(1) Cheryl 1/23/2008 10:18:00 AM
Right On
Why put into your mind this type of garbage when there is so much evil going on into day's world. We should spend our time putting good things into our minds, and as parents and grandparents protect our children against this anti-G-d propaganda. It is okay to stand against what G-d hates, if you don't stand for something you will fall for anything.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my view. Stand firm Israel, we are praying for you here in America. We love you and support you always. My motto is Wherever I stand, I stand with Israel.


(2) POSSHIE 1/7/2008 9:46:00 PM
Oh Please
It's just a piece of art. It's just way you see it, whether it is harmful or merely playful. You don't have to be bother to boycott nor to be afraid of what your children will be in the future. You have something more important, right?


(3) Kate 1/6/2008 10:06:00 AM
Correction (this is all spoiler, sorry)
I want to make a correction to what Renee said. In the third book, the girl doesn't kill "G-d." I don't know if this will help or hinder your argument but it is first established that the entity who had been worshiped as G-d was only the first angel to independently come into creation. This is why he is shown as decrepit and evil... he's a fake. He lies to all the beings that come into creation afterward and says he created them. And part of the story is that he is found out because he starts making mistakes and acting like a tyrant. I can't imagine a Jewish child is going to associate an evil old angel flying around in an armored cloud to the G-d of Judaism and to say so doesn't give your children much credit. Judaism has a beautiful history of questioning and finding proof after proof to uphold belief in the divine. This book answers the question, what if the questioning had revealed a different answer? What if there wasn't a G-d? And the response is that the world is a scary and dangerous place. It's an amazing book and one that you can put down with a sigh of relief and even more appreciation for our loving G-d.

(4) Anonymous 12/27/2007 11:59:00 AM
Missing the Point
You're all thinking as single adults, and not as parents. This book, and its associated trilogy, are designed, not as a message, but as an indoctrination of children into atheism. The boycott is not to harm the author, but to protect the children.

It makes me sad to see Christians (Catholics in particular) attacked so much here. All the true Christians I know love the people Israel, support them, and have sympathy for their plight.



(5) Anonymous 12/27/2007 5:08:00 AM
How big a bestseller
I can assure you the Pullman books are NOT more popular in the UK than JK Rowling's Harry Potter books.


(6) Renee 12/21/2007 5:58:00 PM
Jews should not see this film
I am stunned that anyone claiming to have read the entire series (and claiming to be an orthodox Jew) does not feel that there is anything wrong with them. I read the first book and absolutely loved it. I read the third book and wished I hadn't. The writing was superb (after reading the first I told everyone I knew that I had discovered the greatest fantasy writer of our time--perhaps of all time). That was before the story had revealed what the book was really about.

SPOILER ALERT!!

The hard facts are that when you get t the end of the series you realize that this book is not a critique of the church--it is an all out attack on the G-d of Judaism! Pullman's writings make it clear the the biggest crime of the Catholic Church is that they promote the worship of the G-d of the Torah. The third book comes to a climax when the child, who represents second coming of Eve, kills G-d (with a subtle knife, hence the title). There is not even an all out battle to kill G-d--in Pullman's universe, the G-d who created the garden of Eden and put people in it is weak and withered and probably better off dead, anyway.

The series is disgusting. I wish I had never purchased the books. Please, don't repeat my mistake. Don't give this man a dime.


(7) Bernard Sarachek 12/19/2007 8:53:00 PM

There is a fundamental difference between a sado-machochistic movie like Gibson's PASSION which ultimately shows the Hebrew religion in what only can be considered as total condemnation, and a movie that encourages people to think in the broadest ways about the good and bad, the morally right and wrong of all religion.If the Catholic church had wished to present Jesus as more than a masochist, and if that church had been willing to respect other religions, PASSION would have been the movie boycotted, not the GOLDEN COMPASS


(8) Anonymous 12/19/2007 2:26:00 PM
Such nastiness is unbecoming
If all you hold is hate for the descendants of your one-time persecutors, then they will be your enemies, and their descendants, and so on. As you are not responsible for the misdeeds of your fore bearers neither are they and one should not seek to foment hate and anger first.

Now then, that aside, the Catholics have every right to be ticked. If a former Jew who walked off to atheism decided to write a big popular fiction series full of magic and idolatry, and called the enemy Sanhedrin, you'd be screaming bloody murder and rightfully so.

Instead, people are worried about how silly they look thanks to a TV company commercial rather than how the secular world harbors people angry and hateful to religion, and we miss a chance to find out what drives them, and therefore we miss a chance to take the wind out of their sails before they create divisive nonsense like The Golden Compass.


(9) Elonna 12/18/2007 5:28:00 PM
No pity for Catholic church
I don't have an ounce of sympathy for the poor, poor Catholic Church or any other xtian church whining about how unfair a movie/book portrays them. They've got enough blood on their hands from the beginning to the present. I'm sure they long for the good old days, when they could just burn anyone alive at the stake. Now all they can do is whine. Poor, poor babies.


(10) Leonard 12/18/2007 1:26:00 PM
Is the knowledge of evil, good?

Are we to say that whatever the Catholic's reject, we except? Is that really our knee-jerk stance? While I certainly disagree with the Catholic dogma, and all of the harm it has endorsed or allowed throughout history. Surely you don't endorse the book/film simply because it seems to attack the Catholic faith more then any other faith?

The author, book, and film are about rejecting G-d. Are you saying that is ok, so long as the focus is the Catholic faith? Is it ok to reject G-d so long as it harms the Christians more then it harms us? Should I tell my daughter that it is good for her to have knowledge of evil? I might as well tell her the world is going to hell, so let's join in. You paraphrase Maimonides to make his words imply that we should question all authority; as if truth were some sort of Greek philosophical conclusion. G-d's truth is truth regardless of your "questioning or doubt." If I were to follow your suggestions I would tell my daughter to experience sin so that she might understand "true faith." When did we become so hateful of the Catholic's (or Christian's) that we would endorse rejection of G-d?

The Golden Compass is about rejecting G-d pure and simple! I will not allow you, or anyone else to make that seem ok to my family. "Or, if you are loath to serve the L-rd, choose this day which ones you are going to serve -- the gods that your forefathers served beyond the Euphrates, or those of the Amorites in whose land you are settled; but I and my household will serve the L-rd."



(11) Marc Milton-Talbot 12/18/2007 2:49:00 AM
They're still at it!
There goes the Roman Catholic church again:trying to control how people think.Thank goodness these former mass persecutors of free thought can't get away with murdering their critics [Jews included,remember]anymore like in olden times.I haven't seen the movie yet,but I won't be told what movies I should see or not see by them or anyone else.They should clean up their own act[paedophile priests etc]before they start pontificating on other issues.


(12) Anonymous 12/18/2007 1:32:00 AM
WHAT ABOUT THE 'COMEDY', juno??
WHAT ABOUT THE 'COMEDY', juno??


(13) Peter Wolf 12/17/2007 6:01:00 PM
Talk straight, and keep your side of the street clean
I have a psychology background. I am going to speak a generality, and there are always exceptions to everything. That said, one of the things we know about the subconscious is that - whether positive or negative - the subconscious of modern western human beings will focus directly on the center of the target; in other words, it is very simply literal.

It is why repetitive advertising, political spin and repetitive news messages, and even effects like what we got with nazi propaganda campaigns can have such profound effect on a population.

It is also why making a change in, say, diet or exercise, works eventually if you stay on it as a mission for about a month before it gets going on it's own steam as a new habit. Back to the subconscious: In hypnosis, for
example, you'd never tell a client to "kill the light when you leave please", because he our she might literally do that upon leaving the room without any censorship or second thought. The subconscious does not make distinctions. It is, shall I say, very simple and immediate.

So what's the point? The point is that, to boycott, unless it is only the beginning of a VERY big and continued endeavor that will have to be a group's real mission to stay on it for something big enough to drop out some of daily life and persue it...For this, even bad press is good press'. It serves to turn up the volume specifically on the focus of the target item itself; in this case, the movie.

Here's an example of how the subconscious focus works. I'm 51. I've been scuba diving since I was 15, and I still remember this, because of the seeming power it had over me. One morning, I was going to go diving with a buddy, down on a nearby reef, about 50 foot depth, and a familiar place to us. My mom awoke when I went to say goodbye, and said she'd had a premonition, and would I please not go. Well, I went, because my folks didn't like me diving. It was more strongly communicated, but also kind of crying wolf (Sometimes at dinner, my dad would name a big number and offer to buy my gear from me). But they were understanding that I was a young buck with a passion for which I thank them.

But in that day, especially intending to stay safe, even as I said to myself, "ok, pay attention, be safe, etc., - remaining safe, as my *conscious* mind and surroundings seemed to be cooperating about -was not what really held the focus. Some part of me, beneath my conscious navigation, air and situation checks, was so absolutely clear that I was going to die before that dive was over, that I nearly got myself knocked out on the underside of a familiar 45 foot rock face overhang that I had been been by numerous times before. There was some kind of distraction in my attention that 'took me from behind'. Although I wanted to enact a positive action, the subconscious negative message held enough power to undermine my operational awareness - and actually split my focus enough to make it dangerous. Now, whose mom wouldn't worry about her son. I love and respect her and this is not to trash her. It's just an example of how a communication that can (through such an open channel as a mom's care for the survival of her son) in that particular context, be one of those subconscious messages that can come true if you don't *really* work hard to keep it in check. The subconscious isn't rational, and you cannot talk rationally to it. Well, you can, but it does not process that way. It deals in emotions and symbols. So put "I'm afraid you might die" in there, and the image is "dead diver". Talk all you want.

So back to the boycott thing. I know an old monk, who once said to me, "no matter what others do, always sweep your side of the street clean". That does not mean keep you mouth shut and be complacent, or not be a healthy warrior if necessary. To me it means be as impeccable as possible, and directly address the issue both rationally and emotionally, with full being, to help others be aware of the reality of things.

To just boycott, or boycott at all, will just empower it further - subconsciously for others - by creating an additional story on CNN about how "hey look, this movie must really have *something*, because everyone's all abuzz...even this bunch of Jews. Subconsciously, it only makes it stronger. Hey, those who are going, are going to go anyway. Let's handle it more intelligently with any individuals we might meet who might be interested in it, where we actually can have an effect, which might be more positive. And for me? Before I do, what do I know about the history, or about organizations to which individuals submit or go along? I need to be clear myself before convincing someone else. Or am I talking from a knee jerk reactive place that isn't well grounded in history and fact?


(14) Michael Oberndorf 12/17/2007 10:15:00 AM
Boycotts work
I don't need a formal boycott to avoid giving my money to people whose ideas are offensive to me. I have no intention of putting money in the already over-stuffed bank accounts of leftwing, antireligious "artists." I do not advocate denying them their right to say whatever obnoxious or idiotic thngs they want, but I sure don't have go read, view, or listen to the garbage they spew. And if their "work" does not make money, it is less likely that they will be able to find venues for more of it.


(15) Athena 12/16/2007 7:01:00 PM
read the book haven't seen the movie
As a Christian who very much values this Aish site, I appreciated Rabbi Blech's comments on the movie. I will probably rent it on Netflix when it becomes available. I thought he had excellent points. I don't think boycotting works, though I did refuse to attend "The Passion," primarily for the violence, which I did not want indelibly placed in my mind's eye. I can still, many years later, visualize scenes from "The Winds of War," which, though excellent, was deeply upsetting.

I think I am troubled that many people aren't willing to let fiction and fantasy be simply that: fiction and fantasy. Certainly these can echo truth yet they are only one person's opinions. If they lead to discussion, that can be useful. I found myself amazed at how many people vilified "DaVinci Code," for example, and how many books it has spawned. To me it was and remains a lively interesting read. Yes, it has posed questions but has not shaken my own faith.

As a sci fi/fantasy fan since childhood I enjoy such books and movies for their entertainment and sometimes educational value, and, yes, spiritual, on many occasions. Yet I know that G-d is so much bigger and more incomprehensible than anyone can possibly imagine, that there is no real danger, unless people want to make them dangerous, in these books and movies, to proving religion or G-d false or limited or whatever else. The responsibility lies with the reader and the viewer, in my opinion.

I also agree that such movies and books can provide an opportunity to be clear about one's own faith with others, should the opportunity arise.


(16) Anonymous 12/16/2007 6:36:00 PM
Nice to see a Rabbi who thinks questions are good
I have been very disillusioned by Orthodox educational institutions in my city, which tend to discourage questioning. I am aware of "black hat" institutions that do not admit chilren from homes with internet access! So it is refreshing to see that R. Blech believes we should question; indeed, it's what's drawn me to an observant Jewish life. Unfortunately, my adolescent children are getting the opposite message from our educational institutions.


(17) Manasseh 12/16/2007 4:11:00 PM
Does a little poison hurt?
How about a little malice to day on my neighbor, it is just a harmless little malice directed at their children!
All I can say is today is my neighbor but who is next?


(18) Janice Zuliani 12/16/2007 1:57:00 PM
Questioning is good.
I grew up Catholic but began to read my Bible. It is because I began to question what I was taught that I left and now follow TORAH.
Will I see this movie, I am not sure, but I do thing that there are very many people who SHOULD question why they believe what they do especially those who do violence. JZ


(19) Ari Yosef 12/16/2007 12:15:00 PM
Control, Repression vs Freedom?

From all the reviews and comments, it appears a "must see" movie, both for action and political / spiritual impact.

One issue comes clear from the commentaries. That's the idea of freedom and opposition to "control" oft times found in "religion" but most especially in "Organized" religion. Suddenly upon writing that, it reminds of the phrase "organized crime" and causes questions, is "random freedom" less offensive than "Organized control?"

Anarchy and rebellion as an extreme worst case pure spiritual essence these concepts equal narcissism. But not all rebellion is rooted in selfishness.

Some is righteous indignation. As we look at the causes of poverty, and despair for the reasons for social aggression and violence... So also might we consider Philip Pullman's avowed motivation.

He expresses a frustration that is rather"Jewish" in our historical context. Though they don't seem to understand, he even sides with the Christian Messiah who challenged secular or political priorities of the priesthood in his day. 40 years after, the Creator Himself destroyed the temple for Torah unfaithfulness. Perhaps today the "secular" view of protesting "organized religion" is itself poetic and worthy of many questions.

Even the Christian "Savior" exemplified and taught "freedom" and was found "rebellious." Funny how much more the "Christan" faiths now seem to have reversed his ideas in favor of "control" in the name of a man made "spiritual authority." This is true not only of Catholicism but also Protestant, Mormons and Charismatic. How little difference is the Judeo-Christian spectrum, except the degree of violence. In some respects, only that separates us from what we decry in Islam, Hindus, and Buddhists who (out of fear) resort to violent repression of dissent.

Fear of error it must be, for what else could motivate such violence than the specter of one's "religious" "Life Lie" to be challenged.

Though less violent, at this moment in history, do Christians and Jews also need the heaven sent mirror of such "anti – religious' writing, to cause us to sincerely ask questions and examine our own selves, just as critically as we do others less civilized who may only be more spiritually zealous?

If our own views or behavior stifle freedom and truth from free flow of ideas, how much less understanding shall be those who may understand even less of their own spiritual basis (or lack thereof)?

This especially concerns me in Eretz Y'srael, where secular oppression reigns. Minority views of the truly spiritually observant often find less freedom, than in much of the West. In The Land, the most zealous and reverent of G-d seem to be deemed so far less than politically correct. There the bravest of pioneers, who settle and tame the wilderness, are considered, expendable to the cause of "political correctness."

Ari Yosef



(20) Frances 12/16/2007 12:02:00 PM
It is a movie
My faith is very strong and important to me.I have not yet seen the movie but I am positive that it cannot change my beliefs. The special-effects are supposed to be great and for this reason I would like to see the movie. I can understand parents being concerned about their children seeing this film and their should be dialog at home about religion but people should be free to see the film.


(21) Anonymous 12/16/2007 10:46:00 AM
religion is actually quite minor throughout the book
After watching this film and hearing the religious controversy, I was curious to read the book(s). Having finished the first volume, I believe that this is not a religious book or necessarily about religion at all. In the book, "bad" individuals include a college master (not part of the church), who tries to poison someone, and a lord (not working with the magisterium) who murders a child in order to achieve an objective. In the film, it seems that there is an oversimplification to focus wrongdoing on religion, when in the book it is individuals who committ wrongdoing. I'd suggest that making religion the issue might get the movie attention, but that doesn't appear to have been an intent of the author. And yes, I consider myself a religious Jew.


(22) raye 12/16/2007 10:15:00 AM
I agree with Belle
I read the book and don't know what the whole brouhaha is about. I hope the movie doesn't disappoint when I get around to seeing it. In fact, I read the trilogy twice, once in the States and I bought the set here to read. I'm tempted to reveal the "punch line" in the third book. Finally, as an Orthodox Jew, I found nothing offensive about this wellwritten series.


(23) Anonymous 12/16/2007 10:06:00 AM
Catholics Object to the Truth
In my opinion the Catholic League is objecting to this largely because it contains truth within fiction. Not the atheistic truth but the fact remains that the Church still does have a Magisterium. If I am not mistaken this was once the organization that tortured and killed Jews and Muslims in the Inquisition.

But I imagine most small children will simply watch it as an adventure movie and nothing more. I watched The Wizard of Oz every year of my childhood and didn't grow up to become a witch or wizard. Well, maybe a "witch" on some days :)


(24) Rosemarie 12/16/2007 10:01:00 AM
So right
It is always good to "know thine enemy.
RP


(25) RBLevin 12/16/2007 9:55:00 AM
Clearly anti-Catholic
I'm Jewish. My family is Jewish. My wife is Jewish. My kids are Jewish. I was minimally aware of the film's controversy when we took our 3 kids to see it (after they were intrigued by trailers weeks before).

I feel the film is blatantly anti-Catholic. The metaphors couldn't be more obvious. If New Line scrubbed the anti-Vatican references before release, I can only imagine how bigoted the earlier cuts must have been.

As a Jew, as a person who has personally experienced anti-Semitism, as one who has fought and will always fight intolerance, and as a parent who teaches his children to respect other faiths and cultures, I was troubled by the film's underlying messages -- in the same way I was troubled by the messages woven into Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ.

This film is more than a child's fantasy/adventure. It's a propaganda vehicle for anti-Catholic views, and an insidious one at that (insidious because it targets children). If the call to boycott did nothing more than raise awareness of the film's agenda, then it was worthwhile, and certainly not an admission of failure. It's a p.r. tactic, and one that clearly worked.

For what it's worth, I thought the film was poorly written and acted. The characters had no depth, and the abrupt ending was an obvious setup for a sequel – one which my family will not be seeing.


(26) Maurice Roumani 12/16/2007 9:54:00 AM
Fully concur with the Rabbi
I saw the film yesterday and it was a waste of time. The effects that it created are impressive but nothing else beyond that. Agree that I could have spent my time more productively.


(27) ruth housman 12/16/2007 9:29:00 AM
compass, encompass and compass ion
I haven't yet seen this movie or read the book but I have heard some very positive things about it and also about the controversy. I will, of course, make up my own mind. I don't like it when people try to decide for me and since for me All Is God, I then do take it, this book came out for a profound reason. Certainly there is truth in the assumptions listed above. Religions have acted in the name of truth, in the name of God, to promulgate their special version of the truth, and it is often about war and bloodshed in the process. We do know this historically and what's ongoing, even after all this history, is an abysmal record. Look at the Taliban in Afghanistan. You are right that banning books is a bad idea. We've been in that place as Jews and we know how it feels to have sacred texts hit that funeral pyre. It's wrong. Maybe we should examine some of the basic ideas for clarity, because surely within all this, there is some truth we can all point to. Now I take issue with this end statement and maybe the author did not intend this reading, but it makes "our" religion special and this is what's wrong with this article though there is much that is right and well written.

We could accomplish a lot more if we took the time to explain why our faith is so far superior.




(28) Joey 12/16/2007 9:17:00 AM

To begin, I have neither read the book nor seen the movie (I may get around to the former, though---I'm a big fantasy fan and, strident atheism aside, I hear they are very good). My main contention with Rabbi Blech, however, is that this is a movie marketed mainly towards children, and children are not always as capable of dealing with attacks on their beliefs as adults. I can totally understand, then, why a Catholic parent trying to teach them that the Church is good would be reluctant to take them to see a movie with priests performing evil experiments on children. For one more spiritually mature, however, Rabbi Blech's point is more valid.

God bless.


(29) Belle 12/16/2007 8:55:00 AM
liked the books, so-so on the movie
I have read a lot of Phillip Pullman's work, including "His Dark Materials" I think it is a more complex and fully realized fictional universe than Harry Potter. Pullman has a lot of good questions in his work , which is directed to an older YA audience. He also has a lot of good attibutes for his protagonists, many of these attributes are not echoed in the more popular YA books. His heroes are moral people, they defend each other, they seek the truth, they look to justice, they do not discriminate invidiously as to inborn traits. There is a "god" who is defeated in this series and an "afterlife' which is supplanted (ok - that was a spoiler) but what kind of "god" and what kind of "afterlife" . A not-too -intense reading will reveal an "Authority" and an afterlife which is more patterned after the Roman/Greco ideals than what we think about as to those issues as Jews. that is where reading these books can be so valuable for the involved parent. Why is free will so important? What about authority - can it be challenged? What is morality? This series have a number of historical and literary antecedents and those could also be explored. Plus it is a rip roaring, heart-in-the-mouth adventure. BTW, I light Shabbat candles weekly, have taught religious school, observe kashrut, and have reared my husband's and my children to do the same.


(30) Yaakov 12/16/2007 8:35:00 AM
My view of the books
I read the books a while ago and reread them when I started being dedicated to Judaism. My opinion of them was that they spoof the catholic version of religion and the catholic church itself. The negative attitudes the author raises are entirely directed at the oppressive doctrines of the church and it's very childish view of G-d (especially that god has physical form and that god has actual, literal emotional involvement in the world). While I found it a little off-putting, the book series really didnt rub up against the Jewish view of religion or G-d.


(31) Anonymous 12/16/2007 8:29:00 AM
The World without a Conscience
To me this movie is spectacle of the age old Chanukah story. Take away G-d, but to do this you must take away Torah. Shlomo said: There is nothing new under the sun. The Jewish people who carry the Torah throughout the years, have again and again been the venomous hatred of a world who hates conscience. If the sublimal message in this movie is to do away with G-d (G-d forbid) then this movie could be a frog in the frying pan method of indoctrinating our children into a G-d hating, Torah hating , Jew hating society...did not propaganda stir up hatred in Gemany many years ago??? and it was all accomplished by NO CONSCIENCE, which is really the point of trying to do away with G-d.


(32) marie levy 12/16/2007 8:19:00 AM

well said..but then again...would you expect less from a "yiddishah cup"???