Hallelujah and Ignorance, Here We Come
Sarah Vincent

This quote, taken from Inherit the Wind, summarizes the main issue raised by this 1960 film. Is religious belief antithetical in its nature to science and progress? Does religion function as a means by which a society justifies the status quo, preserving the comforts of ignorance? The question asked by this film does not center on the validity of either creationism or evolution. Rather, the film asks what role does religion play in a society struggling to evaluate new theories and scientific discoveries? The debate between evolution and creation is simply one clear example of a way in which religious fundamentalism has prevented not only the acceptance of a scientific theory, but also any fair evaluation of it. This particular case demonstrates the danger of literalistic interpretation of Scripture, in that any sacred text that cannot hold true with new discoveries grows open to criticism and refutation. Other forms of Christianity exist that are more open to reconstructionistic or revolutionary efforts to gain insight into Scripture and its modern application. In summary, the real issue in this film does not center on the truth of either creation or evolution, but rather, on the relationship between religion (in this case, Christianity) and science: simply put, are they friends or foes?

The title itself lends support to the idea that the viewer is meant to question the roles that religion assumes within any society. The passage of Scripture that includes the phrase, “inherit the wind,” is first evoked in the minister’s prayer for the damnation of his more progressive daughter. The same passage is mentioned a second time, when the defense attorney discusses the legacy of the recently deceased prosecutor. Both invocations of this passage are used to suggest that a society must be concerned with the values and teachings it leaves for future generations. In this particular case, one is left to consider whether or not Christian fundamentalism leaves a legacy of “wind.” If believers use faith to impede progression and innovation, religion becomes a dangerous force in society, stifling intellectualism and perpetuating a cycle of ignorance. This sort of religion leaves no substantial, enduring truths for future believers. If every intellectual advancement in the realm of science is understood to contradict Scripture, then the value of Scripture to society gradually erodes. It is for this reason that Christians seeking to preserve the truths of Scripture must be willing to critically consider science, willingly subjecting their faith to new discoveries, though still grounding their ultimate knowledge of Truth in the Bible. Fundamentalism, in its fearful and hasty rejection of new ideas, leaves an inheritance of wind for future Christians, as it fails to treat science with any dignity.

Within this film’s presentation of the trial, two ideologies emerge. The first is advocated by the defense attorney (Drummond) and the biology teacher (Cates). These men argue that science must be allowed to progress, and that new theories and ideas should be taught. Religion should not be used to support anti-intellectualism. On the other hand, a second ideology is embraced by the prosecuting attorney (Brady) and many of the townspeople. This ideology centers on a fundamentalist interpretation of Scripture and a dependence on the Bible as the only means of finding truth. Science is seen as a danger to religion. Any controversial discovery or teaching should be suppressed, as the main aim of this ideology remains the preservation of the status quo and maintenance of religion as the ultimate source of Truth. Religion within the society must not yield its authority and power to science. Obviously, these ideologies oppose one another and beg the following questions: Are all beliefs equal? Are some more compelling than others? What is the function of religion in society?

Within the film, Hillsboro offers an interesting response to that last question. The general population of this town uses religion to war against intellectualism, promote stability and continuation of the presently-held values, and discredit any attempts to incorporate science as blasphemous (as skepticism applied to the Bible leads to a society of agnostics and atheists). Specific examples include (but are not limited to) the cities law against the teaching of evolution, the population’s demonstration of hatred, Brady’s characterization of Drummond as agnostic, and the court’s refusal to hear the testimony of scientists. In all these ways, Hillsboro uses religion to resist secularization and scientific progression and to stifle academic inquiry.

Though this film fails at points in its attempts to accurately reconstruct the Scopes Monkey Trial, its picture of Hillsboro and its questions regarding the role of religion in society remain significant, especially from a sociological perspective. Sociology understands power as the ability to achieve a desired end despite opposition. Hillsboro represents the tendency of communities (and society as a whole) to want to maintain this power, especially by religious means. Religion serves many social functions. The sociological functions that Hillsboro clearly understood and sought to perpetuate included the abilities of religion to reinforce the social order, provide a sense of “righteousness” to people, promote cohesion, and offer a means of control. In a very real way, religion offers people comfort, security, and stability within a society, ultimately helping them to overcome aspects of the human condition.

The film’s depiction of the way in which ideologies (systems of beliefs and values) can collide suggests possible challenges to the stability and security of any society. Each ideology motivates and justifies the behavior of those who embrace it. When new or controversial ideologies emerge, therefore, people often struggle to suppress them, hoping to preserve the security of values already held. To avoid reaching a state of anomie (where no clear social forces are acting), humans often turn to religion as a means of creating predictability. Just as Christian fundamentalists resisted (and continue to resist) evolution, religion can then become an enemy to innovation and progression. As Marx warned, religion is not always a liberating force; oftentimes, it only promotes acceptance of the status quo.

Of course, this resistance of religion to change remains and will remain an issue for any society that values intellectualism and progress. For 100 years now, Christian fundamentalists have challenged evolution and demanded that creationism continue to be taught. Some scientists have objected to this intrusion of faith into compulsory education. Still others have argued that scientific evidence makes a case for intelligent design, promoting a sort of compromise between religion and science. Moreover, America has used (and continues to use) a misguided, ignorant form of Christianity to justify other aspects of the status quo: the oppression of racial minorities (like African American slavery in the South), the disparity of wealth produced by capitalism (as the Prosperity Gospel gained predominance over the Social Gospel), violent imperialism (as war can be a means of spreading faith and democracy to other nations), and the perpetuation of a patriarchal society (with a male God having given men authority over women in churches and households). In all of these cases, American society employed religion to hinder progressive movements.

This same source of power (religion) can and should be used to correct social evils, support intellectualism, and aid progressive movements. Religion functions in this society in a way that it should not. Christians are not called to tolerate or support injustices in the status quo for the sake of security and stability within a society. Though sociology correctly identifies this aim for equilibrium as the primary function of religion within society, it has also, perhaps unintentionally, made obvious the failings of Christianity in America. Christians today are afraid to challenge the comfortable functions of religion. Future generations of Christians will indeed “inherit the wind,” as this society leaves behind no truths that compel people to seek change and no convictions of substance that promote activism. Just as the townspeople in Inherit the Wind used religion to condemn intellectuals and challenge science, just as Christian fundamentalists still refuse to even consider the evidence for evolution (whether the theory is ultimately true or not), people facing challenges to their ideologies will continue to retreat to religion, much in the same way as an addict flees to the familiar comfort of his/her drug of choice. So it follows that the continuing debate between evolution and creation cannot be resolved until people realize that science and religion need not be understood as antagonists. Only then can religion serve a more honorable purpose within society by providing people with a foundation from which to evaluate new ideas and reconstruct old ones. When properly understood, science and other intellectual pursuits are enemies to ignorance, not religion. Inherit the Wind challenges Christians to do something many will find frightening, though the same challenge can be found directly stated within Scripture: “Test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Thess. 5:21, NKJV).

<<< Return to Journal Contents