the upcoming film adaptation of the novel The Golden Compass is causing a furor for promoting atheism.

Well, no matter what film you make, you will be able to find some segment of the population among which it will cause a furor. In today's news world of "find, exaggerate and act shocked at" even the mildest of conflicts, I'm not surprised at the reaction of the press.

To put this in context: First, Harry Potter was denounced for promoting the wrong religion (witchcraft); now, The Golden Compass is at fault for denouncing all religion.

1) Really, the witchcraft practiced in the Harry Potter films has very little to do with the modern wiccan religion.

2) To put things in context :) Disclaimer: I haven't read the book or seen the movie The Golden Compass. However, one review I read about it indicated that the movie seriously toned down the "message" of the book, but that the series of books become progressively more anti-religious in their message as the story unfolds. Ironically, this is the same technique C.S. Lewis used in his Space Trilogy (Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, and That Hideous Strength). The first of the series is a rousing hard core Science Fiction adventure story. The second book adds a little philosophy into the mix, and the third is really a thinly disguised novel-length religious tract.

Although that fantasy world does have its own Bible and creation myth, it's still a work of fiction and cannot be considered analogous to damning our real world's Christianity.

Again, I haven't seen the movie, but I've heard that the parallels are too close to seriously doubt the analogy. Ditto to what Peter said.

And even if the book's assault on its own fictional (and obviously corrupt) religion is to be construed as a promotion of atheism — what of it?

If one accepts that the story's religion is analogous to Christianity, one might argue that by painting the 'fictional' religion as "obviously corrupt", then the film is painting Christianity as a whole as corrupt, and a christian might well consider that slanderous; hence the "furor."

Why is that particular philosophy being demonized?

Interesting choice of words, considering that 'demonized' presupposes a religious reality. ;)

I hope you're not comparing atheists to pedophiles!

I don't think he was. I think what Peter meant by "Similarly, if a reasonably recognizable religion is painted in a poor light in the name of fiction," was that the movie paints Christianity in a bad light, not atheism.

IOW, promoting atheism might not in itself be an anti-social message, but describing another religion as corrupt in order to make the argument might be.

After all is said and done, I wouldn't object to a movie simply because its message is in contradiction to my own belief system, but I do object to Hollywood's imbalance in its treatment of religion and (to drift from the subject a little) the military. Most movies portray religious people as either corrupt or foolish. I can't think of more than about 3 movies made about the military in the past 30 years that didn't include some character(s) that was(were) either corrupt or foolish. Message? The military is rife with corruption and fools.

It's the dismissive snideness with which Hollywood treats religion and religious people that really grates on the nerves of some people like me.

Ok, I think I've rambled on enough. Have a nice day! :)

__________
. | homas

I hope you're not comparing atheists to pedophiles! With all the recent scandals over "pedophile priests", I would think a movie promoting Catholicism would be more susceptible to such claims as the above. Neither would be founded, as neither atheists nor Catholics have as their philosophies any tenets that are outwardly harmful to their fellow man. To that end, I also don't believe atheism counts as "an anti-social message dressed up as entertainment".

we don't expect children to be able to distinguish between fact and fantasy, so we would object on their behalf

Many people have protested the production and sale of violent video games, saying that their children should not be allowed to play such games. My response: why are they letting your children play them? If a parent does not wish his or her child to be exposed to potentially disturbing material (by however the parent defines "disturbing"), then I think the ultimate decision should be the parent's.

Freedom of speech is a powerful freedom, however it doesn't come for "free". One of the dangers is that anti-social messages can be dressed up as entertainment, and worse, "entertainment" can be dressed up to look remarkably like fact. People would (I hope!) rightly object if a book or movie appeared to groom children to be receptive to sexual predators by painting a picture of a "loving" relationship. This is partly because we don't expect children to be able to distinguish between fact and fantasy, so we would object on their behalf. Similarly, if a reasonably recognizable religion is painted in a poor light in the name of fiction, in a movie aimed at children (or at least based on a children's book), shouldn't we object?

>No one complained when The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe promoted Christianity.

Umm, actually I think they did, and quite vehemently! (At least for the movie version.)

As a final thought, you almost have to wonder how much they paid to have the movie "blacklisted"? I'm sure the publicity value was worth every cent!