On the other hand, a PG rating could be a blessing, increasing its appeal to teenagers?

Provident Films, which is owned by Sony Pictures
As in DVC’s Sony?
I’m rather suspicious of the claim that the PG rating is part of some anti-Evangelical or anti-Christian animus. All too often these days I’ve seen folks play the victim card and claim discrimination when there are perfectly good non-discriminatory reasons available. I’m also increasingly suspicious of paraphrased hearsay comments from unnamed sources.
In football, there is always some level of violence, which could account for a PG, or, more likely, it could merely be the angst of “a burned-out, depressed football coach,” which itself might not be appropriate material for little children, and therefore is inappropriate for a G rating.

When I was a kid plenty of the movies we saw in the theater (on Saturday afternoon matinee at a movie theater in Miami that has long since been torn down) that were rated G that would get a PG rating today, if only for some slight cartoonish violence. A lot of them were comedies starring Kurt Russell as a big dumb lug who gets into scrapes, or mysteries starring Hayley Mills — That Darned Cat! would get a PG for the scenes with the scary criminals, I’ll bet. Us kids weren’t allowed to go to PG rated movies alone, so I know these were all G rated films. Soon there won’t be anything G rated that has a stronger theme than three squares of primary colors on the screen making cooing noises.

The MPAA ratings system is a crock, devised by Jack Valenti to forestall any kind of meaningful censorship of the film industry. A system based only on supposed age-appropriateness of a film tells us next to nothing nothing about a film’s content.
It also leads to the absurdity of labelling the crudeset pornography, which targets the most immature or psychologically warped audiences, as “adult”.

The folks should count their blessings. In a post-Shrek, post-Incredibles society, “PG” is the new “G” (that is, it’s a more hip, more adult-oriented G film that happens to be clean). Leave “G” to the toddlers, and to the occassional vulgarian movie director (David Lynch’s “The Straight Story” and David Mamet’s “The Winslow Boy”) who pulls off the rating as a publicity stunt.

Don’t bother with the MPAA ratings, more reliable ratings are available from
http://www.usccb.org/movies/weekly.shtml

In all due respect, I think you misspelled the link.
It’s http://www.screenit.com

Actually this PG rating may be very appropriate. I would want a heads up if a movie promoted Islam, Judaism, Wicca, or Atheism as the way to happiness. Non-Christian parents deserve the same consideration. As long as it is the general idea of proselytizing and not the specific idea of Christian proselytizing that warrants the caution, I think it is a reasonable judgment.

What would the Legion of Decency do?

When I was a kid, I knew kids who refused to go see G-rated movies on the grounds that they were “for babies.” And that was twenty years ago, before “Harry Potter,” “Shrek,” and other popular PG movies. This is probably a blessing in disguise.

And “Catholic Mom” makes a good point. PG does not mean “contains some bad language” or “contains mild sexual inneundo,” it means what it claims to mean: “Parental guidance suggested.” And parents should exercise their guidance in deciding whether their children should see a proselytizing movie.