One of Philip Pullman’s most vocal critics, the Catholic League, launched its official boycott campaign today. “Pullman represents the new face of atheism: it is aggressive, dogmatic and unrelenting. It is also fueled by hate-by a crusading hatred of all religions, but most especially of ours.” Fearing the film’s release will influence parents’ decisions while Christmas shopping, the organisation will produce a booklet: “The Golden Compass: Agenda Unmasked.” It will include a synopsis, reviews of the trilogy, and quotes from the author to argue their case. Read more.
“Film sells atheism to kids: Major protest launched”
November 3, 2007
This entry was posted in The Golden Compass movie. Bookmark the permalink.
SOOO STUPID!!!! Have they ever heard of a FANTASY before????? It is just like The Da Vinci Code ( which is also a good FANTASY)!!! Do they really think that Pullman wrote about a REAL world that tries to teach kids what religion he thinks is better???!!!!! Like I said, SOOO STUPID!!!
EXACTLY!!! Also, how many kids who have read the book actually understand the religious issues, or even know that they are present in the book?? When reading the books I was just enjoying the fantasy, I wasn’t getting any atheistic ideas. How pathetic
I don’t think that children pick up all that much on the religious themes of the books. I certainly didn’t when I read them for the first time. They just add that level of depth which makes them such great books for adults as well as children. And Christian themes in books are never criticized, why must books with atheist themes be torn apart?
Though religious groups don’t usually like fantasy (Harry Potter is the DEVIL!!!!1!) unless it’s drenched in Christian symbolism *coughNarniacough*
I’m an atheist, but HDM had no part in that…that was my religious studies teacher 😛
if only we could mine human stupidity and figure out a way to use it as a fuel to power our cars and homes. Truly, this must be the only everlasting energy source in the universe.
Oh lord, it’s priceless. If it wasn’t so stupid I’d find it revolting. I love how they also turn it into this america versus europe thing. “He may have experienced little resistance in England, but it’s a different story here.”
Also dogmatic hateful atheism? How can atheism have dogmas?
They just can’t imagine people believing in things in any other way than them; that is without spite, fear and hatred.
This is precisely the sort of catholocism that turns people against religion.
This is just proof of sheer ignorance of catholicism and its inability to accept that that might just be wrong with their views. They just cant stand the fact that science is proving them wrong and people dont believe them. If Pullman and others cant express their views on religion then who are the Catholics to go round preaching to people? People, shockingly, can have their own opinions in society!
Anybody want to bet that all of the quotes and exerpts will be taken out of context, and mangled past recognition??
Kieran, I’m Catholic.
It’s not the religion that’s at fault. It’s the extremists.
Let’s be open-minded here, ‘kay?
LOL, look who’s being aggressive. Did Pullman ever launch a boycott campaign against Narnia?
Good job! This is precisely what I’ve been trying to tell y’all about this harbinger of doom, Philip Pullman.
On a serious note, Par, he said it was “a peevish blend of racist, misogynistic and reactionary prejudice” which contains “not a trace” of Christian charity”. Where is the appeal to tolerance of other views there? You can disagree with the Catholic League’s statement but this appears pretty much as strong a call to boycott as it.
Setting up binders such as you have, or Kieran’s oh-so original one about the RCC’s “inability to accept that that might just be wrong with their views” (I bet he’s about to tell us about Papal Indefatigability) is no less unflexive as you accuse the CL of. I certainly believe the worldview extant in HDM can be defended reasonably, but I see precious little of that here.
Now, out of genuine interest, have there been any papal encyclicals released on HDM or is the CL acting on it’s own? I’m also wondering if the CL has read the books. It ain’t the RCC which is the great evil, it’s the bloody Calvinists!!!! I’ve always thought PP’s denouncement of his chosen enemies was more Catholic than Calvinist. There were no sheep and goats there.
Insert provisos about if you… at any point… cause me to defend the Bishop of Rome I will scream.
So f****** what if the film sells athiesm to children? I am sick and tired of (a select minority of) fundamentalists and catholics thinking that they are always right, and they must dictate to people how to live their lives. If you don’t want your kids to see the film, don’t take them to see the damn film. End of.
If children are allowed to learn about other faiths, then why not athiesm? Surely imposing catholicism and catholicism only on a child takes away their free will to learn about other religions and make an INFORMED DECISION themselves about what religion they may choose to, or not to, follow. If these people were at all confident in their religious belief, they would surely have the confidence to realise that their children, already brainwashed by their conservatively catholic family and peers, would stay true to their faith.
I do, however, understand that it is only a small minority of religious believers who take this stance. I just wish that they would be tolerent. Like it says in the bloody bible!
“Pullman represents the new face of atheism: it is aggressive, dogmatic and unrelenting.”
They obviously haven’t read the books. They obviously haven’t read what Pullman himself has said. They obviously don’t know that Pullman is a kind, intelligent man who is against unrelenting aggressive dogma above all else, which is exactly what they’re doing.
Why can’t they except more than one idea. So what if they’re selling atheism? Narnia is selling theism. Can we organise a boycott against the next Narnia film just because we don’t agree with it? No.
Since groups are going to protest against the films anyway because of the attention it will draw to the unwatered-down books, they might as well have kept the religious villains in anyway.
How stupid can people get?
Annabel, John 14 6. There’s nothing more amusing than watching someone claim a 2,000 year old text accepts the tenets and texts of all other religions. A cultural hemaphroditism where all faiths are thought to lead to Jainism.
There’s nothing more cynical than certain ‘Christians’ demanding the associated moral superiority for holding a faith which they claim is not essential.
When will these ignorant people realise that they are proving exactly the sort of immoral, obsessive behaviour that Philip Pullman show cased them for in the books??? I’m not holding anything against religion, but in this case it has blinded people.
Atheism, on the other hand, makes people think clearer, more reasonably. There might be extremists there too, but at least they don’t follow blindly and sickly after the God who’s “morals” they twist to their own ends.
Koba — hey, Pullman telling us what he thinks about Narnia does not equate to telling everyone not to read it or trying to get it pulled out of libraries. I don’t have a problem with people telling me they think something is rubbish if they are presenting their opinion for what it is and not trying to pass it off as fact.
*sigh*. don’t hate, catholic league.
yeah i think its funny how the catholic league is basically promoting the movie. but i wish people would just understand the difference between fantasy and reality. they should know that they are fighting a lost cause…there are billions of hdm fans and our opinion’s won’t change.
“Catholic League sells books to idiots…”
nuf said
Seems that some of your are guilty of that which you are accusing CL, i.e. attacking opponents without actually hearing what they have to say, reading their books, whatever.
Not to defend the CL, but to be fair, they are correct in saying that Pullman is explicitly anti-Christian. When facing audiences where Christians (especially parents) may be present (e.g. The Today Show), Pullman is quite diplomatic. But when he’s with humanists or doing a Washington Post interview, he’s a little more forthcoming.
To quote him directly:
“I’m trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief,” says Pullman.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A23371-2001Feb18?)
Some of you may believe that fantasy has no affect on what you believe. Pullman obviously believes differently, as did his fellow Oxford dons Tolkien and Lewis. To quote Lewis, “children’s fantasy is very serious business.” Before you blast all the nay-sayers, consider the possibility that the invested works of three exceptional Oxford scholars might carry more weight than your knee-jerk reactions.
I’m not for or against Pullman in this regard. I’m just saying that this issue deserves far more consideration than many of you are willing to give. BTW, there are considered Christians (the Archbishop of Canterbury, for instance) who believe that Pullman’s books create a world that ultimately argues for the existence of a loving God, despite Pullman’s intentions. Once again, an issue that deserves more consideration than knee-jerk reactions.
“It is also fueled by hate-by a crusading hatred of all religions, but most especially of ours.â€ÂÂ
Since when did you care about other religions?
Question: If the villains in the book were an Islamic oppressor, rather than a Christian one, do you think it would be left in the movie? Sure Islamic organisations would go nuts obviously but do you really see the Catholic League coming to their aid, or New Line worrying people won’t go see the film if it attacks Islam so they change it to generic autocracy?
Think about it, would people care as much. Because of the American Heartland they’re trying to appeal to doesn’t understand Islam, they would love to see a film with Muslim bad-guys ruining the world. That market they’re trying to get would definitely see it if the villains were Islamic. But not if it’s Christian, because they need their simple lives, where Christ and Christians and everything about them is good and they don’t need to hear anything else.
I might be generalising to make my point, it’s just something that came into my head.
I think that “raising your children in the faith” is one of the worst, most damaging things you could do to them and that’s why the questioning nature HDM seeks to promote is so valuable!
Of course Theists would take the opposite view, and they are right to worry about films like The Golden Compass. It represents a very real threat to the cosy bubble of ignorance they would seek to raise their kids in. The CL are raising an interesting point, actually, some of us have been worried the films will be neutered, purged of any criticism of the church, but as the CL whine; it doesn’t matter, when it will bring people to the books!
Annabel has it right, if people had any genuine faith in the dogma they espouse, they’d be confident their children would believe it themselves, without requiring thorough brainwashing at a young age.
Ian, Alexis and others that describe HDM as “just” fantasy; you’re doing Pullmans work a disservice. It’s a story that seeks to demonstrate not which religion is better, but that our natural, questioning, HUMAN nature is better. If you’re not aware of these themes while reading you are still being affected by them, just as our earliest experiences of bedtime stories are formative.
Raja Jaja is right about the importance of the issue. Rowan Williams is a thoughtful, liberal, literate theologian, it’s not surprising he holds the view he does about HDM, but if Pullman DOES describe a universe in the care of a loving God, then it’s not the God described in Xtian texts!
I agree with Dawkins that in the end, liberal Theists provide a smokescreen for extremism. In the past, in theocratic societies the opposite was true, and we need to remember that secular liberalism was nurtured and protected by the liberal fringe of the church, but in todays secular society Theists need to ask themselves to what extent they are acting as apologists for the book burners and suicide bombers. Joining a boycott of a creative and thought provoking work like HDM is courting extremism.
Yoda says, commence the moron wars let. Not least by citing Squawkins who is not a theologian, even a philosopher. I bet he also sucks burps out of dead cats.
What we have here is a gaggle of know-alls and silly children (of whatever age), with the barest grasp of moral philosophy, humanism and RC doctrine. A recipe for Hell on Earth where everyone acts on their own volition. Doestoevsky was right. Look at my nick.
Atheism makes us think clearly? And if my mother had her space shuttle license she’d be an astronaut. So long to much of pre 20th Century learning.
Napier developed logs to calculate the end of the World. Newton was a raving loony who used calculus to decode Genesis. JS Bach was a devout RCer. The post-it was invented to keep place in a hymn book.
This week I have watched Antibodies and Black Book which both offer Christian messages as ones of immense hope. Not that many on this thread would understand.
VOTE PULLMAN 4 PREZDENT!
“I don’t believe you, you had the whole damn thing all wrong: He is not the kind you have to wind-up on Sundays…”
“if only we could mine human stupidity and figure out a way to use it as a fuel to power our cars and homes. Truly, this must be the only everlasting energy source in the universe.”
Talk about brilliance.
“Atheism makes us think clearly?”
Just like it would if you were a hard-core religious person. Atheism is just another way of looking the befuddling world we live in. So what if it contradicts other peoples’ moral views? There’s nothing we can do about that. Everybody has their own takes on society, whether or not it’s a religious view or a non-religious view.
“What we have here is a gaggle of know-alls and silly children (of whatever age), with the barest grasp of moral philosophy, humanism and RC doctrine. A recipe for Hell on Earth where everyone acts on their own volition. Doestoevsky was right. Look at my nick.”
I’m a teen. That must make me redundant. Or at least unwilling to give a damn about this ‘moral code’ the human race has been trying to figure out for ages. I am not trying to go against your views, Koba (In which I am trying my best to be tolerant, even though some of your comments have upset me), but I have every urge to respond to your remarks. I’m going to jump over the preaching (Where would my foundation for such an argument be? I’d sound flat-out ignorant.), but instead be very blunt and straight-to-the-point.
Moral philosophy? What about it? You’re acting as if there’s a definite way to look at it and nothing more. From my standpoint, there is no definite moral philosophy. Granted, the human race has come a long way in becoming civilized since our beginnings, but being ‘civilized’ does not tie into how we should function as living, breathing beings. That’s only how people THINK mankind should act/function. That’s not necessarily how mankind is destined to function. Saying that you have your own moral code, or go by somebody else’s views is you and your own freewill. (And line of thought)It is quite astounding to say that there is a definite grasp on moral philosophy when the human race seems to be just as befuddled on the subject today as we were 5,000 years ago.
I am actually going to agree with your ‘Hell on Earth’ statement, because I feel that it is very true. You know? If it wasn’t any freewill thousands of years ago, then there wouldn’t be any religion as we know it, just to put it plainly. Religion was our way of thinking of the universe before there were advancements in science and technology. (And still is today for most of us, and that is completely okay.) Our intelligence and freewill has brought along two consequences: The creation of religion, our earliest takes on the universe, and science, which sprung from religion. (And you can see that over time the two became so different that nowadays science and religion seem to be completely apart from each other. Religion seems to remain stagnant as science keeps on advancing, and will keep on advancing until we destroy ourselves. Wheras religion, being seemingly stagnant, would keep us in a period of little to no advancement and we’d likely die out due a natural catastrophe than anything else.) My view. (only to be taken seriously under your own discression) Religion birthed science, which seems to be society’s second grand consequence. If it wasn’t for our freedom in the first place (Which I would see as impossible, as there was little to no order and people had more freewill to think as they wished), the human race wouldn’t have grown the way it did. See? It IS Hell on Earth! The human race has been ‘Hell on Earth’! (The flaws in every little thing…it is so beautiful. It is the life that flows through each and every one of us. If there wasn’t any flaws, then we might as well not have the brains that we do.)
Even scientists can’t quite understand the complexity of the human brain! That’s why we sit back and quarrel over who is right and who is wrong as we be and be, being nothing more than a few intelligent lifeforms who have so much freedom we can sit under stars and wonder how our universe came into being and how our ending is supposed to come along. It is Hell on Earth. An unbalanced equilibrium between all of us.
Above it all, if it wasn’t for our natural fear of death and curiosity, than we wouldn’t need money, order, politics, science, religion, etcetera. And even furthur beyond the sphere in which we exist, the human race is nothing more than some meaningless lifeforms who came into existance by sheer luck and live life in harmony as they can’t even get out the complexity of what they’re best at: interaction. Sometimes I think this ‘Hell in Earth’ is really our heaven.
“This is precisely what I’ve been trying to tell y’all about this harbinger of doom, Philip Pullman.”
Said like somebody who either doesn’t have tolerance for others’ views, or just flat-out thinks that Pullman is the incarnation of the devil. Atheism, just like religion, is a matter of personal PREFERENCE. It is pretty low to insult somebody over what they feel is best for them. I myself am an Atheist, but I chose that path because it was what I liked best.
…But we’re all losing this battle that we weren’t meant to win, now aren’t we? That’s why we’re living life everyday. (Again, if we didn’t have the desire to be ‘right’, than we wouldn’t need the intelligence we were gievn. It is what has made us unique from one another.) Having that said, it would be better for you to have a but more tolerance and realize that other’s views are just as important, whether or not you believe they’re good or bad.
Good day/night everyone.
Tragic that religious zealots put more effort into botching dissenting ideas than doing things that would likely seem more important to them (charity work, etc). “God” forbid that children should ever be exposed to a different world-view, especially in the form of a children’s film or fantasy! Fantasy and the like enriches and expands the imaginations of children worldwide, and this is how Religion responds? Bolstering their own mythic dogma and shooting down anything else that they deem to be “blaspheme”? Seems a little unfair to me! For the record, the anti-religious tones in the movie are pretty much covered up and only intuitive and open-minded individuals would be able to interpret them as the movie presents them.
Besides, why doesn’t the Catholic church instead waste its efforts on publishing pamphlets giving advice to parents on how to protect their children from the child-molesters in the church? I’d think that sexual abuse is leagues more damaging than a harmless movie about bears.
… says:
“Atheism, just like religion, is a matter of personal PREFERENCE. It is pretty low to insult somebody over what they feel is best for them.”
If it’s all a matter of PREFERENCE, then why is it low for him to insult somebody? Isn’t the injunction against such insults just a matter of your preference? Shouldn’t you just say that you don’t like it when he does this, rather than ascribe some inherent quality (or lack) to his action? It seems to me that you are invoking some kind of universal ethic or, dare I say, absolute.
Still, if you really are a teen, your views seem pretty well thought out. Not the kind of teen that Jay Leno pulls from the crowd to illustrate how stupid our nation has become.
Foth says:
“Tragic that religious zealots put more effort into botching dissenting ideas than doing things that would likely seem more important to them (charity work, etc).”
Tragic, perhaps, but certainly understandable that people would want to defend their children. It seems a common view here but unreasonable to me that we should expect that kids can survey the buffet of worldviews and have the tools to intuitively sense which is best. Rather, we should expect (and encourage) parents to grow their children up in the way they see fit and then spend our efforts persuading ADULTS. It’s not just a matter of religious conservatism. Socrates himself noted that Art has the power to bypass the gatekeeper of Reason, and we should therefore be caseful what we place before our eyes and ears and hence, into our minds directly. Art infuses beliefs into us without our consideration or evaluation. So many people here seem to have a much lesser view of Art – “it’s just fantasy”, etc.. There’s no “just” about it — Art is powerful and it’s entirely reasonable for parents to be concerned what kind of art fills the hearts and minds of their children. Shouldn’t we be encouraging more parental involvement, not less?
If we’re going to persuade people, let’s do it through up-front, above-board means. Fine if Christian parents want their kids to read Christian fantasy. Fine if an atheist parents want their kids to reach atheist fantasy. What is not fine is if authors conceal their intents and try to pull the rug out from parents on the sly. It’s not ok to create Art with the intent of undermining a child’s worldview and then to conceal that intent.
Don’t get me wrong. I love Pullman’s books and I think he’s a great storyteller. But if you read his interviews up to 2003 or so, he is very forthcoming about his agenda to undermine the basis of Christian belief. Frankly, that makes his work more than just art. Technically, it makes it propaganda, though I’d hate to use the term in any context except a discussion like this. After those earlier interviews, Pullman virtually denies those previous statements. “It’s not really anti-Church, just anti-Authority”, etc., etc.. Did he really change his mind? Or was the negative feedback hurting his sales? Did a movie studio deal tell him to “ixnay on the istianity-chray”?
I’m not saying I like the reaction of the Catholic League, but it’s hardly fair to demonize parents who have valid concerns about the worldview of their children. I’m sure all the kids and teens out there are more likely to think of such parentalism as “the Man is just trying to keep me down” but those of you who are parents (are there any here besides me?) understand how quickly your views change once you have the responsibility of raising a child yourself.
Personally, I’ll probably read these books to my kids in the future (my oldest is only 6), along with Tolkien, Lewis, Madeleine L’Engle, etc.. Even without the “heads up” from the CL, I think I’d be smart enough to pick appropriate discussion points to go over with my kids. But that’s me. I don’t expect that from all parents. Parents have a tough job as it is and I would hesitate to do anything to make that job more difficult, like surrepticiously introducing an agenda that runs counter to the goals of the parent.
Just putting this out there. My grandma, who just happens to be a huge believer of Catholism BOUGHT THE BOOKS FOR ME!!!!KNOWING FULL WELL WHAT THEY ARE ABOUT!!!!But she bought them for me because right on the spine of the book it says one word or the other. These two possible words are: Fantasy or Fiction. If I ever meet the head of the Catholic League, or someone of high ranking, I’m gonna pull out a big fat dictionary, and look up those two words, just for them, because they are obviously too lazy, or too stupid to understand what they mean.
Foth says:
“Besides, why doesn’t the Catholic church instead waste its efforts on publishing pamphlets giving advice to parents on how to protect their children from the child-molesters in the church? I’d think that sexual abuse is leagues more damaging than a harmless movie about bears.”
I have to say, you have a really good point there, especially the fact that most of those child-molesters, are the preists themselves, and then it’s covered up, and the preist moves to a different church, and doesn’t even get punished. I think, bevcause of that, maybe it’s a good thing that the Church gets thrown into the bad light in Pullman’s books, considering the fact that they cover up these major problems in their own system, just so that they don’t get thrown into the bad light.
Why does the church say that these books are worthy of the bonfire? Because the minute they are put in a bad postion they jump on it and make the person look like they want to make the church dissapear. The church blames loss of faith on books like this. Well they have to wrong idea. Kids don’t like church because it’s boring and the chatoilic religion doesn’t make it fun for the kids. If the church thinks hey’re in a bad position here, then why don’t they embrace child malesting?I know some one malested by a priest. So that article is bullshit. The church wants people to return to chatholism then they should make it fun or atleast more interesting, and not attack books that are clearly genenred fantasy or fiction.
virgile says:
“if only we could mine human stupidity and figure out a way to use it as a fuel to power our cars and homes. Truly, this must be the only everlasting energy source in the universe.”
You know, that could be true. Sheesh, mine human stupidity, that’s a brilliant idea. Homer(The Simpsons) and Peter(Family Guy) would be enough to keep the world going for a couple years, maybe more, if that was possible. Not mocking the shows, just the funnily stupid characters.
I was reading some questions and answers from here: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21595083/
And I found the second question quite interesting. Here it is:
Is there an underlying message for atheism in your book or did you simply want to write a fantasy story, like Tolkien? Kim Mapstead, Friday Harbor, Wash.
(Pullman)Hello, Kim: What I was mainly doing, I hope, was telling a story, but not a story like Tolkien’s. (To be honest I don’t much care for “The Lord of the Rings.â€ÂÂ) As for the atheism, it doesn’t matter to me whether people believe in God or not, so I’m not promoting anything of that sort. What I do care about is whether people are cruel or whether they’re kind, whether they act for democracy or for tyranny, whether they believe in open-minded enquiry or in shutting the freedom of thought and expression. Good things have been done in the name of religion, and so have bad things; and both good things and bad things have been done with no religion at all. What I care about is the good, wherever it comes from.
Now that’s interesting. It explains exactly what he was trying to say in the books, so I have NO idea where the CL got the idea of Pullman representing the new face of atheism, that is aggressive, dogmatic and unrelenting and is also fueled by hate-by a crusading hatred of all religions, but most especially of ours OR how his apparent(in their veiw) real goal is to put a positive face on atheism, to get children to buy his message.
Also, it probably takes time for them to get their message out because the people they are trying to control are people who know right from wrong, and what they’re doing is wrong, even though they want to continue blindly with their illogical idea that because Philip Pullman wrote a book, and he is atheist, then the book he wrote must also be atheist because he, the atheist, wrote it. And if he wrote it for children, then he MUST be trying to tell children, who wouldn’t understand the religious based stuff in the book, that atheism is good, and catholic religion is no matter what evil, just because, for once, they were thrown into the negative side of things. Well, I guess they should just assassinate me, because I’m a growing writer, and hey, in one of the stories that I’m writing, the catholic church is on the antagonist side.
Skye, nice quote, but it only proves my point that Pullman has become much more diplomatic in recent interviews. In interviews that I pulled up from 2001-2003 (like the one linked in my earlier post), Pullman is much more forthcoming (honest?) about his goals:
“I’m trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief,†says Pullman.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A23371-2001Feb18?)
The pattern is quite consistent. Likely one of two things has happened:
1) Pullman has considerably moderated his own views on religion, abandoning his earlier attacks that won him high praise from the humanists.
or
2) Pullman’s views and goals have not changed at all. Perhaps he underestimated the backlash and sees that concealing his motives will allow him to be much more effective at achieving his goals (whether monetary or idealogical).
Those are the possibilities as I see them. I’d like to believe the first, but I have not seen a single explanation from Pullman for the apparent change. His apparent evasions or near-denials (like the one you quoted, Skye) lead me to suspect #2. Well, that and a healthy suspicion of human nature itself. If he had truly changed his goals, why is there no explanation in his answer. Instead, his answer seems like “Wow, I don’t understand why anyone would think that of me!” — as if it was unfair bias and assumption instead of his very own words and stated goals that had created the issue.
Again, I’ve got no problem with his goals, if they are his goals. I’d just like him to be straight about it. If they are his goals, be proud about them. If his goals have changed, clear up the confusion by saying so. Just don’t go on as if people are unjustly casting aspersions. As it is, I suspect his daemon might be a weasel.
Uhm. The Skye posting after November third was not me.
I haven’t read their comments yet, but I thought I’d put that out there.
“The church wants people to return to chatholism then they should make it fun or atleast more interesting…”
This doesn’t really have anything to do with anything, but I’d just like to say that I attended the National Catholic Youth Convention in Columbus, Ohio, this weekend. 20,000 Catholics attended, and it was -definitely- fun.
People need to think before they speak, on both sides. The problem is that the only people who really have much authority on the matter (the role of Catholicism in the books) are those who are both Catholic and have read the books. This is why I pay no attention to most of the naysayers, along with most of the Catholic-bashers.
And that’s all I have to say on the subject for now.
Um…Yeah, I just noticed that…Sorry…Didn’t mean to, so I’ll change it from Skye to Skye H.