Religion is Not Recommended for Young Viewers

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200606/CUL20060609a.html
from JoeUser Forums

Apparently the pendulum of idiocy has now swung in the complete opposite direction, with the MPAA decided that religion is not for young children.  They have slapped a PG rating on a football film because - it talks of faith and god and god forbid! Jesus!

But of course talking about Johnny's 2 daddies or 2 mommies is fine for children as young as 5 or 6.  Yet Hollywood, which just recently rated Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" as the most controversial movie of all time, has decided that religious themes, and more specifically Christianity, is too traumatic for little Johnny to see.

And Hollywood wonders why it is tanking at the box office?  Maybe it is because we want E-N-T-E-R-T-A-I-N-M-E-N-T, and not indoctrination.  Theater goers want to escape from the real world, not have it pounded into their heads at every movie setting (we have CNN and Fox News for the latter).  Newspapers are losing readers by the boat loads.  News shows have diving ratings.  And Hollywood has a shrinking bottom line.  All for the same reason.

They forgot that the customer is king, and decided to crown themselves and give the customer, not what the customer wants, but what the purveyors want to give them.  So we just toss them aside and go find our wants in other ways.

I am sure the dinosaurs did not realize they were dying out, until the last hungry meat eater could find no food.

2,612 views 24 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
PG just means "Parental Guidence is Suggested" and I can think of nothing more apt for that than religion. It doesn't mean the content is dirty or bad, only that they feel that the average parent would want to "guide" the child in relation to the content.

Given the content:

"Facing the Giants "includes waves of answered prayers, a medical miracle, a mysterious silver-haired mystic who delivers a message from God and a bench-warmer who kicks a 51-yard field goal to win the big game when his handicapped father pulls himself out of a wheelchair and stands under the goal post to inspire his son's faith. There's a prayer-driven gust of wind in there, too."

The fact that a movie made by a single church for $100,000 is getting national marketing in 400 venues is something people SHOULD be pleasantly surprised about. Instead, people have to be outraged over the rating. Frankly, Doc, when people try and religiously indoctrinate my kid, I prefer to "guide" the process. That's all that is being suggested here.

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

Frankly, Doc, when people try and religiously indoctrinate my kid, I prefer to "guide" the process. That's all that is being suggested here.

There is no indoctination.  You are free to see it or not, and they have not hidden the plot behind some cartoon characters.  The ratings are for offensive content, and always have been.  That the MPAA finds religion offensive seems to be the norm these days, and is hardly surprising.  What is surprising is that they are no longer trying to hide it.  But I guess that was the inevitable next step.

Groupy 2 - Organize multiple applications into grouped tabs on your Windows desktop
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Placing a rating on a movie isnt' indoctrination though. It's a guideline and a suggestion for parents of young children. The kids themselves don't see or get much meaning from a rating score, most kids don't even pay a hell of a lot of attention to it. And a PG rating is for kids so young that they should always have a parent with them anyway.

There's a difference between placing a rating on a movie and including content in the movie that tries to push a particular agenda. And ultimately you're free in both cases to see it or not see it based on your own views, there's no indoctrination or forcing of values in this instance at all.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
"You are free to see it or not, and they have not hidden the plot behind some cartoon characters. "


And I suppose you feel that way when it is, say, radical environmentalism? You didn't seem to have a problem when Gideon portrayed "Hoots" as being indoctrination. If this were a Liberal agenda that you didn't agree with, I think you'd be more apt to see it as sinister.

"The ratings are for offensive content, and always have been. "


That isn't true. Do you really think that the wackos in Hollywood find sexual situations and such offensive? You, yourself say above that they don't. But they still give movies with very small amounts of sexual situations a PG rating. No, something can require parental guidance and still not be offensive.

"What is surprising is that they are no longer trying to hide it. But I guess that was the inevitable next step.


What surprises me is how you've fallen so far that you can't even see your own hypocritical biases. If this were a movie pushing the muslim faith, or atheism, I think you'd feel differently, but for your own religion you have a separate standard.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

Placing a rating on a movie isnt' indoctrination though.

Baker was not talking about the rating being an indoctrination, but the movie was indoctrinating.  And it could be.  I will not confirm or deny it.  But then aren't all 'real life' movies indoctrinating to a degree?  Otherwise, why would we all root for the Titans?

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
The reason I said a rating isn't indoctrination was because in your article you lay the rating issue under the umbrella of hollywood indoctrination. You, perhaps unintentionallly, equated the two. I was responding to the article and not Baker's comment... sorry if I confused.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

That isn't true. Do you really think that the wackos in Hollywood find sexual situations and such offensive? You, yourself say above that they don't. But they still give movies with very small amounts of sexual situations a PG rating. No, something can require parental guidance and still not be offensive.

They dont.  The whackos in DC do, and they knew if they did not police theirselves, the DC whackos would.  My son does not find blood and gore offensive.  You can pick the nits, but the truth is that the ratings are meant to warn (or ban) based upon offensive content based upon a morality system that predates the whackos in Hollywood.  Before it was sex, Cursing and Violence.  Now Religion has been added to the grouping.

And I suppose you feel that way when it is, say, radical environmentalism? You didn't seem to have a problem when Gideon portrayed "Hoots" as being indoctrination. If this were a Liberal agenda that you didn't agree with, I think you'd be more apt to see it as sinister.

Sure.  I know exactly what Gore's latest movie is, and I chose not to see it.  I know what Hoots was about and chose not to see it.  And you may want to refresh your memory of Hoots and see that I was not against hoots, nor really gave a damn about it.  Farenheit 911 was indoctrination - did you see me pushing for its banning?  Again I chose not to see it.  MY CHOICE.

What surprises me is how you've fallen so far that you can't even see your own hypocritical biases. If this were a movie pushing the muslim faith, or atheism, I think you'd feel differently, but for your own religion you have a separate standard.

I cant beleive you would even state that.  Show me where I have made unilateral statements regarding muslims or atheists?  I think you have me confused with others.  I have spoken out about some Muslims and some atheists, but I do not brand them all with the same brush.  And I dont know how many times I have to tell you this, but the religion of this movie is not my religion.  And if I felt it was being shoved down my throat, I would chose to not see it either.  I may not, because I dont particulary think the theme is that interesting.  Not because I think it is indoctrinating. 

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
"You can pick the nits, but the truth is that the ratings are meant to warn (or ban) based upon offensive content based upon a morality system that predates the whackos in Hollywood. "


No, that's not true, Dr. Guy. There have been movies with no language or offensive material, but the natural death of a character provoked them to make it PG. There are some things that kids shouldn't be sent into a theater to deal with by themselves.

"Farenheit 911 was indoctrination - did you see me pushing for its banning? Again I chose not to see it. MY CHOICE."


And putting a PG rating on something is effecting your choice? You think a PG rating is "banning"? Who is pushing for this movie to be banned?

"I have spoken out about some Muslims and some atheists, but I do not brand them all with the same brush. And I dont know how many times I have to tell you this, but the religion of this movie is not my religion. And if I felt it was being shoved down my throat, I would chose to not see it either. I may not, because I dont particulary think the theme is that interesting. Not because I think it is indoctrinating. "


Are you 10 years old? If you were, do you think you'd be adult enough to decide whether something was being shoved down your throat or not? Do you think these ratings are for you, or for children? You aren't making any sense at all...

How exactly would a parent know if something was being shoved their their kids throat if they weren't there to see it? Could that, perhaps, be why they SUGGEST parents accompany their kids? If there were a maddressa-made movie that had this kind of pitch to 'get right with Allah', you'd be right there alongside everyone else tossing a fit if it had a G rating.

If there were a movie that spent the entire film questioning the existence of God and coming up negative, you'd not question the need for kids to have parental guidance. This movie will be questioning or conflicting with the beliefs of many, many children, even many Christians who differ in doctrine. You can play even-handed if you want, but I have been here watching your posts for years, and I don't believe the act for a second.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
You talk about this movie being fine for kids to see without parental guidance, and then you turn around and keep saying about how YOU, an adult, ought to be able to decide if something is indoctrination or not.

The idiotic part is that is EXACTLY what a PG rating is. It is saying that the parent should decide about this movie based upon what it is in it, instead of blindly sending their kids off to see it on their own.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

Are you 10 years old? If you were, do you think you'd be adult enough to decide whether something was being shoved down your throat or not? Do you think these ratings are for you, or for children? You aren't making any sense at all...

The article is about the PG rating, which does not affect me.  However, the comments have been directed at me, so I found myself using personal anecdotes.  However it is still my firm beleif that this rating is punitive, and not informative.

There are some things that kids shouldn't be sent into a theater to deal with by themselves.

I agree.  However I fail to see how religion fits into that category.  It is a take it or leave it thing, and children of all ages can see it and ask questions.  And if you are sending a child of 10 to a theater by themselves, there is a lot more wrong than just your parental oversight.

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

The reason I said a rating isn't indoctrination was because in your article you lay the rating issue under the umbrella of hollywood indoctrination. You, perhaps unintentionallly, equated the two. I was responding to the article and not Baker's comment... sorry if I confused.

Sorry, I was confused.  I guess indoctrination was a poor choice of words.  It is more about shoving views down your throat - which can be indoctrination - or just being judgemental.  Some of them examples are indoctrination, most are judgemental.

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

The idiotic part is that is EXACTLY what a PG rating is. It is saying that the parent should decide about this movie based upon what it is in it, instead of blindly sending their kids off to see it on their own.

We seem to be arguing at Cross purposes here.  As I just raised that issue of blindly sending the kids off on their own as well.  However, that is not the issue, and perhaps it was my use of the word indoctrination as Zoomba pointed out that misconveyed my thoughts on this.  Judgemental would be a better term I think, and in that, they are being very judgemental about a subject that they apparently do not like or want to condone.

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm reminded of a story about the release of "Star Wars" (probably apocryphal, but you never know). The story alleges that Lucas added in a single swear word to get a PG rating instead of a G rating because, outside of animated flicks, G rated movies generally don't do very well. The PG rating probably increased this movie's marketability greatly, and the controversy doesn't hurt.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
"We seem to be arguing at Cross purposes here. As I just raised that issue of blindly sending the kids off on their own as well."


Then the point of your blog would be moot as well, since all PG means is "Parental Guidance is Suggested". If you are try to say that religion isn't a circumstance where parental guidance is important, well, I think you're arguing facetiously just to be arguing against the people in question.

I'll say it again. I know that if I sent my child to watch a movie about football, and she came home telling me that she should 'get right with God,' I'd be annoyed beyond belief. If you want to pretend for the sake of argument that kids don't need parental guidance when people are trying to woo them toward particular beliefs, fine, but I don't believe you.

If you don't feel that way, then you must agree with the MPAA that heavy religious themes should require some guidance and oversight from parents.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
The story alleges that Lucas added in a single swear word to get a PG rating instead of a G rating


And here all this time I thought it was because of the incestuous kiss Luke stole from his unknown sister at the time, Princess Laya.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

I'm reminded of a story about the release of "Star Wars" (probably apocryphal, but you never know). The story alleges that Lucas added in a single swear word to get a PG rating instead of a G rating because, outside of animated flicks, G rated movies generally don't do very well. The PG rating probably increased this movie's marketability greatly, and the controversy doesn't hurt.

This is true.  But then some movies are geared for G, so that all can see.  Without reservation.

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

Then the point of your blog would be moot as well, since all PG means is "Parental Guidance is Suggested". If you are try to say that religion isn't a circumstance where parental guidance is important, well, I think you're arguing facetiously just to be arguing against the people in question.

No Baker, In every act, parental guidance is suggested.  Just not in the movies.  You have taken a point to the extreme and there it fails.  For you would then condemn Bambi (Mother dies), Aladin (stereotyping), Pocahontas, Snow White, etc.  All G rated movies to some degree require parental guidance.  But we do not need some judgemental clown outfit deciding what is and is not.  You take the PG in its purest, albeit never used form. This is not about Parental Guidance for it can be easily argued that all actions of a child require it.  This is about being judgemental because the film espouses a religion, something YOU dont seem to have a problem with if it is not Christian.  And until now, neither did the MPAA.

Your excuses for them are weak.  And you twist and turn until you can turn the argument to your point.  Yet you cannot provide comparable examples from the past ratings.  What has happened is that the MPAA has turned the rating system into a sham, that can no longer be trusted.  For it is not an accurate description of the content, but of their political agenda.

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

And here all this time I thought it was because of the incestuous kiss Luke stole from his unknown sister at the time, Princess Laya.

Someone is not a SW fan.  It is Leia!

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Think of it this way.

I used to have hellish arguments with fellow church members about promoting prayer and bible study in schools. They loved the idea because they lived in a small community where everyone went to the same kind of church and believed the same kind of thing.

When I asked them how they'd feel if next week a Hindu teacher were hired and started offering Hindu religious study for their kids they felt less enthused. That's all I am saying here. It is easy for us to say that a 'PG' rating is kind of insulting because we feel the beliefs in question are relatively harmless. If they were beliefs we find threatening, though, we'd definately want parental guidence to be suggested.

As a movie for parents to watch with their kids and discuss, sure, this is great, but that is exactly what the PG rating is supposed to promote. If Jewish or Muslim or Atheistic kids go to this and find themselves troubled with how it conflicts with their beliefs, it would be better for a parent to be able to guide them through it.

We can't assume that ALL kids will receive the "miracles" in this movie as happy events. To some they'd be blasphemous. No one should be protected from religion, but out of respect we ought to get a heads-up in advance when people are going to be trying to sway our kids.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

When I asked them how they'd feel if next week a Hindu teacher were hired and started offering Hindu religious study for their kids they felt less enthused. That's all I am saying here. It is easy for us to say that a 'PG' rating is kind of insulting because we feel the beliefs in question are relatively harmless. If they were beliefs we find threatening, though, we'd definately want parental guidence to be suggested.

Schools are mandatory.  Movies are not.  The PG says nothing about the religious content and gives the mistaken impression that the movie has some dirty words (all a PG can have).  Your analogy does not hold water.  How many Bollywood films that promote Hinduism are thus labeled a step higher due to it?

I can save you google time. 0

Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Personally, I really don't see how simply having a religios theme or content whether it's Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Giant Green and Yellow Space Frog worship can rate a movie a PG rating. Seems a bit 'out there' to me.

But then most liberalism as it's applied today seems 'out there' to me.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

Personally, I really don't see how simply having a religios theme or content whether it's Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Giant Green and Yellow Space Frog worship can rate a movie a PG rating. Seems a bit 'out there' to me.

My point succintly!  Thank you.

Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Someone is not a SW fan. It is Leia!


No, Dr, This doesn't prove she's not a SW fan, it proves she's a PORNO fan (LOL!)
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top

No, Dr, This doesn't prove she's not a SW fan, it proves she's a PORNO fan (!)

The hooker on the corner? "lays 10 cents"?