RugbyRebels

Really wise move here billy.

He’s sticking to his beliefs, speaking his mind and good on him. I think he’s completely wrong, both in his beliefs and where they come from, but he’s entitled to them. He’s not inciting violence against gays, adulterers, atheists etc or even saying he doesn’t like anyone just because they are one or all of the above.
Tbh, I think it’s a good thing that religious people spout this bollox as it shows religion up to be what it is, in my opinion, a medieval crutch totally at odds with the modern world. Let them speak freely, assuming it’s not inciting violence etc, and let’s ridicule them for their ridiculous beliefs.
Have a look at Marler’s twitter feed. He’s responded perfectly.

Billy is living proof you can beat religion into children, and that children will love their parents and god for it.

Mellsblue wrote:He’s not inciting violence against gays, adulterers, atheists etc or even saying he doesn’t like anyone just because they are one or all of the above.

He's saying they're going to burn in hell (or at least Folau is and Billy's supporting him) which might be taken as mildly disapproving. He's using his public position to declare that being gay is utterly and completely wrong and it's his belief they will be punished in a pit of fire for all eternity, but it's okay because he doesn't hate gay people.

My test with religious tolerance and free speech arguments is to substitute skin colour for sexual orientation in the sentence and see whether you can still say, "It's just his personal beliefs," without shuddering.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:He’s not inciting violence against gays, adulterers, atheists etc or even saying he doesn’t like anyone just because they are one or all of the above.

He's saying they're going to burn in hell (or at least Folau is and Billy's supporting him) which might be taken as mildly disapproving. He's using his public position to declare that being gay is utterly and completely wrong and it's his belief they will be punished in a pit of fire for all eternity, but it's okay because he doesn't hate gay people.

My test with religious tolerance and free speech arguments is to substitute skin colour for sexual orientation in the sentence and see whether you can still say, "It's just his personal beliefs," without shuddering.

Puja

I react the same way at him thinking anybody should burn in hell, whether because of race, sexuality, political beliefs, adultery etc. I’ll also defend his right to say it (again, assuming he’s not inciting violence etc) and for me/us to call him a monumental pr!ck for believing it.
I’m a stone cold atheist, plus a few other things on his list, but I’m managing not to become offended that he thinks I should burn in hell. Mainly because there is no hell.

But it's not about you. It's about the people who are conflicted and seeing this stuff from potential idols will be damaging. I don't answer idiots like folau because i think I'll change his mind, i do it for anyone else who may read it to understand that there are people against those ideas.

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:He’s not inciting violence against gays, adulterers, atheists etc or even saying he doesn’t like anyone just because they are one or all of the above.

He's saying they're going to burn in hell (or at least Folau is and Billy's supporting him) which might be taken as mildly disapproving. He's using his public position to declare that being gay is utterly and completely wrong and it's his belief they will be punished in a pit of fire for all eternity, but it's okay because he doesn't hate gay people.

My test with religious tolerance and free speech arguments is to substitute skin colour for sexual orientation in the sentence and see whether you can still say, "It's just his personal beliefs," without shuddering.

Puja

I react the same way at him thinking anybody should burn in hell, whether because of race, sexuality, political beliefs, adultery etc. I’ll also defend his right to say it (again, assuming he’s not inciting violence etc) and for me/us to call him a monumental pr!ck for believing it.
I’m a stone cold atheist, plus a few other things on his list, but I’m managing not to become offended that he thinks I should burn in hell. Mainly because there is no hell.

The difference is that you've chosen to be an atheist. You've thought about it, made your decision, and (theoretically) could choose not to be an atheist in the future.

You cannot choose not to be gay. People have tried it, people have wanted it very badly, but it's something you are, just as a black man can't choose to be white or vice versa.

It's pretty crappy behaviour to say that anyone's going to hell but there is a concrete difference between saying, "God and I say you should not have these beliefs" and "God and I say you should not exist."

Puja

Raggs wrote:But it's not about you. It's about the people who are conflicted and seeing this stuff from potential idols will be damaging. I don't answer idiots like folau because i think I'll change his mind, i do it for anyone else who may read it to understand that there are people against those ideas.

I know it’s not about me. Puja made it about personal reactions and I responded by stating my personal reaction.
I specifically said people should answer him by pointing out he’s a monumental prick. Whatever your motivation to respond is, I’m not bothered, it’s just the fact that you and everyone else is able to do it. That’s the very essence of free speech. Wanting to censor stuff is great when society and/or the powers that be are on your side. It’s not so great when they aren’t, just ask swathes of people living in less liberal regimes and countries.
As I said, let him say what he wants as long as he’s not inciting violence and let whoever wants to point out what a horrible piece of work he is do just that. If anybody in the rugby community has read his comments and seen the backlash and is still conflicted as to who is in the right then their issues are deeper than the fact they’ve read Folau’s Instagram.

Is anyone calling for him to be censored? Or Billy? Most of what I've seen supports his right to say it. They just support the ARU's right to not want to continue employing him too.

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
He's saying they're going to burn in hell (or at least Folau is and Billy's supporting him) which might be taken as mildly disapproving. He's using his public position to declare that being gay is utterly and completely wrong and it's his belief they will be punished in a pit of fire for all eternity, but it's okay because he doesn't hate gay people.

My test with religious tolerance and free speech arguments is to substitute skin colour for sexual orientation in the sentence and see whether you can still say, "It's just his personal beliefs," without shuddering.

Puja

I react the same way at him thinking anybody should burn in hell, whether because of race, sexuality, political beliefs, adultery etc. I’ll also defend his right to say it (again, assuming he’s not inciting violence etc) and for me/us to call him a monumental pr!ck for believing it.
I’m a stone cold atheist, plus a few other things on his list, but I’m managing not to become offended that he thinks I should burn in hell. Mainly because there is no hell.

The difference is that you've chosen to be an atheist. You've thought about it, made your decision, and (theoretically) could choose not to be an atheist in the future.

You cannot choose not to be gay. People have tried it, people have wanted it very badly, but it's something you are, just as a black man can't choose to be white or vice versa.

It's pretty crappy behaviour to say that anyone's going to hell but there is a concrete difference between saying, "God and I say you should not have these beliefs" and "God and I say you should not exist."

Puja

It’s not whether you did or didn’t choose to be in a certain demographic. It’s whether you choose to get offended by a nutter who believes there is a unbelievably pompous and judgmental omnipotent body in the sky, who is so vain that even the most evil person can pledge their allegiance on their death bed and gain entry to his (very boring) after life whilst the generally decent people who refuse to believe in him get sent straight to hell whilst he (there is no sexual equality in religion) just sits back and allows natural disaster after natural disaster to strike and all whilst allowing Bedford’s search for a backer to get them into the Prem go unfulfilled. And, whilst you get offended, pretty much all of the rugby world call him out for being the aforementioned monumental prick that he is.

Raggs wrote:Is anyone calling for him to be censored? Or Billy? Most of what I've seen supports his right to say it. They just support the ARU's right to not want to continue employing him too.

You obviously didn’t read my initial post on the subject as we seem to be in total agreement. Hallelujah.

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: I react the same way at him thinking anybody should burn in hell, whether because of race, sexuality, political beliefs, adultery etc. I’ll also defend his right to say it (again, assuming he’s not inciting violence etc) and for me/us to call him a monumental pr!ck for believing it.
I’m a stone cold atheist, plus a few other things on his list, but I’m managing not to become offended that he thinks I should burn in hell. Mainly because there is no hell.

The difference is that you've chosen to be an atheist. You've thought about it, made your decision, and (theoretically) could choose not to be an atheist in the future.

You cannot choose not to be gay. People have tried it, people have wanted it very badly, but it's something you are, just as a black man can't choose to be white or vice versa.

It's pretty crappy behaviour to say that anyone's going to hell but there is a concrete difference between saying, "God and I say you should not have these beliefs" and "God and I say you should not exist."

Puja

It’s not whether you did or didn’t choose to be in a certain demographic. It’s whether you choose to get offended by a nutter who believes there is a unbelievably pompous and judgmental omnipotent body in the sky, who is so vain that even the most evil person can pledge their allegiance on their death bed and gain entry to his (very boring) after life whilst the generally decent people who refuse to believe in him get sent straight to hell whilst he (there is no sexual equality in religion) just sits back and allows natural disaster after natural disaster to strike and all whilst allowing Bedford’s search for a backer to get them into the Prem go unfulfilled. And, whilst you get offended, pretty much all of the rugby world call him out for being the aforementioned monumental prick that he is.

It's not about being offended. You're saying he's not inciting violence, but this kind of casual abuse feeds the culture where violence happens. Yeah, he's not directly saying, "You should go out and hit a gay person with a brick," but he is saying, "God believes these people are worthless and sinful," and that breeds, "If God hates them, maybe I should hit them with a brick." It's encouragement and support for homophobes and bigots and those are the kind of people who do violence.

It's like Trump's approval of white nationalists - he's not saying you should be a facist, but he's saying those who are are "very fine people," and having powerful people say shit like that validates it as something that's okay to say and okay to believe.

It's why I'm so glad that Folau's facing the consequences that he is - the solid. affirmation that it's not okay to say that. Or, as you put it, calling him out for being a monumental prick.

I hate the use of the word "offended" on the internet, because it's become shorthand for some kind of pearls-clutching, hands thrown up, overreaction to delicate feelings being bruised. I'm not offended because someone's upset my feelings, I'm offended because someone's saying shit that fuels the attitudes that get people discriminated against, hurt, and killed.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
The difference is that you've chosen to be an atheist. You've thought about it, made your decision, and (theoretically) could choose not to be an atheist in the future.

You cannot choose not to be gay. People have tried it, people have wanted it very badly, but it's something you are, just as a black man can't choose to be white or vice versa.

It's pretty crappy behaviour to say that anyone's going to hell but there is a concrete difference between saying, "God and I say you should not have these beliefs" and "God and I say you should not exist."

Puja

It’s not whether you did or didn’t choose to be in a certain demographic. It’s whether you choose to get offended by a nutter who believes there is a unbelievably pompous and judgmental omnipotent body in the sky, who is so vain that even the most evil person can pledge their allegiance on their death bed and gain entry to his (very boring) after life whilst the generally decent people who refuse to believe in him get sent straight to hell whilst he (there is no sexual equality in religion) just sits back and allows natural disaster after natural disaster to strike and all whilst allowing Bedford’s search for a backer to get them into the Prem go unfulfilled. And, whilst you get offended, pretty much all of the rugby world call him out for being the aforementioned monumental prick that he is.

It's not about being offended. You're saying he's not inciting violence, but this kind of casual abuse feeds the culture where violence happens. Yeah, he's not directly saying, "You should go out and hit a gay person with a brick," but he is saying, "God believes these people are worthless and sinful," and that breeds, "If God hates them, maybe I should hit them with a brick." It's encouragement and support for homophobes and bigots and those are the kind of people who do violence.

It's like Trump's approval of white nationalists - he's not saying you should be a facist, but he's saying those who are are "very fine people," and having powerful people say shit like that validates it as something that's okay to say and okay to believe.

It's why I'm so glad that Folau's facing the consequences that he is - the solid. affirmation that it's not okay to say that. Or, as you put it, calling him out for being a monumental prick.

I hate the use of the word "offended" on the internet, because it's become shorthand for some kind of pearls-clutching, hands thrown up, overreaction to delicate feelings being bruised. I'm not offended because someone's upset my feelings, I'm offended because someone's saying shit that fuels the attitudes that get people discriminated against, hurt, and killed.

Puja

It can lead violence in a, thankfully, small number of cases but I’ll err on the side of defending free speech and containing any issues from that than curtailing free speech in case it causes any issues.

RFU will be meeting with Billy over his instagram post.

Mellsblue wrote:It can lead violence in a, thankfully, small number of cases but I’ll err on the side of defending free speech and containing any issues from that than curtailing free speech in case it causes any issues.

Smaller than it used to be, but gay bashing is still something that happens a lot. And the reason that it has declined at all is the shift in the perception from the general populace from "I've got a boyfriend" being the unacceptable thing to say, towards "Gays will burn in hell."

Free speech is not under any kind of assault. All that's changing is the consequences that occur from different types of free speech.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:It can lead violence in a, thankfully, small number of cases but I’ll err on the side of defending free speech and containing any issues from that than curtailing free speech in case it causes any issues.

Smaller than it used to be, but gay bashing is still something that happens a lot. And the reason that it has declined at all is the shift in the perception from the general populace from "I've got a boyfriend" being the unacceptable thing to say, towards "Gays will burn in hell."

Free speech is not under any kind of assault. All that's changing is the consequences that occur from different types of free speech.

Puja

Free speech is changing. It’s incremental but it’s changing. Both consciously, eg no platforming, and unconsciously, eg social media allowing silly people to say silly things to the whole world meaning their employers, sponsors etc censor and/or punish them.
I couldn’t be happier that gay, black etc people can now go about their lives in less fear. An ex-colleague of mine is in a mixed race marriage and hearing the things they had to put up with decades ago made my blood boil, but that tolerance has been achieved in an era where free speech has grown.

I can’t wait for Cashead to read this thread. He’ll spontaneously combust.

Thing is, in the west things are better, but in Tonga, homosexuality is still illegal. In many other nations, that these guys will not doubt have followers, outlooks will not be as enlightened (and let's not pretend it's all rosy in the west either).

If he want's to expand on his beliefs re sexuality, tell him to write a fucking book. Lay of the social media.

Which brings the most the most anti-gay publicity; Folau's statement or the reaction to it? Why not just ignore the silly sod? Would BV have reacted had he been ignored?

The snag with bigots of any kind, religious or otherwise, is that you can criticise what they say and legislate against some of it but you can't ever stop them thinking what they think.

Raggs wrote:Thing is, in the west things are better, but in Tonga, homosexuality is still illegal. In many other nations, that these guys will not doubt have followers, outlooks will not be as enlightened (and let's not pretend it's all rosy in the west either).

May be the reaction to Folau’s idiocy will make them realise they’re quite a long way behind the times.

Oakboy wrote:Which brings the most the most anti-gay publicity; Folau's statement or the reaction to it? Why not just ignore the silly sod? Would BV have reacted had he been ignored?

The snag with bigots of any kind, religious or otherwise, is that you can criticise what they say and legislate against some of it but you can't ever stop them thinking what they think.

That new avatar is sending you straight to hell.

Oakboy wrote:Which brings the most the most anti-gay publicity; Folau's statement or the reaction to it? Why not just ignore the silly sod? Would BV have reacted had he been ignored?

The snag with bigots of any kind, religious or otherwise, is that you can criticise what they say and legislate against some of it but you can't ever stop them thinking what they think.

As I said in the other thread, it's not about convincing them that they're wrong. It's convincing the vulnerable people reading their statements that need to clearly see the overwhelming opinion is that these homophobes are wrong.

Oakboy wrote:Which brings the most the most anti-gay publicity; Folau's statement or the reaction to it? Why not just ignore the silly sod? Would BV have reacted had he been ignored?

The snag with bigots of any kind, religious or otherwise, is that you can criticise what they say and legislate against some of it but you can't ever stop them thinking what they think.

Because if you do not call someone out for being a monumental prick who will burn in hell, you're not going to change anything.

I can't remember who it was who first proposed it, but it's why I kind of like the idea of "Human Responsibilities" over "Human Rights". We have a responsibility to stand up to this kind of behavior and sanction the person who says it in as harsh terms as we possibly can.

The whole free speech thing is kinda Politics forum but, if free speech is to be a held to value, then it is going to include protecting people who say things you vehemently disagree with and that is borderline harmful.

I'm also declined to think that letting them speak and taking the piss is a more powerful tool than making them martyrs, by and large (which is not to say I disagree with the stances of the ARU or RFU here). And Raggs is right that the piss-taking is needed to show the vulnerable that these guys are wrong.