A Reflection on Religious FreedomFace's Mum, Honorary Associate Priest St George’s 
There have been many examples of denial or repression of religious freedom over the centuries. The early Christians faced persecution because of their faith and this cost them their lives if they were not willing to recant. Religion of any sort has faced significant repression in China, Myanmar and Russia and in other places. Christians are faring better in China and Russia now but not Muslims. At times the repression has come from within particular faiths. Roman Catholics were banned in England under Cromwell and priests faced death if caught. At other times, it was protestant sects who suffered at the hands of Roman Catholicism. In other places, conflict occurs between different expressions of Islam. 
Denial of religious freedom means that people are not allowed to worship or even align themselves with a particular religion without fear of death, persecution, loss of privileges and status or “retraining camps” as in China currently. They certainly cannot seek to convert someone to their religion or speak publicly about it at all. In some countries, one’s religion will affect a person’s ability to get any kind of job, own property, who they marry, the receipt of government assistance. 
Freedom of religion is being debated in the press and soon possibly in the courts in this country. As I understand the current matter from public statements made by the Rugby Australia, Israel Folau has been free to hold the views he holds. He has been free to worship and to preach the views within his community of faith. There is a publicised video of him at worship and preaching. I understand he has been free to express his views in conversations around the football club.  None of this represents anything like loss of religious freedom for him. 
When we speak about freedom of religion or indeed any freedom, such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the liberation of women, we have to remember that there is no such thing as unfettered freedom. For a society, family, club or institution to function well, any personal freedom has to include taking personal responsibility for the consequences of our actions or words. Even if our intention is to do good, we have to take account of the fact that the result may be harmful. It is not enough to say, “I meant well.” We also need to take account of unintended outcomes. As the Scriptures would put it, we are to love our neighbours as ourselves. Love does no harm to another. 
It is now well documented that speech condemning gay people, especially young people endeavouring to come to terms with their sexuality, does a great deal of harm. Speaking in terms of the prospect of hell, unless they “repent”, is likely to cause anxiety, depression, self-harm including choosing to take their own lives. This is not a consequence of “so-called free speech or freedom of religion” any member of the church can choose to ignore. 
There are lessons here for the church at large to learn. The church has frequently been willing to express views in the name of the faith that have been highly damaging to people. For example, members of the Jewish faith, unmarried mothers and their babies, young mothers forced to have an abortion, divorced men and women, as well as gay people, atheists and babies who die unbaptised, people who choose to take their own lives. 
The church’s interpretation of the Scriptures in particular ways, fortunately more so in the past, has influenced law-making to the detriment of the well-being of those targeted. Likewise cultural norms and fear of difference or just plain fear have influenced people’s interpretation of the Scriptures to the detriment of those who might be deemed different if not immoral.  
The wider society, including sporting groups meantime, has left parts of the Church behind. They are no longer assuming that every person in existence is heterosexual (a belief held by the writers of the Scriptures). Most in the wider society recognise most are heterosexual and some are not. They are now assuming that a person’s sexuality is not therefore something they “choose”. The only choice is whether to accept who they are or not. Lack of acceptance of themselves as they are or by others, never leads to abundant life as promised by Christ. Sporting clubs have taken account of the harm caused to young people by judgemental speech whether couched in religious terms or not. They have taken note that what high profile successful sportspeople do and say has an impact either for good or harm on their many fans or other players. They do not want bullying or abuse in their ranks or amongst their followers on the grounds of race, gender, religion or sexuality. They have therefore developed a code of inclusivity by which they expect all the players to abide. 
If Israel Folau believes that his faith requires that he make the public statements he has been making, then there was a simple way for this outcome to be achieved. He had only to step down from the club. People of good conscience make such decisions all the time about where they are prepared to work, where they invest, or worship or about affiliations they are prepared to have. If he were Israel Folau the carpenter or merchant banker, there would be no restriction on him spreading his message via any form of the media he chose. If he had only ever been a relatively unknown individual, there would also be very little notice taken of what he has been saying.  It is very clear that he has been making use of his public position as a high profile footballer with a large following to spread his message. And that is the very point in contention. It is his public alliance with Rugby that poses the problem for him, his club and its code. His words and their code cannot be reconciled. 
He is now speaking in terms of suffering for his faith and denial of religious freedom. If he quietly stood down from the club, outlining to them his reasons, he would indeed lose money, but that would be an ethical choice and the money would be very much a secondary consideration. He is in the fortunate position of being wealthy and famous already. There is an ethical question about his seeking public funding for his court case. His fame means he would be able to spread his message far and wide. He would still be accountable for the harm he is doing, though it would be in his own name, not in the name of Rugby Australia. 
Given that his message does known harm, it could not be in the name of Christ. Christ died for the well-being of all; not just some. When Christ died on the cross, he took into God’s self all the suffering and pain of the world so that everyone, without exception, might be set free and not have to carry such burdens alone. At the moment, the greatest danger and likely harm from statements made by Israel Folau in the form of misery and loss of life, is to those who are feeling vulnerable about their self-understanding and self-acceptance. 
7th July 2019