It Depends on What Your Definition of Proselytizing Is

AS Reader I Am pointed out over at Done With Mirrors, The MPAA has decided that too strong of proselytization from a film should render that film worthy of Parental Guidance.

I have no problem with that, but maybe they should strive to be a little more consistent.

Other recent G rated films that could be accused of proselytization:

CARS: Indoctrinating children into the belief system where Route 66 and small towns are good, sleek highways and big cities, not so much. Also it would seem that NYT lead reviewer Manohla Dargis was very disturbed by the pro-fossil fuels stance of this film. Clearly this film should be PG for depictions of dangerous levels of carbon emmissions.

DOOGAL: Come on, Jon Stewart, Chevy Chase and Whoopi Goldberg lend their voices to this film, you know there must be some anti-Republican indoctrination going on in this film (and no, I haven't seen it).

BRATZ: Come on, MPAA, you are telling me that a film that features prostitutes turned children's toys shouldn't come with a strict and strong warning for parents?!? This should have been R rated, not G.

HERBIE FULLY LOADED: More gratuitous consumption of precious resources. When will Hollywood take the ongoing Global Warming Crisis seriously?

CURIOUS GEORGE: Yet another attempt to normalize and glamorize cross-species adoption. This film presents a challenge to any parent who lets there child see this film, and unless they slap a PG rating on this film the MPAA is tacitly condoning all sorts of other invidious and subversive interspecial activities.

The MPAA has a job to do, they are parents themselves (a requirement to sit on the ratings board), they should know that there are forces and ideas even more insidious than religion at work trying to sway the minds of our youngsters, and parents need the guidance provided by the label PG or PG-13, or R so that they may know just how dangerous the ideas and images presented in some films are towards their progeny.