The Golden Compass: An attack against religon

Urban Legends Reference Pages: The Golden Compass

I never read the books, never did any research on the guy.
But if this is true then its messed up.

He's no better than the preacher who shouts at people at a street corner telling them: "Repent Pagans! For you are all sinners"

I never read the books, never did any research on the guy.
But if this is true then its messes up.

Then read the books before making idiotic statements.

I have read the books and seen the movie, they arn't attacking religion at all, they are portraying the upheaval of an organized oppressive religious power.

The power is called the Magisterium and they are stifling research on "Dust" because the think that it would turn people away from God.

As far as I know the only real mention of Circumsion is when Lord Asriel explains the whole 'Cutting' proccess.

So far the only thing that has caused me doubt about any religon is this: It can be used to minipulate and control others

but oddly enough, i already knew that. In fact thats my view on basicly everything. In the right hands, it can be a blessing, while in the wrong hands it can be a curse.

and by that i mean what ever is being used can be good or bad depending on how you use it, even if that thing is intended to be good.

or something.

Also, reading a fictional story will not destroy my belief in god. I am simply going to enjoy the stories.

It's called social commentary and it's as old as literature itself. Hmm...isn't freedom of expression upheld by the U.S. Constitution? There's nothing messed up about it.

Anyway, in the novels, the informed angles state that they don't know if there was a creator or not. All they know is that "the authority" was the first angle to come into existence. ["The authority" could have done it by itself (being the first entity created when dust became conscience of itself) or a creator could have intervened.]

(The [] bit wasn't stated in the novels, but I derived that conclusion.)

The Yahweh contained in some world religions can still exist in the lore of His Dark Materials.

Originally Posted by Taakeslottet

Then read the books before making idiotic statements.

I implied that I doubt its true, I'm just posting the story, dont kill the messenger.

It's called social commentary and it's as old as literature itself. Hmm...isn't freedom of expression upheld by the U.S. Constitution? There's nothing messed up about it.

I said thats its messed up if he is forcing his belief on others.
I never said that the government should ban his books or whatever.

Some things I've said on this already:

Originally Posted by Blizzaga

It's ridiculous how wound up some people can get. Ironically, if a church were to ban this anyways, they'd be no better off than the Magisterium as portrayed in the movie and books.

Originally Posted by Blizzaga

If His Dark Materials were atheist, I doubt there'd be a land of the dead.

This book is fiction, people. FICTION. I'm an active Christian, and I love His Dark Materials. I never felt that His Dark Materials was against religion. It's just a story. Sheesh.

Originally Posted by T-Nemesis

It's called social commentary and it's as old as literature itself. Hmm...isn't freedom of expression upheld by the U.S. Constitution? There's nothing messed up about it.

Actually, no, freedom of expression is not upheld by the U.S. Constitution. Freedom of print is, though, which makes this book perfectly legal whether or not conservative Christians believe it is an attack.

Personally, I think any book which mananges to attack Christians and make them feel attacked should stay in print. It is only right that every viewpoint have its backing and its opposition.

That being said, I don't mind saying that I have nothing but contempt for someone who puts such things in a children's book. Glorifying religion in a book and trying to rip it down are two different things; one gives a child a firm moral structure to follow, the other tears it down and forces them to make decision they may not be able to make. If it is true, this author should have taken much more consideration of his audience. This could be very harmful to children with Christian upbringing, because it will cause them doubt during a time of their life when they are probably not fully prepared to deal with it.

On the flipside, there are things to be said about presenting all the arguments to a young child and letting them decide. The problem is that a young mind has a hard time discerning the right course of action. To a child, the most violent and demanding argument is often the one they want to follow; teenagers tend to be more prone to liking subtle manipulation, and adults are usually wise enough to know how to avoid either.

Basically, I think the book is fine, but its target audience was poorly chosen.

The books themselves are very pro-Reformation, actually. They have angels, and god, but rile against organized religion.

Pullman is an avowed atheist.

Given these facts, and having read the entire trilogy twice, I can say that they are not atheist. They are, however, rebellious. They encourage people to question authority and to mistrust monolithic organizations, something I strongly agree with.

However, they are about as anti-religious as Tolkien's work, since his stuff has other gods also.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

The books themselves are very pro-Reformation, actually. They have angels, and god, but rile against organized religion.

Actually, they don't have God. They have an angel who pretends to be God, and they say that is wrong. Surely Christians would agree, a mortal (as these so-called angels are) calling himself God and demanding to be in charge of everything is bad, and goes against the real God, if he exists, and the books say maybe he does. So although Pullman is atheist, I'd call the books agnostic.

Well, OK, there's ambiguity over whether the god is a deity, but the books themselves really aren't atheistic.


Edit:

Of course, the question arises: Why is having books with anti-religious themes "messed up"? It's no different from having books that are pro-religion, such as the Narnia books.

Of course, the question arises: Why is having books with anti-religious themes "messed up"? It's no different from having books that are pro-religion, such as the Narnia books.

They aren't "messed up," they just don't belong in fantasy. And especially not children's fantasy.

Narnia isn't a comparison. Children who have not been educated in Christianity (and many are, these days) will not understand the symbolism in the Narnia books. Though it is there, obvious, and definitely proclaims its own agenda, the pro-religion in Narnia is much more subtle than what I have heard of The Golden Compass.

Personally, I disagree with any book which directly promotes or tries to incite "rebellion" against any religion, Christianity or not. Had this book targeted Muslims, it still would have been in poor taste. Anti-religion is basically pitting you against ninety percent of the world or more, so it's best to be careful about it. Christians simply put up with it. Many other religions would incite violence over such a book.

How would Muslims react to such a book aimed at their religion?

That is another reason why the book is a problem. When one like this comes out, you can be sure someone will try something stupid and pull it with a book against Islam or a book against Wicca or a book against Buddhism, in which case there will be just as much outrage. Anti-religion belongs in books specially for that purpose, not fantasy.

Originally Posted by Honour

They aren't "messed up," they just don't belong in fantasy. And especially not children's fantasy.

I don't see why not.

Narnia isn't a comparison. Children who have not been educated in Christianity (and many are, these days) will not understand the symbolism in the Narnia books. Though it is there, obvious, and definitely proclaims its own agenda, the pro-religion in Narnia is much more subtle than what I have heard of The Golden Compass.

Oh? I seem to recall an omnipotent lion who forgives sins and rises from the dead to defeat an evil sorceress who was kicked out of a mystical garden for eating the forbidden fruit.

The anti-organized religion parts of GC are not subtle, I grant you, but when I first read it I didn't notice any anti-religion sentiment. In fact, it really isn't anti-religion. Why not? Because at no point does it call religion stupid or useless, nor does ti try to disprove religion.

Rather, Pullman decided that a Chruch would make the best authoritarian entity, which makes perfect sense, considering the role it's played in human history. This is not the thread to argue about justification or morality, but you can't deny that the Catholic church has been (and, to an extent, still is) very authoritarian and would like to have complete control over the world.

Personally, I disagree with any book which directly promotes or tries to incite "rebellion" against any religion, Christianity or not. Had this book targeted Muslims, it still would have been in poor taste. Anti-religion is basically pitting you against ninety percent of the world or more, so it's best to be careful about it. Christians simply put up with it. Many other religions would incite violence over such a book.

We should only express opinions that agree with the majority?

How would Muslims react to such a book aimed at their religion?

Somehow I can't see Anime_Queen going on a rampage over it.

That is another reason why the book is a problem. When one like this comes out, you can be sure someone will try something stupid and pull it with a book against Islam or a book against Wicca or a book against Buddhism, in which case there will be just as much outrage. Anti-religion belongs in books specially for that purpose, not fantasy.

I strongly disagree. If you're arguing that we shouldn't allow these things because they offend adults: Then the Narnia books should certainly be banned. In addition, what of political allegories? Should we ban Gulliver's Travels because it might offend people? Should we destroy the works of all satirists such as Terry Pratchett?

No, I think it's perfectly fine to express your personal opinions when writing fiction. After all, you must express some sort of opinion, and so it should probably be your own, no?

If your opinion is controversial that's fine: By not exposing children to controversy you greatly reduce their ability to live with it. If they're brought up knowing only one view, I rather doubt that they'll react well to finding out that there are other, opposing, views out there. (In fact, I blame most bigotry on people simply being exposed to only one viewpoint for most of their lives.)

In addition, if the book is no threat to religion, why complain? If it is a threat, the religion may want to look at why, exactly, a piece of children's fantasy can apparently demolish it.


I do think I see where you're coming from, not long ago I probably would've agreed. However, I feel that free speech is probably the most important civil right granted to people (It is no accident that language is targeted by the government in 1984, Orwell knew what he was writing about.) By saying that certain things just shouldn't be written you seem, at least, to be saying that free speech should be limited.

That, really, puts us at odds. Since in this case I'd side with Voltaire: "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

It can be argued that His Dark Materials isn't anti-religious at all...just anti-controlling. It certainly makes you think.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Somehow I can't see Anime_Queen going on a rampage over it.

That's beside the point. Whether or not many Muslims are like Anime_Queen, we know from experience in the last few years that the Muslim community as a whole is extremely touchy and would boycott an entire country because someone drew a doodle about Mohammad, or would riot violently and burn down churches to protest because someone called them violent, the ironies of which still make me laugh. Muslim authors have been kicked out of their home countries for writing books with even suggestions of anti-muslim content.

Whether a muslim you know would do it or not, it is still a fact that writing a book like that with anti-muslim sentiments would certainly be dangerous to the author.