Israel Folau - Making a martyr out of a molehill

Israel Folau - Making a martyr out of a molehill

And just like that ... Rugby Union great, Israel Folau is a martyr for free speech and Christian persecution!

Folau's martyrdom was the culmination of a couple of years in which he'd posted on social media parts of the bible that stated homosexuals would go to hell (among others, such as drunkards, liars, fornicators et al). This isn't illegal and Folau has freedom of speech to post this to his heart's content. However, he was under contract to Rugby Australia who had clauses in his $4 million a year contract about not bringing the sport into disrepute. RA considered these posts to be homophobic and warned him to stop. Folau initially promised, even saying that he would gladly resign if necessary (Folau 2018). Then he fired off another post and RA decided it was time to sack him for breaching the contract. Rather than gladly leave as he'd previously promised, Folau portrayed himself as a victim whose freedom of speech had been restricted, and set about suing RA. Folau, with a $7 million house, cried poor and created a GoFundMe page to raise $3 million to cover his legal bills. GoFundMe stated it was a breach of their conditions because they didn't wish to promote homophobia, and promptly cancelled the account. In rides the Australian Christian Lobby, a highly antagonistic lobby group who claims charity status so that they can conduct campaigns that persecute LGBTIQ+ people. Within a few days, they'd raised more than the GoFundMe campaign.

Israel Folau's Instagram post

Talk about making a martyr out of a molehill!

There are so many elements to this case, but it is fundamentally about whether an employer can sack someone for posting bible verses. RA will argue that it was part of their contract and they'd warned Folau to desist. Folau will argue he has a right to his views and that he never called for violence or persecution of LGBTIQ+ people. Contract Law versus Freedom of Speech.

This case has polarised the community with many Christians jumping on the Folau bandwagon and supporting him through either donation or deed. Others have jumped on the RA bandwagon and cheered on their stance against homophobia.

For some, the perplexing question is whether they support Folau's freedom of speech or whether to oppose persecution of LGBTIQ+ people. Sadly, this has become somewhat of a wicked problem for many people because many of those who support gay rights also support freedom of speech. However, many people, whether left or right, will say they support freedom of speech, until that speech offends them.

It should be noted that this isn't exactly about freedom of speech, because no-one is stopping Folau from posting those verses. Rather, it is about the consequences of those posts and an employer who has taken umbrage against them.

While I disagree with Folau's belief that homosexuals will go to hell, I believe he has a right to state it. He was quoting text from the bible. If organisations have a right to sack people for quoting biblical or other texts, where will it end? Organisations already have far too much say over people's private lives. There was a time when people's work life was confined to working hours and their private life filled the remaining hours however they chose. Now, organisations can dictate how people behave and what they say outside the work environment. This is a loss of freedom and should be rolled back.

Even Folau's wife is being targeted because she dared to share Folau's fund-raising campaign. She is a representative netball player and some sponsors, such as HCF, called on Netball Australia to take action against her. Seriously? What is her crime? This is making the proverbial mountain out of a molehill!

Personally, I hope Folau wins his case against Rugby Australia. Not because I agree with him, but because it will help set a limit on employer over-reach into people's personal lives. Ironically, courts require witnesses to swear an oath, which may be done on the Bible ... the very book from which Folau has quoted in this case.

Folau's post does not constitute hate speech, although the bible has been used to persecute and marginalise LGBTIQ+ people for millenia. Folau has stated he did it out of love not hate; he wants to save people from going to hell. As scripture goes, this one is pretty useless for saving people's souls. Think this through, that scripture exposes gay Christians to further rejection by God because of their natural sexuality and gender. So that's probably not useful considering many of them have been rejected by family and church already. And for non-Christians, it is threatening them with a hell they don't believe exists.

If Folau genuinely wanted to see people saved from the hell he believes in, he would have quoted scriptures about love and acceptance, and shared testimonies of people who have experienced love and acceptance in the church, rather than rejection. This scripture belongs to an anachronistic version of Christianity that governs by fear and shame; fear of hell and shame that one day all your sins will be revealed before the entire world. If everyone's sins were exposed before the world, it will merely show that we all have far more in common that we dared admit.

The better way to deal with Folau would have been to ignore him, rather than turn him into a martyr of Christian persecution. Ignoring Folau would have isolated him to his own little conclave of bible-bashers who use judgement and threats of hellfire and damnation to control people. Thankfully, there are fewer and fewer who can be controlled by these tactics.

Folau's views are archaic and demonstrate the hypocrisy of people who selectively quote the bible, while continuing to disobey it themselves. For instance, while Folau is berating a whole raft of people who are going to burn in hell, he is also pushing it up hill if he thinks he is going to escape those hell-fires and inherit a mansion in heaven, according to the bible anyway. The bible states that it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into heaven. Folau might want to ponder this as he kicks back in his $7 million mansion fighting to reinstate his $4 million a year contract.

Many Christians are funding Folau's legal defence as if their Christian values depend on it, yet they have failed to stand up against the persecution and torture of innocent asylum seekers and refugees at the hands of the Pentecostal Prime Minister Scott Morrison and other politicians. Apparently caring for the poor, the sick, the refugee, is completely unnecessary for conservative Christians. It's ok to persecute the persecuted, but woe-betide anyone who allegedly persecutes the persecutors. Try stopping Christians from stopping others living their own lives and all hell breaks lose in conservative Christian circles ... as we're now witnessing with Folau's case.

If we're going to defend freedom of speech for one, then we defend it for all in the spirit of the Voltairean principle: 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it'. Voltaire's sentiment allegedly followed the burning of a book that caused great offence in 18th century Paris. Voltaire disagreed with the contents of the book, but felt that it was an 'airy trifle' and much 'fuss about an omelette'. How apt for the Folau case. Much ado about nothing. I wholeheartedly disagree with Folau's views, but defend his right to share them without being sacked.

Do those who defend Folau, also defend Yassmin Abdiel-Magied? Yassmin, a 2015 Queensland Young Australian of the Year, published a tweet on Anzac Day 2017, which stated 'LEST.WE.FORGET. (Manus, Nauru, Syria, Palestine...)'. Sadly, many people took this as an attack on Diggers rather than seeing that she was raising awareness of human rights issues. In the case of Manus Island and Nauru, the government covered-up its human rights abuses by threatening to jail whistle-blowers who exposed them. Yassmin was forced to flee Australia in the wake of horrendous abuse in which she was threatened with rape and death. Many of the same people who are defending Folau also attacked Yassmin. The difference being that Folau is a Christian man and Yassmin a Muslim woman.

People are free to spend their money how they wish, but it does say a lot about the values of people who fund Folau's right to post hellfire and damnation, while failing to fund efforts to help the poor, the needy, the refugee. Perhaps, they shouldn't have been so quick to threaten Yassmin Abdul-Magied. She did raise some good points about people ignoring the plight of refugees on Manus and Nauru.

Yassmin also mentioned Palestine, which raises even graver concerns about anachronistic Christians supporting Folau, while not just ignoring, but gleefully encouraging and even financially supporting crimes against humanity. Far too many Christians blindly embrace the Zionist claim that modern-day Israel is the fulfilment of biblical prophecy. Based on this, many Christians defend the killing of Palestinians in the name of God - because, you know, the bible! These Christians support ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity in Palestine, reflecting the depth of hatred and intolerance that resides in the hearts of many Christians. If they are willing to support genocide and ethnic cleansing, what expectation can we have that they will treat LGBTIQ+ people with respect.

Folau has a right to freedom of speech. All of us do. But this freedom means that those who disagree also have the freedom to comment and criticise. This is not persecution. Unfortunately, raising the profile of Folau's social media posts and subsequent sacking, is now causing more harm to LGBTIQ+ people than had it been ignored. There are people, such as the ACL, who are empowered by this case and are using it to further their fear-mongering of 'gay agendas' and 'neo-marxist plots' by blaming it on the legalisation of same-sex marriage. And they wonder why people accuse them of bigotry. They claim Folau is being persecuted for his beliefs, while they want to continue persecuting and marginalising LGBTIQ+ people.

So why are people taking such a strong stance against Israel and defending Rugby Australia's sacking of him? It was a simple post by a simple man who can't see the big picture; who fails to see that rejection by the church is the very reason why so many people have taken a stand against him. Folau is not spreading the love of God, but reinforcing the abuse and rejection that many LGBTIQ+ people have suffered at the hands of so-called Christians. 'Love the sinner but hate the sin' is just Christian weasel-words for persecuting others.

Everyone needs to calm their collective farms. There will always be people who have these black and white views of the bible; who criticise 'moral relativism'. Thankfully, these people are in a shrinking minority as more and more people realise that segregation and prejudice are not acceptable. The opposite of relativism is absolutism. Black and white. Yet, few people are truly absolutist, regardless of what they claim. Relativism is about context, facts and understanding, while Absolutism ignores contexts and facts that contradict a person's understanding. We can see that with Folau himself. The bible prohibits tattoos, yet he is tattooed. Some may argue that biblical scripture prohibiting tattoos were simply part of Mosaic law used by ancient Israel that do not apply today. Fair enough. That's relativism. The bible said to stone murderers, adulterers and so on. I haven't heard too many Christians calling for public stoning of late, perhaps because they realise that stoning was relative to Mosaic law and is a tad archaic for the 21st century. That's relativism. The bible said that after a particular conquest it was ok to kill every man, woman and boy, but to keep virgin girls as slaves, which in that culture would have included sexual slavery. How many Christians abide by this? Absolutism would say to continue this practice, relativism would consider that this behaviour existed 2500 years ago, but is unacceptable today.

But Folau. He merely quoted the bible in an absolutist sense. Should we ban the bible? No. Mind, some of Folau's supporters have called for the banning of Islam, while claiming persecution when people criticise Christianity ... oh, the irony. Mind, while they're busy with their moral relativism in contextualising the bible, they don't afford Muslims the same luxury when Koranic scriptures are quoted out of context. Just for fun, wish one of these conservatives 'Happy holidays' instead of 'Merry Christmas', or tell them their Easter eggs are halal. They will wallow in their persecution complexes and melt down quicker than a chocolate Easter bunny in the fires of hell.

Sacking Folau for his religious views is employer over-reach. However, the vehement support of Folau by Christians who just as vehemently attack refugees is indicative of those Christians lack of validity. 

Given conservative Christianity's blind support for politicians who persecute the persecuted and demonise those who the bible calls 'the lowest of these'; those most in need, is it any wonder then they've found a rallying post in Folau's case. The wailing and gnashing of teeth that we're witnessing from some circles in their rabid support for Folau while ignoring the gaping holes in their own moral values, is indicative of conservative Christianity's lost legitimacy, revealing this to be a desperate attempt to shore up their waning pertinence and mask their lack of concern for the real issues that the bible would have them address.

Should Rugby Australia or any employer have the right to sack someone for their religious or political views? No.

Allow Folau to post his anachronistic views, rather than making a martyr out of a molehill. Meanwhile, the rest of us can be there to counter the rejection of conservative churches and ensure that LGBTIQ+ people are included and valued, with the same rights as everyone else.

Reference

Folau, I 2018, 'I'm a sinner too', Player's Voice, 16 April, viewed 28 June 2019, hhttps://www.playersvoice.com.au/israel-folau-im-a-sinner-too.