DeadVim

Tom Sawyer

Why do you have to be a "leftie" to disagree with what he says? I would think most decent people would think he has crossed a line. There was nothing political in what he said, so why are trying to drive it as a political agenda item? Politics and religion are meant to be separate in this country. I've not seen the Messiah from The Shire comment on it much, so would guess the Government are maybe trying to keep out of it themselves before opening a can of worms.

As I was trying to point out, there is freedom of speech, freedom to practice religion and "hate" speech. He can keep his "beliefs" to himself as can all religious zealots, and communists and fascists for that matter if you want to go political.

Amazulu

You are right, it's not just left-wingers who want to stifle free genuine speech - but the main thrust of this agenda does come from that that side - so I'll stand corrected

Is the 'Messiah from The Shire" Scott Morrison? I'm not surprised by this as he rarely talks about his faith - and certainly doesn't make it a part of his political agenda - although those on the left who oppose him and genuine free speech will always try and make out that he does - Guardianistas take note

As some people are getting their knickers in a twist, here's my opinion on IF and his case: I don't agree with what he said and believe he shouldn't have made that statement - he's been an idiot. Although I believe in real free speech, with that also come real responsibility. However, he did say it and that's his issue. Oppose his viewpoint and debate him, but he clearly shouldn't lose his job for expressing a religious standpoint. I've posted on here many times that all speech (bar promoting crime, illegal activity and violence) should be allowed - despite how some person or group may be offended by it - all speech, however controversial. Someone is always going to be offended by something and if all speech is moderated to not offend, democracy is over. We have to have differences, debate, controversies, or we'll be North Korea

In the case of IF and Castle/RA, we all know that Qantas, via their pathetic CEO, Alan Joyce, are behind this. This fits in with big businesses PC, left-wing agenda but all they've done is cause shit and divide the public. They've opened a can of worms and as we've seen from Anglo-sphere, western democracies over the last 5 years or so, could end up having the opposite effect that was expected. It won't be pretty

Beoz

Morrison is originally from Bronte. Not the Shire. Anyhow, they did try to get him to bite on the Izzy post during the election campaign. He played a straight bat and it worked a treat. His faith is his thing, he keeps it private as best he can, but they will forever try to get him to bite on religion. I do wonder if they would do the same to a leader who had followed a minority faith.

Amazulu

No, they wouldn't. Only Christians (and Jews to a lesser degree) are fair game to the left - every other religion and belief is superior in their eyes. You see this clearly in the UK, with Jeremy Corbyn and modern Labour being particularly anti-Semitic and anti-Christian

ozzieeagle

Surely it would be better if Foulau was ridiculed for stating his over the top rants, rather than stifiling them and creating a line in the sand that will gain momentum.

It really is about freedom of speech rather than content and people seem to have lost sight of that simple fact.

Now his views are going to be world wide news and have an even greater platform and likely support rather than the ridicule he would have received had he been allowed to carry on.


It's now reached ridculous levels over something that should be on the edge of society now getting lots of air. Rugby Australia deserve the penalty they are bound to end up being awarded for treading into areas they have no right to take a political view on.

It's not a left v right thing.... .It's purely freedom of speech.

Rugby Australia have created a martyr for extreme relgious views..... Silly silly buggers.

Amazulu

Well said

Beoz

Totally agree. Give it oxygen, it will breath.

If rugby in Australia had been left to the Rah Rah's you would get this rubbish.

GarryP

Thing is, they aren't really extreme - it's basic dogma for the religious crowd.

The issue is not really one very stupid meathead. Footballers say very stupid shit all the time - they aren't know for their brains. The issue is that religion thinks it should get away with comments that would get you locked up if you said them in any other context.

"You have had sex outside wedlock, you should be tortured for eternity."

The issue is setting bounds for religion that matches any other context. If you would get locked up for it normally, then you get locked up if you say it in a frock.

We don't need a 'religious freedom' bill, we need a 'freedom from religion' bill. Nobody should have to suffer from the idiotic comments of religious cretins. Deal with the root cause - antisocial religion.

ozzieeagle

Locked up for saying what you think and believe however abhorrent ......come on!!.... Are we really at Orwellian levels today?

The bottom line is this dipshiit now carrries credence because of the carry on and broadcasting to tabloid degrees to the wider community, when if left to his own devices would have been ridiculed into non entity.


The messengers and employer are just as guilty if not more so in making sure this has became front page news.

Dont forget there are plenty of Relgious outlets that totally denounced what he was saying..... It really is about freedom to say what you think however ridiculous and because we live in a tabloid world, people as a whole have lapped it up revelling in the outrage it's caused. When really all it needed was a big ignore move on to the next story button.


Dangerous precedent in my view not being able to say what you think and believe.






.

GarryP

There have always been limits on what you can say. You can't threaten someone with physical harm without consequence. Similarly you can go over the top in abusing them verbally. It's as much about how you say it, and the intent, as it is anything else.

All I'm saying is you shouldn't carve out an exception on the basis of religion. If it's offensive and would get you in court otherwise, then you go to court if you say it because of religion.

As far as saying "I don't like gays" - that's freedom of speech. But saying "they should be tortured for eternity"; not so much. And this meathead basically said EVERYONE should be tortured, because he's been told that's what he should think.

Personally I'd pat him on the head and give him over to a carer, and then I'd put the religion in the 'dock' and require that they stop telling their adherents that wishing torture on people is acceptable. Religions have to be controlled, limited, and called to account - regularly - since they seem incapable of acting as decent human beings without.

Problem is, Morrison is a zealot, which means he's likely to try to give religious types even MORE exceptions, probably off the back of this case. Which is exactly the WRONG thing to do.

Amazulu

Post or link to some evidence that our PM is a zealot

That's right, you can't. It's all in the heads of those on the left

spouse of scouse

The meathead's mouthing off again.

Rugby player Israel Folau has drawn anger for linking Australia's bushfire crisis to the nation's same-sex marriage and abortion laws.

Folau, who was sacked by Australia in May for making anti-gay remarks on social media, described the fires as a "little taste of God's judgement".
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-50455162

Kooky.

I think the best thing we can do is ignore him.

spouse of scouse

I think most people on BE realise that he's both a meathead and a zealot, but I don't think that discussing him in the Barbie gives his views any oxygen. Discussions around freedom of speech and 'hate speech' are interesting in my view and if the posts become too contentious the Mods can always move the thread to TIO.