The Golden Compass Controversy

[iansales]

Re: Golden Compass Backlash...

Exactly, Ian. People are always going to find reasons to kill one another. Religion can be a bad thing, but it can also be a good thing. I don't think painting the whole scope of religious history as 'idiotic' is a particularly good argument, or going to solve anything.

I wasn't aware that I had (if your remark was directed elsewhere, ignore this comment).

But to return to the original point... Various people were lining up to attack The Golden Compass, and yet not one of them had seen the film or read the book. That is "idiotic".

 

[Culhwch]

Re: Golden Compass Backlash...

I wasn't aware that I had (if your remark was directed elsewhere, ignore this comment).

But to return to the original point... Various people were lining up to attack The Golden Compass, and yet not one of them had seen the film or read the book. That is "idiotic".

No, not at you, Ian. Apologies for the confusion.

 

[iansales]

Re: Golden Compass Backlash...

I didn't think so, but I thought I'd better make sure

 

[Briareus Delta]

Re: Golden Compass Backlash...

Haven't seen it either but I would anticipate that the anti-religious content must be considerably played down for the American market - atheism in the US being about as popular as having membership of the Osama Bin Laden fan club.

Loved some of the comments - of course this just has to be an anti-Christian conspiracy, it couldn't possibly be an entertaining adventure story with a (legitimate?) message about the dangers of organised religion.

 

[Cayal]

Re: Golden Compass Backlash...

Exactly, Ian. People are always going to find reasons to kill one another.

On the scale that religion has caused?

 

[iansales]

Re: Golden Compass Backlash...

I don't recall either WWI or WWII being motivated by religion.

 

[Overread]

Re: Golden Compass Backlash...

Religion has always been a good excuse for a war, remember the crusades - a religious war for land and territory. Had there been no religion, the rulers of the time would have found other excuses to fight. That said, there are cases where religion has been the instigator in wars, but I hardly see its absence as a sign of the ending of wars.

Ian - It was either ww1 or WW2 (or both) where the Pope could have intervened and ended the war before it started by proclaiming the Vatican against the German war machine - however the Vatican stood independent.

on Pullman - I found the books not anti religious, but against the organised religion that is most practised as a form of population control through manipulation of their beliefs

 

[iansales]

Re: Golden Compass Backlash...

Ian - It was either ww1 or WW2 (or both) where the Pope could have intervened and ended the war before it started by proclaiming the Vatican against the German war machine - however the Vatican stood independent.

I've not heard that one. I wonder if that's not attributing too much power to the papacy. After all, both Germany and Britain are (and were at the time) secular protestant states...

 

[Overread]

Re: Golden Compass Backlash...

True, but I think there was a large support for the Vatican in the German ranks and society at the time and I think that it was WW2 and there was a real fear of things returning to the trenches of WW1 - people were possibly looking for a window out, and the vatican was one such window.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Re: Golden Compass Backlash...

If Jews/christians/muslims etc were not jews/christians/muslims etc there would be none of what i mentioned above.

If they were catergorised as people and that is all, would Hitler have gathered up all Jewish people (he certainly wouldn't be gathering up 'people')? Would there be a pope to sanction the crusades? Would muslim fanatics kills in the name of Allah if there were no such thing as Allah?

Sure - religion has always been used as a tool for social control, justifying political actions with religious oratory and ideals.

Look across to communist countries, and you see the same flaws and idealism, this time wrapped up in overt political messages, rather than hiding in religious ones.

 

[ScottSF]

Re: Golden Compass Backlash...

hey I didn't know if I was interested in seeing this but if it's Anti-religion then it sounds like my cup of tea. Theists need their world challenged. Of course fundamentalist Christians will get upset, they know all about placing too much importance on a work of fiction. Now my interest in the story is really peaked!

 

[Ursa major]

Re: Golden Compass Backlash...

I'm not someone who believes in concepts such as original sin, but there is something in human nature (or, if you prefer, in the nature of many or most humans) that can switch to an irrational hate of "the other". How "the other" is defined is irrelevant, except in the numbers and particular individuals involved in the hating.

Sometimes this character fault is exhibited in formal ways: empires and their treatment of "the conquered"; acts against adherents of different faiths, nationalities or classes. Sometimes it is manifested in informal ways: casual racism and all the other isms we have come to recognise over the years.

So while, for example, organised religion is at the heart of much suffering, I think that in most cases it is those who have the power (or are seeking the power) within the religion (or party, or national group, or class, etc.) who use the less civilised parts of our characters to pursue their own interests.

We could, I suppose, try to excise all these excuses for violence and hatred (though I can't see how), but it wouldn't remove the real cause; that would be us.

(By the way, it is amazing how many people want to show how stupid they are by complaining about things they know little or nothing about.)

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Re: Golden Compass Backlash...

Oh, and if you think it's unfair (or even unChristian!) to scoff at these religious bigots, I'd just like to point out that not one of them has actually seen the film or read the book.

I read the article and most of the responses at the end of your link, Ian, and I didn't see anyone say that they hadn't read the book. So it may be a false assumption that none of them have.

Meanwhile, none of us have seen the movie any more than they have, because it isn't out yet. We're all discussing its merits purely on hearsay.

 

[iansales]

Re: Golden Compass Backlash...

True. But I have read the book. And since the film isn't even released until 5 December, it's reasonable assume none of the commenters has seen it.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Re: Golden Compass Backlash...

But I have read the book.

But maybe some of them have read it too. Or at least had it described to them by people they trust. Meanwhile, everyone who chooses to see the movie without having first read the book will do so on the basis of what other people have said. Should they be required to read the book first before deciding whether to go?

And what about the people who said they wouldn't go see The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe because they didn't like what they had heard about C. S. Lewis's pro-religious agenda? Are they bigots, or just people who don't want to buy tickets and give encouragement (and money is a very big encouragement) to something they consider dangerous?

 

[Dave]

Re: Golden Compass Backlash...

...since the film isn't even released until 5 December, it's reasonable to assume none of the commenters has seen it.

The first paragraph says...

I plan to review the movie, but I haven't had the opportunity to see it yet. So, in the meantime, here is some information that will help you understand why the film has the potential to be extremely dark and dangerous.

However, the trilogy of books has been around for years so I'm sure they would have had access to them.

I don't see them as sheep, frothing at the mouth at all. It is possible to have an informed view on something or someone, without seeing it or them. Christians do seem to have been under pressure in the last few years, but the really evangelical right-wing Christians who teach Creationism do other Christians the most damage of all, whereas Richard Dawkins, mentioned there as some kind of anti-christ, actually makes a great deal of sense.

I have read the books, and Phillip Pullman's anti-religious agenda was something I found quite obvious in them. Even according to that website, the film has toned it down.

 

[iansales]

Re: Golden Compass Backlash...

I didn't spot any comments that showed any familiarity with the book - in fact, the bulk of comments show an ignorance of it. (There are one or two who say they've read the book, and point out that the others don't appear to know what they're talking about.)

If someone wants to label the film as potentially anti-Christian on what appears to be quotes taken from a variety of sources, then fine. But the assorted denunciations in the comments are not so considered - I mean, "Evil Muslims"?

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Re: Golden Compass Backlash...

I mean, "Evil Muslims"?

But you've taken that completely out of context. That person didn't say that all Muslim's are evil, or in fact that any specific ones are evil. It was a hypothetical statement to the effect that if attacked by evil Muslims even atheists would start praying.

Some people are instantly prepared to attack or scoff at anything said by someone who makes a point of saying they're a Christian. Some people are equally prepared to attack or scoff at anything said by someone who makes a point of saying they're an atheist. (My hackles tend to rise in response to either statement. I'd like to ascribe this to the noblest of motives on my part, but maybe I'm just a double bigot.)

But Pullman has said that he is glad to be considered the enemy of organized religion. And certainly the film will be the occasion for a lot of Christian-bashing, as well as giving Pullman a wider audience to explain his views, if not through the film, through many interviews and articles.

In my opinion, this kind of thing doesn't promote tolerance on either side.

 

[Winters_Sorrow]

Re: Golden Compass Backlash...

I agree with you Teresa, but tolerance works both ways. I find religious authorities very unbending in the face of clear scientific evidence or changing cultural landscapes.
You have to be if you're following a text written 1,500 years ago I suppose.

Personally I'm not against religion. I've seen people who have gone the extra mile and helped other precisely because they believed (rightly or wrongly) that they were doing "God's work" by their actions. By the same token I have met those who are incredibly protectionist against anyone who dares to have a different viewpoint to their own. This isn't merely limited to religion of course, but as I said, tolerance needs to be a two-way street not just placating to those who may be offended. That's political correctness gone mad and needs to be challenged

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Re: Golden Compass Backlash...

I just think that Philip Pullman is standing up for what he sincerely believes and that the people who are protesting against the film are standing up for what they sincerely believe. How could a person of conscience do otherwise? But unfortunately, when people of completely opposite views turn defensive tolerance takes a beating.

What I read at that website was the anguish of people who genuinely feel that everything they stand for is under attack. And maybe it's all too politically correct of me, but I can feel for them even if I don't feel with them. And twisting their words and making assumptions about what they are thinking and what they have and haven't done, doesn't seem to me to be the highest expression of tolerance, whether those assumptions are correct or not.

The main thing I carried away from reading their remarks is that they will pray, and pray, and pray that this movie will not go forth.

But this is only a threat if you believe their prayers could possibly be effective.