The controversy that's engulfed Essendon is perhaps
a sign of the changing times. A decade or two ago
corporations and their stockholders could have
tolerated Thorburn's association with strong views
on homosexuality and abortion. But not today.

Today, Essendon is a valuable and highly recognizable
brand and it can't afford to be tarnished by any views
that are deemed offensive by a big chunk of its fan
base and the broader community.

Thorburn was given the choice by Essendon of staying with
his church or starting a new career at Essendon - but
not both. Thorburn made the choice of staying with his
church. And it is a choice that should be respected.

Whether Thorburn holds those extreme views is irrelevant.
Thorburn made his choice of which chair he wanted to sit on.

Dear David F.,

With all respect, I did not know your father and all I can relate to are your descriptions of him.

"My father thought of himself as a failure. He set himself a standard which he was incapable of reaching, and the result was that he was miserable."

This is the observation of facts, but:

"He suffered from religion"

is an interpretation of the facts.

«He was filled with religious crap about God and sin»

Since you say so, I can agree that he was filled with crap ABOUT God and sin, but was this crap religious? Why have you concluded so? Only because the people who instilled that crap in your father's mind claimed to be religious? Only because they mentioned the word 'God'?

For some reason or another you are unable to see that those people who spoke IN THE NAME OF RELIGION abused not only your father, but also religion itself, that they did so either out of ignorance and misunderstanding or deliberately desecrated God's name.

When religious people aspire for perfection, does it mean that they must jump up 6.10m high, that if they jump only 6.09m then they are in sin?
Does it mean that they must have a perfect smooth skin with no blemishes, or else they are in sin?
Does it mean that they must have a perfect memory, so if they forgot how many buttons were on the shirt of the shop-attendant which served them 253 days ago then they are in sin?
Does it mean that they produced every possible logical inference from all the facts that came to their attention, else they are in sin?

If any perfection can be spoken of in the context of religion, then that is of perfect love - for God and all others.

Wallowing in guilt is selfish and incompatible with loving others.

The suffering of my father from religion is a fact not an interpretation of a fact. I was headed down the same road. When I went into the army during WW2 I suffered from the same sense of sin as my father. I tried to keep kosher by avoiding eating meat since it had not been slaughtered in a ritually correct manner. One time I was out on the desert with my unit, and we were given time to eat. We had been issued C rations (canned beef stew). The smell as other soldiers were heating their C ration was delicious. I heated mine, and it was one of the tastiest meals I have ever had. As time went by I gave up other trappings of religion such as a belief in God. The more I gave up of religion the more liberated I felt. it was something I did not need.

Humans create imaginary entities such as gods for which there is no proof as a means of explaining a world which puzzles them. I just accept that there are things I cannot understand and feel scientific explanations of physical processes are the best we can do to explain the world. I try to be kind and caring as it makes me feel good and makes others feel good about me. I am fascinated by the history of religion and feel that it has caused more harm than good. I doubt that humans will ever discard superstition as it seems to fill a need. Religion is organized superstition. Like other forms of human organization it exists because it fills a need, but the need can be filled in other ways. The more we depend on religious entities to operate schools, hospitals, employment agencies etc. the more we are enslaved by religion.

Some humans have probably been aware of the enslaving aspect of religion since humans invented religion. Seneca, a Roman said, “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” May the common people become wise.

Dear David,

«I tried to keep kosher by avoiding eating meat since it had not been slaughtered in a ritually correct manner.»

And you must have had some hidden assumption that this was part of your religion, in other words that this practice should bring you closer to God.

It's not for me to judge whether indeed that was the case, but have you considered the possibility that eating kosher was not necessarily a part of your religion, at least not at the time?

Yes, I understand that someone told you so and I'm not even suggesting that they deliberately tried to mislead you, but could they perhaps be mistaken?

The main (but not the only) rationale for kosher slaughter is to avoid eating the corpses of animals that died by themselves, possibly of nasty diseases. Without the fixed ritual slaughter one can envision a slippery-slope ending in eating a cow that died of foot-and-mouth-disease or bitten by a rabid fox. Should one eat such a cow, they would either die or be very ill, thus unable to think of God.

This could have been a necessary part of religion in a different region some 3000 years ago, but was it still a part of your religion in the 20th century, out in a war where kosher slaughter was unavailable?

«Humans create imaginary entities such as gods for which there is no proof as a means of explaining a world which puzzles them.»

The correct purpose of gods is not to explain the world. If some people did so, then their motive was foolish and not a religious one.

«I try to be kind and caring as it makes me feel good»

And possibly even more religious than others who happen to believe in God/gods - wonderful!

«I am fascinated by the history of religion and feel that it has caused more harm than good»

Because you consider that history to be of religion, but is it always so, just because people say it is?

«Religion is organized superstition. Like other forms of human organization...»

Religion need not be organised!

The entire point of the Thorburn controversy is that
Thorburn sought simultaneously to be the public
spokesperson for 2 sets of values that are directly
opposed and can't be reconciled.

Thorburn was simply wrong. Nobody said that he couldn't
hold a leadership position in society. It's been pointed
out that he would not for example, be out of place in
the leadership ranks of the Liberal Party. He could be PM
of Governor General on recent precedents.

He just could not be CEO of a football club that thinks
being LGBTQI is something to be celebrated, not survived.
No goal. No foul.

Dear Foxy,

I disagree: one can wear one hat on the one job and another hat on the second.

A spokesperson speaks on behalf of an organisation, not about his/her personal views.

Never mind - that employer didn't want him, not as he is anyway, so that's the end of the story and I don't care why. BTW, it's their loss alone.