Just in time for Christmas, Hollywood has released The Golden Compass, a film based on the first book of a trilogy of children's novels written by atheist Philip Pullman. Pullman is not a fan of his fellow childrens' writers J.R.R. Tolkien or C.S. Lewis. He denounced the Lord of the Rings trilogy as "infantile" and absolutely hated the Chronicles of Narnia, calling it "morally loathsome" and "one of the most ugly and poisonous things I've ever read."
This is downright weird.
Some critics have objected to the overdrawn contrast between the forces of light and the forces of darkness in Christian fiction, but Pullman's trilogy is no less Manichean. The only difference is that in Pullman's world the evil regime is run by God Himself. Pullman pictures a kind of Calvinist moral structure, run by a kind of Catholic network called the Magisterium, and behind the whole oppressive system is a tyrannical God. As Pullman envisions it, the church kidnaps and tortures children and subjects them to hideous experiments in which their bodies are separated fro their souls and the children are turned into zombies who are then left to die. Pullman's trilogy finally ends with God being killed, the collapse of the Calvinist moral rules, and the emergence of sexual freedom.
Profoundly stupid stuff. I was not surprised to discover that Pullman is a big fan of atheist Richard Dawkins. Pullman speaks of religion in terms that could be lifted directly from The God Delusion. Pullman has been quoted saying it is not even possible for God to exist. "Every single religion," he says, "that has a monotheistic God ends up by persecuting other people and killing them because they don't accept him." Actually this is flatly untrue of Judaism and Hindusim and only in a very qualified sense true of Islam and Christianity. It would be more accurate to say that every atheist regime, from Communism to the Nazi regime in Germany, has systematically persecuted and killed its opponents for practicing traditional religion and for not accepting their secular race and class-based ideologies.
Certainly Pullman knows that there is nothing oppressive or murderous in today's Anglicanism. He is free in his native London to believe or not to believe. What is it then about religion that he's so strongly opposed to? For Pullman, as for many atheists, the problem with Christianity seems mostly to focus on sexual freedom. Reviewing Pullman's work in The Atlantic Monthly, Hanna Rosin writes, "The most curious aspect of Pullman's theology is the primacy he places on teen sexuality...the whole series builds up to a celebration of losing your virginity." So here is Pullman's case against religion. Basically, religion is what asks you to pull your pants up. This may be termed Pelvic Atheism.
True to form, Hollywood has stripped Pullman's movie of its overt anti-religiosity. The evil guys in the Hollywood version are not God's minions but a kind of amorphous Nazi-type dictatorship. Pullman can take solace, however, in the fact that the movie will probably lead a lot of people to read his books. Aren't we fortunate to have an atheist children's novelist whose main objective seems to be to corrupt the minds and morals of the young?
Reader Comments ( Page 2 of 35)
16. I found these, some early writings on ELVIC ATHEISM, in a museum.
THE PRESLEYIAN SCROLLS, VOLUME 1: "And on the third day, Dog created sequins. And they were good. All ELVIC ATHEISTS must wear sequins on Wednesdays and Fridays, but if they are worn on Mondays, the ELVIC ATHEIST must be stoned to death."
So you see, the non-religion of ELVIC ATHEISM must be true.
brandon at 10:46AM on Dec 17th 2007
17. brandon, I too have worshipped at the shrine of the Elvic, yea, as a young child I did see on venue "Ed Sullivan" the wild pelvic elvic gyrations of the King of All Rock.
It did sendth me unto a hormonal frenzy, causing my menses to occur 8 years early.
Have to admit, I have not read these books of Pullman, nor seen the movie yet, so I will await commentary until I at least see the movie.
I'm sure "eric" will be glad. He was awful whiney on the last blog.
Linda at 10:47AM on Dec 17th 2007
18. Like Dylan sang, "It may be the Devil or it may be the Lord but you've got to serve somebody." There aint no in between. The Good Book says to "choose you this day whom you will serve." If there's a creation there's got to be a Creator. I'm going with Him!
geocentre at 10:50AM on Dec 17th 2007
19. geocentre:
So, you are just as deluded as dylan?
If those are your choices, then you are sadly missing the infinite in betweens.
Linda at 10:52AM on Dec 17th 2007
20. Personally, I believe Pullman is a lot more concerned with free will than he is with sexuality. Seems to me the clergy is much for fascinated with the latter and has the history to prove it! The Golden Compass teaches kids how to be brave in the face of oppression, how to question doctrine. And that's a good thing, being we live in a dictatorship, driven by religious dogma. And if religion made one pull up his pants, why the obsession with sexual promiscuity and porn in a country that is over 80% Christian? Why all the teen pregnancies? Atheists don't count on god to keep them from getting pregnant, so they actually use protection!
emma at 10:58AM on Dec 17th 2007
21. Obviously DD hasn't heard about the deathly persecution of Christians going on in India right now. Fanatic Hindu's are killing Christians by the dozen. I do wish you would do some kind of research before you preach something Dinesh..
danny at 10:57AM on Dec 17th 2007
22. geocentre,
If I serve people food at Graceland, does that count? That is still serving somebody, right? And it's also part of ELVIC ATHEISM, so I'm covered.
brandon at 10:59AM on Dec 17th 2007
23. 13. brandon,
try the bathroom where your stench breeds!! you will find some familar odors,you know your warm pond kind
brian at 10:37AM on Dec 17th 2007
_______________________________________________
brian (little b)'s choice of words always make me laugh out loud. It's like he knows his beliefs and method of defending them are rediculous, so he pretends to be William Shakespeare to give, even if it is ever so minimal, weight to his "arguments."
"And I say to thee, Brandon, try thy bathroom, where your foul stench of the heathens breeds!! There you shall find ye familiar odors. Aye, ye know your warm pond kind."
ROTFLMAO. I can even see him in tights...
Break Time at 11:00AM on Dec 17th 2007
24. The quality and compelling nature of Dinesh's commentary is confirmed by the poorly-expressed, knee-jerk, infantile responses of those who disagree with him (see brandon's comments and christian shill boy's feeble attempt at irony above). Our "education" establishment cranks out a steady stream of dunderheads who seem permanently frozen as smirking adolescents, thinking Jon Stewart and Bill Maher to be intellectual giants, and "South Park" to be sophisticated art.
I love the term "Pelvic Atheism," as it succintly describes one of my generation's (Baby Boomers)many negative contributions to contemporary culture: the notion that personal fulfillment is found through wanton recreational use of our genitalia. Those who warn against this poison are considered oppressors, met with tantrums and worse. To use our most recent [and bogus] Nobel Prize winner's terminology, the Bible might be re-titled "An Inconvenient God." Who does He think He is, anyway?
chemdad at 11:05AM on Dec 17th 2007
25. And...Elvis died in the bathroom, so it is Right and Just that I worship there!
brandon at 11:02AM on Dec 17th 2007
26. I had my first and only sexual experience at the hands of the priest in our church, growing up. I thank him for this education and assistance in my personal growth and maturity. I can't understand why these pedophile priests are villainized so, when you consider the tremendous personal growth and maturity that has come from my rape by the priest at such an early age. In fact, the parties where several priests and bishops would swill booze and cheer as me and my 12-year old friends jumped out of birthday cakes also furthered my healthy growth and upbringing into the man that I am today.
PELVIC CHRISTIANITY, I call it!!
You go, Dinesh!!
christian shill boy at 11:06AM on Dec 17th 2007
27. Shake me god.
Shake out of me all things carnal.
Ohmmmmm.........
a devout shaker and loving life! at 11:09AM on Dec 17th 2007
28. None of you have any reason to be overtly against Faith.
As for religion, I can certainly understand the cynical disillusionment with the man-made structure that has proven itself false and broken many times over.
Thank God for HOPE because I see a change in how church goers and church leaders are going about their business.
It's no longer, throw out the "wicked" but moreover, embrace the soul and clean the body. Basically, reach out to those suffering and deprived of serenity.
You say you are already serene? You seem to be able to lie to yourself quite well. I know for a fact that serenity peace is not in someone's life when that someone deems it rational to spew sarcastic hatred at people with a belief structure that differs from your own.
How in the goodness name can you even stomach the hypocrisy of your hypocrisy? I'll be honest, the church knows no limit on hypocrisy, but there are so many worth their weight in salt who do GOOD in their lives and have PEACE within themselves and their families.
I'm not doubting that you have peace in your lives, I know for a fact that you don't. I can list 110 examples, but I'd rather just leave it at the stated truth. Your tendency of vicious outlashing in "oh-so-funny" tones shows exactly how deeply pained you are.
I know a way of alleviating that pain, but ironically many of my close friends have said, "That's too easy". I then proceed in explaining that no, my friend, it is most certainly not easy. You're faced to be responsible for all you've done, even if social law or mankind law deem your actions of accord.
Many people do not wished to be "constrained" by "fake principles" of right and wrong, good and evil. Problem is, this is always the case with the person who wishes to be "free" to do good and evil at their whim. This is not being FREE but rather being a slave to your desires.
The net result is that satisfaction is fleeting and temporary, if not just for that moment. The desire comes, is satisfied, the elation transpires to "relaxation" and life goes on. But the ups and downs between the cyclic need/want -> satisfaction -> need/want is that the cycle NEVER ends. Live loses a deeper sense of meaning because you are defined according to a semi-scheduled time scale wherein all things "in between" are just mundane mush.
This is no different from the drug addict or alcoholic. I too have an addictive personality and have found myself addicted to different "social distractions" many times over. The cyclic depressions (in graphical terms) contrast greater and greater with the high points. The only way to try and maintain a positive progression is to do the "more-frequent-more-often" pattern. Then the "joy" that once was simply becomes the mundane, the average norm.
This is why you are not satisfied. This is why life eventually loses the pungent taste of vitality, mainly because of what you base your life on.
Remember this, not once in this post did I mention anything about YOU coming into the faith. I just told you what many people fail to see. Open up them eyes.
mincpa at 11:10AM on Dec 17th 2007
29. As some one who is a fan of all three authors, perhaps I can offer a little perspective.
C.S. Lewis was a theological scholar and his fantasy novels were largely religiously allegorical. "The voyage of the Dawn Treader.", "The Magician's Nephew", and "The Last Battle" were explicitly allegorical, "The Lion, Witch, and Wardrobe." and "A Horse and his Boy." were more metaphorical, and "Prince Caspian" and "The Silver Chair" were more fantastical. What Dinesh... and so many other christians who do not study the fantasy genre... does not realize is that C.S. Lewis also addressed themes that were not biblical, such as trust, friendship, and the mysteries of childhood. C.S. Lewis himself often said that while he was inspired by the bible and christianity, had he incorporated nothing but biblical references it would have been a very dull story indeed.
On the other hand, Tolkien was not allegorical. "I detest allegory wherever I smell it." he once wrote in a letter to a friend. Tolkein was a christian, yes, but his religion played a far smaller role to his novels than other more universal themes of the perception of power, hope, despair, and creation. Tolkien didn't write his novels because of biblical inspiration or religious themes, but in spite of them. There is no church of Gondor. In fact, there are no references to God, period, in LotR. To find them you have to dig deep through the Sandmarillion and Tolkien's own notes to find that Gandalf and Saruman are the equivalent of angels, and Morgoth the equivalent of Satan. Why do you have to search to find it? Because Tolkien himself was ashamed that he was forced to borrow the story from the bible.
Now Pullman is a writer in an entirely different vein. He is an atheist with a profoundly strident opinion about God and religion and it should be no surprise that such beliefs should show through in his writing. What you fail to appriciate is the scope of what Pullman places his characters against in his novel. There is no question that God exists in his world. He is intelligent, active, and not very nice. Pullman gives us a glimpse into just what an absolute and controlling being God truly is if he existed. And the characters have to fight such a creature. A creature that is just as vast and powerful as the God that you venerate.
Also, Dinesh, once more you're a little short on perspective. True, today there are no laws requiring Pullman to practice a faith, but that has not always been the case. In fact, it was only a century or so ago that one had to be an anglican to hold office. And a few centuries before that you had Cromwell fighting a religious civil war in England. Looking at other faiths, there's no lack of subject matter for inspiring Pullman's God. Just consider the Taliban and Iran's clerical order. Could they have existed and exersized so powerful a rule if there was no islam, with it's equally unprovable and arbitrary God? Probably not. And even the most blantant religious offenders aside, religion carries with it the stench of authoritarianism about it. You should do this. You shouldn't do that. Why? A book says that god says so. A man says god says so. Really, if such an all powerful being wanted to send people a no-no you think he could give us all a sign that we could put on U-tube. But no. It's always a person or a think speaking on God's behalf, and it is always to restrict. To conform. To try and force people into being whatever said religion is comfortable with.
Pullman rejects such notions. And yes, he discusses teenage sexuality. So what? For millions of years human beings have been having sex... in their teens. Could it be because of a vast atheist conspiracy, or maybe it has to do with the biological impulses associated with puberty? And yet the monothesitic faiths frown upon sex. I can understand why in a cultural aspect, being that the ancient Hebrews were such a extreme minority on the verge of annihilation it only made sense to adopt strict controls on the reproductive system. But humans don't have a little timer on them that dings when they're ready to have sex. Pullman recognizes that, and he detests the audacity of religions to presume to control when a person should and shouldn't explore their sexuality... something that is perhaps the most personal and self defining experiance of all.
So by all means, Dinesh, disapprove of Pullman. I personally don't like some of his exposition dumps, but that's just me. But don't pretend like just because he is an atheist that some how his fantasy writing is cheapened. Yes, there are fantasy writers who have been inspired by the bible like C.S. Lewis, there are those who are inspired in spite of the bible, like Tolkien, and then there are those who are inspired by the idea of the absense of the bible. Like Mr. Pullman.
Somber at 11:09AM on Dec 17th 2007
30. I LOVE Lord of the Rings, however, it's exteremly racist and I can see why someone like Pullman would want to write a "response" to it.
Narnia is just infantile.
I've not read the Pullman books but I think it's funny how all the Christians are freaking out about them. Get a grip.
Ryan Anderson at 11:13AM on Dec 17th 2007