JUNE 1 2019 LISTENER 3
EDITORIAL
Hell-bent on harm
A
fter weeks of “will they or won’t they”, the Israel
Folau controversy ended with his contract being
torn up, Rugby Australia losing a star player and
the Bible continuing, as it always will, to provide
a long list of actions that might prevent a person
from entering heaven.
How an Instagram post, which deserved to be
ignored, became quite such a scrum is something
we should all reflect upon, not least because the same situation
may arise again, perhaps with
another religious document in
the frame.
Had an Old Testament
prophet appeared and said that
drunks, homosexuals, thieves,
atheists and others would not
inherit the kingdom of God,
it might have warranted the
attention this story received. But
Folau’s paraphrasing something
that he read in the Bible should
have no significance whatsoever
to drunks, homosexuals, thieves,
atheists and the rest.
We live in a strange time:
people are eager to call out
others for real or imagined
slights and slurs when, if
exhortations from the Bible have
any power at all, turning the
other cheek would be the better
course of action.
Many believe Rugby Australia overreached. Had it quickly said,
“Folau’s views are obviously not those of Rugby Australia, but
rather a player sharing his religious beliefs on his own social-
media account,” and used the spotlight to emphasise the ways
we can all act to ensure gay people feel welcome and celebrated
as players, fans, sponsors and fellow citizens, this whole thing
might have quickly gone away and the Wallabies’ Rugby World
Cup chances might be better than they are today.
However, this incident has done us the unintended favour of
illustrating how hard and how counterproductive it would be to
try to outlaw all comments that offend or even hurt people.
Folau’s denunciation of gay people, among other “sinners”,
probably wouldn’t fit even a tightened definition of hate speech,
as he did not personally wish anyone dead. On the contrary, he
was arguably trying to win all sinners eternal life, though no one
would blame any of us for not dropping him a note of thanks for
his concern.What Folau clearly did not foresee was that he’d be subject to
so much powerful mockery, as fellow Bible readers pointed out
that the Good Book also prescribes death or smiting for scruffy
hair, ripping one’s clothes, cursing and by some interpretations,
even wearing clothes of different fabrics.F
olau’s offence was less hatred than arrogance, and a distinctly
unchristian lack of empathy. He held his personal views more
worthy of consideration than, for example, the feelings of
many young rugby fans who
may be grappling with their
sexuality.
Guilt or shame is a known
precursor to self-harm among
some young people, yet Folau
seems stonily indifferent to this.
And he grossly mischaracterises
his sacking as impinging on
his religious freedom. As a
private citizen, he can say and
post what he likes and face
the consequences on his own
terms, within the law. But as a
highly paid sports star, he bears
responsibilities in exchange
for his status, including that of
showing respect for the sport’s
supporters.
Some fairly argue we should
resist the temptation to hold
sports stars or other celebrities
up as role models. Doubtless,
some resent the burden. But Folau is not the first sportsperson to
have to balance personal beliefs with public life. Michael Jones
and Sonny Bill Williams are among the many devout players
who wear their faith with pride and live by it, choosing to set an
example without feeling the need to instruct or reproach others.
Even in the “I know best” maelstrom of politics, it is rare for
the many strictly observant MPs of faith to proselytise. Our Prime
Minister and Opposition Leader both had strongly religious
upbringings. As with Australia’s newly elected leader Scott
Morrison, a Pentecostal, they have left their religiosity out of
political discourse, save for conscience issues. Their faith may be
as special to them as Folau’s is to him, but status and faith give
no one special licence to stand in judgment of others with no
thought of the consequences.
To refrain from hurting others, particularly the vulnerable, is
not a matter of compromising one’s religious principles. Indeed,
it is the very opposite. lGE
TTY (^) I
M
AG
ES
Israel Folau
This illustrates how hard it would
be to try to outlaw all comments
that offend or even hurt people.