"My books are about killing God."

To be fair, the movies are supposed to try to tone down the anti-theistic themes...though, from what I know of the books, I don't know how you can do that and still keep the story, since "God is fake and religion is bad" is apparently the overarching theme of the story. To be fair I've never read them, but have heard that all the stuff not related to religion is supposed to be really clever, so the movie MAY wind up being good, but I agree with Rod, any religious parents should check it out themselves before letting kids see it.

God bless.

"But why?" the question arises from liberals. "What are you afraid of?"

Are liberals actually asking this, or do you just expect them to? Not that I doubt there are some dopuses out there that would bother to ask such a thing, but I'm curious to know which ones actually did.

Mrs. P.

I wonder if somewhere out there there is a blog post by a liberal saying he will not let his kids go see the Chronicles of Narnia.

Anyhow remember kids , liberals aren't just a figment of Rods imagination , they are real and they are out to get you.

"I want more than anything else I want for my children, even their own happiness in this life, for them to believe in God, Who is their salvation."

Rod, you are such a good, good, Godly man. A child's happiness is such a superficial and unimportant thing compared to their belief in God and everything that goes with it.

God bless you, Rod,

Ellie

Let me also say, for the record, that parents should make decisions about what their kids read, what they see, and what they consume. Heck, scary liberals have been saying that forever and ever. If you don't want your kids to see the movie because it doesn't reflect your values, it is your responsibility to make sure they don't see it.

That's something saintly conservatives who are pure as the driven snow and awful, scary liberals can agree on.

I've also heard the movie makers removed the anti-Christian elements. The "danger" to Christian kids is more along the lines of liking the movie so much they go out and read the books.

I see meaningful parallels between Chronicles of Narnia and TGC: both have an agenda, and both agendas are entirely ignorable in the face of all their other entertaining aspects. I read "The Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe" as a kid and saw the movie as an adult. It didn't make me consider Christianity as a kid, and it didn't meaningfully challenge my agnosticism as an adult.

I see a big problem in isolating kids beyond a certain age/maturity from opposing views of God. I see at least as much "athiests/agnostics are deluded or evil people" as I do "the religious are deluded or evil people." Just this morning Bill O'Rielly was raising an enormous hullaballo about hoards of secular teachers telling kids that religion is dangerous nonsense - which in my experience is, well, dangerous nonsense (because it rarely happens). I meet far too many religous and non-religous people who think their beliefs are self-evident and have zero respect for opposing views.

The human mind is very much a product of habit, and a lot of that wiring is formed in our youth. If you pray every day and unquestioningly contextualize everything in terms of your faith for your entire formative years its far less likely you'll have any respect for non-believers when you're an adult. And, of course, a similar statement can be made regarding unbelief.

The result is that far too many enter adulthood and the public sphere without the ability to even imagine the other's perspective. Now we've got all kinds of potential common ground between "liberals" and "crunchy cons," and neither side has enough respect for/trust in the other to do much about them.

We seem to have lost sight here of the fact that the "God" who dies in Philip Pullman's novel is a fictional character. He is based on the Blakean Nobodaddy version of God, and as such, he richly deserves to die for all the harm done in his name--in the story--to the other fictional characters. If there are lots of little Christian children out there whose faith cannot withstand the death of a fictional character, I'd say their parents do have something to worry about. I don't care if Christian parents decide to boycott the movie or the books, but on principle, I think people should take the trouble to understand for themselves what something is about before condemning it. Anyone who bases their reading list on Bill Donohue's opinions is doing a very foolish thing. Whatever else he may be, he's not an informed guide to good literature.

If I might interject a personal note, all right-thinking parents should take me as a horrible example. No one could have been raised with greater parental attention to purity than I was--and look how I've turned out! I wasn't even allowed to see "The Parent Trap." Moreover, I wasn't told why, because even an explanation would pollute my tender ears. A simple, "IT'S TRASH!!" was the parental verdict. Later I found out that there are DIVORCED people in it, and the divorced husband has a GIRLFRIEND. Oh, the horror. And I wasn't allowed to read C.S. Lewis's autobiography. Of course I went and obtained a copy and read it, and still couldn't figure out the reason for the prohibition. Finally, it dawned on me that my parents hadn't wanted me to know that there was homosexual hanky-panky at Lewis's boarding school. Apparently, they didn't realize that I'd already figured out that gay people existed.

Sadly, they forgot to forbid me to learn about history. A pivotal moment in my young life was when I found out about the firebombing of Dresden. "But we were the good guys," I thought. "How could we have done that?" Hello, Hiroshima. Hello, firebombing of Tokyo. Hello, Irish potato famine, mass burnings of the Albigensians, unforgettable photos of lynched black men hanging from trees in my America. Why should one depend on Philip Pullman to make an intelligent little girl ask hard questions about God, when a history book can do it so much more effectively? Really diligent Christian parents had better lock their kids in the closet before the freight train of history goes by.

Mr. Pullman's trilogy leaves a lot to be desired quality-wise, and I say this as an unbeliever. The first book was so-so, which you expect for the first volume, as it has to set up the action for the rest of the series. The second book, The Subtle Knife, was far better, and it held promise. The final book, though, was just awful. It was as smug, preachy and obvious as a bad Sunday School story. Pullman's religious characters are evil, evil, evil, but they have to be to make his other characters look good, since they're not so hot themselves.

As far as the kiddies go, I wouldn't discourage an adolescent from reading it. The arguments in the book are largely emotional in character. For example, he has one fanatical priest promise himself to teach some aliens not to ride around on wheels because it was sinful. Ummm, how would it be sinful? There's no explanation other than the glib assumption that the priest--and all believers like him--are just out to make life miserable. This is typical throughout the books, and one can point these kinds of flaws out to any child.

Ellie:

You would rather a child be "miserable" than have religious doubts? (And I don't mean throwing a temper tantrum because Dad doesn't want you to see a movie -- I mean cancer, car accidents, shootings, parental abuse, the terrible things that actually happen to kids on a daily basis for which they bear no cosmic fault.)

Rod:

"Because so many liberals refuse to take G-d seriously, they have trouble understanding people -- Jews, Muslims, Christians and others -- who do."

Leaving aside the questions of whether it's for the best for kids to see this movie (from what I've heard, probably not, for secular reasons) and whether you just slammed Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo, et al. as atheists ...

I take G-d VERY seriously. And that's just my problem.

I wrestle with Him on a daily basis no less than Jacob in Genesis 32. And in my chronic illness, I feel not just my hip, but my soul, ripped asunder by the very G-d who is supposed to be the source of good and holiness in the Universe.

I may find Christopher Hitchens' tone and sense of superiority insufferable, but he indubitably has on his side, in his furious (literally) argument for anti-theism, that the world is equally insufferable.

This is not necessarily a barrier to belief, I realize. The early Christians, of course, had an apocalyptic faith, that they would soon be delivered from being lionine dinner and suffering other unspeakable tortures from the Romans via the end of the world. (And the many martyrs, at least, were so delivered, I suppose.) There is of course a mini-revival of this tradition today -- in the prophecies of various televangelists, in the LaHaye/Jenkins "Left Behind" series (and in LaHaye's interviews, INCLUDING ON THIS WEB SITE, fervently hoping for the world's destruction), and even in your own posts of a coming New Dark Ages.

One reason political liberals are so skeptical of the current war in Iraq and the potential war in Iran, of course, with the potentially frightful consequences of war (not that there aren't consequences if we do nothing, as well), is the fear that leaders in Washington actually WANT LaHaye's hoped-for outcome of Armageddon. Is that the justification for liberals "not taking G-d seriously" -- that we want to stop the destruction of the world others feel is deserved and long overdue?

(I can see your face turning crimson, Rod, so for the record: Extreme Christians are the small minority in this group, and extreme Muslims are the vast majority. Though given their respective ideologies, I don't think political liberals count as fans of Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and vice versa, for that matter ...)

The ultraconservative theological view (both Christian and Muslim) sounds a bit like Orwell's 1984 -- "War is (Christ's, or Muhammad's) peace." And it makes one think of Voltaire's Pangloss in "Candide," preaching his theodicy in the very midst of the Lisbon earthquake -- the mini-Apocalypse of the 18th century that caused so many (like Voltaire) to doubt G-d. As noted above in my cite of Hitchens, clearly this is not the best of all possible worlds.

Another approach, one supposes, is to fully embrace the horrors of this earth. (Or as I call it, abandon logic, all ye who enter here.) There is a preacher David Kuo is friends with, Greg Boyd of the Twin Cities of Minnesota, who says the only way to follow G-d, to follow Jesus, is to believe in essence that up is down, that right is left, that the world we live in is like a series of fun-house mirrors hopelessly confusing us, and so we must set aside EVERY SINGLE ASSUMPTION we make about the world.

(Not everyone can simply set the problem of evil -- which is most definitely **not** an assumption -- aside, however. I think of Elie Wiesel, granted not a Christian, in "Night" saying that G-d is up on the gallows, just as dead as the Jews the Nazis publicly hang as examples to the other death camp inmates.)

So maybe my problem -- that makes you conclude I don't take G-d "seriously" -- is that I don't think I can live an earthly life in that kind of a permanent state of spiritual vertigo in anticipation of a heavenly one. That's a far more daunting dilemma to answer than simply citing Mark 9:24, which is one of the (understandable) Christian responses to doubt and fear.

I feel the divine presence in fits and spurts -- enough to know it's there, not enough for me to be convinced it is a comfort. More confusion. (Indeed, I know it may be intentionally painful, as in G-d's refusal to remove the thorn in Paul's side in 2 Corinthians 12 -- though that hardly, um, spurs me into fervent belief. Neither does Job's story ...)

And ultimately, I don't think that's "liberal" or "conservative." (Which I thought was the whole point of the entire Bnet Web site, but anyway ...)

No doubt there are "liberals" who are unorthodox in the sense of obeying organized religion but who truly feel and project out that mystic presence of G-d. (And mystics do exist in all major faiths, though of course the true ones are extraordinarily rare.) Just as there are "conservatives" who duly carry out their duty of going to church every Sunday even though, like Blessed Mother Teresa, they haven't felt the divine presence for decades -- if ever.

To conclude, I've heard the folk wisdom that one who doubts G-d implicitly admits the possibility of G-d, and therefore is actually a believer.

I don't doubt the existence of G-d for a moment. I doubt G-d's MEANING.

Which means, no matter how you (in this case addressing both Rod and our many fervent believers here on CC) may be disappointed/saddened that I don't share you depth of your faith, when you charge me with not taking G-d seriously, you can't be (to invoke John McEnroe) ... well, you know.

Oh, well, if you're worried about wrongly influencing the kids, why not give them the Brothers Grimm and Hans Christian Andersen instead? -- Not the Disneyfied versions. I mean the originals, complete with dark and occasionally subversive imagery.

Or you could simply let them read the Bible -- the whole thing, not just the Sunday school excerpts. That was the god-killer for me, back when I was only slightly older than and probably not as smart as your kids.

Either way, good luck with that.

As a Liberal - and as a Christian - I find this post to be appalling. Mr Dreher, you seem to have the view that Liberal means not being a Christian. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact, I believe that for his day Our Savior was a Liberal. Jesus fought the status quo, and was almost a one man army against society as it existed in the Holy Lands.

To the matter at hand - yes, the books are an attack against religion. No, I won't be seeing the movie nor will I have my daughter read the books at a young age. They seem to be very negative about many things, not just religion.

"If I might interject a personal note, all right-thinking parents should take me as a horrible example." Sig

Siggy,

Horrible example of what? Sharing the Indian Fry Bread?

A shout-out to Sig and Larry for their posts: seems like many people are missing your points completely.

To paraphrase Rebeccat, who gave us all such sage advice when we were presented with another "red meat" moment weeks ago re: the couple who took their children to that S&M street festival, "that Phillip Pullman! If he said that in the context it is presented and his movies are hostile to religion and spirituality, I wouldn't want to take my kids to see his movie either!".

I think Sig and Larry both raise the real point though: while one has a responsibility to one's children (step-children, godchildren, nieces/nephews, the neighbor's kids etc. etc. etc. etc.) to act responsibly and nurture their spirituality, their morals, you'd better be prepared for the liklihood that as they become adults, there may be questions and struggles in their faith. You will not be able to protect them from every challenge. And attempts to guarantee an outcome that "my child will believe!" could backfire terribly.

I've seen several friends and acquaintances whose parents literally brainwashed and bullied them into fundamentalist belief, to the point where the choice was either "automaton" or "complete break from family and religion". In either case, these people are spiritual wrecks. Those that are "automatons" may "believe", but it comes across more as a rigid clinging from fear and desperation, or an unthinking sort of superstition. One friend of mine, usually a gentle soul, took the "complete break" path. She simply cannot hear the word "Jesus" in a positive way due to her rigid fundamentalist upbringing. That makes me very sad but appreciate my mother's steady, gentle but firm in conviction, way of nurturing my spiritual and religious development.

Jim, you're absolutely right. No doubt your children have been raised on the filmography of Mario Bava and Lucio Fulci.

I suppose it is possible that Christians have a tendency to be over-protective of their children. It's similar to the tendency secularists have to encultate loose morals and narcissism among their brood. But, except maybe for parents that encourage their children to play in the middle of the street, I don't know how the claim can be made that shielding kids from Pullman is over protective.

And, folks, if Pullman's histrionics are lost on your children you probably need to have them hit the weight bench to bulk up. Professionals they will not be.

If you think Liberal = Atheist, *you're* the one who's having trouble understanding people of faith. Terrible, crude, ill-considered post.

Erin, with regards to handing drugs to the kids, I think you misunderstood what I'm saying. I'm actually quite in favor of parents doing their job in terms of exerting themselves to be thoughtful about what their children are exposed to. (Hence my attempt to invoke Rebeccat, which must not have worked well.) We may be on the same page.

What drove my post was the reaction to Sig's and Larry's comments and a few other posts (Ellie's for example that "you are one of the liberals Rod advises us to protect our children from like they are rattlesnakes").

To me, there's a big difference a parent saying: "we're not going to see this movie because we don't think it's appropriate for you to see this right now. We don't think the movie tells the truth about God." vs. "YOU WILL NOT SEE THIS MOVIE! THIS IS A LIBERAL MOVIE! LIBERAL PEOPLE ARE DANGEROUS AND MUST BE AVOIDED! THEY ARE SCARY! YOU WILL GO TO HELL IF YOU WATCH THIS MOVIE!"

I mean, for anyone to say that *Larry* must be avoided like a rattlesnake, particularly after such a thoughtful, open post like that?

I think my fellow liberal writers here will be a bit shocked: I agree with SVSteve and Erin in the simple decision to vote with their dollars and time. The assumption -- and if you've read at all much of their writing here, you'd see what I see -- is that they are making a considered decision, and not a knee-jerk one.

That, for me, is the key. I reject qualifying it with conservative or liberal, I condemn all knee-jerkers. Regardless of the fact that their reactions are beneficial -- in this topic, towards their children -- it's the example they are setting. Don't explore, don't examine. Rely on prejudice and assumption, because being protected from "bad things" is the only important outcome.

Well, there is no such thing as complete and unending protection. Merde se passe, and the longer a parent waits to give a child the tools necessary to deal with adversity, the more likely they will become fatal victims of adversity.

I'm also with Erin, who began to describe the concept of age-appropriate. I am (and I suspect she also is) not suggesting a global, one-size-fits-all standard; I am insisting that a parent must be the frontline judge of whether the child is mature enough (emotionally, intellectually, spiritually) to handle something.

Parents make mistakes. That, too, is unavoidable. My greatest fear, and the thing I work hardest to prevent with my children, is making avoidable mistakes. I prefer to see Erin and SVSteve in that light.

"If you believe in God, and that the loss of God is the worst thing that can happen to a person."

Yes, most of us are raised hearing that our love of life must be conditional: Life without Jesus/God/etc, we are told, would be unbearable. It's very effective at blocking the ability to think clearly.

Perhaps the single most transcendent moment in the life of many former believers is the moment they realized they did not believe -- then looked around at this glorious, beautiful world, filled with meaning and possibility, and laughed at the old warning. It's then that you reject conditions for joy, embracing instead the unconditional joy of being alive.

Dale McGowan
Editor/author, Parenting Beyond Belief: On Raising Ethical, Caring Kids Without Religion
www.ParentingBeyondBelief.com

Thanks, Jim. A kind word now and then is balm to the soul. It's also nice to be reassured that I'm speaking English, since I seem to have great difficulty in making myself understood. : )

I believe every parent knows their own child best, and I have no burning desire to make sure every child sees every movie I might like. Nor do I think that hostility and rejection are a necessary part of growing up--either on the child's part or the parent's. For me, avoiding that outcome was less a matter of controlling my children's access to bad ideas and more a matter of treating them respectfully, listening to them and speaking the truth as far as I knew it. Every parent is a gatekeeper for her child's eventual going out into the world--of course that's true. The danger lies in straightjacketing the child into a mold of the parent's choosing, one that may not fit that child's growing individuality. This isn't a matter of conservative or liberal. It's a sadly human thing.

I take God very seriously indeed. I think I'd be a much better church member if I didn't. : ( I take this idea of God so seriously that I prefer not to demean a noble concept by believing I can serve God by hurting other people or by twisting facts. And if it turns out there is no God, I'd rather not have demeaned myself and my fellow humans in this way.

I see Philip Pullman as a man who is coming from within the Christian tradition, who is asking some tough questions about that tradition within a powerful story. One of the scariest things in the story is that adult members of the organized religion in that story are guilty, essentially, of severing children from their souls, for the adults' own profit and power. (And this is one reason I would not give the book to young children: the jeopardy in which the child heroes are placed is too stark and frightening.) I think this is an important and valid question for adult Christians to ask themselves: can we say with a clear conscience that we're not doing this? What are the ways that the organized church has harmed people, and how can we make sure that does not continue? We're so sensitive! If anyone dares inform us that we're not the greatest thing since sliced bread, we get all up in his face and call him a "hater."

And that's what troubles me about the reaction to Philip Pullman. Instead of responding honestly and peacefully to his questions, the Christian community has pulled out the sword and started doing the war dance. Even if it were true--which I believe it is not--that Pullman hates Christians (rather than the bad, bad things Christians have done), where does it say in the works of Jesus that we should do battle with those who hate us? Doesn't he say the exact opposite? What happened to "blessed are the peacemakers?"

If anyone is interested in Philip Pullman in his own words, I recommend this interview:
http://www.thirdway.org.uk/past/showpage.asp?page=3949

And yes, you should read the books before condemning them. If you don't want to give him any of your money, buy them second hand or use the library. At least you'll know what you don't like about them, and when your children ask why you won't take them to the movie, you can explain from your own understanding.

I am a liberal and I don't refuse to take god seriously. My whole life is a search for meaning. On the other hand, I won't indoctrinate my son or force-feed him my religious beliefs. That would be unfair to him, since we all must make our own way. And it would not do justice to my beliefs, nor yours I would think. Isn't grace through faith about choosing to believe? If you take away the choice, and simply indoctrinate will your child know grace?

Anyway, I feel very strongly that people within a faith who indoctrinate their children into thinking that there is no world and no meaning outside of their belief system are doing something very wrong. There is a great deal of meaning and beauty in the world even (maybe especially) for those who aren't saddled with religious dogma. So suggest otherwise to your children is a mean and ugly thing to do. Sorry.

Paraphrases from Rod:
Liberals ask "What are you afraid of?"
So many Liberals refuse to take religious people seriously.

Cause we know that only LIBERALS do those things. :) Couln'dt you have replaced "liberals" with "non-believers" in those instances and made them more accurate and less polemic? No, because Rod's dreaded LIBERALS must be attacked at every opportunity.

Well, speaking as a Christian and LIBERAL, I started to read Pullman's first book, and couldn't get into it. Ditto for my adolescent daughter, who reads everything and loves fantasy. We'll probably see the movie, along with 10 year old son, because it looks like what someone else described it as: action, special effects, adventure.

My understanding is that there's no Christ in the books. That omission would seem to negate the idea that Pullman is attacking Christianity.

Sometimes a story is just a story. You don't want Rowling's extra-literary musings to interfere with your reading of Harry Potter; don't let Pullman's interviews put things into the books that aren't there either.

you would sooner give your child a rattlesnake to play-

drown those three beautiful children in order to "save" them-

Who's out of line?

Keep batting at those strawmen, dude. What liberals have asked that?
Very brave to tilt at windmills you've propped on your own, eh? Quite the culture warrior.

For the record, I-a liberal-do not care a whit what movies you take your children to see. So you can relax. We won't be bursting through your door with a DVD of 'The Golden Compass' anytime soon.

I'd watch the rattlesnakes though (odd religious allusion there, don't you think?). You might be able to, oh I don't know, talk to your kids after they, gasp, heard something that conflicted with your world view, but that venom can kind of hurt.

I see Philip Pullman as a man who is coming from within the Christian tradition, who is asking some tough questions about that tradition within a powerful story.

Don't make me laugh. Pullman's a tub-thumping village atheist. His message depends on making villains as unsympathetic and cartoonish as possible, and he STILL fails to make his heroes appealing in any serious manner. Most of his arguments consist of shouting "You suck!"

One of the scariest things in the story is that adult members of the organized religion in that story are guilty, essentially, of severing children from their souls, for the adults' own profit and power.

Yeah, so does one of Pullman's heroes in the first book, but that gets forgotten by the end of the story.

Here's the best capsule review of the trilogy (Spoilers at link):
http://wrongquestions.blogspot.com/2005/07/his-dark-materials-by-philip-pullman.html

Mind you, I say this as someone who read the series, including the awful, tedious, pedantic closing chapters.

Well, this is one liberal who believes that every breath I take is just more evidence of communion with God, and so on; and tried as much as possible to indoctrinate and/or have my children indoctrinated in my very traditional tradition (RC) (with no support from the Church) From all appearances what turned my children away from the tradition (not God by the way as they all believe in him/her) was the attempt to indoctrinate them in that very tradition. They have since chosen their own paths, and have done so without any influence from this guy whatsoever.

Why has nobody mentioned Cathy Seipp's wonderful column about Narnia and The Golden Compass? I won't summarize--go read it!

I can't get a hotlink to work here but it's called "Boxes of Wonder" and was one of the last things she wrote for NRO. It's still in the archives there. Cindy

Loudon - you'd shield your children from "The Giving Tree"? Say it ain't so!

Yeah, what is Shel Silverstein doing in that list? Are we playing "which one of these is not like the other"?

Rob, just hurry and get your family off to either that Midwestern or Alaskan monastery; don't forget to back burkas for your wife and daughter, no books, and PLEASE don't hook up the internet connection when you get there.

Sig,

Silly or not, it's dead-on accurate.

Oh, Derek, I meant to add that you'll get no argument from me about the lameness of "The Amber Spyglass." I was disappointed. I think Pullman lost faith in his story and instead reached for the stick of propaganda, with which he proceeded to beat his theme to death. I'm trying to warn Christians against making the same mistake, but to little avail I guess.

It seems to be my fate to make some comment I consider almost too obvious to be worth saying--like, "Propaganda is bad." Instead of the expected agreement, what I get back is more like "Yes! Your vile ungodly propaganda sux! But my godly, moral propaganda is uplifting and swell and the very essence of truthiness, so take THAT, you pre-verted rattlesnake!" (Cue more tapdancing.) It's a puzzle.

Well, sig, The Amber Spyglass is where the story is supposed to pay off. It simply doesn't happen, which kind of kills your claim of it having powerful arguments or a powerful story. It fails as both polemic and narrative. Funny thing is that this is the volume that garnered all the awards, which rather puts lie to their artistic validity.

Let me also repeat, for the sake of clarity, I wouldn't keep an adolescent from reading the book*. I would say to people like Rod that you should probably read it as well and then discuss the strengths and the weaknesses of the book. They certainly shouldn't worry about it robbing their kids of their faith. I'd more scared of something like The Family Guy or The Life of Brian on that score.

*I say adolescent because the books are PG-13, IMO.

About the commentary concerning "The Giving Tree", I have a seasonal accolade uh-pun which the reader may cast, um, aspersions.

Boo, boo I say, and again I say, boo.

And yes, you should read the books before condemning them.

Why? I'm not condemning them as art. For all I know, they are well-written. I'm condeming them as morally appropriate for my children, based on the author's own testimony about his work. He said himself they are "about" killing God. That's enough for me to know that they are not appropriate for my children. Period. The end.

If a children's book author gave an interview saying his work was "about teaching children that black people are inferior to white people," I wouldn't need to read his books to judge them immoral, or at least inappropriate for my children.

If a children's book author said that her work was "about leading people to faith in Jesus Christ," I wouldn't at all fault an atheist, or a Muslim, or a Jew, or any non-Christian, from excluding her books from their children's libraries. Isn't this just common sense?

Sig and Jim:

Thanks for the shout-outs.

Ellie:

Given that you have been implicated in the "spam scam" (and I'm being most generous, given what was in the "spam" to Rod), your credibility in attacking me is somewhat suspect ...

And Rod:

You still have not answered the question of why you make a blanket assumption that liberals do not take G-d seriously. You've only acknowledged that not all liberals are atheists -- which, frankly, is a LESS da-ning charge than saying that liberals don't take G-d seriously.

Rod, obviously no one can make you read anything. And since your oldest child is five, if I recall correctly, the whole thing is not an issue for them anyway, since "The Golden Compass" is way over a five year old's head. And, of course, recreational reading is always optional in any case. So it's probably time for me to resign gracefully from another unwinnable argument.

But you know me by now--can't bow out without talking over my shoulder all the way! : ) So, just a parting thought: when my son was little, I heard plenty from people who thought I was so very wrong to read him the Greek myths. "They are stories of false gods! You're filling his head with lies of Satan!" And when I was asked to write about C.S. Lewis for a Christian publication, I got hate mail from people who had never read the chronicles of Narnia, but they knew--they KNEW--that it was about witchcraft. "How dare you pervert the minds of Christian children with evil disguised as good!" Naive me, I suggested they read the books. Yeah, right, like that's ever going to happen. Just recently, the ladies of the Bible Study I used to frequent were shocked, SHOCKED that I could enjoy Harry Potter. "Our pastor told us not to read that book," one of them told me. So, of course, she never would. There's no end to the amount of ignorance people can wish upon themselves in the name of their God. The "God" Philip Pullman wants to kill is the so-called God that people use to justify ignorance, cruelty and lies. Such a God--if he existed--would deserve death, I think. Because that's no God, that's the Devil.

A very smart black man, Langston Hughes, whose IQ certainly did not fall below the average for posters on this blog, said this--his "Motto"--and I've always tried to practice it:

I play it cool
And dig all jive
That's the reason
I stay alive.

My motto,
As I live and learn,
is:
Dig And Be Dug
In Return.

That's really why I hang around here and argue. I learn something from everyone. Even when my opponent is not all that smart, the process educates me. Derek has informed me here. As have you. And I've learned some things from reading Philip Pullman, and from watching people NOT read him. Alas, it seems I can't always "be dug," but like St. Francis, another good model, I try to accept that and get the most I can out of the digging.

"Because so many liberals refuse to take God seriously, they have trouble understanding people -- Jews, Muslims, Christians and others -- who do."

Aren't you the guy who once said he went through a period of "atheism" because he wasn't getting laid as a Christian? What's not to understand?

I dont know about all of you but when I read the book I just didnt get the whole religion thing...

Maybe you read a different set of books with the same title.

"And Rod:
You still have not answered the question of why you make a blanket assumption that liberals do not take G-d seriously." Larry Parker

Larry, I can't speak for Rod, but doesn't my comment of Oct 26, 2:03 AM answer your question?

Mr. Rod. Thanks for the good article.

The demographic winter is here.

Aging workforce in the US.
geocities(dot)com/demographic_crash

Website with good information on the subject.
Welcome.

Have a nice day.

Sincerely,
Solange Miller

The big difficulty with attempting to isolate children from competing worldviews is that it doesn't work. Instead consider taking your older children to see the film and then discussing it. Make sure to listen to your children and treat their questions seriously as warranted. Of course if I child either by temperament or maturity is not ready for this, simply wait until they are. Don't worry, kids like to ask questions, and at the right time they will question you about your beliefs, some will even use words to do so.

In the interim, since parenting is in part about establishing children in a viable set of social, cultural and religious norms and rules, do your best to show the affects of holding your worldview/religion by example. In other words, walk the walk. It speaks volumes if your life truly reflects the virtues you ascribe to your faith.

I just don't like the idea of giving my money over to a guy who's writing books to kids about "killing god". I'm fine with other people's views. Plus, nobody complains about Naria so why complain about this? I'm okay with all that. However, I don't support this man's views or his philosopy and I won't support him with my money.

Andrew, I am Christian lover of the His Dark Materials series and Pullman in general (have you read the Tin Princess?), and I am currently writing a paper in defense of Pullman. I am very interested in your suggestion that God is different from the Almighty in the books. Do you have any direct reference to the text that supports that statement? I would be grateful to hear anything from you!

After listening to Phillip Pullmans videos, and explanations, how can you come up with Killing God in the The Golden Compass? When he was asked if he was killing God, he said no, he is saving The Devine. If you haven't heard all the videos, you should. I read an article on Netscape about an author from England, who is supposed to be upsetting someone in England, and his trilogy of childrens books just gets worse with each book, and the children in them are killing God! And Kidman is starring in the movie, The Golden Compass. I thought how awful, what is next! It sounds as though someones comprehension is way off. Now I'm going to have to see it, for sure.

RP - you said: When people oppose so strongly on these types of movies and books it just makes them a lot more popular. People are going to go just because of all the hype.

This isn't always the case. Remember, for example that recent flop (and waste of film) called "the Seeker:The Dark is Rising"? WE all saw what opposition did to that movie. Though to be fair, that was truly a worthless and shameless attempt to impose Christianity on what is otherwise a good story. And that brings me to my next point:

Rod - why not let the children decide their beliefs for themselves? Children have a better handle on spirituality and real religion than we adults do. If this move changes their views, let it. If not, oh well.

Hello everyone, I heard about this movie over at Democratic Underground and did a search and stumbled upon this blog. I had not heard about this movie or the books until I read on DU that the Catholic League was upset about yet another *yawn* "controversy" and as an atheist, my interest in the movie, books and the author is peaked. I was so excited to find out there was an atheist author for children. I plan on seeing the movie and checking out the books and I'll allow my youngest daughter to watch it if she's interested. Btw, as a child enjoyed The Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe, but since finding out about the christian aspect, I would never spend my money supporting religious thought that I don't believe in, nor would I choose that movie for viewing by my daughter.
I don't believe that it will be harmful for my child since I'm raising her without any religious indoctrination. After reading some of the posts here, I found it ironic that knowing god was more important than happiness for some of you. I grew up catholic and remember being so miserable "knowing god" and once I threw off the chains of all religion, I was and still am very happy, and content. Simply put the world became a brighter, more beautiful place for me and I want that for my children. I don't want them to have superstitions and fears of going to hell or whatever. I want for my kids reason, knowledge, science, fantasy, joy and most of all happiness. Anyway, that's my two cents. I'm off. I doubt I'll visit again as I'm not into Cons of any kind crunchy or smooth as I'm a godless heathen liberal who occasionally visits the atheist section of this site from time to time. :)

My dear Monica I wished I knew your last name but it does not matter because God does and i will pray for you and your family that you will come to actually know God and that he is nothing but Love...He does not want a single soul to perish in Hell and every human being on this planet is given a choice ....God bless you and keep you and your family and that he will let is presence be known to you in his ever loving ways remeber JESUS IS LORD !!!!!!!!!!!!!! and may our precious Savior have his loving mercy and grace go with you.

Someone said this: "I'm sorry you were raised Catholic as so many have been and have never been exposed to the real love and peace that comes with knowing God..."
- That is quite a statement to make. How is being raised Catholic preventing someone from being exposed to "real love and peace" of God. Catholics are exposed to that. I am Catholic and I was exposed to that growing up Catholic. I think any person's experience of God and their religion and what it is about is partially their responsibility. If you don't seek God in your religion you won't find God in your religion no matter what religion you practice or believe in. Anything done mechanically fails people. I don't know about Pullman's books "Killing God." I think God is safe and secure from that happening no matter what other people think or try and do. For those who seek the Truth they will always find God eventually. There simply isn't any place/where else to go. Even Atheists end up there eventually if Truth is really what they are seeking. I have no doubt of that. If they seek their own ego though, they find nothing which is why they don't believe in God. A lot of believers in God do that and that is why the end up disappointed in "religion." WHY we do what we do is the most important thing ABOUT what we do. Motive matters. Including when it comes to religion.

You have a right to your opinions about this book or any book and if you feel it is not appropriate for your children that's fine. Just remember that there is plenty of other fine children's literature out there and encourage them to read and love reading.
However I'll never forget talking with a "Christian" woman who was boasting and proud that her eight year old son had read Moby Dick.
My response was "You do realize what that is about don't you?"
(She didn't) so I told her. It's not just a story about a crazy man after a whale. It's the story of a man angry at God.
To this day I still don't think she gets it.
Any way, the point is that some of our greatest literature is about
questioning God and Society and organized religion. In most cases, to the children ,it's just a fairy tale and they don't really understand the meanings until they are much older. It goes right over their heads until they are ready for it ... and if they do understand those messages and questions posed... then well... they Are ready for it.

Many of the previous postings presented eloquent arguments. So much so that I wouldn’t have even posted except for a few misunderstandings: First, it was implied that a “Christian” mom was hypocritical for being proud that her son had read a book with a character angry with God. First, there is nothing wrong with feeling angry with God (the Bible is filled with such examples -David, Job, etc.) nor is reading a book about someone angry with God "sinful". However, Moby Dick is a book with symbolism of a man defying God (just as Jonah did in the Bible). So that argument is pointless. Except to agree that some of our greatest literature questions organized religion, the Bible, in fact, is one example and Jesus had much to criticize.

Secondly, I am much less concerned with my own children’s’ ties to God being severed than I am with those that have yet to learn about Him. If the first introduction to “God” a child has is through a twisted lens that equates God with a warped religious tyranny, it certainly limits the option of “free thinking” as some suggest. Furthermore, to believe that all parents are raising their children “to reason and (be) taught to recognize propaganda and false doctrines.” is a misguided assumption.

I also find it discouraging that eloquent and seemingly intelligent debaters on both sides continue to dispute or defend God, using the actions of “man” as their rationale. God did not encourage nor endorse “Northern Ireland, India, (nor) the middle East” Those are the actions of “man” using “God” as a platform for acquiring power. “Taking God seriously” means embracing two ideas, loving Him and loving others. Anything else is fanaticism, or perhaps our own frailty.

Lastly, for those of you who debate that spending your money on services or products that might not meet your moral code is harmless, I would petition your reconsideration. We have, for several decades, continued to dissociate our beliefs from our consumerism. We rationalize our behavior by misquoting haughty justification. We refuse to challenge the music or movie industry when it promotes rape, killing, suicide, and drug/alcohol addiction, quoting “freedom of speech” and wonder why our 13 year olds are pregnant, our sophomores are executing shooting frenzies in the local high school and 21 year olds are dying of cirrhosis of the liver. Our "political correctness" and tolerance has turned into national apathy.

Do I, however, believe that this censorship should come through our government? I was taught in 7th grade that the only power an American citizen truly has is his dollar……..and I believe it today.

If your belief in ANYTHING is strong enough, NOTHING will shake it, nor crack or break it's foundations. And, as stated by other wise commentators, other brilliant posters, the Lord our God, the God of the Holy Bible (His Holy book, which contains His great and powerful wisdom) has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in common with evil and corruption. In fact, He is way too pure to even look upon them (that's why He had to turn His face away from Jesus when He was on the cross) So, get real, get with it folks, go to the Sourcbook, read it, learn it, pray for understanding of it. Teach it to your children, let them grow strong in it's wisdom, it's truth, it's power. Then, and only then, wilst thou and thy offspring know the truth. Put it in your hearts, then, share same with others. Pray daily for strenght, courage, wisdom and power, THEN, you'll be strong enough to withstand any outside power or force that will try it's LEVEL BEST to influence you, to lead you astray, as Satan and his minions try, attempt to do to folk CONSTANTLY, on a daily basis. Yes, do as I say, then you'll NOT be lead away.

bottom line...if your children are rooted in Christ, it is not going to turn them BUT it is imprtant to boycott this film since why would you want to give your money to this project. Have the willpower to resist the couriousity to see this film and wait for it to come on TV.

i work in a hospital as a nurse and have been surrounded by life and death for quite some time. i must say that when known atheists are in care at the hospital, they oftentimes cry out for God and even curse God just before they are sent to their death beds...wonder why!!

I agree with Gail's comment about age appropriate material. I read all three books, was fairly enthusiastic about the story and the artistic ideas (that is, from a worldview, if you didn't care what you said about God and the church). However, the theology was so blatantly upside-down (original sin is good, because that rebels against being a compliant robot - exactly what God and the church promote)that I grew more and more depressed and impatient for it to end. I would make certain I read it with my child, and then only in high school, if I had the choice. If they were reading it in school, you can bet I would be putting in my two cents in the heart and mind of my child.

WOW suck it up and let the kids do what they want

Funnily enough, this quote from Pullman has been taken out of the context and misinterpreted by the author of this article. His books are indeed about killing "God", in the sense that he kills "God" in his books. He does not mean, when he says that, that his books are about killing God for his readers.

It is also possible to read into Pullman's book a profoundly religious book. Though he defies the "God" and the concept of Christianity in Lyra's world (and Lyra's world alone, he says nothing against Christianity in our world), he replaces "The Authority", the fake God, by another divine influence, all knowing and benevolent.

This Dust that he speaks of in his book, is a superior intelligence, that guides Lyra through her adventures, protecs her, and helps protect the world around her.

Though Pullman challenges certain basic concepts of Christianity, like Original Sin being a good thing, and the concept of Heaven and Hell, it is a good opportunity to question certain concepts introduced in the Bible.
Why was Original Sin a bad thing?
Because it gave Humanity knowledge?
Because Eve challenged an arbitrary order by a superior authority? Would Humanity have ever expanded if Adam and Eve hadn't gained this knowledge?
Would we know such wonderful things as love if they hadn't?

I am aware that such ideas will be offensive to some of you, but it is evident that in his overall work, Phillip Pullman promotes profoundly Christian values, and challenges only the ideas in Christianity that he disagrees with, ideas like blind obedience, and taking the word of one, either person or divinity, as truth.

It is also evident to me that Phillip Pullman's work is not written for children. It is a profoundly philosophical and theological work, which could not be understood in it's full extent by someone under the age of 15. They would be unable to understand on their own that what Phillip Pullman kills in his books is not God, but the equivalent of a dictator and a liar from a race much more powerful than ours.

The "suck it up comment and the kids do what they want" really seems thoughtless to me. Children need boundaries. Loving adults who nurture and protect children are a precious gift. Further, children need boundaries.

Oh please...knock off the anti-liberal stuff! Alot of us "liberals" care very much about our religious values and want the best for our children.

Bah. When you die you die. There's no salvation, no afterlife. There's nothing. Live your life to the max now because compared to the time you will be dead and non-existant, life is really short. That's also the reason I ask myself why people bother to even have faith in something they have no evidence exists. The whole purpose of religion comes from either 1. people wanting to have control over others 2. people fearing death and comforting themselves with the thought that there might be something afterwards 3. stupidness

So go see this film. It's not as harsh as the reality we live in!

I AGREE WITH ANDREA. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO JOIN ME IN PRAYER FOR ANYONE WHO MAKES A HARSH COMMENT REGARDING BELEIVERS. IT IS VERY INTERESTING THAT A SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT BELEIVE IN GOD IS SPENDING TIME IN THIS FROUM. SOME OF THOSE OLD SAYINGS ARE SO VERY TRUE....ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS. GOS BLESS US ALL. PATSY

it is just a movie just like the "Da Vinci Code" is just a book, people should just lighten up. Life is serious enough. I love GOd, Jesus and the Blessed Mother, I have a strong faith, and not a book or movie can change my heart and soul.

Although I don't plan to see the movie. I understand that many people say..."Hey it is a movie...lighten up!" The problem lies in the fact that the movie is directed towards children. Although an adult may be able to watch the movie and "decide where it takes you"...children are vulnerable and very influential. I have decided not to allow my children to see the movie because during this integral time of spiritual development I choose not to expose them to anything that I KNOW is trying to challenge what I have strived to teach them thus far. It may very well be an enertaining movie that would not effect my children in the least. I however am not willing to risk anything causing them to question their faith at such a young age. Once they become adults they can take what I and my church have taught them (based on the truths of the bible) and make their own decision.

His books are NOT about killing God, that is a only a Portion of his sentance being twisted and manipulated, which by the way is a wonderful christian value there, to discredit him for a groups personal reasons. The book is about destroying a being that is pretending to be God. So by saying his books are wrong what you are Really saying is that it must be ok for something to Pretend to be God. Wonderful message to pass along don't you think.

Childrens minds are feeble. They are easily swayed. I believe that children at a very young age can develop curiosity and or real beliefs and or encounters with God. They can also have real encounters with the devil. The bible say's that the devil has dominion over the earth and he prowls around like a roaring lion waiting to destroy. He knows our weaknesses and he will use those to influence us. I also believe that if the devil appeared to us in a way that scared us, we would be more inclined to turn from him. But the devil comes to us in a way that is enchanting, attractive, enticing, exciting, new, fun...whatever. Because children are easily enchanted by stories, what a perfect oppurtunity for the devil to help guide them into thinking that worlds like these imaginary ones do exist-. Children will find a character that they can relate to in some way and imitate these characters. If you want your children to cling to what is good, what is pure, what is right, what is true, then even the imaginary worlds of darkness need to be far from their minds. The bible say's you either love evil or you hate it, you are either living in darkness or living in light. You cannot serve two masters, and there are only two. So, allowing your kids to explore the "gray" is very dangerous in my opinion. Know who you want your family to serve, and if its God, protect them from the devises of evil.

Your incessant focus on the devil is actually a form of practicing his presence rather than the presence of God who is Truth. If you actually saw the movie you would not be posting things like this that just make it evident you have not seen it. Focus on God and what is good and true, not on the devil and demonizing everything you have not taken the time to understand or consider.

>>His books are NOT about killing God, that is a only a Portion of his sentance being twisted and manipulated, which by the way is a wonderful christian value there, to discredit him for a groups personal reasons. The book is about destroying a being that is pretending to be God. So by saying his books are wrong what you are Really saying is that it must be ok for something to Pretend to be God. Wonderful message to pass along don't you think.

Good points Brian. My mom and I couldn't help noticing that the Magesterium in the Golden Compass had similar attitudes as Catholicism.
It was undeniable.

Hmmmmm. Catholics not being exposed to true love...

Imagine that, Mother Teresa spending 50 years in the slums cleaning maggots off lepers...Pope John Paul II helping to tople communism in Eastern Europe...

Those were two people who didn't know true love, I was really fooled eh?

I would also like to add that to speak the enemies name is aknowledgement of him and brings him into close contact.He wants us to acknowledge him and his presence, it is as good as worship!He is to be rebuked in Jesus' name and then forgotten!If you open the door, he will enter and dwell!

It takes the average child until age 5 before they begin to know the difference between what they see on the screen in a movie and what happens in the real world as different. Knowing that, there's a whole lot of movies I wouldn't take a 4 year old to, including The Brave Little Toaster which is a great kids film but there's some scary scenes that I wouldn't expose a 4 year old to. That said, the first thing is for a film to be age appropriate. The Golden Compass is rated PG-13 due to Sequences of Fantasy Violence.

I just saw the film and would recommend it to anyone with a daughter around the main character Lyra's age (the actress is 12). Lyra is a feisty, courageous, polite, loyal, selfless and loving friend and daughter who seeks answers and truth. These are characteristics to be striven for as a Christian or any other religion. I don't think the viewing of this film will change anyone's faith. If anything, people will interpret things in the film according to their faith to strengthen it. I haven't read the books so I can't comment on that. That may be another matter. I intend to read them next and see what I think then.

The fact that people are arguing about whether a movie should be seen by their children is pure ignorance. I'm 17 years old and saw this movie. It was reeeeally good. I've read the books and have know the true meaning of them. They have in no way change my opinion on God or anything to do with my faith in Him. The books are only literature. Just like Harry Potter or the Chronicles of Narnia or Lord of the Rings. Pullman might have not written them from a Christian viewpoint like Lewis or Tolkien but that makes no difference. They're still good books to read.

I would rather watch these types of movies or read these types of books with my kids and use them as tools to open discussion regarding faith. I am not about to put my head in the sand thinking that my kids will listen to me and not watch or read what I forbid. I know they watch movies at friends houses and read books at school.

When it comes to controversial works like this one I would rather participate with them than let them go it alone.