“I wish I could say I’m like Ian McKellen and immediately go rip pages out of the Bible.” –‘Beauty and the Beast’ director Bill Condon

The new live-action remake of the Disney classic “Beauty and the Beast” is drawing both a massive wave of fans excited to see the film and another sector outraged by the transformation of Le Fou, the sidekick of main antagonist Gaston, into a gay character.
Christian groups in the United States have expressed their outrage with the film, upset with the introduction of the first (out) LGBT Disney character. An Alabama theater specifically banned the film saying they only show “wholesome movies.” Additionally, the Russian and Malaysian governments have indefinitely banned the public release of the film.
According to USA Today, “Russian Culture Minister Vladimir Medinsky said the film would be screened prior to its release there and action would be taken if the content breached the country’s internationally condemned law prohibiting the spreading of ‘gay propaganda’ among minors.”
In Malaysia, Malaysian Censorship Board (LPF) chairman Abdul Halim Abdul Hamid said of the country’s reaction to the film, “We don’t support LGBT.” The LPF has since requested an edited version from Disney, without gay-themed scenes. Disney has since appealed to the country’s Home Ministry to proceed with the film in its entirety.
“We have laws and regulations,” Deputy Home Minister Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed. “Any display of anything related to the LGBT culture will not be allowed.”
Also, according to an article in Singaporean media outlet, Today, Hong Kong’s International Christian Quality Music Secondary and Primary School has requested parents prohibit their children from watching the movie.
“Beauty and the Beast” director Bill Condon explained, “LeFou is somebody who on one day wants to be Gaston and on another day wants to kiss Gaston.” However, Alan Menken, composer from the original animated feature, told LGBT publication The Advocate, “To me, he has always been look[ing] up to Gaston, in a nerdy kind of way.”
Regardless of where one stands on the issue, for sure, the film will be a blockbuster hit, but the real issue comes with where the outrage is being directed.
In a 2012 interview with Passport Magazine, the film director was asked, “What is first thing you do when you get into a hotel room?” He answered, “I wish I could say I’m like Ian McKellen and immediately go rip pages out of the Bible, but there don’t seem to be bibles in the hotel rooms I stay in these days.”
In response to reports surrounding the Alabama theater banning the film, he said, “I’m sad about that theater but there are 4,000 theaters showing the movie.”
Given his dismissal of the criticism of the film and past anti-Christian sentiment, the situation begs the question, does Condon carry the same zeal in denouncing the views of a country like Malaysia, a predominantly Muslim nation?
In his silence regarding the issue, it would appear Condon espouses the same views as many on the left, it is perfectly fine to criticize opposite views of the Christian right, but consider it off limits to denounce those of the Islamic faith – even if they appear to express similar sentiment.
“When someone attempts to criticize the beliefs of a religion (mostly Islam), the left will invariably attach that criticism to racism,” Shawn Moksvold wrote in an article published by The Huffington Post. “But racism cannot also be used for those who question the ideas of a religion, or their dogmas, or attempt to demonstrate the relationship of religious ideas to terrorism.”
“This only cuts off the kind of debate that has usually taken place in the conversations of the liberal left,” he added.
Moksvold, a self-proclaimed liberal, said, “It is time for the left to put as much intellectual muscle into criticizing harmful religious ideas as it does into protecting the sensibilities of the everyday Muslim living in London.”
According to a 2004 article by Will Cummins in The Telegraph, “A society in which one cannot revile a religion and its members is one in which there are limits to the human spirit.”
“The problem is that a virulent hatred of Muslims can no more be racism than a virulent hatred of Marxists or Tories,” he noted. “To argue that Islam should have special protection because it is a ‘religion’ while Marxism or Conservatism are ‘merely philosophies’ is equally specious.”
Meanwhile, Christianity is never considered for these said “special protections.”
In an article by Daniel Greenfield in Frontpage Magazine, “Richard Dawkins learned what Bill Maher learned in the US, that liberals love it when you make jokes about Judaism and Christianity, they’ll even sit politely for some cracks about Buddhism, but if you question Islam, then you’re a bigot.”
He cites Stephen Fry, comedian and atheist, who posted online, “The squeezed liberal finds himself in the position that he cannot criticize Islamofascism because it’s somehow ‘racist’ (although Islam encompasses many, many races).”
“It is a topsy-turvy smothering of debate and an Orwellian denial of free speech to declare that speaking out against violence will cause violence,” he added.
Beyond the argument of whether or not the new “Beauty and the Beast” is, as the Russian culture minister called it, spreading “gay propaganda,” the question is why are Christians still being seen as the only adversary in this long-ongoing issue? Most religions espouse similar beliefs when it comes to LGBT issues and they should all be taken to task by those who oppose them. Yet, the public is reminded every day, there are some considered as a “protected class” – in particular, the religion that performs public executions of individuals found guilty for the “crime” of being a homosexual.
It’s an odd paradox when the party merely speaking against a lifestyle they believe defies their values are considered bigots, yet protection is provided for the side that throws gay men off the roof of buildings as “punishment” for being who they are./WDJ