Frequently. I know that Buffy and Charmed get negative treatment from the fundamentalist crowd, not so sure about Jeannie (after all, the fact that Jeannie referred to the Major as “Master” has to appeal to the “women must be subservient to men” crowd, which includes many, if not most, fundamentalists). Sabrina is a bit of a wildcard because, apart from the magic, the show’s producers are required to keep the character moral and virtuous and never show her in “adult” situations.
Movies generally come in for less high profile condemnation because the choice of whether to go and see a movie is more or less the consumer’s. Now, when the movie is considered blasphemous, as opposed to merely offensive, then the Bible-thumpers are out in force. Examples: “Last Temptation of Christ”, “Dogma.”
Books in school and public libraries are often a favorite target, and the popularity of the Harry Potter books has made them a very easy target. They are by no means the only target, and fundamentalists are not the only ones who try to get books pulled out of libraries for various reasons. But yeah, the fundamentalists are pretty active in this regard.
This sort of thing happened with Star Wars (that annoying talk aboiut “The Force”, you know) and about D&D Role-Playing games. It seems to target the immensely popular pop-culture item of the moment that posits a world without Christianity or with magic.
Well, I had a hallmate in college who refused to watch The Witches of Eastwick for that very reason (her whole family felt the same way). I don’t know whether this was a common attitude among fundamentalists or whether this family was just weird, though.
(Side note: Never tell your fundamentalist hallmate her family is weird. They don’t appreciate it.)
Just curious: Do CFs really forward that quoted argument as you mention? Surely they can’t really think a book or TV show is any harder to avoid than a film?
(I thought that they thought that it wasn’t a matter of having actually seen it, it was the basic (lack of) morality in general.)
“Monty Python’s Life of Brian” peeved a few Christian groups, and actually, “The Last Temptation of Christ” and “Dogma” were condemned not just by fundamentalists, but by Catholics and other non-fundie Christians. Anything unorthodox seems to spark protests, usually from people that haven’t seen the movie they’re protesting.
h.sapiens, for me, I think there is a world of difference between a film like Life of Brian or Dogma, which are openly ‘blasphemous’, and Harry Potter, which is a kids story with witches and wizards.
Harry Potter doesn’t really say anything about religion, certainly nothing negative, IMHO.
I was meaning books / films which, whilst being ‘religiously neutral’ (by not mentioning it at all), that still cause controversy to Fundamentalists.
As for Sabrina, I find it a little weird that the CFs agree it is OK to be a witch, as long as you are a good and moral witch. (Most of the time).
Harry Potter could be considered a good kid most of the time too.
I think you might get some argument about whether the religious-themed movies I mentioned are openly blasphemous. Their makers don’t seem to have intended them to be. However, I take your point about the movies/shows you suggest not being about religion at all. Still, the conservative Christians that protest them seem to be seeing religious significance in them, even if the authors don’t mean for it to be there.
It’s perfectly understandable. Their cause is increasingly out of the mainstream and the only way they can get media attention is by attacking something well-known. If fundies campaign against Satanist refrigerator motors, who cares? But the Harry Potter angle is a valuable “hook”, since the media love to write about Harry Potter.
Attacking Tiger Woods on racial issues has the same logic. If a black radical rails against congressional redistricting, he’ll get a big yawn. But claim Tiger Woods is a CIA plot (along with AIDS and crack cocaine) and odds are someone will listen.
No, neither movie is blasphemous. They don’t mock God, they mock religious intolerance and certain aspects of the Christian church, and in Life of Brian, there is also some kidding of 1970s leftist radical politics.
Ok, I know they were not blasphemous, hence the ’ ', but I could understand at least why certain people may be quick to label them as such. The content of Dogma could be considered to mock the sancity of angels and the pitfalls of catholic beliefs, if you were inclined to think that way.
I was trying to form a distinction between films which do tackle religion / religious beliefs as a part of their storyline, against films which do not in any way mention religion, but do mention activities (such as witchcraft) that may be considered anti-christian by some. That was all.
Excuse me broadening this slighty, but in protests against allegedly immoral media content, censorious groups over here such as the National Viewers and Listeners Association did sometimes complain that their objection to TV shows was that they were “filth piped into our homes uninvited”. Of course that didn’t stop them protesting about films, books and magazines as well (and some of their most high profile complaints were against films and written material).
Isn’t that always the way? It doesn’t just apply to Christian Fundamentalists either - practically nobody who burned Salman Rushdie’s infamous novel had read it. When asked to justify this behaviour logically I usually find the response is along the lines of “No I haven’t seen/read this, and I wouldn’t want to either because it’s immoral”.
