Pullman fans talk trash and pull back the curtain

Those who have expressed concern about the beliefs—theological and moral—presented in Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy and "The Golden Compass" movie have learned that some ardent defenders of those works rely almost exclusively upon a simple, effective sort of response: taunting.

For example, the Cinematical blog states that a parent who expresses concern about the movie's contents is "a complete f**king moron." Mark Morford, a San Fran columnist, vents:

No, the nefarious thing the books aim to kill is, well, religious authority. It's about the destruction of dogma. It's about power, about who wants to control and manipulate life on Earth; it is about blind, ignorant, even violent adherence to insidiously narrow codes of thought and belief and behavior, sex and desire and love.

This, of course, is the God of organized religion. This is the false deity that promotes numb groupthink and inhibits growth and abhors the feminine divine (perhaps the books' most beautiful, inspiring theme), the same paranoid, dreadful God that votes for George W. Bush because, well, he will smite the icky gays and protect us from vile pagans and Buddhists and Muslims and feminists and frumpy genius atheist British writers.

Indeed, if humanity is to flourish, to get over its addiction to war and guilt and fear, this is the false God that should — that must — die.

But let us get more specific still. Because while the books have as their evil antagonist a sinister cabal called the Magisterium (obvious parallel: Catholic Church), they also have a slew of dark characters in service of the Magisterium, various assassins and double-agents and robot drones running around trying to annihilate the children's spirit and destroy magic and lock down faith forever. Let us call these robotic drones, oh, say, the Catholic League. Or Focus on the Family. Gosh, no wonder they're a little peeved.

Sure, perhaps a little peeved. Annoyed. Irritated. But increasingly amused.

For people who claim to have the inside track on tolerance and intellect and diversity, these fans sure do exhibit a substantial amount of intolerance, syllogistic crudity, and "group think." And in the process of flaunting their fanhood they have also revealed, as Morford's column does, that many to all of the concerns of Christian critics have solid footing. In a lengthy piece for the December 2007 issue of The Atlantic, "How Hollywood Saved God", Hanna Rosin, who appears to be a fan of the trilogy, writes:

• "Pullman’s books have sold 15 million copies worldwide, although it’s difficult to imagine adolescent novels any more openly subversive."

•  "Pullman has expressed admiration for Richard Dawkins, a fellow British atheist. Like him, Pullman views the prevailing forms of religion as destructive and oppressive forces in history. 'Every single religion that has a monotheistic god ends up by persecuting other people and killing them because they don’t accept him,' he once said."

• "The Church believes Dust to be the physical evidence of original sin and hopes to eradicate it. But over the course of the series, Pullman reveals it to be the opposite: evidence of human consciousness, a kind of godlike energy that surrounds everyone. People accumulate Dust by 'thinking and feeling and reflecting, by gaining wisdom and passing it on.' It starts to build up around puberty because, for Pullman, sexual awakening triggers the beginning of self-knowledge and intellectual curiosity. To him, the loss of sexual innocence is not a tragedy; it’s the springboard to a productive and virtuous adulthood."

• "The most curious aspect of Pullman’s theology is the primacy he places on teen sexuality; like the best heavy-metal songs, the whole series builds up to a celebration of losing your virginity, or at least getting to first base."

• "“This is exactly what happens in the Garden of Eden,” Pullman told me. “They become aware of sexuality, of the power the body has to attract attention from someone else. This is not only natural, but a wonderful thing! To be celebrated! Why the Christian Church has spent 2,000 years condemning this glorious moment, well, that’s a mystery."

The latter quote is just one more piece of evidence for how poor is Pullman's understanding of Christian theology. Granted, one could find this or that Christian writer or theologian saying nearly anything on any particular topic, but it continues to be a Chestertonian-like paradox (see chapter 6 of Orthodoxy) that the Catholic Church continues to be derided for supposedly hating sex while also being mocked for condemning contraceptives and encouraging openness to life (and there is also the matter of this). But it seems that Pullman, in making such comments, is stuck in some sort of strange alternative universe in which the provincial anti-Catholic sentiments of his childhood Anglicanism inform his almost quaint, yet harsh, views of "organized religion." Mix in some Milton, Blake, and vague Gnostic elements, and the rest comes together in a not-so-cohesive fashion.

The Atlantic piece is quite fascinating and offers several insights into the making of "The Golden Compass," such as this bit about screenwriter and director Chris Weitz. :

Weitz had believed that his (safe) take on Pullman’s theology—the Magisterium represents an oppressive theocracy or a totalitarian state, not religion in general—was widely shared. He hadn’t quite realized that the loudest part of Pullman’s fan base regarded that interpretation as a cop-out. These fans were committed to the broader interpretation of the villain’s identity as God himself. In their defense, Pullman does spell this out rather unambiguously, for those who missed the earlier hints, in the final book: “The Authority, God, the Creator, the Lord, Yahweh, El, Adonai, the King, the Father, the Almighty—those were all names he gave himself.”

As I wrote yesterday, there seems to be only one way to make sense of such comments.

Meanwhile, Emily Karrs of National Review Online writes that the movie is a bit of a mess, in part because it lacks the unrelenting anti-Christian theme and focus of the books. She also states:

Of course, a simple anti-Catholic tract, one hopes, would not have received the critical acclaim accorded to Pullman. If one listens more closely to his interviews, Pullman claims to be fighting not so much against God, but more generally against that favorite liberal spectre of “theocracy,” using something that looks like the Catholic Church as his villain. And it isn’t just the God-fearin’ folk he finds frightening—he duly recognizes the atheistic USSR as one of the most cruel and effective theocracies in history. In an essay in the Guardian, he explains that “the real division is not between those states that are secular, and therefore democratic, and those that are religious, and therefore totalitarian. . . . You don’t need a belief in God to have a theocracy.” It’s no coincidence that he often refers to the poseur-God who is murdered in his trilogy as “the Authority,” for it is the enforcement of any authority he despises more than God. His opinion of Catholics who take offense at his book? “Nitwits,” he says.

One is tempted to write a book with a main character named “Philip Pullman,” described with his background and vital statistics, then replace his personality with that of a power-hungry tyrant who kidnaps and slaughters children to further his own goals. Perhaps go so far as to make the literary “Philip Pullman” responsible for the enormity of pain and suffering in the world. If he objects, call him a nitwit for failing to see the deeper meaning in your work.

The Guardian column cited by Karr is a case of Pullman engaging (in unconvincing fashion) in self-serving redefinition. He writes: "You don't need a belief in God to have a theocracy." Uh, yes, you do. It reminds me of the statement made by an atheist—the founder of the local "freethinkers and atheists society"—after we had exchanged three or four letters years ago: "I never said I didn't believe in a God. I just don't believe in your God." Since for Pullman most if not all evils can be eventually traced back to "organized religion" and "theocracies," the tens of millions murdered by atheistic regimes in the 20th century must necessarily be victims of some form of theocracy. Never mind that a theocracy without belief in God or gods is like a symphony without music (unless the "composer" is John Cage) or a combustion engine without fuel or motion.

And then there are the news pieces about the Catholic Church "attacking" Pullman, his books, and the movie. Has Pullman been physically accosted? His books burned? Movie theaters destroyed? No, these attacks have consisted of criticism and some requests for people to not see the movie. Horrifying! Intolerant! Frightening! But in trying to show how narrow minded are the Christian zealots, The Press of Atlantic City unwittingly reveals who it is that actually revels in intolerant hyperbole:

"I didn't tell anybody not to go see 'The Passion of the Christ,'" said Lisa Ridge, president of New Jersey Humanist Network, a secular organization affiliated with American Atheists. "That's what's so ironic about it. The movie sort of encourages children to be skeptical to authority, and here you have this group saying , 'Don't take your kids to see this movie.' To me, that's all the more reason (to see it)."

A perfect example of adolescent thinking: "If you tell me not to do it, I'm gonna do it!" But even an adolescent surely knows the difference between an authority with coercive power and someone making an appeal. The Catholic League cannot make anyone do anything. The only power that critics have is the power of persuasion and argument; they will not and cannot show up and arrest you for seeing the movie. Nor do they wish to. And while I'm glad that Ms. Ridge never told anyone to not see "The Passion of the Christ," she surely must know that 1) plenty of secular and (mostly secular) Jewish critics did tell people to not see the movie, and 2) there are plenty of critics of Pullman's work (including myself) who have no interest in telling people what to do. Rather, we are interested in explaining what Pullman believes and why it is false and hurtful.

"To me, telling people not to go see this movie or read these books - you may as well gather up the books, put them in a barrel and start a fire," Ridge said. "It's the same thing, and that's really not something we want in America."

Of course it is not the same thing. This is beyond adolescent and is simply intolerant ranting. Everyday and in countless ways people offer opinions and give advice on a multitude of topics. Are they all engaged in "book burning"? If I am asked by a friend if he should read this book or watch that movie, am I somehow burning books if I say, "No, I don't think you should"? Besides, would Ridge agree with those atheists who insist the Bible should not be in schools, not even in literature courses? If she does, is she engaging in book burning?

In the end, the furor over "The Golden Compass" reveals that, sadly, very little actual discussion about substantial points is taking place. Taunting and name calling—"religious zealots" and "religious fanatics" keep popping up—are common. Revealingly, far too common. Personally, I don't mind it when someone disagrees with my beliefs and ideas, as long as they make a sincere effort to engage with what I actually believe and think. That's all this nitwit is asking.

Comments

[Nick Milne]

This is the false deity that promotes numb groupthink and inhibits growth and abhors the feminine divine (perhaps the books' most beautiful, inspiring theme), the same paranoid, dreadful God that votes for George W. Bush because, well, he will smite the icky gays and protect us from vile pagans and Buddhists and Muslims and feminists and frumpy genius atheist British writers.

This was written by a San Francisco man, you say

[Jackson]

"genius"

The dumbing down continues.

[LJ]

I am glad that these vitriolic Pullman fans are giving voice to their hatred and I hope that they receive as much publicity as possible. Those who disguise their anti-Catholicism and hatred of God and promote a sort of "tolerant" ambivalence, knowing quite well the cultural effect of something like the Golden Compass among those who are less informed, are to my mind far more dangerous.

If and when the lines are clearly and publicly drawn, even those who don't wish to think are forced to make a decision, are forced to look at an issue and align themselves.

I am also glad that they have spoken the issue for what it really is. Nevermind the specific teachings and dogmas, abortion, birth-control, fornication, etc., etc. which are such precious liberties to the self-centered. Those are battles and important ones, but they have also named the war for what it is. It is what it has ever been since Adam and Eve, rebellion against authority. Nothing more, nothing less. Before Adam and Eve it was Lucifer, the father of all rebellion against God.

It is the clarity that is so refreshing because in that clarity decisions are made. I know this personally, and must remind myself of it regularly so that I do not become that Pharisee thankful that I am not as other men. Lord have mercy on me, a sinner.

(It was in that time when I had made up my mind to follow Jesus Christ as opposed the pagan gods around, but before I became Catholic that I one day realized that I could never be a Protestant again for the simple reason that its very ethos was rebellion against authority. Moreover, that is the reason that it continues to fragment.)

It is my hope that even those who shake their fist at God will one day stop in mid-shout at the realization that without authority there can never be authenticity, and without that ultimate authority there can be no authentic life.

[Salome]

Am I imagining things, or is the real point that the latest crop of professional atheists are trying to make is that God is a nasty old spoilsport who (shock, horror) tries to prevent them doing whatever they like with their genitals, and must therefore be eliminated?

[Audrey]

I am surprised how many Evangelicals and Catholics I know who have never heard any of Pullman's raging and atheistic rhetoric.

I keep referring them to this weblog, and there isn't any I've found with better or more up-to-date information on this or any issue...so thank you very much. I read it every day!

[Jackson]

What happened to being "open to all points of view"? Nevermind.

[Sandra Miesel]

The seething hatred of religion expressed by some Pullman supporters on blogs and websites is deeply ominous. I'm sure they're just a minority and few in absolute numbers, but so are the avid fans of Dawkins et al.

[Rémy]

Very well written. . .

If I may rant ... just a little.

As I find one particular point, common to the typical militant atheist's à la carte criticism, as expressed by M. Morford as our “abhorrence” toward “the feminine divine”, which he feels may, even, be the series most touching, - heavens me! -, most beautiful and inspiring theme of all (and this means more than I'm initially inclined to grant as its proper worth. He really believes there are many beautiful and inspiring things all amongst these insipid pieces of unmusical agitprop)...

Remarkable. I find it almost impossible to understand how anyone can hurl this beyond bizarre claim that we Roman Catholics have, of all things, an abhorrence for a divine feminine figure. Craig Blomberg noted, with equal confusion and less tears, this same trait in his review of the Da Vinci Code. How can anyone, of right mind, assert in spite of “the early veneration of Mary, the Mother of Jesus (My note: Mother of God), in Roman Catholicism” - that we abhor the ideal of a divine feminine figure? There can be no reasonable explanation offered for this groundless polemic. Theres no excuse for stupidity, no, not when its thought out. I mean, it isn't as though Marian devotion is some isolated practice. Everybody knows what the Rosary is; on the same token, I don't know of many people who haven't heard (or heard of) the Angelic Psalter: Ave Maria. Very few subjects has the Church so emphatically expressed Herself as on that of the status of the Immaculata.

Honestly now, how can a man weep at a woman's feet, implore Her help and yet be a misogynist? How can those who pray to a woman, ever, be adverse to feminine divinity? ... It is, perhaps, one of the greatest, most disheartening, spectacles of the modern world...that those who have never ceased to seek refuge from a woman, are those ever accused of denying femininity its proper place in light of the Divine. . .We call Her Mediatrix, and are called heretics for going too far; while the other side of the fence deny that we've gone at all...

It isn't all bad though...I spose we may feel rather confident with our own beliefs, in considering that the world's criticism, of this Catholic Faith of ours, merely amounts to a grotesque pile of oxymora.

[Cristina A. Montes]

Carl wrote: The Guardian column cited by Karr is a case of Pullman engaging (in unconvincing fashion) in self-serving redefinition. He writes: "You don't need a belief in God to have a theocracy." Uh, yes, you do. It reminds me of the statement made by an atheist—the founder of the local "freethinkers and atheists society"—after we had exchanged three or four letters years ago: "I never said I didn't believe in a God. I just don't believe in your God." Since for Pullman most if not all evils can be eventually traced back to "organized religion" and "theocracies," the tens of millions murdered by atheistic regimes in the 20th century must necessarily be victims of some form of theocracy. Never mind that a theocracy without belief in God or gods is like a symphony without music (unless the "composer" is John Cage) or a combustion engine without fuel or motion.

=> This reminds me of an atheist friend of mine who, in discussing with another the difference between atheists and agnostics, told his interlocutor, "But those definitions aren't accurate because they come from the point of view of someone who believes in God."

[Tom R]

"before I became Catholic that I one day realized that I could never be a Protestant again for the simple reason that its very ethos was rebellion against authority."

You need to get out more and meet some real life Protestants. Warning: if the Catholic Truth Society leaflets you'e relying on for your data are dated before MCMLXIII, then they're no longer operative (NPI for "Serenity" fans there!). In fact, Protestantism's very ethos is "We must obey God rather than men." Any "authority" that humans wield is subordinate to God's authority. I realise this distinction is largely meaningless for Catholics if the "men" in question are your personally preferred Popes (although Catholics are reasonably good at recognising that "obey them" doesn't mean "obey them unconditionally,, even if they are teaching heresy or commanding you to sin" when it comes to secular rulers, but I suppose St Paul didn't use the word "keys" or "rock" in Romans 13), but for St Peter and other Evangelicals it was obviously a pretty cogent distinction.

[padraighh]

You may be right Tom R. but at last count these Protestants have been listening to and obeying about 20,000 different gods.

[Carl Olson]

In fact, Protestantism's very ethos is "We must obey God rather than men."

A good example of why nearly any statement that declares, "Protestantism is X", or "Protestantism is not Y," is doomed to be meaningless. Even a more specific statement of "Evangelicalism is X" requires a number of qualifiers since you can find self-described Evangelicals (Brian McLaren, Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo) who often sound more like 21st-century Democratic cheerleaders than they do heirs of mid-20th century American Evangelicalism. And then there is the ongoing crumbling of the Anglican Communion/Episcopalian. Frankly, it's rather hard to believe—based on her public comments and stances—that Katharine Jefferts Schori, presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, is more interested in a traditional, orthodox understanding of God than the opinions of current-day trendsetters.

Any "authority" that humans wield is subordinate to God's authority. I realise this distinction is largely meaningless for Catholics if the "men" in question are your personally preferred Popes

You need to get out more and meet some real life Catholic doctrine:

Christ is himself the source of ministry in the Church. He instituted the Church. He gave her authority and mission, orientation and goal:

"In order to shepherd the People of God and to increase its numbers without cease, Christ the Lord set up in his Church a variety of offices which aim at the good of the whole body. The holders of office, who are invested with a sacred power, are, in fact, dedicated to promoting the interests of their brethren, so that all who belong to the People of God . . . may attain to salvation." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 874)

"Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline." (CCC, 75)

Christ himself chose the apostles and gave them a share in his mission and authority. Raised to the Father's right hand, he has not forsaken his flock but he keeps it under his constant protection through the apostles, and guides it still through these same pastors who continue his work today. Thus, it is Christ whose gift it is that some be apostles, others pastors. He continues to act through the bishops. (CCC, 1575)

,but for St Peter and other Evangelicals it was obviously a pretty cogent distinction.

That made no sense at all...

[Katy]

Honestly now, how can a man weep at a woman's feet, implore Her help and yet be a misogynist? How can those who pray to a woman, ever, be adverse to feminine divinity? ... It is, perhaps, one of the greatest, most disheartening, spectacles of the modern world...that those who have never ceased to seek refuge from a woman, are those ever accused of denying femininity its proper place in light of the Divine...

Good, true and beautiful words. Gender studies departments have killed whole forests trying to explain that one, but I haven't seen a successful attempt yet.