Essendon = Entitlement

[AngryAnt]

He is not a pastor. His role is likely financial governance. Being an active and involved member of his church should not be a disqualification for leadership in a secular organisation. Barham asked him to choose between his faith and this role. That’s religious discrimination.

You can make the same argument about the Catholic Church and misogyny. Like Harry said a lot of people should be resigning their position, including the AFLW footballer, if this is the standard.

This is hilarious stuff - you think you can be the chair of an organisation without being in support of it's fundamental principles? The principles that say women cannot serve in leadership roles, gay people are evil and no abortion, even for victims of rape or incest?

Ok sure Djev, he was only the Chair but knew nothing about these horrendous policies?

Laughable.

 

[AngryAnt]

Yes, one should question - intelligently and politely, not sarcastically and sneeringly - others’ beliefs. That way, you can win hearts and minds (and maybe even enrich your own understanding and beliefs). Forcing people to act against their beliefs just makes martyrs/victims of them, causes them to dig in, distracts from the core issues, and plays into the hands of the culture warriors at both extremes.

I’m not a Muslim, but I do know Mohammed was not an imaginary being.

You still haven't addressed the issue of this church forbidding abortion even for rape or incest victims.

 

[DavidSSS]

Lot of talk about free speech here and claims that free speech is fundamental to our society etc.

But free speech has always been limited. There's the apocryphal yelling of fire in a crowded cinema, but also more salient examples.

Do we defend the beliefs and/or speech of someone who claims their deity (or deities) tell them that white people are the chosen race and superior to coloured people? Do we defend their right to promote these beliefs? Not so long ago it was completely acceptable to claim the superiority of white people. If we do not defend their right to spout racist beliefs then we are drawing a line. If we draw the line against racist beliefs but do not draw the line against homophobic beliefs then that is saying that homophobic beliefs are somehow more acceptable than racist beliefs.

DS

 

[Streak]

We sprout being inclusive and then seek to banish those with different views

Isn't that exactly what Thorburn’s church and similar seek to do? All welcome but...........

 

[Djevv]

This is hilarious stuff - you think you can be the chair of an organisation without being in support of it's fundamental principles? The principles that say women cannot serve in leadership roles, gay people are evil and no abortion, even for victims of rape or incest?

Ok sure Djev, he was only the Chair but knew nothing about these horrendous policies?

Laughable.

The church is a conservative institution. People in it are often socially conservative but there is more to it than that. It’s a community of faith. I don’t think you should read into it any more than that. It is obviously true that he would understand and agree with much of the teachings of the church. But so what? He is entitled to. There is also a diversity of opinions in any church and the same arguments about rights and morals go on inside as well. There is no evidence that he promoted any of his church’s more radical teachings in his previous leadership roles - in fact quite the opposite.

On what grounds does that make him unfit to be a CEO of a football club?

 

[fastin bulbous]

The church is a conservative institution. People in it are often socially conservative but there is more to it than that. It’s a community of faith. I don’t think you should read into it any more than that. It is obviously true that he would understand and agree with much of the teachings of the church. But so what? He is entitled to. There is also a diversity of opinions in any church and the same arguments about rights and morals go on inside as well. There is no evidence that he promoted any of his church’s more radical teachings in his previous leadership roles - in fact quite the opposite.

On what grounds does that make him unfit to be a CEO of a football club?

All the gay players at the club for a start. And then There’s all the women who believe they have a right to choose who may not want to be associated in any way anymore…. Do you really need more examples?

 

[Djevv]

You still haven't addressed the issue of this church forbidding abortion even for rape or incest victims.

Does it ‘forbid’ abortion or is it just pro-life?

 

[Djevv]

All the gay players at the club for a start. And then There’s all the women who believe they have a right to choose who may not want to be associated in any way anymore…. Do you really need more examples?

What about them? There is no evidence that he discriminated against them in his previous roles. None whatsoever.

This is guilt by association.

I find this insistence he has done something immoral by attending and serving in a bog-standard church fairly bizarre!!

 

[HeadandShin]

No, I was suggesting one should constantly question their own beliefs. Because when your beliefs have no basis in science/logic/common sense then one should cast them aside and keep searching.

Thorburn ain't no martyr.

Muhammad was an illiterate goat herder. A slave owner, polygamist and probable child abuser. Not sure I'd be big on assuming beliefs from such a man.

Sorry, rereading I see you meant one’s own beliefs. (My points still stand, even if they’re irrelevant to yours )

“Common sense” is subjective; “logic” too (tho’ strictly speaking, it shouldn’t be).

Science is interesting as a touchstone. I am Catholic, and as mentioned previously, I trained and worked as a biological scientist and since then in a related field. I have several postgraduate qualifications. I find my beliefs and my scientific knowledge get along just fine. Many prominent scientists are people of faith. Often, the more you learn the more you realise you don’t know. Not too long ago, people (including scientists) would have laughed at the idea of electricity, or the internet. There’s so much more to be discovered. We think we’re clever (and we are, amazingly so) but we should never think we know it all. There are things beyond science. After all, what is love? Why do we create music? Why does George Castagna doodle on his legs? God knows!

 

[fastin bulbous]

What about them? There is no evidence that he discriminated against them in his previous roles. None whatsoever.

This is guilt by association.

I find this insistence he has done something immoral by attending and serving in a big-standard church fairly bizarre!!

Footy clubs are businesses that very vocally promote inclusion. You just can’t be an office bearer of the we hate gay people and women can’t make their own choices club and expect to be allowed to hold a significant role. Even if you are really just a very nice Christian person who doesn’t hold those beliefs and just happens to be the chairman/ceo or whatever.

 

[Djevv]

Footy clubs are businesses that very vocally promote inclusion. You just can’t be an office bearer of the we hate gay people and women can’t make their own choices club and expect to be allowed to hold a significant role. Even if you are really just a very nice Christian person who doesn’t hold those beliefs and just happens to be the chairman/ceo or whatever.

If they are so diverse and inclusive why can’t they seem to accommodate a diversity of opinions, beliefs and lifestyles in their leaders?

 

[fastin bulbous]

If they are so diverse and inclusive why can’t they seem to accommodate a diversity of opinions, beliefs and lifestyles in their leaders?

Because being divisive and discriminatory is not supporting diversity it’s being a prick. We can play with words all we want but it should be very obvious.

The big question should be “did Jesus really preach intolerance and hatred or did churches just make that bit up?”

 

[DavidSSS]

Some opinions, beliefs etc are beyond the pale.

As I said earlier, what if their deity or deities and their organised religion claims white people are superior - can you accommodate that belief? If you can't how come you draw the line and are willing to accommodate a belief that we should make laws to control women's bodies and peoples' sexuality? Why is it acceptable to be homophobic but not racist, where do you draw the line?

I draw the line at bigotry, none of it is acceptable, but that's just me.

DS

PS, after Fast and Bulbous' comment - a lot of this was made up by the religious authorities. The veil is a good example, go read some Muslim Feminist commentary on that.

 

[Streak]

Hey Mods

I feel this debate about Freedom of Speech, while a worthy subject and one which I do not support censoring, has completely derailed what was once my favourite thread.

Can we move this debate to another thread and just go back to kicking the *smile* out of Essendon?

 

[Tigers of Old]

I totally disagree with Thornburn's church values but I do worry that there's a ever creeping line of what's considered 'intolerance' in our society & those that don't agree with someone else's POV that they want to shut down a person's right to say it. So many people seem to be offended these days & much debate or conversation gets shut down. However silencing people's right to free thought & free speech doesn't actually change thinking, it just pushes it underground & closes communication channels. That is not what our democracy is built on.
I heard 'inclusion' described the other day as 'like mindedness' & I thought that was a good description of what seems to be occurring in our society more & more.

Concerning trend IMO. You could be on the wrong side of that line quicker than you think & that line has the ability to go both ways..

Hey Mods

I feel this debate about Freedom of Speech, while a worthy subject and one which I do not support censoring, has completely derailed what was once my favourite thread.

Can we move this debate to another thread and just go back to kicking the *smile* out of Essendon?

Ooops I just added to it. Agree it should be moved.

 

[Tenacious]

The church is a conservative institution. People in it are often socially conservative but there is more to it than that. It’s a community of faith. I don’t think you should read into it any more than that. It is obviously true that he would understand and agree with much of the teachings of the church. But so what? He is entitled to. There is also a diversity of opinions in any church and the same arguments about rights and morals go on inside as well. There is no evidence that he promoted any of his church’s more radical teachings in his previous leadership roles - in fact quite the opposite.

On what grounds does that make him unfit to be a CEO of a football club?

He probably could be a Football CEO if he really wanted - maybe in places like Saudi Arabia or Alabama and the like. Win win.

 

[Mac]

So anyway, yeah like

Bombers suck, right?

 

[Midsy]

The problem is her beliefs are hurtful to other human beings, because they devalue their lives.

I'm not gay but I understand being gay makes your life much more difficult, especially for young people. When organisations show support for gay people through these symbols it is their way helping makes those lives a little less difficult.

I personally cannot fathom why any human being would refuse to display a symbol that would make another person feel better about themselves, especially one who has a difficult path in life already.

I think any player who refuses to wear a pride jumper should no longer be part of the club. There's no excuse for it, and using folk tales as a justification is just rubbish.

After reading some of the comments about the Essendon CEO today I feel physically sick and am actively looking to leave Australia. The number of people trying to justify the position that is is ok to ostracise gay people because it is your 'personal belief' is heart breaking.

Imagine how a gay kid feels seeing so many people supporting someone thinking they are 'evil' just because of who they love? Imagine how a gay kid who follows AFLW feels knowing there are players who say I'd rather not play than say you are ok?

It's an absolute disgrace that these sort of views have a level of acceptance in our society. They should be considered on the same level as being a nazi or a racist.

Can I just check - are you equating someone who chooses not to wear a pride jumper to a Nazi…?

 

[IanG]

Lot of talk about free speech here and claims that free speech is fundamental to our society etc.

But free speech has always been limited. There's the apocryphal yelling of fire in a crowded cinema, but also more salient examples.

Do we defend the beliefs and/or speech of someone who claims their deity (or deities) tell them that white people are the chosen race and superior to coloured people? Do we defend their right to promote these beliefs? Not so long ago it was completely acceptable to claim the superiority of white people. If we do not defend their right to spout racist beliefs then we are drawing a line. If we draw the line against racist beliefs but do not draw the line against homophobic beliefs then that is saying that homophobic beliefs are somehow more acceptable than racist beliefs.

I like this meme about this:

 

[Nico]

So anyway, yeah like

Bombers suck, right?

I agree Mac...let's just this thread back to laughing at the Bombres