Let's see if we can understand why this is still not clear to them. After hearing about the initial complaint, Blunt wrote a letter to MPAA head Dan Glickman which said, "This incident raises the disquieting possibility that the MPAA considers exposure to Christian themes more dangerous for children than exposure to gratuitous sex and violence." There's his first misunderstanding. He seems to think that G-rated movies have gratuitous sex and violence. His second misunderstanding obviously came when Glickman replied, insisting that the movie was not given a PG because of religious content. Oh, and just to clear it up to our readers, too, the rating was said to be given for mature discussions, including one about pregnancy.
These misunderstandings continue because after a meeting with the MPAA, Blunt and others have apparently decided the ratings board is too subjective and inconsistent. On top of the issue with Facing the Giants, the House members are concerned about a Harvard study that concluded the MPAA's standards are lowering (With so few movies getting G and PG ratings, I find that hard to believe). Marsha Blackburn, of Tennessee, said, "I'm not satisfied. We probably will want to revisit this ratings process to have some commonality in the standards that exist for movies, videos and video games." She is hoping to have hearings conducted later this year.
I hate to get political about movies, but film ratings are none of the government's business. They don't have the authority and the MPAA is not law, so Blunt and friends have no reason to get involved, especially since it's a dead issue and it also borders on being a church and state thing.