Israel Folau

miaow wrote:Let's get it right, no large company gave a flying f about sexual social 'ethics' 10 years ago.

Sorry, miaow, I strongly disagree. Sexual social ethics have long played a role in the way companies see their place in society.

I think you see sexual social ethics as simply the provenance of public relations departments. It didn't need to be a job for a spin doctor before, because the prevailing ethics used to run through the entire DNA of companies.

It wasn't just hot button issues like homosexuality which determined corporate actions. In some walks of life, a man couldn't get ahead if he wasn't married, or was divorced, or was illegitimate. God forbid you married outside your race. In the US, it took until 1967 for the last anti-miscegenation law to be struck down but that didn't mean executives in mixed race marriages were suddenly welcomed with open arms.

Take Domino's Pizza. It was founded by Tom Monaghan, a hard line Catholic who certainly saw his faith and business intertwined. In 1987 he set up an organization of Catholic CEOs with the specific goal of promoting "moral ethics in business in conformity with the teachings of the Roman Catholic church so that the lives of all can be enhanced". There was no place for anyone who didn't adhere to  Monaghan's ethical code when he ran Dominos, and that meant being anti-abortion.

When Billie Jean King was outed as gay in 1981, her lawyer and PR strongly advised her to deny it, because they knew companies didn't want to be associated with a lesbian back then. Do you think John Browne would have been appointed as CEO of BP if he hadn't been in the closet? He resigned after he was outed, and the NYT had this to say as recently as 2014:

After being outed, Mr. Browne was under no illusions he’d ever be chairman or chief executive of another publicly traded company. “To a headhunter I would have been seen as ‘controversial,’ too hot to handle,” he writes. “Sadly, there were some people, mostly from the business world, who never again displayed any warmth to me.”

Such attitudes may help explain why there are no publicly gay chief executives at any Fortune 500 company, according to Richard Zweigenhaft, co-author of “Diversity in the Power Elite” and a psychology professor at Guilford College in North Carolina.

Attitudes towards social issues change rapidly. Companies aren't only now considering sexual social ethics for the first time. They considered them before but were generally on the right side of the social consensus. What's happened now, is that firms have realised large parts of their historic corporate behaviour risk offending key constituences, in the form of customers, potential employees, suppliers, regulators etc. They are now choosing to move towards what they believe is the new social consensus, or are trying to remove themselves from an issue where they see no need to take a stance.

All fair points Rugby Fan, and I've probably been a bit too sweeping there, as I probably have in quite a lot of that comment.

But you are supporting one of the points I was making - that this isn't a longstanding, deeply held ethical issue in the slightest as the current stance in many businesses is a relatively recent phenomenon. Or, at least, it is not 'ethics first': as you say, it is a monetary decision, and one based on trying to tap in to the 'rainbow dollar' and allies through, effectively, window dressing. It's a bit 1984: "we've always been at war with Oceania"; "we really care about gay rights and inclusiveness for all" etc. Another debate about whether companies can 'redeem' themselves and/or change - Hugo Boss, Volkswagon etc. - that's not appropriate here, but by and large the point I was making about the lack of solidity to these values is the fact that rugby and Folau are being dictated to behave a certain way by sponsors. Why? And where does that end? Because their loyalty is to making money and expanding their brand - not the values of the game, nots its longevity, and not the impact their business actually has in the wider world in every destructive sense.

In the age of identity politics, there's nothing more powerful for a business than displaying performative wokeness: i.e. using that window dressing (effectively making their logo rainbow-coloured etc.) to entice YOUNG people. Most middle class young people - the kind who will go to uni in higher numbers, be more liberal, and (probably) earn more money, therefore having more money to spend - seem to find the casual attitudes to homosexuality that existed even 15 years ago anathema: without getting in to that specifically, or the sincerity/performative debate, it makes sense from an economic standpoint to do enough to target young people and have customers for life, so to speak, whilst still being vague and/or broad enough to not alienate existing older customers and/or people who are relatively ambivalent on this issue.

It seems strange to demand rugby changes in this way - it's not exactly known for its soft, cuddly attitude as a sport or a culture. Yes, it's inclusive...but to a point, let's be real. It didn't/doesn't have the cultural problems football had with hooliganism that led to it being commercialised and sanitised, partly for its own good before it imploded. So there's something else going on here in terms of trying to 'update'/change it. Rugby is/was primarily played, watched, engaged in, and funded by men - until you consider that the pro game has become a 'product'. And to become a product, it needs to be softened to the buyers/watchers: increasingly, as rugby moves away from being a mudfest with hairy, overweight men, into something played by hyperfit, well groomed, skin-tight-kitted men, it becomes more and more 'pleasing' to certain demographics who are watching it from a consumptive perspecting. That's not to say all gay men and all straight women aren't also enjoying the game, or in fact care about the sport/tactiscs/cultural implications as much as any man. But, basically, for a lot of gay men and women, rugby offers the equivalent of what Sepp Blatter was ridiculed for when suggesting women footballers should play in short shorts - it's an aesthetically pleasing product to get excited about in a slightly different manner straight men get excited about it. And to be honest, looking at Folau in that gay rugby ad, he certainly seems to be living up to what I know quite a lot of gay men like a man to look like. And is that really so bad? Do rugby players not play the game in their teens partly because of the prestige/prowess they get from women etc.? The savvier sponsor will know which market can be 'tapped' in to - that something like rugby offers something for all, albeit for different reasons. It's the Saturday night television of the modern era. So maybe this change isn't that threatening to the core values of rugby, and maybe it's not that 'new', either. But let's not pretend the change towards inclusiveness isn't based on not only avoiding bad PR, but also an awareness that money can be made from gaining a wider, less traditional audience to the sport. However successful that is, who knows - but sex sells, as we all know, it's just no longer just the scantily clad glamour model who sells it.

That's what I feel is the prevailing wind here in general: it's just like listening to a politician. Top of the news story today in the US (or one of) is a Muslim Congresswoman and her flippant dismissal of 9/11 as 'something some people did'. You then have the right-wing/Republicans pile in on her (with some legitimacy) and raise questions about what she actually believes in, and who she is actually trying to represent. In response, you get exactly the kind of 'prevailing wind' pronouncements from the opposition and/or Democrats: Elizabeth Warren being a prime example. Yet what is Warren's purpose, her allegiance? It's political, not ethical. Like Clinton before her, and every Presidential hopeful, she is running along the canvassing conveyorbelt, where every pronouncement is calculated and designed to be 'on brand'. More now than ever, a minor slip up - like pushing the white guilt a bit too far and concocting a Native American heritage - goes punished and can result in the kind of media coverage that destorys political careers (but massively moreso for progressive/left leaning candidates - Trump being a prime example!). I'm not right wing by the way, far from it, it's just devastating to see what 'progressive' politics has become. Somehow, we seem to be in a world where politicians are taken at face value? Where we're reporting them as if they believe this steadfastly, rather than it being a calculated and political desire to: a. support a party member b. look good defending someone c. 'win' the support of those sympathetic to real and/or perceived victimhood d. stay in the public eye. Then you have lazy political commentators who leech off this system of PR and that gets reported as news: and because this is what people are exposed to, the mind eventually just accepts it. Like a prominent lie; if it's told/heard enough, it sticks in the unconscious mind. I can't stress this enough, how PR has changed massively in the last decade - because it's not just TV and magazines anymore, we're actively choosing to read, believe, engage, and repeat PR on a daily basis whenever we go anywhere near the news and/or twitter. 24 hour news has created a demand for constant updates etc. but more than that, it's honed PR departments to know that only 20 seconds or so of what you say in an interview will be used: in which case you better make sure they show what you want - . Again, though, it's not just politicians - it's pressure groups who are even better at this, who have absolutely honed the art of the politically charged, righteous anger in 3 sentences, press release. And pressure groups are having a greater and greater impact in politics, but also at controlling the narrative on social media: echo chambers of all sorts of political/moral/ethical persuasions.

I've seen a very-American kind of academic language first permeat parts of British academia, then pop cultural debates on academic ideas, and now just about any sort of PR-esque public announcement. Even just the language used to talk about language. 'Discourse'. 'Speak to'. All a far cry from Nige's 'let's have a chat'! People are learning outrage before they learn the ethics/purpose behind it. It's why so much feels fake: because lots of it is.

In terms of your other point, about corporate/societal values, I think that's a completely separate point. Or at least, different enough to make a distinction. I'm talking about PR in the narrative-controlling, hyper-constructed form we now know it: the actual reality of working in a business etc. is quite different. PR is as utopian as fiction in many ways; it's judging people/things on their words and images, not their actual actions.

To drag this back round to rugby, the point I'm mainly trying to make it corporate interests are not good in sport. They're not going to guide the sport, nor retain the values that make rugby what is was/is. I've said why I think that is so won't repeat myself. In terms of Folau, it's neither here nor there for me - rugby is very, very traditional in many ways, it's a very masculine sport, which lends itself to religious and communal value as well, particularly at amateur level - but as we see in many countries, rugby is played by many devout Christians as well. I believe he should be able to say what he wants, even as an athlete: I don't consider the reasons behind his stance on homosexuality, adultery, lying etc. to be a sackable or damnable offence. He has far, far less clout on social media/in the public eye that the aforementioned PR-obsessed pressure groups. He's just easy to round up the pitchforks around, it's easy to make him a 'public enemy', because sports shows no sign of losing it's hero:villain narrative any time soon, and the clamour for villains is desperate to find/make someone to hate. As I said, rugby may 'say' it's inclusive in the PR release but, get real: that world of marketing is not how it actually is. If everyone just shut up about Folau, and let him get on with it, you could ignore his social media posts and just let him play rugby well and proselatise in his own time.

Corporate interests lead rugby players/sportspeople to 'having' to sign a contract that makes them legitimise and champion a business, irrespective of whether they agree with its values, product, or impact on the world. Rare exceptions are made with things like alcohol or gambling (ironically, based on religious beliefs). But by and large, if that same sportsperson wants to actually tell their truth, their values, if that corporate sponsor disagrees with them, they're finished? What a dreadful state of affairs - and why, ethics of this aside, being dictated to by business (or a pressure group etc.) never ends well.

Let's hope it's not just the business who thinks homophobes have no place in the sport then. For every case of idiots in sports there's always a helluva lot good people who push back. It could be a catalyst for more openness of homosexuals within the sport and a few more good role models.

Pie wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Come off it Pie. You’ve been living in Canada way too long seeing as you’re easily offended like all the Canadians. Pathetic.

What do you know about Canadians? Not a lot I expect. Another thing you aren't an expert on. Don't be offended.  

I live among them.

mikey_dragon wrote:

Pie wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Come off it Pie. You’ve been living in Canada way too long seeing as you’re easily offended like all the Canadians. Pathetic.

What do you know about Canadians? Not a lot I expect. Another thing you aren't an expert on. Don't be offended.  

I live among them.

which Province?

I heard Bears played its raining men over the tannoy for Billy V. Quality response to the big chump.

AB.

mikey_dragon wrote:AB.

Copper?

Probably best to have this chat via PM really, boys.

Should Stuart Barnes' diatribe against religion as "superstitious nonsense" in the Sunday Times come under the same criticism as Folau is receiving?

Depends if and to what extent you believe in sexularist cultural relativism, really.

The Great Aukster wrote:Should Stuart Barnes' diatribe against religion as "superstitious nonsense" in the Sunday Times come under the same criticism as Folau is receiving?

Hey everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I'm reading a little about Gramscian Cultural Marxism - which might help to explain some of the things that have been going on. I suspect that the works of Michel Foucault might also be relevant as well - he is on my reading list.

No Barnes would be different as you can change your religion with education you don't get to choose to be gay.

Australia Rugby confirm Folau sacked. He has 2 days to accept the decision or face a panel to contest it.

No 7&1/2 wrote:No Barnes would be different as you can change your religion with education you don't get to choose to be gay.

Really? There is nothing stopping you being gay if you want to be 7.5.

There is collapse unless you're saying conversion therapy works.

I couldn't help but notice the BBC's usual misinformed take on the story this morning. For such an 'institution' you'd think they would get the story at least relatively accurate. The Lady reporting on Folau's sacking reported that he'd tweeted " all gay people will burn in hell" which leads to gay people's take on it being he'd singled them out and them alone. The fact that alcoholics were also targeted is neither here nor there to the BBC it seems.
On another note atheists like myself are utterly terrified at being told we'll burn in hell.

There comes a tipping point where you just accept that modern rolling/click-based news is basically all on a spectrum of 'fake news'. To one degree or another. Not a nice thing to get your head around, and can make you very cynical etc., but it' easier than getting disappointed at seeing all nuance and accuracy ignored in favour of speed of upload, consistency of black/white message, and 'market share' of clicks/views.

Print journalism, altough flawed, is still a much better medium to read the news, not least because we 'know' more of the tricks/biases inherent in it, and can read more critically than online or the vague emptiness of constant 24hr TV news.

So it's been confirmed, Folau sacked.

Sad day really, for everyone. Not sure this 'solves' anything whatsoever. I don't think censorship, nor moral purgery, ever, ever, ever works to do what it sets out to do: which is to make the world 'better'.

I had to stop playing rugby because of injury and I bemoan that all the time. To think there are people who call themselves rugby fans - rather than the floating twitterati looking to jump on a moral crusade of #cancelling someone famous - actually celebrating this. That's against the ethics of the sport.

Folau was warned about his behaviour last season. He signed a code of conduct which he broke and has so far declined to speak to his employer. Not sure there is any other course of action they could have taken.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/apr/15/disrespectful-israel-folau-ruled-out-of-wallabies-selection-by-coach-cheika

Cheika, Hooper and Hansen all saying that Folau was wrong to do what he did but they all say that he is entitled to his beliefs and no-one judging him for them.

I liked Cheika's line that 'when you put on the Wallaby shirt, you are representing all Australians. we don't choose'

I think that is it in a nutshell.

Clearly he isn't entitled to his beliefs though? At least in the sense of any normal sense of entitlement: he's not allowed to broadcast them without the consequence of effectively losing his job.

Which, so be it. As LT says, there's a contract, he breached it, it's done. No way back for him - he seems devout and utterly convinced in his beliefs, and presumably deems it more important to pursue spreading his beliefs than pretend to disavow them for the sake of continuing his rugby career for another few years.

I just dislike the idea that he's had to sign such a contract, and by whom/what/where/how that contract is drawn up.

Anyone can believe what they like. They're not immune to the consequences of expressing it. That's the same in a lot of fields not just sports.

Very true. The issue is one of consequences: who's deciding that, why etc.

miaow wrote:

I just dislike the idea that he's had to sign such a contract, and by whom/what/where/how that contract is drawn up.

No-one forced him to sign that contract and following the previous incident, he would have been aware of the consequences of breaking it.

He would not have been without other options to pursue his sporting career away from rugby union either but yet he choose to sign it.


He has made his choice for his own reasons, but we should not feel sorry for him. He has made an informed decision.

No, very true. But nothing is stable - this is what I mean when I say it's a recent phenomenon. Rugby players don't, and shouldn't, have the moral fibre of what we demand from public figures where morality tends to be expected: politicis is a great one, even if the inverse is often the truth when it comes to what lies behind the public persona.

Folau has clearly found God in later life. But more than that, it's not as if rugby's values were staunchly anti-homophobic when he was growing up, nor when he was choosing/becoming a professional rugby player. So you ask why that is, what's changed etc. I think I've made the point re: pressure groups. But the key point is: playing sport should not HAVE to come with the same moral code as someone who is making laws. We tend to treat every celebrity by the same moral standard these days - that of lft-leaning politicians and bleeding-heart Hollywod celebrities, who deign to be the moral and cultural leaders of the present day. I believe there is some force going on when you ascribe a set of values on to pro sportspeople that are completely periperhal to the job. So - not forced to a sign a contract, no. But surely there's an uncomfortable grey area that comes before being 'forced', no?

As for 'we' should not feel sorry for him - forget that. Group consensus on who and what to feel sorry for is not something I'm going to do. If you have values they should be consistent, irrespective of whether you deeply disagree and/or dislike an individual. Someone finishing their playing career prematurely - especially when they were so good at the game - is something to feel sorry about.

Theres always a line in the sand with everything for everyone. We all have slightly different ones it's true and your point on who makes the choice is purely down to who has been appointed to the position of power. There's a few things those people in suits need to think about and they've all been stated on this thread. How do his team mates see it? How do the fans? How do the sponsors? Does it fit with what you're trying to 'sell as a product.

miaow wrote:

I just dislike the idea that he's had to sign such a contract, and by whom/what/where/how that contract is drawn up.

The contract was not specific to him, all ARU employees will have one, with a clause to do with bringing his employer into disrepute.

Heck most of us on here will have such clauses in our employment contracts. (Well not me as co-owner of our business, but certainly my employees, while we have signed such agreements with our clients).

Misconduct can be construed many ways, but Folau is not the first to be disciplined for non rugby matters. Not even the first to lose his job.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Theres always a line in the sand with everything for everyone. We all have slightly different ones it's true and your point on who makes the choice is purely down to who has been appointed to the position of power. There's a few things those people in suits need to think about and they've all been stated on this thread. How do his team mates see it? How do the fans? How do the sponsors? Does it fit with what you're trying to 'sell as a product.

Not anymore. And not for a long time. Social media is effectively one big amorphous mob of 'power'. If you think it's the people in suits dictating the ethics, you're very much mistaken - they're profiting, no doubt, but the drive and impetus comes from well meaning and/or destructive individuals from within academia, charities, and single issue focus/identity groups, aided by all sorts of public figures like journalits, celebrities, and given gravitas by the masses. With pressure groups, they are adept at playing the part of victimhood - wolves in sheeps' clothing - and there are some deeply unsavoury individuals and organisations with access and influence in this country: not just sexuality, but religion, finance, education, health. Everything.

I think the interesting thing is how teammates do actually see it. Someone like James Haskell, for instance, is very vocal against it, but then has he not modelled for Gay Times or something similar? The calendar stuff and 'the brand' certainly points to the fact he knows what he's 'got' and he knows a target market. Yet he's very happy to crack homophobic jokes and banter etc., even if not done maliciously etc. The kind of thing that, if a celebrity/politician were heard doing, they'd be dragged over the coals: but because he's a rugby player (and rightly so...) he doesn't get the same attention of course. On the other hand, you have those who have come out and actively supported Folau - seemingly on religious grounds. In any case, there's always a silent majority that goes unnoticed, and I do genuinely wonder what a professional team-room would be like with something like this. It's very different to the amateur game now, yet even so, you can't help but think there are some things that happen - so on tour - that would make what Folau's done pale in comparison, yet that's forgiven/forgotten for the sake of harmony. To my mind, there's a red line in a team environment but, by and large, lots of things can be forgiven if they're not totally destructive and if the player learns and improves from it. But as I say, I'd be interested to see what that pro environment is like. Presumably it's impossible to really get the truth without being in it.

LondonTiger wrote:

miaow wrote:

I just dislike the idea that he's had to sign such a contract, and by whom/what/where/how that contract is drawn up.

The contract was not specific to him, all ARU employees will have one, with a clause to do with bringing his employer into disrepute.

Heck most of us on here will have such clauses in our employment contracts. (Well not me as co-owner of our business, but certainly my employees, while we have signed such agreements with our clients).

Misconduct can be construed many ways, but Folau is not the first to be disciplined for non rugby matters. Not even the first to lose his job.

Yep, very true. But whereas, I dunno, someone like Craig Gower, for instance (look up his wikipedia if you want a refresher on his antics) has clear grounds for dismissal, the red line Folau has crossed is so fresh the paint is still drying.

If you ever had any doubts that organised religions are, mainly, complete and utter "superstitious nonsense" then follow Folau's line of reasoning.


Atheists will burn in Hell.


Because God gave them free will and they chose to exercise it by not believing in him.

How dare they!!!!

Burn, burn forever in unceasing agony for the sin of choosing what to believe.  



Also, anyone who has ever considered the concept of "justice" fairly quickly realises that for a punishment to be just it must be commensurate to the offence. So, apart from monsters such as; Hitler, Stalin, Mao, how many people actually commit offences which deserve eternal damnation? Superstitious nonsense.

Theres still an element of who is in charge miaow. As stated there s wider considerations as well of course but take a glance towards France for a relatively local owner who does things his way.

Slight difference between club and country I suppose, but corporate and/or social influence has a huge bearing on both.

Absolutely. And you're quite right that what would be accepted 50 40 30 20 and 10 years ago isn't now.

Of course. The presumption of progressivism is that's because things are getting better. It's false, but it's a 'logical' and in some ways nice thing to believe.

Luckily not in this case.

Attitudes to homosexuality, yes.

Hounding people with virtual mobs, absolutely no.

I read something other day that was both fitting but also sad: we've all done things in our lives that would see a celebrity lose their job if it became public. He who is without sin indeed...

The very notion of "celebrity" is damaging - it is a tool to infantilise the public and once the public are infantilsed they can be fed anything.

No doubt, largely true. But, inadvertently, I think you might be on Izzy's side then? Warning against the worshipping of false idols...

To think, though, somehow celebrities would get worse than the trash magazines of the 90s/0ss. But it has - and they go by the name 'influencers'. Incredible stuff, really, if you detach yourself from it all/stop caring for a moment.

The 1975 classic film Rollerball touches on the theme of sporting heros used as tools for a dystopian authoritarian state. I try to be apolitical.  The most important thing for me is free thought and free speech because without it all kinds of societal distortions can be created.  The news media tend to polarise things because the newsmedia is not a neutral player in all of this (it has to make money). Many things that are happening now are "natural" consequences of a changing environment (social media, world connectivity, globalised economies).

The player has been formally warned about his future conduct," said Saracens in a statement.

"At Saracens, we are one family, open to all, with the firm view that everyone should be treated equally with respect and humility.

"We recognise the complexity of different belief systems and understand Billy's intention was to express the word of God rather than cause offence.

"However, he made a serious error of judgement in publicly sharing his opinion, which is inconsistent with the values of the club and contravenes his contractual obligations."

Vunipola's statement, released at the same time, said: "I can see that my recent post has hurt people. My intention was never to cause suffering.

"My intention was to express my belief in the word of God. These beliefs are a source of great strength, comfort and guidance in my life.

"Anyone who knows me, knows I live with kindness and love towards ALL people."

Bit from the Saracens and Vunipola via the beeb. Glad they've confronted this quickly. Hopefully he now knows better.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Hopefully he now knows better

Knows better than what ? To express his beliefs ?

Look, I am not defending what has gone on here, but the world we live in today has gone completely nuts.

We have vegans going into restaurants and challenging people eating meat, we have gender neutral people demanding all sorts, and I woke up this morning to see climate control demonstrators blocking off London and vandalising local businesses.

We have all this mob rule, and it all stems from social media, it is just another soap box to stand on, and as soon as you get a crowd of other like minded people to follow you, then it's carnage. There must be some sort of rule.

We have an open cast mine on the outskirts of my home town, the protesters there make life really hard, they chain themselves to vehicles, they block off the access roads, they fly drones over the site, all this stops work happening, a mate of mine who worked there recently lost his job because the protesters would not let his shift on site, and the company had to give in and stop the afternoon shift. It's rediculous. No more afternoon shift, just to keep the protesters happy, 30+ people are now out of work.

What Israel Folau did was wrong. Not what he has said though. He has his own right to believe what he wants, but putting it on social media was wrong, but he should not be vilified for his beliefs. We all have our beliefs, and sometimes they are better off being kept within your own circles.

The problem today, and I see it on this forum as much as any other, that people will go out of their way to find offence with anything, and when you have like minded people who will only be too happy to jump on that bandwagon, like on here, it becomes far too much.

The punishments have been served, time to move on, but lets not get dragged down into the whole mess of who's right and who's wrong on this subject, we are currently in a war out in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq against a regime that has it's own beliefs, is this what people want as well, all out war against right wing Christians ?

What he has put on social media has cost him his job, not his beliefs. I think we can all agree that justice has been served, and we can now put this whole bitter mess to bed and move on.

Sorry for the long rant, also, if I have caused offence in what I have said, then I apologise now, I can sincerely say, no offence was meant in my post, if anyone has found anything, please PM me.

This world has gone absolutely insane.

Theological question for you.

If you need to beleive in God for God to save you at the time of the reckoning, do you also need to beleive in God to go to Hell?

PS, applaud Bristol for "it's raining men" when Billy V came trundling onto the pitch. Poetic and comedy genious at the same time!

If the rugby world wants to insist that all players conform to their current world view, that's fine, but let's drop the 'we're inclusive' and the 'we represent everybody' nonsense. They are clearly exclusive of orthodox Christian worldviews. Just stop the hypocrisy already and own it.

We've entered another puritanical phase in history replete with its own taboos and blasphemy laws (it just so happens that they have reversed the taboos and blasphemy laws of the last puritan phase)

Thats a loaded staement Mr Fish

I'd not say Rugby is fully representaive, but I would say we are not exclusive. Theres a slight but important difference.

tigertattie wrote:Theological question for you.

If you need to beleive in God for God to save you at the time of the reckoning, do you also need to beleive in God to go to Hell?

I think the theological answer would be: No. Belief in God is not a prerequisite for damnation. In fact it may very well be that not believing in God is a prerequisite for damnation (amongst others)

tigertattie wrote:Thats a loaded staement Mr Fish

I'd not say Rugby is fully representaive, but I would say we are not exclusive. Theres a slight but important difference.

It is demonstably exclusive though...people are excluded from professing certain worldviews. One might say that 'you can believe what you like, but just don't make it public', but if one really does believe something, the belief and the profession of that belief are part and parcel of the same thing...