Movies that offend Christians.

[Pure]

i'm fine, sarah. the view from the gutter is always more interesting than from the palace. merry xmas, as one quasi xtian to another.

 

[English Lady]

surely the title should be

"Movies that offend some Christians"


Because they don't hand out these reviews in my church Sunday morning, and I'm surely not offended by all these films -granted, I'm probably not your "average" Christian either.

We're all different, I do hope everyone remembers that.

 

[Guest]

i'm fine, sarah. the view from the gutter is always more interesting than from the palace. merry xmas, as one quasi xtian to another.

You are so correct, Pure.

Merry Christmas to you and yours.

 

[oggbashan]

surely the title should be

"Movies that offend some Christians"


Because they don't hand out these reviews in my church Sunday morning, and I'm surely not offended by all these films -granted, I'm probably not your "average" Christian either.

We're all different, I do hope everyone remembers that.

Some movies offend some people who have preconceived ideas.

Some movies offend some people who have strong religious views.

Some movies offend some people who have a biased view of the world.

Some movies are MADE to offend.

Some movies offend some people unintentionally.

Some movies have a message that is deliberately biased.

Any communication of a message is likely to offend someone, somewhere, and movies are just one way of sending a message.

Any movie offends some people just by being a representation of people.

Avoiding offending everybody is impossible.

Og

 

[English Lady]

Some movies offend some people who have preconceived ideas.

Some movies offend some people who have strong religious views.

Some movies offend some people who have a biased view of the world.

Some movies are MADE to offend.

Some movies offend some people unintentionally.

Some movies have a message that is deliberately biased.

Any communication of a message is likely to offend someone, somewhere, and movies are just one way of sending a message.

Any movie offends some people just by being a representation of people.

Avoiding offending everybody is impossible.

Og

eggsackerly

 

[only_more_so]

Does Lit really need another Christian bashing thread? I have read similar film review sites and they are meant for people who are concerned what their children watch, and what they watch. People know what offends their sensibilities and those sites let a person know whether they will be offended before they pay money to see the movie.

You make fun of blasphemy being listed in such great detail, but it is one of the first commandments. There isn't a commandment against sex or violence, but there is one against blasphemy. As for sexuality, there are many references to sexual immorality. By contrast there are almost no references to violence being a bad thing until the new testament.

My point is, that their reviews are very morally consistent and in holding with their belief system. Mocking their reviews is mocking their beliefs. These are not the extremist christians who blow up abortion clinics and run gays out of town. These are the christians who would like to see more wholesome (according to their belief system) entertainment, and not be attacked with images and sentiments that offend them.

 

[StrixVaria]

I would be willing to donate a large amount of cash to anyone who could develop a film which would cause Christians to spontaneously combust.

 

[English Lady]

Does Lit really need another Christian bashing thread? I have read similar film review sites and they are meant for people who are concerned what their children watch, and what they watch. People know what offends their sensibilities and those sites let a person know whether they will be offended before they pay money to see the movie.

You make fun of blasphemy being listed in such great detail, but it is one of the first commandments. There isn't a commandment against sex or violence, but there is one against blasphemy. As for sexuality, there are many references to sexual immorality. By contract there are almost no references to violence being a bad thing until the new testament.

My point is, that their reviews are very morally consistent and in holding with their belief system. Mocking their reviews is mocking their beliefs. These are not the extremist christians who blow up abortion clinics and run gays out of town. These are the christians who would like to see more wholesome (according to their belief system) entertainment, and not be attacked with images and sentiments that offend them.

Great post, worth reading twice.

 

[rgraham666]

Does Lit really need another Christian bashing thread? I have read similar film review sites and they are meant for people who are concerned what their children watch, and what they watch. People know what offends their sensibilities and those sites let a person know whether they will be offended before they pay money to see the movie.

You make fun of blasphemy being listed in such great detail, but it is one of the first commandments. There isn't a commandment against sex or violence, but there is one against blasphemy. As for sexuality, there are many references to sexual immorality. By contrast there are almost no references to violence being a bad thing until the new testament.

My point is, that their reviews are very morally consistent and in holding with their belief system. Mocking their reviews is mocking their beliefs. These are not the extremist christians who blow up abortion clinics and run gays out of town. These are the christians who would like to see more wholesome (according to their belief system) entertainment, and not be attacked with images and sentiments that offend them.

I, for one, happen to think God has a thicker skin than that.

And they might be morally consistent, but I don't share their morals. At least not the ones about religion. I don't know what God thinks, and there's too many sources of 'His' Word to form a consistent structure based on it.

I'll continue being an existentialist, thank you. I'll judge each person on their actions, not their beliefs.

 

[elsol]

God offended by Witchcraft!

Why must these people make so little of my God?

Omnipotence comes with some perks... a big one is the "I don't have to give a fuck" perk.

Think about how rich and powerful people 'give a fuck'... then cosider being all-powerful!

I'd be on my cloud like "Witchcraft? Is that where the human females get all nekkid and prance around in the woods? Where's that Satan person, I gotta give him props for that one! Freakin' human... I MADE you nekkid for a reason... only you nincompoops could make me think of ways to get you nekkid again!"

 

[Pure]

only less so;

onlymoreso:

OMSDoes Lit really need another Christian bashing thread?

P: The target of the thread is conservative xtians, insofar as movies are concerned. Attitudes toward sex and violence are a main topic.
That was stated in the opening post.

If you're offended, why are you visiting this thread? I have striven to give a clear focus on the attempts to assess movies according to evangelical and scriptural notions.

The website in question is one of the largest of its kind, and is well known. Probably millions of people visit it, and try to use its "objective" evidence.

OMSI have read similar film review sites and they are meant for people who are concerned what their children watch, and what they watch. People know what offends their sensibilities and those sites let a person know whether they will be offended before they pay money to see the movie.

P: Children are one issue, but the site clearly appeals to others.

OMSYou make fun of blasphemy being listed in such great detail, but it is one of the first commandments. There isn't a commandment against sex

P: See Deut 5:18 "Thou shalt not commit adultery"

OMSor violence,

P: See Deut 5:17 "Thou shalt do no murder"

OMSbut there is one against blasphemy.

P: So your sentence, as a whole is false.

OMSAs for sexuality, there are many references to sexual immorality. By contrast there are almost no references to violence being a bad thing until the new testament.

P: I have just looked over the 613 commandments, a compilation of the important OT ones, by maimonides. Your statement is manifestly false, and does not show much familiarity with the OT.

I used the list at http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

Antiviolence commandments include
26, 27, 30, 31,32,53,192,193,278,279,280, 299

That's about 12. But there are further statement regarding libels and insults, i.e., verbal violence. Generally there is an affirmative commandment to 'loving kindness.'

26. To love all human beings who are of the covenant (Lev. 19:18) (CCA60). See Love and Brotherhood.

27. Not to stand by idly when a human life is in danger (Lev. 19:16) (CCN82). See Love and Brotherhood.

30. Not to cherish hatred in one's heart (Lev. 19:17) (CCN78). See Love and Brotherhood.
31. Not to take revenge (Lev. 19:18) (CCN80).
32. Not to bear a grudge (Lev. 19:18) (CCN81).
53. To love the stranger (Deut. 10:19) (CCA61).
See Love and Brotherhood.
192. Not to treat a Hebrew servant rigorously (Lev. 25:43) (negative).
193. Not to permit a gentile to treat harshly a Hebrew bondman sold to him (Lev. 25:53) (negative).
278. Not to slay an innocent person (Ex. 20:13) (CCN32). See Life.
279. Not to kidnap any person of Israel (Ex. 20:13) (according to the Talmud, this verse refers to stealing a person, distinguished from Lev. 19:11, regarding the taking of property) (CCN33).
280. Not to rob by violence (Lev. 19:13) (CCN35).
299. That he who inflicts a bodily injury shall pay monetary compensation (Ex. 21:18-19) (affirmative).


======
Libel and fraud, a couple examples

54. Not to wrong the stranger in speech (Ex. 22:20) (CCN49).
281. Not to defraud (Lev. 19:13) (CCN37).
====

As to one's sexual activities with others, I count 18,

63,64,65,66,69,70,73,75,76,78,572,573,604,605, 102-105.

There are additionally 19 regarding the prohibited degrees of incest, commandments 82-100.

so without incest details, its 12 for violence, 18 for sex; adding incest its 12 for violence, 37 for sex.


Further, Jesus did not repudiate any of the OT commandments about how to relate to or treat other people, including those about sex. Hence Xtians follow most the Jewish bans on incest; indeed they added first cousins to the list; so Xtians follow OT commandments against fornication, adultery, rape and so on.

I agree that there is an NT emphasis, in the gospels, about not meeting violence with violence, about not avenging [these commandments being rooted in the OT], but few Xtians follow this except the Amish, Quakers, etc.

On the other side, the NT as read by most Xtians licenses a number of violent acts, which is a contributing cause to thousands of incidents of orthodox Xtians killing witches, jews, gays, etc.

you would do well to inform yourself on the matters at hand instead of saying inaccurate things.

 

[Pure]

note to og,

it isn't just that some people are offended at some things.

let me add to your list of truisms

there are some people, esp. conservative Xtians, Jews, and Muslims, who, upon learning of something that offends them, in a book, on TV, or in the movies, try to put laws and regulations in place to clean up or suppress these 'offensive' works.

the history of the Catholic "Legion of Decency" shows a lot of power over the film industry. the 'condemned' list is short, i'd argue, because informally, the censors exerted control over what was put into pictures, in the first place. (just as now, filmmakers try to avoid the X rating).

 

[oggbashan]

it isn't just that some people are offended at some things.

let me add to your list of truisms

there are some people, esp. conservative Xtians, Jews, and Muslims, who, upon learning of something that offends them, in a book, on TV, or in the movies, try to put laws and regulations in place to clean up or suppress these 'offensive' works.

...

There are some people who make a career or a lifestyle out of being 'offended'.

They provide free publicity for the offending work. Any popsong banned by the BBC immediately increases its sales.

The existence of Literotica is offensive to some people. While we exercise our rights of free speech here, we should always be aware that our freedom is resented.

Og

 

[Pure]

samples from another christian review site.

compare the first and last reviews. the reviewer is focussed on disrespect for parents in Charlottes Web. bashing brains out in Cinderella Man causes little reaction, and it's fine for the 13 and ups. it's recommended for its moral lessons.

here’s another Christian movie review site:

http://christianhotspot.com/Pages/MovieReviews.html

http://christianhotspot.com/Pages/MovieReviews2.html

Charlottes Web

http://christianhotspot.com/Pages/mrcharlottesweb.html


Movie: Charlotte's Web
2 of 4 Stars
Rated G (Mild Sexual Joke or Two and Bad Role Model)

I never thought that Dakota Fanning could single handedly ruin a movie but I have to say that I was proven wrong in this occasion. Dakota Fanning has now been in 3 straight movies where she has been nothing less than terrible or miscast. The first we have is The Cat in the Hat, second we have the pseudo-horror movie Hide and Seek, then we have Charlotte's Web. If she is not careful, she is going to fall off of that pedestal that so many of us have put her on, including myself. The fact of the matter is that Dakota is by
far one of the best child actors to come along in some time, but she very well might follow the same path of both Margaret O'Brien and Shirley Temple. Both being fantastic as children and then taking a dive as they hit their teenage years.

In Charlotte's Web, Dakota plays a rude and disrespectful little brat who tells off her parents and does what ever she wants, regardless of what she is told. All of this is meant to actually look cute and independent from the Director's point of view. This seems to be a common trend in Hollywood these days. We first had teenagers telling of their parents for the shear sake of catering to an audience who desires independence, and now we have children. This is just sick and wrong and excuse me while I gag while writing this review.
OK, I'm back.

We all know and love the timeless classic novel "Charlotte's Web". The story is one about and endearing relationship between man and animal and the life on a farm, teaching both children and adults so many lessons that touch all of our hearts. However in the movie, because of the abundance of politically correct antics and jokes putting down men and making men look like absolute wooses, all of the lessons take a sideline.

Julie Roberts does a fine job in her role as the cute and loveable little Spider and although Oprah's character trashes on her husband, she actually does a fine "acting" job. But the best part of the movie is
the Pig and the Rat. The pig with his charm and the rat with his wit, leave the rest of the characters in the movie in the dust.

I would say that this movie as a whole is fine for the family, if you want to subject them to some politically correct antics, however most of the kids who will enjoy this movie will be too young to catch what is going on anyway. Then again, kids are pretty smart these days. If you do take your kids to this movie, you will want to be sure to let your kids know that Dakota's attitude and disrespect in the movie is not acceptable.

Warning to Parents:
Mild and subtle dirty joke or two and bad child role model.

Ice Age 2: The Meltdown

2.5 of 4 Stars
Rated: PG for LOTS of Dirty Humor and Foul Language

Starring: Ray Romano, John Leguizamo, Denis Leary,
Queen Latifah, Josh Peck
Directed by: Carlos Saldanha
Produced by: Lori Forte


Ice Age 2 was supposed to be one of those movies that is aimed toward kids with a mix of adult humor that we are all used to these days. Gone are the days or Snow White, Dumbo and Beauty and the Beast, now days the cartoons are all about reaching beyond childhood lines, and attempt to connect with its adult audience.
Movies like The Incredibles and Shrek actually have done a fantastic job. However Ice Age 2 have stepped right over the adult line, into the almost PG-13 line. I have actually seen some PG-13 movies with less dirty humor than Ice Age 2.

It is a rare thing when I actually get offended in a movie because of humor, however when I am sitting with a good friend of mine and his two kids, hearing a 20 minute long sex joke, I tend to get a bit offended. What started off as a joke about populating the world, quickly turned into a slam on the sexual predator nature of the
supposed typical male. Turning an innocent advancement into a joke about men wanting to get laid. In another scene we have the female Mammoth asking the male Mammoth what he likes the best about her body. He studders around and then says

"I like your butt", she says "wow that is so nice, what do you like about it",

so the male Mammoth says "oh it is so big, its huge, its just so big, I like it".

Then another joke is referring to the other name for donkey, and repeating the name over and over and over again. I mean come on, kids do not need this crap. Crap is exactly what it is.
Jokes like this are filthy, wrong and should be offensive.

Some may say that I am being overly critical and overly sensitive. One does not need to be a Christian or Atheiest to know what should be acceptable to kids. It has nothing to do with right or left wing, to know that when kids hear repeated foul language from cartoon characters, that they are going to go out and repeat the words they hear. Personally not knowing what is in the movie, I would have taken my kids (if I had any) to this movie, because I would have expected it to be innocent fun.
However, now you have been warned.

The plot of Ice Age 2 is incredibly simple and easy to follow. The movie is about the ice caps melting and the need to move before their land gets flooded. That is pretty much it. Some of the characters along for the ride, bring an extra flare to the movie. The possums are just a crack up, the Mammoths are great but the show stealer is again, the Sloth.

With filthy humor aside, the movie actually had a good moral and a good message. I actually loved the fact that they showed the protective nature of the male figure to look over his loved ones, even risking his own life. I really enjoyed the fact that they
showed that people should not pick on one another and to come along side of the weak and hurting. I love the fact that they showed the bond of friendship and family and I loved the fact that they really went into depth to show that family is not just by blood but by heart.

[...]

Aside from all of the filth, the humor was actually downright hysterical. I found myself laughing quite a bit at the most unexpected things. However just because a movie is well done or has some really funny moments, does not mean that this is a
family movie.

Warning to Parents: Quite a bit of Bad Language for Kids and lots of dirty jokes.
This is NOT a family movie. If you want your kids walking out talking about the A word, having questions about sex and wondering why the Mammoth was checking out another Mammoth's butt, then this movie is for you.

Cinderella Man

4 of 4 Stars
PG-13 for Realistic Boxing Sequences and Some
Language)

Stars: Russell Crow, Renee Zellwigger, and Paul Giamatti. Directed By: Ron
Howard

Cinderella Man is nothing less than a cinematic triumph, spectacular film making and an incredible masterpiece that will go down in history as one of the greatest films ever made. Being a huge Rocky fan, I now realize that Cinderella Man is everything that Rocky is not. Ron Howard contradicts every pseudo cliché story lines and follows his own heart in filmmaking. Ron Howard also directs a movie
aimed at reaching the human heart in ways that we never thought possible as well as teaching a story about morality and Biblical principle.

Cinderella Man is the true life story of the boxing legend, Jim Braddock, who was a once renowned boxer who fought in the great "Madison Square Garden" in the pre-depression era, until physical ailments started affecting his performance. When the
depression hits, his family is devastated and they must learn to survive with lack of work, shortage of food, illness, and the temptations to make decisions that will tear their family apart.

One day Jim's old trainer gets him one last fight, which will
change history forever and his family forever. Eventual circumstances bring Jim Braddock to a championship fight against a young fighter who has annihilated his opponents and killed two in the ring (“ Bear”). Without saying too much, this movie will move you to weep, cheer, and feel emotions that have not been felt in a film for some time.

Ron Howard directs Cinderella Man showing a father and a fighter (Jim Braddock - Russell Crow) who loves his family first an foremost and shows a man who will makes every righteous decision, even if it means even harder times in his own life, a husband who loves his wife dearly and commands the leadership necessary to
attempt to make it through the depression, a wife who supports his husband even though every time he steps in the ring, it tears her heart out, children who love their father and mother and never deviate from the trust, love, and the tight bond they have.

Ron Howard makes the point to show some very important life lessons that come directly from the Bible, but without being too preachy: "Turn the other cheek,
husbandly leadership, not stealing, children being honest and accepting the consequences of their actions, humility, families do not need money to be close, using your gifts for others and not selfish gain, servant hood, and so much more. [...]

Russell Crow, Renee Zellwigger, and Paul Giamatti give performances of a lifetime are sure to be nominated for academy awards. Cinderella Man is a sure pick as well to be nominated for an academy award as best picture, best director, best screenplay adaptation, best score, best costume design, best, film editing, art
direction, and sound mixing. Leaving the only real competition in the Oscar race as "Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and TheWardrobe"and "Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith". Yes "Star Wars" will be nominated.

Personal Opinion on Children Seeing this Movie: I think that the rating is perfect at PG-13. This movie is incredibly realistic in its portrayal of boxing and shows realistic sequences that are quite lengthy and brutal, yet not overly bloody. The
movie has some rough language, but nothing too hardcore. The bad language is used in context but does contain "G-D***" a number of times by Braddock's Trainer, who actually tends to say the word out of more belief than slang. I would recommend this to kids 13 because the principles of family and doing what is right have not
been portrayed in this light since the 40s.

This movie is an important movie for everyone and anyone who sees this movie will understand what I mean. There is not
any sex, nudity or sexual jokes or discussion at all.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Actually, that's correct... there aren't commandments in Christianity against either sex or violence. Adultery is a sin by virtue of it being sex in a specific context, murder as well. As a great example of how a commandment against murder is not a commandment against violence is divinely sanctioned killing being non-murder--as the Israelites settled Canaan. It is still violence, but it is not murder.

And there is a lack of consistency in using Jewish Law to define Christian doctrine.

 

[only_more_so]

Why am I reading the thread if I am offended? The short answer is that I am less offended than upset by the general tone of anti-christian sentiment that exists on the boards. It has become widely accepted that christians can be bashed freely, or in the case of this thread offered up for mockery.

You are right that I stated the commandments about sex and violence too strongly. If I said there was no commandment against eating, you could have thrown Kosher laws in my face.

The sexual commandments you listed are for very specific sexual acts, even adultery is a very specific act which is defined according to Jewish law as a man having sex with a married or bethrothed woman. Sex between an unmarried woman and anyone she chooses is not against the commandments. A married man is also not guilty of adultery under those laws for having sex with an unmarried woman.

The violence commandments are also very specific, and primarily are to prevent jew on jew violence and the harboring of hatred. As for other forms of violence there are a number of places in the old testament where the jews were instructed to kill people, either executions for crimes or as acts of war.

But blasphemy has no such latitude and is never excused in any context. So, in fact all three of my statements are true.

Anyway, arguing bible verses will not get us anywhere. My only point in posting was to try to defend the majority of Christians who are not extremists. They do not read the bible and say let's go kill some gays. They do not say let's go kill witches. If most Christians did read the bible that way, then there would be no gays, there would be no witches, at least in the US and the majority of Europe.

Think about it for a moment, 77% of people in the US identify themselves as Christians. If most Christians interpreted the bible in the way you suggest, then a majority of Americans would be out killing and attacking those groups. If they were arrested, they would never be convicted because a jury would be garanteed to have enough Christians on it to acquit.

In fact, that is exactly what happened hundreds of years ago. The crusades and the spanish inquisition, and the Salem witch trials are all terrible events in the history of Christianity. But I have yet to see a witch burn. I have been to numerous church services, church meetings, even church conferences, and I have never heard someone at any of those places suggest doing violence against a witch or a gay person.

Even when I lived in Texas and went to a very conservative church, the pastor and the congregants never even hinted at doing violence to another person. I also know that if someone had done such an act of violence they would have been excommunicated from the church.

The truth is that a very small subset of Christians are really rotten apples and have made all Christians look bad. They are a very vocal minority, and the press loves to give them front page bookings.

The real truth is that there are always going to be people who have hate in their hearts, and they will find some way to justify that hate. Hate has a way of festering in places where conditions are poor, and the people down-trodden. Those are the places were the extremists come from. But they are not produced by Christianity. Christianity is an easy excuse for those people, but so would Islam, racism, sexism, classism or anti-government sentiment. Christianity does not make people evil, but that doesn't mean evil people can't be Christian.

All I ask is for people on Lit to show Christians the same sort of tolerance as they wish to get from Christians in return.

 

[Pure]

hi only,

this isn't really a thread about 'Christians in general'; it's quite focussed on the very conservative ones who are upset over lots of movies.

as to hate in Christian churches, the gay issues seem to bring it out, again in the extreme xtian right.

My only point in posting was to try to defend the majority of Christians who are not extremists. They do not read the bible and say let's go kill some gays. They do not say let's go kill witches. If most Christians did read the bible that way, then there would be no gays, there would be no witches, at least in the US and the majority of Europe.

The majority is not the topic. I think about 30% of US people are evangelical xtians, and it's probably a subset of them that are writing as I've posted. So we are talking about one in six or ten. ** As i mentioned above, a main issue is these conservative Xtians willingness to use the state to suppress 'immoral' books, films, XXX websites etc. Some internet related legislation has already passed.
So it's not murderous tendencies so much as repressive and theocratic ones. And these go way back to the Mass. Puritans. and before that, to Calvin and his followers (who were very keen on the OT, by the way.).

thanks for joining the thread and speaking up! merry xmas!
---

**It might be mentioned that one in ten is a helluva strong lobby; when one adds in the *sympathizers* and folks who 'go along', that may well constitute a majority. For example, the Religious Freedom amendment to the Constitution--a pet project of the right, to get Xtian prayers back into schools--passed by a majority in the House of Representatives.

 

[only_more_so]

this isn't really a thread about 'Christians in general'; it's quite focussed on the very conservative ones who are upset over lots of movies.

as to hate in Christian churches, the gay issues seem to bring it out, again in the extreme xtian right.

My only point in posting was to try to defend the majority of Christians who are not extremists. They do not read the bible and say let's go kill some gays. They do not say let's go kill witches. If most Christians did read the bible that way, then there would be no gays, there would be no witches, at least in the US and the majority of Europe.

The majority is not the topic. I think about 30% of US people are evangelical xtians, and it's probably a subset of them that are writing as I've posted. So we are talking about one in six or ten. As i mentioned above, a main issue is these conservative Xtians willingness to use the state to suppress 'immoral' books, films, XXX websites etc. Some internet related legislation has already passed.
So it's not murderous tendencies so much as repressive and theocratic ones. And these go way back to the Mass. Puritans. and before that, to Calvin and his followers (who were very keen on the OT, by the way.).

thanks for joining the thread and speaking up! merry xmas!

I guess I failed to see you differentiate between the ultra conservative Christians and the average Christians (reread a couple of your postings and you will see why I thought that).

Censorship, especially as regards religion, is a more interesting topic. The way I have seen these movie review sites, is that they provide a parent (or the person themselves) a preview of what is going to happen in the movie so they can decide not to go.

For instance, I saw the homosexuality and disrespect by children for their elders, in Taladega nights to be annoying, but it didn't detract much from my enjoyment of the movie. A coworker and his wife walked out of the movie because they were so offended. Had they known the scenes were in the movie, they wouldn't have attended in the first place.

Other instances of "censorship" can also be attributed to more benign causes. For instance the book about the homosexual penguins that got banned from schools. There was a similar objection to material when I was in Texas and the argument wasn't that the person had no right to write the book. The parent's objected because they said that the school system shouldn't be indoctrinating their children with morality that is contrary to the parent's wishes. This is the same argument that is used against mandatory sex education in schools. The question becomes where is the line between teaching opinions and teaching facts devoid of political/emotional slant?

The problem with the internet is that it is nearly impossible for parent's to police their children as they surf the net without watching every moment. Making it harder to access porn is not so objectionable when viewed from that point of view. Similarly, restrictions on the graphic nature of shows on television and in the movies allows a parent not to have to worry about what their kid might watch by accident, or when they step out for a minute.

I think conservative Christians (and other moralists) would raise less objections about movies and TV and the internet if sexuality, violence, blasphemy, etc. didn't seem to occur in every show. The truth is sex and sensationalism sells better than "traditional family values." Showbiz knows this and is willing to cater to the lowest common denominator.

I am not saying that all attempts at censorship are for the good of the children. There are plenty of people who are trying to legislate morality (on both sides, I might add), but there are also plenty who are working towards the same goals for very good reasons.

 

[Pure]

"only" said in part

OMSOther instances of "censorship" can also be attributed to more benign causes. For instance the book about the homosexual penguins that got banned from schools. There was a similar objection to material when I was in Texas and the argument wasn't that the person had no right to write the book. The parent's objected because they said that the school system shouldn't be indoctrinating their children with morality that is contrary to the parent's wishes. This is the same argument that is used against mandatory sex education in schools. The question becomes where is the line between teaching opinions and teaching facts devoid of political/emotional slant?

P: I don't see 'benign' here; admittedly controlling the books children see is not the same as controlling books for all adults, but your argument about gay penguins does NOT convince at all. i realize that the right wing, the ultracons, love totalk 'indoctrination'; but most of us are wise to what it means: they object, like the Puritans, to indoctrination in anything other than their dogma.

OMSThe problem with the internet is that it is nearly impossible for parent's to police their children as they surf the net without watching every moment. Making it harder to access porn is not so objectionable when viewed from that point of view. Similarly, restrictions on the graphic nature of shows on television and in the movies allows a parent not to have to worry about what their kid might watch by accident, or when they step out for a minute.

P: no, i don't buy that either: the attempts to ban 'material harmful to minors' from the 'net, which according to you have a noble motive, would eviscerate the net. we already see something similar in attempts to ban stories with minors in them; there has been a first prosecution.
for me, it's just a 'foot in the door.' a substantial subset of conservative Xtian have little sympathy with the first amendment as ordinarily understood, and would be happy to move in the direction of theocracy (e.g. a federal ban on gay marriage; federal ban on abortion; federal ban on 'obscene' materials on the 'net, etc. etc.).

it is a well documented project of conservative Xtians to promote their version of American history as a Xtian one. some of the rest of us remember what the colonial situation was, that is so appealing: Xtian requirements to hold state office in most colonies, and to vote. states that subsidize a particular church (Connecticutt).
IOW, the attempt of this activist, conservative Xtian minority is to breach the separation of church and state that Jefferson intended.

 

[only_more_so]

How is indoctrinating children with non-christian dogma any better than indoctrinating children with christian dogma? That is the double standard that I object to. For years the prevailing wind had schools teaching morality from the Christian point of view. More recently the wind blows the other way, with schools enforcing defacto atheism. Valedictorians who try to say that their faith helped them succeed are cut off, teams are banned from praying even if every member of the team wants to say a prayer. Seperation of church and state does not mean the government must be atheistic, or oppose religion. In fact the first amendment states just the opposite, that Congress shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say that material offensive to minors should be banned from the internet. I said it should be more difficult to access. You are making a slippery slope argument that restriction/labeling leads to censorship/bans which leads to making abortions illegal.

Look at movie ratings, they have been around for decades, but they don't prevent people from making salacious movies. But when they are enforced, they do prevent children from seeing those movies.

 

[Huckleman2000]

I'd like to try and reinforce Pure's defense against the purported 'intolerance' of Christians. (although it could easily be an instance of "with friends like these....")

I think there's a distinction between 'intolerance' and 'making light of', or 'ridiculing' even. I don't consider myself to be intolerant of Christian viewpoints, and I don't think there is a general intolerance reflected in the AH generally; I don't go into threads that deal with Prayers or issues that Christians have within themselves or their community in writing erotic fiction. For the most part, those threads are labeled as such, and I just avoid them since I doubt I could add anything constructive to the discussions, whatever they are. If people do go in to harass, or try to drive them out of the subject list, however that would be accomplished, I think that would be a demonstration of intolerance. That isn't, to my knowledge, what posters are talking about when they say they perceive an intolerant attitude.

Rather, the complaints seem more to be about a general willingness to mock or point out the hypocrisy in public positions taken by Christian leaders. And, as Christian leaders have spearheaded the dominant political movement of the past 30 years, give or take, complaints of persecution ring hollow to most but Christian ears.

You claim that Hollywood doesn't take into account Christian sensibilities - that's preposterous! Just in the last couple years, POTC was a huge hit, and spawned Chronicles of Narnia, and other lesser films I'm sure. I'll agree that the general quality of film has declined over the course of the rise in political clout of the Christian Right, but I'd blame that on several factors that the Right seems to have encouraged, rather than vice-versa. Many film buffs recall the 70's as the last great era of filmmaking, and it's difficult to argue against the idea. "Network", "Midnight Cowboy", "A Clockwork Orange", "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", "Taxi Driver", "Nashville", "Last Tango in Paris", and others - it's difficult to imagine many of these films being made by major studios today, or even considered. There are fewer studios, controlled by fewer and larger companies, distributed through fewer theater outlets. Three of those films I just mentioned received X ratings - when was the last time a studio released an X film, or even NC-17 (a rating that had to be dreamed up because of the Christian-led revolt against X-rated films, which has since gone the same route as X )?

The concentration of the entertainment industry into fewer and larger companies leads invariably to entertainment that aims for the broadest markets, and we wind up with a preponderance of movies targeting the sensibilities of adolescent males.

The entertainment industry is profit-driven, now more than ever. Movies get made that they think will sell, and there is a great deal of research put into determining what will sell. Movies are re-cut, different endings are filmed, they are marketed differently, all based on expensive and extensive research. Even then, a lot of it is hit and miss. If "more wholesome" entertainment sold more broadly, more of it would get made. As I said, the broadest market is dominated by adolescent males, and so that's the 'taste' that matters, such as it is.

It's not the Left that has driven media consolidation. It's not the Left that has enabled profit and appeal to the LCD to replace artistic vision as the principal determining factors in mainstream entertainment.

Yet, there is a whole Christian music industry, and Christian-themed TV networks, and a broader Christian entertainment industry.

It's not that there isn't entertainment being produced that embraces Christian sensibilities and values. It's that the Christian Right movement wants all entertainment to take their values into account. And, to a large degree, they've succeeded. So now the industry is reduced to treating themes such as sexuality and authority as nudge-wink potty jokes aimed at 13-17 year olds, since any adult treatment of them invariably results in threats of boycotts and Congressional hearings and regulatory delays of further media consolidation.

In entertainment, moreso than politics even, you gets what you pays for.

 

[Halo_n_horns]

It seems to me that real value of the this Christian movie rating site has been almost completely overlooked. By simply printing off that ratings page I have a pretty up-to-date guide to use for when I'm trying to find the best movies for sex and violence while at the video store. I just sent these guys some praise via e-mail for providing us with this list.

 

[Pure]

merry christmas, only!
if you want to talk about religion in schools, the agenda of the conservative xtians for the US, i suggest we do it in another thread.

OMSLook at movie ratings, they have been around for decades, but they don't prevent people from making salacious movies. But when they are enforced, they do prevent children from seeing those movies.

P: i disagree; the threat of NC-17 or X causes cuts to be made to avoid the commercial impact of those ratings. i think the legion of decency too, had its effect, as shown in the absence of certain topics, and certain words. a famous example is "Butterfield 8," where the life of a prostitute was made to end in a violent car crash not in the book.

here is a current example along the lines of Huck's argument. Blockbuster video has insisted on its own 'clean' version of movies, so it won't piss off conservative Xtians. so all of us are censored with 'cleaned up' movies because of these bozos' sensibilities AND willingness to enforce them on others.


i think you are right that it's the enforcement of ratings that affects children. it unclear to me what the legal requirements on theaters is; but i don't think it's their job to keep teens out of movies; let the parents do that.

incidentally, to pick up a topic you mentioned; my postings here have been detailed analysis of film review for the most part; i have not addressed 'Christianity' or "Christians" as a mass or on the whole.

to return to the thread topic, i wonder what the conservative Christian thinking is about sex in cinema?? if you look at the review above, the reviewer was so happy that 'Cinderella Man' contained no sex. so the beliefs seem to be: if you show it, they'll do it; if you don't show it, they won't do it. 'It' being a sexual act other than the prescribed and approved husband/own-wife scenario.

both belief statements seem to me to be false. (this is an overlap with the 'nudity' thread of seacat; for nudity too, the idea is similar--for males, if you see a pussy, you'll chase it; if you don't, you won't)

 

[only_more_so]

Merry Christmas Pure.

To be off topic for a moment, I have to say I do like your avatar quite a bit!

Actually, I don't really have much desire to bring this back on topic. I'm not really the sort who enjoys long drawn out debates, although I commend you for not allowing this to devolve into the sort of debate that spawned the saying, "Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics, even if you win, you're still retarded."

I do have a question though. Do you use Xtian to mean something different than Christian? Sometimes you use one (like in the title of the thread) and sometimes the other.

 

[Pure]

hi only; same meaning Christmas=Xmas Xtian or Xian means Christian. the X or Xs has been used by Christians for hundreds of years to indicate Christ, since the "Ch" sound in Greek, "chi" looks like an X.

debates on the internet usually don't change the minds of the debaters, but others read them. it will be disputed, since i'm harsh on some opinions, but i try not to attack anyone personally. for me, the learning is in digging up information and authorities. i often visit conservative and xtian websites.

hope you have a great holiday!