Though it's currently on CNN.com, I first saw it some months ago on Fox News: the upcoming film adaptation of the novel The Golden Compass is causing a furor for promoting atheism. Fox's coverage included an interview with one of the hosts of Freethought Radio, the radio show and podcast of the atheistic Freedom From Religion Foundation, which proved to be rather one-sided.
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. Both are award-winning series of youth literature that have turned millions of youngsters into readers and have sparked the imagination that many parents fear television and video games are suffocating. Yet books that encourage critical thinking are being blacklisted because they're teaching kids how to think, instead of what to think. Such a shame.
Besides, there are several flaws with the argument. The Golden Compass (called The Northern Lights upon its original British publication, and the first in a trilogy) is set in a universe parallel to our own. 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. 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? Why is that particular philosophy being demonized? No one complained when The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe promoted Christianity. If we are to decry religion in Hollywood, shouldn't we at least be consistent?
I don't care what religion you are, just as it doesn't matter what religion I am. Regardless of our creeds, there should be at least three positive acts we can all agree on: reading, thinking, and imagining. No less a mind than Albert Einstein once wrote: "Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand." So please, let us collectively embrace imagination, in whatever form it takes. The world needs more thinkers, and I lack the hubris to say Einstein would be wrong in this matter.
For all the attempts to paint a sinister picture, it was difficult to find anything recognizable as a religion in Harry Potter. I think the (potential) problem with The Golden Compass is that its local religion is all too recognisable. Proclaiming that "it's only fiction set in a parallel universe" is just a way to deflect criticism. (If the religion required people to kneel facing south and pray several times a day, you don't think there'd be comment from other quarters? "But no real religion faces south!" wouldn't help much, I suspect!)
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
Interesting choice of words, considering that 'demonized' presupposes a religious reality. ;)
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