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

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

__________________
The Divide by Zero Foundation - Where the real world ends... and mine begins

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 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.

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.

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'.

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.

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 ). 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...

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:

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.

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...

^ 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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

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

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

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

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...

You're right.

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

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)

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.