216
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 42:
Line 42: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Learntogether
Let's concentrate on issues like the age range of the target audience. I haven't heard of teenagers or preteens reading the book, because it's not as fun as Harry Potter. But I'm open about that. I'm not open about whether the book is anti-religious. On that score, Pullman couldn't be more blatant. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:57, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
Let's concentrate on issues like the age range of the target audience. I haven't heard of teenagers or preteens reading the book, because it's not as fun as Harry Potter. But I'm open about that. I'm not open about whether the book is anti-religious. On that score, Pullman couldn't be more blatant. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:57, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
Thankyou, Ed - I appreciate your comments, especially when considered alongside Philip's. Unfortunately Learntogether has threatened me with a 5-year ban, which is disappointing (and surprising, given that his userpage tells me he "is pleased for people of all viewpoints who honestly contribute"). He has nonetheless requested sources to support my edits, which is fair enough. The following is a post I left on his talk page, for which I have not yet received a response.
While he did say he was "undermining Christianity", he's added that there's more to it than that. From his official website[http://www.philip-pullman.com/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=12]:
<blockquote>
Some of the articles and talks I've written are to do with the subject of religion, which I think is a very interesting one. The religious impulse – which includes the sense of awe and mystery we feel when we look at the universe, the urge to find a meaning and a purpose in our lives, our sense of moral kinship with other human beings – is part of being human, and I value it. I'd be a damn fool not to.
But organised religion is quite another thing. The trouble is that all too often in human history, churches and priesthoods have set themselves up to rule people's lives in the name of some invisible god (and they're all invisible, because they don't exist) – and done terrible damage. In the name of their god, they have burned, hanged, tortured, maimed, robbed, violated, and enslaved millions of their fellow-creatures, and done so with the happy conviction that they were doing the will of God, and they would go to Heaven for it.
That is the religion I hate, and I'm happy to be known as its enemy.</blockquote>
He's also said in an interview with the Archbishop of Canterbury that Jesus doesn't feature in Pullman's Church because it represents a religion that has lost its core values[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2004/03/17/bodark17.xml].
<blockquote>
I think he's mentioned once, in the context of this notion of wisdom that works secretly and quietly, not in the great courts and palaces of the earth, but among ordinary people and so on. And there are some teachers who have embodied this quality, but whose teaching has perhaps been perverted or twisted or turned, and been used in a fashion that they themselves didn't either desire or expect or could see happening.
</blockquote>
I felt that maybe the nuances of Pullman's position (which is one shared by other atheists, myself included) might be of interest to other Conservapedia readers. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:18, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
== My edit ==
== My edit ==