I am quoting from an email I just received:
This is an FYI that a terrible, anti-Catholic (anti-Christian) movie called The Golden Compass will be coming out in early December and is aimed at children and labeled as a family movie. This movie is based on a series of books by an atheist British author Phillip Pullman whose stated goal in writing the books is to be the “Anti-Narnia” series and to lead children into atheism.
The main villains in the series of books are the Magisterium, Cardinals, and the Pope and includes a heroine that is a young girl who sets out to kill God. The truly sick thing about the movie is that they have made it APPEAR as if it is an innocent film with exciting effects and a fairytale story. They have removed from the movie the appalling anti-Catholic/Christian themes from the book.
The goal of the movie is to hook unsuspecting families into viewing the film, so that children will then want to read the books (and probably buy merchandise). Nicole Kidman stars in it, and Scholastic Books is behind it.
I heard about this from Bill Donahue of the Catholic League who was on “The World Over” on EWTN. The goal is to let as many people as possible know about this horrible film and to have it bomb at the box office. The makers of the movie are hoping it will be as big as Harry Potter or the DaVinci Code. Let’s pray that it won’t!
Empahsis mine.
Not an urban legend, check the Snopes reference.
Pullman has been described by British writer Peter Hitchens as “the writer aethists would have been praying for, if aethists prayed.” Unless you want to contribute to the liberal anti-Christian and anti-moral indoctrination of children this sounds like a very good movie to totally ignore. It certainly wouldn’t hurt to let Scholastic Books‘ Investor Relations know you won’t be spending your money on their products or ask their Media Relations office if there is a probable monetary down side to the company’s role in promoting anti-Christian propaganda.
Hollywood and the Public Education parasites’ motto: we always insult our hosts and bite the hand that feeds us.
Balance Sheet 
Oh my gosh, this is hideous.
Get ready for a Deb-o-lanche. (1 or 2 extra hits).
By: nicedeb on October 27, 2007
at 14:52
Thanks Deb. I’ll alert the folks who man the servers.
By: cranky on October 27, 2007
at 14:57
[…] Take Your Kids To This Movie October 27th, 2007 — nicedeb What is Nicole Kidman thinking? Doesn’t she do any research about a project before she agrees to be a part of it? Is she a […]
By: Don’t Take Your Kids To This Movie « Nice Deb on October 27, 2007
at 15:20
The buzz on this flick is really bad, aside from the controversial stuff, not to mention, Nicole Kidman hasn’t delivered an audience to theatre seats in about 15 years.
I think it’ll bomb.
By: bmac on October 27, 2007
at 15:44
Thanks Deb. I’ll alert the folks who man the servers.
If you read that line while looking at your avatar, it’s absolutely perfect.
By: nicedeb on October 27, 2007
at 15:57
Deb, kind of all accountant G-man wannabe like? Mr. Drysdale’s competent underling?
bmac, I love it when Hollywood lectures us while losing big bucks. Poetic justice. Keep insulting your customers Hollywood, it will do wonders for your income statements.
Kidman did some good naked, I’ll give her that.
By: cranky on October 27, 2007
at 17:11
Do you think she knew what she was getting into, here?
When the word gets out, and believe me….it’s gonna get out, families are going to stay home in droves.
By: nicedeb on October 27, 2007
at 19:15
I would guess that someone must have given her a backgrounder on the writer and his series when she was given the script.
My gut feeling is that these “artistes’ egos” have a component that needs to be confrontational for the sake of being confrontational because so many of them could not face, or win, a confrontation based on an intellectual disagreement or one that was a physical confrontation (IOW, an ass kicking). Being confrontational on film is a no risk proposition to them — they get paid up front — and any backlash is typically a few years after they did the work. Then they are congratulated by their pathetic peers for being courageous.
They need to be shunned, sent into a metaphorical wilderness. I refuse to patronize these idiots with my dollars.
By: cranky on October 27, 2007
at 19:42
Thanks for the heads up! (((((HUGS))))) sandi
By: titus2woman on October 28, 2007
at 02:23
I’m not familiar with this work, but I wonder what it is premised on. After all, there is no atheism without theism. I guess it is possible to set up a whole lot of doubts in a child or adult mind about God, but maybe the challenge is to improve the education of children in matters of the spirit.
By: owen59 on October 28, 2007
at 05:56
I think it’s fair to say that Hollywood is a giant circle jerk, where all the clever people make movies they know their friends in the business will like. They are also under the delusion that the rest of America thinks as they do, yet box office receipts often tell a different story.
“Passion Of The Christ” was panned by many ‘critics’ and virtually ignored by the MPAAS, yet is one of the biggest money making films in years.
You would think that as a pure business decision, Hollywood would make movies that ‘put butts in the seats’, as the saying goes. But they seem more interested in pandering to their own little closed-off worldview than anything else.
You all need to get “Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo” and “High Noon” and other such heroic movies on DVD- because these types of films will NEVER be made again.
By: Barry in CO on October 28, 2007
at 05:56
See the movie before you judge it.
A lot of writers hype themselves to the crowd they’re aiming for, people who don’t believe in god do a lot of the fiction reading. As for me, I’ll see it…
Then again I’m liberated, and I know it’ll be a good flick.
Then again I’m a crazy left wing artist.
You’re just compelling more people to go see it…
By: batling on October 28, 2007
at 06:40
batling, the heroine is a little girl the author sends off to kill God. Perhaps a better admonition would be to have a clue before you take children to see the movie. Are you so liberated as to support the author’s views on female circumcision?
I think the only people who will be compelled by this controversy to see the movie will be the crazy left wing artist types. Think there are enough of you for the movie to break even? 😛
If this were a movie about a thinly veiled Mohammed, would your attitude be the same?
By: cranky on October 28, 2007
at 07:37
See the movie before you judge it.
Uhhh, no.
Our point is to make sure as many unsuspecting people as possible don’t see the movie, because there’s a blatant anti-Christian agenda behind it.
By: nicedeb on October 28, 2007
at 10:06
Hot damn. I wasn’t going to go see this movie because I was going to discount it as another children’s movie that I couldn’t give any less of a care about, like the Polar Express or Narnia.
But, in light of this new information, I’m stoked. I think that people should be able to take potshots at religion because if people of a religion can’t take take some flack, that says something. Christians have been persecuted, Wiccans have been persecuted, Jews have been pesecuted, every religion has been seriously persecuted at some point in time or another.
Really, it’s sad. Kind of like the hullabaloo that surrounded Dogma’s release. I don’t know, I really think a lot of this is getting blown out of proportion.
So what if she’s “out to kill GOD!” I really don’t care. It’s fiction, it’s not like little Sally down the street is going to go see this movie, pick up a gun and go out to hunt god down in his den. I mean seriously, as Christian as Narnia was it hasn’t filled the churches with starry-eyed children.
Remember kids: the bible is a book, just like any other.
By: vaguarity on October 28, 2007
at 13:27
It looks like The Golden Compass is going to have a lock on the militant atheist crowd. ^^^ Woo hoo.
By: nicedeb on October 28, 2007
at 13:54
So vaguarity, you’re talking the talk so how about walking the walk? When are you taking your show to Mecca? Or Islamabad? Of Qom?
By: cranky on October 28, 2007
at 15:04
^^^Deb, I guess the movie will be preaching to the choir.
😛
By: cranky on October 28, 2007
at 15:05
You fund the trip cranky, I’ll carry the message.
Also, just a thought, it could just as easily be a veiled allegory for other things, like corrupt government and its figurehead.
Don’t always take the author at face value.
*my karma ran over your dogma*
By: vaguarity on October 28, 2007
at 15:32
vaguarity volunteers to tell Muslims their prophet was a pedophile. I wonder how long you’d retain your head if you did tell Muslims that in person in, let’s say, Peshawar or even Detroit.
That would be worth taking up a collection for your one-way ticket.
By: cranky on October 28, 2007
at 16:52
Don’t go putting words in my mouth cranky. Just because I can take an objective stance on something that turns people into raving crackpots, doesn’t mean I have no tact.
I’m just willing to say that all religions are relatively the same on the key points, being:
Don’t kill people.
Don’t steal.
Be good to people.
Don’t be a jackass.
But, apparently these things only apply to members of their own faith.
*my karma ran over your dogma*
By: vaguarity on October 28, 2007
at 17:51
I agree with your citation of religions’ key tenets. Sadly, Islam has become dominated by people who believe it is appropriate to kill everyone who isn’t a member of their faith. One major difference between the Judeo-Christian dogma and Islam is that Islam views those of other faiths as subhumans, and at best second class citizens.
Mohammed had a six-year old bride. Sounds like pedophilia based on our understanding of the term today. How are you going to tactfully make that assertion? “He liked ’em young, real young?”
By: cranky on October 28, 2007
at 18:51
Also, just a thought, it could just as easily be a veiled allegory for other things, like corrupt government and its figurehead.
Don’t always take the author at face value.
The author is an avowed atheist who said himself in a 2003 interview, “my books are about killing God”.
Ummm, I think we can take him a face value, here.
By: nicedeb on October 28, 2007
at 19:37
Okay so wait…
Christians boycott Harry Potter because it puts Wicca and pagan religions in a good light.
And Christians Boycott this movie because it puts Christianity in a bad light.
But NArnia was okay?
Seems a little one sided. I read the book, and I can tell you that a kid going to see this movie with their parents won’t get any of the symbolism that’s anti-Christian. Also, any kid who reads the book later in life and understand the anti-Christian undertones, would have already made their religious choices and be of an age where mommy and daddy can’t do anything about that. The stuff is way over a kid’s head. Its more of a movie for kids to watch and enjoy, and as they grow older, draw their own conclusions about.
Was it OK for Narnia to draw children towards Christianity? Then why isn’t it okay for HP to draw kids towards Wicca or The Golden Compass to draw kids towards Athiesm?
Just wanting a fair and just world here.
By: Aourai on October 29, 2007
at 00:18
“The author is an avowed atheist who said himself in a 2003 interview, “my books are about killing God”.
Ummm, I think we can take him a face value, here.”
….Okay…
Hunter S. Thompson was quoted in an interview during the 70’s saying “I’m the King of France.” Was he? Not even for a second.
Hell, I once said “I’m a talking doll, from Mars” I can assure Earth is home and I am quite human.
Fiction authors often lie it’s their job. And the American public loves bold colors and flashy statements. Look at the WWE.
Also if Pullman truly IS an atheist there would no God to kill…
So, his publicist is sloppy in their research.
And Mr.Cranky, I only hope the discourse we have shared has opened your mind a little further and you will go see the movie and make your own choices.
I also hope I can help you to be a better gonzo journalist. If you have any question sex or otherwise you know how to reach me.
Be well,
Lo
By: batling on October 29, 2007
at 00:53
[…] she did link to my Anti-Catholic Anti-Christian Nicole Kidman movie post and then warned me about the Deb-lanche to […]
By: NiceDeb Melted the Servers « Balance Sheet on October 29, 2007
at 07:01
Hell, I once said “I’m a talking doll, from Mars” I can assure Earth is home and I am quite human.
This is all so confusing – now I don’t know what to believe.
Of course batling’s semantic claptrap may be partially to blame.
By: geoff on October 29, 2007
at 12:30
batling……um….dude’s an atheist, ‘kay…it’s all very well documented.
He wrote a series of fantasy books in which the author himself, and everyone who’s written about the book says, God is killed.
Will you please do a little research before you engage us, for crying out loud?
And no, we won’t be watching the film because we have no interest in supporting a stealth, pernicious effort like this.
I think I’m safe in speaking for the Crankster, here, when I say “we”.
By: nicedeb on October 29, 2007
at 13:52
This thread is full of all kinds of juiciness.
Tickled me that Cranky must have sexual questions, being as he’s Christian and obviously incapable of fulfilling his desires.
Then again, he’s my favorite perv and I think he could be the teacher in any relationship.
By: PattyAnn on October 29, 2007
at 19:34
PA, all that time stationed in Europe was just on-the-job training for perversion. Batling is honest about what she is into. The Christian part of me wishes a good and moral life for her filled with joy. The perv part of me, goes hmmmmm, that sounds interesting.
😛
By: cranky on October 29, 2007
at 20:05
I don’t get it, isn’t Nicole a staunch Catholic?
By: Confused on November 27, 2007
at 08:20
I didn’t know that but I Googled it and apparently she was at least raised Catholic. Did she remarry in the Church following her divorce? I don’t remember anything about an annulment.
By: cranky on November 28, 2007
at 17:33
In response to Confused #31, Nicole stated in the Nov or Dec issue of Interview magazine that she IS NOT a practicing Catholic. The annulment story came from tabloids. Who knows if its true. Her marriage to Cruise was a Scientology ceremony.
By: Megan on November 28, 2007
at 20:04
I’d have to pull out my Catechism, but my memory is that Catholics who divorce may not remarry without it being considered adultery. I doubt, but do not know, that the setting in which the marriage sacrament first took place would allow for a divorce and remarriage.
Practising Catholic or not, in the eyes of the church she cannot remarry following a divorce. She’d have to be get an annulment in order to remarry in the Church and to be able to receive sacraments. I’m not judging her one way or the other.
By: cranky on November 28, 2007
at 21:16
[…] story came from tabloids. Who knows if its true. Her marriage to Cruise was a Scientology … balancesheet.wordpress.com/2007/10/27/anti-catholic-anti-christian-nicole-kidman-movie/#comment-505 Comments for Balance Sheet balancesheet.wordpress.com No Comments so far Leave a comment […]
By: Kaser’s STAR PULSAR on November 29, 2007
at 18:20
I sincerely hope this movie succeeds, along with its planned sequels. The books were excellent, and I regret that Hollywood feels the need to edit the content just to make it sit right with a single religious group. If Christians have a problem with this film, they shouldn’t see it. However, they shouldn’t try to get it banned or keep other people from seeing it just because it contains anti-religious themes. I am excited to hear that the second and third films will remain much more faithful to the source material if and when they are produced.
One gripe I have is the bit about God being killed. So many reviews say that the story centers on a girl who sets out on a mission to kill God. This is not so. She is out to save her friends and her world, knowing nothing about the bit about killing “God”. That part is a side plot until near the end of the final book. And even then, it isn’t given very much attention, and the scenes involving it are very short, rushed, and rather anti-climactic. The main thrust of the story is friendship, honesty, and love. Saying ‘His Dark Materials’ is entirely about killing God is rather glib (even on the part of Pullman himself). It would be akin to saying the Bible is all about killing disobedient children: sure, that stuff is in there, but it really isn’t the main focus.
It’s also a bit hypocritical, don’t you think, that Christians are up in arms about this movie, boycotting and moving for bans left and right, but when ‘Narnia’ was released, they encouraged everyone to go see it. Basically the message being sent there is, “decidedly Christian media is acceptable entertainment for our nation, but everything else should be disallowed because it doesn’t line up with our belief system.” Ludicrous.
By: Reynvaan on November 30, 2007
at 22:31
[…] feels the need to edit the content just to make it sit right with a single religious group. … balancesheet.wordpress.com/2007/10/27/anti-catholic-anti-christian-nicole-kidman-movie/#comment-517 Comments for Balance Sheet balancesheet.wordpress.com No Comments so far Leave a comment […]
By: Kaser’s STAR PULSAR on November 30, 2007
at 23:28
Who exactly is agitating to have the movie banned so that you might not be allowed to see it? Your argument that those opposed to the movie should just not go see it rather than attempting to have it banned is exactly what is actually advocated — except for that pesky banned part you want to bring up because I just don’t see that being advocated. This isn’t Islam afterall.
So please tell me what group is seeking to have the government ban showings of this movie.
Thanks.
By: cranky on December 1, 2007
at 08:17
Hello All.
I the new user.
If it is interesting to you,scandal story
http://juliarobertsnude.blogspot.com
By: SepeteksDot on July 21, 2010
at 06:31