That would be my problem is well. This implies that atheism is inherently not friendly to familes, which is a moronic statement.

Agreed. Apart from baby-eating, of course (which is waning in most atheist communities, by the way).

Hey, I will scarf down babies until I kick.

Of course, READERS of Pullman's books will know they are not anti-Christian so much as anti-hierarchical-monolithic-institutionalized religiosity. Personally I question the motives of any group boycotting a movie they haven't seen ... and how much money are they asking for.

Exactly. The idea that a movie with an atheist viewpoint is somehow "bad" instead of simply "a movie with an atheist viewpoint". That's my objection. I think the Christian views of the "Narnia" series are downright irritating but that didn't stop me from enjoying the movie (and the books).

And to be fair, no self-respecting kid is going to care about the theological implications of "The Golden Compass" when there are armored bears kicking the shit out of each other.

Which will be early, because babies are quite fatty.

Huh? It equated nothing of the kind.

This, on the other hand, is a fair assessment of the email (although "moronic" follow-on was both wrong and wholly unnecessary).

To Christian parents, "family friendly" implies subject matter which, while it may not promote their specific beliefs, does not directly oppose them. "Family friendly" subject matter also doesn't seek to undermine the values that the parents are attempting to teach their children. So parents have the right and an obligation to be informed about any book, movie, video game or other medium that promotes itself as "family friendly", to determine if it really is such, for their family.

If Christian parents, after learning about the subtle subtexts (and not-so-subtle underlying theme) of Pullman's works, decide that it is something they want to share with their children, and then discuss afterward, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But some parents may decide that this movie is not the right vehicle to introduce their children to "alternative ideas", since it does so in a less-than-objective manner (armored bears tend to obscure most young boys' objectivity, for example).

There is nothing "moronic" about that. Scarfing down babies, on the other hand...

How the hell can a child kill God? I believe that would be the other way around.

I have to disagree on this. If you've read The Silmarillion, angelic Valar and Maiar described in this book very closely parallels the angelic order known to Catholics. In fact, Tolkien actually stated to his close friends (this from reading Humphrey Carpenter's biography of Tolkien) that much of the work on The Silmarillion was to write a mythology that would not de facto contradict Catholicism.

That's not "family friendly" though, that's "Christian friendly." Atheist families, for example, would find nothing in the story that directly opposes their beliefs.

Parents should do that in any case, however. It may be that some Christian families found Narnia to not be "for their family." The term "family friendly" should have nothing to do whatsoever with what religious viewpoint is being expressed in the film.

I'm sorry, is there some pre-requisite for atheism to always be presented objectively, while Christianity apparently doesn't have any such restriction on it? Most people's religious beliefs are taught in a very subjective manner, with their parents' beliefs obviously being shown in the most positive light, and often the parents' views imposed on their children through mandatory religious practices and classes. Even Narnia goes for the same animal appeal that you criticize Compass for. Are young boys any more immune to talking animals and a giant lion that's both a badass fighter and insanely cuddleable?

The bottom line is that this film isn't "anti-family" by any means. Opposing a popular religious system is not, in and of itself, "unsafe for viewing by youngsters." Frankly, if one's spiritual beliefs can be effectively torn apart by a children's entertainment, that belief wasn't a very convincing one in the first place.

I had no idea that this movie had anti-religous themes. I'll be happy to not see it now. Thanks OP!

If you had taken the time to actually read what I wrote, you would find that that is exactly what I said. I fail to see why you are repeating my thoughts as if to disagree with me. Let me say it again. Atheism is not family friendly to most Christian families. Does that make it clearer to you?

Again, please re-read what I wrote. You just restated my thoughts, as if to say that I had said something wrong. Sorry, but I didn't. However, on the point of what should or should not be deemed family friendly, fortunately you do not have the power to speak for all parents. I leave it to them to make that call for themselves.

And again, I fail to see your point. It is the responsibility of parents to determine whether or not the material is suitable for their children. If parents don't find Pullman's stories objectionable, then they have every right to partake of it, and share it with their children. I didn't criticize this movie for having animal appeal. I pointed out that that might be a concern for parents (just as the animals in the Narnia film might have been a concern to other parents). Your knee-jerk reaction was really unnecessary.

No, the bottom line is that it is up to parents to decide whether this film is family friendly to them. It is not for you to make that decision for them, nor is it reasonable for you to cast aspersions on parents who decide that the material is unsuitable for their children (unless you plan to abrogate your own parental responsibilities and place them into the hands of others as well).

I've had religion forced on me for most of my life...so I don't mind a little atheism thrown in now and again.

The author is the one who stated it in an interview.

Your position has been stated already in this thread, but it doesn't really tackle the problem. As I said, I will never get in the way of Christian parents raising their kids the way they want. Really. Now, I don't agree with the upbringing at all. I mean, I would never do that to my kid. But sure, they can go ahead and raise their children with blinders on, intellectually stunting them from the very beginning. Fine. I'm not going to get in the way. Free country and all that.

It does annoy me when I receive a breathless, antogonizing, broadcast email message that urges me not to see a movie that no one has actually seen, just because it doesn't seem to conform to the belief system of the sender. (I've now received two similar blasts.) I assure you, I'm not on anybody's Christian Support Group Email List. These hysterical messages have come out of thin air.

It doesn't matter to me how Christian families define "Family Friendly." The broadcast message has arrived in my Inbox stating that it's "certainly not a movie you want your kids to see." By the very nature of a broadcast message, it's using the term "Family Friendly" in a context that's much broader than one family or even one collective "Christian family."

You know, I take that back. It does matter to me how Christians define things. Maybe--as always when something like this comes around--I'm just flummoxed by the obnoxious way religious people see the world in general. It's their way, or it's the highway to Hell. And they want everyone to know about their way. And they consider anything that dares to contradict their beliefs to be a personal affront.

Again, Christian families deciding what's best for their children: Fine. But please refrain from involving the rest of the world in your insular, outraged fear. Do it privately. Jeez.

I haven't read the book and have no interest in it - but I have read the claims about kids "killing God" in the book. I know that someone here said that that is really a huge over simplification of what really happens. (If so, then what REALLY is it?) I'm not going to jump to conclusions and act like I know what this book is about because I read some silly article on snopes, so I just wanted to ask here.

I'm wondering -- In a book written by an atheist, why is God in it at all?

i've only read the first book of the series.

but anyways im thinking about going to see this.

That is so funny.

Are you talking about yourself here?

Because it's a fantasy.

That's usually the kind of response I see, yes. Funny. You cleverly turned my words back on me. Look, I'm not sending out broadcast messages imploring people to conform to my beliefs. I'm well aware that I'm in the minority in my worldview, but I really don't see other worldviews as a personal affront. I strongly disagree with some of those views, yes, but as basic ideals and belief systems--hey, go nuts.

The key is that sometimes those beliefs spur annoying, backward behavior and even frustratingly all-inclusive vocabulary, and that's when I feel compelled to speak out. In trying to clarify my point, am I not permitted to state where I'm coming from?

Believe me, I would be quiet as a mouse over here, living my life according to my own beliefs, if only religion wouldn't keep annoying me with crap like this.

If you had taken the time to understand what I wrote, you wouldn't think I was repeating you. Just because some Christian parents may find that something isn't appropriate for their family doesn't mean that the film isn't "family friendly."

Yes, and your emphasis on the word "Christian" elegantly points out what's wrong with the "warning" message: It's not about whether this film is "family friendly" at all, but whether it's offensive to some extremely sensitive Christians.

Determining whether something is appropriate for their particular is the duty of the parents. However, determining whether something is deserving of the secular term "family friendly" is up to society at large, typically via some ratings board like the MPAA. There is nothing in the film that's offensive to families in general.

Of course you do. My point that your criticism of the film not being "objective" in its presentation of a particular belief wasn't valid, since that occurs all the time in regards to Christian beliefs, so its unfair to single out the film just because the belief in this case is atheism.

People "abrogate," their responsibilities all the time. Many parents use the MPAA ratings to help them decide what their family should see, instead of seeing it themselves first. The original email was asking parents to abrogate their responsibilities, defer to the email author's judgment that the film wasn't "a film you want your children to see," and straight out boycott it. The email was doing exactly what you're criticizing me for: making the parents' decision for them.

Well, you did leave that wide open. Probably a trap I suppose

Obviously, you can state where you are coming from, but it doesn't do much good if you use that frustratingly all-inclusive vocabulary.

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at, but fair enough. I'm sure I've gotten on my soapbox and used some generalizations of my own. But I'll reiterate that I have no problem with--in fact, I have great respect for--people who practice their religion privately and humbly. Ah, what a perfect world this would be if all religious people did that! What I've presented here is one of many cases when religious people fail to do that. And I have no choice but to take 'em to task.