Jump to content
Science Forums

The Golden Compass - irreligious?


paigetheoracle

Recommended Posts

A new film based upon the work of Phillip Pullman has just been released in the UK but even before that it was the subject of religious controversy. Never having read the book or seen the film, I wondered why it was being labelled irreligious? Like Harry Potter before it, it has stirred up trouble where films of a more brutal nature have passed by unnoticed or with hardly a ripple of complaint. Is this down to it not belonging to some kind of belief club or is there more to it than that?

 

It's also discussed on a blogsite http://cheatingtheferryman.blogspot.combut without the venom seen elsewhere

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I heard that the book might've had some very antireligious feel to it ? (I could be completely wrong.)

 

(But,) I do know that people (have) compare(d) the 'majest(e)ry' (or however it's spelled) to the Catholic Church. And if that's true, it basically says the CC is a 'leniently moral' Hitler longing to take over this whole universe – and every universe discovered (there's more than one I think in the movie). So I guess that's what gets their cross-bookmarks scrunched.

 

The big thing for them-religious is that it "promotes atheism". All I've to say to that is: they wouldn't mind promoting their own religion, would they ? Some religious people don't care though ; but the ones who dislike this "atheism promoter" and wouldn't mind it being about the "Hitlerishness of atheism" are utterly hypocritical.

 

As an atheist – and I think even if I weren't , they can just interpret it how it pleases (or doesn't) them – all I care about is that they don't get enough holypower to 'pull' the movie from fictional shelves. (Assuming we're still in the sane US, and sane overseas countries: they can't do more than not show it in a theatre if that theatre owner is religious, right ?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Assuming we're still in the sane US, and sane overseas countries: they can't do more than not show it in a theatre if that theatre owner is religious, right ?)

 

I think: If a theater owner decided not to show it, it wouldn't be seen in that theater. If a contracted distributor decided not to show it - it wouldn't be seen in that country's theaters. If the people at New Line or Time Warner decided not to show it - no one would ever see it.

 

But, I think if New Line put out Texas Chainsaw Massacre - they'll distribute this :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think: If a theater owner decided not to show it, it wouldn't be seen in that theater. If a contracted distributor decided not to show it - it wouldn't be seen in that country's theaters. If the people at New Line or Time Warner decided not to show it - no one would ever see it.

 

But, I think if New Line put out Texas Chainsaw Massacre - they'll distribute this :rant:

 

Ah, good to know then. :)

 

And, MySpace is advertising it on its homepage, for a bit of really useless trivia...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I heard that the book might've had some very antireligious feel to it ? (I could be completely wrong.)

 

(But,) I do know that people (have) compare(d) the 'majest(e)ry' (or however it's spelled) to the Catholic Church. And if that's true, it basically says the CC is a 'leniently moral' Hitler longing to take over this whole universe – and every universe discovered (there's more than one I think in the movie). So I guess that's what gets their cross-bookmarks scrunched.

 

 

From my understanding, in the orginal book the organization was called "The Church". For the movie, they tried to tone down the anti-religious tone and called it "The Magisterium".

The problem with that that I see is that the term "Church" is more ambigious, there are a lot of organizations that call themselves a "Church".

 

OTOH, "Magisterium", while a less recognised term (which is probably what they were aiming for), is a technical term from the Catholic Church that refers to its teaching body. So while trying to deflect criticism over what might be construed as a general anti-religious tone, they opened themselves up for a charge of an attack on a specific religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my understanding, in the orginal book the organization was called "The Church". For the movie, they tried to tone down the anti-religious tone and called it "The Magisterium".

The problem with that that I see is that the term "Church" is more ambigious, there are a lot of organizations that call themselves a "Church".

 

OTOH, "Magisterium", while a less recognised term (which is probably what they were aiming for), is a technical term from the Catholic Church that refers to its teaching body. So while trying to deflect criticism over what might be construed as a general anti-religious tone, they opened themselves up for a charge of an attack on a specific religion.

 

Though, I've heard of the Catholic Church called "The" Church, and I'd say most Catholics say the same. (I do know that probably most nonCatholics dislike "The Church" being the Catholic Church.

 

I thought "Magesterium" was a fantasy-fictional word created for the movie – never thought it was real. My dictionary (or, Apple's digital dictionary...) doesn't have the word though. Maybe it's archaic (though Dictionary.app's usually good about that)...

 

I want to read the full undiluted book now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Religion is like food: one man's food is another man's poison; but if you can eat what you call food and it does not kill you but you find some flavor in it, then let no man calling it poison stop you from eating what you call food. So also religion.

 

Atheists in general are no trying to stop those of a religious nature from practicing their religion. We're just saying, don't foist it on the rest of us!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*MAJOR SPOILER WARNING*

I read Pullman’s 3-book series “His Dark Materials” (“The Golden Compass”, “The Subtle Knife”, and “Amber Spyglass”) between 12/5/2005 and 12/26/2005, (at 290,000 words total, they’re a fairly long series). I took only sparse notes, and have only a vague recollection of them, including being struck by how suitable the visual elements were for a movie adaptation - cute children always accompanied by cute, shape-shifting “daemons” (protagonist Lyra’s deamon’s cutest form is that of an cuddly ermine); ship and balloon trips; political intrigue and death duels between human-intelligent, armored polar bears, etc. I was surprised to discover that such an adaptation has been undertaken, and uncertain if it’s two sequels will be released.

 

For those who know neither books nor movie, a few background details are essential:

  • Ordinary humans (but not intelligent animals, some specially endowed humans, or visitors from other universes) in the Lyra’s world, a fantastic analog of our 19th century, are constantly accompanied by and telepathically linked with a physical creatures called daemons.
  • Children’s daemon’s can rapidly change forms, but become locked into a single form when the child reached adulthood.
  • The world of Lyra and the Church is one of many parallel universes. Our real world (the home of co-protagonist Will) is another.
  • It’s possible to travel between worlds, using secret “holes” between them, or via holes created using technological means, eg: “the Subtle Knife” (though such ancient technology may no longer be understood by its possessors, and be confused with magic)
  • There’s something called Dust, which is physically real, mysterious, very important. It’s essentially the ultimate fundamental physical particle, though Pullman makes little effort to reconcile it with real particle physics.

I suspect the outcry from religionists about Pullman’s novels and their current and upcoming movie adaptations being sacrilegious is not due to the content of the first one – “The Golden Compass”, as to the climactic third and final one, “Amber Spyglass”.

 

The first book/movie depicts a politically dominant Church lead by amoral, ruthless, individuals willing to torture, kill, systematically kidnap and torture hundreds of children, etc. to further their personal agendas – arguably not much worse that real-world historic church leaders, such as those involved in the infamous Spanish Inquisition, and not anything a reasonable person would take as an indictment of any underlying religious truth.

 

The last book depicts an actual, physical battle between a corrupt, degenerate God and his loyal angels and humans, and rebel angels and humans. God is senile and weak, a puppet of a powerful, morally corrupt angel who was formerly a human prophet. God didn’t create the universe, or much of anything else, but an opportunist and a tyrant – quoting from “Amber Spyglass”:

The Authority, God, the Creator, the Lord Yahweh, El, Adonai, the King, the Father, the Almighty – those were all named he gave himself. He was never the creator. He was an angel like ourselves – the first angel, true, the most powerful, but he was formed of the Dust as we are, and Dust is only a name for what happens when matter begins to understand itself. Matter loves matter. It seeks to know more about itself, and Dust is formed. The first angels condensed out of Dust, and the Authority was the first of all. He told those who came after him that he had created them, but it was a lie. One of those who came later was wiser than he was, and she found out the truth, so he banished her. We serve her still. And the Authority still reigns in the Kingdom, and Metatron is his Regent

It’s hard to imagine a more direct, unambiguous impeachment of the underlying dogma of most of the world’s religions. Unless the screenplay writers of the final installment in the series radically alter the story, its movie will be no less a profound and direct attack on religion – albeit one based in an imaginative, quasi-supernatural worldview – than Dawkins’s non-fictional “The God Delusion”.

 

In summary, although I don’t dispute that “His Dark Materials” is a major and important work, I was personally left dissatisfied and unimpressed. Pullman seems a sincere heretic, and this his vehicle, but I feel none of the passion or affection of C. S. Lewis or J. R. R. Tolkein. I take away only a sense of vague, pseudoscientific speculation that consciousness is due to an as yet theoretically unknown fundamental particle - Dust - that is itself conscious, that there are many worlds that can and have been fairly easily and indiscriminately connected by openings large and small, that it’s important for parents to be good to their children, that love is good and important, that angels miss sex terribly, and various other reasonable-seeming but disconnected minutia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my understanding, in the orginal book the organization was called "The Church". For the movie, they tried to tone down the anti-religious tone and called it "The Magisterium".

The problem with that that I see is that the term "Church" is more ambigious, there are a lot of organizations that call themselves a "Church".

 

OTOH, "Magisterium", while a less recognised term (which is probably what they were aiming for), is a technical term from the Catholic Church that refers to its teaching body. So while trying to deflect criticism over what might be construed as a general anti-religious tone, they opened themselves up for a charge of an attack on a specific religion.

 

From what I understand of it, it's a stand not so much against 'organised' religion but 'for' what the Christian Church derived from, Gnosticism. This I suppose would be considered anti-church as it is about the people inside the building, not the bricks and mortar that surround them, hence Christ's saying that he could rebuild the Temple in 3 days i.e. get back the belief in the people, not the house of God as bits of stone (spirit not material)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atheists in general are no trying to stop those of a religious nature from practicing their religion. We're just saying, don't foist it on the rest of us!

 

That brings in the question about democracy being the rule of the majority.

 

How can it be prevented that a majority pro or against religion rule society in such a manner, that the majority at least give the appearance to favor itself in respect of its sentiment, pro or against religion.

 

 

For example, we have just witnessed the demise of atheistic communistic regimes which were ideologically and regimentally hostile to religion.

 

Of course atheistic communistic regimes while they flourished were not established by the numerical majority of the populace; nonetheless the governing power possessed a majority of raw physical brute force to implement a persecutorial policy on religions.

 

In the USA today there is a minority which bristles from the God-believing majority, constantly exerting efforts to turn the US society into a God-loving and God-fearing citizenry.

 

 

That is all a most interesting phenomenon for students of human behavior to examine.

 

 

 

cotner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That brings in the question about democracy being the rule of the majority.

 

How can it be prevented that a majority pro or against religion rule society in such a manner, that the majority at least give the appearance to favor itself in respect of its sentiment, pro or against religion.

 

 

For example, we have just witnessed the demise of atheistic communistic regimes which were ideologically and regimentally hostile to religion.

 

Of course atheistic communistic regimes while they flourished were not established by the numerical majority of the populace; nonetheless the governing power possessed a majority of raw physical brute force to implement a persecutorial policy on religions.

 

In the USA today there is a minority which bristles from the God-believing majority, constantly exerting efforts to turn the US society into a God-loving and God-fearing citizenry.

 

 

That is all a most interesting phenomenon for students of human behavior to examine.

 

 

 

cotner

 

What we have here is a question of belief and dominance. Atheism is about disbelief and therefore shouldn't in reality foist anything on anyone else anyway. Dominance is about suppression rather than the freedom to chose as an individual what way you want to go. As such democracy should be about allowing individuals the right to pick their own lifestyles (adulthood) as tyranny is foisting on others the way you think they should live. In other words it's not about any particular belief about how things should be (idealism) but an acceptance of how things really are (pragmatism).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example, we have just witnessed the demise of atheistic communistic regimes which were ideologically and regimentally hostile to religion.

Communist regimes are a form of totalitarian rule. Their objection to organised religion was/is an expression of a power struggle between monolithic power blocks in society. i.e. The communists saw the church as a thread to their rule.

 

 

In the USA today there is a minority which bristles from the God-believing majority, constantly exerting efforts to turn the US society into a God-loving and God-fearing citizenry.

Exactly. The God-fearing citizentry of the USA are no better than the communists. They wish to impose their views on society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My wife and I saw “Golden Compass” Tuesday night. After all the critical bashing I’d read about it, I was most pleasantly surprised, and enjoyed it thoroughly. My wife, who unlike me has not read the books (nor allowed me to spoil them for her by talking much about them) was delighted. In her opinion, “Golden Compass” is more entertaining and intellectually stimulating than the movie adaptation of “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe” – an opinion exactly the opposite of several reviewers’ I’ve read. She ranks it lower than the “Lord of the Rings” movies, but admits to being so enamored with the Tolkein books that she’s hopelessly biased.

 

Her major criticism of the movie was of scenes she found unbelievably unrealistic – for example “how could you ride a polar bear bareback without falling off constantly, and getting yourself rubbed raw in the process?”

 

My criticism of the movie is mostly technical. It appears excessively edited, with several scenes that feel as if someone fast-forwarded past non-essential but continuity-enhancing footage. Some things you’d like to see clearly are poorly placed, lit, or presented too briefly. Cramming 100,000 words into 113 minute – while keeping, as this movie does, nearly all of its many critical scenes – is, I think, a bit too much compression.

 

I also get the impression that the makers and animators were underaware of the “uncanny corner” effect to which very realistic CGI is vulnerable, intending the predominantly furry, friendly, perky animal daemons that comprise nearly half the characters in the movie to be unalloyedly cute in the eyes of every viewer, when in actuality there’s something profoundly creepy about cute furry talking supernatural animals that are external reflections of human souls. Much of the reason cute furry animals are cute is that they don’t talk or have human intelligence.

 

Still, I recommend the movie without reservation. Despite some critics accusations of its makers having “sold out”, I think it preserves the book’s themes faithfully and well. If, as some are prediction, the obligatory two sequel movies are not made, there will be a lot of disappointed viewers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coming back to democracy being the rule of the majority...

 

On the one hand there is the tyranny of the majority in a democracy, while on the other hand there is the tyranny of a minority which by hook or by crook monopolizes brute force, in which case there is no democracy of any semblance whatever.

 

So, what is the solution?

 

 

 

cotner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...