My pastor announced this past Wednesday that the Catholic League is boycotting the movie 'The Golden Compass' because the author of the book on which the movie is based is a militant atheist. Aparently he is blatently anti-christian by the end of the third book in the series.
My pastor went on to say that he heard that the movie was 'watered down', because of the athiest themes, and that the movie is dangerous because people who see the movies will buy the books for they're children, and then their children will convert to atheism or something.
The Catholic League has demanded a boycott of the movie.
This is all heard from third/fourth-party people, notice.
Has anybody heard about this? Is any of this true (The boycott or the 'athiest messeges')? I'm too lazy to use the search button, and somebody may have already posted about this (If so, I'm sorry). I'm planning on reading the series, because I love Harry Potter, and it was condemned too.
True or not, I'm going to pick on a couple of things...
First off, the boycott is quite silly. If there's any way to ensure a movie's success, it's boycotting it! The other alternative is that nobody hears about the boycott, so it does no good.
Second off, I think it operates under the assumption that it only attacks christianity (Assuming that the alleged 'athiest' messeges exist). I am (In my ever so limited experience) assuming that most people practicing a religion would, in theory, not appreciate the alleged atheist overtones.
Thridly, IF! it is anti-christian, it's still silly to assume that only Christians will be offended. Just because you aren't a Christian doesn't mean that you won't dislike anti-Christian messeges.
Lastly, if there was any boycotting to be doing, it was back in 1997 or whenever the book was released! But why wasn't there any? Maybe because people were too busy picking on Harry Potter. A book series that is quite moral, thank you very much.
<sigh>
Anyway, has anybody else heard anything about this?
Posts: 438 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Golden Compass is generally considered an atheistic, actively anti-religious, novel. I'm not really sure of the details, so I don't know if it's aimed specifically at Christians or not.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've read the trilogy, and it is defintely anti-religious and specifically anti-Christian (the evil government is basically a bigger, badder version of the Catholic church that never got kicked out of England)
I don't agree with a boycott on principle, although I would agree that if there was an "evil" series of children's books, this one would fit the bill. That doesn't mean you should ban it, it means that when your children read it, you should read it too, discuss the issues with them, and then perhaps recommend Narnia :-p
On that topic, if any fans of the Narnia series want to know what type of person Pullman is, go see what he has to say about it. (I'll try to find an original link, but google can give you all kinds of secondary articles)
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The series is overtly anti-a-fictional-religion-that-looks-very-much-like-Christianity. In the third book the author's anti-religion screed becomes tiresome.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think of it as anti-Christian. I think of it as more anti-CORRUPT CHRISTIANITY. Any religion, regardless of how pure and kind most of the members are is in danger of corrupt influences. This series is more about people who are so evil they use religion to control people, they do things that are WORSE than any enemy they are against and they try to drain all the joy out of existence on top of everything else. They are the real Anti-religious people by trying to take the spirituality out of religion, by taking away the compassion and leaving it as a form of slavery. You don't have to look to far to find people like that in any religion. It's these people that have to be battled against so that they don't taint sacred things.
Also JKR gave right wing folks a BIGGER reason to dislike HP Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, anti-corrupt Christianity was what I thought when I first read the books. I thought "yeah, I can kind of see what he's getting at, there are major problems with the Church and how people twist it" and I thought that was a good lesson. Then, I read Pullman's interpretation of Narnia, and it literally turned my stomach. To be fair, the Narnia books are very dear to my heart, and so I'm prejudiced against anyone who claims his books to be the antithesis of them.
Unfortunately, I can't find the original article for this, but I pasted it on my xanga site almost two years ago, if anyone's interested: http://www.xanga.com/Eowyn_sama , several posts down
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I think of it as more anti-CORRUPT CHRISTIANITY. Any religion, regardless of how pure and kind most of the members are is in danger of corrupt influences.
But in this case, it's God himself who is corrupt. If I were Catholic I imagine I would feel that he was pissing on my religion. As it was, I'm with dkw; it just got tiresome.
I really quite enjoyed The Golden Compass. I read the full series. And, to be perfectly honest, the thing that bothered me the most was not the militant atheism, it was the insinuated sex scene between the pre-teens at the end of book three.
I think I started a thread on Pullman and Narnia. <searches> Here it is.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a direct link to an article in The Guardian, Oct 1998, that goes into Pullman's criticism of Narnia and CSL:"The Darkside of Narnia".
On reading it, I think Pullman does have some legitimate gripes. I think he overstates it at points [by quite a lot -- he's at and over the point of ranting], but the theology and presentation of Narnia never has been tight (as Tolkien noted). I wasn't surprised to see his opinion of The Screwtape Letters was much more positive, as that has held up much better for me in rereadings.
I liked the Narnia books, and I still enjoy rereading them. I just note troubling aspects here and there as I go, and some of them are quite troubling to me indeed. I can see they may not be troubling to others.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I think of it as more anti-CORRUPT CHRISTIANITY. Any religion, regardless of how pure and kind most of the members are is in danger of corrupt influences.
But in this case, it's God himself who is corrupt. If I were Catholic I imagine I would feel that he was pissing on my religion. As it was, I'm with dkw; it just got tiresome.
I really quite enjoyed The Golden Compass. I read the full series. And, to be perfectly honest, the thing that bothered me the most was not the militant atheism, it was the insinuated sex scene between the pre-teens at the end of book three.
I think I started a thread on Pullman and Narnia. <searches> Here it is.
Spoiler-It wasn't God, but someone else.
Also they did NOT HAVE SEX. They didn't know what sex WAS. Remember that scene in book 2 when the witches were all looking at each other knowingly and the kids had no idea what happened? All they knew about was kissing and little else.
Also, how many OSC books have I read with teens getting married and the like? It really bugged me how Valentine/Jane were... well, young, and Wang Mu was a teenager too. She was quite young as well. It's different, but they really didn't have sex!
I have not finished Narnia, but what I heard about the ending BUGS me. I have to learn towards Pullman and JKR.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, seriously, you shouldn't feel you must back down from a passionate defense of what you love.
Welcome to Hatrack, and add your voice to the mix. ---
Edited to add: Aha, I finally found the Scott R quotation I was looking for in that prior Hatrack thread linked above:
"I enjoyed HDM because I was able to identify the books as fantastical, and not give too much credence to Pullman's propaganda. If God was like the Authority, I'd fight against him too."
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Man, an anti-religious AND anti-Christian movie?
And to think I got conned into seeing that awful Narnia film while I didn't see this film with my girlfriend because it looked too childish.
Arg, I really saw the wrong movie... Thank you Catholic League for piquing my interest
That is what I do not get about the Catholic League. Most folks have probably not read or heard of this series, but when they gripe about it like that, it just draws their attention to them and makes everyone curious about it. There has to be a way to just let stuff one doesn't agree with exist without calling for boycots and the like, but I have been trying to avoid things that frustrate me like certain essays and stupidly broke that resolve.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boycotts are useful for building a platform for dialog. It's not the boycott itself that gets things done, but the discussions that ensue after the boycott is announced.
CT-- I love that you remembered that. I stand by it. I'll be interested to see how Hollywood goes about watering down the anti-Authority elements.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:There has to be a way to just let stuff one doesn't agree with exist without calling for boycots and the like, but I have been trying to avoid things that frustrate me like certain essays and stupidly broke that resolve.
Why? I could just as easily say that there has to be a way to just let stuff one doesn't agree with exist without writing fantasy trilogies targeting that stuff. It's not as if Pullman isn't trying to criticize certain aspects of religion in the books. He is, and he is subject to such criticism in return.
quote:Catholic League president Bill Donohue discussed the league’s reaction to the upcoming movie, “The Golden Compass”:
“New Line Cinema and Scholastic Entertainment have paired to produce ‘The Golden Compass,’ a children’s fantasy that is based on the first book of a trilogy by militant English atheist Philip Pullman. The trilogy, His Dark Materials, was written to promote atheism and denigrate Christianity, especially Roman Catholicism. The target audience is children and adolescents. Each book becomes progressively more aggressive in its denigration of Christianity and promotion of atheism: The Subtle Knife is more provocative than The Golden Compass and The Amber Spyglass is the most in-your-face assault on Christian sensibilities of the three volumes.
“Atheism for kids. That is what Philip Pullman sells. It is his hope that ‘The Golden Compass,’ which stars Nicole Kidman and opens December 7, will entice parents to buy his trilogy as a Christmas gift. It is our hope that the film fails to meet box office expectations and that his books attract few buyers. We are doing much more than hoping—we are conducting a nationwide two-month protest of Pullman’s work and the film. To that end, we have prepared a booklet, ‘The Golden Compass: Agenda Unmasked,’ that tears the mask off the movie.
“It is not our position that the movie will strike Christian parents as troubling. Then why the protest? Even though the film is based on the least offensive of the three books, and even though it is clear that the producers are watering down the most despicable elements—so as to make money and not anger Christians—the fact remains that the movie is bait for the books. To be specific, if unsuspecting Christian parents take their children to see the movie, they may very well find it engaging and then buy Pullman’s books for Christmas. That’s the problem.
“We are fighting a deceitful stealth campaign on the part of the film’s producers. Our goal is to educate Christians so that they know exactly what the film’s pernicious agenda really is.”
quote:The Catholic League wants Christians to stay away from this movie precisely because it knows that the film is bait for the books: unsuspecting parents who take their children to see the movie may be impelled to buy the three books as a Christmas present. And no parent who wants to bring their children up in the faith will want any part of these books.
It's not so much a traditional boycott aimed aimed changing the target's behavior but a warning.
Pretty much the same kind of warning Pullman makes against the Narnia books.
I just wonder if the criticism in the brochure is as inaccurate as Pulman's criticism of Narnia (for example, Susan never was at the stable, so she doesn't turn away from it. Nor is there any indication as to whether she ultimately is saved.
Moreover, one of the most prevalent criticisms of Christianity that Lewis was facing was that it was childish. It takes an almost willfully simplistic reading of Lewis to not realize that he has a problem with certain aspects of growing up - or, rather, certain expectations of growing up, not growing up itself. The necessity of growing up is made clear by Aslan telling Peter, Susan, Lucy, and Edmund that they must learn to know him in their own world.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Also they did NOT HAVE SEX. They didn't know what sex WAS. Remember that scene in book 2 when the witches were all looking at each other knowingly and the kids had no idea what happened? All they knew about was kissing and little else.[/QB]
Um, yeah, in book 2. The scene in question occurs at the end of book 3, a full year later, and it is quite clear that they are having sex. But they are not pre-teens, they are just hitting puberty; that's what the Dust is all about.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't finished Narnia, but that's not an accurate description of HDM at all. It's not about Atheism for Children, but finding the spirtuality in the world even without a central religious authority. Pullman seems to have a problem with the idea of dying and just going to heaven or living your life just to go to heaven. He seems to think that where you are is just as important if not moreso and can see how that concept of heaven can be abused. Religion really isn't immuned to corruption anymore than politics is.
Also- "especially Roman Catholicism." In the book it was NOT the Catholic church, but some sort of Calvinist institution instead. (although there is Mary Malone to consider) I have to wonder if these folks A. read the book, Read the book correctly without bias, which is not easy to do. I can't criticise books until I've read them deeply and found out what frustrates me about them. I only got to A Boy and His Horse, I think, and that was quite some time ago and I finished reading The Lion the Witch and the Waldrobe and a book Lewis wanted to be read before that book. It's way more about spirituality over religious dogma and structure, finding happiness and completion without a structured church.
They really should focus on reforming the foster care system instead, I think ><
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Also they did NOT HAVE SEX. They didn't know what sex WAS. Remember that scene in book 2 when the witches were all looking at each other knowingly and the kids had no idea what happened? All they knew about was kissing and little else.
Um, yeah, in book 2. The scene in question occurs at the end of book 3, a full year later, and it is quite clear that they are having sex. But they are not pre-teens, they are just hitting puberty; that's what the Dust is all about. [/QB]
No, it is not clear that they were having sex. They spent a year going to hell and back again. No one had time to teach them the bird and the bees. Their love really was mostly innocent and consisting more of kissing than going all the way. Where do people get that notion from?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe strongly in boycotts. It is as much free speech as going to see or read or participate in something. I even believe in the rights of individuals to BURN books, as long as the burning is done with lawfully aquired books. The irony is, of course, that means the books were at least financially supported. Of course, I don't believe either of these things should be done as government sanctioned.
As for the Pullman books? I am a free individual who is not forced to do anything I don't want to do. As such I have boycotted the series and the movies since I heard about them. And, I will encourage that boycott when given the chance. Good for the Catholic League!
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it would be very interesting to write a comparative paper on the Narnia Series and The Golden Compass, because it's clear that Pullman wrote his series in many ways as an answer to what he perceived as Narnia's ills- such as the obvious glorification of growing up as opposed to the questioning of it*.
*Note that in A Horse and His Boy (1954), Susan is not only 'grown-up' but also looking to be married. She is admired and sought but various princes as a very beautiful and desirable Queen. This begs the question that was Lewis really opposed to 'growing up' or merely against 1956's 'the youth of today.'
You can imagine the outrage that CS Lewis would have felt about Pullman's series, were he alive to read it, and the battles they would have over who was right.
When I first read both of these series I didn't see either of their 'messages'. I only saw the stories, both of which I liked most of. A child or young teen can read both these books and hold them both in his or her head as equally true. The opposition that is evident as a 'grown-up' is not there. They are both books about innocent, pure, heroic children battling evil forces. So far, they are the same.
EDIT: It is interesting to consider then, that, those who remain within the world of childhood innocence that belongs to the main characters (innocence of religion, innocence of non-religion, innocence of adulthoodhood, of racism, of pedophilia etc.)- who are in fact the target audience- cannot see the political or religious messages contained within the book. In a way, the books provide the same kind of dichotomy that Pullman (and often Lewis) creates between the adult world (raging one way or another) and the child's world, who knows only that Lyra and Lucy are good.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe more in boycotting things that are important. Folks have absolutely no right to tell people what they can and can't read, otherwise they end up with the sort of dogmaticness that annoys Philip Pullman and also me. It doesn't make sense to get people riled up about a book unless you have read it. You can't just listen to some authority figure or someone else denounce a book without reading it for yourself. I haven't even read the Divinchi (sp) Code or seen the movie, so how can I form an opinion about it? It's deeply annoying when things like that are done. And its really really stupid to burn books that you PAY for. The person is still getting the money! I reckon encouraging people to read the book first, then write their opinions on it is a better solution, like me feeling frustrated with a line in a book I read recently because it really does promote an unhealthy attitude about marriage that passes as traditional. But there's no way I'd ban a book just because I didn't agree with it. I'd simply read some other book instead. (Gate to Women's Country comes to mind, but perhaps I am missing something in that book. When I am done reading a ton of Japanese books and rereading HP, and reading all of these other books, I'll read it again.)
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Folks have absolutely no right to tell people what they can and can't read, otherwise they end up with the sort of dogmaticness that annoys Philip Pullman and also me.
True. However, how is that relevant here? Is anyone telling anyone else what they can and can't read? Seems to me the Catholic League is telling people what they should and should not read - something Pullman did in the Guardian article CT linked.
quote:You can't just listen to some authority figure or someone else denounce a book without reading it for yourself.
Yes, you can. So can I. No one has time to read everything. It makes perfect sense to base one's decision on what to read on the opinions of those one trusts. Some people trust the CL on such things.
quote:But there's no way I'd ban a book just because I didn't agree with it. I'd simply read some other book instead.
Excellent. That's just what the Catholic League is recommending.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Despite my joke, I should throw in, good for the Catholic League. I find Donohue absolutely repugnant and he comes off as arrogantly ignorant, but good for them. Nothing wrong with boycotting something they're against.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I wanted to be told what to read, I'd live with skeezy relatives. There were few things I hated as a kid more than being told what I can and can't read.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Continuing from my above post, having read them both without knowing their 'message', I would say that reading them both in ignorance is in fact much better than reading only one (whichever that may be), or reading them both in understanding.
In one, evil is an undermining rabble; in the other, it forms the authority. In our world, evil is found in both of these places.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I wanted to be told what to read, I'd live with skeezy relatives. There were few things I hated as a kid more than being told what I can and can't read.
Again, no one is telling you what you can and can't read.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Syn -- how can you think that boycotting is good while simultaneously think that it's wrong for people to tell you what they think you should and shouldn't do? The two seem contradictory to me.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Also they did NOT HAVE SEX. They didn't know what sex WAS. Remember that scene in book 2 when the witches were all looking at each other knowingly and the kids had no idea what happened? All they knew about was kissing and little else.
Um, yeah, in book 2. The scene in question occurs at the end of book 3, a full year later, and it is quite clear that they are having sex. But they are not pre-teens, they are just hitting puberty; that's what the Dust is all about.
No, it is not clear that they were having sex. They spent a year going to hell and back again. No one had time to teach them the bird and the bees. Their love really was mostly innocent and consisting more of kissing than going all the way. Where do people get that notion from? [/QB]
There is a big difference between pre-teens(11,12) and teenagers, and between people that have gone through puberty and those that haven't. Having not finished even the Golden Compass, I am not commenting on what happened in the books. However, if you have finished going through puberty I am sure that you and a friend could eventually work out the birds and the bees all by your selves.
You have to be taught about sex when you are a child, but once your body has reached sexual maturity you are very likely to figure out the mechanics on your own. There are a lot of people that were never taught about sex that are perfectly able to have it.
Posts: 3936 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:*Note that in A Horse and His Boy (1954), Susan is not only 'grown-up' but also looking to be married. She is admired and sought but various princes as a very beautiful and desirable Queen.
While this is true, it's also true that Susan's quest for marriage, and by implication her whole sexuality - at one point she admits to no longer seeing anything in the guy she was head over heels for two weeks earlier - is the cause of the whole conflict in the book. Everything the characters do is to remedy problems caused by Susan's relationship. Hardly a ringing endorsement of people who grow up.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You can't just listen to some authority figure or someone else denounce a book without reading it for yourself.
Yes, you can. So can I. No one has time to read everything. It makes perfect sense to base one's decision on what to read on the opinions of those one trusts. Some people trust the CL on such things.
This may seem a bit nit-picky, but there's a difference between not reading a book because someone recommends against it and participating in a boycott of a book. The end result is the same however the implied statements of the actions are different. A boycott is a form of protest and it doesn't really make sense for someone to protest a book that they haven't read.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
From Wikipedia: A boycott is the act of voluntarily abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with someone or some other organization as an expression of protest.
By definition, a boycott cannot ban anyone from watching the movie or reading the books. In practice, I'll admit it doesn't always work that way, but no one's telling anyone except maybe their kids that they can't read the books.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:This may seem a bit nit-picky, but there's a difference between not reading a book because someone recommends against it and participating in a boycott of a book. The end result is the same however the implied statements of the actions are different. A boycott is a form of protest and it doesn't really make sense for someone to protest a book that they haven't read.
And no one but me has actually linked to the CL's own words on the subject. They are not recommending people avoid the movie as a protest. They are recommending that certain types of parents not expose their children to the movie because of problems it may cause with their children.
Telling people not to by margarine because trans-fats are bad for you is not what most people consider a boycott.
Edit: The only reference to this being a "boycott" we have is a third-hand reference. Nit-picking on the subject is baseless until it is established that this is a boycott.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Syn -- how can you think that boycotting is good while simultaneously think that it's wrong for people to tell you what they think you should and shouldn't do? The two seem contradictory to me.
Boycotting makes sense when it's something important (civil rights come to mind) Limiting people from reading books because it has viewpoints they may not agree with is not totally healthy. If that corruption still exists, how can you know (I doubt it does like in the past, no institution run by humans can be perfect all the time even if it starts off with good values) Sometimes it's important to look at other perspectives in order to form a whole. It's one reason why I read OSC despite not agreeing with him in degrees about 85-95% of the time. People who are different than me are interesting, and how do I know that their point of view doesn't have grains of truth in it? Just stating that a book is evil and that folks shouldn't read it or let their children read it is like damming up a river. How can you see the other side? And what is wrong with folks being athiest anyway? It's their choice. I lean more towards an underlying spituality. The Mulefa come to mind.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Boycotting makes sense when it's something important (civil rights come to mind)
So essentially you just disagree with them about the importance of their faith.
quote:Just stating that a book is evil and that folks shouldn't read it or let their children read it is like damming up a river. How can you see the other side?
They didn't just state that - they gave specific reasons.
quote:Sometimes it's important to look at other perspectives in order to form a whole.
You have no evidence that they don't do this. All you know is that they advocate not letting their children read this particular other perspective.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My daughter (14) has read the books, and I told her exactly how I felt about them - that on some levels the story was good, but the books get progressively worse, the latter two do not live up to the first and that Pullman has some real issues with the Christian faith and she would find some anti-Christian ranting in there.
We often discuss our reactions to the books we both read, sometimes we agree, sometimes we don't. But on this we agreed. Pullman was an interesting read the first time through but not good enough to merit re-reading. We talked about his anti-Christian stance and why we didn't like it, and we talked about aspects of the story we did like.
I appreciate what the Catholic League has done, because some parents may not have time to read books before giving them to their kids. Now they are aware of the books anti-church content, and the parents can make informed decisions. Books don't have ratings - we rely on reviews and word-of-mouth to let us know what is in books, and anytime parents have an opportunity to learn what is in a series that helps them make decisions for their kids is fine by me. I myself would not prohibit my kids from reading a book just because it might have some anti-Christian bias, but I respect the rights of parents to do so if they wish.
What the Catholic League has done is call attention to something some parents may not be aware of. It's initiated dialogue, as I believe Scott R mentioned. That's not a bad thing.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I try. There are days when I think I've been a pretty good parent. And days when I think I've failed misrably.
I do hope I've raised a young lady who can think for herself and who can take things in and discriminate the good from the bad. If I always made those choices for her, how would she learn to do it herself? But, I don't agree with just turning her loose and letting her flounder without my guidance. So we try to explore those issue together.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Man. This reaction is starting to make me wonder what a reaction a children's book written by Christopher Hitchens would get
However, I have a serious question, for those non-religious people (or people that have no beef with it theologically) that may be monitoring the thread and are familiar with fantasy novels (I'm thinking TomD and KoM for a start), is this a story/movie taking a chance on or is it really for children?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Boycotting makes sense when it's something important (civil rights come to mind) Limiting people from reading books because it has viewpoints they may not agree with is not totally healthy. If that corruption still exists, how can you know (I doubt it does like in the past, no institution run by humans can be perfect all the time even if it starts off with good values)
Your very first sentence here clearly exposes the reason you don't understand, and it's because you're really not trying very hard. Wanting to warn others way from media that you feel is hostile to your and their religion is clearly an important issue, whether or not you're pro or con.
Also, let's be clear about what you mean by 'limiting': reading a book, and then giving others a synopsis and advising them to refrain from reading it. Now what exactly is so 'unhealthy' about that? Not a thing, that's what. "This thing is spiteful and offensive, and I think you shouldn't expose yourself to it," is what it amounts to.
Unless, for some reason, you feel the only way to understand something is to experience it directly for yourself, in which case I'll be sure to watch out for any commentary you might make on, say, parenting.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: [QUOTE] Unless, for some reason, you feel the only way to understand something is to experience it directly for yourself, in which case I'll be sure to watch out for any commentary you might make on, say, parenting.
I'm not sure if that statement was exactly polite....
There's some of OSC's essays to consider. Many of them frustrate me, I should avoid reading most of them, but I doubt I'd have the opportunity to publicly boycot them since I could just read his critiques of movies and books and food he likes that they keep discontinuing instead. I wouldn't tell other people not to read them, it's up to them to form their own judgement, but sometimes folks you don't agree with have interesting things to say about certain aspects of things that would be overlooked if one is told not to examine them. Othertimes, it makes a person stronger in their convictions that what they believe is probably right all along.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do you have such a big problem with someone saying "People concerned about X should not read book Y," yet it's OK for you to tell other people what they should do (such as focusing on fixing the foster care system, or not telling other people what books they should read)?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Why do you have such a big problem with someone saying "People concerned about X should not read book Y," yet it's OK for you to tell other people what they should do (such as focusing on fixing the foster care system, or not telling other people what books they should read)?
Because reforming the foster care system is one of the most important things that can be done in this country, telling people what they can and can't read isn't!
Unless it's books on how to build bombs or something. I'm not sure if those should be floating around. I'm suprised folks even have to ask that question! It's obvious. Kids in the foster care system need as much protection and help they can get considering.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
'Importance' is subjective, Synethesia. Hell, I'd be hard-pressed to think of a word or concept that's more subjective.
quote:I wouldn't tell other people not to read them, it's up to them to form their own judgement, but sometimes folks you don't agree with have interesting things to say about certain aspects of things that would be overlooked if one is told not to examine them. Othertimes, it makes a person stronger in their convictions that what they believe is probably right all along.
I'm not objecting to you not telling other people to avoid certain media, I'm objecting to the silly idea that boycotting "isn't healthy".
But let me ask you a question. Let's suppose that there was some media out there that was doing serious, notable harm to your ideas of what improvements should be made to the foster care system in the United States.
This media isn't saying something overtly horrible like 'punish recalcitrant children with cigarette burns', but it's just persuasively proposing a series of ideas that you are quite convinced are harmful. This media is having a great deal of popular success and is in fact doing what you perceive is real harm to an important thing in you're life.
Are you going to tell me you'd tell people, "Please, go ingest this media and develop your own conclusions," or would you discourage people from ingesting that media or give them a bunch of counter-arguments before they do?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
