 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Opinion of the Month | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Stand, Survivors, and Glenn Hoddle by Greig I have decided to write a controversial opinion piece around the subject of religion as portrayed within Survivors. I've been meaning to
do this for a while, and one of the things which finally inspired me to get my finger out, was the sacking of Glenn Hoddle as England Football Manager, due to his comments about disabled people. His comments about disabled people also bring up difficult issues such "What does disabled actually mean? What are our attitudes to the disabled?" etc., which I will try to avoid here, but could make an interesting Opinion of the Month (how would the disabled fair in Survivorsland).
Disclaimer: This opinion piece is supposed to spark discussion, I hope people don't get too offended by anything I may write. For the Glenn Hoddle part, I have to admit that I am basing this only on the few news reports I've read on the BBC website and my conjecture about the situation in the U.S. I do not mean to say that I agree with Glenn Hoddle's opinions, or that he shouldn't have been sacked. The discussion of religion in Survivors
has often been suggested as a topic for Opinion of the Month. It is especially interesting to compare two similar-but-different survivor scenarios (The Stand by Stephen King and our beloved Survivors), written within and about two similar-but-different cultures (the U.S. and Britain). Anyone who has read or seen both stories will know that there are pretty substantial differences in how religion is portrayed in each. Basically The Stand
is a Christian parable while Survivors is what I would loosely term a secular parable. I have to admit some potential shortcomings in my argument, because I am basing this primarily on the TV series of Survivors (I haven't read the book), and the unabridged book of The Stand. I'm not going to go into too much detail about every religious scene within each story as that would take far too long. Instead I'm just going to rant and you are free to tell me why I'm wrong.
First I'd better define what I mean by religion and secular. Religion: This includes non-denominational beliefs, but there must be a strong belief in the supernatural (i.e. Life after death, Heaven, God, Soul etc). It has to be more than a vague belief that "there is something more", and must be an important and often guiding part of the persons life. Secular: Basically a belief in westernized science. A materialistic outlook, with little or no belief in the
supernatural. Obviously these definitions are incomplete, and could be the subject of lengthy argument, but I'm going to go with them for now. To people not familiar with Stephen King books, it may surprise you to learn that his stories are pretty much always Christian parables. The guy is, what he terms, a modern-day Christian, which I gather essentially means a non-denominational, being a "good" person, kind of thing. The Stand
is all about a huge fight between Good and Evil, with various travelers who have to overcome spiritual and physical trials in order to triumph. The supernatural is a vital component throughout the story, and the supernatural is a reality - even if you fail to recognise it. In Survivors
although the various travelers have to overcome spiritual and physical trials in order to triumph, the supernatural is almost completely absent. Good and Evil aren't as clearly defined. Religious belief is seen as a personal choice that may help you get through life, but people who believe that are a bit odd because the supernatural doesn't exist really. I want to highlight two situations in Survivors where this is demonstrated. The first is in Gone to the Angels
on the hill, a group of monks who believe that the sickness is a punishment by God, only to be killed off by our heroes. The non-believers certainly won that argument! The second is when the Rev. Lewis comes to town. He starts giving mass – which is officially allowed because it makes the masses feel better, and then his foolish belief in the goodness of his fellow humans is shown to be wrong by his being shot by the two baddies in the tree house. Again, the argument is solved by the
believer being killed. A lesson to us all no doubt! In The Stand, believers do die, but when they do they are either seen as a martyr or a victim of evil. They are not at fault for having had religious belief. The closest Survivors
comes to being Stephen King-esque is in Abby's quest for Peter. It is the thing that keeps her going, enabling her to overcome all sorts of hardships, and her belief never dies, despite her never having any real proof that he exists. However, the quest never develops into anything more – the others remain skeptical and she finally leaves the series – we don't want to deal with any of that meaning of life mumbo-jumbo. The book apparently even shows that Peter is alive, and so the analogy breaks down.
So what about Glenn Hoddle? Well, I think that his sacking clearly demonstrates the difference in attitude to religious belief between the two cultures. As I understand it, Hoddle was sacked for having expressed the opinion that it was his religious belief that disabled people are disabled because they have been punished by God for the sins they committed in a previous life. Isn't this pretty similar to what Hindu's (and maybe Buddhists) believe? Did he therefore get sacked for his
religious beliefs – beliefs that he shares with millions of people in Britain and around the world? There are various other religious beliefs that one can think of which are also offensive to minority groups, some, perhaps, are more serious, such as "God punished the people by turning their skin black"; "Muslims/Christians are evil"; "Aids is a holy retribution on homosexuals"; "Poor people are poor because of the sins they committed in a previous life" etc. There are also others which
are maybe not as serious, such as, "If you are not a practising <religion> then you are going to eternal hell", "rock music is the work of the Devil", and "Evolution is a wicked lie". If he had said any of the above would/should he have been sacked? Is having religious beliefs (and the right to voice them) unacceptable in Britain? As I understand it, he was answering a question during an interview – should he have lied or refused to answer? This obviously is getting pretty close to
a Freedom of Speech debate, and (I think) it is not illegal to voice any of the above opinions in Britain. However, Hoddle is one of those special people – a public figure. Are the rules different for these people? Should they be different? Some people may remember that the press has always been pretty horrified by the fact that he had religious beliefs. I remember a Grandstand
sports report on it when he was starting out in management, and the attitude was essentially, "despite the fact that he is religious, he's still good at football." The furor over his faith healer for the England squad is also another case in point. They had tried to get him on this religious issue in the past, and finally they succeeded. So why was the disabled issue the one that got him? I wonder if the furor over his comments betrays a certain amount of guilt by many
people. Almost a "The disabled have been punished by God, but you shouldn't tell them that!." It's the attitude that disabled people are like children who need to be protected from horrid things people may say. The fact is, disabled people are used to people saying horrible things about them - they see the lack of civil rights and civil respect for them everyday! Read some of the opinions and comments by the disabled people themselves to see what I mean: I think the correct response to Hoddle's comments would have been exactly that of David Blunkett MP (for non-Brits - he's blind): "If Hoddle is right, it appears that I was a failed football manager in a previous life" In keeping with the theme
of comparing of the two cultures, how would this situation have been handled in the U.S.? Obviously, the difficulty is that Hoddle's belief isn't Christian and so the majority of Americans wouldn't be happy with his comments. Also, because he was expressing a belief that is offensive to a minority, he may have had to go. Legally, however,he wouldn't have been allowed to be sacked for his religious beliefs. I think it goes back to Jefferson and is firmly rooted in the Constitution that you
can't be persecuted for your religious beliefs (despite the numerous examples where this has happened). The true difference though, I think, would have been that there wouldn't have been the desire to "get him" because before the disabled issue, his religious belief would have been seen as a positive thing and a good role model for kids. Would Hoddle have stood a better chance in The Stand or Survivors? Is Britain a secular society? Is Britain becoming a society of
religious intolerance? Let me know what you think! Greig | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
