# A movie that might change your life, etc., Part 2 **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 19, 2001, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-movie-that-might-change-your-life-etc-part-2/55106 "2001-02-19T20:12:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![dangermom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@dangermom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dangermom)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2001, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-movie-that-might-change-your-life-etc-part-2/55106/41 "2001-02-21T00:23:50Z")
Thanks for your comments, kimtsu, I’m glad you enjoyed my paper. I did, in fact, read many more books than are mentioned in the paper, and could easily have written pages more. I had to prune a lot and cut it down to the bare bones to get it within the limits. Despite the small number of books listed that had overtly negative religious figures, I stand by my original premise, which is that religion is largely ignored in YA lit–that is, most books just don’t talk about it at all (and therefore didn’t get into my paper). When it is mentioned at all, it is often portrayed negatively. You’re right that a really thorough survey would be needed, but the statements you’re nervous about are based on comments from articles written by people who spend a lot of time reviewing YA books, and I think if you go to the library and read at random, you’ll find that they’re pretty accurate. OK, you’re right about the SF authors. But my point is that their rationalistic/areligious outlook is a serious flaw in their writing, because it gets transferred into every book written. Humanity has yet to come up with a culture that doesn’t need or want anything to believe in, and if you’re inventing whole new human cultures, you have to take that into account. When you don’t, and leave out the question of religion because you think it’s old-fashioned, then every character in your book will be spouting your 20th century intellectual American belief that religion is irrational–and will therefore be more like a 20th century American than anyone 200 years (or whatever) in the future has any right to be. And you, the author, won’t even know it, because it will never occur to you that people could be different. This is because invented cultures are only different from the writer’s own culture when he thinks of making it different and actively tries to do so. Read an old fantasy novel, and everyone is hilariously old-fashioned, because it never occured to the author that it could be otherwise. Perhaps what I should have said is that I think you’ll be able to identify all of 20th century SF writing by the lack of religion–people 200 years in the future will look at our writing and wonder what we were thinking. (Aside: even now, it leaves big holes. I can remember, as a particularly clueless 13-yo, reading the Pern books and vaguely wondering how you could have an entire planet populated by people with relatively little technology who never once wondered about fate, or free will, or God, or any higher power.) I can’t really comment on whether this stuff applies to adult fiction–I prefer almost anything to adult fiction and almost never read it. As for whether religious fiction portrays non-members of the group sympathetically, it depends. “Left behind”–well, not really, no, but then it’s dealing in a world that is explicitly black and white, good and evil. Other, less fundamentalist (or better written) fiction–often, yes. The LDS fiction I’ve read has usually portrayed non-LDS people, whether religious or not, very realistically and sympathetically–maybe because the LDS church has so many converts from other religions and cultures. Those books have little application for non-LDS people, though. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2001, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-movie-that-might-change-your-life-etc-part-2/55106/42 "2001-02-21T00:53:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ladybug \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Five \* > > **ladybug, the movies you list didn’t exactly burn up the box office It has to matter, for purposes of this debate, how successful the movies were. Anyone with an axe to grind and 50 grand can make an anti-Christian (or pro-Christian) movie…** > > Sorry. I thought **flowbark** wanted movies that portray Christianity in a positive light. The reference to “Ebert’s Guide to the Movies” led me to believe that _any_ pro-Christian movie was acceptable, not just blockbusters. > \*\* Well, I’m hardly the final authority here. 🙂 To a first approximation though, I don’t think that it’s Hollywood’s fault if pro-Christian movies are made but are not sufficiently popular. And, BTW, my understanding is that even a fairly low-budget flick costs substantially more to make than 50 grand. Post production costs for Spike Lee’s student movie, She’s Gotta Have It, brought the total bill to over $400,000. (Lee considers the total cost (not including ads or promotion) to have run under $175,000 though.) Rocky (made in the 1970s) was considered a lean production when it came in at a cool million. Five: What I was looking for, actually, were examples of _born again_\* or evangelical Christians seen in a positive light. That may be to much to ask for though: I suspect that most Christians shown are either Catholic or generic. Even better though, would be an idea of the share of Christian or evangelical Christian (or non-Catholic Christian?) portrayals that are positive vs. those that are negative. (We are trying to fight ignorance, after all). 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2001, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-movie-that-might-change-your-life-etc-part-2/55106/43 "2001-02-21T01:18:09Z")
Just addressing a factual point so the thread doesn’t get hijacked into a separate debate: > [@](#): > > And, BTW, my understanding is that even a fairly low-budget flick costs substantially more to make than 50 grand. This is generally true. The classic counter-examples are _The Blair Witch Project_ and Robert Rodriguez’s _El Mariachi_, the former with a reported cost of about $30k, the latter less than $8k. These are front-end costs; by the time you get through post-production, substantially more gets spent. _El Mariachi_, for example, was edited on video. Rodriguez shot it all on scraps and ends, then had the whole thing transferred to video and edited it that way so he’d have something to show to distributors. This was a huge cost savings; after the studio (MGM, IIRC) bought it, they spent a whole lot more than $8k going back to the original negatives and editing from scratch, using the rough-draft video as a template/guide. A good example of a high-profile but low-budget film would be Rod Lurie’s _Deterrence_, starring Kevin Pollack, which from the first handshake to locking the final film cost about half a million. Naturally, that figure doesn’t include P&A, distribution, or anything else; the movie simply cost that much to make. As digital video (plus “digital film,” as used by George Lucas to shoot Star Wars Episode 2) becomes more accepted (Spike Lee shot _Bamboozled_ on high-quality DV), the cost of low-budget movies will drop considerably. Consider the basement-budget adult-video market (I can’t use the p word, natch, for fear of crossing **FoG** ’s ISP); many of those get knocked out for far less than ten grand. The high-class (:p) productions may have budgets ranging up to a million, but most cost substantially less, primarily because they’re shot on video. So, yes, the general point is valid. Movies can be knocked out for fifty grand, but at the moment a professional production costs quite a bit more. Like I said, I’m just trying to summarize a factual point so the thread doesn’t spin off into a lengthy hijack. Carry on. ---
**Author:** ![FriendofGod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ee7513/32.png) [@FriendofGod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriendofGod)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2001, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-movie-that-might-change-your-life-etc-part-2/55106/44 "2001-02-21T02:18:55Z")
Good evening all! Well, tonight I have some time and I’m going to try to respond to as many posts as possible, starting with the last few on the old thread that I missed. Before I do however: **Gaudere** , thank you sincerely for calling me on the carpet. I deserved it for my rudeness. And **DavidB** , I realized earlier today that even though I took back my original statement I never apologized for it, so let me do that here. I could have worded my statement better, and I apologize for being overly harsh. Also, as a _general_ comment on this recent page of posts, let me just say I am somewhat amazed! You guys have done a great job of pointing out Christian themed or quasi Christian themed films, some of which I’ve never heard of but some of which I have. To tell you the truth, you’re making me want to find more of what _you’re_ pointing out than anything else! It’s quite encouraging to see. As I said somewhere in one of the recent posts, it is truly interesting how we all see the world through different glasses. Until this thread (and the other about Christians being persecuted), I don’t think I ever would have thought that atheists today feel harassed in the world today. Maybe some of you wouldn’t have thought Christians felt that way! It’s always great to see how others think. Okay, on to responses … time for another _marathon_ … **Menocchio** said, near the bottom of the last thread: > [@](#): > > Uh huh. Women were actually respected in the fifties. When having a career outside the home was virtually unheard of, and they were expected to be chaste homemakers. Y’know, you can still be objectified w/o being made a sex object. Good point, but you act as if being a homemaker and being chaste is an awful thing. That’s the one downside to the … for lack of a better term ‘feminist revolution’ – women who _want_ to be a homemaker are sort of looked down on in this way (ask any homemaker if she’s a working woman and I’m sure she will say she is!) I said that in the 50’s… > [@](#): > > If someone was in sexual sin, they called it “wrong”, not “alternative lifestyle”. You responded: > [@](#): > > First off, you’re talking about homosexuality here. We’re talking about heterosexuality. Different GD, I’ve never heard of a straight couple “living in sin” being called an “alternative lifestyle”. Good point, that was lazy of me. I should have said: "If someone was in sexual sin, they called it “wrong”, not “your personal choice”. Whatever the phrase, the point is: there was a time when we hadn’t watered down right and wrong into this mindset of “everyone just do what you feel is right”. > [@](#): > > You’re right of course, people are allowed to have sex more feely now. This is not the media’s fault. Rather, the media has changed with the attitudes. And what they “called” it, wasn’t necessarily how they felt about it. Like I said, men were allowed to have premarital sex. It was called the double standard (we got the long end of the stick on this one, son, don’t argue) LOL! I agree up to a point that the media has changed with the times _but_, and this is just my humble op, I believe due to it’s power and influence the media has a responsibility. And sometimes the media _is_ responsible for trends, as opposed to just bending to trends that are already there (Im not even saying all these trends are ‘bad’, just that it happens). Also, as you implied, it’s _not_ just the media. The culture at large has this general mindset that “if you think it’s right, it’s right _for_ _you_”, as if right and wrong were a matter of opinion. Not just in the sexual arena, in _many_ arenas. Are you saying men were allowed to have premarital sex when women were looked down on for doing the same? I’ve heard this “double standard” talked about before and it is truly shameful. I believe … and please don’t laugh your heads off … that it’s the _man’s_ responsibility to keep things from getting too physical in a dating relationship. _Not_ the woman’s, even though in reality the woman ends up in that position. I don’t personally think that’s what God intended. I said: > [@](#): > > One lady I spoke to talked about a woman in her high school who got pregnant out of wedlock and it was the talk of the school. People in the 50s could still be shocked, still be offended, still be embarrassed by sexual sinfulness. You responded: > [@](#): > > What? You’d rather she had an abortion and told no one? Poor girl. Sounds like she needed Christian love and support, not judgement. I’m honestly not sure where you pulled abortion out of that one. There’s a fine line on this issue. On the one hand, of _course_ if a teenager gets pregnant, the only hope she has is to be loved and cared for by her family and those who love her. She has to know she’s loved and accepted no matter what she does. On the other hand, it’s _healthy_ for society to look down on this kind of behavior, and it’s even _healthy_ for a woman who does it to feel a sense of shame. I’m not saying it’s healthy to _continue_ feeling that way, and I’m certainly not saying that any person should _heap_ shame on her. A woman in this situation has to come to God and let Him wash and cleanse her of her sin so she can be free from the guilt and shame. But it’s unhealthy if she does it and feels it’s totally okay, and doesn’t feel any guilt and shame in the first place. (…why do I have the feeling _that_ kicked up some dust on this thread …) > [@](#): > > Pregnancy statistics from that era are notoriously misleading. Lots of girls got disappeared for a while, and then returned with a new “younger sibling”, or else they went off to homes for unwed mothers were their babies were taken from them. all away from unprying eyes. Finally, there was always abortion. If only the infamous back alley abortionist of NARAL’s nightmares. I don’t mean this to sound hard in any way shape or form … but you know what my reaction to this line of reasoning has always been? There are people _today_ who want to feel _comfortable_ in their sin. They want to feel like “they’re not so bad” and that everyone’s _really_ always done this so it can’t be all that bad. _All_ stats _can_ be misleading in lots of ways. For example, they say that teen sex is down right now, which is wonderful, but what is missed is that teen _oral_ sex is on the rise (at least this is a stat I heard on a network news show a couple of weeks ago). I guess it depends on what the meaning of sex is … 😉 Anyway … I’m not accusing you of this personally Mennochio, just saying that I think people tend to just want to make themselves comfortable so they have to rewrite history a little. Just my take on it. Okay, I’ll post this and head for the next response! … to be continued … ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2001, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-movie-that-might-change-your-life-etc-part-2/55106/45 "2001-02-21T02:57:49Z")
FriendofGod wrote: > [@](#): > > Good point, but you act as if being a homemaker and being chaste is an awful thing. Being chaste **is** an awful thing. Have you seen how screwed up people get after just a couple weeks of sexual frustration? Imagine that after several _years!_ ---
**Author:** ![FriendofGod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ee7513/32.png) [@FriendofGod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriendofGod)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2001, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-movie-that-might-change-your-life-etc-part-2/55106/46 "2001-02-21T02:58:10Z")
Oops! I should have scrolled more. Still more from **Mennochio** : > [@](#): > > The problem is, FoG, the examples you cited are very bad television. Ally McBeal reading a Bible? Borrring. I’d rather see her dance w/ Tina Turner. Friends going to church? Well, if it’s taken seriously then it’s out of context for a screwball comedy, not to mention very hard to make entertaining/touching/meaningful for a wide audience The _specific_ examples would be boring, but I guess I didn’t literally mean those exact scenes … I just meant, why can’t there be _major_ characters in series that love Jesus Christ with their whole heart, and why can’t it be a factor in the script at times? And you were saying it could turn into making fun of Christians. Well, it doesn’t have to! I’ve seen dozens of simple skits and plays at churches that poked fun at the things we Christians do, but not in a derisive way! We Christians can be outrageously funny in our behavior. I know you will say I should keep my day job, but I’ve actually imagined hilarious Christianized versions of Seinfeld and Friends before! There are ways it could be done without offending Christians one iota _and_ providing fun entertainment. > [@](#): > > If you want a show that shows the trials and tribulations of Christians today, then you should’ve watched “Nothing Sacred”. Never saw it. It honestly sounded boring to me! You know what _would_ make a good ER-type church drama? Do a weekly dramatic series based on true stories from the church in Amsterdam that is located smack in the middle of the red light district, near prostitutes, gambling, drug dealing, and all kinds of stuff. _That_ would be good TV. I’m not just saying “Christian” stuff. It has to be compelling and interesting. > [@](#): > > If you want a realistic show about a regularly Churchgoing family that prays often. Watch “The Simpsons”. I’ve never seen a family in my life that looks like “The Simpsons” and I hope I never do ;). Okay, now on to **Monty** , who asked: > [@](#): > > So, FoG; you’re saying that not all members of Christian denominations, not even the ministers, are Christians in your view? > > … > > FoG: I forgot to ask you - have you been ordained? As for your first question I’ll reply with the classic line I’m sure all of you have heard: “Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian anymore than going to McDonalds makes you a hamburger”. There are people in the church who will not go to heaven, and there are people out of the church who will. The requirement for going to heaven has nothing whatsoever to do with going to church (although going to a healthy church after you _do_ know God helps you grow tremendously). There is one requirement for going to heaven and being a Christian: receiving Jesus’ gift of salvation and having a love relationship with God as a result. Wanna read something chilling? Here’s Jesus’ comments to several people who called Him their ‘Lord’ (emphasis mine): > [@](#): > > Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father in heaven . . . I will tell them plainly, ‘I never **knew** you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ (Matt 7: 21, 23) He doesn’t say “you didn’t go to church”. He essentially says, “you didn’t **know** me personally”. As for your other question: no, and I’m curious, what made you ask? I’m just an average-Joe Christian and I’ve never been in full-time ministry, although I was actively involved in leadership in a campus ministry in college and other bible studies over the years. I teach computer software for a living. On to **ITR Champion** : > [@](#): > > Christians tried to establish themselves as the authority on the topic of sexual behavior in the media by using the Production Code and others means during the 50’s. This backfired because TV shows, movies, music, and books, especially those aimed at young people, wanted to defy the sexual standards. Although this may have come across as an attack on sexual standards, it really wasn’t. Interesting take. I didn’t live in the 50’s and so I don’t know how it was handled, but there is definately a _right_ way and a _wrong_ way to establish standards. But regardless, the question now is: should you not hold up a standard just because people might defy it? Sure if you hold up a standard, do it in such a way as to not provoke people to rebel against it. But no matter how skilled you are, someone will still want to rebel at some point. Does this mean the standard shouldn’t have been set? You are making a good point. To me the classic example of how the 50’s went **too** far the other way is seeing couples on TV in separate beds. That was ridiculous! That was _as_ ridiculous as seeing unmarried couples sleeping with someone and acting like it’s no biggie! You seem to be saying that people _reacted_ to this overly restrictive attitude by going the other way, which very well may be true … but in order to _do_ that, they did have to attack sexual standards. But maybe the attack was more the end result of a process than the beginning. > [@](#): > > Anyway, one reason why artists “attack” Christianity so often is that they know that they can get a reaction. And this is a healthy thing? (Ie, to “attack” someone for the fun of it to see if you can get a rise out of them?) Dr. Rieux, I just had to comment on this quote: > [@](#): > > Actually, Menocchio, Ross is Jewish–you must have missed the Hanukah episode this season. “I’m the Holidy Armadillo…” THAT was a hilarious episode. David Schwimmer was great in this one. On to part 3 … ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2001, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-movie-that-might-change-your-life-etc-part-2/55106/47 "2001-02-21T03:09:55Z")
FriendofGod wrote: > [@](#): > > “Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian anymore than going to McDonalds makes you a hamburger”. You mean, in order to become a Christian, somebody has to **eat** you?! :eek: ---
**Author:** ![FriendofGod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ee7513/32.png) [@FriendofGod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriendofGod)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2001, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-movie-that-might-change-your-life-etc-part-2/55106/48 "2001-02-21T03:24:41Z")
**Czarcasm** said: > [@](#): > > FoG, you’ve stated that the media has ridiculed Christians. True enough. But the media ridicules everybody. The difference is that the media also goes out of it’s way to support Christianity in particular. There are television shows dedicated to it, both fictional and non-fictional, and there always have been. You cannot listen to the radio in any major(or for that matter small)city and NOT find stations dedicated to Christianity. > > Why don’t you give me the names of television programs specifically dedicated to atheists? > Can you name any nationally syndicated radio program that is specifically dedicated to atheists that have a respectable number of cities listening? VERY interesting points. Again, it’s always interesting to see how people see the world differently. As for atheists having a radio show … to be honest I think it’s just sheer numbers in that situation. There are many more Christians in the USA than atheists. Now if the atheists and humanists and other non-believer types got _together_ and put on a show, I’ll bet you all would tune in! I have to disagree that Christians are ridiculed to the same degree as others. I know you guys have been asking me to give examples, and so I will give you what all I can recall over the years, but it’s not going to be specific enough to really satisfy anyone I don’t think: I’ve seen numerous shows and/or movies over the years where the Christian character was either the nerdiest character in the film and acted like a complete fool, preaching Bible truth in such a way as to make it almost repulsive, OR … the opposite extreme … the most harsh, antagonistic and hateful character in the show/film, ruling with an authoritarian tone. Both highlight people’s misperceptions of God and Christians. As I said I know this will satisfy no one, as these are just vague images in my mind from over the years, I can’t quote what film or show specifically in my mind. But I am not claiming this as “proof” of anything, just pointing out at least part of where my perception comes from. Be back later with more … ---
**Author:** ![super\_head](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@super\_head](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/super_head)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2001, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-movie-that-might-change-your-life-etc-part-2/55106/49 "2001-02-21T03:39:50Z")
I’ve yet to see any sort of retraction about how all those teens today are spitting out babies compared to the 70s, 80s, and 90s… of course, I doubt I will. Christians tend to be selective in their obeying of Biblical law, so a selective memory shouldn’t be too much of a shock. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2001, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-movie-that-might-change-your-life-etc-part-2/55106/50 "2001-02-21T03:53:09Z")
_Tender Mercies_, 1983, starring Robert Duvall as Mac Sledge, an alcoholic ex-country singer who falls in love, gets clean and sober, finds religion (he’s baptized) and resumes his singing career. Duvall won an Oscar for the role; Horton Foote won an Oscar for the screenplay. Bruce Beresford was nominated for Best Director and the film was nominated for Best Picture. And that’s a good refutation for anyone who claims that “pro-Christian movies don’t win Oscars.” ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2001, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-movie-that-might-change-your-life-etc-part-2/55106/51 "2001-02-21T03:58:24Z")
> [@](#): > > I’ve seen numerous shows and/or movies over the years where the Christian character was either the nerdiest character in the film and acted like a complete fool, preaching Bible truth in such a way as to make it almost repulsive, OR … the opposite extreme … the most harsh, antagonistic and hateful character in the show/film, ruling with an authoritarian tone. Both highlight people’s misperceptions of God and Christians. As I said I know this will satisfy no one, as these are just vague images in my mind from over the years, I can’t quote what film or show specifically in my mind… OK, but if the examples were all that numerous, I would think that you (or I) could come up with a few decent examples. What I suspect has happened is that we’ve had a certain belief “over the years” and confused this with a flow of evidence. (Admittedly, I have substantially less invested in this perception than you do.) Given my brief examination of this contention and the evidence presented earlier in the thread, I conclude that evidence for a systematic anti-fundamentalist Christian bias in the entertainment media is pretty sparse. While I’m sure that examples of nefarious Christians can be found (TV Evangelicals make tempting targets on screen), those images are rarer than I thought and at any rate are counterbalanced by a small number of positive Christian portrayals and a much larger number of mad scientists. ---
**Author:** ![MusicJunkie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df788c/32.png) [@MusicJunkie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MusicJunkie)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2001, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-movie-that-might-change-your-life-etc-part-2/55106/52 "2001-02-21T03:59:41Z")
I just can’t believe you man, you make some absurd estatements and want people to take you seriously and if they don’t you start to whine. You are a bad example to christianity anywhere. > [@](#): > > Good point, but you act as if being a homemaker and being chaste is an awful thing. That’s the one downside to the … for lack of a better term ‘feminist revolution’ – women who _want_ to be a homemaker are sort of looked down on in this way (ask any homemaker if she’s a working woman and I’m sure she will say she is!) There are still lot’s of women who do stay at home and if they feel ashamed of it well, I’m sorry. Try and find a woman on the 50’s who worked outside or had an active sexual life and ask her about it. What answer would you expect, a trueful one? To me the bad side of the feminist revolution to me is this “women don’t need reason, that is just an instrument of the white male opression, because we have intuiton that is much more accurate” crap. > [@](#): > > Good point, that was lazy of me. I should have said: "If someone was in sexual sin, they called it “wrong”, not “your personal choice”. Whatever the phrase, the point is: there was a time when we hadn’t watered down right and wrong into this mindset of “everyone just do what you feel is right”. So what? > [@](#): > > Also, as you implied, it’s _not_ just the media. The culture at large has this general mindset that “if you think it’s right, it’s right _for_ _you_”, as if right and wrong were a matter of opinion. Not just in the sexual arena, in _many_ arenas. Right and wrong are a matter of personal opinion. Even the bible is suitable of interpretations so that what’s right there doesn’t stop being right when the time changes. Or am I going to get stoned to death because I work on saturdays? > [@](#): > > I don’t mean this to sound hard in any way shape or form … but you know what my reaction to this line of reasoning has always been? There are people _today_ who want to feel _comfortable_ in their sin. They want to feel like “they’re not so bad” and that everyone’s _really_ always done this so it can’t be all that bad. _All_ stats _can_ be misleading in lots of ways. For example, they say that teen sex is down right now, which is wonderful, but what is missed is that teen _oral_ sex is on the rise (at least this is a stat I heard on a network news show a couple of weeks ago). I guess it depends on what the meaning of sex is … It’s very hard for oral sex to transmit diseases and it doesn’t get anyone pregnant so what’s wrong? > [@](#): > > “Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian anymore than going to McDonalds makes you a hamburger”. This speaks for itself. ---
**Author:** ![Mercutio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/51bf81/32.png) [@Mercutio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mercutio)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2001, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-movie-that-might-change-your-life-etc-part-2/55106/53 "2001-02-21T04:26:56Z")
Disclaimer Disclaimer Disclaimer - My views are not to be taken as fact, nor do I want anyone to take them as fact. They are what they are, opinions and views. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by FriendofGod \* > The _specific_ examples would be boring, but I guess I didn’t literally mean those exact scenes … I just meant, why can’t there be _major_ characters in series that love Jesus Christ with their whole heart, and why can’t it be a factor in the script at times? I do not know if this has been brought up but, **Foggie** , have you heard of this little show on the WB network called “7th Heaven” about a pastor and his 7 children? > [@](#): > > And you were saying it could turn into making fun of Christians. Well, it doesn’t have to! I’ve seen dozens of simple skits and plays at churches that poked fun at the things we Christians do, but not in a derisive way! We Christians can be outrageously funny in our behavior. **Foggie** , you said it all. Dozens of simple skits and plays that cater to a Christian audience will not be enough to make a long running show out of and will not cater to the American public. > [@](#): > > I know you will say I should keep my day job, but I’ve actually imagined hilarious Christianized versions of Seinfeld and Friends before! There are ways it could be done without offending Christians one iota _and_ providing fun entertainment. That is all well and good… if a majority of America is like you… which I doubt. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > If you want a realistic show about a regularly Churchgoing family that prays often. Watch “The Simpsons”. > > I’ve never seen a family in my life that looks like “The Simpsons” and I hope I never do ;). Another way you trip over yourself, fogster. A normal family, whether Christian, Athiest, Hindu, whathaveyou will never make a good show. Show me a show that is based souly on a religous main character, any religion. It’s not gonna happen, it’ll come up once in a while but it will not be the pillar for a show. I still have not seen Christians portrayed in a bad light; Christian characters? Yes. But solely because they are Christian? No. > [@](#): > > The requirement for going to heaven has nothing whatsoever to do with going to church (although going to a healthy church after you _do_ know God helps you grow tremendously). There is one requirement for going to heaven and being a Christian: receiving Jesus’ gift of salvation and having a love relationship with God as a result. Please, oh please. Use a disclaimer once in a while!!! you do not want to give people the impression that you think your opinions are fact. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Anyway, one reason why artists “attack” Christianity so often is that they know that they can get a reaction. > > And this is a healthy thing? (Ie, to “attack” someone for the fun of it to see if you can get a rise out of them?) I think a lot of todays comedy relies on shock value. A lot of the things that make something so funny is the fact that they challenge people’s view of what is offensive, such as George Carlin and his famous “7 words you can’t say on TV” skit. I **believe** that aritists “attack” the religous right because the right is for a return to family values and the left is for more of a sexual liberation. It’s not that the Christians get attacked because they are Christian, but because the face they put out to the public, is an uptight one. But don’t take my word for it… ---
**Author:** ![Fiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e274bd/32.png) [@Fiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiver)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2001, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-movie-that-might-change-your-life-etc-part-2/55106/54 "2001-02-21T04:30:01Z")
**flowbark** : > [@](#): > > And, BTW, my understanding is that even a fairly low-budget flick costs substantially more to make than 50 grand. See **Cervaise** ’s post. But you do understand I just pulled the “50 grand” number out of my ass, right? My point was just that any yahoo with a message and some resources, however meager or crude, can make an anti-Christian movie. And it won’t necessarily reflect a humanist Hollywood scheme to destroy Christianity. And, that’s why it’s not enough of an argument either way simply to list films with a particular point of view; it has to matter how successful they are if any point is to be proved. > [@](#): > > Even better though, would be an idea of the share of Christian or evangelical Christian (or non-Catholic Christian?) portrayals that are positive vs. those that are negative. (We are trying to fight ignorance, after all). 😉 That would be good. Get right on that, would ya? I think the reason Catholics are (probably) over-represented in movies and TV is because they serve as a simple visual shorthand when you need someone instantly recognizable as a Christian, or clergyman. You wouldn’t automatically distinguish a Baptist pastor from any other man in a shiny suit and too much hairspray. But a man in a clerical collar, or a woman in a habit? Got it. ---
**Author:** ![DoctorJ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctorj/32/2904_2.png) [@DoctorJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DoctorJ)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2001, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-movie-that-might-change-your-life-etc-part-2/55106/55 "2001-02-21T04:42:52Z")
> [@](#): > > And you were saying it could turn into making fun of Christians. Well, it doesn’t have to! I’ve seen dozens of simple skits and plays at churches that poked fun at the things we Christians do, but not in a derisive way! We Christians can be outrageously funny in our behavior. “Hens love roosters! Geese love ganders! Everyone else loves Ned Flanders!” (Sorry, only the hard-core Simpsons geeks will get this one, but I couldn’t get it out of my head.) Dr. J ---
**Author:** ![Flymaster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c4cdca/32.png) [@Flymaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flymaster)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2001, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-movie-that-might-change-your-life-etc-part-2/55106/56 "2001-02-21T05:40:17Z")
Not me! Everyone who counts loves Ned Flanders! But more to the point, The Simpsons is the perfect example of what FoG is looking for, I think. Church going family, oftentimes struggling with their faith, poking fun at other religions (Hindus, anyone?) along the way, without being insulting to anybody. The Simpsons is about as close to a “Christian” show as you’re going to get and still make an entertaining comedy. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2001, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-movie-that-might-change-your-life-etc-part-2/55106/57 "2001-02-21T06:07:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by FriendofGod \* > Okay, now on to **Monty** , who asked: > > > [@](#): > > > > So, FoG; you’re saying that not all members of Christian denominations, not even the ministers, are Christians in your view? > > > > … > > > > FoG: I forgot to ask you - have you been ordained? > > As for your first question I’ll reply with the classic line I’m sure all of you have heard: “Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian anymore than going to McDonalds makes you a hamburger”. There are people in the church who will not go to heaven, and there are people out of the church who will. I definitely did not ask if someone was going to church. I definitely did ask if you considered some specific folks Christians in your view. You are evading the question and answering an unasked question. > [@](#): > > As for your other question: no, and I’m curious, what made you ask? Just maybe because I have been ordained. I’m fully prepared to hear from you what other Fundamentalists have said to me; to wit, “But that’s not a REAL priesthood!” If (and when) you do, then you’ll see my response, which will be polite as it always is when I hear that. > [@](#): > > I’m just an average-Joe Christian and I’ve never been in full-time ministry, although I was actively involved in leadership in a campus ministry in college and other bible studies over the years. I sincerely pray that you are not the average of that particular persuasion. You will note that this is my opinion and one stated as such. Well my opinion and my stated course of action. > [@](#): > > I teach computer software for a living. Funny. I was under the impression that a good grounding in Logic was a prerequisite for that. BTW: At least one other poster, IIRC, has formally studied Theology, so you might want to hit the books, and not just The Book, before taking on the qualified. 2nd BTW: You have yet to answer my other question. ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2001, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-movie-that-might-change-your-life-etc-part-2/55106/58 "2001-02-21T06:24:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by FriendofGod \* > \*\*Since it is obviously a waste of my time to convince you of your folly, I will simply summarize my thoughts on this mini-debate within a debate as follows: > > 1. My not giving proof for my original claim does not “prove” that it’s not a true claim. > 2. DavidB, myself and others giving a handful of examples antithical to the original claim does not “prove” that it’s not a true claim. > > That’s just plain common sense. > \*\* FoG, if our providing cites, quotes, and news reports documenting extensive persecution of atheists and Wiccans, including statements by congressmen and Presidents that Wiccans and atheists should be stripped of their rights, including an example of FC’s trying to hound an atheist out of his job, including another example of FC’s _stoning_ people whom they believe to be Wiccans, all in the face of nebulous hand-waving and a total lack of evidence on your part, isn’t enough to prove you wrong… THEN WHAT IN THE SAM HILL DOES IT TAKE TO PROVE YOU WRONG? I mean, does Jesus himself have to slap you silly before you admit you’re wrong? Maybe even that won’t be enough. I mean, think of it: you delivered false prophecies which you attributed to God. The Bible itself says you’re wrong, and even then you won’t admit to being wrong! -Ben ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2001, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-movie-that-might-change-your-life-etc-part-2/55106/59 "2001-02-21T07:35:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Five \* > But you do understand I just pulled the “50 grand” number out of my ass, right? LOL > [@](#): > > My point was just that any yahoo with a message and some resources, however meager or crude, can make an anti-Christian movie. ok. But my point was that the film can be rather schlocky and still cost more like 500-1000 grand, including distribution. The examples Cervaise and I cited were at the **far** low end of the spectrum. I guess all I’m really saying is that we shouldn’t rule out B-flicks such as “Ernest Makes Another Pathetic Movie”, or “Police Academy LVI: We’ll Make 'Em As Long As You See 'Em”, since their cost would overwhelm the annual budget of your typical parish. Gotta admit though, I don’t know what sort of budget Hallmark Entertainment allocated to, “Mary, Mother of Jesus” (1999). > [@](#): > > That would be good. Get right on that, would ya? Data: I originally asked that someone with an Ebert CD ROM to a search under “Christian”, “Fundamentalist”, “Baptist” or whatnot. Reporting the results for the first 10 or so matches really wouldn’t take that long. Oh, and thanks for the movie lists, **Cervaise** and **ladybug**. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2001, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-movie-that-might-change-your-life-etc-part-2/55106/60 "2001-02-21T13:54:50Z")
Sorry I’m late to the party, this is old, but I can’t leave it. > [@](#): > > Unfortunately for all of us that were pulling for it, you are correct. It seems at this point that Cloud Ten’s decision to release to video first was as bad of an idea as it’s seemed all along. As far as I know, the video was the #1 selling video of 2000, beating Toy Story and Green Mile. If the people who had bought the video all been at the _theatre_ Friday, it almost certainly would have been top 10 at least. FoG, do you have a cite for this. You see, my husband works in the business (home video), and he’d never heard of the movie. He gets to do things like track national sales figures for video and DVD releases. A cite might look like this: Published on 01/21/2001, AKRON BEACON JOURNAL TOPS FOR 2000 Billboard reports that the best-selling home video of 2000 was The Matrix (Warner). The most popular rental title was American Pie (Universal). I’ll give you some more help…here are some links to get you started: [http://www.billboard.com](http://www.billboard.com) [http://www.videobusiness.com](http://www.videobusiness.com) He did say Toy Story sold bonkers over the last quarter, and that what generally sits on top of the charts for weeks at a time is whatever Playboy has released recently. He was going to try and get some actual sales figures, although he is kind of swamped right now. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-movie-that-might-change-your-life-etc-part-2/55106.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-movie-that-might-change-your-life-etc-part-2/55106.md?page=4)