Israel Folau is in a mess for which he is largely but not solely responsible.
Reactions to his Twitter feed are overblown and much of the rage is confected. He should be brought to account, but that is not what is happening.
Folau has said by way of Twitter, a remarkably limited format, that hell awaits drunks, fornicators, adulterers and gays unless they repent and seek God’s love. He seems to genuinely wish to save us from this outcome.
Let me say three things about this, two with total certainty and one with high conviction.
Firstly, Israel Folau does not really know who, if anyone, is going to hell or if it exists.
Secondly he is not in any position at all to affect the admission policy to hell.
Thirdly I think his statement is wrong. I have a high conviction on that point but of course I can no more prove this than he can prove his statement.
What I also think with high conviction is that Folau should be accountable for his statements but not punished for his statements. There is a very stark difference.
He should not be punished for exercising his right of free speech but he should be asked to defend his views and presumably do so in an interactive setting – something which exceeds Twitter for nuance.
He should not be allowed to throw this mini-bomb and walk away.
He might, say, seek to point out to his critics what basis in scripture there is for this prognostication, indeed to explain to his critics why scripture even has any authority.
He will then need to assess the extent to which the Christian gospels – the New Testament – do or do not supersede the harsh judgments made in the Old one.
There is not a lot of cheek turning in the old book, not much forgiving your enemy and none of simplifying the message of scripture into faith, hope and love.
If Israel can find a word from Jesus on homosexuality then he is doing better than me – I say all this as a Catholic, the Christian sect least known for actually reading scripture.
Israel can do his best in public to explain why people will be sent to hell for something they were born with.
Maybe he will make a strong case. I doubt it but he should take the chance.
Would his failure to do so be reason enough to tear up his contract with his various employers in rugby? I do not think so.
I have no doubt he is an annoyance of the highest order to Wallaby and Waratah organisers alike, but the outrage is ridiculous.
Israel Folau (Anthony Au-Yeung/Getty Images)
There seems too much enthusiasm to take offence. The comments could have been ignored other than for the mood of hypersensitivity in which the world is presumed to have the thinnest of skins.
Diversity and tolerance are not negotiable virtues – except that apparently conservative Christians have no place in the rainbow and are a rather a bit too much to tolerate. Who decides where the limits are?
Let me unpick some of the explicit arguments against Israel’s comments and the man himself, along with some that are floating unsaid.
That Israel’s comments will outrage the major sponsors of the sport, especially Qantas
I am pretty sure that if Qantas can hold their nose and form major alliances with the Sheikhs in the Emirates – who have homosexuality in their crime statutes – then they can definitely look the other way when a player uses Twitter to repeat old school Christian assertions.
If they cannot then they should say so out loud. Are rugby authorities going to take up this argument with their sponsor? I doubt it. This is not really about ideas.
That Israel Folau’s comments on ‘gays’ will isolate them from supporting the game
I have spent a lot of time at rugby matches. Of the groups damned to Hell by Israel I can say that we, the drunks, are the main demographic.
I cannot as easily identify who the fornicators and adulterers are but between them I think these outnumber the gays that Israel is judging. They seem not to be offended.
Is there really a solid reason why the countless alcohol sponsors and one presumes the gambling sponsors are not up in arms about this slight against their customers?
Perhaps they see it as more of us should, as a very unimportant story that should have lasted one news cycle.
That Israel Folau’s statements will bring discomfort or even threaten the mental health of the young uncertain person struggling with their sexuality
I accept this is a serious issue but the chorus of empathy for such a person and the universal damnation of Folau’s outburst really should gladden their hearts.
He has flushed out endless empathy for people in this category, I cannot speak for how they feel about this but why should they not be encouraged?
Is it possible they will be forever isolated from knowledge of the historical hostility to homosexuals in most religions?
I doubt anyone thinks that such isolation is possible or is indeed the business of Rugby Australia.
Eric Liddell’s stance against running on the sabbath was given much reverence in the movie, Chariots of Fire.
The popular perception of Muhammed Ali is near saintly for his commitment to of all things Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam.
I still thank God that Michael Jones would not play on a Sunday against the Wallabies in the 1991 Rugby World Cup semi-final.
Israel Folau is being excoriated for his unfashionable religious beliefs. He should be given more access to public forums not less.
He should explain himself not defend himself.
His ideas, like all of ours, need to stand up to rigour and examination. The outcome of this process, not likely to be agreed in black and white, should not affect his eligibility or ability to play rugby.
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
But think of the endless speculation, each side being sure that they are right. And the grapevine rumours.............
Ralph
Roar Guru
I guess eventually we'll find out? Or maybe not - how frustrating would it be to this whole debate if they reach a settlement out of court and seal the agreement. We'll have nothing to hold on to except our prejudices!
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
The contract might not be an issue. If Folau made the statement as an inducement to RA before they entered into contractual negotiations then it may still have a bearing. IF of course being the key issue.
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
I think RA would be with you 100% there KP.
somer
Guest
That's a poor argument. Someone, somewhere had it far worse so therefore your persecution is meaningless. By the same logic, Pacific Islanders slaughtered, enslaved and cannibalised one another before European influence, therefore, their systematic deportation, being relatively minor, doesn't bare mentioning.
Andrew Coorey
Guest
I wrote this and am not sure why my name is not on the article.. The Headline might have said " Folau should be asked to elaborate". Some of the theology in this thread is quite surprising. I want people to back up their own views and not rely on us online. he should deal with all this stuff himself. Not go all whisper on us. and i am sorry for extending this one day story. Key points " Izzy don't start a dialogue you won't finish. ARU lighten up. People chill this is old news " sports person says something out of court according to many" Boring.
Wal
Roar Guru
So google I did "The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal is a form of alternative dispute resolution which operates under the Arbitration Act 1996 which is available in England. It is one of a range of services (Islamic Sharia Council is another) for Muslims who wish to resolve disputes without recourse to the courts system.[2] According to Machteld Zee, the MAT differs from other Sharia councils in that their ‘core business’ is arbitrating commercial disputes under the Arbitration Act 1996.[3]" "The MAT operates under Section 1 of the Arbitration Act which states that: “the parties should be free to agree how their disputes are resolved, subject only to such safeguards as are necessary in the public interest”.[5] As such it operates within the framework of English law and does not constitute a separate Islamic legal system. Under the Act they are deemed to be "arbitration tribunals".[4][dead link] The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal has no powers to grant a divorce which is valid in English and Welsh law.[5][6] A talaq can be granted to recognise divorce.[5][6] A sharia marriage has no bearing on personal status under UK law.[7] The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal has no jurisdiction on criminal matters but can attempt reconciliation between spouses." Only 16% of UK Muslims Strongly support introduction of SOME ASPECTS of sharia law is hardly universal support is it? The Uk government has also made steps to prevent any over reach. The Australian Federation of Islamic councils only represent Sunni Muslims. So to use both these examples is again dismissing the diversity of Muslim peoples.
stillmissit
Roar Guru
Wal: I should have been more explicit so here is some of the stuff via google which you could have got yourself! UK: Today, UK has over 130 Sharia law courts. Although they technically lie within the UK's Tribunal Court system, these Sharia courts have been issuing rulings that contradict UK's common law. IN AUSTRALIA from the ABC: The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils wants Muslims to be able to marry, divorce and conduct financial transactions under the principles of sharia law. In a submission to the Federal Parliament's Committee on Multicultural Affairs, the Federation has asked for the change. It argues that all Australians would benefit if Islamic laws were adopted as mainstream legislation.
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
Indoctrination, lies, social engineering and biased science correlates with atheism. Nah the biggest single factor is the lack of a god
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
The cocaine video was 2019 and Beale's code of conduct hearing in 2014. Was the panel expected to be psychic and judge him on future events ? And what's your argument that two wrongs make a right ?
Jack
Guest
Richard Smalley won the 1996 Nobel Prize for Chemistry. He believed on Jesus Christ in 2003 and died 2 years later. And you know better? James Tour has been recognised as one of the Top 10 Chemists in the World Today! And you know better? Science receives 100% of its funding from 4 sources. 1. Governments 2. Corporations 3. Wealthy Benefactors 4. Donations (smallest amount) If you place 100% of your trust in any of these funders you need your head read. The men that pay the salaries determine the outcomes. RA and it’s sponsors are an ironical example of this truth.
Jack
Guest
You’ve inadvertently supported my point ie most people base their atheism/non-belief on emotional foundations. In your case it seems that your emotional response includes that you don’t have time. That’s subjective and certainly not objective which is the point that I’m trying to make! In saying that, I do understand that most people are struggling to feed their families, but I also realise that the vast majority of these people do not live in 1st world countries like Australia. Your monthly entertainment expenses alone eg internet, tv, phone data plan, coffees, food, movies etc would feed families for many months in the 3rd world. If you’ve got debt and have bought into the keeping up with the “Jones” paradigm that your masters created for you have been deceived and more fool you. I have been there, done that, and I CHOSE to opt-out of that paradigm many years ago. Any man, anywhere in the world today can ask God to show him the truth and reveal himself to him and God will respond. Most men don’t ask! They think that they know better and don’t need him! It is not a matter of money or time - it is a matter of what your heart desires and God sees through the BS and judges accordingly! Do you have a Tell-A-Vision in your home? I don’t - how many hours do you spend watching TV and on forums like this every month? How about CHOOSING to dedicate 50% of that time to discovering the origins of life, and the evidence for a creator, or if the resurrection is true? Surely that is time better spent than watching Masterchef etc? I don’t believe that you don’t have time. I believe that you are CHOOSING to spend your time in other areas and making excuses! I’ve posted multiple links to videos on this article, watch them and start with the video below from James Truth (one of the best scientists in the world). I sincerely wish you all the very best and I hope to see you in heaven! God loves you and he wants you to seek him!
Jack
Guest
Karl Marx in his Communist Manifesto said that the state needs to make sure people don’t believe in religion. You don’t even realise who’s agenda it is that you bought into! Indoctrination, lies, social engineering and biased science correlates with atheism. I posted a link from James Tour just above. He has been voted as one of the top 10 chemists in the world today and one of the 50 most influential scientists. I suggest you watch the video and begin to embark on a real education.
R2k
Guest
Check off nazis on your internet fight bingo cards folks! The following is sarcastic; Let's substitute Bill Shorten with Adolf Hitler, and providing more funding for hospitals with exterminating races of people. Don't look now but Bill Shorten is Hitler. Back to serious, listen I do understand where you're coming from at a very base level - but this... let's call it an open discussion of religious and political ideas jumped the shark a long time ago. Quite frankly I'm at the point where I really want it to go away and if the simplest way of doing that is terminating Folau's contract via payout then that's fine by me. Nobody can win in this battle. Folau loses reputation and let's be honest probably future work, the ARU loses reputation and money and everyone else complains regardless of the outcome. Hooray! No one wins!
aussierad
Roar Rookie
several alcohol related infringement requiring rehabilitation, denigrating comments towards a senior RA business manager, cocaine snorting videos are just a few.
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
What you reckon if you didn't show up for work for a couple of days they'd send you a letter ?
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
As I understand it Beale was more of a "first offender" and it was never definitively proven that the most offensive comments were made by him. Neither of those applies to Folau. And it was the panel that made the decision in Beale's case whereas no decision has been made yet with Folau.
Kashmir Pete
Roar Guru
Fionn Not sure how your nuances 'respond' to various contributors (spoken or implied) point. Qantas is content to be in a marketing/distribution partnership linked to [oppression]. Qantas is not content to be in a marketing/distribution partnership linked to 1 footballer. KP
Kashmir Pete
Roar Guru
unkind. the truth that is.
aussierad
Roar Rookie
Usually, a letter with the alleged misconduct is sent to the employee, stating time/date of meeting and the agenda, and if serious enough, giving the employee permission to bring a support person and access to counselling etc. They may also state their intention to dismiss the employee (which they have to be careful if they do so as the courts tend to look at it unfavourably if they are shown to be disproportionately harsh). Two days are not considered realistic for an employee to prepare for such a meeting.