We Must Stop Sacrificing Children on the Altar of Sexual Pleasure

Cosmopolitan writer Jill Filipovich ranks right up there with some of the most devoted religious people I’ve ever heard. Her singular focus, dedication and commitment is impressive. She is 100% sold-out, all-in, nothing held back. A true believer if there ever was one.

Take notes, folks. This is what it looks like when you shape your life, your philosophy and your decisions around the tenets of pure religion hedonism.

In this case, the deity is guaranteed to accommodate, because it’s the face in the mirror. Inside the Shrine of Sexual Pleasure, there on its altar the required sacrifice of blood is paid in an endless stream of silent victims, given over in dutiful homage by all the disciples seeking unrestricted happiness.

Ms. Filipovich believes women cannot be equal to men unless we abort our babies. She believes sex can only be freely, fully enjoyed if we have the assurance that we can get rid of any pesky little people that result from our sexual exploits.

If You Object to Abortion, You Must Hate Women

As the Washington Free Beacon noted:

In a December CNN op-ed, she lamented President Donald Trump’s election because “sex is about to get a lot less fun.”

She argued that, in addition to the usual “benefits” of abortion, “more of us are able to have sex without the anxiety of pregnancy, to enjoy the unique and fundamentally human pleasure that sex creates, and to tend to our relationships without the interruption and emotional devastation that an unintended pregnancy can bring.”

“In essence,” said LifeNews, “she accused conservatives of wanting to control women and prohibit them from having recreational sex.”

She continues:

But the future of women’s health under President Trump, and HHS Secretary Price, looks grim: Price’s plan turns sex for pleasure into a luxury item and puts our health at risk. And it sends women a clear message: That partaking in a full range of human enjoyment and physical experience isn’t for us, and that we exist instead to reproduce.

She thinks anyone who objects to abortion is out to ruin the sex lives of women because they’re misogynist pigs who hate women. There simply can’t be any reason to object to abortion other than that you hate women. And you hate sex. And you don’t want women to ever ever ever enjoy sex. Because SEX! Life is all about sex!

I’m Sick and Tired of the Abortion Narrative

Frankly, this is so tiresome and annoying. It’s brainless, insulting and cheap. The irony, Ms. Filipovich, is that sex is all about life!

I’m tired of hearing people like Filipovich, Democrat chairman Tom Perez, Nancy Pelosi, Cecile Richards and 99.9% of Hollywood tell me that abortion is vital — no, indispensable — to women’s health, well-being, equality, success and happiness in this world. I’m sick of hearing that women simply cannot thrive without the legal right to terminate their babies.

I’m sick of the womb being cast as the ball and chain around a woman’s neck. I’ve had it with babies being cast as the aggressor, the enemy, the thief of dreams. Abortion advocates rely on the narrative the Mom and Baby are locked in combat with each other, and only one can come out alive. This demented view of pregnancy means Mom has to kill Baby in self-defense.

I’m sick of fertility being cast as a disease, and pregnancy as some flukey and horrible thing that happens sometimes after you have sex, even though it shouldn’t because latex and chemicals are supposed to prevent that. I mean, how’d that happen?

I’m sick of women being told they cannot be happy unless their female bodies cease to do female things. I’m tired of hearing that women must be like men in every way, or they cannot be considered equal. What a load of horsehockey.

But at least Ms. Filipovich is honest where the politicians and Planned Parenthood continue to lie through their teeth. Abortion absolutely is utilized as “back-up birth control.” It’s the contraceptive method you use when your other contraceptive methods have failed. And nobody knows better than Planned Parenthood just how often contraception fails. That reliable, splendid failure brings in tremendous revenue — more abortions!

Pitting Women Against Their Bodies and Their Children

Filipovich says abortion has to be available so women can have “worry-free” sex. Without knowing she can abort the baby if she becomes pregnant, a woman simply can’t relax and “partake in a full range of human enjoyment.”

If I can’t kill you later, how can I possibly enjoy myself now?

This isn’t feminism. It’s not womanhood. It’s not equality, or freedom, or liberation, or progress. It’s not health care. It’s completely depraved and unutterably sad.

To consign women to this — you must live your life at war with your own body and at war with your child, if you ever hope to be “happy” — is the most hopeless and inhumane kind of slavery. It chains women to the lie that their female nature is a continuous threat to their plans and their own personhood. In order to achieve anything worthwhile, women have to be men. Hmm. Sounds like sexism to me.

Nothing Could be More Anti-Woman Than Killing Babies

Corrupt men throughout history have done a stellar job of demeaning and objectifying women for their own pleasure, but in 2017 it’s fashionable for women to disdain their own bodies and have a flippant disregard for the most innocent of human beings.

Well, not this woman. Filipovich’s hedonistic worship of sexual pleasure is revolting. Women are not served by this violent notion that it’s us versus our own babies in a fight to the death.

The future of women’s health has nothing to do with uninhibited sex and everything to do with respect for the female body as God designed it, and reverence for human life. Nothing could be more anti-woman than abortion.

Sorry, Ms. Filipovich, but child sacrifice doesn’t make for great sex, either. (For more from the author of “We Must Stop Sacrificing Children on the Altar of Sexual Pleasure” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Will You Help ‘Slay’ for Planned Parenthood?

Planned Parenthood wants supporters to “slay” by sharing its new ad, directed by Hollywood screenwriter Joss Whedon.

“Every single one of us has a hero inside; and it’s our responsibility to use our superpowers to slay,” states a Planned Parenthood donation page. The abortion group highlights some of Whedon’s best known works, including Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

The appeal, flanked by an online petition, closes by asking people to “watch it, add your name to join Joss Whedon in standing with Planned Parenthood, and then share, share, share, using #IStandWithPP. That’s how we slay, that’s how we win.”

As The Daily Caller noted, the call to “slay” is a play on the “vampire slaying” that took place in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The word “slay” has also risen in recent popularity as a slang term for “succeed” or “dominate.”

Pro-life groups noted the dark irony of Planned Parenthood adopting the slang term to promote its services. Planned Parenthood performs nearly 35 percent of U.S. abortions (323,999 total in 2014).


The ad, released Wednesday, features three primary characters. Entitled “UNLOCKED,” it supposedly previews a world without Planned Parenthood.

One teen girl becomes pregnant and is seen crying as she opens a scholarship letter to a university. Another girl appears unable to stop her friend from having sex at a party. Her friend ends up with an STD. A middle-aged mother dies from cancer that was noticed too late. The ad works backwards from the point of tragedy for each character (the scholarship letter, the STD, the death) until you see the three women approaching a Planned Parenthood facility at the same time, only to find it closed and the door locked.

The ad then imagines what would happen had the facility been open. The first teen gets a pack of birth control pills. The second teen takes a sex education course, which she shares with her classmates. The middle aged woman is screened for cancer and is shown celebrating her next birthday.

“If politicians succeed in shutting down Planned Parenthood, millions of people lose access to basic health services. STD testing, birth control, cancer screenings … how can these be at risk?” Whedon said.


However, data reveals that Planned Parenthood’s non-abortive services are declining, while their abortions continue to rise. Pro-life group Live Action noted in a video last month that the organization performs less than 2 percent of the nation’s cancer screenings. But between 2004 and 2014, its number of annual abortions rose 27 percent.

Most women will never visit Planned Parenthood. Eric Scheidler, executive director for the Pro-Life Action League, previously told The Stream that “four out of five women will never step foot” inside one of its facilities. Additionally, other comprehensive care facilities for women and their families outnumber Planned Parenthood facilities 20 to one.

In April President Donald Trump signed a bill allowing states to stop funding family planning services, including Planned Parenthood. But the nonprofit still receives $500 million annually in government funding. Pro-life advocates have called for a reallocation of those funds to comprehensive health care centers. (For more from the author of “Will You Help ‘Slay’ for Planned Parenthood?” please click HERE])

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Brain Damage Increases Religious Fundamentalism — or Scientific Arrogance?

You didn’t hear it coming. You didn’t even feel it. Yet there you were on Hamburger Hill, May 12, 1969, praying you’d come through the battle, when a piece of shrapnel dug into your skull.

It’s still there today. Doctors couldn’t, didn’t dare, take it out. Maybe it doesn’t hurt; the doctors said it shouldn’t. But you swear you can feel it in there.

Suppose this wounded Vietnam veteran was you, dear reader. Now I ask you the obvious questions: How does this make you feel? Would this injury — just perhaps — lead you to deepen your religious faith?

If you answered that question — no matter how you answered it — you’re one up on five scientists. Wanting Zhong, Irene Cristofori, and three others studied the religious views of Vietnam vets with brain injuries, and published the results in a peer-reviewed journal. These scientists thought brain injuries caused vets to become more religious. Not, they surmised, because life-threatening experiences might lead some folks to become more religious. No, the scientists thought the injuries themselves caused the vet’s brains to, in effect, misfire and induce these men to become more “fundamentalist” in their religious beliefs.

What’s this about religion? The authors say, “Religious beliefs are socially transmitted mental representations that may include supernatural or supernormal episodes that are assumed to be real.” That they might be real did not enter the authors’ minds. Never mind. The real object is religious fundamentalism, which they say “embodies adherence to a set of firm religious beliefs advocating unassailable truths about human existence.” Unassailable truths like the scientific method?

“Fundamentalism requires a departure from ordinary empirical inquiry: it reflects a rigid cognitive strategy that fixes beliefs and amplifies within-group commitment and out-group bias.” If that’s not bad enough, “Recent studies have linked religious fundamentalism to violence [and] denial of scientific progress.”

These authors assume that the brain causes religious fundamentalism. “Evolutionary psychology explains the appeal of religious fundamentalism in terms of social functional behavior,” they say. Yet the “neurological systems that enable such inflexible, non-disastrous beliefs [such as fundamentalism] remain poorly understood.” So they studied it.

But if the Brain Can’t Be Trusted …

But if evolution made the brain cause religious belief, did evolution cause the authors’ brains to believe religion can be explained by the brain? What part of the brain is responsible for bad science?

It is an old argument, but a good one: If the brain causes our thoughts, then it cannot be trusted. For what guarantee is there that if it misleads us in one area it’s not misleading us in another? There is none. If the brain causes false religious beliefs, it could also cause false science beliefs. And there’s no way to tell the difference.

Now to assess “fundamentalism” our authors asked a few questions to an even smaller group of men. Some of these men had brain injuries and some not. The main concern was with 24 men with ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) injuries and about the same number of men with two other injury types. These were compared against 30 other men with no brain injuries.

Bad Theology

One of the questions was agreement with this claim: “The basic cause of evil in this world is Satan, who is still constantly and ferociously fighting against God.” This, like the other questions, makes little theological sense. You can imagine a devout Christian, who knows that human beings cause of a lot of evil, trying to answer it. The authors of the paper seem to think “the devil made me do it” is the basic way Christians explain their sins.

Still, analyzing the answers led the authors to say that they “found that participants with vmPFC lesions reported greater fundamentalism” than controls.

Bad Stats

But this just is not so. By their own data, the person with the lowest “fundamentalism” had a vmPFC lesion. And a goodly fraction of those with lesions had lower “fundamentalism” scores than did those in the healthy control group. Only two of the 24 veterans with lesions had higher scores than did the highest healthy controls. The variability of scores is high. That’s why the differences in “fundamentalism” scores claimed were small.

As it happens, the vets with injuries “consisted of 2.5% Mormons, 38.8% Protestant, 16.3% Roman Catholic, 10% other affiliations.” 32.5% did not respond. The healthy vets “consisted of 35.3% Protestant, 23.5% Roman Catholic” with 41.2% not responding.

Since there is a lot of variety in views among these groups, the imbalances in group membership are enough to explain the observed differences in “fundamentalism.” It’s odd the authors did not analyze “fundamentalism” by self-reported denomination to answer this obvious criticism.

What’s most disturbing is that they took the result of this tiny group and implicitly extrapolated it to the whole human race (at the end they do admit “larger…samples…are necessary to confirm that our conclusions are applicable to healthy individuals”, but they wave these doubts away throughout the paper and speak of religious beliefs in general). In other words, they used a rude statistical analysis with not even a hint that their results are far, far from certain.

Still, one of the authors was bold enough to insist that “the variation in the nature of religious beliefs are governed by specific brain areas in the anterior parts of the human brain and those brain areas are among the most recently evolved areas of the human brain.”

Which part of the brain caused this man’s over-confidence? (For more from the author of “Brain Damage Increases Religious Fundamentalism — or Scientific Arrogance?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Feminism Drives People to Deny Basic Facts

The number of foolish statements made by men and women who consider themselves feminists is essentially equal to the number of people who strongly identify as feminists.

I write “strongly identify” because if asked, “Are you a feminist?” most women will say yes.

They will do so for two reasons.

One is that there is no social price paid for saying that one is a feminist, while there can be a huge price paid—on a college campus, for example—for saying that one is not a feminist.

The other is that a great number of women define feminism as “belief in women’s equality.” And by that definition, who isn’t a feminist? I certainly am.

Intelligence varies among these women and men as much as it does among members of any group of people; there are both brilliant individuals and dummies who say they are feminists.

But the women today—I am not talking about suffragettes in the early 20th century—whose identities are wrapped up in being a feminist are nearly all dummies.

That doesn’t mean they all lack brainpower. There are many people with a fine brain who are fools. Indeed, such individuals dominate our universities.

This realization occurred to me again when reading a CNN column written last week by Jill Filipovic, one of CNN’s feminist writers. (Does CNN employ a non-feminist female writer?)

The column was about Australian Sen. Larissa Waters, who breast-fed her child in the parliamentary chamber while Parliament was in session. The CNN writer, as would be expected, lauded the parliamentarian: What could be more beautiful or natural than breast-feeding in Parliament?

Among the writer’s arguments defending Waters was one in which she said, “Yes, for many people, breasts are sexually alluring or arousing—but so too are lips and hands, and having those out in Parliament doesn’t bring on sexual chaos.”

This was similar to the argument advanced by the highest court in the state of New York in a 1992 ruling that said women could go topless in public because men can, and there is no difference between a man’s chest and a woman’s.

In the court’s words, the law that prevented them from doing so “discriminates against women by prohibiting them from removing their tops and exposing their bare chests in public as men are routinely permitted to do.”

Now back to our feminist at CNN who compared the sexually alluring and arousing nature of visible lips and hands with visible breasts.

It is difficult to overstate the foolishness of that comment.

For one thing, the only inference to be drawn is that women in parliament and all other public spaces should uncover their breasts just as they do their lips and hands.

But what is truly absurd is the equation of seeing women’s breasts with seeing their lips and hands.

Is the author unaware of the fact that men pay to enter “topless” bars in order to look at women’s breasts wherever on Earth it is permitted?

Now, why is that?

Some will say it’s only because women’s hands and lips are visible, while their breasts are covered. If all women were to wear gloves in public, the argument goes, men would pay to see women’s bare hands.

I trust that most readers find such an argument risible.

Men from Saudi Arabia, where women’s lips are regularly covered, go to the West and pay to see women’s breasts, not their lips.


Because in virtually every society, heterosexual men have found the female breast a particularly sexually alluring part of a woman’s body.

Evolutionary psychologist Carole Jahme, a science columnist for the left-wing pro-feminist publication the Guardian, summarized a whole host of academic studies. She wrote:

The full, plump bosom seen in the human ape is an anomaly. No other primate has a permanent breast. … The sex appeal of rounded female buttocks and plump breasts is both universal and unique to the human primate.

So, then, the sole purpose of women’s breasts is not for nursing babies. It is also to attract and arouse men.

Yet, whoever argues that women’s breasts are there to arouse men, not just to provide a baby with milk, is dismissed by feminists as a sexist heterosexist patriarchal pig, a product of a sexist culture that renders women and their baby-feeding mammary glands sexual objects.

But it turns out that science, not just common sense, rejects the feminist argument.

So, how does a CNN columnist, along with myriad other feminists, not know this? Why did my grandmother, who never went to high school, know this, while a vast number of graduates of our universities do not?

The answer is that today’s universities—especially women’s studies and gender studies departments—generally make people stupid.

The only remaining question is: Did anyone at CNN find this column absurd? I suspect not.

And that’s more than absurd. That’s frightening. (For more from the author of “Feminism Drives People to Deny Basic Facts” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Transgender Conundrum: Massive Genetic Differences Between Men and Women Uncovered in Recent Study

Men and women differ in obvious and less obvious ways – for example, in the prevalence of certain diseases or reactions to drugs. How are these connected to one’s sex? Weizmann Institute of Science researchers recently uncovered thousands of human genes that are expressed – copied out to make proteins – differently in the two sexes. Their findings showed that harmful mutations in these particular genes tend to accumulate in the population in relatively high frequencies, and the study explains why. . .

[The scientists] looked closely at around 20,000 protein-coding genes, sorting them by sex and searching for differences in expression in each tissue. They eventually identified around 6,500 genes with activity that was biased toward one sex or the other in at least one tissue. For example, they found genes that were highly expressed in the skin of men relative to that in women’s skin, and they realized that these were related to the growth of body hair. Gene expression for muscle building was higher in men; that for fat storage was higher in women. . .

Less obvious locations included genes that were found to be expressed only in the left ventricle of the heart in women. One of these genes, which is also related to calcium uptake, showed very high expression levels in younger women that sharply decreased with age; the scientists think that they are active in women up to menopause, protecting their hearts, but leading to heart disease and osteoporosis in later years when the gene expression is shut down. Yet another gene that was mainly expressed in women was active in the brain, and though its exact function is unknown, the scientists think it may protect the neurons from Parkinson’s – a disease that has a higher prevalence and earlier onset in men. The researchers also identified gene expression in the liver in women that regulates drug metabolism, providing molecular evidence for the known difference in drug processing between women and men. (Read more from “Transgender Conundrum: Massive Genetic Differences Between Men and Women Uncovered in Recent Study” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Miss USA Winner Stirs Controversy With Answers on Health Care, Feminism

Kára McCullough was crowned Miss USA Sunday night. But before being pronounced winner, Miss District of Columbia sparked a social media controversy with two of her answers during the Q&A round.

Host Julianne Hough asked McCullough, 25, about health care.

“Do you think affordable health care for all U.S. citizens is a right or a privilege and why?”

“I’m definitely going to say it’s a privilege,” the scientist responded. McCullough works at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. She continued:

As a government employee, I am granted health care. And I see firsthand that for one, to have health care you need to have jobs, so therefore we need to continue to cultivate this environment that we’re given the opportunities to have health care as well as jobs for all the American citizens worldwide.

McCullough’s response drew cheers from the audience, but criticism on Twitter.

The Washington Post noted another of McCullough’s answers that drew ire. Host Terrence Jenkins asked McCullough, “What do you consider feminism to be, and do you consider yourself a feminist?”

McCullough said she preferred to “transpose the word feminism to equalism.” She added that she believes men and women are equal “when it comes to opportunity in the workplace.”

McCullough said she has witnessed the “impact” of leadership from women in offices and in medical science.

“As Miss USA, I would hope to promote that kind of leadership responsibility globally to so many women worldwide.”

Disappointment quickly followed on Twitter.

Other Twitter users praised McCullough for her responses to both questions.

The Post reported that McCullough helps teach children in her community about science.

“My plan is to inspire and encourage so many children and women in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields,” she said. The Post also noted that producers called her “one of the most intelligent contestants in recent memory.”

McCullough was preceded in her Miss USA title by Deshauna Barber, a U.S. Army Reserve captain. McCullough is the second consecutive representative from Washington, D.C. to win the pageant. Miss USA 2017 first runner-up was Miss New Jersey Chhavi Verg.

Watch McCullough’s full responses to the health care and feminism questions below.

(For more from the author of “Miss USA Winner Stirs Controversy With Answers on Health Care, Feminism” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Comedian Jim Gaffigan’s Wife’s Experience With Tumor ‘Strengthened My Faith in God’

Comedy writer Jeannie Gaffigan suffered from headaches, dizziness and coughing fits for months. The wife of comedian Jim Gaffigan chalked it up to her busy lifestyle and having five kids. But when she started to lose her hearing, Jeannie decided to get it checked out. Doctors found a tumor the size of an apple.

The benign tumor was wrapped around her brain stem. “I was a ticking time bomb, waiting to be paralyzed,” the 47-year-old told People magazine recently. On April 18, Jeannie underwent a nine-hour surgery to remove the tumor.

Jim said he thought maybe they would have removed the majority of the tumor, but they were elated when they found out all of it was removed. She also didn’t have any damage to her cranial nerves. Her doctor said that if she’s clear at her three-month check she will be cured.

“My whole life has changed,” said Jeannie. “The people who have come out of this have shown me how loved I am.”

The couple experienced an outpouring of help and love from friends and family. “People are so generous,” said Jim, “it’s really made me believe that there’s hope for humanity.”

Drawing Closer to the Lord

Already a devout Catholic, Jeannie said the ordeal has brought her even closer to God.

“Every thing has completely strengthened my faith in God,” says Jeannie. “Because I told God, I said, ‘God, I’m not ready to go. I have work to do. Please help me.’”

Jim said it was a miracle that they found the doctor they did. It’s a miracle that the entire tumor was removed. It’s a miracle that her progress has been so swift. Still, she has a long way to go. She had pneumonia at the hospital and is now recovering at home with a tracheotomy and feeding tube. “The progress has been pretty amazing, but we’re far from normal,” said Jim.

Jeannie is convinced something good will come out her health crisis. “There’s just going to be so much to come out of this for me. All of this is a miracle.” She wants to comfort others as well. “I want to help people get through the worst news that you can get.” (For more from the author of “Comedian Jim Gaffigan’s Wife’s Experience With Tumor ‘Strengthened My Faith in God'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Teacher Fired for Giving Student a Bible Gets Job Back — Victory!

Mr. Tutka [was] a substitute teacher in Phillipsburg, New Jersey. But he was fired from that job after he gave a student a Bible.

The student happened to be the last person entering through a door. Mr. Tutka told the youngster, “The first shall be last, but the last shall be first.”

The student later inquired on several occasions about the origins of the quote. He showed the student the verse in his Bible, which led to the student asking for a personal copy of the Bible. And being a good Gideon, Mr. Tutka gladly supplied the child with a copy.

First Liberty Institute took on Mr. Tutka’s case — and eventually scored a victory with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. They agreed that the school district had discriminated against Mr. Tutka on the “basis of religion and retaliation.” (Read more from “Teacher Fired for Giving Student a Bible Gets Job Back — Victory!” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Students Sue Professor for Scrubbing out Pro-Life Chalk Messages

Students at the University of California, Fresno sued a professor Thursday for wiping away pro-life chalk messages that were approved by the university.

The Students for Life group at Fresno and the group Alliance Defending Freedom are suing Dr. Gregory Thatcher, who teaches public health at the university, for scrubbing out pro-life messages the group had chalked on a walkway earlier in May, according to a press release obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation . . .

“You had permission to put it down,” said Thatcher while scrubbing out a message. “I have permission to get rid of it. This is our part of free speech.”

The professor noted that Fresno State has a designated “free speech area,” but a Fresno State free expression policy obtained by TheDCNF and effective June 2015 shows that students can engage in free expression “in all outdoor spaces on campus.”

“Fresno State Students for Life received full permission to chalk pro-life messages near the library. Rather than countering with his own message, Dr. Thatcher took the illegal approach of censoring speech and inciting students to help in this,” stated Kristan Hawkins, Students for Life of America’s president, in the press release. “No students should have to endure this kind of intimidation and harassment for simply expressing their views, but especially not those who want to help the women betrayed, and the preborn children killed, by the abortion industry.” (Read more from “Students Sue Professor for Scrubbing out Pro-Life Chalk Messages” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Faith-Based Film Filled With F-Bombs

An upcoming faith-based film is attempting to go where no previous movie from the genre has ever gone.

Generational Sins — directed by Spencer T. Folmar and written by Folmar, Dax Spanogle, Jason Spanogle, Casey Salviano and Fernando Salviano — is overflowing with profanity, including multiple uses of “f—,” “s***,” “b****,” “d***” and “ass.” . . .

Movieguide, a yearly report on the entertainment industry from a Christian perspective, breaks down films into several categories, and it will be giving Generational Sins its lowest ranking when it comes to language, given there are 32 uses of profanity in the film. “The movie won’t do well if it’s advertised as faith-based,” says Movieguide editor Tom Snyder . . .

Chris Stone, founder of Faith Driven Consumer, an advocacy group for Christians, says he’ll be recommending Generational Sins, but to adults and not families. “It’s more graphic than I’m comfortable with, but it’s not unrealistic,” he says. “It’s an accurate portrayal of brokenness and sin, and some Christians will opt out.” (Read more from “Faith-Based Film Filled With F-Bombs” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.