PG or not PG?

When it comes to "Facing the Giants," the one thing the players in Hollywood and the Bible Belt agree on is that this Christian indie flick deserves a PG rating.

That PG rating isn't what has ticked off talk radio, Christian bloggers and some Capitol Hill conservatives. They want to know if the Motion Picture Association of America thinks the "P" in PG stands for " proselytizing" and the "G" for "Gospel."

The bottom line: Salvation can be as offensive as sex and swearing.

"We're seeing something new with this movie," said Kris Fuhr, vice president for marketing at Provident Films, which is owned by Sony BMG. "People who work in this business have always thought that the MPAA based its ratings on actions, on what people actually did in a movie. If you did certain things or said certain words, then you got a certain rating.

"Now it seems like the board is rating a movie on the basis of the ideas that are in it and whether it thinks those ideas are going to offend people."

"Facing the Giants" tells the story of a depressed high-school coach named Grant Taylor whose life takes a miraculous turn for the better. It includes explicit scenes of prayer and Bible reading, along with several strategic acts of God on and off the football field. The producers have not challenged the PG rating.

The movie was created by Alex and Stephen Kendrick, two brothers who are "media pastors" at Sherwood Baptist Church in Albany, Ga. Working with a $100,000 budget, they used volunteers as actors, extras and technicians, assisted by a few professionals behind the cameras. Provident plans to open the film in about 400 theaters nationwide this fall, with the help of Samuel Goldwyn Films.

Headlines about the PG rating for "Facing the Giants" created a buzz that quickly reached Washington, D.C.

"This incident raises the disquieting possibility that the MPAA considers exposure to Christian themes more dangerous to children that exposure to gratuitous sex and mindless violence," said Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri, the third-ranking House Republican. He suggested that Congress might want to look into this issue, along with reports that "ratings creep" is increasing the amount of sex and violence in movies.

This drew a quick letter from MPAA chairman Glickman, a veteran Democrat who served in Congress and on President Bill Clinton's cabinet.

"Any strong or mature discussion of any subject material results in at least a PG rating," he said. "This movie had a mature discussion about pregnancy, for example. It also had other mature discussions that some parents might want to be aware of before taking their kids to this movie.

"Roy, I assure you that religion was not the reason this movie got a PG rating."

This raised another question: What about those "other mature discussions" in the movie? What were they about?

The MPAA board works in total secrecy and, other than its leader, members are anonymous. However, chairwoman Joan Graves granted a rare interview to discuss the "Facing the Giants" case – after receiving thousands of calls and emails.

"If we see someone on the screen practicing their faith and indicating that they have a faith, that's not something we PG," she told the Los Angeles Times.

This was an interesting choice of words, since hardly anyone had claimed that the movie was rated PG simply because it contained religious characters and expressions of faith. The key issue was whether its evangelistic content was offensive. Instead of merely showing faith, "Facing the Giants" dared to include scenes that made a case for conversion to Christianity.

Thus, another MPAA official noted that – in addition to discussions of pregnancy and infertility – the movie included some proselytizing. "Parents might want to know" when a movie openly advocates one religion over other religions, John Feehery, the board's executive vice president of external affairs, told The Hill newspaper.

So it is acceptable for movie characters to practice a religious faith, as long as they don't try to convert others.

Proselytism is a bad idea.

"I guess it's OK," said Fuhr, "if the MPAA warns people about some of the ideas that they will run into at the movies. ... The problem is that there are all kinds of ideas in movies that tend to offend different kinds of people. Will the board be consistent?"

About those 'Left Behind' readers

When it comes to describing the end of the world, millions of readers are convinced that the "Left Behind" books contain the gospel truth.

This isn't surprising since these 12 novels – backed by sequels, movies, video games and comic books – have sold 70 million copies. For most readers, the page-turners cranked out by writer Jerry Jenkins and preacher Tim LaHaye form a pop-culture catechism that explains some of the Bible's most mysterious passages, said researcher Robert Woods of Spring Arbor University.

But a recent survey of "Left Behind" readers did yield one big surprise. While nearly 69 percent were, as expected, evangelical and mainline Protestants, 8.6 percent of the readers were Catholics and the remaining 22.8 percent said they practiced Islam, Judaism, Buddhism or another world religion. Why did they dig into these books?

"Curiosity was a big reason," said Woods, who teaches communications at the evangelical campus in Michigan. "It also seems that many of them thought that by reading these books they could learn about

Christianity. ... So now they think that what the 'Left Behind' books teach is what ordinary Christians believe about the end times."

For many non-Christians, he said, the words "Left Behind" and "Christianity" are now tightly linked. They have been fed a pop version of "premillennial dispensationalism," a complicated 19th Century doctrinal system that says Jesus will reign for 1,000 years on earth after the last trumpet sounds, the dead rise and the true Christians are "raptured" to meet Christ in the air.

Many Christian leaders will find this disturbing. This is especially true since there is a born-again believer in the White House and the daily news is full of explosive headlines about the Middle East, the

tense region that dominates the apocalyptic plots in these novels.

"I don't want people to pigeonhole the Protestant view of the end times," said Woods. "But you know, there are lots of people who, if you tell them you are an evangelical, then they are immediately going

to say, 'That means you're one of those Pat Robertson, Jesus freak Christians.' Now there are people who, if you say you are an evangelical, they are going to say, 'Oh, you're one of those 'Left Behind' Christians.' "

The Spring Arbor team – Woods, Kelly Skarritt and statistician Caleb Chan – began with a 33-item survey that was posted at the official Tyndale House website used to promote the "Left Behind" series. This invitation drew 16,916 voluntary responses. The researchers then did an in-depth, random study of 1,312 readers drawn from this larger flock.

Once again, many of the results were predictable. No one was surprised – because of previous research by evangelical pollsters – that the typical "Left Behind" reader is a female, married, white,

evangelical, politically conservative, Bible-Belt resident who is between 30-something and 50-something and who goes to church almost as often as she consumes Christian mass media.

On the other side of this divide were those least likely to appreciate the fiction of LaHaye and Jenkins. These readers were more likely to be male, single, black or Hispanic, politically progressive and residents of the American West or Northeast.

However, most of the readers – their denominational ties didn't matter – said they believe that the "Left Behind" books are highly accurate portrayals of what the Bible teaches about the end of the world or, at least, the beliefs of conservative Christians about that subject.

When readers were asked about their motivations, the most intense clusters of responses came from those who affirmed that they read the books in order to compare what they "say about the 'end times' with what the Bible says" or because the series explains the "events described in the book of Revelation in an understandable way."

The goal, said Woods, is to do more research into why so many non-Christians read the "Left Behind" series and the impact the books had on their beliefs.

"Most forms of Christian entertainment just 'rock the flock' that already lives in our gospel ghettos," he said. "But it does seem that this form of media – apocalyptic fiction – is reaching some new people in our post-9/11 culture. It appears that there really are people out there who are curious about ultimate issues. We may be on the verge of another wave of rapture culture."

Fighting blasphemy laws is blasphemy

OXFORD, England – Abdul Rahman of Afghanistan was not the first Muslim convert to Christianity to be sentenced to death and he will not be the last.

Human-rights activists around the world cheered when – despite efforts by the post-Taliban parliament – he was allowed to seek asylum in Italy. Other converts have been less fortunate, facing imprisonment, abuse, torture and death at the hands of state officials or vigilantes in Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey, Nigeria, Indonesia and elsewhere.

While Rahman's plight drew waves of prayers, few Western believers noticed a related case last year that was just as important, according to Paul Marshall, of Freedom House's Center for Religious Freedom.

Journalist Ali Mohaqeq Nasab was jailed for his work with Women's Rights magazine in Kabul. Among his many sins, the liberal Shiite cleric had argued that Muslim apostates should not face execution. Thus, radicals demanded that he face the gallows himself. He repented.

"If it is blasphemous to discuss charges of blasphemy, then you have in effect a totalitarian system," said Marshall, one of my colleagues at the Oxford Centre for Religion and Public Life. We both took part in a seminar last week for journalists from around the world, focusing on blasphemy and freedom of the press.

"Blasphemy charges mean that you cannot discuss the blasphemy charges. Hence, seeking to remove, minimize or otherwise immobilize legal bans on blasphemy, apostasy, insulting Islam and insulting public religious sentiments is an indispensable first step in creating the necessary political space for debate that could lead to other reforms. Unless you can get this out of the way, you can't discuss other issues."

It's crucial, said Marshall, to realize that Islamists are using laws against apostasy and blasphemy to threaten liberal Muslims just as often, or more often, than against actual converts. When Osama bin Laden issues pronouncements against blasphemy, he reserves his strongest words for Muslims who want to compromise with the West.

There is no law higher for Muslims than Sharia law and no courts higher than those that enforce it. One notorious law in Pakistan says: "Whoever, by words either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by imputation, innuendo or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) shall be punished by death."

The ultimate insult is for a Muslim to abandon the faith. So it matters little that the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief. ..."

In recent years, powerful Muslims in Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere have urged their Sharia courts to restore and enforce traditional penalties for crimes such as apostasy and "blasphemy against the prophet," said Anglican Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali of Rochester, who grew up in a primarily Shiite family in Pakistan.

The bottom line is that penalties other than death are viewed as repugnant to Islam. Judges have little room to maneuver and the whole world is watching.

"The question, of course, is whether in a world such as ours – which is increasingly interconnected – religions have to be accountable not only to themselves and their followers, but to others," said the bishop. "Questions of personal liberty, of life, cannot be left just to circles of believers."

Nevertheless, it may become harder for moderate Muslims and their allies to avoid these questions, even in the safety of the West. Earlier this year, an organization called "Supporters of God's Messenger" sent out an email threatening to kill 30 or more "atheists," "polytheists" and Muslims who cooperate with "worshippers of the cross" and other believers.

Marshall noted that the message called people by name, including Muslims in America, and included information about their home addresses, their children's schools and times when their wives were alone at home.

"Appeasement of such groups will not work," he said. If Western leaders fail to take a stand, "violent Islamists will accept their victory and move on to demand the next part of their agenda – the silencing or death of those who reject or criticize their program, including, especially, Muslims. ...

"If even Western democracies cannot provide the political space for Muslims to debate these critical questions concerning the meaning of Islam, then all hope of an Islamic reform movement will be lost."

That other Zion conspiracy

The conspiracy is almost too big for words and its secrets have been protected through the ages by a hidden society around the world.

It has given birth to organizations large and small, from local Lions Clubs to the Communist Party. It has started revolutions and manipulated the world's wars. Using their great wealth, the conspirators control mass media and steer the churches.

No, this isn't part of "The Da Vinci Code."

This is a different Zion conspiracy. This is the great Jewish plot, as described by an early covenant in the Islamist organization Hamas. Where can one learn the truth?

"Zionism scheming has no end, and after Palestine, they will covet expansion from the Nile to the Euphrates River," proclaims article 32. "When they have finished digesting the area on which they have laid their hand, they will look forward to more expansion. Their scheme has been laid out in the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion.' "

Sooner of later, anyone who studies modern anti-Semitism ends up studying this infamous document, with its 24 chapters that claim to reveal the minutes of a vast Jewish network that rules the world. Although its origins are the subject of debate, scholars agree that it emerged in 1905 in Russia and has become a touchstone text for conspiracy insiders around the world.

"Conspiracy theories are, by their very nature, insidiously seductive. It doesn't matter if you are talking about who shot John Kennedy, who blew up the World Trade Center or who is driving up oil prices," said Daniel Greene, curator of a U.S. Holocaust Museum exhibition entitled "A Dangerous Lie: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

"A great conspiracy theory answers all kinds of questions in a very uncomplicated way. It gives you the secret information that you need to know to understand why some people are oppressed and others are powerful. And, of course, if anyone says they have evidence that proves that the conspiracy theory is wrong, then that just proves that they are part of the conspiracy. You can't win."

This conspiracy can be summed up in four words: "The Jews did it."

As could be expected, Nazi Germany produced 23 or more editions of "The Protocols." By this time, explained Greene, Adolf Hitler did not need to quote the text by name, because its ideas had become part of the air he was breathing. There is also evidence that German leaders knew the book was a fake.

"I believe that 'The Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion' are a forgery," wrote master propagandist Joseph Goebbels. However, he also said, "I believe in the intrinsic, but not the factual truth of the 'Protocols.' "

The current exhibit, which precedes a larger project about propaganda scheduled for 2008, demonstrates that this text's unique brand of hatred knows no borders – especially not in the Internet age.

There is a copy of industrialist Henry Ford's 1920 book entitled "The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem." There is a Pakistani edition of "The Protocols" that King Faisel of Saudi Arabia offered to foreign diplomats as a gift. There is another another edition in Japanese, which is a mystery to many scholars since there are fewer than 1,000 Jews in Japan, out of a population of nearly 130 million.

An edition recently published in Syria suggests that the 9/11 attacks were planned and executed by Jews, seeking a way to further involve the United States in the Middle East. An infamous Spanish edition is even more cynical. It shows finger puppets representing the U.S. economy, the Masons, the Communists, Christianity and the Nazi swastika – all being controlled by a palm marked with the Star of David.

Yes, there are anti-Semites who insist that Jews planned the Holocaust as a deadly gambit that would give them the ultimate "victim" trump card in international affairs.

Do they really believe this?

"They may want to believe that it is true because, to them, it feels true," said Greene. "So there is truthiness out there and, from the beginning, 'The Protocols' has been an assault on the very idea of truth. But people are supposed to debate the facts, not what they feel in their gut. If people will use their heads, they will be able to see this kind of hatred for what it is."