http://www.bahamasissues.com/images/press_pic.JPG
Photo of me and my family at the press conference on June 18, 2003


June 18, 2003 - 11:30 a.m.

Introduction
I’d first of all like to say a special thanks to you, the members of the local press for your attendance this morning.

By way of the alert you have received, you are all fully aware of the purpose for this press conference this morning. While we are making the public aware of the Films and Plays Control Board’s irresponsible movie rating practices for minors, our primary motivation is to try to protect our minor children and teens and to serve their parents who we do not believe are aware of what is happening. Your giving press coverage to this matter helps to facilitate this information getting out and therefore you too are helping to protect our children and youth and serve their parents.

This morning, I speak both as a concerned father of three children and as an apostle in the Church of Jesus Christ. As I contemplated addressing this issue, a short passage in the book of Proverbs has been both my motivation and inspiration to make the general public aware of the sad and disturbing practices of the Film and Plays Control Board. This is what it says:

Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. If you say, "But we knew nothing about this," does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done?
Proverbs 31:8-9

Ladies and gentlemen, I do know so I can’t pretend otherwise.

The Background
Since April of this year, I have been engaged in an ongoing stream of written and verbal communication with Mr. Rick Albury, Chairman of the Bahamas Films and Plays Control Board, and the Ministry of National Security, the government department responsible for the Board. In my communications to them, I have raised objective concerns about 10 movies and the general rating practices of the Board. In the case of each movie, I pointed out to them the specific objectionable content and/or the rating error.

While the Chairman has been cordial in our dialogue, he and his Board have made no effort….and I stress no effort to justify their ratings. In short, the Board has been unresponsive, and seemingly indifferent, other than accepting my recent objection that their “T” rating on the movie “2 Fast 2 Furious” was irresponsible and the movie should be re-rated to “C”. They did re-rate the movie from “T” to “C”, but only one week later, when it was stale and after thousands of teens would have already seen and heard its objectionable content.

Specific Objections
Of the 10 movies that I have objected to since April of this year, I indicated that 3 were wrongly rated, based on the Motion Pictures Association of America (MPAA) ratings and 7 were wrongly rated based on inappropriate content for children and teens.

Two of the three wrongly rated movies I objected to are “Phone Booth” and “Matrix Reloaded 2” . Both of these movies are rated “R” by the MPAA, but the Board chose to give them a “T” rating for our teens as young as 15 years old to see. Ladies and gentlemen, other than those members of the Films and Plays Control Board who evidently see nothing wrong with giving “T” ratings to “R” rated movies, I do not believe that we will find a parent in this country who would approve of this sad practice.

Not only will parents strongly object in principle, but I believe they would be repulsed at the thought of their children watching an “R” rated movie like “Phone Booth” which the Board disguised as being appropriate for teens as young as 15 years old by irresponsibly rating it as “T”. “Phone Booth” is an 81 minute long movie, laced with inappropriate sexual content, extreme violence and extreme profanity…a part from other profane words, there are 122 “F” words….yes, that’s right, 122 “F” words; that is an average of 1.5 “F” words per minute. Clearly, this is wrong.

The third movie with a wrong local rating is the popular “Daddy Day Care”, featuring Eddie Murphy. This movie has an MPAA rating of “PG” which tells parents that it contains material that they might object to and therefore, their guidance is needed. “Daddy Day Care” contains what is described as “mild” expletives and sexually related comments. Instead of giving “Daddy Daycare” a “B” rating, which would require children to be accompanied by an adult, the Board gave it an “A” rating, approving it for ALL audiences to see without any adult supervision. The “A” rating allows me to take my 3 children, including my 4 year old, drop them off to the theatre and they will all be admitted. Why should the Board approve babies as young as 4 years old listening to “mild” expletives and sexually related comments? Again, this is wrong.

Reasonable Questions
What can possibly be the reason for the Board’s practice of taking popular “R” rated movies and giving them a local rating of “T” (for teens as young as age 15) or rating a popular “PG” movie as an “A” movie. It defies logic and is irresponsible. It begs the obvious question why? This practice is wrong by all accounts, and those specific members of the Films and Plays Control Board who are responsible for these decisions should hold their heads down in shame.

Accordingly, I will be formally asking the Minister of National Security, The Hon. Cynthia Pratt (whom I personally know has a genuine interest in the welfare of our young people) to cause an investigation to be done to make sense of these rating decisions and to ensure that this practice stops.

The 8 movies I objected to based on content are all rated “PG-13” by the “MPAA”. They have all been rated “T” (for persons at least 15 years old). I have provided my specific objections to each of these movies in the press package that you will receive. All of the movies were screened using the world’s number one internet screening site, www.screenit.com which I highly recommend.

As it relates to the content of the movies being approved for public viewing, there are glaring contradictions about which we as a nation need to ask ourselves some obvious and sober questions. Some of these questions are:

1. Does it make sense to allow our children and teens to be entertained by profanity in movies for which they will be reprimanded and in some cases severely beaten if they dare use them?

2. Is it reasonable to expect our children and teens to abstain from sexual relations when they are being sexually teased by movies with explicit sex/nudity content as is the case in the11 movies which I have lodged objections to? We complain about promiscuity among our young people, teen pregnancy, HIV/AIDS and other STD’s and then on the other hand we arouse the sexuality of our teens by approving movies for them with explicit on screen sexual context. Accordingly, we weaken their ability to say no.

This makes no sense! I believe our youth want to say no to sex before marriage but we are sexually teasing them…we are perverting them and it is a tragic disservice to them and their future.

3. Is something not wrong with allowing the public viewing of movies and in which people can listen to up to 200 “F” words (this is the case with the movie “8 Mile” that was here late last year) and then if someone steps outside the movie theatre and utter one “F” word, he can be arrested for using obscene language “to the annoyance of a police officer”? This is moral schizophrenia! Either both are wrong or both are right but one can’t be wrong and the other right.

4. Is it not contradictory that the police (who are under the Ministry of National Security) are fighting crimes that people are being entertained by in movies, the public viewing of which are regulated and overseen by the same ministry? For example, the “Fantasy Club” on Madeira Street was raided a few weeks ago by police for allegedly running a prostitution operation and the club operator and two alleged prostitutes were arrested. A few weeks before that incident, the movie “Phone Booth”, was running at the theatres. Prostitution is one of the central themes of “Phone Booth”. Clearly this is contradictory.

The Bigger Picture
We complain about our violent society but do not see that when we sit for hours upon hours and are entertained by violence we are medicated to it and we develop great tolerance for it. It is naïve to think that the things we watch and listen to are without any consequence. Studies continue to show that movies and television are still the number one influential source for the shaping of the values of our children and teens. And the old adage is still true, garbage in, garbage out.

While we in this nation continue to have academic discussions about the potential damage the proposed LNG and oil drilling projects might have on our coral reefs and marine life, the Films and Plays Control Board is quietly aiding and abetting what in my view is a more calamitous disaster: Under the guise of entertainment, they are approving the public dumping of moral sewage on our minor children and teens who are far more precious that our marine life…children as young as my 3 children (who range in age from 4 to 12 and who are here with me today) are being polluted and perverted. The Lord does not threaten those who destroy the environment but he does threaten those who pollute our young ones and cause them to stumble into sin. Since he keeps both his promises and his threats, those who are responsible should take heed.

Reasonable Recommendations
And finally, ladies and gentlemen, as you are all aware, in approximately 1 week schools will be on summer break. You are probably also aware that going to the movies is the number one favourite summer pass time activity of children and teens. With the current rating practices of the Films and Plays Control Board, I have grave concern for our young children and teens. I will therefore be suggesting to the Ministry of National Security some specific, reasonable recommendations to help to address the weaknesses in our ratings system to protect our children and teens who will frequent movie theatres this summer. Some of these recommendations are:

1. Adopt a ratings policy position that movies rated “R” must not be given a rating lower than “C”.

2. To cause all movie theatre operators to prominently display the rating meaning of the letters in our rating system (“A”, “B”, “C” and “T”).

3. To cause all movie theatre operators to prominently display the rating for all movies being shown.

4. In conjunction with the theatre operators, implement a mandatory ID system. Far too many minors are seeing movies they ought not to see because, for example they look 15, even though they are as young as 10, as in the case of my son who is 10 and my daughter who is 12. They can walk into any “T” rated movie on this island and will be admitted. I have done numerous informal polls with young people and virtually every one that I polled smiled and acknowledged that they have viewed movies at local theatres that they knew they were not at the proper age to see. This can’t be right. Therefore, a mandatory ID system needs to be put in place, accompanied by stiff fines for theatres that allow violations.

5. Develop a more proactive and less bureaucratic system to review the ratings on any movie for which objections are lodged.

Help for Parents
As a parent, I recognize that parents have the primary responsibility for overseeing what their minor children watch. The reality is that all of the movies which I objected to, in addition to countless others, will in a matter of a few months be on TV Networks, Cable Networks, Direct Satellite, the Internet, DVD and Video. Therefore, parents need to be proactive in helping their minor children to be discriminating in their entertainment choices. Accordingly, our church has produced and is making available to the public, free of charge, a Mass Media Guide that we have prepared for this specific purpose. In addition to helping parents to understand both the MPAA and our local rating system, and the television rating system, the Guide also provides helpful information on safe usage of the internet and making other media choices like music and magazines. Again, this guide is available free of charge and can be collected from our church’s administrative office at this location, No. 25 Chesapeake Road, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Closing and Thanks
Ladies and gentlemen, I trust that I have been able to sensitize you to the magnitude of the problem before us as it relates to rating practices of the Films and Plays Control Board. I now ask that you use your powerful news mediums to sensitize the general public, and parents in particular.

Again thank you for your attendance this morning and I am available for questions and further interviews.

Click below to download a document with a list of 10 Movies for which ratings objections were communicated to the Films Control Board and the Ministry of National Security.
Click Here: download (http://www.bahamasissues.com/Listof10MoviesObjectedto.doc)


Apostle Cedric Moss serves as Senior Pastor at Kingdom Life World Outreach Centre, Nassau, Bahamas. Further requests for information should be directed to: apostle@kingdom-life.org.

One comment: I believe that the commentary which seeks to relate our social problems with what we watch, read and listen to is SO FAR off base! Really and truly.

I understand because I used to think that like. Intuitively and immpressionistically, the logic seems sound: We as a country are bombared with a host of unsavory images (sex, profanity, violence, etc) through our media. As time progresses, the images - in quantity and in decreptitude - seem to be even more pervasive. At the same time, we are witnessing a terrible breakdown in our social fabric. Teen pregnancy, sexual abuse, AIDS, drug use etc. The argument thus goes that the problems must be substantively related to the proponderance of these images and messages being fed into young, impressionistic minds. Does that sound like a reasonable assessment?

Problem is that this is an unsound argument. I was on Jeff's show a couple of months back and I brought some statistics. Would you believe that Amsterdam (vice capital of Europe) has only a minute fraction of the social and crime problems we have? And besides Moscow, the same is true for any major European city. As it is for Toyko or Singapore (which has perhaps the world's largest brothel in the middle of the city center). And in the European cities, the equivalent of "R" rated movies are shown on broadcast television after 8 p.m. In fact, the British version of the highly controversial gay drama, Queer as Folk, used to air at 9 p.m. on Channel Four.

And guess what? They don't begin to have the problems we have. Of course, they obviously have incidences of all types of crime and abuse, but NO WHERE on the level that we do.

How could that be, if your argument holds? Check out the facts for yourself.

After I realized this, I got to thinking. Perhaps our assessment of the problem is flawed. The prevalence of porn and marijuana and prostitution in Amsterdam has not led to a generation of sexually deviant druggies in that city. Quite the opposite. It is a clean, well maintained city characterized by relatively low crime, low teen age pregnancies and low cases of rape and sexual abuse.

The difference between us and them is in our culture and our commitment to personal and civic discipline and duty. Eighty percent of the kids born there are to two parent homes. The reverse is true here. The majority of the people there pursue fitness pursuits. Well, look at the folks in your church. About five times (per capita) the people there are involved in civic activities when compared to here.

So, my challenge to you and to the Church is to perhaps think about the problem differently. Other jurisdictions are dealing with these issues and building safe, sound communities - but not by trying to govern what adults or kids watch or are exposed to. Rather, they are preaching and teaching the doctrine of personal and community responsibility.

Think about it Cedric. Don't fall back on the flawed thinking that has prohibited us from dealing with these problems. You mentioned you governing what your kids watch and that is essential. Problem is that your kids still will be exposed to it through their peers or through their natural curiousity or desire to rebel. They need also to be equipped to understand what they are seeing and feeling when exposed to "wickedness".

In my badboy days, we used to go to church 'cause the girls there were so easy. And preachers' daughters used to top the list. Why? 'Cause church girls are generally naive and taught to think of the world in simplistic terms. Thus, when we worked our high-end 'BS' on them, the drawers flew off. The error of their parents was that although well meaning, they sought to protect them from "wickedness", rather than teaching them to interpret sensibly the range of influences into which they would come into contact.

I often tease my wife now that if she freaks out, I'm gonna go to any church in Nassau, search out the most Christianny girl and have her in love and in bed by Sunday night. And in truth, I wouldn't even bother 'cause ain't no challenge there. (smile)

Just some food for thought.

MJ

I'll respond in two parts. Here is the first.

If you look at the script that I read at the press conference, you will notice that I primarily objected to the WRONG ratings of the FPCB based on their general ratings practices in the past and our established rating system ("A", "B", "C" and "T") and the age groups they refer to. Specifically:

1. The FPCB in the past rated “R” movies as “C”. This means 18 years and older. Again, my point was and is that an overwhelming majority of Bahamians would agree that the "R" movies "Phone Booth" and "Matrix Reloaded" were wrongly rated "T" and should have been rated "C" and further that ALL “R” rated movies (based on the understanding that they are all classified as such for the same reasons) should be rated “C” here in the Bahamas under our rating system.

On this, the only disagreement you and I can reasonably have is that you might feel that the majority of Bahamians would agree for “R” rated movies to be rated “T”, which is the next level below “C”. What is your assessment on how the majority of Bahamians would vote on my proposition that all “R” rated movies should be rated “C”?

2. Since we do not have an advisory system built into our rating system, the most responsible and appropriate rating we can give to a “PG” movie is “B” because a "B" rating advises that persons under 18 should be accompanied by adults. An “A” rating for a “PG” movie is misleading and does not serve parents of young children because it tells them that the movie is unconditionally suitable for all ages when it is not...young ones need guidance.

Again, I believe the majority of Bahamians would support that under our current system, no movie that advises parental guidance should be rated “A” for all audiences but instead should be rated “B”. Do you believe that this is the view of the majority of Bahamians as you understand them?

3. The 7 “PG-13” movies I objected to are based on content, and again my point is that based on my understanding of the public morals of our society, the majority of parents of 15 year old teens would object to these movies as I have for the same profanity, sex/nudity, drug/alcohol, violence and other reasons. This is my view and I recognize that I can misread parents on this. I do, however, believe my read is accurate.

Assume that I am right. All I am saying is that the FPCB should represent the prevailing public morals. Because I do not feel that they are doing so, I sounded the alarm to parents and the Ministry of National Security, the ministry responsible for the FPCB.

Here is an extract of the contents review of one the 7 movies I objected to a “T” rating on( “Dumb and Dumberer” which is currently showing) and you decide whether an average parent of a 15 year old would agree to them watching this movie, based on this scene alone:

• We see the point of view of a baby being born, with a slit-shaped opening (representing the vagina) revealing the doctor and nurses. We then see a view from behind the mother with the doctor's arm apparently way up inside the mother between her legs (we can't see anything) as he tugs away.

• The doctor sucks on his gloved finger (that's just been inside a pregnant woman's vagina along with the rest of his hand) after the infant inside there apparently bites him.

Again, I believe that the majority of parents (at least 51%) of 15 year olds would object to them viewing the movie just on the above and virtually all the others who would not object based on the above alone would object to the movie as a whole when the other scenes are considered.

Am I misreading our public morals? Please tell me. If I am, then the FPCB has every right to continue with what they are doing.

You raised the broader issues comparing our public morals to Europe and comparing our social realities to theirs. I will respond to your comments. However, lets first settle on the issues related to our rating system, current public morals and my stated assessment of them since this was and still is my main point.

Imagine a movie that had the following elements. Detailed scenes of:

- Man having sex with dead brother's wife and practicing the withdrawal method of birth control (and - just for laughs - being struck down dead for doing so! The ejaculation that is - not the sex)

- Sons having sex with their drunken father

- Daughters having sex with their drunken father

- Wife bringing housekeeper for husband to have sex with

- Men with penises the size of donkeys; women with gushing menstrual flows

- National leader lusting after woman bathing on her rooftop and then arranging death of husband so as to 'steal' said woman

- Long poems about sexual arousal and firm breasts, etc.

- Military men defeating an enemy and bashing the heads of the enemies young infants into large stones

Now, our Film and Plays Taliban would probably ban this movie altogether from the Bahamas. But using the standard of public morality you proscribe to, you would probably give said movie an "R" rating. Is that about correct?

Problem though is that as you have figured out a long time about, that movie would be called "The Bible".

My point: All of the aforementioned are explicitly written stories from the Good Book. Now, normally, you pastor types don't emphasize those parts, but they are there nonetheless and growing up, we used to real those parts and get a good laugh out of them.

But, you all are telling people to read this pornographic material every day!! The Book of Isaih talks about men with huge penises!! And you all are complaining about '2 Fast 2 Furious'???? Give me a break!!! Not to mention all that talk in the Bible about bashing the heads of lil' babies against stones. Yeah, that's right! In the Bible!!!

Now I'm not suggesting that we should rate the Bible 'R' or even 'X'. I am saying though that there are parts that kids should be guided through and have explained to them. Because - besides the Song of Solomon which is just the ramblings of some horny toad - all of the other sexually explicit stories are instructive when viewed in context! And, even when taken out of context, the child exposed to them will not rush out and have unprotected sex and do drugs and set Parliament afire!

But, if I were to use your logic, and I made a movie or wrote a play or a book with those scenes in a similar context, what would you have said in your press conference about that movie if our lil Film and Plays Taliban had rated it 'B'. You'd be screaming bloody murder. But that is what the Bible should be rated, at a minimum. You'd probably make a really good case for it to be rated 'R' - what, with all the sex and violence an' ting!!

Again, my only real point to you is that there are much bigger and more important fish to fry. Life is about context and I believe that we should be about teaching people 'context' and the importance of guiding kids to right choices, even as we teach them about making sound choices.

Don't worry about profanity in movies! Characters talk that way in movies because that is how those characters talk in real life. I cuss like a drunken sailor myself when I'm with my wife or when hanging with my buddies having a beer or ten! Around you and in other appropriate settings, I don't swear. I understand context. And even most kids do. If my mother knew how me and my friends used to cuss, she'd turn in her grave. But around her, I respected her too much to do so. Give people credit. Exposure to naughty words ain't gonna do no harm. One thing I can't stand is to watch films, plays or TV shows where the characters ain't talking like they really would talk in real life!

I plan to respond to your last post as well as the other one that I previously promised.

However, before I do, please take a moment and give the pointed responses to the questions I raised (after your first post) about our rating system and what the current public morals consider appropriate for different age groups to watch.

Unless we frame and manage the discussion, it will only amount to meaningless chatter.

I look forward to your answers.

Specific answers:

(a) Rating system and movies in question: I do not believe that the ratings for said movies were inappropriate nor inconsistent with the ratings given in the past. The key problem is that you take specific instances in any movie and make a case for them outside of the context of the entire movie. Just as it would be inappropriate to take the pornographic parts of the Bible outside of the context of the stories in which they were found.

(b) Public Morals: The movies were not inconsistent with prevailing attitudes of public morality, because the reality is that our public morals - in real terms - are in tatters. In talk, perhaps, we lead the world in morality - but in action, that's a different story. That said however, even if they were, it is a terrible standard to which we should judge these movies because the public throughtout history has been known to be wrongheaded in its thinking by today's standards. (reference my comments on slavery and pre-pubescent wives). My point is that morals do change over time. What is immoral yesterday is perfectly acceptable today and visa-versa. Better to use another argument other than what the public wants. 'Cause the public here wants lottery and we both accept that it is an awful idea.

And moreover, it is awfully presumptuous to beleive in any case that you or I speak for the majority. We've both done straw polls among our contemporaries. Mine say "What's the big deal?"; your folks react in horror to what you tell them. And I'm sure we are both talking to decent upstanding people in our communities. And even then, it depends on how you ask the question. Point is that it is folly to assume to speak for the majority - and in so doing, even if the majority is on your side - the popularity of the view ain't no way to make sound public policy (reference your stand on Rev. Bynam or the lottery). So leave this argument alone.

MJ

My specific reply is as follows:

(a) On the balance of things your conclusion about the two “R” rated movies is wrong. Think about it. Don’t you think if the FPCB could have easily respond as you did they would? They have no comment because they know that they have in the past rated movies “cleaner” than “Phone Booth” and “The Matrix Reloaded” as “C”. A recent example is “Too Fast Too Furious”, which they initially rated “T” and after I communicated objections they re-rated it “C”. But compare “2 Fast 2 Furious” to the two “R” movies I questioned….those two movies are by far worst in terms of objectionable content for 15 year olds.

So, I think you are just debating me on this one, but again, one can reasonably conclude that the FPCB’s silence, even though invited to respond, indicates that my conclusions are correct. They simply can’t respond and “Phone Booth” has been gone for weeks (so they can’t change it) and changing “The Matrix Reloaded” would be further admission of their guilt, and besides, in my view there is another reason that I hate to mention.

(b) You are right about the hypocrisy of our public morals in terms of what we do and say. I did not address this. All I said was that the current stated public morals would agree with my assessment of the 10 movies in question. Yes public morals do change and if they degrade in 5 years and I am using today’s barometer, I would be wrong 5 years from now, while I would still be right from God’s viewpoint, I would be out of step with society. But currently, I believe I am accurately reading them. Also, I’m not saying that I or we should cater to public morals.

On this, I will have to leave it here…we read public morals differently from our individual vantage points. Since I do believe that the current rating practices are inconsistent with our public morals (even if one thing is said and another done), I will continue to seek to bring influence on this matter for congruency. We will have to see how it pans out.

I will now get to the other promised responses.

Except that: would you be on God's side by defending current public morals or by defending past public morals? Which one? Like when God permitted slavery and polygamy back in the day.

Christians have a tendancy to confuse their religious teachings with the issue of public morality. Now, if we are going to argue about what the Bible says is right or wrong, then that is another matter. But public morals are pliable and change with time and we just happen to live in a time when the morals (in theory and in reality) are what they are.

Stated another way, if we were having this discussion 100 years ago in Nassau, it may have been about the morality of having women go to the beach the same time as men. Seems almost ludicrous now, but that was the topic. 80 years ago it wasn't about co-ed beach picnics, it was about the morality of having women show their arms and lower legs in public.....Ooooo the immorality when women first decided to bare their calves and expose their arms! The views of the day was that GOD was going to destroy us and pastors were claiming that they were on GOD's side by fighting this scourge. Are you getting my point? There are countless other examples. Even the issue of dating: At one point, it would have been the absolute height of immorality for an unmarried couple to go anywhere without a chaperone. People used to have serious discussions about those things. But I digress.

First of all, how many of these films did YOU see?

I ask that because I wonder about your ability to make judgements on all of them and the potentially objectionable material outside of the broader context of the movie in which they were located. Was the material gratuitous? Were the scenes intended to reflect the artists vision and aim? Were they there to serve a comic end? Were they consistent with the story? Was the character's use of profanity in line with what was happening in the story? Did the scene make a particular point?

Second, I will not speak about Phone Booth because I did not see it. But I will speak about Matrix 2 - which I did see:

I cannot imagine anything in that movie that would warrant a 'C' rating. The violence was highly stylized and cartoonish - and there was no excessive blood shed or gratuitous and innappropriate killings and assaults.

There was one sex scene - but that was fairly tame and I've seen much more graphic scenes in Bond movies (which are always rated "B" here and "PG" in the U.S.). Indeed, the sex scene in Matrix 2 was tamer than those on any daytime soap.

There may have been a couple of "F" words. But I would imagine that by the time our teens get to 15, they would have encountered that word a few times before.

So perhaps, the US MPAA got it wrong by rating it "R". Perhaps.

I really don't know why the FPCB is so chicken-s___ about confronting you on this. Well, actually I know why: They are cowards who hide behind the Board and they are afraid of saying that Pastor Moss is making a mountain out of a molehill - especially when you can turn around and tell the self-righteous public (most of whom, you would agree, are living in serious sin) that there are F words and gay men in these movies who are taking our children to hell! They are afraid that you will make them look like sinners, which just shows to me how worthless they are.

If it were me, you would have gotten your response for sure!

And why are you using history to judge their current assessment. Just perhaps they realize that these 15 year old kids are hearing profanity on broadcast TV now, when that wasn't the case 25 years ago. They may have made a conscious decision to change the way in which they grade the movies. And in the case of the Matrix, I believe that they were spot on in their assessment.

Just perhaps they got it right and their U.S. counterpart got it wrong. Perhaps they saw it differently. Perhaps they realized that Boards in the past were lazy and just mirrored the U.S. rating, without taking into consideration that our system is DIFFERENT from the U.S. system.

By the way, did you ever see "Gone with the Wind". It was originally released in 1939 and was almost banned because Rhett uttered the word "damn" at the end of the movie. People at the time couldn't believe it and they said that it should never be shown in public.

What would you rate "Gone with the Wind"? Seeing that it had a cuss word, I imagine that we shouldn't expose 15 year olds to it! Or perhaps you may.

Because of time constraints, I have had to reassess our discussion. It is going in two directions, the first of which is discussing our rating system, and I have sufficiently addressed this. The other direction has to do with the “sense/logic” behind censorship and Biblical values/morals. While I can provide clear, trust worthy answers to the points you raised, I would be taken in another direction that I did not intend for the moment so I have decided to let you have the last word on that part of the discussion…at least for now. Again, my primary reason for this is time.

So, just to be sure that you know where I have ended on the ratings issues, here it is:

I believe that the FPCB is rating movies for minors to see that the majority of their parents (at least 51%) would object to if they knew. Yes, these movies are soon after available through other mediums like cable and satellite, but here again, I don’t think that the majority of parents are aware.

On all the above, I certainly do realize that I can be wrong…there is the obvious possibility that the majority of parents don’t care. However, I am convinced that they do, so I will continue to seek to make parents and policy makers aware of the contents of movies being rated for teens and if I am right there will be changes.

My approach works within the current rating system and how I generally understand parents to be in this country.

I know that you disagree with this censored approach and that is the beauty of a democratic society. You are likewise free to seek to bring influence based on your values. And in a democracy, even when we dislike the majority’s position on certain things, we still have to live with those positions short of them violating our inward convictions for which we would rather suffer than compromise.

I note with great interest that you didn't respond to my question as to whether or not you watched all of these movies?

Before you end, would you answer that?

As a matter of practise for myself and my family (and what I encourage the people at Kingdom Life to do), we screen ALL movies in advance in order to make an informed choice about whether it is worthy of our time and money (at home and at the cinema).

In the case of the cinema, we prefer not to pay to watch a movie and have to walk out 10 minutes into it because of objectionable content.

All of the movies that I objected to were not worthy for us to watch. They glamourize values that we do not esteem.

There are many services that we in society trust within reason(like news channels and stations) and I fully trust the movie reviewers at www.screenit.com. They review movies on 15 categories and some of the movies on the list violate ALL. I'm sure you realize as I do that if they misprepresent the movies, in a lawsuit happy country like the USA, they would lose their shirts.
So, we fully trust them.

Just for your information, as a parent, I jump at a decent movie at the theatre and every blue moon one is offered. The problem is blue moons don't come often.

As followers of Christ, we do not feel we are entitled to watch movies....no matter what the objectionable content is...and no matter how small the content. Years ago I learnt that rat poision is 97% cornmeal and 3% poison. Obviously, the rat is attracted by the conrmeal but he still unknowingly eats the poison and eventually dies.

My observation is that many people think they can handle being entertained by content laced with traces or doses of the "poison" of certain activities and behaviour they do not wish themselves or their children to be involved in. In my view, those who think this way are almost as decieved as the rat.

So, you have my answer and the why behind it.

Cedric, so you seek to condemn movies that you have not seen? So you do not know the context in which these "situations" arise?

But I have seen the movies that I have commented on. And you, who haven't seen them, still know more about them? Wow!

The Bible has sections in it that are not suitable for teens and some horrific references to violence (dashing the heads of infants on stones)?

Most people are sensible enough though to realize that despite the awful parts, one can put things in "context" and understand that these pornographic and violent references are appropriate in the context in which they are written.

The analogy to rat poison is thus off base. Otherwise, for objectionable material (the 3 percent), one would also have to ban the Bible, even if 97 percent of it is okay.

I see now why you don't want me to address your Bible group. You are able to get away with all kinds of wayward and narrow analysis and you're probably the smartest - so no one challenges you. Give me a chance! What is the harm in letting them hear from divergent points of view??

And why cannot our Ratings Taliban use their own discretion in rating these movies? Why must they follow the US MPAA or what past Boards did?

And it is unfair to label as "tragic" the fact that 15 years are being exposed to the "f" word! What truly is "tragic" is high levels of incest, child and spousal abuse. Some of which goes on with the knowledge (and even participation) of our religious leaders!

And why are you still presuming that the majority of parents don't know what the kids are watching? We adults go to the movies as well. We see the trailers of the movies we don't go to? Most of us have Direct Dish systems and see these movies shortly after their theatrical release. So parents do know. And if they don't, then you simply cannot blame the ratings board!

The valid point that you have lost in this "pin the blame" game is that the PARENTS need to be engaged and take in interest in what their kids are watching and doing. Unwittingly, you are perpetuating the mentality that it is other people's job to do my parenting - and that is a major part of the problem.

Why is this so important? Let's assume that you get your way and influence the ratings system so that kids only see movies that you believe are appropriate for them in the theaters - like, I assume, the Sound of Music and Bambi (assuming they edit the end of Bambi to take out the violent and gratuitous murder of Bambi's mother).

What will happen is that you will succeed in delaying the viewing of these movies by kids by about four months, when they are previewed on disk. The impressionable 15 year old will not then see the movie until they are a more mature 15 and a half.

What may be better if your aim truly is to ensure age appropriate access to certain movies is more focus on creating awareness among parents and guardians. Why not let us (and I'm prepared to lend support) on showing parents the cues to look for in movie trailers, in movie marketing strategies, etc. and get parents to take an active role in the habits of their teens?

Your aim may be noble, but your focus is absolutely wrong!!! And you have absolutely no evidence to suggest that exposure to these media is the contributing factor to our social problems. From an impressionistic standpoint, it seems like an easy correlation to draw. Except that the analysis is wrong!

It ain't Hollywood. It is the strength of the family and home environment and the strength of the institutions (church, schools, civic groups) that contribute to the life choices of young and old people.

Let's get on the right track!!

MJ

MJ:



I guess you sent this before seeing my reply on BahamasIssues because in it I stated that none of the movies were worthy of us watching them.

As I read your response, it is clear that you are not reading or understanding what I have written. Again MJ, it is far easier time wise to discuss this face to face…typing takes a while, but I will reply to the points of misunderstanding.

About speaking to our church, you are on the wrong planet about my reasons for not agreeing for you to do so or for us to “debate” the issue. The primary reason for this Marlon is that I do not think it would be a fruitful use of our time, not mine, not yours and not theirs. There are presuppositions beneath our positions on this and other matters, whether we say so or not. I believe in the Lord God Almighty, the Creator of the heavens and the earth and all who live in it. My positions and views are shaped by Him, as best as I can articulate them. In your case, you are agnostic, and therefore you shape your views based on your own natural thinking and intelligence. Many of our people would therefore not want to listen to such a debate based on two divergent views. The few who do are members of BahamasIssues and can avail themselves of the discussion. For me, this is not a matter of who is smarter. Marlon, people win arguments daily (as serious as court cases and trivial as whose plans for the upcoming holiday are the best for the family) and are wrong. Winning does not necessarily make one right.

Here again, I have a prohibition: In Scripture, I am commanded not to debate people. Yes, I do discuss things as I am now doing but when it borders on debating, I have to step back, even if it seems to put me in a negative light. You see, my job is not to convince you of anything. I share thoughts but I do not have a mission to convince you or anyone else.

Now, I’ll try to clear the waters. First of all, there are two aspects to this discussion and you need to be sure which aspect you are addressing when you communicate with me. I have stated these before but for the sake of good order I have copy and pasted them below:

“So, just to be sure that you know where I have ended on the ratings issues, here it is:

I believe that the FPCB is rating movies for minors to see that the majority of their parents (at least 51%) would object to if they knew. Yes, these movies are soon after available through other mediums like cable and satellite, but here again, I don’t think that the majority of parents are aware.

On all the above, I certainly do realize that I can be wrong…there is the obvious possibility that the majority of parents don’t care. However, I am convinced that they do, so I will continue to seek to make parents and policy makers aware of the contents of movies being rated for teens and if I am right there will be changes.

My approach works within the current rating system and how I generally understand parents to be in this country.”

In the above, MJ, I have made room for the possibility that my “reading” can be wrong, even though I don’t think I am. From your side, is there any possibility that you can be wrong? Please answer this question for me.

The second issue is about censorship or not and all the whys about each side. This it the real debate between us, and the FPCB and their ratings practices are incidental to it. Here is what I said:

“I know that you disagree with this censored approach and that is the beauty of a democratic society. You are likewise free to seek to bring influence based on your values. And in a democracy, even when we dislike the majority’s position on certain things, we still have to live with those positions short of them violating our inward convictions for which we would rather suffer than compromise.”

MJ, based on our discussions so far, I can say clearly that the major difference between us is the degree to which we advocate liberty and laws, and therefore censorship. I believe you want liberty and laws just as I do, you just want less laws and more liberty than I do. Therefore, the only valid argument you can bring is that I am advocating more laws and less liberty than you want and would like. If I am wrong, you answers to the following questions (which I sent to you in a previous e-mail but you did not answer) will reveal it:

1. The current laws place consensual sex at age 16 and over…not 15.5 or any thing less than 16. And what about the 14 year old boy or girl who see no reason why they can’t have legal sex when other minors between the ages of 16 and 17.99 years are allowed to. Do you support any age restriction on any individual’s right to have sexual relations, yes or no?

2. What about couples (married or otherwise) having sex in public, any kind and any where, so long as they are not fettering the rights of others?

3. Do you agree with the law that sets legal capacity/adulthood at 18? I imagine a civil libertarian can fight this because who has the right to determine when a human has legal capacity? Why not 8 or 30? MJ, any support that you give for setting a legal age undermines the “freedom” that civil libertarians espouse. On this MJ, I want to hear your direct response).

4. What place is there for laws in the civil libertarian view (like interest rate limits and price controls, contracts, price controls, labour laws, who I want to harbour in my private home and the activities that go on there (“prostitution”, giving alcohol to minors etc.) Bottom line Marlon, would it be right to say that civil libertarians object to any law that prevents me from infringing on the rights of others if I do not have their consent (in other words, if a person is willing to borrow money from me at 40% interest per annum, no law should prevent us from doing business)?

5. About children, what state laws, if any do you agree with as it relates to children and their parents? For example, who determines what is neglect? Suppose a parent decides to let his 5 year old child fast for weeks at a time to keep “religious” laws? Who determines what is acceptable disciple for children (the belt, shoe, drop cord or paddle or none at all etc.).


6. I did not ask this one before, but what do you think about the following:


· Homosexual sex (private or public), should there be any law against it?

· Incestuous sex between adults (brother and sister, son and mother or father and daughter), should there be any law against it?

· Bestiality (a person and their own licensed animal), should there be any law against it?

· Same sex marriages between adults, should they be allowed?

I trust that this puts our discussion back on the same page, and I await response and in particular your clear answers to my questions.

On the specific points:

1) The reason that I ask to present my views to your church body is because I am of the opinion that church leaders should be prepared to allow for divergent views to be discussed in their church. In part, because my observation is that church leaders are not comfortable with views that are contrary to their or which may seek to shed a different light on their suppositions. It don't even have to be a debate. It could be a discussion. With some of your young people. Let them see in person what a civil libertarian is about. No debate. Just a guest speaker. What is the discomfort in exposing them to ideas that are different from their own?

2) We do differ on what the majority is thinking. Difference is that I don't proport to speak on behalf of the majority. And of course, I may be wrong. But even if I am wrong, I'm prepared to follow my views even if they are in the minority. I don't like you using the fact that the "majority feels this way" as a defense, because the "majority" has been known to be wrong. Like in the case of the lottery. Isn't the majority wrong on that issue? Are you swayed by being in the minority?

3) I also have a problem with you making public commentary on movies that you have not watched!! And the church does this ALL the time!! You didn't respond to my comment about banning the Bible because it has some real objectionable parts! Why not ban the Bible? Should we call it trash? NO!!! Absolutely not!! It's about context. The movie Schindler's List (did you see it?) had nudity, violence and swear words. But I would let my 12 year old watch it in a second, because OVERALL these scenes were in context and the importance of the message is critical. That is why NBC aired the movie uncut several years ago - and despite some idiotic murmurings from the religious right - most people agreed that NBC did the right thing. That movie, by the way, was rated "R" in the US and "C" here. But for goodness sake, you can't take 20 seconds from a movie or count the F words and then proclaim that the ratings system is out of whack! What you did in pulling certain scenes from a movie is akin to me pulling certain scenes from the Bible and then asking you to rate the WHOLE book. Context, Cedric, cannot be overlooked!!

4) Your specific questions to me (some of which I did actually answer already):

Consensual sex: The age for consent, for drinking, for voting, and for driving should be set at 18. Why? Just to have consistency in the definition of a child. I believe that children must be protected by the law, because they are vunerable to the imposition of others. I do concede that this number is random, 'cause one can make a case up or downward on many of those.

Sex in public: It is an imposition on my civil liberties for you or anyone to expose themselves in public in an inappropriate way. One of the falicies of conservatism is that civil libertarians are anarchists! No, we believe in public rules. What we don't want is for anyone to govern what consenting adults do in private with other consenting adults! Anarchists lobby for full "freedom". Civil libertarians say that my freedom ends when it begins to encroach unreasonably on your civil liberties!

Protection of children: As stated, children ought to be guaranteed certain things under the law i.e. freedom from abuse, right to reasonable treatment and care, ability to remove themselves from places where there is neglect and abuse. In these areas, the state has a role to play and there will have to be judgement calls. Is this inconsistent with civil liberties? No, quite on the contrary! As for corporal punishment, I am working through this one myself. I believe that in some ways, we may be contributing to the perpetuation of a violent culture by unwittingly teaching kids that violence (a good beating) is a way to deal with problems. I do use corporal punishment with my kids but I am becoming more judicious in when and how I use it. I may get to the point though, where I advocate that it is outlawed.

Homosexuality: No homosexual or heterosexual person should be permitted to engage in sexual activities in a public place. The state should not EVER seek to prohibit homosexual sex in private between consenting adults. Homosexual maritial unions should be permitted by the state, to permit committed homosexual partners the same legal protection and priviledges as committed heterosexual partners. Responsible homosexual partners should be permitted to raise or adopt children in a manner similar to responsible heterosexual couples.

Prostitution: I am for legalized prostitution, with state supervision and regulation. Safer for the girls and safer for the Johns. On that, can we at least legalize strip clubs??

Beastiality: Animals, like kids, need protection under the law in this regard, so no!

Incestuous sex: for minors and with minors, no sex should be allowed.

Economic laws (price controls, interest rates, etc.): Price controls are a bad idea - but that is economics and not civil liberties. Interest rate limits also don't work. I support the intervention of the state into economic matters, but I think that it has been proven over and over that market forces find a way to overcome any state interventions, when such interventions seek to prohibit any activity.

Same sex marriage: Aside from the religious prohibitions, is there any reason why same sex marriage should not be allowed? As mentioned before, I'm for it 100 percent.

Hope I've managed to answer your questions honestly and clearly. What rating again, should we give to the Bible??

You answered all of the questions clearly, except one. You stated that incestuous sex between minors should not be allowed but this was not my question. Should it be allowed between adults (brother and sister/brother or father and daughter/son or mother and son/daughter)? I don’t want to assume that you said “yes” to these indirectly. Please give it to me straight.

Thanks.