Skip to main content

No sequel to "Golden Compass"


Catholic League's Bill Donahue claims credit for getting the Phillip Pullman sequel film pulled.

POST SCRIPT: A pertinent question, I suppose, is: how would Bill Donahue react if atheists had boycotted and lobbied re. the first Narnia film - succeeding in getting sequels stopped - on the grounds that such films are Christian propaganda (C.S. Lewis was a fairly conservative Christian, Aslan represents Christ, the White Witch Satan, etc.) and, in particular, that the films represent those who fail to follow Aslan/Jesus - i.e. atheists - as morally weak and/or depraved and evil creatures in the grip of The White Witch/Satan.

If he would be somewhat disgusted (and I think he'd have a right to be, to be honest - damn, I'd be disgusted at such petty-minded, bullying censorship from atheists!), how would he square that with his crowing over (he claims) his success in getting the Pullman sequels stopped because of their supposedly implicit anti-religious message? Is it OK to be a bullying censor if it's in the cause religion, but not if in the cause of, say, atheism? I wonder what he'd say...

Comments

Hannah said…
This cannot be! How terrible!

I was looking forward to the sequel...
On the other hand , I suppose the whole thing demonstrates how close-minded certain religious folks can be...
Anonymous said…
He claims credit. That's easy to do. But it would be difficult to prove.
riotthill said…
It seems censorship is something to be proud of in Christendom --- I wonder if the same holds true of intolerance.
DM said…
Looks like your website is under attack from supernatural forces…

http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=2&subcatid=7&threadid=3449994

you really need to add comment moderation to your blasphemy…
Andrew G. said…
Nitpick: C.S. Lewis was Anglican, not Catholic.
Stephen Law said…
oops, really? I could have sworn he was Catholic. will fix it...
DM said…
Looks like your website is under attack from supernatural forces…

http://boards.history.com/topic/Nostradamus/Atheism-Is-Deadforever/520085067

you really need to add comment moderation to your blasphemy…
Yaeger said…
I don't really know if the sequels would be any good if they would have made them. They changed the order of a lot of things in the book and gave it a bit of a happier spin in the end.
anticant said…
Lewis was a died-in-the-wool Calvinist Ulster Protestant.
Andrew G. said…
Lewis was a died-in-the-wool Calvinist Ulster Protestant.

I haven't seen any confirmation of this from any credible source. Lewis was indeed from Belfast and was brought up in the (protestant) Church of Ireland but rejected it at an early age; his adult conversion (in which he was strongly encouraged by Tolkien, who was a Catholic) was to a fairly mainstream/orthodox Anglican position (which is not Calvinist in the sense that the term is usually used now).

His theological writings are said to be pretty much non-denominational, and my fairly limited reading of his works confirms this. I certainly haven't seen any references to specifically Calvinist positions in any of his works that I've read.
Chthoniid said…
In the end, it may have been a commercial decision. It was expensive to make ($180m) and New Line (allegedly) was not thrilled at the revenue it pulled. For something that was hoped to be the next "Harry Potter" franchise, it fell short.

Fwiw, the critics were generally not kind to it and I was somewhat disappointed at the rushed and rapid movement of scenes, swift introductions to a multitude of characters, and the way it bordered on incoherence at time.

I was fairly certain it could have been done better with that budget and the actors it had employed.

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen...

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...

Sye show continues

I was sent a link to this , for those interested in the never ending saga of Sye TenBruggencate and his "proof" of the existence of God. Hit "sinner ministries' proof of the existence of god" link below or on side bar for 30+ earlier posts on this topic that I wrote during an extended interchange with him last summer (check the literally many hundreds of comments attached to these posts if you really want to get into how Sye thinks and argues). Sye's amazing intial "proof" is available here . PS. For those interested, my own "presuppositional" proof, parodying Sye's proof by his principle "the impossibility of the contrary" (which turns out to be the key to Sye's proof) is: My claim: Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock. Prove this is false, Sye. Try to, and I will say - "But your "proof" presupposes your mind is not addled and you can recognise a pr...