Folau: The Never Ending Story
Lest people think I might be obsessed with Folau, they need to understand that it is not me who is obsessed, but his many enemies who will just NOT stop their ongoing persecution of him. The folks at GoFundMe thought they had won by pulling his funding campaign, only to find that twice as much was raised in a third of the time with the ACL funding campaign. Ha!
And now the lunar left is trying to say that the ACL is violating charity laws. Also, the ANZ bank has targeted Maria Folau for not hating on her husband. See these two pieces for more on this insanity:
These Folau-haters and rabid misotheists simply will NOT stop their campaign of terror against the Christian rugby player. The haters are gonna keep on hating. They just can’t stop. So obsessed are they with crucifying Folau and any others like him that they will stop at nothing.
And as long as they continue this reign of terror, I will keep writing and seek to offer a differing point of view. Let me mention a few other commentators on this, and then turn once again to all those compromised and clueless Christian critics.
Non-Christian politician Mark Latham continues to make incisive comments on all this. I have quoted him before and will continue to do so. Consider just one of his recent tweets:
We are all Folau:
Those sacked by the elites for their genuine beliefs
Those afraid to speak due to PC
Those afraid to mention their Christianity and views on SSM
Those subject to new workplace Feudalism where bosses think they own employees’ private lives, words and opinions.
Yes he nails it. We are all Folau and we will all suffer greatly if we sit back and allow him to take all the heat. He is simply representing us, and we need to support him. Another non-Christian, Janet Albrechtsen has also penned a good column and is worth quoting from. She begins:
The treatment of Israel Folau is a solid-gold lesson in how to create a martyr. From Rugby Australia to GoFundMe, censors have turned a small dispute with Folau into a big one about us. Rugby Australia boss Raelene Castle started from a sensible premise when she said diverse views should be respected. In a liberal democracy, we have the freedom to speak, to think for ourselves too, to freely worship different religions and freely gather together also.
Then, money talked. Qantas can direct its sponsorship money wherever it chooses. That is the deal in a free country, too. When Castle chose money, rather than resisting Qantas and making the case that rugby players have the right to express different views, she started the process of making Folau a martyr for a bigger cause than himself.
The politicisation of corporate Australia, with chief executives virtue signalling about social causes at shareholder expense, is bad enough. When sport goes the same way, watch the backlash from grassroots Australians. This is not some harmless exercise designed to make the sporting field more civil. The sporting censors are stifling basic freedoms, be it Folau expressing his religious beliefs about homosexuals, adulterers and thieves, or the right of a bloke watching an AFL match to direct a few choice words at an umpire.
And she concludes:
GoFundMe’s sham inclusivity policy excludes many millions of people who share Folau’s Christian beliefs. The actions of the crowdfunding site are both morally hypocritical and potentially contract-breaking. Talk about an own goal. Folau has now raised much, much more than $700,000 in 24-hours through a fund set up by the Australian Christian Lobby. Quiet Australians standing up again.
Which is why the Prime Minister should have stood up for Folau on Monday, instead of trying to handball the issue away. Morrison, a religious man, need not worry about critics coming after him for defending fundamental values. They will come for him, just as they accused John Howard of harnessing the votes of social conservatives. The attacks were a vote winner for Howard among mainstream Australians.
Speaking for quiet Australians, Morrison could ask whether we are back in the Dark Ages where people are persecuted for religious beliefs by self-appointed cultural dietitians, without recourse to the law. The legal system and GoFundMe have been used for far worse than testing the rights of a man to speak publicly about his religious beliefs. Disagreeing with Folau is all the more reason to defend his right to speak freely. After all, defending people you agree with is no test of a genuine commitment to this most basic human right in a liberal democracy.
Christian armchair critics – again
Yes quite right. But it is the condemnation coming from Christian Pharisees that really bothers me. Plenty of folks are condemning Folau, claiming he is just a greedy money grabber, and he does not need a funding campaign. We expect the secular left to say dumb things like this, but sadly too many people claiming to be Christians are parroting this same nonsense.
I have dealt with heaps of these folks this week. It gets rather tiring to keep having to counter their fuzzy thinking and sloppy moralising. They stand in judgment over Folau, acting as judge, jury and executioner. Yet why do I suspect that most of these carnal critics would be the first to scream. “It is wrong to judge people!”? The hypocrisy is palpable.
Let me once again address their dodgy and off-base criticisms. One person who has written a lot of this on the social media, challenging me on this, is much more fair and balanced than most, So let me simply offer here my reply to him:
Thanks **** but respectfully, I am not so sure that you understand the battle to be honest. You continue to see things amiss here. First of all, do you have Godlike abilities? Are you omniscient? How in the world can any of Folau’s critics know anything with certainty about his financial situation? How can they know how much he gives away? How can they know what he may have done with his earnings? And how can they know what he has or has not done to put his own money (and time and career and reputation) into this battle? I am amazed that Christians are sitting in judgment on their brother here, claiming all sorts of inside knowledge that only God can have.
And how in the world do you know what the donors are doing with all their money? I gave to Folau. Do you know about all my other giving? Have you got inside knowledge that convinces you that I never gave to other persecuted Christians? How odd! Guess what: I have and I do give to other lesser known Christians. As would have thousands of these donors. So you are judging a whole group of people when you have absolutely no basis for doing so. That is hardly a Christian thing to do. It is up to God – not to armchair critics – what they do with their money, who they support, and what causes they give to. They are answerable to God for this, not the critics who know nothing about them.
And if some people wrongly ask for money, or misuse the funds they get, then God will judge them – and we can too. You offer one story of misused funding, but then you want to tar and feather everyone. Again, that is not very charitable or helpful. Sure, all Christians need to be wise and discerning as to who they give to, and what causes they support. I have often written about that, as in this piece: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2012/06/16/do-you-know-where-your-money-is-going/
And if Folau gets more attention and therefore more funding than someone like me, so what? That makes perfect sense: countless millions of people know about Folau, and so millions of people are willing to give to his cause. Good on them. Hardly anyone knows about me, so I would not expect millions of people to donate if I were in a similar position. And every single one donating has done so willingly. They WANT to give – and for very good reason. They know that they are Folau. They identify and stand in solidarity with him. They KNOW what is at stake here, and they KNOW they will be next, so they gladly give, hoping Folau will have a big win over the diabolical Rugby Australia, Qantas, and the other rainbow corporate powers.
Also, all the money the ACL receives is being put into a special fund, only reserved for the massively expensive legal battles with Rugby Australia which has heaps of money, including $28.4 million of taxpayer funding. If there is money left, it will presumably be used for other such legal cases – maybe when I am jailed by the PC thought police. I will be so glad that fund is available, and I will praise God for all those wonderful donors. So what we have here are tens of thousands of Christians donating their hard-earned cash because they know what is at stake and they see the vital importance of getting involved. How any Christians can sit in judgment on them absolutely staggers me to be honest.
And one popular Christian radio host has just come out with an appallingly bad comment on all this on the social media. She seems to think we either stand for religious freedom or help the poor. Um, duh – why in the world can’t Christians do both? Here is what this gal said:
$1.5 million dollars has been raised by the Australian Christian Lobby for a multi millionaire Lamborghini driving football star. Thoughts. Every 15 seconds a child dies in the developing world. 5.4 million children under the age of 5 die every year, many from preventable issues. 2.5 million of those children died within the first month of their little lives. I can’t stop thinking about how many babies we could save with that $1.5 Million dollars. Perhaps Israel could pay his own fees by selling one of his many multi million dollar homes, and the ACL could save these children’s lives instead.
I keep picturing a mother in Africa holding out her starving baby to me and begging me for help. And then picturing a multi millionaire standing in front of me asking me to pay his court bills because he broke a contract. I know what Jesus would call me to do. Without a doubt. I just weep for this mad mad world. It just all sucks.
*Opens bible and reads about helping the poor and oppressed. ” ‘I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me.’
Oh good grief. Puh-leeese. This is what I wrote in response, but was not able to post on her page:
Sadly you completely miss the point Lucy. Folau was unfairly fired from his job, losing his income, his career, and his reputation. He now has a legal defence fight of $3 million. If you were booted from your job because of discrimination, you would certainly appreciate it if people volunteered to help with your legal fees. Folau is representing all of us. If he loses we all lose. Freedom of religion is very important, and it must be fought for before it is too late. And these people are freely giving to him because they know how important this is, and they know that they could well be next in this persecution. And how in the world do you know if all these supporters, and Folau himself, are not giving plenty away to poor people as well? You simply come across as another Pharisee here as you judge your brothers and sisters in Christ. I expect the Christ-haters to say foolish stuff like this, but not those claiming to be followers of Jesus Christ.
BTW, nearly $2 million has already been raised in less than two days! Take that Rugby Australia! Take that GoFundMe, and Qantas, and ANZ, and all the other virtue-signalling corporate tyrants. The people have had a gutful of this madness and the Big Business rainbow repression. They have spoken with their wallets. Well done Australia.
The link is here: https://www.acl.org.au/donate_izzy
68 Replies to “Folau: The Never Ending Story”
This is now going international now. LifeSiteNews has been covering this from the start. here is their latest article, titled ‘Donations to Christian rugby star’s legal costs soar to over $1.5 million after GoFundMe cancels page’
There is a need to honestly examine LGBTQ+ issues. A possible start – homosexual health and the debatable claim that, ‘homophobia’ is the primary reason for the high level of gay-suicide. Refer:
Bill brings up an excellent point here that I hope many visitors to his have not missed:
According to their own annual report Rugby Australia has been given over $28.4m of taxpayer (ie our) money over the last two years according to their own annual report: https://issuu.com/australianrugbyunion/docs/2018_annual_report_web
So it would seem that for everyone who has donated towards the Folau defence fund for free speech, myself included, at one level we have all indirectly been forced to fund RA’s persecution of Folau’s personal opinion’s.
How does this not constitute a case of the Scott Morrison government being at some level complicit in funding Rugby Australia’s attempt to defend through the court system – potentially creating a legal case precedent – their actions and their claim of right to breach contract with an employee due to their not liking that employees religious opinions/or social media posts of religious texts?
Does Scott Morrison’s Liberal government think the money I earn in exchange for my labour (which is then taken from me to spend at their discretion) should be spent for the purposes of funding religious discrimination and the right to breach contract because one signatory to a contract chooses to be offended by the other signatories personal opinion?
To put it simply, why does Scott Morrison and his government insist on making me pay Rugby Australia to persecute Christian employees whilst I must use what his tax agents leave over to help pay to protect Christian employees?
Any freedom loving person, religious or otherwise, ought to contact the PM over this issue. He can be contacted here: https://www.pm.gov.au/contact-your-pm
Alternatively you can write him at:
The Hon Scott Morrison MP
CANBERRA ACT 2600
He proclaimed loudly through the last election campaign as being an out and proud Christian and yet appears, like Pontius Pilate, to have washed his hands on this issue specifically and by extension religious liberty. He should be held to account by both the Christian community and all freedom loving people. Perhaps he does mean what he says, but currently the jury is still out…
Hi Bill. Well, Simon Longstaff, ABC news runs with the lame argument comparing religious schools being able to select [discriminate] employees based on their religious belief, therefore RA should also. Good grief! This made it past the editor! It is only getting worse by the minute, what is most irritating is the fact we al all paying for this nonsense.
To that radio commentator I would say, what ignorant insouciance!
I recall a Biblical statement about selling expensive perfume to give to the poor. It was made by a certain thief and traitor who later hanged himself out of remorse.
Yes exactly right John – great point. Let’s remind these folks just what the text says (John 12:4-8):
Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.” He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it. “Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.” (John 12:4-8)
Why in the world can’t Christians give to both if they want? Why do these SJWs foolishly force us to choose one or the other? Away with you Christian Pharisees! You are simply siding with Judas and his father the devil here!
Did anyone hear Ray Hadley today?
He’s going after Izzy and Eni Folau’s friend Ps. Gino Jennings and giving him the full vilification treatment for this: https://youtu.be/VsV0o9h37l8
To those complaining about Izzy’s supposed wealth I would say we know very little about his finances.
Does he really have eight properties and expensive car/s? We only have hateful media reports.
Even if he did, I first think of wise stewardship and superannuation funds – which cannot be used for his legal defence.
And there are other Christians who have had to sell up everything to defend themselves. One series of legal attacks was deliberately aimed at bankrupting him.
As Bill says, this is about using the legal system and drawing on the support of fellow believers to uphold the Truth.
Just as Paul the apostle did.
Bill, how can you be accused of obsessing over Folau? It’s the MSM that simply can’t look away. Today news.com.au has 2 headline articles on the subject, a couple more articles or videos way down the page, and something like 7 more links in the Most Read section! I also thought I saw another article earlier but it seems to have vanished off the main page. Now if you started churning out 3 or 4 Folau articles each day … 😀
As for Folau being a greedy money grabber, that he doesn’t need the funds, those are 2 separate allegations. It’s true that Folau may not need the funds – he may have saved\invested his earnings rather than given most of them to his church, wider family, and the government, but his fight is also our fight, assuming we believe in religious liberty, free speech, equality, and other such basic human rights. If it’s our fight too then doesn’t it make sense for us to contribute something? (No I’ve not yet contributed financially but it’s something I am considering, as is other family). As for Folau being a greedy money grabber, that only holds true if he takes the money and runs. What grounds do folk have for making such an accusation? Sadly Jesus had His Pharisees and we seem to have ours.
As for radio hostess Lucy, she seems to be missing the fact that without religious liberty our capacity to help the poor is greatly diminished even abolished. Think how much good even 10% of Folau’s earnings would do for the poor, but because of the intolerance of Qantas and the ARU he can no longer provide those funds. Or consider Madeline the Christian young lady sacked back in 2017 because she posted support for marriage. What aid can she give the poor without a job? Indeed without religious liberty the only way Christian can keep their jobs is by staying in the closet, and in an environment of extreme intolerance caring for the poor in the developing world will not be an option. The poor will always be with us, religious liberty will not.
Yes amen to all that Andrew.
In addition to John’s above comment, no Australian, whether they be an individual of means or not, should have to spend 1cent defending their religious, speech, and thought freedoms!!
Quite right Joel.
Thanks guys. My Facebook friend Vicky Free has just been written up in the press about her support of Izzy. It is a terrific article. Please have a read. Well done Vicky!!
As I read the comments, a picture began to form in my mind. I saw several Christian soldiers with their rifles crouching behind their defenses.
On the other side were the God and Christian haters, trying to break through the Christian defenses which were made of…..money.
The sign on the wall said, “The more you attack us the higher the defense wall gets so don’t blame us, blames yourself for not seeing the obvious.”
Thank you Joel for providing the link to the PM’s office. I have just written him asking him, as a fellow follower of Jesus Christ, to put a stop to this madness, since RA is funded to a large extent by taxpayers’ dollars, and to declare his support for Israel’s right to proclaim his faith publicly.
I see the haters won’t give up. Now they are attempting to harass Israel’s wife, Maria, although ANZ seems to be trying to do a hasty, and none too successful, backflip now they realise how angry the public is. But more worrying is the Australian Charities and Not for Profit Watchdog making noises about whether or no ACL has breached their rules and regulations. When a government organization tries to close down freedom of expression (in the form of voluntary donations) we are truly in a parlous state in our society. This must not be allowed to happen.
Well done Barbara!
The principles of Freedom of Conscience and Personal Responsibility (stewardship) are very relevant here. If people feel the Folau issue is about something more than mere Contract Law, that it is really about Religious Freedom from over-reaching employment conditions or policies, then they will be more inclined to support Folau’s legal fighting fund.
Cries of “the money should go to the poor” are inconsistent and arbitrary. Would they be heard if some had wanted to support some other, more politically correct cause?
Yes quite right Ian.
Dear Bill, your passionate rallying call rouses and inspires – God bless you!
Scott Morrison was very weak on on Izzy during the election.
Very interesting point, Bill, about the “$28.4 million of taxpayer funding.” Surely if those people who criticize Israel Folau’s supporters, because they claim the money should be used for the poor, then they should be overwhelmingly and vehemently opposed to so much government money being given to Rugby Australia and not the poor. How is it they are not protesting Qantas supporting Rugby Australia and not the poor? Also how is it they are not protesting a corporate boss misusing company funds to further his own personal agenda instead of what he is meant to be doing with corporate funds?
Their hypocrisy and deceit, however, is seen to be absolutely profound. In a perfect world we would not need to spend money on the military nor the courts nor police nor many other things but if we want freedom in this world the price has to be paid. Many have had to pay a much higher price.
Joh 12:5 Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?
Joh 12:6 He said this, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief and held the moneybag and carried the things put in.
Likewise these people are wicked thieves who are taking public money and supporting bigoted organizations such as the ABC and Rugby Australia, not to mention government supported abortion. How is it we are forced to give money to organizations that fight against both God and our hard earned rights? How is it we now have government supported organizations which actively and ceaselessly oppose basic human rights?
The reason is very clear to me. As I have said from the very beginning, the claimed homosexual rights is a lie and in complete and direct opposition to real human rights, which are in fact, substantially based on the biological family. I hope there are more people, both claimed Christians and non-Christians, who are starting to wake up to this fact. These claimed rights are in direct opposition to free speech rights, people’s right to employment, property rights, parental rights and children’s rights, just for starters.
We were told we had to give up our property rights so that homosexuals could be accommodated and make a living, which in itself was a lie and opposed to both morality and basic human rights and now, I hope, that lie is starting to be exposed, to the otherwise blind, for what it really is. No person who stands on the truth will ever be compelled to overcome their free will support for that truth to support immoral behavior.
The scriptures tell us not only will God’s people be willing to give up their living to not blaspheme God, they will also be willing to give up their earthly lives.
Now The Australian reports that HCF, a NZ sponsor of netball NZ, criticises Maria “There is no place in our society for discrimination of any kind, including on the basis of gender, religious belief, age, race or sexual orientation.” As a member of HCF, I will write to it about its own discrimination based on such criticism of Maria’s religious belief.
Exactly Graham! These guys are so far down the rabbit hole that they cannot see their own blatant and disgusting hypocrisy and double standards!
Michael Taouk, I know! That’s one reason I wrote (respectfully) to try to make him see that if he spoke out like the Christian leader we hope he is, he would have the backbone and courage to do so. We shall see! This is the letter I sent:
Dear Mr. Morrison,
I am a supporter of yours, and a fellow follower of Jesus Christ. So far I have been very proud of how you have represented us, the “quiet Australians”. However, I feel the time has come for you to step up and address the madness that is happening in the country right now over the (I believe) unfair and unwarranted sacking of Israel Folau.
People have rightly recognized this as a frontal attack in freedom of speech, and of religious expression in particular, and they are very concerned. The Politically Correct Brigade has far overreached itself this time, and things are really getting out of control. Now there are efforts to embroil his wife, the Australian Christian Lobby and who knows who is next? GoFund
Me’s axing of the fundraising web page was the last straw. Now we are being told who , or whar cause, we can be allowed to support. In other words, how we can spend our own money.
Since Rugby Australia has received, as reported, $28.4million taxpayers’ dollars, on behalf of those taxpayers (of whom I am one) I implore you to intervene, put a sop to RA’s victimization of their very best player, and stand up to the howling masses by declaring your support for a man who has been brave enough to pronounce his beliefs and his love and concern for his fellow man.
Barbara A. Dunstan
I hate to say this but it’s starting to look like the fight is slowly turning ugly. I hope common sense prevails soon.
Waiting for Prime Minister Scott Morrison to make a stand in this saga. He professed to be a Christian at the last election, now comes the time to show it! This is about freedom of speech for all Christians.
Roughly 3 hours ago news.com.au started a poll entitled ‘Tell us where you stand on Israel Folau’: https://www.news.com.au/sport/sports-life/poll-tell-us-where-you-stand-on-israel-folau/news-story/95f75461fbb7bae32c41aefbe042e2f0
I answered earlier in the day – perhaps 5PM or so, but the percentages seem to be fairly stable. I’ve included updated numbers as of 6:39PM in (brackets) where different so folk can see shifts should they be interested in contributing\checking results.
Should Folau have been sacked?
32,227 votes (62,542)
55% Yes (54%)
44% No (45%)
Should Folau have self-funded his legal case?
29,090 votes (56,756)
67% Yes (66%)
32% No (33%)
Did you donate?
34,221 votes (54,845)
6% I donate to a different cause
Should Folau’s GoFundMe campaign have been removed?
14,172 votes (42,100)
55% Yes (54%)
44% No (45%)
Should Folau’s wife face sanctions?
27,811 votes (54,847)
Do you worry about religious freedom?
26,914 votes (55,565)
34% Yes (35%)
34% I’m not religious (33%)
Do you support homosexual rights?
27,145 votes (53,610)
81% Yes (80%)
18% No (19%)
Has Australia become too politically correct?
27,728 votes (54,883)
69% Yes (70%)
30% No (29%)
Percentages have only shifted 1% either direction at most with responses doubling or even tripling in some cases. Some of the questions and answers are interesting however.
Despite homosexual rights not being defined (does it mean the right to life and liberty, or the right to dictate the acts, expression and thoughtlife of each and every individual?) an unequivocal majority support them. At the same time almost three-quarters of Australians think the country is too politically correct. How does this follow? The majority support a politically correct agenda, but object to political correctness.
More alarming IMHO are the 1st, 4th and 6th questions. Roughly 55% of those answering think that it was right to fire Folau and to remove his campaign from GayFundMe. At the same time ONLY 35% of those answering think there is cause to worry about religious freedom. With results like that it appears that a majority on Australians – at least those voting in this poll, support the persecution of Christians. Folau was fired because of his faith which offended a privileged part of society – Joyce and other militants in the LGBT movement, and prevented from raising funds to challenge this assault on religious freedom by a corporation that again favours the LGBT agenda. Barely a third of those responding saw a concern to be worried about religious freedom, and critically a third said they’re not religious. Those who identify as non-religious generally support LGBT demands and do not comprehend the idea that people identify as Christian. It is likely that they will see lifestyle choice as a fixed and fundamental part of identity – except where it’s fixed as fluid e.g. gender, and deny that faith can be the fundamental part of anyone’s identity. I suspect they also won’t care that Christians are the most persecuted group on the planet nor see any connection.
The poll provides interesting figures, but I fear for Australia’s future.
PM Morrison is too silent on all this. So much for his so called conviction on religious freedom and Christian values.
Thank you for keeping the pressure up for us all (and Issy of course).
I don’t know how popular what I am about to ask is going to be, but here goes:
Would it be time also to call out and name some of the “so-called Christian” traitors, so we can all better understand where the line really is?
Our “friend” Mr Bower from Gosford Anglican church is a very clear opponent to the Truth. But what about the more subtle peddlers of fake Christianity in our community?
You mention a particular name of a female “Christian radio host”, which makes me wonder if it is the same “Christian” radio station I am thinking of. Would it be fair to mention the person and their “Christian” radio station?
If this is a radio station that supports these fake views, and is a radio station that takes donations from Christians, would it not be appropriated to call them out?
Thanks Peter. Yes I hear you. I think there is a fine line here. Folks like Bower are complete and utter unrepentant apostates and heretics. They MUST be called out or we risk trashing the gospel. However, some others may not be rank apostates, but are perhaps clueless, or ignorant, or uninformed, or undiscerning, or trendy, etc. They need prayer and they need to get back to Scripture. They also need to think clearly. Thus in this case I did not fully name the person, as a small act of grace, in the hopes that they are humble, teachable, and are willing to learn and grow. I hope this is the case, and maybe we can win them over. So that is how I try to operate here. I may not always get it right, so pray for me that I am wise and discerning in all this.
And I discuss this further here: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2015/03/29/on-naming-names/
Thanks guys. And $2 million has just been raised in 2 days! We support you Izzy!
Andrew S Mason
Jun 26, 2019 at 7:09 pm
You reported that News Ltd has an online poll, noting there are (a massive / dubious?) 60,000 voters in three hours.
I would be very, very sceptical of the results of any online poll.
You might look at some techniques available to those who want to rig online polls.
“A votebot is a type of Internet bot that aims to vote automatically in online polls, often in a malicious manner”.
4 more techniques under ‘See also’
Thanks Bill. Appreciate your writing. Enjoyed reading the Janet Albrechtsen quotes. (I thought she was a Christian.) Recently I said, this is turning into something bigger than Ben-Hur. May the Lord use this. I have prayed for Israel Folau. The pressures must be great for him. Seems like a call to continue praying for unity among God’s people and for other Christians involved to make the most in seeking to awaken others, and to withstand this devilish agenda.
Are the Christain Democrats still online?
I can’t find them
Thanks Terrence. Do you mean the Christian Democratic Party?
BTW. That above News Ltd online poll comes from the same precision-election-result-predicting Newspoll organisation.
https://youtu.be/ovLU1JiPpiM <- it’s a pity that agnostic Andrew Bolt has to speak up on this issue but self-proclaimed Christian PM ScoMo is missing in action.
Rugby Australia was handed $2.8m by ScoMo and yet we the people have now surpassed $2m in donations for the cause of liberty
Yes quite so Joel.
We have to understand that the likelihood of a Christian who is not a hypocrite ever becoming a leader of a nation these days is virtually zero. So don’t presume PM Morrison will deliver the goods. We still ought to hope and pray he will but don’t be surprised he turns out to be just another lukewarm Christian with some conviction but not enough to support causes like that of Israel Folau and stop supporting others that are directly or indirectly associated with evil. It’s just the way it is and scripture contains many examples of this.
To John Miller, thank you for your input here. Also many many time in other writings by Bill. I just cast my vote purely out of interest to see where its ’at’. There is definitely an agenda going on – all other means have been stymied by divine intervention. Not sure what will happen with this ‘ poll ‘.
#istandwithizzy & #istandwithpeterkillin
Both are victims of the gaystapo!
I would like to comment on my endeavour to help Israel Falou but would ask if you do not place my name on the bottom as the people I spoke with certainly will know who I’m referring to.
I sent my first link from your The haters & bigots still after Falou story on Monday at 8.30 to my entire phone list.
Later that day I sent a greeting and covering letter of appeal, despite their religious persuasion.
I received five responses one from a Hindu couple in support, only one negative, but a deafening silence from most!
I left out my work place as I see them every day and felt I could talk to them. I live in a cocoon really and in a very conservative district. All six of my work colleagues and my employer, were againt Falou and supported his sacking and felt he should fund his own battle. I have to say for people I believed were intelligent, well read and community minded, I was totally gob-smacked!
So the survey by newspolls will appeal to a lot of news paper reading TV viewers.
People who come from a Christian beginnings may be our most difficult to convince
Please withhold my name.
Thanks Bill. Seems even Gillian Triggs has come out in support of Folau. Knock me over with a feather. Another counter to the ‘donating to a rich man’ argument is, as they say, money speaks. Signing a petition – which I also did – is one thing, but when people start stumping up with cold hard cash it demonstrates a clear sense of purpose and intent and sends a much colder and more powerful message.
I too doubled my original intended donation.
Wikipedia – Rugby Australia:
Not everyone who says, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of God who is in heaven will enter.
By their fruits we will know them.
Houston we got a problem.
Wow this is fantastic!
It sure is Kristi.
Why on earth is the government providing money to Rugby Australia, even if it’s behaviour were all above board? Since when is it the responsibility of the Government to finance sporting bodies, however worthy?
Malcolm Smith makes an excellent point!!
Rather than 150,656 voters, possibly primarily just one geek in his bedroom.
Very interesting link from Jonathan Waite to the ABC’s article written by a fairly ignorant person (Dr Simon Longstaff AO) from what they call the “Ethics Centre” – an obviously Orwellian name.
Firstly the title (which may or may not be his – it was likely added by the ABC) claims the issue is not about freedom of religion. Seriously? Dr. Longstaff then goes on to characterize the paraphrased biblical text as “infamous” before attempting to portray himself as being even handed over this matter, which, of course, he obviously is not.
In typical ABC style, after putting up what they think will be a good front to appear even handed, the article then concludes basically saying Israel still has his freedom of religion and still has his public platform so where is the problem? Seriously?
What this slimy, low-life, disgusting piece of immoral filth (Dr. Longstaff) does not consider is that Rugby Australia and the Rugby League have a duopoly on Rugby in this nation. Israel did not get to his current position through lack of hard work and effort in his chosen field. How would this disgusting piece of filth (Dr Longstaff) consider his own position if, after years of work and study, he was excluded from his own chosen career? I wonder whether he would consider that unethical?
This is not a hypothetical question and is not just about Rugby. We have seen large numbers of people excluded from their own chosen career or heavily invested business not only for opposing sexual immorality and deviancy but also those who oppose euthanasia, abortion or having a child denied a mother or father.
I seriously don’t think Dr Longstaff AO would know ethics if he fell over it and, very clearly, he is so completely and utterly blind that this is a very real possibility.
We are to remember that our enemies are not flesh and blood as recorded in the Word of God.
(Read Ephesians 6: 10 – 20)
Ephesians 6: 10 says, Be strong in the Lord and in the Power of HIS might…………..etc
Ephesians 6: 12 says, For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities against powers, against the rulers of darkness of the world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (KJV)
Also, Psalm 37 is full of encouragement.
We are to stand on the promises of God our Saviour.
Ephesians 6 : 23 -24 . Peace to the brethren and Love with Faith from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
24. Grace be with all them that Love our Lord Jesus Christ in Sincerity. Amen. (KJV)
Further to the above and Folau apparently ‘losing’ in an opinion poll. If you want more information on how people can rig / cheat, online & internet polls, you might check this out:
1.9 million results
I have opposed Rugby Australia’s sacking of Israel Folau and donated to the ACL fund for him. Today I was watching an interview with David Marr and another man on the ABC. David Marr supported Rugby Australia’s action. He then asked if it would be any different if an Anglican School sacked say, a chemistry teacher who said on social media that he didn’t believe in God? Thus David contended that the same laws should apply to everyone.
It seems hypothetical because the teacher’s spiritual views would’ve been covered in the initial interview before appointment.
It seemed to be a curly question. Any helpful insights Bill?
Thanks Graham. We simply call his bluff. Marr would be the first one to insist that an Anglican school should NOT have the right to sack an atheist teacher. And it is apples and oranges anyway. There is nothing in Folau’s contract saying he must renounce his Christian faith. He was employed to be a good rugby player, and that he was. His contract did not talk about personal religious beliefs.
If this were a case of Anglican Rugby, and Israel Folau was required to sign a statement of faith in order to be employed as a player on the Anglican Rugby team because Anglicans wanted to attend a Rugby match played only by anglicans with only Anglican spectators watching, and then, despite his contractual agreement, Folau tweeted that he didn’t believe in the 39 Articles of Religion and that “there is no other god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet” then Marr’s analogy would work. But Marr is not a deeply reflective individual, nor has he ever been, and due to his inability to wade beyond the shallow puddles of his intellect don’t be surprised that he is incapable of a) creating a meaningful analogy that might support his bigotry; nor b) capable at grasping why his hypothetical story is not analogous to the Israel Folau matter in anyway.
Graham, either the hypothetical chemistry teacher would have been asked to discuss his faith in application – and likely in his interview, or else the school wouldn’t care. If the school was Christian then the teacher would be bound by the school’s ethos and so the post would show a divide between what the school expects of staff and what that teacher actually is. If the school is Anglican but not Christian – your classic non-religious elite private school for instance, then religion wouldn’t really be part of the school’s ethos and thus the post wouldn’t be an issue.
Personally I think a hypothetical LGBT teacher would be more of an emotive example, however activists who support the sacking of Folau are clear they believe that Christian schools should not have the right to fire or even refuse to hire staff who violate their ethos. They do not believe rules should apply equally. They especially don’t think that religious schools and other organisations with unique cultures, needs, and values, should be permitted to hire and fire in accordance with their ethos.
Neither of these examples parallel the Folau case however. Folau was employed to play rugby and he played it very well. In his capacity as a private citizen however he expressed his Christian identity – posting paraphrases of Bible passages and other such things. One post offended a uniquely privileged group within Australian society and they demanded his head. Rugby Australia decided that rather than risk sponsorship dollars they’d fire their star player for his religious expression, then went about arranging it. In the hypothetical examples you’re dealing with a teacher who violates the school’s ethos, who should never have been employed. Unless Rugby Australia is an explicitly pro-LGBT anti-Christian organisation, which shouldn’t be the case since it receives taxpayer funds, I fail to see how it can argue that Folau’s post violates their ethos, though it’s easy to argue that it did threaten their sponsorship given this is controlled by LGBTists. Given how many Australians support Folau’s right to post as he did and keep his job, Rugby Australia’s decision to fire Folau is the problem, not the post which allegedly started the avalanche.
Does this, and the posts above, help clarify things Graham? 🙂
Must watch and share – the Israel Folau and Alan Jones interview:
Thanks Bill, Joel and Andrew. Your comments have clarified the difference and given me some ammunition if needed.
The taxonomies homosexual or heterosexual who are putatively biologically determined and thus immutable has enabled the Gay lobby to claim that offending a homosexual is tantamount to racism.
The division of the human race into types based upon how they think, feel and behave sexually, rather than upon immutable, genetic characteristics such as the colour of skin, facial features or bone structures – was created by two gay activists, Carl Henrich Ulrichs and Carl Maria Kertbeny in 1867. It is they who coined the false taxonomies, homosexual and heterosexual.
The homosexual was seen to be an evolutionary development on the heterosexual, similar to the German Aryan super race being a further development on all other races. They exist only within the minds of the public who have been brainwashed into believing such myths, in same way they have been brainwashed into believing we evolve from fish.
Notwithstanding the attempt to give the sodomite some kind of scientific pedigree and therefore justification for his existence, during the first half of the twentieth century his sexual addictions were deemed to be a mental disorder, homophilia – for which all manner of treatments were prescribed – such as electric shock treatment, chemical castration, and psychiatry. It is true that straight people or heterosexuals as they have also become categorised are also capable of romantic madness, or irresistible infatuation. This could be called a heterophilia, but no electric shock treatment or psychiatric treatment has ever been applied to them.
The truth is that such attractions do not exist as diagnosable biological and medical conditions. There are only men and women who are capable of a whole raft of unnatural and abnormal sexual perversions. The APA has diagnosed over 500 sexual attractions., or paraphilias. They include abasiophilia, acrotomophilia, anthropophagolagnia, asphyxiophilia, coprophilia, eproctophilia, gerontophilia, necrophilia, objectophilia, paedophilia, urophilia, vorarephilia and zoophilia etc.
However due to strong pressure from gay activists, homophilia was removed from the American Psychiatric Associations (APA) manual of mental disorders in 1973 and was given a clean bill of health. It was however replaced by a supposed irrational fear and hatred of homophiles, homophobia and the dreaded homophobe. This term was created by George Weinberg, psychiatrist, member of the APA and strong ally of the gays, in 1967, one hundred years after the term homosexual had been coined. However there has not been one clinically diagnosed case of homophobia anywhere in the last 50 or more years, or anyone treated for such a condition.
But the delusion that such phantoms are real has gone through the public like measles. The public have become fearful of being identified as homophiles and equally fearful of being identified as a homophobes. neither of which exist. This must be the biggest hoax in history – two imaginary creatures: the homophile who is ready to believe that anything that causes him to feel discomforted is a homophobic attack and the homophobe who is fearful saying something which could in any way be deemed to cause the imaginary creature to feel confused or frightened.
What is not fantasy or delusion is the mass hysteria created on the same magnitude as all witch hunts in history that have resulted in thousands and even millions of innocent people being publically humiliated, fined, lose their careers and livelihoods, have their children taken away and even go to prison.
The belief in the homophile and homophobe have led to tragic consequences. Roger and Paolo Crouch and their daughter Giulia and son Dominic suffered a tragedy connected to the psychological and spiritual war being waged on children and parents.
‘On 18 May 2010, Dominic Crouch committed suicide by jumping off the roof of a six-storey block of flats near his school in Cheltenham. He was 15. It emerged that Dominic had taken up a dare to kiss another boy on a school trip during a game of spin the bottle. Some participants recorded the game on their mobile phones and the images circulated. Dominic, who was dyslexic and found it difficult to formulate a quick retort, became the butt of jokes when he returned to St Edward’s after the trip. The Stonewall homosexual campaign group jumped on the idea of ‘homophobic bullying’ and started putting it about that Dominic might have been homosexual, something he and his family always denied. Stonewall even persuaded his father, Roger, to go around schools on a non-bullying mission and made him ‘hero of the year‘ on 3rd November 2011. A few Weeks later, Paolo, the wife of Roger, went into her garage and found her husband hanging from the ceiling.
Ben Summerskill, the 2nd Chief Executive of Stonewall who worked closely with the couple, said “It would have been terribly easy for them just to immediately move on and not consider how they might help to change other people’s lives.”
“We don’t know whether Dominic was gay or not, but one of the sad truths of so many similar cases is that parents tend to go into complete denial, even when there is quite significant evidence as to why their child committed suicide. In these cases, those parents are going through all the emotions of discovering their child might have been gay, as well as facing the trauma of losing a child.”
Dominic was not gay. At the age of 15 as with many teenagers during this critical period of emotional development he was going through a unstable period and was fearful of losing face with a girl because of the phone video showing him kissing a boy. His ability to make rational judgements was suspended with tragic consequences. His father, family man and Roman Catholic was taken advantage of by Stonewall who brainwashed him into the whole born gay myth. And maybe when he received Stonewall’s highest award, “hero of the year” and found himself on the podium surrounded by a sea of degenerate, depraved and damned, gay glitterati and tormented by the whispering of Summerskill, suggesting that his son had been gay, this was too much for him and he hung himself in his garage.
May God deal ever so severely with all who continue to peddle such wicked lies .
However, a GoFundMe account has now been set up for a woman who spit on Eric Trump despite this being a clear criminal offence. See:
The world up-side-down. Purely criminal behaviour is encouraged but an expression of the Christian faith (which, in fact, is not an offence) is banned. They really get themselves into a terrible hole, from which there is no escape.
Re: Graham Lawn’s comment and David Marr’s and the ABC’s complete misrepresentation of the situation.
People have the absolute right to raise and educate their children as they see fit. This, in the past was always a fundamental right and is one of the rights the lying ABC is now working hard to remove. This needs to be opposed with all our means. Not only do we need to prevent indoctrination in our schools we also need to work to remove the near constant indoctrination coming from the ABC. Both of these are working to oppose fundamental rights and are using public (our) funds to force this indoctrination.
Parents may temporarily cede some of their authority to a school through the concept of “loco parentis” where, because a school needs to take responsibility for children, some of the parent’s rights are temporarily assigned to schools with the parent’s consent, but this in no way ever removes the parent’s fundamental rights as the ABC and the Labor party are now attempting to force through.
Rugby is a sport and a living for some. There are few fundamental rights associated with sport and there is certainly no fundamental right for a sporting body to prevent someone from making a living.
The idea that these two situations are analogous is an absolute lie and typical of the lies constantly promulgated by the ABC and those the ABC chooses to give a platform to.
Re Graham Law, when we catch a taxi or go to a dentist we do not need to know their personal lives or ideological beliefs, as long as they are broadly in line with accepted standards of honesty, healthy and safety and following the accepted standards of conduct. Can the taxi driver get me from A to B and can the dentist repair my teeth? are the only questions we need to ask. We do not have to know all the details of their sex lives or be forced to accept their morality and values as part of their serving us.
As for Israel Folau, the only questions the Australian Rugby need to ask him, are : does he understand and abide by the rules of the game? But what we have here is the rules being ideologically driven by the madness of equality legislation, which if taken to their logical conclusion mean that no one must discriminate against a player on the basis of any of the protected characteristics of the Equality and Human Rights Act. A female rugby team would have to change its rules in order to include and not discriminate against minorities who were identified by their age (very young or very old) disability (one legged or blind), gender (being a man), belief (nihilist and anarchist), sexual orientation (paedophile, or someone who was sexually excited by rugby players ), transsexual woman, being pregnant.
Rugby by definition is a hard, physical, tackling game. If in order to accommodate the pregnant, crippled, aged, paedophiles and transgender women, in the interests of health and safety, the rules of the game would have to radically change so that rugby ceased to be rugby.
Queer professor of masculinities and sport at Winchester University who supports paedophilia wants to ban tackling in rugby
The queers are destroying themselves with sexually transmitted diseases and they are destroying us. They have to go. This is a zero sum game in which the winners leave with everything and the losers leave with nothing. It is time to role back fifty years of madness and make sodomy, the erect penis covered in excrement, unacceptable behaviour in a civilised society and if promoted in public a criminal act.
David Skinner UK
Hi Bill, I recently contacted HCF (of which we are members) to explain their comments on media regarding Maria Foluas support of her husband. Here is their reply, some back pedaling taking place.
Thank you for your feedback and for the opportunity to clarify HCF’s position on this matter.
• We want to be clear that at no stage has HCF asked for any action or sanctions to be taken by either Netball Australia or Adelaide Thunderbirds against Maria Folau.
• We support Netball Australia to manage the game in the best interests of the players and fans. HCF does not try to influence the game or its administration in anyway and apologise if this inference has been made.
• In responding to a media enquiry on our position as a sponsor of Netball Australia, we endeavoured to portray HCF’s values of diversity, tolerance and inclusion across all walks of life – consistent with the values of Netball Australia.
• We remain committed to Netball Australia and are enormously proud of the three-year partnership we have entered into with them.
We thank you for your comments, and hope that you continue to choose HCF as your health care provider.
I wish to say in addition. The government has a monopoly on education in a number of ways:
1) everyone is forced to go to school until at least 15/16. If a dad wishes to take his son out of school at 13 or 14 to learn his trade the state government will send her private militia over to their house to take the child to school and/or the dad to court. The only possible way to avoid this is through homeschooling which the Victorian government is beginning to interfere with.
2) Every income receiving worker whose income is above the minimum threshold MUST pay for some other parent’s child to go to school regardless of whether that child’s parent earns the minimum income needed to require them to pay for a child’s schooling.
3) Every income receiving worker whose income is above the minimum threshold MUST pay for some other parent’s child to go to school regardless of whether they have children, have had children, do not currently have children, or do not intend to have children. And nobody gets to refuse because the Federal government will send around it’s militia or that local state’s miltia to bring you to court to make you pay.
4) Any parent who sends their child to a state school, private school, or homeschools MUST pay for the education of both their children and the children who are attending a public school and to a lesser extent, a private school.
5) Nobody must pay for a parent to homeschool their child. Only they beat that cost while still having to pay for other parents children to attend public schools and to a lesser extent, private schools.
Consequently, since everyone is forced to be involved in funding another child’s education, and since everyone MUST educate their children or send them to a state or private school then those who have to pay twice – parents who send their children to private or homeschool – ought to, if they elect to pay twice, choose quality, standard, type, and curriculum of that schools education including who their children’s teachers and what belief’s and behaviours they intend to instil in their children.
Australian companies who trade in sport entertainment, like Rugby Australia, are in no way similar to the school system in Australia.
Ergo, if RA wishes to create a contract it’s players sign which designate which bible verses they are not permitted to post then go ahead and if I were offered a Rugby Australia contract I wouldn’t bother signing it. But ensure two things first:
1) I get to put into any employment contracts I write clauses which state that my employees can never publish or express political propaganda terms like “homophobia”, “transgender”,”designated at birth”, etc (man do I have a long list). Nor can they make statements whether published or spoken asserting to be true the following ideas that are patently false: “there are more sexes than male and female”; “a gender pay gap exists”; “the bible is not the inerrant word of God”; “communism works in theory”; “the God of Israel did not raise Jesus from the dead”; “truth is not exclusive”; “space, time, matter, and universes can make themselves”; “any assertion contrary to an historico-grammatical interpretation of the scripture is or could be actual reality”; “atheism is not a religion”; “a secular society is a neutral society in religion or politics” etc (I’ve a long list).
2) they receive no Federal Government funding ever (which they shouldn’t be anyway since handing money to Companies trading in Sports entertainment isn’t a power enumerated to the Federal Government in section 51 of the Commonwealth Constitution Act (Cth) 1901.).
To my way of thinking, RU Australia could have avoided this whole escalating saga and save face at the same time without besmirching Izzy’s great worldwide reputation.
I don’t know whether this suggestion has been put forward before, it may have. My thought, however, is that RU could disavow any support and agreement to Izzy’s post.
RUA can express their disagreement making their position clear, thus freeing the best RU player in the world to continue to excite rugby fans around the world.