Getting paid cannot mean giving up personal belief
The social media mob humiliation of Israel Folau — whose views I have no sympathy with — is deeply worrying (“Christian fury as GoFundMe axes Israel”, 25/6).
The message to all employees is that even in their private lives, their views and beliefs are owned by their employer, who can sack them at a whim. This is nothing less than a modern form of slavery.
The banning of Israel Folau from GoFundMe has led to skyrocketing support for him. This is because ordinary people see an injustice. While NRL players regularly bash women, do drugs and get into drunken brawls without severe penalties, Folau is to be sacked for expressing his beliefs.
Throughout the whole sad Israel Folau episode I have waited in vain for at least one bishop or one moderator to challenge Israel Folau’s distorted view of Christianity. The source of the “Christian” Right’s homophobia is the Book of Leviticus and St Paul, who also directs women to keep their hats on and their mouths shut in church.
There is no word recorded from the lips of Jesus in the Gospels about homosexuality. In the gospels, Jesus is shown as loving and welcoming. Please don’t leave it to this humble Uniting Church layman to tell the world that Israel Folau does not speak for Jesus.
The Australian Christian Lobby has indicated it will donate $100,000 to assist Israel Folau in his court case. It’s curious to donate such a sum to a millionaire contesting a matter which will be determined not on religious freedom grounds but on employment agreement law. A more Christian and beneficial act would be to give the money to the homeless.
In days gone by, stick and stones could break your bones, but names could never hurt you. Now we are told by Sally Rugg (“Could Israel Folau speak at a uni”, 25/6) that words can cause actual harm.
This utterly collapses the distinction between speech that incites violence and words that merely offend. If speech is but a collection of words, and words can cause harm, then there can be no semblance of freedom of speech.
One suspects instead that, rather than being delicate flowers for whom Israel’s naive sermon about a make-believe place causes an injury, Sally and her fellow travellers exaggerate their grievance to enhance their power and silence opposition in the victimhood Olympics.
I wonder if there would be the same passion for “religious freedom” if Israel Folau’s homophobic views were espoused by, say, a Muslim cleric? At the end of the day, hatred is hatred. No matter what the guise, be it religious, artistic or scientific; intolerance causes the same harm to the targeted group.
It would have been so simple at the beginning for Rugby Australia to issue a disclaimer clarifying that Israel Folau’s statements about sinners and hell were his own, and did not in any way reflect the views of RA or its sponsors.
As Folau is in no position to ensure who might go to hell, there was no threat.
As there is no evidence that he was heavying people to read his social media post, or refusing to play football alongside those he believed hellhound, it is hard to support harassment and exclusion claims beyond those who have the freedom to feel outraged.
It’s worth remembering the tweet that first landed Israel Folau in trouble: “I love and respect all people for who they are and their opinions. but personally, I will not support gay marriage.” He kept his opinions to himself till RA endorsed the Yes campaign on behalf of its players.
At that point, it appears he’d planned to say nothing further. Certainly, it’s hard to imagine a gentler, more tactful way of registering dissent.
He was immediately savaged. He’s now jettisoned tact — hardening his stance, extending his remarks beyond marriage, and breaking his agreement with RA. That puts him in the wrong. But it’s how people respond when attacked.
Kamikaze cricket
While I’m inspired by the youthful optimism of Sam Konstas and the potential benefits of his kamikaze approach to batting at the MCG, I am totally pessimistic about the kamikaze approach to energy policy by Chris Bowen.
Voters must heed warning on ‘dangerous’ Bandt
It is not too clear what sort of an Australia Bandt wants, but all of the signs suggest it is not what the majority of Australians want. Bandt, the politician, is a very dangerous person.