A Strong & Urgent Plea from the ol' Sled Dog

[mrsl]

I did it again. After a couple of you directed comments to me, I couldn't figure out why you had or what you meant - then I re-read my post. I should have started a new paragraph for that last sentence. The 'idiots' I was referring to were not the religious figures (priests, ministers, etc.) but the idiots who are trying to cause the boycotts, as in reference to my first post. Although you're right, it does read the way you took it. You all owe me 20 lashes with wet noodles I deserve them for not writing more clearly.

Just because I don't personally practice the Catholic or any other formal religion, I would never fault anyone who did, nor harass those church leaders, and I never discuss religion in public - politics, Yes - religion, No.

Anne

[SSO Admins]

As I've mentioned before, my dad is a Methodist minister, as were my grandfather, great grandfather, and two of my uncles. I'm not a believer, but I don't denigarate those who do. I'm even sympathetic towards protestant fundamentalists, which is fairly rare for a political liberal.

That said, I think it's important to look at what's behind the boycott. The principal driver is William Donohue of the Catholic League. I wouldn't call him an idiot. I'd call him a nasty, small minded, self-promoting thug whose principal motivation is less protecting children than it is taking offense at popular culture to get himself on cable news shows. Respect for religion does not imply respect for a particular purveyor of religion.

The main thrust of Pullman's books (which I have read several times and love) is not that they are anti-religion but that they are anti-dogma. They are about not accepting what you are told without critical thinking. They are about the need to discover the wonder of the world and the joy of knowledge.

What disturbs me the most is that Donohue was calling for a boycott of the film before having seen it because of concern that it would encourage children to read the books. These are not books for small children -- the writing is complex enough that one would have to be a pretty literate older teen to read them. Whatever the viewpoints espoused in the novels, the movie and the book are not the same. By the time a young person is old enough and motivated enough to read the books they are old enough to think for themselves.

The irony here is that it is not God that Pullman's books are against. It's people like Donohue.

[Mr. Arkadin]

Anne, No biggie.

Jon, as I said, I've not read his work and have nothing to go by but his quotes in this thread. I find it very amusing that many "religious" people often never fully read or watch the "offending" material and could not discuss any points of the persons work. They also encourage others NOT to read or view it so you have a lot of people all complaining about something they have never seen or read, and many of them if they did read it would not understand it anyway. They only know what to believe when someone tells them what to think.

When people mention anything I'm unfamilar with, beit political, religious, musical, etc. I make a point to investigate it on my own from several sources. I don't believe I can take anyone's word or understanding of a subject over my own. I could also never discuss anything if I never actually saw or read it firsthand.

I remember when a lot of people were upset over Soundgarden's Jesus Christ Pose. Cornell never actually criticized Jesus persay, but the Pharisiee types who claim to do good in his name while serving their own ends. I'm in complete agreement with him on that (as was Jesus). Sadly a bunch of fools never actually listened to the song or read the lyrics because some "religious watchdog" told them it was wrong. One wonders if he was too dense to understand it or if he knew perfectly well what the true content was?

As I said, I have no personal opinions about Pullman except from what I've read which were supposedly his own words. While I might disagree with some of his thoughts on Lewis (Lewis should really be valued for his Apologetics alone), That certainly doesn't mean I would dislike or disagree with with his own personal writings. I will save that judgement for when and if I read them.

I don't usually enter into conversations like this (especially not having read or seen the subject! ) because it's so easy for words to become misconstrued and people to take sides aginst one another. I spoke up because I understood Mike's views, but I also sympathized with Klondike. Both had valid points (as did everyone else in this thread), but sometimes each of us needs to look at the other persons POV and see where they are coming from.

[movieman1957]

Anne:

Thanks for the clarification.

Like some of the others here I can't understand anyone who will take a position without being informed on it. At its most basic how can you trust someone who won't learn about his subject before he starts complaining.

So.... seen any good movies lately?

[jdb1]

My friends, I thank you all for your well thought-out posts following my own. I am also not familiar with this book series, not being particularly interested in such things. However, it was my suspicion that those raising the ruckus were not familiar with it either, as is so often the case.

On a more secular note, I can recall the big to-do before the TV show "Soap" appeared. Remember that? It was given out that the show was going to be irreverent, and even though no episodes were previewed for anyone but the most insider of TV critics, many in this country who who perhaps had nothing better to do, started self-serving and loud anti-"Soap" campaigns.

Even now, broadcasters weasel on the subject in those "viewer discretion advised" warnings. They usually say the following "may" contain material that "may be inappropriate for some viewers." That tells me nothing - for all I know, what comes up next could be anything from a racy Bugs Bunny cartoon to a snuff film.

I think this: if you don't like it, or you're afraid of it, by all means stay away. But don't try to make me stay away - I'll draw my own conclusions. I do agree, though, that children to need some guidance in making such determinations. It's a parent's right and duty to decide what his/her children may or may not see, until that child has enough experience and reason to make those determinations for him/herself. If you do the guidance right, a youngster will come to you for advice if he/she has a question about such things.

[movieman1957]

I remember the "Soap" stink. What I do recall, is the complaints centered around Crystal's gay charachter. How mild in retrospect.

I watched it then and loved it. I still watch it and love it.

[ken123]

jondaris,

I would call William Donohue an idiot. He is also a pompous, bigoted, self - righteous, lout.

Believe it or not I was a member of the Catholic League for a year or so in the 1980's just in order to receive their newsletter, the League is just a front for right wing Catholics with the hidden message that in order to be a good Catholic one cannot be a political liberal.

[traceyk]

What disturbs me the most is that Donohue was calling for a boycott of the film before having seen it because of concern that it would encourage children to read the books. .

Generally speaking, most people who call for boycotts have not seen/read the material they are against. They get a hold of a little bit of info or they read or hear something about a movie or book and run with it. A great example from a few years ago concerns an email that circulated deriding Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone as Satanic. It was supposedly written by a minister and featuired quotes by children who had supposedly read the books, along the lines of "Jesus was weak. That's why he had to die." and "I learned this spell from the book. Now I can kill somebody." There were quotes from JK Rowling about Stan and quotes from the head of the Church of Satan saying enrollment by children was up 300% and so forth. Right-thinking people (like my mom) passed this around and sent it to their friends and family. The funny part was that this was not even a real article--it was a spoof by the online magazine The Onion.

I too have read the Pullman books. I bought them during a lull between HP books, trying to find an alternative for my kids, but after reading them decided they were a bot too heavy going, philosophically speaking for my 8-year-old ( at the time) daughter. I would say there is a definite anti-organized religion bias going in the books, especially the final two. After all, Lyra and Will do manage to kill God (or the angelic being who's been calling itself God anyway) and they free the dead from the Underworld, which resembles the Greek Hades or Hebrew Sheol more than the Heaven I was brought up to believe in. Pullman, unlike CS Lewis and the author of Genesis, sees coming of age and losing innocence as not neccesarily a bad thing (Lyra and Will become a sort of Adam and Eve with an ex-nun as their serpent) that if veiwed in the right frame of mind, might make the world a better place. (no original sin=no guilt and the attendant neuroses) I wasn't at all offended, but I'd already been corrupted by Robert Heinlein years ago. But could see where anyone who's highly religious might (no, would) be.