Boycott The Golden Compass!!!!

Atheists have made a movie! In the movie there are people who are not Christians! The atheists who made the movie made it from a book that was also made by atheists!

But the atheists who made the movie don’t want you to know that there are atheists in Hollywood, so they made the movie only kind of about atheism in the hope that you and your children would not notice and go read the atheist’s books and be exposed to ideas that are not Christian! Their motives were not to get the biggest possible slice of the financial pie by watering down potentially profit-harming ideas! Their motives were to subvert your values!

What must I do to protect myself from these harmful ideas, you ask! Here is what you must do! Live in ignorance! Do not think! Vilify all those who disagree with you! Live in fear! Do not attempt to see things from more than one perspective! Do not read thoughtful Christian engagements with the atheists’ books or movies here, here, here or here! I repeat! Do not read these! The people who wrote them are not Christians but are atheists in disguise trying to subvert your children’s values! Nothing is complex! Everything is black and white! Live in a foggy, obtuse stupor! Be afraid! And again, over all, do not think!

Advertisements

20 comments so far

  1. paisleyandplaid on

    Point well made in the satiric mode. However, you will admit that reading material, ideas, are powerful and must be handled carefully. Those who oppose the book are “thinking” too, they just take a particular point of view.

  2. Shannon on

    Uh-oh…I made a boo-boo…I looked at the sites you told me not to read. They were actually very helpful…but don’t worry, I didn’t think of that on my own. :)

  3. derekryanbrown on

    I will not boycott the movie due to its religious overtones. However, I will abstain from seeing it since I found it to be a rather boring and unmoving story written in bland prose.

  4. jeffreimer on

    Paisleyandplaid: Thanks for your comment. Of course ideas must be handled carefully, but the people I am lampooning are not handling ideas carefully. They are using baseball bats on them. All of the pages I linked to in my post (save one, in some instances) do what I thought was handling ideas carefully (e.g., remaining critical of certain elements while appreciating what good there is in it). Pullman’s polemics are no secret, but we should not run from them or spit at them.

    As for those opposing the book “thinking” too, well, yes. They are “thinking” in the literal sense, but they are not thinking critically or well, and the “particular point of view” they take is almost always incapable of seeing any other point of view than their own.

    Derek: Pullman’s books have garnered awards for almost every category of children’s/young adult literature that exists. Even the people who strongly criticize his polemical asides think he’s a great storyteller. Did you really think it was that bad? I’d like to hear more.

  5. Levi on

    I’m with Derek. The book seemed very forced and too aware of its own polemic to transcend it and become a truly transformative story. Though Lewis does wear his heart on his sleeve, his narrative was such that it moved beyond its Christian polemic to take on a life of its own. And I am not simply partial to Christian narrative either. I felt the same about Stephen R. Donaldson’s Thomas Covenant series and Rowling’s Harry Potter. Pullman’s vision just comes across as too narrow (though he is fairly clever by turns).
    And with that, I have officially posted on my friend Jeff’s blog!

  6. derekryanbrown on

    To be sure, Pullman’s The Golden Compass is not a bad read. I enjoyed several elements of the book—the innovation of a new ‘sub-created’ world, the successful weaving together of human and animal worlds, and Pullman’s narrational ability (the dialogue stretches things at times in my opinion). That said, my major objection is that after I had finished the book I still did not care about the characters or the plot-line. I did not feel compelled to invest in Lyra, Rogers, Lord Asriel & co. or their plight.

    So I suppose my complaint is entirely ad hominem one, but I feel it is justified nonetheless. I can think of at least two reasons for my sentiments, one literary and the other semi-theological. First, although I agree with you that we ought to ‘carefully’ engage Pullman without prejudice and with the intent of reading a piece of worthwhile literature as such, I found the religious issue drives him too much. The axe he is out to grind is all too conspicuous, slapping (or, perhaps, ‘slicing’) the reader as he turns almost every page. At times, the allegorical elements of Pullman’s writing take over and choke out the otherwise interesting narrative. Thus the problem is not the sharply anti-Christian ideas of Pullman, but rather that his story is so driven by them that his ‘world’, characters, and story seemingly function as mere servants of his ‘agenda’. A story, I think, ought to be a story for its own sake.

    Secondly, I can’t help but think of Tolkien’s philosophy of ‘sub-creation’. That is, that all ‘fictional’ writing (however clever) is ultimately recycling and reshaping of concepts and realities already made by the only true creator, God. Thus writers can only be ‘sub-creators’ and never ‘creators’ per se. Now you may disagree with me using this as a basis for critiquing Pullman, but I felt as though Pullman’s sub-created world was too incongruous with reality as I believe it to be created. (Am I sounding like a fundy yet?) So while I don’t object to anti-Christian ideas in literature in principle, on some level Pullman’s writings seem to me—as a Christian—to be a misguided sub-creation. And this may be the reason for my lack of interest in the content of the story. I haven’t thought this all the way through, so feel free to come back at me. More thoughts are rolling around in my head, but I have to get going.

  7. timothycairns on

    its anti-christian? well there you go – I guess I will go and see Fred Claus this Christmas instead

  8. Lucas Endicott on

    Apostrophes on every sentence! Oh my!

  9. Ryan on

    Thanks for the links, Jeff.

    My question is this:

    Would you allow your 11 year old to read the books?

  10. jeffreimer on

    Levi: It’s good to see you here! I should have known it would take a fantasy novel to pull you out of your passivity! Good words.

    Derek: That’s a lot to chew on. I’ll comment more later.

    Tim: Perfect.

    Lucas: Ummm … did you mean exclamation marks?

  11. Ryan on

    Can I still watch all those films with blood, gore, sexuality, and all the bleeping profanity? And can those websites you linked to be put into a movie form? Reading makes my head hurt.

  12. Richie on

    What a tosser. I don’t think I could watch the movies or read the books for the same reason I can’t watch the Spurs play basketball. They’re a great team, arguably the best team, but I take no pleasure in watching them succeed. On another level of irony, Pullman stoops to the spiteful level of his adversaries not only in his stories, but in his public monologue. Try as I can, I simply don’t have the ability to enjoy his stories without that in the back of my mind. Additionally, I have a lot of other decent books and movies to get through before his, most of them made and written by non-Christians who haven’t devoted so much of their time and art to picking a childish fight.

  13. Lucas Endicott on

    uh…yes… Did I mention that I am not that bright?

  14. chad on

    Jeff,

    Love ya bro, but you’re a little to modern in your way of thinking in this post and a little too uncritical and unprudential in your diatribe for me to take the bait (and i hate when people use good sarcasm in their argument b/c I’m not that good to do it myself!). My basic disagreement is this: according to you’re argument, if you (WHOEVER you are) distance yourself altogether (completely, w/o so-called “thinking” about it, ie. allowing it to get into your head and mull it over) you are by default wrong..you are fundy, you aren’t thinking, you are being stupid (which is the opposite of thinking, is it not?). It seems the whole argument presupposes the modern idea that we, as humans, are all equal in our capacities and therefore should all engage a particular thing (like this book or movie or whatever it is) in the SAME way. EVERYONE should “critically” engage it – and if you don’t, you aren’t “thinking.” There is no consideration in your post that all men AREN’t equal. All men DON’T have the same gifts, the same capacities, the same ability to handle controversial material in a “critical” way. Not everyone can be doctors; not everyone can play pro sports; and not everyone can handle engaging this stuff w/o it potentially causing some real harm to themselves or to those around them. It might be the WISEST thing (not, as you say, the uncritical and unthinking) to reject it wholesale w/o engaging it. It might be what they should do considering their standing as a particular person. These generalizations that you have made on your post don’t take into account the differences that exist within the human race. It just doesn’t seem that you exert what Aquinas calls “prudence,” which requires knowing the particulars in a situation before making an accurate judgement about a person’s actions (see Summa, I-II, q. 57, a. 5 for starters).

    Recant, you dang heretic, or you will be thrown into the fires of hades to be eternally tormented by Beelzebub and his unholy daemons!

  15. ansley on

    Chad has grammatical errors in his post – I told him already, so you don’t have to :)

  16. atheist on

    you know I have a very simple solution. Dont like the movie… DONT WATCH IT.. thank you

  17. Bill on

    All those who are objecting to this movie need to read this review by a devout christian to learn what is really the problem.
    http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2007/11/25/god_in_the_dust/

  18. chad on

    oh, Mr. atheist…if life were as simple as atheism makes life out to be. I guess that’s why the majority of the history of humankind (Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Kant, etc.) has considered atheism, well, intellectually bankrupt.

  19. chad on

    bankrupt is too harsh…more like, irrational.

  20. Mad Bluebird on

    has anybody else but me noticed that the complete lack of christmas themed movies comming out of hollywood these days i mean hollywood has come a long way since JAMES STEWART and ITS A WONDERFUL LIFE


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: