Christian Film Rating kerfuffle

I don't have a problem with religion. I thought Jesse Ventura's statement that religion was a crutch for the weak-minded was out of line and generally inaccurate. But I find it highly absurd when individuals of any religious stripe get up in arms over what they perceive to be affronts to their religion.

In the most recent example of how religion can (not "does," but "can") make fools out of people, I submit the following article from CNN. I guess there is a film out there that is Christian themed, and said flick received a PG rating rather than the G that the film-makers and its supporters wanted. Ostensibly, the PG rating was given because of the religious theme of the film, although the MPAA disputes that.

First, I think film ratings are stupid in general, because trying to pigeonhole every film into one of five categories just doesn't work effectively (what one parent thinks is dangerous for his or her children would be viewed as just fine by others), and I think the PARENTS should ultimately take charge of these things by, first, previewing TV and movie offerings that their children are interested in seeing until the children are of a certain age (and what that age is would be another parental decision), and second, trusting their children not to be idiots once the magic age is reached.

That said, I think exposure to religious views, especially if the film is proselytizing, is worthy of a slightly higher rating. PG simply means that parents should be paying attention, and I know a LOT of Christian families who would object to a movie that presented an overtly Muslim viewpoint receiving a G rating. As a result, this "signal" to parents that the content is not, say, about an animated deer traipsing through the forest with his forest friends is perfectly appropriate.

Now, onto the good part. House Majority Whip Roy Blunt said this in connection with the rating debacle:

This incident raises the disquieting possibility that the MPAA considers exposure to Christian themes more dangerous to children than exposure to gratuitous sex and violence.

Ummm...no. This statement by Blunt raises the disquieting possibility that the third-ranking Republican in the House is a raving lunatic. Gratuitous sex and violence are virtually guaranteed nowadays to result in a rating of PG-13 or R. Back in the day, films that contained quite a lot of questionable content snuck through with a PG, but that's not the case anymore. The only things that get "G" ratings are utterly harmless trifles, containing not a whiff of sex and usually not much violence. Hence, "Christian themes" aren't even being considered to be "as dangerous" to children as are sex and violence; quite clearly a PG rating is lower on the "danger scale."

The point? Blunt is a fool who either doesn't understand what he's talking about, or who doesn't care. Either way, I'm pretty glad right now that John Boehner won the race for House Majority Leader over Blunt . . . at least Boehner hasn't proven himself to be a reactionary nutcase.