Letters to the Editor
-
The answer is in the good book ...
"the writer, who suddenly brought out a very unpoetic character called "Metatron," which I think was some kind of robot Jesus?"
Lord, save us from the ignorance of thine followers ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metatron
Pullman didn't invent Metatron, it was a much earlier writer of fantasy fiction who did that.
-
To "DIY" RE: intended audience
I figured that if anyone responded to my comment at all, this would be the argument: that the movie is PG-13 and therefore not intended for young kids. But that's naiive. The trailer features an armored polar bear, after all. And the third book is noted for being the first "children's book" to win the Whitbread. And as I noted in my first letter, I borrowed a copy from my kids' elementary school library. So yes, my kids fall into the category of "intended audience." If the film's producers aren't hoping families will go see their film, then how in the world could they ever hope to make money? (In that regard, it will be interesting to watch the $$ returns data this week...)
The rating would have raised my eyebrows, certainly, but as of yet I have found no review of the film that explains the basis for that rating. Is it language? I'm not a parent who would keep my kids away from a movie they wanted to see because of a few words. Is it violence? As with other films, I would probably have waited until some other parents had seen the film and could tell me whether it was "scary" or not. But it would never have occurred to me to ask them whether this movie -- or its likely sequels -- would undermine my religious education of my children. So, as I have said, this controversy has actually helped me in that way.
-
Um ...
"Try this:
So any physical manifestation is equally false and equally true, although that manifestation might just be useful to helping people who want to believe take a little step in the direction of revelation."
Does that make any sense, even to you?
It's not an answer, it's a terribly inept avoidance of one. Seriously? Does anyone read that and think 'gosh, that's great, I know what I'm doing this Sunday, I'm off to church!'.
'God is like a big cosmic squirrel, except he's not. Don't think of him as a squirrel like a normal squirrel and you're closer. Scientists may scoff but science doesn't have all the answers.'
Come on ... come up with something we *can* know about God. Something he does. Something positive that means we should get behind him. Rather than new age waffle that would make a homeopath blush.
-
We need to kill the faithful
Because we're all tolerant secular liberals and like that.
-
Sorry, other Anonymous
You call my earnest attempt to answer an earlier question "new age waffle that would make a homeopath blush."
I can't do better than what I did, which was to paraphrase, and dumb down for a lay audience, a section from the introduction to Paul Tillich's Dynamics of Faith.
Worship the white-haired old man, or Horus, or the dollar, if that gets you closer to God, he says.
You're asking the faithful to anthropomorphize. That's a sap's game, and to hell with it.
-
Re: Catholic Mom
"I won't take them because my job, as a Catholic mother of young kids, is to BUILD UP their faith in God and our church at this time in their lives. They are too young to comprehend the theological questions that are at the root of all this debate."
If they're too young to comprehend the theology, then perhaps they're too young to be indoctrinated in it. Just a thought.
-
To: Anonymous Re: indoctrination
Just a thought? And an original one, in your opinion?
It's not, of course, but I'll respond to it anyway. And I'll start by saying that I am just about as politically liberal as the "political compass" can measure. But I have a major gripe with my fellow liberals, and it comes down to hypocrisy, and the intolerance of Catholicism which I have *personally* experienced.
Here's the gist: When I tell my children to live peacefully and oppose violence, to respect and protect the environment, to defend the world's oppressed peoples, and to be politically active, then I am applauded for teaching my kids moral values. But when I tell my children that these values are founded in my religious beliefs, then I am indoctrinating them. The first, supposedly, is GOOD, the second is BAD, very, very bad.
I ask you: Why would I hide my deep faith in God from my children? Given how it enriches my life, can you not understand why I would want the same for my beloved children? Theological questions of heaven, hell, and salvation by faith aside, I love God and cannot imagine keeping Him a secret from the two people I love most in the world.
-
Re: Catholic Mom
No, of course I don't presume that my thought was original. I don't think that invalidates it, however.
And no, I don't suggest that you keep your faith secret from your children. However, there's a difference between being honest about one's faith and deliberately trying to instill that faith in people too young to understand it. What's your rush? Unless you think they're going to burn in hell unless you Catholicize them as soon as possible (and I doubt you do; from the sound of it), then why not leave it until they're old enough to think critically about it?
I don't applaud people teaching their children to be politically active either, incidentally. One thing Richard Dawkins was right about is that children can't properly be Democrats or Republicans any more than they can truly be Catholics or Jews, and shouldn't be labeled as such. Non-violence, sharing, etc. are principles children can easily understand-- need to understand. But economics and atonement (much less why our politics/religion is right, and theirs is wrong) are hardly things that should be foisted upon them.
I scarcely think I have convinced you, but thanks for listening anyway.
-
To: Anonymous Re: indoctrination, part 2
Since I think your comments are genuine and sincere (not everyone's comments on this subject are), I would like to answer your question: What is my rush (to teach my children my religion)? Why not wait until they can think about it "critically"?
Because I really BELIEVE that the basic teachings of my church are true. My faith is a gift, and it is one I intend to make possible for my children.
A lot of parents restrict talk about religion in their homes because they want the children to "have a choice," but the result is that their children have nothing to choose BETWEEN! I know many people who regret this about their own upbringing; in fact, I am married to one. My husband agreed a long time ago that our children should be raised as Catholics so that, at the very least, we could offer them a seed for faith. When they grow up, my kids will probably have all of the same questions I had (and still have) about God and the universe and morality. I hope that they get as much joy out searching for those answers as I do. Where they come out on the issues is ultimately not up to me.
But while they are still open, loving, hope-filled beings, I am filling their lives with meaningful, joyous rituals, and telling them about the promises God has made to us. It's an investment in their future, and creates a rich family bond in the meantime. Catholicism is more than our religion; it is our culture, too.
And so I have questions to pose to you, "Anonymous," and to the many other people who share your opinion that religious believers should not "indoctrinate" their children: Is my explanation adequate? Can you be respectful of the choice of intelligent, tolerant people to raise their children the way I am raising mine?