Theocratic Menace: Fact or Fiction?

"Until recently, cultural expressions of religious faith were simply considered old-fashioned and gauche. But over the past decade, scorn has turned into bigotry and hatred," writes Frank Furedi of Spiked. His article asks: "Is it the Anglo-American cultural elites' insecurity about their own values that encourages their frenzied attacks on religion?"

There is much to disagree with in this essay--Christ in "The Passion of the Christ" was not "little more than a lump of meat;" "The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe" was a fine movie (not great but very, very good), and Intelligent Design does not reflect Christian lack of courage in that it is less bold than outright creationism. (To concede this final point, you'd have to believe that Genesis is literally true in a way that the authors in all likelihood didn't intend.)

But Furedi, who is not a believer, makes and raises intriguing points:

The artistic representation of religious conviction is frequently stigmatised with terms such as 'fundamentalist', 'intolerant', 'dogmatic', 'exclusive', 'irrational' or 'right-wing'. As a secular humanist who is instinctively uncomfortable with zealot-like moralism, I am suspicious of the motives behind these doctrinaire denunciations of films with a religious message. Such fervour reminds me of the way that reactionaries in the past policed Hollywood for hints of blasphemy or expressions of 'Un-American values'. Replacing the zealotry of religious intolerance with a secular version is hardly an enlightened alternative.

I wonder how today's anti-religious crusaders would respond to The Nun's Story, the 1959 film about a woman who gives up everything to become a nun? Would it be denounced as a subversive plot to manipulate the emotions of vulnerable girls? Or a conspiracy to give fundamentalism a human face? Might it be described as a sick film with a subliminal plot that promoted the 'Just Say No' campaign?

In order to justify their excessive fear and loathing of religious people, the elites have created "the fantasy of theocratic menace" (are you listening, Swami Uptown?). Furendi notes:

Such beliefs are underpinned by the patronising assumption that, unlike educated urbane people, ordinary members of the public need simplistic black-and-white answers about the meaning of life. In private conversation, some in the liberal elite discuss the masses - or 'rednecks', Nascar dads, tabloid readers, etc - as being crass, materialistic, simplistic, racist, sexist, homophobic."