State vs Religion. A conflict for the ages. Were the Australian Rugby Union right in sacking Israel Folau after tweeting gay people are going to hell? His defense is he is following the Bible's teachings. That is some argument as the state and institutions like the ARU are political and mechanical organisations which change constantly on all things including ethics and morality. Do they have the right to override religion which has been around for thousands of years? Does the state and organisations like the ARU have the right to override and penalise people based on their belief systems?
Two aspects to this. The 1st is the idea of religion affecting the State which imo should NEVER happen. America, Israel, India and too many Arab countries in the Middle East are all living (and dying) proof of why that is just utter madness. Then there's this case, the State and other established institutions imposing actions because of someone's religious beliefs, which is a more tricky thing. My instinct is to let him say what he wants. But then, what are the consequences of him openly expressing his views? On fellow rugby players who may be gay and the wider gay population? Aren't the consequences similar to someone saying all black people are going to hell.
I was watching something on the news channels where a commentator said that the country with the most clergy types influencing laws was Iran. Number 2 was the UK
I find it hard to believe anyone can define who is influenced the most, just probably someone's own agenda, but Iran is in there along with the others I've mentioned. I'd like to see how the UK is that high up tbh.
HoL I thought? Fella wasn't allowed to expand. Trying to think what the show was so I could Google it
Does the HoL really influence State? And what little it does at least it's out in the open to be challenged. Plenty of surreptitious influencing by religious leaders and institutions on the State in other parts of the world.
You mean you want an echo chamber backing the fiction of religion, and you'll get all shouty if anyone dares to point out the flaws.
In the specific case you mention Folau had already been warned about his comments on social media. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of his views it was a pretty stupid thing to do. I guess as well that the decision was ultimately a commercial one as very few companies would want to be linked with an organisation who allow public statements like that by their employees to go unchecked.
