Golden Compass - A religious debate?

[Fat Bones]

I'd like to see a study down to find whether or not "boycots" every serve their intended and desired purpose or if they rather have the reverse effect since the added press calls that much more attention to a film.

Besides, when I was a kid, when my parents told me I couldn't see Friday 13 or Halloween, all I'd think about is devising a plan to see each film. You leave it alone, I'd bet it would go away much quicker and with much less of an impact.

And yes, I agree that both sides are annoying. However, I do think articles of "childrens" films like this and Bridge To Terabithia should be written, if only to inform that these Fantasy movies have very adult themes. A lot of times movie-makers fail to advertise the actual film, but rather sell the part they think will draw the largest demographic, which tends to be kids films. If parents don't take the time to research and studios fail to market properly, then a lot of kids could not get what they paid for.

As far as studies exploring the effectiveness of of boycotts, it's done continuously. Anything adversely effecting the bottom line is always studied by prudent businesses and savvy ins utions. LINK.

I couldn't agree more with the rest of your post. When told no, I've explored all the reasons why something is considered verboten. It's in our nature.
Especially, the stubborn and innovative, free thinking type of person.
It maybe, scratch that, it is asking too much of the hucksters in Hollywood to publicize truthfully the content of their product. They are selling illusions and escapism; that doesn't mix well with honesty. As a parent, it is my responsibility to seek out information from reliable and objective 3rd parties, how ever difficult that may be, on the content of everything being encountered by my kids and instill in them the best wisdom and discernment possible...and guide them to better alternatives whenever possible.

peewee's lovechild-

I called you a .

Sorry, I was in a hurry earlier. In an effort to be quick and concise, I lost my patience and that was unfortunate. It is also being unfair to my dog and my ex wife, and I apologize.

So what would you call the victim of a non existent crime?

On these great interwebs, I would posit, whiny vag. Alas, that is crass perchance?

We live in a world of choices. You can participate or not. I choose not to participate in Gay Pride marches, you can. I choose to not participate in Klan rallies, you can. I do not go out of my way to celebrate Rosh Hashanah, Kwanzaa, or Los Angeles Laker's victories. You can. Or not. I will not be purchasing jewelry from Kay's this year in hopes that every kiss begins with it. I have learned every kiss ends at a cost. I don't need a new Norelco shaver, a shiny Lexus, or even a cold refreshing Budweiser beer, just because it's offered incessantly on the screen of my television.

It's a choice derived from empowerment.

In the immortal words of the scholar-
"Turn off your station".

Anyway, I hope this movie is entertaining, I am looking forward to seeing it.

[peewee's lovechild]

peewee's lovechild-

I called you a .

Sorry, I was in a hurry earlier. In an effort to be quick and concise, I lost my patience and that was unfortunate. It is also being unfair to my dog and my ex wife, and I apologize.

You forgot your mother.
But, then again, the word probably would have been " " so I understand.

We live in a world of choices. You can participate or not. I choose not to participate in Gay Pride marches, you can. I choose to not participate in Klan rallies, you can. I do not go out of my way to celebrate Rosh Hashanah, Kwanzaa, or Los Angeles Laker's victories. You can. Or not. I will not be purchasing jewelry from Kay's this year in hopes that every kiss begins with it. I have learned every kiss ends at a cost. I don't need a new Norelco shaver, a shiny Lexus, or even a cold refreshing Budweiser beer, just because it's offered incessantly on the screen of my television.

It's a choice derived from empowerment.

In the immortal words of the scholar-
"Turn off your station".

Anyway, I hope this movie is entertaining, I am looking forward to seeing it.

I have to give you props here.
You're a bigger idiot than I previously thought.
I didn't think this was possible.

I'm astonished.

So, anyway, the point of the thread was "christian" minded people boycotting, banning, blasting, etc., movies that go against "christian" doctrine. The fact that they feel they have a monopoly on children's minds is absurd. The fact that they can promote movies that, in turn, promote their christian agenda without atheists, agnostics, or areligious peoples raising an uproar, while they protest is beyond ridiculous.

Yes, you can choose to participate or not, but that wasn't the point of this thread, not by a long shot.

[ploto]

It's a PG 13 movie. Kids don't belong there anyway.

[BacktoBasics]

It's a PG 13 movie. Kids don't belong there anyway.

I wish 13 was a real indication of children moving into their more mature semi-adulthood.

[Extra Stout]

You forgot your mother.
But, then again, the word probably would have been " " so I understand.




I have to give you props here.
You're a bigger idiot than I previously thought.
I didn't think this was possible.

I'm astonished.

So, anyway, the point of the thread was "christian" minded people boycotting, banning, blasting, etc., movies that go against "christian" doctrine. The fact that they feel they have a monopoly on children's minds is absurd. The fact that they can promote movies that, in turn, promote their christian agenda without atheists, agnostics, or areligious peoples raising an uproar, while they protest is beyond ridiculous.

Yes, you can choose to participate or not, but that wasn't the point of this thread, not by a long shot.

I remember when "The Da Vinci Code" book came out.

My church did a three-week sermon series contrasting the claims of the book/movie with the teachings of the church. There were no calls for a boycott, but rather just a discussion of what the book was claiming.

Even that ended up being too much, because virtually nobody knew or cared who Constantine was, and nobody was seriously entertaining the notion that Jesus married Mary Magdalene just because some author said so anyway, so most people were bored.

My Orthodox friend said it was more germane at his church, because they refer back to the early days of Christianity quite frequently in their tradition, and people were indeed asking questions.

Anyway, I think it's fair to get the word out to Christian parents about the background of Pullmann and his series. It's not exactly fair for them to take their children to what they think is just a nice children's fantasy movie, and have it turn out to be this anti-Christian polemic. They don't make that clear in the commercials, as opposed to "The Nativity Story," where the customer has a pretty good idea going in exactly who is going to be born. So I could see parents' point if they complained that The Golden Compass were something of a Trojan horse.

Likewise, it would be fair to publicize C.S. Lewis' obvious Christian agenda in the Narnia series.

[peewee's lovechild]

I remember when "The Da Vinci Code" book came out.

My church did a three-week sermon series contrasting the claims of the book/movie with the teachings of the church. There were no calls for a boycott, but rather just a discussion of what the book was claiming.

Even that ended up being too much, because virtually nobody knew or cared who Constantine was, and nobody was seriously entertaining the notion that Jesus married Mary Magdalene just because some author said so anyway, so most people were bored.

My Orthodox friend said it was more germane at his church, because they refer back to the early days of Christianity quite frequently in their tradition, and people were indeed asking questions.

Anyway, I think it's fair to get the word out to Christian parents about the background of Pullmann and his series. It's not exactly fair for them to take their children to what they think is just a nice children's fantasy movie, and have it turn out to be this anti-Christian polemic. They don't make that clear in the commercials, as opposed to "The Nativity Story," where the customer has a pretty good idea going in exactly who is going to be born. So I could see parents' point if they complained that The Golden Compass were something of a Trojan horse.

Likewise, it would be fair to publicize C.S. Lewis' obvious Christian agenda in the Narnia series.

And yet, children in school are exposed to Christmas as being a holiday where a fat old man dressed in red spends one night of the year distributing gifts to good kids. Children aren't told that it's supposed to be a day to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, however wrong they may be about that day.

So, if Christians can use a fat old man dressed in a red suit who distributes gifts to good kids to promote their agenda, why can't atheists/agnostics use a children's story to do the same thing?

[Extra Stout]

And yet, children in school are exposed to Christmas as being a holiday where a fat old man dressed in red spends one night of the year distributing gifts to good kids. Children aren't told that it's supposed to be a day to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, however wrong they may be about that day.

So, if Christians can use a fat old man dressed in a red suit who distributes gifts to good kids to promote their agenda, why can't atheists/agnostics use a children's story to do the same thing?

Santa Claus was hardly invented by evangelical Christians to push some evangelizing agenda. He is just the American version of the St. Nicholas character, who is part of the holiday tradition in every Western country, dating from late antiquity, and who has been so twisted around from the actual 4th-century Anatolian priest as to be unrecognizable.

And most of the traditions of American secular Christmas predate Christianity, and in the case of Europe, Christmas traditions persist despite the continent's general apostasy. What you have, mostly, is the winter solstice celebration of the Germanic and Nordic tribes. Early missionaries Christianized it in order to convert the Germans. For all we know, Jesus was born in April.

The Golden Compass on the other hand, is explicitly decribed by the author as a means to disabuse children of their Christian upbringing.

It seems that you are claiming that agnostics should be permitted to use deception to influence children's values against the will of their parents, and that parents should just sit back and accept that. That is a view unlikely to garner much favor.

[peewee's lovechild]

Santa Claus was hardly invented by evangelical Christians to push some evangelizing agenda. He is just the American version of the St. Nicholas character, who is part of the holiday tradition in every Western country, dating from late antiquity, and who has been so twisted around from the actual 4th-century Anatolian priest as to be unrecognizable.

And most of the traditions of American secular Christmas predate Christianity, and in the case of Europe, Christmas traditions persist despite the continent's general apostasy. What you have, mostly, is the winter solstice celebration of the Germanic and Nordic tribes. Early missionaries Christianized it in order to convert the Germans. For all we know, Jesus was born in April.

The Golden Compass on the other hand, is explicitly decribed by the author as a means to disabuse children of their Christian upbringing.

It seems that you are claiming that agnostics should be permitted to use deception to influence children's values against the will of their parents, and that parents should just sit back and accept that. That is a view unlikely to garner much favor.

I know all about the winter solsitce and the pagan traditions of Western Europe. I wasn't trying to expose the Christmas traditions as being anti-christian, although I could definately make that case. That is neither here nor there.

What I did point out is that Christmas is made out to be this great family fare and that the Santa Claus character is used to bring the children into it. But, at the heart of it is CHRISTmas. The whole thing is used to promote CHRIST, regardless of how commercialized it has become or where the roots of the celebration really come from.

So, if Christmas, and all it's characters, can be used to indoctrinate children, then why can't agnostic/athiest stories/movies do the same? There's deception on both sides. Why is it that only one side should be permitted to monopolize on that?

Agnostics/atheists should be permitted to express their views in any which way they want, being that Christians pretty much have carte blanche to do what they may. But, far from being a debate between agnostics/atheists and Christians, what say you about Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Sihks, Jews, etc? Would it be fare for them to make their views/doctrines appealing to children with fun filled holidays, movies, books, etc?

Are the other religions left out of this conversation? Is this only an athiest/agnostic issue?

[FromWayDowntown]

So, anyway, the point of the thread was "christian" minded people boycotting, banning, blasting, etc., movies that go against "christian" doctrine. The fact that they feel they have a monopoly on children's minds is absurd. The fact that they can promote movies that, in turn, promote their christian agenda without atheists, agnostics, or areligious peoples raising an uproar, while they protest is beyond ridiculous.

It's also free speech/expression at work.

I generally disagree with these sorts of protests -- I thought the religious uproar about Harry Potter was patently absurd. But, I also think that it's irresponsible to think that those who hold such religious views should be prohibited from expressing those views and encouraging others to share those views.

We live in a marketplace of ideas, in some sense. This debate is that marketplace at work -- you think those who oppose the film have a baseless argument; they think that you're wrong. That's the choice we make by deciding to encourage free speech.

You might be saying something different than I'm understanding, but I DO understand your argument to be, essentially, that religious people should just keep their mouths shut about these things. I don't see telling religious folks to just keep quiet about films and books that they disagree with as a reasonable viewpoint.

[Extra Stout]

I know all about the winter solsitce and the pagan traditions of Western Europe. I wasn't trying to expose the Christmas traditions as being anti-christian, although I could definately make that case. That is neither here nor there.

What I did point out is that Christmas is made out to be this great family fare and that the Santa Claus character is used to bring the children into it. But, at the heart of it is CHRISTmas. The whole thing is used to promote CHRIST, regardless of how commercialized it has become or where the roots of the celebration really come from.

So, if Christmas, and all it's characters, can be used to indoctrinate children, then why can't agnostic/athiest stories/movies do the same? There's deception on both sides. Why is it that only one side should be permitted to monopolize on that?

Agnostics/atheists should be permitted to express their views in any which way they want, being that Christians pretty much have carte blanche to do what they may. But, far from being a debate between agnostics/atheists and Christians, what say you about Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Sihks, Jews, etc? Would it be fare for them to make their views/doctrines appealing to children with fun filled holidays, movies, books, etc?

Are the other religions left out of this conversation? Is this only an athiest/agnostic issue?

Atheists and agnostics are free to boycott Christmas if they like. Jehovah's Witnesses do a smashing job of it. So why do few agnostics/atheists choose to, if it is indeed such an insidious and duplicitous attempt to indoctrinate their children? Have they no interest in inculcating their own values to their progeny? I might have suggested filing a lawsuit to get Christmas out of the schools, but apparently, the Supreme Court has already decided on that:

It is unquestioned that public school students may be taught about the customs and cultural heritage of the United States and other countries. This is the principal effect of the rules. They allow the presentation of material that, although of religious origin, has taken on an independent meaning. The district court expressly found that much of the art, literature and music associated with traditional holidays, particularly Christmas, has "acquired a significance which is no longer confined to the religious sphere of life. It has become integrated into our national culture and heritage."

Nobody is suggesting that Mr. Pullman should not be able to sell his book, or that this movie should be removed from theaters. I am not demanding that Christians boycott the movie. I say only that the same free speech rights that allow the movie to be shown, also allow Christians to communicate to one another that the movie has a clandestine anti-Christian agenda. Yet this seems unacceptable to you. You think that Christians are out of line in communicating this to one another, and rather should sit silently and let others decide what influences their children against their will.

And yes, this is for the most part an atheist/agnostic issue, because only atheists/agnostics seem to interpret the First Amendment Establishment Clause to be primarily to grant freedom from religion, i.e. the "right" to glide through life without ever having so much as to observe anybody else's religious expression. You go so far as to take offense that Christians would dare practice their freedom of assembly to gather, so that they might practice their freedom of speech to tell one another about a movie, so that they might practice their freedom to exercise their religion according to their conscience in order to raise their own children.

Where are all these Christians supposedly protesting the teaching to children about Chanukah or Rosh Hashanah, or Ramadan? Oh, that's right, there aren't any, because those aren't surrep ious attempts to proselytize their children against their will.

[peewee's lovechild]

You might be saying something different than I'm understanding, but I DO understand your argument to be, essentially, that religious people should just keep their mouths shut about these things. I don't see telling religious folks to just keep quiet about films and books that they disagree with as a reasonable viewpoint.

I agree with your assessment on free speech, and I'm not trying to curb free speech though. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of religious folks saying that atheist viewpoints shouldn't be used in children's stories, movies, and what not.

Everyone should be allowed to speak out against whomever they want. But, it's extremely hypocritical to lambaste others for doing the exact same thing you do.

[Extra Stout]

I agree with your assessment on free speech, and I'm not trying to curb free speech though. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of religious folks saying that atheist viewpoints shouldn't be used in children's stories, movies, and what not.

Everyone should be allowed to speak out against whomever they want. But, it's extremely hypocritical to lambaste others for doing the exact same thing you do.

That's not what you've argued against. Nobody is disputing Pullman's right to write a children's story promoting atheism. You are arguing that people should not say, "Pullman's books promote atheism."

From what I can gather, you think it's unfair that there are Christian elements of mainstream American culture, for example Christmas, and you think that the agnostic viewpoint should be guaranteed equal influence.

[peewee's lovechild]

Atheists and agnostics are free to boycott Christmas if they like. Jehovah's Witnesses do a smashing job of it. So why do few agnostics/atheists choose to, if it is indeed such an insidious and duplicitous attempt to indoctrinate their children? Have they no interest in inculcating their own values to their progeny? I might have suggested filing a lawsuit to get Christmas out of the schools, but apparently, the Supreme Court has already decided on that:

I'm not making a legal arguement here. It has more to do with hypocrisy than anything else. Sure, christians have the right to speak out. It's their right gauranteed by the Consi ution. What bothers me is that their calling out agnostics/atheists (in regards to the aforementioned movie) for doing the same thing they do, regardless on how innocent it may seem (Christmas). That is the epitome of hypocrisy.

Nobody is suggesting that Mr. Pullman should not be able to sell his book, or that this movie should be removed from theaters. I am not demanding that Christians boycott the movie. I say only that the same free speech rights that allow the movie to be shown, also allow Christians to communicate to one another that the movie has a clandestine anti-Christian agenda. Yet this seems unacceptable to you. You think that Christians are out of line in communicating this to one another, and rather should sit silently and let others decide what influences their children against their will.

I agree with you, if they were communicatine with one another in their churches, congregations, and what not. They're using the media to communicate with believers as well as non-believers. I have no problem with what they do/say in church, eventhough I don't agree with most of what is taught in the church. It's when they feel that they have the right to proselitze to the world about what they think should be right. If the Christian agenda is allowed in books, movies, etc., the same courtesy should be extended to the agnostic/athiest agendas.

And yes, this is for the most part an atheist/agnostic issue, because only atheists/agnostics seem to interpret the First Amendment Establishment Clause to be primarily to grant freedom from religion, i.e. the "right" to glide through life without ever having so much as to observe anybody else's religious expression. You go so far as to take offense that Christians would dare practice their freedom of assembly to gather, so that they might practice their freedom of speech to tell one another about a movie, so that they might practice their freedom to exercise their religion according to their conscience in order to raise their own children.

Like I said, and I think you misunderstand me, I have no problem with Christians gathering and communicating with each other. That's a protected right. I don't always agree with them, but it's their right. It's when they call out atheists on a public forum, outside of the church, for doing the same thing they do that I have a problem.

Where are all these Christians supposedly protesting the teaching to children about Chanukah or Rosh Hashanah, or Ramadan? Oh, that's right, there aren't any, because those aren't surrep ious attempts to proselytize their children against their will.

There hasn't been a kid friendly Chanuka, Ramadan, etc., movie for them to protest about. But, you make a book, and a subsequent movie, about the possiblility of Christ having a wife (Mary Magdaline) and they are up in arms, regardless about how plausible it may be.

[peewee's lovechild]

That's not what you've argued against. Nobody is disputing Pullman's right to write a children's story promoting atheism. You are arguing that people should not say, "Pullman's books promote atheism."

I didn't say that. I'm okay that with them saying it promotes atheism. I'm arguing that it's hypocritical when they are doing the same thing.

From what I can gather, you think it's unfair that there are Christian elements of mainstream American culture, for example Christmas, and you think that the agnostic viewpoint should be guaranteed equal influence.

Yes, I do think that the agnostic view point should have an equal chance as the Christian viewpoint, as well as other religions.

[Extra Stout]

I didn't say that. I'm okay that with them saying it promotes atheism. I'm arguing that it's hypocritical when they are doing the same thing.

Let me see if I can figure this out.

Are you talking about the kind of Christians who want to force schools to proselytize children, and so forth?

If you are, then I'm not sure they're acting hypocritically, because they aren't claiming that all viewpoints should get a fair shake. They are pretty explicit in saying they view the First Amendment only to guarantee that the USA will not have a state church, and that people can personally practice whatever religion they want at home, but that the public polity of the United States should be distinctly Christian.

And if you're not talking about that kind of Christian, but rather the ones who don't want to force schools to proselytize children, then I don't see the hypocrisy in giving one another the heads-up about a movie that is attempting to proselytize their kids to be atheists.

Yes, I do think that the agnostic view point should have an equal chance as the Christian viewpoint, as well as other religions.

Equal chance as in equal opportunity, or equal chance as in equal result?

[ploto]

You might be saying something different than I'm understanding, but I DO understand your argument to be, essentially, that religious people should just keep their mouths shut about these things. I don't see telling religious folks to just keep quiet about films and books that they disagree with as a reasonable viewpoint.

Seems to be the notion of wanting to censor the censors because you are against censorship.

[FromWayDowntown]

Like I said, and I think you misunderstand me, I have no problem with Christians gathering and communicating with each other. That's a protected right. I don't always agree with them, but it's their right. It's when they call out atheists on a public forum, outside of the church, for doing the same thing they do that I have a problem.

What good is free speech if you're precluded from weighing in with an opinion -- even one that might be deemed hypocritical by some -- in a public forum? Are you saying that religious folks shouldn't be permitted to express their religious beliefs, thoughts, concerns, philosophies, or other matters beyond the walls of the sanctuary or outside of their homes?

I don't see how you're advocating for anything here other than censorship based on religious beliefs.

If the viewpoints are truly hypocritical -- and if hypocrisy means anything to those whose opinions are being influenced by the expressed viewpoints -- the public forum and the marketplace of ideas will diminish that opinion. You would seem to prefer, however, that the ideas never make it into that marketplace. That strikes me as about the absolute converse of free speech.

[scott]

Saw Golden Compass and liked it...

I think it would take a pretty brilliant 13 year old who is actively seeking an atheist agenda to pull it out of the film. If anything the film sends a message of questioning authoritarian rule. I could see more people viewing it as anti-Bush than anti-Christian (in our current times).

Just my $0.02

[Extra Stout]

Looks like the studio is going to lose $100 million on TGC.

[mrsmaalox]

I don't get into religious pissing matches because I know what I believe and don't really care what anyone else believes. But I was pretty burned a few days ago when my 11 yr old daughter came home and told me, "Mom, I don't want to see TGC anymore because Brooke's mom said they try to kill God in it". WTF!! So I talked to her for a while and tried to explain things but I think it was too over her head. So I got this plan: I'm taking my daughter and her best friend to see it on Saturday so I decided to call Brooke and invite her! Her mom said yes!! Seems like she needs to get some shopping done, so this is the perfect free babysitting opportunity!

[ploto]

Saw Golden Compass and liked it...

I think it would take a pretty brilliant 13 year old who is actively seeking an atheist agenda to pull it out of the film. If anything the film sends a message of questioning authoritarian rule. I could see more people viewing it as anti-Bush than anti-Christian (in our current times).

Just my $0.02

I think the concern is not so much the movie as it is the kids then wanting to read the books after they see the movie. They toned it down for the movie.

[Jimcs50]

Excellent point. I'd be more worried about my kid worshipping Britney Spears (or whoever the latest teen idol is) than going to see The Golden Compass.

Britney, Lindsey, Paris, whoever...this is the kind of crap that is put in front of the youth today, every day, in all media outlits. Also look at all the MySpace soft porn, binge drinking, etc. pictures that are out there as well for our kids to be influenced by, and these people are worried about a motion picture that every kid will only see the fantasy as just that, fantasy.

This country is so ed up nowadays, it is no wonder that any kid ever grows up with any moral code at all.

I wish we could raise our kids in the 1940s 1950s and 60s, it was so much easier.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

So, if Christmas, and all it's characters, can be used to indoctrinate children, then why can't agnostic/athiest stories/movies do the same? There's deception on both sides. Why is it that only one side should be permitted to monopolize on that?

look at the difference in the ways both sides are being promoted...
christmas isn't attacking atheism...on the other hand the movie IS attacking religion in order to get a across its point.

, athiests would be attacking christians if attacking athiesm was a part of their Christmas "agenda". (lmfao at agenda)

IOW, if santa wasn't allowed to give toys to athiests/agnostics would hit the fan