I’m no fan of so-called reality TV (I say “so-called” because the format is actually about as unreal as TV can get). But two recent stories emanating from reality TV shows on either side of the Atlantic merit our attention and comment.
My American readers will be all too familiar with US show Duck Dynasty. The show follows the Robertson family of fundamentalist Christians and self-avowed rednecks as they go about managing their multimillion dollar business that sells duck calls (yes, that is a thing). Family elder Phil Robertson recently sparked a major controversy by making some rather blunt comments in an interview with GQ Magazine to the effect that homosexuality is sinful and unnatural. The network that broadcasts the show, A&E, announced that it was suspending Robertson until further notice for his offensive remarks. Predictable battle lines were drawn on both sides of the cultural divide, with conservatives crying foul on A&E for censuring Robertson’s right of free expression and liberals denouncing Robertson for hate speech. (For an overview of the controversy, go here.)
While UK readers may have a passing awareness of Duck Dynasty after the controversy lit up social media last month, they may be tempted, as I was, to view it as a distinctly American phenomenon. Think again.
During an episode of UK reality TV show Big Brother broadcast on 5 January, American former heavyweight boxing champion Evander Holyfield expressed his belief that homosexuality is unnatural and can be corrected. Cue outrage all round, with Holyfield widely vilified as a raving homophobe and the show’s producers facing calls for an inquiry.
But surely this is just another media storm in teacup? It’s the kind of thing that happens on TV. Ignore it and will go away.
You might think that. But you would be wrong.
You see, despite the unreality of the format from which they arise, these controversies on both sides of the Atlantic highlight a very real trend that should be of concern to all, Christians and non-Christians alike. And it has taken an atheist with the courage of his convictions to point this out.
Brendan O’Neill, editor of online magazine Spiked and columnist for various publications, began an article published on The Telegraph website yesterday thus:
It’s official: you are no longer allowed to express old-fashioned religious views on British TV. You’ll certainly be censured for doing so, and will be warned never to repeat your wicked words.
After setting out a brief overview of Holyfield’s remarks, O’Neill proceeds as follows:
Shortly after he made his comments, Holyfield was hauled into the diary room and told by “Big Brother” – that is, one of the producers of the show – that he had used “unacceptable language”. What they meant was that he had expressed an unacceptable idea. He had not used the q-word or the f-word to refer to gay people; he had simply expressed an idea, his inner belief that homosexuality is wrong. He was told that the expression of such views would not be tolerated. “You expressed the view that being gay was not normal and could be fixed”, said Big Brother. “While Big brother realises these are the view you hold, they are not the views held by many people in society, and expressing these views will be seen as offensive to many people.”
This is extraordinary. What Channel 5 is effectively saying is that it’s okay for Holyfield to possess very outdated views about gay people but he is not allowed to express them, because they are not shared by “many people in society”. So what? Are we now only permitted to express views that chime with the mainstream outlook? Are no minority opinions, whether they come from Christians or Commies or 9/11 Truthers, allowed, even on a TV show that prides itself on capturing “real” life and interactions? Whatever happened to that great liberal John Stuart Mill’s insistence that, “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he would be justified in silencing mankind”? Today, so cavalier have we become about the old Millian ideal of freedom of thought and speech for all – even for those who offend us – that we think nothing of censuring a man simply for expressing a view that is “not held by many people in society”. Big Brother, indeed.
O’Neill goes on to point out the irony of gay rights advocates, who themselves were for decades the subject of censure and intolerance, turning the tables on those who now dare to publicly disagree with their views. And that’s not the only irony:
There’s a further profound irony to the censuring of Evander Holyfield: it has been done in the name of tolerance yet it is actually a prime example of intolerance. In the name of promoting society-wide tolerance of homosexuals, we must not tolerate the expression of any criticisms of homosexuality, the anti-Holyfield lobby says. […] Remarkably, some people think such censuring and punishment of outdated views […] is a sign that Britain has become more tolerant. Actually it shows the opposite – that Britain is now astonishingly intolerant of anyone who holds the “wrong” views, views that run counter to mainstream thinking, and it will humiliate them in public if they dare to express themselves and warn them to keep their filthy ideologies to themselves. Intolerance is intolerance, whether its aim is to forbid the expression of gay love or to punish the expression of criticisms of homosexuality.
This is one of those issues where it’s all too easy to find yourself unwittingly swept into a polarised debate. If you publicly express a belief that homosexuality is unnatural or, dare I say it, sinful, you will most likely be branded a hater, and the temptation will be to defend yourself, probably by appealing to the Bible. But in joining the battle, you will simply perpetuate it, with the result that the trenches will be dug ever deeper, the artillery fire will get heavier, and the only victory will be for misunderstanding and division.
I find it richly ironic that it takes a thinking atheist like O’Neill to point out that what is really at stake here is not whether you agree with Evander Holyfield’s views. While the nation divides between those who staunchly defend the ex-boxer’s position on homosexuality and those who call for his head in the name of gay rights, the real victim is freedom itself. And so, as the sound and fury of the war between the cultural conservatives and liberals rages on, the real battle – the battle for freedom itself – will be lost without anyone even realising it. What these two related incidents have given us is a glimpse of a dawning new reality in which freedom is sacrificed in the name of so-called progress. Think I’m overstating the issue? Don’t say you weren’t warned.
Christians, of all people, should value freedom. That means freedom for those we agree with and those we don’t. As responsible members of society, we should be far more concerned about the erosion of freedom in the name of political correctness than we are about defending our personal beliefs on homosexuality (or any other hot-button issue) to a public that doesn’t want to listen and will only see our comments as a red rag to a bull.
Finally, the real challenge for Christians, as I’ve said before, is not in promoting and protecting our beliefs, but in practising and embodying love for those with whom we don’t see eye to eye.
