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
A few pages back Mack says 71K have liked Izzy’s post and he raised over 500 million. Public support?
Yes, but in 2017 almost 8 million voted yes for marriage equality: 7.8 versus 4.8.
Of 150 electoral division, only 17 returned a No vote above 50% (133 versus 17)
public support suggesting Izzy is on the wrong side of public opinion? Game set frakkin match
Marriage equality and the religious status of homosexuality are two different things. I voted yes for marriage equality because government shouldn't have anything to do with whether or not two people think they're married. But I also think homosexuality is obviously, self-evidently wrong - the biological urge to procreate directed at members of the same sex. I'm not surprised that our ancestors were so disturbed by it that they created religions that treated it as a taboo. Even the American Psychiatric Association still considered it a mental illness in 1973. Why'd they change it? Just public opinion. The APA members held a vote. That's how 'scientific' it was.
As far as the importance of voting, we live in a liberal democracy, where minorities have rights, including the right to express a minority opinion. The push to label some speech as 'hate' is the same totalitarian drive to make everyone conform that has plagued societies throughout history, whether Christian, Muslim, Hindu or atheist.
Um, some speech IS hate.
Poupou, note you swap from self-evidently wrong (homosexuality) to the label hate speech being just public opinion. This seems awfully convenient for you: all the public opinion saying gay is just biology get over it gets dismissed as missing the underlying truth, while all the public opinion opposing hate speech gets dismissed as just public opinion because there is not underlying truth.
why not just have some balls and say you like your bigotry on toast?
My point is everyone's a bigot when it comes to the things they don't like. Any speech around values is necessarily hateful against someone.
Precisely.
It’s all about personal opinion - one persons own perception of what is hate speech and one that another considers opinion.
What Daz finds hurtful may just be inconsequential to me and vice versa.
The problem I have is that the looney left are driving the cultural agenda and anything they don’t agree with they accuse someone or a group as racist or hateful when in fact they just have a difference of opinion.
Problem with that argument Daz is 1 can vote for marriage equality and also be backing Folou.
The majority of people don't care what others do and back gays to get married. They also back Folou to say and believe what ever he likes. As the argument in the yes vote went. How does gays getting married affect others. Same goes here, how does folou's views affect others.
As for 71k that backed Folou with money, then 100k signed a petition but no money to support cause and go fund me pulled his page down. Force a national vote had I reckon most would vote for people to say and believe what they want
Fair points Fake Midget. My conjecture, though, is that the marriage equality vote suggested a broad support for the idea that if people are in fact equal then they do in fact deserve the same rights. Even if that right is the right to marry someone and have them annoy you until you manage to divorce them. In the Folau case, Folau is clearly saying gays are not equal. Which puts him at odds with the sentiment expressed in the marriage equality vote.
The fact it is entirely right wing conservatives driving the media outrage machine is salient, because one of the problems with democracy is that extremes are often the loudest. Sometimes those extremes are extreme because of wealth and power and the ability to use wealth to buy speech time. Sometimes the extreme is just an extreme cultural voice and the media likes conflict an can fall into false balance of he said she said when one party was actually pretty small and the other was too diffuse to scream as loud.
I agree that the extremes on any topic are the loudest and unfortunately the media will not let it rest. They will continue to push and try to make people decide on a side, left or right.
The fact most are in the middle is irrelevant as those who are content to live their own lives don't feel the need to speak out.
Why was the vote a plebiscite rather than a referendum? The plebiscite was not compulsary while a referendum is compulsary to vote, in this country. Every country has different laws regarding their voting options.
Its impossible to know how the vote would have gone if everyone had to vote, the very same situation happened when the vote was taken in Ireland.
-
29
-
30
-
31
-
32
-
33
of 59 Next