Listening this morning, alan Jones interviewing israel folou who is raising 3 million dollars from public donations for his legal fees against rugby Australia for unfair dismissal. This morning Israel said his fight is because of his strong Faith , beliefs in the bible that has made him who he is today. Now personally ive nothing against him what so ever, but he mentions to jones very strongly the importance of the bible again on which he lives by , which he comes to as we all know his public condemnation for many sinners who eventually will end up in hell . Can those out there who is familiar with the bible tell me if Israel is 100% correct to pass judgement based on his beliefs ? Here is one quote , but is there another side ?
You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Replies
Hi Colin. I'm curious to know why you think it would have been so different if it had have been compulsory to vote? There are somewhere around 16 to 17 million people of voting age in Australia. If Prof Daz's number are accurate, then roughly half of that 16 to 17 million voted yes. So that would mean of all those that chose not to vote, nerarly all of them would have to vote no for it to fail.
I'm not taking sides in this or suggesting the vote would have gone one way or the other, I'm simply looking at the numbers.
Meelk. While there is no proof as such, I see many people did not vote who were opposed to the yes vote who did not vote as they did not believe it would get through. At the same time there is a huge number of people who generally would not vote at any election unless it was not compulsory as its not worth the fine if applied, while others are simply jack of voting, with this vote being postal it also means that people can just burn the papers and go on living again I know some who did that when they got the papers without reading them.
In Ireland when the vote was put on over there along with the other one included provided the following final votes https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/marriage-referendum.
The interesting thing is the low turnout of 60% + a bit, but some counties had different votes see the sidebar. I do remember prior to the final posting that the figures were slightly different but enough to give the Yes vote the win.
I am not in a position to refute the numbers that Daz gave but I don't believe the actual vote numbers were really that high though.
According to the Wikipedia page (take it with a grain of salt), at the time of the postal vote there were 16 million registered voters. Out of those, 7.8 million voted yes, 4.9 million voted now, and the rest either put in invalid votes or none at all. So it was roughtly an 80% voter turnout. So in essence, 3.3 million didn't vote. So if every one of those 3.3 million had voted yes, then it would have been 7.8m yes / 8.2m no, but I think you would agree that it would be a stretch to suggest that everyone who didn't vote would have voted no if they could have been bothered. I think those numbers suggest that the vote would have been yes either way.
I wouldn't think the majority of those who didn't vote would have voted no, but had all voted I do think it would have been closer, by how much is pure conjecture. I would be inclined to believe that many who didn't vote would fit into one of two camps, 1 those who saw it a foregone conclusion. 2: Those who really didn't care as their vote likely would not make any difference.
A referendum is for changes to the Constitution. This issue is not part of the constitution and was legislated by other means.
He is (was) a representative of an organisation (rugby union) when he speaks (spoke) he is (was) only heard at a greater level than the average person because of that representation.
I was not happy when I heard Todd Greenberg wrote a reference for Greg Inglis. It was not appropriate. In doing so Greenberg was using his position to help get a lenient penalty. Whilst I don't necessarily think so, this action could be interpreted by some (it only takes one) as being the NRL condoning drink driving. This is simply not right. Certainly it could (perhaps should) be interpreted as the NRL believing Inglis deserves a second (third..?) chance. But that's not the point.
Imagine if a representative from the council got done drink driving. Do you think it would be appropriate for the local member to use the council letterhead to write a reference? Heck, do you think it would be appropriate for the party leader to use the party letterhead?
Israel has a right to voice his opinions, but he loses that right when those opinions can (could) be interpreted as being held by the organisation he represents.
I am not saying Folau is right or wrong. None of us know whether he is or not. That's a topic without a definitive answer and besides it's not the topic of my post.
All Izzy did was answer a question asked of him, it's not like he was walking down Pitt St screaming all gays are going to hell or went out for a night of gay bashing. And in his answer he included examples of all sins fuck I'm guilty of a couple.
Didn't the government promise to protect the right of religous expression during the same sex marriage debate, how many people would have voted no if they knew they could be villified sacked for expressing religous beliefs.
He can scream his views down Pitt street. Anyone can. But he needs to realise he would be a representative of a sport, a sport that doesn't share his views, and thus has the right to have an opinion on his ongoing employment.
We're all guilty of a couple. That's not the point.
Even if he's guilty the punishment/banishment he has copped is way over the top, he didn't agree to having any clauses in his contract which prohibited him from social media. I fail to see how he has in any way brought Rugby Australia into disrepute
You are right, I haven't commented on punishment. It's a difficult one, but rugby could have strongly denounced his social media comments. Distance themselves from his comments. Perhaps some people in higher places than you and I were concerned about the financial ramifications with sponsors etc if they went easy on him. Fair enough too. No individual is bigger than a sport but money certainly is.
-
30
-
31
-
32
-
33
-
34
of 59 Next