‘For what we are about to receive may the Lord make us truly grateful.’
As someone never persuaded by religion the ease at which the words fell out of my mouth surprised me. It was 2002 team dinner, I was the captain of the South African under 21 team when Springbok legend and team manager, Naas Botha, asked me to “lead the team in prayer”.
Put on the spot, my convictions crumbled as I blurted out some platitudinous nonsense in the hope of escaping embarrassment.
I suppose I could have told one of my childhood heroes that I didn’t share a compulsory devotion to a patently fictional deity, but I must have decided that discretion was indeed the better part of valour. In Naas’ defence there is no way he could have assumed my non-belief. Rugby and religion were deeply singed into the psyche of my teammates, the support staff and coaches. In that environment it was entirely reasonable to assume a devoted religiosity of everyone.
After my team won the Junior World Cup we gathered on bended knee in deference to god, or in my case in deference to the religious sensitivity of my teammates.
I like to think I’ve grown up a lot since then.
While I’ve always had good reason to view religion as a pure example of humanity’s propensity for mass delusion, I no longer feel quite so compelled to bury my opinions for fear of causing offence. In truth I’ve come to understand religion as a set of ideas every bit as deserving of scrutiny and skepticism as any other. However, it’s one thing to know something must be critiqued and another thing to critique it.
(AAP Image/Dave Hunt)
The problem seems to be that there is so little room for nuance in our discourse. Take the furore surrounding Margaret Court this week. While it’s obvious that Court’s views are antithetical to human flourishing they are entirely supported by the religious book she holds dear. The same book that inspires post-match prayer huddles.
These communal expressions of solidarity are widely celebrated as unambiguous symbols of virtue. While it is true that prayer huddles do in fact capture a camaraderie and sense of connection that is meaningful to those involved, they also represent a deep commitment to unreason. This is as much a problem in sport as it is anywhere else, for there is no doubt that what people believe and how these beliefs translate into behaviour really does matter.
I’ve also observed a racism of low expectations when discussing the role of religion in the South Pacific Islander communities involved in rugby. The line taken by many is that religion provides a sense of meaning and purpose that would be lost if these communities were encouraged to think more critically about faith.
One can read this as suggesting that some people aren’t intellectually developed enough to forgo the crutch of religion.
While there is no doubt that losing religion can be an acutely destabilising experience, the idea that meaning is dependent on self-delusion is both ridiculous and dangerous. I know of nothing more humbling and awe-inspiring than contemplating the mysteries of the natural world. A little doubt goes a long way and a lot of doubt goes further still.
We can’t forget that wellbeing depends on good ideas winning out over bad ideas. Everything we know about dogma, credulity and superstitious thinking suggests they are poor tools by which to navigate our way towards a greater good.
It’s worth keeping this in mind when we see players promoting their faith by pointing skyward after every try, or inscribing their taped wrists with religious symbols. However well intentioned they may be, these athletes are doing nothing to roll back the negative influence religion has in this world.
And while it’s obvious that they must always be free to express their religiosity in these ways, so too must we be free to point out that any good which stems from religion does not depend on accepting nonsense. Which is to say that there is no moral good exclusive to religion, or which cannot be achieved by an atheist.
Finally, if there is a god, one does have to wonder why he appears to have damned the Australian Super Rugby Conference of 2017.
Cedric Parker
Guest
Clyde - I respect you as a wonderful talent - a superb rugby player - and I was devastated when you left the Sharks. Your views on Christianity however, deserve to be challenged. To suggest that Christ followers are delusioned just doesn't make sense. History acknowledges Jesus and his miracles. I am one of them. I was never groomed for Christianity - to the contrary - God and Jesus were never mentioned in my home. I met my Saviour after having sunk to the lowest point of disgrace - after living on the streets of Durban and Johannesburg as a hobo for 5 years - as a teenager. He turned my life around. I have subsequently had a relationship with Christ for 50 years. As much as I know that He loves me - I know that he loves you. If you remember the Blarney Brother Irish pub band in Durban - do yourself a favour and watch Paul's (the group[ leader) son Aaron McIllroy's short, amusing but profound explanation of what salvation really is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNzGXcskkJQ; . I'd also love to hear your views on Rick Warren's explanation of the better life at http://pastorrick.com/know-god/how-to-be-saved. Thank you for reading this. I hope to meet you one day
Stanley
Guest
Ha, ha, ha!
Stanley
Guest
Dear Mr. Rathbone, I know this is a very late comment from me, but I only read your article for the first time today. I love how you brought faith (or the lack of it) into the discussion here. I think that most people will agree that sport and culture go hand in hand. Wherever a sport is played the local culture has influenced the traditions of the game in that particular place. No community of people plays a sport in a vacuum. The very origins of the game of rugby and the traditions of the game was founded on the Christian-Judean values of the well educated types of the English middle and upper classes. I am not sure what rugby would've looked like if it was founded on atheistic values. I imagine something more akin to the UFC would've evolved from that creation. Let's sincerely thank God for rugby! The truth is that intellect as valuable (and indispensable) as it is in our world, is still (and will always be) subject to "the love that surpasses all knowledge". It is that love that makes smart men wise. PS. I am sure Mr. Naas Botha would've understood if you declined to pray because you didn't know how to proceed, but maybe he was just testing your commitment to the team, and its values, because that is what we do to each other in rugby, and we definitely don't put ourselves first. "Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, 'If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all'." The bible doesn't despise intellect (you have to be able to read it AND understand it after all), and no faith on earth has allowed itself to be scrutinized more than faith in the teachings of Christ, but it has stood the test of time. Will our beloved game of rugby?
Tony Heugh
Guest
Proverbs 9 : 8 : "Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee." Regardless of the gripes many have with religion, the bible teaches tolerance. Dr. Louw Alberts, when asked how he related science with religion, said: "Science is the reading of the created word of nature, and the bible is the reading of the written word. Both have the same author, God.'' Dr. Alberts was a scientist and engineer, Minister of Telecommunications, and Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs in his country. Clyde writes later about future and athletes being able to manipulate genes to gain enhanced abilities and that such therapies will be more difficult to detect than the use of steroids - possibly one could legalize such therapies, so everyone has access to them - how affordable would they be? - would athletes be on a level playing field? what is the point of sport if the highest level is attainable only to the privileged? Perhaps I'm in the wrong space here - my focus is tolerance. I understand Clyde to have shown tolerance through his writings. Peter Wohllenben wrote in his book : The Hidden Life of Trees, chapter Yours or Mine: "Every species wants to survive, and each takes from the others what it needs. All are basically ruthless, and the only reason everything doesn't collapse, is because there are safeguards against those who demand more than their due. And one final limitation is an organism's own genetics: an organism that is too greedy and takes too much without giving anything in return, destroys what it needs for life and dies out." The reason Rugby Union is losing popularity, could be linked to greed, pay TV and professionalism in sport. The wheel may be turning - sport may become too expensive for spectators into the future. There is a price/demand situation for everything. Rugby players are not greedy - there was less professionalism in my day - amateurs competed at the highest levels. Management, administration and players need to provide value for entertainment. I agree that it is better to simplify rules - humans battle to remember more than 6 things simultaneously. Players and referees may be overburdened with rules - fluidity is replaced with game stoppages - entertainment compromised. The boss at school once told students there should only be one rule - that of common sense - break it and expect punishment. Surely the ref can decide if a tackle is dangerous? There is a lot of wisdom in the bible - regardless of religious affiliation - a good read about the consequences of greed can be found in Solomon's early proverbs.
Keith
Guest
This is pseudo-intellectual, postmodern rambling at it's best. When you're qualified as a theologian Clyde, perhaps then you can regale us with your holier than thou maunder. You talk of the racism of low expectations as if you abhor it (nice moral grandstanding by the way), and then go on to do exactly what you decry: 'One can read this as suggesting that some people aren’t intellectually developed enough to forgo the crutch of religion. While there is no doubt that losing religion can be an acutely destabilising experience, the idea that meaning is dependent on self-delusion is both ridiculous and dangerous.' So people aren't allowed to derive meaning from religion and since when did 'self-delusion' become a metaphor for religion? The New Testament provides for a fascinating moral code for human conduct. Don't get me wrong, you have every right to question religion's motives, but you lose all credibility when you belittle people who hold differing opinions to that of yourself.
The Brown
Guest
Nothing like a story on "religion" to get you 419 comments Clyde. I'm looking forward to your next story on "politics". As you were...
Andrew Oldfield
Guest
I remember looking into this at uni,the figures I found were that of wars in the last 3000 years that were well recorded, approx 7% had religion as a significant cause. Makes some sense when you try to go back through history; ww2 was about lebebsraum, nationalism more broadly covers ww1, Vietnam, Napoleonic wars, Korea etc etc. If you're looking at what starts wars, atheism is tainted in the same way by the communist, and even the revolutionary french
Gepetto
Guest
Disappointing, again.
tamaolevao
Roar Rookie
Lets face it you come froma posiiton of power and privilege You probably can't see why it would be a problem taking a moral high ground labeling pacific islanders as some what dim whitted and naive for having god as a foundation of their country, village and personal life......but i emplore you to look at poverty and struggle and know that they have to believe and have faith that one day they may live and provide as has been given to you and you may provide if you choose for others ...... Beig athiest is a choice and one you can freely express and know there's alot of those who have made the same choice no problem wih me its very height of intelligence to have opposition in all things ....... But being coloured or black and vilified is not Are you brave enough to add this comment or is it too true
Republican
Guest
.........should be more of this calibre of discussion. More power to you Clyde......
Republican
Guest
.........I tend to agree.......
Republican
Guest
.......& a sense of community, so belonging. That said, even under one denominational roof, individuals hold to very personal beliefs that are often in conflict with and contradictory to their chosen religious tribe.
Republican
Guest
......perhaps the answer/s is to know and indeed accept that there are none?
Republican
Guest
.......& in this context, Clydes article does indeed hold relevance. Thank you Clyde & Perthstayer........
Republican
Guest
.......Rugby as with all sport is anything but immune from politics,culture, money, religion - the human condition.....
Republican
Guest
......& not just the ARU. Sadly this devolution of sport at the elite tier is a result of a symbiosis with the almighty television $.......
RobC
Roar Guru
Thsnks for sharing your observations. But its quite obvious you have no clue what you're talking about. Stick to just Rugby. You're observations about religion is as useful as a leaguie or a fullback about packing a scrum. On the other hand, your article is effective click bait. Almost as good as writing about QC KB or JOC So whats the next topic. Donald Trump?
Kelefua
Guest
Well written Clyde I always enjoy reading opinions of former test players regardless of the topic. Religion is evident in many players none more so than the Pacific Island teams where they come together in prayer after they play each other. Like any sport Rugby is played by people from all walks of life so we learn to accept each other along with their beliefs or lack of, be that culture, religion etc. That's what makes sport inclusive as anyone can take part & enjoy each others company & most importantly accept your fellow players for who they are and how they play the game.
davSA
Guest
And that comment imo Harry should end this discussion . Because that will unite us all . But I am afraid it wont . Cheers
jeznez
Roar Guru
Love it DB - especially the 1 more than you line!