David Penberthy: Free speech isn’t freedom from being called a bigot

THE SSM debate created an unholy alliance of fundamentalist Christians and Islamists. They, and Israel Folau, are allowed their medieval views. And I am free to call them objectionable bigots, writes David Penberthy.

FOR all that demented talk about dog lovers marrying their pooches and polygamists popping the question to everyone they fancy, the weirdest union to emerge from the same-sex marriage ballot was that between the Christian conservatives and Islamic fundamentalists.

The ongoing war between Islam and Christendom was briefly set aside so these two opposing groups of holy-rollers could unite under a common banner — a hatred of homosexuals.

While the madder mullahs were cracking a massive fatwa against western sexual deviance, the Kevin Andrews/Lyle Shelton brigade was busy warning the nation that every baker in the land now risked arrest for refusing to ice a rainbow on to a wedding cake.

Despite being violently opposed to each other on theological grounds, the chief protagonists in this age of terror formed an accidental unholy alliance in going to war against the gays, with the end result being resounding “No” votes in ­predominantly Islamic electorates and a weakening of the “Yes” vote in the outer-suburban Bible belt.

No doubt there would be religious people who would be offended at the use of the term “hatred” above to describe their opposition to same-sex marriage. The offence is deliberate.

On this issue, Christian conservatism and Islamic fundamentalism are rooted in the same brand of ­medieval bigotry. And, as is the case with all forms of bigotry, the bigots are aghast when the innate hatefulness of their opinion is high­lighted.

If Israel Folau saying gay people will burn in hell for all eternity isn’t hateful, then I don’t know what is. (Pic: Mark Metcalfe/Getty)

This is best evidenced by the casual nature in which ­believers will apologetically ­explain to those of the gay ­persuasion that the scriptures on these issues are clear and that, regrettably, they will end up burning in hell for all eternity on account of liking another bloke.

You know, nothing personal, but that’s what it says here in my holy book.

If that’s not a hateful sentiment, I don’t know what is.

Rugby union player Israel Folau is being hailed in some muddle-headed quarters as a free-speech hero for speaking his mind about homosexuality.

Just to be clear, as a free-speech purist myself, I think Folau has every right to say whatever he likes. In the same way that you should be able to deny the Holocaust, demand the reintroduction of slavery or claim NASA never made it to the moon, Folau should be allowed to say that men who innocently fall in love with one another are going to burn alive in his imagined hell.

The good thing about free speech is that it eliminates the possibility of making martyrs out of morons, while also exposing the stupidity and/or prejudice of those making such claims. Folau can say whatever the hell he wants to say. But free speech is also two-way street.

As such, those of us who regard ourselves as civilised, ­enlightened and ­tolerant should exercise our right to call Folau out for being an objectionable bigot.

Far from being a victim of the stifling new age of political correctness, Folau is actually a victim of his own outspoken ignorance. By his own ­admission — and again, identical to the Islamists with the apparently unquestionable primacy of the Koran — Folau’s sole point of reference for this issue is the Bible.

It would do him well to just stick to his day job of catching and throwing a ball, rather than this endless public rumination about who will or won’t be burning in hell when judgment day arrives.

Comment’s like Israel Folau's are precisely the kind that make people feel ostracised and persecuted.

The problem for Folau, like others of the proselytising kind, is that he is so convinced of his righteousness that merely holding these medieval views isn’t enough. He has to spread the gospel on Instagram, because that’s what God is telling him to do.

The thing that has made Folau a martyr for conservatives is the suggestion that sponsors and advertisers may walk away from rugby — and in some instances already are — on account of his exercising an opinion. This, again, is absurd.

There is no contradiction between supporting free speech and supporting the right of advertisers and sponsors to decide who they want to be the face of their multimillion-dollar sporting contributions.

While I was “iffy” about the heavy-handed tactics of some “Yes” campaigners — including the feel-good showiness of organisations such as the AFL and businesses such as Qantas which seemed to be telling people how they should vote — the Folau case is completely different.

It is different because Folau is advocat­ing the kind of sentiments that make people feel ostracised and persecuted. He is advocating the kind of sentiments that make people take their own lives.

If I was running a business, I wouldn’t be injecting millions of dollars — millions of shareholder ­dollars — into a football team whose star player is habitually determined to hold a public discussion about whether an entire class of humans deserves eternal damnation.

I note broadcaster and former coach Alan Jones has chastised the ARU for admonishing Folau, saying the hapless Wallabies should just be concentrating on actually winning some games.

You could make the same criticism of Folau.

Stick to rugby, mate, congratulations on ­having found your God, and let the rest of us — gay, straight or indifferent — go about our lives.

Originally published as David Penberthy: Free speech isn’t freedom from being called a bigot