I knew a girl in high school who was a serious Christian, from a serious Christian family.
So seriously Christian were they that at her birthday party, there was no music, and we all spent the whole night sitting solemnly, eating chips and wondering which one of us her grandfather would declare to be tonight’s sacrifice.
Anyway, in the mid ’90s, during a period of intense and devastating bushfire activity across New South Wales, this Christian friend of mine declared that the reason the fires were ravaging the state was the NSW government’s failure to criminalise homosexuality.
To this we responded with laughter and mockery. None of us attempted any reasoned argument against her declaration, because it was so self-evidently batshit insane that we saw no need to engage with it on any level other than “what an idiot”.
Which brings me, naturally, to Israel Folau. Folau has made a statement pretty similar to what my old sort-of-friend said more than 20 years ago: he claims the current bushfire emergency is due to the government’s sanctioning of same-sex marriage and abortion.
Essentially, the cross-code champ reckons, God didn’t like what Australia did, so he torched the joint.
Now, what else can you say to this but “what an idiot”? Not just for believing that, but for thinking it doesn’t make this “God” you love so much look like a total bastard? I mean, “God is burning the country because he hates gay sex” is no advertisement for God – if God and Satan were in an election campaign, the Devil would be running Izzy’s line on his attack ads.
But also, those of us who encountered people like my classmate in the past know that Folau’s take on the fires isn’t even an original one. People have been claiming disasters as the wrath of God against the wicked forever.
In fact, the guy spends most of the Old Testament inflicting various catastrophes on people whose behaviour he disapproves of, so it’s no wonder that in The Year Of Our Lord 2019, people who’ve been brought up to think that very Testament is the ancient world’s version of Hansard believe it’s still going on today.
So it’s not really any big deal that a guy who’s been indoctrinated into the tiniest hate-filled niche of a slightly larger hate-filled subsection of a moderately sized hate-filled corner of a fairly large wing of a massive global belief system is going around spouting hilariously demented lunacy. Given that, the question is: why are we paying attention?
(Photo by Matt King/Getty Images)
And the answer is: because this weird loon is good at footy. Really, really good at footy. Let’s not deny that Israel Folau, in the days before his big mouth and church-scrambled brain saw him banished from the field, did things that even very good footballers could only dream of doing.
But there we run into a non sequitur. Because “we are interested in his views about why God sets fire to things because he is super good at footy” is not a logically coherent sentence. It’s like saying you hired a plumber because you heard he made brilliant apple cakes: it does not follow.
So maybe we should take our explanation back a step. The reason we’re paying attention is not simply because Israel Folau is good at footy: it’s because, long ago and for reasons difficult to decipher, we decided that what sportspeople think about things outside sport is important.
It’s the same reason Margaret Court can still grab a headline by babbling something dumb about Hell, the reason NRL players rack up big Facebook numbers telling people not to vaccinate their kids, and the reason Sam Newman is still a thing. As a society, we took the adventurous step of allocating to athletes the role of expert pundit on… well, pretty much anything.
So maybe we should stop doing that?
Look, there are undoubtedly sportsmen and sportswomen with intelligent and useful contributions to make on a range of social issues. I’m just saying how about, before we treat anything they say as inherently newsworthy, we check to see whether there is any reason to listen to them besides the fact they get paid to play games?
Maybe, before we decide that an idiot saying idiotic things matters, we should ensure that we’re not only paying attention to that idiot because of their proficiency in a field completely unrelated to the idiotic things they’re saying?
If you want to know how to catch a high ball under pressure, Izzy Folau would be a great guy to go to for advice, just like Margaret Court can be of enormous help to anyone seeking to improve their forehand. But going to either of them for anything interesting on the subject of marriage equality, gay rights in general, or fire prevention makes as much sense as asking Don Bradman for his thoughts on data retention.
I mean, even when he was alive.
So, can we draw a line? Can we agree that from now on we only take sportspeople seriously when they’re talking about sport, and if we’re unlucky enough to be within earshot when they shoot off about anything else, we simply say, “what an idiot” and move on with our lives?
Unanimous
Guest
Way late to this one. Anyway. The media is an industry that gains attention so that they can sell that attention to advertisers. They do this by telling stories, because people like hearing stories. If the stories appear real, they are more credible and attention grabbing. So including some facts in a story makes it appear true and more credible and attention grabbing - Ripley's believe it or not. If the stories involve people the audience already knows, then they are part of an ongoing series of stories, and the need to be up-to-date on events makes those stories more attractive. Stories need goodies and badies. Stories with an unusual event or two are more attention grabbing. The downfallen goody is a classic. So we end up being subjected to a relentless dirge of mostly unimportant, freakish stories made up out of a few cherry picked facts about public personas we have already heard of. Few people really think sports people have much special insight into non-sports subjects. It's just how gossip works - stories grab attention, and stories involving known people grab attention more easily. If someone born and raised superstitious and sounds unusual is made to look evil rather than misguided when they try to help people, and loses their job, the media loves it - anything for a profit. Victimising people for how they were born has never been a problem for the media. It used to cast gay people as child molesters, women as incompetent in some fields, black people as unintelligent. It's generally better business if you can get more people misunderstanding each other and going at each other online, so the focus now is more on that - people cynical about the worth of missing school to make a political point are "climate deniers", British people who don't like EU bureaucracy are "racist", certain religions are "hate speech" - got to cast badies in the stories, got to get people riled up. People who want to sit out if it are evil too, because they aren't joining the right side. The more people involved, the more business for the media. You don't want to be neutral with both sides hating you - "fence sitter". So picking a side is something a lot of companies do - reluctantly internally at first, but then once done they have to go all in. The end result is that excluding someone is inclusive.
Ken Catchpole's Other Leg
Roar Guru
“The best ideas triumph over the idiotic’ If you believe that, Gloria, you haven’t read much history. I suspect that you have read history so I suspect that your ideology trumps it.
Ken Catchpole's Other Leg
Roar Guru
Moose, Qualification is less important than authenticity or accuracy. Truth waits for no degree. Penn or Clooney may have read more books than those elected to office. Celebrity is not a qualification in itself, but celebrity doesn’t make the famous dills or flakes.
Texa Mexa
Guest
1. Why were people bothering to spy on what he was saying? - Was it because they just wanted more fuel for a fire? 2. There is a definite thread in the bible that the actions of a society or people or the world can have consequences. Anyone here a theologian? 3. However we currently live in a period of grace where it like God just wants man to have a chance to find him. 4. As much as natural disasters like bush fires are blamed on God (if you live through something really bad you might curse God right?) some events just happen and we don't know why. Blaming a change is law is bit naive. 5. How often are fires started by someones choice? IE - kids start a fire that leads to homes burning but how often can a fire just start by lightening, as an example? 6. Why are people so aggressive towards the man anyway? Who really cares what his opinion is? There are probably many temples, churches and other religious places that say all kinds of things we would cringe at?
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
Or mermaids either ;)
piru
Roar Rookie
My highlights show that this is exactly what was said. No they don't, they show a suggestion from the writer that we don't listen to sportspeople when they talk about non sports topics. Your assertion was that the writer said: "in a democracy, with freedom of speech, someone is not allowed to express an opinion if they play a sport for a living" These are clearly two different statements
piru
Roar Rookie
maybe that will enlighten to my point, which you clearly missed. And apparently unwittingly demonstrated
Paulo
Roar Rookie
Read Spruces comment mate, maybe that will enlighten to my point, which you clearly missed.
clipper
Roar Rookie
Think you've missed the point there, Gloria - I think the point was for full balance there should be 99 scientists that agree with climate change on one side and one that doesn't on the other. Anyway, this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. He can, and does say what he wants now with no repercussions (other than mockery) as he's not employed. It's rather an illogical argument anyway - Zimbabwe and Zambia, where there is no same sex marriage and homosexuality is illegal, suffer terribly. Why do they get punished if they are abiding by, what Falou believes is, God's law.
Gloria
Roar Rookie
What a totally ridiculous comment. ‘Freedom of speech causes power imbalances’. My goodness. So the other 99 scientists will remain silent will they? Rightio then.
Carlos the Argie
Roar Guru
Hate for the President (your upper case, not mine) of America? Pagans? Climate Cult? How many silly things in one post. Unreal!
Vman2
Roar Rookie
I agree completely. Sports people, actors, and unreality stars are often the very last person one should take advise from on anything other than sport or acting. They often say or believe the stupidist things. I want to watch star rugby players play rugby. Generally speaking I don't even want to hear what they say on other topics.
Bobby
Roar Rookie
Have to agree. But on slow days any Folau story gets some interest. I do have say, after watching Israels sermon, he is a terrible "evangelist " - nothing like Benny Hinn or that bloke from Hillsong.
Waxhead
Roar Rookie
@Ben you've exposed yourself for being another media hypocrite. You ask..... "Given that, the question is: why are we paying attention?" You are (not we) - you're still writing articles about almost every loony twist in the Folau saga. You're still attempting to bleed the corpse dry with your anecdotes and attempted jokes. What you've done again in this article is a copy of what we often see in the gutter media. When there's nothing that hasn't already been said you write an article about why people are interested. Just to drag a bit more value out. Take your own advice for a change and stop writing articles about Folau - like none, zero. We're not interested ok :)
Brian
Guest
Yeah but he is not probably a serious outlier
R J
Guest
I'll ask my mate will.i.am
R J
Guest
No one's seen a unicorn have they? Case closed
Tooly
Roar Rookie
Apparently it’s fine for entertainers and Pagans to preach hate for the President of America, and promote the Climate Cult, but not OK for a Christian to preach their beliefs. There is no hate in Israel or Margaret. No need for the media to be alarmed, involved or take notice or umbrage. No need for anyone to take any notice unless they believe what they say. No need for sport administrators to bully them. Well spotted both Israel and Margaret have been superstars at their respective sports.
Carlos the Argie
Roar Guru
Actually, there is no conclusive evidence that demonstrates whether eating butter is good or bad for you. Nutritional research is of very poor quality. But there re a lot of opinions on the subject.
Carlos the Argie
Roar Guru
Hey, Ben. You should meet Diego Maradona. Too many people think that whatever comes of his mouth is sacred.