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 34 of 35)
496. Oh Emily, my dear snotling, who cares?
Fantasy has always been a risky manuvery for Hollywood. It always will be. Narnia and Lord of the Rings also had a sixty year head start on Golden Compass, and for all the movie's excellence and wonder it is a very contemporary series wrapped in contraversy. Pullman sought this contraversy out and wrapped it into his story. If Hollywood grosses are the only measure of success you recognize then there are many works of Shakespear that have failed miserably.
But on to your greater offence, Emily. The notion that America is a christian nation. You see Emily, I do know my history, particularly my English history. Do you know what a "christian nation" truly is? 16th century Great Britian. They had their official church of state, the Anglican church, which was far less tolerant than the creature that exists today. Were you a Catholic... or a Puritan... or a Jew... You could not hold public office. Not from member of Parlement down to local city council. It was illegal. Were you of one of these denominations you stood a very good chance of being burned out of your home by an angry mob, suffer abuse, and have fines levied against you. Why? Because England was a christian nation. It had its christian church. It had its laws regarding christianity.
Now that you know that, my dear snotling, I'm sure you agree that we were not founded as a nation because of christianity, but in spite of it. After all, if we were a christian nation, it would be hypocritical to have an amendment banning state interference of churches. After all, the ten commandments begins with "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." In fact, it seems that America's laws were utterly bereft of biblical influence back then. Oh, there are laws banning murder, theft, and perjury, but two and a half commandments honored out of ten is hardly what I would call a resounding mark of evidence in favor of a christian founding when America (and every nation in the world and in history) has laws banning murder and theft in general.
But perhaps you were thinking of the men as founding this christian nation of yours? In that case, my dear snotling, you will find yourself quite disappointed. Locke and Rousseau were both staunch agnostics bordering on atheists. Franklin too was an atheist. Jefferson, Hamilton, and Washington were all deists... that is they believed that there was a god of some sort but that God was more likely nature itself rather than anything christian. Indeed, Jefferson, Washington, and Franklin often refered to faith and christianity as unproductive, useless, superficial, hypocritical, and tyranical. Not references one would commonly find in a christian nation. In fact... I can not recall one preacher, pastor, bishop, or otherwise man of religous office involved in the proceedings. As as the 1797 treaty of Tripoli states "America is not a christian nation." and was ratified without debate or outcry, it's rather doubtful that America had any business being a christian nation.
But you have piqued my curiousity, snotling. Yes you have. You have refered to America as 'Blessed'. What are these blessings for they must be great indeed for us to recieve them inspite of having no christian laws and an expressed seperation of church and state. Perhaps God approved of the eradication of the native peoples and the enslavement of the blacks. The bible is rife with slaughter and enslavement so perhaps that is what you refer to. No? Perhaps you refer to allowing the unnatural act of... a moment for me to compose myself at the audacity of it... letting women vote? After all the bible is a fount of permissiveness for women's rights. Perhaps God blessed us for that. We may test this theory by following a biblical direction explicitly... hmmm... I have it! Let's smash each woman's face with a bar of iron should she talk back against her husband. Hmmm... well no, that would be terribly unfair to you, Emily. Ah! Perhaps you are talking about our economical might! Yes, nothing says God like greed and covetousness! These christian values surely must be... hmmm... I'm afraid I'm not finding why God would bless us with that. Are we both using the same edition, Emily?
In fact... I can't find one single reason in the bible for why America or Americans would deserve a single blessing for what we do, or have ever done, as a nation. Perhaps, my dear snotling, you would reconsider your possition.
Somber at 9:00AM on Dec 18th 2007
497. I have been compelled to reveal spoilers. I apologize.
No Bridget. In the movie, God makes no appearance. But in the book, God is not merely an ideal or a spokesman. He is an active character desperate to make his creations choose to obey him and love him... inspite of all the horrific things done in his name. He wishes people to be dolls, having freewill in name only. Oh he doesn't want true slaves. No. He wants love. More love than what people give to their spouces or their children or each other. He made their universe, damn it, and so you better do as he says.
Truly, would you venerate such a God, Bridget?
Somber at 9:05AM on Dec 18th 2007
498. Is this what the out come of this comment section to see who can beat each other up the most? Or to try and sling the most mud on the other person? What kind of reasoning is that? Does that benefit you at all? Does it enhance your learning experience or intelligence any? What does it profit you?
Christian at 9:26AM on Dec 18th 2007
499. Satisfaction, my dear. Satisfaction.
To skewer the ignorant and the lazy and the hysterical with wit, intelligence, and reason is a satisfaction that can not be matched. And to recieve such a blow is easily as enjoyable and vindicating. I love some one capable of levelling a truly substantial argument against myself. I really do. And I respect those who disagree. But to ignore those who vomit their opinion where they will without thought or reason is to give permission to incivility and ignorance, and this I will not do. I will dissent. I will challenge. I will question. And I respect a response as I give.
Somber at 9:35AM on Dec 18th 2007
500. ATHEIST
Repy to: 496. Is this what the out come of this comment section to see who can beat each other up the most? Or to try and sling the most mud on the other person? What kind of reasoning is that? Does that benefit you at all? Does it enhance your learning experience or intelligence any? What does it profit you? (end)
____________
Matthew Murray committed suicide because of the nightmares inflicted on him by Pentecostal Christianity.
Do you want to LEARN about Christianity? Are you afraid to actually read the New Testament?
Chapter 2 of Mark
Jesus encounters a man in a synagogue in Capernaum who is possessed by an unclean spirit.
The demon says, "I know who you are. You are Jesus of Nazareth, the Holy One of God.
NOTE TO CHRISTIANS:
When an invisible demonic spirit identifies your Savior as the Holy One of God, that is NOT a good thing.
Why? Oh, come on. Can't you tell me?
There are NO invisible demonic spirits.
Any story about an Exorcist.... is ONLY a story.
It's FICTION.
Your religion has dumbed you down to the point that you can't tell a story from a factual account.
Christianity is making you dumb.
William Hays at 9:48AM on Dec 18th 2007
501. Pullman is echoing Julian Huxley.
I believe it was Julian Huxley who stated that the purpose behind his atheism was to achieve complete sexual freedom. Huxley said that if God really exists, then we are not be free to commit the wide range of sexual acts that our minds can imagine.
KVR
kvryland at 10:28PM on Dec 18th 2007
502. So your goals are satisfaction for your self, humiliation/destruction of someone you feel is mentally inferior to you? Is there more then this or does this sum it up?
Christian at 10:06AM on Dec 18th 2007
503. For those who come here unarmed and unprepaired, absolutely. To those who think a bold general declaration equates to debate, there is nothing better than to smash their declaration. If humiliation is achieved, so be it, but what I secretly nurture in my breast is that though those cracks a bit of light will shine though and illuminate the dark recesses of their mind. That they will think about what they said, think about themselves, and seek a better argument and more intelligent response. Ultimately, my goal is for people to think. And for those who do, they have my deepest respect, even if they disagree with me. Especially if they disagree with me.
Now, off to work.
Somber at 10:12AM on Dec 18th 2007
504. First of all, and this is a minor point, the Nazi regime wasn't atheist. It was religious. Not Christian (although for a time it tried to tout itself as Christian), but definately religious. In fact, the Weimar Republic fell, in part, because the Germans were discontent with the lack of morality under that leadership--an aspect of that Republic that Hitler pointed out when he was "running for offic." This is just a minor point.
Secondly, in The Amber Spyglass Lyra and Will never have sex. They basically just make out. The point of it all is that, ever since the Middle Ages, the Christian Church has always thought that sex was always bad and was simply a necessary evil that women weren't supposed to enjoy. I would like to not that I say all of this and I am NOT a feminist. Women who were reputed to enjoy sex and sleep around were tortured and burned at the stake as heretics and witches. The Church's fear of sex has continued, and the Church as a whole does not generally teach Christian sex ed.; instead, we just tend to "steer clear" of that subject and continue to tell teens that "sex is bad," implying that sex is bad always, instead of telling them that sex is good, but only in the bonds of marriage. The Christian Church also has a tendency to fear knowledge, especially since the prevelance of evolution has infiltrated our education systems. We tend to associate knowledge and science with evolution, when in fact evolution is an unproven theory that has very little to do with actual science. Evolution and unbridled sexuality tend to be promoted by those who do not want their lives controlled by God because the people of God tend to be fearful and close-minded. I am not saying that as Christians we should accept everything; but I am saying that when our God is for us, who can be against us? God is not afraid of atheism or sexual immorality. It makes Him sad, and what He wants us to do is love people and show them an accurate picture of Who God really is. To do this, we cannot condemn people and even ideas from a fearful distance. We cannot live in a bubble. We are IN the world, even though we are not OF the world. It is our fear that perpetuates atheism, not our morality.
Pelvic atheism is really funny, though.
Anna at 10:58AM on Dec 18th 2007
505. Also,
get your facts straight. When Pullman wrote these books, he most definitely NOT targeting children. These books are obviously for older teens and adults. In fact, the bulk of the fantasy/sci fi genre is for older teens and adults. Including the Lord of the Rings trilogy. C.S. Lewis's books are more of an exception than a rule.
Pullman is targeting an audience old enough to think about what he's saying. All the 12-year-old kids I know who read these books don't pick up on the philosophy or the sex.
Anna at 10:57AM on Dec 18th 2007
506. So it's necessary to hurl pernicious insults and degrade a mentally inferior person to get them to think? If they are mentally inferior to you, are you trying to lead them to your level of consciousness or just take pleasure in watching them stumble? Or is it rather survival of the fittest?
Christian at 11:11AM on Dec 18th 2007
507. Sounds to me as if Dinesh D'Souza has actually found himself a bona fide God-hater in Pullman...
... then again perhaps he, Pullman is simply railing against the Church and the Bible's view of what God is supposed to be like!
I can imagine D'Souza up in Heaven(not really) explaining to the Awful Judge why he spenting his time demonizing people who simply did not believe in the supernatural... under the guise of blaming all the for the sins of Pullman, Dennet, Hitchen's et al.
The Judge might mention the mote/plank in eye analogy... D'evil has that avarice thingy... pride, for sure...
..and... hey perhaps you Christians commenting can help out ... why is D'evil D'Souza NOT a GOOD Christian???
pboyfloyd at 12:54PM on Dec 18th 2007
508. Somber #493: "But on to your greater offence, Emily. The notion that America is a christian nation. You see Emily, I do know my history..."
Somber, if you know your history as well as you suggest, why do you ignore the Great Awakening, a Christian religious movement that has been called "the proto-revolutionary event" by historians? Many have argued that sans the Great Awakening, the Revolution wouldn't have been possible. If Christianity thus played so central a role in our founding (through what Adams called a change in "the minds and hearts of the people; and change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations."); if, as historian Paul Johnson has said, "the Revolution could not have taken place without this religious background"; if all this is true, is it so hard to suppose it's at least reasonable to suggest that our nation is grounded in Christian principles, which is merely another way of saying we are fundamentally a Christian nation (broadly understood -- I'll get to your conception of what a Christian nation must be below)?
Somber wrote: "After all, if we were a christian nation, it would be hypocritical to have an amendment banning state interference of churches."
This is wrong for two basic reasons. The first is, as I have mentioned before and won't belabor now, the U.S. didn't ban government interference with churches on the state level until the twentieth century. The "ban" only restricted the federal government. The second reason this is wrong can be traced both to Christ and to Augustine. Both clearly asserted that Christianity and the state held sway over fundamentally separate spheres of influence. This notion wasn't, of course, always put into practice -- indeed, it was most often violated -- but that doesn't change the fact that the idea is there from the beginning. So the notion of a Christian nation in which the state is neutral with respect to religion fits very well into the Christian worldview. I'm presupposing (rather uncontroversially, it seems to me) that your understanding of "a Christian nation" as one in which the state rules through or enforces Christian norms is far too narrow. A Christian nation may simply be one that is dominated by or grounded in Christian mores, which of course inevitably influence, though they don't determine, both the laws and the operation of the state.
Somber wrote: "Locke and Rousseau were both staunch agnostics bordering on atheists. Franklin too was an atheist."
Locke certainly wasn't a "staunch agnostic bordering on" atheist. If you read his First Treatise of Government or his Letter on Toleration, this will become clear. His First Treatise argues explicitly from biblical premises (answering Filmer), and in his Letter he explicitly says that "faithless" atheism should not be tolerated. And here's a quote from his "Essay Concerning Human Understanding": "Since God in giving us the light of reason has not thereby tied up his own hands from affording us, when he thinks fit, the light of revelation in any of those matters [i.e. matters above reason], wherein our natural faculties are able to give a probable determination, revelation, where god has been pleased to give it, must carry it, against the probable conjectures of reason." If Locke is an agnostic, he's one in the same sense that Dinesh is, viz. a sophisticated believer who understands what a claim to knowledge constitutes.
Rousseau also was clearly not a "staunch agnostic." Here's a quote from "Rousseau's Dog": "To the philosophes, split between a minority who were deists and the majority who were outright atheists, Rousseau's conviction that God existed, his professed love for God, his belief in God's goodness, his certainty that there was an afterlife and that the souls was immortal -- all this was risible."
Finally, Franklin was no atheist. Here's a quote from "The First American": "Franklin's theology had changed over the years, from borderline atheism to rationalistic deism. At times in his later years it would approach Christianity. Throughout, however, Franklin's god remained as reasonable as himself."
So, what's the point of all this? Only that it's not simply a matter of saying, "We don't have an established church, here are some influential atheists, and we have the First Amendment, ergo, we cannot be described as a Christian nation!" Personally, I think there is a strong argument to be made on both sides, and I don't know enough yet to commit myself one way or the other. But I do know that your factual errors, strawman (where's the established church?) and overall argument do not very strongly support the notion that we aren't a Christian nation.
eric at 6:14PM on Dec 18th 2007
509. "SOMBER"....your "incivility" is very irritating, your "intelligence" vastly overated, by you, and yet I do enjoy reading your diatribes.
Not since the "Mass Ascension in Albuquerque" have I seen so much "hot air" in one place.
Cee at 6:57PM on Dec 18th 2007
510. ok um did you ever hear about the crusades???? How about the Inquisition?? pretty convenient to forget about all the bad things done in the name of Christianity huh?
alexc at 11:07AM on Dec 19th 2007