TCM's ridiculous intro of Jeffrey Hunter on 4-20-14

No, Hunter wasn't that big -- by no stretch of the imagination a "huge" name. Saying he was at a level just under the stars you name is a "huge" exaggeration. (And I wouldn't call actors like Grant, Holden or Fonda "action stars", even though the last two did do a few films that could be called "action movies", though not in today's sense. Grant almost never did such films.)

Jeff Hunter was a decidedly second-tier actor. He was well-known, not the unknown TCM idiotically claimed, but that doesn't mean he was a major star. He was not and never was. He was never a box-office name and never held in popular esteem like the stars you cite or others such as Lancaster, Douglas, Peck, Hudson, or Curtis; and Guinness, Quinn and Brynner were also far bigger stars. This isn't a matter of opinion but is established by box-office receipts, polls of the public and exhibitors, and just by the films he appeared in, few of which rose to the level of what Hollywood considered its major productions of the period. This has nothing to do with the quality of his films but rather their supposed "significance" in Hollywood's and the public's estimation.

Hunter was never in anything as big as, say, From Here to Eternity, Lust for Life, The Bridge on the River Kwai, Anatomy of a Murder, Mister Roberts, The Caine Mutiny, Sabrina and dozens of other films I could name, nor was he the star of some of his bigger films he was in, such as The Searchers and The Last Hurrah.

Basically he operated at a level similar to that of actors such as Richard Egan, John Ireland, Guy Madison, Arthur Kennedy, or Lee Marvin and Robert Wagner in their pre-top-star days of the 1950s. Most of Hunter's roles in the 50s were supporting parts or second leads. He did get more leads starting about 1960 but not in top-tier films: Sergeant Rutledge, Hell to Eternity, No Man is an Island, Brainstorm and the like were good but not top films, and even King of Kings wasn't quite considered at the level of most such films of the era, like Spartacus or Ben-Hur. His career slid badly by the mid-60s, by which time his films were weak, usually European-made and got little release.

Your assertion that Jeff Hunter was a huge star is simply inaccurate on the facts. That said, he was certainly not "unknown" and was reasonably popular with audiences, just never a box-office draw.

As for your claim that Hollywood has an "anti-Jesus agenda", I think with all due respect it's you who have an agenda. Classical Hollywood was certainly not "anti-Jesus", as one look at all the Biblical epics (including King of Kings) makes clear. If you're talking about today, a number of similar epics have been made for movies and TV, most recently Noah. I can't speak to individual filmmakers' religious attitudes, and neither can you, but on past experience I've found that when people complain about supposed Hollywood "biases" or "agendas" it's really more of a reflection of such persons' own beliefs and prejudices. There is absolutely no evidence that anyone in Hollywood hates King of Kings because of its religious content. (If anyone dislikes it it may simply be because they find it a bad movie, which is a matter of personal opinion.) Also someone may not be religious but that doesn't make them "anti" Jesus, which is a pretty simplistic, unfair and indeed un-Christian statement.

Besides, we were talking about TCM, whose staff and facilities are located in Atlanta, not Hollywood.