The United States is the most deeply religious country in the western world, but movies and television programs are portraying a different picture, Christian media groups say.
Ever since the Protestant Film Office closed its advocacy offices in Hollywood in 1966, media portrayals of Christianity have become increasingly negative, even to the point where regular churchgoers seem almost nonexistent.
"Christians who are intelligent, educated, modern, sophisticated in modern urban America are nonexistent as far as modern television and movies are concerned," the late Dr. D. James Kennedy, founder of Coral Ridge Ministries, said in a broadcast aired on the "Coral Ridge Hour" Sunday.
"If you go back 30 years or more, Christianity was almost always portrayed by Hollywood and the media in a very positive and affirming way," Kennedy said. "Today, that is a rare exception."
Dr. Ted Baehr created the Christian Film & Television Commission to redeem the values of mass media. He said that within six months of the Protestant Film Office shutting down in Hollywood, movies went from some of the greatest stories ever told such as "The Sound of Music" and "Mary Poppins" to sex and Satanism.
"The head of 20th Century Fox ... said if you take the salt from the meat, the meat is going to rot," Baehr noted in Sunday's broadcast.
"And the meat rotted within three years," he said of Hollywood films after the church pulled its office.
Most evangelicals agree and believe anti-Christian attitudes are increasing in the country. According to a Barna Group study in September 2007, 91 percent of the nation's evangelicals believe that "Americans are becoming more hostile and negative toward Christianity."
And media's negative portrayals of Christianity have played a major role in influencing Americans' views, Christian media leaders say.
The same Barna Group survey showed that 16- to 29-year-olds perceive Christianity more negatively than positively. Nine out of 12 perceptions of Christianity were negative, according to the study. Some of the negative views included Christianity being judgmental, hypocritical and too involved in politics.
The answer to the anti-Christian barrage in media, bestselling author Randy Alcorn says, is not getting overly defensive but asking whether there is a balance.
"If a professing Christian is portrayed as being a hypocrite ... okay, well, that's life. There are hypocritical Christians," Alcorn said on the "Coral Ridge Hour."
"But if that's all you ever see and you see people who are sexual predators who are quoting the Bible ... in real life, how many sexual predators are quoting the Bible? And yet there have been several films where it's been this person who appears to be scarred and really a perverted person because of a religious upbringing."
Hollywood often argues that they’re just giving the public what it wants or that it's reflecting what's already out there in society, the Christian media leaders point out.
But what Americans want and what's out there are rarely captured and put on the big screen, they contend.
Although about 40 percent of Americans go to church or synagogue every week, that is almost never seen on film, said Michael Medved, nationally syndicated conservative talk show host.
If Christians are portrayed in films, "what you tend to see is religious believers who are crooked or crazy or both – which appears very regularly in Hollywood film," Medved noted.
What’s in the movies doesn’t give a complete picture of American life.
“There are other parts of life that could be reflected,” said the late Kennedy, “but they’re not.”
RSS
seregul,
It doesn't surprise me, the western world consists of basically the U.S., Canada, Europe (western), and Japan. Out of all of those, I would say that the U.S. is still by far the most religious.
merkin,
Are animals behaving immorally when they kill? What about for food? Is it immoral for humans to kill animals? What about self-defense? Is a capital punishment immoral?
I was also going to ask about spanking vs. yelling and screaming. What about psychological suffering?
Getting into the more controversial issues, what about molestation? Animals do this on instinct. Are we to allow our basic instintcs control or should they be suppressed?
Merkin,
I was a waiter for some time, and let me tell you what I often saw. Parents engaging in this never-spanking discipline. And their kids were wretched (I am not trying to overly offend the parents, but their kids were) they were disrespectful to the parents, other customers, and me and other servers. I also worked for some time at an after school program with children aging from around 4 to 10. Many of the kids' parents were also in such, "innovative child disciplining" philosophies. Needless to say, many were very disrespectful and had a very difficult time getting along with other kids. Sure some parents abuse their kids, but physical discipline is not the worst of all things, and done in the right way and with the right reasons it is effective and proper. Some parents give really poor discipline for their children, and it causes them to become like this, I think such parents should be considered child abusers.
"The United States is the most deeply religious country in the western world, " the first sentence lost me on this article.
So, I take it that I am correct in my assumption?
Well, aren't you a clever sausage.
Merkin,
It's a good thing you're not king of the world. Everyone would be dead or in jail, except you.
If I was worried about what you thought about me, I might have taken that as an insult. But, knowing the type of person that it is coming from, I'll take it for what it's worth.....
Nothing.
Prophet,
Congratulations, you're a child abuser. What do you want from me, a sticker?
merkin,
"I think "spanking" a child should make you eligible for jail time."
Well, I think that chasing down a criminal, tackling him, shoving his face into the ground, driving your knees into his back, and twisting his arms six ways to Sunday should be illegal. That is simply unwarranted physical abuse. Just talk to the criminal. No need to get so rough about it.
The common misconception about spanking is that parents use it all the time for every disciplinary action, and that is is bordering on abuse.
I spank my children. Not often, nor in excess. Usually, my "spanking" consists of a one or two swats to their bottom with my hand just to get their attention, to let them know I am serious about their behavior problem. And that is only on occasion. And even rarer, I will acutally discipline them with a flat wooden stick I have (much like a yard stick, but wider and shorter). And, again, never more than 2 or 3, and never with excessive force.
Most of my discipline comes in the form of grounding, or restrictions, and such.
But, as a young child (say like below 4 years old) grounding and such are not such a deterence since they cannot grasp the concept. Spanking is a viable form of discipline, if used in moderation.
Many opponents of spanking will say that time outs are a good form of discipline. Yes, isolationism is always good for a young toddler. Isn't that a form of torture used in wartime situations? But yet it is considered a viable form of discipline among children. Has anyone ever stopped to think of the emotional and mental effect it has on a child to be separated from loved ones?
Point is this: Spanking, like time-outs, are a effective form of discipline if done withing moderation...AND IN LOVE. Yes, children can tell whether you're disciplining in love or out of anger. And THAT has more emotional affect on them than does the act itself.
According to a Barna Group study in September 2007, 91 percent of the nation's evangelicals believe that "Americans are becoming more hostile and negative toward Christianity."
Finally evangelicals believe in something that's actually true.
seedplanter,
Nonphysical discipline is usually better than physical discipline.
I think my original post on morality was fairly straightforward, but let me try to make it even clearer:
Morality has to do with happiness and suffering. We try to promote happiness and reduce suffering as best we can. Sometimes we have to endure a little suffering to prevent a lot of suffering, but the ethical system I've proposed is pretty simple. Any action that causes others to suffer UNNECESSARILY is immoral. The more suffering that is caused, the less moral is your action.
Of course it's not quite that simple. Something has to be said for intention. But if you're going to bring a person's intentions into it, you have to look at it case by case.
merkin: "I think "spanking" a child should make you eligible for jail time. "
That’s nice. What about non-physical discipline? Abuse can be quite a blanket accusation. Some felt that just having the Ten Commandments on a school wall could cause psychological trauma. Please enlighten us superstitious Christians as to what proper morality looks like. That is what you are here for, no?
tgender,
I didn't notice that "feeling guilty" was the central part of your argument.
Well evolution has no problem explaining why people feel guilty. If guilt was a supernatural phenomenon, we'd all feel guilty whenever we'd transgressed God's universal moral code, but we don't. There are plenty of things that I don't feel guilty about that you might. Most gay people, for example, don't feel guilty for being gay. And besides, not everyone DOES feel guilt. Some people have no remorse whatsoever. We call them sociopaths.
merkin—
“Well obviously I don't accept that moral laws are "transcendent" in the way that you mean it. You're just making assertions—there's no underlying logic to your argument. Especially with this one: ‘The moral law can’t be some abstract principle of the universe, otherwise we’d have no duty to obey and no ultimate accountability.’"
I did make an argument. I said that we naturally feel guilt when we do wrong and it makes no sense to feel guilt towards some abstract law like gravity. We feel guilt towards people, not abstractions. You’re the one who simply asserted something. You didn’t make an argument.
seedplanter,
I think "spanking" a child should make you eligible for jail time. There's nothing else in your comment I feel like responding to. Sorry.
tgender,
Well obviously I don't accept that moral laws are "transcendent" in the way that you mean it. You're just making assertions—there's no underlying logic to your argument. Especially with this one:
"The moral law can’t be some abstract principle of the universe, otherwise we’d have no duty to obey and no ultimate accountability."
Sorry. Life's not fair. Don't confuse what IS with what OUGHT to be.
merkin—
“The problem isn't that we haven't found good ethical systems. The problem is that most of us don't abide by them very rigorously.”
If morality is an objective truth, then the problem is that we haven’t found the CORRECT system. This is what it means for morality to be objective. It’s not enough to find “good” ones; we must discover the objectively right one.
Here’s the way I see it. There is such a thing as objective moral truth (morality which is true for all people at all times). Morality is an ethical code that prescribes how we ought to behave. Note, this is different from how we actually behave. So, morality is prescriptive, not descriptive. Because morality has “oughtness”, it has the quality of a law or command. This also means that we have a duty to obey moral laws. Furthermore, a duty implies accountability—we will be held guilty for not obeying the moral laws. When we transgress moral laws we very often feel guilty about it (in our conscience).
What are the implications of a moral law that transcends humanity to which we have a duty to obey and will be held to account?
1. The moral law can’t come from human persons or cultures, otherwise it would be relative.
2. The moral law can’t be some abstract principle of the universe, otherwise we’d have no duty to obey and no ultimate accountability.
3. Laws and commands come from minds, so a transcendent moral law must come from a transcendent mind.
4. The duty we have to obey a moral law is imposed upon on us by this transcendent authority.
5. This transcendent authority will hold us accountable to the moral law.
6. God is the kind of transcendent authority that explains objective morality.
7. We should look to God as our source for morality and expect that he has spoken about it (otherwise there would be no duty or accountability).
8. We should discern which of the so-called revelations of God is objectively true.
Merkin
Of course I wasn’t being silly. Again, the point that I was making was simply that “numerous forms of suffering are actually beneficial. This is not only true in the learning process, but also as an aid in survival.” I don’t know of anyone who does not hate pain. Pain is often times viewed as an unethical mechanism for God to allow. I was probing to find out where you stand as to your ‘natural’ morality. You may have heard of the book Love is Always Right by Norm Geisler and Josh McDowell, the title almost seems to coincide with your basic rule for natural morality, but not quite. Sometimes loving a child may necessitate some painful correction from a father and/or mother and it is not considered immoral. Some do however see spanking as immoral. Others see any discipline as immoral. The point here is not to quibble over discipline but the dilemma does seem to point to a faulty assumption in your concept, that pain and suffering is directly connected to morality. Also the idea of inflicting pain only deals with immoral acts that are committed to another, it does not account for acts of omission (i.e. babies die without love and affection).
(I flagged myself)
seedplanter, and of course the same goes with educating children.
seedplanter,
Don't be ridiculous. Of course you can't hold fire morally responsible for burning you!
And when I say "suffering" I obviously don't mean physical stress from exercise. Besides, by your own account, which is going to cause more suffering—lounging around and getting fat, and winding up with a laundry list of health problems, or staying in shape and causing your muscles to "suffer" a bit? These aren't moral dilemmas, silly.
The problem isn't that we haven't found good ethical systems. The problem is that most of us don't abide by them very rigorously—that goes for Christians and atheists alike. Moral philosophers can come up with perfectly sound codes of ethics, but we are not, most of the time, rational animals. We're blinded by our own cognitive biases. We don't decide to cheat on our taxes because of some deficiency in Socrates's logic. It's either because we've rationalized cheating through our own flawed logic, or because we've consciously decided to abandon moral code.
I've given you a simplified definition for morality, and I can't think of very many (normal) situations where this basic framework won't prove sufficient. If we worked together to alleviate suffering, and stopped bickering about who's allowed to have sex with who, we would all be much better off.
Merkin: “I'm defining morality as the system of behavior through which suffering is decreased. There is a negative correlation between suffering and morality.”
Not to jump in on your conversation, but are you suggesting that all forms of suffering that might be projected from one person to another is immoral? Numerous forms of suffering are actually beneficial. This is not only true in the learning process (i.e. children, athletics, etc.) but also as an aid in survival (If someone did not feel the heat from a fire, they would not understand the damage that can occur).
Romans 1:19-22
19 Because the knowledge of God may be seen in them, God having made it clear to them. 20 For from the first making of the world, those things of God which the eye is unable to see, that is, his eternal power and existence, are fully made clear, he having given the knowledge of them through the things which he has made, so that men have no reason for wrongdoing: 21 Because, having the knowledge of God, they did not give glory to God as God, and did not give praise, but their minds were full of foolish things, and their hearts, being without sense, were made dark. 22 Seeming to be wise, they were in fact foolish.
merkin—
“Do you think that this a problem that can't be solved through reason and logic?”
To some degree as even now we’re using reason and logic to think about it. The problem is that great philosophers have been applying reason and logic to ethics for millennia. Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Kant, Hume, and many others all came up with different ethical systems.
If we could discover the right moral system purely through reason and logic, we would have found it by now. How would you explain our failure to arrive at a definitive answer to this?
We don't need to frequent those movies or help them get any free publicity. I would like to see some Christian churches out there get the funds together to make godly, good Christian type movies. I went to see the movie, The Ultimate Gift. It didn't speak very much on Christians, but it had an awesome message. It certainly didn't give Christians a bad name. The devil is the price of power of the air. That means he has control over the airwaves. He picks up on negative words we speak, he has assisted us in making ungodly music, games, movies, etc. because he is trying to destroy everything good that the Lord created. The devil is using our lust of the flesh to destroy us. Be careful little eyes what you see. Be careful little ears what you hear. Be careful little feet where you go. Be careful little (big) mouth what you speak. What do you think would happen, if for every filthy or unflattering movie towards Christians, we made twice as many godly, flattering movies towards Christians? We need to do the same with music, games, etc. If others want to wallow in or eat trash, that doesn't mean the rest of us have to do it. Right?
tgender,
Sorry, I was using science in a broader sense than it should be used. I meant that through reason, and logic we can perfect our understanding of moral truth. Let me attempt a brief deconstruction:
Science has indicated that individual members of our species have much in common. Our thoughts and emotions are run on nearly identical machines. From this we can safely assume that we share certain experiences, such as pain and pleasure (I have a fairly good idea what it feels like when you stub your toe). Now provided that we agree there is something called "happiness," and we generally agree on what that state feels like (though maybe not on how to achieve it), we have grounds to proceed with the tools of logic and scientific inquiry. I'm defining morality as the system of behavior through which suffering is decreased. There is a negative correlation between suffering and morality. Any action that causes more suffering is less moral than an action that causes less suffering. Do you think that this a problem that can't be solved through reason and logic?
merkin—
“We both agree that there are certain truths (that two and two is four, and so on), and that moral truth is no different.”
I’m glad we have this common ground.
“I think it's ironic that you use the findings of science, rather than religion, to compare truisms.”
I do this because most people readily identify and accept common scientific truths.
“Where we differ is on how to discover these truths. You say religion, and I say science.”
I also say science for scientific kinds of truths, but science has its limits. I don’t know how science can tell us what’s moral or not. For that matter, science also doesn’t tell us that 2+2=4 or the laws of logic. In fact, these must be known in order to do science. So, if there is such a thing as objective moral truth and science is not equipped to tell us what it is, then how do we discover it?
tgender,
It sounds like we're in agreement, for the most part. I wouldn't argue with any part of your last comment. We both agree that there are certain truths (that two and two is four, and so on), and that moral truth is no different. Where we differ is on how to discover these truths. You say religion, and I say science. It's another conversation, altogether. I think science has proven to the most reliable method for uncovering truth. You can try to argue otherwise, but I think it's ironic that you use the findings of science, rather than religion, to compare truisms.
merkin—
“Moral truth can be approached in the same way as any other logical problem. If moral truth exists, as you claim, then we can discover it just as we discovered that 2+2=4, and the earth revolves around the sun."
Yes, that’s what I’m saying. Like those other truths, moral truth will be universal and exclusive—it will be true for all people at all times in all cultures. We don’t decide other objective truths by wishes or feelings or votes, so why would it be the same for moral truth? This is why I say that moral truth is not established simply by what some culture says it is. Its source must transcend humanity just like 2+2=4 or the earth revolves around the sun.
I lived just south of Hollywood for years. I seen it go from a nice and family oriented place, to a swath of triple-x video stores, gay bars, and rampant homosexuality. This is, of course, the part that they don't show you on T.V.
Most employers hire those within driving distance. Why should Hollywood be any different?
It has been well documented that these individuals lead a lifestyle that is contrary to what the Bible is saying. Therefore, logically, they would certainly hold a negative opinion.
And, now we see a negative opinion of Christianity coming from Hollywood, and people are now just beginning to wonder? Oh please, the writing has literally been on the wall for years.
But, maybe I had the advantage of seeing what most people never see; The real Hollywood.
tgender,
Moral truth can be approached in the same way as any other logical problem. If moral truth exists, as you claim, then we can discover it just as we discovered "that 2+2=4, and the earth revolves around the sun."
merkin—
“Probably you'll complain that, on the whole, people can't be trusted to decide whether a thing is right or wrong—that God needs to be ‘the decider’".
Yes, I think this is true because anything else is moral relativism.
“Well at the end of the day, you've still decided which God to listen to, so ultimately you're still making these decisions on your own.”
Not really. If God exists, then he is a certain way and we need to discover that, just like we discover that 2+2=4 and the earth revolves around the sun. If this God establishes a moral order, then our decision isn’t what the moral order is, but rather, whether or not we will obey. There’s a big difference.
tgender,
I don't defer to authority. I think I am right because of my experiences and my own internal sense of what is right. In the marketplace of ideas my opinions will either sink or swim, and that's how their merits will be determined. Not because they were written in a holy book. Probably you'll complain that, on the whole, people can't be trusted to decide whether a thing is right or wrong—that God needs to be "the decider." Well at the end of the day, you've still decided which God to listen to, so ultimately you're still making these decisions on your own.
merkin—
“I have an egalitarian perspective. Women and men are to be considered as equal partners in a relationship. Neither the wife nor the husband has authority in the partnership. They are members of a team, and work together as peers."
Since you don’t derive this moral precept from any authority outside yourself, I’m just curious why you think you are right and why everyone else should abide by it. There are MANY cultures and people who disagree with you. On what basis do you call of them wrong?
Chris, you're right that there are no moral guidelines in atheism, but that's because atheism isn't a moral philosophy. I don't know how or why somebody would try to solve a moral dilemma by consulting a belief that has nothing to do with morality. It would be as ridiculous as a Christian consulting her Bible to gain a better understanding of physics, or biology!
You ask me what MY worldview says about the status of women, why it says what it does, and why you should accept it. Fair enough. I have an egalitarian perspective. Women and men are to be considered as equal partners in a relationship. Neither the wife nor the husband has authority in the partnership. They are members of a team, and work together as peers. Why do I think this should be so? I, myself, must have deferred to some higher authority, you wonder. This creed must have been written down in a rival holy book, right? Wrong. I don’t need permission from the gods to conclude that fairness and equality create a preferable kind of environment. It doesn’t take much in the way of logical ability to deduce that equal status between playmates results in greater social harmony. If you feel ill equipped to arrive at conclusions like this on your own, well that’s your problem.
HampsteadPete,
Fundamentalism means nothing, the Bible sets a clear standard for husbands and that is that we are to love our wives as Christ loved the Church. If somebody says, "Weee I am a fundamentalist" And they go and kill, rape, cuss, become alcoholics, or whatever else, then it means nothing to what Christianity is. Christianity condemns this, the Bible condemns this, it is that simple. Atheism on the other hand is 100% morally bankrupt, they can't say anything about morality. (I am not saying they are immoral, they just have no real case for what is morallly right or wrong, and I have never seen a single person on this site give a case for absolute morals) So if an atheist decides that beating and raping his wife is ok, then as far as atheism is concerned, it is ok or at least morally neutral. Christianity can give a clear and strong case that this is wrong. Why on earth anyone would want to be an atheist is beyond me, perhaps because it feels good not to have anyone telling you that you have to do the right thing?
merkin,
So what? What does your worldview say? Why does it say that? And why should we believe you? The Christian marriage is a beautiful thing when both sides fulfill the commands of Christ, the atheist marriage, well it is whatever they want it to be, and there is no right or wrong, if a husband in an atheist marriage wants to brainwash his wife and abuse her, then atheism stays quiet and doesn't say anything.
What this article is lamenting is the loss of the 1930s production code. Among the rules in the code were to portray church leaders in a positive light, and ridiculing religion was forbidden. After Joseph Breen retired in 1954, the production code was abandoned. During the "Golden Age of Hollywood," the strictly enforced code pushed movie makers into coming up with more creative ways to write a story under those limits.
...Just in case you wanted to know.
From Indonesia,
Try looking it from a different perspective. The producers, screen writers, actors, supporting business, media, TV stations and company are working based on demands. Their God is money. If there is big money to be made in portraying Christians to be judgemental, hypocritical, crooked or crazy then they shall produce them regardless of consequences.
If it is true that 80% American profess Christian believe and 40% goes to Church then use your gift in lawmaking. Find a loop hole in the law that would allow US Christians to be united in BANNING those Movies and Television Shows.
Low rating and poor ticket sales shall throw those bozos so fast to side walk flat broken and sorry, because of the high investment and high risk involved in making those products.
UNITED Christian would put those Movie and Television show out of business in week. Sure, the liberals, the GLBT, the ACLU shall put on lawsuit after lawsuit but if your Law/Constitution is tight then in 1 or 2 months because of NO MONEY/ INCOME then the secular humanist shall leave you alone. Except for the militant sodomist ofcourse.
Meanwhile, Christian media group (Movie & Television) produce Movies and Television Shows which actually represent actual and interesting Christian lives which you can see everyday, with problems and answers which are real from real lives. Christians who are intelligent, educated, modern, sophisticated in modern urban America. People would always follow the popular choice and would never tell the difference that Christians have blackballed the Secular Humanist Atheist and Dhimmies from their TV sets
God Bles and Keep you guys.
Quecat:
"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." Genesis 3:16
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." 1 Corinthians 14:34—35
"I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." 1 Timothy 2:12
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. Colossians 3:18
1Pe 3:7 "... you husbands must give honor to your wives. Treat her with understanding as you live together. She may be weaker than you are, but she is your equal partner in God's gift of new life. If you don't treat her as you should, your prayers will not be heard."
Eph 5:25 " Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her"
Pete,
You're a bit glib there with your cute little quotations of biblical impropriety. Perhaps if you exhibited some understanding of what you were alluding to, you'd be more believable.
How fitting that the first two examples that you give, are illustrations of men reaping the results of walking in disobedience.
If Christians are portrayed as hypocrites, it's because they are, and talking about sexual predators, if thousands of priests aren't enough to prove the case, Barna's own research shows that a woman's chances of being raped or beaten by her spouse increase with the degree of fundamentalism of the spouse. Something about women as chattel in the bible, I guess. Started with Abraham pimping his wife out to the Egyptian Pharaoh, continued with Lot impregnating both his daughter's, and on to Jesus rebuking his own mother. Why any woman is a Christian is as much a mystery as why gay's are. Clearly, it is as much a "man's religion" as Islam. Only thing missing are the Burka's.
I am too tired of Barna surveys that say America is becoming unfriendly to Christians.
Does this really surprise anyone who has an understanding of scripture? I mean, do we really need a survey to tell us what we already know and were told in advance would occur?
There is no other dynamic in play here than an ideological negative feedback loop. "I heard someone say Christians were intolerant, bigoted, judgmental (insert the adjective of your choice here) and I believe it so I told my friend and he believed it", and so on and so on and so on....
2Ti 3:1-5 You should also know this, ...that in the last days there will be very difficult times. For people will love only themselves and their money. They will be boastful and proud, scoffing at God, disobedient to their parents, and ungrateful. They will consider nothing sacred. They will be unloving and unforgiving; they will slander others and have no self-control; they will be cruel and have no interest in what is good. They will betray their friends, be reckless, be puffed up with pride, and love pleasure rather than God. They will act as if they are religious, but they will reject the power that could make them godly..."
All I can say is, "bring it on" and Maranatha!
What a bunch of wishy-washy self pity. Vague reference after vague reference of supposed religious persecution. Last I heard, The Passion of the Christ was the highest grossing R-rated film ever made, and was nominated for three Oscars, so don't expect to be taken seriously if you complain that Christians aren't represented in the media. Instead of whining because you don't like the entertainment on offer, try actually CONTRIBUTING something interesting, yourself.