[lexielexs]

Like in a way I kind of understood the movie but then again I didn't but like can someone explain like why people like its anit-religion and pro-atheisim like what in the movie portrayed that

[stardust713]

Wait, what? I don't understand what you're saying. I don't mean to be rude, but the lack of punctuation and overuse of the word "like" are making it extremely hard to understand the question. You ask why people like an aspect of the movie, and then are you asking something else? Is this two questions? Can you maybe word it better?

[Stringer]

I am not sure if I am actually answering this question the way you may have intended it to be answered?

From my understanding, the author wrote three books. Each book is intended to be made into a movie. The author is an atheist, his intent is to subtly make his point that there is no God and we don't need one. The first book hits the subject with a lot of action and fantasy. His intent is to hammer this point in the other two books and movies.

Personally I have a problem with not only his method of delivery and his blatant pushing of his opinions, but that he is camouflaging his intentions and beliefs. He is tailoring his books and the movie/s to children... not good.

[lexielexs]

I am not sure if I am actually answering this question the way you may have intended it to be answered?

From my understanding, the author wrote three books. Each book is intended to be made into a movie. The author is an atheist, his intent is to subtly make his point that there is no God and we don't need one. The first book hits the subject with a lot of action and fantasy. His intent is to hammer this point in the other two books and movies.

Personally I have a problem with not only his method of delivery and his blatant pushing of his opinions, but that he is camouflaging his intentions and beliefs. He is tailoring his books and the movie/s to children.....not good.

Yes u answered

[lexielexs]

wait, what? I don't understand what you're saying. I don't mean to be rude, but the lack of punctuation and overuse of the word "like" are making it extremely hard to understand the question. You ask why people like an aspect of the movie, and then are you asking something else? Is this two questions? Can you maybe word it better?

Jeeze My Bad I Was In A Hurry When I Typed It, And Since I Am So Illiterate I Am So Sorry:rolleyes:

[zyi]

I don't understand why this movie has gotten everyone so upset, I mean they made that christian movie about Jesus and you didn't see all the non believers going nuts. Anyway we, well I live in america where we are supposed to be free to believe what ever we want which is why America exist. I haven't seen the movie but I plan to take my mother and my cousin to see it.
PS: why does everyone always complain about grammar and spelling I totally understood what lex said.

[stardust713]

zyi, If you're referring to "The Passion" there was a ton of controversy over that movie. However, it was not aimed for kids. People went to that movie knowing full and well what it was and who it was for. But this movie, aimed for children, sends subliminal messages to children that there is no God. That is something a child needs to decide for themselves, and introducing them to something like this at such a young age when their minds are still developing is wrong. It's a whole new way of pushing your opinion on other people. If it had been made for adults, that would be a different story, adults are able to think for themselves and make their own decisions, children make decisions based on what they see and hear. We do live in America, and the writer has the right to do whatever they like, but the movie should have been made for an older more mentally developed audience. Like you said we should be free to believe whatever we want, well the point of this movie is for the author to manipulate children to believe what he believes. Should that be happening in America?

Oh, and the grammar part, I wasn't sure where one question ended and the other began, if there were even 2 questions. But if you understood it, that's fine. I just wanted a clearer explanation so I could maybe answer the question correctly.

[templelane]

But this movie, aimed for children, sends subliminal messages to children that there is no God. That is something a child needs to decide for themselves, and introducing them to something like this at such a young age when their minds are still developing is wrong.

But the religious organisations have been doing this for years nigh centuries! I remember being given a children's bible of watered down bible stories with colourful pictures, taking part in nativity plays, and reading the Chronicles of Narnia. The latter being exactly the same to Christianity as the Golden Compass is the atheism.

But in the same token I absolutely agree with you, no children should never be targeted and recruited to a set of beliefs in any way. However it happens and at least now they are beginning to receive a more balanced range of opinions, not just whatever their parents have decided is best.

[Stringer]

zyi, If you're referring to "The Passion" there was a ton of controversy over that movie. However, it was not aimed for kids. People went to that movie knowing full and well what it was and who it was for. But this movie, aimed for children, sends subliminal messages to children that there is no God. That is something a child needs to decide for themselves, and introducing them to something like this at such a young age when their minds are still developing is wrong. It's a whole new way of pushing your opinion on other people. If it had been made for adults, that would be a different story, adults are able to think for themselves and make their own decisions, children make decisions based on what they see and hear. We do live in America, and the writer has the right to do whatever they like, but the movie should have been made for an older more mentally developed audience. Like you said we should be free to believe whatever we want, well the point of this movie is for the author to manipulate children to believe what he believes. Should that be happening in America?

oh, and the grammar part, I wasn't sure where one question ended and the other began, if there were even 2 questions. But if you understood it, that's fine. I just wanted a clearer explanation so I could maybe answer the question correctly.

Exactly.

[stardust713]

But the religious organisations have been doing this for years nigh centuries! I remember being given a children's bible of watered down bible stories with colourful pictures, taking part in nativity plays, and reading the Chronicles of Narnia. The latter being exactly the same to Christianity as the Golden Compass is the atheism.

But in the same token I absolutely agree with you, no children should never be targeted and recruited to a set of beliefs in any way. However it happens and at least now they are beginning to receive a more balanced range of opinions, not just whatever their parents have decided is best.

This is true, but the bibles and plays were something your parents gave you/ had you participate in, yes? I think it's OK for parents to introduce their children to these things if they would like. A lot of parents base their parenting on the bible, and other religious aspects. Introducing their children to the same belief system they have makes their parenting stronger, and gives them a basis to back up their rules. As far as I know atheists don't have a belief system (sorry I don't have a lot of knowledge on that topic, I just know they don't believe in God) and if that's the case, there's no need to introduce a child to it. Let them have a little faith before they decide for themselves if they want it or not.

As for the Chronicles of Narnia, I never read the books, my sister tried to read them to me but I could never really follow along. I did however, love the cartoon version of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. But I never realized until someone told me that it had anything to do with religion, and being somewhat little I had to think pretty hard about it to realize it was there.

[vingogly]

But the religious organisations have been doing this for years nigh centuries! I remember being given a children's bible of watered down bible stories with colourful pictures, taking part in nativity plays, and reading the Chronicles of Narnia. The latter being exactly the same to Christianity as the Golden Compass is the atheism.

It's not really the same. Books of bible stories and nativity plays are intended for the children of believers. They're not intended to proselytize the children of atheists and convert them to Christianity through stealth. As for Chronicles of Narnia, Peter J. Schakel, a professor of English at Hope College in Holland, Michigan, states that a non-Christian reader can approach the book as a fictional story and "be moved by the exciting adventures and the archetypal meanings, and not find the Christian elements obtrusive or offensive"; for source see following:

Into the Wardrobe :: a C. S. Lewis web site

This is clearly not the case with Dark Materials, in which the anti-Christian elements ARE obtrusive and offensive to the believer.

The care of childrens' spiritual needs is the responsibility of the childrens' parents, not of an author like Pullman. I have no problem with Pullman's books if they are viewed as adult fantasy -- one of my favorite authors is John Crowley, whose works are Gnostic in character (actually, I'd characterize Pullman's message as more of a Gnostic one than a Christian one but that's off-topic). But he has written them for kids (specifically pre-teens and early teens), and it feels as though he's tried to do an end run around parents who may not realize that this isn't just another Narnia or Lord of the Rings and give approval to their kids' reading something that will undercut their spiritual formation (and if you think telling your kids to see the movie but not read the books will work, well, you've never been a parent).

Vasily

[suga_mel]

If you think young children will understand the anti-religion content of the movie then think again. Even if they do people, even children, are entitled to be informed. Children born into the christian religion do not chose it, it is forced upon them, but how many people are complaining about that. There is enough buzz around this movie to warn religious parents of the content.

[zyi]

Well I would just have to say Believers don't go see the movie, and don't take your kids. That way they can grow up to be narrow minded and good little cows for their government. And for the group that is all up in the air about it, this is America where we are free to have all kids of different views on the world around us. And for everyone else lets go see the movie, cause it's just a movie. Thank you and goodnight lol.

[vingogly]

Even if they do people, even children, are entitled to be informed. Children born into the christian religion do not chose it, it is forced apon them, but how many people are complaining about that. There is enough buzz around this movie to warn religous parents of the content.

Do young children have a right to demand reading "120 Days of Sodom by the Marquis de Sade"? Or "Psychopathia Sexualis" by Baron Richard von Krafft-Ebing? Why not, they're entitled to be informed about human sexuality, right, even the abnormal and cruel side of it? How about some of the other works in my library of psychopathological works?

Responsible parents do not let their kids do (or read) whatever they want. This isn't coming from me as a Christian, it's coming from me as a therapist who works with families & couples with parenting issues, as well as leading a male parenting group. Permissive parenting leads to messed up kids... so does brutal parenting grounded in power and control. Responsible parents give their kids more access to information as they need it and AS THEY'RE READY FOR IT. Why do they have this authority over their kids? Because they're adults... and presumably they know better.

Vasily

[vingogly]

That way they can grow up to be narrow minded and good little cows for their government.

How did government get in there?

Let me take a stab at it... Pullman critic = Christian = fundamentalist = political conservative = George Bush supporter = fascist. Ergo, anyone who believes that His Dark Materials is not suitable for young children is a fascist. Seems pretty broad-minded and free-thinking to me. ;)

Vasily

[stardust713]

If you think young children will understand the anti-religion content of the movie then think again. Even if they do people, even children, are entitled to be informed. Children born into the christian religion do not chose it, it is forced apon them, but how many people are complaining about that. There is enough buzz around this movie to warn religous parents of the content.

It's likely children won't pick up on the message, but you can't be sure of that, so it's not worth the risk. Young children don't have the right to be informed of things they are not ready for. There's no harm in teaching children to have faith, if they CHOOSE later on that they don't believe it, fine. But it's much easier for a child that was raised religiously to deny faith then for a child raised without religion to gain faith. And many people who grew up in a religious environment do end up inevitably deciding for themselves. (My sister and I were both raised Catholic, she is now an atheist)

[stardust713]

Well I would just have to say Believers don't go see the movie, and don't take your kids.

You're right, believers can just steer clear of this film. But some people may not be informed. (Honestly until this post, I knew nothing about this film, and I'm pretty well informed)

That way they can grow up to be narrow minded and good little cows for their government.

This was uncalled for, and has no substance. Religion has nothing to do with government. Obviously. And religion does not equal close mindedness.

And for the group that is all up in the air about it, this is America where we are free to have all kids of diffrent views on the world around us.

Americans are free to believe anything they want, but knowingly trying to alter the underdeveloped mind of a child is not acceptable. Like I said, it's much easier for a child deny their faith as they get older, then to develop faith after being told there is no God.

What's wrong with having faith anyway? If there is any possibility that life after death could be real what's the harm in believing? If nothing really does happen to you then there's no harm done. If something DOES happen, non-believers are, well for lack of a better word, screwed.
That's just my opinion.

[suga_mel]

Do young children have a right to demand reading "120 Days of Sodom by the Marquis de Sade"? Or "Psychopathia Sexualis" by Baron Richard von Krafft-Ebing? Why not, they're entitled to be informed about human sexuality, right, even the abnormal and cruel side of it? How about some of the other works in my library of psychopathological works?

Vasily

How can you compare The Golden Compass to any of those works. The Golden compass is MADE FOR CHILDREN. Children do have the right to be informed, and if there was appropriate texts about the abnormal and cruel side of human sexuality then my answer would be the same.

[zyi]

First of all let me just say that I live on the bible belt so I hear this discussion anytime I leave my house, and both sides have interesting points.
With that said...

What's wrong with having faith anyway? If there is any possibility that life after death could be real what's the harm in believing? If nothing really does happen to you then there's no harm done. If something DOES happen, non-believers are, well for lack of a better word, screwed.
That's just my opinion.

There is nothing wrong with having faith. But I don't see why anyone would waste their entire life worrying about what is going to happen to them after they are dead. In my opinion when I'm dead I'm dead, end of story. I don't need something to believe in to survive. And I don't want to waste my life now worrying about things after my psyical body dies. After that is not this life anyway so why worry about it. It's just like the old saying what will be will be.

And as far as the government thing, If I offended you I'm sorry. I believe that our government like to keep religion cause it keeps us a cattle. Think about it Bush used his Religion belieffs when he vetoed the stim cell bill that could save billions of lives. So you can't say that religion has nothing to do with government it actually has a lot to do with it.

[stardust713]

I was discussing this with my sister earlier and she made a very good point that I had completely overlooked. "The Chronicles of Narnia" are allegory and Christian metaphor, but His Dark Materials are in no way metaphor or allegory. The "God" portrayed in this book never pretends to be any but the Christian God of our own world. There's a paragraph in the third book that kind of sums up the basis of the entire trilogy.

"Ah, but I knew about [angels]. I used to be a nun, you see. I thought physics could be done to the glory of God, till I saw there wasn't any God at all and that physics was more interesting anyway. The Christian religion is a very powerful and convincing mistake, that's all." - From p. 393 of the 2003 Laurel-Leaf paperback edition.

These books blatantly sabotage a religion, where the Narnia books are merely a story based on the bible. They don't try to destroy anything for anyone. And children don't HAVE to view them as anything religious at all. If you are unaware of religion as the child of an atheist may be, then you can simply take the story as just that, a story. But His Dark Materials is aimed to literally destroy the faith of the reader.

These are two EXTREMELY different aims. Pullman's is harmful to an induviduals own opinion, where Lewis's is not.