Western Courier

Issue date: 7/6/06 Section: Opinion

Republican Roy Blunt, along with other members of congress, is demanding that an explanation as to why "Facing the Giants," a film about a football coach who relies on his Christian religion, was given a PG rating by the MPAA.

What do football, Jesus and Congress have in common?

Absolutely nothing. Or so one would think.

Congress has recently decided to waste their time whining about a movie rating given to a Christian-themed movie about football.

According to CNN.com, "Facing the Giants" is an inspirational drama about a high school football coach who relies on faith to battle fear and failure.

The Motion Picture Association of America gave the movie a PG rating. Movies with ratings of G, PG or PG-13 do not require children to be accompanied by parents.

House Majority Whip Roy Blunt and other members of Congress are demanding explanations.

In a world where parents don't even know if their children are taking guns and knives to school, I find it hard to believe that many parents will shield their child from seeing a movie because it is PG instead of G. If a parent is that overprotective, he or she will probably attend the movie with the child, effectively turning every G movie into a PG film anyway.

The parents who want their children to see only wholesome, Christ-oriented movies will likely hear reviews from other soccer moms at church anyway. A rating of G or PG does not change any of the film's messages.

Kris Fuhr, vice president of marketing at Provident Films (the company which released the movie), said the company already expected the movie to receive a PG rating, but was surprised when religion was flagged by the MPAA.

So, to recap: Provident Films is angry because their movie, which they expected to receive a PG rating, received a PG rating. Meanwhile, Congress is involved, which makes even more sense because worrying about religion doesn't fall anywhere near the separation of church and state clause.

It should also be noted that the filmmakers opted not to appeal the rating.

Why does the PG rating offend Congress so much? Shouldn't they be concerning themselves with other business, like missiles being launched, shooting more pointless crap into space or raising the terror alert to fuchsia?

"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 wrote in a letter to the MPAA.

The MPAA says the controversy arose because of a miscommunication with the filmmakers and that religion was not a reason for the rating. It says the film explores several mature themes and cites a subplot related to pregnancy and attributes the PG rating to those factors.

Some Christians have gone far enough to say that they feel Hollywood is threatened by their religion. The only people who should feel threatened are regular American citizens whose concerns about terrorism, education and social security are put on the backburner for a debate about a football movie.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools