onegoodmove

"'abused' when younger"? the guy was twenty-one! in a 'rational' world it's called CoNsEnSuAl SeX... so he drops his pants for the vicar and waits for the ephebophile-priest shite to hit the fan more than two decades later to try and sue for some cha-ching...and onegoodmove wants to make 'im a posterboy of sorts?

oh--and why are you atheists so damned cheap? your movie's flopping! like donahue, you need to put up or shut-up...

I think that this trailer should be shown before every viewing of 'The Golden Compass', just to emphasise just how little moral authority the Catholic Church has to object to anyone pushing things on kids.

If anything, it's the other way around: Christian pressure has moved New Line to tone down the atheist message of the story. Donohue & Co. should be happy it turned out the way it did. Which is a shame by the way. But alas, Hollywood would never dare to produce an openly anti-religious movie - inspite of what the snake-oil-sellers cry.

P.S. Even though I agree with Tolkien: Fantasy should never be an allegory for anything, not religion and not atheism. I prefer Erikson whose books don't even stand for good vs. evil but only for humanity. This need for allegory in modern fantasy cinema is a shame.

uh oh, my movie is flopping? That sucks, but i will still make a profit because i didnt even have to pay anything to get it made.

I don't know abut this movie but I have read the His Dark Materials trilogy and found it fascinating. Great characters strange and interesting relationships between the characters, a complex interesting story.

Given that it is full of magic and magical creatures I saw it not as atheist but specifically anti-church and anti-authoritarian.

I'm not excited about the movie because i expect it to be watered down and denatured. It's Hollywood and my expectations are very, very low.

The idea that this bit of Hollywood entertainment is 'our film' demonstrates a very weak grasp of the many questions and issues involved in the discussion and a critical ignorance of what atheism actually is.

Could it be that atheist read more?

Atheist move not grossing well, atheist books on the top sellers list.

Just a thought

If it wasn't for the Catholic League I wouldn't have even heard about the Golden Compass. As a result I went out and saw the movie and bought the books for my niece and nephew. I need to send Donahue a thank you letter.

You are right Doug, I think they made a big stink about it, and it just resulted in more exposure. But then again, they don't care if the infidels see it, they just wanted to warn those of the flock. The rest of us will be going to hell anyway, and are irrelevant.

I saw the movie, nothing about religion really, no allusions to it at all... unless you consider the indoctrination part, the great efforts to stifle minds and inquiry, things like that. I saw it more as anti authority. I found it funny though, that theists are using tactics similar to those in the film to attack the movie.

Frenchfries:

Tolkien was opposed to using fantasy as allegory? Really?

In High School I was taught that LOTR was an allegory of WWII, with the "one ring" symbolizing nuclear weapons.

Public education fails again! If you have any quotes or links, I'd be interested to hear more about Tolkien v. allegory.

and onegoodmove wants to make 'im a posterboy of sorts?

You don't get it: these people hate religious folks ... because they say religious people are intolerant. Someone cue that horrible Alanis Morissette song.

You don't get it: these people hate religious folks

It's not religious folks we hate it's your silly superstition. How is it exactly that you believe us intolerant? Please, name the ways. Remember though, a lack of respect is not intolerance.

Re Tolkien & allegory...

Thanks to google...

I remembered reading something about this a while back...

"'The Lord of the Rings' is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision," Tolkien wrote in a letter in 1953 to Robert Murray, a Jesuit priest. "That is why I have not put in, or have cut out practically all references to anything like 'religion,' to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and symbolism." (The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, 1981)

"You'd think the Catholic League would be aggressive in addressing a clear and present danger..."

And it would seem to me they've done a pretty good job! They've given me information and insight that can help me in choosing materials for my children. I'm personally not worried about abusive priests, but I am concerned about what my children are exposed to in the media.

Zaphod:

Indeed, he was very explicit in that regard. Just read his preface to the second edition (and to almost any edition since 1966).

As to allegory:

"I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presences. I much prefer history, true or feigned. (...) I think many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides to the freedom of the reader, and the other in the proposed domination of the author."

As to WWII:

"As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. The crucial chapter, 'The Shadow of the Past' (...) was written long before the foreshadow of 1939 had yet become a threat of inevitable disaster, and from that point the story would have developed along essentially the same lines, if that disaster had been averted, Its sources are things long before in mind, or in some cases already written, and title or nothing in it was modified by the war that began in 1939 or its sequels." (...) "The real war does not resemble the legendary war in its process or its conclusion. If it had inspired or directed the development of the legend, then certainly the Ring would have been seized and used against Sauron; he would not have been annihilated but enslaved, and Barad-dur would not have been destroyed but occupied. Saruman, failing to get posession of the ring, would in the confusion and treacheries of the time have found in Mordor the missing links in his own researches into Ring-lore, and before long would have made a Great Ring of his own with which to challenge the self-styled Ruler of Middle-Earth."

If anything, as Tom Shippey's brilliant "Author of the Century" shows, Tolkiens whole work was inspired not by WWII but by WWI. By the destruction, the loss, the sacrifice this war meant to Tolkien and his generation of soldiers in 1914-18. After all, he lost several friends there. And began writing the first drafts of the Silmarilion (which became the Lord of the Rings) in 1917.

And additionally: Nuclear weapons? That's just absurd. He finished the Ring in 1949 (after almost 15 years of writing) and published it in 1954/55. There's just no way he could have foreseen the arms race as it materialized in the 60's.

It's a fact, the Catholic Church has been convicted in multiple countries of obstructing the investigations of pedophiles and then enabling them to do it again after they've been convicted.

The Catholic Church is clearly a criminal organization.

[quote]I'm personally not worried about abusive priests, but I am concerned about what my children are exposed to in the media.[/quote]

I think this sums of religion pretty well.

"The possibility of me hand-delivering my child to a pedophile doesn't really concern me. Its just that darned media always reporting things that gets under my skin!"

i think it's pretty hilarious that the Catholics are up in arms about this movie, but the Atheists aren't freaking out about movies like The Chronicles of Narnia, or the Passion.

There's no assault on Catholicism or Christianity. The rest of us want you to leave us the hell alone, is all.

I don't believe in your god, you don't believe in mine, fair enough. But stop trying to claim I'm "attacking your faith" when it's YOU who're the aggressor.

The Crusades wasn't a Happy Fun Time for those who weren't Catholic.. how different is this?

Was it the 4th Crusade that destroyed Christian Constantinople?

I guess Jesus was strapped and needed more booty.

They've given me information and insight that can help me in choosing materials for my children. I'm personally not worried about abusive priests, but I am concerned about what my children are exposed to in the media.

First, exactly what information and insight has been meted out that has any benefit? Allowing another to give me "information and insight that can help me in choosing materials for my children" means that I leave assessments to another, give up to another my right to decide what my child is exposed to. Why would any parent want to do that?

In light of that, should a parent be concerned about what their child is exposed to? Is it not the parent's responsibility to raise a child to be a productive citizen as they see fit? If a parent keeps the channels of communication open with the children, whatever a child is exposed to will be discussed, wouldn't it? If the concepts the parent has to teach the child are reasonable, there should be no concern about unwanted exposure, because the matter would always be dealt with in a coherent, reasonable fashion that would steer the child in the proper direction.

It seems to me much more energy would be used in an attempt to shield the child than would be if any exposure, and inquiries that result from such exposure, were dealt with using open communication and sound judgments. And if not, it would border on neglect that I confer on someone else such a responsibility.