporters play along with this, right after lecturing the rest of us about “liars going to hell.”

    Iampeter, can you explain where your rights have been violated?

  140. FelixKruell

    No, what you have are atypical conditions in less than .07% of births that have failed for different reasons to fully develop as male or female.

    Yep. If you believe we are designed, it sure seems that an atypical component was designed too. Something Genesis failed to mention…

    But glad to see you’re finally acknowledging that sex is something distinct from sexual orientation. That’s a start I guess.

  141. FelixKruell

    Tim:

    No, actually you’re bullshitting. No-one has asserted that a religious institution should be at liberty to take actions that have no relation to their “holy book”.

    The churches themselves are. Bible doesn’t say anywhere you should expel the students of gay parents in your school, or fire teachers who gay marry. But that’s what (some) churches want the right to do. Other churches don’t. All based on the same holy book. Strange.

  142. dover_beach

    Yep. If you believe we are designed, it sure seems that an atypical component was designed too. Something Genesis failed to mention…

    Not at all. You’ve again missed the point. You don’t have to believe we are ‘designed’ to recognize that the conditions that we group under the term ‘intersex’ are atypical, all you need to do is observe that they occur in less than 0.07% of births, which almost meets the toughest confidence interval required in particle physics.

    But glad to see you’re finally acknowledging that sex is something distinct from sexual orientation.

    Different, yes, this was never disputed, but they are intimately related. No one that acknowledges the function of the sexual organs and their relation to reproduction could fail to recognize their ‘orientation’.

  143. dover_beach

    Bible doesn’t say anywhere you should expel the students of gay parents in your school, or fire teachers who gay marry.

    LOL. The Bible describes sodomy as a grave sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance, but from this we can’t infer that a male teacher that wanted to ‘marry’ his male partner in the full knowledge of the school community should be relieved of his position, was without foundation in the Bible, because it never specifically instructs Christians to fire teachers that seek to gay ‘marry’. You’re engaging in clown world exegesis, FelixK.

  144. Tim Neilson

    FelixKruell
    #3068354, posted on July 2, 2019 at 10:58 am

    You can’t really be that stupid. How can you say that requiring people who have influence over students at Christian schools to at least do their best to maintain Christian standards has no relation to the Bible?

    As for your assertion that some churches want the right to expel the students of gay parents, I must admit that’s a new one on me. Can you provide verification for that?

  145. Tim Neilson

    FelixKruell
    #3068354, posted on July 2, 2019 at 10:58 am

    There’s nothing in the Bible expressly authorising a Christian to fly a plane. Was the Reverend John Flynn being unChristian when he founded the Royal Flying Doctor Service?

  146. None

    If you want to send your kid to a religious school usually either the father or the mother must be a member of the church in good standing. Some schools also allow up to 10% of whatevers in. This is why for example you will see Catholic schools with mooooslim students. But that is still on the understanding that they will be expected to follow the Catholic or whatever if else even though they are not expected to go to mass or any Catholic catechism class.
    Any rabidly anti-christian gays or lesbians are unlikely to want their children in a religious school. You can’t sneer and snarl at them and then pretend you want your children there. I also nite that where they pretend they want their kids in religious schools it’s always in Christian schools and never Moooslim or Joooish schools. We all know why. So all this bleating about gay teachers and gay students at schools is really just a load of crap.

  147. None

    If you don’t have a WNT4 gene you’re not a woman. That was a really pesky annoying discovery some years back. I wonder what other interesting discoveries will be made in the years ahead long after Felix is dead.

  148. Kneel

    “It’s offensive to listen to…”

    Then be offended – just don’t say he can’t express an opinion because of your “offense”.
    What RA is doing is saying that if you offend ANYONE, we can sack you.
    Really?
    Is that in any way “reasonable” – especially given that offense is always taken, never given, anyone can be offended by the most innocuous of remarks.
    However, if they do go this way, then I expect several cases against RA on the basis of “offense” caused by disrespect of the Christian way of life. Turn about is fair play, innit? Live by the sword, die by the sword as they say….

  149. FelixKruell

    Dover:

    Not at all. You’ve again missed the point. You don’t have to believe we are ‘designed’ to recognize that the conditions that we group under the term ‘intersex’ are atypical, all you need to do is observe that they occur in less than 0.07% of births, which almost meets the toughest confidence interval required in particle physics.

    You seem to think something being rare means it doesn’t matter, or wasn’t designed? If God made Man and Woman, he most certainly also made those people who’s biological sex lies somewhere in between. Oh an 0.07% of births means around 17,500 people in Australia alone.

  150. FelixKruell

    Dover:

    LOL. The Bible describes sodomy as a grave sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance, but from this we can’t infer that a male teacher that wanted to ‘marry’ his male partner in the full knowledge of the school community should be relieved of his position, was without foundation in the Bible, because it never specifically instructs Christians to fire teachers that seek to gay ‘marry’. You’re engaging in clown world exegesis, FelixK.

    Same sex marriage doesn’t always involve sodomy. So firing teachers on the basis of their same sex marriage has no foundation in the bible.

    Expelling their kids even less so – or did I miss the part where the bible makes the child guilty of the sins of their parents?

    Oh and the same schools fire teachers who divorce, or get tattoos, right? Or are they just cherry picking the sins from their holy book that warrant dismissal?

    That’s the problem with demanding rights to discriminate that you don’t want to extend to others – the details matter.

  151. FelixKruell

    Tim:

    You can’t really be that stupid. How can you say that requiring people who have influence over students at Christian schools to at least do their best to maintain Christian standards has no relation to the Bible?

    Because the Christian standards they pick and choose to tolerate or not tolerate (which varies wildly from school to school) mean those standards have no relation to the bible. Do they require the teachers to give away their wealth? Comfort ladies of the night? These are all things Jesus and the bible spend a whole lot of time talking about, as opposed to homosexuality.

    As for your assertion that some churches want the right to expel the students of gay parents, I must admit that’s a new one on me. Can you provide verification for that?

    Plenty of religious schools in the USA do just that:

    Immanuel Christian School requires would-be employees to affirm in writing that they will not engage in homosexual sexual acts or have a transgender identity. It also reserves the right to refuse to admit or to expel students if those students or their parents support, condone, promote or engage in homosexual sexual acts, a rule that could reasonably be interpreted as banning openly lesbian, gay or bisexual parents or students.

  152. Iampeter

    Then be offended – just don’t say he can’t express an opinion because of your “offense”.

    I agree. No one is saying that he can’t express his opinions.
    The issue is that if your employer asks you to do something and you refuse to do it, you’re going to get fired.
    Only leftists would see a problem with this.
    Only politically illiterate leftists, would try to make this about “free speech” or “freedom of religion.”

  153. Tim Neilson

    Do they require the teachers to give away their wealth?

    Why should they? Does the Bible say that St Lydia of Thyatira was required to give away her wealth? Or Joseph of Arimathea? Yes, giving to charity is a Christian duty, but Christians are in fact permitted to own private property. (BTW what wealth? Most teachers aren’t actually rich.)

    Comfort ladies of the night?

    WTF? Citation please. The mere fact that there are passages in the Bible where Jesus happens to meet a prostitute and behaves civilly to her doesn’t mean that there’s a duty on every Christian to seek them out.

    Pro tip here – Christian doctrine is that all humans are sinners. No Christian institution expects its members to lead perfect lives. Forgiveness of sin is at the very heart of Christian doctrine. But Christian institutions are entitled to, and often do, expect their members not to engage wilfully and persistently in conduct that’s contrary to Christian doctrine, especially people who are in a position of authority in a Christian institution – indeed to do otherwise would be contrary to Biblical teaching.

    Immanuel Christian School

    OK, so there is at least one such place in the USA. I’m not entirely surprised given the gay wedding cake litigation over there – it seems to me that a rule like that would be mere prudent self-defence to prevent cant-ridden lawfare by gay parents claiming that they had no idea that they’d be subjected to the trauma of their child being taught that the Bible means what it says. (Another pro tip – self defence isn’t against Christian doctrine either.)

  154. a reader

    Felix clearly hasn’t read Genesis. The fall of Adam and Eve is when impurity, i.e. sin, entered the world. If you believe literally in Genesis as many do there’s your answer. But you knew that and were just trying to be obtuse

  155. a reader

    Felix clearly wants us to believe he hasn’t read Genesis. The fall of Adam and Eve is when impurity, i.e. sin, entered the world. If you believe literally in Genesis as many do there’s your answer. But he knows that and is just trying to be obtuse

  156. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Comfort ladies of the night?

    There is a scholarly debate now that Mary Magdalene was actually one of the leading apostles and bankrolled Jesus’ ministry.

    He did comfort a tax collector though. Which is when I first thought Christianity was bonkers!

  157. None

    Felix this is an Australian blog and we don’t give a toss about American schools. Faith plays out differently in Australia than it does in the US. Our laws are different, no federal law he discriminates against your PT and hasn’t done for many many years, even prior to gay marriage and marriage laws was also non-discriminatory in that there was no sexuality test to getting married, the way that our schools are funded and administered are different, no one has ever come up with any evidence of any day student being sucked out of a school for being gay in Australia, Australians’ approach to religion is different. If you want to come here and trash talk at least stick to the same planetary orbit instead of going off half-cocked about what goes on at the other end.

  158. None

    Felix this is an Australian blog and we don’t give a toss about American schools. Faith plays out differently in Australia than it does in the US. Our laws are different, no federal law here discriminates against GLBT and hasn’t done for many many years, even prior to gay marriage out marriage laws were also non-discriminatory in that there was no sexuality test to getting married, the way that our schools are funded and administered are different, no one has ever come up with any evidence of any gay student being chucked out of a school for being gay in Australia. Australians’ approach to religion is different. If you want to come here and trash talk at least stick to the same planetary orbit instead of going off half-cocked about what goes on at the other end.

  159. The BigBlueCat

    The issue is that if your employer asks you to do something and you refuse to do it, you’re going to get fired.

    Whaaaaatttt???? I have often refused to follow a specific directive and never got fired for it. Or even counselled, since I had excellent reasons not to follow the directive. I’m sure many others here can relate the same. Sure, you need to have solid reasons, but if an employee, on balance, is a good productive employee, no boss is going to necessarily fire them when “your employer asks you to do something and you refuse to do it” …

    Man, you’d be an arse of a boss if it’s 1 strike and you’re out … who would ever work for you????

  160. Tim Neilson

    There is a scholarly debate now that Mary Magdalene was actually one of the leading apostles and bankrolled Jesus’ ministry.

    I thought we were talking about Christian doctrine.

    The bible doesn’t actually say that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. That’s mere speculation. (Nor does it say that she was an apostle as such.)

    And even if she was, why should that lead to a Christian doctrine that schoolteachers at Christian schools are obliged to seek out prostitutes?

  161. Iampeter

    Sure, you need to have solid reasons, but if an employee, on balance, is a good productive employee, no boss is going to necessarily fire them

    No shit. You also forgot to include obvious points like, the instructions have to be legal, within your skill set, not insane, etc, etc.
    You know, all these things that go without saying and shouldn’t need to be clarified.

  162. FelixKruell

    Tim:

    Yes, giving to charity is a Christian duty

    A very clear one. Yet not at all policed by religious schools or employers. There is no such clear duty in relation to how to treat staff who are homosexual. Yet this is policed. Notice the inconsistency of approach?

    WTF? Citation please. The mere fact that there are passages in the Bible where Jesus happens to meet a prostitute and behaves civilly to her doesn’t mean that there’s a duty on every Christian to seek them out.

    I would have thought things that Jesus actually did would have more resonance that a bunch of prohibitions in the old testament. But then again, I’m no expert.

    OK, so there is at least one such place in the USA.

    Quite a few actually. And yes they’re slighly more mad than us when it comes to religion. But schools here have also fired same sex teachers for being same sex (or getting married). So it’s not a huge stretch to imagine they would prevent same sex couples for enrolling their kids there (probably very subtly at this stage, rather than overtly).

  163. FelixKruell

    None”

    Faith plays out differently in Australia than it does in the US.

    Which is kind of the point – this is largely about people interpreting the bible as it suits them, to justify discrimination. Same bible. Different rules. Which is fine, as long as you don’t then get upset when other organisations want to do the same, on the basis of their values.

    no one has ever come up with any evidence of any gay student being chucked out of a school for being gay in Australia.

    Then no-one should object to the right to do so being removed.

    Oh and here’s a more local example for you:

    https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/gay-mans-daughter-not-welcome-at-mandurah-christian-school-20151029-gklh0d.html

  164. Tim Neilson

    A very clear one. Yet not at all policed by religious schools or employers.

    How do you know? I suspect you’re right, but do you have any evidence of that?

    In any case, “giving” in this context isn’t just money. For example the vow on taking membership of the Presbyterian church refers to giving a suitable proportion of time, talents and money. Being a schoolteacher is not a highly paid job by the standards of education required, and teachers at non-government schools are expected to devote a lot of time to extra-curricular activities. Christian institutions may feel no need to police the bank accounts of teachers whose vocation in itself limits their accumulation of wealth.

    I would have thought things that Jesus actually did would have more resonance that a bunch of prohibitions in the old testament. But then again, I’m no expert.

    If you’re aware of any instance where any Christian happens to meet a prostitute and behaves uncharitably to her, and that’s regarded with equanimity by a Christian institution, get back to me. We’re obliged to do our best to be like Jesus in the circumstances we live in. If we meet a prostitute we’re obliged to be charitable, same as we should be with anyone else. If as it so happens we don’t run into prostitutes, lepers, centurions, people possessed by demons etc., we’re not thereby committing a sin of omission.

    PS you obviously aren’t an expert if you think that this is about old testament prohibitions.

    So it’s not a huge stretch to imagine they would prevent same sex couples for enrolling their kids there (probably very subtly at this stage, rather than overtly).

    No further comment needed.

  165. Tim Neilson

    FelixKruell
    #3096106, posted on July 3, 2019 at 11:37 am

    I see you’ve found an example – well done.

    Two things stand out:
    (a) that example is exactly the kind of wedding cake litigation situation which justifies the school having the rule that it does – poor old “Brendan” used his ex-wife as a human shield to get the girl enrolled there rather than being open about his gay partner, then was shocked SHOCKED to find that the school was administering traditional Christian teaching about gayness;
    (b) the school didn’t expel the girl, thus showing that they’ll do their best to accommodate the situation as long as they’re not expected to compromise their principles to do so – but that’s not good enough for poor old “Brendan” who’s shocked SHOCKED that the school won’t abandon its foundational principles because he wants them to.

  166. Tim Neilson

    I mean seriously, if you want your kid to be taught enlightened progressive woke attitudes, why do you want to enrol your kid at a conservative Christian school?

  167. dover_beach

    You seem to think something being rare means it doesn’t matter, or wasn’t designed? If God made Man and Woman, he most certainly also made those people who’s biological sex lies somewhere in between. Oh an 0.07% of births means around 17,500 people in Australia alone.

    Not at all, as I said, 0.07% births indicates that the conditions grouped under the umbrella term ‘intersex’ are atypical. This is further buttressed by the fact that we can identify the causes of these conditions as involving this or that type of physical disorder. This demonstrates that there are two sexes, male and female, and that whatever else appears is not a ‘third sex’ but are failures to fully develop, in whatever way, the sexual organs, etc. typical of a healthy male or female human specimen.

  168. dover_beach

    Same sex marriage doesn’t always involve sodomy. So firing teachers on the basis of their same sex marriage has no foundation in the bible.

    I see you’re continuing your clown show exegesis. The Christian conception of marriage, shared by Jews, Romans, Greeks, Persians, etc. wasn’t limited to its very dim view of sodomy, but largely by a positive view of marriage being a union of the sexes, oriented toward the propagation and education of children, and so on. So, yes, firing parents who openly contradict this positive view of marriage has a very real basis in the Bible.

    Expelling their kids even less so – or did I miss the part where the bible makes the child guilty of the sins of their parents?

    Not at all. To exclude or expel a child whose parent is involved in a faux ‘marriage’ should be at the discretion of the school and I think should only be exercised if the parents are bringing public scandal to the teachings of the Church by attending, say, parent-teacher nights together, and the like, or where it becomes an open secret that so and so’s parents are involved in such an arrangement.

    Oh and the same schools fire teachers who divorce, or get tattoos, right? Or are they just cherry picking the sins from their holy book that warrant dismissal?

    Divorce isn’t the sticking point, remarriage is. But you would know this if you were properly informed of the mattter rather than relying on Cliff Notes.

    That’s the problem with demanding rights to discriminate that you don’t want to extend to others – the details matter.

    The details are not in the Cliff Notes, FelixK.

  169. dover_beach

    Same sex marriage doesn’t always involve sodomy. So firing teachers on the basis of their same sex marriage has no foundation in the bible.

    I see you’re continuing your clown show exegesis. The Christian conception of marriage, shared by [email protected], Romans, Greeks, Persians, etc. wasn’t limited to its very dim view of sodomy, but largely by a positive view of marriage being a union of the sexes, oriented toward the propagation and education of children, and so on. So, yes, firing parents who openly contradict this positive view of marriage has a very real basis in the Bible.

    Expelling their kids even less so – or did I miss the part where the bible makes the child guilty of the sins of their parents?

    Not at all. To exclude or expel a child whose parent is involved in a faux ‘marriage’ should be at the discretion of the school and I think should only be exercised if the parents are bringing public scandal to the teachings of the Church by attending, say, parent-teacher nights together, and the like, or where it becomes an open secret that so and so’s parents are involved in such an arrangement.

    Oh and the same schools fire teachers who divorce, or get tattoos, right? Or are they just cherry picking the sins from their holy book that warrant dismissal?

    Divorce isn’t the sticking point, remarriage is. But you would know this if you were properly informed of the mattter rather than relying on Cliff Notes.

    That’s the problem with demanding rights to discriminate that you don’t want to extend to others – the details matter.

    The details are not in the Cliff Notes, FelixK.

  170. dover_beach

    A very clear one. Yet not at all policed by religious schools or employers. There is no such clear duty in relation to how to treat staff who are homosexual. Yet this is policed. Notice the inconsistency of approach?

    The above is just too silly for words. How does a religious school ‘police’ either of these matters other than by responding to public expressions that contradict charity or chastity.

  171. dover_beach

    this is largely about people interpreting the bible as it suits them,

    FelixK is a sola scriptura atheist.

  172. dover_beach

    Re the tattoo garbage, you’re obviously just piling-on stock examples of purported hypocrisy in Christian interpretation of Scripture without having done any quality assurance testing. To wit, why would Christians be bound by Jewish ceremonial law? It’s not as if we follow some of them and not others, so we can’t be accused of being ad hoc. Moreover, we have a perfectly apt reason for not doing so provided by Christ himself.

  173. dover_beach

    Re the tattoo garbage, you’re obviously just piling-on stock examples of purported hypocrisy in Christian interpretation of Scripture without having done any quality assurance testing. To wit, why would Christians be bound by [email protected] ceremonial law? It’s not as if we follow some of them and not others, so we can’t be accused of being ad hoc. Moreover, we have a perfectly apt reason for not doing so provided by Christ himself.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.