lol I enjoyed reading this, this is exactly how I feel. Also Christians are supposed to be encouraged to allow other people their free will, that’s what Jesus was meant to have died on the cross for. So really they are just contradicting their own beliefs by trying to encourage people not to watch this film.

This could have been interpreted a number of ways anyway:
The terrorists could be the ones trying to control us.
The government could be the ones trying to control us
Even could be interpreted as the media trying to control us!

erm anyways….just wanted to get that out…

Reply to this: comment | thread

It’s because this is a nation with religious freedom that we are free to voice our opinions about movies based on our beliefs. If someone is going to put out a movie that vilifies and denigrates a religious belief, he has to be ready to be vilified by that group of people.

Reply to this: comment | thread

Nice Work!

Heartfelt, intelligent, on target!

You ask “why?” The answer I think is that we Americans (like all other people, I suppose) cannot exist without feeling transcendentally good about ourselves by battling some real or imagined enemy (“the other”) to the death (but not our own, of course)...and the Soviet Union is no longer!

For the moment, “terrorism” is the foe of choice, but not an obvious one, given the stupidity, deceit and incompetence of the neocon-G.W.B. faction in America - so the people are confused. They must hate, but having no alternative other than to fall back on their own resources, the way they choose to go after their demons-of-choice must, by definition, be somewhat ambiguous, if not to say totally off-the-wall altogether.

Please excuse my site. It is a work in progress. I haven’t posted recently, but that will change soon.

Thanks for a nice piece of work.

Best regards,

Robert

Excuse my site. It is a work in progress, and I haven’t posted recently.

Reply to this: comment | thread

Freedom of speech is for everyone, even those who would disagree with this “heartfelt” but poorly thought out argument. Yes the movie was well crafted but to overlook the underpinnings of it’s themes and the source of it’s development borders on delusional.  In addition, why is it that some can’t take the criticism that they feel so entitled to hand out, even when theirs borders on naive slander.  The constitutional right that we are free to express ourselves does not mean any person or group is protected from the disagreement of others and I’m growing weary of those who would invoke the word “freedom” and “American” to support such a stance.  If you speak your mind get ready to stop whining and back it up.

Reply to this: comment | thread

David - I appreciate your response. Perhaps in the future, when you craft a reply that is meant to be “poignant” and the “be all, end all” of responses, you will actually make a point rather than type circles around yourself. I was looking for the part where you actually counter the article’s viewpoints with something original. Instead, I found recycled rhetoric filled with smarmy pot shots. Bravo.

Do you always consider the source of a movie’s development before going to see a film, David? Is this now a prerequisite to the movie-going process? Should people who are blatantly anti-gay not see “Superman Returns” because the director is a homosexual? Should Christians not see “Valkyrie“ because Tom Cruise is a Scientologist. Should Atheists avoid “The Chronicles of Narnia” because the author wrote strong Christian allegory into the story? Are we all now “delusional” because you, clearly a “in the know” scholar, say we are if we don’t consider the author, producer, director and best boy’s political or religious agenda?

I go to the movies to be entertained. And that’s what this article is about. It is about the desire to be entertained without the political and religious views of self-righteous special interest groups disrupting that right. There are several places in the article where it states clearly that everyone has their right to freedom of speech. Though I appreciate your little jab to the contrary. You want to talk about slander? How about the Catholic League who told Christians around the world to boycott this movie? How about the Catholic League who has smeared Phillip Pullman’s work (and the work of hundreds who worked to make it a film) and may have hindered its box-office success?

Where was the Atheistic outrage over “Narnia”? Find it for me. Because the fact of the matter is that it is all peachy-keen for Christians when everything is coming up “God.” But as soon as someone doesn’t share their views the Catholic League is ready to take them to the gallows. There is no one suppressing their point of view or saying that they don’t have the right to it. No one is denying their right to respond - the Christians have had more than their say. The difference here, David, is that when Christians express “Christian rhetoric” (i.e. “Narnia”) there is no one calling for a worldwide boycott of that work. There is no one trying to ruin the livelihood of someone who worked hard to create that work.

But as soon as something opposes their point of view, it’s a whole different story. It’s either all Christian, or nothing. And in the U.S., a country based on religious freedom, that is an unacceptable way to operate. You can grow oh so “weary” of people using that argument - it’s an easy way for you to avoid the topic, I understand - but the fact of the matter is that we can’t have a “my way or the highway” attitude. It can’t be sunshine and dewdrops when Christianity is showcased, and hellfire and brimstone when someone flips the coin.

I admire your attempt, David. I really do. And perhaps if you hadn’t taken such “entitled” and pretentious shots in your reply, such as labeling this article “whiney,” I would have more tolerance for your ignorance. It appears that with your “why is it that some can’t take the criticism that they feel so entitled to hand out” line, you were attempting to make a preemptive strike on any replies to your opinion. It’s an easy way for you to negate any follow-ups with a “see, they can’t take the criticism!” I don’t play into those childish games.

Perhaps next time when you decide to think out your own “poor”  argument, you will do yourself a favor and read the article, respond to the argument, and produce original thoughts.  I hate to have to hold your hand through this. Someone along the line told you that you are always right, and that your opinion always matters. They should have spent more time teaching you how to prove a point.

Reply to this: comment | thread

Dear David,

Thank you for your reply!

I see, it’s “originality” you desire.  So it’s not the principles enunciated but rather the “originality” of the text that matters, otherwise it’s just “recycled rhetoric”.  Well then, please save that label to stamp on your own work then because by your own definition that’s exactly what you have produced in your “original masterpiece”.  Hence my tidy reply!  Your self defined “rhetoric” therefore, requires little more if that’s the case.

Incidentally, I never crafted my reply to be an “end all” but if that is the way you see it then I’ll take you at your word.  By the way, if you’d like to be heard as a “clear and original thinker” you shouldn’t let “childish” people unbalance you so easily.  I did enjoy your article and I apologize if my comment raised your ire to the degree that it obviously did.  I think it is fine that this movie (and Narnia) was made and released (I enjoyed them both) but I also think it fine for any individuals or groups to call attention to it’s source underpinnings if concerned (be it Narnia, Compass or what have you).  The fact that you perceived no outcry to Narnia is irrelevant and may even answer your own question.  If there was such an outcry of Narnia being based on biblical principles and a subsequent boycott of free individuals would you deny people the right to do so?.  This is not “smearing” as your creative use of language puts it.  This is a free exchange of information from concerned parties.  Those concerned about “Compass” make a valid point to many and your characterization of anyone who agrees with them as “punking out” is silly.  If untruths are being uttered by those who dissent then I think we are closer to the crux of the problems you seem to be pointing to (if truth matters that is).  And if this is the case then you should have clearly pointed out such untruths as such leaving the words “smear” and “punking out” to lessor writers.  Not only have I (and do I) consider the source when seeing a movie I do the same when reading a book or listening to a speaker.  I think keeping oneself informed of such matters is a valid practice, if not wise.  I’m sorry if this may offend your sensibilities.

Great job though.  I really did enjoy your article and appreciate the dialogue.

All the best,

David

Reply to this: comment | thread

David -

Thank you for yet another response. I can certainly appreciate the verbal sparring, despite snide and sarcastic remarks, such as calling my article a “original masterpiece.” After all, I have never claimed that it was, nor would I expect anyone else to. I would hate for you to put more words into my unoriginal mouth. If I would label my piece as anything, it would be “thoughtful” - and I can only expect a less shallow, more centered, more thoughtful response to it.

I should also point out that the term “punk out” was not used to describe those who agree with special interest groups, but to describe those who concede to them (i.e. MSNBC when they fired Imus) in the face of controversy, thus empowering them further. Please leave careless mistakes like that to “lessor” readers. I ask that you read closer in the future, though I understand how the mistake could be made.

Considering a source and allowing popular opinion to determine the things you do in your life may be fine for you. But I prefer to not be one of the sheep. There is a reason I don’t read movie reviews - I don’t allow one person’s opinion to dictate what I do. Unfortunately, as is the case with “Golden Compass,” there are people who allow a governing body (The Catholic Church) to tell them what is best. To say that I won’t see another Tarantino film because he is the source of “Death Proof,” which I didn’t care for, is not the way I choose to live my life. I’d like to be more open-minded than that.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree though. But I appreciate your point of view.

Reply to this: comment | thread

Bravo! I can only say that though I enjoyed the fiercely disputed article of Religion vs The Golden Compass, I have derived greater amusement from your argument with David Roberts. I confess that I have never seen (or read) anything like it before. If Roberts thought that you were unable to produce an original piece then he was obviously understimating the effect of his goading on your creative talents for as you went along, you became a master wordsmith of little less standing than the great Willian Tydsdale. Congratulations.

Reply to this: comment | thread