I thought I was done with this Folau nonsense, but the Un-Australian has printed a piece of breathtaking propaganda which screams out for a dissection. The source piece is long, so this will likely be a monster. Perhaps put on a pot of tea?
Part One: Not a Good Start
Even the headline of this piece is a cracker:
No forgiveness for Folau’s sins against the PC church
Sigh. Folau did not ‘sin’ against ‘political correctness’. The company for whom he worked responded to his bigoted views (as they would have to anyone else) and sacked him. That is what happened. Nothing more. This explains the financial action against him by Rugby Australia. As for the blasting he received from the general public, this is called free speech. Contrary to recent conservative orthodoxy, free speech does not mean you say whatever you want and everyone else has to STFU.
The opening lines of the piece is not much better
The take-home message of the Israel Folau scandal is as clear as it is terrifying: Christians are no longer welcome in public life. If you adhere to core Christian beliefs about sin, hell and damnation, you will be purged from polite society
The Prime Minister of the nation is a pentecostal christian who recently attended a religious conference and actually said ‘Australia needs more prayer’. Mr Morrison is, to the best of my knowledge, still welcome in public life. The first claim is a demonstrable lie. As for ‘adhering to core christian beliefs about sin, hell and damnation’, these people are not purged from society by any means. Mr. Folau was not fired out of a cannon to the other side of the country for what he said. Rather, he was simply held to account for views which, in light of recent social progress, are now not as accepted as they once were. Christians who say bigoted things using your precious ‘free speech’ being responded to by others using free speech? The cheek! The outrage! The gall!
Part Two: Religious Misinterpretation and False Equivalence
The author continues with one of the more popular anti-gay passages from the christian new testament, that of Romans 1:26-7. He misinterprets it by ignoring the context that it was the christian god himself who forced the people to behave as they did. Compounding this gross misinterpretation is the suggestion that the men had been turned away from ‘the natural use of the female’ – seriously. Barbaric nonsense.
The author’s point here is that if you hold to what the hebrew and greek bibles say about homosexuality, you are ‘branded a moral transgressor’. No, you are not branded as a moral transgressor. You are simply called out for the unevolved, bigoted clown that you are. Your morals are, quite literally, not from this millenium (or the previous one for that matter). Society has moved on. We no longer burn witches, stone or burn heretics or keep slaves. This idiot then adds
critics of christianity now use the tactics that christianity itself once used in its darker moments in history
Unless and until ‘critics of christianity’ are burning people alive for the crime of public disagreement, or perpetrating other acts of violence against ‘transgressors’, you can leave the room and not come back. The very idea that the tactics of modern society in not allowing hate-speech because book are comparable to those of the church itself in medieval times is laughable, and offensive to all the victims of actual violence carried out by the medieval church. Get off my lawn you intellectual midget.
Part Three: False Persecution
In what is fast becoming a tired aspect of this narrative, the author turns to the persecution card. They believe this is a trump card, since disagreement with the premise is evidence for it. So they believe. But like any other form of begging the question (which this is), you did not prove the premise from which you are extrapolating. Back to the piece though. This next part has to be quoted in full to be believed. The author says
Yet I find the persecution of Folau repulsive and an alarming sign of the times. It demonstrates how far PC intolerance has gone and how thoroughly anyone who doesn’t slavishly subscribe to contemporary orthodoxy can expect to be punished.
The crap is strong in this one. He is not, as I just said, being persecuted for his beliefs. He is subject to responses, both rhetorical and financial, because he said bigoted things with which people, including the company for whom he works, disagree. Now, the fact that his religion motivated him to say said bigoted things is not relevant. Linking the action taken against Folau to his religion is a non-sequitur and a red herring.
Let us translate the phrase ‘slavishly subscribe to contemporary orthodoxy’, for this is a doozy. Contemporary orthodoxy is conservative code for social progress, otherwise known as living in the modern age. Contemporary orthodoxy is a world that has evolved morally from the teaching of a bronze age book. This is a world where gays are accepted, blacks are not kept in chains and women are not property. In short? A world where christians no longer rule. Clinging petulantly to your beliefs as the world moves on is the equivalent of standing on the platform as the train leaves the station. You get left behind.
Part Four: Doubling Down
The author then recaps the facts in the Folau case (suitably spun). He then proceeds to double down on the persecution narrative. Rugby Australia had, in the name of tolerance, ‘vilified Folau because of his religion’. See above. Sigh.
Referring to the statement put forward by Rugby Australia which effectively said Folau’s bigoted views were at odds with their desire to be inclusive and welcoming of everyone, the author said this
This Orwellian statement translates as follows: “We will not tolerate vilification on the basis of religion — unless your religion is traditional Christianity, in which case we will vilify you.
Once more for the impregnably dense: the responses which Folau has received have nothing to do with the brand of BS in which he believes. It is fair to say that anyone who behaved as he did, regardless of why, would have been treated the same way. If it seems like you have read this before in my earlier articles on this topic, I apologise. They make the same tired arguments, I wield the axe in the same way. Like sands through the hourglass.
The use of George Orwell, to describe the response from Folau’s detractors is a new one. However, the irony does appear lost on this author. The ‘religious freedom bill’ is the ultimate example of Orwellian language. Now, all legislation to some extent is Orwellian: the title either means nothing or is framed in such a way as to be politically expedient. Examples include the infamous PATRIOT Act in the US. Who was going to vote against that? But back to the point. This author bitches about Orwellian language in the age of the ‘Religious Discrimination Act’? Seriously!
Part Five (a): The First ‘Lesson’ of the Folau Scandal
This clown extracts three lessons from this Folau nonsense, and it is on these that I want to end
First, it confirms that PC is the new religion. Political correctness now does what pointy-hatted priests used to do: seeks out thought criminals and moral transgressors and punishes them for their wicked beliefs
Ah yes, political correctness, the go to buzzword of the right that describes social progress made since Patrick Troughton was The Doctor. What this Australian propagandist calls ‘political correctness’ is essentially society-wide politeness. This we often express as tolerance and acceptance of those who are different. Well that is way too christ-like for these modern christians, so screw that.
Part Five (b): The Second ‘Lesson’
His second ‘lesson’ is
The left will turn a blind eye to the use and abuse of capitalist power if it serves their purposes. So, just as leftists have cheered Silicon Valley oligarchs as they have expelled from social media anyone who has an anti-PC point of view, so they have applauded GoFundMe’s shunning of Folau.
Complaining about the use and abuse of corporate power when you write for Rupert Murdoch is the height of lack of self-awareness! SERIOUSLY! You work for Rupert Murdoch! What he means, of course, is that corporate power was used to target someone on his team. The issue is not the use of corporate power itself, but rather who the targets are. THis fact exposes the author as an unprincipled hack!
Also, anti-PC advocates are expelled from social media? Donald Trump, Paul Joseph Watson and Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad) all remain on social media. Next. Also, while the left may have applauded GoFundMe’s decision to close Folau’s campaign, that does not change the fact that it was the right decision. If their platform was the basis for a bigot defending himself against legitimate employer reaction to breach of contract, their reputation would have tanked. This was an act of financial self-preservation.
Part Five (c): The Final ‘Lesson’
The third and final ‘lesson’ from this flaming garbage is
that Christianity is one religion it is acceptable to mock and persecute these days. If you were to criticise Islam, you would be branded an “Islamophobe”. You would be accused of stirring up racist sentiment. You would be denounced and harassed and censured.
Any and all religions are subject to mockery by those who do not believe them. The christian faith is subject to greater mockery in Australia because it is more prevalent. It also takes itself way too seriously, and Australians are always up for a good laugh at anything that does that. But even so, it is not mockery to which Folau and his not-so-merry band of bigots have faced. It is scorn! It is outrage! He is being treated like the hateful, intolerant religious zealot he is. That he and his fellow conservatives do not like the fact that you can’t use religion as a sword and shield anymore is not my problem.
As for the suggestion that criticism of islam is called islamophobic, this is limited to the authoritarian left; the so-called purple hair brigade. Frequently, when the mainstream left uses the term, it is in response to claims that all muslims be banned from entering the US, or all muslims are terrorists. These are bigoted generalisations that do, in fact, suggest an irrational fear of muslims.
Let us hope this is the last time we have to deal with this nonsense (unlikely). The christian community needs to learn and accept that speech has consequences, particularly when you work for a company that values its reputation.
The final, and most important actual lessons from this are as follows
- Society has evolved past the point where they require a book to tell them how to act.
- Disagreeing with, and legislating away, your ability to discriminate against people is not discrimination against you!
- As Anita Sarkeesian said ‘When you are used to privilege, equality seems like oppression’