Golden Compass (Anti God flick released at Christmas, bad taste?)

[Sir Toose]

The Golden Compass (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0385752/)

I got this in my email box this morning and so checked snopes.com for validity:


He's (Phillip Pullman) an atheist and his objective is to bash Christianity and promote atheism. I heard that he has made remarks that he wants to kill God in the minds of children, and that's what his books are all about. He despises C.S. Lewis and Narnia, etc. An article written about him said "this is the most dangerous author in Britain" and that Pullman would be the writer "the atheists would be praying for, if atheists prayed." Pullman said he doesn't think it is possible that there is a God and he has great difficulty
understanding the words "spiritual" and "spirituality." What I thought was important to communicate is what part of the agenda is for making this picture. This movie is a watered down version of the first book, which is the least offensive of the three books. The second book of the trilogy is THE SUBTLE KNIFE and the third book is THE AMBER SPYGLASS. Each book gets worse and worse regarding Pullman's hatred of God. In the trilogy, a young girl becomes enmeshed in an epic struggle against a nefarious Church known as the Magisterium. Another character, an ex-nun,describes Christianity as
"a very powerful and convincing mistake." As I understand it, in the last book, a boy and girl are depicted representing Adam and Eve and they kill God, who at times is called YAHWEH (which is definitely not Allah). Since the movie would seem mild if you viewed it, that's been done on purpose.


http://snopes.com/politics/religion/compass.asp

I'm all for expression of individual opinion, but does this seem targeted and at least partially inappropriate to you?

[Yoda]

Though it probably deserved its own thread all along, discussions of the "anti-Narnia" claim permeate the film's main thread:

His Dark Materials: The Golden Compass (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=13187)I'm actually just fixing to start the first book, though my girlfriend's a big fan and we've had several long discussions about it. From her descriptions (and those of others), it does seem clear that the books have an agenda, and that it is anti-religious.

So, naturally, I don't think too highly of its aims, nor of the fact that some people refuse to acknowledge them for what they are. However, the timing of the release doesn't bother me. For one, the first book in the series is not, from what I can tell, as nakedly ideological as the others. And for another, I think it's just a good time to release this sort of film. If this was particularly planned at all, I suspect the primary motive was financial, rather than ideological.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Get in line for spankins, the both of you. Tsk!!
Neither of you has read the books, and here you are holding forth on the Agenda behind them?

May I remind you that the Harry Potter movies were denounced as "Satanic" and "trying to get children into witchcraft" upon release of the first one?

I've read the His Dark Materials trilogy and I think it's actually pro-Christianity. It's anti-Church. I think we can all agree that there are many churches that have used the tenets of Christianity as a smoke screen to further their private agendas, no? That's what Pullman is against, but he's much, much more POSITIVE about things than he's given credit for.

[Yoda]

Get in line for spankins, the both of you. Tsk!!
Neither of you has read the books, and here you are holding forth on the Agenda behind them?
I'm not into spankings. Heathen.

I'm not making any final judgment on them, but Pullman himself has made his intentions clear; the quotes on Snopes are downright blatant, actually. Ironically, I had thought up until now that his agenda was a bit hazier, but apparently not.

Anyway, apart from the author's own admissions, the plot has been described in great detail to me; that's not an exaggeration, either. My lady friend and I talked about it for over an hour solid on one occasion, and nearly as long at other times. This does not make me an authority, but I'm not quite going off of a dust jacket, either.

Either way, this will be a moot point (hopefully) soon, as I've blocked out a a fair amount of reading time this weekend.

May I remind you that the Harry Potter movies were denounced as "Satanic" and "trying to get children into witchcraft" upon release of the first one?
Sure. But those people are crazy, Rowling denies it, and in that case the crazy people couldn't cite anything in the books to support the idea.

I've read the His Dark Materials trilogy and I think it's actually pro-Christianity. It's anti-Church. I think we can all agree that there are many churches that have used the tenets of Christianity as a smoke screen to further their private agendas, no? That's what Pullman is against, but he's much, much more POSITIVE about things than he's given credit for.
Pullman's own words on the matter suggest a problem with all theism, not just Christianity, and certainly not just with Churches. Nevertheless, the distinction between the religion and the church is not an especially comforting one, especially given the "every Church is the same" quote.

As for the books being about positive things; I have no trouble believing that. I don't think Pullman is a Satanist, immoral, or anything of the sort. And perhaps his message is just vague enough for some deniability when it comes to specifics. But the agenda is there; it's evident in the events of the third book, and Pullman is perfectly (and commendably) open about it.

[Holden Pike]

And Toosie, just a question about your topic's title (at least the parenthetical part)...

Skipping the issue of what the movie/book's aims may or may not be, when you ask "Anti-God flick released at Christmas, bad taste?" is your implication that if you consult The Book of Matthew or an even higher authority like Miss Manners' Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior that there is such a thing as a proper time on the calendar, according to those churchy folks who care about such things, to release an anti-God film? If The Golden Compass were being released in July or on Halloween night, would that be in better taste?


If you're trying to make a provocative topic title, at least apply a little logic.

[Memnon]

If these films are veiled attempts and an anti-religious message, so what?

Narnia is a thinly veiled pro religious movie, and there have been many other movies that aren't even veiled attempts.

As for the timing... again, so what? Not everyone in the world celebrates Christmas for its religious reasons (hell, not everyone even celebrates Christmas in the first place).

[The Gnat]

Also, that e-mail implies that there is a lot of that anti-religion theming still in there, however, some of it has already been removed from the movie in order to not lose the religious audience. So I have a feeling many of the religiuos concerns about the film are going to end up being unfounded due to the change in the story.

[Sir Toose]

If you're trying to make a provocative topic title, at least apply a little logic.

Oooh a scathing riposte! I love it!

I'll admit to hastily cobbling together that post (as Yoda pointed out, I hadn't searched well enough when I started the thread for the one that was already established), however, yes, I did mean to imply that the timing of the release was perhaps a deliberate stab at the religious establishment in this country. Surely you wouldn't deny that there is an anti God trend in this country as evidenced in everything from the removal of biblical references in documents to the removal of prayer in schools (unless, you're not Christian, of course, then you may do what you wish).

I really don't care that this author feels like he has to rescue today's youth from the clutches of organized religion. He's entitled to that opinion as surely as I'm entitled to mine. In the context of the 'Holiday Season' though, I do feel like releasing a film that's anti God (not my words) is disrespectful to those whose beliefs lie in that vein.

And Sammy, I wasn't condemning the man for his work or his beliefs. I was only questioning the sanity of releasing an anti God film in the season where most people of faith rally around their beliefs. As to where I got my ideas vis a vie the author's beliefs, I only looked at the direct quotes attributed to the man.

[Memnon]

Surely you wouldn't deny that there is an anti God trend in this country as evidenced in everything from the removal of biblical references in documents to the removal of prayer in schools (unless, you're not Christian, of course, then you may do what you wish).

One might take the idea that the little thing called "separation of church and state" which is supposedly part of the foundation of the U.S. (and something that I personally believe has been ignored too much), is actually attempting to be applied...

...and yes, I know the response of "but its in more than just the government that the [supposed] anti religion removal of biblical references takes place"... I just felt the need to insert that little bit of reality in an issue a lot of people have with the removal of religious references from things in the U.S.

[Sir Toose]

One might take the idea that the little thing called "separation of church and state" which is supposedly part of the foundation of the U.S. (and something that I personally believe has been ignored too much), is actually attempting to be applied...

...and yes, I know the response of "but its in more than just the government that the [supposed] anti religion removal of biblical references takes place"... I just felt the need to insert that little bit of reality in an issue a lot of people have with the removal of religious references from things in the U.S.

Fair enough, but you've got it backwards. the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The meaning is that the state can't govern the church's business, it doesn't mean that the government can't cite religion in matters of law.

I just felt the need to insert that little bit of reality...
After reading Minsky (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0671657135/thepracticals-20) I wonder more and more if reality is in fact purely subjective ;D

[Holden Pike]

Yes, I did mean to imply that the timing of the release was perhaps a deliberate stab at the religious establishment in this country. Surely you wouldn't deny that there is an anti-God trend in this country as evidenced in everything from the removal of biblical references in documents to the removal of prayer in schools.

Well personally I wouldn't classify prayer in schools and mangers in courthouses as "pro-God" to begin with. But without getting into a semantic argument or how to define the separation of Church and State in this country, and not even factoring in whatever Pullman wants or believes, NO, I do NOT think New Line Cinema either in their executive offices or the marketing departments give a tinker's damn about a supposedly anti-Christian film being released around Christmas.

The Golden Compass is a big budget ($150-million) fantasy film adapted from a best selling young adult novel with a large following and an Oscar-winning internationally famous movie star (Nicole Kidman) in one of the key roles. I'm sure New Line is hoping to make Lord of the Rings type money on the potential trilogy, but they will certainly settle for the Narnia gate. These big, effects-laden movies geared primarily towards children, like the Harry Potter franchise, are released in exactly two times of year. It's either in the height of summer, or during the holidays at the end of the year (meaning either the weeks around Thanksgiving or the weeks around Christmas). Both times of year draw in lots of filmgoing families, obviously as both periods have days if not weeks off from school.

The Golden Compass wasn't going to be ready for summer 2007, but even if they had rushed to get it there they'd be competing against other big budget fantasies in the latest Potter and Gaiman's Stardust, plus other family fare like Ratatouille and Surf's Up as well as the big draws for the teen market like Spider-Man 3, The Simpsons Movie, The Fantastic 4 sequel and The Transformers. Or they could hold it for a 2007 holiday release where the only other kiddie fantasy flick is The Water Horse and the big animated (or partially animated) flicks are Bee Movie and Alvin & the Chipmunks. Otherwise they have to wait until summer of 2008.

http://z.about.com/d/movies/1/0/-/V/O/goldencompasspic8.jpg http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:6JEy__jbA9gibM:http://lbunion.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/golden-compass.jpg

But I'm sure that when they were looking at the calendar trying to find the best fit for their huge investment they were really thinking, 'Yeah, let's release this at the beginning of December (Pearl Harbor Day, actually) so we can cheese off the Christian conspiracy theorists and reactionaries!' Then they burned a few Bibles, sacrificed a baby goat to Belzibub and cackled like witches, just as the evil Phil Pullman had required them to do when he sold the rights to his super successful series of books.


So, like, are you nuts? Do you really think the December 7th release date is trying to further goad or disrespect Christians in some way?

[Sir Toose]

So, like, are you nuts? Do you really think the December 7th release date is trying to further goad or disrespect Christians in some way?

Yeah, yeah, you're right about that, I'm sure I read too much into the timing of the release date. It still doesn't negate the fact that I find the timing to be in poor taste, which is the point that I was originally making.

And yes, I'm certifiable.

[Officer 663]

I think it's a grand idea. Of course, if I had my druthers, they'd re-release Triumph of the Will in theaters just in time for the "Day of Remembrance," so maybe I'm not the best person to ask...

[John McClane]

In the context of the 'Holiday Season' though, I do feel like releasing a film that's anti God (not my words) is disrespectful to those whose beliefs lie in that vein.If we were to follow that line of thinking, nothing would get released.

What'd do I say on the matter to someone who might be offended? Pssh, get off your horse.

[Memnon]

Fair enough, but you've got it backwards. the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The meaning is that the state can't govern the church's business, it doesn't mean that the government can't cite religion in matters of law.


After reading Minsky (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0671657135/thepracticals-20) I wonder more and more if reality is in fact purely subjective ;D


I wanted to make sure about this before I went on with my comment.. so I did a little searching and found this on the following site: http://www.religioustolerance.org/scs_intr.htm

The first phrasein the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." is called the establishment clause.
The courts have the responsibility to interpret the U.S. Constitution in specific instances. In their ruling in 1947 of Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Tp", the U.S. Supreme Court ruled:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State'."

I just wanted to clarify that, from what I understand about the separation clause, and its meaning, is that not only does it mean, as you said - that the state can't govern the church's business. It also means that by its action or inaction, it shouldn't favor one religion over any other, or even over those people that have no set religion. This would contradict the second part of your statement - it doesn't mean that the government can't cite religion in matters of law.

There is an example used all the time that clearly break this separation; the "In God We Trust" on the currency. It is just accepted on there, but seems to me that any mention of God on something that is produced by the government is not right.

Then there is the "under God" phrase that was added to the pledge in 1954, and only recently struck down. I even remember growing up, there being one kid who wouldn't stand up and say the pledge every morning. He got a lot of crap from other kids, but it was fully in his right not to be required to say it. I only wish, looking back, that I had been smart enough to, at least once, join him in not saying the pledge, as a sign of the hypocrisy of that phrase having been put in there.

I understand there has been, and always will be a fine line between religion and government, as government officials are more often than not a part of an organized religion, but for as long as I have really thought about it, I have had an issue with how easily religious "stuff" gets intertwined with the workings of the government.

As a side note that is related, I think it should be law that a president cannot put his hand on a bible, or any other religious document when s/he swears the oath... it should be a copy of the Constitution...

whew... anyone still reading? :sleep:

[Memnon]

...and now, after that long diatribe of mine, I'll stop, as we are now WAY off the subject matter intended on this forum...

[mark f]

First off, if it's released on 12/7, it must be pro-Japanese destruction of Pearl Harbor.

Secondly, I'm a teacher at a high school, and I will tell you that even if you believe Eisenhower's "under God" was struck down, that "opinion" only lasted a few days. Even so, my students don't say the pledge, and a few of 'em don't get up until I say. "...and for which it STANDS..."

Thirdly, what does December have to do with "Christianity"? Nothing. JC wasn't born in Dec. But, as Holden alluded to, every studio wants your hard-earned money in Dec. Sure, it may be cynical, but it's not "anti-religious", unless you only believe in some religion you are force-fed.

Fourthly, I mostly don't believe in "religion". I do believe that if you are lucky/"unlucky" enough to be called, you should react to that calling and do something positive for this world. Many "uncalled" are making the world a better place.

Fifthly, mark, shut your boring mouth!

[SamsoniteDelilah]

...And Sammy, I wasn't condemning the man for his work or his beliefs. I was only questioning the sanity of releasing an anti God film in the season where most people of faith rally around their beliefs. As to where I got my ideas vis a vie the author's beliefs, I only looked at the direct quotes attributed to the man.Have you ever seen the bumper sticker that reads "Dear God, please save me from your followers"?

It's actually impossible to say much about all this without spoiling some really good stuff, so I'm just going to say: don't be sold a bill of goods. The person quoted in your OP was acting out of fear - silly fear, at that.


...who at times is called YAHWEH (which is definitely not Allah)
Actually, why would you take anyone seriously who makes a statement like that?

[meatwadsprite]

these books are destroying cinema !

[SamsoniteDelilah]

these books are destroying cinema !
I've heard they'll kill your cats and make your cheese moldy. :(

[Memnon]

but I like blue cheese!!! more books I say!!!

[Sir Toose]

Wow, I've gotten some hackles up here.

Some points:

1). If you look back at what I said I believe you'll see that I was posting my opinion that the timing of the film seemed a bit inappropriate TO ME.

2). I never said the author is anti God, the author said that. He is quoting as saying that he wants to kill God in the hearts of children. Fine, let him try, I don't care (I don't think he'll succeed).

3). That seperation of church and state was intended to protect the church from the state is a matter of history. Why did the English first settle in America (Church of England)? It's NOT in the original Constitution but did inspire the piece I quoted from the establishment clause "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Read up on Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists if you don't believe me. The supreme court case quoted says nothing contradictory to what I've stated. Remember that Jefferson's words were offered to the Danbury Baptists in an effort to assuage their fears that the government should not get involved in matters of the church. The letter, as written, is available HERE (http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html) if you wish to examine it for yourselves. If you doubt, by the way, that Jefferson was a religious man, pay special attention to the last paragraph.

If you all want to use obscure litigation centuries after the fact to try and convince yourselves that Jefferson meant what you want him to mean that's fine with me. Said litigation doesn't say anything contrary to what Jefferson said and it's still not what many people want it to say.

4). Whether people like it or not, the government of the US was founded by men who, for the most part, acted under the belief of a higher power. I don't mean to say that they were all Christian or all any other specific belief system but the concept of God and all things honorable under God was something that was observed while drafting the original documents that founded this country. These principles are still strong in our government as evidenced by:


God is mentioned four times in the Declaration of Independence
"In God We Trust" is on money and on the wall over the Speaker of the House in the US Capitol.
The carvings of Moses and the Ten Commandments in the US Supreme Court building.
The mention of God on nearly every monument in DC
The fact that every single US president has mentioned God in his inaugural address.
The fact that prayer has been present at every single presidential swearing in.
Many more examples that I can list if asked.


5). If the First Amendment truly meant that government is prohibited from recognizing a higher power then why are all of these practices still supported by MUCH smarter people than we are?

6). I've already acknowledged and accepted Holden's points, they were good ones and I got them the first time as evidenced by my post.

7). The capitalists both in retail and in cinema define "The Christmas Season" as being the time on the calendar between the day after Thanksgiving and Christmas eve.

8). ALL of the above aside, I PERSONALLY still feel that this film being released at this time (whether or not JC was born in Dec or not is irrelevant as this is the time people of faith have chosen to celebrate) is in bad taste. If YOU don't feel that way that is cool with me. I simply asked the question.

[Memnon]

I decided in my last comment not to continue discussing the whole separation of church and state thing as it isn't something that belongs on a forum for talking about movies... this isn't a political/religious forum...
So, no matter how much it pains me to let some of the responses to my posts go, I will...

back on the subject of the movie, its release date, and the intentions therein...

I went back to the very first post, reread the whole thing, then reread what was in the link included... you know what I found?
There is only one quote in that entire thing actually attributed to the author himself... he did state that his books are "about killing God". Everything else in the post and the link was hearsay. I lot of other people saying that he is one way or another, and that his intentions for certain things are thus, but I didn't see a single reference to anything else that was an actual quote or anything from the guy... it seemed to me to be more of a situation of someone or a group trying to put words in someone's mouth, make others think someone is being sinister or whatever, when they really aren't like that. They don't like the fact that the author was willing to write books that might be a bit controversial, and against their views, so they are vilifying him.

That is just my quick take on what I have read there, but I will be honest... I have never read the books, and don't know anything about the author, but I'm really not willing to take the word of what was written in that link as the truth about the man...

To me, the release date is money driven, pure and simple. They made a VERY expensive movie and want to get every dollar out if it they can.

[Sir Toose]

Since there was some consternation about the place where this discussion was being held, and considering the fact that the movie forum already had a thread devoted to Golden Compass, I moved this thread down here into intermission where we have traditionally talked about all things under the sun.

Now, without those pesky boundaries in place, feel free one and all to take this thread into anyplace defined by the word 'miscellaneous'.

[Yoda]

Toose's post implies a question about motive, but it's not stated outright. He's pointed out many times that his question was, technically, whether or not it's in "bad taste." So while we're free to speculate as to motives, he did not, in fact, suggest that Hollywood executives are releasing the film new Christmas to spite religious folks. That's a straw man, plain and simple.

Something can be in bad taste without any negative intention at all. To the contrary, something done in bad taste often starts with indifference to its effects.

I went back to the very first post, reread the whole thing, then reread what was in the link included... you know what I found?
There is only one quote in that entire thing actually attributed to the author himself... he did state that his books are "about killing God". Everything else in the post and the link was hearsay. I lot of other people saying that he is one way or another, and that his intentions for certain things are thus, but I didn't see a single reference to anything else that was an actual quote or anything from the guy... it seemed to me to be more of a situation of someone or a group trying to put words in someone's mouth, make others think someone is being sinister or whatever, when they really aren't like that. They don't like the fact that the author was willing to write books that might be a bit controversial, and against their views, so they are vilifying him.
There's a second quote, actually. It's the "I don't think it's possible that there is a God" quote. Regardless, even if the only quote was the "killing God" quote, I don't see how much more would be needed to establish the book's themes. He's telling us, straight out, what they're about. He doesn't say they're about killing The Church, or Catholicism, or anything else. Why would we need another quote to make a determination?

[Memnon]

There's a second quote, actually. It's the "I don't think it's possible that there is a God" quote. Regardless, even if the only quote was the "killing God" quote, I don't see how much more would be needed to establish the book's themes. He's telling us, straight out, what they're about. He doesn't say they're about killing The Church, or Catholicism, or anything else. Why would we need another quote to make a determination?

Yup, you're right, there was that other quote, but I think you missed my point (which probably wasn't difficult, I don't think I stated it very well :D). I wasn't specifically questioning the theme of the books. My point was basically that even though he wrote the books with that in mind, what right does that give people to make the suppositions they were making in the article. Unless he had come outright and said the things they were saying were his motivation/beliefs/etc in his life and writing... they were putting their feelings about the man out there as fact about him. Also, just because someone writes a book about killing God, how does that automatically presuppose everything else that was said? If I wrote a book called "If I did it" about the murders of a couple people I happened to know, then came out and said "this is a book about how I would have gone about murdering those people", does it automatically make me a murderer, even if I might have been a suspect in a murder at one time?
If not, then how can saying that some books about killing God, even if you profess to be an atheist, mean anything more than he wrote the books? How can putting such comments out there like they did be considered OK? ...and here I go again rambling...
Again, I want to make it clear that I don't know much about the guy, so it IS possible that he has come outright and said most of the things they attributed to him, but when I reread that article with a critical eye, I saw an awful lot of comments stating "facts" about him, without proof to back them up.

Since I have now throughly gone around in circles, making little sense, I'm going to stop now...

[Tatanka]

May I remind you that the Harry Potter movies were denounced as "Satanic" and "trying to get children into witchcraft" upon release of the first one?

While it may be true that some (not all) of the most visible, vocal and persistent Christian opponents of the Potter corpus of material were perhaps making emotionally charged and unreflective refutations, it doesn't negate the possibility that many children have at least been exposed to occult themes and witchcraft and the result (intended or not) could, by definition, be "satanic." While Potter wasn't the first (nor will he be the last) to delve into these themes, I would note that simply by being present as denizens of our own media culture, we have already been exposed to more occult ritual than our ancestors could have even dreamed of in several lifetimes. While it may be silly to home in on Potter as if he's the only player in the game --(there's a plethora of children's literature with occult imagery and subject matter aimed directly at specified age groups), --it's hard to deny the marketability and approachability factor attending the series.

Although, admittedly anecdotal here, my wife teaches 3rd grade and is the grade-level chair and a director of the reading curriculum for the children in the district and she has noted that the Potter material has consistently been the most requested literature among its target audience. We can debate elsewhere whether or not Rowling and her editors were "trying" to do anything but we all know they have reached their intended target with some kind of message. A few of the young children and (just now) young adults who have experimented with occultism/satanism/(white/black)witchcraft and with whom I have had a chance to counsel have cited some influence by the Potter series. In truth, none of their references to Potter were causal in their attraction to witchcraft, but it was nonetheless a part of an even greater puzzle that I KNOW belongs in another forum. But I couldn't help myself.

But my point is in response to Memnon's comment:

this isn't a political/religious forum...Not by title, no, but doesn't the fact that most of the movies we love have uniquely been able to thread a story line of who we have been, who we are and who we can become? And that moving pictures can engage us on an undeniably emotional and arguably spiritual level like few things can? When we're captivated by a film (or repulsed), these instances call to the fore and challenge our worldviews and beg the most important and intimate questions of our lives and relationships. Whether we acknowledge it or not, that's almost always an intensely spiritual exercise, which by the truest definition of the word, IS political. Why should we shy away (which I don't think we have here) from such discussion if a film prompts it?

Since Christ was probably born around April in our calendar year AND it could be argued that the December 25th Christmas date was a Constantinian attempt to syncretize Christ among the Roman pantheon of gods for religious and political unity in the Empire, the issue may be a non-starter after all.

However, I, too, intend on reading the Compass series too prior to watching the film.

[Memnon]

personally, I don't tend to let movies sway my convictions about my life, my views, whatever, cuz well.... they are movies...

The only times I can think it would make sense for me to be seriously moved in that way would be if it were a documentary or something like that... heck I wouldn't even take a biographical movie as something that should change me, as they are usually embellished quite a bit.

Can a movie make a political or religious statement for people to think about, sure... would I use that as a basis for changing my views etc., or even as a major part of me changing my views, hell no...

[Sir Toose]

^ How about a book?

That's actually an interesting point. People have forever used fictional stories as a way of teaching. Remember the story of the lion with the thorn in its paw and the mouse who took it out who was later repaid in kindness by the lion?

Obviously sometimes (depending on the story) many major themes in stories are tossed by the wayside in the interest of time but I think movies can definitely be a valid teacher of many things and are not at all trivial.

You know, we've bumped heads a few times here but I'm glad you're around. You make good points and make me consider and reconsider my own.

[Sir Toose]

Since Christ was probably born around April in our calendar year AND it could be argued that the December 25th Christmas date was a Constantinian attempt to syncretize Christ among the Roman pantheon of gods for religious and political unity in the Empire, the issue may be a non-starter after all.

That was a really good post.

The above part is probably true but the point I was making is that the month of December is widely known in modern popular culture as "The Christmas Season".

Anecdotally, on my own part, I once had a conversation with a woman who was my neighbor at the time. She was telling her kids that in the Bible, Joseph is God. I think I said "hzzwwhatjoosay??" She looked at me as if I were stupid and said "Joseph is Jesus' father, therefore HE is God." I expect there are churches full of people who think Constantine originated as a comic book character and that the Pope is king of rome. :)

[Memnon]

^ How about a book?

That's actually an interesting point. People have forever used fictional stories as a way of teaching. Remember the story of the lion with the thorn in its paw and the mouse who took it out who was later repaid in kindness by the lion?

Obviously sometimes (depending on the story) many major themes in stories are tossed by the wayside in the interest of time but I think movies can definitely be a valid teacher of many things and are not at all trivial.

You know, we've bumped heads a few times here but I'm glad you're around. You make good points and make me consider and reconsider my own.

The more I think about my comment, I think I need to revise it, because what you said does make sense to a degree for me.
When I said I don't let something like movies (or books) be a sole or primary driving force in my way of life, I think I should have said "as an adult". In anyone's formative years, what they are exposed to can push someone one way or another, however, I don't think any one book or movie can have that much of an impact even then. Its up to the parents to be the driving force in their child's rearing. Take the Golden Compass movie for example; while there may be certain themes, I can't believe that a kid seeing the movie would automatically be swayed towards atheism (or any other -ism for that matter). In fact, it might be a good thing to see that viewpoint, so people can realize there are differing ideas out there, and that maybe they should think about making up their own minds about "things".

I can see your point about movies being teachers of things, but again, only to a limited degree though. If I see a movie or read a book that has a specific, deep meaning, or is intended to make you "think", then it might make me want to go learn more about the subject, so that I could then make an informed decision, based on as many facts as I could find. I would be concerned for myself if I let any one movie or book sway me that much on its own.



ick... gotta go work... I'll continue this later :D

[Yoda]

Yup, you're right, there was that other quote, but I think you missed my point (which probably wasn't difficult, I don't think I stated it very well :D). I wasn't specifically questioning the theme of the books. My point was basically that even though he wrote the books with that in mind, what right does that give people to make the suppositions they were making in the article.

...

Again, I want to make it clear that I don't know much about the guy, so it IS possible that he has come outright and said most of the things they attributed to him, but when I reread that article with a critical eye, I saw an awful lot of comments stating "facts" about him, without proof to back them up.
Oh no, you stated it fine. :) I think the confusion stems from the fact that we're largely just focused on different things; I'm talking about the themes of the book, and you're talking about what other people are saying about him. I agree that we should not take the quotes other than his too seriously. At least, not in this discussion.

[Memnon]

Anecdotally, on my own part, I once had a conversation with a woman who was my neighbor at the time. She was telling her kids that in the Bible, Joseph is God. I think I said "hzzwwhatjoosay??" She looked at me as if I were stupid and said "Joseph is Jesus' father, therefore HE is God." I expect there are churches full of people who think Constantine originated as a comic book character and that the Pope is king of rome. :)

:rotfl:

that was great! scary thing being that there are probably more than a few people out there that think that...

[John McClane]

The above part is probably true but the point I was making is that the month of December is widely known in modern popular culture as "The Christmas Season".Great, now we have to worry about offending people over pop culture. :rolleyes:

[Sir Toose]

You've swung WAY wide of the point, but do keep trying.

[Memnon]

Great, now we have to worry about offending people over pop culture. :rolleyes:


...but isn't pop culture often in bad taste in the first place?

(see, I got the thread back on track!! :rolleyes: )

[Thursday Next]

I can't see that this is in any poorer taste than the Santa Clause 7 or Jingle All the Way 4 or whatever other 'Christmas is about presents' nonsense usually comes out this time of year. It's a kid film, with some snow. Isn't that what Christmas is about (according to movie studios...)?

By the way, Pullman's anti-Christian message in the books is about as subtle as being hit over the head with a snowball which is really a block of ice...

[Tatanka]

The above part is probably true but the point I was making is that the month of December is widely known in modern popular culture as "The Christmas Season".:)

You're right.

Anecdotally, on my own part, I once had a conversation with a woman who was my neighbor at the time. She was telling her kids that in the Bible, Joseph is God. I think I said "hzzwwhatjoosay??" She looked at me as if I were stupid and said "Joseph is Jesus' father, therefore HE is God." I expect there are churches full of people who think Constantine originated as a comic book character and that the Pope is king of rome. :)

Joseph=God. That's luscious. "hzzwwhatjoosay??" ...was probably an appropriate response.

[Tatanka]

The more I think about my comment, I think I need to revise it, because what you said does make sense to a degree for me.
When I said I don't let something like movies (or books) be a sole or primary driving force in my way of life, I think I should have said "as an adult". In anyone's formative years, what they are exposed to can push someone one way or another, however, I don't think any one book or movie can have that much of an impact even then. Its up to the parents to be the driving force in their child's rearing. Take the Golden Compass movie for example; while there may be certain themes, I can't believe that a kid seeing the movie would automatically be swayed towards atheism (or any other -ism for that matter). In fact, it might be a good thing to see that viewpoint, so people can realize there are differing ideas out there, and that maybe they should think about making up their own minds about "things".

I can see your point about movies being teachers of things, but again, only to a limited degree though. If I see a movie or read a book that has a specific, deep meaning, or is intended to make you "think", then it might make me want to go learn more about the subject, so that I could then make an informed decision, based on as many facts as I could find. I would be concerned for myself if I let any one movie or book sway me that much on its own.

ick... gotta go work... I'll continue this later :D

You're right. No one movie/book, etc., can solely be the lone determinant force in a child's core constructs. It's a combination of things and maybe not one unilateral influence or force. The closest one gets to that ought to be the parents.

It's a very healthy thing for children to be exposed to alternative views in an open and honest environment.

But I suppose this was/is my point....no "one" film/book might finally sway you, me or someone else, but at the right time and in the right environment, it-- in combination with a host of other influences that coincide/collaborate with the subject-- it (arguably) could be the instrument that "tips" the scale one way or the other.

(my emphasis in bold in the original quote)

[linespalsy]

I doubt if you can rely on stories to teach morals or anything complex (other than how to listen to stories... maybe). I was talking with my sister recently about how our mom always had us watch this old vhs tape of the Peter Pan musical (with Mary Martin) when we were littler. There must have been some reason behind her making us watch this, not sure if it has any lesson about growing up or flying or something, but the one thing that always stuck out in my mind was the very strange bit where Wendy is flying through the air feeling sorry for herself (while lamenting "Poor Wendy! Poooor Wendy!" over and over), and the boys say "It's a Wendy bird, let's shoot it." My sister took some other random bit of nonsense from the show that still sticks out in her memory as "the defining moment of Peter Pan". Maybe there's no moral to this non-story, but I suspect that if kids (especially young ones) take anything away from the children stories that they're exposed to, it's probably not the boring didactic stuff but the really weird and/or imaginative stuff. The allegorical preaching will get to them soon enough when they're a little bit older an know how to parse it into a social context and what kind of things they'll be expected to pay attention to for the pop quiz.

[Memnon]

But I suppose this was/is my point....no "one" film/book might finally sway you, me or someone else, but at the right time and in the right environment, it-- in combination with a host of other influences that coincide/collaborate with the subject-- it (arguably) could be the instrument that "tips" the scale one way or the other.


OK... you are using "the straw that breaks the camel's back" idea... if, for example, you take the movie and subject (atheism) that this is about, then you are saying that in a very special set of circumstances, that the movie could be the last thing to tip the balance...

"Tipping the balance" is hardly the fault of that movie in my mind then. To get to the point we are talking about, that child would have had to have been exposed to a heck of a lot of other influences first, and THAT would have probably been the result of the parents (or whoever is raising the child). So again, it comes back to the influence of the parents as the overriding factor.

It all just seems that there is an awful lot of heaping of negativity in that article first mentioned, making it seem that, if your child goes to see these movies, s/he will forever be changed, will become an atheist, etc... when in reality, they are just a couple of movies that the kids will in all probability forget about as soon as they find the next "cool" thing to go see...

[Sir Toose]

I've always believed that people not just want but need stories in a very fundamental way.

There is good evidence that ancient man gathered tribes together for the purpose of storytelling and of relating tribal events to one another. Man is a social animal and storytelling as teacher and entertainer has been inherent in every culture since the very dawn of mankind. The Bible, the Koran, the Torah etc are all chock full of parables that are not strictly historical but are meant to teach the reader a lesson.

I think some of you folks are selling the importance of stories to man far too short. I believe them to be part of the lifeblood of who and what we are.

Modern books, television, movies etc are all just vehicles to promote story. We seek it, we crave it, we love it because we need it.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

I've always believed that people not just want but need stories in a very fundamental way.

There is good evidence that ancient man gathered tribes together for the purpose of storytelling and of relating tribal events to one another. Man is a social animal and storytelling as teacher and entertainer has been inherent in every culture since the very dawn of mankind. The Bible, the Koran, the Torah etc are all chock full of parables that are not strictly historical but are meant to teach the reader a lesson.

I think some of you folks are selling the importance of stories to man far too short. I believe them to be part of the lifeblood of who and what we are.

Modern books, television, movies etc are all just vehicles to promote story. We seek it, we crave it, we love it because we need it.
I very definitely agree. In fact, my theory (if you'll indulge me) is that the reason man created language was for storytelling. There's no real reason to create words for "run like hell, it's a LION!!" - screaming and running would suffice. But certainly you'd want words for, "and I ran like hell because there was a LION!!". And it seems to me that those early stories served the purpose of relating experience, and unifying the tribe. What one person experienced and shared through storytelling became a shared experience. Those shared experienced had a homogenizing effect on the group, creating unity.

The teaching aspect would logically follow. And the corruption of the teaching aspect... sadly... wouldn't be all that far behind.

The beauty of the HDM trilogy, to me, is that it relates a story we all know the elements of, in a way that repurifies it and makes it a shared experience again. It's really not about us and them - despite what anyone claims is the agenda behind it. It's about concepts that are older and deeper than that. I just hope the films stay true to those concepts.

[tsellisjr]

Edit: I wrote this post late last night, so the original draft was full of typos and incoherent statements. Now all typos & errors in grammers have been fixed, so I hope you enjoy this post or find something in these words that will be meaningful to you.

With the highest regards,
T.S. Ellis - 10/28/07

I really wish I had not seen this thread. I do everything I can to avoid any serious religious discussions held outside of any educational forum or scholarly institutes. Public discussions of god, religion, & all thing spiritual never go anywhere because there aren't any rules of discussion established or some kind of moderator to make sure the debate doesn't become a redundent shouting match. Further more, 99% of people already have their mind made up one way or the other, so without the presence of any real or documented evidence on either side of the debate, no one is going to be persuaded out of their beliefs.

Never the less, I can't walk away from this topic since I have a unique perspective on Philip Pullman & his acclaimed trilogy titled, 'His Dark Materials' because I was a student & intern under Philip Pullman for 6 months while I was studying abroad in Oxford as apart of the Scholars Exchange program in the junior year of my undergrad studies. So with absolute honesty I can say he has been the greatest influence on my life.(with the exception of my grandfather, C.P. Ellis.)

Philip Pullman took a 20 year old boy who knew way too much on every subject but life & used his knowledge only for childish self serving purposes & built the incubating chrysalis that started a metamorphosis that maded him become a man who uses his talents to try & make a difference in order to give homage to the blessing of everyday life that are taken for granted.

Now, before I continue I want to make something clear to anyone who reads this post. I have not read any of the posts that precede my own. So if any point or position I take somehow transgresses on the opinions of others, or unknowingly copies any points made in this post, please forgive me that was not my intent. With this being said, let me address the topic at hand.

First, I will confirm that Philip Pullman has been documented as a self-professed atheist, though I know for a fact that he is using the term in the most vague sense of the word. Having been apart of this discussion several times with him in assemblies, course lectures, & in private we share the same sentiment when it comes to the questions & beliefs of 'God' or any all powerful diety that may hold influence over the world. We believe that it is pointless to take a stance either way, because you can't spend your time on this earth asking questions that can & will only be answered when we pass away. So to pursue 'God' while you are living is a fool's arrand. We all have been seeking him from the moment we were born & every second that passes in our life we are closer to locating him through our continued existence. So to search for something that can't be discovered until our consciousness on this planet comes to an end, is a waste of the time we are given to use for earthly pursuits.

The problems & accusations come when you are forced to give your view point in public. The liturgical members of these ossified religious sects who are so adamant in their beliefs that they will not let you walk away until you define your beliefs in the black and white terms of yes I believe or no I don't believe in God.

After the first print of,'The Golden Compass' hit the book shelves he was able to avoid the subject of spiritual convictions, because the first book doesn't address the ideology of religion as does halfway through the second book,'The Subtle Knife' & through out 'The Amber Spyglass.' In the first novel. (Only known as 'Northern Lights' when it was first released throughout Great Britian) Anyt reference to 'The Church' of Lyra's realm is vague ( I say Lyra's realm because the second & third book is set in several alternate realms that are similar but not with distinct biological changes.) so the only thing that is made clear is the alliances of any characters & the cryptic ulterior motives of 'The Church' in their attempts to capture Lyra.

Now, these accusations of being Anti-God come from events in,'The Subtle Knife' & throughout, 'The Amber Spyglass'. I am won't go into vivid details on the novel, because I am not going to ruin the story for anyone who has read the trilogy, but there are a couple of concepts to have to be revealed for the sake of the point I am trying to make.

The following opinions I am about to share aren't mine alone, they were influenced & verified by author in our conversations together. While writing 'His Dark Materials,' he wasn't intending to castigate God. He is making a social commentary our world and the influence of organized religion that has used it's position of power in numbers by proclaiming to represent the will of God to hold sway over the growth & advancement of our society & humanity, as well as intervening in the diplomacy between nations, & fueling violent conflicts over rights to lands by proclamation of God, conflicting spiritual beliefs, & pigment of skin.

Any artist, author, politician, or public figure of any kind who has dared to address organized religion in a light not favorable to their self-cast image, becomes the victim of verbal assualts & accusions which is broadcast to millions to label them as 'Anti-God' & a demonic figure intent on collapsing the moral structure of man who would leave us at the mercy of thieves, rapists, & murderers if not for the protection given by religions. Yet, after all this time I am still looking for one verse in 'The Bible' or 'The Koran' where is says one interpretation is right & the rest our wrong.

Now let me clarify that Philip Pullman isn't 'Anti-God' because that is the furthest thing from the truth. He is anti-any organization that manipulates spiritual belief to control simple people who only want peace & truth in their life. So religion makes promises that they will receive all that & riches bewyond their wildest dreams after they die & as absurd as it sounds it works, so they become pawn for political & economical influence as well as a renewable source of revenue to fund their secret ventures.

In the final novel of the trilogy there is a war that takes place between scientists & learned beings who clash with 'The Church' & their alliance with celestial dieties. This war represents the struggles between the scientific knowledge, beliefs, & discovery of men & women which have all but put an end to superstitious belief. While 'The Church' & the dieties that fight with them represents how religion has used the belief in God & fear of God's wrath by manipulating ancient scriptures deemed holy & alter the translation without sharing their method of doing so, in order to prevent the rise & influence of science or any alternative idea that opposes their own interests, no matter how much it could change society for the better & an example of this is stem cell research. As human becomes all the more capable of preventing death or end the biological deficiencies that plague humanity, when in the past the only option was prayer and belief in god in hopes of a miracle, religion is afraid this will dwendle the numbers of men,women, & children that look to them for love & hope of better things & give what little money or possessions they have which built the exstravagant temples, cathedrals, & pieces which represent their power. So now the leaders of these sects have stop being these so called holy man ordained by God to deliver his word & have become fearmongers who snarl & show their teeth in order to keep a hold on all of our wealth & possessions which they believe is theirs by right.

If there is a God watching over all of us with promises of paradise when our consciousness ends on this earth, then believe me when I say going to a lavish building for two hours twice a week to listen to some old fart tell grandiose stories about a apocolyptic struggle between good & evil that goes on while you are not looking, isn't going to get you to heaven any faster.

What matters is how you live your life. If you are kind, charitable, fair, honest, & take the time to help those in need then there are great things promised for you long after you spend your last aware moment on this Earth & this statement holds true whether or not there is or isn't a God in heaven who watches over us, because when you do good & you are good to others then a chain of events begins to take place which continues on long after you are dead & at the end of these chain of events you set in motion is some form of occurrence that will make the world better for humanity & better for all forms of life inside this eco-galaxy.

[mark f]

God is not about telling people what to do. He's about people getting in touch with their own feelings to do the right thing.

[tsellisjr]

God is not about telling people what to do. He's about people getting in touch with their own feelings to do the right thing.

That is a decent moral to live by if there is a God or even there isn't a God. Never the less, I can't take it upon myself to try define the motives of a devine being.

I have considered the possibility that his purpose has already been placed in our since birth, so I will try to give an example of the meaning behind that thought.

When I was 3, my mother took me into K-Mart to go shopping. During this trip I came across a packet of balloons that I wanted so I put them in my pocket & as soon as I did, I knew it was wrong without having this explanation to me, or any form of right or wrong behavior. Even at 3 years old, which is the average age when we become conscious & can story memories, I understood the meaning behind my action. So in philosophical terms, we have a predetermined knowledge of right and wrong & good or evil, through predetermined conscience to navigate morality.

I know it sounds campy, but that is as close as I can get to attempting to define celestial motive.

[mark f]

It doesn't really sound campy. It sounds very powerfully real.

[Sir Toose]

Thanks tsellisjr for the thoughtful reply and for sharing your opinions on Pullman.

Firstly I'll chide you (mildly :) ) for not reading the thread before responding. It's not a long thread and it would make others who have taken the time to compose their thoughts on the subject feel equally appreciated in posting their stances as you hope feel in your own i.e if you want to comment and be read you should do the same for others.

Believe me when I tell you that this thread wasn't intended to put down or castigate anyone's beliefs, including Mr. Pullman's. I read the quote from Pullman's 2003 interview where he apparently said "My books are about killing God." For some reason that, coupled with the fact that the film is being released in December ( a month commonly associated with Christmas) sparked something in my mind that told me that the timing could be construed as disrespectful to those millions of people who consider Christmas (and the associated season) to be a sacred time of the year.

That's it. It was meant to be as simple as that. Since the time of the original posting I've read up quite a bit on Mr. Pullman and have found that philosophically he and I share a lot of common ground along with being completely disconnected on some issues.

That's fine, that's cool, that's what makes the world go round and, like I said, I wasn't condemning the man for his beliefs but only calling the timing of the film release into question.

[tsellisjr]

Before my reply, let me introduce myself. The name is Tim, you can call me Timothy, T.S., or whatever fits your fancy & it is a pleasure to meet you Sir Toose.

Let me first, apologize for not taking the time to read the posts from the participants & please believe me when I say I was in no way, shape, or form trying to dismiss the work or opinions of anyone who preceeded me in this discussion & I was in no way, trying to place myself above anyone when I shared my past experience. I was short on time when I spotted the topic & if I didn't address it in some way before I left my apartment, it would bother me for hours & ruin the plans I had made with others.

When I authored my post, I wasn't trying to dispute you in any way or accuse you of trying to assassinate the character, of Philip. I am familier with the statement as well, it was recorded in an interview that took place just over three years after I left, Oxford. The reason I feld obligated to make a post at that moment was to give you and everyone who is speaking on his behalf a deeper perspective & understanding of his modivation behind the creation of the series.

So please forgive me, if I somehow gave the impression that it was me against everyone in this thread, that was not my motive. I should have taken the time to clarify my reasoning, but this is my mistake that I make time & time again because my manner of conversation & interaction online, is exactly how I speak in public. So I often forget that key elements of communication such as tone & expression are not available to assist in determining reason.

I had intended to read the complete thread on my first break from my work, but I had to address another topic I had created last night, which was getting out of hand. So I give you my word that I will examine the whole thread very shortly once all my tasks for the day have been completed.

Thank you for your reply absent of rash judgement, I appreciate your diplomatic demeanor used to address the situation, & I hope this leads to a long friendship & alliance to share opinions in order to learn from each other.

With High Regards,

T.S. Ellis

[thebest]

I just read the thread. That's a lotta threadage to squeeze into 49 posts, it's clear that everyone has a strong, mostly predetermined set-in-stone opinion.

So to quote 2 great religious leaders;

Gandhi: I am a Hindu. And I am a Muslim, a Christian, a Jew and a Sikh.

Obi-Wan Kenobi: Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

I'm really looking forward to the movie. Polar Bears in armour?

That's badass.

[Sir Toose]

it's clear that everyone has a strong, mostly predetermined set-in-stone opinion.


That's clear to you from this thread?

We started out with a premise (mine) that the Christmas release date of a film, the substance of which is tagged 'anti God' by the writer, could be considered to be in bad taste.

From there, we argued the semantics of a few possible interpretations of Jefferson's separation of church and state and continued onward to the writer's (Pullman) possible motivations in writing his stories.

Holden Pike beat me up a little, Memnon and I traded a few punches, tsellis shared a great anecdotal story, I told a joke or two and we parted company friends.

I wouldn't classify anyone's behavior in this thread as a 'set-in-stone' opinion on anything. Mine certainly isn't, I'm usually wise enough to not paint myself into a corner because that's what all that stone setting eventually does.

As for Polar Bears in body armor, your point is well taken. :D

[rufnek]

I'm not into spankings. Heathen.

I'm not making any final judgment on them, but Pullman himself has made his intentions clear; the quotes on Snopes are downright blatant, actually. Ironically, I had thought up until now that his agenda was a bit hazier, but apparently not.

Anyway, apart from the author's own admissions, the plot has been described in great detail to me; that's not an exaggeration, either. My lady friend and I talked about it for over an hour solid on one occasion, and nearly as long at other times. This does not make me an authority, but I'm not quite going off of a dust jacket, either.

Either way, this will be a moot point (hopefully) soon, as I've blocked out a a fair amount of reading time this weekend.


Sure. But those people are crazy, Rowling denies it, and in that case the crazy people couldn't cite anything in the books to support the idea.


Pullman's own words on the matter suggest a problem with all theism, not just Christianity, and certainly not just with Churches. Nevertheless, the distinction between the religion and the church is not an especially comforting one, especially given the "every Church is the same" quote.

As for the books being about positive things; I have no trouble believing that. I don't think Pullman is a Satanist, immoral, or anything of the sort. And perhaps his message is just vague enough for some deniability when it comes to specifics. But the agenda is there; it's evident in the events of the third book, and Pullman is perfectly (and commendably) open about it.

How much of "the author's own admissions" have you read, Yoda, beyond the text of the message posted on Snopes? Do you know for a fact that posting contains Philip Pullman's actual words and is not just an opponent putting words in his mouth?

On Pullman's own web site
http://www.philip-pullman.com/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=36 (http://www.philip-pullman.com/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=36)
under FAQs, there is the following question and reply:

"His Dark Materials (trilogy) seems to be against organized religion. Do you believe in God?"

"I don't know whether there's a God or not. Nobody does, no matter what they say. I think it's perfectly possible to explain how the universe came about without bringing God into it, but I don't know everything, and there may well be a God somewhere, hiding away.

"Actually, if he is keeping out of sight, it's because he's ashamed of his followers and all the cruelty and ignorance they're responsible for promoting in his name. If I were him, I'd want nothing to do with them."

Elsewhere on his website, he reports his books "have been honored by several prizes, including the Carnegie Medal, the Guardian Children's Book Award, and (for The Amber Spyglass) the Whitbread Book of the Year Award - the first time in the history of that prize that it was given to a children's book."

So unless one subscribes to a Satanic influence within the children's book section of the worldwide publishing industry, one would have to conclude that some people familar with that business have found some merit in Pullman's books.

I can't testify myself, having never read his books nor even heard of him or his books until I received a copy of that email from the same source who emails me copies of right-wing views on Hillary Clinton, illegal immigration, and homosexuality, among other issues. But I'm willing to give Pullman the benefit of the doubt until someone actually proves his books and resulting films are any more harmful or persuasive than Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, that "Lion and the Wardrobe" film or the Dungeons & Dragon games, all of which have had their critics at one time or another.

[rufnek]

Yeah, yeah, you're right about that, I'm sure I read too much into the timing of the release date. It still doesn't negate the fact that I find the timing to be in poor taste, which is the point that I was originally making.

And yes, I'm certifiable.

Don't a lot of producers race to have their best films open at least by December in order to qualify for that year's academy awards, with the ballots being distributed early in the coming year when the latest blockbusters are fresh in mind? Would it have been wiser to open that film next Spring, say somewhere around Easter?

[Yoda]

How much of "the author's own admissions" have you read, Yoda, beyond the text of the message posted on Snopes? Do you know for a fact that posting contains Philip Pullman's actual words and is not just an opponent putting words in his mouth?
I've actually done a good deal of web-searching on Pullman's views, and the quotes on Snopes are certainly in line with what I've found. As for the accuracy of Snopes itself; it is invariably beyond reproach. They're probably the foremost site on the Internet in regards to debunking rumors and urban legends, and I am entirely comfortable putting trust in their reports. They have shown themselves to be incredibly thorough and even-handed, so if they said he said those things, you can count on it.

Nothing I'm saying or claiming, however, relies on the rant at the top of the page, which appears to contain conjecture and exaggeration.

So unless one subscribes to a Satanic influence within the children's book section of the worldwide publishing industry, one would have to conclude that some people familar with that business have found some merit in Pullman's books.
As well they should. From what I've read so far (I started the first book last week), and from all I've heard, the books have plenty of merit. I don't believe I've suggested otherwise.

I can't testify myself, having never read his books nor even heard of him or his books until I received a copy of that email from the same source who emails me copies of right-wing views on Hillary Clinton, illegal immigration, and homosexuality, among other issues. But I'm willing to give Pullman the benefit of the doubt until someone actually proves his books and resulting films are any more harmful or persuasive than Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, that "Lion and the Wardrobe" film or the Dungeons & Dragon games, all of which have had their critics at one time or another.
I think this is the heart of the issue. I don't think Pullman's position is really disputable, and I don't think the fact that the series has an agenda is, either. I think the arguments here are largely based around the fact that a lot of wackos are being very loud about the books, and nobody likes to be on the same side of an issue as a wacko.

To borrow a famous quip from Baltasar Gracian, I think we should all avoid "[taking] the wrong side of an argument just because [our] opponent has taken the right side." When someone calls a book "anti-God" they're usually overreacting. My position is that, in this instance, it doesn't appear that they are. After all, even wackos are right sometimes.

[Sir Toose]

Don't a lot of producers race to have their best films open at least by December in order to qualify for that year's academy awards, with the ballots being distributed early in the coming year when the latest blockbusters are fresh in mind? Would it have been wiser to open that film next Spring, say somewhere around Easter?


How many times will it be that I have to concede the same point? Since you quoted my concession of Holden's point I'm assuming you want me to concede it again?

This will make 3 times in the same thread if anyone else would care to point out a point that's already been conceded feel free and I will concede it as many times as you all would like for me to do so.

[PimpDaShizzle V2.0]

http://z.about.com/d/movies/1/0/-/V/O/goldencompasspic8.jpg
Seriously. Tom Cruise is a f_ckin' idiot.

[Memnon]

How many times will it be that I have to concede the same point? Since you quoted my concession of Holden's point I'm assuming you want me to concede it again?

This will make 3 times in the same thread if anyone else would care to point out a point that's already been conceded feel free and I will concede it as many times as you all would like for me to do so.

ummm... I can't think of any others right now, but how about conceding that I was right about everything? I don't know about what, but, hey, if I can get you to do that here, I can use that in the future on anything else! :p

[tsellisjr]

I am so glad I finally read through this thread a couple of days ago, I knew the posts were going to be good, but they exceed all my expectations.

The best thing about, Christmas for me.. is watching Christians, who would die to defend it, since they consider it 'Jesus's Birthday' though Jesus was infact, born in Summer if we go by the circumstances given by the bible.

Not to mention that, the holiday was a pagan holiday started by the Romans, where the upper class men would celebrate the Winter Solstice by raping young boys after they gave each other presents. (Any Christians planning to pm me to dispute this, don't I have already listen to every argument from the Roman celebrations name only sounds like Christmas to It's only a rumor. No, it's fact recognized & documented by the first christians in religious scrolls long before the bible was put together. Not to mention there are several Torah Scrolls that document them as well, that I have looked at with my own eyes at Duke U. Divinity School.)

Other then that, before I forget to respond to Refneck's comment on movies being rushed to in order to meet Oscar criteria, it does happen but in the case of 'The Golden Compass' & the majority of major motion picture releases, is the majority of families attend movies at this time of year, since families come together over the holidays, kids off to college come home, so the big releases in winters are films agreeable with everyone in a family.

[Outbreak]

"As I understand it, in the last book, a boy and girl are depicted representing Adam and Eve and they kill God, who at times is called YAHWEH (which is definitely not Allah)."


really? I didn't believe all this anti religion hype for this movie/ book because it could be all someones interpretation. But if it goes so far as to have 2 characters (Adam and Eve even) kill YAHWEH... then ya, I can see it now.
If i remember my world religions class correctly, YAHWEH is how you read God in Israeli and the Jewish name for God, or something like that.

[Tatanka]

Yoda....how far along are you in the book? I've begun reading as well and was wondering what you thought so far...

[Lockheed Martin]

Man, Pullman leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Atheism's a broad church but I'm still not happy to share it with him, there's something fundamentally warped about a thought process that takes umbridge over the Christian indoctrination of children and concludes the best course of action is counter-indoctrination.

As for the Christmas release, it's still a kid's movie and kids go to see movies during their holidays, there's no agenda except the good old capitalist profit motive.

[John McClane]

I'm sorry, but all these people getting bent out of shape over The Golden Compass are just down right hysterical. My best friend's church already had a sermon on it. Hilarious? You be the judge. :laugh:

[meatwadsprite]

I went to church one time and they were talking about how the Davinchi Code is the devils work.

[Yoda]

I'm sorry, but all these people getting bent out of shape over The Golden Compass are just down right hysterical. My best friend's church already had a sermon on it. Hilarious? You be the judge. :laugh:
Why's it hysterical? The books have an agenda that is at odds with basically any form of theism, so it seems entirely reasonable that someone might preach about it.

[Austruck]

Philip Pullman (author of The Golden Compass series) has stated outright that he has an enormous agenda: He wishes to indoctrinate small children into atheism and teach them that everything their religious parents have taught them is a lie.

And he's admitted that he knows it's best to hook them when they're young and that using fiction, subtly, slowly, to draw them into not believing in any sort of theistic God is the easiest way to lure in children.

The first book is apparently the least offensive (most subtle), but as the series progresses, the agenda becomes dreadfully clearer. But by then (in his plan), some kids will have followed him hook, line and sinker.
Sorry, John, but that's enough of an agenda for me.

[Austruck]

I've read quotes from him, and frankly, his total hatred of anything theistic is palpable (and he admits it freely). It's a bitter, angry hatred, and he's purposely writing these books not to entertain but to indoctrinate.

[Austruck]

I never got in a huff over the Harry Potter books or The Da Vinci Code (why did it sell so many copies? it wasn't that good!). I didn't see any sort of agenda behind either of those.

But Pullman is a wholly different matter.

[OG-]

I'm a little curious to know what the difference is between writing a book for children that is pro-atheism and forcing children to attend church and listen (if not read directly) to the bible?

Disagree with the finish line if you want, but the agendas between the two are exactly the same. Frankly, I think letting a child chose to read or not read a book when they're 10 is more honest than forcing them to church from day one.

[OG-]

Also, just so everyone is clear, all anti-religion sentiments have been stripped from the adaptation of The Golden Compass. Anyone who bothers to actually look into the issue would know that several people involved with the actual film have confirmed this.

Hate on the book series if that is your agenda, but please do not blindly perpetuate this fake notion that this movie is going to burn the souls of children everywhere.

[Sir Toose]

Speaking for myself, I'd let my kids watch the film if they wanted to. I told them about the controversy and my daughter doesn't want to see it. My son, who loves a bit of controversy, wants to see it and I won't stop him from it.

My question is... if the anti religion sentiments were the purpose for creating the work (which they are, Pullman himself said they are a retaliation against Narnia) then why strip the heart out of it? They should at least have the balls to stand behind what they've created otherwise it makes it a rather weak stance to have.

[OG-]

You're talking about Hollywood, Toose. As a rule they don't give a damn about what they adapt. They know they'll make more money if they leave the religious aspects out. This shoutbox is more than enough proof of that.

[Powdered Water]

All that other stuff aside, if the movie is good then I'm in. Some of the previews make it look a little hokey but we'll see.

Does kind of make me want read the books though.

[adidasss]

I'm a little curious to know what the difference is between writing a book for children that is pro-atheism and forcing children to attend church and listen (if not read directly) to the bible?

Disagree with the finish line if you want, but the agendas between the two are exactly the same. Frankly, I think letting a child chose to read or not read a book when they're 10 is more honest than forcing them to church from day one. Excellent point. :)
My question is... if the anti religion sentiments were the purpose for creating the work (which they are, Pullman himself said they are a retaliation against Narnia) then why strip the heart out of it? They should at least have the balls to stand behind what they've created otherwise it makes it a rather weak stance to have. I'd say Pullman chose dollars over principals.

[meatwadsprite]

Looks like a garbage movie to me in the first place.

[John McClane]

Yea, OG- slammed the nail right on the head about why I find it hilarious that all these people are up in arms over the movie.

And isn't Narnia practically the same thing, but with a theist agenda? Where was the huff and puff when that movie was made? Oh wait, atheists are sensible people and can tell when some thing's fiction. ;)

[Yoda]

I'm a little curious to know what the difference is between writing a book for children that is pro-atheism and forcing children to attend church and listen (if not read directly) to the bible?
The difference is that telling a child to go to church or read The Bible isn't subversive. It's entirely upfront and there's no mistaking its intentions. And while Pullman himself has admitted his, there's little to no chance any kid who picks up The Golden Compass will know of them. The way the series eases into its ideology underlies this point.

[Yoda]

And isn't Narnia practically the same thing, but with a theist agenda? Where was the huff and puff when that movie was made?
Again, it's about the subversiveness. Narnia is upfront and unmistakable. One of the largest complaints about His Dark Materials is that it's subtle, and eases into its ideology. But this is irrelevant to the main point, anyway.

Oh wait, atheists are sensible people and can tell when some thing's fiction.
This is the same non-defense people use for The Da Vinci Code. You need look no further than Aesop's Fables see that, as a species, we respond to ideas in story form. There are countless other examples of how you can smuggle ideologies into a good story. And when you have someone who has made their ideology plain, and it aligns with the "fiction" in their books, then falling back on their fictional status seems a little obtuse to me.

[adidasss]

I'm a little curious to know what the difference is between writing a book for children that is pro-atheism and forcing children to attend church and listen (if not read directly) to the bible?
The difference is that telling a child to go to church or read The Bible isn't subversive. It's entirely upfront and there's no mistaking its intentions. And while Pullman himself has admitted his, there's little to no chance any kid who picks up The Golden Compass will know of them. The way the series eases into its ideology underlies this point.The means may be different but the end result is the same, indoctrination. It's not as if being upfront about it gives the child a choice...

[adidasss]

I shouldn't be talking about this anyway, I haven't read the books yet...but this definitely has given me an incentive to...

[Yoda]

The means may be different but the end result is the same, indoctrination. It's not as if being upfront about it gives the child a choice...
It gives them perspective, which is really all you can ask, unless you don't think parents should be teaching or influencing their children at all.

I think there's a huge difference between whether or not these sorts of things are upfront or subversive. It's not unlike the difference between persuading someone to do something, and tricking them into doing it.

[Sir Toose]

It's not unlike the difference between persuading someone to do something, and tricking them into doing it.

You've just put into words what I've been unable to up to this point. It's sneaky. Now that I've heard that the film is shying away from the premise (no matter the motivation, Hollywood or not) it rings all the hollower to me.

[Yoda]

Yeah, OG- makes a salient point about the anti-religious sentiment. It's entirely possible this will become a moot point in regards to the movies, though given what happens later in the series, it's hard to imagine how it could be stripped out. I'm mostly just talking about the books themselves, though, even though the movie's release is the reason it's being talked about so much.

[adidasss]

It gives them perspective, which is really all you can ask, unless you don't think parents should be teaching or influencing their children at all.
There are atheist parents that do a pretty good job of raising their children without giving them a religious "perspective"...most of those kids also turn out to be respectable human beings...


I think there's a huge difference between whether or not these sorts of things are upfront or subversive. It's not unlike the difference between persuading someone to do something, and tricking them into doing it.
I think coercion would be the more appropriate term. I don't think there's a child out there who wouldn't rather spend their Sunday morning sleeping in or playing PS3...

What are you so worried about anyway? It's a few books, how does that stack up to years of brainwashing? If the job was done properly they should dismiss "subversive" ideas as blasphemies without too much thought....

[Yoda]

There are atheist parents that do a pretty good job of raising their children without giving them a religious "perspective"...most of those kids also turn out to be respectable human beings...
I'm not sure how we'd measure whether or not "most" turn out one way or another. Regardless, virtually all parents attempt to imbue their children with some set of ideals, be they religious, moral, or both. It's an eminently reasonable thing, and if you are an atheist, there isn't much basis for preferring arbitrary moral values to arbitrary religious beliefs.

I think coercion would be the more appropriate term. I don't think there's a child out there who wouldn't rather spend their Sunday morning sleeping in or playing PS3...
And they'd probably rather do those things than go to school, too. But I don't think any of us are railing against the "coercive" public education systems. Kids want all sorts of things which are wrong for them, which is why most people acknowledge that it's sensible for parents to attempt to instill them with values. The fact that this can be abused doesn't imply that the absolute opposite path -- not instilling them with anything firm -- is the answer. To the contrary, I think it can be disasterous.

What are you so worried about anyway? It's a few books, how does that stack up to years of brainwashing? If the job was done properly they should dismiss "subversive" ideas as blasphemies without too much thought....
I don't think I've said anything to indicate that I'm especially worried. This is a largely abstract discussion, at least on my end. I'm just a bit perturbed that people are trying to deny that the books do, in fact, have an agenda. I love the exchange of ideas, but not when one side isn't being upfront about what's being exchanged.

As for them being "a few books" -- The Bible is made up of a "few books." The Communist Manifesto is a glorified pamphlet. I don't think His Dark Materials is on par with either, of course, but it's not always obvious how influencial some things can be.

[John McClane]

Kids want all sorts of things which are wrong for them, which is why most people acknowledge that it's sensible for parents to attempt to instill them with values.I don't think playing games or sleeping on one of their days off is a serious "wrong," so I'm not quite seeing your point.


I don't think I've said anything to indicate that I'm especially worried. This is a largely abstract discussion, at least on my end. I'm just a bit perturbed that people are trying to deny that the books do, in fact, have an agenda. I love the exchange of ideas, but not when one side isn't being upfront about what's being exchanged.Oh, I haven't said at all that they don't have an agenda. In fact the agenda is moot, and I would say the same thing about Narnia. Besides, if a kid's "religion" is "true and obvious" it shouldn't matter that they're watching/reading the opposing viewpoint. Because they know what they think is "right," unless they're already on shaky ground. In which case, the what was really "true" wasn't. At least, that's my opinion from my own experience.

[OG-]

The difference is that telling a child to go to church or read The Bible isn't subversive. It's entirely upfront and there's no mistaking its intentions. And while Pullman himself has admitted his, there's little to no chance any kid who picks up The Golden Compass will know of them. The way the series eases into its ideology underlies this point.

Show of hands. Has anyone here read the His Dark Materials trilogy? Has anyone bothered to read the three, short, young-adult pieces of fiction that have already garnered 5 pages of discussion?

Pull author quotes all you want; read the damned things. There is nothing at all subversive about the methods of storytelling or, as the word gets beat around like a pinata, some sort of indoctrination. Actually read all three of the things you are "discussing" and realize that Pullman is nothing more than a hype man, overselling some agenda he himself feels his books have. And this is coming from a fan of the story of the books!

There is nothing whatsoever subversive about them. No trickery. No hidden amorality. No play this tape backwards and kill your family. Pullman is not that good of an author.

Yes, His Dark Materials blatantly rallies against organized religion. Check the key word, please: blatantly. The first book - the very book this thread is dedicated to and the only book in production - has nothing atheistic in it, unless you think fantasy Ice Bears honestly go against your God. The second and third books are where any agenda can be found, and believe me it will be found. A 10 year old will find it right quick regardless of how smart they are. It. Is. Obvious.

The books aren't even directly against God. The books are against the men and women who perpetuate terrible things in the name of God. Matter 'o obvious fact, the children in the books end up finding God in everything on earth and, most importantly, inside themselves.

As far as I can tell, the only wrong Phillip Pullman did was over hype his agenda, an agenda that does not translate 100% to the books no one here seems to have either read or comprehended, as a means of hawking books.

It clearly backfired.

[adidasss]

I'm not sure how we'd measure whether or not "most" turn out one way or another. Regardless, virtually all parents attempt to imbue their children with some set of ideals, be they religious, moral, or both. It's an eminently reasonable thing, and if you are an atheist, there isn't much basis for preferring arbitrary moral values to arbitrary religious beliefs. I have to confess, I'm not sure if I understood the last sentence, are you saying that atheists shouldn't care if they're children are being indoctrinated with religious beliefs?


And they'd probably rather do those things than go to school, too. But I don't think any of us are railing against the "coercive" public education systems. Kids want all sorts of things which are wrong for them, which is why most people acknowledge that it's sensible for parents to attempt to instill them with values. The fact that this can be abused doesn't imply that the absolute opposite path -- not instilling them with anything firm -- is the answer. To the contrary, I think it can be disasterous. There is a reason why going to church isn't obligatory and going to school is, it being that the latter provides the children with skills they cannot do without in modern society.


I don't think I've said anything to indicate that I'm especially worried. This is a largely abstract discussion, at least on my end. I'm just a bit perturbed that people are trying to deny that the books do, in fact, have an agenda. I love the exchange of ideas, but not when one side isn't being upfront about what's being exchanged. You've just said that Pullman is being upfront about it. Freedom of ideas indeed... :/ Should they print a statement on the front of the book "children beware, I am trying to convince you there is no God in this book, read at your own peril!"? I'm not sure what else he can do about it...he has written books that offer a different outlook on the world...it's up to the children to decide if his views have any merit...this whole discussion seems a little condescending towards the target audience if you ask me.

And I've just read OG's response so I shall quietly bow out from spewing nonsense with no real insight into the subject matter. Goodnight kind sirs...;)

[jrs]

I just don't understand all this nitpicking about a movie. You go to a movie for enjoyment. Entertainment. All these people trying to turn down the film with all these anti crap , all the whats wrong with this and what is wrong with that and so forth. Just watch the picture and have a good time.

[Ðèstîñy]

I'm probably too easy going when it comes to things like this, but to me, it would have either come out this summer, and they would have pushed to sale it on DVD at Christmas time, or it would be doing exactly what it is doing, and be in the theater at Christmas time. It's that almighty dollar, and I'd say that's all it is.
As far as this man, and his goal with his books . . . simply keep your children away from them, until they are old enough to make up their own minds, as far as what to believe in. My children can do whatever they like, as long as they don't hurt anyone. If you worry that much about what effects the movie may have on them, then keep them away from that as well, until they are older.

[Thursday Next]

Show of hands. Has anyone here read the His Dark Materials trilogy? Has anyone bothered to read the three, short, young-adult pieces of fiction that have already garnered 5 pages of discussion?

Pull author quotes all you want; read the damned things. There is nothing at all subversive about the methods of storytelling ...
There is nothing whatsoever subversive about them. No trickery. No hidden amorality. No play this tape backwards and kill your family. Pullman is not that good of an author.



I've read them. And you're right. There's nothing subversive or tricky about them. There is nothing subtle about them.

Pullman wrote these books to be the anti-Narnia, and succeeded. Both are thinly veiled messages of their authors' respective beliefs within a children's fantasy setting. This is not to devalue the fantasy aspect, they are both intriguing worlds rather than mere propaganda. Personally, I prefer Narnia to HDM. But that is merely from a story point of view.

But you can't say Narnia is great and HDM is wrong from a moral point of view, they are the same thing. Those who dislike HDM for its supposed 'indoctrination' of children are just cross that it doesn't 'indoctrinate' kids with what they want them to be indoctrinated with. It is the view they disagree with, not the method of disguising views through fiction, that has been a strong weapon in the Christian armoury for centuries. There is nothing more 'sneaky' about what Pullman is doing than what the authors of the countless morality stories, tracts, stories sold in Christian bookshops and CS Lewis have been doing.

As for those people keeping their children away from the films...do they really think watching one film is going to turn their children into atheists? If that could work, just show them Narnia straight afterwards to turn them into Christians...It isn't that simple.

[John McClane]

I've yet to get around to reading the books, but I am obviously right about them and Narnia. *Insert awesome quote from Thursday Next or OG- right here.* ;)

[bleacheddecay]

The Golden Compass (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0385752/)

I got this in my email box this morning and so checked snopes.com for validity:




http://snopes.com/politics/religion/compass.asp

I'm all for expression of individual opinion, but does this seem targeted and at least partially inappropriate to you?

Having actually read the book, yes the e-mail seems targeted and very inappropriate to me. Whereas the movie is one I'm looking forward to.

If it WAS about killing God? I'd be more interested in the book and movie than I already am.

Sadly, it's not about that at all. The author who happens to be an agnostic and NOT an atheist was teasing and possibly trying to drive up book and ticket sales. I think it's going to work.

The bigger the freak out religious backlash, the better the sales will be.

It's all part of an awesome marketing plan, it wouldn't surprise me if certain religious leaders hadn't been paid to blow this thing up.