The Fundamentalism of “Political Correctness”

The Fundamentalism of “Political Correctness”

December 15, 2024

By Metropolitan Amphilochios of Kissamos and Selino

I read somewhere and I agree that in our times we are experiencing a form of “democratic” dictatorship against thought and expression. It is about the one-sided interpretation, according to one's whim, of the term “politically correct”. It is obvious, commonplace and self-evident that no one has the right and can insult or commit wrongdoing against diversity (political, social, gender, religion, origin, language, etc.), as any form of legitimacy of the different that leads to racism which is reprehensible and unacceptable. After all, the rejection of the different, because it is different, is a manifestation of racist behavior and mentality.

And while we agree on the need to protect the correct everyday behavior of citizens, within the framework of the favored state, what is strange and difficult to understand, much less accept, and raises many questions, is the fact that, as far as Christianity is concerned, the term "politically correct" seems to be unknown or rather not applicable by all those who defend its correctness and necessity. When, for example, works of art, films, posters, cartoons and everything else are employed by modern bad craftsmen of our times, who disrespect and ridicule the sacred symbols of the faith of Christ (the symbol of the Cross, the sacred face of the Virgin Mary, the face of Christ, etc.), with the aim and goal of deconstructing the faith, then not only is the logic of "political correctness" not applied, but anyone who raises a different discourse, point of view, opinion and voice, from that which serves "political correctness", is targeted and attacked as an alleged "dark-minded", "homophobic", "Christian Talibanist", etc., by all its defenders.

I wonder: Is there any truth in Umberto Eco's speech about the "fundamentalism of political correctness," which spoke of the fundamentalism of people who, in the name of defending groups that suffer social discrimination, have turned into mullahs who try to control the speech of their fellow human beings? Because, if political correctness has become a tool that tries to control and direct thought and speech in a specific, strictly defined direction, and if anyone who has a public speech, due to the "authenticity" that political correctness has acquired, is often listed as racist and homophobic, then obviously we are talking about a new kind of "fundamentalism of political correctness," as Umberto Eco calls it; a kind that is dangerous for Democracy itself and not only for whoever and whatever it targets.

What is the reason for this thought-provoking thought? Netflix’s latest animated film, titled “That Christmas.” A film that distorts and desecrates the event of the Birth of Christ. A film that, as its director claims, answers the question: “What happens when a bunch of crazy politically correct kids get together and put on a school play about the story of the Nativity?” What is the result of “political correctness,” of these... “crazy kids”?

Jesus “wouldn’t want us to do the same boring Christmas story every year, would he, parents?”, a character named Bernadette asks the audience of the play. “He would want a strictly vegetarian, multicultural holiday of fun with lots of pop songs and stuff about climate change,” she said. Instead of three wise men, three wise women visit the baby Jesus, while shepherds tend vegetables instead of sheep.

Their “political correctness” doesn’t stop there. How does the film describe the Nativity? “The most outrageous point of the production, however, comes, according to CBN, when the young girl playing Mary, the mother of Jesus, sings “Papa Don’t Preach,” a 1986 Madonna song about deciding whether to have an abortion. The girl (the supposed Virgin Mary, we add) sings as she holds up a watermelon with a face carved into it, intended to represent baby Jesus. At one point, another student accidentally knocks the watermelon out of the girl’s hands and it falls to the ground, splashing into the audience.

“The comparison of a watermelon and its damaged pieces with the body of an infant, in an animated film that is nevertheless intended for children, is at least disturbing, no matter how lightheartedly it is represented,” declare some of the viewers, and add “..the red fruit is obviously intended to resemble blood.”

In other words, and at the risk of the defenders of “political correctness” targeting and slandering us, the message given by this film; a film that is indeed addressed to young children, who have not yet acquired the ability to think critically, the message it gives does not concern the Birth of Christ, but the abortion of a child! A supposedly children's Christmas cartoon, a "school play", as its creators call it, which in the name of Christmas, poisons the souls of the young children it addresses, as instead of talking to them about Christ, it passes abortion into their subconscious! And all this in the name of "political correctness"!

Concluding questions:

1. Is Umberto Eco right or wrong when he speaks of the "fundamentalism of political correctness"?

2. According to the logic of "political correctness", as developed in the introduction, such behaviors of "political correctness" do they not signal Christianophobia and racism?

3. Does not this kind of "political correctness" constitute the most modern, most dangerous, most barbaric form of xenophobia, racism and exclusion?

4. Will we react or passively accept everything that wants to destroy faith, empty the soul, and drive man away from the holiness of his person and the prospect of the eternal Kingdom?

A joyful, blessed, happy, bright, sanctified Christmas, full of Christ and love!

Source: Translated by John Sanidopoulos.