The Israel Folau plea has caused much angst. Like most things Folau does now, and like most things people like Folau do, they divide.

In his case, actions on the field, quotes from the Bible, attitudes to contracts and agreements, his view of religion against his money raising plea.

There were always going to be those aggrieved and offended. Aggrieved by his view of the world and subsequent attempts to convert us. And offended because outwardly he would appear not to be short of a dollar, and therefore asking for other people's money is confronting.

So the lines are drawn, the camps are formed. Some quick questions, outside of the debate itself.

Why does it take AU$3 million? Where does that number come from in order to hire lawyers to take an employment dispute and has anyone really probed that?

Two, if someone is going to the Fair Work Commission, is it really so far out of reach that you need millions to plead your case? If it is, which I doubt, why isn't it much more accessible given 99.999 per cent of the cases won't involve millionaires?

But back to the scrap. His major issue he is fighting on two fronts. One, personal. Two, big picture.

And because of that, he's rarked everyone up. If he was arguing for a broad-based law change, that we need to do something about religious belief and whether an employer can have an influence over that, he'd have more support than he does. (Not that he doesn't appear to have a lot, because the money raised over the weekend is proof he does.)

But the part that causes angst is the personal bit. He stands to gain. He's suing not just for change, but for money, A$10m worth of it.

Whether he's gone for A$10m based on the idea he gets a settlement, or because if it goes all the way you always ask for more than you expect, the simple reality remains, this isn't a charity, he's not broke.

And unlike so many of these type of operations there is more than goodwill at play here. If he gets A$10m, does the A$3m get paid back? Is it an investment or a gift?

Which ultimately is the real answer here. Don't get worked up by this. After all, what's the point? If you support the cause, back it. If you don't, then no one is forcing you to do a thing.

The sadness around this is the usual small-minded, petty approach taken by those who see success and want to bring it down. It's classic Tall Poppy Syndrome. The spread in the Australia papers shows his "glittering property portfolio", essentially painting the picture that this is a greedy, self-absorbed, individualist peddling religion, and religious expression for ultimate personal gain.

Like most things in life it's more complex than that.

I don't doubt he's genuine. I don't doubt he has the big picture at the front of his mind and in his heart.

His "job" has got mixed up in a cause, so it's controversial.

I won't be giving, but I wish him well. On the substantive side of the debate - religious expression - I think he has a good case.