Slashdot Mirror

Check out their review of The Last Days about the Holocaust. Their review "system" seems to reguard any depiction of violence as a bad thing regardless of what the film maker intends the portrayal to say. The fact that their system would give a documentary about the holocaust and the movie Pulp Finction similar ratings only proves how useless it is

If you enjoyed THAT (you sick fucks) then you'll love their review of Dogma. The reviewer seems proud to have left the movie after only 38 minutes. Somehow I get the feeling they'd find something to complain about in Davey & Goliath

man, this review might possibly be funnier than the movie, itself.

now, I just GOTTA see the movie.

and I'll have to thank the CAPtains for their review of this movie. I should check back to this site frequently to see what ELSE I'm missing!

bravo-O!

--

--

here are my submissions...

HardOCP -burning silicon

CapAlert -burning witches

FUFME -uhh, fish

PADI -neoprene

Java -burnt coffee

For extra added fun, go read their review of American Pie. It states right at the beginning that the reviewer walked out after just 44 minutes.

Now I know that these reviews are intended for people to see what movies their kids shouldn't watch, but for some films (South Park comes to mind), they treat them as if they were so awful that NO ONE should see them at all.

-lee

South Park is nothing more than one big Christian-bashing jamboree. The Lord is portrayed as having a bumbling talk show called "Jesus and Friends." A piece of human excrement is used as the mascot for Christmas. Satan is portrayed as being an affable character that is liked by the townspeople. They had an Easter show where they crucified the fat kid on a cross, for crying out loud! And it goes on and on to sickening proportions.

I know where this guy gets his material: the Christian Childcare Action Project's Review of Southpark . Here are a couple juicy tidbits:

*South Park* is another movie straight from the smoking pits of Hell.

*South Park* is an *incredibly dangerous* movie for those who do not understand or are developing an understanding of the Gospel ....... INCREDIBLY dangerous.

Satan is portrayed as the homosexual lover of Saddam Hussein and is portrayed as a sensitive, loving and caring being. Hussein waves his disembodied male member around. And it was not a cardboard drawing like most other images of the movie -- it was of photographic resolution. The most foul of the foul words was clearly spoken *by the children* at least 131 times and many other times in a muffled or garbled way. The three/four letter word vocabulary was used at least 119 times. God's name in vain was used 11 times without the four letter expletive and 6 times with it. And many times the child characters were saying things like "What's the big deal" (about the foul language). "Suck my --", "Let's ([homo]sexual intercourse)", and repeated questions about a female private organ were but a very few of the vulgar expressions used by the kids.

Follow the above-provided link for the complete review...

Regards,

easiest way is to leave it in plain old text mode and just type the HTML like you want it....

<a href="http://www.capalert.com">yada</a>

becomes

yada

• The name is an obvious pun, as we've all noted. Would real Christians be that sloppy? Possibly, but unlikely. After all, if they had called it something like "Christian Linux" or "Linux for Christians", we would probably all have been fooled.
• The login screen with the Lord's Prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance was way over the top. It just reminded me of the kind of thing you'd see in a King of the Hill episode.

First off, libertarianism. We do not need to strike back against movie theatres that are usurping the decisions of kids and their parent's. Libertarians are in favor of equal and complete rights for everyone. That includes respecting the rights of others. If a movie theatre wishes to say that people under 18 must have a parent with them in an R rated movie, they can do that. Secondly, ways to protest. Mr. Katz suggests many ways to protest this inane problem. Some of which are actually good suggestions. Many of which are just plain stupid. Kids and their parents should stand and fight against stupidity. My parents had to purchase tickets for my friends and I when we were teenagers. Big deal. This is what you should fight for; The right of a parent to buy tickets for their children to any movie they wish. This would allow a movie theatre to decide for themselves whether or not they want children to be able to see the movie without the consent of a parent or adult. This is actually how it works in some small towns. If the theatre manager doesn't think that kids should see the movie, they require parents to buy the tickets. That way the parents truly do know what their kids are up to. So instead of doing many of the decietful suggestions that are suggested in this article, do something constructive, write a letter, call the manager at a movie theatre, or even better, get a few parental types together and get a meeting with the manager. Mr. Katz's suggestions are just encouraging the stereotypes that teens are liars. So teens, do something constructive, and stand up for yourselves. Talk to your parents, get them to support you, then go and talk to theatre managers. If they don't take you seriously, go home, and bring back your parents. Get friends to do the same thing. Theatres will listen. As my parents told me, you get more bees with sugar than vinegar. You can get more if you are nice and polite. Being decietful and mean will only annoy people in the long run. Third and finally, on protests. If you wish to start a lame protest, perhaps you could start one against the motion picture rating association. They are really the ones at fault. If the rating association did a more reasonable job rating movies, then movie theatres could restrict children from seeing movies that might be considered inappropriate for them by their parents. Parents can not personally review everything that their children want to see. It would be great if parents had a rating system that actually provided useful information. I remember a video game rating system used briefly that inlcluded three different scores (I think that it was three), one for sex, one for violence, and for language (again, I am not sure if this is exact, but the idea is there). It would be great if a system like this existed for movies. Take a look at CapAlert. While I don't agree with their final opinions, they do provide information that can help parents know what is actually in a movie. Fight for an unbiased rating system with as much information as this. This could go along way to allowing theatres to actually decide for themselves and their specific local community what is appropriate for children and what is not. It would also actually be a cause worth fighting for. Not this silly "Take A Geek Kid To A Restricted Day". If a kid wants to see a movie, make him do the work to see it. Let him go and ask a parent to take him to see it. Perhaps it will help build a better realationship between a parent and child, and possibly even their friends. -a small plot of land in feudal japan

http://www.capalert.com/capreports /southpark.htm

Before anyone rushes to flame me, I don't agree with the above assesment of the South Park movie (I saw it on a recent trip to the US and thought it was great). This is the sort of thing that the cinema owners get bombarded with from the other side.

consider what rating the Bible would get when run through his scale...

The most severe loss of points was due to violence: slavery, beatings, murder, infanticide, and babies used as food for crocodiles (in a mural). Though these things are not just based on a true story, but ARE a true story, they are still violence and can have an impact or influence on your children. Next in severity of loss of points were matters of unholy reality such as the demonic doers, calling on power from unholy gods, and belittling remarks about the power of prayer and God's sincerity.

I am a Christian, one with a Bible & Religion minor, at that. From this perspective, I feel safe in saying that the CAP website is flawed from both a spiritual and theological perspective.

First off, this guy is on his spiritual high horse, acting in a pharisaical manner. From a Christian perspective, the old law is dead, because to live by the law is to live in sin. This guy is a prime example of this. By making a livelihood of 'exposing the immoralities' of today's culture, he is searching out, perhaps misinterpreting every little instance of anything that could be considered 'immoral'. But in doing so, he is both immersing himself in it, as well as spending so much time nitpicking that he's forgetting the true meaning of the word. That's exactly what Jesus meant when he talked of the pharisees straining flies and letting through camels.

You've stated that "his "CAP" is trying to provide a Christian perspective of cultural events." This is false. For a prime example, read his review of You've Got Mail and/or 101 Dalmations . In the former, he warns about a man sitting on a woman's bed with her in it (both unmarried)"; in the latter, he states that "we cannot permit elevatation of the dog to human status". Regardless of one's belief in the morality/immorality of either action, it becomes quite obvious that his obsession with finding faults has surpassed his interest in finding and sharing the truth; he is not coming from a Christian perspective.

Furthermore, a perusal of this guy's reviews shows he is speaking from a truly dualist perspective, which is theologically incorrect. The battle of 'good vs. evil', in a cosmological sense, is unbiblical. From a Christian perspective, Evil is not a 'substance' that exists where Good is not, rather it is a virus, a scavenger that exists upon Good. It is a perversion of good; it can't exist on its own.

This said, everything I've read at CAP leads me to believe that this guy is under the impression that if something is not outright Christian, then it is evil. Thus, CAP is theologically incorrect in that perspective. In addition, this assumption that everything non-Christian is evil, puts it at odds with the realisation that everything is ultimately God's creation.

In the end, the CAP Reports are spiritually and theologically flawed. While the guy might have good intentions, to sit and seek out the faults only results in a failure to ultimately understand what Christianity is -- while at the same time, gives the world a false impression of the same thing.

I am a Christian, one with a Bible & Religion minor, at that. From this perspective, I feel safe in saying that the CAP website is flawed from both a spiritual and theological perspective.

First off, this guy is on his spiritual high horse, acting in a pharisaical manner. From a Christian perspective, the old law is dead, because to live by the law is to live in sin. This guy is a prime example of this. By making a livelihood of 'exposing the immoralities' of today's culture, he is searching out, perhaps misinterpreting every little instance of anything that could be considered 'immoral'. But in doing so, he is both immersing himself in it, as well as spending so much time nitpicking that he's forgetting the true meaning of the word. That's exactly what Jesus meant when he talked of the pharisees straining flies and letting through camels.

You've stated that "his "CAP" is trying to provide a Christian perspective of cultural events." This is false. For a prime example, read his review of You've Got Mail and/or 101 Dalmations . In the former, he warns about a man sitting on a woman's bed with her in it (both unmarried)"; in the latter, he states that "we cannot permit elevatation of the dog to human status". Regardless of one's belief in the morality/immorality of either action, it becomes quite obvious that his obsession with finding faults has surpassed his interest in finding and sharing the truth; he is not coming from a Christian perspective.

Furthermore, a perusal of this guy's reviews shows he is speaking from a truly dualist perspective, which is theologically incorrect. The battle of 'good vs. evil', in a cosmological sense, is unbiblical. From a Christian perspective, Evil is not a 'substance' that exists where Good is not, rather it is a virus, a scavenger that exists upon Good. It is a perversion of good; it can't exist on its own.

This said, everything I've read at CAP leads me to believe that this guy is under the impression that if something is not outright Christian, then it is evil. Thus, CAP is theologically incorrect in that perspective. In addition, this assumption that everything non-Christian is evil, puts it at odds with the realisation that everything is ultimately God's creation.

In the end, the CAP Reports are spiritually and theologically flawed. While the guy might have good intentions, to sit and seek out the faults only results in a failure to ultimately understand what Christianity is -- while at the same time, gives the world a false impression of the same thing.

What have Christians done over the years?

Dostoevsky asked this question, and wrote a 20-page short story about it (actually, it's found in The Brothers Karamozav, but has been published and sold as a stand-alone story, too), called "the Grand Inquisitor."

Basically (very basically), the Pope criticizes Jesus Christ for making salvation both unattainable and void of significance. I think Dostoevsky was criticizing the Roman Catholic Church for cheapening Christianity, but the lesson still stands: whenever you interpret ANY sacred texts, you cannot help but develop a schema for separating the lambs and the goats.

So South Park creators are responding to the Church? Go let 'em. Truth be told, there's not very much original in this film, but it is certainly cartharctic in responding to our culture. The message I do not get from the film is that someone else, or someTHING else, is to blame.

If you were to ask the creators of South Park -- BBU, they would probably admit that the Church's future response to this film was considered during the making of this film, and hence anything the writers could do to make the Church look stupid was certainly fair game.

If you understood that argument (and no, I'm aware it's not Rocket Science), then congratulate yourself: you can think one level above the Church (who cannot understand or consider this argument).

While looking for particularly bad reviews in the 'CAP' thing, I came acrost this one, of a holocost documentary:

"The Last Days" -- truly! This is NOT a movie for entertainment. It is a documentary about the final days of millions of Jews: the Holocaust! Spielberg of Dreamworks(tm) has amassed miles of film file footage about the Holocaust -- but why? Is there some need for my children or yours to watch nude brutalized and skeletonized humans stumbling about? Why was this movie released to the general public as PG-13 through entertainment movie houses if it was not intended to be seen by children?

um... yes there is
_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"

In several of his reviews (I read about 70% of them before reading the comments on slashdot) he claims to have developed a 'totaly objective method' that is 'scientificly accurate', in complete disregard of the fact that it is not possible to create a method of objective evalution from less-than objective criteria (please explain to me how 'Offense to God' is completely objective)

For a real laugh, check out his Back to School Special in which we learn that the Star of David is a Satanic symbol, as well as the Peace Symbol (according to him, a symbol of an upside-down broken cross... in the reality I've been living in, it's the initials of the CND), the Ying-Yan, the Islamic Star-and-Crescent (supposidy a symbol of 'Satanic lust' (geez this guy must have a phallic complex)). It's also implied that all Hindus and Buddhists are Satanists, and that the symbol on the back of the one-dollar bill (US) is actually the Eye of Satan, placed there by Freemasons who.. what else... worship Satan and control the government. All that and some plain-old stupidity (ie: the "A" in a circle represents Anarchism not Anarchy, the motto of Satanists is not "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" (I don't think Satanists even have a motto), and the swastica is not a broken cross)

For Even More fun, consider what rating the Bible would get when run through his scale...

Wanton Violence - a God slaughtering almost the entire population of the earth in cold blood several times in the just first chapter

Impudence - Moses defies God on several occasions

Sex - Lot's daughters get him drunk, then impregnate themselves by him; plus for graphic content, through in the Song of Solomon (plus veiled refernces... "Let the children come unto me[..]")

Drugs - Wine, wine, wine ! Given to children no less !

Offense to God - Sodom, Gamorrah. nuff said

Murder & Suicide - This is a no-brainer. Cain and Able just for a start

Note: I am not a Christian, so take my Biblical commentary w/ the appropriate Dead Sea's worth of salt

So lets see here.. we have more violence, drugs, sex, and other objectionable content than South Park, Natural Born Killers, and The Basketball Diaries combined ! Plus this book is left where children can easily reach it, left in an unlocked drawer in every motel room, and children are ecouraged to read it! *engage arcasm* Obviously we must ban it at once !! Call the president ! Get Pat Robertson ! *cue whiney Maud Flanders voice* Won't someone please think of the children ?!?

Check out this review of American pie by those same people.

and this revie of Austen powers, including:
n other scenes of nudity, convenient objects were used to hide his genitalia -- and ONLY his genitalia. Convenient objects used included furniture, a clock, and textblocks of the names of actors/actresses. In one instance a baby's head was used to hide Powers' genitalia -- and yes, the baby was facing Powers, in the same way DiCaprio's head in *Titanic* was used to hide Winslett's genitalia, but the baby's head was much smaller in perspective than DiCaprio's, thus, less was hidden. Though the baby was an animated baby (like the *Dancing Baby*), what pedophilial signal do you suppose was sent by this scene?

and this gem:

This configuration of shadows made it seem that Shagwell was directly behind him. As Shagwell reached in the bag, the shadows made it appear that she was reaching inside Power's colon. As she stretched to reach deeper into the bag, the shadows appeared as if she was slowly shoving her arm into him up to above her elbow. Dr. Larry Burthoft for Focus on the Family claims this act, when done by homosexuals, is called "fisting."

From the review of 'the matrix'
-- *he was resurrected from the dead* -- by a kiss, no less. One character in "The Matrix" mocked our Lord by telling the hero that he was "[His] own personal Jesus Christ." And slowly the movie built the Matrix as having the power and authority of God to create and provide for the people. And at the end of the show the central hero narrated a piece to promote anarchy: "No rules. No boundaries." A most sly movie......sly almost to invisibility about its position regarding the King of kings and Lord of lords, about His Authority, AND about our subservience to it.

From Star Wars episode 1 the phantom menace
"Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace" (PG) -- Not one. No, not one single instance of foul language or nudity or sexual activity was noted! And no drugs/alcohol! And not one instance of God's name in vain with or without the four letter expletive! Good job, Lucas! But maybe that is not enough.


_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"

Check out this review of American pie by those same people.

and this revie of Austen powers, including:
n other scenes of nudity, convenient objects were used to hide his genitalia -- and ONLY his genitalia. Convenient objects used included furniture, a clock, and textblocks of the names of actors/actresses. In one instance a baby's head was used to hide Powers' genitalia -- and yes, the baby was facing Powers, in the same way DiCaprio's head in *Titanic* was used to hide Winslett's genitalia, but the baby's head was much smaller in perspective than DiCaprio's, thus, less was hidden. Though the baby was an animated baby (like the *Dancing Baby*), what pedophilial signal do you suppose was sent by this scene?

and this gem:

This configuration of shadows made it seem that Shagwell was directly behind him. As Shagwell reached in the bag, the shadows made it appear that she was reaching inside Power's colon. As she stretched to reach deeper into the bag, the shadows appeared as if she was slowly shoving her arm into him up to above her elbow. Dr. Larry Burthoft for Focus on the Family claims this act, when done by homosexuals, is called "fisting."

From the review of 'the matrix'
-- *he was resurrected from the dead* -- by a kiss, no less. One character in "The Matrix" mocked our Lord by telling the hero that he was "[His] own personal Jesus Christ." And slowly the movie built the Matrix as having the power and authority of God to create and provide for the people. And at the end of the show the central hero narrated a piece to promote anarchy: "No rules. No boundaries." A most sly movie......sly almost to invisibility about its position regarding the King of kings and Lord of lords, about His Authority, AND about our subservience to it.

From Star Wars episode 1 the phantom menace
"Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace" (PG) -- Not one. No, not one single instance of foul language or nudity or sexual activity was noted! And no drugs/alcohol! And not one instance of God's name in vain with or without the four letter expletive! Good job, Lucas! But maybe that is not enough.


_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"

Check out this review of American pie by those same people.

and this revie of Austen powers, including:
n other scenes of nudity, convenient objects were used to hide his genitalia -- and ONLY his genitalia. Convenient objects used included furniture, a clock, and textblocks of the names of actors/actresses. In one instance a baby's head was used to hide Powers' genitalia -- and yes, the baby was facing Powers, in the same way DiCaprio's head in *Titanic* was used to hide Winslett's genitalia, but the baby's head was much smaller in perspective than DiCaprio's, thus, less was hidden. Though the baby was an animated baby (like the *Dancing Baby*), what pedophilial signal do you suppose was sent by this scene?

and this gem:

This configuration of shadows made it seem that Shagwell was directly behind him. As Shagwell reached in the bag, the shadows made it appear that she was reaching inside Power's colon. As she stretched to reach deeper into the bag, the shadows appeared as if she was slowly shoving her arm into him up to above her elbow. Dr. Larry Burthoft for Focus on the Family claims this act, when done by homosexuals, is called "fisting."

From the review of 'the matrix'
-- *he was resurrected from the dead* -- by a kiss, no less. One character in "The Matrix" mocked our Lord by telling the hero that he was "[His] own personal Jesus Christ." And slowly the movie built the Matrix as having the power and authority of God to create and provide for the people. And at the end of the show the central hero narrated a piece to promote anarchy: "No rules. No boundaries." A most sly movie......sly almost to invisibility about its position regarding the King of kings and Lord of lords, about His Authority, AND about our subservience to it.

From Star Wars episode 1 the phantom menace
"Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace" (PG) -- Not one. No, not one single instance of foul language or nudity or sexual activity was noted! And no drugs/alcohol! And not one instance of God's name in vain with or without the four letter expletive! Good job, Lucas! But maybe that is not enough.


_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"

Check out this review of American pie by those same people.

and this revie of Austen powers, including:
n other scenes of nudity, convenient objects were used to hide his genitalia -- and ONLY his genitalia. Convenient objects used included furniture, a clock, and textblocks of the names of actors/actresses. In one instance a baby's head was used to hide Powers' genitalia -- and yes, the baby was facing Powers, in the same way DiCaprio's head in *Titanic* was used to hide Winslett's genitalia, but the baby's head was much smaller in perspective than DiCaprio's, thus, less was hidden. Though the baby was an animated baby (like the *Dancing Baby*), what pedophilial signal do you suppose was sent by this scene?

and this gem:

This configuration of shadows made it seem that Shagwell was directly behind him. As Shagwell reached in the bag, the shadows made it appear that she was reaching inside Power's colon. As she stretched to reach deeper into the bag, the shadows appeared as if she was slowly shoving her arm into him up to above her elbow. Dr. Larry Burthoft for Focus on the Family claims this act, when done by homosexuals, is called "fisting."

From the review of 'the matrix'
-- *he was resurrected from the dead* -- by a kiss, no less. One character in "The Matrix" mocked our Lord by telling the hero that he was "[His] own personal Jesus Christ." And slowly the movie built the Matrix as having the power and authority of God to create and provide for the people. And at the end of the show the central hero narrated a piece to promote anarchy: "No rules. No boundaries." A most sly movie......sly almost to invisibility about its position regarding the King of kings and Lord of lords, about His Authority, AND about our subservience to it.

From Star Wars episode 1 the phantom menace
"Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace" (PG) -- Not one. No, not one single instance of foul language or nudity or sexual activity was noted! And no drugs/alcohol! And not one instance of God's name in vain with or without the four letter expletive! Good job, Lucas! But maybe that is not enough.


_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"

IMHO, any movie that makes fun of any religion and is as full of crap as described in the Christian site's South Park review is worthy of nothing but contempt. Frankly, I would be ashamed to be even related to anyone who had anything to do with the production of the movie. Some of my co-workers thought the movie to be hilarious -- and have lost quite a bit of my respect because of it.

CmdrTaco found the site to be hilarious, and numerous other posters have taken their free pot-shots at Christianity (which seems to be the target of choice on /. whenever religion is mentioned, doesn't it?) Hence my statement that religious bigotry is alive and well -- because as yet I haven't seen a single post standing up for what I would say are mostly decent people and what they believe.

On second thought, go ahead and get out your flamethrowers.I'm standing up for them now.

... "politically correct "what's the big deal?" posturing"??? I'm not sure I agree with you there.

I meant that it is politically correct to be "tolerant," and it is posturing to make a public display of one's "tolerance" by condemning "intolerance."

[Comments about CAP's "rude and gratuitous" review snipped.]

You're demonstrating the "posturing" that I'm talking about. You are condemning CAP's"intolerance." Why should it offend you that they say the movie is straight from Hell? Isn't that a badge of honor in today's culture war? (Depending on the side you're on, of course. :-)

The fact is CAP is an extreme fundamentalist Christian organization.

Interesting. "Fundamentalist" used to mean a Christian arguing for the "fundamentals" of the Faith, but as J.I. Packer points out in "Fundamentalism" and the Word of God , the term became derogatory because the original fundamentalists earned a reputation for lacking -- to put it delicately -- intellectual horsepower. I would say that CAP is a conservative, evangelical Christian organization. The content of their Web site represents an intelligent and informed viewpoint, albeit a viewpoint not popular on Slashdot.

Look at the review of A Midsummer Nights Dream. I mean, C'mon, it's Shakespeare (everything they mention as bad ("other stuff") is in the script.) we should be teaching Children Shakespeare, not sheilding them from it.

I'll ask you the same basic question I asked thal -- are you a father? To assume that CAP is trying to "shield" children from Shakespeare is jumping to a conclusion. When my kids are old enough to read Shakespeare, they'll be old enough to watch a rendition of the play (or film).

And in the review of Doug's 1st movie (which got a good score, by the way), one of the bad points listed was adolescent underware...what?!

Yeah, I read the underwear comment about "Doug's First Movie," but in context it's typical of CAP's uncompromising standard of decency. I'm surprised you didn't react to their objection to the '60s peace symbol. Still, they didn't just give the movie a "good score;" they made it "the first movie to warrant a CAP 'Green Light'".

I would say [South Park is] in the same vein (but not nearly as subtle) as Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal".... Stone and Parker are sharp fellows, if you go beyond the language.

Exactly. They don't have the intellectual horsepower of Jonathan Swift, so they dumb-down what might very well be legitimate political ideas to the point of depravity, thereby missing audience members such as me. They don't want to effect political change -- they want to make a buck by shocking people.

On a related subject, I know of only one real satirical publication that works within the Christian community (as opposed to all the secular publications that ridicule Christianity from the outside). It's called The Door . Check it out.

... "politically correct "what's the big deal?" posturing"??? I'm not sure I agree with you there.

I meant that it is politically correct to be "tolerant," and it is posturing to make a public display of one's "tolerance" by condemning "intolerance."

[Comments about CAP's "rude and gratuitous" review snipped.]

You're demonstrating the "posturing" that I'm talking about. You are condemning CAP's"intolerance." Why should it offend you that they say the movie is straight from Hell? Isn't that a badge of honor in today's culture war? (Depending on the side you're on, of course. :-)

The fact is CAP is an extreme fundamentalist Christian organization.

Interesting. "Fundamentalist" used to mean a Christian arguing for the "fundamentals" of the Faith, but as J.I. Packer points out in "Fundamentalism" and the Word of God , the term became derogatory because the original fundamentalists earned a reputation for lacking -- to put it delicately -- intellectual horsepower. I would say that CAP is a conservative, evangelical Christian organization. The content of their Web site represents an intelligent and informed viewpoint, albeit a viewpoint not popular on Slashdot.

Look at the review of A Midsummer Nights Dream. I mean, C'mon, it's Shakespeare (everything they mention as bad ("other stuff") is in the script.) we should be teaching Children Shakespeare, not sheilding them from it.

I'll ask you the same basic question I asked thal -- are you a father? To assume that CAP is trying to "shield" children from Shakespeare is jumping to a conclusion. When my kids are old enough to read Shakespeare, they'll be old enough to watch a rendition of the play (or film).

And in the review of Doug's 1st movie (which got a good score, by the way), one of the bad points listed was adolescent underware...what?!

Yeah, I read the underwear comment about "Doug's First Movie," but in context it's typical of CAP's uncompromising standard of decency. I'm surprised you didn't react to their objection to the '60s peace symbol. Still, they didn't just give the movie a "good score;" they made it "the first movie to warrant a CAP 'Green Light'".

I would say [South Park is] in the same vein (but not nearly as subtle) as Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal".... Stone and Parker are sharp fellows, if you go beyond the language.

Exactly. They don't have the intellectual horsepower of Jonathan Swift, so they dumb-down what might very well be legitimate political ideas to the point of depravity, thereby missing audience members such as me. They don't want to effect political change -- they want to make a buck by shocking people.

On a related subject, I know of only one real satirical publication that works within the Christian community (as opposed to all the secular publications that ridicule Christianity from the outside). It's called The Door . Check it out.

... "politically correct "what's the big deal?" posturing"??? I'm not sure I agree with you there.

I meant that it is politically correct to be "tolerant," and it is posturing to make a public display of one's "tolerance" by condemning "intolerance."

[Comments about CAP's "rude and gratuitous" review snipped.]

You're demonstrating the "posturing" that I'm talking about. You are condemning CAP's"intolerance." Why should it offend you that they say the movie is straight from Hell? Isn't that a badge of honor in today's culture war? (Depending on the side you're on, of course. :-)

The fact is CAP is an extreme fundamentalist Christian organization.

Interesting. "Fundamentalist" used to mean a Christian arguing for the "fundamentals" of the Faith, but as J.I. Packer points out in "Fundamentalism" and the Word of God , the term became derogatory because the original fundamentalists earned a reputation for lacking -- to put it delicately -- intellectual horsepower. I would say that CAP is a conservative, evangelical Christian organization. The content of their Web site represents an intelligent and informed viewpoint, albeit a viewpoint not popular on Slashdot.

Look at the review of A Midsummer Nights Dream. I mean, C'mon, it's Shakespeare (everything they mention as bad ("other stuff") is in the script.) we should be teaching Children Shakespeare, not sheilding them from it.

I'll ask you the same basic question I asked thal -- are you a father? To assume that CAP is trying to "shield" children from Shakespeare is jumping to a conclusion. When my kids are old enough to read Shakespeare, they'll be old enough to watch a rendition of the play (or film).

And in the review of Doug's 1st movie (which got a good score, by the way), one of the bad points listed was adolescent underware...what?!

Yeah, I read the underwear comment about "Doug's First Movie," but in context it's typical of CAP's uncompromising standard of decency. I'm surprised you didn't react to their objection to the '60s peace symbol. Still, they didn't just give the movie a "good score;" they made it "the first movie to warrant a CAP 'Green Light'".

I would say [South Park is] in the same vein (but not nearly as subtle) as Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal".... Stone and Parker are sharp fellows, if you go beyond the language.

Exactly. They don't have the intellectual horsepower of Jonathan Swift, so they dumb-down what might very well be legitimate political ideas to the point of depravity, thereby missing audience members such as me. They don't want to effect political change -- they want to make a buck by shocking people.

On a related subject, I know of only one real satirical publication that works within the Christian community (as opposed to all the secular publications that ridicule Christianity from the outside). It's called The Door . Check it out.

i do not believe [ pro-wrestling's role in the boy's death] is evidence that south park is something that should not exist or should not be seen by anyone under 17.

"Should not exist" is bait for censorship. The debate needs to stick with the issue of what the quality of the movie is. As for children seeing the movie, well, I'll do my part to see that mine won't.

[prose about the link between words/images and actions snipped]

hearing a curse word is not the same as saying a curse word...

What I was trying to say was that reading CAP's review was enough to tell me the film is unworthy of my attention. I can't defend CAP's assertion that it is "dangerous;" however, it's clear to me from CAP's review that the film contains no quality as an object of art that is true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent or praiseworthy.

... parents should concentrate on shaping their children's thinking ability instead worrying about what their eyes might see. it is really much more effective.

How utterly naive. Parents should of course do both. My oldest son accidentally caught a glimpse -- only a few seconds -- of "The Exorcist" when he was 5 or 6. It happened be a scene portraying demonic possession. That brief image continues to haunt him years later. As a child and teen, I myself was polluted with an unrealistic expectation of women and a twisted sense of sex that masked its deeper, true delights because I had access to pornography growing up. I'm sure I'm in the minority of Slashdotters who believes there's something inherently wrong with pornography. I therefore have nothing to do with pornography -- by choice.

I thank God for the innocence that my kids (6 and 8) still possess. In our house, we don't draw the line at obscenities. We draw the line at calling someone stupid, or saying, "That sucks." Why do I draw the line so far back? To compensate for society's pressure to erase the line completely. When my kids do begin exercising their "free speech" in more vulgar ways, they'll have been taught the example of just how far over the line they're going. By the time they make their own choice whether to see "South Park," I hope they will appreciate how far over the line that movie is.

This brings up an interesting point. I don't know when I'll begin permitting my kids to read Slashdot, but I do think thal and I would agree that it's the same time when it's "safe" to let them watch South Park. I mean that with all sincerity. It's just that thal and I might disagree about the age when that might be. Just how old are you, thal? Have kids of your own, yet?

south park is a world without fences, yes. if we keep the fences up all of the time, we will forget what is hiding behind them. and that it is when it will come to haunt us. south park is a hilarious reminder why we try to be civilized.

I like to be reminded of why I try to be civilized by seeing examples of the triumph of civilization. Or maybe there are those who want to compare the R-rated content of "South Park" to the R-rated content of "Saving Private Ryan"? Now that would be a good debate, too. I saw SPR twice. And I want my kids to see that movie. Not yet, but before they start reading Slashdot.

There's a worldview that believes depravity is inevitable -- that we need to poke around in the feces until our noses have grown accustomed to the smell and it's as if there's no smell at all. Then there's a worldview that expresses the conviction that the depravity of the world has been overcome and we've merely been living through a "cleanup operation" for the past 2,000 years. I subscribe to the latter worldview. "South Park" appears to subscribe to the former.

Two comments: "politically correct "what's the big deal?" posturing"??? I'm not sure I agree with you there. That attitude is most decidedly not politically correct, especially in light of recent events. Anyway, on to my main point.

I have no problem with CAP rating movies. They can do what ever they want as long as it doesn't affect me. I do have a problem with statements like: "*South Park* is another movie straight from the smoking pits of Hell." I think that's rude and gratuitous(I also think the review as a whole was gratuitus, and I can almost guarantee that page would be blocked by filtering software) I also think that this group is way, way out of line from what can be considered reasonable. The fact is CAP is an extreme fundamentalist Christian organization. Look at the review of A Midsummer Nights Dream. I mean, C'mon, it's Shakespeare (everything they mention as bad ("other stuff") is in the script.) we should be teaching Children Shakespeare, not sheilding them from it. And in the review of Doug's 1st movie (which got a good score, by the way), one of the bad points listed was adolescent underware...what?!

Okay, hopefully that clarifies my point...On to the next one. Don't worry, this one's a little shorter. I don't expect you'll ever see the movie (and don't think you should if you will be offended by it) but let me assure you, it IS a sharp, political film, with wonderful satire. I would say it's in the same vein (but not nearly as subtle) as Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal". (Where swift proposes helping the poor Irish out by slaughtering and eating their children.) (If you want to read it, go here) Shocking? Yes. Especially for the time (1729) But, that's the point. Stone and Parker are sharp fellows, if you go beyond the language. They have real and important messages in South Park.

I'm going to stop now (self imposed limits, don't you know), but I hope you can see my point of view and respect it.

Thanks
Casey

His attitude is a typical media-elite mocking dismissal of the numbing-down of what's socially acceptable. GnrcMan's comments about the Childhood Action Project's review also smack of politically correct "what's the big deal?" posturing. And replies to GnrcMan's comments reinforce the "what a funny, harmless movie" lock-step opinion. But words and images have consequences. A tragic example of that is the story on the Reuters wire yesterday about a 7-year-old boy killing his 3-year-old brother by copying a move he saw in televised pro wrestling.

I have no desire to see the movie. I can't even sit through the TV show. I never made it through an episode of Beavis & Butthead, either. Heh, heh, heh. Click. I seem to be one of the rare Slashdotters who sympathizes with Childhood Action Project (CAP), though, ( I'm a Christian raising two sons with my stay-at-home wife) so into the fray I go...

CAP is trying to quantify their analysis of the film. They offer their reviews as a tool for parents like me so I can decide which movies we'd like to take our family to see. (I'm not alone, BTW. Financial analysis shows that R-rated movies make less money than G, PG, or PG-13. Nowadays, Hollywood has to make R- and NC-17-rated movies to puff themselves up and say they've created "art." Of course, occasionally those ratings merely serve to attempt to make up for bad writing with less-than-mass-appeal shock value, too.) CAP makes subjective measures of Wanton Violence/Crime, Impudence/Hate, Sex/Homosexuality, Drugs/Alcohol, Offense to God, and Murder/Suicide. Sure, such metrics look like foolishness to the so-called "modern" worldview. In Katz' world, Wanton Violence/Crime and Murder/Suicide are harmless unless they happen in RL; Impudence/Hate is lauded as long as it's targeted at people of faith or anyone with conventional authority; Sex/Homosexuality and Drugs/Alcohol -- the more the better; and Offense to God -- well, he's dead, so he's an easy target.

Am I a repressed fanatic because I do my best to keep my kids innocent and to teach them what I know to be the truth? Hardly. It's my job as a parent to raise them with the values that I believe will serve them best. Do I teach my kids the value of free speech? Certainly, but freedom comes with responsibility.

Those values, BTW, do include tolerance. Intolerant Christians need to be confronted with Jesus' own central teachings -- he freely associated with the outcasts of society while he sharply condemned religious self-righteousness and hypocrisy. But Jesus taught tolerance in the context of having a personal, obedient relationship with God, denying our self-centered nature, and loving -- that's agape (look up the meaning of the Greek) -- one another. Such ideals can hardly be understood by a culture that doesn't even believe in God, celebrates selfishness and self-absorption, and lusts after one another without ever knowing what the word agape means.

My kids will have plenty of opportunities as teenagers to rebel against my values and choose for themselves. But it's still my job as a parent to show them where I stand on moral issues and to teach them responsibility.

Katz declares that, instead of being a comedy, South Park is actually a sharp, political film that exposes the self-righteousness and hypocrisy of the so-called "Morality Industry." It's a sad, sad thing that people fall short of perfection. The only perfect man got nailed to a cross for his trouble. But careless critics confuse the Perfect Message with imperfect followers. Let anyone hold up a standard for (conventional) morality, and today he or she is denounced as an intolerant, self-righteous hypocrite.

As I once heard Ravi Zacharias say, "Before you tear down fences, be careful that you know why they were put up in the first place." Ethics and morals -- whether they are based on examples set by Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Buddha, old, dead Greek philosophers, or Bill Clinton -- exist to draw boundaries for social behavior. South Park, it seems, wants to show what it's like without bondaries. And ... Parker and Stone want to show me this because ...?

The Apostle Paul sums it up: "whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things." ( Philipians 4:8)

As has also been said, "If you swim in the sewer, you're bound to get dirty."

One final comment -- if you think hackers can't be Christians, what is to be done with Larry Wall?

A funny view from the Christian right can be found at http://www.capalert.com/capreports /southpark.htm. If you haven't seen the movie yet, watch out, as this contains a few spoilers!

• ...but this movie has earned the most severe CAP Influence Density (ID) of almost 200 movies: a CAP ID of 10.65! *Natural Born Killers* (R) earned a CAP Influence Density of 7.46! Most R-rated movies earn CAP IDs between 1.00 and 3.00.

Alex Bischoff
---

I dug up this review from the Childhood Action Project (A Christian group devoted to saving the children.) Needless to say, this review is almost as funny as the movie itself was.

Here's a choice quote from the review: "WARNING! This analysis is blunt. *South Park* is another movie straight from the smoking pits of Hell."