If you want to be confused and/or bemused you will never be disappointed by closely following rugby league, as the events surrounding (possibly former) Newcastle Knights player Ryan Stig over the past couple of weeks showed.
Often, a writer will pose questions in an article and then proceed to answer them. I can only do half that job here – to ask the questions.
I have no idea what the answers might be.
In particular:
I don’t know why Ryan Stig thought publishing his thoughts on gay marriage was a good idea.
I don’t know why the Newcastle Knights put out a statement saying the views of Ryan Stig didn’t reflect the views of the club and then didn’t put out a statement saying, only a couple of days later, that Stig was no longer with the club.
I don’t know why the NRL has a vilification policy and doesn’t think comments like Stig’s amount to vilification.
I don’t know how Satan has the time to get involved in this kind of stuff.
Perhaps you can enlighten me?
Anyway, by now, I’m sure you have all read Andrew Webster’s powerful article from last Saturday’s Sydney Morning Herald.
It was, at least in part, inspired by Stig’s anti-gay marriage views expressed on Twitter a couple of weeks ago.
I support gay marriage. I respect Ryan Stig’s right to hold a different view. I think this matter all goes off the rails when Satan gets involved.
You see, in his original post, Stig doesn’t just say he is against gay marriage. He says it is part of the work Satan has done in “culture and society to remove the belief in a creator” and the marriage equality laws advocated by some “make covenants with unseen realms of the demonic”.
I am seeing more and more deceived Christian leaders and individuals commenting on #gaymarriage here’s my thoughts pic.twitter.com/QcMiv7Y3HX
— Ryan Stig (@Ryanstig) October 22, 2013
He goes on to give “aids” a run (which, if I understand it correctly, is much less discriminatory than Stig) but he does, on the plus side, indicate some of his friends are gay, if not his best ones.
Stig made his comments on Twitter on 23 October. Curiously, given the speed with which rugby league news typically moves, these comments didn’t make it into the mainstream press until almost a week later, even if Twitter was abuzz with them immediately.
Shortly after the mainstream coverage (not the actual comments from Stig), the Newcastle Knights released a statement saying “[the club] does not support the views of Ryan Stig”.
I don’t know if this means that the club supports gay marriage or doesn’t have a view on gay marriage but doesn’t think Satan is involved. It’s not clear from the statement.
I don’t recall (and couldn’t find) a statement from the NRL on the topic, but John Brady of the NRL did speak to the Sydney Star Observer (a newspaper that generally caters to the LGBTI community).
Brady was quoted as saying:
“[Stig’s statement] does not in our view amount to vilification albeit that it is entirely contrary to the position of the NRL and the vast majority of players in the game.”
The NRL’s code of conduct states that it binds all players to the sport’s Anti-Vilification Code which, in turn, states they must not:
“speak or otherwise act in a manner which is likely to offend, insult, humiliate, intimidate, threaten, disparage or vilify another person on the basis of that person’s race, religion, colour, descent, nationality, ethnic origin, gender, sexuality, marital status, status as a parent, disability or HIV/AIDS status.”
Satan, let’s not forget, spoke through the serpent to Eve, causing her to offer the apple to Adam, seeing him commit the first sin and seeing them cast from the Garden of Eden. It was all downhill from there.
If this is the same Satan Stig sees behind homosexuality (like ‘Adolf’, ‘Satan’ is not a popular name) it’s hard for me to imagine the link between the two doesn’t amount to vilification.
As Andrew Webster posits, if similar comments were made in relation to women or persons of indigenous heritage or any other ethnic background, it’s hard to imagine that the NRL would not have come out (excuse the pun) more strongly.
I agree. Indeed, the NRL has imposed strong sanctions in racial vilification cases where words have been spoken only from one person to another (Paul Gallen and Bryan Fletcher, for example), whereas Stig’s comments were made publicly available to his Twitter followers (2,894 at time of writing this, probably less at the time of his post) and many, many more indirectly, given the degree to which the comments were retweeted and discussed.
Finally, NBN Newcastle reported on 1 November Stig would not be offered a new contract by the Knights due to his “ongoing injury issues”.
Stig, who played 13 NRL games in 2011 and had a handy step if I recall correctly, hasn’t played for two seasons due to an eye injury (I’ll resist the obvious here).
He was signed by Newcastle until 2013 and NRL contract years end on 31 October.
Given that was last week, as his comments received more coverage, it’s possible the timing of this announcement (though the Knights didn’t announce it, as far as I could tell – NBN reported it and, bizarrely Marathon Stadium tweeted it) is coincidence.
I note creditors of Nathan Tinkler are often coincidently paid the day after they speak to newspapers, so anything is possible.
I just wish someone would explain this all to me because, just as I don’t believe in Satan, I don’t believe in coincidences either.
Will
Guest
Anti this anti that, yes your very smart with wonderful points about the ills of the world - you know your on a Sport website don't you?
Dan
Guest
Pretty sure I do actually. Thanks for your pointless and thoughtless input though...
Epiquin
Guest
Theocracy... Dostoyevsky... Doctrines... You do realise you're on a Rugby League thread? ;)
Epiquin
Guest
Theocracy... Dostoyevsky... Doctrines... You do realise you're on a Rugby League thread?
Rodney
Guest
"I think it’s one thing to oppose gay marriage because you don’t think it fits your narrow religious definition... but it’s another to say that the very notion of gay marriage is part of an evil push from the lord of darkness to destroy belief in god…" How so? Why would Christians oppose the concept of gay marriage if it were not something corrupted and wrong (in their perspective)? Satan is the general representative of all that is 'wrong' so why wouldn't a christian associate the push for the 'corruption' of the concept of marriage with Satan, the embodiment of all that is corrupted. IMO this whole fiasco has been blown well out proportion, Stig genuinely believes in his convictions and I think it should be fine for him to express his beliefs. We may disagree with them, however I don't think he should be prevented from playing NRL in the future. Stig's crime here is to simply publish a religiously charged pages document, it pales in comparison to the actions of other NRL who have been released by their clubs. Who could forget the Joel Monaghan fiasco? Anthony Watts has been banned from league after the 'penis biting' incident. Sandor Earl was ejected for doping. Several NRL players have been accused of or found guilty of violent crime, including violence against women yet they still are playing in the NRL such as Robert Lui and Ben Barba. So IMO the right actions have been taken, his actions have been noted and Newcastle have publicly distanced themselves from his statements.
Horizontal
Guest
Hey Dan stick to football because you have no idea about the other stuff !!
Dan
Guest
No, but then they also aren't fighting to make divorce illegal (in spite of it not conforming the the "union between God"), nor are they attempting to implement a licensing system for people to be able to raise children, so as to avoid them being born to alcoholics, violent criminals and drug addicts (which is odd, given they also claim their opposition to gay marriage is to protect children - obviously gays are more dangerous to a child's upbringing than dangerous substance abuse and a history of violence...).
Doug Graves
Guest
"Whether you like it or not Marriage to many Christian is still seen as a union between Man, Woman and God. Gay marriage does not fit into their beliefs." So as a straight atheist does that mean that Christians would oppose my right to get married as well?
Dan
Guest
I think it's one thing to oppose gay marriage because you don't think it fits your narrow religious definition (though strangely, polygamy is generally only legal in Christian or Islamic fundamentalist theocracies), but it's another to say that the very notion of gay marriage is part of an evil push from the lord of darkness to destroy belief in god... Personally, I think it's funny more than offensive anyway. The notion that Satan (assuming he could exist) would use homosexuality to undermine belief in god is just so petty and nonsensical it should only inspire laughter... I always thought the most successful institution at destroying belief in God was the Catholic Church. Dostoyevsky certainly thought so - he rather fairly makes the point in a couple of his books that the vision of Christ presented by the Catholic church is so warped and so distorted that it amounts to an anti-Christ that cannot but result in people turning away from the belief. He effectively blamed the rise of atheistic doctrines such as communism on the Church as a result. The fact that the Vatican sided with Hitler didn't help the situation much either...
Doug Graves
Guest
+1. Well said Kris you hit the nail on the head. The Knights should get the bloke a psychological evaluation as he's clearly unhinged and not just because of his repugnant, backward iron age views but the manic way in which he articulates them. Stig dost protest too much perhaps?
Dan
Guest
That doesn't logically follow at all... It's only fundamentalist Christians, Muslims etc that actually believe in the devil literally. But the more cerebral of the faithful don't believe in Satan, as they understand that it doesn't conform rationally to the notion of good as being all knowing and all powerful (absolutes have no room for challengers). That's why there was a strong 'Deist' movement during the enlightenment; people couldn't conceive of how the world was created without a god, but when they processed the logical conclusion of the existence of god, they found found that his/her/its existence eliminates free will and the notion of evil. Lastly, it doesn't really even follow that without Satan you wouldn't need god. Satan/Lucifer was a creation of God's - one of his first and one of his greatest, according to Abrahamic mythology. He was the most brilliant of all of the race of angels, and had serious daddy issues when God decided his family was too small and then invented humanity. It's a pretty good yarn, but Satan is hardly "necessary" for belief in god.
ctar
Guest
I don't understand what more Webster expected the Knights or the NRL to do? Does he want them to publicly announce what a disgrace Stig is for having these views? There is probably many Knights members who are opposed to gay marriage for whatever reasons and I doubt the Knights would want to risk putting those fans off. Whether you like it or not Marriage to many Christian is still seen as a union between Man, Woman and God. Gay marriage does not fit into their beliefs.
Epiquin
Guest
It's hard to take serious action against a man for his opinions when they are pretty much reflected by this country's law and its Prime Minister. Racial discrimination is illegal - NRL takes action Gender discrimination is illegal - NRL takes action Gay marriage is not legal, therefore if someone says they like it that way due to their religion, you can't really do much else except say you disagree. Even if that someone is a raving lunatic.
oikee
Guest
The fact of the matter is, if you believe in God, you also believe in the devil, or Satan,. Why, because without one their is no other. In other words if Satan did not exist, we would not need a God. As for Stig, everyone has their own beliefs. Who am i to judge,,,,,, God.
Cleveland Steamer
Guest
Yeah. I wasn't as blown away by it as the hype after I finally read it. Not too interested in a journalist writing about themselves as I'm not interested in the bigoted opinions of a failed footballer
Cleveland Steamer
Guest
Their biggest crime is self plagerism. I think most people don't like them cause they know some else that doesn't like them so figure they shouldn't either In saying that, I wouldn't spend my hard earned on mr kroeger and pals
Ken
Guest
'At what point does opposing gay marriage and homosexuality on religious grounds amount to vilification?' I think the test was alluded to in the article, replace 'Gay' with 'Female' or 'Asian' or 'Dwarf' or 'Red head' and if you think what's being said amounts to vilification then you have your answer
sledgeross
Guest
I wasnt that impressed by Websters writing to be honest. I mean, the message was important, but I didnt think it was necessarily any better than any other opinion piece hes written.
Kris Swales
Expert
First time I've seen old mate's Magna Carta-esque slab of text, the layout makes it seem even more like the rantings of someone who needs at least another six months on their meds. Best thing to come out of this is that Andrew Webster piece. Just superb writing. He's been on fire all year, actually.
Dan
Guest
Of course it's a free country, and no one is saying Stig isn't entitled to his views, but you have to admit that those views are about as crack-pot crazy as they get... I can honestly never work out how people who say they believe in god - a supposedly omniscient and omnipotent being - can think there is some opposing force out there. By definition there simply can't be one, otherwise God wouldn't be omnipotent and omniscient, and therefore wouldn't really be all that worthy of the title "God".