http://www.cnn.com/2006
"House Majority Whip Roy Blunt and other lawmakers are demanding explanations after hearing complaints that the movie "Facing the Giants" was rated PG instead of G due to religious content.
"This incident raises the disquieting possibility that the MPAA considers exposure to Christian themes more dangerous for children than exposure to gratuitous sex and violence," Blunt said in a letter to MPAA Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Dan Glickman."
Christian themes? Or Christian dogma? Now, I don't know much about the movie itself. It really might be wholesome and innocuous and deserve a G rating. What bothers me is the sense of entitlement these congressional advocates seem to be bringing to the topic. Religion is powerful. Ideologically weighty. Religion is no less powerful a force in this world than nuclear weaponry. Can faith move mountains? Maybe. We know they can level them, that's for sure, and it disturbs me that people entrusted with such great responsibility seem to think that it's proper and desirable to wield the force of religion recklessly.
It seems to me that religion or lack thereof is an issue of deep significance in psychological and attitudinal development. It has to be a choice, if not by the adopter then by someone, somewhere, usually the one doing the childrearing. If it were truly the natural state of things then we'd be born religious and indoctrination (as opposed to education) of any kind would be redundant. And the manner in which a Christian is introduced to Christianity seems to have a lot of influence on how that person treats the rest of humanity. So yes, I'd say that religious themes *are* PG subject matter. No, more than that - there are religious themes that are undoubtedly R subject matter.
"And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord, when I lay my vengeance upon thee!"
Uh. Rated G? The line was made famous to the country, not by a priest or scholar, but by an on-screen, fictional contract killer in the process of committing murder (who proceeded thereafter to wax contemplative about religious themes and his own life, not to mention Caine and Kung Fu *wince*). If the manner of introduction helps determine whether one uses religion to motivate performing acts of philanthropy or to rationalize the shooting of a medical practitioner with a high powered rifle through the window of his own house, then no shit - religious issues should not have carte blanche for a G rating! Religion is not harmless! It's *full* of power. Exposure to gratuitous sex and violence can shape an impressionable kid into a callous philanderer or wifebeater. Exposure to outrageous dogma can turn an impressionable kid into a cold-blooded terrorist, too. People wield guns and declare wars in the name of religion. Should "Left Behind" be rated G? Of course not. Oh, wait - it's because of the death and violence, right? Right. Like there wasn't any sex or violence - or murder, or betrayal, or idolatry, or incest, pillaging, plundering, invasion, slavery, conquering, warfare, or genocide - perpetrated by the protagonists and inheritors of the sacred books of the Old Testament.
Please, people. Religious themes include many mature subjects, and religions are as obsessed about the imposition of death, preservation of life, sex, and procreation as any other topic out there. Probably moreso. Every religion I can think of had plenty to say - nay, demand - about who could mate with whom, how, when, and where, and under what circumstances. So act like grownups, people, and be responsible enough to wear the label. Not that I necessarily think *this* movie demands a PG rating, but automatic entitlement to a G rating seems misplaced. The quoted Congressmen seem upset that the rating might prevent people from being exposed to Christian values. Oh, what, is there a First Amendment violation in assigning a movie a PG rating? It would be the first time I've heard anything about it. I've never known a PG rating to prevent anyone from seeing a movie. This is PG we're talking about! Not even PG-13! If anything, a PG rating respects the gravity of the issue, and how it should not be taught carelessly. To put it crudely, this is life-changing, life-shaping shit we're talking about. At least one family friend joined the Jehovah's Witnesses in college a few years after being introduced to Christianity by a well-meaning elder. She and the elder have had discussions since about how following the Jehovah's Witnesses is "not what she meant" by being a good Christian, and how "they don't teach God's word the way it's meant to be taught." The discussions, as far as I can tell, have been to no effect. The kid's still a Jehovah's Witness, and devotes all her time to that sect, and seems to think that all secular entertainment and any outward expression of joy - or even association with non-Christians - is a sin against God.
When it comes to learning about God, it's not all the same. It would be incorrect and unfair to paint all Christians with a single broad brush. I know my aunt and Pat Robertson are not on the same page. She tries to convert everyone she meets, sure, but my aunt would pray for the protection of all of God's children, devout or not, saved or not. She certainly doesn't invite God to destroy entire cities or states for the laws that they pass or strike down. Robertson wishes more death, suffering, and harm on the living, breathing, hard-working - even devout - citizens of the United States than Al Qaeda has ever managed to inflict on us to date, and that's already thousands upon thousands of murders. The same ideological underpinnings can give rise to an extraordinary range of beliefs - and subsequent actions and consequences - ranging from saintly benevolence to repugnant spite.
So if a movie purported to tell your child what he or she should understand about religious faith and values, shouldn't you be concerned? Newsflash for Congressman Blunt: PG stands for Parental Guidance, not "don't let the kids see it." Did you forget that? Wouldn't you like some input? Wouldn't you like the option to hope that the ratings system and theater administrators, even with all their faults and vacuous logic, might give you the chance to advise your kid what you think a relationship with God is all about? If Robertson, Osama bin Laden, Jesse Jackson, George Bush, Cotton Mather, King Henry VIII, David Duke, Pope Benedict, Oral Roberts, Jimmy Baker, King Saul, Ann Coulter, Mother Teresa, David Koresh, or Ayatollah Khomeni, brimming with charisma, authority, power, or fame, walked up to your child with a fistful of promises and lure of eternal life in the Kingdom of God, wouldn't you like the chance to tell your child what you thought of that person, good or bad, before he or she started talking?
"Johnny Walker Lindh, come here this instant! This is not how I raised you!"
Too late.
PostScript: Yes, I know there's an argument for the other side. We don't enforce G vs. PG ratings on books, even though I'm sure there are people out there who say we should. But nobody's going to stop a 7-year old from walking into a bookstore and buying a copy of the Bible, The Prince, Mein Kampf, or Neitschze's Finest Quotations. Making that observation, of course, opens up a whole new can of worms. But making the argument that a movie should never be rated PG for the mere fact that it discusses religious subjects seems as misguided as saying that a television show that depicts fantasy violence is more harmful than a religious text that explains why it's ok - or historically acceptable - to perpetrate actual violence on real people who aren't members of your religion. Which, of course, includes the Torah, the Bible, and the Quran. I'll also say that I've never personally known a PG rating to ever prevent anyone from buying a ticket and watching a movie. Maybe parents have more control in other states.
No comments:
Post a Comment