CBS ‘Early Show’ Guest: ‘Killing Has Nothing to Do With Atheism’

Photo of Kyle Drennen.

NewsBusters.org - Media Research CenterOn Wednesday’s CBS "Early Show,"co-host Hannah Storm, who tvnewser.com reports will soon be leaving the show, teased an upcoming segment about the controversy over the atheist-inspired movie, "The Golden Compass": "And Nicole Kidman on why the Church doesn't want your children to see her new movie." Of course, the "Church" has said no such thing, but rather the Catholic League has called for a boycott of the movie.

Later during the segment, Storm talked with Catholic League President, Bill Donohue, as well as Ellen Johnson, the president of American Atheists. To Storm’s credit, she challenged Johnson by quoting the atheist author of the "Golden Compass" book trilogy, Phillip Pullman:

STORM: Now let's talk about some of the things that Pullman has said. Back in 2003, he was comparing himself to the Harry Potter series, he said "Hey, I've been flying under the radar, saying things that are far more subversive than anything poor Harry has said. My books are about killing God." Is he promoting atheism? Does he have an agenda here?

ELLEN JOHNSON: Killing has nothing to do with atheism. I think that the movies are about questioning authority, and I think that's a good thing. Questioning the authority of the state, questioning the authority of the Church. I think that if more children were taught to question authority, maybe a lot fewer of them would have been sexually molested by priests. Questioning authority is a good thing.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Later in the segment, Donohue accurately pointed out "It's done wonders in China, hasn't it? And under Stalin it's done a great job there too." It’s not like atheists in China or the Soviet Union ever killed anyone.

While Storm did work to hold Johnson’s feet to the fire during the debate with Donohue, the lead up to that point painted the controversy as nothing more than something manufactured by "religious conservatives."At the beginning of the segment, Storm discussed how "...the blockbuster movie "The Golden Compass," which opens December 5th here in the United States, has been compared to other children's fantasies like the "Chronicles of Narnia" and "Harry Potter," but the difference is that the book it's based on was written by an atheist, and for some religious conservatives, that's a big problem." First, how can a movie that has not come out yet already be a "blockbuster"? Second, "religious conservatives" are not simply upset that Pullman happens to be an atheist, but that, as Storm later points out, his self-described goal in the story is "killing God."

The segment also featured a report by CBS Correspondent Richard Roth, in which Roth got reaction from the one of the movie's stars, Nicole Kidman, who said of the film’s atheist message, "I don't see it as that, but obviously it's up for interpretation. But I would be surprised if people actually saw the film and felt that." Storm actually addressed the issue in a question to Donohue:

HANNAH STORM: So, there is a sinister group that's portrayed in this movie, it's called the "Magisterium". Does that represent the Catholic Church and is that an issue that you have with the movie?

BILL DONOHUE: It's the definition of the Catholic Church. The Magisterium is the teaching body of the Catholic Church, the Pope in communion with the Bishops.

Despite Kidman’s comments, that fact does not leave much to "interpretation." Media Research Center President and NewsBusters Publisher, Brent Bozell, wrote an entire column explaining the obvious references to the Catholic Church throughout the film. 

Roth concluded his report by predicting that "what's clear in all this is that controversy builds curiosity, which hardly ever hurts at the box office."

Fortunately, presenting both sides of the issue later in the segment did provide some measure of balance. The debate between Donohue and Johnson ended with this exchange:

BILL DONOHUE: My goal is to destroy the idea of having a second and third movie based off of his lousy books.

ELLEN JOHNSON: People aren't following the dictates of Catholic Church and theology, and the Catholics are not going to follow dictates of the Catholic League on cinema --

DONOHUE: Well, they're certainly not going to follow your dictates.

Here is the full transcript of the segment:

7:01AM TEASER:

HANNAH STORM: And Nicole Kidman on why the Church doesn't want your children to see her new movie.

7:21AM:

STORM: Coming up in our next half hour, we'll find out if a new blockbuster film about to open in the U.S. is really an attack on religion.

7:31AM:

JULIE CHEN: "The Golden Compass" premiered last night in London, and Hollywood hopes it is this holiday season's big blockbuster. But there are calls to boycott the film when it opens next week in the United States because the author of the book it's based on says he is an atheist. Some conservative Christians claim his book and the movie are really an attack on religion. In just a moment, we'll debate this growing controversy.

7:32AM SEGMENT:

HANNAH STORM: Well, the blockbuster movie "The Golden Compass," which opens December 5th here in the United States has been compared to other children's fantasies like the "Chronicles of Narnia" and "Harry Potter," but the difference is that the book it's based on was written by an atheist, and for some religious conservatives, that's a big problem. CBS News Correspondent Richard Roth reports.

Unidentified Actor: The Golden Compass.

RICHARD ROTH: With an A-list cast and dazzling special effects, it's a big-budgeted adventure some critics claim could be pointing children in the wrong direction. Based on a book that's been called anti-Catholic, the "The Golden Compass" tells the story of a young girl's battle against a sinister group seeking to rule the world, a mysterious organization steeped in spiritual overtones.

NICOLE KIDMAN: That is the Magisterium, Laura.

ROTH: The controversy now has the studio spinning "The Golden Compass" as a celebration of love and friendship. As the glamorous villain with a soul of ice, Nicole Kidman's rejecting the claim that the movie's message is anti-Church.

NICOLE KIDMAN: I don't see it as that, but obviously it's up for interpretation. But I would be surprised if people actually saw the film and felt that.

ROTH: The Catholic League's called for a boycott. On opening night here for some of the cast, that amounted to a challenge.

SAM ELLIOT: You know what, if they do, tough. They're going to lose out. We're not going to lose out. They're going to lose out.

DANIEL CRAIG: I think the Catholic Church will survive. It's survived much worse things than this.

ROTH: In fact, much of the argument's less about the movie than the book behind it, and author Phillip Pullman, who's not stepping back from a fight.

PHILLIP PULLMAN: Religion is at its best when it is furthest away from power. As soon as it gets its hand on power, religion and power don't mix.

ROTH: What's clear in all this is that controversy builds curiosity, which hardly ever hurts at the box office. Richard ROTH, CBS News, London.

STORM: And joining us now is Bill Donohue. He is president of the Catholic League. And Ellen Johnson, president of American Atheists. And good morning to both of you. Bill, what's the essence of this boycott? Why are you urging people not to see this movie? It's rated PG-13 and it is being billed as a family film for holiday season.

BILL DONOHUE: Right, well it's a stealth campaign, it's a dishonest way to produce anything. Quite frankly, the movie is unobjectionable because they want to make money. They want to make certain that there's a second and third movie based off the second and third books in the trilogy. This is a book which teaches atheism to kids. Not my opinion, Phillip Pullman himself is very, very open about this. The movie's basically innocuous, but parents may want to say to their kids, you know what, a great Christmas present would be to buy his "Dark Materials" the name of the trilogy of the three books. Now you've introduced your kid to atheism at Christmas time. I don't think most parents want to do that.

STORM: Now let's talk about some of the things that Pullman has said. Back in 2003, he was comparing himself to the "Harry Potter" series, he said, "Hey, I've been flying under the radar, saying things that are far more subversive than anything poor Harry has said. My books are about killing God." Is he promoting atheism? Does he have an agenda here?

ELLEN JOHNSON: Killing has nothing to do with atheism. I think that the movies are about questioning authority, and I think that's a good thing. Questioning the authority of the state, questioning the authority of the Church. I think that if more children were taught to question authority, maybe a lot fewer of them would have been sexually molested by priests. Questioning authority is a good thing.

DONOHUE: That's very cute Ellen.

JOHNSON: And I hope -- I can only hope that atheism is taught. It's sometimes -- atheism is a good thing, it's a healthy thing, and this idea that it's a bad thing is not true --

DONOHUE: It's done wonders in China, hasn't it? And under Stalin it's done a great job there too.

STORM: Okay, why don't we both stick to the point here, alright, and that's the movie. And let's try to make this an informative segment for parents who are at home trying decide to whether or not to see this. So, there is a sinister group that's portrayed in this movie, it's called the Magisterium. Does that represent the Catholic Church and is that an issue that you have with the movie?

DONOHUE: It's the definition of the Catholic Church. The Magisterium is the teaching body of the Catholic Church, the Pope in communion with the Bishops. You know, the spin is too late now. They're trying to say 'oh this could represent any authority.' They're not talking about the Politburo or they're not talking about some abusive school teacher. They're talking about the Catholic Church. Pullman is very clear about it. See we boxed him in on this. We put out a booklet about this. We know exactly what his agenda is, we've unmasked it, and that's why he's angry at us.

STORM: Now the author says, and he said to "The Washington Post" six years ago he was trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief. Is that his intent, and does the movie reflect that? Because some are saying all religious intent in the movie is really watered down here.

JOHNSON: Could be. We don't know. We have to see the movie. But I can only hope, there's nothing really fundamentally wrong with that. But even if you would succeed in getting people not to buy the books or see the movie, you can't censor the internet. If you go to www.atheists.org, you can get clear-cut books on atheism.

STORM: Okay, but we're talking about the movie. We're talking about the movie here.

JOHNSON: So what's the point? But why are you focusing on a movie and these books when the whole world has books available on atheism a that kids can get? Which is good thing.

DONOHUE: It's a stealth campaign, it's a dishonest way. They're trying to introduce atheism to kids, and they don't want to come right out and advertise it. I believe in truth in advertising and you don't.

JOHNSON: This is not atheism. Atheism is completely different than this.

DONOHUE: That's what he says it is.

STORM: Let me ask you a question, because this is one of the most expensive movies ever made and the studio has said look if this doesn't do well, we're not going to make movies two, we're not going to make the third movie in which God is killed, in the third movie. Is that your intent?

DONOHUE: Absolutely. My goal is to destroy the idea of having a second and third movie based off of his lousy books.

JOHNSON: People aren't following the dictates of Catholic Church and theology, and the Catholics are not going to follow dictates of the Catholic League on cinema --

DONOHUE: Well, they're certainly not going to follow your dictates.

STORM: Alright. We've got to call it at that. You know what, we need that bell, that boxing bell that we had earlier. Bill Donohue, Ellen Johnson, thank you for being with us.

JOHNSON: Thank you.

—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I love faux controversy! 

I love faux controversy! 

So, you don't take Pullman

So, you don't take Pullman and the fact that Hollywood made his book into a movie seriously?

Take it "seriously" how?

Take it "seriously" how? This movie isn't going to do anything but perhaps entertain people. That's all. Shockingly, it will not lead to the downfall of Western civilization.

No, this one movie is not

No, this one movie is not going lead to the downfall of Western civilization. But it will prompt many children who see it into reading the books, which are atheistic propaganda. That will definitely contribute more than a few "snowflakes" to the avalanche that is carrying away and burying Western civilization.

Highly doubtful. The kids

Highly doubtful. The kids will read the books, perhaps be entertained, and then an atheist will make money. 

Kids read books? Like,

Kids read books? Like, voluntarily?

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

Yes, especially when it's

Yes, especially when it's pinko-commie propaganda, like that bastard Horton and those damn Hoos.

with age comes wisdom bal:)

as pink floyd says it's another brick in the wall

the downfall of western civ is not built in a day

WOW

Hey bal,

 

being new here at NB as I am I have really never agreed with anything you have said, that is until now,

 if anything this movie is eye candy just like

 "Chronicles of Narnia: the Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe"

which is a rehash of the Christ story and if you "read between the lines" you can see that but it was an eye candy movie all the same

I am going to go see this film with my 2 boys reguardless of the "message" it looks cool and c'mon polar bears in armor fighting you can't beat that.

 

I will have to wait and see if this IS a heavy handed,smack you in the face, anti-christianity movie, and if it is I will shake my head roll my eyes and take it at face value......an eye candy movie

 

 

 

 

red dragon

I'm glad I can be there for you...at least on this one issue.

:-) 

Glad you see it as just a movie. 

lol I was sold on the

lol

I was sold on the fighting polar bears

I know, right? You can't

I know, right? You can't beat battling polar bears. 

Lay off Horton, dude!

Lay off Horton, dude!

Actually Bal

What I read  about this movie vs the books is similar to the Divinci Code.

The movie producers knew that anti-Chrsitanity sells and also is loved by Hollywood people.  So they stir up trouble for the people they hate while getting in good with their colleagues.

They take a blasphemous and deeply anti-religious movie and psuedo sanitize it for public cosumption and then go out of their way to insist it's not promoting athiesm.  

From what I've read, the BOOKS are VERY anti-Christian and seriously promote atheism, as the author is quoted above.   So that's how it works, you make things look innocuous on the outside and then when the kids get to the inside of the book, they are pulled into a way of thinking. 

The Public School system is very adept at doing this. 

If so-called

If so-called anti-Christianity sells and is loved by Hollywood people (a problematic statement given DaVinci Code's filmic failure), it's only because people decide to consume it. It's the free market at work, my friend. If parents don't want their kids exposed to it, they can exert their parental authority and forbid it. Simple as that.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

Jason you should build people up, not tear them down.

I personally supervise everything my kids watch (They're almost 4).

At some point I am going to allow them some FREEDOM, at that point they are at the mercy of the great marketing people of the world.  I can't and won't supervise them 24/7 even now, much less when they start getting older.  Yet, they will still be immature children until they reach 16 or so, unable to reason completely and still needing guidance from their parents.

I beleive we should protect children and build them up, not allow opportunites to tear them down go unchallenged.

As many know we as humans are flawed creatures with a sin nature and hollywood caters to that sinful nature.  Porn sells but that doesn't make it the best choice for anyone, it doesn't even make it a good choice, yet, people will be drawn to that sin nature if it's presented in an appealing way.

I will do everything I can to keep my kids out of the public schools until I feel they can reason and think on their own, since I think the school system breaks that bond.  Then, maybe I can actually forbid something and actually expect my kids to obey.   I don't have the same confidence for the majority of kids going through that system.

This is a difficult post to

This is a difficult post to respond to, because I'm not about to tell you how you should be raising your kids. I'll try to tread delicately.

My position is that up until 16, parents have every right to say what their kids can or cannot have access to. My only point is that it makes little sense to blame the people who produce these texts; surely you would not want to restrict their right to make the sort of art they wish, right?  I fail to see what this issue has to do with "tearing people down".

And the same goes for marketing. I personally take umbrage at the fact that advertising and marketing so ruthlessly targets teenagers as well as fully-grown, ostensibly intelligent adults. This season especially, we see people being essentially cajoled into buying garbage they don't need, as it is suggested that that is the only way to properly participate in the holidays and, more severely, to constitute themselves as responsible members of the economic system. This Onion article perfectly sums up my feelings on the matter (contains creative and rather hilariously-rendered profanity).

Yet, I know that the free market is simply doing what it does. Rather than attack Hollywood, why not ask why it is that the films are profitable? What is it in our culture that makes such a film appealing?

P.S. Unbeknownst to my parents, I started reading Nietzsche when I was 14 (not that I understood much of it), usually while listening to Black Sabbath and Nine Inch Nails. I assure you that if you saw me now you would not be able to picture this. Frankly, I think exploring subversive things is good for kids.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

I am not totally in disagreement Jason

I don't necessarily blame the producers, more over I blame the culture for being bullied by what I consider a minority of people who allow allot of trash to come within reach of impressionable youngsters.

There's a time, a place and an age appropriateness to all sorts of things, except porn.    They will learn about sex and it will be a positive thing, unless they are tainted before that, and the last thing I want is the Public School system teaching my kids what the think and believe about sex and sexuality as early as kindergarten.

I have Neitche books as well as a copy of most major religious texts and I plan to show them to my kids and not hide them.  

I was a liberal, libertine, Rock Musican in the free-love 70's.  I will tell my kids about all that I did, eventually, and the lessons I learned.

Kids doing "subversive" things can be good "lessons" but I don't think there is anything inherently good about being subversive.  Learning by doing the wrong thing and suffering the consequences can sometimes be good when verbal cues don't work.

Hopefully I will foster an open diaglogue with my kids where they feel they can confide in me and not the kids down the street who will give them "kids" advice.

I think if you make negative things harder, not easier, to get at, the demand will go away.  The reason porn is a billion dollar industry today is because it can be viewed in private where no one can know you are doing it except you and God.   When it had to be out in the open, most people were too embarrased to buy it.

But be serious,  scads of books have been written about marketing and it's pernicious nature. And not just by and for Conservatives, these are books by Univeristy Professors and studied in colleges.

Finally, I inherited the entire Black Sabbath (Ozzie) collection from a friend whose mom was a strict Greek Orthodox and he couldn't have them in his house.  I still love Master of Reality.   

"Don't you know God is the only way to love?"

- Ozzie

There's nothing dangerous

There's nothing dangerous about these books or this movie. 

"nothing dangerous"

then hollywood won't mind if they just produce all conservative Christian films for a whole year, right - what's the danger of that?

why is the depiction of smoking banned from hollywood films now...?

GLAAD shouldn't mind if an anti-gay book hits the best-seller list right?

Or if a creationist text book makes it into the public school classrooms?

"there's nothing dangerous about these books or movies" right?

1. Well, they might mind

1. Well, they might mind because they probably won't make as much money.

2. Smoking isn't banned in movies.

3. They'd complain. Doesn't mean they're right.

4. Creationism is fine as long as it's not in a science class. 

No other "Gods" before me

#4 -  Actually Bal, Creationsim, is not allowed in school. 

 It was determined to be "disguised" religion by a judge who took the case of 2, yes just 2, science teachers in a school in Philly who walked out of their teaching duties rather than read a ONE MINUTE piece that said that Evolution wasn't "Absolute Truth" and that there were other "Theories" as to how things got here and the students could GO TO THE LIBRARY and read a book about Intelligent Design. 

Of course the Media and The ACLU would have none of it, despite the fact that the school board was ELECTED by the people based on their views.  

No questioning of authority allowed when you are challenging the religionists of the new age.

The gospel according to the new "relgion" called "Science"

You shall have no other "gods" before me.   

Science is "god".

Realize that the italics are mine, since I am a Chistian. But if this were written by a school board the italics would not exist.

Creationsim, is not allowed

Creationsim, is not allowed in school.

Thank God (irony incidental).

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

"Highly doubtful. The

"Highly doubtful. The kids will read the books, perhaps be entertained, and then an atheist will make money. "

Man you're dumb.  WHY do corporations spend gazillions on advertising if everyones a rock and no one is moved? You have to be a world class friggin' idiot not to know how influential books are ESPECIALLY TO KIDS! What are you, some liberal troll? A generation of idiots your probable age were influenced by the degenerate slacker Holden Caulfield. The effect of the Caulfield character has been retold in countless movies as the catalyst for numerous serial killers and other assorted criminals. Harry Potter has given a generation of mind numbed idiots a renewed passion for the occult and only a complete fool would say otherwise.  Now comes a piece where the STATED GOAL, is to "KILL GOD" and a numbnutz like you says, "Move along folks nothing to see here"! People like you disgust me. "There are none so blind as those who will not see", goes the saying, with you it must be a motto!

Keith

Whew! And here I thought you were going to overreact...

Look at all the damage

Look at all the damage "Last Temptation of Christ" did.

Oh no, wait, actually that film suggested that we regard Jesus as a real person with a paradoxical moral choice who took the right path in spite of overwhelming pain and temptation to the contrary; it was just knee-jerk hypocrites who didn't bother to see it that condemned it for blasphemy.

My bad. 

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

It's just the double

It's just the double standard. As my MRC colleague Tim Graham pointed out, no one would get away with calling a fictional organization the "Sanhedrin" or the "Caliphate."

as the gays said about

as the gays said about trashing their new buddy Larry Craig - we are just "targeting the hypocracy:)"

M balan you can't use those terms in Christian movies

Wasn't one of the problems with "The Passion" that Jews were depicted unfairly and therefore the movie needed to be changed?  Despite the fact that the quotes and scenes were esentially Biblically accurate?

So, in reality, you can't even depict a group of jews who helped put Jesus on the cross in a movie because it will make them look bad and might possible cause some people who hate jews to act out.

So, you have to put made up stuff in a movie that's supposed to be true.

Who said it "had to be

Who said it "had to be changed"? A small but vocal group of Jewish groups that felt offended and took issue with the way Pilate was let off the hook. So what? Don't act like this makes Christianity a victim of PC thuggery. The film was a huge success, and although I think it has its problems, it certainly accomplishes what it attempts.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

The point is the way the controvesy is posited in the press Jas

The Anti-Defamation League said it had to be changed as did almost any Jew of significance that was anti-Conserviatve.

For weeks if not months on end there were calls to ban the movie because it would incite riots, if not a second holocaust.

We were talking about double-standards here and the point is that here we have the Catholic League on the defensive.

In the case of "The Passion" it was Mel Gibson on the defensive.

In terms of MEDIA BIAS, which is the whole point of the site, we have anti-Christian movies that are defended by the hosts of most shows  - forcing the Christian protestor to defend themselves.

On the otherhand we have a Pro-Christain movie, and the key is Biblically Accurate, where the majority of Media felt the need to defend those who were Protesting the movie.

How many times do you see movie reviews that tell the movie maker of a multi-million dollar blockbuster movie, how they SHOULD have, not could have, made the movie better by making it less about it what the whole point of the movie was about - Jesus on the Cross.

 The answer is almost never.

Another idiot heard from...

Loon JasonC wrote....

"Look at all the damage "Last Temptation of Christ" did.

Oh no, wait, actually that film suggested that we regard Jesus as a real person with a paradoxical moral choice who took the right path in spite of overwhelming pain and temptation to the contrary; it was just knee-jerk hypocrites who didn't bother to see it that condemned it for blasphemy."

 Your laughable knowledge of scripture is so poor that a "debate" isn't really possible since you don't know anything. If you DID you would know that the Bible says that Jesus knew NO SIN....

2 Corinthians 5:20-21 (King James Version)King James Version(KJV)

Public Domain

   

 

 20Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

 21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

 Now, since the bible says that Jesus committed NO SIN, to make a movie that says he slept WITH A FRIGGIN' WHORE, is the definition of blasphemy you unbelievable idiot.

 

I have to agree with Balboa.

I have to agree with Balboa.  This is definitely "made-up" controversy.  It is almost as though Donohue is in bed with the movie studios to "stir things up" to the point that a movie gets free publicity.  Geez.

Let's check your

Let's check your consistency. Would you say the same thing if there was Donohue counterpart for Jews, Hindus, or Muslims?

Another lying troll

Dumbass Moderate wrote " mostlymoderate

I have to agree with Balboa.  This is definitely "made-up" controversy.  "

A man states that his GOAL is to destroy the idea of God in the minds of children with his books. People who read what he said are understandably alarmed and confront the issue. Then comes a morally challenged idiot like you to say they're just spinnin' their wheels! You even go so far as to accuse the VICTIMS (Christians) of being PART OF THE controversy! You are truly the spawn of the devil and it is his work that you seek to do. Either that or you're the stupidest moron ever to come down the pike. I vote for the former. 

No fair keith

I was hoping you would give me something to disagree with.

Things are slow out here in the salt mines tonight.

You're that black guy that

You're that black guy that hates me because I disagreed with you about rap being beautiful or something.  Right? 

Oh, how original!

a movie whose message is to "question authority"! How freaking novel! it's not like that's been part of the "message" of almost *every* freaking movie made in the last two decades!

I have an idea, hang with me, it's a wild one: how about adding the message that sometimes, and-let's get real wild and crazy here-maybe even *often* that kids SHOULDN'T always question authority. That maybe, just maybe, they should listen to people with experience first and THEN react emotionally and with insufficient information?

How wacky is that, huh?

*sigh* why is it, in the attempt to eradicate American culture, everyone points to Native American and Eastern cultures as being "superior", but they never, ever implement the part about respecting or honoring their elders...

Saddam was an atheist, and

Saddam was an atheist, and look at all the trouble he caused

Argument over, home run.

The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy

Louis XVI was a Christian,

Louis XVI was a Christian, and look at all the trouble he caused. Napoleon Bonaparte was a Christian, and look at all the trouble he caused. Henry VIII was a Christian, and look at all the trouble he caused. Ad nauseum. Keep hitting "home runs" like that, and we can play ball for money any time you like. Seriously though "Killing has nothing to do with atheism" is right. This is such a non-controversy. The context of the quote is "killing God." Killing Santa Claus in the visceral sense has nothing to do with not believing in Santa Claus... It doesn't even apply for killing the IDEA of Santa Claus as evidenced by the countless parents who don't believe in Santa, but perpetuate the story to their kids just the same. One nut who wants to "kill God" either liiterally or figuratively does not define all atheists.

Napolean was a Christian? K you be trippin'

Napoleon has been quoted as saying he wanted to wipe the Bible and Christianity off the face of the earth in his lifetime.

One of his people said back "Leave them alone, if it is not of God it will fail, but if it is of God, you will only be fighting God".

USSR did not learn that lesson as there are now 10's of 1000's of Chrisitans all over the former USSR.  

China did learn the lesson as there are state-run and regulated "Christian" churches all over China.  The sad part is that only the ones that are underground and NOT approved by the state are true Christian Churches, but at least they learned that you can't prohibit people from practicing some form of religion.

Let's be real, you aren't even hitting the ball K, you are what your first inital stands for which is a strike.

Atheists and Atheism is responsbile for Million upon millions of more deaths than anything you can hang on Chrisitanity.  Especially when you try to tag people who aren't Remotely Christian to the name, just because they were part of Western Civilization.

Excuse me for thinking a

Excuse me for thinking a man who modeled himself after the Holy Roman Emperor Charlamagne, and was maried by the Pope himself in Notre Dame Cathedral was a Christian... How silly of me </sarc>

 The quote you refer to was in reference to his annoyance with particular sects that opposed him.

Here's another quote from Boney:

"Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and myself founded empires; but what foundation did we rest the creations of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ founded an empire upon love; and at this hour millions of men would die for Him."

Sounds a bit like admiration, ya think???

Now, what is this crap about China and wanting to prohibit religion and how does ANY of that nonsense have ANYthing to do with what I said??  Who is trying to compare body counts and assigning blame for world massacres??  That would be you on some bizzarre tangent.

The point is you skipped over 90% of the text and only responded to one thing you thought might be a mistake, skipping any real counterpoint to the ideological misassociation of "killing God" with atheism.

Not only did I knock it out of the park about the premise of this article, you're not even playing on the same field.

Neither does one

Neither does one bloodthirsty man define all Christians. Evil does not discriminate.

The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy

Exactly the point. Thank

Exactly the point. Thank you.

The exceptions are by definition not "representative" of the whole.

A couple of murderers... no matter how successful in that vocation does not make any large group synonymous with murderers.  Guilt by association doesn't fly.

Exactly UC

The "plan" is to seperate children from their parents.

Liberals and leftists know, as do atheists, that as long as the family unit stays strong, Christianity will flourish and children will tend to respect authority and respect their parents.   

IF you can get the kids away from their parents long enough and influence their thinking consistently, you can turn children from their parents.

Also, everything I read in the Bible is about respecting authority, even the King - who at the time of some of the writings was executing Christians.

So, questioning Authority, for it's own sake is clearly a sin and against the tenents of Christianity.

It was garbage but got 3 stars

As usual Hollywood was all agog over a totally lousy movie because it was anti-Christian.

I saw the movie and it was garbage, I couldn't even sit through 10 minutes of it.

It's total blasphemy and to cast Willem Defoe as Christ was ridiculous.

But I will say that all the controversy and stuff like the Catholic League is doing will just tempt more people to view the movie, etc.   

The best tatic is to ignore the movie UNTIL it becomes big on it's own.  IF it becomes popular on it's own steam, THEN denounce the film and do whatever you feel you've got to do.  But to go out and give free publicity to a movie that may suck is foolish, imho.

Wasn't Willem Defoe "Christ"

Wasn't Willem Defoe "Christ" in "The Last Temptation of Christ" as well? Pattern?

?????

Why does my post above look like that?

And this one too? Someone help!!!

people are dangerous - it

people are dangerous - it doesn't matter what your religion is:)

did that help:)?

???????

No. Just made me wonder what you are talking about.

Mmmm... No.

If if it were aimed at "people" it would be a tasteless exercise of Free Speech. Like Roseanne, or Olbermann.

As an adult, you want atheism? Hysteria?  Stupidity?  Knock yourself out, Sparky!  Drink deep!

This movie is not aimed at adults. Not even slightly.

This movie is aimed at children, like Narnia, H. Potter, et al.

Big difference.

This is one time when all the information in the world should be in the hands of exhausted and vacant parental units who will innocently slap a $20 into a kids hand and send him/her off to see this...

Thing.

Equate it with homosexual indoctrination. At 18, the person is no longer a child. Prior to that... there is a parental responsibility to control, meter and temper questionable influences, be they alcohol, drugs, sex or controversial themes.

With children, it's not up "for a vote". No "equal time" or "opposing views". If you do?

The predators win. We all lose.

Whew! At least my posts

Whew! At least my posts aren't the only ones coming out like this.

RESTLESSS 1

And these posts seem to be shrinking, too.

Does anyone else think so?

Odd. 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Blonde?

I think that's you, but hard to tell. Yes, the print is getting smaller. Thought I hit a wrong button or something for a while. Doesn't seem to be happening on the other threads though, fortunately.

I think that the movies are

I think that the movies are about questioning authority, and I think that's a good thing. Questioning the authority of the state, questioning the authority of the Church. I think that if more children were taught to question authority, maybe a lot fewer of them would have been sexually molested by priests. Questioning authority is a good thing.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Let me address the "priest" issue first ... By saying, "How `bout them public school teachers molesting their students, eh?"

 

Next, this whole idea that children need to question authority is pretty much, well, B.S. ... What the hell does this woman think is exactly wrong with today's younger generation?  They don't listen to their parents.  They don't listen to their teachers.  They don't listen to the police.  They're pregnant/lazy/slobby/and generally stupid, with their own language/grammar/and spelling that replaces the alphabet with numbers and whole words with single letters. And when they are caught breaking the law they aren't "perps", but victims.

Lady, give me a friggin' break!

So you want more pliable,

So you want more pliable, easily manipulated youngsters. Interesting...

it's the opposite Bal

Actually it's liberals and hollywood that is producing pliable, easily manipulated younsters.

You know, the ones who should tell their parents about abortions and getting birth control at school.

The ones who get materials at school without parental consent and when the parent objects they are thrown out of school board meetings.

Funny how the people above who say "Question Authority" only seem to say that about MORAL authority.

I have learned from my uber-liberal in-laws, question the other persons vaules, opinions and postions on issues, not your own. 

Actually, bal, my point

Actually, bal, my point was/is today's "children" HAVE questioned authority ... and it's working out so ... well.

As for more pliable, easily manipulated youngsters ... As opposed to what?  You DON'T believe today's kids are already more pliable, easily manipulated ??? 

I know, that was an unfair

I know, that was an unfair post on my part. :-)

bal

Not unfair ... Perhaps you needed a slight clarification on my intent of the original post.

No harm ... No foul.  ;-)

I do agree with your, perhaps, intent that kids need to be "self" shielded in today's world from the threats and predators that prey on their trust.  Used to be called "street-smart" ...

"I think that if more

"I think that if more children were taught to question authority,
maybe a lot fewer of them would have been sexually molested by priests.
Questioning authority is a good thing."

The children should start with the schools and colleges. Then maybe a lot fewer of them would be sexually molested by TEACHERS. Teachers have priests beat hands down.

Ellen Johnson

“Killing has nothing to do with atheism. I think that the movies are about questioning authority, and I think that's a good thing. Questioning the authority of the state, ………

WOW! You talk about convoluted thinking. Questioning authority in atheist Russia, China, Viet Nam, Cambodia, North Korea, etc., etc., etc., has thus far killed 100 million people. It’s obvious that history is not one of her long suits.

I think that if more children were taught to question authority, maybe a lot fewer of them would have been sexually molested by priests.….”

So, the molestation by the priests was the children’s fault not the homosexual priests’. I guess Ms. Johnson just let them off the hook. How liberal of her.

What BS!

The books were written by a plagerizing atheist in order to twist C.S. Lewis' Narnia series into a blasphemous and disgusting parody for ideological reasons. They have no other purpose then to attempt to undermine children's Christian faith.

 



The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Fred08.com

Why are the bottom posts on

Why are the bottom posts on this page so friggin' weird (visually)??!

i think to make them

i think to make them fit

 

lets see if this is big

lets see if this is big

guess not  

guess not

 

Dimwitted demoncrat tool