In a nation that worships our sport and our sporting elites, Liz Ellis is a beloved Australian sporting hero. Liz played 122 netball games representing Australia, four years of which were as captain. Her personality displayed in the media is down to earth, her relative modesty and unassuming humour make it easy to like her. She seems like she should be a voice of moderation.

But yesterday Liz Ellis effectively accused Maria Folau of supporting or endorsing homophobia in a comment on Twitter. There are serious problems with Liz’s comments, problems which reveal a toxic practice of intolerance and bigotry against all people who identify with a culture and belief system centuries older than Islam: Christianity.

Is she suggesting that Maria should be evicted from public life because she supports her husband? Liz, like many elites in the media, has a personal issue with a Christian paraphrasing Scripture in social media. When Israel Folau posted Scripture on Instagram he believed he was acting in love and concern. Because one of the behaviours the Bible lists includes homosexuality, Folau was judged by ‘progressives’ to have unfettered hatred for and a pathological fear of homosexuals. They labelled him a homophobe.

Allow me to very briefly explain what mainstream media can’t. That homosexual acts are a sin is a doctrine universally accepted by mainstream Christianity since the time of the Apostles until roughly five minutes ago, when it became questioned only by liberal Christians. Such heresies are nothing new in Church history. The uniqueness and holiness of marriage is a foundational doctrine, especially sacred because it reflects teaching about Christ’s relationship with His Church. That any human deviation from this design is considered to miss the mark, be a sin, is entirely unremarkable in Christianity.

There are lists of behaviours God says are prohibited. This goes hand in hand with the message that all have sinned, and that all sinners are equally condemned without salvation which is only found in Jesus Christ. Subsequently, Jesus universally commissioned His followers to teach everyone in the world how they can be saved. The Gospel, good news, is actually pointless without the context of something to be saved from sin and condemnation. It’s actually more empowering and hopeful than any other of the world’s religions because it relies entirely on Christ’s perfect life, not yours.

The violent reaction to Israel Folau attempting to preach this hope is an insult to the intelligence of everyone accusing him of irrational hatred. Hyperventilating haters like the ridiculous ‘pirate’ Peter FitzSimons have become caricatures of that which they imagine of every object of their scorn: intolerant, ignorant and ignominious.

That someone of far superior sensibility like Liz Ellis should feel comfortable to openly exhibit such intolerance and bigotry is a reflection of just how hypocritical and toxic the whole post-modernist culture of moral relativism has become.

While no one like Israel Folau is seeking to portray homosexuals as deficient characters or strip them of their rights to argue their ideas or beliefs, Liz Ellis called traditional Christian views “homophobia” and demanded ‘her sport’ unequivocally condemn people who are “seen to support or endorse” a Christian view of sin and marriage.

While Maria Folau hasn’t condemned or poured shame on anyone, Liz Ellis’ tweet portrayed Maria as hateful and pathologically irrational about homosexuals because she shared her husband’s call for financial support of his fight against religious discrimination in the workplace.

Although Netball SA clearly stated in writing that it did not endorse Maria’s repost, that was not enough. Liz implied they were endorsing Israel Folau’s views by not saying more. In a transparent display of uncharacteristic intolerance, Liz Ellis instead demanded the code imply Maria’s repost was tantamount to homophobia.

Does Liz Ellis want netball to be a mouthpiece for her political views and beliefs about marriage, but not tolerate anyone disagreeing? If just sharing the request for support is “seen to support or endorse homophobia,” it would seem Liz thinks every donation to Israel Folau’s legal fighting fund is another act of ‘homophobia’, which by now has nearly no meaning at all.

Organisations like Rugby Australia and people like Liz Ellis are creating a chasm of division in this great nation. They’re demanding literal silence or separation from those with whom they disagree. They claim religious freedom is only in your head, home or church on Sundays. That’s like saying you’ve got freedom of movement in your prison cell within the radius of your chain.

Aussies are so concerned by this monumental and ‘progressive’ erosion of freedom of religion in the workplace and public that in just 4 days, over 10,000 have donated an average of $75 to stand with Israel Folau in his fight.

Meanwhile, compare Greens Senator Hanson-Young’s similar appeal for a legal fighting fund against toxic masculinity which has yielded just 1,805 donations after nearly a year, averaging less than $35 each.

Despite the confected outrage over Izzy daring to ask for support in his fight, it’s quite clear what is really concerning to quiet Australians.

Tolerance as an absolute virtue is a self-defeating argument. Proponents assert that tolerating each other’s differences will make the world better. Passionately believing this to be invariably true, radicals constantly attempt to seek out and eliminate all intolerance, thus themselves not tolerating particular differences identified as intolerable only by the militant pursuit of tolerance.

Moral relativism, again ironically, teaches there are absolutely no absolutes, and to assert anything absolutely (like the timeless definition of marriage) is therefore immoral.

The lack of self-awareness in Liz’s hateful tweet is a symptom of the toxic nature of ‘progressive’ politics that pervades media, academia and sport. It’s a cultural cult that claims exclusive authority to teach how the world really is and should be, refuses to engage honestly with critics’ arguments, forces adherents to isolate themselves even from family members who don’t subscribe to the groupthink and shuns any who stray from the path of allegedly enlightened thinking.

Toxic tolerance is an authoritarian excess which imposes an arbitrary, subjective morality on a society and demands elimination of unapproved opinions. Of course, tolerance of differences is a good thing. That is why healthy societies have unassailable freedoms of speech, political expression, and religion.

Sweet Liz Ellis owes Maria Folau an apology for her display of gross intolerance.