Read the entire article by Frank Furedi here:
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAF37.htm

Furedi also wroteThe Politics of Fear: Beyond Left and Right.

[...]The intense and venomous attacks on the Disney-produced Narnia film are truly puzzling. The novelist Phillip Pullman has described CS Lewis' original book as 'one of the most ugly, poisonous things I have ever read'. With the zeal of a veteran cultural crusader Polly Toynbee of the UK Guardian cut straight to the chase: 'Narnia represents everything that is most hateful about religion.'

What Toynbee seems to find most hateful about religion is that it is able to express a powerful sense of faith. 'US born-agains are using the movie', she warned. Many critics seem especially outraged by this prospect of religious organisations 'using' the film to promote their faith. The advocacy group Media Transparency warns that the film is based on a book that has a 'frankly religious element' - which is not really surprising when you consider that the author was a well-known publicist for Christianity. What is surprising, however, is that Christians promoting Christian propaganda should invite such bitter condemnation.

First there was the controversy provoked by Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ in 2004, and now there is this censorious dismissal ofThe Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe. Both are testaments to a potent mood of intolerance towards expressions of religious faith in popular culture today. 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.[...]

The remainder of the article--and it is rather long--has quite a few interesting ideas:

[...]Others continue to attack religious organisations for trying to exploit films with a religious message or motif. There is a double standard at work here. After all, films and propaganda are inextricably linked. AIDS campaigners, for example, embraced films such as Philadelphia- in which Tom Hanks played a dignified man dying from AIDS - for the positive way they promote their cause. Currently gay organisations are celebrating Ang Lee's gay cowboy movie Brokeback Mountain for its affirmation of gay love and identity. 'Using' films to promote a cause is hardly the prerogative of religious movements.[...]

And

[...]It is now commonplace to attribute the re-election of President George W Bush in 2004 to his army of religious supporters. 'The fundamentalists and evangelicals who came out in such great numbers in this election are driven, and have always been driven, by fear', argues one critic of creeping theocracy (2). Instead of asking the harder question of why some of their own arguments fail to resonate with significant sections of the public, many prefer to point the finger at the religious right and blame them for using 'fear' and unfair arguments.[...]

I'd prefer that those who post in this thread actually read the entire article, though.

Hmmm. I see this article as nothing more than an anti-liberal rant. Not only does the author criticize the secular left, but even the religious left (Jim Wallis, Rabbi Michael Lerner) for "not getting it". It seems nobody on the left can catch a break with this guy. And did you even notice that in the footnotes, the word "Democrats" is mispelled (Democracts) not once but three times?

ETA: And I don't think this guy has a clue about American politics, society and history. He claims that the left "exaggerates" the influence of the religious right, but is he not aware that Americans are historically more religious than those in other countries?

I agree with Amy SF.

Here are my problems with the article.

1) If there is anti-religious hysteria about “The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe” I haven’t heard it.

2) If there was mass hysteria then certainly he could write about it coming from the mouths and pens of well known people. Certainly he could list examples of it in the mass media. But he can’t.

3) His sources are unknowns like Polly Toynbee, who is a controversial UK Guardian journalist who I had never heard of. Yes she bashes religion, but that is one journalist - that doesn't make it mass hysteria. You can see her article bashing the film here:
http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/childrenandteens/story/0,,1657756,00.html

4) And Philip Pullman is another person I have never heard of. Apparently he is author in the UK.

5) Richard Dawkins – finally someone who I have heard of, was attacking religion on channel 4! Oh my, not channel 4! I mean, wow, that means that 3 or 4 people would have watched it. He is also British. I thought this was supposed to be about anti-relgious hysteria in the US?

6) Media Transparency. Oh no! Now an organization that no one has heard of is attacking the movie. Here is the website for them: http://www.mediatransparency.org/

7) You can’t tell me, as he tries to say, that “Philadelphia” and “Brokeback Mountain” were not attacked by groups and people that didn’t agree with their message, just as “The Passion of the Christ” and “The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe” have been "attacked" by groups that don't agree with the message. That is the way it goes. That is life.
As for opposition to Brokeback mountain:
Several political pundits on Fox News, including commentators Bill O'Reilly, John Gibson, and Cal Thomas, accused Hollywood of pushing an agenda. Hmmm that sounds like exactly what this guy is saying that a couple critics are accusing “The Lion……” of doing. And guess what? A whole lot more people watch Bill O’Reilly then anyone mentioned bashing the Christian films.
Also the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Office for Film and Broadcasting gave it a rating "O" for "morally offensive," in part due to the reaction of conservative Catholic organizations, such as LifeSite.

8) He mentions George Lakoff – finally an american - But Lakoff hasn’t said anything about “The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe.” However, Furedi thinks that if he were to say something about the movie it would be negative. What kind of proof is that?

I could go on, but I won’t. Very disappointed in Frank Furedi

3) His sources are unknowns like Polly Toynbee, who is a controversial UK Guardian journalist who I had never heard of. Yes she bashes religion, but that is one journalist - that doesn't make it mass hysteria. You can see her article bashing the film here:
http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/childrenandteens/story/0,,1657756,00.html

4) And Philip Pullman is another person I have never heard of. Apparently he is author in the UK.



Toynbee is not "unknown" - lol!!! Not to people who read the international press anyway.

Philip Pullman??? You've never heard of him???? You've never read "The Amber Spyglass" series??????? Pullman is a RENOWNED and very well-known author!!!! You need to get more often to the library, or read the literary sections in newspapers.

And do you always dismiss opinions of people you have "never heard of"? That's weird.

Toynbee is not "unknown" - lol!!! Not to people who read the international press anyway.

Philip Pullman??? You've never heard of him???? You've never read "The Amber Spyglass" series??????? Pullman is a RENOWNED and very well-known author!!!! You need to get more often to the library, or read the literary sections in newspapers.

And do you always dismiss opinions of people you have "never heard of"? That's weird.

Ok. This is an article about Anti-religious hysteria

The sub-title is:
It is the Anglo-American cultural elites' insecurity about their own values that encourages their frenzied attacks on religion.

You would think that he would mention American cultural elites. But he doesn't.

Not many Americans read the International press. Maybe one American in a hundred would know who Toynbee is. As for Pullman, nope I have never heard of him. He writes children's books, I stopped reading those when I was a child.

As for dismissing the opinions of people I have never heard of? That is not what I did. My point was if there was all kinds of "anti-religious hysteria" than the author would have been able to give examples of very prominant well known people and organizations that were speaking and writing anti-religious things. Give examples of main stream media bashing religion and religious people. The fact is that he can't.

One journalist writing for one newspaper and one author hardly makes for "hysteria."

If it is the CS Lewis that I am thinking of, I have some of his books. He wrote "The Case For Faith," but to me he is still out in left field.:stinkeye:

As for dismissing the opinions of people I have never heard of? That is not what I did. My point was if there was all kinds of "anti-religious hysteria" than the author would have been able to give examples of very prominant well known people and organizations that were speaking and writing anti-religious things. Give examples of main stream media bashing religion and religious people. The fact is that he can't.


Fair enough.

I would however suggest that you read the Amber Spyglass series. You would be pleasantly suprised, I think. They are deep, dark and the symbolism and metaphor in them go WAY above children's heads. Only an adult could understand what they are all about.

Fair enough.

I would however suggest that you read the Amber Spyglass series. You would be pleasantly suprised, I think. They are deep, dark and the symbolism and metaphor in them go WAY above children's heads. Only an adult could understand what they are all about.

I will take you up on your recommendation. I mostly read non-fiction and classics. For the longest time I did not enjoy fantasy novels, but I started reading Terry Pratchett about a year ago and I am quite impressed. Always open to trying something new.

5) Richard Dawkins – finally someone who I have heard of, was attacking religion on channel 4! Oh my, not channel 4! I mean, wow, that means that 3 or 4 people would have watched it. He is also British. I thought this was supposed to be about anti-relgious hysteria in the US?

Errrr, channel 4 is hardly a small channel. It's one of the five main UK TV channels! And believe me, a lot of people watched that programme, and a lot of people discussed it. Lots of Dawkin's interviews etc. were around religion in the US because that seems to be where many of the fundamentalist crackpots reside.

I certainly haven't seen "anti-religious hysteria" but that may be because I live in an extremely religious part of the country.

I enjoy the works of both CS Lewis and Phillip Pullman. Richard Dawkins often annoys me - he quoted a favorite poet of mine out of context in one of his books.

I will take you up on your recommendation. I mostly read non-fiction and classics. For the longest time I did not enjoy fantasy novels, but I started reading Terry Pratchett about a year ago and I am quite impressed. Always open to trying something new.

Moderators: I know I'm off-topic. (It's not a SERIOUS crime I hope).

The actual title of the series is "His Dark Materials". One review says:

Pity those--adventurers, adolescents, authors of young adult fiction--who make their way in the borderland between worlds. It is at worst an invisible and at best an inhospitable place. Build your literary house on the borderlands, as the English writer Philip Pullman has done, and you may find that your work is recommended by booksellers, as a stopgap between installments of Harry Potter, to children who cannot (one hopes) fully appreciate it, and to adults, disdainful or baffled, who 'don't read fantasy.' Yet all mystery resides there, in the margins, between life and death, childhood and adulthood, Newtonian and quantum, 'serious' and 'genre' literature. And it is from the confrontation with mystery that the truest stories have always drawn their power.

(I also hope that children do not understand these books.There are times when one gets shivers down one's spine and one feels a cold wind blowing although the curtains do not move.)

Edited to add: One can read Pullman's views on Narnia here: http://www.crlamppost.org/darkside.htm

This is another one of those attempts to reapeat something so many times that the public starts to believe it. If they continue to say that Christians are being discriminated against, then people will start to believe it.

I am not religious, but I loved the Narnia series when I was a kid and re-read the entire set prior to seeing the movie. Of course as an adult, I see the religious analogies, but as a kid they were just wonderful stories. They still are! Even my husband, an atheist, loved the movie.

i read the article very quickly i admit. but one thing that struck me is his continual use of the terms liberal elites and cultural elites...he never really defines his terms. it's like when o'reilly et al say the liberal media. a very charged yet ill-defined term.

i think some of his points were interesting but he seemed to have a strong agenda to paint the "liberal or cultural elite" as being all one way...

btw i loved the narnia books as a kid and wrote a big paper in high school on the christian symbolism in them. i personally see no problem with the books, haven't seen the movie yet...i disagree with his projection that a nun's story or miracle on 34th street would be reviled if made today.

i think he makes a huge leap when he says that the liberal elite have no values to promote that are genuine (very bad paraphrase on my part i realize) has he never heard of the quakers, unitarians, catholic workers?? many of these count themselves among the liberal and have strong values they work for actively.

it felt very black and white to me.

If it is the CS Lewis that I am thinking of, I have some of his books. He wrote "The Case For Faith," but to me he is still out in left field.:stinkeye:

How about The End of Faith
http://ravingatheist.com/archives/2004/09/the_end_of_faith.php

A few people voicing their opinions hardly constitutes "hysteria." I've heard much more anti-Brokeback Mountain news (like certain parts of the country not showing the movie) than anti-Narnia news. In fact I've heard very little complaint about Narnia from anyone, liberal or otherwise. Isn't it well-known that C.S. Lewis was a Christian theologian and the Narnia books are Christian parables? As a secular Jewish liberal I have no problem with that--I love The Chronicles of Narnia (although I still haven't had a chance to see the movie). If there's any anti-religious hysteria of any kind in the US, it certainly hasn't reached Tucson...

I read most of the article, and the responses, I don't feel like I have anything to say much, without offending, but I'm not that 'interested' just now, but I for one did watch the 3 part Dawkins documentary examining anti-religion recently which was cool to me, and since last night I saw a bit of a one off Horizon BBC2 'special' (I guess) talking about something very at the heart of all this, and the hysteria is not something I heard spoken in this 3 part series,..... (ie, if anything,
"conclusively something, only not very scientific, LOL"...tada, the hysteria IMO (not least) is always with religion, but thats understandable when you consider what so much faith and mass convergence does to ones head and thought pattern and emotion but yo thats my opinion that you may take with a pinch of salt if you so wish) .....However the program I saw with Dawkins identified much of religion as "delusion" and I agree with this by and large (generally) and thats that, its not a conspiracy, its just a challenge against religion as I see it, so no hysteria on the part of non-religious people, at least sure as not a rising, becoz the crux of the matter is religion already has popularity greater than that of just pure science unfortunately, and is that all bad to lose out on religious experience, nope, me no think so, you might think it be a dull world otherwise, but "I" rather doubt it would be so dull, tahe world without religion. You would simply then have corporations to worry about instead.....ewww.... (not going there).

back to what I saying anyhow: The "intelligent design" (ie, religion trying to be a pseudo-science, lol, maybe thats ill defined by me but nevermind, lol) verses real science bizness..... I am sorry but I fell asleep watching, not really a slight at anything on the tv though coz I missed watching my addict viewing of bigbrother too, so no I'm not really saying tv was boring last night watching Horizon, hell I like all Horizon 'scientific' programs ;) ha... whether actually err, scientific or not, and if not, which I view with an open mind as much as I can, but I can do that as a regular member of public....easy, but "The Scientists" (of one sort or another) choose wisely probably not to debate with the non-secular (due to religion propaganda, or stuff pertaining like hypocracy).... Anyhoo, point is professionals like scientists I can understand, are in the spotlight and so have a position to uphold, and with it ~ integrity of evidence (actions instead of just words/myths), and make independant their viewpoints, such as by making a tv docu)....

btw: We may all have a position to uphold, don't we all, maybe we all do, whether professional or not, doesn't mean we have to have dialogue with counter-arguements all the time, especially whilst counter arguements by religion are rather abstract a lot of the time, imho.. sooo.

hmm, alas I'm not avoiding, neither are scientists, they just have their own deal going on, stacking up this and that, fine, fact, fact, fact, neato,
all good, but I only meant this to be a quick entry and exit in this thread to contribute, not that I intend to go on, discussing it, but who knows, *shrug* like I said its kinda interesting, I'm just not engaging much in the extreme, as would maybe a professional, who is not compromising much, lol...... Anyways, this was fun-da-mental nausea, has potential to be anyway..... Cheers.

I agree with Amy SF.

Here are my problems with the article.

1) If there is anti-religious hysteria about “The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe” I haven’t heard it.

2) If there was mass hysteria then certainly he could write about it coming from the mouths and pens of well known people. Certainly he could list examples of it in the mass media. But he can’t.

3) His sources are unknowns like Polly Toynbee, who is a controversial UK Guardian journalist who I had never heard of. Yes she bashes religion, but that is one journalist - that doesn't make it mass hysteria. You can see her article bashing the film here:
http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/childrenandteens/story/0,,1657756,00.html

4) And Philip Pullman is another person I have never heard of. Apparently he is author in the UK.

5) Richard Dawkins – finally someone who I have heard of, was attacking religion on channel 4! Oh my, not channel 4! I mean, wow, that means that 3 or 4 people would have watched it. He is also British. I thought this was supposed to be about anti-relgious hysteria in the US?

6) Media Transparency. Oh no! Now an organization that no one has heard of is attacking the movie. Here is the website for them: http://www.mediatransparency.org/

7) You can’t tell me, as he tries to say, that “Philadelphia” and “Brokeback Mountain” were not attacked by groups and people that didn’t agree with their message, just as “The Passion of the Christ” and “The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe” have been "attacked" by groups that don't agree with the message. That is the way it goes. That is life.
As for opposition to Brokeback mountain:
Several political pundits on Fox News, including commentators Bill O'Reilly, John Gibson, and Cal Thomas, accused Hollywood of pushing an agenda. Hmmm that sounds like exactly what this guy is saying that a couple critics are accusing “The Lion……” of doing. And guess what? A whole lot more people watch Bill O’Reilly then anyone mentioned bashing the Christian films.
Also the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Office for Film and Broadcasting gave it a rating "O" for "morally offensive," in part due to the reaction of conservative Catholic organizations, such as LifeSite.

8) He mentions George Lakoff – finally an american - But Lakoff hasn’t said anything about “The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe.” However, Furedi thinks that if he were to say something about the movie it would be negative. What kind of proof is that?

I could go on, but I won’t. Very disappointed in Frank Furedi

You've done a great job expounding my thoughts. I can only assume this was an attempt at a self-fulfilling prophecy, because the article made me laugh when it kept talking about the movie being attacked or being controversial. There's been very little talk about this movie, at all, and I haven't heard anything that could be considered "anti-religious" or "hysteria" at all. Maybe the author was hoping to spark some hysteria or debate, but I think most people are going to recognize he's just paranoid for no reason.

God bless Richard Dawkins.

That's funny, I'm not aware of any anti-religious hysteria in the US mass media-- certainly not surrounding the Narnia movie. All the news coverage I've seen about it is neutral-to-slightly-positive in tone, focusing on how hard church groups were pushing its Christian message, which is easy to miss if you don't have a preacher to point it out to you.

But I can't help noticing how quick right-wing christians are to leap on the I'm-being-persecuted bandwagon. They seem to have a long history of embracing martyrdom.

I found this article funny as well. We've been reading the series at home, though trying to keep it a secret from our non-Christian friends in order to avoid outright persecution. :) We also saw the movie. I certainly haven't heard of any anti-religious histeria. I actually think histeria goes the other way in this country, as I remember clearly the Ellen show where she kissed a woman being banned in much of the South where my parents live, and hightly protested where it wasn't banned. Oh...and the new tv show, about the priest...also being banned in parts of the country because of protesting religious zealots.

Though I guess as vegangoth suggests "we do all have a position to uphold."

B

This article is criticizing the criticizers. But since I haven't read the original object of criticism, it's hard for me to comment. It seems to me that the author feels people are criticizing Narina simply because it's religious. He brings up the quote, 'one of the most ugly, poisonous things I have ever read' from http://www.crlamppost.org/darkside.htm

'Narnia represents everything that is most hateful about religion.' from http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1657759,00.html

Maybe the criticisms in these articles are valid. The author doesn't really focus on that, but expresses mostly outrage that there are people out there who dare to criticize the actual content of religious messages. There seems to be an idea that no matter how crazy, hateful, dangerous, or just plain factually wrong a religious idea is, that as long as it is a religious idea, it gets a free pass from scrutiny. I don't agree. If we were made by God, he gave us brains to analyze, critique, and come to our own conclusions about ideas presented to us before we put our faith in them.

God bless Richard Dawkins.
lol, really ?... :think: Dawkins thinks hmm, :think: I think not :D

You've done a great job expounding my thoughts.

I thought so too, great job expounding thoughts (to him or to her...& whether I agree or not with whats being said).

I wanted to add, I've long known that C.S. Lewis was a Christian apologist, but that has made me (an atheist) more interested in reading his fiction and seeing the film.

I would like to hear what people think about two paragraphs which I found a little confusing. I wasn't sure what he meant, especially when he used "the Passion" as an example- it was completely bankrolled by Gibson and was not expected to be a commercial success. Does he think Gibson is "theologically illiterate"? I'm not sure who he's pointing the finger at:

The attempts to dissociate the film from any explicit Christian project are not only motivated by commercial thinking. Despite the claims of the anti-religious crusaders - especially in the US - that the Christian right is on the rise, in fact in cultural terms it is increasingly marginalised. Films with a Christian message find it difficult to convey a powerful sense of faith and meaning. Instead, religious values and beliefs tend to be transmitted through non-human anthropomorphic forms. The attempt to endow even the behaviour of penguins with transcendental meaning - in the widely acclaimed March of the Penguins - is symptomatic of this theological illiteracy. The enthusiasm with which Christian organisations embraced March of the Penguins showed up their disorientation, if not desperation, rather than their aggressive confidence. After the penguin it is the turn of another animal - Aslan, the lion in the Narnia film - to serve as a symbol of innocence, sacrifice and resurrection. What beast will Christian filmmakers pick next?

Even when films depict religiosity in human terms, such as in the figure of Christ in Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, it tends to be in a degraded fashion. In Gibson's vision Jesus is reduced to little more than a lump of meat, the victim of whippings and abuse whose physical suffering is shown in gruesome detail. It is far from uplifting.