Dec 4, 2007
Many of you have asked me about the books in the His Dark Materials trilogy by Phillip Pullman. As some of you know the first book, The Golden Compass has been made into a full length feature film set to debut nation wide on December 7th. Many Christians have called for boycott's etc. Many people are asking what the stories are about.
I think Al Mohler wrote a decent piece today that avoids boycott reactionism yet is pretty clear about the message and agenda of Pullman and his works. You can read it here. It was good to hear a baptist telling folks NOT to boycott something in culture...even a story which has no hidden agenda...this trilogy is about killing God.
I would encourage Mr. Pullman to write his next fantasy story about Islam...wait, he probably wouldn't do that.
Comments
Good, I was hoping to get the first comment in on this movie. Why are athiests and draft-dodging professors so hell-bent on killing God? It is interesting that an athiest and Scientologist (Kidman) team up on this project. More interesting that the evil b___h is named Coulter.
I'll admit it, as a Christian, I support oppressing our animal sexuality. Controlling our natural desires is what makes humans different than dogs in heat (or some of our old team mates). Too many of my high school students who choose not to oppress their budding sexuality end up creating a baby with unfit parents or the girls end up in psychotherapy.
I guess I'll support the good ol' Baptist boycott.
G-Rex
Posted by: Greg R | December 5, 2007 11:20 AM
Boycotts in general are counterproductive, attracting attention to something most people would not notice.
My understanding is that the very militant atheist message of the books is very much toned down in the movie (as it would have to be for a generally released movie). Of course, that will make filming the third movie quite a challenge, given that the climax of the final book is actually killing god.
Oppressing (or more properly suppressing, I think) one's animal nature is not something uniquely, or even particularly Christian. Aristotle thought that was the proper way for a man to live, and Plato had a character state that he was most happy when he no longer had sexual urges (as the result of advancing age).
People end up in psychotherapy because they need someone to tell them that whatever is wrong in their lives is not their fault, but someone else's fault, or an irrepressible urge. I question the assertion regarding unfit parents. Young parents might be unprepared, but that is a function of society, not age. Fitness is another issue entirely.
Posted by: John Jenkins | December 5, 2007 04:17 PM
John, lets work through your disagreements point by point.
1. Boycotts generally counterproductive. I agree, except when Hollywood tries to disguise an anti-God film as a fairy tale. Those of us below the Mason-Dixon line can create quite a ripple (SEE: Tsunami)
2. Oppressing sexuality is a uniquely human trait. I agree. That's what I stated.
3 Psychotherapy provides scapegoat. I disagree. Psychotherapy is a way for people to identify, understand and deal with problems. A good psychotherapist will allow a client to discover their crime/wrongdoing.
4. Sexually liberated teenage parents are not unfit. I disagree. The oversexed teens have much biological fitness, but are unfit parents. Much of the time the offspring gets farmed out to grandparents or foster homes. Usually the parents are jobless, obese, uneducated, on drugs, on welfare and lazy. These parents aren't merely unprepared, they are unfit.
Posted by: Greg R | December 6, 2007 12:07 PM
Greg,
1. A Boycott will be counterproductive because it will intrigue more people that will be influenced not to see the movie. This is almost universally true for any non-localized boycott because the number of highly-motivated people in any endeavor is quite small.
2. You stated that "As a Christian," X. A form that makes it seem as though you are claiming X especially "as a Christian." In any event, this wasn't an argument, I was agreeing with you from a broader position, arguing that the rightness of the position is not dependent on a Christian ethic.
3. I think you are in error here. We define things as "crazy" and use that term to hide moral judgments. Make the moral judgment explicit, and get rid of crazy. (Google "Szasz") "Therapy" is simple manipulation and anyone with sufficient intelligence can perform the function.
4. You are making a category error. All X I have observed are Y, therefore all X are Y. That is not necessarily so.
I think fitness and preparedness are subtly different. Preparedness is a function of society. A century ago an 18-year old might have been prepared to be a father or mother in a way that same person is not today (see infantilization of teenagers. See also, therapy( free psychological advice: bad things happen, deal with it)).
That is a function of preparedness, more than fitness. Fitness has to do with someone's fundamental soundness as a person. You might include religion in that. I do not. I do include some things you might recognize as virtues. Even without specific knowledge, that person can be a good parent. The unfit person cannot.
That you would write off so many people based on your personal dislike for their parents' condition strikes me as odd, and I assume that is not what you meant, but now I am curious, how are you using the terms?
Posted by: John Jenkins | December 6, 2007 06:27 PM