Battleground Narnia: the religous onslaught continues.....

[distortionmarshall]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/02/film.narnia.reut/index.html

sheesh. cnn's not even bright enuff to mention that the narnia series was christian apologetic/propaganda...

ah - i get it now - they put the grown up version out with The Passion, now they wanna get the kids on board....

o yah - i've seen the question of why the christ movie is called "the passion" - dunno if a good answer's been given - "passion" is derived from the latin word "to suffer"......

[dawgman]

1. Have you ever read the fucking things and do you know anything about

C.S. Lewis? He ain't exactly a conservative religious nut job.

For fucks fucking sake not everything christian is evil. C.S. Lewis wrote some of the most fantastic children's books ever written. He was an advocate of a personal relationship with God.

He was not a nut job like LaHaye.

[damnyankee2601]

2. Calm down, dawgman.

I share your frustration with the knee-jerk anti-Christian bias at DU, but all the cursing isn't going to make any converts.

I have spent the last 3 years screaming bile at right-wingnuts, and it has hurt me more that it has hurt them. Jesus was right, turn the other cheek and light a fire of coals on their head.

[dawgman]

3. you are right of course but it drives me nuts. How is the Chronicles

of Narnia evil. It is not LaHayes apocaleptic crap. It is written by an Anglican (Episcopal), the most liberal church I have been able to find.

This stuff is just infuriating.

[Az]

6. Lewis has a history within atheist/theist debates

His arguments are often put forward as arguments in debates. The merrit of his arguments not withstanding it can become irksome to see the same argument run out and sited each time you engage in a debate. Thus his name becomes associated with propoganda within certain communities.

Personally I love the Narnia stories. They are a beautiful tale told in a remarkable style. What you are seeing as a reaction here is due to Lewis being used as propoganda and not a reaction to the story. If we can learn things from Oedipus Rex we can learn things from Narnia.

[distortionmarshall]

12. lol - i've read em prolly more than any three people....

but that's not really the point.....

i love the naivete in this thread tho - "awwww.... they're such *NICE* stories - how could big bad uncaring heartless me cast aspersions on them"?

lol

you christians can pretend the context of movie production doesn't matter if you want to.... americans are stupid - there's a really good chance the christians will get away with it....

gotta congratulate the christian right on this tactic tho - (1) go for the kids, (2) do so in a way that's SO innocuous that calling them on it meets with a response like in this thread - lol - and this is DU!

awesome strategists they got over there....


pssstt... the devil don't exist - have I convinced you?

[Loonman]

15. Without understanding a single one

Obviously.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

18. Man, I read them when I was ten, and I remember thinking

"Could this have more Christian subtext?"

Not that there's anything wrong with that kind of thing, mind.

[iverglas]

69. I read them over and over

I was a very Christian little kid. I adored them, but I was actually fairly oblivious to the religious subtext.

But then I read all sorts of fantasy -- Edward Eager (the Half Magic books), Madeleine L'Engle, Alison Uttley, Edith Nesbit ... and Robert Heinlein, and Isaac Isamov and Harlan Ellison ... . I also read C.S. Lewis's adult science fiction a little later.

And yeah, he was a religious nutjob. The converts often are. (Lord Tubby of whatsit, anyone?)

I also read the Narnia books in the context of a lot of other children's literature about groups of children doing wonderful adventurous things together -- Enid Blyton's English characters going to the This or That Of Adventure, Trixie Beldon's Westchester gang solving mysteries.

So ... as part of a whole rich experience of classic children's literature, I wouldn't object too much to the Narnia books. In that context, they're good tales of strong, independent characters (including girls) and friendship and family, and food for the imagination.

I gather that's not how they're being promoted. And I think that makes all the difference.

.

[SpaceCatMeetsMars]

83. I never cared about the subtext story either, I liked the White Witch

the best of all and that planet with the red sun that she came from. She was something else! They are pretty good stories and would make good movies probably.

[TrogL]

87. I won't let Enid Blyton's books in the house

Racist crap.

[iverglas]

90. ah now, you see!

I don't even remember that. It may be that you're talking about younger kids' books -- Noddy and such. I don't know them, but I do think I've heard that criticism and recall, from what I recall hearing, that it's quite sound. (Googling "enid blyton" noddy racism tells me more.) Five Children and It was about the extent of my contact with her though, and I think it's innocent.

Now, Huckleberry Finn is racist too, no? And just about any book you could name that's more than 25 years old is likely to be sexist through and through.

To me, it really is about context. If Blyton were part of a diet of racist literature, that would make reading it a bad thing. If the Narnias were part of a diet of religious-brainwashing literature, that would make reading them a bad thing. As part of a diverse diet of all sorts of stuff, most things aren't likely to do a whole lot of harm. Some of them may actually be *good*, as part of such a diet. But there are undoubtedly things that are unlikely to do enough good to offset the likely harm.

.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. The context of movie production here

is Lord of the Rings and the Harry Potter films. If they are at the stage when they think they can bring these out in 2005, the planning started before Gibson's movie started to look like a success.

It's not as if they havne't been filmed before - the BBC did it years ago.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/933759.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3333465.stm

[Maeve]

24. Oh, I loved those versions!

Tom Baker as Puddleglum--couldn't read it without seeing him thereafter! Would have liked to have seen "The Last Battle".

[outinforce]

22. I Would NEVER Suggest...

I may not be one of "you christians", but I'll tell you this.

I would never suggest that the context of movie production does not matter.

Just look at a particular movie done several years ago-- "The Handmaid's Tale". It certainly went for younger people, and did so in a way that is so innocuous.

Is this what you had in mind, distortionmarshall?

[distortionmarshall]

31. not at all familiar with the movie... sorry /eom

:)

[dawgman]

56. It is neat how you have lumped the Anglican/Episcopal branch of

Christians in with people like Falwell and Robertson. You know because Falwell and his moral majority ilk are SO fond of the Church of England. The church was founded on a king seeking a divorce and has ordained women and homosexuals, even to the level of bishop and even has an outspoken priest who DOESN'T BELIEVE IN GOD and is sooooo very similar to the various fundamental churches around the country.

YOu are ridiculous. You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Fundamentalism=bad Following the TRUE teachings of Christ (which I believe these books are proponents of)=good.

I would rather have my child watching something that advocates Christlike behavior than something as violent as Batman, Spiderman and the Hulk.

That being said, who the hell are you to condemn someone for making a damn movie? Were you pissed (no pun intended) when the right decried the artist and his work "Piss Christ?" Did you ask people why the right felt the need to censor someone and destroy freedom of speech? Are you now being a hypocrite?

[Screaming Lord Byron]

62. A priest who doesn't believe in God? What the hell?

[dawgman]

64. He is advocating that a christian should live their lives in the same

manner as christ as a philosophy and not as a religion. Christ (like many other great men and women) laid down the basis for a communal egalitarian non-violent society. He believes that the focus should be on that not the "antiquated mythology of the old testament and the holy trinity...etc." He sees true christianity as a path towards societal enlightenment.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

66. Right, pretty much a neo-cathar then. Reasonable fellow.

[outinforce]

65. A Bishop, Actually

I think the reference is to Bishop John Sprong.

He has suggested that Paul or Jesus (or both) were gay, and he has said that he doesn't believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

67. Right, thanks.

Paul was apparently gay, I've seen a lot written on the subject. His inability to deal with his homosexual nature was a major factor in the downgrading of Mary Magdalene from Jesus' likely wife to a common whore.

[dawgman]

68. don't know if that is who I was refering to or not but I have read about

Sprong. My father e-mailed me an article a few years ago about this guy and made some comments about the breadth of the Anglican/Episcopal tent. He is a deacon in the Episcopal church and he is still trying to get me into the church (I don't believe in organized religion).

[iverglas]

70. surely you remember Jim and Sir Humphrey!

It went like this. http://www.pwi-insurance.ca/stedmund/UpdateFeb2002.htm

You might recall the Appointments Secretary's meeting with Jim Hacker: the preferred candidate was a Modernist - 'A theological term, Prime Minister. It seems that he accepts that some events described in the Bible are not literally true - he sees them as metaphors, legends or myths. He is interested in the spiritual and philosophical truth behind the stories'. He also 'had an eminently suitable wife', which did not mean that she was 'devout and full of good works', but rather that she was the daughter of the Earl of Dorchester.

The cagey Prime Minister asked Sir Humphrey what was a Modernist and was told:

SH: 'In the Church of England the word Modernist is code for non-believer.'
JH: 'An atheist?'
SH: 'Oh no, Prime Minister. An atheist clergyman couldn't continue to draw his stipend. So when they stop believing in God they call themselves modernists.'
JH: 'How can the Church of England recommend an atheist as Bishop of Bury St. Edmunds?'
SH: 'Very easily. The Church of England is primarily a social organisation, not a religious one.'

There were a few more exchanges and then Sir Humphrey said: 'The Church is trying to be more relevant'. Jim Hacker asked 'To God?' and Sir Humphrey replied: 'Of course not, Prime Minister. I meant relevant in sociological terms.'

A bit more banter was followed by this exchange:

SH: 'You see, the church is run by theologians.'
JH: 'What does that mean?'
SH: 'Well, theology's a device for helping agnostics stay within the church.'

I know it kept me interested for a while. ;)

.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

71. Of course, Yes (Prime) Minister. Excellent show.

My dad was (is) a fairly prominent local atheist, so I was likely more sensitive to religious subtext than most ten year olds. Good books, though.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Atlant]

63. I've read the books.

I've read the books.

Are the well written: Yes.

Are they amusing: Yes.

Are they Christian Propaganda: I can't say because when I did previously, somebody alerted my post and got it deleted.

I guess the truth hurts.

Atlant

[PsychoDad]

59. I liked the screwtape letters....

And the kids love the narnia stories...


And we're not christian :silly:
A good story is a good story, sometimes even better if from a viewpoint other than your own.

[Bertha Venation]

4. I'm with dawgman.

Let the religious right think that the Chronicles of Narnia are all about them. Let them rejoice in their private club and smirk at those of us who "don't get it."

Then go out and buy a set of the books and try to read them free of any bias. You might be pleasantly surprised.

It's just fantasy.

[bemildred]

5. C.S. Lewis is an excellent writer,

these are excellent stories, you don't have to take
them as Xtian allegories unless you want to, and
there is nothing wrong with that, if you do. Like
Gulliver's Travels, it is up to the reader to decide
what he wants to take from these books. It's not like
your mind will be poisoned if you read and understand a
bit of Xtian thinking. (Unless you are weak-minded of
course, then you should be careful.)

I don't particularly like the philosophical underpinings
of Narnia, because I dislike philosophical systems that
denigrate this world and this life in favor of "higher"
versions, but they are still excellent stories and the
video version was very well done.

[Tracer]

7. The "Chronicles" are wonderful children's books.

My kids read them over and over when they were 9 or 10.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

8. Jesus was a LION?

I very much doubt any Xian fundie worthy of his hair-grease would like that very much.

[damnyankee2601]

14. The lion is a symbol.

Lewis created a mythic fantasy to teach children the fundamentals of true Cristian behavior and the nature of good and evil. Aslan is the same character as Luke Skywalker, Neo, or Simba, the "Hero with a Thousand Faces" as Joseph Campbell called him.

If you read The Screwtape Letters, you will see how Lewis uses the same fantasy methods to illustrate adult misuse of religion.

Now: Everybody scrape the dogma off your shoes and go READ.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

16. Mythology is a wonderful subject

Being aware that is IS mythology, of course, helps a lot.

[stopthegop]

49. ever hear of 'the Lion of Judah'?

one of the names of Christ

[lapislzi]

9. CS Lewis should be considered an ally, not an antagonist

He is no zealot by any manner of means. I strongly recommend The Screwtape Letters, Mere Christianity, and The Four Loves.

He is precisely the type of rational, reasoned person whose thoughts and comments we would welcome at DU.

[bhunt70]

10. agreed, these kneejerk reactions are tiresome.

[hatrack]

58. I'll second that, and I'm as secular-humanistic as they come

However, you'll notice my sig line. I don't agree with everything Lewis wrote or believed, but I admire his work.

[bemildred]

11. Yeah, Screwtape is excellent too. nt

[distortionmarshall]

19. whatever - narnia is a literary version.....

of the gingerbread house of lore..... just a mild and deceptive way to get christianity an "in" into kids' lives... so sweet and yummy that kids, and more importantly their parents no matter how secular, would have an issue with it.....

lol - so many christians professing how harmless these books are.... do they feel the same way about Joe Camel....

sheesh... none so blind as those who refuse to see.....

[outinforce]

25. What Are You Suggesting?

I could be wrong here, but I think I hear you saying that the books of C.S. Lewis are "harmful" to children in the same way that Joe Camel was harmful to kids.

I'd like to comment on that point of view, if that is in fact what you are saying.

Is it?

[distortionmarshall]

29. lol - yes......

.... in *exactly* the same way..... causes emphysema, lung cancer, heart disease, low birthrate, miscarriage, stundted growth, and a host of other maladies....

sheesh - and they say *I* don't understand what i read..... lol

[outinforce]

32. Can You Perhaps

Can you perhaps provide any examples of bookls, movies, or other things that cause children to change their behavior that you DO approve of?

And, I'm a little confused here....are you saying that Christianity casues emphysema, lung cancer, heart disease, low birthrate, miscarriage, stunted growth, and a host of other maladies?

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[distortionmarshall]

42. whoa - too confused on this branch.....

i'm gonna quit this branch, simply cuz i'm not sure who's talking to who here...... stalking? did I? hell, i don't even know what that *is*, in the internet context.... lol

and to whoever it was who didn't grasp the concept of _family resemblance_: i used joe camel simply as a striking example of targeting kids with advertising that appears on the surface to be cute and harmless. no, i do not claim that narnia causes cancer... sheesh.... there are other harms tho.... brainwashing, inability to read in any way other than literal, and so on....

cya in another branch mebbe....

[distortionmarshall]

36. rofl - that's awesome... /eom

:)

[outinforce]

39. Not Sure I Understand

I'm not sure I understand what you considered "awesome" about my question to you.

Perhaps you could explain it to me?

[PatGund]

81. Actually....

I'd have no problem reading the Narnia series to my children - or letting them read it themselves.

And I'm not a Christian either. Yes, there is some Christian symbology in the Narnia series. Lewis's friend Tolkien used some in the "Lord of the Rings" as well.

And I'll also point out that many of the hard core fundies *hate* the Narnia series because they believe it supports and condones Witchcraft and the Occult. Go figure.

[lapislzi]

48. It's a STORY

Lots of stories have points, morals, agendas. Much of children's literature is didactic or attempts to depict "moral" behavior. I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with that method of instilling ideology into children, just that it's there, and Lewis is not the first to do it. The Bible's a collection of didactic stories, too, that can be read and enjoyed simply for their literary value, if one is so inclined. <shudder>

I also don't think the Christian symbolism of Narnia is immediately apparent, at least not to a child. (Remember; you're looking at them through grownup eyes). I remember reading the books, and when a grownup pointed out to me what they were about, saying "d'oh! Really?!" Hell, and I was raised Catholic!

[Screaming Lord Byron]

13. Lewis was on our side. He was a thoughtful, insightful critic and writer.

He's alright by me.

[G_j]

45. I agree

from everything I've read he was a kind and tolerant human being.

[G_j]

47. perhaps we should keep the kids away from

the words of MLK also, lots of Christian imagery there. It's a great disservice to let the fundies poison the well, then it's almost as if they (the fundies) win.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

17. How DARE those Christians make movies!

Then they tie us up and FORCE us to watch!!!

[Sotarr2004]

21. Uh, a minor quibble here. . . .

. . .then what did you think of "Lord of the Rings" ??? Lewis wasn't a Christian until Tolkien persuaded him to become one.


There's a lot of Biblical/Christian allegory in LOTR as well, and if Frodo isn't a Christ figure, then there aren't any at all in literature. . .

[Screaming Lord Byron]

23. Man, you beat me to it.

[distortionmarshall]

27. quibble with me?

<if so:>

uh, relevance? lol - the middlearth books aren't christian evangelism/apologetic/propaganda. the narnia books are.


duh.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

28. Yeah, they're pretty much Christian.

I've got no problem with that.

[Loonman]

30. So what's your problem?

Only ideas you approve of belong in the public arena?

[distortionmarshall]

34. not sure if that was directed at me or not......

.... especially since I never once said, suggested, or implied that to be the case.....

sheesh....

[Sotarr2004]

33. Indeed. Last I checked. . .

. . .Christians were still allowed to write books and publish them, and make movies out of them.

Or has Tom Ridge put THEM on the watch-list too ??

And besides, if you looked at the CNN article, DISNEY is going to make the films: they'll tone it way down, as not to offend anyone, and thus lose sales. The Christians will still recognize the allegory, but nobody else likely will.

But the bottom line is, even if propaganda, the Christians have the same rights we do. Or are you turning into a closet Freeper on us ????

[distortionmarshall]

38. poor, poor, set-upon christians.....

lol - did anybody here actually *read* my OP?

where did i say, suggest, or imply that christians' free speech rights should be curtailed?

i'm not a freeper (as a cursory seach of my posts will attest), but you (all) with your put-distorted-words-into-people-you-have-religous-differences-with-mouths rhetoric strongly suggests that you might be....

[outinforce]

41. Poor, Poor, Set-Upon distortionmarshall

""

LOL1 In fact, ROTFLMAO!

You suggest that all of us are trying to put words inton your motuh?

I have asked a couple question of you on this thread, and have been met with very few direct answers.

I see that you are relatively new here at DU. I have found that if I do not want people to put words into MY mouth, then I take the time to articulate my positions -- especially when asked to do so.

[distortionmarshall]

43. lol1?

new to me.... mebbe exclamation mark (point?) was intended....

anyhoo..... numerous people, over the entire thread have accused me of trying to circumscribe christians' free speech rights, when in fact i've never, anywhere, said, suggested, or implied that i held this position....

[Sotarr2004]

44. Well, let's see. . .

. . .you originally describe it as a "religious onslaught" and describe it as "propaganda".

That tends to lead one to think you disapprove of it.

. . . and then there's this:

of the gingerbread house of lore..... just a mild and deceptive way to get christianity an "in" into kids' lives... so sweet and yummy that kids, and more importantly their parents no matter how secular, would have an issue with it.....

lol - so many christians professing how harmless these books are.... do they feel the same way about Joe Camel....

sheesh... none so blind as those who refuse to see.....

You appear to consider it harmful, and draw an allegory to the "Joe Camel" campaign which WAS banned.

You're certainly circumscribing your argument, but it appears you want it banned as "harmful to children" from the tone and content of your various posts here on the topic. . .

[distortionmarshall]

46. again - where did i say i want it banned?

sheesh - you took a really roundabout way to agreeing with me....

thanks for providing a bunch of quotes that DON'T show me suggesting the circumscription of free speech rights.

mebbe "it appears" that way to you, i dunno - i just didn't say it, that's all - and it's dishonest to suggest that i did.

sure i had a disapproving tone - i disapprove of many forms of propaganda, ranging from gerrmandered counts of military dead to christianity's snake-like forcing itself into everyone's life....

but i disapprove of a lot of things - brusselsprouts, for example.

very few, except perhaps for you, are willing to say that disapproval is tantamount to a claim that a constitutional right should be infringed upon.....

i'll say it again: i nowhere said, suggested, or implied that i want any american citizen's free speech rights to be circumscribed in any way.

sheesh - and *I'm* the kneejerker - lol

[outinforce]

54. When Caught With A Hand in the Cookie Jar,.....

I suppose that it is only natural, when one is caught doing something that he himself knows is not correct, to say something like, "Oh, no, I never actually said that".

But look at what you did say, distortionmarshall.

YOu said that children's books or movies directed at children which may contain Christian values are harmful to children.

"I could be wrong here, but I think I hear you saying that the books of C.S. Lewis are "harmful" to children in the same way that Joe Camel was harmful to kids. I'd like to comment on that point of view, if that is in fact what you are saying. Is it?"

"lol - yes......in *exactly* the same way"

You did much more than simply to say thaty you disapproved of these books and movies. You may say that you disapprove of brussel sprouts, but no where do I see so saying tyhat brussel sprouts are actually harmful.

You'll find, after you've been here at DU a little longer, that many people express their disapproval of a variety of things.

But it is when people begin to suggest that something is "harmful" that people begin to take a little bit more notice. And when people suggest that something is as harmful as enticing small children to a life of being addicted to something like tobacco, more people begin to notice. Because the government has, in fact, forbidden things like "Joe Camel".

So here's your chance to state clearly what you think: Do you think that movies and books such as the Chronicles of Narnja are so harmful to children that the government should ban them, in the same way that the government banned tobacco advertising?

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bagnana]

77. no, you "implied" that you think the books are harmful

propoganda that brainwash kids, and are equivalent to using Joe Camel to push tobacco on kids. But you never said they should be banned. Sheesh! You sound like Bush: "I never said an attack was imminent." Oh really? (And by the way as an agnostic I am no "knee-jerk religious apologist") I read the books many, many times as a kid. If they were supposed to have brainwashed me into becoming a Christian, they FAILED. I thought they were just a great story. What a load of crap this is. Just like the fundies who think reading Harry Potter will turn their kids into pagans.

[distortionmarshall]

79. what you write.....

suggests that you're agnostic about a lot more than god.....

[dawgman]

80. No, you haven't said you would like to ban the movies.

But what do you mean when you write "battle ground: Narnia?"

[distortionmarshall]

82. certainly not that i suggest banning them......

lol

anyhoo.... the battleground is control over my child's development - or it would be if i had any kids....

i take issue when cigarette companies attempt to horn in on my control over my child's development by throwing cute cartoons at him.... i take issue when christians attempt to horn in on my control over my child's development by throwing cute satyr's and lions at him.....

my suggestion, in the case of narnia, by contrast with cigarettes, is not to do anything remotely like ban narnia-related content, but rather to make my kid as smart as possible as quickly as possible.

BTW - my OP was originally about basically 2 things:

(1) My belief that the largest motivation for Narnia to now-ishly be made into a movie is that christians want more converts, and

(2) CNN's deliberate or accidental refusal to mention the Narnia-as-Christian-propoganda angle.

(even if I'm wrong on (1), it's just silly to pretend there's no issue. We heard ad nauseum about Harry Potter's godLESSness - and now on CNN we hear *nothing* about Narnia's godFULness? cmon.....)


damn - you guys won - lol - you made me be explicit about things that shoulda been obvious.... dammit.....

[outinforce]

84. Here's A Suggestion

If you don't want your kid to be exposed to the ideas and images contained in a movie that Disney will produce about the Tales of Narnja,

Then

exercise some parental control and don't let your kid see it.

Easy.

[Bridget Burke]

85. They're making the movie to make money.

Harry Potter & LOTR have proved that fantasy sells. The Chronicles of Narnia are a classic. While C S Lewis incorporated much of his Christian belief into the books, I would not consider them "propaganda". Few here do.

I don't have children either but, if I did, would not consider Narnia a threat. I've never considered CNN to be highly intellectual & am not surprised that they did not include the history of The Inklings in their entertainment news.

You posted this whole thing to make us look silly but very few are biting.

[dawgman]

86. There is no battle ground over your childs development.

If you don't approve of the material don't let them be exposed to it. No battle.

The motivation for the timing of the movies is that the special effects and computer animation have developed to the point where a seamless movie can be made. It can be done without being cheesy.

Your continued use of the word propaganda is abhorrent. Propaganda is when I am watching Warner bros. cartoons with my 5yr old and on pops a series of Navy-Marine-Army ads. That is propaganda. Propaganda is being told from the day you are little that the Soviets are coming any day and that they all hate us and that godless communism will be the end of the world. Propaganda is soviet state run Pravda shelling out disinformation to the population.

I went to a Wisconsin Synod Lutheran elementary/middle school my Grandmother was a devout Baptist and didn't think that my father was going to heaven because he was Episcopal and I have direct understanding of the Fundie mindset and Narnia ain't part of it. Most of the fundies I knew weren't allowed to read the books. Witchcraft and pagan talking animals. The idea of God as a lion is blasphemy because we are created in God's image so he must look like us, right?

Also, CNN failing to report that the biggest selling children's series of books in history, secular or religious, isn't a big deal. Everyone has read at least one of these books. Christian or not, nearly everybody has a frame of reference when it comes to these books. It should not surprise anyone that it is not deemed necessary to mention that the books have a religious underpinning.

I also want you to know that I do NOT apologize for my christianity, nor do I expect anyone to apologize for me. My religion is just that, MY RELIGION. It is not anyone else's. It is my personal interpretation on how to live my life. Did you catch that? I said PERSONAL. My PERSONAL beliefs certainly have nothing to do with foisting my values onto anyone else's children. However, I do believe that if more people followed the Way, the world would be a lot more congenial of a place and we probably put a lot more time and effort into our children and a lot less into the military and insane delusions of grandeur.

But that's just my opinion.

[iverglas]

92. I was confused

"I also want you to know that I do NOT apologize for my christianity, nor do I expect anyone to apologize for me."

... but then I got it. You were confused. And I asked the Oxford Concise dictionary to help you get it:

apologetic noun
a reasoned defence, especially of Christianity

Thank goodness nobody seems to have actually accused distortionmarshall of demanding that s/he apologize for being Christian, eh?

.

[dawgman]

95. Now answer me this;

why would you bring that up when apologize means to make an apology and apology means "A formal justification or defense" and has exactly the same roots? Now was I saying that I wasn't sorry for my beliefs or was I saying that I would not stoop to defending my beliefs? You can decide that for yourself. But kudos on picking out something entirely trivial from my post while ignoring the meat of the argument. And why don't you run and get the original poster to help you reinterpret his post to suit what small definition problems you can pick out of my posts.

I accused him of nothing so I guess it would be proper to say, "Thank goodness nobody seems to have actually accused distortionmarshall of demanding that s/he apologize for being Christian, eh?"

in reality you are just arguing semantics, regardless of which definition you choose, my statement remains. My beliefs need no defense, written by C.S. Lewis or otherwise.

[iverglas]

98. gee, I guess it's also lucky

regardless of which definition you choose, my statement remains. My beliefs need no defense, written by C.S. Lewis or otherwise.

... lucky that folks like St. Augustine didn't share that feeling, and "stooped" pretty low in the effort. Christianity might've died young otherwise. (See "apologia".)

Now was I saying that I wasn't sorry for my beliefs or was I saying that I would not stoop to defending my beliefs? You can decide that for yourself.

If you aren't sure what you meant when you said:

I also want you to know that I do NOT apologize for my christianity, nor do I expect anyone to apologize for me.

... well, I doubt you're wanting my help.


One of my favourite scenes from Cabaret ...

Brian (Michael York, teaching English) on the pronunciation of "phlegm": P H is always pronounced as F, and, uh, you don't sound the G.

Natalia Landauer (Marisa Berenson, learning English): Then why are they putting the G, please?

Brian: That's, that's a very good question, but rather difficult to explain.

Sally (Liza Minelli, being annoying): Try, Brian.

Brian: Well, uh, it's just there.

Natalia: So, Mr. Professor, you do not know?

Brian: No.

Natalia: Then I am sorry. I cannot help you.

And everyone laughs politely at the earnest rich girl's little joke.

I accused him of nothing so I guess it would be proper to say, "Thank goodness nobody seems to have actually accused distortionmarshall of demanding that s/he apologize for being Christian, eh?"

You got it! I just wondered whether anybody had got worked up about someone referring to a book series (as he did in that first post) as a reasoned defence of Christianity. ;)

Just in case you really did want me to say something else --

But kudos on picking out something entirely trivial from my post while ignoring the meat of the argument.

... well, I don't think I can find any argument that needs responding to. How 'bout this:

Your continued use of the word propaganda is abhorrent. Propaganda is when I am watching Warner bros. cartoons with my 5yr old and on pops a series of Navy-Marine-Army ads. That is propaganda. Propaganda is being told from the day you are little that the Soviets are coming any day and that they all hate us and that godless communism will be the end of the world. Propaganda is soviet state run Pravda shelling out disinformation to the population.

Is that an exhaustive definition? We've got it all, now? Or might there be some other things that qualify as

an organized campaign of publicity, selected information, etc., used to propagate a doctrine, practice, etc.

?

Just because somebody reads as word as having a negative meaning, doesn't mean that the word itself is not neutral, eh?

Propaganda can be a good thing -- in fact, it was used that way originally by people publicizing their political platform, it just came to have that pejorative undertone when other people disparaged the platform and activity in question. Just because one outfit wants people to believe that the propaganda being disseminated by another is false, that doesn't meant it is. Whether one thinks that any particular propaganda is a good thing just all depends on whose doctrine is being propagated, I guess.

.

[dawgman]

99. Words have negative and positive connotations regardless of the

"nuetral" definition of the word. Propaganda has a definitely negative connotation. If you want to argue about that go ahead, but if you really want to argue about you might not have a very good grasp of the nuances of language.

Just because somebody reads as word as having a negative meaning, doesn't mean that the word itself is not neutral, eh?...it just came to have that pejorative undertone when other people disparaged the platform and activity in question.

It doesn't really matter how the word came to have a negative feel to it. The fact remains that propaganda DOES have a negative feel to it. Those that use it know that and use it with that knowledge. Couple that with the words in the title of the post and the comparison to fundamentalism and the word loses all nuetrality.

"If you aren't sure what you meant when you said:

I also want you to know that I do NOT apologize for my christianity, nor do I expect anyone to apologize for me.

... well, I doubt you're wanting my help."

Now come on, I asked you a rhetorical question and this is your fucking answer? How childish and asinine is that? How old are you?

By the way St. Augustine has very little to do with my individual faith. You might as well make a comparison between my faith and that of the ancient Hebrew man who, while in exile in Babylon, wrote the first four books of the bible.

PS put the dictionary away. I have one as well and am not interested nor am I dazzled by your dictionaries definitions.

[iverglas]

75. what is it that is so difficult to understand

... about the difference between

- DISAPPROVING OF SOMETHING
and
- WANTING SOMETHING BANNED
??


That tends to lead one to think you disapprove of it.

In fact, I'd think that it has been made fairly explicit that he disapproves of it.

I never have the slightest problem distinguishing between these two concepts, myself. And I've noticed that most people I've met do, themselves, distinguish them: for instance, most people disapprove of adultery, but have no desire, and make no effort, to have it banned.

A reasonably good translation of what good old Voltaire said is:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Note how he didn't seem to have any reluctance to state that he disapproved of what was said.

We know that distortionmarshall disapproves of promoting the reading of the Narnia books by children.

Do we have the slightest shred of a reason to believe that he advocates banning them, or prohibiting people from making and distributing movies based on them? Would we be able to offer a jot or tittle of evidence to support such a belief?


You're certainly circumscribing your argument, but it appears you want it banned as "harmful to children" from the tone and content of your various posts here on the topic. . .

Damn, how something "appears" must just really be all in the eye of the beholder. What distortionmarshall has said here wouldn't "appear" that way to *me* if I read it for a thousand years ... but maybe if I put on night-vision goggles and stood on my head ...


You appear to consider it harmful, and draw an allegory to the "Joe Camel" campaign which WAS banned.

Uh, Narnia books are an allegory; distortionmarshall's effort was an analogy.

And analogies are offered for a purpose, involving demonstrating similarities between two things. There will perfectly obviously always be dissimilarities between such things as well. If the person offering an analogy is proposing that thing "X" be treated the way thing "Y" is treated, then it's reasonable to point out those dissimilarities as reasons why it should *not* be treated that way.

It is *not* reasonable to infer that when someone points to the similarities between thing "X" and thing "Y", s/he is proposing that thing "Y" be treated in the same way as thing "X".

It is *not* reasonable to infer that because someone disapproves of something, s/he is proposing that it be banned.

There are indeed people who believe that if they disapprove of something it should be banned. We see them in discussions of same-sex marriage, abortion ... . But, amazingly, we also see people in those discussions who disapprove of the things being discussed but don't propose that they be banned.

Can I now really not express my disapproval of anything without being represented as having proposed that it be banned? It would be damned hard to discuss much of anything, were that the case.

I recommend against "inferring" things as harmful to someone's reputation as a desire to outlaw a form of speech -- or at least stating those inferences in public -- without some more solid evidence than "the tone and content of <his/her> various posts". I really do. I do it often. But nobody seems to pay much attention.

.

[distortionmarshall]

76. aw! kill joy!

<shoves hands in pockets, kicks pebble!>

it's no fun if you have to actually write it on the wall for them...

:)

[iverglas]

78. those who do not remember history

... make life miserable for the rest of us.

I'd actually prefer *not* to be constantly misrepresented in discussions on internet boards. I mean, it's fun for a while, but it gets old real fast. Who knows; maybe some people really do it out of error, and maybe they'll read a treatise on how to understand what they read and smack their heads and go now I get it.

And besides, if they can learn that we aren't out to ban everything they do that we disapprove of, which they might assume we're out to do are simply because they themselves usually are, there's always the possibility that they might return the favour.

I'm just a sunny optimist, despite all the experience that would have made even a better woman than I pessimistic. ;)

.

[TahitiNut]

50. Tolkien, a Catholic, did not espouse ...

... fiction as Christian allegory as did C. S. Lewis after his conversion (facilitated by Tolkien) from atheist to Christian. It's widely acknowledged that the Chronicles of Narnia are "Christian allegory" while LOTR is not.

I think much of the confusion lies in the employment of myth, fable, and fiction to convey "truth" ... much like parables. Religion uses myth to convey a (specific) perception of "Truth" in every bit the same fashion as Aesop. (Do foxes talk and eat grapes?)

I see "truth" as an ephemeral, like some kind of gas or liquid that requires a vessel or container to be conveyed from one place (mind) to another (mind).

I see that vessel made of (usually one of) two substances: mythos (fable, parable, fiction, myth) and logos (fact, empiricism, objectivity). I see mythos as akin to glass as a vessel, intended to be transparent and offering a view of the "Truth" within and never intended to be a substitute for "Truth" itself nor intended to be regarded as fact. I see logos as akin to a ceramic or pottery as a vessel, offering a somewhat more occluded view of the "truth" within but worth of examining itself for its pragmatic value.

It's a rough analogy ... meta-metaphor? ... but possibly useful.

Humanity has employed mythos for ages, not as a substitute for fact (or logos) but as a conveyance for "truth" -- a principle whereby "fact" might be induced. To cling to the notion that something must be factually true in order for the content to be "truth" is a fundamental misapprehension that rears its ugly head from time to time in mankind's history.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

51. Tolkien also said that his invented world worked on the same

principles as ours, and the god of Middle Earth (Eru) is the same God as the Christian God.

[TahitiNut]

52. ... "Christian God" or Abrahamic God?

See, it's not truly a "Christian" allegory unless the passion, sacrifice, resurrection, and redemption themes are present -- which they are in Narnia.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

53. I see your point. Mosaic God, then!

[Loonman]

26. Fundies hate Disney for Gay Days

I think you're getting way too much caffiene.

[Centre_Left]

55. Boycott Disney

We must struggle to overcome the fundamentalist propaganda of the Mouse-Christ!

[tigerbeat]

57. i love the narnia books and i'm the biggest athiest you can find....

....i read them when i was an impressionable young child and somehow i didn't turn into a raging fundamentalist. of course there's chrisitan allegory weaved all throughout the books (especially "last battle") but why, oh why, does that make them immediately "propaganda"? why, oh why, do people ignore the pagan themes in the books as well?

news alert: LOTR has tons of christian allegory as well. tolkien just didn't wear it on his sleeve as much as lewis.

[lapislzi]

94. As a convert, Lewis had a different agenda

but I don't believe for a moment that he intended the Chronicles of Narnia to be perceived as propaganda. He was far too intelligent and subtle for that. Allegory, certainly, and that's an absolutely acceptable way (in the literary sense) to present your point of view. Would he have liked people to see the allegory of the Christ in a new light? I think he would have. But I believe that it was deeply personal for him, and you could believe it or not, as you like. I am totally putting words in his mouth here (Lewis scholars, please don't crucify me; no pun intended), but I think for him the act of faith was the telling of the tale, the interpretation.

[dawgman]

60. By the way it is being done by the guy who did "Shrek" do you really

this is going to be much more than an adventure film for kids coming from a man that outraged parents nationwide with his crude children's movie?

[Bridget Burke]

61. Thanks for the information!

All of us DU'ers must be reminded to be totally anti-Christian, because we're all anti-Christian here, aren't we? I'll bet people are being linked here just so they can see how anti-Christian we all are.

Jesus! I'm agnostic verging on atheist, with an interest in myth, legend & mysticism--& no shame about a Catholic upbringing. Raised in Texas, I'm quite capable of defending myself against aggressive bible-thumpers. I also know some fine people of faith--all faiths.

The Narnia books are children's books & the film project got off the ground because the success of Harry Potter has revived interest in fantastic literature for children. Although LOTR was not aimed at children, the success of those films definitely helped.

I doubt that Mel's splatter-fest has anything to do with this project.

[GinaMaria]

72. Disney

uses Campbell and Vogler as blue prints for story structure. The mythic structure is apparent in recent Disney works, more so than Fairy Tale structure which Walt depended on.

IMHO, they miss the mark by treating it like a formula to be followed. They can hit a few emotional chords but overall I think they miss. Lion King comes to mind.

I doubt that Mel's movie has much to do with this either. Disney is scouring the globe looking for myths in different cultures to exploit and water down for mass consumption.

Not anti religeon, just a little anti Disney for it's lowest common denominator-take-no-risks films.

[JHB]

74. Your knee is jerking...

It ain't Mel Gibson who put Narnia in play in Hollywood, it's Harry Potter & Frodo Baggins.

[TrogL]

88. It might be worth looking at "Mere Christianity"

by the same author.

It's an excellent overview of non-fundamentalist, conservative Christianity.

It has its flaws - the section on homosexuality has a glaring logical fallacy - but definitely shows that Lewis is no fundie.

[karabekian]

89. I dont understand

how people here are so violently opposed to religious themes in movies and such. I think religious speech is free speech too.

[iverglas]

91. I'll defend to the death your right to speak

... but I'll still disapprove of what you say, and speak my disapproval, whenever I bloody well please.

That's the unavoidable flip side of "I disapprove of what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it", you see.

If you apply that to your statement:

I dont understand how people here are so violently opposed to religious themes in movies and such. I think religious speech is free speech too.

... whaddaya get? Well, to start with, two unrelated thoughts.

If you want to understand why anyone is opposed to religious themes in movies and such, you could try reading what they say.

If you are saying that because religious speech is free speech then nobody should criticize it, and if everybody followed that advice, then of course you'd have a hard time ever understanding what anybody thought, ever, about anything, because nobody would be expressing critical thought.

Religious speech is free speech.
And the speech of people who disapprove of any particular religious speech is free speech too.
Surely YOU wouldn't want to criticize THEM for speaking, would you??

.

Maybe if you

[dawgman]

96. So here's the rub

"If you want to understand why anyone is opposed to religious themes in movies and such, you could try reading what they say."



The OP hasn't really expressed anything of value. That is what has many of us begging for clarity that s/he seems unable or unwilling to provide. They began their post with war images and continued with words like propaganda and ended it with a comparison to "Passion." Where the hell is the reasoned argument I need to find by "reading what they say."


on edit: damn the bold html. I get it wrong every time.

[Astarho]

93. geez, what a thread

First of all, Narnia is coming out now because of (as others have mentioned) the success of Harry Potter and LOTR, not because of the Passion. Some of us Narnia fans have been following news of this for months. As for CNN, the whole history of CS Lewis and Narnia doesn't fit into a sound bite.

Second of all the Chronicles of Narnia are Christian allegory, not an apologetic and not propaganda.

I read the Chronicles of Narnia as a kid, they were the first books I read more then once. I'm still as pagan today as I was then. I didn't notice the Christian allegory until I was much older.

Oh, and if you REALLY wanna know what Fundy-Christians think of Narnia, then have a look:
http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/homemake/cslewis.htm

[PATRICK]

97. The Horse and His Boy

Has one good Islamic type boy who finds Aslan, and in the final book another "good" Arabic style "enemy" sincere about his worship finding that Aslan was that God after all, while the image of his pagan Arabic style God was a gibbering demon. It was NOT Islam but it mirrored the anti-Arabic fantasies, pre-Mohamed, as seen by British adventurers and the White Man's Burden school. Sort of like American kids being brought up dreaming of fighting savage Indians noted for cruelty and pagan ways.

"The Last Battle" uses these Arabic style pagans as shock troops for the bad guy stereotypes. Right out of childish daydreaming but one wishes the medieval enthusiast who had lived through real war had not replayed it as an entertainment for children. Armageddon as a war between Christians and Muslims seems distastefully relevant for our times. In other fantasies it was the "Yellow Peril" or "Red Menace". The "White Devil" is not much a part of Anglo literature.

Was this story trying to soften the prejudice of the Narnia mythology and show human nature among the pagans too? Want to have fun with fantasy and religious prejudice try the other side in "The Golden Compass" trilogy. Kills both God and the after-life with smug righteousness all its own.

There is balance in the fantasy world too.

[Quahog]

100. The ignorance is simply dizzying

As I often have been in the past, I am more than a little stunned by the depth of hatred and ignorance that underlies the knee-jerk anti-Christian sentiment that typifies much of what is posted at DU.

One who would accuse C.S. Lewis of being a "propagandist" might just as well accuse Mohandas Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr of the same thing. Come on, you know MLK's speeches were just "propaganda" for that anti-racist agenda, right?

C.S. Lewis wrote deeply and thoughtfully about what he believed about man's relationship with God and fellow man, and what he wrote was insightful, witty, profound and timeless. So yeah, the guy gets quoted a lot when Christians talk about what's good about Christianity. I would love for the Marshall of Distortion to explain how he is justified in distorting Lewis' life and work, about which he obviously knows nothing, into some sort of instrument of fundie evil. The ignorance displayed here is so utterly complete as to be stupefying.

(Oh, and before anyone feels a need to comment about Marshall's ID referencing the famous British guitar amplifiers, save your energy, I own one, I get it, I'm making a joke, ha-ha.)

We often talk about having to defend our "progressive" agenda in the face of neo-con bigotry, but frankly, I have a harder time defending us in front of people who are already on our side for the most part. I belong to a large community of liberal, Democratic Roman Catholics with a long history of voting for progressive candidates and issues. And these people want to know why the left despises them, while the the right welcomes them with open arms. Look at RI's senators Chafee and Reed, with two of the most consistently progressive voting records in all of congress, look at Mayor Carcieri of Providence, openly and even defiantly gay, look at our environmental policies, among the strictest in the nation... and this is coming out of the state with the highest percentage of Catholics in the USA.

And yet somehow, for many at DU, we are the enemy.

I can't explain this when people ask, I honestly can't. I would like to be able to excuse the bigotry, ignorance, hatred and prejudice that is endemic among those who should be my ideological peers, and yet I cannot. It looks and smells like pig ignorance, because that's what it is.

C.S. Lewis was one of the great philosophical writers of the last century, whether you're a Christian or not. The Chronicles of Narnia are classics among literature for young readers, whether you're a Christain or not. Try reading what he wrote before going off half-cocked. In fact, try not going off half-cocked at all... maybe just try keeping your hate speech to yourself. You give all Democrats a black eye when you vomit forth this kind of uninformed, insulting drivel.

[Moderator]

101. Enough

Please note that the originator of the thread is gone.

Please note that this is not a forum for religious discussions.