Christian groups slam Golden Compass

[Stan4dSteph]

Thanks for that excerpt, Alex.

[Not Afraid]

Here;s another FoF quote:

Other critiques have appeared on evangelical blogs and Web sites. Adam Holz of Focus on the Family, writing on the Christian ministry's Plugged In site, calls Pullman's books and the film a "deliberate attempt to foist his viciously anti-God beliefs upon his audience."

I don't see what's wrong about "foisting beliefs"? Narnia certainly does that.

The "thought police" mentality is what really irks me.

[Nephythys]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

Here;s another FoF quote:

I don't see what's wrong about "foisting beliefs"? Narnia certainly does that.

The "thought police" mentality is what really irks me.

How does Narnia do that- you yourself have said you did not pick up on the religious undertones when you read the book. The movie is even less obvious-

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

How does Narnia do that- you yourself have said you did not pick up on the religious undertones when you read the book. The movie is even less obvious-

No, and I didn't pick up that the Pullman books were anti-Catholic. So, that means the Catholic argument is moot.

[Tref]

Originally Posted by Chernabog

Maybe I should hand you some extra lynchin' rope for that march, because your strawman is losing its stuffing.

We are not talking about child pornography, we are talking about themes that may or may not exist in a movie -- but you wouldn't know that because you haven't seen it (and, FYI reviews of the film indicate that those themes aren't there). I mean, at the very LEAST read some detailed reviews and analysis before deciding whether to protest. I tried to point out that although you may have objections to the source material, that doesn't mean it was translated to screen in that same way.

But yes, we can all agree that child pornography is bad stuff. I guess you've won there.

Edit: OK so perhaps "idiots" was too strong a word. I'll just say "fundamentally misguided" and leave it at that.

Haha! Bully for you! I have been taken down a peg, what?

Hmm, but methinks, somebody has been been into the sugarbowl again! So, pull up your little rocking chair and let's have a talk.

Yes, yes, my little one, child pornography is bad. Very bad. Made by the bad-man.

But you see, lil' punkin', what I was really saying was ... well ... I just don't want you to worry about the protests, OK? There really aren't any. Nobody is going to get lynched and the strawmen are just figures of speech.

You see, some Catholics, not all, but some, are worried that this film could influence children to read the books by which the movie was based and they contain a lot of anti-Catholic rhetoric. Heavy stuff that the movie intentionally watered down. These concerned parents want their children to know the teachings of Jesus and the Church He founded before they set them loose on the world to discover the other side on their own. And you know what? That's their right because they are the parents. The Catholic Church, or, people purportedly speaking for them have come out and warned these parents against taking their children to the movie. That's all.

And you know what, despite what you might think, these parents do not have to view the film to come to this conclusion. Nope. They are free to do what they want.

And you are too!

That's right -- you!

Oh yeh, one more thing: now, I do not where you get off responding to me as you did. I only questioned if the word, "idiot" was not a little strong. I can see you are clearly passionate about something, Chern' --- I am just not sure what.

[Chernabog]

Originally Posted by Tref

But you see, lil' punkin', what I was really saying was ... well ... I just don't want you to worry about the protests, OK? There really aren't any. Nobody is going to get lynched and the strawmen are just figures of speech.

Sorry, DEAR, but you were the one with the "onward march" statement. I just ran with the imagery. My reference to a "straw man" referred to your strawman argument where you changed the argument to something that everyone could agree upon (child porn is bad!) in an attempt to discredit the unrelated argument.

The Catholic Church, or, people purportedly speaking for them have come out and warned these parents against taking their children to the movie. That's all.

Sure. And I still think their reasoning is baseless, for reasons I've already said in this thread.

And you know what, despite what you might think, these parents do not have to view the film to come to this conclusion. Nope. They are free to do what they want.

And you are too!

That's right -- you!

You're really working on this type of argument technique aren't you? Yes, of course the parents are free to do what they want. Everyone can agree on that. So I guess you've "won" again! (And I never argued your first sentence, so you're putting words into my mouth also *sigh*)

Oh yeh, one more thing: now, I do not where you get off responding to me as you did. I only questioned if the word, "idiot" was not a little strong. I can see you are clearly passionate about something, Chern' --- I am just not sure what.

You responded in a manner that read like you not only took great offense to what I said, but that you indeed were one of the "idiots".... err "fundamentally misguided" persons that were protesting the film. So really, pardon me for responding in kind.

[Chernabog]

Roger Ebert gave this movie 4 stars, and that is enough for me. I'm going to see it tonight after the gym, I think.

Frankly, the Christians who are protesting this movie are being idiots considering the movie takes out the heavy-handedness of the books (I mean, why not SEE a movie first, THEN protest it). Though of course, some of those people say "OMG if kids like the movie, then they'll read the book, and then they'll get these naughty naughty ideas!".

I mean, god forbid someone actually hear different viewpoints or think for themselves. I believe that people who question their religion and then come to similar conclusions of their religion (or spiritual beliefs) come out that much stronger in their faith. How is it that Mother Theresa questions her belief in God, making her a stronger person of faith in the eyes of the Church, and yet when a child hears a viewpoint that questions the belief in God or organized religion, it is evil?

Yes, yes, I know, Mother Theresa is held to a different standard because.... because.... ummm....

In an odd way, the Christian groups are PROVING the point in the books regarding the evils of organized religion. Dumb, dumb, dumb. The author of the books can just point to them and say, "see! This is EXACTLY what I mean."

[Alex]

I would say there is an important difference in approach between defending oneself from an attack and saying that an opposing idea should be avoided as completely as possible.

"These ideas are too dangerous to even be seen" is not a defense against attack, in my opinion, it is an infantilization of the membership. "Examine this idea, think about, and here are the reasons we think it faulty/inadequate/scurrilous/etc and are confident your faith will come out strong on the other side" is defense.

I do agree that the market is overcrowded with epic fantasy adaptations (particularly YA epic fantasy) but think this is one of the better examples and I'd gladly swap the final two Harry Potter movies for two more in this vein.

[Tref]

Originally Posted by Alex

I would say there is an important difference in approach between defending oneself from an attack and saying that an opposing idea should be avoided as completely as possible.

Let's all put aside this concept of opposing ideas, for one minute, OK? Its entirely irrelevant to the argument.

These books are an attack on the Catholic Church. That is the beginning, middle and end of it.
And for that reason, the church has full right to ask that Catholics avoid taking their children to this movie.

So far as the children's right to choose. Well, that is silly, too. Children do not and should not have the right to choose. That is why we call them children.

[Alex]

I make no such confusion; unless you are claiming actual physical acts of violence all this "attack" can be is one of words and ideas. So I'd say it is both; it presents its own view of enlightenment and attacks what it sees at the Catholic view (in the books, little of it is in the movie). But even if it is just an attack, "pretend it isn't there" isn't a defense against it.

I don't see your last paragraph as that big of a big difference, and the movie (nor the books) is not a childrens movie.

Has the Catholic Church made any official comment against the movie or just some Catholic activist groups? As pointed out above, the official body of the U.S. Roman Catholic Church gives the movie a pretty mild review and they seem to agree with me on a better way for parents to handle it than the one William Donohue suggests:

Originally Posted by from the same review I linked above

Will seeing this film inspire teens to read the books, which many have found problematic? Rather than banning the movie or books, parents might instead take the opportunity to talk through any thorny philosophical issues with their teens.