Recent Anti-Church Supreme Court Ruling
Threatens Americans’ Most Valuable Freedom
In denying the special importance of religious freedom in American life, the recent Supreme Court decision has only facilitated the ongoing removal of religion from the public square.
Auguste Meyrat
The Federalist
As America’s cities burn and leftist sympathizers make headlines, the U.S. Supreme Court quietly passed a potentially horrendous ruling against religious freedom. Chief Justice John Roberts, now replacing Justice Anthony Kennedy as the reliable swing vote, sided with liberal justices and approved of California’s restrictions on the number of people who could attend a religious service.
The United Pentecostal Church contended these limits violated their congregants’ freedom to practice their faith and exhibited a bias against churches since other businesses, such as abortion clinics, liquor stores, and pot dispensaries, could reopen without similar constraints.
According to Roberts, these limits, made to slow the spread of the Wuhan virus, did not violate people’s First Amendment right to worship freely: “Although California’s guidelines place restrictions on places of worship, those restrictions appear consistent with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.”
Roberts never bothers to explain how this is true, important because an order to limit church capacity necessarily “prohibits the free exercise of religion” directly stated in the First Amendment. He simply moves past this absurd claim and maintains that other activities involving large gatherings face “similar or more severe restrictions,” as though this obvious point demonstrates why stripping people of their fundamental rights is acceptable.
Christians across Australia have been given a message, “don’t commit social blasphemy” and “be careful if you choose to use the Bible”.
After three days of deliberations, a three person panel has found Israel Folau guilty of a “high level breach” of Rugby Australia’s player code of conduct. Not that the outcome was much in doubt, given that Rugby Australia and the Waratah’s had bypassed due process and instead announced to the nation that Folau’s contract was terminated and that he would never be selected again to play for his country or club. Last night’s verdict was little more than a formality.
A three person panel has found Israel Folau guilty of a ‘high level breach’ of Rugby Australia’s player code of conduct. Not that the outcome was much in doubt, given that Rugby Australia and the Waratah’s had bypassed due process
Whatever Izzy’s motives may have been for posting on social media, he has forced a public debate on an issue that has been hitherto been pulled, tugged and tested in quieter forums across the country: can statements of traditional orthodox Christian belief be permitted in the public space?
What was his offence? It is believed that Israel Folau declined to sign a document in addition to the standard players’ contract, which would have placed greater restrictions on his use of social media. He did, however, sign his contract, which presumably includes a clause about adhering to the players Code of Conduct which requires that players:
Treat everyone equally, fairly and with dignity regardless of gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, cultural or religious background, age or disability. Any form of bullying, harassment or discrimination has no place in Rugby. (Part 2 Article 1.3)
Of course, interpretation of this clause depends on one’s a priori beliefs and moral framework. But the panel have deemed that summarising 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 is a “high” form of harassment—even though the point of that passage (and Folau’s post) is quite the opposite.
Legal Concerns
Legal experts are expressing concerns over the handling of the issue. Professor Nicholas Aroney has interpreted the allegations against Folau with reference to International law. He explains that:
[What] Folau has said is not an example of hate speech, and he should not lose his rugby career as a result.” Indeed, he reminds us of the broader framework in which Folau has posted comments, “In addition to repeatedly expressing his love and acceptance of all people, Folau has confessed to having committed many of the sins about which he now warns his readers. This makes it difficult to attribute any intention on his part to advocate hatred against these classes of people, for he numbers himself amongst them.
Leaving such legal questions to the experts, however, what is clear is that Rugby Australia and many social commentators who’ve joined the scrum have defined ‘orthodox’ religion. Whether Rugby Australia realise it or not, they have taken a theological stand on Israel Folau and have determined to define what is and isn’t acceptable religious belief and speech. Remember, Folau was quoting the Bible and summarising basic Christian teaching.
Yes, as I and others have said a thousand times, Folau’s comments were not seasoned with grace and kindness. They appeared blunt and insensitive—much like a Rugby player. Was his manner lacking? Probably, yes. Were his words untrue to 2000 years of Christian belief? No.
Was his manner lacking? Probably, yes. Were his words untrue to 2000 years of Christian belief? No
Footballers from both the NRL and AFL have been forgiven for all manner of social and even criminal offences over the last few years—have we forgotten the scandals? But Israel Folau isn’t to be forgiven.
And what of the teammates who have spoken out in support of Folau and have even agreed with his post? Surely Rugby Australia can’t afford to lose any more players before the World Cup? Is Folau to be a sacrificial lamb, served up to warn others of what might happen should they transgress again?
Let’s not be fools. Christians and non-Christians alike are praised for quoting the Bible when they squeeze it to fit with progressive social agendas. Kristina Keneally wasn’t removed from the Labor Party after quoting the Bible against Prime Minister Scott Morrison, and Peter Fitzsimons hasn’t been sacked by Fairfax for repeatedly speaking of Jesus Christ? Why not? Because no matter how poor their handling of Scripture, their speech doesn’t challenge the cultural narrative.
Soon to be Law
Lest we conclude that this story will soon be forgotten as a blip on the cultural radar, Rugby Australia’s stance may well soon find legislative legs. The Australian Labor Party (as the Greens have already done) have announced that they are considering expanding “anti-discrimination legislation to shield gay and transgender people from harmful speech if elected, in a move that has alarmed lawyers and free-speech advocates.”
When prejudice against LGBTIQ people contributes to harassment by the written or spoken word, such harassment causes actual harm, not simply mere offence, to people who have suffered discrimination and prejudice, and causes particular harm to young same-sex-attracted, gender-questioning or intersex people. Labor considers such harmful harassment is an unacceptable abuse of the responsibilities that come with freedom of speech and must be subject to effective sanctions. Labor will ensure that anti-discrimination law provides such effective sanction.
Depending on how the language of “harm” is understood, all manner of reasonable speech may be found on the wrong side of the law. For example, former rugby league player, Ian Roberts, last week alleged that comments like those of Israel Folau play a role in teenage kids committing suicide as they come to terms with their sexuality
There are literally kids in the suburbs killing themselves—and I say that with the greatest sense of respect—I’m not implying that Israel’s responsible solely for that, please don’t take it that way. But it’s these types of comments and these off the cuff remarks, when you have young people and vulnerable people, kids in the suburbs who are dealing with their sexuality, confused, not knowing how to deal with it, these types of remarks can and do push people over the edge.
If explaining the Christian view of sexuality is deemed to be a trigger for teenage suicide, we can anticipate further public outrage and potential legislation that will restrict and prohibit words that conform to and explain the Christian message. One might respond by pointing out that thousands of Christians are killed every year simply because they are Christian, therefore we must not limit or silence Christians freedom to speak their beliefs. If we are to be morally and logically consistent, Robert’s argument works in different directions. Leaving that aside, Roberts’ comments could be taken offensively by some Christians because we too are concerned for the wellbeing of teenagers. It is good to be reminded that these conversations are not merely academic or theoretical but they relate to real people who matte. We can thank Ian Roberts for this reminder. No one wants teenagers despairing of their worth and believing they are unloved. I am reminded of Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman, a woman who’s sexual past was complicated, to say the least. Jesus didn’t affirm or applaud her but he did love her and speak a powerful word of compassion and hope to her.
“Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life….The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.”… Then Jesus declared, “I, the one speaking to you—I am he.” (John 4:13-14, 25-26)
In the midst of all the myriad of questions and issues relating to the Folau case, it is important to repeat an observation that was made last month: while Folau’s offending posts are in line with orthodox Christian teaching, he has on other occasions said things that show he is no theologian—and that he may be unclear about the doctrine of the Trinity. This matters because it would be unwise to look to Folau as a champion for Australian Christianity while knowing he may well reject an even more foundational belief. At the very least, this is a reminder as to why it is incumbent upon Pastors to teach the Bible clearly and faithfully in order to aid their congregations to understand such crucial doctrines.
Authoritarian Secularism
The controversy over Israel Folau was not the first case and it is far from being the last. School children in Victoria are force-fed gender theories which are often unsupported by science and best medical practice, and many families have already felt pressured to leaving the public system and forced to pay the expense of independent schooling because of this Governmental pressure in Victoria. We can expect more corporations and organisations falling for the kinds of pressures that have been exposed by the Folau situation. Australia is moving toward introducing limitations on religious freedom that we see in parts of Europe and in Canada. We are heading closer toward the situation found in China, whereby Christians cannot join a political party and they cannot speak openly about Christianity and churches must be approved of by the State. This isn’t hyperbole, this is the natural progression of authoritarian secularism who will use the sexual revolution and identity politics to push all but their sanitised version of religion out of the public square.
We are heading closer toward the situation found in China, whereby Christians cannot join a political party and they cannot speak openly about Christianity and churches must be approved of by the State.
A culturally palatable Christianity will entail deleting most Bible verses: any references to hell and to judgment; removing the core of the faith which is the atonement; and, of course, we must let go of any teaching about marriage and sex and the roles of women and men. We will be left with a very tiny Bible and one that makes little sense, and one that has no power to give life and hope to this world.
“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” That saying of Jesus will need to go. So too will Jesus’ introductory summary of his ministry, “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!” Anything that challenges personal autonomy and freedom to define self realisation cannot be tolerated.
I have said it before, Christians need to start taking Jesus’ words seriously, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me.” We cannot afford to give up gentleness and compassion, grace and kindness, for these are indispensable attributes of the Gospel we claim to believe. We cannot respond to cultural shifts with hate but with enduring love because God has loved us. However, we have to accept the fact that loving others will not always be read as love because today’s secularist police will not permit views that transgress their narrow understanding of righteousness. Don’t give up on love, and don’t sacrifice truth and goodness for doing so means that we have also evacuated love from the picture.
If Christianity’s demise in Australia has been party due to its seduction by the culture, then perhaps clarifying disjunction between Church and culture will help believers regain Gospel convictions, compassion, and expectations. After all, it was communist China that created a moral and epistemic environment which catalysed the explosion of Christianity and the conversion of tens of millions of Chinese. We may be disturbed by the implications these developments have for our job security, education, and financial stability; but we are hopeful and joyful because Jesus Christ remains true and good today as ever. By the grace of God, some our Aussie neighbours may come to realise that we are not against them but for them and that we have a message of hope that will alter their lives in the most satisfying and liberating fashion.
First published at https://murraycampbell.net/
