Golden Compass Controversy by bluesuncompanyman

I'm no more worried about the golden compass than I am the passion of the christ.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 7, 2007 1:33 PM

CHINDI

I do not know if the author is out to destroy religion... but I do think he is opposed to having religion be so powerful and intetwined with politics; which is something the early church definitely did and something that many ppl feel is happening too much these days...

I have read the books. I love them. I love that they question authority and encourage others to do so as well.

I have a skepticism of organized religion. Not religion per se; not God; but organized religion... so this works for me...

Chindi

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 7, 2007 1:46 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

I also heard this movie and the "issues" surrounding it being discussed on a national radio program, the Michael Medved show.

All I know of this movie is what I've seen in trailers and what I've heard in the media. I had never read the books or even heard of the author, before now.

This first movie is suppose to be fairly tame w/ any anti-religious messages. The plan is that there will be a trilogy ( sound familiar ? ) and that movies 2 and 3 will really get controversial.

It looks like a interesting movie, but my only concern is that the story suffers for any hidden/ overt agenda trying to be promoted here.

"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 7, 2007 1:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
It looks like a interesting movie, but my only concern is that the story suffers for any hidden/ overt agenda trying to be promoted here.

They kind of kill god. But really, I have no more problem with a pro Atheism film, than I do a pro Christian one.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 7, 2007 1:52 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Pullman may be an atheist, and his books may question giving the church too much power, but when I read them I got the strong impression that he was stressing the importance of the human soul coming before ideals of 'purity'. In the books, a church-like organization is quite literally cutting people off from their souls to eliminate the effect of what they call 'dust' which is likened to 'original sin' (and is the dark material, I think, that the trilogy name comes from)
I don't see what's so wrong with the message of souls being important, necessary for an actual productive life, etc. Before you get uppity about what the story stands for, you should look at it for yourself. And ironically, I'd say that's exactly what the story stands for.

I am selfish, impatient, and a little insecure. I make mistakes. I am out of control. And sometimes I'm a little hard to handle. But if you can't handle me at my worst, you sure as hell don't deserve me at my best.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 7, 2007 2:31 PM

LWAVES

I have heard of Pullman and his works and have a passing knowledge of what they are about although I haven't read His Dark Materials.

I welcome the movie taking this stance, and I hope they don't 'dumb it down'. It's no different to a pro-religion movie being released.
And I welcome the fact that it is aimed at children. If this gets them to question religion and their beliefs then it's good. As long as it doesn't force it onto them. Everyone should have the opportunity to question and make a decision based on that at the right time of their life.

As for a hidden agenda you might be surprised to find out how many movies have one. It may be more than you think.

I will be watching the movie and if I had kids I'd let them see the movie and I'd explain to them what it was about.

I'm sure the 'usual suspects' will be outraged at the themes in the movie, but then they always are.

"I don't believe in suicide, but if you'd like to try it it might cheer me up to watch."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 7, 2007 4:23 PM

CYBERSNARK

Saw an advance screening. The anti-authority stuff in the movie is standard fare (or maybe I'm just jaded). It basically treats the Magisterium the same way Serenity treats the Alliance.

Of course, I have to point out that "anti-Church" is not "anti-religion." The Church, like any government, is a body of men --usually notably ungoverned.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 7, 2007 4:53 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

1) I don't think there's an atheist alive that would describe themselves, or actually qualify as, militant.

2) "Pullman has made it his life's work to undermine and destroy organized religion across the world."

That is one of the stupidest thing I've ever read in my life. No offense - if anyone I knew had written that, it would still be stupid.

3) Atheism is not a belief system. Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods (or, for the hardcore atheists, it's a belief that there are no gods). Buddhists qualify as atheists, by the way.

4) The way I heard it, they stripped all the religious references from the film so not to offend the people that it's offending anyway (despite the fact that not a one of them has seen it).

5) This is what happens when you get your information from Fox News. It's not that they're uber-conservative, it's that they twist everything (and I know, because they've done it to an issue I followed where I live).

6) Go see the movie. I hear there's a really magnificent armored bear fight.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 7, 2007 6:11 PM

EMPIREX

I think this whole thing has been blown out of proportion. And I think that you may have been given a biased take on the movie/books/author.

Pullman himself stated that the books aren't an attack on a particular church or faith - in general, he takes issue with organized religion for the same reason many people do - abuse of power by those in charge.

I want to see the movie and I'm sure I'll enjoy it. Again, they're making it into a *children's* movie - with awesome CGI animals and landscapes. They're trying to make money by selling an adventure story starring an intelligent, resourceful, little girl. They're not trying to sneakily turn our children or adults into atheists.

The books and the movie are separate entities. Books get made into movies all the time and often they barely resemble the book they are based on. That's Hollywood for ya.

Quote:
A Director Confronts Some Dark Material

Daunted by filming 'The Golden Compass,' part one of Philip Pullman's fantasy trilogy, Chris Weitz quit. Good thing he came back.
Chris Weitz likes to say that he is both the first and the third director of "The Golden Compass," New Line's $150 million film adaptation of the first volume in Philip Pullman's best-selling fantasy trilogy "His Dark Materials." From the start, Weitz was an unlikely choice. "The Golden Compass," which was published in 1995, tells the story of 12-year-old Lyra Belacqua, who lives in an alternate world much like our own. But in Lyra's world, each person has a "daemon": a speaking, shape-shifting animal that settles into a permanent form as its human companion matures; it is Pullman's elegant metaphor for the soul. In the first book, Lyra embarks on a far-flung adventure to uncover why English children are disappearing and what a mysterious force called "Dust" may have to do with it. A film version of "The Golden Compass," in other words, would be a visual-effects bonanza. Weitz was best-known for codirecting the comedies "American Pie" and "About a Boy" with his brother, Paul. So far in his career, he told a NEWSWEEK reporter visiting the film's set outside London last November, he had attempted only one visual-effects shot, for the Chris Rock movie "Down to Earth." "And we messed it up. So to put it mildly, the learning curve has been steep."

At one point, Weitz decided it was too steep. In 2004, Peter Jackson, who directed New Line's previous fantasy trilogy, "The Lord of the Rings," to 17 Academy Awards and more than $3 billion at the box office, invited Weitz down to New Zealand for a one-week crash course: Blockbusters 101. Jackson was directing "King Kong" at the time, and Weitz soaked up everything he could. Jackson also offered advice for dealing with New Line since his own relationship with the studio had soured. It was a thrilling week for Weitz. It also scared the daylights out of him. "Peter's operation was so impressive that, well, I realized the distance between me and Peter Jackson," he says. "At that moment, I realized the sheer scope of the endeavor. And I thought, 'You know what? I can't do this'." But Weitz hung in for a while, until he did an interview with BridgetotheStars.net, a Web site for Pullman fans, and allowed that a movie version of the trilogy would inevitably have to soften some of Pullman's broadsides against organized religion. (The villains in the books serve an all-powerful theocracy called "the Magisterium," which some people believe, incorrectly, is a stand-in for the Roman Catholic Church; the trilogy's title is an allusion to Milton's "Paradise Lost.") Instantly, a vocal slice of the fan universe branded him a sellout.

Weitz, who won the chance to write and direct "The Golden Compass" by sending New Line an unsolicited 40-page plea outlining his vision for the movie, was heartbroken. An opportunity of a lifetime had curdled into something else. He began to glimpse a future in which he would be attacked on all sides—by the book's loyalists and its enemies, by a cautious Hollywood studio, by an audience expecting nothing less than another "Lord of the Rings." He saw an outcome in which he'd be the guy who messed up "His Dark Materials." So he did the only sane thing to do. He quit.

"The Golden Compass" arrives in theaters on Dec. 7, and much of the hysteria that Weitz, now 38, anticipated when he walked away from the movie three years ago has come to pass. The film stands accused of being both anti-Catholic and not anti-Catholic enough—though no one making either claim has actually seen it. The loud, bristling organization known as the Catholic League is urging families to boycott a film in which the word "Catholic" is never uttered. Although the series has sold 10 million copies worldwide, and the third volume, "The Amber Spyglass," won Britain's Whitbread Prize for fiction in 2001, New Line is reasonably concerned that most filmgoers in the United States might never have heard of it. So, while New Line people play down the connection between "The Golden Compass" and "The Lord of the Rings" in conversation, they're quietly planting seeds all over the place, hoping for another bumper crop. In the first major trailer for "The Golden Compass," which stars Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig, the iconic ring from "The Lord of the Rings" morphs into the new film's mystical, truth-telling compass. The film features two actors, Ian McKellen and Christopher Lee, from Jackson's trilogy—casting decisions engineered by the studio, not the filmmaker. The question remains whether Weitz's beguiling film is potent enough to escape from the shadow that New Line, with good intentions, has helped create. It's fortunate that the story of "The Golden Compass" is so singular, and that Weitz's film is an honest, admirable adaptation.

It hasn't been scrubbed of religion, either. While references to "the church" are gone from the film, no one over four feet tall could mistake the Magisterium for anything but an oppressive theocracy. Accusations of "heresy" abound. Buildings often resemble cathedrals. At one point, Kidman's character, the diabolical Mrs. Coulter, alludes to the story of original sin to justify a ghoulish purification rite that separates children from their daemons. But the film is not, Weitz says, an attack on people of faith; like the books, it tells a story "that attempts to rescue the religious spirit from its perversion into political power." In any case, says Deborah Forte, the film's producer, "when you talk to young people who are passionate fans of the books, they only talk about the golden monkey, and the armored bear, and Lyra, and daemons." Of course, that hasn't stopped Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, from accusing the film of being "bait" to lure children to the novels, where they will be ensnared by Pullman's "pernicious atheist agenda."

In person, Pullman is tall and inviting, with ruddy features and thatchy gray hair, and when he gets going about the attacks on the film, it's a reminder of how enjoyable it is to observe a polite English gentleman properly outraged. Pullman does, in fact, describe himself as an atheist, but his vocation is storytelling, and his only agenda, he said during an interview with NEWSWEEK, is "to get you to turn the page." "To regard it as this Donohue man has said—that I'm a militant atheist, and my intention is to convert people—how the hell does he know that? Why don't we trust readers? Why don't we trust filmgoers?" Pullman sighed. "Oh, it causes me to shake my head with sorrow that such nitwits could be loose in the world." (Donohue tells NEWSWEEK that he has "no respect for Pullman because of one word: honesty. He is a dishonest man. He didn't go after the Politburo, he went after the Catholic Church.")

Pullman was instrumental in luring Weitz back to the movie. After a second director came and went, he sent Weitz a handwritten letter, urging him to reconsider. An apparatus had sprung up around the film since Weitz had left: blueprints for a lavish production design by Oscar winner Dennis Gassner ("The Truman Show"), a coherent visual-effects strategy and a theatrical release date. "It suddenly seemed possible," Weitz says. His fears didn't vanish, but his years away from the film, during which he met his future wife, helped put matters in perspective. The couple had their first child, a boy, in June. "I find it easier to not worry so much. That's got to be age. Mellowing. A lot of therapy."

Much has been made of Weitz's inexperience with big-budget filmmaking, but he did bring one crucial talent: a gift for directing child actors. Dakota Blue Richards, the newcomer who plays the cunning, puckish Lyra, responded to an open casting call after seeing the National Theater's stage production of "The Golden Compass." She hadn't acted before, and never really wanted to. She just wanted to be Lyra. "I like to think I'm quite brave," Richards said during an interview on the set, the first of her life. "I stand up for myself. I don't let other people tell me what to do." Then she glanced at her mother, sitting nearby. "Unless it's my mum."

"Usually it's a gut-wrenching decision," Weitz says of casting Richards. "You realize how much rests on the shoulders of this person you're selecting. But I really didn't have any doubts. Dakota has a feral quality, something not quite tamed. She's completely unformulaic." In fact, she feels plucked straight from the novel. In the film's opening sequence, Lyra is rough-housing with a bunch of boys, and she's the imperious leader of the pack. But when the day's play ends, her warrior fa?ade melts into an impish smile. "OK, see you later, Billy," she says to her mate, then scampers home.

Pullman's fantasia is unusual for the genre: girls rule the roost. The author says he always envisioned Kidman playing Mrs. Coulter and wrote her a note saying so. "It's not so flattering when you think about it," Kidman says, laughing. Coulter is elegant, persuasive and chilling, which is how a lot of people find Kidman's acting. In her previous life as Mrs. Cruise, Kidman was often required to handle sensitive questions about his connection to Scientology. So it's not a surprise that she's well prepared for the controversy surrounding the film and doesn't even wait for a reporter to bring it up. "The story is more about authority now, rather than religion, which was important to me. I've been raised as a strong Catholic, and my grandmother would not be happy, or my dad for that matter, if we'd followed that part of the book." Kidman will deliver some version of this answer in just about every press interview she gives over the next year. NEWSWEEK's visit coincided with her final day of work on the film, and when her last scene was shot, Kidman handed out gifts to the crew and left—and everyone seemed to relax. People tend to worry when movie stars are around, whether they need to or not.

Studios, on the other hand, tend to worry when movie stars aren't around, which may explain the late decision to insert McKellen as the voice of Iorek Byrnison, the armored bear. "I lost that one," Weitz says, though, he adds, "if you're going to have anyone recast in your movie, you're happy it's Ian McKellen." Originally, Weitz gave the part to a British stage actor named Nonso Anozie. "I never thought the guy sounded like Iorek," says Toby Emmerich, New Line's president of production. "You want to support your director, so we said OK. But I just never stopped thinking that this guy didn't sound right." McKellen took over this past spring. "That's probably a function of 'Lord of the Rings' being such a watershed experience for everybody here," Emmerich says. "It's just in our DNA." The trouble is, Iorek is one of Pullman's most beloved creations—and on screen, when he opens his mouth, out comes the voice of Gandalf. Pullman fans are touchy about Tolkien. They believe they've got the superior trilogy, and they might wince at a decision that appears to consign "His Dark Materials" to junior-sibling status. Then again, the remaining two books in Pullman's saga will be made into films only if the first is a success. If a boost from "The Lord of the Rings" helps that happen, then maybe a little compromise isn't the end of the world.
© Newsweek, Inc.

"Can you, for a moment, imagine how depressing it is to teach one thousand years of masculine ineptitude? Why do you think there are so few women historians? I'll tell you why. Because history is not such a frolic for women as it is for men... History is a commentary on the various and continuing incapabilities of men. History is women following behind with a bucket and a mop." - Alan Bennett, "The History Boys"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 7, 2007 6:24 PM

MERRYK

As a strong believer myself, and one who approves of organized religion, I have to both agree and disagree with all the fuss surrounding this. I have no problem with someone who doesn't believe in religion—that's their decision, whether I think it's right or wrong, and they can espouse that wherever they want as long as they don't force me to agree with it. So, I don't agree with the ideas in the Golden Compass, but I don't believe in censorship and so don't believe it should be that big of a deal.

The only thing I have a problem with is the way that Pullman stereotypes organized religion. The vast majority of churches I have been to are nothing like the Church in his stories...he definitely paints an extremist point of view. Sure, there are extreme Christians, but there are extreme athiests, Muslims, Buddhists, what have you. There are extreme people. That doesn't mean that they're the norm. Like any wide group, organized religion is mostly full of "normal" nice people, and I wouldn't want children to get the idea that it's only full of extremists.

--
"My way of being polite, or however...well, it's the only way I have of showing you that I like you. Of showing respect." Simon Tam, Jaynestown

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 7, 2007 6:59 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
lwaves wrote:
Friday, December 07, 2007 14:31
I have heard of Pullman and his works and have a passing knowledge of what they are about although I haven't read His Dark Materials.

I welcome the movie taking this stance, and I hope they don't 'dumb it down'. It's no different to a pro-religion movie being released.

And I welcome the fact that it is aimed at children. If this gets them to question religion and their beliefs then it's good. As long as it doesn't force it onto them. Everyone should have the opportunity to question and make a decision based on that at the right time of their life.

As for a hidden agenda you might be surprised to find out how many movies have one. It may be more than you think.

If i'm unaware of a movie's hidden agenda, then it's doing its job. I want to be entertained, not preached to , in most case.

"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 7, 2007 7:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
I was curious to know what my fellow browncoats thought of all this. I myself am an engineer and a student of the sciences. I watch the history channel on a regular baisis. I watch discovery too. I believe that evolution is a fact and can be proven with no doubts. I hobnob with plenty of atheist scientists and friends, most of whom love sci-fi and play D&D. I also go to church. I'm not afraid of taking kids to this movie.

Am I wrong?

The issue here is not about what you think about religion, but what you think about opposing ideas. Can you hold convictions that are dear to you and still appreciate ideas that contradict those convictions? If you can’t, there are essentially two ways to go, either you decide that no idea can ever be a conviction or you decide that certain ideas are dangerous. Neither appeals to me. I have certain beliefs that probably would not be shared by the author of this series if what you say is true, but I don’t feel that those beliefs invalidate his views, or make me less interested in those views. Quite the contrary, I’m actually more intrigued by this movie then I was originally, because if what you say is true, it means that this author really put into this story his deeply held convictions and beliefs, and that will always be more interesting then someone pulling a story out of clichés.

Aiming controversy at children to influence culture, I do have a problem with. I don’t think it is ethical to propagandize to people who may not be mature enough to completely distinguish between what they believe to be right and wrong. It’s the propaganda equivalent of Prima Nocta. But I have to question whether that is really the case here, though I’m sure that certain people will view it that way for good or for ill, I’m not ready to say that this is really what is happening.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 8, 2007 12:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don’t think it is ethical to propagandize to people who may not be mature enough to completely distinguish between what they believe to be right and wrong.

Its a good job they don't let under-16s into church services, tell kids bible stories or induct babies into a particular belief system when they are a few weeks old, then.

The books are excellent by the way, and make a satisfying read for adults, too - somewhat more sophisticated than Harry Potter, with a few layers to them. Plus, if you have kids, you'll be well equipped to answer questions and discuss things with them (which is one way they turn from kids into adults, folks).

Yes, they criticise religion. In particular, the attack that brand of Christianity that likes to concentrate on all the fire and brimstone stuff in the Old Testament and Revelations at the expense of the actual gospels. I don't think any of the atrocities committed by Pullman's alternate-universe church are without direct or allegorical precident in real history.

Sadly (you may disagree) I can't see the final book getting turned into a film without major dumbing-down of the religious themes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 8, 2007 1:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ImNotHere:
Its a good job they don't let under-16s into church services, tell kids bible stories or induct babies into a particular belief system when they are a few weeks old, then.

And if anyone tried to do any of that using a means that hide it’s true purpose from parents, atheists at least would be throwing fits, wouldn't they? Hell, the ACLU is likely to sue just for putting a nativity scene on public property for fear that small religious token might gain undue influence. I think that's going a bit too far with it, but it's pure lunacy to think that Christianity of all things gets a pass here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 8, 2007 2:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
And if anyone tried to do any of that using a means that hide it’s true purpose from parents, atheists at least would be throwing fits, wouldn't they?

I think you will find that there is some disagreement between atheists and believers about what the "true purpose" of religion is - so that's a bit of a one-sided argument.

US law may forbid you putting a cross on public land, but I don't think it yet requires Churches to have signs over the door saying:

"Notice - other belief systems are available. Eternal life subject to availability. Some people may experience side-effects of fundamentlism, intolerance or disinclination to question authority. Avoid if pregnant (unless married)."

Otherwise, I must have missed the on-screen warning for "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" (blatent christian allegory), "Its a Wonderful Life" and every other film, TV show or book that shows a role model character mentioning God or Jesus, going to church, going to confession, having a religious marriage ceremony/funeral or otherwise portraying religious belief as an expected norm.

Its also worth considering that Pullman is British - and would have experienced an education with pervasive christian indoctrination. Over here we don't have the same separation of church and state that the US enjoys (and seems to require) - in fact all state schools are required to hold regular acts of "broadly Christian" worship (although you can opt out, and its probably declining as more exemptions get added due to the increased mix of cultures).

The Oxford colleges that Pullman writes about certainly have (Christian) chapels and say grace at formal dinners. The ficticious college in the books (as far as I can work out) seems to lie somewhere between the real colleges of "Jesus" and "All Souls". Go figure!

Yet the perception from our side of the Atlantic is that the USA has a far more powerful Christian lobby... (I've been to the US frequently - but mostly the SF Bay Area which is hardly representative so I can't really comment).

Much of the coverage of the "controversy" over here is about the US reaction.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 8, 2007 2:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ImNotHere:
I think you will find that there is some disagreement between atheists and believers about what the "true purpose" of religion is - so that's a bit of a one-sided argument.

How is that one-sided?

Quote:
Originally posted by ImNotHere:
US law may restrict where you can erect a cross, but I don't think it yet requires Churches to have signs over the door saying

Churches are not hiding what they are preaching behind any façade designed to target children, are they?

Quote:
Originally posted by ImNotHere:
Otherwise, I must have missed the on-screen warning for "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" (blatent christian allegory), "Its a Wonderful Life" and every other film, TV show or book that shows a role model character mentioning God or Jesus, going to church, going to confession, having a religious marriage ceremony/funeral or otherwise portraying religious belief as an expected norm.

And Narnia and a Wonderful Life are no more Christian propaganda then, I suspect, the Golden Compass is atheist propaganda.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 8, 2007 3:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Churches are not hiding what they are preaching behind any façade designed to target children, are they?

Er... Christmas Presents, Easter Eggs, Nativity plays, Sunday school, books of bible stories for children...

Quote:

And Narnia and a Wonderful Life are no more Christian propaganda then, I suspect, the Golden Compass is atheist propaganda.

If you define "propaganda" as something that presents a point of view without giving equal weight to opposing views, then, yes, they all are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 8, 2007 4:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ImNotHere:
in fact all state schools are required to hold regular acts of "broadly Christian" worship

Are you sure?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 8, 2007 6:24 PM

HKCAVALIER

I've read the books. Loved 'em! I would never have gleaned from them that their author was a "militant atheist" or any sort of atheist at all, really. Maybe a lapsed Catholic.

The books are brimming over with spirituality, the nature of the soul, and universal consciousness--not topics beloved of your standard issue atheist. It's a very spiritual and serious series. Yes, there is an entity they call "The Authority" and it does seem to be the thing the folks in the big fascist religion worship, and yes, Lord Azrael has it in for the big lout, but the closest this gets to real world theology is Gnosticism, with "The Authority" being analogous to the Demiurge. I could go into more spoilery sort of detail, but I hope some of you will take the time to read the books yourselves. The series is really one of the best actually completed (!) fantasy series I've ever read.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 9, 2007 1:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by ImNotHere:
in fact all state schools are required to hold regular acts of "broadly Christian" worship
Are you sure?

Yup.

Best I can find in a hurry:
http://www.natsoc.org.uk/schools/curriculum/worship/swbellspeech.html

Of course, in an increasingly multicultural society its almost unenforceable.

years ago, I actually got kicked out of a state C-of-E primary school (where we got marched into church once a week) - I'm tempted to invent some revisionist history in which this was due to some dramatic act of desecration, but sadly it was for rather mundane reasons.

Let me conceed a few points here for the sake of balance - 1. the Church played a major role in the establishment of universal, free education. 2. The church-controlled and "faith" schools (C of E and other faiths) tend to be extremely good schools - although there's a tangled web of possible causes-and-effects involving waiting lists, neighborhood affluence and parent attitudes behind that.

Of course, when it comes to religion, the Church of England sits firmly at the moderate/tolerant/liberal end of the curve. (In the Pullman alternate universe, the Christian sects had re-unified into a single, all-powerful pseudo-Catholic theocracy).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 9, 2007 2:37 AM

LWAVES

Quote:
Originally posted by ImNotHere:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by ImNotHere:
in fact all state schools are required to hold regular acts of "broadly Christian" worship
Are you sure?

Yup.

Best I can find in a hurry:
http://www.natsoc.org.uk/schools/curriculum/worship/swbellspeech.html

Of course, in an increasingly multicultural society its almost unenforceable.

years ago, I actually got kicked out of a state C-of-E primary school (where we got marched into church once a week) - I'm tempted to invent some revisionist history in which this was due to some dramatic act of desecration, but sadly it was for rather mundane reasons.

Let me conceed a few points here for the sake of balance - 1. the Church played a major role in the establishment of universal, free education. 2. The church-controlled and "faith" schools (C of E and other faiths) tend to be extremely good schools - although there's a tangled web of possible causes-and-effects involving waiting lists, neighborhood affluence and parent attitudes behind that.

Of course, when it comes to religion, the Church of England sits firmly at the moderate/tolerant/liberal end of the curve. (In the Pullman alternate universe, the Christian sects had re-unified into a single, all-powerful pseudo-Catholic theocracy).

I have to agree here. I can't speak for the way it is now, but when I was at school there was no 'opting out', you had to do it and that was that.

From a 70's/80's perspective.
INFANTS: Start at about 5 years old.
Daily assembly would feature religious hymns, passages from the bible and at Xmas the nativity play, which the upper year put on and it was mandatory to play a part.
PRIMARY: 7-11 years old.
Daily assembly again with religious hymns, passages from the bible and the nativity play which the upper year would put on. Again mandatory to play a part.
HIGH SCHOOL: 12-14 years old.
Weekly assembly, hymns sung. RE (Religious Education) taught over at least one double and one single lesson per week. Concentrated solely on the bible, Jesus and God. No choice in the matter and you couldn't 'opt out' as I know someone who tried. Occasional trips to a C-of-E church where hymns and prayers were used.
UPPER SCHOOL: 15-16 years old.
RE taught as part of the mandatory school requirement. Occasional trips to a church where hymns and prayers were used.

On top of this in my area most youth groups or out of school activities were connected to one of the churchs and so you got more hymns and prayers plus the youth group put on a play each year that was a scene from the bible.

"I don't believe in suicide, but if you'd like to try it it might cheer me up to watch."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 9, 2007 4:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MerryK:
Sure, there are extreme Christians, but there are extreme athiests, Muslims, Buddhists, what have you.

As a modified Buddhist myself, I'd be interested in an example of extreme Buddhists...the only example I can even imagine that you might mean would be the monk that set himself on fire during the Vietnam War as a protest...Buddhists generally don't have jihads or anything...

Radical Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 9, 2007 5:24 AM

ALLIETHORN7

Saw this movie yesterday, myself. I sense no danger here. Apparently, they boiled away most of the contreversy worth materials here. And, not withstanding that this "Magesterium" is based off of our own Middle Ages- Rennesiance era Catholic Church. The Pope really did have that much power- but not over the entire world, as the book leads us to believe happened in that multiverse. And they did (The Vatican) do the usual atrocities associated with power- Burning, pillaging, looting, murdering, eviscerating- but they did it all in the name of God, which is just ten times more worse then anything else.
Sounding familiar yet?

-Danny

and every time I play with passion I start breaking strings,
and my voice cracks when I sing from my heart
guess that's the price I've got to pay to know that I'm alive
this melody is tearing me apart

THRICE RULES!!!!!!!!!
Gott weise ich will kein Engel sein.
http://www.myspace.com/otherrandomdude

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 9, 2007 6:32 AM

EMBERS

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I'm no more worried about the golden compass than I am the passion of the christ.

Personally I'm WAY more worried about Passion of the Christ

I read the first book of the series and in The Golden Compass I didn't feel that religion was the issue, I thought it was fascism,
unless of course religion might BE fascist, but I was assuming the subtext was political, not religious, and I felt it was VERY 'sub': subtle and debatable and not likely to be militant anything, just adding a richer layered world view (like the seeming political aspects of Tolkien's trilogy)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 9, 2007 6:38 AM

Embers, must I read these books?
I will if you command it.

Trusting Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 9, 2007 6:46 AM

EMBERS

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Embers, must I read these books?
I will if you command it.

Trusting Chrisisall

I was not really entranced and didn't feel any great desire to read the second one...
it was a charming story but a little frustrating,
I didn't feel that attached to the characters.

So I'm definitely not commando girl, not finding them that compelling my own self.

certainly nothing like Tolkien, who I couldn't put down,
or JKR's Harry Potter where I had to immediately reread them (except the last, I'm not sure when I'll be up for rereading the last book)
or even CS Lewis which seem childish, but I did really love the children....

Maybe seeing the movie will make me want to revisit the series and read the 2nd book
(or you could tell me what you think if you do try them!)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 9, 2007 7:05 AM

So...it was no Buffy season 8 then

Which I'm lurven'!

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 9, 2007 7:40 AM

MERRYK

Well, I didn't mean extreme in a violent sort of way...I did meet one Buddhist whose views were very extreme, even though I didn't see him as a danger to society.

--
"My way of being polite, or however...well, it's the only way I have of showing you that I like you. Of showing respect." Simon Tam, Jaynestown

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 9, 2007 7:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MerryK:
I did meet one Buddhist whose views were very extreme, even though I didn't see him as a danger to society.

What- like he advocated forced meditation? LOL

Evil Buddha Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 9, 2007 8:04 AM

MERRYK

No, it was more of that he saw his path to enlightenment as the thing of highest importance in the world, and completely ignored everything else. It was all about him.

--
"My way of being polite, or however...well, it's the only way I have of showing you that I like you. Of showing respect." Simon Tam, Jaynestown

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 9, 2007 8:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MerryK:
he saw his path to enlightenment as the thing of highest importance in the world, and completely ignored everything else. It was all about him.

How very un-Buddhist...it is all about us all.

Humble (yeah, right) Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 9, 2007 10:22 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Just saw the movie. Decent flick. I suppose had I read the books, I'd have liked it more. Could see a bit of Matrix theme in the story , as well as a bit of Star Wars.

If I were a bible thumper, I'd be upset at this movie's message as well, and for good reason. This movie takes direct aim at the concept of religion and its controling effect on humanity, free will, etc... Though I find the whole concept of personal 'demons' in the form of animals a bit cumbersome, it does have a cuteness appeal to it.

Worth the price of admission, imo.

"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 9, 2007 11:02 AM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
1) I don't think there's an atheist alive that would describe themselves, or actually qualify as, militant.

I see what I would describe as militant atheists in the news all the time, usually trying to use the courts to enforce their beliefs on others.

Quote:
3) Atheism is not a belief system. Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods (or, for the hardcore atheists, it's a belief that there are no gods). Buddhists qualify as atheists, by the way.

I hope this was meant to be a joke. Buddhism is generally considered a religion. By your reasoning Atheism would be a religion also. Atheists that simply believe there is no god are not religious. Those that believe it is their duty to remove all vestiges of religion from the society are just as much religious zealots as those they seek to silence.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 9, 2007 11:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
Buddhists qualify as atheists, by the way.

I embrace the philosophical aspects of Buddhism, tho not the religious ones...it's possible it's peeps like me whom you reference here, although I'm not prepared to outright dismiss the idea of some kind of God(s).

I'm confused by this 'btw'.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 9, 2007 12:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I embrace the philosophical aspects of Buddhism, tho not the religious ones...it's possible it's peeps like me whom you reference here, although I'm not prepared to outright dismiss the idea of some kind of God(s).

I'm confused by this 'btw'.

Buddhism is a belief system, if anything it dispells the myth that a religion requires a god or gods.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 9, 2007 1:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Buddhism is a belief system, if anything it dispells the myth that a religion requires a god or gods.

I found that there are gods in some different branches:
http://www.exoticindiaart.com/book/details/IDC822/
But none in any way that I studied.

Shiva's cool Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 9, 2007 1:58 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
I see what I would describe as militant atheists in the news all the time, usually trying to use the courts to enforce their beliefs on others.

Unless they're trying to make it a crime to hold certain religious beliefs, or prohibit the expression of beliefs that do not restrict the rights of others (and I include religious iconography on government property, especially when only one religion is represented, as restrictive of the rights of others), then I don't see how these "militant atheists" are using the courts to enforce their beliefs about atheism.

I concede that there are atheists who are militant (in the non-weapons-toting sense), but most often when those two words are linked, people hold the belief that they are militant about their atheism, when in fact they are actually militant about secularism, or antitheism, etc. It would be kind of odd to be militant about a non-belief in gods, because that non-belief doesn't say anything else about how anyone should act.

And, everyone tries to use the courts to enforce their beliefs on others - the belief that abortions should or should not be legal, the belief that the government should or should not intervene in corporate matters, etc. It's no more right or wrong when atheists do it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
I hope this was meant to be a joke. Buddhism is generally considered a religion. By your reasoning Atheism would be a religion also. Atheists that simply believe there is no god are not religious. Those that believe it is their duty to remove all vestiges of religion from the society are just as much religious zealots as those they seek to silence.

Did I imply that Buddhists weren't religious? Did I imply that religions require gods? If I did, my bad. Because Buddhism is absolutely a religion - it's just a non-theistic one.

And, only if political philosophies qualified as religions would antitheists be religious zealots. Certainly they're religious as in "devoted," but not as in "believing in the supernatural."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 9, 2007 2:28 PM

REGINAROADIE

Having grown up with the books (this was my Harry Potter and Narnia before I actually read those books), I have to admit that going into the movie, I was a lot more critical towards this adaptation than any other fantasy movie, because the books mean so much to me. And while at face value it seems as if the movie chickened out, if you've read the books you can just as easily read between the lines in the movie as to what the filmmakers are trying to say and do.

Like I have no problem with them being anti-Church. The Church is a man-made construction and man is obviously flawed. And there's nothing more despicable than people perverting the word of God to suit their own agendas. But I do have to admit that the idea of "war against God" is a bit unsettling. In DOGMA, the Metatron says that the universe in all it's spendor and form functions on one simple rule. God is infallible. And that to prove God wrong would be to unmake all of creation. I don't care what your beliefs are, but I find the idea of breaking the one rule that keeps everything together fucking frightening.

Now, to the books credit, when it comes to THE AMBER SPYGLASS, they do touch on that idea that after billions of years of creation that the big guy upstairs has become old and decrepit and that something has to be done to fix this dilemma, and in the end you do get the idea that a new spiritual paradigm has been established that is better, as opposed to the afterlife Lyra and Will enter into.

I think the books do what LIFE OF BRIAN or LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST or any truly good spiritual religious tome does. It forces you to think about not only organized religion, but God, spirituality and how you think it really works.

But as per the movie, sure take your kids to see it. I thought that while it does faithfully adapt the book and hit the right notes, it does feel a bit rushed and streamlined. It's like hearing a favorite piece of music sped up. All the notes are there, but it feels a bit off when it's played at half-time speed instead of common time. Here's hoping that New Line puts out an extended edition DVD like they did with the RINGS movies that slows the tempo down and actually have the books ending that they show in the trailers, but isn't in the movie. Because all the best shit that's in the book is in the ending that they leave out in the movie.

**************************************************
"And it starts with a sentence that might last a lifetime, or it all might just go down in flames. If I let you know me, then why would you want me? Each day I don't is a shame. Each day I don't is a great shame."

Loudon Wainwright III - "Strange Weirdos" off the "Knocked Up" soundtrack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 9, 2007 2:33 PM

QUIETUDE

What I find funny about these things is when groups of for example Christians (as documented in some news articles) condemn the movie for its anti religious beliefts. Now in my mind that just shows the thinness of their own faith, in that they believe watching a movie or reading a book could shake the foundations of their religion amongst their own like minded community.

I guess its a good point as most (don't say all because I am no expert) religions are based around a book or books.

To me its like saying Hobbits exist because Tolkien stated that they did in the first few pages.

I must admit I have a very small knowledge of religion as pretty much the only times I have set foot in a church are for funerals and weddings, and various movies around Easter and Xmas time. Yep religion is great for the public holidays it created but thats about it in my pamphlet.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 9, 2007 3:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ImNotHere:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Churches are not hiding what they are preaching behind any façade designed to target children, are they?

Er... Christmas Presents, Easter Eggs, Nativity plays, Sunday school, books of bible stories for children...

None of which is hiding Christianity behind any façade. Easter Eggs are part of an Easter tradition - a Christian Holiday. Nativity plays are a Christian tradition. Sunday School actually takes place in association with a Christian Church. Books of Bible Stories are stories from the Bible, the Christian religious text. And Christmas presents can be, and often are, secular in nature, but any association with Christianity is in no way hidden and generally up to the family‘s choice.

Quote:
Originally posted by ImNotHere:
Quote:

And Narnia and a Wonderful Life are no more Christian propaganda then, I suspect, the Golden Compass is atheist propaganda.
If you define "propaganda" as something that presents a point of view without giving equal weight to opposing views, then, yes, they all are.

I don’t. Most generally, I would define it as “ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause.” Neither Narnia or Wonderful Life fall into this category. The Golden Compass film doesn’t either, but I haven’t read the books.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 9, 2007 4:15 PM

TRAVELER

I would not worry to much about the controversy.
People will decide for themselves. If they believe this story has some sort of anti-religious agenda then they will follow their own convictions. Those who simply want to enjoy the movie will go and not worry about any underlying theme. No movie is going to alter my beliefs unless it has something I am ready to hear.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28764731
Traveler

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 9, 2007 4:39 PM

MUDKICKER

People have been trying to kill God for years. At the end of their lives, these people are the ones that are buried and God continues to live and thrive.

Aside from that, I'm going to likely watch the movie, enjoy it or hate it based on the quality of the story and the acting and move on with my life, no harm done... just as I did with the Harry Potter films (which are lovely, by the way).

My question is, why all the whining and moaning? I'm a Christian and even I say get over it! Any Christian that is more focused on dividing people over something as petty as a movie or a book is missing the point and not affecting change in anyone's lives. People starving and killing one another out there and they're more concerned with the influence of 'Harry Potter' and 'The Golden Compass'. Sheesh!

____________________________________

"We are not gonna die. You know why? Because we are so...very...pretty. We are just too pretty for God to let us die."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 9, 2007 6:35 PM

STRANGEBIRD

I've read the books, they are very very well written. Honestly I don't know what all this is seriously about. I was raised Southern Baptist... not really sure what I am now, maybe somewhere between Christianity and Buddhism, I believe in many of the principles of both. All I know I believe in is something more important than my own life and I just hope alot of others feel the same way. I don't need a religion or a book(any book) or a movie to tell me what I believe, never did, and I think that's the core of the problem here... most people seem to or either just seem to think they do. Do you think a child can grow up in a good mindset having only ever been exposed to one type of belief? If anything it might just make them more likely to realize they hate the religion they were raised on and reject it forever. I say this type of book is a great tool to expose children in a positive way to what other people believe. If you have a problem with the god dieing part(I first read the books when I was 21 and even I was a bit shocked at some of the themes) talk to you kid after they read it or even better read it with them and discuss openly and truthfully about how you feel about it.

I seriously doubt though that I will be seeing the movie. I'm afraid it's another shoddy adaptation that attempts to find a midway between faithful and politically correct or widely accessable and just comes up as a simply bad movie even without comparing it to the book.

P.S. I will never rant like this again as long as I live.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 9, 2007 6:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Mudkicker:
My question is, why all the whining and moaning?

I think people feel threatened when their conviction are challenged. A movie that comes out strongly against religion or appears to be strongly against religion is likely to make some adherents of that religion feel that they are being insulted. Likewise some of those opposed to religion will celebrate it. It’s a common scene, and it’s not that either conviction is necessarily wrong. If, like in the Golden Compass, religion or some aspect of it is depicted as being central to a tyranny, then this may make many feel that there is a degree of religious intolerance at work here. And the author of the book coming out to express his evidently somewhat rigid anti-Christian opinion and atheists touting the movie expressly for the perceived attack on religion lend support to the existence of this religious intolerance. It’s ironic that many in the anti-religious camp hold their views because they oppose intolerance they see within religion, yet when they espouse such strong sentiment against religion they may end up reinforcing the very thing they oppose. I think that what we need to understand that in both camps, the pro-religion camp and the anti-religion camp, can generally agree that hatred and rigid ideologies when administered broadly by the state is a manifestation of tyranny, regardless of whether its origin is religious or non-religious. Christians who may feel that when a certain movie presents a tyrannical view of religion that they are being attacked, but hasn’t religion been the edifice upon which tyranny has existed? The Spanish Inquisition, Iran, etc. So the association of tyranny with religion or even Christianity is not an attack on Christianity or even religion, it may simply be a reference to historical fact. Atheists and those opposed to religion should consider the same thing. Just because Christianity is associated with tyranny does not make Christianity tyrannical or intolerant. Stalin’s Soviet Union and Hitler’s Nazi regime were secular regimes and in many cases openly and blatantly atheist. Yet there is no strain upon which one could place any argument that would allow it put the Soviet Union or the Nazi regime as less tyrannical, certainly, then any theocratic totalitarianism. One can hold a religious belief and not be intolerant. A religious institution can exist and not be oppressive. Likewise a person can be non-religious or even anti-religious and still demonstrate intolerance. A non-religious institution can still be oppressive. Tyranny and intolerance are social and political entities from that all beliefs are subject to influence.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 9, 2007 7:49 PM

MUDKICKER

Finn, my head hurts now. Not to be offensive, though rather humorous I hope, but do you know how to deliver a more brief and poignant explanation? I was afraid I would have to send out for an oxygen tank for you lest you be winded from your explanation.

Needless to say, I get the point that you are siding with both and yet neither side of the arguement.

____________________________________

"We are not gonna die. You know why? Because we are so...very...pretty. We are just too pretty for God to let us die."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 9, 2007 8:00 PM

Yeah, it was a little verbose. I was on a role. But you got the point.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 9, 2007 8:12 PM