Some actual thoughts on The Golden Compass

I've been writing day in and out about the controversy surrounding this upcoming epic film, and have yet to address specifically the issues at hand. Though I have been clear in mentioning that many American Christians are wary of "The Golden Compass," I found a good article from the LA Times outlining the views of Philip Pullman (pictured), the author of the books upon which the movie is based.


In this article, I realized for the first time that Pullman actually does appear to be a “heretic.” Though I might not agree with what the boycotting Christians view as a heretic, in the context of what their accusations, he certainly is.

For example:

"Pullman once told an interviewer 'His Dark Materials' [a fantasy trilogy of Pullman's "children's" books, of which 'The Golden Compass' is a part] is about 'killing God,' and that he wrote an op-ed piece describing C.S. Lewis' "The Chronicles of Narnia" as 'ugly and poisonous.'"

As C.S. Lewis is well-revered by American Christians, this statement is pretty egregious in itself, but I'd also say that describing books that he wrote for children in this way understandably lead to the current outrage. However, it seems that Britain's leading religious people, including THE head of the Anglican church, don't share the fury that has arisen here in the U.S.

"Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury, has enthused about 'His Dark Materials' and participated in an onstage discussion with Pullman when a stage version of 'His Dark Materials' was produced by the National Theatre in London."

Furthermore (and take this last one with a grain of salt, because the writer worships Pullman pretty hard in this article):

“Although Pullman has some vehement detractors among Britain's Christians, the liberal clergy there have more often valued his books for tackling the great questions of existence: life, death, morality and humanity's role in the universe. They regard his fiction as a springboard for discussion, the kind of discussion that does sometimes lead people to embrace God.”

I do think this is a good point. Atheism is a religion much like Monotheism; a belief in no God is much closer to belief in One than belief in Many. Some atheists, in fact, are monotheists, they just refuse to define the name of what is infinite and unknowable — which can be defined as one thing (nothing), which is also the same as everything. Broken down, an omnipresent, infallible and omnipotent God covers pretty much the same ground. Why couldn’t moral ethics in those two worldviews align?

Yes, Pullman said his books are about "killing God." There, I can see the problem, even though what he said seems to have been taken out of context. However, there's a larger issue here; the people who want this movie banned see Atheism only as anti-Monotheism, which simply is not true. Most people think of the self-proclaimed Atheists that dress in all black in high school and claim to hate God; yet, these people are not Atheists, because they believe in the monotheistic God enough to want to hate Him.

Atheists can be moralistic and they can have positive things to say. If this film is promoting Atheism, by banning it detractors are simply asking their kids to see it. Yet, like some Christians in Britain, as the article states, and like many others elsewhere, Atheism in certain contexts is not a threat to Monotheism because it does not claim to oppose it, it simply refuses to define it. Therefore, the manifestations of this world can be exactly the same; without God, love for our fellow man and justice and peace on Earth (or in the world of The Golden Compass, as the case may be) can remain relevant.