Fox News attacks "Golden Compass"

I'm breaking the mod's anger with the use of "fail" but screw it:

The USSR failed horribly because it tried to make the state into God and all other religion non existent. I'm not sure I can think of a single society that has succeeded without religion. This is because when religion doesn't exist, the state is allowed to move in and replace it. happens all the time. Religion is a secondary governing body to most humans. Most revolts and rebellions that have done good were based off religious reasons. For instance, the French revolution was seen as a good thing, but it tried to end all things, the church included. Without the church, people like Napoleon took it's place. In the USA, religon was used as a tool to awaken people. The great awakening before the revolution set the idea in people's minds to change.

On the complete other spectrum, the complete rule by church only made it into a radical organization of extremists who killed you if you were not following their way. hence the crusades. This is what is current in the Middle East today.

In conclusion, rule by the church is wrong and rule by no church is wrong. The middle ground where church is a vehicle for the people to learn from and enjoy the religion of their choice is the best way to go. Being that most people will not give up their faiths, it's best to let them follow it and not take it away.

Now, I've forgotten the reason I typed this, so whatever.
 
Comes on in 50 minutes... I switched to the station, O'Reily factor was on and I broke out in hives.

EDIT: I have developed cancer of the eyes and ears while waiting for that bit to show.


Can't believe I waited to watch that... I had no idea they were going to show it IN THE LAST MINUTES OF THE PROGRAM.

Jesus Christ.

Fox sucks.
 
I think your sig is too big, and you make sweeping generalizations about groups using misunderstood information.


Also, I wouldnt watch fox if I had a gun to my head. I always want to throw my couch at the TV when I do.
 
Krynn72 said:
Also, I wouldnt watch fox if I had a gun to my head. I always want to throw my couch at the TV when I do.
Click to expand...

I don't have a couch in my room, I have a waterbed... and it weighs like 1200 pounds and is partially amorphous, so it's hard to get a good grasp on it. :(
 
I generalize on some extend. But what am I going to do? Right a 5 page thesis on the feelings and emotions of every single sect of every single major religion on the world?
 
No, but you could just stop making misinformed generalizations!

Also, you could type with less typos :p
 
I try. But what misinfo do i have?

Is it not true the middle ages church was radical?

Is it not true modern islam in theocratic states is radical? (Ok, maybe you could exclude Saudi, but after what recently happened...)

Is it not true that Atheism failed Russia and Radical Christianity failed Europe?

Honestly, tell me.
 
PortalStormzzzz said:
Is it not true that Atheism failed Russia
Click to expand...
Russia was failed by Atheism just as much as it was failed by Russians not believing in time-travelling groundhogs. Which is to say, not in the slightest bit.

Everything else is fairly spot-on, I'd say.
 
Well, it was atheism that forced Russia to find a new person to believe in. it just so happens that it made it easier to make them believe in Stalin. Yea, Atheism was a tool, not the official system, I know.

Atheism leads to Dictatorship because the people simply have nothing to believe in to rescue them. When all is lost and every possible hero is dead, you turn to God. Just the way it goes. I believe this was one of the many lessons in 1984 and other anti-dictator works of art.

Just so, radical belief in any God will lead to complete enslavement of all humans to be sheople and jump off a cliff.

I'm safely on the middle ground. I believe all faiths have their merit and that none should be put above another, Kind of Jeffersonian I guess.
 
PortalStormzzzz said:
Well, it was atheism that forced Russia to find a new person to believe in. it just so happens that it made it easier to make them believe in Stalin. Yea, Atheism was a tool, not the official system, I know.

Atheism leads to Dictatorship because the people simply have nothing to believe in to rescue them. When all is lost and every possible hero is dead, you turn to God. Just the way it goes. I believe this was one of the many lessons in 1984 and other anti-dictator works of art.

Just so, radical belief in any God will lead to complete enslavement of all humans to be sheople and jump off a cliff.

I'm safely on the middle ground. I believe all faiths have their merit and that none should be put above another, Kind of Jeffersonian I guess.
Click to expand...

All faiths have no merit in themselves; the only merit of faith is in the set of morality it develops. After that we all sidestep into ethics and morality and that's where everything ****s up. Still, faith (and religion) of itself is totally worthless.

Also, I don't see how Atheism 'failed' Russia. Communism failed Russia. Atheism would only have failed Russia if God had manifested and killed everyone for being Atheist.
 
PortalStormzzzz said:
The USSR failed horribly because it tried to make the state into God and all other religion non existent.
Click to expand...
This is a silly statement and unsupported, considering that atheism specifically had far less to do with Soviet Russia than, oh, I don't know, COMMUNISM. Its final fall and 'failure' were probably more to do with economic and bureaucratic problems entailed by the system used.

PortalStormzzz said:
I'm not sure I can think of a single society that has succeeded without religion.
Click to expand...
'Without religion' is one thing but I can show you plenty of 'atheist' states - the governments of the UK, France, Germany, Sweden, theoretically the USA - all of these are 'secular' and thus atheist states. Plenty of societies have survived, by and large, without God.

Soviet Russia was not a country without faith-based 'second systems' supporting the state. Stalin fostered a cult of personality and an idyllic worker ideal, which while not strictly religious, do perform much of the same purpose. The same can be said for the 'cult of Lenin' widespread in the early Soviet days, and for the prevalence of nationalism which reached worship levels. Finally, at least one third of people in the Soviet Union remained religious. I don't mean to assert that it was a theocracy, but there were faith/devotional-based 'second systems' supporting government, just as in Nazi Germany, fascist ideology became a political religion.

Portalstormzzz said:
In conclusion, rule by the church is wrong and rule by no church is wrong. The middle ground where church is a vehicle for the people to learn from and enjoy the religion of their choice is the best way to go. Being that most people will not give up their faiths, it's best to let them follow it and not take it away.
Click to expand...
I agree...sort of? I don't think a country with no churches would necessarily be a bad thing. The bad thing is in the forced suppression of religion, the forced removal of it. That's because generally forced anything is pretty bad, and the only real justification for forcing something is to create, ultimately, more freedom (eg we force murderers to go to prison because it's better than letting them force people to die). So you can't criticise atheism for being forced on people if the reasons for the forcing are independent of atheistic thoguht - and they are independent; atheism only means 'no God' and that in no way has a necessary connection to total rule. The forcing must be criticised.

You could say the same for religion if not for the fact that many religions contain within their roots the seeds of total rule. This is because, unlike 'atheism', they actually constitute ideologies. I can be an atheist socialist, atheist libertarian or atheist fascist, but none of those are likely to be motivated by my atheism - whereas if I believe the Church should rule the world, there's unlikely to be any secular reason for it.

So yeah, total rule of any kind is bad. Extremist rule by a church sucks; extermist rule by a government sucks. But you're wrong to say that the removal of God specificaly necessarily entails the advent of totalitarianism.

Firstly, this is because there are many examples where religion co-exists alongside oppression: Franco's fascist-Catholic Spain, Nazi Germany to an extent, the current Russian state (no shit), and indeed Robespierre's Republican France. Oh yeah, that reminds me: Robespierre, commonly credited with taking over and ruining the French Revolution before Napoleon did, wasn't irreligious. He believed utterly that religion was necessary, forcing a 'cult of the supreme being' and mythologising the ideology of the revolution (eg 'Year Zero') so that they became fanatical.

The second problem with your claim that an absence of God means an advent of the repressive state is that you emphasise the wrong thing. You over-estimate the importance of specifically religious structures (eg Roman Catholicism) and under-estimate the importance of a more fluid and varied definition of second system (that which justifies the rule of a government). People don't actually need religion to justify and limit the power of a state - any ideology might do. Once, a King ruled because God willed it. Now, governments rule through the ideal of democracy, or a preference for stability, or the modern myth of the liberal-capitalist 'end of history'.

The absurd delusions that come with belief in an imaginary God are excessive for the purpose of balancing government (if such a thing is needed). This is how largely secular countries can easily survive, by and large, without religion being hugely important - and the continued survival of these countries gives the lie to your supposedly balanced viewpoint.
 
PortalStormzzzz said:
Atheism leads to world wide depression
Click to expand...

Your a biggoted, misinformed, and uninteligent (not because your religious) prat.
Christians cause every single war in the world. See dipshit, I can make facts to you fucking pillac. Go to hell you inbred shit.

I'm not depressed. I'm not a criminal. I'm a normal person, just like you (well, not like you, since you were born from your brother and sister, but you know).
 
There is no problem with atheism in and of itself. Pretty much anything - benign or otherwise - can be radicalized.

The USSR did not become the way it was because of a lack of faith. The government did not, for instance, seize some kind of power vacuum in the absence of God. It implemented its own kind of perverse, political religion. Again, the problem lies with dogma. And its failures and eventual collapse are far more attributable to communism and all the problems that came with it.

Nothing inherent in atheism requires you to strip other people of their faith. You make it sound like it entails much more, but it doesn't.
 
Raziaar said:
What pisses me off about the movie... and many movies like it is this.

WHY is so much power transferred into such trivial handheld items?
Click to expand...
Do you know what would happen if you contained an enormous power into something that looked every bit the part of an important relic? Can you even fathom what would happen if every object that possessed extraordinary abilities were encased in things that practically announced their rarity?

Look, there's a way this has to be. You imbue powers into items of no consequence, ordinary objects, that way nobody comes looking for them. I mean, if I were to impart the knowledge to you, right now, that certain powers were embeded in, oh, say, just random off-the-top-of-my head objects here...a false gem, a scalpel, a lantern, a videotape, and a rusted key...well you certainly wouldn't be expecting those objects to do anything even IF you stumbled upon them. You wouldn't know an ordinary toothbrush from one that could, say, move you two miles in any direction except up or down. Just as an example.

I mean sometimes it's not even concious when an object is given an ability. It's transferred via circumstance. Sometimes the object's just in that place at that time. Maybe the owner did something and it imprinted onto whatever he was carrying on his person. So I would not be at all surprised to see a belt buckle with an extraordinary power.

A compass though, that IS pushing it, I mean nobody's seen the compass since
 
Darkside55 said:
Do you know what would happen if you contained an enormous power into something that looked every bit the part of an important relic? Can you even fathom what would happen if every object that possessed extraordinary abilities were encased in things that practically announced their rarity?

Look, there's a way this has to be. You imbue powers into items of no consequence, ordinary objects, that way nobody comes looking for them. I mean, if I were to impart the knowledge to you, right now, that certain powers were embeded in, oh, say, just random off-the-top-of-my head objects here...a false gem, a scalpel, a lantern, a videotape, and a rusted key...well you certainly wouldn't be expecting those objects to do anything even IF you stumbled upon them. You wouldn't know an ordinary toothbrush from one that could, say, move you two miles in any direction except up or down. Just as an example.

I mean sometimes it's not even concious when an object is given an ability. It's transferred via circumstance. Sometimes the object's just in that place at that time. Maybe the owner did something and it imprinted onto whatever he was carrying on his person. So I would not be at all surprised to see a belt buckle with an extraordinary power.

A compass though, that IS pushing it, I mean nobody's seen the compass since
Click to expand...


Pfft... I'd put my powers into something that everybody would know about. It'd tempt the fools and they'd try to get it, but they'd fail and die. It would be something extraordinarily large and heavy so that no one man or small army could move it. It'd be locked away in my castle and be bound to my soul so that one day when I am finally vanquished, that stupid relic doesn't somehow get broken down over time and rebuilt some day in the future by a weaker evil bad guy. That thing rests with ME dammit, I'll be damned if I give less creative villains something for nothing. Build it yourself, assholes!


Either that, or I'm truly wicked and design a magical object that is completely indestructible, and designed to be as obvious as possible that it contains great power... that way when I'm dead, people will fight over it for all eternity, destroying each other time and time again with their greed and my super item.
 
see this is why I liked Conan novels over stupid little keebler elves with powers fantasy crap and magic wristwatches ..Conan didnt rely on some stupid magic sword of Endor the Magnificent .. in fact if there was a stupid character that carried some idiotic Magic Wristwatch of Far Sseeing Never Ending Servitude conan was likely to cleave his skull with his waraxe before he had a chance to use it

Stupid gnomish Elf with oversized sword he can barely lift: "By the power of the 7 spirits of Erlinorm the Great, his hoary hosts and ..

Conan: "STFU!!!" <splits skull>

Stupid gnomish Elf with oversized sword he can barely lift: "Is this the untimely end of Borimidor the Elven dwarf, son of Malachi the Wicked, 1st cousin to the Earl of ..

Conan: SHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUP <hacks enemy to small bite sized pieces>





:E
 
Man, you should read the books. It's not a mystical item at all really. It's just useful and rare. There are five of them. More'n one person in the book has one.

The Subtle Knife on the other hand...
 
maybe it's the homo in me but I like stories where the protagonist can kick ass on his own merits ..at least in the adventure/fantasy genre

and I do admit thinking the golden compasss was somewhat like the lion the witch and the wardrobe: made for kids, starring kids and with religious undertones
 
Made for kids, starring kids and with anti-religious under(over)tones.

Fixed? Depending on whether you mean the books or film.
 
what's so anti religion about it? i havent been able to find a definative answer as I havent read the books
 
Well, the plot partly concerns a young girl trying to find her friend in another dimension, and in doing so uncovers an insidious Church conspiracy. Also, her byronic uncle is on a mission to kill God.
 
Perhaps you should then...I don't know...read the books? I know, crazy idea, but I'm just throwing it out there.

Also, man, Raziaar, you just don't understand the way this works.
 
Darkside55 said:
Perhaps you should then...I don't know...read the books? I know, crazy idea, but I'm just throwing it out there.

Also, man, Raziaar, you just don't understand the way this works.
Click to expand...

no offense but someone mentioned they were written for kids ..not much interest here ..does it really kill anyone to give a synopsis for the sake of this discussion? no? so shaddup
 
CptStern said:
the church being the christian church?
Click to expand...
In the parallel universe it is the 'Magisterium', but it is, in fact, the Christian Church. To go further is rather to spoil the effect of the books, just in case you bother to read them.*

You should, you know (or at least the first one); they're written for kids I suppose but you'd have to be one smart kid to get it all - there's a reason for their massive adult success, which is that they're pretty clever and very impressive, not to mention morally refreshing. I don't make this recommendation lightly!

*If you are never ever going to bother I'll write a synopsis ok I guess
 
Sulkdodds said:
In the parallel universe it is the 'Magisterium', but it is, in fact, the Christian Church. To go further is rather to spoil the effect of the books, just in case you bother to read them.
Click to expand...

so it's not really the catholic church ..so they should stfu then? ...and it's not like the church doesnt have a dark history that is probably much worse in comparison to the church dipicted in the novel

Sulkdodds said:
You should, you know (or at least the first one); they're pretty clever and very impressive. I don't make this recommendation lightly!
Click to expand...

recommendation noted and filed away for future recall
 
CptStern said:
so it's not really the catholic church ..so they should stfu then? ...and it's not like the church doesnt have a dark history that is probably much worse in comparison to the church dipicted in the novel

recommendation noted and filed away for future recall
Click to expand...
In the books, the Magisterium actually is linked with the Catholic Church - they're both part of a multidimensional hegemony led by The Authority, ie God. Lord Asriel, the 'uncle' figure, cites millions of injustices committed by churches across the multiverse as justification for his crusade against Heaven.

In the films, it may well be that the writers have cut out the direct link between our real-world religion and Lyra's parallel unviverse institution. However, none of this appears very much in he first book, so I guess for the purposes of Film 1 it is likely a fantasy church.
 
CptStern said:
no offense but someone mentioned they were written for kids ..not much interest here ..does it really kill anyone to give a synopsis for the sake of this discussion? no? so shaddup
Click to expand...
Yeah I get told to shaddup for saying you should read a children's book but you'll go on Sulk's recommendation. :grumbles:

Just because a book's written for kids doesn't mean it doesn't have any value for anyone else. That's a pretty set stance to take. "It's for children; I, a grown man, should probably not read it."
 
well I didnt say "stfu" so take it as more of a friendly jibe :)

and it's not because I'm a grown man .. I'll refer you back to the post I made about liking Conan over typical fantasy ..guess I prefer low fantasy over high fantasy

and I read kid's stories every day (to my kids) ..Robert Munsch being my favourite
 
CptStern said:
well I didnt say "stfu" so take it as more of a friendly jibe :)
Click to expand...
I did. :)

and it's not because I'm a grown man .. I'll refer you back to the post I made about liking Conan over typical fantasy ..guess I prefer low fantasy over high fantasy

and I read kid's stories every day (to my kids) ..Robert Munsch being my favourite
Click to expand...
Some children's books can be entertaining for adults as well.

One thing I prefer about low fantasy to high fantasy, they'll kill people off quicker, that's for sure. And I mean your actual characters, not just the fodder. High fantasy tends to keep people alive through impossible situations.
 
Depending on how you define low fantasy the His Dark Materials (name of the series) could be considered part of the genre. It's definitely morally ambiguous at times, without clear-cut good and bad which is one of the main differences between High and Low.
Also the vast majority of characters are human, other than some angels and a few bit-players (mostly monsters, which Conan has too :D) who appear.
Edit: Oh, and the bears.

Pullman is also an excellent writer with regards to storytelling and style.
 
Darkside55 said:
I did. :)


Some children's books can be entertaining for adults as well.

One thing I prefer about low fantasy to high fantasy, they'll kill people off quicker, that's for sure. And I mean your actual characters, not just the fodder. High fantasy tends to keep people alive through impossible situations.
Click to expand...

I find childrens books in fantasy often talk down to them or are far too preachy ..you dont often see low fantasy books geared to kids ..probably cuz hacking someone with a sword is a little more disturbing than turning them into a frog

and most popular fantasy is, for lack of a better word, ...gay. Or at least nerdy or geeky ..I wanted to kill frodo the second I met him in the Lotr or bilbo baggins in the hobbit, they were so annoyingly nice that they just begged to be run through with a spear
 
His Dark Materials was an awesome tirlogy. Its been years since I read it, but if I recall, they don't kill "god" in the sense that he is the chrsitian, all powerful god. He was just, like, a guy who had great power.

Or something. Its been ages.
 
Darkside55 said:
One thing I prefer about low fantasy to high fantasy, they'll kill people off quicker, that's for sure. And I mean your actual characters, not just the fodder. High fantasy tends to keep people alive through impossible situations.
Click to expand...

You know what was a quite awesome "Childrens" series? The Mortal Engines series by Phillip Reeve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top