I'm surprised you don't understand why we close-minded religious folks did not go see this film. We understand the film was watered down nearly enough to appease us. We just have a hard time supporting a movie written by a man who kills God off in his story.

The movie was not written by Philip Pullman. The movie was adapted from his book and removed the religious elements. It is a response such as the one you give that bothers me. You didn't see the movie and yet you judge it.

I also don't believe anything should be watered down to appease any one group of people. That, to me, is censorship.

Let me try this again:

First of all, I understand that you are correct Pullman did not write the movie; rather, it is a movie based on his writings.

Secondly, my protest (along with those I know who protest the movie) is not based so much on the context of the movie. I understand as well as you the movie was "censored" to give greater appeal to religious families. I object to supporting Pullman at all, in any way, as author of "His Dark Materials." If he writes another trilogy that represents values I believe in, and a movie is made about it, I might go watch it.

Perhaps we are just different. Perhaps if some "Religous Right" author wrote a popular, award-winning trilogy where athiests and homosexuals were the enemy of mankind, and a 170 million dollar movie was made based on it (though watered down so that athiests and homosexuals would come see it), you would still go see it even if the book's subject angered you. But obviously I would not.

Exactly, I am open-minded to other people's beliefs and lifestyles even if it is not the same as mine. I also do my best not to judge something before learning more about it. I think our differences are what makes us interesting. If everyone was the same I think the world would be quite boring. As you say, we are different.

I actually just finished reading the second book in the trilogy and still fail to see what the big deal is. Perhaps the third book will shed some light on it, but I doubt it. Since you have read them perhaps you could assist.

We seem to have a couple of fundamental differences. First, you equate protest of this form to close-mindedness. And 2nd, before a person can protest a movie, they must first go see it; before someone protests a book, they must read it.

Again, we are different. I will not see movies that are rated nc-17 or x (and most r), for example, even though I personally haven't seen it myself to rate it as such. I did not go see the Da Vinci Code (though I did read the book) to protest Dan Brown's passing off as fact what was poor history and conspiracy theories.

In the case of Philip Pullman, I based my decision on what he has said about his own writings ("I'm trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief," and "My books are about killing God"), and based on reviews I deem reputable (for example, see http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/compass.asp).

I do not equate "Open-mindedness" with "Acceptance of another's beliefs and lifestyles until I understand everything about them". To me, "Open-mindedness" means "listening with the intent of understanding a person's ideas just as they understand them". This is what I try to do. My view of the Bible does not permit me to accept all beliefs and lifestyles until I fully understand them. I can still love and appreciate and have friendships with people who are, for example, athiests or muslim or have post-modern views, and I do, but I hope for their own good I can convince them to follow the Bible.

You just referenced a review in which the first sentence spells Chronicles as Chronical's, hardly a reputable source. Excuse me if I don't read the rest of it. Also, comparing a movie such as Golden Compass to NC-17 rated films is silly.

You also mention the Da Vinci Code (one of the worst books I ever stopped reading) and saying Dan Brown passes off fact. Never did Brown say his work was fact. Morons read it and thought it was true, that's not Brown's fault.

As far as the quotes you mention from Pullman, I have read those too. I have also read other interviews of his in an attempt to figure out more of his opinion and where he is coming from. His feelings interest me, and I wanted to learn more about how he turned them into a children's book series.

If you want even more of my opinion on the matter I dug deeply into it with this article.

Oh, and I am not going to challenge your opinion of the Bible, because I think portions of the Bible can be a good moral guide, but I don't think it has any place in this discussion.

They don't "kill off God" in the book. They kill an IMPOSTER God.

And really, they don't "kill" it/him. It was an accident. If you read the books, you'd understand.

The problem with religions (christianity and all its offshoots; Islam, etc.) is that they are man-made, and therefore nearly always advocate ignorance and/or intolerance. And that the men who make up these Guidelines for Controlling the Masses, as Robert Heinlein once noted,"…rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child."

BRAD: You're much more understanding of willful ignorance than I am.

Who would've thought that the 21st century would find Americans still clutching tight to centuries-old beliefs and an invisible god (or gods, depending on which church one follows), and whole-hearted accepting (nea, demanding) the mixing of religion with politics while denying obvious tenets of science such as evolution? Hey! Maybe Americans have more in common with Muslim nations than they realize.

@singingpunter: But, if you were to actually read the books, he does not kill off 'your' God. In the books, an imposter angel has taken over the Kingdom of Heaven and is calling himself God. He dies and the evil Metatron takes over the role of 'God'. He has to be killed or the world will be destroyed. This is book set in a parallel universe and is really nothing to do with 'our' world and 'your' God. Parts of it are set in our world, but not the parts do with God. All I'm saying is, 'tis a good idea to read or watch something before dismissing it, just in case you have been misinformed.