"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

However, you are fixated upon the Washington Post and
NY Times. Very well. After I post this, I'll expect an apology for
your false charges. If I don't get it, you won't EVER hear from me
again, no matter how often you post to my threads.

Wastington Post attacks on the religious nature of Narnia...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/07/AR2005120702613.html

"A timeless fantasy about talking beavers, friendly fauns and a
mystical lion named Aslan? Or insidious militaristic propaganda
cunningly used to inoculate innocents with rigid Christian dogma penned
by a pervy pipe-puffing Oxford prig who actually didn't very much like
little children and might have slept with a woman old enough to be his
mother? "

Did you read the article? That was not an attack.

"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

However, you are fixated upon the Washington Post and
NY Times. Very well. After I post this, I'll expect an apology for
your false charges. If I don't get it, you won't EVER hear from me
again, no matter how often you post to my threads.

Wastington Post attacks on the religious nature of Narnia...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/07/AR2005120702613.html

"A timeless fantasy about talking beavers, friendly fauns and a
mystical lion named Aslan? Or insidious militaristic propaganda
cunningly used to inoculate innocents with rigid Christian dogma penned
by a pervy pipe-puffing Oxford prig who actually didn't very much like
little children and might have slept with a woman old enough to be his
mother? "

Did you read the article? That was not an attack. That was reporting
on the fact that there was dispute about the books (and movie). The
sentence before what you quoted:
<They walked right into a grown-up spat about "The Chronicles of
< Narnia," the C.S. Lewis kiddie classic that is now a $150 million
< Disney movie, opening tomorrow nationwide.

They could not report on a "grown-up spat" without reporting on what
the two sides of the dispute are, which the paragraph you quoted does.

The long paragraph after the one you quoted is pro-Christian, with two
quotes. The two short paragraphs after that each provide a quote from
a different source condemning the film.

In short, this is what is called "balanced reporting" which does not
take sides in a dispute that is in the news.

My God, Ken, I'm beginning tothink you are CLINICALLY paranoid!

I read this articles. I hope other people will read them too, to see
what The Fool considers "attacks." Any question at all is an attack.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/07/AR2005120702613.html

"A timeless fantasy about talking beavers, friendly fauns and a
mystical lion named Aslan? Or insidious militaristic propaganda
cunningly used to inoculate innocents with rigid Christian dogma penned
by a pervy pipe-puffing Oxford prig who actually didn't very much like
little children and might have slept with a woman old enough to be his
mother? "

The paired questions here, although both using hyperbole, indicate the
nature of the article: a quite even-handed discussion of the
controversy that has developed over the movie - and over C. S. Lewis in
general, over the decades - with quotes from people on both sides of
the issue. (Pullman's over the top in his hatred of Lewis, but there
are admitring quotes as well.) About half the article is biographical
imformation on CSL, pulled from standard sources. The article - the WP
itself - takes no position, but merely reports on what people on
various sides are saying. They end with:

A number of professors mention this very thing -- that they worry the evangelicals and their
opponents, the Narnians and anti-Narnians, might go too far in pointing out the parallels. "If I
would have had my choice, I would have let the movie come out and let people enjoy it and see
what they saw," Mitchell says. "But I guess that is pretty naive at this point."

which is about as neutral and middle-ground as you could possibly get.
If you can find the Washington Post (as opposed to Pullman, who they
quote) attacking Narnia here, you can read invisible ink.

Anybody other than Ken? Back me up here?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/01/AR2005120100701.html
Americans United for Separation of Church and State has informed
Florida Gov. Jeb Bush that he offended the U.S. Constitution by
choosing "Lion" for his state's annual student reading campaign because
it's "filled with allusions to Christianity."

Absolutely right, they did. What does that have to do with whether or
not the "liberal press" is opposed to the move?

New York Times attacks on the religious nature of Narnia....

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/07/movies/07jame.html
-attacks on the movie's religious nature, complete with conspiracy
theories about the GOP.

This article looks at the financial backings of several movies,
including the Naria movie and Syriana (which most people think of as
being a liberal movie). Also North Country and Good Night and Good
Luck. It examines whether backers - liberal, conservative, or
otherwise - are trying to use movies to advance political or spiritual
agendas.

Now, given everything YOU'VE said - "Satan sent a storm to stop people
from seeing the Narnia movie" - I would imagine that YOU think the
movie does advance a spiritual agenda, one that you happen to like (and
Satan doesn't).

But the article doesn't attack the Narnia movie or religion. And it
doesn't single out conservative movies from liberal movies (if those
terms can be used at all) - it discusses both ot them, in much the same
terms.

Anybody else, please read this piece. People other than Ken can
probably understand it.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30613FB39550C708CDDAB0994DD404482
-Specific questions as to the religious nature of the film.

You may have me there, Ken, because I was unwilling to provide them
with my financial information in order to read it. So you may have
actually found a single article in one newspaper to back up your claim
that "the liberal press, in general, are opposed to this movie." Ha!

And your constant repetition of the fact that "conservative sources
aren't attacking the movie at all" tells us nothing. Most people would
see that as bias on the part of the conservative sources, but I suspect
you're incapable of even thinking about that concept.

It does, however, indicate what your problem (or one of them) is. You
think that anybody who isn't 100%, purely, completely in favor of the
movie, and dares to even quote in an article somebody who doesn't like
CSL (along with quotes from people who do) is "attacking the movie,"
presumably for anti-Christian purposes. Your with-us-or-against-us
focus is so incredibly narrow that simple discussions of multiple
points of view are seen as vicious attacks.

So, again, answer these obviously opposed articles from the sources
that you said was favorable to the movie, or I'm done with you.

What a threat! Considering that you almost always bolt when asked
questions that are difficult for you, I'm not sure I'll be able to tell
the difference.

Ken, do you still claim that "science tells us" that acquired traits
are inherited? I have yet to hear an answer to that - or tot he dozens
of other questions, from me and others, that you ignore because they
might cause you to (a) do research, or (b) think. God gave you a brain,
but you refuse to use it.