>The whole film basically endorsed the overall fear and
>resistance to change as acceptable or even commendable thing.
>It's okay to judge people for not cutting the nails, using a
>ball-point pen, taking sugar in their tea, and moreover it's
>all right to terrorize small children, accuse possibly
>innocent people or terrible things, and in general treat
>people like garbage, as long as you've got private doubts that
>in the end unite you with everyone else.
>
>Similarly, the film basically said that some people may
>complain that church needs to change and be closer to the its
>members, but those people are paternalistic and probably child
>molesters anyway, so it's okay to keep the church in the dark
>ages. I did find the sexism angle sort of interesting, but
>it's really nothing that revelatory.

And the film certainly didn't endorse fear and resistance to change, nor anything else you said. It actually didn't endorse anything; a viewpoint, a set of facts, a character (and in fact, actually doubts all of those things in one way or another). An endorsement would assume a surety, which would basically negate the title.

----