# violence in the media: hypocrisy!!



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

I'm still fuming from listening to the Diane Rehm show this morning on NPR, talking about Gibson's bloodbath, The Passion.

A christian pastor said that he took his whole family to see the movie, including his 3 daughters aged 16, 12, and 8







. Yes folks, this is an R rated movie and, from all accounts, incredibly violent and graphic.

Amazing, isn't it? The very same people who rally to get rap CD's banned, to put censorship labels on everything, huge warnings about graphic sex and language...these very same people are BRAGGING about how their 8 year old cried and shook while watching "what our Saviour went through for us".

Oh, and how were they able to bring young kids into an R-rated movie? They rented out the theatre for a private congregational viewing.







:

I thought what was important was that Jesus died for their sins, not what it looks like when a human being has nails driven through his flesh! Where are these peoples' priorities??!!

And on a radio show only a few weeks earlier, another christian pastor said that his whole congregation was "mortified and appalled" while, when watching the Superbowl, they were "assaulted" with the image of JJ's bare breast and had to "scramble to cover our children's eyes".

??????

The excuse was "well yes it is violent but it's all true and it's important to know what Jesus went through". Well, in that case, why not take your 6 year old to see Platoon. After all, that war was real, too. What better way to get them to see how evil war really is?

At least the Catholic priest said he felt the violence was too much and did not encourage his parish to take young children. And of course the lone Jewish rabbi was oh so delicate when he said that he basically told his congregation not to watch it b/c it was just too much gratuituos violence and that the story of Jesus could be much better learned from other sources.

Am I the only one here who is just outraged at the level of hypocrisy? Not to mention the RIDICULOUS prioritization of naked breast = children scarred for life but graphic torture of an innocent human being = spiritually moving experience???
























_edited to add: I don't think I made it clear here, despite my rambling, that what really horrifies me is the thought of young children being exposed to such violence under the thin pretense that they somehow "need" this to understand their faith. As a parent, I think this it is psychologically abusive and has absolutely nothing to do with the peace and brotherly love taught by jesus. i know there are at least some christians who agree, so I'm not trying to dump on the whole faith._


----------



## Nelybel (Oct 16, 2003)

I don't have anything profound to add here (baby is about to wake up...just did in fact).

Just want to say I totally agree with you and am frustrated by this as well.

(Piglet, I always enjoy your posts!)

Sorry - baby calling.

J


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

The excuse was "well yes it is violent but it's all true and it's important to know what Jesus went through".
Yeah, well, I want my kids to know what black people go through, so that's fine with me if they want to listen to rap!

These are the same kinds of people who don't want young children to know "the truth" about how Columbus drove an entire race of people into extinction "because of all the violence."







:


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

seriously, is anybody really surprised? this culture worships violence. this film is a deification of violence. whether its fake blood of a fake Yeshua on a screen or real blood of innocent Iraqi children on Fox, it doesn't matter, it's all good.

unless it's images of dead American soldiers arriving from overseas in coffins. that, somehow, is "too graphic". action without consequence. power without responsibility.


----------



## Irishmommy (Nov 19, 2001)

Piglet, ITA


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

It's just like all those people who want to stop violence committed by youth towards adults, but think it's fine as long as it's the other way around.

We decide that "we're not going to tolerate violence" but it really means we just won't tolerate it from a certain class of people.


----------



## daylily (Dec 1, 2001)

I agree with you too, Piglet.

I'm a Catholic, and as such, I feel I should be well aware of how Jesus suffered for humankind, but no way do I believe I need to see this sort of brutality on film just to bouy my faith--and especially my childrens. Eee-gads! I don't even want to imagine how my eight year old would react to that film.


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

I completely agree that children have no place viewing such horrible violence, why kill their innocence?

I just wanted to point out that I have seen articles, sort of on the other side of this, saying that the mainstream press, who usually couldn't care less about violence in any form, is all up in arms about the violence in this movie







And that many people have no problem with their children using violent video games, and seeing other violent movies, but complain about the violence in this one







:

I think one nice thing about being here (MDC) is that no matter what you think about the appropriateness of the violence in this movie- we all are smart enough to know it has no place for our kids


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

ITA







With all of you. I do not get it either.







:


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum (Jul 11, 2002)

I was watching Jay Leno last night and he was talking about this with Ebert & Roeper. He said something that made total sense.

The violence in action movies, is removed from reality. Frequently it is over the top and you don't see the results of the car blowing up. YOu never see the bodies in there. There are exceptions, but on the whole it is obvious that it isn't really happening.

This movie, on the other hand, shows the actual results, the physcal results - up close and in technicolor.

Jay said that normallly it doesn't bother him, but this movie sort of shocked him.

I kind of agree with that statement. It is one thing to see a gun fight in an action movie, and see an actor look like they got hit with a bullet, but to never see the result. It is entirely another to see someone get beaten with a whip and see the whip hitting the flesh and the blood and the reaction and so on.

I dunno - haven't seen it - not gonna. I don't do well with violence of that order. I can watch Bad Boys, or and Arnold movie no problem, but anything the so specifically highlights humans cruelty to other human usually makes me ill.


----------



## Mom4tot (Apr 18, 2003)

8 years old??? What is wrong with people?!

Makes me sick.


----------



## Tigerchild (Dec 2, 2001)

What disturbs me about young Christian children going to see this movie is that they will have flashbacks now every time they sit in church and hear 'Jesus died for your sins'.

While I think that it's not such a bad idea for *adults* who have fully chosen their faith to contemplate the agony and suffering of their savior...kids just aren't able to handle it in the same way. I don't think this movie will rob them of their innocence--instead their innocence and self-centric worldview natural to all children may cause them a lot of pain because they feel this 'fault' much more keenly than any adult can or will.

It makes me wonder about the ramifications of tying those visual and auditory images to a child that early on whether or not they can stomach staying in the church long term.

I also do not understand why many pastors I've heard seem to think that this movie is suitable for evangelical outreach! I think it is good for Christians to renew faith, or to remind them that the cross is not clean and smooth and only a piece of jewelry or the focal point of the lovely sanctuary one sits in on Sunday morning. Maybe it will help the American church in particular not be so damned lukewarm about spirituality (which gets ignored in the rush to political extremism). This seems to be Christian movie made for Christians.

Jesus, after all, didn't gain his original followers by his death...but drew them first to himself through his teachings, and then by who he claimed to be.

As someone who was once Christian but has made a faith-based decision to reject the church and go on my own path (though I still have a great love for Jesus and his teachings--most of them, anyway) I can tell you this movie will not reach me. It doesn't tell me anything I don't already know. I think it's a sad commentary that the same leaders who wring their hands about images of sex and violence in the general media *do not even question* the effects of a much more horrifying violence on their own children just because of who the actors portray. It's frustrating to me that they don't (or won't admit to) even consider the consequences.

But, to be fair, there are many conservative evagelical leaders who ARE saying to not take kids or preteens to it.

I guess it just goes to show you that just because you're religious it doesn't mean that you are shielded from the same sort of idiocy as people who take 6 year olds to slasher or gangster films. I've never been to an R-rated movie that didn't have at least 3 or 4 young kids sitting in the audience. Why I expected Christians to be smarter about this, I dunno.


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

Wonderful post, Tigerchild!

ITA about the longer term effects on the child, too. Especially compounded with the whole "look what Jesus went through because you're a sinner" motif.

I have a theory about this that I would like to toss out there to y'all.

I have found that with each deep loss or trauma in my life, I have become increasingly sensitive to violence in the media. After my brother died (in a small plane crash) I "felt" the losses of all the families I'd hear about in the news. A bus crash in Nowhere, Tennesse suddenly became deeply meaningful to me, as I felt I could empathize with families who lost people on that bus. I became increasingly unable to watch certain things on TV and grew much less desensitized to violence, even when I knew it was fictional.

So my theory is this: people who have actually *lived* through real violence, people who have gone through wars, seen neighbours and relatives killed, tortured, blown up etc...I'm guessing these people have no interest in watching violence on TV, especially fictional (read: gratuitous) violence.

And yet here in America, where most people have never experienced a war (in their own neighbourhood) or suffered the brutal murder of a loved one, or the political torture of a close relative in another country, etc....I'm betting it is these people who romanticize violence, especially when they feel a "justification" for it (eg. violence in the Passion is okay b/c it is real and part of our faith). These are the people for whom violence is entertainment.

Whattaya think?


----------



## Pam_and_Abigail (Dec 2, 2002)

It makes me sick to think that anyone can justify this movie for kids OR adults. It's worse to think of pastors encouraging the attendance of little children, but a lot of these adults forgo movies that are a lot less violent than the Passion, because of that violence. I haven't seen it, don't plan on it, but from what I heard, it sounds more graphic than a movie should be.


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

I'm with you on part of that Piglet, having family members who were murdered has certainly changed my views on violence for entertainment, etc. However, I will see The Passion, as I feel that seeing that potrayal of Jesus' death might be good for me this Lent, and I don't think of it as entertainment per se.


----------



## Nelybel (Oct 16, 2003)

Hmmm - I think thats an interesting theory, Piglet. I never thought of it quite that way before, but it makes sense to me...and here is why.

Although I felt it was important that children be cared for and well treated *before* I had a child, my reaction to children is now forever changed once ds was born. Although child abuse seemed horrific before...now, I can't even begin to listen to stories, or read about it. I want to get involved with advocacy for children on many different levels. I no longer find it slightly amusing and a little stereotypical that many first ladies of this country have worked for childrens' betterment. They were moms too. I'd guess that most moms had this change in perspective after having their first child. I always thought my mother was being a little bit over-sensitive when she would comment that she couldn't watch stories on tv about bad things happening to kids (running the gamut from being talked to in a mean tone of voice to violence)...now it totally makes sense to me. And this is just on a rather small level. If my child had been hurt or abused then I would probably feel even more strongly about it.

Now this is not to say that I think we all should experience terrible things first-hand in order to be more empathetic and get more involved in making this world a better place. But it does make me wish that we all could try a little harder to see things from another perspective, to learn from what others have experienced, and to make positive contributions accordingly.

Hope this made sense. I personally don't plan to see 'The Passion'...at least not right now. I've always been pretty squeamish about violence done to others...torture scenes, movies about the haulocaust etc. However, I made myself read some books and see some movies that I wanted to avoid in order to be a bit more educated. In the case of this movie...I already know the story and have thought quite a bit about the 'sacrifice' made (as Christians would say), so don't feel I have to see it. I don't fault another adult for seeing it though. Inititially I thought I would too. Its sometimes good to see another persons' vision of things...whether you agree with it or not.

But the issue of violence like this and children viewing it...particularly viewing it with the idea that it is their spiritual duty to do so (I think certain types of spiritual peer pressure can be the most negative and distructive types of all)...is really upsetting.

Hope this made sense. Feel like I jumped around a bit.

J


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

nelybel, you totally made sense.

and in fact, motherhood has had a huge effect on how I view things, too. Now I can understand why my mother always used to say "that is somebody's son/daughter" as a way of trying to foster empathy for the mother, etc. I have noticed a huge difference after having a child.

I just wanted to add that I don't think the "solution" is for all of us to experience real violence! My only point is: we wouldn't be such a "violence = entertainment" type of society if we weren't so sheltered from the violent reality of life that so many other people in this world experience. We are truly sheltered, and I think it is in this atmosphere that our love of violence and gore in the movies has been fostered.


----------



## stayinghome (Jul 4, 2002)

Piglet. I totally hear you and feel the same way.


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

I was wondering if people were actually going to take their children to see this movie. Shoulda just assumed. ITA with pretty much everything you've said on this one Piglet.

I haven't decided whether or not I'll see this movie. I want to, but I'm not sure I can handle the graphic violence. However, I'm quite sure no child can handle it.


----------



## Els' 3 Ones (Nov 19, 2001)

Thank you for starting this, Piglet. I have been troubled hearing about all the children being exposed to this horror ...........

Years ago I heard an interview w/ a military trainer. He described the methods used to de-sensitize troops so they can fight/kill effectively. He then drew a very good line to what our children are exposed to regularly and how it affects them...........(why are our young children so violent today?).

It was picked up with great zest by many conservative groups..............................

The blatant hypocrisy shows thru glaringly.

"Trained to Kill"

Quote:

Today the data linking violence in the media to violence in society are superior to those linking cancer and tobacco. Hundreds of sound scientific studies demonstrate the social impact of brutalization by the media.

This is what Focus on the Family has to say :Root Causes of Juvenile Violence, Part 4: Toxic Society

Quote:

Our children watch vivid pictures of human suffering and death, and they learn to associate it with their favorite soft drink and candy bar, or their girlfriend's perfume &#8230; [laughing] happens all the time in movie theaters when there is bloody violence. The young people laugh and cheer and keep right on eating popcorn and drinking pop. We have raised a generation of barbarians who have learned to associate violence with pleasure, like the Romans cheering and snacking as the Christians were slaughtered in the Colosseum. 25
And this from the Baptist Standard:

Is the media conditioning kids to kill?

Quote:

He encourages parents not to expose their children to violent TV and movies and not to let children play violent video games.But the most effective and immediate solution for society, he contends, is to confront "the producers and purveyors of media violence."

El


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

A woman over here had to get up & leave the theatre during the scene when Jesus is whipped (the most graphic bit, I've heard). She actually fainted in the aisle & had to be revived by the theatre staff. You really have to question the judgement of people who take their children to see this, & I'm usually a live & let live sort of person.......


----------



## Paxetbonum (Jul 16, 2003)

I want to start by saying that I dissaprove of taking small children to this movie but have a few thoughts to add.

First it would seem to me that violence that is removed from reality such as in the "shoot-em-up bad boys" movies is worse than a violence which shows the reality of the pain that violence causes. I ususally would take real something over fake anything. I beleive that our culture has removed itself from reality in so many ways already, (food made on factory farms, children not nourished from their mother's breasts, Brittany Spears is considered the norm for women. etc.)

It would seem to me that taking issue with the violence in the Passion is going after the wrong film. I personally have much more of an issue with the senseless violence in films that I have seen many children laugh at.

Secondly if we want to talk hypocritical lets talk about how the media praised Andres Serrano for dipping a crucifix in urine. Yet when Mel makes a movie somehow they have all forgotten their code of personal artistic expression as almighty.


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

i don't understand your post at all. from a cinematic perspective, Gibson did an outstanding job. the violence in "Passion" is every bit as fake as in a Tarentino gangster flick, but it's done in better, finer detail than has ever been accomplished before. of course this means Tarentino and every other "secular" filmmaker has been given free reign to up the gore ante yet again.

and what does Serrano have to do with this or any other film???


----------



## gardeningmom (Mar 4, 2004)

I just find it so odd that the media is just attacking one movie. I've seen war movies just as horrific and bloody, yet get praises. I think this is more of an attack on christianity than anything. THe movie is a scapegoat for people who really don't like christianity and would like to see the reality of Jesus go away. THe movie makes people uncomfortable because Jesus died for our sins. There is people in this country who don't think there are absolutes for right and wrong behaviour. If Jesus died for our sins then that means there is wrong behaviour. Does that make sense to anyone?


----------



## Els' 3 Ones (Nov 19, 2001)

Did you read the links I posted, gardeningmom?

If you did..............please note they date back quite a few years.

This thread is about the hypocrisy that abounds surrounding this movie (in all it's abject violence) being shown to children (who don't have a clue what they are in for







) when there has been an outcry for years about the effect of violence on children and how it should be curtailed in order to protect them.

It * is * hypocritical

at the very least.

I haven't come up with the right word for what it is at the most....................

El


----------



## honey (Nov 28, 2003)

Quote:

If Jesus died for our sins then that means there is wrong behaviour. Does that make sense to anyone?
Doesn't make sense to me, but I am interested in what you have to say. I *think* what you are saying is that the only reason people don't like the movie is because it is about Jesus, and people want to deny Jesus because then they can be evil and not worry about it?

Quote:

There is people in this country who don't think there are absolutes for right and wrong behaviour.
What do you mean? Who are these people, and are none of them Christian?


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by honey_
*people want to deny Jesus because then they can be evil and not worry about it?*
i hope that's not what was meant, because that is extremely insulting to non-c'ians.


----------



## gardeningmom (Mar 4, 2004)

You understand what I'm saying. Who they are is more difficult to articulate. I'm trying to think how to word this to make sense plus not step on anybody's toes. Just think back fifty years and reflect on what people in general though was right and wrong. Now there are several things that are socially acceptable now that wasn't acceptable then. Some of these are considered sins in the Bible. Now if you are participating in any of the acceptable behaviours you don't want someone telling you it is a sin. Is this making any sense yet?


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum (Jul 11, 2002)

gardeningmom - what does this have to do wtih violence in the media?

I follow what you are saying - but it sounds like a different debate altogether.


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by gardeningmom_
*YJust think back fifty years and reflect on what people in general though was right and wrong.*
50 years ago people "in general" thought it wasn't wrong that dark-skinned americans couldn't vote or play professional baseball or otherwise be full members of american society.

so i'm at a complete loss as to what point you're trying to make...


----------



## Paxetbonum (Jul 16, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by dado_
*i don't understand your post at all. from a cinematic perspective, Gibson did an outstanding job. the violence in "Passion" is every bit as fake as in a Tarentino gangster flick, but it's done in better, finer detail than has ever been accomplished before. of course this means Tarentino and every other "secular" filmmaker has been given free reign to up the gore ante yet again.

and what does Serrano have to do with this or any other film???*
I was responding to something which had been said earlier about the violence being worse because it was more "real."

I am so puzzled as to why this film is being so viciously attacked for violence. It was no more violent than so many other films. In order to merit the amount of dicussion and general eyebrow raising that has been going on around here, one has to argue that it somehow has surpassed every film ever made in violence.
Simply because Ebert makes a comment or two does not make him the oracle of truth in all matters.

My reasoning for bringing up Serrano was simply to point to the true hypocrisy of this matter. Namely, that artists like Serrano are criticized for doing something which offends and people are accused of being narrow minded and unaccepting.
However no-one in the media seems willing hush hush the criticism of this film with the same "acceptance" homily, even though some find it offensive.

I want to re-iterate that I am merely trying to point out my frustration with the overly critical attitude toward this film. I am disgusted with the overall trend in gratuitous violence in the film medium and wholeheartedly wish to see the inncoent protected from adult matter in all films, the Passion included.

Hope I have made myself clear.


----------



## honey (Nov 28, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by gardeningmom_
*You understand what I'm saying.*
No, actually I do not. If I *had* understood, I wouldn't have wasted my time by asking you to clarify.



> _Originally posted by gardeningmom_ Just think back fifty years and reflect on what people in general though was right and wrong. Now there are several things that are socially acceptable now that wasn't acceptable then. Some of these are considered sins in the Bible [/B][/QUOTE
> 
> Which sins are you refering to?


----------



## Snowy Owl (Nov 16, 2003)

In response to comments that criticizing this movie is hypocritical:
I thought it was pretty obvious that the reason this film gets special criticism for being violent is because it's done under a specific religious/moral pretense... and so while most sensible parents avoid subjecting their children to gory violence, some go out of their way to subject their children to this movie....which apparently, has very little substance and is purely sensational...from what I've read by offended christian film critics.
So what's confusing?


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

I agree that this film is certainly NOT the most violent movie to come out of Hollywood.

What I AM saying is that I'm disgusted that any parent would make their children watch this movie. I'm angry that the very "R" ratings that right-wingers have lobbied for extensively are considered completely irrelevant when a parent decides this is something their child "needs to know".

My ISSUE is that church congregations are _renting out the theatre_ so that they can bring their young children to a movie that they would not be allowed to see otherwise.

gardeningmom: you obviously did not read my initial post. I was quite specific about what aspects of this film disturbed me. It was not the fact that it was violent OR christian. I was simply sickened by the thought of any parent subjecting their child to such violence for ANY reason. And blown away by the hypocrisy of those who think a bare breast is worth sending Congress after the Fox network over, but who have no problem exposing their 8 year olds to graphic images of human torture, mutilation, and death.


----------



## merpk (Dec 19, 2001)

Piglet, in re people who've experienced violence directly not wanting to be exposed to it in the media ...







... just an example in support of your theory, at least part-ways ...

DH was exposed to a whole lot of violence in his childhood, between a viciously physically abusive mother and various other things his family experienced ... and is absolutely unable/unwilling to see violence in _fictional_ settings. At all. In any way, shape, or form. If it somehow is put in front of him, he gets physically ill ...









But he can watch the news okay ... or documentaries about violent events.








:

Don't quite get how he can get past the real and not the fake, but ...








:


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

Merpk

I can't explain it, but I am much the same way- the news has little effect on me(it's like I expect it), but I cannot watch fictional violence at all, else I have horrible nightmares.


----------



## Knittin' in the Shade (Feb 14, 2003)

edited cause I posted in the wrong thread, sorry







That's what I get for having too many windows open at once, LOL!


----------



## Snowy Owl (Nov 16, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Knittin' in the Shade_
*I'm sure there are some who would consider homeschooling just as harmful to a child as we consider exposing them to violent movies is.

Just something to think about...*
I see your point...
It could be argued that subjecting children to violence is abuse. No one advocates that it is a parents right to abuse children.
But I don't really see how anyone that wants their kid to see this silly movie can be prevented. It's just a movie anyway.


----------



## honey (Nov 28, 2003)

edited because my post wasn't nice, and if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum (Jul 11, 2002)

While I agree that it is inappropriate to take a small child to this film, please remember that there are people who want to take action on those of us who don't vax, or who co sleep. Both of which they see as damaging our children or negligent parenting...

There are alot of different ways to parent, and what you think is not okay, may be fine for them and vice versa.

Please remember to be respectful of all the people on this thread, and to post accordingly.







We are all here for the same reason, because we want the best for our kids.


----------



## gardeningmom (Mar 4, 2004)

Adinal, thank you for your post.


----------



## candiland (Jan 27, 2002)

I think this thread veered waaaay off topic.
It's about the fact that violence in film is abhorred by many parents...... the ones lobbying the hardest against sex and violence in cinema and on t.v. are also the ones taking children to see what has been dubbed the most violent movie ever made. I don't understand the confusion, or how the thread veered off topic so


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

I feel like I'm observing this from the outside somewhat, as we haven't had any sort of outcry (that I've heard about anyway) in Aus about the violence in The Passion- must be different in the US......

The real issue for me is why children who are under 18 are allowed to see an R-rated movie. Leaving the Passion aside for a mo, I've had two people tell me in recent months that they've seen littlies in the theatre with their parents- once at Matrix Reloaded & once at LOTR3. A parent at our school has sent a letter to our Governor General asking that there be an inquiry, & she has responded favourably. That is the sort of proactive thing we need to do to make sure that all children are protected from the things that as a society we have decided to protect them from, KWIM?

I personally love the ratings system, it helps me decide which movies our family should watch, & flags any movie that I think is too violent for me. (which isn't very many, seeing as one of my fave movies is Fight Club







) But that's why the system works, & I think the 'rules' should apply to everyone equally. You don't get special dispensation to take your kids to an R movie just cuz you're a Christian & the movie's about Christ, ya know? But that's not an attack on all Christians...... it's about common sense- nobody's got the monopoly on that one.....







:

And can I sum up what Aussies seem to think about the Janet Jackson thing ....... :LOL and


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

Piglet, you are so well spoken. I agree that this is psychological abuse! His dd was shaking and trembling? She is EIGHT!! She has years to learn about the death of Jesus.

You're right, these are the same people who lobby agafor ratings to be strict and enforced and then purposely break the laws to get their young children to see horrifying violence. It is shameful and apalling! You have to remeber though, that ratings aren't so much for violence as sexuality. This movie has an R rating, but many movies have to be majorly edited in the sex dept to get in on an R rating. It is really sad. We are so desensitized to violence in general, and sensitive to sexuality that I think we were all set up for this.

In general, I don't care if films are violent, I just don't have to watch them. I only wish that this eight year old had that choice. I am so disgusted with the whole thing.

Thanks, Piglet, for being so well spoken on the issue.
L


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

thanks veganmama!









Aussiemum's post reminded me of an incident that made me glad we had ratings for movies (and wish I'd paid more attention to them!).

A couple years ago I was babysitting two teenaged boys, 12 and 14 (my boss's kids). We went to the local Blockbuster and I, not being a movie person, of course had no idea what was out. They brought me some movie with John Travolta (I think) and said "how about this?". Sure, I said, glad they'd chosen something so we could get going. The clerk didn't say anything as I paid for it and left.

Well, it ended up being a disgusting movie about a woman in the army who was gang-raped. And yes, they showed the gang-rape in as detailed-as-possible-without-being-illegal display. I was horrified and kept thinking I should turn it off, but then thinking well, they've seen it now. I told them afterwards that I should NOT have rented that movie. I later apologized to their parents. They were nice about it, but I don't think they were happy.

From that point on I will definitely read the ratings!!

By the way, I don't know where the homeschooling comment came from (guess that post was edited) but I think it's really unfair to compare something that is totally unsupported by evidence (homeschooling=abuse) with something that unequivocally is (witnessing extreme violence in the media is damaging to the emotional health of young children). While I'm not lobbying to have these parents charged with anything, I stand by my claim that dragging a young child to any such violent movie IS abusive.


----------



## PurpleBasil (Jan 28, 2004)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Piglet68_
*I stand by my claim that dragging a young child to any such violent movie IS abusive.*
Amen, Piglet! I completely agree.

This bs about homeschooling and non vaxing being akin to taking children (yes, even teenagers) to this gory film is bunk. One of the greatest hypocrises in this situation is the same parents who are homeschooling, nonvaxing and (previously) decried violent films like The Passion as part of the moral decline of the US are the ones bringing their kids to this movie!

Let me find a photo of a parent consoling their crying child from non vaxing. No wait, there has to be a photo of a parent comforting their visibly shaken child from homeschooling. Gotta be.

C'mon, folks.


----------



## Tiacsophno (Feb 26, 2004)

Parents who expose young children to tragedies so they will love Christ (or whales) may, in fact, acheive the opposite result. For example, children exposed to environmental education programs emphasizing global warming, deforestation, pollution, extinction and other 'tragedies' have been shown to produce adults who are numbed, powerless, and disinterested in environmental issues. Young children need time to learn to LOVE the earth firsthand before they should be told how much trouble it is in and how they need to save it. In the same way, parents who encourage young children to see 'The Passion' before they have a personal, deep, and positive relationship with Christ may end up distancing themselves from the very religion their families want them to embrace.

"The more slowly trees grow at first, the sounder they are at the core, and I think the same is true of human beings." - Thoreau


----------



## Katana (Nov 16, 2002)

Beautiful posts, Piglet. So eloquent.









Where are the people who were in my local movie theatre, when I was sixteen, these past few weeks? Seriously.

I tried to get in to see Terminator 2 FOUR days before my 17th birthday, and they kicked me out and said I couldn't come back there, even when I was 17.









I think it is wrong to take very small children in to see something like this. Older teens, well, if they understand COMPLETELY what they are going to be seeing, maybe. But they and anyone who can't handle what they see, should have the right to leave, if they want.

The thought of children being made to watch this or any other violent thing makes me nauseous.


----------



## Snowy Owl (Nov 16, 2003)

I saw Teminator 2 in the theatre when I was twelve...with my dad.


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

My mom is X'ian and she went to see it and said it was very difficult to watch. I gave her piglet's post paraphrased and she agreed wholeheartedly. She said her pastor was still deciding whether or not to let his 13 year old see it. He said that after long talks he'd allow him to make up his own mind and stress that it was okay to leave. I still feel like that's pushing it, though.

Passion is literally the most violent movie ever made in the history of filmaking. just because it has religious significance doesn't mean its violence is more acceptable. Many important people have been tortured throughout history. Doesn't mean I want my kids to see it. or your kids. Or anyone else's kids for that matter. And by kids I mean early teens and younger.

When I was a child, I could read from the bible and cry imagining the pain of Jesus. When I was older and learned more about what toture entailed and what Jesus was likely to have gone through, I cried more. Though I don't believe Jesus is the messiah, I still believe he was a revolutionary and I feel deep sorrow knowing of his torture. I feel deep sorrow knowing of the torture of criminals too, really. My point is, the imagination of children is powerful enough, I almost feel I was too young to know about the torture of Jesus as a child, let alone watch it graphically displayed in front of me!


----------



## Leonor (Dec 25, 2001)

The American culture of violence, as it was said, worries me. Because it goes beyond the pretend of movies.

I don't think I'm going to watch any movie ever again. I don't want to support the stupidification industry.


----------

