…and this is a 
Pullman responds to Donohue
Category: Religion
Posted on: November 27, 2007 1:27 PM, by PZ Myers
But of course fanatical Catholic Bill Donohue is furious about the upcoming movie, The Golden Compass, and is ranting and raving about it. Pullman offers a universally useful and sensible response.
"To regard it as this Donohue man has said -- that I'm a militant atheist, and my intention is to convert people -- how the hell does he know that? Why don't we trust readers? Why don't we trust filmgoers?" Pullman said. "Oh, it causes me to shake my head with sorrow that such nitwits could be loose in the world."
It's just a book and a movie, and it doesn't compel the reader to like it — and we could say that about any of the overtly atheist books that have been published lately. Maybe Donohue should save the outrage for the day we have tax-exempt Pullman reading rooms, or when Pullman is required reading in science classes, or when politicians are elected on the basis of their attractiveness to Kingmaker Philip Pullman and his lobbying group, Fantasy for the Family.
Comments
First! :)
And nice to hear actors saying something sensible for once.
Posted by: Liam | November 27, 2007 1:40 PM
If the gasbag hadn't started bellowing for a boycott, I probably wouldn't have bothered with the movie -- it takes a lot of promise to get me to a theater. $10 tickets, sticky floors, no ushers (which there were back when tickets were $1), and loud dumb drunk teenagers making noise, breaking things, and getting not-evicted by the no-ushers. Now I'm pretty much obligated to put my ass in a seat.
Thanks a lot, Donohue.
Posted by: Dustin | November 27, 2007 1:42 PM
Off topic but here is a link for you http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7114722.stm
Apparently the Cypriot Arch Bishop is looking for some divine intervention to stop another drought.
Posted by: Dennis | November 27, 2007 1:44 PM
I'm surprised The God Delusion didn't make it and depressed not one science book, did. Hm!
Posted by: Octopussy | November 27, 2007 1:45 PM
I was just looking at the comment thread about this movie on Rotten Tomatoes, and I have to say that it's pretty hilarious and disheartening to read posts written by people not very experienced in discussing atheism and religion.
It reads like a very dumbed down version of the conversations on Pharyngula and Panda's Thumb: the fundie posters there make even the regular trolls here look like geniuses. And that takes some doing.
And the ones defending the movies and books aren't being very articulate about their opinions either.
Posted by: Dr. Locrian | November 27, 2007 1:46 PM
Philip, not Bill. ;^)
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | November 27, 2007 1:46 PM
I second Dustin's post. Hopefully it will come to the cheap theaters soon, but even then you have to cough up 5 bucks for pop-corn.
Posted by: Chrisitan | November 27, 2007 1:48 PM
"Maybe Donohue should save the outrage for the day we have tax-exempt Pullman reading rooms, or when Pullman is required reading in science classes, or when politicians are elected on the basis of their attractiveness to Kingmaker Philip Pullman and his lobbying group, Fantasy for the Family."
Friggin' brilliant. It just so happens that my six-year-old son's teacher, whose hubby works for Fockus, was recommending last week that parents not allow their children to read this book or see this movie.
Posted by: Steve | November 27, 2007 1:53 PM
Oh, bitch bitch bitch. You want customer service? Then start fucking paying the people who serve you a living wage.
Also? Inflation. And concentration of ownership. Both these things contribute to the price of things. So stop bitching about how "In my day, a blowjob was a nickel, and you could turn her around for half a penny more".
And? You can take care of yourself - you're not some drooling invalid. So stop your bitching.
Posted by: stogoe | November 27, 2007 1:53 PM
stogoe: I agree with you my point would be that insted of spending 10 bucks on tickets and helping college kids in my comunity or living wage jobs for people of limited means, I pay 10 bucks on tickets and $9.95 ends up in the pocket of some super fat cat in LA.
Posted by: Christian | November 27, 2007 1:58 PM
I didn't find Pullman's reply very illuminating. He calls Donahue a nitwit. While I would agree, name calling isn't much of a come back.
His other point about trusting the readers and filmgoers isn't much either. If one hasn't read the book or seen the movie, how would they be able to have an opinion?
Worrying about Focus on the Family or the Catholic league's evaluation is about equivalent to worrying about a dog's. The book and film may lose some audience but they will gain some too. People are sick of wingnut religious bigots and their wannabe book burning tendencies.
Posted by: raven | November 27, 2007 2:02 PM
Can someone provide a quick account of why Pullman's books are supposed to be atheistic. I did read them years ago, thought they were OK but missed the atheistic message. I thought it was an interesting fantasy, however.
Posted by: fardels bear | November 27, 2007 2:07 PM
Should be a great film, judging by the care and time and trouble taken during filming.
Dakota Blue Richards is a very peasant young lady - who succeded in getting a (fake, paper) snowball down the neck of one of the associate prducers at one point ...
Yes, I was one of the "extras" - playing a "Gyptian" - and it was a very interesting few days.
Locations: The Magisterium is the Painted Hall at Greenwich, the docks are Chatham historic Dackyard, Jordan College is a real Oxford college (I forget which one) and most of the snow scenes are studio, with, at one point about a hectare of Surrey pine-woods, in late October, covered with fake snow - hence the snowball fight!
Posted by: G. Tingey | November 27, 2007 2:15 PM
Fardels bear,
That would be because some loony (Donohue) discovered that the author of a popular children's book is actually... *gasp* an atheist. So obviously he must have some agenda to indoctrinate the innocent children with his fictitious story.
I like to call that projection.
Posted by: Schmeer | November 27, 2007 2:16 PM
Having just finished the "His Dark Materials" trilogy, I don't find it quite atheistic. The book accepts the existence of "God" (or the "Authority"), but he is old, decrepit, senile, non-omnipotent, non-omniscient, and the non-creater of the universe(s). Perhaps all that is worse than non-existent. :-)
In my view, the author doesn't advance the atheist cause, and I'm skeptical that any fictional story could.
Posted by: Greg Esres | November 27, 2007 2:23 PM
Posted by: Dustin | November 27, 2007 2:25 PM
Donohue is an ass because converting others is what HE does, as his mission in life! Why the fuck does he get to bitch about anybody else doing what he does all the time??
Posted by: Amit Joshi | November 27, 2007 2:31 PM
Of course, nobody accuses C.S. Lewis of having a conversion agenda in the patently allegorical "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" (or "The Magician's Nephew" or "The Last Battle" for that matter).
But when an atheist writes a children's story he's immediately accused of being a tool of Satan.
Mind you, given that Rowling (who professes to be a Christian, though I doubt many fundies would agree) is still attacked even when she includes Christian themes in her books, it's a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Posted by: tacitus | November 27, 2007 2:35 PM
Did Donahue get all sassy about the Hitchhiker's Guide movie? I don't remember any fuss, but I don't really pay attention to what he's doing most of the time.
Posted by: Drew Habits | November 27, 2007 2:36 PM
As dumb as this? Found on, of course, Uncommon Descent:
Posted by: tacitus | November 27, 2007 2:36 PM
Oh, can I jump on the fuck-saying bandwagon too? :D
Lest this post be completely devoid of content, let me steer your attention to this well-regarded scholarly linguistics paper: http://www.douglemoine.com/english-sentences-without-overt-grammatical-subjects/
Posted by: speedwell | November 27, 2007 2:40 PM
Holy nothing, stogoe, could you use a little more misogynistic language to complain about PZ complaining? Maybe if you worked at it?
Posted by: Interrobang | November 27, 2007 2:41 PM
I don't believe he did. Probably because:
(a) the movie wasn't the blockbuster release the Golden Compass is supposed to be
(b) it's not specifically a family / kid's story.
(c) religion is only mentioned in passing as a couple of throw-away jokes (God disappearing in "a puff of logic").
I suspect that if Donohue whined about everything atheists write, people would quickly stop listening. He's better off keeping his powder dry for the high-profile target, so that is what he does.
Posted by: tacitus | November 27, 2007 2:45 PM
Raven, I will respectfully disagree with you on this point. Given the volume of idiotic things Donohue has said, calling him a nitwit is not name calling. Calling him a nitwit is descriptive.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6685898/
I think nitwit is mild. Raving loon would be a polite way to put it.
Posted by: Janine | November 27, 2007 2:47 PM
"While I would agree, name calling isn't much of a come back."
But it's perfectly necessary. I dunno, I think if there weren't people out there calling gasbags like Donohue names then people might think they're worthy of respect or something. Ridicule, it's a great thing.
Of course, it might have been nice if he turned the whole "conversion" thing back on Donohue, and surely Pullman was thinking it. I suppose this sort of rancor doesn't belong in the world of YA novels.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 27, 2007 2:48 PM
Because he's being competitive, trying to win souls for God. If he doesn't try to slap down the opposition, they might get ahead. Your argument is similar to saying "Hey that boxer is hitting back! Why is he doing that?"
Posted by: Efogoto | November 27, 2007 2:49 PM
Opening quote: British author Philip Pullman is an atheist, but denies a religious group's claims he is trying to recruit children to adopt his beliefs through his books.
No, that would be C. S. Lewis. But then I guess that's OK with the deluded fuckwits because it's also trying to recruit children to adopt their beliefs through the books. Can you say "double standard" and "projection"?
Posted by: AlanWCan | November 27, 2007 2:50 PM
I watched the cartoon of The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe and the BBC production of some of Lewis' other books as a kid. I even re'd The Magician's Nephew.
And I'm not suddenly a catholic. Le gasp.
In fact it never ever twigged that they were christian pastiche. This was the first I ever heard of it, in fact. (At the ripe old age of damn well near to thirty. Yes - I'm a bit thick.)
Posted by: Sili | November 27, 2007 2:51 PM
Well, no. Donohue is more like a boxer who thinks only he should be allowed to throw a punch.
Posted by: MartinM | November 27, 2007 2:54 PM
Dustin? Interrobang?
I think Stogoe was using "bitch" to describe an action, not for name-calling...
Just saying.
Posted by: Arnaud | November 27, 2007 2:55 PM
I think you're in good company. I have a friend who's almost 40 and it was news to him too when I told him.
Posted by: tacitus | November 27, 2007 2:55 PM
So, is the Christian and Catholic institutions SO brittle and prone to fall that one bad word against them will topple the whole thing?
These people act like if you say one bad work about the Church, It's all going to go down in flames.
If only this were true.
Oh yeah. Also: Fuck.
Posted by: Brendan S | November 27, 2007 2:56 PM
fardels bear:
I agree - why do people call His Dark Materials atheistic in nature? When I read them (the militant atheist that I am), I was mildly disappointed by the overriding religious themes in the book. I suppose it might be classified as "anti-Christian", but even that is a stretch. Maybe anti-Catholic or anti-Big Church, but atheist? I don't think so.
Posted by: Brady | November 27, 2007 2:59 PM
Well, yeah, but I think the misogynistic part was this:
Additionally, fuck.
Posted by: MartinM | November 27, 2007 3:02 PM
I think Donahue has been such a gasbag about this movie because it's not *exactly* an anti-god movie, it's an anti Focus on the Family Movie, blaming the capture of children and castrating the children from their souls on a group not too much unlike Focus on the Family.
Donahue is just scared it will cut into his financial future "investors" of focus on the family, ya know, since these children will be encouraged to "think" and "reason".
Posted by: Willey | November 27, 2007 3:10 PM
I hadn't planned to take the kids to this movie, but now I will. And we'll talk about evolution on the way there.
Fuck. Just thought I'd throw that in there.
Posted by: MikeM | November 27, 2007 3:11 PM
Spoilers follow, for those who want to read the books for themselves.
Let's see - the big, overwhelming bit of "atheism" in the book is that while there is a being who calls himself "God" (or "The Authority" in the parlance of the book) and who claims to have created the universe, it's all a lie. The Authority is just the first "angel" - who came into being and told his fellow angels that he had created them and everything else as they came into existence. In fact, since the substance that the "angels" are composed of is a substance created by human consciousness ("Dust" or "Shadows" in the book), none of the angels could have even been in existence before human consciousness arose - basically humanity "created" the angels and "The Authority", not the other way around.
And, of course, "The Authority" is a senile, fragile, pathetic old thing who is on the verge of falling apart by the time of the book. His power has been usurped by his Regeant - the "soul" of a dead man that became an "angel" thousands of years ago and has basically taken over Heaven (which is actually a floating mountain/war machine for the angels in the book). Neither the Regeant nor The Authority are in anyway remotely "good" - they merely have good propaganda - and The Authority ends up accidentally getting killed by the children as they try to help him while they're on their way to do something else.
That's the big one. There's also the fact that the whole promise of a Heavenly afterlife is a lie - the "souls" of the dead (again, composed of "Dust", which is somehow related to human consciousness) were trapped in a parallel world at the mercy of horrible screaming harpies for all eternity. Until the children came along and changed the world by allowing the "souls" to escape their empty afterlife and disperse into oblivion.
There's also the portrayal of the Church itself on Lyra's world - a ruthless organization willing to send out assassins to make sure that its authority isn't compromised. And one of the main characters from our world is an ex-nun turned athiest scientist, and she's probably the smartest person in the whole trilogy.
I probably missed some things but that's the general gist of it. The series is a fantasy series, so it's still full of supernatural stuff (like the "angels" and the souls of the dead, and the "Dust"), so I know some athiests who don't consider the book as atheistic at all. When I first read it I thought the book felt more Gnostic than athiestic, but on a re-read I can see where the atheistic label fits more - especially knowing that the book was written as a response to Lewis's Narnia books.
Posted by: NonyNony | November 27, 2007 3:15 PM
Fuck! I forgot to add the mandatory swea....
Oh well...
Posted by: Arnaud | November 27, 2007 3:20 PM
It's probably worth noting at this point that people like Bill Donohue and James Dobson are slowly but surely losing the fight against secularism and materialism.
There are five times as many non-religious young people as there were 40 years ago (around 20% of youth today) and even amongst the believers, the fundamentalists are seen as shrill and hateful, especially when they attack the rights of gays and lesbians.
The increasing hysteria of the religious right is a result of their fear that they are losing, and it is backfiring on them. So let Donohue and Dobson whine and wail. It can only lead to further rejection of their hypocrisy, and will only hasten the end of the right-wing religious power base.
Posted by: tacitus | November 27, 2007 3:25 PM
Christians react strongly against atheist authors, because they know that shielding the kids from atheism and stigmatizing it is an essential part of indoctrination. If they don't, smart kids will often choose non-belief, because it makes so much more sense. Non-believing kids don't need the same level of protection from casual exposure to Christianity, like a C.S. Lewis movie, because once they recognize that Christianity is a fairy tale, there's nothing about reality that suggests anything to the contrary.
Christians are correct to fear the many new atheist voices, especially on the internet. They are responding to the attacks on their weak message by going to their strengths -- deception, manipulation, coercion and repetition.
IMHO, of course.
Posted by: charley | November 27, 2007 3:30 PM
What you have to remember is that Phillip Pullman is a late middle aged English schoolteacher who knew he was going to be quoted. In his lexicon and in polite society 'nitwit' is seriously cutting stuff.
When you can listen to this radio show:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/comedy/clue.shtml?focuswin
And not only laugh like I did when I just listened again but know 'why' it is funny, then you will be some way along understanding the English.
Charing Cross
Posted by: Peter Ashby | November 27, 2007 3:35 PM
I just read the His Dark Materials trilogy for the first time recently (in my 50's). Sublime prose, a beautifully realized alternative universe, grand adventure and a metaphysical challenge to a dualistic and authoritarian orthodoxy whose power is based on an original lie. The people who are shrieking around about it like headless chickens seem 1. not to have read the book, 2. not to have any conception of the nature of allegory and mythology and 3. seem to self identify with the concept of their church as an all powerful,all pure hierarchy that deserves by its very nature to rule in whatever fashion it choses no matter how oppressive or corrupt. But at heart they must realize that the institution is oppressive and corrupt and that there is something very unnatural about the duality of spirit and matter or they would not be so afraid to have their children (who must never question the dogma) exposed to it.
It makes no difference if Pullman says he is an atheist or not, he is skillfully employing mythic themes that run throughout human culture and about which we should surely be conversant. Along the way, Pullman espouses real ethical values like loyalty, friendship, trust, honesty and compassion. Daemonic, I say. Can't let your innocent children dicover that ethics come from within our own compassionate hearts and rational minds and not from imposed authority.
Posted by: SJN | November 27, 2007 3:38 PM
"In my view, the author doesn't advance the atheist cause, and I'm skeptical that any fictional story could."
Posted by: Greg Esres
I find that the Monotheistic Bibles (ie. Jewish Bible, Christian Bible & Koran) all do a wonderful job of advancing the atheist cause. The "god" presented in those fictional works is a petty, destructive and evil entity that is worthy of contempt and unworthy of worship even if it did exist. In those works you find an "awful" rather than an "awesome" being represented as "god".
Posted by: Jaycubed | November 27, 2007 3:43 PM
Hear, Hear old chap SJN, well said. It even has good old fashioned, honest to goodness redemption well mixed in of course with those mythic themes. When Lord Azrael and Mrs Coulter finally combine to drag the Archangel into the pit in order to save their child. Even the worst baddies can come good, what better, more uplifting moral messages do they want?
Posted by: Peter Ashby | November 27, 2007 3:45 PM
ps.
I didn't need to say any four letter words as I used an even more obscene three letter word.
"god"
.
Posted by: Jaycubed | November 27, 2007 3:46 PM
re:24
WTF is the deal with these fundies and anal sex? I mean serious, where the hell did that come from? If it's not gay bashing in general, it must be the specific penetrating act specifically. Do they simply all have some major ass fetish or am I just completely missing something?
Posted by: Richard Wolford | November 27, 2007 3:51 PM
Donahue is nothing but a self-promoting would-be ayatollah. It seems like just yesterday he was voiding his bowels into his trousers over the display of a chocolate sculpture of a nude Jesus in a private art gallery. I swear, the only reason he exists is to throw these temper tantrums of his so that he can land another 15 seconds of fame on CNN before he finds out that all of his pissing and moaning won't get him an audience with his imaginary friend in the sky.
Has anyone ever heard of this guy in any context other than having a conniption over the fact that most of the world doesn't agree with his beliefs? Has he ever done any good for the world at all? The guy contributes nothing to the human condition other than stinky blasts of hot air and bile.
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | November 27, 2007 3:55 PM
Oh great. Pharyngula's turned into a fuck-fest. Please think of the quote-miners.
Posted by: Dan | November 27, 2007 4:00 PM
"When Lord Azrael and Mrs Coulter finally combine to drag the Archangel into the pit in order to save their child."
Ann Coulter is in this?
Posted by: Clare | November 27, 2007 4:10 PM
A few dozen F-bombs dropped over here is not going to lower the opinion creationists have of this place.
Bombs away!
FUCK!
FUCK!
FUCK!
FUCKITY_FUCK!
oh shit
Posted by: Janine | November 27, 2007 4:12 PM
Dan,
Quote mining?
As in:
Posted by: Arnaud | November 27, 2007 4:17 PM
Look, C'mon. Let's look at this sensibly. Donahue claims Pullman is "trying to recruit children to adopt his beliefs through his books." To which one has to respond, "so?" Isn't that what writers are supposed to do; express a point of view and try to do it in a convincing and engaging way?
Perhaps the wording is a little strong in that writers maybe aren't attempting to "recruit" people to their beliefs so much as simply present a point of view. But even so, "recruit" or "present" are really just a matter of degree. I believe it is a tacit consent in literature between author and readers that the author is going to present a point of view and the reader is going to be exposed to it. Certainly to complain that an author is going to be persuasive is a validless complaint.
Thus Donahues complaint must reduce to "the author is an athiest and his athiest views are presented in the book and in the movie" (or is his complaint that his athiest views are not presented in the movie?) Well, this is simply a statement. Unless one believes athiest points of views should be exempt and forbidden in children's literature and main stream entertainment, this can not be considered a valid "complaint" or "accusation". Of course, Donahue very well might believe athiest points of views should be exempt but even he realizes that this likes to believe it has a tradition of democratic expression in which others should be allowed to claim another point of view. At the very best his comment must be seen as a warning. "This movie is based on a book by an atheist who expresses an atheistic point of view through the book. It is my believe he is hoping his expression is convincing enough to recruit children to his point of view." This warning is, I suppose, valid in much the same sense as "Warning, Henry and June is a sensual film" and "Warning, Saw III depicts violence and gore" and "Warning, Curious George dumbs down a classic to a cynical and uncharming modern mentality" and "Warning, A room with a view is a costume drama and not a remake of Rear Window"
Alright, warning given. Warning heard. And, in my case, warning ignored as irrelevent to my concerns.
Posted by: woozy | November 27, 2007 4:20 PM
""When Lord Azrael and Mrs Coulter finally combine to drag the Archangel into the pit in order to save their child."
Ann Coulter is in this?"
No, her first name is not Ann, I forget what it is though. See also my point about who and what Pillip Pullman is. I doubt he knows who Ann Coulter is. That may be a genuine case of ignorance being bliss...
Posted by: Peter Ashby | November 27, 2007 4:21 PM
Pullman has come right out and said exactly what his books are about. Even if he hadn't, it's obvious just from the synopses. He might not like the comparison, but Pullman is an atheist CS Lewis: using fantasy fiction to promote a particular view of reality (Christianity or atheism).
Nothing wrong with that. The funny thing is that most readers are just going to enjoy the fantasy and will not care a whit about the intended lessons regarding religion. The Wikipedia description of The Amber Spyglass sounds a little like Paradise Lost (I look forward to the movie version of PL) told from the point of view of Satan. Vertigo's Lucifer comic book series must have been influenced by Pullman. Well, it's all fantasy fiction - the Bible, Rowling, Milton, Lewis, Pullman, Left Behind - anyway, so why not.
I liked the Narnia movie and maybe I'll like The Golden Compass too (I'll wait for the DVD because audience behavior these days is intolerable).
But using fantasy to promote atheism might not be the best device for that purpose. If Pullman were plugging New Age or Gnosticism that would make more sense, but his books might end up getting kids interested in mystical silliness like daemons and magical objects rather than skepticism, rationalism, and anti-theology.
Posted by: Colugo | November 27, 2007 4:21 PM
Pullman making a pretty direct statement: "I'm trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief. Mr. Lewis would think I was doing the Devil's work."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A23371-2001Feb18?language=printer
Well, good luck with that. Like I said, most readers and moviegoers will only care the trippy fantasy elements.
On the other hand, Pullman has also said:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21595083/
"As for the atheism, it doesn't matter to me whether people believe in God or not, so I'm not promoting anything of that sort. What I do care about is whether people are cruel or whether they're kind, whether they act for democracy or for tyranny, whether they believe in open-minded enquiry or in shutting the freedom of thought and expression. Good things have been done in the name of religion, and so have bad things; and both good things and bad things have been done with no religion at all."
So much for my claim that he is an atheist CS Lewis, apparently. Pullman appears to care more about behavior than belief. But what the rebel angels being the good guys, heaven being a tyranny, good people trying to create their own republic of heaven, God being so frail he dissipates in a gust of wind? Is that just about oppressive institutions or is it also about belief? Well, the great thing about books is that they are subject to multiple interpretations.
Posted by: Colugo | November 27, 2007 4:38 PM
Actually, Pullman's themes seem to me on the whole to contain as much gnostic material as outright atheism - the war in heaven, the idea that what we are calling God isn't really god but a usurper. The war in heaven is a classic motif that runs through both middle eastern and Indo-European creation stories. The usurption of power is a gnostic theme. If the ranters on the religious right weren't so ignorant of any version of the literary sources but their own cherry picked versions of the Bible, they might know this.
Speculatively the correlation between Pullman's dust, consciousness and dark matter is quite interesting, realizing that we can play around with ideas without having to declare them true or false but "what if".
No relation between Ann Coulter and the Marisa Coulter character in the book except they are both pretty evil. I believe the name Coulter may have been chosen for its original meaning which has to do with the blade of a plough. There is a lot in these books that will completely by pass most children and a lot of adults, too, if they don't have the background allusions.
Posted by: SJN | November 27, 2007 4:40 PM
But using fantasy to promote atheism might not be the best device for that purpose. If Pullman were plugging New Age or Gnosticism that would make more sense, but his books might end up getting kids interested in mystical silliness like daemons and magical objects rather than skepticism, rationalism, and anti-theology.
Perhaps, perhaps not. The sort of kid who picks up the Dark Materials trilogy and finishes them and gets their message is also, IMO, going to be the sort of kid who can tell fantasy from reality and know when to put the one aside in favour of the other.
And this Bill Donohue can be raped by demons for eternity for all I care - it'll help him explore his obsession with sodomy a bit further...
Demon: Bill Donohue, I have given you demon AIDS, and the pustules, sores and other blights it will bring you are your designated punishment in Hell.
BD: Demon AIDS? How?
Demon: I wasn't wearing a condom. Because... well, you know... you're Catholic.
Posted by: Justin Moretti | November 27, 2007 4:52 PM
I don't think C.S. Lewis wanted to convert anyone but to express why he that Christianity was beautiful and joyous. Not that I think either would make a difference.
I've wavored back and forth on my opinion of C.S. Lewis and my disgust at preachy better than you christian gloating against, dang, he's a really good story teller and I still haven't come to a conclussion. Currently I think they are good books. My sister, who is a bit more opinionated and judgemental, rather surprised me by saying she believed they were much more pagan than christian and the christian stuff very mechanical than pervasive (Aslan tricked the witch into sacrificing him because he knew a deeper magic and knew this would win the war against the bad guys is completely different to her than Christ dying on the cross to save the *our* souls even though *we* are not worthy of licking his boots). O...kay, maybe but I'm not convinced...
I did have a friend at college who converted to Born Again Christianity with the Narnia books being the concluding argument. Someone asked him if Christianity could be like the Narnia books would he accept Christianity then. O...kay, I had another friend at college who converted to Christianity while jogging in a Los Angeles aquaduct under some freeways. He said he looked up and saw that everything in his field of vision was artificial and man-made and it looked like a scene in a science-fiction movie. He says it was as though God was saying to him, "Look, I can make things look like a scene from a science-fiction movie if I want to and if that is what it takes to you get you to notice." Again, O...kay.
I tend to dislike the heavy-handers like Pullman and Lewis ... but then they were both dang good story tellers.But, yeah, this *is* an example of knee-jerk prejudice against atheists. It *is* hypocritical.
I never heard anyone complain about christian themes in her books. The usual book burning fundies complained because it contained magic and sorcery, but I never heard complaints about Christian elements...
What Christian elements? Oh, it had the usual love and forgiveness is more powerful than hate, and egotism and lust for power corrupt treacle, but I don't thing those are particularly "christian" ideas. All I know of is Hogwarts observed Christmas (and Halloween).
Posted by: woozy | November 27, 2007 4:54 PM
"There is a lot in these books that will completely by pass most children and a lot of adults, too, if they don't have the background allusions."
Sure, but the same can be said in spades for Tolkein. You do not need to know a great pile of Old English and Norse myths and stories to enjoy it, or be able to get where he derived Elvish from. I certainly had no idea when I first read the Ring Trilogy. I think I had read a children's version of the Odissye but not Beowulf and I didn't bump into anything properly early until Chaucer at University.
Oh I was sorely tempted towards a career based on learning something like ancient Icelandic and deconstructing the sagas. I even talked to my English tutor about it. But science beckoned...
Posted by: Peter Ashby | November 27, 2007 5:06 PM
I suppose you could say it's about belief in kindness, democracy, open-minded enquiry, etc.
HDM promotes humanism if anything - which, despite the protest of nitwits like Donohue, is neither synonymous with atheism nor a bad thing.
Posted by: AC | November 27, 2007 5:21 PM
I really hate the Christian Crusade against Literature.
First of all, yes, His Dark Materials is distinctly anti-Christian, or rather, anti-Catholic, as his entire trilogy follows a Gnostic allegory. There's a reason for that. Pullman is specifically responding to C.S. Lewis. C.S. Lewis not only wrote highly prostelytizing novels for children, but he also incorporated into all of his works pagan symbolism that he had appropriated for use in a Christian allegory. Pullman is doing exactly the same thing with Christian imagery as a response to Lewis. Pullman is not the only person who has drafted a response to Lewis. Neil Gaiman wrote a short story addressing one of the major ethical dilemmas of Lewis's approach (albeit addressed to adults rather than children) and the recent film Pan's Labyrinth is, in part, a vicious critique of Lewis's world.
Now, we didn't see any sort of major opposition to the making of the Narnia films, even though they were blatant Christian allegory. This hypocrisy concerning Pullman because Pullman might be pushing his atheist agenda is absurd.
If you don't want your kids reading the book, fine, I'm a big fan of teaching children how to use a library.
As for the movie, it's been made relatively clear that the film is going to differ somwhat from the book. Whether that means it's going to have a much more subdued message, I don't know. Instead of ranting and raving about it, these nuts should at least see the damned thing first.
Posted by: JDP | November 27, 2007 5:29 PM
Actually, what I object to most in Lewis' books isn't the Christian allegory (which I merely disagree with) but the rather blithe glorification of war tinged with the romantacism of battles of knights of old, (Actually, I disliked the movie much more than I thought I would as I thought it was an an apologetic call to the justification of the war in Iraq. Wars are *always* nasty! Even when we are on the right side and war is the only option, wars are horrific, inhuman, ugly, and nasty) and the rather excessive display of patriatism bordering on glorification of the Narnians. Well, I guess the whole ball of wax (glorifying ones country, romanticizing one's ethic, and worshiping one's religion) go together.
I once wanted to write a childrens fantasy where hero-worshipping and willingness to die for a cause (and promoting a cause as worth dieing for) where portrayed as very bad ideas. Basically, an anti-zealotry even for good causes tract.
Posted by: woozy | November 27, 2007 5:53 PM
Hah! Dr. Locrian thought the commenters on Rotton Tomatoes were bad?
This is a thread from the paranoid minds of the Rapture Ready folks. The site is actually a spin-off of Rapture Ready. Apparently these folks felt that RR was getting to friendly to those who'd dispute the xian religion!
So, you can guess what the thread must be like.
http://www.prophecyfellowship.org/showthread.php?t=312660
Posted by: Reynold | November 27, 2007 6:00 PM
I was probably going to go to this movie anyway, as the FX looks totally cool, and the costumes are well done, the actors are good, and it looked like a cool story. I love a good fantasy yarn.
I was planning on catching it for discount matinee, but now I'm paying full price for the regular feature, just to piss off Donahue, et. al. ;-)
I was another one of those clueless kids for whom C.S. Lewis's Christian allegory in the _Chronicles of Narnia_ completely flew over my head. I moved from Narnia on to _Taran Wanderer_ and that whole series of books. I did try to get into the Shanara books, but by then I was in high school and getting interested in history books instead.
Posted by: JJR | November 27, 2007 6:08 PM
I remember those. Derivative fiction at its finest ;)
Posted by: tacitus | November 27, 2007 6:30 PM
Interstingly, I think, a movie made from another atheist author's book opens the same day: "The Atonement," by Ian McEwan, to whom Christopher Hitchens dedicated "god Is Not Great."
Posted by: Greg Peterson | November 27, 2007 6:31 PM
I always love what this kind of thing says about the Xians and their faith. If they had genuine faith then no work of fiction by an atheist could be a threat, no work of fact should be able to sway them. Real faith would see them through the temptation and what they see as lies and they'd come out the other side sure of their choice. But Xian leaders are always so desperate to make sure their followers don't risk it, and that says everything anyone needs to know about their faith. Those leaders know their followers are largely brain washed and ignorant, and anything that suggests their delusion might be wrong could be all it takes to tip them out of the madness of faith. Xian leaders can't trust their followers, because deep down they can't trust themselves, they know their own faith is really a sham, and by extension so is the faith of all their followers. They all live in abject terror of the day the people with the money realize this and cut them off. Someone genuinely secure in their beliefs doesn't have to worry about the beliefs and opinions of others.
Posted by: Venger | November 27, 2007 6:36 PM
From what I've read in a NY Times profile of the director recently, 'The Golden Compass' movie promises to be craptacularly watered-down with respect to its anti-religion message. I shudder to think of how emasculated the 2nd and 3rd books will be, after Hollywood's through with them.
(Btw, is there a way to search Pharyngula comments? I'm trying to find a comment I posted awhile back and don't see any way to do that, nor do I remember exactly what thread it was in)
Posted by: Steven Sullivan | November 27, 2007 6:52 PM
Just go cheney yourself :-)
A few months ago, Rowling herself came out saying she had put Christian motives in there. Basically Harry's victory over death.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 27, 2007 6:54 PM
Steven:
Yes. Google.
I'm not being snarky here - I've done it many times, and it works pretty well.
Re: Donohue-and-cry. Once again, a world religion that doesn't stand up to a children's story can't be worth much. Pullman's right, and the subtext of everything Donohue says is this:
"I don't think people can think for themselves (so I will do it for them)."
Posted by: Kseniya | November 27, 2007 7:01 PM
Does Google find blog comments?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 27, 2007 7:06 PM
Google search:
"site:scienceblogs.com"
and your name
Posted by: Colugo | November 27, 2007 7:13 PM
Pharyngula-specific:
"site:scienceblogs.com/pharyngula"
Only click on those that begin "Posted by: "
Posted by: Colugo | November 27, 2007 7:16 PM
Actually, it's more efficient and sensible to have "posted by:[your name]" part of the search.
Posted by: Colugo | November 27, 2007 7:19 PM
"Actually, I disliked the movie much more than I thought I would"
I rather liked it, mainly due to Tilda Swinton. I was rooting for her all the way even though I knew what was going to happen.
And the kids, they made them even more priggish and vile than they were in the books.
I read all the Narnia books in my twenties and missed the Christian allegory until much later when my son read TLTWATW and said, "Is Aslan supposed to be Jesus?"
When Pullman came along I was transfixed and my only regret is that he was not around when I was a young, impressionable teenager, but at least I can now recommend him to my youngest. Whether she listens is another matter, she seldom does, thank God, or rather thank fuck.
Posted by: SDG | November 27, 2007 7:23 PM
Posted by: woozy | November 27, 2007 7:25 PM
hell, I'll go just to see Daniel Craig..yummy.
Posted by: MAJeff | November 27, 2007 7:30 PM