Not many people here know who ho is, a prominent rugby player, one of the best in the world, who was banned for his fundamental religious views/ Here is his latest diatribe: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...punishment-for-same-sex-marriage-and-abortion Quote: The sacked rugby union star Israel Folau has linked devastating bushfires to Australia passing laws to legalise abortion and same-sex marriage. The former Wallaby claims that the bushfires that have devastated the country and left six Australians dead are God’s punishment for legalising abortion and same-sex marriage. Dumped by Rugby Australia after warning gay people and other “sinners” they would go to hell unless they repented, Folau has doubled down on the stance in a video sermon posted to the Truth of Jesus Christ Church Sydney. During the 10-minute recording, the 30-year-old says the timing of the bushfire crisis is no coincidence but only a taste of God’s judgment should nothing change. I think that few people here would agree with his views.
I would argue that laws condoning immorality have consequences. But i don't think natural disasters are among them.
Why is such a ban even legal, especially in Australia? It's his personal religious belief. If they want to ban people for that then ban Muslims and pagans as well for theirs; they've put far more people to death for superstitious 'reasons' than Xians ever have, despite all the noise from the assorted sociopath sexual deviant demographic's propaganda machines.
It was against the terms of his contract. The issue was using his position as a prominent sportsman to push his religious views which are at odds with those of the rugby authorities. It had happened before, he'd been told not to do it again but then he did, so he was banned. It's still going through the courts, I believe. I don't know if any muslims or pagans even play rugby much so probably not an issue. Btw, your comment which I highlighted in bold is probably in contravention of the rules which prohibit homophobic slurs.
He wasn’t banned as such. He had a contract with Rugby Australia as an international player and his behaviour was deemed to have breached the code of conduct under that contract and so it was terminated. It wasn’t for being religious but for specific things he did and said. If he’d said similar things without the Christian element, he’d still have been in breech and obviously just “being Christian” isn’t an issue in itself. Theoretically, he could still play professionally, in Australia or elsewhere, but he’d have to find a national association and/or club willing to hire him, which is obviously unlikely without conditions on his public statements he’d be unwilling to accept.
He is correct from a Christian viewpoint. Those who sin without repentance will reap what they sow, not in the form of bushfires though. Although I perhaps differ from him in the sense that I believe that if you are a kind, loving person who genuinely does not seek to hurt others then sin can be absolved. 'Above all, love one another, this covers a multitude of sins'
So in Australia they make up contracts that prevent religious people from speaking out about issues? Interesting. It's not illegal to be an Xian, but only as long as they say nothing in public?
So, you're saying homosexuals are the only sexual deviants? I would say people who use the fake term 'gay' are the 'homophobic' people, since using the term 'gay' is ridiculous and the term 'homophobic' isn't even a real word. Not everybody is weak enough to be bullied by some Gramscian kultrekampf fashion or other; if homosexuals were as 'normal' as they claim they wouldn't try and hide behind such stupid gimmicks as semantics.
No, they have a code of conduct that applies to all signatories regardless of any religion or other beliefs they hold. I've not read it in detail but I strongly suspect it is much like lots of other contractual obligations and related to specific behaviour, probably less about what is said and more how it is said. It'd probably be illegal in Australia for a contract to take specific consideration of a persons religion, for or against them. As I mentioned, if he'd said the same things he did but wasn't Christian, he'd still have been in breech of his contract, Just being Christian (or any other religion) and generally speaking about your faith in public will be fine, and there are inevitably loads of signatories of this contract and similar ones who have absolutely no issues at all.
