Stewart 5

You may be sick of this conversation already.

Tomorrow, the movie The Golden Compass opens in cinemas. Big controversy because

1. some feel it “promotes atheism”.  well, not so much this movie as the third book of this trilogy.  And the author – Philip Pullman has been pretty clear that he is not religious (of any sort).
2. others find offense at the fact that there is a big ominous religious organization (church) that is all about oppression and control.

Let me just stop there.  Have you received all the emails about how bad this movie is, especially because in the third book, the protagonist children kill God?  I would love to hear from anyone who has read the books.  Would you describe the books as having an anti-God agenda?  Or anti-church?  Or anti-religiosity?
And can I add that I am also opposed to big ominous religous organizations that discourage creativity and exercise oppression.  I hope we all are!  I guess the problem for us Christians is that we know the author is talking about us, or at least the bad manifestations of us.

I will definitely see this movie.  And if I can get my hands on them, I will read the books.  Why?  Well, because I want to make an informed decision.  I’m pretty sure that reading the books won’t cause me to turn my back on God.  I would hope that all of us are critical enough readers/viewers to take the good with the bad.  If we can’t see movies made by athiests (or anyone who is different from us) we won’t be able to see many movies.  Sort of makes dialogue difficult, don’t you think?  Do you only engage what you already agree with?

Look, I can understand if you think that this movie, which is clearly targeted at children (my oldest has seen all the commercials and wants to see it), might be confusing for children, or even cause them to have some warped perceptions/values.  So, don’t take your kids if you haven’t seen it.  Don’t you do the same with movies that might be too violent or scary?  YOU should decide, not some “critic.”  Why is their opinion more important than anyone else’s?  I’ve yet to hear that there is anything that is actually offensive about the film.

For what it’s worth, I read some interviews with Pullman and here are a few quotes I find interesting:
“My point is that religion is at its best — it does most good — when it is farthest away from political power, and that when it gets hold of the power to (for example) send armies to war or to condemn people to death, or to rule every aspect of our lives, it rapidly goes bad. Sometimes people think that if something is done in the name of faith or religion, it must be good. Unfortunately, that isn’t true; some things done in the name of religion are very bad. That was what I was trying to describe in my story.”

I agree.

“I think the qualities that the books celebrate are those such as kindness, love, courage and courtesy too. And intellectual curiosity. All these good things. And the qualities that the books attack are cold-heartedness, tyranny, close-mindedness, cruelty, the things that we all agree are bad things.”

Sounds ok.

“What I do care about is whether people are cruel or whether they’re kind, whether they act for democracy or for tyranny, whether they believe in open-minded enquiry or in shutting the freedom of thought and expression. Good things have been done in the name of religion, and so have bad things; and both good things and bad things have been done with no religion at all. What I care about is the good, wherever it comes from. ”

seems simplistic, but I agree.

So, based on what I have heard from the author and what I have heard from his critics, he is promoting good values without God/religion.  Is he secretly advocating atheism as well?  I guess I’ll have to see for myself.

Comments(8)