- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Entertainment
Kirk Cameron's Movie "Monumental" has "Chilling Agenda"
By Joseph L. Conn
Kirk Cameron’s new movie “Monumental” was released Tuesday night in select theaters around the country, and I don’t think it’s going to be a hit with people like you and me.
Cameron is an actor best known for his role in the ‘80s TV sitcom “Growing Pains.” Today he’s a fundamentalist Christian best known for…well, not much of anything. He made news recently, however, when he went on CNN’s “Piers Morgan” to promote his new film andwound up bashing gays and gay marriage. (Homosexuality, he said, is “unnatural.... It's detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.”)
His remarks produced a well-deserved rebuke from the LGBT community and its allies, but largely overlooked in the discussion was the broader theocratic agenda Cameron seems to be peddling.
The full film hasn’t been released yet, but the trailers from it and the list of far-right “experts” involved in the production suggest we’re in for more “Christian nation” propaganda.
Among the cast of characters appearing in the movie is David Barton, the notorious fundamentalist myth-maker whose WallBuilders outfit has made a fortune selling Christian-nation claptrap – some of it so bogus even he has come to repudiate it.
Another featured “expert” is Herb Titus, a law professor so extreme that TV preacher Pat Robertson had to can him as head of Regent University Law School. In more recent times, Titus has distinguished himself as a B-list birther luminary.
And, for good measure, we have Marshall Foster, founder of the World History Institute (as well as the now apparently defunct Mayflower Institute). Foster rails against "post-modern tolerance," thinks public schools should be shut down and wants everything to be governed by a “biblical worldview,” just as in the days of the Pilgrims and Puritans.
Foster is “co-writer” of the “Monumental” script. According to online sources, he met Cameron in an airport and the relationship developed from there.
The theme of the movie seems to be that the Pilgrims came to America seeking religious liberty, and they set up a model Christian community that we ought to emulate today.
Well, here’s some news, Kirk and Company, the Pilgrims and Puritans did come here seeking religious liberty, but they set up a regime that gave freedom only to themselves, denying it to others. In keeping with its religious viewpoint, Plymouth Colony prescribed the death penalty for adulterers, homosexuals and witches, whipping for denying the scriptures and a fine for harboring a Quaker.
Sure, the Pilgrims played an important role in the history of America, but we don’t want to emulate their 17th-century theocracy today. That approach to government is exactly what America’s founders repudiated when they gave us our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The United States is based on principles of church-state separation, individual freedom, equality and fairness, not anyone’s religion.
I can harbor a Quaker if I want to.
I think the thing that troubles me most about Cameron is his growing flirtation with Christian Reconstructionism, the most extreme wing of the Religious Right.
Unlike most fundamentalists, adherents of this harsh theology aren’t expecting the imminent return of Jesus Christ. Instead they want to take “dominion” and impose a draconian version of “biblical law” on modern-day America for the next thousand years or so. Leading theorists of the movement advocate a rigid patriarchy with the death penalty imposed for a range of "crimes" running from adultery and homosexuality to witchcraft and worshipping false gods.
Earlier this year, Cameron hung out with Doug Phillips, whose Vision Forum ministry has a distinctly Christian Reconstructionist air. Cameron served as a minor celebrity at Phillips’ “Christian Filmmaker's Academy” in San Antonio in February. He took the stage with Phillips, and the two enthusiastically discussed how the Pilgrims built a society based on scripture rather than sitting around waiting for some biblically prophesied end of the world.
Cameron also noted that the Pilgrims, before they left Europe, lived in “difficult times with a culture that was going down the toilet.”
“They had a king,” he said, “who had bankrupted the nation, tripled the debt, enslaving the people, declared himself in essence to be God on Earth as he sat in the church and crammed religion down the throats of the people, claiming to be a Christian.”
Hmmm.
Is Cameron still talking about the 17th century or taking a right-wing potshot at a certain prominent political figure in today’s America?
Anyway, all this is to say this: “Monumental” seems destined to be just the latest propaganda exercise by the Religious Right’s lunatic fringe. And Cameron and company want to show it not only in theaters, but also churches, schools and anywhere else they can. (In one trailer, he says, “I want this to be a movement.”)
Don’t be misled by Kirk Cameron’s charming smile. It masks a chilling agenda.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter














Comments
As I was reading this article
As I was reading this article I was worried that an anti Christian message would be prevalent among the commenters. As I read the actual responses, I was delightfully surprised. I saw the film, and every question you may have about the puritan's struggle to arrive here in America is answered. In addition, it clearly disproves that the founding fathers wanted the separation of church and state. The first congress actually had Bibles printed and passed on to schools so that children could learn the Word of God and the moral integrity that goes with it. As a nation we have fallen into deep moral and financial decay. In all honesty, if God doesn't save us; who else can? I am twenty years old and I just so happen to care about this country, and the principles it was founded in. We have been lied too America! It's time to wake up.
"In addition, it clearly
"In addition, it clearly disproves that the founding fathers wanted the separation of church and state"
Other than the fact that Thomas Jefferson was the founder that, during his presidency, originally penned the phrase "wall of separation between church and sate" after referencing the relevant section of the 1st Ammendment.
"The first congress actually had Bibles printed and passed on to schools so that children could learn the Word of God and the moral integrity that goes with it."
This is not true. Congress did not have any Bibles printed. They agreed to have the Mr. Aitken's edition of the Bible reviewed for accuracy and passed a resolution affirming that it was an accurate edition. Mr Aitken did in fact ask Congress to purchase some of the Bibles, among his many other requests related to his edition, but they refused and only had their chaplains review it and approve it. In fact the only reason that they even agreed to this was due to the fact that there was a shortage of Bibles at the time. The shortage was because they were at war with England... it was 1782, and they weren't getting any new shipments of Bibles from the printers in England. Furthermore, if you notice the date and current events of the time, that was before the Constitution was even written, let alone ratified.
"In all honesty, if God doesn't save us; who else can?"
We can... we are the only ones who can. If we don't, it's our fault.
"We have been lied too America! It's time to wake up."
You're so right. It is definitely time for you to wake up and realize that people like David Barton are lying to you about the founding. Most of the founders were far from the religious fundamentalists that Kirk Cameron and these participants would have you believe.
IANAL, but the Constitution
IANAL, but the Constitution and Bill of Rights aren't that difficult to read before all the other amendments and laws and court cases and executive orders got tacked on.
They were very clearly for "separation of church and state," though not in so many words and not in such blanket terms. (I'm referring to the actual amendment, and not Jefferson's letter; the letter might indicate his wishes but he is only one man... one man very worthy of study and emulation but not the voice of all the founders.)
*Congress* shall make no *law* respecting an *establishment* of religion, or *prohibiting* the free exercise thereof; ...
Congress can neither establish a religion nor ban any. The executive and judicial branches can't do that either because they don't make laws. Federal funds going to a religion would be a law unless you want to dance around the letter using an appointed official... but I should think that's against the intent. The wall cuts the federal government off so it can't interfere in the exercise of individual conscience.
But the wall is not comprehensive. Pastors may run for President. The states may establish official religions (just like languages) as they wish. Government officials are not restricted from speaking of God or whatnot, and the state and local government can fund whatever they want. The founders left plenty of religious symbols, so I'm confident that's not what they were writing about.
Theaters in the
Theaters in the Dallas/Ft.Worth area were sold out... it was difficult getting tickets but worth it. The audience I attended with cheered the movie. After all, it's not about Kurt Cameron, it's about the men and women (and children) who paid a price for our freedom. We owe them something.