Please let Harry Potter die

Father Jonathan Tobias knows exactly what he will do when J.K. Rowling releases the final volume of the Harry Potter series.

The family tradition is that he reads the entire book out loud to his wife and two daughters. Then, when the final page has been turned, they start debating what will happen next.

Things will be different this time. However, the Eastern Orthodox priest knows how he hopes the last act plays out. Unlike many other ministers, Tobias doesn't want Potter to renounce magic or to lose his adolescent flaws. It would be awkward, he said, for the young wizard to "fall to his knees and make the sign of the cross." His suggestion is simpler than that.

Rowling should let Potter die, because that is what tragic heroes do.

"There is little decent tragedy around" in modern culture, said Tobias, at his "Second Terrace" weblog. "There is a lot of irony, where a non-heroic central character is pitched into the abyss of ambiguity. There is a lot of farce, where burlesque mummers traipse around in varying degrees of moral undress.

"But tragedy? No. ... We do not see the sense of the pollution of evil, and its uncleanness. We have no immediate feeling of the necessity to fix or to cleanse. And we haven't seen much of a fable where the story demanded, clearly, the surmounting and cleansing of evil -- even at the cost of real, hard sacrifice."

Tobias is one voice in a global digital chorus debating this issue at myriad websites with names like SwordOfGryffindor.com and The-Leaky-Cauldron.org. Potter fans have, after all, purchased more than 300 million copies of the six novels.

The faithful have been sweating ever since Jim Dale, the voice behind the U.S. audio-book editions, claimed that the author had told him Harry would die. Then Rowling stunned British television viewers by revealing that she had tweaked the finale (the last word is "scar") so that "one character got a reprieve, but two die that I didn't intend to die." And Harry Potter? She answered, "I can completely understand the mentality of an author who thinks, 'I'm going to kill him off because after I'm dead and gone they won't be able to bring back the character.' "

Podcasting guru Emerson Spartz of MuggleNet.com spoke for millions when he said he couldn't believe that Rowling would build her series around a "kid whose life sucks and then he dies."

Nevertheless, Tobias is convinced that Potter combines many characteristics seen in heroes through the ages. He was born to greatness, but suffered the tragic loss of loved ones. He has special gifts, glaring weaknesses and carries the burden of a haunting prophecy that hints at tragedy, triumph or both. Supernatural trials? Potter has seen it all.

"A hero is not perfect. In fact, his flaws are part of what make him great," said Tobias, pastor of St. John the Baptist Orthodox Church outside Pittsburgh. "By the end of a story like this one, the hero has simply become too big to remain in this world. This kind of hero is born for a purpose and he dies for a purpose."

Thus, it's significant that Rowling -- in an early interview with a Canadian newspaper -- noted that she is, in fact, a Christian. "Every time I've been asked if I believe in God, I've said, 'yes,' because I do. But no one ever really has gone any more deeply into it than that and, I have to say that does suit me. ... If I talk too freely about that, I think the intelligent reader -- whether 10 or 60 -- will be able to guess what is coming in the books."

Also, Rowling has acknowledged the influence of beloved Christian works like the seven-volume "The Chronicles of Narnia" by C.S. Lewis and "The Lord of the Rings" cycle by J.R.R. Tolkien. Both of these fantasy classics, noted Tobias, feature endings that combine death and rebirth, along with the bittersweet passing of a magical age.

"Part of being a hero is to have a great love and to be willing to make a great sacrifice for that love," he said. "It seems to me that Harry Potter has been walking down that same road. ... It's just hard to see him going home and settling down. He's been through too much."

Why eulogies have changed

Seconds after American Airlines Flight 11 passed overhead, another Franciscan brother ran to Father Mychal Judge's room in the friary to let him know the World Trade Center was on fire.

The veteran chaplain quickly changed out of his simple brown habit and into his fire-department uniform -- pausing only to comb and spray his hair. Judge was heading into danger, but he was also ready to face the cameras. Soon, a photographer captured unforgettable images of firefighters carrying the priest's body out of the rubble and his name was on the first Ground Zero death certificate.

"While he was ministering to dying firemen, administering the Sacrament of the Sick and Last Rites, Mychal Judge died," said Father Michael Duffy, at St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church in New York City.

"... Look how that man died. He was right where the action was, where he always wanted to be. He was praying, because in the ritual for anointing we're always saying, 'Jesus come,' 'Jesus forgive,' 'Jesus save.' He was talking to God and he was helping someone. Can you honestly think of a better way to die? I think it was beautiful."

Anyone who wants to know how to deliver a eulogy should study this poignant section of Duffy's remarks at the funeral of his close friend, said Cyrus Copeland, a former advertising executive who edited "Farewell, Godspeed" and the recent "A Wonderful Life," two collections of famous eulogies. The new book includes a chapter focusing on Judge and three other men who died on Sept. 11, 2001.

This one anecdote reveals two sides of the same man, mixing humor -- the final ritual of comb and hairspray -- with a vision of a faithful priest's willingness to risk his own life to provide comfort to his unique flock.

These days, said Copeland, the loved ones who gather at a funeral want to hear a celebratory toast to a life well lived, just as much or more than they want to face spiritual issues involved in their loss.

"People want honesty," he said. "They don't want to hear about the saint that nobody knew. They want to hear about the real Father Mychal, a man who loved the human soul, but also knew a good photo opportunity when he saw one. ? They want to hear about life, more than they want to hear about eternal life. Eulogies today are more human and they are becoming less religious."

Copeland is convinced there are several reasons that the art of the eulogy has changed so radically in recent decades.

For starters, most people alive today have grown up in a video age, surrounded by celebrity news and, more recently, the tightly edited rush of "reality television." They have seen their share of high-profile funerals. Millions wept as Lord Edward John Spencer spoke at the funeral of his sister, Lady Diana. Many watched as superstar Cher laughed and cried her way through a eulogy for her former husband, Sonny Bono.

Clergy rarely command the spotlight during these rites.

"It's important to remember that the celebrity memorial service was the first kind to be secularized," said Copeland. "So you expect to hear about heaven in a eulogy for Father Mychal Judge, with a priest in the pulpit. But eulogies for celebrities like Marilyn Monroe may not mention heaven at all. That's just the age we live in."

There's another practical reason that eulogies have changed so much. Friends and relatives are taking control of the microphone.

In the past, loved ones asked the family's pastor, rabbi or priest to deliver the eulogy. Today, it would be hard for most people to name such a person. Most modern families are scattered across the nation, divided by career choices and, far too often, broken relationships. Family members may not even share a common faith and they certainly have not spent most of their lives in the same neighborhood in the same city.

Clergy used to deliver about 90 percent of all eulogies. Today, "that number is about 50 percent and it's falling," said Copeland.

"So for many people a memorial service simply isn't a religious event anymore. It offers us a chance to say our good-byes to the dearly departed, but many people no longer think of this event as a bridge between this life and the next."

Georgetown revises its rules

David French knew what he was getting into when he signed up to study on a Churches of Christ campus in Nashville.

"When I went to David Lipscomb College, we all knew there was no drinking and there was no sex until you were married. We knew about the daily Bible studies and the required chapel services," said French, a Harvard Law School graduate who leads the Alliance Defense Fund's Center for Academic Freedom.

"There's nothing wrong with a private college trying to maintain a distinctive religious tradition, whether Jewish or Catholic or evangelical or whatever. The U.S. Constitution says that's fine. But you're supposed to tell students the rules up front."

Twenty years later, things haven't changed much at Lipscomb University and at many other religious schools -- yet students choose to enroll anyway. Meanwhile, other private colleges and universities have made headlines and inspired a few lawsuits by tweaking or overhauling their rules that affect faith and morality on campus.

That's why French wasn't surprised that Georgetown University administrators have decided to ban outside Protestant ministries from holding on-campus worship services, Bible studies, prayer groups or fellowship meetings. More than 50 schools -- including Princeton and Harvard -- have tried to do the same thing in recent years.

Georgetown leaders said the goal is a more unified Protestant voice on campus. Groups rocked by the decision say it's an attack on diversity.

"While we realize that this comes as a great disappointment, please know we are moving forward with this decision after much dialogue with the Lord," said the Rev. Constance Wheeler of the campus Protestant ministry office, writing to InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, Chi Alpha and other evangelical groups affected by the ban.

The banned groups may be able to maintain some presence on the world-famous Jesuit campus if they can find evangelical or conservative Protestant professors to serve as official sponsors, said Kevin Offner of the InterVarsity staff. The problem is that they are having trouble finding faculty members who will stand with them.

"What we want to know is if different religious groups are going to be treated alike," said Offner. "To what degree do Catholic, Jewish and Muslim students on campus have access to national organizations that support them in their faith, while there's this funny stuff going on with the Protestants?"

Ministry leaders from off-campus have, in recent years, been required to sign a covenant written by mainline Protestants in the official Georgetown campus-ministry office. In one clause, they pledged to "maintain respect for the various religious traditions" on campus, while avoiding actions that could be interpreted as "denigrating or ridiculing" others. Ministers were asked to help students of all faith traditions, yet the covenant specifically prohibited evangelism or "proselytizing" among those who might be "vulnerable in their faith or personal lives." Another clause stressed: "I affirm the legitimacy of Roman Catholicism as a path to salvation."

There are some tensions between religious groups at Georgetown, especially in an era in which Muslim students and donors have played a big role in the growth of new programs and facilities. However, the strongest tensions on campus are caused by moral and cultural issues, not over-zealous Protestant evangelists, said Manuel Miranda, a conservative Catholic activist and Georgetown alum.

"There are far more Protestants who convert to Catholicism while at Georgetown than the other way around," he stressed. In his opinion, the key to the ban on independent Protestant ministries is "the fact that all of these groups take very orthodox positions on the crucial social issues, like gay rights and abortion. If anything, they're more Catholic on these issues than lots of Catholics there."

The bottom line, said French, is that a private school can do what it wants to do, as long as it keeps any written promises it has made to students. The Georgetown campus-ministry website says, "Welcome," "Shalom" and "Assalamu-Alaikum (Peace be upon you)." The university claims to welcome students of "every religious profession."

"The issue is whether Georgetown is doing a bait-and-switch routine," he said. "The school says it has a come one, come all approach to religion. But when evangelical students get there, they may discover that they don't have the same rights when it comes to free speech, freedom of association and freedom of religion. ... The university has to state its rules clearly and then live by them."

Heathens make better flicks?

Broadcaster Dick Staub thinks the gridiron drama "Facing the Giants" will be a hit in Middle America, in theaters far from the bright lights and nasty movie critics of New York City and Los Angeles.

As a veteran observer of Christians and entertainment, he's sure that born-again moviegoers will have tears in their eyes as the movie's salt-of-the-earth heroes conquer their fears, honor their parents, get saved, get healed and witness miracles on and off the football field. And since Sherwood Baptist Church in Albany, Ga., spent only $100,000 on its second indie project, Staub thinks it will make money for Provident Films, Sony BMG, Samuel Goldwyn Films and everyone else involved in this long-odds project.

However, he doubts that "Facing the Giants" will reach the unconverted, especially those in Hollywood power suites. Professionals who love movies are rarely impressed with the efforts of rookies, he said.

"I've been 'moved to tears' by art my kids brought home as children, but I did not expect it to be mounted at the local art museum," said Staub, head of the Center for Faith and Culture and a part-time professor at Seattle Pacific University.

"If this film DOES make tons of money, Hollywood may distribute more of them. Do we really want to send the message to Hollywood that the kind of films Christians want will be characterized by poor acting, low production values that are inoffensive, make us cry and also make tons of money? Is this truly how we want to influence Hollywood for God?"

So far, the headlines about "Facing the Giants" have focused on the Motion Picture Association of America's decision to rate it PG. The squeaky-clean movie -- which opens in 400 theaters on Sept. 29 -- tells the story of a downtrodden high-school coach whose life turns around with God's help. It was created by two "media pastors," brothers Alex and Stephen Kendrick, and includes numerous scenes of prayer, Bible study, evangelism and other controversial activities.

The ratings board says the PG was based on "thematic elements," such as scenes discussing infertility. But members of the production team insist that the MPAA originally said that parents should be warned about "proselytizing" in the movie.

It's true that many Christians find it hard to make movies -- or any other form of popular art -- without including blunt scenes of witnessing and evangelism, noted screenwriter Thom Parham, who teaches at Azusa Pacific University, an evangelical campus near Los Angeles. Thus, they are often accused of producing manipulative manifestos, rather than the kinds of subtle, mysterious parables seen in scripture.

The irony is that non-Christians have created many mainstream classics featuring Christian characters and themes, movies such as "Chariots of Fire," "Tender Mercies," "The Shawshank Redemption" and "Signs," noted Parham, in an essay entitled "Why do Heathens Make the Best Christian Films?"

Meanwhile, Christian companies have produced "The Omega Code," "Left Behind: The Movie," "Carman: The Champion," "Joshua" and similar niche-market products. "Overall, these films are unwatchable," he said.

It's crucial that the successful mainstream films were crafted to compete in 2,000 or more theaters across the nation. Meanwhile, the low-budget "Christian movies" were produced for "Christian market" consumers and either went straight to video or appeared in a few selected theaters in smaller markets.

Far to often, concluded Parham, "Christian filmmakers seem to believe that they do not have to compete in the mainstream market. Thus, storytelling and production values end up taking a backseat to the movie's message. The films are merely bait to lure viewers to a homily or altar call. ... The result is more akin to propaganda than art, and propaganda has a nasty habit of hardening hearts."

This is why, stressed Staub, that Christians who want to reach mainstream viewers must work harder to develop the technical and artistic skills that will earn the respect of the professionals -- religious and secular -- who set the pace in Hollywood.

"I honestly do not bear ill will towards the sincere attempt of a local church to produce a film, and today's technology means good movies can be made on lower budgets," said Staub. "But if we want to glorify God and enrich the culture, we need to model our commitment to excellence by producing films that meet or exceed the highest known standards. ... We owe God our best."

Democrats, faith and Roe

Talk to Democrats at church and you will usually find citizens who yearn to find middle ground on America's most painful social issue, to find ways to restrict or even ban most abortions.

Talk to Democrats as they exit voting booths and you will almost always find voters who pulled levers to elect candidates who oppose these compromises.

The vast majority of Democrats want change on abortion. That's one of messages in a new study on politics, faith and social issues produced by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. Yet harsh political realities make it almost impossible to find middle ground.

"If you ask Democrats, 'Would you like to see some compromises on abortion?', you will see high numbers" of people saying "yes," said veteran researcher John C. Green of the University of Akron, who is working at the Pew Forum during this election year. "But if you ask them if they want to see Roe v. Wade overturned, you will get a totally different set of numbers."

For millions of Americans it is "impossible to reconcile their emotional attachment to Roe with what they believe about finding middle ground on abortion," he said.

The Pew report provides plenty of evidence that Americans are hard to pin down. They lean right on gay marriage, but are beginning to lean left on embryonic stem cell research. On abortion, small camps of true believers dominate both parties, while millions of average Americans say they want compromise.

"Abortion continues to split the country nearly down the middle," according to the Pew team. Still, "majorities of Republicans (62%), Democrats (70%) and political independents (66%) favor a compromise. So do majorities of liberals, moderates and conservatives. More than six-in-ten white evangelicals also support compromise, as do 62% of white, non-Hispanic Catholics."

It's hard to define "compromise" in terms of legislation, said Green. Study participants were asked if abortion should be "generally available," "allowed, but more limited," "illegal, with few exceptions" or "never permitted." As expected, Republicans were more conservative than Democrats.

Nevertheless, 10 percent of "liberal" Democrats chose the most anti-abortion option and 13 percent said abortion should be illegal, except in cases of rape, incest or to save a mother's life. Then, 14 percent said abortion rights should be restricted with new laws, which Green said might include a "partial-birth" abortion ban, parental-notification laws, mandatory waiting periods and even a ban on late-term abortions.

"Many of those liberals are black Democrats who are frequent church goers," said Green. "But those Democrats are still out there."

Meanwhile, 12 percent of "moderate" and "conservative" Democrats backed a complete abortion ban, while another 39 percent said abortion should be "illegal, with few exceptions," the choice that Green called a "modern pro-life stance." Another 20 percent backed legalized abortion, with more restrictions. Once again, church attendance seemed to influence these views.

In all, 37 percent of liberals and 71 percent of centrist Democrats said they supported policies that would not be allowed by the U.S. Supreme Court under current interpretations of Roe v. Wade and other decisions defining abortion rights.

However, the modern Democratic Party is led by liberals who lean left on abortion and hot social issues, according to Peter Steinfels, the veteran religion columnist of the New York Times. But this creates a problem, since the centrists make up 67 percent of the party and the liberals only 31 percent. "The ideologically dominant group -- certainly on abortion, less so on same-sex marriage -- is the numerical minority," he noted.

The Republican Party has internal rifts of its own on religious and cultural issues. For example, 44 percent of white evangelicals now support embryonic stem-cell research, which is a 12-point increase over the past year alone. Democrats are split over whether to push gay marriage, but Republicans are split over the issue of whether to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban it.

Green stressed that most Americans, especially those who frequent pews, want to affirm what they believe are "traditional," even conservative, positions on these kinds of moral issues.

"But they also want to affirm personal freedom and the right of individuals to make their own choices," he said. "So they are not so sure how to put all that together, when it comes to deciding what to do about an issue like abortion."

Mad Mel and the Talmud

Police-beat reporters -- even in Hollywood -- rarely get to quote the Babylonian Talmud.

However, there is a passage in this Jewish text that is relevant right now. The crucial Hebrew words are in tractate Eruvin, page 65b, and they are "be'kiso, be'koso, u've'kaso." This rabbinical text says a person's true essence is found in "his cup," "his pocket" and "his anger."

Witness the rich and powerful Mel Gibson and his roadside rant about the "blanking" Jews who are "responsible for all the wars in the world." His cup was too full and his anger spilled over.

"Ancient Jewish wisdom informs us that one way we can know what a person is really like is by how he behaves when he is drunk. From this we can safely assume that Mel Gibson doesn't think much of Jews," noted Rabbi Daniel Lapin of Toward Tradition, which has received some financial support from Gibson.

"However there is another nugget of ancient Jewish wisdom emphasizing that we owe atonement for that which lies in our hearts only to God. ... We humans are morally obliged to make good to other people only for those things we do."

But what should Gibson do now?

After the superstar's hellish meltdown, many of his critics -- Jewish and otherwise -- called for him to be excommunicated from Hollywood.

Anti-Defamation League Director Abraham H. Foxman slammed his early apology and wrote online: "We would hope that Hollywood now would realize the bigot in their midst and that they will distance themselves from this anti-Semite." Superstar agent Ari Emanuel of the Endeavor Agency went even further, stating that Jews and gentiles alike must "demonstrate that they understand how much is at stake in this by professionally shunning Mel Gibson and refusing to work with him."

Is repentance irrelevant? In his second apology, Gibson tried to discuss his failure in religious terms. The Catholic traditionalist also opened a door to meeting with conservative Jews who have talked with him in the past.

"The tenets of what I profess to believe necessitate that I exercise charity and tolerance as a way of life," he said. "Every human being is God's child, and if I wish to honor my God I have to honor his children. ... I'm not just asking for forgiveness. I would like to take it one step further and meet with leaders in the Jewish community, with whom I can have a one-on-one discussion to discern the appropriate path for healing."

If Gibson desires more than what Christians call "cheap grace," he needs more than a few holy day media events, according to Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. In Judaism, repentance is "a play in four acts" and the first is verbal confession. This must be followed by "complete cessation of the offending behavior" and sincere regret.

The tough fourth act, he said, requires long-range planning and an "acceptance of a way to change that is real, not self-delusional." In a way, fighting anti-Semitism will be similar to fighting the bottle.

"You can't deal with an alcohol problem through a photo-op with the head of the local detox program," said Adlerstein, writing for Jewish World Review. Recovery programs that work, demand "growing self-awareness and lots of time. Not coincidentally, they require the privacy of secure surroundings, far from public scrutiny.

"We will help you understand your personal demons, but only away from the cameras and the mikes. Redemption will come through the small, still voice of conscience, not at a press conference."

This will be hard, in the hot Hollywood spotlight.

Reporters cannot follow Gibson into the confession booth or interview his priest afterwards. But they can ask questions about his work and his recovery.

While filming "The Passion of the Christ," Gibson told the Eternal Word Television Network that he asked priests to hear daily confessions, including his own, and to celebrate daily Mass. It would be interesting to ask if he seeks similar spiritual disciplines in the future.

Still, Gibson has said that he "disgraced myself and my family." That's a realistic place to start, said film critic Michael Medved, an Orthodox Jew.

"When a long-married, 50-year-old father of seven gets arrested for drunk driving at nearly twice the speed limit at 2:30 in the morning," noted Medved, "it's safe to assume that he faces even more serious problems than exposing his anti-Semitic attitudes."

To hell with that housewife

For many mainstream ministers, it's a moment of humor, celebration and a touch of world-weary irony.

It's the rite at the end of the white wedding, long after the symbolic handoff of the blushing bride from the father to the groom, the litany of modernized vows and the lifting of the bride's veil. That's when the minister gives the new husband permission, at last, to "kiss the bride."

"What patsies these poor clergy members must feel like," quips journalist Caitlin Flanagan, in her saucy, yet poignant memoir "To Hell With All That: Loving and Loathing Our Inner Housewife."

The typical minister must feel a flash of shame as he or she is "forced into the role of a sexual naif primly instructing a young man who has been living with his girlfriend for the past three years that he may 'kiss the bride.' Well why not? He's been doing God knows what else to her since the night they met at the softball league happy hour."

Consider, she added, the bride-to-be who "spent down her sexual capital a little too early in the game." She shared her dilemma in Brides magazine: "I promised my fianc

PG or not PG?

When it comes to "Facing the Giants," the one thing the players in Hollywood and the Bible Belt agree on is that this Christian indie flick deserves a PG rating.

That PG rating isn't what has ticked off talk radio, Christian bloggers and some Capitol Hill conservatives. They want to know if the Motion Picture Association of America thinks the "P" in PG stands for " proselytizing" and the "G" for "Gospel."

The bottom line: Salvation can be as offensive as sex and swearing.

"We're seeing something new with this movie," said Kris Fuhr, vice president for marketing at Provident Films, which is owned by Sony BMG. "People who work in this business have always thought that the MPAA based its ratings on actions, on what people actually did in a movie. If you did certain things or said certain words, then you got a certain rating.

"Now it seems like the board is rating a movie on the basis of the ideas that are in it and whether it thinks those ideas are going to offend people."

"Facing the Giants" tells the story of a depressed high-school coach named Grant Taylor whose life takes a miraculous turn for the better. It includes explicit scenes of prayer and Bible reading, along with several strategic acts of God on and off the football field. The producers have not challenged the PG rating.

The movie was created by Alex and Stephen Kendrick, two brothers who are "media pastors" at Sherwood Baptist Church in Albany, Ga. Working with a $100,000 budget, they used volunteers as actors, extras and technicians, assisted by a few professionals behind the cameras. Provident plans to open the film in about 400 theaters nationwide this fall, with the help of Samuel Goldwyn Films.

Headlines about the PG rating for "Facing the Giants" created a buzz that quickly reached Washington, D.C.

"This incident raises the disquieting possibility that the MPAA considers exposure to Christian themes more dangerous to children that exposure to gratuitous sex and mindless violence," said Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri, the third-ranking House Republican. He suggested that Congress might want to look into this issue, along with reports that "ratings creep" is increasing the amount of sex and violence in movies.

This drew a quick letter from MPAA chairman Glickman, a veteran Democrat who served in Congress and on President Bill Clinton's cabinet.

"Any strong or mature discussion of any subject material results in at least a PG rating," he said. "This movie had a mature discussion about pregnancy, for example. It also had other mature discussions that some parents might want to be aware of before taking their kids to this movie.

"Roy, I assure you that religion was not the reason this movie got a PG rating."

This raised another question: What about those "other mature discussions" in the movie? What were they about?

The MPAA board works in total secrecy and, other than its leader, members are anonymous. However, chairwoman Joan Graves granted a rare interview to discuss the "Facing the Giants" case -- after receiving thousands of calls and emails.

"If we see someone on the screen practicing their faith and indicating that they have a faith, that's not something we PG," she told the Los Angeles Times.

This was an interesting choice of words, since hardly anyone had claimed that the movie was rated PG simply because it contained religious characters and expressions of faith. The key issue was whether its evangelistic content was offensive. Instead of merely showing faith, "Facing the Giants" dared to include scenes that made a case for conversion to Christianity.

Thus, another MPAA official noted that -- in addition to discussions of pregnancy and infertility -- the movie included some proselytizing. "Parents might want to know" when a movie openly advocates one religion over other religions, John Feehery, the board's executive vice president of external affairs, told The Hill newspaper.

So it is acceptable for movie characters to practice a religious faith, as long as they don't try to convert others.

Proselytism is a bad idea.

"I guess it's OK," said Fuhr, "if the MPAA warns people about some of the ideas that they will run into at the movies. ... The problem is that there are all kinds of ideas in movies that tend to offend different kinds of people. Will the board be consistent?"

About those 'Left Behind' readers

When it comes to describing the end of the world, millions of readers are convinced that the "Left Behind" books contain the gospel truth.

This isn't surprising since these 12 novels -- backed by sequels, movies, video games and comic books -- have sold 70 million copies. For most readers, the page-turners cranked out by writer Jerry Jenkins and preacher Tim LaHaye form a pop-culture catechism that explains some of the Bible's most mysterious passages, said researcher Robert Woods of Spring Arbor University.

But a recent survey of "Left Behind" readers did yield one big surprise. While nearly 69 percent were, as expected, evangelical and mainline Protestants, 8.6 percent of the readers were Catholics and the remaining 22.8 percent said they practiced Islam, Judaism, Buddhism or another world religion. Why did they dig into these books?

"Curiosity was a big reason," said Woods, who teaches communications at the evangelical campus in Michigan. "It also seems that many of them thought that by reading these books they could learn about

Christianity. ... So now they think that what the 'Left Behind' books teach is what ordinary Christians believe about the end times."

For many non-Christians, he said, the words "Left Behind" and "Christianity" are now tightly linked. They have been fed a pop version of "premillennial dispensationalism," a complicated 19th Century doctrinal system that says Jesus will reign for 1,000 years on earth after the last trumpet sounds, the dead rise and the true Christians are "raptured" to meet Christ in the air.

Many Christian leaders will find this disturbing. This is especially true since there is a born-again believer in the White House and the daily news is full of explosive headlines about the Middle East, the

tense region that dominates the apocalyptic plots in these novels.

"I don't want people to pigeonhole the Protestant view of the end times," said Woods. "But you know, there are lots of people who, if you tell them you are an evangelical, then they are immediately going

to say, 'That means you're one of those Pat Robertson, Jesus freak Christians.' Now there are people who, if you say you are an evangelical, they are going to say, 'Oh, you're one of those 'Left Behind' Christians.' "

The Spring Arbor team -- Woods, Kelly Skarritt and statistician Caleb Chan -- began with a 33-item survey that was posted at the official Tyndale House website used to promote the "Left Behind" series. This invitation drew 16,916 voluntary responses. The researchers then did an in-depth, random study of 1,312 readers drawn from this larger flock.

Once again, many of the results were predictable. No one was surprised -- because of previous research by evangelical pollsters -- that the typical "Left Behind" reader is a female, married, white,

evangelical, politically conservative, Bible-Belt resident who is between 30-something and 50-something and who goes to church almost as often as she consumes Christian mass media.

On the other side of this divide were those least likely to appreciate the fiction of LaHaye and Jenkins. These readers were more likely to be male, single, black or Hispanic, politically progressive and residents of the American West or Northeast.

However, most of the readers -- their denominational ties didn't matter -- said they believe that the "Left Behind" books are highly accurate portrayals of what the Bible teaches about the end of the world or, at least, the beliefs of conservative Christians about that subject.

When readers were asked about their motivations, the most intense clusters of responses came from those who affirmed that they read the books in order to compare what they "say about the 'end times' with what the Bible says" or because the series explains the "events described in the book of Revelation in an understandable way."

The goal, said Woods, is to do more research into why so many non-Christians read the "Left Behind" series and the impact the books had on their beliefs.

"Most forms of Christian entertainment just 'rock the flock' that already lives in our gospel ghettos," he said. "But it does seem that this form of media -- apocalyptic fiction -- is reaching some new people in our post-9/11 culture. It appears that there really are people out there who are curious about ultimate issues. We may be on the verge of another wave of rapture culture."