This is topic Pullman is a Militant Atheist, The Golden Compass is Evil, Catholic League Boycotts in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
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?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
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.
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
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)
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
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.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
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 Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
To me, it is just a darned good book.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That too.
It's one of my many book husbands.
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
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
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I'm prejudiced against anyone who claims his books to be the antithesis of them.
Yeah well MY talking animals are in a GODLESS world!
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
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.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
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.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
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.
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
Thanks for the links ^_^ * steps down off soapbox * Looks like I'm a bit behind the times.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
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."
You pegged me there, Scott R.
[ October 20, 2007, 11:06 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
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 Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
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.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
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.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
That cinched it. If Bill Donohue is against it, I'm going out to see it! Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
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.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
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 ><
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
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?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
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!
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
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.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
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.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
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.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
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.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
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.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
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.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
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.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
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.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
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.
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
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.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
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.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
The "e" comes before the "i" in "atheist".
Mmkay, carry on.
You better believe I combed this post for errors in order to avoid proving "Davidson's Law".
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
In responce to Pullman's attack on Narnia: Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
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.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Belle, I think that's the perfect way to handle these books.
Or any books, really, objectionable or not.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
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.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
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?
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
I love Bill Donohue.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
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.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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)?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
'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?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: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!
Could you please explain why you keep talking about people telling other people what they can and can't read? No one has been doing that. The Catholic League hasn't been doing that. I didn't mention it in the post to which you responded.
Moreover, the larger point is this: You seem to think it's OK for someone who thinks something is important to tell other people how they should act with respect to that something. You've done it repeatedly in this thread.
Perhaps you should be focusing on reforming the foster care system rather than focusing on telling other people they shouldn't be give recommendations about books.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: 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.
That might be a good point because the media ALREADY does a lot of damage when it comes to the foster care system, portraying every single foster parent as being in it for the money or damaging children, heaping the blame on foster parents instead of on their abusive biological parents. They are spreading misconceptions about the system and not offering useful solutions. Boycotting the media won't stop them, but putting the truth about the subject will.
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.
But it seems like that's what they are doing to me, telling folks to stay away from the movie, avoid reading these books... I don't see the use because I still see them as being against the sort of people who state they are religious and then turn around and do cruel things in the name of religion, but they don't think it's cruel because it's in the name of God. It's deeply annoying because they don't seem to get that aspect of the book and focus on the anti-Church aspects...
Now to take a series of unpleasant tests. 2 more to go.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:That might be a good point because the media ALREADY does a lot of damage when it comes to the foster care system, portraying every single foster parent as being in it for the money or damaging children, heaping the blame on foster parents instead of on their abusive biological parents. They are spreading misconceptions about the system and not offering useful solutions. Boycotting the media won't stop them, but putting the truth about the subject will.
I reject your claims about what 'the media' says about the foster care system. I'm not the apparently serious follower of foster-care news that you are, but I'm not completely cut off from the media either and your assessment seems unduly negative and hostile to me.
But that aside, just to be clear, you would tell people to go and view such harmful media without telling them anything, warning them about its flaws and such?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
http://forums.adoption.com/foster-parent-support/314375-criminal-minds.html It really isn't unduly negative and hostile. This is what happens. Read the accounts of adoptive parents of older children and see what they have to say when they adopt older childrne and try to get help or support only to get none. It does happen. Also, it's the MEDIA. How much of what the media says can we really trust? Hardly any of it. But I would correct their assumptions. There is Guatemala to consider. The media only has tiny little grains of the truth in it about it, but it's not enough to condemn the whole system of adoption without knowing the whole picture.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You're all over the place here.
I'm asking if you would correct their assumptions before or after they get the chance to make them, even if you know or at least can safely assume that the media they view will persuasively lead them to make bad assumptions?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Beforehand, but I don't think these things are the same. One is the foster care system. Misunderstandings on that can have a negative effect on thousands of children and their families, foster or otherwise. Some might say reading a book like His Dark Materials could have a negative effect on children (it could if they are too young to read it, the idea of cutting away a child's soul is horrible, but you can't deny that historically things like that have happened in the past numerous times, with numerous faiths, how else can you get rid of that by challenging that corruption directly and by pointing out how the system needs to be fixed?) But I think I have had enough...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Boycotting is about protecting others from what you believe to be harmful effects of certain media.
'Warning' others to avoid specific assumptions due to harmful media is about protecting them from those assumptions. The difference is purely one of degree.
quote:One is the foster care system. Misunderstandings on that can have a negative effect on thousands of children and their families, foster or otherwise.
For better or worse, religion is surely one of those things which leads to human beings benefiting or hurting other.
quote:...how else can you get rid of that by challenging that corruption directly and by pointing out how the system needs to be fixed?)
Well let's be clear here, you're not talking about 'challenging corruption' here. You love the books after all. One method of avoiding corruption is quite simple: avoid being corrupted in the first place!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: 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.
This is not how you behave when it's something you feel strongly about, such as Ezzo. Your condemnation of his books and ideas are much more forceful than the relatively mild tactics of the CL that you're condemning.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: 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.
This is not how you behave when it's something you feel strongly about, such as Ezzo. Your condemnation of his books and ideas are much more forceful than the relatively mild tactics of the CL that you're condemning.
\\Dude, that's because Ezzo's books have actually caused failure to thrive in infants or have caused women to lose their breast milk! They are dangerous books. His Dark Materials is a thought provoking series, but it's not causing attachment disorders in babies or causing parents to be indifferent towards their children. Ezzo's books are really dangerous, and Pearl worse so. I can't help but be angry over a book that tells people to hit their children repeatedly over normal child behaviour. It's entirely different.
Posted by guinevererobin (Member # 10753) on :
quote:\\Dude, that's because Ezzo's books have actually caused failure to thrive in infants or have caused women to lose their breast milk! They are dangerous books. His Dark Materials is a thought provoking series, but it's not causing attachment disorders in babies or causing parents to be indifferent towards their children. Ezzo's books are really dangerous, and Pearl worse so. I can't help but be angry over a book that tells people to hit their children repeatedly over normal child behaviour. It's entirely different.
For parents who believe their children will experience eternal suffering if they reject their religion, it is NOT entirely different. Whether or not you agree the dangers they perceive are real, they are trying to prevent children from experiencing what they see, rightly or wrongly, as real harm - the same as you are.
Although I do think the best thing is for parents to discuss potentially disagreeable books with their children (if the kids want to read them in the first place), rather than just disallowing them, I think it's a good thing to be aware of the worldview behind writings - which seems to be the guidance the CL is providing.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:\\Dude, that's because Ezzo's books have actually caused failure to thrive in infants or have caused women to lose their breast milk! ... Ezzo's books are really dangerous, and Pearl worse so. I can't help but be angry over a book that tells people to hit their children repeatedly over normal child behaviour. It's entirely different.
So, we're agreed -- when you care about something, boycotts are fine and good, but when you don't, they're not.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:His Dark Materials is a thought provoking series, but it's not causing attachment disorders in babies or causing parents to be indifferent towards their children.
I'm beginning to believe this is simply willful ignorance on your part, Synethesia. Clearly you do not believe that saying hateful things about a religion and potentially dissuading others from that religion is an awful thing. I'm not busting your chops for that.
But just imagine for a moment, if you can, that you did belong to a religion which did in fact believe that media which say hateful and potentially persuasive bad things about their religion are spiritually harmful (because naturally you believe your religion is true), and thus should be avoided-and far from being unhealty to suggest others avoid it, is unhealthy not to.
It's really quite simple: so far you are unwilling to accept the gigantic blurry gray area contained in the concept of importance.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
If a person is actually convinced by a book to abandon his religion, then this says one of two things:
1.) He is justified in doing so either because his religion really is flawed or because he does not yet understand the religion well enough to dedicate his life to its practice - whether it is based in truth or not.
or
2.) He is unable to think for himself and make his own decisions on the matter. If this is the case, then his former belief in that religion amounted to crap anyway.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
mph: Not to be confrontational, but the way I read it, Synesthesia seemed to be saying in the first sentence that the difference is not so much the level of care involved but that Ozzo's books "have actually caused" in the sense that whether or not Ozzo's methods have real-world consequences can actually be seen.
rollainm: Well, to be fair, the Catholic League seems to be primarily concerned about the books effect on kids, kids that would not be so much abandoning a religion but would never have really understood or made an informed choice to join/stay in a religion in the first place.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Good point.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:1.) He is justified in doing so either because his religion really is flawed or because he does not yet understand the religion well enough to dedicate his life to its practice - whether it is based in truth or not.
A person is always justified in abandoning his religion of his own free will.
That has nothing to do with this, though.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Well, no, he's not. If he is reasonably convinced that his religion is truth then he'd be completely unjustified in abandoning it. It would be just plain stupid of him really. The whole "willfully turning your back on God" bit just doesn't hold water with any reasonably thinking person.
But anyway, please note Mucus' point and my concession above. I'd already backed off (although technically I could press further that my initial point still stands regardless of the person's age or experience - in fact, experience is part of the point).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If he is reasonably convinced that his religion is truth then he'd be completely unjustified in abandoning it.
Sure he is, at least as far as you or I are concerned. Those particular issues are (imo, obviously) exclusively between him and God. It's not for me to say that he's justified or not.
Incidentally, I can easily imagine many situations where turning one's back on God 'holds water'.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
A couple of articles about the series I found on Catholic.com.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Aggravating. The don't get it right at all. it wasn't the Catholic church, it was a protestant church. Calvinist. It also wasn't God, but Enoch (I think it branches from an extremely old legend) who took over heaven from God somehow. (God was the old angel) Why are they griping about this book NOW when it's been out since 1997?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
How does that get it wrong:
quote:The Church in Lyra’s world exerts a major influence on the lives of all the characters. It has a college of cardinals, a college of bishops, priests, nuns, and a magisterium. It even boasts converts from Protestantism. In Lyra’s world, Protestant reformers remained within the Church, elected John Calvin as Pope, moved the Church’s headquarters to Geneva, and then did away with the papacy altogether.
Seems to me they're acknowledging it was Calvinist.
quote:Why are they griping about this book NOW when it's been out since 1997?
Because there's what will most likely be a promising movie coming out about it soon.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm beginning to believe this is simply willful ignorance on your part, Synethesia. Clearly you do not believe that saying hateful things about a religion and potentially dissuading others from that religion is an awful thing.
I don't want to start anything, but...don't religions do this to other religions all the time?
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
Frankly, I think calling for a boycott is a little silly. I appreciate that they perceive this film to be spiritually harmful, but honestly, adults are supposed to be capable of taking what they see and thinking about it and deciding which bits they agree with and which bits not. Faith shouldn't be so shaky that one film/book can take it apart.
John Milton said some really excellent things in Areopagitica about banning books; I wish I had the whole thing in front of me so I could quote it. Basically he was saying that people can't go through their whole lives without encountering ideas that run contrary to their faith, and it was better that it should happen in a book, where the temptation to stray from faith would not be so great. He thought that evil in books was like a spiritual rehearsal for evil in life, and you shouldn't shelter yourself from it, because then you would be more unprepared for real tests of your faith.
He said (I wrote this bit down in my commonplace book), "We should be wary therefore what persecution we raise against the living labours of publick men, how we spill that season'd life of man preserv'd and stor'd up in Books, since we see a kind of homicide may be thus committed....whereof the execution ends not in the slaying of an elemental life, but strikes at that ethereall and fixt essence, the breath of reason it selfe, slaies an immortality rather than a life."
I don't, incidentally, think that Philip Pullman's books are evil, and if I have money and it gets good reviews, I will probably go see The Golden Compass when it comes out.
I also think that the Church may be just the teeniest bit self-serving here, in that they may not want Catholics to start paying a lot of attention to the things that are and have historically been corrupt within the Catholic Church.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
Banning a book means making it unavailable for the public to read, presumably by government intervention. No one is suggesting that this be done. No one is saying "Pullman should not be allowed to publish his books and Hollywood should not be allowed to produce this movie."
The Catholic League is encouraging Catholics not read this book or financially support its promotion or that of the movie and especially not to have their children read it. I don't see any strong-arming here; they're saying "let's put our money where our mouth is and boycott this enterprise."
I'm a Christian and I've read the books and I'll probably go see the movie. But I take no issue whatsoever with any organization recommending that I not do so. I totally see their point.
If I had kids, I'd probably handle it as Belle described. But I also had no idea what I was getting into when I first started reading The Golden Compass. If I had children, I think I'd have appreciated at least the head's up about Pullman's agenda, whether I supported the boycott or not.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fyfe: I also think that the Church may be just the teeniest bit self-serving here, in that they may not want Catholics to start paying a lot of attention to the things that are and have historically been corrupt within the Catholic Church.
Is it even the Church that we're talking about? Remember, this is the Catholic League, not the Catholic Church. I'm sure the League has some support from them, but if the Church really wanted to boycott the movie and books, wouldn't the Pope do it?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Frankly, I think calling for a boycott is a little silly.
Could you please point to where they've called for a boycott? That was a third-hand characterization of the CL statement. If by "calling for a boycott" you simply mean any recommendation not to buy a product, then this is a boycott. That's not how the word is typically used, however.
If that is how you're using the word, then you think that recommending someone not buy a book is a little silly.
quote:John Milton said some really excellent things in Areopagitica about banning books
People keep jumping from talking about recommendations to not read a book to banning books. Why?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Although Fyfe used the words "banning books" I don't think that the Milton he paraphrased necessarily applies only to the widespread banning of books, since he's clearly recommending that people should read books they don't agree with- and for that reason they shouldn't be banned.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But the portion of Milton's statement that was actually quoted did use the word "persecution," which suggests something more than what the CL is proposing.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:If he is reasonably convinced that his religion is truth then he'd be completely unjustified in abandoning it.
Sure he is, at least as far as you or I are concerned. Those particular issues are (imo, obviously) exclusively between him and God. It's not for me to say that he's justified or not.
Incidentally, I can easily imagine many situations where turning one's back on God 'holds water'.
I think you misunderstand. I think rollaim is just pointing out that the question of whether the Christian God exists is something that is either true or not, regardless of who is asking the question.
If you're convinced that God exists, it would be pretty unjustified to be an atheist or vice versa.
Perhaps you're thinking about someone that is convinced that God exists but then turns his back on God in terms of the thinking whether God is a good guy. However, whatever that is, it is not quite atheism since an atheist does not believe that there is in fact a God to turn one's back towards in the first place.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Because there's what will most likely be a promising movie coming out about it soon.
Is it promising? Still hoping for an answer from someone that has no pre-existing biases about religion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Is it promising? Still hoping for an answer from someone that has no pre-existing biases about religion.
Is there really any doubt that it is expected to do well?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I meant promising in the interesting or enjoyable sense, not the financial.
Edit to add: Sorry, it was a bit of subtle play with the meaning of words and pretty easy to misunderstand.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:People keep jumping from talking about recommendations to not read a book to banning books. Why?
Perhaps because previous "recommendations" from the CL turned to outright protests. Remember "The Last Temptation of Christ" and "Priest?"
Why do you keep jumping from the point being made to a perceived technicality about the insigificant difference between a recommendation and a ban?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Also, folks please remember that Milton was no paragon for the free press as we know it. He had no problem with books being censored if they promoted ideas he didn't agree with. Were he alive today, I think he would specifically have argued FOR banning His Dark Materials.
Areopagitica shows up in debates all the time, yet people conveniently only quote bits and pieces of it and forget to quote where he is praising people who burn books. It's fine to burn books, says Milton, provided the people who burn them do so after determining on their own that they are not fit. He just didn't want book licensers to tell him what was fit or not - he wanted to determine it on his own. Plus, he wasn't so much against book licensing in principle as he was afraid the people doing it weren't smart enough to do so. In other words, it would be okay to license books, he just didn't want his works judged by stupid people.
I love Milton, but he was such a snob.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I imagine that the Catholic League's main concern is not people who would be reading the books themselves, it's grandparents who see the trailers for the film, think it looks just like Narnia, which they've heard is a Good Christian Book (TM) and buy the books for their grandkids for Christmas. It's perfectly appropriate, IMO, to inform people who are not already familar with the series that the books are anti- organized religion.
In the same way that some groups made a point of informing people when the Narnia movie came out that the books are Christian allegory.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Perhaps because previous "recommendations" from the CL turned to outright protests. Remember "The Last Temptation of Christ" and "Priest?"
Why would protests - that is, the exercise of free speech - justify speaking of a ban?
quote:Why do you keep jumping from the point being made to a perceived technicality about the insigificant difference between a recommendation and a ban?
Because the difference between a recommendation and a ban is neither insignificant nor a "technicality." In fact, I think it's the heart of the issue - at least the part of the issue I give a damn about.
I don't particularly care whether Pullman's books are anti-Christian or whether other people will or should read them. I do care about the tendency of people responding to complaints about the media to leap to cries of censorship and to equate persuasion with compulsion. It's ugly and dishonest.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Javert,
quote:I don't want to start anything, but...don't religions do this to other religions all the time?
Sure they do! And do you imagine that most religious cultures, when they become aware of such a challenge to their faith in their area, do nothing to at the least try to reinforce the faith of their congregations?
-----------
quote:Faith shouldn't be so shaky that one film/book can take it apart.
Another common mistake: a boycott does not necessarily equal, "We've gotta stop this! It'll successfully challenge the faith of our people!" ------------------
quote:Perhaps you're thinking about someone that is convinced that God exists but then turns his back on God in terms of the thinking whether God is a good guy. However, whatever that is, it is not quite atheism since an atheist does not believe that there is in fact a God to turn one's back towards in the first place.
Well, sure now that we're defining things in terms of atheist or not. But when I was answering the question, that wasn't the issue.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Why do you keep jumping from the point being made to a perceived technicality about the insigificant difference between a recommendation and a ban?
Calling this action a ban is making a point, and that point is being addressed.
If the difference is really that insignificant, then we can all stop calling it a ban and move on.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: In the same way that some groups made a point of informing people when the Narnia movie came out that the books are Christian allegory.
Was there any similar recommendation (issued, for example, by an atheist network) when Narnia came out? The closest I can find is this, but the internet has a short memory for current events, and two years is nearly an eternity.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I remember similar recommendations/warnings for Narnia.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Rakeesh:
Perhaps you could elaborate. The way I read it, the discussion was about what constituted valid justification for leaving a religion. You seemed to allude to various counter-examples where one can leave a religion or as you put it "turning one's back on God" and still be justified.
The issue I had with that is that a person that goes through "turning one's back on God" is not really abandoning the religion. I mean, they might be leaving the organised aspects of the religion but they are not *really* abandoning the religion so much as reinterpreting it.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Back at the beginning of August, I posted in another forum:
I do have some real reservations about Phillip Pullman's "Golden Compass" (also called "His Dark Materials") trilogy, which I recently read. In interviews, he has expressed antipathy toward C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien, because he is somewhere between being an agnostic and being an atheist, while they based their fiction on Christian values and concepts. This comes out in his books, especially in the last one in the trilogy where he has a poor, pitiable, decrepid, drooling old angel in a protective crystal cage carried around by angels, who is called "the Ancient of Days." God is called "The Authority" that all the good characters oppose and rebel against. Pullman also depicts angels as whisps of ether, weaker than humans who are solid. In all fairness, I should note that some characers in his stories say that the angel who claimed to be the Creator was not really the Creator. Whoever might really be the Creator, if there is one, is left pretty much up in the air.
Just wait until Christian churches tumble onto what Pullman's fantasy is really about--there will be real opposition to it. Especially since it seems to be regarded as fantasy for children (though it is really for adults). If the filmmakers try to market this as a fantasy like "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe," they are going to have a problem when people discover the anti-Christian propagandistic nature of Pullman's fiction.
The really devious thing about the "His Dark Materials" trilogy is that it is viewed as a fairy tale, which are usually assumed to be for children.
I don't believe in book burning, but I do believe in warning parents what this trilogy is really about. I would ban it from elementary school libraries, but allow it in college libraries and perhaps in high school libraries (with restrictions).
I will not pass judgment on the movie version until it is out, and I can see how the anti-Christian elements in the novels have been downplayed or otherwise handled.
As for being a good story, Pullman is a better story-teller than C.S. Lewis, in my opinion, but not quite as good as Tolkien (who after all invented whole new languages and a back history that goes back thousands of years, besides showing mature depth in characterizations). Pullman's stories will (and have) found considerable success because of the narrative quality.
As a fiction writer, I am of the opinion that fiction should tell the truth in the broad sense. Fiction that wrongly portrays (for example) the nature of women and what they really want, as in the John Norman Gor novels, is telling lies about reality in a way that is unacceptable and potentially harmful to the individual and to society. Suspension of disbelief is one thing, but being misled about basic issues of right and wrong, good and evil, is a whole different ball game.
The third novel in the "His Dark Materials" trilogy, The Amber Spyglass, is where Pullman is the boldest and most blatant. Perhaps because by then he was a success, and felt confident he could get away with it. That's where he depicts a being called "The Ancient of Days" as a decripit, drooling, past-senile angel, who has to be protected in a crystal globe. Once the heroes caused the globe to be broken, and exposed the ancient thing to the breeze, his wispyness was shredded and he passed away, saying "Thank you." (This is not a major plot element, so this is not really a spoiler.) The main thing though, is that no one in the trilogy ever says anything good about God. Nor does God ever appear in the trilogy. "The Authority" is viewed as the enemy, and all the angels in the story are said to be fallen angels who rebelled against the Authority. Pullman has a lot of respect for Milton's sympathetic depiction of Lucifer in Paradise Lost, which Pullman even mentions favorably in some interviews.
(Milton may have given a somewhat sympathetic depiction of Lucifer, but there was nothing egregious about it. It was more on the order of Lucifer being an object of pity, and how tragic it was when God had to end His patience and withdraw His offer of mercy and forgiveness. It was like the way God Himself would have written about Lucifer--without hatred or rancor, only sadness and pity, and a disappointed longing for a child whom He loved.)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm honestly confused about what the major problem is, but then I've only read the first book.
If Pullman's description of angels and gods is so markedly different from the Christian one, why is it seen as threatening? Where does this become an anti-Christian thing as opposed to set in a world with different rules/characters?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:I don't believe in book burning, but I do believe in warning parents what this trilogy is really about. I would ban it from elementary school libraries, but allow it in college libraries and perhaps in high school libraries (with restrictions).
I have a feeling this would lead to many more kids reading it than otherwise would have.
Not that I think that's a bad thing.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:If Pullman's description of angels and gods is so markedly different from the Christian one, why is it seen as threatening? Where does this become an anti-Christian thing as opposed to set in a world with different rules/characters?
I would say it largely depends on the author's intent. If religion in his book is meant to be simply a fictional idea devoid of any commentary aimed at say Christianity, then I don't know why the religious get all up in arms about it. It's not like anyone believes that The Indian in the Cupboard is a metaphor for Native American culture.
But when an author is a very vocal critic of religion, and Christianity specifically, the onus is on the author to help people understand to some extent what he/she hoped to get across by portraying religion as she/he did in the work.
edit: Or in this case the author writing the book and then going on to be very vocal in his criticims of religion causes folks to think he IS providing clarification to those themes in his books. This is not always a reasonable assumption however. Mr. Card for example has been very critical of homosexuality, and yet his books have in a handful of instances, had wonderful, sympathetic to the reader gay characters.
Also I'd like to point out that IMO you can boycott a book, movie, etc without thinking it is a base evil thing. I'm not a big fan of this thread's title.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I get the authorial intent thing, I guess. But, if you remove this from the authorial context, which is to say, if you didn't know that Pullman was a militant atheist - which I assume would be true for the primary target for the Catholic League announcement - would a person - I don't know what the right way to put this is - (edit: replacement) feel that he was describing Christianity?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I get the authorial intent thing, I guess. But, if you remove this from the authorial context, which is to say, if you didn't know that Pullman was a militant atheist - which I assume would be true for the primary target for the Catholic League announcement - would a person - I don't know what the right way to put this is - beliefs be threatened by it?
I think having one's beliefs threatened by a work of fiction in that instance would be ludicrous, as it would often be vague, if not be completely impossible to ascertain what beliefs an author was attempting to state throughout the book.
But I also think it's a mite tacky, (plaintworthy?) to write a book that enters popular culture and be completely silent about what messages you were trying to get across.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't know about threatened.
The cosmology in HDM is very Christian in form. It is easily identifiable as having some connection with Christianity. But the REASON Pullman gives for the cosmology-- God's reasons, and the reasons his Magisterium go about doing what they do-- are so far removed from what most Christians believe, it can seem like an attack.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:But I also think it's a mite tacky, (plaintworthy?) to write a book that enters popular culture and be completely silent about what messages you were trying to get across.
Well, we're talking about a movie and the Catholic League warning people about things that, if the Catholic League didn't tell them, likely wouldn't be something they'd ever know.
quote:But the REASON Pullman gives for the cosmology-- God's reasons, and the reasons his Magisterium go about doing what they do-- are so far removed from what most Christians believe, it can seem like an attack.
That's the part I don't get. If it is so far removed, how can it be an attack? Is it something that people are going to come to believe is true of Christianity? I mean, in movie form, if these aspects are kept, why would people even connect this with Christianity in a way that is like "This is what Christians believe." or something.
Well, actually, that's one of the parts I don't get. Also, if it isn't a threat, then who the heck cares?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Why would protests - that is, the exercise of free speech - justify speaking of a ban?
Because those protests cost people their livelihoods. Video stores that rented the films were picketed, threatened, vandalised, and driven out of business. Is this free speech?
The Catholic League's recommendation carries a lot of weight. Librarians will remove books from shelves, which makes them unavailable to people that would like to read them. I was unable to see "The Last Temptation of Christ" for several years after it came out (and then only on video), because theaters that had planned on showing it were bullied out of it. The Catholic League took away my ability to choose to see a movie on my own, because they didn't think it was appropriate. How is that different than a ban?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
It uses the language and forms of Christianity. So sure, it’s possible to believe that it’s set in a fictional universe where “church,” “cathedral,” “angels,” “pope,” etc. all refer to some evil organization other than Christianity, but no, I don’t think you need to know anything about the author’s views outside the book to “get” the slam. I’d never heard of Phillip Pullman before I read them and it was pretty clear to me. By the end of the series it’s clear that the “world-view” is from a Gnostic/Marcionite perspective, and very hostile toward the institution of a church whose theology mirrors that of Christian orthodoxy. It turns out that the orthodox theology is wrong (actually, lying) about reality and the Marcionite rebels are right, of course.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:"The Last Temptation of Christ" for several years after it came out (and then only on video), because theaters that had planned on showing it were bullied out of it. The Catholic League took away my ability to choose to see a movie on my own, because they didn't think it was appropriate. How is that different than a ban?
Here we go again. You have the right to see movies you want to see. You do not necessarily have a 'right to the ability' to see those same movies.
If your view of things was correct, logically every moviehouse everywhere would have to show every movie currently in production. Right this very minute, your local movie theater is 'depriving' you of your ability to see certain movies.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Because those protests cost people their livelihoods. Video stores that rented the films were picketed, threatened, vandalised, and driven out of business. Is this free speech?
So it wasn't just protests you were speaking of, but criminal acts.
Boycotts and picketing do not amount to a ban.
quote:The Catholic League's recommendation carries a lot of weight. Librarians will remove books from shelves, which makes them unavailable to people that would like to read them. I was unable to see "The Last Temptation of Christ" for several years after it came out (and then only on video), because theaters that had planned on showing it were bullied out of it. The Catholic League took away my ability to choose to see a movie on my own, because they didn't think it was appropriate. How is that different than a ban?
It depends on what the "bullying" consisted of. If video stores decided they didn't want to carry it because they feared losing business, then it is different from a ban. If video stores were burned down because they carried it, then it amounts to a ban (plus arson, of course).
None of which is at issue in this instance.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Suspension of disbelief is one thing, but being misled about basic issues of right and wrong, good and evil, is a whole different ball game.
Which is a legitimate view of religion.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:Why would protests - that is, the exercise of free speech - justify speaking of a ban?
The Catholic League's recommendation carries a lot of weight. Librarians will remove books from shelves, which makes them unavailable to people that would like to read them. I was unable to see "The Last Temptation of Christ" for several years after it came out (and then only on video), because theaters that had planned on showing it were bullied out of it. The Catholic League took away my ability to choose to see a movie on my own, because they didn't think it was appropriate. How is that different than a ban?
Aw hell, no. These folks do not run the world. It's one thing to tell people who believe the same thing as you not to read it, it's another thing to effect libraries pulling books off the shelf! Which many will not do. Hopefully. They have every right not to like a book and to not read it, they have no right to try to tell other people what to do. It really makes me annoyed
Although, Ther eis a legit case for Babywise being banned, it really actually is dangerous to babies.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:Suspension of disbelief is one thing, but being misled about basic issues of right and wrong, good and evil, is a whole different ball game.
Which is a legitimate view of religion.
I initially read that statement as a question, hoo boy. Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:If your view of things was correct, logically every moviehouse everywhere would have to show every movie currently in production. Right this very minute, your local movie theater is 'depriving' you of your ability to see certain movies.
I would agree with you if those theaters hadn't been planning to show the movie until they recieved pressure.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So then it's the pressure you truly object to, not the result as you suggested before.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:they have no right to try to tell other people what to do.
Is it just the phrasing that matters here? Because you have repeatedly made it clear that you think that people should not do certain things. For example, you think that the Catholic League should not tell Christian parents that they should not take their children to see Golden Compass.
Why is it OK for you to try to tell people what they should do and not the Catholic League?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:These folks do not run the world. It's one thing to tell people who believe the same thing as you not to read it, it's another thing to effect libraries pulling books off the shelf! Which many will not do. Hopefully.
But there are plenty of cases of librarians doing just that. The honest ones admit their intent, but often it's essentially a "pocket veto." The librarian simply fails to order the book, or puts it in the pile of discards with no comment.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Perhaps because nobody listens to, much less obeys Glenn? Sorry couldn't resist. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:These folks do not run the world. It's one thing to tell people who believe the same thing as you not to read it, it's another thing to effect libraries pulling books off the shelf!
Sure it's another thing. It's also a thing that you yourself would do, in the correct circumstances. This is what is, to me, so tiresome about complaints about banning or boycotting.
The truth is, there is something everyone would ban or boycott from bookstores, movie theaters, etc. etc. But I can't remember the last time-and certainly never in this discussion-that someone admitted to that. No, it is put forward as though the boycott or ban is what's objectionable.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:So then it's the pressure you truly object to, not the result as you suggested before.
What I object to is that Dagonee is trying to downplay the Catholic League's role in effecting a de-facto ban. They know how far reaching their word is. They know that their followers will apply pressure to see that a book or movie doesn't see the light of day, regardless of how marketable it may be outside of the Catholic church. And Dagonee knows it as well, but it's his standard tactic to mire arguments in split-hair definitions and avoid the actual topic.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Perhaps because nobody listens to, much less obeys Glenn? Sorry couldn't resist.
Dag was responding to someone else in that quote.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'll listen in anticipation for your contrary opinions concerning editorial and market pressures brought to bear against the release of certain media, Glenn.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The truth is, there is something everyone would ban or boycott from bookstores, movie theaters, etc. etc.
There is? I can't think of a single thing I wouldn't permit.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:So then it's the pressure you truly object to, not the result as you suggested before.
What I object to is that Dagonee is trying to downplay the Catholic League's role in effecting a de-facto ban. They know how far reaching their word is. They know that their followers will apply pressure to see that a book or movie doesn't see the light of day, regardless of how marketable it may be outside of the Catholic church.
Let me be absolutely clear: there is nothing wrong with telling people they shouldn't buy a book. There is nothing wrong with someone who has a large audience telling that large audience they shouldn't buy a book. There is nothing wrong with a large group telling retailers that if they sell a book, the large group will no longer buy other books from them. It is not a "ban." It is not "telling people what they can do." It is not censorship.
It is free speech.
quote:And Dagonee knows it as well, but it's his standard tactic to mire arguments in split-hair definitions and avoid the actual topic.
Ah, trotting out the old B.S. now, are we? I could just as easily say that this is Glenn's standard tactic to avoid even discussing what distinguishes two concepts being discussed - whine really loud that someone is pointing out distinctions. It's a convenient way for you to not have to address those distinctions.
The "actual topic" I have been talking about the entire time in this thread is the misrepresentation of the CL's campaign. If the distinction really is minor, then the people trying to criticize the CL would not repeatedly shift in mid-paragraph from talking about the CL's campaign to talking about coercion. But they are, for the very simple reason that they want the rhetorical advantage such a shift implies.
In other words, if the difference were truly meaningless, we wouldn't be having this discussion because those blurring the two concepts wouldn't have bothered shifting the conversation as they have.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Come on Tom, really? I expected someone to point out the gray areas, but are you really going to say that there isn't anything?
A 'pro' story from the perspective of a pedophile, then, with lengthy graphic descriptions. 'How-to' manuals for bomb making and murder. Guides on how to successfully cheat on your taxes.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:they have no right to try to tell other people what to do.
Is it just the phrasing that matters here? Because you have repeatedly made it clear that you think that people should not do certain things. For example, you think that the Catholic League should not tell Christian parents that they should not take their children to see Golden Compass.
Why is it OK for you to try to tell people what they should do and not the Catholic League?
Some of them probably won't take them, some of them might decide to do it and have a long discussion about the issues in the church in the film, who knows? It's their right to decide, not some organization that doesn't have an understanding of this book. But I grow quite tired of arguing.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:they have no right to try to tell other people what to do.
Is it just the phrasing that matters here? Because you have repeatedly made it clear that you think that people should not do certain things. For example, you think that the Catholic League should not tell Christian parents that they should not take their children to see Golden Compass.
Why is it OK for you to try to tell people what they should do and not the Catholic League?
Some of them probably won't take them, some of them might decide to do it and have a long discussion about the issues in the church in the film, who knows? It's their right to decide, not some organization that doesn't have an understanding of this book. But I grow quite tired of arguing.
I honestly cannot figure out how what you said is related to what I asked.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:A 'pro' story from the perspective of a pedophile, then, with lengthy graphic descriptions. 'How-to' manuals for bomb making and murder. Guides on how to successfully cheat on your taxes.
I would absolutely permit the publication of all these things.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Publication is one thing. Would you be willing to permit* such things in your local movie theater or your local library? Let's say a movie depicting (as a good thing) an explicit sexual and 'romantic' relationship between a fully-grown adult and a <10yrs old child.
*insofar as you as an individual had the opportunity to prevent.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I give up.
It's annoying me because it REALLY isn't an accurate representative of the book. My point is clear. Statements like this by the CL-"And remember, his twin goals are to promote atheism and denigrate Christianity. To kids." Are not totally true. But again, I do not want to argue anymore because I really have made my objections clear. If they must criticize a book, they could at least do it in an accurate way and look at the whole story instead of just the parts they hate like I did with that part of Children of the Mind.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Publication is one thing. Would you be willing to permit* such things in your local movie theater or your local library? Let's say a movie depicting (as a good thing) an explicit sexual and 'romantic' relationship between a fully-grown adult and a <10yrs old child.
*insofar as you as an individual had the opportunity to prevent.
That stupid Lolita movie by Adrian Lyne comes to mind.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It's annoying me because it REALLY isn't an accurate representative of the book. My point is clear.
That's only one of the points you have made repeatedly in this thread. The other is seen in your next-to-last post:
quote:It's their right to decide, not some organization that doesn't have an understanding of this book.
The CL has not "decided" for anyone else.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Would you be willing to permit* such things in your local movie theater or your local library?
Sure? Why not? The subject matter is odious, but lots of subject matter is odious. The behavior itself is still criminalized, so why should I care what people want to read?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Yes they have. By stating "This book is anti-Christian" they've decided it's a terrible bad book without a shread of good proof, then they are deciding for the parents who haven't read it or scene it. Now I said I don't want to argue anymore and I mean it! Maybe because I mainly hate "authorities" and the like. I don't know. Enough.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: For example, you think that the Catholic League should not tell Christian parents that they should not take their children to see Golden Compass.
Why is it OK for you to try to tell people what they should do and not the Catholic League?
Please. That's about as bad as the "why are you bigoted against bigots" argument.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:By stating "This book is anti-Christian" they've decided it's a terrible bad book without a shread of good proof, then they are deciding for the parents who haven't read it or scene it.
They have given their opinion about the book - just as you have given your opinion about it. That's not "deciding" for someone else.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: For example, you think that the Catholic League should not tell Christian parents that they should not take their children to see Golden Compass.
Why is it OK for you to try to tell people what they should do and not the Catholic League?
Please. That's about as bad as the "why are you bigoted against bigots" argument.
How? Synesthesia has repeatedly given her opinion about the book and her opinion as to what people should do in relation to the book. So has the Catholic League.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Sure? Why not? The subject matter is odious, but lots of subject matter is odious. The behavior itself is still criminalized, so why should I care what people want to read?
Even though its redundant, I'd like to say I really agree with this.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
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]
Readerville.com invited Philip Pullman to chat about His Dark Materials back in 2001. This is what he had to say about whether Lyra and Will had sex:
quote:As for what they actually DO - it's none of my damn business! My imagination withdrew at that point. If you want to follow them under the tree and watch what happens, you must bear the responsibility for what you see. Personally, I think privacy is a fine and gracious thing. I describe a kiss: and there are some turning-points in life for which a kiss is quite enough.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Ah, trotting out the old B.S. now, are we? I could just as easily say that this is Glenn's standard tactic to avoid even discussing what distinguishes two concepts being discussed - whine really loud that someone is pointing out distinctions.
Again, standard Dagonee tactic.
If you notice, I entered this thread specifically because I could see you up to your old tricks. If you hadn't, I'd still be lurking.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
All I'm going to say is that if Pullman doesn't get to do all three movies due to this boycott, I'm going to be very sad.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:Ah, trotting out the old B.S. now, are we? I could just as easily say that this is Glenn's standard tactic to avoid even discussing what distinguishes two concepts being discussed - whine really loud that someone is pointing out distinctions.
Again, standard Dagonee tactic.
If you notice, I entered this thread specifically because I could see you up to your old tricks. If you hadn't, I'd still be lurking.
Yes, it is standard for me not to allow people like you to blur distinct concepts and dictate the terms of the conversation.
I asked - repeatedly - for someone to explain how what the CL was doing with respect to The Golden Compass was coercive, deciding for others, baning, or any of the other things people were talking about.
No one has done anything except insist that it is.
Except you. You also tried to take me to task for insisting that there's a difference between stating one's opinion about a book and banning the book. And when you couldn't actually pull that off, you started acusing me of playing tricks. Easier than making your case, huh?
quote:All I'm going to say is that if Pullman doesn't get to do all three movies due to this boycott, I'm going to be very sad.
Then encourage others to view the movie multiple times when it comes out.
I don't mean that flippantly.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Could you please point to where they've called for a boycott? That was a third-hand characterization of the CL statement.
quote: The Catholic League is calling for a boycott of "The Golden Compass"; the movie opens December 7. It is based on the first book of a trilogy titled, His Dark Materials. ... The Catholic League wants Christians to boycott this movie precisely because it knows that the film is bait for the books...
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I asked - repeatedly - for someone to explain how what the CL was doing with respect to The Golden Compass was coercive, deciding for others, baning, or any of the other things people were talking about.
No one has done anything except insist that it is.
Synesthesia has made it fairly clear that she is referring to informed decisions. Clearly it's up to the individual to ultimately decide whether or not to open up the book, but people who listen to the Catholic League's advice are, for all intents and purposes, delegating that decision to someone else.
EDIT: Just for you dkw
[ October 22, 2007, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: Threads ]
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Yes, it is standard for me not to allow people like you to blur distinct concepts and dictate the terms of the conversation.
No. It is standard for you to dictate the terms of the conversation, and you get pissed when someone calls you on it. If you can't take it, fine. But the only problem here is that I hit too close to home.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:people who listen to the Catholic League's advice are, for all intensive purposes, delegating that decision to someone else.
Really? Is that true anytime anybody listens to advice?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I asked - repeatedly - for someone to explain how what the CL was doing with respect to The Golden Compass was coercive, deciding for others, baning, or any of the other things people were talking about.
No one has done anything except insist that it is.
Synesthesia has made it fairly clear that she is referring to informed decisions. Clearly it's up to the individual to ultimately decide whether or not to open up the book, but people who listen to the Catholic League's advice are, for all intensive purposes, delegating that decision to someone else.
yes, that is what I mean. Why should I let any organization tell me what I can watch or can't read? Even if it's a leftist organization doing the same thing (since I lean left) why shouldn't I make my own decisions? Or at least find a way to watch said thing that offends me and rant about why it's offensive so people can think about it and decide for themselves.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Why should I let any organization tell me what I can watch or can't read?
You shouldn't.
But if there were an organization that you trusted and shared values with, you might listen to their advice and weight that advice when making your decision.
Imagine a friend telling you that you might not want to watch some movie because it is so pro-Ezzo and he knows you well enough to know how mad and upset it will make you, and he hates to see you upset like that. You might heed his advice, or you might disagree with him that you want to stay away from it for that reason. Either way, that friend is not trying to tell you what you can't watch any more than the CL is.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: That's the part I don't get. If it is so far removed, how can it be an attack? Is it something that people are going to come to believe is true of Christianity? I mean, in movie form, if these aspects are kept, why would people even connect this with Christianity in a way that is like "This is what Christians believe." or something.
The problem is that it is not in fact too far removed. Some people do in fact believe that the evil force in Pullman's books is the Catholic Church, including the Catholic League which one would reasonably assume to know what is or is not in fact similar to Catholicism.
quote: While Roman Catholicism is the evil force in Pullman's writings, his real goal is to put a positive face on atheism, getting children to buy his message.
quote:people who listen to the Catholic League's advice are, for all intensive purposes, delegating that decision to someone else.
Really? Is that true anytime anybody listens to advice?
Yes. Example: I didn't read Eragon because my friends all said it was mediocre and recommended against it. The ultimate decision not to read it was mine, but all the reasoning behind that decision was delegated to my friends. That's all fine but it would be hypocritical for me to participate in a boycott of the book because I wouldn't be able to defend my position.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:That's all fine but it would be hypocritical for me to participate in a boycott of the book because I wouldn't be able to defend my position.
Merely declining to read it would be participating in the boycott. It is not hypocritical to decline to read a book because from what you've heard, you don't want to read it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thanks, Mucus.
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I asked - repeatedly - for someone to explain how what the CL was doing with respect to The Golden Compass was coercive, deciding for others, baning, or any of the other things people were talking about.
No one has done anything except insist that it is.
Synesthesia has made it fairly clear that she is referring to informed decisions. Clearly it's up to the individual to ultimately decide whether or not to open up the book, but people who listen to the Catholic League's advice are, for all intensive purposes, delegating that decision to someone else.
And, in that case, the CL is not deciding for those parents. Those parents are deciding for themselves to listen to someone else's take on the subject.
quote:Why should I let any organization tell me what I can watch or can't read? Even if it's a leftist organization doing the same thing (since I lean left) why shouldn't I make my own decisions?
I have time to read about a tenth of the books I consider reading. I rely heavily on the advice of others in making that decision.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:Yes, it is standard for me not to allow people like you to blur distinct concepts and dictate the terms of the conversation.
No. It is standard for you to dictate the terms of the conversation, and you get pissed when someone calls you on it. If you can't take it, fine.
No, it's standard for me to not allow people like you to try to make accepting illogical conflations of ideas a condition of participating in the conversation.
quote:But the only problem here is that I hit too close to home.
Go buy a new crystal ball, Glenn. The only problem here is that you are dishonestly callin a form of persuasion a ban.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:
quote:A 'pro' story from the perspective of a pedophile, then, with lengthy graphic descriptions. 'How-to' manuals for bomb making and murder. Guides on how to successfully cheat on your taxes.
Tom Davidson:
I would absolutely permit the publication of all these things... Why not? The subject matter is odious, but lots of subject matter is odious. The behavior itself is still criminalized, so why should I care what people want to read?
quote: Mucus:
Even though its redundant, I'd like to say I really agree with this.
Is it becoming clear why so many people believe that progressive atheism is cancer?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Is it becoming clear why so many people believe that progressive atheism is cancer?
No. Please elaborate.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads: for all intensive purposes,
Pet peeve alert!
The phrase is "for all intents and purposes."
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Heh. I'd almost said something myself, but I bit my tongue.
Literally, actually. It hurts.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Is it becoming clear why so many people believe that progressive atheism is cancer?
No. Please elaborate.
Ahh, jeez. This was just supposed to be a hit and run. I'm restricting myself to lurking with some nominal posting. So I'm gonna cheat and just say that the fact that it isn't clear to some people is part of the problem.
Posted by GForce (Member # 9584) on :
I just ordered the single volume of "His Dark Materials" on Amazon. TAKE THAT, CATHOLIC LEAGUE!!!
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote: I'm restricting myself to lurking with some nominal posting.
And the award for Understatement of the Year goes to...
Reshpeckobiggle!!!
Congrats!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by GForce: I just ordered the single volume of "His Dark Materials" on Amazon. TAKE THAT, CATHOLIC LEAGUE!!!
Jokes on you, they were employing reverse psychology. Do you feel stupid now?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So I'm gonna cheat and just say that the fact that it isn't clear to some people is part of the problem.
If you don't share my starting assumptions, you're part of the problem!
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Is it becoming clear why so many people believe that progressive atheism is cancer?
No. Please elaborate.
Ahh, jeez. This was just supposed to be a hit and run. I'm restricting myself to lurking with some nominal posting. So I'm gonna cheat and just say that the fact that it isn't clear to some people is part of the problem.
Presumably you were referring to Mucus and TomD as "progressive atheists" and, by extension, a "cancer." You're OK with leaving such a claim as a "hit and run" with no further comment?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I asked - repeatedly - for someone to explain how what the CL was doing with respect to The Golden Compass was coercive, deciding for others, baning, or any of the other things people were talking about.
No one has done anything except insist that it is.
Synesthesia has made it fairly clear that she is referring to informed decisions. Clearly it's up to the individual to ultimately decide whether or not to open up the book, but people who listen to the Catholic League's advice are, for all intensive purposes, delegating that decision to someone else.
And, in that case, the CL is not deciding for those parents. Those parents are deciding for themselves to listen to someone else's take on the subject.
That's exactly what I said. The parents are deciding for themselves but they are not making an informed decision (let's not have a semantic debate on the meaning of informed decision, it should be pretty clear what I mean).
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Is it becoming clear why so many people believe that progressive atheism is cancer?
No. Please elaborate.
Ahh, jeez. This was just supposed to be a hit and run. I'm restricting myself to lurking with some nominal posting. So I'm gonna cheat and just say that the fact that it isn't clear to some people is part of the problem.
Presumably you were referring to Mucus and TomD as "progressive atheists" and, by extension, a "cancer." You're OK with leaving such a claim as a "hit and run" with no further comment?
Pretty much.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
They often say you can judge a man by the quality of his critics. I sincerely hope this isn't true.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Pretty much.
Dude, what are you drinking?
[ October 23, 2007, 12:03 AM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
My urine? Because I'm on drink number 6.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"They often say you can judge a man by the quality of his critics."
I admit I haven't heard that one. It sounds like a Richard Dey.
The question is, if your critics are of low quality, does that mean you're of higher or lower quality? It's probably obvious, but you probably need to tell me anyway. It can take me a while.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Is it becoming clear why so many people believe that progressive atheism is cancer?
Could you please not dirty up the conversation I'm having by siding with me?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Pretty much.
Dude, what are you drinking?
Clever.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Is it becoming clear why so many people believe that progressive atheism is cancer?
Is it becoming clear why you're a painfully damaging walking parody of all the causes you hold dear?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Tom:
Your conclusion would be valid if no one had a memory.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Getting back to the fairy tale/children's audience thing, aren't fairy tales often about something awful, like incest? I forget what else, but remember back when all the fairy tales were being deconstructed? Snow white was actually found to be about a young girl who is sent into the woods to have her babies.
I'm also more puzzled about the series' depiction of daemons than about angels, and the deal with people being cut off from their daemons becoming like zombies. I guess in a metaphysical sense, having your soul constituted in another being is a "turtles all the way down" situation. It just seems, to me, that Pullman is playing the spiritual, but not religious, card.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Pooka:
I don't remember that being stated at all. That sounds rather stupid, IMO.
Dagonee:
The Catholic League is calling for an effective boycott of the books.
Glenn:
You look supremely silly in your righteous tirade pants. Aren't they a bit...erm...drafty?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That's exactly what I said. The parents are deciding for themselves but they are not making an informed decision (let's not have a semantic debate on the meaning of informed decision, it should be pretty clear what I mean).
Of course the decision is informed - it's informed by the parent's knowledge of the CL's past recommendations and how well they align with the parent's preferences and by the reasoning presented by the CL.
By your reasoning, there is no way to make an informed decision not to read a book.
quote:The Catholic League is calling for an effective boycott of the books.
And I already thanked Mucus for providing what I asked for from the beginning.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Yeah, but I meant that even without the information that Mucus provided, the common usage of the word "boycott" would apply to the actions that the Catholic League is engaging in.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yeah, but I meant that even without the information that Mucus provided, the common usage of the word "boycott" would apply to the actions that the Catholic League is engaging in.
I don't agree. Telling people not to buy a product because of ill effects of that product is not the typical use of the word "boycott." Had they expanded beyond the books to other titles by the publisher or other movies by New Line, I think it would be a boycott.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Dag: So then its not a boycott because its only one item in particular? Is a plurality of goods required to rightly call it a boycott? I'm not sure why that would have to be the case.
Is there a term you can think of that describes boycotting one item without passing any judgment on the provider who typically sells the item in question?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I think you're wrong, Dagonee.
But you're still pretty.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads: That's exactly what I said. The parents are deciding for themselves but they are not making an informed decision (let's not have a semantic debate on the meaning of informed decision, it should be pretty clear what I mean).
I have read the books. If the topic comes up in conversation and I explain to people why I will not be buying them for my son and they, based on my explanation, chose not to buy them either, would you consider that an informed decision?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag: So then its not a boycott because its only one item in particular? Is a plurality of goods required to rightly call it a boycott? I'm not sure why that would have to be the case.
Mainly the difference is in the intended result. Typically a boycott is aimed at changing the behavior of the target. In this case, that's not really the intent. The books exist. They are not going to be edited or yanked off shelves. No matter what the producers did to the movies, the CL's objection would remain. There is no point in time when the CL will recommend that people no longer avoid the movies or books.
In the CL language I linked, the main intent is to educate people about the perceived negative effects of the books. The harm being targeted is to the purchaser.
The reason multiple products are important is not because they are per se required for a boycott, but because they punish the target beyond the product actually at issue.
For example, assume the anti-pornography group targets lists books they find to be pornographic and urge people not to buy those books. If the participants still shop in stores that sell the books, the stores are not likely to stop carrying the books. If, however, the group gets people to avoid Borders until it stops carrying Playboy, they are intending to change Borders' behavior, not just the readers.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I thought of another example. Assume that a company has been using animal-based gelatin in a product that many people think is vegan. A vegan group tells people not to buy the product because, if they do, they will be eating non-vegan food. That's not a boycott in the classic sense. The people who will no longer buy the food would not have bought the food in the first place had they known it was not vegan. They are not really trying to change the producer's behavior except insofar as the producer might want to meet consumer demand. This could be done by producing an alternative product that is vegan or by modifying the existing product. The producer is losing nothing except the sales of people who do not want his product anyway.
If, however, the group tells people not to buy anything from that producer until the producer stops using gelatin, they are trying to change the producer's behavior.
The number of products involved in the action provides clues as to the intent of the group, but it is the intent that determines whether a boycott really exists.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Boycotts by definition are against entities rather than specific products.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:the main intent is to educate people about the perceived negative effects of the books.
That's the part I'm still hung up about. I don't understand what negative effects these books and especially the movie are supposed to have.
I can get behind "We don't like them." or "They are an attack on our religion." but I just don't see what the threat is.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Could you please not dirty up the conversation I'm having by siding with me?
If it helps you any, jokes aside, while I have an opinion on some individual elements of this case, on the whole I'm rather conflicted about the marketing of fiction that goes out of the way to market atheism.
With all the available material from actual history and actual science to promote atheism, why muddy up the waters by introducing fiction? For a kid that is already being introduced to fantastic factual things such as atomic structure and a big huge wall in China a kid already has to take a lot of things on faith (until they're old enough to learn the evidence behind these things).
Add religion (fiction) which is being taught as truth, why muddy up the waters by marketing something that is true such as atheism as fiction?
I mean, one could make the argument that kids need to read fantastic things, so they might as have atheistic fiction ... but I'm not sure I buy that argument.
So I'm not so sure there are "sides" at least for me so much as there are specific elements of interest/controversy.
MrSquicky: I already explained this. The Catholic League literally believes that Roman Catholicism IS the evil force in Pullman's books.
Obviously people get upset and snippy when their God dies after his balloon is pricked. Its only natural Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Dagonee:
No problem.
I think your last post kind of cleared up your POV a bit. So it your contention that while currently the action being promoted is not a boycott, it would only be a boycott if additionally:
a) The Catholic League urged staying away from movies/libraries that distributed the movies/books until these places stopped distribution
or
b) The Catholic League urged avoidance of Pullman's other books until he becomes a Christian
or
c) The Catholic League urged avoidance of New Line (or whatever movie producer) until it refused to make new His Dark Materials movies
Correct?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Science doesn't promote atheism.
History doesn't promote atheism.
In reality, HDM doesn't promote atheism either. There are angels, an afterlife, a powerful, moralistic creator... none of which are admitted by any atheistic way of thinking I'm aware of.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Just as you can judge a man by the quality of his critics, or judge a society by its prisons (Dostoyevsky), you can judge a religion by it's heretics. I'm surprised Dana (dkw) is the only one to bring up the Gnostic underpinnings of the trilogy. If the major Christian faiths knew the Gnostic heresy of an evil creator god to be true, then they would be similar in deceit and evil authoritarianism to the church in the trilogy.
I'm fascinated by heretics and apocrypha. I need to read more about them systematically.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So it your contention that while currently the action being promoted is not a boycott, it would only be a boycott if additionally: <three snipped alternatives>
Remove the word "only" and I agree. I can't think of one now, but I'm sure there are alternative scenarios out there that would indicate the necessary intent.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:MrSquicky: I already explained this. The Catholic League literally believes that Roman Catholicism IS the evil force in Pullman's books.
I'm still sort of struggling with what exactly bothers me about this, but I think it's coalescing around the idea that the books and especially the movie constitute some sort of threat.
It's not like it actually describes the Catholic Church or that it is likely that people's opinions of the Catholic Church is going to be changed by it.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Having read the series, I'd have to think most children reading them would mentally equate the force of evil in the novels with the Catholic Church (or Christianity in general). Whether or not that would alter their opinion of the Catholic Church is an open question, but I suspect it is at least possible.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:I'd have to think most children reading them would mentally equate the force of evil in the novels with the Catholic Church (or Christianity in general).
I think most children wouldn't equate it with anything. Upon being questioned, they might manage to connect the thing in the sky with God, if they were familiar with the story of Satan being thrown out of Heaven, which if they are probably means they're already pretty darned religious.
These are kids. It's a story. I read this book aged about 12, 13 maybe. I didn't equate it with anything.
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
I think Christian parents would be wary of HDM for the same reason that they endorse the Narnia series. One series is written by a very skilled Christian author who tries to sell the kids on Christian messages and teachings. The other is written by a very skilled gnostic (anti-Christian, fill in your own discription here) author who tries to sell the kids on anti-religious, anti-authority, death-is-the-ultimate-end lessons.
This doesn't mean that the kids will actually pick up on these lessons at first or at all, but I think parents should at least have a heads up as to what Pullman is trying to say.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That makes sense, Eowyn.
Posted by johnsonweed (Member # 8114) on :
The Pastor at the school I send my daughter to has banned the book from the school library.
She promptly began reading the copy we have at home. Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by johnsonweed: The Pastor at the school I send my daughter to has banned the book from the school library.
She promptly began reading the copy we have at home.
I so called this like two pages ago.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Stories shape our worldview, whether we recognize it or not at the time. So whether the kid reading the book consciously picks up on the agenda or not I can totally understand parents not wanting to give their kids books with a compelling story and a worldview they disagree with.
Posted by johnsonweed (Member # 8114) on :
It makes one wonder if the Catholic Church has a problem with Milton's Paradise Lost as well.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Scott R: I think we will have to agree to firmly disagree as would a fair number of prominent atheists.
IIRC, Isaac Asimov initially became an atheist after comparing Greek history and Greek mythology with Christianity, which started his belief that the Bible is essentially mythological in the same sense.
For Douglas Adams, the tipping over factor into agnosticism was also history (with science providing the tipping point into atheism):
quote: So, I was already familiar with and (I’m afraid) accepting of, the view that you couldn’t apply the logic of physics to religion, that they were dealing with different types of ‘truth’. (I now think this is baloney, but to continue...) What astonished me, however, was the realization that the arguments in favor of religious ideas were so feeble and silly next to the robust arguments of something as interpretative and opinionated as history. In fact they were embarrassingly childish. They were never subject to the kind of outright challenge which was the normal stock in trade of any other area of intellectual endeavor whatsoever. Why not? Because they wouldn’t stand up to it. So I became an Agnostic.
For Hitchens, much of beliefs are fuelled by his experiences with recent history during his travels as a journalist.
For Dawkins, he has often said that he wonders about the political implications of his views. e.g. if he were put on the stand at a Scopes-like trial, he would be forced to say that evolutionary science does in fact intellectually strongly lead to atheism Thus, if you note the mission charter of his foundation, the primary initiative is to spread education on science and rationalism, not atheism. The operating assumption is that the first two lead to the latter.
You may disagree with their interpretation of cause and effect, however, you do have to accept that for many atheists there is a strong drive to increase (rather than decrease) education in history and science in order to promote atheism.
MrSquicky: Perhaps what bothers you is that I'm only half joking when I say that.
There is a long history of religious dissension (in western religion at least) to fictional depictions of religious figures, even when the satire is as obviously fictional as Monty Python's Life of Brian or Jesus Christ Superstar.
The protests in the former example actually provides many examples when some are physically unable to separate a fictional representation with the "real."
If I had to hypothese *why* this is the case, I would be on much shakier ground. One of my guesses is that western religions have unconsciously developed internal mechanisms to prevent schism by trying to ensure one single "true" representation of their religious figures, fictional or otherwise. When these work "normally", they slow down the grow of new "non-fictional" schisms such as Mormonism and the Taiping. However, when they misfire, they present as hostility towards fictional representations.
Off-topic: Speaking of Life of Brian, I recently watched the Stephen Chow parody of The Journey to the West. I definitely recommend it to those with at least a moderate exposure to Chinese/Chinese history. Great fun and touching at the same time.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by johnsonweed: It makes one wonder if the Catholic Church has a problem with Milton's Paradise Lost as well.
1) Note please that the Catholic Church has not issued any statement on this movie. The Catholic League is an association of Catholics, they don't have the authority to speak on behalf of the church.
2) Considering the thoroughly Protestant nature of "Paradise Lost", I'm sure the Catholic church has many problems with it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Do we need to get out a scale and weigh all historians and scientists who believe in God against all the historians and scientists who DON'T believe in God?
A comparative analysis of Greek vs. Christian mythos may not lead one to atheism, even if they are so astoundingly similar as to reduce all claims of opposing origins to histrionics. Such a study may easily lead one to believe in, say, Judaism, or Zoroastrianism, or some other religion formulated and not connected with the former two.
Ooo...unless you somehow can convince yourself that Christianity and Grecian Pantheism are the only two religious options out there...
For that matter, most Christians have no problem with multiple Flood stories found throughout world mythologies. They figure that the story told in the Bible is the right one, and the other ones around the world are echoes of it.
Your world-view, Mucus, in this regard, seems to assign the very simplest, most fundamentalist leanings to all the religious. I don't know how such a viewpoint can continue to be held, especially on a site like Hatrack, where there are a great many of us who engage the scientific community on a regular basis.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Do we need to get out a scale and weigh all historians and scientists who believe in God against all the historians and scientists who DON'T believe in God?
I think the trend would be more interesting to see than the totals. We had this conversation before, but right now scientists are much less likely to be religious than the public at large. I haven't seen any data on historians.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: For Dawkins, he has often said that he wonders about the political implications of his views. e.g. if he were put on the stand at a Scopes-like trial, he would be forced to say that evolutionary science does in fact intellectually strongly lead to atheism
I don't understand how this is true unless one is narrowly defining religion.
quote:
Thus, if you note the mission charter of his foundation, the primary initiative is to spread education on science and rationalism, not atheism. The operating assumption is that the first two lead to the latter.
You may disagree with their interpretation of cause and effect, however, you do have to accept that for many atheists there is a strong drive to increase (rather than decrease) education in history and science in order to promote atheism.
It will be interesting to see how their efforts to educate compare to say those of the Jesuits.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Dag: Thanks for your examples/clarification. I think I get where you are coming from now.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:IIRC, Isaac Asimov initially became an atheist after comparing Greek history and Greek mythology with Christianity, which started his belief that the Bible is essentially mythological in the same sense.
IIRC, it was Tolkien who came to pretty much the opposite conclusion after doing his own comparison of ancient mythologies with Christianity.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am inclined to interpret the similarities between various mythologies as a positive indicator of the liklihood of an underlying truth.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
While we may disagree on whether science and history lead to atheism, I think we can agree that they do [generally] lead to less literal interpretations of religious holy books.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Your world-view, Mucus, in this regard, seems to assign the very simplest, most fundamentalist leanings to all the religious. I don't know how such a viewpoint can continue to be held, especially on a site like Hatrack, where there are a great many of us who engage the scientific community on a regular basis.
First, I do not think you intentionally meant it that way. However, I do not appreciate what I read as condescension. I could similarly condescend and ask you how you can hold such a backward worldview when confronted with science on a regular basis. I would prefer it if we did not make this personal.
As I said "You may disagree with their interpretation of cause and effect," all your points are already covered by that. I have no desire to respond and reiterate such a endless argument. My only point in bringing up the issue is that many atheists would prefer history and science as methods rather than fiction since they do in fact see them as precursors to atheism. That is all.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't understand how this is true unless one is narrowly defining religion.
Oh sorry, you're missing context. His thoughts about the Scopes trial are in the context of his definition of religion in the God Delusion. Briefly, that is defining a religion as a scientific hypothesis including a creator God. You can read the book for further understanding, it is a bit lengthy to reproduce here. However, you're right, he treats religions such as Buddhism and Taoism which lack a Creator more as philosophies for life rather than religions.
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
I need to read these books... I can't believe any of it's true though... Well, I can, but I didn't initially. On an off note, that's why the title of the thread was so over the top; I didn't think any of it was true.
I'm not making any decisions until I read the book, but it seems like Pullman created a wonderful, magical world, with thought-provoking religious allusions, and then ruined it because he's a hateful little man who can't surpress his anti-religious beliefs, and wanted to battle his work with Lewis's Narnia books.
Of course, this is a snap judgement -- I've never met the man, and can't comment on his stature.
Again, I haven't read the books, but wow! There seems to be quite a case against them.
Of course, if it turns out that the books are really terrible and anti-christian, whenever I discuss them I'll have to include digs about Harry Potter. "Gee, if only we had boycotted the books when they came out in the USA in 1997... But... Weren't we a little occupied with some other books? Some innocent, harmless, quite moral works of fantasy?"
I'm guessing that the CL is boycotting because there's evidence of 'watering-down' the anti-christian elements in the movie. It probably irks them that the movie-makers watered the messege down instead of avoiding the movie altogether. Just a theory. It does seem like a slimy, hollywoodesque thing to do... Assuming that it's true.
[/rambling]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Of course, if it turns out that the books are really terrible and anti-christian, whenever I discuss them I'll have to include digs about Harry Potter. "Gee, if only we had boycotted the books when they came out in the USA in 1997... But... Weren't we a little occupied with some other books? Some innocent, harmless, quite moral works of fantasy?"
You do know that many, many people who have a problem with HDM have no problem with Harry Potter, including the Catholic League, right?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads: While we may disagree on whether science and history lead to atheism, I think we can agree that they do [generally] lead to less literal interpretations of religious holy books.
Which does not put them in conflict with a whole lot of religions (including Catholicism) that don't interpret the Scriptures literally.
Mucus, you do get, don't you, that there is a vast gap between "doesn't interpret the Creation story literally" and "doesn't believe in a Creator"?
This is a problem that I continue to have with organized atheism. Atheists tend to define religion narrowly as scriptural literalism, decide that that isn't true, and then decide that the only alternative is atheism. This approach disregards a huge segment of religious people who also don't interpret the creation story literally. It sets up a dishonest choice - either blind fundamentalism or atheism. That just isn't the case and it strengthens blind fundamentalism by giving it more credence than it should have.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:My only point in bringing up the issue is that many atheists would prefer history and science as methods rather than fiction since they do in fact see them as precursors to atheism.
I suppose it should also be noted that many if not more Christians would prefer study of history and science as methods over fiction since they see them as precursors to forming more accurate Christian beliefs. In particular, study of the Bible as a historical source...
On the other hand, I'd be willing to bet that your average atheist and your average Christian enjoys reading the fiction more than reading history or science nonfiction works.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:This is a problem that I continue to have with organized atheism. Atheists tend to define religion narrowly as scriptural literalism, decide that that isn't true, and then decide that the only alternative is atheism. This approach disregards a huge segment of religious people who also don't interpret the creation story literally. It sets up a dishonest choice - either blind fundamentalism or atheism. That just isn't the case and it strengthens blind fundamentalism by giving it more credence than it should have.
First, there really is no organized atheism, unless you call fans of the "new atheists" organized by nature of their fandom.
Second, I don't think that is a fair characterization of the path to atheism. For me, atheist is the only place to be based on the data that is available to me and it has little to do with how narrow my definition of religion is. I think you are viewing atheists through the other side of same narrow lens that you accuse atheists of using.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
"Atheists tend to define religion narrowly as scriptural literalism, decide that that isn't true, and then decide that the only alternative is atheism."
I don't know any atheists who do this.
edit: or what Matt said.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nathan2006: I'm not making any decisions until I read the book, but it seems like Pullman created a wonderful, magical world, with thought-provoking religious allusions, and then ruined it because he's a hateful little man who can't surpress his anti-religious beliefs, and wanted to battle his work with Lewis's Narnia books. [/rambling]
Just read the book. Understand that organized religion, like most things hasn't always been sunshine and flowers. Addressing that does not mean being hateful towards religious folks. Not that I am saying you are, but it's his point of view and he has the right to express it. It's important to deal with the history of things directly even if it's through fiction. Witch hunts come to mind.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: "Atheists tend to define religion narrowly as scriptural literalism, decide that that isn't true, and then decide that the only alternative is atheism."
I don't know any atheists who do this.
edit: or what Matt said.
Really? I know quite a few. They aren't representative of atheists or anything--any more than a scriptural literalist is representative of the faithful--but they're there. The ones I know tend to be very vague about what they do and don't believe and why, because it's not very important to them either way.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What data is available to you that disproves the possibility of a Creator?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
eros, I'm sure they exist. You can certainly be stupid, ignorant, or narrow-minded and also be an atheist. But like Matt said, it's an unfair assessment of atheists in general.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
boots, I'm not sure what your point is, but I've got a few issues with organizations like Watchdog and the Rational Response Squad - and I'm sure most atheists on this forum do as well.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
That page includes an important statement:
quote:It is, however, important to note that these are the statements of one particular atheistic organization.
Most atheists are not organized. In fact, I've never known an atheist who was a member of an organization.
quote:What data is available to you that disproves the possibility of a Creator?
No data disproves it. Also, no data disproves invisible pink unicorns. So there I am - no evidence for a creator so I don't believe in a creator. Not saying there can't be one, just that there is no positive evidence for one.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
From Mucus re Dawkins:
quote: His thoughts about the Scopes trial are in the context of his definition of religion in the God Delusion. Briefly, that is defining a religion as a scientific hypothesis including a creator God. You can read the book for further understanding, it is a bit lengthy to reproduce here. However, you're right, he treats religions such as Buddhism and Taoism which lack a Creator more as philosophies for life rather than religions.
There is no conflict between scientific evidence of evolution and belief in a Creator for many, if not most, Christians.
edit to add: that link was just a quick response to this:
quote:First, there really is no organized atheism, unless you call fans of the "new atheists" organized by nature of their fandom.
I haven't looked specifically into that particular group.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:There is no conflict between scientific evidence of evolution and belief in a Creator for many, if not most, Christians.
That may be. People disagree on what constitutes a conflict. Dawkins has his opinion and feels it is informed by science. You disagree. C'est la vie.
quote:I haven't looked specifically into that particular group.
The "new atheists" is what Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens are sometimes referred to as in the popular press.
[ October 23, 2007, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Briefly, the conflict exists in the lack of positive evidence for the existence of a creator and legitimate adherence to the scientific method. But I'm sure others here can explain that much better than I can.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
When I say there is no conflict, I mean there is no reason that both can't be true.
How does science inform Dawkins that there is a conflict?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Folks have absolutely no right to tell people what they can and can't read...
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Just read the book.
It seems to me that you're telling people what they should and shouldn't read every bit as much as the CL which you condemn for doing so.
Not that I personally think that what you did recommending the book is wrong, just like I don't think that anti-recommending it is wrong.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:How does science inform Dawkins that there is a conflict?
I think the short answer is that everything in the physical world works the way we would expect it to work absent a creator. Or, put another way, a creator unnecessarily complicates explanations which work just as well with that element removed.
That's is a gross simplification and you're best bet for understanding Dawkins opinion is to read his work.
I am not a Dawkins' acolyte and while I share some of his conclusions, I've arrived at them from different paths, so I'd rather not try to be a proxy for him.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
*Sigh* I thought someone would point that out. But it's a really, really good book. Filled with the things that make books good! If they don't want to read it, they are missing out. To me it's a warm chocolate chip cookie kind of a book but some might have nuts in them and some people are allergic to nuts, diabetic or they want to lose weight. It's just soooooooo good that folks can't just listen to someone condemn it without understanding how good the story is, they might get a false idea.
any more nitpicking and I will just explode.... ><
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:But it's a really, really good book. Filled with the things that make books good!
While other people think that it's a really, really bad book, filled with things that make books bad to read. Especially for children.
You disagree. That's fine and good. But it's no more wrong for them to encourage people not to read it than it is for you to encourage people to read it.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:...and then ruined it because he's a hateful little man who can't suppress his anti-religious beliefs, and wanted to battle his work with Lewis's Narnia books.
Read an interview with him. He may dislike religion and find it a detrimental force in the world, but he's by no means "a hateful little man."
quote:...quite moral works of fantasy...
For all intents and purposes, HDM is a moral work of fantasy. The protagonist acts in a moral way.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nathan2006: I'm not making any decisions until I read the book, but it seems like Pullman created a wonderful, magical world, with thought-provoking religious allusions, and then ruined it because he's a hateful little man who can't surpress his anti-religious beliefs, and wanted to battle his work with Lewis's Narnia books.
The Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't share that harsh view of Pullman and the HDM trilogy. They have a very congenial chat It's an interesting discussion.
quote:from Nathan: Again, I haven't read the books, but wow! There seems to be quite a case against them.
quote:from the chat: PP: Which leads us to Mel Gibson. Have you seen that film? RW: I haven't seen it. PP: Nor have I, so we can talk about it! That's all right. RW: We're allowed opinions without the constraints of reality!
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Nice link, Morbo.
EDIT: Yeah, I really like Philip Pullman .
[ October 23, 2007, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Why thanks Teshi. I read it the other day when the thread started and forgot to post it.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Oh, that's a great read, Morbo.
On a question from the audience near the end:
quote:RB [Chairman, relaying question]: Question from a fellow atheist who is appalled by the materialism of this society - how would PP recommend children develop spiritual life?
PP [Pullman]: I don't use the word spiritual myself, because I don't have a clear sense of what it means. But I think it depends on your view of education: whether you think that the true end and purpose of education is to help children grow up, compete and face the economic challenges of a global environment that we're going to face in the 21st century, or whether you think it's to do with helping them see that they are the true heirs and inheritors of the riches - the philosophical, the artistic, the scientific, the literary riches - of the whole world. If you believe in setting children's minds alive and ablaze with excitement and passion or whether it's a matter of filling them with facts and testing on them. It depends on your vision of education - and I know which one I'd go for.
RW [Archbishop]: I think we're entirely at one on that, I must say.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Mucus, you do get, don't you, that there is a vast gap between "doesn't interpret the Creation story literally" and "doesn't believe in a Creator"?
This is a problem that I continue to have with organized atheism...
That problem doesn't really exist. In the case of Dawkins's book, there are multiple chapters in the book and some focus on fundamentalism, some focus on moderates and NOMA, and some even focus on agnosticism. What we were previously discussing would fit in the fundamentalism chapter. Also, I would note that there is a chapter on a category system with the extremes being complete theism (category 1) and complete atheism (category 7). Dawkins himself describes himself at a category 6 atheist, leaning towards category 7.
Rest assured, despite what you might have heard, Dawkins does not set up a dishonest "two choices" choice.
I think MattP adequately handles the rest.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I suppose it should also be noted that many if not more Christians would prefer study of history and science as methods over fiction since they see them as precursors to forming more accurate Christian beliefs. In particular, study of the Bible as a historical source...
I half agree with this. If you lumped atheists and agnostics together, I think it would be closer to the truth. However, as it stands I don't think you're quite right if only due to the substantial Christian NOMA group, "bible as allegory group", and "religious for social reasons" groups.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:But it's a really, really good book. Filled with the things that make books good!
While other people think that it's a really, really bad book, filled with things that make books bad to read. Especially for children.
You disagree. That's fine and good. But it's no more wrong for them to encourage people not to read it than it is for you to encourage people to read it.
I'm not sure if it's the same thing.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It's always different when it's you doing it.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: It's always different when it's you doing it.
That's not it... I read the book. I want other people to read it and get what they get from it. I'm not telling them it's an evil book or something, i'm suggesting that they read it and make up their minds for themselves. It isn't the same thing. I don't have an agenda, like the CL does, I just want folks to read it and decide for itself.
I'd think they'd object more to some of the violence in it than anything else. But I give up, my stomach is acting up.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia:
quote:Originally posted by Nathan2006: I'm not making any decisions until I read the book, but it seems like Pullman created a wonderful, magical world, with thought-provoking religious allusions, and then ruined it because he's a hateful little man who can't surpress his anti-religious beliefs, and wanted to battle his work with Lewis's Narnia books. [/rambling]
Just read the book. Understand that organized religion, like most things hasn't always been sunshine and flowers. Addressing that does not mean being hateful towards religious folks. Not that I am saying you are, but it's his point of view and he has the right to express it. It's important to deal with the history of things directly even if it's through fiction. Witch hunts come to mind.
Personally, I think organized religion, like any massive group of people, is capapble of great evil. The larger the group(not religious necessarily) the more likely the actions of the group are to be stupid. Mob mentality, informational cascades in any culture, or "I burnt that book cuz my pastor said it'd give me demons."
People scare me. In groups of greater than 50, anyway.
That doesn't mean that an individual can't have a transformative and deeply held faith that improves their life and the world around them. I have known such people, and they always bore traits in common, even when their faiths diverged, even when other people that worshipped in exactly the same way were jerks. I've always thought of such people as having "true religion" whatever their belief system. I think it's something fine to aspire to, even though I dislike entering churches myself.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia:
quote:Originally posted by Nathan2006: I'm not making any decisions until I read the book, but it seems like Pullman created a wonderful, magical world, with thought-provoking religious allusions, and then ruined it because he's a hateful little man who can't surpress his anti-religious beliefs, and wanted to battle his work with Lewis's Narnia books. [/rambling]
Just read the book. Understand that organized religion, like most things hasn't always been sunshine and flowers. Addressing that does not mean being hateful towards religious folks. Not that I am saying you are, but it's his point of view and he has the right to express it. It's important to deal with the history of things directly even if it's through fiction. Witch hunts come to mind.
Personally, I think organized religion, like any massive group of people, is capapble of great evil. The larger the group(not religious necessarily) the more likely the actions of the group are to be stupid. Mob mentality, informational cascades in any culture, or "I burnt that book cuz my pastor said it'd give me demons."
People scare me. In groups of greater than 50, anyway.
That doesn't mean that an individual can't have a transformative and deeply held faith that improves their life and the world around them. I have known such people, and they always bore traits in common, even when their faiths diverged, even when other people that worshipped in exactly the same way were jerks. I've always thought of such people as having "true religion" whatever their belief system. I think it's something fine to aspire to, even though I dislike entering churches myself.
That's how I feel. I don't think religion is something that should be thrown away when dispite the evil some groups of people can do to corrupt the religion, there's so many grains of beauty in it that get overlooked by the wrong things. Such as Mozart's Mass in C Minor. Mmmm.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Syn -- you very much have an agenda.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
You're starting to annoy me...
Perhaps my agenda is that people freely read awesome cool books without limits...
Now again, it's OVER!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Perhaps my agenda is that people freely read awesome cool books without limits...
Good. Then you don't have any conflict with the CL, since they aren't placing limits on people.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:People scare me. In groups of greater than 50, anyway.
Hell, groups greater than 5 get me worried.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I don't have an agenda, like the CL does, I just want folks to read it and decide for itself.
No one's disputing that you want people to read this book and decide for themselves. What we're calling you on is your double-standard, which you've made plainly evident in this thread.
It's OK for people to take action to try and prevent other people from wanting to read certain books, so long as you consider that book sufficiently harmful. And yet you have tried to insist repeatedly that you don't do that.
The truth is, you do do that, but to you it's different because your cause is 'Important', and to you this is just silly.
Also, you don't get to decide when something is OVER. Particularly when you keep on talking about it.
--------------------
Tom,
Really? I'm trying to wrap my head around this. You're telling me you'd be content doing nothing to try and stop, for example, a graphic pro-pedophile film from being shown in your local CinemaWorld or whatever your moviehouse is called? Just because that behavior is already criminalized?
Why don't we start rolling out snuff films at the matinee?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Maybe you could come up with an example that exists.
quote: All the fretting about it aside, not so much as one snuff film has been found. Time and again, what is originally decried in the press as a film of a murder turns out, upon further investigation, to be a fake. Police on three continents routinely investigate films brought to them, and so far this has always been their verdict. No snuff films. Some clever fakes, yes. But no real product.
(Al Goldstein, publisher of Screw magazine, has a standing offer of $1 million for anyone who can come up with a commercially sold snuff film. That offer has been in place for years. No one has yet laid claim to it.)
Really? I'm trying to wrap my head around this. You're telling me you'd be content doing nothing to try and stop, for example, a graphic pro-pedophile film from being shown in your local CinemaWorld or whatever your moviehouse is called? Just because that behavior is already criminalized?
Why don't we start rolling out snuff films at the matinee?
I can't speak for Tom, but I agree with him.
Why? Well, firstly, cinemas are private organizations and if they wish to release a film, regardless of content, they can.
Secondly, I believe that by allowing these ideas to get out in the open, people will see them for the sick, perverse things they really are.
If something is truly wrong (and I think pedophilia is one of those things), I say give it enough rope and it will hang itself.
[ October 24, 2007, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: Javert ]
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
I'm slightly confused here: are we talking about government censorship or societal censorship? We're saying movie theaters/bookstores should be allowed, by law to show or sell objectionable material, yes? Is there a further problem with society exercising their purchasing power to say what is shown and what isnt?
For example, a movie theater has the legal right to show a movie showing X objectionable subject. People are disgusted by this, and then refuse to watch not only that said movie, but any movie shown in that theater. The theater loses money and learns not to show X objectionable subject. Is this a problem? or is it just governmental control that you're worried about?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You're telling me you'd be content doing nothing to try and stop, for example, a graphic pro-pedophile film from being shown in your local CinemaWorld or whatever your moviehouse is called? Just because that behavior is already criminalized?
Why don't we start rolling out snuff films at the matinee?
I'm pretty sure the act of making a snuff film is illegal.
That said, I don't see any reason why a cinema shouldn't feel free to air one. I wouldn't go to it, and I suspect most people wouldn't, and I'm sure they'd lose a great deal of money compared to whatever other film they might have chosen to show, but I wouldn't legislate against their right to do it.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
I'm not Tom either but...
"Really? I'm trying to wrap my head around this. You're telling me you'd be content doing nothing to try and stop, for example, a graphic pro-pedophile film from being shown in your local CinemaWorld or whatever your moviehouse is called? Just because that behavior is already criminalized?"
Sure, why not? People don't have to watch it, of course, and I'd certainly not be interested in seeing such movie. But there's no reason to ban it. However, it almost certainly will get the... low attendance it deserves.
Just because its there doesn't mean I have to watch it, but it's not a crime to present an idea, nor should it be. Javert's last sentence, "If something is truly wrong (and I think pedophilia is one of those things), I say give it enough rope and it will hang itself." applies here.
"Why don't we start rolling out snuff films at the matinee?"
... um, we already do. Or have you not noticed all those torture/murder films like Hostel or Saw out there these days? I don't like em, and I don't watch em, and I dislike their viewpoint, but we shouldn't ban such things, you kn-
OH! You mean literal snuff films, in which literal people are killed and shown!
Well, considering that actually murdering people is a serious crime I'd say no. And further, I'd say you're taking a slippery slope arguement.
Even making a pro-pedophilia film is not actually committing a crime. Killing someone and putting it on tape, I mean actually killing someone, is. And not a little crime like smoking marijuana, either, but something that actually matters. Equating them is about the same as equating portraying a nazi in a movie with actually BEING a nazi.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
How would you feel about a group using societal or economic pressure to keep a cinema from airing one?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I don't see anything against a boycott. I think boycotting a given piece of entertainment always fails in the long run, but they're welcome to do it.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: How would you feel about a group using societal or economic pressure to keep a cinema from airing one?
How I would feel would depends on the group and their methods. Regardless of how I feel though, people have the right assemble and the right to speak. If they wish to do both at once, good for them.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Movie theaters are one thing, but I understand there is quite a bit of porn on the Interwebs with moderately unpleasant subject material. So it seems there is an audience. I'm not convinced a movie theater that showed snuff films (not necessarily real ones) would go out of business for lack of people buying tickets. Although being seen to buy such a ticket is of course a bit different from downloading something nobody will know about.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I don't see anything against a boycott. I think boycotting a given piece of entertainment always fails in the long run, but they're welcome to do it.
Case in point - I'd never heard of Pullman before. Now I'm somewhat curious to see what the fuss is about so I've added him to my "to read" list.
On the other hand, I never did watch DaVinci Code...
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: How would you feel about a group using societal or economic pressure to keep a cinema from airing one?
I have no issues with groups that are undergoing a moral panic about non-existent films pressuring cinemas not to air those non-existent films Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose:
quote:People scare me. In groups of greater than 50, anyway.
Hell, groups greater than 5 get me worried.
Well, agreed. From a personal safety POV, groups of more than 5 make me nervous if I'm not familiar with them or the context. But bigger groups are capable of larger social impact, which is even scarier.
Really, though, I love people. LOVE them. *cough* Especially with a light bernaise sauce and perky citrus garnish. Mmmm-- good eatin'!
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Censorship has many levels, some appropriate, some inappropriate. It is appropriate for a church school to censor or ban something from their church school library, like Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy, as an expression of the fact that the church does not approve of it. The church certainly has a right to indicate its disapproval, and probably even feels an obligation to let society in general know that they do not approve of this literary work.
It is also appropriate for government on any level to legislate restrictions on literature or movies where there is a question of society in general approving of the subject matter. Were there no ban on certain types of material (like snuff movies), that then would be taken as tacit approval, since anything not prohibited is allowed.
Beyond that, seeking to impose private views on the public is almost always wrong, and the attempt usually backfires, anyway.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
(spoilers I guess) * * * * * * * *
The real crime is that Pullman doesn't come up with anything real interesting once he pulls of the shocker. I was hoping for a little more sizzle. I mean, if you're going to take on creedalism, give us more than a gauzy did-they or didn't-they scene set in a boring world.
From my point of view The Golden Compass is the Matrix of young adult fiction.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Can someone tell me where I started talking about government-run censorship of these things? I'm not...even though, quite frankly, for pedophilia and other heinous things, I have no problem with it, simply because making viewing such things a crime permits the government to keep an eye on them earlier if they get caught.
--------------
quote:Why? Well, firstly, cinemas are private organizations and if they wish to release a film, regardless of content, they can.
Secondly, I believe that by allowing these ideas to get out in the open, people will see them for the sick, perverse things they really are.
If something is truly wrong (and I think pedophilia is one of those things), I say give it enough rope and it will hang itself.
As to your first point, cinemas are private organizations, and so are citizens. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism, a point which is getting overlooked in this thread.
As to your second point, irrelevant. It's not as though there's a large percentage of the population that's on the fence on issues like pedophilia. People already see it as perverse and wrong, normal people anyway.
----------- Tom,
quote:I'm pretty sure the act of making a snuff film is illegal.
That said, I don't see any reason why a cinema shouldn't feel free to air one. I wouldn't go to it, and I suspect most people wouldn't, and I'm sure they'd lose a great deal of money compared to whatever other film they might have chosen to show, but I wouldn't legislate against their right to do it.
Sure it is. But people can do illegal things and then not get caught. And please note, I didn't ask if you would try to legislate against it.
---------------
Actually, the more I look at objections to my post, the more I see people are latching on to a point I didn't make: that we should legislate against this. I was asking about private boycotts, and what private citizens might do aside from simply not seeing it, and whether or not such a thing was wrong.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Here's the thing: I think a private boycott of a snuff film would be disastrously ineffective.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Boycotting the film isn't the only option, Tom, and you know that. I think you're being deliberately obtuse here.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What private options are available that would not also publicize the film?
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Of course, if it turns out that the books are really terrible and anti-christian, whenever I discuss them I'll have to include digs about Harry Potter. "Gee, if only we had boycotted the books when they came out in the USA in 1997... But... Weren't we a little occupied with some other books? Some innocent, harmless, quite moral works of fantasy?"
You do know that many, many people who have a problem with HDM have no problem with Harry Potter, including the Catholic League, right?
A particularly good point. I'll keep it in mind when I have all of those discussions with the CL.
To clarify: I was talking about some people I, personally, know. They actually were/are offended by Harry Potter books.
Although, for the record, I would never be that sarcastic while discussing the books with them. I'm much nicer in real life. Anonymity boldens me on these forums, making me meaner, and stupider (God, I hope the stupidity is limited to the boards.)
quote:Personally, I think organized religion, like any massive group of people, is capapble of great evil. The larger the group(not religious necessarily) the more likely the actions of the group are to be stupid. Mob mentality, informational cascades in any culture, or "I burnt that book cuz my pastor said it'd give me demons."
I don't necessarily agree with that statement (With it's insinuation that any large group of Christians will burn books because a pastor said they would), but I do agree with the gist. I much prefer small religious gatherings/churches. But, although I'm not knocking individual celebration or practice of your religion, what good does it do you in a vacuum?
I don't think it's the group size that really matters, as much as it is the group mentality. You could have a relatively small group that consists of one 'head' who thinks for the whole group, just as you could have a large group without the group mentality.
And... Although this has nothing to do with the discussion... Could somebody please tell me what a snuff movie is? Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:And... Although this has nothing to do with the discussion... Could somebody please tell me what a snuff movie is? [Embarrassed]
A snuff movie depicts the actual killing of a person.*
*Edit: ...where the person is killed specifically for the film. A film of a fatal car crash, public executions, etc. would not be a snuff film.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nathan2006: And... Although this has nothing to do with the discussion... Could somebody please tell me what a snuff movie is?
Honestly, I found the anti-Christianity sentiments of HDM moderately annoying, but not nearly so much so as the lurching character motivations, logical gaps, and apparent instances of author amnesia. Compass is a pretty good read, and Knife isn't half bad, but Spyglass squanders most of the accumulated potential. It actually might have been a better series if Pullman didn't feel such a need to pull towards the anti-religious themes.
As far as the Catholic League goes... I think perhaps people ought to have a little more faith in their faith.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It actually might have been a better series if Pullman didn't feel such a need to pull towards the anti-religious themes.
With a little massaging, I think we can make this sentence universally true:
"It might actually have been a better series if the author hadn't felt such a need to push the themes."
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
That is not true for many series.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Is there a series out there improved by an author's desire to push his or her themes? I can't think of one.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Are themes the same thing as agendas in this discussion?
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Probably. To follow up on my critique, I realize different people have different reactions and that some of my reactions may come out of my own ideologies. But I really think that with Pullman (and as Tom notes with a other series and individual novels, as well), the key for me is whether or not the ending lives up to the promise of the beginning -- if it has the same energy, nuance, delight, intensity, focus and even humor (if humor is part of the mix).
I think both His Dark Materials and the Alvin Maker series show a definite flagging in these qualities.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
The Lord of the Rings, Dune, The Chronicles of Narnia, Foundation Series, The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy....
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hrm. I would say that each and every one of the books you just listed goes through its weakest moments when its author decides to push his themes at the reader, and is best when the opposite occurs.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Tom,
quote:What private options are available that would not also publicize the film?
When you put in that unnecessary restriction, none that I can think of.
Here's the thing, though: publicity despite the saying is not always a good thing.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I can't think of any major examples where Tom is wrong, and no minor ones either. People rarely read fiction in order to have the experience of being preached at or to.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Here's the thing, though: publicity despite the saying is not always a good thing.
For example, photographing the people who went into the theater and posting them on a web page, then publicizing the page, would certainly give publicity to the film. I doubt it would increase the box office sales, though.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Yeah, look at the Book of Mormon movie. Though it was kind of a reverse psychology thing. "If you don't see it, they won't make more." Good!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I can't think of any major examples where Tom is wrong, and no minor ones either. People rarely read fiction in order to have the experience of being preached at or to.
Are people just forgetting the hypothetical we're dealing with here, along with just pretending I was talking about government-run censorship? It's gotten quite irritating.
Think about it. For a pedophiliac or snuff film, do you really imagine fans would go through, for example, a picket line where dozens or even scores of people would see their faces? Come on, gimme a break.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think steven's post was referring to Tom's comment about books that push themes, not the private action against speech issue.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ahh, that's correct. My mistake.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ah. But once you're actually photographing the consumers of a certain media, you're not acting against the media; you're acting against the consumers. Private action against an individual consumer intended to bully that person into no longer consuming a product can succeed, because people are more likely to care about how other people see them than how other people see a faceless media conglomerate.
I can't personally imagine any movie reprehensible enough that I'd feel comfortable engaging in hostile actions against its viewers, but I certainly agree that would work.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:People rarely read fiction in order to have the experience of being preached at or to.
I disagree. People tend to enjoy being preached to, enough to pay money for it and endure substandard fiction for the privilege, as long as they're already in that particular choir.
Posted by BSKnack (Member # 11127) on :
The the same extent which I feel that OSC is pro-church, I feel that Pullman is anti-church. Pullman has even publicized that his writing of the series was specifically to attack the church and their beliefs.
I proudly advertise myself as an atheist minister. I feel it's time that atheists have a person to talk to that can offer moral support with issues that Christians quickly steal and attempt to keep themselves by referring to Christian values. I'm truly sorry to inform people that don't realize it, most people with values, whether believers in Christ or not, share a common set of beliefs, in fact, being raised a Jew and having attended religious school 9 hours a week for 13 years, I must admit, nearly all the values that I've heard called Christian, come from earlier roots.
I'm nearly finished with the Crystal City and have found the entire series thus-far to be quite entertaining. If there's anything I don't like about them, it's that I feel that much of the writing designed to be anti-racist often is very easy to misconstrue as "They can't help they're idiots, they're <insert skin color here>". Of course, I feel I appreciate what OSC was trying to say, but failed to do so, not because of poor writing skill, but because he's spent far too much of his life teaching himself not to be racist (a noble ambition).
I'd like to get back to what I hoped to say originally. Pullman has an incredibly interesting writing style. I feel that Pullman's greatest weakness is fanatisicm. He's a weak atheist, it's almost as if he feels he needs to sell atheism because he himself still doesn't quite trust himself to believe it.
A real atheist, such as myself has long moved past the "Do I believe or don't I?" state and simply accept that creation is a ridiculos idea in itself (yes, you believe what you want, and I'll do the same), we accept that being a good person has absolutely nothing to do with an afterlife, and most importantly, when you're dead, you're pushing up daisies and fertilizing the land. We've moved on to topics like "How do we educate the unenlightened and teach them that atheists need values too". I even invite in visiting mormons and jehova's witnesses to attempt to teach people so great as them, to instead of knocking on doors to save peoples souls, they could better spend their time traveling to distant lands to help save peoples lives.
I would say that boycotting a film like this because it contradicts your beliefs is a terrible example of intelligent thought! Any intelligent person would clearly see it's all the more reason to see the film, or more importantly, read the books to get the authors own words! It is clear to me that this is not a case of "lead me not into temptation". It's about education.
If you are a person that considers attacks on christianity so horrible that you would damn a man for it, then at least hear his words before you damn him. You don't need to follow him, I know that after reading OSC, I'm even more resolved not to be Christian. Let this be the same to you. Strengthen your resolve but learn to recognize a man that is clearly is your enemy in as much as he intends to do harm with his words. He calls Christianity evil and stupid, and he's printing books and selling film rights. Shouldn't you know more about him?
I don't believe you'll ever change the way he thinks, nor given the provocative nature of his writing will you make him sell less copies of his books by publicly boycotting him. You Christians need to know this writing, you need to know what he writes, you need to see what a truly anti-christian man believes.
I say all this because I believe Pullman gives atheists a bad name. Remember, I started by explaining, we have values too, many of which you Christians claim to own. The difference is, we believe something else.
----------------------- As a final note, please remember that you're all atheists so long as you don't believe in Ra or Bast.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:most importantly, when you're dead, you're pushing up daisies and fertilizing the land.
MOST importantly? Why is the nothing that happens after death more important than the something that happens in life?
quote:I even invite in visiting mormons and jehova's witnesses to attempt to teach people so great as them, to instead of knocking on doors to save peoples souls, they could better spend their time traveling to distant lands to help save peoples lives.
Mormons already do. We hardly need an invitation.
Welcome to Hatrack. You're wrong.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
BS, that post of yours is an excellent example of why someone should lurk at Hatrack for a while before posting.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:People rarely read fiction in order to have the experience of being preached at or to.
I disagree. People tend to enjoy being preached to, enough to pay money for it and endure substandard fiction for the privilege, as long as they're already in that particular choir.
I half agree (with mph).
As the following post alludes to, I often enjoy reading books or viewpoints that preach fundamentally different values than my own. "An unexamined life is not worth living" and all that. I'm looking at you OSC's World Watch and Pastwatch
On the other hand, I'm not sure that preaching necessarily decreases the quality of a book. I'll pull out the two examples in Tresopax's list that are relevant to the thread.
In the Foundation Trilogy, the first four Seldon crises are (roughly) based on the balance of power, religious coercion, economic power, and the balance of power between an Emperor and his generals. Arguably, the second crisis is the most preachy, given Asimov's humanist views. However, I never really saw it as a particularly weak spot in the series and given that I later read about Isaac Asimov's experiences (in his biography) with his publisher John Campbell's pseudoscience (and by implication, the growth of Hubbard's Scientology), I thought it had extra resonance.
As for The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, if you removed Douglas Adam's (early) anti-technology and anti-religious themes, it would be a really short book/radio series!
So to be honest, I find myself disagreeing with TomD on that point.
BSKnack: First, welcome! Second, do not take this personally, but what IS an atheist minister? And how would that be different from a counsellor or a psychologist?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: the lurching character motivations, logical gaps, and apparent instances of author amnesia
Yeah. I just recently read the trilogy, and need to re-read it at least once more. I think the first book is definitely the best, with the most interesting characters.
Where the story ended up was kinda bleh. It was very much Paradise-lostish and it it just didn't feel (to me) like anything really unique or special. He still had primary characters redeem themselves with acts of heroism like primary characters are supposed to do, and you could see it coming from a mile away.
AJ
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"I disagree. People tend to enjoy being preached to, enough to pay money for it and endure substandard fiction for the privilege, as long as they're already in that particular choir."
Mmm-hmmm. However, would you prefer to read a new Dan Simmons novel that is twice as good as Hyperion/Fall of Hyperion, but trashed Mormonism specifically (versus trashing the RC church in Hyperion), or a very, very long new piece of crap by a Mormon author?
It's a matter of degree, I'd say.
If you're not a Hyperion fan, please make up your own example.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I could see the idea of an Atheist minister, not necessarily as someone who wants to promulgate Atheism as much as to serve as a shepherd and comfort to people within his community of ...er... non-belief.
But I've never even heard of Bast.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
bast is the cat goddess in the Egyptian patheon.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I wouldn't say Hyperion trashes the real RC church, although it does trash a highly-corrupt, futuristic version of the RC church. Of course, it's possible to take it as a criticism against the Church in general, but that seems overly sensitive to me, and means you miss out on a fantastic book just to give yourself an excuse to be offended.
That's how this Pullman thing seems to me. I guess some people would rather be offended and manufacture an enemy than realize that fiction sometimes holds up a mirror to reality but doesn't necessarily attack anyone by doing so.
I guess to some people, a boycott is preferable to an informed discussion. I think that says a lot.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
quote:fiction sometimes holds up a mirror to reality but doesn't necessarily attack anyone by doing so.
I don't know about that. The cynical side of me thinks that all narratives meant to be consumed are acts of violence.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think the issue is more similar to the use of cartoon characters to advertise cigarettes.
Or, it also reminds me of Million Dollar Baby, and how a lot of people thought it was a girl power movie, but it's a better dead than broken movie.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I thought Million Dollar Baby was a euthanasia movie. Paging Dr. Kevorkian.
I guess that's what you meant by "better dead than broken."
There's that Zalmoxis--sic 'em, memes!
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:People rarely read fiction in order to have the experience of being preached at or to.
I disagree. People tend to enjoy being preached to, enough to pay money for it and endure substandard fiction for the privilege, as long as they're already in that particular choir.
The roaring success of the "Left Behind" series is a good example of this.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I wouldn't say Hyperion trashes the real RC church, although it does trash a highly-corrupt, futuristic version of the RC church.
Does it? The church seemed quite sympathetically portrayed to me. Sure, the society in which it operates is corrupt, but the church itself seems to have retreated to fairly simple beginnings. All the faithful that we see are honest in their faith.
Now, insofar as Hyperion can be seen as a theological argument, it probably disagrees with Catholic doctrine, but by no means does it vilify. Or do you see something that I don't?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: MOST importantly? Why is the nothing that happens after death more important than the something that happens in life?
You've got that exactly backwards. It is the infinity of nothing that gives the finitude of something its importance. As opposed to the religious view, where life is merely a vanishingly tiny interlude in an infinity of something else.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: MOST importantly? Why is the nothing that happens after death more important than the something that happens in life?
You've got that exactly backwards. It is the infinity of nothing that gives the finitude of something its importance. As opposed to the religious view, where life is merely a vanishingly tiny interlude in an infinity of something else.
While I do agree with you, at least in principle, this still doesn't answer or nullify Scott's question.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I suppose I'm alone in seeing that neither extreme is balanced?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
KoM:
BSKnack stated that the most important part of his philosophy was that death ends the person. He explicitly mentioned that this was more important than the way one conducted one's life.
Here's the full quote:
quote:A real atheist, such as myself has long moved past the "Do I believe or don't I?" state and simply accept that creation is a ridiculos idea in itself (yes, you believe what you want, and I'll do the same), we accept that being a good person has absolutely nothing to do with an afterlife, and most importantly, when you're dead, you're pushing up daisies and fertilizing the land.
So my question remains-- why is that piece the most important part?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
He did not say it is more important than the way you conduct your life. And it is the most important part because of the implications it has for how you should live this life: To wit, as the only one you've got.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
*shrug*
I find religious philosophies that focus primarily on what happens after you die to be pretty lame, and I don't think much more of an atheistic philosophy that considers what doesn't happen after you die to be its most important tenent.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I agree with dkw.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Some people assume that if this life is all there is, people are going to enjoy themselves to the point of being jerks.
Other people assume that if people feel mortality is insignificant, they will be jerks.
I think the point is to merge the infinite and the finite in my perception.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
In contrast, my personal sense of morality derives much of its weight from a belief that this is the only chance I have, and that there is not likely any way after my death (which could come at any time, completely unexpectedly) to make up for offenses against others or any of my own failings.
But I'm okay with that being labelled as lame. It still speaks with the same weight to me.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
That doesn't sound like "most important" to me. But if it is for you, okay. I hear the parts about not hurting others and trying to minimize flaws being more important parts of what you're saying. The "no afterlife" bit just closes one possible loophole. I mean, if you knew you wouldn't die for another 30 years and thus would have time to make amends would that make it okay to hurt someone now?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Hmmm, maybe then it wouldn't be as pressing for me to spend as great of a percentage of my time and energy figuring out how to avoid harming that other; i.e., I might spend more time just relaxing and living in the moment instead of worrying quite as much.
I have other intellectual reasons not to be treating other people with ill intent [and those go beyond the scope of this conversation], and those reasons have some impact on my gut as well. However, by far the visceral punch comes from the belief that my time is short (as all lives are) and that it may end up being much much shorter than I'd expected. So I have to devote a good bit of my time and energy -- consistently, unflaggingly -- to making sure I forsee what negative outcomes of my actions that I can in advance.
Moreover, what you posit is impossible. That antecedent is unknowable, so it's as relevant to me as "if you could move backwards in time" would be. An interesting intellectual exercise were I in the mood, but not really settling as weight on my shoulders.
Regardless, it's not necessary for me that you or anyone else agree with it, or even understand it more than in a cursory way. I just wanted to chime in that this point of the conversation did ring true for me and to have that out there with KoM. Aside from that, my pony has left the race. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Aside from that, my pony has left the race.
Speaking of foreseeing negative otcomes, on reread that sounds flippant and dismissive. I meant it as a gentle poke at myself for being pendantic and inserting myself into ongoing conversations abruptly.
I find this me-me-me! part of myself mildly funny and more than mildly exasperating.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
It's always good to have you in the conversation.
Short winded pony or no. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: I might spend more time just relaxing and living in the moment instead of worrying quite as much.
That's a shame. I thought the whole upside of "I shall pass down this road but once..." was it helping one to live in the moment.
But I guess just as some people will be jerks regardless of underlying belief system, some people will be overly conscientious regardless of belief system. I don't fault you for it, of course, but I wish you to have a greater portion of peace in your life.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
*laughing
It is very good to have you in my life, dkw. You are still one of the two main reasons I ponder over whether religion is in my future.
Today there is a burnt-plastic-smelling smoky fog hanging over the fishing port where I live. I suspect the ships may be getting retarred or somesuch. Walking home from early morning studies, I was quickly winded indeed. Thank goodness for warm woolly mufflers to drag over one's nose.
----
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I don't fault you for it, of course, but I wish you to have a greater portion of peace in your life.
pooka, what kindness!
I think there is a martyrish satisfaction in pushing oneself in unhealthy ways, and even more martyrish satisfaction in drawing attention to it.
Arrgh. We cannot escape ourselves, eh? *grin
Thanks to heaven for people who love and care for us anyway.
[ October 27, 2007, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
KoM:
Yeah, I may have misinterpreted. In any case, I agree with the sentiment-- that this life is the time to do good.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
A slight regression: Tom and whoever agreed with him (I can't remember right now), is it safe to assume that you don't think that child pornography should be illegal and that there should be no restrictions on its production or distribution?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Why would it be safe to assume that Tom thinks no restrictions should be placed on the production of child pornography?
He's already distinguished the difference between making a snuff film and showing one.
I don't think your question is at all based on an honest interpretation of this discussion.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:A slight regression: Tom and whoever agreed with him (I can't remember right now), is it safe to assume that you don't think that child pornography should be illegal and that there should be no restrictions on its production or distribution?
You're doing it again. As Dagonee has noted, Tom has already mentioned that production is illegal, and has made no statements concerning whether or not it should be illegal to produce (but obviously it's safe to assume he does, in fact, believe producing child pornography should be illegal).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
A harder question: should computer-generated snuff films and/or child pornography be illegal? Are those two categories substantially different?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Didn't the US Supreme Court decide computer-generated work wasn't illegal? I thought I read that last year.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, yeah. But I don't confuse the court's recommendations with what necessarily should be the law. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:A harder question: should computer-generated snuff films and/or child pornography be illegal? Are those two categories substantially different?
Yup, they definitely should be illegal. Unfortunately I'm not really sure why, other than I feel no good will come of pandering to those sorts of fantasies.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
For all intents and purposes, computer generated snuff films are the norm.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:A harder question: should computer-generated snuff films and/or child pornography be illegal? Are those two categories substantially different?
Yup, they definitely should be illegal. Unfortunately I'm not really sure why, other than I feel no good will come of pandering to those sorts of fantasies.
I thought exactly the same thing but without a good reason to make it illegal I feel obligated to say that it should be legal. I hate the idea but computer generated images don't harm anybody (at least while being created).
EDIT: I'm talking about computer generated child pornography. I don't see anything wrong with computer generated snuff films.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
"Computer-generated snuff films" is a null category. The key part of the definition of snuff films is that someone really dies, unlike normal films where death is fake.
But if it's computer-generated it's not real, no one could really die. Unless you're talking motion capture.
As far as CG child porn, that SC ruling troubles me. I'm not sure what to think.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
What's the difference between CG child porn and a movie in which the sexual abuse or rape of an underage person is part of the plot? How graphic it is?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: With a little massaging, I think we can make this sentence universally true:
"It might actually have been a better series if the author hadn't felt such a need to push the themes."
You might be right about that. But it does create something of a chicken-or-egg question. (Is the story bad because it was written to push the themes? Or was it the act of pushing the themes that made the story bad?)
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: A harder question: should computer-generated snuff films and/or child pornography be illegal? Are those two categories substantially different?
I may be going out on a limb here, but I think I'd have to say no. While there are people out there who harbor such fantasies, it may be better that they consume a product that did no one real harm rather than one that actually did, or act out such fantasies in reality. If the question of whether such materials made people more or less likely to act fantasies out was ever definitively answered, I'd probably have to change my mind.
Or to put it another way, if only CG child pornography was consumed, the world would be a better place.
A chancier question might be if works of snuff or child pornography were based around images of real people. That, to my mind, is much harder to answer.
[ October 28, 2007, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: Sterling ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It seems to me that this case would be covered by laws against using images of people without their permission. (Although, I don't know, maybe the US doesn't have such a law.) Ordinary privacy, in other words. Although I suspect that for snuff you could find a lot of adults willing to sell the rights to use a picture of them in a computer-generated porn movie, no matter the plot. Children, presumably, cannot meaningfully consent to that, so there you go.
Anyway. What would be the good to come out of a law against using computers to simulate child porn? One thing is that it would make it more difficult to make money off this sort of attraction. I suppose the libertarians here wouldn't consider that a good thing. Another point is that the desire for porn, of whatever kind, may feed off itself; thus by making simulated porn available, you artificially create a desire for more. It's a subtle point, though, and rests on an idea which is not proven. (The feeding-off-itself thing.) Another point is that simulated child porn may actually increase the desirability of the real thing, because it could be marketed as such. "No sim-kids!" And it might become slightly more socially acceptable (although I would hope not) because there would be the defense of "I only look at the sim stuff."
But really, all these arguments strike me as pretty weak, especially for a law that would by its nature be pretty well un-enforceable.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)