Is exclusion the answer to a problem like Folau?
RuGBY LeAGue claims to have an ‘ enviable track record’ when it comes to equality, diversity and inclusion. except fundamentalist Christians. Fundamentalist Christians, it seems, are right out.
Indeed, this week, Super League clubs voted to introduce rules aimed at banning fundamentalist religious believers from the competition in future. Maybe some Muslims too, were they to speak up for certain problematic interpretations of the Koran.
Catalans Dragons’ recruitment of Israel Folau has tied the sport in knots. Rugby League is so ferociously intent on inclusivity it will keep on including right up until the point where it meets exclusion, and then it will do some of that, too.
Folau is all about inclusion, also.
He included gays, thieves, fornicators, atheists, liars, drunks, adulterers and idolaters — it’s not a select group really, and many of us are in there on at least one count, maybe more — as people who are going to hell.
And it was bad news for fornicators and adulterers, really, because it turned out nobody actually cared about them. Few were troubled that Folau wished eternal damnation on those simply having sex. But Folau roped homosexuals into his old Testament lesson and that got him the sack.
He was banned by Rugby Australia, before getting back at them on a little technicality called freedom of speech. That released him to play again and, as a gifted athlete, he was signed by Catalans Dragons. So here we are: trapped in a hell of our own making, where the desire to include is so great it has motivated some to entertain a far wider exclusion.
Hull Kingston Rovers, for instance, who have threatened to sue Catalans Dragons if Folau’s presence impacts negatively on the finances of the league. This seems less a stance in support of inclusivity and more one against losing money, but the two are often confused.
Neil Hudgell, chairman of Hull KR, detailed the circumstances in which a legal claim would be pursued.
‘For example, if a title sponsor withdraws, or external investment is not secured or quantifiable reputational damage is caused to the brand of Super League and its members,’ said Hudgell, noticeably failing to add, ‘We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it’. It was almost as if what really offended him was the shifting of his bottom line.
To this end, the Super League clubs have voted to prevent further ‘ controversial’ signings. Yet what constitutes controversy? In Australia, where Folau cannot play, the Brisbane Broncos prop is Matthew Lodge, who in 2015 was arrested and charged with assault after he threatened two German tourists and attacked a man who attempted to help, breaking into his apartment and causing further damage. Could Lodge land a Super League contract, if he wished?
And, if so, is his behaviour therefore more palatable than Folau’s beliefs, particularly now Folau has promised not to air them?
Go to Folau’s social media page and it is obvious who he follows. There is no picture of him, but an image of a large numeric 1, made up of the word God reproduced dozens of times. Beneath it reads ‘ Living for Jesus Christ. # Team Jesus’ accompanied by a cross. In the background is another word, written large: ‘Blessed’. The tweets are mainly Bible verses, generated daily. Nobody should be under any illusions about Folau’s views, on homosexuality or adultery. They will not have changed. He’s just not going to state them any more. Is that enough? Well, what is our teaching if it is not? That fundamentalist Christians should not be able to play rugby? That the very beliefs Folau said he would keep private, his thoughts in other words, are enough for exclusion? So, who else might echo Folau’s views? Billy Vunipola, certainly. He is also of Tongan descent and expressed his support for Folau last year. Vunipola’s mother is a Methodist minister. Indeed, we can presume a great many rugby players with Pacific Island heritage hold fundamentalist Christian views, because they are prevalent in the region. Islamic scholars continue to teach that same- sex relationships are a sin, too, and Sheik Mansour, owner of Manchester City, is part of the ruling family in a country in which homosexuality is against the law. Yet this is where liberal western beliefs and commitment to religious freedom collide. There will be a great many athletes whose faith will
conflict with western ideals yet out of respect, a sense of fairness, and a desire not to shine light on magic, they are not constantly required to square that circle.
It would be wrong, for instance, to begin quizzing Mo Salah or Paul Pogba about the specifics of their faith, neither having raised Islam’s problematic relationship with homosexuality before.
Their thoughts, however, are their business. Is that not also true of Folau now he has promised not to repeat views offensive to western ears; or does promoting fundamentalist Christianity carry the same life sentence many selfproclaimed champions of inclusion and tolerance would have placed on Ched Evans before his conviction was overturned?
It feels peculiar, defending the rights of an individual whose views would be abhorrent were they not so ridiculous. Yet to exclude any athlete for what he or she thinks is surely the most dangerous path of all.
What other thoughts might be considered unpalatable in the Super League: extremes of left or right wing politics? Outspoken takes on moral issues such as abortion?
Folau’s views may seem backward, but so is exclusion. We think of ourselves as morally superior to previous generations, but we’re still burning witches just the same.