Re: Golden Compass Backlash...
Also why exactly is okay for the Pope to slate atheism to the entire world? If it had been done about any other group - Islam, Black people etc there would be outrage - but not when it's against atheists.
Well, we are talking about the same man that recently stated that all non-Catholics do not belong to a "Church". In effect, saying that all Protestants are errant rebellious people that aren't really a part of God's kingdom (and being a Protestant, I heartily say "PssshhhhhhhTHTHSTSHHHH!!!!"). As much respect as I had for the last Pope, I think the current one is starting to lapse back into the ages-old habit of splitting hairs where there aren't any to be split.
To answer (as quickly and succintly as I can) a couple points of 4Greg's (welcome, btw!): "Can't or won't"- the difference breaks down in the realm of belief and theology. There are instances of stubbornness and instances of covering up what ought not be covered up. There are also instances of closed-mindedness regarding the beliefs of others. BUT, there is also a point at which you either simply believe something or you don't, and if you believe it, then it follows that you can't
celebrate (what you really see as) error in others. Quick examples would be that you are either a monotheist or a polytheist; you can't be both (trying to accept all gods as really being the same god under different names still leaves you as a monotheist). Or another example is that you either believe in an objective reality, or you don't.
Without getting too further off topic, the line of reasoning in general Christian thinking means that in celebrating another's religion (versus the individuals or cultures) is essentially celebrating that those people will go to Hell, which is both anti-Christian and inhuman. (I'm not talking here of assessing the relative merits and half-truths present in other religions, or about attempts to reconcile what can be reconciled, which has become something of a lost art among Christians these days, and in which case, isn't strictly a celebration of other religions.)
Okay, so that wasn't so short. And agreed on the "religion of tell me what to think", though time does tend to that in its own way, as you either have to adopt the beliefs for yourself or get rid of them entirely, as it becomes increasingly difficult to reconcile a real faith (not just the half-hearted variety which makes up rather a lot of people's faith) with real life without examining what you believe rather closely.
And on whether it's just a story, a work of fiction to be enjoyed- I agree that works ought to be approached without bias (or agenda), but this goes for both the reader and the writer. A writer that brings a strong agenda for his/her work will produce weak work (and think Pullman fits this instance). And a reader can't really understand a work without approaching it without bias, at least without as much bias as they can, since we all have natural biases which we couldn't get rid of if we tried.
Otherwise, I'm of the school that's never satisfied with a story being just a good story. I'm quite severe on fiction, because it can be so much more than just a story. Great fiction works on a number of levels beyond being merely a good yarn.
(And I'm not apologizing for being demanding.
)
