Is anyone still willing to claim his 'freedom of speech' after this...https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rte.ie/amp/1092536/ The guys a religious fundamentalist nutjob the like of which need putting away.

Is anyone still willing to claim his 'freedom of speech' after this...https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rte.ie/amp/1092536/ The guys a religious fundamentalist nutjob the like of which need putting away.

I don't agree with what he's said, but first and foremost RL shouldn't touch him with a barge pole after his sacking from the Aus RU because we as a sport would then just look like a soft touch who will give a bigot a game when a real professional body won't. His ongoing legal issues are between him and RU, but there's no reason for RL to get involved.

Potentially a smart move for his legal action. As I understand it, he is appealing on the basis of his beliefs. To say something similar in a church setting supports his religious beliefs argument.

Dont want to turn this into a religious thread (although it may already be on ?) but, seriously ?

Seriously, what?

Quote ="Seth"Is anyone still willing to claim his 'freedom of speech' after this...https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rte.ie/amp/1092536/ The guys a religious fundamentalist nutjob the like of which need putting away.'" He certainly does have the freedom to say that stuff; and decent people have equal freedom to regard him as a member of a crazed death cult, who they don't want to employ.

Quote ="Seth"Is anyone still willing to claim his 'freedom of speech' after this...https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rte.ie/amp/1092536/ The guys a religious fundamentalist nutjob the like of which need putting away.'" He certainly does have the freedom to say that stuff; and decent people have equal freedom to regard him as a member of a crazed death cult, who they don't want to employ.

The problem is that his 'freedom of speech' gives rise to the more violent and dangerous extremists.

In RU can you play for two different countries, or are you committed to the one you play for first, and thus have to choose carefully if you're eligible for more than one? I'm just curious because once he was sacked by the Aus RU would crawling back to RL have been his first choice if Tonga RU could have selected him?

Footage of him talking in his church showed a congregation size of less than 10. Now with all the media attention his words have reached maybe millions. If spreading the word about the beliefs of his church is his objective then he has succeeded beyond probably his wildest dreams.

His court trial, if it happens,will be interesting. An arbitration hearing, pretrial,is planned for next month.

There's a lot of money in religious fundamentalism. I'm not saying he doesn't believe what he's saying - I'm sure he does - but getting it out there like that will make money for his church and drum up even more support from like minded types for his "cause" against the Aus RU. Frankly the best way to oppose him is to ignore him, and I hope that's exactly what RL does.

I'll try not to go off on one but, in so many religions, the spin that is put on certain events is just scandalous.
So a bush fire causing mayhem and the death of innocent people is retribution for gay marriage and abortion - SERIOUSLY



People can believe whatever they want, nobody should have control over anyone's mind, although ,religion does try pretty hard but, to use a natural disaster to propagate a particular viewpoint is not acceptable.

Im glad you clarified. I deplore religion and people like him strengthen my position

For a minute there, I thought that you were defending his comments.

I think my opening of this thread shows my position.

Use of a natural disaster to push a religious doctrine is pretty widespread though. Every major disaster in the US is seen by some religious group as punishment by their God. Even 9/11 was not spared with Billy Graham's daughter having her say on why 3000 people had to die.

Folau is just another in a long long line that uses a disaster to promote beliefs.

You'd think that if there was an omnipotent being as powerful as these people believe, they would just not make gays or change the laws of nature so that abortion wasn't possible.

But no, they throw natural disasters around the place, killing people that are not gay and never had an abortion. it's like they're making stuff up to suit an agenda. Why does god always seem to have sexual hang-ups? Busy fine tuning the very fabric of reality but doesn't like the thought of one of his animals penetrating the mud donut. Anyone who believes this nonsense wants locking away!

Yet we teach this thing, that there is not a shred of evidence for, to impressionable young children.

The only way religion maintains its existence is through the fear and indoctrination of young people.

Quote ="Seth"Is anyone still willing to claim his 'freedom of speech' after this...https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rte.ie/amp/1092536/ The guys a religious fundamentalist nutjob the like of which need putting away.'" I do. Freedom of speech does not mean you only hear what you want to hear. Its only the same nonsenses most fundamental religions preach, Judaism, Muslim and Christianity to name a few, shall we ban the opinions of a billion people?. People like you need to grasp the reality of life and while you're at it get off your high horse

Quote ="Seth"Is anyone still willing to claim his 'freedom of speech' after this...https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rte.ie/amp/1092536/ The guys a religious fundamentalist nutjob the like of which need putting away.'" I do. Freedom of speech does not mean you only hear what you want to hear. Its only the same nonsenses most fundamental religions preach, Judaism, Muslim and Christianity to name a few, shall we ban the opinions of a billion people?. People like you need to grasp the reality of life and while you're at it get off your high horse

Really, and who decides this, you and your virtual echo chamber mates I suppose.

Unbelievable, listen to yourself, 'locking away' now who's the fascist.

If he doesn't agree with gay marriage etc so what, it's just an opinion that very few other people are interested in, whilst those who are didn't need the help of an ageing rugby player to get there. The outrage that the twitter generation seems almost genetically programmed to supply at every utterance is only oxygen to these types of courses but they never seem to learn, or maybe they too are just looking for an argument.

I detest all religion but its not my job to tell them what to believe, mainly because if I did I'd be as bad as them. THINK ABOUT IT.

Quote ="Seth"Is anyone still willing to claim his 'freedom of speech' after this...https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rte.ie/amp/1092536/ The guys a religious fundamentalist nutjob the like of which need putting away.'" Yes I will. I do not agree with what he is saying but I will fight fir his right to say it. Quite simple offence is taken not given. Again I wholeheartedly disagree with what he is saying but our grandparents n parents fought and lost their lives for our freedoms and all I see is easily outraged people allowing our rights as free people be taken away so some snowflake doesn't get upset.

Quote ="Seth"Is anyone still willing to claim his 'freedom of speech' after this...https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rte.ie/amp/1092536/ The guys a religious fundamentalist nutjob the like of which need putting away.'" Yes I will. I do not agree with what he is saying but I will fight fir his right to say it. Quite simple offence is taken not given. Again I wholeheartedly disagree with what he is saying but our grandparents n parents fought and lost their lives for our freedoms and all I see is easily outraged people allowing our rights as free people be taken away so some snowflake doesn't get upset.

Wow. So let me get this right, youre saying you see no danger in preaching fundamentalist hatred? Where does that end, with holocaust deniers? Racism?

Do you not think that this would fall under hate speech?

"abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation."

If you truly believe that these comments are acceptable under the banner freedom of speech then I strongly suggest that you read up on Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986.

I agree, something tells me some of these views would be very different if this was aimed at race instead of sexual orientation, but as I have already mentioned both are hate speech and both are illegal.