Simpler times, when you could say those things? Or more prejudiced times, when free speech meant the opportunity to slag off at those we didn’t understand?

Readers will have different views on whether the twenty-first century prohibition on using terms that are now described as casually homophobic is a good thing or a bad thing.

CRIME

The biggest crime now is “to offend”. At least, the crime is so deemed by our elites. Sporting bodies, especially, seem determined to be relentlessly ahead of the curve in terms of avoiding giving offence.

In play this week is the Manly club’s decision to place a rainbow on its already ugly, sponsor-crowded jerseys, and the infamy of the “magnificent seven” players who are refusing to wear the so-called “gay pride” jersey.

It is South Sydney that has always been known as the pride of the league. Well, perhaps the Sea Eagles want to take over that description and make it their own.

Manly has come a long way in its transformation from John O’Neill’s one-liner-slur, through the 1990s self-outing by Ian Roberts of his homosexuality, to today’s insistence that its players align themselves with their club’s cringeworthy virtue-signally.

Inevitably, the annoyingly persistent Matt Kean, apparently now preparing his not-unexpected tilt at the NSW premiership, attacked the Manly players who refuse to go along with the pride jersey.

This disgraceful man, clearly out of control, has lectured the players about pride and “respect”.

“Can someone tell those seven Manly players the (rainbow) isn’t contagious, but wearing it might make them better for showing pride and respect for different people,” he said.

“If there’s an NRL pride round next year, I hope the mighty Dragons go red, white and rainbow!”

Gratuitous advice from the usual suspect, a puppeteer of the social revolutionaries who are out to crush the traditional family and traditional religion, and nudge and frighten Christians from the public square.

Perhaps someone should insist that Kean wear a crucifix around his neck in public for a day to show his “pride and respect for different people”.

He said that the pride rainbow isn’t “contagious”, whatever that means.

Well, virtue signalling in relation to homosexuality seems to be contagious. Across governments and the corporate world, HR department gauleiters demand that employees place rainbow stickers on their email signature blocks.

This is the kind of world Matt Kean wants for all of us. Mandated caring. But caring that only travels in one direction.

Sympathy for views and ideologies and “lifestyles” of which Kean and the gay mafia approve.

No doubt the (current) Premier, Captain Catholic, will go softly on Kean’s unnecessary but inevitable intervention in an area that has nothing to do with his day job, and say soothing words about diversity and inclusion. And the broad church that is the Liberal Party. As his good buddy seemingly plots to oust him.

There hasn’t been a kerfuffle like this since the Israel Folau affair, claimed to be very different by commentators such as Paul Kent. Superficially different, perhaps.

The Manly Seven weren’t engaging in overt Christian evangelisation, it is true. Unlike Folau, they are not Christian pastors (as far as I am aware).

NORMALISED

But the same issue is in play at the end of the day. It is the insistence that citizens publicly “affirm” the practice of normalised homosexuality.

Tolerance is not enough any more, not by a long shot. The campaign to make the large majority of heterosexuals in the population say that we believe that what they are doing is fine, in all its dimensions, and to keep saying “it is fine”, is now deeply embedded in the institutions that make the rules.

Well, not on the watch of the magnificent seven from Manly.

These heroes are being manly. Showing spine without the remotest hesitation or embarrassment.

As Pasifika Christians, I am guessing that their own views on homosexuality would not be a coat of paint’s difference from that of Folau, and that they would be on board with Folau’s accurate references to St Paul’s admonition of sinners and his naming of specific sins.

But, mercifully, their rights to be allowed to peacefully proclaim their own views have so far been respected.

Of course, they will lose money on the deal, by sitting out this match. But hopefully it will go no further, despite the inevitable hate campaign from the social media piles-on. Which Kean has simply fuelled.

There have been at least three mis-statements abroad in the current debate.

One is that it is about keeping politics out of sport. Wrong. It is not politics. It is far, far bigger than politics. It goes to core values and belief systems and to freedom of faith.

Two, a number of pundits – and the Catholic Manly coach to boot – have stated that the issue is simply one of poor communication. Wrong. This is a distraction. Telling the players first might have been polite, but it doesn’t alter the main principle here.

Three, there has been the suggestion (by a League has-been) that the Manly Seven are “hypocrites” because they seem to be okay with gambling being advertised on the same Manly jersey.

Now I myself wouldn’t be playing in a jersey promoting the gambling that seems now to be keeping sport going. The wall-to-wall advertising of gambling and its normalisation is an ugly blot on modern culture. But this is simply another distraction. Simply irrelevant to freedom of religion and belief.

Ian Roberts, that formidable, homosexual former player from Manly, naturally has expressed dismay at the actions of the Manly Seven: “Ian Roberts, former Manly star and the first rugby league player to come out as gay, revealed on Tuesday he had been approached about the jersey about a month ago.

“He said he ‘fully respected’ their decision on the grounds it goes against their religion but admitted he would enjoy having a conversation with them.

“I would love, given the opportunity, to be able to sit around a table with those guys and just have a conversation with them,” he said.

“To have an open conversation and to try and explain what a pride round means, particularly for the LGBTIQA+ community, what it means to us individually.”

CHRISTIANS

Well, Ian, perhaps it might also be beneficial for you to sit down with some Christians (and anyone else who doesn’t like being bullied) to hear why freedom of religion is so central to their lives, and why they don’t like being endlessly made to feel uncomfortable as a result of the never-ending homosexual agenda.

And why as grown-ups we do not need to be lectured about whether and how we might all show respect to all people of all persuasions. Perhaps many of us already do! And don’t need to wear special apparel to do so. There might be learning on all sides, Ian.

We seem to be at one of those pivotal moments when all manner of culture war battles have suddenly come into focus.

Whether it is the bastardisation of the English language to suit feminist virtue signalling (see under “batter” for batsman), or the incumbent Senate President demanding that the Lord’s Prayer go because she is an atheist.

With the next inevitable tranche of Alex Greenwich pride-related legislation, or the Manly jersey affair, or the endless gift to do-gooders that is the Aboriginal flag, it seems that normal people not remotely interested in these matters just have to cop it all.

The Benedict Option is looking better by the minute. AKA going off-grid.