The USA Today was generous enough to publish an opinion piece by Steve Deace, a radio show host, that attacked those who criticized the “Duck Dynasty” star, Phil Robertson, for his homophobic remarks (Follow this link). Now that it’s a good number of weeks since the affair was fresh, we can judge even better just how wrong Deace was. I can find fault with almost any sentence that Deace has written, but I’ll focus on three main areas: his claim that liberals are intolerant, his use of the Bible, and his complaint about government interference in how Christians run their businesses.
Deace’s piece starts with the line “The ‘tolerance’ society demands from Christians really is silent compliance” and later he whines about how “those pushing the new ‘my way or the highway’ definition of ‘tolerance’ have decided accommodating our differences of opinion is defeat.” To see why these accusations of intolerance against those who ask for equal rights for gays are ridiculous, all you must do is look at the wider context. Start with the fact that Christians for centuries didn’t just express some disapproval of gays; they actively persecuted, reviled, bullied, arrested, and murdered them. Neither gays nor the left as a whole have done anything remotely comparable in return. When some backwards moron like Phil Robertson uses his celebrity status to spread his homophobic and racist views, he encourages the kind of violence against minorities that has blackened this country’s history all too often.
And of course, in the end, Robertson hardly suffered and probably benefited. His suspension came at a time when filming was done for a while. His employers may even cynically have suspended him in order to boost sales and viewership. The initial show for the season was watched by fewer people than the first show of other years, but the Constitution does not guarantee that one won’t suffer some consequences for expressing stupid ideas.
It seems difficult for some to understand, but tolerance does not include tolerance for those who are hateful, violent, and intolerant. Tolerance does not mean acceptance of all behavior or all beliefs. Those who are tolerant are simply much more willing to accept differing views without immediately condemning those who hold those views. The dividing line between what a society acknowledges as acceptable and what therefore all its members should be tolerant of is not a hard and fast line. Two hundred years ago homosexuality still would have been considered even by “tolerant” people as unacceptable. Similarly, hundreds of years ago, many societies found slavery acceptable. Times have changed. The homophobic views of narrow-minded Christians (and narrow-minded adherents of other religions) have been exposed as based on ignorance, prejudice, and ideological fanaticism.
When Deace brings the Bible into his argument, he immediately undermines his argument. He smugly claims that “[i]rrefutable history documents that the Bible and its teachings were the biggest influence on those that founded the freest and most prosperous nation in human history.” Yes, most of those who founded this country were clearly influenced by Christian teachings. But so what? It is also irrefutable history that this country was not established as a Christian nation and that throughout its history there have been numerous consistent actions from the highest judicial level to keep it a secular nation. It’s also irrefutable history that the nation’s founders were influenced by non-Christian traditions and philosophies as well. To bring the Bible into any national debate, especially one with legal ramifications, is to bring up a non-applicable authority. To the extent that his country is a secular country, it is free from the religious tyranny that some of its inhabitants would unfortunately so readily impose. From a legal standpoint, as soon as you use the Bible as your authority in this country, you have admitted you have to legal argument.
Deace also claims that “Robertson plainly repeated simple truths that are fundamental to western civilization — the Bible calls all sexual activity outside of holy matrimony sin and immoral, and it’s natural for a man to be attracted to a woman.” So what? Again, in spite of the importance of the Bible to Christians and in spite of some Christian’s belief that it is an inerrant source of truth, it has no legal standing in our society.
More important, the Bible’s views on sexuality are limited by the cultures which produced the Bible. Many cultures throughout history have taken quite limited views on human sexuality while a few have been more accepting of more diverse sexual and marital practices. What is crucial for our time is that we live in a society that values individual rights and also is an open enough society that homosexuality could come out of the closet. As more and more people have openly acknowledged that they were gay or lesbian or bisexual, and as more and more heterosexual people could see that these people were simply human beings—relatives, fellow workers, neighbors, and so on—then people could come to see that those who did not fit the heterosexual norm were fully deserving of respect and equal rights. People have started to understand that one’s sexuality is not a choice; it’s a part of who each person is. If you are a person who does no harm to others through your gender or sexual orientation, then you deserve acceptance. Those who do not see this are ignorant and narrow-minded, locked in an archaic mindset, and undeserving of tolerance.
Deace also tries to get sympathy for his side by criticizing the heavy hand of government when it tells businesses they must serve homosexuals or when it requires employer-funded health insurance to include birth control. This clearly appeals to those who think we can do with less government (even though it is these same far right Christians who want the government to control women’s reproductive choices). But let’s try taking seriously Deace’s idea that businesses should be allowed to serve only those customers who meet a business owner’s religious criteria. For those who have disapproved of biracial marriages on religious grounds be allowed to serve only whites? Could Catholics refuse to serve divorced customers? Could Christian Scientist business owners demand to be exempt from meeting any health insurance requirements? The much saner route is that any public business is obligated to serve the public, all of the public, not just some of it. End of discussion.
I also have no sympathy for the whining over the requirement for health insurance to include birth control. Employer-funded health insurance should be seen as part of the benefits package that employees receive for their work. Just as the employer cannot dictate what employees spend their money on, so employers cannot intrude into the employees’ use of health insurance by making it more difficult for them to get a legal medical benefit. The extreme Christian employers try to claim that because they are the ones funding the health insurance (or part of it anyway—few employers pay 100%), their religious or moral conscience is violated. Yet it is the government, not the business, that is mandating that birth control be included in the health insurance. It is inevitable in a country the size of the United States and where the laws are numerous and complex, that some individuals will object to many of those laws. I morally and religiously object to the obscene amount of money our country spends on war, but I don’t get to withhold a percentage of my taxes. Similarly, since they have decided to open a public business, Christian business owners need to follow the laws that apply to all businesses and not demand special treatment.
