Bulldog Will Hopoate will not play rugby league on Sundays for religious reasons

[THE CHAMP]

Nope not allowed, no pork products at work or we lose our job plain and simple we were told, boss said it's easier to just make a blanket rule then deal with his non stop threats of discrimination, guy even got down to whinging about us using the cutlery and not knowing which knifes and forks or plates had touched bacon, work had to buy all new cutlery and what not.

Maybe tell them you're homosexual and like bacon.
Amazing how much religion can effect a workplace.
Maybe foreign legion in your anti bacon boy.

 

[Rhyno]

If he is not a virgin he can play on Sundays

 

[THE CHAMP]

If he is not a virgin he can play on Sundays

Well done.
Your best post ever.

 

[Prometheus]

You are like an atheist version of a religious nutter.

There are a lot of zealous Atheists out their and their absolute faith in Atheism is no less irrational than the blind faith of a "religious nutter". What's annoying is their claims that their Atheistic beliefs are based on science. Because they are not.

Anybody who knows anything about science can tell you that the fundamental basis of all scientific endeavour is the statement "I don't know". Therefore, any truly scientific observer would have to hold Agnostic beliefs. Agnostics can be either religious or atheistic, but they acknowledge that the existence of a deity can be neither proven, nor dis-proven. Even evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, arguably the world's most prominent Atheist, has acknowledged that his is technically Agnostic.

 

[Foreign Legion]

Maybe tell them you're homosexual and like bacon.
Amazing how much religion can effect a workplace.
Maybe foreign legion in your anti bacon boy.

If you can't eat pork at work thats a sad state of affairs. Welcome to the new Australia...

 

[carcharias]

Seriously
If he can't play on Sunday he should quit footy.

 

[whall15]

There are a lot of zealous Atheists out their and their absolute faith in Atheism is no less irrational than the blind faith of a "religious nutter". What's annoying is their claims that their Atheistic beliefs are based on science. Because they are not.

Anybody who knows anything about science can tell you that the fundamental basis of all scientific endeavour is the statement "I don't know". Therefore, any truly scientific observer would have to hold Agnostic beliefs. Agnostics can be either religious or atheistic, but they acknowledge that the existence of a deity can be neither proven, nor dis-proven. Even evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, arguably the world's most prominent Atheist, has acknowledged that his is technically Agnostic.

Atheists are agnostics.

Atheism is a position that you don't believe in a god, agnosticism is a position that you don't know of a god.

Atheists do not believe in a god because there is no knowledge of one.

 

[billygilmore]

I can see how this frustrates you. Do you see the religious aspect as the driver or does the person just have a confrontational approach?

Who knows mate, he overly confrontational, he just knows he'll get his way if claims discimanation

 

[franklin2323]

Keeping religon aside.

He plays a sport. A sport which plays on Sundays just retire and find another job.

Can't be good for team morale. Glad it's not my team he plays for

 

[billygilmore]

Keeping religon aside.

He plays a sport. A sport which plays on Sundays just retire and find another job.

Can't be good for team morale. Glad it's not my team he plays for

Imagine if he was a test cricketer, "sorry guys just gotta skip out on day 3 to go ride my bike around annoying people"

 

[franklin2323]

Imagine if he was a test cricketer, "sorry guys just gotta skip out on day 3 to go ride my bike around annoying people"

Same here the rest of the side gets up at 6am for recovery he gets to sleep in. staying in bed nice and warm. Team mates will love that

 

[Bretto]

There are a lot of zealous Atheists out their and their absolute faith in Atheism is no less irrational than the blind faith of a "religious nutter". What's annoying is their claims that their Atheistic beliefs are based on science. Because they are not.

Anybody who knows anything about science can tell you that the fundamental basis of all scientific endeavour is the statement "I don't know". Therefore, any truly scientific observer would have to hold Agnostic beliefs. Agnostics can be either religious or atheistic, but they acknowledge that the existence of a deity can be neither proven, nor dis-proven. Even evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, arguably the world's most prominent Atheist, has acknowledged that his is technically Agnostic.

There seems to be some people who get confused by this still. Atheism is a non belief in any gods, not a set of beliefs. Non belief is not a belief. I explained this before with the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence argument. Agnosticism is a belief that you cannot prove either way if there is a god or not. One is non belief, the other is a belief. This pretty much throws the rest of your argument out the window because your pre supposition is incorrect.

By the way, Dawkins is an atheist. I would recommend reading his book, The God Delusion, wherein he explains his position on the matter clearly.

 

[Prometheus]

Atheists are agnostics.

Atheism is a position that you don't believe in a god, agnosticism is a position that you don't know of a god.

Atheists do not believe in a god because there is no knowledge of one.

Not quite. Atheists can be either gnostic, or agnostic. If they think that they know their is no God, then they are Gnostic Atheists. If they accept that it can not truly be known whether or not their is a God, then they are Agnostic Atheists.

There seems to be some people who get confused by this still. Atheism is a non belief in any gods, not a set of beliefs. Non belief is not a belief. I explained this before with the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence argument. Agnosticism is a belief that you cannot prove either way if there is a god or not. One is non belief, the other is a belief. This pretty much throws the rest of your argument out the window because your pre supposition is incorrect.

My argument has nothing to do with the absence-of-evidence vs evidence-of-absence argument. Because I wasn't making an argument for, or against, atheism or religion. My comments were about how some people take their beliefs (whether religious or atheistic) as absolute knowledge, while others accept that they can't truly know what the truth of the matter is. You are wrong if you think that non-belief in a God equates to a complete lack of any belief. Our entire perception of the universe is a collection of beliefs. Our opinions, our interpretations of everything we see, hear, feel and do are beliefs. Atheism is non-belief in a deity, but it is still a belief. Because everything we think is a belief.

By the way, Dawkins is an atheist.

Yes, he is an Agnostic Atheist. Because he is not arrogant enough to think that he knows everything. Here is a video of Dawkins explaining it himself-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKgAqPZQz48

 

[Mr Angry]

The NRL is a business, as such this is a poor employee, refusing to work on a work day, therefore he should be weeded out.

He is free to have his beliefs and the NRL are free not to employ him.

The NRL in this case the Bulldogs.

 

[betcats]

I doubt he flat out refused to play on Sundays. He probably put it to Des and the club that he would like to sit out Sundays and they backed him on it. He asked Parra to sit out and they said he had to play and he did(if you can call it playing).

 

[Smirrors]

Seriously
If he can't play on Sunday he should quit footy.

Lets leave religion out of this for a sec:

If women (or men) can't work 5 days a week due to baring children they have no place in the work place.

Hopoate is pioneering part time football. People are just hating.

And for those that bring up Hopoate playing on Sundays historically, our past does not dictate our future. Not everyone can or is willing to choose to give up working on a particular day. Obviously Hopoate CAN.

 

[Smirrors]

The NRL is a business, as such this is a poor employee, refusing to work on a work day, therefore he should be weeded out.

He is free to have his beliefs and the NRL are free not to employ him.

The NRL in this case the Bulldogs.

Far from it, he is a high performing employee that is paid very handsomely for his efforts.

My wife is being poached by another company on her return to work from maternity leave. They know she will work at most 4 days a week and will pay her well for it.

Fact is the Bulldogs employed him and they are free to use him however they please.

 

[Grapple]

I haven't read this thread but I assume it's full of positive support for Will Hopoate reaching an agreement with his employer to have Sunday's off for personal/religious reasons that have nothing to do with anyone posting?

Michael Jones had the talent to get away with it.

Amen to that.

 

[typicalfan]

The NRL is a business, as such this is a poor employee, refusing to work on a work day, therefore he should be weeded out.

He is free to have his beliefs and the NRL are free not to employ him.

The NRL in this case the Bulldogs.

Lol and the Bulldogs support him and in doing so get him on Thursdays, Friday's Saturday's and Monday's.

He is not answerable to you, so I don't see the point of what you are saying.

 

[Snappy]

...............................................