Michelle Malkin » Religious tolerance in Hollywood? What’s that?

Religious tolerance in Hollywood? What’s that?

By Michelle Malkin • January 15, 2009 11:51 AM

Terrifically talented graphic novelist, video game designer, writer, and blogger Doug TenNapel has a must-read piece at Big Hollywood on his first-hand experience with Hollywood’s brand of “religious tolerance.”

Here’s the intro:

I once had a meeting with an executive regarding one of my graphic novels that had been optioned. This exec started the writer’s meeting with a few notes to change some rough spots in the story. This is normal procedure with my work. I have no problem with making these changes, since it’s part of the game given where I’m at in my career. They pay me lots of money so I like these execs when I’m sentenced to work with them. I was taken aback by the first round of notes that went something like this, “For starters, we’re gonna get rid of all this Christian shit from the story, right?”

The exec informed me that religious imagery didn’t sell to American audiences, that it was intolerant and it definitely didn’t export. This was before ‘The Passion of the Christ’ so I can forgive his ignorance of the world’s most popular religion, but it was the word intolerant that struck me. How was the inclusion of religion not tolerant while the removal of it was?

Read the rest.

Doug’s website is here.

Posted in: Hollyweird

Printer Friendly

comments (437)

trackbacks (2)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#593171

On January 16th, 2009 at 11:54 am, wighttrasch said:

No, I have never gotten ‘pause’ from my G-d, zeroangel, but I would haved paused if I was taught what you wrote.

My G-d is neither cruel nor horrible, but, hey, Satan continues to do his job of taking his (satan’s) attributes & putting them on G-d.

I am not going to argue the very basis of christianity, which is not only answered in the reason why G-d had to sacrifice his son, but the resurrection of that son. Your question ‘why’ explains your atheism. I don’t care that you choose to not believe in any god. I would like for you to not care that I do.

Oh, and this?

Moses almost sacrificing Isaac

explains more to me than the rest of your post.
#593177

On January 16th, 2009 at 12:00 pm, zeroangel said:

I would like for you to not care that I do.

I do not. However, the problem is many religious people can’t seem to keep it private. The whole evolution “debate” is evidence of that. I do not want my child taught your religion in science.

As far as Moses: did I get the names wrong? I am sorry; please remind me of the names of this unspeakable cruel act of child abuse, I must have gotten the characters wrong.
#593180

On January 16th, 2009 at 12:02 pm, jwm said:

To paint all gays as supporting pedophilia is just plain stupid. I am not gay, but, it seems to me that the two biggest issues amongst the gay community in the Bay Area are marriage and adoption. I really doubt that supports of gay marriage and gay adoption think molesting a kid is okay.I prefer the idea of civil unions and think that gay adoption is fine. And I’d be more than happy (no pun intended) to help a gay person give a child molester the beating he would deserve.
#593181

On January 16th, 2009 at 12:02 pm, chapoutier said:

zeroangel,

what comments re: atheists are you referring to, exactly?
#593182

On January 16th, 2009 at 12:02 pm, zeroangel said:

Ah I just looked it up.

Sorry it was Abraham. OK, so my point still stands.

What kind of monster of a “God” would command such a horrible thing, just to prove loyalty?
#593183

On January 16th, 2009 at 12:05 pm, zeroangel said:

Chapoutier:

Here:

http://atheistmedia.blogspot.com/2008/12/michelle-malkin-atheists-should-be.html

http://wtf.videosift.com/video/Michelle-Malkin-Treat-Atheists-Like-Trolls-for-Christmas

http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/12/18/treat-atheists-like-trolls-says-michelle-malkin/

http://www.godandstate.com/2008/12/18/michelle-malkin-joins-fox-news-atheist-bashing/?referer=sphere_search

Enjoy! that Gretchen person is such an idiot as well.
#593187

On January 16th, 2009 at 12:08 pm, zeroangel said:

chapoutier:

Just do a search for “Michelle Malkin atheists.”

Here are a few:

http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/12/18/treat-atheists-like-trolls-says-michelle-malkin/

http://www.godandstate.com/2008/12/18/michelle-malkin-joins-fox-news-atheist-bashing/?referer=sphere_search

http://wtf.videosift.com/video/Michelle-Malkin-Treat-Atheists-Like-Trolls-for-Christmas

That Gretchen person is an idiot as well.

Enjoy!
#593188

On January 16th, 2009 at 12:09 pm, right4life said:

do not want my child taught your religion in science.

I feel the same way. we shouldn’t shove the religion of evolution (atheism) down kid’s throats.
#593195

On January 16th, 2009 at 12:12 pm, right4life said:

This is not what we see. The further you go down (back) the less complex fossils become.

really? wow, you should have told Stephen J. Gould, and Niles Eldrige then they wouldn’t have bothered to come up with punctuated equilibrium….

I am wondering if it’s a good idea at this point to suggest that we atheists (Chap, Omu, myself, and perhaps a few others) just leave this site? The loons here obviously don’t want us, and to be honest, MM has really irked me.

DLTDHYOTWO

Does it ever occur to any of you that it is entirely possible that your whole religion is a lie based on some myths created by desert nomads, in turn based on Egyptian myths, propagated by a Roman emperor and exported the world over by force?

Does that give any of you pause, ever?

no, we’re just unthinking robots…laughable…we’ve all thought deeply about this issue…try reading CS lewis for example…sigh…have YOU ever thought the same about your faith???
#593200

On January 16th, 2009 at 12:14 pm, right4life said:

On January 16th, 2009 at 12:02 pm, zeroangel said:

What kind of monster of a “God” would command such a horrible thing, just to prove loyalty?

you’ll find out, probably the hard way, that you’re in no position to judge HIM…quite the opposite in fact…
#593204

On January 16th, 2009 at 12:15 pm, chapoutier said:

Ahhh glad you are here right4life.

Why don’t you peruse this article from Free Rupublic about the REAL reason for that little “elimination of age of consent laws” and an actual history of the gay community’s involvement (or lack thereof) with NAMBLA.

Some gay rights groups immediately following “Stonewall Inn”, perceived age-of-consent laws as governmental tools to suppress homosexual behavior rather than as the safeguards against the sexual abuse of small children that they claimed to be. In many states that didn’t explicitly criminalize homosexual behavior (the sodomy laws), age-of-consent laws were significantly lower for heterosexual couples than for homosexual couples. For example, in the state of Massachusetts, “Lawrence v. Texas”, the age of consent for heterosexual couples was as low as 13 (with parental approval) but was 18 for homosexual men.
#593212

On January 16th, 2009 at 12:18 pm, wighttrasch said:

When Solomon could have asked G-d for anything, he asked for wisdom. So G-d gave him everything on top of the wisdom.

In the words of a very wise Solomon, this time I ‘[will] not answer a fool according to his folly’.
#593224

On January 16th, 2009 at 12:22 pm, right4life said:

On January 16th, 2009 at 12:15 pm, chapoutier said

you ignored what I posted, and just continued with your juvenile rant, and I should read your article…why?
#593230

On January 16th, 2009 at 12:27 pm, right4life said:

and of course the ACLU defended NAMBLA…and of course their very existence should tell you a great deal…but no continue with your fantasies…
#593233

On January 16th, 2009 at 12:29 pm, chapoutier said:

you ignored what I posted, and just continued with your juvenile rant, and I should read your article…why?

Because I am just sure you are they type of person that values objectivity and truth and learning. Come on…its from Free Republic…it won’t bite.

And for the record…the juvinile ranting started here:

give me a break you pompous half-wit…I already gave evidence…NAMBLA…and where is YOUR evidence to dispute what I said, since you’re the all-knowing liberal lawyer??

jacka**

but really hit its peak with the “bottom boy comment. That was a great one.

Have a blessed day.
#593239

On January 16th, 2009 at 12:32 pm, chapoutier said:

and of course the ACLU defended NAMBLA…

Is it really so hard to distinguish between defending the right to say something from defending the message? Is that too subtle a distinction for you?

and of course their very existence should tell you a great deal…

Yes. It tells me there are gay pedophiles, not that gay = pedophile. Just as the existence of heterosexual pedophiles does not presume that all heterosexuals are pedophiles. Do you have even a basic understanding of the rules of logic?
#593276

On January 16th, 2009 at 12:55 pm, right4life said:

And for the record…the juvinile ranting started here:

really?? I thought it started here…

On January 15th, 2009 at 8:31 pm, chapoutier said:
You know I wasn’t going to get involved, and I basically am still not, but you say some stupid asinine thing like “cause thats where they get their recruits”, without, it seems offering any evidence of this statement, and then get indignant when Omu says that the majority of child pornography is consumed by heteros?

Please.

Is it really so hard to distinguish between defending the right to say something from defending the message? Is that too subtle a distinction for you?

oh yes defending the ‘right’ to tell people how to commit crimes and get away with it…nice.

Yes. It tells me there are gay pedophiles, not that gay = pedophile. Just as the existence of heterosexual pedophiles does not presume that all heterosexuals are pedophiles. Do you have even a basic understanding of the rules of logic?

I never said gay = pedophile, liar. I said that the gay movement is all about recruiting young people….ever wonder why they are SO interested in getting into the boy scouts, and why they hate the scouts so for refusing them?? and didn’t the catholic priest scandal inform you of anything? and doesn’t the presence of NAMBLA, when their is no hetero equivalent tell you anything???

obviously not, you’re a liberal.
#593291

On January 16th, 2009 at 1:03 pm, right4life said:

from your own article…

Consequently, a number of gay rights groups opposed age-of-consent laws at the time of NAMBLA’s founding. A “Gay Rights Platform” formed and adopted by about 200 gay activists at a convention in Chicago held by the National Coalition of Gay Organizations (NCGO), called for the “repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent” at the state level. (The NCGO, which was formed at the Chicago convention, primarily consisted of New York’s Gay Activists Alliance (GAA), which was composed of many small gay activist groups organized mostly on college campuses throughout the U.S.). The GAA opposed age of consent laws and had hosted a forum on the topic in 1976. The Canadian Lesbian and Gay Rights Coalition also supported eliminating the existing age-of-consent laws.

and if all these groups were SOO concerened about the injustice of age of consent laws…why didn’t they advocate RAISING them??? hmmmm?? so it wouldn’t appear they support pedophilia??? hmmm???
#593308

On January 16th, 2009 at 1:12 pm, right4life said:

Is it really so hard to distinguish between defending the right to say something from defending the message? Is that too subtle a distinction for you?

here’s the ‘message’ the good LIBERAL ACLU was defending…

NAMBLA is “not just publishing material that says it’s OK to have sex with children and advocating changing the law,” says Larry Frisoli, a Cambridge attorney who is arguing the Curleys case in federal court. NAMBLA, he says, “is actively training their members how to rape children and get away with it. They distribute child pornography and trade live children among NAMBLA members with the purpose of having sex with them.”

Frisoli cites a NAMBLA publication he calls “The Rape and Escape Manual.” Its actual title is “The Survival Manual: The Man’s Guide to Staying Alive in Man-Boy Sexual Relationships.”

“Its chapters explain how to build relationships with children,” Frisoli tells me. “How to gain the confidence of children’s parents. Where to go to have sex with children so as not to get caught…There is advice, if one gets caught, on when to leave America and how to rip off credit card companies to get cash to finance your flight. It’s pretty detailed.”

“In his diary, Jaynes said he had reservations about having sex with children until he discovered NAMBLA,” Frisoli continues. “It’s in his diary in 1996, around the time he joined NAMBLA, one year before the death of Jeffrey Curley.”

The practical, step-by-step advice Jaynes followed goes far beyond appeals to sway public opinion in favor of pedophilia. Such language aids and abets felonious conduct. If such conspiracy results in homicide, it is reasonable for NAMBLA to face civil liability if not criminal prosecution.

link

I’m sure you’re very proud of the ACLU!! they’re the flagship liberal organization…
#593327

On January 16th, 2009 at 1:27 pm, zeroangel said:

Though I noramlly would ignore right4life’s astounding stupidity, I will answer him for the sake of other readers.

I feel the same way. we shouldn’t shove the religion of evolution (atheism) down kid’s throats.

Evolution is as much a religion as the Theory of Gravity is. There are many people that are Christian (or any other religion) and accept evolution.

really? wow, you should have told Stephen J. Gould, and Niles Eldrige then they wouldn’t have bothered to come up with punctuated equilibrium….

Completely misunderstood what I was talking about. Should I draw a picture? OK:

Here’s what one might see if “Creation” were true:

Surface
—————————–
Horse fossils
—————————–
Horseish “proto-horse”
—————————–
Horse / Doglike mammal
————- <- point of creation.
Nothing

Here’s what we actually see (incredibly simplified):

Surface
—————————–
Horse fossils
—————————–
Horseish “proto-horse”
—————————–
Horse / Doglike mammal
—————————–
Reptiles
—————————–
Fish
—————————–
Creepy crawlies
—————————–
Very little
—————————–
Nothing

try reading CS lewis for example…sigh…have YOU ever thought the same about your faith???

I have, as a child, just like the Bible. What “faith?”

you’ll find out, probably the hard way, that you’re in no position to judge HIM…quite the opposite in fact…

Right, because after all he is such a kind and loving God. Truly, right4life, do you have any idea how horrible your version of God sounds? Does it occur to you that you are neither in any position to judge what HE might say about me? Perhaps he exists and rather likes atheists like me on the grounds that they are good people “just because.”

Wighttrasch:

Clarify for me please, are you calling me a fool?
#593334

On January 16th, 2009 at 1:34 pm, chapoutier said:

here’s the ‘message’ the good LIBERAL ACLU was defending…

Did you miss my point entirely? Not suprisingly, yes. They do not defend the message. They defend the speaker.

oh yes defending the ‘right’ to tell people how to commit crimes and get away with it…nice.

Yup. Sometimes free speech is ugly. They also defend the right for people to publish books on how to illegally modify subautomatic weapons to make them fully automatic.

I never said gay = pedophile, liar.

Your words…

and yes pedophilia is right there..and the gay movement is all for it…because thats where they get their recruits…NAMBLA

So maybe maybe you just meant that all gays SUPPORT pedophila, rather than actively engaiging in it. If so I apoplogize. That is definitely slightly less stupid.
#593335

On January 16th, 2009 at 1:35 pm, right4life said:

Evolution is as much a religion as the Theory of Gravity is. There are many people that are Christian (or any other religion) and accept evolution.

non sequitor..evolution is totally materialistic. ‘theistic evolution’ is NOT evolution. and the evolutionists admit what it is:

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.” (Biology: Discovering Life, by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st edition, D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; emphasis in original)

and this is a TEXBOOK mind you.

Here’s what we actually see (incredibly simplified):

really? like the cambrian explosion??? then why would Gould say this??

Doug: What got you started thinking about punctuated equilibrium?

Stephen Jay Gould: It wasn’t broad philosophical or political issues as I think many people assume. It really comes right out of an operational dilemma in paleontology.

I had been trained, as Niles Eldredge had, in statistical methods for the study of subtle changes in evolution. Evolution at that time was defined as gradualism. The two were virtually equated; to see evolution meant finding gradualistic sequences, but every paleontologist knew that they had effectively never been found, and that was a frustration.

but what did he know?? too bad you weren’t around to stop him from making a fool of himself with punctuated equilibrium!!!

I have, as a child, just like the Bible. What “faith?”

that there is no god (except yourself and darwin of course)

ight, because after all he is such a kind and loving God. Truly, right4life, do you have any idea how horrible your version of God sounds

you know the Bible says its a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the Living God.. only a fool doesn’t fear Him.

Does it occur to you that you are neither in any position to judge what HE might say about me

but of course YOU get to judge HIM…right..good luck with that…hubris….
#593336

On January 16th, 2009 at 1:36 pm, zeroangel said:

Chapoutier:

Just curious, any thoughts on MM’s atheist bashing? Did you check out my links yet?
#593346

On January 16th, 2009 at 1:39 pm, right4life said:

Did you miss my point entirely? Not suprisingly, yes. They do not defend the message. They defend the speaker.

oh of course, sure..please.

Yup. Sometimes free speech is ugly. They also defend the right for people to publish books on how to illegally modify subautomatic weapons to make them fully automatic.

telling people how to get away with raping children is ‘free speech’ to you huh? amazing.

and yes pedophilia is right there..and the gay movement is all for it…because thats where they get their recruits…NAMBLA

its rather obvious that the whole gay rights movement is all about teaching the children…like my example with the scouts…passing laws in CA making ‘mom’ and ‘dad’ obsolete…so you tell me, why the great interest in what is taught to children by homosexuals??? hmmm??? and why didn’t those gay organizations from YOUR OWN ARTICLE…push for RAISING THE AGE OF CONSENT?????

can’t answer that, now can you??? no surprise.

again you prove yourself to be a jacka** no surprise there, you’re a lawyer…
#593350

On January 16th, 2009 at 1:40 pm, wighttrasch said:

If we don’t have the same foundation, one cannot win a debate/argument.
#593352

On January 16th, 2009 at 1:41 pm, chapoutier said:

Just curious, any thoughts on MM’s atheist bashing? Did you check out my links yet?

Yeah. One of them. What she was saying was overall, absurd. But atheists do bring it on themselves somewhat when we clamor for things like removing “In God We Trust” from money. If those are the battles we choose to pick, we deserve to lose, in my opinion.
#593360

On January 16th, 2009 at 1:45 pm, zeroangel said:

Chapoutier:

But atheists do bring it on themselves somewhat when we clamor for things like removing “In God We Trust” from money.

Yes, I agree for the most part here. I think the more vocal members of the atheist community bring it on themselves sometimes. However, I can’t say that they are “wrong.”

Afterall, they make a point when they say, “why respect the absurd.”

Of course, you are right though. Choosing one’s battles only makes sense.

That Gretchen fool totally missed the point of the “Thou shalt not steal” sign. I can’t help but wonder if she was being intenionally obtuse or really is that stupid.
#593361

On January 16th, 2009 at 1:45 pm, chapoutier said:

and why didn’t those gay organizations from YOUR OWN ARTICLE…push for RAISING THE AGE OF CONSENT?????

I don’t know, but that is not my problem. Maybe they thought it easier politically to get rid of such laws than adjust them upward.

You are hopeless. I am done with you. I truly hope you don’t homeschool your kids.
#593363

On January 16th, 2009 at 1:46 pm, chapoutier said:

That Gretchen fool totally missed the point of the “Thou shalt not steal” sign. I can’t help but wonder if she was being intenionally obtuse or really is that stupid.

I do believe she is really that stupid.
#593432

On January 16th, 2009 at 2:41 pm, right4life said:

I don’t know, but that is not my problem. Maybe they thought it easier politically to get rid of such laws than adjust them upward.

You are hopeless. I am done with you. I truly hope you don’t homeschool your kids.

you know whats funny? is that your own article contradicts what you say…and you cannot answer it…instead ducking and covering..too funny!!

you must be a guvmint lawyer…
#593435

On January 16th, 2009 at 2:42 pm, right4life said:

I don’t know, but that is not my problem. Maybe they thought it easier politically to get rid of such laws than adjust them upward.

did you ever think maybe its BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T WANT THE AGE OF CONSENT RAISED…rather LOWERED???

just like they said??

and can you think why?? hell, even a guvmint lawyer should be able to add 2 and 2…moron.
#593874

On January 16th, 2009 at 10:18 pm, Jeff2161 said:

Chap really does not deserve such vitriol for, expressing his thoughts in, a logical manner.
#593875

On January 16th, 2009 at 10:19 pm, Jeff2161 said:

But, there are zombie’s out there looking to eat BRAAAIINS…
#593881

On January 16th, 2009 at 10:29 pm, right4life said:

On January 16th, 2009 at 10:18 pm, Jeff2161 said:
Chap really does not deserve such vitriol for, expressing his thoughts in, a logical manner.

oh of course, disagreeing with the gay agenda is ‘vitriol’ orwell would understand you all too well…

‘logical’?? uh yeah, you’d never make it as a computer programmer…
#594142

On January 17th, 2009 at 2:18 pm, Socky said:

Funny how the ACLU choose to defend the free speech right to distribute a textbook on how to rape children, but won’t defend the free speech right to protest in front of an abortion clinic.

The idea that the ACLU is some kind of morally neutral force that treats all speech equally is pure bunk.

And it can’t be a coincidence that the president of the Virginia ACLU was busted for kiddie porn.
#594300

On January 17th, 2009 at 6:13 pm, right4life said:

And it can’t be a coincidence that the president of the Virginia ACLU was busted for kiddie porn.

I wasn’t aware of that…why am I not surprised!
#596061

On January 19th, 2009 at 4:45 pm, corkie said:

On January 15th, 2009 at 6:30 pm, Omu said:

You’ve stated that you don’t think polygamy should be legal, therefore you, quite obviously, hate them.

I haven’t stated polygamy should be legal. Haha, o ye who clutches at straws! Your point is as tired and irrelevant as your Republican party.

Reread my statement, Omu.

Again, please tell me why you hate polygamists so much!
#596359

On January 19th, 2009 at 9:09 pm, 4USA said:

If polygamy is ok, then I feel comfortable suggesting bestiality or pedophilia or incest or…fill in the blank.

You see, once you open the box, it won’t be contained. The idea that it’s ok for you but not for someone else completely breaks down. But, somehow, I think you know that already.

This isn’t about fairness, it’s about debauchery, it’s about being a reprobate.