[shield]

Hollyweirdo thinks The Name of Jesus is more dangerous for our children than movies with sex, drugs and violence.

[weegee]

What next? Extreme Republican Content?

The old censor boards used to have to codify what was "offensive" ahead of submission (so it could not be applied on a subjective basis).

HG Lewis went into gore films back in 1962 because while his nudie cuties would run afoul of the local censor boards, there were no rules against heavy grue (back then).

The same could be said of the grossout humor (vomit, etc.) that came in with John Waters but went mainstream in the 1990s.

So out of what orifice did they dig in to create a new level of "outrage" over religious content?

There are newspapers that will not advertise unrated films (figuring them to be akin to X). It is therefore a commercial requirement to seek and receive an MPAA rating.

When ideology becomes a factor in the ratings process (not graphic content but thoughtcrime), the wheels are rolling to shelter the masses from views that the left deems "politically incorrect". That is what "objectionable material" ratings are.

[lovecraft]

Good for them, I'll buy a ticket to support them.

[napscoordinator]

Good!!!! Who cares? I mean really. We are fighting War on Terror and you are complaining about G or PG. Disgusting.

[thulldud]

The red flag PG rating acts as a warning to parents that the movie advocates a particular religion, in this case Christianity, and that parents might want to beware.

Absolutely. That stuff will have your kids blowing themselves up in Israeli pizza parlors and shooting up their high schools.

[little jeremiah]

List?

[trisham]

What on earth have we come to? This is insane.

[AmishDude]

They should advertise it PG "Perfectly Godly".