What rubbish. You choose religion, you are not bitten by it; it’s all completely made up and you can choose to go along with it or not. You don’t have a choice when it comes to sexuality.
A religious faith informs many people’s worldview. We don’t choose our worldviews, rather it’s determined by our cultural conditioning informed by our parents, families, schooling, media etc. Most of us are not even aware of the specific worldview that governs our actions.
The freedom is how we interpret and act within those religious guidelines, and occasionally we even choose to reject a religion in which we were brought up from birth.
You’re choosing to be very black and white
Does a child who is indoctrinated into a religion choose it?
If said child repeats the rites of a religion 1000s of times during their childhood are they choosing to have those patterns ingrained?
If a child chooses to leave a religion (particularly an orthodox religion) is it just the religion they are leaving, or is the choice more about leaving family and friends?
What is the neurology of religious rites… is there a neurological reason that people who leave religion tend to return to it later in life?
What about cults?
Are some people more ‘susceptible’ to religion than others? Why?
What if the child who is born into the fundamentalist religion is gay?
They become a victim of their family’s amoral beliefs.
I say amoral because anything you believe because you are told to is amoral because you have given away your free will and moral judgement to others, not to mention abdicating your responsibility not to harm your own children, which you will be if they are gay.
Religion is always a choice, and if it is used to harm children, the moral responsibility is to your children not an imposed religion.
I stopped reading when she used the expression truth teller about Folau.
He’s telling his truth. So was margaret court. Morality in our mainstream media has shifted, in lots of parts of the country it remains as it was in the 50s/60s or even further back in some communities.
So I agree with her that he’s a truth teller, regardless of whether I agree with his ‘truth’.
Personally I thought the article was interesting and compelling and made me think about the pace of change of morality in modern times and the impact that has on conservative or orthodox followers of religion (personally I am increasingly atheistic but I try to retain some sense of wonder and an interest in spirituality).
Is mainstream morality more ‘correct’ or better than the narratives that guided humanity to where we are today? It certainly seems like it is easier for people to be themselves, which appears to be a good thing. But how do you truly know without the benefit of hindsight?
We can only guess.
Folau has chosen to live his life in a certain way according to beliefs that would have been perfectly acceptable 50 years ago and remain perfectly acceptable in some parts of the world. These are indisputable facts.
The question the article compelled me to ask is ‘what can we do to help people with entrenched belief systems like Folau to understand that the world is better when people are allowed to be themselves?’. How do we soften those belief systems when they are so deeply engrained through religious rites?
To discount his views and those with similar notions because society has shifted and we expect everyone to shift at the same speed just deepens lines of division.
Well IMO, what you truly believe/feel is rarely a choice, but acting on those beliefs/feelings is always a choice.
The angry mob used to attack homosexuals, and still does in some parts of this country.
Now the angry mob attacks a person for expressing a mainstream view taught within this nation’s dominant religious institution.
Not much has changed.
The churches that teach this rubbish are the source of the problem, yet they escape without scrutiny. That is the power of religious belief. Unfortunately, we can’t just choose to get rid of them.
Assange still hasn’t been allowed a visit from his lawyers and it’s been what? Almost two weeks since his arrest? Flagrant abuse of process and the law by the Brits
Are you sure about that ?
Cannot find any reference and any outrage about this.
Yep, I stopped there as well. It was already pretty stupid.
Certainly if someone is brainwashed from birth, it is far less of a choice. It is still not the same as a biological slant. And to then put that brainwashing on a pedestal as a good thing, is ridiculous. Which that article tried to do.
It is either a choice, in which case he is making his decisions and taking a stance against gays, or it is brainwashing and he should be pitied and given the opportunity to overcome it. You can’t have a bit of option (a) and a bit of option (b) to try and justify his stance.
I think there is a significant difference to the angry mobs that literally attacked and bashed/killed homosexuals, and people now saying we’re drawing a line and if you wish to attack these groups even verbally/with prose, we will not condone it or associate with you.
I’m not justifying his stance which I think is ridiculous, I’m exploring the author of that article’s stance that his particular views might not be a ‘choice’ per se.
I agree with her
In terms of how you deal with his stance you can a) silence him and send all like him underground to speak in hush tones and develop a common enemy or b) challenge his views in a public fashion and demonstrate how ridiculous they are. I prefer b) personally.
Imagine if instead of sacking Falou RA had have gotten him to front up to a public debate with someone with half a brain and some skin in the game. By all means share your views, but be prepared to be made look like a ■■■■ in trying to defend them.
Wikileaks has very recently confirmed that Assange has access to his lawyers, now speaking with them regularly and is expected to meet with them person to person shortly. The confusion may have arisen about person to person contact, but going by the Wikileaks phrasing, he may have had quite limited contact (which seems unusual, particularly given the gravity of the US extradition request and the doubt whether the Swedish request still stands)
According to his mother who is very active on Twitter. As @bigallan just noted, it looks like he’s had a visit now from his lawyers.
had a mate tell me that the US let assange get the info on Hillary clinton to discredit her. That he was a p a w n.
How does that tin foil hat theory stick up?
Given now they are stuck with Trump.
Given 50 weeks for skipping bail, twice as much as the minimum sentencing guidelines.
Farking lol - the agenda against him is so obvious. There’s no way he’s going to receive a fair extradition hearing. He’s as good as gone to the U.S.
Makes me ■■■■■■■ sick.
25 for skipping bail.
25 for being narcissistic.
Which is a crime, apparently.
To be fair.
He did kind of skip bail in a big way.
I mean it wasn’t just some random thug hiding out at his grandmas. He went and lived in a foreign embassy for a decade.
Possibility of parole if he stops narcissism.
His lawyer referred to him as a publisher, probably to stop all those Blitz arguments whether he is a journalist. In any event First Amendment refers to freedom of the press.
Extradition proceedings could take years, the US has not yet provided all of the necessary documentation.
An Iranian woman has been in an Adelaide jail for two years, contesting a US extradition request for exporting US dual use technology to Iran via a Malaysian company. Would not be surprised if Australia tipped off the US under the Wassenaar monitoring arrangement for military use goods.