It was Tuesday afternoon when Fr Rod Bower received a message from Magda Szubanski. The comedian and campaigner wanted the Anglican priest from Gosford to join a group she was forming.
“I got a text from her saying, ‘Darl…’ as you do,” Fr Bower tells Mamamia with a laugh. “She’s wonderful. She floated this idea and immediately I said, ‘Yes, let’s do this’.”
Magda Szubanski talks to Mamamia’s Adam Bub at the Sydney rally. Post continues after video.
Szubanski was bringing together a group of Christians, Jews, Muslims and atheists, both gay and straight, under the banner ForLove, as a response to Israel Folau’s GoFundMe campaign. It’s not hard to see why she approached Fr Bower.
Last week, after rugby player Folau launched a tirade against homosexuality and transgender kids, Fr Bower put up a sign out the front of his church, reading, “LGBT friends. Folau is wrong. Don’t listen to him.”
#israelfolau is the price we pay for #freespeech He has the right to say it and I have the responsibility to oppose what he says. #LGBT pic.twitter.com/g5iGvSydVS
— Fr Rod Bower (@FrBower) June 17, 2019
Top Comments
But is it OK to deny employment to someone because he/she expresses fundamentalist religious views? That is the real underlying issue. I am supportive of gay rights and for strong community acceptance of all LGBTI issues and though not religious, do have some respect for religious teachings/practices which are inclusive and compassionate.
But do we really have to extract the pound of flesh from someone who does hold fundamentalist religious views and chooses to express those views. Are we really going to become villagers with pitchforks and in our newly found virtue shun the offender and deny him/her their place in the community. How is that inclusive or compassionate; we just shrug off Folau's sacking by some words that Jesus also said that the expression of religious faith can be costly, so bear the cost Folau; no employment as a professional footballer for you, out you go. Christian charity at its best.
If we truly value diversity, then we must accept those with whom we seriously disagree. By all means there should be reasonable good faith discussion (not just lecturing Folau on the errors of his ways) and I struggle to see how this is facilitated by making it clear that he is so beyond the pale he must lose his employment or bear the responsibility of a rash of youthful gay suicide.
I get that corporations need to attract sponsorship and present as good corporate citizens but are we all now to sell ourselves mind and soul to the prevailing community mores or face the sack. Keep in mind that Folau has not committed any illegal act; he has simply expressed a fundamental view of the afterlife.
Wouldn't it be nice to hear a voice from the LGBTI leadership with the generosity and grace to accept Folau despite disagreeing with his views and support his right to employment. It was not so long ago that people hid their homosexuality because of fears of losing employment. That was then when LGBTI issues were frowned up by the community. But this is now when socially conservative views re LGBTI are now frowned upon; do we really want the socially conservative/fundamentalist religious to cease to speak because of similar fears?
What you miss is that he said it on his public verified official rugby profile. He could have said it on his personal closed account, but he said it on his official one. He knew what he was doing when he did this. Most workplaces don't allow politics or religion to discussed in the workplace or on their official social media.
So why are people trying to give him a free pass? If any of us ordinary plebs used our official social media to proselytise about a political party or religion, we'd get the sack. Folau was warned and he said he wouldn't do it again. A year later, he did. Second time - sacked. That's fair enough. It's not like he didn't have enough chances or a warning.
I'm not sure what you mean by his 'public verified official rugby profile'. It is my understanding that he tweeted on his own personal twitter account. Do we have official as distinct from unofficial social media accounts?
We are all able to choose whether or not we our full names are published on our posts or not on most of our social media accounts. It also not uncommon for people to post under false F/B accounts etc. Folau choose not to hide his identity when he tweeted. Saying that he could have said it on his own personal closed account is getting akin to saying freedom of speech exists if you speak loud your views in an empty sealed room.
Do you really want to live in a world where 'us ordinary plebs' are liable for the sack if we express an opinion on a political or religious matter using our own name? Surely we are all entitled to a private identity apart from our employment. I understand that there are instances where our employment necessarily restricts our right to the public expression of our private views. For instance, I don't really want our Diplomats to go around tweeting about Donald Trump, but Folau is a footballer. A very good one but that is all. There is no nexus between religion and football.
It is this which is the crux of the matter; just what are the legitimate acceptable right of our employers to control our use of social media? Folau did not break any law under which he can be charged; he merely expressed an opinion which most people now find unacceptable. It is an opinion on the 'after life' which he sincerely holds. Its now a minority view even amongst the religious in our community but why should he denied employment because of this.
We live in a pluralistic multicultural society where there are a range of views regarding religion and homosexuality. As I see, neither religious freedom or cultural practice can supersede our secular law. But if no law is broken, then if we truly accept that pluralism/multiculturalism, then we must also accept that some of our fellow citizens will publicly express views we disagree with. Rugby belongs to the people, including those who hold minority views re homosexuality.
Let's not be too quick to go on the witch hunt and condemn those we disagree with to perpetual unemployment.
Eliza, it was Instagram, not twitter. And you were misinformed, it was not on his personal account. The hint is that if it was on his personal (locked, private account) account, we would never have known. People have public accounts, and private ones that are usually locked and for family and friends only. He posted it on his public account, not his private one.
Hence, the rest of your post is based on a false premise.
How much hate depends on how you translate and ancient Greek word "arsenokoitai"
How did we get to have our lives run by a 400 year old book ?
...400? Is it Hamlet? Don Quixote? Paradise Lost?
I take it Doug is referring to the many revisions to the Bible that have occured over the centuries
I was wondering about that too. I saw the codex sinaiatica in the British museum and that is dated from Constantine. I was there with someone who can actually read the script and that was quite something.