Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
clearly anti-religious
::::Thanks Philip, I appreciate your objectivity. I've made the appropriate edits in what I think is a compromise. By all means feel free to make additional edits, guys, but let's act in good faith and stop with the reversions. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:22, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Thanks Philip, I appreciate your objectivity. I've made the appropriate edits in what I think is a compromise. By all means feel free to make additional edits, guys, but let's act in good faith and stop with the reversions. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:22, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::I already added in appropriate additions. This will not be turned into a "he said she said" with some people think its just an attack against authoritarianism or comparing it to a classic like Paradise Lost. It's not Paradise Lost. In Paradise Found, obtained by killing God or any vestiges of Him. We will not water this down to ignore that. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:39, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::I already added in appropriate additions. This will not be turned into a "he said she said" with some people think its just an attack against authoritarianism or comparing it to a classic like Paradise Lost. It's not Paradise Lost. In Paradise Found, obtained by killing God or any vestiges of Him. We will not water this down to ignore that. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:39, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
I enter this discussion in response to Ub's request and after seeing this edit:
:''While some interpret it as a blatant attack on Christianity, others argue that it represents a triumph over authoritarianism''
First of all, I don't see why we have to maintain a stance of neutrality. We are not Wikipedia, and we're not journalists. The author said he's killing God and that ought to settle it. Moreover, even a liberal source like ''[[Newsweek]]'' wrote that "...no one over four feet tall could mistake the Magisterium for anything but an oppressive theocracy."
The author is obviously portraying the Christian Church in the worst possible light. He accuses it of [[authoritarianism]], and so it makes sense for Conservatives to respond to this.
Certainly most churches have a dogma and a top-down governance which cannot be altered democratically. But since people (at least in the English-speaking West) can "vote with their feet" (i.e., join another church) then the label of [[theocracy]] is misapplied. The world in which a theocratic agency kidnaps and tortures children might have described the [[Spanish Inquisition]] centuries ago, but all of Christianity denounces this as an aberration. The closest thing in modern history would be Communism and Nazism.
It's ludicrous to think we have to be "neutral" on questions like:
#Is Pullman talking about the Judeo-Christian God?
#Is Pullman accusing the Christian Church of being authoritarian and/or theocratic?
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)