The State of Religion
I came across this preview for a 2011 film that aired at the Sundance Film Festival: Red State. (Ed.'s Warning: Movie trailer contains strong language and graphic violence. Viewer discretion advised)
Adding to the list of films depicting the abuses of radical Christian sects (e.g Jesus Camp & Saved!), it looks like it will feature John Goodman leading FBI/SWAT/government forces team, pitted against the crazed belief-induced crusades against American adultery.
Maybe I am reading too much into a short trailer, but it seems indicative of a general sentiment in America--that stalwart machine-gunning-militant-government-protection is our salvation from the psychotic tendencies of those who allow faith to guide their lives. Obviously in extreme cases such as depicted in Red State, combative action is necessary; however, does this reflect a popular sentiment about what Americans want from their government and how they view the Christian faith?
While this may naturally lead to a church v. state political discussion, I am also interested in hearing thoughts on these types of films--what kinds of cultural sensitivities give rise to them, and how might they affect those sensitivities?
- Comment (10)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments:
Aug '11
Re: The State of Religion
I'm happy you brought this up. I haven't seen Red State. I've read reviews, but I can't discuss the movie without more research. A reviewer at BigHollywood noted it wasn't really a reflexively anti-Christian movie. Also, Kevin Smith is Catholic.
I really don't know what Americans want from their gov't and how they view the Christian faith.
However, Red State has a lot of tropes indicative of far-left attacks on evangelicals and small towners (same thing?!) and I've read a lot of articles in Rolling Stone and Alternet and other places that savage "evangelicals." I don't know what an evangelical is. I think I know what people think evangelicals are but I'm not sure there are many of those people. Many of the articles were very much unfair. I did this while I was on the left and it really pushed me away from the left, and was probably the main reason I moved to the right. That and my travels to Europe.
Re: The State of Religion
I'm sure this movie and movies like this will reinforce the notion in many born and raised atheists and agnostics that Christians are _______(fill in the blank: stupid, dangerous, cruel, ignorant, etc.) However, people that think that about Christians believe that regardless of films and other media. Its tepid Christians who are constantly concerned of pop culture's view of them that will walk away from movies like this with a spiritual crisis on their hands.
This is a little bit off-topic, but if you haven't seen it, I recommend Peter Robinson's interview of David Berlinski on Uncommon Knowledge. I'm sure on your travels or at home, you have met those brave humanists who scoff at fundamentalists for not believing in evolution, yet do not know the first thing about what makes evolution a valid theory. They have traded in Christian dogma only to run to science and embrace every theory as new dogma. I like science, I'm studying to be a scientist, but I laugh at those people who toss out principles built on thousands of years of philosophy and tradition, only to replace them with dodgy theories like global warming.
Apr '11
Re: The State of Religion
Mao: What principle is global warming replacing? While I agree that science is highly miss used by Atheists to substantiate their faith (we can discuss the ironies of this statement later) I don't think atheists are replacing religious/theological with science. They are replacing it with a different set of philosophies and trying to use science to give their philosophies legitimacy against the cultural and traditional legitimacy of the Theistic perspective. So science is more of a tool for them, not their actual belief system.
To be a bit more on topic. I think generally religious people strike the non-religious as strange and different. In and of itself that is not so bad for them. I think what gets them is that really religious people (well some) also feel compelled to testify and proselytize. These kind of activities make the non-religious feel uncomfortable since they tend to challenge their perceptions of the world. Since in modern society making some one who is in the minority feel uncomfortable for being so is perhaps the worst thing one can do, they lash out at their perceived tormentors in they mediums they can.
Re: The State of Religion
I think this is generally true. I recall listening to a recorded lecture by a Baptist neuroscience professor at UCSF in which he described his colleagues' reactions to his discussions of his faith. They would say things like "you talk differently when you're doing your normal thinking" and "you must be using a different part of your brain." It's a case of a mutual inability to fully comprehend another person's way of thinking.
Aug '11
Re: The State of Religion
Valiuth: I don't think atheists are replacing religious/theological with science. They are replacing it with a different set of philosophies and trying to use science to give their philosophies legitimacy against the cultural and traditional legitimacy of the Theistic perspective. So science is more of a tool for them, not their actual belief system.
· Sep 24 at 10:36pm
Perhaps you are saying that some atheists are replacing science with scientism?Science is a tool. Scientism determines what tools you use.
Eric Ames
It's a case of a mutual inability to fully comprehend another person's way of thinking. · Sep 24 at 11:01pm
I don't know if I'd say that. Many people who are religiously committed may remember what it's like to be a committed atheist. The question is "does the committed atheist know what it is like."
Also, some people may not understand how to communicate things the right way. The difficulty may not be "comprehending another person's way of thinking." it may be "developing a rigorous argument."
Re: The State of Religion
Considering that the name of the film is "Red State," it seems as though offense is certainly intended to red states -- those crazy bastions of bitter-clingers who elect people like George Bush. Unabashedly bigoted.
Dec '10
Re: The State of Religion
I agree.
Further, it is mind-blowing that the most liked comment on the Youtube trailer linked above is "Finally...an accurate depiction of the Westboro Baptist Church." The leader of that church of course ran for state office as a democrat not so very long ago. I'm not to saying that he is a accurate depiction of the average democrat, it just highlights a level of cognitive dissonance that Kevin Smith is making full use of.
In all, it seems that ignorance is far more contagious than knowledge.
Re: The State of Religion
Goldgeller:
However, Red State has a lot of tropes indicative of far-left attacks on evangelicals and small towners (same thing?!) and I've read a lot of articles in Rolling Stone and Alternet and other places that savage "evangelicals." I don't know what an evangelical is. I think I know what people think evangelicals are but I'm not sure there are many of those people.
Evangelicalism has its roots in late 18th century Britain, where it was associated with a revival of moral piety, the teachings of Calvinism, and a focus on synthesizing personal belief with social justice. Evangelicals, for instance, are generally considered the progenitors of the abolition of the British slave trade (famous Evangelicals, also with roots in American Puritanism, include Jonathan Edwards and William Wilberforce).
In the early 1900s, evangelicalism began to gather negative connotations as movements such as Pentacostalism and Fundamentalism grew across the US. Indeed, the stereotypes of Bible-thumping hell-fire preachers who would rather see you tortured than to continue in your 'sinfulness' remains today.
Re: The State of Religion
I was particularly struck by the line, when John Goodman was asked, "how much do you think that crucifix cost?", and he replies, "in dollars or common sense?"
The opposition of faith to common sense seems to be a dominant conception of religion today, that faith is by necessity unreasonable and therefore less reliable, while a more robust attachment to an abstract notion of "common sense" is what should be our guide. I like the above conversation about science v. scientism, because I think it interesting to understand all tools/guides for our understanding of reality as a type of interpretation--there is no such thing as a detached reason that can give us an impartial view of reality, but all approaches have assumptions--all frameworks for understanding the world are, essentially, bound by our perceptions, even an appeal to "common sense." (I am harkening to the intellectual work of the likes of Immanuel Kant, Karl Barth, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, for any interested).
Aug '11
Re: The State of Religion
Rob, thank you for your definition regarding evangelicalism. I hadn't read one as thorough as yours, but I somewhat knew what "evangelicalism" was historically. I wasn't being clear with my point regarding evangelicalism; my issue is that "evangelicalism" is used by, "people" say, Rolling Stone Magazine, to describe such a wide group of beliefs that the word is drained of all meaning. To borrow liberally from George Orwell, "Evagenlicalism means anything you don't like."
I think I was reacting to that.