The Golden Compass

[Bet51987]

Hm, interesting question.

Profanity like the "f-word" is certainly antagonistic in many cases. It's definitely something my wife and I don't use (although I admit I have, in times when I've let my temper get the better of me). When we have kids, we believe it's important to establish an example for them about appropriate language; not a bunch of "you can't say X" rules, but to teach them the importantance of how you converse with people, even those you disagree with.

Back to the topic, although I would certainly be cautious about my young kids watching films with profanity, I don't see the "f-word" by itself as an attack on my belief system. (I'm making a guess that you're hinting at a contrast or similarity in my rationale, but feel free to correct me). It is true that certain phrases laced with "God (something)" could possibly be meant as a religious attack, but that's not normally the case, at least in popular American culture.

Let me see if I can put it this way:

*The major factor for me when evaluating things like music, books, and films is the intent, rather than the words or genre or format being used.*

There have been films I've seen with various levels of profanity, but the value (or non-value) of the film has much more to do with the intent, the reason the language is there. So although they both use some of the same language, a film like Crash (where the language is there as part of some realistic scenes about racial tensions) has much more value to me than a film like Pulp Fiction. The same applies for violence, The Passion of the Christ vs. Bloodsport, etc. In other words, I will certainly be cautious about what my very young kids see, but the most overriding factor is the intent.

That's the reason I see The Golden Compass as very different from Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter. The latter two were made to be enjoyable films, the former was written with the intent to attack my faith.

So when you visit a hypothetical forum and find that it freely uses the fword and other profanities for the sole "intent" of being antagonistic, or like Pulp Fiction, just an expletive infixation, you would have no problem joining that forum? In other words, F-words in that form are ok to you?

Since the church considers profanity an attack on Christian values, I would like to know what the difference would be between that hypothetical forum and the movie as it pertains to the variable examples you wish to set.

Bee

[Ferno]

The movie never did rub against my christian beliefs.

[TechPro]

So when you visit a hypothetical forum and find that it freely uses the fword and other profanities for the sole "intent" of being antagonistic, or like Pulp Fiction, just an expletive infixation, you would have no problem joining that forum? In other words, F-words in that form are ok to you?

Since the church considers profanity an attack on Christian values, I would like to know what the difference would be between that hypothetical forum and the movie as it pertains to the variable examples you wish to set.

Bee

Please be clear what 'church' you're referring to whenever you use the phrase "the church". The church I attend doesn't consider profanity an attack on Christian values, but simply as profanity and the usage of profanity demonstrates lack of self-control and a degradation of society. Profanity is NOT an attack on Christian values, only a degradation of society. Avoiding the use of profanity strengthens and helps society while using profanity degrades society.

So when you visit a hypothetical forum and find that it freely uses the fword and other profanities for the sole "intent" of being antagonistic, or like Pulp Fiction, just an expletive infixation, you would have no problem joining that forum? In other words, F-words in that forum are ok to you?

It looks like you are directing this question to Foil, but I'd like to comment on this ...

As you can guess, F-words (profanity) are avoided by me and I encourage my family to do the same. When I encounter things (films, shows, books, etc.), places (gatherings, businesses, homes, etc.) where profanity is used freely (a lot) I tend to avoid them because frequenting those places or things can have the effect of tearing me down to a condition I'd rather not be.

It's like wearing nice clean white clothes while treading through thick messy mud. No matter how hard you try, being around the mud is going to result in getting mud on you. ... Being around profanity is going to result in profanity getting on you. Therefore, I (myself) would find that hypothetical forum unpleasant and would avoid it.

If The Golden Compass comes across as trying to tear down religion, I would find that objectionable and would prefer my children avoided it. If it doesn't, then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Some may say "So what's wrong with the viewpoint of being against religions? It's just someone else's viewpoint." That's true, it's someone else's viewpoint. However I feel that religion has strong abilities to do good, and to build good and pleasant societies. Attempts to tear down religion would thus be destructive to those societies.

You may not feel that way and that's OK. History is full of examples where persons with bad intents have used the organizations of religions to harm or control other people. In the same way, history is full of examples where persons have harmed or controlled other people and religion had nothing to do with it.

Every individual has the right to choose their actions.

I don't really know if The Golden Compass is going to offend me or be unpleasant to my sensibilities, but I do know that (at this time) other than the possible visuals of the film, and the possible acting performances, I've not found much about The Golden Compass that brings me to desire watching it.

The movie never did rub against my christian beliefs.

Assesments like this are helpful to religeous persons like me, but I need a little more to help it be worth my time to view...

• How was the rest of it?
• Did you enjoy it?
• Was the story good?
• Did it make it's point?
• What was the point it made?

Thanks.

[Ford Prefect]

Techpro: You missed an important question for Ferno
Do you have any Christian values?

[TechPro]

Techpro: You missed an important question for Ferno
Do you have any Christian values?

Maybe I did miss that question, though his statement rather implies that he has at least some Christian values (that assumes beliefs).

[Bet51987]

Please be clear what 'church' you're referring to whenever you use the phrase "the church". The church I attend doesn't consider profanity an attack on Christian values, but simply as profanity and the usage of profanity demonstrates lack of self-control and a degradation of society. Profanity is NOT an attack on Christian values, only a degradation of society. Avoiding the use of profanity strengthens and helps society while using profanity degrades society.

I was using the Catholic church as the example but any Christian church will do. Your church is different than mine, because mine preaches that any profanity is a sin against God and undermines Christian values.

It looks like you are directing this question to Foil, but I'd like to comment on this ...

As you can guess, F-words (profanity) are avoided by me and I encourage my family to do the same. When I encounter things (films, shows, books, etc.), places (gatherings, businesses, homes, etc.) where profanity is used freely (a lot) I tend to avoid them because frequenting those places or things can have the effect of tearing me down to a condition I'd rather not be. It's like wearing nice clean white clothes while treading through thick messy mud. No matter how hard you try, being around the mud is going to result in getting mud on you. ... Being around profanity is going to result in profanity getting on you. Therefore, I (myself) would find that hypothetical forum unpleasant and would avoid it.

Ok, thanks for the input.

If The Golden Compass comes across as trying to tear down religion, I would find that objectionable and would prefer my children avoided it. If it doesn't, then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Some may say "So what's wrong with the viewpoint of being against religions? It's just someone else's viewpoint." That's true, it's someone else's viewpoint. However I feel that religion has strong abilities to do good, and to build good and pleasant societies. Attempts to tear down religion would thus be destructive to those societies.

You may not feel that way and that's OK. History is full of examples where persons with bad intents have used the organizations of religions to harm or control other people. In the same way, history is full of examples where persons have harmed or controlled other people and religion had nothing to do with it.

The Golden Compass is a movie based on fictional characters and organizations and I have no problem going to see it. Its overdue but should be here in time for the holiday. I intend to see it.

I may be atheist, but I also think religion has the ability to do good and you would know that if you viewed my past post history so I hope you didn't think I was against religion.

I am waiting for Foils answer to my question....

Bee

[TechPro]

Please be clear what 'church' you're referring to whenever you use the phrase "the church". The church I attend doesn't consider profanity an attack on Christian values, but simply as profanity and the usage of profanity demonstrates lack of self-control and a degradation of society. Profanity is NOT an attack on Christian values, only a degradation of society. Avoiding the use of profanity strengthens and helps society while using profanity degrades society.

I was using the Catholic church as the example but any Christian church will do. Your church is different than mine, because mine preaches that any profanity is a sin against God and undermines Christian values.

I suspected that was who you were referring to.

I should clarify... Yes, the church I attend does not consider profanity an attack against Christian values, rather an activity that would prevent the user of profanity from obtaining a higher level of joy, and spirituality. We do consider profanity a sin, and as such each member who uses profanity should repent and seek forgiveness from God. The only people (or things) that profanity undermines is the person who uses profanity.

We don't like hearing it and avoid being around it because it distracts the good feelings that may have been present before that and lowers the person who uses it. This would be comparable to being around mud. If you're around it, you're going to get muddy.

We teach that people should not hold it against someone who uses profanity. It is their choice and we need to be forgiving.

I may be atheist, but I also think religion has the ability to do good and you would know that if you viewed my past post history so I hope you didn't think I was against religion.

No, I don't think you're against religion. I just don't quite understand your position. You say you're atheist, yet you obviously attend church and make use of your membership.

[Foil]

...when you visit a hypothetical forum and find that it freely uses the fword and other profanities for the sole "intent" of being antagonistic, or like Pulp Fiction, just an expletive infixation, you would have no problem joining that forum? In other words, F-words in that form are ok to you?

I'm a bit confused by the question, which form are you referring to? The intentionally antagonistic one (e.g. people are saying "f--- you" as an attack) or the expletive-infixed one (e.g. where almost everything is prefaced by "f---ing", almost like a default adjective)?

Since the church considers profanity an attack on Christian values, I would like to know what the difference would be between that hypothetical forum and the movie as it pertains to the variable examples you wish to set.

Bee

In my personal view, if I'm being intentionally attacked with profanity, that's quite a bit different than simply reading/hearing it being used.

As far as the perspective of the (Christian) church, it's pretty much what TechPro said. I've heard some variations, but the main distinction seems to be: what defines profanity isn't only the word itself, but the way it's used. For example, the words "Jesus Christ" could be a reference or a profane exclamation; it depends on the way it's used.

-----------

My guess (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is that you have a comparison in mind between my stance against a film I find antagonistic, and my participation in places where profanity is often used (maybe the DBB.com, or playing on Descent3 servers where people are using certain taunts?).

For me, the same thing applies in those cases.

If it's antagonistic or there are young children around, I don't participate and make it clear that the antagonism not acceptable to me. I don't enjoy it, but in extreme cases when I'm in a position of authority, I've had to talk with students' parents, or kick players from my server.

If it's between mature adults and it's not antagonistic, I generally will tolerate it in the interest of relationship. I occasionally ask people to "tone down the language" when it gets bad, and the request is generally honored.


So, back again to the topic: that same general rule holds here, because the books are antagonistic to my beliefs.

(Disclaimer: this is my own personal view, I'm not trying to "preach" anything, so please don't take it otherwise.)

[Edit: The main example I derive my view from regarding profanity is the way Christ treated people - he was very clear about the standards of good and evil, and he even threw out the "moneychangers" from the synagogue. Yet in all this, he was able to treat people (even the worst sinners who were shunned by everyone else) with love and open arms, even when he got a lot of flak for it. Of course, I often fail at trying to live up to this.]

[Tunnelcat]

I found this interesting point of view concerning The Golden Compass and other movies that involve religion, mythology and fantasy. He makes several good points. Check it out as long as this link keeps working.

http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/20 ... tenpas.txt

[Foil]

Interesting column, well-written, and the author apparently knows his stuff.

My disagreement with his conclusion is because I don't agree with his assumptions. Specifically when he treats The Golden Compass as \"just promoting an atheist agenda\" in the same way The Chronicles of Narnia is \"just promoting a Christian message\".

If that was true, I would agree with him, and I would probably have gone to see the film. However, from everything I've seen, Philip Pullman's stories aren't just written from an atheist view... they were written specifically as antagonistic, an attack against another belief system. His statements and the story elements make that clear.

[Bet51987]

No, I don't think you're against religion. I just don't quite understand your position. You say you're atheist, yet you obviously attend church and make use of your membership.

It's a long story but basically I just put on a show for the people who come to see me like I've been doing for the last eight years. But, deep inside, I just don't believe in God, the bible, or the whole thing... not a word of it. However, my priest and my dad are best friends who gave me my morals. I love them very much.

I'm a bit confused by the question, which form are you referring to? The intentionally antagonistic one (e.g. people are saying "f--- you" as an attack) or the expletive-infixed one (e.g. where almost everything is prefaced by "f---ing", almost like a default adjective)?

Both forms (and more) appear in my hypothetical forum and this post is still on topic since it pertains to attitudes people have against the movie.

In my personal view, if I'm being intentionally attacked with profanity, that's quite a bit different than simply reading/hearing it being used.

As far as the perspective of the (Christian) church, it's pretty much what TechPro said. I've heard some variations, but the main distinction seems to be: what defines profanity isn't only the word itself, but the way it's used. For example, the words "Jesus Christ" could be a reference or a profane exclamation; it depends on the way it's used.

-----------

My guess (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is that you have a comparison in mind between my stance against a film I find antagonistic, and my participation in places where profanity is often used....

For me, the same thing applies in those cases.

If it's antagonistic or there are young children around, I don't participate and make it clear that the antagonism not acceptable to me. I don't enjoy it, but in extreme cases when I'm in a position of authority, I've had to talk with students' parents, or kick players from my server.

If it's between mature adults and it's not antagonistic, I generally will tolerate it in the interest of relationship. I occasionally ask people to "tone down the language" when it gets bad, and the request is generally honored.

It has nothing to do with servers or games, just my hypothetical forum that was created with the intent to preserve freedom of expression where profanity and other obsene words describing the female anatomy are allowed with total disregard. Even though you have issues with that type of forum, you would still continue your membership and participation since that type of expressive freedom is acceptable to you. There are no conflicts with your church, or the ethics and standards you have set for yourself, for you to leave.

Since The Golden Compass never mentions a church by name and is comprised of fictional characters, you seem offended by its expressive contents more than the contents of the fictional forum. I find that puzzling since the church..at least my church.. is very heavy into morals and ethics.

Understand that I don't care what forum you go to or movie you won't see. I just wanted to try to learn something. I haven't.

Bee

[fliptw]

freedom of expression also includes not listening to others.

The movie is based on a novel, as has been mentioned before, does mention a church as the big bad. The author of such work still gets some money out of the movie, regardless if its has amputated the anti-religious content.

At the end of the day, Foil doesn't have to see it, doesn't have to listen to anyone else's attempts to change his mind on the issue, and doesn't have to justify himself.

On the other hand, nobody else has to drop the issue now that its started, just continue to keep on going in circles with Foil.

[Foil]

...my hypothetical forum... where profanity and other obsene words... are allowed with total disregard. Even though you have issues with that type of forum, you would still continue your membership and participation since that type of expressive freedom is acceptable to you.

No, that's not what I said. Not because it's acceptable; it's most certainly isn't.

What I said about the fictional forum was conditional upon whether the language there was antagonistic or not. Since you now clarified that it is (at least partly), then based on what I said above, it's a place I would not participate in.

In other words, I provided for conditions under which I would participate in that hypothetical forum. However, your clarification above about the forum doesn't fit those conditions.

Since The Golden Compass never mentions a church by name and is comprised of fictional characters...

With what the author has said specifically about the Christian church, it's as clear as it needs to be.

I find that puzzling since the church..at least my church.. is very heavy into morals and ethics.

I am, too (thus the reason for my stances like this)! The thing is, morality is not simply a set of "do this" & "don't do that" rules (although that's often the impression people get from the Christian community). Oftentimes, ethics has much more to do with intent and motivation.

That's why Christ says so many things in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) like "the law says (some rule), but I tell you (something about our motivation/heart/intent which is more important)". It's that way with profanity - it's not about the words themselves, it's about the way they are used, and the intent and motivation behind it.

-----------

If that's not all clear, allow me to clarify:

I said that if the fictional forum with profanity had been a place where people can dialogue without attacking one another, I would participate there.
However, as you said, it's an antagonistic place, so I wouldn't.

Similarly, I said that if The Golden Compass had been written as entertainment which just happened to be by an atheist, I would have been fine with it.
However, as the author has said, it was written with the intent to undermine Christianity, so I'm not.

[Spaceboy]

Okay, okay, hold up. (not to the post above me, but to the root of this topic)(I've been skipping around\\skimming it not looking at names, so pardon me if anything I'm saying is currently being argued or has already been, just dismiss it if it is)
Since when is a movie designed to make you buy its books? Who buys a book after they watch a movie? The book may have some intent to attack the church, but why totally freak out on a string of randomly based conclusions that have little\\no proof or backup?

A book is written by one person, a movie is made by hundreds. I can guarantee you that out of those hundreds of people, many of them are christian. The intent of every movie is not necessarily entertainment, the intent, the agenda of most movies created is to make money. To make money with a movie, the movie has to entertain people. The Golden Compass is not aimed at trying to get people to buy the books, it's at trying to get people to watch the movie, so the people who created the movie make money. The people who created the movie get nothing (i think)[most of them at least] if the book is sold. That's why the content in the movie is dumbed down. Hell, the first book isn't an attack on anything, really.

The intent of the movie, is, through deduction, to entertain you. Some producer thought it would be a good book to make into a movie, and probably had no intention of attacking anything. The movie will probably be enjoyable, and the movie itself isn't an attack on any religion.
The only thing I can think of that advertises books right now is a show I watched when I was like 4, called \"Reading Rainbow\" or something. Haha.

[Foil]

These aren't just \"randomly based conclusions\", the author himself has been very, very clear about the anti-Christian nature of the books.

From the information I've seen, it's true that the film was \"softened\" to make it less antagonistic; Philip Pullman even complained about this!

Should that make a difference, though, when it's clearly based on the same work? I think it would be fairly hypocritical of me to say, \"I won't support the books, but the movie is fine.\"

[Bet51987]

What I said about the fictional forum was conditional upon whether the language there was antagonistic or not. Since you now clarified that it is (at least partly), then based on what I said above, it's a place I would not participate in.

It's a matter of personal choice. I find the "F-word" and especially the "C-word" in my hypothetical forum to be highly offensive and sometimes antagonistic and would not be a member. On the other hand, I find the movie non-offensive.

Anyway, you would NOT participate in my hypothetical forum and will NOT see the movie. That makes sense so I understand you now. Thank you for the input.

At the end of the day, Foil doesn't have to see it, doesn't have to listen to anyone else's attempts to change his mind on the issue, and doesn't have to justify himself.

No he doesn't and your right. I'm finished with this thread.

Bettina

[Foil]

Whew, me too!

Thanks for the patience while I explained my position. I always enjoy good dialogue like this.

[Bet51987]

Thanks for the patience while I explained my position

No problem. I will be looking at my hypothetical forum from time to time just to see if your position was as strong as it is today.

Have a nice holiday.

Bee

[Lothar]

On the topic of swearing and religion: there are a few places where the Bible uses words that, if translated correctly, would get blocked by the swear filter. The Assyrians taunted the defenders at Jerusalem with swear words, not with clinical words like \"excrement\" and \"urine\". There are 8 different Hebrew words that are translated as \"dung\" in King James, and while some are properly translated as \"manure\" or similar, some are equivalent of words I can't type here. Sometimes they're even prefaced with \"the word of the Lord\" or \"thus sayeth the Lord\".

I'm not saying it's unoffensive. Just that sometimes the Bible uses offensive language for the purpose of offending.

[Bet51987]

On the topic of swearing and religion: there are a few places where the Bible uses words that, if translated correctly, would get blocked by the swear filter. The Assyrians taunted the defenders at Jerusalem with swear words, not with clinical words like "excrement" and "urine". There are 8 different Hebrew words that are translated as "dung" in King James, and while some are properly translated as "manure" or similar, some are equivalent of words I can't type here. Sometimes they're even prefaced with "the word of the Lord" or "thus sayeth the Lord".

I'm not saying it's unoffensive. Just that sometimes the Bible uses offensive language for the purpose of offending.

I don't consider those words in the bible as offending and my curiosity was not about language but whether I saw a double standard. For example, I wanted to find out if a theistic person who refuses to see a movie because of its anti-religious content, did so because of a personal set of moral standards given to him by his God.

And, would that same person (he or she) using those same standards, participate in a hypothetical forum that used all kinds of profanity including the F-word and C-word when talking about another person, or would he/she use a different set of standards.

Anyway, Foil answered my question.

Bettina

[roid]

This hypothetical forum that so bane's Bett's existance that she can't even mention it's name - is obviously the DescentBB.COM

i do wish you'd grow up bett

[Bet51987]

This hypothetical forum that so bane's Bett's existance that she can't even mention it's name - is obviously the DescentBB.COM

I'm not out to gloss this over in any way, but in this argument, DescentBB.com was not the issue, even if the shoe did fit, so I chose not to name it. I'm sorry if that made you uncomfortable. I can pick "Curseforever.com" if it makes you feel better.

What I really wanted to know, and learn, was whether there could be different sets of ethics, morals and character in one theistic person in the examples I gave. This is uncomfortable for me to say this but I don't understand how any theist can go to church, be a good Christian, refuse to participate in anything that promotes anti-religion, yet would participate in something known to be offensive. I have the same problem understanding pedophile priests.

i do wish you'd grow up bett

Thanks.

Bettina

[TIGERassault]

What I really wanted to know, and learn, was whether there could be different sets of ethics, morals and character in one theistic person in the examples I gave. This is uncomfortable for me to say this but I don't understand how any theist can go to church, be a good Christian, refuse to participate in anything that promotes anti-religion, yet would participate in something known to be offensive.

Still haven't gotten round to understandign that people-have-their-own-morals part of life, I see...

[Foil]

No, Bet definitely has a grasp of the fact that there are various moral/ethical backgrounds and beliefs. I'd say she probably encounters that fact on a daily basis.

Her questions were directed at consistency within a given ethical framework: whether someone's ethical stance was consistent (it applies to everything in their life), or whether it was inconsistent (it only applies to certain things).

It was a good question.

[Ferno]

here's where my beliefs stand:

Some may call them christians, some common sense. All apply equally well.

For one, I believe the church itself is a beacon of goodwill toward others. This is one of my core beliefs and the movie did nothing to change that. Which is why the scandals concerning priests and the lack of prominent church members speaking out about this invoke an epic amount of fury from me.

And two, I believe that the message from God to always treat your fellow man better than you expect from yourself should be part of daily life.

but there is no 'hate the sin, not the sinner' from me. I give people a second chance more often than not; but if I see a pattern of behaviour then 'hate the sin' goes byebye.

this movie does absolutely nothing to shake my core beliefs. It can't. It's simply a story. And those who think a story will destroy someone's core faith, their core beliefs.. have this deep-seated urge to control people and corrupt them. I won't stand for that and I'll try my damndest to stop it.

[Foil]

this movie does absolutely nothing to shake my core beliefs. It can't. It's simply a story. And those who think a story will destroy someone's core faith, their core beliefs.. have this deep-seated urge to control people and corrupt them. I won't stand for that and I'll try my damndest to stop it.

Are you referring to me, Ferno? Or the general response from Christianity?

As I've said, I personally don't see the book/film as a threat to my beliefs, either. My own stance is based on my non-support of the intent behind it, not because I am worried about its effect.

That said, I know some Christians who do see it as a threat to themselves and/or their children, and their view is based on fear or worry. I've received (and deleted) at least four or five of the "Warning! Don't let your kids see this movie, or they could get corrupted!" emails from well-meaning friends and family. I'll agree with you in the sense that that's a very poor stance.

[Ferno]

nah. i'm just talking about my personal beliefs. good luck upsetting those.

\"Warning! Don't let your kids see this movie, or they could get corrupted!\"

haha I love mails like that. makes me go: I can hear the sucking sound from a mile away.

..and they're not really well-meaning if they want to send you mails like that. i mean come on, do they really think you're that dumb? Pick another faith if you're so worried for christ's sake.

[Foil]

...they're not really well-meaning if they want to send you mails like that. i mean come on, do they really think you're that dumb?

Ah, so you're saying some of my friends and family are just trying to dupe me? Sorry, no.

The people who sent those to me are genuinely trying to be helpful - they forward those emails out of a sense that "my fellow Christians need to know about this!", not "how many of my friends and family can I brainwash?".

It's true they're misguided in this case, but they are well-meaning.

[Ferno]

It's true they're misguided in this case...

definitely. and it's up to you to pull em back to reality man.

i mean that's what friends do.. they pull in the otherwise whacked-out behaviours of their pals.

[FormerlySV]

The underlying content of the movie won't be helpful in promoting atheism. An ability to conceive of other possible worlds is not generally conducive to the promoting of an atheistic worldview in children, unless they were already leaning towards it in the first place.

A more successful promotion of atheism would be to make a movie as imaginatively mundane as possible, or promote documentaries on human suffering and evil.

[Ford Prefect]

Went to see the movie while down in LA this week. Not much to say about it really. It is heavy on excellent computer animated creatures and landscape, short on character development or emotional attachement and rushes the plot along at breakneck pace in the way that is typical of a movie trying to duplicate the ability of the written word to evoke atmosphere. Just a bunch of Hollywood eye-candy in the end. If you don't like organized religion you see the Magisterium as an obvious metaphor for the Catholic church circa the dark ages. If you are a kid you just think they are bad men opposed to the good guys. I went with my children (17,19,20) who have read the books. They weren't impressed.

[Kilarin]

Sorry for jumping in to this at such a late date. I've been incredibly busy and have been away from the bb for a bit.

I have an eight, almost nine year old boy. He's been read to since he was born. Actually, probably before that. He reads a lot on his own now.

Here are some books that are NOT on his suggested reading list:

Mein Kampf
The Communist Manifesto
The Turner Diaries

At younger ages, I certainly would not have exposed him to these works because they present a world view that I radically disagree with. We have been working very hard at building up his skills of discernment. And that means, yes, as he grows older, he is exposed to more and more material that I believe promotes wrong ideas. Currently this material is usually discussed thoroughly with his parents, but the goal is to develop his skill to filter good information from bad on his own. And I think we are making a lot of progress on that front.

For example, at church recently, I discovered that in my son's Sabbath school class the teacher had informed the students that the Wizard of Oz was anti-Christian because it included a witch. I heard this from another child besides my own and thought, \"Oh no, here we go again\"... BUT, to my joy, when my wife and I discussed this with our son, his response was something along the lines of, \"Yeah, some people get upset about silly things.\" and proceeded to explain why he disagreed with his teacher on this point, mainly that the Wizard of Oz wasn't actually promoting witchcraft. His argument wasn't incredibly sophisticated, or complete, but it was certainly heading in the right direction. He is learning the skill of discernment, or how to think for himself and not simply accept everything that is spoon fed to him by someone in a position of authority.

If my son expressed an interest in reading \"The Communist Manifesto\" at 8, I'd be hesitant, but I'd probably give in. It would certainly be discussed in detail. By the time he gets to high school, I'll probably be actively encouraging him to read it. I would turn him down on the \"Turner Diaries\" for quite a while yet though.

The idea that you expose children to information you consider to be negative on an age appropriate basis is simple and obvious. I would HOPE that the general concept wouldn't generate a lot of controversy. And I don't see how a parent making this judgement about the books on the above list is any different than a parent making a judgement about the Pullman books (or movie).

Foil's answer that he wouldn't want his hypothetical young children to watch \"The Golden Compass\" is an entirely rational viewpoint.

[Genghis]

Well, since we're necro in here, I saw one relevant news item:

The Golden Compass earned way below expectations so they've made the decision to NOT make the remaining two movies. Not shocking, but maybe unfortunate since we're still going to be exposed to six more godawful Narnia movies.

[Tunnelcat]

Foil will be happy that the Golden Compass has slowly vanished into mediocrity, but now there is a new anti-Christian show coming out that has the Catholic church in a fuss. I'll have to agree with them on this one.

Believe it or not, it's called \"Jerry Springer-The Opera\". The ultimate in trash that seems to be getting popular. Just Google it with \"anti-Christian\".

[Foil]

Foil will be happy that the Golden Compass has slowly vanished into mediocrity, but now there is a new anti-Christian show coming ... called "Jerry Springer-The Opera".

Meh, I'd put that one in the category of "trying-to-make-$$-by-being-overtly-insane" (yep, just like the Springer show).

Free speech is just that, and I'm personally glad we have that right in the Western world. I don't believe in censorship, so if you think that I'm one of those people who would picket outside a government office because of it, you'd be wrong.

My response to "Springer - the Opera" would just be the same as any other anti-Christian or just-plain-stupid piece: I'm just not going to see it. Why would I?

[Tunnelcat]

I'm grateful for free speech as well and everyone has their own tastes, but have we sunk to a new low?????????? Hopefully the audience will quickly diminish for this junk that passes as entertainment, no profit, no show.