Did Israel Folau cross the line with his social media post or was he reasonably expressing his personal religious views?
There’s been no shortage of commentary from people who disagree with his views but support his right to voice them. Their argument is that no employer has the right to direct an individual employee as to what they can or cannot say in relation to spiritual matters. The suggestion is that this is a matter of freedom of speech.
But does the freedom of speech argument hold up?
A former boss of mine was a believer in the idea that too much is expected of professional athletes. His thinking was that pro athletes should not be required to be role models. Their job is to play sport as well as they can and that the measurement of their performance by any other criteria is unreasonable and unrealistic.
(AAP Image/Paul Miller)
I never bought this argument. Professional sport can only exist if the participants to at least some degree conform to values that the sport-watching public – that is, their customers – find admirable. If the punters perceive that pro athletes lack diligence, are lazy, cheat through drug taking or other means, do not respect the game or referees, do not work hard to achieve their skills or do not demonstrate courage and effort while competing, they would not turn up to enjoy the spectacle.
Athletes don’t have to be nice, but they do have to care about professionalism. In other words, professional athletes are not just paid to play sport; they are paid to behave in a sporting and professional manner. The job of a professional athlete is almost as much about presenting an acceptable sporting ethic as it is about playing well and winning. A professional athlete is not only an entertainer but an admirable character who upholds certain values.
How does the Folau debate about freedom of speech stack up against this definition of an acceptable professional athlete as one who upholds certain values as well as plays sport?
Some time ago Rugby AU and its subsidiaries decided that inclusiveness was an important central value that was critical to their sport and its customers and other stakeholders. Part of the rugby union product was inclusiveness. From that time onward any professional athlete who wanted to be paid to play under the Rugby AU banner has been expected to support that value, or at least not openly stand against it.
(Mark Metcalfe/Getty Images)
If an athlete’s religious views were opposed to this value, they could either choose to not sign an agreement with Rugby AU or choose to keep their views to themselves. If Rugby AU believes that inclusiveness is an important value that its athletes need to uphold in order to provide an acceptable product to customers, then it has a right to contractually oblige its employees to not publicly oppose that value.
Perhaps Rugby AU does not make the embrace of these values clear in its player agreements. If this is the case, then they may have a problem in their dispute with Folau.
If, on the other hand, the agreement is clear about a player’s obligations, then Rugby AU would argue that they cannot be expected to allow Folau to continue to present a product image that they believe is harmful to their business. Freedom of speech has little to do with the matter. Folau may present whatever views he likes but, in the eyes of Rugby AU, if his views are likely to damage his employer, then he needs to choose to play sport for someone else.
If an athlete opposes a team’s stated values, why would they want to play for that team?
Should personal issues as gender, race, sexuality and religion come under this banner of sporting values that professional athletes should adhere to? The answer is not as clear as it is for issues like cheating, being lazy, lacking courage, not training hard enough or not trying to win.
On the other hand, if one accepts that language that vilifies homosexuals can be damaging to the physical health, mental health, careers, personal lives and relationships of gay men and women and their families and friends, it is not too great a stretch to argue that such language is potentially damaging to rugby players and rugby supporters – that is, customers and sponsors – and the sport in general.
It’s not unreasonable that Rugby AU should be allowed to expect its athletes to not openly oppose inclusiveness.
If Rugby AU have been as clear as they say they’ve been on their expectations that professional athletes will support their inclusiveness policy, one must wonder why any athlete who holds opposing beliefs and who is determined to oppose such values publicly would enter into such an agreement in the first place.
It seems odd to me. If you don’t agree with something, why would you sign it?
John
Guest
Can someone show me one instance where Folau said homosexuals should be excluded from playing rugby? Or that he has discriminated against homosexuals? Or that he has in any way treated them with disdain or derision? He posted the Instagram which attracted little attention until those idiots at RA decided to brown-nose with qantas and blew it up into a monster which I hope will have an outcome that gets rid of the poisonous and incompetent leadership of RA. Castle and Clyne are not interested in Rugby’s welfare and growth just their own political agenda, an agenda RA should never have been involved in. They have sold rugby to the worst of the bunch and cost me and the many true followers our Wallabies.
Just Nuisance
Roar Rookie
How after the first comment he made 1 year or so ago could he have not been aware of the fallout this time.?
Timbo (L)
Roar Guru
@BlouBul Why don't you believe in Islam? What makes it any different to the bible? Both are Abrahamic Religions founded on the same texts. For all intents and purposes you are worshiping the same god, just in a different language in a different region. At the risk of bursting your bubble, the current manifestation of the Bible is newer than the Quo'ran
soapit
Roar Guru
I think a little background reading would benefit this exchange before we continue. Google some dictionary definitions of homophobic and see if you can't answer that question without any ones help
Timbo (L)
Roar Guru
No-one can make you feel lesser because no-one is allowed to persecute you for who you are. You don't need to believe in Islam to be Jailed for being a Christian. We have had many elections and homosexuality is no longer a criminal act. You can no longer argue that gays should be persecuted.
BlouBul
Roar Rookie
1. No one can make me feel lesser. You have to feel less about yourself and then to blame others for how you feel about yourself is pretty disingenuous. 2. If we have an election tomorrow and the majority decided that Christians have to go to jail, I'll go with a smile on my face. 3. I don't believe in Islam so whatever is written in their book doesn't bother
Timbo (L)
Roar Guru
It is pretty clear in the text. Saying that you should apologize and change who you are, under threat of consequences. If I said you should apologize for being a Christian, stop being one or be thrown in jail, would you fell lesser? Would you feel discriminated against? It is after all described in my copy of the Quo'ran
BlouBul
Roar Rookie
How did you get to that?
BlouBul
Roar Rookie
If I don't like drunks does that make me homophobic too or only when the drunks are gay?
BlouBul
Roar Rookie
According to the ACL any left overs will be returned to the donors on a pro-rata basis.
K.F.T.D.
Roar Rookie
As in there have been more comments here than the whole Bible. Interesting stuff! Let it rest. Joh Bjelke-Petersen didn't understand the Westminster system of government and the separation of powers. All dates back to Magna Carta, and before,
K.F.T.D.
Roar Rookie
Amen
Sinclair Whitbourne
Roar Rookie
I agree that this is outrageous - the freedom to discriminate given to religious schools. However, I think we should end that right, not extend it, in effect, so that organisations like RA can make their population less democratic. RA was inclusive - Folau was balanced by Pocock. Now it is isn't. But I remember when being openly gay, or openly against apartheid could cost you your job. I don't want to go back there. The wheel will turn and when it does I want to be able to argue from a position of consistency and strength.
TJP
Roar Rookie
1) It's a loaded question, but two points I will make is that he didn't specify just two groups, he specified behaviour that applies to probably includes just about everyone. Second is I guess how are you defining discrimination as this varies in definition from different sources, as hell isn't something that is verifiable though, I think it's pretty hard to argue that it is. 2) See 1, same principals apply. I will, however, add that the verse he paraphrased refers to homosexual as being the act, as opposed to same-sex attraction. Skin colour and sexual attraction aren't a choice whereas Athiest and having sex are choices. 3) Not specifically, no. Although I struggle to see what IF shared as discrimination (see point 1). On a broader point, if we are talking about institutions as opposed to members, I think Religious schools should be able to hire only those who agree with their doctrine, similarly, I would agree with the NSW GLRL only employing people who agree with their doctrine. I don't agree with general businesses having an exemption when it has nothing to do with their core purposes though. 4) See 3
Timbo (L)
Roar Guru
@TJP I have a closing comment for you. Or more a series of questions for you. 1. Do you think that saying Gays and Atheists will go to hell unless they apologize and stop doing what they are doinging is discriminatory? 2. What if you substitute Black for gay? 3. Do you think that religion deserves a special exemption to allow their members to discriminate? 4. Should it be restricted to Christians or should it extend to all ideologies?
TJP
Roar Rookie
My biased and unbalanced comment was in reply to "best article on the subject so far" It's in no way a bad article, but in a case which is fundamentally being played out as employment contract vs freedom of religious expression, It focuses solely on one and not the other. This is not really an issue unless you want to assign a "best article" lens to it and then it in comparison to other articles it is unbalanced and biased. This article https://www.abc.net.au/religion/the-israel-folau-case-has-been-mishandled-from-the-start/11253210 paints an entirely different picture, and is biased the other way, but also isn't a bad article. They both lay out good points, but are both biased towards their viewpoints and therefore would fall short of "best article" standard, but actually together provide a reasonable overview of the two competing ideas.
Jack
Guest
The word trinity is not in the bible though the concept is there but it’s predominantly misunderstood. I believe that the orthodox trinity is heretical and not supported by scripture. The word trinity is derived from the Latin word trinitas, which came from the Platonic (Plato) term trias meaning three. Thus it is philosophical and Platonic in origin. The word trinity was introduced by Tertullian (160-225 AD) who was a pagan turned Catholic theologian and one of the early Church fathers who wrote in the early third century to define the teaching concerning the Godhead. His conclusion was that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were one substance, but not one in person. He also did not see the Son as being co-eternal with the Father. Arius and Athananasius came on the scene approx 100 years after Tertullian. Athanasius was opposed to Arius doctrinally and the Roman emperors switched their allegiances between these two bishops many times. Every time they switched allegiances one bishop was ostracised while the other was given doctrinal authority. Supporters of each bishop went on a killing spree each time “their” bishop was given Roman approval. It seems that supporters of Athanasius (Trinitarians) were better killers as they ultimately prevailed and replaced the oneness of God that the apostles believed. Oneness was the predominant theology for the first 300 years after Jesus but then Rome introduced the Trinity to appease the pagans in their empire that believed in 3 Gods (polytheism). Jesus is the Everlasting Father Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. There is only ONE Lord and his name is Jesus. The OT tells us this and Jesus himself confirmed it in the NT and said that it is the 1st commandment. Deuteronomy 6:4 - Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord: Mark 12:29 - And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: Jesus is the “I Am He” from the OT and there is no-one beside him. Deuteronomy 32:39 See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand. John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. There is only One saviour and he states this in the OT in this passage and many others. Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour. On the surface whether or not you believe in the orthodox trinity is not a salvation issue but if you don’t believe that Jesus is God you probably are not saved as you are denying the deity of Christ. John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. Again, Jesus stating that he is the “I am He” from the OT. God is a spirit that cannot be seen (other than in the flesh as Jesus). John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. Jesus is the SPOKEN word of God which is how he is the (spoken) Word and God simultaneously. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The word was made flesh and dwelt among us. John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. The Godhead is a very deep doctrinal topic that very few people have a deep understanding of. It is also far too deep of a topic to cover in a comment. I will leave you with a few videos that better explain my position and how this is not a cut and dry doctrine. I encourage you and anyone else that is interested in this topic to watch these videos. History of the Orthodox Trinity - https://youtu.be/MtAHdZc-jQs Godhead Explained - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7he4r64z95KWC07rxoWLMdt_xNhGaRAN These Three Are One - https://youtu.be/422r7Y0SmJg
Jack
Guest
All major religions of the world are uniting. The Pope is involved and so are other major players. Geez, just the word interfaith should be ringing alarm bells. The word trinity is not in the bible though the concept is there but it’s predominantly misunderstood. I believe that the orthodox trinity is heretical and not supported by scripture. The word trinity is derived from the Latin word trinitas, which came from the Platonic (Plato) term trias meaning three. Thus it is philosophical and Platonic in origin. The word trinity was introduced by Tertullian (160-225 AD) who was a pagan turned Catholic theologian and one of the early Church fathers who wrote in the early third century to define the teaching concerning the Godhead. His conclusion was that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were one substance, but not one in person. He also did not see the Son as being co-eternal with the Father. Arius and Athananasius came on the scene approx 100 years after Tertullian. Athanasius was opposed to Arius doctrinally and the Roman emperors switched their allegiances between these two bishops many times. Every time they switched allegiances one bishop was ostracised while the other was given doctrinal authority. Supporters of each bishop went on a killing spree each time “their” bishop was given Roman approval. It seems that supporters of Athanasius (Trinitarians) were better killers as they ultimately prevailed and replaced the oneness of God that the apostles believed. Oneness was the predominant theology for the first 300 years after Jesus but then Rome introduced the Trinity to appease the pagans in their empire that believed in 3 Gods (polytheism). Jesus is the Everlasting Father Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. There is only ONE Lord and his name is Jesus. The OT tells us this and Jesus himself confirmed it in the NT and said that it is the 1st commandment. Deuteronomy 6:4 - Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord: Mark 12:29 - And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: Jesus is the “I Am He” from the OT and there is no-one beside him. Deuteronomy 32:39 See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand. John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. There is only One saviour and he states this in the OT in this passage and many others. Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour. On the surface whether or not you believe in the orthodox trinity is not a salvation issue but if you don’t believe that Jesus is God you probably are not saved as you are denying the deity of Christ. John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. Again, Jesus stating that he is the “I am He” from the OT. God is a spirit that cannot be seen (other than in the flesh as Jesus). John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. Jesus is the SPOKEN word of God which is how he is the (spoken) Word and God simultaneously. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The word was made flesh and dwelt among us. John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. The Godhead is a very deep doctrinal topic that very few people have a deep understanding of. It is also far too deep of a topic to cover in a comment. I will leave you with a few videos that better explain my position and how this is not a cut and dry doctrine. I encourage you and anyone else that is interested in this topic to watch these videos. History of the Orthodox Trinity - https://youtu.be/MtAHdZc-jQs Godhead Explained - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7he4r64z95KWC07rxoWLMdt_xNhGaRAN These Three Are One - https://youtu.be/422r7Y0SmJg
Isaac Buatava
Roar Pro
I must admit i didn't really look at it from the perspective that Folau should have inherently assumed the comments he made would be deemed so negatively. Then when you actually think about it only an idiot would not realise that. Maybe ill go work for the ACL and use my free speech to promote buddhism. Nice article Socrates.
Fraser
Roar Rookie
The word 'homosexual' was only translated into the Bible in 1946. It is notably not included in the passage Israel Folau quoted from Galatians 5:19-21 KJV. Yet it is included in the meme. Hmm.