Israel Folau is wrong, wrong, wrong. I do not believe gay people will go to hell. I am certain they will not. I have many gay friends and I do not fear for a nanosecond about their future beyond the grave. It will be the same as mine, perhaps better.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
But because I disagree with him, it doesn't mean I want to close down his right to an opinion - and if you have a right to an opinion you have a right to express it publicly. That's called democracy.
When we start closing down speech and argument - censoring is the old word for it - we open the way to intolerance and closed thinking, and that opens the way to further bigotries down the line.
No-platforming (to use a more contemporary word for censorship) leads to tensions as the resentment of the silenced festers - some think the rise of Trump and the far-right in Europe, including Britain, stems partly from the attempt by the "socially aware" metropolitans to close down the views of "ordinary" working people, views which a particular elite finds unacceptable.
Of course, there are contractual obligations. Those of us in work probably have clauses in our contracts that mean if we speak out about controversial matters our employers would have us marched to the front door before the end of the morning.
Israel Folau may or may not have broken his contract of employment with Rugby Australia. There will be lots of air expended in argument before the dispute reaches Fair Work Australia. The lawyers will do very nicely, thank you.
But I don't think this debate in all its aspects is really about the fine print of an employment contract. If it were, it would stay on the back pages instead of exploding to the front.
I think it's really about closing down a particular point of view. It has become the fashion in the younger and better heeled parts of Sydney and Melbourne and Canberra to turn on anybody who questions in any way a set of beliefs, and they include the fundamentalist Christian (and Muslim) belief that homosexuality is a sin.
To repeat: homosexuality is not sinful; gays aren't going to hell. As far as I am concerned, people can do whatever they like in the privacy of their bedrooms. A loving gay relationship, it seems to me, is more valuable than a disastrous heterosexual one.
But there are people who do believe homosexuality is sinful. It is an important part of their faith and their views should not be marginalised. There is a danger of a bullying attitude where anybody who voices that view suffers a pile-on from activists.
Israel Folau reads the Bible in a very literal way (and one which even many Christians reject).
This is the verse to which he was referring when he took to social media. It is from one of St Paul's letter to the Corinthians: "Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God?"
Different Christians have different versions and interpretations of the verse but the import is the same. Some Christians also say Mr Folau didn't put it in its full context.
But the headlines weren't nuanced - they're headlines after all. And social media isn't subtle.
[Folau] has a right to a point of view that many of the rest of us find plain daft and even repulsive.
The rugby star was given a kicking much more brutal than he might have suffered under any ruck. The fevered narrative became: "Folau says gays will go to hell", which he did - sort of. The broader context is that so would adulterers, drunks, thieves, the greedy. It's hard to see who won't be there on his reading.
Some Christian theologians dispute that reading but Folau's faith is a fundamentalist, hard line one. It is, to my way of thinking, simple minded - but it is his faith and that of many, may other Australians.
He is a man of extraordinary skill and grace on the rugby field. His working life, like that of all sports stars, is relatively short.
He is easy to demonise (though his personal demeanour seems upright as an example compared with the kinds of things rugby stars have traditionally got up to).
He and his lawyers will wrestle with Rugby Australia over the contractual legalities. But the wider point is that he has a right to a point of view that many of the rest of us find plain daft and even repulsive.
Witch-hunts are the fashion of our Twitter and Instagram age but they are worrying.
I say: let repugnant opinions have their time in the sun. Challenge them. Scoff at them. Disagree - but don't close them down.
READ MORE