Folau’s Folly- The Hypocrisy of Australia’s Celebrity Ultra-Right Christian

While the people, animals and forests of New South Wales and Queensland choked and writhed under a holocaust of flame and smoke, Mr. Folau delivered a sermon.

While fire consumed communities, properties and livelihoods, Mr. Folau stood at the pulpit, Bible in hand, and rebranded the tragedy as God’s punishment for Australia’s sins. Amongst these ‘transgressions’ that Australians were ‘repenting’ for were the recent legalising of abortion along with same sex marriage.

Although he will be universally slammed for his comments, Israel Folau has returned the debate surrounding the parameters of the freedom of religion to the forefront of our national conscience.

Personally, as a [moderate] Catholic, I bear no grudge against Mr. Folau’s faith. In fact I believe that many, secular and non-secular, would respect Mr. Folau’s continued subscription to his religion due to the increasingly secular nature of society.

Nonetheless, to echo the immortal words of Winston Churchill, “with great power there is great responsibility.” Applying this to the controversy surrounding Folau there must be a cost to a career that has otherwise given him so much.

By all means, Mr. Folau is free to use religion to guide his own life decisions and maybe even those in his immediate sphere of influence. However, I begin to feel concerned when Mr. Folau weaponises the words of the Bible and abuses his position of influence, in a public forum, to launch unwarranted attacks against the Australian people.

Because, if we were to approach this from the perspective of religion, it is interesting to see that Mr. Folau is able to justify the fires, and their victims, as a punishment that society has earned without considering his own ‘violation’ of Old Testament law.

Indeed, why is it that Mr. Folau is able to pick and choose which sections of the Bible he adheres to and which he decides to ignore?

A similar conundrum was presented in the award winning nineties fictional political drama The West Wing. In one scene President Bartlett interrogates an ultra-right Christian radio host about her use of the Bible to condemn members of the American public. The President proceeds to invoke a range of ‘sins’ listed in the Bible which are common to the modern world. One of these forbids work on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2) causing Bartlett to ask, with caustic sarcasm, whether he must put his chief of staff to death or whether the police are able to do it for him.

Bartlett’s monologue attempts to highlight the hypocrisy that exists within all of us; a hypocrisy that means we are unqualified to judge the lives (and sins) of others.

It provides a strong parallel to the latest development in the Israel Folau controversy.

By trade, Mr. Folau is a professional rugby player who earns money playing on the Sabbath. As a result, my recommendation to our self-appointed defender of the faith is that he retire immediately from professional rugby or at least accept no pay for his games on the Sabbath. In keeping with Old Testament law our humble crusader would be able to continue taking aim at the vulnerable elements of the Australian population. The same people who are, ironically, most in need of Christian love and compassion. If Mr. Folau were to accept my proposition of not playing on a Sunday, then it may just afford him enough moral high ground to excuse his theological rants on the causes of God’s fury.

However, if being consistent in his subscription to Old Testament ‘law’ proves too difficult or inconvenient for Mr. Folau, then I would suggest that his views about the fires and its victims remain private. Perhaps, rather than speaking on behalf of the Bible, Mr. Folau would do himself (and Australia) greater service if he were to open it to John 8:7. To build his faith on the words “let he who is without sin among you… cast the first stone,” instead of polluting our national airwaves with flawed ecclesiastical dribble.

Ultimately, if Mr. Folau, or anyone, wants to use religion as the basis for their opinion that is entirely their decision. By no means am I advocating a restriction of free speech or the curtailing of religious freedom. All I would ask is that if Mr. Folau is willing to apply such outdated principles to judge the lives of others, then he should have no hesitation in incorporating similarly ancient obligations into his own lifestyle.