The Golden Compass Controversy

[ClintonM]

As you all may or may not know, the movie The Golden Compass has sparked quite a bit of Controversy relating to Religion as a whole, "specifically" Catholicism as many followers will argue.

Take a Look:
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20164514,00.html

So, my question to you is, How exactly do you feel about this accusation (Posting your Religion if you'd like[Atheist counts as a Religious Stance])?

Religion: Christian

There is a possibility this guy is bashing religion but there is nothing wrong with it if, in fact, he is. It is simply a work of fiction, whether the author is actually attacking religion or not. One thing I find wrong about Religion is that many people are closed-minded (ESPECIALLY in the Christian Branches), even though the Bible states to not be judgmental of others VERY clearly, people do it consistently. The idea of people following evil gods isn't even that original: try thousands of years old?

I will see this movie because I find the storyline interesting, finding out that it raises questions on religion makes me even want to READ the books simply out of curiosity. Maybe this "evil" man's getting the job done on this strong willed Christian, who knows?

If something as small as this brings great fear in so many Catholics and makes them fear it will overpower God, do they REALLY have faith in the all powerful and all knowing God? I think not...

[Darmago]

1. the movie was pretty bad IMO
2. Phillip Pullman makes no attempt to pretend he is not bashing Christianity.


From what I hear, the Catholic League is arguing that the movie, which is targeted at a younger audience, will entice kids to ask for the books for Christmas. this claim is backed up with the amount that the anti-religious sentiment in the movie is covered up. I.E. the church is just the Majesterium, the Authority is only called the Authority, The members of the Majesterium are called Fra or somethings similar instead of something church related like brother, or father.

Next, the book isn't exactly an easy read. in my opinion, if a kid can enjoy reading that book he can probably read it aloof of its "influences". Second, if a parent is concerned about letting their child read this book, then they should probably talk with them about it, instead of outright banning it.

In my opinion, I believe this is just an extension of the idea of "indoctrinate them early, indoctrinate them often."

[ChimTheGrim21]

I grew up catholic, and I have a Muslim roommate whom I'm good friends with. I think this topic raises 2 things in my mind. I'm not trying to be rude with this post.

1. Some Catholics (or religious people in general) help the other cause more by making it a controversy in the first place.
2. Some Athiests (or people who do not believe in a God) can make some annoying general statements about religious people because 1% of religious people are crazy.

Statement: "One thing I find wrong about Religion is that many people are closed-minded (ESPECIALLY in the Christian Branches), even though the Bible states to not be judgmental of others VERY clearly, people do it consistently. The idea of people following evil gods isn't even that original: try thousands of years old?"

So what makes you think the Jews or Muslims are any more open-minded than christians? Just wondering. Also, a lot of people are judgemental, not just Christians--just look at politicians, school officials, political activists, sports people, parents, snobby people, etc.. I don't see how you can put all the weight on Religion or on specifically Christians as the most judgemental.

[Anoiktos]

The movie has little or nothing (one count reference to "The Authority") to do with religion.

The idea that it would make people want to read the book is valid, and the book is very anti-religion (though I could make the argument that it's not actually anti-god but anti-church, as in the end, it's the metatron who has done evil and usurped the Authority), but I fail to see why anyone should be offended by this...

...if they weren't offended by the recent Chronicles of Narnia movie, which is a series that is possibly more steeped in Christian dogma than Northern Lights/His Dark Materials is in anti-christian dogma. It's also an easier series for kids to read, and thus holds this argument even closer.

I don't believe you can have it both ways, where you're offended by anti-christian propaganda but somehow not offended by christian propaganda. I like both series, have read them many times, and highly recommend them to anyone with the time to read them. I don't believe, however, that either one should be controversial or restricted unless both are. Hence freedom of religion, which implies freedom of nonreligion.

[ClintonM]

So what makes you think the Jews or Muslims are any more open-minded than christians?

Well, Christians and Catholics tend to be more "open" with their closed-mindedness. People of the Jewish faith tend to be more secretive (lack of a better word) with their beliefs and are quieter toward the world. The fact that ONLY the Catholics made any such grand statement to the media proves this point...


I have plenty of Christian and Catholic friends, some of them are the most closed-minded people you will ever meet and whenever you make a valid argument on anything the believe in it instantly offends them and they get extremely angry with any such idea.

All of my Jewish, Pagan, and even Satanic friends that are actually open-minded. (I know what you're thinking, how can a Christian and Satanic person get along? Not being closed-minded, everyone has a right to believe in what they want to believe and you should respect that).

An interesting concept in the bible is that you're NOT supposed to be judgmental, yet in all senses you should also not be involved with people that are not saved. Kinda contradicting, no?

[Ling666]

Where does it say not to be involved with people who aren't saved? From what I've read, the bible does say to be involved with other people who aren't 'saved'. The idea is "in the world, but not of the world".
http://www.gotquestions.org/in-but-not-of-world.html

As for the movie, I could care less if it bashed religion. There's free speech after all, and as long as it isn't saying anything derogatory openly it shouldn't matter. It is fiction after all.

[Tech]

The fact that ONLY the Catholics made any such grand statement to the media proves this point...

I'm just wondering why you would expect anyone besides Catholics to say anything about it. Why would an Islamic or Jewish person complain about a movie that's anti-catholic? Last I knew, these religions didn't exactly see eye to eye.

Now as far as my stance on this, I couldn't care less about it's anti-religious stance. I don't see how someone can praise the release of a movie like Passion of the Christ, and then condemn anything that has even a hint of anti-christian sentiment. If your faith is threatened by a work of fiction then you've got much more serious problems than this movie.

[tremaparagon]

:2cents:
I read the entire series, and I am perfectly fine with the book coming out as a movie. Not just because I am Muslim. I laugh at jokes on terrorists, and I have many Jewish and Christian friends, and we laugh at Jewish and Christian jokes. I am in fact doing a geography project with a Jew, and a biology project with a Christian. I would also like to see this movie.


From the newspaper:

'Pullman, an avoid atheist, vehemently denies that this is the message he is trying to convey. "I'm not making an argument or preaching a sermon or setting out a political tract: I'm telling a story," Pullman said in an interview with a British newspaper.'

'Due to the recent buzz about the release of the movie, some schools in Utah have pulled the books from the shelves and warned parents about the "evils" they contain.'
This hits home for me. Utah. wtf wtf wtf wtf wtf wtf wtf wtf wtf wtf wtf wtf
:tdown: :with: :lame: :chuckball :argue: :chair: :cuss: :twak: :mad2:

'Sister Catherine [said] "The kind of books we might object to is something [containing] devil worship or something like that. It would have to be really outlandish, not just that it doesn't exactly mesh with what the Catholic Church teaches. We're in a world with all kinds of religions, and we want to discuss other people's beliefs" ... "we dealt with it, rather than banned it ... We would encourage discussion." '
Yes, thank you, finally something nice. :worship: :tup: :angel: :kiss:

Q.E.D :_owned:

[Prozerran]

I find it funny that such a controversy is running so rampant over a movie that, for a lack of a better word, seems to be considerably lacking in critical acclaim...

But I'll probably go see it anyway. I mean, I just can't pass up on bashing religion.

Because that's what's really happening here, isn't it? Forget that it's a fictional tale about a fictional world involving a fictional problem where a fictional group seeks to impose its hostile will upon the fictional masses. God forbid we actually be asked to think about something from more than one perspective.

I'm sorry, but what a crock. I can't believe there's still religious controversy at all, and more than that, I can't believe SO MANY people think that kids are so unable to form a clear, rational perspective at a young age. Most KIDS are better at seeing the bigger picture than ADULTS when they're not told to think or believe in something just because. WOW! The sickest thing about something like this is that most kids just want to see the polar bears, the magic, the spectacle... not the religious controversy.

Ugh... people need to learn to let fiction be... well... fiction? There are some things that really promote dangerous perspectives on issues (look at anti-semitism in The Passion, or Anti-Christianity in the DaVinci Code - note the church is SPECIFICALLY mentioned), but highlighting the points of religious debate is just not one of them. It's a kid's movie, let's let sleeping dogs lie this time of year.

[Darmago]

Because that's what's really happening here, isn't it? Forget that it's a fictional tale about a fictional world involving a fictional problem where a fictional group seeks to impose its hostile will upon the fictional masses. God forbid we actually be asked to think about something from more than one perspective.

I'm sorry, but what a crock. I can't believe there's still religious controversy at all, and more than that, I can't believe SO MANY people think that kids are so unable to form a clear, rational perspective at a young age. Most KIDS are better at seeing the bigger picture than ADULTS when they're not told to think or believe in something just because. WOW! The sickest thing about something like this is that most kids just want to see the polar bears, the magic, the spectacle... not the religious controversy.

In the second book there is a great deal done in a world that is so much like our own I doubt that one could tell the difference(other than fictional people(and places) and hidden windows to other worlds)

As for the kids thing, They may be more rational than adults, but they're equally capable of being irrational. Something that seems logical, when indoctrinated correctly in a young mind, could stay there, despite all evidence that its incorrect.

[femoimal]

what i personally gather from the latest wave of controversy, books, documentaries and political speaches, is that the church is very happy to sparkle any controversy that shows people it is not merely dead.

Church, not faith. Its is better for the church to brag about devilish indoctrination (a rather delicate joke, in Greece where i live now, learning the bible is compulsory at school, so is dayly prayer. Same in italy) than to talk about pedophily, gay mariage and power issues in the Holy See.

When the US republican candidate (primaries) Huckabee starts a speach with "Yes i believe Jesus is our saviour" and George Bush Junior talks of god to get to his base, i get a bit nauseous. I tremble in fear that the world might get slowly divided between the low culture / populist-values-driven faithful and the educated atheists (by conviction or by cyniscism).

As of me, i am an atheist [virulent anti-christian i'd better add]. Every time there is a controversy, it seems to be its a double marketing-operation : one for the "eviiiiiiiiiiiiiiil" product and one for the "hooOOOooly" defenders.

do they have a marketing department in The Holy See ?


PS: i'd rather have a controversy and dialogue over education and, at random, how it is influenced by lobying.

[UMSLdragon]

In the second book there is a great deal done in a world that is so much like our own I doubt that one could tell the difference(other than fictional people(and places) and hidden windows to other worlds)

As for the kids thing, They may be more rational than adults, but they're equally capable of being irrational. Something that seems logical, when indoctrinated correctly in a young mind, could stay there, despite all evidence that its incorrect.
I'll leave it with that.

Sometimes people can get "entrapped" in the fiction world. The stuff they can learn from reading could potentionaly influence their minds. Especially at young ages. Everything that goes into you're head influences, whether you're a rational thinker or not. The Fix: Be careful what you read, listen to, watch and such. 'Specially for younger children. Why?

I have some little cousins (and I used to do this also when I was young) that watch DBZ and shows such as. Now, they will think that they are the character and RP it. Ya, cute and annoying. But, per-say, could it actually be doing to their brains? It could influnce their potential character. I don't really want to have a cousin that thinks he's Goku forever. Ya, he'll grow out of it as I have, but I still know it will have influenced him in a way differently than if he had never watched it. Goes for StarWars too.

UMSL

[ecyor0]

'Pullman, an avoid atheist, vehemently denies that this is the message he is trying to convey. "I'm not making an argument or preaching a sermon or setting out a political tract: I'm telling a story," Pullman said in an interview with a British newspaper.'

Funny. The quote I heard was quite different. He was quoted as saying that what he wanted to do with the story was "kill god in the minds of children". Paranoid exaggeration, it would seem. (Unless I can find the place he actually said it....)

...if they weren't offended by the recent Chronicles of Narnia movie, which is a series that is possibly more steeped in Christian dogma than Northern Lights/His Dark Materials is in anti-christian dogma.

One big difference. Pullman wrote his works as an atheistic answer to C.S. Lewis' Narnia books. C.S. Lewis wrote works steeped in Christian philosophy (not dogma) not because he was trying to prove anything, but because that's how he wrote - in allegory.


Also, a comparison in tone:

In book three of the Narnia books (Voyage of the Dawn Treader) the series has the most clear indication of Christian theming in the series. When Edmund asks if Aslan is in their world, he replies, "I am... but there I have another name. You must learn to know me by that name. This was the very reason why you were brought to Narnia, that by knowing me here for a little, you may know me better there."

By contrast, in the third book of the Golden Compass trilogy the heroine is helping two characters by the names of "Adam" and "Eve" save the world from destruction by killing a senile god, occasionally referred to as "Jehovah"


To go off at a tangent and address why the religious quarter is making a big fuss about this movie, I'd say its the same reason they're kicking up a fuss about everything else that isn't clearly Christian: they feel threatened by it.

Christianity has been the dominant religion in western culture for well over a millenium, and is only now beginning to come away from center stage. Now, it is again co-existing in a world where it is just one word among many, much like it was when it first began back in the 1st century. And I personally think that is a good thing, because it means that the people who become Christian nowadays are doing so, not so that they can fit in with the norm, but because they actually want to - which is much healthier in the long run.

There is however, one big difference. The 1st century Christians knew that they were going to be on the sideline, and accepted it - rejoiced in it, even. Now, however, most religious groups have been brought up used to Christianity as a stable, pervasive facet of society. A facet which is now beginning to crack. Naturally, being human, they lash out at whatever they see as an attack on their foundational beliefs.

However, that said, I personally am not going to go round making a scene about the movie (intellectual debate doesn't count, you're meant to speak your mind clearly and eloquently) - the real test for me will be "How well does it do compared to The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe?"

/rant

[Prozerran]

As for the kids thing, they may be more rational than adults, but they're equally capable of being irrational. Something that seems logical, when indoctrinated correctly in a young mind, could stay there, despite all evidence that its incorrect.

So what? You think young, impressionable minds are completely helpless and unable to digest information from more than one source? What is it that you really think helps someone develop rational thought? It doesn't occur when you prevent them from taking that knowledge to balance against what they already know. This only bolsters what you seek to prevent.

Sometimes people can get "entrapped" in the fiction world. The stuff they can learn from reading could potentionaly influence their minds. Especially at young ages. Everything that goes into you're head influences, whether you're a rational thinker or not. The Fix: Be careful what you read, listen to, watch and such. 'Specially for younger children. Why?

I have some little cousins (and I used to do this also when I was young) that watch DBZ and shows such as. Now, they will think that they are the character and RP it. Ya, cute and annoying. But, per-say, could it actually be doing to their brains? It could influnce their potential character. I don't really want to have a cousin that thinks he's Goku forever. Ya, he'll grow out of it as I have, but I still know it will have influenced him in a way differently than if he had never watched it.

Solution: Read/Listen to/Watch more. Yes, it's cute and annoying when little kids start role playing their favorite characters, which is why you encourage them to learn about more and more characters so they gain a true perspective from diverse sources. Otherwise, you send children down one, predetermined course instead of guiding them down the course they choose to follow with the choices they make. Sure, this requires a bit of pacing (i.e. not letting some 4-year-old watch gruesome horror flicks and porno), but in the end, the kid becomes an adult all the same. The sooner they start learning to balance their perspective between diverse points of view, the more capable they will be as adults when they face deeper, more difficult conflicts.

We wonder where all these polarized, extreme viewpoints come from. I blame censorship! Down with babying kids! Throw them out in the street and make them learn how to dodge cars so they value looking both ways before crossing the street! J/k... or am I? :)

[ecyor0]

We wonder where all these polarized, extreme viewpoints come from. I blame censorship! Down with babying kids! Throw them out in the street and make them learn how to dodge cars so they value looking both ways before crossing the street! J/k... or am I?

To take the joke too seriously for a minute, I completely agree with you on the "don't baby the kids" line, but you might be swinging the pendulum a little too far the other way. Rather than chucking them out to dodge cars, I personally would be telling them before they even reach the street to watch for cars, because a car will kill you if you run in front of it. This isn't the whole truth (cars hit you because the drivers are inattentive and because they're too heavy to slow down in time, they don't suddenly spring up and run you down when you go on the road) and technically, you could even say it is untrue (cars won't always hit you if you run in front of them, and there is in fact a slim chance that a 4 year-old can survive a collision) but the essential part of the information given is true. Then, you walk with them across the road, and once you are convinced they are ready, you let them cross the road on their own.

The problem with today's society is that a lot of people don't get further than holding the kid's hand as they cross. Some don't even get as far as telling them why cars are dangerous - they just hope that if they keep them away from any streets until they grow up, they'll magically know how to handle themselves (extended metaphor, people!).


Anyway, quibble over....

Solution: Read/Listen to/Watch more....

To summarize my opinion - yes, I'm with you on that one, just a little more selective of allowing what they experience, as well as explaining things to them where necessary.

[Oblongato]

I find it interesting that any time anything about Christianity (or any other religion, for that matter) is critiqued, it's called "bashing". For me, bashing is saying "Christianity is garbage". If a story portrays aspects of Christianity (or the Catholic church) in a particular light in order to reveal an aspect that people may not have considered, this is not bashing, it's critiquing. There's way too much bashing out there, and not nearly enough critiquing.

[ScottieIWU]

I fail to see why this is even an issue. As eycor0 said, this was kind of the atheist answer to the Chronicles of Narnia. Narnia was made into a movie, and nobody cared.

Make this into a movie, and it has the most mild atheist overtones (I haven't seen it, but let's just pretend) and it's considered against the Church.

There's clearly a hypocrisy here: Atheism is the idea that there is no god. Religion is the opposite. The only reason this is an issue is because atheists are a smaller demographic, and if we all got together we couldn't make Hollywood not show a pro-religion movie. Conversely, the Catholic Church could mobilize millions of people to boycott this movie. That's why it's an issue.

This shouldn't be an issue, and it's ridiculous to make it one. If parents don't want their children to even consider questioning their beliefs, they can not let them see it. Parents have that power and, as much of a shame as it is, are allowed to use it.

[Prozerran]

To take the joke too seriously for a minute, I completely agree with you on the "don't baby the kids" line, but you might be swinging the pendulum a little too far the other way. Rather than chucking them out to dodge cars, I personally would be telling them before they even reach the street to watch for cars, because a car will kill you if you run in front of it. This isn't the whole truth (cars hit you because the drivers are inattentive and because they're too heavy to slow down in time, they don't suddenly spring up and run you down when you go on the road) and technically, you could even say it is untrue (cars won't always hit you if you run in front of them, and there is in fact a slim chance that a 4 year-old can survive a collision) but the essential part of the information given is true. Then, you walk with them across the road, and once you are convinced they are ready, you let them cross the road on their own.

The problem with today's society is that a lot of people don't get further than holding the kid's hand as they cross. Some don't even get as far as telling them why cars are dangerous - they just hope that if they keep them away from any streets until they grow up, they'll magically know how to handle themselves (extended metaphor, people!).


Anyway, quibble over....

Completely agree. And yes, I was joking.


To summarize my opinion - yes, I'm with you on that one, just a little more selective of allowing what they experience, as well as explaining things to them where necessary.

It's interesting to note here what children are actually exposed to in Europe and Asia. Japanese anime (if you've ever seen it) contains violent and sexual content that younger children see on a fairly regular basis when they are as young as 10 years old. They aren't scarred for life. In fact, most children in Japan that are exposed to real life drama with adult subject matter are performing at much higher levels than children in our own schools. I don't know if there is a correlation here (and I'm not proposing one), but it's something to consider when thinking about what children are capable of reacting to.

I find it interesting that any time anything about Christianity (or any other religion, for that matter) is critiqued, it's called "bashing". For me, bashing is saying "Christianity is garbage". If a story portrays aspects of Christianity (or the Catholic church) in a particular light in order to reveal an aspect that people may not have considered, this is not bashing, it's critiquing. There's way too much bashing out there, and not nearly enough critiquing.

This is an excellent point. We have minds. We should use them.

I fail to see why this is even an issue. As eycor0 said, this was kind of the atheist answer to the Chronicles of Narnia. Narnia was made into a movie, and nobody cared.

Make this into a movie, and it has the most mild atheist overtones (I haven't seen it, but let's just pretend) and it's considered against the Church.

There's clearly a hypocrisy here: Atheism is the idea that there is no god. Religion is the opposite. The only reason this is an issue is because atheists are a smaller demographic, and if we all got together we couldn't make Hollywood not show a pro-religion movie. Conversely, the Catholic Church could mobilize millions of people to boycott this movie. That's why it's an issue.

This shouldn't be an issue, and it's ridiculous to make it one. If parents don't want their children to even consider questioning their beliefs, they can not let them see it. Parents have that power and, as much of a shame as it is, are allowed to use it.

I don't recall even hearing that Atheists were protesting The Chronicles of Narnia. Were they? See, it's a defining characteristic of a group founded on limiting principles to protest ANYTHING that conflicts with their view, no matter how meager. Atheism is not really founded on limiting principles, at least not that I'm aware. All it does is proclaim that there is no higher power, that we should not be limited in life or forced to live in fear of a higher being.

Now, while I believe a higher being exists, I agree with Atheists that we should not be limited in life to living in fear of what might happen to us in the afterlife. There's no freedom of will if we only make our choices for fear of what may happen to us that we cannot even know. SO, I don't think it really hypocritical. I think of it as a condition of being a limiting principle of Catholicism as I would any religion that seeks to condemn what conflicts with their views (Islam, the Teddy Bear named Muhammad anyone?)

[UMSLdragon]

I find it interesting that any time anything about Christianity (or any other religion, for that matter) is critiqued, it's called "bashing". For me, bashing is saying "Christianity is garbage". If a story portrays aspects of Christianity (or the Catholic church) in a particular light in order to reveal an aspect that people may not have considered, this is not bashing, it's critiquing. There's way too much bashing out there, and not nearly enough critiquing.
Much agreed. It's hard to refine ideas with bashing. Critiquing is much easier to learn from than arguments. If the person is open to them atleast. Although some critiguing doesn't help, like: "To help understand problems better, it would be best to drop your religion." Mind you, that could be border-lining bashing.

The problem with today's society is that a lot of people don't get further than holding the kid's hand as they cross. Some don't even get as far as telling them why cars are dangerous - they just hope that if they keep them away from any streets until they grow up, they'll magically know how to handle themselves (extended metaphor, people!).

To summarize my opinion - yes, I'm with you on that one, just a little more selective of allowing what they experience, as well as explaining things to them where necessary.
This is where I would say that would have to be very prominate in a childs life. Not so much to control and sift through what they do and such, but to be along side them as they grow. If they will grow with you, they'll grow "on" you as well. Which will hopefully turn into a great child-parent relationship when adulthood comes along. Well, that's the idea anyway. There could be disheartening factors that could play along. But in a perfect world, this would be ideal.

[hammocksleeper]

\ Conversely, the Catholic Church could mobilize millions of people to boycott this movie. That's why it's an issue.


No it couldn't. Pop culture and shit like this movie make people think that the Catholic church has zombie-like control over its followers. Completely false.

Did you know that the American coalition of Catholics has been fighting with Rome since forever for liberalization, etc and often has sets different policy ? Did you know that all throughout Brazil it is considered normal for a priest to get married and have children, after ordination, and be open about it all?

There are countless examples like this in the Church around the world. The Vatican interprets dogmatic things, writes the Catechism, etc but they don't tell Catholics what movie to watch, and if they did no one would listen anyway. Let go of your moronic ideas.

And I say all this not to show disdain for the Vatican. I am a faithful Catholic myself, and am just sharing some of the knowledge I have gained through my experience - both my parents are very active in the Church, especially with education, my priest was close friends with John Paul II and visited him all the time, and this summer I lived with a girl whose dad was a prominent member of Opus Dei (that was strange, when she told me about her childhood). My point is Catholicism is not anywhere close to Scientology or zombie-followers. Most of us derive our faith from scripture and long-standing tradition - much of which comes before the Church was even really organized as what you see today. So while the Holy Father has divine assistance, Rome does not really play the role of military general, giving orders.

[GenocideAlive]

The Catholic Church and the Pope are considered direct religious descendents of the Apostle Peter, who was ordained by God (or the Son of God, whatever you believe) in a rather famous quip to start the Church of Yahweh El Jehovah etc. You cannot defy the Pope unless you openly defy or question Apostolic Succession, which will rapidly earn you a name on the list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_excommunicated_by_the_Roman_Catholi c_Church).

IDK what your viewpoints on Scientology are in regard to their apparent ability to control its members, but I think denying someone the Light of God in a religious context seems rather control-esque. That's just me.

[UMSLdragon]

Come to think of it, the term church when it was first implamented didn't mean a building, but a gathering of people. The people were the chruch, not where they gathered. Just an interesting thought I contemplated adding...

About defying the pope. If he is standing something that is opposed to something biblical, could/would it be safe to say that you could? And still follwoing God? You're not suppose to ultimately follow some human figure, but God himself. So, if the human leader goes corrupt, ditch him.

Could it be that the real quip between the Chronicles of Narnia and The Golden Compass have to do with how influential the content was? I've read the Cronicles and it only fictionized a view point. It only mentioned a view point. But from what I've heard in this thread (i haven't read the book yet) is that the Golden Compass "sounds" propagated against the Catholic Chruch. From my standing point, the Cronicles didn't force a view point on to someone, but merely mentioned it to carry and hold together a story. I'm not getting the save vibe from the Golden Compass.

Maybe I should read the book. Sounds like... um, and interesting read...

UMSL

[hammocksleeper]

A couple of things here. (warning: serious apologetics and theology to follow - if you are hardcore atheist you might not be turned on by this)

The Catholic Church and the Pope are considered direct religious descendents of the Apostle Peter, who was ordained by God (or the Son of God, whatever you believe) in a rather famous quip to start the Church of Yahweh El Jehovah etc. You cannot defy the Pope unless you openly defy or question Apostolic Succession, which will rapidly earn you a name on the list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_excommunicated_by_the_Roman_Catholi c_Church).

Excommunication, should it occur due to some defiance of Rome, although highly unlikely, is not the end-all-be-all of anything. Most importantly, an excommunicated person is not denied entrance to the Kingdom of Heaven. "The excommunicated person, it is true, does not cease to be a Christian, since his baptism can never be effaced."

Moreover, an excommunication is said to be null when it is invalid because of some intrinsic or essential defect, e.g. when the motive of the excommunication is manifestly incorrect and inconsistent, or when the excommunication is essentially defective in form.

Assuming a valid excommunication, as I said, one is not doomed. "At the point of death", says the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, c. vii), "in danger of death", says the Ritual (tit. III, cap. i, n. 23), any priest can absolve from all sins and censures, even if he be without the ordinary faculties of confessors, or if he himself be excommunicated.

-----

In further response to GA, and also to UMSLdragon's question, I will touch on the notion of infallibility, which I believe is what GA was referring to.

First it should be clarified that papal infallibility is a part of the larger infallibility of the Church. The following ecclesiological truths are established:

that Christ founded His Church as a visible and perfect society;
that He intended it to be absolutely universal and imposed upon all men a solemn obligation actually to belong to it, unless inculpable ignorance should excuse them;
that He wished this Church to be one, with a visible corporate unity of faith, government, and worship; and that
in order to secure this threefold unity, He bestowed on the Apostles and their legitimate successors in the hierarchy -- and on them exclusively -- the plenitude of teaching, governing, and liturgical powers with which He wished this Church to be endowed.

And from this we draw the infallibility of the Church, despite the fallibility of its components when viewed separately.

And so to the point, GA, the definition of papal infallibility is in truth much narrower than you are arguing in your post. This is a complex sentence, so read it carefully:

The Vatican Council has defined as "a divinely revealed dogma" that "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra -- that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church -- is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church's consent." (Densinger no. 1839 -- old no. 1680)

Only when the manyfold requirements detailed above are met is papal infallibility be inferred. To cite examples illustrating the importance of this disctinction, the instances of Popes Liberius, Honorius, and Vigilius, and the Galileo affair in which the heliocentric theory was condemned, are shown as actions outside the scope of infallibility.

Source (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/index.html)

[LinkTheGameFreak]

Not commenting specifically on this movie (but in reference to the article the OP pointed us to), it seems that every time that something new comes out that parents are not familiar with (books, movies, etc) that involves an unfamiliar world, the immediate mode of thought is witchcraft and the like. Simply going back about 8 years, we had Pokemon and the christian league attacked it on the basis that it was demonic. 6 years back we had Harry Potter movies and that was deemed witchcraft that (as I heard one fundamentalist preacher say) "teaches children real spells". Some people even got against Narnia (though not as many since it was CS Lewis).

Now we have something that follows the same kind of formula that the film industry has been cranking out for children the past 20-30 years (albeit with better visual effects) and groups are crying foul.

The thing is that a large majority of these people don't even watch these movies and instead rely on what their church tells them. Case in point, my girlfriend's aunt told me not to get any pokemon for her son's birthday and I asked her why and she told me that her friends and family have said they're demonic, as well as the church. Suffice to say her friends most likely heard that from their pastor who read it in "Pastor Monthly"

If they REALLY want to see demonic, I'm sure I can find a place online that specializes in that kind of shit, and I've been to a place in Chicago once that makes Harry Potter look like child's play (which it really is)

As for the Golden Compass - it's not my cup of tea - I most likely won't see it and i think some of these people should follow that lead and just not see it if they don't like the idea of the movie. Sounds simple, but it's probably not.

[UMSLdragon]

The thing is that a large majority of these people don't even watch these movies and instead rely on what their church tells them. Case in point, my girlfriend's aunt told me not to get any pokemon for her son's birthday and I asked her why and she told me that her friends and family have said they're demonic, as well as the church. Suffice to say her friends most likely heard that from their pastor who read it in "Pastor Monthly"

If they REALLY want to see demonic, I'm sure I can find a place online that specializes in that kind of shit, and I've been to a place in Chicago once that makes Harry Potter look like child's play (which it really is)

lol, agreed! My best say would to either read it for yourself and judge in light of what you believe (ie morals and such) or refer to someone whom you trust (not just any o' pastor) and even then, do some digging yourself. I have read Harry Potter and was into Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh and such. Good fun, but my discression is for me and my belief. Those that are apart of that belief... don't readily reccommend getting into it. Unless you've got a mind that isn't easily influenced (like a childs)

Other than that... knock youselves out. Just finished LotR, now starting Golden COompass... maybe a book review would do also...

UMSL

[Kingscrab]

I don't see what all the hype was about. This movie was so bad and disjointed that it distracted me from any sort of message it was trying to get across. While I "got" the anti-religious message, all I wanted to do was leave the theater anyhow. It's one of those situations where they (radical christians?) should have just STFU let the movie sink itself into obscurity. *shrug*