The Anti-Christian Narnia – Ted Baehr reviews the new movie The Golden Compass, remarking that the anti-Christian atheist author (Phillip Pullman) wrote it out of obvious disgust with the Christian-themed Narnia, and yet "mechanically" mimics it’s story, but with a very different picture of God and faith:
Pullman is an avowed atheist who has dedicated
his life to undermining Christianity and the Church among young
readers….Pullman represents God as a decrepit and perverse angel in his novels, who captures the dead in a "prison camp" afterlife….When the hero finally finds this "god," he is
ultimately described as a "demented and powerless" creature that "could
only weep and mumble in fear and pain and misery."
Baehr goes on to remark:
Pullman’s world is a sad, animalistic universe.
Since this is the only world there is, the trilogy ends in
hopelessness. Love is not selfless giving, because that would be
useless in a materialistic world. Love instead is the lust of
pleasuring each other. In Pullman’s world, there’s no hope of eternal
life where the lame and the blind and the deaf and dumb can walk and
see and hear and talk, where the old are made youthful. There’s no
heavenly banquet, there’s no loving God, there’s no order, and there’s
no peace.
Finally, he recommends that this movie should be avoided by parents:
We urge people of faith and values not to corrupt
their children with the odious atheistic worldview of "The Golden
Compass." Instead, there are plenty of good movies this Christmas, such
as "Enchanted," that will build and not destroy values.
Let’s be accurate here, shall we? Baehr didn’t review the movie, nor did he really review the books. Instead, he attacked the author and certain elements of the books, not the movie. From what I understand, the anti-religious aspects have been removed from the movie. Of course, xians certainly have the right to boycott anything they want, but they should do so on accurate information and not on half-truths.
btw: To accuse Pullman of merely writing a “knock-off” is absurd. One could as well accuse Lewis or Tolkien for stealing earlier, pagan themes for xian purposes.
I haven’t read the book or (obviously) seen the movie, but I don’t think it is fair to say it is a Narnia rip-off. I think Pullman was “inspired” more than he would like to admit by Lewis’ series, but from all accounts the books are a great piece of literature. They are an “anti-Narnia,” but that doesn’t negate the quality of the writing.
I don’t think an organized boycott is in order (rarely is IMHO), but if I was the parent of a small child who wanted to read these books, i would steer them toward material that was less acidic.
What I found to be the strangest thing ever was Bill Donohue of the Catholic League complaining that the movie was not atheistic enough. I would rather see Christians put forth creative, original fantasy and fiction works than complain about the atheistic quotient of a movie.
I agree that Christians should be informed about this and other media that attack our beliefs, but the way to combat it is not more boycotts. It is to expose the world to the truth in a creative way.
I think attacking creative media like this just makes xians look silly and, at the same time, rather sinister. It’s as if only one point of view is allowed (theirs) and everybody had better get in line. It makes me want to see it all the more (as it did with The Last Temptation of Christ).
Sorry, I missed the fact that he was really reviewing the content of Pullman’s books, and not the movie itself. You are right – some reviewers say that the film toned down his anti-christian and anti-religious bias. Perhaps Baehr is wrong about Pullman’s imitation of Narnia.
But just because something is creative or smart doesn’t mean it is beyond criticism, esp. if it promotes a hopeless, false, or anti-Christ world view. And while more mature people ought to view and evaluate art that comes from various or opposing viewpoints, young children should be protected from wicked viewpoints until they are old enough to handle it.
Case in point – my 9 year old nephew was on the internet the other day, and just learned to spell the word “naked,” and ended up seeing pictures of men having sex. Now his Dad needs to explain this perversion to him, hope that his mind hasn’t been imprinted with such sexual twistedness, and needs to work harder at helping him develop healthy and normal sexual development. Protecting children from bad ideas until the right time – that is, until they can discern and choose wisely for themselves, rather than being warped by seeing too much evil too soon, is very important.
Slasher movies, sex movies, and movies that promote anti-Christian world views (v. unChristian, which is not as bad), among others, ought to be kept away from healthy children.
Your nephew should have had some parental supervision. Just because some children might be exposed prematurely to adult material is no excuse to attack or suppress such media. And it’s the responsibility of their parents, not the rest of us, to ensure this. Attacking other views or lives as “wicked” is the first step to censorship.
Just because some children might be exposed prematurely to adult material is no excuse to attack or suppress such media. And it’s the responsibility of their parents, not the rest of us, to ensure this. Attacking other views or lives as “wicked” is the first step to censorship.
Actually, I think it is both the parents’ AND society’s responsibility to make a world safe for the young and weak – but rather than outlawing everything, we have other less stringent options, like regulation (tobacco, guns, alcohol, porno), or labeling (like movies and games).
Right now the internet is a wild west of unregulation, which is good for those who want to provide free content, but bad because it allows all kind of smut and hate to be everywhere, and some of that DOES need to be curbed, perhaps according to existing media laws.
Declaring the wickedness of anything (like the wickedness of racial hatred speech) is not necessarily the first step towards censorship – what you do with that condemnation is critical – you can outlaw, or regulate, or label, or just allow people to condemn it in public forums.
Libs fear some autocratic crack down from conservatives, but it isn’t happening, and the condemnation of movies with bad content is not anywhere near censorship – but to squelch such criticisms certainly is.
Right now the internet is a wild west of unregulation, which is good for those who want to provide free content, but bad because it allows all kind of smut and hate to be everywhere, and some of that DOES need to be curbed, perhaps according to existing media laws.
In that case, this website should be labeled and curbed.
Interestingly, there's even a snopes article about the Golden compass
I think this is dumb.
:)
Having read the book series,
YES its is very anti-Christian if you will and why wouldn't they be?as the author IS an known atheist who does taunt his views to the public. If people would look to the authors own interviews he's given on BBC and papers they could get a taste of his views for themselves and not just from his writings. If I were a Christian I wouldn't let my little daring see the movie.. but as I am of no faith with no children, I'll see how closely the movies matches up with the Book.
I would let my kids see it when they were old enough to be able to evaluate it from a world view perspective. But why poison them with anti-god mythologies just for the sake of entertainment? There is plenty of wholesome entertainment out there that doesn't denigrate faith, family, and virtue, nor promote witchcraft and sorcery. Such things have some imaginative value, but they also have the power to entice children into spiritual darkness with promises of supposedly benign power.
Those who don't believe in spiritual power or the dark arts may not understand or believe that such evils exist. They can let their children dabble as much as they like. Me, I will train my children to be scientists and people of faith.
me as being a christian would never view or allow my brothers or little cousins to see a movie that mocks the God i serve in any way, no matter how he may want to make it seem and its just for no reason that he would make any character with the name of "god" if he was not trying to be against my God…if he really made this movie to mock or even make God to be some lie or evil in any way i will just have to prey for mercy to be upon him….to let children watch this would be a big mistake or will bring confusion if that is his focus… and by the way if he states he is a "atheist" but tries to target my God or in any way to show he hates the God i serve than maybe he is a little confused with who he is….because an atheist does not believe in any god so than how can he hate God
me as being a christian would never view or allow my brothers or little cousins to see a movie that mocks the God i serve in any way, no matter how he may want to make it seem and its just for no reason that he would make any character with the name of "god" if he was not trying to be against my God…if he really made this movie to mock or even make God to be some lie or evil in any way i will just have to prey for mercy to be upon him….to let children watch this would be a big mistake or will bring confusion if that is his focus… and by the way if he states he is a "atheist" but tries to target my God or in any way to show he hates the God i serve than maybe he is a little confused with who he is….because an atheist does not believe in any god so than how can he hate God
Because he hates Christianity, and not God. But also, deep down, since all men know there is a god, though he says he does not believe, he hates God for not providing enough evidence or protection from evil – alienated in his mind, it supports the unbelief in his heart, which troubles him even more because deep down, there must be a god.
Like all of us, he needs the gift of faith to believe. May God have mercy on him, and us as well.
Christians, they just can’t stand it when their beliefs are criticized.
Come to think of it – why doesn’t god provide enough evidence and protection from evil? Why all the suffering? What’s the big deal about faith, anyway?
Ted Baehr isn’t the only critic of this movie. He joins a long list of those critical of Pullman’s work. And I for one am very appreciative to get an opinion beforehand especially if I or my children are going to plunk down a handful of cash to see this movie. All movies are reviewed and critiqued and I want all the facts before I go. Let’s be honest here. Pullman created this series with more than one purpose. Yes, entertainment but more importantly, taking another shot at debunking what he considers a fairy tale. This movie is a sly way of hammering away at a belief system Pullman despises. It’s a Christian’s right and responsibility to get the information out before we put tons of cash into this pig. It’s a bit hypocritical to suggest Christians are sensitive to criticism and then turn around and take offense when criticism comes your way… like with this movie. It goes both ways.
"Christians, they just can't stand it when their beliefs are criticized." Based upon the comments of JohnC, ammy, and Seeker the only additional question I'd add is, "See what I mean?"
All I can say is that all this controversy makes me want to see it all the more. Thanks, guys!
I have to say that we won’t be seeing the movie, but I apppreciate Pullman’s candor. As a christian, I am always grateful when athiests admit they have an agenda to destroy faith. At the very least, he is honest. There are plenty of other books/movies in which the objective goal is not so clearly advertized, and we as parents must be much more discerning. Personally, we should worry less about this and save our movie dollars for “Prince Caspian.”
I will not go see The Golden Compass and I do not wish to after hearing that the auther is a atheist and aginst Narnia. I can’t what until Prince Caspian comes out.
“Sandy” is actually another of Seeker’s pseudonyms. His rhetoric is very recognizable because of it’s predictability. Come to think of it, Beth says exactly the same thing as Sandy. That’s pretty sad, Seeker.
If you think such simplistic rhetoric is mine, you are not as smart as I thought.
so, I am not sure; what is the point of insinuating that I don’t really exsist? This is the second time you have used this retort. I would echo seeker. I really thought you were smarter than that.
“I would echo seeker.”
But of course, you would!
“Christians, they just can’t stand it when their beliefs are criticized.” Based upon the comments of JohnC, ammy, and Seeker the only additional question I’d add is, “See what I mean?”
First of all, the books and movie are more mockery than valid criticism, I would guess. And it is entirely valid to push back when people question your beliefs and values. We all do it. “Can’t stand” is just your pejorative evaluation of such normal behavior.
Second, the fact that we want to protect our children from atheist anti-God propaganda while they are vulnerable is a laudable goal. I’m sure if the movie was created by communist atheists trying to undermine faith, you’d see nothing wrong with that either. And quite honestly, Pulman is almost as ideologically driven as a communist, even if he is merely a humanist atheist.
Third, the real problem here is that you libs don’t seem to think that WE are free to criticize Pulman for his content.
What’s so funny is that the common pattern I see is that libs are more actively trying to censor others and controll information than conservatives.
And while conservatives want to limit smut, libs want to distribute it. And while libs want to limit religion and open inquiry in science, conservatives want to expand such.
And no one here is saying that Pulman can not make his movie, only that discerning Christian and conservative parents might want to avoid it. That seems entirely valid to me, even if libs appear to have little concept of protecting vulnerable children from ideologies.
Would they take their kids to see Narnia, Winn Dixie, or other Christian themed movies? They would, not because they are more egalitarian, but because most xian children’s movies don’t diminish faith, hope, or love, but rather, encourage such values.
However, if a movie came out that was critical of homosexuals, or pro ID (like the Privileged Planet), I betcha they might NOT show it to their kids.
Again, when my kids are old enough to have established the value system that I have handed to them, and are equipped to start modifying that value system themselves with reason, I will shield them from such movies. When they are older and less vulnerable to charlatans, they can evaluate such movies.
Louis and Cineaste both accused me of being seeker in disguise too, Sandy. And the funny thing was that seeker and I had already disagreed with each other about something! Apparently they think seeker has multiple personality disorder just because he disagrees with them.
I both read the Narnia books and saw the film, and enjoyed myself. I intend to see the Compass film. I also saw The Passion of the Christ and The Last Temptation of Christ. Contrary to what some here may think, I am interested in hearing and seeing all viewpoints, especially when expressed as art. I feel that The Golden Compass should be judged on its artistic merits, and not pre-judged based on rumors and media bombast. I'm frankly shocked that people like seeker, Sandy, and Lawanda would judge this film and book without even seeing/reading it. This is the action of an ideologue and not a fair and just person. No wonder so many of us are suspicious of xians and their intentions.
Sandy is really Seeker, Lawanda. I saw a post a while back that was “Posted by: Seeker” but when I refreshed the page a few minutes later it had changed to “Posted by: Sandy.”
Cineaste both accused me of being seeker in disguise too.
That was just Louis not me. Also, I think Louis actually thought you were a shill, not Seeker himself. You’re manner of expression is very distinct from Seeker’s.
Louis,
This thread is about letting your children see such films, since this film is for children. All of us open minded people watch thoughtful films that we disagree with.
As no one has yet seen the film, don’t you think it’s premature to condemn it?
Perhaps, but the author’s antichristian books are already out there, so even a softened movie, unless totally unfaithful to the books, should be viewed by wary parents first.
Here’s an interesting review.
Very good article, thanks.
For the book’s sake, that is really too bad. It sounds like the vivid anti-god world view he presented was done very well. It would have been a good presentation of that view, worthy of discussion.
Having gutted it of that content, what good will it be except more pablum? I hate when they do that.
Like the way they totally missed the point of Starship Troopers (although I don’t mind the campy movie, it misses the book’s intent and spirit by a mile). I think they blew it on The Hitchhiker’s guide as well.
I hope they don’t mess up Ender’s Game the same way.
Yes, it’s really a shame. However, Hollywood is inherently lily-livered when it comes to big budgets and controversy.
They’re making Ender’s Game?! Oh, no! Unless Ender is played by a young boy, I won’t see it (the same thing happened with the various incarnations of Dune). I agree with you about ST – one of my favorite sci-fi books.
btw: Sometimes I think many atheists are really anti-religion and anti-clerical, not anti-God.
re: ender’s game, yeah, follow that link – that blog seems to have the most up to date news on the movie, though there is little real news out there.
re: atheists, I think they are strongly anti-religion, and believe it or not, so are many christians, like myself who have been burned by religion but have not abandoned faith. Admittedly, I probably still smell strongly of the smoke of religion, but inside I don’t like it, esp. when I do it.
I’m frankly shocked that people like seeker, Sandy, and Lawanda would judge this film and book without even seeing/reading it.
I didn’t say anything about the movie/book in my previous post, dude.
Well, I want to see the movie. So I can see what I think of it. Pretty much just like every other pretty movie preview I have ever seen…I thought the previews looked pretty good. But I had never heard anything about the movie or book before a few days ago. (oops there i go, pre-judging again on only what I knew. silly bigoted christian person.)
I prolly won’t let my kids watch it… but I am extremely picky about what my kids watch and read. It has to be interesting. But it has to have a minimal amount of violence/cussing/etc…no sexual insinuations, please.
and forget the overacted disney shows. blech. well, actually, I like Hannah Montana nearly as much as they do. I just can’t take it for a whole half hour like they do. hahaha
After reading this thread, I now want to read the book.
Golden Compass author hits back
Warning: This story contains plot spoilers
By Julian Joyce
BBC News
The author of the book on which the new film The Golden Compass is based has hit back at critics who accuse him of peddling “candy-coated atheism”.
You didn’t see Atheists crying about the Narnia junk. So why all the drama? As I grew up, I recall being bombarded with the Christian belief system, or as I call them, myth’s. From tons of Christmas cartoons, to the ten commandments every easter. You know what! It’s about time that another point of view got some equal time. It seems so funny to me that Christians, whom I see as pushing their belief system on the young and as yet, mentally infirm, in the form of indoctrination before the youth has any mental defense against such brainwashing, hypocrisy at its finest. This new film Golden Compass is a symptom of the times. A symptom of a coming age were reason out weighs mythology and superstition.
This new film Golden Compass is a symptom of the times. A symptom of a coming age were reason out weighs mythology and superstition.
Yes, a time when religion is outlawed and atheistic reason reigns – o wait, Stalin and Marx already tried that.
Face it, Godless humanism is bankrupt because it relies on the goodness an intellect of man, rather than intellect guided by The God of truth. As I've argued, anti-religious atheism leads inexorably to totalitarian cruelty, as history shows.
Rather then rejecting all religion due to abuses and posers, you need to be able to determine the truth about God using your intellect.
You didn't see Atheists crying about the Narnia junk. So why all the drama?
1. Christianity is true, atheism is a lie
2. The drama is being caused by atheists don't like criticism. There are no mass boycots or drama, just xians discussing why they won't show this to their vulnerable young children.
3. Atheism is intellectually and morally bankrupt, while xianity provides a moral framework and meaningful approach to history and faith.
You should read:
Atheist Atrocities
15 Questions Militant Atheists Should Ask Before Trying to "Destroy Religion"
Why Atheists are Theocrats
1. Christianity is true, atheism is a lie
Mere assertion. Please provide proof, or at least some evidence for your claim.
2. The drama is being caused by atheists don't like criticism. There are no mass boycotts or drama, just xians discussing why they won't show this to their vulnerable young children.
The "drama" was started by angry xians who don't like criticism of any sort. Xians are always playing the victim to get their way. And the loudest whiners are the Catholics and fundamentalists who don't hesitate to bully people they don't like through boycotts and threats.
3. Atheism is intellectually and morally bankrupt, while xianity provides a moral framework and meaningful approach to history and faith.
More assertions and opinion disguised as argument. The real issue isn't what "provides a moral framework, etc." but what is true.
btw: Pullman views Milton and Blake as artistic models. He doesn't share their religious views (ie, "Justifying the ways of God to man.")
Al Mohler weighs in on The Golden Compass
-"Xians are always playing the victim to get their way. And the loudest whiners are the Catholics and fundamentalists who don't hesitate to bully people they don't like through boycotts and threats."-ie
…as opposed to the continuing stridency of a certain religious group who is STILL complaining about the depiction of the Sanhedrin in 'The Passion Of The iChrist'.
The word atheist is actually a misnomer. A better term would be anti-theist, and antichristian in particular.
People who hate Christ so deeply they need to "X" the name out of "Christian" go far beyond mere disbelief.
The selectiveness of that "X" betrays their own bitter prejudice. Atheists simply don't promote an "xian" analogue for Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, or any other faith.
For your information, genius, using an "x" goes back centuries and is not meant as a put-down. This is precisely what I mean by bullying.
…as opposed to the continuing stridency of a certain religious group who is STILL complaining about the depiction of the Sanhedrin in 'The Passion Of The iChrist'[sic]
The group you refer to (sarcastically) is, of course, the Jews, who are authentic victims of xianity. After centuries of xian pogroms – often ignited by demonizing representations of the Passion and culminating in the Nazi Holocaust – they have every right to complain about Gibson's anti-semitic movie. It's a fair measure of your mind-set that you haven't a clue to the history behind this.
Maybe some of us admire Christ so much that the beliefs and actions of xians make us want to puke.
Actually, I use the X because it is shorter to type. Since the Greek X is "chi", it is actually a phonetic shorthand for the first letter of "Christ" in Greek.
But I get your drift – but I don't mean to x out christ, and I doubt most anti-christians and atheists really do that on purpose – even if they do, it's not much of a statement really.
As a half jew, I can attest to the fact that jews do complain a lot, and can be touchy about persecution, but they do have a historical reason to be vigilant.
The real people playing victim in our society, however, aren't the jews, nor the immigrants – it's actually large portions of the black community, as Bill Cosby and Juan Williams and many other conservative, successful blacks have pointed out. But that's not really material to this thread.
I think Al Mohler said it best when he said that Pullman's writing is skillful, that the movie's story is skillful, that the cgi is some of the best ever, and that Pullman certainly does have an overt anti-christian bias. So, let him have it. We can criticize his world view with a modicum of respect.
Wow. I've spent the last hour (or two) scouring the above comments, then clicking on extra links and reading those articles as well. WOW.
So before my eyes quit working altogether, let me stick my two-cents in!
First off, I think we all need to understand that there is NO SUCH THING as "pure entertainment!" Not anymore there's not, if there ever was. Every single movie, song, article – any media – is out there to preach a message. Sometimes it's as harmless as "Our toothpaste will make you healthy, happy, and attractive!" Or sometimes it may be more like, "It's cool for teenagers to get drunk and have sex!" With this understanding in mind, I am very careful what I watch, read and listen to, and I am also very careful what I allow my children to see and hear.
From all accounts, the anti-Christian message in "The Golden Compass" is obscured to the point of invisibility. I would love to see it! I very much enjoyed the latest "Narnia" and "Lord of the Ring" movies and have read the books over and over. But considering that every single media is preaching a message, I think it's important to look at the message, not just of the movies but of the books.
So what messages are we seeing in "The Golden Compass" and the related books? "The church is BAD." "Adults, especially religious leaders, are BAD." "God is a miserable old fool who has managed to dupe the whole world for centuries on end – and yet once we find Him we can easily defeat Him."
I'm a Christian – or Xian, if you will. Removing Christ from the title doesn't make me any less of one. Although for the record, if those who use it really don't do it to offend, it should be understood that Christians generally find it offensive anyway. But anyway, being a Christian and wanting to raise my children to be Christians, I think it's important to screen and filter what media they're exposed to. I don't hate Xeists (atheists) nor do I deny anyone's right to make any kind of movie they want to. But as a concerned Christian parent, I think it's important for Christians to know what they're viewing. AND regardless of whether I've seen the movie, there is PLENTY of material available for research! Not having a chance to see the movie doesn't make me incapable of making an informed decision.
Ok… Two cents, more or less.
Gene.
Demonstration of Christian attitudes toward the Golden Compass
If christians say that the author is being to out their with his atheisn that is true but arnt christians always trying to pull people into their religious beliefs. The novel is definetly written in athiest veiws but its good for the human society to be more open-minded about others religous beliefs. The world involved in the novel is very similar to ours but without a god, but in our world no one even knows if their is a so called “god”. To pin Pullman on trying to lour children into atheism is rediculous because it is just his fantasy veiw on a different world. Why bash Pullman on something that is not even real!!
Right. Something is being lost in all this fooforaw:
It’s just a book.
Oh, and…
It’s just a movie.
Everyone acts as if its a philosophical/polemical treatise designed explicitly to inculcate an idea. One could, I suppose, get “atheism” from it, but it is mainly a work of art. Same goes for the Narnia and Lord of the Rings books/movies. Or any work of art. The main message is: Enjoy yourself!
jeez..
Cineaste, you do know that I criticized Donohue and the whole protest approach don’t you? I would much rather Christians focus on producing (and praising) quality work than spend our time lamenting the horrible atheists propoganda that is going to take over our children. We should be informed and educated, that solves most of the problems.
oooh I love arguments!(hehe)(well,argueing for the sake of discussion really,but still),sosososososo,my view…mmyep.I give the movie a B!BBBBBBB.I had to take away 2 grades for not ending it like the book,and another 2 for not developing the charecters.but they'll probably have enough developement in the next two XD.anywaaaaysss.uh,yeah.the book and the rest of the series gets an A, thats a 97.9, almost an A+.just for having a feeew boring parts.NOW……..the controversy whiney things.OK….personally I AM agnostic.I don't know if their is a god,and if there is WHICH god he is…(?)but I am a very open minded person as far as belifs go (satanists homosexuals dragqueens…don't bother me…though I am close minded against ACTIONS that (I think) are wrong(good and bad are in the eyes of the beholder) (rape,cheating,lieing,betraying,stealing,without good damn reason)ok I'm ranting now)SO…I understand why very "X"tian people who have a very strong conviction to their faith are offended.really I can.But…well….please don't go around telling OTHER people not to see it.If christian familys who see it are offended, I'm sure they can explain it to their(hehe)"utterlly traumatized and mentally assualted"(hehe)children.Then they can go back to raising their children the way they want them to be raised.I can understand if you raise your children to have your belifes thats a right as a parent.But please stop trying to get other people to believe what you belive.it make people like me feel…well…annoyed.you should only do that in a way where both sides are fine with it (STOP SENDING THE E-MAILS PLEEEEEASE)
wow….so,sorry for going on and on and on and on and on.thankyou any one who read this and anyone who replys (again arguement for the sake of disscusion)
have a nice…something or other.time to hop back down the rabit trail
-A.E.C.
(hehe)