Abstract

Please keep the simplistic and aggressive rhetoric down while the fires and drought are up. And watch your logic.

Article

Mr Folau, who seems to claim wisdom superior to most people on everything connected to such matters, proclaims that the terrible natural disasters we have been experiencing isgod'sretribution for allowing abortion and same-sex marriage, so it is reported.

If the report is correct, one must worry that he may be guilty of grievousblasphemy.

If godis all knowing, so that heknows the guilty from the innocent, and all powerful so that he can control on whomthe punishment falls, Mr Folau must be saying that god is killing people and destroying people's property, though they may be innocent of such conduct and even opposed to it, just to show his disapproval to everybody. Andit is not even certain that any practitioners of the condemned practices was even hit by such a scatter-gun punishment. Such injustice would not be consistent with the concept of a just and loving god withknowledge of the proper targets, and unerring aim..

Or is Mr Folau sayng that god is not all knowing, all powerful, just or loving?  That would be even worse blasphemy. At least he seems to be saying that godis not only an underachiever in losing the referendum on same-sex marriage, but also that he is a bad loser, and that his aim is very poor.

It is interesting that Mr Folau did not mention that god may also have been visiting justice upon the greedy who are responsible for the pollution which many who know isresponsible for the disasters.  Perhaps he does not wish to hurt the feelings of his friends.  It is to be wondered if he has ever cited the 'eye of the needle' view to them, butof course, his own riches might discourage their credibility.

It is also of interest that he has not mentioned child abuse, or is that less 'abhorrent' than the sexual proclivities of those who are born with the natural propensity that god has given them?  Or is the omission due to the association of child abuse with the clergy?

Just as the immediate moment of the tragedy is not the time for reasonable political and social discussion of the cause and its remedy, it is certainly not the time to engage in emotive religious rhetoric which might encourage zealots,who proliferate most in religion, to do serious harm to others. Perhaps any christian love of fellow humanity was overcome by pride in his belief that he knows better than others, accompanied with a want of self-control.

If there ever ws a need for it, this is the time for decency to prevail.

A spokesman for Folau's supporter, the ultra-conservative Australian Christian group has said that no on knows god's mind. Is that a condemnation of Folau, who implicitly claims to know it?  For if that be the case, how can Folau know why the disasters were visited upon us, if god was so nasty as to do it? The remark was probably intended as support for Folau, whch would be consistent with the usual quality of its logic.

Having settled his action against Rugby Australia on terms which included among other things an apology by him, Mr Folau now claims to be vindicated.  If he were vindicated by it, why and about what did he apologise?

Somethings are clear.  His claim substantially included the proposition that his conduct was not bad enough to justify his dismissal.  A settlement of a claim which that issue does not predicate that his conduct was not bad or that the settlement vindicated it generally.  It is well known that a commercial settlement has no implications at all.  A party in the right will often settle to avoid the danger of a long expensive trial where even if successful the party will not be able to recover the benefit of what is called a barren order for the payment of costs by the loser.  For Rugby Australia, there was also the distraction of an ugly trial and unfair criticism by Mr Folau'sextreme conservative supporters.

Its giving an apology in general terms is completely neutralised by Mr Folau's apology.

Mr Folau made a public statement, shortly before the mediation proceedings, saying that he did not hate anyone.  That may be true, but he did not say that he did not hate the beliefs of those whom he publicly condemned to a wide audience who could include zealots who would do extreme harm to people against whom they were inflamed by one such as Mr Folau.  There are sch peope - think Christchurch; think of the bashings and even murder of 'gays'; think of the Inquisition.

In any case, Mr Folau'shating people or not is irrelevant.  Heis entitled to hate anyone if he wishes. The issue is the product of his intemperate publications arising from his distorted view of the world. Apart from its incitement to cause harm, it is also offensive and hurtful to many vulnerable people who have not attacked his way of life, which his conduct shows to be not above criticism.

It is also incidentally interesting that such as he have the amazing pride of claiming to know the word of god, and its meaning, when they would not have given a small fraction of the time given by atheists in thinking about such matters for themselves.  It takes ven greater unvindicated pride to broadcast such simplistic notions to a large audience whose focus is on rugby.

Of course,atheists will not be much concerned by Mr Folau's opinions except perhaps as to the extent to which it might incite a drunken rugby fan who has learnsof their belief to attack them.

Perhaps Mr Folau's church has been rather derelict in advising him of some techings of Jesus beginning with "Judge not lest ...", Do unot others as ..." and "Let him who is without sin ..."  Of course, it was peopleof a certain narrow religious bent who pressed for his crucifixation.  Perhaps that is now modified by ignoring such teachings.

Now it would appwear that Mr Falau hasentered into a contract witha French Football Club, and it has been suggested that it is a term of the contract that he must not engage in similar conduct towards others whom he regards as sinners to whom he was in conscience bound to bring the word of 'god'.  If that is so, it would appear that while he saw no obstacle to offending many people and perhps putting them in danger of harm from some person of of violence who agrees with him, he is now prepared to restrain from doing his sacred duty for the price of money.  There is a word for that.

His friend and fellow footballer who seems to claim some moral authority says that Mr Falau should now be forgiven.  First, that implies that there was indeed something to forgive.  Secondly, the suggestion would have had some credibility if he had suggested that Mr Falau should apologise to those whom he offended and put in danger, and that then they should consider forgiveness if they believed his sincerity.

Religious Discrimination legislation has a difficult job to achieve the right balance, since there are conflicting demands, each of which has merit within hte bounds of reason.

The first requires the protection of a right of reigius thought and consequential behaviour which if not grossly unreasonable and harmful to others.  Even grossly unreasonableis acceptable if it is not harmful to others.

The problem arises when it is not unreasonable but its consequential exercise is harmful to others. Should a person's religious belief in the religious acceptability of homosexuality be the subject of discrimination in employment or other activity when it is irrelevant to it?  Conversely, should a person be protected from retribution for refusing to employ a competent person simply because the employer has a religious opposition o homosexuality?  Or vice versa?

The position is cleare if one person's belief and activity harms the other in some way.  An opponent of homosexuality who runs a religious school should be protected from the other's activity of promoting homosexuality in the school.  The owner of a coffee shop heavily frequented by homosexual people should be protecte from any penalty for dismissing an employee who continues to make loud homophobic remarks in the presence of customers.  A football organization may be justified in ceasing the employment of a prominent person of extreme religious views who has gained prominence through his employment and who conducts a widely read website in which he expresses his religion in a way that is vry offensive to a variety of persons with debatable shortcomings, and even innocent atheists. Such counduct may incite hatred and violence against the persons attacked, and at least cause them grave offence. An atheist should not stand outside a church and loudly speak derisively of religious beliefs of those entering the church

A person is entitled to freedom of religious thought and religious speech, but the latter is qualified.  A right carries a converse responsibility not to use it to cause unnecessary harm to others.

 

Any legislation on the subject should make it an offence by conduct that a reasonable person iin the position of the target would reasonably regard as offensivev or incitful to violence.