Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

It’s not Thorburn’s individual beliefs that was the issue, it was the fact he held a leadership position at the Church which had the views it has. I note the church quickly took down its offensive juxtaposition of abortion and the Holocaust but left the YouTube still going.

Barham boasted that Essendon were the only club to have secured the services of an ex leader of a top ASX listed company (utterly missing the point of Thorburn’s active role in fleecing millions of dollars from ordinary punters by charging $ for services not provided).

The other interesting thing in this is that Thorburn, the decent Costello (Tim) and the head of the Anglican Church Friers are all Essendon supporters.

So being a leader of a church with those view is worse than someone who has publicly stated those views.

Once again, Zreika gets a free pass for publicly saying she sides with her religion that does not recognise / accept / endorse / encourage homosexuality........why?

What'sinaname wrote:So being a leader of a church with those view is worse than someone who has publicly stated those views.

Once again, Zreika gets a free pass for publicly saying she sides with her religion that does not recognise / accept / endorse / encourage homosexuality........why?

Through to the keeper: one holds a position of power (hint not Zreika) and the other does. That is the point. If Zreika was a leader of her Mosque then yes one is comparing apples with apples and you’d have a valid point.

If Thorburn was in the job and then refused to be associated with Pride week, then yes, we might have a comparable situation. As we know, everyone would be happy with his decision to skip Pride week.

Why don't you stop wasting everyone's time by imaging hypotheticals that have nothing to do with what's actually occurred. This was very straight-forward and the expected outcome. Let's have a look at what we do about Ayatollah Khomeini (apart, of course, from exhume him) and his regressive personal views when he's actually appointed as Essendon CEO. My strong instinct is that won't happen.

DP

watt price tully wrote:

What'sinaname wrote:So being a leader of a church with those view is worse than someone who has publicly stated those views.

Once again, Zreika gets a free pass for publicly saying she sides with her religion that does not recognise / accept / endorse / encourage homosexuality........why?

Through to the keeper: one holds a position of power (hint not Zreika) and the other does. That is the point. If Zreika was a leader of her Mosque then yes one is comparing apples with apples and you’d have a valid point.

What has Zreika not being a leader in her mosque got to do with the FACT that she has publicly admitted that she cannot wear a pride jumper?

People banging on about Thorburns leadership role within his church but dismissing Zreika for her “personal views” are deliberately changing the goalposts to suit their narrative.

For the record, I understand why Essendon removed Thornburn and I don’t necessarily disagree.
But imho Zreika is as guilty if not more of being a homophobe and not inclusive. She 100% should have been de-registered by the AFL.

slangman wrote:What has Zreika not being a leader in her mosque got to do with the FACT that she has publicly admitted that she cannot wear a pride jumper?

Everything. It's about what the person's position signifies. It's slightly strange that you would keep asking irrelevant questions when a number of people have already explained the opposite view. You can disagree - but asking rhetorical questions that indicate that you are steadfastly refusing to acknowledge the actual reason for the guy's removal (and pretending something else might be afoot) is a little peculiar. Or simple. Sometimes it's difficult to tell.

Pies4shaw wrote:

slangman wrote:What has Zreika not being a leader in her mosque got to do with the FACT that she has publicly admitted that she cannot wear a pride jumper?

Everything. It's about what the person's position signifies. It's slightly strange that you would keep asking irrelevant questions when a number of people have already explained the opposite view. You can disagree - but asking rhetorical questions that indicate that you are steadfastly refusing to acknowledge the actual reason for the guy's removal (and pretending something else might be afoot) is a little peculiar. Or simple. Sometimes it's difficult to tell.

Ignoring the obvious hypocrisy by grabbing onto his position is manipulating the facts to suit your narrative. If that’s how you roll then maybe we really do have a bigger issue with homophobia than I initially thought.

A player has more public clout than a club CEO. Players represent the AFL and, like it or not, are role models. If a Christian player refused to take part in pride week how do you think it would go down? Somewhat like the NRL. But muslims get to hide behind the “criticise my homophobia and you’re racist” card. It’s a double standard and everyone knows it. And I suspect the fallout for a Muslim player in their religious community would be more extreme than for a Christian player from a church that sings happy Jesus songs. Zreika would get death threats. So inclusive!