... or maybe the key word here isn't 'faith' or 'religion', but 'evangelizing'. Why? Because evangelizing is where faith or religion are advertised, communicated, even pushed on people, and some people don't appreciate when they and (especially) their kids being preached to, evangelized, while taking in a movie.
There are, and have been plenty of movies where God, religion and faith are mentioned w/o the ((cough)) 'censorship' of a PG rating (Ohh WOW! Like _that's_ gonna inhibit people from seeing it <_< ) being tagged upon them.
or maybe the key word here isn't 'faith' or 'religion', but 'evangelizing'. Why? Because evangelizing is where faith or religion are advertised, communicated, even pushed on people, and some people don't appreciate when they and (especially) their kids being preached to, evangelized, while taking in a movie.
They can read the reviews, and choose to pull out their wallet to pay for a ticket --
or leave the wallet in the back pocket, and do something else. :)
Reviews should be good enuf to make a decision. Since when does evangelizing warrant a *PG*??
... and what if the evangelizing isn't shown in the review? Particularly if its written by someone who apparently like the film, wants others to see it, and doesn't want to turn people off by the evangelistic part of it, so they leave that part out of their review?
Of course, it is a free country, and people can pay their dollars to see the flick, ... and come out pi**ed off cuz it **sucked**. (I've seen a few of those myself, ya know. )
Hmmm. So now evangelizing is in the same category as nudity and violence??
Well, you mix a hellfire-and-brimstone and sex antics in a hotel room, then it does wind up in the same category. ... Hey, it worked for Jimmy Swaggart. :blink:
Hey! If I wanted to be evangelized to, I'd go to a revival.
But when I go to a movie, all I want is a flic with either well known celebrities (who can't act), or side splitting sick humor, or action packed mindless violence.
well..i think the modern evangelical movement of the past century has really almost completely lost touch with two millenia of diverse Christian traditions, and quite ignorantly, has very little to do with anything but very recent industrial developments in religious thought
and...may even be one of the greatest psychological/environmental/mortal/global threats to peace and safety and harmony in the world today (both here and abroad)
and tragically, the modern "atheist messiahs" dont get this distinction very well, either
and quite ignorantly (and severely so) often lump all religious thought into one basket with the evangelicals
or try and portray all religious history as some monolithic kind of event (as if...)
of course, the die hard evangelicals are so entrenched, that to them, rational thought is at least secondary
and all the poking and prodding and Penn and Teller scorn you can throw at them is mostly only going to make them more intensely driven to their fundamentalist codes
which makes the fundamentalist atheists about as dangerous to the world as the fundamentalist evangelicals
(and the fundamentalist psychologists, fundamentalist new agers, and fundamentalist liberals, and the fundamentaist materialists, etc...whatever)
then...to add to that...how the post-modern funk of "everything is equal" is true and a step in the right direction, in a limited sense, but also severly limited and inable to address MANY certain distinctions
...and so, mostly empowers the oceans of me-me narcissism we find in America today
a radical crossfire of MANY "i don't understand you therefore you must be crazy" crazinesses
and so all we mostly do these days is naively stir up dangerous and stubborn passions in each other
like strange critters encountering other strange critters in the woods
i mean, how many new forms of crazy can our ongoing spiritual evolution produce?
(oh %@$#.......i used "spiritual" and "evolution" in the same sentence)
I personally don't care, as long as it's evenly applied.
But I can just see this flick not being allowed to be shown in a Baptist church...because of a policy of only showing "G" flicks for their kids LOL
the MPAA site says the following:
This is a film which contains nothing in theme, language, nudity and sex, violence, etc. that would, in the view of the Rating Board, be offensive to parents whose younger children view the film. The G rating is not a certificate of approval nor does it signify a children’s film.
Some snippets of language may go beyond polite conversation but they are common everyday expressions. No stronger words are present in G-rated films. The violence is at a minimum. Nudity and sex scenes are not present, nor is there any drug use content.
This is a film which clearly needs to be examined by parents before they let their children attend. The label PG plainly states parents may consider some material unsuitable for their children, but leaves the parent to make the decision. Parents are warned against sending their children, unseen and without inquiry, to PG-rated movies. The theme of a PG-rated film may itself call for parental guidance. There may be some profanity in these films. There may be some violence or brief nudity. However, these elements are not considered so intense as to require that parents be strongly cautioned beyond the suggestion of parental guidance. There is no drug use content in a PG-rated film. The PG rating, suggesting parental guidance, is thus an alert for examination of a film by parents before deciding on its viewing by their children. Obviously such a line is difficult to draw. In our pluralistic society it is not easy to make judgments without incurring some disagreement. As long as parents know they must exercise parental responsibility, the rating serves as a meaningful guide and as a warning.
PG-13 is thus a sterner warning to parents, particularly when deciding which movies are not suitable for younger children. Parents, by the rating, are alerted to be very careful about the attendance of their under-teenage children. A PG-13 film is one which, in the view of the Rating Board, leaps beyond the boundaries of the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, or other contents, but does not quite fit within the restricted R category. Any drug use content will initially require at least a PG-13 rating. In effect, the PG-13 cautions parents with more stringency than usual to give special attention to this film before they allow their 12-year-olds and younger to attend. If nudity is sexually oriented, the film will generally not be found in the PG-13 category. If violence is too rough or persistent, the film goes into the R (restricted) rating. A film’s single use of one of the harsher sexually derived words, though only as an expletive, shall initially require the Rating Board to issue that film at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive must lead the Rating Board to issue a film an R rating, as must even one of these words used in a sexual context. These films can be rated less severely, however, if by a special vote, the Rating Board feels that a lesser rating would more responsibly reflect the opinion of American parents.
PG-13 places larger responsibilities on parents for their children and moviegoing. The voluntary rating system is not a surrogate parent, nor should it be. It cannot, and should not, insert itself in family decisions that only parents can make. Its purpose is to give pre-screened informational warnings, so that parents can form their own judgments. PG-13 is designed to make parental decisions easier for films between PG and R.
In the opinion of the Rating Board, this film definitely contains some adult material. Parents are strongly urged to find out more about this film before they allow their children to accompany them. An R-rated film may include strong language, violence, nudity, drug abuse, other elements, or a combination of the above, so parents are counseled in advance to take this advisory rating very seriously.
This rating declares that the Rating Board believes this is a film that most parents will consider patently too adult for their youngsters under 17. No children will be admitted. NC-17 does not necessarily mean obscene or pornographic; in the oft-accepted or legal meaning of those words. The Board does not and cannot mark films with those words. These are legal terms for courts to decide. The reasons for the application of an NC-17 rating can be excessive violence, sex, aberrational behavior, drug abuse or any other elements which, when present, most parents would consider too strong and therefore off-limits for viewing by their children.
So, PG signifies:
This is a film which clearly needs to be examined by parents before they let their children attend.
That is interesting in this context. I can imagine that an atheist would want to seriously examine this flick before letting his kids attend it.
The label PG plainly states parents may consider some material unsuitable for their children, but leaves the parent to make the decision. Parents are warned against sending their children, unseen and without inquiry, to PG-rated movies.
Again, I can imagine that an atheist might consider the film unsuitable.
The theme of a PG-rated film may itself call for parental guidance.
Sure. A religious theme would call for parental guidance.
There may be some profanity in these films.
I suppose to some, hearing a prayer might be considered profanity. I can see that.
There may be some violence or brief nudity. However, these elements are not considered so intense as to require that parents be strongly cautioned beyond the suggestion of parental guidance.
Or there might be an advocacy to become an evangelical Christian. That would not be a good thing.
There is no drug use content in a PG-rated film. The PG rating, suggesting parental guidance, is thus an alert for examination of a film by parents before deciding on its viewing by their children. Obviously such a line is difficult to draw. In our pluralistic society it is not easy to make judgments without incurring some disagreement.
Well, we can see that disagreement here, can't we?
As long as parents know they must exercise parental responsibility, the rating serves as a meaningful guide and as a warning.
Thank you, Big Brother.
I really don't find it to be an issue too much. I just find it sort of funny that a PG rating is applied. I would hope that a film that advocated Islam or a film that advocated Buddhism or a film that advocated skepticism receives the same scrutiny.
So what do you think? Is it appropriate to restrict a movie (PG vice G rating) because it is too religious?
That defining base makes a case in point for many a pathetic state of mind being encouraged across the board if you are red or agnostic, it seems to know no barriers, we all take in, some hold onto rather dependently, varying aspects of beseeching us to compromise yet a bit more in the substance of what enables us to see it thru the next day in such an insane environment at times.
The answer would be NO.
And if that is the case, should that categorization apply solely to evangelical movies or to Christian movies or to movies that advocate any religion at all (too one-sided)?
I'll answer that with an account of my life. My son while in elementary school came home and announced more American based honors that tied to God were being taken from the schools, although he was too young to fully understand what he was telling me. So the next year when he went to another school at 5th grade and was shown a movie as a literature class of burning witches at the stake and he'd been some spooked by it I could see by his arrival home that I could not contain myself and I went directly to the school. I spoke to the appropriate parties telling them I would not accept their taking away more of our rights as American Christians while being shown things about witchcraft as if that were unrelated to what they were taking away from us. I was pi$$ed. My face reddens as I recall the day. The reply to me was, yes we agree, the school board mandates we do, it is not by choice of the faculty.
The answer is within acceptable moral standards already in place that have for the better part protected our children when we paid the big $ to sit and watch the movie should remain in place. As to if it relates to Christ or Paramahansa Yogananda who are they to judge? NOONE that is who!
What about movies that advocate a non-theistic viewpoint (too one-sided)?
It is impossible for anyone to reflect any subject/belief system et al accurately when confined to print/video/audio only. Because it only captures where that writer or artist is presently and we all know that can be in an uneducated perspective at times. Or one that is simply concealed due to other issues that cloud its true nature. I have looked into a couple things since leaving twi and learned what I had been taught about a certain thing and group was so contraire (I like the word, whether it fits or not) to the truth on the subject that I heard the Twilight Zone theme as I discovered it at times.
The answer would be the same, if we ban one then we ban all or we dropkick the ban(d) wagon and stick to moral judgments universal in nature regardless race/creed/religion/nose rings or not.
(I'm impossibly busy so if anyone did reply to me It's pretty likely it will be tonight before I could do the same)
Well, as a non Christian parent, I would expect a movie from a Christian movie maker to be evangelical in nature, so I would not be at all shocked if it was.
Kids in non Christian families are always being invited to this church or that. A Jehovah's Witness lady knows one of my kids by name and leaves that specific child literature.
Do I let my kids attend church if they are invited? Usually. There are a couple hard sell type churches they cannot attend around here. They also can't attend Wiccan groups or pagan circles around here--non take children under 18, anyway. Pagan beliefs don't need a group to be practiced.
Do my kids know what I think about one way religions? Yes. I have told them I don't want them involved in a church that separates them from family. Hubby and I have talked about TWI(my kids don't remember very much).
But seriously, it looks like some people still have difficulty dealing with the fact that, culturally and religiously, America isn't the monolithic entity of the 50s that some would still wish it to be. ... Welcome to that cold reality.
PG rating for an evangelistic religious flick gets some people's panties in a wad? Heh! As regards people like Jerry Falwell and his ranting about teletubbies, ... hell, I'd render at least an R rating (for being *obsene*) on him and his operation.
Maybe some folks here would be glad that I'm not in charge of the MPAA, hmmmm?
But seriously, it looks like some people still have difficulty dealing with the fact that, culturally and religiously, America isn't the monolithic entity of the 50s that some would still wish it to be. ... Welcome to that cold reality.
PG rating for an evangelistic religious flick gets some people's panties in a wad? Heh! As regards people like Jerry Falwell and his ranting about teletubbies, ... hell, I'd render at least an R rating (for being *obsene*) on him and his operation.
Maybe some folks here would be glad that I'm not in charge of the MPAA, hmmmm?
The label PG plainly states parents may consider some material unsuitable for their children, but leaves the parent to make the decision.
Yet the reality in our culture regarding PG rated films is more like: Children may consider some material unsuitable for their parents, but leaves the child to make the decision.
To quote: ChattyK.
That was funny Mr. OMalley. But I fear I've gotten older as some of those things that entertain our children give me the willies.
if you think about it objectively, it seems perfectly reasonable to alert parents that "there are things in this movie you may not want your kid exposed to." kids are impressionable. i wouldn't want my kids inundated with a hard-sell evangelical message--at least until they were old enough to process it.
While what you say makes sense I doubt there would be many movies that didn't pretty much give a clue as to the intent before you went in.
A movie with some skin could be the same movie without the skin. How would you know what they used to add dimension to the characters like sex or language if not told. Religion is not well hidden generally.
And Geo and Mark, I have enjoyed your interaction. :)
So what do you think? Is it appropriate to restrict a movie (PG vice G rating) because it is too religious?
That defining base makes a case in point for many a pathetic state of mind being encouraged across the board if you are red or agnostic, it seems to know no barriers, we all take in, some hold onto rather dependently, varying aspects of beseeching us to compromise yet a bit more in the substance of what enables us to see it thru the next day in such an insane environment at times.
GarthP2000
Yesterday, 10:03 AM
... if you are red or agnostic
Huh?
Garth, were you asking me what I meant seriously as I assumed you to be joking.
So when you say 'red', I take it you mean communist or socialist?
So if one is agnostic, then they are encouraging a pathetic state of mind? Simply because they, or even a good number of religious folks don't like being 'evangelized' during a movie? Frankly those of us with this particular state of mind (which you seem to regard as pathetic) regard this 'evangelistic' state of mind to be likewise pathetic, particularly when this evangelizing is accompanied with the distain for those who reject the evangelized message.
Like I said, there are many (of whom I am a part) who would like to enjoy a movie w/o being preached to.
My goodness Garth, did you not read the remainder of that paragraph. I thought it clearly defined I was speaking of all, how did you pick out of it I was favoring a Christian perspective?
red=color/race/etc
agnostic=anyone/Christian/Islam/etc
And your assumption I was calling an agnostic a pathetic minded person was assumed! Certainly not stated!
And if you go into a movie some day without a clue they were going to preach to you in it and it catches you completely unawares please do tell me that movie. I would be interested in knowing I was wrong in assuming you would have a clue of its intent before entrance into the theater.
Do re-read me will you, and for goodness sake take it as it was stated not as you somehow assumed I said it....geez!
So what do you think? Is it appropriate to restrict a movie (PG vice G rating) because it is too religious?
That defining base makes a case in point for many a pathetic state of mind being encouraged across the board if you are red or agnostic, it seems to know no barriers, we all take in, some hold onto rather dependently, varying aspects of beseeching us to compromise yet a bit more in the substance of what enables us to see it thru the next day in such an insane environment at times.
So you're basically including everybody from one end to another in how movies affect us? If so, my apologies for the misunderstanding. I was really confused by the wording of your post.
Recommended Posts
GarthP2000
... or maybe the key word here isn't 'faith' or 'religion', but 'evangelizing'. Why? Because evangelizing is where faith or religion are advertised, communicated, even pushed on people, and some people don't appreciate when they and (especially) their kids being preached to, evangelized, while taking in a movie.
There are, and have been plenty of movies where God, religion and faith are mentioned w/o the ((cough)) 'censorship' of a PG rating (Ohh WOW! Like _that's_ gonna inhibit people from seeing it <_< ) being tagged upon them.
Damn, I oughtta work for Snopes.
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
They can read the reviews, and choose to pull out their wallet to pay for a ticket --
or leave the wallet in the back pocket, and do something else. :)
Reviews should be good enuf to make a decision. Since when does evangelizing warrant a *PG*??
That's *B* as in *B*, and *S* as in *S*
(Just my IMHO -- don't cha know).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
... and what if the evangelizing isn't shown in the review? Particularly if its written by someone who apparently like the film, wants others to see it, and doesn't want to turn people off by the evangelistic part of it, so they leave that part out of their review?
Of course, it is a free country, and people can pay their dollars to see the flick, ... and come out pi**ed off cuz it **sucked**. (I've seen a few of those myself, ya know.
)
(Just my IMHO, doncha know. ;) )
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Hmmm. So now evangelizing is in the same category as nudity and violence??
I think I hear this country saying ---
WHERE AM I GOING --
AND WHY AM I IN THIS HANDBASKET!! ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Well, you mix a hellfire-and-brimstone and sex antics in a hotel room, then it does wind up in the same category. ... Hey, it worked for Jimmy Swaggart. :blink:
Hey! If I wanted to be evangelized to, I'd go to a revival.
But when I go to a movie, all I want is a flic with either well known celebrities (who can't act), or side splitting sick humor, or action packed mindless violence.
... You know, real all-American culture.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
well..i think the modern evangelical movement of the past century has really almost completely lost touch with two millenia of diverse Christian traditions, and quite ignorantly, has very little to do with anything but very recent industrial developments in religious thought
and...may even be one of the greatest psychological/environmental/mortal/global threats to peace and safety and harmony in the world today (both here and abroad)
and tragically, the modern "atheist messiahs" dont get this distinction very well, either
and quite ignorantly (and severely so) often lump all religious thought into one basket with the evangelicals
or try and portray all religious history as some monolithic kind of event (as if...)
of course, the die hard evangelicals are so entrenched, that to them, rational thought is at least secondary
and all the poking and prodding and Penn and Teller scorn you can throw at them is mostly only going to make them more intensely driven to their fundamentalist codes
which makes the fundamentalist atheists about as dangerous to the world as the fundamentalist evangelicals
(and the fundamentalist psychologists, fundamentalist new agers, and fundamentalist liberals, and the fundamentaist materialists, etc...whatever)
then...to add to that...how the post-modern funk of "everything is equal" is true and a step in the right direction, in a limited sense, but also severly limited and inable to address MANY certain distinctions
...and so, mostly empowers the oceans of me-me narcissism we find in America today
a radical crossfire of MANY "i don't understand you therefore you must be crazy" crazinesses
and so all we mostly do these days is naively stir up dangerous and stubborn passions in each other
like strange critters encountering other strange critters in the woods
i mean, how many new forms of crazy can our ongoing spiritual evolution produce?
(oh %@$#.......i used "spiritual" and "evolution" in the same sentence)
:blink:
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
I personally don't care, as long as it's evenly applied.
But I can just see this flick not being allowed to be shown in a Baptist church...because of a policy of only showing "G" flicks for their kids LOL
the MPAA site says the following:
Some snippets of language may go beyond polite conversation but they are common everyday expressions. No stronger words are present in G-rated films. The violence is at a minimum. Nudity and sex scenes are not present, nor is there any drug use content.
PG-13 places larger responsibilities on parents for their children and moviegoing. The voluntary rating system is not a surrogate parent, nor should it be. It cannot, and should not, insert itself in family decisions that only parents can make. Its purpose is to give pre-screened informational warnings, so that parents can form their own judgments. PG-13 is designed to make parental decisions easier for films between PG and R.
So, PG signifies:
This is a film which clearly needs to be examined by parents before they let their children attend.
That is interesting in this context. I can imagine that an atheist would want to seriously examine this flick before letting his kids attend it.
The label PG plainly states parents may consider some material unsuitable for their children, but leaves the parent to make the decision. Parents are warned against sending their children, unseen and without inquiry, to PG-rated movies.
Again, I can imagine that an atheist might consider the film unsuitable.
The theme of a PG-rated film may itself call for parental guidance.
Sure. A religious theme would call for parental guidance.
There may be some profanity in these films.
I suppose to some, hearing a prayer might be considered profanity. I can see that.
There may be some violence or brief nudity. However, these elements are not considered so intense as to require that parents be strongly cautioned beyond the suggestion of parental guidance.
Or there might be an advocacy to become an evangelical Christian. That would not be a good thing.
There is no drug use content in a PG-rated film. The PG rating, suggesting parental guidance, is thus an alert for examination of a film by parents before deciding on its viewing by their children. Obviously such a line is difficult to draw. In our pluralistic society it is not easy to make judgments without incurring some disagreement.
Well, we can see that disagreement here, can't we?
As long as parents know they must exercise parental responsibility, the rating serves as a meaningful guide and as a warning.
Thank you, Big Brother.
I really don't find it to be an issue too much. I just find it sort of funny that a PG rating is applied. I would hope that a film that advocated Islam or a film that advocated Buddhism or a film that advocated skepticism receives the same scrutiny.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
So what do you think? Is it appropriate to restrict a movie (PG vice G rating) because it is too religious?
That defining base makes a case in point for many a pathetic state of mind being encouraged across the board if you are red or agnostic, it seems to know no barriers, we all take in, some hold onto rather dependently, varying aspects of beseeching us to compromise yet a bit more in the substance of what enables us to see it thru the next day in such an insane environment at times.
The answer would be NO.
And if that is the case, should that categorization apply solely to evangelical movies or to Christian movies or to movies that advocate any religion at all (too one-sided)?
I'll answer that with an account of my life. My son while in elementary school came home and announced more American based honors that tied to God were being taken from the schools, although he was too young to fully understand what he was telling me. So the next year when he went to another school at 5th grade and was shown a movie as a literature class of burning witches at the stake and he'd been some spooked by it I could see by his arrival home that I could not contain myself and I went directly to the school. I spoke to the appropriate parties telling them I would not accept their taking away more of our rights as American Christians while being shown things about witchcraft as if that were unrelated to what they were taking away from us. I was pi$$ed. My face reddens as I recall the day. The reply to me was, yes we agree, the school board mandates we do, it is not by choice of the faculty.
The answer is within acceptable moral standards already in place that have for the better part protected our children when we paid the big $ to sit and watch the movie should remain in place. As to if it relates to Christ or Paramahansa Yogananda who are they to judge? NOONE that is who!
What about movies that advocate a non-theistic viewpoint (too one-sided)?
It is impossible for anyone to reflect any subject/belief system et al accurately when confined to print/video/audio only. Because it only captures where that writer or artist is presently and we all know that can be in an uneducated perspective at times. Or one that is simply concealed due to other issues that cloud its true nature. I have looked into a couple things since leaving twi and learned what I had been taught about a certain thing and group was so contraire (I like the word, whether it fits or not) to the truth on the subject that I heard the Twilight Zone theme as I discovered it at times.
The answer would be the same, if we ban one then we ban all or we dropkick the ban(d) wagon and stick to moral judgments universal in nature regardless race/creed/religion/nose rings or not.
(I'm impossibly busy so if anyone did reply to me It's pretty likely it will be tonight before I could do the same)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
If a movie needs to be inoffensive, can anything at all be rated "G" anymore? After all, EVERYBODY in this country is offended by SOMETHING?
(I think they should make the teletubbies movie "PG" -- after all, that amount of insipidness is highly offensive to me!)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
One last thing before I'm gone.
That was funny Mr. OMalley. But I fear I've gotten older as some of those things that entertain our children give me the willies. :blink:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Well, as a non Christian parent, I would expect a movie from a Christian movie maker to be evangelical in nature, so I would not be at all shocked if it was.
Kids in non Christian families are always being invited to this church or that. A Jehovah's Witness lady knows one of my kids by name and leaves that specific child literature.
Do I let my kids attend church if they are invited? Usually. There are a couple hard sell type churches they cannot attend around here. They also can't attend Wiccan groups or pagan circles around here--non take children under 18, anyway. Pagan beliefs don't need a group to be practiced.
Do my kids know what I think about one way religions? Yes. I have told them I don't want them involved in a church that separates them from family. Hubby and I have talked about TWI(my kids don't remember very much).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
:blink: Huh?
But seriously, it looks like some people still have difficulty dealing with the fact that, culturally and religiously, America isn't the monolithic entity of the 50s that some would still wish it to be. ... Welcome to that cold reality.
PG rating for an evangelistic religious flick gets some people's panties in a wad? Heh! As regards people like Jerry Falwell and his ranting about teletubbies, ... hell, I'd render at least an R rating (for being *obsene*) on him and his operation.
Maybe some folks here would be glad that I'm not in charge of the MPAA, hmmmm?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
And these folks should be rated:
Edited by markomalleyLink to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Mark,
Re:"After all, EVERYBODY in this country is offended by SOMETHING"
I'm deeply offended by that remark!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
That post is, therefore, rated:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Ahh...take a chill pill dawlinggg
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
To quote: ChattyK.
Edited by What The HeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
sprawled out
if you think about it objectively, it seems perfectly reasonable to alert parents that "there are things in this movie you may not want your kid exposed to." kids are impressionable. i wouldn't want my kids inundated with a hard-sell evangelical message--at least until they were old enough to process it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
While what you say makes sense I doubt there would be many movies that didn't pretty much give a clue as to the intent before you went in.
A movie with some skin could be the same movie without the skin. How would you know what they used to add dimension to the characters like sex or language if not told. Religion is not well hidden generally.
And Geo and Mark, I have enjoyed your interaction. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
So what do you think? Is it appropriate to restrict a movie (PG vice G rating) because it is too religious?
That defining base makes a case in point for many a pathetic state of mind being encouraged across the board if you are red or agnostic, it seems to know no barriers, we all take in, some hold onto rather dependently, varying aspects of beseeching us to compromise yet a bit more in the substance of what enables us to see it thru the next day in such an insane environment at times.
GarthP2000
Yesterday, 10:03 AM
... if you are red or agnostic
Huh?
Garth, were you asking me what I meant seriously as I assumed you to be joking.
If not:
red or agnostic=all inclusive
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Chattykathy,
So when you say 'red', I take it you mean communist or socialist?
So if one is agnostic, then they are encouraging a pathetic state of mind? Simply because they, or even a good number of religious folks don't like being 'evangelized' during a movie? Frankly those of us with this particular state of mind (which you seem to regard as pathetic) regard this 'evangelistic' state of mind to be likewise pathetic, particularly when this evangelizing is accompanied with the distain for those who reject the evangelized message.
Like I said, there are many (of whom I am a part) who would like to enjoy a movie w/o being preached to.
Pathetic? ... Ehhhh, ((shrugs)) ... whatever! <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
My goodness Garth, did you not read the remainder of that paragraph. I thought it clearly defined I was speaking of all, how did you pick out of it I was favoring a Christian perspective?
red=color/race/etc
agnostic=anyone/Christian/Islam/etc
And your assumption I was calling an agnostic a pathetic minded person was assumed! Certainly not stated!
And if you go into a movie some day without a clue they were going to preach to you in it and it catches you completely unawares please do tell me that movie. I would be interested in knowing I was wrong in assuming you would have a clue of its intent before entrance into the theater.
Do re-read me will you, and for goodness sake take it as it was stated not as you somehow assumed I said it....geez!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Reading it again:
So you're basically including everybody from one end to another in how movies affect us? If so, my apologies for the misunderstanding. I was really confused by the wording of your post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Yes:
Everyone in how we're affected.
Everyone in how we're asked to compromise our beliefs regardless of what they are.
Sometimes I don't make sense I reckon. But then I have no corner on that around here.
Glad you understood my intent.
And have a good day!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.