A new five-year study of the Top 250 movies at the box office shows that movies with very strong Christian worldviews earn the most money. They even outperform movies with lots of foul language, sex and nudity, according to MovieGuide.org.

“Sex, nudity, obscenity, and profanity don’t really sell that well, especially in extreme forms,” stated Dr. Ted Baehr, founder of MovieGuide.org, “But movies with very strong Christian worldviews do three to 11 times better than movies with sex, nudity and foul language. They also perform much better than movies with very strong non-Christian, immoral, false, or even anti- Christian worldviews.

“Moviegoers want to see movies with very strong Christian content. They want the Savior to overcome the darkness, Truth to triumph over falsehood, Justice to defeat injustice, and Beauty to overcome ugliness: They want the Good News of Jesus Christ.”

In the last five years, movies with a very strong Christian worldview earned more than $73 million per movie, but movies with a very strong atheist, agnostic, non-spiritual, or anti-spiritual worldview averaged only $19.3 million.

The study was conducted by the Annual MovieGuide Awards Gala and Report to the Entertainment Industry.

Beware, home school moms: be notified beforehand that you’ve been typecast into the role of villainess in this weekend’s children’s smash hit “Horton Hears a Who?”

Settled down with our three and five year old grandsons Saturday afternoon, I was eager and prepared to point out the importance of a precious little speck floating throughout the movie’s opening frames. It would be a perfect teaching moment to share with them Dr. Seuss’ immortal, pro-life theme: “A person’s a person, no matter how small.”

But just minutes into the movie I gasped as one of the story’s key characters was introduced to the story line. An arrogant, snooty, evil, uncaring, and yes, unbelieving female antagonist named Kangaroo is introduced, and her little one pokes his head out of his mommy’s pouch. Kangaroo (with Carol Burnett’s voice)sniffs and says, “He’s pouch-schooled.” Pouch-schooled…home-schooled.

The other nicer moms let Horton play with their children and teach them about the forest, but no, not Kangaroo. Only she’s good enough to care for her little one. Hur-rumph…

The lovable Horton (with Jim Carrey’s voice) wins his way into the audience’s hearts immediately. He alone hears the tiny Who’s voice, and is immediately convinced life thrives on a tiny, little speck. The tiny Whoville mayor alone believes Horton, a huge, too-big-to-be-visible elephant, is protecting and caring for their peaceful little town.

If you’ve ever read Dr. Seuss’ “Horton Hears a Who?” to your children, you know the story line and how Horton so lovingly cares for and bravely protects the too-small-to-see Whoville residents. The artwork, the detail, the choreography and music are perfectly aligned in the cartoon and you almost forget the cartoon characters aren’t humans.

The artistry is a delight, and so is the overall theme emphasizing the preciousness and uniqueness of every life. The moral of the story is “a little child shall lead them,” which is fine, but it’s when the little Kenny jumps out of his “don’t-believe-it-if-you-can’t-see-it” mother’s grasp and tells her “No” in order to save Whoville that the story line becomes bittersweet.

In the very end, all is well, of course, and “A person’s a person, no matter how small” resonated with every caring adult in the theatre. The brilliance of the cartoons matched perfectly with a symphonic buildup kept the kids in the theatre mesmerized and engaged, even the most restless little 3 year olds. It’s truly a film for all ages. That’s what makes it’s anti-home school message so troubling.

As I followed our once-“pouch-schooled son”/now-father out of the theatre with his own little kennies in tow, I was saddened as I thought how the movie’s beautiful pro-life lesson was undermined by its unnecessary antagonism towards home schooling.

After a kiss and goodbye hug to all, I thought about that mean old Kangaroo and comforted myself by remembering our family’s “pouch-schooling” experience wasn’t as anything at all like “Horton Hears A Who?’s” ill-informed screenplay writers portrayed it. Our experience was more like the Whoville’s Mayor and his wife Sally’s home was — abounding with energy, silliness, learning, and laughter.

That’s the message I intend to shout out loud and strong, hoping above all hope to get that message out far and wide — maybe even into “Horton’s” big brave new world, way beyond our small, Whosville home schooling experience.

You may or may not have seen the television ad. It goes something like this. A middle-aged father is driving his daughter to school. I’d say the girl is about ten years old or so. Without warning, the stylish little pixie, in the cutest voice you’ve ever heard, puts an amazing request to her dad. The little darling tells her father, it probably would be better for her, if she could be dropped off a couple of blocks from the movie theater.

Now, in the real world, alarm bells would go off like the Fourth of July and New Year’s Eve combined, in the mind of any parent who received such a request. But the little girl quickly diffuses any growing angst in her mildly stunned father when she explains why the early departure would be in her best interest. “All the other parents are driving hybrids,” the little darling exclaims. “It just wouldn’t look like right if we showed up in this big gas-guzzler you are driving me to school in.” Well, she didn’t put it in those exact words, but that’s what was on her mind.

Contrary to the reaction of any normal parent, who probably would have told the girl to get someone else to drive her to school from now on, this daddy calmly and proudly tells the little darling that she is riding in a hybrid. The girl then says something like, “you never told me this” and the father ends the TV ad by saying, “I never thought I had to.”

The first time I saw this commercial, I was stunned. It struck me on so many negative levels, it is almost impossible to describe. But if you read my columns with any regularity, you will know I’m going to make an attempt at it anyway.

What arrogance, I thought. Of course, there was my reaction to the words of an obviously spoiled little girl who didn’t like the vehicle in which she was being driven to school, but the commercial hit me at a more visceral level. It was wonderful that this father was fortunate enough to be driving a brand new 2008 whatever. Yet this wasn’t good enough for a child’s fashion sense. Note, she wasn’t proclaiming her anxieties about the state of the environment, she was worried about what others would think because her father wasn’t trendy enough.

Suddenly, I understood what much of the environmental movement in America, and the world for that matter, is all about. The movement is designed to speak to the affluent and privileged in our society, playing on the guilt complex that drives much of the liberal philosophy today. Did the creators of the hybrid ad think about the single mother who is happy her car is moving and her tires aren’t too worn out to drive her kids to school safely? The ad was playing on one thing and one thing alone– collective guilt. And everyone who saw the commercial needed to buy this $50,000 vehicle to no longer feel guilty.

However, we shouldn’t be surprised at such snobby elitism coming from the Left. Even though the United States gets most of its oil from Canada and Mexico, we constantly hear about how our nation must be weaned off of foreign oil. This is a reasonable goal that most Americans would agree with. But the modus operandi regarding this change demonstrates how the Left is willing to use any means to reach a goal.

There are some political activists who would like to see gasoline prices go as high as possible. They believe such astronomical costs would help wean the country off of fossil fuels; in this case, gasoline. But these tree huggers are forgetting something, aren’t they? There are millions of people, including the poor and elderly, on fixed incomes, and gasoline prices at such a high rate would greatly impact their quality of life. Money used for items like medicine for them or their children would now have to be spent on gasoline that would take them to the doctor to get the prescriptions they can no longer afford.

Remember, with the Left, the ends justify the means. And though they will claim to be the people who truly care, their actions reflect something completely different.

In Africa, there are millions of people suffering from AIDS, living in thatched huts with dirt floors. They pray to God for their next meal and are thankful when they receive it. But, in some cases, more money is spent by industrialized countries on wild life preservation than on feeding and clothing the poor. Some might call it a form of paganism which actually assigns more importance and value to nature than to human beings.

The ad I talked about at the beginning of this column is born out of this philosophy. It plays upon something dark that lies within a culture which many believe does not appreciate the riches it has. The creators of the ad could care less about those who don’t have the 50 grand that would make them environmentally responsible drivers. The ad plays upon envy, pride, and a covetous nature that may lie deep within us all.

I believe in something called responsible environmentalism. This is a common sense view of how to take care of our precious planet. It is a mindset not dependent upon the creation of guilt in others, but based on what is best for mankind. If you look closely, you can see the threads of the hybrid ad running through much of the radical environmentalist movement. You can live in a $10 million mansion and assuage your guilt by buying carbon credits; or, if you’re a movie star, take part in a fundraising gala to save the whales, then drive away in your limo, sipping champagne and feeling good about yourself.

We do have a responsibility to protect and cherish the world God created for us. It is a task that should be undertaken with sensibility. Anything else looks shallow and is probably motivated by the wrong reasons.

I have been studying media bias for 15 years and one of the favorite statistics I used to quote was that 70 percent of Americans did not trust the dominant media. When I would quote this figure, it had quite an impact, and it proved to me that Americans were not as naive as those in Los Angeles and New York might think.

However, a recent poll conducted by Sacred Heart University (SHU) indicates the trust factor regarding the dominant press is worse than it was a mere five years ago. Since 2003, the level of trust has dropped 10 percent regarding Americans belief in the truth of information they are receiving from television and radio. According to the SHU poll, over 80 percent do not trust what they see or hear from the news.

These are stunning numbers. But I believe the SHU poll represents a mere fraction of the concerns Americans have with the media on the whole. The SHU poll also indicates the media intentionally tries to influence public opinion. And, in my opinion, that is the most dangerous aspect of the results revealed in this national poll.

For years, the movers and shakers in Hollywood and New York have been attempting to socially re-engineer American society. Virtually every television program or movie is a liberal morality tale, hidden within a slick package.

One of the greatest examples of the attempt to change public opinion on current events could be seen when ABC-TV featured a series starring Geena Davis titled, “Commander in Chief.” The program aired literally a year or two before Hillary Clinton announced her well-known intentions to seek the presidency of the United States. Was the ABC series an accident? Or was the network demonstrating how a woman could be a strong Commander in Chief? The title even gave the message away. It was tampering with the American psyche at the highest levels.

NBC’s “The West Wing” gave the nation another look at the presidency from a liberal viewpoint. Each week, actor Martin Sheen gave the country a lesson in tolerance and compassion. Amazingly, Sheen’s presidential character was on the air longer than the U.S. Constitution would allow in reality. But there was no chance a conservative president would have taken Sheen’s place. Could you imagine a show with Mel Gibson on his knees, praying for guidance as president of the United States on any major network television program, unless Gibson were being depicted as a conservative president gone mad.

There are more dangerous results not revealed in the Sacred Heart University poll. How does the rest of the world look upon the United States? Do other nations and cultures receive a false impression of what Americans are really about? The answer to that question is a resounding “yes.” For example, Islamic countries believe the United States is the great Satan and, since they receive all their input from our television programs and movies, how can you blame them for getting this negative impression? Americans are driven by sex, prone to violence, and unworthy of trust; this is the theme Hollywood has spread around the world. Indeed Osama Bin Laden himself fears the spread of American culture more than he does the falling of American bombs.

The SHU poll should be surprising to no one, but it should be enlightening to all. However, at the same time, the study should give us all power. Recent box office results indicate Americans are not going to movies which depict sex and violence as its main theme. We do have the power to change things and it shouldn’t take a poll to remind us of this obligation. Yet it is always nice to see statistics bearing out the truth.

By Nancy M. Czerwiec, a senior American and former library board trustee

We’ve all felt that familiar tug on the heartstrings when we hear those old tunes from younger days. Whether they’re playing on the radio or in a “special TV offer” infomercial, those songs have the power to awaken the emotions of a simpler, easier time.

So when the play, Jersey Boys– with it’s catchy, nostalgia-inducing melodies– gets rave reviews, it’s no surprise that bus load after bus load of seniors line up at the LaSalle Theater to once again hear hits like “Sherry,” “Big Girls Don’t Cry,” and “My Eyes Adore You.”

But as the lights dim and the show begins, it’s not the great music that catches one’s attention; rather, it’s the script teeming with the “F” word , a**, and a couple of phases using God’s name in vain.

The crass script, though, slowly begins to take a back seat as the enthralled audience is wowed with incredibly accurate renditions of hit tunes from Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons. As the play ends, the gray-haired audience is on its feet cheering and clapping to the music of their youth.

But wait… what about the script? What about the senseless gutter language repeated over and over? What about the assault on the decent human senses and the crass offensive script no one would accept but for the nostalgic tunes attached to it?

It seems to me that this attack on our decency cannot be left without a voice of objection and a call to the producers to clean up their act. How dare they take our good money and batter us with garbage language? How clever and insidious to tell us that this is the way it was; this is how they talked and this is the real story. Well, seniors, that may be the case, but I not buying it.

This is nothing more than the continued assault by those in America who want to destroy all that is wholesome and good in our society. It’s time we draw the line, and I hope many of you will join me in saying “We ain’t going to take it any more.” We want good reading, good TV, good music, and everything else good that the media is trying to destroy.

Please, if you have seen this play and agree with me, go to the Jersey Boys website and register a loud and clear complaint. For the sake of your children, grandchildren, and our nation, speak up.

If you don’t, then just remember that we have no one to blame but ourselves for this insane downward spiral.

Family News in Focus

Mature rating is unlikely to keep kids from the filth.

The sexually charged video game Mass Effect is rated “M” for Mature, but that doesn’t mean kids aren’t playing it. It has sold nearly 2 million copies.

Characters battle extraterrestrials but also become sexually involved, resulting in graphic scenes and nudity. Dr. Don Shifrin, spokesman for the American Academy of Pediatrics, said he worries kids will be exposed to the game.

“All of the younger kids want to do everything the older kids and adults do,” he said. “These games are very seductive and very attractive to youngsters who are under the age of 17.

“They will create an image in their own mind that sexuality has become normalized and that there’s no adverse consequences.”

Why do game-makers continue to push the envelope?

Bob Waliszewski, director of Focus on the Family’s Plugged In magazine and Website, said: “To be one step up on the competition, they need to do something, and, of course, a sleaze factor is an easy way to get a step up.”

FOR MORE INFORMATION
How can you protect your kids?

Protest planned at Woodfield Target Saturday morning
NEWS RELEASE, December 10, 2004
CONTACT: IFI: 630-790-8370

GLEN ELLYN-Illinois Family Institute (IFI) today called for a Christmas-season boycott of Target stores, in response to Target’s Scrooge-like ban of Salvation Army bell-ringers at its 1,200 stores nationwide. 

IFI, Republican Young Professionals, Vote Life America and other pro-family groups will hold staggered protests at individual Target stores in the Chicagoland area in the coming days-beginning with a 9:00 a.m. protest Saturday, Dec. 11, at the Woodfield Greatland Target store near Woodfield Mall. The store is at Higgins and Meacham Roads, 1235 E Higgins Rd, Schaumburg, IL 60173; see bottom of this email for an online map. 

Target executives claim they are not “targeting” the charity group for punishment but merely ending the Salvation Army’s exception to the store’s non-solicitation policy. However, pro-family groups suspect that Target is kowtowing to homosexual activists-who for years have crusaded against the Salvation Army’s Bible-based policy of opposing homosexuality and hence “gay” leaders. 

“Our family is not shopping at Target this Christmas, even though it is my wife’s favorite store this time of year,” IFI Executive Director Peter LaBarbera said. “It amazes me that Target is punishing this charitable group during Christmas-all in the name of ‘fairness.’ Isn’t that just like theACLU and the Secular Left?” 

“When liberal Political Correctness gets mean and directly harms benevolent groups that serve the poor and needy, it’s time for people to stand up and say they won’t take it anymore,” LaBarbera said. “Salvation Army kettles have graced the entrances of various stores and street corners for decades. They are a wonderful holiday tradition, and a symbol of the Christmas season’s emphasis on good will and compassion. Why would a corporate policy undermine the charitable work of an organization like the Salvation Army?” 

The answer came last month when Rick Garcia, Illinois’ leading homosexual activist, told the Walsh Forum radio show that “gay” groups have contacted Target and other corporations to urge them to stop supporting the Salvation Army. 

The money raised by the Salvation Army during the Christmas season is used to care for the poor, feed the hungry, shelter the homeless and provide for substance abuse rehabilitation programs. Denying the high-volume Target locations to Army kettles and bell ringers will cost the organization an estimated $9 million in charitable dollars this season-an average of $10,000 per Target store, according to the Salvation Army. 

The Illinois Family Institute is urging citizens to contact Target headquarters and their local Target store to express disappointment with this decision, and tell them that they will shop elsewhere until Target reinstates Salvation Army bell ringers outside their stores. 

Cathy Santos, co-founder of the Chicago-based Republican Young Professionals, issued the following statement on behalf of RYP: “We are saddened by Target Stores’ decision to ban the Salvation Army’s world famous Red Kettles from its properties this Holiday Season. Republican Young Professionals has had the privilege of volunteering with the Salvation Army over the years, and our members have seen first hand the extraordinary good work performed by that fine organization. With Target Stores playing the role of Grinch this Christmas, we see no choice other than to encourage our members to take their business elsewhere.” 

LaBarbera said Target’s decision to ban the Salvation Army reminded him of last Christmas season, when it was learned that the United Way-Chicago de-funded the Chicago Boy Scouts, costing the boys’ group hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding. Like the current Target situation, local Chicago homosexual groups had lobbied United Way-Chicago to dump the Boy Scouts. (IFI continues to urge Chicagoans to give directly to the Chicago Area Council of the Scouts (www.chicagobsa.org) rather than the United Way-Chicago.) 

Click HERE to read the Salvation Army’s stance on homosexuality.
###

Illinois Family Institute is a non-partisan, non-profit organization, proudly affiliated with Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council and theAlliance Defense Fund. We work to defend marriage, family and the sanctity of life in Illinois.